Pharmacists denying birth control

I just believe that if owned this pharmacy I would fire this guy on the spot and would make sure he gets no unemployment benefits.

That's a really interesting statement, OWM, especially coming from you.

How does your above assertion fit into the following ideal?

Now, I just don't believe a nation as wealthy as we are should be letting everyone "fend for themselves..." I believe we are all connected, we all thrive off the same energy, and that we are all in this together.

So, things like healthcare- good, unemployment benefits-good, but only if the people getting them agree with your own views?

That's quite the radical statement, I think..

 

I do like your analogy, though, Farraday. However, by the same token, what if someone won't serve AIDS drugs to ANYONE, believing that God put AIDS on earth to punish sinners?

What if A pharmacist started mixing in LSD with all the thigns they sold because their religious beliefs stated that LSd provided a spiritual way to enlightment.

I am not going to play what if especially with some religious-people-are-out-to-destroy-liberty crap of a slippery slope arguement.
Please provide real examples.

 

I don't think it's a true "what if". It's the situation where someone is letting their religious beliefs influence their working habits. Should this be allowed to happen at all ? Or only in the case of non-life threatening medications.

 

What if A pharmacist started mixing in LSD with all the thigns they sold because their religious beliefs stated that LSd provided a spiritual way to enlightment.

-I really fail to see the point. Think about this for a second Farraday...no one is saying that it would be ok to tamper with medication or the delivery of medication, except possibly you? If a pharmacist did that, he/she would go to jail. Did you not realize that or something? I don't get it.

-Again, DS's analogy was apt because he was saying that just because this pharmacist had a problem with it was no reason to necessarily allow the pharmacist to refuse to fill the prescription...the point is, this seems wrong.

-Mr. 44, there is no conflict between the two statements I made. I can only imagine you feel I've unfairly charecterized conservatives in the past or something. However, I don't believe he should get unemployment benefits because he was fired for failing to do his job, he essentially quit. Quitters don't get benefits. He can go find another job. I'm not saying I want him to STARVE! Geez, MR. 44, come on!

 

I don't think it's a true "what if". It's the situation where someone is letting their religious beliefs influence their working habits. Should this be allowed to happen at all?

No because we should have a clear seperation between religion and work since religion is only suppsoed to happen on weekends and certainly isn't something you should be so uncooth as to take to work with you.

Or only in the case of non-life threatening medications.

We're talking about the pharmacist having a problem with the chemical the perscription is for. You may not want to see that and would rather see it as the pharmicist having a problem with the person, but I do not believe that is the case.

I really fail to see the point. Think about this for a second Farraday...no one is saying that it would be ok to tamper with medication or the delivery of medication, except possibly you? If a pharmacist did that, he/she would go to jail. Did you not realize that or something? I don't get it.

What I'm saying is if you want to make stupid what if comparisions that have no relation to the subject other then a biased view of the religious as homophobic bigots then I'm more then willing to play along with a biased view of drugged up hippies trying to distribute narcotics under the guise of spirituality.

Again, DS's analogy was apt because he was saying that just because this pharmacist had a problem with it was no reason to necessarily allow the pharmacist to refuse to fill the prescription...the point is, this seems wrong.

The point is it isn't even close to the same thing beyond your narrow and unyielding view that if the pharmacist refuses to give out a perscription it's an attack on the person with the perscription. To draw an actually accurate comparision should a pharmacist be forced to sell marijuana? I mean that's 'medicine' now right? The fact it has four times as much tar and is more carciogenic then cigarettes is obviously besides the point, it's medicine and it's obviously there to help.

 

Again, DS's analogy was apt because he was saying that just because this pharmacist had a problem with it was no reason to necessarily allow the pharmacist to refuse to fill the prescription...the point is, this seems wrong.

Hold on a moment. Are you saying that your basis for opposing this is because it "seems wrong" to you?

Why is it that your moral judgement in this case is appropriate to argue for violating others' rights, but if positions were reversed, you would claim that someone was trying to "impose their morality"?

Should you really be legislating your morality like that? If so, why is it then inappropriate for others (read: the religious right) to do the same? (Let me guess, your morality is right and their's is wrong. )

Kimball Kinnison

 

Hey, thanks OWM for the support...I'm just trying to have a calm discussion.

Upon further review, I firmly believe my question (and OWM's subsequent examples) are relevant 'when do religious beliefs end and discrimination begin?' IMHO its a cop out to not address this because it seems to be the crux of this thread.

Why is it that your moral judgement in this case is appropriate to argue for violating others' rights, but if positions were reversed, you would claim that someone was trying to "impose their morality"?

What 'rights' are you referring to? Seriously, I'm doing my best to read all of the posts but I may have missed where you already addressed this.

 

What 'rights' are you referring to? Seriously, I'm doing my best to read all of the posts but I may have missed where you already addressed this.

How about freedom of religion, especially if you are going to make any laws or rules retroactive (i.e. applying to current employees) without their consent?

It is encoded in both law and APhA policy that a pharmacist has the right to reject prescriptions. Trying to change that because it "seems wrong" would be attempting to impose your morals onto those pharmacists.

Kimball Kinnison

 

But again, how far does using 'freedom of religion' extend and what constitutes 'religion'? I believe in some countries 'Jedi Knight' is an official religion but I'm not certain.

Anyway, from the USA Today (emphasis mine):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.

 

But again, how far does using 'freedom of religion' extend and what constitutes 'religion'? I believe in some countries 'Jedi Knight' is an official religion but I'm not certain.

That's actually a myth. There was a rumor floating around for (I believe) the Astrailian census that if enough people claimed it, it would be recognized. It wasn't.

Anyway, from the USA Today (emphasis mine):

And I have not argued at all about that. In fact, I have agreed with it. The pharmacists who do not pass the prescription to another pharmacist, or at least return it to the customer to take elsewhere, are wrong to do so.

However, to force them to fill the prescription against their religious beliefs is wrong, and is a violation of hteir rights. It is never appropriate to force someone to go against their beliefs.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball - To play devil's advocate here: What if I could justify (including demonstrating history and tradition of the belief, though whether that should be necessary would be really debatable) a religious aversion to paying taxes? What if I were following some ancient religion that obligated human sacrifices? How would my beliefs then mesh with the law? There have to be limits somewhere.

-Paul

 

Kimball, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree, but I honestly do not feel that refusing to fill the prescription is truly a passive act.

I do not believe that it is.

Peace,

V-03

 

Maybe the issue is being muddled because everyone seems to being focusing on the exceptions while ignoring the rule.

Honestly, I don't think anyone in this thread has even argued for the pharmacists who would keep a prescription. The APhA policy says that pharmacists shouldn't keep a prescription.

Wouldn't it be more productive then, to address those specific exceptions, instead of making it seem like EVERY pharmacist who doesn't fill a prescription also prevents the person from getting it filled?

There is a difference between refusing a request, and actively preventing the request from being carried out.

 

That's exactly what I was talking about:

Compromise.

Peace,

V-03

 

so what? its the pharmacists right. If you cant buy it at a certain phamacist, go somewhere else!

 

malkieD2 posted on 4/19/05 2:39am

---

Sorry, I still don't see it like that. The pharmacist is preventing the girl getting her prescription by either (a) taking her prescription and not giving it back, or (b) refusing to release the prescription to another pharmacy. [hr][/blockquote]

That's stealing! Wow!

[blockquote] [hr]Sorry, but no. You are arguing that it won't go any further because they'll start to lose profit. Denying *any* item will eat into their profits, so where do you draw the line ? You are happy to draw the line at contraceptives which to me suggests a double standard. [hr][/blockquote]

No, I'm not saying it "won't go any further," I'm saying that pharmacies that do "go further" will end up bankrupt and will have to close up shop in the light of other, more profitable pharmacies. I'm saying that those who close their doors to various demographics will get what you believe they deserve--to be put out of business. The only difference is that if they get shut down this way, the government isn't squashing people's rights.

I'm also not "drawing the line" anywhere because I believe pharmacy owners have the same rights to liberty and property that you and I have.

[blockquote][hr]As I've mentioned several times above the differing opinions here (between myself and KK) are because we come from different healthcare backgrounds. Here the [b]Government pays for all healthcare[/b], and retains absolute control - there are no profits, and everyone receives the same level of healthcare.

Interestingly we don't have problems in this country with our pharmacists playing preacher. [Emphasis Added][hr][/blockquote]

No, the "government" doesn't pay for anything. The government forces its constituents to pay "taxes." The people have no choice but to pay these taxes, and the tax money goes towards healthcare. So, in essence, the people pay for healthcare.

Also, we don't have problems in this country with our doctors, pharmacists, surgeons, etc., being sub-standard. :)

He wasn't "playing preacher," considering that preachers don't steal.

[blockquote][hr]Indeed, I say let the people die who can't afford it - face it, they are of no practical use to society anyway. [hr][/blockquote]

You can help them. Don't steal from me to do it please kthxbye. :)

[blockquote][hr]My point of view remains the same. If you can't do your job properly, then find another job. [hr][/blockquote]

Well, yes. The pharmacy has every right to fire him. If he did steal that woman's property, then he should face charges for it.

[blockquote][link=http://boards.theforce.net/user.asp?usr=Daddy_Cool][b]Daddy_Cool[/b][/link] [b]posted on 4/20/05 5:29pm[/b][hr] so what? its the pharmacists right. If you cant buy it at a certain phamacist, go somewhere else!
[hr][/blockquote]

You, my friend, are an evil conservative. [face_skull]

 

there are evil and good conservatives?

 

Just like there are _____ and _____ liberals.

 

That's not appropriate, even in jest.

 

KK

o.k. about the Jedi stuff, but I'd still be interested to hear an answer to the first question. And again, what constitutes religion? Only those recognized by the government?

However, to force them to fill the prescription against their religious beliefs is wrong, and is a violation of hteir rights.

What if, as OWM pointed out, someone believes AIDS is punishment for sinners and refuses to despense related medication? Or what if he/she will only give birth control pills and such to married women? Before there are objections to 'what ifs', according to the WP, the latter actually happened.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A5490-2005Mar27?language=printer

Also:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/01/birth.control.governor.ap/

"Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy or the pharmacist is not allowed to discriminate or to choose who he sells it to," Blagojevich said. "No delays. No hassles. No lectures."

Mr44

Always the voice of wisdom you are but IMO its also important to have an open and honest discussion. It seems that only the first part of the following was discussed, while the latter was ignored (reposted from the USA Today from my previous post):

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

Anyone know what the actual law is? I'd search, but I'm feelin' kinda lazy right now.

 

DS, this is neither here nor there, but it's widely believed that Blagojevich is not going to win re-election in the state. He's alienated the democrats, antagonized the GOP, and has a brewing corruption scandal in the works.

So, with this issue, other political concerns may be driving his action, until it gets passed off to the general assembly.

 

After reading this all I have to say I'm very happy I do live in a country where such a things cannot happen and an individual's rights are respected. No offence Americans but this wrapping religion around everything really sucks.

 

That's stealing! Wow!

In the case of an electronic prescription there isn't anything to steal. Why are you so hooked up on the property aspect ? Why don't you actually debate the point in question rather than conceed the irrelevant property aspect?

I'm also not "drawing the line" anywhere because I believe pharmacy owners have the same rights to liberty and property that you and I have.

There's no such thing as a pharmacy owner.

No, the "government" doesn't pay for anything. The government forces its constituents to pay "taxes." The people have no choice but to pay these taxes, and the tax money goes towards healthcare. So, in essence, the people pay for healthcare.

Of taxes are the root of the majority of the money the Government spends. So, perhaps I should have said that the Government was responsible for all healthcare - clearly a far superior system yo that which you enjoy. Furthermore people are completely free to live without paying taxes, but still enjoy free education and healthcare - but that's a totally different debate.

Also, we don't have problems in this country with our doctors, pharmacists, surgeons, etc., being sub-standard

Neither do we, unless you are willing to back that statement up.

He wasn't "playing preacher," considering that preachers don't steal.

No, Preachers molest little boys. Again, you are hooked on the property aspect which is an irrelevant side point. Preachers preach the word of God, often to those whom are not interested, they are also interested in adopting others into their faith and sharing their beliefs. In this case women are being lectured to on the morality of contraceptive-safe-sex, and furthermore preventing these women getting the contraceptives they need.

It isn't the place of a pharmacist to lecture on mortality - they are paid to provide a service which should be totally devoid of religious intervention.

You can help them. Don't steal from me to do it please kthxbye

You miss the sarcasm ?

 

wever, to force them to fill the prescription against their religious beliefs is wrong, and is a violation of hteir rights. It is never appropriate to force someone to go against their beliefs.

There's an easy way to clear all this up. Make it the doctors' sole legal responsibility to deem what his or her patient can take. No pharmacist re-evaluation.

Also, not to go off topic too far, but I'm all for people changing their minds and deciding they are in a line of work that is against their religious beliefs. Especially the army. I think people should be able to quit the army, and people should quit being Pharmacists, if the job requires that they go against their core beliefs, religious or not.

 

Mr. 44, you don't think that he's even going to get the democratic nomination? I know people think of Blegoyavich as this all style no substance governor, but I thought he was doing allright? Is there any more word on his feud with father-in-law Chicago Alderman Dick Mell?

And I seem to recall the Cook County DA and the Attorney General's Office starting a joint investigation into something political about their fued.