Political Crossfire Forums

Sataere · Joined: 27 Jan 2006 Posts: 226 Location: Ohio

Do you think that pharmacists should be allowed to refuse the sale of the morning after pill? I saw the case of a man who had been a pharmacist for 30 years but would not complete perscriptions for the pill because he believed it to be taking a life.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Should vegetarians working at McDonals be allowed to refuse handing out burgers because it is against their belief?

Should a 7-day-adventists physician refuse to treat children because he believes it i in God's hands?

If you are unable to complete all jobs included in your work, then you might need a career change.

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2324 Location: Edinburgh

There was a similar case a few months back; a pharmacy employee refused to sell birth control pills despite the woman having a perscription for them, as well as taking away her perscription and not returning it to her.

Ethically, doctors are obligated to either provide emergency medical attention, or refer someone to a doctor who can. So can they refuse to sell the morning after pill? Ethically they cannot if they have it in stock, though it can be a store policy not to stock it (depending upon state laws; notice lawsuits against Walmart for refusing to stock the morning after pill despite state legislation demanding it). A hospital run by Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, can justifiably not offer blood transfusions. But they are obligated to refer a patient to a hospital that can provide that treatment. The same is true for the morning-after pill; a doctor (or other medical specialist) can refuse treatment, but is not obligated to.

Do I believe that they should have to sell morning-after pills? Tough to say. I believe quite strongly that it is not the role of doctors to moralize, but to assist their patients. If a doctor is going to arbitrarily decide that certain safe procedures or drugs are wrong on moral grounds, then they really aren't cut out to be a doctor. So no, I do not think that they should be allowed to refuse the sale of the morning-after pill.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:25 pm Post subject:

Well hell yeah they should sell the goddamn pills. If he isn’t able to do the job that is required of him, he needs to find another job or be fired at any rate. The kid standing at the counter at Burger King doesn’t get to deny someone a Whopper because he doesn’t believe a Whopper is right. He sells them the Whopper because he is employed to punch into the computer whatever they say. As I understand it, a pharmacist in employed in most cases by a store with a pharmacy. If he is not able to perform the duties asked of his job, then they need to find an employee who is capable of such duties.

Sataere · Joined: 27 Jan 2006 Posts: 226 Location: Ohio

It's great that you guys agree with me on this! I think that if they work for the pharmacy, they have no right to hassle people who have the right to buy a prefectly legal drug. They can refuse to use the morning after pill themselves, but to impose their wills and beliefs on other people is just wrong, and if they can't sell it, then they should be fired. The case was on the Daily Show, and the guy was pretty ignorant about it, he thought that it was his right to refuse to sell it... I don't think so.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Unfortunately, some states have passed laws that makles it legal for him to do so. Other states have more progressively specified his action as outright illegal.

Stygma · Joined: 28 Sep 2005 Posts: 1346 Location: Boulder, Colorado

Whoever owns the property or is the employer of that pharmacist should be the one to make the decision. If a pharmacist goes against the wishes of his employer and refuses to cell the pill, that pharmacist should be fired.

alclarkey · Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 1569

If the pharmicist refuses to sell a pill it is up to those who employ him to discipline him, if they do not, then in a way they are endorsing his actions and viewpoints. Also making laws forcing someone to sell something against their will is unconstitutional. If the kid at burger king refuses to sell whoppers it is up to burger king to either fire him or lose business.

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2324 Location: Edinburgh

Stygma wrote: Whoever owns the property or is the employer of that pharmacist should be the one to make the decision. If a pharmacist goes against the wishes of his employer and refuses to cell the pill, that pharmacist should be fired.

When it comes to medical professions, it is not (nor do I believe it should be) simply a matter of selling whatever you want to. Doctors (and yes, this includes pharmacists) have ethical obligation to either personally provide others medical attention or refer people to others who can.

This isn't just a matter of, "Oh some kid won't sell me a Big Mac." Restaurant employees do not have any intrinsic ethical obligations to help others. Doctors, lifeguards, etc do. It is acceptable neither legally nor in my opinion morally to refuse medical attention to anyone.

As an analogy, I spend my summers lifeguarding. Say for instance I see someone drowning. Do you really think that the only repurcussion I should receive for choosing not to save him/her is that my employer may choose to fire me? Or do you believe that I should have a legal obligation to help them? (Yes, there is a legal obligation to do, or there is to offer assistance anyway. I am asking if you think this is justified or not).

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5264 Location: Boston, MA

The issue is not whether an employee must sell a item in stock, if he/she refused to do so then the employer should deal with him/her if they refuse to sell it then they should be fired or put in another department.

However a private business should be able to decide what products/services they do and do not offer.

So if a chain of stores or the corner store does not want to carry a particular brand of soap, a type of shoe or a particular contraceptive I fail to see what right the government has to force them to do so.

But here in MA we just passed such a law so hello supreme court, we shall see what we shall see.

alclarkey · Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 1569

Prole wrote: Stygma wrote: Whoever owns the property or is the employer of that pharmacist should be the one to make the decision. If a pharmacist goes against the wishes of his employer and refuses to cell the pill, that pharmacist should be fired.

When it comes to medical professions, it is not (nor do I believe it should be) simply a matter of selling whatever you want to. Doctors (and yes, this includes pharmacists) have ethical obligation to either personally provide others medical attention or refer people to others who can.

This isn't just a matter of, "Oh some kid won't sell me a Big Mac." Restaurant employees do not have any intrinsic ethical obligations to help others. Doctors, lifeguards, etc do. It is acceptable neither legally nor in my opinion morally to refuse medical attention to anyone.

As an analogy, I spend my summers lifeguarding. Say for instance I see someone drowning. Do you really think that the only repurcussion I should receive for choosing not to save him/her is that my employer may choose to fire me? Or do you believe that I should have a legal obligation to help them? (Yes, there is a legal obligation to do, or there is to offer assistance anyway. I am asking if you think this is justified or not).

When it comes to something like someones heart or liver pills-- things they need to survive I would tend to agree with you. But the morning after is not necessary to one's survival. So it should be left to the market to decide whether or not to sell it. If the employer doesn't really care if the pharmicist sells it or not then the pharmicist should have the choice.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

alclarkey wrote: Prole wrote: Stygma wrote: Whoever owns the property or is the employer of that pharmacist should be the one to make the decision. If a pharmacist goes against the wishes of his employer and refuses to cell the pill, that pharmacist should be fired.

When it comes to medical professions, it is not (nor do I believe it should be) simply a matter of selling whatever you want to. Doctors (and yes, this includes pharmacists) have ethical obligation to either personally provide others medical attention or refer people to others who can.

This isn't just a matter of, "Oh some kid won't sell me a Big Mac." Restaurant employees do not have any intrinsic ethical obligations to help others. Doctors, lifeguards, etc do. It is acceptable neither legally nor in my opinion morally to refuse medical attention to anyone.

As an analogy, I spend my summers lifeguarding. Say for instance I see someone drowning. Do you really think that the only repurcussion I should receive for choosing not to save him/her is that my employer may choose to fire me? Or do you believe that I should have a legal obligation to help them? (Yes, there is a legal obligation to do, or there is to offer assistance anyway. I am asking if you think this is justified or not).

When it comes to something like someones heart or liver pills-- things they need to survive I would tend to agree with you. But the morning after is not necessary to one's survival. So it should be left to the market to decide whether or not to sell it. If the employer doesn't really care if the pharmicist sells it or not then the pharmicist should have the choice. The pharmacist is NOT a physician. If he decides to second-guess the need for a person to fill a legal prescription then he is practicing medicine without a license. If he wants to be able to not give certain medication to people, then he needs to go to medical school and complete the education that allows him to make decisions as to the appropriateness of a prescription. Until then, he has no such right.

The big deal so far have not been EC, but rather the refusal to fill birthcontrol pills.

How about pain pills? You don't need them to survive, should they be restricted on the whim and personal belief of the pharmacist?

Or how about Ritalin for ADHD? Pharmacists have refused to hand them out to a legal prescription because they didn't believe in the diagnosis of ADHD.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503300002
A February 7, 2005, National Law Journal article illustrates that while the bulk of attention has been given to pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, the potential exists for pharmacists to refuse to dispense a wide range of essential, prescribed medicine if advocates of the so-called "conscience clause" for pharmacists are successful; the article noted that in 2004, "a Dallas pharmacist refused to fill a mother's prescription for her son's Ritalin."

Though "conscience clause" advocates prefer to focus on birth control pills -- and the media reports that cover the controversy do likewise -- their position that pharmacists need not fill prescriptions they disagree with has far-reaching implications. By the same rationale, a pharmacist who believes, as the Rev. Jerry Falwell once claimed, that AIDS is "God's punishment for homosexuals" could refuse to fill a prescription for an AIDS patient. Pharmacists could refuse to fill prescriptions for heart medicine for the elderly, antidepressants for a suicidal patient -- anything.

Should the pharmacists be allowed to make such medical decisions without having gone to medical school?

Lots of medication is not necessary for "survival." Does that make them eligible for a pharmacist to second-guess a physician's diagnosis and treatment plan?

As for whether the employer doesn't care is a product is sold or not, I have yet to run into an employer who say that "Well, I am selling this stuff, but I don't really care if anybody are buying it. feel free to refuse to sell it to customers." So that claim is just plain silly.

Stygma · Joined: 28 Sep 2005 Posts: 1346 Location: Boulder, Colorado

[quote="alclarkey"] Prole wrote: Stygma wrote: Whoever owns the property or is the employer of that pharmacist should be the one to make the decision. If a pharmacist goes against the wishes of his employer and refuses to cell the pill, that pharmacist should be fired.

When it comes to medical professions, it is not (nor do I believe it should be) simply a matter of selling whatever you want to. Doctors (and yes, this includes pharmacists) have ethical obligation to either personally provide others medical attention or refer people to others who can.

This isn't just a matter of, "Oh some kid won't sell me a Big Mac." Restaurant employees do not have any intrinsic ethical obligations to help others. Doctors, lifeguards, etc do. It is acceptable neither legally nor in my opinion morally to refuse medical attention to anyone.

As an analogy, I spend my summers lifeguarding. Say for instance I see someone drowning. Do you really think that the only repurcussion I should receive for choosing not to save him/her is that my employer may choose to fire me? Or do you believe that I should have a legal obligation to help them? (Yes, there is a legal obligation to do, or there is to offer assistance anyway. I am asking if you think this is justified or not).

Of course you should be required to save this hypothetical person's life. You are contractually bound to do so, and not making the attempt could be considered criminally negligent, as a pool facility advertises a lifeguard on duty, which instills the belief of safety into the pool-goers. If someone dies due to insufficient life-guarding, the pool owners/operators will possibly be prosecuted for manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, at which point the fault should fall on the lifeguard.

Also, not having a morning-after pill will not kill you.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Stygma wrote: Also, not having a morning-after pill will not kill you. If it results in a pregnancy that kills you, then yes it can. And most medications are NOT for things that will kill you. Does that mean that we should allow the pharmacist to second-guess the physician as to the appropriateness of the medication?

Stygma · Joined: 28 Sep 2005 Posts: 1346 Location: Boulder, Colorado

steen wrote: Stygma wrote: Also, not having a morning-after pill will not kill you. If it results in a pregnancy that kills you, then yes it can. And most medications are NOT for things that will kill you. Does that mean that we should allow the pharmacist to second-guess the physician as to the appropriateness of the medication?

There is also the abortion option (notice the name of the forum we're in).

Of course the pharmacist's employer has the right to decline to sell a drug. Remember, there's always another pharmacy.

Todd D. · Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:14 am Post subject:

This is of course ignoring the root cause of the problem: Someone somewhere has dictated that you need a permission slip to medicate yourself, leaving the implementation of that permission slip in someone else's hands.

Remove BS legislation that says you need permission before you buy a method of birth control, and this problem dissapears by itsself.

Lost_In_Ambivelence · Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 108 Location: USA

Todd is right. In fact, he doesn't go far enough. Why do we have someone telling us what is safe to take and what isn't? Down with the FDA. I can decide for myself whether I will take something that is potentially lethal so I don't have a headache. Free yourself from oppression.

To those who are complaining about pharmacists that take dispensing medicine into their own hands you might want to check up on current laws. In many states, the pharmacist is required to verify that there are not going to be interactions between the drugs they are dispensing. If you are holding them responsible for the drugs they sell, then they have a right to not sell anything.

I agree that there is always another pharmacist. If you don't like it, don't go there. The pharmacy I go to is much more expensive than Osco. Perhaps I should sue to make them bring their prices down too.

Anyone can refuse to do any part of the task at their job they don't want to. There are just a few key points here. If you don't do a part of your job, you may be legally liable or fired from your job. You must decide what is right. Someone argued that doctors and pharmacists have an obligation to help others. These pharmacists happen to believe that they are helping. If they didn't, they probably wouldn't risk their jobs.

As for the lawsuit against Wal-mart, this is just stupid. How can we reasonably force a private company to stock a product? Again this comes down to not shopping at the Wal-mart pharmacy if you don't like it. If I remember correctly, EC must be taken within 72 hours. Do you really not have another pharmacy within a 72 hour drive?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Lost_In_Ambivelence wrote: To those who are complaining about pharmacists that take dispensing medicine into their own hands you might want to check up on current laws. In many states, the pharmacist is required to verify that there are not going to be interactions between the drugs they are dispensing. If you are holding them responsible for the drugs they sell, then they have a right to not sell anything. They can verify the safety according to the FDA approval. They are not allowed to determine the need for the medication, as that is a medical decision. If they want to make that decision regarding appropriateness of the treatment, then they need to go to medical school.

Quote: I agree that there is always another pharmacist. Not if you live in a small, rural community, there isn't.

Quote: Anyone can refuse to do any part of the task at their job they don't want to. There are just a few key points here. If you don't do a part of your job, you may be legally liable or fired from your job. You must decide what is right. Yes, if you deny service, you are violating the conditions of your license.

Quote: Someone argued that doctors and pharmacists have an obligation to help others. These pharmacists happen to believe that they are helping. If they didn't, they probably wouldn't risk their jobs. They are violating the licensor under which they are practicing. Should a pharmacist have the right to refuse a prescription of ritalin because he doesn't believe in the diagnosis of ADHD or because he feels ritalin is messing with God's plan for that kid's education?

Quote: As for the lawsuit against Wal-mart, this is just stupid. How can we reasonably force a private company to stock a product? Again this comes down to not shopping at the Wal-mart pharmacy if you don't like it. If I remember correctly, EC must be taken within 72 hours. Do you really not have another pharmacy within a 72 hour drive? It is impressive that you feel everybody has the means of transportation to travel for 72 hours. Rather elitist of you.

Todd D. · Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:53 pm Post subject:

Quote: Todd is right. In fact, he doesn't go far enough. Why do we have someone telling us what is safe to take and what isn't? Down with the FDA. I can decide for myself whether I will take something that is potentially lethal so I don't have a headache. Free yourself from oppression.
It's hard to tell, are you being sarcastic here?

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2324 Location: Edinburgh

alclarkey wrote: When it comes to something like someones heart or liver pills-- things they need to survive I would tend to agree with you. But the morning after is not necessary to one's survival. So it should be left to the market to decide whether or not to sell it. If the employer doesn't really care if the pharmicist sells it or not then the pharmicist should have the choice.
Am I to understand, alclarkey and others, that you believe the arbitrary point for when you define something as an acceptable choice to perform medical service and when it becomes unacceptable is merely a matter of whether the patient will live or not?

What if someone is going to lose a finger if they don't get medical attention? What if someone is going to lose a leg? Both legs? What distinguishes when you believe a medical professional should be obligated to provide medical attention and when s/he should not? I maintain that a medical professional should always provide medical attention personally (within their capacity; you can't expect a nurse to perform a tracheotomy, for instance) or refer to someone who can. I am curious where and why you draw this line.

Stygma wrote: There is also the abortion option (notice the name of the forum we're in).
Good point. However, a morning-after pill is cheaper, safer and takes less time than any subsequent method of abortion (or childbirth, for that matter).

Lost_In_Ambivelence wrote: As for the lawsuit against Wal-mart, this is just stupid. How can we reasonably force a private company to stock a product? Again this comes down to not shopping at the Wal-mart pharmacy if you don't like it. If I remember correctly, EC must be taken within 72 hours. Do you really not have another pharmacy within a 72 hour drive?
First, although EC is technically effective within the first 72 hours of conception, it rapidly loses effectiveness after the first 24. Thus, the colloquial name "morning after pill."

Second, as steen rightly points out, it is not really that easy to gain access to the pill right away. In some southern rural communities, the pill is effectively unavailable.

Lost_In_Ambivelence wrote: Why do we have someone telling us what is safe to take and what isn't?
There's quite a few reasons. Those making the laws think they should be able to decide what's best for us. Those making the laws think that such measures are necessary to protect society. Those making the laws are worried about underage individuals gaining access to unsafe products.

I personally think that the first reason is entirely subjective and that the third isn't really working well for most things, though do accept the second premise (to some extent). Though that's quite a huge digression.