# 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:** 34
**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 15, 2011, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/661 "2011-04-15T05:15:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So if the lunch counter consents to giving the black person a cup of coffee it is ok if they otherwise refuse service? Not if they’re doing it BECAUSE he is black. If they offer that service to everyone but the black guy then its not OK. If a vegan restaurant doesn’t serve meat and a black guy walks in and says I want a steak and they say we object to meat on principle so we will not serve you meat. Can the black guy cry racism? ---
**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 15, 2011, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/662 "2011-04-15T05:21:00Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Why should that matter? > > People here are claiming you should not be forced to do something against your conscience. Why should the clerk be any different? Perhaps I didn’t understand your point. Let me just say that if your religious beliefs interfere with your job, you can be fired. If you are a government employee, you may not “establish a religion” > [@](#): > > I did not say she taught Intelligent Design. I said she refused to teach evolution (even if it is part of the state mandated curriculum). Can states mandate curricula for private schools? If so then she must teach it or lose her ability to teach. If that state required the dispensation of birth control pills then the pharmacist would have to dispense them. You’re saying that the pharmacist has to dispense them even if there isn’t a law saying they must. > [@](#): > > Pharmacists are licensed by the state and pharmacies are regulated by the state. And the state can pass a law requiring them to do what you want them to do. But absent that, what makes you think we can make the pharmacist sell soemthing they don’t want to sell? > [@](#): > > Lawyers are private actors too (or can be…certainly some work for the government). Despite that they have a whole pile of laws and ethics that regulate them. So do pharmacists and if you make dispensing birth control pills part of that law, then they will have to do so. ---
**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 15, 2011, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/663 "2011-04-15T05:24:54Z")
> [@Carmady](#): > > You say we are only talking about contraceptives, but I find that hard to believe when everyone is using such general terms. > > Pharmacists should not be able to stock and then refuse to dispense, for example, anti-bleeding drugs. Indeed, I would argue they should not be allowed to stock any drug they are unwilling to dispense. I don’t think they can be discriminatory in who they choose to dispense to. But I think they don’t have to stock a drug no matter how much you want to buy it. > [@](#): > > The current law you are defending appears to allow all of these things. I thought I said that the law that allowed the pharmacist to refuse to sell bleeding pills because he suspected it might be helping someon that had an abortion seemed too broad. I defend a pharmacist’s right to refuse to sell a drug. They can be fired by their boss if they don’t own their own pharmacy. If they own their own pharmacy, they can refuse to stock the drug. ---
**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 15, 2011, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/664 "2011-04-15T05:29:45Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Robustly? > > Maybe now. > > It didn’t for decades (or longer). Certain states were falling over themselves trying to find ways to restrict the plain will of the Constitution (everyone gets to vote). Your analogies between this debate and racism and segregation doesn’t seem apt. > [@](#): > > Not only can we look at these CC laws individually and say they are bad but when people shrug and say, “Well, it’s not all that much of a burden.” it is appropriate to see the dog pile of burdens they are piling on and take them as a whole. I don’t really care how much of a burden it is. You can’t force pharmacists to sell something without passing a law unless the abortion penumbra right has its own penumbra that give your the right to force pharmacist to sell you birth control pills. If you can do that then congrats you have taken the first step towards forcing doctors to perform abortions, which is a step closer to forcing all sorts of things (like forcing women to carry pregnancies to term). ---
**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 15, 2011, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/665 "2011-04-15T05:35:48Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Personally I would like pharmacies to be forced to carry contraceptives and Plan-B but there are lots and lots of drugs out there so you get into a mess of what they must and must not carry. It is a difficult problem from a practical matter. Not really. I think some states have a formulary that requires you to carry some basics to call yourself a pharmacy. [quote] I believe the CC laws explicitly make it impossible for the store to fire the pharmacist for that though… > [@](#): > > Curious if **Bricker** and company are ok with an employee refusing to do their job despite the will of the owners who hired them to do that job. Also, can an employer ask about that during hiring and refuse to hire someone to evinces a moral hangup with part of the job? (Dunno myself…really asking) If that’s your point then I agree that employers should be able to fire their employees who do not dispense what is probably the most common prescription in the country. ---
**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 15, 2011, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/666 "2011-04-15T05:38:31Z")
> [@Cumberdale](#): > > Sorry, you totally missed my point. Perhaps I could have worded it better. > > Yes, Bricker did say that pharmacist could be fired, however in very rare circumstances. > > As for the teacher, as far as I know most do not own their own school so your point really doesn’t matter in the real world. I’m talking about a teacher who works either for a public or private school that does use grades for measuring, promoting etc. In this scenario a or a few teachers decide that grading only fosters competition which results in violence, wars and the like. They adopt the CC language and the teachers union backs them. > > The reason I brought this up is because generally conservatives (assuming you, Bricker etc. accept this label) think unions are bad. Would you agree with the union in this increasingly more complicated scenario than I really wanted to get into, or do you say, “the teacher needs to do their job or find another”. I used to think I was a conservative but according to “real” conservatives, I’m a socialist. I think a pharmacy owner should be able to fire a pharmacist that won’t dispense a drug for religious reasons. I think you could pass a law that prohibited this but I think that would be a bad law. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/667 "2011-04-15T12:36:01Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > Apparently, this thread has gotten so long that I’ve become confused. I thought you were one of the people arguing that all pharmacies should be required to stock contraceptives because it might be impossible or too difficult for her to go to another pharmacy and that if a state did not require this it would be discriminatory towards women. Based on what you say below, I was wrong. No mistake on your part **doreen** , that is exactly what **FinnAgain** and **Whack-a-Mole** are trying to say. Except it’s more like this. Poster F and W say “It’s discrimination against all women” Others say “No it is not. See this cite, see this distinction, see this result.” Poster F and W. “No, is too.” Others say “No it is not. See this additional cite, see this additional distinction, see this additional result.” Poster F and W. “No, is too.” Others say “No it is not. See yet another cite, see yet another distinction, see yet another result.” Poster F and W. “No, is too.” I gained a lot of respect for day care workers who have rooms full of 2 year olds by participating in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/668 "2011-04-15T12:47:35Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The right to vote was extended to blacks by the 15th amendment. The court relied on the 14th amendment to strike down poll taxes. Or so I thought. Did you attend the same school **Whack-a-Mole** did, where the Twenty-Fourth Amendment was inexplicably omitted from textbooks?? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/669 "2011-04-15T13:01:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > We’ve been through this before. > > There are LOTS of laws that have been bad. > > Are you suggesting it never happens? > > Are you saying you have never seen a law, now or in the past, which you disagreed with and would argue against? Laws that may or may not have been rescinded? > > Pretty sure you do not agree with abortion yet a woman’s right to have one is the law of the land. I am pretty sure you have argued Roe v. Wade was decided in error. I am pretty sure you do not just shrug your shoulders and move on figuring it is a done deal. True enough. But you can look at every single one of my posts that’s dealt with abortion, and in every thread you’ll find me saying something like, “In my opinion, abortion is a moral wrong. But I recognize that it’s the law of the land, and people who seek abortions are acting in good faith. I don’t think _Roe v. Wade_ was decided correctly, and I’d like to see it overturned. But until it is, it’s the law, and people who rely on it are doing so in good faith.” You know why I always say stuff like that? Because I’m not you, and I don’t confuse my opinions with Unalterable Fact. You’re free to argue that we should change the law; you’re not free to claim that your side is the absolute truth, and the opposition has nothing going for it except bad faith and animus against women. I’m in absolute agreement that laws can be wrong, but I further recognize that this is my opinion only, and I have no grounds to assert otherwise. In this country, we rely on legislatures to make the law. My biggest beef with Roe is that it arose not from legislators, but from jurists. But even that is ultimately, if a bit circuitously, the expression of the people’s will, since federal judges may be impeached by Congress, and Congress is elected by the people. I think it’s unwise in the extreme to vest such direct legislative power in unelected judges with lifetime appointments, but I recognize others disagree, and reasonable people can reach opposite conclusions. You see what’s present in my statements and missing in yours? Acknowledgement that when the other side has the law on their side, you can disagree but you can’t dismiss them as utterly without foundation. ---
**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 15, 2011, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/670 "2011-04-15T13:05:05Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I gained a lot of respect for day care workers who have rooms full of 2 year olds by participating in this thread. > [@Bricker](#): > > Did you attend the same school **Whack-a-Mole** did, where the Twenty-Fourth Amendment was inexplicably omitted from textbooks?? F and W: “This is a bad law” B and M: “But it’s the law.” F and W: “We are saying it is a bad law and here is why.” B and M: “But it’s the law.” F and W: “It is a bad law because it is akin to these other laws that were clearly bad laws.” B and M: “But people got rid of those bad laws and this is the law so pffft.” F and W: “What rationale makes this a good law?” B and M: {fingers in their ears} “I can’t hear you…LA LA LA LA…it’s the law…LA LA LA LA.” Two year olds indeed. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/671 "2011-04-15T13:05:54Z")
> [@Cumberdale](#): > > Yes, Bricker did say that pharmacist could be fired, however in very rare circumstances. I did? I don’t remember limiting my opinion to “very rare circumstances.” In my personal view, the pharmacy owner should be able to fire the pharmicist for curling his upper lip in slight disdain as he fills a prescription. Where did I advert to these “very rare circumstances?” ---
**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 15, 2011, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/672 "2011-04-15T13:08:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > True enough. > > But you can look at every single one of my posts that’s dealt with abortion, and in every thread you’ll find me saying something like, “In my opinion, abortion is a moral wrong. But I recognize that it’s the law of the land, and people who seek abortions are acting in good faith. I don’t think _Roe v. Wade_ was decided correctly, and I’d like to see it overturned. But until it is, it’s the law, and people who rely on it are doing so in good faith.” > > You know why I always say stuff like that? > > Because I’m not you, and I don’t confuse my opinions with Unalterable Fact. You’re free to argue that we should change the law; you’re not free to claim that your side is the absolute truth, and the opposition has nothing going for it except bad faith and animus against women. Where have I said the current law does not exist or people should operate as if there is no such law? Why is it different when I debate my side suggesting this is a bad law but you are different when you argue a law is a bad law? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/673 "2011-04-15T13:12:07Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > F and W: “What rationale makes this a good law?” > B and M: {fingers in their ears} “I can’t hear you…LA LA LA LA…it’s the law…LA LA LA LA.” I have answered this question many times. I’ll do so again: Our basic principles of freedom make this a good law. Our notion of freedom includes not compelling persons to do work they don’t wish to do, and is outweighed only by strongly compelling circumstances. I’ve said that before, and you surely know it. Our disagreement is not that I refuse to give a rationale. It’s that you and I don’t agree on the weights to assign to the various factors in play. We agree that when the issue involved is racial discrimination, our notions of freedom to work as one pleases give way to a greater societal command to forbid racial discrimination. But we don’t assign the same value to the issue of purchasing pharmacy-delivered medicines. You believe that because this issue impacts women, we should consider it gender discrimination, and we should treat it similarly, or even treat it similarly to racial discrimination, and find that society has a similar interest in forbidding it. I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/674 "2011-04-15T13:22:28Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > . . . > > Why is it different when I debate my side suggesting this is a bad law but you are different when you argue a law is a bad law? One side has based their opinion on emotion, the other side, on facts and/or the will of the people. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/675 "2011-04-15T13:23:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Curious if **Bricker** and company are ok with an employee refusing to do their job despite the will of the owners who hired them to do that job. Also, can an employer ask about that during hiring and refuse to hire someone to evinces a moral hangup with part of the job? (Dunno myself…really asking) > [@doreen](#): > > My understanding is that employers can always ask questions regarding an applicant’s ability and willingness to do the work. They can’t ask if you have children or babysitting arrangements but they can certainly ask if your willing to work the midnight shift. And no ,I don’t think the law should protect a pharmacist who is unwilling to do the job _as defined by the employer._ Asked and answered by me above, but this thread seems to benefit by repetition, so I’ll give it another discussion. In my opinion, the law goes too far when it protects the pharmacist from losing his job for not following his employer’s directions. This is why I praised California’s scheme: they protect the refusal only when the employer agrees. The government shouldn’t force a person to act against his beliefs… but neither should it force an employer to continue to pay an employee that won’t do his job, because there’s no bar against the private employer telling the provate employee, “Do this or leave.” The government shouldn’t say that, but the employer can. ---
**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 15, 2011, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/676 "2011-04-15T13:25:51Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > One side has based their opinion on emotion, the other side, on facts and/or the will of the people. Where have I denied the reality of the existing law? Since when is “the will of the people” the final arbiter of what is right or just? I think we have pretty clearly shown that “the will of the people” can be pretty fucked-up. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/677 "2011-04-15T13:26:13Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Where have I said the current law does not exist or people should operate as if there is no such law? > > Why is it different when I debate my side suggesting this is a bad law but you are different when you argue a law is a bad law? Because you don’t “suggest.” You declare, as unalterable fact, that your position is correct. You make no room for the necessary concession that the opposing position is acting from a reasonable position. If your posts said, “In my opinion, this is unwise, and here’s why…” we’d have little problem here, and no ire. But your position is framed as the One Truth, which is a silly conceit when the law directly opposes you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/678 "2011-04-15T13:28:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Where have I denied the reality of the existing law? > > Since when is “the will of the people” the final arbiter of what is right or just? I think we have pretty clearly shown that “the will of the people” can be pretty fucked-up. But that’s an uphill climb. Look back over this thread. Have I, even once, said that the people of New Jersey are fucked up? No. I recognize their actions in adopting what they think is a reasonable position, and that they are acting in good faith. I disagree with the wisdom of their choice, but I recognize that’s my opinion, not The One Truth. In your first post, you said, “A pharmacist should dispense legally prescribed drugs. Period.” The One Truth, delievered by you. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/679 "2011-04-15T13:58:36Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Where have I denied the reality of the existing law? > > Since when is “the will of the people” the final arbiter of what is right or just? I think we have pretty clearly shown that “the will of the people” can be pretty fucked-up. No one is saying that the will of the people doesn’t change. It most certainly is fluid, and period sensitive, but it remains the will of the people. The alternative is something like the government stepping in and dictating that all pharmacist will dispense all medications for whatever reason, whether or not participating in said act is against their moral conscious. ---
**Author:** ![Ograbme](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Ograbme](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ograbme)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2011, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/680 "2011-04-15T15:53:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If your posts said, “In my opinion, this is unwise, and here’s why…” we’d have little problem here, and no ire. But your position is framed as the One Truth, which is a silly conceit when the law directly opposes you. Since all morals are subjective, it seems unnecessary to add an “in my opinion,” before each and every morality-themed statement. [sub]In my opinion.[/sub] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=33) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=35)