Sorta, but not. And I think the “but not” is the important part. There are Roman Catholics who would be okay with handing over Plan B. There are (I can imagine) atheists who wouldn’t. So, rather than asking what a person’s religion is, and discriminating based on what you assume that says about them, Auntbeast’s question is much more useful and to the point. I’d tweak it even a little further: is there anything about your moral, ethical, physical, spiritual, or mental status which would make it impossible for you to perform your job duties, including filling any legally prescribed prescriptions? Religion doesn’t have to be a consideration, but the person’s willingness/ability to do the job I’m hiring them for should.
I think that’s a completely ridiculous point (conscription?), so you can argue if you want. I think I’ll continue deciding for myself how best to advocate my point, thanks.
I DON’T get to decide what his job is; his job is to dispense medications as prescribed, in the absence of sound medical reasons not to. That’s what a pharmacist does, and so that is the job I expect him to do without interposing his own morality between me and my doctor in a way that is obviously to my detriment. If you can’t do your job, find another one.
In general, I agree with you. People should have the right to refuse to do business when they wish. But I also feel that there are some professions that rise above this standard and should have a duty to help any customer who needs their service. Most of the obvious examples are goverment service occupations - law enforcement, firefighting, teaching, etc - they cannot simply decide they don’t want to do their job because they personally don’t like somebody or something. Health care is unusual because it’s not a government service but I feel it belongs in the same category; a doctor, a nurse, or a pharmacist should not be able to turn away a patient in reasonable need when they have the capacity to help them.
I completely agree - I’m just saying that it’s walking a fine line. 
LilShieste
What would be people’s (here and in general) responses if it was a Scientology pharmacist, who was refusing to dispense psychiatric drugs? My guess is that the combination of a non-mainstream religion with a pretty much non-controversial condition would mean that popular sentiment would swing widely towards requiring that the drugs be made available.
How about this: A pharmacist doesn’t have to dispense a drug they object to. The pharmacy, as part of their license, has to be sure that someone is able to dispense it. If the pharmacy is large enough to have 2 pharmacist on duty, or is willing to hire a second one, then fine and dandy. If the pharmacy decides that the market doesn’t justify paying 2 pharmacists, then let the market forces prevail. No one is required to do anything they object to, market forces get to run their course.
And yet you do it anyway, to wit…
Unless you are his employer, I don’t think you get to decide what his job is. And frankly, I think some people might be put off by the notion of allowing him to make medical decisions. Whatever he may be, he’s certainly not a doctor.
WTF? Are you truly unaware of the general job requirements of a pharmacist? How about a plumber? Do you find that equally confusing? How about a firefighter? In the dark on that one, too?
Holy shit, the willful obtuseness around here really frosts my shorts sometimes.
They are, however, supposedly experts in drugs. I would expect my pharmacist to tell me that two drugs would interfere with one another, for one specific medical reason.
Yes, I have a habit of that. 
Because the pharmacist doesn’t have any power over what the woman does, and cannot prevent her from seeking Plan B somewhere else. If he does try (by tearing up the script or physically restraining her or whatever), then he is certainly interfering with her private decision.
What he does have is power over his own actions - he can choose whether or not to assist her. Roe v. Wade allows him to decide this (regarding his own actions), in the special case of abortion.
But the pharmacist cannot compel the woman not to use Plan B; that is not his right. In much the same way, the woman cannot compel the pharmacist to assist her, any more than she could compel a doctor to perform an abortion against his will. Everyone gets to decide, in other words, for him- or herself, and not at all for anyone else.
You don’t want to have an abortion? Fine, you don’t have to have one, or assist with one. You do want to have an abortion? Fine, you don’t get to overrule those who disagree with you.
The right to control your own body (in the special case of abortion) is not to be trumped by anyone else - and that right includes having an abortion performed on you, or using your body to perform an abortion on someone else.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s just a simple matter of these people misreading the job description. It said, “Prepare and dispense drugs and provide information if needed”, and they thought it said, “Be a sanctimonious asshole and force my beliefs on other people”.
Stopping a pregnancy is qualitatively different from treating an illness for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum.
Not necessarily correct in every case. If the Dr. is willing to prescribe it, why not dispense it as well. Is a Dr. required to prescribe it?
:rolleyes: My setting myself up as arbiter of moral purity is no different from you setting yourself up as arbiter of moral purity. We are arguing conflicting moral positions, don’t get too full of yourself here. Your medical care IS in fact my business if you want me to be your vendor, quite literally.
I would assume a hospital would have stricter codes about this than an individual pharmacist.
You want someone else to provide the solution to your problem, without having a choice in the matter. You should be free to fuck how you want, and when you want and society should embrace it and enable your behavior, is what you are saying.
It is to you, you mean. And for the upteenth time, this isn’t “stopping a pregnancy,” it’s “preventing a pregnancy.” Do you only get treated for “illnesses” and not for other medical conditions? Enjoy your jock itch!
Because generally speaking, doctors do not have the training, resources, time, or inclination to dispense meds. That’s what we have pharmacists for.
I am not inquiring into your social behaviors or presumed “sins” or “irresponsibility.” I am asking you to do your job, period. I’m asking you to do it the same way for every person who comes to you with a valid prescription, regardless of who they are, what they’ve done, or what the prescription is for, because those things are none of your business. YOU want to premise doing your job on judging the clients; do not presume to tell me that what we are asking for is the same thing, because that is unadulterated horseshit.
What is the basis for this assuption? And why didn’t you answer any of the questions you cut and pasted?
Holy shit, do you not see how intrusive and, more than that, prurient is the obsession over whether people are “fucking”? You sound like an unwanted pregnancy is a punishment that should be visited on a woman for her unchastity – because if she is allowed to avoid (not terminate) a pregnancy, well then society must be “embracing” and “enabling” fornication (which, y’know, God forbid). It’s the obsession over the sexual that creeps into these discussions that makes them so, well, creepy.
And don’t tell me what I’m saying, okay? If you have difficulty with any of my statements let me know and I’ll clarify, but I’ll choose how to phrase them.
Halfway. To be frank, I think that I should be free to fuck whenever and however I want, and society (aside from my partner) should have jack shit to say about it. I don’t expect society to “embrace and enable” the behavior; neither do I expect society to try to prevent it.
As far as dealing with the consequences of that behavior - emergency contraception is one of the many tools for doing just that. I expect “society” not to stand in my way when I choose to use a legal tool for its intended purpose.
Jodi, I really do think your argument would be more coherent if it weren’t so coy. Your premises compel you to conclude that a central authority (or committee of authorities) ought to determine what pharmacists must do irrespective of what their employers may think. You posited that a pharmacist ought to dispense whatever he is told to by a doctor, tempered by the exercize of his own medical judgment. There is no way to make that happen universally without the coercion of a central authority. If that isn’t the argument you wish to make, then you should modify your premises.
I think the impasse here is that we see “coercion” as originating from two different points. To you, coercion is the state (“central authority”) setting scope of practice, job duties and licensing requirements. To Jodi (and I), coercion would be the state telling a 16 year old, “You will study and become a pharmacist, whether you like it or not.” If a person has the free choice of whether or not to enter that profession (knowing that there are state licensure laws outlining the job duties of that profession), then there is no coercion, only legally enforced guidelines he or she has, by virtue of choosing the field as a whole and retail pharmacy in particular, freely *chosen *to adhere to.
(Jodi, correct me if I’m wrong here. I don’t mean to put words into your mouth.)
That’s how I see it, too. Allowing pharmacists to cite religious reasons for not filling a prescription was the proverbial camel putting its nose in the tent IMO. Now there has been a pharmacist who refused to fill an antibiotic script because it came from an abortion clinic. What next?
But you’re leaving out the employer. Can you explain on Jodi’s behalf why the employer should not decide what his pharmacist will do?
The employer has to follow the law, or pay the penalty I would think.
Yes. A pharmacy is also voluntarily bound by state licensure laws, including laws saying that they will ensure their pharmacists follow their licensure laws. Pharmacies are licensed themselves, not just the pharmacists within them. And just like the pharmacist, the pharmacy owner chose to open a store which would be bound by licensing regulations instead of a store selling greeting cards and cola. Same argument as before: if the state forced you to open a pharmacy, it would be coercion. Since they don’t, and the laws are in place before anyone decides to open a pharmacy, anyone who chooses to open a pharmacy is freely choosing to be bound by those licensure requirements.
But you’re begging the question. You’re deciding what the law should be and then forcing both the pharmacist and the employer to follow it. You’re doing what I told Jodi she should be advocating — a fiat definition from central planners with coercive powers to enforce it.
Now, you say that if people don’t want to be government defined pharmacists, they don’t have to be, and that’s true (at least for now). And we won’t bother speculating about the unintended consequences of legislated definitions for things like work and marriage. But what about pharmacists and employers already in place? Are you willing to make your central plan apply only to new businesses?