posted
Ketchupqueen's last post made me wonder if there had ever been a Christian Scientist pharmacist. I'm imagining the same rule she proposes being applied to them, and them standing behind the counter all day saying variations of "I'm sorry, the use of material world remedies to cure what are, after all, merely misperceptions of reality isn't acceptable to me. Next!" while another pharmacist hovers at their shoulder, actually dispensing the drugs.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon, that reminds me of a young man at my high school that wanted to serve as an officer of one of the clubs (secretary? something where you had to be present to perform the functions), but the only times available for meetings with the sponsoring faculty were during his National Guard commitments. It was a tizzy.
Of course, BCPs and other pregnancy-related medications are only a part of the pharmacist job, not the whole thing. It's a significant percentage, though.
--
I often wonder why it is sometimes assumed that the only job to use a pharmacy degree is that of filling prescriptions. There is so much more: drug research (with or without major pharmaceutical company positions), advisory roles for policy and planning, teaching, etc. Just as there are many things someone with an MD can do other than work directly with patients, so too are there other options for the pharm degree.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Kate, sauce for the goose, then. I see no similar concern from you on misappropriations of that term for volunteer soldiers who suddenly have a fit of conscience or become instant (and poor) constitutional scholars when they are trying to get out of dangerous duty and inconvenient deployments. It's both or neither.
Actually, you did. Here (bolding mine):
quote: I haven't heard conscientious objector used to mean other than soldiers objecting and facing possible jail time. I have heard it used by soldiers who object to this war. The difference is that they weren't conscripted; they joined up. It is a broader use that I think it should be but still preserves the private/public distinction.
And soldiers who claim that they are objecting on moral grounds, but are really trying to get out of duty because it is dangerous or inconvenient are not conscientious anything. They are liars. I don't see how that would be relevant to this discussion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I can agree that becoming a pharmacist is a choice. But what if they tried to get work in research, couldn't, and had to support their families? I'm not saying that would apply to every "conscientious objector" pharmacist, but I think it's reasonable to assume that not every pharmacist dreamed of becoming a pharmacist. Some people are pharmacists (or, probably more, pharmacy technicians/assistants) out of necessity; it's the work they could get with the degree they could obtain/had at the time, in order to support themselves/their families.
In the same way that the LDS people I know who work at restaurants that serve alcohol but don't bring the drinks didn't want to be waiters; they are either students or lost jobs and took what they could get while working toward a better life.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kq, what if the only job they could get was as a bartender? Or if it were a small restaurant with only one waiter at a time - should the owner be required to hire them or keep them on?
I think that employers can (and probably should) make reasonable accomodations for religious or non-religious moral stances of their employees. I don't think that they should be required to make unreasonable accomodations. "Reasonable" being subject to negotiations.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would agree with that. "Reasonable" should be key.
I don't think a pharmacy that has only one pharmacist on shift at a time should be required to hire a pharmacist that would not dispense all prescribed drugs. I do think that a pharmacy that always has at least two on shift should (if he is the most qualified applicant in every other way.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I probably agree - as long as there is a difference between "should" and "should be required to". I do think that there are some reasonable accomodations employers should be required to make (handicap accessability for example) but I don't think this is one of them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I just wanted to say that birth control pills *usually* work by preventing ovulation but if ovulation occurs anyway, then they also work by preventing the fertilized egg to implant in the uterus.
This is something that I learned fairly recently, and know people who have stopped taking it because of this reason.
I think that for some(perhaps many) people this may be an important issue, yet they fail to mention it on the information page that is clearly aimed for the patients, rather than the medical professional, to read.
I realize that this may not be relavent to the main topic at hand, but I did want to give credence to the point raised by Christine.
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Jim-Me, It was a (perhaps inappropriate for this discussion) stab at the pro-life position based on potentiality – which seems to be an inevitable fallback for anyone who equates abortion and especially birth control with murder.
No, then I didn't miss your point at all. I got it completely and my original post stands 100%.
For starters, the pro-life position is not based on potentiality and does not equate birth control with murder.
Jim-Me,
Unfortunately, I don't have the time or the energy to properly discuss this at the moment(work and school are slowly killing me). And like I already said, such a discussion doesn't really belong in this thread anyway. I probably shouldn't have said anything to begin with.
Anyway, perhaps another time. If you're even interested, that is.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: [qb] I should have paid closer attention! The article very appropriately answered my question.
Unfortunately, I think your question is only very partially answered by that one article, as it doesn't address the other aspects I noted above that also make it likely that more embryos are lost. Thus, the other cites -- for the other issues.
But if this suffices for you, I'll happily leave it with the clarification (for you and other readers) that there are many other concerns than just viability of embryos at the margins of fertility window.
I think it answered my question simply because I needed to understand what the topic was, or what was meant by embryonic death and how it related to the rhythm method. I understand that there is a lot more to it, but I have enough to make my brain happy. Thanks!
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(I have a huge licensing exam in 6 days and am both studying like mad and sweating bullets. Big, heavy lead bullets popping out of every pore. Thankfully, there is an Irish folksinging night at the local pub down the way every Tuesday night, and my sweet pea knows how to drag me bodily through the street. I don't sing, but the ambiance is lovely and gentle.
Back to the trenches.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I almost called you, Kate, just so you could hear. It is wonderful! But my cell phone needs to be reprogrammed, and I didn't have my purse with your number.
I would love a visit.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it should be up to the store owner to decide whether to hire a pharmacist who conscientiously objects to selling certain pregnancy related bills. It shouldn't be illegal. Personally, I wouldn't hire one just like I wouldn't hire a cashier who would refuse to sell pork or certain books.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |