It's my understanding that a pharmacist has a duty not to fill a prescription if it's determined the customer has been shopping doctors for opiates, but the ivermectin refusals were completely out of line.
This is stupid as hell. The pharmacist is not practicing medicine. He's practicing pharmacy. And yes, that includes knowing what the drug is used for and determining whether it's appropriate for a patient.
The pharmacist who has not even examined the patient and knows nothing about the patient, is determining what is appropriate for a patient? Do you hear yourself? I think the pharmacist is elevating him/her self to the level of the prescribing Dr. and that is NOT appropriate. If you want to be a doctor go to med school. It’s different than pharmacy school.
The judge's rationale seems sound. So, that means we need to be more innovative in our arguments.
A pharmacist or doctor cannot be forced to fill a prescription if it is against their professional opinion, according to the judge. Ok. So, why didn't the attorneys then say, "But, your honor, you are with that rationale limiting a person's breadth of tratment possibilities to the current knowledge of a person who may not be as well-educated as the patient--we cannot assume that professionals are always aware of cutting edge treatment. In fact, professionals caught up in daily routines and the grind of medical care are often unaware of scientifically substaniated possibilities that the patient is aware of due to the patient's critical state of being. If you, judge, believed you were at death's doorstep and you had fervently searched for alternatives and identified one, wouldn't you want the right to have access to that treatment in such a way that the current medical model could not shut you down? If Obamacare exists because we have a right to healthcare, then don't we have a right to the care of our health?"
I only play a lawyer on tv. And I don't always win.
This is a good thing. Just think about a doc wanting to force a Christian pharmacist to dispense abortion drugs or whatever. People have a right to live their lives according to their deeply-held beliefs. No more gay people forcing bakers to bake gay cakes. No more forcing Christians to work gay weddings which they believe are sacrilege. Let's get back to having freedom in this country.
...valid observation....
It's my understanding that a pharmacist has a duty not to fill a prescription if it's determined the customer has been shopping doctors for opiates, but the ivermectin refusals were completely out of line.
...acting under the color of law...
So, the Pharmacist is practicing medicine without a license? They are not MD’s. That’s a problem.
...exactly...
...Dark State gatekeepers....
This is stupid as hell. The pharmacist is not practicing medicine. He's practicing pharmacy. And yes, that includes knowing what the drug is used for and determining whether it's appropriate for a patient.
The pharmacist who has not even examined the patient and knows nothing about the patient, is determining what is appropriate for a patient? Do you hear yourself? I think the pharmacist is elevating him/her self to the level of the prescribing Dr. and that is NOT appropriate. If you want to be a doctor go to med school. It’s different than pharmacy school.
The judge's rationale seems sound. So, that means we need to be more innovative in our arguments.
A pharmacist or doctor cannot be forced to fill a prescription if it is against their professional opinion, according to the judge. Ok. So, why didn't the attorneys then say, "But, your honor, you are with that rationale limiting a person's breadth of tratment possibilities to the current knowledge of a person who may not be as well-educated as the patient--we cannot assume that professionals are always aware of cutting edge treatment. In fact, professionals caught up in daily routines and the grind of medical care are often unaware of scientifically substaniated possibilities that the patient is aware of due to the patient's critical state of being. If you, judge, believed you were at death's doorstep and you had fervently searched for alternatives and identified one, wouldn't you want the right to have access to that treatment in such a way that the current medical model could not shut you down? If Obamacare exists because we have a right to healthcare, then don't we have a right to the care of our health?"
I only play a lawyer on tv. And I don't always win.
...howls...
...valid observation nonetheless....
This is a good thing. Just think about a doc wanting to force a Christian pharmacist to dispense abortion drugs or whatever. People have a right to live their lives according to their deeply-held beliefs. No more gay people forcing bakers to bake gay cakes. No more forcing Christians to work gay weddings which they believe are sacrilege. Let's get back to having freedom in this country.
...compelling observations....
...I love those unintended consequences.....
...howls....
cool, they want us dead. will we let them win, or will we kill them first...?