# 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:** 16
**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, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/301 "2011-04-12T17:36:04Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yes so. You have yet to quote anything about how since anybody can deny medication, everybody can. The only objection you _have_ provided does not say what you’re claiming it does. > > The whole point of this is that pharmacists are not doctors. In point of fact determining the severity of a condition and diagnosing treatment would most likely land them afoul of practicing medicine without a license laws. Judging what is and is not a life-threatening condition is beyond a pharmacist’s job description. > > They also don’t define “life threatening”, what they mean by no other health care professional being capable of treating the emergency, or what “treatment and care” they must provide. Is an ambulance service that can be called to collect someone sufficient? What if there’s another pharmacy that’s a two hour’s drive away, but the person in the pharmacy is unlikely to die before, oh, 24 hours pass. Can they be sent on their way? What sort of “treatment and care” must a pharmacist provide? It doesn’t say “provide the prescription that was ordered by the patient’s physician”, so that’s not even definite. Can they give you aspirin while refusing to fill your prescription that stops uterine bleeding? > > And the statute you linked is hardly the only one. Can you cite and quote what provisions the other states with CC’s have that will protect doctors’ patients from pharmacists who simply don’t want to give them their legally prescribed medicines? The problem with your argument is that, typically, people do not window shop at pharmacies for the drug de jour. In fact, they typically bring a prescription from a licensed MD describing what drug and what dosage of that medication the MD would like the patient to take. The fact that they are standing in line is evidence as to the severity of their condition. Additionally, I don’t know of any ambulance services that deliver patients to the pharmacy instead of a medical facility. In view of all the arguments to the contrary about what might happen, there has not a single example of a person suffering any more harm than having to dial 411 for the location of a different pharmacy presented in opposition to the CC laws. And IANAMD, but I’ll assume giving aspirin to a person with uterine bleeding is frowned on by the medical profession. But again, IANAMD. ---
**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 12, 2011, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/302 "2011-04-12T17:38:56Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Nothing I said had anything to do with whether or not anybody should follow the law, but whether it was a good, reasonable, fair situation to be in because of the law and as such whether they would support the law. > Surely you understand this? I do. I consider Conscience clauses, in general, a good thing. > [@](#): > > Of course it does, because we’re discussing the principle inherent in the situation. If your response is “Well… that’s unlikely to happen.” then you’re pretty much conceding that the principle is, at the very least, flawed… but that those flaws would be less likely to have much effect due to real world conditions. But, sorry, there are hypothetical and there are HYPOTHETICALS. I cannot conceive any remote situations that still makes contact with even a shred of human reality were all the pharmcacists of a state are Christian Scientists, and to engage in that hypothetical would be fighting an absurd. Sorry, call me chicken if you want. But again it’s like an all-ultra Orthodox Jewish pork rib restaurant, you could imagine it but deciding what the menu would be is purely a game. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It’s not _moral_ to torment and sacrifice women for your religion. If that’s what they are teaching then they are teaching bigotry, not morality. > > Of course. They demonstrate that over and over by their behavior. By their relentless efforts to hurt women, by their opposition to things like contraception which actually would reduce abortions, and the fact that they use moral “principles” that are narrowly tailored for the purpose of oppressing women, so-called principles that aren’t applied for any other purpose. A cell is only a “human life” when that definition can be used to hurt a woman. > > Everything they do is consistent with them being women haters. They condemn women to suffering and death, they show no concern for the fetus beyond using it as a club to beat women down, they have inconsistent principles tailored for oppressing women. You are basically doing the equivalent of insisting that the Ku Klux Klan doesn’t actually hate black people and it’s all an elaborate charade that just happens to _look_ like they hate black people. According to you? Does the fact that you beleive in it make it true? Do you have any other facts aside from “it’s obvious”? I?m not saying that aren’t people who are pro-life because they hate women, but you say it’s all of the, 100%. > [@redtail23](#): > > Sure, why not. Kind of like a “conscientious objector” status. If you want to file as a conscientious objector, you have to do it ahead of time and show justification, you don’t just get to say “oh yeah, no, I’m CO, not gonna go” when they draft you. > > If you want to be a licensed pharmacist and refuse to fill prescriptions for certain people, then you have to state up front EXACTLY what prescriptions you will refuse to fill and/or persons for whom you will refuse prescriptions, and why. The state can keep a database and publish it. If the prescription/person isn’t on the list, then you are legally obligated to fill it. You are free to update your listings as needed, as new drugs come onto the market or you change your mind about what your “morals” require. > > And you must post that information publicly and prominently in your pharmacy, along with information of an available pharmacy that will fill those prescriptions. > > That way, everyone will know not to waste their time at your shop when they need those items. Also, people have the option of choosing not to patronize your store due to your CO status. That whole “free market” thing only works when information is available to customers, y’know. I agree mostly. If there is CO clause it should be regualted. ---
**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, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/303 "2011-04-12T17:43:08Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > It should be obvious (and has long been codified into ethical standards and laws governing health care in modern society) that a patient’s rights and interests are paramount in the provision of health care. This viewpoint is expressed in all manner of responsibilities laid out for health care providers, including openness and portability of medical records, rules of physician conduct, the patient right to file complaints about poor or inappropriate treatment and so on. There is nothing revolutionary about this; it represents incremental gains made on behalf of patients over a long period. It should not come as a shock that the concept that patients’ interests are superior to those of pharmacists is viewed as self-evident. There you go again. It is a tradition of even greater moral weight, and more long-standing ancestry, that persons should not be compelled to do work they abhor. Nothing in the concept of portability of medical records, or the right of a patient to complain of the treatment he has received flouts that principle in the way your proposed indentured servitude for pharmacists model does, so all of your examples miss the boat. And the pier. And I doubt they’re even clear on where the harbor might be located. > [@](#): > > No one is setting out “rules” or demanding that you post to the “peculiar” standards expected in Great Debates. Sure you are. You’re announcing that my conduct here doesn’t fit into your vision of what GD should entail, and I’m declining to accept that vision. > [@](#): > > However, you derided another poster for having a strong opinion (which he had backed up with reasoned arguments), as is typical of GD, while having to that point posted virtually nothing yourself except a “ha-ha, a court agreed with me, so whaddaya think _now_, fools” and a couple of drive-by sneers at other posters, so you can expect to be called on it. Continue to weasel (or “wriggle desperately”, to use your own term), and your posts will be accorded the lack of respect they deserve. No, again you missed the boat. Frankly, you should consider some other method of travel. I inveighed not agianst the strong opinion, buit against the strong opinion _presented as objective truth_. The only objective truth here is the current state of the law, which protects the pharamcists in question. There are plenty of stroing arguments to be made for keeping that law in place, and plenty of strong arguments for changing it. Neither side may claim, objectively, that its proposed social policy is the right one. Only one side is trying, however, and the proponents thereof are used to an audience dominated by like-minded people, where their attempts to assert subjective claims as objective fact raise no objections. I’m here to spoil that. > [@](#): > > To repeat **redtail23** ’s question to you for a third time: > > > [@](#): > > > > Do you have any problems with the idea now that it has been demonstrated in Idaho that these laws will be extended far beyond abortifacients and contraceptives? Or are you also just fine with pharmacists making moral judgements about who can and can’t have medication, based on their personal whims? You say ‘whims,’ and I say ‘deeply held convictions.’ I am unaware of any results that I consider unjust, even in Idaho. I have heard nothing but speculation about the parade of horrors that “might” or “could” happen. I remember a similar debate a few years back about the Virginia same-sex marriage constitutional amendment. Opponents of that law insisted that it would lead to domestic violence cases, since apparently the law would hobble efforts to prosecute domestic violence victims because they weren’t actually married. Not only did that not come to pass, but an attempt I made years after the fact to point out that this concern never happened was met with supreme indifference and outright hostility. I can only conclude from this that the participants were perfectly comfortable throwing up “what might happen” scares without any particular care about the truth, and with no real interest in seeing the claims refuted by time. Of course, no one in this thread would do such a thing. > [@](#): > > Add to that my earlier question about a pharmacist who would apparently be protected under “conscience” laws if he decided to withhold prescribed anti-retroviral medication from a patient who he thought might have contracted HIV through “immoral” means. > > Are you and other “Conscience Pharmacist” boosters fine with that? Show me a case of that happening, in an instance where there is no other readily available source of the medication, and I’ll agree the system needs to be changed. I don’t believe it will, however. ---
**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, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/304 "2011-04-12T17:44:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It is a tradition of even greater moral weight, and more long-standing ancestry, that persons should not be compelled to do work they abhor. We’re forcing people to be pharmacists now? Should I alert Amnesty International of do you want to do it? ---
**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 12, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/305 "2011-04-12T17:49:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It is a tradition of even greater moral weight, and more long-standing ancestry, that persons should not be compelled to do work they abhor. Imagine, for whatever reason, you hate black people. If you become a Public Defender should you be able to refuse to represent black people? Afterall, if you defend a black person you would abhor doing it thus should be allowed to not do it. Or, more reasonably, if you are someone who abhors black people you probably should not become a Public Defender. ---
**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, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/306 "2011-04-12T17:51:05Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > We’re forcing people to be pharmacists now? > Should I alert Amnesty International of do you want to do it? No, no. We’re not forcing people to be pharmacists. You may relax. But once a person has become a pharmacist, some folks here wish to force him to perform work that he abhors. You see, you indulged in the fallacy of equivocation, using the same word with different meanings. Let me give you an example: Bread crumbs are better than nothing! Nothing is better than a thick, juicy steak. Therefore, bread crumbs are better than a thick juicy steak. See what happened there? “Nothing” in the first sentence refers to the absence of any other choice - it’s better to have bread crumbs to eat than to have nothing to eat. But in the second sentence, “nothing” refers to the fact that of all possible choices, none are better than the steak. The same flaw happened here, in substance. You used “work” to refer to the overall career of pharmacy, while I had used it to refer to a particular task within the day-to-day duties that might be assigned to a particular pharmacist. ---
**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, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/307 "2011-04-12T17:52:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Could have” been serious is not the same as “was serious,” is it? … But since that didn’t happen, I don’t regard it as serious. …But “rural” does not equal “place where no other source is reasonably available.” So what I’m getting from you - and please correct me if I’m wrong, because I’m truly telling you what I’m hearing you say in an effort to improve communication - is that you consider any concerns about the unintended consequences or further ramifications of these laws as silly and “not serious” until such time as somebody dies. And until that time you will dismiss any concerns whatsoever as ludicrous, with silly analogies like sword-swinging pharmacists. > [@redtail23](#): > > Or are you simply holding “free market” and “personal freedom” principals above all and denying that any health risk is “serious” if it contravenes those freedoms? In which case, you would have to agree that it is also OK for pharmacists to refuse prescriptions for AIDS patients or blacks or whatever, right? Anyone and anything that they decide is “immoral” at the time. > [@Bricker](#): > > I certainly appreciate your kind attempt to tell me what I would “have to” agree to, but inasmuch as I have not hired you as my spokesperson, I must ask that you stop trying to donate your services to the cause _gratis_. Really. It makes me feel beholden. My apologies for the poor wording. Let me try that again. Are you simply holding “free market” and “personal freedom” principals above all and denying that any health risk is “serious” if it contravenes those freedoms? If that is true, wouldn’t it also follow that it is also OK for pharmacists to refuse prescriptions for AIDS patients or blacks or anyone and anything that they decide is “immoral” at the time? If that is not the case, then what would restrict pharmacists from making such refusals under the current laws? ---
**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, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/308 "2011-04-12T17:55:50Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Imagine, for whatever reason, you hate black people. > > If you become a Public Defender should you be able to refuse to represent black people? Afterall, if you defend a black person you would abhor doing it thus should be allowed to not do it. > > Or, more reasonably, if you are someone who abhors black people you probably should not become a Public Defender. No. And the reason is that society is not prepared to recognize that racial animus is a a compelling reason for refusing to serve a client as a public defender. But society is prepared to recognize that abhorrence of abortion and abortion-related treatments is a reasonable basis for refusing to serve a particular client a particular medicine. This is because abortion and race are different. I know you’d like for them to be the same, but they are not. They are spelled differently, sound different, and involve different things. Your response to that is to simply assert that they are the same anyway, but they are not. ---
**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, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/309 "2011-04-12T18:03:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You may relax. Phew! I really was quite perturbed. In a tizzy, even. > [@Bricker](#): > > You see, you indulged in the fallacy of equivocation Actually, that’d be you. That’s what I just pointed out. The work is “being a pharmacist”. That work means you dispense medicines in accord with a doctor’s legal instructions, advise patients as to their proper use, and look for potential interactions/side effects that doctors may have missed. You are using the fallacy of equivocation to act as filling specific prescriptions for one class of drugs is the work they’ve been hired to do. It’s not. We’re not forcing anybody to do the work of a pharmacist, despite your fallacy of equivocation. And once someone has decided to do that kind of work, that \*means they’ve accepted that they’re going to do that kind of work. \* They can later refuse and should be fired as being unable to do the job, but to cast it in terms of forcing people to do work that they find abhorrent is, to put it mildly, not exactly accurate. As your steak example is hardly accurate, let’s try a valid analogy: “I’d like to be a teacher, can I have a job?” “Sure, your credentials look good and you’ve passed the PRAXIS, welcome aboard.” “Hey, wait, some of these kids have messy handwriting. I refuse to grade their papers.” “Well, you really can’t do that. You’re working as a teacher now, so that’s the kind of work you have to do, or you can find a new job.” “Nope, you’re trying to make me do work that I find to be abhorrent. I’m the kind of teacher who doesn’t grade messy handwriting.” ---
**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 12, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/310 "2011-04-12T18:03:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > And the reason is that society is not prepared to recognize that racial animus is a a compelling reason for refusing to serve a client as a public defender. > > But society is prepared to recognize that abhorrence of abortion and abortion-related treatments is a reasonable basis for refusing to serve a particular client a particular medicine. > > This is because abortion and race are different. I know you’d like for them to be the same, but they are not. They are spelled differently, sound different, and involve different things. Your response to that is to simply assert that they are the same anyway, but they are not. You said “persons should not be compelled to do work they abhor.” Apparently they can be even in your opinion. ---
**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, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/311 "2011-04-12T18:06:31Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > So what I’m getting from you - and please correct me if I’m wrong, because I’m truly telling you what I’m hearing you say in an effort to improve communication - is that you consider any concerns about the unintended consequences or further ramifications of these laws as silly and “not serious” until such time as somebody dies. And until that time you will dismiss any concerns whatsoever as ludicrous, with silly analogies like sword-swinging pharmacists. No. I sure don’t remember saying anything about someone dying as being the threshhold here. In fact, now that I’ve gone back and checked my posts, I’m sure I didn’t. So it’s quite baffling to read that you “hear me say” that. Especially given your claim that you wish correction if you’re wrong. I’m happy to correct you, but general principles of efficiency suggest that this is a very inefficient model: you simply making up something, ascribing it to me, and then asking to be corrected it you’re wrong. I mean, I certainly wouldn’t say to you, “What you’re saying is that all pharmacists must work without pay, doing the bidding of the Central Wellness Committee,” but please correct me if I’m wrong. I wouldn’t say that because making up a view out of whole cloth and assigning it to my debate opponent virtually guaranteed to be wrong. > [@](#): > > My apologies for the poor wording. Let me try that again. > > Are you simply holding “free market” and “personal freedom” principals above all and denying that any health risk is “serious” if it contravenes those freedoms? > > If that is true, wouldn’t it also follow that it is also OK for pharmacists to refuse prescriptions for AIDS patients or blacks or anyone and anything that they decide is “immoral” at the time? > > If that is not the case, then what would restrict pharmacists from making such refusals under the current laws? As I mentioned above, race and abortion are different things. Your implicitly invite me to agree that if we allow pharmacists to refuse service out of sincerely-held convictions related to abortion, we will inevitably see refusals for other reasons, reasons which we both agree are fatuous. I disagree. ---
**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, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/312 "2011-04-12T18:06:51Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > When you consider the fact that in large parts of Idaho pharmacies are few and far between, it is quite possible to effectively ban contraceptives in this manner. > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. It is also possible for a pharmacist to decide that this law appoints him as God’s avenging archangel. But it doesn’t seem to have actually happened. I’m sorry, which part of Czarcasm’s question was so silly as to merit this snark? Fact: there are large parts of our country which are rural, and in which many services (sometimes including pharmacies) are essentially sole-source for many, many miles. Are you asserting that such areas do not exist? That no one living in such areas would ever have issues with available transportation or time? Or simply that, since such a thing has not happened _that we know of and can prove_ in the relatively short time these laws have existed, that they never will? > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Also, if this has everthing to do with personal morality and nothing to do with discrimination against women, why can’t I find any reports of pharmacists refusing to dispense Viagra or Cialis? > [@Bricker](#): > > Perhaps because there are no non-fringe belief systems that might regard Viagra or Cialis as immoral. Which brings me back to an earlier question. Precisely which non-fringe religion includes “refuse to stop existing bleeding” as a moral precept? ---
**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 12, 2011, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/313 "2011-04-12T18:10:08Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > Precisely which non-fringe religion includes “refuse to stop existing bleeding” as a moral precept? [nitpick] To be fair I am not sure what “fringe” religion has to do with anything unless I missed the part where the law specifies only mainstream Christianity (whatever that would mean) as the controlling source of conscience by which you can refuse to do your job. [/nitpick] ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/314 "2011-04-12T18:17:27Z")
My conscience does not permit me to suffer a witch to live. ---
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/315 "2011-04-12T18:19:58Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You said “persons should not be compelled to do work they abhor.” > > Apparently they can be even in your opinion. Had you decided to quote my entire sentence, the resolution of the contradiction that supposedly troubles you would be perhaps a bit more apparent: > [@Bricker](#): > > It is a tradition of even greater moral weight, and more long-standing ancestry, that persons should not be compelled to do work they abhor. “Tradition of…” is not the same thing as “…absolute rule that…” We leaven that tradition against others to reach a balance. In the case of race, there’s sufficient unanimity of opinion about the invidious nature of racial discrimination that it overcomes the tradtion of forcing people into acts of work they abhor; we are comfortable telling a counterman that he doesn’t have to be a counterman, but if he is, he must serve lunch to blacks and whites alike. No such unanimity exists about providing aborting medications to people. In fact, in the states we’re discussing, the weight of opinion cuts the other way. So… yes. In my opinion, there are circumstances in which we may compel people to do work they abhor. But in my opinion, this isn’t one of them. ---
**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, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/316 "2011-04-12T18:20:24Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > . . . > > Which brings me back to an earlier question. Precisely which non-fringe religion includes “refuse to stop existing bleeding” as a moral precept? There is no requirement that the refusal be based on a religion. A moral belief is sufficient, and it is unnecessary to link that belief to any religion. Please cite an example where someone refused to treat excessive bleeding and a patient was in any way harmed. ---
**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, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/317 "2011-04-12T18:23:10Z")
> [@redtail23](#): > > I’m sorry, which part of Czarcasm’s question was so silly as to merit this snark? Fact: there are large parts of our country which are rural, and in which many services (sometimes including pharmacies) are essentially sole-source for many, many miles. Are you asserting that such areas do not exist? That no one living in such areas would ever have issues with available transportation or time? Or simply that, since such a thing has not happened _that we know of and can prove_ in the relatively short time these laws have existed, that they never will? I’m saying that the objection is speculative. I don’t say it’s impossible, but I regard it as so unlikely as to be an inappropriate concern for rule-making. > [@](#): > > Which brings me back to an earlier question. Precisely which non-fringe religion includes “refuse to stop existing bleeding” as a moral precept? None that I’m aware of, but that’s not really the issue here either. Was someone bleeding and suffered harm as a result of that bleeding and the refusal of a pharmacist? No. No such person exists; no such event happened. ---
**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, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/318 "2011-04-12T18:29:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But society is prepared to recognize that abhorrence of abortion and abortion-related treatments is a reasonable basis for refusing to serve a particular client a particular medicine. OK, so now we’re getting somewhere. So it’s no longer just actual abortions or contraceptives that are morally repugnant and grounds for refusal, but any treatment of any woman who might have had an abortion or be using birth control\*. Interesting, I didn’t realize that Catholic philosophy extended to that. \*I am extrapolating this particular point regarding contraceptives from your whole-hearted support of these laws in conjunction with actual cases where pharmacists have refused to dispense birth control medication without regards to the purpose of said treatment. > [@Bricker](#): > > No. I sure don’t remember saying anything about someone dying as being the threshhold here. I never claimed that you said that. I very specifically claimed that as MY PERCEPTION of your posts. Which is reasonably justified, in my opinion, since you have refused to state what you WOULD consider the threshhold, in favor of mocking anyone who is concerned about unintended consequences. > [@Bricker](#): > > So it’s quite baffling to read that you “hear me say” that. Especially given your claim that you wish correction if you’re wrong. I’m happy to correct you, but general principles of efficiency suggest that this is a very inefficient model: you simply making up something, ascribing it to me, and then asking to be corrected it you’re wrong. A situation created by your refusal to actually state a position, preferring to dismiss and mock other posters. > [@Bricker](#): > > As I mentioned above, race and abortion are different things. Your implicitly invite me to agree that if we allow pharmacists to refuse service out of sincerely-held convictions related to abortion, we will inevitably see refusals for other reasons, reasons which we both agree are fatuous. No, I specifically invited you to explain in what manner such “fatuous” refusals would be prevented, other than some concept of the “good will of mankind” that you seem to be depending on. And I never said such a thing was inevitable, thank you very much for “making up a view out of whole cloth and assigning it to [your] debate opponent”. I live in a rural, conservative area. I see women who are/will be affected by these laws. I see distinct and real possibilities of evil consequences. I have not said that they are inevitable, I have said that they are very real possibilities. And it’s impossible to come to any sort of concensus with someone who refuses to admit any possibility whatsoever of such consequences. As far as I can see, the law allows such things. We already have a specific case of a pharmacist refusing to treat someone for bleeding, thereby extending the law far beyond the original premise of “not having to perform abortions”. YOU are the one claiming “it will go this far and no farther” without any reason or evidence behind it, at least that you’re willing to share. “It just won’t happen” seems to be your only response. I want to know what will stop it from happening, in your view. ---
**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 12, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/319 "2011-04-12T18:36:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So… yes. In my opinion, there are circumstances in which we may compel people to do work they abhor. > > But in my opinion, this isn’t one of them. Imagine Mrs. Bricker suffers form endometriosis (a painful condition) that is treated with hormone therapy. As such she is prescribed what is, essentially, birth control pills to treat the condition. You are on a trip to the mountains in Montana. She realizes she forgot to pack her pills. She goes to a pharmacy in the nearest local town. There is only one pharmacy in the town. The pharmacist, following his/her conscience, starts to question your wife. Are you married? Why are you taking these pills? How often do you have sexual intercourse? Do you plan on having more kids? Indeed the answer to those questions may not even matter to the pharmacist. The pharmacist may simply refuse to fill a prescription for a drug that has an abortifacient aspect to it because of their personal conscience on the matter. You now have to drive your wife to the next city over and hope the pharmacist there will fill the prescription. Imagine you got into town in the evening and you cannot make it to the next pharmacy before it closes for the night. The nearest 24-hour pharmacy is 100 miles away. Your wife at this point is doubled over in agony in the car from pain (yes, it can be that painful, I have personally witnessed it). But no biggie right? As long as the pharmacist’s conscience is clear what happens to your wife is of no matter. ---
**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, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/320 "2011-04-12T18:40:53Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > There is no requirement that the refusal be based on a religion. A moral belief is sufficient, and it is unnecessary to link that belief to any religion. So I take it that you are hereby recanting all your previous statements to the effect that “bad things won’t happen under these laws, because only fringe groups have those beliefs”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=17)