# 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:** 23
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/441 "2012-03-06T14:31:45Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > What imaginary objection to selling Plan B could a pharmacist have? The same objections they have to hormonal birth control and have already clearly expressed: They believe that life begins at conception. They want no part of making sure that a fertilized egg cannot grow. As far as they’re concerned, it’s the same as an abortion and abortion is murder. In their mind, you want to force them to become an accessory to murder. ---
**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 6, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/442 "2012-03-06T14:45:07Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Doctors frequently refer patients to other doctors. When was the last time a pharmacist referred you to another pharmacist? > [@ABraut](#): > > 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. That’s nice, but what does it have to do with the question? ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/443 "2012-03-06T14:45:56Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > For a start it’s a religious objection, not a moral one. And secondly I see your question has already been answered. Not wanting to be an accessory to murder isn’t a moral objection, in your opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/444 "2012-03-06T14:54:01Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#): > > I have never stated that pharmacy is explicitly a public service. They are business people, but they are business people who work in the field of public health which means that the normal ethical standards of business don’t apply. Some of them do, sure. But we as a society hold people who work in this industry to a different standard, taking for example my reference earlier to requiring hospitals to treat patients regardless of the ability to pay. We don’t hold other businesses to this standard, but when you are entrusted to providing for the public health, even if you also profit from it, your ethical obligations do not just stop at “make money”. Wait a second. If you’re now saying that “We as a society…” make certain decisions, why don’t you also accept when we as a society make the EXPLICIT decision to permit a pharmacist to refuse service for reasons of conscience? You rely on broad, general statements about public health that are ratified by “we as a society” but reject explicit, concrete determinations also made by “we, as a society.” Why is that? > [@](#): > > Of course, you don’t have a right to buy Plan-B. Neither do you have a right to be a pharmacist. Or own a pharmacy. The state licenses you to be able to do those things, and holds you to standards of practice in order to have that privilege. In my opinion, part of those standards of practice is that you don’t get to refuse to provide care to patients for unscientifically supported religious reasons. But in fact, part of those standards of practice is that you DO get to refuse to provide care to patients for unscientifically supported religious reasons. So why is your opinion about those standards of practice more persuasive than the ACTUAL standards of practice? See, you point to societal consensus for the general, vague statements which you claim support your conclusion, but reject the highly specific societal consensus that arises from the same source. It’s unclear to me how “societal consensus” has such persuasive value at first but then loses its value the moment it starts disagreeing with you. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/445 "2012-03-06T15:00:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s nice, but what does it have to do with the question? If you don’t know what the last time a pharmacist referred me to another pharmacist, has to do with answering “When was the last time a pharmacist referred you to another pharmacist?”, I can’t really help. I do feel compelled to commend you on your choice of screen-names, though. ---
**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 6, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/446 "2012-03-06T15:02:38Z")
There is nothing in your post which says the pharmacy 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 6, 2012, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/447 "2012-03-06T15:08:59Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > **Bricker** , I respect you a lot, your knowledge and skills are formidable. Although I don’t agree with your religious beliefs, you argue them well and also explain yourself well. > > It would be great if I could have your opinion on this… > > What matters more - how a law IS being used or how a law MAY be used? > > As an example - let’s say you give you ATM PIN to your wife. Your trust her explicitly not to empty your account. If something does happen - whose fault is it? > > Or to put it another way, if it were only one or two pharmacies in a big city refusing to sell, then it’s nopt much of a problem. BUT, once you allow a pharmacy to make decisions on what presriptions they will and won’t fill on their own beliefs rather than what the doctor prescribes and the rigours of state approval systems, what if EVERY pharmacy refused? > > This is possible under the law right? (if not likely). Would you then be ok with pharmacists being able to put themselves above the state legislature (which presumably represents the majority will of the people)? > > What if, instead of plan B it were children’s paracetamol that the pharmacy were refusing to provide - would that still be ok? Would it be ok to send a parent with a feverish kid hunting all over the city for a pharmacy that did provide it? The economist Adam Smith observed that the city of Paris was utterly dependent on food deliveries from farmers in the countryside. The city would starve in short order if, every day, farmers did not bring meat, vegetables, fruit, and milk into the city to sell. Yet he observed that despite this critical need for the farmers to perform this function, there was no government agency in charge of making sure it happened. The farmers did so because they wished to sell their wares. The market owners that bought that food and made it available to the people, to the restaurants, did so also because they wished to earn a profit. Each and every actor in the critical drama of keeping the city fed acted as though he had some sort of guiding force moving him, but none actually did. I imagine that someone might have asked the same question: given how important the function of keeping the city fed is, shouldn’t we focus on what MIGHT happen instead of what is happening? But the answer to that question is ‘no.’ The market is a better method for regulating price and distribution of goods than any regulatory scheme, as a general principle. There are times when some regulation is critical. But it should, in my view, be the last resort, addressed to a real problem and not a theoretical one, and of sufficient gravity that it mandates interference with personal liberty. In most states, no one has a right to unfettered access to Plan B. In some states, that isn’t true. Some states have spoken, through their elected representatives, and made it absolutely clear that the will of the people in those states is that their residents have unfettered access to Plan B. That’s within the power of a sovereign state. But it’s equally within the power of a sovereign state to make no declaration at all, and let the market sort it out, or even to explicitly declare that pharmacists have no professional requirement to dispense it. I disagree with the public policy decision that says unfettered access to Plan B is the way to go. But I respect the power of the state to impose such a rule, and don’t question its legitimacy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/448 "2012-03-06T15:12:28Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > There is nothing in your post which says the pharmacy referred you to another pharmacist. Given that he was answering your question, though, might you not infer he was saying that the pharmacist referred him somewhere else because they didn’t sell it without a prescription? That was my inference when I read it. ---
**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 6, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/449 "2012-03-06T15:16:42Z")
Sure. They might also have told him to go get a prescription. It doesn’t really matter, though, because in the context of my whole post his story has very little to do with the question I asked, even if it’s a valid answer to the question standing alone: [QUOTE=Me] 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? [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/450 "2012-03-06T15:24:12Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sure. They might also have told him to go get a prescription. It doesn’t really matter, though, because in the context of my whole post his story has very little to do with the question I asked, even if it’s a valid answer to the question standing alone: It has everything to do with your post; you just don’t like the answer. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/451 "2012-03-06T15:28:29Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > It has everything to do with your post; you just don’t like the answer. In every state that has carved out an conscience exception, I disagree that there is “…a general expectation that dispensing pharmacists fill all commonly available prescriptions.” Every person is on notice that, in fact, dispensing pharmacists may not fill all commonly available prescriptions. ---
**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 6, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/452 "2012-03-06T15:46:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In every state that has carved out an conscience exception, I disagree that there is “…a general expectation that dispensing pharmacists fill all commonly available prescriptions.” Every person is on notice that, in fact, dispensing pharmacists may not fill all commonly available prescriptions. That’s a tautology. The whole crux of this debate is whether those conscience exceptions should exist, no? [QUOTE=ABraut] It has everything to do with your post; you just don’t like the answer. [/QUOTE] So… pharmacists are equivalent to physicians for the purposes of whether they should be able to pick and choose what services they provide, because one of them wouldn’t give you cough syrup? ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/453 "2012-03-06T15:48:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In every state that has carved out an conscience exception, I disagree that there is “…a general expectation that dispensing pharmacists fill all commonly available prescriptions.” Every person is on notice that, in fact, dispensing pharmacists may not fill all commonly available prescriptions. I agree with you. In addition, the cough medicine I asked for is legal without a prescription, but you have to get it from a pharmacist, just like Plan B. It was the store’s policy not to sell it. I think it was a CVS. I’m sure it was a major chain. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/454 "2012-03-06T15:56:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So… pharmacists are equivalent to physicians for the purposes of whether they should be able to pick and choose what services they provide, because one of them wouldn’t give you cough syrup? No-one should be forced to violate their beliefs. It was your comparison and question; you just don’t like the answer. Do you think pharmacists should be forced to dispense all legal medicines, like under the counter cough medicine, or just certain drugs that you _personally_ approve of? ---
**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 6, 2012, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/455 "2012-03-06T16:06:59Z")
In the absence of legislation to the contrary, yes, I think pharmacists should be forced to dispense all legal medicines. I don’t necessarily think they should be forced to keep non-emergency medicines in stock at all times, but that’s different. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/456 "2012-03-06T16:28:55Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > In the absence of legislation to the contrary, yes, I think pharmacists should be forced to dispense all legal medicines. Maybe you think there needs to be a law to allow people to do things, but that is not how laws work. There is no law that allows me to take a shower; there doesn’t need to be one. In the absence of legislation to the contrary, taking a shower is legal. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/457 "2012-03-06T16:46:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That’s a tautology. The whole crux of this debate is whether those conscience exceptions should exist, no? No. Well, it started there, yes, but remember you started out asserting that there was already a general codified duty to dispense, and were disabused of that notion. Now you’re trying to work your way into the proposition that even silence on the part of the law creates some sort of compelling presumption. I disagree: silence means that a pharmacist is free to do as he pleases, and THAT is the presumption. The fact that a state added a specific exception merely made explicit the already existing presumption. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/458 "2012-03-06T18:17:54Z")
I agree, except for: > [@Bricker](#): > > The fact that a state added a specific exception merely made explicit the already existing presumption. There’s no purpose in exceptions to laws that do not exist. Every exception that has been used as an example has been an exception to a law. The fact that a state added a specific exception, is an indication that that state has a law that the state thinks there should be an exception for. If no mandate exists, no exception is needed. ---
**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 6, 2012, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/459 "2012-03-06T18:23:47Z")
> [@ABraut](#): > > Maybe you think there needs to be a law to allow people to do things, but that is not how laws work. There is no law that allows me to take a shower; there doesn’t need to be one. In the absence of legislation to the contrary, taking a shower is legal. Pharmacists may take showers whenever they please. [QUOTE=Bricker] … silence means that a pharmacist is free to do as he pleases, and THAT is the presumption. The fact that a state added a specific exception merely made explicit the already existing presumption. [/QUOTE] That kind of contradicts what you said before: > [@](#): > > In every state that has carved out an conscience exception, I disagree that there is “…a general expectation that dispensing pharmacists fill all commonly available prescriptions.” Every person is on notice that, in fact, dispensing pharmacists may not fill all commonly available prescriptions. ---
**Author:** ![ABraut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/258eb7/32.png) [@ABraut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ABraut)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711/460 "2012-03-06T19:05:41Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Pharmacists may take showers whenever they please. Showering is not the point of that explanation of how laws work; how laws work is the point that you desperately refuse to understand. In the absence of a law that prohibits or requires [whatever], [whatever] is neither prohibited or required. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/theyre-coming-for-your-plan-b/613711.md?page=24)