In my personal opinion, requiring such signs would be an acceptable requirement.
Why should your opinion about what their job is be of any relevance at all?
But I don’t agree with your view of what regulations should be enforced.
My endorsement or approval is meaningless.
I believe that a national professional body is the appropriate group to determine professional duties and ethics, particularly for a medical profession. It should not be up to the locally elected politicians of Bum-fuck Kansas to determine who gets what medical care.
I can’t help noticing, however, that while you restate your general position, you refuse to make a specific comment about the APhA’s position on the the ability of health professionals to opt out of services they find personally objectionable being an important component of the health care system
I was responding to John Mace, who seems to believe businesses should not be subject to any regulations, which is quite a different thing.
I can’t help noticing that you have “pedantic asshat” tattooed on your forehead, but I will refrain from pointing and making a scene.
What an absolute drip you are Bricker. I don’t know how it is you cope with life without electrocuting yourself, if you can’t cope with “opinion” meaning someone besides you running their mouth.
The customer should have the option to walk out the door and take their business elsewhere WITHOUT HASSLE whenever the pharmacist pulls this “moral” clause bullshit. Pharmacy school is long enough that the pharmacist should know based on SCIENCE, what the pills do.
They give you information about the medication when you get a prescription. Is it really that unreasonable to be able to know that anybody who spends money for meds – should be able to find out beforehand, without being subject to slut-shaming?
CMC
I totally agree. Bricker is totally right and is owning all the fucking retards in this thread.
What a dumb-ass assumption to make. Was I responding to someone who was talking about all jobs in general? No. Should my response be extrapolated beyond what I was responding to? No.
But you knew that, and you thought you were being clever. I would say nice try, but it wasn’t.
And STILL you won’t comment on the issue – because you know you don’t want to say the APhA’s governance is legitimate, since they came up with a rule you don’t like, but you also hate the idea of conceding any ground to me.
So you refuse to say anything substantive about your approval of the APhA - since it doesn’t exist – and instead lob insults at me, and hope that no one notices.
No, that’s not unreasonable – as I said, I don’t believe a sign announcing that the particular pharmacy reserves the right to refuse to dispense material that violates the pharmacist’s conscience is an unacceptable limit on personal freedom.
So I don’t know what “WITHOUT HASSLE” means. I absolutely oppose anything like the pharmacist refusing to return the prescription, because he has then moved from protecting his freedom to hindering someone else’s; the prescription is not his property.
But this is not at all what you alluded to above. Your previous posts suggested a desire for much more stringent rules binding pharmacists.
In case anyone is confused by these seemingly contradictory assertions, here’s an update from the Guttmacher Institute: *
4 states direct pharmacies to fill all valid prescriptions.
1 state directs pharmacists to fill all valid prescriptions.
6 states explicitly allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives, including emergency contraception.
3 states allow pharmacies to refuse to dispense emergency contraception.*
What usually gets lost in these discussions on emergency contraception is the concept of a pharmacist as an equal party in the physician-patient relationship, to the point where the pharmacist can nullify health care decisions based on his/her personal beliefs. A lot of us find that unacceptable, regardless of how many states allow it or what a professional association might say.
“Conscience” clauses can be problematic. Many hospitals and other health-care facilities now mandate that all health care workers get flu shots to protect patients. Some physicians and nurses oppose these mandates based on what their consciences tell them about personal rights, perceived vaccine dangers etc. Personally, I’m entirely comfortable with overriding health professionals’ “consciences” on this and other issues that involve the best interests of patients.*
*Disclaimer: I’m an M.D. who gets annual flu shots.
And a lot more of us don’t.
Since you felt your position was buttressed by noting it involved “a lot” of you, perhaps you now feel it’s weakened?
Or – and this is my guess – you don’t really care about how many states allow it, what the professional association says, or what the public supports either.
Am I correct?
No, actually that’s the part that I hope everyone notices. You are not worth any more than that.
This is my guess - you’re a sanctimonious prig, who does not really care about this particular issue one way or the other, but sees a chance to argue. Next we’ll be hearing about how “if it’s legal, it’s morally correct”.
Am I correct?
Ignoring the relative merits of ensuring access to contraception vs. maximising the freedoms of pharmacists, the code of ethics of the American Psychological Association includes the following:
How would that be consistent with refusing non-contraceptive medication for a patient that had used contraceptives before?
No. I have never said if it’s legal, it’s morally correct, and I don’t intend to start now. Abortion is legal, and in my view it’s not morally correct.
Now, how about you answering the point I raised?
No. For one thing, I get my news from places other than anti-abortion outlets like “lifesitenews.com”.
“According to a CBS News/New York Times poll, eight out of ten Americans believe pharmacists who personally oppose birth control for religious reasons should not refuse to sell oral contraceptives.”
“In a national opinion survey released in July 2007, which was conducted for the National Women’s Law Center and Planned Parenthood Federation of America by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 71% of voters said that pharmacists should not be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions on moral or religious grounds, including majorities of every voter demographic such as Republicans (56%), Catholics (73%), and evangelical Christians (53%). Even more respondents (73% overall) supported requiring pharmacies to dispense contraception to patients without discrimination or delay.”
"An August 2006 poll conducted by the Pew Research Center on People and the Press found that 80% of Americans believe that pharmacists should not be able to refuse to sell birth control based on their religious beliefs. This was true across party lines and religious affiliations. Particularly notable was the poll’s finding that “No political or religious groups express majority support for this type of conscience clause.”
As you can see…nope, nicht, nada. 
But your interpretation was flawed to begin with. I do not depend on public opinion polls to tell me the right thing to do, nor (as I suspect) do you. For instance, polls have consistently for many years validated the right of women to get abortions under many circumstances, including those of which you disapprove, but I don’t expect you to relinquish your beliefs on the basis of polling data.
I know this has moved on, but to correct some misinformation, the above is not true. Cite.
So if you’re in NYC and want EC, go ahead and walk in, if you’re over 17.