Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Posted on 10/15/2004 4:45:33 PM PDT by narses
A pharmacist is in the spotlight for refusing to fill a prescription for the abortifacient morning-after pill last month. Suzanne Richards reported to a local newspaper that Brooks pharmacist Todd Sklencar refused to fill her prescription when she drove up to the drive-through prescription counter. After initially being refused by Sklencar's assistant, she told the assistant that she had received the same prescription there before. Sklencar then came to the window and said he disagreed with abortion on moral grounds, and would not provide the prescription. He advised her to try another pharmacy. "He said something like, 'I believe this will end the fertilization of the egg and this conception was your choice,'" she described to Foster's Sunday Citizen. "I'm a single mother and I'm just trying to be responsible," Richards claimed. "When I realized what he was saying, I pulled the car over in the parking lot and just cried."
After returning to the pharmacy later that night with her father, she was refused a second time, Richards said. She said that when she was contacted by another Brooks pharmacist Tuesday to tell her the prescription was ready, it was too late for the so-called emergency contraception, which needs to be administered within 72 hours. New Hampshire is one of many states that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for any reason. Executive director of the New Hampshire Board of Pharmacy Paul Boisseau, said, however, that the pharmacist should refer the customer to an alternate dispensary. The same policy is held by the American Pharmacists Association, which, although allowing a "conscience clause," requires pharmacists to refer patients to an alternative source. Pharmacists for Life International president Karen Brauer told local WMUR Channel 9 News that requiring pharmacists to refer the patient to someone who will fill the prescription is "stupid." "If we're not going to kill a human being, we're not going to help the customer go do it somewhere else," she argued.
Ping for life.
What a jerk. Will he hold back pain medication because he doesn't believe in mind-altering drugs? Or anti-depressants? Or STD medication?
Do your job, buddy, and don't go making moral judgements.
How is the pharmacist's fault about the 72 hours if he initially told her to try another pharmacy, and she (a) pulled over and cried, and (b) she came back later than night with her father? He didn't take the prescription and refuse to return it? He refused to take it and suggested a different course of action. What am I missing?
Responsible means you don't get into this situation in the first place. Why don't they get that?
"Do your job, buddy, and don't go making moral judgements."
Really? Why not? Why is your 'moral judgment' superior to his?
Sinful human nature.
If she goes through with the pregnancy whe will thank this man after all. She will be mad at him until birth. She should know this too as a mother already.
I never claimed my moral judgement is superior. NOBODY should be making a moral judgement on legal prescriptions.
and yet here we go...another emergency...
So Zyklon-B for Treblinka is an order you'd fill?
I wonder exactly how many abortions this woman has had.
You already said it!
Try again with a more relevant argument.
For example, is this pharmacist filling prescriptions for Valtrex? If so, why is he not making a moral judgement on that?
"Try again with a more relevant argument."
But you said:
"NOBODY should be making a moral judgement on legal prescriptions."
Zyklon-B was legal.
Try a better counter.
Why should employment suspend conscience?
Zyklon-B was used for PEST control.
Your analogy is ridiculous.
The "pests" at Treblinka were Jews my Lunatic Fringe FRiend. Perhaps your education is faulty, perhaps you didn't know this. If that is the case, my apologies for being less than clear.
I am well aware of this. Zyklon-B was legal, as you said, but used for pest control and was not dispensed by a pharmacist whose job it was to provide medical treatment. This pharmacist should have simply directed her to another pharmacy rather than stand there preaching at her about her "choice." That was completely out of line.
I never claimed my moral judgement is superior. NOBODY should be making a moral judgement on legal prescriptions.
The issue may not be as simple as that and it may require a court decision to clarify such cases.
While the prescription may be legal, the legal issue is that the pharmacist is being put in the position of being an active participant in an abortion.
In my particular case as a radiologist, I found myself being used as such an active participant in the abortion process by being sent second trimester patients for ultrasound dating in order to determine how best to abort them.
My response was, "Sorry, I will not be an active participant in the abortion process."
There was a stink about that which even included an editorial against me in the local paper.
The matter was resolved when the editor of the paper received a letter from my law firm pointing out that my refusal to be an active participant in the abortion process was fully protected by my First Amendment rights.
The following week, the editor published my law firms letter, acknowledged that I was exercising a Constitutional right and that was the end of that.
Abortion is "medical treatment"?
Are you confused about what this medicine does? It does *NOT* cause abortions. It is a medication that prevents a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in the uteran wall. This is not RU-486.
This medicine, if a woman is already pregnant, has no affect on the unborn child.
Yes, this is splitting hairs. But it does not take away from my original statement, on which you seem incapable of remaing focused. He has NO RIGHT to stand there and preach at her, passing a moral judgement on her.
It is ABORTION. It kills a fertilized egg, an egg that otherwise would be able to live and develop and be born. Abortion it is.
God Bless you!
You still continue to miss the point. Oh well.
Dead babies are the point. Morality is the point. The freedom of religion, association, free speech and action, these are the points. I get it. Your inability to get it is sad.
Do your job, buddy, and don't go making moral judgements.
Let us see, in and before World War II, there were people who thought like you do in Germany.
Just pull the trigger on the machine gun, and gun down innocent lives, right!
Just do your job, stupid!
For some of us, a human life is a human life.
At conception, a human being is at the most unique part of the human existence -- the new life has just been given a mother (the egg) and a father (sperm).
The new life, on that person's own, will start developing and growing until...
Where you only a human being when you reached the age of 3 years old? Or was it when you could type on computer?
Read the entire thread before you fire off your mouth.
This is not even about abortion. It's about an EMPLOYEE standing in a public place lecturing a woman about her choices in life. What gives this horse's rear, or his assitant, the moral superiority to do that?
Like I said, he should have just told her to go to another pharmacy, and be done with it.
My mouth had nothing to do with this.
And if you have the capability to read, you would see the that the person in the person gave the woman the choice to go to another pharmacy.
She declined the choice.
Maybe you should try to look closer at the article before making judgements on other people.
Many people blindly did things in the Third Reich without thinking about the consequences.
This person in the pharmacy considered the consequences and acted according to what his moral obligations were.
He might have had trouble living with the fact he had helped take an innocent life.
It is not uncommon for women who have had abortions to turn to alcohol and drugs, and even attempt suicide.
But if you believe Planned Parenthood and NARAL, you will not realize that this man may have helped save this woman from Breast Cancer.
He did tell her to go to another pharmacy, but he also exercised his Freedom of Speech.
Maybe only your Freedom of Speech matters and not mine.
That gets closer to what happened in the South with the KKK and in Germany in the 1930's and 1940's.
People were muzzled in both cases.
It is an abortion -- it is the termination of a pregnancy.
And such a termination is shown to be a cause of Breast Cancer.
So in a sense, the person in the pharmacy is giving sound medical advice, which is something I have not heard in what you have posted.
If someone was going to commit murder, would you sell him a gun?
What happens is that at conception a process starts that the body of the mother reacts to -- produces harmones.
When the process is abruptly stopped, these harmones are shut off, which is a radical change to the body.
Statistically, it has been proven that abortion is a cause of Breast Cancer.
The guy in the pharmacy, in this sense, was doing something, whether he was cognizant or not, of preventing the mother from getting Breast Cancer.
Why not? and You do?
And too many woman are victims of abortion, where they are miserable after having one -- feeling there was no choice for them.
Enough said. Don't want a baby? Don't fool around. It's pretty simple, really.
Consider, my FRiend, the broader ramifications of your reasoning. If one saw a mugging in an alley and walked on by making no attempt to hail the policeman standing on the nearby corner, could he use the moral relativism argument to justify his ommission? What if the victim were you or I?
Cognitive dissonance has taken an erosive toll on the horrific practice of induced abortion at the cultural level. If you live among something long enough, you get used to it. Objectively, and assuming as seems the case that you are an intelligent person with an ultimate Basis for right and wrong, the moral weight of the act does not change.
Ping.
Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
I use hormonal contraception to care for a medical issue. Very recently, I had a bit of a run-in with a pharmacy tech when trying to pick up my refill.
She grabbed the prescription out of the bin, looked at what it was, and then stared intently at my left hand. Seeing an engagement ring but no wedding band, she asked me if I was married. I replied in the negative, and she refused to give me the meds on the grounds that doing so "would allow an unmarried woman to engage in sinful behavior." I then was treated to a diatrebe on the horror of premarital sex and that she would only give contraceptives to a married woman.
She had no idea WHY a customer would be getting such medication. She had no right to tell me that I was evil for using birth control (albeit not for that purpose) as an unmarried woman. It's a legal medication, legally prescribed. The reason for that prescription is the business of my doctor and me - not a stranger who makes assumptions and moral judgements. I believe I was called a "harlot" among other things. It was a real scene, and extremely embarassing.
Finally the pharmacist came running over, sent her packing, and gave me my refill. He apologized profusely. It doesn't matter - I will be going elsewhere in the future.
I have not seen the woman working there since.
There is a family physician in our small town that notifies all new patients that he will not prescribe any kind of birth control, due to his religious faith.
=== Zyklon-B was legal.------ Zyklon-B was used for PEST control.
Clearly, you do not understand the thinking -- a/k/a "moral judgment" -- of those who legalize drugs like Zyklon-B or RU-486 in the first place. To wit:
THE GREATEST THREAT TO MANKIND: HUMAN PROCREATION:
OVERPOPULATION
HON. GEORGE BUSH
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, June 30, 1969
[pp. 17926-17927]
Mr. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population, I would like to comment on two newcomers to the Washington scene. They are Dr. Philip Handler, the new president of the National Academy of Sciences and Dr. Roger Olaf Egeberg, the Assistant HEW Secretary for Health and Scientific Affairs subject to his confirmation by the Senate. I was extremely heartened by the sense of urgency expressed by both of these national leaders on the problems of overpopulation and dwindling resources. In a recent interview with This Week magazine, Dr. Handler stated:
"The greatest threat to the human race is man's own procreation. Hunger, pollution, crime, overlarge, dirty cities-even the seething unrest that leads to international conflict and war-all derive from the unbridled growth of human populations. It is imperative that we begin a research campaign in human reproductive physiology. Second to the problem of overproduction is that of feeding the world. As we look toward the end of this century, we get closer to the time when the total food supply becomes limiting. If we do not provide more food, we face worldwide famine."Dr. Egeberg has displayed his keen awareness of the crisis our world is facing by emphasizing that at the top of his list of priorities will be intensified efforts in environmental and population control through technological innovations and family planning, the reclamation of waste products, and the development of a low pollution automobile.
We look to these two men for dynamic and purposeful leadership as the new administration charts its course.
I include at this point in the record the text of the interview with Dr. Handler:
OVERPOPULATION: NEW SCIENCE PRESIDENT SEES IT AS GREATEST THREAT TO MANKIND "Man is on the threshold of a biological revolution," says biochemist Philip Handler. "It will influence the life of each of us Just as greatly as the industrial revolution affected every living person."
On July 1, Dr. Handler will leave his position as chairman of the Department of Biochemistry at Duke University Medical Center to become president of the National Academy of Sciences. This organization of the country's 846 most esteemed scientists serves as official advisor to the government on matters of science and technology.
This Week interviewed Dr. Handler about his views on what lies ahead in the biological sciences.
TW. Will you define what you mean "biological revolution"?
Dr. Handler. I mean that our understanding of living things is now so comprehensive that we should Soon be able to apply that information to human affairs, in order to improve the condition of man.
TW. In what major areas will this knowledge be put to work?
Dr. Handler. In population control, food production, health, control of the environment, and directing the evolution of our own species.
TW. Any reason for the order of your list?
Dr. Handler. The greatest threat to the human race is man's own procreation. Hunger; pollution; crime; overlarge, dirty cities--even the seething unrest that leads to international conflict and war--all derive from the unbridled growth of human populations. It is imperative that we begin a research campaign in human reproductive physiology.
TW. Don't we already know enough?
Dr. Handler. We thought we were quite knowledgeable, until today's problems pinned us to the wall. Our knowledge turned out to be primitive.
The oral contraceptive pill and lUDs (intrauterine contraceptive devices) have been successful because they divorce the act of sex from the act of using contraception. What we now need is a cheap, safe mechanism in which failure to use contraceptives would result in failure to conceive, rather than the present situation, which is the other way around--failure results in conception.
TW. What's the outlook for this?
Dr. Handler. There are several approaches--by immunology, particularly--which offer some promise.
.... cont'd at link.
Congressional Record, September 5, 1969
HEARING HIGHLIGHTS
HON. GEORGE BUSH
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, September 4, 1969Mr. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, the weeks before recess our Republican Task Force on Earth Resources and Population held three hearings.
The subjects discussed at these hearings were: the hereditary aspects of human quality, that activities of the Earth Resources Survey Program Review Committee, and the environmental problems created by our rapid rate of population growth.
So that all Members of the House can share the information we heard, I offer our hearing highlights for the RECORD:
HEARING HIGHLIGHTS, TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1969 Dr. Williams Shockley, Professor, Stanford University.
Dr. Arthur Jensen, Professor, University of California at Berkeley.
Dr. Shockley stated that he feels the National Academy of Sciences has an intellectual obligation to make a clear and relevant presentation of the facts about hereditary aspects of human quality. Furthermore, he claimed our well-intentioned social welfare programs may be unwittingly producing a down breeding of the quality of the U.S. population.
Specifically, Dr. Shockley feels the National Academy of Sciences should answer the following question: "Is or is not your 1967 statement on Human Genetics and Urban Slums now clearly out of date and unsound as a result of the analysis published in the Winter, 1969 issue of the Harvard Educational Review by Dr. Jensen and its subsequent review by Dr. Crow?"
Dr. Shockley believes that such a question is partially justified on the basis that one of 3 authors of that 1967 statement, Dr. James Crow, now seems to feel that the statements fails to adequately consider new theories of genetic quality.
On the basis of studies completed by Dr. Arthur Jensen, Dr. Shockley claimed: "I believe that the voting citizens of the United States can and should endeavor to make their government seek objectivity to formulate programs so that every baby born has high probability of leading a dignified, rewarding and satisfying life. Letters from government organizations show that hereditary factors are essentially excluded from present studies of our social problems.
... highlights from August 7, 1969, and highlights from August 12, 1969 (Paul Ehrlich)...
.
Proofreading ALL THE WAY through is so important ...
It doesn't matter - I will be going elsewhere in the future.I have not seen the woman working there since.
It's a supermarket pharmacy. I shop there for groceries but will get my prescriptions elsewhere.
I wouldn't have a problem with that. No doctor should be required to perform an abortion, and if prescribing birth control is against a doctor's faith then the ball falls in the patient's court to decide if that doctor meets their needs or not.
My family practice doctor will not give referrals to patients who want an abortion. She will gladly give them phone numbers for crisis pregnancy groups, and provide prenatal care, but she will have nothing to do with helping patients get an abortion. That's her choice and I respect her greatly for it.
What about providing the poison pill for the elderly or retarded person? Is the unborn child less worthy of life?
How can you go on living without "making moral judgements"? How can you look in the mirror?
"Should"?! Did you use the word "should"? You are CONTRADICTING yourself.
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.