- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Walgreens pharmacist denies pregnant woman miscarriage medication over his ethical beliefs
Posted on 6/25/18 at 4:51 pm to TH03
Posted on 6/25/18 at 4:51 pm to TH03
quote:Why do you need laws in place if the objective is to provide care for the betterment of the patient? Seems to me this allows personal bias to be applied under the rouse of morals
Seriously?
Things are a bit different when talking about human lives.
0
Posted on 6/25/18 at 4:51 pm to MontyFranklyn
It’s not discrimination though. It’s saying that due to your religious/moral beliefs you can’t take part in that act.
Can I refuse to care for a patient in a hospital because they just had an abortion? Absolutely not.
Can I refuse to assist with the actual abortion itself (which goes against my religious beliefs) and arrange for another nurse that doesn’t object to assist? Of course.
Can I refuse to care for a patient in a hospital because they just had an abortion? Absolutely not.
Can I refuse to assist with the actual abortion itself (which goes against my religious beliefs) and arrange for another nurse that doesn’t object to assist? Of course.
Posted on 6/25/18 at 4:52 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:Doctors already are allowed to do that.
Won't that allow for Drs. to refuse care to anyone at anytime based on their beliefs?
You couldn’t force Scruffy to perform an abortion. Scruffy can also refuse to perform a procedure if the outcome is unethical or immoral in his opinion, such as placing a trach in a patient where it would have little to no benefit, against the wishes of the parents.
At the same time, every physician is legally mandated to perform acute life saving care, well, at least in an acute ER setting.
This post was edited on 6/25/18 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 6/25/18 at 4:54 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
But why are laws in place to protect their right to discriminate based on morals/ethics?
Posted on 6/25/18 at 4:55 pm to Scruffy
quote:I get that and that's where the free market comes into place, because someone else will. You shouldn't be forced to perform an abortion, no one should. It concerns me that someone may not want to administer care based on their morals and it be totally discriminatory based on something else. That just seems like a problem to me, especially if this person dies or is harmed permanently
Doctors already are allowed to do that.
You couldn’t force Scruffy to perform an abortion. Scruffy can also refuse to perform a procedure if the outcome is unethical or immoral.
At the same time, every physician is legally mandated to perform acute life saving care, well, at least in an acute ER setting.
Posted on 6/25/18 at 4:57 pm to Scruffy
Hey Scruffy, have you seen the interview by the Female Doctor on facebook saying how transgender is a Mental Illness. And comparing doctors doing these gender reassignment surgeries to Doctors that would amputate a healthy appendage.
Posted on 6/25/18 at 5:00 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:
concerns me that someone may not want to administer care based on their morals
What do you think refusing to assist/perform an abortion is?
Posted on 6/25/18 at 5:04 pm to MontyFranklyn
quote:Scruffy supports everyone’s right to do that.
I get that and that's where the free market comes into place, because someone else will. You shouldn't be forced to perform an abortion, no one should. It concerns me that someone may not want to administer care based on their morals and it be totally discriminatory based on something else. That just seems like a problem to me, especially if this person dies or is harmed permanently
The situation would take care of itself in the end without legislation.
Posted on 6/25/18 at 5:05 pm to CarRamrod
quote:No.
Hey Scruffy, have you seen the interview by the Female Doctor on facebook saying how transgender is a Mental Illness. And comparing doctors doing these gender reassignment surgeries to Doctors that would amputate a healthy appendage.
Scruffy doesn’t get on Facebook.
Posted on 6/25/18 at 5:23 pm to Scruffy
Scruffy at least watches ZDogg videos on YouTube right?
Otherwise Scruffy is seriously missing out
Otherwise Scruffy is seriously missing out
Posted on 6/25/18 at 5:25 pm to lsunurse
quote:ok. I just have a different view when I think of abortions. I never really considered a prescription as assisting, but I guess it falls under assisting
What do you think refusing to assist/perform an abortion is?
Posted on 6/25/18 at 6:00 pm to lsunurse
That guy who raps?
Yea, he is great.
Yea, he is great.
Posted on 6/25/18 at 6:22 pm to Scruffy
His recent medemoji (using the iPhone emojis) videos crack me up.
Especially the lab one (the bear) and the ER vs ICU nurses one(Fox vs cat)
Especially the lab one (the bear) and the ER vs ICU nurses one(Fox vs cat)
Posted on 6/25/18 at 6:53 pm to lsunurse
For the sake of clarity here:
Only about 15% of Ob/Gyn's perform abortions (medical or surgical). Not all who refrain from performing this procedure do so for religious reasons (often simply moral/ethical objections not based on religious grounds or otherwise), but the point is 85% of Ob/Gyn's do not offer abortion services.
Misoprostol (Cytotec) alone is not commonly used to induce abortions in live pregnancies in this country (most often used in combination with Mifepristone). Misoprostol alone is very commonly used for the purpose of inducing evacuation of the uterine contents in the setting of a non-viable pregnancy (anembryonic gestation, intrauterine fetal demise in any trimester, etc). The drug is also an OB/Gyn jack of all trades, not many days go by that I don't use it for something (cervical ripening ahead of oxytocin labor induction, stand alone for labor induction, postpartum hemorrhage, treatment for miscarriage as described above or cervical preparation for various gynecologic procedures to name a few).
I think the Pharmacist prerogative to not fill an Rx on legitimate grounds is a very important one and is actually helpful to prescribers in the right context. I am uncomfortable with the way that this appears to have gone down, but will admit it is to some degree fuzzy ethically. I hope he treated the patient with dignity and respect, and was not crusading or taking out personal feelings on this patient. Assuming he is familiar with applications of the drug, a few simple questions posed to the patient in a private setting could have likely solved his stated moral dilemma. But I will tell you that there are some who on religious grounds do not believe in any "artificial" evacuation of the uterus irrespective of whether or not the pregnancy is viable or non-viable, whether or not this pharmacist fits into this category I do not know, and there is no mention of that.
Only about 15% of Ob/Gyn's perform abortions (medical or surgical). Not all who refrain from performing this procedure do so for religious reasons (often simply moral/ethical objections not based on religious grounds or otherwise), but the point is 85% of Ob/Gyn's do not offer abortion services.
Misoprostol (Cytotec) alone is not commonly used to induce abortions in live pregnancies in this country (most often used in combination with Mifepristone). Misoprostol alone is very commonly used for the purpose of inducing evacuation of the uterine contents in the setting of a non-viable pregnancy (anembryonic gestation, intrauterine fetal demise in any trimester, etc). The drug is also an OB/Gyn jack of all trades, not many days go by that I don't use it for something (cervical ripening ahead of oxytocin labor induction, stand alone for labor induction, postpartum hemorrhage, treatment for miscarriage as described above or cervical preparation for various gynecologic procedures to name a few).
I think the Pharmacist prerogative to not fill an Rx on legitimate grounds is a very important one and is actually helpful to prescribers in the right context. I am uncomfortable with the way that this appears to have gone down, but will admit it is to some degree fuzzy ethically. I hope he treated the patient with dignity and respect, and was not crusading or taking out personal feelings on this patient. Assuming he is familiar with applications of the drug, a few simple questions posed to the patient in a private setting could have likely solved his stated moral dilemma. But I will tell you that there are some who on religious grounds do not believe in any "artificial" evacuation of the uterus irrespective of whether or not the pregnancy is viable or non-viable, whether or not this pharmacist fits into this category I do not know, and there is no mention of that.
Posted on 6/25/18 at 7:32 pm to CommoDawg
As a pharmacist, this pisses me off. It wasn’t for an abortion, it was for a miscarriage. I guess the pharmacist in question is either an idiot for not properly counseling the patient in order to find out the medical situation to answer his ethical conundrum or he’s just an a-hole. Either way, frick him
ETA: As a pharmacist, I personally do not feel that any pharmacist should just fill any prescription written by a doctor. I speak with physicians multiple times daily about drug interactions, therapeutic duplications, multiple narcotics/benzos/etc but I have issues with pharmacists who refuse proper medical treatment based on their ethical or religious beliefs especially when in this case, it sounds as if he didn’t counsel the patient in order to answer his own personal ethical issues.
ETA: As a pharmacist, I personally do not feel that any pharmacist should just fill any prescription written by a doctor. I speak with physicians multiple times daily about drug interactions, therapeutic duplications, multiple narcotics/benzos/etc but I have issues with pharmacists who refuse proper medical treatment based on their ethical or religious beliefs especially when in this case, it sounds as if he didn’t counsel the patient in order to answer his own personal ethical issues.
This post was edited on 6/25/18 at 8:12 pm
Posted on 6/25/18 at 7:48 pm to Ba Ba Boooey
quote:
As a pharmacist, this pisses me off. It wasn’t for an abortion, it was for a miscarriage. I guess the pharmacist in question is either an idiot for not properly counseling the patient in order to find out the medical situation to answer his ethical conundrum or he’s just an a-hole. Either way, frick him
Finally a voice of reason! You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.
Posted on 6/25/18 at 7:56 pm to shawnlsu
quote:No one said this guy wasn’t a douche.
Finally a voice of reason! You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.
It just so happens that everyone finds your stance of “force pharmacists to fill all prescriptions written by doctors without question” to be fricking stupid.
Posted on 6/25/18 at 8:25 pm to lsunurse
So I'm the only one that thinks its pretty fricked up that Drs, pharmacists, and nurses are the only professions that can refuse service due to their personal opinion? Guess that makes me the outlier on this issue and I'm perfectly fine with that.
ETA: I don't have a problem that they are able to legally do that, I just think it should be all or none. Either we all get to legally refuse service to who ever or no one can.
ETA: I don't have a problem that they are able to legally do that, I just think it should be all or none. Either we all get to legally refuse service to who ever or no one can.
This post was edited on 6/25/18 at 8:37 pm
Posted on 6/25/18 at 8:47 pm to lsunurse
My wife was a nurse at OLOL when our third child was born. OLOL provide health insurance, but it didn’t cover the tubal ligation procedure because it conflicted with Catholic beliefs. Procedure took place at Woman’s Hospital. I’ve always wondered if certain procedures aren’t allowed at OLOL.
Page 27 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News