Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Pharmacists 52

Journal by pudge

There was an interesting story on NewsHour tonight about pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions they don't like.

Mostly, this is about RU-486, the "morning after" pill. But it's also about, for some pharmacists, any birth control pill. The pharmacists don't like it, so they don't offer it, and don't fill prescriptions for it.

This angers a lot of people. But it doesn't matter how angry you are. You're wrong. The pharmacist gets to make that decision, period. End of story. No matter what you say.

The arguments -- none of which am I making up or exaggerating, all coming from the story -- are all irrelevant.

  • This is taking my right away.
    No, it isn't. Not in the least, tiniest, bit. In sane countries, your right to get something does not obligate someone else to provide it to you.
  • This is an organized attack on birth control, and the right of women to make their own decisions.
    So what, even if true? I can write letters to the editor attacking those same things, should I have my ability to write those letters taken away, too?
  • It makes it harder to get health care.
    So what? The pharmacist has no legal obligation to make your life convenient.
  • It denies access to health care.
    No, it doesn't. It might make it harder to get, but see the above point.
  • It endangers women's health.
    Potentially, I suppose, but so do many things. All that means, anyway, is that it is incumbent upon you to find out beforehand how you are going to get the drugs you might need. It's called being a responsible adult.
  • It's stupid.
    Yeah, well, people have the right to do stupid things. Like have abortions.
  • The pill doesn't actually cause an abortion.
    I can refuse to sell something for any reason I want. Maybe I only sell yellow pills (it's my favorite color), or pills that don't give people gas (farting makes me sad), or pills that don't in any way influence the mind (as L. Ron and Tom would order all Scientologist pharamcists). It doesn't matter what the reason is.
  • There's no good way to decide whose morals we go by.
    Yes, there is: the pharmacist's (or his boss).
  • This is one religion inflicting their beliefs on others.
    No moreso than a Kosher deli not selling pork is them inflicting their beliefs on me.

It's their business. It's their choice (something pro-choice advocates should be more than passingly familiar with). They have no obligation, period, to provide any product they don't wish to provide.

The dumb thing is that it is easy to get access to these drugs. Oral contraception can be gotten at many pharmacies; if you are a rare person for whom there is none in your area that provides it, then get it online (gasp!) or from your doctor. For "emergency" contraception, your doctor can keep some on hand. This is a solved problem, and we don't need to infringe on the rights of pharmacists to solve it.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pharmacists More

Pharmacists

Comments Filter:
  • It's their business. It's their choice (something pro-choice advocates should be more than passingly familiar with). They have no obligation, period, to provide any product they don't wish to provide.

    Actually in many cases it's not. A number of the complaints have involved chain-owned pharmacies.

    I have no problem with the owner deciding not to dispense certain medication or allowing an individual pharmacist to make that decision. But any pharmacist who refuses to dispense medication in accordance with co
    • Actually in many cases it's not. A number of the complaints have involved chain-owned pharmacies.

      I have no problem with the owner deciding not to dispense certain medication or allowing an individual pharmacist to make that decision. But any pharmacist who refuses to dispense medication in accordance with company policy should be able to be diciplined or terminated.

      That's a given. The company gets to set that policy, and if you don't like it, don't work for them. As best I can tell, that was not even a
  • I don't mind pharmacists using their conscience on dispensing drugs--I'd be a hypocrite if I held pro-choice views on abortion and simultaneously anti-choice views on religious practices.

    However, I think there need to be severe and immediate penalties for pharmacists who refuse to relinquish the documentation of the prescription in addition to not filling it. Because then he's taking away my choice.

    It'd be like that kosher deli owner locking you in the store and force-feeding you corned beef when you ord
  • I'd like to challenge your assertion that doctors can supply oral contraceptives. It certainly isn't routine over here (in the UK). "Get it online" is perhaps the worst advice I've ever heard for some scared kid looking for emergency contraception - you know they have to be taken ASAP to be effective, right?

    My problem is that these pharmacists are denying people the right to do as they wish *IN PRACTICAL TERMS*. Pharmacies occupy an uneasy niche between doctors and treatment - I do not think they should b
    • I'd like to challenge your assertion that doctors can supply oral contraceptives. It certainly isn't routine over here (in the UK).

      In the U.S., doctors give out drugs all the time, either because a drug is expensive, or hard to get, or in case of emergencies, or just because someone gave them free samples. I've had doctors give me drugs many times (though not oral contraceptives; but I assure you, that is done, too).

      "Get it online" is perhaps the worst advice I've ever heard for some scared kid looking
      • that a responsible person (ignoring, for a moment, the tiny minority of cases involving rape) would figure it out beforehand anyway, and if you're not responsible, don't come crying to me about it later: your lack of forethought doesn't put an obligation on someone else to dig you out of the hole you've dug for yourself.

        Ever had a condom split on you, Pudge? Probably not, but you can be perfectly responsible and adult and still not be able to anticipate every possible ramification of your actions. Your l

        • Ever had a condom split on you, Pudge?

          My first son was conceived due to birth control failure.

        • Ever had a condom split on you, Pudge? Probably not, but you can be perfectly responsible and adult and still not be able to anticipate every possible ramification of your actions. Your line of argument strikes me as deeply out of touch and reactionary, mean spirited even. Young adults make mistakes all the time, and such a serious, life changing error as an unwanted pregnancy isn't something you should be berating them over, or placing obstacles in their way when they try to attain treatment.

          No, but no

          • There can absolutely be no law passed which will compel me to serve.

            Except for a draft, of course. And perhaps forced rationing... But other than that... not one.

            I'm just kidding, by the way...

            • Point taken. In fact, the word "DRAFT" was flashing through my mind when I posted that. But I don't agree that a draft is moral, and after the thought that went into that post, I now don't believe it's legal. I'm sure the courts would love to disagree.

              • I seriously was kidding... it popped into my head as funny, so I wrote it. I don't think your point suffered for its inclusion.

                Again, just poking fun. Honestly.

                Take care.

                • Oh, I believe you. But I think the joke points out a serious hole in our freedoms.

                  It's like in my high school physics class, when most things I learned came about when I tried to ask a joking question of the teacher. Do you know what the derivative of acceleration is? It's called "jerk." Honest. I thought my teacher had had it with me and was calling me one. Turns out he was seriously answering my joking question. :)

          • nobody should point a gun to pudge and force him to scrape the zygote out of the girl's womb

            I can see no justification whatsoever for this comment. Reading my post over, nothing I have said could possibly prompt you to think I was in favour of this course of action. So I am puzzled as to your motive in posting this statement. Do enlighten.

            Doctors give out samples all the time

            Oh, absolutely. And it is a complete red herring. Free samples of the latest wonder drug, such as those routinely given to GP

            • if you want to dispense medicines on behalf of the state

              I don't know what it's like in your country, but over here people do not dispense medicines on behalf of the state.

            • We musn't allow people to control their own fertility, or make it easy in any way to do so.

              We do allow them to, and it is already easy to do so. That does not require compelling the participation of any individual who chooses not to be involved.

              If they fail to do so out of youthful ignorance or naiviety we musn't help them

              That shows you're not paying attention. Where did I argue that we should forbid people from providing them with contraception or the morning after pill? As a matter of fact, I

            • It's hardly a rational basis for an argument that, because GPs get the latest drug samples sent to them by drug companies as an incentive to prescribe them, that therefore GPs are perfectly able to supply the needs of a town full of people when pharmacies start selecting what medicines they agree with.

              And you counter the red herring with a straw man! Well done! The argument is not that a doctor does have those drugs, but that in a location where a specific drug is hard to come by, the doctor can take it
              • I don't understand, Pudge. You claim I answer the red herring with a strawman - what is the strawman? The assumption I made was implicit in jdavidb's original point, that somehow the fact that he had had several afflictions treated by free sample from his doctor, this somehow impacted on the question of whether doctors can adequately meet the needs of their patients. I can't challenge that logic other than by challenging the basis of the statement.

                You have had several opportunities in these comments to f
                • You claim I answer the red herring with a strawman - what is the strawman?

                  "It's hardly a rational basis for an argument that, because GPs get the latest drug samples sent to them by drug companies as an incentive to prescribe them, that therefore GPs are perfectly able to supply the needs of a town full of people when pharmacies start selecting what medicines they agree with."

                  No one made that argument. Attacking it is, therefore, a strawman fallacy.

                  The assumption I made was implicit in jdavidb's origi
          • Morals are overrated. Compare yours to the stereotypical ones in other countries. There are wide variations in what is ethically right and wrong. Sadly the vast majority of people probably never question their morals/ethics/what is right or wrong. They just have ones similar to their neighbors.

            Story: A politician a few weeks ago wanted to lower the drinking age to 19 for folks in the military. Reading the comments on Fark.com I was surprised at how many people negatively compared it to Starship Troop

            • Each person owns him or herself, and as a consequence of that fact, noone has any right to force any morality on anyone else.

              Given that, this develops [isil.org]. It's not about forcing morality on people. It's about not allowing them to force their morality on each other.

              • It said property is ours because of the time and money we put into it. Didn't our parents and in many cases, the State put time and money into us? Seems to me they own part of us.

                It never explained why each person owns him or herself, it only stated it as if it was a fact.
                • Seems to me our parents and the State ought to own part of us, at least by the flash site's logic.

                • It could be an axiom. It's something most people accept. I think Walter Williams has done some good writing on why it has to be true.

                  That the State may have put work into us gives them no more right to us than a slaveowner has to his slaves simply because he puts work into them.

                  • During our lives the opportunity to dramatically alter the government to fit our ethics is mostly a matter of chance. You want a more hands-off government, I want it like that in some areas, and more hands-on in others. I think we both agree the government should be for the people, and not the other way around. But as I see it, if in my government the State has some obligations to the people, insisting on the reverse is logical.
                  • We have to live by the rules of the State. We are allowed to change them. If we don't like them, we are allowed to leave. What would be wrong is if we weren't allowed to leave. You are free to leave and find a country where you can be a libertarian.
            • It's more accurate to say some morals are overrated. There may be superficial wide variations, but the deep morals, the basic ones ie. don't murder are widely held and respected.

        • And what is worse, selling kids contraceptives or forcing them down the route of abortion?

          You have a strange defintion of the word "forced," and a strange conception of its importance. Is forcing people to do things bad, or not?

          My wife and I were certainly not forced to abort our unintentially conceived child. (Nor were her parents compelled to abort her unintentionally conceived siblings.)

          But without any regard at all you think it is trivial for the central commander of the state at his viewscree

        • Ever had a condom split on you, Pudge? Probably not, but you can be perfectly responsible and adult and still not be able to anticipate every possible ramification of your actions. Your line of argument strikes me as deeply out of touch and reactionary, mean spirited even.

          It's mean spirited to say you better think out all of your actions beforehand and have a backup plan, instead of trying to take away someone else's liberty because of your mistake?

          I disagree.

          Young adults make mistakes all the time, an
          • Well, from a business mindset, I certainly agree with you.

            However, there is precedence for pharmacies being required to provide certain services. For example, IIRC, if a customer comes to a pharmacy showing signs of having an asthma attack, the pharmacist is required to provide an inhaler to the patient, regardless of whether the patient does not have a prescription in-hand. Now, I certainly understand that an inhaler is much different than a morning-after pill, but suspending social norms, if a pharmaci
            • if a customer comes to a pharmacy showing signs of having an asthma attack, the pharmacist is required to provide an inhaler to the patient, regardless of whether the patient does not have a prescription in-hand

              You're confusing different things. Here, the subject is whether or not to offer a specific product *at all.* If they did not have inhalers, they could not provide them to someone seeking it.

              HOWEVER, I do believe that, in the case of a county general hospital, that they should be required to off
        • Any pharmacy which doesn't is likely to get a bad reputation, losing it customers and enforcing a similar policy. How then is someone to get emergency contraception?

          That is the free market place. Same goes for stores that don't stock fresh enough of vegatables. If people need vegies that don't spoli after 2 days (because they don't want to get sick) then they go somewhere else. When enough people are askign for freshier vegies, one store will fill the vacuume.

          I know that Britian is less of a free mark

    • Their product - medicines- are not luxuries or dalliances to be stocked or not at the whim of the owners

      By that argument, a pharmacy does not have liberty to go out of business, and a pharmacist does not have liberty to quit his job.

      If you want to take this down into the realm of "practicality," then in the U.S., nobody is denying anybody anything in practical terms, because in almost every town in the U.S. there is another pharmacy down the street or another pharmacist at the next counter.

      The real

      • By that argument, a pharmacy does not have liberty to go out of business, and a pharmacist does not have liberty to quit his job.

        No, you are committing the fallacy of extension. Of course pharmacies can close or quit. But they have responsibilities, being part of the healthcare apparatus. These responsibilities can be seen in the fact pharmacies must be licensed. Part of this licencing should ensure a certain standard of behaviour. Refusing to fufil prescriptions on the basis of personal belief shouldn't
        • No, you are committing the fallacy of extension.

          If there is only one pharmacy in a given area, and won't sell specific drugs, the argument is they "have to" sell it because no one else can. Why would that exact same logic NOT extend to the phramacy that wants to close its doors entirely?

          When someone makes a broad argument that necessarily must be extended because no limits have been put on the argument, it is not the fallacy of the person noting that extension, but the fallacy of the person who provided
          • f there is only one pharmacy in a given area, and won't sell specific drugs,

            ..then that is a good argument against your attitude that no-one is harmed by the pharmacy acting as it does. You see, allowing a behaviour you happen to agree with, without realising the extent of the implications is very dangerous. If people will be adversely affected by this, contrary to what you believe, is this not a persuasive argument AGAINST allowing it?

            The reason why I feel the clsing pharmacy argument is an extension
            • .then that is a good argument against your attitude that no-one is harmed by the pharmacy acting as it does.

              I don't think he was claiming that the pharmacist's business decisions are free from effects on others, as you seem to imply - rather, his position seems to be the same as mine, that the pharmacist's freedom trumps the convenience of those who would prefer that pharmacist be forced to serve them against his will.

              The reason why I feel the clsing pharmacy argument is an extension too far is because

        • I think we are neglecting that pharmacies are not just businesses and pharmacists are not just businessmen. Pharmacists practice their trade at the discretion of the state. All 50 states require state licensure for a pharmacist to practice and most licensing stipulates that a pharmacist must serve the public welfare (as defined by the state). Call your state Pharmacy Board (or licensing amd regulation body) to see what they say.

          It is entirely possible that they could be sued based on the specific licen

          • I think we are neglecting that pharmacies are not just businesses and pharmacists are not just businessmen.

            I disagree. But let's assume they are in some special class: so are doctors, who are not forced to perform abortions. That blows the rest of what you say out of the water, unless you say doctors SHOULD be so forced, which almost no one agrees with, and I think is just as crazy as what you're saying.

            If they don't agree with dispensing a legal drug to someone, they shouldn't be pharmacists.

            If doc
            • I may be wrong. I have no problem granting that.

              In the specific cases where pharmacists deny birth control while carrying them because the patient doesn't meet certain criteria (usually marriage), still seems to problem in my book. Perhaps it is because my wife has been denied birth control when we were indeed married, only because various pharmacists didn't think she "looked" married or because they didn't think that a young couple with no kids should practice birth control (while it was ok, presumably,
              • I may be wrong. I have no problem granting that.

                Me neither, depending on the case. In this case, I just can't see how it could be wrong.

                Perhaps it is because my wife has been denied birth control when we were indeed married, only because various pharmacists didn't think she "looked" married or because they didn't think that a young couple with no kids should practice birth control

                That would piss me off, too, but my anger and resentment places no obligation on the pharmacist.

                Perhaps if they posted s

              • In the specific cases where pharmacists deny birth control while carrying them because the patient doesn't meet certain criteria (usually marriage), still seems to problem in my book. Perhaps it is because my wife has been denied birth control when we were indeed married, only because various pharmacists didn't think she "looked" married or because they didn't think that a young couple with no kids should practice birth control (while it was ok, presumably, for couples with that already had children).

                We

          • Pharmacists practice their trade at the discretion of the state.

            In that case, we have a liberty infringement problem that need to be addressed. Purchase of drugs ought to be between the purchaser and the seller.

            Perhaps I need to expand my belief in the legalization of drugs to take into account legalizing pharmaceuticals, too.

            My body, my choice.

            If they didn't like it, they could leave medicine or practice without a license (illegal in itself).

            That's another thing I don't like. My great-grand

  • As the other two posters have indicated, any pharmacist who does not wish to fill a prescription should be required to transfer it to another pharmacy that will fill it. Immediately. Failure to do so should result in a significant penalty, such as a 1 year license suspension. The prescription does not belong to the pharamcists, it is not theirs to do with as they wish.

    It endangers women's health.
    Potentially, I suppose, but so do many things. All that means, anyway, is that it is incumbent upon you to fi

    • The customer did their homework and it's not the pharmacist's business. ... All I've thought of is those pharmacists shouldn't put themselves or the customers in that situation by taking sub positions at other pharmacies.

      That's up to the owner/manager of the pharmacy. It doesn't change anything. You can assume that if the substitute pharmacist does that, then either it is with the approval of the ownership, or that upon complaint, the substitute will be disciplined or terminated. It's all still the sam

    • As the other two posters have indicated, any pharmacist who does not wish to fill a prescription should be required to transfer it to another pharmacy that will fill it.

      I'm not sure what said transfer should entail, but nobody should be required to even assist in doing something they choose not to. If all you meant was, "they must give the prescription script back," then yes, they must (or, as pudge has pointed out, they are thieves). But if you mean contact another pharmacy and send the prescription

      • I'm not sure what said transfer should entail, but nobody should be required to even assist in doing something they choose not to.

        Often there is no piece of paper to hand back, prescriptions are sent directly to your pharmacy and the only way for it to be filled elsewhere is for it to be transferred to another pharmacy by the pharmacist. This would also be the case when someone is renewing a prescription and there's a substitute pharmacist.

        So yes, the pharamcist should be required to transfer it. They ar

        • Often there is no piece of paper to hand back, prescriptions are sent directly to your pharmacy and the only way for it to be filled elsewhere is for it to be transferred to another pharmacy by the pharmacist. This would also be the case when someone is renewing a prescription and there's a substitute pharmacist.

          In those cases, it would be ideal if they just simply didn't accept the prescription in the first place (computers can do that?). But yes, given that they do accept it, I have no problem saying t

        • I hate to make a "me, too," post, but pudge already gave the exact response I would've given.

  • I wonder how many people's response to this would be different if pharmacists were withholding psychiatric drugs like Ritalin or other sex pills like Citalis and Viagra. In fact, I have to wonder if there are pharmacists out there applying their own personal morals to other drugs.
  • It's only tangential to the discussion, but RU-486 and the morning after pill are two very different things. RU-486 induces miscarriage, and the morning after pill prevents ovulation and/or implantation through massive doses of hormones.

    I'm sure pharmacists know the difference, but that confusion is behind a lot of peoples' opposition to the morning after pill.

Slashdot Top Deals

Life. Don't talk to me about life. - Marvin the Paranoid Anroid

Close