dawn of the dark ages?

<p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20041109/pl_usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20041109/pl_usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>


<p>For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.</p>


<p>Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.</p>

<p>Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year</p>


<p>We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood</p>

<p>Suppose the board of KMart decided to stop selling guns out of moral concerns. Would you view that as being the "dawn of the dark ages" as well? Of course not. You would rejoice at their "enlightenment". </p>

<p>I find it interesting that when people's morals are consistent with the yours, they are received with praise. However, if their morals are counter to yours, they are "whackos" or trying to infringe on your rights. I thought the Democratic party was the party of inclusion, the one accepting of other people's morality, even if it differed from their own? I guess not.</p>

<p>As far as the quote from the Planned Parenthood president, well, it is a view just as extreme on the left as the pharmacists view may be on the right. The difference is that she is the head of a national organization and should know better than to inflame passions like these.</p>

<p>as long as goods are legal they should be accessible.
I believe that those who try and limit access by controlling goods whether by refusal to sell, or by charging more than the manufactures suggested price for example, should be fined, or even jailed.</p>

<p>I understand that some people have a problem with selling guns, contraception, fatty foods, thong underwear...
But why would you work somewhere, where you refused to do your job?
<selling the="" products="">
Lots of jobs out there, take one you don't have a dilemma about.</selling></p>

<p>I believe this comes down to an issue of law. If a pharmacy is privately owned, which most are, then the owners have every right to choose what they do and don't sell. But, one specific pharmacist could not refuse to sell something that the pharmacy itself does sell, unless of course the owner allowed that specific pharmacist to do that, which I doubt they would if the owner is in it for making money.
But, if it is a pharmacy through a public agency, like the Women's Clinic here which gives discounted and free service to women for reproductive health issues. In that case, the public would have a legitimate case against that pharmacy refusing to sell BC. In that case, the public is the one who funds the pharmacy, at least in part. So, that is what it comes down to.
But, fundingfather is basically right that, a privately owned pharmacy has every right to pick and choose what it sells just like K-mart can choose not to sell R-rated movies or Martha Stewart products or whatever. (Not that K-mart doesn't sell those things; I'm just making up examples).</p>

<p>I understand that a particular store can opt not to sell a product. No problem, I have also seen that particular pharmacists have received waivers from their employers not to sell certain drugs. THis I do have a problem with if the pharmacist is the only one available. If the pharmacy has accepted the prescription, how is the patient supposed to know that it won't be filled? Are they supposed to call in advance to make sure than Mrs Smith won't be working and it will be someone who will dispense the prescription as written?</p>

Store policies differ. CVS states that its pharmacists must ensure that "customers promptly receive all medications for which they have a lawfully written prescription."


<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0426/p11s01-usju.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0426/p11s01-usju.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood."</p>

<p>That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. It's such an extreme leap of assumption that I can't even wrap my mind around it. That's like saying that because Doctors want people to refrain from doing heroin, their ultimate goal is to stop them from taking any kind of drug. I'd almost bet money that the majority of women who are against abortion, also practice some form of birth control. The Phamacists that refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, or even RU-486 (the "morning after pill"), are definitely in the FAR FRINGE minority among people who oppose abortion. That being the case, it's time for them to find another line of work, one that won't force them into a position to compromise such a strongly held personal ethic. Likewise, doctors and nurses who don't want to participate in any kind of abortion procedure, should practice medicine in orthopedics or cardiology, or any other area outside of gynocology.</p>

<p>The issue of abortion is already fraught with enough emotion. The last thing it needs is hyperbolic rhetoric from people like Ms. Feldt, who should certainly know better.</p>

<p>On the one hand, poetsheart, you make a good point. Maybe people that have a problem with certain legal medications etc. shouldn't be pharmacists. In terms of doctors, however, if someone really wants to become an OB/GYN, possibly because they are very interested in the miracle of birth and reproduction, they don't have to agree with abortion and be expected to take part. As long as they are a part of a private practice, they have every right to abstain from abortion activity. That's American freedom. Of course, it wouldn't make sense for a doctor like that to work at Planned Parenthood or a similar establishment.
In terms of your question emeraldkity4, it's a fair one. The idea frustrates me also. But, I think it is within legal bounds. It comes back to, if you own a place, you make the rules. If you want to give one of your employees the right to pass dispensing certain drugs, you can. I know at my pharmacy, when you call in a prescription, they askfor pick-up time. They call you if there are any issues with filling the prescription. So, my guess is, at my pharmacy, they would call and say it's not available at that time or that it won't be available until such and such a time or day. I guess if you dropped it off in person, they might say, we won't have this until tomorrow or whatever. It's still a valid issue though, because with BC at least, if you're planning to have them by a certain time day because that is when you need to take the next pill, that's a problem because it's dangerous to miss a pill or take it late. I don't know the answer. I guess check out your pharmacy's policy and pick a pharmacy that has no problems with dispensing any meds.</p>

<p>Poetsheart wrote,"The Phamacists that refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, or even RU-486 (the "morning after pill"), are definitely in the FAR FRINGE minority among people who oppose abortion."</p>


<p>Two states - South Dakota and Arkansas - already have laws protecting pharmacists who refuse to fill birth-control prescriptions on moral or religious grounds. Ten other states, including Wisconsin, are considering such legislation - Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.</p>

<p>It is not FAR FRINGE minority. Is it?</p>

<p>"The Phamacists that refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, or even RU-486 (the "morning after pill"), are definitely in the FAR FRINGE minority among people who oppose abortion."</p>

<p>I still stand by that statement, Simba. Just because the law makers of South Dakota and Arkansas chose not to FORCE people to compromise their religious convictions as they go about their jobs, it does NOT mean that the majority of Arkansans or South Dakotans are against birth control. I think fear and paranoia allows people who advocate for unrestricted abortion to entertain the idea that it does. The vast majority of Phamacists and Phamacy techs have no problem with the concept of birth control. Like most Americans, they themselves regularly practice some form of it. If the majority of Americans weren't availing themselves of reliable and safe birth control, extremely large families, such as were seen 30 to 50 years ago, would be far more prevailant. It is in NO WAY axiomatic that anti-abortion equals anti-birth control in the minds of most Americans. People's beliefs are usually far more nuanced. </p>

<p>I for instance, am very against the idea of totally unrestricted abortion, and consider partial birth abortion to be a practice of almost mind-bogglingly brutal proportions. If it were being used by the ASPCA as a form of animal control, I think the hue and cry would be deafening. By the same token, I am TOTALLY against the repeal of Roe V. Wade. I just think we seriously undervalue the lives of the unborn in this country. </p>

<p>As I said earlier, I believe Phamacists who have moral issues with the dispensing of certain drugs need to find a less problematic line of work. I personally wouldn't be in favor of passing legislation allowing them to decline to do their jobs. I'd bet most people feel that way. But, extremists on both sides need to step away from the rhetoric of fear and paranoia. It does nothing towards advancing a dialog that could lead to some degree of majority concensus.</p>