Well, that’s one thing I want to know. Do those licensing requirements and codes of ethical conduct mandate keeping all drugs in stock just because they are legal? Seriously, I have no idea if they do or not, and I think it’s germane.
And that gets to my deeper question. I believe that homosexual intercourse is not a sin. I believe that homosexuality is not a sin. I believe that discrimination against homosexuals is morally wrong and not in keeping with the society in which I want to live.
Those are all personal moral judgments. Of course I believe them to be right, and others to be wrong. And admittedly, I have a really hard time respecting the views of those who disagree. But, swear to ghod, I really have known real live “love the sinner” types, who had moral convictions every bit as strong as mine and–get this–weren’t bad people.
(Brief pause for DT to chime in with “YESTHEYWERE!”)
For my government to mandate equal rights and protection for homosexuals is for it to mandate a morality. One with which I agree.
Broadening scope, I believe in the societal value of the very existence of protected classes. I believe in a government obligation to preserve and defend the rights of the minority as well as the majority. I believe in a strict separation of church and state, and in a government that protects my rights to choice and privacy.
Those, I would suggest, are also my personal moral views. Ones which I share, hopefully, with enough people to maintain a civil society (and cordially invite the would-be theocrats to go fuck themselves). I’m happy to force those views on others. As a society we’re forced lots of things on lots of people, and as long as I agree with them, I’m fine with them.
But I guess all I’m saying is that we’re discussing morality on both sides here. And if it’s an “unconscionable imposition” in one direction, it is in the other as well. It’s an imposition I’m just fine with in this case, but it’s an imposition nonetheless.
I’m not aware of the national level, and to be honest this is more of a solution I’ve proposed than one I’m aware of already existing. I know that this debate has been going on in multiple states, but I am not aware of the specific legislation in each. Honestly I think such codes of conduct wouldn’t even be necessary if not for the actions of certain politically minded pharmacists, but I do see them as a necessary reaction and including “because they are legal” includes these and any future possible drugs that pharmacists might have a problem with, from stem cell based cures to nanobots in a tube, or what have you.
I understand, and yes it does ultimately come down to dueling morality in many cases. And I do believe that it’s a copout and deceptive for someone to claim that not being able to enforce their religious morality on others is a violation of their religious morality. Denying homosexuals their civil rights is, IMO, a major sin of the latter half of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st centuries. And my religious views (Tikun Olam) in part inform my conclusions, but I would feel utterly slimy if I actually claimed that my inability to get my views into law was somehow oppressing my ability to exercise religious freedom.
Of course, I think that all morality debates ultimately boil down to this. We must choose our principles, argue for them in a cogent and consistent matter, and let the chips fall where they may. Cosmically, oppressing homosexuals and not oppressing homosexuals are equivalent; we could nuke Earth to a cinder and the cosmos would not notice or care. Morality is, by necessity, subjective and consensus based in implementation. But that doesn’t stop me from feeling quite strongly about those subjects I choose to champion, and arguing for them with al the subjective reasoning I can muster.
P.S. Come on, you’re a 99’er. You should know what the proper reaction is to Derish nonsense. Only let him get your goat if you have an excess of goats.
Dammit, now I’m going to spend the next hour avoiding work by reading up on תיקון עולם.
Absolutely, and I’m right there with you.
I just have an allergy to muddy thinking. I’m here to champion my views, sure, but also to learn about others. It’s really hard to do that without keeping in mind that other people’s beliefs are as important to them as mine are to me. I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind, but the only way to reach understanding (and hopefully compromise) is to generate light instead of heat. I’m unwilling to let someone go unchallenged for a flawed argument even if I agree with them, and I certainly expect the same in return.
And I really want to understand the other side of everything. Comes of being a Middle Path guy.
Which means I have an excess of goats, but I’m working on letting go of them.
Frankly, it’s by far a large social good and a long-term massive saver of tax dollars for the government to make any form of contraception (regular pills, condoms, EC, and especially the depo shot) available to anyone who wants it for free. This would certainly avoid the problem of availability at Uncle Joe’s Backwoods Xanax Shack (No Girls Allowed) without worrying about the hilarious Christian claims to “conscience,” as well as solve many other social ills.
No; I simply watch what they do, instead of what they say. And everything they do is focused on hurting women with little to no concern for reducing the number of abortions or for the fetus they claim so much concern over. Actions speak louder than words; if there are anti-abortion types who are about stopping abortion rather than stomping on women, they appear to be a tiny minority.
And I’ve spent too many years watching the Democrats and the Left get outmaneuvered & overrun because they persist in trying to convince themselves the Right is well meaning; I’m not going to do the same myself.
I rather doubt their victims care how “nice” they are to other people such as yourself. Many of the Inquisition no doubt meant well too, and tortured people “for their own good”.
Well, you can definitely hit your marks on cue. :rolleyes:
I really shouldn’t bother. But I will.
The friends I was thinking of had no victims. They had no inquisition. They tortured nobody.
They considered abortion to be a sin, so they didn’t have one. They considered homosexual sex to be a sin. And fortunately for them, they were straight, so they didn’t do it.
They thought I was a sinner. Me and my boyfriend both.
And they left it up to us, and our gods, and our conscience. Because they believed that mankind was inherently sinful, and we all fall short of perfection. They fed us, let us stay at their house, and beat the shit out of us at Trivial Pursuit. All without torturing anyone.
They voted in favor of expanded rights for minorities, women, and even (gasp!) homosexuals. Because they felt that individual morality should be up to individuals, and that all people should have the freedoms to follow their own beliefs. They loved and cared for my boyfriend when he came out as gay and I came out as . . . other than straight.
They were exceptions. I tried to make that clear. And they were exceptional. but they existed and they were NOT your fucking charicature.
Now, call them torturers again. I fucking dare you.
Okay… let’s back up a little here. Pharmacy, like medicine, nursing, and several other professions, is regulated at the state level, not the federal level.
If you are a member of one of those health professions, your licensure is governed by the appropriate board, in this case the state board of pharmacy. This is why doctors, nurses, etc move to another state, they need to get a new license. The requirements vary a lot sometimes. But more importantly, the rules, regulations, codes of ethics, etc are specific to the state you practice in and the board you are licensed under. The board, in addition to state law, is what determines what is and is not permissible for its practitioners.
In many states, the legislature and/or the board of pharmacy have adopted language that permits pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds. As I said, I’m not as familiar with the vagaries of pharmacy, but if I recall about a dozen states currently have such legislation in place. In other words, the official codes of conduct that govern the practice of pharmacy in several states in United States explicitly permit the refusal to dispense PlanB. Most are silent on the issue which leaves the pharmacists to interpret their code of conduct as they see fit.
To answer a couple other questions:
(800) 378-5697 is the Caremark number for physicians/office staff. Though Caremark doesn’t generally offer overnight unless you make special arrangements.
No. Plan B doesn’t require a prescription for adults but if you are unwilling or unable to go online it’s only available from pharmacies.
It has nothing to do with where you live or the density of pharmacies. The most common work around is to prescribe Seasonique or another combination OCP and use a modified Yupze regimen. There are other, more drastic measures, but if the only barrier is the patient isn’t willing to come up with an extra 25 dollars and/or can’t find someone willing to let them use their credit card, it’s probably not worth falsifying a medical record. Or you could just yell at the pharmacist, though usually that’s more therapeutic than effective. Even if all pharmacies carried Plan B, patients still have to pay for it. MRSA infections are a common problem that requires prescription meds even more urgently than someone trying to get Plan B, but I don’t think there are any proposals to force pharmacies to carry all antibiotics and fix their prices. Of course they could’ve went online without a prescription, avoiding the office copay, and come out about even…
I’m posting this to tell you that you’re wasting your time. However, as the official representative of the Reasonable Left, I hereby endorse your blanket apology for everything hyperbolic Der Trihs has ever said.
I agree its a solution in search of a problem but its a very workable solution. Some states do have formularies that every licensed pharmacy must carry, there is no practical reason they couldn’t add Plan B to the list but like you said its a solution in search of a problem. If its a CVS, then the CVS can fire the pharmacist and if its against the alw to fire a pharmacist for refusing to sell plan B then its not likely to be a state that would require Plan B as part of their formulary.
Its not a monopoly, its a licensing requirement. Anyone who cares to go through the requirements for a pharmacy license can get one. So its no more a monopoly than being a doctor gives you a monopoly on practicing medicine.
If an obstetrician doesn’t want to perform elective abortions does your logic extend to forcing the obstetrician into perform elective abortions? Or should an obstetrician who doesn’t want to perform abortions find a new career too?
At that point the pharmacist doesn’t need a license to do what they are doing. I know plenty of pharmacists who don’t actually dispense drugs, should their careers be broken? Should we punish them too?
Plan B is about as medically necessary as an elective abortion. Should an obstetrician be forced to perform abortions if they only want to deliver babies but perform D&C for miscarriages?
Unless the pharmacist refuses to return the prescription, the pharamacist is doing nothing. The doctor patient relationship would be no better off if the pharmacist was located 1000 miles away. Not facilitating /= interfering.
I think its silly to refuse to dispense a drug based on religious objection but I’m not so sure that there isn’t an argument that there is a first amendment right to refuse.
And why are pharmacists the only ones not permitted to act on their moral objections?
Why is it that doctors can refuse to perform abortions? Why are lawyers allowed to refuse to represent clients they don’t want? Why are priests allowed to refuse to perform gay marriages?
Plan B is already plenty politicized. Why do you think its the only drug where prescriptions are required based on age? Why is it the only drug where you are required to put out a sign if you run out of stock or don’t carry it? If it was up to the FDA, it would be stocked on the shelves next to the condoms. If you want a federal solution then get the FDA to remove the restrictions and you will be able to buy it at every 7/11 and gas station.
Pharmacists cost well over 100K/year in salary and benefits. There are a lot of places where there simply isn’t a business case for opening a pharmacy if you chase the current one out of town. In fact these are likely to be the same places where you have to drive long distances to the next pharmacy.
Right, because they’re not trying to make a statement. They actually think that the patient can go three blocks down the street and get the drug from the CVS. Perhaps i am wrong and there are lots of cases of pharmacists doing this in areas where there really isn’t another pharmacy around for miles and miles. Can you provide some cites?
So, even you seem to agree this is speech.
And while an ugly pushback by the community is fine (if the community actually pushes back), losing their license is not fine unless their licensing board make it clear in advance that this would be the result of failing to dispense Plan B.
Its not a monopoly unless there is one supplier. There is more than one pharmacist licensed by any given state. Therefore its not a monopoly. Even if they’re the only one in town, if there isn’t anything keeping another pharmacy from opening in that town, they are not a monopoly.
How many pharmacists do you think engage in this sort of behaviour. Its so few and far in between that it makes the news.
Lets take the clearest case. A pharmacist owns her own pharmacy. She is open 5 days a week for 5 hours a day, she spends the rest of her time picketing the state university for engaging in stem cell research (picketing the local abortion clinic isn’t good enough, she drives 2 hours heach way to go picket the state university).
She stocks every drug under the sun except for Plan B.
She doesn’t stock it and tries to lecture anyone that comes in and tries to buy it.
Huh? What’s the difference between national and federal regulation in the US? I’m not sure what point are you trying to make here?
The point I was making is that the practice of pharmacy is primarily regulated at the state level. The FDA and DEA have their say of course but when it comes to conduct, codes of ethics, licensing, etc, that’s down to the state boards of pharmacy. Some states explicitly permit pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions. These government takeovers people are advocating, would that be the same government that passed laws which allow the refusal in the first place? Or is the federal government going to overrule the state government and start regulating the practice of pharmacy, nursing, medicine, etc? I suppose you could get pretty much anything under the commerce clause but I wonder if people realize the implications of something like that.
At least it would simplify licensure and insurance…
As a practical, legal, and ethical matter, you can’t make a blanket statements like that. If someone is a Jehova’s Witness and is dying of blood loss, you’d don’t get to trump their beliefs because it’s medically necessary to save their life. Plenty of JW’s have bled to death in spitting distance of coolers full of blood.
Likewise, if a doctor doesn’t feel like doing a procedure because it’s against their religious beliefs, even one that’s medically necessary, they are under no obligation to do so. Actually, they can refuse to treat a patient for pretty much any reason in an non emergent situation.
Heh, I wonder, for all those people who insist pharmacists should have to stock and dispense all meds, should doctors be forced to prescribe all medications? If the answer is different for each, why do you feel that way? Does it make a difference if it’s because the doctor thinks its immoral or if he just doesn’t feel like it?
National and federal regulation, not much.
National and federal levels? Plenty. National is the adjectival form of “nation” and can (and does in the way I was using it) refer to the sum total of the states.
As I didn’t, and I don’t know who you’re quoting, I’ll leave your statement unanswered.
No one to my knowledge has equated pharmacists with cashiers. What some have accurately noted is that pharmacists have not historically occupied a position in health care where they are free to intercede between a physician and patient. The exception has been where a prescription is made in an erroneous or unsafe manner (for example too high a dose, or not taking into account a drug interaction) and the pharmacist may defer filling the prescription until he/she has had a chance to confer with the requesting physician.
The “conscience pharmacist”'s refusal to fulfill his/her duty towards the patient because of personal anti-abortion beliefs is another matter entirely.
