In which case we have a pharmacist putting his religious aversion to potentially facilitating the contraception or early abortion of a fetus above the health and safety of those customers who might have have the prescription for serious non-contraceptive reasons, right? Wow, that’s almost enough to make me side with Der Trihs’s suggestion to politely ask them to get into some other line of work, preferably one that doesn’t involve medicine, or weapons or heavy machinery either.
Serious question: is it possibly for a person to beceome a pharmacist and not know that these medicines have other uses? If they were unaware it would neatly sidestep the moral conflict.
Honest question, why DOES it take so long? Isn’t it just finding the right bottle on the shelf and printing out a label?
I know we sort of ended our specific disagreement already, but in this I feel I need to speak up again.
It doesn’t matter if the pharmacist refuses to sell any type of contraceptive to anyone. Since ONLY women can get pregnant, the ultimate effect of this policy is discrimination against them, and them only.
In 1972. What year is it now?
Cigarettes are plentiful everywhere else. If contraceptives were available over the counter at the supermarket, then you’d have a point. But we are talking about a specific item that is sold in a very narrow type of store that is sometimes needed for lifechanging reasons. Cigarettes aren’t even in the same ballpark
Then he should have become a mechanic.
If your job description begins and ends with a function that you know will cause you moral discomfort, then it is your fault and entirely your own if you take that job anyways. The employer has no reason to accomodate you. What I would like in addition to these pharmacists to be fired, is a question in the interview process for getting that job asking if they would have issues with dispensing any prescription drugs. If the answer is yes, tell the applicant to take a hike
Generally I’m fine with that, yes. My problem is with the deception moreso than the discrimination, because I believe that there would be at least a viable alternative within reason for these women to purchase the drugs if they knew ahead of time not to waste their time at Jim Bob’s Bibles N’ Blow. If, however, it becomes clear that entire cities, counties, or states take up this policy, then I would be against the restriction
A while back a story appeared where a Muslim taxi driver would not let a person into their cab because that person had a dog and Muslims have a religious hatred of dogs.
Most of the time taken to fill any given prescription is entering the information into the computer and waiting for authorization from the insurer. When I was a tech (1998-1999), about a third of all authorizations were denied, meaning you’d have to get on the phone and listen to hold music for about 45 minutes in order to talk to someone.
Actually filling the prescription and slapping a label on it takes almost no time at all - say, a minute to find the bottle, 30 seconds to confirm the NDC number (National Drug Control number - the number assigned by the FDA to each specific drug), 30 seconds for the computer to check for interactions, and 2-3 minutes to count out the correct number of pills. Then, say, another 3 minutes to double check everything.
I always think it is wiser not to make public pledges to give money to a political cause as a result of actions from the opposition. All it does is get people like me to give money to the opposing cause (presuming I agree with it) to balance it out.
Do people think NARAL or NOW is the right one for me to make my check out to? Maybe I should give to both just to make sure that someone on the other political side to me felt responsible for donations being made to a charity of which he or she disapproved.
I haven’t read all of your posts. I wouldn’t care to.
When someone does something big and splashy, then does the same thing again later, it’s noticeable. And it’s “a lot” compared with anyone else I encounter. You’ve made an impact announcing actions taken out of spite. Most adults wouldn’t admit to it, but you have. So, I noticed. And you wanted me (not me specifically, but obviously someone) to notice or you wouldn’t have said anything. Just as you wanted Obama supporters to notice that you were anti-Obama because of their horrible, horrible acts.
You are basically saying that several of the world’s widespread religions are prima facie discriminatorily sexist. How does that square with the fact that the people practicing this sexism have frequently been female pharmacists? Is it self hatred or is it just possible that religious belief are about more than just persecuting women?
This issue isn’t about persecuting women no matter how much you want it to be, just like being pro-choice isn’t about murdering babies.
Making prostitution illegal is aimed at behaviour that is overwhelmingly engaged in by men. These laws are sexist, it targets male behaviour and is almost as discriminatory as refusing to dispense the pill (and if I hadn’t watched Deuce Bigalow, I probably wouldn’t have said almost). It might be worse because it is a state action that makes it illegal so you can’t legally get the services of a prostitute anywhere in the state. That is a real denial of service in a way that action by a private actor is not. Its anti-male bigotry.
There is probably a better anaology out there somewhere but its ethe best I could do on short notice.
I don’t know but that how the line would be drawn in theory and greater minds than mine would have to figure out how that worked but IIRC any therapeutic use is “off label” usage and is most commonly prescribed to younger girls (I think it might have something to do with puberty). Therapeutic use is not really very common from what I can tell.
Geez, thats ridiculous. So you need a prescription for the pill and you can get morning after pills that have 10 times the active ingredient of birth control pills over the counter? Why don’t they just make birth control pills over the counter as well?
Pharmacists who won’t fill birth control prescriptions aren’t very common either, and yet here we’ve got a 5 page thread about them. It doesn’t matter whether it’s off label usage or not; it’s still a legal prescription. Off label usage just means that the drug manufacturer can’t promote that particular indication.
It’s not as though I’m proposing a pure hypothetical here.
Well, I guess that’s a bright line.
Move the emphasis. “You can only get refills by mail”, not “you can only get refills by mail”.
That is, a new prescription must be filled in an actual storefront pharmacy.
