# 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:** 21
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/401 "2010-04-01T14:57:49Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > That statement is assuming something we have not agreed on. My position is that a self-employed pharmacist’s job is _whatever he_ wants it to be\*, subject to applicable laws and regulations. So, no, he can’t (and should’t be allowed to) put cyanide in you cholersterol medication. But it’s not his “job” to sell any specific type of medication, including contraceptives, if he doesn’t feel like it. It’s simply not a requirement of having a pharmacist’s license (with, apparently, a couple of exceptions for certain states. Which is wrong-headed IMO.) Explain to me how this is different to what anyone else is saying… I believe a self-employed pharmacist’s job is _whatever he or she wants it to be_, **subject to applicable laws and regulations.** And that one of the applicable laws and regulations is that his or her own prejudices should not impact the provision of prescribed medication to his or her patients. You seem to think that his or her political beliefs should not be allowed to impact that standard of care, but that his or her religious beliefs should be. I find that a truly odd dividing line to draw. Or, to make it even more bizarre, you think that **some** of his or her religious beliefs should be allowed to impact the standard of care (i.e. whether he or she thinks God doesn’t approve of contraceptives) but not other, potentially equally strongly held religious beliefs (i.e. whether he or she thinks God doesn’t want black people to have medicine). That you think you are saying something fundamentally different here is absolutely mindboggling. ---
**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 1, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/402 "2010-04-01T15:24:53Z")
COnsidering that you think starting your responses with words like “garbage” and “nonsense” because you disagree, I will do the same. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; it’s quite relevant. This is about the religiously motivated and excused persecution of a hated class. It’s no different than people claiming that God made blacks to serve whites. I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word persecution. > [@](#): > > That presumes that their goal is to prevent abortions You don’t know what you’re talking about. If the idea was merely to persecute or subjugate women then there are a million better ways to do it than to it. If you can’t see how anyone could see abortion (particularly elective abortions after the first trimester) as something that at least approaches murder then you aren’t even within shouting distance of the reasonable. > [@](#): > > Unless there is a medical - not “moral” reason not to do so a woman should be given birth control if she wants it. And if the pharmacist refuses without such a professionally valid reason, they should be forced to hand it over by whatever level of legal force is necessary. If that means fines, or threats of prison time, or fines big enough to destroy the parent company as an example to others, or surrounding the pharmacy with National Guard troops like schools being forcibly desegregated, then so be it. nonsense. This isn’t anywhere near the same thing and your attempts to cloak yourself in the mantle of a civil rights activist and to characterize your opponents as something close to the KKK is just crap. > [@](#): > > Nonsense. That is an important point; the excuse for pharmacists existing at all instead of replacing them with a medicine vending machine is that they are to use their professional judgment in the dispensation of medication. Their professional, scientifically based judgment. Not barbarian myths. Should they be allowed to decide what to dispense according to the flip of their lucky coin? This is exactly what I am talking about. You basically think pharmacists are vending machines that can check for harmful drug interactions. The first amendment protects people even people who disagree with you. The fact that you find the first amendment inconvenient right now doesn’t make it go away and the application of the first amendment doesn’t change just because it is the KKK that wants to march down main street instead of the women’s suffrage movement. > [@](#): > > If I actually thought prostitution should be illegal that argument might have some traction, but it doesn’t. Although I’ll point out that it tends to be enforced in an anti-woman, not anti-man fashion. I’ll grant you that prostitution is prosecuted in an anti-woman fashion so maybe it wasn’t a really good example but you are smart enough to get the point. > [@](#): > > Yeah, sure. :rolleyes: And it’s merely a coincidence that it is women who are being targeted by this, by groups that have a millennia long history of hostility towards women. It’s merely a coincidence that is female, not male birth control that has this kind of effort being made to forbid it. Just like it was merely a coincidence that under separate but equal, it was always the blacks who got inferior faculties and services. There is a difference between something that “affects” women and something that “targets” women. ANYTHING having to do with reproduction is going to have more of an impact on women than men, men don’t get pregnant. Objection to things like birth control (while stupid) are not targetted at women in anywhere near the same way that segregation and Jim Crow laws were targetted at blacks. > [@](#): > > Your position is an argument for replacing them with such machines, since apparently they are are not required to actually do their job professionally. At least a machine isn’t going to be motivated by hatred. Exactly, you think pharmacists are basically just vending machines and any refusal to dispense birth control pills is just the manifestation of hatred towards women. Utter nonsense. I take the position that even an employee pharmacist might have some first amendment rights to refuse to dispense birth control pills (they cannot keep the script) especially when there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that there is inadequate access to birth control pills. You take the position that even a pharmacist that owns her own pharmacy must stock and sell birth control pills to anyone with a prescription regardless of what they believe so they might as well be vending machines (and we might get there yet). You have basically elevated the right to birth control above first amendment rights without even examining the issue. Like it or not, this country (in fact almost every free democratic country) recognizes religion as something more than barbarian superstition and hatred towards women. Have you ever wondered if you haven’t gone off the deep end in your characterizations and opinions because it is pretty clear to me that you have. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/403 "2010-04-01T15:27:47Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Explain to me how this is different to what anyone else is saying… > > I believe a self-employed pharmacist’s job is _whatever he or she wants it to be_, **subject to applicable laws and regulations.** And that one of the applicable laws and regulations is that his or her own prejudices should not impact the provision of prescribed medication to his or her patients. That’s only the law in a few states, and I’m arguing it’s a bad law. > [@villa](#): > > You seem to think that his or her political beliefs should not be allowed to impact that standard of care, but that his or her religious beliefs should be. I find that a truly odd dividing line to draw. I’m not sure where you get that. I don’t really think the source of the belief is relevant. The fact that it’s religious is interesting in that it adds a religous protection element to the debate, but if a phamacy owner does not want to carry BC pills because he doesn’t like the color of them I’m fine with that too. > [@villa](#): > > Or, to make it even more bizarre, you think that **some** of his or her religious beliefs should be allowed to impact the standard of care (i.e. whether he or she thinks God doesn’t approve of contraceptives) but not other, potentially equally strongly held religious beliefs (i.e. whether he or she thinks God doesn’t want black people to have medicine). Well that’s a bit of a strawman, since I know of no religion that withholds medicine from black people. But regardless, we have anti-discrimination laws in this country (the whole country, not just a few states) and I have no quarrel with the fact that it’s in the government’s interest to prevent racial discrimination. > [@villa](#): > > That you think you are saying something fundamentally different here is absolutely mindboggling. Different from what? From what you’re saying or from the racial strawman you set up? I’m equally boggled by your comment so at least we’re on equal footing. ---
**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 1, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/404 "2010-04-01T15:27:53Z")
> [@StusBlues](#): > > I’m assuming because the drug interactions and the rigor of its administration are such that one should probably consult with a doctor before going on birth control pills. Same as every other prescription med. > > Is there anything comparable to BCP that is available over the counter? I believe the morning after pill is available over the counter. Perhaps sporadic surges in progesterone don’t create a risk while long term consumption of birth control pills over a period of years does. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/405 "2010-04-01T15:36:02Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I’m not sure where you get that. I don’t really think the source of the belief is relevant. The fact that it’s religious is interesting in that it adds a religous protection element to the debate, but if a phamacy owner does not want to carry BC pills because he doesn’t like the color of them I’m fine with that too. Where I get that is you seem completely fine with a person’s expressions of their political beliefs being contrary to the law, but not a person’s expressions of their religious beliefs. And that is where the race issue comes in… If a person has political reasons not to want to fill a prescription for a black person, you think this is unnacceptable. You only think that certain expressions of First Amendment protected belief should be protected. > [@Skammer](#): > > Well that’s a bit of a strawman, since I know of no religion that withholds medicine from black people. But regardless, we have anti-discrimination laws in this country (the whole country, not just a few states) and I have no quarrel with the fact that it’s in the government’s interest to prevent racial discrimination. Yes, we have anti-discrimination laws. Which kind of go to show that First Amendment protected beliefs can have their expression controlled. And the fact you don’t know a religion that withholds medicine from black people doesn’t make it a strawman. All it means is that you place religious beliefs you recognize, or think have a degree of validity, above those you don’t recognize. And that is a very dangerous thing for the government to get involved in doing. > [@Skammer](#): > > Different from what? From what you’re saying or from the racial strawman you set up? I’m equally boggled by your comment so at least we’re on equal footing. You said that pharmacists should be free to do what they want, subject to laws and regulations. That is what everyone thinks. I think it, you think it, every participant in the thread thinks it. It was a crass, meaningless platitude on your part. ---
**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 1, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/406 "2010-04-01T15:39:36Z")
> [@Cumberdale](#): > > Really? I think the lack of respect for the customer is more important in this situation. I do respect pharmacists. Their job is to provide me what I need, their feelings have nothing to do with it. Not their feelings. Their beliefs. There are two scenarios as far as I can tell. Phamacist A owns their own pharmacy but does not stock birth control pills because of a religious conviction. Phamacist B works at a Rite Aid and will not dispense birth control pills because of a religious conviction. Can pharmacist A do what they want with their own pharmacy or does the fact that the state has given them a license mean that they have to stock and sell something that conflicts with their religious beliefs if the state so requires? Can pharmacist B refuse to dispense a drug and keep her job because of the first amendment? The only issues here are the right of the state to regulate so that pharmcies have to carry birth control pills and whether an employee pharmacist is protected by the first amendment. Considering the fact that we do not have inadequate access to birth control pills (I have yet to see a cite that such a lack of access exists anywhere in the country), there is no question about the rights of the consumer. If birth control pills were only available in seedy run down pharmacies in crappy neighborhoods or something like that then get back to me but until then, I just don’t see enough of a harm to consumers to give them any standing in this debate. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/407 "2010-04-01T15:41:22Z")
The American Pharmacists’ Association (the pharmacy world’s AMA) says “…APhA’s policy supports the ability of a pharmacist to opt out of dispensing a prescription or providing a service for personal reasons and also supports the establishment of systems so that the patient’s access to appropriate health care is not disrupted.” And in [the UK](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8586344.stm): > [@](#): > > Pharmacists across the UK have been told they can continue to refuse to prescribe items that might clash with their personal religious beliefs. > > A revised code of conduct from the new industry regulator will allow staff to opt out of providing items such as the morning-after pill and contraception. > > But they may in future have to give customers details of alternative shops. ---
**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 1, 2010, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/408 "2010-04-01T15:45:46Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s quite common cite please. > [@](#): > > access to birth control is a constitutionally protected right, just as religious freedom is. Yes but that protection only extends to protection from government action. The government cannot make laws that inhibit access to birth control but there is no constitutional madate on a private scitizen to provide you with that access. Just as states cannot criminalize abortions but you cannot force doctors to perform them, it is a fairly analogous analysis. > [@](#): > > In those states, it _is_ an access issue. If your pharmacy won’t fill the original prescription, and you can’t go to another for whatever reason, you can’t get your prescription mailed either. What reason can you have for not going to another pharmacy (beside the pharmacist stealing your script, which is probably criminal, but even then you can get another prescription from your doctor called into a pharmacy). ---
**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 1, 2010, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/409 "2010-04-01T15:52:18Z")
> [@Hirka\_T\_Bawa](#): > > I’ll continue the hijack… I assume everything on the major interaction list is prescription only (I assume this because I cannot pronounce them), but it seems to me that there are a lot of things on the moderate list that are not prescription. Couldn’t we make the least ineractive pill otc and put big warnings on them saying no to eat licorice or Paclitaxel Protein-Bound? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/410 "2010-04-01T15:56:18Z")
In 2004, the New England Journal of Medicine published [this paper](http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/19/2008?ijkey=f0009e60b5f2d4b62b88a9b9e0c4a803266c98ae&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha), “The Limits of Conscientious Objection — May Pharmacists Refuse to Fill Prescriptions for Emergency Contraception?” Although it’s over six years old, and the regulatory landscape has changed a bit, I think they do a good job of balancing the issues. Their take: > [@](#): > > Compelling arguments can be made both for and against a pharmacist’s right to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception. But even cogent ideas falter when confronted by a dissident moral code. Such is the nature of belief. Even so, most people can agree that we must find a workable and respectful balance between the needs of patients and the morals of pharmacists. > . > . > . > Although we believe that the most ethical course is to treat patients compassionately — that is, to stock emergency contraception and fill prescriptions for it — the totality of the arguments makes us stop short of advocating a legal duty to do so as a first resort. We stop short for three reasons: because emergency contraception is not an absolute emergency, because other options exist, and because, when possible, the moral beliefs of those delivering care should be considered. However, in a profession that is bound by fiduciary obligations and strives to respect and care for patients, it is unacceptable to leave patients to fend for themselves. As a general rule, pharmacists who cannot or will not dispense a drug have an obligation to meet the needs of their customers by referring them elsewhere. This idea is uncontroversial when it is applied to common medications such as antibiotics and statins; it becomes contentious, but is equally valid, when it is applied to emergency contraception. Therefore, pharmacists who object should, as a matter of ethics and law, provide alternatives for patients. > > Pharmacists who object to filling prescriptions for emergency contraception should arrange for another pharmacist to provide this service to customers promptly. Pharmacies that stock emergency contraception should ensure, to the extent possible, that at least one nonobjecting pharmacist is on duty at all times. Pharmacies that do not stock emergency contraception should give clear notice and refer patients elsewhere. At the very least, there should be a prominently displayed sign that says, “We do not provide emergency contraception. Please call Planned Parenthood at 800-230-PLAN (7526) or visit the Emergency Contraception Web site at [www.not-2-late.com](http://www.not-2-late.com) for assistance.” However, a direct referral to a local pharmacy or pharmacist who is willing to fill the prescription is preferable. Objecting pharmacists should also redirect prescriptions for emergency contraception that are received by telephone to another pharmacy known to fill such prescriptions. In rural areas, objecting pharmacists should provide referrals within a reasonable radius. Sounds reasonable to me. (on edit) “They” and “their” refers to the paper’s authors, not the NEJM publishers. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/411 "2010-04-01T15:57:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > So better a mechanic (which we seem to have enough of) than a doctor (which we don’t seem to have enough of) because he doesn’t want to write birth control prescriptions to anyone that asks for one? If discriminating doctor is the alternative, then yes, I’d rather have more mechanics. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If it becomes clear that entire regions take up this policy then we would be having a different discussion but right now people seem to be ready to shove their ideological government action down the throats of a few people with deeply held beliefs even though it doesn’t affect the availability of birth control pills. It unfairly affects the availability of contraceptives sold in pharmacies. There is no “oh it’s just a little discriminations, it’s all good” attitude that I can hold in regards to this. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > cite please. BTW I think NYC cabs are allowed to refuse all animals other than seeing eye dogs. Did these muslim guys refuse seeing eye dogs as well? Here’s a story from [Vancouver](http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=56d2befb-c635-4e70-af65-167a1f031335&k=68681) regarding a seeing-eye dog. A blog citing [multiple instances](http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/11/muslim-taxi-drivers-vs-seeing-eye-dogs) although the first link to New Orleans is broken. The second link, citing a case in Cincinnati, also relates to a seeing-eye dog. The blog also has numerous recounts of stories and cites of instances more recent and in places in addition to America. I find these kinds of things to be equally distasteful as religious pharmacists, but with such cites it’s much easier to get American conservatives to agree that religion has no place at work. Usually this works if I mention the Muslims first, get them to react, then ask them about pharmacists. Their opinions turn around so fast it’ll make your head spin ---
**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 1, 2010, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/412 "2010-04-01T15:58:31Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Good to know as Easter approaches! > > (Obviously jelly bean makers hate women too!) Its actually a hstorical relic. When jelly beans were first invented society was significantly more male dominated than it is today and while they were able to predict the invention of the pill (and the moderate drug interaction) they ingored it they formulate licorice and the moderate interaction continues to exist today despite the changes in societal attitudes about a woman’s right to eat licorice. Some more progressive licorice manufacturers have reformulated their licorice to be realtively inert in fact some of these licorice manufacturers are owned and operated by women but there arestill vestigial chemicals that they can’t seem to get rid of that make licorice offensive to some women who can recognize the signs of indifference to women that existed when licorice was first invented. These women mostly eat mounds without almonds. ---
**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 1, 2010, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/413 "2010-04-01T15:59:53Z")
> [@BrandonR](#): > > Personally I don’t think a pharmacist’s religious beliefs should ever, ever get in the way of dispensing medicine. If a person has religious beliefs that conflict with performing that job, then maybe they should have picked a different career in the first place. It’d be like a Jewish person getting a job as a bacon-taster\* and then complaining when expected to do their job’s duties. > > - Does this job exist and if so, where can I apply? When you go to a deli, you think of cold cuts. When you think of cold cuts, ham is probably one of the things you think of. Ever been to a Jewish Deli? They are all over NYC and I haven’t found ham in any of them. ---
**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 1, 2010, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/414 "2010-04-01T16:04:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > (emphasis added) > > Perhaps you could be even fairer now. Oh I thought they did that. Well if they didn’t then they need to come up with one more. ---
**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 1, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/415 "2010-04-01T16:06:02Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Nonsense. Again, you ignore the fact that those “civilizations” are either dead or changed. Christianity is still overwhelmingly misogynistic. And you are also ignoring the fact that the motivation and excuse of these people for persecuting women is specifically religious. > > Well, forgive me for bringing up religion in a thread titled “Pharmacy and Religion”. :rolleyes: Buddhism, Hindusim, Islam, Judaism, mormonism, I mean name any religion more than 1000 years old (heck name one more than 200 years old) and I can show you that sort of things that upset you. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2010, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/416 "2010-04-01T16:21:48Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Where I get that is you seem completely fine with a person’s expressions of their political beliefs being contrary to the law, but not a person’s expressions of their religious beliefs. And that is where the race issue comes in… If a person has political reasons not to want to fill a prescription for a black person, you think this is unnacceptable. > > You only think that certain expressions of First Amendment protected belief should be protected. To dissect this a bit… 1. I am not fine with a person’s expression of political _or_ religious belief being contrary to law. I believe, broadly speaking, the law should be followed. Where there is a crisis on conscience that requires breaking the law, the individual should fully expect to be punished as the law allows. What I’m saying is that laws that force pharmacy owners to carry pharmaceuticals that they don’t want to carry (for any reason) are bad laws, and thankfully there are only a few of them. 2. There is a difference between not carrying a drug, and providing it discriminately. If a pharmacist sold a paticular drug to white people but not black people? Discrimination; it is (and should be) against the law. But: say a pharmacy did not want to give BC to black people and therefore did not provide it to _anyone_: not discriminatory. I find that kind of icky but not something that should be disallowed, because it’s the pharmacy’s choice whether or not to stock particular items, regardless of the reason. > [@villa](#): > > Yes, we have anti-discrimination laws. Which kind of go to show that First Amendment protected beliefs can have their expression controlled. And the fact you don’t know a religion that withholds medicine from black people doesn’t make it a strawman. All it means is that you place religious beliefs you recognize, or think have a degree of validity, above those you don’t recognize. And that is a very dangerous thing for the government to get involved in doing. I don’t see it as a primarily religious issue. If the pharmacist wants to not carry BC because he believes the Earth is woefully underpopulated, that’s fine. Yes, the First Amendment rights can be curtailed if there is overriding state interest. Nobody has shown such an overriding interest here. > [@villa](#): > > You said that pharmacists should be free to do what they want, subject to laws and regulations. That is what everyone thinks. I think it, you think it, every participant in the thread thinks it. It was a crass, meaningless platitude on your part. OK, so in most states, where there is no law to the contrary, you are fine with pharmacists refusing to provide birth control? I didn’t realize we were that close to agreeing. > [@Bricker](#): > > In 2004, the New England Journal of Medicine published [this paper](http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/19/2008?ijkey=f0009e60b5f2d4b62b88a9b9e0c4a803266c98ae&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha), “The Limits of Conscientious Objection — May Pharmacists Refuse to Fill Prescriptions for Emergency Contraception?” > > Although it’s over six years old, and the regulatory landscape has changed a bit, I think they do a good job of balancing the issues. Their take: > > Sounds reasonable to me. > > (on edit) “They” and “their” refers to the paper’s authors, not the NEJM publishers. Wow, I find that article very helpful and on-point, and very reasonable. I have no problem with their suggestions. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2010, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/417 "2010-04-01T16:26:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In 2004, the New England Journal of Medicine published [this paper](http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/19/2008?ijkey=f0009e60b5f2d4b62b88a9b9e0c4a803266c98ae&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha), “The Limits of Conscientious Objection — May Pharmacists Refuse to Fill Prescriptions for Emergency Contraception?” > > Although it’s over six years old, and the regulatory landscape has changed a bit, I think they do a good job of balancing the issues. > > \ > > Sounds reasonable to me. That paper is talking about emergency contraception. At the time it was written, there was some evidence that emergency contraception might have an abortifacient effect when taken by a patient who had already conceived. Obviously, a pharmacist’s belief that he might be assisting or facilitating an abortion deserves special consideration, but that is not an issue with ordinary birth control. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/418 "2010-04-01T16:28:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Obviously, a pharmacist’s belief that he might be assisting or facilitating an abortion deserves special consideration, but that is not an issue with ordinary birth control. That statement is not obvious to me. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/419 "2010-04-01T16:30:10Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Obviously, a pharmacist’s belief that he might be assisting or facilitating an abortion deserves special consideration, but that is not an issue with ordinary birth control. That’s interesting. Why is that the case? ---
**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:** [April 1, 2010, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/420 "2010-04-01T16:30:11Z")
Then you would support a pharmacist’s right to refuse to fill prescriptions for, say, Viagra, based on personal convictions? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=22)