Well, so far as I can see, this refers to to dispensation of controlled substances, which is what the legislature intended by referring to paragraph (u).
However, if there is any case law to the contrary - I can’t find any case that refers to the statute - then I’d agree that, in Illinois at least, there is a general duty to the public to dispense.
Of course, I agree that employers may fire an employee without legal recourse for this kind of refusal. That’s never been at issue.
Well, a pharmacist is not legally required to fill any prescription, any more than a nurse has to follow orders she’s not comfortable with or a physician has to write a prescription. Health care is full of judgement calls.
I probably stated my point badly. What I meant was that with assisted suicide, you’re helping to kill someone. With BCP, in some pharmacist’s opinions, you’re doing the same thing. So why would one moral judgement [no assisted suicide] be ok and protectable, and the other not? They’re both moral judgements.
Good grief!!
YES!!
The hardware store employee is perfectly within his rights to refuse to sell duct tape because kidnappers often use it. Do you honestly imagine there is a law forcing hardware stores to sell duct tape?
A hardware store may refuse to sell duct tape for whatever reason it pleases, up to and including fear of kidnapper use thereof.
I don’t agree that it “should.” I would say that if it’s such a favored status, then there should be no shortage of other people willing to step in and serve in that profession.
Again, the employer - the one losing the money - is the one with the right to make a decision here.
Yes, in stome states at least, a pharmacist is legally required to fill any and all prescriptions. See above.
I called my dad, a pharmacist in Illinois, while I was eating lunch. He verified that this is his, his supervisor’s, and every one of his collegue’s understanding of Illinois law. While they have often complained about it and talked of reasons why the law should be changed, not one of them ever suggested it wasn’t the law. (And yes, it’s the law for all drugs, not just controlled substances. It was the term “Good Faith” that we were supposed to be reading about in the second citation, not the controlled substance bit. Re-reading it, it makes total sense.)
Bricker, you keep switching between talking about rights and the law. The two are not synonomous. Yes, of course a hardware store employee has the right to not sell duct tape. Her employer also has the right to fire her for being a pain in his ass and losing the company business. The law doesn’t protect our rights to duct tape, because it doesn’t limit our access to duct tape. You don’t need an expensive education, lots of capital and both a business and a professional license to sell duct tape. If the market requires duct tape, a hardware store, a general store, a grocery store or a gas station can sell duct tape.
Of course, in the pharmacist’s case, the law clearly states what his or her job duties are, and by accepting and paying for the position, the pharmacist has selected which of his or her rights to reserve or face legal or financial action, so these other career analogies don’t hold up.
Of course the idea that a fetus should be treated as a person is my view only, not backed up by the law. My point in raising this beleif was to contrast it with the other beliefs also not having a force of law. I am perfectly willing to abide by the law (while working to change it). So I am willing to accept that a legal abortion is just that: legal.
It’s the screaming against the pharmacist here that contradicts that view: here, the pharmacist’s actions are legal (except for refusing to return the prescription) and he is being condemned.
See the difference? I’m pointing out that we all have opinions, and that none of us are entitled to have our opinions attain the force of law by the mere fact of possessing them. So I accept that unborn babies are not people within the meaning of the law, even though I personally wish it were otherwise, and I do not condemn those who follow the law.
You don’t do the same thing. You claim the protection of the law when it suits you, and when the law doesn’t suit you, you babble about things must be set up anyway, as though the law that doesn’t agree with you can be safely ignored.
I completely agree with the above.
If a particular state imposes that duty upon its licensed pharmacists, then, of course, they must comply with it. I agree with that. Absent such a legally imposed duty, my position remains as previously stated.
That may be the way it legally is, but if so, the law is morally wrong. When you sign up to be a medical professional, you voluntarily undertake certain responsibilities to guard the health and well-being of your patients. Just as a doctor is morally (and legally) wrong to deny emergency treatment to a patient because he disapproves of the patient’s life, a pharmacist trying to prevent a patient from obtaining birth control pills is trying to control that patient’s ability to make decisions for herself.
A pharmacist using their authority to try to control a stranger’s reproductive decisions is a complete and utter scumbag. If indeed this is legal, it shouldn’t be. The libertarian fantasy world in which every market has perfect competition and everyone always has the opportunity to take their business elsewhere does not exist in many places for many people. And so a health professional does not have the privilege to put their own moral qualms before others’ rights. If working as a pharmacist causes him moral pangs, he has every right to seek employment in another capacity. To claim that his rights to control others trump others’ rights to privacy and freedom is indefensible.
And the fact that he stole the woman’s prescription (not legal, incidentally) demonstrates what his motives were. He wished to control a random stranger’s reproductive decisions. He was not content to merely make it harder to gain access to treatment - he tried to make it impossible. It’s not a shock to me that he would step to that level, but it’s still pretty depressing.
I guess she has the right to live elsewhere. Or travel to another town. If she doesn’t have a car, she has the right to buy one. And the right to get the sort of job that would let her buy one. Again, this is based on the silly freemarketist fantasy that competition is always perfect. That view is sorta axiomatic in economics a lot of the time, but in reality no market is perfectly competitive, and many markets aren’t competitive at all.
See? He says so himself. In Brickerworld, you can always find another pharmacy. They exist by the dozen! By the thousand! In the smallest of towns, you have perfect freedom to find someone else to fill your script, and therefore of course no one should have to do anything that even impinges on their morals. Obviously it’s not reality, but Brickerworld doesn’t resemble reality very strongly.
With your constant railing about how every liberal here is a hypocrite because we don’t share your beliefs regarding strict constructionism (never quite did understand that leap of logic), isn’t this contradictory? If it’s legal, it’s right, at least in Brickerworld. Unless you’re just inconsistent - applying one doctrine when it’s convenient, and repudiating it when it’s inconvenient. What’s the word for that?
Oh, yeah. Hypocrite.
This is, from an economic perspective, nonsense.
The licensing requirements to become a pharmacist, which ostensibly exist to insure that all pharmacists are qualified to handle these drugs, are barriers to market entry. These requirements are an impediment to other people stepping in and serving in that profession. People can’t just sell drugs out of the trunk of their car. They’d get arrested.
Now, sure, the barriers to entry to become a pharmacist are not as high as the barriers to build a nuclear power plant, but they still exist and they still have an effect on the market. They are, regardless of any rhetoric to the contrary, a boon to the people who are already licensed. They are a restriction on competition. So long as pharmacists enjoy this favored status, they should be required to fulfill the requirements of that position, including providing prescription drugs to whoever has received the authorization to buy them.
Can you imagine if people in other professions felt free to impose their values in similar ways?
Folks, this is your Captain speaking. We’ve reached our cruising altitude of 22,000 ft. and I’ve decided I can’t in good conscience fly you to Las Vegas. Gambling is a sin and titty bars are bad for you. So instead we’ll be landing in Des Moines a little bit earlier than planned.
Ye Gods.
Listen, since my example wasn’t clear, how about you let me ANSWER the rhetorical question I posed?
My answer is: follow the law. That whole business was intended to show that we cannot have a stable system if everyone seek sto follow their “personal beliefs” to the exclusion of the law. So when I said, “Which should it be,” I was intending that anyone with the sense God gave a tree frog would answer, “The law, of course.”
I said as much in my post made at 3:02 PM above.
I would be interested in a cite for times when I have made this argument. I have often argued for the way I think things should work. I can’t remember ever suggesting that a law that doesn’t agree with me “can be safely ignored.”
As for babbling, again, your condescension is really tiresome. If you argue something, I’m sure you see it as the epitome of elegance and wisdom, even when you are arguing from ignorance (including, it seems, the laws that govern pharmacy in many states). You were the one claiming that the pharmacist has rights that it appears he does not necessarily have. Who, then is babbling?
In many a thread, you have stomped in and declared that what people are talking about simply isn’t the way things are, as if that has any relevance for the majority of SDMB discussions. If you want to hold people to a standard of only discussing what is instead of what should be, then hold yourself to that standard. I have never seen a grown man with such a propensity for confusing what people hope to be true or think should be true with what they are claiming is actually true.
As an example, Wile E said:
And you come back with:
First, what planet are you from? How is Wile E making any claims that can be called “fantasy”? He’s stating his belief in what the profession of pharmacy should be about. Perhaps the words “The way I see a pharmacist’s job” and “should not go beyond” could have clued you in to that?
And guess what? You stated your own beliefs about what should be as fact. You claimed that the pharmacist could refuse at will even though later you admitted that may not be the case. In other words, you did exactly what you claimed, and were wrong about, someone else doing.
No, I can’t imagine that, because it’s not a good analogy.
Here’s a good analogy.
CLERK: Hello, and thank you for coming to Morality Air.
PASSENGER: Thank you. One ticket to Las Vegas, please.
CLERK: I"m sorry. Gambling is a sin. We don’t fly to Las Vegas.
PASSENGER: Oh. OK. I’m off to the United ticket counter, then.
CLERK: Have a good day! BURNING IN HELL!
Your analogy skips one important thing. Morality Air flies to Vegas.
Clerk: Hello, and thank you for coming to Morality Air.
Passenger: Thank you. One ticked to Las Vegas, please. On these dates. hands over schedule
Clerk: Gambling is a sin.
Passenger: I simply want a ticket. Morality Air flies to Vegas.
Clerk: I’m not selling you a ticket.
Passenger: I want another agent. You are the only airline flying out of Podunk and your airline flies to Vegas.
Clerk: No.
Passenger: Give me my schedule.
Clerk: No.
Kind of arcane point…
Is the prescription the patient’s property?
Kind of like how various documents (fishing/hunting licenses, passports, etc.) are still the property of the issuing agency.
No. The prescription is the property of the issuing doctor, until it is filled by the pharmacy, when it becomes the property of the pharmacy. It remains the property of the pharmacy until it is transferred or expires. It is never the property of the person to whom it’s issued. So technically, the pharmacist stole the prescription from the doctor by refusing to fill it, transfer it or give it back.
In IL, anyway.
It’s in that huge document I cited earlier. I’m not wading back through it to find it again.
Not “have to”, but “should.” I don’t think he should be legally compelled. But if he refuses and is fired, I wouldn’t support a suit against the employer.
If that’s the store’s policy, then so be it - but you won’t see me rallying behind them if the place gets boycotted. Nor do I like the almost passive-agressive idea of not stocking the pills but keeping quiet about it; I feel it’s best to disclose that kind of thing. (Not that this was the case here.)
[QUOTE]
Well what would a script for assisted suicide be, exactly? And how would the pharmacist know that suicide was the intent?
Presumably a barbituate, though IANAASD (I am not an assisted suicide doctor). The dosage would be pretty clearly intended to cause death, and any good pharmacist would check a death-causing level of barbituates with the prescribing doctor. Just in case a decimal point was in the wrong place. :smack:
Barbituates are sleeping pills, right? So a three month supply would be lethal, but only if ingested all at once. Are you suggesting that a doctor assisting a suicide would actually write on the script something like “Take all at once with a nice merlot?” No snarkiness intended.