Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: "Many Dogs \(flick\)" <many_dogs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 12:16:53 -0600
"tiny dancer" <tinydancer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:JTudj.38253$vt2.10087@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I respectfully disagree with this premise. I could probably think of many
MANY things I disagree with in the course of daily life, but it isn't up
to
*me* to decide what is right for anyone else IMHO. Especially when it
comes to health care between a patient and their physician.
Sure. It's unfortunate that the controversy is around birth control and
abortifacients, such a volatile topic, because a case could be made for any
other type of med.
I can't demand that every OB-GYN perform every OB-GYN procedure, even if
they were trained in 'em back in med school. I knew a nurse in the '80s who
worked for one, and they referred elsewhere for abortions - not from any
particular principle except that he preferred to concentrate his practice in
other areas <shrug>. Some OB-GYNs do deliveries and C-sections but not
other surgeries. Medicine is so specialized nowadays.
The article talked about a pharmacist who wouldn't fill a script and refused
to return it to the patient so they could shop elsewhere, and got in
trouble. Rightly so, because the script *belongs to the patient,* and imo
that also crosses a line between personal principle and interference with
someone else.
<snip>
IMHO that is the function of a pharmacy, to accommodate a patient in
*whatever* way they need. It isn't a function of a pharmacy to deal out
morals or personal beliefs IMO. The first and foremost function is to
assist people how ever they may need assistance.
I think it's reasonable to refuse to deal in certain meds, if they don't
interfere in the patient's choice by refusing to return the script. Some
pharmacies carry a lot of medical equipment; others refer patients elsewhere
for it. Just because you have a prescription for something doesn't mean
that every pharmacy needs to be completely stocked or run afoul of the law
or ethics. Another example: Some pharmacies will mix ointments and such to
a doctor's orders; others don't.
Back to abortifacients. The best choice by far is, if you're gonna boink,
make appropriate preparations beforehand, consider the possible outcomes in
advance. That would apply to morning-after types of birth control, also.
Keep it on hand, since time is of the essence. If a person absolutely,
positively cannot deal with an unwanted pregnancy (and this applies to men
AND women), don't have intercourse. Harsh, but there it is. Sex is an
activity with potentially serious consequences, not a "right." I posted the
same to Mikey in the other group on several occasions ;-).
flick 100785
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: tiny dancer
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: Handsome Jack Morrison
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- References:
- Loose dogs, having fun
- From: Many Dogs \(flick\)
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: Melinda Shore
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: Shelly
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: Suja
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: Melinda Shore
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: Handsome Jack Morrison
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: FurPaw
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: Many Dogs \(flick\)
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: Mark Shaw
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: Many Dogs \(flick\)
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: Mark Shaw
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: Many Dogs \(flick\)
- Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- From: tiny dancer
- Loose dogs, having fun
- Prev by Date: Re: Was this a silly rescue person, or is there a reason?
- Next by Date: Re: Was this a silly rescue person, or is there a reason?
- Previous by thread: Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- Next by thread: Re: Loose dogs, having fun
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading