Opposition to same sex marriage ruling

[msop04]

I think it is one thing for a private business/company to deny services (ie that pizza place somewhere that wouldn't cater a gay wedding). I don't agree with it, but at least you don't work for the government. I really don't see how its going to fly that govt employees can deny someone else their RIGHT, as made so by the FEDERAL government.

I believe one issue that has come up is that some churches feel they will be obligated to marry gay couples, and I dont know exactly how it will play out in the US, but in Canada the church is still considered private, and may marry who they wish. So, again, not impeding on THEIR specific beliefs, or forcing them to do anything they dont want.

Its interesting though. You say something like 'well would you not cater/marry/whatever a black couple?' And its all of a sudden 'oh no no no, thats totally different, we love different races, look at how diverse we are!!!111!!' . There is still racism, but it is far less acceptable to be 'publicly' racist. Right now, it is still acceptable to be 'publicly' homophobic. It will change, but it may not be quick.

We were talking about this at work yesterday, and though I 100% support the ruling, I don't think churches should be forced to perform SSMs if it goes against their teachings. It's interesting to see how this will be handled, particularly with the federal tax-exempt status afforded to most churches.

I agree with this 100%...

 

[Tekate]

I think it's life saving for a patient that a pharmacist will refuse to fill any prescription if there is a medical danger. If a pharmacist has a personal conviction against ANY medication then that person should not be a pharmacist or go work in a hospital pharmacy say or for a drug company that upholds their personal feelings.

I think the physician who prescribed meds that were harmful in some way to the patient should be penalized either by their employer, or the medical board in their state... everyone can make mistakes, but when it comes to ones health there should be minimal mistakes.

With this great responsibility for health, and welfare of patients comes pretty good salaries. My husband said years ago when he was a director that pay is dictated by the amount of time and money it costs to replace someone.. Medical school, pharmacy school, takes years of education/dedication and with that education comes high salaries and high expectations and it is not easy to replace someone with this skill easily, I think this is fair and correct, but acceptance of this responsibility should be required for the career.

oh yeah.

We are hired to do a job, so if there is refusal to supply a marriage license and the law states ALL Americans are equal then the employee should be forthwith fired. I always find it interesting when I read about pharmacists 'refuse' to fill BC pills,.. that is NOT their job, their job is to dispense drugs correctly, on time, and supply verbal support for those who cannot understand their danged scripts. Let's hope that employees of states are intelligent enough to bypass regressive beliefs and perform their jobs.

ame, that might get this thread shut down.

Here in Fantasyland, where only faux niceness is permitted, we must restrict ourselves to nuance, metaphor and understatement.

Many pharmacists refuse to fill legitimate prescriptions for pain medication. and anxiety medication and their employers support them 100%. They are not doctors! They are out of control. What egos. What presumption. What rudeness.

Ummm... excuse me, Imdanny. When you can hang your PharmD on the wall (which, by the way, is a Doctorate of Pharmacy) and tell me why you're constantly worried the DEA or state board is going to reprimand you or, heaven forbid, take your license away, you can attempt to make these wild accusations.

Pharmacists get it from both ends (MDs are beginning to get it as well, for that matter). The DEA gripes when we fill too many controlled substances (like we can control what the patient brings in), and we get it from the public/media when we can't/won't fill their controls due to DEA restriction and/or questions with the actual prescription. Most pharmacists don't care what you come in with -- we just do our jobs and fill each script in a safe/correct/timely manner... I can assure you. We don't want all the drama, but our licenses are held to a certain standard and we can't just ignore everything -- we are held accountable for EVERYTHING these days... The only control we have is to not fill. Federal and state pharmacy law states that a pharmacist can refuse to fill ANY script for WHATEVER reason. This is to protect us and YOU.

Pharmacists' employers support them because they KNOW the craziness that goes on... they also know that the people who get pissed off that their script was refused would be the same ones who ended up trying to sue the pharmacist/pharmacy when they hurt themselves because they took too much of their medication because "that dumb pharmacist filled it early" and they had it in their possession to take (West Virginia, anyone??)... Sheesh! I don't know about anyone else, but I doubt someone else is going to pay my bills and student loans when my license is taken away and I can't practice...

I'm a pharmacist and worked extremely hard to earn that license. I have been practicing for over 12 years. I am a doctor, and I can pretty much guarantee that fellow pharmacists have saved many lives by correcting/refusing to fill incorrect and/or illegitimate scripts written by these "all-knowing" physicians. I'm not bashing MDs at all -- we are a team in health care. If you consider it "ego" to fill scripts in a safe, correct, and timely manner, then so be it. We're saving the a$$es of MDs on a DAILY basis -- this is what the public doesn't understand. We're so "out of control" like that -- be thankful.

By the way, any/every script written by a physician doesn't make it "legitimate" -- we see tons of "legitimate" scripts written by a handful of docs for the same patient. Who knew a patient could need pain meds or controls from 4 different docs?? ...probably not the docs. Once informed, the prescribers almost always says, "that's no longer good from me -- do not fill." "What an ego that pharmacist has??!! I mean, all 4 were legit scripts before he stuck his nose in my business, right? Why can't he just do his job and put pills in a bottle??!!"

The DEA would be all over that. We don't seek out reasons to refuse to fill, but it's hard to ignore blatant abuse -- by doctor or patient.

Sorry for the threadjack, but I felt like I needed to defend my profession... as usual.

 

[Niel]

I think it is one thing for a private business/company to deny services (ie that pizza place somewhere that wouldn't cater a gay wedding). I don't agree with it, but at least you don't work for the government. I really don't see how its going to fly that govt employees can deny someone else their RIGHT, as made so by the FEDERAL government.

I believe one issue that has come up is that some churches feel they will be obligated to marry gay couples, and I dont know exactly how it will play out in the US, but in Canada the church is still considered private, and may marry who they wish. So, again, not impeding on THEIR specific beliefs, or forcing them to do anything they dont want.

Its interesting though. You say something like 'well would you not cater/marry/whatever a black couple?' And its all of a sudden 'oh no no no, thats totally different, we love different races, look at how diverse we are!!!111!!' . There is still racism, but it is far less acceptable to be 'publicly' racist. Right now, it is still acceptable to be 'publicly' homophobic. It will change, but it may not be quick.

We were talking about this at work yesterday, and though I 100% support the ruling, I don't think churches should be forced to perform SSMs if it goes against their teachings. It's interesting to see how this will be handled, particularly with the federal tax-exempt status afforded to most churches.

I agree with this 100%...

I never understand this argument. Who is forcing them? Is that a thing? Catholic churches can refuse to marry someone who isn't catholic, other churches refuse I'd you don't take their premerital counciling, the guy that married me wouldn't unless he met my husband. I feel like churches deny people already.

 

[msop04]

I think it's life saving for a patient that a pharmacist will refuse to fill any prescription if there is a medical danger. If a pharmacist has a personal conviction against ANY medication then that person should not be a pharmacist or go work in a hospital pharmacy say or for a drug company that upholds their personal feelings.

I think the physician who prescribed meds that were harmful in some way to the patient should be penalized either by their employer, or the medical board in their state... everyone can make mistakes, but when it comes to ones health there should be minimal mistakes.

With this great responsibility for health, and welfare of patients comes pretty good salaries. My husband said years ago when he was a director that pay is dictated by the amount of time and money it costs to replace someone.. Medical school, pharmacy school, takes years of education/dedication and with that education comes high salaries and high expectations and it is not easy to replace someone with this skill easily, I think this is fair and correct, but acceptance of this responsibility should be required for the career.

I agree with both of your points, but the MD is rarely held accountable. This is where the pharmacist is responsible for catching anything that is incorrect or questionable. Like you stated, medical professionals aren't perfect -- we're human, and we make mistakes too. There are very minimal mistakes allowed in my profession (think filling #30 when it should have been #60, etc)... MDs aren't really held accountable for prescribing errors -- that is seen as the pharmacists responsibility. We know a little more than the public realizes, it seems.

Regarding salaries and replacing medical professionals... it's not that simple anymore. For the first time since anyone can remember, new grads (pharmacists) are getting paid LESS than other pharmacist. (most pharmacist are paid the same salaries per company, regardless of experience -- this has been the norm for years and years)

So now they have these new grads who are soooo tired of being poor college students that they don't give a crap to take a little less money -- they just want a payday. This is threatening to the others bc they know the new grads want money more than they want to take a stand for the profession by upholding ethics and standards. You can see where this is going... this is why there have been so many lawsuits by pharmacists for age discrimination. But where does that leave the average pharmacist who isn't old enough to sue, but wants to protect his/her license and obey the pharmacy laws?? Fired or seeking employment elsewhere. That's where.

Pharmacist jobs are very hard to come by with the surplus of pharmacists from the last 7-8 years and multiple new pharmacy schools churning out so many new grads, but I'd rather keep my ability to practice than risk it to please a corporation that has zero care for it's pharmacists' licenses. I took a job with a company that pays about 20% less (which is a big cut) with not-so-great benefits and no maternity leave. However, they value integrity over dollars in the pharmacy dept... it's been the best decision I've ever made.

 

[msop04]

I think it is one thing for a private business/company to deny services (ie that pizza place somewhere that wouldn't cater a gay wedding). I don't agree with it, but at least you don't work for the government. I really don't see how its going to fly that govt employees can deny someone else their RIGHT, as made so by the FEDERAL government.

I believe one issue that has come up is that some churches feel they will be obligated to marry gay couples, and I dont know exactly how it will play out in the US, but in Canada the church is still considered private, and may marry who they wish. So, again, not impeding on THEIR specific beliefs, or forcing them to do anything they dont want.

Its interesting though. You say something like 'well would you not cater/marry/whatever a black couple?' And its all of a sudden 'oh no no no, thats totally different, we love different races, look at how diverse we are!!!111!!' . There is still racism, but it is far less acceptable to be 'publicly' racist. Right now, it is still acceptable to be 'publicly' homophobic. It will change, but it may not be quick.

We were talking about this at work yesterday, and though I 100% support the ruling, I don't think churches should be forced to perform SSMs if it goes against their teachings. It's interesting to see how this will be handled, particularly with the federal tax-exempt status afforded to most churches.

I agree with this 100%...

I never understand this argument. Who is forcing them? Is that a thing? Catholic churches can refuse to marry someone who isn't catholic, other churches refuse I'd you don't take their premerital counciling, the guy that married me wouldn't unless he met my husband. I feel like churches deny people already.

To my knowledge, no one is forcing them yet... but this is the new "thing" to try to force them to do so, I guess. Churches are private, are not taxed by the government, and can marry or refuse to marry anyone they like. I don't see what's wrong with that. Country clubs and other private organizations don't have to grant anyone membership if they don't like, either... is anything private anymore??

When my older sister got married back in 1992, her husband's minister (who is Southern Baptist) wouldn't marry them because my sister wasn't baptized in that church?? What??? We were raised Methodist! They loved that church and she got baptized in that building -- no biggie. It was stupid and pissed my parents off, but whatev... they're divorced now, so I'm pretty sure the church frowns on that too.

I'm Methodist, so what do I care? My church back home in TN had a lesbian minister for at least 3 years. Rock on.

 

[iLander]

Many pharmacists refuse to fill legitimate prescriptions for pain medication. and anxiety medication and their employers support them 100%. They are not doctors! They are out of control. What egos. What presumption. What rudeness.

If you ever, Ever, EVER run into this at a national chain (CVS, Target, Walgreens, Costco, etc), you need to let the chain know. Google Vice President of Pharmacy + chain name and then send an email through their corporate website (but specifically addressed to the VP) explaining what happened. Include your contact info, because they will follow up with you. Refusing pharmacy service is so illegal, and SOOO against corporate policy, it's not even funny. There will be one less pharmacist, very quickly.

If it's a small mom and pop pharmacy, move your business. And encourage everyone else you know to move their business.

One less pharmacist for that company and one more that still has a license. Refusal to fill due to laziness is one thing, but that is very rarely the case. We just don't have the time for that kind of thing, nor do we have time to single out people for no reason.

Corporations care about MONEY, not the health and well-being of their customers. If you think they do, then you are sadly mistaken.

I have a close friend who was fired over "refusing to fill" several pain meds for a patient with a history of abuse (at least from what was documented at his pharmacy and at the pt's many doctor's offices). The scripts in question were from a "pill mill" clinic that is now out of business and the MD is in jail. After his termination, the DEA decided several area pharmacies AND pharmacists had to pay large fines for filling scripts from said clinic.

Needless to say, she was offered many apologies and her job back by the corporation that terminated her -- LIKE SHE'D WANT TO WORK FOR THAT COMPANY NOW! It's all about the almighty dollar for these big-box corporations. I won't name this company out of respect for her because she agreed to not discuss the matter when they had to pay her and her attorney almost $600,000 for wrongful termination and damages. It would have been in the company's best interest to do a little investigation into said "refusal to fill", but they were so worried about someone complaining to the media... In health care, the customer is NOT always right. Period.

Imdanny used the word legitimate; legitimate prescription.

He said it in the context of this thread, which centers on the refusal to provide services due to religious or personal beliefs.

That's what I based my response on.

Your friend had issues with what he felt were not legitimate prescriptions, which is an entirely different situation. By doing so, you're projecting your friend's experience onto imdanny, almost implying that his prescriptions are not legitimate. ETA not sure you realized you were doing that?

 

[msop04]

Many pharmacists refuse to fill legitimate prescriptions for pain medication. and anxiety medication and their employers support them 100%. They are not doctors! They are out of control. What egos. What presumption. What rudeness.

If you ever, Ever, EVER run into this at a national chain (CVS, Target, Walgreens, Costco, etc), you need to let the chain know. Google Vice President of Pharmacy + chain name and then send an email through their corporate website (but specifically addressed to the VP) explaining what happened. Include your contact info, because they will follow up with you. Refusing pharmacy service is so illegal, and SOOO against corporate policy, it's not even funny. There will be one less pharmacist, very quickly.

If it's a small mom and pop pharmacy, move your business. And encourage everyone else you know to move their business.

One less pharmacist for that company and one more that still has a license. Refusal to fill due to laziness is one thing, but that is very rarely the case. We just don't have the time for that kind of thing, nor do we have time to single out people for no reason.

Corporations care about MONEY, not the health and well-being of their customers. If you think they do, then you are sadly mistaken.

I have a close friend who was fired over "refusing to fill" several pain meds for a patient with a history of abuse (at least from what was documented at his pharmacy and at the pt's many doctor's offices). The scripts in question were from a "pill mill" clinic that is now out of business and the MD is in jail. After his termination, the DEA decided several area pharmacies AND pharmacists had to pay large fines for filling scripts from said clinic.

Needless to say, she was offered many apologies and her job back by the corporation that terminated her -- LIKE SHE'D WANT TO WORK FOR THAT COMPANY NOW! It's all about the almighty dollar for these big-box corporations. I won't name this company out of respect for her because she agreed to not discuss the matter when they had to pay her and her attorney almost $600,000 for wrongful termination and damages. It would have been in the company's best interest to do a little investigation into said "refusal to fill", but they were so worried about someone complaining to the media... In health care, the customer is NOT always right. Period.

Imdanny used the word legitimate; legitimate prescription.

He said it in the context of this thread, which centers on the refusal to provide services due to religious or personal beliefs.

That's what I based my response on.

Your friend had issues with what he felt were not legitimate prescriptions, which is an entirely different situation. By doing so, you're projecting your friend's experience onto imdanny, almost implying that his prescriptions are not legitimate. That doesn't seem to be a completely logical response.

Sorry if it's confusing to you. My response was to show that a script may seem "legit" to the company and patient, but it's not that simple all the time, as I have mentioned can be the case. My point was that most often there is a very good reason for a pharmacist to deny a script -- this is after investigation, of course. If it's anything other than questionable rx writing or doctor shopping (like the pharmacist's personal beliefs or racism, etc), then that pharmacist is out of line and should be disciplined.

When it comes to controlled substances, WE are questioned and audited like crazy and our licenses can be put on the line. I'm sure you understand.

And like I said... if the Rx was filled for any other reason other than to raise a question, then that is wrong. In no way am I implying that anyone's Rx is or is not legit (I have no idea if Imdanny was referring to himself). A pt will ALWAYS think their script is legit... they think it's the duty of the pharmacist to fill it, no matter what. It's not.

 

[ame]

I really loved seeing all of the "Time to move to Canada" tweets. Talk about ignorance. I don't think they would like it much here.

i literally lol'd at them

 

[kenny]

I have been prescribed controlled substances a couple times in my life and those drugs are a blessing when you have a legit need.
But drug abuse can lead to crime and other social problems.

I, for one, am glad that pharmacists are part of the chain that ensures good medicine by scrutinizing prescriptions, and not just order-fillers.

 

[msop04]

I have been prescribed controlled substances a couple times in my life and those drugs are a blessing when you have a legit need.
But drug abuse can lead to crime and other social problems.

I, for one, am glad that pharmacists are part of the chain ensuring good medicine, not just order-fillers.

Thanks, kenny -- I really appreciate that!

 

[msop04]

...and many apologies for getting a little off-track!

 

[telephone89]

I think it is one thing for a private business/company to deny services (ie that pizza place somewhere that wouldn't cater a gay wedding). I don't agree with it, but at least you don't work for the government. I really don't see how its going to fly that govt employees can deny someone else their RIGHT, as made so by the FEDERAL government.

I believe one issue that has come up is that some churches feel they will be obligated to marry gay couples, and I dont know exactly how it will play out in the US, but in Canada the church is still considered private, and may marry who they wish. So, again, not impeding on THEIR specific beliefs, or forcing them to do anything they dont want.

Its interesting though. You say something like 'well would you not cater/marry/whatever a black couple?' And its all of a sudden 'oh no no no, thats totally different, we love different races, look at how diverse we are!!!111!!' . There is still racism, but it is far less acceptable to be 'publicly' racist. Right now, it is still acceptable to be 'publicly' homophobic. It will change, but it may not be quick.

We were talking about this at work yesterday, and though I 100% support the ruling, I don't think churches should be forced to perform SSMs if it goes against their teachings. It's interesting to see how this will be handled, particularly with the federal tax-exempt status afforded to most churches.

I agree with this 100%...

I never understand this argument. Who is forcing them? Is that a thing? Catholic churches can refuse to marry someone who isn't catholic, other churches refuse I'd you don't take their premerital counciling, the guy that married me wouldn't unless he met my husband. I feel like churches deny people already.

Oh totally, they are already denying people. However, they may feel that because it is now LAW that they will be forced or face lawsuits. Which, they most likely won't. There might be a few that face some backlash via social media or something, but overall its not been too crazy up here. I just think that's one reason why people are upset, but they obviously don't know that's not whats going to happen.

 

[Gypsy]

They need to be fired for nonperformance of their jobs. Same with pharmacists who refuse to prescribe/dispense certain drugs and with physicians who refuse to provide certain services when it conflicts with their beliefs. I don't know what else to say. It's difficult to discuss social conflicts without bringing up forbidden topics since the majority of the conflicts are rooted in those topics.

I agree with this.

 

[Gypsy]

Many pharmacists refuse to fill legitimate prescriptions for pain medication. and anxiety medication and their employers support them 100%. They are not doctors! They are out of control. What egos. What presumption. What rudeness.

If you ever, Ever, EVER run into this at a national chain (CVS, Target, Walgreens, Costco, etc), you need to let the chain know. Google Vice President of Pharmacy + chain name and then send an email through their corporate website (but specifically addressed to the VP) explaining what happened. Include your contact info, because they will follow up with you. Refusing pharmacy service is so illegal, and SOOO against corporate policy, it's not even funny. There will be one less pharmacist, very quickly.

If it's a small mom and pop pharmacy, move your business. And encourage everyone else you know to move their business.

Agree with this.

 

[Gypsy]

I never understand this argument. Who is forcing them? Is that a thing? Catholic churches can refuse to marry someone who isn't catholic, other churches refuse I'd you don't take their premerital counciling, the guy that married me wouldn't unless he met my husband. I feel like churches deny people already.

WORD.

It's fear-mongering. No one is forcing anything.

 

[Madam Bijoux]

I really loved seeing all of the "Time to move to Canada" tweets. Talk about ignorance. I don't think they would like it much here.

i literally lol'd at them

I hope they have better luck getting to Canada than David Sweat did.

 

[Imdanny]

I think it is one thing for a private business/company to deny services (ie that pizza place somewhere that wouldn't cater a gay wedding). I don't agree with it, but at least you don't work for the government. I really don't see how its going to fly that govt employees can deny someone else their RIGHT, as made so by the FEDERAL government.

I believe one issue that has come up is that some churches feel they will be obligated to marry gay couples, and I dont know exactly how it will play out in the US, but in Canada the church is still considered private, and may marry who they wish. So, again, not impeding on THEIR specific beliefs, or forcing them to do anything they dont want.

Its interesting though. You say something like 'well would you not cater/marry/whatever a black couple?' And its all of a sudden 'oh no no no, thats totally different, we love different races, look at how diverse we are!!!111!!' . There is still racism, but it is far less acceptable to be 'publicly' racist. Right now, it is still acceptable to be 'publicly' homophobic. It will change, but it may not be quick.

We were talking about this at work yesterday, and though I 100% support the ruling, I don't think churches should be forced to perform SSMs if it goes against their teachings. It's interesting to see how this will be handled, particularly with the federal tax-exempt status afforded to most churches.

This was addressed in oral arguments. No religious group is or will ever be forced by the government to perform same sex marriages. Period. It is not even a possibility. The government of the US according to the Constitution is prohibited, absolutely prohibited, from interfering with religious practice. This idea comes from genuine confusion, paranoia, and sometimes fear mongering, ; but it would be unconstitutional, 100% illegal for the government to force churches to marry same sex couples.

However, the states who think that they are going to defy the Supreme Court have another thing coming. The Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land. Government employees will have to suck it up if they don't like. State leaders talking this nonsense are acting very foolishly. Their chance of success is zero.

 

[Imdanny]

Many pharmacists refuse to fill legitimate prescriptions for pain medication. and anxiety medication and their employers support them 100%. They are not doctors! They are out of control. What egos. What presumption. What rudeness.

If you ever, Ever, EVER run into this at a national chain (CVS, Target, Walgreens, Costco, etc), you need to let the chain know. Google Vice President of Pharmacy + chain name and then send an email through their corporate website (but specifically addressed to the VP) explaining what happened. Include your contact info, because they will follow up with you. Refusing pharmacy service is so illegal, and SOOO against corporate policy, it's not even funny. There will be one less pharmacist, very quickly.

If it's a small mom and pop pharmacy, move your business. And encourage everyone else you know to move their business.

One less pharmacist for that company and one more that still has a license. Refusal to fill due to laziness is one thing, but that is very rarely the case. We just don't have the time for that kind of thing, nor do we have time to single out people for no reason.

Corporations care about MONEY, not the health and well-being of their customers. If you think they do, then you are sadly mistaken.

I have a close friend who was fired over "refusing to fill" several pain meds for a patient with a history of abuse (at least from what was documented at his pharmacy and at the pt's many doctor's offices). The scripts in question were from a "pill mill" clinic that is now out of business and the MD is in jail. After his termination, the DEA decided several area pharmacies AND pharmacists had to pay large fines for filling scripts from said clinic.

Needless to say, she was offered many apologies and her job back by the corporation that terminated her -- LIKE SHE'D WANT TO WORK FOR THAT COMPANY NOW! It's all about the almighty dollar for these big-box corporations. I won't name this company out of respect for her because she agreed to not discuss the matter when they had to pay her and her attorney almost $600,000 for wrongful termination and damages. It would have been in the company's best interest to do a little investigation into said "refusal to fill", but they were so worried about someone complaining to the media... In health care, the customer is NOT always right. Period.

Imdanny used the word legitimate; legitimate prescription.

He said it in the context of this thread, which centers on the refusal to provide services due to religious or personal beliefs.

That's what I based my response on.

Your friend had issues with what he felt were not legitimate prescriptions, which is an entirely different situation. By doing so, you're projecting your friend's experience onto imdanny, almost implying that his prescriptions are not legitimate. That doesn't seem to be a completely logical response.

Sorry if it's confusing to you. My response was to show that a script may seem "legit" to the company and patient, but it's not that simple all the time, as I have mentioned can be the case. My point was that most often there is a very good reason for a pharmacist to deny a script -- this is after investigation, of course. If it's anything other than questionable rx writing or doctor shopping (like the pharmacist's personal beliefs or racism, etc), then that pharmacist is out of line and should be disciplined.

When it comes to controlled substances, WE are questioned and audited like crazy and our licenses can be put on the line. I'm sure you understand.

And like I said... if the Rx was filled for any other reason other than to raise a question, then that is wrong. In no way am I implying that anyone's Rx is or is not legit (I have no idea if Imdanny was referring to himself). A pt will ALWAYS think their script is legit... they think it's the duty of the pharmacist to fill it, no matter what. It's not.

Yes, when my doctor, who is licensed by the DEA, BTW, writes me a prescription, it's nobody's business. I don't recall an act of Congress making pharmacy companies the policemen of the world. Pharmacy companies have been exposed for doing investigations behind the customers' backs with forms asking specific questions only a doctor could know the answers to which questions. pharmacists are not doctors. I'm sorry but I don't agree with the way these corporations are acting. Pharmacists should go to medical school if they want to be qualified to diagnos. No, pharmacists are not limiting themselves to preventing doctor shopping. They are interfering with the doctor patient relationship.

 

[Imdanny]

Many pharmacists refuse to fill legitimate prescriptions for pain medication. and anxiety medication and their employers support them 100%. They are not doctors! They are out of control. What egos. What presumption. What rudeness.

If you ever, Ever, EVER run into this at a national chain (CVS, Target, Walgreens, Costco, etc), you need to let the chain know. Google Vice President of Pharmacy + chain name and then send an email through their corporate website (but specifically addressed to the VP) explaining what happened. Include your contact info, because they will follow up with you. Refusing pharmacy service is so illegal, and SOOO against corporate policy, it's not even funny. There will be one less pharmacist, very quickly.

If it's a small mom and pop pharmacy, move your business. And encourage everyone else you know to move their business.

One less pharmacist for that company and one more that still has a license. Refusal to fill due to laziness is one thing, but that is very rarely the case. We just don't have the time for that kind of thing, nor do we have time to single out people for no reason.

Corporations care about MONEY, not the health and well-being of their customers. If you think they do, then you are sadly mistaken.

I have a close friend who was fired over "refusing to fill" several pain meds for a patient with a history of abuse (at least from what was documented at his pharmacy and at the pt's many doctor's offices). The scripts in question were from a "pill mill" clinic that is now out of business and the MD is in jail. After his termination, the DEA decided several area pharmacies AND pharmacists had to pay large fines for filling scripts from said clinic.

Needless to say, she was offered many apologies and her job back by the corporation that terminated her -- LIKE SHE'D WANT TO WORK FOR THAT COMPANY NOW! It's all about the almighty dollar for these big-box corporations. I won't name this company out of respect for her because she agreed to not discuss the matter when they had to pay her and her attorney almost $600,000 for wrongful termination and damages. It would have been in the company's best interest to do a little investigation into said "refusal to fill", but they were so worried about someone complaining to the media... In health care, the customer is NOT always right. Period.

Imdanny used the word legitimate; legitimate prescription.

He said it in the context of this thread, which centers on the refusal to provide services due to religious or personal beliefs.

That's what I based my response on.

Your friend had issues with what he felt were not legitimate prescriptions, which is an entirely different situation. By doing so, you're projecting your friend's experience onto imdanny, almost implying that his prescriptions are not legitimate. ETA not sure you realized you were doing that?

I love you iLander. You understand me.

 

[Imdanny]

I have been prescribed controlled substances a couple times in my life and those drugs are a blessing when you have a legit need.
But drug abuse can lead to crime and other social problems.

I, for one, am glad that pharmacists are part of the chain that ensures good medicine by scrutinizing prescriptions, and not just order-fillers.

They are not qualified to diagnos. I don't think you are aware of the questions they ask in their internal routine investigations. I'll give you the article I found sometime. They ask questions they could not possibly answer. Then if the person filling out the form with subjective ignorant answers refuse the prescription he or she files a report on the person with the DEA. This happened to a woman who had been going to the same doctor and the same pharmacy with same prescription for eight years. How on earth does a pharmacist understand a patient's private medical record. How on earth can that pharmacist have presumed to know anything about that patient's medical record? How on earth did said pharmacist know better than that patient's DEA listened doctor. You don't need pain or anxiety medication on a regular basis. You might be singing a different tune if you couldn't get a legitimate prescription filled because a corporation's unqualified employee up and decided one day that he or she knew better than your doctor.

 

[Imdanny]

I think it is one thing for a private business/company to deny services (ie that pizza place somewhere that wouldn't cater a gay wedding). I don't agree with it, but at least you don't work for the government. I really don't see how its going to fly that govt employees can deny someone else their RIGHT, as made so by the FEDERAL government.

I believe one issue that has come up is that some churches feel they will be obligated to marry gay couples, and I dont know exactly how it will play out in the US, but in Canada the church is still considered private, and may marry who they wish. So, again, not impeding on THEIR specific beliefs, or forcing them to do anything they dont want.

Its interesting though. You say something like 'well would you not cater/marry/whatever a black couple?' And its all of a sudden 'oh no no no, thats totally different, we love different races, look at how diverse we are!!!111!!' . There is still racism, but it is far less acceptable to be 'publicly' racist. Right now, it is still acceptable to be 'publicly' homophobic. It will change, but it may not be quick.

We were talking about this at work yesterday, and though I 100% support the ruling, I don't think churches should be forced to perform SSMs if it goes against their teachings. It's interesting to see how this will be handled, particularly with the federal tax-exempt status afforded to most churches.

I agree with this 100%...

I never understand this argument. Who is forcing them? Is that a thing? Catholic churches can refuse to marry someone who isn't catholic, other churches refuse I'd you don't take their premerital counciling, the guy that married me wouldn't unless he met my husband. I feel like churches deny people already.

Oh totally, they are already denying people. However, they may feel that because it is now LAW that they will be forced or face lawsuits. Which, they most likely won't. There might be a few that face some backlash via social media or something, but overall its not been too crazy up here. I just think that's one reason why people are upset, but they obviously don't know that's not whats going to happen.

But churches being required to marry same sex couples is not a law. Processing marriage licenses is a law. People (especially state leaders who don't like the law) will have to follow it and fear mongering about v religion is not going to save them from following the law of the land. Supreme Court ruling are not optional in terms of whether anyone agrees with them or not. I'm sure we can all remember some we didn't agree with. Too bad.

 

[liaerfbv]

But churches being required to marry same sex couples is not a law. Processing marriage licenses is a law. People (especially state leaders who don't like the law) will have to follow it and fear mongering about v religion is not going to save them from following the law of the land. Supreme Court ruling are not optional in terms of whether anyone agrees with them or not. I'm sure we can all remember some we didn't agree with. Too bad.

I'm not saying it is a law now. I do think some couple in the future will press this issue further -- and I don't think churches should be forced to marry SS couples. I don't think it's fear mongering to say that it's highly likely this will be litigated at some point.

 

[msop04]

This was addressed in oral arguments. No religious group is or will ever be forced by the government to perform same sex marriages. Period. It is not even a possibility. The government of the US according to the Constitution is prohibited, absolutely prohibited, from interfering with religious practice. This idea comes from genuine confusion, paranoia, and sometimes fear mongering, ; but it would be unconstitutional, 100% illegal for the government to force churches to marry same sex couples.

However, the states who think that they are going to defy the Supreme Court have another thing coming. The Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land. Government employees will have to suck it up if they don't like. State leaders talking this nonsense are acting very foolishly. Their chance of success is zero.

I agree with this... I think religious groups are afraid that the laws will one day go against their Constitutional rights, and that is why they are concerned. It's a valid concern.

Regarding state employees, I wish they'd just do their jobs. I live in Alabama, and quite frankly, it's embarrassing that some counties are just "not issuing" any marriage licenses at all. I mean, come on!

To my knowledge, courthouses could never truly deny a marriage license for no legal reason, so why pull that crap now?? It's not a choice -- just give them out, for goodness sake. If it offends you so much that it stirs you to your core, then that's understandable. It's also understandable to seek new employment if you are so disturbed. But, in the meantime, just do it and know that it's just one of those laws that you must follow (whether you agree with it or not).

 

[msop04]

I have been prescribed controlled substances a couple times in my life and those drugs are a blessing when you have a legit need.
But drug abuse can lead to crime and other social problems.

I, for one, am glad that pharmacists are part of the chain that ensures good medicine by scrutinizing prescriptions, and not just order-fillers.

They are not qualified to diagnos. I don't think you are aware of the questions they ask in their internal routine investigations. I'll give you the article I found sometime. They ask questions they could not possibly answer. Then if the person filling out the form with subjective ignorant answers refuse the prescription he or she files a report on the person with the DEA. This happened to a woman who had been going to the same doctor and the same pharmacy with same prescription for eight years. How on earth does a pharmacist understand a patient's private medical record. How on earth can that pharmacist have presumed to know anything about that patient's medical record? How on earth did said pharmacist know better than that patient's DEA listened doctor. You don't need pain or anxiety medication on a regular basis. You might be singing a different tune if you couldn't get a legitimate prescription filled because a corporation's unqualified employee up and decided one day that he or she knew better than your doctor.

Did it ever occur to you that there may be a reason said pharmacist stopped filling this pt's meds "all of a sudden?" As far as understanding a patient's medical records, I don't even know where to begin to answer. Rx records are a huge part of a patient's medical record. It's not difficult to look at a pt's rx history and have a pretty good idea of what's going on there, medically speaking. We are also not totally ignorant of the patient's other scripts filled at other pharmacies, like in the past. Each state has a controlled substance database that is accessible to ALL medical professionals that have a license in good standing and have registered with said state. Although we don't diagnose (however, this may change soon in some states), a huge part of our schooling is dedicated to diagnosis, as well as treatment. (never really knew why it was necessary for me to be able to read an EKG, but I was sure required to know how...)

We take an entire 3 semester of classes solely based in therapeutics (that's about 15-18 hours of studies FOR EACH CLASS, totaling about 50 hours -- depending on pharmacy school). Our last year is spent in residencies doing nothing but diagnosing and developing treatment therapies. I don't wanna diagnose -- it's not something that intrigues me. I don't want added liability and/or responsibility... I have enough now. I wish we could just fill and not question so much, but that isn't an option anymore. We don't make the rules, but we are required to follow them.

There isn't a wall between pharmacists and physicians/other health care professionals, and the pt's record isn't private in the sense that other medical professions don't/can't have access to it. We form a team in health care. We discuss pertinent issues regarding our patients on a regular basis. This is important for all involved. It's not a matter of "knowing better" as much as it's a matter of pt care and abiding by the law. The DEA and state pharmacy boards are stricter than ever, no doubt about it -- and are becoming increasingly so each year... There is a set of checks and balances, and we must abide by those to the letter. Pharmacists aren't the only ones feeling the pinch of stricter rules... physicians/dentists/etc. are being monitored as well.

It seems your perception of what is required to be a pharmacist may be lacking and somewhat "old school"... and that's okay, as you're not the only one. We, as a profession, have to work each day to help the general public understand that we don't just "lick & stick"... We aren't little monkeys in white coats trained to count by fives and run a cash register. We fill in good faith, but are in no way required to fill anything if it is questionable by the laws of our federal and state boards, much less threaten our licenses.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I agree 100% with msop on the right to pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription. I have had first hand experience seeing an extended family member with addiction to pain pills from multiple doctors and practically ruined his life and the life of someone I love. I applaud those who take the time to notice such things as well as errors in prescriptions and do the right thing!

I agree with civil rights for all.

I also agree with religious freedom and the right of those who have objections based on conscience to resign their jobs rather than refuse to offer a legally required service. So I salute the lady for resigning. If an employer required me to do anything that violated my conscience, I would hope I would resign rather than do whatever it was they were requiring.

I believe in freedom of churches to operate without state interference, and they should continue to have the right to marry whoever meets their qualifications for marriage (and there can be many besides this issue).

I also believe in respecting the beliefs of others even when I disagree. I have seen hate on both sides of this, and frankly, I am disappointed in both sides (extremes). Hate for those who believe differently than you is bigotry no matter which side you are on.
(definition of bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.)

 

[kenny]

Hate for those who believe differently than you is bigotry no matter which side you are on.
(definition of bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.)

No.
It's not that simple.

I hate Nazis and Hitler not because their views are wrong (though they are), but because of what they did.
Yes, people get to think/believe whatever they want, but they don't get to put their thoughts/beliefs into action to harm others, be it in a gas chamber or a voting booth.

Obviously I'm not equating opposition to marriage equality with murdering 6 million innocent people.
But the extreme example makes it easier to see the flaws of respecting anyone's views.

People denying civil rights to others should NOT be tolerated, and considered simply a different and morally-equal perspective.
It's wrong, as our highest court has ruled.

 

[msop04]

I agree 100% with msop on the right to pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription. I have had first hand experience seeing an extended family member with addiction to pain pills from multiple doctors and practically ruined his life and the life of someone I love. I applaud those who take the time to notice such things as well as errors in prescriptions and do the right thing!

I agree with civil rights for all.

I also agree with religious freedom and the right of those who have objections based on conscience to resign their jobs rather than refuse to offer a legally required service. So I salute the lady for resigning. If an employer required me to do anything that violated my conscience, I would hope I would resign rather than do whatever it was they were requiring.

I believe in freedom of churches to operate without state interference, and they should continue to have the right to marry whoever meets their qualifications for marriage (and there can be many besides this issue).

I also believe in respecting the beliefs of others even when I disagree. I have seen hate on both sides of this, and frankly, I am disappointed in both sides (extremes). Hate for those who believe differently than you is bigotry no matter which side you are on.
(definition of bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.)

Unfortunately, it seems there are certain groups who simply cannot be discriminated against these days... I agree with diamondseeker -- there is bigotry on BOTH sides of every issue.

 

[msop04]

Hate for those who believe differently than you is bigotry no matter which side you are on.
(definition of bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.)

No.
It's not that simple.

I hate Nazis and Hitler not because their views are wrong (though they are), but because of what they did.
Yes, people get to think/believe whatever they want, but they don't get to put their thoughts/beliefs into action to harm others, be it in a gas chamber or a voting booth.

Obviously I'm not equating opposition to marriage equality with murdering 6 million innocent people.
But the extreme example makes it easier to see the flaws of respecting anyone's views.

People denying civil rights to others should NOT be tolerated, and considered simply a different and morally-equal perspective.
It's wrong, as our highest court has ruled.

The law and what people believe are not the same thing. Regardless of the law, if someone disagrees with it due to their religious affiliations (such as same sex marriage, for instance), this doesn't make them a bigot. It's the law, but they don't have to agree with it personally.

EDIT: By this thought, ministers would be "bigots" for refusing to marry those who didn't fit into the religious beliefs of their church, even though that's the law right now... It's easy to call someone a bigot, but it's not as easy to recognize when equal bigotry is being practiced by those who hold the same opinions as you.

 

[liaerfbv]

I agree 100% with msop on the right to pharmacists to refuse to fill a prescription. I have had first hand experience seeing an extended family member with addiction to pain pills from multiple doctors and practically ruined his life and the life of someone I love. I applaud those who take the time to notice such things as well as errors in prescriptions and do the right thing!

I agree with civil rights for all.

I also agree with religious freedom and the right of those who have objections based on conscience to resign their jobs rather than refuse to offer a legally required service. So I salute the lady for resigning. If an employer required me to do anything that violated my conscience, I would hope I would resign rather than do whatever it was they were requiring.

I believe in freedom of churches to operate without state interference, and they should continue to have the right to marry whoever meets their qualifications for marriage (and there can be many besides this issue).

I also believe in respecting the beliefs of others even when I disagree. I have seen hate on both sides of this, and frankly, I am disappointed in both sides. Hate for those who believe differently than you is bigotry no matter which side you are on.
(definition of bigot: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.)

I believe in freedom of state to operate without church interference. If I'm a bigot because I do not tolerant interference in my life based on someone else's religion, well I guess I'm guilty.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I believe in freedom of state to operate without church interference. If I'm a bigot because I do not tolerant interference in my life based on someone else's religion, well I guess I'm guilty.

I am afraid I do not get your point. The church does not control anything related to the state. People with varying viewpoints have the right to express them when voting.