OK I just read the WHOLE thread about pharmacists not dispensing BCPs.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

Here is the issue.

No one, outside perhaps the military, can put a gun to someone's head and require anyone to do anything, whether it's a pharmacist dispensing oral contraceptives, a physician to perform an abortion that would save the life of a pregnant woman etc. The person would not go to jail for not doing those things.


HOWEVER. The whole point of "conscience legislation" with respect to these wingnut pharmacists is that it aims to PROTECT the "conscientious objector" from ANY CONSEQUENCES of their actions, i.e. getting fired. THAT, friends and neighbors, is the problem.

If CVS refuses to fire a wingnut pharmacist for deciding for themselves not to dispense the pill, we have a problem with CVS. If the Georgia or Missouri state legislatures act to PREVENT CVS from firing the pharmacist for failing to perform expected duties, then we have an issue with the legislature.

No one can force me to get up at 5:30 AM tomorrow and go to work (I'm no longer in the military). I will not go to jail if I do not. However, as I am expected by my employer to do so, I can and do expect that if I fail to do this I may suffer consequences from my employer, specifically, being fired or being put on notice that I am well on my way to being fired.

I am a physician in the private sector. Even though it is an expectation of my position that I take care of patients known to have HIV, hepatitis etc. I could decide that I'm just not going to take care of those patients any more. Again, I will not go to jail. However, I should expect my employment prospects to be severely restricted for adopting such a policy.

Now, of course, this "conscience" legislation is currently worded to imply that ANYthing that your own conscience dictates your employer can't make you do, but it's clearly designed to promote a wingnut fundie agenda.

Think how chaotic our society, our workplaces would be if everyone could determine for themselves what they would and wouldn't do. In fact, we can, but the society itself has norms and we should expect consequences if you don't adhere to them.

[villager]

1. what about the ju-jitsu factor?

if people don't want to help/take care of wingnuts?

[LynzM]

2. Good post

Thank you. I agree that the problem is the protection from consequences for someone choosing to not do their job. What other jobs receive special legislation to allow those who do that job to effectively be able to selectively not do that job, and know that there is no consequence for it?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Excellent point, and where does it stop?

Your doctor prescribed pain meds, but I believe if you drove the demons out of yourself you would not be in pain. Sorry, I'm not filling this prescription.

Sorry, this medication is for HIV. You wouldn't need it if you had lived a chaste life.

Sorry, this medication is to control high blood pressure. HTN comes from not eating a kosher diet.

Sorry, the Lord doesn't want you to use condoms.

Sorry, pray and your cramps will go away.

[tammywammy]

7. Oh is that a Vote for Kerry shirt

Well, I can't really fill this prescription because I believe liberals are ruining the good ol' US of A.

[elehhhhna]

33. " No Viagra for you! You're too well-groomed to be a straight guy!"

[liberalhistorian]

49. Sorry, this medicine is a treatment for

breast cancer, maybe you wouldn't have gotten it if you hadn't had an abortion (some fundies still believe that abortion-breast cancer link nonsense).

Sorry, this is for Type II diabetes, if you had eaten right and exercised, you wouldn't have that problem.

Sorry, this medicine is for chlamydia/gonorrhea/syphilis, you shouldn't have been having sex with such people.

Sorry, this prescription is for the estrogen patch, you wouldn't need it if you hadn't had that hysterectomy when you're still of child-bearing age. (I had a hysterectomy at 37 three years ago because of endometriosis, fibroids, and ovarian cysts, not exactly conducive to child-bearing. Yet I've actually had people tell me that, that I shouldn't have had the hysterectomy because I still could have had kids!!!!!!).

One thing you'll NEVER hear, though, is this: Sorry, this prescription is for Viagra, we can't aid and abet in the promotion of a hedonistic lifestyle! If you're impotent, then God doesn't want you to have sex.

[HuskiesHowls]

4. Hmmm...would that mean if I decide not to make car payments

they can't repossess it?? And they can't foreclose because I don't want to make house payments??

A VERY interesting concept!!!!!

The end of the world as we know it.......

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

36. What about INTEREST? The Bible is against interest!

So, after my payments equal the nominal amount of the loan, I should STOP PAYING! JEEBUS told me so!

[tammywammy]

5. Good post.

I know that if I decided I didn't like answering phones, I would be fired. I couldn't say "Well, I really object to them," or "I think they cause cancer," or anything else. I would be fired, because as a receptionist my job is to answer the phone. I knew that when I was hired, and if I really felt that the phone was going to give me cancer, I shouldn't have taken the job in the first place.

[ultraist]

6. You might not go to jail

But, as a landlord, if I refused to rent to a fundie and claimed it was within my rights via the conscience legislation, I would still get sued and charged with violating equal housing laws.

Why are doctors and pharmacists being allowed to discriminate? That's BS. It's not about employers requiring certain standards, we cannot trust employers, it's about adhering to anti discrimination laws. This is a loophole to avoid those.

[Tux]

9. It's about control

Through medicine, they can control our behaviors. Don't like people have sex and enjot it, prevent them from buying condoms or birth control pills. Think that gays are Satan's agents, deny them medical care. Believe that non-Christians are doomed to hell, don't treat them till they are Christian.

Over time, this would lead to a theocracy.....and very angry corporations who make the stuff the fundies don't want people to have nor use.

[elehhhhna]

34. Seems they're employing old-time colonial Missionary tactics

[DulceDecorum]

10. Black people

will either be turned away at the door by the fundie pharmacists,
or else they will be given each
and every single birth control med available
for a HEADACHE.

Fundies are not known to tolerate the presence of non-whites
unless they are polishing shoes or stuff like that.

[Az]

8. Its a simple factor of a person not doing the job they were hired for

If you can't do the job to the full extent then you should not apply for it. Christian Scientists should not become surgeons. Scientologists should not be Psychiatrists. Peta members should not be butchers. And individuals that cannot dispense prescriptions as precribed by doctors should not be pharmecists.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. And athiests should not be ministers at the Presbyterian church

just didn't want you to miss out on all the fun :D

[Az]

15. Hold up there

Ever read anything by Rev Spong? He may not come out and say it. But he is pretty cloes to being an atheist. And then there is Rabbi Sherwin Wine. An atheist Rabbi. So there! :evilgrin:

[LostinVA]

54. I've read everything by Bishop Spong

And think he is far from being an atheist. I do think he is THIS close to being a Pagan, though.

[Mad_Dem_X]

39. Exactly - that's their JOB

to fill the prescriptions that doctors write for their patients. So long as it's for something legal, they should put personal feelings aside and DO THEIR JOB.

[quinnox]

11. exactly

I was arguing the other day about how you can't FORCE hospitals or Doctors to treat gays, and got a lot of heat for it. (The subject was a Michigan law that would have enabled doctors and hospitals to refuse non-emergency treatment to gays if it conflicted with their beliefs) But you just can't FORCE them. Will there be consequences for them if they refused treatment? Of course

[ultraist]

16. Of course you can't "force" them, but they can get sued for discrimination

You can't force them to treat anyone but they can lose their license if they discriminate as well as get sued.

Why do you think we have anti discrimination laws?

Gays can and have sued for discrimination and have won.

[quinnox]

17. right

There are consequences that they would have to face

[JordanTO]

37. That's it exactly.

Although I find the legal situation rather bizarre, frankly, it must be conceded that one cannot enforce a legal right one apparently does not have. Why haven't the laws been clarified to make access to birth-control medications a uniform, enforceable right?

[anitar1]

12. In MYHO They should be fired. This is too much.

If these people are so disapproving of certain prescriptions, they should not be phramacists. so why did they choose this profession? Fire their asses and yank their license to practice. That should solve the problem. But in this climate, it will never happen. They want to totally outlaw ANY birth control. I have been reading about this for the last year. The next thing they will want is birthing at home sans Dr. or midwife. Suffer, women, without help, for you are scum in the eyes of fundies. Fundie men are misogynists.

[ultraist]

18. I hope the person who is discriminated against sues

Even with losing cases, it costs several thousands of dollars in attorney's fees for the defendant.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. If this passes, I can't wait for the first female pharmacist to say

"WTF??? Viagara??? You're 75!! God wants you to keep that soldier in the DIRT!!!"

[shraby]

19. Some pharmacies just might find their

businesses taking a nose-dive, and some physicians will see their clientele drop off. I know if my daughter was told she couldn't fill a birth control pill prescription, I wouldn't go to that pharmacy anymore either.

[underseasurveyor]

22. Oh I'd have to add more to that

:evilgrin:
That sex is only for procreation purposes certainly not enjoyment or pleasure (express overt shock`n`disgust-here-). And Sir since you are much too old to be starting a family, any other reason for wanting Viagra is pornographic and disgusting. For SHAME sir, for shame :spank:

Note to self: -Consider pharmacology courses-
Might prove to be a fun, rewarding career after all :-)

[Mad_Dem_X]

40. LOL!

And you can bet they would try to fire her for that!

[sandnsea]

20. Please, please stop believing RW CRAP

YES WE BY GOD CAN ENFORCE LAWS. If you don't want to sell the drug the doctor prescribes, DON'T BE A PHARMACIST. If you don't want to provide medical care EQUALLY TO ALL PEOPLE, don't be a doctor.

This is not I do whateverthefuckiwant land. It is a land of law and abiding by law. It is really and truly the way it's worked FOREVER.

Reaganism has creeped into every nook and cranny of the American pscyhe. It's unfrigginreal.

:argh:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

21. Did you read my original post? There are not laws that force a pharmacist

to prescribe medicine. Give me an example of such a law, and how this would be enforced--pharmacist jailed for not prescribing BCPs? I think not.

However, there are RECENT laws proposed to protect the pharmacist from being fired from doing this, which I think are the real problem.

Individual wingnut pharmacists are not the problem. There are plenty of people who would be happy to have the jobs of these people. Even if there are companies who kowtow to the fundie line, there are plenty to take over the business of those companies. Oral contraceptives are among the most prescribed medications out there.

The problem is laws that would say, "do whatever you feel is right, and we will protect you from any sanctioning". As long as "what you feel is right" is part of our fundie agenda...

[sandnsea]

23. There was a time

when the very idea that a doctor or pharmacist had the right to refuse medical treatment was an abomination. And a doctor or pharmacist who refused treatment or medication which caused harm would have been sued for not performing the jobs that they were licensed through the laws in their state, to do. Any jury in the country would have found them guilty or liable, whichever the circumstances warranted. The right wing and their misconstruing of "freedom" and "individual rights" is what is causing people to think nobody has a responsiblity to anybody anymore.

One of these days one of these women who have been refused a prescription will sue for pscyhological damages or worse, and she'll win, and then this whole thing will be done with.

I wasn't so much yelling at you as I was yelling in general.

[Ladyhawk]

24. Shit, we could decide we aren't going to do all kinds of things.

Dr. Machiavelli, why don't you decide not to treat white heterosexual males who voted for George W. Bush. It's against your principles, right? :)

[Horse with no Name]

25. Some patients in the hospital are abusive

to the caregivers, calling them names, harrassing, etc but we are still there to provide care for them.
Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if all of the nurses refused to take care of these patients citing their civil rights were being violated?
We all take oaths--physicians, nurses, pharmacists, etc--to take care of patients--all patients--without prejudice.
I find it quite odd that all of the sudden in the midst of possible tort reform that these professionals who have filled these same prescriptions and taken care of these same patients for years, all the sudden decide they aren't going to do it anymore.
What is going to happen to the people that fall through the cracks in this new wave of medical activism?
I shudder to think.

[Cuban_Liberal]

26. Warning: you're not allowed to use logic.

Rule #1: You are not permitted to recognize the current legal rights of those pharmacists; you must put on the blinders and see no legal argument except the one that requires a pharmacist to dispense on demand any and every medication legally available in the US, even though no such legal right currently exists under most state statues. Furthermore, God help you if you would suggest that the legislatures of the various states could and should pass legislation to grant patients a specific legal right, because that simply confirms that you're a closet freeper for having recognized the legal realitie in the first place.

Rule #2: See Rule #1.

:eyes:

[ProfessorGAC]

43. A Thought On That

Not on the "can't use logic part", because you're right.

But, i thought we agreed in this country, 200+ years ago, that government doesn't grant rights, and laws are passed to regulate, but not bestow those rights. (The phrase "inalienable rights" probably rings a bell!)

So, why do we now think there has to be a law that says a pharmacist has to fill a prescription? Aren't the rights intrinsic?

Hence, i don't think we need a law to MAKE a pharmacist dispense the drugs. The right is implicit.

I agree with Machiavelli's point that the real problem is that the new move is to pass laws that allow someone to subrogate the intrinsic rights of others and suffer no consequences. It's a back door attempt to ignore the purpose of the Constitution.
The Professor

[AnnInLa]

27. I've been wondering about the pharmaceutical industry's reaction

to this...don't they make scads of $$ from birth control pills? Is the number of incidents of pharmacists refusing to fill bc scripts so small that they haven't applied pressure yet or spoken out?

[CrispyQ]

35. Why aren't the pharmacists making an issue or boycotting

the pharm industry for making the pills? Because they want to make a statement to the individual women they come in contact with: I have control over you. Otherwise, why wouldn't they also be boycotting the drug companies who make these pills to try to pressure them to stop.

What self righteous a-holes.

[radwriter0555]

28. That's right, just like no one is forcing US soldiers to kill Iraqis

since, any US soldier can just get up and walk away from where-ever they're stationed, to the nearest city. It might be 800 miles away, but that US soldier could simply walk away from their duty.

They would be obligated and could be found guilty of technical crimes, but the greater crime is continuing the occupation and genocide of iraq.

People still DO have free will. They're just using it so badly these days, if at all.

[SmokingJacket]

29. If I'm a waitress, can I decide not to wait on fat people?

Because my conscience dictates that it isn't good for them to overeat.

[Cats Against Frist]

30. Wow

And these are the same people who decry the Americans With Disabilities Act? They think it's OK for the federal government to get involved to placate a pharmacist, who is patently unfit for working in modern medicine -- but they can't handle a federally mandated wheelchair ramp?

These people are OUT OF THEIR FUCKING GOURD. I can't take it, anymore -- the hypocrisy is STAGGERING.

[Blue Belle]

41. I wonder if these Pharmacists would refuse to fill a prescription...

for Rush Limbaugh. He's a known abuser of pain meds... but if he had a script for Vicodin from a doctor, would he be refused? I wonder if the Pharmacists would morally object?

[SpiralHawk]

31. No one will ever have trouble getting their Soma

And from the tone of this discussion, all of you DU posters need a Triple Dose of Soma right now.

Haven't you been paying attention to the Michael Jackson trial? Tune it today. You won't want to miss a trick.

Otherwise, Administration Experts Agree: Everything is just fine.

So shut up and sit down.

And remember, Big BushCo loves you.

[roseBudd]

32. My email to Wal-mart (time to boycott is now!)

To whom it may concern,

Though I personally no longer use oral contraceptives
I will never set foot in Wal-Mart again. I too must
stand up for my personal convictions and for women
everywhere and this assault on a women's right to her
own doctor's approved healthcare must not stand. A
woman's doctor decides, not your pharmacist.

xxxxx xxxxxxxx


--- "Walmart.com Help" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear Valued Customer,
>
> Thank you for contacting us at Walmart.com regarding
> women?s
> prescriptions for birth control. Your comments and
> concerns are very
> important to us as we strive to meet your needs.
>
> Wal-Mart does not carry emergency contraceptives.
> Our pharmacists may
> decline to fill a prescription based on personal
> convictions. However,
> they must find another pharmacist, either at
> Wal-Mart or another
> pharmacy, who can assist you by filling your
> prescription.
>
> Again, we thank you for your comments regarding this
> issue.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Customer Service at Walmart.com
>
>

[johnaries]

38. Exactly right. An employer should be allowed to fire someone who is

not doing the job they were hired to do. That's the bottom line. If doing their job goes against their beliefs, then they should seek other employment.

[ananda]

42. job and license

Any pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription should have his/her license revoked and not be allowed to sell or dispense drugs at all.

Period.

Sue

[Blue Belle]

44. Here's an interesting little group...

of Fundamentalist Pharmacists: Pharmacists for Life!

Their motto is: "Let the Gift of Medicines promote Life, not destroy Life!"

Check it out: http://www.pfli.org/

They're on a mission from God!

[bloom]

45. So what about the people

who live out in the middle of nowhere - where there only Walmarts because the Walmarts have put everyone else out of business - and the Walmarts won't sell what a woman needs as a matter of corporate policy. This is Ok with you? This world that is evolving?


And yes - I missed the debate you are referring to - but I have a problem with this concept. There were laws written to protect people from racist and sexist landlords that were denying people a place to live. There could be laws that protect people from racist and sexist pharmacists (and their racist and/or sexist employers) so women or whomever could get what they needed.

[demigoddess]

46. Has anyone thought of the fact that these guys work for us?/ Get out there

and interview your pharmacist BEFORE you hand over the prescription. Perhaps all of us should go ask questions of our local pharmacist and tell them bluntly that the questions better be good or we go elsewhere. good ness knows there is at least one on every block these days. All the grocery stores, wal-mart, etc all have ph. these days. Also look for a mom and pop operation or a female pharmacist.

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. So if you are a doctor I have a question

Who decides what medications your patients are prescribed? You or the pharmacist who fills the precriptions?

That is my biggest problem with this issue. Is it really up to a pharmacist to decide what medications I take or is that decision between me and my doctor?

[liberalhistorian]

50. Actually, the truth is that it's really

up to the satanic HMO's and "damaged" care organizations, but that's another thread! :evilgrin:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

53. You and your doctor. Availability and payment coverage for the medication

is a whole different issue however.

[seabeyond]

48. back in the old days, could have been blacks

if you cant be a doctor or pharmacist to all people, then you should not do the profession. what about a criminal, that was beaten up by the cops and taken to hospital. someone can refuse him because morally offended, a pediphile, a drug dealer to kids

[madfloridian]

51. You are so far off base on this.

I can not believe you are serious.

[AngryAmish]

52. actually he is not

There is a long tradition in American law (which is actually going back to English common law) that one can not do something and not be held liable but once one acts the results are the responsibility of the actor.

Do you remember the last Seinfeld show? They got locked up for watching a tragedy take place and doing nothing about it. The comedy in that particular show was they got locked up for something that cannot generally happen, except for their own craveness.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

55. Okay, so you made a statement ('you are so wrong') but no supporting

argument, to say in which way I am wrong, and what laws and precedents show I am wrong.

My point is that in the other thread, the point was often made that "that pharmacist should be jailed". MY point is that I seriously doubt that there are laws that mandate such a punishment for such an act. If there is a specific law or precedent leading to such a consequence I've not seen it posted on these threads. Depending on the state, there may well be grounds for professional legal action i.e. losing their license or otherwise disciplined by professional body for noncompliance with professional code, but this is a very different thing than legal, criminal, action of putting someone in jail.

Even malpractice is in almost all cases a civil matter and not criminal, i.e. you made mistake x and injured party is due damages y. It is exceedingly rare for it to be a criminal matter unless the malpractice involves some kind of assault on the patient or can be shown to have malicious intent instead of being simply an error in judgement or technique.

So my point is that the usual and most potent method of dealing with people not performing the expected duties of their job, such as pharmacists not filling scrips for one of the most commonly prescribed types of medicine, is for that person to lose their job, and/or be professional sanctioned by the governing body of their profession. Even in a place with a high concentration of wingnuts like where I am, there is a very high number of people who are prescribed and take BCPs and it is just not feasible from a business standpoint for pharmacies to allow this behavior. When wingnut legislatures prevent the businesses from taking care of this by firing the pharmacist you have a huge problem.

Someone in the other thread posted about how their OB/GYN doctor group that they use did not prescribe ANY kind of birth control, not BCPs or diaphragm or anything. I wonder if this even included doing things like tubal ligations and the like. I am rather skeptical of that poster, a huge part of what I do is working with OB/GYN's (I'm not one myself) and it's such a common thing either for people to want and need birth control or be prescribed BCP's for other indications such as endometriosis and pelvic pain syndromes that I would find it very hard to believe that ANY kind of OB/GYN practice could entirely omit all of this from their practice without exclusively catering to some severe wingnut clientele. I live in a hugely Republican area in a southern place that is filled with megachurches, and I can scarcely imagine ANY of the OB/GYN doc colleagues getting away with something like this, and they are virtually ALL conservative Republicans.