Euthanasia Rxs must be filled by an pharmacist, and Oregon law does not allow any pharmacist to be fired for refusing to fill them.
[QUOTE=continuity eror]
I live in a town with only one pharmacy. I can’t drive. If I was a minor, and my parents were also strict Catholics, and I didn’t have any driving friends, I’d be SOL./QUOTE]
Well, you probably wouldn’t be able to get the Rx for the MA Pill in the first place if you were in that position. If you went to the family Dr, he may tell your parents, and you probably couldn’t get an appointment with another Dr soon enough (not to mention paying for it).
If you went to an Urgent Care or Public Health clinic, they would just give you the pills there and then.
Simply change the last phrase to “no one is forcing them to dispense a particular scrip if it is against their moral beliefs” and we have agreement.
Same reason we allow Jews to take days off on the Sabbath. The morning after pill can be dispensed by someone else.
Suppose they do start their own company. Should they allow an employee to fulfill a prescription for the morning after pill? If they can forbid it for their employees, couldn’t another pharmacy allow it?
You seem to be arguing that companies should allow their employees to demur from selling products they find morally offensive. If you are, I agree with you.
Regards,
Shodan
I think that’s a little different than trying to get the medicine you need.
The comment about euthanasia drugs brings up another salient point: birth control has been on the market for the last forty years. I can see, and might even support, someone not wanting to fill a prescription for RU-486 or euthanasia drugs, because those things are new and pharmacists could not have foreseen the existence of those drugs. So they are being forced, in those cases, to provide something with which they disagree and had no knowledge of. But every pharmacist today (excepting the very old) knows that birth control is a common, oft-prescribed medication. They know that going into school. So I don’t think refusing to sell the abortion pill (just pointing out again that Plan B doesn’t cause abortions) and euthanasia drugs is the same as providing birth control. Pharmacists have always been aware of birth control, so they have time to either accept it, or find another line of work. They haven’t always been aware of these new drugs.
I think that when it comes to public health, personal morality should take a back seat to the consensus view. – particularly when you have huge behemoth stores making their conservative beliefs corporate policy.
It’s one thing for Wal-Mart to refuse to carry certain movies and records. Even if market forces drive all the competing video and record stores out of business, local consumers still have relatively easy access to what they want through mail-order. Even if that’s not a practical option for them for some reason, barriers to watching Natural Born Killers in its uncut form aren’t really terribly harmful.
Access to health-care options is something else again. If Wal Mart comes into a small community, beats the pants off Ed’s Family Druggist, and then tells everyone in the community “Sorry, no Birth Control pills for you, Head Office no likey the contraception,” that’s going to have negative consequences for the community.
These laws that y’all are getting passed that protect companies’ right to do just that are liable to have unintended consequences. How long before some sanctimonious twit refuses to fill a prescription intended to treat an STD, because the suffering customer is, in their view, “receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due,” and it’s morally wrong to help them avoid God’s intended punishment for their sins?
Access to health care options is a fundamental human need, and should be protected vociferously.
The word LEGAL has been inserted by me. Soldiers are, in theory, required to refuse to follow unlawful orders. I doubt it happens very often, though.
If the pharmacy were mine, I would make it clear that I sold products that some people might object to selling on moral / religous grounds. I would insist that potential pharmacists or other employees swear that their moral / religous beliefs would NOT interfere with the selling of ANY of my products. After all, we make judges swear their personal beliefs will not interfere with their application of the law. Even Ashcroft swore that, I believe; not that he necessarily lived up to it.
I retract the comment re Ashcroft. I forgot we are in GD and I cannot provide a cite in defense of that statement.
Because the supply of pharmacists is unnaturally limited via licensing, I would like the licensing to reflect the needs of the public. To get fully licensed, I think pharmacists should have to swear to fill all legal prescriptions, barring use that is medically unsound such as a conflict between medicines. If someone has gone through the training but is not willing to swear that they will fill all legal prescriptions, that person should receive a limited license. That person would be permitted to dispense medications, but would be under the oversight of a fully licensed pharmacist at all times.
If the government doesn’t want the responsibility for what the pharmacists do, the government shouldn’t be mucking about with the public’s ability to get a medication. Since the government limits who can prescribe medications, it’s the government’s responsibility to make sure said people are fulfilling their obligations.
The government has created a monopoly. I think they should police that monopoly or stop supporting it. And anyone who argues “free market” in this example appears to me to be missing the point entirely. It isn’t a free market if we restrict who is allowed to purchase and who is allowed to sell.
Yeah, that’s probably what I would do too. It makes more sense to not have to deal with the controversy at all. I suspect that pharmacists who refuse to sell certain drugs probably have a harder time getting a job (depending on where they live, etc.) And that’s how it should be. They are limiting what they will or will not do.
Nobody is being restricted. From what I understand, the company who hires the pharmacist (who refuses to dispense certain drugs) does not have to employ that person. If they were like LouisB and me, they probably wouldn’t.
But just because one pharmacist does not want to dispense a certain drug, it doesn’t make the drug magically unavailable—anymore than Big Macs are “unavailable” just because they aren’t sold during breakfast hours or when McDonald’s is closed. The drugs are still freely available and they are still being sold. They just aren’t available at that one location, perhaps only some of the time (when that particular pharmacist is on duty).
I asked this before and no one answered it: What if a small-town, isolated pharmacy cannot find a pharmacist who will dispense all drugs? What if there just isn’t anyone else available (the community is so small and isolated, perhaps with a high percentage of Catholics) other than the guy who will dispense everything but the morning after pill (or some other non-life-sustaining drug)? What then? Should the pharamcy go out of business then?
The government restricts who may sell and who may buy certain drugs. Those drugs are classified as prescription only and must be prescribed by a doctor (which is one restriction), and dispensed by a pharmacist (which is a second restriction).
Yes, and the person with the prescription can still buy the drug. They just have to go to a place where the drug is available. Which may not be at every pharmacy.
You are misunderstanding my argument.
The government is putting the pharmacist in a position of power. The government has established a monopoly over prescription availability. Those who argue that she can go elsewhere as a function of a free market are ignoring the very pertinent fact that we aren’t dealing with a free market. Free markets might end up with monopolies, but not ones that are engendered by the government itself.
If there is no free market regarding prescription medicines, it’s odd for free marketers to suggest that the solution to the woman’s problem be the free market, as if the woman’s actions have any effect on the freeness of said market. The market for prescription drugs is not free.
Okay, I understand where you’re coming from.
Do you think that it’s possible that the govt. has set licensing up the way that they have because they realize that some pharmacies might never go into business—might never serve a small, isolated community—if they were forced to sell all drugs? (I have no idea of this is the case or not, I’m just wondering.) In the question I’ve posed twice now, I’ve been wondering which would be better for a small, isolated community: a pharmacy that sells and dispenses most drugs (with the exception of a few non-life-sustaining ones) or not having a pharmacy at all? That might be what it comes down to in smaller communities if they are required to sell everything, and must employ a pharmacist who will dispense anything. They simply might not be able to find someone to do the job in their area.
The barriers for entering pharmacy are already quite high, and that undoubtedly affects pharmacies when it comes time to do hiring. We accept those limitations (at least most of us do) because we consider the restrictions to be in the public interest. If we want to guarantee that a pharmacy can always find someone to do the job, we would have to lower the barriers to becoming a pharmacist. That doesn’t happen. So, it must be that we are willing to have an artificially limited employment pool.
So, I guess you’re saying that it would be better for a small, isolated community (such as I described) to not have a pharmacy at all, then?
That has been my specific question, after all. A yes or no question.
So if a isolated community, perhaps a predominantly religious community, can’t find anyone who wants to open a business that sells, let’s say, RU 486, and they can’t find a pharmacist who will fill such a prescription, then the answer is to not have any pharmacy?
Actually, since I am opposed to the government creating and maintaining a monopoly on the availability of prescription drugs, I cannot answer your question. Small isolated communities go without pharmacies now, for reasons I absolutely disagree with. I could just as easily claim that you are for those communities being without pharmacies if you support the current rules, but that would be, I think, unreasonable.
My answer is “None of the above.” Sorry.
I’m not saying that anyone who is for stricter guidelines for pharmacies would be for the smaller communities going without. Some rules must be, for the safety of the community, and if means that a smaller community goes without, that might well be what it means.
Also, some rules probably suck (not that I really know enough about the situation to know which rules suck), and it’s understandable to wish they were removed.
However, the complaint here has been, “What if I live in a small community and I can’t get my [RU 486/Morning After Pill/etc.]? What then? That’s not right!” Well, no, it’s not right, I can see how people would feel that way. But if the situation was such that it was either a pharmacy without RU 486, etc., or no pharmacy, what would be the better choice for their community, here? Would it be better for them to insist upon a stricter rule, one that is going to drive out the pharmacy in their small town? Would that solve their problem for them? Quiet their complaints?
Do people who live in such communities now complain because the barriers for being a pharmacist are too high, causing there to be no pharmacist in their town? I live in a community where there is a struggle to keep pharmacists. No one here goes around talking about how hard it is to find pharmacists because the barriers for entry are too high, keeping potential pharmacists from entering the field.
A couple of years ago, my husband and I went to KFC. We were going to get chicken pot pies. It sounded so good, and they had been advertised. We went to the local KFC and they didn’t carry them. No chicken pot pies. We were far more disappointed by there being a KFC that didn’t carry pot pies than we would have been had there been no KFC in the area at all. I think that’s human nature, isn’t it? And if it had been the case that they had pot pies but just refused to sell them to us, then the stink would have been audible on Pluto.
So, would it quiet their complaints? Very likely. You don’t complain about an empty storefront not giving you your morning after pill.
Would it be better for the community? That depends on about a bajillion factors. If the established lousy pharmacy/pharmacist can keep a good pharmacy/pharmacist from setting up shop, then keeping them around is bad for the community. If the pharmacy’s policy causes community rancor and/or boycotting, that’s probably not great for the community. Joe Schmoe getting his heart meds quickly is good for the community. Joan Jones not getting her morning after pill is bad for the community (in my opinion, of course). Having Frannie Pharmacist who is unable to look beyond her religious beliefs in the service of the public she has in a government-sanctioned headlock is bad for the community (again, in my opinion).
In my community, there is no place to buy OTC birth control. I don’t think it’s a moral thing, not directly. I think it’s that they don’t sell here. Not that people aren’t using them, but my god, this is a small, inbred place. I imagine I could buy a pack of condoms at the pharmacy and by the time I walked to the market someone would know what brand it was. 
How does the licensing requirement unnaturally limit the supply of pharmacists? Sure, it limits the supply of pharmacists to those who are willing to meet the requirements, but that’s not an unnatural limit As far as I know, most licenses are granted based upon the applicant meeting certain requirements. You can’t be a work as a pharmacist unless you meet the licensing requirements, but that goes for all licenses, whether it’s a regular drivers license, a CDL, a real estate sales license or a hairstylist’s license I have never heard of a numerical limit on the number of licenses issued of any kind. It would be an unnatural limit on the supply of pharmacists if, for example, a state would only license 5,000 pharmacists ( or pharmacies) at a time, and in that case, I would say the state could require the pharmacy or pharmacist to dispense any legal pescription. And they could do the same in the case of a trucking company which refused to transport certain goods, or a hairstylist who wouldn’t color hair or a real estate agent who wouldn’t rent apartments if those licenses were numerically limited. That could happen- the city of NY only allows a certain number of taxi medalions, and you can’t get one just by meeting requirements. You have to wait until someone is willing to sell theirs to you, and there are rules that medallion taxis must folow that car services don’t have to follow. But as far as I know, there is nowhere that pharmacist #200 . who refuses to dispense a particular drug for moral reasons , prevents qualified pharmacist #5001 from obtaining a license and opening a competing pharmacy.
Well, where do you draw the line. Should the KFC get to pick which items they sell, or not? If they were singling you out and not selling just to you that would be one thing, but if they don’t want to sell something, they shouldn’t have to sell it, should they?
You mean that if a community used to have a pharmacy, and, because they pressed to have the laws changed, now the pharmacy is closed, they wouldn’t complain? They wouldn’t say, “Gee, at least when the pharmacy existed we could get some medicine.” They wouldn’t do that?
Well, yeah, but what if there was no one else to replace the crappy pharmacy, and no one else that wanted to open a pharmacy there?
And wouldn’t the better pharmacy, in some cases at least, have a good chance of pushing out the crappy pharmacy anyway, if enough people are not getting the drugs that they want?
But if it’s a choice between Frannie and nobody (because nobody else wants to work in West Dog Patch), then perhaps Frannie is better than nothing.
That sounds horrible! :eek: