Pharmacist Resists Illinois Rule on Contraceptives

[Jhhnn]

So, uhh, what's next on the rightwing "I can do anything I want at your expense because of my religion" agenda? Amish electricians who won't work? Christian Scientist surgeons? Pacifist police and gun dealers? Truck drivers who won't deliver contraceptives to stores?

And it's not like a doctor who won't perform an abortion- the pharmacist's role is entirely passive. Whatever moral responsibility there might be is on the prescribing doctor and the patient, not on him.

Besides that, Pharmacology is and has been a regulated enterprise for longer than any pharmacist has been alive. The State dictates what will and won't be sold, and has for a very long time. The guy knew that when he went to school to be a pharmacist- indeed, it's state regulation that has allowed it to be as profitable as it is by restricting public access to some drugs...

JUst more self righteous whining and grandstanding on the Fundie Fringe... UHhhhh Waaaahhhh!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, what's next on the rightwing "I can do anything I want at your expense because of my religion" agenda? Amish electricians who won't work? Christian Scientist surgeons? Pacifist police and gun dealers? Truck drivers who won't deliver contraceptives to stores?

And it's not like a doctor who won't perform an abortion- the pharmacist's role is entirely passive. Whatever moral responsibility there might be is on the prescribing doctor and the patient, not on him.

Besides that, Pharmacology is and has been a regulated enterprise for longer than any pharmacist has been alive. The State dictates what will and won't be sold, and has for a very long time. The guy knew that when he went to school to be a pharmacist- indeed, it's state regulation that has allowed it to be as profitable as it is by restricting public access to some drugs...

JUst more self righteous whining and grandstanding on the Fundie Fringe... UHhhhh Waaaahhhh!

Exactly.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The point is why is the govt getting involved at all in a privately owned business?

Because the government is already heavily involved in the drug business. If the state didn't make some drugs illegal and most others restricted for sale by certified invididuals under certain circumstances, then there would be no reason for state intervention and you'd have a point. However, if you accept that the state has the right to regulate the sale of drugs as it currently does, it's hypocritical to single out one regulation and complain about it alone.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Emergency medication? What happens if she doesnt get her emergency medication? Does she die? Does she become paralyzed?

I mean this is just getting silly.

Pregnancy is a serious medical condition, and yes, it can cause death. In 1999, risk of death through pregnancy in the US was 13.2 out of 100,000. The rises to 45.4 per 100,000 for women age 40 and up, and increases considerably more for the conditions mentioned above.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, what's next on the rightwing "I can do anything I want at your expense because of my religion" agenda? Amish electricians who won't work? Christian Scientist surgeons? Pacifist police and gun dealers? Truck drivers who won't deliver contraceptives to stores?

And it's not like a doctor who won't perform an abortion- the pharmacist's role is entirely passive. Whatever moral responsibility there might be is on the prescribing doctor and the patient, not on him.

Besides that, Pharmacology is and has been a regulated enterprise for longer than any pharmacist has been alive. The State dictates what will and won't be sold, and has for a very long time. The guy knew that when he went to school to be a pharmacist- indeed, it's state regulation that has allowed it to be as profitable as it is by restricting public access to some drugs...

JUst more self righteous whining and grandstanding on the Fundie Fringe... UHhhhh Waaaahhhh!

First off, you ignore the main point. If a company is willing to pay or someone is willing to hire an Amish electrician, there should be no laws prohibiting it. This is about government intervention where none is needed. This is at no ones expense, except perhaps the pharmacists, and he has every right to lose business for himself.

Secondly, if you think that a pharmacist has a passive job, then you share a common misunderstanding of the occupation shared by many americans that pharmacists just count pills. While the doctor precribes the drugs, why do you think pharmacists exist? Any high school grad can fill a prescription. The pharmacist knows more than the doctor does about the effects and purposes and complications associated with medication. It is not a passive job.

Thirdly, I am unaware of any previous regulations on what must be sold. Government restricts what will be sold to protect consumers (although here I may just be ignorant). If a problem developed due to pharmacies restricting what was sold, I could see a possible point to this (although not for the pill in question). However, putting someone out of bussiness due to hypotheticals that have not posed a problem is wrong.

Do you have a problem with an animals rights advocat wanting to major in Biology? Just because they don't want to disect animals doesn't mean they are unable to find an area in Biology that fits their personal ethics. I have no problem with a biologist who wants to study bioinformatics never disecting a frog. If he can make the business work, why should the govermnent stop him.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Genx87
Emergency medication? What happens if she doesnt get her emergency medication? Does she die? Does she become paralyzed?

I mean this is just getting silly.

Pregnancy is a serious medical condition, and yes, it can cause death. In 1999, risk of death through pregnancy in the US was 13.2 out of 100,000. The rises to 45.4 per 100,000 for women age 40 and up, and increases considerably more for the conditions mentioned above.

Will the government intervention in this case help to improve those numbers? Are there reported incedents of women trying to get this medication but being unsuccessful? Until you answer those questions, these numbers mean nothing. Even then, how many of these women die within the first 24 hours of becoming pregnant? Pregnancy is a medical condition which must be closely monitored, not a crisis which needs attention within the first 24 hours of conception. Do they tell women trying to become pregnant to get to the doctor within 24 hours of having sex so you can have an exam to see if you're pregnant? You don't even go in within 24 hours of discovering you are pregnant.

 

[umbrella39]

:thumbsup: Good for Illinois

I hope this becomes a trend nation wide.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Genx87
Emergency medication? What happens if she doesnt get her emergency medication? Does she die? Does she become paralyzed?

I mean this is just getting silly.

Pregnancy is a serious medical condition, and yes, it can cause death. In 1999, risk of death through pregnancy in the US was 13.2 out of 100,000. The rises to 45.4 per 100,000 for women age 40 and up, and increases considerably more for the conditions mentioned above.

Will the government intervention in this case help to improve those numbers? Are there reported incedents of women trying to get this medication but being unsuccessful? Until you answer those questions, these numbers mean nothing. Even then, how many of these women die within the first 24 hours of becoming pregnant?

Yes, there are reported incidents of women being denied emergency contraception, but yes, they could always wait and get an abortion instead. However, I don't think that's a preferrable solution, do you?

 

[zendari]

So if I am sold out of the pill, am I "denying" emergency contraception?

 

[umbrella39]

Yep, deny contreceptives. Deny abortions. Bitch about women who DO have the children and go on welfare to feed them. The right's little circle of life.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Genx87
Emergency medication? What happens if she doesnt get her emergency medication? Does she die? Does she become paralyzed?

I mean this is just getting silly.

Pregnancy is a serious medical condition, and yes, it can cause death. In 1999, risk of death through pregnancy in the US was 13.2 out of 100,000. The rises to 45.4 per 100,000 for women age 40 and up, and increases considerably more for the conditions mentioned above.

Will the government intervention in this case help to improve those numbers? Are there reported incedents of women trying to get this medication but being unsuccessful? Until you answer those questions, these numbers mean nothing. Even then, how many of these women die within the first 24 hours of becoming pregnant?

Yes, there are reported incidents of women being denied emergency contraception, but yes, they could always wait and get an abortion instead. However, I don't think that's a preferrable solution, do you?

That doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask if they'd been denied, but if they were unable to get them elsewhere? Should a man lose his business and the ability to pay back student loans if he has them just so a person doesn't have to take the prescription elsewhere? As for what happens if they don't get their emergency contraception, that is their moral decision to make. From this pharmacists perspective, getting an abortion is no worse than him giving them the pill. We can argue that point all we want in these forums, but that won't change how he views the world. So should the ethics of the consumer take precedence over the ethics of the distributor?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: zendari
So if I am sold out of the pill, am I "denying" emergency contraception?

If you're out, you're out, but if you are known to be vocal against it, you would be wise to have the paperwork proving that it just occured.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Genx87
Emergency medication? What happens if she doesnt get her emergency medication? Does she die? Does she become paralyzed?

I mean this is just getting silly.

Pregnancy is a serious medical condition, and yes, it can cause death. In 1999, risk of death through pregnancy in the US was 13.2 out of 100,000. The rises to 45.4 per 100,000 for women age 40 and up, and increases considerably more for the conditions mentioned above.

Will the government intervention in this case help to improve those numbers? Are there reported incedents of women trying to get this medication but being unsuccessful? Until you answer those questions, these numbers mean nothing. Even then, how many of these women die within the first 24 hours of becoming pregnant?

Yes, there are reported incidents of women being denied emergency contraception, but yes, they could always wait and get an abortion instead. However, I don't think that's a preferrable solution, do you?

That doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask if they'd been denied, but if they were unable to get them elsewhere? Should a man lose his business and the ability to pay back student loans if he has them just so a person doesn't have to take the prescription elsewhere? As for what happens if they don't get their emergency contraception, that is their moral decision to make. From this pharmacists perspective, getting an abortion is no worse than him giving them the pill. We can argue that point all we want in these forums, but that won't change how he views the world. So should the ethics of the consumer take precedence over the ethics of the distributor?

The problem with that criteria(is it available elsewhere) is that you just can imagine what every Anti-Abortionist/Pro-Lifer will be doing, becoming Pharmacists. Soon there won't be easy access, so then what? Just nip it in the bud now, don't let pharmacists pick and choose what they can or can not dispese. If they don't like it, they can find a more suitable career.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The problem with that criteria(is it available elsewhere) is that you just can imagine what every Anti-Abortionist/Pro-Lifer will be doing, becoming Pharmacists.

Soon there won't be easy access, so then what?

Just nip it in the bud now, don't let pharmacists pick and choose what they can or can not dispense.

If they don't like it, they can find a more suitable career.

BFT :thumbsup:

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski
The problem with that criteria(is it available elsewhere) is that you just can imagine what every Anti-Abortionist/Pro-Lifer will be doing, becoming Pharmacists.

Soon there won't be easy access, so then what?

Just nip it in the bud now, don't let pharmacists pick and choose what they can or can not dispense.

If they don't like it, they can find a more suitable career.

BFT :thumbsup:

Yeah, isn't that what you right-wing types say to people whose job goes overseas? "Find a new job?" LOL Reap what you sew, fundies.

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Genx87
Emergency medication? What happens if she doesnt get her emergency medication? Does she die? Does she become paralyzed?

I mean this is just getting silly.

Pregnancy is a serious medical condition, and yes, it can cause death. In 1999, risk of death through pregnancy in the US was 13.2 out of 100,000. The rises to 45.4 per 100,000 for women age 40 and up, and increases considerably more for the conditions mentioned above.

Will the government intervention in this case help to improve those numbers? Are there reported incedents of women trying to get this medication but being unsuccessful? Until you answer those questions, these numbers mean nothing. Even then, how many of these women die within the first 24 hours of becoming pregnant?

Yes, there are reported incidents of women being denied emergency contraception, but yes, they could always wait and get an abortion instead. However, I don't think that's a preferrable solution, do you?

That doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask if they'd been denied, but if they were unable to get them elsewhere? Should a man lose his business and the ability to pay back student loans if he has them just so a person doesn't have to take the prescription elsewhere? As for what happens if they don't get their emergency contraception, that is their moral decision to make. From this pharmacists perspective, getting an abortion is no worse than him giving them the pill. We can argue that point all we want in these forums, but that won't change how he views the world. So should the ethics of the consumer take precedence over the ethics of the distributor?

The problem with that criteria(is it available elsewhere) is that you just can imagine what every Anti-Abortionist/Pro-Lifer will be doing, becoming Pharmacists. Soon there won't be easy access, so then what? Just nip it in the bud now, don't let pharmacists pick and choose what they can or can not dispese. If they don't like it, they can find a more suitable career.

I see that possibility as being very remote. Do you have any data to back up the assertion that Pharmacists are occupying more and more of the pharmaceutical market? You are over reacting, especially since if this does become a problem it would become very easy to fix (as demonstrated by this legislation). You prefer to put people out of work for hypotheticals? People that put four years into undergrad and then another four years to pharmacy school? Are we to start passing laws based on "imagining"?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Genx87
Emergency medication? What happens if she doesnt get her emergency medication? Does she die? Does she become paralyzed?

I mean this is just getting silly.

Pregnancy is a serious medical condition, and yes, it can cause death. In 1999, risk of death through pregnancy in the US was 13.2 out of 100,000. The rises to 45.4 per 100,000 for women age 40 and up, and increases considerably more for the conditions mentioned above.

Will the government intervention in this case help to improve those numbers? Are there reported incedents of women trying to get this medication but being unsuccessful? Until you answer those questions, these numbers mean nothing. Even then, how many of these women die within the first 24 hours of becoming pregnant?

Yes, there are reported incidents of women being denied emergency contraception, but yes, they could always wait and get an abortion instead. However, I don't think that's a preferrable solution, do you?

That doesn't answer my question. I didn't ask if they'd been denied, but if they were unable to get them elsewhere? Should a man lose his business and the ability to pay back student loans if he has them just so a person doesn't have to take the prescription elsewhere? As for what happens if they don't get their emergency contraception, that is their moral decision to make. From this pharmacists perspective, getting an abortion is no worse than him giving them the pill. We can argue that point all we want in these forums, but that won't change how he views the world. So should the ethics of the consumer take precedence over the ethics of the distributor?

The problem with that criteria(is it available elsewhere) is that you just can imagine what every Anti-Abortionist/Pro-Lifer will be doing, becoming Pharmacists. Soon there won't be easy access, so then what? Just nip it in the bud now, don't let pharmacists pick and choose what they can or can not dispese. If they don't like it, they can find a more suitable career.

I see that possibility as being very remote. Do you have any data to back up the assertion that Pharmacists are occupying more and more of the pharmaceutical market? You are over reacting, especially since if this does become a problem it would become very easy to fix (as demonstrated by this legislation). You prefer to put people out of work for hypotheticals? People that put four years into undergrad and then another four years to pharmacy school? Are we to start passing laws based on "imagining"?

They don't need to be put out of work, they just need to separate their choice from other peoples choice. It's totally up to them. As Jhhnn pointed out earlier, are we going to now allow every employee in every conceivable position in Society pick and choose what they will or will not do? Talk about chaos and Political Correctness gone amock. You get a Job, you do that Job, if there are things in that Job that contravenes your Religious beliefs, do something else. Why should the Public be held hostage to the conscience of a stranger?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: sandorski

They don't need to be put out of work, they just need to separate their choice from other peoples choice. It's totally up to them. As Jhhnn pointed out earlier, are we going to now allow every employee in every conceivable position in Society pick and choose what they will or will not do? Talk about chaos and Political Correctness gone amock. You get a Job, you do that Job, if there are things in that Job that contravenes your Religious beliefs, do something else. Why should the Public be held hostage to the conscience of a stranger?

If a pharmacist fails to do his job properly he will be fired. If an Amish decides to become an electrician he will be fired. Such a decision is meant for the employer.

And an update to the OP: A couple news stories say that Mr. Vander Bleek has stopped selling all forms on contraception in his stores. Plus if they continue to press him, he's moving his pharmacies out of state. Guess the whores will have to find a new pharmacy, but wait, they could have done that in the first place!

Way to go Illinois and the radical feminist movement! :thumbsup:

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: sandorski

They don't need to be put out of work, they just need to separate their choice from other peoples choice. It's totally up to them. As Jhhnn pointed out earlier, are we going to now allow every employee in every conceivable position in Society pick and choose what they will or will not do? Talk about chaos and Political Correctness gone amock. You get a Job, you do that Job, if there are things in that Job that contravenes your Religious beliefs, do something else. Why should the Public be held hostage to the conscience of a stranger?

If a pharmacist fails to do his job properly he will be fired. If an Amish decides to become an electrician he will be fired. Such a decision is meant for the employer.

Failure to dispense product is failure to do the Job.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: zendari

If a pharmacist fails to do his job properly he will be fired. If an Amish decides to become an electrician he will be fired. Such a decision is meant for the employer.

Failure to dispense product is failure to do the Job.

Who put you in charge to make that decision?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: zendari

If a pharmacist fails to do his job properly he will be fired. If an Amish decides to become an electrician he will be fired. Such a decision is meant for the employer.

Failure to dispense product is failure to do the Job.

Who put you in charge to make that decision?

It's freaking Common Sense!

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: sandorski

It's freaking Common Sense!

Really not quite so common.

Since 1997, lawmakers in 28 states have introduced bills to protect a pharmacist's rights.

Walmart doesn't stock the pill. Doesn't seem to be hurting their business

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: sandorski

It's freaking Common Sense!

Really not quite so common.

Since 1997, lawmakers in 28 states have introduced bills to protect a pharmacist's rights.

One of those 28 was not Illinois. Don't like it, change the law.

/thread

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Really not quite so common.

Since 1997, lawmakers in 28 states have introduced bills to protect a pharmacist's rights.

One of those 28 was not Illinois. Don't like it, change the law.

/thread[/quote]

I agree. If the law is in place, the pharmacist should either move or abide by it. I just don't think the law in illinois is a good law.

Originally posted by: sandorski
They don't need to be put out of work, they just need to separate their choice from other peoples choice. It's totally up to them. As Jhhnn pointed out earlier, are we going to now allow every employee in every conceivable position in Society pick and choose what they will or will not do? Talk about chaos and Political Correctness gone amock. You get a Job, you do that Job, if there are things in that Job that contravenes your Religious beliefs, do something else. Why should the Public be held hostage to the conscience of a stranger?

If this is a company, they will decide if the persons ethics conflict with their job performance. If it is a private company, than he should have the right to this decision. If it is really as big of an issue as you make out, he will go out of business. That point has been made several times. The public is not being held hostage to the consience of this man. They have every right to go elsewhere. Why should he have to act against his consience if he can run a successful business following it without harming anyone other than making them change their pharmicist. If people are against smoking and they own a convenience store, they have the right to not sell cigarettes. If anyone can substantiate the claim that peoples lives will be endangered by this pharmacist not selling this product, do so. Otherwise I have yet to see a legitimate point for such a bill. A person's inconvenience is simply not enough to warrent putting a man out of business.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: Engineer
Really not quite so common.

Since 1997, lawmakers in 28 states have introduced bills to protect a pharmacist's rights.

One of those 28 was not Illinois. Don't like it, change the law.

/thread

I agree. If the law is in place, the pharmacist should either move or abide by it. I just don't think the law in illinois is a good law.

Originally posted by: sandorski
They don't need to be put out of work, they just need to separate their choice from other peoples choice. It's totally up to them. As Jhhnn pointed out earlier, are we going to now allow every employee in every conceivable position in Society pick and choose what they will or will not do? Talk about chaos and Political Correctness gone amock. You get a Job, you do that Job, if there are things in that Job that contravenes your Religious beliefs, do something else. Why should the Public be held hostage to the conscience of a stranger?

If this is a company, they will decide if the persons ethics conflict with their job performance. If it is a private company, than he should have the right to this decision. If it is really as big of an issue as you make out, he will go out of business. That point has been made several times. The public is not being held hostage to the consience of this man. They have every right to go elsewhere. Why should he have to act against his consience if he can run a successful business following it without harming anyone other than making them change their pharmicist. If people are against smoking and they own a convenience store, they have the right to not sell cigarettes. If anyone can substantiate the claim that peoples lives will be endangered by this pharmacist not selling this product, do so. Otherwise I have yet to see a legitimate point for such a bill. A person's inconvenience is simply not enough to warrent putting a man out of business.[/quote]

When the state allows anyone to sell plan B then you can bitch about the law. But there is no way to say that it is ok to limit one person from selling it but it isn't ok to say another person has to sell it.