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

[Unknown_Soldier]

let me ask you this.

lets say you break your leg in a car accident and your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin. you show up at the pharmacist and ask for Vicodin, but the pharmacist say nope, i wont carry that. how about Tylenol? is that an equal?

Do you sue him now?

no

Does the thought of taking your business elsewhere ever occur to you.


Or are you like a good peasant and just take it?

so if you live in a small town, where its 20-30 miles to the next pharmacy, then its your fault for living there and having a religious nut as the town pharmacist?

It's about choice and freedom.

By the way, I live in a small town, within 50 miles there are 37 pharmacies. Two of which are Wal Mart, and you know they aren't going to not sell Plan B.

 

[candycorn]

Talk to Washington, not me. They probably require pharmacy counters to be manned by pharmacists.

Are you that ignorant of who is ringing you up? Pharmacist rarely ring anyone up at the counter. Hence the pharmacy technicians.

The OP is disingenuous. Ignorance is no excuse.

pharmacists actually do ring up a lot of the customers. just ask the ones who work at the 24 hr locations.

Wow..you got me there.

 

[candycorn]

Excellent point that should have been made clear throughout this thread.

It doesn't solve the issue that we have been discussing though. That being should the government be able to force a pharmacy (or any business for that matter) to carry a product is does not want to carry.

I and others contend that the government does not have that right. We have some opponents who contend otherwise.

Obviously the government thinks it has the right to make us do whatever it wants us to do! That is why this country is headed down the crapper.

Immie

I'm not sure the Government is even stating that all pharmacies have to carry all forms of birth control. I know that in our central supply, we have seven different types of contraceptive pills alone. This is over and above a bevy of devices, IUDs, hormonal implants. However, no regulation is making us carry, for example, Ortho Evra, Nordette, Ortho Cept, etc....

So I'm not sure what regulations you're speaking of. Additionally, the pharmacy to which I purchase most of my drugs favors one mfg of analgesic over the other. Nobody is making her (my compounding pharmacist) carry Tylenol instead.

Hmmm

Not sure where you live and how much of the thread you have read.

This law was passed in the State of Washington. It seems representatives of the state believe that they can force pharmacies to distribute Plan B Emergency "Contraceptive". A couple of pharmacists said they did not want to participate in dispensing what they believed was an abortificant. The state said, "how dare you defy our order?". It went to court. The pharmacists lost and appealed and recently one the appeal based on religious grounds.

Now, that is the simple play by play. I'm sure it is more complicated than that, but MY SIDE IS RIGHT AND THEIR SIDE IS WRONG. So don't listen to anything they say.

Immie

The pharmacy times (Pharmacy Times - Practical Information for Today's Pharmacist) has a bit of a different intrepetation than you have:

The Washington state rule under fire enables pharmacists with personal objections to a drug to get a coworker to fill the prescription. The regulation also states, however, that the patient must be able to get the prescription in the same pharmacy visit. Additionally, the rule requires pharmacies in Washington to order new supplies of a drug if a patient asks for one that is not in stock, and it prohibits pharmacists from harassing patients seeking emergency contraception.

Very little is being "forced" outside of the long-accpeted "usual and customary" mandates that are understood to go beyond the costs applications they once had.

 

[saveliberty]

Very few pharmacies have more than one on duty at a time. This law then creates a burden on the store. It may also lead to discriminatory hiring practices. Bad law.

 

[Cecilie1200]

While I agree a pharmacist should discuss with a patient possible side effects and alert the prescribing doctor of a potential dangerous drug combination there is no danger to the patient standing in front of him from the morning after pill. He or she should be concerned about the person in front of him, not some potential life. He does not have the moral authority or even the knowledge to deny the drug. For all he knows the woman or girl was raped by her father.

If someone's morals prevent them from doing their job they should find other work.

If he were my employee I would work to find a replacement and then fire him.

Let me ask you this.

Suppose I own a tire shop and you come in and ask me to sell you some BGF tires, and I say no I can sell you some Hankooks though.

Do you sue me?

Simple yes or no please.

let me ask you this.

lets say you break your leg in a car accident and your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin. you show up at the pharmacist and ask for Vicodin, but the pharmacist say nope, i wont carry that. how about Tylenol? is that an equal?

Do you sue him now?

Do YOU? Because personally, I just go find another pharmacy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

let me ask you this.

lets say you break your leg in a car accident and your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin. you show up at the pharmacist and ask for Vicodin, but the pharmacist say nope, i wont carry that. how about Tylenol? is that an equal?

Do you sue him now?

no

Does the thought of taking your business elsewhere ever occur to you.


Or are you like a good peasant and just take it?

so if you live in a small town, where its 20-30 miles to the next pharmacy, then its your fault for living there and having a religious nut as the town pharmacist?

Actually, yes. It IS your fault. YOU chose to live in a small town; no one forced you to. Everyone knows that one of the trade-offs you make for deciding to live in a small town is a lack of convenience and selection when shopping. Oh, and having to put up with strange, quirky neighbors. If this is too much of a problem for you, no one is stopping you from picking up and moving to a city.

Your personal life choices in no way entitle you to make OTHER people's life choices for THEM in order to accommodate you.

 

[Mr.Nick]

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.

So do Muslims have to sell pork if they work at a grocer that carries the product???

9/10 progressives say no - they cry First Amendment when it comes to that... Because Muslims are a minority of course.

But lets hear your take...

 

[Cecilie1200]

no

Does the thought of taking your business elsewhere ever occur to you.


Or are you like a good peasant and just take it?

so if you live in a small town, where its 20-30 miles to the next pharmacy, then its your fault for living there and having a religious nut as the town pharmacist?

It's about choice and freedom.

By the way, I live in a small town, within 50 miles there are 37 pharmacies. Two of which are Wal Mart, and you know they aren't going to not sell Plan B.

I grew up in a small town. There were two pharmacies in town, and neither was particularly large, so I imagine it wasn't impossible that there were items they didn't stock. Everyone in town did their major shopping (other than groceries) in another town 35 miles away, and I'd assume that if you needed something the pharmacy didn't carry, that would be where you would go for it, as well.

So what? Who doesn't know that small-town living has a shortage of convenience?

 

[saveliberty]

In general, I would think you would NOT go to a local small town pharmacy for this. Better to go where you're not known. I'd think privacy would be nice.

 

[Full-Auto]

let me ask you this.

lets say you break your leg in a car accident and your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin. you show up at the pharmacist and ask for Vicodin, but the pharmacist say nope, i wont carry that. how about Tylenol? is that an equal?

Do you sue him now?

no

Does the thought of taking your business elsewhere ever occur to you.


Or are you like a good peasant and just take it?

so if you live in a small town, where its 20-30 miles to the next pharmacy, then its your fault for living there and having a religious nut as the town pharmacist?

What if the pharmacy doesnt stock the item. A decision based on profit

OK FA as a contractor you are now required to stock staples, Few applications call for it, But as big government we said so.

If you need it that bad, travel.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Very few pharmacies have more than one on duty at a time. This law then creates a burden on the store. It may also lead to discriminatory hiring practices. Bad law.

I agree it's a bad law, a proprieter of a private business should be able to make decisions on what items they choose to stock.

Why would it be a burden on the store and when have employers ever been required to hire people unwilling to perform the duties of the job?


>>>>

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Let me ask you this.

Suppose I own a tire shop and you come in and ask me to sell you some BGF tires, and I say no I can sell you some Hankooks though.

Do you sue me?

Simple yes or no please.

let me ask you this.

lets say you break your leg in a car accident and your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin. you show up at the pharmacist and ask for Vicodin, but the pharmacist say nope, i wont carry that. how about Tylenol? is that an equal?

Do you sue him now?

Do YOU? Because personally, I just go find another pharmacy.

These people act as if they never heard of a telephone

ring , ring

"hello, do you dispense plan B?"

"no we do not, sorry"

"okay, I'll try somewhere else"

how hard is that, and why turn it into

" hey where's the plan B"

"sorry, we don't carry"

"what the fuck, I'm suing, I have a RIGHT to force you to carry what I want to buy dammit"

"what about my rights?"

"fuck you Christian zealot, separation of church and state baby"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

While I agree a pharmacist should discuss with a patient possible side effects and alert the prescribing doctor of a potential dangerous drug combination there is no danger to the patient standing in front of him from the morning after pill. He or she should be concerned about the person in front of him, not some potential life. He does not have the moral authority or even the knowledge to deny the drug. For all he knows the woman or girl was raped by her father.

If someone's morals prevent them from doing their job they should find other work.

If he were my employee I would work to find a replacement and then fire him.

We already know you want to impose your views on other people, thanks for admitting it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

someone posted it here earlier, that ID checking originally had to do with controlling substances that were being used to cook meth. not sure if that is exactly a valid argument here with Plan B. i would assume Plan B would be just to verify age. same as purchasing alcohol. you know those signs that say if you look under 40 we will ID. same principle.

I don't show my ID to purchase alcohol, I don't want clerks to know my name and address.

what do you show when they require it then?

I just wait for them to realize I am right or go someplace else.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not sure the Government is even stating that all pharmacies have to carry all forms of birth control. I know that in our central supply, we have seven different types of contraceptive pills alone. This is over and above a bevy of devices, IUDs, hormonal implants. However, no regulation is making us carry, for example, Ortho Evra, Nordette, Ortho Cept, etc....

So I'm not sure what regulations you're speaking of. Additionally, the pharmacy to which I purchase most of my drugs favors one mfg of analgesic over the other. Nobody is making her (my compounding pharmacist) carry Tylenol instead.

Hmmm

Not sure where you live and how much of the thread you have read.

This law was passed in the State of Washington. It seems representatives of the state believe that they can force pharmacies to distribute Plan B Emergency "Contraceptive". A couple of pharmacists said they did not want to participate in dispensing what they believed was an abortificant. The state said, "how dare you defy our order?". It went to court. The pharmacists lost and appealed and recently one the appeal based on religious grounds.

Now, that is the simple play by play. I'm sure it is more complicated than that, but MY SIDE IS RIGHT AND THEIR SIDE IS WRONG. So don't listen to anything they say.

Immie

The pharmacy times (Pharmacy Times - Practical Information for Today's Pharmacist) has a bit of a different intrepetation than you have:

The Washington state rule under fire enables pharmacists with personal objections to a drug to get a coworker to fill the prescription. The regulation also states, however, that the patient must be able to get the prescription in the same pharmacy visit. Additionally, the rule requires pharmacies in Washington to order new supplies of a drug if a patient asks for one that is not in stock, and it prohibits pharmacists from harassing patients seeking emergency contraception.

Very little is being "forced" outside of the long-accpeted "usual and customary" mandates that are understood to go beyond the costs applications they once had.

Are you incredibly stupid, or do you just act like you are.

Read the fucking decision, the defendants clearly proved that the rule was not evenly enforced, and that some pharmacies are actually allowed to not carry Plan B. For some reason that is unavailable on the official record anywhere the only pharmacy in the entire state that was required to actually carry Plan B. Even pharmacies at Catholic hospitals were never actually required to have Plan B on hand.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Very few pharmacies have more than one on duty at a time. This law then creates a burden on the store. It may also lead to discriminatory hiring practices. Bad law.

I agree it's a bad law, a proprieter of a private business should be able to make decisions on what items they choose to stock.

Why would it be a burden on the store and when have employers ever been required to hire people unwilling to perform the duties of the job?


>>>>

Having to pay more than one licensed pharmacist to be on-duty at any given time? You don't know why that would be a burden on a business, considering that they get paid a whole lot more than pharmacy technicians do?

Who said employers were required to hire people "unwilling to perform the duties of the job"? As near as I can tell, it's not the employer in this case who has a problem with the employee OR who thinks she's "unwilling to perform the duties of the job". The problem apears to be asswipes who don't own the business or pay the employees who want to define what "the duties of the job" are for others.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Very few pharmacies have more than one on duty at a time. This law then creates a burden on the store. It may also lead to discriminatory hiring practices. Bad law.

I agree it's a bad law, a proprieter of a private business should be able to make decisions on what items they choose to stock.

Why would it be a burden on the store and when have employers ever been required to hire people unwilling to perform the duties of the job?


>>>>

Having to pay more than one licensed pharmacist to be on-duty at any given time? You don't know why that would be a burden on a business, considering that they get paid a whole lot more than pharmacy technicians do?

Who said employers were required to hire people "unwilling to perform the duties of the job"? As near as I can tell, it's not the employer in this case who has a problem with the employee OR who thinks she's "unwilling to perform the duties of the job". The problem apears to be asswipes who don't own the business or pay the employees who want to define what "the duties of the job" are for others.

Which was my point. Operating on the premise that the government should not have the ability to tell a private retail sales business what inventory to stock...

If the business owner chooses to stock an item, and if the pharmacist chooses not to dispense the item. Then the owner does not have to incur the additional expense of hiring a second pharmasist, they fire the pharmacist refusing to perform the duties. It is not discriminatory for an employer to terminate an employer that refuses to perform the essential functions of the job.

If the business owner chooses NOT to stock an item. Then there is no issue for the employee since the item isn't for sale anyway.

The "unwilling to perform the duties of the job" was in response to the quoted post about discriminatory hiring practices. It's discriminatory to not hire Catholics (or blacks, or Mexicans, or women), it's not discriminatory to not employ someone who refuses to perform an essential function of the work.


>>>>

 

[Syphon]

let me ask you this.

lets say you break your leg in a car accident and your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin. you show up at the pharmacist and ask for Vicodin, but the pharmacist say nope, i wont carry that. how about Tylenol? is that an equal?

Do you sue him now?

Do YOU? Because personally, I just go find another pharmacy.

These people act as if they never heard of a telephone

ring , ring

"hello, do you dispense plan B?"

"no we do not, sorry"

"okay, I'll try somewhere else"

how hard is that, and why turn it into

" hey where's the plan B"

"sorry, we don't carry"

"what the fuck, I'm suing, I have a RIGHT to force you to carry what I want to buy dammit"

"what about my rights?"

"fuck you Christian zealot, separation of church and state baby"

your missing the point. so you call and the pharmacy say yes they sell it. but when you arrive at the pharmacy, the pharmacist refuses to actually sell it to you based on their religion. what do you do now?

 

[WorldWatcher]

your missing the point. so you call and the pharmacy say yes they sell it. but when you arrive at the pharmacy, the pharmacist refuses to actually sell it to you based on their religion. what do you do now?

Well there is a couple of things you should do:

1. Find another pharmacy.

2. Talk to shift store manager, then the owner, and finally if it is a francise - contact the parent corporation. Determine the stores/chains policy. If their policy is to stock and issue such items, then file a complaint with them about the employee. If they in fact have chosen not to stock the item, then you have no complaint (not that you aren't frustrated, but that's different). If they in fact have chosen to stock the item, but have a policy of accommodation to the employer - that's their choice - then you have no complaint (not that you aren't frustrated, but that's different).​

>>>>

 

[Immanuel]

Do YOU? Because personally, I just go find another pharmacy.

These people act as if they never heard of a telephone

ring , ring

"hello, do you dispense plan B?"

"no we do not, sorry"

"okay, I'll try somewhere else"

how hard is that, and why turn it into

" hey where's the plan B"

"sorry, we don't carry"

"what the fuck, I'm suing, I have a RIGHT to force you to carry what I want to buy dammit"

"what about my rights?"

"fuck you Christian zealot, separation of church and state baby"

your missing the point. so you call and the pharmacy say yes they sell it. but when you arrive at the pharmacy, the pharmacist refuses to actually sell it to you based on their religion. what do you do now?

But that is not what happened in either this case or in the hypothetical

I still say the solution is simple.

"Sorry, we are out. Next delivery sometime next month. Come back then."

Immie