[speechlesstx]

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

What drugs was the OP about?

[shazamataz]

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 :)

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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. :)

[tomder55]

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.

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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 ?

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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

[artlady]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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

[earl237]

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

[Catsmine]

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.