Mixed news
The Bad News
Joan of Arcadia has been cancelled. While I agree that the second season was rocky, I looked forward to the arc they were intimating for the third season. Furthermore, I'm pissed that the overall reason wasn't just low ratings, but low ratings among young viewers. You wanna have payback for your advertisers, Sparky? Stop piddling after the kids with their part-time, minimum-wage allowances and pay attention to us pissed off geezers with the big salaries and large budgets for discretionary spending.
I have no idea what this means for the second season DVDs, which were tentatively scheduled for September just before the new season comes out. There are episodes I badly want on DVD, particularly the one I missed.
The Good News
PERSONAL EDITION:
Mrs. Palmer gets out of the hospital tomorrow! They're waiting for her heart to get back to full strength before they go in and explore the kidney part of the problem; the heart is already strong enough that the cardiologist is talking about talking to her in a couple of weeks.
POLITICAL EDITION:
The text of the State of Wisconsin Pharmacy Board disciplinary hearings for Neil T. Noesen have been posted. Noeson was brought before the Board for asking a patient the purpose of a birth control prescription, refusing to fill said prescription, and refusing to turn over the information to another pharmacist. The decision is against Noeson, probably in part because he sounds like he was equally obstructionist during the hearing:
When asked whether he had an obligation to make certain that the pharmacies knew the extent of his conscientious objections and the acts which he would not perform, Respondent answered, “That’s a good question. Is that a good answer or not?” At another point in the hearing, Respondent was asked to explain how an employer could accommodate a pharmacist’s refusal to transfer a prescription if they did not know that the pharmacist would refuse to do so. Respondent again replied, “That’s a good question. That’s my answer.”
Turns out that Mr. Moral had written a letter, which he didn't give to most of the people involved, outlining what he would do in contraceptive cases. For all the good that did: When he asked why he did not follow his own protocol, Respondent was unable to offer any explanation. [TR. at 128] Instead, he admitted that he did not offer to call the prescriber and he did not do what he wrote to Mr. Scott in his e-mail that he would do.
That moral high ground is sinking lower by the second...
Some common arguments and the rebuttals from this case:
The "We are Pro-Life/It's for the Woman's Benefit Too" argument:
46. Respondent did not ask AR any questions about her medical condition and did not know whether she had a medical condition that would cause harm to her if she became pregnant.
47. Respondent did not ask AR when she had taken the last dose of her previous prescription or when she was to take the first dose of the refill prescription. He had no knowledge of how many doses she would have missed because of his refusal to transfer her prescription.
49. Respondent did not assess the risk of harm to AR as a result of his refusal to transfer her refill prescription or of his refusal to provide her information about her options to obtain her prescribed medication.
You can't claim it's in the woman's best interest or that it won't harm her if you don't know the woman's circumstances, the impact of your actions, or the risk the woman takes.
Which didn't stop the pharmacist from using the "she wasn't hurt" defense, which they shot down:
Respondent argues that this disciplinary action should be dismissed because there was no actual harm or potential harm to the patient. However, the applicable law in this case does not require a finding of actual harm. The definition of unprofessional conduct as set forth in Wis. Adm. Code § Phar 10.03(2), states “any pharmacy practice which constitutes a danger to the health, welfare, or safety of a patient... Evidence was presented that the increased risk of a pregnancy to AR resulting from her inability to obtain her contraceptive medication harmed or could have harmed her. Women still die during childbirth.
The "I Don't Have To" argument:
52. The standard of care ordinarily exercised by a pharmacist requires a pharmacist to dispense medication to a patient when presented with a valid prescription order, unless the pharmacist in his professional opinion believes that the prescription has the potential for causing harm to the patient.
53. There was no evidence adduced at hearing that refilling the prescription would harm AR.
The "It's Not My Job" argument:
It is clear from the record that Respondent failed to inform On the Go of his conscientious objection before he entered into the agreement and that he failed to inform his potential employer of the pharmacy services that he would not perform in advance of agreeing to placement as a weekend relief pharmacist. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that Respondent failed to perform the pharmacy services which he had contractually agreed to perform.
The "You're Harming Me By Making Me Violate My Beliefs" argument:
The Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board has never held that a pharmacist is not entitled to exercise his or her conscience in the practice of his or her profession, nor is Respondent’s exercise of conscience the basis for prosecution of this case. Rather, this case is about following professional standards in the exercise of one’s conscience. This, Respondent failed to do. The discipline recommended in this Order is a consequence of Respondent’s failure to act as a professional. The Respondent is not being sanctioned for exercising his conscience. Rather, he is being held accountable, as would any other registered pharmacist, for engaging in a practice that departed from the standards of care that govern his profession.
And finally, this delicious summary:
Respondent’s testimony gave the distinct impression that satisfying his own personal moral code was his only concern. Respondent did not even acknowledge that he had caused or could have caused harm to a patient. In fact, Respondent argued that others were to blame for the problem - the patient, Ken Jordanby, the Wal-Mart Pharmacist and the Pharmacy Examining Board. Rather than accepting and acknowledging his responsibility as a professional pharmacist, Respondent would have the Board conclude that it was the obligation of others to interpret the extent of his conscientious objections and to ensure that an alternate arrangement was in place so that patients would receive their health care.
Respondent clearly needs training in the ethics of his profession.
Joan of Arcadia has been cancelled. While I agree that the second season was rocky, I looked forward to the arc they were intimating for the third season. Furthermore, I'm pissed that the overall reason wasn't just low ratings, but low ratings among young viewers. You wanna have payback for your advertisers, Sparky? Stop piddling after the kids with their part-time, minimum-wage allowances and pay attention to us pissed off geezers with the big salaries and large budgets for discretionary spending.
I have no idea what this means for the second season DVDs, which were tentatively scheduled for September just before the new season comes out. There are episodes I badly want on DVD, particularly the one I missed.
The Good News
PERSONAL EDITION:
Mrs. Palmer gets out of the hospital tomorrow! They're waiting for her heart to get back to full strength before they go in and explore the kidney part of the problem; the heart is already strong enough that the cardiologist is talking about talking to her in a couple of weeks.
POLITICAL EDITION:
The text of the State of Wisconsin Pharmacy Board disciplinary hearings for Neil T. Noesen have been posted. Noeson was brought before the Board for asking a patient the purpose of a birth control prescription, refusing to fill said prescription, and refusing to turn over the information to another pharmacist. The decision is against Noeson, probably in part because he sounds like he was equally obstructionist during the hearing:
When asked whether he had an obligation to make certain that the pharmacies knew the extent of his conscientious objections and the acts which he would not perform, Respondent answered, “That’s a good question. Is that a good answer or not?” At another point in the hearing, Respondent was asked to explain how an employer could accommodate a pharmacist’s refusal to transfer a prescription if they did not know that the pharmacist would refuse to do so. Respondent again replied, “That’s a good question. That’s my answer.”
Turns out that Mr. Moral had written a letter, which he didn't give to most of the people involved, outlining what he would do in contraceptive cases. For all the good that did: When he asked why he did not follow his own protocol, Respondent was unable to offer any explanation. [TR. at 128] Instead, he admitted that he did not offer to call the prescriber and he did not do what he wrote to Mr. Scott in his e-mail that he would do.
That moral high ground is sinking lower by the second...
Some common arguments and the rebuttals from this case:
The "We are Pro-Life/It's for the Woman's Benefit Too" argument:
46. Respondent did not ask AR any questions about her medical condition and did not know whether she had a medical condition that would cause harm to her if she became pregnant.
47. Respondent did not ask AR when she had taken the last dose of her previous prescription or when she was to take the first dose of the refill prescription. He had no knowledge of how many doses she would have missed because of his refusal to transfer her prescription.
49. Respondent did not assess the risk of harm to AR as a result of his refusal to transfer her refill prescription or of his refusal to provide her information about her options to obtain her prescribed medication.
You can't claim it's in the woman's best interest or that it won't harm her if you don't know the woman's circumstances, the impact of your actions, or the risk the woman takes.
Which didn't stop the pharmacist from using the "she wasn't hurt" defense, which they shot down:
Respondent argues that this disciplinary action should be dismissed because there was no actual harm or potential harm to the patient. However, the applicable law in this case does not require a finding of actual harm. The definition of unprofessional conduct as set forth in Wis. Adm. Code § Phar 10.03(2), states “any pharmacy practice which constitutes a danger to the health, welfare, or safety of a patient... Evidence was presented that the increased risk of a pregnancy to AR resulting from her inability to obtain her contraceptive medication harmed or could have harmed her. Women still die during childbirth.
The "I Don't Have To" argument:
52. The standard of care ordinarily exercised by a pharmacist requires a pharmacist to dispense medication to a patient when presented with a valid prescription order, unless the pharmacist in his professional opinion believes that the prescription has the potential for causing harm to the patient.
53. There was no evidence adduced at hearing that refilling the prescription would harm AR.
The "It's Not My Job" argument:
It is clear from the record that Respondent failed to inform On the Go of his conscientious objection before he entered into the agreement and that he failed to inform his potential employer of the pharmacy services that he would not perform in advance of agreeing to placement as a weekend relief pharmacist. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that Respondent failed to perform the pharmacy services which he had contractually agreed to perform.
The "You're Harming Me By Making Me Violate My Beliefs" argument:
The Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board has never held that a pharmacist is not entitled to exercise his or her conscience in the practice of his or her profession, nor is Respondent’s exercise of conscience the basis for prosecution of this case. Rather, this case is about following professional standards in the exercise of one’s conscience. This, Respondent failed to do. The discipline recommended in this Order is a consequence of Respondent’s failure to act as a professional. The Respondent is not being sanctioned for exercising his conscience. Rather, he is being held accountable, as would any other registered pharmacist, for engaging in a practice that departed from the standards of care that govern his profession.
And finally, this delicious summary:
Respondent’s testimony gave the distinct impression that satisfying his own personal moral code was his only concern. Respondent did not even acknowledge that he had caused or could have caused harm to a patient. In fact, Respondent argued that others were to blame for the problem - the patient, Ken Jordanby, the Wal-Mart Pharmacist and the Pharmacy Examining Board. Rather than accepting and acknowledging his responsibility as a professional pharmacist, Respondent would have the Board conclude that it was the obligation of others to interpret the extent of his conscientious objections and to ensure that an alternate arrangement was in place so that patients would receive their health care.
Respondent clearly needs training in the ethics of his profession.