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

[Jack Burton]

When they and their employees were licensed and regulated by the state.

"licensed" means they have the ability to sell certain pharmacuticals. It is not a demand that they sell all pharmacuticals.

No more than a license to set up a Ford dealership means you suddenly have to sell Chevys on your lot.

 

[Bunnykid68]

"licensed" means they have the ability to sell certain pharmacuticals. It is not a demand that they sell all pharmacuticals.

No more than a license to set up a Ford dealership means you suddenly have to sell Chevys on your lot.

Not yet anyway

 

[Jack Burton]

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.

Aside from the fact that CVS is corporate owned, you feel that a businessowner has no right to be influenced by his religious views when setting up his business?

The CVS pharmacist has to answer to corporate, not you or the governement. The owner answers to himself.

 

[Jack Burton]

Not the pharmacies themselves, they can choose to not carry the product, gov having nothing to do with it. It is pharmacists trying to inflict their own religious beliefs on others that I disagree with.

Go ahead and disagree, but the business owner has the perfect right to tell you what his religious view are.

 

[Jack Burton]

Yes. If the policy of the company is to dispense any and all drugs legally dispensable by prescription, and have it in stock, the aforementioned pharmacist is bound by his employment to dispense those drugs. Do you disagree? Perhaps, if he is a contract employee, he may get a contract concession stating that he or she specifically may not be compelled to fill such prescription, provided there is another pharmacist on site to dispense the prescription. Short of that, I see no way for an employee to say "I don't believe in this drug, therefore I shall not dispense it." and be either A) qualified to hold such a position or B) remain an employee when showing wanton insubordination to established company policy.

No one is arguing that an employee gets to make rules contrary to the corporate regulations.

 

[Jack Burton]

If it's your job to sell medication, and your company carries this medication, you need to sell it or find a new job. Maybe open your own pharmacy that does not carry "offensive" products, or apply at a catholic run pharmacy. It's not a matter of winning.

Not what the lawsuit was about.

 

[Jack Burton]

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?

Has nothing to do with the lawsuit.

 

[Jack Burton]

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

Are you crippled in both legs, blind and deaf, and in a diabetic coma so that you are unable to walk down the street to the next pharmacy?

 

[Survivalcookie]

If a drug store does not want to carry it...that is their business...I would rather see the government pay for a morning after pill than pay for abortions. I do believe that life begins at conception...many don't. But the humane thing for the child is the morning after pill.

 

[NYFelon]

No one is arguing that an employee gets to make rules contrary to the corporate regulations.

It wasn't an argument in the first place. I was asked a specific question, and I responded to it. The question being "Shouldn't it be an issue between the employee and the employer?" To which my answer is, yes, yes it should. My position throughout this whole discussion has been that if the pharmacist is a private owner of a pharmacy, he may choose to not carry and dispense any pharmaceutical he chooses. If he is an employee, he is bound by his employment to follow company policy. I then further went on to say that if, as a contract employee he could have a special exemption worked into his contract, as I outlined, then that too is fine.

In short, I don't see the need for this issue to have ever seen the inside of a courtroom, barring the incident where a pharmacist not only refused to fill the prescription, but refused to return the prescription itself. And that should have been a criminal charge of theft levied against the pharmacist. How you could have drawn any other conclusion sir, I am unsure. But rest assured, I was responding to a specific question.

Cliffs -
-Own your own pharmacy, I'm sorry we don't carry that product
-return prescription to it's owner, and carry on
-Employed by big bix chain pharmacy, act in accordance with company policy.

It's pretty simple really.

 

[Jack Burton]

It wasn't an argument in the first place. I was asked a specific question, and I responded to it. The question being "Shouldn't it be an issue between the employee and the employer?" To which my answer is, yes, yes it should. My position throughout this whole discussion has been that if the pharmacist is a private owner of a pharmacy, he may choose to not carry and dispense any pharmaceutical he chooses. If he is an employee, he is bound by his employment to follow company policy. I then further went on to say that if, as a contract employee he could have a special exemption worked into his contract, as I outlined, then that too is fine.

In short, I don't see the need for this issue to have ever seen the inside of a courtroom, barring the incident where a pharmacist not only refused to fill the prescription, but refused to return the prescription itself. And that should have been a criminal charge of theft levied against the pharmacist. How you could have drawn any other conclusion sir, I am unsure. But rest assured, I was responding to a specific question.

Cliffs -
-Own your own pharmacy, I'm sorry we don't carry that product
-return prescription to it's owner, and carry on
-Employed by big bix chain pharmacy, act in accordance with company policy.

It's pretty simple really.

In the back and forth of who quotes whom it is often possible for individual positions to get lost in the clutter. It sounds as if we are pretty much on the same page.

 

[NYFelon]

No sweat.

 

[steveh_131]

Normally I would be of the opinion that the government should stay out of this entirely. Let private owners decide what they want to sell, end of story.

Unfortunately, the government is already involved in this. They decide who may or may not sell pharmaceuticals. And the list is not long. There is no free market here.

So now that you only have corrupt corporations teaming up with our corrupt government to control pharmaceuticals, we're stuck in a catch-22.

Once you involve the government, you get tangled up in messes like this. The real solution? Abolishing the FDA and all of these other nanny state organizations that create these sorts of messes.

 

[Survivalcookie]

Private company should have the choice to sell or not sell a product.

Government should not tell a private entity they HAVE to sell something they do not wish to sell.

It is as simple as that.

They should not be telling private citizens what to buy either.

 

[mlzoiss]

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?

Sorry but your "facts" are incorrect. The morning after pill or "Plan B" most certainly IS an abortifacient, as are MOST artificial hormones taken as "birth control." The whole point of the drug is to "abort" an already fertilized egg by altering the lining of the uterus so that it cannot implant. That fertilized egg is a whole and complete human life with all the material it needs to grow to adulthood already contained within.

Not to mention the dangerous and serious side effects of Plan B and artificial hormones on a woman's body. Blood clot, stroke, increased risk of cancer, blood pressure problems, decreased libido, increased risk of ectopic pregnancy, and if taken too late, the fetus is subject to deformity and the woman risks serious health problems.

Combined oral contraceptives, better known as The Pill, rank as Group I carcinogens according to a 2005 report released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
​

Why do women worry so much about hormones in beef, chickens, and dairy products, while they willingly pump their bodies full of artificial hormones daily?

And NO, no one should be forced to contribute to the destruction of a human life, no matter who thinks they have the "right" to force them to do so. In fact, I believe the pharmacists should have a right to distribute more and better information on the dangers of such products, since most doctors these days are unwilling to do so, and many women only care about fixing a "mistake" they should have considered way before they found themselves in a pharmacy.

Calling Plan B "medication" is a bit of a stretch, unless you consider pregnancy a disease...

 

[Ted]

Normally I would be of the opinion that the government should stay out of this entirely. Let private owners decide what they want to sell, end of story.

Unfortunately, the government is already involved in this. They decide who may or may not sell pharmaceuticals. And the list is not long. There is no free market here.

So now that you only have corrupt corporations teaming up with our corrupt government to control pharmaceuticals, we're stuck in a catch-22.

Once you involve the government, you get tangled up in messes like this. The real solution? Abolishing the FDA and all of these other nanny state organizations that create these sorts of messes.

That's great..... until one purchases a needed drug from their local pharmacy..... that is manufactured in North Korea..... or someone's garage.

 

[NYFelon]

That's great..... until one purchases a needed drug from their local pharmacy..... that is manufactured in North Korea..... or someone's garage.

Why is that? Why should the pharmaceutical industry not follow a model like the Underwriter's Laboratories? UL is not a government agency, but instead is a private entity. You'll scarcely find an electrical product for sale in the US which is not UL approved. I trust a Company funded by private business interests to determine suitability of a product for market based on its possible effect on bottom line should it prove to be dangerous moreso than a governmental agency which is subject to political pressure and whims of personal belief. You'd probably also see a vast improvement in time to market approvals over the decade plus average of FDA approval bureaucracy.

 

[88GT]

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.

What is this? Do I detect a little bit of McDonald's Government in this post?

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?

And you apparently want it. How else do you intend of coercing someone to provide service to you he would be disinclined to provide at his own choice?

Not the pharmacies themselves, they can choose to not carry the product, gov having nothing to do with it. It is pharmacists trying to inflict their own religious beliefs on others that I disagree with.

So in disagreeing with the pharmacist "inflicting his beliefs on you," your method of disagreement is to "inflict" yours on him to compel him to do something against his will. Gotcha!

If a drug store does not want to carry it...that is their business...I would rather see the government pay for a morning after pill than pay for abortions. I do believe that life begins at conception...many don't. But the humane thing for the child is the morning after pill.

What do you think the morning after pill is?

So now that you only have corrupt corporations teaming up with our corrupt government to control pharmaceuticals, we're stuck in a catch-22.

Are there no corporations operating on a neutral to ethical playing field?

I would have thought that the libertarians were smart enough not to need a bogeyman to demonize such that they had to resort to the "evil BIG ________" paradigm.

That's great..... until one purchases a needed drug from their local pharmacy..... that is manufactured in North Korea..... or someone's garage.

So what? What ever happened to caveat emptor? There's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[downzero]

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.

I'd rep you but apparently you've earned too much rep from me today.

I also wonder what this concept of "conception" is if it's not implantation, because many fertilized eggs never implant even without the morning after pill, so I can't imagine live begins at fertilization.

Then again, I took a class on reproductive biology and we never came to any conclusion as to what "conception" meant other than as a meaningless buzz word.

 

[downzero]

It's pretty simple really.

Until you need a product in the next few hours that can only come from a very heavily regulated source.

The morning after pill should just be over the counter. That would eliminate this bull**** permanently. If every gas station had it, nobody would care about this.