# Pharmacy and Religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2010, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859 "2010-03-26T10:54:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/221 "2010-03-30T18:58:19Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Here’s two responses for you. Pick one. > > 1. _You’re_ the guy who rolled in claiming I was mischaracterizing these people. The reason matters because taking into account their actual reasons, I’m _not_ mischaracterizing them. I saw someone comment about using unhelpful language to describe them, but it wasn’t me. If I accused you of mischaracterizng people I don’t recall it. > [@begbert](#): > > 1. When it comes down to figuring out if the social need justifies using the government to overrule these people’s personal concerns, then it matters quite a bit what the personal concerns in question _are_. Nobody thinks that pharmacists should be put in physical peril to ensure that contraceptives will be sold. Nobody even thinks that hindu pharmacists should be forced to eat beef to insure that contraceptives will be sold. But we’re just talking about selling the things. It’s not like we’re asking the pharmacists to use them themselves! Okay, I’ll buy that. What if the reason is “I just don’t want to” or “there’s not enough profit in that”? A licence _permits_ you to sell drugs and regulates labeling and all of that; it doesn’t _force_ you to sell anything. I know that’s what you’re arguing for: that the government should require all pharmacies to carry – all drugs? or just the most common ones? If you’re going to go that far, though, you might as well require all doctors to be general practitioners or all lawyers to practice family law. I don’t see the overwhelming public interest to force a pharmacy into that position. > [@begbert](#): > > Okay, so there is a possibility that a pharmacist might feel some real distress from ‘aiding and abetting’ in the immoral behavior of another person. Maybe. I freely admit that it’s _possible_ at least. Again, it’s not about the other person. The pharmacist is not trying to prevent them from acting immorally. The pharmacist is trying to avoid acting immorally _himself_ by facilitating contraception. > [@begbert](#): > > And seriously - when they got into pharmaceuticals, it shouldn’t be a _surprise_ that contraceptions might be prescribed to people. It’s an occupational risk. And if they _were_ suprised, well, make it a licensing requirement and in a year or two everyone will catch on to the new reality. No biggie. Of course it’s not a suprise, but being forced to fulfill any prescription a customer comes in with would be a requirement that has not heretofore existed in the profession. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/222 "2010-03-30T19:03:25Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Which is no different than running a store that won’t sell to blacks or Irish. Hey, they can go shop somewhere else! It is no different. Oh, wait. Yeah, sorry. You were so convincing, you almost had me there. But “Citizens, thou shalt not discriminate based on race,” is written strongly into law. “Citizens, thou shalt not prevent other citizens from buying contraceptives,” is NOT written strongly into law. So there’s one difference right there. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/223 "2010-03-30T19:05:21Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I saw someone comment about using unhelpful language to describe them, but it wasn’t me. If I accused you of mischaracterizng people I don’t recall it. :smack::smack::smack::smack: > [@Skammer](#): > > Okay, I’ll buy that. What if the reason is “I just don’t want to” or “there’s not enough profit in that”? A licence _permits_ you to sell drugs and regulates labeling and all of that; it doesn’t _force_ you to sell anything. I know that’s what you’re arguing for: that the government should require all pharmacies to carry – all drugs? or just the most common ones? If you’re going to go that far, though, you might as well require all doctors to be general practitioners or all lawyers to practice family law. I don’t see the overwhelming public interest to force a pharmacy into that position. Presumably the regulation should be drafted in a manner that directly addresses the problem as efficiently as possible. I believe this is _possible_ - and as I am arguing the principle, that is all I need to know. I don’t feel that I need to argue the details. > [@Skammer](#): > > Again, it’s not about the other person. The pharmacist is not trying to prevent them from acting immorally. The pharmacist is trying to avoid acting immorally _himself_ by facilitating contraception. How do you know that they’re not motivated by a desire to force others to comply with their beliefs? It’s not exactly an unheard of motivation among religious people. > [@Skammer](#): > > Of course it’s not a suprise, but being forced to fulfill any prescription a customer comes in with would be a requirement that has not heretofore existed in the profession. I’m not certain of this, but even if true: so what? I’m proposing changing things where necessary, so past precedent is only vaguely relevent and isn’t compelling. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/224 "2010-03-30T19:08:47Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Plus, “whatever it likes” is _awfully_ broad. I have this bottle of chalk dust; can I press it into pills and sell it as viagra? “Whatever it likes” in the context of the discussion - ie., it should be able to not sell things. > [@Skammer](#): > > The pharmacist is trying to avoid acting immorally _himself_ by facilitating contraception. > > Of course it’s not a suprise, but being forced to fulfill any prescription a customer comes in with would be a requirement that has not heretofore existed in the profession. 1. That _might_ be the case with regard to the pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions themselves and call somebody else over. It obviously isn’t in the case of those who refuse to fill the prescriptions and refuse to call somebody else over or transfer the prescription out. 2. Pharmacists have not historically been expected to fill any legal prescription a customer gives them, assuming they stock the product? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/225 "2010-03-30T19:10:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But “Citizens, thou shalt not discriminate based on race,” is written strongly into law. > > “Citizens, thou shalt not prevent other citizens from buying contraceptives,” is NOT written strongly into law. So there’s one difference right there. But it is written strongly into the law in a very counter-textualist fashion, isn’t it? And, while not quite as strongly, but pretty strongly none the less “Citizens, thou shalt not discriminate based on sex” is in there too. And it is very hard to argue that refusing to sell prescription contraceptives doesn’t have a dramatically disparate impact at bare minimum (even if we don’t go down **Der Trihs** ’ path that it is intended to discriminate) on women. After all, contraceptives are prescribed for purposes other than contraception, but only to women as far as I know - such actions therefore only prevent women from receiving medication which may be necessary to their wellbeing or at the very least their comfort. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/226 "2010-03-30T19:13:08Z")
That is an interesting point. Very interesting, in fact. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/227 "2010-03-30T19:14:05Z")
> [@villa](#): > > But it is written strongly into the law in a very counter-textualist fashion, isn’t it? Yes. > [@](#): > > And, while not quite as strongly, but pretty strongly none the less “Citizens, thou shalt not discriminate based on sex” is in there too. And it is very hard to argue that refusing to sell prescription contraceptives doesn’t have a dramatically disparate impact at bare minimum (even if we don’t go down **Der Trihs** ’ path that it is intended to discriminate) on women. > > After all, contraceptives are prescribed for purposes other than contraception, but only to women as far as I know - such actions therefore only prevent women from receiving medication which may be necessary to their wellbeing or at the very least their comfort. I’m not aware of any caselaw that makes this intuitive leap, though. Are you? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/228 "2010-03-30T19:15:46Z")
Could you be a bit more specific on the intuitive leap you are talking about… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/229 "2010-03-30T19:19:21Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Could you be a bit more specific on the intuitive leap you are talking about… Sure. “Citizens, thou shalt not discriminate based on sex” –\> refusing to sell prescription contraceptives has a dramatically disparate impact –\> refusing to sell prescription contraceptives impermissibly discriminates base don sex ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/230 "2010-03-30T19:26:42Z")
Well - the first part is pretty clear I think. The second part as to the disparate impact is simply applying standard disparate impact case law to the situation. I assume you aren’t disputing this action predominantly impacts women? The third part is, I presume, where you are looking for case law back up… Nope - don’t have any. That wasn’t the argument I was trying to make. You were discussing why in your opinion laws preventing a pharmacist picking based on race were good public policy, and those preventing them picking based on their religious view of the product were bad public policy, and you commented that the reason was we have a strong legal bias against discrimination based on race. Now, I simply extrapolated from that - given that there is a strong legal bias against discrimination based on sex, and given that this does have a disparate impact on women (which I am sure you won’t deny), why wouldn’t it, under your logic, be good public policy to prevent this? ---
**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:** [March 30, 2010, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/231 "2010-03-30T19:32:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But “Citizens, thou shalt not discriminate based on race,” is written strongly into law. > > “Citizens, thou shalt not prevent other citizens from buying contraceptives,” is NOT written strongly into law. So there’s one difference right there. Well, whoop-te-do, forbidding racial discrimination wasn’t against the law either in the past; that didn’t make it right. All your argument is, is an argument for changing the law not for pharmacists who discriminate against women being allowed to get away with it. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/232 "2010-03-30T19:36:10Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Again, if I were a doctor and set up an oncology clinic, would you require me to treat sprained ankles? No. But on the other hand, if doctors are on staff at a hospital emergency department and someone needs urgent emergency care, that E.R. is obligated to provide it, and to have procedures set up for transporting patients to larger centers if need be. That obligation is set down in [law](http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jun/1/129582.html). Hospitals cannot say “we’ll treat or not treat whomever we want, depending on their ability to pay or whatever criteria we decide upon”. It is not a gargantuan stretch to say that pharmacies licensed and regulated by the state must provide a certain level of service or have provisions in place to get that service to patients in need (i.e. emergency contraception). I see that **Bricker** continues to not acknowledge that pharmacies already are constrained by a long list of reasonable rules and regulations to protect the public welfare, and has not explained why a provision mandating the filling of legally obtained prescriptions (or ensuring their availability to patients in poorly served areas) is so radical a departure from the long-standing regulatory climate affecting pharmacies. > [@Skammer](#): > > …being forced to fulfill any prescription a customer comes in with would be a requirement that has not heretofore existed in the profession. There hasn’t been a need to explicitly spell this out, prior to the emergence of the “Jesus tells me what to dispense” pharmacist. But guess what? Now there’s a need. > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > I think we’re moving towards a general acceptance, if not consensus, that the pharmacy should be allowed to dispense whatever it likes, and that a pharmacist should be fired for failing to dispense pursuant to the pharmacy’s guidelines. > > Fair assessment? In your dreams. ---
**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:** [March 30, 2010, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/233 "2010-03-30T19:37:34Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Kind of pathetically, I don’t know which it is - is it _illegal_ for a doctor to stand by and watch you die? > > Okay. So, supposing we as a society decided that pharmacists should do their frigging jobs and fill prescriptions. Suppose we maybe even make a law about it! How does the situation materially/legally differ then from the case of exigent, emergency circumstances? While there might be a moral duty to rescue, I do not believe there is a legal duty to rescue for doctors or anyone else (you could literally watch a baby crawl between your legs off a pier into a lake and you don’t have to do anything to stop it even if it would require almost no offort on your part). I doubt there is even an ethical duty to rescue. I get the feeling that people think pharmacists are little more than glorified cashiers. Becoming a pharmacist takes 6 years and most of pharmacists have doctorates these days. Even if there were a duty to rescue, there is a vast difference between forcing a pharmacist to dispense antibiotics and forcing them to dispense a lifestyle drug (unless the birth control pills are being used therapeutically). With that said, if anyone can point to a single town where you can’t get birth control pills because the only pharmacist in town refuses to dispense them then please let me know. As far as I can tell, this is usually used as a stalking horse argument to support forcing doctors to perform elective abortions. ---
**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:** [March 30, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/234 "2010-03-30T19:39:07Z")
> [@otternell](#): > > That’s all well and good when you are in a large city with numerous pharma providers, but if you are in a small town with 1 pharmacist who decides that their moral compass is more important than just dispensing the pharmaceuticals, then it takes on a different light. Its not as if there is public transportation available to take someone to the next town where they may be lucky and find a pharmacist that isn’t trying to impose their personal morality on others. Can you name a single town where the only available pharmacist in town refuses to dispense birth control pills? I know that this may be the case for abortions but I haven’t heard of this being a REAL issue outside of the minds of people trying to make an argument for forcing doctors to perform abortions. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/235 "2010-03-30T19:39:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Now, I simply extrapolated from that - given that there is a strong legal bias against discrimination based on sex, and given that this does have a disparate impact on women (which I am sure you won’t deny), why wouldn’t it, under your logic, be good public policy to prevent this? Well, there is the obvious defense that it isn’t the pharmacist’s fault that there are no oral contraceptives available for men, since presumably he’d refuse to offer those, too. ---
**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:** [March 30, 2010, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/236 "2010-03-30T19:40:32Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > (my bolding) > I agree. my position is that you shouldn’t force a person to act against their beliefs. If the law allows him not to sell a product, good for him. If the law does not allow him to follow his conscience, he goes out of business. > Of course, it would be intelligent to figure out if it is better to have no pharmacy or a pharmacy with no contraceptives. I think the notion is that if people were really looking at going out of business, they will choose to compromise their beliefs before they compromise their lifestyle. ---
**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:** [March 30, 2010, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/237 "2010-03-30T19:43:37Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > In general, physicians bear the greatest responsibility and have the most authority (excluding hospital review committees, insurance companies, Congress etc.) to provide medical care. > > At some point it becomes untenable for people down the health care chain to be able to countermand these decisions based on criteria not related to the professional performance of their duties. Nurses can refuse to carry out certain orders if they feel proper care is at stake. Other personnel may also decline to perform duties for reasons of safety/patient care. A blood bank employee might justifiably refuse to issue blood products if there’s cause to believe they are unsafe - but not because the employee is a Jehovah’s Witness. > > You want to be a licensed pharmacist with all the duties and responsibilities that entails? Good. But you may not allocate to yourself special powers based on your religious convictions unless legislators are foolish enough to allow it. That may be the case for therapeutic uses of birth control pills, I don’t think the logic holds for using birth control pills as a contraceptice. I think birth control pills are one of the greatest and most liberating development for women’s independence in recent history and I think people who refuse to dispense birth control pills are idiots but I think that they have a right to refuse to sell birth control piulls for recreational use as well as the right to be idiots. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/238 "2010-03-30T19:45:59Z")
How are they supposed to differentiate between birth control prescribed for recreational and non-recreational uses? ---
**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:** [March 30, 2010, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/239 "2010-03-30T19:50:50Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Most physicians are not qualified to perform induced abortions. All pharmacists are qualified to dispense birth control. OK so should we force an obstetrician who knows how to perform an abortion to perform them on demand? BTW abortion and euthanasia are the only two procedures that the hypocratic oath seems to expressly forbid. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/240 "2010-03-30T19:55:49Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I see that **Bricker** continues to not acknowledge that pharmacies already are constrained by a long list of reasonable rules and regulations to protect the public welfare, and has not explained why a provision mandating the filling of legally obtained prescriptions (or ensuring their availability to patients in poorly served areas) is so radical a departure from the long-standing regulatory climate affecting pharmacies. I certainly have not denied that pharmacies are already regulated. I have denied that those regulations should stretch to this area. Some states disagree with me. Most do not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=13)