Allowing " religious exemptions" to public service jobs is a loser of an idea.
What happens when some warden halts an execution - because he is against the death penalty?
Or worse - if these " special little people" think their commandments from their invisible buddy superceded " man' s laws" - what' s to stop them from stoning homosexuals, heretics and other non- believers"?
Here's a clue - got objections to the requirements of your job? Change careers.
...

(October 18, 2018 at 2:28 pm)pgrimes15 Wrote: I'm a bit confused about the us medical prescription system .  Couldn't she have just "called in" the prescription to another pharmacy that would fulfill it, or does the first one "own" it in some way to make that impossible?

The next pharmacy needs to have the prescription. Generally, if it's a schedule 2 or 3 drug, a physical script is needed in order to fill a prescription. Not even the doctor can fax or call it in. Any other drugs requiring a script can be faxed over by the physicians office.

---

(October 18, 2018 at 2:02 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 18, 2018 at 1:23 pm)Joods Wrote: LOL you're a dumb ass. Trying to pass off information that's intended for use by another continent as if it's relevant to United States Law is just dishonest. Did you really think I wasn't going to notice that your link was for South Africa? 

---

Oh and a schedule four drug in the United States has at least some form of a narcotic in it. The drug in question does not.

It's helpful to know what you're talking about.

https://medshadow.org/resource/drug-clas...-iii-iv-v/

Regardless, it's still a prescription only drug.

My point was maybe the pharmacist not transferring the prescription was more so out of laziness than spite, because he eventually DID transfer the prescription.

If that was your point, then why did you cite US law and when called out on your error, you find some website for another fucking continent and try to pass that off as being applicable to the US. 

 much?

And actually no - it's not just a prescription only drug. Under two other names, it is available OTC. Had you done your proper research, you would have discovered that as well.

I don't understand why you have such a problem admitting you are wrong.

(October 18, 2018 at 3:02 pm)Cathooloo Wrote:

(October 18, 2018 at 2:28 pm)pgrimes15 Wrote: I'm a bit confused about the us medical prescription system .  Couldn't she have just "called in" the prescription to another pharmacy that would fulfill it, or does the first one "own" it in some way to make that impossible?

Prescriptions are usually sent to a pharmacist electronically. She probably never had possession of an actual script.

Please excuse my ignorance, I am not a US citizen, but the article states that after "calling in" the prescription she got a "call back" from the pharmacist. It's still confusing me.
Don't get me wrong. That pharmacist should be banned from working with the public ever again. (He could work in a lab somewhere - society needs skilled medical professionals)

Quote:What happens when some warden halts an execution - because he is against the death penalty?

Those are not the religious exemptions they mean. 

Can you imagine xhristards screaming if a muslim deli clerk refused to slice ham?

(October 18, 2018 at 4:33 pm)pgrimes15 Wrote:

(October 18, 2018 at 3:02 pm)Cathooloo Wrote: Prescriptions are usually sent to a pharmacist electronically.  She probably never had possession of an actual script.

Please excuse my ignorance, I am not a US citizen, but the article states that after "calling in" the prescription she got a "call back" from the pharmacist. It's still confusing me.
Don't get me wrong. That pharmacist should be banned from working with the public ever again. (He could work in a lab somewhere - society needs skilled medical professionals)

It is confusing, but an individual cannot "call in" anything other than a refill request. Given the context it would seem the script were faxed or otherwuse sent electronically as this a drug that doesn't require a paper script.

Doctors can fax prescriptions to a pharmacy but it has to be an actual prescription on the proper form and filled out as such.

If there are refills allowed on the original then the pharmacy can fill them that number of times but if there are no more refills then they must contact the doctor's office for approval.

.... I might be a newbie here, but I'm getting the sneaking suspicion from somewhere that Huggy isn't exactly the most honest and trustworthy individual on these boards.

(October 18, 2018 at 7:11 pm)Reltzik Wrote: .... I might be a newbie here, but I'm getting the sneaking suspicion from somewhere that Huggy isn't exactly the most honest and trustworthy individual on these boards.

And that's all you'll ever need to know about him.

Boru

(October 18, 2018 at 3:37 pm)Joods Wrote:

(October 18, 2018 at 2:28 pm)pgrimes15 Wrote: I'm a bit confused about the us medical prescription system .  Couldn't she have just "called in" the prescription to another pharmacy that would fulfill it, or does the first one "own" it in some way to make that impossible?

The next pharmacy needs to have the prescription. Generally, if it's a schedule 2 or 3 drug, a physical script is needed in order to fill a prescription. Not even the doctor can fax or call it in. Any other drugs requiring a script can be faxed over by the physicians office.

---

(October 18, 2018 at 2:02 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Regardless, it's still a prescription only drug.

My point was maybe the pharmacist not transferring the prescription was more so out of laziness than spite, because he eventually DID transfer the prescription.

If that was your point, then why did you cite US law and when called out on your error, you find some website for another fucking continent and try to pass that off as being applicable to the US. 

 much?

And actually no - it's not just a prescription only drug. Under two other names, it is available OTC. Had you done your proper research, you would have discovered that as well.

I don't understand why you have such a problem admitting you are wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misoprostol

---

(October 18, 2018 at 7:11 pm)Reltzik Wrote: .... I might be a newbie here, but I'm getting the sneaking suspicion from somewhere that Huggy isn't exactly the most honest and trustworthy individual on these boards.

Based on?

Your dishonesty and failure to admit that you provided misleading information during a discussion.