Damn straight! On Wednesday, an appeals court ruled that despite two Washington pharmacists' lawsuit saying that their religious beliefs should allow them to refuse to stock and provide emergency contraception to their customers, personal convictions doesn't trump a patient's right to timely medication.
This decision is huge as it could affect policy across the Western U.S. regarding the "right to conscience" nonsense that has been gaining momentum over the past few years, particularly with the help of Bush implementing the anti-choice HHS regulations before he left office (which we're still waiting for Obama to rescind like he intended). But this ruling creates a precedent for future cases around the issue.
While the pharmacists won a temporary injunction by the U.S. District Court in Seattle under their claim that they should be protected under the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals wasn't having it. They lifted the injunction, saying that a person's religious beliefs "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability":
"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules."
Booya.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Appeals court says pharmacists can't refuse to dispense Plan B .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14877
Awesome. This is so important, thanks for this post!
Hollerrr. Total awesomeness. =]
I'm ashamed that these people come from my home town. Most Seattle natives are way cooler than these pharmacists, I promise!
Woohoo! This is great news.
Don't be ashamed! You should be bursting with pride over the decision by the Evergreen State's Board of Pharmacy to pass that regulation in the first place. That's the real victory here, because this Ninth Circuit ruling is not all that helpful in a situation where the plaintiff/defendant labels are switched.
This makes me so excited to move to Western Washington in two months! My own state just tried to pass legislation explicitly allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense.
I was going to say the thing.
How do two doctors like that work in the PNW? I know most of Washington is pretty conservative, but the article says 'Seattle.'
Seattle?! Really?
So strange.
But hooray for our board.
The pharmacists that sued are actually from Olympia, not Seattle, so there you go.
No, the pharmacy that initiated the lawsuit is in Olympia, but the pharmacists are not. Ralph's Pharmacy has had trouble hiring a pharmacist who thinks Plan B is an abortifacient -- guess that's because most pharmacists believe in science. The lawsuit is being spearheaded by the Alliance Defense Fund out of Arizona. They must have looked under every rock in Washington state to find these two whacky pharmacists who joined in the lawsuit.
So proud to be from Arizona. /sarcasm
So, these people aren't content with just trying to screw over the women of my state; they have to go looking for other states to screw with?
This is good your personal beliefs are fine but they have to stop at the front door of the pharmacy.
For those interested, full opinion is here: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/07/08/07-36039.pdf
The good stuff starts on page 30.
Very very good news! :)
This is great news. It's not about the pharmacist's rights, it's about these pharmacists thinking they can deny others' rights. Which they shouldn't be able to. It's an easy enough situation: if you don't want to dispense Plan B, there's an easy enough solution, don't become a pharmacist.
I might be misunderstanding, but it sounds like this ruling applies to pharmacies, not individual pharmacists? Noteably pages 44-45 of the opinion.
This is not my field, but I believe you're correct. We'll see how it shakes out, but so long as pharmacies are on the hook for making sure the Plan B is available at all times when the pharmacy is open, I'm not seeing the problem. I don't think anybody is particularly interested in forcing a particular employee to be the one to sell it, so long as SOMEBODY in the pharmacy will sell it.
{Media coverage of legal issues is almost universally terrible. Every time I read a news story that casually mentions that it's "impossible" to discharge student loan debt in bankruptcy, I die a little inside.}
The rule was designed specifically to require pharmacies to distribute Plan B, not pharmacists. If an individual pharmacist has objections to dispensing Plan B, he or she may step aside, as long as the pharmacy has ensured that someone else working at the pharmacy is willing to give a woman a birth control pill. The rule was written this way to make it harder to challenge legally... let's hope it works!
Woo. This just made my day. :o)
Especially since last night I went into Planned Parenthood for my pill prescription and some cop randomly pulled into the parking lot facing the door and was gawking at people coming in and out. We do have occasional protesters, but I still get annoyed and suspicious of such things.
With all these obligations to stock and provide emergency contraception to their customers... What does prevent them from setting $1,000 price for each emergency contraception? It is very unlikely they will be "forced" to sell it.
Your broad point that this is hardly the end, just the opening salvo of new battles, is well taken. However:
A) They would be buying a lawsuit.
B) I am no expert in administrative law, let alone Washington State administrative law, but the Washington State Board of Pharmacy (who issued the regulations at issue in the litigation) may have the power to issue regulations preventing those sorts of shenanigans.
C) Pharmacies really, really don't want to flirt with losing their licenses. What you're proposing would put them at risk for just that.
We'll see. I am pro-choice and at the same time believe that goverment shouldn't dictate shops what should they sell (and for what price).
I am inclined to agree-- if things were my way, you could get Plan B, pot, and vicodin from a vending machine or a corner store. However, recognizing that such deregulation isn't going to come any time soon (if ever), sensible regulation is the next best thing. I'll stop before I pound out a ten paragraph essay on why the whole getting-Plan-B-approved fiasco is a great feminist argument for getting the government out of the business of drug gatekeeping...
Yep. And this decision is just another regulation trying to patch existing one.
The Washington State Board of Pharmacy and analogous boards in other states exist for the sole purpose of making those sorts of decisions, though. This court opinion wasn't made in response to just any company deciding not to sell something, but a pharmacy going against its governing organization's rules.
> Washington State Board of Pharmacy...
Am I able to set up a shop and sell Plan-B contraception and other stuff? Without joining this Board? If not then why?
The Pharmacy Board is a division of the Washington State Health Department which regulates and licenses all health professionals in the state, including pharmacists. Pharmacies are a licensed and regulated industry, and therefore, no, you may not set up shop without going through them. Just as you may not set up a hospital without going through the board of health. It is a government agency and not a union, and their job is protect the citizens of the state of Washington.
http://www.doh.wa.gov/hsqa/professions/Pharmacy/boardinfo.htm
Thank you. So, yes, it is the goverment that actually dictates shops what should they sell.
It amazes me that these people have been getting away with putting women's health at risk. Pregnancy prevention is an important part of feminine health for many people, myself included. By denying or delaying the dispensing of EC, all these pharmacists are doing is putting women at risk of becoming pregnant in the first place. Their actions help contribute to the abortion rate, if anything.
The problem is these pharmacists believe that Plan B is an abortifacient. Plan B works in three main ways: preventing ovulation, preventing fertilization of an egg, or preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. Even though Plan B will not affect an existing pregnancy, as every piece of literature about the drug states, some people believe that the prevention of implantation is enough to call Plan B an abortion. It's seven kinds of stupid that medical professionals will use their religious beliefs (life begins at conception) to override ALL EXISTING MEDICAL LITERATURE on the topic of Plan B (preventing implantation of a united sperm and egg is not an abortion, because pregnancy starts at implantation). Therefore, in an astounding leap of logic, these people actually think that they are contributing to the abortion rate by PRESCRIBING Plan B. Pretty goddamn ridiculous, eh?
I'm disappointed in this ruling. Its a set back for everyone's rights. There's a reason Freedom of Speech & Religion is the FIRST Amendment. Everyone should be free to practice their religion or atheism as they individually see fit. No consumer has a RIGHT to demand a service or product from a business or organization. Using this rationale we could draft a law that requires Pharmacies post links & information about crisis pregnancy centers, or misinformation about abortion.
While I understand that some women have difficulty finding Plan B in what can be a stressful & tight time window, their rights don't trump pharmacists; they're equal to pharmacists. Women should have an unfettered right to purchase Plan B, but pharmacists deserve an unfettered right to decline selling it. For those who genuinely (if incorrectly) view Plan B as an abortifacient this is forcing them to conduct an abortion. You can't FORCE people to violate their consciences. This is as wrong as requiring abortion doctors to read a bunch of misinformation from the state about the risk of abortion.
This is deeply concerning. I can't wait for SCOTUS to overturn this.
Question: Did you even read the opinion? The court cites many USSC cases that firmly set the precedent.
Underlying the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence is the principle that the Free Exercise Clause “embraces two concepts[ ] —freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute
but, in the nature of things, the second cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.” Cantwell, 310 U.S. at 303-04.
The Supreme Court continued to uphold the constitutionality of such “general law[s] not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.”
Although the Court confirmed that the government may not regulate religious beliefs, it stated that it has “never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.”
They used very sound reasoning and followed the standard that the USSC set out in previous cases.
I've read the opinion in its entirety. I don't think the issue is as cut & dried as presented & I'll note that the 9th Circuit is routinely overturned by SCOTUS. While that normally dismays me, I'm looking forward to it this time.
If, as the Court reasons, laws can trump religious practice, it seems that in those cases where it does so, "strict scrutiny" should apply, and laws should be both 1) absolutely compelling; and 2)narrowly tailored to achieve the ends.
I'm worried about the trend in society of inventing rights & then forcing everyone else to support them. Though I despise 'consience clauses', this is the type of shoot first, think later action that will give new impetus to the very conscience clauses BO threw out. Geez, I hardly recognize anymore what it means to be a liberal. This ruling is the very anti-thesis of a free country & smacks of the crap the Radical Right usually trots out.
And as I quoted below, strict scrutiny doesn't apply if the law is generally applicable and neutral. See: Employment Division v. Smith. Even though Smith used peyote for religious reasons, the law at issue in that case applied to everyone for every purpose of peyote use. Which is similar here to the Washington pharmacy rule that applies to all pharmacies for any reason - not just religious reasons.
Your initial assertion that we are all free to practice our religion individually without any restriction is very incorrect. As for your idea that we're creating rights and forcing people to support them, the Washington rule ALREADY allows for reasonable accomodations for any individual pharmacist as long as the pharmacy is ultimately responsible for allowing access to a prescription!
Thanks for the cites Alixana. I think that "strict scrutiny" will become the issue. For what its worth I opposed the peyote ruling as well, but I think with the addition of Roberts & Alito, SCOTUS could very well trim the scope of that decision if only for this: There is a world of difference in PREVENTING someone from consuming an illicit drug & in FORCING them to sell one violating their conscience. While precedent says that religious beliefs can't be curtailed but religious exercise can be, its worthwhile to note that the 1st Amendment doesn't mention religious beliefs, it mentions only "religious exercise".
There is really nothing forcing these people to go into this specific career field, is there? If you are going into a field that requires you to dispense legal medications, then you should uphold the requirements of that field. If you don't wish to do so because they violate some ethical belief, then choose something else. For example, I would never enter the military because I believe that a good 99% of U.S. military actions are morally offensive. To go into a field that requires me to follow the orders of superior commanders, engaging in acts I believe to be morally wrong, then demanding that they adapt to my belief system would be the epitome of self-importance and delusional behavior. The acts of pharmacists who refuse to dispense legal medications is even worse, because it explicitly denies the rights of women to proper healthcare. If they are not going to be a partner in the proper healthcare of ALL patients, they are not only selfish, they are dangerous.
... yeah, no. Read the opinion, and the above thread about pharmacies vs. pharmacists.
Pharmacists' personal rights are equal to everyone else's, but I don't think personal beliefs should interfere with a professional responsibility. If a person can't square dispensing contaceptions with his or her moral beliefs, THEN DON'T BECOME A PHARMACIST! This is so ridiculous! They're only "forced" to dispense because that's the job they chose! It's like becoming an executioner and then seeking an injunction against the state's death penalty law on account of your religious views.
Also, I think alixanna is spot on. This ruling is in line with precedent. SCOTUS will not even grant certiori, I'll wager.
"No consumer has a RIGHT to demand a service or product from a business or organization."
That doesn't apply to healthcare whatsoever. If we didn't have the right to demand things of healthcare providers, no one would ever be forced to provide care for patients in emergency situations.
There should be exemptions for religious beliefs, but not for things you can choose. Your job, you can choose. Going out in public, you cannot.
Really, your job you can choose? How--after spending tens of thousands of dollars & many years in school & on the job--would you like to get fired from your job in this recession? That's a false choice and you know it. If you read the decision that's precisely the spot that two pharmacists are in.
This is a ridiculous assertion. Its as ridiculous as when the religious right tries & make abortion doctors tell women that abortion leads to breast cancer, depression & suicide. Using your reasoning that's entirely ok. You don't want to tell women that? Well don't be a doctor! There's a statute bouncing around the Oklahoma legislature that would require teachers carry guns (to prevent school massacres). How about we tell teachers who don't want to comply, well then go work at Taco Bell. Principles of liberty protect us all.
This is just craziness.
Uh, they're the ones who CHOSE to spend the money so that they could become a pharmacist. They should know what kind of job they're getting into in the first place, and if they don't want to do it because of moral reasons.. Well then they shouldn't do it.
pharmacist-
–noun
a person licensed to prepare and dispense drugs and medicines; druggist; apothecary; pharmaceutical chemist.
That's their job, and that's a fact. If they don't want to do their job, then they shouldn't become a pharmacist. It's common sense. It'd be like me practicing 6 hours a day on the violin, and then when it comes to the performance, suddenly backing down and saying "y'know what? I don't want to perform. Screw the audience". It doesn't matter what kind of reasons they give for denying health care, they chose to do that job so they either have to do it, or they back down.
It's not an abortion providers job to lie to women. It's their job to provide abortions (and other services, of course). A pharmacist refusing to give people medicine because of their moral reasons is like an abortion provider who refuses to provide abortions because they're pro-life. It's just ridiculous.
It's NOT a teacher's job to carry around a gun. It's their job to teach students. If a teacher suddenly said "I don't feel like teaching anymore, so screw all of you students" they'd (hopefully) be fired.
How would you feel if a cop refused to help someone who was in a very dangerous situation because the victim happens to be black? Maybe the cop feels as if she or he has a good, "moral", reason to deny services to this person.. But does that make it right? Of course not, that cop obviously doesn't want to do his or her job, so they should either quit or be fired.
"Its not a teacher's right to carry guns?"
Well see there's the rub, if everyone gets to define everyone else's job description then guess what, the radical right can define carrying a gun as part of a teacher's job description.
I agree with you insofar as in emergency situations--police, firefighters, ER doctors--people must perform their job, but--even having relied on Plan B myself--I don't think its a life & death matter.
Oh, so it just doesn't matter if she gets pregnant against her will. Plan B is VERY important for women to have. It's our bodies, of COURSE it matters what happens to them.
Hey people, the labor market in America is not, in fact, nationalized, and so every individual employment contract (outside of Unions, I suppose) is unique, and not strictly defined by the whims of bureaucrats and busybodies.
If they don't want to give people Plan B, then they shouldn't be a pharmacist. I doubt you'd be saying this if we were talking about cops who just didn't want to help people in danger, or teachers who just didn't want to teach. Or even doctors who refused to help people in critical conditions.
My point- if you don't want to do your damn job, DON'T DO IT.
Siby,
You make some good points: no one forces anyone to become a pharmacist. So get on with your job (to paraphrase you).
Just out of interest, would you also take that stance if a pizzeria asked its waiting staff to wear, let's say, 'revealing clothing'? Maybe miniskirts and low-cut t-shirts.
Would you say to someone who protested 'Hey, if you don't want to wear our uniform, change jobs'?
(Actually, I'm not sure what to think about the decision.)
That's a good question. Although I may be upset with waitresses having to choose between having to change jobs, or having to wear potentially objectifying clothing, I don't think that the pizzeria should be forced to change its dress code. For example, I hate Playboy and I believe that it objectifies women, but I still support its right to exist.
However, it can also be said that the job of the waitress is to serve food and to wait on the customers, not to wear "skimpy" clothing (just as it's the teacher's job to teach, not to carry guns). I think that, for that reason, protesting against the dress code makes a lot more sense than protesting against the fact that pharmacists have to hand out certain drugs, even though they may not like/agree with the drug.
With that being said, a pizzeria having a bad dress code and pharmacists who refuse to hand out certain medications are two totally different issues.
Siby,
I can meet you part of the way on that: the job is to dispense medication or pizzas, not to run a fashion show.
I am still undecided on the issue.
There was a case recently in England, where a town employee refused to handle applications for civil unions (I think that's the term) - i.e. gay marriages. She refused on religious grounds.
She was sacked, I think. She appealed. I first thought it was a little harsh to sack her - I thought it should have been possible to find her alternative tasks - but the ruling said that the town employee had a duty to serve everyone, irrespective of their backgrounds, etc. She basically had to apply the law, and should not be allowed to choose which laws she would implement and which ones she would not.
I found the argument elegant. And under that light, I must say that I agreed with the final decision. Does that help me in this pharmacists' case? Maybe, but I still have to be convinced that a private enterprise - a pharmacy - is no different from a townhall.
Still thinking about Seattle!
Perhaps a more analogous example would be a vegetarian waitress. Say I am a vegetarian for moral reasons. If I get a job as a waitress, there is a chance I will be serving someone steak, which I find morally wrong. But the customer and the chef have agreed on this transaction, my job is merely to serve it. If I don't want to serve meat, I should find an industry that doesn't involve serving meat.
The transaction with Plan B is between a woman and her doctor. The pharmacist is the go-between like the waitress. They have special expertise that ensures the transaction goes smoothly, but they do not prescribe or swallow any of the medication they serve up.
Now, the fact that pharmacies are required to stock plan B does make things problematic, I suppose. I could look for a vegetarian restaurant but in Washington you can't find a Plan B-free pharmacy. But try being a vegetarian waitress in Kansas. They wouldn't get much sympathy either.
"For those who genuinely (if incorrectly) view Plan B as an abortifacient this is forcing them to conduct an abortion. "
No, not really.
If they were putting the medication in an IV, or forcing the patient to swallow it, then I would agree with you. But they're not.
If I were a pharmacist I would have difficulty selling addictive drugs because I see addiction as dangerous and pervasive. I therefore understand that pharmacy may not a good choice of career for me.
As an atheist, I would not try to become a pastor because I would be unable and unwilling to sell some of the product line. I don't try to tell the church that I should be allowed to work for them.
For anyone who wants to pass judgment without actually reading the opinion, I extract from it the rule that is at issue:
The first rule, an amendment to Washington Administrative Code section 246-863-095, governs pharmacists. Under this rule, a pharmacist may be subject to professional discipline for destroying or refusing to return an unfilled lawful prescription, violating a patient’s privacy, or unlawfully discriminating against, or intimidating or harassing a patient. The rule, however, does not require an individual pharmacist to dispense medication in the face of a personal objection.
The second rule, Washington Administrative Code section 246-869-010, governs pharmacies. It requires pharmacies “to deliver lawfully prescribed drugs or devices to patients and to distribute drugs and devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for restricted distribution by pharmacies . . . in a timely manner consistent with reasonable expectations for filling the prescription.” A pharmacy may substitute a “therapeutically equivalent drug” or provide a “timely alternative for appropriate therapy,” but apart from certain necessary exceptions,5 a pharmacy is prohibited from refusing to deliver a lawfully prescribed or approved medicine. A pharmacy is also prohibited from destroying or refusing to return an unfilled lawful prescription, violating a patient’s privacy, or unlawfully discriminating against, or intimidating or harassing a patient.
In the Concise Explanatory Statement accompanying the regulations, the Board noted that it created a right of refusal for individual pharmacists by allowing a pharmacy to “accommodate” a pharmacist who has a religious or moral objection. A pharmacy may not refer a patient to another pharmacy to avoid filling a prescription because the pharmacy has a duty to deliver lawfully prescribed medications in a timely manner. A pharmacy may accommodate a pharmacist’s personal objections in any way the pharmacy deems suitable, including having another pharmacist available in person or by telephone.
In short, the court decided that this rule is A) neutral (“[I]f the object of a law is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation, the law is not neutral.” Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 533.) and B) generally applicable (A law is not generally applicable when the government, “in a selective manner[,] impose[s] burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief.” Lukumi, 508 U.S. at 543.), which means that it should only evaluated with a "rational basis" review, not a "strict scrutiny" review, which is what the district court used. The court decided that, "The record before us does not suggest that Appellees have negated every conceivable basis supporting the new rules, so it appears that the new rules are rationally related to Washington’s legitimate interest in ensuring that its citizen-patients receive lawfully prescribed medications without delay."
Whoops, looks like my italics cut off early, but the 2nd three paragraphs should all be in italics as I'm quoting the opinion's explanation of what the Washinton rule is.
Thanks for pointing that out. How do you (anyone) think this affects mom and pop pharmacies where the pharmacist is the sole proprietor? I may be thinking superficially, but it seems that in those situations the pharmacy's obligation becomes the pharmacist's obligation.
Thank you for posting this. Personally, I think this ruling draws the line in exactly the right place. Forcing individual pharmacists, who may have adopted their religious convictions well after entering the profession, to dispense medications that they believe (albeit wrongly) to be instruments of murder is problematic. However, it is at least equally problematic to allow pharmacists' religious beliefs to decrease women's access to appropriate medical care.
This is such great news! Seriously, this made my day. Thanks for posting!
I refrained commenting on vanessa's recent blog:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/016544.html
This involves the women-run (and women only) pharmacy in Canada. I hope everyone who supports the decision of the Court in the Plan B case will realize that this line of reasoning could effectively prevent a women-only pharmacy.
My view: I am not particularly bothered by a pharmacy that caters just to women (or just to men); and, I am not bothered by pharmacists who refuse to dispense medication based upon conscience. In that regard, I expect that I am of a similar mind as cattrack2.
However, if the rationale of the commenters is that one should not become a pharmacist if one does not want dispense legal medication, a women-only pharmacy is going to have to fill prescriptions for medicine needed by men. And, then, there won't be women-only pharmacies.
Watch out what you wish for.
-Jut
Specifically about this pharmacy: since they're also banning trans women and sex workers, I'm having a hard time caring. Also, they are in Canada and not affected by any US ruling.
In the abstract, I'm not sure what the legalities of women-only pharmacies in the US are in the first place. It might be possible that state pharmacy board regulations would already prevent that. If a pharmacy wanted to advertise themselves as a pharmacy that caters to women without banning men (such as a gay bar caters to gay patrons without banning heterosexual patrons), that's fine. Banning anyone strikes me as unnecessary. I'm sure that men wouldn't be tripping over themselves to go to the women's pharmacy instead of CVS.
Who the hell are any of you to decide what is and is not a "pharmacist's job?" Are you paying their salary? Did the capital to build the pharmacy they work in come from your savings account? The only people entitled to define what a person's job is are the employee and employer, often enough the same person in the case of medical specialists.
Anyway, I suppose the truly principled thing to do in this situation from the perspective of the pharmacists would be to close shop or quit, even though it would mean throwing away years of schooling and investment, and see how well a person's sense of entitlement can provide for their medical needs without access to any proscription medication whatsoever. The fact that they will most likely just start selling Plan B, I think, shows how deep their alleged convictions actually go.
this is the deal though. Pharmacist and pharmacies are under strict control. They have certain licenses. A person that opens a restaurant has to comply with health codes. They cannot operate a restaurant any way they want to just because they put the money in. They can serve what they want as long as it's legal and choose to decroate but if comes down to someone's health they have to follow strict guidelines.
Pharamacists must be licensd and follow certain laws to operate. THey cannot morally choose whatever drugs they don't like. It's not their decision. They are a vehicle to provide the perscriptions not the ones that decide which ones are "appropriate"
"Pharmacists are a vehicle..."
Really? I thought they were people. That's the problem with this line of thinking it reduces other people down to mere vehicles...as if private citizens are just government bureaucrats who have to support whatever it is you want.
In the world you propose people have to support your beliefs. The problem with that is that sooner or later (and much sooner if you're in Southern states) the very opposite occurs. Instead of YOUR beliefs being the ones that are supported its THEIR beliefs being the ones that are supported. That's why its best to leave private citizens to decide for themselves. If you don't like the pharmacist's beliefs go find another.
"That's the problem with this line of thinking it reduces other people down to mere vehicles..."
Just like you're reducing women down to mere vehicles whose main purpose is to reproduce? Of course pharmacists are people, but they're people that chose to do their job. They shouldn't be exempt from doing a job that they chose just because of their own morals. If their morals say "No!" to a pharmacists job, then they should not be a pharmacist. It's common sense.
If your worldview had any internal consistency, you'd know that the rights underlying a woman's right to use Plan B are exactly the same as those which ought to protect pharmacists from state meddling in their stocking decisions.
They don't HAVE to give plan B, no one's forcing them. Like I've said many times before, if they don't want to do their jobs, then they can leave their jobs.
Not being allowed to do something which violates no one's rights is as bad as being forced to do something which violates yours.
I can never say it enough- if they don't want the job, they shouldn't have become pharmacists. Making them do their jobs is not a violation of their rights. I decided not to become a professional violinist because I don't want to perform. I'm thinking of becoming an abortion provider, and I'm not going to walk into the clinic on the first day of the job and say "okay, I'm here.. BUT I'm totally against abortions so I'm not gonna do them".
You can't be a professional violinist and not perform because performing for payment is what defines a professional violinist and nobody would be able to pay you for something you refuse to do, or else you would be committing theft by renegading on your contract. You are still, however, free to learn how to play the violin and perform for free or perform for friends only, or if you do start playing for money, the fact that you have done so does not then obligate you to accept performance contracts to perform songs you don't like or find offensive, or to continue performing at all.
You could even start a performance company, advertise your professional violin playing services, and decline all offers except those for performances of classical remixes of 90's anime theme songs if you really wanted to. It's your violin and your time, right?
"You can't be a professional violinist and not perform because performing for payment is what defines a professional violinist"
yeah.. Because that's the job of a professional musician? Isn't it? Oh, but this doesn't apply to pharmacists because they're special and they deserve the right to control our bodies. I gotcha.
lol.
there is no "right" to be a pharmacist. There is a right to control your body. They are not at all equal.
There is the right to be free from state interference. The right to control one's body is merely an example of that.
but there are levels and exceptions. and when public policy calls for it, your rights are limited, especially when it directly affects other peoples' fundamental rights. there are no fundamental rights to perform a certain job. you need to go and read the landmark supreme court cases outlining these rights, because you are missing a huge amount of law and logic in your answers.
I am aware of what the law says. I know that within the context of the statist precedent set by the American court system, this ruling is largely correct, but it is precisely that system, and its consequences such as this, that I am arguing against. I do not believe it is legitimate to infringe on people's rights for the sake of "public policy," for rights that have exceptions are not rights at all.
And I'd also like to add this. It's not always easy to just "go find another pharmacist". By telling pharmacists that they can pick and choose what part of their jobs they'd like to do, you're giving them control over womens' lives. You're telling them that they could be (and should be) the deciding factor as to whether or not the woman in question has to go through a pregnancy, or has to get an abortion. You're really giving them the power to potentially fuck up a woman's life. Don't tell me that doesn't matter. It's just common sense to say that a pharmacist shouldn't be able to tell me what to do with my own body just because s/he is either too much of a misogynist to give me the pill or too stupid to realize that the pill doesn't cause abortions (or both).
Actually, there are professional boards and organizations which define what the profession is. I don't get to say, "My job is that of a victim advocate, but I define that as someone who does not help certain victims because I don't like it." Wrong. My job title comes with a job description, and if I don't like it, then I need a different job.
Also, in response to the idea that it would be throwing tons of money away to stop being a pharmacist: they knew they would be dispensing drugs when they went to pharmacy school, so I fail to see how this is a huge burden or surprise all of the sudden.
This.
"The only people entitled to define what a person's job is are the employee and employer" is just
patently false. Any member of a profession that is subject to licensure has a whole host of requirements and a clearly spelled out scope of practice that clarifies exactly what their job is.
Licensing and all the other things you mention are just more of the exact sort of thing I'm arguing against. It is also actually true that there exist restrictions on abortion. By your reasoning, this fact means that further restriction is desirable or at least tolerable, when in fact it is just another form of illegitimate state intervention into people's lives that should be stopped.
Do you not realize that the reason pharmacists are in such positions of power in regards to consumption of medication in the first place is because of the regulations you're talking about? I doubt that access to Plan B would ever have been an issue in the first place if access to drugs were not so artificially restricted.
I'm not arguing for further restriction. I argue for less. At this point Plan B is available over the counter without a perscription. These pharmacists are using their moral values to restrict someone's access. If you are against regulation shouldn't you be against this?
Regulation and what people choose to do with their own property are completely different things.
I'm all for Plan B being available. Nonetheless, I can't in good conscious support the use of state force to support that, as doing so would go against my opposition to aggressive violence. Regardless of what I think about what they're doing, I must concede that it is their pharmacy and therefore entirely their right to decide what is stocked and sold there. Otherwise, they don't even really own their pharmacies, or indeed even themselves.
Regulation and what people can do with their property are often completely entwined.
It would be illegal to run a pharmacy that isn't regulated. There are zoning regulations that govern what people can do with property in specific areas. There are safety and health codes for how that property is maintained. There are environmental codes about what you can do on your property and how you must store and dispose of hazardous materials, which most certainly could cover items in a pharmacy.
There is so little that anyone does that isn't subject to some sort of regulation! Contrary to some views in this thread, we are not free to to whatever we like just because we've spent money or live in America!
I can't argue with any of that, but would go on to say that the facts you describe constitute a problem rather than a desirable state of affairs.
Um, I'm sorry, but did you just write that you're against licensing? Did you mean that, or were you just responding to the general nature of job description in my post? Licensing is extremely important in the jobs that require it. Would you go to an unlicensed doctor? Would you seek the legal advice of an unlicensed lawyer? How about seek counsel from an unlicensed therapist? That is absolutely a ludicrous assertion, and I can't imagine anyone actually being against the licensing of those in professional (especially medical!) positions.
Why not? It's not as though such things actually improve quality of care. The main effect is increases in price, since the main backers of such things are often members of the profession in question seeking to keep out competitors.
There is nothing the government can do in regards to certification that can't be done better, privately. A medical version of the Underwriters Laboratory would probably arise for drugs and treatments if the FDA were abolished.
Even the question you pose itself calls into question the need for state licensing, because if what you imply in your question is true, that no rational human would willingly accept certain kinds of service that did not come from someone backed by a trusted source, then anyone who tried to work without such backing would not be able to make a living, and the problem is self-correcting. Otherwise, certification is not always worth what you assume it is, and at least some people would be better off without it.
I think that having standard licensing procedures most certainly does improve the quality of care one receives, but I doubt very much that there is anything I could post to convince you otherwise. I'll keep going to my board certified doctor, and you can go to whichever back alley one, outside the purview of the government that you prefer.
Wow you are getting a lot of disrespect on this board. I am not as much of a fan of the bureaucratic state system as most of the people commenting here. At the same time, I do not share your certainty that abolishing those systems would necessarily result in a better world. I find the whole issue immensely complicated, and am surprised people find it so easy to dismiss your viewpoint. Thank you for challenging me and offering a different perspective.
Whether the customer experience would be improved, I can see being debatable. But as for whether it would make the world as a whole better also depends on how much you value freedom from aggressive coercion. One thing that removing government controls would mean for certain is that mutually voluntary agreements and exchanges rather than collective violence would dictate the terms on which the medical industry is run, whatever those terms may be.
I think that constitutes an improvement in and of itself.
This is the deal. You have a right to your religious beliefs. YOu also have a right to express your religious beliefs. You do NOT have the write to express your religious beliefs in a way forces others to suffer consequences.
Per Example: A pharmacist has every right to not like Plan B. Every pharmacists has theright to not take plan b. A pharmacist does not have the right to deny someone else who DOES NOT HOLD the same religious beliefs something that is medically necessary.
We have freedom to express our religion and practice or religion, we do not have freedom to ENFORCE our religion on someone else. As long as Plan B is legal people have every legal and medical right to. Someone's religion does not trump a person's legal right to medication.
IF a christian scientist worked for a pharmacy and refused to dispense medication it would not be allowed. Just because these pharamacies are picking and choosing certain meds don't make them any different. They are still denying what a pharmacy and pharmacist should offer to be able to run.
Exactly, you cannot bring religion and morals into health care. That is so dangerous! These pharmacists certainly have every right to not agree with or take any kind of medication. No one is disputing that, which I think a lot of people are confused about. We dont all share the same religious beliefs, it is illegal to impose ones beliefs on another person, so why is this even an issue? For example, as a lesbian I am obviously for gay rights. I have every right to speak about my beliefs, educate others, and have access to every ammenity that heterosexuals have. Just as this is true, someone who is against my rights has every right to voice their own opinions and values. But they should NEVER be allowed to deny me care because they do not agree with who I am, whether the issue at hand being medical, or something of less importance (such as staying at a hotel, where many gay people have been denied rooms because they requested a single bed). This is discrimination and so is this controversy over Plan B. Everyone has a right to their own beliefs. But they cannot impose these beliefs on others.
With the collapse of the world economy which has recently come of deregulation and greed you're still pushing the idea that the market will fix itself. LOL.
The recent collapse is a self-fix. The problem was the artificial boom and associated malinvestments brought on by government intervention and Keynesian economics. Looks like the market is fixing itself to me. Now the main problem is the on-going government effort to prevent the bust and liquidation needed for economic recovery.
The recent collapse was a result of deregulation! I have family members in the financial industry who support deregulation of said industry but still thought that the subprime mortgage debacle was severely lacking in necessary regulation that could have prevented this whole damn thing!
When I think of pharmacists who refuse to dispense plan B I immediately think about soldiers/sailor/airmen/marines who refuse to serve in Iraq/Afghanistan. This website has an established history of supporting non-warriors who don't want to deploy, and possibly kill. But it seems that the ethics that back up that belief are malleable to what the person wants or believes is right.
I believe that it is ethically inconsistent to support contract violators and condemn pharmacists at the same time. I think many people have a gut feeling of what is right or wrong and either don't examine the ethics that underline their belief, or they back justify for each example. I don't approve of tailoring ones morals per their gut. I think one should take a long hard look at their ethics, and create consistent maxims.
My initial response to service members who elect not to serve out their contract is to dishonorably discharge them. They signed up for the military, they know what a bloody military does, they have no honor, nor do they feel the compulsion of duty.
When it comes to pharmacists I really want to support them. If some one refused to contribute to the death of an innocent life my heart wants to support them. You have pharmacists who where pharmacist before Plan B even existed. On face it seems unfair to force somebody to something they never signed up to do,
However, this is ethically inconsistent. I have to conclude that a pharmacist must needs resign if he refuses to distribute Plan B when his state compels him.
It gets really interesting when one ethics conflict with their own conscience.
this is an interesting point.
i personally think it's wrong to compel pharmacists to dispense medications for the same reason i feel it's wrong to draft people into the military. just because one is capable of performing duties A, B, and C, i don't believe they are obligated to perform duties D, E, and F.
while my personal morals feel it's wrong to deny a woman her medications, a pharmacist's right to not perform duties she/he may believe are unconscionable is equally valid to my mind. (the "don't want to dispense drugs? don't be a pharmacist!" argument is very sensible and obvious to me, but i also respect the right of people to not be legally compelled to commit acts they believe are morally wrong.)
and the question of whether or not licensure protects the right to object is also interesting. i'm training to become a licensed architect. however, once i have my license, i am in no way obligated to, say, design military installations or churches or anything. however, i am able to do so. it would seem to me that the pharmacists' situation is akin to this. their license makes them legally able but not obligated to dispense specific medications.
i still think the best way to deal with this is to let the market handle it. a pharmacy that doesn't sell birth control pills is about the WORST idea i can think of, from a business standpoint. with mail-order and internet pharmacies, there's no reason that women can't get what they need without compelling others to violate their beliefs.
a pharmacy that doesn't sell birth control pills is about the WORST idea i can think of, from a business standpoint. with mail-order and internet pharmacies, there's no reason that women can't get what they need
And what about women who live in rural areas and/or don't have internet access? Women who are transient and do not have mailing addresses? Women who are a hundred miles from the next nearest pharmacy? Women who are in abusive relationships, whose abusers may use pregnancy or threat of same as part of the abuse and also watch her internet usage and mail reception like a hawk? I see these situations constantly. I'm a victim advocate in Flagstaff, Arizona for the entirety of Coconino County, and we have a lot of women in these situations, who, if their pharmacist refused to fill their prescription, would have no other way of obtaining their medication.
I don't support soldiers who sign up to be a part of the military and then when we go to war decide to opt out. You know what you're signing up for when you sign up. I do support soldiers who want non-combat positions, but then, those are sub-positions with separate job descriptions than just soldier.
Besides, it has been pointed out that this doesn't force anyone to fill anything they don't want to, unless the sole proprietor of the pharmacy happens also to be the only pharmacist on staff. The pharmacists have to stock it, and someone in the pharmacy, not necessarily the objecting pharmacist, must fill the prescription.
(Fellow Flagstaffian here.)
Yes. Agreed with you totally. If you sign up for something, do it. If you change your mind, get out. You can't just sit around and whinge about it and expect people to accommodate you for backing out.
And there are TONS of people who don't have access to multiple pharmacies! I guess they're just SOL though? I mean, poor people don't really need healthcare, right? Of course not.
fellow arizonans, what a pleasure. i'm down in tempe.
my reply in the scenarios listed above is that the rights of women are ***equal*** to those of pharmacists. so, in my view, the best course of action is to encourage pro-choice pharmacies to open, to frequent those businesses, to boycott those businesses where conscientious objection is tolerated, and to organize efforts to help women get what they need, by driving them to other pharmacies or helping them get internet access. but, in my view, women have the legal right to healthcare, not the legal right to CONVENIENT healthcare. i believe the market and non-profits have the opportunity here to make convenient healthcare available.
here's a hypothetical scenario: a woman goes to her OB-GYN wanting an abortion. would you legally compel the doctor to perform the surgery if the doctor has been trained in the procedure, but doesn't believe abortion is moral? i would not. i do, however, believe the woman has a right to the abortion, and can go to another provider.
i think that describing the real-world effects of decisions (such as poor women in rural areas, those without internet, etc.) is important because it uncovers places where pro-choice people need to organize and provide more options in the marketplace. however, i feel in this instance, i am trying to argue logic and others are rebutting with emotion. this type of debate will never be fruitful.
The problem with this is that pharmacies perform a necessary public service. It's going to cause a lot less of a problem to society if one architect refuses to do a project (since other architects are generally available) than if one pharmacy refuses to dispense Plan B (since there often isn't another pharmacy easily accessible).
Some scenarios to consider:
I am a vegetarian. If I were to join a position at a deli, and then insist that serving meat was against my morals, I'm sure most people would not try to protect my right to work at that deli; they would tell me to get another job. Even if the economy sucks. I don't have the right to be working at a deli, refusing to do my job, and still expect to get paid. I have every right not to serve meat, but I CANNOT insist on getting paid to not do my job. Also keep in mind that my refusal to serve meat does not have the potential to cause lasting physical harm to my customers.
Another (hypothetical) scenario:
I am a pharmacist. I believe that HIV and AIDS are punishments from God for immoral behavior. When a patient arrives with a doctor's prescription for anti-retroviral drugs, I refuse to fill those prescriptions, because I do not want to interfere with God's punishment. Should this be allowed?
If you did that, you'd just be fired. However, the situation your advocating for is like if you nonetheless managed to keep your job somehow, so then the government comes in and forces your employer to fire you even though they don't want to. Or, in the case of a self-owned deli, the government shuts you down for not adhering to the state conception of what constitutes a deli.
Regarding your second example (with pharmacist):
> Should this be allowed?
The answer is the same as in the first example: it is up to employer.
Ok first post at Feministing! Just for the record the first paragraph is a little bit about my background.
I am a male pharmacy technician for CVS. I have in the past dispensed plan B and will continue to do so in the future unless we run out of stock temporarily (which happens on occasion around holidays). I have no problem morally dispensing plan B and think it is a good thing.
However to be honest I don't like that it is being legislated that a pharmacy HAS to dispense something. I think each pharmacy should have freedom to choose if they want to carry something or not. For example if you work for CVS and CVS chooses to carry it I think you should have to dispense it because the company decided that it will and you work for them and you agree to bend to their rules. This goes along with a poster above who said a vegetarian should have to serve meat if they sign onto work as a waiter at a restaurant. I agree if you decide to work for a pharmacy chain that agrees to dispense it you should have to.
My problem comes when someone opens their own business. Say someone opens a privately owned independent pharmacy. If they have a problem with plan B I don't like the state/federal gov coming in and telling them what they have to dispense. I think that if someone owns their own business they should get to decide what they sell. If they choose not to provide plan B I think that is a stupid decision (economically and ethically) but that is their decision to make as they own the business. I don't think you should be able to legislate that they have to carry something. I mean going along with the restaurant analogy that would be like telling a vegetarian restaurant that they have to serve meat.
Again, I am pro planB and will continue to sell it but I think if someone has their own business and don't want to sell it I think it's wrong to force them to do so. They should have the freedom to be able to run their business the way they want. You also have the freedom to take your business elsewhere and support a pharmacy that does sell plan B.
Lastly to sum it all up I keep seeing the vegetarian example being brought up over and over again. I AM a vegetarian in real so I can comment on this. If I signed up to work for a deli I would serve meat. It is what is expected of my employer and they should have a right to fire me for not fulfilling my duties. However if I decide to open my own vegetarian restaurant I don't think the state should be able to tell me that I have to serve meat because that is how the gov defines a resturaunt as a place that serves meat. I think they have a right to regulate things like food or drug safety but don't have a right to tell someone what they HAVE to stock and dispense.
~Grant
This isn't just some random business, this is access to healthcare. The government has more power to regulate in these areas, so it's not a valid comparison. To allow pharmacists to make personal judgment calls infringes on access to medical care, and the policy concerns trump personal religious beliefs.
What if I have a mental illness and no one in my city feels like providing psychotropic medication? Or medication that is primarily prescribed to african-americans? Or poor people? Or blue-collar workers? or women? It's just not a feasible policy to allow individuals decide what medication is available for the population, and it has dangerous potential ramifications.
What you described happens all the time. Doctors have the right to refuse to take medicare/medicaid. It is up to them if they want to take it. If don't accept it they are turning away a large portion of the elderly/impoverished/disabled.
There are a lot of "what ifs" in this situation. My only point is that I have a lot more faith that the majority of healthcare providers are out there to help their patients. Maybe I'm being naive but I would like to hope that these cases are few and far between.
The way you are talking you make it sound like access to healthcare is a universal right. I hope one day it is but right now it's not. There are millions of uninsured americans who don't have access to healthcare. I am still of the opinion that a privately owned pharmacy should have the right to carry whatever drugs they want. The gov shouldn't have a right to tell them they need to stock certain medications. Secondly, you gave the example of no MD's in your city prescribing psychotropic medication. I am also against the gov telling MD's how to do their jobs and what they have to prescribe. If you have a problem with your pharmacy/MD take your money elsewhere.
It's not as simple as taking your money elsewhere. It's not as though a person is going to a restaurant and got bad service, so they'll go eat somewhere else. Many times (and yes, it is naive to believe that the refusal to fill these prescriptions is few and far between), there is nowhere else to go.
Just because the government does not currently legislate healthcare as though it is a right, and instead treats it as a privilege, does not mean that it is not a right. There are rights that are intrinsic to the human condition, and just because the government doesn't recognize them does not make it so. It's interesting that you seem to think the government should not be able to tell a doctor to do something, but that the government should be able to tell everyone else what they can and can not do. Medical care is a right that absolutely everyone has, and some sanctimonious pharmacist, who chooses to go into a scientific profession but have religion rule how they work, does not have the right to block my ability to receive medical care.
Does anyone know if pharmacist take an oath, like doctors?
The only human rights are those of ownership, of themselves and their property. A pharmacist not
That's weird, the last part of my comment got cut off. Anyway, it's supposed to say "... a pharmacist not selling someone drug doesn't violate anyone's rights, while forcing them to sell it, or forcing them to close shop if they don't, violates their right to be free from violent coercion."
uh what? that's totally wrong. We have MANY fundamental rights. right to vote, to parent our children, to interstate travel, to freedom of religion, to free speech, to abortion, to marriage, family relations, private education, and CONTRACEPTIVES. This stupid "conscience clause" is impeding on my fundamental right to use contraceptives. There is no fucking right to be a pharmacist. And guess what? the government can place restrictions on the practice of religion if it broadly applied and only incidentally burdens the free exercise of religion. Seriously, go read the opinion because you are seriously mistaken about the fundamental laws of our country.
I know what the law is; I'm talking about how things should be.
Many of the rights you describe at nothing more than different consequences of the right for oneself and one's property to be free from aggressive violence. Even without an explicit freedom of speech, one is still free to talk to anyone who will listen or use legitimately owned broadcast towers to put your message into the radio of anyone who will tune in. Abortion and contraception are not rights in themselves, but merely particular instances of the right to do whatever you wish with your own body. Marriage is merely a particular instance of the right to form voluntary contracts. The right to interstate travel is merely the fact that states have no legitimate authority to restrict movement across their arbitrary borders in the first place.
right from "aggressive violence"? you have no idea what you're talking about. whatever
Having read all Alice's replies to this thread, I'm pretty sure she's an extreme libertarian troll. I've dealt with this type before, and they don't tend to respond to reasonable arguments, so I suggest not engaging her further.
she may be an extreme libertarian, but i certainly don't think she's a troll.
is having a dissenting opinion enough to earn the troll label now? groupthink much?
Okay, that's fair criticism of my comment. I'm not generally a fan of enforcing groupthink; I suppose I overreacted to her. I don't think Alice is trolling in the sense of expressing opinions she doesn't actually believe in order to cause trouble. I thought she might be expressing opinions she actually does believe in order to cause trouble. I have had some bad experiences with people who share her beliefs, which may have prejudiced me unfairly towards her.
I have found, though, that extreme libertarianism is social darwinist in practice, which is obviously not compatible with feminism or other anti-oppression beliefs.
Extreme libertarianism consists entirely of the assertion that it is illegitimate to use violence against another's person or property except in defense of your own. Certainly an idea most people would say they agree with, until you mention that all government action is ultimately backed by violence, including the collection of taxes.
This is not at all incompatible with feminism or any other idea besides those that relate to the legitimate use of force. You can promote feminism without resorting to state force. In fact, much of feminism has consisted of repealing uses of state violence to oppress women, such as legal restrictions on abortion.
However, much oppression against women originates from private citizens, and from private citizens acting in blocs such as corporations. When private citizens act en masse, in groups that hold power in society, to oppress other citizens, only government has the power to stop them from oppressing. For instance, anti-discrimination laws for employment have been necessary to protect women and other oppressed groups. Do you believe that government has the authority to enact and enforce such laws?
I doubt there is any problem in the world that doesn't become a lot easier or at least a lot more straight forward to deal with if you have the option of using overwhelming violence against your opponents. That doesn't make it a legitimate avenue for social change, though.
It's not even as though we have access to such an option. Once the state involves itself in that sort of thing, the political mechanisms behind it are equally accessible to either side. The state can, at best/worst, impose uniformity. There is no reason to expect that said uniformity would be an improvement, and if one accepts your idea that private sexist interests are so powerful that they are capable of oppressing half the population, there's even less reason to expect that they couldn't just as easily oppress by political means as well. In fact, that's exactly what they have historically done. As Mises said, "If one rejects laissez faire capitalism on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason reject every kind of government action."
Clearly a lot of people here disagree with Alice, but you have to admit that she/he is responding to the issues everyone is raising in a thoughtful way. I would characterize that as stirring up thought - something I am in favor of - not stirring up "trouble". I can't point to anything Alice has said that has not been rational, and people are mainly attacking or immediately dismissing her/him instead of taking the time to pull apart the implications of those statements.
That is true; she has provided thoughtful responses. I guess I'm just jaded for much the same reason that seasoned feminists are jaded about things like "what about teh menz" arguments: I've seen how libertarian vs. non-libertarian arguments tend to play out, and in my experience, there are not enough shared fundamental assumptions about reality for extreme libertarians and non-libertarians to have productive discourse.
If i have a problem, take my money elsewhere? I'm sorry, the free market is NOT a good way to handle health care. Guess what? some people only HAVE access to one pharmacy. I absolutely do not want to leave my health care in the hands of some idiot pharmacist who thinks their personal beliefs are more valid than the decisions I make over my body.
(and by the way, a ton of pharmacists don't even fucking know what this drug does, a real comfort considering they believe they should essentially making medical decisions for me: "Thirty-seven percent of the surveyed pharmacists did not
know that emergency contraceptive pills and oral contraceptive pills have a similar mechanism of action. Nineteen percent incorrectly responded that the mechanism
of action is most similar to that of mifepristone, 6% incorrectly
responded that it does not resemble that of spermicidal
products, oral contraceptives or mifepristone, and 12%
responded they were not sure (not shown). Forty-three percent
incorrectly agreed with, and 31% were uncertain about,
the statement that emergency contraceptive pills can cause
birth defects if taken by a pregnant woman, while 21% incorrectly
agreed that repeated use of emergency contraceptive
pills can pose health risks, and 64% were uncertain."
And yes, doctors can reject some patients based on insurance, and this is a huge problem too!
According to this study as to why their pharmacy did not supply EC, 37% reported
moral or conscientious convictions. I'm sorry. that's fucking ridiculous.
this is scattered bc im in class- the study is here. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3701905.pdf
Wow, that study IS fucking ridiculous. Thanks for posting it. I back your sentiments 100%. I can't really figure out where these pharmacists - at least, the ones who picked an answer instead of "I don't know" - would even be getting their "information" in the first place, because apparently it's NOT from any legitimate scientific source. Are these beliefs based on what they hear in church, or crap they picked up from Fox or other random media? You've really got to be fucking joking me that pharmacists are able to make professional medical decisions based on shit they may have heard on Fox.
The Guttmacher Institute always has such good stuff. I should be reading more of it.
Ok well I have a few posts to reply too. Firstly as mentioned before I am a pharmacy Tech not a pharmacist. However I have done the research and I know the 3 mechanisms that plan B works on.
1) Prevents ovulation
2) prevents contact between sperm and egg
3) In case of zygote formation (fertilized egg) it can prevent implantation in the uterus.
Source: FDA (http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm109795.htm)
As far as rights go here is the California Patient's bill of rights from the board of pharmacy (http://www.pharmacy.ca.gov/consumers/bill_of_rights.shtml) and nowhere on it does it say people have a right to any medication be it planB or anything else.
Now let me say this again before I'm attacked. I know how plan B works and I am pro planB and will continue to dispense it. However if you think free market is not a good way to handle healthcare I would urge you to write your members of congress and tell them that. Because that is the way it is now. If you think healthcare is a fundamental human right use your power of representation to argue for that. I am actually in agreement with you there.
You also said that "It's interesting that you seem to think the government should not be able to tell a doctor to do something, but that the government should be able to tell everyone else what they can and can not do."
I never once said the gov shouldn't be able to tell MDs and pharmacists but they should be able to tell the regular public what to do. I don't know where I said that and if you can point it out to me I'd appreciate it because that isn't something I agree with.
My concerns are that this is only the tip of the iceberg so to speak. If pharmacists are allowed to choose what medicines they dispense to what people (such as birth control only for medical reasons, or to married women only), what comes next?
Will a doctor be allowed to deny a woman a life saving surgery because they are lesbian and the doctor does not agree with homosexuality? If that women dies will it be accepted as the doctor going by their moral beliefs? Will a therapist be allowed to deny psychological care to a rape victim because the victim is of another race? Will a fire-fighter be allowed to refuse to save a child because the family in danger are illegal immigrants? Could a pharmacist or care provider have the right to deny a cancer medication to a patient because they disagree with the use of the drug? Where will the line be drawn? These scenarios seem ludicrous but some are already occuring.
We live in a nation with separation of church and state, under this alone, morals should not triumph career obligation. Also, this law means that a pharmacy must stock and sell Plan B, if a particular pharmacist does not agree with it than that person can step aside and have another employee dispense the medication. The health and well-being of the patient should be first priority.
Taking morals and beliefs out of the argument, the facts are that women are being denied legal, safe, and doctor prescribed medications, which is just wrong no matter if it is Plan B, or a cough medicine. Emergency rooms are not allowed to deny any patient treatment regardless of their ability to pay, insurance, age, gender, or any other specification, so why should pharmacists be allowed to do just that?
Anathema,
I won't reply to all your questions (others might, and do it better than me).
I do have a question though, addressed to you and others: can a pharmacist choose not to open a pharmacy in a town or neighbourhood? If he or she decides to close his or her pharmacy, or to not open one, thus removing the only pharmacy around, should he be forced to remain open (or to open one)? If you say 'yes', then how is that different from refusing to provide one type of medicine?
That is a good question. No I do not think that a pharmacy should, or could for that matter, be forced to stay open or to open in the first place. This is because that pharmacy could start providing improper care (emphasis on 'could', I am certianly not saying that that would happen, just that its possible because when someone is forced to do something against their will, they can lose the drive to do the job right).
Again only possibly, but I wouldnt want to risk it no matter how small the chance is, because this is healthcare at stake. Also, I wouldnt want to go to any healthcare provider who didnt voluntarily wish to be in that job, I would want to seek out someone who loved their job and helping others, otherwise I wouldnt feel safe or secure.
No I do not think that a pharmacy should, or could for that matter, be forced to stay open or to open in the first place. This is because that pharmacy could start providing improper care...
Or how about because slavery is wrong?
Can you expand on that please?
What is there to expand on? Forcing a pharmacist to continue working despite their desire to stop would be slavery.
I just agreed that it would be wrong earlier. I see slavery as too harsh, but yes it would be wrong.