Pharmacist Says He Feared 'Spiritual Pain'

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2004-10-12 07:00pm

Pharmacist says he feared 'spiritual pain'
Hearing considers refusal to fill birth control pill prescription
Tuesday, October 12, 2004 Posted: 9:01 AM EDT (1301 GMT)

MADISON, Wisconsin. (AP) -- A former pharmacist said Monday he refused to fill a college student's prescription for birth control pills or transfer it to another pharmacy because he did not want to commit a sin.

Neil Noesen, 30, testifying before a judge at a disciplinary hearing, could face a reprimand or loss of his pharmacist's license for refusing to help Amanda Phiede obtain her pills.

"I could have trouble sleeping at night. I could be suffering the worst kind of pain. Spiritual pain," Noesen told an administrative law judge.

The state Department of Regulation and Licensing accuses Noesen of unprofessional conduct for not transferring Phiede's prescription.

"The additional risk of pregnancy should not have been imposed on her by someone else," said John Zwieg, a lawyer for the department.

Noesen's attorney, Krystal Williams-Oby, said Noesen broke no laws. She described him as a devout Roman Catholic and said any punishment would violate his constitutional right to religious expression.

According to the complaint, Noesen was an independent pharmacist filling in at a Kmart pharmacy in Menomonie in July 2002 when Phiede, then a student at the University of Wisconsin-Stout, asked to renew her birth control prescription.

Noesen, the only pharmacist on duty at the store at the time, asked if the prescription would be used for contraception, then refused to refill it when she said it would. "I just wanted to get my pills and go home," Phiede said.

Noesen also refused a Wal-Mart pharmacist's request to transfer the prescription, she said.

Phiede returned to Kmart the next day with police, she said, and the store manager called Ken Jordanby, the pharmacy director who was out of town. Jordanby filled her prescription when he returned the following day.

In his testimony, Noesen talked about God's law and accused Zwieg of harassing him.

"It's good for a person to be persecuted," he said when asked by his lawyer how the proceedings have affected him. "Really, it helps you grow in your faith."

The hearing was expected to conclude Tuesday. The judge will make a recommendation to the examining board on what punishment, if any, Noesen should receive.

Its one thing to disagree with the student for taking contraception pills, its completely another, and selfish, thing to deny it to her when its his fucking job.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-12 07:10pm

Nothing new for fundies. They always believe that "religious freedom" means "the right to force OTHER people to follow MY beliefs."

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-10-12 07:11pm

I hope he loses his license, and turns to his faith to comfort him. Fucking dipshit.

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-10-12 07:14pm

Noesen's attorney, Krystal Williams-Oby, said Noesen broke no laws. She described him as a devout Roman Catholic and said any punishment would violate his constitutional right to religious expression.

That's fucking horseshit. The 2nd amendment doesn't protect this cock ass from refusing to give Doctor prescribed pills to someone. The least he could have done was transfered it to another pharmacist.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2004-10-12 07:14pm

Reminds me of the flap a few years ago when certain hospitals weren't providing the morning after pill for rape victims like they were supposed to.

These fundie assholes really make me sick.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-10-12 07:15pm

Marksist wrote:That's fucking horseshit. The 2nd amendment doesn't protect this cock ass from refusing to give Doctor prescribed pills to someone. The least he could have done was transfered it to another pharmacist.

*cocks 9mm and shoots Markist*

Get your damned amendments right cockmuncher.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-12 07:24pm

now that he doesn´t feel spiritual pain, can someone please make this dickwipe feel physical pain. what an asshole.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-12 07:29pm

He is a professional, and as a professional is obligated to adhier to cerain rules of conduct as outlined by his liscencing. If he didnt asnt to give people birth control pills, he should not be a pharmacist.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-12 07:33pm

He actually went beyond merely refusing to offer the service in question, by seizing her prescription and refusing to release it so that somebody else could do the job. That's why she had to come back with police. It would have been bad enough if he'd just refused to serve her, but to actively try and prevent her from being able to fulfill her prescription ANYWHERE, he was attempting to basically take control of her sex life.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-12 07:42pm

I wonder if it occured to him that a great many women do not use birth control for the express purpose of preventing pregnancy, or that birth control pills do not destroy a fertilized cell even if he was against that, but prevents it from being fertilized to begin with.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-12 07:42pm

do you have to have a perscription for contraceptive pills in the states, or is it just something you need if you want your insurance to refund you? because here you can simply walk into a pharmacy and buy them without perscription.
so if it´s actually possible to get the pills without perscription the guy was being an asshole but not as big of an asshole as he´d be if you necessarily need a prescription.

Marksist · Post by **Marksist** » 2004-10-12 07:49pm

*cocks 9mm and shoots Markist*

Get your damned amendments right cockmuncher.

Ah damn I can't believe I did that. I'm the worst. Of course I meant the 1st amendment. Well at least someone here is exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2004-10-12 08:54pm

So, he won't give this woman birth control pills. That way, her chances of getting pregnant will increase, in which case she would probably get an abortion. That's sound logic he has going on there.(/sarcasm)

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-10-12 11:44pm

Nothing new, hearing that pharmacists are forcing their own morality on people seeking legal perscriptions... but snatching away her perscription so that she could not go somewhere else?!? The man is an asshole.

Raven · Post by **Raven** » 2004-10-12 11:56pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:I wonder if it occured to him that a great many women do not use birth control for the express purpose of preventing pregnancy, or that birth control pills do not destroy a fertilized cell even if he was against that, but prevents it from being fertilized to begin with.

Actually, fundies are against birth control as well. I can't remember their bullshit reason (something about "going against God's will"); I just remember them trying to drill it into my head in school. Obviously unsuccesful.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-10-13 12:03am

Darth Wong wrote:He actually went beyond merely refusing to offer the service in question, by seizing her prescription and refusing to release it so that somebody else could do the job. That's why she had to come back with police. It would have been bad enough if he'd just refused to serve her, but to actively try and prevent her from being able to fulfill her prescription ANYWHERE, he was attempting to basically take control of her sex life.

Agreed somewhat. He should not have seized the perscription and forbid it from being transfered, that's wrong, but if he was morally opposed to doing it he should have referred her elsewhere IMO.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-10-13 12:21am

Talon Karrde wrote: if he was morally opposed to doing it he should have referred her elsewhere IMO.

And what if this is in some small town, where there aren't any other options? Or if it's the only mom-and-pop pharmacy left, and the only other option is Wal-Mart, which doesn't carry contraceptives?

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2004-10-13 12:48am

Talon Karrde wrote:Agreed somewhat. He should not have seized the perscription and forbid it from being transfered, that's wrong, but if he was morally opposed to doing it he should have referred her elsewhere IMO.

And then his boss should have immediately terminated his employment. Agreed?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-10-13 12:49am

Talon Karrde wrote:Agreed somewhat. He should not have seized the perscription and forbid it from being transfered, that's wrong, but if he was morally opposed to doing it he should have referred her elsewhere IMO.

If he couldn't do his job without doing something he was "morally opposed" to, then he should have quit it...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-13 01:53am

Talon Karrde wrote:Agreed somewhat. He should not have seized the perscription and forbid it from being transfered, that's wrong, but if he was morally opposed to doing it he should have referred her elsewhere IMO.

So if someone's religious beliefs tell him that something is bad, even though there is no legal or objective basis whatsoever for this belief, he can unilaterally change his job description so that he doesn't have to do anything that offends him? Interesting logic: let's see where it leads.

Suppose we have a white supremacist who is convinced that interracial marriage is destroying the purity of the white race, hence it should be considered an attack upon the white race (I've studied white supremacists; this is actually what they believe). According to his personal beliefs, it would be immoral to give out a marriage license to an interracial couple. Now, suppose he's working as a clerk in the local government and his job is to give out marriage licenses. Does he have the right to refuse to give out a marriage license to an interracial couple?

And don't give me the "race and contraception aren't the same thing" evasion; I am examining your LOGIC and seeing where it leads when applied to a realistic hypothetical situation. If you don't understand the importance of having a consistent ethical argument, then you are either a fucking idiot or a fucking liar.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-13 01:56am

Raven wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:I wonder if it occured to him that a great many women do not use birth control for the express purpose of preventing pregnancy, or that birth control pills do not destroy a fertilized cell even if he was against that, but prevents it from being fertilized to begin with.
Actually, fundies are against birth control as well. I can't remember their bullshit reason (something about "going against God's will"); I just remember them trying to drill it into my head in school. Obviously unsuccesful.

The Old Testament character Onan pulled out early and "spilled his seed" rather than impregnating his mate. God was furious and killed him on the spot, because that's just the kind of God he is. Fundies concluded that everything about Onan should be considered evil; they have used this incident to attack both masturbation and all kinds of contraceptive technique.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-10-13 02:12am

Darth Wong wrote:The Old Testament character Onan pulled out early and "spilled his seed" rather than impregnating his mate. God was furious and killed him on the spot, because that's just the kind of God he is. Fundies concluded that everything about Onan should be considered evil; they have used this incident to attack both masturbation and all kinds of contraceptive technique.

Oh, no, that just an allegory to teach us about how uhh... not obeying god's every whim is justification enough for execution? Help me out here, how would the typical religious apologist explain this passage?

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-10-13 02:25am

Alright that was stupid. He had a job to do. If he did not agree with possible actions in that job he should have quit.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-13 02:35am

What's next? A doctor who refuses to administer a blood transfusion because he converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses last week?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2004-10-13 02:39am

Darth Wong wrote:What's next? A doctor who refuses to administer a blood transfusion because he converted to the Jehovah's Witnesses last week?

That's a good analogy... have to remember it.