Pharmacists refusing to prescribe Birthcontrol

[illustri]

shrumpage

just like you made the distinction of disagreeing with the pharmacist's action but supporting his right, we can agree with the soldier's decision to nonviolence, but at the same time support the punitive consequences that will follow(court-martial, dishonorable discharge...)

i don't think we are so much bashing the pharmacist, but calling for some punishment to deter others in their position from acting stupidly

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: shrumpage
...
I'm curious though: the people in this forum who bash the pharmacist, or Christian's in general - would support a soldier refusing to fight (in any war) - because it goes against their beliefs.

With the limitation that I'm not bashing Christians in general, I WOULD have a problem with someone who signs up to be a soldier but doesn't want to fight in any way. Why? Because it's their job to fight, that's what a soldier does. I respect their views on war, and I think it's wrong to force people to fight if it goes against their beliefs. But the problem is that the hypothetical soldier made the choice to put themselves in that situation when they shouldn't have.

Indeed. It's a terrible analogy by shrumpage. A better analogy is tolerating a christian who doesn't want to become a pharmacist like people tolerate people who don't want to be soldiers.

The example i'm using is not a pacifist that joins and refuses to fight in period, but believes that a particular war, or military action - is wrong and immoral. Much like the present one. And refues to fight for that reason.

A better analogy is tolerating a christian who doesn't want to become a pharmacist like people tolerate people who don't want to be soldiers.

You tolerate someone because of what occupation they choose not to do? that really doesn't make any sense. We are talking about actions within an occupation that people are asked to do, that they strongly disagree with. Should they be requireed to do those things that violate their conscious?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
We are talking about actions within an occupation that people are asked to do, that they strongly disagree with. Should they be required to do those things that violate their conscious?

A pharmacist holds a job that includes public trust to fill prescriptions from a patient's physician. Anyone whose conscience bothers them so much that they can't do the job should quit the job and make way for someone who can.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

A better analogy is tolerating a christian who doesn't want to become a pharmacist like people tolerate people who don't want to be soldiers.

You tolerate someone because of what occupation they choose not to do? that really doesn't make any sense. We are talking about actions within an occupation that people are asked to do, that they strongly disagree with. Should they be requireed to do those things that violate their conscious?

I have to agree there. That's a very strange criterion for tolerance.

I basically see it this way: As a pharmacist, your job is to dispense the medicines a physician has prescribed to the patient. I think in failing that duty, I would have to consider a pharmacist not only actively shirking their employer's expectations, but also possibly instigating harm.

I mean, say the young lady does not get her birth control, and then a few months later is with child? Perhaps she should have an abortion? Commonly, the same people opposing birth control oppose that procedure as well? Adoption? Always a viable option, but it doesn't do anything about the costs of carrying and delivering the child.

I know, I know - she should have kept her legs shut. All I can say in regard to that is it's a lot easier to blame the victim than do something about solving the problem.

It would seem to me that logic and the principle of least harm would dictate giving the girl her pills already. Even highly conservative religious interests can be served by doing so. Just tell the Pope you're preventing children out of wedlock and abortions.

 

[fornax]

In any civilized country a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription because of his belief in a fairy tales will be booted out from the College of Pharmacists. What's next? Christian doctors refusing to threat Jews because they presumbly killed Jesus?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: shrumpage
Should they be requireed to do those things that violate their conscious?

I've already said no in this thread. This guy should be able to do what he wants. But I think the should suffer from a massive boycott and if one was organized I would boycott any business that interacts with him.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: illustri
nutxo

there are tens of thousands of christian pharmacists who fill bc prescriptions, thats not newsworthy, they're doing their goddamn job

when a couple do not, thats cause for concern

what do you want? to ignore their asshatry and endanger women's health?

(inserting typical Republican response):

"Doesn't affect me so why should I give a ****? For those it does affect, TOO BAD you liberals lost get over it"

 

[Zebo]

It's his or her right. Just as it's the Pharmacy owners right to can thier arse for not doing thier job. One thing is the pharmacists know they have the upper-hand due to manafactured shortage from thier own APCE always limiting enrollment and accrediation of new schools inspite burgeoning population growth and geriatric growth. They can find a job seconds after being fired for 100K + if the owners get to uppity.

 

[JavaMomma]

Originally posted by: fornax
In any civilized country a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription because of his belief in a fairy tales will be booted out from the College of Pharmacists. What's next? Christian doctors refusing to threat Jews because they presumbly killed Jesus?

Or perhaps a Jehova Witness doctor refusing to give you life saving blood transfusion because it is against their beliefs.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Big problem for employers tho.
How many people would preffer not do do somthing because fo their religious or political views?
Imagine what happens if a state or the federal gov't passes a law allowing this? as long as the Pharmasists in question are not independant contractor's you open an enormous can of worms.

Pat

So suppose these guys are of a sect that doesn't agree with medicine at all?

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: jjsole
Its their right, however I believe they should be required to post their restrictions on a sign somewhere.

In small towns tho, this is actually pretty frightening.

How is this their right? If I work at as an EMT is it my right to refuse to respond to a call because the person is a muslim?

Excellent point! How about a cop that doesn't think women get abused?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: illustri

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: nutxo

No, these are the things they put in the news. Wonder why that is? Is this really newsworthy or is it that people like to read about such things so they can shake their fists and scream about christians trying to force their views on others.


For all we know there could be 50,000 christian pharmacists filling prescriptions everyday and not doing anything but their job.

Notice how your level-headed, common-sense post in this thread has received no responses? This thread is purely a "OMG - the Jebus-freaks are everywhere" circle-jerk thread and nothing more. :roll:

are either of you actually serious when you say this sort of thing isn't newsworthy?

Where did I say it wasn't newsworthy?

My whole point was that, at the time of my original posting, no one is this thread was discussing the real issue of renegade pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, but rather chose to harp upon the fact that they were doing it for "religious reasons" and that this was just par for the course for all those whacky Christians out there. Nutxo was reminding us that not every pharmacist who believes in Christ is acting as such - that these people are the looney fringe, not the norm.

Some people (especially in here) like to proclaim them to be one and the same, but they are not. I'm certainly not going to decry every PETA members' stupid actions to be "typical liberal behavior," and would expect the same sort of civilized respect for Conservatives/Christians.

There has been some decent discussion since then, however.

 

[fornax]

cKG, I wholeheartedly agree with you that these are the looney fringe, not the norm, and they're not representative of the average Christian. However that doesn't mean their actions should be left without consequence. In many countries (e.g. Canada), there is a self-regulating body called College of Pharmacists (or something similar), same as the College of Physicians, etc. If you're not a member, you can't practice. I believe it's up to this organization to make clear that a pharmacist can't refuse to fill a lawfull prescription just because the Bible says "go forth and multiply".

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: fornax
cKG, I wholeheartedly agree with you that these are the looney fringe, not the norm, and they're not representative of the average Christian. However that doesn't mean their actions should be left without consequence. In many countries (e.g. Canada), there is a self-regulating body called College of Pharmacists (or something similar), same as the College of Physicians, etc. If you're not a member, you can't practice. I believe it's up to this organization to make clear that a pharmacist can't refuse to fill a lawfull prescription just because the Bible says "go forth and multiply".

You know, many pharmacies dont carry all products.

What would you suggest such an organization do in the event an independent pharmacist decded not to carry birth control products?

 

[jackschmittusa]

nutxo

You know, many pharmacies dont carry all products.

What would you suggest such an organization do in the event an independent pharmacist decded not to carry birth control products?

That is unlikely to happen as they then could not advertise themselves as a "full service pharmacy". That would be pretty bad for business.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
nutxo

You know, many pharmacies dont carry all products.

What would you suggest such an organization do in the event an independent pharmacist decded not to carry birth control products?

That is unlikely to happen as they then could not advertise themselves as a "full service pharmacy". That would be pretty bad for business.

I doubt it would. In a town of say 3500 people, 1 pharmacy. People would still fill everything but birth control locally for the most part.

Safeway didnt carry what I needed but i got what I needed that they did carry and took my script to a different store.

Anyways, do you think a pharmacy should be forced to carry birth control when they arent forced to carry other drugs?

 

[mordantmonkey]

a pharmacy not carrying a certain drug, and a pharmacist refusing a prescription are two different things. If a manager decided they didn't want to carry birth control, then there would be no incentive other than market forces to deter them. However, a pharmacist is licensed to fill scripts not judge them. They should have their licenses revoked or suspended for such actions.

 

[jimkyser]

Has anyone who thinks this is OK thought about the women who are being prescribed birth control pills, not so they can sleep with every man they meet without the risk of pregnancy, but to control the severe cramps they experience during their menstrual cycle? My sister was on them in high school and college for this very reason. Oh, and I'm pretty sure she wasn't screwing all of her male classmates because she is a lesbian.

And I agree that a pharmacy has a right not to carry any drug they feel they won't sell enough of and even not carry a drug they feel they don't want to for a religious reason. But that is not what is happening here. These are pharmacists who have the drug on hand and refuse to fill the prescription and even go so as far as refusing to forward it to someone who will. I think they should all lose their licenses, post haste.

 

[preCRT]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: AlricTheMad
Big problem for employers tho.
How many people would preffer not do do somthing because fo their religious or political views?
Imagine what happens if a state or the federal gov't passes a law allowing this? as long as the Pharmasists in question are not independant contractor's you open an enormous can of worms.

Pat

So suppose these guys are of a sect that doesn't agree with medicine at all?

Haven't heard of any Christian Scientist pharmacists for this very reason.





IMO, the asshat pharmacists in the OP should get fired. What's next, refusing to fill a scrip for fertility drugs because it's G-d's wish that a couple can't conceive? I certainly hope they are refusing to fill Viagra scrips, because it's G-d's wish that some men should never get it up again.

 

[deadpan]

Originally posted by: Doboji
Text
This is perhaps the most assanine thing I've ever read. How could anyone be stupid enough to think this is somehow anything other than shoving your own personal beliefs down someone elses throats. It's one thing to not take birth control for reasons of personal morality. But to refuse a legal prescription to SOMEONE else ought to be a crime.

This from the same people who are so anti-gun control and pro individual rights and responsibility. Makes me sick to my stomach.

-Max

:|All I can say is that I totally agree with you. If they want to start to put their personal beliefs before their job they shoul get out of the business!! It will never end.

 

[ciba]

Where do you live that pharmacists prescribe drugs?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: ciba
Where do you live that pharmacists prescribe drugs?

While that is true, and has been pointed out already, it doesn't change the fact that there really are pharmacists taking it upon themselves to refuse to fill prescriptions and also refuse to forward the prescriptions to a pharmacy that will fill them.

Playing doctor is fun when you're 6 and you play with Susy from next door; pharmacists however are not supposed to be second-guessing physicians prescriptions, especially for 'moral' reasons.

 

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: ciba
Where do you live that pharmacists prescribe drugs?

They don't, and the title of the thread is incorrect. But that even makes the actions of these pharmacists worse. They don't know the doctor's reasoning behind issuing the prescription and shouldn't be 'playing doctor' by refusing to fill it or forward it to someone who will. As I said earlier in this thread, it is not at all unusual for the pill to be prescribed to reduce the severity of menstrual cramps.

 

[Gaard]

link

April 1, 2005 (CHICAGO) ? Governor Rod Blagojevich today filed an emergency rule with the Illinois Secretary of State's office requiring birth control prescriptions be filled without delay at pharmacies selling contraceptives.

Under the rule, if the contraceptive is not in stock, the pharmacy must order it or, if the patient prefers, transfer the prescription to a nearby pharmacy.

If the pharmacist does not fill the prescription because of a moral objection, another pharmacist must be available to fill it. The emergency rule takes effect immediately and stays in effect for 150 days.

Blagojevich is a result of a Chicago pharmacist recently refusing to fill orders for contraceptives because of moral opposition.

The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation has cited the Osco pharmacy where the incident occurred for "failing to provide appropriate pharmaceutical care to a patient."

 

[KevinH]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Less birth control = more abortions

Less birth control = more unwanted babies

Less birth control = more babies left by trash bins

Less birth control = more babies killed at birth

Republicans and Christians happy though so it's OK

Originally posted by: nutxo

No, these are the things they put in the news. Wonder why that is? Is this really newsworthy or is it that people like to read about such things so they can shake their fists and scream about christians trying to force their views on others.

For all we know there could be 50,000 christian pharmacists filling prescriptions everyday and not doing anything but their job.

Exactly. This story is inherantly stupid (and a repost, I believe) and so are the pharmacists in question - but using this or any other extremist, "news-worthy" story as a means to generalize a population is even more stupid.

My wife (uses the pill), her doctor, and her pharmacist are all Christian and the issue has never even been brought up, much less debated. Where's our Washington Post story and subsequent P&N discussion? :roll:

When you're doing your job it's not out of the norm and therefore NOT NEWS. It's not a difficult concept. Guess what, tons of people aren't murdered everyday. We don't read stories about them either but get stories about the killing blah blah blah.