So the latest Pharmacy Times has a case study concerning a woman who refuses vaccines due to religious beliefs, but wants a recommendation for prophylaxis treatment for meningitis. Interestingly, she is also on a BCP. The answer gives 3 choices, one of which is ceftriaxone, which Pharmacy Times says the woman can't take because her religion forbids all injections. Seriously? What religion forbids "all injections?" (I'm not a theologist, so maybe I'm ignorant, but I have never heard of any religion that forbids "all injections.") We all know there are religions that forbid vaccines, and I'll assume the woman is taking BCP for health reasons and not because she is engaging in hypocritical premarital intercourse which I'm pretty sure is forbidden by all religions that forbid vaccines, but where is this idea that she can't take an antibiotic injection because her religion forbids all injections coming from? I call BS. The real reason that Pharmacy Times should have given against ceftriaxone is that since there are non-injectable options, why in the world would you want to recommend a more expensive and intrusive option? I am in an annoyed mood today, and I found this stupid case study answer very annoying. I need coffee, I guess. I think the authors were lazy, so they completely made up this unnamed religion that forbids "all injections", because they couldn't be bothered to use common sense to rule out the ceftriaxone in the answer.