NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-dsphar4223026apr19,0,3364110.story?coll=ny-health-headlines

I believe that denying a patient a properly prescribed medication, when it does not have a potentially harmful drug interaction with other medications that patient takes, is abhorrent.

Unless there is a medical reason for denying a prescription, I believe a pharmacist has no right to refuse to fill the prescription unless s/he can provide an alternate pharmacist who will, and speedily. It is injecting their personal opinions where they do not belong, and where a patient and his/her physician have already decided that a particular treatment is necessary.

Denying, for example, a woman a properly filled-out prescription for emergency contraception on the grounds that it is an abortifacient is, in other words, forcing that woman to have an abortion should she indeed become pregnant. If the reason she was prescribed the contraception is because a pregnancy could threaten her life, then, in effect, the pharmacist has now interfered with her proper course of treatment and should, in my opinion, be held liable for any injury that subsequently occurs.

By this standard, if there is an AIDS drug, a pharmacist can refuse to fill it because they are opposed to homosexuality, or sex, or anything. This is ridiculous. They have no right to determine who gets medication based upon personal discretion, whatever the hell that's defined as.

Or refuse to carry blood products for hemophiliacs because they are Jehovah's Witnesses.

Or any medication that has been tested on animals! (There goes the whole darn pharmacy!)

Since prescriptions are, almost without fail, handed out by doctors qualified in the medical profession, indeed more so than a pharmacist, in order to treat diseases, illness, or possible life threatening situations, under no circumstances should a pharmacist be able to refuse treatment to somebody.

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-dsphar4223026apr19,0,3364110.story?coll=ny-health-headlines

I believe that denying a patient a properly prescribed medication, when it does not have a potentially harmful drug interaction with other medications that patient takes, is abhorrent.

Unless there is a medical reason for denying a prescription, I believe a pharmacist has no right to refuse to fill the prescription unless s/he can provide an alternate pharmacist who will, and speedily. It is injecting their personal opinions where they do not belong, and where a patient and his/her physician have already decided that a particular treatment is necessary.

Denying, for example, a woman a properly filled-out prescription for emergency contraception on the grounds that it is an abortifacient is, in other words, forcing that woman to have an abortion should she indeed become pregnant. If the reason she was prescribed the contraception is because a pregnancy could threaten her life, then, in effect, the pharmacist has now interfered with her proper course of treatment and should, in my opinion, be held liable for any injury that subsequently occurs.

I think that pharmasist should be allowed to manage their own business. I think it was wrong in this case for the pharmacist to have not provided a substitute pharmacy though. It for the patient and doctor to decide. I know this sounds contradictory, but I have no clear thoughts on the matter.

On the one hand we have the rights of a business man to provide whatever services they want to. On the other hand, when it comes to medicine I think this trust should be vested with doctors and patients solely.

Didnt the pharmacist in this case get fired?

So if pharmacists get to decide which prescriptions they fill based on their personal morals, what happens next? Do the police get to pick which laws they enforce? Pffft. If your morals interfere with your work, you're in the wrong career.

They have absolutely no right to deny anyone anything. In my opinion, the doctor has more authority than a pharmicist.

They can refuse to distribute, only under the provision that some other person is able to fill it. None of this refuse to hand over the prescription crap.

Soon the issue could be moot because the FDA is close to approving these emergency contraceptions for over-the-counter sales.

AWESOME!

If it is a personaly run busniess I think they have the right to offer the services that they want
But there should be NO recourse if they work for a company (lets say wallgreens) and they disobey company policy to deny service that the company they work for DOES provide

They should be able to be fired just like everyone else who does not do their job

But a pharmacy is a business. It is not a social institution. A business has the right to refuse service, they don't have to give any medicine they don't want to. You are a customer of their business. Just go to another pharmacy that will give you what was prescribed.
A doctor has no power to control another private business.
Whether you agree with the distribution of certain meds or not doesn't matter, you have no right to force that pharmacist to give you anything. They can stand behind their counter and point there finger at you and laugh if they want, it is their shop. You hav the right to walk out and deny them your patronage.

But a pharmacy is a business. It is not a social institution. A business has the right to refuse service, they don't have to give any medicine they don't want to. You are a customer of their business. Just go to another pharmacy that will give you what was prescribed.
A doctor has no power to control another private business.
Whether you agree with the distribution of certain meds or not doesn't matter, you have no right to force that pharmacist to give you anything. They can stand behind their counter and point there finger at you and laugh if they want, it is their shop. You hav the right to walk out and deny them your patronage.

Very well. What if they are the ONLY pharmacy available? There are places in the US (Alaska comes to mind) where humans are spread very far apart.

If there is no other pharmacy available, do you still believe this person has the right to deny a properly prescribed medicine?

But a pharmacy is a business. It is not a social institution. A business has the right to refuse service, they don't have to give any medicine they don't want to. You are a customer of their business. Just go to another pharmacy that will give you what was prescribed.
A doctor has no power to control another private business.
Whether you agree with the distribution of certain meds or not doesn't matter, you have no right to force that pharmacist to give you anything. They can stand behind their counter and point there finger at you and laugh if they want, it is their shop. You hav the right to walk out and deny them your patronage.
While I agree that they do not have the right to controll private busness
If the pharmisist does NOT own the busniess (therefore has no right to determine what services it provides) then he or she should have no protection from geting fired like any other employee that does not complete their job

As I have said before, it is chickenshit. I hope these phamacys and pharmacists loose thier lisences for doing something like this.

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-dsphar4223026apr19,0,3364110.story?coll=ny-health-headlines

I believe that denying a patient a properly prescribed medication, when it does not have a potentially harmful drug interaction with other medications that patient takes, is abhorrent.

Unless there is a medical reason for denying a prescription, I believe a pharmacist has no right to refuse to fill the prescription unless s/he can provide an alternate pharmacist who will, and speedily. It is injecting their personal opinions where they do not belong, and where a patient and his/her physician have already decided that a particular treatment is necessary.

Denying, for example, a woman a properly filled-out prescription for emergency contraception on the grounds that it is an abortifacient is, in other words, forcing that woman to have an abortion should she indeed become pregnant. If the reason she was prescribed the contraception is because a pregnancy could threaten her life, then, in effect, the pharmacist has now interfered with her proper course of treatment and should, in my opinion, be held liable for any injury that subsequently occurs.
Sounds like a pretty clear-cut breach of professional ethics to me. I would think they could lose their right to practice pharmacology.

Very well. What if they are the ONLY pharmacy available? There are places in the US (Alaska comes to mind) where humans are spread very far apart.

If there is no other pharmacy available, do you still believe this person has the right to deny a properly prescribed medicine?

yep, life sucks sometimes.

While I agree that they do not have the right to controll private busness
If the pharmisist does NOT own the busniess (therefore has no right to determine what services it provides) then he or she should have no protection from geting fired like any other employee that does not complete their job

Yep, if the real owner say prescribe and they refuse to do so then they are disobeying their boss and he/she has the right to fire them. If they own their own pharmacy they have the right to run it as they see fit.

Is there a licencing procedure or some sort of agreement that parmicies sign to distribute that prohibit them from refusal to distribute? (something said before made it sound like it)
Such as something like the hypocratic(sp?) oath but for pharmacies?

Is there a licencing procedure or some sort of agreement that parmicies sign to distribute that prohibit them from refusal to distribute? (something said before made it sound like it)
Such as something like the hypocratic(sp?) oath but for pharmacies?

I was just thinking the same thing. If a pharmacist signs an oath to always prescribe medicine to those who need it then that changes things. If they do not then I maintain my original position.

I was just thinking the same thing. If a pharmacist signs an oath to always prescribe medicine to those who need it then that changes things. If they do not then I maintain my original position.
Yeah ... I suppose it depends on the country they are practicing in if anything (not to mention places like canada with all the public reimbursement which I assume roals over into the pharmacy world as well)

Yeah ... I suppose it depends on the country they are practicing in if anything (not to mention places like canada with all the public reimbursement which I assume roals over into the pharmacy world as well)

I would also say that if the pharmacist works for a government agency or public hospital then they cannot refuse to provide the medicine to the patient.

"Unless there is a medical reason for denying a prescription, I believe a pharmacist has no right to refuse to fill the prescription unless s/he can provide an alternate pharmacist who will, and speedily. It is injecting their personal opinions where they do not belong, and where a patient and his/her physician have already decided that a particular treatment is necessary."


As a licensed pharmacy technician in the state of Connecticut, I must agree with you. If it is an independant pharmacy and the pharmacist who owns the store is against certain medications and simply refuses to stock them, it is their decision entirely but they should at least supply a different pharmacy. I have only seen a few prescriptions that were turned away, but they were all because the patient was OBVIOUSLY under the influence of something and seemed rather unfit / dangerous. It was the pharmacy manager's call in all of these decisions, but this only happened twice (at the most) times in the past 8 months I've worked there.

"Unless there is a medical reason for denying a prescription, I believe a pharmacist has no right to refuse to fill the prescription unless s/he can provide an alternate pharmacist who will, and speedily. It is injecting their personal opinions where they do not belong, and where a patient and his/her physician have already decided that a particular treatment is necessary."


As a licensed pharmacy technician in the state of Connecticut, I must agree with you. If it is an independant pharmacy and the pharmacist who owns the store is against certain medications and simply refuses to stock them, it is their decision entirely but they should at least supply a different pharmacy. I have only seen a few prescriptions that were turned away, but they were all because the patient was OBVIOUSLY under the influence of something and seemed rather unfit / dangerous. It was the pharmacy manager's call in all of these decisions, but this only happened twice (at the most) times in the past 8 months I've worked there.

Always good to hear from somebody actually in the business being discussed, your position seems very reasonable. I wouldn't say they should have to provide another pharmacy but it would just be good manners to do so.

Always good to hear from somebody actually in the business being discussed, your position seems very reasonable. I wouldn't say they should have to provide another pharmacy but it would just be good manners to do so.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1413&e=5&u=/nm/20050414/hl_nm/pharmacies_contraceptives_dc&sid=95832301

They will legally have to do that soon 31.

Sounds like a pretty clear-cut breach of professional ethics to me. I would think they could lose their right to practice pharmacology.


unless they pass the final exam for the Bachelor of Pharmaceutical Degeneracy Degree.

The test is simple.

20 Pubs, 20 Midstrength beers, and none of your american beer, Australian only.

Then they can go for their masters, 20 Pubs, one Middie and one shot at each.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1413&e=5&u=/nm/20050414/hl_nm/pharmacies_contraceptives_dc&sid=95832301

They will legally have to do that soon 31.

wow, pity. I really must be against the government forcing people to act against their moral beliefs. It happens all too often.

wow, pity. I really must be against the government forcing people to act against their moral beliefs. It happens all too often.
They arnt forcing them to give out the drug ... they are just forcing a refferal to another pharmisist or pharmasy that does

wow, pity. I really must be against the government forcing people to act against their moral beliefs. It happens all too often.

What is ironic is that those phamacist are pushing thier beliefs on others. I guess it is ok for one group to do that and not the other, eh 31?

They arnt forcing them to give out the drug ... they are just forcing a refferal to another pharmisist or pharmasy that does

ah, I see, I guess I should read further down the article. heh ehe

What is ironic is that those phamacist are pushing thier beliefs on others. I guess it is ok for one group to do that and not the other, eh 31?
No he misunderstood and thought they were trying to force the pharmasists to distribute rather then what the article realy said (about refferal)

The following passage caught my attention:
I've rejected several prescriptions over the years that I considered dangerous or possibly lethal, even after the doctor told me to "just fill it!" I refused, considering that individual's other medication, medical condition or history of drinking. We can be a safety net sometimes.

Furthermore, pharmacists routinely turn away customers who are disruptive or dangerous. It ensures that your local pharmacy is relatively free from boisterous, annoying people who yell and genuine drug addicts who show up for early refills for hydrocodone.
Even if we were to agree that a pharmacist should not refuse medication based solely on their personal morals*, we still have the issues surrounding the distribution of potentially lethal or addictive medications.

* ...and I'm inclined to agree with this, myself; my views against abortions aside, a pharmacist should not refuse medicine on moral grounds....

If we say that a pharmacist can refuse medications that he/she thinks are inappropriate for medical reasons, but cannot refuse medications for moral reasons, then we will have people trying to abuse the distinction. Just as players try to bend, twist, skirt, misconstrue, and misinterpret rules on NationStates, people will try to bend, twist, and skirt rules in real life. A drug addict may, for example, try to claim that medicine was refused on moral grounds when it was really refused because it was an addictive medicine and the guy/gal was trying to get an early refill.

Being a NationStates Moderator has taught me one thing: Where you have rules, people will try to find ways around them or to excuse themselves from them.

So, regardless of whether or not a pharmacist should inject their personal beliefs into their work, I think that it is impractical to prohibit a pharmacist from distributing medicines under some circumstances, but not under others.

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

The following passage caught my attention:

Even if we were to agree that a pharmacist should not refuse medication based solely on their personal morals*, we still have the issues surrounding the distribution of potentially lethal or addictive medications.

* ...and I'm inclined to agree with this, myself; my views against abortions aside, a pharmacist should not refuse medicine on moral grounds....

If we say that a pharmacist can refuse medications that he/she thinks are inappropriate for medical reasons, but cannot refuse medications for moral reasons, then we will have people trying to abuse the distinction. Just as players try to bend, twist, skirt, misconstrue, and misinterpret rules on NationStates, people will try to bend, twist, and skirt rules in real life. A drug addict may, for example, try to claim that medicine was refused on moral grounds when it was really refused because it was an addictive medicine and the guy/gal was trying to get an early refill.

Being a NationStates Moderator has taught me one thing: Where you have rules, people will try to find ways around them or to excuse themselves from them.

So, regardless of whether or not a pharmacist should inject their personal beliefs into their work, I think that it is impractical to prohibit a pharmacist from distributing medicines under some circumstances, but not under others.

"Think about it for a moment."

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia


Very good point ... maybe have something more formal for refusing perscription for health reasons
(meaning rather then just not filling it for medical reasons the only option the pharmasist has is a formal refferal for evaluation back to the doctor)

Meaning rather then just refusing for ANY reasons it will go back to a doctor to rule and make a medical judgement if something has changed sense he made the perscription (or a second doctor)

No he misunderstood and thought they were trying to force the pharmasists to distribute rather then what the article realy said (about refferal)

Ok.
My appologies 31.

Some pharmacies refuse to carry Oxycodone because drug users/peddlers will rob them for it. How is a pharmacy refusing to carry contraception any different? Pharmacies are private businesses, they should be allowed to choose which products they do or do not carry.

Some pharmacies refuse to carry Oxycodone because drug users/peddlers will rob them for it. How is a pharmacy refusing to carry contraception any different? Pharmacies are private businesses, they should be allowed to choose which products they do or do not carry.

Private industries are not and never have been immune from regulation, especially when they are considered a "needed" resource or service - and I certainly categorize pharmacies (as part of health care) as a needed service. Certainly, if a pharmacy (not a pharmacist) refuses to stock medicines, fill prescriptions, or at least refer a patient with a prescription that violates their "moral" sensibilities, then they are interfering with that patient's healthcare. It is a pharmacist's job to fill prescriptions, or to advise a patient when a prescription that is made could be hazardous and to communicate with the patient's doctor or other providers where this is of benefit to the patient. It is not the place of the pharmacist - or the doctor for that matter - to impose their views on religion and morality on a patient. And make no mistake - a pharmacist who refuses to fill a plan-b prescription or a prescription for birth control pills or other contraceptives is doing just that.

I think we need to realize that birth control pills are not just a contraceptive, a good friend of mine takes them to control a rather nasty case of ovarian cysts that she has.

I think we need to realize that birth control pills are not just a contraceptive, a good friend of mine takes them to control a rather nasty case of ovarian cysts that she has.
That and relize that the morning after pill is NOT the same drug (with the same name) that was around in the 60's
It essentialy works like your normal pill but much stronger
It does not effect implantation it effects ovulation (just like normal BC)

*bump*

Ok.
My appologies 31.

hmm, I will have to go back and check why you are apologizing to me but, thanks. No probs, maybe it was my fault entirely. Probably was my fault, I am usually a screwup.

I find that difficult to believe, 31. :)

Very good point ... maybe have something more formal for refusing perscription for health reasons
(meaning rather then just not filling it for medical reasons the only option the pharmasist has is a formal refferal for evaluation back to the doctor)

Meaning rather then just refusing for ANY reasons it will go back to a doctor to rule and make a medical judgement if something has changed sense he made the perscription (or a second doctor)

A pharmisist who refuses to despense a drug because it is contra-indicated should contact the perscribing physiciation and work out an alternative before the patient leaves the store. With pages and cell-phones, it isn't hard to do.


Of course, an independant pharmisist shouldn't refuse serivce for one very importat reason, it attracts attention. Owning a pharmacy gives one realitivly safe access to some very good drugs, provided that one is willling to do some creative accounting. No one in their right mind would jepordize that.

A pharmisist who refuses to despense a drug because it is contra-indicated should contact the perscribing physiciation and work out an alternative before the patient leaves the store. With pages and cell-phones, it isn't hard to do.
Excellent point.

I think that it isn't the duty of a healthcare professional to judge.

That said, a doctor can refuse to perform a procedure they are morally opposed to. But come on, handing someone drugs over the counter is hardly performing a procedure... I think it's making a mountain out of a molehill for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense medication because they don't approve...

Of course, an independant pharmisist shouldn't refuse serivce for one very importat reason, it attracts attention. Owning a pharmacy gives one realitivly safe access to some very good drugs, provided that one is willling to do some creative accounting. No one in their right mind would jepordize that.


Am I reading this correctly: are you suggesting that pharmacists go into business to support a drug habit?

But a pharmacy is a business. It is not a social institution. A business has the right to refuse service, . . .

Where in the world did you get the notion that a business has a right to refuse service? Do you think a restaurant can put a sign in the window: WHITES ONLY? Do you think a hat store can refuse to sell you a hat if the owner of the shop doesn't think it looks good on you?

Owning a business doesn't make you God. You still have to follow the rules.

That and relize that the morning after pill is NOT the same drug (with the same name) that was around in the 60's
It essentialy works like your normal pill but much stronger
It does not effect implantation it effects ovulation (just like normal BC)

Ummmm, no. The morning after pill CAN affect ovulation or the normal menstrual cycle. However, it does also affect implantation if ovulation has already occurred--effectively a chemical abortion. While I believe that the MAP is acceptable when prescribed by a doctor, I believe in having hte right information.

As for the issues of pharmacists denying prescriptions, I think it is total bull. While as a medical student I greatly appreciate that pharmacists have the knowledge to check for medication errors (drug interactions, side affects, allergies, addictions etc) that may inadvertantly get passed me, I do not believe that they should have the right to deny precriptions simply because the thought makes them feel queasy. They entered their profession with the intention of filling prescriptions that weren't harmful to the patient (or that had a measured harm/benefit ratio) and by golly that is what they should be doing.

There is no protected relationship between a patient and their pharmacists--its simply not held up in this country. A patient isn't likely to tell their pharmacist that they were raped or abused. However, they are likely to tell their doctor and that is why the doctor is the one to write the prescription. Yes, a doctor does have the right to refuse to write that prescription--but I know of none (including many Catholics) who would do so in the instance of rape. You enter the medical profession to heal and protect people. The pharmacists refusing to fill a prescription for moral reasons is just continuing the rape (if that is what happened). True, the woman may or may not have been raped--but since the woman isn't likely to share that fact with the pharamist s/he needs to assume that that is the way it is to avoid doing further damage.

As for those of you who argue about the blurring of lines between refusing to fill a prescription for moral reasons and refusing to fill one for medical reasons, while it is true that some people will probably try to take advantage of it, it isn't likely that they would get very far. Drugs have known interactions and side effects that would be easy to prove. It would not be difficult for a pharmacist who has denied a drug for medical reasons to show why--and it would be extremely difficult to find a medical reason for most drugs denied for moral reasons (such as birth control) that I can think of.

Where in the world did you get the notion that a business has a right to refuse service? Do you think a restaurant can put a sign in the window: WHITES ONLY? Do you think a hat store can refuse to sell you a hat if the owner of the shop doesn't think it looks good on you?

Owning a business doesn't make you God. You still have to follow the rules.

Of course a business has the right to refuse service. Your examples are at the extreme end. Bars shouldn’t have the right to refuse service to highly intoxicated patrons? Airlines should seat drunks? What about renting cars to someone who’s obviously high? An amusement park tossing out a group of rowdy kids? Owning a business shouldn’t totally nullify your right to chose who you do business with.
However most anyone who wants to run a successful business and adopts a policy of refusing service for reasons their patrons find objectionable (including pharmacies) will soon find themselves less than successful.

Am I reading this correctly: are you suggesting that pharmacists go into business to support a drug habit?

Habbit, of course not. Habbits are what get people sent to minimum securityFederal prision and get their licenses suspended for several years.
I'm simply suggesting that being a pharmist allows one to occasionally indulge in pleasures that most people never have an opportunity to experience.

Ummmm, no. The morning after pill CAN affect ovulation or the normal menstrual cycle. However, it does also affect implantation if ovulation has already occurred--effectively a chemical abortion. While I believe that the MAP is acceptable when prescribed by a doctor, I believe in having hte right information.

As a side-effect for a few of them it is possible (still under review ... the reason they are not over counter right now) but it is not the primary objective for them nessisiarily nor is it an effect of all the types (depending on the projesterone/oestrogen balance)

Excellent point.

I think that it isn't the duty of a healthcare professional to judge.

That said, a doctor can refuse to perform a procedure they are morally opposed to. But come on, handing someone drugs over the counter is hardly performing a procedure... I think it's making a mountain out of a molehill for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense medication because they don't approve...
I have a feeling a lot of it is it making a statement rather then actual objections (its sad and I am sure there are some legit ones out there but a lot of it was just to "make a statement")

I have a feeling a lot of it is it making a statement rather then actual objections (its sad and I am sure there are some legit ones out there but a lot of it was just to "make a statement")
Yeah, in some cases it could be a power trip too. "Haha, I can deny you treatment." This stuff is open to abuse really easily...

Treatment should remain between the patient and the doctor, unless the pharmacist picks up an interaction. Even that is unlikely as doctors now prescribe with computer programs that pick up adverse interactions.

Yeah, in some cases it could be a power trip too. "Haha, I can deny you treatment." This stuff is open to abuse really easily...

Treatment should remain between the patient and the doctor, unless the pharmacist picks up an interaction. Even that is unlikely as doctors now prescribe with computer programs that pick up adverse interactions.
Yup like stated before if they pickup an interaction OR they think there may be other issues with it (maybe something has changed sense proscribed or something) there should just be a formal contact method that alows them to have the person re-evaluated by the doctor (I think this could stop a lot of abuse)

Lets look at it another way.

Do you believe that a private pharmacist should be able to what medicines he should stock? Lets say he served a neighborhood of almost entirely young people. Should he be forced to spend money on inventory that caters to old people? Is the government going to mandate how he is going to run his business? I believe public hospitals/pharmacies should indeed be forced to, but I do not believe that private ones should.

Keep in mind that I think what happened in this case was wrong(especially if had the contraceptive in stock), but I think the tradeoff of some disatisfied customers vs greater individual liberty is worth it.

What about things like oxycodone and other strong narcotics? One doctor is going to jail for life for prescribing these drugs to his patients. Some patients admitted to duping the doctor, and the only claim is that he should have known better based on the volume of his patients who claimed severe chronic pain. Why should another doctor or pharmacy take such a risk?

Would you fault a pharmacy if they stopped filling oxycodone prescriptions(because they got nervous) if more and more people started coming in to get their prescriptions filled, even though there might be no medical conflict and they didnt appear to be abusers? If so, then you have to agree that pharmacies are allowed some discretion.

Oxycodone is btw an excellent remedy for people with chronic severe pain. It is also widely abused by people who defeat the time delay and people who fake injuries and/or doctor shop.

Lets look at it another way.

Do you believe that a private pharmacist should be able to what medicines he should stock? Lets say he served a neighborhood of almost entirely young people. Should he be forced to spend money on inventory that caters to old people? Is the government going to mandate how he is going to run his business? I believe public hospitals/pharmacies should indeed be forced to, but I do not believe that private ones should.

While this part has been covered in the first page or two most of us say no though they should be required to be able to make a refferal to a place that does stock it.


Keep in mind that I think what happened in this case was wrong(especially if had the contraceptive in stock), but I think the tradeoff of some disatisfied customers vs greater individual liberty is worth it.

What about things like oxycodone and other strong narcotics? One doctor is going to jail for life for prescribing these drugs to his patients. Some patients admitted to duping the doctor, and the only claim is that he should have known better based on the volume of his patients who claimed severe chronic pain. Why should another doctor or pharmacy take such a risk?

Would you fault a pharmacy if they stopped filling oxycodone prescriptions(because they got nervous) if more and more people started coming in to get their prescriptions filled, even though there might be no medical conflict and they didnt appear to be abusers? If so, then you have to agree that pharmacies are allowed some discretion.

Oxycodone is btw an excellent remedy for people with chronic severe pain. It is also widely abused by people who defeat the time delay and people who fake injuries and/or doctor shop.
Again if they are noticing a pattern of a person comming in to fill a perscription way more often then what they should there should be a contact for such instances with the supposed perscribing doctor or maybe just an orginazation that handles reports like these and coordinate data

What about things like oxycodone and other strong narcotics? One doctor is going to jail for life for prescribing these drugs to his patients. Some patients admitted to duping the doctor, and the only claim is that he should have known better based on the volume of his patients who claimed severe chronic pain. Why should another doctor or pharmacy take such a risk?

Would you fault a pharmacy if they stopped filling oxycodone prescriptions(because they got nervous) if more and more people started coming in to get their prescriptions filled, even though there might be no medical conflict and they didnt appear to be abusers? If so, then you have to agree that pharmacies are allowed some discretion.

Oxycodone is btw an excellent remedy for people with chronic severe pain. It is also widely abused by people who defeat the time delay and people who fake injuries and/or doctor shop.

Firstly, the pharmacist would not be liable in this case as he/she didn't prescribe the medication.

Secondly, at least in Australia, there are means to check up on people when you prescribe narcotics. If they are on them for longer than three months, a permit is required, which must go through a regulatory body. Also anyone who has been on methadone is on the same database. Then of course there's also doctor's intuition, which does build up with years of practice. You'll find that if a doctor is suspicious they will ring up the body (whose name I can't recall). There's no doubt that doctor's should take care when prescribing addictive substances, and should face consequences if they abandon their duty of care and prescribe them willy nilly...

While this part has been covered in the first page or two most of us say no though they should be required to be able to make a refferal to a place that does stock it.

What is there are no other pharmacies nearby(say someplace rural). Would you require that a pharmacy stock medication for every conceivable illness? I am not saying that I have a clear cut answer for this, I dont.


Again if they are noticing a pattern of a person comming in to fill a perscription way more often then what they should there should be a contact for such instances with the supposed perscribing doctor or maybe just an orginazation that handles reports like these and coordinate data

What if there was no clear cut pattern. What if simply all the other pharmacies stopped selling oxycodone,or at least made it very difficult, because of fear that they might wind up in jail. So all the people in the area would eventually congregate at the one pharmacy that still did sell it. Would they be justified in stopping then? Could they simply say that the person appeared to an abuser to justify themselves?

Firstly, the pharmacist would not be liable in this case as he/she didn't prescribe the medication.

Secondly, at least in Australia, there are means to check up on people when you prescribe narcotics. If they are on them for longer than three months, a permit is required, which must go through a regulatory body. Also anyone who has been on methadone is on the same database. Then of course there's also doctor's intuition, which does build up with years of practice. You'll find that if a doctor is suspicious they will ring up the body (whose name I can't recall). There's no doubt that doctor's should take care when prescribing addictive substances, and should face consequences if they abandon their duty of care and prescribe them willy nilly...

When it comes to the DEA and class III drugs, do you really want to take the chance? The DEA gets more creative everyday

In the US there is a special license you need to dispence these drugs and all prescriptions(in NY anyway) are sent to Albany. I dont know if there is any sort of database of patients or not. I am sure with methadone there must be. Drug addicts can be very cunning when it comes to maintaining their habits. They can read medical textbooks and determine what symptoms to show. Pain is an elusive thing, especially back pain. Hard to tell whether the patient is lying or not.

What is there are no other pharmacies nearby(say someplace rural). Would you require that a pharmacy stock medication for every conceivable illness? I am not saying that I have a clear cut answer for this, I dont.


Depends on (personal Idea might change) if it is a lifesaving drug or not I guess


What if there was no clear cut pattern. What if simply all the other pharmacies stopped selling oxycodone,or at least made it very difficult, because of fear that they might wind up in jail. So all the people in the area would eventually congregate at the one pharmacy that still did sell it. Would they be justified in stopping then? Could they simply say that the person appeared to an abuser to justify themselves?
That is the WHOLE POINT of the refferal system ... it does NOT allow them to just refuse distribution
What it DOES allow them to do is double check with the perscribing doctor if it is a valid perscription and to make sure the doctor is aware of any of the inconsistancies

The whole point is to stop the ability of pharmisists from being the ones making the final judgement call

I believe that denying a patient a properly prescribed medication, when it does not have a potentially harmful drug interaction with other medications that patient takes, is abhorrent.


No argument. A pharmacist is in the business of dispensing prescription drugs and remedies - not deciding what medications are or are not 'appropriate' to dispense.

If a pharmacist is unwilling to fulfill their role, to dispense prescribed drugs, then it would seem clear enough that the pharmacists' choice of vocation was a poor one at best. In any event, the best way to deal with this peculiar form of idiocy is to let your wallet do the talking.

Go to another pharmacist, and don't look back.

That is the WHOLE POINT of the refferal system ... it does NOT allow them to just refuse distribution
What it DOES allow them to do is double check with the perscribing doctor if it is a valid perscription and to make sure the doctor is aware of any of the inconsistancies

The whole point is to stop the ability of pharmisists from being the ones making the final judgement call

We let other businesses decide what to stock on their shelves. We allow doctors to choose what medicines they prescribe(see how easy it is to get a prescription for Oxycontin in NY). Why should we put some arbitrary restriction on pharmacists?

Should a magazine store that believes pornography is immoral be forced to stock porno magazines(though I have yet to see one that doesnt). When I was 18 and wanted to buy my first long arm, I was refused at the store because they said it was their policy to only sell guns to those over 21. This despite state and local law which made it legal for the sales to 18yr olds. Should the store not have that right? wasnt it age discrimination? I just went to another store.

People have the ability to call around and if they cant find anyone willing then they can go to the nearest public hospital/pharmacy. Why should private firms be told how to run their business?

We let other businesses decide what to stock on their shelves. We allow doctors to choose what medicines they prescribe(see how easy it is to get a prescription for Oxycontin in NY). Why should we put some arbitrary restriction on pharmacists?

Should a magazine store that believes pornography is immoral be forced to stock porno magazines(though I have yet to see one that doesnt). When I was 18 and wanted to buy my first long arm, I was refused at the store because they said it was their policy to only sell guns to those over 21. This despite state and local law which made it legal for the sales to 18yr olds. Should the store not have that right? wasnt it age discrimination? I just went to another store.

People have the ability to call around and if they cant find anyone willing then they can go to the nearest public hospital/pharmacy. Why should private firms be told how to run their business?


I dont know same reason we have restrictions on other lifesaving "busniesses" such as hospitals

I am all for fredom to choose when your choice does not effect the health of others but there is some point where we make sure to be a licenced distributor you have to carry certian things (just like hospital requirements ... they are not all government run)

And again I am just talking about LIFE saving medicines not everything (BC would not fall under this) for things like that people can afford to shop around (though if you are in a REAL rural area there is a limit on the time you have to get the morning after pill )

What is there are no other pharmacies nearby(say someplace rural). Would you require that a pharmacy stock medication for every conceivable illness? I am not saying that I have a clear cut answer for this, I dont.

Any hospital has a pharmacy which will carry pretty much any medication - and there aren't many areas that aren't in driving distance of a hospital.

I would say that no private business should be forced to stock anything they do not choose to.

However, that is the decision of the business owner, not any pharmacist who happens to work in the business.

What if there was no clear cut pattern. What if simply all the other pharmacies stopped selling oxycodone,or at least made it very difficult, because of fear that they might wind up in jail. So all the people in the area would eventually congregate at the one pharmacy that still did sell it. Would they be justified in stopping then? Could they simply say that the person appeared to an abuser to justify themselves?

I believe a pharmacist is supposed to report a suspected abuser to the authorities, not try to take matters into his/her own hands.

No argument. A pharmacist is in the business of dispensing prescription drugs and remedies - not deciding what medications are or are not 'appropriate' to dispense.

If a pharmacist is unwilling to fulfill their role, to dispense prescribed drugs, then it would seem clear enough that the pharmacists' choice of vocation was a poor one at best. In any event, the best way to deal with this peculiar form of idiocy is to let your wallet do the talking.

Go to another pharmacist, and don't look back.

Yup ... and like stated before if they do not own their own farmacy the employer should have every right to fire them for not completing their job

By this standard, if there is an AIDS drug, a pharmacist can refuse to fill it because they are opposed to homosexuality, or sex, or anything. This is ridiculous. They have no right to determine who gets medication based upon personal discretion, whatever the hell that's defined as.

What happened to the old "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Why can't it simply be the pharmacists choice to not hand out those prescriptions? You can usually find someone else who is willing to. There is no good reason why I can't choose who I want to do business with.

I dont know same reason we have restrictions on other lifesaving "busniesses" such as hospitals

I am all for fredom to choose when your choice does not effect the health of others but there is some point where we make sure to be a licenced distributor you have to carry certian things (just like hospital requirements ... they are not all government run)

True. The differance being that many of the people who come to a hospital are in no position to shop around because they are dying or at least need to be stabilized quickly. This isnt the case with most people walking into pharmacies.


And again I am just talking about LIFE saving medicines not everything (BC would not fall under this) for things like that people can afford to shop around (though if you are in a REAL rural area there is a limit on the time you have to get the morning after pill )

interesting problem. I still cannot decide where I stand on the issue.

Is there a licencing procedure or some sort of agreement that parmicies sign to distribute that prohibit them from refusal to distribute? (something said before made it sound like it)
Such as something like the hypocratic(sp?) oath but for pharmacies?

There is lisencing, but it is not applicable to this...

However, pharmacist do have to subscribe to contracting and licensing to fill prescriptions under medical plans... If they refuse to provide medicine to a customer under a medical plan, the insurer can pull the agreement with the pharmacy, and effectivly pull out all their business from said pharmacy...

I do agree that a private pharmacist does have the right to refuse to accept prescriptions... However, if the pharmacist took the patients prescription, and then did not fill it, he is in danger of loosing his lisensure... Once they "take" and sign a presciption from the doctor, they are under legal obligation to provide the medicine prescribed...

Any hospital has a pharmacy which will carry pretty much any medication - and there aren't many areas that aren't in driving distance of a hospital.

I would say that no private business should be forced to stock anything they do not choose to.

However, that is the decision of the business owner, not any pharmacist who happens to work in the business.

I agree mostly. Though I am concerned about the potential ramifications of this.

I would say if the pharmacist made this decision against the wishes of his employer(or even because he generated some negative publicisty) then the would be some issues between the two most likely ending in the pharmacist looking for a new job. Then again, there is a shortage of pharmacists in the US.



I believe a pharmacist is supposed to report a suspected abuser to the authorities, not try to take matters into his/her own hands.

Yes, but what if they arent abusers? What if the pharmacist starts to get worried because of the increased sales of restricted medication. Should he able to stop selling it or does he have to "make up" a fear of potential abuse? How would that help matter if pharmacists have to,out of fear for themselves, are forced to maku up potential abuse cases.

Imagine, for a second, this scenario:
A guy joins the military. he goes through his training, all good, gets deployed to Iraq.
Him and his company get fired upon. As is tandard procedure, the whole company shoots back, except that guy.
when they ask him why he didnt shoot, he says " Im a Christian, and Im morally oppossed to killing for any reason"
does that make much sense? no
Dont pharmacists have to take the hippocratic oath anyway??

What happened to the old "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Why can't it simply be the pharmacists choice to not hand out those prescriptions? You can usually find someone else who is willing to. There is no good reason why I can't choose who I want to do business with.
but normally its not your business.
The vast majority of times, these are huge pharmacy chains. If the guy behind the counter refuses, this is directly against company policy.
Also, even more preocupying is that some pharmacists have decided to "retain" the prescriptions for morning-after pills, knowing time is of essence.

Imagine, for a second, this scenario:
A guy joins the military. he goes through his training, all good, gets deployed to Iraq.
Him and his company get fired upon. As is tandard procedure, the whole company shoots back, except that guy.
when they ask him why he didnt shoot, he says " Im a Christian, and Im morally oppossed to killing for any reason"
does that make much sense? no
Dont pharmacists have to take the hippocratic oath anyway??

a) there are conscientious objectors in every conflict.

b) how does this,in any way, relate to a private individual doing a private transaction. If a pharmacist who is working for someone else does this, he runs the risk of being fired. If a military does this he runs the risk of being jailed.

c) there are penalties for disobeying orders in the military. Severe penalties.

d) And lets not forget that a military man is an employee of the federal government, he is not a private citizen.

but normally its mnot your business.
The vast majority of times, these are huge pahrmacy chains, and if the guy behind the counter refuses, this is directly against company policy.
Also, even more preocupying is that some pharmacists have decided to "reatin" the prescriptions for morning-after pills, knowing time is of essence.

between the spelling and the grammer(and I thought my spelling and grammer was horrible), I can barely make out what you are trying to say. And no one is arguing that the pharmacist shouldn't face repurcushions from his employer. We are mostly talking about pharmacists who own their own pharmacy.

edit: Thanks for cleaning up the text, I understand the second part now. Customers can always go to another pharmacy.

a) there are conscientious objectors in every conflict.

b) how does this,in any way, relate to a private individual doing a private transaction. If a pharmacist who is working for someone else does this, he runs the risk of being fired. If a military does this he runs the risk of being jailed.

c) there are penalties for disobeying orders in the military. Severe penalties.

d) And lets not forget that a military man is an employee of the federal government, he is not a private citizen.

I guess youre right. But the point I was trying to make is :
being a Pharmacist WILL involve this kind of stuff.
If you dont want to do it, do something else. There are conscientious objectors in every conflict, but normally these dont go to war (except if theyre catjolic, funny story about that.) And, even if they do, Ill bet you everything its becaise thetre drafted.

Becoming a pharmacist while objecting to these sorts of things is like signing up for the military during wartime and planning not to shoot anyone.

If we say that a pharmacist can refuse medications that he/she thinks are inappropriate for medical reasons, but cannot refuse medications for moral reasons, then we will have people trying to abuse the distinction. Just as players try to bend, twist, skirt, misconstrue, and misinterpret rules on NationStates, people will try to bend, twist, and skirt rules in real life. A drug addict may, for example, try to claim that medicine was refused on moral grounds when it was really refused because it was an addictive medicine and the guy/gal was trying to get an early refill.But that's not what's been happening, is it, and if it were, it would be pretty easy to prove "bullshit" when the doctor shows records of filling other people's perscriptions for the same drug.

Drug addicts scamming pharmacists isn't the issue at hand.

Only women seeking birth control are being singled out for denial of their perscriptions on solely moral (read: religious) grounds. Feel free to provide proof to the contrary if you believe otherwise, but I think you'll be hard pressed to find any.

I guess youre right. But the point I was trying to make is :
being a Pharmacist WILL involve this kind of stuff.
If you dont want to do it, do something else. There are conscientious objectors in every conflict, but normally these dont go to war (except if theyre catjolic, funny story about that.) And, even if they do, Ill bet you everything its becaise thetre drafted.

Becoming a pharmacist while objecting to these sorts of things is like signing up for the military during wartime and planning not to shoot anyone.

I dont think the analogy is that accurate. A pharmacist can decides he want to do that sort of work but just doesnt fell comfortable with, as in this case, abortion because that is against his religion. It is just a minor part of his overall work. While potentially using violence to defend your country is a large part of a military man's "work". All the drilling and training is there so that he can do his "work" properly. Not to imply that front line troops are a major part of the force, but even guys in the car are expected to be able to defend themselves effectively.

Here is my take on the whole deal. Pharmacists and Pharmacys are in a unique situation. Now, on a broad scale businesses do serve on thier beliefs. Businesses don't serve alcohol, allow conceiled weapons on premisis, kick folks out for foul language, etc. These are all based on morals or personal beliefs. This is fine as if I don't agree with this, I have the luxury to go elcewhere as there are many other places to go. A Pharmacy is alittle different, while the businesses I spoke of before have services and products I may want, they are not a absolute nessesity, a Pharmacy's drugs are a nessesity. If a doctor has deemed it needed to have a particular drug for a person then that should be that. In this case, some pharmacists have taken it upon themselves to dispence drugs based on if they agree with it or not.
This is pressing thier morals on others. Now, I understand that forcing them to dispence a drug they disagree is forcing morals contorary to what one believes. However, the morals of the PX to not dispence a drug they disagree with could pose physical harm to those who are not getting the drugs perscribed to them. This overrides personal morals as it has now become a case where one's beliefs or right or wrong begins to hurt others. Fortunantly, the powers that be see it this way as well.

a) there are conscientious objectors in every conflict.

b) how does this,in any way, relate to a private individual doing a private transaction. If a pharmacist who is working for someone else does this, he runs the risk of being fired. If a military does this he runs the risk of being jailed.

c) there are penalties for disobeying orders in the military. Severe penalties.

d) And lets not forget that a military man is an employee of the federal government, he is not a private citizen.

Agreed, conscientious objectors will be charged, if they indeed did not perform their duty.

However, this is based upon the UCMJ, and not applicable civilian laws... Soldiers are to follow any lawful order, they took an oath to that effect, and if they refuse to follow that order, they better have ground when they go before their courts martial, of why it was an illegal (unlawful) order.. Otherwise, their conscientious objection will have them serving time in a military brig... But, this is not applicable to civilians...

But that's not what's been happening, is it, and if it were, it would be pretty easy to prove "bullshit" when the doctor shows records of filling other people's perscriptions for the same drug.

Drug addicts scamming pharmacists isn't the issue at hand.

Only women seeking birth control are being singled out for denial of their perscriptions on solely moral (read: religious) grounds. Feel free to provide proof to the contrary if you believe otherwise, but I think you'll be hard pressed to find any.

Why is religion/moral not an acceptable reason to deny service? There are many doctors who refuse to perform abortions because of religious reasons. No one forces a doctor to perform abortions if they are opposed, why does this not apply to pharmacists? Can a pharmacist not feel like he is contributing to an abortions(which might be against his religion) by filling a prescription for the day after pill?

Pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions have violated the public good which they have been entrusted and should have their licenses revoked.

If pharmacists wish to moralize on issues, they should seek new lines of work.

Pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions have violated the public good which they have been entrusted and should have their licenses revoked.

If pharmacists wish to moralize on issues, they should seek new lines of work.


Do you ssay the same about doctors who dont perform abortion for religious reasons? There are many doctors who refuse to practice any number of procedures for a variety of reasons, should they be forced to?

Why not let those doctors who are willing to perform those procedures do so and those pharmacists who want to prescribe the morning after pill do so? It isnt like their is only one pharmacist in the world. Though as a courtesy, the pharmacist should provide the name and number of another pharmacy that is willing to fill such prescriptions.

Where in the world did you get the notion that a business has a right to refuse service? Do you think a restaurant can put a sign in the window: WHITES ONLY? Do you think a hat store can refuse to sell you a hat if the owner of the shop doesn't think it looks good on you?

Owning a business doesn't make you God. You still have to follow the rules.

It is a pity that is true because it is a violation of our freedom. If a shop owner wants to be a dumbass and put up a Whites Only sign and thus eliminate a good chunk of business then I think he/she should have the freedom to do so. Other people then have the freedom to call him/her a dumbass, picket the shop and refuse to go there. And dumbasses who think a whites only restaurant is a great thing then have the freedom to walk in and eat and everybody can see what dumbasses they are.

Freedom.

We shouldn't adhere to ideas just because they seem noble when they violate our basic human freedoms to choose how we wish to live.

Some people will actually call me a rascist for this, even say I wish to deny service to non-whites because they will make assumptions about my character because I think people should be free to refuse service. I am not, If I was a shop owner I would only refuse service to loudmouth jackasses who walked through my door, everybody else would be pretty much ok.

It is a pity that is true because it is a violation of our freedom. If a shop owner wants to be a dumbass and put up a Whites Only sign and thus eliminate a good chunk of business then I think he/she should have the freedom to do so. Other people then have the freedom to call him/her a dumbass, picket the shop and refuse to go there. And dumbasses who think a whites only restaurant is a great thing then have the freedom to walk in and eat and everybody can see what dumbasses they are.

Freedom.

We shouldn't adhere to ideas just because they seem noble when they violate our basic human freedoms to choose how we wish to live.

Some people will actually call me a rascist for this, even say I wish to deny service to non-whites because they will make assumptions about my character because I think people should be free to refuse service. I am not, If I was a shop owner I would only refuse service to loudmouth jackasses who walked through my door, everybody else would be pretty much ok.

I don't think this "freedom" is such a great idea, as well illustrated by the civil rights protests of the 1950s.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a step forward for freedom, not a step back.

Basic human freedoms do not include the right to carry on public businesses in concert with your private prejudices. Truly private activities can be discriminatory. But employment and public services shouldn't be left to private racial agendas. Such "freedoms" meant blacks in the South could travel for miles without finding a hotel or motel to stay at. That was not liberty.

And note that such "individual freedoms" often aren't individual at all. Whites who tried to break with segregation practices and serve blacks at the lunch counter were beaten along with the blacks that tried to eat there.

There are limits to individual liberty -- for the public good and often to perserve liberty for everyone.

Habbit, of course not. Habbits are what get people sent to minimum securityFederal prision and get their licenses suspended for several years.
I'm simply suggesting that being a pharmist allows one to occasionally indulge in pleasures that most people never have an opportunity to experience.


Were I a pharmacist, I'd be highly insulted by this. It's the same as saying that cops become cops to kill people, and priests become priests to molest children.

They entered their profession with the intention of filling prescriptions that weren't harmful to the patient (or that had a measured harm/benefit ratio) and by golly that is what they should be doing.
I would just like to say that's probably the first time 'by golly' has been used in this forum, and it's quite pleasant to see at least one person refraining from using nasty cuss words. Rather sweet and cute really.

Back to the thread:
This happens everywhere:
http://iafrica.com/loveandsex/news/428878.htm

Which is worse than the article in the first post. The residents have no alternative, the Chemist is refusing to stock any form of contraceptive and as a result this town has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Australia (6%). I can't find it on the BBC website (where I read it first - their search function is just shit) but I remember the follow-up story said the Mayor wasn't accepting the condoms and was sending them back, indignantly proclaiming that 'how dare a filthy American sex shop interfere with our affairs" or something along those lines.
Borders on the obscene, personally methinks. The Chemist that is, not the sex shop offering the free condoms. He should be made to pay child support for each unplanned birth.



Off topic, but read the headlines to the right of the site posted above. Some of them are downright weird. "Man eats his own penis". ewww...

I don't think this "freedom" is such a great idea, as well illustrated by the civil rights protests of the 1950s.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a step forward for freedom, not a step back.

Basic human freedoms do not include the right to carry on public businesses in concert with your private prejudices. Truly private activities can be discriminatory. But employment and public services shouldn't be left to private racial agendas. Such "freedoms" meant blacks in the South could travel for miles without finding a hotel or motel to stay at. That was not liberty.

And note that such "individual freedoms" often aren't individual at all. Whites who tried to break with segregation practices and serve blacks at the lunch counter were beaten along with the blacks that tried to eat there.

There are limits to individual liberty -- for the public good and often to perserve liberty for everyone.

The civil rights protesters of the 1950s were protesting state enforced segregation. Everyone's money is still green, I don't think it'd be too likely a shop owner (especially nowadays) would deny service to a customer because of the color of their skin.

Pharmacists are given special legal privileges to possess controlled substances, many of which would be very much illegal if a common person had them. As such, they are subject to different rules than most other businesses. Just as gun shops or liquor stores. I am making no judgement on what that means for pharmacists who deny prescriptions, but to put an end to the incorrect assumption that pharmacists have a right to run their business without restriction.

I love people's response today. I get to do what I want no matter what the consequence and NOBODY better tell me what to do. Never mind that by their attitude, they are forcing their beliefs on others. I pharmacist believes it's wrong, you believe it's ok to use the morning after pill. Why should he have to issue it. He just participated in killing a child in his mind, regardless of what you think. Why doesn't he have any rights? Just because YOU want it. Liberals are horrendous in this and it's disgusting. He should be allowed to refuse to participate. He's human too. Where the fuck do you get off telling him what to do?

I love people's response today. I get to do what I want no matter what the consequence and NOBODY better tell me what to do. Never mind that by their attitude, they are forcing their beliefs on others.

Please tell me you see the irony in making this statement in defense of pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions.

Please tell me you see the irony in making this statement in defense of pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions.
If you want it filled, fine. Why should he have to fill it? Just because you don't have that belief doesn't mean you can't respect them. There really are more than one pharmicist in the world. Probably in the drugstore. Otherwise they probably wouldn't have even carried the morning after pill given this particular pharmicist's position.

If you want it filled, fine. Why should he have to fill it? Just because you don't have that belief doesn't mean you can't respect them. There really are more than one pharmicist in the world. Probably in the drugstore. Otherwise they probably wouldn't have even carried the morning after pill given this particular pharmicist's position.

You don't know my opinion on the matter. But to say that it's only the people who are demanding their prescriptions be filled who are forcing their beliefs upon others is ludicrous. This wouldn't even be an issue if some pharmacists hadn't decided that they should fill other people's prescriptions based on their own beliefs.

Please tell me you see the irony in making this statement in defense of pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions.

No irony at all. The pharmacist isnt stopping the person from taking/buying the morning after pill. He is only stopping the sale in that store or by that particular pharmacist. On the other hand, the customer is forcing that particular pharmacist to ignore his own beliefs.

I hope you can see the differance.

I love people's response today. I get to do what I want no matter what the consequence and NOBODY better tell me what to do. Never mind that by their attitude, they are forcing their beliefs on others. I pharmacist believes it's wrong, you believe it's ok to use the morning after pill. Why should he have to issue it. He just participated in killing a child in his mind, regardless of what you think. Why doesn't he have any rights? Just because YOU want it. Liberals are horrendous in this and it's disgusting. He should be allowed to refuse to participate. He's human too. Where the fuck do you get off telling him what to do?


I get off telling him what to do because he CHOSE to be a pharmacist. By doing so, he gave up the right to moralize when people's health was at state. I can deal with the idea that s/he won't fill a PRESCRIPTION (sorry, I know you didn't mispell it and I normally try not to be a grammar Nazi, but that one has been misspelled one time too many on this forum) but s/he had darned well better make sure someone can fill it.

Whethre or not the pharmacist (or you) likes it, the morning after pill is legal in this country. If s/he doesn't want to fill it, then they need to lobby the FDA to have it removed from the market. However, instead of doing that, individuals have taken it upon themselves to deny medications to people who desperately need them. Yes I use the word desperately. Women who have been raped have been denied access to the medication fairly prescribed by their doctor. It's a continuation of the rape for a pharmacist to take the prescription from them, refuse to fill it or refer them to someone, and in some cases to keep it so that they cannot even try to get alternate assistance.

If you want it filled, fine. Why should he have to fill it? Just because you don't have that belief doesn't mean you can't respect them. There really are more than one pharmicist in the world. Probably in the drugstore. Otherwise they probably wouldn't have even carried the morning after pill given this particular pharmicist's position.

You obviously live in a large city with chain pharmacies. Get a life. Most of America is rural and doesn't have those type of luxuries (though yes, it is getting better). And he should have to fill it because he CHOSE to be a pharmacist. That means monitoring drugs for interactions/harmful side effects--not moralizing to patients. If he wanted to preach, then he should have joined the ministry. Everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that he CHOSE to be a pharmacist--no one has ever been drafted into that profession.

No irony at all. The pharmacist isnt stopping the person from taking/buying the morning after pill. He is only stopping the sale in that store or by that particular pharmacist. On the other hand, the customer is forcing that particular pharmacist to ignore his own beliefs.

I hope you can see the differance.

No difference at all. Either side is saying that things will be done their way and to hell with the other side.

SNIP!

Wrong. Just because he is a pharmacist doesn't mean he has to do everything just because it's legal. Even lawyers have personal ethics, believe it or not as do most professionals.

You obviously live in a large city with chain pharmacies. Get a life. Most of America is rural and doesn't have those type of luxuries (though yes, it is getting better). And he should have to fill it because he CHOSE to be a pharmacist. That means monitoring drugs for interactions/harmful side effects--not moralizing to patients. If he wanted to preach, then he should have joined the ministry. Everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that he CHOSE to be a pharmacist--no one has ever been drafted into that profession.
Actually, I grew up in a small town and still had 3 pharmacists. No. He shouldn't. His personal beliefs still matter even if you say they don't. What's that liberals like to say. That's what's freedom is all about. Defending other people's beliefs even if you don't agree with them. Sounds real fancy when you're trying to force your own issues, huh?

Wrong. Just because he is a pharmacist doesn't mean he has to do everything just because it's legal. Even lawyers have personal ethics, believe it or not as do most professionals.

But personal ethics do not laws or rules of behavior make. However, the professional pharmacists association (its actual name alludes me at the moment) hold that the pharmacists SHOULD be filling the presciptions. You can have your personal ethics--but they cannot violate group ethics, licensing requirements, or national law. A pharmacist is free to believe what they want on their own time. However, s/he CHOOSE their profession, and sometimes that means doing things you may not agree with because it is a part of your job. Pharmcists are there to dispense medicines to the public and to serve the greater good. They are entrusted with a large amount of trust by society (possession of controlled substances, monitoring drugs and doses), but with that trust comes responsibility to serve others--not yourself.

I get off telling him what to do because he CHOSE to be a pharmacist. By doing so, he gave up the right to moralize when people's health was at state.

Whethre or not the pharmacist (or you) likes it, the morning after pill is legal in this country. .


And doctors choose to be doctors and abortion is legal in this country yet many doctors refuse to perform abortions because of religious/moralistic reasons. Are you saying that they dont have this right?

Forget abortions, my father doesnt like performing foot surgery on young kids, so he doesnt. Are you saying that he should be forced to? If he worked in an ER, then maybe. But no one is saying that pharmacists in public hostpitals should be able to not fill a prescription. I am saying private individuals in private businesses do have more flexibility.

But personal ethics do not laws or rules of behavior make. However, the professional pharmacists association (its actual name alludes me at the moment) hold that the pharmacists SHOULD be filling the presciptions. You can have your personal ethics--but they cannot violate group ethics, licensing requirements, or national law. A pharmacist is free to believe what they want on their own time. However, s/he CHOOSE their profession, and sometimes that means doing things you may not agree with because it is a part of your job. Pharmcists are there to dispense medicines to the public and to serve the greater good. They are entrusted with a large amount of trust by society (possession of controlled substances, monitoring drugs and doses), but with that trust comes responsibility to serve others--not yourself.
And they don't. It's not against the law to refuse to issue medicine based on personal morals.

Actually, I grew up in a small town and still had 3 pharmacists. No. He shouldn't. His personal beliefs still matter even if you say they don't. What's that liberals like to say. That's what's freedom is all about. Defending other people's beliefs even if you don't agree with them. Sounds real fancy when you're trying to force your own issues, huh?

What liberalism is about is defending the public good from the actions of small minded people who would deprive rape victims of medications prescribed by their doctors, thus continuing the rapes. You (and the pharmacists) are the one trying to force your beliefs off on the masses.

Since you conservatives are so fond of saying that the majority should rule and the minority should shut up about it, why aren't you shut up about it? The majority in this case thinks that the pharmacists should have to dispense the drugs. Just ask the American Pharacological Association.

But personal ethics do not laws or rules of behavior make. However, the professional pharmacists association (its actual name alludes me at the moment) hold that the pharmacists SHOULD be filling the presciptions. You can have your personal ethics--but they cannot violate group ethics, licensing requirements, or national law. A pharmacist is free to believe what they want on their own time. However, s/he CHOOSE their profession, and sometimes that means doing things you may not agree with because it is a part of your job. Pharmcists are there to dispense medicines to the public and to serve the greater good. They are entrusted with a large amount of trust by society (possession of controlled substances, monitoring drugs and doses), but with that trust comes responsibility to serve others--not yourself.

The American Pharmaceutical Association.

http://www.aphanet.org//AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home

And they don't. It's not against the law to refuse to issue medicine based on personal morals.


No, but its going to be :)

No, but its going to be :)
You're right. They introduced a law. Now it's a fact. :rolleyes:

And doctors choose to be doctors and abortion is legal in this country yet many doctors refuse to perform abortions because of religious/moralistic reasons. Are you saying that they dont have this right?

Forget abortions, my father doesnt like performing foot surgery on young kids, so he doesnt. Are you saying that he should be forced to? If he worked in an ER, then maybe. But no one is saying that pharmacists in public hostpitals should be able to not fill a prescription. I am saying private individuals in private businesses do have more flexibility.


A doctor has the right to refuse to perform any procedure that he or she feels could be a danger to the patient. An abortion could certainly do that--especially he or she makes a mistake, as they are apt to do if they do not agree with abortions. However, I don't know a single doctor (and I'm in medical school in Mississippi of all places) who wouldn't refer a woman wanting an abortion to another doctor who could or would do it.

Likewise, pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill a prescription if they think it will harm the patient. However, giving a morning after pill is far less likely to harm a patient than a botched abortion. Ergo, their personal beliefs on the matter aren't going to affect the patient--while a doctors could.

And of course your father shouldn't be forced to perform foot surgery--but I bet he refers them to someone who will. I have no problems with a pharmacist not filling the prescription--provided that they refer the patient immediately to someone who will. If there is no one in the area, they I'm afraid they have no choice. To not do so would be akin to the only family doctor in an area refusing to run a code on a patient when they are present and the nearest ED is an hour away.

No difference at all. Either side is saying that things will be done their way and to hell with the other side.

No, the customer has option such as going to another pharmacy.

The pharmacist has no options other than go against is religious beliefs or quit being a pharmacist. Quite a ig differance there.

You're right. They introduced a law. Now it's a fact. :rolleyes:

The law is going to pass.

No, the customer has option such as going to another pharmacy.

The pharmacist has no options other than go against is religious beliefs or quit being a pharmacist. Quite a ig differance there.

Again you are speaking as if you are in a big town with many pharmacies. Many people do not thave this option. I reiterate, the pharmacist gave up the right to moralize in his or her practice when s/he became a pharmacist.

This will be my last post for a while--I have to get cleaned up and head to the free clinic.

No, the customer has option such as going to another pharmacy.

The pharmacist has no options other than go against is religious beliefs or quit being a pharmacist. Quite a ig differance there.

What if the customer does not have said option? It seems that if this sort of practice among pharmacists because commonplace, there might be several places in this country that you might not be able to find a pharmacist willing to prescribe a contraceptive at all.

Contrary to what you might believe, a pharmacist does not have the right to run his business any way he feels. It doesn't extend now to being forced to fill all prescriptions, but I really wish you'd get off this incorrect belief that anyone can just run their business any way they wish.

What if the customer does not have said option? It seems that if this sort of practice among pharmacists because commonplace, there might be several places in this country that you might not be able to find a pharmacist willing to prescribe a contraceptive at all.

Contrary to what you might believe, a pharmacist does not have the right to run his business any way he feels. It doesn't extend now to being forced to fill all prescriptions, but I really wish you'd get off this incorrect belief that anyone can just run their business any way they wish.
You're right. In this terribly important life or death situation, this woman had to have sex and abort the baby right there or fall over dead of pregnancy. How dare that pharmacist risk her life like that?

You're right. In this terribly important life or death situation, this woman had to have sex and abort the baby right there or fall over dead of pregnancy. How dare that pharmacist risk her life like that?

How very amusing. Tell you what. If you're going to be a sarcastic dick, you can have fun debating yourself in this thread. Adios.

How very amusing. Tell you what. If you're going to be a sarcastic dick, you can have fun debating yourself in this thread. Adios.
:) I just don't understand where the desperation comes from for her to get this pill. It's not anything emergent. It's just a woman who's self-righteousness has been incited and she's mad that someone else would make a choice that prevented her from getting her way.

:) I just don't understand where the desperation comes from for her to get this pill. It's not anything emergent. It's just a woman who's self-righteousness has been incited and she's mad that someone else would make a choice that prevented her from getting her way.

Yeah I shouldn't be posting again, but I got out of the shower and hit refresh and found this pile of crap.

1. There is a very small window of opportunity for a morning after pill to work.
2. It is often given to women who were RAPED by a private practice physician who could not fill it in his/her office.
3. A pharmacist does not know the situation that a pill is being given.
4. It is selfish arrogance for a pharmacist (or you) to assume that the only reason it is being given is because a woman felt like a boink fest and didn't want to take responsibility for it.
5. If you cannot understand this, then you have no experience with rape victims.

And now, I really am off to the clinic.

Yeah I shouldn't be posting again, but I got out of the shower and hit refresh and found this pile of crap.

1. There is a very small window of opportunity for a morning after pill to work.
2. It is often given to women who were RAPED by a private practice physician who could not fill it in his/her office.
3. A pharmacist does not know the situation that a pill is being given.
4. It is selfish arrogance for a pharmacist (or you) to assume that the only reason it is being given is because a woman felt like a boink fest and didn't want to take responsibility for it.
5. If you cannot understand this, then you have no experience with rape victims.

And now, I really am off to the clinic.
It doesn't matter what her reasons were. Some people see things in black and white. Some people have moral standards that they do not want to compromise, regardless. I know, just trying to oppress women and all that crap. Just because this reasoning satisfies any questions you have, doesn't mean it does me. The pharmacist should be allowed to exercise his objections. And like I said, if he was the only pharmacist there, would they have had the morning after pill? Probably not.

But a pharmacy is a business. It is not a social institution...
So are many hospitals.

it the pharmacist owns their own store it isn't abhorrent it is his/her right to do as their conscience dictates. go to another store they are everywhere after all. unless of course you live in a country with price fixing that forces free market countries to subsidize your prescription drug costs and research.

You know, this issue should never arise. These pill are prescribed for traumatized patients in emergency rooms. They are effective only within a very limited time. Handing the victims prescriptions instead of pills makes no better sense than giving people complaining of chest pain prescriptions for nitroglycerine and booting them out the door. The patient should be cared for before she leaves the prescribing doctor.

Pharmacists are human beings who must act as their consciences dictate, not as I nor anyone else demand. If a pharmacist is much out of line with the community where he practices, presumably the marketplace will deal with him or her.

You're right. In this terribly important life or death situation, this woman had to have sex and abort the baby right there or fall over dead of pregnancy. How dare that pharmacist risk her life like that?

This is NOT AN ABORTION PILL. RU-486 is an abortion pill. This is a CONCEPTION PREVENTION PILL.

And yes, how dare s/he refuse to fill a prescription which was deemed necessary by a medical professional, or refuse to refer a person needing it elsewhere, or in some cases, ILLEGALLY keep the prescription so that it CANNOT be filled.

I despise this "punish the woman" attitude that some overly hostile "moral" people have regarding birth control. Whatever happened to 'judge not, lest ye be judged?' Apparently every woman requiring birth control is a slut who deserves to be pregnant if she requires this medicine.

So, yes, how dare a pharmacist risk a patient's life like that, by reducing the chances of her NOT to require an abortion by making her wait longer for a pill which is MOST EFFECTIVE when taken IMMEDIATELY. How dare a pharmacist cause more stress and fear over a situation the woman most likely never wanted to be in in the first place? How dare a pharmacist say, in essence, "Have an abortion, give it up for adoption, or have a child you don't want since I don't feel you should have had sex?" How dare you state it is not an emergency?

What if the customer does not have said option? It seems that if this sort of practice among pharmacists because commonplace, there might be several places in this country that you might not be able to find a pharmacist willing to prescribe a contraceptive at all.


They can always go to a hospital. Even a private one would make sure their pharmacist filled all sorts of prescriptions. It is almost always the case that one is within driving distance.


Contrary to what you might believe, a pharmacist does not have the right to run his business any way he feels. It doesn't extend now to being forced to fill all prescriptions, but I really wish you'd get off this incorrect belief that anyone can just run their business any way they wish.


There will always be some regulations, the question is a) how far do we want regulation to go and b) whose rights are we willing to trample on.

This is NOT AN ABORTION PILL. RU-486 is an abortion pill. This is a CONCEPTION PREVENTION PILL.

And yes, how dare s/he refuse to fill a prescription which was deemed necessary by a medical professional, or refuse to refer a person needing it elsewhere, or in some cases, ILLEGALLY keep the prescription so that it CANNOT be filled.

I despise this "punish the woman" attitude that some overly hostile "moral" people have regarding birth control. Whatever happened to 'judge not, lest ye be judged?' Apparently every woman requiring birth control is a slut who deserves to be pregnant if she requires this medicine.

So, yes, how dare a pharmacist risk a patient's life like that, by reducing the chances of her NOT to require an abortion by making her wait longer for a pill which is MOST EFFECTIVE when taken IMMEDIATELY. How dare a pharmacist cause more stress and fear over a situation the woman most likely never wanted to be in in the first place? How dare a pharmacist say, in essence, "Have an abortion, give it up for adoption, or have a child you don't want since I don't feel you should have had sex?"
He didn't say any of that. He said, "Not from me." And he should be allowed.

He didn't say any of that. He said, "Not from me." And he should be allowed.

I love people's response today. I get to do what I want no matter what the consequence and NOBODY better tell me what to do. ... Liberals are horrendous in this and it's disgusting. He should be allowed to refuse to participate. He's human too. Where the fuck do you get off telling him what to do?


:) I just don't understand where the desperation comes from for her to get this pill. It's not anything emergent. It's just a woman who's self-righteousness has been incited and she's mad that someone else would make a choice that prevented her from getting her way.

This was directed at your arguments.

This is NOT AN ABORTION PILL. RU-486 is an abortion pill. This is a CONCEPTION PREVENTION PILL.

And yes, how dare s/he refuse to fill a prescription which was deemed necessary by a medical professional, or refuse to refer a person needing it elsewhere, or in some cases, ILLEGALLY keep the prescription so that it CANNOT be filled.

I despise this "punish the woman" attitude that some overly hostile "moral" people have regarding birth control. Whatever happened to 'judge not, lest ye be judged?' Apparently every woman requiring birth control is a slut who deserves to be pregnant if she requires this medicine.

So, yes, how dare a pharmacist risk a patient's life like that, by reducing the chances of her NOT to require an abortion by making her wait longer for a pill which is MOST EFFECTIVE when taken IMMEDIATELY. How dare a pharmacist cause more stress and fear over a situation the woman most likely never wanted to be in in the first place? How dare a pharmacist say, in essence, "Have an abortion, give it up for adoption, or have a child you don't want since I don't feel you should have had sex?" How dare you state it is not an emergency?

This is NOT AN ABORTION PILL. RU-486 is an abortion pill. This is a CONCEPTION PREVENTION PILL.

And yes, how dare s/he refuse to fill a prescription which was deemed necessary by a medical professional, or refuse to refer a person needing it elsewhere, or in some cases, ILLEGALLY keep the prescription so that it CANNOT be filled.

I despise this "punish the woman" attitude that some overly hostile "moral" people have regarding birth control. Whatever happened to 'judge not, lest ye be judged?' Apparently every woman requiring birth control is a slut who deserves to be pregnant if she requires this medicine.

So, yes, how dare a pharmacist risk a patient's life like that, by reducing the chances of her NOT to require an abortion by making her wait longer for a pill which is MOST EFFECTIVE when taken IMMEDIATELY. How dare a pharmacist cause more stress and fear over a situation the woman most likely never wanted to be in in the first place? How dare a pharmacist say, in essence, "Have an abortion, give it up for adoption, or have a child you don't want since I don't feel you should have had sex?" How dare you state it is not an emergency?

He isnt saying any of those things. He just has his beliefs(religious or not) and doesnt want to contradict them.

Now holding the prescription is just flat out wrong. He has no right to do that. Pharmacists should lose their licenses for that. He has no right to impose his beliefs on someone else, just like others dont have the right to impose their beliefs on him.

I agree mostly. Though I am concerned about the potential ramifications of this.

I would say if the pharmacist made this decision against the wishes of his employer(or even because he generated some negative publicisty) then the would be some issues between the two most likely ending in the pharmacist looking for a new job. Then again, there is a shortage of pharmacists in the US.

If the pharmacist makes a decision not to dispense medicine when dispensing that medicine is part of his job description according to his employer, then he gets fired. And if really is a moral issue for him, he should wear the pink slip like a badge of honor. Meanwhile, he won't get hired again at any pharmacy that *does* dispense birth control, as they will know why he was fired from the last place.

As for the shortage of pharmacists. I would rather have a few people who actually *do* their job than a surplus of those who don't. We have a shortage of certain types of doctors too, but we don't just hand a medical license to anyone and ask them to perform surgeries.

Yes, but what if they arent abusers?

Then the person gets their medication and all is well.

What if the pharmacist starts to get worried because of the increased sales of restricted medication. Should he able to stop selling it or does he have to "make up" a fear of potential abuse? How would that help matter if pharmacists have to,out of fear for themselves, are forced to maku up potential abuse cases.

A pharmacist never has to fear anything if they aren't handing medication out like candy and they are checking for potential interactions. One way or another, a pharmacist can't outright refuse to fill a prescription he has the money for on an unreasonable basis unless company policy dictates it - at which point the pharmacy is going to lose business, quick.

Contrary to what you might believe, a pharmacist does not have the right to run his business any way he feels. It doesn't extend now to being forced to fill all prescriptions, but I really wish you'd get off this incorrect belief that anyone can just run their business any way they wish.

What if a pharmacy simply doesn't stock a given medicine. Is there a law somewhere that lists out what a pharmacy must carry? I've certainly never seen one.

Besides, there are precious few people who don't live within driving distance of a hospital - it may be a long drive, but it is possible.

I heard a pharmacist on the radio yesterday talking about this. She said she routinely denies prescriptions. One example she gave is a guy came in with a 'script for 720 Vicadin. She said there was no way she'd give ANYBODY 720 Vicadin pills! Possibly because this would open her up to a potential lawsuit? I don't know 'cause I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on TV.

This is directed to all those to who believe that a pharmacist has the god-given/self-given right to deny a woman birth control medication and emergency contraceptives...

You know nothing! Get off your bloody high horse! You're a bunch of asinine, amoral people who need to pull your head out of the sand and do some research! A birth control pill isn't just to prevent the woman from getting pregnant (actually, it doesn't kill the egg at all, it stops the body from releasing one during the menstration cycle). Amongst other things, birth control pills contain estrogen, the female hormone that regulates our sexuality, as well as our natural cycles and allows us to menstate.

But, there are cases, where it is used for purposes other than purely contraceptive reasons (and yes, married women use them, because they want to mess around but they don't want another 18 years of responsibility!). In my case, I need it to allow me to menstate. My body doesn't produce estragen. There are other potential consequences if I don't take it, but, over all, if I don't, I'm only 22 and if I don't take them, I go into menopause...

So, the reason for my use of birth control pills is between me and my doctor. My pharmacist has no say, and if they tried, they'd have a nice law suit because their morals and ethics have no place at work, just like mine. I believe in free and open source software, but, I have to deal with proprietary software. I don't like it, but I need to and I need to know how it works.

When you have a job, your personal beliefs - whether religious or political - have no place there because you are working for someone else, even if you run a private business. Even if it is a pharmacy you run, you have a certain set of codes and guidelines to follow. You are providing a necessary service.

Or...here's a better example...

Here in Toronto, the board of education is fighting the support staff at the various schools, who have been without a proper contract for over a year and they have refused to clean up any garbage lying around unless it is actually toxic. Schools have been closed down because of it.


School Trustee Defies Caretakers' Work-To-Rule (http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20050422-016/page.asp)

Now, many people won't stand for it, and yet, people are standing for someone breaching the ethic code of his/her profession by refusing to provide the necessary medical drug to the person in need (abusers aside as they aren't a true factor in this forumla). So, how is this any different? In one way, the pharmacists are screwing around with someone's health and these care takers are making a toxic environment for children... Two different stories, different motives, similar consequences.

You know nothing! Get off your bloody high horse! You're a bunch of asinine, amoral people who need to pull your head out of the sand and do some research!

Why do you assume that anyone who says the owner of a *private* business can stock/not stock whatever they wish has anything at all against birth control? Hell, I'm on birth control - and I'd be pissed off if a pharmacy didn't carry it. So pissed off, in fact, that I'd never go to that pharmacist again, even if it meant I had to drive a little further for every prescription I m ight ever get.

Why do you assume that anyone who says the owner of a *private* business can stock/not stock whatever they wish has anything at all against birth control? Hell, I'm on birth control - and I'd be pissed off if a pharmacy didn't carry it. So pissed off, in fact, that I'd never go to that pharmacist again, even if it meant I had to drive a little further for every prescription I m ight ever get.
I'm making my assumption against those who favour the right of a pharmacist NOT to stick birth control pills.

I'm making my assumption against those who favour the right of a pharmacist NOT to stick birth control pills.

And I think that any private pharmacist can NOT stock birth control pills - I simply would not frequent such a pharmacy.

Of course, if the pharmacist is simply an employee of a pharmacy, and that pharmacy *does* stock BCPs, then she should be fired if she breaks company policy.

And I think that any private pharmacist can NOT stock birth control pills - I simply would not frequent such a pharmacy.

Of course, if the pharmacist is simply an employee of a pharmacy, and that pharmacy *does* stock BCPs, then she should be fired if she breaks company policy.
Exactly there should be no legal recourse for someone who knowingly breaks legal company policy

It doesn't matter what her reasons were. Some people see things in black and white. Some people have moral standards that they do not want to compromise, regardless. I know, just trying to oppress women and all that crap. Just because this reasoning satisfies any questions you have, doesn't mean it does me. The pharmacist should be allowed to exercise his objections. And like I said, if he was the only pharmacist there, would they have had the morning after pill? Probably not.


Then if he wants to exercise his moral objections, he should be held liable for criminal abuse in continuing the woman's rape.

it the pharmacist owns their own store it isn't abhorrent it is his/her right to do as their conscience dictates. go to another store they are everywhere after all. unless of course you live in a country with price fixing that forces free market countries to subsidize your prescription drug costs and research.


As has been said multiple times, that is not always true. There are some areas where there is only one pharmacy. Those of you living in the city need to realize that its not the same for people in th country who may already have to go half an hour or more to the nearest pharmacy--which is sometimes quite difficult if you are poor.

You know, this issue should never arise. These pill are prescribed for traumatized patients in emergency rooms. They are effective only within a very limited time. Handing the victims prescriptions instead of pills makes no better sense than giving people complaining of chest pain prescriptions for nitroglycerine and booting them out the door. The patient should be cared for before she leaves the prescribing doctor.

Pharmacists are human beings who must act as their consciences dictate, not as I nor anyone else demand. If a pharmacist is much out of line with the community where he practices, presumably the marketplace will deal with him or her.


Except that in some instances the woman does not go to the ER but to her own private practice physician who probably doens't have the morning after pill on hand. That's why these prescriptions are written.

He didn't say any of that. He said, "Not from me." And he should be allowed.


Saying not from me is in essense, saying all of that. When you choose a career in the medical fields, you give up certain personal rights--like moralizing from behind a drug counter, that's the way it is.

As has been said multiple times, that is not always true. There are some areas where there is only one pharmacy. Those of you living in the city need to realize that its not the same for people in th country who may already have to go half an hour or more to the nearest pharmacy--which is sometimes quite difficult if you are poor.

That is unfortunate, but not a reason to force a business to stock something they do not wish to stock. If you are going to legislate every medicine that a pharmacy *must* stock, then it would be much easier to legislate that a pharmacy must be available in every town.

Meanwhile, I find it highly unlikely that there are many areas with a doctor's office, but not a pharmacy or two. Also, if a doctor knows that the nearest pharmacy doesn't carry a given drug, he can decide to keep samples on hand.

Then if he wants to exercise his moral objections, he should be held liable for criminal abuse in continuing the woman's rape.

You have really let your idealology interfere with your reason.

As has been said multiple times, that is not always true. There are some areas where there is only one pharmacy. Those of you living in the city need to realize that its not the same for people in th country who may already have to go half an hour or more to the nearest pharmacy--which is sometimes quite difficult if you are poor.

So convenience now overrides religious/moral belief? I this your argument?

Except that in some instances the woman does not go to the ER but to her own private practice physician who probably doens't have the morning after pill on hand. That's why these prescriptions are written.

And if this doctor lived in an area with only access to 1 pharmacy that refused to provide this medication, I am sure the doctor would start to keep a supply.

Saying not from me is in essense, saying all of that. When you choose a career in the medical fields, you give up certain personal rights--like moralizing from behind a drug counter, that's the way it is.

Doctors arent forced to provide abortions, or any other medical procedure why should pharmacists?

Doctors arent forced to provide abortions,

Exactly. A doctor in private practice, even if she is the only doctor in the area, is not required to perform an abortion.

Meanwhile, a doctor who works for someone else (a hospital, etc) and signed a contract wherein one of his duties was providing this medical procedure, can be fired for not performing his duties.

The same should hold true for pharmacists.

Doctors arent forced to provide abortions, or any other medical procedure why should pharmacists?


I've explained that in a previous post within the last two pages, I'm too lazy to look up the number right now, but it is there.

That is unfortunate, but not a reason to force a business to stock something they do not wish to stock. If you are going to legislate every medicine that a pharmacy *must* stock, then it would be much easier to legislate that a pharmacy must be available in every town.

Actually I never said I was in favor of forcing them to stock it. While regretable, I do realize the impossibility of doing so. The law that has been proposed in Congress recognizes this as well. They only require that if a drug is not stocked and there is no other pharmacy in the area that carries it, the pharmacy must order it.


Meanwhile, I find it highly unlikely that there are many areas with a doctor's office, but not a pharmacy or two. Also, if a doctor knows that the nearest pharmacy doesn't carry a given drug, he can decide to keep samples on hand.

Then perhaps you need to leave the city and come to rural Mississippi where they may only be one pharmacy per county, where many do not own cars and where this is no public transit.

You have really let your idealology interfere with your reason.


Hey, you are aruing for a phamacist's idealogy to interefere with medical care provided by a physician. While my previous statement was a use of hyperbole, it was intended to show the damage that could be done by someone's high horse. You obviously missed the point.

So convenience now overrides religious/moral belief? I this your argument?


Convenience? Nay. I'm talking about actually being able to do it. I'm sure in your white, middle class in an area moderately large enough to have several pharmacies and perhaps public transit, its no big deal to go thirty minutes to get medicines. In some areas that's not the case. I have patients who cannot get in to see more than once in six months because they depend on others to drive them an hour and a half and they cannot always find someone. Throw in a trip to the pharmacy, and the people willinging to help drops.

And if this doctor lived in an area with only access to 1 pharmacy that refused to provide this medication, I am sure the doctor would start to keep a supply.

You know, I'm not even sure if it IS sampled. The morning after pill isn't a drug that has much competiton, so companies don't just give it away. As for stocking it, that requires many licenses and a pharmacy degree which is, gee, why we have pharmacies in the first place.

And I think that any private pharmacist can NOT stock birth control pills - I simply would not frequent such a pharmacy.

Of course, if the pharmacist is simply an employee of a pharmacy, and that pharmacy *does* stock BCPs, then she should be fired if she breaks company policy.

does this work in reverse? so if I work for a pharmacy that the owner has a moral objection to BCP ?

*note - am outraged that pharmacists would presume to judge women and not stock EC*

does this work in reverse? so if I work for a pharmacy that the owner has a moral objection to BCP ?

If you work for a pharmacy where the owner has an objection, then BCP won't even be stocked and you won't be able to dispense it. Of course, given your abhorrence to the idea, then I doubt you would be willing to work at such a pharmacy (another problem any owner wishing to do this would face).

With the loss of people willing to work there and business of those who object, such a pharmacy probably wouldn't be around long, now would it?

You know, I'm not even sure if it IS sampled. The morning after pill isn't a drug that has much competiton, so companies don't just give it away. As for stocking it, that requires many licenses and a pharmacy degree which is, gee, why we have pharmacies in the first place.

The doctor can always order them from the manufactors or through go through the net or through the mail from a pharmacist that doesnt have an objection.

We have pharmacies because a doctors office cannot stock(impracticle) all the drugs a pharmacy can. And if its legal to dispense a sample, it would be legal to dispense the commercial version, given that the only differance between the two is wording saying that the sample isnt for sale.

The doctor can always order them from the manufactors or through go through the net or through the mail from a pharmacist that doesnt have an objection.

We have pharmacies because a doctors office cannot stock(impracticle) all the drugs a pharmacy can. And if its legal to dispense a sample, it would be legal to dispense the commercial version, given that the only differance between the two is wording saying that the sample isnt for sale.

That would be logical. Unfortunatly, the FDA and the DEA are run by buearucrats. Buearucrats have their own logic that doesn't resemble our Earth logic.

If they don't stock it, are willing to otherwise reroute the consumer, or otherwise refuse the prescription, not a problem, though the pharmacist may be fired by vis boss (if any) for not doing vis job.

If they take the prescription HOSTAGE, however, they should probably be forever stripped of their pharmacist licence and sentenced to either maximum misdemeanor time or felony time.

You obviously live in a large city with chain pharmacies. Get a life. Most of America is rural and doesn't have those type of luxuries (though yes, it is getting better).
Yeah. Just following that up, are pharmacists bound by confidentiality? Because that can really fuck things up if you live in a small community.
And he should have to fill it because he CHOSE to be a pharmacist. That means monitoring drugs for interactions/harmful side effects--not moralizing to patients. If he wanted to preach, then he should have joined the ministry. Everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that he CHOSE to be a pharmacist--no one has ever been drafted into that profession.
I agree. And it's not like the pharmacist is administering the medication (in which case a moral objection might be more reasonable); all they do is hand it over. Get a life.

The doctor can always order them from the manufactors or through go through the net or through the mail from a pharmacist that doesnt have an objection.

You obviously do not how know medication works. A doctor can only get medications from the company if they are FREE (aka sampled by a drug rep). Ordering them from the company results the doctor's office becoming a pharmacy--something they cannot do with a lot of money and a lot of certification. Ordering from the internet might be a possibility, except that it would require time to ship a drug for which time is of the essense in taking. It's ridiculous to take this risk if the pharmacy in town stocks the drug--especially if the only reason you can't get it there is the pharmacist has decided that s/he doesn't want to do the job they signed up for.


We have pharmacies because a doctors office cannot stock(impracticle) all the drugs a pharmacy can. And if its legal to dispense a sample, it would be legal to dispense the commercial version, given that the only differance between the two is wording saying that the sample isnt for sale.

You'd think wouldn't you, but sadly it just doesn't work that way.

Yeah. Just following that up, are pharmacists bound by confidentiality? Because that can really fuck things up if you live in a small community.

A good question that I do not know the answer to. My guess would be that they are thanks to HIPAA because it binds everyone involved in the patient care process to confidentiality, and that would include pharmacists. However, that is just a guess.

especially if the only reason you can't get it there is the pharmacist has decided that s/he doesn't want to do the job they signed up for.

You can really only talk about the "job they signed up for" if the pharmacist works for someone else - and I haven't seen anyone arguing that an employee can make these kinds of decisions. Only a pharmacist who owns his own practice would be able to do so without getting fired.

Er. If a doctor writes a prescription, and no pharmay around can/will fill it, it is the doctor's responsibility to make sure that prescription is filled, no one elses.

I see a lot of people on here screaming at pharmacists as though they could sue them for not carrying their favorite drug, in the same manner an overweight person would threaten to sue MacDonald's for not carrying the Big Mac in their regional franchise.

But drugs aren't so cut and dry. Say you use the same pharmacist for all your purchases... that pharmacist will know all the drugs you are on. If your psychiatrist already has you on an MAOI or some other antidepressant, and your OB/GYN specialist (who didn't bother to look at you rmedical history for some reason) puts you on Orthotrycycline. Some interaction occurs which causes your blood pressure to drop to less than 70/50, and you have a heart attack, guess who gets the malpractice lawsuit?

Your pharmacist! They're the last line of defense before you poison yourself!
Disgruntled customers would like to cast pharmacists in some moral light as being people who don't want to give out drugs for personal reasons, so that they can take the risks and get the drugs anyway, but the system is designed to prevent abuses like that. Yay for private ownership and responsibility.

You can really only talk about the "job they signed up for" if the pharmacist works for someone else - and I haven't seen anyone arguing that an employee can make these kinds of decisions. Only a pharmacist who owns his own practice would be able to do so without getting fired.

If the pharmacy stocks birthcontrol/MAPs regardless of whether or not s/he owns it, s/he has to dispense it. The job that the pharmacist signed up to do is to dispense properly prescribed medication and to monitor for drug interactions to assist the doctors. This is a noble job in my opinion.

Personally, I think that all pharmacies SHOULD have to carry certain medicines, but I would not push for a law for that. However, what I will compromise that they have to do is provide it if they stock it, send them to someone else if they are available, or order it if there is no other pharmacist. Period. I do not care if they own their business or not.

Stock = fill it.
Refuse = refer.
No refer = Order it.

Er. If a doctor writes a prescription, and no pharmay around can/will fill it, it is the doctor's responsibility to make sure that prescription is filled, no one elses.

I see a lot of people on here screaming at pharmacists as though they could sue them for not carrying their favorite drug, in the same manner an overweight person would threaten to sue MacDonald's for not carrying the Big Mac in their regional franchise.

But drugs aren't so cut and dry. Say you use the same pharmacist for all your purchases... that pharmacist will know all the drugs you are on. If your psychiatrist already has you on an MAOI or some other antidepressant, and your OB/GYN specialist (who didn't bother to look at you rmedical history for some reason) puts you on Orthotrycycline. Some interaction occurs which causes your blood pressure to drop to less than 70/50, and you have a heart attack, guess who gets the malpractice lawsuit?

Your pharmacist! They're the last line of defense before you poison yourself!
Disgruntled customers would like to cast pharmacists in some moral light as being people who don't want to give out drugs for personal reasons, so that they can take the risks and get the drugs anyway, but the system is designed to prevent abuses like that. Yay for private ownership and responsibility.


A. Actually no. The doctor doesn't have the responsibility to make sure the drug is filled. That is part of WHY there are pharmacies. It makes for a distribution of power and for checks and balances.
B. Let me assure you, at least in this state, the lawsuit will fall not only on the pharmacist but it would also land squarely on the doctors shoulders who did not bother to do their job. And it should. The pharmacist and the doctor should support one anothre and back each other up for the betterment of the patient. This means they are both at fault for drug mixtures that shouldn't happen.

If the pharmacy stocks birthcontrol/MAPs regardless of whether or not s/he owns it, s/he has to dispense it. The job that the pharmacist signed up to do is to dispense properly prescribed medication and to monitor for drug interactions to assist the doctors. This is a noble job in my opinion.

If he owns it and is opposed to the medication, he won't stock it, so there really isn't a problem here.

Stock = fill it.
Refuse = refer.
No refer = Order it.

There is no such thing as "no refer." The other pharmacy may be an hour away, but there will be one that carries it to which the pharmacist can refer someone. At that point, it is *their* responsibility to get there - just as it is my responsibility to get to an orthopedic specialist if my GP refers me to one. If there isn't one nearby, that doesn't mean my GP has to act as an orthopedic specialist.

If he owns it and is opposed to the medication, he won't stock it, so there really isn't a problem here.

I cannot deny that. I wish it were otherwise, but reality is reality.


There is no such thing as "no refer." The other pharmacy may be an hour away, but there will be one that carries it to which the pharmacist can refer someone. At that point, it is *their* responsibility to get there - just as it is my responsibility to get to an orthopedic specialist if my GP refers me to one. If there isn't one nearby, that doesn't mean my GP has to act as an orthopedic specialist.

So poor women who are the victims of rape and don't have cars and live in areas with public transit just get screwed. Nice.

So poor women who are the victims of rape and don't have cars and live in areas with public transit just get screwed. Nice.

*Shrug* Work on getting public transit and charities to help such women. Write to a chain pharmacy and convince them that your area would be profitable for them.

It is a sad state, but those with less money get screwed all the time.

Meanwhile, very few rape victims (especially if they plan to prosecute) go to a GP, as most GPs don't stock rape kits.

I cannot deny that. I wish it were otherwise, but reality is reality.



So poor women who are the victims of rape and don't have cars and live in areas with public transit just get screwed. Nice.

If someone is truly a victim of rape, then it becomes the legal system's responsibility to take care of any reproductive needs. Why the hell would you wait 3 days to see a doctor and then another day to go to a pharmacist?
Couldn't the police and the ME just have a supply on standby?

It sounds to me like this argument would be used by a woman who engaged in consensual sex and then decided to call it rape later.

You obviously do not how know medication works. A doctor can only get medications from the company if they are FREE (aka sampled by a drug rep). Ordering them from the company results the doctor's office becoming a pharmacy--something they cannot do with a lot of money and a lot of certification. Ordering from the internet might be a possibility, except that it would require time to ship a drug for which time is of the essense in taking. It's ridiculous to take this risk if the pharmacy in town stocks the drug--especially if the only reason you can't get it there is the pharmacist has decided that s/he doesn't want to do the job they signed up for.


Well, both my parents and most of my relatives are doctors so I actually know very little about how many parts of medicine works in the States(no sarcasm at all). Almost all of the pills I have taken have been doctors samples(we are still hoarding viox for our own use and refuse to send back the boxess that we have). I have always gotten whatever medical needs I had growing up taken care of through back door channels(no waits, no hmo, almost always no payment except for dentists). The local pharmacy takes my word for it that I will come back with a prescription or have the office call(course I never tried that with Vicodin or anything like that)

I live in india now and it works in a completely different way. You dont even need a prescription at pharmacies for what would be class III narcotics back in the States. If you have the cash you are good to go. God couldnt help you if you needed critical care and had to go to a free government hospital. And if you go to a private one, you pretty much have to bring cash with you or least prove that you can pay before they will admit you.

Convenience? Nay. I'm talking about actually being able to do it. I'm sure in your white, middle class in an area moderately large enough to have several pharmacies and perhaps public transit, its no big deal to go thirty minutes to get medicines. In some areas that's not the case. I have patients who cannot get in to see more than once in six months because they depend on others to drive them an hour and a half and they cannot always find someone. Throw in a trip to the pharmacy, and the people willinging to help drops.

I am not white.

How my skin color/ethnicity has any bearing on this discussion, I fail to understand.

While i have always lived in area that had multiple pharmacies in close distance I fail to see what that has to do with it.

The situation you are describing is interesting except for the following. You have previously stated that a doctor shouldnt be forced to perform an abortion but should refer them to another that is. In the rural area you are describing, this would cause the same problem for the patient as a pharmacy refusing to sell whatever pills.

You say the pharmacy should at least make a refferal to one that it(I agree), but say they dont. 1) How hard is it to pick up a phone book and make a couple of calls to find a pharmacy that does? 2) except for the refferal part(and doctors arent forced to make a referal I dont think) what is the essential differance between a doctor refusing some medical procedure and a pharmacy refusing to sell some pill? Yet you think it is ok on the part of the doctor but not okay on part of the pharmacy?

Hey, you are aruing for a phamacist's idealogy to interefere with medical care provided by a physician. While my previous statement was a use of hyperbole, it was intended to show the damage that could be done by someone's high horse. You obviously missed the point.

I am arguing for their RIGHT to do so. In no way do I think it is WISE.

I think society is much offer when it respects the beliefs of its citizens(as much as is possible) rather than forcing thoughts/concepts down people's throats under the guise of "the greater good".

Meanwhile, very few rape victims (especially if they plan to prosecute) go to a GP, as most GPs don't stock rape kits.

Far more rape victims go to primary care doctors (there are very few GPs in this country anymore as its no longer offered) than people realize because most women who are raped don't plan on prosecuting because they are scared of society's response. It's another sad testimony to the state this land.

Well, both my parents and most of my relatives are doctors so I actually know very little about how many parts of medicine works in the States(no sarcasm at all). Almost all of the pills I have taken have been doctors samples(we are still hoarding viox for our own use and refuse to send back the boxess that we have). I have always gotten whatever medical needs I had growing up taken care of through back door channels(no waits, no hmo, almost always no payment except for dentists). The local pharmacy takes my word for it that I will come back with a prescription or have the office call(course I never tried that with Vicodin or anything like that)

Exactly. You got medicines through samples--free samples. I do not believe (though I am not sure) that the morning after pill is sampled. Further, a doctor cannot just order medicines from companies. The medicines have to be given out as samples, or he simply won't have them in his office.

Meh. I see no wrong. If the pharmacists is being pissant over the issue. Go to another pharmacist. It's his loss.

Exactly. You got medicines through samples--free samples. I do not believe (though I am not sure) that the morning after pill is sampled. Further, a doctor cannot just order medicines from companies. The medicines have to be given out as samples, or he simply won't have them in his office.
Can I just say that doctors aren't supposed to be treating their family members... Apparently it has been shown to lead to a lower standard of care. Probably because consultations are held round the dinner table. And here doctors aren't allowed to prescribe for family members (I don't think...), so that might explain the samples. :p

Can I just say that doctors aren't supposed to be treating their family members... Apparently it has been shown to lead to a lower standard of care. Probably because consultations are held round the dinner table. And here doctors aren't allowed to prescribe for family members (I don't think...), so that might explain the samples. :p

Well, nobody thinks it is wise to operate on a family member, but handing out some antibiotics for an infection is pretty standard stuff.

In the US doctors can prescribe for family members

Well, nobody thinks it is wise to operate on a family member, but handing out some antibiotics for an infection is pretty standard stuff.
I know it is, but should it be? I mean, say you listen to the symptoms when you're all tired from work, and miss something? You can't hear them over the TV?

I dunno, something about it unsettles me.

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-dsphar4223026apr19,0,3364110.story?coll=ny-health-headlines

I believe that denying a patient a properly prescribed medication, when it does not have a potentially harmful drug interaction with other medications that patient takes, is abhorrent.

Unless there is a medical reason for denying a prescription, I believe a pharmacist has no right to refuse to fill the prescription unless s/he can provide an alternate pharmacist who will, and speedily. It is injecting their personal opinions where they do not belong, and where a patient and his/her physician have already decided that a particular treatment is necessary.

Denying, for example, a woman a properly filled-out prescription for emergency contraception on the grounds that it is an abortifacient is, in other words, forcing that woman to have an abortion should she indeed become pregnant. If the reason she was prescribed the contraception is because a pregnancy could threaten her life, then, in effect, the pharmacist has now interfered with her proper course of treatment and should, in my opinion, be held liable for any injury that subsequently occurs.


AMEN!!

I know it is, but should it be? I mean, say you listen to the symptoms when you're all tired from work, and miss something? You can't hear them over the TV?

I dunno, something about it unsettles me.

Well, the biggest thing I noticed when I ws growing up was that I had to be literally bleeding or passed out before anyone became the slightest bit alarmed.

an examples

in 5th grade I ran into a moving car, luckily I was going perpendiculr to the cars motions so nothing too bad happened(I landed on the trunk and then on the road face first). Couldn't move my right leg though. He poked at it a while(causing me a good deal of discomfort) and realized that there was only soft tissue damage to my knee(no MRIs in common use if at all back then). Threw some braces on it and left it at that. Got an xray eventually. I couldnt walk properly for over a month.

No big concern, no sympathy A kid runs into a car, parents should at least have the couresy of being alarmed or taking him to a hospital.

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-dsphar4223026apr19,0,3364110.story?coll=ny-health-headlines

I believe that denying a patient a properly prescribed medication, when it does not have a potentially harmful drug interaction with other medications that patient takes, is abhorrent.

Unless there is a medical reason for denying a prescription, I believe a pharmacist has no right to refuse to fill the prescription unless s/he can provide an alternate pharmacist who will, and speedily. It is injecting their personal opinions where they do not belong, and where a patient and his/her physician have already decided that a particular treatment is necessary.

Denying, for example, a woman a properly filled-out prescription for emergency contraception on the grounds that it is an abortifacient is, in other words, forcing that woman to have an abortion should she indeed become pregnant. If the reason she was prescribed the contraception is because a pregnancy could threaten her life, then, in effect, the pharmacist has now interfered with her proper course of treatment and should, in my opinion, be held liable for any injury that subsequently occurs.

I find this disgusting, and the pharmacist (in my perfect world) should be fired immediately. He should have no right ever to deny a perscription that is properly filled out. I don't give a rats ass what his personal beliefs are, this is not his personal choice, it is someone elses. And by doing this, he is imposing his morals on others, which I believe is wrong.

If it is a personaly run busniess I think they have the right to offer the services that they want
But there should be NO recourse if they work for a company (lets say wallgreens) and they disobey company policy to deny service that the company they work for DOES provide

They should be able to be fired just like everyone else who does not do their job

There are fewer & fewer privately owned pharmacies any more most are corporate owned and if a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription no matter the reason he/she should realize he/she is risking their employment...

There are fewer & fewer privately owned pharmacies any more most are corporate owned and if a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription no matter the reason he/she should realize he/she is risking their employment...

Absolutely. Unless the pharmacy in question has given the pharmacist permission to refrain from giving out certain medications on a moral basis (unlikely in most chains I know of), then dispensing all stocked medication is part of the job. If they do not do so, they should be subject to the disciplinary actions that company uses - up to and including being fired.

If someone is truly a victim of rape, then it becomes the legal system's responsibility to take care of any reproductive needs. Why the hell would you wait 3 days to see a doctor and then another day to go to a pharmacist?
Couldn't the police and the ME just have a supply on standby?

It sounds to me like this argument would be used by a woman who engaged in consensual sex and then decided to call it rape later.

Why do you assume they waited? What we are talking about is the fact that the EC is most effective if taken immediately, that it works best if taken between 3-5 days.

If a prescription is denied because a pharmacist refuses to fill it solely for non-drug interaction/medical reasons and there is no other pharmacy available, or if s/he takes the prescription and refuses to release it to another pharmacist because s/he believes it to be immoral, it means more precious time lost as the patient has to get her doctor to write another.

The longer it takes before you get the prescription, the higher the likelihood of pregnancy occuring.

EC is not to be fooled around with -- anyone who is remotely interested should look up Plan B and the warnings it has on it. If you take Plan B in lieu of prescribed birth control pills (in other words, abusing it) you are heightening your risk of ectopic pregnancy (a highly dangerous and potentially life-threatening situation)and stroke, blood clots, and other ailments and, because Plan B is a megadose of estrogen and progesterin, you are definitely going to feel sick and throw off your cycle. Does this sound like something reasonable people would choose to do on a regular basis?