It’s not about customers doing anything unusual with the meds. I know that with some pills, you can take several at a time and use them like Plan B, but I’m not talking about that. When taken as typically prescribed, one of the functions of birth control pills is to prevent implantation of a zygote.
I’m not talking about the legal aspect. I’m undecided about whether they should legally be required to dispense Plan B, I just don’t understand how they could rationalize it to themselves. It’s not comparable to selling beer and wine but not cigarettes; it’s more like selling Marlboros but refusing on moral grounds to sell Newports.
Maybe they realize that refusing to sell all types of hormonal birth control would be too poor of a business decision? That’s the only reason I can come up with.
In the scenario, it’s apparently already economic, or the pharmacy wouldn’t be there to refuse to carry Plan B.
I guess it’s on the far, far end of the rooster tail of probability that the space used to carry Plan B would cause the pharmacy to have drop another product that would push them into the red, but I’m going to guess not.
Really? Is it that hard to find internet access in a 24-48 hour window? You could always use the phone if you prefer. Speaking of which…
I’m actually blown away by this question. Of course they do. All pharmacies accept phone orders. I’d venture to guess the majority of prescriptions are either phoned in or sent through electronic prescribing systems these days. Written prescriptions are prone to error (not a problem) and can’t be called in by your nurse on your behalf (big problem). Of course this is all sort of a moot point because Plan B doesn’t require a prescription.
Yes, it is slightly more expensive. Plan B in a CVS in New York City was 45-50 dollars as of about a year ago. Plan B bought online is about 47 dollars and 29 dollars for overnight shipping. So, 50 dollars vs 76 dollars. Meh. I can’t get excited about that. Especially when the alternative is… what exactly? Forcing businesses to stock items they might not be able to sell and government mandated prices? If someone actually went to the trouble of writing a Plan B prescription, they should be able to inform the patient of the many simple ways of getting around an obstinate pharmacist.
It’s different to run an exisitng business that is just on the black because of market limitations, than to open a new one a just keep it on the black. The entry costs may be too much. It’s the same reason why the mom and pop corner store in Godforsakenville, ND has no competition from Wal-MArt or Costco.
I never claimed that Plan B would tip them over debtor’s prison. They don’t want to stock it because the name of the molecule remids the owner of his dead dog and it makes him sad.
Once again the question: No Plan B* or no pharmacy?
*which is an incredible strawman because as shown by other posters- the number of women in the US that can’t get Plan B in 72 hours is amazingly close to zero, and if those women who can’t have many, many problems much bigger and more urgent than access to Plan B; and the solution to this basically non-existing problem is price control and an army of public servants ready to go to Godforsakenville, ND at a moment’s notice.
Was there anything to stop them from not stocking it currently? I don’t think there was. So what was stopping them, from responding to requests, with, ‘Sorry we don’t stock that item.’? Nothing was, is the answer.
The only reason we know that this was an ‘issue of conscience’ is because they proudly boasted about it. Because they are wanting to advance a political agenda, they are using the power granted by their professional certifications, to attempt to extend their morality onto others.
They deserve to lose their certifications and they deserve the community to boycott them for their idiocy, in my opinion. Any ugly push back coming their way is fully earned.
Caremark is their mail order service, which is what we were talking about. Of course the local CVS takes phone orders, but much of the discussion has centered around the viability of getting something like Plan B when the local pharmacy doesn’t carry it.
It may not require a prescription, but currently is there any way to buy it locally without getting it from a pharmacy/pharmacist?
It’s simple to get around an obstinate pharmacist in NYC, where there are presumably many pharmacies in a small area, plus probably a larger than average percentage of people with internet access. That price difference is nothing to sneeze at for those that don’t live in a major metropolitan area. You also need a credit card to order online.
Again, this is a case of certain people attempting to make a political statement (or a ‘conscienced decision’ – YMMV) by refusing legal medications to members of the public who are – or should be – entitled to obtain them. And these are, in FinnAgain’s words, persons who have been granted a “guaranteed monopoly among licensed individuals” by the regulatory authority. The same regulatory authority that prevents peasants like you or me from legally obtaining certain medications except through the offices of these persons.
Despite all Libertarian-like justifications for these actions, many of us find them to be unconscionable impositions of one group’s moral convictions upon people who do not share those convictions. In other words, religious persecution. Persecution of outsiders by a group who share some religious beliefs. Nothing more. And nothing less.
No, it’s because doing so is their job, and their job is one that exists as it is because they government mandates it.
And they are disgusting, woman hating bigots. This is not some symmetrical situation; one side is driven by bigotry, the other isn’t. Their motivation is hatred and cruelty, not “conscience”; I doubt they have one.
Their job is to serve as gatekeepers for the dispensation of medicine as judged by their knowledge of medicine, not their personal prejudices. They aren’t refusing to produce Plan B for economic or medical reasons, they are doing so out of hatred and malice.
Or out of heartfelt moral conviction with which you disagree.
Otherwise, could you please provide support for your assertion that pharmacists are ethically or professionally required to check their beliefs at the door?
The anti-abortion position is based on malice towards women, and about as “moral” as support for slavery. Plenty of slaveowners had a “heartfelt moral conviction” that slavery was just; they were still monsters.
The fact that they can’t do the job properly if they aren’t basing their decisions on science. Should they have a right to switch out medicine for poison if their beliefs demand it? That’s only a small step from what these pharmacists are already doing.
Is requiring teachers to teach evolution, even if they are Creationists, an “unconscionable imposition”?
And again, we are not simply talking about “business owners”. I have seen no such demands for grocery stores, head shops, bakeries, bowling alleys, etc, etc, etc. The requirement I have seen is for people granted a government enforced monopoly on the dispensation of medicines. With such licensing comes professional standards and codes of conduct. It must. And while Der’s hyperbolic nonsense is fairly easy to wave away, the fact is that there is a basic disconnect between their claims and actions. They may decide, based on their personal morality, that taking Plan B is wrong and as a result they may refuse to take it. But complaining that their religious freedoms are violated because they can not impose their religious beliefs on others is one of the oldest bait-and-switches in the book. It’s the same sort of arguments we’ve heard from homophobes who claim that discriminating against gays is fundamental to their religious worldview and stopping them limits their religious freedom.
It is a particularly perverse, Orwellian, twisted tactic to claim that not being able to force your views on others is an unacceptable limitation on your freedom.
The chef who is forced to eat steak even though he is a vegetarian is having his personal beliefs violated. The chef who is forced to cook steak for his customers even though he’s a vegetarian has a job to do and can choose to leave it if he’d like.
Pharmacists are granted a government enforced, impenetrable monopoly on their industry. They are free to exercise their personal beliefs and refrain from using any and all medicines they do not agree with. But their job is to dispense medicines that are legally prescribed, and they can choose to leave that job if they don’t like its requirements.
It’s not hyperbolic. There was a mention upthread of a woman being denied medicine for internal bleeding, and of course there certainly are religious groups that think homosexuals should be left without medicine to die; “Let those dirty, disease-infested, sinning queers die” to quote John Ashcroft. It’s not that big a step from withholding important medicine from someone out of hate to actively deciding to poison them.
Der, you view your opponents through a carnival fun house mirror of comic book level Black and White. That you are unable to conceive of the fact that some people honestly are opposed to abortion instead of hating and wanting to punish women (while others really do want to do some slut shaming and slut busting) shows that your perception is fatally limited by your preconceptions.
I expect this to roll right off your back, however, so I’m posting this more to point out that people on my ‘side’ of the debate are willing to call out lunatic fringe ideas like yours while still maintaining a consistent and principled opposition to the imposition of religious values on those who do not cleave to those religions.