Should a pharmacist be forced to dispense birth control pills,

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

that violate his or her conscience? Meaning, should a pharmacist, or any other medical professional be fired, for not engaging in a medical practice that violates their religious or moral inclinations?

Man, why did I start this thread this late at night? :)

[Maple]

1. Yes.

Their job is to dispense prescribed medications, not play part-time God.

[chicagojoe]

2. People who don't want to do things that violate their

religious principles shouldn't enter into professions in which they might have to do such things.

[renaissanceguy]

25. Bingo.

If everyone stuck to their religion word-by-word, you wouldn't have a corporate America.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14746026

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

33. OK. What are believers to do then?

Do we just abandon the whole concept of religious liberty, and the freedom of conscience then? Is this a private enterprise issue for you, then? Where do you draw the line?

On edit: I've been thinking this through, and I've come to quite a conundrum. This issue isn't as open and shut as I once thought. I knew it was controversial, hence the poll. I shall consider this further.

[chicagojoe]

35. It IS a tough situation.

The point is, if an individual comes into a Walgreens Drug Store to fill their birth control prescription, a pharmacist who is EMPLOYED BY Walgreens has to dispense what the company says to dispense.
IMHO, religious freedom is trumped by job description, at least while one is on the clock.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

38. You're right about the first point.

It would seem that if pro-life pharmacists have a moral objection to dispense drugs that they find immoral (but are still legal), then the solution is to either open a private pharmacy, or change the laws.

Of course, I'm sure pro-choicers wouldn't want the laws changed, but that's a whole different issue.

[Solon]

58. Even that wouldn't solve the problem...

depending on state law, Pharmacists are required by the law to distribute with all FDA approved drugs to those with valid prescriptions. That is what they a licensed to do, period. So even owning your own pharmacy wouldn't make you immune, if you refuse to give the drugs to patients, they can turn around and complain to the state, and they can either pull the pharmacy license, or give you a hefty fine, to protect patients.

[LiberalFighter]

52. Does a physician have a right to deny treatment to someone in need?

or do they have a duty to provide treatment?

What would be different with a pharmacist?

At the same time a pharmacist does not provide treatment on their own. They cannot give out prescription drugs on their own without authorization from a doctor.

Which is no different from a RN, LPN, X-Ray Technician or any other medical personnel that provide treatment or care under the direction of the patient's doctor.

The only responsibility intrusted to the pharmacist is to dispense the Rx Drugs safely to the patient. Meaning that they do not conflict with any other drugs being taken and the proper use.

What would be next? Pharmacists deciding that they will not dispense other Rx drugs.

[yardwork]

40. That's right. It's part of the job expectation to dispense meds

The pharmacist doesn't get to decide what prescriptions are appropriate and what are inappropriate. It's not his/her job or responsibility.

If the pharmacist can't fulfill the job expectations, they can't have the job. Simple as that.

[histohoney]

50. Just a quick question

I worked at a hospital were some nurses did not want to take part in certain medical procedures.
Should they lose their jobs because they feel that the procedure is wrong?

[LiberalFighter]

53. They should decide as far as what Rx is appropriate but only...

whether it will cause interaction with other Rx drugs. And that is because they have the information on hand and deal with it on a daily basis.

[Cooper]

46. private businesses

should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

[Fiona]

3. Yes

a pharmacist should dispense all legally-prescribed drugs. If he or she is unwilling to do so, he or she should find another line of work.

[katusha]

4. yes

should vegetarian chefs be forced to cook steaks for their customers?

if it offends their morals so much they should find a new line of work. nobody is forcing them to take the job, just do it if you take it.

[ISUGRADIA]

5. Fired, yes. If you have a religion, take the consequences

and work for a like minded company

[alittlelark]

6. Should they be able to refuse to fill Viagra prescriptions?

Oh, never mind - they get their meds from the web.

Perhaps Planned Parenthood et al should look into the same. The problem is that their clientele is not as 'embarrassed' as the Viagra dudes. The WWW allows for many societally embarrassing 'things' to be pursued w/ gusto.

[purduejake]

7. How long before they stop filling prescriptions...

to treat HIV?

[Nothing Without Hope]

8. Yes. The pharmacist doesn't make medical decisions.

The doctor does.

If the pharmacist cannot in conscience do their job, i.e., cannot dispense medications ordered by a doctor, then they need to find another job.

Birth control pills are not new. If they had the same opinion for a long time, why did they become a pharmacist? Or if they have had some kind of epiphany and now feel it is morally wrong, then they will have to stand up to the consequences of that decision: they have the wrong job and will have to change it.

This is not like refusing to give a wrong prescription to someone that it might harm, like a 10X overdose of a heart medication. This is not even a "morning-after pill" that might prevent a fertilized ovum from developing into a baby. This is PREVENTING fertilization, so there is no question of killing anything, of whatever number of cells. It's a religious decision, pure and simple. This pharmacist is imposing their religion on a doctor's patient by refusing medication, and this is unethical. They should be fired if they refuse to resign.

[Journeyman]

9. I'm a graphic designer. Should I be forced to. . .

a) design catalogs for neo-nazi literature sales?

b) conceptualize brochures for uber-fundamentalist proselytizers?

c) create test templates for a drug-testing concern, knowing full well these tests will be used to destroy the lives of countless people (e.g., denied employment for pre-existing -- or worse yet, potential -- medical conditions; kept from promotions because of legitimate pharmaceutical use, i.e., antidepressants; and discriminated against for past drug or alcohol use, no matter what their present situation)?

These are all situations I've encountered in my professional career. According to many on this thread, I must do all of these projects, no matter what my moral position may be, since I have chosen this career and I have to do what my job requires me to do.

How would any of you respond to these situations? What do you believe I did?

[Sandpiper]

12. Is there a state licensing board for graphic design?

Are the services you provide tightly controlled by state and federal laws, and only available via prescription from another state licensed professional?

Does anyone's health depend on your graphic design services? Will their health or physical well being potentially be jeopardized by your refusal to create graphic design projects?

Apples and oranges comparisons are useless.

[moez]

18. The analogy was fine.

The bottom line is that people should not be forced (by government) to do anything in their jobs that makes them uncomfortable (druggists shouldn't have to sell birth control, programmers shouldn't have to fix election programs, etc). Obviously, if your beliefs differ from your employer then they should also be free to fire you.

This is similar to the guy on these boards a while back the worked for a NPR station and was fired for posting on these boards and not playing the right kind of religious music or something. People here went crazy.

I agree that he had every right to make his decision about what to say publicly about his organization and every right to refuse to play the music that he was told. The station also had every right to fire him.

However, if you own your own radio station, pharmacy, graphic design studio, whatever - you ought to be able to make your own choices about what you sell and the services you offer. Ain't freedom a bitch?

[Sandpiper]

27. If you are incapable of fully performing the function

For which the state has granted you a license, then your license should be revoked.

The ultimate authority for granting a pharmacist the right to dispense medicine is the state, on behalf of its citizens.

The job of a pharmacist is to dispense legally prescribed medicine. If there is something in a pharmacist's conscience that prevents him/her from dispensing a medicine that the state has deemed safe, legal, and fit for human consumption, then the pharmacist is not fulfilling the role for which they were licensed by the state.

And if they are incapable of following the rules pertaining to the practice of pharmacy, set out by the state licensing board, they should lose their license to practice. Period.

That rule of law stuff sucks, doesn't it?

[moez]

29. Yeah.... it sure does suck...

especially when it doesn't support your argument.

"Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year."

...

"The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill. "

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm

[Sandpiper]

30. I hate to burst your bubble

But the American Pharmacists Association's policies are not the same as state laws. Neither are the American Bar Association or American Medical Association's.

A professional organization's code of conduct is not legally binding, nor does it supercede relevant state law. Since the APA has no authority to grant pharmaceutical licenses, its policies are no more than guidelines for its own members.

"Yeah.... it sure does suck...especially when it doesn't support your argument.

"Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines.

Yeah, you sure shot me out of the water. 3 out of 50 states have laws that allow a pharmacist to refuse to dispense medicines.

I guess that would mean that 47 out of 50 have no such law. And if you happen to be a pharmacist in the 94% of the states that don't have such a law, you have no right to refuse to dispense medicines.

Ouch, I'm smarting from that thrashing you gave me.

[moez]

31. You sure are testy....

Does ignorance cause that or are you just hormonal?

You may have read (though I doubt it) also that "Ten other states considered similar bills this year." Oops - that gets us up to 20 percent of the states that are considering the benefits of individual freedoms in the workplace (in addition to the governing professional body that you dismissed).

Apparently, you are much more well versed in the other 40 individual state laws regarding this as I (as you seem to claim such knowledge), but I'm not sure about the other states' laws since they were not mentioned in the article.

The point is, that regardless of whether you personally agree with one's convictions, in our country we should be allowed to have them without fear of the likes of you. I've already agreed that a company should also have the right to can you for those convictions if they conflict with their stated policy. However, if you're a private business, then you ought to be able to sell the products that you please. If the customers do not like it, they can always go to the dozen or so drug stores down the street.

... you might want to think about that as you go and find some nipple to latch onto to calm yourself down...

[Sandpiper]

34. My apologies for my overheated response

n/t

[mariema]

72. One drug store town

"If the customers do not like it, they can always go to the dozen or so drug stores down the street" ???

Maybe you live where you have dozens of choices. A lot of people don't

[purduejake]

13. Yes, you should.

If you don't like it, talk with your boss, ask for a reassignment, or start your own firm. You aren't physically harming anybody and are supporting free speech.

edit: removed analogy that didn't work after I thought about it. Will defer this to others.

[tjwmason]

20. Are we talking about an independent

If somebody works for a chain of pharmacies which has as part of its policy to fulfill these prescriptions, then that company should be able to require their pharmacists to do so (though if staffing provisions allow it would be reasonable of the company to pass those prescriptions to others).

But if a guy sets up his own shop, and makes a policy decision not to stock birth-control then that position should be respected.

[sinkingfeeling]

24. I agree. If you don't want to 'honor' the policies of your employer,

then become an independent.

[purduejake]

26. Perhaps I backed myself into a corner...

because what if corporations such as Walgreens or CVS decide not to carry certain medications based on "moral values?" I know my insurance is only carried at a very limited number of stores. If they don't want to stock it, they should still be required to order it so they can fill the prescription by doctor's order. The last thing we need is to start being harassed when we go into the pharmacy. That's private and sensitive stuff.

I guess my argument has shifted to: Find a different industry if you're opposed to dispensing certain medicines by doctor's order.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. Good analogy

I would say that the answer is up to your employer.

Similarly, I have no problem with private companies employing pharmacists who won't dispense birth control, or any other product, provided they're not state financed.

If a pharmacist works for a company which does want them to dispence birth control, and refuses to do so, then they should be fired.

The state should not finance or employ pharmacists who are not willing to dispense birth control.

[no_hypocrisy]

22. Attorneys' Model Rules for Responsibility impose a duty on lawyers to

represent clients with positions that they abhor or disagree with. Like a Christian Right lawyer defending the rights of a client to obtain a legal abortion or get birth control from a Christian Right pharmacist. Attorneys are state-certified and they exist to serve the public.

On the other hand, there are so many attorneys out there, as a client, I'm not certain whether I could trust a lawyer who didn't 100% agree with my position to be a "zealous advocate" and my case would be compromised, if even subconsciously by by my counsel. That's a different argument with the client having the final choice, not the lawyer.

Nonetheless, there are rules that discourage attorneys from refusing clients on that basis alone.

[chicagojoe]

41. I would refuse. If fired, I'd find a new job. PERIOD.

[LiberalFighter]

54. Are you the boss or the employee?

If you are the boss then you don't have to accept the business.

If you are the employee your only options are to refuse and take the consequences or quit. Of course the neo-nazi lit could be expose to the public so that the companies business suffers.

And the same option is open to pharmacists that want to decide whether a doctor's Rx will be filled. They can quit or suffer the consequences.

[ogradda]

10. if you don't want the job don't take it!

fine by me if they don't want to be a pharmacist.

[mycatforpresident]

11. Only if they don't agree

to finance and personally raise any resulting babies. C'mon, we're talking about preventing pregnancy, not ending it! If someone opposes birth control on the grounds that it stops a potential life from developing, I guess they need to be morally opposed to menstruation and miscarriages, as well.

BUT- I don't believe that a physician should be *forced* to provide abortion services if they aren't comfortable with it.

[purduejake]

14. They aren't.

And I agree with you. However, they should be forced to give the full truth to their patients about the subject.

[mycatforpresident]

15. Now it is my turn to agree with you.

What really burns me up are gag orders and disinformation. I believe the Hippocratic Oath was designed for the patient, not her fetus.


From the Hippocratic Oath:

I will respect the hard-won SCIENTIFIC gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly SHARE SUCH KNOWLEDGE as is mine with those who are to follow.


-And what really burns me up are these "pregnancy support" centers where women think they go for professional help, only to be tricked (usually by a fake nurse) into watching gruesome videos and told that abortions cause CANCER.

[purduejake]

16. Yes, the RW is very tricky and always uses scare tactics

to manipulate people without the best interests of the patient in mind. They know that without gag orders and disinformation, they would loose their power.

(BTW, I just got my Planned Parenthood Member Card in the mail today! They do such great work on this topic. I hope everybody supports them if they can, although we're probably all tapped out.)

[mycatforpresident]

23. I'm a proud card-carrying member myself! n/t

[Maat]

32. Do I just donate to PP - the national org. - to get a card?

Somebody have a link?

[mycatforpresident]

37. checking into it for you

I got one in the mail after donating...I can't find anything on the site to link you to...but I'll keep looking.

[GoBlue]

17. They have the legal oblibation to fill

a legal prescription. If they are opposed to that then they should do the honarable thing and find a career that doesn't require them to violate his or her conscience.

[MSgt213]

19. What this comes down to is someone interfering in something they have no

right or authority to interfere with. Legal medical decisions made by a patient after consultation with their doctor are not up for review and ultimate approval by pharmacists. Nor should they be. There are limited situations where pharmacists as drug experts should be advising patients and doctors on the proper use, side affects and abuse of legally prescribed drugs. But those situations are appropriate.

This issue opens so many boxes I don't have to cover them all. I will say that I firmly believe this is an attempt by right wing zealots to circumvent the law. Now that stories have come out like these I am sure it won't be long before one comes out about a pharmacist refusing to dispense birth control pills to others while seeking and obtaining them for themselves or their own wife or daughter.

[rodriguez94]

28. if a pharmacist in this day and age has a problem dispensing

birth control pills then he or she needs to retire and call it a day....change your profession...or get over it!!!




STAY OUT OF MY WOMB!!

[PaganPreacher]

36. I don't think they work that way.....

but I could be wrong.

...

OK, I just checked: birth control pills are definitely meant to be taken orally.

You are correct to tell that pharmacist to stay out of your womb.

The Pagan Preacher
I don't turn the other cheek.

[davidinalameda]

39. why should your beliefs override my medical necessities

if I come to a business that is open to the general public, I expect to be served

if steak is on the menu and I order it, I don't want the waiter coming back and saying--sorry, the chef is vegan and refuses to cook meat

just as if I take a prescription into a pharmacy, I expect it to be filled

and the whole birth control issue is such a red herring--we all know that birth control pills are used for more than just birth control

my sister, who cannot get pregnant due to medical problems, was on the pill for those same problems

[Jackie97]

42. We're not forcing anything.

A pharmacist is free to look for work in another field if they desire.

[Cobalt Violet]

43. Not everyone taking "the pill" is doing so for birth control!

Pharmacists should keep their assumptions to themselves.

Some women are required to take birth control pill in order to take other prescription medications. If a drug is very damaging to a fetus the manufactures require that it not be prescribed to women of child bearing age unless they take the pill. Examples would be chemo treatment, interferon courses of treatment, certain acne medications and there are more.

It's the same mentality that think that all women going into a women's health clinic are going in to get abortions.

MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS PHARMACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[trotsky]

45. Great point, CV.

My first girlfriend in high school was on the pill, and had been since shortly after starting her periods because she was anemic and without the pill she lost too much blood during menstruation.

[RiDuvessa]

44. Absolutely.

That is their job. It is what they are paid to do. If their conscience says they can't, then they need to get a job at a pharmacy that does not dispense that medication or find another line of work.

Here's another question. Should a physician be required to prescribe birth control? I mean, if there is no compelling medical reason not too?

[lynne]

47. It depends -

- if the pharmacist owns the business then he has the right to do business as he sees fit and can exclude birth control pills. Or Viagra, for that matter. Whatever floats his/her boat.

- if the pharmacist is employed by a drug store, then he should fill any Rx's that the drug store would normally fill, regardless of his personal feelings.

[Solon]

48. That's erronious...

Even if independent from an employer, Pharmacies are under an obligation, by law, to provide all FDA approved drugs to patients with valid prescriptions. With the exception of those few states that have asinine laws regarding this, if you refuse to stock or order an item for a valid patient, you get your license to conduct your business revoked, as it should be.

[hootinholler]

49. You don't have a depends option.

No pun intended.

If the pharmacist is an employee of a store that has a policy of not selling BCP, then no. But if the store policy is to sell them, then yes.

-Hoot

[dsc]

51. Should a black lawyer have to represent the Klan?

a gay lawyer represent Falwell? A woman lawyer a serial rapist? The fact is there isn't only one drug store. If a pharmacist doesn't wish to stock something he or she shouldn't have to. It should be noted that many have stopped carrying Oxy Cotin due to the risk involved in having it in the store. Yet, no one is crying about that.

[James T. Kirk]

55. I agree with dsc.

Vegetarian restaurants don't have to serve beef. If an order comes in for something the pharmacy does not want to sell, they should be free to say nope, sorry, we don't sell that.

[Sgent]

56. There are thousands

Of FDA approved drugs that your average pharmacist doesn't stock, for various reasons, not to mention compounding.

Doctor's are under no obligation to treat you -- at all, unless you are an existing patient. Even then they can refer you, or discharge you (with notice, and not in the middle of a course of treatment).

Hospitals are not obligated to admit you.

The ONLY place in medicine which is required by law to serve all is an emergency room that accepts Medicare -- that's it. Even then, they are not required to treat you (just screen you) unless its a true emergency.

*Maybe* there are some issues if there is only one pharmacist for 50 miles, but even then your doctor can order the medicine for you if he believes you should have it.

Insurance is a different issue -- if you don't have a participating pharmacy complain to the insurer or employer.

Its a free market, and many pharmacists don't carry nebulizer treatments or chemotherapy agents for various reasons. If you own your own pharmacy, and choose not to dispence BC, then why isn't that your choice. As a consumer, you can choose a different pharmacy -- and tell your friends to do the same.

[Solon]

61. This isn't a free market...

These people are licensed by the state, and depending on state law, they have no right to refuse to order you drugs because of religious objections. They are under obligation to distribute all FDA approved drugs with the exception of bad interactions with other drugs you have. They are commited to public service, not cramming their religion down your throat.

[dsc]

62. Laywers are also state licenced

and they don't have to take every case no matter what (barring them being a PD).

[Solon]

64. There are a few differences in each case...

One, Lawyers, once they pass the bar and pay the dues, are by and large not heavily regulated. With the exception of ethics violations and complaints, which they do have to abide by. Also, a lawyer who has his own office, unlike those in large law firms, can pick and choose their clients. In fact, it is even more discriminatory than that, for lawyers are many times ethically obligated not to serve certain clients, such as in the case of a defense lawyer who thinks the client is guilty. They can risk disbarrment when making the wrong choice in the matter.

This is not like a Pharmacists job, for this is a public health matter, rather than one of legal or ethical obligations. There are limits to Freedom of Religion if it endangers others. To give an excellent example, Christian Scientists face jailtime when they fail to take their children to medical facilities and the children die as a result. Most of their children cannot attend public schools, and many private ones as well, because they refuse to have vaccinations given to their children.

This is a matter of public health and obligations of pharmicists, for if they are exempt from equal protection laws in regards to services, when will it end? That is the question, for if they can discriminate as to who they can serve or sell to, then what about landlords, should they be able to discriminate based on religion or race? They already do in regards to sexual orientation in many places. The question as I asked before, where are the patients rights in all of this? Why should they have to travel to yet another pharmacy, maybe several miles away, just to get a legal drug? Why should those who need it have to wait for the order if it could have been availuable then, and remember, many of these women use the BC pill for more than as a contraceptive.

This is a point to stress, these types of laws will not end at the BC pill, it will be extended to those who think AIDS is God's gift to man to get rid of homosexuals. Or what about a Christian Identity Pharmacist who refuses to dispense medication for Blacks or any other race, because of their religious beliefs? Really, where are the limits, and how would they be imposed if such laws become commonplace?

[dsc]

71. point by point

One, Lawyers, once they pass the bar and pay the dues, are by and large not heavily regulated. With the exception of ethics violations and complaints, which they do have to abide by. Also, a lawyer who has his own office, unlike those in large law firms, can pick and choose their clients. In fact, it is even more discriminatory than that, for lawyers are many times ethically obligated not to serve certain clients, such as in the case of a defense lawyer who thinks the client is guilty. They can risk disbarrment when making the wrong choice in the matter.

Lawyers are too heavily regulated once they pass the bar. They are required to not break the law, to continue education, and some states require pro bono work of some sort. In addition there is no code of ethics barring representation of clients you know are guilty. The lawyer may be limited in the types of defense he can use but he most certainly can, and must, defend the client even after he finds out the client is guilty.

This is not like a Pharmacists job, for this is a public health matter, rather than one of legal or ethical obligations. There are limits to Freedom of Religion if it endangers others. To give an excellent example, Christian Scientists face jailtime when they fail to take their children to medical facilities and the children die as a result. Most of their children cannot attend public schools, and many private ones as well, because they refuse to have vaccinations given to their children.

Yes and no. Any pharmacist is required to either fill a prescription or give it back to you so you can fill it elsewhere. Again, it isn't like there are no other places to get drugs.

This is a matter of public health and obligations of pharmicists, for if they are exempt from equal protection laws in regards to services, when will it end? That is the question, for if they can discriminate as to who they can serve or sell to, then what about landlords, should they be able to discriminate based on religion or race? They already do in regards to sexual orientation in many places. The question as I asked before, where are the patients rights in all of this? Why should they have to travel to yet another pharmacy, maybe several miles away, just to get a legal drug? Why should those who need it have to wait for the order if it could have been availuable then, and remember, many of these women use the BC pill for more than as a contraceptive.


Refusual to sell a product uniformly isn't discrimination. It isn't anything like the same imposition to go a block or two or even a few miles to another pharmacy vs finding another job. But more importantly, it is apples and oranges to compare this. I am sure that several landlords stopped renting when anti discrimination laws were passed. That was their right even if doing so mean less housing for blacks or gays. What they couldn't do was rent only to one type of people.

This is a point to stress, these types of laws will not end at the BC pill, it will be extended to those who think AIDS is God's gift to man to get rid of homosexuals. Or what about a Christian Identity Pharmacist who refuses to dispense medication for Blacks or any other race, because of their religious beliefs? Really, where are the limits, and how would they be imposed if such laws become commonplace?

In your first example the AIDS patient would have to go elsewhere. I would imagine that in many small towns they do so for other reasons anyway. As to your second example it is different. Once you agree to provide a service, say dispensing heart medication, then you can't dispense it to patient A but not patient B for reasons of race.

[foreigncorrespondent]

57. I voted no!

Simply because no one should be forced into doing anything they do not want to do.

The right is constantly telling us queers that we have the same rights as anyone else when it comes to marriage rights. Because, just like them, we can go off and marry someone of the opposite sex. The problem with that is, it would be nothing more than State and Federally sanctioned forced relationships, to come in line with what is believed to be "normal" under the majorities eyes.

As someone who is forced to live on the opposite end of the world from her partner, because her partners country refuses to recognize the validity of our relationship. I can honestly say, being forced to do anything against a person will, is one of the hardest things a person will ever have to face in this world.

[Solon]

60. Invalid comparison...

One deals with a right everyone has except for gays and lesbians. The other deals with a public regulated business and the practices allowed there. Should a White Supremeist be forced to serve black customers at Wal-Mart? Are they allowed to form a for profit business for whites only? No they are not, so why is this any different?

[Solon]

59. Where are the rights of patients in all of this?

You tone in the question is atrocious to say the least. Why not ask, "Should stores be forced to serve black customers?" It is as valid a question as what you asked. Any business that serves a need to the public is under public law. Pharmacies are some of the most regulated industries in the country, and with good reason, why change that now, to accept questionable practices that endanger the public health? Will it even stop there? What next, AIDS drug cocktails being denied to patients because a pharmacist has a religious objection to those with a "deviant" lifestyle? That is just as valid a question, what would be the limits of this type of law?

[dsc]

63. If there were a pill to 'cure' homosexuality

should a gay pharmacist be forced to stock and dispense it.

[Solon]

65. Yes, if such a pill existed...

THEY are not the ones taking it, and the ones who are going to take would hopefully be doing it for their own needs. By what right is he to judge them as to what they can or cannot put in their own bodies?

[dsc]

66. He isn't

He is simplying saying they have to go to one of the literally thousands of other druggists to get the drug. Having a right to do something isn't the same as having the right to make a particular person provide the service.

[Solon]

67. Basically you're saying that we have no right to health care...

if someone has a moral objection to it. And it is also wrong to assume that there are thousands of pharmacists in the area that can dispense the drug. Women already have enough problems trying to find clinics for many needed medical services in rural areas, pharmacies are just as thin out there too. No one forced you to become a pharmacist, it is a job, and part of that job is to provide customers with needed FDA approved drugs when neccessary. It could be a matter of life and death, to put it bluntly, so the pharmicists has no rights in that context, they can always quit and find another job they have no moral or religious objection too.

[dsc]

68. Give me a break

I live in a town of less than 50,000 and there are literally dozens of pharmacies in my town. Even in teeny towns there are often at least two or three. There is the internet. This isn't like other services where you need to be face to face. I love how choice only seems to apply to you and no one else. For Chirst's sake if someone can't type an order on line and have it shipped to them or call a number to have it shipped to them then they probably can't go to a drug store either.

[Solon]

69. That's false and you know it...

Plus you contradicted yourself right there, with this: I love how choice only seems to apply to you and no one else. You are talking about depriving choice for the customer, plain and simple. It is not about the rights of a pharmacist, who must do the job, but the rights of the patient. We have small towns, even in my state, that have NO pharmacies within 20 miles of them, and the next ones out can be an additional 40 miles or more. Plus, even with the internet, they have to wait a day, maybe a day they do not have, to recieve the presciption, then that is outragious. My sister has severe bleeding and cramps every month without the pills, and thankfully they do not have these stupid laws in my state. If she lived out in the country and was suffering like this, why the FUCK should she suffer more to make someone else not feel guilty inside. Its pathetic that you would talk about choice in the matter.

[dsc]

70. If this is a common occurence

your sister can use a mail order pharmacist. She can get samples from her doctor (virtually any doctor would have them). The simple fact is you are puting your convience above someone else's conscious and then having the nerve to claim to be pro choice.

[davidinalameda]

73. that's not the point

a pharmacist doesn't know what the drugs are going to be used for--that's between the patient and his/her doctor

they are they to dispense the drugs and nothing else

maybe give advice on drug interaction but that's all

[dsc]

74. They are a business man with the rights as other business men

Bookstores don't have to stock every book ever made. If a pharmacist who owns his store doesn't with to buy a drug he shouldn't have to no matter what his reason may be. It truely amazes me how people who supposedly worship at the alter of choice have such problems with other people actually being able to exercise choice. People who own businesses shouldn't be forced to sell products they don't wish to sell barring some very compelling government interest. And, frankly barring there being a huge number of pharmacists taking this stand I don't see one. It should also be noted that if the government gets the power to force pharmacists to carry certain drugs then we also have given it the power to force them not to.

[MountainLaurel]

75. Choice has nothing to do with it

The pharmacists LICENSE requires that they dispense FDA approved drugs to those holding valid prescriptions. If they CHOOSE not to do that, then they should lose their license.

Simple as that.

[dsc]

76. No it doesn't

A pharmacist licence permits you to dispense FDA approved drugs it doesn't require you to do so. Otherwise pharmacists would have to have every drug ever made at all times, which they don't. Again, as mentioned up thread, Oxycotin is very hard to get yet no one here is whining about that.

[freestyle]

77. Yes, this is dispensing pills, not doing medical procedures

I can see doctors refusing to perform operations for reasons of conscience, because they are using their own hands to do it, clearly violating themselves. A pharmacist is merely facilitating a decision reached between doctor and patient, and beyond checking for dangerous interactions they should be required to fill all prescriptions. Many drugs, including birth control pills, have alternate uses and that is again between the doctor and the patient. Pharmacists who don't want to fill prescriptions need to find another line of work.

[dsc]

78. Here is an example of Kaiser

refusing to dispense a legal drug.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1194259

Citing safety concerns over heart attacks and strokes, health care giant Kaiser Permanente will no longer prescribe Bextra -- a popular painkiller similar to the recently pulled-off-the-market Vioxx -- for its millions of patients.

The Oakland-based HMO, hospital and clinic network, which serves 6.2 million Californians and 8.5 million patients nationwide, has asked doctors to find safer alternatives for patients suffering from arthritis and other maladies. Kaiser pharmacies will stop filling prescriptions Tuesday and no longer issue refills starting March 1.

This is the first time Kaiser has banned a drug that is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and a Kaiser spokesman said he believes no other health system has taken similar action against Bextra. Kaiser's use of Bextra is a tiny percentage of its overall prescriptions.

But the HMO's size and nationwide influence -- plus a recent New England Journal of Medicine admonition to doctors to stop prescribing Bextra ``except in extraordinary circumstances'' -- could prompt other large health systems to abandon the drug as well.


This actually would cause people to stop taking the drug entirely given that most Kaiser patients can't go to other places. Yet this thread has two responses. The fact is that drugists routinely make choices about what to stock and what not to stock. That is what business people do.

[G_Moon]

79. Well, yes

The pharmacist's only concern is: do you have a prescription? Why do some folk make life so complicated.

[FM Arouet666]

80. Should a Jehovah's witness be forced to give blood......

to a patient, should an orthodox Jew be forced to use Porcine Heparin, or a Hindu be forced to use bovine pericardial surgical material? The rights of the patient should take preference over the belief system of the care giver. Or are we to extend special rights to christians?