The potential dangers of pharmaceutical research/new compounds?

[biogirl215]

I work in a research lab where we're testing a bunch of new (as in, just synthasized and sent to us by a collaborating lab) chemical compounds in hopes that some of them will be (eventually) useful as a new type of psychotropic medicine (if you want more details, feel free to PM me). My supervising professor mentioned the other day that these compounds had, of course, not been tested to see if they produced any ill-effects (i.e, toxic, carcinogenic, etc.) in humans or any other animal, and that due to his age, he does not really worry about it (no mask/sometimes no gloves), but that maybe I should...

We're just doing the basic cellular level research at this point, so we're using minute amounts and all that, but I'm still a bit nervous... I wonder if I should wear a mask, or if there is even enoughpotential danger for me to justify getting out of the lab (which has been a wonderful experience academically/research-wise, so I'd be loath to do it, but...).

Thoughts/experiences?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ItsOverZyvox]

Protect your gametocytes!

You're coming in contact with compounds with unknown side effects and long term complications. Many drugs go through extensive trials deemed safe and receive the FDA approval but end up resulting in severe adverse effects in patients.

All it takes is one teratogenic compound to have ill effects on your future offsprings. Your supervising advisor is an idiot and self absorbed. He may be old but you're not. He should have a strict safety policy on dealing with new compounds.

If anything happens, I would sue his ass and the lab. Too many mocking forons in this world.

 

[biogirl215]

Would I be out of line to email him and straight-up ask about the saety issues? I don;t want to appear paranoid, but I don;t want to put myself/my health at risk, either...

 

[ItsOverZyvox]

Would I be out of line to email him and straight-up ask about the saety issues? I don;t want to appear paranoid, but I don;t want to put myself/my health at risk, either...

Why do you need to email and hide behind the computer? Just tell him you wan't personal protective gears to prevent potential harm from unknown compounds. Obviosuly the jackass isn't worried about your health...why are you afraid of confronting him? If he gets upset and this ends up affecting your career, then perhaps it's time you move on to something else.

 

[ItsOverZyvox]

Here's the deal. I used to supervise a lot of pharmacists and technicians. And I would rarely ever schedule younger females for chemo preparation. Many times if I didn't have a choice, I would prepare cytotoxic agents myself.

Is it reverse sexual discrimination? You betcha. But I'll do it again. Am I paranoid? Of course...but I would prefer it that way..instead of seeing deformity due to teratogenicity.

If you were my daughter, I would go kick your professor's ass.

 

[Megas]

Used to work in drug development in an NIH-funded academic setting. My PI was always doing stupid stuff like that. Wear gloves, wear your labcoat, wear a mask, wear goggles if you want!-just don't shave your head cause goggles slide off when you are all sweaty. I refused to handle some super-hot radioisotopes, I also refused to sacrifice animals. I insisted the PI do it if he thought it was so important. For what you are being paid (NIH funding sucks!), and the kind of pressure you are probably under, do whatever you feel is best to protect yourself. Academicians get short-sighted trying to push projects through at any cost. In ten years, whether you were an author in a first-tier pub will not matter, whether you have cancer will.

 

[mike36]

Why do you need to email and hide behind the computer? Just tell him you wan't personal protective gears to prevent potential harm from unknown compounds. Obviosuly the jackass isn't worried about your health...why are you afraid of confronting him? If he gets upset and this ends up affecting your career, then perhaps it's time you move on to something else.

! It is your responsiblity to make sure you are properly protected while doing research. It is one thing if your PI refuses to offer you protection, but quite another if you do not ask for it or insist on it. Take initiative and express your concerns to your PI. If he does not offer you what you think is appropriate protection, then do not continue working for him.

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

Used to work in drug development in an NIH-funded academic setting. My PI was always doing stupid stuff like that. Wear gloves, wear your labcoat, wear a mask, wear goggles if you want!-just don't shave your head cause goggles slide off when you are all sweaty. I refused to handle some super-hot radioisotopes, I also refused to sacrifice animals. I insisted the PI do it if he thought it was so important. For what you are being paid (NIH funding sucks!), and the kind of pressure you are probably under, do whatever you feel is best to protect yourself. Academicians get short-sighted trying to push projects through at any cost. In ten years, whether you were an author in a first-tier pub will not matter, whether you have cancer will.

What are super-hot radioisotopes?


Posted via Mobile BlackBerry Device

 

[PharmDstudent]

Here's the deal. I used to supervise a lot of pharmacists and technicians. And I would rarely ever schedule younger females for chemo preparation. Many times if I didn't have a choice, I would prepare cytotoxic agents myself.

Is it reverse sexual discrimination? You betcha. But I'll do it again. Am I paranoid? Of course...but I would prefer it that way..instead of seeing deformity due to teratogenicity.

If you were my daughter, I would go kick your professor's ass.

That's why I would never do nuclear pharmacy! Ever! I don't care how cool it is...

Who knows? I may have to donate these eggs if I don't have kids. You never know...

 

[Megas]

What are super-hot radioisotopes?


Posted via Mobile BlackBerry Device

It's subjective, I'm sure, like what makes a super-hot pepper. For me, it was mostly the beta-emitters - anything that still had the geiger counter screaming that high-pitched wail even after I took out what I needed from the stock bottle in the lead pig and put it away. Usually 32P-ATP (especially if it was the terminal phosphate that was labelled b/c due to degradation by endogenous phosphatases you'd have to use more for labelling once the stock was tapped into or getting old), 50-100 MCi. To me, that was "super hot", and I refused to do the initial steps in the labelling. I also hated 125I cause of the gamma-radiation and volatility. 35S wasn't so bad, not too dangerous but so volatile. 3H might have a long half-life, but as an alpha-emitter, I preferred it. I think the radioisotopes we used in molecular biology were different than the ones used in nuclear medicine. We used radioisotopes to label in vivo transcription products, or tag enzymes as they acted as kinases, ATPases, transcription factors, isolate proteins as they were synthesized, blah, blah.

 

[ethyl]

It's subjective, I'm sure, like what makes a super-hot pepper. For me, it was mostly the beta-emitters - anything that still had the geiger counter screaming that high-pitched wail even after I took out what I needed from the stock bottle in the lead pig and put it away. Usually 32P-ATP (especially if it was the terminal phosphate that was labelled b/c due to degradation by endogenous phosphatases you'd have to use more for labelling once the stock was tapped into or getting old), 50-100 MCi. To me, that was "super hot", and I refused to do the initial steps in the labelling. I also hated 125I cause of the gamma-radiation and volatility. 35S wasn't so bad, not too dangerous but so volatile. 3H might have a long half-life, but as an alpha-emitter, I preferred it. I think the radioisotopes we used in molecular biology were different than the ones used in nuclear medicine. We used radioisotopes to label in vivo transcription products, or tag enzymes as they acted as kinases, ATPases, transcription factors, isolate proteins as they were synthesized, blah, blah.

I have no idea what you just said but it sounds awesome.

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

It's subjective, I'm sure, like what makes a super-hot pepper. For me, it was mostly the beta-emitters - anything that still had the geiger counter screaming that high-pitched wail even after I took out what I needed from the stock bottle in the lead pig and put it away. Usually 32P-ATP (especially if it was the terminal phosphate that was labelled b/c due to degradation by endogenous phosphatases you'd have to use more for labelling once the stock was tapped into or getting old), 50-100 MCi. To me, that was "super hot", and I refused to do the initial steps in the labelling. I also hated 125I cause of the gamma-radiation and volatility. 35S wasn't so bad, not too dangerous but so volatile. 3H might have a long half-life, but as an alpha-emitter, I preferred it. I think the radioisotopes we used in molecular biology were different than the ones used in nuclear medicine. We used radioisotopes to label in vivo transcription products, or tag enzymes as they acted as kinases, ATPases, transcription factors, isolate proteins as they were synthesized, blah, blah.

Ok! You've got a legit claim here no doubt...these aren't your run-of-the-mill radioisotopes!

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

That's why I would never do nuclear pharmacy! Ever! I don't care how cool it is...

You wouldn't practice nuclear pharmacy because chemo is cytotoxic?

 

[tussionex]

Here's the deal. I used to supervise a lot of pharmacists and technicians. And I would rarely ever schedule younger females for chemo preparation. Many times if I didn't have a choice, I would prepare cytotoxic agents myself.

Is it reverse sexual discrimination? You betcha. But I'll do it again. Am I paranoid? Of course...but I would prefer it that way..instead of seeing deformity due to teratogenicity.

If you were my daughter, I would go kick your professor's ass.

if you were my director, i would take your ass to HR.


that IS discrimination. you have no right to force your values over my gametocytes and decided whether or not i should make chemo just b/c i am a female of child-bearing age. that should be MY decision and no one elses.

your "noble" gesture is offensive to me.
your are implying that i lack the same pharmacy-school trained decision making skills that you have, and that i am incabable of making an informed decision about my reproductive safety....and that i need my director to ride over to the chemo hood on a white horse to protect me from some evil cisplatin.

if i worked for you, we would have a real problem here.

 

[PharmDstudent]

You wouldn't practice nuclear pharmacy because chemo is cytotoxic?

Teratogenic properties of the radiation.

I wasn't saying that nuclear pharmacy and chemos are the same thing. However, they can cause teratogenic side effects- teratogenic is the key word. That was brought up in post #2. Adverse effects to gametocytes was brought up, too.


Also, radiation sucks! You even said something to that effect yourself in the 'nuclear pharmacist job info' thread.

I would never go into radiation therapy or radiologic technology either.

radiation = bad

I've been trying to look up stats on the lifespan of nuclear pharmacists. A guy from school had read that nuclear pharmacists live an average of five years less than other pharmacists. I wish I could find that list myself.

What makes it even worse is that two of my grandparents died of cancer.

 

[PharmDstudent]

"It has been known for decades that high doses of radiation injure or kill the heart and blood vessels," Gofman said. "This study is about low and moderate doses accumulated over time. Each dose, no matter how low, produces mutations, so by the time you're 50, all of these events have added to the mutation load in your cells."

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/11-16-1999b.html

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/11-16-1999b.html

You are citing data relating to X-rays.

 

[PharmDstudent]

You are citing data relating to X-rays.

So. It's still radiation.

 

[PharmDstudent]

In order to provide protection while handling radioactive material, most compounding is done behind leaded glass shielding and using leaded glass syringe shields and lead containers to hold the radioactive material. Lead is an excellent shielding material that serves to protect the nuclear pharmacist from the radioactive emissions from our products. Nuclear pharmacists work with large quantities of radioactive material on a day-to-day basis, but by using simple techniques, the amount of radiation exposure to the nuclear pharmacist is very low.

http://nuclear.pharmacy.purdue.edu/what.php

In my opinion, "very low" isn't good enough over the long-term. The environment provides enough radiation; I don't need any extra.

Although, the dentists have been doing x-rays over the past few months. *shakes fist in air*

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

So. It's still radiation.

So...here's the thing. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and if you have no desire to work (for any reason) in an environment that will expose you to limited amounts and types of antineoplastics/radiation, that is absolutely acceptable!

I would however, strongly advise you to fully research your claims if you are going to post serious and unfounded rumors regarding a decrease in lifespan, risks, etc., and possibly dissuade others with false and misleading information.

If you really are interested in reliable and research-based data related to nuclear medicine and the occupational risks that pharmacists face, I'd refer you to sources such as the National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements (NCRP), American Academy of Health Physics (AAHP), Health Physics Society (they have a lot of great position statements), or United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (NRC)...not "some guy" in class.

I'm not exactly sure what you refer to when claiming I stated "radiation sucks". Radiation safety is nothing to be taken lightly; those who work in a nuclear pharmacy are provided strict rules to abide by and explicit training to keep their exposure as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Again, it is in your own interest to work within these regulations...why wouldn't you? The bottom line, however, is that adverse effects are not associated with exposures that fall below corporate/government limits.

If you do not wish to practice nuclear pharmacy, prepare cytotoxic meds, etc., that is an acceptable personal choice. But it is imprudent to spread inaccurate information and scare others into thinking there is a catastrophic risk in doing so.

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

To the OP: your supervising professor's actions and comments are absolutely atrocious. I'd have to agree with all of the other posters...unless he does everything possible to assure your safety, you should definitely move on. There is no reason someone should question that their employer, professor, etc. is not doing everything possible to ensure a safe work environment.

 

[PharmDstudent]

I've already said all that I have to say about the harmful effects associated with specific pharmacy practices.


My original comment was not addressed to Spiriva. However, you decided to quote my comment, and frankly, I found your action to be antagonistic. Instead of asking for clarification, you posted an embarrassment smilie that associated what you thought that I had said with your reaction to what I had said. Therefore, I guess I should be embarrassed for saying what I said, because that's how the nuclear pharmacist reacted...

Please forgive me for not writing a thesis about the differences between cytotoxic and radiotoxic drugs in addition to my comment of <20 words.

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

I've already said all that I have to say about the harmful effects associated with specific pharmacy practices.


My original comment was not addressed to Spiriva. However, you decided to quote my comment, and frankly, I found your action to be antagonistic. Instead of asking for clarification, you posted an embarrassment smilie that associated what you thought that I had said with your reaction to what I had said. Therefore, I guess I should be embarrassed for saying what I said, because that's how the nuclear pharmacist reacted...

Please forgive me for not writing a thesis about the differences between cytotoxic and radiotoxic drugs in addition to my comment of <20 words.

Didn't intend to be antagonistic (and the smiley wasn't meant to ellicit embarassment); the original posting wasn't about nuclear pharmacy (but when you brought it up and said "that's why I would never do nuclear pharmacy"), I just didn't want others to think there is evidence showing that a nuclear pharmacist has had deformed offspring due to occupational exposure. A lot of people think nuclear pharmacists handle chemo (which they don't), and that's the only reason I wanted to clarify.

An average of 5 years is a lot to chop off of someone's life...who would accept an occupational hazard like that? That's enormous, and if there was any evidence to support it, think about this: General Electric is FORTUNE # 6; Cardinal Health is FORTUNE # 19. Conglomerates wouldn't be able to get away with putting their employees at that kind of risk.

Hope that clears it up...

 

[Megas]

I thoroughly enjoyed being the first person to discover certain mechanisms in mol. bio., it was so amazing to find out something no one ever knew before but I could add this step to a series of steps to a pathway that initiated transcription of a gene that caused a particular protein to initiate uncontrolled activity leading to certain cancers, blah, blah, blah. It meant screaming radioisotopes, but it's a choice. Some pharmacists find tremendous satisfaction in synthesizing nuclear pharmacy therapeutic agents, and the nurses who administer chemo every day, day in and day out, just blow me away.

I actually think I'm going to die from lead poisoning from this cool-looking metal water bottle I bought at Old Navy a few weeks ago (less plastic-yeah!), I thought it was stainless steel, but it tastes really funny.

 

[njac]

if you were my director, i would take your ass to HR.


that IS discrimination. you have no right to force your values over my gametocytes and decided whether or not i should make chemo just b/c i am a female of child-bearing age. that should be MY decision and no one elses.

your "noble" gesture is offensive to me.
your are implying that i lack the same pharmacy-school trained decision making skills that you have, and that i am incabable of making an informed decision about my reproductive safety....and that i need my director to ride over to the chemo hood on a white horse to protect me from some evil cisplatin.

if i worked for you, we would have a real problem here.

Now he didn't mention if any of them wanted to make chemo. At my hospital everyone moans and groans and the vast majority of the women of child-bearing age do anything they can to avoid making chemo. Meanwhile, I, at 25, will do it whenever it needs done.

But often if the supervisors are there, they are the ones who make it regardless of whether there are men or women on duty in the inpatient pharmacy.

 

[ItsOverZyvox]

if you were my director, i would take your ass to HR.


that IS discrimination. you have no right to force your values over my gametocytes and decided whether or not i should make chemo just b/c i am a female of child-bearing age. that should be MY decision and no one elses.

your "noble" gesture is offensive to me.
your are implying that i lack the same pharmacy-school trained decision making skills that you have, and that i am incabable of making an informed decision about my reproductive safety....and that i need my director to ride over to the chemo hood on a white horse to protect me from some evil cisplatin.

if i worked for you, we would have a real problem here.

Suit yourself. I don't really give ratz ass if you fry your eggs or not.. but I cared about people I worked with and it was their preference not to work with chemos. But if your feminist ego must satisfy your "rights" by making an assumption that I am over-riding your decision making skills, you're a too big of an idiot to clearly see my willingness to help and care for people I work with... which you couldn't comprehend with your tiny brain.

I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to help a nasty attitude like yours. You're not worth being considerate for.

On the contrary, your myopic view of "discrimination" shows you can only see black and white...and you would never make a good manager. .... well it suits you... so you can sit in the dark corner and do your IT thing.

 

[ItsOverZyvox]

Well, I thought about it and I don't want to be sued for sexual discrimination. From now on, I'm going to require every technician, women, men, old, young, pregnant, or not... to unload Baxter IV fluid shipment from the loading dock and stock the storage...oh..it's a few hundred boxes every MWF... I have to be fair... there is no more sexism!

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

Well, I thought about it and I don't want to be sued for sexual discrimination. From now on, I'm going to require every technician, women, men, old, young, pregnant, or not... to unload Baxter IV fluid shipment from the loading dock and stock the storage...oh..it's a few hundred boxes every MWF... I have to be fair... there is no more sexism!

I can't lift the "cows" (generators) out of the barn to save my life...and thank the guys who help me do it each and every day. Luckily, I can lift the saline shipments and help sort those in storage.

But to add another female's perspective to your managerial handling of chemo prep...I think it's admirable and absolutely fair. If I had to venture a guess, I have a feeling they thanked you for it too. I personally can't stand when the feminist card is brought up every time a man (or woman) genuinely offers to go out of their way to do something that is in anothers' best interest.

 

[ItsOverZyvox]

I can't lift the "cows" (generators) out of the barn to save my life...and thank the guys who help me do it each and every day. Luckily, I can lift the saline shipments and help sort those in storage.

But to add another female's perspective to your managerial handling of chemo prep...I think it's admirable and absolutely fair. If I had to venture a guess, I have a feeling they thanked you for it too. I personally can't stand when the feminist card is brought up every time a man (or woman) genuinely offers to go out of their way to do something that is in anothers' best interest.

Oh no missy... no can do. I can't be sued... you are going to lift everything a man can. I don't wanna hear..."he's discriminating...he doesn't think I'm as strong as a man..."

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

Oh no missy... no can do. I can't be sued... you are going to lift everything a man can. I don't wanna hear..."he's discriminating...he doesn't think I'm as strong as a man..."

Haha! Who you calling "missy"?

 

[ItsOverZyvox]

Haha! Who you calling "missy"?

hmmm...that's kinda sexual harrassment isn't it?

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

hmmm...that's kinda sexual harrassment isn't it?

Two steps ahead of you...my lawyers are already on it. Kiss that Ferrari bye bye.

 

[tussionex]

Suit yourself. I don't really give ratz ass if you fry your eggs or not.. but I cared about people I worked with and it was their preference not to work with chemos. But if your feminist ego must satisfy your "rights" by making an assumption that I am over-riding your decision making skills, you're a too big of an idiot to clearly see my willingness to help and care for people I work with... which you couldn't comprehend with your tiny brain.

I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to help a nasty attitude like yours. You're not worth being considerate for.

On the contrary, your myopic view of "discrimination" shows you can only see black and white...and you would never make a good manager. .... well it suits you... so you can sit in the dark corner and do your IT thing.

wow, i've been deemed "not management material" on an internet forum. i'm not sure how manangement skills came into this. i'm not management material, nor do i have aspirations thereof. i better go crawl back into my dark corner and do my IT thing. really classy response. i wanted to represent a different point of view, and feel that I (darkness dwelling IT scum that i am) have at a right to express it.


my disagreements with your post may not have been the most pleasant, but they certainly didnt warrant the vitriol you chose to express back to me.


i thought you were a wise member of this forum, and have enjoyed trading posts and PMs with you, and regret to see this ugly defensive side. if your staff was receptive, more power to you. i would not be receptive to your offer to make chemo and chose to state that.

personally, i want chemo made by the CHEMO pharmacist.

 

[tussionex]

I can't lift the "cows" (generators) out of the barn to save my life...and thank the guys who help me do it each and every day. Luckily, I can lift the saline shipments and help sort those in storage.

But to add another female's perspective to your managerial handling of chemo prep...I think it's admirable and absolutely fair. If I had to venture a guess, I have a feeling they thanked you for it too. I personally can't stand when the feminist card is brought up every time a man (or woman) genuinely offers to go out of their way to do something that is in anothers' best interest.

it's not in my best interest. i don't want kids, and i have a family and husband to look out for me, i don't need my boss to do so. that was my point. i am tired of being viewed as "pre-pregnant" just by virtue of gender and age.
this had been touched on in the "well" blog in the NY times a month or so ago. many women agree with me and feel that they are simply viewed as baby machines by employers and health care providers.

 

[ItsOverZyvox]

wow, i've been deemed "not management material" on an internet forum. i'm not sure how manangement skills came into this. i'm not management material, nor do i have aspirations thereof. i better go crawl back into my dark corner and do my IT thing. really classy response. i wanted to represent a different point of view, and feel that I (darkness dwelling IT scum that i am) have at a right to express it.


my disagreements with your post may not have been the most pleasant, but they certainly didnt warrant the vitriol you chose to express back to me.


i thought you were a wise member of this forum, and have enjoyed trading posts and PMs with you, and regret to see this ugly defensive side. if your staff was receptive, more power to you. i would not be receptive to your offer to make chemo and chose to state that.

personally, i want chemo made by the CHEMO pharmacist.

You completely lack the ability to see why your action warrants this sort of response from me. You would take your collegue, friend, and/or your boss to HR because it offends your feministic ideal even though the action was derived to protect you and for your best interest. I would under no circumstances deny someone from making chemos if they wanted to. But you clearly didn't understand the situation.

Again, why would I waste valuable resource of a pharmacist by having them make chemos when certified IV techs are much superior and more cost effective?

I did what I did for my technicians because it was their wish. Of course if I had a staffer like you, you would have taken me to HR and have my file flagged... sexual discrimination. Who do you think you're helping? You fail to see the big picture.

 

[ItsOverZyvox]

it's not in my best interest. i don't want kids, and i have a family and husband to look out for me, i don't need my boss to do so. that was my point. i am tired of being viewed as "pre-pregnant" just by virtue of gender and age.
this had been touched on in the "well" blog in the NY times a month or so ago. many women agree with me and feel that they are simply viewed as baby machines by employers and health care providers.

So, all you had to do is tell the dop that you have no issues with doing the chemos... instead of taking his ass to the HR. And by your action, a pregnant female makes chemos and has an accident...then what. Oh you wouldn't care...

 

[tussionex]

i said nothing about flagging anyone's "file"....in my myopic, small mind (and my small-minded institution) a trip to HR is DISCUSSION with a neutral third party, nothing written initially.

now that we have continued the discussion, i see where i would benefit from a moderator.

 

[tussionex]

So, all you had to do is tell the dop that you have no issues with doing the chemos... instead of taking his ass to the HR. And by your action, a pregnant female makes chemos and has an accident...then what. Oh you wouldn't care...

thank you. please paint me as a baby-hater. very classy.

did you even bother to look at the times article i was referring to?

 

[ItsOverZyvox]

i said nothing about flagging anyone's "file"....in my myopic, small mind (and my small-minded institution) a trip to HR is DISCUSSION with a neutral third party, nothing written initially.

now that we have continued the discussion, i see where i would benefit from a moderator.

That's how little you know. When HR is involved with "sexual discrminiation" first or 10th offense, the file will follow that professional for the rest of his/her career. Don't ever take HR report lightly. You can potentially ruin someone's career with your action.

Yeah...run to the HR and run to your moderator.

 

[tussionex]

That's how little you know. When HR is involved with "sexual discrminiation" first or 10th offense, the file will follow that professional for the rest of his/her career. Don't ever take HR report lightly. You can potentially ruin someone's career with your action.

Yeah...run to the HR and run to your moderator.

and that's how little you know about my institution and what HR does with our department. you dont know everything about every hospital.

and honestly, like i said earlier, i thought we were cool...i am very suprised at how much anger you are throwing my way.

 

[ItsOverZyvox]

and that's how little you know about my institution and what HR does with our department. you dont know everything about every hospital.

and honestly, like i said earlier, i thought we were cool...i am very suprised at how much anger you are throwing my way.

The fact that HR has anything to do with your department tells it all.

We were cool? Yeah..we were so cool that you were going to take my ass to HR... how is it that you fail to see how offensive that is?

 

[tussionex]

The fact that HR has anything to do with your department tells it all.

We were cool? Yeah..we were so cool that you were going to take my ass to HR... how is it that you fail to see how offensive that is?

don't you dare insult the rest of my department

my department is none of your business. it tells you nothing, b/c, like i said, you dont know everything about every hospital.

i will thank you to hurl insults at only me and NOT people that you dont know. not that you know me all that well.

i must have you confused with another poster who used the same avatar who was a reasonable, rational thinker. whoever you are, i obviously hit a nerve.

 

[ItsOverZyvox]

don't you dare insult the rest of my department

my department is none of your business. it tells you nothing, b/c, like i said, you dont know everything about every hospital.

i will thank you to hurl insults at only me and NOT people that you dont know. not that you know me all that well.

i must have you confused with another poster who used the same avatar who was a reasonable, rational thinker. whoever you are, i obviously hit a nerve.

You're right...I am the same rational and reasonable thinker. But you're wrong about what I know of other hospitals and how HR works.

You don't like it when I insult your department? huh...how odd. What do you think you're doing by reporting me to HR...other than insulting and hurting very people I tried to care for??

Again, you fail to see why your action was so offensive but you can only lament how nasty I am. Of course it's never your fault. Go back and re read your oringinal post... again and again.

Let me spell it out for you... you would report me to HR because I catered to my staff's wish...yet it rubs you the wrong way because you don't want to be viewed as a baby factory..so you would rather have my staff in risky situation..just because it pisses you off. And at the same time taint your boss' HR file forever... yes, it's all cool and dandy and I shouldn't have reacted the way I did.

 

[medicalCPA]

don't you dare insult the rest of my department

my department is none of your business. it tells you nothing, b/c, like i said, you dont know everything about every hospital.

i will thank you to hurl insults at only me and NOT people that you dont know. not that you know me all that well.

i must have you confused with another poster who used the same avatar who was a reasonable, rational thinker. whoever you are, i obviously hit a nerve.

The nerve you hit was mentioning that you would take him to HR when he was merely doing something he thought was helpful. I also thought his reply was harsh, but I have an inkling of where he's coming from.

At work, there's this old lady who thought I was doing something wrong, but didn't inform me. She went and told the supervisor of my supervisor! Even though it was the first time, a record of the incident was made (and this wasn't even HR), and it will follow me now. This incident will always be a part of my work record, no matter how minor it is. It would have been much, much better for all concerned if she would have just told me.

It may be different in your HR dept - and I hope it is - but the fact is that sexual discrimination in the workplace is not something I would expect an employer to take lightly. And I guess Z is angry because all one would have to do is ask, and Z would allow them to make as many chemos as they would like, without dragging HR into the picture or claiming discrimination.

But I haven't even gotten into pharm school yet, so feel free to disregard the above as irrelevant without "real world" experience.

 

[ItsOverZyvox]

The nerve you hit was mentioning that you would take him to HR when he was merely doing something he thought was helpful. I also thought his reply was harsh, but I have an inkling of where he's coming from.

At work, there's this old lady who thought I was doing something wrong, but didn't inform me. She went and told the supervisor of my supervisor! Even though it was the first time, a record of the incident was made (and this wasn't even HR), and it will follow me now. This incident will always be a part of my work record, no matter how minor it is. It would have been much, much better for all concerned if she would have just told me.

It may be different in your HR dept - and I hope it is - but the fact is that sexual discrimination in the workplace is not something I would expect an employer to take lightly. And I guess Z is angry because all one would have to do is ask, and Z would allow them to make as many chemos as they would like, without dragging HR into the picture or claiming discrimination.

But I haven't even gotten into pharm school yet, so feel free to disregard the above as irrelevant without "real world" experience.

That's exactly right. Pharm school or not, you're very insightful.

 

[SpirivaSunrise]

it's not in my best interest. i don't want kids, and i have a family and husband to look out for me, i don't need my boss to do so. that was my point. i am tired of being viewed as "pre-pregnant" just by virtue of gender and age.
this had been touched on in the "well" blog in the NY times a month or so ago. many women agree with me and feel that they are simply viewed as baby machines by employers and health care providers.

It's a boss' responsibility to look out for his/her employee's well-being...if anything because of how litigious we are today. Employers are almost forced into viewing us as pre-pregnant just to cover themselves. Saying that we don't want a child today, doesn't mean we won't change our mind, or accidentally become pregnant.

We (women) don't want society to pigeon-hole us just by virtue of gender/age...but we're the first ones to draw attention to it every time we take some guy's ass to HR. These are serious/taboo allegations...

If female techs/pharmacists agree that they'd prefer not to handle chemo, there's no reason management shouldn't be able to arrange that. And if you really are determined to do it, it should only require a quick open-door discussion with management (as opposed to running to HR).

 

[tussionex]

It's a boss' responsibility to look out for his/her employee's well-being...if anything because of how litigious we are today. Employers are almost forced into viewing us as pre-pregnant just to cover themselves. Saying that we don't want a child today, doesn't mean we won't change our mind, or accidentally become pregnant.

We (women) don't want society to pigeon-hole us just by virtue of gender/age...but we're the first ones to draw attention to it every time we take some guy's ass to HR. These are serious/taboo allegations...quote]




i will never change my mind, but that's not this forum's business.

this is the blog i was referring to http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/do-doctors-view-women-as-pre-pregnant/

i would disagree with a FEMALE director as well. does that still make me a feminist?

 

[tussionex]

The nerve you hit was mentioning that you would take him to HR when he was merely doing something he thought was helpful. I also thought his reply was harsh, but I have an inkling of where he's coming from.

At work, there's this old lady who thought I was doing something wrong, but didn't inform me. She went and told the supervisor of my supervisor! Even though it was the first time, a record of the incident was made (and this wasn't even HR), and it will follow me now. This incident will always be a part of my work record, no matter how minor it is. It would have been much, much better for all concerned if she would have just told me.

It may be different in your HR dept - and I hope it is - but the fact is that sexual discrimination in the workplace is not something I would expect an employer to take lightly. And I guess Z is angry because all one would have to do is ask, and Z would allow them to make as many chemos as they would like, without dragging HR into the picture or claiming discrimination.

But I haven't even gotten into pharm school yet, so feel free to disregard the above as irrelevant without "real world" experience.

yes, you are insightful and thank you for the reasonable answer. things ARE always better if two people have a reasonable discourse about a matter that they disagree upon.
my anger with Z is that in addition to calling me a feminist and berating me about how i would destroy my boss's reputation (valid responses to my cranky post) he also chose to insult my intelligence, dispute my 'management' skills, (none of which i did to the degree that he did) and tell to me slink back off to my IT department.
none of that needed to enter into the equation. for someone who touts himself as such a great manager, those are not things i expect to hear.

 

[tussionex]

You're right...I am the same rational and reasonable thinker. But you're wrong about what I know of other hospitals and how HR works.

You don't like it when I insult your department? huh...how odd. What do you think you're doing by reporting me to HR...other than insulting and hurting very people I tried to care for??

Again, you fail to see why your action was so offensive but you can only lament how nasty I am. Of course it's never your fault. Go back and re read your oringinal post... again and again.

Let me spell it out for you... you would report me to HR because I catered to my staff's wish...yet it rubs you the wrong way because you don't want to be viewed as a baby factory..so you would rather have my staff in risky situation..just because it pisses you off. And at the same time taint your boss' HR file forever... yes, it's all cool and dandy and I shouldn't have reacted the way I did.

i dont give a rats ***** what you do with your staff.
i am happy you make them happy, that your job as director. i am also very happy i dont work for you.

i will not be re-reading my post again and again, nor will i continue to be chastised by you.

i am going back to my dark corner and do my IT thing (which i do extremely well). i will leave the chemo to the oncology folks (which they do extremely well). i will also by extra nice to the pharmacy director and my CIO (who trust and depend on my advise, so they must not be management material either) today because this thread has made me very happy to work where i do.

 

[bananaface]

Holy moly!

The underlying issue in the chemo prep conversation seems to be assumption of preference and the (necessary) paternalism that goes along with being responsible for minimizing the risk to your employees. Given that most people don't like preparing chemo and that women of child bearing age are at least perceived to be at higher risk than their male counterparts, I don't see the default position of having males prepare chemo as unfair to anyone but the males that have to take on a disproportionate amount of risk. It would certainly be more egalitarian if everyone simply had the right of refusal.

The issue that could legitimately be taken up by an employee - male or female - is the grandstanding and acknowledgment that a supervisor is engaging in "reverse" sexual discrimination. If a supervisor had put it exactly as stated on the forum, they would not come across as being approachable or open to change and their actions could potentially be seen as intimidating anyone that did not agree with the current policy. So, if an employee preferred to take it up in an HR context, I could understand it. That said, I doubt those comments would have been made by a supervisor IRL. Such is the internets.