-
Does a pharmacy have authority to override a medical doctor’s prescription based on FDA statements about the compound in question? What the FDA has become is beyond the scope of the rights of people to choose what they will, and what a doctor prescribes.
Pharmacy policy may be a “cover our butt” approach to staying in favor with FDA.
A doctor is still free to prescribe off-label ivermectin. But he cannot compel a private drug store company to sell it to him. Why not?
A “corporate person” drug store is free to sell or not sell products. If a doctor has licensed medical authority to ask that a certain prescription be filled, and the federal government (the FDA, in this case) cannot be a reference for the drug store to decide what it may or may not sell to the doctor, by what agreement or contract will the transaction between the doctor and the pharmacy be bound?
Can the patient sue the pharmacy in a court because the pharmacy is withholding a life saving treatment (doctor’s view) or does the pharmacy have a legal standing to refuse to participate as a link (providing the compound) in the doctor’s prescribed treatment for the patient?
The patient can refuse the vaccine, even if the pharmacy provides it, it is an EUA. The FDA cannot demand that the doctor and the pharmacy cooperate, and that the patient cooperate. The President does not even have authority to mandate health care.
Especially not for an unvaccinated healthy person who is not infected with the virus…Can the government force you to vaccinate against your consent for an illness that you do not have?
No, the Bill of Rights has a 9th Amendment that says, “The enumeration (listing) of certain rights shall not be construed (interpreted to suit your own self) to deny or disparage other rights (preceeding and inate) retained by the people”. This 9th amendment, and “baby ninths” in many states, limit states and federal government from being overbearing and deciding – for you – what to do with your body and mind.
“The concept of a right to refuse treatment was built on basic rights to privacy, equal protection under the law, and due process. In other words, involuntarily hospitalized patients still have a right to decide what happens to their bodies.”
That was referring to mental health. The physical body rights are the same. Suppose the following was describing forced COVID-19 vaccinations? To force a patient to take an mRNA COVID-19 shot instead of the ivermectin that the patient has agreed to?
“There are exceptions to a patient’s right to refuse treatment. In an emergency, all bets are off. A doctor may provide involuntary treatment, usually a medication given by injection or by mouth, but only to control the emergency—which, again, is defined as an imminent danger to self or others.” “Whatever treatment is provided in an emergency cannot be continued after the immediate danger has passed, unless the patient agrees and gives informed consent.”
“Clinicians cannot continue the medication, even if it could prevent another emergency situation; the patient has the right to decide whether to continue or not.”
“For involuntary treatment (treatment without consent) to be delivered outside of an acute emergency, the doctor and hospital must petition a court to order it. Laws vary from state to state and, of course, no two judges are alike.”
“Generally, judges rule in favor of well-prepared doctors and hospitals that show that the treatment is necessary for safety and recovery; all efforts at voluntary treatment were exhausted; family and others were engaged to help persuade the patient to accept care (and were not successful); and the benefits of treatment are likely to outweigh its risks.”
Supposing that the above refers to mental AND physical health, we might consider it a means of managing health challenges for someone in danger of illness…
Who decides that an individual is in danger…or that that individual is a danger to himself and others?
In a pandemic affected region, mentally healthy, unvaccinated people are not a danger to themselves and others. The virus may be a danger. The people who are uninfected are neither in danger themselves nor a danger to others.
Projecting by statistics that a region is “a hot spot” is not DUE PROCESS for an innocent person, when that projection forces an action that is not even treatment of a disease, but rather TREATMENT FORCED FOR FEAR THAT A PERSON ALREADY HAS THE DISEASE (the person does not have it) OR WILL SPREAD THE DISEASE (the person is made a suspect simply by living in an area).
The logic of vaccinating everyone is dependent on: consent variables,
vaccine variables,
virus variables and
other variables,
such as the timing of all factors and elements of the crisis.
It follows that 100% vaccination is not a goal, it is fear-driven legal insanity. Some will die or have adverse effects rather than become protected from a virus variant that may or may not leave them alive after it infects them and their immune systems work each in their own way.
So why is the federal government pretending to have authority to demand 100% vaccination compliance as the goal and the means of success?
The federal government is bound by the Bill of Rights to a limited role in mandating whether or not it can (constitutionally) force you to “consent” to health care treatment. Putting oneself in danger, for not consenting, you are an American fighting domestic enemies of the Constitutional Republic known as the USA.