# 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:** 25
**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:** [April 1, 2010, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/481 "2010-04-01T20:58:27Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Great, so that solves our problem of access. If I don’t sell the birth control, someone else will come along and sell it and put me out of business. The system works! NO. Epic fail. No community will stand for a _total_ lack of _all_ pills, so there _will_ be an avenue to get pills. If it’s mandated that this avenue must supply birth control, then there will also be an avenue to get birth control. But if the _only_ thing that the “jesus has a government liscence not to distribute” pharmacists is blocking is birth control, then the community might tolerate this just fine, because only the sluts will suffer, and who cares about them? (Presuming a community with a lower percentage of sluts than average - or at least, presuming they’re not influential sluts.) This shouldn’t require explanation. > [@Skammer](#): > > Not for me. Someone’s gonna sell them. Probably, because _everyone_ would be bothered if I didn’t sell pain pills. Now, suppose that you had a medical problem that nobody else had. And I decide that I can’t support treating people who have your medical problem - perhaps my religion says that people with your medical problem should die as quiclky and painfully as possible. If everybody else is satisfied with my service to them, what makes you think you’ll be able to find somebody else to sell you your special pill? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/482 "2010-04-01T21:44:35Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > While I hypothetically think that pharmacists should have the right to refuse selling the pill for moral reasons I don’t think those moral reasons can overcome legitimate medical ones (and not the sort of medical reasons that Der Trihs talks about (like when he says that getting pregnant is medical), I mean real medical ones). Wait, what? You don’t think pregnancy is a real medical issue? ---
**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, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/483 "2010-04-01T21:58:40Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > You don’t think pregnancy is a real medical issue? Well it isn’t like it happens to real people with real rights and all. ---
**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:** [April 1, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/484 "2010-04-01T22:16:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, it’s closer than you think. Wikipedia says there are 100 million women on the pill and 38 million blind people (worldwide). You forgot to mention overlap between those two categories. In the end, I think this issue of the Prescription-Denying Jesus Pharmacist is going to have minimal impact. A few proselytizing types will take advantage of legal protections in a handful of states to preen on their righteousness. Access to contraceptive medications could be limited in rare cases, i.e. in small towns where not everyone has Internet access to order drugs online (larger towns and cities have enough competition to make the problem little more than a temporary annoyance). I’d be surprised if a large percentage of the Christian-drug-only “pharmacies” hadn’t gone out of business within a short time. Pissing off a large percentage of your clientele is a lousy business model. And most of the people who’d seek out such a “pharmacy” will probably stay loyal only as long as it takes to find out that CVS has the supplies they need for less (Xtian drug emporiums will charge more to make up for lower volume thanks to boycotts and the loss of oral contraceptive business). **Bricker** will lose interest in his latest cause celebre and start plowing spare cash back into casino gambling again. Life will go on. ---
**Author:** ![BrandonR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/779978/32.png) [@BrandonR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrandonR)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/485 "2010-04-01T23:06:00Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And if you were not able to get birth control pills because that one whackadoo pharmacist didn’t want to sell it to you, you might have an argument but I have yet to see a cite for even one (let alone widespread) lack of access to birth control because of pharmacists refusal to dispense the pill. There are plenty of small towns in this country where people might not have access to numerous pharmacists. These small towns are also more likely to have the kind of demographic where a pharmacist refusing to sell birth control would be present. ---
**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 2, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/486 "2010-04-02T01:05:15Z")
Also, whores. ---
**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 2, 2010, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/487 "2010-04-02T13:38:11Z")
> [@villa](#): > > No, just like it is not “a bit silly” to call poll taxes and literacy tests with grandfather clauses discriminatory. Similarly, a law banning same sex marriage discriminates against homosexuals, despite the fact that it equally bans straights from marrying people of the same sex as well as homosexuals. I think your analogy to poll taxes and gay marriaage is a bit off. There was a discriminatory intent behind poll taxes, some people just assume a discrimintory intent here because anything having to do with reproduction is likely to have a disprortionate effect on women not because someone is trying to screw over women. Gay marriage is probably a case where discrimination is being cloaked in religion (or perhaps the religion drives the discrimination) but I fail to see how a law that seems to specifically target gay couples is similar to the refusal to stock and sell the pill. ---
**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 2, 2010, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/488 "2010-04-02T13:41:44Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > What if it isn’t protected by the first amendment? What if the pharmacist just doesn’t want to dispense Viagra because he finds their commercials annoying? Then the first amendment doesn’t apply and states can enforce regulation. There are plenty of rules that have caveats for people whose religious conviction will not allow them to comply with those rules and there is usually some sort of work around. Sometimes there isn’t and if the state interest is strong enough then tough noogies. If the pharmacist is an employee then there is very little doubt that he can be disciplined or fired. If the pharmacist owns his own pharmancy and there isn’t a regulation requireing him to carry and sell viagra then I think its entirely up to him. ---
**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 2, 2010, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/489 "2010-04-02T13:47:26Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think your analogy to poll taxes and gay marriaage is a bit off. There was a discriminatory intent behind poll taxes, some people just assume a discrimintory intent here because anything having to do with reproduction is likely to have a disprortionate effect on women not because someone is trying to screw over women. Yeah, suuuure. It’s just a coincidence that women are the ones being targeted by this. By a religion that has a long, long history of being hostile to them. No connection there at all. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Gay marriage is probably a case where discrimination is being cloaked in religion (or perhaps the religion drives the discrimination) but I fail to see how a law that seems to specifically target gay couples is similar to the refusal to stock and sell the pill. Because the pill is for women just as same sex marriage is for same sex couples; both are something that specifically impacts the hated group. And in both cases it is blatantly and solely a matter of bigotry, while people desperately try to pretend otherwise. And because in both cases the motive and behavior is the same; indulging religiously driven hatred by forbidding people something they want or need. And because in both cases there is no valid reason to do so. And no, religion is not a valid reason. ---
**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 2, 2010, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/490 "2010-04-02T13:48:18Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Yes - if we can show that he’s refraining from prescribing them for personal religious reasons. Similarly I wouldn’t want a doctor prescribing leeches because his religion eschews all other medicine. > > That said, there are different kind of doctors, and persons averse to prescribing contraceptives can (and likely do) refrain from studying the strains of medicine that tend to prescribe them. We’re only asking that persons who don’t want to fill such prescriptions similarly avoid the field that distributes them - which unfortunately is the entire field of pharmacology. You don’t think there is a difference between prescribing a drug for lifestyle purposes and prescribing a drug for therapeutic purposes? I can’t support doctors that refuse to prescribe birth control pills when they know its medically necessary but I still have trouble shoving this sort of thing down people’s throats. BTW,plenty of pharmacists do things other than retail. I have four pharmacists in the family and none of them are in retail pharmacy. One is a pharmacy sales rep, one is a director at an insurance company setting up formularies (or something like that), one teaches, and the last one could get a job outside of retail so she went to med school, they are all women, they are all Christian and they all dispensed the pill at some point in their career. ---
**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 2, 2010, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/491 "2010-04-02T13:52:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You don’t think there is a difference between prescribing a drug for lifestyle purposes and prescribing a drug for therapeutic purposes? Translation: women should shut up, submit and be good little brood mares. “Lifestyle purposes”. :rolleyes: ---
**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 2, 2010, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/492 "2010-04-02T13:54:05Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Jesus. If I answer this will you promise to shut the hell up about this off topic, irrelevant argument? Sure, if you explain to me why the anology between prescribing and dispensing is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > Doctors and pharmacists are different, and the determination of what medication is appropriate for the patient is primarily that of the doctor, not the pharmacist. How is a doctor refusing to prescribe the piull for religious reasons any different than a pharmacist refusing to dispense the pill for religious reasons (I guess the difference might be tha the doctor is in a better position to know if the pill is medically necessary or simply being used as a contraceptive so can make a more informed decision to exercise his religious zealotry). > [@](#): > > However, I do have an issue with the pharmacist taking the prescription, and switching it for another drug because the pharmacist thinks that drug is better. I can think of at least two occassions where my pharmacist has called the doctor and gotten them to switch the prescription. > [@](#): > > You see, the doctor and the pharmacist have different roles. And that isn’t treating a pharmacist as a glorified cashier, to use your favorite phrase for them. How does the doctor’s role make it any less offensive to you that they are refusing to prescribe the pill for religious reasons (its not like he’s exercising his diagnostic skills or his medical expertise)? ---
**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 2, 2010, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/493 "2010-04-02T13:56:41Z")
> [@villa](#): > > This isn’t true. > > The action the pharmacist takes is to become licensed in a profession with state oversight. That’s not remotely proximate to the issue unless you are saying that anyone that gets a license must stand ready to do everything that the license allows. ---
**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:** [April 2, 2010, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/494 "2010-04-02T13:58:19Z")
Pharmacists are the new niggers. ☹ ---
**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 2, 2010, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/495 "2010-04-02T14:01:34Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > He took the action to train and get liscenced and position himself as the distributor of medicine for his area - and then refrain from doing so for religious reasons. Being completely passive would entail not becoming a pharmacist. Similarly if I become a judge and refuse to try murder cases against black people because my religion says that black people can do anything, I’m not being passive in my refusal. > > Nice try, though. Its more than a nice try, its right on target. If you want to force pharmacists to dispense the pill, you are going to have to come up with something better than “he’s hurting me by not selling the pill” He’s doing nothing of the sort. He’s just not selling the pill. I want to get my medicine on Sunday but the pharmacist is hurting me by closing on sunday and going to church. As a licensed pharmacist, he should be open sundays so that I can buy my drugs from him (sure I could go to the pharmacy right across the street but that’s like telling me that I have to go to a different lunch counter). ---
**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 2, 2010, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/496 "2010-04-02T14:06:20Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > So the argument is that as long as it never happens it should be legal but if it happens once then it shouldn’t be? Sounds like an argument that it shouldn’t be legal. No that’s not even close. You don’t truncate first amendment rights unless base don some hypothetical harm that might occur if the whole world just went nuts and you just couldn’t get the pill because every pharmacist in your area is a religious whacko. Before you truncate first amendment rights you should really have a reason other than “I really don’t even want one pharmacist to make any professional decisions based on religious conviction because I think religious whackos don’t deserve rights” ---
**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 2, 2010, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/497 "2010-04-02T14:31:19Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > No that’s not even close. You don’t truncate first amendment rights unless base don some hypothetical harm that might occur if the whole world just went nuts and you just couldn’t get the pill because every pharmacist in your area is a religious whacko. Garbage. The First Amendment doesn’t extend to forcing your beliefs on others by refusing to do your job, in a government licensed job at that. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/498 "2010-04-02T14:35:39Z")
\<\* nevermind \*\> ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2010, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/499 "2010-04-02T14:35:53Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > There was a discriminatory intent behind poll taxes, some people just assume a discrimintory intent here because anything having to do with reproduction is likely to have a disprortionate effect on women not because someone is trying to screw over women. Isn’t something that just happens to screw over one specific population consistently just a little troubling to you? I mean sure, I’m just a woman, and these are just my, um, lifestyle choices. Me with the not-wanting-to-have-a-child-or-an-abortion 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:** [April 2, 2010, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859/500 "2010-04-02T14:37:44Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I see no reason to think that physical inaction is a special exception to the idea; focusing on that irrelevent aspect of the wording seems like pointless pedantry. (But then, I’m not a lawyer.) I am pretty sure the law distinguishes between action and inaction. Don’t you see a difference between throwing a baby into a lake and watching that baby crawl off a pier into the lake? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pharmacy-and-religion/533859.md?page=26)