I didn’t get anything from a pharmacist-- Planned Parenthood has stacks and stacks of birth control pills they dispense. They just handed me some.
Hell, even when I got on the pill regularly, they would give me a year’s supply, not write me a script to go fill myself.
Agreed… I think the issue has very little to do with moral opposition to BC/EC/Abortion… and everything to do with personal judgement and positional power. :dubious:
I don’t have sex in your church and I don’t want to hear about your religion when I go to any pharmacy for medication.
If I really wanted to be in your church, I would get out of bed in the morning and GO. ***But i don’t. ***Do your job and leave mythology OUT of the pharmacy.
Well said, 
Why is it “my” church, but “the” pharmacy?
I say it’s MY pharmacy, if I’m the owner of the pharmacy. And therefore I get to decide what I sell.
Bricker, could you start a thread on this? I’'d like to see a specific debate on the merits of this stance.
Is a pharmacist a private contractor who can sell,or refuse to sell, medications according to his beliefs?
Or does he perform a public service, gets (in part) publicly funded, and thus has no right to deviate from the local laws on what is legal or illegal to sell?
If he gets publicly funded, then of course I agree that the entity funding him has the right to say, in effect, “If you don’t sell X, then I will no longer fund you.” But he in turn has every right to forgo that funding and sell only what he wishes.
Many states take this position. Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington have specific language in their statutes or regulatory code that uphold a pharmacist’s ability to refuse to dispense certain items, such as contraceptives. Other states are silent on the issue, which amounts to the same situation – there is no rule compelling a pharmacist to act.
California permits a pharmacist to refuse only when the patient has another, timely option. Illinois, New Jersey, and Wisconsin require pharmacists to dispense all FDA-approved remedies regardless of religiously-based objections.
So the state law framework on this issue is not unanimous – but the strong majority of states do not require a pharmacist to act as anya marie demands.
I think we’ve done enough GD threads on this issue in the past, but if, in light of the information above, you still think there’s value in another round, I’m game.
I would think that this would be best handled by a professional organization. If someone wants to call themselves a pharmacist, and do the highly trained and very important job of a pharmacist, then they must belong to a national accrediting body. This body should require (as does Illinois, New Jersey, and Wisconsin) that a pharmacist must dispense all legal drugs that are prescribed by a licenced doctor. To do otherwise would abrogate your professional responsibilities.
If someone does not want to abide by the rules of the profession, then that’s fine. They simply cannot call themselves a pharmacist. They can open a magic shop, and sell magic healing remedies, or offer to pray to make someone better.
Well, I would think this is a matter for state regulation, not a national, federal regulation – unless you’re picturing a voluntary organization of some kind, where the market would determine its membership and success.
But I notice you first define the “rules of the profession” to be the ones you want, and then say, “If someone does not want to abide by the rules of the profession, then that’s fine. They simply cannot call themselves a pharmacist.”
How we instead adopt the rules from the majority of states? Having done this, is it STILL acceptable to say, “If someone does not want to abide by the rules of the profession, then that’s fine. They simply cannot call themselves a pharmacist?” Or has this declaration lost its magic power when the rules aren’t the ones you want?
I believe that medical and scientific professionals should be governed by medical and scientific professional bodies who set the rules for their members, and should not be governed by politicians who base their decisions on their personal religious beliefs.
Religion has no place in the governing or regulation of science or medicine.
I don’t particularly care what the legal-nitpickery, constitutional or “states rights” take on this is. Bottom line - Religion has no place in the governing or regulation of science or medicine.
I bet you don’t.
I bet you believe in the authority of such bodies because you imagine they will tender the result you wish.
I bet if you were to discover that the APhA, the national professional body for pharmacists, supports an objecting pharmacist’s refusal to dispense a medication for religious or moral reason, you would change your tune.
Their official position is that “The ability of health professionals to opt out of services they find personally objectionable is an important component of the health care system. APhA’s policy supports the ability of a pharmacist to opt out of dispensing a prescription or providing a service for personal reasons…”
They go on to also support developing a system whereby a patient’s “… access to appropriate health care is not disrupted;” basically they favor a quasi-California type solution where an objecting pharmacist would return the prescription and direct the patient to a non-objecting provider.
So, let’s see if you really believe that “medical and scientific professionals should be governed by medical and scientific professional bodies who set the rules for their members,” or if you actually believe that medical and scientific professionals should be governed by whatever combination of rules will produce the outcome you favor.
You lose.
Your prognostication abilities are crap, and your ability to project your own close-mindedness is fantastic.
Ah, so do you think that a pharmacist should be allowed to refuse medication to black people or homosexuals? Should he be allowed to substitute an AIDS patient’s medication with sugar pills to punish them for their “sin”? Which sorts of science are they allowed to ignore, and which kinds of bigotry are they allowed to indulge in?
Because they are run by woman-hating bigots. Indulging such bigots by letting them inflict their malice on women is unjustified.
Because people say, my church and then they give the NAME of a church, Saint Wherever, or First Lutheran, or Boringville Presbyterian.
I don’t belong to ANY church. Some people are like that.
Most pharmacies are part of a chain in my neighborhood. If I went to any pharmacy that pushed religious mumbo-jumbo with their medicines I would take my business elsewhere.
My opinion is that they are fucking wrong. I have morals too. If I wanted preaching and lectures, I know damn well where to find them. It’s your job. Shut the fuck up and give people their damn medication. Everybody knows where the churches are if they want to go. Pharmacy school is six years and by the time you finish you should understand what the medications can DO. I for one am VERY tired of everyone else’s religion. Get over yourself and do your job, OR get the Fuck out.
Here’s a better idea. As long as I’m not your boss, I don’t get to tell you what your job is and how you should do it and vice versa.
Which states actually have laws that defend that?
'Cause I’ve looked and while some read as a general protection of the idea that no pharmacist has to dispense anything that violated their conscious they read very differently when you add the “small print”.
Idaho’s law is a perfect example,
The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away,
So “any health care service” doesn’t really mean any health care service.
These laws have been abused (Post 4) to deny women (well at least one woman) drugs that were not “abortifacient drug, human embryonic stem cell research, treatment regimens utilizing human embryonic stem cells, human embryo cloning or end of life treatment and care”
CMC
I’m glad I don’t live in your country. I expect my government to enforce regulations for equal safety and access for all.
What about a patient’s right to know? Shouldn’t these pharmacists be required to post a sign saying “I may exercise my right refuse to fill prescriptions which violate my moral code”? Such a sign would get the job done, and keep any pharmacists who might be so inclined from slut shaming someone attempting to fill a contraceptive/Plan B prescription. It would save everyone time!
In addition, it would prevent the pharmacist from confiscating said prescription and refusing to give it back so it can be filled elsewhere (my personal experience). Fortunately, my need wasn’t urgent, just my monthly birth control, and my doctor issued another prescription. My doctor stopped referring people to that pharmacy, though…
So, to be clear … are you saying you endorse the position of the APhA?
Which states have laws that require pharmacists to carry and dispense a given drug?
That is, you point out that Idaho’s “small print” taketh away - but what law in Idaho would require the pharmacist to dispense EC? Granted that EC is not covered by the “any health care service” law – so we’re back at ground zero. The pharmacist is still not legally required to dispense the treatment – is he?