Washington State Capitulates, Recognizes Pharmacists' Conscience Rights: state's druggists will be able to refuse to stock or dispense birth control pills

I should have the right as a private citizen to run my business as I see fit.

So you feel you should be allowed to not have wheelchair ramps, etc? or how about a construction business that refuses to meet safety requirements? or a plumber that refuses to follow code?

Are scientologist pharmacists going to fight for the right to not dispense psychiatric drugs?

Pharmacist are licensed by the state to dispense prescribed drugs. They do not prescribe. If we allow pharmacists to object to dispensing prescribed drugs why not allow mailmen the right to refuse to deliver objectionable material?

By being a pharmacy the owner agrees to abide by the state's pharmacy laws. Why should we allow a pharmacist come between a patient and his doctor short of the pharmacist finding a danger.

I have lived in a few areas where a pharmacy not stocking certain drugs would have resulted in an hour round trip to the next pharmacy. Lord forbid they not stock it, too.

jedipunk

You are being facetious no place did mike say anything about wheelchair ramps.

You just negated your whole argument with your last line.

This not even about birth control pills I wonder if you read what this was about?

This article here by msnbc just negates everything you just said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14497678/

WASHINGTON — Women may buy the morning-after pill without a prescription — but only with proof they’re 18 or older, federal health officials decided Thursday. The Food and Drug Administration ruling culminated a contentious three-year effort to ease access to the emergency contraceptive.

This was decided four years ago.

Mav

If you own a business like a food store that sells meat, and the checker refuses to ring up your meat purchases, because eating beef is against his or her religion, they new that someday it would come up about the beef, but they took the job anyway, who is the injured party, the store for selling beef, or the checker. It does not seem, right that a Pharmacist, can refuse to fill a pill request, I mean that is what Pharmacists do. I am usually always for employee rights, but not in this case.

Stevg

You are trying to make hay where there is no straw.

This not even about birth control pills I wonder if you read what this was about?

The morning after pill is birth control.

Regardless, the article is about giving pharmacists the right to not stock or dispense a drug. In this case the drug is the morning after pill. It is my belief that what the drug is does not matter.

You are being facetious no place did mike say anything about wheelchair ramps.

Mike said, "I should have the right as a private citizen to run my business as I see fit."

In what way does that not mean that if he doesn't want to install ramps then he shouldn't have to?

This article here by msnbc just negates everything you just said.

How does that article negate what I said? The article is about the pill becoming non-prescription and requiring an id for purchase. I guess my use of saying they dispense "prescribed" drugs was not complete enough as they also dispense non-prescribed drugs. Point still stands that they are a state licensed profession. Don't be a pharmacist if you cannot do the job. Not just anyone can dispense drugs.

You just negated your whole argument with your last line.

Again how?

mavrick03--#2.4 are you just a farmer, or do you have a point?

I should have the right as a private citizen to run my business as I see fit.

Rand Paul thinks the same thing...discrimination be damned.

If you own a business like a food store that sells meat, and the checker refuses to ring up your meat purchases, because eating beef is against his or her religion, they new that someday it would come up about the beef, but they took the job anyway, who is the injured party, the store for selling beef, or the checker. It does not seem, right that a Pharmacist, can refuse to fill a pill request, I mean that is what Pharmacists do. I am usually always for employee rights, but not in this case.

Pharmacist are licensed by the state to dispense prescribed drugs. They do not prescribe. If we allow pharmacists to object to dispensing prescribed drugs why not allow mailmen the right to refuse to deliver objectionable material?

At least in terms of my argument, this isn't about employee's rights, its about business owner's rights. So to use your example, the employee could be fired for not selling the beef, but the business owner has every right to not sell beef. Are you seriously arguing otherwise?

By the way, your mailman analogy not only fails for the same reason (mailmen are employees, not owners) but doubly stupid because the postal service is a government agency. Come on, dude.

Mike said, "I should have the right as a private citizen to run my business as I see fit." In what way does that not mean that if he doesn't want to install ramps then he shouldn't have to?

It doesn't. In fact, legally speaking, as a business owner I only have to install ramps if it is "easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense," according to Federal law. This achieves the twin goals of personal freedom and protection of a minority which might otherwise be ignored.

I have lived in a few areas where a pharmacy not stocking certain drugs would have resulted in an hour round trip to the next pharmacy. Lord forbid they not stock it, too.

Yeah, it's also inconvenient that the local supermarket doesn't carry the type of soda (Izzies are so good) that I drink. I don't want the government to pass a law requiring all supermarkets carry Izze.

Rand Paul thinks the same thing...discrimination be damned.

Ok, so you connected me with a politician you (I assume) dislike. Are you going to attempt to provide a refutation of his philosophy, or just leave it at that?

The article states both pharmacies and pharmacists. As such, a pharmacist may be allowed to object even if he/she is not a business owner.

From the article:

The new regulations would give the plaintiffs in the lawsuit--the owners of Ralph's Thriftway pharmacy and two pharmacists--what they've wanted all along: the right to refuse to stock or dispense Plan B (the so-called "morning after pill") based on their conscientious objection.

however, the State concedes that allowing pharmacists with conscientious objections to refer patients to other pharmacies "is a time-honored pharmacy practice"...

"Americans should not be forced out of their professions solely because of their religious beliefs...

So, the mail man example stands. If the state is going to allow a specially licensed person to determine how it is going to serve the public then how is that different from allowing a postman to determine what he is going to deliver?

That being said, what is to stop them from stocking plan b but not give it to someone they consider a slut? and how is that not wrong? what other drugs will this spread to?

Also, the postal service is not strictly a government agency anymore.

I don't want the government to pass a law requiring all supermarkets carry Izze.

Accuse me of stupid example and then provide one of your own. Soda is not the same as medicine and a grocery store is not a pharmacy.

The article states both pharmacies and pharmacists. As such, a pharmacist may be allowed to object even if he/she is not a business owner.

You should get in the habit of reading people's comments before responding to them. I said very clearly that "At least in terms of my argument, this isn't about employee's rights, its about business owner's rights. So to use your example, the employee could be fired for not selling the beef, but the business owner has every right to not sell beef. Are you seriously arguing otherwise?"

I explicitly have stated on several occasions that employees have no 'right' not to do their jobs, yet keep them. My argument is solely focused on the rights of the business owner. Pay attention.

That being said, what is to stop them from stocking plan b but not give it to someone they consider a slut? and how is that not wrong? what other drugs will this spread to?

What is to stop them? Basic laws of economics. If a business owner refuses to sell his wares to a certain group of people, he'll inevitably be out-competed by the less 'scrupled' competition.

Even if that wasn't true though, your question is like asking 'what's to stop someone from cheating on their wife?' or 'what's to stop someone from saying mean things to little kids?' Nothing. People generally have the right to do unkind things.

Accuse me of stupid example and then provide one of your own. Soda is not the same as medicine and a grocery store is not a pharmacy.

From an earlier comment by an equally ill-informed poster:

If you own a business like a food store that sells meat, and the checker refuses to ring up your meat purchases, because eating beef is against his or her religion, they new that someday it would come up about the beef, but they took the job anyway, who is the injured party, the store for selling beef, or the checker.

So yeah. Direct refutation of someone else's earlier point. In other words, it's not all about you.

" It may come as a surprise to her (Gregoire), but conscientious and principled people like the owners and pharmacists of Ralph's Thriftway are the backbone of this country."

I think that statement is very true as well as her "bullying tactics aren't acceptable."

To me, the issue isn't the drug or product in question so much as I see this as an individual (the store owner) utilizing their freedoms as a business owner. They have the right to sell or support their employees selling the products that they choose to stock - pharmaceutical or otherwise.

As with any product, not all stores and pharmacies, especially OTC, are stocked by all and we often have to shop around.

If this case was relevant to a store owner in dispute with his/her employed pharmacist that refused to sell a product that the owner wanted available, then that would be a completely different issue - and I would think it would be handled by simply having a different employee assist with the purchase. All situations come back to individual rights and freedoms relating to private business/private ownership which is a paramount right of every citizen in the United States.

MatTheGreat

If you don't want to stock a drug, you don't have to. Don't want to stock Viagra? Don't. Don't want to stock Asprin? Don't. Don't want to stock Tylenol? Don't.

If that is true and they don't have to stock or order drugs for people who have them prescribed, then it is fair. Is that true? But then that is the business owner who decides - not the worker.

If that is true and they don't have to stock or order drugs for people who have them prescribed, then it is fair. Is that true? But then that is the business owner who decides - not the worker.

Exactly my point. I mean, technically, the worker could refuse to fill a prescription, and then his employer would fire them for not doing their job. It's ridiculous that any law would a) force a business owner to sell a product he'd rather not or b) force an employer to hire someone who refuses to do their job.

I explicitly have stated on several occasions that employees have no 'right' not to do their jobs, yet keep them

The employer state relationship is not drastically different.

The employer in this case is a state licensed drug dispenser. While they are not an employee of anyone the license granted them expects them to perform a function.

So while an employer can fire an employee for not doing his job why can't the state revoke a license from a business not performing the privilege it granted them?

Yet, not every drug is stocked by every pharmacy, nor is there a mandate that it be done, correct? i.e., I have gone looking for a brand name (in the past, not currently at all), only to be told that particularly pharmacy stocked a generic. The same thinking could apply to any product.

Yet, not every drug is stocked by every pharmacy, nor is there a mandate that it be done, correct?

I am not asking or assuming every drug can be stocked. I am only highlighting that the state which provides the license to the pharmacy can attach requirements that certain drugs be stocked and of any drug being stock, a pharmacist is obliged to dispense it when requested or prescribed (depending on the drug) and not throw around their moral authority.

The only time a pharmacist should not dispense a drug is when a possible interaction may occur with another drug the customer is taking.

So, if the licensing party decides to require certain drugs I hope they use common sense and ask that drugs that are the most commonly prescribed/needed be stocked. This would include birth controls and emergency birth control, among many others.

I understand now, thanks for the clarification.

I don't know what requirements were attached to this particular license. So, perhaps I'm wrong that the store owner would have jurisdiction. If the store owner agrees that a product should be marketed, then I agree the employees that may need to assemble ingredients to make the product have a responsiblilty to do so. If the owner does not agree to market said product, I would want to question the licensing agency's authority over individual rights. I would think the licensing agency's primary function would be to acknowledge proper accreditation of the pharmacist rather than to promote marketing products (business). --Omg, don't tell me the corporates have taken control of the pharmacies!! ..just joking .. I hope!

If the owner does not agree to market said product, ...

Use generics when available.

I would want to question the licensing agency's authority over individual rights.

It is not individual rights, anymore. Once one opens a business, the business is required to abide by certain laws for wheelchair ramps, fire exits, etc. That the business being licensed as a pharmacist results in further requirements and restrictions.

In this case, the state originally required Plan B to be stocked.

As an analogy, if a Jehovah's Witness becomes and ER doctor and refuses to request a transfusion when it is needed then we would hold him accountable. If an ER hospital refused to stock blood, I am sure many would be upset.

While pharmaceuticals are not always life and death, they play an important role that should not be subjugated to the whims of the dispenser.

But, the state cannot require a store to stock beef.

A grocery store is not a pharmacy and beef is not medicine.

It's a business. What happened to freedom of choice?

So, are you implying businesses should be able to choose not to install fire exits or handicap stalls if the laws says they should?

Disability regulations are not basic safety regulations. They specifically tell a business owner that they have to spend money to accomodate wheel chairs, etc. Which I think they should.

Furthermore, I think being granted a special license provided by the state to dispense drugs gives state govt leeway in saying that certain drugs must be stocked and that as a licensed by the state pharmacist, it must be dispensed. I personally consider it a public health concern if pharmacists can refuse to dispense prescribed drugs or pharmacy refuse to stock the most common medicines.

What's next ER hospitals not stocking blood for transfusions or refusing to do rape kits for women who dress slutty?

After all, hospitals can be private businesses and doctors can have moral convictions.

Disability regulations are not basic safety regulations. They specifically tell a business owner that they have to spend money to accomodate wheel chairs, etc. Which I think they should.

Not really. It says they only have to install such accomadations if it is "easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense."

It's not a public health concern. Birth control is not life or death. It's convenience.

Tell that to the wife that just got raped by her husband and wishes to prevent a pregnancy or the teenager girl that just got pressured into sex.

Not really. It says they only have to install such accomadations if it is "easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense."

Splitting hairs but I will fix it.

They specifically telling some but not all business owners that they have to spend money to accomodate wheel chairs, etc. Which I think they should.

jedipunk - in your example of blood transfusions, isn't that a patient's option, or is it assumed by the surgeons? ..I've never had surgery, so don't know if anything is in writing and signed prior. In the event of ER - not might be considered different, in that one openly admitted themselves if they are conscious (I would think). So, there is liability involved, isn't there? Just the same as there should be in forcing pharmacists to mix ingredients. I the state mandates certain prescriptions, then does the state take the liability?? It would only be fair and just, imo. I still think the only jurisdiction the state should have is to verify credentials.

No, I don't think generics are better. There aren't any standards set on ingredients, brand name or otherwise; it's just that I correlate cheaper (in the case of drugs) to mean of lesser and often, of skeptical quality, imo.

jedipunk - in your example of blood transfusions, isn't that a patient's option, or is it assumed by the surgeons?

Typically JW patients choose not to have transfusions.

But the argument is if a pharmacy can have a moral objection to birth control can a doctor have one to blood transfusions and not want to offer or perform them? Can a hospital choose not to stock blood if it is a JW hospital just like catholic hospitals will not perform tubal ligations?

Just the same as there should be in forcing pharmacists to mix ingredients

ER doctors are expected to save lives. An ER doctor who refuses to perform a blood transfusion or, as a non life threatening example, refuse to do a rape kit because the victim is a slut is not performing the job they were licensed to do. As such, should not be an ER doctor.

I still think the only jurisdiction the state should have is to verify credentials.

Part of the credentials, IMO, is the ability to dispense drugs. If you refuse to dispense certain drugs then your shouldn't bother being licensed.

No, I don't think generics are better. There aren't any standards set on ingredients, brand name or otherwise; it's just that I correlate cheaper (in the case of drugs) to mean of lesser and often, of skeptical quality, imo.

To me that is a valid compromise, at least the drug is available.

But it's still not life or death.

But it is a health concern.

Splitting hairs but I will fix it.

I copied straight out of the law, dude.

So's Viagra, Tylenol, and anti-aging creams.

Personally, I wouldn't lump preventing a pregnancy with getting a hard on or anti-aging creams, but to each his own.

I guess if future pharmacies are permitted to prohibit stock based on moral objections then those rural areas serviced by pharmacies that decide not to stock vaccines because they are animal tested or because the pharmacy owner is anti-vaccine will just have to suffer.

Personally, I think that is wrong to allow that but that's life and why we vote.

I copied straight out of the law, dude.

Yes, I know.

Well, I am sure the two types of person I listed would disagree with you. Trust me, I have met each type. So how you are able to proclaim vaccine inventory as a public health need I proclaim birth control as a public health need.

BTW, vaccines are not forced and are not a right.

I guess if future pharmacies are permitted to prohibit stock based on moral objections

Actually, pharmacies should be permitted to not sell whatever they want for any reason, not just moral ones. If they think they'll make more money allocating shelve space to candy than to cold medicine, that is their right as a private business.

How about this as a solution; pharmacies sell birth control, they just charge $60 million a pill. That way they are technically following the law, but don't actually have to violate their religious convictions. Unless, of course, you want the government to not only control what private businesses sell, but how much they charge for it. But that'd be silly, right?

You're asking for people to be forced to provide birth control. No one dies from lack of that.

But people can be born as a result of not having it. I think that alone make it a LIFE or death matter.

That being said, you keep moving the goal post.

First you reply to me that business owners should get to do what ever they want.

It's a business. What happened to freedom of choice?

Then you change your opinion to having to abide by the disabilites act and safety laws.

No, because those are basic safety regulations.

Then you change your opinion, i think, to pharmacies have to stock what is life and death.

Vaccine's are life and death.

It was nice back and forth awhile, but I am done.

How about this as a solution; pharmacies sell birth control, they just charge $60 million a pill.

Unless, of course, you want the government to not only control what private businesses sell, but how much they charge for it. But that'd be silly, right?

Price gouging is illegal in a number of states. If you are the only pharmacy in a certain area and you sale your drugs at an overly inflated price you could be fined.

The laws typically refer to natural disaster, but I don't know about all of them.

jedipunk - first, please accept my apology with my typing leaving out words or leaving out letters - might be time to replace the batteries!

Yes, i understand the arguement. I am saying that I think the business owner and pharmacist should have the right to say what products they want to market. The reason should be irrelevant. Freedom of choice to conduct private business as one chooses should come first. Again, I think the state's jurisdiction should be limited to credentials, and a license should only be revoked in the event of actual 'misuse' of the drugs being solicited. I am glad Gregoire is not getting her way. I see it as unethical behavior to mandate specific 'merchandise' be sold. Contraception and birth control are the choice of the recipient, not a government mandate. Likewise, soliciting drugs is the choice of the manufacturer and pharmacist, and should have no place in our government. That is definitely showing us that corporatism has gained control of small, private business.

" ER doctors are expected to save lives." --- Yes. This is why I brought up the conscious vs. unconscious. In the result of a patient having no choice in a blood transfusion, then it might happen. I think a patient should have a right to refuse, and I think a business (hospital) should have the right to refuse to offer them. It should be in writing so that it is a well-known fact. I guess I believe in individual choices and freedoms - and if choices are limited to where one lives - then, so be it. One should know that in advance.

On the rape kit refusal situation, I hadn't considered something like that previously, but I think it is similar to any other product purchase. One should go to a vendor that offers what one is seeking, even if it is miles away.

It appears we have to disagree on the dispersing of drugs. Drugs are all about money. If the pharmacy located inside of a store is primarily there to generate revenue for the store owner, then any drugs and products sold need to be agreed with by the owner. If the owner has a dispute with what the pharmacist is willing to prepare, then that issue should be dealt with privately. The consumer has the choice to go elsewhere or be prescribed a different product - as they all are promotional, and are often experimental for the patient.

I think it is obviously a scam when a pharmacy only offers a generic drug. Both should always be available, imo. I don't necessarily feel one is better than the other as far as quality or effectiveness, there is just more risk involved, again, imo.

Price gouging is illegal in a number of states. If you are the only pharmacy in a certain area and you sale your drugs at an overly inflated price you could be fined.

You are completely uninformed. You should probably look up the laws you're going to write about before faking legal knowledge. Price gouging only applies during a 'civil emergency,' and only 29 states have such laws (Washington is not among them). In other words, you have no clue what you're talking about, and your argument fails utterly.

Now if you'd like to make another attempt at explaining how the State could Constitutionally prevent pharmacies from charging $60 million per pill, go for it. Just do your research first this time.

The links below appear to show that you are wrong. Both the FCC and the AG's office take price gouging seriously.

1. Alleging price-gouging, FTC sues maker of drug for preemies
2. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox: Investigation Uncovers Significant Variances in Cost of Prescription Drugs.
3. Price Gouging With Tamiflu Investigated
4. Attorney General Urges Hospitals, Clinics,
5. Pharmacies and Consumers to Report Flu Vaccine Price Gouging
6. Texas sues two flu shot suppliers-Firms accused of price gouging Ben Taub and 2 other hospitals
7. MI Attorney General Finds CVS Pharmacy in Grand Rapids Charging $140 for Flu Medicine

So what do you think? I think someone would investigate a pharmacy charging $60M for a pill.

The links below appear to show that you are wrong. Both the FCC and the AG's office take price gouging seriously.

You clearly didn't take my advice to do the research seriously. Shame.

First of all, did you read the articles you posted? Though several the entities are accused of 'price gouging,' they seem to be doing so legally, at least in several circumstances. For example, in article 2, the only 'alleged illegal conduct' was in not providing information on prices to a consumer web site.

Second of all, and again, in a civil emergency, raising prices sharply and suddenly can be illegal. For Tamiflu, for example, raising prices during an epidemic sharply could be illegal. But even in the articles you cited, there was not one case of any AGs office, much less the FTC, actually bringing charges for such behavior, merely 'condemning' it.

Third of all, in the only article you cited mentioning any criminal proceedings whatsoever, number 1, the charge wasn't actually price gouging; the company was simply being accused of creating a monopoly, a largely separate issue..

"The Commission's complaint charges that Ovation's acquisition of NeoProfen substantially reduced competition in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and illegally maintained the company's monopoly of drug treatments for patent ductus arteriosus in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. The Commission is seeking equitable relief, including divestiture and disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits from Ovation's sales of Indocin and NeoProfen."

Fourth and finally, even if everything else I wrote was wrong and you were completely right, Washington state still has no price gouging statute at all. So yeah; nothing to stop the $60 million dollar pill.

Once again, you did not do the research and do not understand the law. I'm sorry if I sound mean, but this is becoming farcical.

Did you read them?

From the second article, which dealt specifically with pharmacies:

In three years in office, Attorney General Cox has collected $31,790,556 in dollars recovered for consumers and monies paid to the State of Michigan. The $31.79 million in Consumer Protection money collected by Attorney General Cox is almost twice the amount collected during the previous administration. And the Attorney General has refunded more money to consumers ($9,215,819) in three years than any previous Attorney General in four years.

I don't live in Washington. I only care that it may set precedent. So while you may claim Washington AG office would do nothing to investigate price gouging in pharmacies other states do.

In three years in office, Attorney General Cox has collected $31,790,556 in dollars recovered for consumers and monies paid to the State of Michigan. The $31.79 million in Consumer Protection money collected by Attorney General Cox is almost twice the amount collected during the previous administration. And the Attorney General has refunded more money to consumers ($9,215,819) in three years than any previous Attorney General in four years.

Jesus fricking Christ. You didn't read my post, did you? I'm going to repost the exact same thing, and hopefully you'll see it this time.

--->"For example, in article 2, the only 'alleged illegal conduct' was in not providing information on prices to a consumer web site."<---

Go back and read the article. Then, headdesk.

Why is money being refunded back to consumers?

Seriously, if I don't get something I want to understand it.

his office is notifying more than two dozen pharmacies of alleged illegal conduct in refusing to provide drug price information over the phone, as required by law.

This is the only illegal conduct mentioned in the article. I'm not going to speculate on what all of the money was from; some was from failing to provide price information, some was presumably for tangentially related issues, and some may have been from illegal pricing during a civil emergency, like during a flu epidemic. I can only go on what information the article actually has in it, and the same goes for you.

Now, I'm done trying to explain this. Sorry, but I honestly ran out of patience. Have a good night.

If your consciencewon't allow you to preform the duties of your occupation, why don't you find another occupation? What else will evangelicals decide to refuse to do? Will evangelicalambulance drivers ask your religion before taking you to the hospital? Will evangelical surgical nurses refuse to assist at tubal ligation's? I can simply hope that continuing boycotts will drive these self-centered religious bigots out of business.

No, see, a doctor or a nurse is an employee of a hospital. They should be fired if they refuse to do their jobs. If I own a business, I should have the right not to carry anything I don't want to. This isn't about freedom of religion, its about freedom period. The government shouldn't be able to force private citizens to sell anything they don't particularly want to, regardless of why.

If Iown a business, I should have the right not to carry anything I don't want to.

Nobody is forcing anyone to sell anything they don't want. If one doesn't want to dispense birth control don't become a pharmacy. Not just anyone or anything can dispense drugs. It is not the same as a retail store. By becoming a pharmacy one is being licensed by the state to perform a function not just anyone else can do.

Nobody is forcing anyone to sell anything they don't want. If one doesn't want to dispense birth control don't become a pharmacy.

So your response to a law requiring that all supermarkets carry Izze soda (a law which would make my life much nicer, I might add) would be 'if you don't want to sell Izze, don't open a supermarket?' Come on.

Incidentally, I'm an atheist who has absolutely nothing against birth control drugs (I appreciate them a great deal, in fact. Ahem).

pharmacists and pharmacies are specially licensed by the state to perform a specific function that these guys are not willing to do.

soda is not medicine and a grocery store is not a pharmacy.

Thank God for mail order drugs.

pharmacists and pharmacies are specially licensed by the state to perform a specific function that these guys are not willing to do.

soda is not medicine and a grocery store is not a pharmacy

Ok, here's a way we can compromise. The pharmacies agree to sell the drugs, but they charge $60 million dollars per pill. Nobody buys them, but they also aren't refusing to sell the drugs.

Unless you're seriously about to argue that we should not only force people to sell certain items, but also prescribe how much they must charge for them, then we should all be happy! Go team.

It most certainly is. Of course, soldiers are now voluntary, so there is no need for CO's. If you don't want to kill people, you don't join. If you don't want to fill prescriptions, don't be a pharmacist.

Even if every religion in the world agreed, which they do not, it is still a religious belief. I have never heard of an atheist pharmacist refusing to fill a legal prescription. The only prescriptions that I have heard of being denied have to do with birth control and abortion, both of which are legal and the only objection is religious belief. I cannot imagine why a pacifist would join the military, or why they would accept one, but in extreme situations, anyone can be ordered to fight. In the end, if you refuse to do your job, why choose that occupation?

This is about refusing to fill legal prescriptions, for legal drugs, because the patient doesn't share your religious viewpoint. How is that different from saying "Irish need not apply"?

As a pro-choice atheist who thinks birth control is one of the most liberating, socially important inventions of the 20th century, I also believe that the government has no business telling private citizens how to conduct their lives, beyond not actively harming other citizens and doing some basic citizen-like duties (like paying taxes). This is pretty much one of the only laws I can think of that actively requires people to provide a good or service they don't want to.

A supermarket doesn't have to carry beef just because most people like to eat it(to subvert an earlier posters widely illogical point). Why can a pharmacy be forced to sell any item it would rather not, for any reason?

The whole concientious objector thing is irrelevant. It doesn't matter why someone doesn't want to sell something, they shouldn't be forced to do so.

Pharmacists are licensed to fill prescriptions written by care-givers. I don't see why they should be allowed to refuse service to people who you find morally insufficient, just like you shouldn't be allowed to refuse service to people are a color that you don't like, or a nationality that you don't appreciate. I am not a Paulian, feeling that businesses should be allowed to pick and choose who they will serve. This can be looked at as a choice of what you will carry, or a choice of who you will serve. It appears that it will just be left to the publics concience, hopefully people will simply boycott these establishments.

If you find "drugs in general" immoral, then why would you become a pharmacist?

VThis is not even about birth control pills but the morning after pill. Which back in 2006 the FDA ok's no prescription needed to buy the morning after pill.

Still requires a pharmacist to dispense it.

But I have to ask what do you think morning after pill does?

From your link:

Taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, a woman can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. If she already is pregnant, the pills have no effect.

Sounds like it prevents unplanned pregnancies to me.

What else does your article say:

The pills are a concentrated dose of the same drug found in many regular birth-control pills.

Holy @!$%#, it is even made up of the same stuff as bith control pills, but somehow you do not think it is birth control.

I agree, the doctor is the care giver, not the pharmacist. It's not the pharmacist business to even know what has been prescribed, but only to fill the order.

Does a PETA member have a right to refuse to dispense premarin, or other products made from animals?

Does a scientologist have the right to refuse to dispense Prozac, or other psychiatric medications?

Does a Jehovah's Witness have a right to refuse to dispense blood-based products?

No (and lol at that last) but a business owner has the right to refuse to sell anything they don't want to sell, be it toothpaste, gum, or medications.

Does a patient have the right to receive medication that a doctor has determined is medically appropriate?

I guess, in the same sense that I have a right to buy food... maybe? Regardless, they certainly don't have a right to demand that someone sell it to them.

I'm confused by the LOL. Why is it OK for one person to refuse to sell birth control based on their religion, but amusing for another to refuse to sell blood-based products (e.g. clotting factors for hemophiliacs) based on their faith?

Assuming there is another pharmacy in the area. And that the pharmacist at that one doesn't have the same beliefs.

Not always an accurate assumption.

I'm confused by the LOL. Why is it OK for one person to refuse to sell birth control based on their religion, but amusing for another to refuse to sell blood-based products (e.g. clotting factors for hemophiliacs) based on their faith?

Oh, the LOL was at your complete misunderstanding of Witness doctrine. I was laughing at you, not the Witnesses. They don't have any problem with the use of pharmaceuticals that affect the blood, just blood transfusions themselves (which pharmacies don't do). So yeah, sorry I didn't make my mockery of your ignorance more clear.

Moving on, it's absolutely fine for any business owner to refuse to stock any item they don't want to, because they're private citizens. Employees, on the other hand, can be fired by a business owner for not doing their job, ie. refusing to fill any prescription. This isn't about religion at all- it's about whether the government has the right to force private citizens to sell anything. Hint: it doesn't.

So the individual pharmacist does not have right to refuse to sell things he doesn't approve of, only the owner?

So the individual pharmacist does not have right to refuse to sell things he doesn't approve of, only the owner?

Well, I suppose the individual pharmacist has the right not to sell the drugs, but the owner definitely has a right to fire him, too. We don't prosecute employees who don't do their jobs, but we definitely shouldn't protect them from becoming unemployed as a result.

To address the intent of your question, though, yes, that is my point. Business owners don't have to sell anything they don't want to- employees don't get to claim special exemptions from doing their work and still be protected from termination, any more than I can claim that religiously I cannot work between the hours of 8:30 am and 4:30 pm and expect to keep my job.