# Pharmacists and refusals

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713>\
**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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 406

<div class="post-metadata">

**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")

</div>

> [@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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacists-and-refusals/577713)._