# Some WA pharmacists want to continue forcing their morality on customers **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 26, 2007, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277 "2007-07-26T20:04:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/81 "2007-07-27T01:23:36Z")
[QUOTE=treis] If the employer/owner of the pharmacy is fine with the pharmacist refusing to dispense the drug, then I have no problem with the pharmacist being allowed to refuse to dispense the drug. It’s a rare situation that another pharmacy is unavailable. Even if it is, the drug can be purchased online and has a shelf life of two years. Sex involves responsibility. Part of that responsibility is ensuring that an unwanted pregnancy doesn’t occur. [/QUOTE] I think it depends. If the state doesn’t require them to stock certain medications, then I’m OK with it, too. But I’m perfectly fine with the state saying they must stock a given list of medications because the state is setting them up as an intermediary between me and the drug companies and I have to go thru them to get the medications. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/82 "2007-07-27T01:28:49Z")
[QUOTE=Merneith] But can you really say that the pharmacists refusing prescriptions for emergency birth control are making any sort of **medical** judgment? They themselves tend to put it strictly in terms of their **moral** judgement - a very different kettle of fish. [/QUOTE] No, you’re right. They are making a moral, not a medical, judgment. I was actually referring to the crowd of people who apparently believe “The pharmacist’s responsibility is to just fill whatever is written and don’t think anything more about it”. My point was that the people who are advocating that we tie the hands of pharmacists and make them simply tools of what’s written on a prescription pad, so we can punish the people who have BAD judgment, you’re denying them every element of professional judgment that I feel they’ve worked hard to earn. I think that’s within their rights _as long as_ they are not an impediment to the person obtaining the prescription elsewhere by destroying it, voiding it, harassing the patient, etc. I think those are all despicable behaviors that shouldn’t be tolerated on any level, least of all on a professional level. But simply the objection to filling the prescription is not an inherently evil act. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/83 "2007-07-27T01:30:53Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] Pharmacists should not have to sell the product if they don’t want to. I know liberty isn’t in vogue these days, but it’s a pretty nice thing. If you’re local pharmacist won’t sell it go to Walgreens. If the pharmacist at Walgreens won’t sell it go back when they aren’t working, if that person won’t sell it call corporate and complain. Forcing someone to violate their morals is repulsive. [/QUOTE] Forcing someone to jeopardize their own health because of your so-called “morals” is what’s repulsive. This has fuck all to do with “liberty”. And, said pharmacists are required to be registered by the state board. If they refuse to adhere to the law, then get another job. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/84 "2007-07-27T01:35:30Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] But I’m perfectly fine with the state saying they must stock a given list of medications because the state is setting them up as an intermediary between me and the drug companies and I have to go thru them to get the medications. [/QUOTE] Really, the state has set up a lot of intermediaries through which you must get medications. The FDA, a licensed physician, and finally a pharmacy. If the pharmacy was state-run and operated, then I’d say you have a point. But until that happens, it’s a privately owned business just like any other, and just because the health department must inspect the restaurant you eat in doesn’t mean they can’t refuse to serve you filet mignon at McDonald’s, or kick you out of their establishment for any reason they see fit. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/85 "2007-07-27T01:36:37Z")
[QUOTE=Guinastasia] And, said pharmacists are required to be registered by the state board. If they refuse to adhere to the law, then get another job. [/QUOTE] And I’m sure you’ll be the first to pop in to cite where refusing to fill a prescription on moral grounds is in violation of state pharmacy laws, since nobody has so far. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/86 "2007-07-27T01:43:56Z")
Missed the edit window: ETA: I’ve googled, and the only thing I have found have been 3 states which have enacted legislation specifically targeted at the refusal to fill EC, but not that the refusal itself constituted any violation of law. Pharmacists are permitted to refuse prescriptions that they believe to be harmful to the patients, and some sick and twisted people honestly believe that Plan B is a dangerous drug. I’d like to get it out of the way that I do not and fully support the OTC status of Plan B. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/87 "2007-07-27T02:00:01Z")
[QUOTE=WhyNot] If your pharmacy sends a letter to every woman of childbearing age within 50 miles stating that they won’t be stocking contraceptives, then maybe, just maybe, the burden would be on those women to keep a stock of Plan B on hand. In the real world, it’s just not unreasonable to expect to be able to find it at my local pharmacy when I need it. [/QUOTE] I’m not sure how anyone could have missed the controversy over Plan B, yet still know about it’s existence. > [@Miller](#): > > Two things: > > First, the scope of this debate is much wider than this specific drug. If the pharmacist believes that dispensing some other, more vital drug violates his religious beliefs, such as HIV medications, should he be allowed to do so? It may be rare that no other pharmacy is available, but it does happen, and an arrangement needs to be made so that, even in those cases, no one is denied their medically necessary treatment because of the politics of their pharmacist. Again, it’s up to the owner of the pharmacy. HIV medications can be ordered online, through the doctors office, or another pharmacy. > [@Miller](#): > > Second: rape. A raped women doesn’t have a responsibility to foresee herself being raped, so I have no problem requiring it in this case. However, it’s highly unlikely that a raped women has access to only one pharmacy. Likely she will be in the hospital undergoing a rape kit, and there is most likely going to be someone there to give her the pill. > [@Boyo Jim](#): > > Would you have problems with a pharmacist refusing to sell condoms or contraceptive pills? There is no difference other than when you use it. Plan B does not involve even a theoretical abortion, like RU486. If you are pregnant when you take it, you stay pregnant. > > Cite. No problems, again assuming the employer is ok with it. Condoms and contraceptive pills are easily obtainable through the internet, or through your doctors office. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/88 "2007-07-27T02:24:24Z")
[QUOTE=ladyfoxfyre] And I’m sure you’ll be the first to pop in to cite where refusing to fill a prescription on moral grounds is in violation of state pharmacy laws, since nobody has so far. [/QUOTE] Nope, actually, I will. Illinois’ [Pharmacy Practice Act](http://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1318&ChapAct=225%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B85%2F&ChapterID=24&ChapterName=PROFESSIONS+AND+OCCUPATIONS&ActName=Pharmacy+Practice+Act+of+1987%2E) states that a pharmacist’s license may be revoked for: > [@](#): > > 1. Failing to sell or dispense any drug, medicine, > or poison in good faith. “Good faith”, for the purposes of this Section, has the meaning ascribed to it in subsection (u) of Section 102 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act. While for some ogforsaken reason, I can’t seem to locate the Illinois Controlled Substance Act, much of the same language is contained in [SB0100](http://www.ilga.gov/large/leg95/09500sb0100.htm) > [@](#): > > “Good faith” means the prescribing or dispensing of a > 20 controlled substance by a practitioner in the regular course of > 21 professional treatment to or for any person who is under his > 22 treatment for a pathology or condition other than that > 23 individual’s physical or psychological dependence upon or > 24 addiction to a controlled substance, except as provided herein: > 25 and application of the term to a pharmacist shall mean the > 26 dispensing of a controlled substance pursuant to the > > ``` > SB0100 - 804 - LRB095 03581 DRJ 24845 b > > ``` > > 1 prescriber’s order which in the professional judgment of the > 2 pharmacist is lawful. The pharmacist shall be guided by > 3 accepted professional standards including, but not limited to > 4 the following, in making the judgment: > 5 (1) lack of consistency of doctor-patient > 6 relationship, > 7 (2) frequency of prescriptions for same drug by one > 8 prescriber for large numbers of patients, > 9 (3) quantities beyond those normally prescribed, > 10 (4) unusual dosages, > 11 (5) unusual geographic distances between patient, > 12 pharmacist and prescriber, > 13 (6) consistent prescribing of habit-forming drugs. It appears that some pharmacists have illegally and unethically tried to circumvent this law by lying to customers and telling them the drug is out of stock. Our governor was not pleased. He [made a law](http://www.pharmacytimes.com/Article.cfm?ID=3294&Menu=1) which states that every pharmacy has to post written information about patient’s rights to medication and professionalism. They’re in every pharmacy now (that article is about a year old.) [Here’s a pdf of the sign.](http://www.healthcareconsumers.org/EC/press_conference/SIGN.PDF) ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/89 "2007-07-27T02:40:17Z")
Interesting, but the quoted requirements under the “good faith” clause only constitute legality in dispensing, not in refusing to dispense. The pharmacist’s license may be revoked, but he hasn’t violated any law. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/90 "2007-07-27T02:46:34Z")
I searched around and found this interesting pdf, [http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/8-2005\_Don’tTakeNo.pdf](http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/8-2005_Don'tTakeNo.pdf) but even that says: “Three states explicitly require pharmacists or pharmacies to fill prescriptions. On April 1, 2005, prompted by several refusal incidents, the governor of Illinois issued an emergency rule to make it clear that pharmacies in that state must fill valid prescriptions for contraception, including EC, without delay.” but also: “Four states—Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota—have passed laws or regulations explicitly allowing a pharmacist the right to refuse to fill prescriptions based on his or her religious, moral or personal beliefs or protecting a pharmacist from adverse employment action for doing so.” and: “While not binding as law, at a minimum, national and state policy statements and guidance provide some notice to pharmacists of what is expected of them when serving the public.” So this document that advocates how patients can combat this sort of behavior even points out that there aren’t any national laws that are binding which punish pharmacists for refusing a prescription, and only a handful of states have enacted legislation that has been targeted as a response to these kinds of issues. Thank you for the information though, **WhyNot** 😉 ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/91 "2007-07-27T02:48:22Z")
[QUOTE=ladyfoxfyre] Interesting, but the quoted requirements under the “good faith” clause only constitute legality in dispensing, not in refusing to dispense. The pharmacist’s license may be revoked, but he hasn’t violated any law. [/QUOTE] Sorry for the repeated posts, I just realized how stupid this sounds. Of course he has violated the law, that’s why his license can be revoked. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/92 "2007-07-27T02:48:26Z")
IANALawyer, and I am hesitant to interpret these rules, but here they are [Here (pages 76-79) are the WA state requirements](https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/hpqa1/Publications/documents/credentialing_handbook.pdf) for a pharmacist and pharmacist’s assistance to obtain and maintain a state license. There is no requirement whatsoever that states a pharmacist must fill all prescriptions to get or keep their license. Which means whatever penalties there may be for refusing a prescription, it would apparently not involve revoking an individual’s license. It is difficult for me to imagine refusal could be considered a form of malpractice, as it is a refusal to practice rather than practicing incorrectly. OTOH, [the WA state pharmacy board shall:](http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.64.005) > [@](#): > > (7) Promulgate rules for the dispensing, distribution, wholesaling, and manufacturing of drugs and devices and the practice of pharmacy for the protection and promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare. Violation of any such rules shall constitute grounds for refusal, suspension, or revocation of licenses or any other authority to practice issued by the board; So, apparently the board would indeed have the power to institute rules for revocation of licenses for refusal to fill prescriptions. AFAICT, they have not yet chosen to do so. [Here](https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/hpqa1/HPS4/Pharmacy/default.htm) is the WA state Board of Pharmacy’s “Rules of Parmacist’s Responsibility”. The relevant text is: > [@](#): > > A pharmacist shall not delegate the following:… (j) Decision to not dispense lawfully prescribed drugs or devices or to not distribute drugs and devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for restricted distribution by pharmacies. It sounds to me as if the pharmacists would be in a better position to refuse to sell Plan B if it were totally unrestricted. OTOH, it also sounds like a rather meaningless statement – it does affix responsibility of refusal on pharmacists, but doesn’t actually deny them the right to do so. It read it as an attempt to open up refusing pharmacists to liability lawsuite, but IANALawyer. Maybe I am misreading it. [Here](https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/hpqa1/HPS4/Pharmacy/documents/WAC246-869-010.pdf) are the WA Board’s rules for the responibility of pharmacies. I am going to quote this in it’s entirety: > [@](#): > > [1] OTS-9364.3 > NEW SECTION > WAC 246-869-010 Pharmacies’ responsibilities. (1) > Pharmacies have a duty to deliver lawfully prescribed drugs or > devices to patients and to distribute drugs and devices approved > by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for restricted > distribution by pharmacies, or provide a therapeutically > equivalent drug or device in a timely manner consistent with > reasonable expectations for filling the prescription, except for > the following or substantially similar circumstances: > (a) Prescriptions containing an obvious or known error, > inadequacies in the instructions, known contraindications, or > incompatible prescriptions, or prescriptions requiring action in > accordance with WAC 246-875-040. > (b) National or state emergencies or guidelines affecting > availability, usage or supplies of drugs or devices; > (c) Lack of specialized equipment or expertise needed to > safely produce, store, or dispense drugs or devices, such as > certain drug compounding or storage for nuclear medicine; > (d) Potentially fraudulent prescriptions; or > (e) Unavailability of drug or device despite good faith > compliance with WAC 246-869-150. > (2) Nothing in this section requires pharmacies to deliver > a drug or device without payment of their usual and customary or > contracted charge. > (3) If despite good faith compliance with WAC 246-869-150, > the lawfully prescribed drug or device is not in stock, or the > prescription cannot be filled pursuant to subsection (1)(a) of > this section, the pharmacy shall provide the patient or agent a > timely alternative for appropriate therapy which, consistent > with customary pharmacy practice, may include obtaining the drug > or device. These alternatives include but are not limited to: > (a) Contact the prescriber to address concerns such as > those identified in subsection (1)(a) of this section or to > obtain authorization to provide a therapeutically equivalent > product; > (b) If requested by the patient or their agent, return > unfilled lawful prescriptions to the patient or agent; or > (c) If requested by the patient or their agent, communicate > or transmit, as permitted by law, the original prescription > information to a pharmacy of the patient’s choice that will fill > the prescription in a timely manner. > (4) Engaging in or permitting any of the following shall > constitute grounds for discipline or other enforcement actions: > [2] OTS-9364.3 > (a) Destroy unfilled lawful prescription. > (b) Refuse to return unfilled lawful prescriptions. > (c) Violate a patient’s privacy. > (d) Discriminate against patients or their agent in a > manner prohibited by state or federal laws. > (e) Intimidate or harass a patient. Combined, this sounds to me like the Board is saying The Pharmacy has an obligation to make any legal drug available, but individual pharmacists don’t have an individual professional obligation to do so. I wonder what all this means in practice? It does seem to suggest that a pharmacy has a duty to provide SOMEONE who will fill any legal prescription. And it implies that they may have an obligation to discipline or fire a pharmacist if the individual refusal to practice results in a failure on the business’s part. I’b be very interested in other interpretations of these rules. I don’t have a great deal of confidene in my own. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/93 "2007-07-27T03:08:39Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] Isn’t that a bad comparison, though? In the above case, that’s discrimination. The fire department is refusing to provide the service to one group of people that they provide to everyone else. In this case, the pharmicists in question are refusing to sell the product to anyone. [/quote] Granted, it’s not quite the same thing, but I still see it as a form of discrimination. The pharmacist is providing their service to some people (i.e., “That person got their codeine, and that person got their insulin.”), but denying it from others - based solely on their beliefs. I think that it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to expect society to be tolerant of their personal beliefs. I think it’s completely _un_reasonable for someone to force another person to bend over backwards to accommodate those beliefs. If you have a set of beliefs that you strictly adhere to, then you should be fully prepared to make sacrifices for living your life while accommodating those beliefs. Hoisting those sacrifices off on some random person is silly. > [@mswas](#): > > Forcing someone to violate their morals is repulsive. Not as repulsive as forcing someone to accommodate someone else’s morals. > [@mswas](#): > > Why do you think that someone should be forced to be complicit in what they see as the murder of an infant? I didn’t realize pharmacists were forced into their profession at gunpoint. > [@mswas](#): > > I think it’s interesting that people see a person who won’t murder an infant as a villain here. I don’t care how high of a pedestal you place yourself on - you have no right to force your beliefs on me or anyone else. As soon as you do that, you need to acknowledge that you’ve become a villain. > [@mswas](#): > > I don’t think the pharmacist should seek another job, the person should seek another pharmacist. Let the market decide. It’s the pharmacist’s beliefs, so they should be the one making the sacrifice. > [@treis](#): > > Sex involves responsibility. Part of that responsibility is ensuring that an unwanted pregnancy doesn’t occur. Accepting a job involves responsibility. If you can’t handle those responsibilities, then don’t accept the job. > [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > I do however believe that they should have the right to decide whether that access is from them personally. They already exercised their right to decide. Now their wanting to call “backsies”. > [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > My point was that the people who are advocating that we tie the hands of pharmacists and make them simply tools of what’s written on a prescription pad, so we can punish the people who have BAD judgment, you’re denying them every element of professional judgment that I feel they’ve worked hard to earn. Noone is taking away the pharmacist’s ability to discuss the prescription with the patient’s doctor. But that’s not what they want. They want to use their position to deny _the prescribing doctor_ the element of professional judgment that _they_ worked so hard for. > [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > But simply the objection to filling the prescription is not an inherently evil act. Agreed - they can object all they want, as long as they fill the prescription. > [@treis](#): > > A raped women doesn’t have a responsibility to foresee herself being raped, so I have no problem requiring it in this case. So, the pharmacist shouldn’t be forced to fill the prescription against their morals, _except in some cases_? Just how strong are these morals, anyway? LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/94 "2007-07-27T03:45:02Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Already dismissed [in this post.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8820411&postcount=24) [/QUOTE] Drive to the next town. I don’t think a pharmacist has a moral obligation to save you from your sexual proclivities. Is there a law in Washington that says that pharmacists have to sell every drug that they possibly can? It’s not fair to tell someone that spent years in school and has built their business over the years that suddenly because of the development of this drug that removes the consequences of your hedonism, that they have to choose between their business and their morality. It’s funny how often this board will throw out religious freedom over some current cause celebre. Of course you’ll say, “He can have all the freedom he wants, if he’s willing to abandon his livelihood.”, which of course Jesus would completely agree with, but I don’t see why the right of someone to fuck without protection trumps the right of a Catholic to be a pharmacist. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/95 "2007-07-27T03:50:23Z")
[QUOTE=LilShieste] Not as repulsive as forcing someone to accommodate someone else’s morals. [/quote] No one’s forcing anyone, take your business elsewhere. > [@](#): > > I didn’t realize pharmacists were forced into their profession at gunpoint. They chose what they thought was an honorable profession. I don’t understand why people here think that a pharmacist should give up his profession so that someone doesn’t have to drive to the next town to get their retroactive contraception. > [@](#): > > I don’t care how high of a pedestal you place yourself on - you have no right to force your beliefs on me or anyone else. As soon as you do that, you need to acknowledge that you’ve become a villain. No one is forcing anyone, they can take their business elsewhere. > [@](#): > > It’s the pharmacist’s beliefs, so they should be the one making the sacrifice. Right, give up the career you built for years so that someone doesn’t need to shop elsewhere. > [@](#): > > Accepting a job involves responsibility. If you can’t handle those responsibilities, then don’t accept the job. This drug didn’t exist when most of them accepted the job. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/96 "2007-07-27T04:15:38Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] This drug didn’t exist when most of them accepted the job. [/QUOTE] Whatever the validity of your other points, this one does not obtain. Pharmacists know, becuase it’s their _profession_ that new drugs are coming out all the time. It’s not a surprise to them. Professional education is _inherent_ in the job - they _must_ study new drugs to be able to meet their professional obligations. It’s immaterial whether or not the drug existed when they chose to go to school, it exists _now_, and is part of their professional domain. ---
**Author:** ![LilShieste](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9f8e36/32.png) [@LilShieste](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LilShieste)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/97 "2007-07-27T04:19:56Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] No one’s forcing anyone, take your business elsewhere. [/quote] It’s _your_ morals, so _you_ deal with them. In a way that doesn’t impact the rest of the world. > [@mswas](#): > > They chose what they thought was an honorable profession. It _is_ an honorable profession. IMO, they’re tarnishing the profession by leaking their beliefs into the mix. > [@mswas](#): > > I don’t understand why people here think that a pharmacist should give up his profession so that someone doesn’t have to drive to the next town to get their retroactive contraception. I don’t understand why some people think that it’s OK for someone to force their beliefs on someone else. I despise cigarettes. I believe people are slowly killing themselves with the things. I don’t go around knocking cigarettes out of people’s mouths, though. > [@mswas](#): > > No one is forcing anyone, they can take their business elsewhere. As has been mentioned countless times already - they can’t always take their business elsewhere. These pharmacists, however, can quit their jobs at any time. > [@mswas](#): > > Right, give up the career you built for years so that someone doesn’t need to shop elsewhere. For people who sought to join an “honorable profession”, they sure seem a bit preoccupied with their own well being. Nevermind the fact that they’re turning their backs on the very people they’re supposed to be helping. > [@mswas](#): > > This drug didn’t exist when most of them accepted the job. Something that they should have been prepared for. Any pharmacist that doesn’t expect new drugs to constantly be developed should simply not be a pharmacist. LilShieste ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/98 "2007-07-27T04:20:16Z")
[QUOTE=Tranquilis] Whatever the validity of your other points, this one does not obtain. Pharmacists know, becuase it’s their _profession_ that new drugs are coming out all the time. It’s not a surprise to them. Professional education is _inherent_ in the job - they _must_ study new drugs to be able to meet their professional obligations. It’s immaterial whether or not the drug existed when they chose to go to school, it exists _now_, and is part of their professional domain. [/QUOTE] Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![drachillix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/48db29/32.png) [@drachillix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drachillix)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/99 "2007-07-27T04:40:02Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] It’s funny how often this board will throw out religious freedom over some current cause celebre. Of course you’ll say, “He can have all the freedom he wants, if he’s willing to abandon his livelihood.”, which of course Jesus would completely agree with, but I don’t see why the right of someone to fuck without protection trumps the right of a Catholic to be a pharmacist. [/QUOTE] Part of the basis for why discrimination is illegal is that your race, religion, or sexual orientation should have no impact on your ability to do your job. When you put it in the way of your job, you are begging to get it run over. Some of our people at the book warehouse I worked in had issues with Harry Potter to the point of refusing to handle that inventory. This ran up the chain of command and right back down with basically, you are getting paid to pack boxes of books, not make moral judgements about the content. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2007, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277/100 "2007-07-27T04:40:33Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] Drive to the next town. I don’t think a pharmacist has a moral obligation to save you from your sexual proclivities. Is there a law in Washington that says that pharmacists have to sell every drug that they possibly can? [/quote] I have no idea, but I would suggest they should do. Of course, this isn’t really workable in practice, but I would have no trouble with a law mandating the selling of certain items, of which birth control pills and the like would be included. > [@](#): > > It’s funny how often this board will throw out religious freedom over some current cause celebre. Cite examples, please. And yes, i’m serious. > [@](#): > > Of course you’ll say, “He can have all the freedom he wants, if he’s willing to abandon his livelihood.”, which of course Jesus would completely agree with, but I don’t see why the right of someone to fuck without protection trumps the right of a Catholic to be a pharmacist. And you’re a sick bastard who wants raped women to carry their babies to term, living forever with a child that reminds them of their trauma. Now that we’ve got pointless emotional language out of the way, let’s try talking seriously, shall we? I would point out that condoms and the like _can_ break, at times, and the point made earlier by others that pills can be time-sensitive. I’d also point out that one “right” doesn’t trump the other, since the Catholic is perfectly free to be a pharmacist; it means, rather, that he will no longer want that job. Oh dear, I feel sarcasm coming on. I take it that you’re equally against all the jobs involved in the death penalty, since a pro-life person couldn’t take them. I’m guessing likewise that all slaughterhouse jobs’ll have to have their animal-killing part removed, since Buddhists couldn’t do them, and their rights to perform that job must be maintained. Leatherworking? Dairy processing? There’s all those vegans who wouldn’t do those jobs, so we’ll just take out the animal-parts-handling so their right to do the job isn’t affected. No more killing for the military. Don’t even get me started on the gambling industry. We’ll be lowering the age requirements for being in governmental jobs, so as not to interfere with the rights of young people to be President. I’m sure you have taken your views to their logical conclusion, such as it is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-wa-pharmacists-want-to-continue-forcing-their-morality-on-customers/413277.md?page=6)