# 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:** 19
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/361 "2011-04-13T16:05:03Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > It is very odd that you are repeating this mistake, as you’ve already had your ignorance cleared up. Even if we ignore that there are several other states with similar laws and you are refusing to address any but this one’s, it _still does not say what you are claiming._ We were discussing the Idaho matter, so, pointing out the law that governs that specific matter seems more relevant that posting absurd hypothetical responses to the absurd hypothetical situations you’ve presented. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > So even when a pharmacist somehow determines that a condition is “life threatening” (undefined) and that there is “no other health care professional being capable of treating the emergency” (undefined), the pharmacist is explicitly _not required to dispense the prescription_ and, instead, must provide “treatment and care” (undefined). You’ve missed this no fewer that three times. With respect to the Idaho case, (because it is the one being pointed to as the standard in this thread) you’re incorrect again. Here is the provision of the law linked in post 260… _(6) If a health care professional invokes a conscience right in a life-threatening situation where no other health care professional capable of treating the emergency is available, such health care professional shall provide treatment and care until an alternate health care professional capable of treating the emergency is found._ If we give the clear meaning to the words of that section, it appears your fears are unfounded. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/362 "2011-04-13T16:07:36Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > It is very odd that you are repeating this mistake, as you’ve already had your ignorance cleared up. Even if we ignore that there are several other states with similar laws and you are refusing to address any but this one’s, it _still does not say what you are claiming._ Well, it was **Jackmanii** who, moments ago, insisted with near apoplectic vigor that we address our attention to Idaho, since that was his Great Test Case. Obviously the Great Test Case was lacking, but the attention to Idaho is not without some thread-based justification. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 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? > > So even when a pharmacist somehow determines that a condition is “life threatening” (undefined) and that there is “no other health care professional being capable of treating the emergency” (undefined), the pharmacist is explicitly _not required to dispense the prescription_ and, instead, must provide “treatment and care” (undefined). These are more speculative objections. The law cannot and should attempt to define every term with a razor’s edge precision. The law instead full of examples that must be evaluated and applied by reasonable people. Your objection seems to be that you just know the people here will be unreasonable. But despite this certainty, you can’t actually come up with a case where someone has been in dire emergency straits, a life-threatening situation where the pharmacist does not respond appropriately. Your argument is, “Look at this bad law! Something bad will happen!” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/363 "2011-04-13T16:14:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Now that you’ve pointed out that the entire population of Idaho recides in Nampa, all my fears are alieved. I love how we must accept your unfounded speculation about what might happen, and how you indignantly reject the idea that it’s necessary to identify even one actual person who couldn’t get a prescription filled inside a few city blocks… but when it comes to the existence of God, [you will only be convinced](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=603619) if He can make a “square circle.” Let’s see… identify an actual person affected by the bad law? Wholly unreasonable. Demand a square circle - an utter contradiction in definitions and per se impossible - as proof? Utterly reasonable. Yup. Yup, yup, yup. ---
**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 13, 2011, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/364 "2011-04-13T16:15:39Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > The fact is that the woman was not denied the medication. This is a rather obvious example of word-gaming. Of course she was denied the prescription. Someone went in, asked for the prescription, and was denied. That’s denial. It doesn’t matter if she then went somewhere else. You cannot, by fiat, change the definition of the word denied to mean “Sure, denied by one or two folks, but not by everybody on the planet.” > [@Morgenstern](#): > > You’ve missed this no fewer that three times. This isn’t even word-gaming it’s something quite different. It’s interesting for you to claim that I’ve “missed it” when I’ve responded directly to it, quoted the language it uses, pointed out the imprecision in that language and the fictional nature of your claims about that language. In fact, in the post you’ve just quoted, I addressed the language from that exact clause that you claim I have “missed”. And, tellingly, you have made no attempt to explain how my claims are wrong (as I proved yours are wrong) and instead are pretending that something I’ve now quoted and analyzed twice and which you’ve ignored twice is really something that I’ve “missed”. Handwaving it away with claims about the “clear meaning” are somewhat silly, when you refuse to address the facts which show that there is no such clear meaning. Curiouser and curiouser. Yet again, in case you’d ever like to address what I’ve actually said and the flaws in the actual clause: > [@FinnAgain](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/365 "2011-04-13T16:24:42Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yet again, in case you’d ever like to address what I’ve actually said and the flaws in the actual clause: I have answered this point, by observing that it’s not uncommon for the law to use a phrase like “life threatening” without defining it further, and this simply means that the ordinary meaning of the words will be used as they would be understood by a reasonable person. You cannot point at the failure to define these terms more spcifically as proof of anything. ---
**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 13, 2011, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/366 "2011-04-13T16:36:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have answered this point, by observing that it’s not uncommon for the law to use a phrase like “life threatening” without defining it further, and this simply means that the ordinary meaning of the words will be used as they would be understood by a reasonable person. You cannot point at the failure to define these terms more spcifically as proof of anything. How many “reasonable people” have the ability to assess that a person is in a life threatening situation? Certainly if the person collapses in front of them and starts gushing blood a reasonable person would figure that is probably life threatening. But can a reasonable person assess that the women will hemorrhage in the next 30 minutes unless they get immediate treatment? Would they know you’ll have a heart attack in 30 minutes unless you get your medication (perhaps you need Viagra to manage your blood pressure…its original purpose…but the pharmacist does not believe in sex except for procreation so denies you the prescription)? I doubt even a doctor can do that by merely eyeballing someone. If a doctor can’t then no one else can either. I don’t care how reasonable they are. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/367 "2011-04-13T16:40:45Z")
@\*\* FinnAgain\*\* My problem is your attempting to represent that the woman was not able to get her medication by using the word _denied/_. That isn’t the case, one pharmacist refused to fill the prescription, and another one did. Ultimately, she was **NOT** denied her medication as you’re suggesting. I understand now. Your problem with the exceptions to Idaho CC law stems from a misunderstanding of the word _treatment_. Perhaps this will help. Treatment; _Administration or application of remedies to a patient or for a disease or injury; medicinal or surgical management; therapy._ This _application of remedies_ language covers professionals who dispense medications. Again, you’re sensationalizing a non-issue here to create unnecessary fear. If there is only one pharmacist, and only one pharmacy, and the patient as an exigent medical need, the law requires the CC pharmacist dispense the medication. The patient is in more danger of the pharmacist being on a lunch break when the need arises then than of a CC refusal. ---
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/368 "2011-04-13T16:49:09Z")
This debate is getting too bogged down in specific cases or sideline issues like how far away another pharmacy is. For me the debate is why is the pharmacists beliefs more important than the patients needs? How far should this type of thing go? Should a vegan who works in a grocery store be allowed not to ring up meat products? Should a muslim restaurant worker be allowed to opt out of filling alcoholic drink orders? I would actually respect (while still disagreeing) these opinions if the person involved had the integrity to say, “I can’t do this and respect myself, so I quit” rather than “I won’t do this, and if it inconveniences my co-workers and customers, tough, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF RELIGION!” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/369 "2011-04-13T16:50:26Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How many “reasonable people” have the ability to assess that a person is in a life threatening situation? Certainly if the person collapses in front of them and starts gushing blood a reasonable person would figure that is probably life threatening. But can a reasonable person assess that the women will hemorrhage in the next 30 minutes unless they get immediate treatment? Would they know you’ll have a heart attack in 30 minutes unless you get your medication (perhaps you need Viagra to manage your blood pressure…its original purpose…but the pharmacist does not believe in sex except for procreation so denies you the prescription)? > > I doubt even a doctor can do that by merely eyeballing someone. If a doctor can’t then no one else can either. I don’t care how reasonable they are. Perhaps… maybe… he could… Lots of what-ifs, there. And what if the pharmacy is out of the medication? No refusal, just a happenstance of an empty shelf. How often does a person die because the first pharmacy they tried was out of the needed medication? Answer: never. Why? Because how often does the doctor prescribing the medication say, “Hey, you’ll need to take this in thirty minutes or you’ll die, so try to find a pharmacy with a short wait time.” Answer: never. A condition that serious is treated in-house. How often does **Whack-a-Mole** invent bizarre scenarios to buttress his near-impossible arguments? Answer: quite frequently. See above. ---
**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 13, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/370 "2011-04-13T16:53:49Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This is simply not true. > > If you want to open, say, an Emergency Room (hospital) then there are very distinct regulations that demand what they must provide at a minimum to be deemed one. If you run a nursing home same thing. Same for an ambulance service (you can’t just paint “Ambulance” on the side of your car and advertise yourself as an ambulance service…you must meet minimum requirements). I am unaware of what the requirements are to open a pharmacy and call yourself a pharmacy but I am willing to bet they also have minimum requirements. Of course, there are rules, we should follow the rules and if we don’t like we try to change them or accept the consquences. The rules in Idaho state that the minimum requieremnts for apharmacy do notinclude selling products that you don’t want. > [@](#): > > No one can force you to work (that would be slavery). If you are a pharmacy owner and want to close your doors that is fine. No town is obligated to have a pharmacy. No individual is obligated to run a pharmacy. > > If you are a pharmacist and want to open shop it is prudent to look for places that have a need and open one there. I maintain that a CC pharmacy is a much better than none. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The US had Jim Crow laws for 90 years. > > Didn’t make them right or proper or moral. Of course, that’s what I say. Laws make it legal, not right or wrong. We agree. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > The only arguments he’s really advanced are that it’s good because a court decided it, or it’s good because it’s the will of the people, or it’s good because we can force people to do some things that they abhor as part of work (but not others), and he hasn’t explained what governing principle he’s using, other than ad pop, to explain why not providing meals to blacks at lunch counters is bad but not providing drugs to women at pharmacies. No, it was a legal issue not a moral one. > [@](#): > > As he hasn’t really offered an argument on _why_ that law is right, and why its potential unintended consequences are okay to ignore besides their (potential) likelihood, and has in fact steadfastly resisted calls for him to actually provide and support his own position, all that we really have is that ad pop fallacy. He likes it and it’s legal. > [@](#): > > That’s not what happened. Jack offered a reasoned claim as to why the medical profession had evolved certain rules and regulations to govern its behavior, and countered with the argumentum ad antiquitatem by claiming that there was an older tradition that took precedence. He didn’t simply mention it in passing, but as a rebuttal. > > Again though, as his argument has been downright dainty when it comes to actually taking and supporting a position, maybe it was just an attempt to snipe at Jack and not an attempt at an actual rebuttal. Sure looked like one to me though. AdAnt only exists when the only reason is age. Status quo exists and it’s always worth mentioning. Long standing practices are to be mentoined and it doesn’t mean AdAnt. > [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Lets see, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, [Formation 1916](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood). > I’m 47 > > - serious sex ed education at ~14 or 15 > = yeah, 30+ fucking years. Good for you. I simply want to point out that I never said “we’ve just found out…” [SIZE=“1”](you were trying to sucker me into a pit thread about what another guy said)[/SIZE] > [@](#): > > BTW I’ve always thought ground fetus was a savory not a sweet, now that I think I know what [carapulcras](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=carapulcras) is (I’ll take Peruvian Cuisine for $500 Alex.) sounds good, extra red chilis and light on the ground zygote, if you please! Were you trying to be edgy and cool? > [@](#): > > It has “childbirth” twice too (as if the number of times either appears in a goddamn Wiki cite means anything). So now that the reason Methergine was prescribed is back to a coin toss (since there actually _is_ a doctor in this [del]house[/del] thread I am kinda curious about just what Methergine is most commonly prescribed for) we’re just left with the problem that the pharmacist isn’t flipping a [fair coin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_coin). Whether it was a Planned Parenthood nurse or the patient that went to the pharmacy it seems damn clear that it was “PP” and NOT the “C20H25N3O2” that offended the pharmacist’s delicate sensibilities. Anybody really doubt that if the 'script was from the town’s beloved OB-GYN it would have been filled without even the batting of an eyelash?Why not? Context? It usually help in cases of doubt. > [@](#): > > We seem to have established that the abhorrence of abortion and abortion-related treatments is a reasonable basis for refusing to serve a particular client a particular medicine. > Hell why stop there? > “Had an abortion” isn’t a protected class. Why shouldn’t Larry the Landlord’s First Amendment protected, deeply held convictions, and religious beliefs trump your . . . wait I can’t seem to find any Rent an Apartment Amendment. > > Penicillin and Band-Aids aren’t the stretch. The question has gone from “I shouldn’t be forced to provide chemicals that directly cause the death of fertilized eggs/zygotes/embryos/fetuses/babies” conscience clauses to “I shouldn’t be forced to provide chemicals that might have been prescribed to deal with the after effects of having an abortion”. The former is at _least_ arguable, the latter is NOT.Fine, but that’s not the issue with the Idaho pharmacist. > The pharmacist didn’t say “Sorry, this pharmacy doesn’t stock that drug”. The only issue for the pharmacist was why the drug was needed, “Sure, this pharmacy stocks that drug, but I won’t sell it to you if you need it because you had an abortion”. > > As Jules Winnfield so elegantly said; > “Ain’t the same fucking ballpark, it ain’t the same league, it ain’t even the same fucking sport.” > > CMC fnord! I see your point here and it’s valid. CCs have to be well written and minimise endless questioning. I would, as much as I abhor abortion, have no problem with filling/prescribing medication to treat any and all of the physycal consquences of an abortion without batting a freking moral eyelash. I would denounce anyone who wouldn’t do the same. Once the abortion has happened, there is now only one life to save and as a pharmacist it is your (moral) duty to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/371 "2011-04-13T16:57:45Z")
> [@Cumberdale](#): > > This debate is getting too bogged down in specific cases or sideline issues like how far away another pharmacy is. > > For me the debate is why is the pharmacists beliefs more important than the patients needs? But the issue of how far away another pharmacy is is key to answering that question. Why? Because the patients’ needs can be easily met at another pharmacy. By framing the question this way, to invite the reader to conclude that by honoring the pharmacist’s beliefs, we refuse the patients’ needs. But that’s not true; the patient can go down the street. If it were truly a case of the patients having needs that are not met, then perhaps the calculus would be different. > [@](#): > > How far should this type of thing go? Should a vegan who works in a grocery store be allowed not to ring up meat products? Should a muslim restaurant worker be allowed to opt out of filling alcoholic drink orders? > > I would actually respect (while still disagreeing) these opinions if the person involved had the integrity to say, “I can’t do this and respect myself, so I quit” rather than “I won’t do this, and if it inconveniences my co-workers and customers, tough, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF RELIGION!” In my opinion, which is really not relevant, I would not protect the right of the pharmacist to keep his job. The pharmacy owner should be able to say, “If you want to work in my pharmacy, you must fill all prescriptions; that’s the job. Don’t like it? There’s the door.” So in my irrelevant opinion, the law goes too far. But to take your examples: the vegan should be able to open his own store and not sell meat in it. The Muslim worker should be able to open his own restaurant and not sell alcohol. And the pharmacist should be able to open his own pharmacy and not sell whatever medicines he wishes to avoid. ---
**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 13, 2011, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/372 "2011-04-13T16:58:04Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > @\*\* FinnAgain\*\* > My problem is your attempting to represent that the woman was not able to get her medication by using the word _denied/_. That isn’t the case, one pharmacist refused to fill the prescription, and another one did. Ultimately, she was **NOT** denied her medication as you’re suggesting. > > I understand now. Your problem with the exceptions to Idaho CC law stems from a misunderstanding of the word _treatment_. > > Perhaps this will help. > Treatment; > _Administration or application of remedies to a patient or for a disease or injury; medicinal or surgical management; therapy._ > > This _application of remedies_ language covers professionals who dispense medications. > > Again, you’re sensationalizing a non-issue here to create unnecessary fear. If there is only one pharmacist, and only one pharmacy, and the patient as an exigent medical need, the law requires the CC pharmacist dispense the medication. The patient is in more danger of the pharmacist being on a lunch break when the need arises then than of a CC refusal. Excellent quotes. > [@Cumberdale](#): > > This debate is getting too bogged down in specific cases or sideline issues like how far away another pharmacy is. > > For me the debate is why is the pharmacists beliefs more important than the patients needs? > > How far should this type of thing go? Should a vegan who works in a grocery store be allowed not to ring up meat products? Should a muslim restaurant worker be allowed to opt out of filling alcoholic drink orders? > > I would actually respect (while still disagreeing) these opinions if the person involved had the integrity to say, “I can’t do this and respect myself, so I quit” rather than “I won’t do this, and if it inconveniences my co-workers and customers, tough, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF RELIGION!” The pharmacists beliefs are not more important that the patient’s needs, but are no less. Not “FREDOM OF RELIGION” simply “FREEDOM”. Any particular objections to your job have to be spelled out in hiring. If the employer agrees then, yes. If it’s your shop, do whatever within the law. ---
**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 13, 2011, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/373 "2011-04-13T17:10:22Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > My problem is your attempting to represent that the woman was not able to get her medication by using the word _denied/_. That isn’t the case, one pharmacist refused to fill the prescription You’re contradicting yourself one sentence to the next. The pharmacist who “refused to fill the prescription” _denied her the prescription._ That’s what _deny_ means. During segregation if a black man was refused service as a lunch counter but could go to a segregated lunch counter somewhere else, that would still not mean that he wasn’t denied service. It’s telling that you can’t support your argument without obfuscating to the point where a denial isn’t a denial unless it’s absolutely universal across everybody else who was asked. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > a misunderstanding of the word _treatment_. Well, at least you’re no longer pretending that I’ve ignored something that I’ve answered twice now. But no, the problem comes from you inventing a definition for it. No definition is provided. Nor are we told how a pharmacist is supposed to properly conduct triage. Nor are we told what exactly we’re to conclude about what qualifies there being others who can assist. Is an ambulance service two hours away capable or incapable of assisting? And as pointed out several times, the law explicitly does not say “the pharmacist must provide the prescription as written by the physician”. But that they must provide “treatment”. Which is undefined. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > Treatment; > _Administration or application of remedies to a patient or for a disease or injury; medicinal or surgical management; therapy._ Nifty bait and switch. [That seems to come from the Free Online Dictionary.](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/treatment) The [actual statute,](http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH6SECT18-611.htm) however, has no such definition of “treatment”. And as pointed out by me and ignored by you, _it explicitly does not say that the pharmacist must provided the prescribed drug._ In point of fact, it actually says that a pharmacist “shall provide treatment and care until an alternate health care professional capable of treating the emergency is found.” That means if what you need to treat the emergency is to _dispense the prescribed medicine that the pharmacist will not dispense due to “conscience”_, the pharmacist merely has to provide vague “care and treatment” until someone arrives who will give them that medicine. > [@Morgenstern](#): > > If there is only one pharmacist, and only one pharmacy, and the patient as an exigent medical need, the law requires the CC pharmacist dispense the medication. You’re not only wrong, you’ve been corrected on this same exact point three times now. It says nothing of the sort in the law, and I’ve pointed that fact out to you time after time. This is somewhat similar to your argument about how, sure, the patient was denied a prescription but someone else didn’t also deny it, so the first denial totally doesn’t count and no backsiez. ---
**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 13, 2011, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/374 "2011-04-13T17:11:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because all “rights” are not the same. And apparently, some people are more equal than others. :dubious: > [@Bricker](#): > > You think there’s a remedy at law for this? Fine. Pursue it. Exactly what I advocated in the very first reponse to your “nyah nyah” OP. A number of states have taken up this issue with patients’ rights in the forefront of the discussion (I know, how _dare_ they when the People’s Will Has Spoken) and I anticipate that further backdoor attempts to chip away at abortion rights in the guise of protecting pharmacists “freedom of religion” will face stiff opposition. ---
**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 13, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/375 "2011-04-13T17:34:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Let’s see… identify an actual person affected by the bad law? Wholly unreasonable. Since you’re still engaging in this fantasy that Conscience Pharmacists laws have wronged no one (and are expanding it to suggest that no one has even been _affected_ by them, [here’s an article for you](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/LegalCenter/story?id=701109) describing (as of 2005) several recent incidents in which patients were denied their prescriptions for not only morning after pills, but _contraceptives_. Did ABC News make up these incidents? Have certain pharmacists pushed for these “conscience” laws in the complete absence of any precipitating events? Only in **Bricker** -world. Contrary to assertions about how The People’s Will Has Spoken on this issue as exemplified by a court decision in Illinois, consider that patient rights-centered laws hold sway in other jurisdictions, including New Jersey where pharmacists are prohibited from refusing to fill prescriptions solely on moral/religious grounds. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/376 "2011-04-13T17:38:36Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > And apparently, some people are more equal than others. :dubious: This is a literary allusion to Orwell’s book “Animal Farm.” In the novel, the animals of the farm overthrow their human master and lay out a set of rules to govern themselves, one of which is: _All animals are equal._ Later, the pigs, led by Napoleon, seek to control the farm, and the rule is modified to read: _All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others._ This rule favors the pigs, who have arrogated special privileges to themselves. Here, there is no special privilege arrogated to anyone. A patient has no particular right to demand that a particular pharmacy or pharmacist serve him. A pharmacy has no particular right to demand that an individual patient shop there. No one is compelled to do anything. Your attempt to define “the right to get medicine from a particular pharmacy” as identical to the right to be treated equally under the law no matter your race is where you fail. Again we see that you beg the question, implicitly: you want us to assume that people have this right, and then focus on its denial as evidence that some are more equal than others. But when the right never existed in the first place, and indeed finds life only in your imagination, you cannot claim it as a basis for anything, even faux-clever literary allusions. > [@](#): > > Exactly what I advocated in the very first reponse to your “nyah nyah” OP. > > A number of states have taken up this issue with patients’ rights in the forefront of the discussion (I know, how _dare_ they when the People’s Will Has Spoken) and I anticipate that further backdoor attempts to chip away at abortion rights in the guise of protecting pharmacists “freedom of religion” will face stiff opposition. Great! Well, there’s certainly no legal problem with a state deciding that pharmacists must serve the public good by accepting all comers. If the people of some state find that desirable, they can certainly enact it. New Jersey has, in fact. On the other side: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Mississippi, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Washington all have varying right-to-refuse statutes. (I like California’s, which leaves the decision in the employer’s hands, rather than the individual pharmacist’s). I like the trend, myself. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/377 "2011-04-13T17:43:21Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Since you’re still engaging in this fantasy that Conscience Pharmacists laws have wronged no one (and are expanding it to suggest that no one has even been _affected_ by them, [here’s an article for you](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/LegalCenter/story?id=701109) describing (as of 2005) several recent incidents in which patients were denied their prescriptions for not only morning after pills, but _contraceptives_. Did ABC News make up these incidents? Have certain pharmacists pushed for these “conscience” laws in the complete absence of any precipitating events? Only in **Bricker** -world. Your cite says: > [@](#): > > In several recent incidents, pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for birth control pills or “morning-after” pills, citing conflicts with their religious beliefs. BWAHAHAHAHA!!! THAT is your new evidence? “In several recent incidents…?” Which one of those incidents happened to someone who was unable to walk down the street and get their prescription filled elsewhere? None of them. > [@](#): > > Contrary to assertions about how The People’s Will Has Spoken on this issue as exemplified by a court decision in Illinois, consider that patient rights-centered laws hold sway in other jurisdictions, including New Jersey where pharmacists are prohibited from refusing to fill prescriptions solely on moral/religious grounds. Yes, I mentioned New Jersey. But I see you say “other jurisdiction **s**.” This suggests it’s more than just New Jersey. Where else? ---
**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 13, 2011, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/378 "2011-04-13T17:49:52Z")
Ah-hah! I see that several black people were refused service at the lunch counter, but you fail to mention that they were able to walk down the street to a segregated counter and get lunch there. And besides, there are few black people in this state so it really doesn’t matter. And all you’ve done is show that this law potentially allows blacks to be refused service, I don’t see that as compelling. What’s that? I haven’t explained why discriminating against people based on race is wrong, but discriminating based on whether or not they may have had an abortion is okay? Hrm… did I use the bandwagon fallacy? Oh. Okay. How about the argument from tradition? That too? Hrmm… Well then, nyeh nyeh, can’t make me take a position. What, you think this is some sort of Debate that’s supposed to be somehow Great? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/379 "2011-04-13T17:53:51Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Ah-hah! I see that several black people were refused service at the lunch counter, but you fail to mention that they were able to walk down the street to a segregated counter and get lunch there. And besides, there are few black people in this state so it really doesn’t matter. And all you’ve done is show that this law potentially allows blacks to be refused service, I don’t see that as compelling. > > What’s that? I haven’t explained why discriminating against people based on race is wrong, but discriminating based on whether or not they may have had an abortion is okay? Hrm… did I use the bandwagon fallacy? Oh. Okay. How about the argument from tradition? That too? Hrmm… Well then, nyeh nyeh, can’t make me take a position. What, you think this is some sort of Debate that’s supposed to be somehow Great? The answer to this is very simple. I thought I had revealed it already in this thread several times, but you must have missed it. So I’ll say it again, since emphasis of important lessons never hurts. “Race and pharmacy access are different things .” There you go. The reason they are treated differently is because they are different. It’s a mind-blowing concept, but focus on it. You’ll get it eventually. If you say they’re the same, the burden falls to you to explain why we should consider them the same. For example, you could name the court decisions that have found access to particular pharmacies to be a right on par with racial equality. Why don’t you start there? I’ll wait. ---
**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 13, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/380 "2011-04-13T17:55:41Z")
“Shut up.” he explained. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=20)