To the Pharmacists -- Keep your morals OUT of my medicine cabinet

[Sydnie]

I just watched a segment on the Today show ( I know, spank me if you must) about pharmacists that are refusing to fill birth control pill prescriptions for "moral" reasons. I can't believe that the companies that hire these "professionals" haven't stepped in and told them to do their job or hit the pavement.

IMHO, no pharmacist has the right to decide which prescriptions they should fill and which ones they should pass on. They were not in the doctors office when the exam and consultation took place. They were not there when any medical decisions were being made between any woman and her doctor. They are not there to second guess the doctor or the patient on the most effective method to address this issue for any woman. They were, however, hired to provide a service for a company to the public that might need it. They should do that, and keep their "morals" to themselves.

As was stated in the segment, if they are not objecting to filling Viagra prescriptions, the stocking and selling of condoms, or even basal thermometers (which can be used both to prevent pregnancy as well as aid in pregnancy), then they have no right to refuse to fill any legitimate prescription written by a doctor.

They (those that supported these "moral" pharmacists) stated that the woman could just go to another pharmacy and have it filled. Well, that is not always as easy to do as they want us to believe. Those that are lucky enough to have insurance are often restricted to the pharmacy that they can use do to affiliations between their insurance and the pharmacy. The inconvenience of having to locate another pharmacy in that chain could be for some, unsurmountable.

How dare they! They chose a profession that should be based on service to the public to administer medication to address the suffering of those that need their services. They should step down from these positions if they no longer agree with any part of the service that is required of them. That would be like a waitress working in a bar setting that objects to alcohol. What sense does that make?

We all know that prescription medications is a big business. They should remember that as well and do the job they said they would do when they were given a license to do the same.

Sad to think that we now have to begin to keep a list of the pharmacists and pharmacys that live up to the standard of care they promised to provide in order to argue with insurance companies over their affiliate networks to insure that we get the medications that are legally prescribed by our doctors.

Time to start a running list to see if any one chain is more supportive of this action and make sure that we let them know that we see a pattern in their business habits. That seems to be the only way that I can think of that we can get the message to these companies that they need to hire someone that will do the entire job that they are paying them for in the first place.

</end rant> Thanks for listening.

[gollygee]

1. *applause*

:applause:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. The reason they haven't stepped in:

The American Center for Law and Justice, a very right-wing , religiously-doctrinaire(Pat Robertson) legal organization. As soon as the separations from employment start in this matter, ACLJ will start the legal actions that promise to be long and expensive.

I am sure that the companies targeted in this are small and/or financially challenged.

[LisaLynne]

3. Great rant

You know, I've been trying to convince my mother who is strongly against abortion that one of the reasons I fight so diligently for that right to remain in place is that making abortion illegal is the first step on an agenda that these people have. The next one is to get rid of birth control. She actually called me the other day, when she heard a bill was up in the Indiana legislature to allow pharmacists to refuse to fulfill prescriptions and told me that she was finally convinced that I was right -- that was their next step.

Now, as you noted, they still will sell condoms and Viagra. I don't want to disparage these people, but I do think their thought process, as well as their sense of morals, is flawed and rather unsophisticated. I might be going off the deep end, but I think this has more to do about controlling women in general than even a fear of (gasp) sex between unmarried partners. They associate birth control pills with women and the so-called "sexual revolution". Women who are able to express their sexuality scare them on a very basic level and that's what they're maybe reacting against.

The Radical, Religious Right (or whatever you want to call them) are going to use these Pharmacists because it goes right along with their agenda.

[gollygee]

4. I agree with your second paragraph 100%

"Now, as you noted, they still will sell condoms and Viagra. I don't want to disparage these people, but I do think their thought process, as well as their sense of morals, is flawed and rather unsophisticated. I might be going off the deep end, but I think this has more to do about controlling women in general than even a fear of (gasp) sex between unmarried partners. They associate birth control pills with women and the so-called "sexual revolution". Women who are able to express their sexuality scare them on a very basic level and that's what they're maybe reacting against."

I think that's the major objective here.

[raccoon]

9. I think so too

And I think that pharmacists should fill ANY prescription from ANY doctor, no matter what it is.

If they don't want to do that, they shouldn't become a pharmacist in the first place.

[tanyev]

7. It occurred to me the other day

that they can't push it too far, though, or Big Pharma will definitely have something to say about it. Big Pharma/Fundie cagefight! That would be a good one to see.

[tsuki]

54. Are you sure that Big Pharma and Big Insura is not pushing people to

to mail order? Look at the savings if you have one pharmacist overseeing the work of the equivalent of a dozen or so stores. Quite a savings when you consider that each independent must have a licensed pharmacist in attendence on every shift.

[tanyev]

56. Hadn't thought of that.

Already our insurance plan requires us to use mail order for any prescription used longer than 3 months. Well, they don't exactly require it--the price just goes up by a huge amount in month 4 and following, so you pay through the nose if you don't do it. How can the mail order places guarantee they don't end up with a fundie staff?

[tsuki]

93. Oh, I am sure that they won't end up with a Fundie staff. I am being

pushed unmercifully to go mail order. Why? Follow the money.

[Occulus]

21. I believe the word you're looking for is "misogynistic." n/t

[LynneSin]

5. Welcome to the anti-choices new movement in controlling women

Seriously!

I think there is a push to get more anti-choice pharmacists out there and I'm worried that the anti-choice folks will do their darndest to get on Pharmacy Governoring Boards to help allow this horror to continue.

I don't care about someone's fricking moral values. I care that when I ask someone to do a job - they do it the way they are suppose to do it!! If there are pharmacists out there that don't want to fill BCP prescriptions then they should open their own store and advertise as such.

This isn't an accident that women are getting denied more and more. The Partial Birth Abortion fight is overwith and this is the new territory the anti-choice folks are moving into. I can see in 3-5 years (with a continued repuke leadership in DC) that laws will be made that will allow Pharmacist to make judgements based on their moral choices and not what the Doctor recommended

[Skinner]

6. I pretty much agree with you

I feel very strongly in freedom of conscience, and I think that generally people should not be forced to do something that they are morally opposed to.

But dispensing prescriptions is pretty much the *job description* for a pharmacist. If you are unwilling to dispense prescriptions, you shouldn't have become a pharmacist in the first place.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy here. I guess it's kinda like if a creationist wants to teach high school biology but refuses to teach evolution. If you don't want to teach evolution, what the hell are you doing teaching biology?

[rodeodance]

11. more wedge issues that are dividing this country (while our troops die)

[Susang]

43. My medical and reproductive rights are not a "wedge issue"

And neither are yours or anyone else's in this country. The first time a straight white man is denied a prescription for something his doctor deems necessary because of "moral reasons", will the issue be mainstream enough for you then?

This "wedge issue", as you call it, wouldn't have even been an issue if reproductive rights hadn't been diminished and outright discounted as important by leaders on both sides of the political spectrum. We are now just beginning to suffer the effects of that decision and it will be far reaching, I assure you.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. You would probably feel differently if you were a rape victim

getting a lecture instead of a prescription filled.

:eyes:

[davekriss]

72. I think the customer...

... even though not a rape victim should sue the pants off the pharmacy and the pharmacist. But that does not diminish what I said about the pharmacist's right to exercise civil disobedience due to a matter of conscience. I think you missed the point when, below, you say "Bullshit" and assume you also think my position means the pharmacist is thus excused from the consequences of his act. He is not.

[Warren DeMontague]

79. Right, and the "consequence" should be that he should lose his license.

If you think that makes him some kind of hero, fine by me.

[davekriss]

87. I did not mean to make the pharmacist a hero

In fact I hold very few to be "heroes".

I focused on and honored his right to nonviolently disobey according to the dictates of his conscience. I stand by this still. I hold this (moral) right for myself; I grant it to my enemies.

On this, I seem to differ with many here.

[gollygee]

80. "Right to exercise civil disobedience"

I don't think you understand what civil disobedience is. It's something you do even though you don't have a legal right. These people are getting the LEGAL RIGHT to discriminate. They aren't practicing civil disobedience.

Let them practice civil disobedience - and they can suffer the consequenses - ie lawsuits and loss of employment. But don't give them the legal right to do it. Don't take away their consequences.

[davekriss]

84. I fully understand "civil disobedience" often...

...means acting without "legal right", I am unsure where you get that from.

I understand that the right is clamouring for the legal right to discriminate based on conscience -- that's part of the cause behind the pharmacist's act. The clamouring (fear mongering, Christian Right hsyteria) lobbies for laws that remove the pharmacist's act from the category of "civil disobedience" -- or have events passed me by? In that case, it's time for some cd of our own!

What I am saying is my right (moral) to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience is reciprocally my own and my enemies'. I assert this principle here and on previous posts. The pharmacist had the moral right to nonviolently disobey -- I stand by this, still.

[sharman]

103. And if his conscience tells

him that blacks are inferior, or the races shouldn't mix, is it ok to refuse service in his restaurant?

The poster above was right: This is about returning women to subservient status.

[davekriss]

108. Touchee'

I cede the point. I am genuinely defeated in my original point.

The lesson: I can not artificially abstract the civil disobedience from the underlying moral cause, and when that cause is noxious and wrong it makes the act of disobedience wrong (or certainly not deserving praise).

Thanks. :)

[gollygee]

107. My point is that no one has a RIGHT to practice civil disobedience

to make it a legal right makes it stop being civil disobedience.

Whether they want to practice civil disobedience or not is a different issue than whether their choice to not dispense certain prescriptions should be made legal. It should not be made legal.

[davekriss]

110. Understood

I understood that civil disobedience does not mean "legal right" -- in all of my posts when I said "right" I mean moral right, as in "it's the right thing to do, what ought be done, regardless of law and consequences".

Now, on this whole issue, see post #108 (slightly above this one). I cede the point and learned the lesson: I cannot abstract the act away from its moral cause and hold the act in esteem when the cause is noxious and wrong. :)

(On edit corrected the post number.)

[SarahB]

92. My body is not a wedge issue.

I am a human being with the legal right to make the choice as to when I want to reproduce.

It's not about some "silly little woman thing" here. This is human rights, pal.

[davekriss]

42. I am pro-choice, but...

This is not, I think, a black and white issue.

Let's say a large pharmacy lobbies successfully to get a bill passed supporting euthanasia and then markets a drug that will "end depression for good".

Though a Congress may have authored the bill and a President signed it into law, I might applaud the pharmacists who, according to his conscience, refuses to dispense the drug in fear that the pharmacies are merely profiteering at the lethal expense of the mildly depressed. Quietly walking away from the job may not be good enough.

This pharmacist may lose his job; he may be jailed -- but in the end I would admire his courage to stand up with passion for something he believed in. I'd also value the open discussion of the issues that the ensuing spectacle might create. We witnessed a Ghandi/MLK-like act of civil disobedience based on a conscience hoping to hold innocent human life sacrosanct.

Right or wrong, this pharmacist views fertilization as the point where a human life begins. He may be wrong on the issues, but he was right and heroic to act out of conscience. I can respect and admire that. What we need is less spectatorship and more participation -- through acts of conscience and civil disobedience -- in the shaping of the world that is to be. We on the left can learn something from this guy.

Now on to the next thing that his act of civil disobedience should inspire, and that is honest and open discussion of the issues...

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Bullshit. The pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions.

Open a fucking christian bookstore if that's a problem.

[davekriss]

71. Bullshit? The German soldier's JOB was to gas the Jews

But that excuse, "it was my job", didn't save too many of them at Nuremberg, did it? Or do you think the soldiers at Belsen et al should have been sent home and told "good job, soldier, you faithfully executed your duty and we honor you"?

In this case a pharmacist thought to dispense morning after pills is wrong, that it results in an immoral death of human life. Is he wrong? YES. But is the fact that he was willing to stand up and say "no" out of conscience an honorable thing? I say YES again.

Civil disobedience and nonviolent refusal to participate -- that's what that pharmacist did. Gandhi would say that, to be effective, the pharmacist must be willing to risk job, jail, and even life. Would the pharmacist go that far? I can't say, but I think he was aware of putting his job on the line. That, impeachdubya, is an act of courage -- tell us what you've done with your life that matches or exceeds that?

I think the pharmacist should be fired. I also think he is wrong on his facts (it is not, as he thinks, murder to prescribe and use "morning after" birth control pills). However I honor the fact that the guy had the courage to stand by his principles and risk all.

To that you say "bullshit" and advise (I assume the pharmacist) to "open a fucking christian bookstore". Good going there, impeach...

[sonicx]

75. If they are wrong on their facts, why are you defending them?

that is not honorable. Would it be OK for a pharmacist to deny medicine to a black person because of "conscience"?

[davekriss]

81. I didn't think I was defending the pharmacist

I was honoring the act of civil disobedience, the nonviolent action of protest, on a matter of conscience. I chose to focus on the silver lining, the good in the action, and suggested we on the left should do more of the same.

I really have mixed feelings about condemning the pharmacist outright as it appears to me a non-violent action. But I certainly don't want to condone or encourage pharmacists around the nation to do the same!

I think the pharmacist acted rightly on the matter of conscience, but on the matter itself he is wrong. So he should be fired. The next step for the pharmacist, assuming he continues to stand strong on his principle (it's on the principle we disagree), should fight for his day in court and use the media attention to agitate for legal/social change. I'd hope that he fails to prevail, but I don't knock the guy for acting on principle in a peaceful way. In fact I admire that.

I'm trying to think when an act of nonviolent civil disobedience is in itself wrong... nothing leaps immediately to mind as long as the act is non-violent. Can you construct a (different) noxious case that would move me from my position?

I am championing, not the guys position on the drug, but his freedom to determine his own actions in face of something he holds morally unconsionable. We all have problems on his determination of what is "morally unconsionable", but I hold that as another matter while we examine this first point (or are they inseparable?).

[Warren DeMontague]

76. Don't lecture me out of one side of your mouth while you are comparing

women who use birth control to Nazis running death camps. Excuse me, I am related to people who died in those camps, and even couched in the qualifiers you lay out, it is still an outrageous and deeply offensive comparison.

Yes, I understand the concept of civil disobedience. But not all civil disobedience is equal, nor is all civil disobedience "honorable". You say the pharmacist genuinely believes he is protecting human life. Fine. What if someone genuinely believes that gay men are a threat to society, or are serial child molesters, as some right-wing fundies like to propagandize? Is he performing "legitimate" civil disobedience when he goes on a gay-bashing spree? Hey, he's acting from his deeply held beliefs, and he thinks he's protecting someone... right?

The people who bomb planned parenthoods are not, in my mind, "equally courageous" as the people who braved billyclubs, lynchings, and high-pressure hoses to march for civil rights in the South.

Those concentration camp guards that you are comparing women taking estrogen to, many of them really believed the Jews, like my relatives, were "evil". They, too, thought they were doing the "right" thing.

You say the pharmacist "knew he might lose his job". Again, I call bullshit. In case you haven't noticed, the fundy right is on a god-damn rampage in this country. Assholes like these pharmacists usually end up with an AM Radio gig or a book deal (if not heading the FDA)-- certainly not unemployed. I'm sure these guys are heroes to millions, right now, and if some of them aren't scheduled to talk to Sean Hannity, I have no doubt that's in the works, too. It didn't take any "moral courage" to do what he did, just a shitload of self-righteousness. And a disregard for what constitutes his job, which is the filling of legitimately prescribed medication.

Now, if you happen to believe the government has no business licensing or regulating the pharmaceutical industry whatsoever, that's another story.

As far as your little salvo about "What have you done in your life?"- uh, plenty, mac... got a few hours? Not that it's any of your god-damn business. I'm not sure what you're looking for here... you want people to stand up and clap for pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions? Sorry, I'm not going to do that. I don't think they are "brave" and I don't think they are
"moral".

Again, if pharmacists can't bring themselves to do their state-legislated JOB, which is (among other things) filling legitimate prescriptions, they should do something else... like, say, opening a fucking christian bookstore.

[davekriss]

83. I'll say what I chose to say, sir

"Excuse me, I am related to people who died in those camps, and even couched in the qualifiers you lay out, it is still an outrageous and deeply offensive comparison".

So am I, so we are equally prepared to discuss the matter. So spare me your rush to "offense". However, for the sake of peace I will apologize. On this I admit error: I should have picked a less loaded example, say "is the soldier torturing Iraqi's at Abu Graib free from culpability because it, too, 'was their job' as defined for them by their superiors?"

Nice attempt, though, to sidestep the substance of my point, so let's get to it again: Are such soldiers free from culpability in these circumstances? For me, it is NOT acceptable to say doing something that one believes to be immoral is acceptable because "it's the job".

Let me ask, when did the guy license? When did he take the job? It's possible he became a pharmacist and got the particular job long before the invention of the morning after pill. So, by your logic, as soon as a drug comes to market that he objects to he should quit his job, give up his profession, and open a christian bookstore? Nonsense! He should do exactly what he did, which is stand up for what he believed in (which I admire) and suffer whatever consequences unfold.

"The people who bomb planned parenthoods are not, in my mind, "equally courageous" as the people who braved billyclubs, lynchings, and high-pressure hoses to march for civil rights in the South"

Sir, surely you know bombing a facility is NOT an example of nonviolent civil disobedience. And nowhere did I say the pharmacist's acts were "equally courageous" as the people who braved retribution for standing up for civil rights. You are engaging, knowingly or not, in logical fallacy.

"...nor is all civil disobedience "honorable". ... What if someone genuinely believes that gay men are a threat to society, or are serial child molesters, as some right-wing fundies like to propagandize? Is he performing "legitimate" civil disobedience when he goes on a gay-bashing spree?"

Again, going on a "gay-bashing spree" is NOT an example of nonviolent civil disobedience. Can you tell me what was violent to the pharmacist's civil disobedience?

You say, "Yes, I understand the concept of civil disobedience". Nonviolent civil disobedience? Do you? I would not deduce that from your examples. But let me address what I think stands behind your words...

The best I can discern you are telling us that the pharmacist does not have the same right to nonviolent civil disobedience that you'd grant someone standing up for, say, civil rights, because you strongly disagree with the moral cause that stands behind the act.

First, let me say I too disagree with the moral cause. I do not think "human life begins" upon conception, the lynchpin to the pharmacist's moral position. That being the case the "morning after" pill is not aborting a human life so we don't even veer into debate on that subject -- the moral issue is access to birth control, which I wholly support (we are sovereign over our own bodies, the female has the sovereign right to determine when and if she will bare children). I just wanted to get that out of the way.

I am not defending the pharmacist's cause; I am honoring his right to act out of conscience in nonviolent ways. He did not let a job description, albeit regulated by state agency, lead him to work against his conscience. This does not mean he should not be fired. It does not mean he should not be sued (for any damages the woman feels she's been made to suffer). It can mean he gets a gig on AM radio (where insanity truly reigns!). It is not a perfect world. But I too act on principle: In this case on the principle of reciprocality. Every man has the right to nonviolently disobey an act that one feels is in violation of one's conscience. That goes for me, and that goes for my enemies.

"As far as your little salvo about "What have you done in your life?"- uh, plenty, mac... got a few hours?"

Yes, buddy, I've got a few hours. Unlike you I won't demean you by using the word "bullshit". We can compare war stories if you'd like. However, spending it listening to you throw off fallacy and insult is not worth anyone's time. Your choice.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. You and I obviously differ on what it means to "honor" something.

You can call it whatever you want, the guy doesn't belong in a pharmacy if he's going to refuse to fill prescriptions.

If you concede that the guy is liable to be fired and sued for violating the terms of his state-licensed position, then I guess we're on the same page, essentially. Does he have the "right" to do what he did? I dunno, I guess. But not without being fired or otherwise held accountable. I do think it's absurd to cloak this behavior in the time-honored mantle of civil disobedience, however.. And whether you compare it to Abu Ghraib torturers or Nazis, it's still an awfully big stretch from where I sit.

First off, let me clear a couple things up-- only a few of these cases, like the case of the rape victim- are about "morning after" contraception. The others are about the birth control pill. Now, essentially, we are talking about the same chemical, albeit in different doses.. but prescriptions for oral contraceptives ("the pill") have been around for over 40 years--- so I think it's a bit specious to assume that a pharmacist has all of a sudden been taken "by surprise" by the legality of oral contraceptives. Also, apparently you missed the stories about the pharmacists who refuse to fill the prescriptions to women who aren't married, offer lectures about scripture or their sex lives, that kind of thing.

You speak of the difference between violent and nonviolent civil disobedience- that is valid. However, if an airline pilot refuses to fly his regularly scheduled flight to San Francisco after spouting off on the intercom for 20 minutes about "Sodom and Gommorrah"...
Does he have the "right" to do that? Sure, I guess, just like the Airline would have the right to fire his ass on the spot.
...Is he performing an "honorable" act of civil disobedience? Or is he just a chucklehead?

Maybe both apply, I don't know.

I don't think I've thrown off "fallacy", anywhere here, and if I've insulted you, it was not my intent. I am appalled by the behavior of the pharmacists in question, but unless you are one of them, my chagrin does not apply to you. I don't particularly feel like relating all my "war stories", but suffice it to say I not only believe in nonviolent civil disobedience where appropriate, I have had the courage to follow through on my convictions, even when said acts landed me in jail. I think THAT takes more courage than lecturing some young woman across a Walgreen's counter about how Jesus wants her to keep her legs crossed.

[davekriss]

94. OK OK I Give!

My blood pressure appreciates your more relaxed tone -- and I think you cut to the chase of your issue with my position when you say, "Or is he just a chucklehead?" Well, yes. I cede the point. :)

Now don't flame me, but my knowledge on this matter is limited to what I heard on NPR just a couple of days ago. For example, I thought the issue was over the "morning after" pill, which people of religious conscience (albeit misguided) have issue with since they believe (1) abortion is immoral and (2) human life begins upon conception -- the "morning after" pill would to them abort human life, and therefore the pharmacist asked to dispense the pill would in effect be aborting a life, something his conscience would not allow. At this level of simplicity I find myself (still) admiring the pharmacist's disobedience to role but I now grant you that it is not that simple, that he is acting out of a wider and coherent (and abhorrent) agenda.

I see by your other examples that the issue is much broader and more pervasive than I understood.

To shed some context, I am very aware of the dangers that emanate from the Christian Right -- the theonomic agenda of the Christian Reconstructionists and Dominionists, people like Pat Roberston, Tim LeHaye, and Gary North (just to name a few) and their ability to "infect" otherwise more rational religious and political organizations. I think they represent the second greatest danger to our nation today and should be actively fought wherever they spread their tentacles. The issue you and I have been discussing represents one such tentacle and therefore I should show no quarter but instead stick to my own convictions and simply blast these actually dangerous "chuckleheads".

(If you're wondering, the first greatest danger would be the neocon occupation of Washington. Although both, the neoconservatives and the Christian Right, represent factions of a broader coalition that closely serves our underlying oligarchy -- it's just much more difficult to put a face to the latter.)

And on the matter of personal histories: While neither of us will reveal much on a board like this, I've got my war stories too. I've been punched in the nose, kicked, and pummeled by sticks during routine police harrassment while handing out leaflets in East St. Louis for a very left organization, and I spent the night in a local jail between Houston and Austin after participating in a civil disobedience concerning rights for migrant workers. Since then I've taken to adopting challenged children and this keeps my wife Kriss and I very busy. We take to heart a motto from a list server I've used in the past that says "Get off the internet; I'll see you in the streets". I've been hanging here since early 2002 (and on other boards earlier than that) but seldom have time to post much (today being an exception). One thing you'd think I'd learned by now, and that is we sometimes need to remember here...

The enemy is over that way --------(to our right)--------->

Peace, prosperity, and happiness to you and yours.

d

[Warren DeMontague]

127. I hear ya. In case you hadn't noticed, this particular issue

sends my blood pressure through the roof. Gotta watch that. :)

Of course, many have remarked that I've seemed remarkably high strung.. for about four years, now.

Anyway, first off, I will say I respect the individual's right to matters of conscience- in principle. However, as has been mentioned, several things are at work in this particular issue. First and foremost is a concerted war (on the part of the folks you mentioned, the LaHaye, North, Reconstructionist/Dominionist/Kook right crowd, among others) on legal birth control. I've been running around for years pointing out the fact that, if you read the writings of conservative think tanks, the legal decision that really has their nuts in a bunch isn't Roe v. Wade, but rather Griswold v. Connecticut.. because it not only established that pesky "right to privacy" they hate so much, it also established the right of married couples to use birth control. Couple that to the antipathy or outright opposition most "pro-life" groups in this country have to any form of birth control at all, and you have set the ground for what I predict to be the next big front in the choice wars; legal, safe and available birth control. It's not coincidence that this thing with the pharmacists is happening now.. This is, as you rightly say, part of a larger agenda and plan.


Now, if someone genuinely believes a fertilized egg is a human being- they are certainly entitled to that opinion... However, when we start talking about that as a "justification" for certain behaviors, it's worth remembering that this is precisely the kind of semantic ju-jitsu that the right wing has been pulling on us for 30 years.. I think an appropriate response to that opinion of conscience for an individual who feels that way would be to not use the birth control or morning after pill... The big "pro-life" objection to the birth control pill, by the way, boils down to the fact that the pill can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, as well as preventing ovulation.. a little known side effect of the "Human Life Amendment" as it has stood in the GOP platform for several decades, would be the criminalization of the pill and several other forms of birth control.. but, truly, once we're talking about granting 'rights' under the 14th amendment to single cells, we are through the looking glass and into bizarro world.

Again, I support the rights of the individual to follow the dictates of their conscience- within reason. I don't believe doctors who are philosophically opposed to abortion should be forced to perform them, for example.. (but I do think doctors are and should be responsible to perform any necessary emergency care to save the life of a pregnant woman) Maybe drawing a distinction between that and a pharmacist not wanting to fill a prescription that could terminate a pregnancy is an artificial distinction, but I feel it is one that needs to be made nonetheless, if for no other reason than doctors are specialized-- and pharmacists are not, as things currently stand. (One real solution to all this would be to make all oral contraceptives, and the morning after pill, available OTC, thus taking the responsibility out of the hands of the pharmacist entirely)

My personal opinion is, that, yes, if your belief is that a fertilized egg is a human being- you are entitled to that belief.. but once you take a job in the public sphere where the community depends on you for timely filling of prescriptions, you should be able to extend the right to make that call to the individuals who are choosing to take or use oral contraceptives, instead of making that decision for them. A pharmacist incapable of doing that is no more qualified to be dispensing medication than a Jehovah's witness who doesn't believe in antibiotics and as such would refuse to dispense those would be. The bottom line with all this is access, and the real end result is that women in conservative parts of the country (and even some not so conservative parts) have experienced real impedements to their access of legally available birth control. (In one particularly egregious case, the pharmacist first lectured the woman about the immorality of extra-marital sex, then held her prescription hostage, refusing to transfer it to someone who would actually fill it!) My fear is that the right is trying to dress this kind of thing up in the highfalutin' language of legitimacy, using words like "civil disobedience" and "conscience" to talk about what is, in effect, the denial of other people's rights.. (and what is to stop them from using the same justifications to, say, run through the drugstore shelves poking holes through all the condoms?)

Hence, my hackles get up around this stuff. As you may have noticed.

Lastly, I agree with you.. I do think the whole religious right "culture war" deal, while emphatically dangerous to our freedom and democracy in its own right, is being used as a distraction from the Neo-Con agenda in much the same way the media uses show trials these days... and as a way to convince people in the so-called "heartland" to vote against their own economic self-interest. (Which certainly doesn't justify the fact that they're dumb, fearful or bigoted enough to go ahead and do so) It's one of the oldest tricks in the book; take advantage of people's fear of change, along with alienation brought about via changes you yourself have engendered, convince them it's the "fault" of either a scapegoated group or a series of external cultural factors or forces (secular humanism, the teaching of evolution, internet porn, whatever) and then rally them to carry out your agenda.

It's an unholy alliance which stands to give us the worst of all possible worlds- a country run economically by crony multinational corporatists, and socially by the Pat Robertson crowd. Feh.

Anyway, you're right, we're on the same side. Peace.

[oldcoot]

82. Most of these pharmacists are not brave

These pharmacists support legislation that would allow them to still work for the pharmacy of their choice (even if that pharmacy normally sells contraception) and still have the right not to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. In other words, they want the freedom to refuse to serve their customers without risking their jobs.

If they were truly courageous and moral, this would not even be an issue because these pharmacists would not even be applying to work for any pharmacy that sold an "immoral" product. They would not want to risk profiting from the sale of birth control pills.

[davekriss]

85. OK. Not brave.

"In other words, they want the freedom to refuse to serve their customers without risking their jobs."

They want the freedom but don't yet have it? Then how is the defiance of this pharmacist not in some sense "brave"?

"If they were truly courageous and moral, this would not even be an issue because these pharmacists would not even be applying to work for any pharmacy that sold an "immoral" product. They would not want to risk profiting from the sale of birth control pills."

Maybe. I could argue several circumstances where taking the job would still be the right thing to do.

***

BTW, I do feel I'm being boxed into a position where it seems I'm trying to champion this pharmacist as some kind of huge hero, courageous, fostering freedom and love and equality and justice. I mean to do no such thing. My first post was in reaction to (was it JanMichael's -- on edit, it was Skinner) acknowledgement of ambiguity (Skinner: "I feel very strongly in freedom of conscience, and I think that generally people should not be forced to do something that they are morally opposed to"). I shared this feeling of ambiguity, and that is because I honor the fact that the pharmacist (appears to me) to have acted out of conscience in a non-violent way. I do not support his moral ends; but I do honor the moral means. And note, I do not think the means justify the ends (trying to head off debate on that!) -- I abstracted the means and said that is something we on the left should be doing. On this last point, who disagrees????

(On edit: One of these days I will hit spellcheck first before I post!)

[republicansareevil]

90. Perhaps this will help. I posted it downthread as well.

As you can see, pharmacists already have established professional guidelines that acknowledge both the pharmacist's right of conscience and the patient's right to receive legally prescribed drugs. The pharmacist's right does not trump the patient's. Basically, it is the responsibility of the pharmacist to make sure the patient gets his/her prescription filled one way or another in a manner that is "seamless" from the patient's perspective.


http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2689

APhA Responds to Media Coverage:
Letters to the editor
Letter to the Editor submitted by APhA to Prevention magazine

July 1, 2004

To the Editor:

I am responding to your story, “Access Denied: Find out why growing numbers of doctors and pharmacists across the U.S. are refusing to prescribe or dispense birth control pills.”

Your detailed story was informative, but it is missing the balanced perspective of the first-established and largest professional organization of pharmacists in the United States – the American Pharmacists Association (APhA). The APhA absolutely supports patients’ right to access their legally prescribed medications. APhA also supports the pharmacist’s right of conscience. That right of conscience comes with responsibility to assure patient access to the legally prescribed therapy. In contrast to the impression created by your story, these two objectives are not mutually exclusive. It also should be noted that the pharmacist’s right of conscience is not limited – as the title of your article might indicate – solely to cases involving contraceptive medications.

When the profession’s policy is implemented correctly--and proactively--it is seamless to the patient, and the patient is not aware that the pharmacist is stepping away from the situation. Whether another pharmacist on duty completes the prescription or patients are proactively directed to pharmacies where certain therapy is available, or even different systems are set up, the patient gets the medication, and the pharmacist steps away from that activity--with no intersection between the two.

This policy works. It is only if the policy is not implemented properly that the needs of a patient or the right of conscience of the pharmacist would not both be properly acknowledged. It is because such instances of improper implementation are rare – rather than frequent -- that they inspire widespread media coverage. Although rare, such situations are extremely unfortunate, and we are working to ensure they will not occur.

Sincerely,

Susan C. Winckler, RPh, Esq.
Vice President
Policy and Communications and Staff Counsel

[seabeyond]

97. they arent just talking birth control pills

michigan was an attack on not treating gays. because gays morally offend them. what if they can interpret the bible where mixed marriages morally offend them, so they dont have to treat or give prescription to a bi racial child.

no way to all this.

if you cant get beyond what your rules are in your religion does not apply to all people, dont be a doctor, dont be a pharmacist

[davekriss]

100. See my post #96

I misunderstood the issue to involve one pharmacist refusing to dispense a "morning after" pill; I see now that the issue is much wider and more dangerous.

[seabeyond]

101. gotcha

:thumbsup:

[davekriss]

106. This is the theonomic agenda...

...of Christian Reconstructionism. The end goal is to stone to death gays, insolent children, and anyone not sufficiently "christian" according to their definition. The Reconstructionists (and Dominionists) want the book of Dueteronomy implemented as unyielding law, they want a theocracy with themselves at the helm.

Drip, drip, drip goes the faucet until we have a flood on our hands!

[seabeyond]

109. exactly and i have watched it progress last two years

i have watched the southern baptist, and how they are successful in directly their flock to not think and follow.

this is why this is a huge issue for me in allowing all to wake up. we as humans will not justify in our mind not giving a prescription to our fellow man. they will be able to grasp, someone doesnt believe in birthcontrol pills cannot dictate the religion on all.

this is a perfect issue to give to the public, and the public rise in mass, as a whole, over the line. we have to feed it and grow it though. not say well it will just be a few doctors. that is what it is now, tomorrow will be different i so promise everyone

[seabeyond]

112. head fda doctor

pms; open the bible. the only fame this doctor has is writing this book. you women that suffer pms, open the bible. original sin, we must all suffer to know what sinners we are.

this is the man that bush put in to run the fda. he gets to hire all his people to comeinto that agency because bush let it expire and all employees were dismissed. this is really a big deal that others dont seem to think it is. do we really want to regress medical all the way back to b.c. look at what we are doing to science. creationism must be in universities, UNIVERSITIES i tell you, presented as a factual arguement or a kid can sue the professor. science has been dismissed. now they are wanting to dismiss medicine

[Ellen Forradalom]

104. Godwin's law

You lose the argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

[davekriss]

111. Without following the link

I already realize (yesterday) that I lost the argument. I live, I learn. :)

[davekriss]

116. PS - your link doesn't work

[left is right]

132. I am quite sure that law has been repealed

or is no longer applicable

[jdj]

95. no, what you say in this situation is "I Quit".

I worked at an animal shelter once that practiced euthanasia, which I support if the animal is sick or hurt or has been caged confined for so long they are becoming "cage-crazy", in fact, I support euthanasia as an alternative to prolonged confinement with no stimulation.

But this shelter was so unorganized and poorly run that animals were having to be euthanized because staff were not following sanitary procedure, their neglect was making animals sick. This was unnecessary and tragic, and I was unable to support this practice. After writing a long letter to the Board of Directors, contacting the state vet and the local PETA activist, I then quit. I removed myself from the situation. That is the honorable thing to do, that is the brave thing to do. What this pharmacist is doing is practicing discrimination and asking for special treatment. I believe this should be treated as a disability. Every employment form asks if there is some reason why you would not be able to perform the functions of your job as described. People who feel thusly about birth control should be required to disclose this up front. If they do not, and are unwilling to quit the job then they should be terminated.

I don't believe this qualifies as civil disobedience, I think you are a bit confused there. This qualifies as grounds for termination.

[davekriss]

114. Yes, confused

However, see my post #96. I withdraw my original point.

But on this matter, on "leaving the field" -- it would not have been wrong to stay, to continue to engage authority at the shelter, to agitate for media attention, to lead by example by personally taking care of as much of the sanitation as is possible in a 16 hour work day until the matter was resolved. Leaving the field is not always the best or only course of action.

And, btw, persisting in the fashion I just stated could be "grounds for termination". That's why Gandhi said that, for nonviolent civil disobedience to work, we must be willing to endure all -- loss of job, jail, even death (commenserate to the seriousness of the issue). The objective is to stand our ground, for another to step in when one of us falls, relentlessly. It's a steady unending pressure, like braces on teeth that don't come off until the teeth are staightened.

[davekriss]

120. Let me add...

...since I refer to Gandhi. Gandhi also stresses the rightness of the moral cause underlying the action -- i.e., it is the strength of the cause, its appeal to the good hearts of men, that ultimately allows nonviolent civil disobedience to prevail. Others have the might of traditional power, but the rest of us have the power of being right, and in being obstinately willful in advancing that right.

What's missing, and why the lot of you objected to my initial posts, is the "power of being right" which precedes in value the act of civil disobedience.

As I've said on several posts now, I was wrong; the lot of you have (rightly) corrected me. :)

[sui generis]

8. right on! what if their morals meant that dispensing

medicine to people with STD's was immoral, or to AIDS patients? What about dispensing prescriptions to babtists?

Where does it stop? There aren't any brakes on this railcar . . .

[rodeodance]

12. dispensing morality-legislating morality!--Welcome to the USA

[smoogatz]

10. My wife and I have enough kids, thanks.

We've done our procreative duty. The day some self-righteous asshat pharmacist decides that it's our Catholic duty to have more is the day we sue his ass (and the pharmacy's) into bankruptcy.

[newportdadde]

13. Saw a snip of this on the news last night.

This lady was refused the morning after pill, the thing was she was taking it because of complications from a miscarriage, not to avoid pregnancy.

Of course the pharmacist hadn't thought of that because you know if you need that pill you must be a whore right?

All I can say is that my wife and I went through a miscarriage over a year ago, it was very early in the pregnancy but it devistated my wife. Imagining this poor woman going through that with the pharmacist makes me sick. I think if I had been there and that had been my wife I would have lost it.

[msongs]

14. Now we can refuse to honor those with opposing religions views.....

if the basis for selection is our own moral values versus those of another person's, we can now refuse to do business with anybody of another religous or spiritual view.

since the xians wanna reject everyone else, imagine the screams of phoney righteousness when someone tells them they cannot have a candy bar because the seller disapproves of their moral view.

of course all of this might be tossed by the activist judges who are merely upholding the constitution.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[stanwyck]

15. What other professions get to choose

to not serve customers based on their own religious/political beliefs? Chefs who are vegetarian? Bartenders whose religions prohibit alcohol? Teachers who don't believe in scientific theories which contradict their religion? Librarians who don't believe people should read The Da Vinci Code?
These people are pharmacists. They're paid to dispense legal prescriptions written out by doctors. That's their job. Maybe they should have become mechanics, instead. Or would they then refuse to fix a car with a pro-choice bumper sticker?
This is craziness.

[Sydnie]

18. I agree -- and where could it stop?

What about when we have a chemist at a plant that MAKES these medications that morally objects to this medication. So, lets say, that every third lot, they leave out an active ingredient. The pills are sent to market with no one the wiser that they are doing it. The pills begin to have less and less of the intended effect. Just how long would it take before they investigated and determined the cause? Would that chemist be absolved because they had a "moral" objection to the medication that they were making?

Imagine if we were back in the day when the pharmacists WERE the chemists that mixed the medication right there in the store. Would they have already begun this practice? Would they decide, from behind their counter, which people should not have babies and which ones should? Would they refuse to mix the medication properly if the prescription was presented by one of their church friends, thinking they would save this persons soul from damnation for them?

Just where would this stop? Just how many "sugar pills" would be dispensed before we noticed that we had been duped, as a gender?

What if it were an aids drug that was not being properly mixed? Should the chemist get to play god based on their moral beliefs?

I have always operated from the position that I have a job to do for the company that I work for. If I am asked to do something that I object to, I move on. I exercises my moral judgment by no longer working for a company that requests me to do something that I don't agree with, even if it means that I must change everything about my working life (moving from one industry to another if need be) to find something that I feel more comfortable doing.

As was said up thread, if they don't want to fill all prescriptions as presented by a customer, then they need to change professions OR open their own place and make it clear that they do not stock nor dispense "those" kinds of medicines.

When a business says they retain the right to refuse service, I didn't think that included an EMPLOYEE making that judgment call all on their own. Unless they are refusing because the customer is being unruly or disruptive to the business or other customers, that is a judgment call that I think they can make on the fly, but even those calls are generally part of the business's predetermined "policy of operation", written out for ALL employees to follow.

Just where will this madness stop?

[Mandate My Ass]

16. It's all part of the plan

I've been doing some reading lately by some of the people who've been around since the Reagan days but were being kept "in the closet" so to speak. They are shaping policy now. The goal is to create conditions for an impoverished, uneducated, androcentric, ill-informed American populace, force-fed religion and jingoism, with so many kids they can't afford they don't mind when their sons are sent off to die in endless imperial wars.

They even have a term for what ails Americans since the Vietnam era: debellicization.

[seabeyond]

17. yes, no man has the right to tell me i am a sinner

and he refuse to give me a pill my doctor gave me a prescription for

period

or not get a pain killer because HE thinks i should feel pain of menstration because of original sin. and i am suppose to be reminded of that sin every three weeks.

fuck em. they just dont get to do

[stanwyck]

19. As I've recounted at DU before

my 21-yr. old daughter was given an inquisition by the local pharmacist when dispensing her birth control pills. He demanded to know how old she was and asked to see her driver's license. (She's petite and looks younger than she is). It was embarrassing for her. I called Eckerd's to complain. And was assured I'd be called back. Never happened.

[gollygee]

20. Control through shame

that's awful.

[seabeyond]

23. so across the nation, us WOMAN who wont be embarrassed

need to approach each and every pharmacutical counter. call the pharmicist up. and demand from him a declaration of i will take care of customer needs or not. and if not, us women need to deal with the man and fgollow up with manager and further in the store. we need to take this on. we feel no shame in our reproductive system. we will embarrass adn shame them, not the other way around

i have a catholic gyno. the first thing i do when i see him for my next physical will be asking him..............do you bring religion into medicine

a lot of women in this nation. we start confronting the pharmicists and doctor, they are going to hear us

[erinlough]

25. Right !

I am going to ask every health care provider I deal with just that question and I am going to tell them why I am asking. If they hear it enough and lose enough business for inserting religion into their practice maybe things will change.

[oldcoot]

78. Is there a minimum age for purchasing birth control pills?

I always assumed that a prescription was enough.

[stanwyck]

113. Good question. I'll ask a friend

who's a pediatrician. I think this pharmacist wanted to see a marriage license before he'd dispense the pills...and even then he might not want to give them out. Contraception (at least for women) being ungodly.
Wonder if he gives the men in the store buying condoms the third degree? Probably not.

[seabeyond]

115. excellent point all cashiers do not have to ring up condoms

yep yep yep
because htey are morally opposed, and they cannot be fired.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. So are women allowed to tell you you're a sinner?

Frankly, any human who does that to me can go screw themselves.

[seabeyond]

73. no

[Willy Lee]

22. This makes me FURIOUS!!!

Our IL Governor (Blogojevich) just passed emergency legislation stating that pharmacisit MUST fill prescriptions or face losing their job. Here is a response to this from one of our wonderful repug congressman- who, by the way, is a pharmacist with 9 children.

State Rep. Ron Stephens, R-Greenville, a pharmacist, said he was furious when he heard the governor filed an emergency rule saying Illinois pharmacies must accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives "without delay."

Stephens said he planned to introduce a measure this week that would allow pharmacists, nurses and other medical professionals to opt out of procedures if they choose. He said the governor's rule tells pharmacists to ignore their conscience.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisstatenews/story/387AB7A798787DC886256FDA001992D4?OpenDocument

And here is the assholes website-
http://housegop.state.il.us/detail_member.asp?id=67

:puke: :mad: :banghead:

[seabeyond]

24. jesus walk to the homosexual t heal, he did not turn his back

on the homosexual, nor refuse or lecture. jesus healed the homosexual

so, i guess we need to take the interpretation of the bible into the courts to see if they have any grounds to stand on with the bible, wink

[erinlough]

26. I have NEVER heard this before, could you supply the verse?n/t

[seabeyond]

27. no i cannot. jesus was approached by a roman soldier

and asked jesus to heal his boy. the "boys" took care of all the romans needs, including sexual needs. (can you see preaching htis to some pharmacist, lol lol i am not shy) jesus went with the man and healed said boy

the only part of the bible with jesus that he said or had anything to do with homosexual.

when people bring levitcus or paul, all religious know there is more to these to interpretions than mere homosexuality.

maybe someone else who is big time bible people would know where

[Behind the Aegis]

49. Not even close...so, no cigar for you

Matthew 8 (New International Version)
5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help.
6 Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.”
7 Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.”

Matthew 8:6 (King James Version)
And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.

Luke 7 (King James Version)
2 And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
3 And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.

So, Jesus was there to heal the boy of a malady, his sexuality was never mentioned or implied. One cannot be "healed" of homosexuality, but one can be healed of homophobia through education.

[republicansareevil]

50. I think you are both misinterpreting seabeyond.

Maybe I'm the one who is misinterpreting, but I don't see the implication that the boy was going to be cured of homosexuality. I read seabeyond's post as that the boy just happened to be gay and Jesus was going to cure him of some unnamed illness. :shrug:

[seabeyond]

51. not cured, judged, lectured or reject being a homosexual

jesus knew he committed homosexual acts and still cured the boy of disease.

he did not reject the boy. turn his back or lecture the boy. he cured him of the illness that was going to take his life.

the obligation of those that use the bible are shown in bible, they should cure the diseased, illness, not reject a person because of behavior per jesus

[Behind the Aegis]

52. My apologies

I misunderstood the nature of your post. I apologize for my terse reply. However, I still contend that just because the boy was a servant, doesn't mean something "hinky" was going on. As I was exploring this issue (it was the first time I had ever heard this), I found that others had interpreted this in a similar fashion. I found it on a Lutheran page.

[jdj]

98. thanks so much for posting that.

I've never heard of that passage; it may not be stated, but it sure can be said that it is "implied".

[mondo joe]

117. But where does it say the boy had committed homosexual acts?

[seabeyond]

118. it doesnt say.

but................in this time, the boys did this for their master. was part of their society. from what i understand. i will work on getting validation on this, but i am pretty sure it is accurate

[mondo joe]

119. So you're making it up. Thanks.

There is no evidence that the sevant was used as such.

It's a right out of left field theory that is built on extrapolation.

I'm gay and even I recognize it as such.

[seabeyond]

131. i read it about a year ago

and have just been going off memory. yes. i have been doing research though, here and there, now that you bring it up. and i am finding some really interesting stuff

i particularly like this one


Against the Laws of Nature - Romans 1:26
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural (physin) relations for unnatural (para physin) ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural (physin) relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.


Romans 1:26

In the preceding passage the Greek words physin and paraphysin have been translated to mean natural and unnatural respectively. Contrary to popular belief, the word paraphysin does not mean "to go against the laws of nature", but rather implies action which is uncharacteristic for that person. An example of the word paraphysin is used in Romans 11:24, where God acts in an uncharacteristic (paraphysin) way to accept the Gentiles. When the scripture is understood correctly, it seems to imply that it would be unnatural for heterosexuals to live as homosexuals, and for homosexuals to live as heterosexuals.

[erinlough]

29. On second thought forget the verse

I don't believe in the stuff anyway and anyone who can suggest that homosexuality is a disease is someone I wouldn't be able to communicate with meaningfully. I can't figure any other interpretation for your post so ..... nevermind.

[republicansareevil]

121. Here is why Stephens is wrong...

"Hofer (spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation) said the governor's rule did not affect pharmacists, only pharmacies.

She said the rule says that if a pharmacy does not have contraception prescriptions available, they must either order more or give the patient a choice between transferring their prescription to another pharmacy with the product or taking back the prescription.

The rule "is silent on individuals," she said. If a pharmacist does not feel comfortable filling certain prescriptions, "the pharmacy would have to work around the individual.""

[Arkana]

28. Didn't we lose a long-time poster over this issue?

My position has been the same all along--pharmacists cannot be pharmacists if their morals get in the way of filling prescriptions. I hate Viagra, but if I was a pharmacist I wouldn't lecture some impotent old guy on the dangers of gittin' it up at too old an age. I'd do my frickin' job!

[JamboGuide]

30. One HAS to wonder...

WHERE is this happening? Pitiful little Southern towns w/ ONE Pharmacy? Rural areas? Obviusly towns/areas w/ an American-Iranian mindet.

[Willy Lee]

31. Chicago, for one... nt

[lastliberalintexas]

32. Wow, I never knew Chicago

was a pitiful little Southern town...

[Willy Lee]

34. No shit! nt

[Nobody]

58. Everywhere that has a WalMart, CVS, Eckerds

Which includes my city.

Pisses me off. How do those assholes know why the birth control pills were prescribed? It's none of their business and you as a customer areunder no obligation to convince the pharmacist that you need it for reasons other than contraception.

Or maybe ovarian cysts and PMS mood swings have become moral issues.

[Divameow77]

33. One thing I've read about this issue

is that theses pharmacists believe that bc pills and the morning after pill are the equivalent to abortion, well it seems to me that if the pharmacists don't know how the medication even works maybe they shouldn't be pharmacists. Shouldn't they know about the medication they are dispensing?

[JHB]

35. Just to add to the excellent reasons already mentioned...

...for fighting this crud, let me add:

1) Where the law allows pharmacists to pick and choose which prescriptions they will fill, you can count on pressure groups forming to ensure that ALL of the pharms within their reach make the "right" choices. Those who won't make the "right moral choices" can easily be segregated and subjected to boycotts, protests, negative advertising, and/or character assassination.

2) "Going somewhere else" isn't always so easy. Sure, in some places it seems like there's a CVS, Walgreens, and/or Duane Reade store every other block, but in other areas of the country "going somewhere else" may mean a long drive to the next town -- or even farther, if all the small local pharmacies have been driven out by a Walmart or other super-store, or if you're in an area where pressure groups have gotten all the pharms to sign on/knuckle under (or both!).

3 (maybe)) I've heard some forms of this law being pushed in some areas actually allow the pharmacist not only to refuse to fill the prescription, but to hold onto it, preventing you from going somewhere else unless your doctor writes a new one (which can cause problems for the doctor, in some circumstances). Does anyone know if this is true or not?

[seabeyond]

36. a poster pointed out a week ago, the southern baptist has a group

of doctors and pharmacists who are promoting this. so all the place you see fundies, it is coming ot you. per their religion. and yes i can see a progression of going after the right wing owned business saying they too have the right to take out of whole store, across nation

[JamboGuide]

37. WHO knew Chicago had Fundies!??? n/t

[tsuki]

55. Fundies are nation wide. Unfortunately.

[Nobody]

60. I hope like hell some women with PMS start up a posse

Show the pharmacists who hold onto the prescriptions exactly why they were written.

My friend told me she gets VERY cranky without her meds. You don't want to be around her when she's cranky. And that's exactly what she'll do if she's ever denied a prescription for her meds.

[tammywammy]

69. From what I know

Holding on to a prescription is theft. The prescription is yours not the pharmacists.

[ComerPerro]

38. I've always said, lets get some liberal pharmicists to refuse conservative

patients their perscriptions, based on "moral objections".

For example, imagine I was a pharmacist, and someone who I know is an active Bush supporter comes up to me and wants his heart medicine.

Well, too fucking bad, because I know he is an active Republican and I just can't support that kind of lifestyle. He will have to get his heart medicine somewhere else, because I don't think I should have to compromise my morality.

[Karenina]

40. Between this,

folks in FL getting to shoot anyone on the street that looks at them
cross-eyed, tasering kids, grannies, hapless piss-refusniks strapped to gurneys and just-got-home Marines... :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

[Nobody]

61. Heart meds? But he has no heart. No meds for you.

Actually, this is why I'm a liberal. Because in my heart of hearts I don't think any one of us would do that in real life.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

39. great post!

I know you're a veteran of some of those threads where folks were arguing for the pharamcist's right NOT to dispense birth control. Some folks who call themselves Democrats never cease to amaze me with regard to women's rights, and human rights.

How is it ever acceptable that a pharmacist brings their religious beliefs into job performance? This country is going to hell in a handbasket...

[guinivere]

41. Great rant.

As someone else stated, it is their damn job to fill the prescriptions.

Gee, if they brought back the draft, couldn't I say that it is against my morals to send my sons off to kill people. It's against my morals to send my sons off to a situation where they could be killed or physically/mentally harmed.

[republicansareevil]

44. several thoughts...

1.

I hope that the actions of a small minority of pharmacists don't create a backlash against ALL pharmacists.

Gene Lyons wrote recently "If that’s not good enough, hire some kid to serve as your shabbas goy — what Orthodox Jews call somebody who does grunt work on the Sabbath. After all, anybody who can count to 10 can take pills from the big bottle, put them in the little bottle and ring up the sale while you look prayerfully on. Meanwhile, any pharmacy that advertises 'We Fill All Legal Prescriptions' will get my trade."

I don't want my prescriptions filled by "some kid," I want them filled by a Registered Pharmacist. Pharmacists do more than just mindlessly read prescriptions and count pills into bottles. It is an important profession that requires years of training, and they are meant to act as a check and balance. Otherwise, doctors would be allowed to write AND fill prescriptions themselves. I don't think a patient should ever be denied a prescription because of the religious beliefs of the pharmacist. However, I hope that the desire to curb this practice doesn't result in pharmacists being treated like little more than clerks filling orders. I hope that the professional judgment of pharmacists is not intruded on by legislators as a side effect of trying to protect the rights of the patient.

2.

The "shabbas goy" comment actually raises an interesting point. How do others in healthcare professions accommodate their own beliefs with the needs and wishes of their patients? What if a doctor does not believe in practicing medicine on whatever day he/she considers the Sabbath? What if a doctor does not wish to perform an abortion? (I'm fairly certain that in that case, at least, the doctor cannot legally be forced to do so. I would expect that there is an exception when it is an emergency situation and the woman's life is in danger, but I do not know it for a fact.) The beliefs do not even have to be religious in nature. What if a doctor believes that circumcisions are unnecessary surgeries? What if a patient desires a radical cosmetic surgery that the doctor is not comfortable with? In a situation like that, the line starts to blur between medical judgment and personal belief.

I think that the policy outlined by the professional organization for pharmacists (forget the name) is actually a sensible one: pharmacists cannot be forced to fill prescriptions that go against their beliefs, but they must provide a reasonable and convenient alternative for the patient. From the patient's perspective, it should be "seamless." However, this will work only if pharmacists who do not follow it face penalties. If done correctly, the patient shouldn't even have to know about it.

3.

Making a distinction between healthcare professionals and healthcare facilities could probably solve a lot of problems. I think that while pharmacists and other professionals should not be forced to do things against their beliefs, pharmacies and other healthcare facilities do not have that prerogative. We need to regard healthcare facilities as more than private businesses. They need to serve the public interest. This could resolve the dilemma many women in rural areas face: lack of nearby doctors who will perform abortions. It is not always because of their religious beliefs; a lot of them are just intimidated by the potential for violent protesters. I think we need to say, if you are a doctor who owns an ob/gyn practice and you do not wish to perform abortions, fine. But then you need to partner with another doctor who will come by once or twice a month and do them for you. The doctor has the right not to perform the abortion, but the facility has the responsibility to provide that service one way or another.

If the healthcare professional is not self-employed, the courts will have to decide whether accommodating an employee's beliefs is "reasonable" or not. If a pharmacist requires having a second pharmacist be on call for every time a BC prescription must be filled, that is probably an unreasonable accommodation unless the first pharmacist is willing to supplement the cost of the second. A doctor in a large hospital who did not wish to perform circumcisions could probably be accommodated much more easily, since there are likely dozens of other doctors who could handle this simple procedure. It may sound problematic, but these are the sorts of religious accommodation issues courts have to work out all the time for all types of employment. For example, can devout Muslims who work in a factory be permitted to pray five times a day, or does this create an unreasonable burden for the employer?

[republicansareevil]

47. Alright, I did a Google search and found this.

http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2689

(Emphasis is mine.)

APhA Responds to Media Coverage:
Letters to the editor
Letter to the Editor submitted by APhA to Prevention magazine

July 1, 2004

To the Editor:

I am responding to your story, “Access Denied: Find out why growing numbers of doctors and pharmacists across the U.S. are refusing to prescribe or dispense birth control pills.”

Your detailed story was informative, but it is missing the balanced perspective of the first-established and largest professional organization of pharmacists in the United States – the American Pharmacists Association (APhA). The APhA absolutely supports patients’ right to access their legally prescribed medications. APhA also supports the pharmacist’s right of conscience. That right of conscience comes with responsibility to assure patient access to the legally prescribed therapy. In contrast to the impression created by your story, these two objectives are not mutually exclusive. It also should be noted that the pharmacist’s right of conscience is not limited – as the title of your article might indicate – solely to cases involving contraceptive medications.

When the profession’s policy is implemented correctly--and proactively--it is seamless to the patient, and the patient is not aware that the pharmacist is stepping away from the situation. Whether another pharmacist on duty completes the prescription or patients are proactively directed to pharmacies where certain therapy is available, or even different systems are set up, the patient gets the medication, and the pharmacist steps away from that activity--with no intersection between the two.

This policy works. It is only if the policy is not implemented properly that the needs of a patient or the right of conscience of the pharmacist would not both be properly acknowledged. It is because such instances of improper implementation are rare – rather than frequent -- that they inspire widespread media coverage. Although rare, such situations are extremely unfortunate, and we are working to ensure they will not occur.

Sincerely,

Susan C. Winckler, RPh, Esq.
Vice President
Policy and Communications and Staff Counsel

[republicansareevil]

48. kick - people should read the American Pharmacists Association position.

[seabeyond]

53. the movement is getting more powerful. lets see how they

handle it as it grows. we already know that there have been times women have not gotten the prescriptions, and they were sent away in rude and embarrassing fashion. they can put out a statement all they want, doesnt mean it is reality

[republicansareevil]

88. Yeah, I'd like to see what it means in real terms.

That is, I'd like to see what "we are working to ensure they will not occur" means in terms of providing real consequences for pharmacists who violate the policy. Professional guidelines are good, but it's really just an honor system unless there are penalties to give it some teeth. Maybe that is a job for legislators more than the APhA. I don't really know how that works.

I think the other important thing to get from this is that despite claims made that the pharmacists are just following their consciences, we find that there are already policies worked out that acknowledge BOTH the pharmacists' and the patients' rights.

I like this part: "That right of conscience comes with responsibility to assure patient access to the legally prescribed therapy... When the profession’s policy is implemented correctly--and proactively--it is seamless to the patient, and the patient is not aware that the pharmacist is stepping away from the situation."

[Warren DeMontague]

63. Yeah... Tell that to the woman whose prescription was held hostage

by a pharmacist. (I'm responding to the letter, not the poster, BTW :)) Tell it to the ones who insist on dispensing bible-verse laden lectures instead of pills. Tell it to the RAPE VICTIM who couldn't get morning after contraception.

Bottom line is, most insurance companies- if they will pay for pills at all- will only pay for one month at a time. If you run out and you are out of town (say you have the misfortune of visiting a part of the country filled with these kinds of cranial-rectal inverts) and the pharmacist who "seamlessly passes your prescription to someone else" happens to be the only doofus in the county who is open?

This is a recipe for unintended pregnancies and -viola!- more abortions. Real fucking moral.

[tammywammy]

45. Thank you!!!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

It's not like BC was just approved yesterday, it's not a surprise that women use it (for many reasons). If you don't want to give it out, then work at a pharmacy that doesn't dispense it.

If I decided that part of my job is "morally objectable", I'd be fired; but more importantly if part of my job was morally objectable I wouldn't have taken it in the first place.

[Shallah Kali]

46. NARAL page that lets you email the 5 biggest pharm chains about this

http://prochoiceaction.org/campaign/pharmacy_petition

Since they haven't been able to ban birth control outright they now are trying to sneak this in the back door. If more of America does not start paying attention we will be back in the reproductive dark ages.

[Technowitch]

57. Aye, this is terribly wrong - but there are steps we can take

For one, I would ask to speak to the store manager (often it will actually be the pharmacist, but often it's not). Inform the manager that not only will you take your prescriptions elsewhere, you will buy NOTHING ELSE in that store ever again.

The majority of drug store profits are made not on the meds, but on the other crap they sell.

If the pharmacy is part of a franchise or chain, write to the corporate big-wigs -- and tell them the same thing. And that furthermore, you will urge your friends and family to take their business elsewhere, too.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. To all the people who insist birth control isn't on the same right-wing

agenda ledger as abortion, this should serve as a wake-up call. It's next.

[Misunderestimator]

62. Hmm... Where are those anti-woman DU pharmacist defenders today?

Wonderful rant. Thank you! :thumbsup:

[Warren DeMontague]

65. I'm sure he'll show up eventually. nt

[Beaverhausen]

77. yeah really

:popcorn:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

96. They're still mourning!

:cry:

[Warren DeMontague]

66. A solution that would work for everyone, I think:

Make oral contraceptives (and Plan B) available OTC. At this point, with the widespread attacks on people's personal lives coming from the right wing, I think it's worth the relatively minor medical risks involved. If the pill was available OTC, women could buy it at any hour, stock up so they wouldn't worry about running out and being at the mercy of Reverend Walgreen, and if particular pharmaceutical outlets didn't want to stock it on the shelves they wouldn't have to.

Supply and demand (for some reason, $$$ usually ends up trumping "values" for most right wingers, anyway) would ensure that what is one of the most popular and prescribed medications in the US would be widely available, a few fundy pharmacists notwithstanding.

[renaissanceguy]

122. But then you have the problem of cashiers...

A fundie cashier could refuse to ring it up, and of course you can't just walk out with it.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.20383992

[Warren DeMontague]

70. I smell a business opportunity...

Liberal, independently owned pharmacies in places where this is taking place.

[Ladyhawk]

74. Their asses should be fired. eom

[candy331]

86. Since studies show(heard on news) that majority of professors

teaching college are liberals and conservatives are whining about liberal classes and liberal students and liberal clubs on campus seems that liberals are making up the bulk of pharmacy grads anyway. So this might be an empty wagon making a lot of noise, a few noisemakers who need to be quickly slapped down by the many before the wagon can take on a load. The Abrams report had one of these pharmacists on tonight from Louisiana and I could tell he was not sincere but a nut job and a misogynist to boot just by listening to his ridiculous reasoning, tried to talk completely over Dr. Bernadine Healy(although I don't care for her she was right in this issue.

[LisaLL]

89. Pharmacists Should be required to Sign an Against Medical Advice Form

Against Medical Advice Forms for Pharmacists


When patients refuse to accept a medical treatment or leave a hospital against medical advice (which is their right), they are required to sign an "Against Medical Advice Form" in which they state that they understand the risks of refusing treatment and accept those risks.

It is clear that when pharmacists refuse to fill emergency contraception, many of them are misinformed about the mechanism of the medication and are misinformed about the consequences or refusing to fill the presciption. I think they should be required to sign a form stating that they understand the consequences and still refuse.
----and if not required at least have the patient have them sign a form for her personal and/or legal records--something like this:


1. I, name, refuse to fill this prescription for EC.

2. I understand that the primary mechanism of EC is the inhibition, delay, or disruption of ovulation.

3. I understand that a secondary mechanism may possibly be the impairment of implantation in rare cases.

4.I understand that use of this medication prevents unintended pregnancies and prevents abortions.

5.I understand that if a woman is already pregnant EC will not affect the pregnancy.

6.I understand that greater access to EC has the potential to prevent 600,000 abortions a year in the US.

7. I understand that access to EC is proven not to increase sexual activity or risky behavior.

8. I understand that in refusing to fill this prescription I am refusing to help reduce the number of abortions.

9.I understand that it is my ethical and professional responsibility to refer this patient to another pharmacist/pharmacy that will provide her with EC.

Initial each statement and sign at the bottom.
It makes sure that they understand the evidence about EC and understand the consequences of their actions. It is moral to help women prevent unintended pregnancies and abortions, it is immoral not to.

And maybe, if the women are refused the prescription, become pregnant, and have abortions, they can inform the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription on "moral" grounds.

[jdj]

99. Amen. But I don't think they should get off that easy.

I'm an alchoholic, when I got sober I had to serve alcohol for two years and never refused anyone service, so why should these folks get special treatment.

[seabeyond]

102. i really would like to suggest

especially woman. when you walk into a store with a pharmacy, take the time to ask to speak with the pharmacist. ask what his religion is and if it dicctates he doesnt fill people prescriptions. say something to gyno and ask if religion comes into his care. we really do have the power on this. we can make a lot of people think twice with what is going on. all those that dont think about it much, if they have customers confronting them with this, challenging them, it will make them stop and think what their profession is becoming. i am of the opinion a strong majority will be bothered if customers are asking them if religion is going to interfer with their job. they are associated with groups, and they will talk about this. i think this is a good subject to bring people to awareness about religion dictating peoples lives, when we arent even a part of their religion

and i really believe there is a bigger effort by both the baptists and catholics to push this further

[republicansareevil]

123. I don't agree.

It shouldn't be necessary to grill pharmacists about their personal beliefs, and frankly if I were a pharmacist I'd be pretty pissed if someone had the nerve to ask me that. A better question is "Does this pharmacy fill all legal prescriptions as per the guidelines of the American Pharmacy Association?"

[seabeyond]

125. they should be pissed that is the point

hell ya get them pissed. maybe they will think twice about grilling a person to get a prescription filled. let them be pissed. mighty pissed. how dare any have the audacity to create me as a sinner, and the group as a WHOLE now has this on their shoulder. they as a whole have earned being grilled

lets get a bunch of pissed pharmacists, and maybe they will do something where the customer doesnt have to grill them anymore

[republicansareevil]

126. Why do you feel an entire group should be punished for actions of a few?

It's not the fault of one pharmacist that another is unethical.

[seabeyond]

130. who's punishing.

they dont seem too awfully concerned that their fellow pharmicist feels the need to single out an individual and create embarrassment and condemnation. they must see that it isnt that big deal of an issue. so they are called out and asked if they are ones to do exactly this. all they have to do is say yes or no. they arent concerned by anothers humiliation, i have to assume they dont feel it is a big enough deal not going to bother them

if it does bother them, then maybe they ought to protect their customers from exactly that

it isnt the customer that started this. it is this profession. it is their profession. and ultimately, they are part of the whole, part of the problem if they keep mouth shut, and embrace the ability for a fellow pharmacist to do this

not a big deal to the customer then by gosh, not a big deal for a pharmacist

[rman]

105. Barking up the wrong tree;

in the end it's the politicians who allow corporations to buy the politicians support for passing laws that allow these things.

Corporations are run by people. It is not to be expected that corporations are somehow of such a high moral standard that they would not need to be regulated.


...After fighting a revolution for freedom from colonialism, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of the similar threats posed by corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. These state laws, many of which remain on the books today, imposed conditions such as these:

- A charter was granted for a limited time.
- Corporations were explicitly chartered for the purpose of serving the public interest - profit for shareholders was the means to that end.
- Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
- Corporations could be terminated if they exceeded their authority or if they caused public harm.
- Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts they committed on the job.
- Corporations could not make any political contributions, nor spend money to influence legislation.
- A corporation could not purchase or own stock in other corporations, nor own any property other than that necessary to fulfill its chartered purpose."

Though the court did not make a ruling on the question of "corporate personhood", thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, the decision subsequently was used as precedent to hold that a private corporation was a natural person.
This meant that the 14th Amendment, enacted to protect rights of freed slaves, (could be) used to grant corporations Constitutional rights. Justices have since struck down hundreds of local, state and federal laws enacted to protect people from corporate harm based on this illegitimate premise."...
www.reclaimdemocracy.org

[republicansareevil]

124. yes, that sort of relates to my post 44

Pharmacists can exercise their right of conscience, but pharmacies are not human beings and do not have that right. And as the agent of the pharmacy, a pharmacist must make sure the patient gets his/her prescription filled in a way that does not impose on the patient.

[Mutley]

128. maybe

each of these pharmicists should be required to adopt an unwanted child... that could change their tunes real quick

[Fla Dem]

129. When all those Fundie's wives, girlfriends and mistresses start getting

pregnant and
1.) can't use birth control
2.) can't get the morning after pill
3.) can't get an abortion

their tune may begin to change. This is a white male fundie push. They do want to dominate their women. Women have become too strong, active and independent. The white males (those who believe women should be barefoot and pregnant all the time)feel emasculated. They want their women to be subservient. One way to do that is geting them pregnant.

If this really becomes a ground swell and women are denied unfettered access to whatever legal drugs their doctors prescribe, this may be the straw that breaks the back of the fundie movement. Women WILL unite behind something as fundamental as a basic right to legal medications and birth control. If women of child bearing age are denied basic birth control, there will be a major backlash. Do you really think all those God fearing women are practicing the rhythm method?