If pharmacists should be able to refuse dispense the morning after pill,

[pstokely]

shouldn't car salespeople be allowed to refuse to sell SUVs?

[TaleWgnDg]

1. You go!! . . . n/t

[ananda]

2. bad analogy because..

A person can always find an SUV somewhere, and it's not a matter of health, life or death.

A person must depend on a pharmacy for matters of health, and it matters that a pharmacy
be available with prescriptions immediately without question.

Sue

[fishwax]

3. I think a car salesperson can refuse to sell SUVs

it's certainly not against the law. but it probably won't help his/her position with the company ...

[sbj405]

11. It certainly won't help his/her paycheck either

Car salesman work on commission. Pharmacists don't.

[ewoden]

4. probably more like . . .

If.......
Should not a fireman be allowed to let the homes of enemies burn?

[Journeyman]

5. If a pharmacist believes a drug may be harmful, or hasn't been proven. . .

safe in all instances (and I'm thinking here of Viagra and the belief a while back that it may have been responsible for blindness in some users -- and I'm not certain how or if that was resolved, but it's the uncertainty of that moment, when the possibility of damage existed and had yet to be proved or disproved, that concerns me now), but if a pharmacist believes a drug may be harmful to his patient -- either because of legitimate concerns for its effects, or because the pharmacist sees potential conflicts between a drug and other drugs the patient has taken or is taking -- does the pharmacist have an obligation to inform his customer of these concerns, and refuse to dispense the drug if he suspects it may indeed be proven ineffective or even dangerous? If he dispenses it, and it causes harm, the pharmacist could be held liable and could potentially lose his license, so does his concern for his own well-being override in this instance the customer's desire to fill a prescription?

[Lasher]

7. Druggists should intervene when a prescription is known to be harmful

What I'm thinking of here is, if someone comes in with two prescriptions to refill, and the pharmacist finds that it can be harmful if the two drugs are taken at the same time. That kind of thing. My pharmacist has indeed caught just this type of discrepancy, and I'm thankful for that. Any time I get a prescription for something new I look it up myself on the internet when I get home, to ensure I won't be making a mistake by taking it.

But here's the thing: We are really not the pharmacist's patients. We are our doctor's patients. I don't need to have a pharmacist second-guessing my doctor. If the pharmacist is going to be making judgment calls, why do I need to go to a doctor to get a prescription? I think more medications should be over the counter, and I'm sure not interested in running a gauntlet that consists of my doctor and a pharmacist.

[Journeyman]

10. Please see my question posed in post 9. . .

and my mistake, I referred to those who go to pharmacists as customers throughout my post but missed the first reference. Thinking too much of doctors, I imagine.

And I agree with you: this entire debate could be rendered moot by simply making morning after pills over-the-counter. Or alternately, dispensing them in the prescribing doctor's office.

Unfortunately, what I envision in this scenario is that, if Roe v Wade remains untouched in coming years, frustrated radicals may begin taking actions against pharmacies that dispense birth control and morning after pills, and fearful for their safety (much like the doctors and nurses at clinics across the nation) more pharmacists will begin to cease carrying these items out of fear of bodily harm. I put nothing past the whackjobs who protest in "moral idignation." They're the same bands of happy criminals who've put up websites to chronicle the killing of doctors and who regularly threaten all manner of retribution and punishment on those who disagree with them.

[Lasher]

13. Nothing would surprise me

Most of the people who seek to project their morality on others do so at the neglect of their own. I never have figured out the logic of killing people to stop abortions.

Good discourse in this message string. I didn't aim my rant at you, looks like I might have hit you with some of the shrapnel. Sorry.

[China_cat]

8. That's a much different scenario

than refusing to fill a prescription because of YOUR personal beliefs that they are 'sinful'.

And it isn't just the morning after pill they're refusing to fill. In some cases it's ANY birth control.

[Journeyman]

9. Does the pharmacist have the option to make a judgment call. . .

to refuse to dispense unproven drugs? Viagra was approved by the FDA but was then suspected of causing blindness. Further testing was ordered while the drug remained on the market. In that case, does a pharmacist have an obligation to his customers -- and a greater responsibility to himself -- to refuse to fill the prescription based on the pharmacist's opinion that the drug has not been proven safe? It's prescribed by a doctor -- but the pharmacist (and in the case of Viagra last year, the medical community and the regulatory bodies) weren't convinced it was proved safe, so do they have the right to refuse to dispense it?

[China_cat]

12. No, they don't.

[ticapnews]

6. I used to work for an alarm company

Churches made up a very high percentage of our customer base. Many of the people at these churches believe I am doomed to eternal hellfire because I am not of their religion and I vote for candidates and support policies contrary to their beliefs. Under the logic employed by these pharmacists, when I received an alarm from a church I should have been allowed to ignore it. After all if God wants the crook caught he will be caught, with or without my mortal interference. If God wants the fire put out, He'll make it rain. Right?

[FlaGranny]

14. Well, perhaps

if the pharmacist was receiving a commission on sales, he/she would think twice about dispensing the morning after pill.