Honestly, I’m not clear on what the Catholic view of using oral contraceptives for therapeutic use is. Perhaps it is permissable because the contraceptive affect is unintended; that seems reasonable but I haven’t looked into it. It doesn’t matter though, since we all agree that the pharmacist doesn’t know the purpose for the prescription. And in any case, I’m arguing that the pharmacy would not carry contraceptives at all – so the reason you want it is irrelevent; they don’t have any to give you.
I believe they are non-prescription in some countries and I have not heard that it has a marked negative effect. I would be interested in data if anyone has it.
I think it would be a good idea to loosen restrictions on certain prescriptions just to avoid this sort of nonsense. My reproductive health should not be at the mercy of someone whose job decisions are based on something other than science.
That is exactly what I would say to any religious nut that wouldn’t sell me birth control pills. “That’s OK, I’ll save up the copay and just get an abortion if I get pregnant” Then I’d go across the street or go online and just buy the pill there. In fact I might go back to the religious nut pharmacist and talk about how I have been saving money by getting abortions once a year instead of buying the pill every month. It should make their day and give them all sorts of stories to tell their friends.
You’re switching the argument. You were acting like birth control pills have always been part of the landscape so pharmacists should be forced to dispense them without going to the merits of whether or not first amendment rights allow pharmacists to exercise that sort of discretion. Now you say that just because it hasn’t always been part of the landscape doesn’t mean anything.
I think it would be a good idea to loosen restrictions on certain prescriptions just to avoid this sort of nonsense. My reproductive health should not be at the mercy of someone whose job decisions are based on something other than science.
[/QUOTE]
If oral contraceptives were available OTC in the US and a pharmacy refused to carry them (or condoms or any other birth control devices) would we still be having a debate? Or would that be ok? Just wondering.
The likely response would be a shoulder shrug. The pharmacist doesn’t care what you do, he only is concerned with his own actions. Your actions are yours.
They’ve been around as long as pretty much any currently licensed pharmacist; the first COCP was approved by the FDA in 1960, and was made universally available in 1972.
Well it doesn’t really matter what the states say, the question is whether it is possible to refuse to dispense contraception in the US and the answer seems to be yes.
If a state decides to force the dispensation of contraception of all licensed pharmacists regaldless of religious views the question is whether or not that law would survive a lawsuit. I don’t think it would because there probably isn’t sufficient state interest in truncating the first amendment.
If the state can’t force the dispensation of contraceptives, can the employer fire a pharmacist for refusing to do so. The answer here is less clear. Birth control pills are a pretty big part of what goes on at pharmacies and it is probably not a reasonable accomodation to allow a pharmacist (usually the only pharmacist in the pharmacy) to refuse to dispense what is probably the highest volume item.
I think you can probably fire a pharmacist for refusing to dispense AND not return the prescription.
I was trying to argue by analogy. I think its easier and clearer to make the case for not forcing doctors to perform abortions (its something people have spent some time thinking about). But lets step back from that and ask if we could force doctors to prescribe birth control pills to anyone who didn’t have contraindications? If not then why would we allow doctors to refuse to prescribe but not the pharmacist?
If oral contraceptives were available OTC in the US and a pharmacy refused to carry them (or condoms or any other birth control devices) would we still be having a debate? Or would that be ok? Just wondering.
[/quote]
It would be okay with me. Right now, the barriers to getting BCP are high. The drugs are often expensive, they require doctor visits, plus a non-zero risk of dealing with creepy pharmacists who are obsessed with my uterus. If I could buy them like I buy Tylenol or KY, I’d be perfectly content to go to Kroger or the like. Once the barriers exist, anything that makes them still higher is unacceptable to me.
That strikes me as really naive. Of course he cares. And he would use it as ammunition the next time anyone brought up BCP or abortion, as evidence that the pill’s users are whores.
I will stop when you stop saying that pharmacists should just fill any prescription that is handed to them.
You don’t think that the issue of a doctor refusing to nprescribve birth control pills is relevant to the issue of a pharmacist refusing to fill that prescription? How are the two different other than the whole “well doctors are doctors and pharmacists are only pharmacists”
If you’re serious, I do honestly commend you. It’s one thing to sit around all day railing on a message board; it’s quite another to put one’s money where one’s mouth is.
Two points, neither meant to be snarky, but which may be taken as such:
-
One of the most likely candidates for your donations is probably the ACLU.
-
I really would like to know which pharmacies don’t dispense the meds under discussion–so I can avoid them. (Then again, I rarely take prescription meds, so I imagine my more conservative–and, probably, more medicated–friends will make up for my lack of patronage.)
The clear lack of respect for pharmacists on this thread is evident. The attitude seems to be, that if I have my prescription and my copay they should just shut up and give me my goddam drugs regardless of how they feel about it. As far as some people on this board are concerned, they might as well be vending machines.
Nope, they all know. I can empathize with the “please get this prescription filled somewhere else or by somebody else” (its a bit batshit crazy for me but I can empathize with it) but I cannot empathize with the “i’m not selling it to you and I’m not giving you your prescription back either”
Well, yes they should give you your goddamn drugs regardless of how they feel about it. I don’t give a fuck about their feelings. I give a fuck about their professional opinions- I’m glad pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions from drug seekers, or because of potentially dangerous interactions- but their personal religious beliefs are their own problem.
Garbage. The fact that it’s women, and not men being deprived is the whole point. Do you think that it’s a coincidence that it is harder for women to get birth control in the first place?
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.
That presumes that their goal is to prevent abortions; not to persecute women while using a supposed moral objection to abortion as an excuse. As I’ve said in the past, their behavior is consistent with the desire to persecute women, not with their alleged concern over “babies”.
They are; pregnancy is dangerous. Not that it matters. 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.
Oh, please, this is ridiculous. First, he is not “morally opposed”; he is a bigot. He is about as moral as the Ku Klux Klan. You are trying to give their position a false respectability by making them look like people nobly making a moral stand, instead of hatemongers persecuting the same group that they’ve been persecuting for literally millennia. And second, your claim is ridiculous because it’s not the men who are being denied condoms, it’s women who are being denied contraception; you are in the position of someone trying to claim that segregation was equally racist towards whites, when in fact it was a system aimed at the persecution of non-whites. You can whine about how they’d supposedly deny condoms to men too all you like; the FACT is that it is women, not men who are being persecuted here.
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?
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.
No. You have women who have been brought up to hate women, to regard themselves as inferior and to persecute other women in religions that seethe with hatred for women.
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.
I have more respect for vending machines than for pharmacists who persecute women instead of doing their job properly. 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.
Yeah, well, maybe. I’m probably projecting my own feelings in this scenario (assuming I were opposed to contraceptives in the first place, which I’m not). As far as using it as ammunition that the pill’s users are whores… ammunition for what? He might taunt you for being a whore? What power does he have other than not selling the pill? He might vote Republican?
I think a lot of the time gets taken up with insurance and in some pharmacies you have one pharmacist with a dozen pharmacy technicians and the pharmacist has to sign off on every prescription going through the pharmacy.
Its 2010.
I never understood why birth control pills weren’t over the counter, is it the women’s lobby that want to have it covered by insurance or is it the religious lobby that is afraid that their daughters are all going to buy the pill and become sluts if they don’t make them get a prescription for it?
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 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.
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?
Well, to be fair, you only asked for two examples. Next time ask for three examples.
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?
Well, I guess it doesn’t surprise me that people might feel that way and I think that there is in fact a lot of historical sexism built into the dogma of today’s religions but I just find it odd that the accusations of sexism directed at things being done by a female pharmacist in at least one of the cases in the OP.
If its not common, then are we really seeing enough harm to restrict first amenement rights?
OOOOHHHHHH!! I get it now. I guess I would be more bothered by it if there were actually an access issue but at this point it seems to be truncation of religious freedom without a sufficient state interest.