Terry Tate Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 It amazes me that so many here who have never (or will never) face the pain of making this heartbreaking decision, can be so sure their opinion is the right one. 1. The pain of adoption: 2. The pain of Abortion: I've written this to point out that not all women are "irresponsible" with birth control. So many women are faced with these gut wrenching decisions in their life. There is no right answer. This issue will never be put to rest because there is no "right" decision - but I'm glad that my daughters live in a time when they at least have a legal choice about something that will affect them for a lifetime. I don't know if you address all men in general, or someone specifically. But I am not a young man, and I am also familiar with the pain and heartbreak associated with these decisions. I've made no statement to the effect of anyone's irresponsibility, nor have I suggested this product should be banned. I offer the argument that the state should not force a pharmacist to sell a product he does not wish to sell. It would still be legal and available at any other pharmacy that chooses to carry it.
aussiew Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 I don't know if you address all men in general, or someone specifically. Neither actually. Just reviewing all the differing opinions on this thread. Including one who suggested some input from the females in the audience. It was a response to the entire thread, not the pharmacy issue.
Terry Tate Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 Ok, no time left, I have to get ready for class. So here's the analogy that I think fits best: OB-GYNs are licensed by the state. If a patient wants an abortion, the doctor should be forced by the state to perform it, or be stripped of their license. Anyone who thinks pharmacists should be forced to sell 'morning-after' pills should be in full agreement with this.
erynthered Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 Including one who suggested some input from the females in the audience. 301856[/snapback] That was me. Thanks Aussiew, thanks for sharing that.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 Ok, no time left, I have to get ready for class. So here's the analogy that I think fits best: OB-GYNs are licensed by the state. If a patient wants an abortion, the doctor should be forced by the state to perform it, or be stripped of their license. Anyone who thinks pharmacists should be forced to sell 'morning-after' pills should be in full agreement with this. 301862[/snapback] That's not precisely the same. OBGYN's don't require a script from another health care provider to perform a procedure. Pharmacists, on the other hand, need to be "authorized" by a prescribing doctor to "dispense treatment". Therein lies what concerns me about the idea of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions...doesn't that then put them in the position of in effect overriding the medical judgement of the prescribing doctor? Is it really appropriate for pharmacists to override doctors' medical judgement based on their personal ethical beliefs? An OBGYN refuses to perform a procedure on personal moral grounds, it more likely than not only involves the OBGYN. A pharmacist refuses to dispense properly prescribed medication on personal ethical grounds...that's controverting another party's medical judgement on purely non-medical considerations - even more, non-medical considerations having NOTHING directly to do with the patient. If a pharmacist can dispense a given medication, he should not have the option of declining on strictly personal grounds. IF he can dispense the medication. Pharmicists can determine their own stock, I assume. Most pharmacies don't stock every medication; I've not infrequently had to go to specialty pharmacies for some odd or obscure formulations. If a pharmacist is morally opposed to a medicine, he should simply refuse to stock it, not refuse to prescribe it.
/dev/null Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 pro-choice = anti-life = RJ pro-life = anti-choice = needs more cowbell they both su><0r
UConn James Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 That's not precisely the same. OBGYN's don't require a script from another health care provider to perform a procedure. Pharmacists, on the other hand, need to be "authorized" by a prescribing doctor to "dispense treatment". Therein lies what concerns me about the idea of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions...doesn't that then put them in the position of in effect overriding the medical judgement of the prescribing doctor? Is it really appropriate for pharmacists to override doctors' medical judgement based on their personal ethical beliefs? An OBGYN refuses to perform a procedure on personal moral grounds, it more likely than not only involves the OBGYN. A pharmacist refuses to dispense properly prescribed medication on personal ethical grounds...that's controverting another party's medical judgement on purely non-medical considerations - even more, non-medical considerations having NOTHING directly to do with the patient. If a pharmacist can dispense a given medication, he should not have the option of declining on strictly personal grounds. IF he can dispense the medication. Pharmicists can determine their own stock, I assume. Most pharmacies don't stock every medication; I've not infrequently had to go to specialty pharmacies for some odd or obscure formulations. If a pharmacist is morally opposed to a medicine, he should simply refuse to stock it, not refuse to prescribe it. 301905[/snapback] Not such a good day for analogies, huh? Even tho my mention of a phone was to show how a prescription was received for the simple fact that people actually do still use paper prescriptions, rather than the phone physically giving a patient RU-486, etc. But whatever. WingNut needed to get to class.... Good points. Pharmacists legally can't tell you what brand of cough medicine is good, unless you ask them to recommend one, but they can reverse a doctor's course of treatment. If you don't want to do the job, the whole job, and nothing but the job, then find another line of work.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 Not such a good day for analogies, huh? Even tho my mention of a phone was to show how a prescription was received for the simple fact that people actually do still use paper prescriptions, rather than the phone physically giving a patient RU-486, etc. But whatever. WingNut needed to get to class.... Good points. Pharmacists legally can't tell you what brand of cough medicine is good, unless you ask them to recommend one, but they can reverse a doctor's course of treatment. If you don't want to do the job, the whole job, and nothing but the job, then find another line of work. 301944[/snapback] Only fair points. I mentioned them for the sake of discussion, not to espouse a position of my own. Were I to espouse a position of my own, I'd say that any pharmacist that STOCKS a drug shouldn't have a moral objection to dispensing it, and that there is a difference between a pharmacist telling a customer "I won't prescribe RU-486", and saying "We don't stock RU-486." At the very least, the latter doesn't put the pharmicist in the position of invalidating a doctor's medical judgement...and reasonably, if a pharmacist refuses on moral grounds to prescribe RU-486 but still carries the drug in stock, he's a confirmed hypocrite.
erynthered Posted April 11, 2005 Posted April 11, 2005 I mentioned them for the sake of discussion, not to espouse a position of my own. Charters for $49.95 here in Florida for Fishing, nice work. *Splat*
Terry Tate Posted April 12, 2005 Posted April 12, 2005 That's not precisely the same. OBGYN's don't require a script from another health care provider to perform a procedure. Pharmacists, on the other hand, need to be "authorized" by a prescribing doctor to "dispense treatment". Considering the topic, I think it's the best possible analogy, but maybe I should have thrown in a laserdisc somewhere ( ). Seriously, how is the doctor who refuses to perform abortions for personal reasons any different than the pharmacist who refuses to sell RU-486? The pharmacist's receipt of a rx is proof of authorization to dispense a controlled substance, not an order by a doctor. That is, the prescription is the method of controlling the substances, not a vehicle for doctors to control pharmacists. Therein lies what concerns me about the idea of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions...doesn't that then put them in the position of in effect overriding the medical judgement of the prescribing doctor? I don't believe so, since they do not have that authority. The customer is free to go to any pharmacy that carries the product and receive service. Is it really appropriate for pharmacists to override doctors' medical judgement based on their personal ethical beliefs? Again, they don't have that authority, but I'm guessing the customer wouldn't care much for it, and will never shop there again. Might even convince others to do the same. An OBGYN refuses to perform a procedure on personal moral grounds, it more likely than not only involves the OBGYN. A pharmacist refuses to dispense properly prescribed medication on personal ethical grounds...that's controverting another party's medical judgement on purely non-medical considerations - even more, non-medical considerations having NOTHING directly to do with the patient. Both are making a decision based upon their personal morals and ethics. The doctor who refuses to perform an abortion based upon their personal morals, who would then write a prescription for a 'morning-after' pill - this doctor does not exist. Didn't the patient herself (through whatever primitive means available before the telephone) identify a doctor who would perform such a service for her or on her behalf? And did she not encounter doctors who perhaps refused? Why then is the pharmacist singled out for scorn? Strip those doctors of their licenses! If a pharmacist can dispense a given medication, he should not have the option of declining on strictly personal grounds. IF he can dispense the medication. Pharmicists can determine their own stock, I assume. Most pharmacies don't stock every medication; I've not infrequently had to go to specialty pharmacies for some odd or obscure formulations. If a pharmacist is morally opposed to a medicine, he should simply refuse to stock it, not refuse to prescribe it. Pharmacists do determine their own stock. Unless the state were to force them to carry an item. Which would come next.
Terry Tate Posted April 12, 2005 Posted April 12, 2005 Pharmacists legally can't tell you what brand of cough medicine is good, unless you ask them to recommend one, but they can reverse a doctor's course of treatment. No, they can't. The customer is free to obtain their pill from another pharmacy. If you don't want to do the job, the whole job, and nothing but the job, then find another line of work. Apply the same argument to doctors who refuse to perform abortions. Walk around in it, see how it fits.
Terry Tate Posted April 12, 2005 Posted April 12, 2005 ...and reasonably, if a pharmacist refuses on moral grounds to prescribe RU-486 but still carries the drug in stock, he's a confirmed hypocrite. If a pharmacist buys and stocks product he refuses to sell, he's a confirmed idiot, and will soon be out of business. I don't think it makes him a hypocrite, though. OTOH, if he refuses to sell RU-486, but sells condoms and birth control pills, that might be hypocritical. Depends on his reason(s) for not selling RU-486.
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 12, 2005 Posted April 12, 2005 If a pharmacist buys and stocks product he refuses to sell, he's a confirmed idiot, and will soon be out of business. I don't think it makes him a hypocrite, though. OTOH, if he refuses to sell RU-486, but sells condoms and birth control pills, that might be hypocritical. Depends on his reason(s) for not selling RU-486. 302228[/snapback] What if they work for a major chain, say Walgreens? Not the lead pharmacist? Can they still refuse without being labeled a hypocrite?
Terry Tate Posted April 12, 2005 Posted April 12, 2005 What if they work for a major chain, say Walgreens? Not the lead pharmacist? Can they still refuse without being labeled a hypocrite? 302231[/snapback] I'd say so. I tell you what though, if he works for me, and I decide to carry it, he damn well better sell it or I'd can him right on the spot. Pick up your things and get out, I'll finish your shift.
UConn James Posted April 12, 2005 Posted April 12, 2005 I'd say so. I tell you what though, if he works for me, and I decide to carry it, he damn well better sell it or I'd can him right on the spot. Pick up your things and get out, I'll finish your shift. 302233[/snapback] For states that have passed the legislation making it legal to refuse, the only application of the "conscientious objector pharmacist" that ultimately will be economically viable is a mom-and-pop pharmacy, and those are a dying breed anyway. I'm sure large and small chains will draft policies requiring that someone will be there to fill the scrip at all times. You can't cut off half of your market because of politics and boycotts and expect to be in business for long. Either that, or doctors and hospitals stock it and cut out the middleman. It's very stupid not to stock morning-after pills. To point out, they're used for a number of treatments. Such as for a woman who had suffered a miscarriage. Cramping. Menopause symptoms. Certain types of cancer. Look it up.
Terry Tate Posted April 12, 2005 Posted April 12, 2005 For states that have passed the legislation making it legal to refuse, the only application of the "conscientious objector pharmacist" that ultimately will be economically viable is a mom-and-pop pharmacy, and those are a dying breed anyway. I'm sure large and small chains will draft policies requiring that someone will be there to fill the scrip at all times. You can't cut off half of your market because of politics and boycotts and expect to be in business for long. Either that, or doctors and hospitals stock it and cut out the middleman. It's very stupid not to stock morning-after pills. To point out, they're used for a number of treatments. Such as for a woman who had suffered a miscarriage. Cramping. Menopause symptoms. Certain types of cancer. Look it up. 302303[/snapback] I think you mean proposed legislation making it mandatory to provide assistance in finding a pharmacist who will fill the rx, since it's already legal to flat out refuse service. But anyway, you recognize: 1- pharmacists would face consequences to their refusal if they're the owner/operator, and they would have to weigh the economic costs against their beliefs. After all, they are running a business. 2- there would most likely be no effect at all in a chain store, as there are often two or more pharmacists on duty, and the rx could just be filled by another individual. Even the smallest privately owned places often have more than one pharmacist on duty at any given time. I was way out of line saying I'd fire someone because of this, they could just sue me (and probably win). So worst case scenario for the customer is locating a pharmacy that will fill the rx, which, given the above, should not be too difficult at all. This is why the suggestion of increasing the reach, scope, and control of government into what a merchant does or does not carry riles me so much. It's totally unwarranted. But it appears you may be open to accepting that. I feel like my work is done here.
Recommended Posts