[Moved from Am Politics] "Pro Life" Pharmacist is okay with woman bleeding to death

[revanneosl]

This is what is called "conscience".

 

[Jro]

It seems like the pharmacist is actually trying to punish women who have had an abortion, not simply prevent an abortion. I can't wait until the rest of our medical community is allowed to make similar decisions. "No surgery for him, he looks shifty to me."

 

[Grizzly]

Pro-Life*.




*some exceptions apply.

 

[Krummholz]

Are we ridiculing and condemning an entire set of values (pro-life), and the people who hold them because of the actions of one person?

 

[revanneosl]

No, we're being absolutely unsurprised that so-called "conscience clauses" can result in some pretty horrifying outcomes.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I read the article - it says nothing abut any patient bleeding to death or about to bleed to death; in fact it says absolutely nothing about the patient's condition at all.

It should be noted that if Planned [non]Parenthood didn't perform abortions, there'd be no need to dispense medications like methergine. It seems to me the CAUSE for any bleeding is directly and solely the responsibility of Planned [non]Parenthood and Planned [non]Parenthood alone.

It further seems to me that it's Planned Parenthood (an oxymoron if ever there was one, btw) that is demonstrating the lesser concern for their 'patients' bleeding (since they're the ones who are the direct cause of it) than a pharmacist who refuses to dispense a medicine to someone who refuses to give cause for its dispensation.

Completely misplaced concern if you ask me.

As to the law, the law protects medical professionals from being sued for refusing services on the basis of their religious, moral, or ethical principles. Dispensing a drug to someone they know is performing abortions is fundamentally aiding and abetting the practice of abortion. Suing the pharmacist in this case is tantamount to believing they should be forced to participate in practices that violate their religious, moral, or ethical principles - by people who neither believe or possess such principles themselves - whereby such a law, if enacted, would be favoring one group's principles over another's.

 

[Douger]

Huh, nothing in their about anyone identifying as "Pro Life" or anyone bleeding to death. Oh well.

 

[EdwinWillers]

I think Planned [non]Parenthood was more peeved at being hung up on than not getting their prescription.

What I'd like to know is why Planned [non]Parenthood didn't call the prescription in to their normal pharmacy? Why did they target (take aim, zero in on, whatever) this particular pharmacy? Worth asking...

 

[Umaro]

As to the law, the law protects medical professionals from being sued for refusing services on the basis of their religious, moral, or ethical principles. Dispensing a drug to someone they know is performing abortions is fundamentally aiding and abetting the practice of abortion. Suing the pharmacist in this case is tantamount to believing they should be forced to participate in practices that violate their religious, moral, or ethical principles - by people who neither believe or possess such principles themselves - whereby such a law, if enacted, would be favoring one group's principles over another's.

But distributing prescription drugs is the pharmacists job specifically. They should not be able to pick and choose who they service. What if someone came in needing asthma medication and I objected on moral grounds? "God doesn't want you to breathe" or something. The fact of the matter is that as a pharmacist it is your job to fill prescriptions that doctors write, and if you can't do that, don't become a pharmacist. Patients should be able to get whatever legal and prescribed medication they need, regardless of someone's personal feelings on the matter.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I think the pharmacist was wrong in this. She's allowed to refuse meds that induce abortion, yet this drug is used for women who have had abortion or childbirth. She was upset she didn't tell him if it was from an abortion when she asked, wanting her privacy, and so then refused to give her this medication. Pretty gray area of the law there. It could carry over to other groups of people and activities as well.

 

[Jro]

I read the article - it says nothing abut any patient bleeding to death or about to bleed to death; in fact it says absolutely nothing about the patient's condition at all.

It should be noted that if Planned [non]Parenthood didn't perform abortions, there'd be no need to dispense medications like methergine. It seems to me the CAUSE for any bleeding is directly and solely the responsibility of Planned [non]Parenthood and Planned [non]Parenthood alone.

Methergine is prescribed for bleeding after abortions and after childbirth. The article said her life could depend on getting that medication.

It further seems to me that it's Planned Parenthood (an oxymoron if ever there was one, btw) that is demonstrating the lesser concern for their 'patients' bleeding (since they're the ones who are the direct cause of it) than a pharmacist who refuses to dispense a medicine to someone who refuses to give cause for its dispensation.

Planned parenthood performs an abortion, a legal operation. If there were complications from any other legal operations, you could expect that a doctor's prescription would be respected.

As to the law, the law protects medical professionals from being sued for refusing services on the basis of their religious, moral, or ethical principles. Dispensing a drug to someone they know is performing abortions is fundamentally aiding and abetting the practice of abortion. Suing the pharmacist in this case is tantamount to believing they should be forced to participate in practices that violate their religious, moral, or ethical principles - by people who neither believe or possess such principles themselves - whereby such a law, if enacted, would be favoring one group's principles over another's.

Methergine is used to prevent bleeding. Whether you respect her decisions in the past or not, a woman should be able to expect to not bleed out in a hospital. Not prescribing won't cause the baby to come back to life, all it does is deny a woman life saving medication. It's not a pharmacist's job to evaluate and punish us. It would be like a doctor refusing to treat a gunshot victim because 'he looks like a criminal.'

 

[RETS]

I read the article - it says nothing abut any patient bleeding to death or about to bleed to death; in fact it says absolutely nothing about the patient's condition at all.

It should be noted that if Planned [non]Parenthood didn't perform abortions, there'd be no need to dispense medications like methergine. It seems to me the CAUSE for any bleeding is directly and solely the responsibility of Planned [non]Parenthood and Planned [non]Parenthood alone.

It further seems to me that it's Planned Parenthood (an oxymoron if ever there was one, btw) that is demonstrating the lesser concern for their 'patients' bleeding (since they're the ones who are the direct cause of it) than a pharmacist who refuses to dispense a medicine to someone who refuses to give cause for its dispensation.

Completely misplaced concern if you ask me.

As to the law, the law protects medical professionals from being sued for refusing services on the basis of their religious, moral, or ethical principles. Dispensing a drug to someone they know is performing abortions is fundamentally aiding and abetting the practice of abortion. Suing the pharmacist in this case is tantamount to believing they should be forced to participate in practices that violate their religious, moral, or ethical principles - by people who neither believe or possess such principles themselves - whereby such a law, if enacted, would be favoring one group's principles over another's.

I wanted to comment, but I really can't add a whole lot to this- Well said.

 

[GodGunsAndGlory]

I think the pharmacist was wrong in this. She's allowed to refuse meds that induce abortion, yet this drug is used for women who have had abortion or childbirth. She was upset she didn't tell him if it was from an abortion when she asked, wanting her privacy, and so then refused to give her this medication. Pretty gray area of the law there. It could carry over to other groups of people and activities as well.

Another "libertarian."

The question is, why is it they needed this drug, but keep telling us we need to keep abortion legal because its safer then the alternative of women getting back alley abortions, yet they don't have the proper supplies to deal with the supposed problem.

So the question is, is Planned Parenthood admitting malpractice or are they exaggerating which they know they would get away with because no one in the media would challenge it. Its quite obviously the latter, due to the fact Planned Parenthood does not have it in stock, but its a interesting tactic.

Another question is, why the heck does she need something thats to stop bleeding from child birth, sounds like a partial birth abortion, admitting to something illegal while exaggerating claims, funny.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Another "libertarian."

Yes, I'm a "libertarian." So?

The question is, why is it they needed this drug, but keep telling us we need to keep abortion legal because its safer then the alternative of women getting back alley abortions, yet they don't have the proper supplies to deal with the supposed problem.

They being the medical industry. This part of your post is confusing. Already stated, the drug is to stop bleeding, whether from abortion, partial births, full childbirth. When you say they don't have proper supplies to deal with the supposed problem....sure 'they' do, it's products like this pill.

So the question is, is Planned Parenthood admitting malpractice or are they exaggerating which they know they would get away with because no one in the media would challenge it. Its quite obviously the latter, due to the fact Planned Parenthood does not have it in stock, but its a interesting tactic.

Planned Parenthood doesn't keep most drugs in stock, that's what pharmacies are for.

Another question is, why the heck does she need something thats to stop bleeding from child birth, sounds like a partial birth abortion, admitting to something illegal while exaggerating claims, funny.

The point is she needed it medically and the pharmacist did not wish to give her something she medically needed.

And who in this article was admitting to anything illegal while exaggerating claims??

 

[EdwinWillers]

But distributing prescription drugs is the pharmacists job specifically. They should not be able to pick and choose who they service.

Of course they should - and they do have that right; every business owner has that right. No one *MUST" offer their services to someone else; we are not at that point (yet) where the government forces business owners to conduct business on demand, regardless. Business owners have every right - every legitimate and moral right to serve whom they please and reject their services to whomever they please.

What if someone came in needing asthma medication and I objected on moral grounds? "God doesn't want you to breathe" or something.

Welll, what if you represented my congress and a majority in the nation came to you asking you not to pass Obamacare, on moral, financial, and constitutional grounds, and you objected on moral grounds? "We don't care what you want" or something.

The fact of the matter is that as a pharmacist it is your job to fill prescriptions that doctors write, and if you can't do that, don't become a pharmacist. Patients should be able to get whatever legal and prescribed medication they need, regardless of someone's personal feelings on the matter.

There is no such "fact of the matter." There is no law requiring this pharmacist to issue a prescription of methergine on demand. None. Moreover, were such a law to exist, the pharmacy would then be required, btw, to STOCK methegrine - required by the federal government to purchase it, to have it on hand in case anyone prescribed it they would have it. Such a law, as we've seen, has already been proven unconstitutional - so the point is moot, and the "fact of the matter" non-existent.

 

[revanneosl]

Planned Parenthood provides the full range of reproductive health services.

It is entirely possible that this woman needed the medication to stop bleeding in the wake of a myomectomy to remove uterine fibroid tumors or a D&C procedure to treat polycystic ovary syndrome, or even to remove retained placenta after a normal childbirth.

Is the pharmacist a jerk now?

 

[EdwinWillers]

Methergine is prescribed for bleeding after abortions and after childbirth. The article said her life could depend on getting that medication.

No, the Planned [non]Parenthood worker peeved at being hung up on said their patient's health "could" depend on getting that medication. We are given no facts about the patient at all, just the worker's personal commentary.

Planned parenthood performs an abortion, a legal operation. If there were complications from any other legal operations, you could expect that a doctor's prescription would be respected.

Drinking booze is legal too - doesn't mean a bartender needs to respect every patron's wishes and serve them on demand.

Methergine is used to prevent bleeding. Whether you respect her decisions in the past or not, a woman should be able to expect to not bleed out in a hospital.

We know what methergine is used for - in this context, it's to prevent bleeding as a consequence of a procedure to abort a baby. And Planned [non]Parenthood clinics are not hospitals; and this is not about any woman's decision to go there to abort her baby. This is about the pharmacist's legal right to serve whom they please (in this case, Planned [non]Parenthood), regardless the reason.

Trying to pin or lay blame on the pharmacist for what might happen to a woman who goes to Planned [non]Parenthood to abort her baby, for what might happen as a DIRECT result of the procedure Planned [non]Parenthood performs on the woman simply reeks of blame-shifting. Disgusting.

Not prescribing won't cause the baby to come back to life, all it does is deny a woman life saving medication. It's not a pharmacist's job to evaluate and punish us.

No, and none of this is taking place in the pharmacist's decision not to fill a prescription. The pharmacist is not responsible for the baby's death, nor is the pharmacist responsible for any bleeding that might result as a consequence of the procedure done by Planned [non]Parenthood.

Trying to impute such a responsibility to the pharmacist, to place the blame at their feet for any consequences the woman might suffer at the hands of Planned [non]Parenthood, regardless their reason for not filling that prescription, is a far worse crime.

Maybe Planned [non]Parenthood should get their own pharmacists to dispense their anti-bleeding medications. For the sake of their victims, and knowing there are those who object to what they do, it would seem a compassionate (ostensibly their purpose, btw) thing - not to mention prudent thing to do.

It would be like a doctor refusing to treat a gunshot victim because 'he looks like a criminal.'

Well, since we're using metaphors to justify our moral positions in this matter, frankly if I were a doctor and there was someone out there "legally" shooting people every day, at some point I'd come to the conclusion all I'm doing is aiding and abetting whomever is pumping people full of lead and decide not to help their victims anymore.

If that's wrong, sue me.

 

[katherine2001]

Also, why is it the pharmacist's business why the woman needed the prescription?

For all of those who see nothing wrong with the pharmacist's actions, how would you like it if when you took a prescription in to get filled, the pharmacist started asking you all kinds of questions about why you needed the drug? The fact is, it is none of the pharmacist's business!

 

[EdwinWillers]

Planned Parenthood provides the full range of reproductive health services.

Perhaps, but that's not the point. They also exist as one of the primary supporters and providers of abortion services. For most who find the practice of abortion abhorent, that they provide other worthy services is reasonably overshadowed by that particular "service."

It is entirely possible that this woman needed the medication to stop bleeding in the wake of a myomectomy to remove uterine fibroid tumors or a D&C procedure to treat polycystic ovary syndrome, or even to remove retained placenta after a normal childbirth.

Is the pharmacist a jerk now?

It doesn't matter what the actual reason is for the medication, or what the medication is, the need, or who the patient is. Heck, were it me, I wouldn't sell them aspirin across the counter. The pharmacist in this case took issue with the customer, not the customer's client.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Also, why is it the pharmacist's business why the woman needed the prescription?

For all of those who see nothing wrong with the pharmacist's actions, how would you like it if when you took a prescription in to get filled, the pharmacist started asking you all kinds of questions about why you needed the drug? The fact is, it is none of the pharmacist's business!

True, maybe they shouldn't have asked the question. But they knew who the customer was, which is what prompted the question. Knowing it was Planned Parenthood is what elicited it. So let's grant they shouldn't have asked; fine.

No, it's none of their business what the drug was for; but the pharmacist still has every right to refuse to do business with PP, and that without repercussion. Had they simply refused to do business with PP, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion, at least not this specific one.