10-22-08: Pharmacies across country refusing to sell any contraceptives

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: halik
So are pharmacies by law required to keep stock of any meds? So if you have prescription, they have to fill it?


If not then it's a non-issue; the owner can decide whichever meds to stock. It's no different than if they are out of stock - they're not obligated to have in stock what you need.

I do take an issue with holy roller refusing to give out meds at CVS... that's your fucking job.

Exactly. If you work for a place that sells something offensive to you - get a different job. However, if you own the business, you do not have to stock any product you don't want to sell.

That's all well and good if your only selling groceries.

If your licensed as a pharmacy then you should be willing to sell whatever the prescription calls for. If your not, then get out of the pharmacy business instead of trying to force your PERSONAL beliefs on everybody else.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RichardE



It has everything to do with the topic. Both are events where people decide who to server due to religious reasons. Both are choosing not to server a specifici segment of the public due to there religions. Or is it wrong since now it is a muslim?

Or were you talking about how the difference between beer and contraceptives should not matter?

Your argument is weak and discriminatory in its own right. It's as bad as people who think it is ok to discriminate against homosexuals/muslims but think discriminating against blacks is wrong.

No, both events are not the same. The taxi driver provides rides - that is their product. If they refuse a ride due to religion - that would be wrong. However, in this case, the pharmacy does NOT sell a product to anyone. They don't only sell it to people based on their religion.

Please attempt to actually understand the situation so you stop coming back with more of your BS. Your BS is nothing but the same old race/bigot card crap that libs throw around when someone doesn't conform to their world view or does something that twists their panties.
NOT selling a product is not the same as refusing product/service to certain people.

If a pharmacy does not sell a product than what do they do excatly? Seems to me that selling condoms would be selling a product...

You are confusing your own arguments because they are illogical.

They sell all sorts of medicines and prescriptions. They are choosing to not sell a product. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean they have to sell every drug/product to be a pharmacy.

I am not confused...except as to how people can be so f'd in the head to not understand this issue.

They have to sell drugs/products which help which will aid in fulfilling there oath of;

"I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering
my primary concerns"

Are you saying contraceptives do not aid in the welfare of humanity? As well, the argument regarding the taxi drivers is precisely the same, if people had alchohol they could find a taxi thats accomodating to them correct?

They do "sell drugs/products which help which will aid in fulfilling there oath"

Next stupid question/assertion?

No, the conscious decision to not sell contraceptives is a violation of there oath.

Next pointless nonsense rebuke?

No, the oath doesn't say you have to sell everything.

Next lame attempt...

No the oath describes making the welfare of humanity the primary concern. If they wanted to make religion the primary concern in regards to welfare of humanity they should have went to work in ministry :roll:

The oath directly implies that they will not bring there religion into work.

Next ignorant statement...

 

[Brainonska511]

Jesus - cut down on the quote trees.

If the pharmacy owner chooses not to stock contraceptives, so be it. I don't agree with the reasons for not stocking them, since there are very legitimate reasons to use one of the many products available that I don't believe touch on any moral issues. It can also cause problems for those living in the middle of nowhere, where the size of population can only support one pharmacy being open, so "the market" won't solve the lack of the product problem.

If the pharmacy owner chooses to stock contraceptives, and one pharmacist (an employee) refuses to distribute them when provided with a prescription or as would be allowed by law, he should be fired for failure to do his job.

Everyone is always talking about how people need to mind their own business - maybe the same should apply to the pharmacist - people take birth control pills for more than just preventing pregnancy. The morning after pill is available because sometimes a condom breaks, you mess up in your pill cycle, etc. Accidents happen and people don't want to screw up their lives more. It's not like everyone who uses this stuff is some moral degenerate that f*cks anything with a pulse.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: halik
So are pharmacies by law required to keep stock of any meds? So if you have prescription, they have to fill it?


If not then it's a non-issue; the owner can decide whichever meds to stock. It's no different than if they are out of stock - they're not obligated to have in stock what you need.

I do take an issue with holy roller refusing to give out meds at CVS... that's your fucking job.

Exactly. If you work for a place that sells something offensive to you - get a different job. However, if you own the business, you do not have to stock any product you don't want to sell.

That's all well and good if your only selling groceries.

If your licensed as a pharmacy then you should be willing to sell whatever the prescription calls for. If your not, then get out of the pharmacy business instead of trying to force your PERSONAL beliefs on everybody else.

Licensed alcohol resellers have to sell all types of alcohol?

And again, not selling a product is not forcing your beliefs on others.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: halik
So are pharmacies by law required to keep stock of any meds? So if you have prescription, they have to fill it?


If not then it's a non-issue; the owner can decide whichever meds to stock. It's no different than if they are out of stock - they're not obligated to have in stock what you need.

I do take an issue with holy roller refusing to give out meds at CVS... that's your fucking job.

Exactly. If you work for a place that sells something offensive to you - get a different job. However, if you own the business, you do not have to stock any product you don't want to sell.

That's all well and good if your only selling groceries.

If your licensed as a pharmacy then you should be willing to sell whatever the prescription calls for. If your not, then get out of the pharmacy business instead of trying to force your PERSONAL beliefs on everybody else.

I don't think the licensing process has anything to do with what inventory you carry...does it?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, the conscious decision to not sell contraceptives is a violation of there oath.

Next pointless nonsense rebuke?

No, the oath doesn't say you have to sell everything.

Next lame attempt...

No the oath describes making the welfare of humanity the primary concern. If they wanted to make religion the primary concern in regards to welfare of humanity they should have went to work in ministry :roll:

The oath directly implies that they will not bring there religion into work.

Next ignorant statement...[/quote]

Again, you are using their supposed "why" in the argument but really the "why" doesn't matter at all in this case since it could be any reason as to why. What matters is whether they HAVE to sell something they don't carry. The oath doesn't bind them into carrying all products.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Jesus - cut down on the quote trees.

If the pharmacy owner chooses not to stock contraceptives, so be it. I don't agree with the reasons for not stocking them, since there are very legitimate reasons to use one of the many products available that I don't believe touch on any moral issues. It can also cause problems for those living in the middle of nowhere, where the size of population can only support one pharmacy being open, so "the market" won't solve the lack of the product problem.

If the pharmacy owner chooses to stock contraceptives, and one pharmacist (an employee) refuses to distribute them when provided with a prescription or as would be allowed by law, he should be fired for failure to do his job.

Everyone is always talking about how people need to mind their own business - maybe the same should apply to the pharmacist - people take birth control pills for more than just preventing pregnancy. The morning after pill is available because sometimes a condom breaks, you mess up in your pill cycle, etc. Accidents happen and people don't want to screw up their lives more. It's not like everyone who uses this stuff is some moral degenerate that f*cks anything with a pulse.

The fact that you needed prescription for the morning after pill was a lot bigger issue than who will sell it.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: halik
So are pharmacies by law required to keep stock of any meds? So if you have prescription, they have to fill it?


If not then it's a non-issue; the owner can decide whichever meds to stock. It's no different than if they are out of stock - they're not obligated to have in stock what you need.

I do take an issue with holy roller refusing to give out meds at CVS... that's your fucking job.

Exactly. If you work for a place that sells something offensive to you - get a different job. However, if you own the business, you do not have to stock any product you don't want to sell.

That's all well and good if your only selling groceries.

If your licensed as a pharmacy then you should be willing to sell whatever the prescription calls for. If your not, then get out of the pharmacy business instead of trying to force your PERSONAL beliefs on everybody else.

I don't think the licensing process has anything to do with what inventory you carry...does it?

Probably not?

My point is that if you could just go to the store next door then fine, stock what you want, but when you are licensed and regulated by the state that limits the number of stores that can carry these products As such doesn't it make sense that the state should require them to fill all legal prescriptions? If they don't have it on hand (everybody runs out of stuff occasionally) then order it in for them. Since there aren't pharmacies on every street corner flat out refusing to fill a legal prescription is ludicrous IMO.

Do everybody a favor and let someone else run the pharmacy.

If you don't want to sell alcohol then don't get the license. If you don't want to sell drugs then don't get the license

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
to a degree, yes.


A pharmacist is a licensed professional, if they are morally unable to untake the demands of their profession, should have their license removed.

Government enforcing morality? LOL

You mean like dry counties or banning the sale on Sunday?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So no one sees the irony in this drug store's actions?

Not selling birth control will likely lead to increased unwanted pregnancies and increased abortions. Are they really doing their own cause a disservice here? Fortunately, it seems like Chantilly, VA has a number of other pharmacies, but what if this particular store was the ONLY one in town? It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots as to what might happen.

Look, I can understand people's objections to abortion, but honestly what is the objection to birth control? I know it's a lot to ask - but is there a rational reason behind this sort of business decision?

True. I don't think it solves a thing for them to do this. HOWEVER, dave and crew seem to think the gov't should FORCE these people to sell something they as a business owner don't carry. You may not like the reason WHY they don't carry it, but you should support their choice as a business owner to sell what they wish.

What if this wasn't birth control we're talking about and instead a drug for AIDS treatment?

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: halik
So are pharmacies by law required to keep stock of any meds? So if you have prescription, they have to fill it?


If not then it's a non-issue; the owner can decide whichever meds to stock. It's no different than if they are out of stock - they're not obligated to have in stock what you need.

I do take an issue with holy roller refusing to give out meds at CVS... that's your fucking job.

Exactly. If you work for a place that sells something offensive to you - get a different job. However, if you own the business, you do not have to stock any product you don't want to sell.

That's all well and good if your only selling groceries.

If your licensed as a pharmacy then you should be willing to sell whatever the prescription calls for. If your not, then get out of the pharmacy business instead of trying to force your PERSONAL beliefs on everybody else.

I don't think the licensing process has anything to do with what inventory you carry...does it?

Probably not?

My point is that if you could just go to the store next door then fine, stock what you want, but when you are licensed and regulated by the state that limits the number of stores that can carry these products As such doesn't it make sense that the state should require them to fill all legal prescriptions? If they don't have it on hand (everybody runs out of stuff occasionally) then order it in for them. Since there aren't pharmacies on every street corner flat out refusing to fill a legal prescription is ludicrous IMO.

Do everybody a favor and let someone else run the pharmacy.

If you don't want to sell alcohol then don't get the license. If you don't want to sell drugs then don't get the license

Where do you live that there isn't a good number of drug stores to chose from?

I'm within a 20min drive of 4 wal-marts and at least 8 Walgreens, I live in a place where 80% of the people are morally against contraceptives and therefor I sometimes have had to go to multiple stores to find the condoms i wanted...

Inconvenient, yes, but I'm fairly sure any proprietor of any store as a right to not sell anything he wants for any reason he wants... It's his store.

What if this wasn't birth control we're talking about and instead a drug for AIDS treatment?

what if it where some quack-cure for cancer you knew to cause cancer?

It doesn't matter what your 'good reasons' are, you should not force someone to do something they feel is immoral.

 

[Mani]

I'm not really outraged by this. Sure, the people running these places are neanderthals, but let the free market sort them out. A pharmacy without contraceptives or prophylactics won't be competitive for long.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Because a pharmacy is not a PUBLIC institution. It is a PRIVATE institution. Dont like how they do business? Go somewhere else.

Why dont people get that simple idea? In my hometown, they banned smoking in restaurants and bars. I dont smoke... not a big deal to me... OTHER than the fact that it is a PRIVATE establishment. You dont like the smoke? Go somwhere else. You cant work in a smokey environment? Find another job. Let the market sort it out. If non-smoking is so popular, then the market will adjust. Why is that so damned hard?

That argument doesn't hold water. An employer is responsible for providing a safe work environment. If they don't they bear the responsibility for their actions and would likely end up facing lawsuits.

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
FWIW, there have been a lot of business go out of business because of the smoking ban... something that the smoking-nazi's said would NEVER happen because more non-smokers would frequent the businesses than smokers who stayed home. another FYI, it was a Republican council and a Democrat mayor that put this in place, so it is a non-partisan arguement.

The tobacco and hotel/restaurant lobby tried that argument here in FL and they lost. The smoking ban went in place a long while back and restaurants, malls, movies, etc are still packed. For every business you say went under because of a smoking ban I'll show you 20 that are thriving in the same area. The same goes for studies saying smoking bans hurt business.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Zstream
A business rather it be regulated or private should in no way be forced to carry a product. Free market system is about just that... a free system to sell certain goods as you please.

If said business is not selling a product and demand is high then another business will pop up and shutdown the one not selling the goods. Simple as that folks.

Oh, to say that Birth Control pills is categorized as medical treatment is a false and rather despicable statement. If the doctor wanted to treat your hormones a specific medication is for that purpose.

Um yeah. Tell that to my ex who was on BC primarily to regulate her cycle and reduce the cramping/flow. I'm surprised a woman hasn't jumped in here to say that by now. Oh wait, this is a P&N forum on a tech site. There are no women here.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat

Originally posted by: Robor
What if this wasn't birth control we're talking about and instead a drug for AIDS treatment?

what if it where some quack-cure for cancer you knew to cause cancer?

It doesn't matter what your 'good reasons' are, you should not force someone to do something they feel is immoral.

The FDA regulates prescription drugs, not the drug stores or pharmacists. IMO religious morals have no place in the dispensing of prescribed medicine. That's all I'll say because after skimming near 200 posts neither side is going to change their mind. Agree to disagree...

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat


Where do you live that there isn't a good number of drug stores to chose from?

I'm within a 20min drive of 4 wal-marts and at least 8 Walgreens, I live in a place where 80% of the people are morally against contraceptives and therefor I sometimes have had to go to multiple stores to find the condoms i wanted...

Inconvenient, yes, but I'm fairly sure any proprietor of any store as a right to not sell anything he wants for any reason he wants... It's his store.

Where I live matters not. I can tell you that my town has 3 pharmacies, but going west you have to drive 50 miles to get to a town that has 1 pharmacy, the another 30 to get to a town that has 1 pharmacy, then another 50 to the next town that has several pharmacies. Going north you go 45 miles to get to 1 pharmacy then another 45 to get to a town with several pharamices. Going east it's 40 miles to 1, then 30 to another 1, then 20 to a town that has several. To the south it's 50 miles to a town that has several pharmacies.

As has been pointed out, birth control pills are many times prescribed to help control a womens cycle so her hormones don't get out of whack. My wife used to take them for that reason, when she didn't she was in PMS mode most of the time. It's not up to the pharmacy/pharmacist to make moral judgments on people. They are selling controlled substances and have no right to refuse anybody who shows up with the cash and a doctor's prescription. If they can't do that then jerk their license because they are trying to play doctor with only a pharmacists license.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
So no one sees the irony in this drug store's actions?

Not selling birth control will likely lead to increased unwanted pregnancies and increased abortions. Are they really doing their own cause a disservice here? Fortunately, it seems like Chantilly, VA has a number of other pharmacies, but what if this particular store was the ONLY one in town? It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots as to what might happen.

Look, I can understand people's objections to abortion, but honestly what is the objection to birth control? I know it's a lot to ask - but is there a rational reason behind this sort of business decision?

True. I don't think it solves a thing for them to do this. HOWEVER, dave and crew seem to think the gov't should FORCE these people to sell something they as a business owner don't carry. You may not like the reason WHY they don't carry it, but you should support their choice as a business owner to sell what they wish.

What if this wasn't birth control we're talking about and instead a drug for AIDS treatment?

What if that drug cost 10k dollars to buy but the reimbursement was less than actual acquisition?
Being a pharmacist the whole concept of forcing a pharmacy to carry a drug is nonsense. The basis for doing so is that if you look at things just right, everyone is a victim and the government needs to fix it, just as long the government follows a particular posters POV.

The REALITY of the situation is that the greatest hardship is that someone who wants a particular medication just goes elsewhere. I know of situations were pharmacies won't fill a particular med because of packaging. Sometimes hospital pharmacies carry very expensive specialty meds. When a pharmacy gets an order for a several thousand dollar med that they will only sell a small portion of, then have to let expire after years of sitting on the shelf and take a loss for it, they'll say.

"We don't have this, but you can get it at the hospital pharmacy" Well now someone can say quoting from their own "bible" that that person has been discriminated against, and who cares if the pharmacy closes down".

This isn't about reality, it's about two sides with their own agendas. One religious, and one who feels that they should force them by the power of government (although no such legal basis exists in fact) to make them satisfy their own morality.

Well this is a (somewhat) free society. That means people have a legal right to do what they wish even if AT feels it doesn't as long as they comply with existing laws. Those laws say that someone can't refuse to serve one person, then not another in defined circumstances. I don't have to give narcotics willy nilly because someone has a piece of paper. What I can't do is deny someone who is black the same treatment as someone who's white. In the real world the person picks up the prescription and doesn't trudge a thousand miles uphill both ways. They get in their car and go elsewhere. That's reality.

 

[beyoku]

Hmmm, i remember just about EVERYONE being against those Somalians that refused to pickup passengers carrying alcohol. Its funny how peoples opinions change when Islam is thrown into the mix.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
They get in their car and go elsewhere. That's reality.

The pharmacist's rights end where they conflict with the patient's rights AND the Doctor's orders.

He can get in his car and go find a job that doesn't conflict with his morality. That's reality too.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
They get in their car and go elsewhere. That's reality.

The pharmacist's rights end where they conflict with the patient's rights AND the Doctor's orders.

He can get in his car and go find a job that doesn't conflict with his morality. That's reality too.

I'm pretty sure you don't have a right to buy a particular medicine from someone who doesn't sell it. I'm also pretty sure that pharmacists are not bound by doctor's orders.

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
State licensed health care providers should not be able to decline service based on religious beliefs. That is what we're talking about here.

So ALL doctors should be forced to perform abortions, or assist in suicide?

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
-snip-
Yes, use the recently approved by the Supreme Court Private emminent Domain laws to declare the non-compliant "Paharmacy's" as blighted and give the property to those that would be in compliance and truly a Pharmacy.

Dave, this ^ surprises me. I didn't think you approved of our government excercising such heavy-handed powers against people.

IMO, because it's a private business they can sell what they want. I don't see how anyone is inconvenienced by this, no doubt there's a Walmart nearby. Walmart's have a pharmacy, and I bet they like the extra business from others' refusal to carry certain products.

People can also order them online.

I don't see the big deal.

People speaking about licenses are mis-informed (and likely unlicensed themselves). A licenses just means you are competent enough to do something; that's all. You can hold any number of licenses and then not even work in the profession.

Edit: Look at licenses this way: it means you are allowed to do something. It doesn't mean you have to do it.

This has nothing to do with "government excercising such heavy-handed powers against people".

If these people want to sell their product they should do so under a different name other than Pharmacy, that is all I am saying.

A Pharmacy fulfills prescriptions that deal with life and death.

If they have an issue with life and/or death as these people do then they do not deserve the moniker of Pharmacy.

The religious are re-defining everything about America and I just happen to be against this re-definition.

Birth control is a matter of life and death? Really? So I am a pharmacy. Of the all the drugs I CAN dispense, I dispense 99.9% of those drugs... and the 2-3 I DONT dispense makes me NOT a pharmacy?

The religious are excercising their RIGHTS as defined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I guess it sucks to be able to do that in Dave-land.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: Pens1566
State licensed health care providers should not be able to decline service based on religious beliefs. That is what we're talking about here.

So ALL doctors should be forced to perform abortions, or assist in suicide?

LMAO, you equate preforming an abortion to handing out a pill or a condom??

Religious beliefs sure make some people whackos.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
-snip-
#1 My point is that if you could just go to the store next door then fine, stock what you want, but when you are licensed and #2 regulated by the state that limits the number of stores that can carry these products As such doesn't it make sense that the state should require them to fill all legal prescriptions? If they don't have it on hand (everybody runs out of stuff occasionally) then order it in for them. Since there aren't pharmacies on every street corner flat out refusing to fill a legal prescription is ludicrous IMO.

Do everybody a favor and let someone else run the pharmacy.

If you don't want to sell alcohol then don't get the license. If you don't want to sell drugs then don't get the license

1. If you bothered to google, you'd see that there are other pharmacies in the same freakin plaza that DO sell BC.

2. For the umpteen time, pharmacy licenses are not limited (unlike those for taxicabs etc).

Fern

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: 351Cleveland

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
-snip-
Yes, use the recently approved by the Supreme Court Private emminent Domain laws to declare the non-compliant "Paharmacy's" as blighted and give the property to those that would be in compliance and truly a Pharmacy.

Dave, this ^ surprises me. I didn't think you approved of our government excercising such heavy-handed powers against people.

IMO, because it's a private business they can sell what they want. I don't see how anyone is inconvenienced by this, no doubt there's a Walmart nearby. Walmart's have a pharmacy, and I bet they like the extra business from others' refusal to carry certain products.

People can also order them online.

I don't see the big deal.

People speaking about licenses are mis-informed (and likely unlicensed themselves). A licenses just means you are competent enough to do something; that's all. You can hold any number of licenses and then not even work in the profession.

Edit: Look at licenses this way: it means you are allowed to do something. It doesn't mean you have to do it.

This has nothing to do with "government excercising such heavy-handed powers against people".

If these people want to sell their product they should do so under a different name other than Pharmacy, that is all I am saying.

A Pharmacy fulfills prescriptions that deal with life and death.

If they have an issue with life and/or death as these people do then they do not deserve the moniker of Pharmacy.

The religious are re-defining everything about America and I just happen to be against this re-definition.

Birth control is a matter of life and death? Really? So I am a pharmacy. Of the all the drugs I CAN dispense, I dispense 99.9% of those drugs... and the 2-3 I DONT dispense makes me NOT a pharmacy?

The religious are excercising their RIGHTS as defined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I guess it sucks to be able to do that in Dave-land.

You can have whatever religious preferences/beliefs you want, just don't force them on others.

You'd think this pharmacist was putting the pill in the customers mouth. He's not, that is their action and their right.