My friends at Planned Parenthood emailed me today about the growing trend of pharmacists (this time, specifically at Target) refusing to fill prescriptions based on their moral beliefs. Now, we ALL know that “moral beliefs” translates to “religious beliefs”. I just wish PP would say it!What we have is a group of people who in reality provide a necessary public service refusing to do so under some circumstances. They want a say on your treatment. Your medication WAS a decision between you and your doctor, but now it’s a choice with the pharmacist too. And the pharmacists want VETO power. What if he also objects to certain sleeping pills, pain pills, etc? Certainly, someone somewhere can make a good argument why Jesus doesn’t want you to obtain other legal medicines as well!Yes, the pharmacist has rights, but these rights to not extend to other people. His religious rights do not trump yours, they end where yours begin! Pharmacists fill prescriptions — they don’t overrule doctors. I hope Target takes a stand as a pharmacy for ALL people, not just the Christians.
Generations of ServiceMurderer Dies in PrisonSomething OldSomething NewSo Help Me Nobody -- Court affirmationsSix Myths about MMOHSeparation of Church and State, A RebuttalSchool Prayer FAQsSchool Prayer Decision (Madalyn Murray O'Hair)Spirits, Souls, and ClonesSponsor the ShowSusan B. AnthonyTestimony to US Civil Rights CommissionTexas State PageThe 10C's V. NeutralityThe Atheist: Madalyn's BiographyThe Battle is JoinedThe Battle of PhiladelphiaRushdie Missing from Book FairRock of Ages and the Age of RocksRobert OwenMythicist PrizeNativity - The origins of the Birth of JesusNazareth, Faith, and the Dark OptionNo More Ham -- A look at several Black Atheist LeadersNoahs Flood -- DebateOdd InquiriesOn WeddingsOther Gods that Look a LOT Like JesusPledge of AllegiancePledge of Allegiance - Dave's LetterPre-Christian Christmas Stories with Other GodsRaising Children Without GodRed Herring Rushdie IRed Herring Rushdie IIReligion Tax Office OpenedRoadside CrossesRobert G. Ingersoll The Black Atheists of The Harlem RenaissanceThe Cons of Charitable ChoiceTo Bash or Not to BashTom Cruise Pushes for FBI Funding for ScientologyTop Ten Atheist MythsVolunteers NeededWas Jesus a Jew?Was Jesus InventedWatch the Words!Wedding VowsWhat is the object of life? by Grant AllenWhat is Wrong with a Few Harmless Prayers?What to ask Preachers and MissionariesWhere Jesus Never WalkedWhite House Expands Faith-Based InitiativesWho are the freethinkers?Why I am an Infidel: Luther BurbankWhy is Religiosity so Hard to CureWhy the Truth About Nazareth is ImportantTill Death Do Us Part?Thomas Alva Edison: An Introduction by Frank Zindler Thomas Alva Edison: 1911 Columbian InterviewThe Creator BillThe DisappearanceThe Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and The IlluminatiThe Final Taboo: Electing AtheistsThe Good Old DaysThe Hon. Atheist Governor: Culbert L. Olson.The Inconsistency of TheismThe Kiwi QuestionThe Logic of Death by George J. Holyoake The Myth of Nazareth, Does it Really Matter?The Question of Atheists HospitalsThe Roots of AtheismThe School Prayer DecisionThe Science of CreationismThe Wild World of CreationismTheopolitics of the Rushdie CaseThomas Alva Edison 1910 NYT InterviewWinning an Unwinnable DebateChristianity, Its Nature and Influence on Civilisation by Charles Watts Christians in UniformCircuit Court Rules for "Aphorisms"Congress Rushes to preserve Clergy Tax BreaksContradictions in the BibleConvencion en espanolConvention 2010 ScheduleCourt Probing Parsonage TaxCowardice of the WestCreation Science and the FACT of EvolutionCreationism: Reversing ScienceCreator Bill TextDave's Favorite Biblical InconsistenciesDebate: Is Creationism Science (Zindler / Gish)Did Jesus Exist?Edwin C. Walker: American AtheistErnestine Rose: A Troublesome FemaleCharles WattsCase is Solved12 Further Fictions from the NTA Declaration of Mental Independence, by Robert Owen Abner KneelandAgainst the 10 Commandments in PublicAgnosticism: The Basis for AtheismAims and PrinciplesAlabamaAmerican Atheists Legal PhilosophyAn Atheist's Guide to MohammedanismAtheism by O'HairAtheism: Madalyn Murray O'Hair 1962 speechAtheist Director Wins Creche CaseAtheist MusiciansAtheist StationAtheist WeddingsBiblical ContradictionsBigotry Worst Against AtheistsEthics Without GodsFCC Religion HoaxMoslem Violence in BrittainInterview: Douglas AdamsJames Lick Jesus MythKeep Politics Out Of The Pulpit or Lose Tax-Exempt Status: Opinion Kentucky Homeland Security LawsuitKersey GravesLessons from The Satanic VersesmaMA Church Dismayed over DisplayMaculate Deception: The "Science" of CreationsimMangasar Magurditch Mangasarian Mary Faker Eddy -- Christian ScienceMOMormonismInaccurate Founding Father QuotesHurricane Katrina Boosts FBIGod on OUR MoneyFree WillFrom the Mouths of CreationistsFundamentalismFunerals - Dying an AtheistGeorge J. Holyoake - The last man in England tried for Atheism George J. Holyoake by Madalyn Murray O'HairGod in OUR PledgeGrant Allen How Jesus Got a LifeHang the Commandments -- All 30 of ThemHubert Henry Harrison: The Black Socrates aboutlawatheismFaith of the Founding Fathersreligionpoliticsyouth & familymilitarymediaLibraryeventsStoreJoin & Supportorphans
Reluctantatheist – “Purchasing birth control isn’t always about contraception. Sometimes it’s about the woman’s health.”
I agree with you completly. On of my friends had a polip inside of her uterus and it started bleeding uncontrollibly. I got so bad that she needed to go to the hospital. When she was released she lost so much blood that she was givin a perscription for birth control for a couple of months. It would stop her period and allow her body to replenish the blood that she lost.
I would be absolutly pissed if she was denied the medicine that she needed to recover.
Tim, Dave
That’s what happened to me too.
tomwright,
Thank you for bringing some much needed perspective to this debate. You make some very good points.
I think it’s natural for us to run to our respective viewpoints and high-minded principles when we get going on a topic. It’s easy to forget the practical, day-to-day reality of our existence. In the end, we should try to help one another, not maintain our distance by stubbornly standing on principle.
Tom, you do bring some good points, but I don’t care what percentage of ph. refuse to prescribe drugs, at midnight with few other options and a future life at stake, I don’t want my wife’s destiny to be held in the hands of a nutter. That, in principle (and legislation) needs to be stopped. Period.
RA,
The two Pharmacists were within their rights to do what they did, but I’m not defending their decision as being “right.” I would not do what they did and I beleive strongly in preserving the life of the unborn.
I think that it’s hard to know what is truly in someone’s heart when they refuse to do something on moral grounds. I will give folks the benefit of the doubt until there’s clear and convincing evidence they have gone too far.
One last question for the night.
A hypothetical: It is the year 2010 and abortion, while still legal has become rarely used at all because there are only a very small number of doctors in the U.S. who will perform them.
If a woman wants to have one (as opposed to a medical emergency), but simply cannot find a doctor who will perform the procedure, does she have the right to sue and force any doctor to do the procedure against their will? After all, she has a right to have the procedure done. How can the law shield doctors of conscience if a lot of people believe that the law should COMPEL doctors to comply with their wishes?
Tim:
Extenuating circumstances. Those always have to be factored in.
& no, the pharmacists weren’t within their rights. MWANNNKK! Wrong answer. They made a pre-judgement w/o the facts. They assumed that the 2 women were off to have sex.
Read Adviser Moppet’s post.
FYI, I care very strongly about ALL life, present & future.
We need to worry about the here & now, as well as the future.
This isn’t an abortion thread. This a CONTRACEPTION discussion.
I’m guessing, you’re Roman Catholic?
Keep your balance folks, here comes that slippery slope again!
Tomwright, you bought up some very interesting points, I must disagree with the analogy:
Withholding medication could have much more serious consequences than performing a blessing. In these circumstances the danger is minimal, the people involved are not in any imminent danger, but it is the thin edge of the wedge. What if you had a sickchild and the pharmacist refused your prescription for antibiotics due to moral reasons?
A Pharmacist should be a health professional as such I would expect them to put medical scientific opinion regarding their patients health, ahead of their moral objections.
I’d suggest that a stand is taken against this now, before you become a nation of Christian Scientists with Appendicitis.
This article, from the Southern Poverty Law Center, is really making Larry Darby look like an Archie Bunker of Atheists:
________________________
Strange Bedfellows
Disgraced Holocaust denier hosted by Alabama atheist
David Irving, a writer whose Holocaust denial activities caused a British judge to label him “a right-wing, pro-Nazi polemicist,” has been repeatedly hosted by the largest neo-Nazi group in America. David Duke, the famous former Klan leader, has organized talks and book sales for him. Others who’ve tried to help Irving sell his wares ? the judge called them “deliberate” falsifications designed to slander Jews and hold Hitler up as a hero ? include a host of other white supremacists.
And then there is Larry Darby.
Darby is not your typical host for Holocaust deniers. He is president of the Alabama-based, nonprofit Atheist Law Center. The bespectacled Darby is normally a lonely voice in supremely conservative Alabama, arguing against religion in all forms.
But in early July, Darby hosted Irving ? who he described as “an expert on World War Two, the Nazi era and the erosion … of free speech” ? and about a dozen atheists at a meeting in the Holiday Inn of Prattville, Ala. Most of those who attended seemed to know little about Irving’s background. Others, who heard about the appearance by e-mail, expressed their shock privately.
Darby will hear none of it. To him, he is the victim of “semantic terrorism” that is destroying free speech in America. After all, he told the Intelligence Report, racism originated with Jews’ description of themselves as the “chosen” people. “I think it’s easy in this country to speak out on Christianity and even Islam,” Darby said. “I think it’s more difficult to speak out on things of a Jewish nature.”
For his part, Irving told those who assembled in Prattville of the case that ruined his career as a purported historian. Irving had sued Deborah Lipstadt, a well-known Holocaust scholar who had accused him of pro-Nazi sympathies and false reporting in his books. At the conclusion of a hugely publicized libel trial in London, the court found that Lipstadt was justified in her published criticisms.
In Prattville, Irving emphasized the brilliance of his failed defense, and complained about how he’d been ordered to pay some $5 million in court costs for Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books. Darby ? whose ad for the Irving event said that Lipstadt’s defense was funded “by the usual enemies of Free Speech” (Jewish groups helped pay for the defense) ? listened without comment.
Darby acknowledged to the Report that many atheists had been appalled when they heard of his Irving event. But he found that utterly unreasonable.
“If they have questions, why not ask him?” Darby asked. “Why exhibit hatred for a man they do not know? When people are so brain-warped to have knee-jerk reactions like that, it makes me want to get to know him more.”
Intelligence Report
Fall 2005
Comment from: David Silverman
“There are pro-life orgs from other religions, but none are leading an active push to pharmacists like the Christians are.”
I never said there weren’t Christian movements supporting one’s “right of choice” and refusing to fill BC perscriptions. My objection was your blatant condemning of one faith. Had you made this statement in your opening thread then at least you’d acknowledge there are other religions with similar views.
Instead you revealed your hatred towards Christianity by singling them out.
The one article made a great point and thank-you for making it available.
“Sadly, the Noesen case is yet another profound demonstration of the left’s blatant hypocrisy. The same liberal activists that tout the “separation of church and state,” demanding people of faith not “cram their views down our throats,” apparently don’t believe such a right ought to be applied both ways. Liberals want to force their agenda on others and those who don’t believe as they believe better get ready for forced compliance. If they truly believed in the separation of church and state as they often claim, then why won’t they fight against the government’s interference with an individual’s right to follow his/her faith with regard to the practice of abortion?”
I don’t see those that are cetain that “Separation of Church and State” were our Founders intent (relctant) riding the to defence of this myth. But then agian it’s really not about equality for all.
Comment from: Tim [Member]
One last question for the night.
A hypothetical: It is the year 2010 and abortion, while still legal has become rarely used at all because there are only a very small number of doctors in the U.S. who will perform them.
If a woman wants to have one (as opposed to a medical emergency), but simply cannot find a doctor who will perform the procedure, does she have the right to sue and force any doctor to do the procedure against their will? After all, she has a right to have the procedure done. How can the law shield doctors of conscience if a lot of people believe that the law should COMPEL doctors to comply with their wishes?
A:It is already getting like that. I honestly forget if it was GA, AL or MS but it was a city the size of Birmingham and they had one planned parenthood. I can say for 100% certainty we had a problem here in Austin. A contractor refused to build a planned parenthood in South Austin. He outright stated that he would refuse any further contracting jobs to any company that helped build it. He called and harassed people at their business for bidding on the pp building. The backlash of his actions was unbelievable. People came out and volunteered to build the place themselves, similar to habitat for humanity. It was about 1 to 1.5 years ago.
While I disagree with a pharmacist using their personal religious beliefs to deny medication I must admit that as a travel agent I refuse to assist people with travel to Israel or to resorts with a male-female couples only policy (Sandals Resorts) based on my moral beliefs. However, I always offer the client an alternative source for help with these arrangements. This way I pass the responsibility to someone else and I know that I am not helping to support a racist apartheid terrorist state (Israel) or a homophobic company (Sandals).
Alex.
I’m pissed. I can’t post my comment.
This stupid blog is busted and I can’t post anything significant, so I threw my comments up on the web if anyone is interested:
Religious Phreedm??
shit it didn’t use the anchor tag. here:
http://www.pogoto.com/rp.html
The one good thing about posting your comments on your own site is that you can go back and correct your grammar
I don’t really have anything to say right now. Just saw that rainbows was having trouble getting things to post and thought I’d try this as a test. Instead of just “Testing, Testing.”
r4d, nice comments on your site.
Let me just say that day after day I’m surprised…
In my province a good portion of pharmacist are of vietnamese origin, so at least a part of them must be budist who say that all life is sacred. Yet, not a single one has objected to filling out my wife’s BC prescription.
R4D
I tried to cut and Paste your comments from your site for you. I got an error message and the blog told me the comment was invalid. That’s the same thing that happened when I tried to cut and paste something yesterday.
But if you were just typing your comment without C & P, I don’t see why this would happen.
DAVE?????
It seems some things got fixed and other broke in the upgrade yesterday!
I’m having trouble posting as well….
That seemed to work so I’ll try it again…
Didn’t work…I had saved it on Word then tried to cut & paste, wouldn’t let me do it. Weird. I’ll try again later.
Dave, FYI, the first time I tried to post my message I had typed it in directly, did not cut & paste, but I received the error message that it was an invalid comment. Maybe it’s rejecting those of a certain length? Just an idea.
Peach
Send Dave an email and tell him what’s happening when you try to post.
Testing a cut and paste
karen:
I finally got around to answering your last questions to me over on the Da Vinci III thread.
Hi, to begin with this is my first post. I’ve been reading this blog for awhile now, but I though I have so many questions, I never quite had the nerve to ask. But this thread has intriqued me. In connection with a pharmacist refusing a prescription, I had another scenerio I wanted to propose.
My husband is a bartender and legally if a woman, 9 months pregnant, walked in and ordered a double martini the restaurant could not refuse her service. However, my husband legally could, provided he mentioned that a member of management would fill the drink. His refusal isn’t based on a religious reason, but on a protective nature that he has towards children, especially after the birth of our son. I know alcohol is not in the same vein as medication, but rights are rights. So, my question is, from an atheists point-of-view, do you disaggree with a bartenders right to refuse service based of personal values? And how does that compare to the rights of a pharmacist?
This is not a post to inflame an arguement, I am just curious and strive to better understand a group that I do not belong to. I am neither here to convert or to be converted, just to better understand.
Thank you for letting me comment.
Welcome pmp2a
The medical field and a Joes Bar are two totally different fields of professions. If a person comes into a bar, the bartender has the right to not serve someone if they are too drunk. If she is 9 months pregnant and wants to get drunk I would not serve her either.
Also, a 9 month old baby and using a contraceptives are at the extremes of the spectrum.
But when it comes to the medical profession, the doctor and you have come to an agreement on what treatment you may be.
Who has much more experience and knowledge of your case? The doctor that has examined you or a pill pusher behind a counter.
phreedm:
“Instead you revealed your hatred towards Christianity by singling them out.”
Show statistics, then, of Muslim pharmacists doing the same thing, or Buddhists. Or any religion, major or minor, that does this.
Lessee if I got this straight. I cry “track record!”, you cry “persecution!”
I cry “Unconstitutional”, you cry “Activist judges!” I cry “Logic!”, you cry “Faith.”
“But then agian it’s really not about equality for all.”
That’s exactly right. But I think you got it backwards. (the word is ‘again’, BTW. Sorry). I am your peer, as you are mine, at least as human beings. We both have equal rights. But when your moral values impact my life negatively, YOU get to be the arbiter? I think not. That is it in a nutshell, my friend. See, simplistic reductionism DOES have a place somewhere.
We have walked down the path about your alleged ‘Myth of Separation’. Unless 1 of us produces a document from 1 of the FF that specifically states Separation, that is verifiable, or goes back in a time machine to query the FF, we’re at an impasse. You already poisoned the well on this earlier, so nothing I say will change your mind. Likewise.
When 1st I became an atheist, I ran into lists of the ways Xtians have negatively impacted civilization. 1 of them was, that Xtians fight tooth & nail against every step of progress. I thought that a tad much at the time.
You and Tim have provided ample evidence (granted, you 2 make a small sample), along w/the historical record, of that claim.
You all shout ’slippery slope!’ & give few examples: you shout ‘persecution!’ whenever it’s convenient, when some1 points out a piece of logic is casuistic. I’ve rarely seen any of you cede points, as if it’s a sign of weakness.
Here’s a link, culled from the Evangelical Atheist. About Indiana.
More track records.
http://www.nuvo.net/archive/2005/10/19/puritan_politics.html
I can’t speak for anyone else here, but I don’t hate Xtians. Not at all.
But revealed religions? Hey, track record speaks volumes. Track record is everything.
It’s how people base their value judgements.
It’s called logic. Process of elimination. Cause & effect.
There’s my nickel’s worth.
Can’t post again ARRGggggg!
That’s it Dave, I’m starting my own blog! Prepare for some competition hahahahah!
pmp2a – a response for you here:
http://www.pogoto.com/pmp2a.html
spanders: as per my last post, I didn’t mean to lump you in. I get a little irate occasionally. Sorry, my friend. Multiple & profuse apologies.
pmp2a
Does your husband only refuse to serve pregnant women at the bar? Does he also check every order that comes from the tables in the restaurant, asking the waitpeople if anyone is pregnant that sent a drink order?
Does he ask every customer, “Are you diabetic?”
“Do you have high cholesterol?”
“Do you have heart problems”
“Are you taking any medication that would be adversely reacted by alcohol?”
Would he serve the woman a cup of coffee or soda with caffeine in it? How far does his interferement in her sanctity over her own body reach?
Most bars have signs that say the reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Hubby may refuse to serve
if he refers her to someone else.
I understand his concern for the fetus. He can decline service, but it is not his place to judge the woman’s actions.
Yes, this is different from prescriptions. There is no medical need involved here, and no written script from a doctor certifying a need.
Billh & Rainbows,
Thanks you for your responses.
Billh – yes I completely agree that there is a major difference between the pill and alcohol, I just don’t understand why the same concept can’t be applied. Make it where as long as there is somebody in the building that will fill it, to allow the individual to choose not to. Perhaps I have a simplistic view of the world, kind of a ‘why can’t we all get along’ view. That’s not an attack on anybody’s opinion, just the way I feel.
I do have another question, I have SO many questions, and I know it isn’t appropriate to just start asking in the middle of a thread, but how should I go about…asking. With the exception of what I’ve been exposed to here, I have no knowledge of atheistic ideas, etc. And I am just very curious.
Again, thank you.
pmp2a: Welcome, & those are all very good questions.
I used to work in convenience stores years ago, & the sale of alcohol to some1 who is way past the limit makes the clerk responsible, especially if said customer is driving. This is in CA.
However, as billh points out, there’s a huge difference between an already pregnant woman, & a woman who is purchasing BC/EC for whatever purpose she is buying it for.
If the pharmacist doesn’t want to sell it for moral reasons, well, don’t stock it, is the pat answer. Go elsewhere. Of course, if the woman in question is a single mom in a small town, working 2 jobs, she’s put in a bad position because of someone else’s judgement call.
I’d certainly like to know if these same pharms sell condoms, or no.
Lacking a uterus, I perhaps shouldn’t shoot my mouth off. But I always defer to the woman’s choice. One’s body is one’s own business.
Karen,
To my knowledge, he has only refused service once. As I recall she was very pregnant and he politely told her that he could not in good conscious serve her, but that the manager on duty would, he then offered to get the manager for her. Because of the positioning of the bar and the busyness (sp) he can only concentrate on his customers. And we both feel that there is a big difference between doing harm to yourself and doing harm to an unborn fetus/child. He isn’t keeping her from drinking, and he made no judgement on her, he just ethically can’t participate in the act. Luckily, the place he works for doesn’t make him check his consious at the door.
Arn’t the Christians being just a little hypocritical here again. It seems that someone’s religious beliefs are always going to effect other peoples way of living when they decide to act under some f’ed up moral obligation to try and save people from themselves. Let people make their own life decisions if you want to believe in a higher power that’s your problem don’t make it one of ours as well.
Pmp2a said,
To my knowledge, he has only refused service once. As I recall she was very pregnant and he politely told her that he could not in good conscious serve her, but that the manager on duty would,
Did he assume that she was pregnant like the Ph. assumed that the BC is for stopping pregnancy? Could have been that she was just overweight. Now that would be a very uncomfortable situation.
As I recall, he said she was very pregnant. And very obvious pregnant. Plus she did not object to his assumption of pregnancy. I agree, that would have been an embarrassing situation. Had that happened, he probably would have bought the drink for her.
Reluctant – you made a good point about how if a bar serves and intoxicated person who drives, they are legally responsible. I can’t help but wonder if a bar would also be responsible if a pregnant woman drank at their bar every night and her child ended up with fetal alcohol syndrom. (my business law teacher didn’t have a very clear answer for me on that one).
I don’t mean to keep going on. You all have been very kind. Again, thank you.
pmp2a – as far as learning about atheism, the are many sights on the web including the good old http://www.atheist.org, but I tend to refer my curious friends to a little book called:
“Atheism, a very short introduction” by Julian Baggini
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192804243/qid=1129841924/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3953500-7388026?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
it’s really easy to get through and presents a very positive message about why one would want to call themselves an atheist.
Plus, feel free to email me personally if you ever feel like having a long chat with an atheist.
larry@pogoto.com
Why is it always someone elses fault. People in this country seem to never take responsibility for their own actions. If you get drunk and drive it’s your responsibility, if you want to drink when pregnant it’s again your responsibility. Why can’t anyone stand up and say, I’m responsible for my own actions, it’s nobody elses fault. Instead they try to blame everybody and anybody for something they did.
When it comes to the law, ignorance is no excuse why is the same principle not applied to life?
anadrol -not sure what you’re getting at. The pregnant lady in question was taking responsibility for her actions, as was pmp2a’s husband taking responsibly for his actions. Not if formally pregnant girl turns around a sues the bar where pmp2a’s husband works at, then that would be a case of abdicated responsibly and totally worth bitching about.
correction
Not = Now
I was mearly responding to the hypothetical put forward by pmp2a
This is a sore point as I grew up in a pub in Australia and have seen my parents go through a lot of stress over potential litigation problem areas that are impossible to fully control.
shit sorry quoted the wrong bit here is the proper quote.
Hi All,
OK We have a problem. Thanks to those who sent me email. I’ll try to get it fixed pronto!
Apparently its imperative that we look into the possibility of getting tamiflu without a prescription. Good thing, since the pharmacist may feel morally obligated to not let us have it otherwise!
R4D- Are there Skittles at the end of your rainbow?
Darrow, More regulation? Try looking at the rules and regulations of any large state. You will find them vouluminous.Druggists always complain that they are over-regulated with two sets of laws, state and federal, and sometimes local. What isn’t needed is more regulations, but sensible regulations. Regulatory boards are selected by a state’s governor, and s/he can pick anyone allowed by the practice act, including members of the lunatic fringe, and they make the rules. Fat chance of anything progressive in the “Red States”! The federal government has little to say about licensing, being mainly concerned with the Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Controlled Substances Act which controls narcotics and dangerous drugs, which even though are not narcotic, are controlled, “to protect the public”. It does, however, license licensed drug stores and hospitals to stock and dispense controlled substances.
stitico
The regs are a mess. I left a post about the compounding pharmacist who skipped the therpeutic agent in his $1,600.00 dose of saline.
It isn’t that I’m unaware of the stupid regs, it is that I am aware of the kind of loopholes that permitted the Courtney matter to go unrecognized but for a detail man missing his commissions. With high-morbidity conditions and high cost agents, who is to know that the deaths aren’t the result of the pathology?
Where you experienced a Roman boss who barred contraceptives in the 50’s (prior to Griswold v. CT) today we have the potential for any yahoo out there with a license to dispense Schedule II, III, IV (and the in-betweens) making up his/her own mind what to dispense and who to dispense to – how do we prevent diversion of controlled substances? We already have massive problems with the overuse of antibiotics and the massive diversions of pain meds.
You taught in the area and commented about grey areas that concerned you – why not address them with regulations?
Darrow, I did write some of the regulations back in the 60’s, of which I am proud, which I gave to the State Pharmaceutical Association to introduce to the legislature. They have a lobbyist who does that kind of stuff. That was before the lunatc fringe took over. The idea is appealing, but I have been out of the loop for 15 years and anything that I come up with will have about as much effect as a fart in a windstorm.
Karen – No, just runts.