# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/141 "2011-04-10T19:31:40Z")
Let me try this one more time. The court ruled, and at least 13 states provide, that a pharmacist, who, according to his moral or religious beliefs, may not be forced to provide a service that runs contrary to those beliefs. It doesn’t say the person isn’t entitled to those services. It doesn’t say the pharmacist should actively prevent the person from receiving that service. It doesn’t qualify the nature of that belief other than moral or religious. Given that this is thrust of the court decision in the OP, and the law in at least 13 states (and I haven’t checked them all), I suppose you could argue there are circumstance where it might be used for other than valid purposes. However, I sincerely doubt hate or bigotry would ever be granted the protection of the free exercise of religion clause. Essentially this is what I’ve said for 3 pages now. I get it, you don’t like the law. But it remains 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 10, 2011, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/142 "2011-04-10T19:41:56Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Given that this is thrust of the court decision in the OP, and the law in at least 13 states (and I haven’t checked them all), I suppose you could argue there are circumstance where it might be used for other than valid purposes. However, I sincerely doubt hate or bigotry would ever be granted the protection of the free exercise of religion clause. You seem to be missing the point here. Even if the laws are exactly as you describe, why do you think that bigotry should be an unacceptable reason for a pharmacist refusing to provide medical service to a customer whereas refusing to provide medical services to someone who needs them, perhaps urgently as decided by their physician, is acceptable if it’s done for religious reasons? Why is “I won’t provide you medicine because you’re black” out of bounds but “I won’t provide you medicine because you may have gotten AIDS from gay sex” is fine or “I won’t provide you medicine because you had a legal abortion and I’ll maybe let you bleed to death as punishment for that choice” is okay as is “You may have been raped or simply not want to bring a child into this world and morning-after drugs are legal, but I refuse to let you have them during their window of optimal effectiveness” is also okay? So what if a court ruled that, or even if the laws allow that. Doesn’t that, instead, mean that the ruling and/or the laws are shitty? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/143 "2011-04-10T19:48:11Z")
I don’t think any of those statements would ever be the case… I suspect the refusal would be more like “I don’t provide those services, here’s your prescription back, you may go next door or wait for the next available pharmacist to serve you.” ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/144 "2011-04-10T20:25:58Z")
So you don’t have a problem with a store being unable to fire a pharmacist who refuses to dispense **any** pharmaceuticals? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/145 "2011-04-10T20:27:55Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I’m not denying hate groups their right to free speech. But that’s a far cry from finding that they are protected under the free exercise of religion provision of the same amendment. > > Conscience Clause Laws recognize the right of a person to subscribe to a moral or religious belief and therefore, not be forced to violate that belief in the practice of their profession. It doesn’t give them the right to take and not return a prescription, or otherwise interfere with that party obtaining the drug elsewhere. It merely gives them the right to say “go elsewhere.” Forcing a person to kill another person is the last act of a morally bankrupt society. If someone doesn’t want to be the executioner in a prison that is their right. Hate groups are legally entitled to destroy their unborn children but that doesn’t mean other people should be forced to participate. “do no harm” means something to some people. ---
**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 10, 2011, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/146 "2011-04-10T20:33:39Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I don’t think any of those statements would ever be the case.. I suspect the refusal would be more like “I don’t provide those services, here’s your prescription back, you may go next door or wait for the next available pharmacist to serve you.” But then you went on to say that those are the case. Just because they add “…and here’s your prescription back” doesn’t change what they’re being told. And, again, if discrimination based on race is bad/should be illegal, why are the others good/should be legal? ---
**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 10, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/147 "2011-04-10T20:36:23Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Forcing a person to kill another person is the last act of a morally bankrupt society. If someone doesn’t want to be the executioner in a prison that is their right. > > Hate groups are legally entitled to destroy their unborn children but that doesn’t mean other people should be forced to participate. “do no harm” means something to some people. Not subtle. I think your funhouse mirror has a few cracks in it. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/148 "2011-04-10T20:52:11Z")
> [@villa](#): > > So you don’t have a problem with a store being unable to fire a pharmacist who refuses to dispense **any** pharmaceuticals? I imagine a pharmacist who refused to dispense **any** medications would be rather useless to the store and I can think of no reason why they shouldn’t be fired. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/149 "2011-04-10T20:58:03Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > I imagine a pharmacist who refused to dispense **any** medications would be rather useless to the store and I can think of no reason why they shouldn’t be fired. So a store can fire someone because of their religious beliefs? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/150 "2011-04-10T21:07:52Z")
Your question stated that the pharmacist refused to dispense **any** medication. I can’t imagine such a person has ever existed, or for that matter, ever will exist. I doubt the Conscience Clause Laws are designed to protect a pharmacist who chooses to sit on his ass and do nothing for 8 hours as your hypothetical suggests. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/151 "2011-04-10T21:11:46Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > Your question stated that the pharmacist refused to dispense **any** medication. I can’t imagine such a person has ever existed, or for that matter, ever will exist. I doubt the Conscience Clause Laws are designed to protect a pharmacist who chooses to sit on his ass and do nothing for 8 hours as your hypothetical suggests. > [@Cumberdale](#): > > Ok, forget about the hate group, would you support a pharmacist who converts to Christian Science and decides he/she can’t sell anything from asprin to wart remover? Seriously, the weaseling you are engaging in is getting out of control. Just admit it - you think certain religious beliefs merit government protection, but not others. And then rationalize that with the First Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/152 "2011-04-10T21:38:20Z")
I’d accuse you of moving the goal post, but you’re not, you’re hiding them. You asked what should happen to a pharmacist who refused to dispense **any** medication. I said he’d be rather useless. AS such, I understand why he might be fired. Perhaps if you looked at a few of the Conscience Clauses laws you’d see that they are designed to protect the professional from liability for not dispensing, under specific conditions. This has nothing to do with providing tenure like security for pharmacist who wants to sit on his ass and do nothing. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/153 "2011-04-10T21:56:36Z")
So explain to me why a Catholic pharmacist should be protected but a Christian Science pharmacist or a Christian Identity pharmacist shouldn’t. In a constitutional way of course. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/154 "2011-04-10T22:03:07Z")
The court said it’s legal. The pharmacist can do that, and I can and will take all my business elsewhere without telling the pharmacist why. I’m not interested in hearing that I can’t be provided goods and services from doctors, pharmacists, auto-mechanics, etc. in their field because of their personal morals. If I go to an auto parts store and want a suicide knob for the steering wheel, I have no interest in what the parts clerk has to say about whether they are safe or moral: if they are legal, I want to make my car handicapped accessible without explaining that. ---
**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 10, 2011, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/155 "2011-04-10T22:47:29Z")
THere’s always the what-if-he’s-a-Christian-Scientist poin in these threads. It’s like saying “What if a conservative Catholic works at an abortion clinic called “_We kill your baby 24/7_”?”, it is such an impossible example that it useless. Pharmacists should follow the law. Clerks work (within the law) at the owner’s orders, if the owner tells the clerk to sell “_Extra-strength Super-abortix plus_” and the clerk won’t do it because of his religious beliefs or personal morals, he can be fired. It is not because of his religion, but because of his inability do to his work. The owner can provide for this but doesn’t have to. The Pharmacy owner who decides not to carry certain items for his own religious or personal-morals issues should be free to do it within the law, and if the law forces him to carry and sell no-questions-asked those items, then the owner is free to either follow the law or close his business. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2011, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/156 "2011-04-10T23:11:46Z")
> [@tumbleddown](#): > > No, because barring a career as a fashion model, no one’s ability to live or maintain their physical or mental wellbeing is hampered by lack of _immediate_ access to eyelash thickening drugs. Antidepressants, antibiotics and yes, contraceptives are not elective. There are _health_ consequences to not taking them, not taking them in a timely fashion and in some cases, to stopping them cold turkey. Please note that I was replying to someone whose objection was that the pharmacist was interfering in the treatment prescribed by the doctor . If pharmacy in a one pharmacy town won’t stock Latisse, they are interfering with my doctors prescribed treatment in the same way that they are interfering with my doctor’s prescribed treatment if they refuse to fill my prescription for birth control pills . Plan B doesn’t even require prescriptions for males or females over 17 so in many, if not most cases there is no doctor. > [@](#): > > “Go elsewhere” is only a viable answer if there is an elsewhere you _can_ go to, and if you are physically able to do so and within the window, if you’re seeking Plan B. The window is for taking Plan B, not for buying it . It has a shelf life of about 2 years from manufacture, like most non-prescription drugs. No reason why a person who lives in that town where no pharmacist within 100 miles will dispense Plan B can’t buy it from a legitimate mail order pharmacy before they need it , or buy it when Joe’s on duty do so they don’t have to worry about Sally refusing . Or drop off the prescription for birth control pills ( or antidepressants) far enough in advance of it running out so that someone will fill it. Or wait until Thursday morning, when John comes in ( the plan B window is 3 days, not three hours). There’s a difference between " I can’t get it" and “I have to think to have it in advance, or make a long drive or make a second trip.” Again, why are pharmacists different? I’ve been hearing for years that there are counties and even states with no abortion providers and I’ve even heard of places where no doctors are willing to provide prenatal care or perform deliveries. But I have \*\*never \*\*heard anyone propose that gynecologists be required to perform abortions or also practice obstetrics. BTW, personally I think Plan B should be sold in exactly the same way as every other medication which doesn’t require a doctor’s prescription and don’t understand why the FDA came up with this hybrid system except that it’s clearly political and not medical. Which would eliminate this whole issue regarding Plan B. But I never hear anyone on either side talk about putting pressure on the FDA/politicians to change that. ---
**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 11, 2011, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/157 "2011-04-11T02:34:43Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Forcing a person to kill another person is the last act of a morally bankrupt society. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2011, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/158 "2011-04-11T03:59:14Z")
> [@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. The opinion of what defines “actual” people was defined by 9 people. That you can delude yourself into believing it’s OK is your business. But if a pharmacist chooses not to participate in the imoral destruction of a growing human being that is their right. ---
**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 11, 2011, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/159 "2011-04-11T04:05:24Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The opinion of what defines “actual” people was defined by 9 people. That you can delude yourself into believing it’s OK is your business. But if a pharmacist chooses not to participate in the imoral destruction of a growing human being that is their right. You are correct it is their right not to participate. They can find a new job. Like it or not it is currently legal to prescribe Plan B and such. A pharmacist who has a problem with that is imposing their beliefs on their customers. The pharmacist should have zero place to refuse to fill a legal prescription because of their own beliefs. If they can’t do it fine. Find another job. ---
**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 11, 2011, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713/160 "2011-04-11T04:22:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You are correct it is their right not to participate. They can find a new job. > > Like it or not it is currently legal to prescribe Plan B and such. A pharmacist who has a problem with that is imposing their beliefs on their customers. > > The pharmacist should have zero place to refuse to fill a legal prescription because of their own beliefs. > > **If they can’t do it fine. Find another job**. (my bolding) Even if it means closing up shop? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713.md?page=9)