View Full Forums : Another day, another debate...


Panamah
03-28-2005, 02:10 PM
Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse to honor your prescription because of their religious beliefs? Lets hope that Christian Scientists avoid the pharmacy field if so... otherwise no one will be getting a presciption filled!

Should they be fired if they hold your presciption hostage because they don't believe it is moral for you to use it?

Interesting article at Washingpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27.html) today about this issue. You have to register... but this web site is worth it, IMHO.

Tudamorf
03-28-2005, 03:10 PM
Uh, what kind of question is that?

If they can't do their job, they shouldn't be there in the first place.

Aidon
03-28-2005, 04:16 PM
Yes, pharmacists who refuse to fill a precription for reasons other than medical reasons (there are times when a pharmacist knows more about possible drug interactions for one of their patients than the various prescribing Drs), should be fired and his license removed.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-28-2005, 04:21 PM
The pharmacists in the story should have their licenses revoked permanently. From all US states.

The pharmacy that they operated should lose their business and state licenses. For no less than 5 years.

Jinjre
03-28-2005, 05:05 PM
The biggest issue where I have seen this arise is in the issuing of birth control for women. There are pharmacists who are way on the right wing of things, who believe that using birth control is the same as having an abortion, and will not (and have not) filled prescriptions for birth control.

The problem with this is that there are MANY cases where the birth control pill is not being used for birth control. Realistically, bcps are actually hormone regulating pills. They do have a side effect of preventing ova from embedding in the uterine lining, but that is not their primary effect.

I know at least 8 women, personally, who are on bcps for some hormone imbalance related issue (such as endometriosis, severe bleeding or other such issues). For these women, the birth control part of what the drug does is not the primary reason for them to be taking it. In some cases, it is medical issue which, left untreated, could result in death to the woman.

Pharmacists denying these women bcps because of their own private beliefs amounts to them practicing medicine without a license IMO.

If it is a matter of two drugs interfering in a negative way, that's one issue. But the stories I hear of tend to be more of a religious conviction causing the pharmacist to not dispense the drugs.

Going to another pharmacist is an option in large towns, but in some of the smaller towns (where you're more likely to find ultra right wing sentiments), those people may not have the option of going to another pharmacist.

Truid
03-28-2005, 05:59 PM
Uh, what kind of question is that?
If they can't do their job, they shouldn't be there in the first place.
Here's a quote from the article (talking about a pharmacist who is RC)
"He's a devout Roman Catholic and believes participating in any action that inhibits or prohibits human life is a sin," said Aden of the Christian Legal Society. "The rights of pharmacists like him should be respected."
I suppose it would depend on the pharmacy (is it a chain or privately owned). If a chain where they carry the bcp then I agree that the pharmacist should do his/her job or quit and work for a store (pharmacy) that doesn't carry bcps. In other words, if the store doesn't carry birth control pills then the pharmacist is under no obligation to fill the prescription. They just simply have to say they don't carry those type of products. If the customer doesn't like it, then they can always take their business elsewhere.

Now I know someone's going to say that if it's in a small town and there's nowhere else to go blah, blah bla. But the fact remains that if it's a privately owned business then they are under no obligation, legally or morally, to carry birth control pills or the morning-after pill.

"Our group was founded with the idea of returning pharmacy to a healing-only profession. What's been going on is the use of medication to stop human life. That violates the ideal of the Hippocratic oath that medical practitioners should do no harm," said Karen L. Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, who was fired from a Kmart pharmacy in Delhi, Ohio, for refusing to fill birth control prescriptions.

So, what's the moral of this story? Get to know your neighborhood pharmacist and if you don't like their philosophy then don't do business with them.

Cantatus
03-28-2005, 06:21 PM
No, they shouldn't be able to decide what they get to prescribe.

That would be like me going to a restaurant and having the waiter refuse to bring me the meal I ordered because he's a vegetarian.

Truid
03-28-2005, 07:40 PM
No, they shouldn't be able to decide what they get to prescribe.

That would be like me going to a restaurant and having the waiter refuse to bring me the meal I ordered because he's a vegetarian.

You're right, using that analogy. However, if you order a filet mignon and it's not on the menu, the restaurant is under no obligation to bring it to you (maybe it's a vegetarian restaurant).

Anka
03-28-2005, 07:51 PM
If pharmacies are privately owned and operate under neither state nor government license then they can sell whatever they like. If the state or government provides licenses then perhaps it ought to provide licences to those pharmacies than can supply a full range of services.

This question of religious ethics in the workplace cuts across many trades and professions. Waiters often serve food that they are forbidden in their religion from eating. Hotel owners can refuse to let rooms to adulterous customers. I don't think there is any sort of consistency across jobs and professions, which makes this pharmacy thing pretty difficult to resolve cleanly.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-28-2005, 08:02 PM
That is a poor analogy.

Analogies almost always suck, but that one just does not compare in its suckitude.

First off, in order for them to work, you need to describe something that is at least comparable.
Something that is close or similar in relationship.

Pharmacists are not like cooks and pharmacies are not like restaurants, at all.


Remember:
Lion is to cat, as
Wolf is to dog.

Helmet is to hat, as
Gauntlet is to glove.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-28-2005, 08:11 PM
If pharmacies are privately owned and operate under neither state nor government license then they can sell whatever they like. If the state or government provides licenses then perhaps it ought to provide licences to those pharmacies than can supply a full range of services.

This question of religious ethics in the workplace cuts across many trades and professions. Waiters often serve food that they are forbidden in their religion from eating. Hotel owners can refuse to let rooms to adulterous customers. I don't think there is any sort of consistency across jobs and professions, which makes this pharmacy thing pretty difficult to resolve cleanly.


The professionalization of pharmacists is the only reason that they have the lock on selling scripts in the first place; legally. If a pharmacist is going to act unprofessional, then remove the pharmacist from the profession.

Or remove the profession, as I have previously proposed.

There is no need to have a second doctor to sell you a medicine that you need. We don't need them. If you want a second opinion of the drugs that you take, then you can get one; simple solution to that objection.

If you want a database driven website of drug interactions, even I can do that. Right now, if so inclined(I may just do it just for fun). I would be in violation of a copyright issue, for the material that I have. But it is not like it can't be done, or should not be done.

Tudamorf
03-28-2005, 08:24 PM
"He's a devout Roman Catholic and believes participating in any action that inhibits or prohibits human life is a sin," said Aden of the Christian Legal Society. "The rights of pharmacists like him should be respected."Does the pharmacist have a legal duty (under either federal or state law) to serve a customer? If so, he can't use his religion as an excuse to avoid that duty, or to circumvent other laws. That much is clear.

Now if it's not a duty, I suppose he can refuse, in which case he'd just get fired. Or I suppose the pharmacy can declare itself religious and avoid dispensing certain medications, but no self-respecting company would do that because of the massive profits they would lose.

If some religious zealot thinks a job is a sin, he should just go find another job. It's not as if he has some constitutional right to be a pharmacist.

Truid
03-28-2005, 08:48 PM
From: Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html)

Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art
Compared with the Modern Version (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html)

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. My how things have changed! :elfbiggri

And I'll leave you with this: Hyppocratic Oath: Meaningless Relic or Moral Guide? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_today.html)

Aidon
03-28-2005, 08:55 PM
You're right, using that analogy. However, if you order a filet mignon and it's not on the menu, the restaurant is under no obligation to bring it to you (maybe it's a vegetarian restaurant).

This is a line from the Board of Pharmacy Regulations for the State of New Jersey:

"13:39-3.18 Registered pharmacist-in-charge

12. Ensuring the dispensing of all medication generally prescribed to patients in the trading area of the licensed premises or as required by the speciality for which the pharmacy holds a permit;"

That section describes the rules for and duties of the Registered pharmacist-in-charge of any pharmacy.

While I've not the time, nor the inclination to go look up and read through other states, I rather suspect most, if not all of them, have the same general rules for their pharmacists.

i.e.: They have a professional duty to dispense all medication generally prescribed. Not just those medications the pharmacist feels like dispensing based on his moral perspective.

This further means that almost every pharmacy is going to carry certain drugs, including birth control pills.

Synjinn
03-28-2005, 09:01 PM
That is a poor analogy...First off, in order for them to work, you need to describe something that is at least comparable.
Something that is close or similar in relationship.
I would think a better analogy would be a police officer who refuses to use a gun because it is against their religion to kill, or (which I have seen personally) a military soldier who doesn't believe in war (for religious purposes) refusing to go overseas.

I would imagine that each of the people in the above analogy have the right to 'feel' the way they do, they just need to either (a) choose not to enter a career that conflicts with their beliefs or (b) not let it affect their professional work.

Originally posted by Tudamorf:
If some religious zealot thinks a job is a sin, he should just go find another job. It's not as if he has some constitutional right to be a pharmacist.
One would think that would be the logical and intelligent solution. But, then, what would we have to talk about here if people were logical and intelligent? :ohwell:

I don't think removing the profession is an answer, though. There are many benefits from having a pharmacist handle your medications. One, they can ensure that the patient doesn't take conflicting medications. Two, they can recommend cheaper yet still as effective meds. Doctors don't always think of these things, so it's nice to have someone who does.

Anka
03-28-2005, 09:13 PM
First off, in order for them to work, you need to describe something that is at least comparable.
Something that is close or similar in relationship.

Pharmacists are not like cooks and pharmacies are not like restaurants, at all.


My point was that all professions have varying approaches to moral ethics and religious ethics. There is no consistency, whether it's doctors, bus drivers, waiters, architects, firemen, lawyers, cobblers, habisashers, pharmacists, or anyone else.

Just to play devil's advocate, is a doctor always bound to prescibe birth control if a suitable patient requests it? If a doctor can refuse to prescribe it on moral grounds, why can't a pharmacist refuse to dispense it by the same moral grounds?

Truid
03-28-2005, 09:41 PM
Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse to honor your prescription because of their religious beliefs? Lets hope that Christian Scientists avoid the pharmacy field if so... otherwise no one will be getting a presciption filled!

Should they be fired if they hold your presciption hostage because they don't believe it is moral for you to use it?

Interesting article at Washingpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27.html) today about this issue. You have to register... but this web site is worth it, IMHO.

Kinda funny how this is coming up again. Seems these same arguments have been used before. See: Let's Go Wings (http://www.letsgowings.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23424&st=0&#entry517108)

Synjinn
03-28-2005, 09:47 PM
My how things have changed! :elfbiggri

And thank goodness...the original oath was written at a time in history when it was also considered 'healthy' to bloodlet, use leeches and use priests and priestesses to heal the wounded. Infectious illnesses were 'healed' by isolation. The same people who helped write/followed your 'hypocritical' oath also historically resorted to visceration of prisoners and other forms of 'torture' to learn how the body worked.

As the modern oath states..."Above all, I must not play at God." The original author (and his peers) reveled in the belief they were gods.

Truid
03-28-2005, 10:29 PM
And thank goodness...the original oath was written at a time in history when it was also considered 'healthy' to bloodlet, use leeches and use priests and priestesses to heal the wounded. Infectious illnesses were 'healed' by isolation. The same people who helped write/followed your 'hypocritical' oath also historically resorted to visceration of prisoners and other forms of 'torture' to learn how the body worked.

As the modern oath states..."Above all, I must not play at God." The original author (and his peers) reveled in the belief they were gods.

I think you may may have read too much into my brief statement. I am in no way suggesting we go back to a time of "bloodletting" and "using leaches" to heal the sick. However, no matter what century you live in, I am of the opinion that there will always be so-called "faith healers", priests, priestesses and dream healers (http://www.dreamhealer.com).

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-29-2005, 02:28 AM
to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

This has always sounded like an oath you would take joining a guild or secret fraternity to me.

An oath of secrecy of trade secrets.

It has been a very very long time since I thought that the Oath was an "ethical" treatise. More like an organized way of of limiting information to lay persons to increase the value of work done and knowledge known. That is to say, to get paid.

That is not even discounting the fact that it was written, what, 500 BCE or something.

Silxie
03-29-2005, 04:43 AM
I had never realised how patriarchal that oath was.

Arienne
03-29-2005, 09:27 AM
DOCTORS prescribe medications, pharmacists DISPENSE the medications that physicians prescribe. If a pharmacist refuses to dispense what a doctor prescribes on "moral" grounds, then he is not doing his job. IF, however, a pharmacist refuses to dispense based on drug interaction with other meds dispensed to the same patient, he's doing his job as a "check" on the doctors. There's a large percentage of people who never share all their drug information with their doctors when they receive prescriptions from several doctors. Pharmacists help to double check.

If a pharmacist wants to be proactive in the "moral" dispensing/prescribing of drugs, he needs quit his job and become a lobbyist for his position.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-29-2005, 01:34 PM
Do you really use the same pharmacist/pharmacy each time?

I don't think I have ever done that.

And if I had, it is so rare that I certainly do not remember that I did.



On second thought, contact lenses are prescribed. I use the same Vision center for my contacts, but that is based on price-Walmart Vision centers have below mail order/internet prices on disposable contacts, and they always have them in stock when I need them.

Arienne
03-29-2005, 01:58 PM
Do you really use the same pharmacist/pharmacy each time?

I don't think I have ever done that.I think most people do. In the area I'm in I only have two choices anyway, but I still find it easier to get any prescription from one source rather than chasing all over town to get something. But I also buy 7 prescriptions a month regularly since my parents live with me. If I had a prescription for a single fill, I guess it wouldn't matter, tho.

Panamah
03-29-2005, 02:02 PM
I usually stick with the same pharmacy because I have a pill I have to take everyday or I'll croak (eventually). So when I get a new script it usually has lots of refills on it.

But nowadays you can get prescriptions refilled on the Internet, by mail order or by phone/fax so really, you'd have to be pretty hard off not to be able to get your prescription filled in some way, shape or form.

My own thought is perhaps the "objecter" pharmacists should start their own business catering to devotly religious people. Maybe they could custom compound meds with sacremental bread and use Holy Water. They'd probably make a mint fleecing the flock.

Thicket Tundrabog
03-29-2005, 02:05 PM
When my daughter was in her early-teens she had a severe facial skin condition. While not a threat to her general health, it was potentially disfiguring. Her prescription was ... birth control pills. We all had a good laugh about parents allowing their 14 year-old daughter to get birth control pills.

It wouldn't have been amusing if a pharmacist had refused to fill the prescription. We lived in the far north, and there was only one pharmacy in town. The next town was 250 miles away. (The local Army Surplus was also a drug store, but of the illegal kind :ohwell: )

If your personal ethics and values prevent you from doing a certain job, get another job. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and feelings, but once it materially affects other people, the rules change.

Gunny Burlfoot
03-29-2005, 02:16 PM
Once you take a position of medical authority, be it pharmacist or physician, you are bound by it as well as any religious oaths you have taken. One thing in Christianity at least, your word is supposed to be your bond. If he didn't have overwhelming empirical evidence that this drug would be contraindictated for this patient, he has to provide it, or he invalidates his faith by breaking his word.

I don't ever see this coming up with my prescription, but just in case, I don't even use any pharmacies anymore, I use the mail order system of my insurance program. I stridently emphasized to this program that this was a heart medication, something not to be trifled with, and I have always gotten 3 months supply at one time. I order it one month before I run out, and have never gotten it late.

That all being said, over the past 7 years since I was diagnosed, I have always asked for all the free samples that the doctor's office has every checkup I go to. So far, I have a 6 month supply socked away for any unforeseeable delays. If anyone is on a life-critical (not necessarily life-sustaining) medication, I would strongly advise you to slowly horde away a "rainy day" supply, just in case.

Who truly knows what may happen in the future? With any number of possible scenarios that could temporarily disrupt the normal flow of society, it only makes good sense to lay in a emergency reserve.

Synjinn
03-29-2005, 02:52 PM
I have always used the same pharmacy to fill mine, or my kids', prescriptions. One, its easier because their info is already in the pharmacist's database and, two, I know that if there are any conflicting side effects, my pharmacist will be able to tell me because they have a record of all the meds they are already taking.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-29-2005, 03:30 PM
That all being said, over the past 7 years since I was diagnosed, I have always asked for all the free samples that the doctor's office has every checkup I go to. So far, I have a 6 month supply socked away for any unforeseeable delays. If anyone is on a life-critical (not necessarily life-sustaining) medication, I would strongly advise you to slowly horde away a "rainy day" supply, just in case.

That is just an example of how insane the pharmacy system is.

If an alien came down in a flying saucer and observed the pharmaceutical distribution system that most of you enjoy and defend, he would think you are all nuckin futz.

But because all of you have grown up with it, you accept is as a great way to buy the drugs and medicines that you want and need.

Thicket Tundrabog
03-29-2005, 03:30 PM
There's one thing to watch out for when hording prescription drugs, Gunny. The drugs will often have an active shelf-life and lose effectiveness over time. For example, I take blood pressure medication and the shelf life is about one year. The effectiveness doesn't drop off dramatically after that, but it does decline.

Aldarion_Shard
03-29-2005, 04:42 PM
Pharmacists are unecessary leeches, this particular guy should not have taken a job which required actions contrary to his religious beliefs, and Panamah, what exactly did the Church do to you that makes you hate all religion and all religious people so much?

Panamah
03-29-2005, 05:46 PM
I don't hate religion or religious people. But I do hate it when people try to either ram their religion down my throat or try to influence the government with religion. I hate the idea that we could lose centuries of enlightenment and knowledge by excess religious fervor and religious meddling in society. I would hate to relive the middle ages. Witch burnings make for bad hair days.

Unfortunately I think we are teetering on the brink since the legislative and executive branches seem to think they are God's chosen people at the moment and are legislating either out of their own religious fervor or else are pandering to those that would like them to. Ultimately it will backfire on them, and the Republican party, as this really isn't what the majority of people want.

Religion is getting political these days and for those of us that don't like that, it needs to be opposed.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-29-2005, 06:03 PM
I agree with Pan.


Religious people should keep their beliefs in their temples, shrines, cemetaries, churches, and homes. That is where it belongs.

It has no place in the public or political space.

If religious people push it into that public or political space, they will find there are those of us willing to push back. Well, I can't speak for Pan, or others, but I certainly will push back, and push hard.

Synjinn
03-29-2005, 06:07 PM
Religion is getting political these days and for those of us that don't like that, it needs to be opposed.

I agree wholeheartedly. Of course, I think that religion has always been political.

oddjob1244
03-29-2005, 06:51 PM
If a pharmacist wants to be proactive in the "moral" dispensing/prescribing of drugs, he needs quit his job and become a lobbyist for his position.

That's exactly right. If someone gets a job at Circut City and then refuse to sell electronics because they're am Amish, they aren't doing their job. If this guy wins I am starting a religion where we don't believe in showing up or doing any work for a paycheck, going to get a high paying job and hide behind this case. It's insane to me, the reasons people come up with for being able to keep their job. Why did this guy apply for the job in the first place?

Do you really use the same pharmacist/pharmacy each time?

It's a good idea too, it's already been mentioned that they can avoid serious issues if they know all the medication you're taking. Honestly I have never heard of anyone going to a diffrence pharmacy each time, I don't know why you would, unless you move or change insurance each time you get a prescription.

Jinjre
03-29-2005, 06:57 PM
Do you really use the same pharmacist/pharmacy each time?

I do. I use the RiteAid close to where I work. I can use their online site to "call in" my refills on the 'net, and they're ready for the me the next day. Because they know me, I get to chat with them, and they know what kind of drugs are good for me, why those drugs are being prescribed, and have gone out of their way for me in the past to make sure I have what I need.

And they have caught meds which I shouldn't be taking. They caught one sulfa drug (which I didn't know was a sulfa drug, and which I directly asked the doctor about, the doctor said it wasn't a sulfa, it was a "new kind" of antibiotic....turned out it was a new forumlation of a sulfa, which I am allergic to). They caught one drug interaction where I shouldn't be on both at the same time (the interaction was one that could have stopped my heart and diaphragm, but other than that, it was pretty benign).

It's a very good idea to stick with one pharmacist if you can. Or even stick with one pharmacy chain if you can. Most of the big chains have your current scripts and your allergies etc in one main computer system, so even when I'm travelling, one RiteAid store will have the same info on me as my regular pharmacist does.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-29-2005, 07:11 PM
...and they're ready for the me the next day.

You make that sound like a good thing.

Do they have the stuff in stock or not?

If they do, why don't they let you buy what you need? When you want it?

Why do you find that acceptable? Do you find that acceptable with any other product that you buy, ie.. an item is in stock, but the vendor won't sell it to you when you want to buy it?



I waited 5 months after I ordered my Jeep, but that was because they had to build it for me. Firearms have a waiting period, that might be close; but that is to make sure you are not a bad guy(so strike that). Alcohol after 2AM, that is close to the same, but the bartender would sell to you if she legally could. Are there laws forcing one to wait for a script to be filled, I doubt it.

Jinjre
03-29-2005, 07:41 PM
You make that sound like a good thing.

Do they have the stuff in stock or not?

If they do, why don't they let you buy what you need? When you want it?

Why do you find that acceptable? Do you find that acceptable with any other product that you buy, ie.. an item is in stock, but the vendor won't sell it to you when you want to buy it?

I could go down and wait in line and pick it up that day. I used to do that. I find it a lot easier to sit at my computer at home, go to their webpage and order a refill so it's ready for me when I walk in the door rather than having to spend 15 minutes idly wandering about the store waiting for it to be filled.

They have always had in stock the medicines I've required, with one exception of a salve which had to be formulated from scratch and which only 3 pharmacies in the metro area were capable of making.

I'm not even sure how to respond to your third question. I order it one night, pick it up the next day, how are they not letting me buy what I need? It's my choice to pre-order the refill, so how are they not giving it to me when I want it? Especially given that their online ordering form allows me to choose the day/time of pickup?

Your fourth question makes no sense either. They have never turned down anything I've asked for except in situations where the filling of the script would jeopardize my health in combination with other meds I'm on. The item is in stock, and they allow me to buy it. The question makes no sense at all.

Panamah
03-29-2005, 07:53 PM
What irritates me is when the substitute stuff for what you really want.

*change of subject*

And religion is getting more political and more organized about it. I didn't care when they were political but unorganized... they couldn't get anything done. Now I understand that the crack down of the FCC on "decency" is because of this organization. Basically there is a religious group that has organized a calling tree. Anytime anything offends them, they hit the phones and call the FCC. The FCC used to get a few hundred complaints about decency a years... it's up to hundreds of thousands of complaints now, and it is all because of this religious group and how they've organized to protest every possible thing they can that gets aired on TV.

Its things like this that get the nipples removed from under the costumes in City of Heroes! At least men still bulge in the right area...

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-29-2005, 10:41 PM
Jin,

I mean, why do you think that medicines should be purchased differently than Tampax or toilet paper or milk?

You go to the store and buy it.

They are not special or anything. They are just chemicals, the vast majority of them are actually more harmless than Tylenol.

Why do you believe that you need an overpaid pill counter to sell you pills or elixers you want today, tomorrow? Instead of just going and getting them.

I know you know that the vast majority of Americans are retards, just like I do, and would poke themselves in the eyes with forks if there are not warning labels telling them to not do that...[that is to say, that they are too stupid NOT to overdose and kill themselves on tetracycline]... But why do you think that YOU need to be treated like an imbicile?

Why don't you think you can trust yourself with your own medications?
Why don't you think you should be able to buy medicines when you want them? Without standing in line.
Why do you think it is ok to have to stand in line, or wait for your scripts to be filled in the first place?
Why don't you think you should be able to buy medicines in any quantity that you desire?

I do not find any of those situations acceptable. But there is nothing that I can really do about it, until people start demanding action to the contrary.

I want to know why you all think that it is acceptable in the first place. You are a smart intelligent professional adult woman. Why do you think it is ok to be treated like a child by the healthcare establishment?

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-29-2005, 10:42 PM
Pan, don't you dare get me started on the FCC.

They are trying to set their standards to Cable and Satellite TV now.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-29-2005, 10:49 PM
Jin, send me a PM.

If you do not have gmail already, I will send you an invite.

Then I will send you program that has all the drug interactions of every drug you are taking with every other drug that you are taking.

I will zip it up and send it to ya, if you want.

oddjob1244
03-29-2005, 11:03 PM
I can see it now, over-the-counter morphine in Fyyr's world.

Oh and they need warning labels on forks, not because Americans are to stupid not to stab themselves in the eye, but because they need to protect themselves from lawsuits that the sue happy Americans would file and the courts uphold.

Synjinn
03-29-2005, 11:20 PM
...why do you think that medicines should be purchased differently than Tampax or toilet paper or milk?
Umm...because meds can kill if taken incorrectly and the worst a tampon can do is make me sick if I leave it in too long.
Why don't you think you can trust yourself with your own medications?
Why don't you think you should be able to buy medicines when you want them? Without standing in line.
Why do you think it is ok to have to stand in line, or wait for your scripts to be filled in the first place?
Why don't you think you should be able to buy medicines in any quantity that you desire?
Do you really think self-medicating is a smart thing? I don't. And I don't consider it a sign of my idiocy that I rely on someone who is knowledgable in that field to ensure I am taking proper pills, proper dosages, etc. It isn't a matter of not trusting myself...its realizing that I don't know everything about meds and their countereffects. As for buying meds in any quantity, the purposes for smaller quantities is to prevent addiction. You get the amount you need; no more, no less.

Heck, in your scenario why not just self-diagnose at the same time? I spend more time waiting for a doc than I ever have for my prescriptions.

Aidon
03-29-2005, 11:39 PM
Jin,

I mean, why do you think that medicines should be purchased differently than Tampax or toilet paper or milk?

You go to the store and buy it.

They are not special or anything. They are just chemicals, the vast majority of them are actually more harmless than Tylenol.

Why do you believe that you need an overpaid pill counter to sell you pills or elixers you want today, tomorrow? Instead of just going and getting them.

I know you know that the vast majority of Americans are retards, just like I do, and would poke themselves in the eyes with forks if there are not warning labels telling them to not do that...[that is to say, that they are too stupid NOT to overdose and kill themselves on tetracycline]... But why do you think that YOU need to be treated like an imbicile?

Why don't you think you can trust yourself with your own medications?
Why don't you think you should be able to buy medicines when you want them? Without standing in line.
Why do you think it is ok to have to stand in line, or wait for your scripts to be filled in the first place?
Why don't you think you should be able to buy medicines in any quantity that you desire?

I do not find any of those situations acceptable. But there is nothing that I can really do about it, until people start demanding action to the contrary.

I want to know why you all think that it is acceptable in the first place. You are a smart intelligent professional adult woman. Why do you think it is ok to be treated like a child by the healthcare establishment?


While for many people, who rarely see a Doctor and have maybe two or three scripts to fill a year, a pharmacist may seem unnecessary, there are also many many people taking any number of drugs at any given time. They have their own jobs and interests and don't have the time or desire to research the potential interactions and side effects, etc.

Further, medical drugs do need to be well regulated, and people need to know that those stocking and dispensing these drugs are also regulated and knowledgable. The pharmacological profession did not just spring up for no reason...

It isn't a matter of being treated like a child. Its a matter of understanding that the field and area can be complex and it isn't the field you chose.

Truid
03-30-2005, 12:27 AM
Jin,

I mean, why do you think that medicines should be purchased differently than Tampax or toilet paper or milk?

You go to the store and buy it.

They are not special or anything. They are just chemicals, the vast majority of them are actually more harmless than Tylenol.
One good reason for not allowing people to buy pharmaceutical medicine over the counter is to discourage drug abuse and the manufacturing of illegal drugs. Take, for example, House Bill 2176, signed into law in April, 2004 by Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry which "restricts tablet sales of pseudoephedrine, a key ingredient of the illegal drug" Methamphetamine.
http://www.gov.ok.gov/display_article.php?article_id=446&article_type=1

If they can restrict the sales of pseudoephedrine because it is a key ingredient in the manufacture of meth, then I don't see why they shouldn't continue to dispense prescriptions via a licensed pharmacist.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-30-2005, 12:54 AM
And you really think that is going to stop Okies from tweakin'?

Jinjre
03-30-2005, 01:07 AM
Fyyr, I have plenty of sources for looking up drug interactions and classifications. The deal is: I don't have the time to learn about every single drug out there and how it metabolizes and what it interacts with and how to make my own concoctions when the drug isn't manufactured for wholesale.

No more so than I want to learn everything there is to know about plumbing or drywall or roofing joists. That's what I pay plumbers and drywallers and roofers for. I pay my pharmacist for their knowledge, not their ability to count to 30. I take drugs which, if mixed with the wrong other drugs, can kill me. I also take drugs, which, if I suddenly stop taking them, can also kill me. I have two deadly drug allergies. Yes, I feel like it is well worth my money to pay someone who stays on top of all the new drugs out there to let me know if a new drug script that I have is going to kill me. I feel it is well worth my time to not have to do hours of research on my own to figure these things out.

I already have a pretty good idea of how the drugs I'm taking work. I have a pretty good idea of what drugs are safe for me and which ones aren't. But I don't keep up with every single new drug being released on the market. I can ask my pharmacist what the halflife is on drugs I'm taking to monitor my dosing and they will know without me having to go find literature which I can barely understand to wade through. I can also ask them what family of drugs a certain script is and they can tell me off the top of their heads.

I would no more want to NOT use a pharmacist than I would want to NOT use a licensed electrician during a major home remodel. The risk just isn't worth it to me. And I don't want to have to become a licensed electrician, I'm happy to let the experts do the hard work part of it.

I can't imagine the lawsuits that would happen if people didn't have to go through a doctor or pharmacist to get their medications. Next thing you know Pfizer is going to be sued for lost wages because some idjit gets themselves hooked on benzos and stops going to work.

Truid
03-30-2005, 01:28 AM
And you really think that is going to stop Okies from tweakin'?
Obviously not. However, there has been a significant decline in meth labs in Okla. due to this new law. And other states are also looking at Oklahoma's success.
http://www.mapinc.org/newsnorml/v05/n063/a07.html

Arienne
03-30-2005, 09:58 AM
Why do you find that acceptable? Do you find that acceptable with any other product that you buy, ie.. an item is in stock, but the vendor won't sell it to you when you want to buy it?
I don't understand where this question comes from. The statements she made were about how she deals with buying her prescriptions within the current system the US has for dispensing prescription drugs. Prior to your post I didn't see anyone state that the system was right or wrong... only statements about working within the system itself.

As to the argument you bring forth, however, there are too many people who abuse OTC drugs as it is. "If a little is good, a LOT is gonna work faster and better" Personally I have seen too much drug abuse even from prescription medicines to want to take ANY, but when I am prescribed a medicine for myself which is rare, I ask a lot of questions about it. Pharmacists deal with drugs and their interactions daily and are pretty up to date for the most part. I would hope that my doctor would spend most of her time learning of new treatments, cures and medical conditions than about medicines, although she needs to know about them too. I guess I would like to think that pharmacists provide a safety check on doctors who can often be so busy that they don't have time to know EVERYthing about everything and often find themselves relying on pharmaceutical salesmen to educate them due to hectic schedules.

B_Delacroix
03-30-2005, 11:17 AM
I am going to be with Tudamorf on this one. No matter the job, if you refuse to do or no longer perform the job you were hired for, you need to go.

Aldarion_Shard
03-30-2005, 01:49 PM
Religious people should keep their beliefs in their temples, shrines, cemetaries, churches, and homes. That is where it belongs.

It has no place in the public or political space.
Utter nonsense. Religion is about actions, not words. "Faith without works is dead". Saying religious folks should stay at home or in church and talk about their beliefs, rather than getting out there and doing something about them, is exactly as asinine as suggesting that the civil rights protestors in the 60's should have kept their beliefs to themselves.

The words are unimportant. The actions are what religion is all about. Prohibiting people from acting on their beliefs, while making mamby-pamby gestures about freedom of expression in the privaacy of your own home, is an unconstitutional violation of the Freedom of Religion on which our country was founded.
If religious people push it into that public or political space, they will find there are those of us willing to push back. Well, I can't speak for Pan, or others, but I certainly will push back, and push hard.
Yes, I know. This is the part of multiculturalism that people dont like to acknowledge - that diametrically opposed cultural values cannot co-exist without conflict. This doesnt mean violence, it means conflict - a culture war, as some have called it.

Freedom of Religion means those of us who believe in God are free to act on those beliefs, and those of you who oppose us are free to act on your beliefs. Freedom of religion necessarily involves conflict.

I dont ask that you stop resisting us. I only ask that you acknowledge our constitutional right to actually PRACTICE religion, as we ackowledge your constitutional right to oppose us.

Tudamorf
03-30-2005, 02:53 PM
The actions are what religion is all about. Prohibiting people from acting on their beliefs, while making mamby-pamby gestures about freedom of expression in the privaacy of your own home, is an unconstitutional violation of the Freedom of Religion on which our country was founded.Your constitutional right to freedom of religion ends when you start infringing on another's rights. Fifteen years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court also made clear that you can't use "freedom of religion" as an excuse to violate a neutral law. If this weren't true, religious wackos would have an excuse to hurt people as they have done for centuries; e.g., Muslim terrorists would have a justification for murder because their god "tells" them to do so.

Constitutional freedom of religion mostly relates to thoughts and words, and is extremely limited when it comes to <i>actions</i>. There are very few actions that are prohibited otherwise, but permitted solely on account of freedom of religion (e.g., religious objections to military service).

brum15
03-30-2005, 03:28 PM
Religious people should keep their beliefs in their temples, shrines, cemetaries, churches, and homes. That is where it belongs.

It has no place in the public or political space.


heh substitute homosexual people for religious. substitute civil rights. substitute womens rights. substitute pro abortion. substitute anti abortion. substitute anti-war protesters.

someone somewhere is going to have an opinion you dont like. If you truly believe in freedom of speech, then you have to support thier right to speak also.


Your constitutional right to freedom of religion ends when you start infringing on another's rights


so anti-war protestors who block streets and therefore block traffic should be arrested? they have extended thier right to where they infringe on others ie impeding the movement of others.

Truid
03-30-2005, 03:34 PM
Constitutional freedom of religion mostly relates to thoughts and words, and is extremely limited when it comes to <i>actions</i>. There are very few actions that are prohibited otherwise, but permitted solely on account of freedom of religion (e.g., religious objections to military service).
:bs:

We are not advocating violent actions Tuda. There are many other types of actions (such as charity) that are much more effective than any one violent act. Being an Evangelical Christian does not give me the right to "force my religion down your throat" anymore than it gives you the right to prevent me from my Constitutionally protected freedom of speech. My Dad used to tell me when I was younger, "your rights end where my nose begins." I can't believe I'm the only one who's heard that saying and understands it.

Also, Christian charity doesn't necessarilly endorse government entitlements either. See: http://www.evangelsociety.org/sherk/charity.html

Sunglo
03-30-2005, 04:13 PM
Unfortunately most people are only for that "freedom of speech" they agree with.

Aldarion_Shard
03-30-2005, 04:40 PM
Your constitutional right to freedom of religion ends when you start infringing on another's rights.
We're in agreement here.

(I suspect we disagree about exactly what rights people have that could possibly be infringed by another persons free expression of religion, but the point remains).
Constitutional freedom of religion mostly relates to thoughts and words, and is extremely limited when it comes to actions. There are very few actions that are prohibited otherwise, but permitted solely on account of freedom of religion (e.g., religious objections to military service).
Yes and no.

No, because number one, religion without actions is no religion at all ("Many will come to me and say 'Lord, Lord', and I will say depart from me, I never knew you"). Saying "you can express whatever religious beliefs you wish as long as you express them ONLY around likeminded individuals" is nonsensical, since it prohibits any true religious expression.

And number two, because we arent talking about taking an action that is otherwise prohibited and allowing it specifically because of a religion. No one in this thread has suggested that the pharmacist in question should keep his job. No, on the contrary, in the larger society-wide discussion about religious freedom, what we are talking about is the EXACT OPPOSITE: taking actions that would otherwise be permissable, and prohibiting them SPECIFICALLY because they are religious in nature (and not a part of the One True State Religion of Secular Humanism. THAT would be ok).

But yes, I agree that overall as a society we do not allow people to do otherwise impermissable things in the name of religion. Its just that this is not really whats going on in the ongoing cultural battle over the role of religion in society, as I described above.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-30-2005, 04:54 PM
I don't understand where this question comes from. The statements she made were about how she deals with buying her prescriptions within the current system the US has for dispensing prescription drugs. Prior to your post I didn't see anyone state that the system was right or wrong... only statements about working within the system itself...

Most people do not really think that the current pharmacological distribution system is messed up.

I do.

This topic just kinda meandered into territory that I am passionate about, and I was/am indulging myself.

As a libertarian, I find the current system as reprehensible as Christian right wing nutjobs find Terri Schiavo being starved to death. I find it more absurd that even Tudamorf finds that average citizens should be able to own guns absurd. Moreso, because it affects me directly.

I find it utterly disgusting that I am treated like a incompetent child because some legistators and politicians deemed that I am too stupid to know what I should put into my body. And they have deemed me too irresponsible to take authority over my own choices in life, because the vast majority of Americans are 5 IQ points above being clinically retarded.

I know how to shingle a roof. I know how to plumb. I am even licensed electrician. I know how to do many things myself, including not killing myself on anti-biotics, insulin, or aldosterone.

But, I am not allowed the choice because the majority of you believe what you read, like what you see, and love the status quo.

And beyond that, I am insulted because the laws you enact to keep stupid Oakies from blowing themselves up in meth labs affect me. You, the majority, and your legislators and polititians, and your bureaucrats include me when you pass laws to protect people(your lowest common denominator) who really should be removed from the gene pool anyway.

You, and your system take my choice away from me. And I dont like it frankly, even if you do.

Tudamorf
03-30-2005, 04:56 PM
And number two, because we arent talking about taking an action that is otherwise prohibited and allowing it specifically because of a religion.But you are: a pharmacist who refuses to do his legal duty (this thread); parents who refuse to honor their daughter's wishes (the Schiavo scandal); legitimate scientific research halted in the name of "god" (stem cell research); limits on abortion/birth control; and so on. These are examples of religious zealots trying to restrict a third party's freedom in the name of "god".

Pray all you want. Speak out all you want. Even brainwash your children with your beliefs, if you want. But don't force me to do the same.what we are talking about is the EXACT OPPOSITE: taking actions that would otherwise be permissable, and prohibiting them SPECIFICALLY because they are religious in natureWhich brings up the flip side of freedom of religion: establishment of religion, which the Constitution also prohibits. This is the concept of separation of church and state -- i.e., the government should not be involved in religious affairs and certainly should never take sides in favor of a certain religion. Doing so would be as bad a violation as prohibiting you from going to your church and praying.

Aldarion_Shard
03-30-2005, 05:11 PM
But you are: a pharmacist who refuses to do his legal duty (this thread);
We're all in agreement that this guy shouldnt be a pharmacist if his religious convictions prevent him from doing the job. Has even a single poster disagreed?
parents who refuse to honor their daughter's wishes (the Schiavo scandal);
Puh-lease. the question was not "To honor or not to honor", it was "What were her wishes since she NEVER WROTE THEM DOWN?"

Hardly the same thing.
legitimate scientific research halted in the name of "god" (stem cell research);
No one opposes stem cell research. No one.

OH, did you by any chance mean EMBRYONIC stem cell research? (The liberal media always conveniantly leaves that out)

Again I ask you - should civil rights protesters in the 60's have stayed home, indoctrinated their children, and allowed society at large to do as it wished? No, because when it comes to injustice, inactivity is as bad as participation. The death of some 30-40 milllion american children is a large enough injustice to get us off our asses, just as segregation, slavery, and women not having the right to vote was enough to get other civil rights protesters off theirs. Even when it didnt 'directly' impact them.

Civil rights protesters infringed on tons of 'rights'. Wheres your outrage?
limits on abortion/birth control;
See above. Injustice.
These are examples of religious zealots trying to restrict a third party's freedom in the name of "god".
No, because just claiming something is a freedom does not make it one. If I say "I have the right to shoot every cell-phone-using mother F-er in the head", and the Supreme Court for some reason agrees with me, this does not make this into a genuine right or a genuine freedom.

Sorry, but no - as long as your so-called 'rights' involve killing people, we arent gonna respect those rights.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-30-2005, 05:18 PM
heh substitute homosexual people for religious. substitute civil rights. substitute womens rights. substitute pro abortion. substitute anti abortion. substitute anti-war protesters.

someone somewhere is going to have an opinion you dont like. If you truly believe in freedom of speech, then you have to support thier right to speak also.


Substitute

Nazi Kommandants
Rapists
Sadists
Satanists
Pedophiles
Prostitutes
Drug Users

edit: over the top

oddjob1244
03-30-2005, 07:03 PM
I know how to shingle a roof. I know how to plumb. I am even licensed electrician. I know how to do many things myself, including not killing myself on anti-biotics, insulin, or aldosterone.

And beyond that, I am insulted because the laws you enact to keep stupid Oakies from blowing themselves up in meth labs affect me. You, the majority, and your legislators and polititians, and your bureaucrats include me when you pass laws to protect people(your lowest common denominator) who really should be removed from the gene pool anyway.

A pharmacist doesn't make $90,000+ (http://swz-hotjobs.salary.com/salarywizard/layoutscripts/swzl_compresult.asp?zipcode=00000&metrocode=NullString&narrowcode=HC03&geo=the+United+States&narrowdesc=Healthcare+--+Practitioners&jobcode=HC07000011&jobtitle=Pharmacist) a year because they can read a Doctor's handwriting and then put that stuff in a bottle. I'm sorry that not every american knows everything about every drug out there. The use and abuse of drugs can lead to more serious problems then the person being killed, bugs are starting to fight back. Linkage (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html)

Our overuse of antibiotics has led to what may be the biggest such problem so far: the emergence of antibiotic-resistant and much more dangerous bacteria. Similar things happened when attempts to eliminate malarial mosquitoes using DDT caused them to acquire DDT resistance; malarial parasites likewise acquired multi-drug-resistant genes.

I'm all for people killing themselves, I mean if you're to stupid to build a meth lab and blow yourself up, I think you got what you deserve. However a meth lab has more serious consequences then just a couple dead meth cookers. Dead neighbors, condemmed property, deformed children, diseases we can't fight, people who had 0 control of the situation, that's when it upsets me.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-30-2005, 08:22 PM
So please show me how and why you think that limiting how much Sudafed(or any other drug) I buy is going to stop any of that.




And pluuueese, do you really even know where MRSA(and now VRSA) and VRE came from in the first place? I highly doubt it.

Go read from the CDC's own documentation(the MMWR), you will find it. You need to dig, but it is there. It does require you to think for yourself though. Look at the dates of the first instances/patients of these Superbugs, and think about it yourself.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
03-30-2005, 08:29 PM
And don't get me started about the salaries of pharmacists.

That actually is my FIRST peeve about the system.

Why is the cost of those overpaid pill counters amortized into MY freakin pills?

I don't need em, and I don't want em.

I know how to count my own pills,thank you very much, and no one has to pay me 105K per year, starting, to do it. That cost, of each and every pharmacist, is added to the price of every medication that you take; against your choice, against your will, and mine. And you stand in line or have to come back the next day to do it.

Sheeple!

Tudamorf
03-30-2005, 08:50 PM
The death of some 30-40 milllion american children is a large enough injustice to get us off our asses, just as segregation, slavery, and women not having the right to vote was enough to get other civil rights protesters off theirs.A laughable comparison. Civil rights protesters fight to give people freedom. Religious zealots fight to take those freedoms away and return us to the dark times when religious figures held real political power.

Whose freedoms are the religious zealots protecting when they try to block birth control from teens, who are at great risk for HIV?
When they try to prevent sick people from dying with dignity?
When they lobby to prevent people from watching "indecent" material (as defined by the pope and his minions, of course)?
When they try to prevent students from learning the theory of evolution, the only empirically supported theory of how humans came to be?
When they try to prevent stem cell research from embryos which are already dead and will otherwise end up in the trash?

Yes, when it comes to abortion the religious zealots try to lend credence to their cause by claiming they are protecting the "rights" of a few undifferentiated fetal cells. But in reality, it's just another thinly veiled attempt to impose their philosophy on others.

oddjob1244
03-30-2005, 11:33 PM
So please show me how and why you think that limiting how much Sudafed(or any other drug) I buy is going to stop any of that.

Ummm you need to go out and try and buy a meth ingrediant, it's easier to buy a gun. Methelethal Keytone (sp) requires on-site inspections, background checks, a 3-month wait, and a mountain of paper work. Yes, I've been through that process. Go ask your pharmacist for a case of Dristan, while you're at it go ask your clothing store for a pallet of Levis. I never said it's going to stop the problem, it makes the process much more difficult though. Going back to Oklahoma...

Oklahoma passed a law last year limiting the sale of products containing pseudoephedrine, and since its inception, meth lab seizures have declined by about 80 percent.

Why is the cost of those overpaid pill counters amortized into MY freakin pills?

For fun, go apply for a job as a pharmacist, tell them you can count and you can google for reactions, I am confident you will be their first choice. Who do you want the cost to be absorbed by?

Go read from the CDC's own documentation

Linkage? I read about skin disease, and a paragraph that said antibiotic resistant bugs are out there. Not sure what crushing evidence I am searching for.

Aldarion_Shard
03-31-2005, 01:57 PM
A laughable comparison. Civil rights protesters fight to give people freedom. Religious zealots fight to take those freedoms away and return us to the dark times when religious figures held real political power.

When 'rights' are in conflict, protecting one set of rights involves dminishing another. The Abolition of slavery took freedoms away from slaveowners, and Desegregation took freedoms away from racists. You are ignoring history.

Whose freedoms are the religious zealots protecting when they try to block birth control from teens, who are at great risk for HIV?
What kind of birth control?
When they try to prevent sick people from dying with dignity?
The sick people.
When they lobby to prevent people from watching "indecent" material (as defined by the pope and his minions, of course)?
And when have you seen me crusading against indecency in broadcast media? Can we please confine ourselves to the actual topic at hand?
When they try to prevent students from learning the theory of evolution, the only empirically supported theory of how humans came to be?
Topic at hand, please.
When they try to prevent stem cell research from embryos which are already dead and will otherwise end up in the trash?
The young human beings in question.
Yes, when it comes to abortion the religious zealots try to lend credence to their cause by claiming they are protecting the "rights" of a few undifferentiated fetal cells. But in reality, it's just another thinly veiled attempt to impose their philosophy on others.
Number one, you clearly dont understand how abortion or human development works if you think surgical abortion ever involves a clump of undifferentiated cells.

And you should, again, take note of the historical fact that the Abolitionists and Desgregationists were likewise "imposing their morality on others". This is not a bad thing when those doing the imposing are morally correct, and those being imposed on are morally incorrect.

Benthair Dunthat
03-31-2005, 02:31 PM
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/

So tell me Aldarion, when do you think this is a human being. IMO there is not a functional homo sapiens there until birth.

brum15
03-31-2005, 02:42 PM
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by brum15
heh substitute homosexual people for religious. substitute civil rights. substitute womens rights. substitute pro abortion. substitute anti abortion. substitute anti-war protesters.

someone somewhere is going to have an opinion you dont like. If you truly believe in freedom of speech, then you have to support thier right to speak also.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Substitute

Nazi Kommandants
Rapists
Sadists
Satanists
Pedophiles
Prostitutes
Drug Users




heh heh yep. substitute any of the above. I can go out on the street and legally talk about any one of the above topics if I want. If I am in favor of legalizing prostitution, I am allowed to go out and organize rallys for it all year long. hence freedom of speech. legalizing marijauna use? rallys all the time because of freedom of speech. KKK rallys? protected under freedom of speech? satanist? yep--they are protected by freedom of speech also. Sadist? rapist? dang the adult bookstores are full of books about it. and the authors and merchants havent been arrested yet---because of freedom of speech.
shoot some of the western novels or post apocalyptic novels you can buy in Target or walmart have rape or sadist or even murder parts in them.

see that is the remarkable thing about freedom of speech---it can backfire. You also have to be willing to let people speak about things you dont agree with.

Aldarion_Shard
03-31-2005, 04:59 PM
So tell me Aldarion, when do you think this is a human being.
That was rhetorical, right?

Conception, in case it wasnt. The second the pronuclei fuse, its a human being.

Truid
03-31-2005, 05:21 PM
So tell me Aldarion, when do you think this is a human being. IMO there is not a functional homo sapiens there until birth.
Thanks for the link. Very interesting to see the different stages of development. But just because it's "not a functional homo sapien" according to you doesn't mean it's not human and has no value.

Anka
03-31-2005, 05:41 PM
When 'rights' are in conflict, protecting one set of rights involves dminishing another. The Abolition of slavery took freedoms away from slaveowners, and Desegregation took freedoms away from racists. You are ignoring history.

The right to own slaves was merely a privilege for the few, and the abolition of slavery provided a freedom for everyone. The choice of a segregated school was a privilege for white parents, whilst desegregation was the freedom for everyone in education. A right afforded to a few is not so much a right as a privilege. Understand your history.

Aldarion_Shard
03-31-2005, 06:58 PM
Its not a right if it is only afforded to a minority? Im not following you...

Tinsi
03-31-2005, 08:58 PM
Conception, in case it wasnt. The second the pronuclei fuse, its a human being.

How do you feel about birth control pills?

okthisnameplz
03-31-2005, 09:16 PM
I'd like to hear what he thought about even condoms.

Pills could be argued by a devote Catholic that it is only denying life. But condoms have two purposes: the denying life thing, but also preventing disease and virus from spreading.

So he could argue that both are wrong, but then what of the teenagers nowadays literally spelling their own deaths out because they didn't "wrap it"? (well, the unfortunate ones that come into contact with disease/viruses, anyway)

And don't tell me that the ones who endulge in such acts aren't religious, and therefore wouldn't apply to them. My best friend in high school was a devote Catholic, and got pregnant at 16. Heck, the town where I live is probably 80% Catholic, and it has the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the state.

Tudamorf
03-31-2005, 09:38 PM
I'd like to hear what he thought about even condoms.The pope's position on condoms is pretty funny. Of course he claims condoms are a sin, like all birth control. But we also know condoms could save millions of lives by preventing HIV, so he tries to get around the bad press by claiming that scientists all over the world have it wrong, and <a href=http://kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=24460>that condoms actually don't stop the spread of HIV</a>. LOL.

okthisnameplz
03-31-2005, 10:00 PM
The pope's position on condoms is pretty funny. Of course he claims condoms are a sin, like all birth control. But we also know condoms could save millions of lives by preventing HIV, so he tries to get around the bad press by claiming that scientists all over the world have it wrong, and that condoms actually don't stop the spread of HIV (http://kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=24460). LOL.

Lol, I had never had that. Thanks for the link.

Aidon
03-31-2005, 10:58 PM
That was rhetorical, right?

Conception, in case it wasnt. The second the pronuclei fuse, its a human being.

Riiiiight.

Aidon
03-31-2005, 11:04 PM
Thanks for the link. Very interesting to see the different stages of development. But just because it's "not a functional homo sapien" according to you doesn't mean it's not human and has no value.

If it is incapable of suriving outside its mother's womb...its not a person, its a parasite, if it is capable of surviving outside its mother's womb, then I'm sure some benevolent right to lifer will be willing to take custody and keep the fetus/baby on the requisite life support.

I do have a question: How many of you vehemently right to life supporters have adopted children who's mother's didn't abort, but instead put them up for adoption? If any of you have...you'll garner some respect from me. I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of right to lifers aren't willing to put their money and lifestyle into actually helping children.

Truid
04-01-2005, 10:15 AM
If it is incapable of suriving outside its mother's womb...its not a person, its a parasite, if it is capable of surviving outside its mother's womb, then I'm sure some benevolent right to lifer will be willing to take custody and keep the fetus/baby on the requisite life support.
So I guess you must feel the same way about Terri Schiavo. Since she isn't able to survive without a feeding tube, she's not a person, she's "a parasite." You make me sick! I suppose you have to believe that that "thing" growing and living inside a woman's womb is nothing more than "a parasite" because if it truly is human and has worth then every time a woman has an abortion she is committing murder. If you want to choose death over life then so be it. But I choose life.
I do have a question: How many of you vehemently right to life supporters have adopted children who's mother's didn't abort, but instead put them up for adoption? If any of you have...you'll garner some respect from me. I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of right to lifers aren't willing to put their money and lifestyle into actually helping children.
I know a couple who have. I haven't because my wife and I are able to have children. As a matter of fact my wife is pregnant with our second child. However, if we were unable to have children then YES we would adopt. As a matter of fact my wife has a friend who did just this and we've talked to her about it because we are genuinely interested.

Truid
04-01-2005, 10:21 AM
The pope's position on condoms is pretty funny. Of course he claims condoms are a sin, like all birth control. But we also know condoms could save millions of lives by preventing HIV, so he tries to get around the bad press by claiming that scientists all over the world have it wrong, and <a href=http://kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=24460>that condoms actually don't stop the spread of HIV</a>. LOL.
Not all condoms are created equally. And therefore condoms do NOT 100% guarantee the prevention of Aids. Yes, they can and do lower the risk of catching a STD, but you'd be a fool to believe it's 100% effective.
"The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.
Anyone know if this is true? Come on you arm chair science geeks let's hear what you have to say! :lol:

Ndainye
04-01-2005, 10:38 AM
I know a couple who have. I haven't because my wife and I are able to have children. As a matter of fact my wife is pregnant with our second child. However, if we were unable to have children then YES we would adopt. As a matter of fact my wife has a friend who did just this and we've talked to her about it because we are genuinely interested.

The point isn't would you adopt if you couldn't have children of your own. The point is that since there are unwanted children that you don't believe should be aborted are you willing; whether you can or can not have your own children to adopt a child rather than have that potential child aborted. It's not the only way I can have a child is if I adopt but rather the only way to save this potential child is to adopt it myself. Very few are willing or finacially able to do that.

I admire those who are willing to adopt no matter the circumstances of their own reproductive abilities, I have friends that have choosen adoption over conception. They are getting their children much later in life than many of their friends because they have had to jump through the legal hoops of state adoption.

I also have friends that have choosen abortion over adoption, not as birth control as so many right to lifers wish to project abortion as but as life control. The ability to look at yourself, your finaces, your emotional health and make the hardest choice you will ever make is extremely difficult for the majority of people that go through that process. I admire them as well.

I don't admire the people I know that brought children into this world only to look at them daily as the mistake they will never be able to correct. I've participated in the process of having the child of a "friend" taken away from them and put into the custody of the grandmother. The now teenager is still scared by her early childhood of neglect and emotional abuse and fits everyones profile of a "troubled teen". Her parents "did the right thing" and married too young and too ill-equiped to deal with the baby that came from their mistake.

Tudamorf
04-01-2005, 12:53 PM
Not all condoms are created equally. And therefore condoms do NOT 100% guarantee the prevention of Aids. Yes, they can and do lower the risk of catching a STD, but you'd be a fool to believe it's 100% effective.Duh. No one is saying they're 100% effective, but they are nearly so when used correctly and consistently, and would save millions of lives. That doesn't mean you have to let the pope control your sex life, or buy into his lies that condoms don't prevent HIV. (Then again, if you bought into his other lies, who knows.)

Stormhaven
04-01-2005, 01:12 PM
Anyone know if this is true? Come on you arm chair science geeks let's hear what you have to say! :lol:

Why? Cause you don't want to Google it yourself? :P

Yes, HIV is about 400-450 times smaller than a normal spermatozoon, and yes, condoms, when used correctly, stop 90% of all STDs. Latex condoms have no "net," and they are pre-checked for "holes" before they are released to the public.

Arienne
04-01-2005, 02:14 PM
So I guess you must feel the same way about Terri Schiavo. Since she isn't able to survive without a feeding tube, she's not a person, she's "a parasite." You make me sick! I suppose you have to believe that that "thing" growing and living inside a woman's womb is nothing more than "a parasite" because if it truly is human and has worth then every time a woman has an abortion she is committing murder. If you want to choose death over life then so be it. But I choose life.According to the VAST majority of medical experts, Terri Schiavo would never have recovered even to the point of feeding herself. She was a physical body with no cognitive awareness whatsoever, one requiring constant care that would NEVER improve beyond PVS. She would never have recovered even to understand her surroundings or to swallow or to sit up on her own. At one point she was brought home (I believe it was when Michael was living with the parents) and she proved to be too much of a burden, requiring too much care for them all to handle collectively. She required ongoing medical attention from people who could have been more useful attending to "the living"... those not in a hopeless PVS... those who had hope for recovery. What's your definition of parasite? :/

Fetuses are considered "people" with specific rights when they can survive on their own. You are welcome to disagree with this, but our lawmakers have found the need to make SOME determination and this is what they have come up with. You CAN disagree and take it further... to the point of conception... but don't get upset when people disagree or don't "listen" because this is something that HAS been legislated.

I know a couple who have. I haven't because my wife and I are able to have children. As a matter of fact my wife is pregnant with our second child. However, if we were unable to have children then YES we would adopt. As a matter of fact my wife has a friend who did just this and we've talked to her about it because we are genuinely interested./agree Ndainye. The question had nothing to do with whether or not a couple was able to produce their own children. /agree Aidon.If more pro-lifers "put their money where their mouth is" they would make a lot less noise because they would be busy at home tending to "unwanted" babies. Wouldn't it be more of a blessing to the world to work towards removing the word "unwanted" from the word "baby" than spending so much energy fighting to create more that no place to go?

Scirocco
04-01-2005, 03:23 PM
Most anti-abortion people I know would allow abortion in the case of incest or rape. Of course, this exposes the true rationale for that particular position: punishment for having sex. After all, if it's a human life, it's a human life, regardless of the nature of the procreative act.

In between the two "bright lines" of conception (and the lines really aren't that bright, of course) is a continuum of development. The trimester approach, with an increasing weight in favor of the human fetus over time, is a compromise position that does about as good a job of balancing the various interests and rights as can be expected. Many, if not most, people have a hard time seeing a handful of cells as a human being. But at the other end of the continuum, many, if not most, people have a hard time seeing a partial birth abortion of an advanced fetus as justifiable for any reason other than the health of the mother.

Aidon
04-01-2005, 08:55 PM
So I guess you must feel the same way about Terri Schiavo. Since she isn't able to survive without a feeding tube, she's not a person, she's "a parasite." You make me sick! I suppose you have to believe that that "thing" growing and living inside a woman's womb is nothing more than "a parasite" because if it truly is human and has worth then every time a woman has an abortion she is committing murder. If you want to choose death over life then so be it. But I choose life.

No, you don't choose life, you choose making a life altering decison for someone else. You choose to force a woman who doesn't wish to be a mother, for whatever reason, to either make a 20 year commitment, or put some child up for adoption, and hope someone is kind enough to take another kid of the refuse pile of unwanted children.

As for Schiavo, there is one fundamental difference, she had already been born ;). Life begins at birth. Before one is born...one isn't alive. Its a simple concept.

I know a couple who have. I haven't because my wife and I are able to have children. As a matter of fact my wife is pregnant with our second child. However, if we were unable to have children then YES we would adopt. As a matter of fact my wife has a friend who did just this and we've talked to her about it because we are genuinely interested.

I know people who have adopted as well. Because they couldn't have children. That isn't doing it out of some altruistic desire to save some child, that's doing it out of a selfish desire to have a child (and there is nothing wrong with such a selfish desire...If a person wants children, and have problems having one, I'd much rather see them adopting some poor kid who's mother had to give him up, than spending a ton of money on fertility drugs or trying to have someone else bear their child, or whatnot.). The fact is, there are far more children in the foster system waiting to be loved and adopted than there are people willing to adopt them...and right to lifers are willing to put even more into such a system. They are willing to potentially ruin some young girl's life because she's been forced to have a child at age 15 or so.

Synjinn
04-01-2005, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Truid:
If you want to choose death over life then so be it. But I choose life.
Exactly. You have the right to choose life...if it is your body you are talking about. Just as I, or any other woman, has the right to choose death, if we so choose.

My only comment about abortion...if you ain't got a womb, you need to really not tell me what to do with mine.

Do I tell you where to stick your...?(well, you know where I was going with that.) No, it is a part of your body. Should the govt have the right to tell you that you can't have sex, or get tattoos, or get a piercing? No. Just as the govt has no right sticking its big (and I'm sorry, but overwhelmingly Christian) nose in my body.

Most people who oppose abortion, and do so to the extent of being so over-bearing as to actually believe they have the right to stand in my way, chain themselves in front of doors, blow up doctor's offices and shout obscenities at me are doing so in the name of God.

Now, does that mean all who oppose abortion are such extremists? No. I, myself, would probably not ever get an abortion. That is my choice. Do I think that others shouldn't be free to make their own choice? No. I can have an opinion against something without feeling the need to abuse those who differ in their opinions. Unfortunately, most who are opposing this in the name of God and the right of my 'unborn' fetus aren't so mature and bully others.

Truid, you have the right to be opposed to the idea of abortion. But, you don't have the right to enforce that belief onto me, or anyone else, who has a differing belief. What makes yours the dominant, correct answer? Because you speak out of religious fervor? Puleeze...so did the crusaders and the inquisitors and the people holding the burning torches in Salem. And look what we learned from that? History has proven that just because a person may speak with the dominant opinion does not make it the correct, moral opinion.

Tinsi
04-01-2005, 10:42 PM
Not all condoms are created equally. And therefore condoms do NOT 100% guarantee the prevention of Aids. Yes, they can and do lower the risk of catching a STD, but you'd be a fool to believe it's 100% effective.

Even if it reduced the chance by a mere 10% it'd still be a GOOD thing.

You didn't answer my question: If life begins at conseption - how do you feel about birth control pills/shot/patch?

Truid
04-01-2005, 11:33 PM
Even if it reduced the chance by a mere 10% it'd still be a GOOD thing.

You didn't answer my question: If life begins at conseption - how do you feel about birth control pills/shot/patch?
I agree. Just pointing out the obvious. I have no problem with birth control pills/shot/patch. Believe it or not, I am pro-choice. I am one who believes that life is the better choice. If a woman chooses to end the life of her unborn child then she had better be prepared for the consequences and take responsibility for that choice.

let me pose the question back to you, if life doesn't begin at conception, then when does life begin?
Truid, you have the right to be opposed to the idea of abortion. But, you don't have the right to enforce that belief onto me, or anyone else, who has a differing belief.
Once again, I agree.
What makes yours the dominant, correct answer?
Again I pose the question back to you. Personally, I think we are in a stalemate. But that's just my opinion.

Synjinn
04-01-2005, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Truid:
Again I pose the question back to you. Personally, I think we are in a stalemate. But that's just my opinion.

Actually, no. Because I accept others' rights to make their choices without issuing warnings of 'dealing with the consequences' of those actions and resorting to referring to those of differing opinions as 'sick'. You, at least so it would seem by your posts thus far, have an "I am righteous and you all are wrong" mentality.

Originally posted by Truid:
You make me sick! I suppose you have to believe that that "thing" growing and living inside a woman's womb is nothing more than "a parasite" because if it truly is human and has worth then every time a woman has an abortion she is committing murder.

Need I say more?

Tinsi
04-02-2005, 12:15 AM
I agree. Just pointing out the obvious. I have no problem with birth control pills/shot/patch. Believe it or not, I am pro-choice.

*boggle* You could've fooled me. I'll choose to believe you, despite the tone of condemnment in the sentence I cut away.

let me pose the question back to you, if life doesn't begin at conception, then when does life begin?

Life? I suspect you mean "life with a right to protection as a human"? I have no issues with today's abortion-laws. I realize that drawing a line at -any- point in a pregnancy and saying "before this it doesn't have the right to protection" and "after this it does" is artificial and based mostly upon a compromize between the mother's rights versus the medical development. I also realize that the medical development will mean that in the future the distance between the time where termination is allowed and the time where we could actually keep the child alive will shrink, and that that will cause ethical issues and a re-opening of the debate on much more principle grounds than what we're having here. In the end though, I -know- I'd not have ANY issues with accepting abortion where the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. From that I can conclude that nomatter what, my stand on the issue is definitely not grounded in a feeling that "life is sacred". Based on that realization, it'd be hypocritical of me to be anything but pro-choice.

Personally, I think we are in a stalemate. But that's just my opinion.

It's not possible to be in a stalemate if you agree.

Truid
04-02-2005, 02:00 AM
Actually, no. Because I accept others' rights to make their choices without issuing warnings of 'dealing with the consequences' of those actions and resorting to referring to those of differing opinions as 'sick'. You, at least so it would seem by your posts thus far, have an "I am righteous and you all are wrong" mentality.
As a mother does it not piss you off to hear someone describe the life you carried in your womb for 9 months as 'a parasite'?? Sorry, but I made that statement with my unchecked emotions rather than clear thinking. But I guess if you don't believe you're actually carrying a human being, a life that is worth something (and that it's more than just 'a parasite') then I guess it doesn't really matter to you.
If the child's 'life' doesn't begin until after the mother gives birth then what do you call it's existence in the womb? non-life? As a mother, you of all people should understand this better than any man!

Tinsi
04-02-2005, 02:20 AM
As a mother does it not piss you off to hear someone describe the life you carried in your womb for 9 months as 'a parasite'??

It's just a word. And it has a definition. You're the one that's placing a negative spin on the word. Once you come to terms with the word's neutrality, you'll have no issue with it.

(From www.m-w.com : )

One entry found for parasite.
Main Entry: parˇaˇsite
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

There ya go. Feel free to explain how a fetus (during the period of development where termination may be an alternative) is NOT a parasite.

Synjinn
04-02-2005, 04:26 AM
Since Tinsi answered the 'parasite' aspect so well, I need not say anything more other than I agree completely.

Originally posted by Truid:
But I guess if you don't believe you're actually carrying a human being, a life that is worth something (and that it's more than just 'a parasite') then I guess it doesn't really matter to you.
What you are failing to understand/grasp is this: not every person who has an abortion is sitting somewhere maniacally laughing because they are going to commit 'murder'. Most, if not all, women who have had to have this procedure done did so after much thought and deliberation. It very rarely is an easy decision to make and I can probably guarantee that every woman who has had one will never forget it. Why is that? Because it was considered a part of them that had to be 'removed'. It still causes loss, it still causes emotional pain, it still causes sadness. It is worth something, just not enough to carry full term.

Do you have any idea what it is like to be a single parent? Or a teenage parent? Or to be raped and carry the child of your rapist? Do you realize what having a child out of wedlock, even in today's society, means to a single woman? No. You don't. I do. Thus, my acceptance of someone else's decision to say "I can't/won't/don't want to do this."

It's really easy for you to sit back and be judgemental. Try, for one moment, to be that frightened girl/woman. Then try your holier-than-thou attitude and see how far it gets you.

Aidon
04-02-2005, 04:52 AM
Believe it or not, I am pro-choice.I am one who believes that life is the better choice. If a woman chooses to end the life of her unborn child then she had better be prepared for the consequences and take responsibility for that choice.

Sure, you're pro choice. Choose life or choose to serve 20 to life.

Selur
04-02-2005, 10:12 AM
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/thomas_johnson_--_unborn_not_a_parasite.htm
(http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/thomas_johnson_--_unborn_not_a_parasite.htm)

Synjinn
04-02-2005, 01:57 PM
Governor Orders Prescriptions Filled (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BIRTH_CONTROL_GOVERNOR?SITE=CASTO&SECTION=US)

Gov. Rod Blagojevich approved an emergency rule Friday requiring pharmacies to fill birth control prescriptions quickly after a Chicago pharmacist refused to fill an order because of moral opposition to the drug.

"Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy or the pharmacist is not allowed to discriminate or to choose who he sells it to," Blagojevich said. "No delays. No hassles. No lectures."

"When medical professionals write prescriptions for their patients, they are acting in their patients' best interests," Trombley (CEO for Planned Parenthood in Chicago) said. "A pharmacist's personal views cannot intrude on the relationship between a woman and her doctor."

The pharmacy was cited for "failing to provide appropriate pharmaceutical care to a patient." Penalties could include a fine, reprimand or revocation of the pharmacy's license.

Fyyr Lu'Storm
04-02-2005, 03:09 PM
From the Selur's link above.
3.a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.
Without medicine, nursing/midwife care, and/or physician care childbirth is as much as one third fatal.

I would say that is generally harmful to some degree. Moreso that the fatality rates of most parasites and helminths.

I would also say that Doc. Johnson's opinion is just that, opinion. No more and no less valid than mine, yours, or any other poster here on The Grove.

I could refute more of Doc Johnson's opinions, but one is satisfactory for our discussion.

Tinsi
04-02-2005, 03:38 PM
I would say that is generally harmful to some degree.

I'll go out on a limb and suggest that every woman who's spent the better parts of 3 months with her face in a toilet bowl would agree with you :)

Jinjre
04-02-2005, 07:52 PM
Multiparous women have a long list of things they are more likely to suffer from later in life, not the least of which is a collapsed colon. Not only is the being pregnant part hard on a woman, the giving birth part isn't exactly good for her either. Folded bladders and folded uteri often lead to some really awful and, if not caught quickly enough, possibly fatal infections (my mom had to have a hysterectomy as a result of exactly such an infection).

Fyyr, I believe in the late 1700s through the Edwardian period, the birthing mortality rate was around 50%, if post birth complications are taken into account. In today's era, the idea that giving birth would run a 50/50 chance of dying is incomprehensible to most people (men and women alike).