Some pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control pills because of religious beliefs

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: ToeJam13
Now the issue of privacy is with the pharmacist. Are their personal rights to ethical and religious expression being suppressed? Do the rights of the patient come before or after that of the pharmacist?

What "rights" does the pharmacist have, in that position, relating to their personal religious beliefs? I'm not against religion, far from it, but if it causes them such conflict with their employment, then they have to option to, and probably should, just up and quit. But they don't have a right to refuse to do their job, when they are being paid to do so, and in so doing, deprive the customer of their rightfully-prescribed medications.

I mean, what if the issue wasn't reproduction, per se, but that of a "supremecist" pharmacist, out to promote their political agenda everywhere they went, even on the job, and the customer was a "disabled" person, getting a refill on a life-saving medication. The pharmacist, acting on their own personal beliefs, and in opposition to their job description, lies to the customer and tells them that they are out of that medication, in order to promote removing that customer from the overall population/gene-pool. The customer dies 24hr later due to lack of medication.

Given that scenario, again, should the pharmacist have the individual right to "veto" the Dr.'s prescription? I would say no, personally.

Originally posted by: ToeJam13
So in short, the previous issue was the State blocking access to contraception. The current issue is the pharmacist blocking access to contraception. Statewide government ban versus localized personal refusal.

I guess part of the question is, though, aren't these persons, state-licensed, in order to do their job as part of the "medical establishment"? Therefore, why wouldn't they get whatever license that is, permanently revoked, if the pharmacist decided (of their own personal volition), to refuse to dispense medication according to the prescription given? That would seem like the proper course of action to me.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Amused
I oppose anarchy because it only leads to the thuggery of the strongest. Anarchists are fools.

Alright then, that makes sense, but I have difficulty reconciling that with your past statements indicating that corporations shouldn't be held to civil laws.

You keep repeating this fiction. When have I EVER said this?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Concillian
This would only be the case for a very short period. Some entrepreneur would see the opportunity and start up a pharmacy 'specializing' in BC and scoop tons of business on side prescriptions from people who wouldn't go to the 'Pharmacies of the Devout' due to the principal of supporting thier beliefs.

Yeah, but how long until the devout setup outside these shops and start harassing the people who have to go to these "specialized pharmacies" to get their prescriptions filled?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Concillian
This would only be the case for a very short period. Some entrepreneur would see the opportunity and start up a pharmacy 'specializing' in BC and scoop tons of business on side prescriptions from people who wouldn't go to the 'Pharmacies of the Devout' due to the principal of supporting thier beliefs.

Yeah, but how long until the devout setup outside these shops and start harassing the people who have to go to these "specialized pharmacies" to get their prescriptions filled?

Why aren't they doing that now?

There have always been abortion protesters ever since Roe v Wade. But never BC protesters outside pharms.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Concillian
This would only be the case for a very short period. Some entrepreneur would see the opportunity and start up a pharmacy 'specializing' in BC and scoop tons of business on side prescriptions from people who wouldn't go to the 'Pharmacies of the Devout' due to the principal of supporting thier beliefs.

Yeah, but how long until the devout setup outside these shops and start harassing the people who have to go to these "specialized pharmacies" to get their prescriptions filled?

Why aren't they doing that now?

There have always been abortion protesters ever since Roe v Wade. But never BC protesters outside pharms.

Because currently there aren't many (if any) pharmacies that fill only birth control prescriptions.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Concillian
This would only be the case for a very short period. Some entrepreneur would see the opportunity and start up a pharmacy 'specializing' in BC and scoop tons of business on side prescriptions from people who wouldn't go to the 'Pharmacies of the Devout' due to the principal of supporting thier beliefs.

Yeah, but how long until the devout setup outside these shops and start harassing the people who have to go to these "specialized pharmacies" to get their prescriptions filled?

Why aren't they doing that now?

There have always been abortion protesters ever since Roe v Wade. But never BC protesters outside pharms.

Because currently there aren't many (if any) pharmacies that fill only birth control prescriptions.

It will never be an issue.

1. States and localities can never ban BC.

2. National chains are everywhere and will never stop selling BC.

If this isn't an issue now, it will not be in the future.

Look, this whole story came up a couple years ago and whent nowhere. Now they are digging it up again and it will go.... nowhere.

 

[Kadarin]

I did not read this entire thread (no time!), but did read the article. I believe it is utterly ridiculous that pharmacists can even refuse to dispence prescribed medicine. It's their JOB! If they have some moral objection to doing part of their job, they should be DOING SOMETHING ELSE for a living. Period.

 

[Literati]

pewp

 

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: ToeJam13
So in short, the previous issue was the State blocking access to contraception. The current issue is the pharmacist blocking access to contraception. Statewide government ban versus localized personal refusal.

I guess part of the question is, though, aren't these persons, state-licensed, in order to do their job as part of the "medical establishment"? Therefore, why wouldn't they get whatever license that is, permanently revoked, if the pharmacist decided (of their own personal volition), to refuse to dispense medication according to the prescription given? That would seem like the proper course of action to me.

Yup, this is why I brought up Griswold. Pharmacists are essentially agents of their state licensing board. Shouldn't they have a responsibility to uphold the values and laws of the state, and, assumedly, the U.S. Constitution? If so, Griswold would certainly apply here.

 

[PCHPlayer]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I did not read this entire thread (no time!), but did read the article. I believe it is utterly ridiculous that pharmacists can even refuse to dispence prescribed medicine. It's their JOB! If they have some moral objection to doing part of their job, they should be DOING SOMETHING ELSE for a living. Period.

If the pharmacist owns the store he/she should be able to choose which drugs to dispense. Free market pressures will take care of the rest. If a phamacy doesn't have the drugs you need you will go somewhere else.
On the other hand, if some pharmacist is trying to set a policy for a store in which they work... Fire their a$$.
I love it when I can spew liberatarian points of view.

 

[feelingshorter]

they should do their job...dont force their beliefs on others

 

[tami]

why is this new news as of march 27? i read this in november of last year....

here's the USA today article dated 11/8

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: PCHPlayer

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I did not read this entire thread (no time!), but did read the article. I believe it is utterly ridiculous that pharmacists can even refuse to dispence prescribed medicine. It's their JOB! If they have some moral objection to doing part of their job, they should be DOING SOMETHING ELSE for a living. Period.

If the pharmacist owns the store he/she should be able to choose which drugs to dispense. Free market pressures will take care of the rest. If a phamacy doesn't have the drugs you need you will go somewhere else.
On the other hand, if some pharmacist is trying to set a policy for a store in which they work... Fire their a$$.
I love it when I can spew liberatarian points of view.

I disagree with you. What if this pharmacist is the only one in a small town? In my opinion, the pharmacist MUST abide by the will of the doctor. If they cannot do this, then they SHOULD NOT be pharmacists. Period.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: ToeJam13
So in short, the previous issue was the State blocking access to contraception. The current issue is the pharmacist blocking access to contraception. Statewide government ban versus localized personal refusal.

I guess part of the question is, though, aren't these persons, state-licensed, in order to do their job as part of the "medical establishment"? Therefore, why wouldn't they get whatever license that is, permanently revoked, if the pharmacist decided (of their own personal volition), to refuse to dispense medication according to the prescription given? That would seem like the proper course of action to me.

Yup, this is why I brought up Griswold. Pharmacists are essentially agents of their state licensing board. Shouldn't they have a responsibility to uphold the values and laws of the state, and, assumedly, the U.S. Constitution? If so, Griswold would certainly apply here.

ummm, no. being licensed by the state does not invoke the state action doctrine, if that is what you're getting at.

 

[Blazin Trav]

WTf.