Geez:rolleyes:. OK if a doctor is trained and regularly performs D&C for misacrriages, should she be required to perform elective abortions to anyone that asks for one?
Should a priest who is licensed to perform a legally binding marriage under state law be forced to marry any couple that comes forward? What if they are gay?
[quote=“Damuri_Ajashi, post:316, topic:613711”]
And luckily, this has the humongous loophole of business reasons.
Nobody has answered my question yet: are these pharmacies that refuse to sell to ANYONE, or just pharmacies that refuse to sell to those under 17 with a prescription?
Also, why aren’t the womens rights advocates up in arms about the age restriction, since if a girl is raped, she has to talk about it to a pharmacist or a doctor before.. and then Plan-B is no longer effective really.
I don’t understand the difference between:
I don’t stock Plan-B. I lose money. Get it elsewhere.
I don’t stock Desoxyn (methamphetamine). I lose money. Get it elsewhere.
I don’t stock acetaminophen. I lose money. Get it elsewhere.
I don’t stock onion rings. I lose money. Get it elsewhere.
Non sequitor.
Bricker claimed that witholding something was not equal to imposing your beliefs on someone else. Therefore whether or not he’s paid by his employers is not anybody imposing their views on him.
But you and your employer have a contract, either explicit or implied, that if you perform X, they will pay you Y. Failing to perform their part is actively breaking that contract. They are not imposing their religious views on you, they are merely opening themselves up to a fairly simple lawsuit.
It’s absolutely relevant, because they are claiming that their religious beliefs are being violated when we have discussions about forcing them to dispense it. It’s still unethical to refuse to stock it due to your personal religious beliefs.
Right, but the questions never should be asked in the first place. There’s no logical reason to compel pharmacies to stock a particular product, and therefore no discussion on what grounds the objection might be. Pharmacists are talking theoretically here. The legislation will never pass anyway but it is fun to discuss.
It is so clearly a political ploy here, intended to fuel outrage, with little logical reason behind it.
Really? A licensed provider of medical services, who exists for the purpose of advancing the cause of public health, and we shouldn’t be asking a) why they aren’t stocking FDA approved and prescribed medication, and b) shouldn’t compel them to stock medications which are vital to public health? These aren’t relevant questions to you? Okay, kindly see your way out then.
ETA: I can tell you from personal experience, working for 7 years in the pharmacy industry, that this discussion is in no way theoretical. I know of pharmacists who refuse to stock Plan-B on religious exemption grounds. And boast about it.
The. Answer. Is. So. Simple. Go to the next pharmacy, if they don’t stock the medication you are looking for.
No, the question should not be asked. What inconvenience does it cause to the user? Having to find another pharmacy? That doesn’t count. Is the government paying the pharmacists to stock essential medicine? Are they a public service or a private industry?
The answer to that comes down which state a pharmacist practices in. My state, Ohio, does not have either a law in the Ohio Revised Code, nor a rule, in the Ohio Administrative Code, stating that we must fill a valid prescription. I actually just re-read the entirety of the section of ORC governing pharmacists to be sure and skimmed the Board of Pharmacy’s OAC rule headers to be sure (the relevant links being ORC 4729 and OAC 4729). Ohio essentially gives us instructions on what constitutes a valid prescription and what must be done IF we fill it (see OAC 4729-5-21), but it does not require us to fill a prescription.
So Jay, does this mean that today I could fill someone’s prescription for a drug and tomorrow refuse it even though I have it in stock?
Not all towns have a pharmacy on every corner so that this is an option. They are not exclusively one or the other, because they bridge both. They are a private industry that provides a public good. Which is why they are licensed by the state and federal government and must adhere to standards of practice that go along with providing for the public health.
To your first point: tough shit. Sometimes there’s only one doctor per town too.
It may come as a surprise to you, but there are a lot of industries like that where a private industry requires licensing.
Locksmiths come to mind, as do a whole host of other trades, doctors, lawyers, etc. Would you be upset if a lawyer refused to represent someone he knew committed a heinous crime? Even if he was the only lawyer in the town?
: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.
A problem I frequently see among those who identify with the right wing is the belief that individual liberty is most worth protecting when it invoves the freedom of business people to do what they want, fuck the consumers.
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.
OK, what if your a doctor, and someone comes up with a cure for every single STD in a single shot. Someone comes to you with something normally incurable that they got from a sex tour in Thailand. You belong to the same church that Joe and his wife and family do. Will you give him the shot or tell him to suck it up, he got it from extreme immoral behavior and you do not condone that sort of behavior? Stop with the stupid what ifs with silly crap.
And lawsuit happy is not anything that can keep a doctor or hospital from treating someone. So no the doc can not refuse to perform a perfectly legitimate medical procedure on someone because they are lawsuit happy.
And there were two times I saw more than one doc in the exam room at a time - once when I presented with a tumor that went from pea sized to pingpong ball sized in 30 days [after remaining pea sized for over a decade] and there were some 11 docs in conference about the tumor, the disturbing increase in size, the location of the tumor and the best way to go about removing it. The second time was at a teaching hospital, and the second doc was observing the first because the first was having his practical exam on doing pelvics.
Thank you. Bricker, I withdraw my objection to your public policy argument. I still think you’re wrong, I just don’t think your underlying premise is flawed.
These examples are not similar enough to be comparable because 1) providing abortions requires specific training, so not all physicians can provide this service, and 2) providing plan B only requires a pharmacy license and the product. They are absolutely refusing to serve certain people, and just because you think the question “shouldn’t be asked” as to why they’re not stocking it, the answer is that they are refusing to stock it for religious reasons. They’re very open about that. So let’s take the business angle out of it, because in this case it is not a relevant issue. They aren’t refusing to stock it because it’s not profitable or because there is not a demand, the explicit reason for not stocking it is moral objection to its function.
In the case of not stocking other medications, it is not a situation of refusing to stock the medication, it is a situation of simply not having it in stock. One requires a concerted effort and thought process of “No, we will not be stocking this medication for X reason”, the other is “We don’t have physicians writing prescriptions for this drug so there is no public demand for it”. They are very different situations.
When you are dealing with the issue as it is, which is the refusal to stock a medication on religious or moral reasons, we as the public have the right to weigh the cost to public health that imposes. Which is what we are doing now. You can pretend that the motivations for not stocking it are irrelevant, and you would be wrong.
IMO, They’re extending these laws for the same reason many same-sex marriage laws specifically exempt religious organizations from marrying same-sex couples–the legislature is either covering their butt, or trying to appease the opposition element enough to get them to support the legislation. Realistically, I don’t see the Supreme Court ever requiring a Catholic priest to marry a same-sex couple, whether a clause exists in the law or not, and I would argue the same is true with a Conscience clause law (so long as it wasn’t originally drafted to be explicitly narrow and exclusive of anything except physicians and abortion).
Actually, if they do stock said product, they can’t say otherwise. Again, drawing from the law in my own state, ORC 4729.16, the section discussing disciplinary actions for pharmacists, section (A)(2) states “Guilty of dishonesty or unprofessional conduct in the practice of pharmacy;” as one action which could result in a pharmacist needing to appear before the Board of Pharmacy for a disciplinary action.
Not in my state, you can’t. See OAC 4729-9-24 and ORC 4729.551
Essentially yes, with the caveat that you can’t refuse to do so based on race, religion, sex, etc (or at least, not after the relevant court cases resulting in their protection as classes).
So far as we were taught in pharmacy law for our state, yes, yes (see my link for ORC 4729.16 for what we can be punished for by the Board of Pharmacy), and maybe.
In Ohio, the maybe for the third answer is because back in 1996, a pharmacist was fired by K-Mart for refusing to sign a document stating she would dispense all legally prescribed meds (as an aside, that a corporation was requiring a pharmacist to sign said document in order to work for them lends credence to Ohio law not requiring us to fill valid prescriptions as a matter of law) and then refusing to dispense an oral contraceptive product. She sued for wrongful termination with an argument that the state’s general conscience clause law applies to pharmacists. K-mart countered with a motion for dismissal on this point, but the judge in question denied said dismissal on the grounds that it couldn’t be concluded that the law did or did not apply in this case. The suit fell apart later for (so far as I can find) undisclosed administrative reasons, so an actual finding of fact as to whether the law applied to pharmacists or not hasn’t yet been determined by the courts here in Ohio (see this link page 244 and this link page 13 for details).
Nowhere does Ohio law state that upon being licensed that I become an agent for the government or anything to a similar effect. In point of fact, Ohio law requires the Board of Pharmacy to give me my license if I meet the minimum requirements listed in ORC 4729.07, 071, and 08. None of those requirements include dispensing all legally obtained prescriptions. I must merely be 18 or older, Be of good moral character or habits (whatever that means from a legal perspective), have received a degree in pharmacy from a board approved program, have met the minimum standards for internship, have passed a mandated background check, and have passed the mandated pharmacy examinations for my state (Naplex and Ohio Jurisprudence, in my case). I can be a fully licensed pharmacist in my state and never legally have to dispense anything.
Immediate need or emergency need? Immediate, but non-emergent, yes, (s)he can refuse to fill it. I can technically legally refuse to fill your prescription for something as simple as you standing there screaming profanities at me, if I so wished.
Emergency, so far as I know, the only time I’m obligated to give you medication would be as a direct result of some other medication/vaccination I directly administered to you (ie, if I give you a flu shot and you have an unanticipated allergic reaction under which medical guidelines would call for certain medications, I’m legally required to administer said medications (and if necessary perform CPR) to arrest/slow down anaphylaxis until EMS arrives and takes over. Otherwise, I don’t think Ohio requires me to act. I could be wrong on that one, though.
As do I, which on a personal level saddens me a great deal. Legally, however, at least in my state, they are covered.
Technically, that too is going to vary from state to state. Ohio allows a prescriber to dispense medications (see ORC 4729.29 and .291) provided they follow all of the same packaging, labeling, and record-keeping rules that a pharmacy would. Thus, in Ohio, a physician can directly sell Plan B to his/her patients if they can’t get it from a local pharmacy for whatever reason. Most physicians offices don’t because they aren’t well informed on the aforementioned requirements, but that doesn’t mean they can’t do so.