Pixies Place Forums - View Single Post - Pharmacists Sue Over Emergency Contraception Rule

Yes, jseal, I started off addressing the post to you.
I deliberately segued to a wide attack on all those refusing to serve their patients, their customers, and those who supported them.

"Legal Standing" is a very inexact thing.
I can sue anyone for almost anything. I might not win, like the FEDERAL JUDGE who sued for 4 million plus because he was unhappy with his dry cleaners. Someone, somewhere though he had "legal standing" to file his suit.

I must quote you and myself AND the original article here a couple of times.

I wrote:

3. The rule violates their religious and moral beliefs.
If I accept your arguement, ..."

You responded:

"I did not make that argument."

Funny, earlier YOU said:

"the notion that deeply held religious and moral opinions entitles individuals to special – even exceptional – handling has been recognized for many years."

oops?

let's quote the article

"In a lawsuit filed in federal court here, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday coerces them into "choosing between their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."

And

"saying the state was wrongly forcing pharmacists to administer medical treatments they consider immoral."

"The state ruled earlier this year that druggists who believe emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion can't stand in the way of a patient's right to the drugs."

You quoted me:
"4. Causes death of a fertilized egg, thus ends a life.
BULLFUCKING SHIT!!!"

You responded:

"This is where you weirded me out. As I said the exact opposite, I must assume that here you have redirected your rant from me to the pharmacists in Washington State. Permit me to post the relevant portion of post #11."

Yes, this was in regards to an unscientific statement made by the pharmacists, another thing I attacked.

Let's quote the article again.

"Pharmacists are also forbidden to destroy prescriptions or harass patients, rules that were prompted by complaints from Washingtonians, chairwoman Rebecca Hille said."

So it is OK for these pharmacists to impose their beliefs on patients?

That behavior goes 'way past "That is what the State has passed a law COMPELLING them to do."

Or what not to do?

THIS behavior is not resisisting "State control", this is literally "holier than thou" fanatics imposing their personal will on patients. This law in part is protecting patients from these fanatics.

"It is not the State’s fucking job to compel its citizens to perform actions which they do not wish to do."

(WTF!!!!!)

"Keep the State the fuck out of the private lives of its citizens."

Your'e mixxed up here hon.

A professional whose profession is licensed by the state IS compelled to follw State regulations. That is NOT the same as their private lives. This is their state licensed PUBLIC PROFESSIONAL life, NOT about what they do in bed, what they read, or what church they go to.

The State can COMPEL state licensed professionals to do a lot. Why are you unaware of this?
As an RN I am COMPELLED to work while straight and sober, keep my license in good order, fully document my encounters with patients, maintain adequate profciency in my manual skills, (IV, ACLS, CPR, etc.) and attend several score hours yearly of classes to keep my license. This applies to Pharmacists, as well as Doctors, Chiropractors, PA's and so on.
Even lawyers MUST pass the bar exam and have a license to practice law.
An Bug Exterminator is COMPELLED to keep proper records obtain proper training, and uses his chemicals in an safe acceptable manner.

Right or wrong, in medicine, we are considered "public servants" in varing degrees. ER Docs take care of EVERYONE who comes in.

Small town with five pharmacies owned by different companies is not the same as five towns with only one pharmacy in the area that all residents go to, which is a more accurate picture.
I am also now licensed to drive a car in Texas. I am a good driver.
I can drive safely over the posted speed limit. I am sure the State Patrol will understand your argument that the State should not be able to COMPEL me to drive a certain way to keep my LICENSE to drive.

A personal note. Some of you already know this about me.

I despise drunk drivers with a hatred you can not understand. I have performed more acts of contrition over this hatred than you would believe.
(one reason I quit the Catholic Chruch, but that's another story)
I almost loss my right to work as a nurse early in my career because I slapped a drunk driver. (he was rude and called me a nasty name, but still)

Last week I was working MEDSURG, and two, yes two of my patients were in the hospital for injuries incurred while driving drunk. Serious injuries. Others were hurt too, but no one was killed.

I can't refuse to care for them to the ABSOLUTE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND SKILL because of my hatred of them.
1. It would be LEGALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY unethical. The STATE COMPELS me to take care of everyone to the best of my ability.
2. I made up my mind a long time ago that to not always do the best job I can would be PERSONALLY immoral and unethical.

I would even take car of you, jseal

(((HUGS)))

Enough for this little girl, I's going to bed.
Alone.

WW