<p>Thanks for posting a rebuttal without reading my post. If you did take a moment to read, you would see that the APhA (a professional association for pharmacists) is ENTIRELY invested in the rights of the patient, while trying not to deny the pharmacist of his rights also. </p>
<p>I really just can’t understand the level of hostility and hatred displayed by some on this thread. Why?</p>
<p>As equal rights, humane treatment, and equal access come closer to reality for more and more people in this country, those who would prefer to restrict the above, get more nervous and outspoken.
It must be pretty scary</p>
<p>Yes, they are invested in our rights… as long as you have the right to do whatever you want too. It is preposterous and ludicrous to require an employer to let an employee use personal ethics in deciding whether or not to perform core business duties. When you can tell me whether or not you support the right of ALL employees to such freedom, and can explain how a market economy could survive with such willing tolerence of insubordination, then I’ll stop being hostile. Until the, you are dancing around my arguments, probably because only a complete fool would say that every employee deserves the right to choose whether or not to do their job based on personal ethics - and giving every employee that right is the logical extension of giving pharmacists, who are almost universally employees, that right.</p>
<p>The APhA, which DOES lobby for pharmacists and, like the AMA, is in my mind largely a glorified lobbying organization (blue collar employees get unions; white collar employees get lobbying organizations) said that they support the right of pharmacists to choose whether or not to dispense medication based on personal beliefs. They also support some inane system where pharmacists can refer patients to other pharmacists to get the drugs they deserve. That is both stupid and inefficient. If you can’t take the heat and won’t give out the drugs, then as far as I’m concerned get out of the profession. I don’t expect to meet many vegetarian butchers, and if being pro-life means no birth control then I don’t expect to meet many pro-life pharmacists either.</p>
<p>Its already starting:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.komotv.com/stories/42362.htm[/url]”>http://www.komotv.com/stories/42362.htm</a>
SEATTLE - Getting a prescription filled is pretty straight-forward. Take the doctor’s slip into the pharmacy and get the medication.</p>
<p>But some pharmacists are stepping up and saying they won’t fill prescriptions on moral grounds.</p>
<p>The debate centers around the so-called morning after pill, or Plan B.</p>
<p>It’s emergency contraception meant to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex.</p>
<p>Pharmacists who object to Plan B want to be able to deny filling a prescription on moral, ethical or religious beliefs.
“Pharmacists have to have a right to exercise their conscience in these morally troubling situations. I believe it’s a right we get as being citizens of the United States,” says Bellevue pharmacist C.J. Kahler.</p>
<p>It’s a national debate that’s playing out in our state as the state pharmacy board considers a measure to protect pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions.</p>
<p>Opponents say the measure would let a pharmacist’s rights trump the patient’s.</p>
<p>“They are really elevating their interests, their personal interests above the needs of the patient,” says Nancy Sapiro with the Northwest Women’s Law Center. “The regulations that govern pharmacists are very clear that patients’ interests come first.”</p>
<p>Governor Christine Gregoire sent the board a letter opposing the proposal.</p>
<p>“When an individual goes in, they ought to be allowed to have their prescription filled and a pharmacist should not deny them on personal grounds,” says Gregoire. “So if they can’t do it, an alternative pharmacist needs to be able to do it at that particular location.”</p>
<p>That’s not always possible in rural towns where there’s only one pharmacist.</p>
<p>But supporters insist there are ways to protect the rights of patients and pharmacists at the same time.</p>
<p>"We’re not saying, ‘don’t go anywhere.’ We’re saying, ‘You have a right but we’re not willing to fill that prescription. Here’s where you can go,’ " says Kahler.</p>
<p>The debate over Plan B is in the early stages.</p>
<p>The state pharmacy board says it could be a year before rules are in place.</p>
<p>If you would like to share your opinion with the pharmacy board, you can send it via e-mail to <a href="mailto:doreen.beebe@doh.wa.gov">doreen.beebe@doh.wa.gov</a>.</p>
<p>You’ll then be on the state’s “interested party” list and will be notified of public hearings on the issue.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm[/url]”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0315prescriptionduty15-ON.html[/url]”>http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0315prescriptionduty15-ON.html</a></p>
<p>How can failure to implant be an abortion? Um, you have to have implantation in order to be pregnant, and to have an abortion you have to be pregnant, so where does the science come in when its ones religious belief</p>
<p>regnancy does not begin when an ovum is fertilized; i.e. at conception.
Pregnancy typically begins about 12 days after conception, after the blastocyst has fully implanted itself in the lining of the womb.
Abortions are defined as medical interventions after pregnancy begins.
Since the emergency contraception pills are taken within 3 days of intercourse or an Intra-uterine device (IUD) is inserted within 5 days, they generally prevent the start of pregnancy. Thus, emergency contraception is not a form of abortion.</p>
<p>What rights are you referring to when talking abaout the pharmecists’ rights? his right to not give a medically prescribed safe medicine? his right to judge others as sinners because of his own religious beliefs?</p>
<p>please, the hypocracy is astounding</p>
<p>LKF,</p>
<p>Nobody here seems to be particularly interested in either an opposing, or nuanced view of the matter. I humbly suggest you not interfere in their perfect and efficient worldsit makes them feel less efficient. </p>
<p>There are only good guys and bad guys hereeveryone is expected to take ten paces and shoot.
There is nothing subtle about it. </p>
<p>BANG!</p>
<p>Nuanced view when it comes to women’s health? Sorry, I think womens health is no place for siience and manners. Shoot me.</p>
<p>As a woman FountainSiren, I wonder what you think of your rights to medical care? And I am not asking to be rude. Asking you as you are an intelligent young woman. if you were raped, what would you want to do? This is a very personal question, and you do not have to answer here, but think to yourself, would you carry a rapists baby to term, or would you want the pregnancy to never happen, ie no implantation? </p>
<p>I know I would want to be able to get the Plan 2. </p>
<p>Don’t answer here if you choose not to, but think about it</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely…that is, a nuanced outlook when it comes to everything regarding all health… I just finished taking Global Health at Dartmouth; believe me, to the degree that this problem exists it is merely an inconvenience, not a tragedy. </p>
<p>I’ll stand by nuanced–all things considered.</p>
<p>FountainSiren, most people who say no one wants a “nuanced” view really mean “we have no case so don’t call us on it.” All LKF has done is said “we pharmacists deserve X right.” I have asked him to address the logical extension of giving ALL employees that right - the right to refuse to do their job based on personal ethics.</p>
<p>Given that personal ethics are typically determined largely if not wholly by a persons religion or lack thereof, if every employee had the legal right to refuse to do their job based on personal ethics then not hiring emlpoyees who one knew would NOT fulfill core job requirements based on ethics would likely be found illegal on grounds of religous discrimination (i.e. you wouldn’t be able to not hire a religous pharmacist who wouldn’t dispense BC, even if you, as a business owner, WANTED BC distributed). </p>
<p>I’ll ask again: LKF, FountainSiren, anyone, are you in favor of letting employees in general (do pharmacists deserve special priveledges others do not?) refuse to do their core job duties or parts thereof based on personal beliefs? Do you want bookstore employees refusing to sell Playboy or “I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell?” Do you want your local Blockbuster refusing to rent rated R movies because the clerk finds them objectionable? Those results are LOGICAL extensions of giving emlpoyees the right to refuse to do their duties based on religous beliefs without fear of repricussion (i.e. getting fired for not doing their job). Do you think those proposals are reasonable, especially given that employers would be virtually powerless to choose employees who would act as they want while hiring due to anti-discrimination laws? </p>
<p>Answer that and maybe we’ll have an actual argument. Posting lobbying statements and saying “we deserve the right to _____” without addressing counterarguments isn’t arguing, it’s ignoring your opponent. THAT is reflective of someone who has neither a nuanced argument nor an interest in responding to opposing arguments.</p>
<p>The fact that it is imperative that women get health care and that religious views should not get in the way of providing it. And that finding ways to help women control their own lives should be important to all women.</p>
<p>What problem are you referring? That the most advanced country in the world often doesn’t want women to have al the health care they need? The country that gives health care often attached to its moral views, ie: not distributing of condoms to third world countries? An administration that appoints people to the NIH that thinks that certain vacinations that could save females lives should not be given because they say they will encourage sex before mariage? When you have politicians that don’t think its bad enough to be raped to get a Plan B, but that you have to be a virgin at a minimum to get it, that that mentallity carries over to all kinds of women’s health issues, it is a big deal.</p>
<p>Our health policies carry over to all kinds of public issues: equal rights, equal pay, family leave, help to people around the world. It carries over to the value of living women, who seem to be valued less and less. We do business with countries that don’t care about its women. We have a government that won’t stand up for women in countries that we do business with. Where is the outrage? </p>
<p>Its the attitude shown that women are less valued in health, and therefore society that is important and tragic.</p>
<p>“I’ll ask again: LKF, FountainSiren, anyone, are you in favor of letting employees in general (do pharmacists deserve special priveledges others do not?) refuse to do their core job duties…”</p>
<p>But I think you missed the core question. You’ve already said that you believe that a pharmacy (or a multinational corporation with a pharmacy inside it) should be allowed to restrict its employees from performing a core function (i.e. dispensing Plan B, etc.) on the basis of their ownership of the business. That was NOT what the state said in the Wal-Mart case, where they decided that ownership was irrelevant. In other words, you are in favor of pharmacies not acting like pharmacies (or doctors like doctors, or so you said) if their business interests demand it.</p>
<p>Why can’t pharmacists who own their own business choose not to assist in abortions? Very few pharmacists will opt for this decision and any woman can just go to planned parenthood for an abortion pill. They will bend over backwards to help terminate the child.</p>
<p>An employee’s core function is determined by the emlpoyer. If the employer decides not to sell X as a matter of principle, then an employee not selling X is not failing to perform his duties; rather, he is performing as told.</p>
<p>I am not familiar with the Wal-Mart case; I’m guessing it involves the state forcing Wal-Mart to carry Plan B or BC or some other prescription drug they dont’ want to. While I personally like to go as close to laissez-faire capitalism as possible, I can see why the state has a vested interest in forcing pharmacies to carry products - some areas may have only one pharmacy, and if that pharmacy refuses to carry a product on the grounds of religous basis, especially one as time-sensitive as Plan B or BC, then that chain is effectively making a decision for the whole town. In my mind, though, the two issues are seperate; one is the state making economic regulations, which is clearly permissible, and the other is the freedom of the employer to act within the law as they see fit. As a similar example: a store can choose to stock Playboy or not based on ethical/moral reasons; they cannot, however, stock playboy on open store shelves unwrapped because that is illegal, since it would allow minors easy access to “explicit” material, even though the store/its owner may find playboy to be perfectly acceptable reading material for all ages.</p>
<p>My bottom line: an employee’s core job function is determined by the employer (sorry for not making this clear earlier). In my mind, there is no right for an employee to refuse to do his job based on ethical or moral reasons without facing reprocussions; if they do so, they are opening themselves to disciplinary action or termination. An employer is free to define job function however they want within the parameters of the law. If an employer wants to stock item X and an employee’s job function is to sell customers any stocked items, then said employee, in my mind, MUST sell item X to any customer who wants it regardless of how objectionable the employee finds item X.</p>
<p>socal: if they own their own businesses, then assuming it is legal (and I cna see why some states require pharmacies to stock/dispense these things; otherwise a pharmacy in a small town would be making a moral decision for the whole town, and since medical issues are clearly a pressing public need some restriction of freedom, however unfortunate, is defensible) I have zero problem with them doing so. If they own the business, they make the rules.</p>
<p>I agree with you. It would be wrong for those who value the abortion pill to force their beliefs on businesses who find it immoral. We live in a free country. </p>
<p>I also think you are correct about people who choose to work for a pharmacy that dispenses emergency contraception. They should not be able to refuse to dispense any medication the pharmacy sells. For example, a checker at a store selling Playboy can’t refuse to sell that magazine.</p>
<p>What if the employer, ie Walmart, refuses to sell certain medicines?</p>
<p>Again, equating a morning after pill with an abortion is not scientifically accurate</p>
<p>That’s exactly what happened (was it Illinois), and the state forced them to change the policy. Prior to that, employees couldn’t dispense the medication even if they felt ethically obligated to do so; now they can’t NOT dispense the medication, even if they feel ethically obligated not to do so.</p>