Pharmacists' Rights at Front Of New Debate -WP

[Rose Siding]

Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.

The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized -- or force them to carry out their duties.
....
An increasing number of clashes are occurring in drugstores across the country. Pharmacists often risk dismissal or other disciplinary action to stand up for their beliefs, while shaken teenage girls and women desperately call their doctors, frequently late at night, after being turned away by sometimes-lecturing men and women in white coats.

"There are pharmacists who will only give birth control pills to a woman if she's married. There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to prescribe it to anyone," said Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which tracks reproductive issues. "There are even cases of pharmacists holding prescriptions hostage, where they won't even transfer it to another pharmacy when time is of the essence."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27.html

[TwilightZone]

1. What I most vehemently object to are the idiots who do not realize

that birth control pills are used for reasons OTHER than birth control.

Oh, but to understand that, they'd actually have to research the issues. It's easier to hide behind their beliefs and project ignorance than to bother to fully understand the medical side of the issue.

On the other hand, they went to pharmacy school, so they likely DO understand that serious medical conditions are treated with birth control pills, and they consciously choose to ignore that training and assume that they are being used exclusively for birth control.

[havocmom]

3. While I know the pills are used to treat other conditions, the thing is,

the pill has been with us for over 40 years. There cannot be many pharmacists who started in the business prior to that. That means, the pill has been around since before most started in the field. If they have that much of a problem reconciling the pill with their personal moral issues, THEY SHOULD DO SOMETHING ELSE to make a living.

How many of us can pick and choose what duties our careers require of us? Can firemen refuse to put out a fire if they have some ethical dispute with the people in the house? Can a doctor refuse to treat an ER patient because they don't think drunk drivers deserve care?

This has been orchestrated to attempt to eliminate birth control choices for women. The fact that pills are also prescribed for other medical reasons means the pharmacists are overriding an MDs decision and is thereby practicing medicine without a license. It is NOT up to the pharmacists to make moral or medical decisions for other based on their personal qualms.

Do the job or do something else. It is the condition we all face when we go to work. Many people do not go into more lucrative fields because of personal ethics clashing with job requirements. Why do these control freaks get to be protected for not doing their jobs?

[Warpy]

2. Dispensing medications per doctor's order to people they may not

like is their JOB. If you can't do your JOB, then look for one they can do. I'm sure there are plenty of empty storefronts for them to open churches in.

Healthcare workers don't get to pick and choose their patients. Pharmacists don't get to second guess doctors and refuse to fill legal prescriptions. Nobody gets to turn patients down because they don't like their age, sex, lifestyle, religion, or anything else.

Healthcare has NO ROOM for anybody that sacntimonious.

[jayctravis]

4. Frightening as it is, I agree with Walmart's stated policy on this.

Someone posted a letter they got back from Walmart saying that if their pharmacists do not want to dispense the pills, they have to refer the customer to someone who does.

[LostinVA]

25. I Disagree

A customer goes to a business with the expectation that that business will conduct business in a professional way, with no discrimination to any customer,a nd that that business will conduct business. Instead, a woman goes there and does not get the service she reasonably expects, is discriminated against (I doubt a man will be turned away for Viagra), made to feel like a second-class citizen, etc. That business has broken that "contract" with a customer. In addition, it is humiliating for the woman... especially if it's for a morning after pill. THe odds are the woman may have been raped.

So what if the Pharmacist calls in the script someplace else? Why should someone have to take time and gas to drive to another pharmacy? Maybe they don't have a car. A pharmacist dispenses medication, and if the PROFESSIONAL who is in charge of that pharmacy can't deal with it, screw them. Wal-Mart needs greeters.

You know, this makes me think of Dr. Cheshire -- he graduated from a school specifically created to educate Fundie soctors... is THIS what is going on with the phrarmacists, too???

Thsi sickens me. Thsi is just one step away of someone refusing to treat someone because they are Jewish, black, etc. Women have always been traeted like dirt by a certain class of "Christians," and I am sick of it.

[LiberalFighter]

36. Oath of a Pharmacist

At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy.

I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.

I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.

I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy.

I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct.

I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.

[Ilsa]

29. There are places in Texas (and i bet other states)

where this can mean a long drive. It's not always as simple as crossing the street.

[DBoon]

5. Any pharmacist who refuses to fill a valid prescription should be fired

immediately.

[truthisfreedom]

6. any pharmacist who refuses to fill a valid prescription should be arrested

immediately.

[Warpy]

7. And have his license pulled.

There's no place in medicine for those guys.

[Nancy Waterman]

8. If the place is owned by such a pharmacist

There should be a sign in the window and at the pharmacy counter letting people know before their prescriptions are stolen and not returned. But this still makes it difficult for those in rural areas without another pharmacy nearby.

These people are taking us back to the Stone Age.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1443199,00.html

[truthisfreedom]

21. man, that is the KEY. FULL DISCLOSURE at the entrance that your 'script

will be stolen and you'll be up sh*t creek.

[peacebird]

51. Agreed. Fire them and pull their license.

They have no business lecturing people about what prescriptions they may receive.

Do they also lecture those taking hormone shots to become pregnant? Obviously if their god wanted them to become pregnant they wouldn't NEED the outside assistance re: hormones and implantation of fertilized eggs....

[prodigal_green]

55. do they sell viagra

men with flaccid willies? God is punishing them for thinking lustful thoughts too often.

[peacebird]

59. LOL!

[GoddessOfGuinness]

9. I agree

If they feel their personal ethics are compromised by doing their job; they have no business being pharmacists.

[primavera]

31. Well said

I'm not sure I'm ready to start arresting pharamcists - they, like anyone else, are entitled to their personal opinions - but, as you say, if those personal opinions prevent them from fulfilling the obligations of their profession, then they're obviously in the wrong line of work. Defense attorneys who don't want to zealously advocate on behalf of persons who may be guilty of having committed crimes get disbarred for failing to fulfil the requirements of their job; if they can't handle the job, they can always do something else. But you can't pretend to be one thing and then pick and choose which parts of the job you find personally agreeable.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

34. Imagine a mortgage lender who feels it's unethical for women

to own property.

How about an exotic dancer who doesn't believe in exposing her body?

"You can't.....pick and choose which parts of the job you find personally agreeable."

Interesting...That's precisely what my republican father always said to me. It's one thing I could never argue with him on. :D

[tinymontgomery]

45. How about doctors

that don't think people should have feeding tubes to live? Or doctors that say you should change your diet instead of taking pills to lower your blood pressure?

Once again these people show how wacked out they are.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

58. If only we could sue ministers for malpractice...

They might think a little before freaking people out to the degree they have.

[Stephanie]

10. Pharmacists' Right to Discrimate?

That's all this is.

What if I am a waitress and I refuse to serve food to a Christian fundamentalist couple, because of their t-shirts? Isn't that my right?

[NNguyenMD]

11. I call another "some people say" issue, thrown into the forefront by

the media to give the religious right yet ANOTHER opportunity to take over the political debate in this country. As Mike Malloy would so eloqunetly say "Have I told you how much I hate these people?"

A few more pharmacists doing this around country does not constitute a "trend". A properly done survey saying 4 of 10 pharmacist admiting that they won't dispense drugs based on religious beliefs and have done so in the past, THATS a trend. This is the media looking for another way to keep the sheeple riled up so that they can watch an extra ten minutes on the tube.

Utterly sick...Air America Radio, BBC News, and PBS FRONTLINE, are the only sources of news I can stomach anymore.

[KaliTracy]

15. well, maybe the numbers aren't extreme, but I would say that the fact

that they have coalitions and memberships (such as Pharmacists for Life International http://www.pfli.org/ (currently lots of Schiavo posts on their home page, plus articles about the denial that recently happened which prompted the current article that the OP posted)) makes it an issue that we Must keep an eye on. Notice on the sidebar they have 2 FAQs one about Abortifacients and one about a Conscience Clause

See post #13. The article I posted from Prevention Magazine came out last summer.

[NNguyenMD]

17. I see what you mean, but I still think they're getting way too much

attention than they deserve. This story is a media sweetheart, its controversial, keeps people's emotion at a high, and gives th false appearance that it'll affect many people's lives.

I know from working in my medical school's admissions process that the people who get into healthcare professional schools are for the most party, a good representation of the general population. Most of the population is pro-choice, and I have little doubt that its not that way among the country's health professionals.

I agree with what you said, we DO have to keep an eye on this issue so that people can be informed on what to do and where they can go when their asshole fundy doctor or pharmacist decide to act like total douche bags and deny them contraceptives.

I personally believe any pharmacist or doctor who hold scripts hostage deserve to get their lisence yanked.

[KaliTracy]

18. on contrary, I think it needs attention. I think the issue needs to be

brought to the forefront -- who determines your medical care, -- your pharmacist or your doctor?

It's been happening for awhile now -- my mother - who is an OB nurse, had heard nothing about it when I told her last summer about the article in Prevention (which at first, I thought was a good thing she hadn't heard about it) -- then, the more I thought about it, the more I thought that health care workers need to be informed about issues that deny a person the care/medication that has been prescribed.

If, in fact R-v-W is overturned in the next 4 years (which of course, depends on the judge/s * appoints), this issue will become even more pronounced, which is again, a reason why I think it is good that it is being talked about.

The obvious answer is if you don't believe in dispensing a certain prescription, you give the script to another pharmacist to fill (or think of another line of work). And yes, anyone who holds a script hostage deserves to get their license revoked. However with 11 states which allow a pharmacist to decline to fill a script against their wishes, I wonder if this will happen?

[zanne]

30. Ask your pharmacists where they stand NOW!

If one of them states that he/she wouldn't prescribe the morning-after pill, inform the manager or head pharmacist that you will be taking your presriptions to another pharmacy FOR THAT REASON. Nobody likes to lose customers. If people start doing this now, it won't go any further.

[KaliTracy]

43. it's not just the morning after pill -- that's the problem -- it's birth

control that has been legal for 30+ years....your typical 777 pills, etc. which is why we need to make an even bigger stink about it (in any case -- ANY medical dispersion refusals are wrong).

I had a pharmacist once at a K-Mart who questioned me with hostility because I had an extremely painful cricked neck -- and the doctor had prescribed Valium. 3 pills. I was about 22. I was so pissed off, and I insisted he call my doctor in front of me to speak to the doctor.

[hlthe2b]

12. This is crap. Health Care workers have to treat people who are

as opposed to their basic core beliefs as is possible, every day. So, what next, physicians allowed to refuse emergency care to a homosexual or a heterosexual prostitute? A Jewish HCW refusing care to a Muslim? This is damned ridiculous and the Medial and Pharmacy Boards need to step in, IMO. Birth control pills may be used for PMS, for menstrual migraines, countless other indications besides birth control. Screw these misogynist assholes and that is exactly what is going on! :MAD:

[tblue37]

28. Severe dysmenorrhea and long, excessive mestruation

are conditions commonly treated with birth control pills. I know <i>many</i> women who would have periods that lasted so long, that were so heavy, and that caused such severe cramps that they could not leave the house for up to two weeks at a time and they were anemic from the bleeding! These women all use the pill to manage their cycles. If ever such a woman is denied her right to medicine by one of these dumbass pharmacists, she should sue them into the stone age.

[Moosepoop]

48. Exactly!!!

I was put on Ortho 7/7/7 birth control pills for treatment of the above when I was still a virgin in high school. My tubes were tied after my last child was born 12 years ago, but my doctor continued prescribing the Pill for me until I turned 40. Combined with my heavy smoking, the risks of taking it after that age outweighed the benefits. Now I'm back to what Mother Nature wreaks upon me every month. I can't wait for menopause!!!

"That time" of the month was still a doozy compared to most women even when I had the Pill, but I'm profoundly grateful for the improvement I experienced with it. I can't imagine being told that my prescription was "morally wrong" and wouldn't be filled.

[prodigal_green]

56. one of my best friends, a lesbian

is on bcp for her skin. So there is no possibility, theoretical or otherwise, that this pill would ever have anything to do with sperm/egg relationships.

[Krupskaya]

61. Careful.

There are states that have such broadly written "conscience clauses" for doctors that the doctors could use them to refuse care to homosexual people.

[KaliTracy]

13. Many of the pharmacists (who believe that their beliefs are more important

than the Doctor who prescribe the medication in the first place) have their own group.

this article came out last summer in Prevention Magazine
Access Denied

Find out why growing numbers of doctors and pharmacists across the US are refusing to prescribe or dispense birth control pills
<SNIP>
"Hundreds of physicians and pharmacists have pledged not to provide hormonal birth control. Among them: 450 doctors affiliated with the Dayton, OH-based natural family planning group One More Soul; some members of the 2,500 doctors in the Holland, MI-based American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists; and a growing number of the 1,500-member Web-based Pharmacists for Life International, says Brauer."
<SNIP>

http://www.prevention.com/article/0,5778,s1-1-93-35-4130-1-P,00.html

*****

This is such a travesty. Pharmacists who think they can get between a doctor's medical solution for a patient should not be practicing pharmacy. What about other prescription medicines? What if a woman who is on seizure medicine and, with her doctor's close supervision, is also pregnant, would the pharmacist refuse to fill the script because of potential problems that could occur (while I don't know if seizure meds could potentially cause an abortion, any medication can potentially do something to a growing fetus).

This is worse than the waitress denying a pregnant woman a frozen strawberry daiquiri ("because pregnant women shouldn't drink") (which happened and was reported in the early 90's) because a DOCTOR has prescribed the medication. And nothing should come between a doctor's professional knowledge and the patient's right to be medicated.

And this is WHY we need to reframe the whole "abortion rights" argument to Reproductive Freedom and/or Reproductive Choice and/or Reproductive Rights. I know some have issues with using the abortion word with the reproductive word (as if women would use abortion as a means of "birth control") -- but the IUD is a potential abortifacient, (a fertilized egg is "denied" implantation) -- those against the pill see it as a potential abortificacient, and other methods that some fanatic groups are also deemed abortifacients as well. And that's what they are after next, folks.

My mother was denied a tubal ligation in 1968 because, though she had a 1-4 chance in having a live birth (she was RH negative, and had pregnancy that didn't make it after I was born), and the pill gave her migraines, she was told that she needed TWO psychiatrists say she would be "mentally unstable" if she had another stillborn. (This was before Rogam, and before Roe v Wade). She refused. The problem was hers, yet they wouldn't allow her to get her tubes tied. My father got a vasectomy instead -- no psychiatric papers to sign, no stigma against his mental health -- and, if by chance the marriage was no more because of death/divorce, he wouldn't be able to start another family.

With Roe V. Wade in jeopardy I have repeated this story many times -- because I think it is important to remember where we were before we got to where we are now, and why this legislation happened in the first place.

[tsuki]

14. There should be a list some where for women to check, and

report the name of the pharmacist and store that refused service.

[MaineDem]

33. I totally agree

We need a list of pharmacies that employ these anti-women pharmacists.

What right is it of any dispensing pharmacist to know whether I'm married or not??? Or why the hell the meds were prescribed in the first place???

This infuriates me beyond belief!

[Greylyn58]

16. Yet again women are having their rights trampled

Have any of these "Good Christian Pharmacists" refused to dispense Viagra or other ED medicines?

No because then they would be getting in the way of a man's erection and of course they never bother to ask if he is married or just having a good time.

They are so willing to interfere with a woman and her right to control her own body, but hey let's not stop a man from having a 4 hour erection.

:grr:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. Code of Ethics for Pharmacists

Code of Ethics for Pharmacists
PREAMBLE

Pharmacists are health professionals who assist individuals in making the best use of medications. This Code, prepared and supported by pharmacists, is intended to state publicly the principles that form the fundamental basis of the roles and responsibilities of pharmacists. These principles, based on moral obligations and virtues, are established to guide pharmacists in relationships with patients, health professionals, and society.

I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.

Considering the patient-pharmacist relationship as a covenant means that a pharmacist has moral obligations in response to the gift of trust received from society. In return for this gift, a pharmacist promises to help individuals achieve optimum benefit from their medications, to be committed to their welfare, and to maintain their trust.

II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient at the center of professional practice. In doing so, a pharmacist considers needs stated by the patient as well as those defined by health science. A pharmacist is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the patient. With a caring attitude and a compassionate spirit, a pharmacist focuses on serving the patient in a private and confidential manner.

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.

IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience. A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.

V. A pharmacist maintains professional competence.

A pharmacist has a duty to maintain knowledge and abilities as new medications, devices, and technologies become available and as health information advances.

VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals.

When appropriate, a pharmacist asks for the consultation of colleagues or other health professionals or refers the patient. A pharmacist acknowledges that colleagues and other health professionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply to the care of the patient.

VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs.

The primary obligation of a pharmacist is to individual patients. However, the obligations of a pharmacist may at times extend beyond the individual to the community and society. In these situations, the pharmacist recognizes the responsibilities that accompany these obligations and acts accordingly.

VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.

When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair and equitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.

* adopted by the membership of the American Pharmacists Association October 27, 1994.

http://www.aphanet.org/pharmcare/ethics.html

[KaliTracy]

20. how does this jibe with the Conscience Clause promoted by the

Pharmacists for Life International
http://www.pfli.org/main.php?pfli=conscienceclausefaq

Why a Conscience Clause is a must... NOW!

Recent events in the medical world point to the overwhelming need for a Pharmacist's Conscience Clause (CC) as a must immediately. One pharmacist in California was reprimanded, but not fired, for refusing to dispense the abortifacient so-called "morning after pill" (MAP). Several others have been fired or essentially forced to resign by firms such as K-Mart and Wal-Mart. Increasing pressures from chains, hospitals and anti-life minded executives bears negatively on those pharmacists who have a semblance of scruples to protect the lives of their preborn clients and the health of the latter's moms.

In this article, PFLI will attempt to pose some frequently asked questions (FAQs for those who are Internet conversant) on the issue.


Q. Why do pharmacists need a conscience clause (CC)?

A. Pharmacists are increasingly under demands and pressures in our contracepting/aborting society to "go along" in dispensing chemicals and devices which they know will be used to destroying a nascent human life at its earliest stages. While a random assortment of employment laws and regulations exist in various localities and states, they do not specifically address the unique situation of pharmacists to refuse to cooperate knowingly with the evils of contraception, abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide, among others, in violation of their sincerely held religious, moral or ethical beliefs.


Q. What is the status of the CC?

A. The CC has been passed in the US in Louisiana, Puerto Rico and California and in the Canadian province of Alberta by pharmacy associations. Several local associations have passed resolutions supporting the CC. It is being considered in about a dozen other states. On the legislative level, the CC has been introduced in WI with almost 30 co-sponsors. Several other states are exploring introducing the CC in similar form. Clearly, the landscape with respect to interest in the CC has changed dramatically since PFLI started the ball rolling for a CC 10 years ago.


homepage http://www.pfli.org/

[zanne]

32. Could a female pharmacist refuse to dispense Viagra?

If I were a pharmacist, maybe I'd object to dispensing Viagra. We do have an overpopulation problem, after all. Or could I ask men who want Viagra if they support the children they have now? Don't think that this is ridiculous. This stuff would never end.

[Ripley]

35. LOl - good one!

She would be burned at the stake if she tried to deny a man his Viagra. BTW, why in the world do so many American men need that stuff? Is it because they are on so many other pharms they can't get it up?

I think something this is outright SEXISM and these people should be fired for breaking doctor/patient confidentiality if they are making a decision based on their warped fucking moral system.

[HockeyMom]

49. 4 HOURS?

ROFL

[Ravenseye]

50. Could a Christian Scientist Pharmacist Refuse to Dispense Anything?

I mean....since we're inserting our own morals and ethics on others these days, could a christian science pharmascist sit there and refuse to give anyone any medicine?

[LiberalFighter]

40. These 3 seem to be violated by these so called pharmacists

IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience. A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.

V. A pharmacist maintains professional competence.

A pharmacist has a duty to maintain knowledge and abilities as new medications, devices, and technologies become available and as health information advances.

VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals.

When appropriate, a pharmacist asks for the consultation of colleagues or other health professionals or refers the patient. A pharmacist acknowledges that colleagues and other health professionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply to the care of the patient.

[OneBlueSky]

22. if there was ever an issue worthy of organized boycotts . . .

this may be it . . .

[KaliTracy]

24. If there is a pattern in certain store pharmacies, I agree. Otherwise

we need to proceed with open eyes to this newest situation in reproductive rights.

[LostinVA]

26. When I Emailed a complaint to CVS

Last summer after one of their pharmacists did this, all I received was a mealy-mouthed reply stating they respected their pharmacists' right and beliefs and yada yada yada.... so, I wrote back to them and told them off again, moved all of my scripts to another pharmacy. A locally-owned one . It's more inconvenient, but whatever. I used to go to CVS for photo development and other stuff, too. No more. There reply told me how they feel about their female customers.

[DiverDave]

23. McDonald's needs manager trainee's.

They wont have to make the gut wrenching decision any longer.
Course, they will have to think about that whole other can of worms. High fat, low nutritional value food that is pretty bad for people.
Oh, wait, that won't get them noticed and applauded by their peers.

[rodeodance]

27. This is another huge crack on our secular nation-that is slowing

becoming a Christian nation---in its laws and polices

[AnnInLa]

37. THIS is what THAT leads to

http://www.proudparenting.com/page.cfm?Sectionid=65&typeofsite=snippetdetail&ID=1204&snippetset=yes


Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays

(Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.

The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.

The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.

providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.

Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.

more at link above

we need that list of pharmacies who have the policy...of course, here in South Louisiana, 99% of the pharmacists are Catholic, but I am willing to drive many miles to fill my prescriptions

[Ripley]

39. Exactly!!!

I just saw that thread in GD and couldn't believe all of the DUers saying a doctor has a right to refuse treatment of whomever they don't want to treat! I immediately thought they must agree with these wacked out pharmacists who have a "right" to not provide BCP!

This is not a choice. This is Theocracy in Action.

[KaliTracy]

42. unfortunately, you are right. when will this insanity end?

I just don't understand how patients' rights can get dismissed so readily....

[MountainLaurel]

46. Ever read The Handmaids Tale?

That's where it's gonna end. Either the Religious Reich is going to win the war, or this country will be destroyed in the process.

[KaliTracy]

53. oh yes -- I've used it often in discussions.... any government which

can legislate reproduction in one way, (abortion=illegal) can make it go another (fertile woman=must give birth). Not unlike China ( one child limit, male babies preferred).

[insane_cratic_gal]

38. Then They need to open their

Own damn chain of christian nazi conservatives Pharmacy Stores! Then they can refuse to dispense baised on your religion, color of skin, what you had for dinner, or whatever other hair floats across their ass reason.

[HannibalBarca]

41. As a pharmacy student myself

I find this to be reprehensible. The only time I would ever consider not filling a prescription is when there is some sort of contra indication for the medication or some other possible side effect. This goes for most people I know also both qualified and still studying.

[insane_cratic_gal]

57. thank you

for being reasonable person of society!

Those should be the only time in which prescriptions are not filled (per listed above). The only reason, fake prescriptions.

It's sad in this day an age when you have to thank someone for being sane in all of this insainty!

[Hobarticus]

62. Very good to hear....

I'm sure these handful of kooks don't represent the majority of pharmacists. You didn't get into it to make value judgements, I'm sure. Good luck!

And, welcome to DU!!!

[AnnInLa]

44. Liberal blogger collecting names of pharmacies

www.atrios.blogspot.com

"Please send me the names and place of business and business numbers of pharmacists who refuse to prescribe such things as birth control.

They have rights, and so do we."

((If you don't read his blog every day anyway....you really should make it a habit.))

[Occulus]

47. Corporate personhood at work.

If corporations (Walgreen's, Rite Aid, etc.) weren't persons under the law, they wouldn't have any right to do this; the community could shut them down after the very first incident.

Ending corporate personhood will quickly end things like this, if they know they can be closed on a whim.

Personally, I do believe all businesses should have that threat to contend with. If the community doesn't like what the corporation does.... the community can close its doors for good.

That's the way it ought to be. Corporations do not deserve rights; they only deserve priveleges which can be instantly revoked in full.

[lies and propaganda]

52. i think you shouldnt be a pharmacist if this bugs you...

because you are also aiding in people taking ten of their vicodins at once.

[JohnnyBoots]

54. How many steps away is this from theocratic talibanesque rule?

[Trish1168]

60. I agree....this is just to control women

Yup...keep us having kids so we can't work and stay poor. Pretty soon, it'll be burque's and no drivers license or credit/property.

I'm exaggerating a bit, but this is extremely sexist. For example, this culture of life stuff does not extend to wars or the death penalty....and these same people don't like birth control, which PREVENTS abortions. So really, what's this about?

In my opinion, its about keeping women down.

:grr: