Pharmacist Resists Illinois Rule on Contraceptives

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: zendari
Text


CHICAGO ? An Illinois pharmacist says he's being pressured by the state to sell a certain kind of oral contraceptive despite his objection to it for moral reasons.
A new rule in Illinois ? the first of its kind in the United States ? tells pharmacists that if they're in the business of selling contraceptives, they must fill all contraceptive prescriptions, including those for so-called "morning-after" birth-control pills.

Luke Vander Bleek (search) owns four pharmacies in suburban Chicago and is one of several pharmacists suing Gov. Rod Blagojevich (search) over the administrative rule, which was approved by a rule-making panel of the Illinois Legislature last week.

Vander Bleek said he sells regular oral contraceptives, but is not willing to sell the "morning-after" pill known as Plan B (search).

He considers it tantamount to abortion, since it is taken after sexual intercourse and can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus.

Plan B should not be confused with the "abortion pill," Mifeprex (search) or RU-486 (search), which induces miscarriage at up to three months.

"We believe that the governor is attempting to create a situation where he's defining my morality for me," said Vander Bleek. "He's saying that, 'Mr. Vander Bleek, if you are going to stock emergency contraceptives and you morally accept contraceptives' ? which we do ? 'then you morally accept this emergency contraceptive or Plan B.'"

Blagojevich, a Democrat elected in 2002, says pharmacists who deny customers any form of legal birth control could lose their licenses.

One of those indicators is the number of states that have introduced legislation on the issue.

Since 1997, lawmakers in 28 states have introduced bills to protect a pharmacist's right to say no, and four states now permit pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions based on their personal beliefs.



Why don't the Democrats go find another pharmacy rather than bash up on this small business and forcing him to carry a product?


And an update to the OP: A couple news stories say that Mr. Vander Bleek has stopped selling all forms on contraception in his stores.

Way to go Illinois and the radical feminist movement! :thumbsup:

whats it like being a troll?

 

[mect]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
When the state allows anyone to sell plan B then you can bitch about the law. But there is no way to say that it is ok to limit one person from selling it but it isn't ok to say another person has to sell it.

The requirements to sell it are that they are educated enough to catch a doctor if they prescribe a bad combination or something with potentially dangerous side effects on the patient or something similar. There is a reason for government monitoring this as an unqualified person would harm society.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: zendari

That's interesting, because liberals are telling this guy to find another field of work and close his pharmacy down. Hypocrites.

Nobody is being denied a service. They are merely not providing it.

Here's a question: Since you feel pharmacies are "obligated" to provide this pill, if they stock up and run out, can they be arrested?

i didn't write the law but if it's going to take state run pharmacies to ensure that everyone has easy access to the drugs they are legally entitled to have then so be it. it would probably be better for the small businessnessman to keep it the way things are but something is going to have to give.

 

[Jhhnn]

I also have to take exception to this characterization, from Engineer-

"Since 1997, lawmakers in 28 states have introduced bills to protect a pharmacist's rights."

Yeh, the Fringe-Whacks have introduced a lot of bills- Any state rep or senator can do so, even one calling for a holiday to celebrate the anniversary of the baked potato. How many states sanction the behavior exhibited by this Illinois pharmacist? Very few, I'd bet...

Licensed Pharmacist means more than subscribing to superstition and magic- it carries obligations along with rights. One of those obligations is to fill any legal prescription that will not cause demonstrable harm to the patient. Don't like it? Find another line of work.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: sandorski

They don't need to be put out of work, they just need to separate their choice from other peoples choice. It's totally up to them. As Jhhnn pointed out earlier, are we going to now allow every employee in every conceivable position in Society pick and choose what they will or will not do? Talk about chaos and Political Correctness gone amock. You get a Job, you do that Job, if there are things in that Job that contravenes your Religious beliefs, do something else. Why should the Public be held hostage to the conscience of a stranger?

If a pharmacist fails to do his job properly he will be fired. If an Amish decides to become an electrician he will be fired. Such a decision is meant for the employer.

And an update to the OP: A couple news stories say that Mr. Vander Bleek has stopped selling all forms on contraception in his stores. Plus if they continue to press him, he's moving his pharmacies out of state. Guess the whores will have to find a new pharmacy, but wait, they could have done that in the first place!

Way to go Illinois and the radical feminist movement! :thumbsup:

How's the view from up in your 'holier than thou' tower? What a sad little troll. It's the licensed pharmacist responsiblity to dispense the legal prescription medication. If he doesn't like that he can work for pat robertson.

 

[judasmachine]

the state officials were elected by the majority, but this is supposed to be the country of personal freedom. so which takes precedent?

mob rule or personal choice? either one is chaos.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari


If a pharmacist fails to do his job properly he will be fired. If an Amish decides to become an electrician he will be fired. Such a decision is meant for the employer.

And an update to the OP: A couple news stories say that Mr. Vander Bleek has stopped selling all forms on contraception in his stores. Plus if they continue to press him, he's moving his pharmacies out of state. Guess the whores will have to find a new pharmacy, but wait, they could have done that in the first place!

Way to go Illinois and the radical feminist movement! :thumbsup:

How's the view from up in your 'holier than thou' tower? What a sad little troll. It's the licensed pharmacist responsiblity to dispense the legal prescription medication. If he doesn't like that he can work for pat robertson.

There is no holier than thou tower on this end. Your notion that you can FORCE a man to provide you with a service is at the very pinnacle of this tower. Freedom of choice! Freedom of choice! Freedom, for our choice!

Really really bad time to be a pharmacist. Damned if you fill a doctor's prescription, damned if you don't.

Court: Pharmacists Can Be Liable for Drugs

A Florida appeals court has ruled for the first time that pharmacists can be held liable for failing to warn about risks associated with use of drugs repeatedly or in harmful combinations, even if they are filling a doctor's prescriptions.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: zendari

That's interesting, because liberals are telling this guy to find another field of work and close his pharmacy down. Hypocrites.

Nobody is being denied a service. They are merely not providing it.

Here's a question: Since you feel pharmacies are "obligated" to provide this pill, if they stock up and run out, can they be arrested?

i didn't write the law but if it's going to take state run pharmacies to ensure that everyone has easy access to the drugs they are legally entitled to have then so be it. it would probably be better for the small businessnessman to keep it the way things are but something is going to have to give.

The notion that people are entitled to these drugs is precisely what is wrong with this country today. Mr Vander Bleek isn't the loser, nope. It's the customers at his pharmacy that are, but I hardly feel sorry for them for electing such an idiotic legislature.

But good luck competing against Walmart.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Healthcare is not a moral "option".

What if the government wanted to take away the land from a private citizen because they want to build a health-care facility on the lot? Would the hypocrisy of your own "morality" cause your head to explode?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski
The problem with that criteria(is it available elsewhere) is that you just can imagine what every Anti-Abortionist/Pro-Lifer will be doing, becoming Pharmacists.

Soon there won't be easy access, so then what?

Just nip it in the bud now, don't let pharmacists pick and choose what they can or can not dispense.

If they don't like it, they can find a more suitable career.

BFT :thumbsup:

And why is that any more appropriate than telling the customers, "If you don't like it, find a more suitable pharmacy?"

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Healthcare is not a moral "option".

What if the government wanted to take away the land from a private citizen because they want to build a health-care facility on the lot? Would the hypocrisy of your own "morality" cause your head to explode?

The irony is that I can guarantee you that if this legislation had the opposite partisan slant (say the legislature had required the store to sell chewing tobacco, or NASCAR merchandise), Dave would be expounding on how it was further evidence of America's decline into outright fascism.

As for the issue at hand, I don't think pharmacies should be compelled to sell any particular product (my local Walgreen's, for example, bears a prominent sign saying they don't carry Oxycontin, presumably because they are concerned about burglary and robbery). I do think, however, that the owners of pharmacies can and probably should fire employees who refuse to dispense any lawful medication due to their ethical qualms or religious beliefs.

 

[zendari]

You should be able to fire an employee for any reason.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari
You should be able to fire an employee for any reason.

So if a woman wouldn't put out to her boss, he should be able to fire her?

(not related to this subject, but in line with "LAWS" and who has to follow them, or not?!?)

 

[zendari]

If he so chooses.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: mect

Originally posted by: Spencer278
When the state allows anyone to sell plan B then you can bitch about the law. But there is no way to say that it is ok to limit one person from selling it but it isn't ok to say another person has to sell it.

The requirements to sell it are that they are educated enough to catch a doctor if they prescribe a bad combination or something with potentially dangerous side effects on the patient or something similar. There is a reason for government monitoring this as an unqualified person would harm society.

I think that your unqualified to be a pharmacist if you refuse to fill a prescription. When I have the freedom to purchase an item legally for anywhere then you can have the freedom to refuse until then STFU and do your job.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari
If he so chooses.

That is the "moron" and elitest post of the year, rolled into one. I can't believe that you support an employer to be able to fire someone because they won't have sex with them. What a total loser you are.

<--- Shakes head at people like you in this world. Worth absolutely nothing!

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
If he so chooses.

That is the "moron" and elitest post of the year, rolled into one. I can't believe that you support an employer to be able to fire someone because they won't have sex with them. What a total loser you are.

<--- Shakes head at people like you in this world. Worth absolutely nothing!

You make some huge generalizations in your post. At what point does it become OK to fire someone? If you pay some handymen to come paint your house, and you notice them oogling your underage daughter who is in the backyard, would it you be a "moron" and an "elitist" if you fired them?

Where exactly, legally, do you draw your arbitrary line?

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
If he so chooses.

That is the "moron" and elitest post of the year, rolled into one. I can't believe that you support an employer to be able to fire someone because they won't have sex with them. What a total loser you are.

<--- Shakes head at people like you in this world. Worth absolutely nothing!

Your appeal to liberal emotion is noted and dismissed.

In such a situation its probable at the least that this woman only hired in the first place not due to qualifications, skill, or competence but because she is a hot blonde with a big rack. And if you are such a hot blonde? File a complaint with your boss's boss, get him fired, and reapply for your job.

A boss wanting to bang one of his subordinates is hardly a healthy working environment. Better that she is replaced by someone else. This sexual harassment bs should be a matter of company policy for productivity and/or fall under general harassment law.

These laws are only useful for gold-diggers who are legitemately fired for incompetence, cry discrimination, and file lawsuits. But then again such is the purpose of labor unions.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Healthcare is not a moral "option".

What if the government wanted to take away the land from a private citizen because they want to build a health-care facility on the lot? Would the hypocrisy of your own "morality" cause your head to explode?

LMAO :laugh:

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: zendari
If he so chooses.

That is the "moron" and elitest post of the year, rolled into one. I can't believe that you support an employer to be able to fire someone because they won't have sex with them. What a total loser you are.



<--- Shakes head at people like you in this world. Worth absolutely nothing!

You make some huge generalizations in your post. At what point does it become OK to fire someone? If you pay some handymen to come paint your house, and you notice them oogling your underage daughter who is in the backyard, would it you be a "moron" and an "elitist" if you fired them?

Where exactly, legally, do you draw your arbitrary line?

Does that handyman have any power over your daughter? Your boss has power in your working environement, and abusing that power in sexual ways is absolutely unacceptable. Of course, zendari apparantely thinks sexual harrassment laws should be done away with.

Why do you think they are generalizations? I clearly asked the question above and he said "If he so chooses". So it's ok to fire someone because they won't put out? It doesn't get much clearer than that.

zendari thinks that women shouldn't have any choice in their life whether it's abortion or sexual harrassment. What a piece of work!


Oh, and to the OP, it's the law in Illinois (Pharmacy related). If you don't like it, move there and change it. Otherwise, too bad.

 

[zendari]

Engineer, since you believe that employers do not have the right to fire an employee without reason, do employees also have the the obligation not to quit for a certain number of reasons, say, because they found a higher paying job?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari
Engineer, since you believe that employers do not have the right to fire an employee without reason, do employees also have the the obligation not to quit for a certain number of reasons, say, because they found a higher paying job?

Comparing this to sexual harrassment and other "power" issues to your question isn't even close.

Employers can fire for "MANY" reasons, but not "ANY" reason.

If you really think that it's OK for an employer to fire an employee because they won't have sex with them or any other activity that is considered "illegal" (as is sexual harrassment), then you are truely a sad note to the youth of America.

 

[nageov3t]

Guess the whores will have to find a new pharmacy, but wait, they could have done that in the first place!

ok, I haven't read the entire thread, but that comment definitely caught my eye.

wtf.

wanting contraceptives makes someone a whore? :roll: I can think of half a dozen reasons right off the top of my head where someone who isn't sleeping around or even isn't having premarital sex would want contraceptives.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Does that handyman have any power over your daughter? Your boss has power in your working environement, and abusing that power in sexual ways is absolutely unacceptable. Of course, zendari apparantely thinks sexual harrassment laws should be done away with.

What power does an employer have over his employees? Only one. The exact one the employee has over his boss - whether or not he stays employed.

Why do you think they are generalizations?

Same reason I think this is:

zendari thinks that women shouldn't have any choice in their life whether it's abortion or sexual harrassment.

I don't agree with much of anything zendari posts, but he raised a legitimate discussion point here, in a round-about way, which you still haven't answered. When you're done rubbing one out to the idea that you are so much better than another poster, maybe you'll address it. At what definite point does it become "OK" for an employer to fire an employee? Refusing sexual favors is obviously not a valid reason. What about refusing to work weekends? Or refusing to empty their own trash? Or refusing to work 1 minute past quitting time? Two seconds past? Would firing the employee for any of these things be abuse? Also, if the employee propositions the boss, then quits when he/she is refused, is that also abuse of power?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is all about control. I find it fascinating the govt is in the business of dictating what can and cant be sold by a private business.

That private business only exists through a federal system of healthcare and drug distribution (DEA/FDA). If you don't like the rules . . . don't open a pharmacy. You can certainly chose NOT to carry certain products. At which point you will be labeled an "inadequate" pharmacy, so doctors will not forward 'scripts and patients won't bother with your business.

I kind of agree with the tool pharmacist. He should be allowed to carry drugs that meet his ignorant inclinations. In response, the government (IL and national) should publish a list of "substandard" pharmacies.

He cannot sell L-tryptophan but it's arguably as safe as water and safer than salt. He cannot sell medical MJ, he cannot sell ephedra (and needs a special license to sell ephedrine) . . . do you really believe private enterprise should not beholden to federal or state regulation when it comes to drugs?

Do you support a similar view on physicians who would not perform an abortion?

Should those physicians be on a list of substandard practioners?

It's not a useful comparsion . . .

Most MDs don't practice obstetrics or gynecology.
Many MDs that are trained as OB/GYNs chose particular elements of the discipline. Some are primarily baby catchers (obstetricians). Some are primarily gynecologic oncologists (spend their days extricating cancerous uteri and cervices). Some (although quite rare) making a living at D&C (abortion) and even more rare D&X (late term abortion). Some are generalists that profess competency in all things OB/GYN. In all categories, you are substandard if you cannot provide competent services across the domain of your professional licensure.

There are indeed substandard hospitals (typically community) which I would roughly equate to substandard pharmacies/pharmacists. But the former is typically a resources issue while the latter (per this discussion) is BS POV.

And for the record, Plan B is not a proven abortifacient like say mifepristone (RU486). It's sad enough when MDs sux at pharmacology, but when your pharmacist doesn't know drugs . . . all hope is lost.