Illinois Pharmacies Ordered to Provide Birth Control
By MONICA DAVEY

Published: April 2, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/national/02pharmacy.html

CHICAGO, April 1 - With a growing number of reports of pharmacists around the country refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and emergency contraception, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich on Friday filed a rule requiring Illinois pharmacies to accept and dispense all such prescriptions promptly.

"Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy or the pharmacist is not allowed to discriminate or to choose who he sells it to or who he doesn't sell it to," Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat, said. "No delays. No hassles. No lectures."

Two Chicago women, he said, reported in February that they had been turned away from a downtown drugstore when they tried to fill prescriptions for morning-after birth control pills. On Friday, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation filed a formal complaint against that pharmacy, one in the Osco chain, and said it could face discipline ranging from a fine to the revocation of its license. No one from Osco's corporate offices could be reached for comment on Friday.

Nationally, the leaders of Planned Parenthood and Naral Pro-Choice America said they had seen more and more cases like that over the past year. They emphasized that women in smaller communities or in rural areas, with perhaps only one pharmacy to use, might be left unable to receive their prescribed birth control if the pattern was allowed to continue.

"Pharmacies have an ethical and legal obligation," said Nancy Keenan, the president of Naral.

Governor Blagojevich, saying that his emergency rule clarified an existing state requirement, said he suspected that the pattern of complaints over the past year was no coincidence, but rather "part of a concerted effort" to prevent women from getting the birth control they wanted.

Under the emergency rule put in place in Illinois, pharmacies that do not have a particular prescribed contraceptive would be required to order some or to send the prescription to another pharmacy.

But Susan C. Winckler of the American Pharmacists Association, which represents 52,000 pharmacists, said she had concerns about the emergency rule in Illinois. The association, she said, believes that pharmacists should be allowed to "step away" in cases where they feel uncomfortable dispensing a particular drug - so long as their customers can still get their drugs from alternative sources.

Ms. Winckler said she also worried that Governor Blagojevich's new rule might reach beyond the question of a pharmacist's own moral sensibilities, and require pharmacists to dispense all prescriptions, even those that were "clinically inappropriate" for patients. Such cases might include ones in which a pharmacist discovered a customer's allergy or a potential drug interaction that a prescribing doctor had missed.

"Depending on the wording of the rule, there is a real risk that the governor could be creating," Ms. Winckler said. "The pharmacist is not a gas station attendant where if there is gas you have to sell it. Pharmacists are supposed to assess the appropriateness of a drug."

Abby Ottenhoff, a spokeswoman for Mr. Blagojevich, said the new rule did not take away a pharmacist's right to counsel a patient about a prescription within the confines of existing state law.

"That doesn't change," she said. "What cannot happen is the pharmacist cannot allow personal factors and feelings to interfere."

Ill. Pharmacies Required to Fill Prescriptions for Birth Control

By Kari Lydersen
Special to The Washington Post
Saturday, April 2, 2005; Page A02

CHICAGO, April 1 -- Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich (D) issued an emergency rule Friday that requires pharmacies to accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives without delay, after a growing number of complaints nationwide that some pharmacists are refusing to dispense birth control pills and the "morning-after" pill.

He also established a toll-free number that residents can call to report refusals by pharmacies.

Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich said pharmacists' refusal to fill prescriptions for contraceptives is not just a statewide problem.

Reproductive-rights groups heralded Blagojevich's action as the first statewide regulation to address the issue.

"We are hopeful that governors across the country will follow his lead," said Nancy Keenan, national president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

The rule takes effect immediately, although Blagojevich said it will later go through a review process to become permanent. It came in response to complaints that on Feb. 23, a pharmacist refused to fill prescriptions for two women at an Osco pharmacy in downtown Chicago. The governor joined reproductive rights groups in describing the refusals as part of a concerted push by conservative groups to decrease availability of contraceptives.

"It's not just in the Loop; this is happening all over the country," he said. "There's a pattern of this behavior. This is not just a coincidence, but part and parcel of a larger campaign."

Women in at least 12 states, including Wisconsin, Texas, North Carolina and California, have reported encountering pharmacists unwilling to fill their prescriptions.

"We've heard stories about them being turned away or referred to other pharmacies," said Karen Pearl, national president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "And even more alarmingly, some women are being denied birth control and the pharmacist keeps their prescription. They are also being given moral lectures, religious lectures. Women are being told contraception is abortion, which it is not."

Fernando E. Grillo, director of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, said the new rule "clarifies a duty we believe has always existed." The agency has filed a formal complaint against the Chicago Osco pharmacy, which could result in a fine or license suspension.

Rachel Laser, senior counsel at the National Women's Law Center, noted that 45 states have conscience clauses that exempt doctors from performing abortions on moral grounds, but that only Arkansas, Mississippi, South Dakota and Georgia have laws or regulations permitting pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions.

There are no federal laws forcing pharmacies to fill all prescriptions.

At least 11 states are considering legislation that would allow pharmacists to deny prescriptions, and legislation has been proposed in California, Missouri and New Jersey that would protect a customer's ability to have prescriptions filled. North Carolina's pharmacist licensing board recently clarified its policy to prevent pharmacists from obstructing customers from getting prescriptions.

"There's a lot of pending action on all sides," said Judy Waxman, vice president of health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19703-2005Apr1.html

Damn, I hate to agree with Democrats, but the gov is 100% right in this. I hope the pharmacy and the pharmacist both lose (and I mean revoked, not suspended for a while) their license as an example.

I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for bc or morning after pills.

But if the Planned Parenthood spokesperson quoted in the second article is correct, then I have a problem with the pharmacist refusing to give back the prescription so the woman can have it filled elsewhere.

Provided they don't keep the prescription or give moral/religious lectures I don't see the problem w/ having pharmacists simply refuse to fill the order or in the case of some direct the person to someone who would. Isn't anyone allowed to take a stand for their beliefs anymore :( or are you only allowed to do it if they are leftists/liberal beliefs?

Pharmacists are in the business of dispensing the medicine a doctor orders for his patient. They are not priests or keepers of the public morals. If they can't do their job, they don't deserve their job. Let them join the priesthood.

If they will prescribe for some (married women) but not for others (single women), they have no business "grilling" their customers beyond verifying that prescription really was from a doctor and details of insurance copays; it is an invasion of privacy. This is discrimination, no different than refusing to sell to a black woman because she is black. The government has every right to make it illegal.

Hopefully, the names of these places will be published and consumers who aren't religious nuts will boycott them and drive them out of business.

I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for bc or morning after pills.

But if the Planned Parenthood spokesperson quoted in the second article is correct, then I have a problem with the pharmacist refusing to give back the prescription so the woman can have it filled elsewhere.

1) Since when did pharamacists have a legal right to deny a citizen a prescription which was written by a doctor?

2) Are you willing to take care of all babies that will result because of your lovely morality?

Just like the Pro-Lifers love to post photos of abortion clinics, hoping they are blown up, I hope we see photos of the pharmacists and the stores they work in, so they can be blown up as well.

Pharmacists are in the business of dispensing the medicine a doctor orders for his patient. They are not priests or keepers of the public morals. If they can't do their job, they don't deserve their job. Let them join the priesthood.

That's not a staunch capitalist would take.

Do you hold every businessman to that same standard?

Do you believe any business has the right to refuse service?

I hope we see photos of the pharmacists and the stores they work in, so they can be blown up as well.


note to self...EXTREMISTS SUCK

<b>OldDude</b>, well put.

In general I'm uncomfortable with the state stepping in and taking action to force businesses to behave in certain ways, but since pharmacists are licensed by the state this seems as appropriate a time as any.

Provided they don't keep the prescription or give moral/religious lectures I don't see the problem w/ having pharmacists simply refuse to fill the order or in the case of some direct the person to someone who would. Isn't anyone allowed to take a stand for their beliefs anymore :( or are you only allowed to do it if they are leftists/liberal beliefs?

A pharmacist is not a private citizen who can make those decisions--they are not accepting clients at their home or church. They are governed by laws, state and federal, and cannot dictate morality to a patient who needs their prescription filled.

Do you not see the problems with this? What you are advocating is a Pro-Life Pharmacy, and a Pro-Choice Pharmacy. The polarization of Americans is getting worse and more and more insane by the day.

Morality has gotten out of hand. It belongs in the home and at church. Not in a goddamn pharmacy.

I agree with our esteemed moderator, nemein, on this subject. :)

A pharmacist is not a private citizen who can make those decisions--they are not accepting clients at their home or church. They are governed by laws, state and federal, and cannot dictate morality to a patient who needs their prescription filled.

Hmm! The pharmacist is not a private citizen. What is he then?

That's not a staunch capitalist would take.

Do you hold every businessman to that same standard?

Do you believe any business has the right to refuse service?

If your business is to serve THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, you do not have the right to refuse legal medications which have been written by a doctor, and have been proven valid.

If your business is PRIVATE, only giving service to specific people who are aware of the policy of the store, then do all the discriminating you want.

However, the APA has a great policy of letting pharmacists deny medications based on morality.

Stores that have Ultra-Christian Wackjobs (just for you C-man :D), can do their patrons a favor by posting signs they will refuse to give medications to those seeking BC and MO pills.

If the stores post conspicuous signs outside and inside the stores about their morality, I have no problem with it. But it's this secret morality that they are hiding from patients, that disturbs me.

If you don't like abortions, then grow some nutsacks and post your beliefs on your name badge and on the front of your store.

Hmm! The pharmacist is not a private citizen. What is he then?

Apparently, he's a Priest. Or should I say, a self-appointed Priest.

Keep it in the home.

Keep it in the Church.

Amen.

What do you mean they have no legal right to refuse the dispense the bc pills? They have legal rights to do whatever as long as it isn't illegal. Now if their employer doesn't like it, they can fire them and get a new pharmacist since this one couldn't fufill the duties of their jobs.

C-man,

And just for thought, would you and nemein be ok with grocery stores refusing service to Pro-Lifers? I think that would be wrong as well. A short while ago we talked about a Civil War brewing once again, and this is the start. If we polarize our stores--places where all of us come to shop for God sakes, this is the end of being an American.

Inconsistency abounds on the Politics Talk forum.

:)

BTW: Do you believe a doctor should be forced to perform an abortion simply because he's licensed by the state?

Yes - the above is a 'trap question.' ;)

Does he have a private practice or does he work at a hospital, catering to the general public. :)

C-man,

And just for thought, would you and nemein be ok with grocery stores refusing service to Pro-Lifers? I think that would be wrong as well. A short while ago we talked about a Civil War brewing once again, and this is the start. If we polarize our stores--places where all of us come to shop for God sakes, this is the end of being an American.

I have no problem with grocery stores refusing to serve anyone. Federal law prevents them from refusing services to certain minorities.

Again - are you saying that a person's position on abortion is based solely on his/her religious beliefs?

wouldn't the private office cater to the general public as well?

C-man,

And just for thought, would you and nemein be ok with grocery stores refusing service to Pro-Lifers? I think that would be wrong as well. A short while ago we talked about a Civil War brewing once again, and this is the start. If we polarize our stores--places where all of us come to shop for God sakes, this is the end of being an American.
that is a different situation, they aren't refusing to serve someone because of their political beliefs. It would be more like a bookstore refusing to sell Bibles

I have no problem with grocery stores refusing to serve anyone. and most businesses (restaurants especially) have signs that say they retain the right to refuse service to anyone

that is a different situation, they aren't refusing to serve someone because of their political beliefs. It would be more like a bookstore refusing to sell Bibles

Ok, so what if a store refused to sell products to Christians. Would this be ok? I wouldn't like it at all. But hey, if that's what America is coming to, then get ready for some clashes and even more violence. Eventually, you'll have police being divided within their own ranks.

Here we go with that coup d'etat and civil war shit. :lol:

rotfl

Nah, I'll spare you.

I still think it's going too far when you're pharmacist who knows nothing about the person who is requesting the medication. That's my biggest gripe. For those who are fine with pharmacists refusing prescriptions based on religious beliefs, I hope you defend the rights of non-religious organizations who refuse service to Christians.

I hope you defend the rights of non-religious organizations who refuse service to Christians.

I have no problem with that.

However, I would change the word 'organization' to 'business.'

Actually I should have said non-religious individuals.

So, do you think a pharmacy should be sued if a patient could not get a person's prescription filled and had to travel to another location, and within that period of time, experienced symptoms which would have not been there if the pharmacy would have given the medication at that time?

This is why I think a simple "We reserve the right...." sign is not applicable in this case, because we are talking about medications for people who need them.

And what about pharmacies who are located very scarce outside of large cities? Suppose the nearest pharmacy is like 45 miles away. Do you still support a pharmacist to deny a person any medication based on religious and moral beliefs.

Physicians have an ethical obligation to ensure that the person with an illness is taken care of. Even in the case of an elective abortion. If an OB/GYN doesn't perform abortions, then he ethically is required to send the woman to someone who does.
Even when physicians terminate a phys-patient relationship due to the patient being manipulative/abusive/drug-seeking etc.., you have to find the patient another physician to abuse er...take care of him.
That being said, I don't like the idea of the govt. overriding the rule of private business refusal of service.

But what if the decision to refuse medical service, could result in more harm to the patient. I mean, from what I understand, these pharmacists are just looking at the labels and if they see any kind of contraception, they refuse service. They know nothing about the circumstances or the time-frame of the needed medication.

That being said, I don't like the idea of the govt. overriding the rule of private business refusal of service.
The services that pharmacies provide aren't 100% private IMO.

They act as a layer between the consumer and the FDA. There presents in the market is paritially created by the government. Furthermore, due to heavily regulation prescription durgs are something that an alternative cannot be readily found for.

That's not a staunch capitalist would take.

Do you hold every businessman to that same standard?

Do you believe any business has the right to refuse service?

Would you agree with publishing the name and street address of the pharmacy so those opposed can boycott them and try to drive them out of business, while those in favor try to support them with enough business to keep them afloat?

I feel they should have been identified in this story. I would not do business with such a pharmacy.

I think we need to ban hypocrisy. Everyone should have their religion documented on their drivers' license and medical insurance card.

*If you are Catholic, no one can sell you birth control

*If you are Mormon, you can't buy alcohol, tobacco, coffee, or tea.

*If your church argued "life" for Terry Schiavo, you can't refuse medical treatment if a machine is capable of keeping you alive.

I don't know all the restrictions for all the faiths, but you get the idea. Of course, the atheists can do anything legal under state and federal law, because we're just immoral anyway.

Would you agree with publishing the name and street address of the pharmacy so those opposed can boycott them and try to drive them out of business, while those in favor try to support them with enough business to keep them afloat?

I feel they should have been identified in this story. I would not do business with such a pharmacy.

I think we need to ban hypocrisy. Everyone should have their religion documented on their drivers' license and medical insurance card.

*If you are Catholic, no one can sell you birth control

*If you are Mormon, you can't buy alcohol, tobacco, coffee, or tea.

*If your church argued "life" for Terry Schiavo, you can't refuse medical treatment if a machine is capable of keeping you alive.

I don't know all the restrictions for all the faiths, but you get the idea. Of course, the atheists can do anything legal under state and federal law, because we're just immoral anyway.
I suppose that's the reward you get for burning for eternity after you die. ;)

This is what I love about being Unitarian. Basically all we have to do is be nice to people. :lol:

Would you agree with publishing the name and street address of the pharmacy so those opposed can boycott them and try to drive them out of business, while those in favor try to support them with enough business to keep them afloat?

I feel they should have been identified in this story. I would not do business with such a pharmacy.

I think we need to ban hypocrisy. Everyone should have their religion documented on their drivers' license and medical insurance card.

*If you are Catholic, no one can sell you birth control

*If you are Mormon, you can't buy alcohol, tobacco, coffee, or tea.

*If your church argued "life" for Terry Schiavo, you can't refuse medical treatment if a machine is capable of keeping you alive.

I don't know all the restrictions for all the faiths, but you get the idea. Of course, the atheists can do anything legal under state and federal law, because we're just immoral anyway.

Once again you ducked the question.

OldDude surprises me a bit. I tend to think that a business can refuse to do darn near anything they want. Obviously it is wrong for someone to refuse to fill a prescription and then not give the prescription back. And I would have no problem having them put signs up that say, "We do not dispense......" and whatever drug they don't dispense. Hell, you would think that doctors would keep a supply of this around if it were hard to get.

Ok, so what if a store refused to sell products to Christians. Would this be ok? I wouldn't like it at all. But hey, if that's what America is coming to, then get ready for some clashes and even more violence. Eventually, you'll have police being divided within their own ranks.
that is still completely different. they are not refusing to serve people who use bc. they are refusing to sell bc. there are many resaurants that don't sell achohol, they don't refuse to serve alchoholics, there is a difference

OldDude surprises me a bit. I tend to think that a business can refuse to do darn near anything they want. Obviously it is wrong for someone to refuse to fill a prescription and then not give the prescription back. And I would have no problem having them put signs up that say, "We do not dispense......" and whatever drug they don't dispense. Hell, you would think that doctors would keep a supply of this around if it were hard to get.

A different version of the story may address your point. What they are outlawing is selective discrimination.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/nation/11295182.htm
. . . Blagojevich's policy does not require that all drugstores carry contraceptives; many don't, especially in Catholic hospitals. But if they have them, they must dispense them to anyone with a valid prescription or risk suspension of their license, according to Susan Hofer of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, which oversees pharmacies . . .

"When you or I walk into a pharmacy with a prescription," she said, "we have to have a strong level of confidence that we're going to walk out carrying the drugs we need. If the drug is in stock, it must be dispensed. End of discussion."


Edit: Here is a link to the official State of Illinois press release. Formal disciplinary action has been started against the pharmacy. They argue this is merely clarification of existing rules and requirements.
http://www.illinois.gov/PressReleases/ShowPressRelease.cfm?SubjectID=1&RecNum=3805

that is a different situation, they aren't refusing to serve someone because of their political beliefs. It would be more like a bookstore refusing to sell Bibles

Or refusing to sell Neo-nazi hate literature, and then the government comes in and forces them to....

Blagojevich's policy does not require that all drugstores carry contraceptives; many don't, especially in Catholic hospitals.

Sounds like a reasonable compromise to me. This way the pharmacists who don't want to fill such orders can find the pharmacies that agree w/ that.


Morality has gotten out of hand. It belongs in the home and at church. Not in a goddamn pharmacy.

No morality belongs in life. Sure not everyone's morals are going to match but you should be able to stand up for your morals in your job and your day to day interactions.

Or refusing to sell Neo-nazi hate literature, and then the government comes in and forces them to....No one reads neo-nazi literature for reasons of health and safety. No ones watches pornographic movies for those reasons, either. However, in most cases that's the very reason why people take prescription drugs. Because of that, I would argue that standard rules of commerce don't always apply in these cases.

I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for bc or morning after pills.

But if the Planned Parenthood spokesperson quoted in the second article is correct, then I have a problem with the pharmacist refusing to give back the prescription so the woman can have it filled elsewhere.
Agreed and agreed.

BTW: Do you believe a doctor should be forced to perform an abortion simply because he's licensed by the state?

Yes - the above is a 'trap question.' ;)It’s really not a “trap question” because of one major flaw.

All pharmacists are qualified to dispense BC.

All Doctors are not qualified to perform abortions.

I've only skimmed the articles but I certainly hope that these moralists are also refusing to fill Viagra prescriptions for their unmarried male customers. After all an unmarried man shouldn’t be having sex so having a “limp Willie” shouldn’t be a problem. ;)

The order doesn't state that the pharmacist who objects has to sell the drug. It says the pharmacy must provide another pharmacist with no delay to sell the drug if they carry it.

It’s really not a “trap question” because of one major flaw.

All pharmacists are qualified to dispense BC.

All Doctors are not qualified to perform abortions.

I've only skimmed the articles but I certainly hope that these moralists are also refusing to fill Viagra prescriptions for their unmarried male customers. After all an unmarried man shouldn’t be having sex so having a “limp Willie” shouldn’t be a problem. ;)

Don't even mention qualifications and abortion in the same sentence.

When abortion clinics have to meet the same standards as day surgery clinics then you might have some validity to your argument.

not giving a prescription back was wrong, but telling pharmacists that they have to fill every order is crazy.

What if a pharmacist doesn't like some company and doesn't want their business? Say someone gets pissed at Merck because Vioxx killed their family member? Does that mean they are still required to fill the prescription if it hasn't been pulled from the shelves?

I'm of the opinion that pharmacists shouldn't do crap like this. Injecting morality and turning down prescriptions based on beliefs like that is something that would make me...well, never visit their store. On the other hand, they should have the right. As long as alternatives do exist. Now if they are taking their prescription and not giving it back, or are the only choice around, then I could see an issue. But the right to discriminate should exist on some levels, and in turn we as the consumer should discriminate them and just not go there. Not sure if government intervention is always necessary for things like this.

Don't even mention qualifications and abortion in the same sentence.

When abortion clinics have to meet the same standards as day surgery clinics then you might have some validity to your argument.

Regardless of your beliefs about abortion the fact remains that my statement is correct and your "trap question" was ridiculous because of its inherent flaw.

By the way, if you knew anything about "standards" of day surgery clinics you would realize how laughable it is that you even bring them up.

Ask Dr. bhk about standards of day surgery clinics as compared to the standards (there are actually not any to speak of) in abortion clinics.

No morality belongs in life. Sure not everyone's morals are going to match but you should be able to stand up for your morals in your job and your day to day interactions.

So I take it a police officer should be able to refuse a call to a residence in which the owners are known to be pro-abortion?

I take it a firefighter, when arriving to the scene of an abortion clinic in flames, has a right to refuse to help his peers put out the fire?

In addition, Moral Duty pharmacists should be refusing to dispense Viagra (as noted above by another poster and he makes a valid point I think) and all other forms of sexually-related prescriptions, including STD medications, because after all, a promiscuous lifestyle is evil. If the pharmacists are only targeting BC and MO pills, they are very much inconsistent with their own moral belief code.

They know nothing about the circumstances or the time-frame of the needed medication.

and sometimes a busy pharmacy will have a day turn around on filling prescriptions
if a doctor's prescription is that time critical they better have the meds in their own office

It’s really not a “trap question” because of one major flaw.

All pharmacists are qualified to dispense BC.

All Doctors are not qualified to perform abortions.

then simply amend c-man's original comment to "doctors that have the needed knowledge"

Well, here is a little more info. The Osco pharmacy backs their pharmacist.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-pharm02.html
An Osco pharmacist refused in February to dispense "morning- after" pills to two women, telling them they could come back later and ask for a different pharmacist. Osco and the American Pharmacists Association backed up the pharmacist's right to invoke the state's "conscience clause."

But Blagojevich, surrounded by abortion rights supporters from around the country, said his reading of the conscience clause was that only physicians, not pharmacists, can invoke it.

Blagojevich said he was taking a stand against a growing national trend of anti-abortion pharmacists refusing to dispense contraceptives. His order has the power of law unless reversed by a state panel.

Blagojevich, through his Financial and Professional Regulation Department, also filed an administrative complaint against Osco on Friday, charging the pharmacy with "failure to provide pharmaceutical care" and "unprofessional conduct" for refusing to dispense contraceptives to the two women in February. The state could fine or even ultimately close the store.

I decided to look up Osco. They are owned by Albertsons' which also owns Savon Drugs, and markets operating under the names Albertson's, Jewel, Acme, and Shaw's.

So if you believe women are baby-ovens intended to be oppressed by men instead of contolling their own bodies, be sure to shop there.

If you believe the pharmacist and the pharmacy are scumbags, don't shop there. Be sure to drop in and let them know why. Of all those entities, only Savon operates in my area, but we have several drug stores to choose from. Savon is off my list.

So I take it a police officer should be able to refuse a call to a residence in which the owners are known to be pro-abortion?

I take it a firefighter, when arriving to the scene of an abortion clinic in flames, has a right to refuse to help his peers put out the fire?

I disagree that that's an apples to apples comparison w/ what the pharmacist is doing. Maybe I'm missing something but giving out birth control is not an immediate life or death or saftey issue, it's a voluntary action on the part of the person taking them. I think an apples to apples comparison would be the abortion clinic asking the the firefighter or policeman to visit/consult on ways to make the clinic safer. At which point if the FF or LEO refuses on moral grounds I would agree that they have the right to so. I suspect you'll disagree w/ me on this though ;)

I think the owner of a pharmacy has the right to make the rules for that pharmacy. If pharmacist employees don't like the rules they can look for work elsewhere. If customers don't like the rules they can take their business elsewhere. If a pharmacy is not going to fill particular prescriptions it would be at least a good idea to conspicuously post the policy.

One thing though. A pharmacist does not have the right to not return a prescription to the customer after refusing to fill it. The prescription is the customer's property, not the pharmacist's.

Hmmmm, I guess I will change a bit and this would be my compromise....
1) No pharmacy must carry anything they don't want to.
2) If a pharmacy does carry something, it must be dispensed to anyone with a script within 8 business hours.

That would let a shift change occur for anyone who would not fill a prescription, and often you have to wait that long anyway. Also, I think the idea that the conscience clause can only apply to doctors and not pharmacists is complete crap.

But I also think it should be perfectly okay for a pharmacy to require a pharmacist to give out the drug, and if they don't like it, they can work for another pharmacy.

Also, I think the idea that the conscience clause can only apply to doctors and not pharmacists is complete crap.


I Googled and found the law. Certainly, I'm not a lawyer, I only bitch about them here. As I read it, what the legislature passed is limited to doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel involved in performing procedures for abortion, sterilization, etc. Nothing like pharmacists or pharmacies are mentioned. The legislature could pass such a law, but at the moment, they have no "get out of jail" ticket.

However, I can somewhat accept a law in the big city where there is a broad choice of medical providers. I am deeply concerned in a rural area with limited providers it has both the effect and the intent of denying availability of a legal procedure to women in spite of the Supreme Court repeatedly ruling that women have a right to the procedure. I hope to see it challenged in court and overturned.

I don't fully agree with the 8 hour thing, as that could potentially force them to hire more people which will result in higer prices.
I've seen cases where the turn around to get a script filled was longer than that even with a pharmacist and a couple techs working

If they didn't feel the need to refuse service entirely because of their smug, arrogant "better than thou" morality, the whole rule never would have been required. If it inconveniences the pharmacy, TFB, I say.

Edit: I will ALSO say my local pharmacy has never taken more than two hours unless I've said I won't be able to stop by until later. If I'm waiting, they VERY rarely take more than 20 minutes. I'd change pharmacies over an 8 hour delay, but I'm a hard-ass old fogey.

I think the owner of a pharmacy has the right to make the rules for that pharmacy. If pharmacist employees don't like the rules they can look for work elsewhere. If customers don't like the rules they can take their business elsewhere. If a pharmacy is not going to fill particular prescriptions it would be at least a good idea to conspicuously post the policy.

One thing though. A pharmacist does not have the right to not return a prescription to the customer after refusing to fill it. The prescription is the customer's property, not the pharmacist's.


I agree on all counts. Surprising, I know.

Forget these refusal-of-service analogies. None of these other businesses dispense something that affects a person's health. There are multiple reasons for which one might obtain oral contraceptives. And that is besides the point. A doctor WHO KNOWS THE PERSON'S MEDICAL HISTORY, has already written a prescription, effectively making a medical decision. The pharmacist doesn't know jackshit about a person's medical background and it's none of their business either. They do not hold responsibility for the person's health beyond dispensing the proper medication, and therefore also does not have the right to make decisions about the person's medications. The pharmacist does NOT get to make medical decisions. Refusal of administration of a prescribed drug IS a medical decision. Ergo, these pharamacists should have their licenses stripped.

You want an analogy? It'd be like a doctor ordering an IV to be placed so that a blood transfusion could be administered and the nurse refuses because that nurse is a Jehovah's Witness. You bet your ass that nurse would be fired faster than you could say "O negative". It's one thing to have whatever beliefs you have. It's entirely another to force your beliefs onto someone else.

You want an analogy? It'd be like a doctor ordering an IV to be placed so that a blood transfusion could be administered and the nurse refuses because that nurse is a Jehovah's Witness.

Even that analogy doesn't hold up though since something like a blood transfusion is so fundamental/basic to a nurse's job that someone who had a problem w/ it for whatever reson would most likely not choose to be a nurse in the first place. Sure there are various reasons someone might be put on birth control but none that I'm aware of are immediately life threatening (like a transfusion would be) and therefore are voluntary IMHO which means the pharmacist should have some say in whether or not they fill the prescription (given the some of the "rules" outlined elsewhere in this thread). JMO

I decided to look up Osco. They are owned by Albertsons' which also owns Savon Drugs, and markets operating under the names Albertson's, Jewel, Acme, and Shaw's.

So if you believe women are baby-ovens intended to be oppressed by men instead of contolling their own bodies, be sure to shop there.You seem to think that this is some sort of corporate policy. I live in the "Reddest" state in the union, we have Savon pharmacies here (same company) and they cheerfully dispense BC pills without incident. Obviously the pharmacist in this case was acting on his own (and will likely be fired).

As for this case, I disagree with what the pharmicists did but I do think businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone. They do NOT have the right to take prescriptions away, BUT the only evidence of that is an anecdotal comment from the president of Planned Parenthood.

I hate to bring up a slippery slope argument, but I can see this leading to some interesting questions:

* What if a customer cannot pay? Is a pharmacist obligated to give them the prescription for free?

* What if a pharmacist declines a prescription because it conflicts with another prescription and the customer insists that they fill it anyway? Will that pharmacist be fined and/or have his license revoked if they continue to refuse?

Even that analogy doesn't hold up...

Maybe the reason for finding an analogy is so difficult is because the behavior of some of these pharmacists are so outrageous, most of us would never do it or even think of doing it.

As our country moves on, I'm noticing more and more, that people are practicing their religious beliefs in settings where it is not appropriate. I think it has to do with their own frustration and feeling of having no control over others' behaviors, so they now are taking it to the next level, which is to the place they work at.

Obviously there are exceptions, but I think overall, most of us would agree that the majority of businesses in the US, do not need someone preaching their religious beliefs to the customers, in addition to attempting to control the customer's behavior.

Groucho,

As long as the pharmacist has a NON-religious reason for refusing the prescription, I don't have a problem. But simply refusing to fill a prescription because God frowns on babykillers, I just can't take that as a legitimate excuse.

Maybe the reason for finding an analogy is so difficult is because the behavior of some of these pharmacists are so outrageous, most of us would never do it or even think of doing it.

I think the reason finding a good analogy is so difficult is that because this is a unique set of circumstances that no other situation can accuratly describe. The birth control and abortion debate is entirely it's own and no matter how people may want to fit those square pegs into other round holes it's not going to work. I can easily see where the issue of BC is left entirely up to the pharmacist/pharmacy w/o endangering society or creating the "slippery slope" some around here seem to want to create. JMO


I'm noticing more and more, that people are practicing their religious beliefs in settings where it is not appropriate.

I disagree, I think society is just frowning more and more on people having religious beliefs in any setting outside of the church.


most of us would agree that the majority of businesses in the US, do not need someone preaching their religious beliefs to the customers

As I said before I disagree w/ the situations where the customers were "preached" to or the precription was retained, however I still think the individual pharmacist should have the right to decide whether or not to fill a BC prescription.

What if a pharmacist declines a prescription because it conflicts with another prescription and the customer insists that they fill it anyway? Will that pharmacist be fined and/or have his license revoked if they continue to refuse?The pharmacist calls the physician to see if there is a substitute they can use. Case closed.

What if a pharmacist doesn't like some company and doesn't want their business? Say someone gets pissed at Merck because Vioxx killed their family member? Does that mean they are still required to fill the prescription if it hasn't been pulled from the shelves?
Even if Merck is the only one who makes that medication and without it the person may die :eek:?

You seem to think that this is some sort of corporate policy. . . .

I hate to bring up a slippery slope argument, but I can see this leading to some interesting questions:

* What if a customer cannot pay? Is a pharmacist obligated to give them the prescription for free?

* What if a pharmacist declines a prescription because it conflicts with another prescription and the customer insists that they fill it anyway? Will that pharmacist be fined and/or have his license revoked if they continue to refuse?

I guess you missed the quoted article that said Osco backed the pharmacist. So it is at least a "corporate" policy, ie Osco. As to whether it is a "CORPORATE" policy, ie Albertson's, the owner of all those brands, who knows, but they should keep the "kids" in line and set overall corporate policy. Does Savon cheerfully dispense "morning-after" pills which seem to be the real issue here?

Nobody should be forced to sell to a non-paying customer.

If a pharmacist thinks he has spotted a drug interaction problem, IMO, he has an IMMEDIATE obligation to consult with prescribing physician and resolve it, as well as cautioning the customer there may be a problem. He should not fill the prescription until the matter is resolved. If he cries "wolf" to avoid dispensing pills he disapproves of, his license should be pulled.

What will people say when we find a "bugs have rights too" pharmacist who won't fill prescriptions for antibiotics because bacteria will die.

What will people say when we find a "bugs have rights too" pharmacist who won't fill prescriptions for antibiotics because bacteria will die.

I would say you're reaching to find examples/analogies that don't fit the situation at hand. Again IMHO the whole BC debate is unique enough in and of itself that it can be handled as a distinct situation/set of circumstances.

I would say you're reaching to find examples/analogies that don't fit the situation at hand. Again IMHO the whole BC debate is unique enough in and of itself that it can be handled as a distinct situation/set of circumstances.

It's a very small reach. At the time when a morning after pill can be used, it is a single cell (a fertilized egg) or maybe a couple of undifferentiated cell divisions have occurred, nothing that could be regarded as human. I grant it is after-the-fact birth control as opposed to before the fact, but I reject the notion is comparable to abortion after the fetus has begun to differentiate.

A doctor WHO KNOWS THE PERSON'S MEDICAL HISTORY, has already written a prescription, effectively making a medical decision. The pharmacist doesn't know jackshit about a person's medical background and it's none of their business either.

Of course it is the pharmacist's business. Many times there are multiple physicians treating one patient for multiple problems with multiple medications. The pharmacist is the last line of defense against severe drug interactions and incompatibilities. They have done great services to patients.
Originally Posted by WCChiCubsFan
It’s really not a “trap question” because of one major flaw.

All pharmacists are qualified to dispense BC.

All Doctors are not qualified to perform abortions.

All gynecologists are qualified to perform abortions. Very few do.

It's a very small reach. At the time when a morning after pill can be used, it is a single cell (a fertilized egg) or maybe a couple of undifferentiated cell divisions have occurred, nothing that could be regarded as human. I grant it is after-the-fact birth control as opposed to before the fact, but I reject the notion is comparable to abortion after the fetus has begun to differentiate.

That's fine but it has no impact IMHO on the question at hand. BC/"morning after pills" are unique enough in their function/use that I don't see what the problem is in leaving it up to the individual pharmicist to decide what they want to do w/ the prescriptions (in the sense of whether or not to fill them).

Provided they don't keep the prescription or give moral/religious lectures I don't see the problem w/ having pharmacists simply refuse to fill the order or in the case of some direct the person to someone who would. Isn't anyone allowed to take a stand for their beliefs anymore :( or are you only allowed to do it if they are leftists/liberal beliefs?


:thumbsup:

I'm responding to a couple different people here...

As long as the pharmacist has a NON-religious reason for refusing the prescription, I don't have a problem. But simply refusing to fill a prescription because God frowns on babykillers, I just can't take that as a legitimate excuse.What if the pharmacist was a non-religious pro-lifer? What if he has a beef with the company making the pills (as mentioned by al bundy)? Non-religious reasons can be just as silly as religious ones.I guess you missed the quoted article that said Osco backed the pharmacist. So it is at least a "corporate" policy, ie Osco.My apologies, I missed that even though it was in the same post I was responding too.

Note that Osco's policy seems to give autonomy to their pharmacists as to which prescriptions they can and cannot fill. Probably a good thing, since I can think of many situations where a pharmacist might not want to fill a prescription due to a "gut feeling." Obviously, this is a bit different, but if you make all pharmacists fill all prescriptions at all times, you lose the human factor, which I think is very important for that particular job.

If Osco's policy was "Don't hand out BC and Morning After pills" then they simply wouldn't carry them. Your original staement implied that Osco was a bunch of women-haters who wanted to take us back to the 1950's which was a huge leap in logic. It seems I recall reading about some pharmacies that don't carry these drugs at all, but I believe they're all "mom and pop" operations. I believe we discussed it here a few months ago...

I should also add that the American Pharmacy Association also backs the pharmacists, so you'll need to add every pharmacy in the country to your little boycott. Which is probably good since I hear drugs are cheaper in Canada anyway.

Even that analogy doesn't hold up though since something like a blood transfusion is so fundamental/basic to a nurse's job that someone who had a problem w/ it for whatever reson would most likely not choose to be a nurse in the first place. Sure there are various reasons someone might be put on birth control but none that I'm aware of are immediately life threatening (like a transfusion would be) and therefore are voluntary IMHO which means the pharmacist should have some say in whether or not they fill the prescription (given the some of the "rules" outlined elsewhere in this thread). JMO

It doesn't have to be life threatening. It just has to directly affect their health. I would say pregnancy directly affects one's health. Dispsensing medication IS fundamental/basic to a pharmacist's job. It is one thing if the contraceptives aren't there. But they ARE there. The pharmacists are choosing NOT to dispense them, not out of health reasons, but out of moral beliefs. BTW, a reason to be taking OC's (oral contraceptives) is also to control abnormal uterine bleeding (either too much or at the wrong time of the cycle). Will the pharamacist take the blame if the woman gets admitted to the hospital for blood loss, or worse, if she dies (yes, it can happen)? The point is, the pharmacist is not in a position to be making medical decisions OTHER THAN if a mistake is seen on the medication orders that could potentially affect one's health negatively. In other words, they're actions must stay within the boundaries of their knowledge and expertise. NOT their beliefs.

Of course it is the pharmacist's business. Many times there are multiple physicians treating one patient for multiple problems with multiple medications. The pharmacist is the last line of defense against severe drug interactions and incompatibilities. They have done great services to patients.
As I said above, they may notice medication errors or potential cross-reactions, but they notify the physician about it in these situations because even then, they STILL do not take action on their own. And their responsibilities are still limited to what they know about pharmacology, not what they believe morally.

If you can't do your job and dispense medications based on your beliefs, you need to get the fuck out of the job. Its that simple. The state and federal government has created laws that says only certain people can dispense drugs. Therefore, these people are acting in a quasi-public role of dispensing drugs. The state has the right to tell these fucks to give drugs that are legally prescribed.

I can't wait for some of these people in this thread to need some medication and have a stupid fuck moralist tell them they don't believe in the drug. Let's see how high your fucking morals are then.

What happens when your pharmacy hires a Christian Science who doesn't believe in drugs at all? They can't fire the guy? What the fuck coutnry do you people live in?

This and the Terry Schiavo shit, god damn, why not just put the mullahs in power and let them rule by theocracy

Will the pharamacist take the blame if the woman gets admitted to the hospital for blood loss, or worse, if she dies (yes, it can happen)?

The attitude would be, like most who share these beliefs, "Who gives a fuck about a woman. At least a zygote didn't die."

But it would make a great law suit.

I can't wait for some of these people in this thread to need some medication and have a stupid fuck moralist tell them they don't believe in the drug. Let's see how high your fucking morals are then.

As if there is only one pharmisict out there...


What happens when your pharmacy hires a Christian Science who doesn't believe in drugs at all? They can't fire the guy? What the fuck coutnry do you people live in?

Why would a Christian Scientist become a pharmisict in the first place :hscratch:

As if there is only one pharmisict out there...

Have you ever been to rural areas? Sure there are five pharmacies within 10 minutes of where I live? But what are you going to do if there is one pharmacy in town and they won't give you the drugs you are looking for?

Why would a Christian Scientist become a pharmisict in the first place

Because its a job and it pays. The same question should be asked of people who refuse to give certain drugs, not all drugs like a Christian Scientist would probably do. And the kicker is that they couldn't fire you, because its just your beliefs

To impose his moral beliefs on others by refusing to dispense medicine -- exactly like this pharmacist. You can mock it, but I think it is a interesting analogy.

To impose his moral beliefs on others by refusing to dispense medicine -- exactly like this pharmacist. You can mock it, but I think it is a interesting analogy.

No it's not, it's rediculous straw man argument IMHO... A person is going to take the time/money to study to become a pharmacist (a profession that centers around something they don't believe in) soley to impose their moral beliefs on other people by not giving out any medicine (and thereby quickly losing their job). You do realize how ludicrous that sounds don't you :lol:


If you want a good analogy how about my case. When first asked to become a mod I made it conditional upon not having anything to do w/ the adult forum. Technically I am a moderator of that forum but the only times I've ventured into there is when it's not obvious from a RTP that it'll led to the adult forum. Does that make me any less effective as a moderator because I refuse to have anything to do w/ that forum?

What will people say when we find a "bugs have rights too" pharmacist who won't fill prescriptions for antibiotics because bacteria will die.

... or when we find a pharmacist who won't dispense AIDS drugs, or won't dispense certain antibiotics that are typically prescribed for the treatment of venereal diseases, and so on.

No it's not, it's rediculous straw man argument IMHO... A person is going to take the time/money to study to become a pharmacist (a profession that centers around something they don't believe in) soley to impose their moral beliefs on other people by not giving out any medicine (and thereby quickly losing their job). You do realize how ludicrous that sounds don't you

Actually its quite ridicoulous because it is a perfectly logical extension of what these pharmacists are doing.

Like JasonF posted, what if you start getting pharmacists who won't dispense AIDS drugs, because as some some extremist Christians believe, that AIDS is God's punishments on homosexuals? Therefore, they should not treat people who are being punished by God.

Argue with the hypothetical all you want, but it is a perfectly logical extension of these asshat pharmaciasts.

How does a pharmacist usually carry out his business? He typically has a stock of the various popular medicines, and if he does not have a demanded medicine in stock, he orders it. I'm confused about how a pharmacist can hold someone's prescription if he's not going to fill the order? I'd think if the patient contacted the pharmacist about a prescription, the pharmacist would tell him upfront that he won't fill the order and simply deny to accept the prescription?

Can't people order their prescriptions on-line and just have it shipped? I'm positive that all the major chains will accept any legit prescriptions, and it's probaly only the small pharmacies that are making such moral decisions. I can't see how individual pharmacists denying prescriptions can be such a widespread problem that a governor steps in the ring.

If you want a good analogy how about my case. When first asked to become a mod I made it conditional upon not having anything to do w/ the adult forum. Technically I am a moderator of that forum but the only times I've ventured into there is when it's not obvious from a RTP that it'll led to the adult forum. Does that make me any less effective as a moderator because I refuse to have anything to do w/ that forum?

Your analogy doesn't work. Your morals are not being imposed upon someone else. Your not wanting anything to do with the adult forum does not prevent someone else from browsing that forum. Plus, whether or not they browse that forum does not have anything to do with their well-being.

A pharmacists moral obligation against contraception preventing someone else from getting OC's, IS imposing their beliefs AND is directly impacting their health.

A pharmacists moral obligation against contraception preventing someone else from getting OC's, IS imposing their beliefs AND is directly impacting their health.

Do you use the same 'reasoning' about a doctor refusing to perform an abortion because he is morally opposed to doing so? Isn't he imposing his belief, and, some would argue, impacting the woman's health.

Like JasonF posted, what if you start getting pharmacists who won't dispense AIDS drugs, because as some some extremist Christians believe, that AIDS is God's punishments on homosexuals? Therefore, they should not treat people who are being punished by God.

This actually is a good point. What WOULD all of you say if a pharmacist refused to dispense AIDS meds? Or if they refuse to dispense methadone to heroine addicts because they think methadone is equally 'bad'.

The point is that moral decisions about someone's medical prescriptions are not and should not be decided at the pharmacy level. If they are, we start down a very slippery slope. On a moral/ethics level, I am not necessarily in favor of any and all abortions. But my beliefs cannot supercede someone else's beliefs in a way that could potentially affect their health and well-being.

Say a woman gets pregnant because she didn't have access to OC's, but she has a condition (there are a significant number: berry aneurysms, hypertension, any number of bleeding disorders, autoimmune disorders, etc) for which it is dangerous to become pregnant. What happens if the woman dies because of this condition. If the pharmacist had ANY liability in this, then I would agree that he/she may have some say in the matter. As it stands, they do not. Thus, they CANNOT have any say in this matter outside of potential medication interactions/reactions.

I hate people who only half-assed stand up for their beliefs.

If you are a pharmacist who doesn't believe in birth control, then go find a pharmacy that has a policy of not stocking it and work there.

Complicity is just as damning as compliance; people just manage to convince themselves otherwise.

Do you use the same 'reasoning' about a doctor refusing to perform an abortion because he is morally opposed to doing so? Isn't he imposing his belief, and, some would argue, impacting the woman's health.

A doctor who refuses to perform an elective abortion legally MUST refer her to someone who will. If the woman's health or life is endangered because of the pregnancy, yes, the doctor who is capable should perform the abortion. If he/she does not, he/she may be liable for consequences of not doing so.

Here's the difference in your (smug) analogy: the pharmacist HOLDS NO LIABILITY.

If you want a good analogy how about my case. When first asked to become a mod I made it conditional upon not having anything to do w/ the adult forum. Technically I am a moderator of that forum but the only times I've ventured into there is when it's not obvious from a RTP that it'll led to the adult forum. Does that make me any less effective as a moderator because I refuse to have anything to do w/ that forum?

I don't agree that is a good analogy. While users generally benefit from our forums being well moderated (thanks for doing the thankless task, guys) a moderator isn't strictly necessary for us to enjoy the forum (in fact, there seem to be outbreaks of "teh fun" when it appears no mods are around). So there may be a workload issue between you and fellow mods, but users are not directly affected.

If we had a forum where a mod had to approve all posts (I've only seen a few that require this for rather new members), then we would be denied service by your action and it might be comparable. Of course posting here might be just a little less critical than taking a "morning after" pill before the time limit is up. Actions like this increase the number of "real abortions" that ultimately have to be performed (where there has been enough cell growth that differentiation has begun, whether or not it yet has a brain or can live outside the womb.)

Can't people order their prescriptions on-line and just have it shipped? I'm positive that all the major chains will accept any legit prescriptions, and it's probaly only the small pharmacies that are making such moral decisions. I can't see how individual pharmacists denying prescriptions can be such a widespread problem that a governor steps in the ring.

Not everyone has Internet access (shocking I know). Also, not everyone lives in an area with multiple pharmacies to access. It may be a small issue now, but it does start down a slippery slope, especially when these actions do not face any consequences. The governor is stepping into the ring to prevent it from becoming a widespread problem.

I'm positive that all the major chains will accept any legit prescriptions, and it's probaly only the small pharmacies that are making such moral decisions. I can't see how individual pharmacists denying prescriptions can be such a widespread problem that a governor steps in the ring.

Osco -- the pharmacy in question here -- is one of the two big pharmacy chains in Chicago and the surrounding area (the other is Walgreens). There are other pharmacies -- there's a grocery store chain called Dominick's that has pharmacies in some of their locations, and CVS is developing a presence in Chicago -- but I would estimate that Osco probably has a third of the market in Chicago. Moreover, as someone noted, Osco is part of the Albertson's chain, which is one of the largest grocery store companies in America.

Not everyone has Internet access (shocking I know). Also, not everyone lives in an area with multiple pharmacies to access. It may be a small issue now, but it does start down a slippery slope, especially when these actions do not face any consequences. The governor is stepping into the ring to prevent it from becoming a widespread problem.
Well, they still can make phone calls to find a pharmacy that will accept the prescription and ship it to them, can't they? I'm not sure what to say about this. I know some medicines such as the anti-retroviral durgs have to be taken right away to be effective in some cases like for rape victims as the CDC is pushing for its wider availability. Do regular pharmacies even stock those kind of drugs? I assumed hospitals normally administrated them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4197099.stm

Osco -- the pharmacy in question here -- is one of the two big pharmacy chains in Chicago and the surrounding area (the other is Walgreens). There are other pharmacies -- there's a grocery store chain called Dominick's that has pharmacies in some of their locations, and CVS is developing a presence in Chicago -- but I would estimate that Osco probably has a third of the market in Chicago. Moreover, as someone noted, Osco is part of the Albertson's chain, which is one of the largest grocery store companies in America.

Interesting, is there a chart or something that outlines which pharmacies all the big chain stores (Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, etc) use? Or it varies too radically by location? Is Eckerds a national chain?

Osco -- the pharmacy in question here -- is one of the two big pharmacy chains in Chicago and the surrounding area (the other is Walgreens). There are other pharmacies -- there's a grocery store chain called Dominick's that has pharmacies in some of their locations, and CVS is developing a presence in Chicago -- but I would estimate that Osco probably has a third of the market in Chicago. Moreover, as someone noted, Osco is part of the Albertson's chain, which is one of the largest grocery store companies in America.And, as has already been pointed out, that Osco pharmacist was acting on his own. Osco does not have a corporate policy not to distribute these kinds of drugs.

Yes but it has a policy that allows people to make exceptions to the general order of fulfilling prescriptions. This exception, if used by a lot of pharmacists, essentially swallows the general rule.

The rule should be, we serve everyone and will fill every prescription that is (a) prescribed legally and (b) using our training as pharmacists we do not have any belief that the drug would cause any adverse reactions due to existing drug usage or allergies (i..e. acting as backup to doctor's determination)

And, as has already been pointed out, that Osco pharmacist was acting on his own. Osco does not have a corporate policy not to distribute these kinds of drugs.

Right, just a policy that it is OK for the pharmacist to jerk a customer around.

Is it possible to identify which Osco this is? There are A LOT in Chicago, but only one at 1224 S. Wabash appears to qualify as "South Loop area" cited in governor's press release. Customers: Jerk back -- don't shop there!

What happens when your pharmacy hires a Christian Science who doesn't believe in drugs at all? They can't fire the guy?
i think everyone in this thread has said the pharmacy has the right to fire the guy...who hasn't?

I decided to look up Osco. They are owned by Albertsons' which also owns Savon Drugs, and markets operating under the names Albertson's, Jewel, Acme, and Shaw's.

So if you believe women are baby-ovens intended to be oppressed by men instead of contolling their own bodies, be sure to shop there.


I expected better from you

I expected better from you

Well, I expected better of this pharmacist than denying service to a women, and I expected better of his pharmacy than supporting the bum. I guess we both have to be disappointed.

"Conscience" means denying a woman something she has a legal right to? There is something wrong with this premise, and these practioners should be driven from a specialty where this conflict occurs.

In Chicago, there may be enough choices this doesn't really matter. In Lower Bullfuck, I guarentee it does, and women are being denied their legal rights to birth control, morning-after pills, and abortions, in spite of rulings by the Supreme Court because of asshat legislators who pass asshat laws like this conscience law (which is only for doctors, not for pharmacies).

I would like to see this pharmacy (since they wouldn't reprimand the pharmacist, they could have avoided this reaction) shut down by the state or driven to bankruptcy by irate customers (or even lawyers).

A doctor who refuses to perform an elective abortion legally MUST refer her to someone who will. If the woman's health or life is endangered because of the pregnancy, yes, the doctor who is capable should perform the abortion. If he/she does not, he/she may be liable for consequences of not doing so.

Here's the difference in your (smug) analogy: the pharmacist HOLDS NO LIABILITY.Very good point.

All gynecologists are qualified to perform abortions. Very few do.Of course that's not what the original poster of the “trap question" wrote. In his poorly thought out “trap” he wrote doctor as in all doctors.

That’s why it fails to be any kind of trap.

Here's a question:

If I work in a bookstore and someone comes up to the cash register and wants to buy a book about "Subject Z" and I happen to not agree with "Subject Z" do I, as a cashier, have the right to refuse to sell the person that book?

What if the book was out of stock and I ordered the book and had it delivered to the store, like you can do at Barnes and Noble and Borders. What happens if the book I ordered comes to the store, I go up to buy it, and the cashier won't sell it to me?

Another example, I'm over the age of 18, but the clerk running a videogame store doesn't like violent videogames. Even though I'm legally able to buy "M" rated games, the cashier refuses to sell me the game I want.

By allowing the pharmacist to withold the prescriptions, it opens up all kinds of scenarios where people can refuse us anything, because of their beliefs.

I'm not saying that you're not allowed to express your beliefs on your own time, but when you're working, you're a representative of a company. Servicing the customer comes first. If you aren't willing to perform the duties of your job, whether it's selling a book about "Subject Z" or selling an "M" rated videogame, or even giving someone the pills they are legally entitled to, you need to find a new job.

Interesting, is there a chart or something that outlines which pharmacies all the big chain stores (Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, etc) use? Or it varies too radically by location? Is Eckerds a national chain?I'm not quite sure what you are getting at but perhaps this should help.

All of the big chains you listed, Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, along with Kroger, Safeway and Albertsons own the pharmacies that reside in their stores. They are not franchised out to other pharmacy chains.

I would imagine Wal-Mart is #1 on the list for these types of pharmacists.

maybe if this law gets passed we can use it to force average retailers to sell porn?

Right, just a policy that it is OK for the pharmacist to jerk a customer around.

Is it possible to identify which Osco this is? There are A LOT in Chicago, but only one at 1224 S. Wabash appears to qualify as "South Loop area" cited in governor's press release. Customers: Jerk back -- don't shop there!

The Osco in question is at 137 S. State St., which is actually right in the ehart of the Loop. I've actually shopped there from time to time -- my El station is about a quarter of a block north of that location, so if I need to pick something up on my way home, it's a convenient place to shop. I've never used their pharmacy, though (and, in fact, no longer use Osco pharmacies at all because the one near my house has extremely crappy service).

I thought this might be a useful contribution to the discussion:

Code of Ethics for Pharmacists
PREAMBLE
Pharmacists are health professionals who assist individuals in making the best use of medications. This Code, prepared and supported by pharmacists, is intended to state publicly the principles that form the fundamental basis of the roles and responsibilities of pharmacists. These principles, based on moral obligations and virtues, are established to guide pharmacists in relationships with patients, health professionals, and society.

I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.

Considering the patient-pharmacist relationship as a covenant means that a pharmacist has moral obligations in response to the gift of trust received from society. In return for this gift, a pharmacist promises to help individuals achieve optimum benefit from their medications, to be committed to their welfare, and to maintain their trust.

II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient at the center of professional practice. In doing so, a pharmacist considers needs stated by the patient as well as those defined by health science. A pharmacist is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the patient. With a caring attitude and a compassionate spirit, a pharmacist focuses on serving the patient in a private and confidential manner.

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.

IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

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.

V. A pharmacist maintains professional competence.

A pharmacist has a duty to maintain knowledge and abilities as new medications, devices, and technologies become available and as health information advances.

VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals.

When appropriate, a pharmacist asks for the consultation of colleagues or other health professionals or refers the patient. A pharmacist acknowledges that colleagues and other health professionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply to the care of the patient.

VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs.

The primary obligation of a pharmacist is to individual patients. However, the obligations of a pharmacist may at times extend beyond the individual to the community and society. In these situations, the pharmacist recognizes the responsibilities that accompany these obligations and acts accordingly.

VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.

When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair and equitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.

* adopted by the membership of the American Pharmacists Association October 27, 1994.
http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Pharmacy_Practice_Resources&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2903

http://www.pfli.org/

Interesting website for "professional" pharmacists.

maybe if this law gets passed we can use it to force average retailers to sell porn?

Who wouldn't be for that? :hump:

All of the big chains you listed, Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, along with Kroger, Safeway and Albertsons own the pharmacies that reside in their stores. They are not franchised out to other pharmacy chains.
Really? I thought they all typically contracted a pharmarcial company to do business in their stores, like Wal-Mart having McDonalds in their stores. Do those pharmacies usually have their own policies or the store sets it for them?

Wal-Mart owns 2,400+ pharmacies in the US, including the ones in their stores. The other big chains, I'm not sure of.

Here's a question:

If I work in a bookstore and someone comes up to the cash register and wants to buy a book about "Subject Z" and I happen to not agree with "Subject Z" do I, as a cashier, have the right to refuse to sell the person that book?

What if the book was out of stock and I ordered the book and had it delivered to the store, like you can do at Barnes and Noble and Borders. What happens if the book I ordered comes to the store, I go up to buy it, and the cashier won't sell it to me?

Another example, I'm over the age of 18, but the clerk running a videogame store doesn't like violent videogames. Even though I'm legally able to buy "M" rated games, the cashier refuses to sell me the game I want.

By allowing the pharmacist to withold the prescriptions, it opens up all kinds of scenarios where people can refuse us anything, because of their beliefs.

I'm not saying that you're not allowed to express your beliefs on your own time, but when you're working, you're a representative of a company. Servicing the customer comes first. If you aren't willing to perform the duties of your job, whether it's selling a book about "Subject Z" or selling an "M" rated videogame, or even giving someone the pills they are legally entitled to, you need to find a new job.


I don't really think that sort of situation would really happen though. Companies can in general decide which products they want to sell for whatever reason. Take Walmart not carrying NC-17 films or similar issues. Quite frankly, if a cashier at a store refuses to sell something the store carries, and the customer complains, I seriously doubt 99% of stores would side with their cashier. They'd tell him to sell the shit or find another job.

Not that this issue doesn't have possible problems, but I don't think it's soemthing that really translates to most types of stores.

I guess my point was to ask the members who said they think it's ok for the pharmacist to refuse to give a customer pills or medication they asked for, based on their beliefs, how far does it go?

Once you let one person in one profession refuse service based on ideology, doesn't that open up a huge can of worms? What's the difference between a pharmacist who refuses to give morning after pills and a book-store cashier refusing to sell a book about the morning after pill, or a videogame clerk refusing to sell a game that contains nudity or profanity?

I don't really see the difference, outsidie of degree. When you boil everything down to its simplest form it's still one person forcing his or her beliefs onto another person.

My point is that when you're in the work-place, you do your job, you don't bring your beliefs to work, or if you have a problem doing your job, you get a new one.

Really? I thought they all typically contracted a pharmarcial company to do business in their stores, like Wal-Mart having McDonalds in their stores. Do those pharmacies usually have their own policies or the store sets it for them?No all those chains I listed own the pharmacies that are in the stores and like many corporations the general policies are set from corporate.

maybe if this law gets passed we can use it to force average retailers to sell porn?

Why does it not surprise me that you hold such little understanding of the situation here, that you would equate it to forcing retailers to sell porn? :rolleyes:

Yeah, because porn and contraception...don't mix. :mad:

:D

Once you let one person in one profession refuse service based on ideology, doesn't that open up a huge can of worms?

Is it any different than the can of worms opened by legislating what people have to sell? Personally I'm more comfortable w/ letting these issues work themselves out by market forces, company policies and what not. I think people are exagerating the impact it'll have if we let the pharmistics decide this one issue on their own. That's JMO and overall this seems to be like any other facet of the whole reproduction debate in that people are usually firmly entrenched on their side and no amount of talking/debating is going to change anyone's mind.

...and overall this seems to be like any other facet of the whole reproduction debate in that people are usually firmly entrenched on their side and no amount of talking/debating is going to change anyone's mind.

Do you ever see Pro-Choice people force their beliefs on Pro-Lifers? It seems to be only the Wackjob Extremist Christians, who just can't stand another person making choices on their own, that they have to resort to influencing another person's life not only by preaching, standing outside abortion clinics, killing people in the medical profession as well, but now we also have them attempting to control a person's medical life too.

These people are forcing a confrontation which will not be pretty.

I guess my point was to ask the members who said they think it's ok for the pharmacist to refuse to give a customer pills or medication they asked for, based on their beliefs, how far does it go?

Once you let one person in one profession refuse service based on ideology, doesn't that open up a huge can of worms? What's the difference between a pharmacist who refuses to give morning after pills and a book-store cashier refusing to sell a book about the morning after pill, or a videogame clerk refusing to sell a game that contains nudity or profanity?

I don't really see the difference, outsidie of degree. When you boil everything down to its simplest form it's still one person forcing his or her beliefs onto another person.

My point is that when you're in the work-place, you do your job, you don't bring your beliefs to work, or if you have a problem doing your job, you get a new one.


i don't really see a problem with a cashier refusing to sell a book they have a problem with. of course, like i said, i dont ahve a problem with the bookstore firing them for it.

It seems to be only the Wackjob Extremist Christians, who just can't stand another person making choices on their own, that they have to resort to influencing another person's life not only by preaching, standing outside abortion clinics, killing people in the medical profession as well, but now we also have them attempting to control a person's medical life too.I'm glad we can have a friendly debate here in DVDTalk without throwing blanket generalizations over at the other side. :lol:

I'm talking about EXTREMIST Christians, not ALL CHRISTIANS. I think you misunderstood what I said. :)

I'm talking about the minority of Christians who are insane in the membrane (the Pat B's, the Pat R's, the Ralph R's, Jerry F's, etc.), and want to force their beliefs on others--and they are the same as Extremist Muslims.

Do you ever see Pro-Choice people force their beliefs on Pro-Lifers?


Isn't that what we are talking about :hscratch:
With a growing number of reports of pharmacists around the country refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and emergency contraception, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich on Friday filed a rule requiring Illinois pharmacies to accept and dispense all such prescriptions promptly.



Also for those concerned about the rural areas, what happens if/when those pharmacists/pharmacies decide to shut down/retire instead of doing something they are opposed too? Should the state step in a require them to stay open? Seems more likely of a situation than a Christian Scientist becoming a pharmacists just so they can say no to people ;)

I'm talking about the minority of Christians who are insane in the membrane (the Pat B's, the Pat R's, the Ralph R's, Jerry F's, etc.), and want to force their beliefs on others

So anyone who tries to "force their beliefs" on another is "insane in the membrane" or just those who have an opinion/view you disagree w/ :hscratch:

Isn't that what we are talking about :hscratch:




Also for those concerned about the rural areas, what happens if/when those pharmacists/pharmacies decide to shut down/retire instead of doing something they are opposed too?

Of course that risk exists. However, unless the business is essentially failed already and has no value, people try to sell businesses like this and use the money received to support them in retirement. If the rules are clearly understood beforehand, only buyers willing to dispense will be interested, and ownership may transfer to someone who understands a woman's right to a legal service, whereas there may not be enough business to support two pharmacies.

I'm prepared to take the bet. Drive these people from the business. Statistically, it will be better for women.

However, unless the business is essentially failed already and has no value, people try to sell businesses like this and use the money received to support them in retirement.

But these are "Wackjob Extremist Christians" here who may potentially not sell to anyone who is going to offer such items ;) I have to say so far I haven't heard a compelling argument to make me change my mind that it is best left up the pharmacists/businesses and that legislating morality in this sense isn't any more dangerous/problematic than any of the other times/places/topics people try to do it.

But these are "Wackjob Extremist Christians" here who may potentially not sell to anyone who is going to offer such items ;)

Fair enough. Then it is good the business just closes, these people have no means of support and starve to death. A more moderate pharmacist can buy some other closed store in the crappy little town and open a pharmacy; since the other place has closed, he can probably "make it" since there is no competition (I assume there wasn't enough business to support two). Free enterprise at its very best.

Or, those people who don't like the "my way or the highway" morality can take the highway out of the craphole little town of zealots. Choice -- usually a good thing, except when violate other's right to choose.

Choice -- usually a good thing, except when violate other's right to choose.

Isn't that what this legislation will do though?

Choice -- usually a good thing, except when violate other's right to choose.


rotfl

This is hilarious coming from you. Don't you see what this legislation does - it does violate the right to choose - the business owner's right. It is just like your stance on smoking in bars - you support laws which violate the right of choice - on the part of the business owner.

Isn't that what this legislation