Wednesday, July 26, 2006

the hypothetical has occured

Penn Live; rape victim denied morning-after pill
this is the exact senario that we have cited as to why it is not a pharmasists job to decide who gets treatment. A doctor perscribed the drugs you hand them out. I dont give a fuck what you think about the matter. If a scientologist said they couldn't give out lithium because he doesnt believe that mental illnesses are real, then that ass hole needs to find a new job and should be held partially liable if that person hurts someone because they couldnt get their meds. And for the exact same reason I believe that if a pharmasist cant do their job for moral reasons then they cant fufill their job and should be fired. If I worked at a slaughter-house and said I was buddist and a vegan and theirfore I couldnt touch anything involing dead animals then guess what I wouldnt get the fucking job would I? Freedom of religion does not mean you dont have to do your job for religious reasons. So if you think that the morning after pill is wrong than guess what dont be a pharmasist, or better yet be one and lead a safe life and promote absitnence to your kids, but when you put that white coat on then its time to do your job , its not time to push your beliefs onto others. I think killing people is wrong, I think war is wrong, so therefore Im not going to apply to work at the new plant building blackhawk helicopters even thought there might be a much better paying job available there. You dont see alot of amish people going into electrical engineering. If your job contradicts your personal values then find a new fucking job. OH and Im a little angry and swearing more because this was the case of a rape victim that first was raped, then has to go to a doctor to make sure they are ok, which must be rather tramatic to have someone checking you out down there after such a tramatic experience, gets her scrip to make sure he isnt forced to carry the child of her attacker only to have some smug popus ass tell her that he thinks abortion is immoral and that he isnt going to give her her meds, but that the can drive to the next town where they might sell it to her. I would say yeah well I think kicking the shit out of a guy whos at work is immoral too but your about to see if that stops me. So my solution is this, If a pharmasist decideds to impose their views onto the life of another in this manner than they become imediatly liable for that child. Both emotionally and financially. Why should this person or the government have to raise this child when this pharmasist made the consious decision to bring it into the world. I didnt have enough calm left in me to finish reading this article so Im hoping that this unfortunate victim was able to get her meds before the effective window closed to where she would then need to get a far more tramatic and dangerous abortion.

2 comments:

SuperFiancee said...

This one is a BIG button for me. And I couldn't agree with you more. If they can't do the job...the distribution of legal medications...because of any limitation, be it physical, emotional or moral, then they should step down. Or be made to. I can't imagine a rape victim driving from town to town, after such a traumatic event, trying to get the medicine she needs.

Though, I will say, that the story sounds more than a little suspicious to me. She was "laying out on the front lawn" at 2AM and was raped by a man with a condom. She didn't report it to her family right away and when she did and went to get medical help, the family didn't get the prescription until the next day. Not sure what, but there's more there than what meets the eye.

Kilgore Trout said...

to be honest I was reading quickly and was getting angry as I read it so I may have skipped the details of the rape, cause yeah that does sound really really suspicious. But it doesn't change the fact that the pharmasist had no right to refuse doctor perscribed medication.