# Pharmacists and refusals **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713 "2011-04-08T20:18:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/221 "2011-04-11T17:34:56Z")
People are free to subscribe to whatever belief thay may choose. . However, the government can, and has, stepped in and regulate religious practices if it has compelling government interest, such as preventing racial descrimination. In the case of the pharmacist with moral objections, the court held his objection was sufficient, however, had that objection been based on ethnic or racial discrimination, I sincerely doubt it would exist, nor do I believe a court would sanction it. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/222 "2011-04-11T17:37:14Z")
> [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](#): > > I know women who are against abortion. Does that mean that they want to oppress women too? Sure. There’s a long history of some women hating and persecuting other women for being women. Misogynistic religions have plenty of female members. And it isn’t as if they are actually going to deny _themselves_ abortions. Only _other_ women. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/223 "2011-04-11T17:44:39Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > People are free to subscribe to whatever belief thay may choose. . However, the government can, and has, stepped in and regulate religious practices if it has compelling government interest, such as preventing racial descrimination. In the case of the pharmacist with moral objections, the court held his objection was sufficient, however, had that objection been based on ethnic or racial discrimination, I sincerely doubt it would exist, nor do I believe a court would sanction it. So you do accept then you are saying some religious beliefs are acceptable and some aren’t. And yet you still say you aren’t making a judgment on the morality of contraception. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/224 "2011-04-11T18:07:09Z")
> [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](#): > > I know women who are against abortion. Does that mean that they want to oppress women too? I have a very hard time making any since of the argument that antiabortion = dosn’t like women. Women often oppress other women. Nothing new in that. > [@](#): > > KABUL — Dozens of young women braved crowds of bearded men screaming “dogs!” on Wednesday to protest an Afghan law that lets husbands demand sex from their wives. > > \ > > The law says a husband can demand sex with his wife every four days, unless she is ill or would be harmed by intercourse. It also regulates when and for what reasons a wife may leave her home without a male escort. > > \ > > In the end, more women demonstrated in favor of the law than against it: A few hundred Shiite women marched with banners to join the angry men. > > SOURCE: [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,515980,00.html](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,515980,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/225 "2011-04-11T18:22:20Z")
> [@villa](#): > > So you do accept then you are saying some religious beliefs are acceptable and some aren’t. I’m not accepting a dogma based on discriminating against an entire class of people, due to the immutable characteristics of their race or ethnicity, as a protected religious philosophy. They may be free to believe, but when they act on those beliefs, they may find that the government has a compelling interest to intervene. > [@villa](#): > > And yet you still say you aren’t making a judgment on the morality of contraception. See post 205 please. At the time, I had hoped repeating it 2 times would have been sufficient. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/226 "2011-04-11T18:25:06Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I’m not accepting a dogma based on discriminating against an entire class of people, due to the immutable characteristics of their race or ethnicity, as a protected religious philosophy. They may be free to believe, but when they act on those beliefs, they may find that the government has a compelling interest to intervene. Which is, in and of itself, a comment on the morality of the religious beliefs. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > See post 205 please. At the time, I had hoped repeating it 2 times would have been sufficient. You can repeat it 400 times, but it won’t alter it being blatantly wrong. You simply **are** making a comment on the morality of the beliefs involved. You support government protection for acting on some religious beliefs and not others. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/227 "2011-04-11T20:13:49Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I’m not accepting a dogma based on discriminating against an entire class of people, due to the immutable characteristics of their race or ethnicity, as a protected religious philosophy. They may be free to believe, but when they act on those beliefs, they may find that the government has a compelling interest to intervene. But you are defending a dogma based on discriminating against an entire class of people, due to the immutable characteristics of their gender, as a protected religious philosophy. If your personal beliefs so dictate, it’s perfectly OK to deny medical treatment to women. That is what you are saying. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/228 "2011-04-11T20:38:32Z")
The law doesn’t discriminate against women. They are free to choose from a plethora of medications for a multitude if ills, which I’m sure, the pharmacist would gladly fill. It merely allows a pharmacist to opt out of a treatment process he finds morally objectionable. No one is denying women treatment by opting out of providing that treatment. They are free to find another professional to meet their needs. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/229 "2011-04-11T20:55:35Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > The law doesn’t discriminate against women. They are free to choose from a plethora of medications for a multitude if ills, which I’m sure, the pharmacist would gladly fill. It merely allows a pharmacist to opt out of a treatment process he finds morally objectionable. > > No one is denying women treatment by opting out of providing that treatment. They are free to find another professional to meet their needs. So you are o.k. with a Christian Identity pharmacist denying medicine to those of a different race because they are “free” to find what they need “elsewhere”? If not, please explain the difference between racial discrimination and sexual discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/230 "2011-04-11T20:58:48Z")
And under the previous hypothetical that you refuse to answer, no one would be denying treatment. Those people could always find another professional. You have stated that certain religious beliefs trump the obligation for patient care. So either ALL religious beliefs trump the obligation for patient care, or you just want YOUR religious beliefs to receive preferential treatment. Therefore, either it’s OK for a Christian Identity pharmacist to refuse medicine to blacks because of his deeply held religious beliefs, or you think that the First Amendment only applies to SOME people. Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/231 "2011-04-11T21:01:35Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > It merely allows a pharmacist to opt out of a treatment process he finds morally objectionable. Please note that the “treatment process” in this case was _stopping a woman from bleeding to death_. Precisely what “recognized religion” professes a belief that stopping bleeding is a morally objectionable process? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/232 "2011-04-11T21:02:54Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > It merely allows a pharmacist to opt out of a treatment process he finds morally objectionable. It is not up to the pharmacist to decide a treatment for a person. That is for a doctor to decide. > [@](#): > > No one is denying women treatment by opting out of providing that treatment. They are free to find another professional to meet their needs. There are places where another professional to meet their needs might be very far away. Not everyone lives in a city with a CVS every two blocks. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/233 "2011-04-11T21:08:19Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is not up to the pharmacist to decide a treatment for a person. That is for a doctor to decide. No one said a pharmacist decided the treatment. I said he participated in it. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > There are places where another professional to meet their needs might be very far away. Not everyone lives in a city with a CVS every two blocks. So, by that logic, if a pharmacist in Pumpkin Hollar takes a day off, gets sick, goes on vacation, etc., he should be held liable for denying services? What if he doesn’t work 24 hours a day? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/234 "2011-04-11T21:10:27Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is not up to the pharmacist to decide a treatment for a person. That is for a doctor to decide. > > There are places where another professional to meet their needs might be very far away. Not everyone lives in a city with a CVS every two blocks. Despite these pronouncements, delivered in tones that suggest a certainty last seen when God handed Moses the Law at Sinai, the people of Illinois and several other states disagree with your basic thesis. They seem to think that it’s possible to balance the right of pharmacists to work as their conscience dictates with the need to provide medical care to women. So I’m curious how you manage to reconcile the absolute conviction in your tone with the obvious contradiction in the actual world. I am reminded of the undountedly apocryphal story of the man whose reaction to seeing the duck-billed platypus for the first time was, “There ain’t no such animal!” ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/235 "2011-04-11T21:12:08Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > Please note that the “treatment process” in this case was _stopping a woman from bleeding to death_. > > Precisely what “recognized religion” professes a belief that stopping bleeding is a morally objectionable process? My guess would be that a woman who was bleeding to death would be far better off in a hospital emergency room than standing in line at a pharmacy. But IANAMD. ---
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/236 "2011-04-11T21:15:44Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > No one is denying women treatment by opting out of providing that treatment. They are free to find another professional to meet their needs. The customer should not have to hunt in order to find a pharmacist who is willing to fill the prescription. If a pharmacist has an objection to providing certain medication that it is a good bet they’ll have to do many times, then that person needs to find a new career. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/237 "2011-04-11T21:22:55Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > My guess would be that a woman who was bleeding to death would be far better off in a hospital emergency room than standing in line at a pharmacy. But IANAMD. If the pharmacist would do his job she wouldn’t be bleeding to death in the first place, would she? Have you figured out the difference between racial discrimination and sexual discrimination yet? ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/238 "2011-04-11T21:25:35Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > My guess would be that a woman who was bleeding to death would be far better off in a hospital emergency room than standing in line at a pharmacy. But IANAMD. The woman discussed in the Idaho case was denied a prescription that treats excessive uterine bleeding. She had been seen by a physician, stabilized, and the prescription was a part of her ongoing treatment. If you’re going to dodge and prevaricate, at least try to do it with a little integrity. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/239 "2011-04-11T21:26:14Z")
> [@Cumberdale](#): > > The customer should not have to hunt in order to find a pharmacist who is willing to fill the prescription. If a pharmacist has an objection to providing certain medication that it is a good bet they’ll have to do many times, then that person needs to find a new career. That may be the case, however, it remains in Conscious Clause states, legal for a pharmacist to refuse to fill prescriptions he finds morally objectionable. I would assume most women know how to use a telephone, and are capable of using the yellow pages, so I doubt they will experience much of a problem finding their medication. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/240 "2011-04-11T21:29:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Despite these pronouncements, delivered in tones that suggest a certainty last seen when God handed Moses the Law at Sinai, the people of Illinois and several other states disagree with your basic thesis. They seem to think that it’s possible to balance the right of pharmacists to work as their conscience dictates with the need to provide medical care to women. > > So I’m curious how you manage to reconcile the absolute conviction in your tone with the obvious contradiction in the actual world. I am reminded of the undountedly apocryphal story of the man whose reaction to seeing the duck-billed platypus for the first time was, “There ain’t no such animal!” I am not denying the reality. I am saying the legal reality is wrongheaded. Once upon a time we allowed slavery in this country. I would say with great conviction that it is wrong as well even if it was still legal. This is not a difficult concept. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=13)