They are evil! I used to work there to put myself through college. When convergys calls for Ameritech--just run!!!!
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Yes, Jon Boy, I didn't mean it to be insulting, but I did mean your attitude. I think the attitude you display (both here and on the new-car thread) is representative of the attitude of the executives and workers at most american car manufacturers, and that attitude is the reason their quality is still so bad, over thirty years after everyone knew they had a problem.
This just tells me that you haven't been reading my posts closely enough.
quote:1. Denial of any problem.
I never denied that there was a problem.
quote:2. Defensiveness.
I have defended GM because I don't feel they deserve the level of hostility they are currently receiving.
quote:3. Insistence that the buyer's perception is what is at issue, rather than any intrinsic quality of the product.
I insisted that the public's perception is another issue in addition to product quality issues. More specifically, I stated that even though they have made improvements, no one is willing to believe that anything has changed.
quote:4. Insistence that any individual problem is not indicative of general changes that need to be made.
I never said anything like this. I've got a whole list of changes that I think GM needs to make.
quote:5. Band-Aid solutions, instead of understanding and correcting root causes.
Again, you're pulling this from thin air. I've never said anything like this.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy, I described the suite of responses that are typically part of the attitude I mean. I didn't mean that you necessarily displayed all of them. Are you connected with the American Auto Industry? I believe you said once that your father worked at GM? (Forgive me if I'm remembering wrong.) Again, I didn't mean it to be so personal toward you as it seems to have come across. I'm describing the way an industry systematically shoots itself in the foot, all the while being confident that they're doing everything right.
The people who complain to you about your product (impersonal "you" is meant) are your very best friends. Mostly customers will just write you off without another word and deal with your competitors in the future. The ones who take the trouble to complain, and try to work through your problems with you, are doing you a HUGE favor. Especially because this so often is totally futile, so we have trained people over time not to bother. It's essential that those customers who do take that trouble be listened to carefully and closely, and with serious intent to change. It's all too easy to be defensive, to be positive you're already doing everything right, and to insist that it's the customer's fault. However, that's the way to hand your future business over to your competitors.
The American Auto Industry did this. They shot themselves in the foot despite all sorts of legislation to help protect them from foreign competition, and to prop them up with money, and so on. They have nobody to blame for their falling market share but themselves.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the operators in the unit 4 control room of the Chernobyl Nuclear plant who died in great pain a week after the explosion, repeated over and over to anyone who came by that they did everything right. He could not understand how it had happened because they did everything exactly right.
I'm studying the Chernobyl accident now in great detail. The industry I work for is the Nuclear Power Industry.
They did many many things wrong that day, and in the days leading up to accident, which was the worst nuclear accident ever.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, no one has mentioned Mitsubishi yet. Of course, they are the largest company in the world. As I recall, Greenpeace wanted me to boycott them because they set up a salt extraction plant in the gulf of Baja where baby blue whales are born and if they reduced the salinity of the water, the babies might not be able to float and would drown. Haven't seen any follow up on this in the last 18 years though.
The story I was told about Nestle is that they promote formula as superior to breast milk in third world countries, where there isn't sanitary water to mix the formula with.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is what I understand from the story too, pooka.
quote: I have defended GM because I don't feel they deserve the level of hostility they are currently receiving.
I insisted that the public's perception is another issue in addition to product quality issues. More specifically, I stated that even though they have made improvements, no one is willing to believe that anything has changed.
I don't think I should be all warm and fuzzy about a company who makes inferior products (in my opinion), refuses to honor their own warranties (after admitting fault on their part) and treats their customers poorly (again, my opinion). You certainly have the right to defend them if you think I am being too mean but you aren't going to persuade me that the money and time I am out due to their company is ok or justified. And as far as them making improvements, how long ago are you talking about? We sold the truck just last year so my experience is pretty recent (which also accounts for my huge ouch factor).
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Word is feature bloat personified. After hours of typing in Chinese philosophy text and having it try to autocorrect 'Hsi' to 'his' and turning sources into links, I decided to avoid Word for most purposes.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: As long as people are allowed to sue pharmacists under strict product liability rules (which they are in all 50 states), then, yes, a pharmacist should be allowed to refuse to dispense medication they think is to risky.
That would be incredibly presumptuous of the pharmacist. What they ought to do is call the issuing physician with their concerns and try to work it out. It's not the pharmacist's job to act as gatekeeper for a legitimately prescribed drug.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That would be incredibly presumptuous of the pharmacist. What they ought to do is call the issuing physician with their concerns and try to work it out. It's not the pharmacist's job to act as gatekeeper for a legitimately prescribed drug.
i'm talking about flat out not stocking a drug.
In most or all of the U.S., a store that sells a defective product is liable for any harm it causes, even if they didn't know it was defective. Liability is shared with the manufacturer. The store could sue the manufacturer because the manufacturer is ultimately liable, but if the manufacturer goes bankrupt, the store's on the hook.
There were concerns about Vioxx long before it was pulled. It would have made good professional sense to stop selling it before the manufacturer pulled it.
This isn't the pharmacist acting as a gatekeeper. It's the pharmacist exercising professional judgment to avoid exposure to liability - and to protect their patients.
There's no right to walk up to a pharmacist and demand he provide you with a pill. He carries goods and makes them available to those who want them. If he wants to take the business risk associated with not stocking a good, that's his decision.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:i'm talking about flat out not stocking a drug.
I will note the term you used was "dispense", not "stock" or "carry".
I don't know to what extent product liability law affects pharmacists dispensing prescriptions that have been passed by the FDA and to which clinical evidence has yet to assign risks undocumented in the standard literature issued with the drug. I suppose it's possible, but it seems unlikely that the pharmacist could be found liable in such a case.
If the pharmacist knows of a generic alternative, thinks the dosage is incorrect, or knows of a conflict created from mixing the drug with other prescriptions, they're well within their rights and obligations to halt things. But I would still tend to argue they should consult the physician with the knowledge they feel compels them, if necessary documenting the consultation in the name of waiving that liability.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will note the term you used was "dispense", not "stock" or "carry".
Yes. He refuses to dispense a drug he feels is too rsiky.
Actually, I was wrong. I misread the hornbook.
The majority rule exempts pharmacists from strict liability, although some states still leave the possibility open.
Either way, the pharmacist certainly has the right to cease selling a drug they think to be dangerous.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the pharmicist took my prescription and would not fill it, I would definetely boycott. If I missed a pill because of it, I would try to sue (When I was on the pill, it was for medical reasons- within a day or two of being off the pill, I had a massive migraine so I actually would have damages to sue if I was forced to miss a pill). However, just having to drive down the street to a different pharmacy would not cause a boycott. But, that is the biggest issue- a pharmicist would not know that my pills kept me from a great deal of suffering. So, while I respect that they have moral objections, they also cannot possibly know the whole story and make the decision for me.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, while I respect that they have moral objections, they also cannot possibly know the whole story and make the decision for me.
Apparently you don't actually respect their beliefs beyond the pretty meaningless 'respect that they have moral objections', since 'make the decision for me' to some pharmacists might equal 'murder a human child'.
But, well, that pharmacist is wrong, that's not what it equals at all, or even might equal, so who cares what their beliefs are?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the pharmacy doesn't stock the perscription that is another story. If a pharmacist wants to open his own pharmacy that doesn't carry the drugs that he/she doesn't believe in, or work for a pharmacy that doesn't carry said drugs, that is well within his/her rights. but if they work for a major national chain pharmacy that does carry the perscription they should have to fill it.
i respect their political and moral views, but i don't feel they should have the power to force those views on other people.
forcing the pharmacist to fill the perscription isn't forcing my views on the pharmacist. i'm not making him/her take the drugs, just issue what he has in stock.
if a pharmacist wants to be the one that decides what drugs a person should take, that pharmacist should be a doctor. pharmacists don't get to make those decisions.
Edit to Add: if taking birth control equals murder then so does jacking off, and thats just crazy.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:: if taking birth control equals murder then so does jacking off, and thats just crazy.
Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding for what the actual objection is.
It's one thing to disagree with others. At least have the intellectual respect to understand with what you are disagreeing.
Further, "thats just crazy" is not compatible with "i respect their political and moral views."
quote:If the pharmacy doesn't stock the perscription that is another story. If a pharmacist wants to open his own pharmacy that doesn't carry the drugs that he/she doesn't believe in, or work for a pharmacy that doesn't carry said drugs, that is well within his/her rights. but if they work for a major national chain pharmacy that does carry the perscription they should have to fill it.
If the chain pharmacy allows them to refuse, they are still within their rights.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Apparently you don't actually respect their beliefs beyond the pretty meaningless 'respect that they have moral objections', since 'make the decision for me' to some pharmacists might equal 'murder a human child'.
But, well, that pharmacist is wrong, that's not what it equals at all, or even might equal, so who cares what their beliefs are?
Let's see... A straw man argument, putting words in people's mouths, making a legal argument into a moral one and demanding that as such it conform to your particular moral view, and browbeating someone's expressed concerns rather than trying to address them.
posted
Dagonee - ok, your right, the "thats just crazy" remark was out of line. its not crazy, its an opinion that i don't agree with. i apologize to anyone i offended.
and i agree that technically, it is within their rights because Target allows it's pharmacists to make that call. the point i've been arguing is that i don't think that this policy is a good one and i don't support the company for that reason.
main point: a pharmacists job is to fill perscriptions, not decide which perscriptions should be filled.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I feel bad for having shopped at Target the other day, but my Target doesn't even have a pharmacy, and I needed both food and new dishes and didn't have time for Wal-mart.
As I have said before, I am morally opposed to Walgreens.
posted
vonk, do you see why the analogy you drew between onanism and birth control pills is invalid?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
not completely. i do see how it is far fetched. in both cases the sperm dies, there is no connection with the egg. ie: the Monty Python's Meaning of Life song "Every Sperm is Sacred." both are more about the idea that a human embryo could have existed than actually did.
i do see that it is not my place to call such beliefs crazy though.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:in both cases the sperm dies, there is no connection with the egg...both are more about the idea that a human embryo could have existed than actually did.
This is where your misunderstanding of their position lies. The companies which make birth control pills have asserted since their original release that not only do BC pills prevent ovulation, but they can also prevent the implantation of a fertizlized egg. There's little or no science either way on this, but the claim originates from the manufacturer.
These pharmacists believe that a fertilized egg is a human being, and that preventing implantation is homicide.
This situation does not apply to onanism.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok, i understand how they could be of that belief. i do, however, think that homicide is a very strong word for it. but, to each their own.
but with birth control pills being such a large part of pharmacutical demand, i don't think someone with those beliefs should become a pharmacist, and, if they do, they should be employed at a private pharmacy that holds the same beliefs and does not carry the pills in the first place. (i'm pretty sure that was a run on sentence.)
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Homicide is the neutral word for describing the killing of one person by the act of another (which the beliefs describe). Murder would be the strong word, which would contain a moral judgment about whether the act was right or wrong.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
damn, i can't stand up without Dagonee's Back-Hand-Of-Knowledge smacking me back down. again, you are right. i try to be understanding and look what happens.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Birth control MIGHT MAYBE increase the chance of a miscarriage, but we're not sure.
There are plenty of drugs that DO have the chance of causing life-threatening side effects to the patient picking up the drug, and some of these side effects may lead to death.
If the pharmacist feels responsible in the first case, why not in the second?
posted
Respecting someone else's belief does not mean I have to follow their beliefs. I am willing to take my presctiption to another pharmicist, which shows my respect for their views. I am not willing to allow them to decide for me, preventing me my meds. That would go beyond respecting their beliefs to agreeing with them- something I never claimed.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a pharmacist wants to open his own pharmacy that doesn't carry the drugs that he/she doesn't believe in, or work for a pharmacy that doesn't carry said drugs, that is well within his/her rights. but if they work for a major national chain pharmacy that does carry the perscription they should have to fill it.
Isn't this rather between the pharmacist and the pharmacy? If for example a pharmacy stocks a certain prescription but permits its pharmacists to morally object and abstain from prescribing a medication, what exactly do you have to say about it? Find another pharmacy.
quote:i respect their political and moral views, but i don't feel they should have the power to force those views on other people.
How exactly are they forcing you to do anything? It is not as if this abstention were a majority practice by any means whatsoever. So you're dead wrong there.
quote:forcing the pharmacist to fill the perscription isn't forcing my views on the pharmacist. i'm not making him/her take the drugs, just issue what he has in stock.
Forcing a pharmacist to fill a prescription that the pharmacist believes will murder a human child is making that pharmacist, in their own mind, an accessory to murder. Again, you're dead wrong.
quote:if a pharmacist wants to be the one that decides what drugs a person should take, that pharmacist should be a doctor. pharmacists don't get to make those decisions.
Edit to Add: if taking birth control equals murder then so does jacking off, and thats just crazy.
You get to make the decisions about the ethics of pharmacists and doctors...why? And your statement about masturbation...well it only proves how incredibly ignorant you are about this subject, and how well you have managed to maintain that ignorance and arrogance.
I'm really not interested in talking about this any further with you at all, vonk, because you've proudly stated how stupid those who disagree with you are, and how unwilling you are to even attempt to understand them.
------
Sterling,
Points for moral outrage! Good on you.
But let's examine what I actually said and what precisely was a straw man argument. You know, just for kicks.
First of all, "respect that they have objections" is meaningless. What that is essentially saying is, "You have an opinion. I respect that." It's acknowledging something that goes without saying.
This is not solely a legal argument. That is how it will be ultimately decided, of course, but to state that the question of whether or not pharmacists should be forced to prescribe birth control medications is solely a legal one is simply stupid.
Furthermore, scholar seems quite willing to browbeat other people's concerns-such as a pharmacist who might be compelled to prescribe a medication they regard as murderous-so frankly, my point stands.
When has the question ever been one of pharmacists denying you all access to the medication prescribed by your doctor?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Technically, in a medical sense, isn't a woman not considered pregnant until implantation anyway? So even if birth control did prevent implantation, it would still fall under the category of "preventing pregnancy," since the woman isn't pregnant yet.
quote:Technically, in a medical sense, isn't a woman not considered pregnant until implantation anyway? So even if birth control did prevent implantation, it would still fall under the category of "preventing pregnancy," since the woman isn't pregnant yet.
How would that change the pharmacist's interpretation?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
andi330 posted a link to an article about a pharmicist who not only refused to fill the prescription, but kept the prescription, which prevented the woman from getting her oral contraceptives for several days.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:andi330 posted a link to an article about a pharmicist who not only refused to fill the prescription, but kept the prescription, which prevented the woman from getting her oral contraceptives for several days.
Yes. That pharmacist committed theft, and she still got her prescription.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
This is not solely a legal argument. That is how it will be ultimately decided, of course, but to state that the question of whether or not pharmacists should be forced to prescribe birth control medications is solely a legal one is simply stupid.
Furthermore, scholar seems quite willing to browbeat other people's concerns-such as a pharmacist who might be compelled to prescribe a medication they regard as murderous-so frankly, my point stands.
Bravo! [/QB]
I said I was willing to go to a different pharmicist if mine morally objected to filling my prescription. I just expect him to return my prescription slip so that I can get my drugs elsewhere. How is this browbeating him? Also, I would hope my pharmicist is not prescribing any medications in general, being as he is not a dr.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Technically, in a medical sense, isn't a woman not considered pregnant until implantation anyway? So even if birth control did prevent implantation, it would still fall under the category of "preventing pregnancy," since the woman isn't pregnant yet.
How would that change the pharmacist's interpretation?
I don't know, but I'd like to know what the pharmacist would consider "pregnant."
And if one begins that life actually does begin at the moment of conception, why are we allowing untold amounts of embryos to die? I mean, shouldn't people, if they're really concerned about these supposed "children" dying, be working to reduce the number of failures to implant?
And then, does that make all the women who have sex but don't use such measures killers, in these people's minds?
quote:andi330 posted a link to an article about a pharmacist who not only refused to fill the prescription, but kept the prescription, which prevented the woman from getting her oral contraceptives for several days.
Yes. That pharmacist committed theft, and she still got her prescription.
Considering what it took for her to actually get her prescription, I am having a great deal of difficulty believing that you can dismiss that instance with a blithe "she still got her prescription." And what the pharmacist did was several levels of wrongness above mere theft.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:andi330 posted a link to an article about a pharmicist who not only refused to fill the prescription, but kept the prescription, which prevented the woman from getting her oral contraceptives for several days.
Yes. That pharmacist committed theft, and she still got her prescription.
Yes, she got her prescription, but not being able to take birth control pills for several days is a big problem that can have serious consequences even if the woman is using the birth control to control hormonal imbalances.
quote:andi330 posted a link to an article about a pharmicist who not only refused to fill the prescription, but kept the prescription, which prevented the woman from getting her oral contraceptives for several days.
Yes. That pharmacist committed theft, and she still got her prescription.
She got her prescription only after several days. She missed at least one dosage. When I was on the pill, missing even one pill led to very bad things (ie migraines). So, if it had been my prescription, that pharmicist's decision would have caused me extreme pain. (My dr is hoping I get pregnant very quickly as I am miserable without birth control and meds that are ok for woman ttc are somewhat limited)
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Whoops:) I'm getting a bit too free with that word, you're right.
Anyway, up until this point you've not once mentioned a pharmacist actually stealing your prescription slip and causing harm. We all agree, and that's not what we were ever arguing about.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considering what it took for her to actually get her prescription, I am having a great deal of difficulty believing that you can dismiss that instance with a blithe "she still got her prescription."
This pharmacist did something I'm not advocating, yet people have raised the instance as an attack on what I'm advocating. There's no "dismissal" here, blithe or otherwise.
I asked someone to show me an instance where a person could not get her prescription because of a pharmacist doing what I've advocated. This was the only example anyone has been able to provide, and it had two flaws: 1.) it wasn't caused by a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription but by a pharmacist committing theft, and 2.) the woman still got her pills.
The people who are anti-choice in this matter continually raise the spectre of a woman utterly unable to receive pills because of this choice being available. So far, the closest example they've been able to provide is someone doing something else causing a delay of several days. That's like pointing to a drunk driving accident as a reason to avoid giving drivers licenses to college students.
quote:And what the pharmacist did was several levels of wrongness above mere theft.
Not really. Perhaps I see theft as something more severe than you do, but it was theft.
The important point, though, is that I'm not advocating theft and thus this example is meaningless to the controversy here.
quote:I don't know, but I'd like to know what the pharmacist would consider "pregnant."
It's not about it terminating a pregnancy, it's about it killing a child.
quote:And if one begins that life actually does begin at the moment of conception, why are we allowing untold amounts of embryos to die? I mean, shouldn't people, if they're really concerned about these supposed "children" dying, be working to reduce the number of failures to implant?
Short answer: because there is a difference between allowing something to happen and making it happen. The long answer would require dredging up about 20 old threads.
quote:And then, does that make all the women who have sex but don't use such measures killers, in these people's minds?
Come on, you're smart enough to understand the difference between something happening on its own and being caused. Causation is an element of homicide. No causation, no homicide.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
alright, if you want to make this about personal attacks, i suppose i could play that game.
quote:How exactly are they forcing you to do anything? It is not as if this abstention were a majority practice by any means whatsoever. So you're dead wrong there.
i don't feel they should have the power. i'm not wrong. it is how i feel, how can you tell me i'm wrong?
quote:You get to make the decisions about the ethics of pharmacists and doctors...why? And your statement about masturbation...well it only proves how incredibly ignorant you are about this subject, and how well you have managed to maintain that ignorance and arrogance.
I'm really not interested in talking about this any further with you at all, vonk, because you've proudly stated how stupid those who disagree with you are, and how unwilling you are to even attempt to understand them.
alright, did you read anything else i wrote after that? i apologized, admitted i was wrong, and listened and learned when it was explained. i admit, i shouldn't have made a beligerent comment like that, but i do think that i appropriately made up for it.
it is my opinion that a pharmacist should have to fill all legal perscriptions issued by doctors. that is my opinion, you have no place what-so-ever to tell me that my opinion is wrong. you are more than welcome to have as many opposing opinions as you want, but i am to.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:i don't feel they should have the power. i'm not wrong. it is how i feel, how can you tell me i'm wrong?
Because he thinks you're wrong? Why is this even a question. Rakeesh's statement wasn't about you're "feeling" that they shouldn't have the power. It was about your characterization of their refusing to assist people in a particular act is somehow forcing them not to do it. That characterization is wrong.
quote: you have no place what-so-ever to tell me that my opinion is wrong.
Yes he does. This is a discussion board. If I said "It is my opinion that pharmacists should be allowed to fill prescriptions for Claritin with cyanide," it would be your place to tell me that my opinion is wrong.
Just as it's your place to tell me that my opinion that pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to dispense certain prescriptions with the consent of their employer is wrong. Which you've actually done in this thread.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i didn't say your opinion is wrong, i said that i don't agree with it. your opinion isn't wrong. opinions can't be wrong. and if what Rakeesh was saying was wrong was not how i felt, then i didn't understand the reference to the quote and apologize.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
I was not personally attacking you unless plainly stating that you are wrong is somehow a personal attack. If so, I wonder why anyone who objects to personal attacks would ever bother to discuss controversies.
quote:i don't feel they should have the power. i'm not wrong. it is how i feel, how can you tell me i'm wrong?
Dagonee stated my position very well. When I said you were wrong, I was not saying that your opinion was wrong, although I obviously disagree with you. I was saying that pharmacists do not, in fact, force you to refrain from using your prescribed birth control medication. There are lots and lots of pharmacists out there, and pharmacies as well. You are not being forced to stop taking your medication when one refuses to release it to you.
quote:alright, did you read anything else i wrote after that? i apologized, admitted i was wrong, and listened and learned when it was explained. i admit, i shouldn't have made a beligerent comment like that, but i do think that i appropriately made up for it.
Good for you. Class act for doing so. However it's usually my habit to reply to things said on a post-by-post basis. I usually get a bit of tunnel vision when I do so, in fact. So I should've remarked that you apologized for that statement, but it just slipped my mind. I'm sorry I didn't acknowledge that.
quote:it is my opinion that a pharmacist should have to fill all legal perscriptions issued by doctors. that is my opinion, you have no place what-so-ever to tell me that my opinion is wrong. you are more than welcome to have as many opposing opinions as you want, but i am to.
This statement we can reasonably disagree on. Obviously I do think you're wrong, of course. I think an individual pharmacist so long as it is in line with the policies of that pharmacist's employer should be able to abstain from issuing a legally prescribed medication, so long as it is not done for some personal reason. Such as, "This guy is a jerk, so no meds for him!"
But in the statement you made that I just quoted, I see no factual errors, so when I say you're wrong, I'm speaking my opinion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
alright, i can agree with everything you just said. good good. i thought you were saying my opinion is wrong, but you weren't, so my bad for getting my feathers up.
obviously i disagree with you on the whole pharmacist thing and i disagree with the pharmacists who refuse to fill perscriptions as well. it is my most humble opinion that the pharmacist has a responsibility to society that outweighs any moral objections. if the pharmacist feels that he can not take the ethics anymore, it is my opinion, that he/she should get another job.
i believe that one of the big arguments that is being used to support the pharmacists decision (and i could be wrong) is that there are other pharmacies around, so the pharmacist is not keeping you from ever recieving your medication. there are many "if/then" hypothetical situations that could be used to counter this, but i don't want to do that. in my opinion it is more of a principle thing. in my mind i see it as (and bare in mind this is a very loose analogy) a police officer saying "well, i don't mind if you cook crack in your bath tub, so i'm gonna leave and send another officer over here." it is that officer's duty to arrest the crack chef whether he believes he should or not.
i am aware that many people are not going to agree with me on this, and that is good, but that is how i feel about the situation, and the reason i will always take my perscriptions elsewhere to be filled. but i don't think Target will mind.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And what the pharmacist did was several levels of wrongness above mere theft.
Not really. Perhaps I see theft as something more severe than you do, but it was theft.
I consider theft pretty serious, so I doubt that's it. But in that case I see not only theft but coercion, disdain for potential harm to the patient, and a number of other nasty issues.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I asked someone to show me an instance where a person could not get her prescription because of a pharmacist doing what I've advocated. This was the only example anyone has been able to provide, and it had two flaws: 1.) it wasn't caused by a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription but by a pharmacist committing theft, and 2.) the woman still got her pills.
The people who are anti-choice in this matter continually raise the spectre of a woman utterly unable to receive pills because of this choice being available. So far, the closest example they've been able to provide is someone doing something else causing a delay of several days. That's like pointing to a drunk driving accident as a reason to avoid giving drivers licenses to college students.
Perhaps you aren't understanding this, here. The point is that in the case of hormonal birth control, a delay of several days is a REALLY, REALLY BIG DEAL. The pharmacist has no idea WHY the woman is using birth control, and if she's using it for hormonal reasons and not purely pregnancy prevention, he has now COMPLETELY thrown off her hormonal cycle, which can have some pretty nasty consequences, depending on the severity of the hormonal imbalance being treated.
quote:Short answer: because there is a difference between allowing something to happen and making it happen. The long answer would require dredging up about 20 old threads.
quote:]Come on, you're smart enough to understand the difference between something happening on its own and being caused. Causation is an element of homicide. No causation, no homicide.
Let's see, we can legally charge someone with "negligent homocide." If there were a way for a woman to reduce the number of natural miscarriages by 50%, and she didn't use it, she'd still be negligent in protecting these "children," if one really did want to consider them children.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
