I really can’t get worked up about it. Should every convenience store be forced to sell condoms? Should every hospital be forced to offer an abortion service? I mean, I’m 100% pro-choice, possibly even up to the point of the minute before the water breaks, but I just can’t get behind forcing a store to sell a product or class of product (unless they receive hefty public funding).
Are pharmacies forced to stock life saving items (i.e. anti-venoms, inhalers + asthma steroids)? If not, I can’t really get behind forcing them to carry a Plan-B, but not things that are legitimately time sensitive to saving lives. If they are forced to have those items, then maaaaaybe, but there’s still something off about it to me.
They have the right to not serve Jews, or Muslims, or vegans, in the sense that they are not obligated to sell the products or services those groups actually want to buy.
It is a little different, the law is not written in a way to force contraceptives, it is written in a way to ensure that the health needs of the public are met.
Pharmacy compounding is pretty rare these days, with increasing automaton the only reason to have a pharmacist is due to federal requirements.
It would have been best had the FDA followed the scientific recommendation and make it OTC.
This would be a non-issue if you could buy it at 7-11
I cant really view a pharmacy as your average business.
Dispensing medicine is a privilege a business can gain by meeting various criteria rather than a right, and that privilege should be able to be withdrawn if it isnt meeting the criteria that the licensing body sets - expecting reasonable availability levels of commonly prescribed drugs or the like doesnt sound particularly outlandish to me as a possible criteria.
Having said that, it sounds like something that could be fairly impossible to enforce, they could ‘run out’ or use any number of endruns Id think.
Of course, the same people who remember they are supposed to support the right of private businesses to run themselves in this instance will forget it the next time a pharmacist is fired for refusing to dispense medication. When that happens, suddenly Walgreens doesn’t have any private property rights and it’s the government’s job to tell them what to do.
No, not all of the same people. As I have repeatedly held on these boards for many years, a business should absolutely have the right to fire an individual pharmacist if they wish to dispense legal medication and he refuses. And that same business should have the legal right to decide not to dispense a particular medication if they wish.
As a federal issue, I think this is the right ruling. The federal government does not license pharmacists.
However, in principle I would have no problem if the state or local licensing board required that pharmacists stock “x” product in order to maintain his or her license. The only reason I say “in principle” is I’m not sure how this would work. Suppose the pharmacist just didn’t order enough product. Can he lose his license? How much product is he supposed to keep in stock, and how many days can he not have it before it becomes a problem? If this is something the experts can agree on and make work, then I’m OP with it.
Could you outline why a state isn’t allowed to right a law like this? I don’t see how it violates the free exercise clause. All it says is that a licensed business must carry a certain product to promote the general welfare. That seems well within a state’s rights to me. Am I missing something?
This. Pharmacies only exist as part of a government program to restrict the sale of certain types of drugs. As such they are able to command higher prices than they could if the neigbourhood 7-11 was allowed to sell antibiotics. As a result of that privilege they have been given by the government, I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be expected to follow some rules.
I understand this is your concern. I don’t understand why this is your concern. Are you making an analogy from some other kind of professional group where such infractions result in a loss of license? (Which?) Or where the possibility of such infractions actually renders it impossible to regulate?
Well, I agree that a state should be able to make that rule – just as I agree it should be able to make the opposing rule. Both are a matter for state regulation.
In Washington, the state legislature passed RCW 70.47.160(2)(a), which provides in part:
The Washington State Board of Pharmacy in 2006 adopted a draft rule in accordance with that legislative dictate that provided that a individual pharmacist could refuse to dispense a medication but mandated that no pharmacy or pharmacist obstruct a patient’s effort to obtain lawfully prescribed drugs or devices. In other words, a pharmacist could refuse to help but could not hinder. Governor Gregoire reacted by announcing she should legally remove the entire Board if she wished, but wanted to avoid taking such a drastic step, and she submitted an alternate regulation to the Board, one drafted by Planned Parenthood, that required pharmacies to dispense lawfully prescribed drugs and prevented pharmacists from refusing to dispense a medicine or medical device for religious or moral reasons.
The Board adopted this alternate rule.
It’s for state courts to determine whether this rule conflicts with the requirement of state law RCW 70.47.160(2)(a).
In federal court, the pharmacists claim that the rule violates their right to freely exercise their religion as the First Amendment protects, the Equal Protection and Due Process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment, and federal anti-discrimination laws which would trump Washington state laws.
In 2007, the Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington enjoined, on a preliminary basis, the state of Washington from enforcing the rule, finding that the pharmacists complaining had an likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the actions were taken because of an animus against religion. (Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 524 F. Supp. 2d 1245 (Dist. Ct, WD Wash, 2007).
In 2009, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court reversed that injunction, finding that the district court had erred by applying a heightened scrutiny to the law, which was “…a neutral law of general applicability…”
Today, following an actual trial on the merits, the district court found that in practice, the decision burdens religion and notes the pharmacies are permitted to refuse to stock needed medication for other reasons with no problem:
At trail, the evidence included memos sent between the Governor’s office and Planned Parenthood:
Based on the evidence at trial, the district judge found as a matter of fact that the regulations were in practice intended to remove religious and conscience objections, not to actually ensure a reliable supply of Plan B be available. In other words, the only thing the regulations targeted was the conscience objections; they didn’t do anything at all to address any other reasons plan B wouldn’t be available.
There’s a taco vendor outside the building that sells out of his van, and, y’know, I just don’t think it’s right that he doesn’t make burritos. I’ve said time and time again that he should have them, but he refuses to stock the tortillas. There should be a law against that. He should lose his vending permit unless he makes burritos.
Did I mention he’s the ONLY taco truck around for miles? And that my burrito need is time-sensitive? My boss says I only get the time between 11:30 and noon to eat a burrito, and if I don’t, I’ll be hungry until dinner time!
Of course I don’t think everybody should have to make burritos, but c’mon, this guy’s a taco truck! That’s really, really like a burrito! Why hasn’t Congress done something about this? Don’t they want to promote the lunchtime welfare?