Agree 100%. Persons in positions of power are supposed to be professional enough to not use their power, whatever it may be, to play politics. This is why they deserve to lose their certifications. Not because of what they stock.
And all of those should in fact be law.
piffle.
While it is difficult if not impossible to find a parallel to this controversy in other occupations, what about the following:
Let’s say that some court clerks decide that their consciences will no longer allow them to process papers for certain civil actions. For example, devout Catholics might refuse to handle paperwork for civil suits against their church for child sex abuse. Other clerks might decide that frivolous lawsuits are damaging society and that they want no part of furthering them through their routine duties.
While this no doubt would enrage lawyers and judges charged with handling civil cases, one could argue that exceptions are possible that allow filing and processing of civil suit paperwork at other times or in other offices so as to spare the consciences of the protesting clerks. And any potential for missed filings or impeded justice would be speculative and improbable.
Should court clerks have the power to block the progress of civil matters of which they disapprove? Aren’t their consciences as important as the needs of lawyers and their clients?
I think this is a good analogy, because it exposes what I think is a key aspect of the debate: how you view the role of a pharmacist in society.
The court clerk is not a private actor. He is an arm of the government; he’s paid by the government; his employer is the government; and he must represent the government. The government must not either endorse nor abjure religion, and the clerk cannot follow his own conscience at the expense of the government’s proper role.
Is the pharmacist, by virtue of the need to be licensed, like a court clerk in that he now represents the government? I don’t see that. The court clerk is an employee of the government; the pharmacist is not. The government licenses him, yes – but I don’t see how that transforms him wholly into an arm of the government like the clerk is.
I’m not going to trudge through five pages but hear me out.
I went to my pharmacy the other day, and I needed a caffeine boost, and I only snort my medication. However they did not sell caffeine pills, only 5 hour energy, and I was pissed. Why is the pharmacy denying the service of allowing me to snort my medication? Discrimination lawsuit. Now. The pharmacy is systematically oppressing intranasal drug users.
Instead of suing the place, I realize that they are not required to stock caffeine pills and I walk over to the next pharmacy.
And if so, it seems logical that this sort of thinking must also apply to other professions that are licensed. Social workers would also be required to leave their consciences at the door; veterinarians, morticians, cosmetologists, locksmiths, plumbers and accountants all the dozens of other licensed professions would similarly all become adjuncts of the state by virtue of being licensed.
I’m pretty sure there are a lot fewer private investigators than there are drug stores; do we really want to require that private investigators take on any assignment a customer asks for, no matter how distasteful or immoral?
A lot of people think declawing a cat is cruelty to animals, but it’s perfectly legal. Under the logic used to require pharmacists to act against their conscience, it seems to me I’d have the right to go in and compel a vet to declaw kitty no matter how abhorrent he finds the practice.
I’d hope that the difference between people who remove clogs of hair from your pipes, and are granted a monopoly on dispensing life-saving medicines is clear to you, furt? Phamacists’ role, coupled with the fact that they are legally the only people who can fill it, sets them in a unique position.
Which pharmacist is that? Name him/her, please.
Batman.
I grew up in Florida and there were a lot of hospitals that did not perform any services for delivery of babies or even take care of little babies (It’s obstetrics, I think). The Keys were known for making woman drive up to Miami to give birth. Though I imagine the hospitals in the Keys could handle a birth through the ER. So if a hospital can only choose to offer services, why can’t a pharmacy?
A hospital may not have certain staff or expensive equipment; lacking an OBGYN puts a dent in your ability to deliver spawn.
A pharmacy requires a bottle to sit on a shelf.
The imposition is not the same.
A bit pedantic, isn’t that? OK, it isn’t a monopoly, but it is monopolistic. The thing keeping another pharmacy from opening in that town is economic. Given the requirement for a pharmacist, a person whose training and credentials commands a significant salary, the break even line on income for the business is quite high. It isn’t the same as opening a retail market employing minimum wage labor.
If even one engages in this practice, that is too many for me.
Nah, it’s an honest to goodness monopoly. Anybody who isn’t a licensed pharmacist cannot dispense medicines. More to the point newer competitors can’t just decide to forgo government approval and sell their services on the open market. 100% of those able to sell medicines must be licensed by the government. That makes it an ironclad monopoly.
Since when did pharmacies become a public service and pharmacists become public servants…
I don’t freak out when my pharmacy does not carry sterile needles. I could go on and on about how discriminatory the practice is against IV drug users. Pharmacists must love to spread AIDS and Hepatitis C… etc… no… it is a question of a private business offering a service or not. Auto insurance companies can deny a client for any reason, even though it is something required by law for licensed drivers.
There’s no claim that he is wholly an arm of the government. There is a limited claim that he may be subjected to certain mandates as a condition of licensure.
Moving away from the court clerk argument, lots of states (all of them?) mandate that optometrists test patients for glaucoma at certain specified intervals as a condition of their licenses to dispense corrective lenses, or at least that they offer patients the test.
For the record, I am neither for nor against the requirement for its own sake. I am somewhat surprised to see posters who previously opposed such requirements when they were federal mandates- at least in part on the grounds that such things were state matters- now opposing the same requirements when states impose them.
Really, I don’t think so. Plan-B is a legal, uncontrolled drug and it can be bought by other means than a retail pharmacy. We’re not talking about oxycodone or Xanax here. We’re talking about a Plan-B pill that can certainly be bought online, which gives a much larger range or suppliers, and especially not a monopoly.
As I mentioned way back near the front of this thread, I think it’s absolutely within a state’s plenary authority to mandate such things for their pharmacists, as long as their mandate is narrowly tailored to achieve the legitimate state goal of making Plan B available to the public.
I don’t think it’s wise policy.
That’s okay, you’re allowed to be wrong.
Pharmacists are indeed granted a monopoly. You’ve attempted a bait and switch, by shifting the conversation from how how pharmacists have a monopoly to talking about how Plan B isn’t always required to be dispensed by pharmacists.
Fair enough, then. Assuming that the pharmacist’s hypothetical objections yield to the state’s plenary powers, why is it poor policy?
In my view of wise social policy, we begin every consideration with the primary concept of preserving ordered individual liberty. If providing Plan B medication is a critical state goal, then the state should either perform it directly or hire agents to perform it on their behalf. This kind of solution preserves individual liberty – no one needs to accept a state job handing it out if they do not wish to; no business needs to accept a state contract to distribute it if they don’t wish to. Undoubtedly many will, and the state can fulfill its goal in that way.
By piling a previously unstated legal obligation on pharmacists, the state restricts their liberty; it changes the rules of the pharmacy game in a way that was not disclosed to the existing pharmacists when they chose their professions.