"Religious Freedom" and so it begins - Page 3

Nice bow tie VK...

Btw ~ waves @GSD :)) ,,,

So you guys have no problem with draft dodgers or people who kill cops because the cop was trying to make them do something they didn't want to? Would a religious objector be right to kill another to protect their religious beliefs?? What about whacks who kill abortion doctors, are you guys okay with it? Should said killer go free because he killed for his religious beliefs?

Waves!

So if a person walks into a pharmacy to get medication that is prescribed to them by their physician, the pharmacist can override an MD and refuse to fill the prescription?  I believe that is called "practicing outside your scope of training".  The pharmacist is practicing medicine without a license because the pharmacist didn't believe the woman (in the above example) needed the prescription and overrode the physician.  This is completely different than the cake scenario mentioned by Mountain Lion.  So if a person can object on religious grounds, that means a pharmacist can refuse medication to a person with insulin dependent diabetes or the parent of a child who suffers from epilepsy? And you that support this law feel that is acceptable behavior?  This is a very slippery slope. 

Yes, indeed it is a slippery slope. It opens doors to all types of scenarios, but I still won't go against my conscience and I don't expect others to go against theirs. What will be,will be.

Btw Mindhunt~ it hasn't anything to do with practicing outside of ones " scope of practice"' The pharmacist could have very well believed it was medically necessary for the condition, but that doesn't mean that she has the freedom of conscience to provide her with the means to carry out the intended purpose/'function of the medication. As a matter of fact this pharmacist believed that the woman wanted the drug for an abortion,  which proves she believed that the doctor did in fact prescribe the correct medication but was unwilling to give the woman the medication knowing the outcome of taking it.'

So the pharmacist believed he/she knew better than the physician what the woman needed and used his/her own religious belief to justify it.  The pharmacist acted in a manner that was detrimental to the woman who had just undergone a partial miscarriage.  This is the same as denying an insulin diabetic or the parent of a child with epilepsy life saving medication based on a belief.

The pharmacist based his/her action on a religious belief not on the medical condition of the woman.  At the least it is negligence, at the most it is malpractice.  Not to mention practicing outside his/her scope. 

Malpractice: 1) pharmacist had a duty to perform, 2) by denying the woman her prescribed medication based on a religious not medical belief, the pharmacist was in breach of his/her duty, 3) if the woman was unable to obtain her prescribed medication and became ill because of an incomplete miscarriage, then there are damages, 4) causation link between breach of duty and damage by not providing physician prescribed medication for a condition that was dangerous if not treated.  I believe a good lawyer could take this pharmacist to court and challenge the idiocy of this law.  I hope a good attorney challenges this arrogant and ridiculous law and wins. 

If the pharmacist had a strong belief against abortion then the pharmacist should work in a pharmacy that serves only those that hold the same beliefs not force his/her beliefs on others.  Back to the generalist vs religious entity.

Nope I think your post above is off base~ I disagree. Lol I never said the pharmacist knew better than the physician. I said the pharmacist was not questioning the doctors medical authority she was practicing her right to not offend her conscience. 

That's what makes the world go round ~ let a court decide :) 

But it isn't the pharmacists job to GUESS why the Dr prescribed a certain drug. What is next? A Pharmacist who won't prescribe pain meds? If a pharmacy stocks a medication that the pharmacist won't fill what is the sense of stocking it? I said this earlier - obviously this pharmacist should quit because the pharmacy stocks the drug. She obviously doesn't hold that strong of convictions. I would consider her a hypocrite, go figure.

She was, in effect, thinking she 'knew better' than the doctor, because

she relied on her own 'instincts' telling her [telepathically ?] that she

"knew" the woman wanted a morning-after pill, not a post-miscarriage

pill. 

i see the pharmacist's morals does not stop them working and drawing pay in a place that stocks such products that offend them.

so a doctor or a paramedic should be allowed to deny treatment based on their personal beliefs eg blood transfusions, a mechanic, butcher...... and there goes the end of free society and the free market system, hello irrational theocracy.