RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill

RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/12/2007 10:52:42 PM)
Government should only step in when someone's welfare is being directly harmed. Keep them damn government out of our business, and stop asking them to be our fucking Nanny. Orion

Estring -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/12/2007 11:04:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CalifChick Estring... several years ago I was working for a primary care doctor in a rural town in California. There were two pharmacies in that town, and the next pharmacy was about 45 minutes away. What if neither of those two pharmacies were to sell the MAP? This was a farm town, and many of the farm laborers did not have transportation available to the next town. Sure in the town I live in, no problem, there's a Rite Aid, a Walgreens, a Longs Drugs and a Walmart at least every mile. But I don't think you can realistically say that going to another pharmacy is a viable answer for everyone. When a pharmacist can prescribe a drug, then he can decide who gets it. Cali Sorry, difficult is not impossible. And so now we start making laws for the exceptions instead of the norm? I don't really see this being a huge problem. Most pharmacies will have the pill available. That there will be some hardships in a few instances is still not a good reason for the government to get involved.

Ysabo -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/12/2007 11:40:40 PM)
It's easy to see by the number of posts that this is a subject that most feel passionately about, one way or another. AGAIN, the pill that is under debate is NOT the abortion pill, it's merely to stop pregnancy, just like a condom or lighter dose birth control pill. AGAIN, do the job you are asked to do, or work somewhere else. AGAIN, why would anyone go to court to object to aspects of their job? There are plenty of jobs out there. Frankly, I can't see why any of you even bother responding to Curious Lord's posts - he professes logic, but his arguements wax and wane depending on who he is trying to piss off. He is a "shit disturber" to speak in the vernacular of the common folk, and why you guys take him seriously enough to respond is beyond me. ysabo

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 2:29:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Quote: This ruling is quite ridiculous, IMO. The pharmacist works for the pharmacy, if the pharmacy selects to sell the drug, then the pharmacists opinion is made when he took the job. His right is to quit or sell it. I don't understand the logic of this ruling which is pretty much saying an employee can select not to perform their job according to the standards specified by the company, because they don't believe its right. That quite frankly is stupid. The only way it would ever be valid was if the company wanted the employee to participate in something illegal, which is not what this case was about. You make these kind of decisions when you take the job you don't dictate to your employer about your beliefs afterwards. It's quite sickening. Just to point this out, since I'm guessing you may've missed in the article.. a store owner was also sueing for the right. It's not employees versus employers.. it's employees and employers versus the laws that they that they have to sell something. They're sueing for the right not to have to sell something that they don't want to. You're right I did miss the part where the employers were trying to ensure there rights to run there business. The above still is relevant to my view on the pharmacists, as they in my view have no say in the matter, unless they own the pharmacy as well.. However, if the pharmacy owner doesn't want to carry it, then that is their decision as they own it, and have to pay for the drug. If the government thinks this is such an important issue, instead of making the pharmacy carry it, maybe they should pay for it and store a supply at the local police station or something. I can't side with the government having the authority to require a business to pay for and store, a product they don't wish to have, entirely at the pharmacies expense. Does business ownership mean nothing? Like I said if the Government wants to have the drug universally available then they need to figure out how to do it. Store it at the Courthouse, Fire Department, Police Station. Whatever. It would seem that something that didn't infringe upon the pharmacy owners rights, and still made it available could be managed. I don't really like that solution either as it makes taxpayers pay for it, but that is still better than making single individuals pay for it. My personal view in an Ideal world be business owners call. So, to clarify, my position is the government shouldn't make the pharmacy carry or not carry the drug. The pharmacists shouldn't be lobbying at all, it's the business owners rights in this case that are relevant, not employees. I wonder how many of these small pharmacies carry anti-venom, or drugs for every possible condition. I'd guess there are a myriad of possible life saving drugs not carried. Should they be carried to? Guess LordAndMaster and I don't agree again. [:D] Apologize for not reading the article accurately the first time. I only picked up on half the story.

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 2:30:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring The same people who are railing against a pharmacy who decides not to sell the morning after pill would probably be applauding a store that decides not to sell guns. I disagree. First, what is the purpose of a Pharmacy? To sell drugs AS ORDERED BY A PHYSICIAN. What is the purpose of a gun store? To sell guns. ( Notice there is no doctor's order here ) So why would a gun store not sell guns? quote: A private enterprise should have the right to sell or not sell anything they want. And please, there are many, many drugstores who do sell the morning after pill. Even in Idaho. Sure, a PRIVATE ENTERPRISE does. By the practice of Pharmacology and the operation of pharmacies is a REGULATED PROFESSION. That's so they don't kill you with their incompetence and they DISPENSE medicines ordered by physicians. If a business owner cannot tolerate the regulations required to dispense drugs, then they need to get into a different business, where they can exercise that discretion. Hey if they wanna just sell opium and not obey the DEA, is that cool with you?

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 2:32:41 AM)
quote: Yeah, well we also still live in a republic that it supposed to stand for some individual rights. What are they going to do, throw a pharmacist in jail for not giving the pill? If it is that big of a deal, have the Doctor's that prescribe them, keep the pills in their office. The Pharmacy Industry has erected barriers to physicians dispensing directly. The overhead isn't worth the hassle. HOWEVER, I can imagine a sympathetic doctor having a stash in their sample closet.

Marc2b -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 6:26:33 AM)
quote: These things aping their betters just isn't right. They need to be put, and kept in their place. The idea that a paper-creation, by some, is considered to be equal to a REAL PERSON is just silly. Well, at least you're venting your spleen against an abstract. I supoose that's a step up from venting your spleen against individuals.

DomKen -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 6:49:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Estring Sorry, difficult is not impossible. And so now we start making laws for the exceptions instead of the norm? I don't really see this being a huge problem. Most pharmacies will have the pill available. That there will be some hardships in a few instances is still not a good reason for the government to get involved. I really wanted to stay out of this but this is just too much. Laws are or at least should always be about the exceptions not the norms. Criminal acts are assumed to be the exceptions not the norms of civilized behaviour. That is why we remove the offender from society and try and rehabilitate. The US Constitution is all about the exceptions not the norms as well. The 1st ammendment isn't needed to protect common speech but is there to protect the exceptional speech. In this case the state was perfectly justified in passing a law saying that pharmacists working in a pharmacy whose owners chose to carry the drug have to dispense it to those with a prescription. Whether a pharmacy can be required to carry a drug in the first place is a different matter and I'm not entirely sure the state should interfere in the decision but with pharmacies being a regulated business already it doesn't strike me as unworkable to say that the state license that limits competition can also bear certain requirements including a list of drugs that must be carried.

Marc2b -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 7:13:09 AM)
quote: A. You don't know that there's another pharmacy three blocks away, and you don't know that that other pharmacy, even if it exists, will supply a morning-after pill. This case isn't chilling in New York City; it's chilling in rural Idaho, where a woman may not have as many options are you're pretending. Obviously, I'm not going to need a morning-after pill myself. I'm thinking about OTHER PEOPLE--someone who might not want to have a baby just because some pharmacist thinks she should. I already covered this. Choices have consequences. If you’re going to live in a rural area, you will have fewer options. What gives this woman in Idaho the right to demand others violate their conscience because she doesn’t like the outcome of her choices? quote: B. A business owner does not have the right to pursue his business in any way he sees fit. Where did you get that crazy idea? Please point out to me where I have said that a business owner has the right to pursue his business any way he chooses. quote: The Constitution, which is the only source of any rights at all in this country Wrong. The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that our rights derive from "nature and nature's God." The Constitution does not grant us our rights. We already have the rights! The purpose of the Constitution is to protect our rights from the government and others who would violate and abuse them (in other words, from people like you). quote: clearly authorizes the regulation of commerce. Ah yes, the Commerce Clause. The petty-ass tyrant wannabe’s favorite clause. People’s rights getting in the way of your socialist utopia schemes? No problemo! Just declare what their doing to affect interstate commerce and proceed to trample over their rights. quote: What "rights" am I trampling on? Freedom of religion. Freedom of speech. quote: The right of a pharmacist to determine which medicines he will and won't dispense? Sorry, but I don't believe pharmacists have that right. Yeah. That’s the problem. You don’t see the pharmacist as a free individual with the same rights as you. You see him as your servant. You see him as fodder in your arrogant, idiotic, desire to legislate the perfect society. quote: Does a police officer have the right to do HIS job in any way HE sees fit? A contractor? Hardly. You can extrapolate my contentions into absurd extremes all you want. Since such absurd extremes are not my contention, your extrapolations are irrelevant. quote: C. Lay off the personal comments and lay off the f-word. It's very fucking tiresome, to use language that you might understand. In my best Bart Simpson voice: "fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, FUCK, fuck, fuck!" In my best Homer Simpson voice: "BART!" quote: And I'm done with this thread. You don't have anything new to say Well, at least you're consistent too.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 7:47:50 AM)
Well my doctor seems to have a closet overflowing of all the sample meds. If the problem is patients not getting it, then the drug companies can assist in stocking up the doctors. Government regulation or ajudication, should be the very last thing that we look for, not the first thing. I believe that Americans have become too used to having the government step in on anything and everything, that we see as a problem. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Yeah, well we also still live in a republic that it supposed to stand for some individual rights. What are they going to do, throw a pharmacist in jail for not giving the pill? If it is that big of a deal, have the Doctor's that prescribe them, keep the pills in their office. The Pharmacy Industry has erected barriers to physicians dispensing directly. The overhead isn't worth the hassle. HOWEVER, I can imagine a sympathetic doctor having a stash in their sample closet.

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 8:08:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: These things aping their betters just isn't right. They need to be put, and kept in their place. The idea that a paper-creation, by some, is considered to be equal to a REAL PERSON is just silly. Well, at least you're venting your spleen against an abstract. I supoose that's a step up from venting your spleen against individuals. There is nothing "abstract" about a Corporation which is out of control and needs to be put down. e.g.: Enron

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 8:12:25 AM)
There are 2 issues here. PEOPLE who chose to engage in HIGHLY REGULATED industries, and later wuss out on their commitments, and the nature of Corporate Entities. quote: Yeah. That’s the problem. You don’t see the pharmacist as a free individual with the same rights as you. You see him as your servant. You see him as fodder in your arrogant, idiotic, desire to legislate the perfect society. That's because they certified that they would surrender those rights for the privileges conferred and regulations required by the issuance of a License to practice. NOW, they're going back on their sworn word. How professional, or HONEST is that? I would consider it clear evidence of their violation of the requirements of their license, and proof of their unfitness to serve The People in their professional capacity. quote: The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that our rights derive from "nature and nature's God." The actual phrase is "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" Which means, since THE PEOPLE are the Creator of any Artificial Legal Entity ( the Secretary of State's office specifically ), then THE PEOPLE get to chose exactly what "Rights" their creation will enjoy.

luckydog1 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 10:32:31 AM)
But Farg, the People does not mean individuals. It is not a call for Anarchy. As you pointed out, the people's will is expressed via proxy by the Government. The Law, has just ruled that the Pharmicists CAN refuse to dispense or not stock if they want. You are right, to be a liscened Pharmacists means they have to obey the laws and regulations, but we are back to you pretending the law is different than it actually is. Same goes for your make believe Corprate law. It makes no difference what you pretend the law is. People absolutly have the right to change this law, and I would support it. But untill they do, it is the law that the Pharmacist can refuse to fill or stock these pills.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 1:35:16 PM)
Fargle, I have an honest question or two. I have been trying to research this and I am not coming up with definitive answers. 1. At drugstore.com, you can order Plan B without a prescription if you are 18 or over. If you are 17 or under, you need a script. I am thinking this is the case, so basically, other than saying you can't just run in and grab it off the shelf, it is OTC for most. In fact, I believe there was a post earlier in which one user said she showed her ID, got the MAP and paid for it. No script involved. In fact, this is easier than maintain a script for regular birth control pills. Certianly not to be treated as a replacement for other methods of birth control, but still, you can't get those pills without a script., regardless of your age. Am I right here? Is this OTC except if under 18? I ask because this keeps cropping up as an issue, and I don't think it is an issue. It's a strong hormonal med that can have serious side effects, so it seems logical that there would be some attempt to supervise it's use by minors. 2. I have been trying to find out what the actual regulations are regarding having a pharmaceutical license. I read 14 rules on the NJ books, but it does vary, apparently, from state to state. I am failing to see the specific regulation that states that *all* pharmacies must carry *all* FDA approved drugs and have them available for potential customers. It seems to deal more with being able to properly read and fill the doctors orders, have the knowledge to do so safely, maintain proper inventory regarding expired drugs, making sure the floor is always covered by a licensed pharmacist, etc. I have taken a presciption to My store and been told it is not in stock. I have to check around and find another branch of the chain. This was not anything that could be perceived as a moral dilemna, but I had no bitch to pitch because that med was not in their inventory. I had to find it elsewhere. It was incoveneint, but not the end of the world. It took a little longer. I am not talking days or weeks. I am saying I didn't get My script at noon, I got it a 3PM. And yes, I had to travel about 20 miles to do so. The store was nice enough to find it for Me, so I didn't waste time and didn't have to call around Myself. I bring this up because another issue that has been hammered is the time sensitivity of the MAP. Apparently is is about 3 days. I hope someone isn't waiting until the 70th hour to decide maybe they should look at a PlanB. Anyway, if you could point Me in the right direction, I would appreciate it. I would like to see the actual regulation, in print. Thanks.

Marc2b -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 1:49:04 PM)
quote: That's because they certified that they would surrender those rights for the privileges conferred and regulations required by the issuance of a License to practice. NOW, they're going back on their sworn word. How professional, or HONEST is that? I would consider it clear evidence of their violation of the requirements of their license, and proof of their unfitness to serve The People in their professional capacity. When we incorporated our business there was nothing in the paperwork that said we surrendered our rights. There was plenty about this law and that regulation (and a huge amount about paying our taxes) but nothing that said we were no longer part of the process of determining what those laws and regulations would be. quote: The actual phrase is "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" Which means, since THE PEOPLE are the Creator of any Artificial Legal Entity ( the Secretary of State's office specifically ), then THE PEOPLE get to chose exactly what "Rights" their creation will enjoy. Come off of it! You know damn well that "Creator" is referring to God, not people as is the phrase "Nature and Nature’s God." The point remains – This nation was founded on the concept that all of us are born with God given rights and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights, not violate them.

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 2:12:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 But Farg, the People does not mean individuals. It is not a call for Anarchy. As you pointed out, the people's will is expressed via proxy by the Government. The Law, has just ruled that the Pharmicists CAN refuse to dispense or not stock if they want. Don't forget part B of their "out", that they must maintain and distribute a list of locations where it is available. ( Meaning they're STILL morally responsible... ) quote: You are right, to be a liscened Pharmacists means they have to obey the laws and regulations, but we are back to you pretending the law is different than it actually is. Same goes for your make believe Corprate law. It makes no difference what you pretend the law is. People absolutly have the right to change this law, and I would support it. But untill they do, it is the law that the Pharmacist can refuse to fill or stock these pills. As long as they can tell the person they refuse to serve where to go, and they don't lie, then yes. That's where it stands right now.

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 2:20:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold Fargle, I have an honest question or two. I have been trying to research this and I am not coming up with definitive answers. 1. At drugstore.com, you can order Plan B without a prescription if you are 18 or over. If you are 17 or under, you need a script. I am thinking this is the case, so basically, other than saying you can't just run in and grab it off the shelf, it is OTC for most. In fact, I believe there was a post earlier in which one user said she showed her ID, got the MAP and paid for it. No script involved. In fact, this is easier than maintain a script for regular birth control pills. Certianly not to be treated as a replacement for other methods of birth control, but still, you can't get those pills without a script., regardless of your age. Am I right here? Is this OTC except if under 18? I ask because this keeps cropping up as an issue, and I don't think it is an issue. It's a strong hormonal med that can have serious side effects, so it seems logical that there would be some attempt to supervise it's use by minors. 2. I have been trying to find out what the actual regulations are regarding having a pharmaceutical license. I read 14 rules on the NJ books, but it does vary, apparently, from state to state. I am failing to see the specific regulation that states that *all* pharmacies must carry *all* FDA approved drugs and have them available for potential customers. It seems to deal more with being able to properly read and fill the doctors orders, have the knowledge to do so safely, maintain proper inventory regarding expired drugs, making sure the floor is always covered by a licensed pharmacist, etc. I have taken a presciption to My store and been told it is not in stock. I have to check around and find another branch of the chain. This was not anything that could be perceived as a moral dilemna, but I had no bitch to pitch because that med was not in their inventory. I had to find it elsewhere. It was incoveneint, but not the end of the world. It took a little longer. I am not talking days or weeks. I am saying I didn't get My script at noon, I got it a 3PM. And yes, I had to travel about 20 miles to do so. The store was nice enough to find it for Me, so I didn't waste time and didn't have to call around Myself. I bring this up because another issue that has been hammered is the time sensitivity of the MAP. Apparently is is about 3 days. I hope someone isn't waiting until the 70th hour to decide maybe they should look at a PlanB. Anyway, if you could point Me in the right direction, I would appreciate it. I would like to see the actual regulation, in print. Thanks. Well, it's a Washington State statute in question, and the ruling of a Federal Court, so to see the relevant text, either of those places would be the best place to begin. It's a State regulatory issue. Here's the Washington State Code regarding licensing Pharmacists & Professional Responsibilities http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=246-863-095 Pharmacies http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.64 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=246-863-095

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 3:38:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Well, it's a Washington State statute in question, and the ruling of a Federal Court, so to see the relevant text, either of those places would be the best place to begin. It's a State regulatory issue. Here's the Washington State Code regarding licensing Pharmacists & Professional Responsibilities http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=246-863-095 Pharmacies http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=18.64 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=246-863-095 Thank you. I have read this, more than once, and I am not an expert in the legal sense of communication. But what I am reading still does not show Me that a licensed pharmacist is obligated to fill any and all presciptions legally presented. The reasons might be: currently or temporaily out of stock, not economically feasable to maintain as inventory, or not available due to moral objections. I read this: quote: (j) Decision to not dispense lawfully prescribed drugs or devices or to not distribute drugs and devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for restricted distribution by pharmacies. which falls under: quote: (2) A pharmacist *shall not delegate* the following professional responsibilities: I take that to mean that the pharmacist may not delegate the refusal to other non-licensed pharmacy employees. It is his responsbility to do the refusing. Nor is it the other non-licensed employees responsibility or privilege of stating to any customer that the prescription will not be filled (especially if the pharmacist him/herself is perfectly willing to fill it and capable of filling it) This would be further borne out by: quote: (4) It is considered unprofessional conduct for any person authorized to practice or assist in the practice of pharmacy to engage in any of the following: (b) Refuse to return unfilled lawful prescriptions; Why would a pharmacist have any need to return an unfilled lawful prescription, if he is obligated to fill it? I am sure, if the pharmacist is on his moral high horse that it is completely unprofessional to wag a finger in the customers face while ripping up the legal script. Nor shall a non-licensed employee behind that counter. I am sure I am reading something wrong, or there is further clarification elsewhere on the books, but what I am reading still does not support that all licensed pharmacists are required, under penalty of losing their license, to fill any prescription for any reason. They are simply required to return to unfilled prescription form to the customer. In the end, I guess I am back to My original stance. Licensed pharmacists should not be able to go to court and get a judge to tell their employer that they are not going to dispense a legal medication for moral purposes. That is between the owner of the private powers that be and if they have a moral problem with it, then they need to find another place to work with a PTB that supports their position. I am now doubly confused as to why a drugstore owner was in court regarding this also. Because I am just not seeing where the state license regulations take away the freedom of choice regarding what is kept in inventory and what is not. Is there a reason why *anyone* cannot answer My question regarding whether or not the MAP is technically OTC? Am I missing something there also?

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 3:53:06 PM)
I haven't found any specific requirement in Washington State either in the few minutes I've looked.. .( and since it's likely an administrative rule, it's probably buried pretty deeply... I wonder if the Federal decision is online? ) However, given that the issuance of every business license and pharmacy license is aimed at regulating the actions of those businesses to ensue they act in the Public Interest, it's not too far a stretch.

Lumus -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 3:58:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 SEATTLE - A federal judge has suspended Washington state's requirement that pharmacists sell "morning-after" birth control pills, a victory for druggists who claim their moral objections to the drug are being bulldozed by the government. In an injunction signed Thursday, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton said pharmacists can refuse to sell the morning-after pill if they refer the customer to another nearby source. Pharmacists' employers also are protected by the order. The emergency contraception sold as Plan B is a high dose of a drug found in many regular birth-control pills. It can dramatically lower the risk of pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071109/ap_on_re_us/refusing_prescriptions My sperm are rejoicing. After all, they only have one job - to fuse with an egg - and lately they've ended up in so many eggless places... [8D]

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875