Pharmacies don't have to dispense "Morning After Pill"

[Shelly1582]

"Here's a quick example; If I work at walmart in the sporting goods department and you come in to buy some 40 cal ammo but I believe people shouldn't need anything bigger than 9mm for personal protection so I say I'm not going to sell 40 cal ammo because it is against my beliefs. Am I within my rights and should I keep my job in the sporting goods department"?

Yes, IF your employer gave you the ability to make that decision.

If the employer agreed why would they stock the product that they don't wish to sell? No profit there,

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Here's a quick example; If I work at walmart in the sporting goods department and you come in to buy some 40 cal ammo but I believe people shouldn't need anything bigger than 9mm for personal protection so I say I'm not going to sell 40 cal ammo because it is against my beliefs. Am I within my rights and should I keep my job in the sporting goods department?

I don't have the right to force you to sell it. I do have the right to complain to your superiors and to shop someplace else if I do not receive the result I aim for (cheap pun intended).

 

[Denny347]

I believe it was 88GT that posted that libertarians would be the worst kind of statists if their brand of government were in power. On the one hand we want government to not tell establishments if they can allow smoking on the premises. On the other, we want the government to tell pharmacies they have to sell a product they support.

According to the article, this ruling applies to the state's ability to force people and their businesses to do something, against their will or not. And not so surprisingly, because it also may have a religious aspect to it, it most be wrong.

Which is it? Government good? Government evil?

That's a bit broad don't you think. I don't think 88GT's statement is true. At least not across the party, I cannot rule out individuals that are heavy handed...regardless of party. I'm a libertarian (albeit I don't agree with EVERYTHING in the party line) an I have no problem with the reversal. I cannot imagine the gov telling a business WHAT they need to carry. The bottom line will determine that. If the morning after pill make s them money they will likely sell it. However, if they feel that they would rather not, so be it. There are thousands of different pharmacies so there are many alternatives.

 

[hornadylnl]

What I don't understand is how so many people can ***** about government handouts, welfare and the such... but are so willing to enforce parenthood on those most likely to need these handouts?

Why do you want irresponsible people to reproduce so badly?

It's so they can feel better about themselves. Bash the whore for getting pregnant and wanting an abortion. Then ban abortions so they can't get one. Next, bash the whore for going on Medicaid, WIC, and welfare to take care of the baby they didn't want. Yes, she's responsible for her actions. But you're not going to win any right to life converts by turning your nose up at them.

 

[rambone]

All of this is resolved through property rights. If a customer doesn't like the service he receives from a particular employee at a private business, he should talk to the owner, not the government. Otherwise shop somewhere else. Let the free market fix whatever the perceived problem is. Perhaps even call for a boycott.

Nobody has a "right" to receive Drug ABC at Pharmacy XYZ.

If it's your job to sell medication, and your company carries this medication, you need to sell it or find a new job.

That's between the employee and the owner.

Here's a quick example; If I work at walmart in the sporting goods department and you come in to buy some 40 cal ammo but I believe people shouldn't need anything bigger than 9mm for personal protection so I say I'm not going to sell 40 cal ammo because it is against my beliefs. Am I within my rights and should I keep my job in the sporting goods department?

That's between the employee and the owner.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Here's a quick example; If I work at walmart in the sporting goods department and you come in to buy some 40 cal ammo but I believe people shouldn't need anything bigger than 9mm for personal protection so I say I'm not going to sell 40 cal ammo because it is against my beliefs. Am I within my rights and should I keep my job in the sporting goods department?

Only if they are out of it or do not carry it.

 

[Lex Concord]

I guess it'll now be OK for some pharmacists to refuse to sell chemotherapy drugs, insulin or other drugs because the illness the person is suffering is the will of the gods, too.

And that's how it should be. Let the market work.

 

[Lex Concord]

The problem arises when the business DOES carry said product and one of their employees chooses to impose their subjective "values" on a paying customer. If they want to do that they should open their own pharmacy and stock what they wish, but if a pharmacy is carrying that drug they should have no say whatsoever in its sale. Sell it or quit. Another problem which has arisen in cases like this is the pharmacist refusing to return the patrons script, after refusing to sell the product to them. That's theft and they've been allowed to get away with it because of their beliefs. On a related note, the "morning after pill" is not an abortifacient. It is simply a larger than usual does of the birth control pill. Can we assume that all of you in favour of forbidding this are now in favour of banning the pill?

Okay, now that you have fleshed out your position, I am more in agreement, though I see the pharmacist as employee refusing to sell something that the pharmacy stocks as an employment issue and still not a scenario that warrants government intrusion.

If the pharmacy allows pharmacists to make this call, then the matter is settled.

Being in favor of allowing a private entity, whether licensed by the state or not, to make such a call is a far cry from being in favor of banning this or other substances.

 

[mbills2223]

If they do not carry the product, it then does not become a question of a pharmacist refusing to sell a product because of his own religious views, it simply means it is not in stock. If my pharmacist at CVS told me he wasn't going to dispense my prescription due to it going against his own religious views I'd be willing to bet he'd be looking for a new job, and rightly so.

He could then go apply for a position as a pharmacist at a catholic hospital.

Your sense of a right to anything from a private entity has gotten the better of you, but don't take my word for it:

Indiana SB147, SB297, HB1734, HB1631

You would lose that bet.

As a pharmacy student soon to enter the pharmacy world, I'm horrified by some of what I have read here. Pharmacists have the right, and even more so, the ethical obligation, to refuse to fill medications based not only on their morals, but in the best interest of the patient. Pharmacists are experts in the drug world, yes, pharmacists know more about medication in and of itself than doctors.

We, by law, are protected from our employer so that we can make a decision with a clear head, and this is, thankfully, extended to our morals. You would lose this hypothetical bet you mention, because a company cannot legally fire a pharmacist for refusal to fill/dispense a medication that they do not wish to dispense whether it be on moral or medical grounds.

You should be thankful that we have this protection, because if the corporations had their way, we would have to turn a blind eye to a LOT of things.

There are and always will be pharmacists more than happy to dispense contraception, including Plan-B, and the day that the law allows companies to mandate pharmacists to fill any sort of medication will begin an even steeper decline into second rate, socialist health care.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Your sense of a right to anything from a private entity has gotten the better of you, but don't take my word for it:

Indiana SB147, SB297, HB1734, HB1631

You would lose that bet.

As a pharmacy student soon to enter the pharmacy world, I'm horrified by some of what I have read here. Pharmacists have the right, and even more so, the ethical obligation, to refuse to fill medications based not only on their morals, but in the best interest of the patient. Pharmacists are experts in the drug world, yes, pharmacists know more about medication in and of itself than doctors.

We, by law, are protected from our employer so that we can make a decision with a clear head, and this is, thankfully, extended to our morals. You would lose this hypothetical bet you mention, because a company cannot legally fire a pharmacist for refusal to fill/dispense a medication that they do not wish to dispense whether it be on moral or medical grounds.

You should be thankful that we have this protection, because if the corporations had their way, we would have to turn a blind eye to a LOT of things.

There are and always will be pharmacists more than happy to dispense contraception, including Plan-B, and the day that the law allows companies to mandate pharmacists to fill any sort of medication will begin an even steeper decline into second rate, socialist health care.

You are right about knowing the drugs. There is a reason the pharmacists ask the questions they do, as a backup to what you may or may not have told your Dr and the Doctors cannot possibly keep up with all the drugs, it is difficult enough for a pharmacist.

 

[Ted]

The original poster blames the gov, but either way the point still applies. Do we want others to dictate what is best for us or not? It cannot go both ways depending on whether the scenario in question is one in which you support.

The OP has taken no position upon the subject.

 

[donnie1581]

Your sense of a right to anything from a private entity has gotten the better of you, but don't take my word for it:

Indiana SB147, SB297, HB1734, HB1631

You would lose that bet.

As a pharmacy student soon to enter the pharmacy world, I'm horrified by some of what I have read here. Pharmacists have the right, and even more so, the ethical obligation, to refuse to fill medications based not only on their morals, but in the best interest of the patient. Pharmacists are experts in the drug world, yes, pharmacists know more about medication in and of itself than doctors.

We, by law, are protected from our employer so that we can make a decision with a clear head, and this is, thankfully, extended to our morals. You would lose this hypothetical bet you mention, because a company cannot legally fire a pharmacist for refusal to fill/dispense a medication that they do not wish to dispense whether it be on moral or medical grounds.

You should be thankful that we have this protection, because if the corporations had their way, we would have to turn a blind eye to a LOT of things.

There are and always will be pharmacists more than happy to dispense contraception, including Plan-B, and the day that the law allows companies to mandate pharmacists to fill any sort of medication will begin an even steeper decline into second rate, socialist health care.

So why should your morals trump my right to receive medication?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So why should your morals trump my right to receive medication?

Where is this right, that forces somebody to do something against their will?

 

[mbills2223]

So why should your morals trump my right to receive medication?

You do not have a right to receive anything, including medication, from a private entity.

 

[lucky4034]

Why do you want to kill people because their parents may be irresponsible?

So I don't have to pay for their government handouts... I thought I implied that.

 

[Ted]

Where is this right, that forces somebody to do something against their will?

You do not have a right to receive anything, including medication, from a private entity.

Though the law prohibits discrimination, that is, selective prohibition.

 

[Jack Burton]

Just to play devils advocate, who is to say the person cannot have a child due to high risk of fallopian tube implantation, and is awaiting tubal ligation and/or hysterectomy?

That is for the patient and the doctor to discuss, if the pharmacist has a problem with that; then they can contact the MD for clarification and/or are in the wrong business.

most pharmacists don't own their own stores

Then the patient can go to a store that sells the pill...

And if the pharmiscist doesn't own the store then they answer to the people who do... not the government.

 

[Jack Burton]

I guess it'll now be OK for some pharmacists to refuse to sell chemotherapy drugs, insulin or other drugs because the illness the person is suffering is the will of the gods, too.

Why should the pharmacists be forced to sell any drug? Do you know better how to run his business?

 

[Jack Burton]

He's a pharmacist, his profession is to dispense drugs. He should probably dispense drugs and leave his personal beliefs at home. None of you think others should be able to dictate what is best for us but us, so isn't it hypocritical to now decide our pharmacist can decide that we shouldn't take something because he is morally against it? We either want to be "Nanny'd" or we don't. Or is a Nanny state ok as long as it aligns with your views?

I go to a licensed barber who's profession is to cut hair. If he decides that he doesn't want to do buzz cuts and I want a buzz cut then I go to a different barber. I don't feel a compelling need to have the government force him to give me a buzz cut.

 

[Jack Burton]

The original poster blames the gov, but either way the point still applies. Do we want others to dictate what is best for us or not? It cannot go both ways depending on whether the scenario in question is one in which you support.

I am sorry... but how is the pharmiscist "dictating" anything?