Pharmacists refuse to fill birth control prescriptions

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: eclavatar
It's funny all these nutjob liberals here are only for freedom if they agree with it.

This is pure example of the socialist views liberals have. "OMG government should force them!". No the government shouldn't, this is a capitalist country, not the USSR.

Ah, so, you're for withholding medical treatment to someone because the person dispensing it has problems with the treatment based on their religious beliefs?


That person shouldn't be working that job or should make it known they will not dispense certain medications. The employer can adjust accordingly. But, giving a patient no option but to be denied medication is nothing that should be tolerated in this country.

Um, that is the law conjur... The pharmacist that broke the law is subject to sanctions by their state board (& they do sanction in cases like this), is open to civil liability as well as the company employing the dipsh1t pharmacist.

A social progressive should be able to understand this.

Then why do we have laws like this:

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.

whats next? no aids treatment cuz the pharmacist is against gays?

this is so stupid...this is not abortion.

i am a republican...I voted for bush...and I think these people are a bunch of tards

 

[Kibbo]

Just wait 'till the vegan Nurse refuses to give patients the flu vaccine. I'll bet that Bush himself will come down from his mountain.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think the whole thing is a load of fundie horse manure. Anybody who takes a job that serves the public interest and is, in fact, licensed to do so needs to fulfill those obligations or find another line of work...

What's next? Volunteer military who won't fight because they believe in the sanctity of life? Truck drivers who won't take drug tests? Amish electricians who won't work? The list of absurdities could go on forever.

These folks knew full well that they'd be called upon to dispense birth control the day they entered pharmacy school. Which one of us gets to pick and choose the parts of our jobs that we will and won't perform? What happens when we don't perform?

Just the usual grandstanding from fundie control freaks... fire the stupid bastid, suspend his license while you're at it...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is an extension of rights afforded to other health professionals. The pharmacist should have the right of refusal or make physicians perform procedures against their will.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Amish electricians who won't work?

:shocked: :laugh:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is no difference here between forcing a pharmacist to sell a drug and forcing him not to. A pharmacist should be able to sell pot as well as not sell the birth control pill.

Edit: And if he can't sell one he can be forced to sell the other.

Take some freedom, take it all, huh?

:roll:

I did nothing but point out to some who believe they have the right to outlaw some drugs that then by implication they have the right to force the sale of others. The loss of freedom is the loss of freedom and it isn't a matter of degree. The state can either take freedom or not. If you are going to argue this case you can't argue it on the issue of freedom because we already know we don't have it in the case of drugs. They are a controllable substance and that means their sale can be controlled. To argue this then, you will have to move on to other issues. The rights of the pharmacist are irrelevant because we already have laws that regulate them.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

I did nothing but point out to some who believe they have the right to outlaw some drugs that then by implication they have the right to force the sale of others.

do we have right to ban the sale of weaponry, moonie?

How are drugs and firearms different? Both have intended and unintended functional, recreational, and murderous consequences of use.

If the state can take freedom, then the only question becomes ?how much and what freedoms are taken by our leaders?

I?d argue forcing someone to sell a particular drug or Gun is going to far in this taking of our freedoms, while having repressed freedoms in what we can sell, be it heroin or anti-aircraft missiles, is something we can mostly agree is an acceptable loss. Interestingly enough, that's the law as it is now.

We grant the government right to repress our freedom at times, they don't grant us right to have those freedoms.

 

[Vic]

I'm 100% with Amused here. So long as they don't withhold the script or try to prevent it from being filled by another pharmacist, they should have every right to refuse to fill it themselves.
This is btw a self-correcting problem. Prescription birth control drugs/device are very lucrative. These pharmacists will (one way or another) find themselves out of a job soon enough, even if the companies who employ them can't fire them simply for not dispensing (no one is perfect, and a good HR manager can find a way to fire even the best employee with cause). And as their industry is relatively close-knit, they will soon find themselves not getting the best interviews.
My advice to the libs is to let this storm blow over, as it will soon enough. Amish electricians don't keep their jobs for very long.

 

[Moonbeam]

LMK: I?d argue forcing someone to sell a particular drug or Gun is going to far in this taking of our freedoms, while having repressed freedoms in what we can sell, be it heroin or anti-aircraft missiles, is something we can mostly agree is an acceptable loss.

You don't argue anything, you merely assert. And that was my point. What is your argument? I know your opinion. Why can we not force a pharmacist to sell contraceptives if we can ban him from selling pot? We already know the pharmacist can't do whatever he wants.

 

[ciba]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: eigen
My girlfriend is on contraceptives to help control her cramps.
And now she runs the risk of having her prescirption ignored.

Way to uphold to oath of doing no harm.

That's the Hippocratic Oath, for physicians, not pharmacists...

Not to mention that inaction is perfectly compliant with "do no harm."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You don't argue anything, you merely assert. And that was my point. What is your argument? I know your opinion. Why can we not force a pharmacist to sell contraceptives if we can ban him from selling pot? We already know the pharmacist can't do whatever he wants.

It's the wrong fight, Moonie. 2 wrongs don't make a right.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

You don't argue anything, you merely assert. And that was my point. What is your argument? I know your opinion. Why can we not force a pharmacist to sell contraceptives if we can ban him from selling pot?

we can, as by the same freedom limiting principle that allows us to keep him from selling something we can also limit his freedom and make him slave to the state.

But we shouldn?t, because limiting what a merchant of the most dangerous materials in our society can sell seems reasonable to vast majority, while forcing those same merchants to sell what they find morally objectionable (be it birth control, or semi-automatic guns) is an unnecessary and unreasonable infringement into personal freedoms.

 

[IEC]

Oh yeah, I'm sure cutting off the supply of birth control will help with unwanted pregnancies... riiiigght... :disgust:

Let's face it people: some people will scr3w around and get pregnant/get women pregnant. It's a fact of life...

 

[Gatos]

I am a pharmacy student (UW-Madison) and we have had long discussions about this topic. Interesting opinions!?!? The guy that denied the girl the Meds in Madison was supposed to have another pharmacist at the store with him, but there wasn't one. The other pharmacist would have dispensed the Birth Control. The reality of the situation is that we need laws to protect patients and health care providers. In my opinion it is okay for a person to deny filling birth control but he or she better transfer that perscription to another pharmacist.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: ariafrost
Oh yeah, I'm sure cutting off the supply of birth control will help with unwanted pregnancies... riiiigght... :disgust:

Let's face it people: some people will scr3w around and get pregnant/get women pregnant. It's a fact of life...

well, i never said i thought that the pharmacists not selling birth-control where doing the best thing, just that they have a right to not sell as they please in that regard.

 

[Moonbeam]

Is there a right to deny a sale of a legal substance at an establishment which purports to sell those substances and is there a right not to be inconvenienced unduly by somebody else's moral feeling that something that is legal should not be sold. How far can you inconvenience others from a moral feeling. Can you morally not pay taxes?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

s there a right to deny a sale of a legal substance at an establishment which purports to sell those substances

yes, unless you do so because of the person's race creed or colur.

and is there a right not to be inconvenienced unduly by somebody else's moral feeling that something that is legal should not be sold.

no. protesters and bar-tenders that won't sell ever-clear both have a right to "inconvenience" you.

Can you morally not pay taxes?

we have right to protest the law, and right to vote for those that will change the law, but we must follow the law, even in regards to taxes. And not burning down abortion clinics.

How far can you inconvenience others from a moral feeling.

as far as it's still reasonable possible for them to do what is legally allowed.

if you want to protest a bar or a church, you can, as long as people can still come and go freely.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's one thing to eschew some aspect of modern life for oneself on the basis of morality, it's entirely another to force your beliefs on somebody else, which is the logical conclusion of the argument, and its ultimate goal.... Just as the guy who sells a firearm that's ultimately used to murder is not responsible for that murder, filling a prescription for birth control pills places no responsibility for their use on the person who does so...

What happened to the whole idea of personal responsibility so touted by the right?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
It's one thing to eschew some aspect of modern life for oneself on the basis of morality, it's entirely another to force your beliefs on somebody else, which is the logical conclusion of the argument, and its ultimate goal.... Just as the guy who sells a firearm that's ultimately used to murder is not responsible for that murder, filling a prescription for birth control pills places no responsibility for their use on the person who does so...

What happened to the whole idea of personal responsibility so touted by the right?

Doesn't the right have every right to be immoral?

 

[GroundedSailor]

I'm confused by this republican agenda. On one hand they talk of giving you more control over you lives (privatizing social security etc.) and on the other hand they're taking away control by making it difficult to uphold your choice of buying what you want. What right does the pharmacist have to keep the prescription if he does not to prescribe the tablets?

Is religious police (as in Saudi Arabia) the next step? :disgust:

 

[glenn1]

I'm 100% with Amused here. So long as they don't withhold the script or try to prevent it from being filled by another pharmacist, they should have every right to refuse to fill it themselves.

I'll agree with one caveat. IMHO, if a pharmacy objects to filling a certain type of prescription citing "moral" or other reasons, they should be required to post a prominent sign attesting to this fact to alert customers so they know in advance before they even hand over their script, and can take their business elsewhere.

 

[DealMonkey]

Honestly, I can barely even see the religious issue that causes this pharmacist to refuse to dispense birth control in the first place. I mean, what is he thinking? His actions could directly lead to abortions based on women who cannot get their birth control pills. I can mostly understand being opposed to abortion on moral grounds, but this? What is he trying to prove exactly?

 

[Gatos]

The pharmacist in Madison was Catholic, He does not believe in any use of birth control. That's the religious issue. I don't get the fact that he wouldn't refer the Rx. But from a religous issue that is where he probably stands.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Just as the guy who sells a firearm that's ultimately used to murder is not responsible for that murder, filling a prescription for birth control pills places no responsibility for their use on the person who does so...

just as the fire-arms dealer has a right not to sell a particular gun, so does the pharmacist have a right not to sell a particular drug.

I'm confused by this republican agenda.

no agenda! you just don't have to sell what you don't want to.

I can mostly understand being opposed to abortion on moral grounds, but this? What is he trying to prove exactly?

that he does what he's told by his church.

and he's got every right to, even if it's stupid.

Unless some people here are calling for a law to force him to do otherwise? then we can send people to jail, for refusing to fill a prescription.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

s there a right to deny a sale of a legal substance at an establishment which purports to sell those substances

yes, unless you do so because of the person's race creed or colur.

Definately not so clear. If a place consistantly claims to have product, but consistantly refuses to sell it to people for "moral reasons" they may be running afoul of bait and switch issues. If it can be shown a place is doing something of this sort on a widescale basis, they can probably get hit with a class action lawsuit from affected customers.