Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Curious what folks think about this...


  • Please log in to reply
398 replies to this topic

#1 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,317 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:28 PM

From a post on the Bookface:

Did you know in Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, and South Dakota, state law allows your pharmacist to deny you birth control because it's against HIS religion? Enough is enough! JOIN US and fight back!


Ttb's responses:

While I believe everyone should have reasonable access to birth control, and I'm not a religious person, I don't want to live in a country which would require someone to engage in commerce which violates his or her religious or moral beliefs.


Should bookstores owned by atheists be required to sell bibles?



#2 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,628 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:39 PM

I agree with you.

Who are the "us" that would want to fight back against those laws?

#3 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 11 December 2012 - 11:40 PM

I think if Roger Williams were alive today, he would agree.

#4 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,423 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:03 AM

Separation of state and church anyone?

#5 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:05 AM

Exactly.

#6 little frog

little frog
  • VibeTribe
  • 3,626 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:36 AM

bibles are not a medical necessity, birth control pills are medically necessary to many women for many reasons. are they asking all the men purchasing viagra if they are legally married and in stable relationships before they fill their prescriptions?

medications are a private matter between dr and patient. if your job is in conflict with your morals you should find another job.

#7 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 12:43 AM

So commerce and freedom of religion can not co-exist?

Seems like room for more commerce. Someone will fill that order.

#8 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,644 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:33 AM

\

bibles are not a medical necessity, birth control pills are medically necessary to many women for many reasons. are they asking all the men purchasing viagra if they are legally married and in stable relationships before they fill their prescriptions?

medications are a private matter between dr and patient. if your job is in conflict with your morals you should find another job.


agreed, in some professions where you put taking care of other first if it is not illegal, you should act/provide the service regardless of personal opinions

#9 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:43 AM

So commerce and freedom of religion can not co-exist?

#10 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,317 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:36 AM

bibles are not a medical necessity, birth control pills are medically necessary to many women for many reasons. are they asking all the men purchasing viagra if they are legally married and in stable relationships before they fill their prescriptions?


Hormones may be medically necessary for some reasons...I'm hard pressed to come up with a medical necessity for birth control, and it's the use of those things as contraceptives which is the issue here.

Again, I believe contraceptives should be widely available. But I also cherish all of the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and religious freedom is one of them. I assume that a pharmacist who won't fill prescriptions for birth control also won't sell condoms. If he does, he's a hypocrite, and I hope his business fails, quickly.

medications are a private matter between dr and patient. if your job is in conflict with your morals you should find another job.


If that's the case, then doctors should be dispensing medications.

#11 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,044 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:09 AM

With CVS and Walmart, and a bunch of others, individual pharmacies are a dying breed. If these shop owners want to limit their sales, then fine. But if it is an employee, working as a pharmacist at a CVS, or even an independent, is it right for that person to not fill an order? Meaning that if you come in on a certain day or time, you can fill your order, but not other days/times?
There is so much going on here. BCP are used for more than just birth control, and it is NONE of the pharmacists business what a patient is using them for. as TtB said, they should not be selling condoms, viagra, or any other form of birth control. If they are, then they are simply discriminating against women. Sorry, but I don't buy the concept of commerce/religion in that area.
Since our system is that doctors do not dispense medications, but that they must be done by a pharmacist, means that the pharmacist is acting as a public servant, in some respects. Whatever the reason for the patient to have a certain medication, that is between the patient and the doctor.
Jack, I'm not sure who the "us" is, or if they are even fighting against the law. Perhaps they are organizing customers to say don't shop at XYZ Pharmacy because they do not dispense BCP? I dunno. I know I would not patronize a place that refused.

#12 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,044 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:11 AM

from catholic.com:
Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)

#13 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,377 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:34 AM

\

agreed, in some professions where you put taking care of other first if it is not illegal, you should act/provide the service regardless of personal opinions


Pretty much the pledge of a healthcare professional and you can get yourself into some real legal trouble if you turn your back on that pledge.

So commerce and freedom of religion can not co-exist?


I don't consider dispensing birth control commerce, even though there's a dollar figure attached to it. It's a medication and if a pharmacist is unwilling to provide such a medication that is prescribed by a doctor, then they should have chosen another occupation.

If some convicted criminal comes into my department at the hospital and I refuse to offer treatment prescribed by a doctor, I can find myself in serious legal trouble. This happens. I'm new to the game, but don't think for a second that vets like Jambear haven't dealt with criminal patients that he'd rather spit in their face, yet he does what he has sworn to do and helped save their life.

To work in healthcare you check your religious and political beliefs at the door and follow the law. In the case of those states, as long as birth control is a legal doctor prescribed medication, that law needs to change and all pharmacists should be required to abide.

#14 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,628 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:18 PM

Birth control pills are only about 60 years old, why are they "necessary?" Women survived without them for thousands and thousands of years before now. I would think if they were absolutely necessary they could get then directly from their doctor. Those who would refuse to sell them aren't denying anyone else's right to use them as it seems they'd still be allowed to get them from another pharmacist, either at the same store or they'd be free to go to another store.

#15 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,793 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:28 PM

Women survived without them for thousands and thousands of years before now.


You mean when their life expectancy was like 30 years? Gotcha. I guess that's good enough.

#16 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:45 PM

Medically necessary? No

Used for reasons other than birth control to better the quality of life of women? Yes

#17 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:49 PM

Birth control pills are only about 60 years old, why are they "necessary?" Women survived without them for thousands and thousands of years before now. I would think if they were absolutely necessary they could get then directly from their doctor. Those who would refuse to sell them aren't denying anyone else's right to use them as it seems they'd still be allowed to get them from another pharmacist, either at the same store or they'd be free to go to another store.


Humans also existed for thousands an thousands and thousands of years without agriculture, the saddle, hot running water, flushing toilets, and the wheel. I dont see your point

#18 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,644 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:54 PM

If a store has and sells product A, and a worker at that store refuses to sell product A because of his own personal/moral beliefs, I would hope that the store would deal with the rogue employee and either:

1) have him comply with the store policy to sell product A
2) Relocate the employee to another job that does not involve product A at all
3) Terminate employee

If a store has a policy not to sell product A, and I needed product A, I would find another store that stocks and sells product A and would not go back to the first store (due to my own moral beliefs).

#19 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 01:59 PM

Posted Image

#20 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,628 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:06 PM

You mean when their life expectancy was like 30 years? Gotcha. I guess that's good enough.

Actually the life expectancy for women in 1950 was 71, not 30.

So again "Birth control pills are only about 60 years old, why are they "necessary?"

#21 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:07 PM

If a store has a policy not to sell product A, and I needed product A, I would find another store that stocks and sells product A and would not go back to the first store (due to my own moral beliefs).


And that is the point. If someone doesn't want to sell product A, go to another store. Should we really join together to force people to do something against their will?

#22 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,377 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:09 PM

I would think if they were absolutely necessary they could get then directly from their doctor.


What makes sense? Having a receptionist allocate time to check in a patient, make an exam room available for the patient and then doctor take time out of their day every 30-90 days to dispense medication to a patient OR have that doctor and hospital personnel focus their time on treating and diagnosing new patients?

There's a reason why we have a pharmacy system. Having patients get medication directly from a doctor (and remember the doctor would have to get the medication from an in hospital pharmacist, so what if the hospital pharmacist refuses?) would be horribly inefficient and just a ridiculous recommendation to even consider.

Those who would refuse to sell them aren't denying anyone else's right to use them as it seems they'd still be allowed to get them from another pharmacist, either at the same store or they'd be free to go to another store.


Pharmacists who refuse to sell BC should look for another job. They don't belong in healthcare. Period. /thread.

#23 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:09 PM

Actually the life expectancy for women in 1950 was 71, not 30.

So again "Birth control pills are only about 60 years old, why are they "necessary?"


As far as I understand, they're not necessary. Rather a quality of life improvement for many women. Does that make them less meaningful.

#24 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:09 PM

Actually the life expectancy for women in 1950 was 71, not 30.

So again "Birth control pills are only about 60 years old, why are they "necessary?"



Computers have only been around for 50+ years, why are they neccessary?

#25 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:13 PM

Personally, I think the whole thing is taken out of context. I think if a pharmacist worked for a pharmacy that did not have a no BC policy and refused to sell BC, the store would find another pharmacist. I would think this refers more to pharmacists that own their own pharmacy. :dunno:

#26 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,377 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:13 PM

So again "Birth control pills are only about 60 years old, why are they "necessary?"


Joker, when you're a woman who has debilitating menstrual cycles, maybe you can answer the question as to why BC is as necessary at times to live a comfortable life as it is for you and I to take a Tylenol.

#27 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,628 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:15 PM

Medically necessary? No

Used for reasons other than birth control to better the quality of life of women? Yes

If it's not an emergency and is more about the "quality of life" of the woman I don't think there's justification for forcing someone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs that they might feel is tantamount to murder.

#28 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,377 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:16 PM

Personally, I think the whole thing is taken out of context. I think if a pharmacist worked for a pharmacy that did not have a no BC policy and refused to sell BC, the store would find another pharmacist. I would think this refers more to pharmacists that own their own pharmacy. :dunno:


Then they should have their pharmacy license removed. It's not the job of the pharmacist to decide what types of medication patients should or should not receive. That's the job of a doctor. A pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions written by doctors. I find refusal to do so going completely against the code of ethics in healthcare.

#29 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:16 PM

And that is the point. If someone doesn't want to sell product A, go to another store. Should we really join together to force people to do something against their will?


That seems to be the concensus, yes.

#30 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,628 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:23 PM

Joker, when you're a woman who has debilitating menstrual cycles, maybe you can answer the question as to why BC is as necessary at times to live a comfortable life as it is for you and I to take a Tylenol.

And forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs and making them sell something that will take a life could send someone over the edge is acceptable? Why is the "comfort" of one more important than the comfort of another?

#31 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 20,235 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:29 PM

And forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs and making them sell something that will take a life could send someone over the edge is acceptable? Why is the "comfort" of one more important than the comfort of another?




Seems to me one should choose a profession where ones moral and religious beliefs will not be compromised.

#32 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:32 PM

Then they should have their pharmacy license removed. It's not the job of the pharmacist to decide what types of medication patients should or should not receive. That's the job of a doctor. A pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions written by doctors. I find refusal to do so going completely against the code of ethics in healthcare.


because their beliefs are different than yours? there's a fucking drug store on almost every corner in this country. go to another store. If people develop a relationship with another store that provides their need then the decisions of a pharmacist refusing to sell BC will work themselves out. should we really impose more laws restricting the limited freedoms we have left?

#33 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,628 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:33 PM

Seems to me one should choose a profession where ones moral and religious beliefs will not be compromised.

And it seems to me one should simply choose to go to a pharmacist that doesn't have a problem selling birth control

#34 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,377 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:36 PM

And forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs and making them sell something that will take a life could send someone over the edge is acceptable? Why is the "comfort" of one more important than the comfort of another?


Should a cop be allowed to not arrest someone breaking the law because doing so goes against their religious beliefs?

Seems to me one should choose a profession where ones moral and religious beliefs will not be compromised.


bingo

#35 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,377 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:38 PM

because their beliefs are different than yours? there's a fucking drug store on almost every corner in this country. go to another store. If people develop a relationship with another store that provides their need then the decisions of a pharmacist refusing to sell BC will work themselves out. should we really impose more laws restricting the limited freedoms we have left?


This isn't about my beliefs. This is about what a Pharmacist is required to do by law under the oath of their license.

If a murderer is shot by a cop and taken to the emergency room, should the hospital have the right to say, "Sorry, we don't take that kind of patient, maybe try the hospital down the street across from the Home Depot."

#36 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,423 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:40 PM

:popcorn1:

#37 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,317 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:45 PM

Joker, when you're a woman who has debilitating menstrual cycles, maybe you can answer the question as to why BC is as necessary at times to live a comfortable life as it is for you and I to take a Tylenol.


If this is the case, then it's not birth control. It's hormonal therapy prescribed to ease the debilitating menstrual cycles, no? In that case, I'd think there'd be no moral objection to filling the scrip.

#38 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:53 PM

This isn't about my beliefs. This is about what a Pharmacist is required to do by law under the oath of their license.

If a murderer is shot by a cop and taken to the emergency room, should the hospital have the right to say, "Sorry, we don't take that kind of patient, maybe try the hospital down the street across from the Home Depot."


Correct, it's about the pharmacist's beliefs.

The practice of pharmacist is governed by state's law, regulations and a board of pharmacy. So, this varies and is not true across the board. In fact, there are only a few states that require it.

#39 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,317 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:53 PM

This appears to be the oath a pharmacist takes:

At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy.
I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.
I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.
I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy.
I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct.
I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.
I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.


I don't see anything there which makes me think choosing not to fill a scrip for birth control for religious reasons violates it.

And as far as the ER/cop thing goes, it seems to me that the Hippocratic Oath would require trying to save a life in that circumstance...and that birth control and gunshots are many orders of degree apart when weighed on the scales of which rights might take presidence.

#40 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,644 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:58 PM

If this is the case, then it's not birth control. It's hormonal therapy prescribed to ease the debilitating menstrual cycles, no? In that case, I'd think there'd be no moral objection to filling the scrip.


a pharmacist would not know why prescribed, just that it has been. Reasons for prescriptions and meds are private between doctor and patient. The Pharmacist would be making an assumption that it is for use A and not use B.
Which now that I think about it, should nip this whole thing in the bud. The pharmacist would not know why prescribed, therefor his morals would not come into play when dispensing any medication.that has multiple uses

#41 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 20,235 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:59 PM

And it seems to me one should simply choose to go to a pharmacist that doesn't have a problem selling birth control




Apples and oranges.

Why would anyone choose a profession that may require them to compromise their moral and religious beliefs?

#42 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,377 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:01 PM

This appears to be the oath a pharmacist takes:

I don't see anything there which makes me think choosing not to fill a scrip for birth control for religious reasons violates it.


I do

"I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct."

IMO, it should be the legal obligation of a pharmacist to fill a doctor's prescription. It is not their job to judge whether the doctor is right or wrong in prescribing BC.

And as far as the ER/cop thing goes, it seems to me that the Hippocratic Oath would require trying to save a life in that circumstance...and that birth control and gunshots are many orders of degree apart when weighed on the scales of which rights might take presidence.


I probably wouldn't have taken this into sensationalist argument realm had Joker not gone all, "Well BC's only been around 60 years, blah, blah, blah."

But, you brought up perhaps the gist of why I believe in the argument I made. The Hippocratic Oath. I feel that it's something all Healthcare workers should subscribe to; including pharmacists.

#43 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,317 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:09 PM

a pharmacist would not know why prescribed, just that it has been. Reasons for prescriptions and meds are private between doctor and patient. The Pharmacist would be making an assumption that it is for use A and not use B.
Which now that I think about it, should nip this whole thing in the bud. The pharmacist would not know why prescribed, therefor his morals would not come into play when dispensing any medication.that has multiple uses


The vast majority of these prescriptions are for contraceptive purposes, so I don't think it nips anything in the bud.

And if pharmacists are viewed as health care professionals (as they should be) then they should have an idea of what they're prescribing, and the general health of their customers. It can be dangerous not to.

#44 deadheadskier

deadheadskier
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,377 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:10 PM

One question for those who feel that Pharmacists should have the right to refuse filling a prescription based upon their beliefs. Do you think that freedom should extend beyond BC?

What about drugs that are wildly abused for recreational purposes that often result in death due to patient overdose?

Oxycontin
Xanax
Percocet
Valium

etc?

If we want to establish the argument that BC isn't "necessary" then doesn't pretty much 99% of drugs fall into that category of not "necessary"?

People don't need any of the drugs that I listed, but they certainly do help many.

#45 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,317 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:11 PM

"I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct."


If, for religious reasons, you feel it would be unethical or immoral to provide contraception, then it would be contrary to this oath to fill those prescriptions.

#46 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:19 PM

I think if you want to go through the trouble of obtaining a pharmacist license and open your own business, you should have the right to not sell a goddam thing if you so choose.

albeit a poor business plan, you should have that right.

#47 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:20 PM

One question for those who feel that Pharmacists should have the right to refuse filling a prescription based upon their beliefs. Do you think that freedom should extend beyond BC?

What about drugs that are wildly abused for recreational purposes that often result in death due to patient overdose?

Oxycontin
Xanax
Percocet
Valium

etc?

If we want to establish the argument than BC isn't "necessary" then doesn't pretty much 99% of drugs fall into that category of not "necessary"?

People don't need any of the drugs that I listed, but they certainly do help many.


I would support that. Of course, i believe in voluntary, peaceful exchange. That means that if I own a pharmacy, and I don't like the look on your face, I can refuse you service. If I own a coffeee shop, and I don't like your attitude, no coffee for you. Of course this can apply in reverse. You don't like my religion, race, etc? Don't patron my coffee shop or pharmacy. Peaceful, voluntary exchange does not work any other way.

#48 wonka

wonka

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 6,644 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:20 PM

The vast majority of these prescriptions are for contraceptive purposes, so I don't think it nips anything in the bud.

And if pharmacists are viewed as health care professionals (as they should be) then they should have an idea of what they're prescribing, and the general health of their customers. It can be dangerous not to.


I would hope that any pharmacist is knowledgeable on the many uses for the drugs they dispense. I would not visit one that was not.
The Pharmacist would be making an assumption that it is for use A and not use B, which is not his call to make. His role is to dispense medication as prescribed.
It would violate patient privacy laws for the pharmacist to ask and/or require proof of intended use before providing a medication he stocks/sells

#49 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:22 PM

As a certified first responder, but not a professional medic, should I be required to help anyone who may go down in the street? Should I be forced, or suffer a consequence if i do not step in and attemt to resusitate an individual?

#50 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,044 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:31 PM

It may be true that the vast majority of patients use this medication for BC. But...
It is not 100%
It is NONE of the pharmacists business why it is being used

I'm sure that people ARE going to other Pharmacies to have these filled, but why should they have to? Should they were a scarlet letter when they walk into a pharmacy? "I am a godless fornicator who uses birth control".

As far as the argument that BCP have been around for 60 years. Total BS. There are THOUSANDS of medications that require prescriptions that have come onto the market in the last several decades. People got along just fine before then? I'm sure Big Pharma would take exception.

And I would LOVE to see what other products these "moral" pharmacies sell. Condoms? Hanukkah Candles? (since their teaching say they are the "one true religion") Any other birth control device/product? K-Y/Astroglide? Boner Pills?