There is a growing problem in the U.S. these days with judgmental, moralistic pharmacists who are refusing to prescribe birth control pills to women. Many states have so called "concience clauses" that allow them to refuse to give prescriptions that violate their religious or personal beliefs. There have even been cases where they held the prescriptions hostage and refused to transfer it elsewhere. I think this is outrageous. A pharmacists' job is to give prescriptions and it is not right for them to impose their views on other people. These holier than thou people should not become pharmacists. Many are hypocrites whose wives are on the pill but they won't give it to other women even if they are married and well over 18. This a great burden for people in small towns where they might only be one drugstore. There is also a double standard. I can't recall any incidents where a pharmacist refused to give Viagra prescriptions or condoms to men. States should pass laws forbidding this practice.

As far as I am concerned if they do not want to do the job they shouldn't have gotten into that line of work.
Just like a cashier that may be against porn and doesn't want to sell it should not be working in a store that has a
Shelf of porn magazines or videos.
Personally I believe that if God truly wants a baby to be born all the contraception in the world is not going to stop it.

Completely out of line and down right dangerous. I can't believe a pharmacist has any right whatsoever to deny a patient a prescribed drug. What a dangerous path they are heading down.

First of course a pharmacist does not write a prescription, they merely fill it.

And this is a free market society, if their drug store does not wish to sell certain items there is no legal way to force a company to sell them.

If your local store only wanted to sell coke and not pespi, they have that right. So if you want a pespi, you go to where they sell it.

Over that to be honest I have never heard of birth control being a issue, the morning after pill, which is not birth control pills.

If the store policy is to not sell it then I can agree but if it is an individual pharmacist
And they with hold the prescription so that they can not get it filled elsewhere I do not agree with that.

When it comes to personal beliefs they should be kept personal.

However if I had a 14 year old daughter getting birth control or the morning after pill without my knowledge I would like to be informed.

When it comes to minors getting those pills, I'd have to agree to the 18+ rule.

That's just my opinion,

Sarah

A lot won't fill morning-after pills, but some even consider birth-control pills a form of early abortion and won't prescribe them. A man with tattoos was refused syringes for diabetes because the pharmacist assumed he was a drug addict and some won't stock AIDS medication because they believe all patients are gays or abuse drugs, which is not the case. This sets a dangerous precedent and could lead to all kinds of abuses if it is not stopped. A Tom Cruise Scientology type could refuse to fill anti-depressants, they could refuse high blood pressure or diabetes meds because they think only overweight, lazy people get them, also not true. In theory, a Jehovah's Witness could refuse to prescribe any medication. That sounds extreme, but that's what happens when you allow a slippery slope to develop.

Now that right there is being plain and flat out foolish.

Sarah

To my way of thinking it is up to the person who owns the store what gets sold. If the pharmacist owns the store then the pharmacist is in the right to decide which products the pharmacist will dispense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

To my way of thinking it is up to the person who owns the store what gets sold.

---

Hello tom:

To my way of thinking, it is up to the state who granted the store owner a license, what gets sold.

excon

I get regular migraines and take tablets that contain codeine in them... I went and bought these tablets from the same pharmachist twice in the span of probably 2 months and they refused me the second time I tried to buy them.
They are not prescription tablets and I'm not the only one in my family who uses them, this just encourages people to get a friend or family member to go get the drugs for them... not good practice at all...

So we're back to this discussion. Funny how when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, the pledge of allegiance, any number of pet issues on the left, the right to exercise one's conscience - "choice" - is untouchable. When it comes to prescribing or dispensing a drug that takes the life of a human and for the most part is not medically necessary, the only choice is it should be mandatory. How unbelievably hypocritical.

Quote:

---

To my way of thinking, it is up to the state who granted the store owner a license, what gets sold.

---

No it is up to the State to tell the Pharmacist what MAY be sold . Not what MUST be sold.You can't sell or dispense what you don't stock.

The over 18 is another good point.
It should be store policy if they are or are not going to sell something so that for one it isn't a guessing game when you go to get your prescription filled. It doesn't make sense for you to have no idea until you get to the counter and see oh battleship Jane is working and I know she will not fill this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

No it is up to the State to tell the Pharmacist what MAY be sold . Not what MUST be sold.

---

Right. And apparently the state typically says cannabis isn't among those things. :D

Quote:

---

The American Pharmacists Association (APhA) is inclined to recognize pharmacists' right not to fill a prescription as long as the patient's needs can be met by others, according to Susan Winckler, RPh, JD, vice president of policy and communications and staff counsel. The APhA suggests that in addition to referring patients to another pharmacist or drugstore, concerned pharmacists also consider practice settings where this issue is less likely to arise, or working with physicians or other pharmacists to establish alternative dispensing methods.

A pharmacist in a rural community, for example, might let physicians know what prescriptions he will not fill and suggest that they dispense the drugs themselves, if their state allows it. Or, he could refer patients to another pharmacist.

The APhA, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists noted in a letter in the Legal Times that "pharmacists, like physicians and nurses, should not be required to engage in an activity to which they object."
That said, Winckler emphasized that the APhA opposes obstruction: “A pharmacist may step away from a prescription but shouldn't step in the way.”

---

When a Pharmacist Refuses To Fill a Prescription

I read in a state liquor magazine that absinthe is now legal in the USA and contrary to belief it has no halluicigentic properties.
I wonder what they *did* to it to be able to call it absinthe yet no hallucigens??

"That said, Winckler emphasized that the APhA opposes obstruction: “A pharmacist may step away from a prescription but shouldn't step in the way.”

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Somebody tell me why that's unacceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

So we're back to this discussion. Funny how when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, the pledge of allegiance, any number of pet issues on the left, the right to exercise one's conscience - "choice" - is untouchable. When it comes to prescribing or dispensing a drug that takes the life of a human and for the most part is not medically necessary, the only choice is it should be mandatory. How unbelievably hypocritical.

---

What drugs are you talking about? They aren't getting heroin from a pharmacist.

Re absinthe:
None of the 3 herbs used in the distilling (Anise ,Fennel or wormwood)have any hallucinigenic properties and are available individually on the market. Maybe it is being sold pre-diluted ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shazamataz

What drugs are you talking about? They aren't getting heroin from a pharmacist.

---

What drugs was the OP about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What drugs was the OP about?

---

The only ones mentioned were birth control and the morning after pill in he original post... I may have missed something?

Wasn't having a go at you, just stating :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

No it is up to the State to tell the Pharmacist what MAY be sold . Not what MUST be sold.You can't sell or dispense what you don't stock.

---

Hello again, tom:

You are mistaken.

The reason a state grants a license is NOT so the LICENSEE can be served. The state grants a license so that the COMMUNITY can be served. Therefore, the state has the right to require its licensee to dispense every single drug that the particular community requires.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shazamataz

The only ones mentioned were birth control and the morning after pill in he original post... I may have missed something?

wasn't having a go at you, just stating :)

---

Nope, that's all I had in mind at the moment. :)

Ex so if I got a liquer license or a license to sell cigarettes I'd be compelled to sell brands I don't want to ? If I got a plumber's license there are services I'd be compelled to perform ? If I'm a licensed gynocolgist I'd be compelled to perform an abortion ? I don't think so. While we are at it let's force Muslim butcher shop owners to sell pork.

Steve is right . Freedom of choice seems to be a one way street.

Hello again, tom:

During the Bush years, licenses were granted for the benefit of the licensee, I agree. But, that's backwards, and it's over.

ALL licenses make requirements of the license holder for the benefit of the community - All of them. That's the way it should be.

If there were as many pharmacy's in town as there were plumbers, then I'd have no problem with ONE right wing pharmacist. However, if there was only ONE drug store, it would be reasonable for the state to require that the single licensee meet the needs of his community. If it isn't that way now, it soon will be. There's a new sheriff in town.

If the pharmacist didn't like it, he could always dig ditches or move.

excon

I thought you and I at least agreed that this was a state board of Pharmacy issue and not a Federal one. Is sheriff Bart whipping out a new directive ?

http://www.morethings.com/fan/blazin...addles-570.jpg

Communities have gotten by just fine without Plan B for millennia. But let's go beyond Plan B and aborting the "potential life" as it's been dumbed down to for a minute. Your view would make dispensing lethal dosages for assisted suicide compulsory in areas where it's allowed. Your view would make it compulsory for physicians to prescribe lethal doses of drugs for people to commit suicide.

If I can't exercise my conscience and refuse to assist in the termination of a human life then freedom is all one big illusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I thought you and I at least agreed that this was a state board of Pharmacy issue and not a Federal one

---

Hello tom:

When I spoke of a "sea change" arriving upon our shores, I wasn't just speaking about one man. In fact, I wasn't speaking about ANY man, at all.

I'm talking about an impetus to unwind 30 years of wrongheaded policy, that inundate our laws from top to bottom.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earl237

A lot won't fill morning-after pills, but some even consider birth-control pills a form of early abortion and won't prescribe them. A man with tattoos was refused syringes for diabetes because the pharmacist assumed he was a drug addict and some won't stock AIDS medication because they believe all patients are gays or abuse drugs, which is not the case. This sets a dangerous precedent and could lead to all kinds of abuses if it is not stopped. A Tom Cruise Scientology type could refuse to fill anti-depressants, they could refuse high blood pressure or diabetes meds because they think only overweight, lazy people get them, also not true. In theory, a Jehovah's Witness could refuse to prescribe any medication. That sounds extreme, but that's what happens when you allow a slippery slope to develop.

---

I'm with you,it does set a dangerous precedent.
When you take away the rights of one group of people ,you are opening the door for indiscriminate abuse of power.
I bet if people started to boycott these stores ,the pharmacist might have a change of heart.
Their moral superiority will most likely stop if you hurt them in their pocketbooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earl237

There is a growing problem in the U.S. these days with judgmental, moralistic pharmacists who are refusing to prescribe birth control pills to women. Many states have so called "concience clauses" that allow them to refuse to give prescriptions that violate their religious or personal beliefs. There have even been cases where they held the prescriptions hostage and refused to transfer it elsewhere. I think this is outrageous. A pharmacists' job is to give prescriptions and it is not right for them to impose their views on other people. These holier than thou people should not become pharmacists. Many are hypocrites whose wives are on the pill but they won't give it to other women even if they are married and well over 18. This a great burden for people in small towns where they might only be one drugstore. There is also a double standard. I can't recall any incidents where a pharmacist refused to give Viagra prescriptions or condoms to men. States should pass laws forbidding this practice.

---

First of all, I have heard anecdotal stories of this, but I have not seen a single actual documented case of it. Yes, there are many cases where pharmacists have not filled prescriptions for BC pills, especially for underaged girls. But I have NEVER seen a documented case of a pharmacist "holding a prescription hostage". Can you provide any documentation to back up this statement?

If it is indeed happening, I believe that any pharmacist who refuses to transfer a prescription upon request to another pharmacy should have his/her license revoked.

At the same time, a pharmacy is a private business. There is no law that requires him to sell a product to anyone or perform a transaction he has no desire to participate in. I support the rights of a businessman to do what he wants within the law as far as running his business is concerned.

Do you really believe that a businessman should be forced to participate in transactions that are against his conscience? Should a photo store owner be required to develop pictures of pornography if that is against his policy and personal ethics? By your logic, he should be forced to do so, because not doing so is a limitation of the rights of the guy who took the pictures. I don't think that it is right to force him to do something he doesn't want to do.

Your rights end when they infringe upon mine. The patient's rights end when they begin to infringe on the religious rights and business rights of the pharmacist. The pharmacists rights end when they keep the patient from taking the prescription to another pharmacy. The line is very clear, in my opinion.

Elliot

Here are some of many various sites that discuss this issue. I think it is wrong for people to impose their personal views on other people, just because you don't approve of a certain practice doesn't give you the right to deny it to others. The first site says that people's Rx's have been held hostage and refused transfer, disgusting.

The Seattle Times: Health: Some pharmacists say no to filling birth-control prescriptions

Virginia pharmacy declares it's "birth-control free" - Feministing

Judgmental pharmacists put people's health at risk

Providing the judgemental pharmacist owns the pharmacy, no one should say a word. If he won't stock a med, he doesn't have to.

If a pharmacist works for a pharmacy company, such as Rite-aid or Wal-mart or whoever, then they should sell the merchandise their boss stocks.

If they want to change categories, that's their option.

Owners make those decisions, it's their job, not their employees.