Some WA pharmacists want to continue forcing their morality on customers

The BBQ Pit
161

[QUOTE=Liberal]
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?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think the question is a logical one. The number one job of pharmacists has always been to dispense legally prescribed drug, and they have, for any currently working pharmacist’s career span, always been licensed. They have other duties, like checking for interactions, patient education, screening for drug abuse. But the raison d’être for a pharmacy is now, and has always been, to fill prescriptions and sell medications. Not a single pharmacist now alive and working began his/her schooling under any other impression. I think. If you can find a state that wasn’t licensing before, say, 1962*, then yes, I will amend my stance to only apply to pharmacists who began their schooling after that date or pharmacies which opened after that time.

Although, as has been said several times, there are branches of pharmacy which don’t require the sale of controversial drugs. There’s research, there’s nursing homes, there are hospitals (where there’s always another pharmacist on duty to do what you don’t want to), there’s teaching…there are plenty of options and freedoms available.

Now, if you’re proposing we do away with licensure of pharmacists altogether, that’s a whole different kettle of cod. But then it’s you, not Jodi, who needs to be clearer on where you’re coming from. Licensure is the status quo, and any discussion of pharmacy includes licensure as a given.

*This is 45 years ago - I’m assuming a pharmacist beginning pharmacy school at 20, now reaching retirement age.

162

Out of interest, I have a question. Say that in a particular pharmacy one of the pharmacists refuses to give out birth control pills, but his co-worker is happy to. If someone goes into the pharmacy and asks the first guy for some pills, should he indicate that the other guy will help them? I mean, would it be reasonable for them to just say “No, i’m sorry, I won’t serve you” and not mention that the other person will?

I suppose that seems like the best way to go about things; have at least one person on staff who’s willing to give out any prescriptions patients come in with.

163

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Now, if you’re proposing we do away with licensure of pharmacists altogether, that’s a whole different kettle of cod. But then it’s you, not Jodi, who needs to be clearer on where you’re coming from. Licensure is the status quo, and any discussion of pharmacy includes licensure as a given.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know why you would think that. I’m not even arguing my own position. I’m taking the licenses as a given. I’ve stipulated that they are a part of Jodi’s premise. That’s one of the things that central planners do — they issue licenses. I think it’s sort of like Churchill’s whore: we’ve already determined what we’re talking about; we’re just trying to decide the price. What I’m saying is that you (or Jodi) want the license to force the pharmacist to dispense whatever a doctor says to dispense, tempered by the pharmacist’s own medical judgment. (You can scroll back a few posts to find her assertion to that effect.) But then, after deciding what the license will require, you want all pharmacists to do as you say even though they were doing business before you tacked on your newest requirement. I’ve already made it clear (and you really should know anyway) that I find the whole thing absurd, from imposing your own morality on the pharmacist (and his employer) to expecting him to make medical decisions. But I’m not even pursuing that argument. I’m just asking Jodi (and you, I guess) to call it straight. It isn’t just a license. It’s a license that enforces your own plan over the plan of the pharmacist himself.

164

Why is it bad when the government tells a pharmacist what to do, but not bad when the pharmacist tells the patient what to do?

165

I believe they are merely clarifying and backing up pre-existing rules, not making up new ones.

166

[QUOTE=mswas]
I think that the right to freedom of moral belief trumps the right of a person to not have to deal with the consequences of their actions, regardless of their economic situation.
[/quote]

Ever consider that the above is none of your motherfucking business?

:dubious:
Imagine that! It’s NOT for you to decide whether or not someone “engaging in risky behavor”, or if “having unprotected sex.” “Consequences of their own actions” my ass. You do NOT have the right to make that judgment.

Asshole.

167

[QUOTE=Liberal]
It’s a license that enforces your own plan over the plan of the pharmacist himself.
[/QUOTE]
But the license itself is a form of coercion against those who would compete with the pharmacist. It’s not worth it for me to go get a pharmacist & pharmacy license just to sell Plan B. However, if no license were required and the local pharmacy decided to be judgemental asses, then I could order a couple of cases and sell it out of the house.

The pharmacist has accepted coercion on his behalf to protect his investment, now he has to pay society back.

168

[QUOTE=Jodi]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Consider the source.

It’s Liberal. He’d consider traffic laws a violation of someone’s freedom to travel as they see fit.

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Yes, I have a habit of that. :smiley:
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.
[/quote]

No cite at the moment, but IIRC, there have been cases of pharmacists refusing to hand back said scrips for medications they object to.

169

[QUOTE=Liberal]
I’m just asking Jodi (and you, I guess) to call it straight. It isn’t just a license. It’s a license that enforces your own plan over the plan of the pharmacist himself.
[/QUOTE]

But…but…that’s what a professional license IS. It’s issued after you agree to abide by the terms of a set of laws called an Act (“The Pharmacy Act”, “The Acupuncture Act”, etc.) which stipulates A) the requirements to use that professional title and do that job (schooling, testing, fees, application process, B) the job duties of the profession, C) the “no-no’s” of the profession which will result in license revocation, D) the formation, rules and voting rights of any board governing the profession, E) the requirements for license renewal (continuing ed, renewal fee, renewal dates, F) protected vocabulary (that is, what terms relevant to the profession may not be used by a person not holding a license in their advertising or signage)

I mean, what did you think a license was? A library card? A certificate that you went to school? No, it’s essentially a contract between the state and the individual, stipulating what the person holding it has to know, do and not do in order to be allowed to do their work in your state, as well as what the state will do in return to protect that person’s livelihood from unqualified scammers. A contract which, yes, is mandatory in order to work in the profession, but is no shock to anyone coming out of pharmacy school.

I realize I probably know more about professional licensing than the average Joanna (because I’ve paid close attention to the formation of two new licenses in Illinois in the last 5 years because they had an impact on my professional life - acupuncture and massage) but I’m surprised that this is such a foreign concept.

170

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Ever consider that the above is none of your motherfucking business?

:dubious:
Imagine that! It’s NOT for you to decide whether or not someone “engaging in risky behavor”, or if “having unprotected sex.” “Consequences of their own actions” my ass. You do NOT have the right to make that judgment.

Asshole.
[/QUOTE]

Well. Shit. Um…Damn good post, my dear.

/end Info targeted at Guin

My last post in this thread did not mention my judgement on what these pharmacists are doing, but not only did I like the quotes quoted, I certainly liked the response. i.e. Nice Post!

Get yer fuckin’ claws off my ovaries. I swear to fucking all things holy that if Plan B made a guys dick hard as a side effect, no one would say a fucking word.

I believe the phrase I grew up with was “Free, White and 14” Which is inaccurate in this day and age, but god damn it. I’m a grown woman. Lay off the fucking idle speculation about why a woman may need it.

Because her doctor said so.

It isn’t just about rape, bad choices, promiscuity, broken condoms, antibiotic reaction, etc. I can tell you about the girl I work with who has some odd disease that if she gets pregnant again, she will either be paralyzed for life, or die. But you know what? It’s none of anyones god damned business. It is NOT an abortifacent.

god damn it, fucking bullshit. GET OFF MY OVARIES. Want to get on your high fucking moral horse and make a decision that WILL change my life but have no real impact on yours? fuckyoufuckyoufuckyou.

If my job (poker dealer) suddenly required me to kill someone every 183 days and that was not a part of my job when I was hired, you can bet your sweet ass either I would find another job, or get happy if I could pick the targets.

Get the fuck out of the fucking pharmacy. Do they use the Hippocratic Oath also? First Do No Harm! Not “first do no harm unless I can impose my arbitrary morals on my customers.” It is arbitrary, by the way. If they are basing their decision on being “pro-life” or what-not, because evidently, they can decree a non-abortifacent is something it isn’t, what’s next? Not gonna fill pill prescriptions? Gonna make every guy gather up all his sperm and cryogenically preserve it because it has the “potential” for life? Gonna crawl up my tubes and milk eggs out of it so they don’t go to waste?

This pit conversation is entirely too fucking civil considering we are arguing about someone refusing to fill a prescription based on something IT DOES NOT DO and Does NOT have the capacity to do.

Fucking arbitrary fundamentalist bullshit.

171

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Ever consider that the above is none of your motherfucking business?

:dubious:
Imagine that! It’s NOT for you to decide whether or not someone “engaging in risky behavor”, or if “having unprotected sex.” “Consequences of their own actions” my ass. You do NOT have the right to make that judgment.

Asshole.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t have the right to make a moral judgment for the pharmacist either.

172

But what about the pharmacist in Washington who refused to fill a script for antibiotics because they come from a clinc that performs abortions?

Granted, the patient had likely had an abortion first. But at that point…it’s water under the bridge. You can’t retroactively make her pregnant again.

This seems like a relatively recent phenomenon - possibly amplified with the invention/spread of Plan B and its availability. I wonder if there was some sort of “memo” passed around conservative churches or something. Can someone shed some light on pharmacists’ refusal to fill prescriptions for BC or for abortion-related antibiotics after the years of “can’t take BC because you’re not married” and before the last ~5 years?

173

[QUOTE=WhyNot]
I realize I probably know more about professional licensing than the average Joanna (because I’ve paid close attention to the formation of two new licenses in Illinois in the last 5 years because they had an impact on my professional life - acupuncture and massage) but I’m surprised that this is such a foreign concept.
[/QUOTE]
On the off chance that you will stop pretending that I don’t know what you’re talking about, I’ll reiterate that I know what a license is, and that I am willing to stipulate having them. Once again, I’ll say that I’m not arguing my own point; rather, I’m trying to help you make yours coherent. And yet another time, I’ll point out that your argument imposes your plan — your morality — via the instrument of license on the pharmacist even if it wasn’t the terms by which he was licensed. Now, if you can show me that a pharmacist’s license currently requires him to (a) violate his own moral principles and (b) override a doctor’s medical decisions, then I’ll stand down. Otherwise, if you don’t get off the subject of what a license is, I can only conclude that the concepts of premise and conclusion are foreign to you. Two can play this game of “God, if only you weren’t so stupid, I could explain this to you,” but let’s don’t, okay? :slight_smile:

174

Liberal, laws and regulations change all the time. If you are a licensed professional, you understand that you will work under the rules surrounding your license and if those rules change, you will either change with them or get a new job, because that is the agreement you make when you become licensed.

We regulate underground storage tanks in our state. The laws are changing next year. If a tank owner does not want to abide by the new laws he can: pull his tanks or sell his business. What he cannot do is ignore the new rules. We sometimes have grandfather clauses that say you can continue xxx until yyy and then you will zzz. Not in this case though–pharmacists are expected to comply with the changing requirments of their licensing or to move on to a new profession. They have a board that worked with the state on these rules. They were not unrepresented. Now they have to suck it up and comply or fuck off to a new job. Simple as that.

175

[QUOTE=stretch]
Liberal, laws and regulations change all the time. If you are a licensed professional, you understand that you will work under the rules surrounding your license and if those rules change, you will either change with them or get a new job, because that is the agreement you make when you become licensed.
[/QUOTE]
I see, thank you. :slight_smile:

ETA:

While I have you as an authority, would you know whether a pharmacist’s license in particular forces him to violate his moral principles and to make medical evaluations that may override those of the prescribing doctor?

176

[QUOTE=Liberal]
Now, if you can show me that a pharmacist’s license currently requires him to (a) violate his own moral principles and (b) override a doctor’s medical decisions, then I’ll stand down.
[/QUOTE]

Huh? I already did that. Back in post 88 for IL. And Boyo Jim posted in post 92 for WA. No, I’m not going to look up every state’s licensing act for you.

And I DON’T want the license to require or allow, nor does it in the two states cited, for the pharmacist to “override a doctor’s medical decisions”, except in cases of dangerous drug interactions or suspicious drug-seeking behaviors - which are both clearly laid out in the Act. That’s sort of the whole point! (Although I will point out that for most of us, there is no “doctor’s medical decision” involved in choosing to use Plan B anymore - it’s non-prescription for all people over 18, remember?)

Both states do, however, require them to “violate [their] own moral principles”, if their moral principles lead them to block access to a drug on moral grounds. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along*. No one’s been “coy” about this for the whole thread.

*Well, after I got over that mental hiccup OneCentStamp threw my way. :wink: But **Jodi **was clear from her very first post that her logic goes: State says how you do your job, you accepted that with the job, you do what they say or you lose the privilege of doing the job. This is the *ethical *reason why a pharmacist should both fill the prescription and not block access to the drug (2 separate issues, as **ladyfoxfyre **wisely pointed out.) This is not the same as the moral reason why a pharmacist should or should not do the same - the *moral *reason is much stickier, and that’s what Guinastasia, AuntBeast, mswas. et al are arguing. That’s why several times it’s been pointed out that ethics and morals are not the same.

177

[QUOTE=Liberal]
On the off chance that you will stop pretending that I don’t know what you’re talking about, I’ll reiterate that I know what a license is, and that I am willing to stipulate having them. Once again, I’ll say that I’m not arguing my own point; rather, I’m trying to help you make yours coherent. And yet another time, I’ll point out that your argument imposes your plan — your morality — via the instrument of license on the pharmacist even if it wasn’t the terms by which he was licensed. Now, if you can show me that a pharmacist’s license currently requires him to (a) violate his own moral principles and (b) override a doctor’s medical decisions, then I’ll stand down. Otherwise, if you don’t get off the subject of what a license is, I can only conclude that the concepts of premise and conclusion are foreign to you. Two can play this game of “God, if only you weren’t so stupid, I could explain this to you,” but let’s don’t, okay? :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

Your personal morality is secondary to the good of the patient. Shall we start having ER docs refuse to treat injured/ill prostitutes because of their high risk behavior?

When you go into a medical feild, your race, religion, politics, and personal biases, get left in the locker room. If you can’t do that, you have little business in a medical field.

178

[QUOTE=Liberal]
even if it wasn’t the terms by which he was licensed.
[/QUOTE]

Terms of licensure are between the pharmacist and the state, not between the pharmacist and the patient.

179

[QUOTE=Liberal]
While I have you as an authority, would you know whether a pharmacist’s license in particular forces him to violate his moral principles and to make medical evaluations that may override those of the prescribing doctor?
[/QUOTE]
A pharmacist’s license requires him or her to dispense medications as prescribed by a doctor, with the responsibility to bring to the doctor’s attention any known adverse interactions or reactions. The licensing body does not care about a pharmacist’s morals–morals are not considered by licensing boards. What the board may concern itself with are the ethics of a situation. It is unethical to refuse to dispense medication that has been prescribed by a doctor, unless there is a known adverse interaction or reaction for that patient–in which case the ethics require the pharmacist to contact the prescribing physician and discuss the situation. Then if the physician says “Fill the prescription” the pharmacist is to do so.

180

That’s surprising. Many contracts have a morals clause that exempts all parties from violating their personal morals. Even the armed forces does not require a soldier to obey an order that he perceives as morally bereft. (He will be required to make an accounting for his decision, but still.)

Unfortunately for the left, if indeed a pharmacist may be forced to violate his moral principles, then the license could work just as well against them as for them. If Roe v Wade is overturned, for example, I suspect their argument will change. And in any case, your response does not indicate that a pharmacist may override a doctor’s medical evaluations.

That leaves Jodi with only the first part of her premise, namely that pharmacists may be coerced into violating their moral principles. She therefore still needs to advocate a central planning entity that coerces people into doing what they believe is morally wrong. She has not escaped the conclusions demanded by her assumptions.