# 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:** 13
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/241 "2011-04-11T21:29:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Discussing such things with your wife ahead of time is all well and good. > > However, you are in no position to diagnose your wife if she becomes critically ill. If that happens you do what anyone will do which is get her to the nearest hospital ASAP. > > You have a right to expect lifesaving care from a hospital and not some lesson in their personal morality while your wife dies. I agree. I’ve never disagreed with this position. I have a local hospital that is not chartered to serve me. If I go there they will provide enough care to move me to a hospital that will take me. ---
**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, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/242 "2011-04-11T21:46:10Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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? You see Cautious Clause laws as sexual discrimination against women? ---
**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, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/243 "2011-04-11T21:52:47Z")
> [@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. Fine then, remove the hyperbole. Precisely what religious beliefs have a moral injunction against stopping bleeding? If this pharmacist was only following his religious convictions, then there must be one against stopping bleeding. Since that’s what the medicine he refused to provide was for. This isn’t even a case of refusing to provide Plan B or birth control. He refused to provide medication to treat an existing physical condition (i.e., uterine bleeding), because it _might have been_ caused by an abortion. So which religion is that, again? Is it a Recognized Religion with Sunday schools and all? Do they teach that lesson in Sunday School? Perhaps it’s the little known 14th commandment, “Thou shalt not stop bleeding”? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/244 "2011-04-11T22:03:24Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Nonsense. We are not talking about interfering with the professional judgment of pharmacists. We are talking about pharmacists deciding to ignore their professional training and duties so they can indulge in religious persecution. Their professional training includes moral issues. The public excercise of their ability is regualted by law…:smack::smack: I forgot the gigantic conspiracy. > [@](#): > > Hardly, I’m just pointing out the obvious. If a pharmacist or hospital can deny a woman an abortion out of religious malice, in order to punish her for her “sins”, then “killing the bitch because she deserves it” is exactly what they are doing on the occasions she dies from it. And it is an obvious and direct consequence of these so called “conscience” laws. Good one-trick pony, here’s your apple. Interesting that you use the word obvious, because in this context it is your religious belief that is “obvious”. Since the whole “punish for her sins” and “kill the bitch” as the motivation for most/all pro-lifers’ position exist only in your imagination, it is something for you to take with your shrink. Maybe he/she can make those voices go away. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > It seems as if your “point” is an absolute avoidance of the question. Should or should not Christian Scientists and/or Christian Identity phamacists have the right to let their religious beliefs guide how and if they dispense medicines? (edited to add)This is not avoidance of _your_ point, but a clarification of its application. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > 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. although the question is not for me, I’ll take it. OK in the sense of lawful/legal: yes OK in the sesne of moral/ethics: mostly not. However since this is a thread about “not imposing your morality” it seems that again that phrase is “not imposing your morality whch I disagree with”. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/245 "2011-04-11T22:07:21Z")
> [@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. Have “the people of Illinois” (or any other state) actually weighed in on this question via referendum/ballot proposition? I’m not aware of this having taking place. If it has, it would not be “the people” deciding the issue, but “the voters”. In reality, I believe it’s been legislatures which in some states have voted on this question, either _for_ Conscience Pharmacists or for the “duty to dispense”. So it appears you are incorrect in suggesting that “the people” have decided this in a particular way. > [@Bricker](#): > > So I’m curious how ( **Whack-A-Mole** ) manage(s) to reconcile the absolute conviction in (his) 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!” A very poor analogy. **Whack-A-Mole** and those of us who agree with him are not alleging that no one has a differing opinion. We believe (and have backed up our beliefs with what we think is sound reasoning) that allowing pharmacists to short-circuit medical care based on personal moral righteousness is wrong, and should not be allowed as a matter of law. There’s nothing unusual about expressing strongly-held beliefs and be willing to debate them in a public forum such as this - as opposed to your posting an OP apparently centered on the proposition that a single court’s decision represents a conclusive outcome, and then ducking subsequent questions about _your_ beliefs. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > You see Cautious Clause laws as sexual discrimination against women? Is Cautious Claus the guy who rings the front doorbell on Xmas eve, rather than taking the chance of getting stuck in the chimney? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/246 "2011-04-12T01:17:43Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Have “the people of Illinois” (or any other state) actually weighed in on this question via referendum/ballot proposition? I’m not aware of this having taking place. If it has, it would not be “the people” deciding the issue, but “the voters”. In reality, I believe it’s been legislatures which in some states have voted on this question, either _for_ Conscience Pharmacists or for the “duty to dispense”. So it appears you are incorrect in suggesting that “the people” have decided this in a particular way. No. In a democratic republic, the people express their will by crafting legislation through their elected representatives. That’s how the system works. The resulting legislation is the will of the people. If Jones breaks the criminal law, many states will style the criminal case as “People v. Jones.” Shockingly, this does not mean that the people of that state had a referendum on whether to charge Jones with the crime in question. > [@](#): > > There’s nothing unusual about expressing strongly-held beliefs and be willing to debate them in a public forum such as this - as opposed to your posting an OP apparently centered on the proposition that a single court’s decision represents a conclusive outcome, and then ducking subsequent questions about _your_ beliefs.Is Cautious Claus the guy who rings the front doorbell on Xmas eve, rather than taking the chance of getting stuck in the chimney? Why are my beliefs remotely relevant? And as for the idea that there’s nothing unusual about expressing strongly-held beliefs as rock-solid, unchangeable Fact… yes, I suppose you’re right. Equally, there’s nothing unusual about puncturing that pretension with a reminder that The Truth is not a monopoly of that particular poster, and in fact The Truth in many states is the precise opposite of what the rhetor urges us to accept as Revealed Truth. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/247 "2011-04-12T02:31:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In a democratic republic, the people express their will by crafting legislation through their elected representatives. That’s how the system works. The resulting legislation is the will of the people. An incredibly naive view which I doubt you truly hold. So any laws passed by a particular legislature at a snapshot in time, or upheld/overturned by jurists who are either elected by popular vote or selected by elected representatives represent an immutable will of the people? You know better than that. > [@](#): > > Why are my beliefs remotely relevant? It is generally accepted that people start threads on important issues of the day in GD to present arguments for a particular point of view. Relatively few do so merely to troll for effect, or to sit back and watch others carry on the discussion, while on rare occasion interjecting a sneer at someone who fails to comprehend the Law, or who holds convictions and is willing to defend them. Since you’ve demonstrated no interest in participating in a debate here, one wonders why you bothered to open the thread. > [@Bricker](#): > > …there’s nothing unusual about puncturing that pretension with a reminder that The Truth is not a monopoly of that particular poster, and in fact The Truth in many states is the precise opposite of what the rhetor urges us to accept as Revealed Truth. This is a stunningly idiotic argument. Those who do not wish medical decisions to be overturned by peripheral players acting for themselves and not the patient, are not framing their arguments in terms of “Truth”, but in support of wise and just public policy. You’re giving us the classic argument made by religious fundamentalists who run up against unwillingness to let their beliefs determine scientific principles and/or medical practice, i.e. “Your belief in evolution is a religion!!” (as though accusing their opponents of being religious is the worst insult imaginable). Very lame, **Bricker**. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/248 "2011-04-12T11:42:28Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > An incredibly naive view which I doubt you truly hold. So any laws passed by a particular legislature at a snapshot in time, or upheld/overturned by jurists who are either elected by popular vote or selected by elected representatives represent an immutable will of the people? You know better than that. Well, yes. I do know better than that. Because I see you added the word “immutable,” slipping it in there with the ease of an expert card cheat, as though no one would notice. So no: as to the new view that you deftly tried to morph into appearing as though it was my original argument, no. I don’t agree it’s the IMMUTABLE will of the people; the people are perfectly free to amend or remove any law, and indeed even the constitution. That, too, is what being a representative democracy is all about. However, I stand firmly behind my original argument: that a law passed by the elected representatives DOES represent the will of the people, as expressed in a representative democracy. > [@](#): > > It is generally accepted that people start threads on important issues of the day in GD to present arguments for a particular point of view. I’m going to decline your invitation to define the rules in GD, until such time as you carry a moderator or adminisitrator title. ---
**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 12, 2011, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/249 "2011-04-12T12:57:10Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > You see Cautious Clause laws as sexual discrimination against women? Yes, that’s exactly what it is. That’s what it’s for, it was written into law for the specific purpose of enabling the abuse of women. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Their professional training includes moral issues. Apparently not. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Interesting that you use the word obvious, because in this context it is your religious belief that is “obvious”. > Since the whole “punish for her sins” and “kill the bitch” as the motivation for most/all pro-lifers’ position exist only in your imagination, it is something for you to take with your shrink. Maybe he/she can make those voices go away. In other words, you have no valid counterargument so you are going to call me insane, without any evidence as for why my opinion makes me insane. My claim as to their motivation fits the facts, the claim that they care about “protecting the unborn” doesn’t. Their hatred of women is as obvious as the hatred of segregationists for blacks and the hatred of anti-SSM people for gays. Their every act demonstrates their hatred. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/250 "2011-04-12T12:59:06Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > Fine then, remove the hyperbole. > > Precisely what religious beliefs have a moral injunction against stopping bleeding? > > If this pharmacist was only following his religious convictions, then there must be one against stopping bleeding. Since that’s what the medicine he refused to provide was for. > > This isn’t even a case of refusing to provide Plan B or birth control. He refused to provide medication to treat an existing physical condition (i.e., uterine bleeding), because it _might have been_ caused by an abortion. > > So which religion is that, again? Is it a Recognized Religion with Sunday schools and all? Do they teach that lesson in Sunday School? Perhaps it’s the little known 14th commandment, “Thou shalt not stop bleeding”? You’re being somewhat sensational here. Had you reviewed the facts of the case you’re describing, you’d have seen that the pharmacist in question was a woman. A woman who refused to provide services according to her right under Idaho law. The patient neither bled to death, nor was she in danger of bleeding to death. In fact, it appears the extent of the inconvenience was that the patient representative from PP had to call 411 to find the number of a different pharmacy which, I assume, delivered the medication. I can see nothing in my review of the facts that indicate this was exigent life or death situation. The pharmacists had a right to refuse to fill under Idaho law, however, in this particular case, I’d have preferred she (the pharmacist) had turned the matter over to an associate or, at least, referred the patient to a pharmacy that would provide the medication. ---
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/251 "2011-04-12T13:02:01Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > The pharmacists had a right to refuse to fill under Idaho law, however, in this particular case, I’d have preferred she (the pharmacist) had turned the matter over to an associate or, at least, referred the patient to a pharmacy that would provide the medication. And that is exactly the problem with this idiotic law. The pharmacist should not be allowed to refuse filling a prescription for anyone then this type of thing won’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/252 "2011-04-12T13:16:40Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Those who do not wish medical decisions to be overturned by peripheral players acting for themselves and not the patient, are not framing their arguments in terms of “Truth”, but in support of wise and just public policy. I missed this gem. I contend that wise and just public policy is different for ants than for human beings. I concede that in an anthill, or a bee colony, your model is the wisest and the most just policy. We expect bees and ants to sublimate their individual wants and desires in favor of the good of the colony. For humans, however, I contend that personal freedom is a greater and wiser good. This is not an absolute rule, but it should be the starting point in any discussion that involves the state compelling anyone to do anything. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/253 "2011-04-12T13:22:12Z")
As a counter-point to this discussion, a few months ago the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held unconstitutional two proposed bills which would have granted civil marriage commissioners the right to refuse to perform civil marriages that conflicted with their religious beliefs: [Case Summary: Marriage Commissioners Reference](http://www.lawsociety.sk.ca/casesummary/2011skca3.htm). ---
**Author:** ![redtail23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@redtail23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/redtail23)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/254 "2011-04-12T13:37:30Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > You’re being somewhat sensational here. Had you reviewed the facts of the case you’re describing, you’d have seen that the pharmacist in question was a woman. A woman who refused to provide services according to her right under Idaho law. The patient neither bled to death, nor was she in danger of bleeding to death. In fact, it appears the extent of the inconvenience was that the patient representative from PP had to call 411 to find the number of a different pharmacy which, I assume, delivered the medication. Uh yeah, that’s why I said “Fine then, remove the hyperbole.” > [@](#): > > The pharmacists had a right to refuse to fill under Idaho law, however, in this particular case, I’d have preferred she (the pharmacist) had turned the matter over to an associate or, at least, referred the patient to a pharmacy that would provide the medication. And I ask again - what religious, moral, or ethical principal was this pharmacist following? The pharmacist was not being asked for any drugs that would cause an abortion. The pharmacist was not being asked for any drugs to prevent conception. The prescription was for a drug that stops uterine bleeding. Uterine bleeding that can follow childbirth, spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage), or surgical abortion. And until you can point to the religious precept that forbids stopping bleeding, or the religion that forbids providing medical care to “sinners”, then this pharmacist was NOT basing her action on “deep-seated religious beliefs”, so that’s just another red herring you keep tossing out. Does the pharmacist refuse to fill this prescription for ALL women? No, she does not. She specifically wanted to know why the bleeding had occurred, so that she could decide whether or not to fill it. So it absolutely was not an objection to the procedure, as you have claimed previously. It was an objection to the patient. Which brings us back to the question you keep refusing to answer. Since you insist that it was right for this pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription because she didn’t like this person, then it must be OK for any pharmacist to refuse a prescription because they don’t like the person. Which brings us back to pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for AIDS patients, or hepatitis patients, or herpes patients, or black patients, or hispanic patients, or asian patients, or any other patients that the pharmacist doesn’t like. Either this is a First Amendment principle, and pharmacists should be free to discriminate at will, or it’s not. You can’t have it both ways. ---
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/255 "2011-04-12T13:40:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > For humans, however, I contend that personal freedom is a greater and wiser good. This is not an absolute rule, but it should be the starting point in any discussion that involves the state compelling anyone to do anything. I agree. The personal freedom of the patient seeking medication prescribed by a doctor far outweights the freedom of a pharmacist to impose their beliefs on others. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/256 "2011-04-12T13:45:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why are my beliefs remotely relevant? Because this is Great Debates, you offered up a contentious issue for debate, and so far you’ve mostly been sniping from the sidelines. “This is what a court said” is a pretty shitty topic for debate. Yep, they sure did. So? If that’s all you intended to post, Livejournal has free blogs. If “This is what a court said. Let’s confine our discussion to the legal aspects” is what you wanted to discuss, then a board specifically for lawyers might be preferable there, too. There’s really no point to posting an OP in GD if you don’t want to discuss what you, yourself, believe about the topic. I think most people, including you, understand that there is often significant daylight between the law and justice, and simply because something is the law doesn’t mean we should support it. I think most people, including you, understand that when a legal principle is used one day, overturned the next, and upheld on appeal a day later, that it’s not ping-ponging back and forth from being The Will of the People to being something that the people hate, and “the people vs…” is both a linguistic and a legal fiction, albeit a useful one. I think most people, including you, have actual thoughts and opinions on the laws our country follows, and can have a, dare I say, Great Debate over them without just sniping at words or phrases that they feel are weak in someone’s argument. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Let’s say you have a condition, doesn’t matter, let’s say ulcerative colitis. You need to take your asacol regularly or you’ll be in bad shape, but every pharmacist in your state is a Christian Scientist and they all refuse to dispense your medication to you because they say you obviously haven’t prayed hard enough and, maybe, after enough prayer, they’ll help you stop your guts from bleeding. Fair? > Or you’ve just gone through surgery/had a traumatic accident, and you’re in massive pain for which your doctor give you a scrip for painkillers. But then all the pharmacists you speak to are Manly Men who believe that taking pain killers is a sign of weakness, and they refuse to give you any pills, and you just have to suffer. Fair? > Or you have panic attacks and your doctor give you a scrip for xanax, but your pharmacist won’t fill it because she thinks that you should just man up and maybe try cognitive behavior therapy, and really it would be better for you in the long run if you didn’t use a chemical aid. So you just have crippling bouts of anxiety and fear for a while. Fair? > > What if it wasn’t you, but someone you loved who was suffering? You’re a parent, IIRC. What if your child had a raging ear infection that was excruciatingly painful and you went to all of the pharmacies within driving distance, and all of them told you that they could not approve dispensing antibiotics, what with the rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and potential hearing loss in your child was just a small price to pay to help eliminate the spread of superbugs. Would you be happy that a pharmacist had exercised his/her right to dispense pills in accordance with their conscience, would you be happy to explain that fact to your child? Or would you be outraged? > > The issue isn’t really what the law says (assuming that the court interpreted it correctly), but that if the law does say that, then it’s a bad law. A person’s medical treatment should be between them and their doctor. Pharmacists, to the degree they play a part, should help spot any potential interactions that one doctor may be unaware of due to other medications being prescribed by other physicians, or what have you. But a pharmacist should never be in the position of denying medication on the basis of whether or not they would, themselves, take it or whether they’d prescribe it if they were a physician. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/257 "2011-04-12T13:45:53Z")
**Bricker** , a question. The First Amendment also protects your right to freedom of speech, on par with freedom of religion. Both are basic human rights, crucial to a free and democratic society. Does that mean that your constitutional right to freedom of speech should trump your professional obligation of attorney client-privilelge, and allow you to speak publicly about your client’s affairs and the legal advice that you’ve given to your client, over the objections of your client? Or can a mere professional obligation override your constitutional right to free speech? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/258 "2011-04-12T13:50:14Z")
> [@Cumberdale](#): > > I agree. The personal freedom of the patient seeking medication prescribed by a doctor far outweights the freedom of a pharmacist to impose their beliefs on others. For the patient to exercise his freedom means that the pharmacist is constrained in his. So you don’t “agree.” You have taken the additional step of weighing the competing interests and deciding in favor of the patient. But others disagree with you. And in Illinois, those others are the ones who appear to have won the debate, and they have settled the issue by writing a law that clearly weighs the pharmacists’ freedom more strongly than you do. Your statement doesn’t offer any particular reason the patient’s interest should outweigh a given pharmacist’s; you simply assert it as true, as though you were describing the water molecule as being made of exactly two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom; a fact of science, unquestionably true. But it ain’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/259 "2011-04-12T13:56:28Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > **Bricker** , a question. > > The First Amendment also protects your right to freedom of speech, on par with freedom of religion. Both are basic human rights, crucial to a free and democratic society. > > Does that mean that your constitutional right to freedom of speech should trump your professional obligation of attorney client-privilelge, and allow you to speak publicly about your client’s affairs and the legal advice that you’ve given to your client, over the objections of your client? Or can a mere professional obligation override your constitutional right to free speech? I’m not sure what relevance this question has. The specific outweighs the general. The principle of freedom of speech is a general one, and certainly a professional obligation can muzzle the general constitutional guarantee of free speech. But the legislature can (and has!) create exceptions for that professional obligation (crime-fraud, for example). So ultimately the legislature’s specific crafting of an exception to the privilege will be the controlling factor, and, indeed, the professional regulations will conform themselves to those exceptions in short order. The constitutional protection is the overriding one, buyt since it is a general one, and not absolute, the correct view is that the restrictions on speech that arise from the privilege are not inconsistent with the First Amendment. So, too, here. The legislature created a specific rule that trumps the professional regulation. It would be equally within the legislature’s power to accept the **Jackmanii** view, and forbid pharmacist’s refusal. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/260 "2011-04-12T14:01:28Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > And I ask again - what religious, moral, or ethical principal was this pharmacist following? The pharmacist was not being asked for any drugs that would cause an abortion. The pharmacist was not being asked for any drugs to prevent conception. The prescription was for a drug that stops uterine bleeding. Uterine bleeding that can follow childbirth, spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage), or surgical abortion. > > And until you can point to the religious precept that forbids stopping bleeding, or the religion that forbids providing medical care to “sinners”, then this pharmacist was NOT basing her action on “deep-seated religious beliefs”, so that’s just another red herring you keep tossing out. > > Does the pharmacist refuse to fill this prescription for ALL women? No, she does not. She specifically wanted to know why the bleeding had occurred, so that she could decide whether or not to fill it. So it absolutely was not an objection to the procedure, as you have claimed previously. It was an objection to the patient. > > Which brings us back to the question you keep refusing to answer. > > Since you insist that it was right for this pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription because she didn’t like this person, then it must be OK for any pharmacist to refuse a prescription because they don’t like the person. Which brings us back to pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for AIDS patients, or hepatitis patients, or herpes patients, or black patients, or hispanic patients, or asian patients, or any other patients that the pharmacist doesn’t like. > > Either this is a First Amendment principle, and pharmacists should be free to discriminate at will, or it’s not. You can’t have it both ways. There is no evidence that the pharmacist disliked the patient, instead, all the evidence supports the pharmacists claim that she refused to participate on moral grounds, which, is congruent with the applicable law. Your requirement that the pharmacist document, or even state the particular moral reason for refusal to fill is without merit. It’s sufficient that she had a moral objection to filling the prescription. The grounds for that objection are not relevant, nor must they be disclosed under the Idaho Conscious Clause law. \* Idaho Code § 18-611 provides that no health care professional shall be required to provide any health care service that violates his or her conscience.\* [Link](http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH6SECT18-611.htm) Are you suggesting that the law require the state to determine the nature and extent of each refusal to fill complaint? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=14)