The Lies of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education

[CutLass]

Originally Posted by achilleus

No worries. Just funny, since the previous thread was so long.

Cheers.

And argumentative. There's no one left with fight to discuss it over again!

[davtsung]

Originally Posted by riceboy

What's also scary is the fact that some states have laws that allow pharmacists to refuse to fill perscriptions for drugs they have a moral objection to. There is a small but growing number of these pharmacists who refuse to fill perscriptions for birth control and morning after pills.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...sts-pill_x.htm

Why is this scary? Pharmacists are people with their own set of beliefs and values. It does not violate the law to refuse filling prescriptions, similarly, it is not illegal for Doctor's to refuse to perform abortions or any other procedure that they may morally object to. Conscientious and moral objectors must be allowed to practice and exercise their rights, as much as we are to disagree with them.

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by HillBilly

lol Vermont 24.2

Not surprising. Have you seen Vermont girls?

[lochinvar]

Originally Posted by CutLass

And argumentative. There's no one left with fight to discuss it over again!

Oh, I daresay Inquartata, Jeff, and jBirch still have a few rounds left in 'em...

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by davtsung

Why is this scary? Pharmacists are people with their own set of beliefs and values. It does not violate the law to refuse filling prescriptions, similarly, it is not illegal for Doctor's to refuse to perform abortions or any other procedure that they may morally object to. Conscientious and moral objectors must be allowed to practice and exercise their rights, as much as we are to disagree with them.

What is scary is that in many rural areas there are only one or two pharmacies in several hours’ drive. For these areas a whacko pharmacist means that entire communities can be without proper drugs. Furthermore if you healthcare plan only allows you to by from a certain pharmacy in some rural areas and the pharmacist objects to some type of medication that effectively means that unless you have the money to start buying your own vastly overpriced US drugs you are screwed, unempowered and forced to bend to the personal beliefs of one person. It should amount to a form of malpractice in my opinion.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

Holly carp, that is an interesting bit of info!

What exactly do these numbers tell us? I'm guessing that high is bad, low is good.

How many of you think that parents want their teenage children having sex, protected or otherwise?

How many of you think that teenagers having sex is benefitial, detrimental or of no consequence to their developement?

How many of you think its okay for schools to provide education that reinforces what parents want their children to be taught?

How many of you are still in your teens, and just wish that your parents would just back off? I told you...that mark on my neck was from an off target flick!

[darius]

Not surprising. Have you seen Vermont girls?

There were some hotties at Jay Peak, but I guess most of them could have been Quebecois!

Where's Isaiah when we need an expert opinion??

darius

[HillBilly]

Originally Posted by lochinvar

Not surprising. Have you seen Vermont girls?

man, I live in Vermont!

Originally Posted by darius

There were some hotties at Jay Peak, but I guess most of them could have been Quebecois!

Where's Isaiah when we need an expert opinion??

darius

Jay Peak? out of staters, fo' sho'

Isaiah's currently snoring. really loudly

[davtsung]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

What is scary is that in many rural areas there are only one or two pharmacies in several hours’ drive. For these areas a whacko pharmacist means that entire communities can be without proper drugs. Furthermore if you healthcare plan only allows you to by from a certain pharmacy in some rural areas and the pharmacist objects to some type of medication that effectively means that unless you have the money to start buying your own vastly overpriced US drugs you are screwed, unempowered and forced to bend to the personal beliefs of one person. It should amount to a form of malpractice in my opinion.

No it does not mean that these 'unempowered' people are forced to bend to the will of these pharmacists. Filling a prescription is NOT a moral obligation, nor is it a civic duty under our democracy/bureaucracy. What you are describing is the circumstances, real I do indeed believe for many citizens, under which it is unfortunate to have a pharmacist who believes differently than the 'patient'. What you should fight for instead is a lowered price for pharmaceuticals in this country, or a system under which underserved communities may have access to medications that may go against the local moral norm. Your view of a moral obligation to fill prescriptions, if carried to an extreme, would necessitate that we all do things we morally object to if the circumstances are more socially convenient or intuitive (such as temporarily sterilizing teenagers until they turn eighteen), and derpive us of the very right you want to protect.

In order for it to be malpractice, you need to demonstrate: (1) That there was a DUTY OF CARE btw the PHYSICIAN and Patient (I'm not familiar with pharmacists insurance) such that the physician has duty to use that degree of care and skill which is expected of reasonably competent practitioner in SAME CLASS to which physician belongs acting in same or similar circumstances. (2) Breech of duty (3) That there was injury, and (4) That the breech of duty was the proximate cause of the injury. What you describe is not a situation where malpractice comes into play, as it is more a societal/ethical contention than it is one based on what the health-care professions owe to our patients.

[Bokken]

I think there's a very important distinction between refusing to fill a prescription and preventing someone from getting it filled. Refusing to fill it is simply saying "Sir or Madam, I cannot ethically provide you with this medication because I believe it is improper to use in the manner you wish to use it. Here is your prescription slip."
Or even giving the slip to another pharmacist in the same location. Preventing someone from getting it filled is what happened in that Walmart in Oklahoma (IIRC) where the guy wouldn't fill it, lectured the girl on her immoral ways, and wouldn't transfer the prescription to another pharmacist or location.

I agree that people have the right to choose to *gasp* have sex for pleasure instead of reproduction, and to take steps to protect themselves from the various diseases out there. I am reminded of a famous song by a famous group..."Every sperm is sacred." Month Python. Crude but absolutely true.

I have also seen the reports on the abstinence education and the terrible flaws therein. Quite simply, what it boils down to is this:
>rant<
Knowledge equals power. It always has, and it always will. It is an immutable fact. To keep knowledge from someone is to keep them mired in fear, ignorance, and dependence upon those who have the knowledge. In this case, I say SHAME! upon the religious groups that deliberately distort facts and truth in order to push their view that sex is somehow dirty and wrong upon children.
It is nothing less than brainwashing, and I have seen marriages, friendships and families crumble as a direct result of that doctrine.
Americans have a love-hate relationship with sex and the human body. On the one hand, we have people screaming from the rafters that sex is wrong, sex is bad and having sex before you're married is going to condemn you to Hell (incidentally, the people of Hell, Norway, have many nice hotels and a thriving tourist industry). On the other hand, these same people are ogling their Victoria's Secret catalogs and God only knows what else - to make sure that it's "acceptable for public release," to be certain. That's called "hypocracy," the last I checked.
>/rant<...for now.

[Gav]

This has been covered in quite a lot of detail http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showthread.php?t=14221

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by davtsung

Your view of a moral obligation to fill prescriptions, if carried to an extreme, would necessitate that we all do things we morally object to if the circumstances are more socially convenient or intuitive (such as temporarily sterilizing teenagers until they turn eighteen), and derpive us of the very right you want to protect.

Your argument is pretty outrageous here. What we are seeing is the concept of philosophical choice in critical roles taken to extremes. Trying to balance that out will not lead to chips in our head or mass sterilization, and to suggest it is ridiculous.

As to it being completely up to the choice of the pharmacist as to rather or not to fill a prescription or to transfer said prescription, they are in a needed, critical service role and therefore they should be held to a specific legal standard. In the past I have been both a Soldier and in law enforcement. I did not get to pick and chose who I shot, where the bombs I loaded were dropped, what assignments to go on, who to arrest or which laws to enforce, or to play JJ&E, which would be a bang up job, based on my personal morals.

Other critical service professions should be no different. The Fireman should not have a choice to go into your house and help you based on rather or not he approves of the Kerry sign in your yard and the emergency room doctor should not have a choice on rather or not to help the seriously injured based on his "morals". Pharmacists are no different. They should be held to a higher standard.

What you describe is not a situation where malpractice comes into play, as it is more a societal/ethical contention than it is one based on what the health-care professions owe to our patients.

I did not say it met the current legal definition of malpractice. Obviously if it did there would be a ****load of cases filled already. I said it should, and if the morals of these guys were put up against potential of having to shell out some serious money to back them up, or maybe even lose their jobs, I bet there morals would take a back seat real quick.

This whole thing reminds me of an old joke: The difference between God and a doctor is that God knows he is not a Doctor...

[Gav]

gents - refer to this thread:

http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showthread.php?t=14221

[Victor]

re pharmacist tangent: Where, exactly, does one draw the line at allowing a "moral interpretation" of behavior when it affects other people's lives? Really; I'd love to see an answer to the question -- when does a pharmacist's decision switch from a good thing to a bad thing?

Because I can imagine any number of scenarios...

* "I'm sorry, but God told me you don't need this medicine."
* "I believe it's morally wrong to support Big Business by buying the name-brand product; therefore, I won't fill your prescription."
* "My parents taught me that it's better to live a short, full life and share your wealth with the needy. I cannot, in good conscience, agree to sell these expensive drugs to you."
* "Didn't you used to tease me in high school? Well, let's just call this 'karma' ..."
* "Tough luck there, boy, but your skin is the wrong color. It's against my -- whaddoyacallem? moralities? -- yeah, it's against my 'morals' to give you some of these here pills."
* "You look healthy enough to me. Get over it already; act like a man."
* "I don't serve customers until they show me the proper respect due my station. It's the polite, civic-minded thing for you to do."
* "Come back after you've tried prayer first."

Exaggerated examples? Could never happen?
Bull$hit.

[davtsung]

Originally Posted by Victor

Where, exactly, does one draw the line at allowing a "moral interpretation" of behavior when it affects other people's lives? Really; I'd love to see an answer to the question -- when does a pharmacist's decision switch from a good thing to a bad thing?

It isn't a moral interpretation of behavior that I support, as would be the case if the pharmacist morally judged those requesting the medication AND blocked attempts at receving such prescriptions. I support the right for all of us to NOT do something that goes against our personal beliefs. Simple as that. Some people may claim that people who work in critical care services should be legally mandated to carry out a standard of care regardles of their moral objections. This is an absolute slippery-slope standard that we in the medical and medical-ethics profession will prevent.

First let me say this: I do believe that all people should have a right to contraceptives free from coercion, period. However, it was not so long ago that a certain group of German doctors were forced to sterilize people with disease (such as psychiatric ones) or based on culture due to certain mandates that were culturally accepted. While we may claim that those atrocities that occured under the Nazi's could not occur in this country, the practice of eugenics has a history in the U.S. as well. (http://www.people1.org/eugenics/eugenics_article_6.htm)

[CvilleFencer]

Wow, just two pages in and someone throws the Nazi card. We must be slipping buys!

I reject the slippery slope theory as it applies to this instance. I am not sure how you go from mandating that a licensed person in a public trust/critical service post must provide requested, voluntarily sought legitimate medication to eugenics and genocide... What we are talking about here is more of making sure that such fascist, fringe, racist, sexist and other "ist" attitudes cannot hide behind the pillars of freedom of choice and public good. If your attitudes and morals mean that you don't want to provide prescriptions to Jews, the poor, those of a different religion/beliefs, whatever, get a different freakin job! If your morals are such that they render you incapable of performing your duties it should be an obligation that you step aside and let someone capable of fulfilling those obligations do so for the public good.

If a cop on the beat feels that he can't defend the rights of gays because he feels they have it coming then if his fellow officers don't put him out of the force, there are systems in place within the administration to do so. That is what I would like to see. If a pharmacist denies a legitimately prescribed medication issued by an certified doctor for any reason other than a legitimate health concern (medications that may react dangerously prescribed by two different MD's without their knowledge or allergic reaction for example) then there should be a review system set in place to review his action and if it was a discriminatory act based on race, religion (including the religious views of the pharmacist), etc then action should be taken against him, up to and including loosing his license.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by davtsung

It isn't a moral interpretation of behavior that I support, as would be the case if the pharmacist morally judged those requesting the medication AND blocked attempts at receving such prescriptions. I support the right for all of us to NOT do something that goes against our personal beliefs. Simple as that. Some people may claim that people who work in critical care services should be legally mandated to carry out a standard of care regardles of their moral objections. ...

Our societal standard is as simple as this: The pharmacist was hired to fill prescriptions as prescribed by a certified doctor. A druggist accepts his position in the medical-care system knowing full well that he cannot limit legitimate treatment based on his personal code.

If the pharmacist believes otherwise, then he needs to set up his own shop with advertisement that clearly states, "I may not sell you medicine or certain goods depending on my own moral beliefs." ... As has been stated earlier, however, this sort of grandstanding has an unfair effect on a small community with a single drug store (where competitive market forces are limited or nil).

And by the way, dav., which of my examples in the message preceding this would you consider a legitimate moral stance to deny service? There's your "slippery slope."

[davtsung]

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

Wow, just two pages in and someone throws the Nazi card. We must be slipping buys!

I reject the slippery slope theory as it applies to this instance. I am not sure how you go from mandating that a licensed person in a public trust/critical service post must provide requested, voluntarily sought legitimate medication to eugenics and genocide...

Any societal progression leading to mandating people in the public trust/ critical service post to perform tasks against their beliefs becomes a slippery slope wherein the whim of our current cultural or political environment can forcibly enforce practices such as eugenics and genocide. It is this same defense of 'following mandates' which has in the past served as defense by these professional's from any wrongdoing (i.e. Nuremberg trials).

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

What we are talking about here is more of making sure that such fascist, fringe, racist, sexist and other "ist" attitudes cannot hide behind the pillars of freedom of choice and public good. If your attitudes and morals mean that you don't want to provide prescriptions to Jews, the poor, those of a different religion/beliefs, whatever, get a different freakin job! If your morals are such that they render you incapable of performing your duties it should be an obligation that you step aside and let someone capable of fulfilling those obligations do so for the public good.

Our democracy and advanced citizenship is based on the exact notion that we must protect the rights of those same people whose views and ways are antithetical to our own. This is the fundamental job of the A.C.L.U. To be exact, I was not defending the right of racist pharmacists to not dispense to certain people based on color. I am defending all of our rights to our own views and practices to meet the pursual of our own lives. Do I wish that these people not exist in these jobs? Yes. But I would just the same defend their rights as citizens knowing that it is in that exercise, I acknowledge the greatness in our country. Please understand that what constitues 'public good' is not necessarily so clear cut as we would like and is different in different cities within the same states.

Originally Posted by CvilleFencer

If a cop on the beat feels that he can't defend the rights of gays because he feels they have it coming then if his fellow officers don't put him out of the force, there are systems in place within the administration to do so.
If a pharmacist denies a legitimately prescribed medication issued by an certified doctor for any reason other than a legitimate health concern (medications that may react dangerously prescribed by two different MD's without their knowledge or allergic reaction for example) then there should be a review system set in place to review his action and if it was a discriminatory act based on race, religion (including the religious views of the pharmacist), etc then action should be taken against him, up to and including loosing his license.

I agree that in this case the pharmacist is violating the civil rights of the patient, but the original post leading to my reply (morning after pills), dealt with MORAL beliefs and not PREJUDICES which are governed by our laws.

[Mo]

Originally Posted by Victor

If the pharmacist believes otherwise, then he needs to set up his own shop with advertisement that clearly states, "I may not sell you medicine or certain goods depending on my own moral beliefs." ... As has been stated earlier, however, this sort of grandstanding has an unfair effect on a small community with a single drug store (where competitive market forces are