Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - Pharmacists refuse to fill birth control, etc.
| User | Post |
beneficii
Posts: 181/567 |
Originally posted by Slay
The beneficii says...
Slay,
Thank you for clarifying. One question that may be asked is, If a pharmacy stocks birth control pills, then why is it not selling them? I hope you're making the distinction between an individual pharmacist and the pharmacy itself.
Yes, I thought that distinction was implied. Obviously, an entire pharmacy wouldn't stock a medication (i.e. spend money) and then not sell them (i.e. make no profit). Pharmacies which stock contraceptives have pharmacists that refuse to sell them to certain patients, and refuse to refer the patient to another pharmacist. In some cases, when the pharmacy is part of a larger business, there is only one active pharmacist who is refusing to sell birth control medication and "Plan B," and I believe that it is illegal for the owner of the pharmacy to fire the individual pharmacist for those reasons, which is why there is controversy and debate. I've edited the topic post with some new information, so be sure to check that.
In that case, for me the answer is pretty simple. Legalize pharmacies firing recalcitrant pharmacists. Don't make new laws when you don't have to. |
Slay
Posts: 167/339 |
The beneficii says...
Slay,
Thank you for clarifying. One question that may be asked is, If a pharmacy stocks birth control pills, then why is it not selling them? I hope you're making the distinction between an individual pharmacist and the pharmacy itself.
Yes, I thought that distinction was implied. Obviously, an entire pharmacy wouldn't stock a medication (i.e. spend money) and then not sell them (i.e. make no profit). Pharmacies which stock contraceptives have pharmacists that refuse to sell them to certain patients, and refuse to refer the patient to another pharmacist. In some cases, when the pharmacy is part of a larger business, there is only one active pharmacist who is refusing to sell birth control medication and "Plan B," and I believe that it is illegal for the owner of the pharmacy to fire the individual pharmacist for those reasons, which is why there is controversy and debate. I've edited the topic post with some new information, so be sure to check that. |
beneficii
Posts: 180/567 |
Slay,
Thank you for clarifying. One question that may be asked is, If a pharmacy stocks birth control pills, then why is it not selling them?  I hope you're making the distinction between an individual pharmacist and the pharmacy itself. |
Slay
Posts: 165/339 |
The beneficii says...
Well, I disagree. If a pharmacist does not fill a birth control prescription, that pharmacist isn't making a moral decision for the person having the prescription filled--they may think so, but they're not. They are owners of their private property and they don't want to dispense birth control pills in their store, as simple as that.
I should note, for the sake of factual accuracy, that the pharmacies in question (those involved in the current controversy) carry contraceptive pills in their pharmacy, but refuse to dispense them. There are pharmacies that simply do not carry any contraceptive medication; they are not involved in this controversy.
The Arwon says...
I don't think this is a simple libertarian "someone else will do it" issue. Walmart has refused to stock these things, which given that it's driven other pharmacists out of business, is often the only easily available option, is a big problem. So does some poor Arkansas teen get to miss out on birth control because Walmart is exercising its private proprty rights?
On that note, I should also make it known that the bill in question would only force those who carry contraceptives to disperse them, it would not require pharmacies which carry no contraceptives in the first place begin to stock them.
I usually don't participate in the topics of opinion that I create (such as this one) because I'm more interested in hearing other people's opinions than expressing my own, I just like to step in now and again to make sure the subject matter is fully understood.
I must say, I'm quite satisfied with the direction of this topic. It got more replies than I expected, and I see no namecalling, and even a bit of refering to external sources to prove a point. |
beneficii
Posts: 177/567 |
Originally posted by drjayphd
Originally posted by beneficii
Originally posted by drjayphd
No one's blaming the pharmacies.
Everyone's blaming the pharmacists who take matters into their own hands, and the evangeocrats who'll wrap themselves in the clothes of martyrdom at ANY chance.
Besides, what the hell does any of this have to do with Terri Schiavo? 
Well then, don't you see the problem of advocating government intervention into the matter? It was the government that caused the problem in the first place, by requiring pharmacies to retain such pharmacists? You see the issue?
Government forcing pharmacies to retain pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control pills and government forcing pharmacists to dispense birth control pills.
Why don't we just get rid of the government's right to force pharmacies to retain such pharmacists, instead of also giving it the right to force pharmacists to dispense birth control pills?
My head would be bouncing off my desk if my comp wasn't on the floor.
First off, I haven't voted, nor have I advocated government intervention. Rather, the opposite, that the government should NOT protect these morons. Besides, you pairing forced retention and dispensal of BC makes ABSOLUTELY. NO. SENSE. Tell me where I said they should retain the pharmacists. I think you're getting your opposition (read: everyone else in the thread) mixed together. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but THEY ARE NOT JOINED. This isn't an all-or-nothing affair. I'm sure you noticed there's more than two choices on the poll (oh, I haven't even VOTED in the poll yet).
From reading this last post, I no longer consider you my opposition. 
Ziff,
An amazing thing, eh? One would hope that it would happen eventually. |
drjayphd
Posts: 1117/1477 |
Originally posted by beneficii
Originally posted by drjayphd
No one's blaming the pharmacies.
Everyone's blaming the pharmacists who take matters into their own hands, and the evangeocrats who'll wrap themselves in the clothes of martyrdom at ANY chance.
Besides, what the hell does any of this have to do with Terri Schiavo?
Well then, don't you see the problem of advocating government intervention into the matter? It was the government that caused the problem in the first place, by requiring pharmacies to retain such pharmacists? You see the issue?
Government forcing pharmacies to retain pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control pills and government forcing pharmacists to dispense birth control pills.
Why don't we just get rid of the government's right to force pharmacies to retain such pharmacists, instead of also giving it the right to force pharmacists to dispense birth control pills?
My head would be bouncing off my desk if my comp wasn't on the floor.
First off, I haven't voted, nor have I advocated government intervention. Rather, the opposite, that the government should NOT protect these morons. Besides, you pairing forced retention and dispensal of BC makes ABSOLUTELY. NO. SENSE. Tell me where I said they should retain the pharmacists. I think you're getting your opposition (read: everyone else in the thread) mixed together. The two aren't mutually exclusive, but THEY ARE NOT JOINED. This isn't an all-or-nothing affair. I'm sure you noticed there's more than two choices on the poll (oh, I haven't even VOTED in the poll yet). |
alte Hexe
Posts: 4260/5458 |
Originally posted by beneficii
Originally posted by drjayphd
No one's blaming the pharmacies.
Everyone's blaming the pharmacists who take matters into their own hands, and the evangeocrats who'll wrap themselves in the clothes of martyrdom at ANY chance.
Besides, what the hell does any of this have to do with Terri Schiavo?
Well then, don't you see the problem of advocating government intervention into the matter? It was the government that caused the problem in the first place, by requiring pharmacies to retain such pharmacists. You see the issue?
Government forcing pharmacies to retain pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control pills and government forcing pharmacists to dispense birth control pills.
Why don't we just get rid of the government's right to force pharmacies to retain such pharmacists, instead of also giving it the right to force pharmacists to dispense birth control pills?
But you're advocating for legislation...which must be passed by the government...To...limit the government...via the government...
Wow. |
beneficii
Posts: 176/567 |
Originally posted by drjayphd
No one's blaming the pharmacies.
Everyone's blaming the pharmacists who take matters into their own hands, and the evangeocrats who'll wrap themselves in the clothes of martyrdom at ANY chance.
Besides, what the hell does any of this have to do with Terri Schiavo?
Well then, don't you see the problem of advocating government intervention into the matter? It was the government that caused the problem in the first place, by requiring pharmacies to retain such pharmacists. You see the issue?
Government forcing pharmacies to retain pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control pills and government forcing pharmacists to dispense birth control pills.
Why don't we just get rid of the government's right to force pharmacies to retain such pharmacists, instead of also giving it the right to force pharmacists to dispense birth control pills? |
drjayphd
Posts: 1116/1477 |
No one's blaming the pharmacies.
Everyone's blaming the pharmacists who take matters into their own hands, and the evangeocrats who'll wrap themselves in the clothes of martyrdom at ANY chance.
Grey: Because it's Leviticus uber alles with the vocal repressors.
Besides, what the hell does any of this have to do with Terri Schiavo? |
Grey the Stampede
Posts: 2433/3770 |
Originally posted by drjayphd
People who work for a pharmacy are typically expected to follow that pharmacy's policies. If they violate those policies, then the owner of that pharmacy has a right to fire them, because of his private property rights.
Which is what's happened, and now the ex-pharmacists are crying persecution and getting laws passed to protect their dickheaded philosophies on their jobs.
Grey: Problem is those pharmacists would say "tough shit, stop having more sex than me". Maybe endometriosis sufferers, who find relief from BC, make for a better talking point?
I suppose, but at the same time most people assume the use of birth control is just that: for control over birth. It's not like a person can just say "oh, I use them for my period" and have the pharmacist believe them. Some people really are assholes like that. A perscription would allow someone to show that the proof is in the need for treatment, which makes me absolutely stumped as to why a pharmacist would deny a need in the first place. |
beneficii
Posts: 175/567 |
Grey,
Well, I'm not sure why a pharmacy would stock birth control pills and refuse to seel them. Are you referring to a particular pharmacist working for the pharmacy? If that's the case, then they're probably violating that pharmacy's policies, and if so, the pharmacy can move to fire them, if they find out.
Then again, the pharmacy may not want to sell birth control pills to people of certain ages, which is within its rights.
drjayphd,
Which is what's happened, and now the ex-pharmacists are crying persecution and getting laws passed to protect their dickheaded philosophies on their jobs.
Well, that shows the problem is the government, not really the pharmacies themselves, does it not? |
drjayphd
Posts: 1115/1477 |
People who work for a pharmacy are typically expected to follow that pharmacy's policies. If they violate those policies, then the owner of that pharmacy has a right to fire them, because of his private property rights.
Which is what's happened, and now the ex-pharmacists are crying persecution and getting laws passed to protect their dickheaded philosophies on their jobs.
Grey: Problem is those pharmacists would say "tough shit, stop having more sex than me". Maybe endometriosis sufferers, who find relief from BC, make for a better talking point? |
Grey the Stampede
Posts: 2432/3770 |
Originally posted by beneficii
Originally posted by drjayphd
But the guy can't say that you "can't" get a birth control pill, or whatever you're talking about. He is saying that he will not provide it. It is the responsiblity of the patient to acquire the drugs which have been prescribed him by the doctor.
Unless they will not fill it knowing there is nowhere else to get it filled, and/or refuse to return the prescription, meaning you've gotta go back to your doctor for another one.
If you object to birth control, don't become a pharmacist. Period. End of fucking discussion.
Remember, I am not talking about whether a pharmacist should sell birth control pills, but I am talking about whether the government should force a pharmacist to. You keep bringing up these scenarios where no pharmacist would fill a birth control pill prescription. I don't buy those scenarios; I believe that if there is a market for birth control pills (and there is a very large market), then there will be people willing to satisfy this market. People trying to get prescriptions should be fine--it is a simple matter of you taking responsibility for your own life and finding the places that do dispense birth control pills. It is also my belief that just because you choose to open a pharmacy, that doesn't mean that the government should be able to force you to sell things that you don't want to.
Also, regarding the pharmacist taking your slip away and refusing to give it back, I already responded:
In the cases where the pharmacist takes the prescription slip and withholds it from the patient, the rightful owner of that prescription slip, then the pharmacist is violating that patient's private property rights. Using that case [of pharmacists refusing to give prescription slips back] as an argument does not really contradict the concept of private property rights, as none of us here are saying that only businesses have them.
The fact that you didn't see my point, which I already posted, regarding the pharmacist taking the slip away, I think, shows how little you understand the concept of private property and the rights of people to their own things.
I think you're sorta missing the point here... These situations are borne from times when pharmacists have the means (i.e. have birth control pills in stock and ready to dispense) but will not give them to perscribed users. You're talking about general refusal to stock, rather than sell. This isn't an argument of inventory, it's an argument of some pharmacist being an asshole and letting someone become pregnant because they don't believe in selling what they actively have the power to sell.
It's really times like this when I have to wonder where religion is based in argument. I mean, the purpose of religion is to give people a set of guidelines toward making life better for themselves nad those around them, right? And to give people a reason to be good so that they have a reward for their good deeds later on?
What kind of "good deed" is it to watch a pregnant teen's life be ruined because of a technicality in your religion? Sorry to say it, but not every child is a blessing. Some people really do need birth control because they're not ready to have a child yet. In this day and age, it's necessary to allow people to be good in their own way without doing evil to others. Denying someone a need because of one's own personal beliefs is in direct contradiction to the purpose of religion. Many christians choose to lead by example, and allow others to see the good in their beliefs, but you're not going to get many believers if you allow people's lives to be ruined because of your beliefs. |
beneficii
Posts: 174/567 |
Well, I was implicitly referring to the owner of the pharmacy, whom I thought was the subject of this debate in the first place. People who work for a pharmacy are typically expected to follow that pharmacy's policies. If they violate those policies, then the owner of that pharmacy has a right to fire them, because of his private property rights.
If there's not much of a market for birth control pills, then most pharmacies probably wouldn't bother carrying the stuff, or at least in much lower quantities. Supply and demand.
Originally posted by drjayphd
Originally posted by beneficii
The fact that you didn't see my point, which I already posted, regarding the pharmacist taking the slip away, I think, shows how little you understand the concept of private property and the rights of people to their own things.
Or maybe it's that there's less to the discussion than that. The pharmacIST does not own the pharmacY. The drugs belong to the pharmacY, ergo, no one cares about private property rights.
Besides, once you provide a public service, you lose the right to interject your beliefs into your work. A doctor prescribed birth control pills, you don't get to say no.
Originally posted by beneficii
You keep bringing up these scenarios where no pharmacist would fill a birth control pill prescription. I don't buy those scenarios; I believe that if there is a market for birth control pills (and there is a very large market), then there will be people willing to satisfy this market.
But what if there's not much of a market for ANYTHING, due to a depressed economy? Many of the anecdotal examples that I've seen involve areas where there are few pharmacies, meaning one person can, in effect, deny birth control or other medications to a locality. Pharmacies willing to fill the prescription may be prohibitively far away. This discussion isn't taking place in a vacuum.
|
drjayphd
Posts: 1114/1477 |
Originally posted by beneficii
The fact that you didn't see my point, which I already posted, regarding the pharmacist taking the slip away, I think, shows how little you understand the concept of private property and the rights of people to their own things.
Or maybe it's that there's less to the discussion than that. The pharmacIST does not own the pharmacY. The drugs belong to the pharmacY, ergo, no one cares about private property rights.
Besides, once you provide a public service, you lose the right to interject your beliefs into your work. A doctor prescribed birth control pills, you don't get to say no.
Originally posted by beneficii
You keep bringing up these scenarios where no pharmacist would fill a birth control pill prescription. I don't buy those scenarios; I believe that if there is a market for birth control pills (and there is a very large market), then there will be people willing to satisfy this market.
But what if there's not much of a market for ANYTHING, due to a depressed economy? Many of the anecdotal examples that I've seen involve areas where there are few pharmacies, meaning one person can, in effect, deny birth control or other medications to a locality. Pharmacies willing to fill the prescription may be prohibitively far away. This discussion isn't taking place in a vacuum. |
beneficii
Posts: 168/567 |
Originally posted by drjayphd
But the guy can't say that you "can't" get a birth control pill, or whatever you're talking about. He is saying that he will not provide it. It is the responsiblity of the patient to acquire the drugs which have been prescribed him by the doctor.
Unless they will not fill it knowing there is nowhere else to get it filled, and/or refuse to return the prescription, meaning you've gotta go back to your doctor for another one.
If you object to birth control, don't become a pharmacist. Period. End of fucking discussion.
Remember, I am not talking about whether a pharmacist should sell birth control pills, but I am talking about whether the government should force a pharmacist to. You keep bringing up these scenarios where no pharmacist would fill a birth control pill prescription. I don't buy those scenarios; I believe that if there is a market for birth control pills (and there is a very large market), then there will be people willing to satisfy this market. People trying to get prescriptions should be fine--it is a simple matter of you taking responsibility for your own life and finding the places that do dispense birth control pills. It is also my belief that just because you choose to open a pharmacy, that doesn't mean that the government should be able to force you to sell things that you don't want to.
Also, regarding the pharmacist taking your slip away and refusing to give it back, I already responded:
In the cases where the pharmacist takes the prescription slip and withholds it from the patient, the rightful owner of that prescription slip, then the pharmacist is violating that patient's private property rights. Using that case [of pharmacists refusing to give prescription slips back] as an argument does not really contradict the concept of private property rights, as none of us here are saying that only businesses have them.
The fact that you didn't see my point, which I already posted, regarding the pharmacist taking the slip away, I think, shows how little you understand the concept of private property and the rights of people to their own things. |
Danielle
Posts: 504/3359 |
I think prescriptions should be filled if they are prescribed.. that's pretty basic. Pharmicists shouldn't have the right to refuse that. It's their job.
I also don't think that the government needs to get involved. Just fill the prescriptions when they need to be filled when prescribed by a DOCTOR, what's the problem? |
Arwon
Posts: 326/506 |
Or move to 1950s Ireland or something. |
drjayphd
Posts: 1113/1477 |
But the guy can't say that you "can't" get a birth control pill, or whatever you're talking about. He is saying that he will not provide it. It is the responsiblity of the patient to acquire the drugs which have been prescribed him by the doctor.
Unless they will not fill it knowing there is nowhere else to get it filled, and/or refuse to return the prescription, meaning you've gotta go back to your doctor for another one.
If you object to birth control, don't become a pharmacist. Period. End of fucking discussion. |
Dracoon
Posts: 3227/3727 |
Doctors treat whoever comes into their office hurt, its one of oaths I believe, that they can't refuse service to anyone if they need it.
This is kind of the same thing, and if someone wanted to bring their own personal opinion into someone else's life, they need to have their ego deflated, turned into shit, and shoved in their mouth. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
|
