of Pharmacists and Fundamentalists, or, the War on Science - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-30-2006, 06:21 PM   #16
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail



My idea is a physician actively providing means to a patient to commit suicide whether it be a lethal dose of medication or by saying, if you do such and such a thing, you will die. Active being the key portion. I am a few years removed from Biomedical ethics class, so things could have changed.


while i have no interest in digging up (ha) the Teri Schiavo debate, you are absolutely correct in the distinction between a doctor allowing nature to take its course -- which does include the removing of a feeding tube -- versus the injection you mentioned. my father is a physician and feels very strongly about this -- he would have no problem if, say, an elderly patient with cancer and in pain chose to let a pneumonia end their life (while making her comfortable with morphine), however he would not ever inject someone with a tranquilizer that might, say, stop her heart.

but, as Deep noted, this is a red herring. this is not about PAS, or abortion -- this is about your right to refuse someone a valid, legal, mainstream medication or perscription on the basis of YOUR religious beliefs.

and it also speaks to the contempt, as evidenced in this article, that many people of faith have for the mainstream. respect is demanded, but none is accorded in return.

it's little more than me-first narcissism.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-30-2006, 06:26 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


but, as Deep noted, this is a red herring. this is not about PAS, or abortion -- this is about your right to refuse someone a valid, legal, mainstream medication or perscription on the basis of YOUR religious beliefs.
Ah, my bad then. I saw Physician assisted suicide in the article and gravitated towards that, but as I said disagree with all of the protection measures.

The whole idea of protecting pharmacists is a little absurd. They do not prescribe the medication, they dispense pills not morality lessons. It would be way out of line for one to step in and say I can't get a certain drug. Birth control is mentioned now, but where else could it go? AIDS patients being denied medication because they have AIDS?
__________________

__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 01-30-2006, 06:27 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 07:08 PM
I agree with you entirely. I think the argument that a physician would be forced to participate in PAS is purely a straw argument.
I am horrified that a physician would deny medical treatment (or perhaps even more important--information) and would be following any other agenda than the medical interests of his/her patient and it is unconsciencable that a health worker could interfere in the medical decisions made by a physician and patient.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 01-30-2006, 06:28 PM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail


Ah, my bad then. I saw Physician assisted suicide in the article and gravitated towards that, but as I said disagree with all of the protection measures.

The whole idea of protecting pharmacists is a little absurd. They do not prescribe the medication, they count out the pills, and no offense to them, do very little at my local CVS. It would be way out of line for one to step in and say I can't get a certain drug.


i think there's an effort to link a doctor's right to refuse PAS or abortion and the desired right for a pharmacist to deny someone birth control.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-30-2006, 06:34 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 07:08 PM
I forgot, Irvine. You're a doctor's kid, too.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 01-30-2006, 06:36 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:08 PM
Some of this is disturbing. Denying health care to gays and lesbians? I don't like this.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-30-2006, 06:38 PM   #22
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:08 AM
Does anyone know if pharmacists have to take anything resembling the Hippocratic Oath?

While I personally am vehemently opposed to pharamacists having the right to deny filling prescriptions for contraceptives or RU486, I am not sure deep's analogy to a Mormon not selling alcohol fully holds up. If your religious beliefs hold that these drugs are abortifacients and abortion is murder, than that makes it all a bit more complicated than whether you might be supporting an "indecent" lifestyle. Like it or not, I am afraid this issue cannot really be resolved without venturing into the larger issue of whether women have the right to control what goes on inside their bodies. I do not think we can really cordon these debates off from one another.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 01-30-2006, 06:41 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 06:08 PM
It is not the pharmacist's job to determine your course of treatment. This is the job of your physician and once you have been given a prescription by an MD, I don't give a rat's ass about the religious sensibilities of the pharmacist. They knew what their job would consist of and chose to pursue a career in this field. So, tough.

Furthermore, many of these medications, specifically the birth control pill, have uses beyond the obvious contraception. They are used to treat hormonal imbalances, acne and other dermatological issues, migraines, even depression. It is not within the scope of the pharmacist's job to refuse service based on what he thinks you are using it for. For all he knows you're a fundamentalist virgin with low estrogen and need the pill.

I'm so sick of the society catering to a small segment of people who have blatant disregard for 99% of us. We are expected to bend over backwards and ask them, "Sir, would you like some more?" while they shit all over us. Enough is enough.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 01-30-2006, 06:47 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by randhail





I'm interested in knowing more about it though.


here is some information

Quote:
Limited Cases

A limited number of people have actually used the Death with Dignity law to end their lives. According to a report released in March by Oregon's Department of Human Services, about one of every 800 deaths in Oregon last year resulted from physician-assisted suicide, and 208 people had used the law overall through the end of last year.

Oregon residents 18 or older with terminal illnesses must voluntarily request physician-assisted suicide. The person must state his intentions — once in writing and twice verbally — and must be determined to be fully competent and be certified by two physicians to have six months or less to live. He or she also must be made aware of other treatment options.

Doctors must report all prescriptions for the medications to the Department of Human Services. They and their patients are protected from prosecution, and the decision does not affect patients' health or life insurance policies. Doctors can prescribe the drugs but cannot administer them.

According to the report, 37 people in 2004 ingested medications prescribed under provisions of the law — five fewer than in 2003, though the numbers have increased since legalization.

In addition, the report found that 40 physicians wrote a total of 60 prescriptions for lethal doses last year, the first decrease in the annual total of prescriptions written under the law. Thirty-five of the prescription recipients died after ingesting the medication, and of the 25 who did not ingest it, 13 died from their illnesses and 12 were alive at the end of the year. The other two people who died had received prescriptions in 2003.

Rasmussen said "a small number of people" ask him about assisted suicide — 150 of his patients have seriously inquired over the years, and he estimates more than a dozen have carried out their suicides.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-30-2006, 06:53 PM   #25
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland
If your religious beliefs hold that these drugs are abortifacients and abortion is murder, than that makes it all a bit more complicated than whether you might be supporting an "indecent" lifestyle.


Religions do not have the right to call birth control or even abortion murder.


Murder is a legal term.
It is always a crime.
and punishable by law enforcement.

When they misapply this legal term
they are contributing to the Planned Parenthood Bombers and Doctor murderers.

Meat is Murder to PETA
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-30-2006, 10:23 PM   #26
War Child
 
shrmn8rpoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Seward, NE
Posts: 516
Local Time: 05:08 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Murder is a legal term.
It is always a crime.
and punishable by law enforcement.

When they misapply this legal term
they are contributing to the Planned Parenthood Bombers and Doctor murderers.

Meat is Murder to PETA
i'm not going to get into the argument, but i would just like a further definition.

murder is a legal term, but what does that legal term refer to?

my dictionary (webster's new world) defines it as "the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of a person"

that causes me to think a few things:
1)the definition does in fact include "unlawful", in this country, abortion is not unlawful, so the definition does not fit.
2)i'm not trying to make any judgements, just wondering, but if we were to make the killing of any person legal, then would that killing cease to be murder?
3)finally, even if abortion was made illegal, it would seem that the debate over the point at which an embryo becomes a person would still have to be decided prior to being able to correctly apply the term murder.
4)you are correct, according to the definition, PETA can never accurately apply the word murder to the slaughter of animals for human consumption.

my english and greek classes are really making me into a word nerd.

i do find it interesting though, that the same people who are usually making arguments about the fluidity of language, and the relativity of meaning behind words suddenly asking for strict definitions and correct usage.

anyhow, sorry for the interruption. carry on.
__________________
shrmn8rpoptart is offline  
Old 01-30-2006, 11:27 PM   #27
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Religions do not have the right to call birth control or even abortion murder.
I like this idea in principle, but I'm not sure how realistic it is in practice. While my own thinking on this topic is informed by a variety of perspectives, I would be being dishonest to say it was not in part influenced by Jewish doctrine, which says these things are not murder. (Which by your same logic isn't valid either.) And that means this ultimately informs my voting habits too, just as religious-derived perspectives (along with, hopefully, a multitude of others) inform the thinking of judges and doctors.

Now if religious doctrine is being presented as a wholly adequate and legitimate basis for secular lawmaking or policy in its own right, without perceived need for the due consulting and evaluation of other rational (*see last paragraph below) perspectives, then yes that is veering into "theocracy" territory and is something else entirely. Freedom of conscience does not mean you get to ignore the premises behind separation of church and state, and pretend that religious activists are just another lobbying group innocently seeking representation of their interests (a nod to Irvine's me-first narcissism allegation: to a point all lobbying is "me-first," but most of it does not entail intrinsic challenges to fundamental principles of secular democracy).

Still, I think it is dangerously unrealistic to expect that religious people can or will fully block out the influence of religious doctrine on their thinking. Better to insist on balanced discourse instead, and for that matter, to support alternative religious dialogue which argues for a reconsidering of the interpretations of various doctrinal principles.

And comparing PETA to the Vatican is a bit of a stretch--you're talking about a 1500-year-old intellectual tradition versus a contemporary bunch of media assassins with relatively little substantial ethical discourse underlying their convictions. As far as it goes, one need not believe in God at all to accept the idea that life begins at conception, and therefore fetal life warrants protection. The two ideas are not inherently dependent on each other. Don't you know any nonreligious pro-lifers? I certainly do.
__________________
yolland is offline  
Old 01-31-2006, 04:40 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 07:08 PM
Well, perhaps if these shield laws go into effect, they should require a sign informing the patient that the providers use other criteria than objective medical requirements of the patient. For example, "I provide my service based on my personal beliefs which may supercede your medical needs." The conscience of the provider is taken care of and the patient can be steered elsewhere where his health decisions are not deemed a moral issue.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 01-31-2006, 08:17 AM   #29
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 11:08 PM
I'm a doctor's kid, too. An old-fashioned small town Family Practioner (at seventy-two, he just passed his boards yet again), my Dad has seen the sea-change in the medical field over the last twenty-five years, and he's glad that he won't be involved in it too much longer. "It's about politics and money- it used to be about patients and what they needed"
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 01-31-2006, 11:25 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 07:08 PM
Old time small town GPs
__________________

__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com