Religious Education Forum  

Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page!
Home Who's Online Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   Religious Education Forum / Everything But the Kitchen Sink / General Debates
Sitemap Popular RF Forums REGISTER Search Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-14-2011, 02:44 PM
gnomon's Avatar
gnomon Offline
Religion: -----
Title:Awesome Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,990
Frubals: 9519062
gnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fake
gnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fakegnomon thinks your frubals look fake
Default Conscience clauses...are they any good?

A conscience clause in medicine is legislation that allows pharmacists, physicians, nurses and other healthcare providers to certain medical care and prescriptions based on religious belief or personal conscience.

Is this a good idea? Here is a case reported recently in Idaho involving Planned Parenthood and a Walgreens employed pharmacist. As I understand it the State of Idaho has legislation allowing pharmacists and health care providers the ability to refuse care involving abortion if they personally oppose abortion on religious grounds or other reasons. But the care has to be specifically involved with abortion.

Here's the story from Idaho. Planned Parenthood files complaint against Nampa pharmacist - Idaho Press-Tribune: News

Quote:
Idaho Board of Pharmacy Executive Director Mark Johnston confirmed that the board received the complaint alleging that on Nov. 6 a Walgreens pharmacist refused to fill a prescription ordered by one of Planned Parenthood's Boise-based nurse practitioners. The prescription was for a Planned Parenthood patient for Methergine, a medicine used to prevent or control bleeding of the uterus following childbirth or an abortion.
In other words, the prescription was not for an abortifacient. The specific drug can be used for a woman who has given birth or had an abortion used to control bleeding and possible her life.

Quote:
Planned Parenthood officials said the complaint states that the pharmacist inquired if the patient needed the drug for post-abortion care. The nurse refused to answer the question based on confidentiality of health information.


According to Planned Parenthood, the pharmacist then stated that if the nurse practitioner did not disclose that information, she would not fill the prescription. The nurse alleged that the pharmacist hung up when asked for a referral to another pharmacy that would fill the prescription.
Planned Parenthood alleges the pharmacist asked the nurse to violate federal law and then went on to refuse to fill the prescription that is not involved in inducing an abortion. This would essentially mean the pharmacist asked the nurse to violate one law and possibly violating a state law, since the action is questionable under a conscience clause, as well.

Perhaps the pharmacist, if this is true, is under the impression that the law allows someone to basically refuse any service in any way remotely related to abortion. If a woman had an abortion and was in an emergency room with a life threatening situation could the hospital emergency staff refuse treatment resulting in the possible death of the woman and the said abortion would have already happened. In other words, neither the pharmacist in this case nor the scenario I just stated would health care providers actually be involved with an abortion but they would be involved with another health issue that is not, or in my opinion should not, be covered under any so called conscience clause.

What do you think?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:25 AM.


Copyright © 2013 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.