Pharmacists Refusing to fill Birth Control

[Fellina]

And that's really all this comes down to is a question of individual rights. The person looking to buy a morning-after pill has a legal right to do so, and hence should be able to. However, you also have to respect the rights of the pharmacists whose religious beliefs preclude them from selling the morning after pill. "All men are created equal . . ." means that neither person's right holds precedence over the other.

An employer would be required by the courts to allow a female Muslim employee to wear head coverings because of her religious beliefs even if their corporate policy mandated bare heads indoors. The (incredibly small) handful of pharmacists who refuse to fill morning-after pills are simply exercising those same rights.

One thing is certain though- noone is removing your right to leave a pharmacy that won't sell you a morning-after pill, and drive to the next one down the road who probably will.

 

[Firestreak]

That might be taking it a bit to the extreme side, afterall where can that lead us? Christian Scientist pharmacists and we can't get our regular medicine? Cops who can't carry guns because their religion forbids it?

The point really is the morning after pill is new, and it's a very controversial drug. These pharmacists did not have to consider the morning after pill when they were going to college for years to get their degree. Any established drugs like peniciline obviously needs to be available regardless of religion.

My suggestion would be.. if your pharmacists don't want to sell it, don't stock it. If some will, some won't, direct the customers to the pharacists who will sell it. Butting heads now is bad because nobody is really wrong. 20 years from now if someone is deeply against the morning after pill, they will have had time to prepare accordingly, either by investigating legals ways they can sell other drugs and not that or by simply avoding the profession.

 

[Atrbiohazard]

Has it happened to you? Has it happened to any friends? Friends of friends?

My little sister is on birth control because she was having very bad periods that sent her to the hospital at least once a month. Ever since she's been on them, she's been fine. Last week she went to get her prescription filled after school, but came home empty handed and the unbelievable story of "they refused to fill it". We all thought she just made it up and went with friends instead, but after reading this, we're speechless.

Learn to read.

 

[Bigboy]

Abort the pharmacist!

I have never personally heard of this happening, but I don't see how it would actually stop someone. All you have to do is walk up to the manager and ask them if they want their store in the newspaper for refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control. I guarantee you will have your contraceptives shortly thereafter and the Pharamacist will be fired. It would be like a checker refusing to sell someone of age ciggaretes because they dissaproved.

Money talks, if they have moral objections to an aspect of their jobs, they don't get to keep it, end of story.

 

[Firestreak]

Abort the pharmacist!

I have never personally heard of this happening, but I don't see how it would actually stop someone. All you have to do is walk up to the manager and ask them if they want their store in the newspaper for refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control. I guarantee you will have your contraceptives shortly thereafter and the Pharamacist will be fired. It would be like a checker refusing to sell someone of age ciggaretes because they dissaproved.

Money talks, if they have moral objections to an aspect of their jobs, they don't get to keep it, end of story.

The problemis, this is really nothing but an inconvieniance for the customer. They are still going to be able to get the pills. The whole attitude seems to me like... well, persecution. Because it's so easy NOT to get in this situation and so many ways around this. It looks to me like it's planned parenthood attacking religion out of spite.

 

[Bigboy]

The problemis, this is really nothing but an inconvieniance for the customer. They are still going to be able to get the pills. The whole attitude seems to me like... well, persecution. Because it's so easy NOT to get in this situation and so many ways around this. It looks to me like it's planned parenthood attacking religion out of spite.

That's pretty much all it is. Things always seem more convincing when the examples are extremes. Really, the whole thing is rediculous. Anyone who read the email with a critical eye can see that the whole situation was blown completely out of proportion. It was blown out of proportion so that planned parenthood could get some attention and good press. However, considering anyone who thinks this out step by step would rationally see how the situation would play out, can see that the customer could have taken the extra 5 minutes to get what they came for. Sure, it's annoying. Sure it shouldn't have happened to begin with. But some people are like that.

What should have raised a red flag to anyone that read it was that the person was willing to throw a huge fit and pass the story on to eventually have it spread accross the web, yet was unwilling to throw that same fit in the store and get what they wanted. If anything, I'd call it a publicity stunt.

 

[Valoran]

And that's really all this comes down to is a question of individual rights. The person looking to buy a morning-after pill has a legal right to do so, and hence should be able to. However, you also have to respect the rights of the pharmacists whose religious beliefs preclude them from selling the morning after pill. "All men are created equal . . ." means that neither person's right holds precedence over the other.

An employer would be required by the courts to allow a female Muslim employee to wear head coverings because of her religious beliefs even if their corporate policy mandated bare heads indoors. The (incredibly small) handful of pharmacists who refuse to fill morning-after pills are simply exercising those same rights.

One thing is certain though- noone is removing your right to leave a pharmacy that won't sell you a morning-after pill, and drive to the next one down the road who probably will.

I understand this point, but I also feel like the person needs to be aware when they take the job that they will have a responsibility to complete it. Someone made a cop example . . . if you aren't willing to fire a gun to stop a murderer, rapist, or other criminal in appropriate cases, it seems to me you shouldn't become a cop.

I would have no problem if the pharmacist in question said to their co-worker, "I don't believe in birth-control; will you take this customer?" But they are working at a place of business that isn't faith-based; to refuse to operate that business on the basis of a religious belief seems inappropriate to me.

With particular reference to the Christian faith (which I believe is one religion which is being implicated), there is a passage in Corinthians that describes how Christians should not eat food for idols, because it will cause Christianity to be viewed as immoral, even though the Christians know that the idols are not real. As it applies to this case, the pharmacist (it seems to me), shouldn't surprise people by ambushing them with their own views on morality at a place of business. Picketing a pharmacy is an appropriate way to do make a strong statement, perhaps. Agreeing to work there and then not functioning as a pharmacist doesn't seem like one to me.

 

[Firestreak]

Well, obviously a pharmacist unwilling to pass out birth control pills, condoms, whatever due to their religion shouldn't have been a pharmacist in the first place. However we have established this is a form of abortion, and abortion in a pill form is a relatively new subject for pharmacists to grapple with.

What if for example cops were henceforth given the responsibility of executioner. Religious or not religions many would have a problem with that. You can't say they shouldn't have been cops if they don't want to kill in cold blood. But assisting in abortion is not an established duty of pharmacists any more than murder is. If a person took the job to help people they may disagree with these new laws. From the point of view of the pharmacist, what you're asking them to do is wrong. If they see abortion as murder, which many people do, I don't believe a refusal of service is out of the scope of their rights. Even a bartender if they wish to can refuse to sell you alcohol if in their view there's a moral dilemna.

Also don't forget there are people who are against abortion and it has nothing to do with their religion. Just like people against killing, stealing, lying, ext. Unfortunately anything the Christian church(I'm not even Christian) endorses is automatically given the stigma of trampling over individual rights.

 

[Answa~]

If I were a pharmacist, and someone came with a prescription for the morning after thingamajig, I'd give it to them. I'm not for abortion in the slightest, but it's the own person's choice, not mine. I would, however, try to convince the person otherwise.

Birth control pills I have nothing against with, even though my religion says you shouldn't use them, as well as shouldn't use condoms, in fact, no sex before marriage... aaaanyway, I feel that taking those pills, or using condoms, or using a diaphragm, or anything that prevents pregnancy is not wrong at all, it's responsible. Now, aborting, that is wrong in my honest opinion.

 

[Rones]

Learn to read.

Is that all you have to say? We raise all these points and that is all you have to respond with? You never even explained that very well. What happened after she went back with friends? Why is she taking birth control for periods instead of one of those medicines that reduces your # of periods to 4 a year I've heard about? You also did not say why the pharmacist refused to fill it. Was there something wrong with the perscription maybe? Expired maybe? They were out of the pill?

Heck, this would be easy if I choose to only respond to a small tidbit of your post.

 

[Valoran]

However we have established this is a form of abortion, and abortion in a pill form is a relatively new subject for pharmacists to grapple with.

I really don't think that this can be considered a form of abortion. Abortion stops a pregnancy; it doesn't prevent it.

It allows sex without the chance of pregnancy. Abortion actually stops a human life that would otherwise come into being unless inhibited by other factors.

On a moral level, abortion seems to be the afterthought decision of couples (or, unfortunately, just women) who were not expecting a pregnancy. The pill represents foresight and an intentional choice not to leave pregnancy to chance. It can be (and often is, I believe) used by women who DO want to have children, but want to be sure they are at a more secure point in life before they do.

 

[Valoran]

Afterall you can't force a doctor to perform an abortion if they don't want to... and there are so many better methods of birth control than abortion...

Also, how does this get reconciled with the line about the pill being abortion? Isn't that one of the "better methods of birth control?"

As I read the whole discussion on page 6 or so, the pill doesn't actually abort a pregnancy, it prevents one.

 

[Kat]

Also, how does this get reconciled with the line about the pill being abortion? Isn't that one of the "better methods of birth control?"

As I read the whole discussion on page 6 or so, the pill doesn't actually abort a pregnancy, it prevents one.

Fire is referring to the Morning After pill here Val, not the Birth Control pill. They are a lot different. One is takin' after intercourse where a child may have been conceived. The other is takin' on a daily basis so there is no way a child can be conceived. Well, let's say a 98% chance of no conception.

 

[Firestreak]

Yes and unfortunately, this article is also talking about the morning after pill, which they very deceptively disguised as a birth control pill. This tactic works because most people don't read critically in the case of subjects they support. Hence it was sent out to planned parenthood supporters and not used in any debate context.


The deception being is that it isn't a lie but an omission. The morning after pill is a kind of a birth control. But all the same you could call a coat hanger a method of birth control. The point being, propoganda is really just fucking ridiculous sometimes. It would be a better world if people just talked about their issues constructively rather than do anything possible to make the other guy look evil.

 

[Valoran]

Ok, sorry; somehow I missed the whole bit about talking about a different pill.

It would be a better world if people just talked about their issues constructively rather than do anything possible to make the other guy look evil.

Now THIS I believe in.

 

[Raelina]

Has it happened to you? Has it happened to any friends? Friends of friends?
My biggest problem is you are letting emotion lead you blindly. You are not looking at this rationally. Instead you are letting that propaganda letter incite your emotion and guide your actions. That is why I'm arguing with you.

I'm sorry, Rones, but did you actually read atrio's first post? She said that it happened to her sister. So to answer your first questions, yes it did happen to someone they know.

 

[Rones]

I'm sorry, Rones, but did you actually read atrio's first post? She said that it happened to her sister. So to answer your first questions, yes it did happen to someone they know.

Did you read the rest of the thread? Atrio already responded with that, and I countered (see my previous post). She has yet to say anything further on the matter. By the time I made that post I had forgotten that it was 'her sister' and not part of the propaganda story in the email she posted.

Read an entire thread before making a reply.

 

[Klepto_Pyro]

I was taught that the morning after pill, does not work if their has been fertilization, it can only prevent it, not kill a fetus, at least thats what they said in school and newspaper.

 

[Acutie]

After thinking about this and going over a dozen scenario's, I'm on the store's side to refuse service based on certain elements. Take a 16 year old who get some stupid ass doctor to get BC pills subscribed to them. If I were a pharmacist, I'd refuse. Why? I'm sure everyone would think 'But it would lower teen pregnancies.' I call bullshit on that. Only over here are teen pregnancies the goverment or pharmacy's fault, and not the stupid ass teenager.
Also, say a prostitute came in and wanted them? I'm not going to go into how you would know they were, but hypothetically, I'd refuse them as well. Why give them a tool to allow them to be even more perverse than they already are? Once again only over here would mishaps with a slut be on the hands of the government or the pharmacy.
Now, if there was someone who was responsible, needed them for health reasons or because of some other reason such as allergies to latex etc, I'd grant it to them.
Sure, people will get into the whole human rights bullshit, but ya know those documents are there to protect, not to be used as a weapon for your own pleasure.
Course most of this is hypothetical and indeed there would be extreme cases, but I'm speaking generally.
Man, does anyone take responsibility for anything anymore?

Oh, and if I'm not mistaken, and I may be, I think private business's have the right to deny service to customers. I'm not 100% on the basis thought. I'm reminded of casino's having the right to deny customers who have the skill to count cards service, even thought there is no legal steps they could take.

 

[Valoran]

After thinking about this and going over a dozen scenario's, I'm on the store's side to refuse service based on certain elements. Take a 16 year old who get some stupid ass doctor to get BC pills subscribed to them. If I were a pharmacist, I'd refuse. Why? I'm sure everyone would think 'But it would lower teen pregnancies.' I call bullshit on that. Only over here are teen pregnancies the goverment or pharmacy's fault, and not the stupid ass teenager.
Also, say a prostitute came in and wanted them? I'm not going to go into how you would know they were, but hypothetically, I'd refuse them as well. Why give them a tool to allow them to be even more perverse than they already are? Once again only over here would mishaps with a slut be on the hands of the government or the pharmacy.
Now, if there was someone who was responsible, needed them for health reasons or because of some other reason such as allergies to latex etc, I'd grant it to them.
Sure, people will get into the whole human rights bullshit, but ya know those documents are there to protect, not to be used as a weapon for your own pleasure.
Course most of this is hypothetical and indeed there would be extreme cases, but I'm speaking generally.
Man, does anyone take responsibility for anything anymore?

Oh, and if I'm not mistaken, and I may be, I think private business's have the right to deny service to customers. I'm not 100% on the basis thought. I'm reminded of casino's having the right to deny customers who have the skill to count cards service, even thought there is no legal steps they could take.

I don't see how age is a factor. Do we want to pretend that persons under the age of consent make no sexual decisions? Are we willing to allow them no help or protection to help ourselves sustain that belief?

My answer is no. People have sex earlier than 18. In a lot of cultures, teenage sex, premarital sex, and even unmarried teen pregnancy are not taboo.

As far as the pharmacies having a right to refuse to fill a prescription, I'm not sure what kind of legal ground they're on.

But consider an extension of the same situation: A pharmacy hires someone whose religious beliefs tell them that it is wrong to use drugs to extend life. This person then refuses to fill any prescription based on the belief that it is morally wrong to do so. For the sake of a more interesting argument, let's say this is the only pharmacy in a small town.

Now, I firmly believe that you have to allow that this hypothetical character's beliefs are just as valid as those of someone who's specifically against birth control. But is it reasonable for the pharmacy to hire someone who is against the business they are in? I don't think this is descrimination based on religion, and I don't think it's important what the people are coming in for.

Furthermore, and what I hope this example illustrates, I don't believe it is the pharmacy's place to decide who needs and gets what. Frankly, that is a doctor's decision.

The case of birth control gets thrown out of perspective because it has the unusually pragmatic benefit of allowing people to feel more secure about a decision to have sex.

As for prostitutes and teenagers, it is my impression that very few people examine their lives and say, "You know, I think I'll become a prostitute so I can contribute to the moral decadence of a culture." Nor do I think many people say, "You know, I think I'll become a teenager so I can contribute to the moral decadence of a culture." These people happen to encounter situations in their lives where sex is going to play a role. So they decide to enter into it as safely as possible.

If someone doesn't want to do what pharmacists do, they don't have to be a pharmacist. But being a pharmacist should not give an individual the position to force their beliefs onto others, who have obviously thought things through at least to the point that they've decided to go on birth control.