Posted on 02/08/2006 2:00:13 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
BARRON, WI (AP) - A judge has upheld sanctions against a pharmacist who refused to dispense birth control pills to a college student and wouldn't transfer her prescription elsewhere.
Barron County Circuit Judge James Babler affirmed the punishment the state Pharmacy Examining Board handed down against pharmacist Neil Noesen. The board ruled last April that Noesen failed to carry out his responsibility to get the prescription to someone else if he wouldn't fill it himself.
The board reprimanded Noesen, of St. Paul, Minn., and ordered him to attend ethics classes. He will get to keep his license if he informs all future employers in writing he won't dispense birth control pills and the steps he would take to make sure a patient has access to medication. He was also found liable for the cost of the proceedings against him, which came to about $20,000.
He was working as a substitute pharmacist at a Menomonie Kmart in 2002 when a University of Wisconsin-Stout student came in to refill her birth control pills. Noesen testified he asked her whether she would use the pills for contraception, and he refused to help her or return the prescription when she answered yes.
Noesen told the board he is a devout Roman Catholic. He said he refused to refill the pills or release her prescription to another pharmacy because he didn't want to commit a sin.
Whoops! You were not the one who posted #311. Sorry. My mistake. (Though my point as to the invalidity of the argument still stands.)
I think it depends. But I do agree, it is a risk one takes and all should understand that before making it.
Yeah so? How does all of this affect his right to make a statement of conscience and accept the consequences?
Refusing to fill a prescription, refusing to transfer it and refusing to return it are not rights of the "so-called Christians" especially those who are followers of the Pediophile Hierarchy.
Oh never mind, I get it, you're an anti Catholic bigot so Catholics have no rights of conscience.
Why didn't you just say that in the first place? Could have saved some time.
I agree -- and there was at least one instance of Godwin's Law earlier. I think I overreached a bit there.
I guess the question at hand is whether a pharmacist who refuses a valid perscription is adversly interefering with a purely medical process.
The doctor perscribes, the pharmicist fills. If the pharmacist refuses to fulfill, he/she is interefering with medical treatment.
Whether that refusal is founded in theology is not relevant to the basic question here: Can a pharmacist refuse to fill a valid medical perscription for ANY reason?
My take is No. The pharmacist is not trained to second-guess a doctor's medical analysis. If they were, they would be a doctor, not a pharmacist.
And you have to agree that not returning the perscription was over the line. THAT is what caused the $20K cost and to be frank, if someone stole my perscription I would have them arrested, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, sue them, ensure their license was revoked and ensure they never, ever had the chance to impose their opinion over mine or anyone else's again.
So if you have a xerox of a picture of your Mom in your hand and I steal it, it isn't stealing?
And this is NOT an extreme example. Theft isn't determined by the value of the property. That just establishes degree.
That is the problem with being a child -- you have so much to learn yet so much to say.
I say no. There is no legal or fiduciary value to that xerox. Thus it isn't stealing--at least by the letter of the law.
You do raise a valid point on the sentimental (personal) level. However, we aren't dealing with the sentimental, just the legal and fiduciary values--the case is far past that. It is thus my understanding that any major application of law isn't exactly concerned about items that have no legal or fiduciary value.
Generally, fiduciary value refers things that are worth more than five cents.
An example of this is trash/garbage. Garbage has no legal or fiduciary value--ergo, if I dive into your trash bin ten minutes before the garbagemen arrive and take last night's pizza box--it isn't stealing.
This isn't to say that a prescription or a photograph is garbage. Such items have no legal or fiduciary value--i.e. pay stubs, xeroxes, my term paper from last semester, etc.
I'll grant you that I'm only a political sci student (going into law after undergrad), I'm not a wise person, and that I'm learning every day.
i am telling you taking something frome someon else is a crime irrespective of value
by the letter of the law
oh and garbage is considered "abandoned" by law if on the curb
if you go into my back yarrd and steal my garbage you have commited two crimes - theft and trespassing
He's not a libertarian.
He's an idiot.
Intangible property would be things such as bank accounts, stock, real estate, etc.
Under the reading of the statute--it could be argued that a prescription would be moving property, but based on the context and my understanding, the paper holding the prescription wouldn't qualify.
Taking something is the general definition of theft. But for someone to actually be found guilty of theft and punished under our system of law, there has to be some set standard--hence the statute defines what must qualify as theft.
Here's another way of looking at it. Murder simply isn't the taking of a human life--or is it?
oh and garbage is considered "abandoned" by law if on the curb
That's primarily why it has no legal value. While a prescription isn't considered abandoned, it holds no legal value because it's merely a signed set of instructions.
It'd be the same thing as if I wrote instructions on how to install an operating system on your computer and then signed the instructions. Do they have legal value? Not really. Practical and personal value? Yes.
But as I've said, we're not concerned with practical and personal value of the prescription--we're beyond this point.
Excuse me??? Pedophile hierarchy??? I follow the precepts and tenants of my faith, I do not follow a hierarchy. BTW, less than three percent of priests were involved in the scandal that most of the Catholic laity, including myself, knew nothing about.
YOU are an anti-catholic BIGOT. Now we all understand what really shaped your opinion regarding this case.
From the article, the script in question was for birth control pills...not RU486. RU486 would cause an abortion; regular birth control pills prevent, not terminate a pregnancy.
And for the record, not all scripts for birth control are for the prevention of pregnancy. The low dose of hormones in the pill can be used to regulate menstruation; lessen endometrial pain; and even assist in clearing cystic acne. A pharmacist would have no knowledge as to why a certain rx was prescribed. Antibiotic scripts can be written for STDs...or for something as common as a sinus infection. HIPAA regulations protect the patients right to privacy.
This pharmacist should have discussed his beliefs with his supervisors at KMart, and some plan of action regarding birth control should have been reached to protect the pharmacist's moral beliefs; KMart's non-discriminatory hiring practices; and the patients' right to have a script filled. However, if the pharmacist accepted the job at KMart without advising his supervisors of his religious issues with birth control, he is the one at fault. Also...the script is the property of the patient; ie., part of the patient's medical record. A pharmacist has no right to retain this record.
Im not labeling Catholics as "so-called Christians. That label fits that tiny minority that continue to live in the dark ages and insist on forcing their beliefs onto others. Most Catholics use birth control.
It doesnt. You folks want to relieve him of all consequences. He's free to be an ass but he's now obligated to pay $20,000.
Stolen or forged rxs are another matter...but that is not pertinent to the topic as there is allegation of tampering.
Are not the Pope, the Cardinals, Arch-bishops, etc. who hid the scandal and protected criminals from prosecution and put them back in position to recommit their crimes not the same people that tell you that birth control is murder. So much for credibility. Show me where in the Bible, Jesus says taking birth control bills is abortion? So you in the layity are the good Germans and you knew nothing.
(Keep in mind I'm a PoliSci student studying as pre-law...)
The law appears to be unclear whether the medical record would be considered to be intangible property and thus Noesen's actions would be covered under the theft statute.
Though I would think any action against him by the state would be by the state pharmacy board.
Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, and the works of Pope John Paul II all allude to the strength of Church teaching, the supreme sanctity of innocent human life, and how artificial methods cheapen, and ultimately defeat this sacrosanct principle.
You still haven't explained why you label us Catholics as following a Pedophile Hierarchy.
My guess is that there's some anti-Catholicism at work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.