Plan B rule sparks lawsuit from pharmacists

[TechBear_Seattle]

Plan B rule sparks lawsuit from pharmacists

Pharmacists have sued Washington state over a new regulation that requires the sale of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill."

In a lawsuit filed in federal court, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday violates their civil rights by forcing them into "choosing between their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."

The state ruled earlier this year that druggists who believe emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion can't stand in the way of a patient's right to the drugs.

The article continues at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003808220_pharmacists27m.html

Next on the docket: Christian Science EMTs suing for the right to use prayer rather than medicine when on calls, and Jehovah's Witness emergency room technicians claiming deeply held religious and moral beliefs to prevent blood transfusions. :eyes:

[mainegreen]

1. Nobody's forcing them to dispense this drug. They can quit.

Problem solved. It's that way for any job. If you have a moral problem doing a job, you quit. The job doesn't accommodate you.

[lynnertic]

11. that's the "choosing between your livelihood and your beleifs" part.

If that goes forward, can the same principle be applied to drug testing at work?

[mainegreen]

19. Nonsense. You can't prove it affects ability to perform the job.

These pharmacists are there to be pharmacists. Refusing to fill prescriptions affects their ability to perform their job. A job they need to be licensed by the state to do.
Very different.

[lynnertic]

51. I didn't say I support the lawsuit, just that I understand their claim,

which by the way I think is baseless, but if they get away with it the same principle could be applied elsewhere don't you think?

[mainegreen]

52. If they get away with it, then yes I suspect you would be right.

[tandot]

45. How about a woman who gets hired as a nude dancer at a strip club

but refuses to take off her clothes because of her religious views?

[lynnertic]

53. Or a politician who isn't on the take

because of their religious views.

[tandot]

60. ??? A politician's job description is being "on the take" ???

A stripper is hired to take of her clothes

A pharmacist is hired to dispense medication

and you come up with:

A politician is hired (or elected) to take bribes

:crazy:

I don't even know where you pulled that comparison out off. Not to say that some politicians can't be bought, but that is certainly not why they are on our payroll.

[Kurovski]

66. I think it was a joke.

I chuckled, anyway. :-)

[lynnertic]

69. you're serious.

I wasn't. It was early, give me a break.
:hi:

[tandot]

73. I apologize

:hi:

the topic itself gets me angry every time I hear about pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control. And we have had DUers (or trolls) arguing that it would be the pharmacists right to do so.

[Lorien]

121. Or a vegan who gets hired by McDonald's but won't serve most of their food?

or a Buddhist who gets hired by a slaughterhouse but won't kill cattle? I was once asked to work on a film that had an over-the-top sexist scene in it, so I declined to work on the film and took a lower paying gig instead. Everyone is faced with such choices from time to time.

[Solo_in_MD]

12. Its also looks to be forced carry

The PI article in the original post did not say it, but older articles say that the rules do, that the rules also require that pharmacies stock the Plan B. That appears to be what part of the fight is about. Article from last Aug: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/283106_planb30.html

If an employee refuses to sell stocked merchandise, its an easy call to fire them. THe real issue is if I own a store, can the state require me to carry merchandise I find objectionable as a requirement to operate my business? That is a much harder call and a very slippery slope IMO.

[gollygee]

13. If you have a license they can

pharmacists are licensed and can be required to do things as part of that if the state decides it is in the community's best interest.

[Solo_in_MD]

16. By that same logic, gas station could be requried to carry beer and grocery stores guns and ammo

Also the state is not providing restitution for the additional costs incurred. I do not think the state has the right to direct them what they must carry unless they will pay for any additional costs associated with it.

[gollygee]

18. If the state decides it is in the community's best interest

which seems unlikely.

[Solo_in_MD]

23. You have a lot more trust in the *state* than many have

I don't trust the bureaucrats and pols to do much more that feather their own nests and scratch the backs of the big dogs, regardless of party affilation

[gollygee]

24. The *state* exists for a reason and one of those is to protect people in the community

including women who need EC.

If you don't like the people who govern you, elect other people.

[Solo_in_MD]

41. In that case it should provide it directly

Not require without compensation that private businesses carry particular merchandise

[gollygee]

42. Pharmacies are also given the opportunity to sell things and have their competition limited

they get something out of licensing too.

[Solo_in_MD]

48. Which is not currently the case

[Terran]

25. Except:

There's no compelling government interest in making sure the public has access to guns and liquor; but there is such an interest when it comes to public health issues such as this one. So your analogy is, er, a bit suspect.

[Solo_in_MD]

35. If it is really a *Compelling Public Interest* why isn't the state doing it themselves?

or hiring others to do it? Its a slippery slope that any progressive would want to avoid. Consider these:
- Should the state require markets to carry vegan or soy products because someone might need them
- Should the state ban the sale of some items because some people are allergic to it
- Should the state require pharmacies to carry asthmatic inhalers
- What other OTC meds should pharmacies be required to carry?

A more reasonable position is:
- Requiring a individual to sell a product if the business stocks it
- Requiring a pharmacy to furnish list of other places to get *any* drug they do not carry

Requiring a business to stock at their cost a specific item, available only from one source in the name of "public good" is wrong. Surely some people here remember the Guardisil controversy.

[gollygee]

38. Progressive does not mean libertarian

it's a slippery slope a libertarian might want to avoid but I'm quite comfortable with licensed business having regulations as part of their licensing requirements.

[mondo joe]

40. Funny -- the state can require all manner of OTHER things from pharmacies.

The state can require reasonable security, at the expense of the business.

[Solo_in_MD]

47. That is directly attributable to the security of the drugs being kept there

The real issue is how far can the state go to force businesses to carry particular products. While in the specific this looks like an easy one, on a macro level its a very bad thing.

I also believe that pharmacies will lose business in the long run if they do not carry the OTC drugs that their customers require. In the long run the issue will self correct without needless and dangerous state intervention

[mondo joe]

49. And the point of that security is........?

?

[tammywammy]

43. I agree with you

The state shouldn't be forcing the pharmacy to carry said drug.

But your position I agree with completely:

"A more reasonable position is:
- Requiring a individual to sell a product if the business stocks it
- Requiring a pharmacy to furnish list of other places to get *any* drug they do not carry"

[Tesha]

58. "Sure, we can tell you where to get it. It's 587 miles away, though..."

> - Requiring a pharmacy to furnish list of other places to get *any* drug they do not carry"

This is a fraudulent fig leaf suggested by people
who believe that Emergency Contraception shouldn't
be available. And the reason it's a fraud is that
in many parts of our country the answer will be: l

"Sure, we can tell you the name of the nearest place
where you can go to get it. It's 587 miles away,
though I'm sure that's no problem for you."

Tesha

[Solo_in_MD]

68. Any place in the Wash State or lower 48 where the nearest pharmacy is that far away?

or this this more hyperbole

There is also an ethical component to requiring businesses without compensation to carry an OTC drug available only from one maker. Guardisil anyone?

[TechBear_Seattle]

75. You are asking the wrong question

Are there any places in Washington where right-wing nuttery is so prevailent that few drugs stores would be willing to provide the drug, and where pressure brought by right-wing nuts would drive out of business any pharmacy that did provide the drug? Yes. That is why the state Board of Pharmacy implemented deemed it necessary to implement this rule in the first place.

[Solo_in_MD]

102. Is there anything to backupo your assertions

My take is that WA, a fairly liberal state and that those who refuse to carry it will be the ones to lose business.

[Heddi]

120. Not all of WA is Seattle

I live in central-eastern washington--VERY republican. Everything from the Cascades to the Idaho border is very very right wing.

And yes, there are plenty of areas where if the ONE pharmacy in town doesn't stock something, the CLOSEST pharmacy would be over 2 hours away.

I am an RN--my town has 2 hospitals. I work at the one that isn't owned by the Catholic Church. I work at the one that provides OB services. I work at the one that gives care to the indigent. I work at the one that gives 80% of it's patient's free or very heavily discounted care.

If my hospital didn't do these things, the closest cities that had hospitals that WOULD would be 3 hours away in Seattle, or 6 hours away in Spokane.

Really---I wish that people wouldn't equate WA the state with SEattle the city, or "western washington" the region. The remaining 90% of the state that is east of the "West side", that is "east" of seattle is VERY VERY VERY different from anything related to Seattle or the West Side.

BTW--my county has 1 planned parenthood and it doesn't offer abortion services. There is *ONE* abortion provider between My town and Spokane (6 hours away) or my town and Seattle (3 hours away). And that provider is about $2 away from being closed down on any given month.

[TechBear_Seattle]

123. What Heddi said

King County, home of Seattle and Redmond, is pretty liberal and by itself makes up around 1/4 of the state's population. Add in the Interstate 5 Corridor, you have the most liberal part of the state: about 1/4th of the state's area and not quite one half of the state's population.

The rest of the state is very conservative. While Idaho gets a lot of attention about their arch-conservative nutters, Washington has had more than the average share, including neo-Nazis, white supremacists and Dominionists. In fact, the 1996 Republican candidate for governor was a woman named Ellen Craswell, who openly wanted to implement her version of fundamentalist Christian theology as the law of the land; she had an organizational chart showing campaign staffers, with God as the boss.

Don't judge the whole state on the basis of a single city. Outside of the I-5 corridor, the state is pretty red. Again, there is a reason why the State Board of Pharmacy felt this rule was necessary.

[Tesha]

76. If the pharmacists have it *YOUR* way, it will be true in Dixie.

And if you don't believe me, study the availability
of abortion services in some of the backwaters of
our country.

Tesha

[mainegreen]

29. It all depends on the nature of the business.

A food vendor does not need to carry certain foods, but to be licensed they do need to meet certain health standards.
A bookstore owner need not carry certain books, but they must meet fire code.
A curbside art vendor can do whatever the hell he wants as long as he's not blocking the sidewalk (at least here this is the case).
Can these people complain 'Oh woah is me, getting rid of the cockroaches is too expensive. It's un-american!'. Of course not. That's silly. One would reply: well I guess you're too incompetent to stay in business now, aren't you?

The government may regulate commerce in the interests of the community. This is nothing new.

[DemBones DemBones]

70. Exactly. The state should not be able to force anyone

to do something he or she considers to be immoral.

Doctors and nurses cannot be forced to participate in performing abortions, why should pharmacists be forced to provide "Plan B"?

Pharmacists didn't choose their profession to prescribe pills that are designed to kill an embryo. If the state wants to force them out of their profession, it should reimburse them for their years in pharmacy school so they can start a new career.

The people who'll lose their jobs when Roe is overturned ought to insist on this as a precedent.

[tammywammy]

71. Agreed n/t

[musette_sf]

77. "when Roe is overturned"?

excuse me while i :puke:

and now i am :scared: that there are DUers who oppose my constitutional right to privacy, and want to overturn an amendment that helped to insure my privacy.

the pharmacist, outside of the fact that "Plan B" is kept behind the counter, like cigs are in my local pharmacy, IS NOT PRESCRIBING ANYTHING. "Plan B" is OTC. it's the same thing as selling a pack of cigs to someone at the cash register.

i'll believe these obstructionist pharmacists have any kind of "morals" in mind when i start hearing about pharmacists that won't dispense boner pills or cigarettes. till then, it's obvious they're just a bunch of American Taliban control freaks who hate and fear women as equals.

[tammywammy]

90. Dembones isn't promoting Roe be overturned

But that "if" it's overturned, any professional that loses their job because of it, should be reimbursed for their education.

[musette_sf]

92. poster said WHEN not IF

big difference.

and this conversation is precisely the reason why DU approved the Pro-Choice message board, although why any DUer would be anti-choice is completely beyond me. any DUer who would presume to support the removal of women's constitutional right to privacy, violates my basic moral belief that women are equal to men under the law, that discrimination against women MUST end, and that there is NO place in my life for anyone who believes differently.

[tammywammy]

93. I'm assuming

That she went with the current make up of the SCOTUS that it's highly likely it'll be overturned. But I was assuming that's what she meant when I posted in agreement to her. I'm not for it being overturned.

[musette_sf]

94. see message 91 n/t

[tammywammy]

95. I know what birth control is

I know what Plan B is, and I also know what RU 468 is. That doesn't change my viewpoint. I feel that if a pharmacist doesn't want to carry a product, they shouldn't be forced to. Just like there are pharmacies that don't carry certain pain killers.

[musette_sf]

96. it's RU486, BTW

and Plan B does not equal RU486.

the original poster i replied to seems to have a serious misunderstanding about this.

[tammywammy]

97. Oh I knew it as 486

I mistyped. That darn number dyslexia. :P

And I know that Plan B isn't the same as RU486.

[Solo_in_MD]

105. I agree that it will be overturned, and in fact is being overturned bit by bit

I have also stated here that Roe v Wade as a decision sucks...*anything* can be found the eminations of penumbra of the Constitution if you look hard enough, including state control of health issues. What is clearly needed is unequivocal Federal legislation, but the lack of spine in Congress makes that unlikely.

To be clear, I strongly support the right of a person to control their body and make their own health decisions, but we need to make it explicit on a Federal level and the only way to do that is by legislation. Roe v Wade is eroding and the current court will not shore it up. Congress must act.

[FloridaJudy]

99. A local pharmacy

Has stopped selling cigarettes. Good on them, I say - even though I smoke myself. It's not the job of pharmacies to sell cigarettes (or beer, or cosmetics), although many do. It's their job to dispense prescription medication. If they're unwilling to do so for moral - and not medical - reasons, then they should seek another profession. What next: no Viagra for single men? No opiates because some people abuse them? No antibiotics because they're "unnatural"?

BTW, neither birth control pills nor Plan B kill embryos. They either prevent implantation or (more likely) ovulation. Neither is an "abortion" by any medical definition.

[NMMNG]

91. Contraceptive pills and "Plan B" do not "kill an embryo"

There is no embryo to be "killed". Please stop spewing RW talking points.

[1monster]

101. But it is none of the pharmacist's business what prescriptions are being prescribed or why those

particular drugs are being prescribed.

The pharmacist's job is to dispense the medicines and to make sure that there is no contraindications with other prescriptions being taken by the patient, and to offer extended information and counseling regarding the prescription to the patient if asked.

For example: The BIRTH CONTROL PILL. There have been more than a few instances posted on DU regarding pharmacists who refused to dispense BC pills because birth control is against their beliefs.

However, the pill is used for much more than birth control. I've know many young women who were prescribed bc pill to treat severe acne, to regulate periods which had no discernable patterns, to help control the severe pain and heavy bleeding that goes with endometriosis and other problems that can occur in the female reproductive system.

If a pharmacist refuses to stock a birth control pills because he doesn't believe in birth control, he is also denying an effective treatment for other conditions that are treated with the same medicines.

(And by the same token, if a pharmacy refuses to stock Plan B or birth control pills, then I certainly hope it refuses to stock treatments for ED. After all, if God wanted the man suffering from ED to have sexual relations in order to procreate, then the man wouldn't have ED, would he?
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: )

[Solo_in_MD]

107. Concur...if they stock it they should sell it to anyone who has a script for it

or OTC as appropriate.

My issue if whether or not a pharmacy should be requried by the state to carry certain medications without compensation.

[1monster]

108. Sorry, I disagree. If things were as they should be, the state would not

have to require the pharmacies to carry these medication. But they are not.

And what of the person who is raped and doesn't want to have to go through the agony of waiting to find out if she conceived and then have to decide whether or not to have the baby or abort, and if she does have it decided whether or not to keep it or have it adopted?

Preventing a pregnancy is not abortion. Requiring a pharmacy to carry a very much needed tool isn't violating its rights. Requiring a pharmacit to do his or her chosen job isn't violating his/her rights. He/She doesn't want to do it? There are other jobs out there that won't require him/her to carry or dispense it.

It is also a protection for the pharmacy/pharmacist: If the law requies it, then the extremists, who would take violent action against a pharmacy and its employees that carried if the law didn't require it, are neutered by the fact that the pharmacy/pharmacist doesn't have a choice.

[Solo_in_MD]

111. Is there any evidence that things "are not as they should be"

Has anyone come forward to say that Plan B or other medications were unavailble to them in a timely manner because a pharmacy chose not to stock Plan B? Is this a real problem in Washington State or more a hypothetical one.

Activists have done some test runs in places, but in any of those would a person who really needed it been unable to get it?

[1monster]

113. "Things as they should be" refers to life in general. As long as there is

rape, things are not as they should be. As long as there is a possiblity of an unwanted pregnacy for whatever reason, things are not as they should be.

As long as there is war, murder, hunger, theft, etc, etc, ad nauseum, things are not as they should be.

Can you show me any evidence that "things are as they should be?"

Methinks you just want to argue.

Having worked in a pharmacy for ten years, I think it is necessary for pharmacies to carry this and other prescription and nonprescription drugs.

If the medication is one that is not often used (a rare incident), then the local pharmacies would often decide which one would keep it on hand and would either have the medication delivered to the pharmacy where the patient came or the patient had the choice of going to pick it up.

I'm inclined to think that the "morning after pill" is one that won't sit on the shelf until it is out of date.

Customer service used to be important. Apparently not any more. Now the over hyped sensibilities of religious zealots takes precedence over the needs of the customer.

I've said all I have to say on this subject.

[dropkickpa]

78. Not the same.

A pharmacy exists to sell prescription drugs, everything else in the store is incidental. A gas station isn't built to sell beer, it's built to sell gas, the sale of which is federally regulated. A grocery store is built to sell food, not guns. Not the same thing as a pharmacy carrying a prescription drug at all.

[blogslut]

15. Pharmacists are not the average merchant

They take an oath to serve the public:

http://www.uspharmd.com/rxcode.htm

[Solo_in_MD]

20. Its cerimmonial, like the Hippocratic oath, and has no legal standing

[blogslut]

27. Uh huh

You have fun with your justifications. You don't like Plan B. We get it.

[Solo_in_MD]

36. Actually I support it being widely available. I don't support the state imposing it being carried

[TechBear_Seattle]

28. Just like the oath taken by the President and Congress to uphold and defend the Constitution?

Sorry, couldn't help myself. :hide:

[Solo_in_MD]

37. And you are quite correct. Oaths have no legal standing, the laws behind them do

[Terran]

31. Practice ethics are not ceremonial

Such things vary from state to state, but generally, pharmacists are considered the partners of physicians in the role they play, they're not just pill merchants. If a pharmacist countervenes a doctor's orders for no other reason than religious belief, I think their practice standards would certainly be questioned.

[Solo_in_MD]

39. A pharmacy not carrying a particular OTC med is not a violation of proffesional ethics

and the FDA has stated that Plan B does not require a perscription.

[gollygee]

44. If it is a drug that any member of half the community's population might need

with absolutely no delay, it is very reasonable to expect them to carry it as a requirement of having their license.

[mondo joe]

21. A pharmacy is not simply a store. It is a LICENSED business, and is subject to

requirements that a comic book store, let's say, is not.

[Solo_in_MD]

26. Unlike braodcasters, there is no requirement for medical facilities to server the public interest

since they are not using "public" resources like spectrum.

Pharmacy licenses are there to make sure that only licensed dispensers are in the drug area, that things are properly stored and secured, that records are kept. There is no requirement to serve the public good.

[mondo joe]

30. I believe the state has the authority to require as it deems necessary.

The pharmacists have the right to challenge that.

[Terran]

33. You don't know what you're talking about

Pharmacists and pharmacies are both licesned separately and are subject to both state and DEA authority. State licensure always includes ethics and practice standards that are not dissimilar to those required of physicians. That is inherently about "good"--not so much public, but the good of individual patients.

[Solo_in_MD]

54. I am well aware of the licensing standards

and some of the nuances, such as when the pharmacy is not owned by a licensed pharmacist. What concerns me is the precendent of the state requring a single source OTC drug to be carried without compensation. Slippery slope that could lead to bad things

[AngryOldDem]

56. What? And miss another chance to grandstand and play martyr?

:sarcasm:

[havocmom]

106. Thinkin some of the xian Universities are encouraging certain fields

just so 'professionals' can try to force THEIR beliefs on other people. When they are not allowed to force their beliefs on others, they claim to be persecuted. Result: secular society is forced to go along with American Taliban BS or the professional offended by expectations he/she DO THEIR JOB sues and reaps financial rewards for NOT DOING THEIR JOB.

:wtf:

If the prescription is legal, the PROFESSIONAL pharmacist should be required to dispense it. For the pharmacist to be making decisions as to what does and doesn't get sold to a doctor's patient seems like that pharmacist is practicing medicine without a license. I wonder what would happen to this shit if PATIENTS started making lots of complaints about THAT to state licensing boards.

[KittyWampus]

2. if their deeply held BELIEFS trump their deeply held professional obligations, it seems

it's up to them to make a choice. Society can't function when people we rely on get to pick and choose what obligations they will or won't fulfill.

This seems quite different than allowing a Muslim to take a few minutes each day to pray, btw.

[Heidi]

3. Fox News journalists suing for the right to only tell one side of the story.

No. Wait. Nevermind.

[Richard Steele]

22. They actually won that case already, in the Florida Supreme Court.

Not kidding.

[TechBear_Seattle]

32. I remember that one

Two reporters had worked for more than a year on the dangers of hormones fed to dairy cows being found in milk. After heavily promoting the expose, the Fox affiliate ordered the reporters to give a different report which greatly downplayed the dangers. They refused to alter their story and got fired for it. They sued under Florida's "unfair termination" statute, with the additional assertion that news broadcasts have an obligation to report the truth.

By the time everything had been appealed and the dust had settled, the courts had ruled that news stations do not have an obligation to tell the truth and that the firing were justifiable because the reporters refused to lie.

[Heidi]

63. Thank you, TechBear_Seattle.

I've been out of journalism (and intentionally isolated myself at least early on from this sort of news) since I moved to Europe. I vaguely recall hearing rumblings about this case but I didn't pursue it further. This sort of pressure for journalists to appease corporate interests at the behest of publishers and advertisers and at the peril of truth is one of the reasons I left journalism at the least convenient (financially) point in my career. :puke:

[TechBear_Seattle]

67. I looked up the details

In case anyone is interested.

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

The site says that they are going to appeal, but I believe the state Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal and left standing the Feb. 14, 2003 ruling.

[Heidi]

34. Wow.

I've got some Googlin' to do. That's sickening.

[Richard Steele]

62. Yup, "sickening" is a word for it.

TechBear has a good synopsis in post #32 just above.

[Heidi]

64. Thank you, friend,

for pointing out TechBear's synopsis. I don't know whether to :cry: or :grr:

[toadzilla]

4. I wonder if they have a moral problem with dispensing birth-control pills

its the same thing! just a higher dosage for a shorter time period.

sheesh

[gollygee]

7. I had a pharmacy refuse to sell me birth control pills several years ago

I didn't really really understand what was going on at the time - that they had a "moral problem" with them - it was before this kind of thing was in the news. But they wouldn't accept my prescription and I had to go somewhere else. They just said they don't sell birth control pills. I doubt they sell EC either.

[Solo_in_MD]

50. Did you ever go there again? Buy anything from that store again?

I see this as a self correcting problem in the long run

[Pithlet]

109. Not self correcting.

Not as long as there as there is a widespread movement to deny women access to birth control. I've lived in a red state long enough to know the score. For example, there is one abortion provider in the entire state of Mississippi. That little problem certainly didn't self correct due to market forces, did it? Demand isn't lower there than anywhere else. (Not to advocate forcing providers to perform them, I merely point this out to show that market demand doesn't necessarily trump the moral police.) These battles to get pharmacies to stop carrying birth control isn't market driven, so leaving it at the mercy of the market won't work. They are coming from organized and powerful groups. If these groups didn't pull their weight, we wouldn't even have this issue. Pharmacies wouldn't have a reason to refuse to stock them. If there weren't such groups, I might be more inclined to agree with you. But, if we allow such things to be left to the market, many women, particularly in red areas, will find their options dwindling. Besides, the government already regulates pharmacies to begin with. Requiring a minimum standard of the stock they carry if they want to continue to profit from the community they serve is not an overstep.

[Solo_in_MD]

117. Your comment about abortion providers is interesting

since it is clearly pressure that is controlling them. I also want to recall that it is being taught less in medical schools and residencies as well.

Your argument about "minimum standard of the stock they carry if they want to continue to profit from the community they serve" is a wide open door for the state to require any number of things to be carried by any number of stores. I just can not agree with that. While this one seems and easy call to some, its a precedent I think we should not be setting.

Seeing that it is over the counter, I wonder if opening its carriage to stores other than pharmacies may be the best answer.

[MiniMe]

9. Or Viagra and Cialis

[TlalocW]

10. No doubt a lot of them do

TlalocW

[LynneSin]

81. Yes - they do have a problem, it's been a issue with BCP too

This is the right-wing fundies new line of defense - getting into the pharmacies and wrecking havoc there.

But I'm sure they have no problem with selling Viagra or Viagra like products

[MissMillie]

5. Doctors cannot refuse to treat

and pharmacists are doctors.

[Solo_in_MD]

6. Actually doctors can refuse treatment

Pharmacists are not Doctors...

[MissMillie]

8. They're not MDs but they are doctors

http://www.mcphs.edu/academics/programs/pharmaceutical_sciences/6_yr_pharmd/

and the refusal of treatment has to fall under certain circumstances

http://www.expresshealthcaremgmt.com/20021231/focus4.shtml

[Solo_in_MD]

14. So a history professor under that standard, and your citation for "must treat" in from India

and not relevant to the US

[DemBones DemBones]

72. Doctors of medicine can refuse to treat anyone.

I knew a doctor who refused to treat Jehovah's Witnesses, probably because they oppose blood transfusions.

Doctors of medicine, and nurses, can refuse to participate in performing abortions.

Why should doctors of pharmacy be forced to provide abortifacients?

[TechBear_Seattle]

74. Why should pharmacists be forced to provide HIV medications?

After all, HIV is "God's judgement" against a sinful lifestyle, according to a great many believers; therefore, by providing medications to keep a person with HIV alive and reasonably healthy, a pharmacist is guilty of interfering with God's righteous judgement. So, no HIV drugs.

Same with antibiotics used to treat venerial diseases, from gonorrhea to syphilis to HPV. Oh, and since most cervical cancers are caused by HPV, no drugs used to treat cervical cancer, either. Or breast cancer, because lesbians and others who refuse to do their womanly duty of squirting out children are several times more likely to get breast cancer, proving that breast cancer is God's judgement against those who go against nature; we wouldn't want to go to Hell for inadvertently promoting sin.

And speaking of going to Hell, that is where Jews are going, so I refuse to dispense drugs to anyone who is or might be Jewish. Same with Muslims. And Buddhists. And pagans. And Democrats.

---------

Yes, I am promoting the logical fallacy of a slippery slope. But sometimes, the hill actually is pretty steep with lots of loose scree.

[DemBones DemBones]

79. They shouldn't be FORCED to provide any drug, but none are refusing

to provide any of the life-saving drugs you mention, only life-ending drugs and, in some cases, birth control pills, because the pill can cause an early abortion.

Speaking of slippery slopes, back in the Thirties, the Anglican or Episcopal Church officially approved the use of contraceptives. The pope warned that widespread use of contraceptives would lead down a slippery slope to widespread divorce and then to widespread abortion, finally to euthanasia. Pretty perceptive, wasn't he? He predicted tolerance for things that were then considered beyond the pale. Abortion and euthanasia were still considered beyond the pale in the Sixties. Is anything beyond the pale today?

[supernova]

84. Location, Location, Location

If you live in a large town or city with 20 or 30 pharmacies it's no big deal to find a pharmacist who will give me the medicine I need, including Plan B and BCP, without moralizing to me.

If you live in a small town or rural area, it can be everything from a major inconvenience to an outright DENIAL of care because there is no other pharmacy available.

That is where the problem lies.

And short-sighted people who think it's OK for a pharmacist to willy nilly refuse to give legally prescribed medicines to responsible women don't understand this VERY REAL PROBLEM.

I'm sick of pharmacists and their allies who think I should be treated like a child.

[mondo joe]

87. No one should be FORCED. But if they want a license to have a pharmacy, there is

nothing wrong with requiring a basic formulary be dispensed.

[Solo_in_MD]

104. Disagree with the state doing it, but have no problem with private contracts doing it

I have read that some pharmacies have *reviewed* their policies on what they carry when they wanted to join a large pharmacy plan which required that certain drugs be available. Not sure if this could apply to OTC drugs like Plan B.

[Katherine Brengle]

100. Yeah, it's those damn women - once the big P started letting them make

up their own minds about shit, all those good old fashioned family values like beating the shit out of your wife and using her as a baby-breeding machine until she died went right down the crapper.

:eyes:

Fuck the Pope.

[Solo_in_MD]

103. In most states they are not...they do it as a business decision, which will be the case for Plan B

as well. My concern is that the state should not be imposing "must carry" rules on businesses without compensating them

[Pithlet]

112. It will not be the case for Plan B.

Those who wish to refuse it are doing so because they feel they have a moral and ethical imperative to do so. They already know that not carrying it will hurt their profits. They don't care. Market forces will not have an effect on them.

Pharmacies are not just any retailer. They aren't just selling goods. They are specifically licensed to perform a service that they in turn get to profit from, but in exchange they have to follow rigorous guidelines because failure to perform that service can be damaging to the community. The state has the right and the obligation to make sure they are performing that service adequately. They don't have a right to refuse to perform a very basic, very vital portion of that service, particularly if refusing that service impacts the community so negatively, and the state preventing them from doing so is no more a an overstep by the government than the actual regulation itself. In fact, it's what that regulation is there for! The states don't regulate it because it's fun. They regulate it because of the impact on the community that pharmacies have. They have a direct impact on the health of the community in a way that most other retailers don't, so they have to be regulated in a fashion that those other retailers aren't.

[VP505]

17. If your

willing to accept the pay check to dispense meds for your job then you dispense everything in the formulary. Not acceptable to you, then get another fu***** occupation. "Next on the docket: Christian Science EMTs suing for the right to use prayer rather than medicine when on calls, and Jehovah's Witness emergency room technicians claiming deeply held religious and moral beliefs to prevent blood transfusions." WELL SAID

[Lars39]

46. Bottom line: these pharmacists need remedial classes.

Conception includes *implantation*.
These fundy nutjobs are trying to rework the definition of conception.

[dropkickpa]

82. You and your crazy facts and science

Are no match for their ill-informed faith! Don't you know conception happens when a penis is within 10 feet of a vagina?

[Lars39]

89. Not with the Chastity Ring, it doesn't. :^)

[madfloridian]

55. So women lose because pharmacists won't stock a pill to prevent pregnancy.

And the rules are changing on abortions.

I am amazed to see how many take up for the rights of the pharmacists to discriminate against women.

Maybe they will decide not to stock condoms or viagra type medicines.

Betcha we'd hear some yelling then.

Pregnant and barefoot....can't get contraception. Can't get abortions when this Supreme Court is done.

Well to the world of the Taliban, you American women.

[WinkyDink]

57. Oh, brother. Somebody needs to be reminded that "pharmacist" is a secular profession.

I'm confident the courts will see their way to that.

[supernova]

59. If you're a pharm and support this nonsense

you need to find a different paycheck.

I don't need you to moralize to me. And I want to be a gazillion miles from anything you call a "pharmacy."

[BlooInBloo]

61. Sweet, sweet religion.

[JerseygirlCT]

65. Get the &*^* over "religious beliefs" that involve someone

else's business, not theirs.

They also might spend a few moments getting educated about the drugs they're supposed to be dispensing.

Failing that, find a different line of work.

[LynneSin]

80. This assholes need to start their own damn pharmacy

"God R Us" pharmacy where they can practice pharmacy at their whim and people can know that going to that pharmacy means you're getting 2nd rate dumbasses serving you.

But for the very minute population of people who buy into this shit - they can keep em in business.

[baldguy]

83. If you're a diabetic, don't become a food taster at Hershey's then complain about the sugar content.

If you're a muslim, don't become a pig farmer, then complain about handling pigs.

If you're a dominionist anti-feminist bigot, don't get a job where your have to help women.

[BlooInBloo]

85. That about sums it up.

[supernova]

86. Amen, brother

:thumbsup:

[TechBear_Seattle]

88. Excellent analogies.

:toast:

[Katherine Brengle]

98. Fuck these fundie douchebags.

But I already posted in the other EC thread so I gtg.

Fuckers.

[BlueIris]

110. Assholes. nt

[Horse with no Name]

114. I have said over and over

This fight is being fought on the wrong front.
Contraceptive drugs are covered by insurance and Medicaid. Therefore, ANY store that accepts these forms of payment should be compelled to carry EVERY item on the formulary or be forced to do a cash only business.
It would then be THEIR choice not to fill the prescription, just as it would be their choice not to accept any third party payments.
I am POSITIVE you would not see very many pharmacies willing to compromise their money for their principles. They shouldn't get to pick and choose.

[Solo_in_MD]

115. That is happening with some private drug coverage

and its a good thing

[tammywammy]

116. Question:

Since Plan B's OTC, it wouldn't be covered by insurance or Medicaid right?

[Solo_in_MD]

118. It is covered by health savings plan

[tammywammy]

119. Thanks for the info

[lies and propaganda]

122. Precisely why i boycott CVS

You dont make your pharmacists dispense BC, you dont get any of my business. They should go work for the freaking church pharmacy...