prometeus

It is not sophistry. Why is abortion the exception? There is no reason to make any exception for abortion other than the fact that my post invalidated your position.

The difference is one of principle, something that apparently you are willing to cast aside in this case. What about the instance where that prescription was not even returned? How, in a case like that, is one to go somewhere else?

Must damages occur first before a bad precedent is addressed?

1069

Because it only effects females, and until recently, there weren't enough females in positions of power to defend against blatant discrimination and injustice.

__________________
Lightdemon: "Is 10 going to outer space or something?"
Jerry: "...yes, 10 is going to outerspace."

Jerry

Again, pregnancy is not an illness, cancer is.

I'll answer your questions after you have answered mine.

__________________
Content Advisory: My opinion is given for entertainment purposes only. Past performance does not guarantee future success. Your results may vary.

Jerry

Abortion consernes children, and according to you...

1069

Uh.. yeah. That's real convincing there, Jer.

prometeus

So what? Is this a new criteria established by you?

roguenuke

Most states allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription. In some states, there is also a clause that says that the pharmacist must ensure that it is given to someone else to fill. I would think this is a fair compromise. A particular pharmacist does not have to personally fill a prescription they are given but the customer is still able to get their prescription even if they are slightly inconvenienced.

Many states have laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to fill a prescription, although there are exceptions like New Jersey. A few states with laws concerning this have conditions, such as the person must be able to get their prescription in a timely matter and the business owner must approve. There are some states that have no laws concerning this issue either way. Others are trying to get such laws passed.

It really all depends on what state you're in.

The link I mainly referenced:
Pharmacist Conscience Clauses Laws and Legislation 2005-2007

It does amaze me how many people this scares though. I don't agree with these pharmacists' beliefs but I do agree with their right to refuse to fill any prescription as long as it is their pharmacy or the pharmacy's policy and the person's life is not in immediate danger. I doubt most pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions. And, as I said before, just go to Walmart or some other big chain store. They're bound to give you what you want. Even if the pharmacist refuses, they should have a manager and they can get fired if they don't follow store policies.

Jerry

The criteria that one must compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges was established centuries ago.

Pharmacies should be legally compelled to fill any prescription which treats an illness, this, imo, includes prescriptions which would terminate pregnancies which endanger the mother's life.

In healthy pregnancies, nothing's wrong, so there is no ethical basis to legally compel any treatment by any party.

Healthy pregnancies are not illnesses in any respect, and comparing the purpose and natural function of a woman's gender to cancer is quite misogynist of you.

OKgrannie

And how is the pharmacist to know whether the pregnancy is one which endanger the woman's life or one which would just make her life better? In this neck of the woods the customer hands the pharmacist a prescription, the pharmacist packages the prescription including instructions and gives verbal warnings on possible side effects or taking the medication with food or not. There is no discussion of what illness or condition the medication is supposed to treat or why.

If healthy pregnancies are not illnesses in any respect, why is it necessary for a pregnant woman to be monitored by medical professionals all during the pregnancy (with emphasis on the importance of [i]early[i] pre-natal care)?

__________________
The greatest danger to liberty lurks in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.---Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

1069

Yeah, really. Back in the day, that used to be a doctor's job, not the province of some pompous little drugstore lackey in a lab coat.