- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 0
I was just wondering, is it ok for Doctors to refuse treatment to patients base on religious, personal or moral grounds? or pretty much for any reason?
Refusing to treat
- Thread starter Lady Tokimi
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2002
- Messages
- 145
- Reaction score
- 0
Of course, this assumes that moral or religious grounds exist for not treating a patient. I can't think of any. Perhaps I lack imagination. 😉
(I'll leave the "personal" category alone ...)
(I'll leave the "personal" category alone ...)
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2002
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 5
Theoretically, it is the right for any physician to refuse treatment (barring emergency situations, I believe). However, given that more and more physicians work for hospitals, clinics, or other orgs, they have to follow the rules of that organization. They may or may not have provisions stating that patients cannot be turned away for [insert reason here].
-X
-X
Lady Tokimi said:
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 1
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
***
I know it doesn't directly answer your question. But my interpretation is that these "special obligations" of the medical field emcompass treating all those who need medical help.
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
***
I know it doesn't directly answer your question. But my interpretation is that these "special obligations" of the medical field emcompass treating all those who need medical help.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2004
- Messages
- 1,439
- Reaction score
- 1
Lady Tokimi said:
Okay, so in theory, yes. But you have to refer the patient to someone else. For example, if a pregnant person comes to you and wants an abortion, but you won't perform one or counsel on one, you still have to refer her to someone who will council her on all her options.
- Joined
- May 27, 2005
- Messages
- 28
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't know if the situation is different in USA because most doctors are working for "companies", but I know that in Canada a physician can refuse to see a patient and refer the patient to someone else if:
-another physician is qualified to treat the patient
-it is not an emergency
I once heard that a gp would refuse to see any patient that smoked. So I would say that you can refuse to treat a patient.
Mel
-another physician is qualified to treat the patient
-it is not an emergency
I once heard that a gp would refuse to see any patient that smoked. So I would say that you can refuse to treat a patient.
Mel
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,197
- Reaction score
- 4
You can refuse but you should refer. I worked with an excellent physician who was not prescribing birth control. He had "an open letter to my patients" in all exam rooms which people were taking in droves and he's never had a problem with a patient because of his beliefs. He knew that a number of patients went to his partners instead and he was fine with that.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2002
- Messages
- 145
- Reaction score
- 0
Mumpu said:
Interesting to hear how physicians handle situations like this.
I interpreted the OP's question as refusing to treat a particular patient (ie, based on their race, gender, sexual orientation); some of the other posters interpret it as refusing to render a particular type of treatment (ie, perform an abortion). I wonder which was really meant?
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 1,096
- Reaction score
- 8
DrThom said:
Well, of course that makes sense. I am completely with you on this one ... Can we also add litigous patients? 🙂
Otherwise, I think we have to treat - or refer. I definitely know some docs who won't do certain procedures on certain patients based on their religous/moral beliefs. I guess we all deserve respect for our personal beliefs, etc, both physicians and patients, but I would think it should be clear up front on the physicians part and provisions made to protect the patient.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,508
- Reaction score
- 7
I didn't read this whole thread so my apologies for duplication, etc. I think you can refuse to treat, as in abortions, etc as long as you refer her for medical care. I actually am concerned about the same thing.Lady Tokimi said:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2004
- Messages
- 8,508
- Reaction score
- 7
is this a joke?? they may need a lawyer someday 😀DrThom said:
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,158
- Reaction score
- 8
gerido said:
No, just litigation lawyers.
There is actually a great article about this we had to read in my Health Care Systems class...I only wish I could find it.
Edit: found it!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-13-med-malpractice_x.htm
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 106
- Reaction score
- 0
I want to focus on the first part of that question, if you could refuse for religious or political reasons?
I understand you may be able to, but why would you?
I don't mind kickin a jerk out of my office, but to kick someone out because they clash with my religious or political views? This concept kind of disgusts me. I didn't think medicine was political or religious?
Someone explain a religious or political conflict that would force a doctor to refuse care? Really, someone give me an example?
I understand you may be able to, but why would you?
I don't mind kickin a jerk out of my office, but to kick someone out because they clash with my religious or political views? This concept kind of disgusts me. I didn't think medicine was political or religious?
Someone explain a religious or political conflict that would force a doctor to refuse care? Really, someone give me an example?
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2001
- Messages
- 2,014
- Reaction score
- 6
jjmcentee@hotma said:
Inevitably, this question comes up because someone doesn't want to perform an abortion, or mention that it even EXISTS (because it's a big secular secret!) or refer a pregnant woman to a doctor that performs these services. Then there are the especially special religious kooks who don't believe in birth control or Plan B (the morning after pill - NOT RU-486, which is an abortifactant) or some other crap like they that because they (quite wrongly) think these methods are killing precious little babies. Both methods prevent conception (the meeting of oocyte and sperm) or implantation (the implanting of the blastocyst into the uterine wall). Mostly they work by the former. Anyway, this is usually what this is about.
Unless this is some Christian Scientist thing, which would be interesting, since we don't see much of that on SDN.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 0
Oka, the main reason that i have started this thread is not because i have known doctors to display such actions but because i read in an artical that Pharmacists are allowed to refuse you your medication based on their religion, personal, and moral grounds.
I think pharmacists, who are part of the health care team, should not have this kind of authority. They should be focusing on the health of their patients independant of their beliefs, etc.......
I just think that this whole situation with pharmacists is gettin out of hand. They are impeding health and care.
I think pharmacists, who are part of the health care team, should not have this kind of authority. They should be focusing on the health of their patients independant of their beliefs, etc.......
I just think that this whole situation with pharmacists is gettin out of hand. They are impeding health and care.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 557
- Reaction score
- 3
I always thought that a pharmacists job was to ensure correct dosage of medicine not to pass judgement on a patient.
As for the article from USAToday above, it reminds me of gunpoint negotiations. I don't see the long term benefits of refusing to see a lawyer, will it change his view point, will it provide some kind of mystical moment of clarity, c'mon it is being petty and small minded. There has to be a better solution than that, I also think that the infighting betwen the legal and medical professions lets off the insurance companies. Reform needs to take place but dialogue will get more done than vindictiveness.
As for the article from USAToday above, it reminds me of gunpoint negotiations. I don't see the long term benefits of refusing to see a lawyer, will it change his view point, will it provide some kind of mystical moment of clarity, c'mon it is being petty and small minded. There has to be a better solution than that, I also think that the infighting betwen the legal and medical professions lets off the insurance companies. Reform needs to take place but dialogue will get more done than vindictiveness.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 1,096
- Reaction score
- 8
jjmcentee@hotma said:
Ok, I will contribute: some Christian (and Mormon) phsyicans will not treat single women or lesbians with gyn issues or for fertility. Some will not treat male homosexuals perhaps for similar 'lifestyle' issues.
I have known women refused treatment by physicians for these issues, but - miraculously - there were other physicians on staff who would work with them, so it didn't present a huge probelm. Just an awareness of the situation.
I try and keep an open mind and be respectful of all - gays, lesbians, homeless and extreme fundamentalist Christians. 🙂
But I also agree that the pharmacist thing is getting out of hand and is completely inappropriate. What about teenagers who want to get their prescriptions filled for b/c.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm assuming that b/c stands for birth control. Well, that's the whole reason that all this pharmcasist thing is happening in the first place. I believed it started in virginia where a girl tried to sue a pharmacist for refusin to fill up her prescription for contraceptive pills, and she lost.
Now, everyone (on the health care team) is worried that pharmacists will take their authority out of hand and refuse to fill presception based on ANY reason.
AMA is tryin to make it so that doctors can fill up their own prescription if there is no pharmacy within a 30mile radius who will. Which i think is stupid because that's the whole reason of havin pharmacists......now doctors have to do their job too.
Now, everyone (on the health care team) is worried that pharmacists will take their authority out of hand and refuse to fill presception based on ANY reason.
AMA is tryin to make it so that doctors can fill up their own prescription if there is no pharmacy within a 30mile radius who will. Which i think is stupid because that's the whole reason of havin pharmacists......now doctors have to do their job too.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 842
- Reaction score
- 423
It would be different but I don't know that it would necessarily be bad. I was recently at a place where the doctor had a store of medications in the back room and he woud write prescriptions and then go back and grab the medication and bring it out and read over the contraindications with us and go over dosing and then just hand it to us and we could leave.
It was really convenient and there was never any doubt that the doctor might have forgotten a side effect or contraindication.
It was really convenient and there was never any doubt that the doctor might have forgotten a side effect or contraindication.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2001
- Messages
- 2,913
- Reaction score
- 21
Lady Tokimi said:
It is state dependent. Some states have passed legislation preventing them from refusing medication based on personal beliefs.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 0
mdpdgirl said:
I can see that being convenient for the patients now and then, and also by no means have i stated that having doctors dispense their own medication would lead to forgetting side effects.
I just believe that if a pharmacists is trained to do exactly that, why have doctors do it? and why allow them the ability to refuse dispensing medications based on whatever reason? This is the part that mostly infuriates me.
Yes, it is true that so far only certains states have allowed or considering to allow this authority to pharmacists. I sure hope it doesn't become pandemic.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2001
- Messages
- 2,014
- Reaction score
- 6
These f-ing pharmacists should go to divinity school and start preaching or go to medical school so they could write Rx instead of just dispensing them like the little automatons they are. Give me a goddamned break. My understanding was that the DOCTOR wrote a Rx (which their 8 years of training gave them the right to do) and the pharmacist filled it. Occasionally they check their Walgreens computers and say "do you realize that such and such is contraindicated with so and so" and the doctor says "i've had my patient on this combo of drugs for a decade without problems so blow it out your ass" (a real conversation i heard btw the IM doc I worked for and the local Walgreens). What in the world gives them the right to refuse to hand out BIRTH CONTROL PILLS? Do they realize that there was a movement in the FDA to make Plan B/Emergency Contraception OVER THE COUNTER? Like, it's so benign that the pharmacist doesn't even need to check their computer?
I want to find these douchebags and beat them until they're unconcious. Then I will bring all the unwanted pregnancies they have divined to their house so they can deal with them.
dinguses.
I want to find these douchebags and beat them until they're unconcious. Then I will bring all the unwanted pregnancies they have divined to their house so they can deal with them.
dinguses.
It might be socially unacceptable, but I think not technically illegal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, discrimination is illegal if it is due to religion ,race, sex, creed, color or sexual orientation. Job/career isn't on the list.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 1999
- Messages
- 296
- Reaction score
- 1
There was an interesting piece in in the AMA News (the newspaper) about a month or two ago about a hospital refusing to care for patients who had sued that hospital. The story as I recall, started when the hospital hired a new radiologist. The new radiologist re-read some radiologic studies that his predecessor had initially read and changed the impression on the radiology reports. The fraction of studies that were changed was within "standard of care" according to the article. The patients whose studies were changed filed a law suit against the hospital. The hospital then countered by writing a letter to these patients stating that they would no longer be offered medical care in non-emergent situations at that institution. The patients then again sued the hospital over this (I forget the legal grounds that they cited). The case had at the time of printing been presented in court, and the judgement was in favor of the hosptial. An appeal was in progress I believe.
The article also went over the historical precedents in law that physicians and hospitals do have the right to refuse non-emergent care as long as they give due notice and refer to another physician or institution.
Another interesting concept that a colleague brought up to me the other day: There are websites which list physicians who have been sued for malpractice. These arguably exits to "warn" patients of these physicians. Would physicians or the public object to a website which listed the names of patients who had sued physicians in an effort to warn physicians of "litigous patients"?
The article also went over the historical precedents in law that physicians and hospitals do have the right to refuse non-emergent care as long as they give due notice and refer to another physician or institution.
Another interesting concept that a colleague brought up to me the other day: There are websites which list physicians who have been sued for malpractice. These arguably exits to "warn" patients of these physicians. Would physicians or the public object to a website which listed the names of patients who had sued physicians in an effort to warn physicians of "litigous patients"?
Read this article: http://www.memag.com/memag/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=128915
Since the author leaves the option of not treating lawyers open, it is clearly not illegal to refuse treatment (non-emergent).
Since the author leaves the option of not treating lawyers open, it is clearly not illegal to refuse treatment (non-emergent).
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 0
Refusing to treat patients based on your reason(s), whatever it may be, seems to be legal as long as you are willing to refer them elsewhere.
So what happens if the patient refuses to be referred?? can they then sue the clinic and win?
So what happens if the patient refuses to be referred?? can they then sue the clinic and win?
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2005
- Messages
- 36
- Reaction score
- 0
said:
read the article...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-13-med-malpractice_x.htm
They mention a site like that...it should be started up again...somewhere like Russia or Bolivia so there would be difficulty shutting it down again.
Lady Tokimi said:
Tell them to leave the premises, if they don't: charge them with trespassing 🙄
Oh...and about the lawyer thing. Why should we treat people that hurt us. Let them be treated by their 'expert' witnesses.
Lawyers should get some form of oath like us...double standards 😡
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Messages
- 224
- Reaction score
- 0
why "allow them"?? perhaps because they are human beings, free to choose for themselves their course of action? if a pharmacist does not want to dispense birth control or any other medication for personal reasons, he may be boycotted by customers or he may be fired by his employer for violating the terms of his employment, but are you suggesting it should be against the law for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription?Lady Tokimi said:
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Messages
- 218
- Reaction score
- 1
ahd929 said:
What if there's only 1 pharmacist in town? What if all X pharmacists in town decide to have the same policy? It is not their job to decide who should take their medicine; it is there job to dispense the medicine that a physician prescribes. It becomes dangerous when Pharmacists play God.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,298
- Reaction score
- 14
It is within a physician's rights to decline to provide treatment to a patient if it is not an emergent situation as long as the appropriate referral is made. Just as the patient has the right to "fire" their doctor and seek care elsewhere, a doctor has the right to "fire" a patient if they feel that there is a moral or ethical conflict of interest or if trust of the doctor-patient relationship has been damaged beyond repair. When dimissing a patient from their practice a certified letter should be sent to the patient and a referral to another physician must be made. I have see patients fired for lying to their physician and altering their own past medical records before giving them to a new PCP. When a patient lies or refuses access to past medical records it is impossible to treat a patient who is openly trying to deceive you.
In the case of refusing to perform certain procedures or prescribe OCPs, etc the physician may refuse, but must make a referral.
In the case of refusing to perform certain procedures or prescribe OCPs, etc the physician may refuse, but must make a referral.
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Messages
- 344
- Reaction score
- 1
ahd929 said:
Suppose a McDonald's person refuses to serve a Super-Sized Bic Mac meal to a customer because the customer is obese and the employee believes that an obese person should not be eating McDonald's food. What would happen to this employee? They'd be fired by McDonald's. Why does this not happen to pharmacists? What is so special about pharmacists that it is deemed okay by some for pharmacists to pass judgement on customers?
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2000
- Messages
- 7,637
- Reaction score
- 361
what it boils down to, generally, is that if you don't want to treat a patient, that's fine, but you need to promptly and openly refer them to physician who will provide that treatment. anything less than this ends up skirting patient abandonment and could get you sued big time.
it's basically the same for pharmacists. if they don't want to fill bc, fine, but there needs to be a system in place for those patients to get the rx from another pharmacist w/o too much inconvience.
my parents are both pharmacists, so i've heard a lot of ethical discussion about this. there is a night pharmacist at the hospital where my dad works that won't fill b/c or emergency contraceptions. both this pharmacist and the hospital understand that sometimes these rx's need to be filled in emergent situations so the hospital put b/c and plan b in the pixis system. no one should ever be forced to do something that they don't believe in, but they shouldn't use these personal opinioins to challlenge the legitimate care that someone else wants and must ensure that the care/rx in question can be be provided through some other means in a timely manner.
it's basically the same for pharmacists. if they don't want to fill bc, fine, but there needs to be a system in place for those patients to get the rx from another pharmacist w/o too much inconvience.
my parents are both pharmacists, so i've heard a lot of ethical discussion about this. there is a night pharmacist at the hospital where my dad works that won't fill b/c or emergency contraceptions. both this pharmacist and the hospital understand that sometimes these rx's need to be filled in emergent situations so the hospital put b/c and plan b in the pixis system. no one should ever be forced to do something that they don't believe in, but they shouldn't use these personal opinioins to challlenge the legitimate care that someone else wants and must ensure that the care/rx in question can be be provided through some other means in a timely manner.
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Messages
- 344
- Reaction score
- 1
stoic said:
What makes me angry about this is that birth control is treated as if it is an abortion, which it is not. Some birth control prevents ovulation, thus there is no egg to be fertilized and thus no fertilized egg to abort. Other birth control prevents fertilization, also not the same as an abortion.
Emergency contraception is not necessarily abortion. It depends on how you define abortion. EC is a higher dose of hormones and can prevent ovulation, fertilization, and implantation. Unless you consider abortion to be termination of an unimplanted embryo and on, then emergency contraception isn't abortion either.
After reading an article about pharmacists who object to filling birth control and emergency contraception prescriptions, it was made clear that some pharmacists don't even know the differences between the different types of birth control and emergency contraception-- several of the pharmacists quoted in the article made incorrect statements about BC and EC, and simply refused to fill ALL BC and EC. Pharmacists should know the details of how the drugs they dispense work, and to flat out lump all BC and EC together is ignorant. How can you object to ALL birth control and emergency contraception prescriptions when they don't all work the same way? If a pharmacist believes that preventing implantation of an embryo is akin to abortion, and they don't want to dispense EC that prevents implantation, fine. But to group all BC and EC together under one umbrella refusal to dispense speaks only of a pharmacist's lack of education, ignorance, and failure to fulfill their job duties.
There is no way you can legitimately call prevention of ovulation an abortion, nor prevention of fertilization an abortion. I have my opinions on an unimplanted embryo but I'll admit there's room for disagreement there.
The more I think about this issue, the more that I feel like we're back in the times when birth control was invented and women were given more sexual rights. The pill stirred up a lot of misogyny, and now we're feeling it again.
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2004
- Messages
- 81
- Reaction score
- 0
Elysium said:
Hey i'm currently a pharmacy student and I find comments like these very very offensive. Please, the pharmacists who are refusing to dispense are a very small minority but it seems like many people are lumping all pharmacists together and throwing the entire profession under the bus. Pharmacists are as varied as those in other healthcare fields. Please don't demean the pharmacy profession just because you disagree with someone else's position. Every time I read threads like these this always seems to be the case and it really really pisses me off. You wouldn't like it if someone demean and belittle the medical profession just because certain physicians wouldn't perform procedures like abortions would you? Of course not. The majority of pharmacists perform their duties with pride and dedication and are valuable members of a healthcare team.
And no we are not just automatons who should blindly fill prescriptions...please read up on what a pharmacists does before you make blatantly ignorant comments like that. If it is medically necessary pharmacists have a legal and ethical duty to intervene. Physicians go through many years of schooling to learn about diagnosing and treating illnesses. Well guess what? Pharmacists also go through school and they go to school for 6-8+ years to learn about medications and the pathology that warrants their use so they do kind of know what's going on.
So please everyone if you disagree on those who refuse to dispense medications or perform medical procedures because of moral or religious beliefs, that is fine but please don't lump everyone in a profession together and/or demean an entire profession because of your own beliefs.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2005
- Messages
- 224
- Reaction score
- 0
that is an excellent example, in that it illustrates my point and also illustrates the fact that you did not read my post. i clearly said that if a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription, "he may be fired by his employer for violating the terms of his employment." i was simply pointing out that it is asinine for people to be proposing that it should be against the law to refuse to fill a prescription. if a pharmacist works for CVS and refuses to fill a prescription, CVS may either tolerate his behavior or fire him. if they tolerate it, they may be subject to censure or boycott in the community. but it's their choice, no? i thought choice was a good thing.PookieGirl said:
- Joined
- May 4, 2004
- Messages
- 344
- Reaction score
- 1
ahd929 said:
I DID read your post, and was simply adding to it with an example. Just because someone here quotes you doesn't always mean they're disagreeing with you. I should apologize-- those questions weren't meant for you, since you and I agree, but for those people that disagree. Sorry for the confusion.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2015
- Messages
- 1,118
- Reaction score
- 782
D
deleted480308
baker sued for not baking a cake for a gay wedding, florist same thing
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2015
- Messages
- 1,118
- Reaction score
- 782
Ha, ok, thanks.
I like how you just quoted from another post and bumped this almost 10 year old one, and @sb247 replied like nothing happened
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 11,384
- Reaction score
- 24,027
More likely to be a forum glitch than a necrobump
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2015
- Messages
- 1,118
- Reaction score
- 782
****. I think its bc of the similar threads thing at the bottom. Don't know how it posted. Oh wait, i used the multiple quote feature instead of reply. Any way to erase?I like how you just quoted from another post and bumped this almost 10 year old one, and @sb247 replied like nothing happened
Similar threads
