Well, lawyers can decline clients, physicians can (usually) decline patients, teachers can decline students.

Don't see why pharmacists shouldn't be allowed to decline customers.  Their choice.

Yes and no.  At Walgreens, the pharmacist won't have much choice.  At smaller shops, the pharmacist often owns the place.

The market will take care of this one.

goodsmitty wrote: Clark Kent wrote: Doesn't matter.  The market will straighten it out.  No action is needed.   The same free market that is helping starving people all across the globe.   What is the harm in stopping an egg from being released every month with birth control? It is much more humane for the egg than letting it get flushed down the commode during menses every month.

Actually, the free market IS helping starving people across the globe - but different discussion.

I have nothing against birth control.  I have very much against interfering with the personal judgement of a professional, or interfering with the business judgement of a business, or interfering with the relationship between employer and employee.

Any legislation on this subject - in either direction - could have significant unintended consequences.

And, since (as best I can tell) it isn't needed anyway, there is no point to it.

I'm with Clark Kent on this one; the market should straighten it out.  The only problem I see if I understand the background correctly is you're going to have these ultra-right religious busybody loser organizations defending the rights of the pharmacists to keep their jobs after they refuse to do them.  The argument will be that the pharmicists stood up for their religious beliefs when they refused to issue the pills and firing them is tantamount to religious persecution.

Edited Note:  While I consider my personal politics to be right-wing, the one thing we don't need in the U.S. is our own personal version of the Taliban, which is what the far religious right is quickly becoming.

goodsmitty wrote: I say again, it is a patient care issue, and the patient comes first:   In the case of administering birth control to stop a potential pregnancy (the morning after "pill"), which must be administered as soon as possible after intercourse, if the pharmacist at the all-night Walgreens refuses to fill the prescription, then that patient was just abandoned. It's a medical issue and the patient should be treated if patient care will suffer.

I do not have sufficient medical knowledge to argue the medical merits of the timing of this medicine - but it certainly could be.

But how did you come by the prescription?  I must admit I don't know much about the mechanics of morning-after pills, but it occurs to me that to get a prescription you must have spoken to a physician, which means you are probably operating more or less during business hours, which means you probably have some choices.

I don't know the answer to that.

But your point is well taken, regardless of the facts.  It would clearly be unethical for a pharmacist to withold heart medicine (for instance) just because the pharmacist disapproves of treating heart conditions.  To the extent that this truly becomes a "medical emergency" then we have a different - and more complicated - issue.  I must admit I was more focused on regular-use birth-control pills rather than morning-after use.

Worth some research and pondering.

Frozen Balls wrote: Couldn't you also say the pharmacists are persecuting the customers, because they are imposing their beliefs upon the customer? Not letting them have medicine because they think different than you...? Does that make sense...or am I missing something.

It does make sense, and it makes me worry about what this country could be coming to.

jmt1990 wrote: thats like inviting in AIDS

Wait...what?

But how is this different from a physician refusing to perform an abortion?

(which a physician may do)

EDIT - or any other medical procedure, for that instance.  Don't mean to turn this into abortion day.  Generally speaking, physicians may decline treatment if they can refer a patient to another legitimate option.  Some procedures, like abortions, physicians may simply decline.

Not necessarily the case.

In many small towns, the pharmacist has a very close relationship to the residents, while prescriptions may come from a traveling doctor - or even the internet.

I certainly know some people who take daily meds who have much closer relationships to their druggists than to their doctors, whom they only see for 15 minute every other month to get a new scrip.

Pharmacists are professionals and have a responsibility to their clients - they have an affirmative duty NOT to provide drugs if they think there is a problem, prescription or no prescription.

But even so - if your doctor tells you to take aspirin every day, does that mean that your local store HAS to sell you aspirin?  Shouldn't the local store, like any other business, generally have the right to decline any sale?

Restaurants may not refuse black patrons, true, but that is the exeption rather than the rule.  Restaurants may, for instance, discriminate against people based on how attractive they are, how rich they are, how well they are dressed, their table manners, their choice of entree (some steak houses will eject people who order their steaks well done), or based on anything else they please, with only a few exceptions.

Generally speaking, Americans (individually or as a group) may discriminate all day long - and we do.

There are a very few exceptions (race/gender/disability), and those are generally grounded in major public policy concerns.  I'm just not sure that requiring girls to go to the next Walgreens over qualifies.

The pharmacist is not acting against the woman based on HER beliefs, but based on HIS beliefs.  That makes it not religious discrimination.

Not providing pills to jews would be religious discrimination.

Dibi has more of a point.  To the extent that the pharmacist would provide pills to men (if they existed) but not to women, then there would be an element of gender discrimination.  As it stands condoms do not require a prescription, so it is hard to tell, but this may be de facto gender discrimination.

Hades wrote: I am going to open a bookstore and refuse to sale bibles or anything religion related while adversting that I do. Hopefully those that are affected by this can make their purchases elsewhere. Wasnt there something about not judging thy neighbor? http://www.hangersdirect.com/coat-hangers.shtml?source=gg&keyword=Coat - For those in need: Coathangers are on sale. Please note the metal top style.

I've noticed that the far religious right can be very selective about the bible verses they choose to live by.

I've noticed that the far religious right can be very selective about the bible verses they choose to live by.

Bunkered wrote: I've just decided... Conservatives are pissing me off.

You realize of course that not all conservatives are members of the ultra-right, my god is the only god and I must enforce my beliefs on you or we'll all go to hell club, don't you?

Well, I thought about it some more, and I am more or less back where I started.  Here's what I think:

1.  There are a zillion pharmacies in this country.  I doubt that anybody in this country doesn't have access to at least two.  Walgreens is building a new pharmacy every day (not kidding).  Even in rural America there will be at least one in every town. 

2.  Therefore, we are talking about inconvenience, not actual deprivation.  The drugs in question are easy to get, and with some pre-planning will be handy when needed.  Only in the most extreme situations will a true "emergency" arise that could not have been avoided with some pre-planning.

3.  Pharmacists are also entitled to their freedoms.  Requiring them to sell drugs they disapprove of would be similar to requiring K-Mart to sell porno mags.  Generally speaking, each business has, and should have, the right to decide what to sell and not to sell (and, to a large extent, to whom to sell).  This right should be preserved, and there should be a VERY good reason before we infringe on that basic freedom.  Changing that principle would change the very nature of our economy and society.

4.  I am unconvinced by the "medical emergency" issue.  This is not a medical emergency.  If it doesn't warrant a 911 call, then it isn't a medical emergency.

5.  Along those same lines, even physicians (who are held to a higher standard than K-Mart) have broad discretion to decline or refuse treatment, unless there is a TRUE medical emergency.

6.  To the extent that there is actual gender discrimination shown (pharmacist will sell birth control to men but not women), this is already illegal under current law and can be addressed accordingly.  To the extent that pharmacists "hold prescriptions hostage", this is also (I am confident) illegal under current law and can be addressed accordingly.

7.  Americans are and should be generally free to conduct their business within their own moral beliefs, subject to law.  The fact that some people find the motivations of these pharmacists distasteful is irrelevant.  This is NOT a religious issue.

Therefore, based on the facts as I see them, I stand by my original conclusion:  No action needed.

This is all so stupid, its fine if they have their own personal beliefs on this but to impose their beliefs onto others is just wrong, and because they aren't giving the pills, this will result in more people, not just adults, youg teens too, to get pregnant, then either they would get an abortion anyways which is why the pharmisist aren't giving out the pills, or they would have to struggle through life with a baby that they weren't ready for.

Ihaveanitch wrote: This is all so stupid, its fine if they have their own personal beliefs on this but to impose their beliefs onto others is just wrong, ...

I agree.  Therefore you should not impose your beliefs upon the pharmacists.

he/she shouldn't be a pharmacist then if he/she isn't doing their job which is to sell medicine perscribed by doctors!

Also, if there are a miniority of pharmmacists but most of everyone else out there that don't share their beliefs, do you satisify the minority or the majority?

By that theory, K-Mart should be required to sell porno mags just because they sell some other stuff.

Freedom applies to everybody, even businesses.

that is so unrelated that i don't even see the connection...

But then if a pharmicist could do this, then say a pharmicist refuses to withhold medicine that was perscribed to some one with a disease because the medicine could possibly cause serious side effects. Would this pharmacist have the right to withhold this medicine even when the person is in need of them?

Sure.

The pharmacist is in business.  The pharmacist is not the customer's slave.

The pharmacist can choose to sell or not sell more or less as he pleases.  The pharmacist can choose what products to carry and whom to conduct business with.

The same applies to K-Mart, to banks, to paintball fields, and restaurants.  In each case there are a few specific exceptions, but generally speaking, any business can conduct its business in any fashion it sees fit.

That's capitalism.

Im with Admiralsenn, about everyone has expressed my opinion. In addition I am a conservative and I dissagree with what those pharmacist are doing.

Bunkered and eaglesin05 your comments where unneccessary, unless you've talked to all the conservatives in the United States, which I highly doubt you have, your assuming all conservatives think the same way which we dont. Infact many concervatives disagree on many issues and if you check all the Repulican senators and congressmen's voting records many dont vote the same. Take John McCain for instance, he voted yes for **edited**'s to beable to marry while most other republicans voted no. BTW McCain has a **edited** daughter.

Ihaveanitch wrote: but again it brings me back to that they're imposing their moral/religious beliefs on others that do not share them

No.  They are acting in accordance with their own beliefs.  They are not requiring their customers to share their beliefs, they are simply refusing to be involved in something they deem sinful.

They are not prohibiting people from sinning all they want - the pharmacists are simply asking to be left out.  If these women want birth control pills, they simply have to find another pharmacy.

...on the basis that its like aborstion that kills life, which is untrue, the pills are not killing life but just preventing life to be formed.

The substance of the belief is irrelevant.  The bottom line is that in America, you get to believe what you want.

But your just wrapped around the idea that all that freedom is a good thing

Yep - I must admit that I believe that freedom is a good thing.

..., but it really isn't.

!!!!!!

WIth too much freedom chaos starts up because there aren't strict enough laws to keep society in line.

True - anarchy is not as fun as it sounds.  But we are a long way from anarchy, and a police state sucks even more than anarchy.  And forcing people to act in a manner contrary to their beliefs is something we should strenuously try to avoid.  In this case, it is very easy to avoid.

And like i said, i have absolutly no objection to having these beliefs, but to impose them like i said is just wrong, if the government were to impose a religous belief of some kind on you that you did not believe in would you find that wrong? Or would you go along with it because that government has the "freedom" to do so.

That is completely backwards, and yet supports my position 100%.

By requiring these pharmacists to sell birth control pills, the GOVERNMENT would in fact be imposing a behavior directly opposed to the beliefs of the pharmacist.  The pharmacist is not imposing anything much at all - he just wants to be left alone. 

It would be wrong to prohibit the sale of birth control pills entirely - it would be just as wrong to require the sale of birth control pills.

The customer gets to choose what to buy; the store gets to choose what to sell.

So, no - I do not support government imposition of religion.  That is what I have been arguing in this whole thread.  I favor freedom from government involvement in all matters to the largest extent reasonably feasible.

Bunkered wrote:   The pharmacist having a right to decide which medicines he will sell brought me to an interesting thought... What happens if you have a pharmacist who doesn't believe that Depression is a disease? ... I would think that there would be quite an uproar if that happened, and I don't see how this is much different.

I agree that there would be an uproar.  I also believe that no action would be necessary in that case either.

There are enough pharmacies in the US that there is plenty of competition.  Any pharmacy that doesn't provide something that people want will quickly go out of business.

I might feel differently if pharmacy were a strictly regulated industry, but as it is, it is fairly easy to open one.

I predict that if Osco, for instance, stopped selling birth control pills (or Prozac), Walgreens would start opening stores right next to each Osco with a giant sign that says "birth control and Prozac here!"

The problem with regulation is that once you have a little you need more.  If we start requiring druggists to sell birth control pills, what else will they have to stock, and how much?  Sometimes they don't keep unusual drugs on hand - will that now be required?  Who will decide which drugs are on the "must have" list for pharmacies? 

As a direct result of all of this increased regulation, there will be fewer pharmacies, which is bad, and pharmacies will be more expensive to operate, which is bad.  Both of these will lead to more expensive drugs for everybody, and I think we can all agree that the last thing this country needs is more expensive drugs.

Capitalism will manage this just fine if we let it.

Bunkered wrote: I am somewhat inclined to agree with you Clark... However... I live in a small town. There is one drugstore (Rite Aid). We also had an Arbor's for a while, but that whole chain went out of business. Now we're stuck with Rite Aid, and it's about a 35 minute drive to the next pharmacy. I have a friend who was in one of the emergency situations where she needed the morning after pill (it was a borderline date-rape case), and she had to be able to get it within a short timespan after school.

I agree that things are always harder in rural America, and in many places it is more than 35 minutes to the nearest drug store.

But let me ask you - if your friend were dying and needed some heart medicine (for instance) would she have driven straight there?  Or would she have waited until after school so that she would not be inconvenienced by the drive to the pharmacy? 

Your story supports my position that birth control is not a medical emergency.  Had it been a true emergency she would not have waited for school to let out.  The only thing that happened to your friend was that she was inconvenienced by having to drive for half an hour after school.  If she were in Chicago would have only had to walk across the street, but the point remains.  In today's America, it is merely an inconvenience.

Further  - we as a society should not (must not!) impose a requirement upon businesses that they be convenient.  If this were the standard for pharmacies, should they not also be required to stay open 24/7?  What if a true medical emergency occurred in the middle of the night, and the nearest 24-hour pharmacy were 35 minutes away?  Is that not the exact same situation?  Is it not wrong for a pharmacy to be inconveniently closed - ever?

What about gas stations - should we require that all gas stations be open 24/7, and require that they all accomodate 18-wheelers?  It is a potentially life-threatening situation to run out of gas.  A true emergency.

I can think of "emergencies" of various kinds all day long.  Do we intend to be the kind of place where businesses have no choice in when, how, or where to conduct their business?

Once we start imposing this type of requirements, the slope is not merely slippery - it is practically vertical.

rancidpnk13 wrote: i think that business should be to choose what they sell. However, I don't believe that the employee's at the store should be able to pick and choose which Items they sell in the store. If the store carries it, and its legal, then you should have to sell it. If you don't like it, don't work there.

I agree - and that will take care of itself.  If your local pharmacist at Walgreens won't sell you BC pills, I suspect that one angry letter and two weeks later the problem will be fixed.

For-profit companies don't like their employees making the customers mad.

Hades wrote: Do you agree that if the government cannot force a business to sell a legal product, it then should also not be allowed to prohibit the sale of a legal product?

Isn't that a tautology or oxymoron, depending on how you look at it?  If the government prohibits the sale of a legal product, then it perhaps isn't a legal product anymore?

Anything that the government prohibits isn't legal, pretty much by definition, unless I am missing something...

I think the pharmicists are wrong.  After reading/rereading all of the above inputs I'll admit to not being sure what the correct answer is.  But I would like to add some comparisons that I think shed light on why I thing the pharmicists are wrong.  None of these will be emergencies, they will just be examples that would be inconvenient.  But it doesn't make them right.

How is refusing to sell birth control (when it is part of your job) because of your religious beliefs different from any of the below examples?

• A pharmicist/restaurant owner/whatever that refuses to serve a mixed race couple because miscegenation violates the principals of his religion.
• A clerk at Wal-Mart who refuses to sell condoms to anyone who can't prove they're married because she considers sex outside of marriage a sin.
• A fast food worker who will not serve/sell/cook hamburgers because their religion considers cows sacred.

The first example is already prevented by federal discrimination laws; stores that provide a service must provide that service to all customers regardless or race/religion/ethnic background/etc.  The second is just kind of amusing, but would be really annoying it it happened (at least for you single guys).  The last was based on an actual incident that I was peripherally involved with a few years ago.  The first is the most relevant as it points out that to a certain extent the federal government has already stepped in and regulated the relationship between business owners/service personnel and their customers.

Just thought I'd throw this in to be considered.  So far this has been a very interesting and enlightening topic.