# No, I won't give you your prescription back **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 9, 2004, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901 "2004-11-09T21:20:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/41 "2004-11-10T17:37:02Z")
That’s another possible objection, **clairobscur** , and one I hadn’t really thought about. But my post was aimed more at **Antigen** ’s response to the snippet he quoted. The quoted pharmacist was talking about stopping a human life, and is the president of Pharmacists for Life International. In my experience, any time someone talks about stopping a human life and is part of an organization with “for Life” in the name, they’re talking about abortion. Besides, it seems like someone with such a moral objection to artificial birth control that they won’t dispense the pill wouldn’t be willing to work in a place that sells condoms, either. I can’t think of any pharmacies that don’t carry condoms, at least not off the top of my head. **Bricker** , the pharmacist is certainly free not to fill the prescription. I’m perfectly free to tell my boss that I’m not cleaning cages or reading fecals, because I object to dog poop. I’m no slave, after all. Of course, my boss is then free to fire me for refusing to do the job I agreed to do when they hired me. That’s pretty much how I see this situation. The pharmacy hired this person to fill valid prescriptions for legal medications, barring medical (not ideological, _medical_) contraindications. He refused to do the job he hired in for, which ought to make him fair game for disciplinary action or outright firing. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/42 "2004-11-10T17:41:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The way I see it – which, incidentally, is the way it actually is, and not some fantasy – is that a pharmacist is not a slave. That is, he may refuse to sell to anyone he pleases, save only that he may not discriminate against certain protected classes. > > Now, you may believe that this is an unwise choice for the pharmacist to make, and that’s YOUR choice. But it’s not up to you, just as I can’t force an artost to sell me a painting, a painter to agree to paint my house, or an accountant to do my taxes. All are free to refuse my business. So is the pharmacist. :rolleyes: They’re not his pills. Your first two examples, the artist and the painter, they are both selling nothing more and nothing less than their own services. The pills belong to the company, and the company has chosen to sell these pills, and he is merely an employee. The accountant, if he is a private accountant, can turn down to do my taxes. But if he is employed by a firm, then the firm is dispensing services. And it is the firm’s choice, not his. And since we’re in the Pit: Fuck all men, first of all, who think they can dictate a woman’s choice even though they can’t have akid and can never be in the position that women are. Never, never. And for women: it’s your personal choice. You choose not to have an abortion, and never to take birth control pills, and I choose to do so. Bleh. ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/43 "2004-11-10T17:42:10Z")
If the pharmacist is the owner/manager, he can just tell you that the pharmacy does not stock that drug and that you will have to go elsewhere. This happens all the time for a variety of reasons. Nobody can force the pharmacy to stock drugs that they do not want to carry. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/44 "2004-11-10T17:49:11Z")
> [@Nutty Bunny](#): > > Pshaw! Former pill junkies like myself know that you don’t go to the same pharmacist every time. That’s a rookie mistake. :rolleyes: > > 😉 Then you were the Bright Customer. Rookies have to learn somehow! ---
**Author:** ![D\_Odds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/d_odds/32/2882_2.png) [@D\_Odds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Odds)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/45 "2004-11-10T18:02:33Z")
In the linked article, the pharmacies mentioned are mostly national chains. Perhaps it is necessary for these chains to put in a pharmacists employment contract that s/he _must_ be willing to dispense legally prescribed pharmaceuticals unless there is a _medical_ reason not to do so. If a pharmacist cannot abide by these rules, they can (a) open their own store, (b) find employment with someone who shares their values, or © find another line of business. > [@](#): > > The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill. It is the last sentence that gets me. I’d have the CEO on the phone and wouldn’t quit until the pharmacist was on the unemployment line. ---
**Author:** ![PaperBlob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/58956e/32.png) [@PaperBlob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PaperBlob)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/46 "2004-11-10T18:02:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The way I see it – which, incidentally, is the way it actually is, and not some fantasy – is that a pharmacist is not a slave. That is, he may refuse to sell to anyone he pleases, save only that he may not discriminate against certain protected classes. > > Now, you may believe that this is an unwise choice for the pharmacist to make, and that’s YOUR choice. But it’s not up to you, just as I can’t force an artost to sell me a painting, a painter to agree to paint my house, or an accountant to do my taxes. All are free to refuse my business. So is the pharmacist. If the pharmacist is also the owner of the business, then what you’ve said is true. But when the pharmacist is merely an employee of the pharmacy, he is not the same as the artist, painter or accountant you mention. It is the pharmacy owner who gets to decide whether or not the pharmacy sells birth control pills, not the employees. If the pharmacy owner has decided that his business will sell birth control pills and the pharmacist is turning away that business, the owner should have the right to fire the pharmacist. Any law that takes that says otherwise effectively takes control of a very important aspect of his business away from the owner, and IMO that’s wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/47 "2004-11-10T18:15:52Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > Are women not a protected class? Only women use birth control pills, so refusing to dispense those pills woulds be discriminating against a protected class. Unfortunately, there is not one shred of case law supporting this position. Is there? > [@CrazyCatLady](#): > > Bricker, the pharmacist is certainly free not to fill the prescription. I’m perfectly free to tell my boss that I’m not cleaning cages or reading fecals, because I object to dog poop. I’m no slave, after all. Of course, my boss is then free to fire me for refusing to do the job I agreed to do when they hired me. That’s pretty much how I see this situation. The pharmacy hired this person to fill valid prescriptions for legal medications, barring medical (not ideological, medical) contraindications. He refused to do the job he hired in for, which ought to make him fair game for disciplinary action or outright firing. Oh, absolutely. The pharmacist that won’t sell what his boss tells him to sell has no expectation of holding on to his job. If his boss is in favor of selling the pills, then he’s quite legitimately out on his ear. > [@Elenia28](#): > > They’re not his pills. Your first two examples, the artist and the painter, they are both selling nothing more and nothing less than their own services. The pills belong to the company, and the company has chosen to sell these pills, and he is merely an employee. > The accountant, if he is a private accountant, can turn down to do my taxes. But if he is employed by a firm, then the firm is dispensing services. And it is the firm’s choice, not his. Sure. Not to recap my response **CrazyCatLady** , but I agree completely with this. Just as the painter who works for a house painting company must either swallow his ire at painting my house and do it, or look for another job, so too must the pharmacist do it. My objection was at the idea that, by law or regulation, the pharmacist is obligated in some way – like the views below. > [@kungfulola](#): > > My opposition to Bricker’s position is that while Free Market concepts have their applications, they do not belong in the realm of basic health care (matt\_mcl and I were actually talking about this last night). It’s not reasonable to put everyone on an even footing economically, but health care is one basic right where everyone should be equal. > Just because you exchange money for basic health care services (shame on you guys for that, by the way), doesn’t mean that it’s fair that rich people are more likely to get the care they need than poor people, which is what happens in a scenario like the one that zweisamkeit brought up. Oh, it’s not FAIR? Well, I’d argue it’s not fair to force someone to act against his moral beliefs in this way, and that the harm done to him outweighs the harm done to her. And since the law is on my side of this debate (at least in this country), I’m happy that your view does not describe anything except your desire of how the world should be, not anything of practical significance. > [@Elenia28](#): > > And since we’re in the Pit: Fuck all men, first of all, who think they can dictate a woman’s choice even though they can’t have akid and can never be in the position that women are. Never, never. And for women: it’s your personal choice. You choose not to have an abortion, and never to take birth control pills, and I choose to do so. Well, I am against murdering women on the street, even though that would never happen to me and I would thus never be in the position that those murdered women are. Never, never. Nor do I believe it’s a murderer’s personal choice to do whatever he wishes with his own body, if those wishes include going up to women on the street and bashing thier heads in. His right to do things he wants with his body end where they begin to injure other people. Protecting people from murder is a proper role of the law. And, of course, unborn babies are people. So, fuckity-fuckity-fuck fuck double fuck on you. How’s that for a cogent argument? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/48 "2004-11-10T18:19:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The way I see it – which, incidentally, is the way it actually is, and not some fantasy – is that a pharmacist is not a slave. That is, he may refuse to sell to anyone he pleases, save only that he may not discriminate against certain protected classes. > > Now, you may believe that this is an unwise choice for the pharmacist to make, and that’s YOUR choice. But it’s not up to you, just as I can’t force an artost to sell me a painting, a painter to agree to paint my house, or an accountant to do my taxes. All are free to refuse my business. So is the pharmacist. This view does not seem to cover the pharmacist refusing to return the prescription. ---
**Author:** ![kung\_fu\_lola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f4b2a3/32.png) [@kung\_fu\_lola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kung_fu_lola)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/49 "2004-11-10T18:21:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, I’d argue it’s not fair to force someone to act against his moral beliefs in this way, and that the harm done to him outweighs the harm done to her. And since the law is on my side of this debate (at least in this country), I’m happy that your view does not describe anything except your desire of how the world should be, not anything of practical significance. Meh. I’d rather be right and just than on the side of the law. Babbling about “harm done” is retarded if you’re talking about the possibility of bringing a 100% unwanted child into a world rife with abuse, neglect and crap foster parents. > [@Bricker](#): > > And, of course, unborn babies are people. This, I’m afraid, is where the law is **not** on your side. ---
**Author:** ![Greathouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greathouse/32/2992_2.png) [@Greathouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greathouse)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/50 "2004-11-10T18:22:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, I am against murdering women on the street, even though that would never happen to me and I would thus never be in the position that those murdered women are. Never, never. Nor do I believe it’s a murderer’s personal choice to do whatever he wishes with his own body, if those wishes include going up to women on the street and bashing thier heads in. His right to do things he wants with his body end where they begin to injure other people. Protecting people from murder is a proper role of the law. > > And, of course, unborn babies are people. > > So, fuckity-fuckity-fuck fuck double fuck on you. How’s that for a cogent argument? I always enjoy your posts, and sometimes you even make me laugh. Like this part of your post, for instance. Very funny. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/51 "2004-11-10T18:25:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s beyond the pale. > > I absolutely support his right to refuse to fill the prescription. But he has no right to refuse to return the thing. That’s simply idiotic. **Bricker** , I suspect that you and I would disagree about many things but I am always impressed with your ability to put your point across, and the above posts do nothing to change that opinion. I would like to ask a personal question, if I may. Do you support the pharmacist’s right to refuse to fill the prescription simply because anyone has the right to refuse to do a particular piece of work, or because this case involved birth control pills? Thanks TRt ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/52 "2004-11-10T18:29:23Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > This view does not seem to cover the pharmacist refusing to return the prescription. I apologize, **Bricker**. I had obviously forgotten that you addressed this all the way back in post #2. ---
**Author:** ![Ghanima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Ghanima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ghanima)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/53 "2004-11-10T18:32:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now, you may believe that this is an unwise choice for the pharmacist to make, and that’s YOUR choice. But it’s not up to you, just as I can’t force an artost to sell me a painting, a painter to agree to paint my house, or an accountant to do my taxes. All are free to refuse my business. So is the pharmacist. Small flaw here: A more equivalent situation is if you provided a painter with the paint to paint your house and he stole it. Or if you gave an artist a picture to paint from and he stole it. They don’t have to do the job but that doesn’t mean its OK to steal from you. I wonder how people would react if he refused to fill a prescription because he knew the patient had AIDS and he’s against immoral behavior. Or if he refused to fill someone’s diet pill prescription because he believes they should get off their ass and exercise. Or if he refused to fill someone’s anxiety medicine because he believes its all in your head. ---
**Author:** ![TonyF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de053/32.png) [@TonyF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonyF)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/54 "2004-11-10T18:36:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > My objection was at the idea that, by law or regulation, the pharmacist is obligated in some way – like the views below. I agree, but let’s approach it from another perspective: having refused to fill the perscription, there is no obligation to keep him employed. > [@](#): > > His right to do things he wants with his body end where they begin to injure other people. Protecting people from murder is a proper role of the law. > > And, of course, unborn babies are people. > > So, fuckity-fuckity-fuck fuck double fuck on you. How’s that for a cogent argument? Well, you had a cogent argument. Of course, taking the life of an “unborn baby” is not always murder. ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/55 "2004-11-10T18:58:52Z")
Fine, if you won’t fill the prescriptions you get to wear a big jester hat with “Bob won’t fill your BCP prescriptions” embroidered on the front. I’d say that’s fair. ---
**Author:** ![High\_Cheese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8797f3/32.png) [@High\_Cheese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/High_Cheese)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/56 "2004-11-10T19:14:38Z")
> [@neuroman](#): > > My thought _exactly_. > > I’m sure this asshole is equitable in her morality enforcement though, and asks for a valid marriage license before distributing Viagra or Cialis. His refusal is predicated by his belief, however misdirected or disliked, that using oral contraceptives is a violation of penal statutes (murder) not a moral transgression. i.e…The pharmacist denies the prescription on his belief that contraception is murder, not immoral because the constituents may not be married (In many, many cases they are married). So, by this thinking, however skewed, it is ok to give Viagra but not ON 7/7/7, becasue Viagra does not commit “murder”; ON 7/7/7 does. There would be no logical double standard based on the pharmacists philosophy. > [@](#): > > The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says \*\*druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. \*\* Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill. The case of the OP is just some bozo taking his personal policy too far. Bold by me. ---
**Author:** ![High\_Cheese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8797f3/32.png) [@High\_Cheese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/High_Cheese)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/57 "2004-11-10T19:19:56Z")
> [@TonyF](#): > > I agree, but let’s approach it from another perspective: having refused to fill the perscription, there is no obligation to keep him employed. > Well, you had a cogent argument. > > Of course, taking the life of an “unborn baby” is not always murder. It is if you think it is. Most of the pharmacists who refuse to fill oral contraceptive prescriptions think it is. Thusly, to them, it is. Fortunately, no one person speaks on behalf of everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/58 "2004-11-10T20:24:13Z")
> [@High Cheese](#): > > It is if you think it is. Most of the pharmacists who refuse to fill oral contraceptive prescriptions think it is. Thusly, to them, it is. Fortunately, no one person speaks on behalf of everyone else. Let’s get something straight. Birth Control =/= Abortion Hormonal birth control pills are metered to prevent conception, not to terminate an implanted fetus. It _can_ happen; the chances are infitesimally small. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/59 "2004-11-10T22:14:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The way I see it – which, incidentally, is the way it actually is, and not some fantasy – is that a pharmacist is not a slave. That is, he may refuse to sell to anyone he pleases, save only that he may not discriminate against certain protected classes. > > Now, you may believe that this is an unwise choice for the pharmacist to make, and that’s YOUR choice. But it’s not up to you, just as I can’t force an artost to sell me a painting, a painter to agree to paint my house, or an accountant to do my taxes. All are free to refuse my business. So is the pharmacist. So in Brickerworld, any poor woman who needs birth control pills for medical reasons, but lives in a town where the only pharmacy is Catholic fanatic-owned can just curl up and die. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901/60 "2004-11-10T22:56:35Z")
A pharmacist will fill the perscriptions for a ton of stuff that either causes birth defects or miscarriage. Generally, unless these are required to maintain the life of the mother, they are discountinued as soon as pregnancy is planned. But there are a lot of cases where pregnancy isn’t planned and the medication is hopefully stopped before damage or miscarriage occurs - but often not. A pharmacist who has an issue with this may be in the wrong line of work. (My favorite ad “pregnant women or women who suspect they may be pregnant should not touch Propecia.” …but bald guys should ingest this crap to grow hair?!). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/no-i-wont-give-you-your-prescription-back/273901.md?page=4)