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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

quote:

The Constitution, which is the only source of any rights at all in this country

quote:

clearly authorizes the regulation of commerce.

quote:

What "rights" am I trampling on?

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.

quote:

Does a police officer have the right to do HIS job in any way HE sees fit? A contractor? Hardly.

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.

quote:

And I'm done with this thread. You don't have anything new to say

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.

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.

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.

quote:


The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that our rights derive from "nature and nature's God."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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