Democrats & Liberals Archives

Parting Shots: The Bush Administration’s Assault on Women’s Health Care

Picture this: Joe-sixpack walks into his local pharmacy hands his prescription for Cialis to the Pharmacist and turns to sit in the waiting area. But before one of Joe’s cheeks touches the seat, the Pharmacist calls him over to inform him of some sad news; that his prescription won’t be filled.

Joe’s prescription won’t be filled because the pharmacy is out of Cialis or any other ED medication, no; the prescription won’t be filled because the pharmacist personally objects to any medication that promotes sexual intercourse for something other than procreation. The pharmacist cites his religious faith as the reason for the refusal of service.

Of course this wouldn’t happen. Let’s face it; if the Bush Administration pushed some faith-based, ‘refusal clause’ or ‘conscience rule’ that disproportionally negatively affected white men, I believe Hell would be having one doosey of a snowstorm.

But what the Bush administration (link) did push through was an eleventh-hour rule that affected women and their basic right to an equal and fair health care system. The scope of the new version of the refusal clause is unconscionable. Among the highlights:

- The rule allows health-care providers to define contraception, in pretty much any form, as abortion
- Health-care providers may refuse treatment based on ‘lifestyle’ or “life” choices of the patient
- The new law overrides state laws that required hospitals to tell rape victims about access to emergency contraception

The Bush Administration’s last parting shot against women is nothing new. For eight long years, this administration ran rough-shad over the common-sense approach to complex issues by catering to the whims of the religious right. This latest rule ices the cake however.

The Bush administration announced its "conscience protection" rule for the health care industry this week, giving everyone including doctors, hospitals, receptionists and volunteers in medical experiments the right to refuse to participate in medical care they find morally objectionable.

The right-to-refuse rule includes abortion, but Leavitt's office said it extends to other aspects of health care where moral concerns could arise, including birth control, emergency contraception, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research or assisted suicide.
"This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience," outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists call this rule a ‘ill conceived policy change” and continued “the outgoing administration’s implicit contempt for women's right to accurate and complete reproductive health information and legal medical procedures. This new HHS regulation places patient's rights directly behind the rights of ideologically-driven physicians and anyone else directly or indirectly involved in their health care. “

Interesting that the ACOG has caught the subtle hypocrisy in the policy, identifying the ‘ideologically-driven physicians’ in this draft. The hypocrisy comes from the traditional rallying cry from the religious-right against ‘activist judges’. I guess the judges are only activists when the judge's decision differs from the religious-right’s views.

The sad fact is that this administration is taking dead aim at the women of this country and telling them, by policy and by rule, that there are two different Americas. One America where Joe Sixpack can buy his Cialis and Trojans and another America where Jane the Hockey-mom can’t buy a NuvaRing or a monthly dose of The Pill.

It's time to put this heresy behind us and move on.

Posted by john trevisani at December 20, 2008 10:29 AM
Comments
Comment #272483

john, you’re so right and the characteristic offensiveness of this has Bush’s fingerprints all over it. Every time I read something on it, or hear it on TV, I get this sickening picture of that sneeeer…..
But even beyond the obvious situations you’ve cited, there are more that may be only nuisance actions, and go far beyond kicking mud in our faces and rubbing salt in our wounds. This will give the little pimply-faced, gum chewing teenager at the checkstand the right to refuse to ring us up if we’re purchasing a home pregnancy test.., or a package of metal clothes hangers. The depth of this has not even been considered yet, much less tested.
We’re not good enough to have a say in our own lives and be able to control our own bodies. And we are right back to the beginning of that vicious circle again. It’s not enough that I resent a pharmacist, or a Dr., or nurse practitioner refusing treatment based on his or her personal belief, but that the simpering idiot still calling the shots in DC is imposing HIS will on what I do within my own home and through my own conscience !!!!!!

Posted by: janedoe at December 20, 2008 2:10 PM
Comment #272486

If a pharmisist or Doctor refuses to do abortions or hand out birth control pills, he or she is well within their rights to do so. You all have all the right in the world to do anything you want with your bodies. You can have all the abortions you want and O.D. on birth control pills if you so chooseBut don’t fault the Doctor who sends you elsewhere to have an abortion because of his beliefs or the pharmacist who don’t want to dispence birth control or the morning after pill because of their beliefs. After all planned parenthood is still in existence.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2008 2:34 PM
Comment #272487

That was a brilliant statement, KAP, that contradicts most of what is going on.
Perhaps strong consideration for neutering in humans would be a good place to start with “planned parenthood”.

Posted by: janedoe at December 20, 2008 3:01 PM
Comment #272489

Janedoe
Why is it wrong for a Doctor or Pharmasist to have a moral conscience? The point is these Doctors and pharmasists are getting fired because of their beliefs. We have a conscientious objecter status for the military, Why not one for Doctors or pharmasists. There are plenty of Doctors and pharmasists out in the world who will do your bidding Jane, leave the few who will not alone.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2008 3:16 PM
Comment #272491


“If a pharmisist or Doctor refuses to do abortions or hand out birth control pills, he or she is well within their right to do so.”

I believe doctors have a right to not be engaged in providing abortions. A doctor who sees and treats patients in areas of human reproduction will likely be in another discipline or another trade before long if his or her advice is to hold the birth control pill between your knees and squeeze tightly.

Pharmasists, by the nature of their business have no right to pick and choose which medications they will or will not fill. By our laws, they are middle men between a doctor and his or her patients. They are neither judges nor gods.

This is just one of many ways that this sneaky SOB is trying to destroy the peoples right to regulate business on his way out the door.

Posted by: jlw at December 20, 2008 4:07 PM
Comment #272492

Perhaps if having a conscience or a moral platform, is a condition of employment, it might be considered. Being amoral is not the issue, and going back to what john commented on, would you agree with that same pharmacist refusing to sell Trojans to some guy…….or that same physician refusing to perform a vasectomy on him?????? Let’s make damned sure that your argument is fair and done on a level field, and not just sexist!
And you missed the part, no doubt intentionally, where I said this assenine law will have a trickle down effect that can have far-reaching results.
The fact that you are a male, (presumably) and someone I don’t know, to have any say or input on what I feel is right for me….personally, is out of the question!!
Conscientious objector/military….goes into the apples/oranges file.
Lastly, whatever my “bidding” is…is none of your business, as well as who I will, or will not leave alone.

Posted by: janedoe at December 20, 2008 4:20 PM
Comment #272494

Assenine laws always have a trickle down effect that can have far reaching results even the laws that the left is proposing. Yes I would agree with that pharmasist if he didn’t want to sell me a pack of Trojans. There are other pharmacies around and heck I could even buy them in a grocery store. The point I am making is there is always others who will do what one will not. Jane , you are right it is none of my business what your bidding is. Like I said just leave the one who dosen’t want to do your bidding alone in his or her beliefs.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2008 4:42 PM
Comment #272496

Military careerists are said to be in a profession…Doctors are also said to be in a profession…as are pharmacists.

Those in any profession, go into that profession with certain obligations to fulfil. If they do not think they can preform services related to their field, perhaps they chose the wrong field. None of the folks I’ve mentioned chose the field of religion. They went into those fields with their eyes open.

If a military man knows the endeavor he is put to is illegal, he is obligated by moral and land law to disobey such an order. The same with a doctor or a pharmacist, but nothing mentioned here is against the law. If that general, doctor or pharmacist don’t wish to abide by the law, they should immediately resign and move to the clergy.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 20, 2008 5:09 PM
Comment #272498

Marysdude:
“If they do not think they can preform services related to their field, perhaps they chose the
wrong field.”

Well said. If the pharmacist, doctor, nurse, or whoever else has a ‘moral obligation’ higher than their chosen vocation, then they have the ‘right’ to choose another vocation…. say become a priest or nun.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 20, 2008 5:39 PM
Comment #272504

They went into those fields to save lives not to kill them. If it against their beliefs to do abortions or assisted suisides,like I said there is someone else who will do it. There is no law that forces a physician to do abortions as there is no law that say a pharmasist must dispence drugs that induce abortions or dispence birth control. The law was put into place so that those Doctors and Pharmasist would not get fired for their beliefs. The same would apply to a minister if gay marriage was allowed, why should he have to do something that goes against his or her beliefs.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2008 6:18 PM
Comment #272506

KAP:
Honestly, if you’re equating the same rules to a minister to those in the health care industry, i suspect there’s little that i could say to sway your opinion.

i couldn’t disagree more.

Let’s just leave it at that.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 20, 2008 7:01 PM
Comment #272510

Your right J.T. I couldn’t disagree more.

Posted by: KAP at December 20, 2008 7:22 PM
Comment #272515

Apparently there is a dispute about the word professional.

Once a person commits and is licensed into a profession he picks up and is obligated to do certain things, i.e., a pharmacist dispenses medicines as scripted by a doctor, to a patient of that doctor. There is no moral implication on the pharmacist, that onus can only be assumed by the doctor who scripts the medication and the patient who takes it.

If the pharmacist goes into the profession with his eyes open, he knows that sooner or later he will have to fill a prescription he disagrees with. At that time he should tell the patient about his doubts, and inform the doctor about his concerns…but, his is not the position of ‘decider’, that is on the doctor’s shoulders.

Any time a doctor of obstetrics or gynecology determines he cannot, for moral reasons, perform an abortion to a woman who meets the legal criteria, is practicing religion without ordination, and is not practicing medicine, even with legal license.

That is the reason we need to keep the ‘separation clause’ intact and observed. The state licenses, with the expectation that the practitioner will provide the services delineated under that license, not withstanding moral objections. That is why the state is based on law and religion is based on moral values. Hence the reason for the separation clause.

In other words, if you are too moral to practice pharmacy or medicine, under license of the state, you are too moral to be a doctor or pharmacist.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 20, 2008 8:48 PM
Comment #272530

A real cute 11th hour trick by Bush. Where the hell will it end?

This is so disgusting.

If I say any more they will kick me off. Excuse me while I go throw up.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 20, 2008 11:22 PM
Comment #272531

Greetings womanmarine……and no..don’t let that happen. Too many people would be too happy to go in that direction….
This is an issue that gets my blood pressure over the edge, and the ignorance of some of the responses just beg an attack.
There aren’t many of us gals left in here, so we’ve got to unite….. ;) We do have some supporters in a few of the men in here, so dude, and jlw, john……thanks!!

Posted by: janedoe at December 20, 2008 11:34 PM
Comment #272533

janedoe,

We don’t support you…we support what is right and moral.

Those on the other side are then, by process of extrapolation, wrong and immoral…;)

Posted by: Marysdude at December 20, 2008 11:49 PM
Comment #272536

KAP
So if I own a pharmacy and I have an employee that refuses to do their job I cannot fire them?

In the Philippines abortion is illegal and birth control,though available, is expensive and hard to obtain.
The results? Every market has an old woman that sells poisonious concoctions that kill fetusus and often mothers. There are no national statistics of abortion related deaths because it there is no official aknowlegment that it happens. In reality there are thousands of deaths a year. As for birth control, the people that need it most,the poor, have little access and large families. The Philippines has the land area about the size Arizona. There 90 million here. The population continues to grow dispite government attempts to stabilize through “natural methods”. The Catholic Church has enormous political power here and uses that power to keep the Philippines in poverty. They claim to be moral. How moral is it to have children picking through garbage dumps to stay alive? What is the moral aspect of having to send your sons and daughters abroad to find jobs or nursing students forced into prostitution to pay their exam fees in a desparate seach for a little opportunity? How about blast fishing that destroys the fisheries but puts food on the table for at least one day? Those hypocritcal moralist that want the “right” to refuse to sell legal birth control products and services should be required by law to adopt an unwanted child. Then we might want to take their sniveling seriously.

Posted by: bills at December 21, 2008 12:38 AM
Comment #272537

If a person is unwilling to dispense emergency contraception, then they should not be allowed to call themselves a pharmacist; to do so would be false advertising. The business should not present itself as a pharmacy, merely a store that happens to dispense a few drugs. Signs explicitly stating “this is not a pharmacy” should be displayed prominently at the door of any business that dispenses some prescription medications, but not all. When a doctor calls in a prescription, the unwilling storekeeper is obligated to make every effort to inform the doctor that the prescription cannot be filled.

If these regulations sound ridiculous, then the obvious solution is to make these emergency medications available without a prescription.

Posted by: Warped Reality at December 21, 2008 12:46 AM
Comment #272538

Way to go Bush. Every once in while you remind me why I voted for you.

Posted by: Martin at December 21, 2008 3:06 AM
Comment #272541

So in other words you on the left don’t give a crap about anyone elses beliefs as long as you get what you want. Bills that’s what happens when you have a church run state that THE GOVERNMENT IS AFFRAID OF. If you want contraceptions make them avaliable without prescriptions write your congress men, you all have control of congress and the senate and a president who is for all this.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 8:59 AM
Comment #272542

Let me clariy one thing. I don’t think many pharmasisist are unwilling to dispence birth control medicines. It’s the ones that induce abortions that is the problem.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 9:05 AM
Comment #272545

KAP:

I don’t know where you get your information, but it is wrong. And what the doctor prescribes is none of yours or any one else’s business. Get the hell out of people’s sex lives and bedrooms.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 21, 2008 9:30 AM
Comment #272546

the religious right has been pushing this agenda for sometime now. I drive by my local planned parenthood daily and there are always octogenarians picketing with signs saying “the pill kills” and similar such nonsense. I believe firmly that if you can not perform your duties as a doctor or pharmacist then you should go back to school and learn a different profession, that does not conflict with your beliefs. its ridiculous that these stone age beliefs are worming their way into law. Whats next, exotic dancers that don’t disrobe? coffee houses that don’t serve coffee?(caffeine) or paramedics that wont give lifesaving services to those who lead lives that are morally objectionable to the paramedic?

Doctors are not there to make moral judgments, that’s what priests are for. Pharmacists also are not there to pass judgment, they are just very well educated clerks. Their only responsibility is to take product A and measure label and dispense. This removes the right of employers to sanction employees who refuse to do their jobs. This will keep those people employed until these businesses either find other cause to terminate them or go out of business because all their customers are going to the pharmacy down the street that has their head on correctly and just does their job without placing their beliefs on their customers.
Isn’t one of the biggies in christian belief systems “judge not lest ye be judged”

Posted by: NapaJohn at December 21, 2008 9:31 AM
Comment #272547

This is a huge slippery slope, whats next refusing AIDS medications to patients because the pharmacist objects to the persons lifestyle?
This is appalling.

Posted by: NapaJohn at December 21, 2008 9:37 AM
Comment #272548

>Let me clariy one thing. I don’t think many pharmasisist are unwilling to dispence birth control medicines. It’s the ones that induce abortions that is the problem.
Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 09:05 AM

KAP,

Let me clarify one thing…I think that if is a legal product, prescribed by a doctor, and paid for by a patient, it is none of the pharmacist’s business what the medication entails. If it is not a legal product, it should be reported to the local athaurities…period.

Please read posts numbered 272496 and 272515 above for a more detailed clarification.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 21, 2008 9:40 AM
Comment #272553

Lifesaving medications is one thing. Let me ask all of you one thing, If you were asked to kill someone, would you do it?

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 1:29 PM
Comment #272559

KAP:

Where do you get off asking that type of question? Taking birth control pills is killing someone? Wherever you are getting your information, it is wrong. The problem of pharmacists not filling birth control prescriptions is growing and will grow exponentially with this ruling.

Who are you or Bush or any one else to come between the doctor and the patient? Birth control pills are prescribed for other reasons than just birth control, but even if they weren’t it is no business of yours or any one elses.

You holier than thou folks give me a headache.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 21, 2008 2:50 PM
Comment #272560

“One America where Joe Sixpack can buy his Cialis and Trojans and another America where Jane the Hockey-mom can’t buy a NuvaRing or a monthly dose of The Pill.” I’m pretty sick of the ads on tv for boner pills. “May cause an erection lasting 4 hours” is probably one of the sleaziest things ever broadcast on tv, but let’s not impede commerce.

Pharmacists dispense all kinds of medicines that they might not want any member of their own family to use. This is part of an agenda. No abortion, no access to birth control, no sex education, no kidding. Your daughter will have to marry any guy who knocks her up, or have his baby, anyway, except within the prohibited degree of consanguinity, of course.

Posted by: ohrealy at December 21, 2008 3:06 PM
Comment #272561

Woman
Read 272542 I said abortion inducing drugs. I do not see anything wrong with birth control. Like I said if you were asked to kill someone would you?

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 3:08 PM
Comment #272562

KAP:

Do you ever stop to consider that there may be a valid medical reason for the doctor to have prescribed those drugs?

I did read your post. You said few pharmacists are refusing birth control. You are wrong. Plus, there shouldn’t be any, should there?

Who are you or anyone else to decide whether a drug is medically necessary? What about rape or incest victims? What if (like my mother) another pregnancy would have killed her and the baby? You all presume too much.

Why are you so concerned with other peoples’ sexuality and reproduction? There are so many other wrongs in this world to concentrate on. Getting involved in someone’s medical treatment as a non-physician is deplorable.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 21, 2008 3:32 PM
Comment #272563

Woman
I do not care if anyone wants to go out and do whatever they want to do to their body. Like you liberals say it’s CHOICE. But in the cases you have stated is another story. The practice of using abortion as a method of birth control is another.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 3:43 PM
Comment #272564

KAP:

Now you’re dancing around it.

Keep dancing. Hopefully Obama can fix this and the rest of Bush’s last minute “legacies”.

In the meantime, worry about yourself, not me or my family nor our medical treatment. This is between me, my physician, my clergy and my God. Not yours.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 21, 2008 4:15 PM
Comment #272565

So KAP, I guess you think that if a judge or cop or fireman or ambulance driver decides that they don’t agree with the morals of someone to whom they would provide a service, life-affecting or not, then that judge or cop or fireman or ambulance driver has the right to refuse them service?

Say a cop decides that two homosexuals whose car has been stolen or damaged are immoral and don’t deserve for him to take a report, you think that would be just fine and dandy? Or a fire truck drives up to a house on fire and finds out a unmarried pregnant woman owns the house (doesn’t need recue, just needs the fire put out), they should just let it burn, right?

That’s the very same situation as the doctor or pharmacist who refuses to provide legal service on the basis of their personal moral code. And it’s firetrucking ridiculous.

Posted by: Varsity at December 21, 2008 4:29 PM
Comment #272568

You on the left use the word CHOICE. But if someone who is pro life uses the word Choice, that is wrong And Varsity your post is dumb.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 4:54 PM
Comment #272569

KAP >Varsity your post is dumb.

Great comeback, KAP, which just proves I was right on the money.

Anyone who is licensed by a state or federal governing board to do a job, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, cops, firemen, judges, etc. take an oath to follow the law, not their personal moral code. If they break their oath, including using their personal moral code to decide who does or does not receive service, they should not just lose their job; they should lose their job and their license, which prevents them from taking a job requiring the license. Just losing their job is not enough.

Posted by: Varsity at December 21, 2008 5:01 PM
Comment #272570

Varsity
Where is the law that states a Doctor has to preform abortions or a pharmasist has to dipence abortion inducing Drugs. Why is it that the left can have a CHOICE but not the right. Your right Doctors due take an oath and that oath is to preserve life NOT to take it. IMO doctors and pharmasist should have the right to CHOICE.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 5:21 PM
Comment #272571

KAP >Where is the law that states a Doctor has to preform abortions or a pharmasist has to dipence
KAP >abortion inducing Drugs.

Of course, the law is not that specific. But their oath is to to do what is best for the patient. If the doctor determines the best thing for the patient is to take the morning-after pill, then the pharmacist does not get to second guess that determination. That is in the oath and it is in the law.

KAP >IMO doctors and pharmasist should have the right to CHOICE

In you opinion maybe so. The doctor and pharmacist made the CHOICE when they took the oath as part of becoming licensed. That’s the extent of their choice. If they want to give up the license, they can make all the CHOICEs they want for their own personal self, but not for patients.

KAP >Your right Doctors due take an oath and that oath is to preserve life NOT to take it.

Right, but the fetus does not exist as a life except as the mother so chooses it to be. It’s not the doctor’s or the pharmacist’s decision to make as to whether the fetus remain viable or not. Again, the health of the mother is the only concern of the health care professional, not anything else.

Posted by: Varsity at December 21, 2008 5:33 PM
Comment #272572

KAP:
The laws that you are referring to are state laws. They are laws that require doctors/hospitals to inform rape victims that such options are available.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 21, 2008 5:35 PM
Comment #272573

KAP- miss the point much? the observation is that health care providers will dispense e.d. drugs w/no moral troubles, but when it comes to womens health issues, they are all of the sudden struck w/morality. this isn’t the first time. it has happened since the dawn of “man”. men are always consumed w/womens morality, and interferring when they deem anything “immoral”.

in the same tone e.d. drugs are paid for by insurance, and birth control pills are not covered by insurance. guess it is cheaper to pay for live births than $20.00/month. nice fuzzy math.

kind of like when prostitutes are arrested, and the “johns” are not. both breaking the laws, one paying the price.

it is about control. it is not a moral issue. they want control in our life. men do not control us, and they think they have found a way in which to do it, so they will use the loop hole of neglecting our prescribed medications. i guess you will be outraged when you are no longer given your e.d. drugs due to a morality clause.

Posted by: bluebuss at December 21, 2008 5:51 PM
Comment #272574

Varsity
I am not refering to rape victim or those of incest any Doctor or Nurse should inform them of their options but NOT have to preform such options, they can be referred to a Doctor or Pharmasist who will. Again you bring up CHOISE, as the mother so CHOOSES, not because of her health but because it is an inconvience. That is where the health care professional should also have a CHOISE.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 5:56 PM
Comment #272575

Bluebuss
I don’t know what insurance you have but my insurance covers Birth control. I am not saying birth control devices should not be despenced. I would rather see that than abortion except in extreme cases. I am defending the health care professionals right to CHOISE.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 6:36 PM
Comment #272577

KAP:

How long have birth control pills been prescribed? Why now do they all of a sudden have a conscience? It’s long enough for them to have gone into a different profession. And abortion even longer. No excuses there, none.

And I still ask, what the hell business is it of yours or anyone elses? So my mother, pregnant by mistake should die? I don’t think so buster. Who died and left you and those like you boss?

Posted by: womanmarine at December 21, 2008 7:00 PM
Comment #272578

Oh, and KAP, not all insurances are accepted at all pharmacies. So having to go to another isn’t always an option. You don’t have all the answers.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 21, 2008 7:07 PM
Comment #272579

Woman
How do you get pregnant by mistake? Did I say your mother should Die?NO!!!! I have stated BIRTH CONTROL DEVICES should be despenced I would rather see that then abortion,except in extreme cases, but that health care professionals should have a Choise just like you have a CHOISE

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 7:10 PM
Comment #272580

Woman
You only have one pharmacy in your town. WHAT A PITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 7:13 PM
Comment #272581

KAP:

If my mother’s birth control failed and she got pregnant, a morning after pill or something similar would have been required to save her life. You would want her to die.

And it isn’t a case of only one pharmacy in town, it’s a case of only one pharmacy approved by my insurance.

You don’t even bother to think any of this through or get more information do you?

Posted by: womanmarine at December 21, 2008 7:17 PM
Comment #272583

KAP >I am not refering to rape victim or those of incest

Neither am I. I’m talking about anyone who is pregnant and does not want to be.

KAP >Doctor or Nurse should inform them of their options but NOT have to preform such options,

If the doctor or nurse is qualified and competent to perform the action and it is in the best interest of the patient, they are required to do so. That is the law and it is part of their oath.

The time for the doctor or nurse to make their CHOICE about abortion is during their training, prior to taking their oath as a professional. If a doctor or nurse feels that terminating a pregnancy is killing a human being, they should make the CHOICE to go into another specialty. The time to make a CHOICE like that is not when the patient who is pregnant comes to them and wants to end the pregnancy.

KAP >they can be referred to a Doctor or Pharmasist who will.

The pharmacist is required by law, and they take an oath to uphold the law, to dispense drugs as prescribed unless an error has been made by whoever wrote the prescription. They must make the CHOICE when they take the oath to uphold the law, because the law requires them to dispense the prescription as written. The time to make their CHOICE is not when the patient comes with a prescription for the morning-after pill. If they can’t fulfill their oath to uphold the law, they should make the CHOICE of another career.

KAP >not because of her health but because it is an inconvience.

If the doctor and the patient decide termination of the pregnancy is in the best interest of the patient, that’s all the decision there is to make. The nurse or the pharmacist or you or anyone else have no say in the decision.

KAP >That is where the health care professional should also have a CHOISE.

No, the health care professional makes their CHOICE when they decide to become a health care professional. After that, their only CHOICE is whether to follow their oath and the law. If they make the CHOICE not to follow the law and uphold their oath, then they deserve to be fired and lose their license.

Posted by: Varsity at December 21, 2008 7:28 PM
Comment #272584

Woman
I am sorry your mothers birth control failed, I do not wish anyone to die. Those pills I am sure are avaliable at any hospital, her doctor could have ordered it for her. My isurance isn’t accepted at my favorite pharmacy so I had to find a new one. IT’s A MONEY THING. All I am trying to say is, is that health care professionals should have the right to CHOISE just like you have. If a health care professional has to be forced to do something he or she dosen’t want to do our health care will suffer. Would you like to be forced to do something you don’t want to do?

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 7:35 PM
Comment #272585

KAP >If a health care professional has to be forced to do something he or she dosen’t want to do our
KAP >health care will suffer.

No one forces a health care professional to choose that career. When they make the CHOICE to go into that field, they make the CHOICE to do what is inb the best interest of the patient in the case of a doctor or nurse or dispense the prescription as writeen int he case of a pharmacist.

Posted by: Varsity at December 21, 2008 7:38 PM
Comment #272586

Why would anyone want a doctor with a conscience to find a different profession? Maybe they feel that defending life is a good thing. I want more doctor’s with souls, these hero’s aren’t going anywhere.

Posted by: james at December 21, 2008 7:44 PM
Comment #272587

KAP >All I am trying to say is, is that health care professionals should have the right to CHOISE just
KAP >like you have.

That’s ridiculous. That’s like saying a guy who runs the lethal injection machine should be able to decide on a per-case basis whether or not to do his job. He could say “Oh, I don’t want to execute women” or “That’s someone’s grandmother, I can’t give her a lethal injection.” . That’s BS - you take the job, you agree to do the job and if you have moral objections, you do something else that doesn’t involve doing that.

Their decision was made when they took the job - if they don’t want to do the job, they need to get another job.

Posted by: Varsity at December 21, 2008 7:48 PM
Comment #272588

KAP >Why would anyone want a doctor with a conscience to find a different profession?

Because the doctor has no business using HIS or HER personal moral code in making decisions about someone elses health.

What don’t you understand about that? Why do you think a doctor’s personal moral code should override mine? Because that’s what your saying - you’re saying that a doctor’s personal moral code matters more that what is best for my health. I want nothing to do with any doctor who feels that way.

I’m done with you, you clearly are incapable of seeing any point of view but your own faith-based view of morality.

Posted by: Varsity at December 21, 2008 7:53 PM
Comment #272589

Varsity
How would you like to be forced to go to WAR?

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 7:54 PM
Comment #272590

I incorrectly attributes the following to KAP, it was in fact james. My apologies to KAP.

james >Why would anyone want a doctor with a conscience to find a different profession?

Because the doctor has no business using HIS or HER personal moral code in making decisions about someone elses health.

What don’t you understand about that? Why do you think a doctor’s personal moral code should override mine? Because that’s what your saying - you’re saying that a doctor’s personal moral code matters more that what is best for my health. I want nothing to do with any doctor who feels that way. And if they think their personal moral code is more important than what’s best for my health, that doctor needs to find another specialty. He or she is not suited to be a doctor.

Posted by: Varsity at December 21, 2008 7:55 PM
Comment #272591

KAP >Varsity How would you like to be forced to go to WAR?

That’s a completely different situation.

Health care professionals are not forced to become health care professionals, so there is no analogy to be drawn between the two situations.

Posted by: Varsity at December 21, 2008 7:58 PM
Comment #272592

Varsity
I DID NOT WRITE THE CONSCIENCE THING READ THE NAME AT THE BOTTOM OF THE POST.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 7:59 PM
Comment #272593

james >Maybe they feel that defending life is a good thing.

Their job is to do what is in the best interest of the patient. The patient in the case we’re talking about is the pregnant woman, not the fetus. If the woman does not want to be pregnant and it is in her best interest to terminate the pregnancy, the doctor is not doing his job if he does not terminate his pregnancy.

james >I want more doctor’s with souls, these hero’s aren’t going anywhere.

Firstly, just because a doctor does what is in the best interest of the patient does NOT mean he/she has no soul. You have a faulty logic there. I say a doctor who does what is in the best interest of the woman is the one that has the soul; the pharisee who thinks doing what is not in the woman’s best interest is the one who has no soul.

Secondly, a doctor who does not do what is in the woman’s best interest is a renegade who has broken the law and his oath; he is not a hero. You also have faulty logic there.

Posted by: Varsity at December 21, 2008 8:04 PM
Comment #272594

Varsity
No different than your examples. Would you like to be forced to do something against you will?

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 8:04 PM
Comment #272595

KAP >Would you like to be forced to do something against you will?

Alright, I’ll answer your question is you answer this one:

Are health care professionals forced to become health care professionals? Because if they are NOT forced to become health care professionals, they are not forced to do abortions or dispense drugs they don’t like against their will.

Same thing with the guy that runs the lethal injection machine in the prison: nobody forced him to take the job, so nobody’s forcing him to kill women or grandmothers or whatever group he doesn’t want to kill.

So you answer my question first. Then I’ll answer yours.

Posted by: Varsity at December 21, 2008 8:09 PM
Comment #272597

Varsity
No they are not forced to become health care professionals. It was their CHOISE. and yes by what you are stating you want them forced to do something against their will. The guy running the lethal injection machine is no where near being a health care professional and is a piss poor example.
So, would you like to be forced to go to War or do something against your will?

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 8:27 PM
Comment #272598

Me >Are health care professionals forced to become health care professionals?

OK, 15 minutes and no answer, I’ll take that as a NO.

In answer to your query no, I sure don’t like being forced to do things against my will, which is in large measure why I chose not to enter the military. Had I been drafted, I would have joined and served and done what I was told even if I didn’t think it was right, even kill the enemy that I didn’t know and didn’t hate, because that’s what grown-ups do, KAP.

Grown-ups generally do their job and if their job doesn’t fit their moral code, they go do something else that doesn’t conflict with their moral code.

You and all the others who agree with Bush on this topic want to have it both ways: you want people to have the job and the pay and benefits but you want them to be able to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to actually do the job or not. That’s not right.

Posted by: Varsity at December 21, 2008 8:31 PM
Comment #272599

KAP
If you have not adopted an unwanted child you have absolutly zero moral authority on family planning issues. None. If you have adopted an unwanted child then God bless you. Which is it?

Posted by: bills at December 21, 2008 8:33 PM
Comment #272600

Varsity
So you don’t like being forced to do things against their will. If you were drafted they do have a consiences objector status in which you serve in a non combative roll, yet still remain in the military like a grown up hence the health professional still being a health professional without doing procedures such as abortions.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 8:40 PM
Comment #272601

bills
If at my age and if I could afford it I would adopt 100 unwanted children if the adoption services would let me.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 8:43 PM
Comment #272605

> If you were drafted they do have a conscientious objector status in which you serve in a non combative roll, yet still remain in the military like a grown up hence the health professional still being a health professional without doing procedures such as abortions.
Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 08:40 PM

KAP,

Nope…objectors would be asigned to jobs unrelated to combat service…to corolate…qualified doctors and qualified pharmacists, would then have to remove themselves from direct involvement in the services required of them. In other words, if a doctor did not wish to perform a legal abortion, he would be obligated to refer the patient to a doctor of equal qualification who would be willing. Consciencious Objectors do not stop the war, and they do not interfere with its operations.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 21, 2008 9:15 PM
Comment #272606

PS:

If everyone who would adopt were able to afford it, and were as willing as you to do it, there would be no problem. But, why, even with all those altruistic folks out there, would that change the ‘choice’ criteria?

Posted by: Marysdude at December 21, 2008 9:19 PM
Comment #272607

Dude
objector NON COMBATIVE roll is what I said. As far as the physicians I refer you to post 272574

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 9:27 PM
Comment #272608

KAP:
How about a person working in a liquor store or a store that sells liquor to someone that is an alcoholic?

i worked in a store many years ago. If i selectively chose who i would serve alcohol to, (as long as they were age appropriate) i would be fired. End of story.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 21, 2008 9:29 PM
Comment #272609

KAP >So you don’t like being forced to do things against their will.

Of course not, who does?

KAP >If you were drafted they do have a consiences objector status in which you serve in
KAP >a non combative roll, yet still remain in the military like a grown up

Irrelevant. And the next quote of your does not follow logically from the previous.

KAP >hence the health professional still being a health professional without doing procedures such
KAP >as abortions.

If you don’t want to do abortions, don’t be an OB/GYN with training on abortions. Or, don’t have residence at a hospital where abortions are performed. If you are an OB/GYN and you do have training on abortions and you have resident privileges where abortions are performed and most importantly if it is in the patient’s best interest, then you are bound to do an abortion.

If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one or perform one, but leave people alone who don’t share your fanatical religious dogma.

If you don’t want to dispense contraceptives or morning-after pills, don’t be a pharmacist or work at a pharmacy where those drugs are stocked. It’ really just that simple, KAP. A pharmacist shouldn’t get to keep his or her license or job if they don’t do their job, which is to dispense prescriptions as written.

Posted by: Varsity at December 21, 2008 9:31 PM
Comment #272610

Nope, KAP, since you obviously do not read the posts referenced to you, I feel no obligation to read one of yours.

This is no longer a discussion, an argument or a debate…this is an exercise in futility, and lacks communication…everyone staying here, be at peace…have a nice holiday season.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 21, 2008 9:40 PM
Comment #272611

J.T.
Here in my state if you knowingly sold alchol to an alcholic and he went out and killed someone you could be held liable to.
Varsity
You on the left preach Choice. As Dude said the Health care professional would refer you to a qualified doctor who would do the procedure or the pharmasist would refer you to a pharmacy that would. Why is it so wrong to you liberals to have a conscience,or why is it so wrong for an OB/Gyn to be able to just deliver babies and take care of female problems and not do abortions, sure they are trained to do them but they don’t have to do them.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 9:47 PM
Comment #272612

Marysdude
Adoption does not change the “choice” criteria but to me ,at any rate, anti-choice people that have adopted are at least morally credible though wrong. The way the law is now and should remain is that if you do not have a uterus, what goes on in one is none of your business. Anti-choice people want to insert politicians into my wifes uterus. Some how they believe the government can make better choices than individuals. In some classic doublethink these are also the people concerned about government intrusion. To pursue their goals they pretend that making abortion against the law would get rid of it magically,just like the “War on Drugs” magically got rid of the drug problem. What it would actually do is bring back the coathanger and poison concoction except for the rich ,of course, who have always had access to abortion for their daughters and mistresses.

KAP
Intent is meaningless. So the answer is no?
Have you considered the possibility that there are other people whose situation is similar to yours,that because of circumstances are unable to support and rear a child?How would you like to be forced to adopt a child? That is exactly what you are proscribing for others.

Posted by: bills at December 21, 2008 9:52 PM
Comment #272613

KAP:
How does one know if (HE) is an alcoholic? If (HE) walks into the liquor store and is above the drinking age (21) then he gets served.

i believe you’re referring to when a DRUNK (someone already visibly drunk) gets served.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 21, 2008 10:01 PM
Comment #272614

KAP >You on the left preach Choice.

As I said, what maybe 5 or 6 times, the choice was made when the health pro made the CHOICE to do that work. They don’t get to choose on each patient.

NOW I’m done with you. You just aren’t willing to try to understand.

Posted by: Varsity at December 21, 2008 10:04 PM
Comment #272615

KAP >You on the left preach Choice.

By the way, I’m not “on the left”. I’m on the right, which is why I believe women should have the freedom to make reproductive decisions without interference from the church or the government.

Posted by: Varsity at December 21, 2008 10:07 PM
Comment #272616

bills
I am not prescribing people being forced to adopt. The thing is why are you trying to force a Physician or pharmasist to preform an abortion or to dispence abortion inducing drugs against his will.As I said before could they not refer you to a professional with like qualifications who whould do what you ask. You guys are the ones who are anti-choise except in your own case.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 10:16 PM
Comment #272617

bills
I am not prescribing people being forced to adopt. The thing is why are you trying to force a Physician or pharmasist to preform an abortion or to dispence abortion inducing drugs against his will.As I said before could they not refer you to a professional with like qualifications who whould do what you ask. You guys are the ones who are anti-choise except in your own case.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 10:20 PM
Comment #272618

Varsity
I agree, women should have the right to make those decisions.

Posted by: KAP at December 21, 2008 10:24 PM
Comment #272620

Those referrals I mentioned were to be made just prior to retirement from the profession. KAP, a professional works within the parameters of his field of endeavor. If he is unwilling to do that he is not a professional. A pharmacist that makes decisions normally made by a doctor, he is not certified to be, that pharmacist is not performing his profession. At that time, he should hand in his license to practice pharmacy, and refer the patient who will be willing to practice that profession.

A doctor who finds it necessary to decline a legal procedure, on personal grounds, is not acting within the parameters of his profession. When that times comes, that doctor should hand in his certifications, refer his patient to another doctor who is willing to function within those parameters, and seek a job in the clergy.

When I wrote about this earlier, I was getting sleepy, but I am NOT sleepy right now. Rferral, then resignation, it is just that simple. You cannot put on the cloak without being willing to perform the act.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 22, 2008 7:27 AM
Comment #272621

There are religions out there that declare body invasion a sin…I wonder of a doctor, in the middle of a heart transplant could suddenly come down with a case of the guilts, throw down his scalpel, walk away from his patient and still remain a surgeon…

Catholics believe that any interference with procreation, outside of the natural rhythm method, is a sin. What is to stop a Catholic pharmacist from stocking condoms on his shelves, and refusing to dispense IUD devices, birth control pills or any other medicine or device appropriate to preventing a pregnancy…

It is a very slippery slope we have found ourselves on. I wonder why we can’t just have schools that teach a profession, and professionals who practice that professions…

Posted by: Marysdude at December 22, 2008 7:37 AM
Comment #272622

The paragraph above should read, “not stocking condoms”. I must still be too sleepy…:)

Posted by: Marysdude at December 22, 2008 7:41 AM
Comment #272625

Ya know, I seem to remember some oath that doctors have to take…something about “First, do no harm”. Anybody remember that?

What is “harm”? Who decides that?

Is aborting a human life (or potential human life) harm or not?

Isn’t that up to the individual physician to determine according to that physician’s system of beliefs?

Or is it up to you to dictate their personally held beliefs?

Once again, I ask the question: “Is aborting a human life (or potential human life) harm or not?”

A look at the law indicates that killing an unborn or potential human is illegal.

If I were to murder a woman, I would, quite rightfully, be charged with murder.

If I were to kill a child, I would, once again quite rightfully, be charged with murder.

However, if I kill a pregnant woman…I can be charged with TWO murders…while a woman aborting a potential human being is just business as usual.

The law says that me killing a potential human is murder, while a woman killing a potential human is A-OK.

Since the law is contradictory and inconsistent on killing the unborn, the individual doctor must…must…be given the benefit of the doubt in their determining the definition of “harm”.

This “do no harm” caveat also must be extended to pharmacist as well.

If a pharmacist is just a “pill pusher” who MUST fill ALL prescriptions, what if he or she fills a script that he or she KNOWS will conflict with other medicines the patient is taking?

According to people here, the pharmacist has no choice but to fill a prescription that will kill or do grave harm to a patient.

So then, should the pharmacist just robotically fill the prescription watch the patient die after taking it?

Where does the moral choice come in? Shouldn’t the pharmacist be allowed to say, “Look, taking the medicine will kill you, and I’m not going to give it to you”?

If so, shouldn’t the pharmacist be allowed to say, “This medicine will kill your unborn baby, and I’m not going to give it to you”?

What is “harm”?

It’s not your call.

It’s the call of the physician or pharmacist that has to go home every night and live with themselves…trying to determine if they’ve done murder or not.

Posted by: Jim T at December 22, 2008 8:03 AM
Comment #272627
If a pharmacist is just a “pill pusher” who MUST fill ALL prescriptions, what if he or she fills a script that he or she KNOWS will conflict with other medicines the patient is taking?

Jim T: not the same thing at all. You are comparing apples and oranges. What you posted is part and parcel of a pharmacist’s job. It is then his responsibility to inform the patient and the doctor. All the doctor’s I have worked for will take calls from pharmacists immediately, for this very reason.

It is not the same thing as refusing to fill a prescriptio for birth control for “religious” reasons.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 22, 2008 8:51 AM
Comment #272628

“Religious” reasons or just moral reasons. You don’t answer the question “What is harm?”

Is that for you to decide or the physician or pharmacist?

Is killing an unborn human moral or not? Is it harm or not? Is it your definition that matters and the physician and pharmacist are just ROBOTS that MUST do your bidding?

You and others here have stated that doctors and pharmacists should not get into the profession if they have objections to “doing their jobs”…so I would guess you’re on the “ROBOT” side of that argument.

So answer the questions and don’t “cherry pick” or obfuscate.

Is killing a potential human being “harm” or not? Yes or no? Does it conflict with their oath or not? Who decides what conflicts with the individual doctor’s beliefs and what does not?

Posted by: Jim T at December 22, 2008 9:05 AM
Comment #272629

If what you posted were correct, referring the patient to another pharmacy would amount to the same thing. If a medication were to conflict with another of the patient’s medications and cause harm, no pharmacist would be able to skip that responsibility by referring the patient to another pharmacy to have the script filled.

From the pharmacist’s code of ethics:

A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.
Posted by: womanmarine at December 22, 2008 9:06 AM
Comment #272631

womanmarine,

So pharmacists are to respect…”personal and cultural differences among patients.”

Shouldn’t the patients respect the “personal and cultural differences among pharmacists”?

I guess not.

The question remains…who defines “harm”? The patient or the physician? The patient or the pharmacist?

I’m waiting.

Posted by: Jim T at December 22, 2008 10:03 AM
Comment #272632

If a soldier was ordered to shoot into a crowd of civilians he would be applauded for refusing that order even if it was unprofessional to disobey.
If a CIA agent refused to torture based on his humanistic belief that it was wrong, even though his orders and training were to get information at all costs, you would certainly applaud him. If he was fired, it would be unjust.
Why is the double standard toward moral defiance?
I took care of elderly for years and you always have a couple relatives who want to knock off grandma to get at the inheritance. My home was obligated to obey prescriptions orders by law. I certainly would refuse to dispense lethal doses of anything.
Don’t socialists teach civil defiance against institutions as a way to get social justice? I do believe it is a sign of strength for a society. A doctor shouldn’t be banished because he makes a stand for saving a life. The opinion against abortion can come from a purely biological and humanistic standpoint. As far as defining “unwanted”, few children are unfortunately, but people rise to the occasion all the time.


Posted by: Kruser at December 22, 2008 10:04 AM
Comment #272633

Doctor works for the govt, doctor treats who govt tells him to or gets job elsewhere.
Doctor works for hospital, doctor treats who employer says or gets job elsewhere.
Doctor works for himself, doctor treats who he wants.

Pharmacist works for govt, pharmacist gives drugs to who govt tells him to or gets job elsewhere.
Pharmacist works for company, pharmacist gives drugs to who they are told to or gets job elsewhere.
Pharmacist works for self, pharmacist sets their own rules and dispenses drugs as they want.

Yes, it is that easy.

Posted by: kctim at December 22, 2008 10:13 AM
Comment #272637

You aren’t making logical sense.
Soldier work for government soldier shoot civilian
Agent work for government agent torture terrorist.
Is it that simple?
The fact is that doctors and pharmacists do have private practices and don’t often work for the government.

Should a pharmacist refuse to give abortion pills to a late term woman? Of course. Your argument is rhetorical. Based on an opinion of when life begins. Biologically, a DNA sample will show a separate human entity at conception. If he/she refuses to participate it is a good thing for our society.

Posted by: Kruser at December 22, 2008 10:40 AM
Comment #272641

You do make a good argument for the advantages of private practice verses government health care. Heaven knows what bureaucrats would force our good doctors to do out of fear of reprisals.

Posted by: Kruser at December 22, 2008 11:12 AM
Comment #272642

Jim T >What is “harm”? Who decides that?

The doctor and the patient decide. Not the pharmacist.

Jim T >Is aborting a human life (or potential human life) harm or not?

If the woman wants the fetus to survive, yes it is harm. If the woman doesn’t want the fetus, no it is not harm. The fetus is part of the woman’s body so it is up to the woman to decide if the fetus is to survive or not.

Jim T >Isn’t that up to the individual physician to determine according to that physician’s system
Jim T >of beliefs?

No, it is not. The physicians “system of beliefs” does not enter into it.

Jim T >Or is it up to you to dictate their personally held beliefs?

When doctors are trained to be doctors, they learn how to decide what is best for the patient, not what is best according to their system of beliefs.

Jim T> Once again, I ask the question: “Is aborting a human life (or potential human life)
Jim T> harm or not?”

See above, it’s up to the woman and her doctor.

Jim T>A look at the law indicates that killing an unborn or potential human is illegal.

Where’s that law?

Jim T> If I were to murder a woman, I would, quite rightfully, be charged with murder.

A woman is not a fetus and a fetus is not a woman so this has no bearing on the fate of a fetus.

Jim T> If I were to kill a child, I would, once again quite rightfully, be charged with murder.

A fetus is not a child and a child is not a fetus, so this has no bearing on the fate of a fetus.

Posted by: Varsity at December 22, 2008 11:17 AM
Comment #272643

Jim T>Shouldn’t the patients respect the “personal and cultural differences among pharmacists”?

No. If a pharmacist cannot or will not do their job, which is to dispense legal prescriptions as written, the pharmacist needs to lose his/her license and find another job.

Jim T> I guess not.

Yes, you’re correct.

Jim T> The question remains…who defines “harm”?
The patient or the physician?

Yes, the patient AND the physician.

Jim T> The patient or the pharmacist?

No, not the pharmacist. The pharmacist does not have any right to make or influence this decision.

Posted by: Varsity at December 22, 2008 11:20 AM
Comment #272644

Jim T >I seem to remember some oath that doctors have to take…something about “First, do no harm”.

It’s not part of the Hippocratic oath.

Jim T >Anybody remember that?

Yes, it’s a quote of the Roman physician Galen: “Primum non nocere” but it’s not part of the Hippocratic oath.

Posted by: Varsity at December 22, 2008 11:25 AM
Comment #272655

It looks like a paranoid Berkely shiksa faux feminista can describe herself as right wing, with an unlimited number of secret identities available to post here.

Posted by: virescit vulnere virtus at December 22, 2008 2:05 PM
Comment #272658

Kruser, the fact is the vast majority of practitioners DO work for Medicare dollars today. Those that don’t constitute a higher proportion of those whose practices are failing, I read somewhere or another.

Private practices and LLC’s don’t change their patient treatment practices as a result of who the insurer is. If anything, the particular insurer shapes what the patient chooses in the way of health care, not the doctors and nurses.

Ideology is no substitute for reality and facts. When the tax dollars spent on the uninsured and the hidden costs of uninsured ER visits are added to the total cost of our health costs per person in this country, our costs are comparable to those of the British. Yet, the British provide health care to all, and life expectancy in old age and infant care is better than our own stats in these areas.

These facts will derail the ideological argument against single payer universal health insurance everytime. We are going to have universal health care. Period. The majority of Americans believe it is a just and worthy goal.

As I see the political cards being played going forward, we will eventually arrive at a publicly funded BASIC health care system for all, covering preventive health care maintenance as well as acute injuries and illnesses. And paralleling this system will be the private insurance industry providing for all other health care above and beyond that provided by the public sector.

Logically, this dual system should provide measurable improvement in all American’s overall health care, while preserving the private sector to compete for the discretionary health care dollar of those with means to support it. As the economy overall goes, so will go the private sector health care industry. It will then behoove the health care lobbyists to promote policies that will improve our overall long term economic health and well being.

I see this as a more holistic approach with long term benefit improvements for the nation as a whole, without depriving private individuals or health insurers anything of importance they don’t already enjoy. The private insurance sector will shrink a bit, but, competition will remain for private insurance dollars, if not intensify which usually improves quality, performance and customer satisfaction.

By removing the profit layer from a portion of the health care insurance industry, the overall cost of health insurance per capita will drop. We could end up with universal health care at measurably lower cost per capita than in European nations, through economies of scale which would be realized through a single payer BASIC health insurance system.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 22, 2008 3:02 PM
Comment #272659

If a Tight End has a moral issue with deception, and refuses to participate in the old ‘Statue of Liberty’ play, he should be well within his rights, and should not be kicked off the team…

Professionals just don’t refuse to do activities as described by their profession, else they are no longer professionals, and should lose all state support for that profession.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 22, 2008 3:05 PM
Comment #272660

The comparison between doctors, pharmacists, and the military is a canard.
Military personnel take a legally binding oath to follow “legal” orders, doctors and pharmacist do no such thing.
Furthermore, any “Christian” pharmacist that will not sell a legal drug the corporation they work for stocks, but the “Christian” pharmacist may find personally offensive, yet this same “Christian” pharmacist might be willing to work on the Sabbath because he “needs the money” is a hypocrite.
Is it OK to only follow the precepts of your religion to make a statement, or should you follow them throughout the whole of your daily life?
I agree with kctim.
IMHO doctors or pharmacists that are self employed have the right to refuse the treatment in question if they so desire.
Corporate employees do not, as they left those rights behind them when they signed on the bottom line.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 22, 2008 3:11 PM
Comment #272661

Kruser,

If the woman and the doctor are both atheists, should the pharmacist then force his so-called ‘moral’ values into the equasion? Why is it so difficult to see that a professional has an obligation to his profession…if there is a quandry, he should select another profession. No one can ask him to dispense Morning After Pills, if he is a butcher or works at Sears in the tire shop.

Posted by: Marysdude at December 22, 2008 3:13 PM
Comment #272662

To qualify for Medicaid you have to spend all your assets on health care first. I have experience taking care of handicapped and elderly.
The uninsured in our country are those who make too much or have too many assets to qualify. We already have central health care.
I asked a doctor friend why he wouldn’t locate in our home town. He said that doctors will assess the area and factor in the ratio of Medicaid vs private. The lower Medicaid areas are much more profitable especially after seven years plus in school. Naturally you would lean toward places with more private care.
I had go full private pay with my home because the Medicaid people were so demanding for less than half the pay.
My own experience with government based benevolence is that it always provides much less care for much more money to the taxpayer.
The improvements we need in the US can be seen in the European model but don’t include socialization. That would be a digression and the subject of another day. Aren’t lobbyists evil to this column? You want to trust quality of health care to them?

Posted by: Kruser at December 22, 2008 3:23 PM
Comment #272664

varsity


“But their oath is to to do what is best for the patient.”

read the oath. here,s a couple paragraphs.


“To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.”

“I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.”

“I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath#The_original_oath

there will always be those who are willing to perscribe these drugs. those that choose not to should also have that option. all this law will prevent is lawsuits aimed at those who choose not to.

Posted by: dbs at December 22, 2008 3:37 PM
Comment #272667

Should a muslim butcher be forced to serve pork in his deli?
Should a chef who is a member of PETA be forced to serve me raw beef for my meal at her restaurant?
Should a health nut chef be forced to serve me deepfried foods cooked in transfats in his pub?

No. It is my personal obligation to find the deli, restaurant, pub, doctor or pharmacist which suits my needs.

Posted by: kctim at December 22, 2008 3:50 PM
Comment #272670

kctim wrote:

“No. It is my personal obligation to find the deli, restaurant, pub, doctor or pharmacist which suits my needs.”

OH…MY…GOD!!!

Pushing a CAPITALIST ideal here???? In the BLUE column???? SHAME on you!!!!

Taking PERSONAL responsibility here in the BLUE column????

That’s HERESY!!!

/sarcasm

Posted by: Jim T at December 22, 2008 4:03 PM
Comment #272672

dbs, per your own post, you’re off track! Now go back and read what the oath is that is taken TODAY by the graduates. The one you cited is “the original” and is no longer in use.
You’ll find the wording different and in opposition to your stance, which is no doubt why you failed to post the correct one.
kctim, your comments get only more ridiculous……and farther away from subject.

Posted by: janedoe at December 22, 2008 4:12 PM
Comment #272673

JimT, good to see you’ve showed up to lend your support to the shuck and jive team……the comments are beginning to get a bit bizarre.

Posted by: janedoe at December 22, 2008 4:15 PM
Comment #272674

janedoe

regardless, it should still be up to the individual doctor, or pharmacist as to what they choose to perscribe, or dispense. this law will not stop anyone from doing either, but will prevent someone from being sued for exercising thier conscience. you may not like it, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

Posted by: dbs at December 22, 2008 4:18 PM
Comment #272678

janedoe

you’re right.

“In the 1970s, cultural and social forces induced many American medical schools to abandon the Hippocratic Oath as part of graduation ceremonies, usually substituting a version modified to something considered more politically up to date, “

so progressives not liking the original decided to change it. how convenient. if you can’t honor the oath just change it so you can. my guess is many still believe in the original version and honor it, and thats what you seem to have a problem with.

Posted by: dbs at December 22, 2008 4:28 PM
Comment #272679

It does make it wrong because they are taught and trained to use medical science and that means that biblical, or moral values should NOT enter the fray.
Still you dissenters wander from the main issue, and that the subject of this bill is a woman, and until you can do what we do with our bodies, you really have no say in regards to our choices! Us…our doctor….and that’s it.
I still think we should seriously consider manditory castration or maybe just vasectomies at the age of 30. Reproduction is generally not widespread after that….so you might as well carry the burden for a while.
Maybe we could talk s**t for brains into running something like through real quick.
Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy to think that someone may be able to make you do what you might not consider??

Posted by: janedoe at December 22, 2008 4:36 PM
Comment #272680

dbs, that’s an awful lot of presumption there…..
but what else is new?

Posted by: janedoe at December 22, 2008 4:38 PM
Comment #272682

janedoe
This bill is about rights and trying to make it about your choice as a woman is BS. Especially when you yourself pick and choose what people are allowed to have a choice in.
We really have no say in regards to your choices, but you sure as hell feel free to have all the say in regards to the choices of doctors, pharmacists and individual rights people such as myself.

Here’s a newsflash for you: most people who think doctors and pharmacists should be allowed to think for themselves don’t really give a crap about what choices you make unless its the choice to be too lazy to find a doctor or pharmacist who will provide the services you want.

My comments are dead on subject and the only thing ridiculous is your desire to force others to believe as you so that they may accomadate you.

Posted by: kctim at December 22, 2008 5:02 PM
Comment #272684

dbs >I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and
dbs >similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”

A pessary? Dude, the modern Hippocratic oath has no such word in it, nor does it have the word abortion in it.

Here’s what else it says in the wikipedia article:

Most schools administer some form of oath, but the great majority no longer use the ancient version, which forbade general practitioners from surgery, abortion, and euthanasia.

Nice try at being intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: Varsity at December 22, 2008 5:16 PM
Comment #272686

kctim >Should a muslim butcher be forced to serve pork in his deli?

Is a muslim butcher a licensed health care professional who has take an oath to do what is in the best interest of the patient? No. Bad example.

kctim >Should a chef who is a member of PETA be forced to serve me raw beef for my meal at her
kcgim >restaurant?

Is a chef who is a member of PETA a licensed health care professional who has take an oath to do what is in the best interest of the patient? No. Bad example.

kctim >Should a health nut chef be forced to serve me deepfried foods cooked in transfats in his pub?

Is a health nut chef a licensed health care professional who has take an oath to do what is in the best interest of the patient? No. Bad example.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Posted by: Varsity at December 22, 2008 5:20 PM
Comment #272687

janedoe

“It does make it wrong because they are taught and trained to use medical science and that means that biblical, or moral values should NOT enter the fray.
Still you dissenters wander from the main issue, and that the subject of this bill is a woman, and until you can do what we do with our bodies, you really have no say in regards to our choices! Us…our doctor….and that’s it.”

gotcha, no morals. it’s all clear now. BTW who’s stopping you from making your own choice ? seems what you don’t like is others being able to make thier own choice to dispense, or perscribe, or not to.

Posted by: dbs at December 22, 2008 5:22 PM
Comment #272688

dbs >seems what you don’t like is others being able to make thier own choice to dispense, or perscribe,
dbs >or not to.

The pharmacist is in no position to know why the doctor has prescribed the drug. I know of a woman who was prescribed an abortion-inducing drug because the fetus had died but not spontaneously aborted.

You seem to think that she should have to go from pharmacist to pharmacist looking for one who doesn’t have these fanatical religious moralistic beliefs and would dispense this drug as legally written. There is no way for that pharmacist to know what the circumstances are under which the prescription was written, so they need to just do their job like an adult and not assume that the abortion-inducing drug is immoral in every circumstance.

Posted by: Varsity at December 22, 2008 5:27 PM
Comment #272690

Varsity

no one is stopping the perscribing, or dispensing. only giving those who do so a choice. certainly you don’t object to individual freedom of choice, do you ? oh thats right, i forgot, you support it as long as you agree with the choice the individual is making. never mind.

Posted by: dbs at December 22, 2008 5:28 PM
Comment #272692

dbs >certainly you don’t object to individual freedom of choice, do you ?

No, I don’t. The health care professional made their choice when they swore the oath to get the license to get the job. The oath, contrary to what you would have us believe, is to do what is best for the patient. So, yeah I believe in their freedom of choice, just not their freedom to choose to do their job only in certain circumstances.

Say a cop decides that two homosexuals whose car has been stolen or damaged are immoral and don’t deserve for him to take a report, you think that would be just fine and dandy? Or a fire truck drives up to a house on fire and finds out a unmarried pregnant woman owns the house (doesn’t need rescue, just needs the fire put out), they should just let it burn, right?

Anyone who is licensed by a state or federal governing board to do a job, including doctors, nurses, pharmacists, cops, firemen, judges, etc. take an oath to follow the law, not their personal moral code.

What you religious fanatics propose is like saying a guy who runs the lethal injection machine should be able to decide on a per-case basis whether or not to do his job. He could say “Oh, I don’t want to execute women” or “That’s someone’s grandmother, I can’t give her a lethal injection.” . That’s BS - you take the job, you agree to do the job and if you have moral objections, you do something else that doesn’t involve doing that.

Their decision was made when they took the job - if they don’t want to do the job, they need to get another job.

Posted by: Varsity at December 22, 2008 5:33 PM
Comment #272693

You are absolutly right dbs.

Posted by: KAP at December 22, 2008 5:34 PM
Comment #272698

varsity

“The oath, contrary to what you would have us believe, is to do what is best for the patient.”

so what you’re saying is that a doctor that thinks not perscribing a certain drug is whats best for the patient, is wrong because you disagree ? mighty arrogant of you being as you’re not a doctor as far as i know.

Posted by: dbs at December 22, 2008 5:54 PM
Comment #272699

Varsity
You apparently know nothing of serving food to the public. They may not take an oath, but every one of those people are licensed and are required by law to do what is in the best interest of the public.

Cops and firemen are employed by the city or state, so unless the doctors or pharmacists are employed by the city, state or big brother, those are bad examples.

What we (well, I’m actually an atheist) propose is that govt not dictate what or how a person believes.
I know this is a crazy idea, but I think it might just work: Let them believe how they want and run their business how they want. We believe how we want and use the business we want.

Posted by: kctim at December 22, 2008 6:01 PM
Comment #272700

dbs >what you’re saying is that a doctor that thinks not perscribing a certain drug is whats dbs >best for the patient

No, I don’t say that at all. I’m saying if the doctor thinks that prescribing a drug is the best thing for the patient, that is what they should do. If the the doctor thinks NOT prescribing a certain drug is the best thing for a patient, that is what they should do.

What you and most others on here are saying is that if the doc thinks prescribing the drug is the right thing to do, the pharmacist should be able to second-guess his decision with no information about how the doctor arrived at the decision.

And, you and others on here are saying that if the doctor decides it is in the best interest of the patient to prescribe a certain drug but the doctor personally has a moral issue with doing that, then he should not do that.

I say you are wrong in both the latter cases - morality does not come into the decision as to what is the best thing for the patient.

Posted by: Varsity at December 22, 2008 6:01 PM
Comment #272701

Is pro life justified by biological fact and humanistic philosophy or is it simply a religious view?

Abortion is a rhetorical view since it requires someone to speculate when a fetus is worthy to live. There is no science behind it.

Pharmacist or Doctor has the option of refusing to do these things because the reasoning behind them isn’t proveable as fact. (show an experiment or empirical evidence)It could be said that he is participating in a form of civil disobedience. I thought this column championed that. I am happy Bush chose to protect those who stand up with a good conscience. This necessary to have a strong society.


Posted by: Kruser at December 22, 2008 6:03 PM
Comment #272702

dbs……you suffer a heart attack, manage to call 911….laying there with your rosary in hand as your life support arrives…..ooppssssss….an atheist! Sorry about your bad luck because he/she just exercised a moral judgement going against his/her training and commitment to the job.
I’m not trying to force everyone to believe the way I do….I don’t really give a rat’s ass what you believe, but quit trying to reinforce the stupidity of the one who’s wanting to leave his mark on the world. Open your eyes and your mind to what some of us are trying to get across to you…..that this law is going to have devastating effects on many things, and it was done with nothing but a broadsided intent at flushing us non-bible thumpers into complete bedlam. Just because we know and are way ahead of you as for where this is all going, you shouldn’t feel so inadequate.

Posted by: janedoe at December 22, 2008 6:04 PM
Comment #272703

varsity

“Or a fire truck drives up to a house on fire and finds out a unmarried pregnant woman owns the house (doesn’t need rescue, just needs the fire put out), they should just let it burn, right?”

firemen put out fires, right ? thats thier job. how is discretion involved here ? kind of a lame argument don’t you think ? the problem here is you just refuse to accept that those who disagree with you have the right to do what they believe is best.

Posted by: dbs at December 22, 2008 6:11 PM
Comment #272704

kctim >You apparently know nothing of serving food to the public.

Tim, I don’t think you’ve ever been right about these crazy statements you make about me. I know plenty about it.

kctim >They may not take an oath,

No, not “MAY NOT”; THEY DO NOT TAKE AN OATH

kctim >but every one of those people are licensed

Not necessarily. The restaurant may be licensed, but only for the purpose of sanitary preparation and sales tax. The business license says nothing about what they must or may not sell as far as food items. Alcohol, yes. But not food items. And they’re not required to do anything in anyone’s best interest.

kctim >and are required by law to do what is in the best interest of the public.

Show me the law. There is no such law that says they must do anything except prepare the food in a sanitary manner. If they wanted to sell cheese deep-fried in butter, they can. It wouldn’t necessarily be in the consumer’s best interest but that’s not what restaurants are required to do.

kctim >unless the doctors or pharmacists are employed by the city, state or big brother, those

All doctors and pharmacists are licensed by local, county or state medical boards. So those are good examples. You’re way out of your league Tim. Again.

kctim >What we propose is that govt not dictate what or how a person believes.

Government is not trying to dictate that anybody believe anything. They can believe whatever they want, they just can’t decide on a case-by-case basis whether to do their job or not.

Posted by: Varsity at December 22, 2008 6:12 PM
Comment #272705

dbs >firemen put out fires, right ? thats thier job.

So very true, dbs, so very true. And what is the job of the pharmacist? To dispense legal, correct prescriptions as written by the doctor. That’s their job.

dbs >how is discretion involved here ?

That’s the point, fool. That is exactly my point. There should be no discretion involved in the fireman doing his/her job any more than the pharmacist should exercise discretion in doing his/her job. Get it?

dbs >kind of a lame argument don’t you think ?

No, it’s a perfect argument seeing as how you seem to agree there should be no discretion involved.

dbs >the problem here is you just refuse to accept that those who disagree with you have the
dbs >right to do what they believe is best.

The pharmacist is in no position to know what the best thing to do for the patient except if he finds that an error has been made. In that case, he/she should contact the prescribing doctor to find out if the prescription is correct. Other than that, for example, the pharmacist has no right to second-guess the prescription because he does not have the medical history of the patient available to him.

Get it?

Posted by: Varsity at December 22, 2008 6:18 PM
Comment #272706

janedoe

you guys sure come up with some convoluted, and bizzare scenarios to try and make your point. isn’t it an EMTs job to save lives ? once again where is discretion involved here ?

Posted by: dbs at December 22, 2008 6:19 PM
Comment #272707

varsity

“That’s the point, fool.”

maybe you need to re read the rules of participation.

Posted by: dbs at December 22, 2008 6:22 PM
Comment #272708

dbs:
The bush administration came up with some bizarre, convoluted scenarios to make their point too. And their point is to make sure that the women of this country are treated differently than men.

If Pharmacists of the country decided not to fill ED prescriptions, the men of the country would complain loudly. And for that matter, so would the Pharmaceutical companies (since those companies are filling the airwaves with nothing but ED advertisements)

Posted by: john trevisani at December 22, 2008 6:23 PM
Comment #272709

Varsity and all
The state of Ohio pharmasisit association adopted a resolution back in April of 1999 called A CONSCIENCE CLAUSE. Which in fact GIVES the Pharmasist the right to object to despencing certain drugs on ethical, moral, or religious grounds.

Posted by: KAP at December 22, 2008 6:25 PM
Comment #272710

dbs >once again where is discretion involved here ?

There should be no discretion by anyone providing a service like EMT, police, fire, nursing, medical or pharmacy. None. Glad you now agree. It took long enough.

Posted by: Varsity at December 22, 2008 6:26 PM
Comment #272711

The Canadian medical association Has a similar conscience clause for their physicians. It States that a doctor must advise his or hers patient of their objections to preforming abortions so that the patient may consult with another physician. Without harming their practice or employment.

Posted by: KAP at December 22, 2008 6:32 PM
Comment #272713

ED meds and dangerous abortive drugs? How do you equivocate that?
If there were a drug that helped women become aroused I am sure no man (or woman) would stand in the way of dispensing it.

Posted by: Kruser at December 22, 2008 6:41 PM
Comment #272714

KAP, there is no question that many states and countries have such laws. That was the premise of the original post by Mr. Trevisani.

I think his point and I’m sure my point is that these laws are wrong. That’s what the whole discussion is about.

Fortunately, if I recall correctly, Bush waited too long to make his move on this and Obama can reverse it with a stroke of a pen upon taking office.

Bush has already done far more harm on a variety of nutty actions prior to one month before the end of his term which cannot so easily be undone.

Posted by: Varsity at December 22, 2008 6:50 PM
Comment #272716


Obama says he wants to unite the people, rally them to his banner. By allowing this out the door initiative by Bush to stand and by increasing government funding for faith based initives he might do that.

As has been stated, people can always go to another doctor or another pharmacy.

How can Obama possibly loose by allowing this?

Posted by: jlw at December 22, 2008 7:09 PM
Comment #272719

Varsity
We go back to CHOISE,you choose to kill I choose not to. Women fought for the right of choise they got it. Health care professionals should also have that right and by the way they do by law.

Posted by: KAP at December 22, 2008 8:13 PM
Comment #272720

jlw >people can always go to another doctor or another pharmacy.

As has already been pointed out here on this discussion thread, in many cases especially in rural areas, there are no other doctors or pharmacies within a reasonable distance, so people CAN’T always go to another doctor or pharmacy. This is exactly why laws like this are so egregious. People like you presume that people who need things like the morning-after pill or contraceptives are nothing but lazy sluts who won’t go around the block to the immoral pill pusher who will give them what they need. You couldn’t be more wrong and this is why people like you and other right-wing religious fanatics have no business butting into private medical choices.

jlw >How can Obama possibly loose by allowing this?

By p-ssing off the people who supported him and put him in the WH. People who are in favor of limiting access to pharmaceuticals like these and people who are in favor of faith-based initiatives aren’t going to support Obama anyway, so why would he go out of his way to try to bring them in. We’ll see I guess.

Posted by: Varsity at December 22, 2008 8:18 PM
Comment #272722

KAP >you choose to kill

I don’t choose to kill. Where did you get that idea?

KAP >Women fought for the right of choise they got it.

No, they don’t since you and a few religious fanatics decided they don’t.

KAP >Health care professionals should also have that right

For the 8th time, they made their choice when they took the oath. They shouldn’t get to choose on a case-by-case basis any more than a police or fireman should.

KAP >and by the way they do by law.

They do now thanks to the Texas village idiot, but I predict Obama will undo the law, which he can do. Then they won’t

Posted by: Varsity at December 22, 2008 8:25 PM
Comment #272724

Varsity
Even the AMA has a CONSCIENCE CLAUSE. Where do you get that right wing religious fanatic. Even athiest have morals and object to certain medical procedures.

Posted by: KAP at December 22, 2008 8:29 PM
Comment #272725

Varsity
No One has taken a womens right to choose. It is you who don’t want to admit that other people have that right also. You use phony BS logic. And I predict Obama will not because those laws were on the books in some states even before the Texas village idiot.

Posted by: KAP at December 22, 2008 8:59 PM
Comment #272726

KAP

the bottom line is that the left opposes this because it eliminates thier abilty to sue for in court what they cant get legislated. the ability to force others to comply with thier will.

Posted by: dbs at December 22, 2008 9:06 PM
Comment #272727

AMEN dbs AMEN

Posted by: KAP at December 22, 2008 9:12 PM
Comment #272731

I had a conversation on this subject with my son who is a pharmacist. He says what Bush did was a great thing. A big concern among pharmacists is the right to refuse. There are those who jump pharmacies with narcotics. Sometimes the doses a doctor insists on can cause harm or interactions. They should be able to refuse prescriptions according to their professional knowledge without fear of an unknowledgble person bringing a lawsuit.

Posted by: Kruser at December 22, 2008 10:50 PM
Comment #272732

Kruser,

But, should a corporate pharmacist be able to refuse a precription to someone simply because of their perception of that persons lifestyle?
Or because the medication prescribed offends their religious convictions?

That, I believe is the point of this thread.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 23, 2008 12:14 AM
Comment #272733
They should be able to refuse prescriptions according to their professional knowledge

Please read what you wrote. They do not have the knowledge of the patient’s condition that the doctor does. And any discrepancy should be over dosage, interactions and such, not moral judgment of the patient or the doctor.

Posted by: womanmarine at December 23, 2008 12:20 AM
Comment #272739

Doctors also do not have near the extensive knowledge concerning meds as a pharmacist does. They require a similar amount of school but a pharmacist focuses on chemistry and interactions with the body. Doctors have broad general knowledge.
The subject of this column, abortion is not soley a religious view. I have said before that biologically a fetus is a separate human entity upon conception. The argument comes in concerning when it is worthy to keep alive. This is not established by experiments and therefore is rhetorical rather than scientific.
Allowing bureaucrats to establish how meds should be dispensed for professionals only works in a feigned socialist utopia. It isn’t a good application in the real world. The professionals pay a big price to be the one who makes the decisions. That is the best way to get quality care case by case.

Posted by: Kruser at December 23, 2008 8:17 AM
Comment #272740

Kruser:

Doctors also do not have near the extensive knowledge concerning meds as a pharmacist does. They require a similar amount of school but a pharmacist focuses on chemistry and interactions with the body. Doctors have broad general knowledge.

Oh really!? Are you referring to ALL doctors that prescribe medications or just the doctors that you wish to talk about?

The subject of this column, abortion is not soley a religious view. I have said before that biologically a fetus is a separate human entity upon conception.
When, exactly, is conception?
Allowing bureaucrats to establish how meds should be dispensed for professionals only works in a feigned socialist utopia.
A pharmacist is just another person with specialized training that is paid to do a job. Their job is regulated (and so are cosmetologists) and are required to adhere to those regulations in order to keep their license.

It has nothing to do with the religious-right’s ideology or the leftist-liberals ideology; it’s a job.

If the pharmacist objects to a significant percentage of their day-to-day duties on the grounds of religion, then it’s time that the pharmacist step aside, become the priest or nun that they profess and let someone else handle the meds.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 23, 2008 8:46 AM
Comment #272741

“If the pharmacist objects to a significant percentage of their day-to-day duties on the grounds of religion, then it’s time that the pharmacist step aside, become the priest or nun that they profess and let someone else handle the meds.”

and just what percentage of thier day to day duties is filling perscriptions for the morning after pill ? my guess is it’s probably pretty small. even with out this law they could still refuse to fill these perscriptions. the difference is with the law they can’t be sued for it, and thats what you object to, it takes away your ability to punish them for doing what they believe is right.

what about a doctor who refuses to perscribe it ? what would you do then ?


Posted by: dbs at December 23, 2008 9:05 AM
Comment #272742

Kruser,

This regulation has nothing to do with “knowledge”. It is totally about conscience.

http://www.cbcpnews.com/?q=node/6522

“Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,” HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. “This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience.”

This is merely yet another lame attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade, and to make it even harder for low income women to make the “choice”.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 23, 2008 9:13 AM
Comment #272744

rocky

“This is merely yet another lame attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade, and to make it even harder for low income women to make the “choice”.”

no it isn’t. if one doctor won’t perscribe there is always another that will. if one pharmacist won’t dispense there is another that will. all this does is stop those who won’t from being sued, or being forced to dispense or perscribe. no one has outlawed the medication in question.

Posted by: dbs at December 23, 2008 9:48 AM
Comment #272745

Varsity
“Show me the law. There is no such law that says they must do anything except prepare the food in a sanitary manner.”

Wouldn’t that be a law that is in the best interest of the public? All those professions have a license, all have laws for public safety and all should be allowed to serve what they want.

“All doctors and pharmacists are licensed by local, county or state medical boards. So those are good examples.”

They are only good examples IF they are employed by the govt and I have already said I agree that those employed by govt have a duty to follow govt rules of conduct. I had a state license and the company I worked for set the rules. They told me what was expected and I made the decision to work for them or not.

“You’re way out of your league Tim. Again.”

Yes, I know, everybody who does not believe as you guys is always wrong. Shame on us for believing in individual rights, wanting to live our own lives and for daring to think for ourselves.

“Government is not trying to dictate that anybody believe anything. They can believe whatever they want, they just can’t decide on a case-by-case basis whether to do their job or not”

They can if they own their own business and live in the United States of America. Well, kind of.

Posted by: kctim at December 23, 2008 11:06 AM
Comment #272749

So dbs,

Please explain to me exactly how forcing a patient to find “other” health care options doesn’t make life just a little bit harder for low income women.
Let me make it clear that I am not for using abortion as a means of birth control, nor am I for late term abortions except when the potential mother’s life is at stake.
Reading the responses on this thread I can see the fundies kicking their collective heels with glee at the possibility that Roe v. Wade just got a little weaker.
As I said before I don’t have a problem with a private doctor, or pharmacist denying those that seek this care.
I do, however, have a problem with a corporate employee that is now entitled to thumb his/her nose at their employer, under the guise of “conscience”, with no fear of reprisal, as per these new regulations.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 23, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #272751

Oh, and BTW,

You gotta just love hearing the hypocritical right bitching and moaning about Judicial activism, and then hear them slobbering all over themselves in praise for this little bit of Presidential fiat Heaven.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 23, 2008 1:10 PM
Comment #272759

Kruser, in a nation of law, not men, law suits are the heart of the justice system which levels the scales allowing the poor, under educated, and victimized to seek and win justice through the civil courts instead of the violence of vigilantism.

I know conservatives hate law suits and most who bring them. But, then, that is also why conservatives throughout our history have held the minority party position throughout most of that history. In a democratically elected government, the people shall not relinquish their only lifeline to justice against wealth, education, and elite position which wrongly or negligently harms others within their role of power and decision making role over the lives of others.

Law suits are rare against the poor, uneducated, and unemployed. The main reason is that these people hold no positions of responsibility for the lives of others in a professional capacity, i.e. taking people’s money in trust for peformance of professional services. Without lawsuits, there would be no justice for those who are harmed by a professionals lapse of motivation, lapse of good judgment, or lapse of due diligence.

One way to reduce medical lawsuits is to exercise true oversight and regulation which bars professionals from their profession when failing professional standards. But, professionals lobby to prevent such oversight and accountability by outside parties, and lobby instead for self-regulation. You know, like the Goldman Sachs, AIG’s and Lehman Bros. self-regulated themselves bringing our nation to the precipice of economic collapse.

Such conservative notions must end. Justice must be preserved within the judicial system, not the streets, as in the riots of the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, and justice cannot be served and will not be served by those in power being charged with the responsibility for self-regulation. Outside disinterested parties must be sought wherever possible as the overseers and regulators, and where these are subject to corruption, they must be replaced often and with dispatch at the first signs of their being influenced or subject to influence. Democracy demands nothing less than this very liberal sense of accountability and transparency which the American electorate is finally hungry for after 8 years of the Conservative Party in control of government.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 23, 2008 2:30 PM
Comment #272761

rocky

“Reading the responses on this thread I can see the fundies kicking their collective heels with glee at the possibility that Roe v. Wade just got a little weaker.”

how does allowing someone to choose not to participate in dispensing medication they do not want to dispense weaken roe v wade ? no one has made abortion illegal, nor do i believe it shopuld be.

“I do, however, have a problem with a corporate employee that is now entitled to thumb his/her nose at their employer, under the guise of “conscience”,”

my guess would be that said employer can make that employee fill that perscription as part of company policy, which more than likely they agreed to as part of thier terms of employment. if this is not already the case as an employer i would have them sign it as a term of continued employment. like you said though if you own the pharmacy, or it’s your private practice, it should be your decission.

BTW i haven’t actually seen the text of this law, i’ve been going off of this post. if you have a link for that text i’de like to see it.

Posted by: dbs at December 23, 2008 2:39 PM
Comment #272762

rocky

“You gotta just love hearing the hypocritical right bitching and moaning about Judicial activism, and then hear them slobbering all over themselves in praise for this little bit of Presidential fiat Heaven”

judges are supposed to make rulings based on the law, not legislate from the bench. on the other hand presidents have been doing these things at the end of thier terms for quite some time, and as far as i know they are allowed to. i didn’t like the fact clinton pardoned those terrorists at the end of his term, but he had the power and,the right to do so. i would also imagine at the end of obamas term he will sign executive orders that will piss some people off, but thats the way it goes. comparing these two things IMO is apples and oranges.

Posted by: dbs at December 23, 2008 2:52 PM
Comment #272763

Kruser said: “My own experience with government based benevolence is that it always provides much less care for much more money to the taxpayer.”

Well, that’s one of way of looking at it.

The other way is this, the government is attempting to provide care for patients who the private system won’t touch because they have on assets or money. The government providing any assistance to the destitute and poor is better for most than no care at all.

Then again, the government run military medical system has been and is again the best medical care available anywhere for the buck. The difference between Medicare and Military care is that 1) Military care doesn’t farm out to private contractors, and 2) the media oversight and government regulations of military medical care are vastly superior to the self-regulatory mechanisms within the private sector. Oh, and yes, 3) Often military malpractice is a crime under the military justice system punishable by imprisonment.

Seems to me, everyone should prefer Military medical care if they aren’t very wealthy, or at least government sponsored care with the same levels of quality control and accountability.

The best surgical care and patient care and support I ever received in my life was in the military in 1974 when I had massive lower facial surgery and reconstruction. I was in surgery for over 8 hours. Recovery and convalescence was a piece of cake, no infections, no mistakes or flaws, no errors, and and incredible amount of follow-up and adjustment and quality control measures.

Everything after leaving the military was second or third rate in the private sector by comparison. I went in for a deviated septum in the private sector with ‘reputable’ and referred surgeon under a major health care provider. In recovery I was near to going into shock due to have been lying in recovery swallowing copious amounts of my own blood draining down the back of my throat. The nurses called the surgeon who said she was busy with other patients and told the nurses to pack it with gauze.

When my blood pressure became dangerously erratic, the nurses called the surgeon again, and after a heated argument, the surgeon came in, angry as hell at me, yanked out gauzes, shoved new ones in, all very painful and extremely uncomfortable, and the doctor was denigrating the nurses the whole time. That wasn’t the kicker though. When I had the splints removed, the septum was still deviated. Nothing had changed or been altered save my loss of blood and the Surgeon having been paid many thousands of dollars for the shabby work.

And so it goes. I will take a well regulated and overseen government health care system with true punitive measures in place for malpractice, over the private rip-off system we have today that kills or injures more than 100,000 American patients every year in hospitals through tolerated malpractice, never punished, often covered up, and always handsomely rewarded with private insurance and government tax paid dollars.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 23, 2008 2:54 PM
Comment #272764

david

when a private doctor is sued for malpractice and loses, isn’t it the insurer that picks up the tab ? if malpractice is comitted by a doctor employed by the gov’t, and the doctors is punished, you still have to ask yourself who ends up picking up the bill for damages awarded to the patient. this could end up being a huge burden to the taxpayers. my understanding is that malpractice insurance has become increasingly expensive because of the large # of lawsuits. how does the gov’t adress this issue, without taking away the ability of the patient to seek compensation for pain and suffering ?

Posted by: dbs at December 23, 2008 3:08 PM
Comment #272766

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-30134.htm

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 23, 2008 3:56 PM
Comment #272767

thanks rocky

Posted by: dbs at December 23, 2008 4:13 PM
Comment #272768

dbs,

My point isn’t just about abortion or birth control.
There was a time when if we applied for a job, even if we didn’t agree with the way the business was run, when we signed on the bottom line to become an employee we agreed to do as the employer asked, within reason of course.
Now, with the advent of this regulation, health care providers that accept US government money can pretty much do as they damn well please, and call it conscience.

Please allow me a moment of hyperbole;

At what point do we accept that a health care worker will not treat an AIDS patient, for instance, because, in good conscience of course, he/she disagrees with that persons life style, and/or believes that the patients disease is a punishment from “God”.
Under this regulation is it truly so far fetched to think that this health care worker now cannot be fired, as they should be, for their bias?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at December 23, 2008 5:49 PM
Comment #272769

dbs asked: “when a private doctor is sued for malpractice and loses, isn’t it the insurer that picks up the tab ?”

Yep, and the doctor goes right on malpracticing. The insurance company makes out like a bandit by escalating its premiums on not only that particular doctor but all doctors as well through actuarial risk tables, the doctor rarely ever loses their license and simply passes the insurance premium on to the customers by increasing his specialization (rather subtle that trick), the lawyers make out win or lose, and the suitor if awarded, sees up to 60% of that award disappear to the courts, lawyers, and out of pocket expenses to pursue the suit, if they are fortunate enough to win.

And then the same doctor starts the entire process over again with another bit of malpractice/malfeasance. I read some study that indicated the vast majority of malpractice is accounted for by minority of repeat medical provider offenders. So much for self-regulation, eh?

I don’t know for sure, but, I believe in the military medical system there is no suit potential by military patients, except in cases of class action suits by demonstrable and premeditated harm to patients, wherein the suit is brought against the government.

However, in a universal health insurance plan, single government payer for BASIC health care, the health care providers are NOT government employees, and therefore subject to civil law.

dbs said: “my understanding is that malpractice insurance has become increasingly expensive because of the large # of lawsuits. how does the gov’t adress this issue,”

Partially right. Also increasingly expensive due to the absence of measures to remove repeat malpracticing medical personnel from practicing medicine. That is the major contributor. As I said, the majority of malpractice suits are aimed at a minority of repeat malpractice offenders. Remove the malpractice repeat offenders, and the actuarial cost of malpractice insurance will drop precipitously.

What’s telling is that insurers are not lobbying for this measure. They profit from the malpracticers. Hence the need for outside independent oversight and regulation with the power to revoke licenses and practices, and imprison repeat offenders who continue to operate without a license or under false credentials.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 23, 2008 5:49 PM
Comment #273689

I guess my question here is, what if they are Christian Scientists (the religion) or Scientologists? They don’t believe in much in the way of medication or treatment.

This stuff goes way too far. No one should come between the patient and their doctor, unless the doctor has made an error pharmacologically.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 16, 2009 2:24 PM
Post a comment