# 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:** 14\ **Page:** 38
**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 16, 2011, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/741 "2011-04-16T05:04:49Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The fact that discrimination can exist without explicitly targetting a group doesn’t mean the lack of targetting a group means that discrimination exists. > > Its not discrimination just because you don’t like the result. Its not enough to simply make the accusation. Fair enough. Except that this law only affects women. In theory it can affect anyone. In reality it only affects women. If you can meet the challenge to show how men are affected (in reality and not in theory) then go for it. If a law ONLY affects one group how can you deny discrimination? At that point you have to admit the discrimination exists and then try to argue that the discrimination is reasonable (which is absolutely possible…some discrimination makes sense but you have to make that case for this issue). > [@](#): > > And like I’ve said before voting is different. Voting and employment are two area where the laws on discrimination are different than in other areas. > > Things like discriminatory effect or discriminatory impact are not really used outside of those two areas. You need to prove discriminatory INTENT in most cases involving discrimination. For most laws, discriminatory impact or effect are not enough. Why wasn’t the crack cocaine law overturned by the courts based on its racist effect? > > If you want to extend discriminatory effect and discriminatory impact more broadly then why wasn’t the federal crack cocaine sentencing guideline overturned by the courts? Why did it require a legislative resolution? Why can’t I sue catholic priests for refusing to marry gay men? The objection to gay marriage really only affects gay people, how is this different? Why can’t I sue a doctor that performs medically necessary abortions to perform my elective abortion? Isn’t his policy ONLY affecting women? When it comes to Crack white/black/hispanic/asian/whatever are all sent to jail the same for using it (well…it is another thread to talk about the fairness of the justice system but not relevant here). In theory a pharmacist might deny a male. Except that never happens. As for “intent” did they need to prove intent to deem poll taxes as discriminatory? I have not seen “intent” cited. I saw the court deem the effect discriminatory. We can guess the intent but it was never proven or even an issue in the court cases that I am aware of. Priests not marrying gay men has what relevance here? It is not remotely equivalent. To be equivalent you would HAVE to see a priest to get married like you HAVE to see a pharmacist to get a prescription filled. ---
**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 16, 2011, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/742 "2011-04-16T05:24:47Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Not generally but in some cases, yes. So the answer here is “Yes”. Obviously if we make a law that says you cannot murder someone there is no “group” being targeted. > [@](#): > > I think voting and employment are different. Not answering the question. The question did not ask about employment at all. The answer is undeniably “true”. > [@](#): > > You are drawing a false analogy to apply logic that doesn’t apply in this case. Why is that a false analogy? It is a straightforward question. Are men affected by the law? Yes or no? Not in theory (which would be “yes”) but in reality (which would be no). If you can prove that wrong be my guest. > [@](#): > > By your logic you could force priests to perform marriage for gay couples after all, the catholic church’s policy only affects gay couples so it is discriminatory. > > By your logic you could force doctors that will perform emergency medically necessary abortions to perform elective abortions as well because his refusal to do so only affects women. > > Why can’t you make these exact same arguments for gay marriage and abortion? Or do you also contend that they do in fact apply to these two situations as well? People choose to be Catholic. \<– Choice You are forced to go to a pharmacist to get a prescription filled. \<– No choice ---
**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 16, 2011, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/743 "2011-04-16T06:18:59Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > explicitly note that any text that he creates is a paraphrase or an ascribed hypothetical and not an actual statement from his target. Will do. ---
**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 16, 2011, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/744 "2011-04-16T15:42:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > See what I mean? I have consistently acknowledged that your view is not unreasonable. I don’t share it, but I don’t say it’s unreasonable to hold. Actually no, you do not do that. You posted those to two people, neither of which was me. Let’s see how you acknowledged that my view is not unreasonable: > [@Bricker](#): > > Despite these pronouncements, delivered in tones that suggest a certainty last seen when God handed Moses the Law at Sinai, the people of Illinois and several other states disagree with your basic thesis. > [@Bricker](#): > > But thanks for the digression. Staying on point can get so stifling. > [@Bricker](#): > > How often does **Whack-a-Mole** invent bizarre scenarios to buttress his near-impossible arguments? Answer: quite frequently. See above. > [@Bricker](#): > > So if the comparison with Jim Crow is even slightly useful, it’s in the negative, and shows us that things aren’t going the **Whack-a-Mole** way. > [@Bricker](#): > > Send **Whack-a-Mole** that memo, would you? > [@Bricker](#): > > Um… OK. Yes. Excellent point, **Whack-a-Mole** , entirely in keeping with your keen arguments here in this thread. > [@Bricker](#): > > No one, apart from you and your ilk, claims they are. > [@Bricker](#): > > 'Cause **Whack-a-Mole** don’t roll like that, man. > [@Bricker](#): > > You continue to make absolute statements that find their basis of authority only in your head. > [@Bricker](#): > > Um… how do you know? Who made that decision? The Brain of W-a-M? > [@Bricker](#): > > So continue to assert it’s wriong. The exercise will do you good. > [@Bricker](#): > > Hey, your first cite! Congrats. > [@Bricker](#): > > And the courts are magically unable to reach the same conclusion. What a shame. You, and only you, know The Truth. > [@Bricker](#): > > Did you attend the same school **Whack-a-Mole** did, where the Twenty-Fourth Amendment was inexplicably omitted from textbooks?? And those are just to me. I did not cite snark directed at others. Given the above understand I am a underwhelmed that you piously proclaim the other side has legitimately held beliefs. Even if everything above is 100% spot on and deserved you most certainly _have not_ “consistently acknowledged that [my] view is not unreasonable.” Of the two of us you have been the one consistently mocking me. Given that I think it is I who have acknowledged you have reasonable arguments. Not because I went out of my way to say so but because I have debated with you in good faith rather than mock\* your position. Actions speak louder than words (even here where it is all words). [sub]\* Pretty sure I have tossed some snark back at you but the balance is decidedly lopsided in your favor on that count.[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2011, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/745 "2011-04-16T23:28:29Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I post( in post 726). > \* > No, she was was not denied the medication. A pharmacist declined to fill her prescription, requiring her representative to call another pharmacy, where she received the medication. > \* > > You creatively snip the quote to change it’s meaning (in post # 727), to state… > \* > No, she was was not denied the medication. A pharmacist declined to fill her prescription > \* Since quotes seem to be a recurring issue, I will further note that while ending a quote in mid sentence, with no artificially inserted period, probably meets a technical standard of an “accuarate” quote, posters would do well to include an ellipsis when text has specifically been omitted. (I am aware that that entire argument hinges on one’s interpretation of whether “denial” has occurred when a subsequent remedy is available, but we can at least avoid some of the rancor attending the argument if we avoid taking stylistic shortcuts that can be misconstrued as “changing” a quote.) [/Modding] ---
**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 17, 2011, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/746 "2011-04-17T01:00:44Z")
Eh… can do but it’s a silly necessity. Morgenstern is obviously complaining because he isn’t afforded an idiosyncratic definition of “deny” that’s unique in the English language and which means that you not only have to be refused once, twice, or 1,000 times, but universally and for the rest of time. His complaint was because he admitted that the pharmacist did in fact deny the request for the prescription, when he said in his own words that the pharmacist refused to fill it. There’s no real confusion over whether “refuse someone’s request” does or doesn’t mean “deny their request”. It’s just difficult for Morgen’s argument to deal with, so he has to claim it’s some sort of dishonesty or “fear” or “absurdity”, or what have you. \* Morgen hasn’t even tried to explain how denying someone’s request to fill a prescription really doesn’t count if someone else then accepts it, he’s just maintained that a denial is somehow erased by the alchemy of a future acceptance. \* And he hasn’t because he simply can’t. There is no interpretation of the word “deny” in the English language that even beings to approach his gloss. The “rancor” will still be there because Morgen is arguing in the teeth of the facts. From what the law in question actually says to the truly laughable dodge that refusing to fill a prescription isn’t denying it. Morgen’s argument can’t stand on the facts, so he needs to allege “absurd hypotheticals”, “wild claims”, “fear” and now that the definition of “deny” only applies if someone’s request is refused universally and in perpetuity. And as being hoisted by one’s own petard seems to be an occupational hazard for those who are arguing that this bit of discrimination is acceptable but others are not, Morgen’s same rationalizations would have fit in very well with the Jim Crow south. Or as Evil-Morgen, the hypothetical evil-twin who’s time traveled back to the bad ol’ days probably would have said: "Why, you’re just using absurd hypotheticals and fear! Of course blacks can be refused service under the law, but that proves nothing, you fear-crazed hippie. And besides, we clearly saw that the black man in your example went to a lunch counter and requested food, but you lie when you claim he was denied. Obviously, he was not. What actually happened was that the lunch counter attended refused to serve him under any circumstances and told him to get the fuck out before she called the cops, and then the black man walked across town and found a segregated establishment that agreed to serve him. And, at that segregated restaurant, he finally got served. Which proves that of course he wasn’t denied service and only a fearful lying hippie, like you, would dare impugn our noble system of laws by alleging that anybody was actually denied service. " Evil-Bricker, Morgen’s partner in crime and Bricker’s evil-twin who’s also time-traveling back to the bad ol’ days would probably add: “And, besides, there was another place he could get lunch that was less than 60 miles away. And who are we to force people to do work that they find abhorrent, like serving black people? Now, true, we might be engaging in discrimination that’s a little bit too broad, I’m as progressive as the next fellow. So, instead, we won’t allow lunch counter discrimination anymore and instead, only pharmacists can choose not to serve black people. And then, only if their personal morals are threatened and they feel that the blacks are overly uppity. That’ll be left up to individual pharmacists and their employers, but it’s vital that we not constrain pharmacists abilities to refuse service to uppity blacks. And besides, your reasoned arguments as to why this is wrong don’t matter, as it’s the law and you can put that in your pipe and smoke it, hippie.” ---
**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 18, 2011, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/747 "2011-04-18T03:32:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Did you miss this post, **Whack-a-Mole**? Did you miss this post, **Bricker**? I answered your post. Now it’s your turn since you seem to have missed it twice already: > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > The bill, known currently as H.R. 358 or the “Protect Life Act,” would amend the 2010 health care reform law that would modify the way Obamacare deals with abortion coverage. > > > > \ > > > > Pitts’ new bill would free hospitals from any abortion requirement under EMTALA, meaning that medical providers who aren’t willing to terminate pregnancies wouldn’t have to – nor would they have to facilitate a transfer. > > > > The hospital could literally do nothing at all, pro-choice critics of Pitts’ bill say. > > > > SOURCE: [http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/new-gop-law-would-allow-hospitals-to-let-women-die-instead-of-having-an-abortion.php](http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/new-gop-law-would-allow-hospitals-to-let-women-die-instead-of-having-an-abortion.php) And… > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I cited earlier the natural progression your conscience clause laws bring us to with the [Protect Life Act](http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/new-gop-law-would-allow-hospitals-to-let-women-die-instead-of-having-an-abortion.php) which will allow hospitals to not only refuse an abortion to save the life of the woman but also allow them to do nothing to get her help elsewhere. She can literally die right there. This is a federal law so would apply everywhere in the US. > > I’d call that a harm and if you think it can’t happen recall the [nun who was excommunicated](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985072) not to long ago for allowing an abortion to save a woman’s life (I believe she was also demoted). Think the next Catholic hospital administrator won’t remember that if a similar circumstance presents itself? Do you support that Bill? I await your response. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/748 "2011-04-18T14:44:13Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Actually no, you do not do that. You posted those to two people, neither of which was me. Yes, I have directed lots of snark at you. At the same time, I have explicitly acknowledged your view is not unreasonable. You, in turn, have been somewhat more reserved in your comments directed at me personally, but completely dismissive of the view I am arguing. Since this is supposed to be about the ideas, and not the people, I’m of the opinion that acknowledging the opposing view has validity is of more import than dismissive comments aimed at the person, especially since the person’s unwilligness to acknowledge an opposing reasonable idea is the impetus for the snark. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/749 "2011-04-18T14:48:10Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Did you miss this post, **Bricker**? > > I answered your post. Now it’s your turn since you seem to have missed it twice already: > > And… > > Do you support that Bill? > > I await your response. I don’t know enough about it to offer an opinion. My initial reaction is that a hospital routinely deals with emergency cases, unlike the pharmacy model, and so the idea that the pharmacy model should apply to a hospital is flawed. So my initial, unstudied reaction is that I don’t approve of this measure… which is, I might add, not a law but merely a bill. ---
**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 18, 2011, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/750 "2011-04-18T15:07:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You, in turn, have been somewhat more reserved in your comments directed at me personally, but completely dismissive of the view I am arguing. By dismissive do you mean my responding to your arguments in a forthright manner and not dismissing them with snarky answers? That kind of dismissive? ---
**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 18, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/751 "2011-04-18T15:08:07Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Fair enough. > > Except that this law only affects women. > > In theory it can affect anyone. In reality it only affects women. > > If you can meet the challenge to show how men are affected (in reality and not in theory) then go for it. I agree this practice only affects women and this law explicitly permits this practice. > [@](#): > > If a law ONLY affects one group how can you deny discrimination? At that point you have to admit the discrimination exists and then try to argue that the discrimination is reasonable (which is absolutely possible…some discrimination makes sense but you have to make that case for this issue). I think it depends on what you are focused on. Are you talking about whether this is discrimination in a legal sense or if it is discrimination in the colloquial sense. Certainly we cannot say that any private action that discriminates between men and women amounts to discrimination. The fact that a lesbian will only have sex with other women does not discriminate against men no matter how much men want to have sex with her. I don’t think anyone has been able to establish discriminatory intent on the part of the pharmacist. So unless we can use one of the legally constructed definitions of discrimination that impute discrimination where we cannot find discriminatory intent but only discriminatory impact then I don’t see how this is discrimination anywhere other than in the minds of people who would see discrimination in any situation where a woman’s choices are not facilitated. I am saying that the commonly accepted definitions of discrimination do not apply in this case because there is a lack of intent and I am saying that the legally constructed definitions of discrimination do not apply in this case (you keep bringing up cases where they do apply and saying because they apply in the case X, they also apply here without acknowledging how different the cases are). > [@](#): > > As for “intent” did they need to prove intent to deem poll taxes as discriminatory? I have not seen “intent” cited. I saw the court deem the effect discriminatory. We can guess the intent but it was never proven or even an issue in the court cases that I am aware of. As has been pointed out SEVERAL times, voting is a SPECIAL CASE. > [@](#): > > Priests not marrying gay men has what relevance here? It is not remotely equivalent. To be equivalent you would HAVE to see a priest to get married like you HAVE to see a pharmacist to get a prescription filled. Don’t think of them as priests, think of them as officiators, that is the capacity in which they are performing legal weddings. You HAVE to see an officiator, this one just happens to have beliefs that do not permit him to perform a gay marriage and we are OK with that. There are plenty of officiators that will perform marriage ceremonies but THIS one won’t perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples. How about the doctor that doesn’t want to perform abortions based on religious beliefs? How do you distinguish that practice from this one? ---
**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 18, 2011, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/752 "2011-04-18T15:14:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So the answer here is “Yes”. Yes, in SOME cases (that do not resemble this case), a law that doesn’t specifically target a group can be deemed discriminatory nonetheless. See Voting Rights Act. > [@](#): > > Not answering the question. The question did not ask about employment at all. > > The answer is undeniably “true”. I didn’t mean voting is different from employment. I meant that voting and employment are different from other things. I agree that you can reach discrimination in the case of voting without intent. I am also saying that this is harder to do outside of things like voting. ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/753 "2011-04-19T18:02:06Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > … > Secondly, I think the actions of the nurse in this situation are unspeakably rude. Pharmacists are medical professionals, and to just refuse to give needed medical information is IMHO a slap in the face to pharmacist. Maybe he was looking to find an excuse to not help the woman. Or perhas there was some issue with the prescribed drug, and the pharmacist needed more information to determine the best treatment for them. And when the Planned Parenthood nurse refused to give that information, she simply couldn’t do her job. That I think is the more likely explaination, without going into some sort of “woman hating” conspriracy. > > Calculon. I do feel that there is a difference between a healthcare professional needing to know information to provide quality care, but it shouldn’t give the professional carte blanche to make any and all inquiries to satisfy their own personal interests. For example, if I see a doctor for a condition, it may be relevant for the doctor to ask about sexual practices in order to evaluate the possibility of an STD. However, inquiring into how often I look at porn or what types I prefer is totally irrelevant in that case (though might be relevant if I’m seeking mental heath care). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Man_In_Black)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2011, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/754 "2011-05-11T03:09:54Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Of course, an embryo or fetus isn’t a person. And claiming that one _is_ a person demonstrates that the person doing so is dishonest or has no regard for _actual_ people. Such as in the classic thought experiment of having to choose between saving a six year old girl or a canister full of a hundred frozen embryos; a “pro-lifer” who chooses to save the girl proves they are a liar, one who chooses to save the embryos shows they are a monster. And it devalues the term “person” by creating a category of “person” that deserves no rights; calling a mindless blob a person won’t make it any less of a mindless blob. If you had to choose between saving the life of a 6 year old girl or a 70 year old man, who would you choose? If you choose to save the girl, are you saying the life of the man is worthless? I don;t think so. Or the same thing between a family member and a man who lives in Russia who you ever met? There are levels of priority. If you can only save one, you need to make a choice. Choosing one is not saying the other dosn;t matter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=37)