Should pharmacists be able to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions?

[BolivarianHero]

I think that if their beliefs prevent them from properly doing their job, they should find another line of work.

[blaze]

1. NO!!

It's none of their fucking business!!

Might be time for me to go buy that DU t-shirt: This is our country, not your church!!

[Zhade]

149. Absofuckinglutely not, indeed! If you can't do the job you agreed to, GET ANOTHER ONE!

NT!

[Hekate]

2. No. I agree with you completely.

[annabanana]

3. Absolutely not. Their job isn't to impose their own moral code on

patients whose DOCTORS have determined the proper course of treatment.

[FormerDittoHead]

130. My wife chimed in with a GREAT solution!

First off, I'm sorry for posting a reply to your msg so I could get this above the 'fray' below, but my wife came up with this 'solution' which I think is a great solution.

I should note that her solution (below) answers the problem without getting into the ridiculous pedantics that appear below.

She said that, if a given prescription is a legally sanctioned medical treatment, then IF A PHARMACY IS TO ACCEPT MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT (Medicare, etc) THEY SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SERVICE LEGAL PRESCRIPTIONS.

So, if a pharmacist wants the freedom of choice not to fill out a given prescription due to personal reasons which conflict with a doctor's orders, he may do so, BUT HE THEN HE SHOULD FORFEIT THE *PRIVILEGE* OF GETTING PAYMENTS FROM THE GOVERNMENT, and he'll have to turn away any patient whose prescription is paid for by the government and require PRIVATE payments only.

It's his/her choice. If they can stay in business that way, then OK.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

133. Based on your prior post (#10) that approach would be imposed even if they did

not stock the requested medication. You really sure you want to go there (again)?

[FormerDittoHead]

137. Ooops. I forgot to block you. Sorry.

Pee Wee Herman: I don't talk to monkeys. I train them.

[ProfessorGAC]

165. Seems Unlikely To Be Enforceable

If it can't be enforced, it's a useless plan.
GAC

[NewJeffCT]

175. It is the law here in CT

If a hospital or pharmacy wants to get reimbursement from the state, they would have to provide prescriptions for the so-called "morning after" pill.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

181. Must dispense or must carry? Is it only Plan B or does it include other meds?

[ProfessorGAC]

188. I've Heard Of That

I still don't think it's enforceable. Doing it with a hospital might be easier than with an independently owned pharmacy though.

I still think the easiest way to do it is to insist that the JOB is to dispense legal prescriptions. If one can't do that, the license gets pulled.
GAC

[ProgressiveProfessor]

190. Found something on this in Google with WalMart

State used economic pressure to by not allowing WalMart to participate in the state insurance plans if they did not sell & dispense. In the case of Catholic hospitals, they would only dispense in case of rape and ovulation was present (articles are a little fuzzy on that). It only appears to apply to Plan B. Try http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/07/ct_plan_b.html

Its not unusual to have insurance plan layout a pharmacopoeia it will allow, but this was the first I heard of one setting minimums as well. Economic pressure often works, boycotts being a classic example.

[ProfessorGAC]

191. May Be So. But, I Don't Buy It

The regulations can be far more strict. I'm going for strict. Do the whole deal, or get out of the biz.

GAC

[SoCalNative]

4. I completely agree

unless they own the pharmacy. In that case they are free to do whatever they wish.

[FormerDittoHead]

10. I say no even if they own the store.

Sorry, but if they need a LICENSE to be a pharmacist, then they should be REQUIRED to do THEIR JOB.

If they're being given a LEGAL PRESCRIPTION, then if they don't want to fill it, they should choose another profession while they try to change the law (good luck with that).

Even if they don't inventory the pills, they should be required to get them for the people who perhaps can't go anywhere else. Some (small) towns, there's only one pharmacy, and if a teen who doesn't have a car has a prescription to take them, the owner of the local pharmacy doesn't get to tell what kind of a life they should be living.

my 2 cents.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. By your logic vegan restaurants will have to serve steak...

It being a "legal" order and such

[uppityperson]

17. Comparing a pharmacy and legal prescriptions with a restaurant is a poor comparison

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. Its more than an adequate comparision...there is no basis to compel a business to carry particular

products.

The right answer is not to patronize them and tell everyone you know why.

[BolivarianHero]

25. Ummm..

If you're unable to distinguish between the role that pharmacies and restaurants play in society and to understand the regulations that ought to stem from their respective roles, I don't see how any school aside from Bob Jones or Liberty would be willing to pay your salary. Not patronizing is not an acceptable solution in communities where they have a captive market.

[uppityperson]

33. I would suggest you change your subject line before it is deleted. Hate to lose this message....

"If you're unable to distinguish between the role that pharmacies and restaurants play in society and to understand the regulations that ought to stem from their respective roles, I don't see how any school aside from Bob Jones or Liberty would be willing to pay your salary. Not patronizing is not an acceptable solution in communities where they have a captive market.'

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. Indeed

What I am pointing out is the concept of unintended consequences. Your flawed logic is not applied to doctors and abortion, a much more likely scenario.

Outside of your homeland where are there places that a privately owned pharmacy is the only option available?

University of California pays my salary.

[uppityperson]

32. You are wrong. Pharmacies have regulations that restaurants don't have

A restaurant can chose what type food it offers. A restaurant owner needs a business license and a food handlers license and no required education.

A pharmacy offers legally prescribed medications. A pharmacist requires a college education, board certification.

There are differences.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

50. The regulations and licesnes are irrelevant, the issue is if the state will require pharmacies to

carry certain drugs. So far they do not and do not appear that they will. Its a legally insupportable principle.

- There is no requirement for ObGyns to perform abortions
- There is no requirement for lawyers to take divorce cases
- There is no requirement for a gun dealer to sell AR15s

All are legally licensed and constrained jobs. See where you logic takes you...if you force a pharmacy to carry certain products, what happens in those examples and others like them.

Somehow choice is a bad thing now?

[uppityperson]

67. Pharmacy being required to fill an insulin Rx = OB/gyn being required to do an abortion

Gotcha. Thank you for playing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

69. Same general legal principle

The specific makes the case interesting, but macro level shows it to be toxic

[uppityperson]

72. Thank you for being so clear on how you believe. It helps us understand you better

You believe that a Pharmacy being required to fill an insulin Rx = an OB/gyn being required to do an abortion.

At least I live up to my user name

[ProgressiveProfessor]

94. And I mine

not to mention my .sig

[ProfessorGAC]

168. No It Isn't

There is no general legal principle involved in foods served by restaurants. There is no public interest served, which it the basis for most regulatory law, by mandating menu types.

There is an obvious public interest in the duties filled by a pharmacy.

Your convoluted logic notwithstanding.
GAC

[ProgressiveProfessor]

183. Consider the following

At some retail locations, products generally available in that kind of business may not be available due to the business owner's choices of which products to carry. In the case of a vegan restaurant, it would be meat products.

Pharmacies sell to consumers products prescribed by doctors. Regardless of what is prescribed, some kind, brands, or types of medication may not be available due to the business owner's choices of which products to carry. They are indeed parallel.

There are those who are effectively asserting that all pharmacies should be required to carry certain products. What if that logic was applied generally to other business (examples include doctors, lawyers, FFLs, and yes restaurants). That is not a slippery slope, its a sheer cliff and not going to happen. It would be very doubtful legally presuming there was not some kind of monopoly protection.

I am not supporting a pharmacist not dispensing what is stocked due to their personal beliefs. They should be fired for that.

[Raineyb]

46. Actually it's a piss poor comparison

The vegan restaurateur isn't keeping you from medication that your doctor prescribed for you. Your analogy is actually quite pathetic, your condescension aside.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

52. Its called reducto absurdum...and its clearly effective

[varelse]

58. it's clearly absurd

:silly:

[uppityperson]

63. yup. eom

[crimsonblue]

61. The analogy is completely incorrect..

a pharmacist is not offering any product or service. They are fulfilling a service rendered by a medical doctor. A person coming in wanting birth control has been prescribed it by a doctor, and the pharmacist has no authority to override a doctor's determination for the patient. Pharmacists are nothing more than glorified order fulfillment services. If doctors were able, I guarantee most would have stock of drugs on hand to directly provide to the patient.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

93. Actually in the general context it is valid

At some retail locations, products generally available in that kind of business may not be available due to the business owner's choices of which products to carry. In the case of a vegan restaurant, it would be meat products.

I disagree with your characterization of the role of a pharmacy. They sell to the consumer products prescribed by doctors. Regardless of what is prescribed, some kind, brands, or types of medication may not be available due to the business owner's choices of which products to carry. They are indeed parallel.

Some here are claiming that the pharmacy should be made to carry certain products to fulfill a societal need. If that logic was applied generally to other business (example include doctors, lawyers, and FFLs) it would laughable, which is why I have been using a reducto absurdum technique.

[Maru Kitteh]

127. Not really.

It's piss poor and you would have done well to find a better one rather than witness the unwashed masses of DU pick it apart as they have.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

129. Its holding up quite well

Some clearly make the transition to the general case, others are unable to see past the trees.

[Zhade]

150. Your mere assertion that it's holding up is belied by the fact that it's been ripped to shreds.

The reason your argument fails is because going out to eat isn't a life-or-death decision. Getting your medication often is.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

152. Lets take a look at the general case of which this is a specific

At some retail locations, products generally available in that kind of business may not be available due to the business owner's choices of which products to carry. In the case of a vegan restaurant, it would be meat products.

Pharmacies sell to consumers products prescribed by doctors. Regardless of what is prescribed, some kind, brands, or types of medication may not be available due to the business owner's choices of which products to carry. They are indeed parallel, though you are right about the disparate impacts. I intentionally chose a vegan restaurant analogy as part of a reducto absurdum approach to show just them that their argument is ridiculous. Clearly it has confused some posters.

There are those who are effectively asserting that all pharmacies should be required to carry certain products. What if that logic was applied generally to other business (examples include doctors, lawyers, FFLs, and yes restaurants). That is not a slippery slope, its a sheer cliff and not going to happen. It would be very doubtful legally presuming there was not some kind of monopoly protection.

The above focuses on "shall carry" only. I support must dispense and pharmacists who refuse to dispense what is stocked due to their personal beliefs should be fired.

[Canuckistanian]

102. What if they were against penicillin?

And your 6 year old daughter had an infected wound?

And it was the only pharmacy in your small town?

Would your views change then?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

114. Nice theoretical and the answer is no...its also a flawed scenario

The issue is whether or not a pharmacy (or any business in the general case) should be compelled to carry specific products in its general business area. Clearly, unless it is some sort of monopoly which is protected from competition, the answer no since there are other alternatives.

You are using the "sole source provider" argument. That is far from likely in the specific (pharmacy) and when extended to the general case is fraught with unintended consequences. For example if Dr. X is the only Ob-Gyn in a small town and under the same logic could be required to provide abortions. There are others examples I have used in this thread including lawyers and gun dealers and there are numerous others.

If the pharmacy has the drugs in stock and the duty pharmacist refuses to dispense, immediate termination is called for, regardless of the meds. Its not a gender issue at that point, its a labor issue. US law calls for reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs, I assume Canada's does that or more, but IMO, they should be walked out the door immediately.

[uppityperson]

122. flawed scenario and is this one of the places you "repeatedly state"

that they need to dispense the medications? Except you claimed that back in post 105 and this is post 114.


And yours is the flawed scenario since The issue is NOTwhether or not a pharmacy (or any business in the general case) should be compelled to carry specific products in its general business area but whether they should dispense medications that are ordered (read back subthread to where you are replying directly to #61 where YOU try to change it to stocking vs dispensing. Even for a professor, it is easy to get confused)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

126. Try the posts referenced that introduced that to the thread that way early on

Such as 10. And later ones such as 80 and 119 as well as some of your own.

The former dittohead is clearly not fully reformed

[readmoreoften]

162. It's a ludicrous comparison.

If you're a professor, we're doomed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

184. Actually its a reducto absurdum approach. Consider the following...

At some retail locations, products generally available in that kind of business may not be available due to the business owner's choices of which products to carry. In the case of a vegan restaurant, it would be meat products.

Pharmacies sell to consumers products prescribed by doctors. Regardless of what is prescribed, some kind, brands, or types of medication may not be available due to the business owner's choices of which products to carry. They are indeed parallel.

There are those who are effectively asserting that all pharmacies should be required to carry certain products. What if that logic was applied generally to other business (examples include doctors, lawyers, FFLs, and yes restaurants). That is not a slippery slope, its a sheer cliff and not going to happen. It would be very doubtful legally presuming there was not some kind of monopoly protection.

I am not supporting a pharmacist not dispensing what is stocked due to their personal beliefs. They should be fired for that.

[BolivarianHero]

21. You're a professor?

The difference between a restaurant and a pharmacist is that whereas a restaurant provides people with a luxury, a pharmacy provides an essential service in that it fulfills prescriptions. These prescriptions, at least in any civilized society, include those which pertain to reproductive health. If we are going to allow a service this vital to be provided by the private sector, we must ensure that this service is adequately regulated so that its providers are compelled to provider their clients with a full gamut of relevant medical services. Birth control has been legal for 40 years in the United States, so it's hardly like this is a new issue; if you're stupid enough to open a pharmacy or to work at one knowing that you are unwilling to fulfill such prescriptions, you deserve to be out of the business or living on the dole as the case may be.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. Its called choice, maybe you have heard of it

Not all pharmacies carry all drugs. Its a choice they make. We get to choose which pharmacy we go to. Your position assumes a monopoly which is rarely if ever the case.

You are aware that doctors, even ObGyns can refuse to perform abortions? Why not force their hands? Same for restaurants and other vendors. Vote with your feet and $$$. Advertise you decision and why.

Is this a problem in real life or one created by trolls? If one pharmacy will not carry/dispense contraception or the morning after pill, take ALL of your business to one that will.

[uppityperson]

35. I think you are confusing a pharmacy with a drug store.

Drug stores have greater latitude in that they can carry a whole bunch of different stuff for sale out on the floor.

The Pharmacy is the place where legally prescribed medications are stored and bottled up for sale.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. Not at all

Not all licensed pharmacies carry all available legal medications. Its a business choice they make. They may care name brands only, generics only, or a mix. They also tend to carry more of what their customer's ask for. A pharmacy in a 62+ retirement community may not carry Plan B due to lack of demand, which would seem reasonable. Regardless no brick and mortar pharmacy has carries everything or even has its normal products in stock at all times.

[uppityperson]

48. As someone posted below... and no, restaurant does not = pharmacy

"The pharmacist's job is spelled out pretty clearly by the state pharmacy practice act. Refusing to fill legal prescriptions for any reason besides allergy or other contraindication is not part of that act, and even then they are required to contact the prescribing physician for an alternative."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. You miss the basic point...only if they stock it

That is the crux of the issue

[uppityperson]

62. Is a pharmacy required to stock any hypertension medication?

Or can they say "you should just lose weight and quit smoking"?

Of course they are not required to stock every single type of every medication, but are you seriously saying that it is ok for a pharmacy to simply decide to not carry a category of medicine?

Good grief.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

68. No it is not. Nor blood thinners or beta blockers

It is also not required to take insurance plans, carry generics, or sell band aids.

[uppityperson]

73. bwahahahaha. You almost had me believing you until you posted this

dang, I'm usually better at picking up dry dark humor than proven here. Thanks for clarifying!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

76. Actually its quite correct...legally they have no obligation to stock any of the items listed

I can not imagine one not having at least partial coverage in those areas, but it would be their choice as to what they actually carried.

[uppityperson]

99. What if it IS in stock, and the pharmacist refuses to fill the Rx? Read for content

OP "Should pharmacists be able to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions?"

If it is in stock, should pharmacists be able to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions?

Not "should pharmacies have to carry every medicine" but should pharmacists be able to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

107. I have repeatedly answered that in the affirmative...but in other posts you and others claim

a requirement to stock birth control pills for several reasons that just don't hold up to scrutiny. See posts 10& 80 as well as your own.

I have *always* said that if its in stock and they don't dispense they should be fired. I feel the same way about Muslims who seek waivers for not handling pork or taking dogs in taxis. Though current law requires reasonable accommodation I think, the right answer in either case is immediate and public firing. I have stated that repeatedly in this thread

[Ocracoker16]

56. someone is really clueless

FYI- This is a problem in real life for women in this country. Your posts have been very disrespectful to some of the other DUers posting here. I first heard about this when I was studying womens studies in college 5 years ago. At that time, Walmart was not even stocking birth control pills. Since then women have experienced difficulties obtained birth control pills when they had a legal prescription, because some pharmacists don't believe in birth control and thus refuse to fill prescriptions. In rural areas, women have to travel a ways to another pharmacy which is especially unacceptable when they are seeking Plan B. Nobody should be delayed in taking a pill that must be taken in a small time frame in order for it to work.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. False as to fact

I know from personal experience that 10+ years ago Wal Mart did carry BC pills.

If the pharmacy carries the prescribed drug, the duty pharmacist should dispense them or be fired by their employer. Just like Muslims who won't touch pork or take dogs in cabs. The law currently requires a reasonable accommodation, and I am not willing to go that far.

The real issue here is if a pharmacy can be compelled to carry all drugs that can be legally prescribed or not. The current answer is no and to change that is a slippery slope ripe with unintended consequences in other areas.

The attempt to posture this is a womens issue is specious, which clearly shows when you take it from the specific to the general case.

[uppityperson]

71. False as to fact

Maybe you went to a different Walmart, or are you calling Ocracoker16 a liar?

"The attempt to posture this is a womens issue is specious, which clearly shows when you take it from the specific to the general case."

"Since then women have experienced difficulties obtained birth control pills when they had a legal prescription, because some pharmacists don't believe in birth control and thus refuse to fill prescriptions. In rural areas, women have to travel a ways to another pharmacy which is especially unacceptable when they are seeking Plan B. Nobody should be delayed in taking a pill that must be taken in a small time frame in order for it to work." is an attempt to posture this is a womens issue is specious?

You have realized that this topic is about birth control pills, right? And being able to have some control over reproduction IS a women's issue.

Your snide condescension and barely hidden accusations of lying is getting tiring

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. Actually the kernel of the issue is can a business be forced to carry particular products

That is the general case. Trying to narrow it to a sympathetic specific is poor argumentation at best. The principle being espoused is not just about birth control. That some can not see beyond it speaks poorly.

Ocracoker16 made a broad generality...which is factually incorrect in my experience. That makes her wrong, not a liar. I have no doubt she believes what she posted.

[uppityperson]

78. good grief. You want totally the same laws on every type of business & now call O16 delusional

Passing laws for a specific type business is wrong.

Since some of us keep talking about Oral Contraceptives, what the OP was about, "speaks poorly". Huh.
---------------

"I first heard about this when I was studying womens studies in college 5 years ago. At that time, Walmart was not even stocking birth control pills."

"I know from personal experience that 10+ years ago Wal Mart did carry BC pills."

"Ocracoker16 made a broad generality...which is factually incorrect in my experience. That makes her wrong, not a liar. I have no doubt she believes what she posted."

O16 is not a liar but delusional.


Oh Kay

[ProgressiveProfessor]

84. Please read for content

I stated the OC16 was genuine in her belief but incorrect based on my experience. If you want to call her delusional, that's up to you, but I made no such claim. The only one showing trends of delusion here are those not reading what is written and finding things that are not there.

After many posts, you finally have found an intellectually honest point...is it legitimate in the public interest to require certain businesses to carry specific kinds of products or provide certain services. Right now the answer is clearly no for business which do not have some kind of monopoly protection. If you want to go down that road, then you have to start answering those same questions for doctors, lawyers, FFLs etc. If it just on pharmacies the state would have to accept some of the costs for doing so. It is also doubtful that it will pass legal muster.

[uppityperson]

85. Bull. Shit. What you are posting is obvious.

"After many posts, you finally have found an intellectually honest point".

Copy/pasting and repeating myself, and finally I have "found an intellectually honest point".

I have no need to continue to bandy words about with you as your game here is obvious

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. At least you admit you have not been making original points nor considering other posters points

of view.

[uppityperson]

92. You are something. I can't say what, but something

[uppityperson]

100. It is called a strawman. OP was "Should pharmacists be able to refuse to fill birth control prescrip

not "should all pharmacies stock bcps". So, answer the OP please.

Should pharmacists be able to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions if said prescription is fillable from the stock?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

105. I have repeated answered that in the affirmative...but in other posts you and other claim

that pharmacies must carry certain drugs because they are licensed etc. That of course is nonsense.

[uppityperson]

123. You mean in posts 114 and 115? But yours here is post 105. Odd

maybe you meant you "were going to answer repeatedly". Or else you time traveled. Or else you were confused. Or else you really truly thought you did

[ProgressiveProfessor]

131. How about as far back as post 12

and 64, 77, 87, 107, 108, 114, 115, and 117. About not patronizing them for anything 18, 28, 59, 105. I am clearly not the one who is confused.

[NewJeffCT]

176. If a medicine is prescribed by a doctor, in Connecticut

the pharmacist is legally obligated to fill the prescription. If they refuse, they will lose state medicaid/medicare reimbursement. Same with a hospital - the CT Catholic hospitals ended up dropping opposition to the morning after pill.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

182. That is cleary shall dispense, what if the medication is not carried by the pharmacy?

[Bunny]

24. Steak isn't prescribed by medical doctors for medical reasons.

So no vegan restaurant owner could be legally required by the state to dispense steak.

So, do you want to discuss pharmacists, who are licensed by the state, refusing to dispense legally prescribed medications? Or do you have some other point you're trying to make?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. Actually meat can and has been prescribed/advised in the past

My point was that just about every business is licensed and the same logic that some want to apply to pharmacies could be used on other business with unintended consequences. Its also known as the reducto absurdem argument.

[Sebastian Doyle]

90. And if you go to a vegan restaraunt looking for steak, you're an idiot.

Just like if you go to a pharmacy looking for a sermon.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

91. But hopefully they have good portabella mushrooms

[EndersDame]

109. There is a difference between steak and medicine

Some small towns only have one pharmacy. If they are not allowed to fill a perscription written by a doctor how can the get the medicine they need?And where do you draw the line? Birth control? Antibiotics? Heart meds? What if a pharmacy refused to carry anti depressants meds because he was a Scientologist.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

115. It comparable in the general case, lets look at it and the specifics

At some retail locations, products generally available in that kind of business may not be available due to the business owner's choices of which products to carry. In the case of a vegan restaurant, it would be meat products.

Pharmacies sell to consumers products prescribed by doctors. Regardless of what is prescribed, some kind, brands, or types of medication may not be available due to the business owner's choices of which products to carry. They are indeed parallel.

What you are asserting is that all pharmacies should be required to carry certain products. What if that logic was applied generally to other business (examples include doctors, lawyers, FFLs, and yes resturants). That is not a slippery slope, its a sheer cliff and not going to happen. It would be very doubtful legally presuming there was not some kind of monopoly protection.

I am not supporting a pharmacist not dispensing what is stocked due to their personal beliefs. They should be fired for that.

[konnichi wa]

132. Uh, you don't actually think that's analogous, do you?

:eyes:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

147. It is in the general case

At some retail locations, products generally available in that kind of business may not be available due to the business owner's choices of which products to carry. In the case of a vegan restaurant, it would be meat products.

Pharmacies sell to consumers products prescribed by doctors. Regardless of what is prescribed, some kind, brands, or types of medication may not be available due to the business owner's choices of which products to carry. They are indeed parallel.

There are those who are effectively asserting that all pharmacies should be required to carry certain products. What if that logic was applied generally to other business (examples include doctors, lawyers, FFLs, and yes restaurants). That is not a slippery slope, its a sheer cliff and not going to happen. It would be very doubtful legally presuming there was not some kind of monopoly protection.

I am not supporting a pharmacist not dispensing what is stocked due to their personal beliefs. They should be fired for that.

[KittyWampus]

142. Vegan restaurants proudly proclaim themselves as such. Fundie pharmacies should be required

to post their restriction PROMINENTLY.

However, above poster makes a good point. If they want privilege of filling out Medicaid prescriptions paid for by US Govt., they should be required to.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

148. So filling a Medicare perscription would trigger a requirement to carry a certain set of meds?

That is the effect of what you are saying.

[KittyWampus]

161. a common perscription like birth control pills that are essential to thousands in a community?

Yes.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

178. Are you willing to require similar kinds of actions from other providers of goods and services

such as doctors, lawyers, and FFL holders? Are you willing to have the government compensate the businesses for it?


I suggest you think bigger than just pharmacies...

[havocmom]

154. Steak is not a medical treatment

Did you take a wrong turn to end up here?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

156. No, just using an absurd example to show just how absurd some of the posts are

The absurdness is from those who push for "must carry". Check out #10 from a self declared reformed dittohead.

Must dispense is a no brainer. If a pharmacist refuses to dispense what is in stock, they should be fired.

[havocmom]

159. Yours in particular

[ProgressiveProfessor]

160. How so? Do you support "must carry" for pharmacies?

Don't think there is any disagreement from anyone here about "must dispense".

[Liberal Veteran]

5. Absolutely....

When I am allowed to go behind the counter, pick out my own prescription medications and walk them up to the register and pay for them myself, then they can refuse to dispense a legal prescription.

Until then, they need to do their fucking job.

[Junkdrawer]

8. Self delete - posted wrong spot...

[MNDemNY]

6. Of course not !?

:shrug: :popcorn:

[me b zola]

7. No

[Skittles]

9. ABSOLUTELY NOT

you are correct: if you can't do your fucking job, GET IN ANOTHER LINE OF WORK

[Junkdrawer]

11. Sure..and any yahoo with a gun can kill abortionists...

The laws of God supersede the laws of...Oh, wait...this ISN'T Iran...

Nevermind...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Sometimes...

If its their pharmacy and they choose not to stock certain products, its their call.

However if they work for someone else they should agree to dispense everything carried. I feel the same way about Muslims who won't touch pork or carry dogs in cabs. However in both cases reasonable accommodation is required by law.

[ZombieHorde]

13. Should vegetarian pizza delivery people be able to refuse to deliver meat pizzas?

[Ikonoklast]

14. Absolutely.

And they can look for a new job the next day.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Should a vegan restaurant have to serve meat?

[imdjh]

22. NO , but they should eat some if they want to get laid.

[a la izquierda]

140. Hey neither me nor my husband eat meat...

and we get laid just fine :evilgrin:

[blaze]

27. What if it's the only phamacy available? nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. That is about the only valid issue here WRT to compelling a business to carry particular products

Now try and find a situation where that is true...the only accessible pharmacy does not carry certain drugs.

[Ikonoklast]

66. No. Why would you ask such a useless question?

I don't go to a Ford dealer to buy parts for my Suburban, either.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

79. To point out the absurd nature of what some are proposing

Pharmacies are private business. They get to choose what they carry in terms of products. No brick and mortar pharmacy carries everything available. That some are getting cranked up about that seems absurd. Their theoretical arguments ignore the unintended consequences if the principle was applied broadly. Pointing that out seems to annoy them as well.

[Ikonoklast]

81. You are changing the question, but you know that.

If the pharmacists refuses to fill the prescription, it is assumed that the pharmacy has the drugs in stock in order to make the refusal to begin with.

If they just don't carry the product, they can say that.

Your logic is flawed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

87. You and I are in agreement

If a pharmacist refuses to fill a legitimate prescription and has the drugs in stock, they should be fired.

Others were making the statement that the drugs should be carried regardless, which is what I disagree with. See post 10, 80 and others.

[ZombieHorde]

That is how I feel about it. nt

[imdjh]

19. There was a cashier at Winn Dixie who refused to touch meat packages

She made a really big deal of it, putting her hand in a vegetable bag before picking up the chicken and then telling me why she was doing it. I love getting older. I said, "No problem, Darling, I used to be a teenager."

[ZombieHorde]

43. Funny. nt

[Tangerine LaBamba]

53. Beautiful ................

[EndersDame]

111. They should find another chain to work at that would better suit their morality

:)

[ejpoeta]

20. should i be able to refuse to sell someone any meat or eggs or milk

because i am a vegan??? i am not a vegan for the record, but i am making a point. wouldn't a person be fired for refusing to sell someone these things??? if you don't agree with bc pills... don't fucking use them yourself. end of story. how is someone's personal belief enough to deny another person something they want and believe in!!!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

23. No

Their job is to fill prescriptions, not pass moral judgment. If passing moral judgments and exercising their "conscience" is what they really want to do, they can enroll in seminary.

[Scout]

26. No, absolutely not. n/t

[Warpy]

29. Not just NO, FUCK NO

If they are too pious to soil their hands filling prescriptions that protect women's health, then let them open a fucking church.

The pharmacist's job is spelled out pretty clearly by the state pharmacy practice act. Refusing to fill legal prescriptions for any reason besides allergy or other contraindication is not part of that act, and even then they are required to contact the prescribing physician for an alternative.

Anyone who has been refused medications by these sanctimonious loons should get the loon's name and write a letter of complaint to the state pharmacy board.

Threaten his or her license. It's the best thing you can do to protect other women.

[lukasahero]

30. NO - agree with you - if they can't do their job, get out of the field. eom

[JerseygirlCT]

34. I agree with you

No matter their personal beliefs, they're not filling an rx for themselves. BC pills are entirely legal, and why a woman is using them is not the pharmacist's business. If they cannot perform the task they're given, they ought to find a new line of work, as you say.

[WeDidIt]

37. Should Vegan Waiters be able to refuse to serve meat?

Same issue.

[blaze]

42. Not the same issue at all

You can eat at home.

What if this is the only pharmacist in town?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

74. Have an example where that is true?

The "what if there is no other provider" is a theoretical argument at best. More over it if its accepted as a general principle the unintended consequences would be overwhelming.

The issue stated as a general case is whether or not a business can choose not to stock certain products appropriate to its field. The answer is yes, even if it is inconvenient to its customers. Pharmacies do not have a geographical franchise which limits competition. A new one can open adjacent to an existing one.

Finally, one has to ask if this is a real world problem or not. I do not believe it is in the US. Pharmacies that do not carry contraceptives are quite rare.

[EndersDame]

113. I live in Waco and beg to differ

Women have to drive from FIVE counties over to get birth control at the Waco Planned Parenthood. These women, mainly economically disadvantaged have to sacrifice time and gas or pay someone to give them a ride. The Waco Planned Parenthood does a pills by mail thing now but they still have to come every year for an exam.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

116. So there is no pharmacy dispensing birth control in the other 5 counties?

Bear in mind that Wal-Mart does sell birth control pills and there are 9 stores within 42 miles of the center of the 76705 Zip code in Waco. That does not count Rite-Aid, CVS, Walgreen's, and other chains that also sell all forms of birth control including Plan B.

I could easily believe that its the only Planned Parenthood facility with low cost family planning services and meds in that kind of radius. We should all curse the fundies for that and the assassination of Dr. Tiller.

[readmoreoften]

171. Wait, if you don't have a car, you're supposed to drive to another COUNTY to get your medicine?

Another upperclass thug who doesn't live in reality.

What's next?

Christian "modesty" proponents working as strippers allowed to leave their turtlenecks and wool skirts on?
Environmental activists working as used car salesman allowed to only sell hybrid models?
Gay waiters allowed to refuse service to customers wearing Rick Warren shirts?
A "Green" NASCAR driver allowed to race his bike instead of a car?
Democrats who work at Barnes and Nobles allowed to refuse to sell books by Republicans?
Fashionista medical receptionists allowed to refuse admittance to unfashionable people?

Your argument is patently absurd and typical of callous conservatives who put business interests above all else--and typical of a callous corporate conservative attempting to conflate their agenda with a twisted, irrational version of a 'workers rights' argument.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

179. Actually I am not sure what he means

Enders Dame states that poor women have to travel "5 counties over" to get to a Planned Parenthood Clinic in Waco. Actually that would not surprise me given the grief PP gets. I would hope there are other alternatives for women's health much nearer.

Hopefully you do not perceive I am supporting pharmacists not dispensing birth control due to their feelings on the matter...if its there and they don't they should be fired.

The tougher question is if pharmacies should be required to stock certain medications by the government and what the general application would be in other areas.

[EndersDame]

112. I used to work with several veggie waiters who served meat.

They could always go to veggie restaurants or work retail

[PeaceNikki]

141. Not even close to comperable.

[readmoreoften]

170. OF COURSE NOT. What? Would they expect to sit on their ass all day?

It would make no sense for a vegan waiter to refuse ONLY meat. A vegan waiter would have to refuse to serve:

Anything cooked with eggs
Anything cooked with Milk
Anything with butter
Anything cooked with Meat, Fish, or broth

What the hell would this hypothetical waiter be serving? Dry toast, fries, and black coffee? Would they just sit there while everyone else did the work?

What kind of dumb-ass question is this? It has never come up in reality. Vegans don't work at non-vegan restaurants, and if they do, they serve food as required.

BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE:

Christian "modesty" proponents working as strippers not allowed to leave their turtlenecks and wool skirts on.
Environmental activists working as used car salesman not allowed to only sell hybrid models.
Gay waiters not allowed to refuse service to customers wearing Rick Warren shirts.
"Green" NASCAR racers not allowed to ride bikes instead of cars at work.
Democrats who work at Barnes and Nobles not allowed to refuse to sell books by Republicans.
Fashionista medical receptionists not allowed to refuse admittance to people in Walmart clothes.


Should I go on?

[ismnotwasm]

38. No

And it's a creepy and bizarre thing to want to do anyway.

[sandyj999]

39. No!

[recoveringrepublican]

40. If they own the drug store....if not it's up to their boss, and I won't shop there if they do. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

59. Right answer

[readmoreoften]

172. Right WING answer.

The fact that you think you're a progressive shows how far the country has moved to the right. The fact that you're a professor anywhere-- other than the University of Gilligan's Island-- shows how far our education system has declined.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

187. How so?

If an organization does not support your values, take your business elsewhere is a classic boycott technique used for generations to effect social change. If that is not progressive, some one should tell the NAACP, UFW and others who use it regularly.

Someone recently brought up Connecticut. If the article found on Google is to be believed, by threatening to exclude WalMart pharmacies from participation in the state insurance plan, Conn. forced WalMart to carry (and therefore dispense) Plan B at all stores nationwide. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/07/ct_plan_b.html

If you are in favor of making providers of products and services meet a state defined minimum offerings, have you considered how that would translate into other businesses? IIRC California tried that a while back with medical school curriculum and failed.

Some compare the public universities in California to Gilligan's Island, but I think we are much more diverse than that.

[TexasObserver]

41. NO! Either do the job they're licensed to do, or revoke their license.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

77. Actually they should/will be fired. But what if the pharmacy doesn't carry the requested drug?

[TorchTheWitch]

119. Then the pharmacy is required to order it

if the customer so desires. No pharmacy keeps every drug imaginable in stock at all times... lack of space and shelf life. They ARE required to order a prescribed medication if the customer wishes.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

124. Required by whom?

In the general case, it is not law or regulation anywhere that I know of that a business must order something because a customer requests it. Try getting Rubbermaid wire shelving from Home Depot. In the specific of a pharmacy, when medication is needed it is often in the immediate, it will not be timely to order it (Think Plan B).

For rare/unusual meds with a standing requirement, some pharmacies will special order. We had to do that for my mom. We ended up going through a family owned one to make that happen. These days most insurance plans have some sort of mail order pharmacy they break your arm to use (anyone else here stuck with Medco?). With careful shopping, I can beat them on common drugs about half the time.

[KittyWampus]

143. birth control pills are extremely common. It is totally unreasonable to believe a pharmacy wouldn't

carry them. Especially since not all women take them for birth control. Furthermore, does said pharmacy stock condoms?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

145. The prior poster said *required* vice should/would, a critical distinction

I too can't see a pharmacy that does not carry a reasonably broad line of birth control products, but requiring it what TorchTheWitch called for.

Really two parts here, shall dispense and shall carry. The former is a no brainer. If its there it should be dispensed or the pharmacist fired. Its basic labor law at that point, not a gender issue. The latter is a much harder case, especially when one take the time to look at what broad application of that logic would bring in terms of unintended consequences.

[fishwax]

45. there are legitimate reasons for refusing to fill prescriptions

but moral objections to birth control (or other drugs) should not be counted among them.

[Vidar]

47. Not unless there is a colleague nearby who can & will the prescription.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

70. What if the pharmcy does not stock the requested drug?

[Vidar]

80. Sue them, fine them, close them down--whatever you prefer

[fizzgig]

83. not keeping something in stock is not the same as refusing to fill a prescription

we're talking about a pharmacist refusing to fill a legally obtained prescription for a product they have in stock.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

86. Not everyone is...some claim that the pharmacy must carry certain drugs. See posts

10, 80, and others.

[Flying Dream Blues]

49. No. If they can't do their job they need to find another line of work. nt

[earth mom]

51. HELL NO!

:grr:

Who in the fuck do these people think they are?!

[NMMNG]

55. No

They're there to dispense medications as prescribed by physicians, not practice their religion.

[BlooInBloo]

60. No.

[DefenseLawyer]

65. If the pharmacist's belief was that the world was overpopulated

So he decided to refuse to give medicine to every third customer in hopes they would die, would we respect his "beliefs"?

[Starry Messenger]

82. No, they should not.

They should find another line of work. It's none of their business who takes what medicine. Would they be allowed to refuse to fill viagra scripts for an unmarried man if they believed in pre-marital abstinence?

[Sebastian Doyle]

88. If you don't want to fill prescriptions, don't be a fucking pharmacist

That's what they DO, ya goddamn religious hypocritical dumbasses.

[FormerDittoHead]

95. my favorite answer. Tip to others: don't feed the assholes. Shit only comes OUT of them...n/t

[flvegan]

96. Let me help out the failed "should a vegan..." responses with a proper one

Should an animal rights based vegan pharmacist be able to refuse to fill a prescription because it was tested on animals?

Of course not.

You're welcome.

[readmoreoften]

174. Thanks flvegan. +1. I love how this RW argument is couched in terms of "defending vegan workers."

I have never known a vegan to expect to be able to work at a leather shop without handling leather, a non-vegan coffee shop without handling milk, or an steakhouse without serving steak.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

189. You have not been following similar issues in other areas

The focus there is Muslims and their unwillingness to deal with things they consider unclean. Supermarket workers refusing to touch pork, cabbies refusing to carry dogs, even service animals, in their cabs, or anyone carrying alcoholic beverages. Most of the public noise was in Minn,. but its prevalent elsewhere. http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800&page=1

My view is clear, fire them and in this case any pharmacist who will not dispense medication in stock for their own personal reasons. However US law requires "reasonable accommodation" of employee beliefs

[Cass]

97. Absolutely not. They have no right to force their religious beliefs on the customers.

They also have no right to interject themselves in private medical decisions.

See how long a vegan would last as a server in a restaurant if they refused to serve hamburgers because it offended their personal beliefs.

Bottom line is if certain aspects of job violate their religious beliefs then they need to find work elsewhere if they are unable to resist forcing their religion on everyone around them.

[subcomhd]

98. I may be wrong

but I think the controversy about 'filling prescriptions' is just that - about "filling" them. I think several pharmacists were told they had to fill certain things they objected to like BC. Things that WERE in their employers' stock but wich they refused to sell. Until I read this thread I never even knew there was a debate over whether pharmacists had to stock everything. The problem with Wal-Mart has never been that they DON"T sell something. You bet your ass they'll sell BC. They'll sell it so cheap they actually will lose money on it, until every pharmacy in town goes out of business. Then they'll raise the price. Wal-mart would sell crack if they could.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

120. The "shall carry" is a subset of the "shall dispense" controversy

When framed as a woman's issue "shall carry" gets a fair amount of support. When placed in the general context, it gets practically none. It really depends how the argument is framed.

Its easy to make a theoretical business case not to carry Plan B (retirement home pharmacy). Most would find it reasonable. If the same decision is reached for religious reasons, people go nuts. Again, its how its framed.

The sole source argument (only pharmacy in town) also sounds good until someone points out that there are no territory monopolies for pharmacies and that Wal-Mart is damn near everywhere. Its a theoretical argument without much of any real world exemplars.

There are several posters here who are hard over "must carry" and clearly do not realize the implications of broad use of that logic.

[uppityperson]

125. Nearest Walmart to me is over an hour's drive away. 2 hours on a bus.

Just in case you really thought Walmart is damn near everywhere. Perhaps I am damn near nowhere?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

128. I am in damn near nowhere and ride past a Wal-Mart every time I want to go anywhere

I want to recall at one point Sam's plan was a Wal-mart near every military base and no populated area more than 30 minutes away from one. Sounds like you got lucky. Any other chain pharmacies near by?

[uppityperson]

155. Nope, we kept Rite Aid out of town with a lot of work.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

157. So all you have in a reasonable radius from your abode is mom and pop pharmacies?

[subcomhd]

139. Yes, count yourself lucky

[subcomhd]

138. Never Knew that PP

I think that if you are a pharmacist and you go to work for Eckards - or whomever, then you can fill the prescriptions and dispense the medicine your employer sells or go find a new job.

As far as making them stock it, I don't know. I can see the merits of both sides but I would lean toward 'no'.

Here is an analogy.

If I work at Wal-Mart - and I am vehemently opposed to guns for moral reasons - Wal-Mart is well within their rights to fire me for not selling guns. However, the government has no right to force Target to sell guns simply because people have a right to own one.

OK folks - rip into it!!!

[armyowalgreens]

101. Yes...

But they can also feel free to find another job that better suits what they are willing to do.

If a pharmacist refuses to fill birth control, fire their ass.

[Lyric]

103. No, because they are used for more than just birth control.

They are the primary treatment for conditions like endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome. Without violating a woman's medical privacy, how can a pharmacist know WHY she's taking them? And if a pharmacist is permitted to refuse to fill a prescription that MIGHT cause a miscarriage, well there are literally thousands of medications for thousands of conditions that could potentially cause a miscarriage. Shall we permit them to refuse to dispense misoprostol to female gastric ulcer patients, for example, just because it can cause a miscarriage of a pregnancy? Because a pharmacist is not automatically privileged to know WHY a patient is taking a medication, and because birth control pills are used treat medical disorders that have nothing to do with preventing conception, permitting them to refuse to dispense these pills is logically no different than permitting them to refuse to dispense ANY medication that MIGHT cause a miscarriage.

Even though I agree with the moral arguments given by others above, they are not my primary rationalization when I am making an argument to lawmakers. My primary argument is the one I just stated. It would be harmful to women if pharmacists were permitted to refuse them all medications that might interfere with a pregnancy, and pharmacists have no way of knowing whether a woman wants to prevent conception or whether she's a patient with endometriosis who needs the medication in order to control pain and bleeding. Therefore such refusals should not be permitted--ever.

[Stargazer09]

146. I agree with you

Most of these anti-birth-control pharmacists seem to be men with little respect for women. They are simply using the "I don't believe in birth control" stance as a way to prevent women from getting the medications that they need.

[pipi_k]

177. Yep, I was taking them for severe hormonal disturbances

after the birth of my last child.

The postnatal bleeding didn't stop, it just changed. Each AM I would get up and "flood" a whole lot of blood. It would lessen as the day went on, stop by nightfall, then start up again the next day.

Three months of this crap I went through.

finally I saw the doctor, who gave me a shot of something, then prescribed BC pills. I stayed on them for two years and never had that trouble again.


The irony of this was, after I stopped the BC pills I never had another pregnancy even though I wasn't using any forms of birth control and was only 24. I think maybe the last pregnancy did something to my body...it wasn't an easy one, to say the least.

So some dipshit pharmacist who wanted to assume I was using BC pills to avoid pregnancy would have been dead wrong.

[timeforpeace]

104. Call a waahmbulance. Someone got pwned, and it wasn't the professor, who has the patience of a saint

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughMoran]

106. That happened here in NH and I was tempted to drive there and beat the crap out of the pharmacist

Get a fucking different job if your stupid misogynistic beliefs are interfering with your current career choice.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

108. Would he/she not dispense it or was it not carried?

Some states have a morals clause, but if its there and he/she won't dispense the owner should send them packing. Forget all the gender issues, its straight up insubordination...fire them and they should not get unemployment either.

If the store chooses not to carry it, that is a different matter.

[HughMoran]

110. Refused to dispense I think

I know it caused quite the uproar up here.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

117. Got feathers?

I can get some tar hot in a hurry. Seriously, not dispensing what is in stock for individual religious reasons is unacceptable.

[Maru Kitteh]

118. NO. And I can't believe - in 2009 - that this is still even a question - anywhere!

[sakabatou]

121. Absolutely not.

If their religion gets in the way of doing their job, then perhaps they should find another job.

[dembotoz]

134. HELL NO--if they don't like it have em work in an old folks home

where the prescription prob would come up as it were.....

[SidDithers]

135. No...

fill the scrip or find another line of work.

Sid

[hamsterjill]

136. Absolutely not.

The pharmacist's personal opinion should never trump the prescribing doctor's professional opinion.

[kenny blankenship]

144. No.

If it's legal, your license should be revoked if you refuse to dispense it.

[AngryOldDem]

151. If you can't fulfill the requirements of your job, you find another line of work.

Or, you make it clear that you are serving a certain type of clientele so others know to take their business elsewhere.

When I give a prescription to a pharmacist, I expect it to be filled. It is not his or her place to question why I need it, what I need it for, or give me his or her personal opinion on the matter.

The answer is so obvious to this that any more the question sounds like something for high school debate team preparation.

[Matariki]

153. If I work at Home Depot, should I be able to refuse to ring up Roundup?

And other toxic chemicals that people regularly pollute the environment with?

I feel VERY strongly about it, and environmentalism is an important componant of my spiritual beliefs and polluting is perhaps the closest idea to 'sin' that I have.

So, given that, would I legally be able to say, 'sorry' I'm not selling that to you and not lose my job?

[ibegurpard]

158. I agree with you

n/t

[Vinca]

163. Only if they agree to support the children born as a result of their refusal.

[ProfessorGAC]

164. No.

The JOB is filling prescriptions. The job is NOT to decide which types of drugs are ok for which types of people.
GAC

[Scout]

166. most succinct comment on this issue i've ever seen posted.

exactly correct too.

[ProfessorGAC]

169. Thanks

GAC

[cagesoulman]

173. Time for internet prescriptions and overnight delivery

A great money-making opportunity.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

180. I am forced to use such a service by my insurance provider

Its not as cheap as one would think and its never overnight. If its a new prescription with long term use I have to get a short term one to fill locally and a long term one to mail to the MO pharmacy. The MO pharmacy has also turned down prescriptions as "not needed" in the past. The reason was not religion but $$$.

[Cleita]

185. I agree. If their religious beliefs are in conflict with their professional

duties, then they should find another line of work.

[handmade34]

186. no