# 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:** 21
**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, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/401 "2011-04-13T20:00:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why is it an “argument” when you invoke Jim Crow laws but an “assertion” when I do it? Because you have made no argument beyond, “A legislature enacted the law, the court thinks the law is ok.” > [@](#): > > Not really. Jim Crow laws specifically grew out of the vacuum that followed the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. When slavery was extant, Jim Crow laws did not exist, or need to. > > When you consider slavery as part of the Jim Crow universe, as it certainly was in spirit, then you’re quite wrong: overall, the laws permitting discrimination against blacks was at an all-time high when slavery was extant, and then trended generally downwards until 1964. Jim Crow is explicitly viewed as starting post-Civil War. Yes, it was an attempt of states to maintain segregation. Nevertheless it simply has to be true, whenever it happened, that Jim Crow laws were on the rise before they saw a decline. Conscience Clause laws will perforce rise before (if they ever do) decline. > [@](#): > > I’ve given my argument for why the law is generally a good one: in this country, we intrude on personal freedom only when the alternative is worse. When we balance a pharmacist’s right to not dispense medications that offend his conscience with the “right” of a patient not to walk a few blocks, the answer is obvious. > > You don’t agree with that balancing. That’s fine. How are we to resolve this basic disagreement? You have explained that it is not a big deal for a person to walk a few blocks to another pharmacy. You have a cite above from **jackmanni** where the pharmacists go further than just refusal but are obstructionist in the woman getting her medication. You have also not told us why a pharmacist should supplant the doctor/patient relationship and the expertise of the doctor with their personal whims. Where does it stop? If the pharmacist knows a woman (because he could see it in her records) had used a Day After pill then refuse all service? Even for prescription Ibuprofen? ---
**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, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/402 "2011-04-13T20:00:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You don’t agree with that balancing. That’s fine. How are we to resolve this basic disagreement? Let me expand on this point. You’ve heard my arguments, and presumably (though God knows how it’s possible) found them unavailing. I have heard your arguments and, after my fits of laughter, similarly discounted them. But that can’t end the inquiry. You and I aren’t the only voices to consider. How can we reach a decision on the matter? We could simply accept the word of the ruler, appointed over us by divine right. Unfortunately, the last time we had one of those was King George III, and there was a spot of unpleasantness surrounding his decisions. So we don’t do that anymore. I’ll avoid the detailed descriptions of other methods of rule, and just point out that we have, jointly, made an agreement about how to resolve these disputes. We pick leaders, and give them the power to express our will through the law. We may not agree with each and every decision they make, but we have a ready remedy if enough of us don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/403 "2011-04-13T20:06:26Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How does the “Free Exercise Clause” figure into this? because the government is trying to make a pharamacist do something that they are religiously opposed to doing. > [@](#): > > We have a right to Free Speech to and we have no problem circumscribing that law such that a newspaper cannot libel you. There is a difference between prohibiting actions and creating an affirmative duty to do something. > [@](#): > > Frankly, a pharmacist refusing to dispense a drug because of their religious beliefs is imposing their religion on me. > > The Free Exercise Clause includes a freedom “from” religion as well I think. There is a difference between government action and private action. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/404 "2011-04-13T20:09:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So I’ll say it again, since emphasis of important lessons never hurts. > > “Race and pharmacy access are different things .” However, in terms of protected classes, race and _gender_ are **not** different and it may have escaped your notice, Bricker, but the drugs in question that are so desperately morally harmful are only drugs prescribed to women, and the patients who have been refused service are, again, all women. Damn our medication-needing reproductive systems. What you’re advocating is a two-tier system, in which men can be reasonably assured that when they present a prescription for whatever medication it will be filled, while women must always be concerned that a pharmacist (who they’ve likely never met) will make a refusal, which will cause, at the very least an inconvenience and a loss of time and at the very worst (particularly for those with access limitations and rural dwellers) complete inability to receive needed medication in its efficacious timeframe, or before consequences of dosage lapses set in. You tried to frame the analogy as race :: access to pharmacy, it’s not. It’s race :: gender, or more specifically, access to lunch service regardless of race :: access to pharmacy service regardless of gender. There is no compelling reason why anyone should ever have to wonder, worry or fear that today will be the day that they get pushback while simply trying to get a necessary prescription filled. It’s easy to dismiss this as not being a “serious problem” and simply an “inconvenience” when it’s not a problem you will ever face and when the consequences will never impact upon your life. Just as it was easy for people to shrug and say “so you can’t eat at the Woolworth’s counter? You can eat at Mamie’s down in your end of town. What’s the big deal?” ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/405 "2011-04-13T20:09:53Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, because most have no expertise in the matter, nor do they necessarily have the equipment lying around. Now, doctors who _are_ trained and equipped for abortions shouldn’t be allowed to refuse patients just because they are lesbian, or Jewish, or black, or so on. I think a law that prohibited discrimination of dispensation of a drug you have in stock (abortion pill) based on race or sexual orientation would be bad. A law that required you to dispense the abortion pill is bad. > [@](#): > > No, because they are not required for marriage. They are not the legally mandated gatekeepers for marriage the way pharmacists are for drugs. No but you do need an officiant in many places and the most convenient one may be the priest in the church around the corner. Why do we force that couple to go somewhere else? What if the small podunk two horse town is so religious that there is no officiant that will perform the ceremony for a gay couple? ---
**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, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/406 "2011-04-13T20:09:58Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Jim Crow is explicitly viewed as starting post-Civil War. Yes, it was an attempt of states to maintain segregation. Nevertheless it simply has to be true, whenever it happened, that Jim Crow laws were on the rise before they saw a decline. Conscience Clause laws will perforce rise before (if they ever do) decline. So your point was not about discriminatory laws in general, but the specific subset of them known as “Jim Crow” laws? Um… OK. Yes. Excellent point, **Whack-a-Mole** , entirely in keeping with your keen arguments here in this thread. Jim Crow laws WERE on the rise at first, and then they declined. > [@](#): > > You have explained that it is not a big deal for a person to walk a few blocks to another pharmacy. You have a cite above from **jackmanni** where the pharmacists go further than just refusal but are obstructionist in the woman getting her medication. And did that, in fact, actually stop the patient from getting medication? > [@](#): > > You have also not told us why a pharmacist should supplant the doctor/patient relationship and the expertise of the doctor with their personal whims. Where does it stop? If the pharmacist knows a woman (because he could see it in her records) had used a Day After pill then refuse all service? Even for prescription Ibuprofen? Because that’s what freedom means. If my personal whim is to go about wearing a “Whack-a-Mole Sucks” T-shirt, then I should be permitted to do so. If a pharmacists wishes to refuse service to someone because he doesn’t like her use of the day-after pill, then he should be allowed to do that. Pharmacists are not public servants. They are private actors. They are not paid by the government. They are citizens. If a client doesn’t like his pharmacist’s refusal, or his smock, or his wall color, he can go to a different pharmacist. That’s what our notion of freedom is. I know you would rather that we were bees or ants, collectivist servants of the Great Public Good, and pharmacists would just accept their lot in life is to serve and not ask questions. But fortunately, that view is still in the minority, and thus will not gain a foothold. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/407 "2011-04-13T20:13:54Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Keeping this in the realm of medical care, I believe there is an obligation on the part of all physicians to provide urgent/emergency medical care if they are qualified to do so, or at the least to facilitate such care rapidly. With Plan B we are talking about _emergency contraception_. > > Even if you believe (and this is not a generally accepted belief) that pharmacists are an equal party to the physician-patient relationship and have “conscience” rights that can trump the patient’s rights, this should not apply to situations in which medication to fulfill an emergency need is lawfully prescribed. Its usually considered elective. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/408 "2011-04-13T20:15:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > You also take away “an important patient safeguard” if they are allowed to prescribe according to religious or political dogma. Should they be allowed to refuse antibiotics to blacks? Ever hear of the [Tuskegee experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment)? Should a pharmacist be allowed to perform his own micro-version of that? Because that’s what you are defending. The Tuskeegee experiment? Really? ---
**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, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/409 "2011-04-13T20:17:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Um… OK. Yes. Excellent point, **Whack-a-Mole** , entirely in keeping with your keen arguments here in this thread. Jim Crow laws WERE on the rise at first, and then they declined. Dude…you were the one who brought up Jim Crow being on the decline and using it as an argument. I pointed out the flaw in that argument. ---
**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, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/410 "2011-04-13T20:18:25Z")
Would you care to address [the problems with](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13684106&postcount=394) your formulation that allowing pharmacies to engage in discrimination against women is somehow different in allowing lunch counters to discriminate against blacks, except perhaps in the number of individuals effected? ---
**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, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/411 "2011-04-13T20:22:23Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > because the government is trying to make a pharamacist do something that they are religiously opposed to doing. But the government doesn’t force people to become pharmacists. The person in question sought it out and put him/herself in that position. The pharmacist put themselves in that position and is the only one who deserves any blame. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/412 "2011-04-13T20:27:14Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The fact that they oppose any such moral and legal obligations, to the extent of getting laws passed that relieve pharmacists of those legal obligations. You know; the subject of this thread. In the original thread I conceded that a state could pass a law that could require a pharmacist to carry and dispense a specific medication. Why can’t a state pass a law that permits pharmacists to refuse to carry or dispense the abortion pill? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/413 "2011-04-13T20:29:42Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Enough to pass laws enabling this behavior. And of course, to pass laws all over the country restricting abortion, terrorize & murder doctors for performing abortions, get multiple Presidents to enforce the murderous anti-abortion “Mexico City Policy”. > > This isn’t _about_ pharmacists. It’s about punishing women. This isn’t _about_ women. Its about a pharmacist’s right to act according to their conscience. You are just expressing your opinion as fact. Are you a Republican? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/414 "2011-04-13T20:34:35Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > This isn’t _about_ women. Its about a pharmacist’s right to act according to their conscience. That’s funny-all the cases I’ve heard of so far involved women being refused medicine. Do you have different examples on hand to show us that it isn’t about women and their needs? ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/415 "2011-04-13T20:36:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > … more and more states adopting conscience clause laws. … So, um if “the ability to refuse service is ALSO well-established in law” why do we need conscience clause laws? Why are they called conscience clause laws? Isn’t that just pharmacists using their half-baked claims about morality to get the result they want? Can they, and you, just switch nimbly back and forth between the law and your self-serving, amorphous and ill-defined concepts of “morality,” as pleases you? I won’t be holding my breath waiting for these or any of my other questions to get answered. ☹ CMC fnord! “If a pharmacists wishes to refuse service to someone because he doesn’t like her use of the day-after pill, then he should be allowed to do that.” Wow, I . . . wow. ---
**Author:** ![tumbleddown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@tumbleddown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tumbleddown)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/416 "2011-04-13T20:39:31Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So in order to avoid forcing women to do somethign they don’t want to do, we should force pharmacists to do something they don’t want to do? The stakes aren’t equal. The woman is trying to maintain or preserve her health, her wellbeing and the full status of her life and her family. The pharmacist is trying to maintain some opaque moral standard without regard to the impact that doing so has on others. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > This isn’t _about_ women. Its about a pharmacist’s right to act according to their conscience. Which conscience, conveniently, only comes into play when the act in question involves serving women with drugs that only women need. The racial purity of my lunchcounter isn’t about negros, it’s about my right to act according to my conscience as a lunchcounter owner! ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/417 "2011-04-13T20:43:14Z")
Remember: This isn’t about women-its about [del]states rights[/del]personal freedom. ---
**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 13, 2011, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/418 "2011-04-13T20:50:02Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > In the original thread I conceded that a state could pass a law that could require a pharmacist to carry and dispense a specific medication. Why can’t a state pass a law that permits pharmacists to refuse to carry or dispense the abortion pill? Because that is bigotry and malpractice. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > This isn’t _about_ women. Its about a pharmacist’s right to act according to their conscience. No, it is about the hatred of women, and about pharmacists who are sadistic bigots who lack a conscience. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/419 "2011-04-13T20:50:07Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > There’s no morality here, no professional issues; just the hatred of women. That is the only “personal reason” involved. Right, because noone could reasonably believe that abortion is murder :boggle ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2011, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/420 "2011-04-13T20:55:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Did you even bother to read the OP? Yeah and I believe that an non-legislative body passed a rule taht was contrary to a law passed by a legislative body, which do you think survives? The dicta about the constitutionality of the matter is probably wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=22)