Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: random discussion....pharmacist's right to refuse filling prescriptions  (Read 3885 times)

XYZZY

  • Guest

1. The right to not fill a prescription is protected by the state. Their license is not revoked or censured.

2. Pharmacies are governed by administrative codes, not laws.

3. Business owners, expecially in "right to work" states, can fire employees for any reason at any time without any notice. It's not illegal to go to a bar, get stinking drunk, and tell everyone that your boss is a big jerk, but they can fire you for it. It's not illegal to divulge trade secrets, but your boss can fire you for it.

4. You are too ignorant to live.

Nice Dodge... So you are still claiming there is no contradiction between #1 and #3?

LaneSwerver

  • Guest

1. The right to not fill a prescription is protected by the state. Their license is not revoked or censured.

2. Pharmacies are governed by administrative codes, not laws.

3. Business owners, expecially in "right to work" states, can fire employees for any reason at any time without any notice. It's not illegal to go to a bar, get stinking drunk, and tell everyone that your boss is a big jerk, but they can fire you for it. It's not illegal to divulge trade secrets, but your boss can fire you for it.

4. You are too ignorant to live.

Nice Dodge... So you are still claiming there is no contradiction between #1 and #3?

I'm finished with you. You're clearly too ignorant to read.

Nizzy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile

1. The right to not fill a prescription is protected by the state. Their license is not revoked or censured.

2. Pharmacies are governed by administrative codes, not laws.

3. Business owners, expecially in "right to work" states, can fire employees for any reason at any time without any notice. It's not illegal to go to a bar, get stinking drunk, and tell everyone that your boss is a big jerk, but they can fire you for it. It's not illegal to divulge trade secrets, but your boss can fire you for it.

4. You are too ignorant to live.

Nice Dodge... So you are still claiming there is no contradiction between #1 and #3?

I can't speak for what he is claiming, but i only claimed there is theoretically no contradiction unless a law exists forbiding firing in that case.  They may very well exist, it is not something i have researched.  However, i would like to add that if a pharmacist has moral objections to selling something, he should have to mention this fact when he is being hired, or forever hold his peace (piece?).  Else, he could decide one day to be a Christian scientist and basically be allowed to sit around all day doing nothing. (ridiculously extreme example, but you get what i am saying)

XYZZY

  • Guest

1. The right to not fill a prescription is protected by the state. Their license is not revoked or censured.

2. Pharmacies are governed by administrative codes, not laws.

3. Business owners, expecially in "right to work" states, can fire employees for any reason at any time without any notice. It's not illegal to go to a bar, get stinking drunk, and tell everyone that your boss is a big jerk, but they can fire you for it. It's not illegal to divulge trade secrets, but your boss can fire you for it.

4. You are too ignorant to live.

Nice Dodge... So you are still claiming there is no contradiction between #1 and #3?

I'm finished with you. You're clearly too ignorant to read.


Spoken from Mr. "2.4 GPA, 150 LSAT" himself.  Have fun at your TTT!

XYZZY

  • Guest

1. The right to not fill a prescription is protected by the state. Their license is not revoked or censured.

2. Pharmacies are governed by administrative codes, not laws.

3. Business owners, expecially in "right to work" states, can fire employees for any reason at any time without any notice. It's not illegal to go to a bar, get stinking drunk, and tell everyone that your boss is a big jerk, but they can fire you for it. It's not illegal to divulge trade secrets, but your boss can fire you for it.

4. You are too ignorant to live.

Nice Dodge... So you are still claiming there is no contradiction between #1 and #3?

I can't speak for what he is claiming, but i only claimed there is theoretically no contradiction unless a law exists forbiding firing in that case.  They may very well exist, it is not something i have researched.  However, i would like to add that if a pharmacist has moral objections to selling something, he should have to mention this fact when he is being hired, or forever hold his peace (piece?).  Else, he could decide one day to be a Christian scientist and basically be allowed to sit around all day doing nothing. (ridiculously extreme example, but you get what i am saying)

No disagreement on the theoretical grounds.  The laws being proposed in the vast majority of states are addressing issues between the pharmacist and business owner, and between the pharmacist and the client.  The ability of pharmacists to refuse filling a prescription and not be fired by business owners is being challenged under the first amendement, as the pharmacists right to refuse.  The opposite scenario of a patient's right to property (dr's prescription) in which the pharmacist must fill is seen as a 5th amendment issue.

I applaud you for entertaining the theoretical grounds.  It's obvious the other 3 stooges are unable to understand the concept of a hypothetical and are vying for top jobs examining drivier's license applications at the DMV.

jwilcox1024

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
The opposite scenario of a patient's right to property (dr's prescription) in which the pharmacist must fill is seen as a 5th amendment issue.

Can you point to papers on this or explain the reasoning behind it? It seems like there is a distinction between depriving someone of property (i.e. the pharmacist seizing the actual piece of paper so the patient cannot go elsewhere) and a refusal to convert that property into another form of property (the actual pills).
Goal: Penn, NYU, Duke, Michigan, Northwestern, Chicago
Pad Save: Columbia
Glove Save: Stanford

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=jwilcox1024

Shardik

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
  • Ignorance, the root and the stem of every evil.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Spoken from Mr. "2.4 GPA, 150 LSAT" himself.  Have fun at your TTT!

Again, notice the higher level reasoning skills presented to bolster his argument.

XYZZY

  • Guest
Spoken from Mr. "2.4 GPA, 150 LSAT" himself.  Have fun at your third tier toilet!

Again, notice the higher level reasoning skills presented to bolster his argument.

Nope not to bolster the argument, but to use the same method of argumentation that LaneSwerver felt compelled to use twice.. if your quote wasn't selectively chosen.

The argument bolstering is in the previous posts, proof by contradiction.

HTH dipshit

LaneSwerver

  • Guest

1. The right to not fill a prescription is protected by the state. Their license is not revoked or censured.

2. Pharmacies are governed by administrative codes, not laws.

3. Business owners, expecially in "right to work" states, can fire employees for any reason at any time without any notice. It's not illegal to go to a bar, get stinking drunk, and tell everyone that your boss is a big jerk, but they can fire you for it. It's not illegal to divulge trade secrets, but your boss can fire you for it.

4. You are too ignorant to live.

Nice Dodge... So you are still claiming there is no contradiction between #1 and #3?

I'm finished with you. You're clearly too ignorant to read.


Spoken from Mr. "2.4 GPA, 150 LSAT" himself.  Have fun at your third tier toilet!

Once again, just too damn ignorant to read. Check the stats again, and allow me to note you're too much of a sissy to post yours.

XYZZY

  • Guest

1. The right to not fill a prescription is protected by the state. Their license is not revoked or censured.

2. Pharmacies are governed by administrative codes, not laws.

3. Business owners, expecially in "right to work" states, can fire employees for any reason at any time without any notice. It's not illegal to go to a bar, get stinking drunk, and tell everyone that your boss is a big jerk, but they can fire you for it. It's not illegal to divulge trade secrets, but your boss can fire you for it.

4. You are too ignorant to live.

Nice Dodge... So you are still claiming there is no contradiction between #1 and #3?

I'm finished with you. You're clearly too ignorant to read.


Spoken from Mr. "2.4 GPA, 150 LSAT" himself.  Have fun at your third tier toilet!

Once again, just too damn ignorant to read. Check the stats again, and allow me to note you're too much of a sissy to post yours.


Nope.  Those numbers are objective criteria, not a relative one, hence no need to post stats.

HTH