View Full Version : Pharmacists Denying Birth Control
Andrea
12-20-2008, 03:21 AM
A growing number of pharmacists across America are refusing to dispense birth control and the morning-after pill, because it goes against their religious and moral convictions.
This development has led to state legislatures across the country taking action, either to protect women's rights to obtain birth control or to uphold the pharmacist's right to refuse it.
The issue has become heated in several states, which already have laws allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, including birth control pills.
In Arizona, the House of Representatives recently approved legislation that would put into place a conscience clause for pharmacists who have objections to handing out birth control. But in April, Illinois Governor Rod R. Blogojevich filed a rule requiring Illinois pharmacies to dispense all such prescriptions immediately and without question.
"More and more pharmacists do not want to hand over the birth control package and feel that it is within their rights to lecture women about their morals," said Judy Waxman of the National Women's Law Centre in Washington DC.
Read more here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4425603.stm
I thought I would post this because this is an issue that affects my family personally because my dad is a Pharmacist. He is extremely against this and is currently writing a letter to our local newspaper about it, since there was an article about it today. He always believes in the health and welfare of his customers and would never let morals and personal beliefs get in the way of doing his job.
This whole thing actually sickens me because, being a woman, I feel very strongly for women's rights and this is just a few steps back, in my opinion. I have nothing to worry about since I get all of my prescriptions and medications filled by my dad but other pharmacists and other people aren't going to be so lucky.
Thoughts? Opinions?
...Lauren?
12-20-2008, 03:27 AM
What if you're in a small, conservative town and none of the pharmacists will give you birth control?
This is fucking stupid.
Theazninvasion68
12-20-2008, 04:24 AM
Really? Really?
Wow... I would understand if your family and yourself deny yourself Birth control.
But I don't think it is within reasonable right to deny others Birth control, due to fact that your religion or morals interfere. It's great to have a Religion, but it's not when you press your own morals and Religion as a reason to deny others what they want.
=\
esaul17
12-20-2008, 04:25 AM
I am torn on this.
I hate the idea of women being denied birth control, and think all pharmacist should choose to provide it.
But at the same time, it is their business, so I also think that they should be able to choose what they stock...
If your moral and religious beliefs prevent you from fully doing your job, then it's time to get a new job. Being able to fill ANY prescription is part of the job of a pharmacist. Can't do it? Then quit.
Chris.
12-20-2008, 04:45 AM
Well, Im not entirely sure if Physicians or even Pharmacists still deal with the Hipocratic Oath but theres a section of it that deals with the morals of the community. Its been awhile since I read it because I did a research paper on assisted suicide back like 8 years ago :lol: Do I think its right? Not really, no.
If someone can't get birth control or the morning after pill because their pharmacist is Christian and against birth control, I'd involve the police. If someone is denied the purchase of something because of personal issues with the person selling it to them, I don't know, but this makes me really fucking angry. I'm saying Christian because I'm convinced 99-100% of them are denying customers for that reason, and this re-enforces why I don't have faith in religion. It's such a joke...
Well, Im not entirely sure if Physicians or even Pharmacists still deal with the Hipocratic Oath but theres a section of it that deals with the morals of the community. Its been awhile since I read it because I did a research paper on assisted suicide back like 8 years ago :lol: Do I think its right? Not really, no.
I don't even think it has anything to do with the Hippocratic Oath. It applies to any job. If you can't fulfill your duties due to religious reasons, find a new job.
I remember reading a story about a Muslim employee of a grocery store who was taking her employer to court because they were taking disciplinary action against her because she refused to handle pork due to religious reasons. Sorry, not buying it. She knew damn well that when she took that job, she might have to handle pork. If she had any objections to it, she should've never taken that job. Same thing for the pharmacist. If they have moral objections to it, they should quit. Simple as that.
Dr. Octogonapus
12-20-2008, 05:01 AM
It should be illegal for a pharmacist to refuse medication to anyone who has the legal right to obtain it. Hell, I think it should be a felony.
Andrea
12-20-2008, 05:12 AM
I'm glad most of you feel the same way as me and my dad. I love how he is going to take a stand and write a letter to let people know that he will not be one of those Pharmacists.
esaul17
12-20-2008, 05:13 AM
I don't know, in one way I agree but...it isn't legal for a clothing store to not sell the shirt you want or a grocery store to decide not to carry apples.
I think they are morons for not carrying it, and the government should make sure it is available in all areas in some way "government funded pharmacies, online or phone in ordering, etc.).
I am not sure if the government should have the right to tell you what to sell in your own store though.
I want to make it clear I think the pharmacists who do not sell them are misguided and even cruel, and think we should try to pressure them to sell them. But I also think it should be their choice in the end, and we should just try to make them make the right one, and make sure the medication is available SOMEWHERE.
Daniel
12-20-2008, 05:19 AM
Yay for not living in America. This is pretty much bullshit. As Todd said, if your religious views prevent you from doing your job properly then you shouldn't be practising that job. It'd be like becoming a police officer and then refusing to kill someone in a life-or-death situation because your religion tells you it's bad to kill people.
Oh and to counter this:
I am not sure if the government should have the right to tell you what to sell in your own store though.
I'm pretty sure pharmacists shouldn't have the right to refuse to sell medication to people who have their right to purchase said medication. Not trying to pick a fight with you esaul, since I saw you disagree with what they're doing anyway, I just wanted to respond to that particular point.
esaul17
12-20-2008, 05:21 AM
Yeah...but couldn't that be said about any product? I have the right to purchase an apple, but it doesn't mean ALL grocery stores are required by law to carry apples...
As I said, it should be made available somehow, but I don't know if all pharmacists should be forced to sell it. They are independent people, not government employed, so I feel they should be able to make their own choices regarding their merchandise.
EDIT: Not to start a fight with Daniel or anyone else either. It seems I can have controversial views here at times, and will make an effort to defend them. To me though, disagreeing and debating with other intelligent individuals is one of the best parts of life :).
Daniel
12-20-2008, 05:24 AM
Yeah...but couldn't that be said about any product? I have the right to purchase an apple, but it doesn't mean ALL grocery stores are required by law to carry apples...
As I said, it should be made available somehow, but I don't know if all pharmacists should be forced to sell it. They are independent people, not government employed, so I feel they should be able to make their own choices regarding their merchandise.
I can definitely see where you're coming from, but then again, if you're not able to obtain said apple it's not exactly going to ruin/drastically change your life. Especially if, as Lauren said, what if you lived in a small, remote conservative town where every pharmacist exercised their right not to sell the pill?
esaul17
12-20-2008, 05:28 AM
Thank you for the respectful reply Daniel.
Yeah, as I said...I'd like the government to step in (maybe me living in Canada makes me rosy eyes on the eye of the government playing a role in healthcare) and provide services to get pills to people where they otherwise weren't available.
Birth control pills MUST be available to all girls who can take them without other health consequences...I would just look for a way to do so while not imposing on the pharmacists freedom.
If there had to be a compromise though, ultimately, I would say compromise the pharmacy's freedom. I just think at least ideally, there is a better way.
Daniel
12-20-2008, 06:32 AM
Thank you for the respectful reply Daniel.
Yeah, as I said...I'd like the government to step in (maybe me living in Canada makes me rosy eyes on the eye of the government playing a role in healthcare) and provide services to get pills to people where they otherwise weren't available.
Birth control pills MUST be available to all girls who can take them without other health consequences...I would just look for a way to do so while not imposing on the pharmacists freedom.
If there had to be a compromise though, ultimately, I would say compromise the pharmacy's freedom. I just think at least ideally, there is a better way.
No worries. This is actually the only forum I visit where it's actually possible to have a reasoned debate. :lol:
Yeah, I suppose I'd be guilty of the same thing, living in Australia. Oh, I'm in no way saying government intervention on the pharmacists' part is the perfect solution, just that practically, it's the "right" one.
Seems to me we're pretty much in agreement, then?
esaul17
12-20-2008, 06:36 AM
If it is the only way we can reasonably do it, then it is in the least a good temporary one. I am not sure how difficult/expensive the alternatives would be, so I can't say that it is better than them or worse than them but it is better than NO alternative, we definitely agree on that.
So I think we are in agreement :).
I think this is completely asinine. To refuse to sell someone birth control is completely irresponsible. "The pharmacist wouldn't sell me birth control, so I guess we'll have to make hot love without it." The pharmacist isn't really solving any problems; he's creating new ones. I can see refusing to sell an obviously-drunk person lighter fluid or something like that, but this is medication we're talking about. It's a completely different thing altogether.
Edit —
I'd also like to add that if the person has a prescribed drug, the pharmacist has absolutely no right to deny the person their prescription, especially because a lot of girls don't use birth control for birth control. My first girlfriend used it to control her period (or some crap like that).
This actually has me pretty angry, I won't lie.
Messy Marj
12-20-2008, 08:32 AM
I had it happen to me.
My super christian doctor kept asking me all of these questions, if I had sex, if I'd get an abortion if I'd be pregnant blahblahblah, so I knew where it was going and told him my periods are enormously painful and voila, he gave me the pill with a very suspicious look. No more christian doctors for me.
Fun fact:
He got arrested a few months later for sexually abusing a woman somewhere in the 90's.
I don't know, in one way I agree but...it isn't legal for a clothing store to not sell the shirt you want or a grocery store to decide not to carry apples.
Yes, but that's different. If the store I go to doesn't have any apples, I can drive around town and find one that does as it's not an emergency. But with birth control or the morning after pill, there's no time to be driving around all over the place to find a pharmacy that will give it to you. They should be required to not only carry these medicines, but to sell them to any customer with a valid prescription.
Timothy
12-20-2008, 01:46 PM
The mixing of morality and medicine kind of makes me uncomfortable. Birth control is one thing, but what about something more serious? Let's say you're someone with a serious illness and the Doctor prescribes Oxycontin: what if the pharmacist is some moral crusader who refuses to sell it to you because
he/she thinks the drug is terrible?
Louis
12-20-2008, 01:50 PM
I have one thing to say on this.
Your job is your job, and if your company is selling products that you are personally against, then you have to either leave your job or suck it up. I'm sorry, but I don't believe it's right to let moral beliefs get in the way of your job unless the job is *directly* related to moral beliefs. Pharmacists shouldn't have the right to not hand out birth control to girls who don't want to get pregnant.
esaul17
12-20-2008, 03:04 PM
Louis, the thing is, the company may be an independent store owned by the pharmacist...so it will be selling the products the pharmacist is choosing to stock, more or less.
TheRockChick
12-20-2008, 03:52 PM
I think this is completely asinine. To refuse to sell someone birth control is completely irresponsible. "The pharmacist wouldn't sell me birth control, so I guess we'll have to make hot love without it." The pharmacist isn't really solving any problems; he's creating new ones.
Exactly.
I think this whole thing is stupid. I don't want to get too involved in it, but let's just say that I'm 99.9% against it.
Louis
12-20-2008, 03:57 PM
Louis, the thing is, the company may be an independent store owned by the pharmacist...so it will be selling the products the pharmacist is choosing to stock, more or less.
Now see, if it's an independent pharmacy that stocks certain things, I understand that.
esaul17
12-20-2008, 04:14 PM
Now see, if it's an independent pharmacy that stocks certain things, I understand that.
Yeah, just so long as there are birth control pills available in some way for the women prescribed them.
I think I pretty much agree with esaul.
If an employee is denying the customer something that's in stock then it's not right.
If it's an independent place that doesn't stock it anyway then it may be inconvenient, unfortunately, but there probably isn't much room to complain besides that.
The problem here is that there aren't very many independent pharmacies in the U.S., as they're harder to control, and it's very unlikely this pharmacy is "independent" anyway. The fact that the pharmacist actively refuses a product in stock is what the problem is, here. They're not refusing something that's not in stock, so to bring that up doesn't even make sense.
The term 'refused' would still be applicable to a situation where the product isn't in stock.
esaul17
12-20-2008, 05:07 PM
Okay, here in Toronto there are quite a few independent pharmacies not run as part of Shoppers Drug Mart, Guardian Drugs, or Rexall. If you don't own the place, then you are bound to the duty of who you are working for. So unless the Shoppers Drug Mart CEOs and such decide to be against birth control, then the pharmacists working there have to do what they are hired to do and fill the prescriptions if they can.
But the law in question seemed to be calling for all pharmacists to have to fill all prescriptions, which would include independents and remove any choice they had to what to stock their own shelves with (unless I misread it, but it didn't seem to say the choice was in the owners hands). That is what I was iffy on, government meddling in other people's businesses. I would like to avoid it if possible (but it may not be possible, getting birth control to women comes first).
The term 'refused' would still be applicable to a situation where the product isn't in stock.
We're talking about pharmacists who have birth control in stock and are refusing to sell them to women. Bringing up products "not in stock" has nothing to do with this at all. If it's not in stock, fair game, but these products are in stock.
esaul17
12-20-2008, 05:12 PM
Just to be clear, we are not talking about running out of stock of the item, but making the decision to never carry it.
I know. If it's not being carried, there's no problem. But when it's in stock and the pharmacist is actively refusing to sell the product—that's when the problem arises. They shouldn't be able to refuse a product that's in stock because they think it's wrong for a 17-year-old girl to use it.
esaul17
12-20-2008, 05:16 PM
Yeah, I agree there. If they choose to stock it, they must fill prescriptions for it.
Okay. I'm glad we're clear on that. I must not've been reading your posts properly. :lol: I apologize.
esaul17
12-20-2008, 05:21 PM
No problem :lol:
If it's an independent pharmacy and they refuse to carry it, that's fine, but there should be a sign on the door celarly stating birth control isn't sold there so some poor woman doesn't have to suffer the embarrassment of getting lectured by a bible thumping pharmacist when she asks for the medicine.
If it's an independent pharmacy and they refuse to carry it, that's fine, but there should be a sign on the door celarly stating birth control isn't sold there so some poor woman doesn't have to suffer the embarrassment of getting lectured by a bible thumping pharmacist when she asks for the medicine.
I agree. Placing a sign in a visible location would be a good policy.
minuteforce
12-20-2008, 10:44 PM
I'm a Christian and all but I'm not a big fan of religion by any means and Christianity is strictly a personal thing to me. I try not to align myself with the Christian masses because I abhor them. I hate people who obstruct rights according to religion and force their beliefs upon unwilling people to exercise some superiority.
Birth control is preventative; its absence will only worsen the problem it serves to prevent.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.11 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.