Why must they be woman despisers? Why can’t they just be zygote lovers?
Because they don’t act like it, any more than people who enslaved blacks really acted like they were doing it for the black people’s own good.
Following onto **Bricker **and ladyfoxfyre–
The economic impediments to opening a competing business are far greater than the potential revenue from any single product, so the profitability of providing or not providing Plan B cannot be a significant factor in such a decision. Thus, the fact that a pharmacy already exists means that it is highly unlikely that a competing pharmacy would open nearby just to offer a single additional item.
But if the existing pharmacy closes, then indeed the gap will likely swiftly be closed by a newer one. Sadly though, unless the first was driven out of business by community boycott due to the ‘conscienced objection’ to sale of Plan B, the new store may or may not continue the same policy.
If anything, this further suggests that government intervention would be the most expedient means of ensuring ready access to all legal medications, even ones that are controversial within certain religious contexts.
Sure, he can close his business. He has no obligation to be the only provider in the area. But, if he is the only provider in the area, he is obligated to provide those services which he is legally qualified and able to do, and not impose his religious objections on a hostage demographic of women. This applies whether he is the only provider or not, he still has an obligation to not negatively impact public health because of his personal objections to the usage of the pill.
So if he closes his business, women will have to go elsewhere… but you agree that he still has the right to do this. He can even close his business for religious reasons, thus forcing women to go elsewhere, and you acknowledge that the law should not stop him…even though his closing leave the “hostage demographic” of women even more hostage. They still can’t get their Plan B, and now they can’t buy other stuff, too.
And if he’s open, he has the obligation to provide this service.
Why?
I mean, you state this as a conclusion. He IS obligated.
Why? He can close, and leave these women without a source.But if he stays open, he has to be that source. Why?
Then why do you bring up the “only provider in the area” business if it’s totally irrelevant to your claim?
I’ll tell you why.
Because you think you can get away with it. Somewhere in your consciousness, you understand that people won’t stand for what you really want: to force the guy to remain in business for the good of the community. You know that won’t fly.
But this… you sense that a lot of people will accept this more minimal intrusion into their liberty.
So you push this one, knowing it’s what you might get away with.
This is information I didn’t know.
I would still argue that pharmacists have a professional responsibility to dispense legally prescribed medicines, but obstructionism by them in Ohio at least seems to have a very quick and easy remedy by physicians.
Because the government can’t force you to have a business. But, once you are in business, they can regulate what you do and how you do it. That seems pretty obvious, don’t you think?
Especially if you are in the business of providing a service in the way of medical care to the public. It’s the same reason we require hospitals to treat emergency patients regardless of their ability to pay: we know it’s going to be a financial disincentive for them to treat patients who cannot pay, but they are in the business of keeping people alive and the downside of that is that they don’t get to choose who they treat based on their ability to receive compensation. It’s a losing proposition financially, but in the interest of public health, it’s absolutely necessary.
I didn’t bring it up, someone else in this thread did from the position of “if someone refuses just go somewhere else”. “Just go to another pharmacy” is not always an option, but the obligations to provide the medication are the same whether or not you are the only provider. I was simply illustrating the point that this fiction is not always the case in real life.
Listen, I have been exceedingly civil about this discussion. You are free to ask me what I think, or for me to continue to have the discussion with you to get a better grasp of my perspective, but you do not get to say that my position is based on “being able to get away with things”. This tone has been in no way given to you and I don’t appreciate it being directed at me. See my answer above for my actual response to your question, instead of the falsified one you choose to believe despite my actual position on the matter.
Because the government has legally defined him as the only source. I’d be perfectly happy to ban him from ever participating in the medical industry and having someone else do the job.
Or even replacing them with vending machines since these pharmacists don’t appear to be willing to do the job they were hired for; it’s not like they can reasonably argue that they have better expertise than such a machine, since they aren’t making decisions according to medical science anyway. Even a dumb expert system would be better than someone acting out of malice and religious dogma.
ETA Since I missed the window: I guess on review you could say I did “bring up” the idea of being the only provider, but only to refute the idea that it was always possible to just go somewhere else to obtain the medication. In my opinion, the obligation to provide the drug is the same whether it is an only provider situation or not. Just because someone else in proximity to you is willing to not behave unethically does not absolve you from behaving unethically in the first place.
First: apologies for my add-on post that you rightly objected to. The tone was not fairly directed at you and was out of place and wrong.
Secondly and in response to this: do you believe you have the exclusive province of defining ethical behavior in this context? You assert, without citation, that this is unethical behavior, as though it has already been established. I dispute that. There are some states in which the behavior is explicitly permitted – that is, it is within ethical guidelines. Other states are silent on the matter. Others forbid it. Only with respect to the latter can you claim without contradiction that this is unethical behavior. True?
And probably not just Ohio. In fact , I’d bet doctors can dispense in nearly every state- they can certainly distribute samples, they can write prescriptions, and there’s no extra knowledge needed to dispense a pre-packaged prescription. A Google search brings up reference to doctors dispensing in Maryland , Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, California, Nevada and a number of companies which specialize in providing “point of care dispensing solutions” ranging from prepacked medication to software to state controlled substance reporting. Some states do seem to have a registration requirement for doctors who wish to sell medications, but Oregon’s ,for example, is a simple one page form.
Why does there seem to be such a focus on the pharmacy/pharmacist stocking /handing over Plan B? Aside from the fact that it would probably be easier to mandate that the doctor writing the prescription must fill it , ( and BTW, although I may have missed it, I haven’t seen anyone advocate that doctors be mandated to write the damn prescription to begin with. Even if the next doctor is 200 miles away.) the entire problem results from the absolutely unique treatment of Plan B- it 's an over the counter drug for those over 17 , while those under 17 need a prescription and therefore a pharmacist must be involved in every sale. First of all, the division doesn’t make sense - there’s no age requirement for far more dangerous over the counter drugs. A 12 year old can buy Tylenol if he or she wishes , even though an overdose can be fatal. Even if this bizarre prescription/nonprescription status must exist, there are other age-restricted products for sale in drugstores that don’t require the pharmacist’s involvement- I can pay the cashier at the front for my beer and cigarettes upon showing proper ID. I don’t even have to buy my beer and cigarettes at a drugstore. A cashier at any gas station/convenience store/supermarket is apparently capable of not selling beer and cigarettes to underage purchasers but will be unable to do the same for Plan B.
Why is there so much less outrage over the FDA regulation and those responsible for it than there is over the pharmacist refusing?
Thank you, and apology accepted. What I would like to know first is, do you accept my example above regarding situations in which we can force businesses, specifically businesses involved in the arena of providing for the public health, to do something which may be financially unwise?
Second, yes I do feel that the behavior is unethical. One such judge has agreed:
I agree with this article’s contention that when you work in the field of public health, you are expected to put your patient’s interests above those of your own. When you do not do that, and do not abide by the code of ethics of your profession which require you to fill all reasonable prescriptions unless you suspect abuse or forgery, you are in violation of that obligation to provide care for patients. Let’s not forget that the religious objection to providing Plan-B is not grounded in science. This medication does not cause abortion. So if you’re morally against providing medication that results in the abortion of a fetus, you’re still not doing that by stocking and selling Plab-B. So I’d ask you, are you still permitted to have religious objections to something which are not grounded in fact? Do you get to conscientiously object to anything you want on religious grounds even if you are incorrect? Can I object to dispensing medications which cause the destruction of the thyroid gland because I erroneously believe the thyroid to be a tiny person living in my neck?
The states that have passed legislation allowing for conscientious objection by pharmacists aren’t doing so because the practice is inherently ethical, or else they would not have to pass laws to protect the behavior. It would be protected under existing codes of ethics. The pharmacist in question in the article I linked to had their license revoked for 2 years because of ethics violations. If there had been a law permitting the act of conscientious objection for pharmacists, the license would not have been suspended. But as it stood, the pharmacist was in violation of the ethical standard which required them to provide care for which they were trained and licensed in providing. The purpose of passing the law is to allow the pharmacists a legal protection where none such existed before, because a judge ruled that they were in violation of the professional ethical standards of their profession. When you say that there are states that permit it, which means it’s “within ethical guidelines”, you surely mean that it is within legal guidelines. Professional ethics are merely an agreed upon standard of practice. But I’m sure we don’t need to have the discussion of whether all laws are ethical.
Yes, and this is actually the industry I work in now. Dispensing practitioners can provide medications at point of care for patients. But, why should they have to do that? We have an entire industry designed to provide medications to patients when they have a legal and valid prescription for such medication. When a prescription isn’t mandated, this industry can still provide for the medication. Why should doctors take on the burden of this industry because those within the industry are failing to perform their function?
The reason, IMO, that the discussion turns to whether or not the pharmacist is providing the medication is due to the fact that for anyone under 16, it is still a prescription medication. Not that they simply can’t get it, such as your tobacco / alcohol analogy, that it requires a prescription to obtain. So it must still be treated as a prescription medication for all intents and purposes. The FDA has not lowered the age of purchase due to purely political reasons. There is no medical reason to restrict the sale of Plan-B to 17 and up.
I believe there to be more outrage directed towards the pharmacist because the FDA is not actually restricting the sale and denying care. They are merely laying the standards of use for the medication, the application of those rules is to be enforced by local health inspectors and adhered to by doctors and pharmacists. The pharmacists in question are the ones who are choosing to refuse to abide by the standards set forth by the FDA, but instead of violating them in a way that is less restrictive of the intent, they are violating them by refusing to provide the medication at all.
The FDA certainly doesn’t mandate that pharmacists fill prescriptions for Plan B - it simply requires that it be sold by prescription only. Each individual state determines whether it will require pharmacists to fill prescriptions for Plan B and whether to enact a conscience clause if it does.
In any event, although there are certainly people who believe these pharmacists hate women, and those who believe that they are trying to impose their morality upon others ,I have not ever heard anyone allege that the pharmacists actually believe that Plan B is perfectly moral and refuse to dispense it anyway which is the position the FDA is in. The FDA’s function is to regulate drugs based on safety, not morality or political expediency. There is no medical reason why Plan B should be by prescription for those under 17, but it is anyway.
I cannot help but think the lack of outrage against the FDA or HHS Secretary Sebelius (who overruled the FDA Commissioner) has more to do with who appointed Sebelius than with her decision.
Yes, we can.
I have always conceded we can.
I contend that it’s generally unwise, and we SHOULD only when faced with grave and imminent harm that would be averted by the requirement.
Sure. As I said, in some states, this behavior is forbidden. In other states, it is not. But you seem to be arguing that it’s a universally applicable statement, unethical no matter what the law says.
This, I don’t accept, and I challenge you to either withdraw the statement or substantiate it using some mutually agreeable ethical standard.
But we need some standard upon which we can agree, don’t we? I mean, I declare it ethical, and you declare it u ethical. Why should your declaration be accepted? You cite to a Wisconsin decision – I can cite to a number of other states’ contrary decisions. Why is yours more persuasive than mine?
That seems like a somewhat specious argument, when the point you made that I was responding to was about people being unable to impose their religious beliefs if they are passively doing nothing. If the important point is that, as I would identify it, passiveness requires that you also can’t be doing something that would not be done otherwise (that is to say, I impose captivity upon you because, while I am passive in my position once there, I actively made an effort to get there), I don’t see how the same doesn’t apply to someone who has made the effort to register themselves as a licensed dispensor and got themselves work. That too is effort, that too runs alter to their general passive existence.
The dispensor is passive in his non-sale; I am passive in my doorway-standing. If I still am able to impose upon you because my actions to get into that position count, I don’t see why the dispensor cannot on that same basis.
How does this contradict anything I said? I didn’t state the FDA mandated that it be filled. I said the FDA mandates the circumstances under which it CAN be filled. Which is why people aren’t pissed at the FDA, they’re pissed at the pharmacists actually refusing the sale.
I agree with this statement.
I doubt that, because plenty of people were upset when she did not enact the FDA’s guidelines on changing the dispensing age.
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. 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.
APhA has a code of ethics 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.
When you said
I understood you to mean there was some actual requirement that the pharmacists were violating. If you simply meant that they aren’t making sales that they are permitted but not required to make, that’s accurate .
I understand perfectly why the person who was unable to purchase Plan B would be pissed at the person who actually refused the sale. What I don't understand is why the people who have never been refused Plan B and who could simply go to another drugstore if it ever happened are outraged at the pharmacists and believe that states should pass laws with no conscience clauses requiring that pharmacists sell Plan B rather than being outraged at the FDA for requiring pharmacists to be involved in the sale of what is really an OTC drug in the first place.