Or for regulation of their periods or for acne? Is a pharmacist allowed to forbid you access to something because of what you might be using it for? Does the Roman Catholic church forbid the use of birth control pills for other purposes?
Oh, I agree. Not returning the prescription is absolutely beyond the pale and the pharmacist should be charged with theft.
The Catholic Church doesn’t generally make a distinction between acts that are immoral for Catholic but not immoral for others as far as I know. Nor do most other Christian denominations, as far as I know. And Catholics and Christians are not supposed to assist others in performing immoral acts.
No idea.
Agreed. And as I said, it appears from the story you that this is not what it happening. I was only attempting to draw that distinction, lest it be forgotten; not trying to make an argument with you.
Gotcha. But you referred only to enactment of state laws. Didn’t say anything about an individual’s contract with his/her employer. An individual is free to attempt to negotiate all sorts of contract conditions with his employer that aren’t specifically addressed by state laws.
To use your Iraq dissenter example, I used to work for a defense subcontractor making information displays and systems for all sorts of military gadgets. While there, we had a guy I can only describe as an extreme anti-nuclear crackpot, on the engineering staff. He, as a condition of employment, had negotiated that he’d not work on any project that which was a component of device to control the delivery of a nuclear payload. And since the guy was so incredibly talented, a clause to accomodate him was incorporated into his contract. To my knowledge, he never touched any work that would violate either his principles, or his contract. Now, I ain’t saying this is a normal practice (and surely it isn’t because I’ve never run across anything remotely like in except this once), and I seriously doubt these pharmacists in your story have any such clause in their employment contracts, but there are things to consider other than public statutes.
Well said.
If a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for medication that the pharmacy stocks, the management should be informed immediately, and pretty damn loudly.
You’re welcome! 
In response to Guinastasia and MisterThyristor: I think (though you probably shouldn’t quote me on it) that the Church has said that use of the pill for hormone treatments (e.g. for endometriosis) is generally okay – the principle of double effect applies here (i.e. if you’re taking the pill to treat another condition, and contraception isn’t the effect intended, it’s considered permissible). And of course if you’re an unmarried woman, you’re not really supposed to be having sex anyway per Catholic teaching, so I suppose it’s technically a moot point.
The place to look for your answer, really, is the encyclical Humanae Vitae, which does make reference to this issue, and as I remember it, says about the same thing as I did in the last paragraph…
No. The Roman Catholic church has no problem with birth control for “medical reasons”.
Make the sign honest. Thick, bold lettering should state, “Hey you baby-murdering scum, we don’t endorse your death culture here!”
Personally I don’t think the pharmacist should be exempt from filling the prescription. Someone could be taking the pills for a non-birth control related function. Since the pharmacist has no right to violate the patient’s confidentiality and find out exactly why they’re taking the meds, they have no right to refuse the prescription. It’s none of their business if someone’s taking them because they want to have wild orgies every night or they need the pills to control painful endometriosis.
If I’m not mistaken, the law only allows any individual pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription that violates his conscience or his religious beliefs. He is not allowed to prevent its being filled by someone else. In fact, I think he’s supposed to give it to someone else if there is someone available, or tell the customer where it can be filled. The law doesn’t allow any pharmacist to keep the prescription or refuse to give it back to the customer. So the few who have done that are outside the law and have forfeited its protection. That’s a whole different part of the discussion. Don’t assume everyone who would use the protection of this law is taking it that far. For most of them, it’s probably a case of, “I’m sorry, I can’t do this, but I’ll find someone who can.”
Technically, they don’t, however, some priests have spoken out against this as well. (IE, using condoms if one of the partners had AIDS, regardless of how it was contracted).
Sooo…in practice, it doesn’t always work out that way. Besides, the pharmacist isn’t going to be told why the woman is using it, so what difference does it make?
Exactly my point. If the pharmacist doesn’t know how she’s using it, how does it violate the pharmacist’s principles?
I didn’t think that enough people were considering what you had mentioned, which is why I quoted you.
Make it a non-prescription drug (as it is in some states) and it won’t matter.
No prob.
True. But employees with enough clout to negotiate such deals are the exception, not the rule. Most of us dicker over salary if possible, and otherwise sign the contract we’re given. What you say is true; I’m just not sure there’s much point in comparing the ability of an exceptional handful to negotiate exceptional protections, to legislation applying those protections to an entire profession at one fell swoop.
I’ve been thinking that a group like NOW or NARAL ought to rent some billboards on the highways leading into the states that have passed laws protecting these pharmacists.
They could show an upset woman and a stern pharmacist, with a caption like: “Need your birth control prescription refilled? Well, tough luck, ladies! We don’t have to. State law.”
Governments can get away with stuff like this when it doesn’t get much publicity, or if the publicity is transient and they can outlast the furor. But billboards (which are comparatively cheap advertising) are there, day after day, month after month, reminding everyone driving into the state of this particular embarrassment. And embarrassment works.
Someone who goes into pharmacy has to get a lot of training. He or she knows going in, what medicines will be prescribed and sold. If he or she has a problem, then the answer should be “Look for another line of work”. From the customer side, if a pharmacist simply says “I can’t do this but here is a referral”, fine. You still have a way to get what you need. If he tries to “confiscate” the prescription, it’s time to call the prescribing doctor, the pharmacist’s superiors, and maybe the Better Business Bureau, the police, the AMA, or whoever has jurisdiction. Additionally, Let The Market Speak. Take ALL your business to someone else, and get everyone you know to do the same, and have them get everyone they know etc. In short, lay economic siege to him. Starve him out of existence.
Unless you live in Buttfuck, pop. 15, and you have no car. In that case you’re just screwed.
Yup, then you’re screwed. But then, in a town with only 15 people, there probably is no pharmacy anyway - not enough income for a business to survive on. So, you’re probably getting everything from some other larger town already.
Dude, I was using hyperbole.
My more subtle point is that when we allow the slightest encroachment on women’s right to reproductive freedom, no matter how conditional, the women who are the most marginalized, impoverished and needy are always the first to suffer.
My mom’s job is to educate women in rural areas about their health, and it was under Ontario’s slash-and-burn Harrish gov’t. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes.
That’s an excellent idea.
I’m on your side. I think anyone who would refuse to do what the prescription says to do, should be GONE. I think anyone who confiscates the prescription or refuses to refer should be LOCKED UP. I equate it to a docter refusing to treat someone. But, unless there is a law that says that, the only options are to lobby for such a law and starve the bastard out of town - [Soup Nazi]No business for you![/Soup Nazi]
Actually, there’s a very simple solution available to the woman whose pharmacist holds her “morning after” pill prescription hostage: sue him for paternity. If she becomes pregnant, it is as a direct result of an affirmative act on his part, admittedly not the usual one causing pregnancy, but nonetheless directly as the result of his act. One pharmacist forced to support one woman through pregnancy and one child for the next eighteen years, will do wonders towards working change.