Pharmacists Refusing to fill Birth Control Prescriptions...

[Blue Belle]

I just saw this link on Common Dreams:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0328-05.htm

Some Pharmacists Say No to Filling Birth-Control Prescriptions
by Rob Stein

<Snip> An increasing number of pharmacists around the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth-control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.

The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over a pharmacist's right to refuse to participate in something he or she considers repugnant, versus a woman's right to get medications her doctor has prescribed.

<Snip>No one knows exactly how often that is happening, but cases have been reported across the country, including in Washington, California, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, New Hampshire, Ohio and North Carolina. Advocates on both sides say the refusals appear to be spreading, often surfacing only in the rare instances when women file complaints.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Makes me wonder if these Pharmacists are morally opposed to filling Viagra prescriptions too...

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Jail.

[patrice]

2. More proof that "pro-life" has nothing to do with babies.

It's really about some people's objection to other people having S - E - X, period!

[WindRavenX]

71. well, just WOMEN having sex...

...coz we all know how these bible thumping pharmacists object to the death of approx. 300 million lil' babies in each ejaculation that was possible with Viagra.
How many men use Viagra to procreate? Numbers anyone?
This is just another form of misogyny.

[Fenris]

3. Again, if your adherence to a tenant of your faith comes before

Your oath as a pharmacist (and there is one, mind you), you really ought to consider another line of work - specifically, one where you can fulfill the requirements of your office and avoid hoisting your prejudices upon your clients.

[Blue Belle]

4. This is similar to a...

a used car salesman refusing to sell you a sports car because he doesn't believe in speeding.

[Warpy]

6. More like some shithead refusing to toss a life preserver

to someone who has fallen off a ship on the theory that gawd was calling him home...

[Rainbowreflect]

10. Not even close. Speeding in illegal, birth control is not.

If you cannot do a job because of your personal beliefs then don't take the job.

[Blue Belle]

70. While it is true that speeding is illeagal...

it is not the used car salesman's job to be a traffic cop.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

9. Hear, hear!

At no point do they have any right, privilege or responsibility as charged to stand between a woman and her health decisions.

[tammywammy]

Exactly!!!

Don't go into a profession that you cannot do 100%.
I have a bad back, therefore I won't take a job with heavy lifting. It's as simple as that.

You're my pharmacist, not my doctor. How dare you project your religion/moral ideals on me. You don't know me. What if I was just raped?

[Auntie Bush]

163. Maybe we should picket any drugstore that refuses to fill out any

prescription. Then when no one will cross their picket lines and enter the store...they will suddenly lose all their morals! Betcha!

[Ellen Forradalom]

178. There was just such a picket--in DOWNTOWN CHICAGO

Yes, an educated, cosmopolitan city in the bluest of blue states.
Protestors rip store over birth control, Chicago Tribune.

[Blue Belle]

275. It's in the Bluest of the Blue states....

Where actions such as denying birth control due to religious beliefs raise public outcry...

[SemperEadem]

247. exactly..

better to be a minister than administer drugs at a pharmacy, if that's one's objective.

[Warpy]

5. Any pharmy that does that

should have a formal complaint to the state pharmacy board written up. It's not hard to do. A letter will suffice. Just give his name, his location, and the date of his refusal to fill a legal prescription.

Then follow it up with a phone call a week later.

And a week after that.

Be a nuisance.

Make them act.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

7. Hypocrites, plain and simple..........................

So-called Christians who ignore the message of love and tolerance of the Bible and pick and choose individual fiery quotes to support a flimsy morality of fear and separation. I fear for my life and well-being in a country that has become so comfortable with hypocrisy.

These folks are medical professionals and have an obligation to do their jobs. Failure to do so should be actionable in a court of law.

[Cuban_Liberal]

13. Should Catholic physicians be required to perform abortions?

The issue is not as black and white as some would like to pretend.

[Bridget Burke]

15. Catholic physicians can refuse to work in pregnancy termination clinics.

However, pharmacies don't currently discriminate. A woman can give a drugstore her prescription but discover that the pharmacist on duty refuses to refill it. And some even refuse to transfer the prescription.

These delicate pharmacists need to form their own chain of drugstores & advertise their policies in large signs out front. This will enable women who need BC pills to take their prescriptions elsewhere. And it would enable many of us who don't need those things anymore to take ALL of our business elsewhere.

[Cuban_Liberal]

16. I would suggest the following solution.

If a pharmacist has a personal objection to filling BC prescriptions, they should not work for a pharmacy or chain that fills BC prescriptions, and go in business for themselves, or they should be required to forward the prescription to a pharmacist/pharmacy who does fill BC prescriptions immediately, and reimburse the patient for any additional cost.

[Mallifica]

31. currently, here in GA

that's the law - a pharmacist can refuse to fill ANY prescription, but must refer the patient to a pharmacist that will.

the GA legislature, of course, is trying to change this.

[Cuban_Liberal]

32. No, it's exactly where I meant it to be.

:hi:

[Auntie Bush]

40. What about those who fill their prescriptions in neighborhood

drugstores? Some may have no transportation and time may be of the essence. If someone should get pregnant because of this they should have the right to SUE the Pharmacist and the Company that hired them. Any Pharmacist that won't fill ALL prescriptions should have to put a huge WARNING sign in their window and at the counter to state this fact. (ie I don't kill fertilized eggs...except on Easter.)

[Cuban_Liberal]

44. A warning sign is fine.

I know of drugstores who post signs saying the don't sell tobacco products; I see no problem with similar signs if they don't dispense BC pills, etc.

[Blue Belle]

61. This could be especially pertinent once...

the "Morning After" pill is approved by the FDA.

[Beaverhausen]

63. oh yeah. that's gonna happen

I have my doubts that will be approved anytime soon.

[raccoon]

228. SUE the Pharmacist and the Company that hired them

And make them pay child support too

[tigereye]

73. What planet are these people on who are opposed to birth

control? This philosphy and the organizations which support it, are patently absurd.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

103. If too many people start doing that

Getting BC pills may start to become difficult in some neighborhoods. Which is what the wingnuts want.

Call it the proverbial "foot in door". The fundy cultists are very adept at flooding areas of activity with people they like.

[Cuban_Liberal]

108. That's possible, but I'm not a fan of pre-emption.

Whether it be about war or anything else, I tend not to favor pre-emption. :)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

117. This is a public health issue

so think of it as a vaccine against right-wing-wacko-transmitted diseases.

[mondo joe]

205. It's not pre-emption once they're DOING it.

[Ann Arbor Dem]

121. Great point!

And I'm sure it's happening right now.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

18. Not all physicians perform abortions...................

If one's faith runs counter to that practice, chose another area of expertise. Reproductive health is only a small portion of a huge medical field.

[Cuban_Liberal]

21. It's not that black and white.

No pharmacy is required to carry every medication available in the US, so they cannot be required to dispense them; in a very real sense, then, their choice not to carry and dispense those medications is voluntary. To ceate some artificial category for BC isn't logical.

[noiretextatique]

23. what other medicine would "violate" their faith?

hmmm. that's why these laws will eventually be struck down when we have sane people on the court again. they are blatantly discriminatory.

[Cuban_Liberal]

26. That's not the issue.

Perhaps they don't carry condoms, or Viagra.

[noiretextatique]

37. perhaps...but it ALWAYS seems to be JUST about BC PILLS

not condoms, and not viagra. just bc pills, which are used mostly by women.

[Cuban_Liberal]

39. I can't help that, and take no responsibility for it.

I didn't frame the issue, or even choose it.

Peace.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Cuban_Liberal]

46. As a participant at DU, that is my right.

Have a nice day.

[asthmaticeog]

47. Then take responsibility.

Have a nice day yourself.

[Cuban_Liberal]

48. Repsonsibility for what?

Please, don't be vague.

[noiretextatique]

113. if you support these types of laws

you should know ALL of what you're supporting.

[Kool Kitty]

181. Yeah, right.

Fat chance of them not carrying Viagra or condoms. They don't want to dispense birth control, they don't want us to have access to abortions. Paging Margaret Atwood....

[Beaverhausen]

20. If it will save the mother's life they should.

yes, not black and white.

[Cuban_Liberal]

22. But are they *required* to do so?

That's the sharp edge of the blade.

[Beaverhausen]

25. *are* they or *should they be* required

I don't know. I think they should be. In my opinion a doctor should save the life of a living breathing patient.

[Cuban_Liberal]

27. You are absolutely entitled to hold that opinion.

No arguments from me on that. But the question remains whether they are required to do so, and insofar as I know, no state's medical licensure law a physician to perform an abortion.

[Beaverhausen]

51. what if an emergency room doctor refuses when a woman comes in

with am emergency situation and if her pregnancy is not aborted she dies. If time is of the essence and no other doctor is available can the Dr. who opposes the procedure still refuse to perform it?

OK- we are getting off on a tangent. This really has nothing to do with BC pills.

[Lars39]

53. It's not a tangent; it is still discussing "conscience clauses".

[Cuban_Liberal]

54. AFAIK, a doctor *could* refuse to do so, theoretically.

I'm not sure how a prosecutor would view such a case, in a criminal context, but I'm fairly certain that the physician would expose him- or herself to a great deal of civil liability.

[Beaverhausen]

57. How could a doctor refuse a procedure that will save a patient's life?

Really. On what grounds?

Are there any other examples you can think of?

[Cuban_Liberal]

62. Again, I'm not 100% sure they could.

Except in the very literal sense of refusing to do so, I'm not sure a doctor in such a situation could refuse (would refuse, realistically), but if they did refuse I'm not at all certain that that would be a criminal wrong; it could well be a civil wrong, however.

[noiretextatique]

119. laws like these gives pharmacists the right to refuse to fill

precriptions for birth control, which some women take for reasons other than contraception. if a woman takes bc pills because a life-threatening condition, these types of laws say it's perfectly fine for pharmacist to threaten her life, so as not to violate his supposed reverance for life.

[mondo joe]

204. There is no situation that would require a physician to perform

an abortion.

[Cuban_Liberal]

227. Of course there are.

A placenta previa, massive uterine hemorrhage, etc. .

[gollygee]

33. If they work at a place that performs abortions as a regular part of

business, than yes.

If a phramacist works someplace that regularly dispenses BCPs, then they should be prepared to.

[Cuban_Liberal]

36. And I don't disagree with you.

If their employer carries and dispenses BC pills, they should dispense BC pills, or quit. If their employer leaves it up to them, then thats OK, too. If they own their own pharmacy, then it should be their decision, unless their state requires each and every pharmacy it licenses to carry a list of medications, which some states do.

[Susang]

58. Pharmacists agree to a code of ethics when they are licensed

You might want to read it sometime. It seems pretty clear to me that these pharmacists are not considering the patient's best interests at all.

http://www.aphanet.org/pharmcare/ethics.html

It seems amazing to me that you would support what to me, amounts to massive descrimination against women. It's birth control pills now, but what will "moral" pharmacists find objectionable next? Something perhaps you are required to take? Or you yourself, as a customer will be found morally objectionable?

The far reaching implications of what these pharmacists are doing is why the state has laws governing pharmacists and how they may perform their jobs. If I were to refuse to do such a major portion of my job, I would be fired on the spot. And rightfully so, as I knew full well what I was getting into when I was hired. As do the pharmacists.

[Cuban_Liberal]

65. A code of ethics is not law.

Its like the Hipocratic oath. I'm arguing the case as I would if I were their attorney: the state of the law as it is, not the state of the law as it ought to be/could be in some ideal word. The fact of the matter is that discrimination exists as part of the real world and not all of it is illegal.

[Susang]

75. What discrimination are you referring to?

The kind that is being perpetuated by these pharmacists against women like me? Or are you implying that these pharmacists are being discriminated against? I'm not clear on what your point is.

BTW, here are the laws, in case you're interested: http://www.uspharmd.com/rxstate.html

[gollygee]

84. They're licensed, which gives them some obligations

Does their license allow them to pick and choose which of a doctor's prescriptions they'll fill? What medication a patient gets is the decision of the doctor after all, not the pharmacist.

[Cuban_Liberal]

87. That's true.

Their licensure is a matter of state law, and I believe that the several states have diferent conditions for licensure. I think maybe PA does require pharmacies to carry certain types of BC, but some states have no such requirement, IIRC. IOW, I don't think there is any uniform formulary from state-to-state as a condition of licensure.

:)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

86. It got quite blacker and whiter when the pharmacist REFUSED TO RETURN

the prescription.

[Cuban_Liberal]

94. And I proposed a solution

I proposed a law requiring the pharmacist to immediately forward that prescription to a pharmacist who WOULD fill it, and reimburse the woman for any added expense. You must have missed that post.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

109. Bad solution (see post #103). I propose a better one:

Fire his ass and let him choose an occupation that doesn't conflict with his religion's dogma.

[Cuban_Liberal]

111. Why is it 'bad'?

Why is yours superior?

:shrug:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

115. Because it doesn't endanger the ability of people to get meds they need

which is a pressing public health concern. Next question?

[Cuban_Liberal]

122. But do they have a *right* to force that pharmacist to provide them?

What if their doctor prescribes a necessary medication that the pharmacy won't stock for purely economic reasons? Doesn't that endanger the ability of people to get the meds they need?

[noiretextatique]

125. one of the reasons for need healthcare reform eom

[Cuban_Liberal]

126. How do you enforce that right?

Do you make every pharmacy in the country stock every prescription medication available, even if it would force some into bankruptcy?

[noiretextatique]

131. healthcare and money don't mix, my friend

we (our nation) need to finally get our priorities in order about that. the idea is the keep the population healthy, not to fill the pockets of pharmaceutical companies and their shareholders.

[Cuban_Liberal]

133. I'm 100% behind universal single-payer health care.

I'm on your side 100% there--- no argument.

[Shakespeare]

132. Your example doesn't quite work.

If a pharmacy doesn't stock a particular med, they almost always have an alternative to offer. Occasionally, that requires a quick call to the doctor's office to make sure that's OK (a generic, or an equivalent by another manufacturer). If they're out of stock on the drug, they'll then offer to get it for you elsewhere or give you a date when it'll be back in stock. The point is that pharmacies who simply don't have a particular medication in stock will make an effort to see that it does get filled for you.

That's not even in the same universe as someone refusing to prescribe the pill at all on "personal beliefs" grounds.

[Cuban_Liberal]

134. It does work, and I know so firsthand.

My s/o requires a medication that s extremely expensive and for which there is no generic or 'other' drug that has the same narrow application; further, the drug must be ordered in a certain quantity, far in excess of what he would use before the remaining medication expired. We therefore have to get his medication at a pharmacy in another, larger, nearby town.

It's still about the medication being available, or not available.

[Shakespeare]

138. No, it's about discrimination.

It's the reason the drug isn't available.

[Cuban_Liberal]

140. It would be an interesting court case.

If it's about discrimination, why isn't it being litigted?

[Shakespeare]

141. Yes, it would be an interesting court case.

Are you suggesting it couldn't be litigated?

[Cuban_Liberal]

142. Not at all.

I'm just wondering wh it hasn't been litigated, is all.

:hi:

[Shakespeare]

145. A matter of time, I suppose.

If I'm ever denied the pill for "personal belief" reasons, I'd be happy to initiate the first test case.

It took time for the gay marriage issue to get into the courts, too. Or isn't that about discrimination?

This is a deeply personal issue for me, so yup, I'm couching it in deliberately personal terms to you.

[Cuban_Liberal]

151. Perhaps it's just not 'ripe', in the legal sense.

I'm sure it will be litigated, at some point. Just for the record, I'm very much pro-BC, which is why I maintain a rack of literature for Planned Parenthood, our county health department's anonymous HIV/STD/pregnancy testing clinic, and our local crisis pregnancy hotline in our bookstore. My only true concern in this is using the power of the state like a broadsword, when a penknife or scalpel might well solve the problem better.

[Shakespeare]

160. I disagree that it's using a "broadsword."

I salute your virtue in working with PP, assuming you actually do.

However, allowing this kind of discrimination--and it IS discrimination, whether or not it's cloaked in religion--is an extremely dangerous precedent. We fought very hard for a very long time to even be able to GET the pill, and taking this step backwards, regardless of whether you view it as a big or small step backwards, should not be permitted.

If someone is going to have such major "personal" issues with their job, then perhaps they need to find a new line of work.

[Cuban_Liberal]

162. I do, so there's no need to 'assume'.

I've tried to be civil here, and I don't understand what purpose was served by the gratuitous use of 'assuming you actually do' in your reply. If that's the direction subsequent replies are going to take, I'll just stop replying now.

[Shakespeare]

244. Don't understand? It is both insulting and disingenuous.

To say in one breath how hard you work for reproductive rights, and then in the next breath rationalize a movement that undermines those rights, is simply outrageous.

I don't really care if you're offended by my skepticism--I am sick to death of watching you rationalize attacks on women's rights while those of us supposedly on the same side of the political aisle as you argue till we're blue in the face for YOUR rights.

[Cuban_Liberal]

248. Oh, I'm not allowed to point to the weaknesses in the current crusade?

I'm supposed to stand on the sidelines while people scream about 'rights', while having a legal argument (sic) that is little more than emotional mush? By tha thinking, one should go to a doctor that does nothing more than cheer you on for being 100 pounds overweight, eating a crappy diet, smoking 2 packs a day and working in a high stress job.

Think that doctor would actually be helping you?

:eyes:

[Shakespeare]

255. That's not what you're doing.

If you think our opposition to so-called "conscience legislation" is "emotional mush," then we are definitely NOT on the same side. Yeah, I'm drawing an idealogical line in the sand. Either you are for reproductive freedom, or you aren't (and you certainly don't have a history of being very pro- in that regard). You can rationalize it all you want, but you've made your position VERY clear. You're allowed to think whatever you want, but I'm also allowed to call bullshit when I see it.

Thanks for belittling me and everyone else in this thread who's opposed to such actions, though.

And your analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

[Cuban_Liberal]

256. No, it is EXACTLY what I'm doing.

If one would read ALL of my posts in this thread, one would see that I have made several concrete suggestions about how to solve this problem; one of them is my suggestion that the states adopt a standard formulary that every pharmacy in the state be required to carry and dispense as a condition of licensure. If you see that as 'bullshit', that is your right.

[Shakespeare]

259. I HAVE read all your posts in this thread. n/t

[Cuban_Liberal]

260. You have?

Based upon your responses and ad hominem slams against me, it would appear that you didn't.

[Shakespeare]

263. Yes. And if you think I've made "ad hominem slams"...

...then I suggest you send an alert. I stand by my statements.

[Cuban_Liberal]

264. You have every right to stand by them.

And I have every right to point out why they are complete misrepresentations of everything I've written on this thread.

[Shakespeare]

265. No, they aren't. Think whatever you want.

As I said, you've made you position(s) quite clear, on this thread and others. I have misrepresented nothing.

[Cuban_Liberal]

267. Yes, they are.

They are complete misrepresentations.

[Shakespeare]

270. Again, that is your opinion.

Note the word opinion.

[Cuban_Liberal]

271. Yes, by all means, let's BOTH note the word.

Opinion.

[Shakespeare]

272. LOL

Yeah.

[Cuban_Liberal]

282. That's entirely non-responsive to the discussion.

I'm not surprised, however...

:eyes:

[Misunderestimator]

276. Well said.

:toast:

[Beaverhausen]

159. Your example is very unlike Birth control

BC pills are not extremely expensive, there are generics and they have a wide application.

[Cuban_Liberal]

185. That's not my point, either. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

137. Patient: "Do you have Whateverol, 50 mg?"

Pharmacist: "No, we don't stock that (and nobody does in a 100 mile radius)."
Patient: "OK, I'll order then. When can I come get it?"
Pharmacist: "Tuesday morning. That'll be $15.99. Prescription?"
Patient: "Here."

What happens right now if you need a med and you can't find it anywhere? Can't be much different from that.

Then there's the ones that are emergency, and usually have to be had RIGHT NOW. But how big are those as a subset of all meds?

[Kool Kitty]

183. Nice strawman there, dear.

This is an anti-woman issue. When I go to the pharmacy, I want my medicine. When I want a morals lecture, I stop at a church.

[Cuban_Liberal]

186. How is it a strawman, dear?

Please enlighten me.

[Kool Kitty]

187. They wouldn't have to stock enough meds to bankrupt them.

Why would they have to do that? I just didn't think that the point about them having to stock so much medicine that they would go bankrupt made any sense, in this context. The point is that this is about birth control. I would bet that these pharmacists that have a problem dispensing birth control pills have absolutely NO problem dispensing Viagra or Cialis or any one of the myriad erectile dysfunction meds. (And I don't know if this is even going to post because I can't get this thread anymore. It must be too long.)

[Cuban_Liberal]

190. My point is much more simple.

Simply because something is not available does not make it 'discrimination', except in the most literal sense of the word. IOW, unless there is an established legal duty to dispense medication A to patient B, then refusal to dispense that medication is no discriminatory in any useful legal sense of the word.

Wouldn't a better course of action be to enact a statute requiring every licensed phamacy to carry and dispense a standard formulary of medications, and make that a condition of holding a pharmacist's license?

[Kool Kitty]

192. I think the point of this thread was not that the

medicine wasn't available, it is that the medicine is available and the pharmacist wouldn't dispense it because of his moral objections. I do think that pharmacists that will not dispense BC should have their licenses pulled. They need to find another line of work that won't offend their moral sensibilities.

[Cuban_Liberal]

195. I think the law needs to be much more clear.

At this point, with very few exceptions, the law (or actual lack/ambiguity thereof) is on the side of the pharmacists. Creating a positive legal duty by statute or professional regulation would seem to be a far better approach to the problem, IMO.

[Kool Kitty]

197. I don't see how a law would help in this situation.

These "morally-upright" citizen pharmacists would only weep and wail about how they are being persecuted. It certainly doesn't seem to matter that women are being discriminated against here.

[Cuban_Liberal]

199. It would provide a firm, legal basis for revoking their licenses.

When someone has the ability to take away your means to earn a living, they have a big weapon in their arsenal to use against you.

[Kool Kitty]

201. Yeah. Try getting a law like that passed

in this day and age, with this bunch of thugs in office. No, what will happen is that this will become the mood of the season, pharmacists dispensing moral judgement and not BC. And this administration will back them and say that this is just more of that famous "culture of life" that they are so famous for. As a woman, I get more frightened by the moment these days.

[Cuban_Liberal]

OK.

What legal basis would you use, then, to force them to fill a BC prescription, if not a statute? You must have some legal 'leg' to stand on.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

129. No, because there's not a concerted effort by a crazed cult to eliminate

that entire class of products. So the danger to public health is anywhere from minimal to nonexistent.

[mondo joe]

194. They can easily create a minimum formulary in order to be licensed.

It would be a good step toward ensuring public safety.

[MaraJade]

224. The prescription is your property. . .

Legally, if the pharmacist fails to return the script, you can call the police and force its return or send him/her to jail for illegal
confiscation of your property.

It is also a violation of the federal HIPAA laws.

[peacebird]

158. Catholic physicians must decide id they are DOCTORS or Catholics

My take is - to refuse to perform LEGAL medical procedures is just like Michigan Catholics pushing a law through that allows Doctors to REFUSE TO TREAT gay, lesbian, bi and transgendered people.

Where is the outrage? If they refused treatment to people based on skin color or religion instead of sexual orientation there would be quite the stink.

Women are legally allowed birth control pills and emergency contraception - fundie pharmacists have no business refusing to fill those prescriptions and fundie docs have no business refusing to treat people based on sexual orientation or refusing to perform legal medical procedures based on their fundie beliefs.

[mondo joe]

191. No one is forced to perform abortions.

How silly.

[Cuban_Liberal]

213. Did I say they were?

No, I didn't.

[mondo joe]

214. Your question: "Should Catholic physicians be required..."

"Should Catholic physicians be required to perform abortions?"

No ios required to, nor can anyone be required to.

[Cuban_Liberal]

231. It's called a 'hypothetical question'.

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

237. Like "Should cows be required to speak English?"

Gotcha.

[Cuban_Liberal]

239. That's the most nonsensical reply I've ever read.

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

240. Nonsensical hypotheticals beget nonsensical hypotheticals.

Should mechanics be required to perform baptisms?

[Cuban_Liberal]

243. The hypothetical wasn't nonsensical.

The hypothetical was quite apt, since both it and the situation with pharmacists involved people acting, or refraining from acting, because of their beliefs.

[mondo joe]

245. No physicians can be required to perform an abortion.

But pharmacists can be required to dispense legitimate prescriptions by a physician.

[Cuban_Liberal]

246. They can be?

Please cite the laws requiring them to do so.

[Misunderestimator]

252. What a surprise!

Why on earth do you always defend the pharmacist in these situations? Do you not think that it should be a right for ANY PERSON to expect a pharmacist to fill a prescription deemed necessary by their physician? Oh right, I forget, you think they should just settle for mail order...

(On edit, I realize I meant your partner's previous posting defending pharmacists... eerie how similar your writing is.)

[Cuban_Liberal]

257. Nice non-answer.

I asked a perfectly legitimate question, and get a slam non-answer in reply. To reiterate, what statutes require a pharmacist to dispense a given medication? That is the weakness of the whole movement, at this point, and it does itself no favors by failing to recognize that fact.

[Misunderestimator]

261. LOL... well, first of all, you didn't ask ME a question...

I was simply reacting to your stance on the issue. Are you proposing that women should not feel that their rights have been denied or that they SHOULD have the right to expect their medications be dispensed at any pharmacy? Why does it matter to you that there is no "statute" requiring a pharmacist to do the right thing? Why do you fight so vehemently for the pharmacist's right to do the wrong thing? I truly don't understand.

[Cuban_Liberal]

262. I am not 'defending their right', except in the most literal sense...

I am pointing out that they cannot currently be compelled to dispense BC pills, absent a law or regulation requiring them to do so. To point that out is not a 'defense' or their actions, but merely conceding a legal point. This is why I have pointed out very specific ways TO compel them to do so.

Surely you can see how that helps, can't you?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

266. Are you one of NSMA's posse?

:hide:

[jonnyblitz]

273. deja vu.

:scared:

[mondo joe]

281. I'm sorry - I thought you were familiar with English.

I said CAN be.

[nonconformist]

8. Why did these people become pharmacists in the first place?

*smacks head on desk*

[lastliberalintexas]

91. You should've asked for that

smiley. :)

[Beaverhausen]

11. Oh goody! Somebody pass the popcorn

Whenever someone posts one of these stories these threads get really good!

By the way I agree that pharmacists should quit if they don't want to fill certain prescriptions.

[Greylyn58]

12. Makes me wonder if these Pharmacists are morally opposed to filling Viagra

Exactly my point!! Yet God's not against a man getting and keeping a 4 hour erection.

But hey...we can't have women taking birth-control pills that might block the almighty sperm or regulate an irregular period, or help with extremely painful cramps. Nope!!! Lord's against that.

:grr:

[Zorra]

14. Looks like this problem is progressively getting out of hand.

Here is a thread from November discussing this subject:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2691245

[Fleshdancer]

17. If this happened to me...

I would be on the phone instantly to every local news station and newspaper in my area. I would make sure EVERYONE knew what was going on at that particular pharmacy. When in doubt, transform yourself into a PR nightmare.

[justjones]

30. Ditto, but for a pharmacist who refused to transfer my BC script....

is when I would flip the f*ck out right on the pharmacy premises.

Hell, this is 2005. I can't believe there are people who still don't believe in a woman's right to birth control. I'm not even talking about the "morning after" pill or RU-486, just plain freaking birth control.

Imagine, you have to be an extra backwards-ass individual to be a trained pharmacist and think this way. They should have their licenses revoked, be stripped of their pharmacy degree and wiped from the alumni roll of the pharmacy school they attended.

[elehhhhna]

64. Theft. Refusal to return a 'scrip is theft. Cops would be called.

Someone pointed out on an earlier thread that BC pills have been legal for 40 years now. How many pharmacists have been taken by surprise lately by dispensing them? NONE.

[Richard Steele]

19. This "Moral Opposition" has _NO_ legal merit!

Also, it's just plain BULLSHIT!

PROFESSIONALS who deal with the public have licenses; these licenses confer both Priviledges and OBLIGATIONS!

Any Pharmacist who refuses to fill a valid Prescription on "moral grounds" should have his license revoked. Period.

What's the NEXT step gonna be, if we allow this shit to continue?

Will "moral" paramedics refuse to transport pregnant women because they are unmarried?
Will "moral" firemen refuse to answer a call to a Planned Parenthood office?

You better believe they will!


There used to be a lot of folks whose "Moral Opposition" refused service to MINORITIES, too. Same folks, different psychosis.

[gollygee]

82. You bring up a great point

that they are licensed and those licenses have both priviledges and obligations.

I agree 100%

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Should soldiers refuse to obey orders they don't agree with?

"Sorry, sarge, but I don't clean rifles."
"I'm afraid I'm not into uniforms."
"Saluting is against my principles."
"Guns scare me."
"I don't think killing is as fun as that general said, so I'd rather play baseball."
"Stick it up your stupid ass and spin Captain."

Sure would be nice, but things would have to change a lot since I was in.

[demosincebirth]

28. Birth Control pills will soon be sold over the counter anyway.

[Mallifica]

35. not with the way things are currently going.

I wish they would, but . . . doesn't look like it anytime soon.

[NewWaveChick1981]

29. I'd heard about this...

I'd heard about this happening at a few pharmacies, but it's getting out of hand. I agree---if you don't want to fill prescriptions (no matter what they are), DON'T BECOME A PHARMACIST. My father-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law are all pharmacists, and they've heard it all. At the state Pharmacy Board meeting a couple of years ago, there was apparently a big discussion on "moral issues," which was flatly shot down by the sensible pharmacists there. FIL said that a small minority was pretty vocal about "moral objections," but the rest of the members reminded them about their duties. Two of the dissenters were later removed from membership.

No, it's NOT OK to shirk your duties in favor of your personal beliefs if you're a pharmacist (or a doctor, or a dentist...).

[Blue_In_AK]

34. It bothers me that the right

has intruded itself into our lives from conception to death. What the hell is going on here?

[Mallifica]

38. In addition to how absolutely crazy this is,

when were pharmacists granted the right to practice medicine?? that is a doctor's job. women take birth control for all sorts of reasons. a pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions, not decide who gets what kind of medicine. if they wanted to make those kinds of decisions they should've gone to med school - and be required to obtain malpractice insurance.

[Cuban_Liberal]

41. 'practicing medicine' is a legal definition.

What constitutes the practice of medicine is a statutory matter, most often, and refusing to dispense BC would not fit under those definitions, I wager.

[Mallifica]

68. I disagree

Refusing to fill any prescription that has been given by a doctor - who can legally "practice medicine" would undermine the course of treatment. Practicing medicine constitutes treatment by medication or other means. When a pharmacist chooses to interfere with this treatment, he or she is undermining the medical profession and taking treatment into his or her own hands.

Suppose a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for blood pressure medicine and the patient had a stroke . . . would they be at all responsible?

[Cuban_Liberal]

79. Not unless the statute defined their act as 'the practice of medicine.'

What is or is not the 'practice of medicine' is a statutory creature, essentially.

[Mallifica]

97. to what statutes are you referring?

[Cuban_Liberal]

110. State laws.

'Practice of medicine' is a legal term; its definition is normally found in statutes and the court cases which arise under them.

[Beaverhausen]

67. Certain posters on this thread don't understand that BC pills are used...

for all sorts of reasons, not just birth control.

I originally took them to regulate my periods.

But apparantly some pharmacist can decide it's OK for me to bleed for 3 weeks straight.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

106. It's the Original Sin. Wimmin are evil. Grin and bear it.

</sarcasm>

[Cuban_Liberal]

112. I'm amazed that your can divine what certain posters know or don't know.

Since we're on that subject, can you tell me who wins the NCAA men's basketball championship, and the point spread? TIA..
:)

[Beaverhausen]

114. Well I know the answers but I'm not sharing it with you!

It's against my conscience.

[Cuban_Liberal]

116. That's your right.

And even if I disagreed with your position, I would defend your right to hold it.

[Beaverhausen]

120. But it's not my profession, nor is it what I was trained for

Divining basketball scores is merely a hobby.

[Cuban_Liberal]

128. But are they *legally obligated* to do so, under their state's laws?

That's the proper question.

[Wat_Tyler]

42. It is not their right to impose their morality on others.

And, pharmacists who interfere in such ways should be boycotted.

[HEyHEY]

45. Have the baby, sue the Pharmacy for Child Support

[HEyHEY]

49. Wasn't there a post the other day about mocking jesus being offensive?

Toi some of the christian types? Well, this story re-enforces my belief of not giving a fuck about offending them. It offends me when they push their religion on us.

[dolo amber]

50. There was an excellent essay

posted here the other day on just this very subject...lemme see if I can find it in the archives...

[Wat_Tyler]

52. Yeah, I shoulda copied that when I had the chance.

Who posted it? Anyone recall?

[HEyHEY]

55. I'm sure there's a copy of it around somewhere on the net

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

81. Oh yes, I remember it

But my memory of who the author was is for some reason scrambled. I wonder why.

[lastliberalintexas]

90. Well, is it that you can't remember the author of that essay-

or the poster? Maybe I could help. Or better yet, let's call NSMA and ask her. :evilgrin:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

98. EXCELLENT idea! Let's! (nt)

[Shakespeare]

92. It was disappeared. n/t

[Fenris]

143. I remember the OP was quite proud of it.

He even told several DUers thank you.

[Vadem]

56. Fine! No Problem! I'll get my prescription filled by your competition..n

[tammywammy]

72. In the DFW area, a pharmacist refused to fill BC at a CVS

CVS refused to fire the pharmacist, therefore I will never, ever shop at a CVS. There's one just down the road from where I live, and I will never go there.

But on the other hand, before Eckerds was bought by CVS, they did fire a pharmacist that refused to give out the Morning After Pill to a rape victim.

I mean it's BC & Morning After now, what will be next? Insulin? Blood Pressure Medicine? Acid Reflux?

[Behind the Aegis]

59. This is just stupid!

This is another occasion where someone's religious beliefs trump the rights of another. If your beliefs are at odds with your job, you are in the wrong fucking profession! Are we going to get to the point where cops don't have to help "faggots" because it conflicts with their beliefs that the "sin of homosexuality is punishable by death?" How about firefighters that refuse to put out a fire at a crack house? Another thing to ask, why is it always birth control pills and never "pharmacists refuses Viagra?" Maybe they can also refuse AIDS-related drugs. Hell, why not deny meds for Asthma, isn't it G-d's will that you have to gasp for air?

People are never so moral as when they are using their faith as a sword.

[Divameow77]

60. I used to be a bartender

I was forced to serve alcohol to a very pregnant woman. I don't know if it was a legal issue (I think a bar has the right to refuse service for any reason right?) It was a Long Island Iced Tea too, I actually asked her if she was sure and she said yes so I did, but I felt if you are going to make the decision to have a baby at least be reponsible about it.

[WillowTree]

66. Just for the sake of argument...

....I'm trying to think of any other retail establishment that would be required to sell any specific product if they did not want to for any reason.

Are book stores required to sell books they object to?

Are record/music stores required to sell CDs which contain foul language or lyrics that advocate violence?

Are video stores required to sell and/or rent "adult" videos?

My local grocery has stopped carrying several food and cleaning products that I use regularly. Should they be required to re-stock those items, or should I take at least some of my business to the other local chain down the street?

There's a store near here that only sells dinette sets. Should they be required to sell sofas and coffee tables, as well?

K-Mart used to sell fabrics and craft supplies, but they no longer do. Should they be required to carry those items again (à la Wal-Mart), or will I need to continue to take my business for those things to craft and fabric stores?

Don't get me wrong. I really don't have any dog in this fight and don't care one way or the other if my pharmacy sells birth control pills or not. But considering the fact that the vast, vast majority of druggists do sell birth control pills and considering the fact that we're free to give our business to any retailer we choose for any item we need or want to purchase, I'm trying to think of a reason why this one class of merchant (and that, in the final analysis, is what a pharmacy is) should be discriminated against by singling them out for unnecessary government intervention and I can't think of one.

[Shakespeare]

69. Bogus analogies.

All of those items are non-vital, non-necessary items. For many women (myself included), birth control pills are used to treat certain medical conditions. Without them, we can develop life-threatening complications.

Suggesting that that is in any way similar to choosing to offer adult videos or a certain kind of canned food is beyond ridiculous.

It's discriminatory, and should not be permissible.

[WillowTree]

74. Why?

Can you not get the pills that you need elsewhere?

Here's another analogy: My OB-GYN has never prescribed birth control pills. Doesn't believe in them, has issues with their safety, and is aware that there are other medications and treatments for those medical, non contraceptive conditions which are often also treated by prescribing birth control pills. Should he also be forced to handle his practice (ie. his business) differently than he sees fit or be forced out of his practice altogether?

[Shakespeare]

76. Doesn't matter if I can get them somewhere else.

It's still discriminatory.

And who is going to make the decision that something a doctor prescribes can be treated using an alternative medication? Certainly not a pharmacist.

[Mallifica]

77. If he allows his personal beliefs

to cloud his professional judgement and does not act on the best current medical knowledge, then yes, as a doctor, he should be forced out of business. He would have no business praticing medicine in the first place.

[WillowTree]

80. The fact is that...

....there are many alternate ways to treat endometriosis and dysmennorhea and the several other common medical conditions for which many OB-GYNs prescribe often birth control pills. If a woman needs to be on BC pills because she is taking Accutane, the doctor who prescribes that can also prescribe the contraceptives. Not prescribing The Pill is unlikely to ever compromise a patient's health and if a woman wants it for contraceptive purposes, there are scores of OB-GYNs who will willingly prescribe it.

[Shakespeare]

85. Are you a licensed OB/GYN?

Specifically, one who specializes in reproductive endocrinology? If not, you are utterly unqualified to make that statement.

[WillowTree]

102. No, I'm not.

But since you apparently are, maybe you could tell me which life-threatening gynecological conditions that would normally be treated by a woman's regular OB-GYN can only be treated by prescribing contractptives. I'd like to ask him what he does in those situations when I have my next visit.

[Shakespeare]

107. Didn't say I was.

However, the Reproductive Endocrinologist I see has determined that that is the best course of treatment for me at this time, and it is not your place--or ANY pharmacist's--to make a decision for me otherwise.

Get the point yet?

[WillowTree]

147. What you're not getting...

....is that no pharmacist is making that decision for anyone. He or she is only deciding for him/herself whether or not he or she will sell them. Just as any woman is fully within her rights to find a gynecologist other than mine if she needs or wants to prevent a pregnancy, you and any other woman who needs or wants contraceptives, for whatever reason, is free (and well-advised) to patronize the plethora of pharmacies who choose to sell them.

[Shakespeare]

149. Oh, but of course he (or she) is.

Refusing to fill a prescription is a medical judgment as much as it is a "personal belief" issue.

[WillowTree]

157. Whatever.

[Shakespeare]

161. LOL. n/t

[LostinVA]

173. A pharmacist is not a doctor

And should not second-guess your doctor's script. The ONLY time is if he/she knows that script will adversely affect any other meds you're taking. That's it.

I would LOVE to see what would be happening if this was some kind of discrimination against men.

[WillowTree]

206. But in this case, the pharmacist isn't...

...."second guessing" the doctor, he or she is just declining to sell the product, just as any other merchant can decide what products they will carry. The patient is free to shop with a different merchant who does. It's just as simple as that.

[Solon]

283. Pharmacies are licensed...

In many states, they are required to carry medications neccessary, or at the very least, order the ones neccessary to serve the area. No other merchant is like that, if the book store ran out of a certain product, they will order it for you as a service, whereas a pharmacy is LEGALLY OBLIGATED to fill the prescription. That is a major difference.

[LostinVA]

174. SElf Delete -- Duplicate Post

[gollygee]

95. In addition to the first response to you

with which I agree 100%

It doesn't matter how many ways there are to treat those conditions. Each woman is different and will have different specific issues (allergies, sensitivities, interactions with other medications, side effects). Only the specific doctor invovled with a patient will know which treatment is best for her. She should have access to that specific treatment, regardless of how any particular pharmacist feels about it.

[WillowTree]

104. And until contraceptives are banned entirely...

....she will have such access. Doesn't mean that every pharmacy has to carry them if they don't want to.

[gollygee]

105. It depends on the licensing requirements

if the license says they have to, then they do. And I'd like to see the licenses say they have to.

[WillowTree]

153. Back before my husband died...

....a doctor once prescribed an antibiotic which turned-out to be not only fabulously expensive, but not commonly prescribed. After I'd gone to a couple of pharmacies to have the prescription filled without success, one pharmacist told me to try the Mxxxx Drug Store over in the next suburb, saying something like "If anyone around here carries it, they do". And they did. After that, I just took all of our presctiptions there. Made it really simple.

[gollygee]

156. Good thing you lived in a town with two pharmacies and that you had a car

too bad for poor rural folks.

[mondo joe]

207. Right. Make the license contingent on carrying at least minimal

amounts of a standard formulary.

[Blue Belle]

78. Yes...

but does your doctor refuse to prescribe any form of contraception (i.e. cervical caps, diaphragm, spermicidal gel, etc)?

[WillowTree]

83. Nope.

The practice does not prescribe birth control. And, for the record, they are a highly-respected practice of three doctors who have been practicing in an upscale area for 30 years without a single malpractice claim against them. Pretty unusual for OB-GYNs.

[me b zola]

208. No malpractice in thirty years in OB-GYN?

Let me guess, all patients are prescribed kool-aid?:beer:

[Beaverhausen]

88. Does his office tell people up front that he won't prescribe BC?

I think he should have to tell everyone that up front.

[WillowTree]

99. Well, they did when I first started going to them,

but I already knew that. I would presume that they still do, though they're so well-known now in the area that I doubt that many people are unaware.

[fudge stripe cookays]

96. Not everyone can.

Small towns may have only one pharmacy and no other options.

[oldcoot]

182. HMOs and Insurance companies

HMOs and insurance companies often specify which pharmacies their customers can use, which makes it more difficult for patients to pick-and-choose.

Perhaps one solution would be to make birth control pills an over-the-counter-drug so that grocery stores and other businesses can sell these pills even if the local pharmacist does not want to sell the pills.

[noiretextatique]

123. discrimination is against the law

unfortunately, too many on our side can't see the issue for what it is...this is why democrats keep losing too, btw. some continue to talk about the rights of business owners, and others the rights of the pious. but the bottom line is: these law amount to legalized discrimination against women, the main consumers of bc pills.
any democrat who supports this is a DINO.

[WillowTree]

155. Ah, yes!

It's become commonplace in this forum to dismiss anyone who holds any different point of view on any topic as being "DINO" or a Freeper. It's so much easier than trying to understand where the other person is coming from.

I guess I just missed the meeting when it was decided that the Democratic Party would no longer be "the party of inclusion". My mistake.

[noiretextatique]

164. this is what i understand

there is a party for those who support discrimination...it's called the GOP...the same folks who are enacting these laws. but perhaps you can educate me...know any *liberals* introducing or supporting this type of DISCRIMINATORY legislation? i didn't think so :eyes:

[WillowTree]

202. Discrimination is often where you look for it.

I could say that it's discriminatory that I had to endure nine months of water retention and varicose veins and hours of labor followed by a lifetime of stretch marks to have my children and my husband got the same kids I did, but he didn't have to put up with any of that.

It isn't fair, either, that my best friend has to travel two hours once a month to see the specialist that she needs at the University of Chicago because there isn't a clinic that specializes in the advanced treatment of MS in the semi-rural downstate town where she lives and who knows how much longer she'll be able to drive, but those are the breaks and she deals with it. Without complaining about the inconvenience, I might add, or whining that it's discriminatory towards MS patients that there isn't such a facility in every little hamlet in the country.

Fact is, the playing field isn't always level and we only make ourselves unhappy when we convince ourselves that is, or even can be.

You see this issue one way as discriminating against a woman's right not only to have birth control pills, but to be able to purchase them wherever she wants. (Maybe we should also force Best Buy and Blockbuster to sell them, too, if that would make it that much more convenient.) I see it from a different perspective as potentially infringing on the pharmacist's first amendment right to the unfettered exercise of his or her religious beliefs and not being forced to violate those beliefs to keep his or her job. You see, this isn't just about "big business", but the individuals who own them and work in them and I see their rights being just as valuable and in need of protection as that of the customer who, in the vast majority of cases, can simply shop elsewhere.

[alarimer]

210. it is discriminatory

It affects one class of people more than another class. If the pharmacist in question decided he would not fill a prescription for AIDS drugs on the grounds that AIDS is punishment for "lifestyle" choice that was immoral or against God's laws or whatever, that would be discrimination too. But because birth control pills are a "convenience" item (they are not- anymore than antibiotics are- they are prescribed for many reasons). I wish these cases would go to court- I would argue that this would violate any number of antidiscrimination laws.

[noiretextatique]

211. it's impossible not to see this as discriminatory

because it is...that's true regardless of anyone's life circumstancses. may i remind you and others that precription drugs aren't sold are not blockbuster's or the hardware store for a reason. laws that limit an entire group access to a legal, accepted drug are discriminatory...period. sorry..i do't support abuse of power simply because america has been overrun by lunatics. if may ask you: where is the pressing need for this type of law? where? that's right...it doesn't exist.

[Divameow77]

236. The issue is not that the pharmacies don't carry them,

it's that someone who works there decides he doesn't want to sell them.

If I worked at a drug store and someone wanted to buy cigarettes and I didn't believe in smoking so I wouldn't sell them then I'm pretty sure I would be fired. I knew they sold cigarettes when I started working there, so maybe I should have gotten another job. These pharmacists should be fired, if they cannot perform the job and services the pharmacy offers.

I would also be interested to know if your OB/GYN would perform a tubal ligation on a woman if it was recommended she not have anymore children for health reasons.

[mondo joe]

200. How inclusive do we need to be? KKK Members? Tom Delay?

Just a question.

[spanone]

89. Their licenses should be revoked.

There are agencies that regulate and license pharmacists. Complain loudly.

[napi21]

93. As much as I hate Walmart, I think they had the best response to this.

Aparently, a number of WM pharmacists have refused to fill BC prescriptions. The Company's response was, they respect the decision of their pharmacists to follow their beliefs, but they have all agreed they will turn that task over to another pharmacist, or give the patient the name and a contact to another one who will fill their prescription.

I'm way too old to worry about this stuff anymore, but many years ago, when abortion was first made legal, my GP (who delivered both my kids) said he would not perform an abortion. Although I would never have had one, I respected him for his honesty.

I have my beliefs, but I do not think I should force them on anyone else!

[HEyHEY]

100. Here's an article about how it SHOULD be

http://vancouver.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=bc_pill20050328&ref=rss

[noiretextatique]

136. that makes way too much sense

for "moral" murikans.

[scarletwoman]

101. "If female pharmacists suddenly started refusing to dispense Viagra..."

A trenchant commentary on this same article from one of my favorite blogs:

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/

After reading the article you will notice that no mention is made of pharmacists declining to sell condoms, which are disposable gulags for the pre-Fetus-Americans. And ribbed condoms? Forget it, Sparky. Sex is for babies, not for pleasure. Well, her pleasure anyway.

If female pharmacists suddenly started refusing to dispense Viagra or Cialis to men, Congress would reconvene in the middle of the night and George Bush would make another midnight run from Crawford to sign the Tentpole Act of 2005 (also known as Bob Dole's Law).

posted by tbogg at 10:56 PM

"Tentpole Act" -- Love it! :D

sw

[HEyHEY]

127. Could we not make this a sexism issue

[gollygee]

130. Huh?

They only want to deny access to medication used by women. This *is* a sexism issue.

[Blue Belle]

135. I wonder if they would refuse to fill the prescription...

if there were a birth control pill for men? Would a man have to run to another drug store??

Just curious.

[gollygee]

139. LOL

Yeah sure. The moral outrage we would see.

:sarcasm:

[HEyHEY]

146. Oh, silly me I must be seeing things I though this thread was full

Of moral outrage

[gollygee]

150. :D

I meant among the goverment. But yes we've got a pretty good group of people here.

[HEyHEY]

152. Governments only get mad when their kickbacks are threatened

Perhaps we should get brithcontrol companies to donate to a few campaigns :evilgrin:

[HEyHEY]

144. No it's not a sexism issue - it's not because she's a woman

It's because the guy is a religious nut. There have been countless men condeming this...it's not a sexism issue. If he refused to sell it to her becuase she WAS a woman then it would be.

[noiretextatique]

165. um...who uses bc pills? as far as i know, not many men

regardless of who does and doesn't support the law. that's the entire point...it is discriminatory because the drug in question is used mostly by women.

[HEyHEY]

217. What if a woman had refused to sell them?

Is it sexist then?

Sexism would be based if it was an issue of equality because WOMEN only use BC and men don't it's not an equality issue.

[lukasahero]

229. Did you read the article?

"after being turned away by sometimes-lecturing men and women in white coats."

Yes, believe it or not, women can be sexist too.

[noiretextatique]

233. wtf are you talking about...the LAW is discriminatory

because it singles out bc pills, a drug used almost exclusively by women
:wtf: it doesn't matter what gender the pharmacist is, the point, as has been mentioned a kazillion times now, is:
IT'S THE LAW ITSELF THAT IS DISCRIMINATORY...THE GENDER OF THE PHARMACISTS IS IRRELEVANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[oldcoot]

209. Yes, this is a sexism issue

Had a pharmacist refused to sell medication to senor citizens because he or she had moral objections to the fact that this medicine had been tested on animals, then no one would be rushing to protect that individual's rights. The outrage over such as decision would probably lead to that pharmacist losing his or her job and to possible legislation protecting the rights of the pharmacists.

However, the pharmacists who are refusing to sell birth control pills are picking on a socially acceptable group to discriminate against, women of reproductive age. Unfortunately, there is a long historical tradition of the government (at least in the United States) as well as various religious groups of trying to control women's sexuality and I am afraid that this newest trend of pharmacists who want to discriminate against a certain class of patients are merely continuing this tradition.

Women need to remember that the struggle of equal rights is a long, unfinished struggle. If they want to be treated like human beings and not brood mares, they are going to have to continue fighting as hard as their predecessors did for equal rights. Unfortunately, there are some women who buy into this sexist mythology that birth control is bad and women should be punished by pregnancy for having sex.

[HEyHEY]

216. If it had been a woman who refused to sell them..would it be sexist?

We wouldn't hear ANYTHING about it then..it's cause a man did. So all the "feminists" use it as a reason to attack men.

[mondo joe]

230. It's sexist no matter who does it.

Women are capable of sexism as well.

[noiretextatique]

234. YOU ARE SO OFF-BASE, IT'S ALMOST FUNNY

BUT IT'S JUST TRAGIC. THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT A BUNCH OF RW FANATICS, MALE AND FEMALE, HAVE THE GAINED ENOUGH POWER TO PASS A LAW THAT IS DISCRIMINATORY ON ITS UGLY FACE. THE REASON THEY CAN DO THAT IS BECAUSE TOO MANY PEOPLE ON OUR SIDE JUST DON'T "GET IT."
INSTEAD, THEY WHINE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF PRIVATE BUSINESS, AND INSINUATE THAT FEMINISTS ARE "ATTACKING" MEN...A CLASSIC WEDGE ISSUE.
THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT RELIGIOUS FANATICS DECIDING WHO CAN AND CANNOT HAVE ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL PILLS. THEY MADE THIS ISSUE ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL PILLS, WHICH AGAIN, ARE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY USED BY WOMEN, NOT "FEMINISTS." DO YOU "GET IT"...YET?

[Name removed]

251. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

278. Deleted message

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

[oldcoot]

253. Yes, they are just as sexist as the men

History is full of examples of women who opposed equal rights for other women. In the United States, many prominent anti-suffragettes were women during the nineteenth and early twentieth century. And who among us could forget the "delightful" Phyllis Schlafly who traveled around the country to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment?

American newspapers have also reported cases of female pharmacists who refused to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. It was only a couple months ago that I read an article about a woman who worked for CVS who refused to fill an order for birth control pills.

I actually think that I am more likely to be hostile toward anti-feminist women like Schlafly than I am toward men. I see Schlafly and others like her as selling out their sex to get ahead.

[scarletwoman]

167. How is this NOT a "sexism issue"?

The fundamentalist right wing is profoundly anti-woman. It is patriarchal and authoritarian to its very core.

Refusing to dispense birth control is about denying women control over their reproductive choices. A free and autonomous woman is anathema to ALL religious fundamentalism.

This is the very ROOT of sexism, the denial of female autonomy.

sw

[HEyHEY]

218. This guy could just as well have refused to sell viagra

Or any other drug that men and women use. He didn't do it becuase she was a woman, he did it because he's a dink.

If a woman had refused to sell them would we be arguing? Doubt it.

[scarletwoman]

225. What part of "refuse to fill BIRTH CONTROL prescriptions" do you not

understand????

This isn't hypothetical, this is happening -- and it's SPECIFICALLY about birth control prescriptions for WOMEN.

This isn't about something that "could just as well" happen, this is about something that IS actually happening. Your argument is fallacious and disingenuous.

And the gender of the pharmacist is irrelevant -- a woman pharmacist refusing to fill a birth control prescription is being just as anti-woman as a man.

sw

[HEyHEY]

249. So, if it was a drug only men used would it be sexist?

[oldcoot]

258. It depends

If it was a drug that is very rarely used, than the pharmacist might have a legitimate reason for not carrying it. However, if the pharmacist decided not to fill a prescription for the drug simply because the pharmacist believed that male sexuality or behavior needed to be controlled, than you probably have an example of sexism.

[noiretextatique]

280. the issue is REAL discrimination

i would agree that power moreso than sexism is the real impetus behind the current crop of laws, but i have no doubt that sexism plays a role in the motivations of some. there is really no equivalent to bc pills for men, not even condoms, since they are available over-the-counter.
IF there was a commonly used prescription contraceptive for men, and IF there was a law passed giving pharmacists the right not to prescribe that prescription drug, THEN that law would also be discriminatory. since there is no such drug...this issue is not only moot...it's absurd to even discuess it in the context of what is actually happening now.
what the point of talking about possible discrimination in a thread about REAL discrimination?
this isn't directed at you, btw...you get it :eyes:

[LostinVA]

176. This was read on Ron Reagan's show today

By some female defense attorney. They liked it.

[scarletwoman]

184. Do you mean Tbogg was quoted? Cool! (n/t)

[LostinVA]

177. Self Delete -- Dupe Post

[LdyGuique]

118. The Code of Ethics for Pharmacists

I do not see anywhere in the code of ethics where they can refuse treatment to anyone. They are licensed to serve the public by the State and must adhere to both the legal statutes of the State and their own organization.

Code of Ethics for Pharmacists

PREAMBLE
Pharmacists are health professionals who assist individuals in making the best use of medications. This Code, prepared and supported by pharmacists, is intended to state publicly the principles that form the fundamental basis of the roles and responsibilities of pharmacists. These principles, based on moral obligations and virtues, are established to guide pharmacists in relationships with patients, health professionals, and society.

I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.

Considering the patient-pharmacist relationship as a covenant means that a pharmacist has moral obligations in response to the gift of trust received from society. In return for this gift, a pharmacist promises to help individuals achieve optimum benefit from their medications, to be committed to their welfare, and to maintain their trust.

II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient at the center of professional practice. In doing so, a pharmacist considers needs stated by the patient as well as those defined by health science. A pharmacist is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the patient. With a caring attitude and a compassionate spirit, a pharmacist focuses on serving the patient in a private and confidential manner.

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.

IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience. A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.

V. A pharmacist maintains professional competence.

A pharmacist has a duty to maintain knowledge and abilities as new medications, devices, and technologies become available and as health information advances.

VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals.

When appropriate, a pharmacist asks for the consultation of colleagues or other health professionals or refers the patient. A pharmacist acknowledges that colleagues and other health professionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply to the care of the patient.

VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs.

The primary obligation of a pharmacist is to individual patients. However, the obligations of a pharmacist may at times extend beyond the individual to the community and society. In these situations, the pharmacist recognizes the responsibilities that accompany these obligations and acts accordingly.

VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.

When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair and equitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.

* adopted by the membership of the American Pharmacists Association October 27, 1994.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

124. If I were a teacher and didn't want to teach minority children,

can I refuse to?

If I had a business and refused to hire gays or woman, should I be allowed to?

It always cracks me up to see the comments on threads like this. It's always the same people arguing that women's rights are a convenience, and not a necessity.

[ailsagirl]

148. I read about this a few months back in Prevention magazine.

It boggled my mind. Prevention was trying hard not to take sides
but, obviously, they were appalled over this trend.

Un-effing-believable

[Princess Turandot]

154. A person who decides his religious faith allows him to

refuse to fill scripts written by a licensed MD should not be a pharmacist. It's irrelevant as to whether he is self-employed or works for a chain. The allied health professions exist to provide healthcare, not jerk off over their own self-righteousness. If a pharmacist objects to a script on medical grounds, they are to call the MD in question to discuss the script. Not filling it is not their call. Pharmacists are health professionals first, not business owners first.

The argument that no pharmacy needs to stock every drug is patent nonsense. If a pharmacy doesn't have the medication on hand which they need, they order it, just as they do for every other drug they sell, or if it is an emergency, they call competitors around town and find someone who has the drug.

Doctors are at the top of the pyramid in the healthcare field. Many no longer train to perform abortions because medical schools don't all offer the training. Many also do not train to do open heart surgery. However, if a woman presents at a hospital emergency room in need of a D&C because she is miscarrying and bleeding to death, the hospital needs to have MDs on staff who can care for that patient. I'm not so sure that the hospital would not have criminal liability if no MD was available to treat an emergent condition: it's why you go to an emergency room. It would probably depend upon state laws.There is also no comparison between MDs and pharmacists or even nurses, much of which lies in the realm of training. If a nurse in a hospital is assigned to work in a gyn clinic which performs abortions and refuses, she should be fired and look for a job in a hospital which does not perform abortions.

I have to wonder if the people defending the rights of pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions would also defend their right to not fill medication for HIV+ people, since the pharmacists might have moral objections to their view of the patient's sexuality. I also have to wonder if their support for these pharmacists stems from them sharing a belief with them that birth control is 'immoral', rather than this nonsensical argument that they are standing up for the First Amendment.

One thing that I would love to know is whether these pharmacists all have families with 6+ children, or if they only practice what they preach on some poor woman standing on the other side of the counter from them.

[alarimer]

166. They need to be summarily fired

It is their job to fill prescriptions based on the doctor's orders, not substitute their own personal judgment. Idon't believe they should be able to "opt out" because it violated their beliefs. They should not be doing that job.

I believe that old men shouldn't get Viagra just so they can sleep with some hottie; that doesn't mean I could deny them their prescription.

[Coexist]

168. Here is my experience with an activist pharmacist...

I am a 38 mother of three, and thank goodness I brought my children with me to Walgreen's to pick up my birth control pill prescription, because the activist pharmacist was not going to let me. When I handed my prescription to the cashier, she said, "oh wait", she showed it to the pharmacist, who then came over and looked very seriously at me and my family. Then she said, "Well you have kids, okay." WTF???! Gee thanks for the favor, toots. Since when is it her business what birth control I use? I asked her if she asked men filling viagra prescriptions if they were using them to have sex with women using birth control pills? Give me a break.

[gollygee]

169. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH

that's the third time I've had to type AAAAAAARRRGGGGHHHH today!!

He decided it was OK to give you birth control pills because you have kids?????

:banghead:

[Coexist]

172. No - SHE decided it was okay

apparently - it meant I wasn't the abortive type or something - or maybe it was just that I needed the "hormones" and not to prevent another pregnancy.

[gollygee]

175. *sigh*

I don't even know what to think.

[Lars39]

171. It's not what birth control you use, it's that if you were single

or married without children the pharmacist wouldn't have filled the prescription.
Sounds like she wanted you to get pregnant.

[oldcoot]

188. Walgreen's sells contraceptives

If she has a problem with filling birth control prescriptions, she should quit. It is extremely hypocritical for her to work for a business that profits from the sale of birth control prescriptions if she has any moral qualms about filling such orders.

[Blue Belle]

189. I can't believe the nerve...

This Pharmacist needs to get over her Messiah complex.

[oldcoot]

203. She should quit her job

If she really wants to take a stand against birth control pills, then she should quit her job. She should not shove her beliefs onto innocent customers.

[Ellen Forradalom]

170. So-Called Conscience Laws

From Protection of Conscience Project:

Protection of Conscience Laws (PCL's) ensure that people cannot be forced to facilitate practices or procedures to which they object for reasons of conscience. These may include abortion, capital punishment, contraception, sterilization, artificial reproduction, euthanasia, assisted suicide, human experimentation, torture, etc.

Yes, my desire to live as something other than a baby machine is as nefarious as human experimentation and torture. Doctors and nurses of conscience need to be protected from women who wish to have control over their bodies. If my husband and I use rubbers now and again, society is well on its way to widespread euthanasia and torture. Wax those skis, folks, we're heading down the slippery slope.

[Coexist]

180. I like this comparison

If you are a vegetarian and take a job in a restaurant that you know serves meat, can you then refuse to serve it because of your beliefs?

[Ellen Forradalom]

215. Exactly.

I used to work for a major purveyor of naked women. It was simply understood that if the artful portray of ladies in a state of undress was offensive to our morals, we had no business working there.

[Ellen Forradalom]

179. These people have no other religion than

to put as many second-rate copies of homo sapiens on the face of planet as possible. That's it. Shit Loads of People. That's all they care about.

[MiniMe]

193. Birth Control is prescribed for other health reasons.....

not just to prevent conception. As another poster said, it is used to regulate periods and basically prevents some women from just about bleeding to death. A pharmacist has no right to deny BC pills, they could be putting somebody's health at risk.

[kineneb]

284. like endomitriosis!

I took them for years, after having emergency surgery at age 19 for a ruptured endomitrial cyst. I never wanted to risk having another visit to the ER like that.

[mondo joe]

196. Like a grade school teacher who doesn't want to use the alphabet

Why have any standards for any job?

How about english teachers who refuse to use proper grammar?

Or cashiers who on omral ground refuse to touch cash?

[Arkana]

198. Jail

and revocation of their license. They don't want to fill prescriptions? They can't be pharmacists.

[msongs]

212. does this mean I can refuse to sell to christians who violate my beliefs?

since I would consider that to be a violation of my personal moral or religious beliefs?

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

PS - people can believe any religion they want IMO so long as they do not murder 100 million people or ANY people in it's name.

[ultraist]

219. Yet another example of discriminating against an oppressed group

veiled in religion. Total BS. It is illegal to discriminate against women. This will eventually get overturned. In the meantime, women will have to either go without their medication or be forced to get their medication filled elsewhere. What a crock.

Religion does not give someone the right to break the laws. When are these people going to realize that?

[Behind the Aegis]

220. When? Probably never.

Those who allow their discrimination to thrive under the guise of religion will never learn; not unless they really do become a victim. The real problem is that they turn the argument from them as the perpetrator to them as the victim. I often think that some of these groups cultivate a "cult of victimization." They can say they are "pro-life," and in the same breath call for the death of another. They are always the ones "put upon."

[ultraist]

221. Yes. And I'm getting fucking sick of them crying victim too

How can an oppressive majority group be the victim?

[Behind the Aegis]

222. I hear ya!

It is funny that I just came back and saw your post. I was putting my partner to bed and we were discussing this. Isn't interesting that they are so put upon, yet here I am in a relationship that I cannot get recognized legally because of THEIR religious hang-ups? To me, it smacks of the idea of the oppressed white man in our culture. :eyes:

[ultraist]

226. exactly

I don't think some realize how illogical it is to claim a majority is being oppressed:

Blacks are oppressing Whites
Women are oppressing straight males
Non Christians are oppressing Christians
Gays are oppressing straights

I agree, it is very much like the white straight males claiming that if someone insults them, it is equivelant to an oppressed group being bashed. I suppose if you ignore all historical and current context, and assume things occur in a vacuum, their claim has some merit. LOL!

Those poor, disempowered white "Christians," they are so silenced and deprived of their rights in our society. :eyes:

[MaraJade]

223. Sounds like a real business opportunity for Mail Order

Pharmacies everywhere.

The answer is to set up internet and mail order pharmacies where women who live in areas where these yahoos refuse to fill legitimate
prescriptions can mail in their scripts and get them filled by mail.
Maybe there could even be pharmacies that would specialize in doing this. What an even bigger slap in the face if these mail order pharmacies would actually advertise that they will fill the scripts when others refuse.

Not only would the offending pharmacies lose their prescription medicine business, but they would also lose the sidestream business that occurs when people who go in to get scripts filled DON'T buy the
shampoo, cosmetics, and OTC items that they sell.

Quickest way to get rid of these nuts is to hit them in their pocketbooks.

That would take the wind out of some of these wingnuts' sails.

[Zynx]

250. Exactly. In a market economy, other options will present themselves.

That's why we don't force very much.

[Ilsa]

232. I saw one of them on CNN this morning.

She was from Ohio and had her responsibilities as a pharmacist down cold. She was an odd-looking bird, though -- middle-aged, long hair in a tight braid, no makeup. She looked very austere. The CNN anchor really gave her a hard time, but interrupted her too much (rude anchor). She acknowledged that birth control pills are sometimes used for other medical problems, not just pregnancy prevention, and said she would dispense them for that.

[Blue Belle]

235. And how is the Pharmacist to determine what the medication...

is really used for? Does she interrogate the woman who the script is issued to? This is like the previous post about the Pharmacist who was going to deny the prescription to FLDem5 until the Pharmacist saw that she already had children... then the Pharmacists allowed it. Who are these Pharmacists anyway to think that they can be judge and jury when it comes to how someone else lives their life? How dare they interfere.

[Ilsa]

254. I couldn't agree more...

As long as the prescription is legal, unless she sees a problem with a drug interaction, she has no business denying the dispensation of the Rx. I realize that the pharmacy might be the last stop for patient education, but it is not their business to determine if the rhythm method (or anything else for that matter) is preferable to OC!!!

These people should get other careers if they can't handle the responsibilities of their own.

At least this pharmacist agreed that the Rx is the property of the patient and she is obligated to return it or refer the Rx.

I'm really afraid that *'s selection has helped move the self-righteous fundie-types into out-of-control positions.

[Beaverhausen]

238. Oh my god! That is really sick

What gives this woman the right to decide what I or anyone else does?

:banghead:

[elehhhhna]

268. I saw that geek. She was fired, btw.

She said she denied the pill because under certain conditions it can abort a fetus.

So can Chemo.
So can Accutane.
So can many, many drugs.

What a lameass argument.

Wonder if they'll give Viagra to gay men?

[Blue Belle]

274. Or deny condoms to men period...

gay or straight.

F******g Jerks.

[LynneSin]

241. I think their licenses should be pulled!!!

It's not up to them to make moral judgement on others as to why they need birth control pills.

I think what's happening here is the anti-choice people are finding pharmacies the new arena to fight. And what worries me is they're going to try to get on state pharmacy boards so they can help turn around the attitude that anyone who takes BCP is a sinner and should be denied a refill

[Hugin]

242. I'm thinking they need a little basket of joy on their doorstep. n/t

[elehhhhna]

269. So, so they poke pin holes in the condoms while on break?

[SarahB]

277. They need to pick another profession.

Misogynist f*cking pigs!!!

[Blue Belle]

279. Pharmacists for life...

I just heard a woman on Randi Rhodes talk about an actual organization of Pharmacists who believe that filling birth control prescriptions is a sin.

Their motto is: "Let the Gift of Medicines promote Life, not destroy Life!"

Check it out: http://www.pfli.org/