pharmacist have 1st Amendment right to refuse to dispense Plan B

[Quantum Windbag]

No you cannot.

When a Pharmacist Refuses To Fill a Prescription

yes you can.

In several highly publicized incidents in Texas and Wisconsin, pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions for the “morning-after” pill based on religious or ethical beliefs. The Texas pharmacists lost their jobs, and the Wisconsin pharmacist was sued. Though such severe consequences are rare, these cases have generated a lot of controversy, and state and federal legislation.

Four states—Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota—have passed laws allowing pharmacists to "opt out" of filling prescriptions they find morally objectionable, and at least 13 others are considering doing so.1 The governor of Illinois, on the other hand, introduced legislation to compel pharmacies that carry contraceptives to fill all prescriptions for birth control. At least four other states are considering legislation that would require pharmacists to fill all prescriptions presented to them.

So wait. There are states that have ruled that it is ok to opt out and there are states that have ruled that it is not ok? Wow. Imagine that. You have a choice about where to live and how you are governed. What a novel idea.

Mike

No, there are companies, not states, that have made up rules about what their employees can do. States do not have the power to take away rights just because people are idiotic, but I do thank you for proving that I am not a right wing fanatic.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

No you cannot.

When a Pharmacist Refuses To Fill a Prescription

yes you can.

In several highly publicized incidents in Texas and Wisconsin, pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions for the “morning-after” pill based on religious or ethical beliefs. The Texas pharmacists lost their jobs, and the Wisconsin pharmacist was sued. Though such severe consequences are rare, these cases have generated a lot of controversy, and state and federal legislation.

Four states—Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota—have passed laws allowing pharmacists to "opt out" of filling prescriptions they find morally objectionable, and at least 13 others are considering doing so.1 The governor of Illinois, on the other hand, introduced legislation to compel pharmacies that carry contraceptives to fill all prescriptions for birth control. At least four other states are considering legislation that would require pharmacists to fill all prescriptions presented to them.

Can I sue you because you are annoying?

Dig a little further Quantam and you will see that the EMPLOYER fired the first employee because the EMPLOYER did not give employee permission to not sell said product and in the other case they were sued and won when the court ruled that no one could be compelled to offer certain products.

Plasmaball proves our point with his own links. Makes our job easier.

 

[saveliberty]

I remember the first time I ever read about a pharmacist refusing to honor a valid prescription from a doctor to his patient because of so-called conscience. It flabbergasted me that any pharmacist could try to interject him or herself into the doctor patient relationship.

The pharmacist is asked to prescribe the medication and isn't asked to take the medication. He isn't really involved in the doctor patient relationship in any relevant way.

The good analogy would be this: If a man came into a restaurant and ordered pork chops which were on the menu and a Jewish waiter refused to serve the meal due to religious objections.

Where does this silliness end? There's all manner of products and medicines that are sold in pharmacies that can be used and are used in ways that religious and nonreligious people might find objectionable. What business is it of theirs?

You better hope the pharmacist injects themselves in the doctor/patient relationship. Doctors frequently prescribe drugs which can kill when mixed with other medicines the patient is taking. It is part of their job to interject themselves and protect the patient. Your analogy is poor to say the least.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I remember the first time I ever read about a pharmacist refusing to honor a valid prescription from a doctor to his patient because of so-called conscience. It flabbergasted me that any pharmacist could try to interject him or herself into the doctor patient relationship.

The pharmacist is asked to prescribe the medication and isn't asked to take the medication. He isn't really involved in the doctor patient relationship in any relevant way.

The good analogy would be this: If a man came into a restaurant and ordered pork chops which were on the menu and a Jewish waiter refused to serve the meal due to religious objections.

Where does this silliness end? There's all manner of products and medicines that are sold in pharmacies that can be used and are used in ways that religious and nonreligious people might find objectionable. What business is it of theirs?

I just had a pharmacist refuse to fill my prescription last week.

Seems that Walgreens no longer accepts BlueCross insurance.

{But that has not been the case. Negotiations broke down and since Jan. 1, Walgreens, the nation's largest drugstore chain, has refused to do business with Express Scripts Inc., a company that manages the drug benefits for employers, insurers and other groups.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/01/11/MNC31MNH0J.DTL#ixzz1nEhg2M7Y}


Funny, Obama wasn't there to have the pharmacist arrested....

No doubt the forum fascists will be DEMANDING that pharmacists at Walgreens fill prescriptions regardless of contract negotiations.....

Shallow? RightWinger? Mustang?

C'mon fascists, we're depending on you to enforce the rule of force!

 

[saveliberty]

Marriage is a religious/social issue, not a state, or federal one. Unfortunately, states decided they have the power to regulate marriage, and actually require people to pay a fee before they get married. That makes them wrong, in my opinion.
...

Marriage is a religious issue, not a state, or federal, one.

I figured it was worth dealing with this part of your post seperately.

Marriage is a religious issue. You can go to your church and marry whomever the church will allow you to marry. It is not legally binding until you get it done through the state. Since you are asking the state to validate a contract there are certain requirements you must fulfill. THAT is what you go to the state for.

Stop trying to use the Constitution and start reading it.

Mike

I am not asking the state to validate anything, I do not need their validation to get married. In most states all it takes to be married is that you live together and tell other people that you are married, no validation required. States prefer that you get officially married so they can track you better, and restrict who you can, and cannot, marry.

Marriage is before God, unions are before the state. The state gets confused.

 

[saveliberty]

Pharmacists can refuse to refill prescriptions as well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

no they don't. They have a job to do. Which has been shown over and over again when people have done this. The end result is they are fired.

Don't want to deal out medicine? don't go into that field of work.

If the owner of the pharmacy wants them to dispense Plan B and they refuse, then the owner has the right to not employ them if he/she so chooses. Unfortunately, it seems you would also remove that right from the owner of the pharmacy.

Didn't you make the claim earlier today that you were for personal liberties? You sure do a shitty job of defending personal liberties.

Immie

I've just started the thread, but this is what it should boil down to. The determination whether a pharmacist will dispense a product is between the pharmacist and his/her employer. If the pharmacist is the owner, then that should be pretty much it. If the pharmacist has a boss, then it's up to the boss.


>>>>

The State of Washington disagrees.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I'm of the opinion that when someone insists that they have a right which blatantly over runs the right of another person that that person should undergo electrical shock therapy until they understand that their rights end where another person's begins.

 

[Syphon]

actually you need a state to validate you marriage in order to quality for survivor and tax benefits.

 

[saveliberty]

actually you need a state to validate you marriage in order to quality for survivor and tax benefits.

The state doesn't validate anything, including parking.

 

[Syphon]

actually you need a state to validate you marriage in order to quality for survivor and tax benefits.

The state doesn't validate anything, including parking.

then why do you need a marriage license?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

actually you need a state to validate you marriage in order to quality for survivor and tax benefits.

The state doesn't validate anything, including parking.

then why do you need a marriage license?

damn good question. Other than the state collecting a few bucks. Who knows. In fact in most states you don't. Just live with someone long enough and your considered married even without a formal ceremony of any kind.

 

[saveliberty]

actually you need a state to validate you marriage in order to quality for survivor and tax benefits.

The state doesn't validate anything, including parking.

then why do you need a marriage license?

You can put it in a frame and cover holes in the wall I guess.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

not exactly the same since a church does not provide a product, it provides a service.

and the state (FDA) actually does regulate the distribution pharmaceuticals. hence why you need to go to a pharmacy to get certain drugs. anything considered OTC (over the counter) is not regulated. but if you wanted codine, or vicodin, you would need a doctors prescription in order to have access to them in the first place. so a doctor tell you that you should take this drug. you as the patient are free to choose whether you want to or not. what give the pharmacist the right to deny you that choice?

Regulating a produce and forcing someone to sell it are two entirely different things.

Let me ask you. Does the state of California have the right to force pharmacies to carry so called medical marijuana?

we are not referencing the business owner in this argument. we are talking about his employee. i have already stated that if a business owner has chosen not to carry a product, then that is his right. but for an employee to be able to pick and choose which prescription to fill can get hairy and cause a lot more problems.

That is still an issue between the employer and the employee. If the employer knows that his employee won't sell something, and supports it, then I think the government should stay out of it.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

actually you need a state to validate you marriage in order to quality for survivor and tax benefits.

No you do not. You simply need a contract. A state marriage certificate is such a contract. But a person could just have a survivor's benefits contract.

 

[Syphon]

Regulating a produce and forcing someone to sell it are two entirely different things.

Let me ask you. Does the state of California have the right to force pharmacies to carry so called medical marijuana?

we are not referencing the business owner in this argument. we are talking about his employee. i have already stated that if a business owner has chosen not to carry a product, then that is his right. but for an employee to be able to pick and choose which prescription to fill can get hairy and cause a lot more problems.

That is still an issue between the employer and the employee. If the employer knows that his employee won't sell something, and supports it, then I think the government should stay out of it.

even if that product is a government regulated product? so your advocating for one individual to be the gate keeper of another individual choice?

 

[Syphon]

actually you need a state to validate you marriage in order to quality for survivor and tax benefits.

No you do not. You simply need a contract. A state marriage certificate is such a contract. But a person could just have a survivor's benefits contract.

where in the US tax code does it say you can get federal survivor benefits without a marriage certificate?
just ask a gay married couple how that is working out for them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Pharmacists should have the right to refuse to fill what they want to refruse to fill. And their customers should have every right to take their business elsewhere. When did the consumer forget that he is king?

I completely agree.

Immie

Umm with the day after pill they only have to delay the customer of a day or so.


I once had a pharmicist refuse to fill a pain pill prescription for me.
I complained to the state medical board.
I heard the pharmacist was put on probation for his sins.

Would it be a religious thing for a pharmacist to refuse to prescribe other non pregnancy related medicines? Where would it stop?
NO viagra prescriptions?

Why would it have to stop?

By the way, the DEA thinks pharmacists are supposed to make sure you don't get too many pain pills.

 

[Syphon]

I completely agree.

Immie

Umm with the day after pill they only have to delay the customer of a day or so.


I once had a pharmicist refuse to fill a pain pill prescription for me.
I complained to the state medical board.
I heard the pharmacist was put on probation for his sins.

Would it be a religious thing for a pharmacist to refuse to prescribe other non pregnancy related medicines? Where would it stop?
NO viagra prescriptions?

Why would it have to stop?

By the way, the DEA thinks pharmacists are supposed to make sure you don't get too many pain pills.

the size of the prescription is determined by the doctor, not the pharmacist. most typically other than dispensing medications, pharmacists consult patients on the type of the medications they are taking, and it is also their responsibility to make sure that they will not knowingly issue 2 or more medications that could cause adverse side effects.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I remember the first time I ever read about a pharmacist refusing to honor a valid prescription from a doctor to his patient because of so-called conscience. It flabbergasted me that any pharmacist could try to interject him or herself into the doctor patient relationship.

The pharmacist is asked to prescribe the medication and isn't asked to take the medication. He isn't really involved in the doctor patient relationship in any relevant way.

The good analogy would be this: If a man came into a restaurant and ordered pork chops which were on the menu and a Jewish waiter refused to serve the meal due to religious objections.

Where does this silliness end? There's all manner of products and medicines that are sold in pharmacies that can be used and are used in ways that religious and nonreligious people might find objectionable. What business is it of theirs?

I don't see you objecting to states interjecting themselves in doctor patient relations.