Druggists Refuse to Give Out Pill...

quote: What we're talking about is respecting the right of pharmacists not to participate in facilitating chemically induced elective abortions

These pharmacists should be screened out during the hiring process. They are unable to do the job required, they should never have taken it.

Does a construction worker who is against urban spawl have the right to refuse to build a strip mall and yet retain his job, fuck no, and neither should a pharmacist.


They should be able to be sued for refusing to fill a doctor ordered prescription. I bet they can too.

If you have a moral objection to part of your job, fuck off and find a new one.

 

ehh i was going to say something but i don't even feel like arguing about this haha.

 

First off, the job of a pharmacist has been grossly misstated. The practice of pharmacy is much more clinical. Pharmacy is no longer just a count/pour, lick & stick profession. Unfortunately, with reimbursements from insurance companies reaching an all time low, the assembly line atmosphere of the profession is resurfacing, but not to the extent that it was previously. Your pharmacist is responsible for much more than just following orders from your physician. It is diffucult for most people to see just what a pharmacist does, because until you get really sick, you do not really use their services.

Also, pharmacists have the right to refuse to dispense almost any prescription. It absolutely is up to them! There is no way around this. If you want to mandate that they dispense any and all prescriptions, they can always be "out of stock."

I do agree that a pharmacist should not refuse to dispense birth control, or any prescription, because of moral conflicts alone. I agree that, as a pharmacist, they should expect to not always agree with decisions made by doctors & patients. The pharmacist, however, does not have the data necessary to make that sort of judgement call. They did not have an appointment with the patient, discuss options and alternatives, or other factors that may come into play. Birth control is often prescribed to treat medical conditions.

Also, many women on here do not know how birth control works. The new and popular low-dose estrogen pills, as well as the newer but less popular progestin only pills, only prevent ovulation about 50% of the time. Their ability to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall is a major component of how they work.

 

This was a pretty good thread, which provides some more insight.

http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23685&page=2&pp=10

 

The individual laborer might not have this liberty, but a licensed contractor can choose to bid (or not) on any project he wishes.

 

Sir, I've disagreed with you in the past here, and I've also agreed with you, and overall have no problem with you, but this is just the dumbass statement of the year.

Like I said, I respect their moral objection to it because I know Catholics, and others who may think this way too who aren't Catholic, don't believe in birth control at all. I understand that, I don't mind that they object. But My eggs are not babies! I'm not killing any damn body when I take my pills. I'm PREVENTING having a baby that I would not be able to take care of right now. A woman on BC is PREVENTING having to even possibly THINK about having an abortion in the first place.

I didn't even get on birth control in the first place until my CRAMPS got so bad I felt like I was DYING while curled up on the floor dry heaving, sweating, crying, and shaking, and I was BLEEDING so heavily I would PASS OUT. Birth control works WONDERS for that you know? And I know many other girls who are planning to wait until they are married to have sex and are actually just on BC for just their period problems. My own mother for example, she started on BC when she was 13, her mom took her as soon as she started her period because she knew what was coming for her. But she never had sex until she and my father got married. Is that so immoral to you? It shouldn't be.

The EGG is not a baby.

I have never had anything CLOSE to an abortion, and I don't plan to ever! I don't want to ban it, no, but I could never do it because of my own moral objections to it. But I'm not going to keep another woman from doing whatever she wants with her own body. And I CERTAINLY wouldn't prevent someone from taking birth control of all things.

THIS IS JUST BIRTH CONTROL. It's a good thing...ugh.

 

OK then, maybe the owner of a pharmacy should be able to decide whether to stock birth control or not, but the individual working in a store that DOES stock them shouldn't be able to refuse to sell them. Birth control is not illegal, therfore the pharmacist should not have the right to refuse the sale.

The ones that refuse to stock them could also sell things like leaches to suck out illness.

 

Actually, yes, but that's really an issue for the legal issues/drugs forums. Maybe followups should be redirected there ?

[OT rant mode: ON]
As a social libertarian, I think that most drugs should be available without a prescription. Obviously, the vast majority of folks would continue to see a doctor for a RECOMMENDATION of what (if anything) to take, how much, and for how long, and follow up tests/care, etc. , just as the vast majority of people take their cars to mechanics when work is needed, rather than working on it themselves.

But the legal REQUIREMENT that this be true is what concerns me.

Yes, some drugs can be dangerous or deadly if used improperly, but then so can some kinds of tools, equipment and components used to repair a car. Should the government restrict the sales of these items to licensed mechanics? You can have my impact wrench and welding torch when you pry them from my dead greasy hands!

I happen to be a licensed electrician. Does that mean that I think that it should be illegal for you to go down and buy wire, conduit, and circuit breaker panels at Home Despot, install them improperly, and burn your house down? Nope! So why should doctors/pharmacists enjoy this mandatory market for their services?

Responsible adults should have the right to self-medicate as they see fit, without government interference or "legal access monopolies". With rights come responsibilities, in this case to research the risks/benefits of the medication (either by consulting a doctor or on one's own).

The safety profile of oral contraceptives is pretty well-established, Appropriate warnings about smoking, possible increased cancer risks, etc should be prominently displayed on the packaging, etc.

IMHO, the only appropriate role for the government here is to assure the safety, purity and effectiveness of drugs that are marketed, and that all marketing claims made are true.
[OT rant mode: OFF]

So yes, steroids SHOULD be available OTC. If people are willing to destroy their livers and gonads to impress their buddies at the gym, more power to them! The species will evolve better without them...

 

I refer you to this bit of information in a very recent post here:

Also, many women on here do not know how birth control works. The new and popular low-dose estrogen pills, as well as the newer but less popular progestin only pills, only prevent ovulation about 50% of the time. Their ability to prevent a [developing human embryo] from attaching to the uterine wall is a major component of how they work.
​

It all depends on the type of BC.

See above.

 

I do not support, whatsoever, pharmacy owners deciding what to stock and dispense. I do not think Wal-Mart and CVS, etc, should be dictating, by monopoly, what healthcare services are available to the public. Regardless of my opinion, however, even if birth control is stocked, a pharmacist can always be "out of stock."

That being said, I think we agree on this.

 

Like others have said, womyn don't go on birth control JUST for sex... I've been on the pill since I was 14, and I didn't have sex until I was 21. So should I have had to go to the pharmacists all those years and say "I need you to fill this please, but don't worry, I'm not taking them for sex... I have endometriosis, and cysts on my ovaries that burst, and I've been in the hospital twice because of it..." ????

 

IMO, no, you shouldn't.

 

thats horrible. i've had my own bad experinces with pharmacies... i was dignosed as bipolar and they tried to refuse filling my scrpit for zyprexa. they had to have a doctors letter of ok.. i mean christ his name was on the perscribtion isnt that enough. i finally got my meds after jumping through hoops for two weeks!

 

I don't see any reason a pharmacist would refuse a script for Zyprexa. If the dose were in question, the pharmacist should have consulted with your doctor by phone. Are you sure it wasn't the insurance company that required a letter of authorization? Insurance companies frequently require them, especially for drugs costing $4 to $9 per day, such as Zyprexa.

 

Nobody has a "monopoly" on dispensing BC pills. There will always be pharmacies with no qualms about doing so. Why should they all be required to? Why does someone's desire obligate someone else to meet it?

 

yes the dose was in question... im not really sure why it happened but it did. i know it wasnt my insurence it was fully covered by them no questions asked.

 

Isn't it typical for a pharmacist to understand the medical indications for a prescription and offer professional advice to the patient?

 

I believe the original article mentioned something about the pharmacist having to give the prescription to another pharmacist to fill out, if they had any moral obligations. That the pharmacy cannot outright refuse to fill it out, just have another employee do so. As in, this is a legal requirement.... which means that out and out refusing to give BC to someone is actually illegal (I may have misread this, I apologize if this is the case). So long as there are safe, available avenues of receiving your BC, so what if one phramacist doesn't like selling it to ya?

 

Oh no you didn't. He didn't type "developing human embryo", he typed fertilized egg. Just because an egg is fertilized does NOT make a baby. I'm sorry. I know we differ on this issue and I know I'm not going to be saying anything to change your mind. Again, I say, I have NEVER had anything even CLOSE to an abortion. And that's that. And if I was not having sex, I would still be taking BC. And how in the world would that be morally wrong depending on the kind of pill?? If I'm on BC and not having sex, there's NO chance of a fertilized egg anyway. Like someone else said earlier, should a woman have to specify that she's using it for her pains? Say, "don't worry I'm not having sex" before some of these pharmacists fill her script? No. But neither should they try to keep it from the women who are paying for it, after having discussed it with their doctor. They can get another pharmie to fill it if they don't want to. Just don't lay your morals on me and deny me my medicine.

 

I think that individual pharmacists and companies should be free to opt out. I suspect that most individuals would gravitate toward companies that share their values.