quote:Perhaps you aren't understanding this, here. The point is that in the case of hormonal birth control, a delay of several days is a REALLY, REALLY BIG DEAL. The pharmacist has no idea WHY the woman is using birth control, and if she's using it for hormonal reasons and not purely pregnancy prevention, he has now COMPLETELY thrown off her hormonal cycle, which can have some pretty nasty consequences, depending on the severity of the hormonal imbalance being treated.
No, you're missing the point. The one delay that has been pointed out WASN'T BECAUSE OF A PHARMACIST DOING WHAT I ADVOCATED. Therefore it's irrelevant.
quote:If there were a way for a woman to reduce the number of natural miscarriages by 50%, and she didn't use it, she'd still be negligent in protecting these "children," if one really did want to consider them children.
There'd still have to be causation, and that isn't it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I asked someone to show me an instance where a person could not get her prescription because of a pharmacist doing what I've advocated. This was the only example anyone has been able to provide, and it had two flaws: 1.) it wasn't caused by a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription but by a pharmacist committing theft, and 2.)the woman still got her pills.
quote:I consider theft pretty serious, so I doubt that's it. But in that case I see not only theft but coercion, disdain for potential harm to the patient, and a number of other nasty issues.
Coercion is inherent in all theft. Disdain for potential harm to the person from which something is taken is inherent in all theft.
quote:That's the part I'm having a problem with.
The woman did get her pills. I'm not sure why you have a problem with me stating the facts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
not to quibble, but i don't think coercion and disdain for potential harm to a person are inherent in all theft. i think there is a good deal of theft that has no intent to, or disregard for, harm. it in fact goes quite a bit out of it's way to make sure that no one gets hurt. also, you can steal without lying or coercing anyone.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But Dag, it's like you're saying that it didn't create a problem because she DID get her pills...eventually. -pH
No, it's not like that at all.
quote:not to quibble, but i don't think coercion and disdain for potential harm to a person are inherent in all theft.
You steal someone's purse, it might contain her insulin or asthma inhaler. You steal someone's wallet, it might contain his prescription or the money he needs to buy food for his kids. This is true whether the purse or wallet is with the person or sitting on a counter somewhere.
Further, when you break the law, you are incurring the possibility of apprehension and all the risks entailed there.
As to coercion, a thief is physically keeping the property of another from them, using this physical action to deprive them of posession.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the first year I was on the pill, I did not have sexual intercourse. I doubt I am the only woman out there that can say that. Therefore, if the woman who was denied pills, or even forced to go elsewhere was like me, there was no sperm around to possibly fertilize the egg, so the pharmicist was not preventing homicide. So, his moral objections to providing the pill are gone and he is just discriminating against her for having hormonal issues. The pharmicist is not privy to this information. So, perhaps we should also be asking that question- does a pharmicist have the right to discriminate against a sick woman simply because her treatment could be used in a negative way? Taking it the next step, would a pharmicist be able to deny pain killers because they could be sold to addicts (he has no reason to believe they will be, just that they could be). Also, for a woman taking birth contol pills daily, the main mechanism is prevention of ovulation. I can say with confidence that I did ovulate for the entire time I was on the pill. Therefore, this acted much more like a condom (ie keeping the sperm and egg apart) then as a lethal, killing act. There never was an egg to fertilize, therefore no eggs were trying to implant and being prevented. So, for me, the argument that daily contraceptives are killing baby is hard to buy.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag - agreed, in the examples you gave both coercion and disdain for harm are evident, but those are not the only cases of theft. as for the possibility of apprehension, that is harm to the theif, not the person being stolen from. i assumed that wasn't what was meant. and if the person being stolen from never missed the item stolen, and never wants for anything, i don't think that includes coercion. anywho, thats not really the point of the thread, so nevermind.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real problem is that these pharmacists are refusing to give these drugs based on a belief that they will prevent a blastocyst from implanting in the uterine wall. There is 100% absolutely NO scietific evidence for this belief at all. NONE. If I were a pharmacist and I decided not to dispense penicillin because it gives me an allergic reaction and I BELIEVE that it will cause the same reaction in everyone else, regardless of the scientific evidence, there would be an uproar, because I am wrong. Since the drug in question is most commonly used as a contraceptive (at least in people's minds) it's supposedly ok to refuse to give me my medication as long as the pharmacist tells me who I can go and get it from?
If a theif steals a Diabetic woman's purse and it contains her insulin (it shouldn't since insulin is supposed to be refrigerated) but if it did (since that's one of Dag's examples)and the woman then went into sugar shock because she missed a shot, then that theif could be charged with criminally negligent homicide or at least manslaughter. The same could be said of a pharmacist which refuses to dispense hormonal contraceptives and keeps the prescription delaying the purchase of the medication.
Scholar suffers from migrane if she can't get her meds. Migranes can precipitate strokes. So if a pharmacist refuses to give Scholar her meds and she has a migrane which leads to a stroke and she dies, he has caused her death.
And all for a belief that has no basis in scientific fact at all. (After all, I believe that the world is flat...that doesn't make it true.)
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way scholar you're not alone, I didn't have intercourse while I was on the pill either.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On top of that, pharmacists also dispense PLENTY of medications to women that could also harm an "unborn child." What if the woman doesn't know she's pregnant? Shall we refuse to dispense medications to all women unless they can't cause harm to a fetus/zygote/blastocyst?
quote:On top of that, pharmacists also dispense PLENTY of medications to women that could also harm an "unborn child." What if the woman doesn't know she's pregnant? Shall we refuse to dispense medications to all women unless they can't cause harm to a fetus/zygote/blastocyst?
Once again, there are significant differences in the moral calculus.
quote:The real problem is that these pharmacists are refusing to give these drugs based on a belief that they will prevent a blastocyst from implanting in the uterine wall. There is 100% absolutely NO scietific evidence for this belief at all. NONE.
Wrong. "Not proven" is not the same there being no scientific evidence for it.
Further, I don't actually believe it happens. When I owned a company, our health insurance covered birth control medication.
You all seem to be missing the point: forcing someone to do something they consider immoral is wrong.
quote:Scholar suffers from migrane if she can't get her meds. Migranes can precipitate strokes. So if a pharmacist refuses to give Scholar her meds and she has a migrane which leads to a stroke and she dies, he has caused her death.
Except that there are other pharmacists.
I take two prescriptions for chronic conditions, each as important to my ongoing health as BCPs are to scholars. There are serious possible side effects from missing a does of either. I have had to go from pharmacy to pharmacy when I've left refilling my prescription to the last minute because many pharmacies don't stock one of them regularly. I know what it's like. It's my responsibility to make sure I don't run out, to call ahead and find out if it can be filled, and to make arrangements if it can't.
quote:Since the drug in question is most commonly used as a contraceptive (at least in people's minds) it's supposedly ok to refuse to give me my medication as long as the pharmacist tells me who I can go and get it from?
It's suppposedly OK for you to force someone to do something they believe to be morally wrong?
quote:After all, I believe that the world is flat...that doesn't make it true.
Gee, you think the pictures we have a spherical earth compared to the actual literature from the people who make the drugs might put these two "beliefs" in different categories, your snide, misleading characterizations aside notwithstanding?
This discussion started from someone comparing refusal to sell birth control pills with refusal to interrogate viagra patients as to whether they are having an affair and saying a pharmacist who does the former and not the latter is being morally selective. Later, we had someone comparing masturbation to the death of a fertilized egg and saying that one had to oppose the former if one opposes the latter.
This whole discussion has been full of straw-man attempts to impute erroneous interpretations of certain pharmacists moral views to them.
Is it really that hard for you to comprehend others' moral beliefs? You don't have to agree with them, just understand them. They are starting from two premises:
1.) a fertilized egg is a human being due the same protections as any other human being. 2.) certain birth control pills can stop a fertilized egg from implanting.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 1.) a fertilized egg is a human being due the same protections as any other human being. 2.) certain birth control pills can stop a fertilized egg from implanting.
There are probably plenty of OTHER drugs that can stop a fertilized egg from implanting. Like I said, by that reasoning, I don't understand why a pharmacist wouldn't refuse to dispense those, as well.
I mean, just because it's called a birth control pill doesn't actually mean it's always used for birth control, as everyone has already said. There are a LOT of drugs that have a number of different uses, and a pharmacist has no way of knowing for which of these uses the drug is being prescribed.
quote:It's suppposedly OK for you to force someone to do something they believe to be morally wrong?
If the other person has taken a job in which they are paid to do that, then yes. By taking a job in which you are paid to dispense drugs, you take on a moral obligation to dispense the damn drugs. If you think that's morally wrong, then you shouldn't have taken the job, should you?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the other person has taken a job in which they are paid to do that, then yes. By taking a job in which you are paid to dispense drugs, you take on a moral obligation to dispense the damn drugs. If you think that's morally wrong, then you shouldn't have taken the job, should you?
That's between you and the employer - the one you made the agreement with. Not the employer's customers.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think a lot of this debate seems to be over differences in what a pharmacist's role is, and whether or not they should have any decision-making ability in the drugs they sell. It would probably be a bit less heated if it was over whether or not pharmacists have the right to say "I know your doctor prescribed Chemical X, but I've read too many reports about its dangers and potential side effects so I don't carry it." (Edit: or don't sell it, in the case of chain stores)
Ultimately, I agree with Dag's "That's between you and the employer - the one you made the agreement with. Not the employer's customers." even though I don't personally agree with a pharmacist refusing to sell birth control because of the fertilized egg = human being premise. (Edit: because I don't agree with the premise. Given that premise, I'd likely agree with the refusal.)
Basically if Target says their policy is individual pharmacists can refuse to sell a drug they feel is harmful, but if WalMart says their policy is that pharmacists have to sell whatever a prescription is for no matter what, then pharmacists have a choice which they'd rather work for and customers have a choice which they'd rather shop at.
posted
You should write letters to these companies complaining about the business practices that you disagree with, for what good is a boycott if the company isn't aware of your problems with them?
Posts: 338 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I take two prescriptions for chronic conditions, each as important to my ongoing health as BCPs are to scholars. There are serious possible side effects from missing a does of either. I have had to go from pharmacy to pharmacy when I've left refilling my prescription to the last minute because many pharmacies don't stock one of them regularly. I know what it's like. It's my responsibility to make sure I don't run out, to call ahead and find out if it can be filled, and to make arrangements if it can't
Except that, as you have neglected to point out in your argument, there is a difference between the pharmacy being OUT of your medication either because 1) they are sold out or 2) they do not stock it and it would have to be ordered, and the pharmacy having medication in stock and refusing to dispense it.
Further more, if Target and other companies who allow their pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions on moral grounds want to allow that policy then they should also be required to post notice both in the automated system that answers the phones and signs at the pharmacy (even outside the store) stating that the pharmacist at this location will not fill prescriptions for whatever drug based on his moral beliefs and advising customer's to go elsewhere. In addition, if a pharmacist suddenly decides that this is an issue, there should be a required period of notification to people who regularly have that medication prescribed at the said location, up to and including telephone calls or letters, advising them that after X date they will no longer be able to have a prescription for the drug filled at that location and advising them of a nearby pharmacist who will fill the prescription and who takes your insurance.
After all, as the hypothetical pharmacist I am, I know that penicillin causes 1 death per day in the United States. As such, I am unwilling to gamble that you may be the person who will die today. Sorry about your pneumonia and all that, but you'll have to drive across town to get your prescription.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would be outraged if the pharmacist kept the prescription he refused to fill. Since that is theft, Dagonee, what would have happened if she had called the police?
So while I certainly think he has the right to morally object to giving meds, he should be fired or at least reprimanded for refusing to return the prescription.
I also agree that if this is a company policy, that information should be a readily available for customers. In that case, I would just ask, "Hey are you someone who objects to this prescription?" before handing it over.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And driving across town CAN present a problem, especially if the prescription is needed at the last minute.
And there are any number of reasons a prescription could be being picked up at the last minute that cannot be accounted for by, "Oh, well she should've planned ahead."
quote: This discussion started from someone comparing refusal to sell birth control pills with refusal to interrogate viagra patients as to whether they are having an affair and saying a pharmacist who does the former and not the latter is being morally selective.
You're right Dag, I did say that. It is being morally selective.
I don't have a problem with my pharmacist asking me why I'm on the pill before he dispenses it to me, if he's going to ask moral questions of his other customer's too. I believe that sex out of wedlock (or extramarital affairs) is immoral. Most of the pro-life people I know believe the same thing.
Go ahead, ask if I'm using the drug for contraceptive purposes before filling my prescription. Just make sure you ask Bubba there, if his Viagra is going to be used with his wife.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the other person has taken a job in which they are paid to do that, then yes. By taking a job in which you are paid to dispense drugs, you take on a moral obligation to dispense the damn drugs. If you think that's morally wrong, then you shouldn't have taken the job, should you?
A pharmacist is not paid solely to distribute drugs, nor are they paid to distribute all drugs. Should a pharmacist be required to fill prescriptions for any medication prescribed by a doctor anywhere? Of course not.
---------- pH,
quote:I mean, just because it's called a birth control pill doesn't actually mean it's always used for birth control, as everyone has already said. There are a LOT of drugs that have a number of different uses, and a pharmacist has no way of knowing for which of these uses the drug is being prescribed.
So...a pharmacist might not want to take chances and would refrain from filling any such prescription deliberately targeted to do what they feel is morally wrong. I know you and many others feel there is no moral wrong here, but they don't agree. So I don't know why it is so frequently brought up. It's a known thing.
quote:And driving across town CAN present a problem, especially if the prescription is needed at the last minute.
And there are any number of reasons a prescription could be being picked up at the last minute that cannot be accounted for by, "Oh, well she should've planned ahead."
Oh, really? I'd be interested to hear some. Some that wouldn't be, for instance, overcome by getting the precription filled, say, a week in advance (I'm not sure if such a thing is possible now. SHould pharmacists be permitted to refrain from filling certain prescriptions, I think it should be.)
------- andi330,
quote:Except that, as you have neglected to point out in your argument, there is a difference between the pharmacy being OUT of your medication either because 1) they are sold out or 2) they do not stock it and it would have to be ordered, and the pharmacy having medication in stock and refusing to dispense it.
Morally and legally speaking, yes there is. But for the purposes of understanding what a woman wishing to have her birth control prescription filled might have to go through, there's no substantive difference at all. Which was Dagonee's point, to bring up that he can empathize.
quote:Further more, if Target and other companies who allow their pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions on moral grounds want to allow that policy then they should also be required to post notice both in the automated system that answers the phones and signs at the pharmacy (even outside the store) stating that the pharmacist at this location will not fill prescriptions for whatever drug based on his moral beliefs and advising customer's to go elsewhere. In addition, if a pharmacist suddenly decides that this is an issue, there should be a required period of notification to people who regularly have that medication prescribed at the said location, up to and including telephone calls or letters, advising them that after X date they will no longer be able to have a prescription for the drug filled at that location and advising them of a nearby pharmacist who will fill the prescription and who takes your insurance.
Is there some reason you think Dagonee might object to that? Or myself, since he and I are the ones doing most of the support of these pharmacists?
quote:After all, as the hypothetical pharmacist I am, I know that penicillin causes 1 death per day in the United States. As such, I am unwilling to gamble that you may be the person who will die today. Sorry about your pneumonia and all that, but you'll have to drive across town to get your prescription.
The voluntary minimal chance of death for an adult who chooses to take a medication is entirely different from the reason some pharamcists want to stop filling certain prescriptions. What's more, I think you're probably aware of that. So, your sneering objection isn't worth much.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, the first example that comes to mind about the timing of the prescription is a personal one: I used to have to take very, very expensive drugs to get to sleep at night. If I didn't have them, I wouldn't sleep. Unfortunately, there were one or two times in which, due to unforeseen financial issues, I was unable to have my prescriptions filled until I had absolutely no pills left in the bottle...or until a few days AFTER I had no pills left in the bottle and was subsequently not sleeping.
Around here, there are only JUST beginning to be 24-hour pharmacies. The closest one absolutely cannot be reached on foot. Our public transportation, at the moment, is in shambles, and that one pharmacy is the only one that can be reached by bus. The other one along the bus route closes at 6pm.
Say I had to work until 6pm and didn't have a car. And on top of that, I'm on my last day of medication, and I go into the 24-hour pharmacy, and they refuse to fill my prescription on moral grounds.
Well, if I'm on birth control, I'm totally screwed.
You may think that's a pretty elaborate situation, but I'm sure there are MANY people without transportation who have to work long hours or two jobs just within this city.
Aside from that, as for birth control being "targeted to do what they think is morally wrong," birth control is targeted to PREVENT ovulation and regulate hormones. I sincerely doubt that when someone was cooking up hormonal birth control, he/she was thinking, "Gee, I wonder how I can prevent eggs from implanting and cause more 'miscarriages.'" Although I, personally, don't know that I would call them miscarriages, that's not the point.
I don't have a problem with my school health center not handing out condoms or prescribing birth control...but they make it publicly known that they have that policy, and they have it because the school is Catholic. Obviously, if one desperately need some form of birth control, it is public knowledge that Student Health is not the place to get it. Having random pharmacists refusing to prescribe drugs on a whim is likely not a good idea. More than one pharmacist probably works at each pharmacy, and how is a patient to know which one will dispense birth control and which one won't? And even if she does know, is she supposed to memorize the pharmacist's work schedule?
quote:Except that, as you have neglected to point out in your argument, there is a difference between the pharmacy being OUT of your medication either because 1) they are sold out or 2) they do not stock it and it would have to be ordered, and the pharmacy having medication in stock and refusing to dispense it.
Why is it different? Only because you feel you have the right to force someone to do something they find morally objectionable.
Aparrently it's ok for a company to make a business decision - one just about money - to not stock something, but not ok for the company to make a decision to allow its employees some freedom of conscience.
So are dollars more important to you than morality?
Not a fair question, is it? Well neither is telling a company they can make a decision for monetary reasons but not for moral reasons.
quote:Further more, if Target and other companies who allow their pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions on moral grounds want to allow that policy then they should also be required to post notice both in the automated system that answers the phones and signs at the pharmacy (even outside the store) stating that the pharmacist at this location will not fill prescriptions for whatever drug based on his moral beliefs and advising customer's to go elsewhere.
I partially agree. A list of drugs and the hours they cannot be obtained should be prominently displayed.
quote:After all, as the hypothetical pharmacist I am, I know that penicillin causes 1 death per day in the United States. As such, I am unwilling to gamble that you may be the person who will die today. Sorry about your pneumonia and all that, but you'll have to drive across town to get your prescription.
If the pharmacist posts the notice and the employer agrees to it, it should not be illegal for him to do so.
But really, you know why this is an utterly inapplicable hypothetical.
quote:You're right Dag, I did say that. It is being morally selective.
It only appears so to someone who refuses to make the most basic attempt to understand someone else's moral view.
There's a difference between providing a drug that they believe can kill an innocent third party and providing a drug that someone else may use in an imoral fashion. That's why many people who believe birth control to be immoral still sell condoms, spermacides, sponges, and other methods of birth control.
quote:Say I had to work until 6pm and didn't have a car. And on top of that, I'm on my last day of medication, and I go into the 24-hour pharmacy, and they refuse to fill my prescription on moral grounds.
Apparently, if the pharmacist decided to do not stock the medicine as an inventory control measure - i.e., to maximize profit - that would be OK with andi. It's only if they're reason is one based in silly old morality that would entitle you to use the coercive force of the state to get your pills.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:On top of that, pharmacists also dispense PLENTY of medications to women that could also harm an "unborn child." What if the woman doesn't know she's pregnant? Shall we refuse to dispense medications to all women unless they can't cause harm to a fetus/zygote/blastocyst?
Once again, there are significant differences in the moral calculus.
Okay, here's a twist that may or may not have been mentioned... my sister is taking Accutane for severe acne. As a result, even though she has had no sexual contact of any kind in I don't know how long, she's required by her dermatologist to also be on birth control specifically to prevent any possibility of pregnancy because of the high incidence of birth defects caused by Accutane. So does the pharmacist still get to use "moral grounds" as a validation for why he refuses to fill her BC?
and later...
quote:I partially agree. A list of drugs and the hours they cannot be obtained should be prominently displayed.
Okay, this would eliminate any objection I would have to the entire "moral grounds" dispute. If I knew that this particular pharmacy would fill X scrip only on certain days in advance of actually leaving the scrip and later being embarrassed or left without my medications, then I would have the choice of filling it on that store's schedule or finding another location.
Of course, pH doesn't have that particular option, but I think it can be agreed that the situation in the entire NOLA area is still extraordinary and not what most people are dealing with.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
