Next Honor Harrington?

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <grb440tjlv0i6hqjuqsbbkredaru10r1pi DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
> Frank Ney <n4zhg DeleteThis @icqmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >I'm not advocating abortion as a means of birth control, but as a last
> > >resort if all other measures failed. And with the impending advent of
> > >the morning-after pill as an over-the-counter item, the number of
> > >abortions per insemination should go down noticably.
> >
> > No impending about it -- it's out. We just had a bunch of
> > pharmacists fired for refusing to dispense it here in the USA.
>
> Right now, it requires a prescription; that's how those pharmacists were
> able to refuse to dispense it--the women had to give them the
> prescription. What is impending is making it over the counter, where a
> woman can pick it off the shelf and take it to the checkout register,
> without any prescription; just as with aspirin or chewing gum.
>
> > It's turning into a rather nasty 1st Amendment wrongful termination
> > lawsuit.
>
> And they'll lose the suit because this has nothing to do with the first
> amendment.
>
> --
> Never play strip tarot.

Except this is a medical care issue. The pharmacist has been given
a valid prescription written by competent medical authority to fill. The
pharmacist has a duty to fill that prescription in a speedy fashion, only
questioning the prescription if there is some medical condition that
the pharmacist is aware of and the prescribing authority may not be.
This is typically that the patient is already taking other medication
that will interact to produce some adverse reaction. For instance,
prescribing a med that raises blood pressure when the patient is
already being treated by another doctor for high blood pressure.
It is only under that circumstance may the pharmacist question the
suitability of a valid prescription. They may question the validity of a
prescription if the signature is missing, the quantities are excessive,
or in the case of schedule III drugs, are required to confirm them
with the doctor prior to filling them.
A pharmacist who refuses to fill a valid prescription because of
the pharmacist's religious belief is clearly guilty of malpractice. The
patient who suffers any adverse effect from the delay or
non-fufillment of that prescription has a easy to win case against
the pharmacist. In these particular cases, how about all the money
needed to raise a child to maturity as actual damages. How much
pain and suffering damages, and punitive damages may also be
awarded?

--Dale

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Michelle Steiner wrote:

 > In article <Pine.LNX.4.58.0403011250400.13855 DeleteThis @ccc4.WPI.EDU>,
 > "George D. Phillies" <phillies DeleteThis @WPI.EDU> wrote:
 >
   > > > > It's turning into a rather nasty 1st Amendment wrongful
   > > > > termination lawsuit.
   > > >
   > > > And they'll lose the suit because this has nothing to do with the
   > > > first amendment.
  > >
  > > The government directing people to violate their deeply held
  > > religious beliefs is a first amendment issue, though not related
  > > necessarily to free speech.
 >
 > The government did not direct anyone to do anything. The pharmacist's
 > employer directed the pharmacist to do the job he was paid to do: fill
 > legitimate prescriptions where there are no medical contraindications.
 > Therefore, it's not a first amendment issue, because the government is
 > not involved.

I think we must be referring to different events. If it was a private
employer, I would agree with you, except that we do in many places have
antidiscrimination statutes--not well described as First Amendment
lawsuits--and an employer who, for example, sends the employees toa
remote place on, for example, a pork based diet may have technical issues.
But that would not be a first amendment lawsuit.

George<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->