# 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:** 14
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/261 "2010-03-31T02:26:48Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Garbage. They are forbidding women access to an important product, one aimed specifically at them and only them. It isn’t significantly different than refusing to serve someone according to race or nationality. It’s pure anti-woman bigotry. So again, should we go after men’s clothing stores and the like? They are denying women the ability to buy the clothes that they need? Or how about the Hare Krishna vegetarian restaurants, should we go after them because they refuse to serve meat, and for religious reasons no less! The pharmacist is not forbidding women access to contraceptives. Not helping someone do something != forbidding them to do it. It is the government, not the individual pharmacist that forbids anyone getting contraceptives without a pharmacist dispensing it. If one pharmacist refuses to give them then they can go to any number of other pharmacists or convince the government to relax the rules on obtaining contraceptives. One individual pharmacist simply does not have the ability to stop anyone from obtaining contraceptives legally at all. It is silly to suggest that the are. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/262 "2010-03-31T02:32:43Z")
> [@CutterJohn](#): > > I have no issues with someone who owns their own business deciding what is sold there and what isn’t. > > I have less sympathy for those that willingly took a job that they knew would compromise their morality. Want to work for someone who requires you do fulfill a legal function that you find objectionable? Tough. Swallow your pride and do it anyway, quit and work for someone else that doesn’t, or don’t do it and be fired. I just want to add I agree with this. I don’t think that businesses should be made to accommodate pharmacists that refuse to dispense birth control. If they can find an employer that is sympathetic with their objections, all well and good. If not then they should be able to be fired. That I think is an entirely separate issue to whether it is right for the government, via licensing, to force pharmacists to go against their conscience. This is different to whether it is right for employers, through continuing employment, force pharmacists to go against their conscience. Calculon. ---
**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 31, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/263 "2010-03-31T02:52:54Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > So again, should we go after men’s clothing stores and the like? They are denying women the ability to buy the clothes that they need? Or how about the Hare Krishna vegetarian restaurants, should we go after them because they refuse to serve meat, and for religious reasons no less! Neither of those are government restricted sellers of medical supplies. false comparison. Nor are either of them motivated by religious bigotry. > [@Calculon](#): > > The pharmacist is not forbidding women access to contraceptives. Not helping someone do something != forbidding them to do it. Yes, it is when you are the gatekeeper. > [@Calculon](#): > > If one pharmacist refuses to give them then they can go to any number of other pharmacists or convince the government to relax the rules on obtaining contraceptives. One individual pharmacist simply does not have the ability to stop anyone from obtaining contraceptives legally at all. It is silly to suggest that the are. And by the same logic it would be silly to claim that a school that refuses to let black kids attend is denying them an education. Bring back segregation! They can just move to another state, right? ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/264 "2010-03-31T03:22:37Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Neither of those are government restricted sellers of medical supplies. false comparison. Nor are either of them motivated by religious bigotry. Doesn’t matter. Your argument seems to be that not selling something that someone might want to buy is inherently discriminating. What I am pointing out is that situation is very common across a range of things. Whether or not they are government restricted sellers makes little difference. There are only a finite number of sellers of any individual item anyway. Practically there is a limit to how many places will sell anything. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Yes, it is when you are the gatekeeper. If the government restricted thing gets you up in arms, what about sellers of alcohol. They too are licensed by the government. Should bars be required to stock every type of alcohol and sell it regardless of what they think since they are the government appointed gatekeepers? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And by the same logic it would be silly to claim that a school that refuses to let black kids attend is denying them an education. Bring back segregation! They can just move to another state, right? No, because as I keep stating (and you keep ignoring) discriminating on the basis of service offered (selling the pill or not) != discriminating on the basis of people (black or white). If a school chooses to offer educational services then it should offer them to all people equally. If they choose to not offer a service to anyone that is fine too. Would you go into a elementary school and demand that they teach your high-school age children? If they don’t then they are discriminating on the basis of age are they not? Why are you not out there protesting all the ageist schools, especially those that are government run. Won’t someone think of the children!! You keep talking about discrimination but I don’t think in this case it means what you think it does. Calculon. ---
**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:** [March 31, 2010, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/265 "2010-03-31T03:54:19Z")
> [@CrazyCatLady](#): > > I have to ask. Why do you keep mentioning condoms in a thread about dispensing prescription drugs? They have no similarity to hormonal birth control in any way that’s relevant to this thread. The reason refusal to dispense is such an issue is that the pill is a prescription item that you can only get from a licensed pharmacy, and the main reason people refuse to dispense them is that some nimrods have managed to convince themselves that it’s a potential abortifacient. None of those things apply to condoms–they’re OTC items available in grocery stores, gas stations, and vending machines in public restrooms, and no one has yet decided that selling them is akin to taking part in an abortion. So what gives? > > And yes, you can open a store that sells only items you’d find in the health and beauty section of your local big box store and not bother with prescription medications. But good luck drumming up much business, as you’d only be selling things people could get more conveniently elsewhere. My lazy bad. By condoms, in most cases, I mean all sorts of contraception. It can confuse the issue. Lazy, lazy me. I will use “contraception” as a generic term and consoms only when specific. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because he wants to distract from the fact that this issue is really about the religious persecution of women. If he admits that it is the rights of women being infringed, then the parallels between this and “No blacks or Irish allowed” become harder to ignore. > > So if they felt it was against their religion to serve a black man, you’d support their right to refuse such a man his medicine, right? Or is it only women who are acceptable targets? No. Your mind reading skills are so bad that it is painful to see you writhe in helpless agony, you one-trick pony. If a pharmacist/owner decided not to carry the pill (et al.) but he did carry the not-yet-invented male pill, THAT would be discrimination. Not dispensing a specific set of medicines to everyone means you treat everyone the same. I fully support the right of women to choose the way they regulate concpetions in their bodiers. I fully support the right of people to sell whatever the law allows them to sell. I wonder…if the pharmacy carried all sorts of contracpetion except condoms…would that discriminate against men (cuz they wouldn’t be handle “protection” by themselves or women (cuz they’d have to always take care of “protection”). ---
**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 31, 2010, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/266 "2010-03-31T04:50:08Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If a pharmacist/owner decided not to carry the pill (et al.) but he did carry the not-yet-invented male pill, THAT would be discrimination. Not dispensing a specific set of medicines to everyone means you treat everyone the same. So, women are free to use condoms just like homosexuals are perfectly free to get married as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. :rolleyes: The people on your side never have any new arguments. The fact is, we are talking about pharmacists refusing to give women contraceptives, not men. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I fully support the right of women to choose the way they regulate concpetions in their bodiers. No, you don’t. You just make speeches pretending that you do, while supporting the right of religious bigots to prevent them from doing so. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > I wonder…if the pharmacy carried all sorts of contracpetion except condoms…would that discriminate against men (cuz they wouldn’t be handle “protection” by themselves or women (cuz they’d have to always take care of “protection”). Of course it would be discrimination against men, but they wouldn’t do that because this is all about the religiously motivated hatred of women, not men. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/267 "2010-03-31T12:00:32Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > … according to the National Women’s Law Center seven states do not permit this sort of cherry-picking of what drugs are proper to dispense; four states do. The lack of explicit regulations on this score in other states does not signify that the body of law in those states agrees with you. The National Women’s Law Center is overstating the case. I provided, earlier in the thread, specific citations to the codes, chapter and verse, of more than four states. Did you miss that? ---
**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 31, 2010, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/268 "2010-03-31T12:21:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The National Women’s Law Center is overstating the case. > > I provided, earlier in the thread, specific citations to the codes, chapter and verse, of more than four states. Did you miss that? I saw no “chapter and verse” in your posting, just unspecified references to legal codes. Discuss with particulars. Please also justify your statement that _more states agree with you_ on this issue than don’t. As noted, the NWLC finds an implicit requirement in the laws of the vast majority of states (in addition to those states that spell it out explicitly) that pharmacies dispense legal prescriptions as written. How do states that don’t have a “religious conscience” clause in their pharmacy regulations magically “agree with” you? And why exactly is it such a “stretch” for pharmacies to be required to dispense prescriptions properly issued by a physician, in addition to the bevy of pharmacy requirements already set forth in the legal codes of the states? You’ve tried to draw ludicrous equivalencies between the provision of health care and the buying of DVDs and booze - what is it about contraception that sticks so deeply in your craw that you think pharmacies/pharmacists can arbitrarily decide to withhold medications utilized by a large percentage of the populace? ---
**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 31, 2010, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/269 "2010-03-31T13:59:18Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > However, they have a government-granted monopoly, and thus are not truly private actors in matters touching upon their profession. Without the monopoly, it would be trivially easy to circumvent any given induhvidual’s game of keep-away – thus, preventing the abuse of the monopoly in this manner becomes a concern of the authority that granted it. A pharmacist’s license isn’t a license like a liqour license, it is a license like a medical license. The purpose of the licensing isn’t to control the amount of the activity, it is to maintain standards for people who engage in an activity where you handle addictive narcotics and potenitally fatal combinations of medication. If a million pharmacists decided to get licensed in NJ, they would be able 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:** [March 31, 2010, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/270 "2010-03-31T14:11:26Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > From my previous post (#66):Writing off 10% of your business as a pharmacy (plus whatever percentage of customers decide not to fill their prescriptions at a business that puts religious beliefs over service to patients as a whole) sounds like a biggie to me. The profit margin on oral contraception for a pharmacy is like the margin on milk for a grocery store. It pays for its shelf space but you carry it more because of all the business you would lose if you didn’t carry it. There is little doubt in my mind that a pharmacy can choose not to dispense birth control pills (except for therapeutic purposes) and they certainly can choose not to carry the morning after pill (I am not aware of a therapeutic purpose for the mroning after pill). The Supreme Court found law restricting the sale of birth control pills unconstitutional (at least with respect to married women) in 1965. The same rule was not extended to unmarried women until 1972. It has been the single most important factor in liberating women that I can think of and I understand why women would want to defend their access to it but there is not a single place in the United States where you cannot get the pill regulrly mailed to you so what is the real issue here? ---
**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 31, 2010, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/271 "2010-03-31T14:16:29Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Is there a mistake in my figures? Or jusy a nice single point of data that doesn’t agree with it? > the total sales of medicines are 40 billion, are you saying contracpetives are 4 billon? I think your number includes apspirin etc. Actual pharmacy sales couldn’t possibly be 4 billion. There are between 100K and 200K pharmacists in the country (there are only about 50K pharmacies in the country). Every pharmacy would have to dispense 1,000,000 prescriptions/year or 3,000 prescriptions/day to reach your 40 billion number. ---
**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 31, 2010, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/272 "2010-03-31T14:25:29Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > There is little doubt in my mind that a pharmacy can choose not to dispense birth control pills (except for therapeutic purposes) and they certainly can choose not to carry the morning after pill (I am not aware of a therapeutic purpose for the mroning after pill). Again, how is the pharmacy supposed to know whether a birth control prescription is for contraceptive or therapeutic purposes? ---
**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 31, 2010, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/273 "2010-03-31T14:28:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So what if every pharmacy in the Southeast decided to stop carrying birth control? > **[Robot or human?](https://www.walmart.com/blocked?url=L2NwL0hvbWUtRGVsaXZlcnkvNTM4ODc1&uuid=4172076f-e01d-11f0-b36d-8d655467897d&vid=&g=b)** I bet there are others. ---
**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 31, 2010, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/274 "2010-03-31T14:33:42Z")
> [@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! > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Because he wants to distract from the fact that this issue is really about the religious persecution of women. If he admits that it is the rights of women being infringed, then the parallels between this and “No blacks or Irish allowed” become harder to ignore. > > So if they felt it was against their religion to serve a black man, you’d support their right to refuse such a man his medicine, right? Or is it only women who are acceptable targets? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Garbage. They are forbidding women access to an important product, one aimed specifically at them and only them. It isn’t significantly different than refusing to serve someone according to race or nationality. It’s pure anti-woman bigotry. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And by the same logic it would be silly to claim that a school that refuses to let black kids attend is denying them an education. Bring back segregation! They can just move to another state, right? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The fact is, we are talking about pharmacists refusing to give women contraceptives, not men. > > Of course it would be discrimination against men, but they wouldn’t do that because this is all about the religiously motivated hatred of women, not men. **Der Trihs** , I can’t decide if you are being intentionally obtuse or inflammatory, or if you’re really incapable of following this argument. Our hypothetical Catholic pharmacist is morally opposed to selling any type of contraception to anyone. A pharmacy opposed to contraception to the point of not filling oral contrception scrips is unlikely to carry condoms either. It’s not the same effect, of course, since you can get condoms in a box of Cracker Jacks, but it has nothing to do with discrimination against women. Of course you are so irrationally embittered against any hint of religion that you’re not happy unless you can call them misogynistic racist anti-semites at every opportunity. I’m pretty confident that even your side in this debate sees how ridiculous your argument of discrimination is. Like I commented above, if you can show me an example of a pharmacist giving birth control to a man but not a women, then you have an argument. Don’t bring blacks or Jews or gays into it; that’s an obviously irrelevent and insincere argument and you only do it to promote your religion-hating agenda, which is not the topic of this thread. > [@CutterJohn](#): > > I have no issues with someone who owns their own business deciding what is sold there and what isn’t. > > I have less sympathy for those that willingly took a job that they knew would compromise their morality. Want to work for someone who requires you do fulfill a legal function that you find objectionable? Tough. Swallow your pride and do it anyway, quit and work for someone else that doesn’t, or don’t do it and be fired. I think just about everyone in this thread agrees with the second part - if your employer asks you to do something legal as part of your job, you do it or find another job. Unless there are states that require the employer to make a “reasonable accomdation” for your religion; I’m not sure if this would fall under that. I’m not sure there’s much more to argue here. Some people see a compelling state interest in forcing pharmacy owners to compromise their firmly held religious convictions and sell a product abhorrent to them. Others see no compelling reason when the product in question is generally available elsewhere and instead see it as a religious protection issue, not to mention free enterprise. I don’t see anyone’s positions moving. ---
**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 31, 2010, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/275 "2010-03-31T14:36:09Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > [Robot or human?](http://www.walmart.com/cp/Home-Delivery/538875) > > I bet there are others. Oooh. Handy. And what about the people who live in one of the nine states where prescriptions can only be refilled by mail? ---
**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 31, 2010, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/276 "2010-03-31T14:42:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again, let’s not merge two ideas. I agree with your sentiment if you mean, “Someone else owns the pharmacy and tells me to sell the stuff or be fired, but I want the law to protect me in my job even though I don’t wish to follow my boss’ orders and sell the stuff.” > > But if you mean, “As a condition of being in business, the state will require all pharmacists to sell the stuff…” then I don’t agree. If I open Brickers 24 Hour Pharmacy and Legal Clinic, then I’ll sell what I wish to sell, and if you don’t want to patronize my store, go somewhere else. > > And luckily, the state of Virginia agrees with me on this last point. WAIT A MINUTE. So if I have no problem with contraception but I have a problem with abortion and when I became a pharmacist there was no such thing as a morning after pill, you think my boss should be able to fire me because I refuse to dispense the morning after pill? Your position seems to be entirely based on private property rights with no cinsideration of first amendment rights. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2010, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/277 "2010-03-31T14:44:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Oooh. Handy. And what about the people who live in one of the nine states where prescriptions can only be refilled by mail? We call them ‘parents.’ Good god, you’d think if anyone would want to prevent women from having unwanted pregnancies and possible abortions, it’d be religious fundamentalists. Though I suppose that would require foresight, not their forte. And acknowledging the havoc that can be wreaked on a woman’s body by missing a day (and sometimes even a few hours) of hormonal birth control would require empathy. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > WAIT A MINUTE. So if I have no problem with contraception but I have a problem with abortion and when I became a pharmacist there was no such thing as a morning after pill, you think my boss should be able to fire me because I refuse to dispense the morning after pill? The morning after pill is equivalent to taking 8-10 regular birth control pills. Literally. If a woman is lucky enough to have extra packs of the pill (well, most kinds) lying around and no Plan B, she can take 4-5 pills and then another 4-5 12 hours later, with the same effect (a reduced chance of pregnancy, depending on when it’s taken – and again, the closer to sexual activity it’s taken, the more effective, meaning any woman who’s got to race around the city or go to another town to find it has a higher chance of unwanted pregnancy and, therefore, there’s more chance she’ll want/require an abortion. Rather than taking regular birth control). ---
**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 31, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/278 "2010-03-31T14:45:27Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Where I am in agreement with you (and even suggested it pages ago) is that the possibility of a central, government run, prescription-by-mail business seems like it would get rid of a whole lot of the problems here. I don’t know how one could replace the drug interaction warning function, but I am sure that isn’t insurmountable. The Hatch amendment prophibits the government from spending any money on abortion, I think this would probably include the morning after pill. o as long as we are only talking about birth control pills, fine but that government run pharmacy probably can’t sell morning after pills. ---
**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 31, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/279 "2010-03-31T14:45:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Again, how is the pharmacy supposed to know whether a birth control prescription is for contraceptive or therapeutic purposes? This is a very important point. There are [many potential medical indications](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11727171) for using contraceptive medications that do not involve birth control. “Definitive evidence exists for protection against ovarian and endometrial cancers, benign breast disease, pelvic inflammatory disease requiring hospitalization, ectopic pregnancy, and iron-deficiency anemia. It has also been suggested that oral contraceptives may provide a benefit on bone mineral density, uterine fibroids, toxic shock syndrome, and colorectal cancer. Minimal supportive evidence exists for oral contraceptives protecting against the development of functional ovarian cysts and rheumatoid arthritis. Treatment of medical disorders with oral contraceptives is an “off-label” practice. Dysmenorrhea, irregular or excessive bleeding, acne, hirsutism, and endometriosis-associated pain are common targets for oral contraceptive therapy.” How indeed is Mr. “Jesus tells me what to dispense” Pharmacist supposed to know what the prescription is for? If a woman comes in with a prescription for mifepristone, is she using it for emergency contraception, or for [other medical indications](http://feminist.org/action/action120f.htm)? It should not be up to the pharmacy/pharmacist to unilaterally decide what drugs may or may not violate its “moral standards”. They lack the essential knowledge that goes into reasoning behind the issuing of prescriptions. They cannot on the one hand say that they have an important role in health care delivery and accept regulation aimed at the safe and effective provision of such services - and at the same time arbitrarily undercut the providing of services to patients while pretending that a regulation ensuring that they serve everyone is somehow horribly onerous. ---
**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 31, 2010, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/280 "2010-03-31T14:48:49Z")
> [@villa](#): > > And even if it was the “key question,” is it better to have a pharmacy that only serves white people or no pharmacy at all? Its kind of a silly question. You could say the same thing about a lot of topics and it doesn’t really address the issue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=15)