Birth Control, Morning after Pill, and Pharmacists' "Morality"

[tricky]

Some of you may have seen the article on the frontpage of the DMN this Sunday. Pharmacists' morality getting in the way of being a professional with a duty to serve the public.


Morality seems to be the issue in the 21st century, for better or worse. This infringement on people's rights and the way we live is very disturbing.

It seems that for some people, it is better to worry how others live, rather than how they lead their own life.

Pharmacists and pharmacies are granted nearly exclusive rights to perform an essential public service — not to legislate public morality. Their licenses should entail strictly enforced obligations. Refusal to stock or dispense commonly prescribed drugs should lead to heavy fines and loss of license. A pharmacist who believes his "conscience" takes precedence over doctors' instructions and patients' rights should find another profession.

Background Info
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/sto...-8713673c.html
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pb...504250326/1037
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&feed=rss.news
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive...ihealth-01.asp

this one got debated to death already......

While I think it a stupid business decision to deny a sale an Rx is a product and a seller doesn't have to sell to a customer if they don't want to.

Forcing a pharmacy to stock a product is stupid.... if I produce the requied drug you can be goddamn sure I'm jacking the price through the roof..... which will require mroe government involvement.... and then drug producer will need protection so that they cannot be requied to produce the drug at a price that costs them money.... and tehn we need a review board to determine what drugs are required..... the problems will explode.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

this one got debated to death already......

While I think it a stupid business decision to deny a sale an Rx is a product and a seller doesn't have to sell to a customer if they don't want to.

i must have missed it

What if they are the only seller within 50 miles and the woman is a rape victim. Who is it better to impose on, the pharmacist who is living by his morals, or the woman whose life will be forever changed by the pregnancy.

You seem to make it simpler than it is xian. The pharmacist is a healthcare professional, not exactly peddling trinkets and he doesnt like the color on this trinket.

Originally Posted by tricky

i must have missed it

What if they are the only seller within 50 miles and the woman is a rape victim. Who is it better to impose on, the pharmacist who is living by his morals, or the woman whose life will be forever changed by the pregnancy.

You seem to make it simpler than it is xian. The pharmacist is a healthcare professional, not exactly peddling trinkets and he doesnt like the color on this trinket.

The issue you raise is immediate availablity........

What do people living in the middle of Wyoming do for their drugs now? These issues currently exist without regard for a specific drug or emergency. If there's no pharmacy down the street the inconveniece is relatively static - get it mail order - if urgent - expedite the shipment.

If you have the need for "day-after" pill in cases of rape - dispense in the Dr.'s office. If an emergency one should not wait until one goes home and then to the pharmacy.



You raise the issue that drugs are a unique product.....

no their not really.... even though they do elicit a more emotional response. Again, if one is in an urban setting pharmacies are all over the place. If one is remote - then as above - immediate availiability is already an issue regarldess of whether a pharmacy many hours away refuses to dispense a certain drug, refuses to stock it or simply doesn't currently have it in stock.

[bushsucks]

fuck it, i'm gonna become a doctor, and then tell them, no pain medicine, let god be your pain relief.

[reddaisy6]

Yes, this subject is beaten like a dead horse.

The way I see is, if the Pharmacist doesn't want to sell it, then he can buy his own pharmacy & go about as he pleases. If he's working for a public store (I.E. - Walgreens, CVS, Wal-Mart, Kroger, etc..) then he shouldn't have the right to deny a sale.


I've done a few public debates about this & to me this pill is no different than taking birth control.

[Manders]

A woman can be on the pill for other reasons that just sex. Irregular periods, acne and sometimes just for the hormones.

Originally Posted by reddaisy6

The way I see is, if the Pharmacist doesn't want to sell it, then he can buy his own pharmacy & go about as he pleases. If he's working for a public store (I.E. - Walgreens, CVS, Wal-Mart, Kroger, etc..) then he shouldn't have the right to deny a sale.

why? Its not a "public" store its a publically traded corporation but its not owned by the "public." Its a private business. You seem to be distinguishing the pharmacy based on the size of the business....what if that pharmacist opened 5000 stores?

I think the guy could refuse service - but I also think CVS (or whatever) should fire his ass for doing so.

[Manders]

The guy new what he was signing on for when he got the job. Did he think that he was never going to have to fill a perscription for BC???

Originally Posted by Manders

The guy new what he was signing on for when he got the job. Did he think that he was never going to have to fill a perscription for BC???

Maybe. Maybe he formed his opinion later. What does it matter?

[Manders]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

Maybe. Maybe he formed his opinion later. What does it matter?

I'm sorry am I not allowed to voice my opinion bc I don't like electronic music?

Originally Posted by Manders

I'm sorry am I not allowed to voice my opinion bc I don't like electronic music?

hmmm - I asked a question I didn't say "shut up you non-EDM listening non-opinion authorized person" and how the hell would I know whatyou do or don't listen to?

so again - what does it matter that he knew he'd be asked to dispense birth control meds?

[Manders]

I'm just saying that I don't understand why he put himself in the place that he would hafta go against something he supposedly believed so strongly.

Then again I don't know. I'm just confused on that.

Originally Posted by Manders

I'm just saying that I don't understand why he put himself in the place that he would hafta go against something he supposedly believed so strongly.

Then again I don't know. I'm just confused on that.

ok - fair enough

my guess, he formed his opinion well after he became a pharmacist and something struck him that day and he decided not to dispense.... but that's pure speculation and not really worth diddly

[tricky]

Xian, in the article on sunday it said one pharmacist refused to dispense Ritalin. So where does this slippery slope end? It could get to a point where we have to wait days to get our prescriptions by mail, or else run around to every pharmacy in town if they will fill our prescription or if it's against their morals.