NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/01/011206hiv.htm

I am very pleased with this. I think that it's incredibly stupid of someone to go into a line of work where they are likely to have to do something they disagree with. If you don't want to fill perscriptions for pills that you disagree with, don't be a pharmacist. I don't agree with the slaughter of animals, so I won't become a butcher. It's as easy as that.

It's too bad that Wyoming doesn't actually exist.

:confused:

Did I misspell it?

It's too bad that Wyoming doesn't actually exist.
You heard it on a forum so it must be true.

I remember a Garfield episode with this.

While sometimes I am torn on this issue because I agree with you honest people should not go into this line of work unless they are willing to do their job ... I fight with the idea that personal business owner rights to dispense what they agree with (or let their employees do such)

But in cases like this I am glad they made such a decision ... Wyoming is a large empty state at places, a lot of times this is not a “Ill just drive down the street to get my medication” sort of situation you can have to drive for hours to get to another pharmacy.

Either way only a complete ignorant asshole would not hand out aids medication to anyone that needs it.

Either way only a complete ignorant asshole would not hand out aids medication to anyone that needs it.
So only people in Wyoming, Alabama, Mississippi, some parts of Georgia, Kansas, some parts of Tennessee, Virginia, the Carolinas, etc etc.

So only people in Wyoming, Alabama, Mississippi, some parts of Georgia, Kansas, some parts of Tennessee, Virginia, the Carolinas, etc etc.
If they did it they are assholes in my book regardless of where they hail from

:confused:

Did I misspell it?

No. Have you ever been to Wyoming? Do you know anyone that's ever been to Wyoming? Yellowstone Park doesn't count.

No. Have you ever been to Wyoming? Do you know anyone that's ever been to Wyoming? Yellowstone Park doesn't count.
I have spent a week in Cheyenne Wyoming

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/01/011206hiv.htm

I am very pleased with this. I think that it's incredibly stupid of someone to go into a line of work where they are likely to have to do something they disagree with. If you don't want to fill perscriptions for pills that you disagree with, don't be a pharmacist. I don't agree with the slaughter of animals, so I won't become a butcher. It's as easy as that.
Your argument about "if you don't want to fill perscriptions..." doesn't always apply, because of the changes that could occur during one's professional life time. Im sure someone who became a pharmacist pre-1970 would have had no idea what would be available today.

Government demanding pharmacists fill any and all perscriptions is the wrong way to solve this issue.

If a pharmacist doesn't wish to fill perscriptions, nothing says a person has to go to that pharmacy. When the pharmacy sees a loss of business he/she then has the choice to either change the way they do business or deal with that loss of income. If the pharmacist works for a larger company, say wal-greens or rite-aid then they would have to follow their company policy regarding which perscriptions they fill. They don't want to perscribe something that their employers say they should, fine, but they are free to find work somewhere else. If it's their pharmacy, small independant like, then they should have the right to fill or not fill as they see fit.

Your way, government has to force people to do something they don't wish to do, my way no one is forced to do anything.

If a pharmacist doesn't wish to fill perscriptions, nothing says a person has to go to that pharmacy.If it's the only pharmacy within 100 or 200 miles of where a person lives, then yes, a person does have to go to that pharmacy.

Government demanding pharmacists fill any and all perscriptions is the wrong way to solve this issue.
The industry refuses to regulate it so the government should demand they fill prescriptions. It is their damn job, and since employers won't make them do their damn job, the government can go ahead.

If a pharmacist doesn't wish to fill perscriptions, nothing says a person has to go to that pharmacy.
Well, this is great if you have a super market on every block.

If a pharmacist doesn't wish to fill perscriptions, nothing says a person has to go to that pharmacy. When the pharmacy sees a loss of business he/she then has the choice to either change the way they do business or deal with that loss of income. If the pharmacist works for a larger company, say wal-greens or rite-aid then they would have to follow their company policy regarding which perscriptions they fill. They don't want to perscribe something that their employers say they should, fine, but they are free to find work somewhere else. If it's their pharmacy, small independant like, then they should have the right to fill or not fill as they see fit.

Your way, government has to force people to do something they don't wish to do, my way no one is forced to do anything.
I refer you to this argument:

But in cases like this I am glad they made such a decision ... Wyoming is a large empty state at places, a lot of times this is not a “Ill just drive down the street to get my medication” sort of situation you can have to drive for hours to get to another pharmacy.

do you have a good way to prevent people from wasting two gas tank and four hours of driving just to fill a prescription?

If it's the only pharmacy within 100 or 200 miles of where a person lives, then yes, a person does have to go to that pharmacy.
Sorry no, they don't.

Drive those 100-200 miles.
Mail order.
Internet.
Canada.

There are options.

I have spent a week in Cheyenne Wyoming
Liar!

There is no such place. Everybody knows that.

Drive those 100-200 miles.
And no one cares about your opinion any more.

If I had to drive to Nashville to get medicine, I wouldn't have any damn medicine.

Sorry no, they don't.

Drive those 100-200 miles.
Mail order.
Internet.
Canada.

There are options.Those options are only options if a person's insurance company has a mail order program, for instance. If a person can't afford the medication, then doing that is not an option.

And no one cares about your opinion any more.

Truth.

Sorry no, they don't.

Drive those 100-200 miles.
Mail order.
Internet.
Canada.

There are options.
That or we can make sure that thoes that are certified by the state to be pharmisists are not asshats and actualy do the job they agreed to do rather then forcing undo hardship on people

it should be part of a pharmacist's code of ethics to fill any legally prescribed prescription. the only exceptions should be for medical or legal reasons. the sort that cause the pharmacist to call up the doctor to inform him of a drug interaction problem or the police to get someone arrested for fraud.

anyone else should not be licensed to be a pharmacist.

That or we can make sure that thoes that are certified by the state to be pharmisists are not asshats and actualy do the job they agreed to do rather then forcing undo hardship on peopleNot to mention that if someone needs their morning after pill, by the time it arrives through mail order it's not the morning after anymore.

That or we can make sure that thoes that are certified by the state to be pharmisists are not asshats and actualy do the job they agreed to do rather then forcing undo hardship on people
There are options. You can't deny that.
Just because something is the easiest way to do it, doesn't mean it's the only way to do it.


And no one cares about your opinion any more.

If I had to drive to Nashville to get medicine, I wouldn't have any damn medicine.
Wow, how very tolerant of you :rolleyes:
Nice way to pick only the one option.

It's Montana that doesn't exist, not Wyoming.

The area many people refer to as "Montana" is a secret staging ground for an ongoing war between the state of Washington and Canada, the so called Cider War (aka the Cider and Cheese War). The war was kicked off inadvertently when an off-season hockey game turned sour. Time Warner, whose headquarters is being used as the Washington side's war room, will not comment directly, althought they do confirm that Ted Turner - on paper the largest private landowner in the US - has a great deal of land in "Montana". My sources tell me that Wisconsin is also heavily involved in this war, in an effort to squelch their Canadian dairy competitors, although they won't admit to it. I hear it's also partially funded by the Native American gambling casino cartel, who home to one day regain the land for their pet project, a five million acre "Sin Complex" along the Canadian border.

Wyoming. Sheesh.

There are options. You can't deny that.
Just because something is the easiest way to do it, doesn't mean it's the only way to do it.



Nope but sometimes it is the best way to do it

No. Have you ever been to Wyoming? Do you know anyone that's ever been to Wyoming? Yellowstone Park doesn't count.

I have. Didn't like it - too many elkhorn arches (http://www.aftonwyoming.net/img/arch.jpg) for my taste.

On topic:

A medical doctor has to care for all patients, whether he/she agrees with their "lifestyle" or not, so a pharmacist should be held to the same standards.

<snip>
A medical doctor has to care for all patients, whether he/she agrees with their "lifestyle" or not, so a pharmacist should be held to the same standards.
Truth. They have to care for all patients, and they do care for all patients. It's called ethics. They swore when they got their medical licenses to do this, and so they do it, whether they like it or not.

I like the way people nowadays think they get to fine tune their ethics. Ethics is an overarching principal of doing the right thing. It is not ethical to claim that upholding your ethics on one topic allows you to violate your ethics on another topic.

The ethics of the licensed pharmacist require him to dispense medications according to the instructions of doctors, to alert doctors if prescriptions conflict with each other, and alert law enforcement if they detect illegal drug activities. It doesn't matter if he thinks the patient is a slut, or he doesn't care if the patient lives or dies, or he thinks the law on drugs is wrong. It is a position of medical and social trust, and by getting the license, the pharmacist promises to do this.

If a person's religious ethics say they should stop people from using birth control, then, ethically, they should not become pharmacists because they may be required as pharmacists to dispense birth control/morning after pills. If such a person, knowing he will not do that, still becomes a licensed pharmacist, that person is violating ethics and should have his license revoked.

When I was 16 I caught a small case of the rotten-crotch in Wyoming from a plump girl. Though easily cured by antibiotics, I was soured on the idea of 'Wyoming' forever after.

The entire state is dead to me now so, yes, I would say they're only your imagination, if things like this are still going on.

Wyoming Pharmacy Board Drops Plan To Let Druggists Refuse AIDS Meds To GaysQ: how would they know the customer is gay? do you have ID cards, that reveal your sexual preferrence?

it should be part of a pharmacist's code of ethics to fill any legally prescribed prescription. the only exceptions should be for medical or legal reasons. the sort that cause the pharmacist to call up the doctor to inform him of a drug interaction problem or the police to get someone arrested for fraud.

anyone else should not be licensed to be a pharmacist.I believe that is part of the pharmacist's professional code of ethics.

Q: how would they know the customer is gay? do you have ID cards, that reveal your sexual preferrence?
In Wyoming? I wouldn't put it past them.

Q: how would they know the customer is gay? do you have ID cards, that reveal your sexual preferrence?
It would not matter half thoes idiots think only homosexuals get aids

Sorry no, they don't.

Drive those 100-200 miles.
Mail order.
Internet.
Canada.

There are options.
The morning after pill is only good up to 72 hours after sex. Those other options are mostly useless. And consider the people who can't afford to say, own a car... they can't drive those 100-200 miles to the nearest place (or for that matter, hop accross the border and get their perscription filled)

That or we can make sure that thoes that are certified by the state to be pharmisists are not asshats and actualy do the job they agreed to do rather then forcing undo hardship on people
Exactly. If you can't do your job for religious or moral reasons, you should resign.

"In some states, pharmacists have refused to give patients doctor-prescribed medication and have refused to transfer prescriptions to other pharmacists or return them to customers."

how exactly are those people going to go to another pharmacy then, if they cant even get their prescription?

"In some states, pharmacists have refused to give patients doctor-prescribed medication and have refused to transfer prescriptions to other pharmacists or return them to customers."

how exactly are those people going to go to another pharmacy then, if they cant even get their prescription?
They don't. That's a huge problem.

I believe that is part of the pharmacist's professional code of ethics.

Well, looky here - so it is:


"IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in
professional relationships.
Interpretation: A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth
and to act with conviction of conscience. A pharmacist
avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions
that impair professional judgment, and actions
that compromise dedication to the best interests of
patients."


(Copyright American Pharmaceutical Association. Adopted by
the membership of the American Pharmaceutical Association on
October 27, 1994.) As found here. (http://www.ashp.org/bestpractices/ethics/Ethics_End_Code.pdf)

"In some states, pharmacists have refused to give patients doctor-prescribed medication and have refused to transfer prescriptions to other pharmacists or return them to customers."

how exactly are those people going to go to another pharmacy then, if they cant even get their prescription?
I have heard this before as well

Anyone that does that in my book is criminaly repsonsable for any adverse effects of their idiocy (though I feel any parmisist that also refuses medications be liable as well)

Actually, not just in your book. If a Pharmacist acts in this unprofessional way, he's liable for prosecution for any results - as a professional, he has a duty of care to his customers.

"In some states, pharmacists have refused to give patients doctor-prescribed medication and have refused to transfer prescriptions to other pharmacists or return them to customers."

how exactly are those people going to go to another pharmacy then, if they cant even get their prescription?
If some I ran into a pharmacist that refused to fill my prescription, I would immediately call my doctor, and then file a complaint against that person with the state, and if I suffered any ill effects from the delay in getting my medication, I would sue the self-righteous bastard for everything I could.

If a pharmacist tried to confiscate my prescription, I would immediately call the police and make it that kind of a problem, charge him with stealing my prescription. See how he likes that. And then I'd do all the other stuff, too.

As it is, I already boycott pharmacies that allow their employees to do this. I'm really pissed off that I have to quit shopping at Target because they said they would allow it. The same month they announced that, Walgreens announced they would never allow it. Business competition is a good thing. :)

snip

As it is, I already boycott pharmacies that allow their employees to do this. I'm really pissed off that I have to quit shopping at Target because they said they would allow it. The same month they announced that, Walgreens announced they would never allow it. Business competition is a good thing. :)
Do you know a list of pharmacies that do this? I would also like to not grace them with my busniess (its been five years sience I needed a perscription ... but I would still like to know for the future)

Your argument about "if you don't want to fill perscriptions..." doesn't always apply, because of the changes that could occur during one's professional life time. Im sure someone who became a pharmacist pre-1970 would have had no idea what would be available today.

Government demanding pharmacists fill any and all perscriptions is the wrong way to solve this issue.

If a pharmacist doesn't wish to fill perscriptions, nothing says a person has to go to that pharmacy. When the pharmacy sees a loss of business he/she then has the choice to either change the way they do business or deal with that loss of income. If the pharmacist works for a larger company, say wal-greens or rite-aid then they would have to follow their company policy regarding which perscriptions they fill. They don't want to perscribe something that their employers say they should, fine, but they are free to find work somewhere else. If it's their pharmacy, small independant like, then they should have the right to fill or not fill as they see fit.

Your way, government has to force people to do something they don't wish to do, my way no one is forced to do anything.
You know, you've got a good point. But what about people who became pharmacists a little while earlier? What about people who became pharmacists back when it was okay to refuse to serve darkies and Nips and kikes? They decided to become a pharmacists before the government starting forcing pharmacies to serve non-WASPs, so they shouldn't be compelled to serve those people now. If a black person doesn't like it, they can just go to another pharmacy!

And here's a little something fun, too:
http://poundy.com/feminizzism/time_for_plan_brat.php


Ladies! Are you sick of getting the stink-eye whenever you bring your small children to froofy coffeehouses? Tired of having to take them to some sticky McDonaldLand to turn them loose? Or maybe you keep reading about those snotty parents who seem to feel no compunction about letting their spawn run amok in grown-up places and find yourself wishing that you could act that entitled and self-righteous. Looks fun, doesn’t it?

But where can you take your kids, relax a little, and impose your own values on strangers? Forget those twee little bakeries with their overpriced scones and tin ceilings: Why not take your kids to the pharmacy at Target instead? Or Rite Aid? Or Walgreen’s? Any pharmacy, in fact, with a policy of employing pharmacists who believe children are so special, they think it’s a shame when you try to not conceive them. These nice people in white coats will be thrilled to host your rambunctious toddlers for a couple hours while you shop. Sure, they make it hard for you to get Plan B, but you can always count on them for a big dose of Plan Wheeeee!

Who says a pharmacy isn’t a kid-friendly place? Some of these pharmacists like children so much, they want you to have the ones you didn’t even mean to have! And when you think about it, pharmacies are awesome places for young children to run and play, especially behind that door marked PRIVATE (Go on in! These folks don’t care about privacy!) which leads to a wonderful land of bottles and jars to shake shake shake. Plus plenty of childproof caps to challenge them, hundreds of colorful little beadies to count, lots of new words to learn (Say it: “Meth-o-trex-ate.”) and no shortage of arthritic elderly friends to trip up. Really, it’s like a Montessori school with Muzak.

Some folks think the kind of pharmacists who refuse to fill emergency contraception prescriptions are judgmental and stodgy, but that's just not true at all. They're actually spontaneous and fun, always encouraging you to embrace the unknown! Hey, take a chance on that broken condom!, they'll say, or aw, what's another baby? or just because he's a date rapist doesn't mean he can't be a good daddy! This whimsical approach to life means they won't mind at all if your 3-year old wants to repeatedly kick the glass case where the razor blades are kept, stick Nicorette patches on Mrs. DeSimone's leg while she waits to pick up her heart medication, or see what's inside Mr. Thermometer. In the meantime, especially if you're at Target, you can shop for thongs, or liquor, or wholesome toys, content in the knowledge that someone with moral values is looking out for your children, even the children that don't exist yet. Try getting service like that at some dismal Chuck E. Cheese with stained carpet.

Of course, if something happens to your child, you can always sue. Which is more than you can do in the event your pharmacist decides he doesn't want to commit a "pharma-sin" by filling your emergency contraception prescription, but I digress. While I'm not a mother myself (as long as my birth control works, ha ha!), it heartens me to know that should I ever choose to have children (or NOT choose and still have 'em, ha ha!), they are some places where they'll always be welcome.

Your argument about "if you don't want to fill perscriptions..." doesn't always apply, because of the changes that could occur during one's professional life time. Im sure someone who became a pharmacist pre-1970 would have had no idea what would be available today.

Then find a new line of work. Sorry, no sympathy here for people who aren't willing to do a job they get paid a very generous salary to do.

Government demanding pharmacists fill any and all perscriptions is the wrong way to solve this issue.

I agree. No one should be forced. If a pharmacist refuses to fill a perscription, no one should make them do it. They should have their liscense suspended and should (if their employer chooses) be fired on the spot without severance pay, unemployment, or a good recommendation.

If a pharmacist doesn't wish to fill perscriptions, nothing says a person has to go to that pharmacy. When the pharmacy sees a loss of business he/she then has the choice to either change the way they do business or deal with that loss of income. If the pharmacist works for a larger company, say wal-greens or rite-aid then they would have to follow their company policy regarding which perscriptions they fill. They don't want to perscribe something that their employers say they should, fine, but they are free to find work somewhere else. If it's their pharmacy, small independant like, then they should have the right to fill or not fill as they see fit.

Going to a different pharmacy isn't always an option. Sure, in Chicago I can walk two blocks in any given direction and find a new pharmacy (not that I'd have to, pharmacists have are required to dispense here under penalty of law), but in rural Illinois the next pharmacy might not be for 20 or 30 miles.

Also, lets be clear here, the whole issue of refusal is a joke. I have only heard of refusal for birth control, ED medications, and medications for STDs. The justification is always some religious stance that the phramacist feels sin should be punished or doesn't want to be involved in the murder of babies. The problem here is that all of these drugs have other medical uses. Someone can get AIDS or Hepatitis without being a drug user or being involved in gay sex (for Hepatitis C, it is unknown how roughly a third of those infected contracted the disease, or it was when someone in my family was battling it). One of the major methods of fighting Hepatitis is with a home chemo course that is also used for cancer patients. Someone can get AIDS working in a hospital without doing anything a conservative Christian could see as sinful. Hormonal birth control is often used in hormone replacement therapy and to regulate the menstrual cycles of women who do not naturally have very regular cycles (which can be a major medical issue). Do you really want a pharmacist deciding who gets medcine and who doesn't? Do you really think a pharmacist should be able to refuse these people if they don't have a good enough explaination?


Your way, government has to force people to do something they don't wish to do, my way no one is forced to do anything.

No. If you were really in favor of government getting out of people's lives you'd be advocating the elimination of the job of pharmacist. It isn't a job that a computer couldn't do, the vast majority of the job they do consists of dispensing drugs, checking ID, and keeping an eye open for drug interactions. Hell, if you want to get really libertarian about it you could even make an argument for the elimination of the prescription system.

No, you want to allow the maximum amount of moral control.

Your argument about "if you don't want to fill perscriptions..." doesn't always apply, because of the changes that could occur during one's professional life time. Im sure someone who became a pharmacist pre-1970 would have had no idea what would be available today.

Government demanding pharmacists fill any and all perscriptions is the wrong way to solve this issue.

If a pharmacist doesn't wish to fill perscriptions, nothing says a person has to go to that pharmacy. When the pharmacy sees a loss of business he/she then has the choice to either change the way they do business or deal with that loss of income. If the pharmacist works for a larger company, say wal-greens or rite-aid then they would have to follow their company policy regarding which perscriptions they fill. They don't want to perscribe something that their employers say they should, fine, but they are free to find work somewhere else. If it's their pharmacy, small independant like, then they should have the right to fill or not fill as they see fit.

Your way, government has to force people to do something they don't wish to do, my way no one is forced to do anything.

Unless Wyoming has a law regarding what does and does not have to be in stock in a pharmacy, a pharmacist could still refuse to dispense emergency contraception or birth control pills, or even penicillin, if said pharmacist owned the pharmacy and decided not to stock those things. The proposed laws are meant to protect pharmacists from getting fired by larger companies (CVS, etc.) if those companies do stock the medication but the pharmacist refused to dispense it. As you say, a pharmacist must follow company policy or find another job. Thus, this law would have been a bad one, and it is good that it wasn't passed.

A medical doctor has to care for all patients, whether he/she agrees with their "lifestyle" or not, so a pharmacist should be held to the same standards.

This is patently untrue. A doctor can legally refuse service, unless they are admitted to a hospital in an emergency situation. In several states, there are now laws that say even hospitals can refuse treatment to patients that they see as being hopeless, after spending 10 days or so looking to see if any other establishment will take the patients in.

So only people in Wyoming, Alabama, Mississippi, some parts of Georgia, Kansas, some parts of Tennessee, Virginia, the Carolinas, etc etc.

Yes. Your job is to dispence drugs, etc. and give advice on their use.

If you want to dispence morality then become a priest/whatever.

Still they aren't as bad as the sacks of crap that keep the persons prescription papers.

Sorry no, they don't.

Drive those 100-200 miles.
Mail order.
Internet.
Canada.

There are options.


You're joking, right? Have you EVER had to use a mail order pharmacy? Often times you have to order in three month incriments (which requires that you have more cash on hand, not an option for the rural poor), and they aren't exactly reliable. Further, mail order/internet/canada simply aren't options for time sensitive medications like the morning after pill or medications that you can't skip a dose (try going off Paxil cold turkey while you wait for your refill in the mail). My insurance requires me to use mail order for anything with a refill and its a nightmare.

If a pharmacist doesn't wish to fill perscriptions, nothing says a person has to go to that pharmacy. When the pharmacy sees a loss of business he/she then has the choice to either change the way they do business or deal with that loss of income. If the pharmacist works for a larger company, say wal-greens or rite-aid then they would have to follow their company policy regarding which perscriptions they fill. They don't want to perscribe something that their employers say they should, fine, but they are free to find work somewhere else. If it's their pharmacy, small independant like, then they should have the right to fill or not fill as they see fit.

Your way, government has to force people to do something they don't wish to do, my way no one is forced to do anything.

You never been to a small town have you. I know of several where there is only one pharmacy and in some cases for a hundred miles.

You want to dispence morality join religion and let somebody who wants to do the job in the position.

*snip*

Awesome!

Liar!

There is no such place. Everybody knows that.


I thought it was Idaho (http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/idaho_does_not_exist.html)
that doesn't exist.

Sorry no, they don't.

Drive those 100-200 miles.
Mail order.
Internet.
Canada.

There are options.

What?

Ok that says you pretty much don't have a clue to the situation.

Insurence makes the driving not feasible since they won't pay for a long term supply.

Not everybody has internt access

Mail order takes time on some cases for meds that are time required(ie aids).

Canada? Sorry but the shrub has made that rather hard to do these days.

An interesting question a doctor friend pointed out to me.

When a pharmacist denies a prescription(baring overlooked ill health affects of course) is he not practicing medcine by countermanding a doctors orders?

Do you know a list of pharmacies that do this? I would also like to not grace them with my busniess (its been five years sience I needed a perscription ... but I would still like to know for the future)
I couldn't find such a list. It seems this debate is just starting to get hot, and Target and Walgreen's are among the first corporations to put out a policy on it. Otherwise, we need to update our own lists on a case by case and state by state basis. It would be easy enough, I suppose, to write to other corporations, such as CVS, and ask what their policy is.

I also don't use prescription drugs, but I feel strongly enough about the issue that I will not shop at Target now for any reason whatsoever -- so no more cheap Mizrahi clothes or Starcke stuff or Finnish birch plywood furniture for me. But I'll be happy to get my toothpaste from Walgreen's.

A list definitely needs to be made. According to the following Christian Science Monitor article, about 84% of American consumers don't want pharmacists imposing morals on them (see article sidebar). A list of companies and their policies would probably help the market place decide this issue.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0408/p01s02-ussc.html

An interesting question a doctor friend pointed out to me.

When a pharmacist denies a prescription(baring overlooked ill health affects of course) is he not practicing medcine by countermanding a doctors orders?
Very good point. I say he would be.

I couldn't find such a list. It seems this debate is just starting to get hot, and Target and Walgreen's are among the first corporations to put out a policy on it. Otherwise, we need to update our own lists on a case by case and state by state basis. It would be easy enough, I suppose, to write to other corporations, such as CVS, and ask what their policy is.

I also don't use prescription drugs, but I feel strongly enough about the issue that I will not shop at Target now for any reason whatsoever -- so no more cheap Mizrahi clothes or Starcke stuff or Finnish birch plywood furniture for me. But I'll be happy to get my toothpaste from Walgreen's.

A list definitely needs to be made. According to the following Christian Science Monitor article, about 84% of American consumers don't want pharmacists imposing morals on them (see article sidebar). A list of companies and their policies would probably help the market place decide this issue.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0408/p01s02-ussc.html
Intresting ... I am glad the only thing close to a pharmicy I go to is walgreens lol (they are open the hours that work for me)

I have never shoped at target lol

In my area, if I run in a straight line at full speed for one minute, I will probably bounce off a pharmacy. I should know, I've done the experiment several times. :)

I guess I'm lucky. :)

Another problem with the whole "drive to another pharmacy" option is insurance coverage. The companies that manage prescription drug coverage under most major medical insurances maintain networks of pharmacies where the insurance is accepted. If you live in a rural area and your local pharmacy won't give you your drugs, it isn't as simple as just going to another pharmacy, especially if it's one several hundred miles away. If your local pharmacies won't give you your drugs, they may very well be the only pharmacies that accept your particular insurance. You are essentially left without any means of getting the drug outside of mail order, which other people have demonstrated the unreliability of. Just driving elsewhere isn't an option even for those lucky enough to have the insurance.

An interesting question a doctor friend pointed out to me.

When a pharmacist denies a prescription(baring overlooked ill health affects of course) is he not practicing medcine by countermanding a doctors orders?
Yes but he (or she) is allowed. In fact, it's part of the job description to look for inconsistencies and possible problems arising from prescriptions. They recieved a training eerily similar to the doctors in many facets so as to do their job properly.

If they were writing prescription and issuing diagnostics, you would be right, but as it is, it's perfectly alright to deny a prescription for medical reasons. Note, however, that I don't see morality as a valid reason to deny a prescription.

Yes but he (or she) is allowed. In fact, it's part of the job description to look for inconsistencies and possible problems arising from prescriptions. They recieved a training eerily similar to the doctors in many facets so as to do their job properly.

If they were writing prescription and issuing diagnostics, you would be right, but as it is, it's perfectly alright to deny a prescription for medical reasons. Note, however, that I don't see morality as a valid reason to deny a prescription.
But I think that was his question:

If a pharmacists denies a prescription for any non-medical reason, does that not constitute "practicing medicine"?

Also, I would like to add a question of my own:

I know that pharmacists are empowered to, and expected to, withhold a prescription if they notice a serious medical danger, like seeing a patient who's been prescribed two medications that interact in a very dangerous way. But what if the pharmacists tells the patient of the danger, and the patient insists that they WANT to take the medication anyhow? Is the pharmacists allowed to refuse to sell the prescription at all, even if the patient knows the risks and wants to take the medication?

But I think that was his question:

If a pharmacists denies a prescription for any non-medical reason, does that not constitute "practicing medicine"?
Well, then I didn't read it correctly. Still, they are entitled to "practice medecine" and withhold the drug. For a great many reasons that are not always medical, like if the medication is not reimbursed by the insurance company and the client doesn't have the money to pay for it. It is unfortunate.

BUT I do know that they have guidelines and oath that states that your own morals should get in the way of your job. Someone posted about it earlier.

Also, I would like to add a question of my own:

I know that pharmacists are empowered to, and expected to, withhold a prescription if they notice a serious medical danger, like seeing a patient who's been prescribed two medications that interact in a very dangerous way. But what if the pharmacists tells the patient of the danger, and the patient insists that they WANT to take the medication anyhow? Is the pharmacists allowed to refuse to sell the prescription at all, even if the patient knows the risks and wants to take the medication?
I'm not up to the legal ramifications of what is allowed and what isn't but I should hope that a phone call to the treating doctor is in order before giving it. There should be a valid reason for it.

If the doctor agrees with the patient that he can have it, then I think you should sell it.

Some places have morality clauses that permits pharmacists to refuse treatment. These clauses were put in place with your kind of questions in mind. It is despicable that some people have used them to further their own moral views.

Medecine is a restricted commodity. You cannot get whatever you WANT; Only what you NEED. If you want it, it has better be sold over the counter. Anything that need a prescription is potentially dangerous and cannot be distributed to anyone who wants it. As such, it is perfectly okay in my book to let pharmacists deny treatment for medical reasons. Whether the client wants it or not. Especially if the pharmacist can be sued for criminal negligence after the fact...

Well, then I didn't read it correctly. Still, they are entitled to "practice medecine" and withhold the drug. For a great many reasons that are not always medical, like if the medication is not reimbursed by the insurance company and the client doesn't have the money to pay for it. It is unfortunate.

BUT I do know that they have guidelines and oath that states that your own morals should get in the way of your job. Someone posted about it earlier.


I'm not up to the legal ramifications of what is allowed and what isn't but I should hope that a phone call to the treating doctor is in order before giving it. There should be a valid reason for it.

If the doctor agrees with the patient that he can have it, then I think you should sell it.

Some places have morality clauses that permits pharmacists to refuse treatment. These clauses were put in place with your kind of questions in mind. It is despicable that some people have used them to further their own moral views.

Medecine is a restricted commodity. You cannot get whatever you WANT; Only what you NEED. If you want it, it has better be sold over the counter. Anything that need a prescription is potentially dangerous and cannot be distributed to anyone who wants it. As such, it is perfectly okay in my book to let pharmacists deny treatment for medical reasons. Whether the client wants it or not. Especially if the pharmacist can be sued for criminal negligence after the fact...
No, pharmacists ARE NOT entitled to "practice medicine" unless they are licensed doctors. Practicing medicine without a license is a crime.

When a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription because he spots a potential dangerous interaction with another drug the person is already taking (which happens when you see different doctors for different things), that's not "practicing medicine." That's safety control, and it's part of the pharmacist's job. That's what he is licensed to do.

But he is NOT licensed to make medical decisions for the patient. He is an expert on drugs -- or at least an expert on looking up drugs in databases. He is not an expert on disease, or obstetrics, or geriatrics, or pediatrics, or dentistry, or diagnostic medicine, or surgery, etc., etc., and he has not examined this patient, etc., etc. Therefore, if he refuses to dispense medicine "for medical reasons," he is countermanding a real doctor's orders and may be considered to be practicing medicine without a license.

The doctor makes the medical decisions. The pharmacist just follows instructions or else points out errors. The pharmacist DOES NOT decide whether a patient needs a medication, and he certain DOES NOT get to decide whether a patient deserves a medication.

No, pharmacists ARE NOT entitled to "practice medicine" unless they are licensed doctors. Practicing medicine without a license is a crime.

When a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription because he spots a potential dangerous interaction with another drug the person is already taking (which happens when you see different doctors for different things), that's not "practicing medicine." That's safety control, and it's part of the pharmacist's job. That's what he is licensed to do.

But he is NOT licensed to make medical decisions for the patient. He is an expert on drugs -- or at least an expert on looking up drugs in databases. He is not an expert on disease, or obstetrics, or geriatrics, or pediatrics, or dentistry, or diagnostic medicine, or surgery, etc., etc., and he has not examined this patient, etc., etc. Therefore, if he refuses to dispense medicine "for medical reasons," he is countermanding a real doctor's orders and may be considered to be practicing medicine without a license.

The doctor makes the medical decisions. The pharmacist just follows instructions or else points out errors. The pharmacist DOES NOT decide whether a patient needs a medication, and he certain DOES NOT get to decide whether a patient deserves a medication.
He does get to "practice medecine" inasmuch as it is, as you say, safety control. The pharmacists has the training necessary to know what pills does to the body and has to undergo a lot of medical training before being able to hand out pills.

As such, he is able to practice medecine, albeit in a limited fashion; Like I said in the post you quoted. I never said he is able to diagnose what illness a patient is suffering from but it is the responsibility of the pharmacist to check for the potential harm in the medecine the patient gets.

Of course, the doctor is the ultimate judge of what is good for the patient but the pharmacist is very much within his field of competence to withold medication untill the doctor says it's ok. I'm not saying that the individual moral of a given pharmacist should have any bearing whatsoever in the decision but the pharmacist is more than a pill-dispenser. So much more.

Y Note, however, that I don't see morality as a valid reason to deny a prescription.

Exactly as the same doctor pointed out. He prescribes the pill to certain women to regulate their periods.

The moralist would deny them on the grounds he thinks they are having sex out of wedlock :eek:

He does get to "practice medecine" inasmuch as it is, as you say, safety control. The pharmacists has the training necessary to know what pills does to the body and has to undergo a lot of medical training before being able to hand out pills.

As such, he is able to practice medecine, albeit in a limited fashion; Like I said in the post you quoted. I never said he is able to diagnose what illness a patient is suffering from but it is the responsibility of the pharmacist to check for the potential harm in the medecine the patient gets.

Of course, the doctor is the ultimate judge of what is good for the patient but the pharmacist is very much within his field of competence to withold medication untill the doctor says it's ok. I'm not saying that the individual moral of a given pharmacist should have any bearing whatsoever in the decision but the pharmacist is more than a pill-dispenser. So much more.
No, they're not much more than that, really. That's why pharmacies used to be called dispensaries, you know, because they dispense pills there.

You are missing my point that doctor and pharmacist are two different functions, two different areas of expertise, two different professions, and two different licenses controlled by different regulatory entities.

You get examined by a doctor, undergo tests that are ordered by that doctor, and get a prescription based on the doctor's diagnosis. When you go to CVS to get that prescription filled, does the pharmacist also examine you and order tests on you? No, he does not. He is not practicing medicine. He is not making medical decisions for you. If he claims to be authorized to make medical decisions for you, then he is committing fraud, because he is not a doctor.

Pharmacists do undergo some medical education, but nothing compared to what doctors do. In practice their job is to look up drugs in pharmaceutical databases and compare that with the written prescription to make sure they are consistent -- in other words, that the doctor has not prescribed Viagra for arthritis pain. The pharmacist also compares the database description of the prescribed drug with other drugs that you are taking according to his records and/or pharmacy or insurance company databases, to make sure that this doctor hasn't prescribed something that will interact badly with something prescribed by another doctor for something else. At some pharmacies and for some drugs, you may still find pharmacists who are qualified to actually mix the drug compounds according to the formulas in the databases. But that is not the same as practicing medicine.

Knowing how drugs work with or against each other, mixing chemicals, and dispensing pills do not add up to practicing medicine. If it were so, then any drug dealer could claim to be a doctor and any meth lab could claim to be a pharmacy.

Pharmacists do not practice medicine, just as doctors do not practice pharmacy.

No, they're not much more than that, really. That's why pharmacies used to be called dispensaries, you know, because they dispense pills there.

You are missing my point that doctor and pharmacist are two different functions, two different areas of expertise, two different professions, and two different licenses controlled by different regulatory entities.

You get examined by a doctor, undergo tests that are ordered by that doctor, and get a prescription based on the doctor's diagnosis. When you go to CVS to get that prescription filled, does the pharmacist also examine you and order tests on you? No, he does not. He is not practicing medicine. He is not making medical decisions for you. If he claims to be authorized to make medical decisions for you, then he is committing fraud, because he is not a doctor.

Pharmacists do undergo some medical education, but nothing compared to what doctors do. In practice their job is to look up drugs in pharmaceutical databases and compare that with the written prescription to make sure they are consistent -- in other words, that the doctor has not prescribed Viagra for arthritis pain. The pharmacist also compares the database description of the prescribed drug with other drugs that you are taking according to his records and/or pharmacy or insurance company databases, to make sure that this doctor hasn't prescribed something that will interact badly with something prescribed by another doctor for something else. At some pharmacies and for some drugs, you may still find pharmacists who are qualified to actually mix the drug compounds according to the formulas in the databases. But that is not the same as practicing medicine.

Knowing how drugs work with or against each other, mixing chemicals, and dispensing pills do not add up to practicing medicine. If it were so, then any drug dealer could claim to be a doctor and any meth lab could claim to be a pharmacy.

Pharmacists do not practice medicine, just as doctors do not practice pharmacy.
Do you know a pharmacist? Have you ever seen what kind of training they go through?

I have and I do know that it's not as simple as what you semm to think. Maybe it's not the same where you live, but here it is as long to become a pharmacist as it is to become a doctor.Your view of the profession is flawed. That's all there is to it.

Besides, I never claimed they were practicing medecine like a doctor is. I don't know where you've read that in my posts.

Do you know a pharmacist? Have you ever seen what kind of training they go through?

I have and I do know that it's not as simple as what you semm to think. Maybe it's not the same where you live, but here it is as long to become a pharmacist as it is to become a doctor.Your view of the profession is flawed. That's all there is to it.

Besides, I never claimed they were practicing medecine like a doctor is. I don't know where you've read that in my posts.

All that aside, it is still not the pharmacist's place to counter act doctor's orders regarding prescriptions unless it's a matter of a reaction to another prescription that the doctor might not know about. Unless the pharmacist is trained to diagnose medical conditions and run the appropriate testing, they've no business determining whether a person should have the prescription. Their job is to fill it.

All that aside, it is still not the pharmacist's place to counter act doctor's orders regarding prescriptions unless it's a matter of a reaction to another prescription that the doctor might not know about. Unless the pharmacist is trained to diagnose medical conditions and run the appropriate testing, they've no business determining whether a person should have the prescription. Their job is to fill it.
Thank you.

All that aside, it is still not the pharmacist's place to counter act doctor's orders regarding prescriptions unless it's a matter of a reaction to another prescription that the doctor might not know about. Unless the pharmacist is trained to diagnose medical conditions and run the appropriate testing, they've no business determining whether a person should have the prescription. Their job is to fill it.
I was quoting your phrase "practicing medicine." There is no other way to practice medicine except to by practicing medicine, and that's what doctors do. Not pharmacists, or herbalists, or midwives, or any of all the other health-related professions. If they ain't doctors, then what they do ain't medicine. So it is not possible for pharmacists to practice medicine in a way that doctors don't. Because only doctors practice medicine.

Let me put your objection to this idea to the test. If you think the pharmacist's training with drugs lets him practice medicine, then, if you get sick and you're certain you know what you've got, would you go to a pharmacist, instead of a doctor, and ask him what you should take for your illness?

Follow up: do you think the pharmacist would give you a drug, or do you think he'd tell you to see a doctor?

For the record, I just want to say that I don't think there is no room for compromise on this issue. I see no reason why we can't have fundamentalist-only (or whatever) pharmacies, the same way we have kosher butchers and vegan restaurants. Those are also religion/morality-based businesses. What I object to is when a person takes a job at a mainstream, full-service pharmacy like CVS or Target or Walgreen's and then tries to unilaterally decide what services they're going to provide or not. I likewise object when a major company like Target that claims to serve the mainstream community decides to open the door to discrimination by allowing extremists on their staff to dictate policy as they will.

If I'm looking for a pharmacy and I see a sign indicating that it's, say, a Christian fundamentalist company that doesn't dispense birth control, I will take my business elsewhere. I don't want to be confronted with that at any pharmacy I happen to walk into, without warning because they didn't see fit to advertise that they offer only limited services.

I was quoting your phrase "practicing medicine." There is no other way to practice medicine except to by practicing medicine, and that's what doctors do. Not pharmacists, or herbalists, or midwives, or any of all the other health-related professions. If they ain't doctors, then what they do ain't medicine. So it is not possible for pharmacists to practice medicine in a way that doctors don't. Because only doctors practice medicine.

Let me put your objection to this idea to the test. If you think the pharmacist's training with drugs lets him practice medicine, then, if you get sick and you're certain you know what you've got, would you go to a pharmacist, instead of a doctor, and ask him what you should take for your illness?

Follow up: do you think the pharmacist would give you a drug, or do you think he'd tell you to see a doctor?

If I go to a pharmacy with a prescription and say "My doctor said to fill this" and the pharmacist looks at it and says "Oh, you don't need this. I'm not going to fill it," then what would that be other than diagnosing my condition?

If I go to a pharmacy with a prescription and say "My doctor said to fill this" and the pharmacist looks at it and says "Oh, you don't need this. I'm not going to fill it," then what would that be other than diagnosing my condition?
Woops. I quoted the wrong post. I was supposed to be responding to East Canuck. I'll repost with the right quote. Sorry.

Oh, and you're 100% right, of course. :)

Do you know a pharmacist? Have you ever seen what kind of training they go through?

I have and I do know that it's not as simple as what you semm to think. Maybe it's not the same where you live, but here it is as long to become a pharmacist as it is to become a doctor.Your view of the profession is flawed. That's all there is to it.

Besides, I never claimed they were practicing medecine like a doctor is. I don't know where you've read that in my posts.
I was quoting your phrase "practicing medicine." There is no other way to practice medicine except to by practicing medicine, and that's what doctors do. Not pharmacists, or herbalists, or midwives, or any of all the other health-related professions. If they ain't doctors, then what they do ain't medicine. So it is not possible for pharmacists to practice medicine in a way that doctors don't. Because only doctors practice medicine.

Let me put your objection to this idea to the test. If you think the pharmacist's training with drugs lets him practice medicine, then, if you get sick and you're certain you know what you've got, would you go to a pharmacist, instead of a doctor, and ask him what you should take for your illness?

Follow up: do you think the pharmacist would give you a drug, or do you think he'd tell you to see a doctor?

[reposted because I first put this up with the wrong quote.]

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/01/011206hiv.htm

I am very pleased with this. I think that it's incredibly stupid of someone to go into a line of work where they are likely to have to do something they disagree with. If you don't want to fill perscriptions for pills that you disagree with, don't be a pharmacist. I don't agree with the slaughter of animals, so I won't become a butcher. It's as easy as that.
Are they still allowed to beat gay people to death outside Laramie, WY? Because banning that would just ruin the local flavor.

Are they still allowed to beat gay people to death outside Laramie, WY? Because banning that would just ruin the local flavor.

Ouch. Thank god Wyoming doesn't exist, or some people would be mighty offended by that.

Of course the government can and should require dispensing pharmacists to adhere to standards that protect society's wider interests and well-being. The government has both a right and a duty to do so.

I was quoting your phrase "practicing medicine." There is no other way to practice medicine except to by practicing medicine, and that's what doctors do. Not pharmacists, or herbalists, or midwives, or any of all the other health-related professions. If they ain't doctors, then what they do ain't medicine. So it is not possible for pharmacists to practice medicine in a way that doctors don't. Because only doctors practice medicine.
The thing is, it was not my phrase. I was using it in the context some other poster used it. Here is the original post:
An interesting question a doctor friend pointed out to me.

When a pharmacist denies a prescription(baring overlooked ill health affects of course) is he not practicing medcine by countermanding a doctors orders?
And to that I said, yes but that's their job to countermand doctor's order if there a legitimate medical reason to do it. Now if you want to go and nitpick on what is and isn't medecine, be my guest as it seems we are both on the same camp (the one saying that morals should not stop a pharmacist from filling prescriptions). I will not argue what is and isn't medecine as it is pointless.

Let me put your objection to this idea to the test. If you think the pharmacist's training with drugs lets him practice medicine, then, if you get sick and you're certain you know what you've got, would you go to a pharmacist, instead of a doctor, and ask him what you should take for your illness?

Follow up: do you think the pharmacist would give you a drug, or do you think he'd tell you to see a doctor?

[reposted because I first put this up with the wrong quote.]
If I knew my illness, I would go to see the pharmacist and would buy what he recommend to treat that illness. I did it already. I had an eye infection I seem to get repeatedly. I knew fully well what was the problem and how to treat it. I went to the pharmacist without going to the doctor. He sold me some medecine that cleared it up.

But (and this is a big but) we are talking about light illnesses and infections. I would not go to the pharmacist to ask for AIDS medication without going to a doctor first. And the pharmacist WILL refuse to sell me some medications that are prescription-only.

P.S. Sorry for the delay in responding. But I had a jolly good time this weekend so I didn't log into the internet.

If the doctor agrees with the patient that he can have it, then I think you should sell it.

That is certainly what I would say as well.


Some places have morality clauses that permits pharmacists to refuse treatment. These clauses were put in place with your kind of questions in mind. It is despicable that some people have used them to further their own moral views.

I think those clauses are despicable no matter what. I think it is disgusting that any person feels they have the right to over-rule the decisions made between a patient and doctor; those are the individual's medical decisions, and it is pathetic to hear some people trying to use "morality" to justify their own selfish control issues. A pharmacists' job should be to ensure that patients are not hurt by what they don't know...the pharmacist's job is NOT to decide for a patient what treatment they can and cannot receive.


Medecine is a restricted commodity. You cannot get whatever you WANT; Only what you NEED.

Untrue. Many medications are "optional" treatments, or treatments for cosmetic reasons. Many prescribed drugs are not "needed" so much as very strongly wanted by the patient.


If you want it, it has better be sold over the counter.
Personally I think that all medications should be sold over the counter, though there should be more extensive information made available about risks, drug interactions, etc. Pharmacists should be on hand to warn people about potential dangers, but they should not be in any way empowered to stop people from buying whatever they want (or "need").

Of course, I also believe that every single currently-illegal drug should be legalized. So my views are a bit out there.


Anything that need a prescription is potentially dangerous and cannot be distributed to anyone who wants it. As such, it is perfectly okay in my book to let pharmacists deny treatment for medical reasons. Whether the client wants it or not. Especially if the pharmacist can be sued for criminal negligence after the fact...
That's the key: I think the pharmacist should be exempt from any kind of criminal or civil action so long as they make the warning to the patient. After that, the patient assumes full responsibility for the choice. This of course also would mean that no pharmacist is ever empowered to over-rule a patient's decision regarding their own medications.

Bottle, your views are definitively not "mainstream" but you do make valid points. You seem to have a logical and consistent view of the matter. Kudos.

I disagree on a couple of points tough. First off, nobody should be absolved from prosecution. The potential for abuse and negligence is too great. I will never advocate that for any profession. The problem is not the justice system. It's how people use it (frivolous lawsuit, threathening action to get their way).

Second, if everything was sold over the counter like you propose, you would see a rise of black market medecine, a rise in the price of the medication because of the laws of the market and a brand new kind of scalpers (forget football tickets; buy every dose you can of insulin and sell it overpriced in front of the pharmacy). I don't think I want those.

Wyoming exists? i thought it was some kind of myth or something....

Anyway i don't think that the pharmacist should be prosecuted so long as he/she warns the customer about the potential risk - no matter how great it is.

And to that I said, yes but that's their job to countermand doctor's order if there a legitimate medical reason to do it. Now if you want to go and nitpick on what is and isn't medecine, be my guest as it seems we are both on the same camp (the one saying that morals should not stop a pharmacist from filling prescriptions). I will not argue what is and isn't medecine as it is pointless.


Medical reason involves drug a mixed with drug b will cause this. Or, Drug A is meant to handle this and not that.

The Pharmacist isn't qualified to say you were misdiagnosed and you shouldn't take this. Even the my Doc friend said that.....