When Pharmacists pass their boards, part of their oath is to be objective in their work. It goes against the Pharmacists credo to let any personal opinion interfere or change the quality of care they give to a client. So not only are these people morons, they are failures in their profession.

Another choice quote from one of the "pro-life" pharmacy owners in the article, regarding referrals to other pharmacies:

"If I don't believe something is right, the last thing I want to do is refer to someone else. It's up to that person to be able to find it."

Wow.

My co-worker Gretchen Borchelt has more on this.

"“Rape victims could end up in a pharmacy not understanding this pharmacy will not meet their needs. We’ve seen an alarming development of pharmacists over the last several years refusing to fill prescriptions, and sometimes even taking the prescription from the woman and refusing to give it back to her so she can fill it at another pharmacy.” "

Taken from the article that Robin@NWLC above linked to.

Question: Doesn't this seem RIPE for a lawsuit? Or some form of legal action, perhaps even criminal? How can someone refuse to fill a *prescription*?! How can someone TAKE your prescription? HOW.IS.THIS.LEGAL?!

"We are marching proudly backwards to the future." That is from "The Department of Homeland Decency: Decency Rules and Regulations Manual," a very funny satire of this kind of thing. IT's available at Amazon and bookstores everywhere.

Also, if someone took my prescription and refused to fill it and then wouldn't give it back? I'd make a huge, huge, huge stink.

I am so almost tempted to get a 'scrip for birth control, which I've been meaning to do anyway, and find one of these places. And then sue their pants off.

"After researching the science behind steroidal contraceptives, I decided they could hurt the woman and possibly hurt her unborn child. I decided to opt out."

So, all the abortions I'd be having without the birth control are better for both of us?

Could hurt the woman

I love how they think it's their place to decide whether the risks are acceptable in light of the benefits (which, incidentally, I'll bet they're not considering at all).

Creepy Frank = Frank "The Fetus" Corte?

if they want to open up these stupid pharmacies they have every right to, just as long as they dont refuse to sell them in regular pharms
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com

Question: Doesn't this seem RIPE for a lawsuit? Or some form of legal action, perhaps even criminal? How can someone refuse to fill a *prescription*?! How can someone TAKE your prescription? HOW.IS.THIS.LEGAL?!

I am not a lawyer but I think they should be charged with theft and the pharmacy itself should be culpable along with the pharmacist. This may dissuade chains from employing overzealous employees who can't keep their morals to themselves.

Also, why can't prescriptions be filled online? Eventually, it may be best if you could order all your medications in relative anonymity online.

Hmmm... according to these Pharmacists I can take a job at a deli, refuse to sell meat because of my moral/ethical/religious standpoint, lecture the customers, and get away with it? Hell, I can even sue the deli after they can my sorry ass, because I TOLD them I was a Vegetarian? Weird.... ;)

This seriously should be fucking illegal. I have no patience for the argument that pharmacists should be able to practice their profession according to their religious/moral beliefs. We don't let people join the military and practice pacifism.

It makes me so, so angry.

"Others also refuse to sell tobacco, rolling papers or pornography."

The relevance of that statement in the context of the rest of the article is totally eluding me.

I wondered how many of these phramacies exist. The Post article names three. Anyone volunteer to walk into one and ask for condoms and/or emergency contraception and report back the response?

This sounds like a horrible business model, i.e. refusing to cater to large segments of the customer base, which in all liklihood will not prove to be successful.

However, one side effect of living in an open society which protects a person's right to privacy, people (including pharmacists/businesses) also enjoy the right to be offensive, wrong and stupid.

But, I prefer this open society to a society in which the state attempted to suppressed or curtail these rights.

david

OMG, this makes me so angry. The stench from the utter bullshit is overwhelming.

I like that the article includes a mention of how hypocritical (not to mention typical) it is of these places to stock Viagra and not birth control or condoms. I do wish that they had posed that question to one of the pseudo-pharmacy people and forced an answer out of them. I mean - what if you had a pharmacy that refused to fill prescription for any ED meds? You'd have men pissing and moaning and raising hell over it, and probably saying something about it not being the pharmacist's business. But of course it IS their business if I don't want to get pregnant or get an STI or something.

I often wonder, when these stories come up, about married women who want birth control. Because often it seems that they are just judging the women as sluts and all that - so if a married woman needed to get birth control pills, would that be ok? Or are they of that ridiculous opinion that even married couples should only be knocking boots when they want to have a baby?

Has anyone ever conducted formal study on the proportion of religious zealotry to command of digital design and Photoshop skills?

This confuses me for many reasons:

1. Do they proudly display their beliefs upon store windows, so the consumer can make an informed decision on whether to patronize or avoid the pharm?

2. Are they going to deny me meds that may interfere if I happen to get pregnant, because I appear to be of a childbearing age?

3. "We try to practice pharmacy in a way that we feel is best to help our community and promote healthy lifestyles,"

So they will give me pennyroyal tea?

4. Who is the target demographic of the illustration? I see a girl with what could be described as an "alternative" haircut, wearing an '80s-style "power suit." Huh??

Jill Stanek has inadvertently outed herself as a fan of the Asian horror genre I see:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472458/

But, I prefer this open society to a society in which the state attempted to suppressed or curtail these rights.

I would preferred to be informed, wouldn't you? If a pharmacy had a large sign declaring their "pro-lifeyness" on the outside of the window, I would know to avoid it. They won't. What happens is that the woman will try to obtain a prescription first, then possibly endure who knows what. It can be difficult enough for some to get, for instance, the morning after pill from a place that sells them properly (notice how there's always a creepy staring dude shuffling around in proximity to the window?).

I can't speak for everyone, but if I unknowingly walked into one of these places with a prescription written by an ACTUAL MEDICAL DOCTOR and they denied me, they would probably have to call security after invoking my wrath (but I guess that's all in a day's work of martyrdom, right?).

However, one side effect of living in an open society which protects a person's right to privacy, people (including pharmacists/businesses) also enjoy the right to be offensive, wrong and stupid.

There's a difference between walking around, being offensive, and medical professionals intentionally denying their patients the standard of care. The first is constitutionally protected, the second is malpractice. Malpractice is not a "right" protected by an "open society." And if there's a conflict between your conscience and your job, the law solves the problem pretty well - you have a right to freedom of conscience, but you don't have a right to a pharmacists license.

When I was a teenager, I had ovarian cancer. As part of my treatment, I needed to take birth control pills to suppress ovarian activity, which would help to prevent a recurrence. If this was the only pharmacy I could go to, they'd be endangering my life and my health by refusing me access to birth control pills. Their "pro-life" stance can actually endanger lives.

Spryte--

Of course they want to deny contraception to married women. What does it matter if you're married or not, when you're killing a baby? That's how they think. That's why they won't let you have hormonal birth control. The condoms...I'm not sure if that's because even married people shouldn't have sex that isn't procreation-driven, or just because having them means that unmarried people might get their hands on them and have illicit sex. Probably some of both.

I don't know much about pharmacy but I'd like to know more about the objectivity that the first commenter mentioned. I was always under the impression that pharmacists were allowed to advise you and question prescriptions, such as, pointing out drug interactions that a doctor might not have realized, but they otherwise weren't allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship. If so, where do these pharmacists get off telling women that they're not going to give them certain prescriptions?

as a vegan who works around non-vegan food all day, I can assure you I understand being opposed to something at work.

THAT'S WHY I DON'T FUCKING EAT IT.

Where do we draw the line? Condoms? Lube? What if a pharmacist doesn't like the packaging? Can they refuse a Rx then? What if they object to the use of a certain type of plastic in the bottles? What then?
It seems absurd to ask, but all ethical concerns are completely subjective and you shouldn't be a pharmacist if you have a problem filling prescriptions.
That's part of your job description. Have someone else in the pharmacy fill it for you if it's that important.
And also, I will decide what risks are of my concern about MY body and MY prescriptions.

I agree that a sign identifying itself as a "pro-life" pharmacy would be a good idea, however, it wouldn't take long for word of mouth to make known how that pharmacy was different.

The article reports that some states have passed laws, or in the process, making this kind of pharmacy illegal. Other states, however have no plans to do this.

A couple of medical ethicists are quoted, one agreeing that in a pluralistic society this kind of thing is a desirable outcome, whereas another one says that health care professionals do not have the right to pick and choose which prescription medications they will make available.

I think this is a matter for each state's elected officials to decide. Depending upon the demographic makeup, some will not want these; other states will.

I wouldn't shop there; and like I said previously, I doubt these pharmacies will thrive. A business usually does not survive when it refuses to sell popular products, and pisses off at least half, probably much higher, of its customer base.

david

So if I'm of some fringe sect that believes the only cure for disease is prayer, can I refuse to ring up their antibiotics? Or if I think antidepressants are Satanic or I'm a scientologist who thinks all drugs are bad, can I do the same?

If I work in a bookstore, can I refuse to sell a Bible to these people?

The answer of course (from their view) is of course not: They're reasonable, everyone else's religious restrictions are crackers.

i concur with david....i think this is total crap, but i'd rather let the free market take care of this than the law. i believe people have the right to decline to sell things they don't believe in, especially on while on private property. (i remember working in a picture frame store, and telling a white supremacist who wanted a picture frame for his nazi poster that he could suck my left one all the way out the door and off the property. i love having that right.) i take birth control pills because i have an ovarian cyst, and you know, there's no shortage of places that want my business, and i'm happy to patronize them.

nothing would make me happier than a whole bunch of these opening up, then failing most spectacularly. think "pharmacist with $100,000 in student loans and seven children (because s/he doesn't use birth control) in a studio apartment because they refused to get over themselves" kind of failing.

Kind of like Quizzical (though not as severe, I hope you never have a reoccurrence! ::internet hugs:: ) , I take birth control to prevent extraordinarily painful ovarian cysts. Birth control isn't only for contraception, it is also a form of medical treatment, and oftentimes a much more necessary medical intervention than say, Viagra. These pharmacists are denying women necessary medication, not just pregnancy prevention. I think either one should result in the loss of their job.

Is there anywhere one could find a list of such pharmacies by location? I'd hate to end up in an unfamiliar town and wander into one of these traps in an attempt to purchase an innocent pack of condoms.

Oh lovely. The free market will take care of it... BS. And the "oh, but they can put a sign up so I can avoid the place" is great. Just fantastic. IF you're in a nice big market. You know, not everyone lives where there are more than one pharmacy. If my sister needs a prescription, she can go to her local pharmacy (there is *one*), or she can drive for over an hour and a half to the next one. What does she do for her BCP if her pharmacy decides they've got better morals than she does? Hmm?

This shit needs to be illegal. If the doctor prescribes it, it is the pharmacist's obligation to provide it. Not choice. Obligation.

Right after college, I moved to a fairly remote area of the country. I was still on my parents' health insurance with prescription coverage, but only one pharmacy in town took the insurance. So every month when I went in to get my antidepressants, the pharmacist would take the opportunity to remind me that I could spare myself the expense by accepting Jesus Christ.

I tried telling him that the Big JC and I were already on good terms, but he wouldn't believe me.

It was a horrible thing to have to deal with, during a generally horrible part of my life.

"there's no shortage of places that want my business, and i'm happy to patronize them."

Wow. Guess you didn't grow up in the middle of nowhere!

I'm from the middle of nowhere in Arizona. There are some "towns" that are LUCKY to have one pharmacy. The town I grew up in has about 3,000 people ... and two pharmacies. The next nearest pharmacy is at least 45 minutes away.

Not everyone (ESPECIALLY TEENAGERS) have a choice in where they get their birth control (and other prescriptions/services, for that matter).

Your views SOUND good, but in theory, it could screw a LOT of women out of birth control (and other services). If you have only one option, and that pharmacy refuses to give you your PRESCRIPTION, what do you do?

And what about those doctors in small town America who refuse to make prescriptions for birth control and other things for non-medical reasons (ie, they don't BELIEVE in birth control)? I guess those small town people are just shit out of luck.

Ugh, my comments are being eaten.

For those who are okay with pharmacists being able to refuse birth control, and saying, "There are plenty of other places that'll gladly take my money!"

That's not always the case. I am from a really small town in Arizona. We have to pharmacies. The next nearest is a good 45 minute drive away. Not everyone (ESPECIALLY TEENAGERS) have "other options" -- sometimes, it's their ONLY option. And then they get denied.

That is not right. Not ever.

Oh, and a picture frame isn't the same as a medication. Not even in the same league.

Pharmacists need licenses. You deny a legal prescription, you lose your license. Period.

i believe people have the right to decline to sell things they don't believe in, especially on while on private property.

While I agree with this a part of the problem is some of them have confiscated prescriptions from people who went to them thus denying them the choice to go to another place. A second problem more specific to the US is that large parts of US are very sparsely populated. You may only have one or two pharmacies within a reasonable driving distance.

I understand the free market argument, but there's a fundamental problem with it: before you can reasonably leave something to the free market, you have to that, at the very least, actual alternatives exist. It means very little to tell me I have a "choice" of pharmacies if all of the pharmacies in a 100-mile radius refuse to provide any form of birth control. The free market only solves this problem when you have enough suppliers of a substitute.

And when you're talking about a fundamental constitutional right, it gets even trickier. Some made the argument, back in our pre-Rosa Parks days, that there was no legal problem with transportation companies requiring black people to sit in the back, because, hey, it's their choice whether or not to ride the bus. But, actually, when you're talking about a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT (and the US Supreme Court has held that contraception is a fundamental right), it is simply not okay to leave it to the market, because it is not okay to deprive people of a fundamental right. Black people have a right to equal treatment -- that means they have the right to sit in the front of the bus, even if the bus driver is the most racist piece of sludge on the planet. If he has a problem with it, he can find another job. Same thing here -- if you're gonna run a pharmacy, you have to run it correctly. That means you don't get to pick and choose which medications to provide, if doing so impedes the fundamental rights of others. If you have a problem with it, don't open the pharmacy.

They're Obama-bashing, too!

"World Catholic Report: Can Catholics Ignore the Abortoholism of Barrie Hussein?"

This is just absolute bullshit and I'm all for people opening up their own private businesses but this is crap. You're a PHARMACIST, your JOB is to fill the prescription that the DOCTOR wrote. You are NOT the doctor and you haven't TALKED to the doctor so you don't know what the fuck is going on between the patient and the DOCTOR so it's none of your goddamn business what it's for. I don't care how much "research" YOU'VE done, either step aside or quit.

This has absolutely nothing to do with "saving" babeez or women (love how he had to throw that in there) but keeping people, women especially, in line when it comes to sex.

omg. "Abortaholism" might be my new favorite word. It reminds me of Homer Simpson "I'm a rage-aholic! I can't live without rage-ahol!" rofl

Shadow32:

Exactly. How far do you let it go? Where do you draw the line and how do you justify where you do to people who disagree? Though I usually don't like slippery slope arguments this is a situation where it definitely fits.

I was unhappy that these pharmacies are being irresponsible, more upset that they still sell Viagra, but when people claim that Chinese people eat fetuses that is just CROSSING THE LINE. What a sick, racist lie; these people need to be stopped.

If a pharmacist doesn't want to do the job they're paid to do, they can work elsewhere. If they want to preach they can work at a church or seminary. If they want to be an activist there are lots of think tanks and non-profits for every belief system. Freedom of religion does not guarantee you employment at a job that you won't do.

However if a person wishes to be a pharmacist, it is their job to dispense the medication that was ordered by a person who actually has a license to write prescriptions. In most (probably all) states, that person is NOT a pharmacist.

I was truly disgusted when I read it in