# They're coming for your Plan-B **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2012, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711 "2012-02-23T06:24:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/401 "2012-03-04T20:21:35Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Both of these still rest on the idea that the pharmacist can not ethically deny care. The Wisconsin case states that the pharmacist was denying the dispensing and did not enable the patient to get care. The APhA guidelines explicitly state “In sum, APhA supports the ability of the pharmacist to step away, not in the way, and supports the establishment of an alternative system for delivery of patient care.” > So both agree that if you’re the only point of care and deny the medication, you are in violation. I personally disagree that they should be able to deny care at all. In violation of what? Not the law. Perhaps of the APhA’s code of ethics, which might be binding on their members but certainly no one else. Just like the Pharmacists for Life International code of ethics might be binding on their members, but no one else. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/402 "2012-03-05T01:53:42Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > So wait, you concede that we are in a stalemate about the law’s ruling on the issue, but I’m the one who is supposed to withdraw my statement? I’ve already demonstrated that judges have ruled that the refusal to dispense the medication is a violation of the professional ethics of the industry, which is what you asked me to do. A judge. And you certainly haven’t cited judges’ opinions form all states. I said that your statement is true only in some states, and not true in others. You are claiming its national applicability. So, yes, you are the one that has to withdraw your statement. > [@](#): > > Yes, I think it’s a universally applicable statement that refusing to provide legally prescribed medication to a patient due to the pharmacist’s religious objections is unethical, no matter what the law states. Just because some states have moved to protect pharmacists who want to continue doing that is not a convincing argument to me that the behavior is inherently ethical in the first place. I maintain that if the behavior were ethical in the first place, there would be no need to codify it to protect pharmacists who engage in that practice. How about the states that are silent on the issue? In those states, pharmacists are free to refuse Plan B, but didn’t take any steps to persuade anyone. What’s your basis for saying it’s unethical there? Again: how can you lay claim to being the only one here to define ethical behaviot? > [@](#): > > APhA has a [code of ethics](http://www.pharmacist.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search1&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2903) for pharmacists which talks extensively about the primary concern being the patient, some excerpts include: > > “A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient at the center of professional practice.” > “A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth” > “In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.” > “A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.” > “The primary obligation of a pharmacist is to individual patients.” > > Refusing to dispense a medication because of personal religious beliefs which are not grounded in science does not satisfy any of those obligations. Again, I await your response to the question of how factually based those objections have to be before being a valid reason for objection. Huh. None of those explicitly say that a pharmacist must dispense all legal medicines, though. You know why? I do. I guess you didn’t want to mention that the American Pharmacists Association also has an [explicit conscience clause](http://www.pharmacist.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Issues&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=86&ContentID=14490): > [@APhA website](#): > > The ability of health professionals to opt out of services they find personally objectionable is an important component of the health care system. APhA’s policy supports the ability of a pharmacist to opt out of dispensing a prescription or providing a service for personal reasons and also supports the establishment of systems so that the patient’s access to appropriate health care is not disrupted. I bet now the position of the APhA will be much less important than it was a minute ago. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/403 "2012-03-05T02:10:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A judge. And you certainly haven’t cited judges’ opinions form all states. > > I said that your statement is true only in some states, and not true in others. You are claiming its national applicability. So, yes, you are the one that has to withdraw your statement. I’m not arguing that the law states that it should be applicable nationwide. Clearly that isn’t the case. I’m arguing that the practice itself is unethical regardless of what the law states. > [@](#): > > How about the states that are silent on the issue? In those states, pharmacists are free to refuse Plan B, but didn’t take any steps to persuade anyone. What’s your basis for saying it’s unethical there? Again, legal is not ethical. They are free to do so, and in many states they are protected by the law, and I am still free to believe as many do that the practice is still unethical, even if it is not illegal. You wanted a cite demonstrating that someone felt the practice was unethical, so I provided a case where a pharmacist’s license was suspended because the judge ruled the behavior was contrary to the ethical code of pharmacists. My entire argument is not based on the legality of the behavior, I fully understand that conscience clauses have been enacted in many states. I don’t really care, because the ethical nature of the behavior it not determined by the legality. A pharmacist’s job is to provide care. If you’re refusing to dispense plan-b, you’re denying care to a patient at worst, or making it more difficult for her to obtain care at the least. That is unethical as far as how I view the responsibilities of the people working in my industry to be. > [@](#): > > Again: how can you lay claim to being the only one here to define ethical behaviot? We are here to debate these beliefs, so naturally I consider my position to be the correct one but in no way have I stated that I’m the only one to define ethical behavior. I believe it to be unethical and I have explained why. Because people in the health care industry have a higher obligation to provide care for patients. It’s not just a business decision, and we recognize that in other areas of the field (such as the hospital example given earlier). Because their objection is not grounded in scientific fact about what the medication actually does. Your response has been, “But, it’s not illegal”. We’re talking past eachother here. Tell me why you don’t think providers have an obligation to provide care. Or, why the personal moral considerations of the pharmacist should trump the patient’s autonomy or desire to obtain care. Anything besides “But, it’s not illegal”. > [@](#): > > Huh. None of those explicitly say that a pharmacist must dispense all legal medicines, though. > > You know why? I do. > > I guess you didn’t want to mention that the American Pharmacists Association also has an [explicit conscience clause](http://www.pharmacist.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Issues&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=86&ContentID=14490): > > I bet now the position of the APhA will be much less important than it was a minute ago. No, it is still relevant. Because the huge and overriding goal of that document is “PATIENT CARE IS PARAMOUNT”. It’s the case within the entire industry. Sometimes you work in industries where you have to do things that don’t jibe with your outlook on the world, or not what you would choose to do in a given set of circumstances. When you are providing medical care, and are aware that a certain aspect of your job would require you to provide a certain type of care (Plan-B, contraception) you are now voluntarily associating with an industry whose standards of practice expect for you to provide that care. If you aren’t interested in filling prescriptions, don’t be a pharmacist. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/404 "2012-03-05T06:48:11Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > :rolleyes: > Yeah, and if that doctor were refusing to provide treatment, his behavior would be unethical too. > If you’re not even going to pretend to be serious, or suggest analogies which are even remotely relevant to this situation, nobody is going to waste their time with you. A pharmacist is not a locksmith or a lawyer. Really? So if a doctor refused to perform an abortion, it would be unethical? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/405 "2012-03-05T06:49:48Z")
> [@curioushat](#): > > Please explain the irrelevancy. > > Here’s my analogy put in better terms. If I walked into the doctor’s office (only one in my town) and said: “Hey, I need an abortion, STAT!” And he replies “Sorry, we don’t perform abortions here, we don’t have the necessary equipment/training”, how is that unethical? > > The same is true for the pharmacists..?? They aren’t refusing the serve specific people, they just don’t carry Plan-B, period. Why is it relevant what the reasons are? It’s not a government agency, pharmacies are free to not stock whatever products they want. Take it a step further and the doctor DOES have the training and equipment to perform an abortion but only does so in the case of miscarriages? Can we make him perform abortions then? ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/406 "2012-03-05T07:59:48Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > You speak as if there is only one pharmacist who can fill your medicine just like their is only one county clerk that can provide you with a divorce form. The latter is a true monopoly and the former is not. > > If the Walgreen’s Pharmacy won’t stock Plan B, then go to the CVS that is on every other street corner in America. > > And before we go back down the road of the only pharmacy within light years and people too poor for a 50 cent bus ticket, I would really like an answer to the question I posed a couple of pages ago. > > How many raped and impregnated women last year were forced to get a traditional abortion or carry a child to term because the sole pharmacy they could get to refused to sell to them and they weren’t able to find it elsewhere within their budget? I feel that “conscience clauses” are a problem for women who live in remote areas with timely access to only one pharmacy. However, I’m even more worried that these clauses may become common in more states, and more pharmacists may choose to invoke those clauses and refuse to dispense Plan B, or oral contraceptives, or any other medicine that they decide they think is against their individual moral beliefs (remember, these conscience clauses are vague and could potentially be applied to more than just Plan B). So these arguments of “oh, come one, how many raped and impregnated women have no transportation and only live within 50 miles of one pharmacist” arguments are _not_ very persuasive for me. I think that if conscience clauses are accepted, then potentially women in more conservative areas might find that they _can’t_ just go down the street from CVS to Walgreens - what if the pharmacists at _multiple_ locations in town refuse to dispense? ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/407 "2012-03-05T10:38:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Did they? Do any states hand out only a fixed number of pharmacy licenses, like hte cab medallion system in New York City? > > If not, I don’t see how in the world they have moved into the doorway. Other pharmacists may serve that clientele. I don’t think the “they can get it someone else” argument holds water. It really doesn’t matter if a lady has to walk 5 steps or 500 miles to the next pharmacy. All other things being equal, (as availability of stock etc etc) a pharmacy should be expected to dispense any legally provided prescription. period. A pharmacy is different from a grocery store or a restaurant. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/408 "2012-03-05T12:41:27Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Take it a step further and the doctor DOES have the training and equipment to perform an abortion but only does so in the case of miscarriages? Can we make him perform abortions then? I don’t think a doctor analogy works. Doctors are specialized creatures. You go to specific doctors for specific conditions. You wouldn’t go to a non abortion providing doctor for an abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/409 "2012-03-05T13:37:24Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > I don’t think the “they can get it someone else” argument holds water. > > It really doesn’t matter if a lady has to walk 5 steps or 500 miles to the next pharmacy. > > All other things being equal, (as availability of stock etc etc) a pharmacy should be expected to dispense any legally provided prescription. period. > > A pharmacy is different from a grocery store or a restaurant. Says you. I disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/410 "2012-03-05T13:59:13Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > I’m not arguing that the law states that it should be applicable nationwide. Clearly that isn’t the case. I’m arguing that the practice itself is unethical regardless of what the law states. Yes, as you’ve said. But my point is: you don’t get to define “ethical.” I disagree with your conclusion that the practice itself is unethical. How can we resolve this disagreement? It would be nice if there were a Big Book of Ethics, one which we both agree was authoritative. But there isn’t. So how do you propose to support your claim that the practice is unethical when I disagree? And of course my disagreement is merely here on the boards, and of no practical significance… but many like-minded persons also disagree, and some of them are in charge of making laws in states like Georgia, where they have crafted 480-5-.03 Code of Professional Conduct: > [@Georgia Code of Professional Conduct](#): > > Refusal to Fill Prescription. It shall not be considered unprofessional conduct for any pharmacist to refuse to fill any prescription based on his/her professional judgment or ethical or moral beliefs. But Georgia is in the South. They’re backwards, right? Well, such opinions are also in sufficient majority in the north: Maine Rev. Stat. §1903(4): > [@Maine Revised Statutes](#): > > Objections. No private institution or physician or no agent or employee of such institution or physician shall be prohibited from refusing to provide family planning services when such refusal is based upon religious or conscientious objection. “Regardless of the law, it’s unethical,” you claim. But since I disagree with your conclusion that it’s unethical, what gives you the right to simply assert it as fact? I regard your effort to use the law to violate personal freedom of pharmacists as unethical. Can I simply assert this as uncontroversial fact? ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/411 "2012-03-05T14:36:22Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Really? So if a doctor refused to perform an abortion, it would be unethical? Being able to provide abortions is a specialized skill which requires training in order to perform. Not all doctors are able to provide abortions. All pharmacists are able to provide Plan-B. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/412 "2012-03-05T14:37:43Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > You wanted a cite demonstrating that someone felt the practice was unethical, so I provided a case where a pharmacist’s license was suspended because the judge ruled the behavior was contrary to the ethical code of pharmacists. Judges are bound by law, not the American Pharmacists Association’s code of ethics. The judge ruled that refusing to provide **or transfer** the prescription was illegal, not simply refusing to provide the prescription. You don’t appear to want to understand the difference. No-one is saying that a pharmacist should be allowed to \*\*actively prevent \*\*anyone from obtaining a prescription, which is what the pharmacist in your example did. Your example fully supports the right of pharmacists to step aside. Why do you claim it doesn’t? ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/413 "2012-03-05T14:54:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, as you’ve said. But my point is: you don’t get to define “ethical.” > I disagree with your conclusion that the practice itself is unethical. How can we resolve this disagreement? It would be nice if there were a Big Book of Ethics, one which we both agree was authoritative. But there isn’t. Right. I’m sure it is difficult for you to get off of the legal mentality and explain things that don’t come in a big book, but I would like for you to try. > [@](#): > > So how do you propose to support your claim that the practice is unethical when I disagree? And of course my disagreement is merely here on the boards, and of no practical significance… but many like-minded persons also disagree, and some of them are in charge of making laws in states like Georgia, where they have crafted 480-5-.03 Code of Professional Conduct: > > But Georgia is in the South. They’re backwards, right? > > Well, such opinions are also in sufficient majority in the north: Maine Rev. Stat. §1903(4): > > “Regardless of the law, it’s unethical,” you claim. But since I disagree with your conclusion that it’s unethical, what gives you the right to simply assert it as fact? I regard your effort to use the law to violate personal freedom of pharmacists as unethical. Can I simply assert this as uncontroversial fact? I really don’t know why you keep claiming that I am simply stating something as fact without any support. I’ve given you many reasons why I believe the practice to be unethical, but you continue to ignore them in favor of this idea that I am simply stating things as fact without giving a reason behind why I believe that to be true. You could assert it as fact if you wanted to, but tell me the reasoning behind why you think that to be the case. Not the fact that it’s legal, but why. I think that pharmacists using their position of power to violate the personal freedoms of women to determine the course of their own healthcare to be unethical because of the reasons I have listed earlier, and will list again. They are in a position of power in which patient care is supposed to be paramount to their practice. Their objections are not based on science. And they are acting as a barrier to care, which is unethical if the goal of the profession is to provide for the health care needs of the public. I posted this earlier: > [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Tell me why you don’t think providers have an obligation to provide care. Or, why the personal moral considerations of the pharmacist should trump the patient’s autonomy or desire to obtain care. Anything besides “But, it’s not illegal”. I know you’re looking to point to statutes to justify why you can demonstrate that some states don’t feel it should be illegal. But maybe you could try discussing the broader points of the question of ethics that go beyond just the fact that it is legal. ---
**Author:** ![ladyfoxfyre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ad7895/32.png) [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/414 "2012-03-05T15:08:52Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > No-one is saying that a pharmacist should be allowed to \*\*actively prevent \*\*anyone from obtaining a prescription, which is what the pharmacist in your example did. Actually, yes I believe that to be what is being argued here. Let’s say a pharmacist is the only provider in the area, which means refusal to provide the medication constitutes actively preventing the patient from obtaining the prescription. Is it therefore acceptable to force that pharmacist to dispense the medication because they are the only provider, and therefore by the portion quoted above, in the same boat as the pharmacist in the case I linked to? They’re both denying care. You’re saying that the pharmacist was only behaving unethically because they actively prevented the woman from obtaining the prescription. If under both circumstances it is acceptable to require the pharmacist to dispense the medication, or at least censure them for failing to do so, why is it acceptable only if the pharmacist is the only provider? I don’t think it’s acceptable to have standards of practice which only apply if you’re the only provider, I think they should be universal. If it’s okay to censure a pharmacist for refusing to provide care and prevent the patient from obtaining the prescription when they are the only provider, it is acceptable to do it whenever they refuse to provide care and prevent a patient from obtaining a prescription. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/415 "2012-03-05T15:28:40Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Actually, yes I believe that to be what is being argued here. Let’s say a pharmacist is the only provider in the area, which means refusal to provide the medication constitutes actively preventing the patient from obtaining the prescription. It’s still passive. In order to completely prevent the possibility that a pharmacists might impose his ethics, by refusing to fill a prescription and being the only pharmacist around, you want to impose your ethics on all pharmacists everywhere. Can you not see the hypocrisy in that? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/416 "2012-03-05T18:55:53Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > I don’t think a doctor analogy works. Doctors are specialized creatures. You go to specific doctors for specific conditions. You wouldn’t go to a non abortion providing doctor for an abortion. > [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Being able to provide abortions is a specialized skill which requires training in order to perform. Not all doctors are able to provide abortions. All pharmacists are able to provide Plan-B. I am talking about doctors that are fully capable of performing an abortion but for religious reasons refuses to do so. Just as every doctor is not capable of performing an abortion, every pharmacist does not dispense drugs at your local pharmacy. We are talking about people who are in a position to refuse to do something. So why all the hatred towards pharmacists who refuse to dispense Plan B but not so much for the doctor who refuses to perform an abortion? Why no hatred for priests that refuse to perform gay marriages? What should pharmacists check their conscience at the door while doctors and priests do not. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/417 "2012-03-05T19:56:21Z")
The gay marriage thing is utterly irrelevant; nobody _needs_ to be married. Getting back to the doctor/pharmacist distinction, which _is_ a reasonable comparison, doctors specialize; pharmacists do not. Other than veterinary pharmacists, there is a general expectation that dispensing pharmacists fill all commonly available prescriptions. There is no such expectation that doctors perform all commonly performed procedures. Doctors frequently refer patients to other doctors. When was the last time a pharmacist referred you to another pharmacist? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/418 "2012-03-05T20:02:14Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > Right. I’m sure it is difficult for you to get off of the legal mentality and explain things that don’t come in a big book, but I would like for you to try. The problem here is that when discussing almost anything, from math to ethics, we must first establish some unquestioned first principles, or _postulates_. If we agree, without proof, that any two points determine exactly one line, and any three non-colinear points determine exactly one plane, and if two parallel lines are intersected by a transversal, then the corresponding angles are congruent, then we can build a highly complex system of geometry. but we cannot unless we begin by agreeing on those basic definitions, axioms, postulates – statements without proof. You have skipped that step. You’d like me to agree to your ethical conclusion, but I won’t, since I don’t agree to accept your unstated axioms. > [@](#): > > I think that pharmacists using their position of power to violate the personal freedoms of women to determine the course of their own healthcare to be unethical because of the reasons I have listed earlier, and will list again. They are in a position of power in which patient care is supposed to be paramount to their practice. Their objections are not based on science. And they are acting as a barrier to care, which is unethical if the goal of the profession is to provide for the health care needs of the public. The goal of the profession is not public service. Like any profession, the goal is to provide a service that people will pay for. Pharmacists are not public servants. They are business people, and are in the business to make money. They don’t violate anyone’s freedom. This is the worst sticking point. Violating freedom requires that they impede a course of action to which you have a right. YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO BUY PLAN B MEDICATION. That is, you certainly have a right to purchase it from a willing seller. But you don’t have a right to HAVE it, no matter what. A poor woman cannot demand that the pharmacist provide it at no cost, can she? No. She has no more right to buy it than she does to buy anything else: namely, her right ends at a consensual transaction. The underlying axiom you appear t be relying on is that the pharmacist is a public servant, required to place his business and personal needs below the needs of his customers. This is bull. Pharmacists are professional business people, and are generally entitled to run their business as they wish. THAT is my axiom. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/419 "2012-03-05T20:36:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > When was the last time a pharmacist referred you to another pharmacist? When I asked for low-dose narcotic cough medicine, I was told “Yes, that is legal without a prescription, but we do not sell it without a prescription.” (paraphrased) I wasn’t happy about it but I didn’t freak out about the store’s policy and demand a fascist law mandating that they sell that legal product. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2012, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/420 "2012-03-05T20:45:47Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > a fascist law Enacted by pharmacists who hate and want to punish women, no doubt. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711.md?page=22)