Did you know there is a group called Parmacists for Life?
According to Archpundit, they are pissed at Governor Blagojevich, so much so that they are referring to him as “Slobodan” Blagojevich:
Governor “Slobodan” Blagojevich refuses to back down from his unconstitutional rule making dispensing of abortion drugs mandatory for IL pharmacists, even if they invoke the state’s healthcare provider conscience clause. Hiz Honor continues to show a despotic disrespect for the law and freedom of religion and conscience, as did his “namesake” who is up for war crimes following ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Heczegovina. The Guv would love to cleanse IL of any pharmacists who still have a conscience, or so it seems!
Slobodan Milosvic ordered the murder of untold numbers of his citizens and a variey of other crimes, including ‘ethnic cleansing.’
Gov. Blagojevich requires pharamacies that already carry drugs dispense them when a prescription is written.
You can see how these men are both villains. Charming people, these pharmacists for life.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Gov. Blagojevich requires pharamacies that already carry drugs dispense them when a prescription is written.
As I recall, the “that already carry them” bit is disputable under the wording of the order as I read it, and I’m obviously not the only one.
“Under the rule, if the contraceptive is not in stock, the pharmacy must order it or, if the patient prefers, transfer the prescription to a nearby pharmacy.”
http://www.kwqc.com/Global/story.asp?s=3155031
If true, that should be a dealbreaker for anyone who likes private property rights and/or the free market.
Richard Bottoms
And this conduct surprises you because?
Joey
‘As I recall, the “that already carry them” bit is disputable under the wording of the order as I read it, and I’m obviously not the only one.’
I think you missed the point of the article. The fact that these people are comparing the governor to Uncle Slobadon appears to be the main subject of his comments. Anybody in touch with reality will concede that that is an idiotic comparison, regardless of that particular detail of the bill.
ppgaz
Boy, the liars are on this like flies on a balogna sandwich, with the “property rights” or “free market” ruse.
When you operate a pharmacy, you operate under the laws and regulations which govern the operation of pharmacies. You are not a grocer selling cough drops.
Property rights do not trump those laws and regulations. Your remedy, if you think that you can’t operate the pharmacy under the applicable regulations, is to close the pharmacy and do something else.
Pharmacy is not a retail store. It is a licensed dispensing practice. Practice, as in the practice of medicine. A doctor can’t fail to treat your infection because be chooses, as a retailer, not to stock antibiotics or prescription pads. He is obligated by the practice to treat your infection and prescribe, or dispense, antibiotics if they are indicated, otherwise he is liable to malpractice suit.
Pharmacists practice pharmacy, they do not “sell” prescription medicines as a grocer would sell cat kibble.
Property rights and free markets do not govern pharmacy practice.
shark
I agree they’re idiots. Anyone engaging in rhetoric like that is an idiot.
It’s as if Howard Dean was in charge…
Non-Fat Latte Liberal
Yeah, they’re silly. I particularly like the name. Since I disagree with them, does that make me a non-pharmacist for death? Or maybe they’re non-food service technicians against choice since they diasagree with me. Oh well, I suppose the dichotomy idiot, non-idiot works best. Particularly since I get to put myself in the non-indiot category.
Jon H
Next thing, vegans will be working at steakhouses and refusing to serve meat.
And the pharmacy precedent may require the restaurants to not fire anyone.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Property rights do not trump those laws and regulations.
Of course they do, and they rightfully should. And they will in this case, too — just wait. Un-American, stupid laws fail, and this one is well on its way to failure. In addition to the abridgement of rights, the vague wording may make it difficult for the pharmacist to do his due diligence to make sure the patient is getting the proper dosage of the proper contraceptive.
Look, all businesses are licensed and regulated to some extent. This does not, or at least SHOULD not, give the government the right to tell the owner of a business what products they must sell.
Doctors are licensed and regulated MUCH more than pharmacists, but the Governor can’t, by executive order (note that there’s no proper legislation here, because the chickenbleep Gov knows it would fall on its face), demand that a qualified, licensed doctor perform an abortion if that doctor does not wish to do so (even if it’s the Gov’s girlfriend who needs the procedure). You can only buy goods and services that the seller wants to sell — that’s on Page One of the market capitalist handbook. Got a problem with it?
Again, the market is already solving this problem with online pharms, direct distribution through doctors, and a few other remedies that do not infringe on a pharmacist’s rights. If there are people who want to pay money for these drugs, there will be a line of people to take their money. Pharmacists’ associations want Plan B to go OTC, which would make sense.
The Gov should’ve stayed out of it, or at least had the decency to try to pass real legislation. Then we could’ve acknowledged that there is a problem, but concluded that there are better ways to solve it than by bullying law-abiding citizens.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
The fact that these people are comparing the governor to Uncle Slobadon appears to be the main subject of his comments. Anybody in touch with reality will concede that that is an idiotic comparison, regardless of that particular detail of the bill.
Yes, idiots will compare Blagojevich to Slobby, and idiots will compare Bush to Hitler, and other idiots will compare Gitmo to the gulags…it’s all just politics. I’m sure nobody involved loses a wink of sleep over it.
Hokie
This must be like how the fairness of the estate tax is just like the “morality of the Holocaust.”
I think they’ve been studying one Grover Norquist’s playbook.
ppgaz
No, you are wrong.
Pharmacy practice, and the opration of pharmacies, are among the most tightly regulated activities in our society. Right down to holding the pharmacist accountable for his inventory, its storage, its disposal, everything.
I am not aware of a single state’s pharmacy laws, or oversight by their pharmacy boards, which yeild to property rights when an assertion of those rights is used as a defense to violation of those laws. Do you have case law that indicates otherwise? I’d be interested in seeing it.
Pharmacy is a regulated practice. There is general uniformity among the states’ pharmacy statutes and regulations, regarding this practice.
OTC is a practical solution to the Plan B situation, but it is not dispositive. It’s a band-aid.
What happens when Druggists for Jeezus decide that the large pharma concern, Pills-R-Us, is guilty of crimes for making Plan B products, or contraceptives? Or for operating a stem cell lab?
Can DFJ members then refuse to dispense Pills-R-Us products owing to objections on moral grounds? “We cannot provide revenue to these purveyors of death” says the Druggists For Jeezus spokesman. “We have a right to keep this immoral activity off our property.”
What happens when Druggists for Jeezus decides that it won’t dispense to registered sex offenders? To felons? To known clientele of abortion clinics? Can they defend this behavior on the basis of “property rights?”
Who owns the Walgreens or Rite-Aid pharmacy in which the Druggist for Jeezus works? Whose property is it? If the store operator leases the building, who has the property rights?
Does a pharmacist have a right to decide, on his own, whom to serve and which scrips to fill, without fear of losing his job? In such a case, how does the property owner, who owns the pharmacy, protect his rights to use his property as he sees fit?
Your comprehensive explanations are eagerly awaited. Unless you just want to admit that have no freaking idea what you are talking about.
Joey
When it comes to matters of health, I’m pretty sure that the free market isn’t on legislators’, or the governor’s, mind. If he were to say that pharmacists have to order cancer medication if presented with a prescription, this wouldn’t even be noteworthy. But since it’s an abortion related product, people are throwing a fit.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
If he were to say that pharmacists have to order cancer medication if presented with a prescription, this wouldn’t even be noteworthy. But since it’s an abortion related product, people are throwing a fit.
Obviously, if this were about a cancer drug, there wouldn’t be a moral conflict about the pharmacist’s role in terminating a life (potential or otherwise). Contraceptive drugs are the only drugs that would engender this type of dilemma — until euthanasia drugs hit the market!
ppgaz
I’m for laws against euthanasia, as long as there is an exception made for mothers in law.
Joey
Well what if the pharmacist felt that cancer was God’s decision for that person. I don’t buy the moral conflict argument. The same people who would use the moral conflict argument for this would berate a conscientious objector as unpatriotic. I don’t buy it in either case. It’s part of the job. If you don’t like it, find a new field.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
I am not aware of a single state’s pharmacy laws, or oversight by their pharmacy boards, which yeild to property rights when an assertion of those rights is used as a defense to violation of those laws.
A quick search yielded:
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.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19703-2005Apr1.html
So let’s not go on pretending that there is no recognized right of a doctor and/or a pharmacist to sell only what they wish to sell. The fact that phamacists are required, for public safety reasons, to dispose of materials in certain ways does not mean the government can trammel their basic rights in whatever ways they wish. Again, a person can only buy what is for sale. No exceptions. Page One.
Can DFJ members then refuse to dispense Pills-R-Us products owing to objections on moral grounds?
As long as their refusal does not meet legal definitions of “disriminatory,” then hell yes.
And you know what will happen to the DFJ pharmacy? They’ll go out of business, because someone else who doesn’t have their qualms will open a more consumer-friendly pharmacy that will win in good old market competition.
Unless you just want to admit that have no freaking idea what you are talking about.
After asking such elementary questions, you should probably lay off the arrogance.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
If he were to say that pharmacists have to order cancer medication if presented with a prescription, this wouldn’t even be noteworthy. But since it’s an abortion related product, people are throwing a fit.
Obviously, if this were about a cancer drug, there wouldn’t be a moral conflict about the pharmacist’s role in terminating a life (potential or otherwise). Contraceptive drugs are the only drugs that would engender this type of dilemma — until euthanasia drugs hit the market!
Compuglobalhypermeganet
It’s part of the job. If you don’t like it, find a new field.
Easy for you to say. One pharmacist in my neighborhood has had his shop for 30 years. He should have to quit his livelihood because morally-objectionable things are possible with drugs now that he couldn’t have dreamt of when he first got into the business?
You sound like you think Plan B has been around forever. Many pharmacists have been around since before The Pill! How could they have seen this coming down the road?
So you want them all out on the street? Niiiiiice.
ppgaz
Sorry, no sale. Doctors and abortions are not analgous to pharmacists and prescriptions. As I said, there is not any case law that I am aware of which guides toward a property rights defense against any pharmacy law or regulation. Keep looking, though.
Pharmacy regulation is pretty much a state matter, not a federal matter. The handling of some substances is regulated at the Federal level, but that’s a different matter and most of that law relates to control of the substances themselves, not to the practice of pharmacy.
Your answer is just more nonsense. You addressed one of my conundrums, and gave the wrong answer. The answer is that making idiosyncratic and ad hoc decisions regarding who can and who cannot get a scrip filled, or which scrips to fill, is well outside of both regulated and accepted practice. What’s worse, it’s a can opener to a can of worms which basically throws the entire practice, and access to medications, into chaos.
Your example of a few states with laws supposedly permitting pharmacists to refuse to dispense actually proves my point. The refusals require those laws to protect them because without them, the pharmacists are out of bounds. You didn’t bother to examine any of those laws and report back the details: Do the refusing pharmacists have the obligation under those laws to see to it that the patient has another recourse? What other caveats are built into those laws? Have they been tested in the courts?
My questions are certainly elementary, which is why you might want to ask yourself those questions and get answers before declaring that you know all this stuff. You don’t.
Pharmacists for Life are opening a can of worms for themselves which I sincerely hope gets them nothing but aggravation. If they continue down this road, they’ll end up changing the face of pharmacy in a way that probably does the opposite of their apparent intent, which is to restrict access. In the right world, everyone will have access to all legal medications without interference from moralizing meddlers. If that world won’t work with the pharmacist middleman, then it will work without him.
Once the can of worms is opened, and pharmacists start deciding that they shall impose their “moral” views upon the dispensing of medicines at their whim, then the practice of pharmacy will be the ultimate victim. The pharmacist’s role is to add value to the patient’s interaction with the healthcare system. Once the pharmacist decides that he is also entitled to be a reverend and insert religious meddling into the equation, either that behavior will be smacked down, or pharmacy as we know it will be removed from the healthcare model. For one simple reason: People are not going to stand for this bullshit.
ppgaz
Why stop at creating chaos in pharmacy, Compu-whatever the hell your name is?
Why not have all caregivers, service personnel, professionals, first responders, hospital workers … refuse service and care to anyone or in any situation in which they can cobble up a “moral” objection?
The policeman won’t come to your aid because he knows you had an abortion last week. The grocer bans your neighbor from the store because he works in a stem cell lab. The privately owned water compay shuts off your water because your brother is a drug company rep and distributes Plan B products. The emergency room turns away your mother because she took birth control. The ambulance driver refuses to take you to the hospital because you have a ProChoice bumper sticker on your smashed car.
Uh, no, this is not the way the world is going to work. The moralists are not going to turn every interaction into a values test. What will happen, instead, if the holier-than-thou types keep this up, is that nobody will hire anyone who does not agree, in advance, to either perform the duties associated with the job without inserting interference on such grounds, subject to immediate termination for refusal to do so.
That’s the way it should be, and that’s the way it will be. To do otherwise makes the day to day work of civilization impossible.
Which is probably what the Druggists for Jeezus really want, but too bad. They are not going to get it.
ppgaz
Pharmacists for Microbial Life refuse to dispense antibiotics.
“Staphylococci are God’s creatures” says the PFML spokesman.
“Our members cannot participate in the wholesale slaughter of innocent bacterial organisms if their moral views prevent them from doing so.”
Joining with PETA, PFML representatives held a rally in Colon, Panama to plan their strategy for elimination of antibiotic access in American hospitals.
ARROW
Compuglobalhypermeganet:
Nice handle, but it would be nicer if it was shorter. Excellent points. Don’t worry about not being able to convince some of the moonbats that seem to gather here.
Trying to have a sane, rational debate with ppgaz is pretty much impossible (he/she thinks Dean is sane and rational). Speaking of handles, pee pee gas, sounds like noise emanating from from the toilet. Just a coincidence?
Joey
“So you want them all out on the street? Niiiiiice.”
Yes, that’s precisely what I want. I don’t know how you got that idea from what I said, but that’s beside the point. Again, the conscientious objector comparison applies. If someone were to enlist befoer a war, before any mention of a war, and his/her country later engages in a war that he/she finds to be morally objectionable and refuses to fight, these same people would be attacking him. It’s part of the job, do it or find a new job. The law, according to your first comment, even allows for the pharmacy to transfer the patient ot another pharmacy. There is no reason that I can see as to why this should be an issue.
p.lukasiak
odd, isn’t it, how when the ACLU uses the word “Gulag” to describe Gitmo the right-wing has a hissy fit, and the media goes into overdrive — but when anti-choice activist describe abortion in terms of genocide and The Holocaust nobody seems to mind…
ppgaz
This just in, another pharmacist group, Pharmacist-Evangelist Friends of E Coli have joined the battle …
The press release: “For too long, E Coli and other essential bacteria, all gifts from God, have suffered at the hands of doctors and other purveyors of death. PEFEC members will no longer dispense medications that kill these innocent creatures.”
“We also invite employees of water treatment plants to join us in this holy crusade. Every day, uncountable trillions of helpless living things are sent to their deaths in water treatment death camps.”
ppgaz
Arrow, you’ll be amused to know that the five letters in “ppgaz” are, in fact, my initials, and the abbreviation of the state where I live.
Of course, having initials like “p” and “g” has caused me lifelong humiliation and embarassment. After your blast, I may have to go kill myself. Goodbye, cruel world.
ppgaz
During a debate with then-Vice President Al Gore on Oct. 11, 2000, in Winston-Salem, N.C., Bush said: “I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called nation-building. . . . I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I’m missing something here. I mean, we’re going to have a kind of nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.”
–Boston Globe
Bush said he still believed banned weapons could still be found in Iraq, that they could be hidden somewhere, destroyed shortly before the war, or moved to another country. Syria was the only country US officials said they suspected could have been the final destination of Iraq’s elusive WMDs. US Secretary of State Colin Powell and other top officials said they did not have any solid information that this was the case, but insisted that it remained a possibility, a charge that Syria vehemently denied.
— Account of Meet the Press Interview, February 2004
But hey, don’t waste your time Googling the staggeringly long list of Bush lies; it’s depressing.
But we’re nation-building now, constructing a happy new Arabia. It’s on tv every day, take a look. So, while his policy has apparently changed, at least the new strategy is stunningly successful!
The thing I like most about the Patriot Act is that it co-opts the idea of “patriot.” Can you imagine the patriots of 1776 pimping the Patriot Act? Well, they set the stage … the Bill of Rights was just a template for the Patriot Act, right?
ppgaz
Whoops, I posted the foregoing to the wrong thread. My bad.
Hokie
Obviously, if this were about a cancer drug, there wouldn’t be a moral conflict about the pharmacist’s role in terminating a life (potential or otherwise). Contraceptive drugs are the only drugs that would engender this type of dilemma — until euthanasia drugs hit the market!
Irrelevant. Abortion isn’t against the law. The pharmacist is not directly engaging in the activity, so the provision about doctors not being able to be compelled to form an abortion is not analogous. The pharmacist is just filling a prescription. Their job.
Moral conflict indeed…
ARROW
“After your blast, I may have to go kill myself. Goodbye, cruel world.”
If there is a reason to commit suicide, it would be for your unwavering support for the moonbat’s moonbat, Governor Dean. Please stick around, even gila monsters are of some value.
I always thought the tight set of rules surrounding a phramacy’s operations was to regulate controlled substances (drugs), and not to determine what drugs were handled by the pharmacy.
Do you think that bookstore’s should be required to sell Bibles if the Governor mandates it? How about the Home Depot being mandated to sell firearms in the name of home protection?
ppgaz
Nope, still wrong. Control of controlled substances is pretty much a federal matter. Regulation of pharmacy operation and practice is pretty much a state matter. You don’t have to take my word for it, look it up.
Here, I’ll help you out:
http://www.nabp.net/
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/agency/csa.htm
The sale of Bibles is not, to my knowledge, regulated by any state or federal law.
The Home Depot Act will go into effect under the new Homeland Security Department, which will be morphed into the Home Security Department later when terrorism is defeated by the successful “war on terror.”
Until then, though, no law applies which would satisfy your question.
ARROW
“Regulation of pharmacy operation and practice is pretty much a state matter. You don’t have to take my word for it, look it up”
So do the state regulations require Illnois’ pharmacists to sell abortion pills?
And you didn’t answer my question oh slimy one, is it OK for the Governor to mandate the sale of Bibles by bookstores?
ppgaz
Don’t ask me, ask President Dobson.
I did answer your question, you lying sack of shit. There’s no law governing the sale of bibles or regulating the practice of selling bibles. At least, not yet.
When doctors can prescribe Bibles, and the FDA approves their prescription, then we’ll talk.
Give this administration time, I’m sure you won’t have to wait long.
ARROW
peepeegas:
So the answer is the Illinois state laws do NOT require pharmacists to sell the abortion pill, just as they do NOT require the bookstores to sell Bibles. Why is it OK to mandate one, by executive order, and not the other?
Keep on living in denial my moonbat friend!
Hokie
Arrow: I can’t see what the problem is with such a mandate with regard to bookstores, though of course to make it in any way analogous (not that that bothers you, I’m sure), the order would have to be directed towards bookstores that have the Bible in stock anyway.
So a rule saying “If you stock the Bible, you must sell it if the company wants one?” Ok, sure, bring it. Who cares? Why else do you have it in stock?
This is nonsense. A pharmacist’s job is to fill prescriptions. It’s a doctor’s job to decide what prescriptions a patient requires. A pharmacist does not have medical training.
I’ll put it this way: if a doctor makes a wrong prescription and injures the patient, nobody’s going to hold the pharmacist responsible for filling that prescription. There’s not a moral culpability there. So I fail to see where there’s any legitimate “moral issue” with filling this prescription. The moral agents are the patient and the doctor. The pharmacist is there to make sure the right quantities get dispensed and to try to halt people from fraudulently getting drugs.
ppgaz
Asked and Answered, Arrow.
Later, when you have the Controlled Bible Act, the answer will be different.
ppgaz
Another story hot off the Disassociated Press wires:
Housekeepers for Christ announced today that they will “deny service to hotels and motels which permit unmarried couples to use their rooms for copulation which is being carried out for purposes other than lawful and moral procreation between married adults of the opposite sex.”
HFC stated that the Hotel and Motel Operators Association has a long history of “advancing the gay agenda”.
Now allied with the Friends of E Coli and the Druggists for Jeezus, HFC also announced that members would no longer sing the Christmas carol “Hark, the Herald Angels Sing” due to its lyrics, which implore the singers to “don we now our gay apparel.”
Welcome to the new United States of Southern Baptists and Exaltation of Bathos.
ppgaz
Whoops, HFC spokesperson Seth Righteous corrected his earlier statement, explaining that it is “Deck the Halls” which contains the offensive language.
Birkel
Comparing the democratically elected (Well, Illinois contains Chicago so perhaps that’s a leap of faith…) governor of Illinois to a dictator is stupid and offensive. What a bunch of maroons!
Is it too late to get a moratorium on this kind of ahistorical nonsense?
Cyrus
Can someone explain to me where “moonbat” came from? Loony… bats? Lunatic miscellaneous rodents? Does anyone know?
tgibbs
It seems to me that this is a simple truth in advertising issue. If a business puts up a sign that says “Pharmacy,” then they are claiming that they are able to dispense all prescribed medications.
Christie S.
It seems to me that this is a simple truth in advertising issue.
I agree. If the pharmacy carries the prescription meds, then they have the obligation to dispense them.
If the pharmacy does NOT stock the prescription medicine, there isn’t a law in the land that can make them carry it.
A simple sign on the door would suffice. “Yes, we carry BCPs” or “Sorry, we do not stock BCPs.”
Andrew J. Lazarus
Selling books is not (yet?) a highly-regulated industry, Health-care delivery is, and the pharmacist is just one more node of the system. A plastic surgeon could refuse a patient for any reason. We don’t extend that choice to ER physicians, though. They have to treat everyone, even the indigent, even those whose emergency is related to grossly immoral acts like a gang war.
I’m not very sympathetic to the “Pharmacists for Life”—I think that like ER physicians they’re a part of the system where you are expected to deliver the restricted services you are specially licensed to dispense.
Incidentally, how many of these pharmacies stock Viagra? Condoms? Anyone besides me wonder if there is a special animus towards the alleged girl-sluts here?
tgibbs
I agree. If the pharmacy carries the prescription meds, then they have the obligation to dispense them.
If a shop does not carry–or at least is prepared to order–all of the prescription medications, then it should not be permitted to represent that it has a “pharmacy.”
Compuglobalhypermeganet
If a shop does not carry–or at least is prepared to order–all of the prescription medications, then it should not be permitted to represent that it has a “pharmacy.”
…and every qualified, licensed doctor should be forced to perform abortions. After all, they claim to be doctors!
Silly, silly argument.
Again, I refer you to Page One of the Free Market Handbook: You may only buy what is offered for sale, and just because you have the right to buy it doesn’t mean that anyone is obligated to sell it to you.
…except in the People’s Republic of Libtopia, I guess.
Oh, that’s right, doctors are completely different from pharmacists because, emmmm, uhhhhhhh, well, because ppgaz says so. It’s nice to be king, I suppose.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
This is nonsense. A pharmacist’s job is to fill prescriptions. It’s a doctor’s job to decide what prescriptions a patient requires. A pharmacist does not have medical training.
Pardon the pharmacists if they disagree with you: “On a related note, APhA was joined by ASHP, American College of Clinical Pharmacy, Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, Pharmacists Society of the State of New York, and New York State Council of Health-System Pharmacists in issuing a response to an April 3 New York Times editorial titled
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Once the pharmacist decides that he is also entitled to be a reverend and insert religious meddling into the equation, either that behavior will be smacked down, or pharmacy as we know it will be removed from the healthcare model. For one simple reason: People are not going to stand for this bullshit.
FINALLY, gaz, you’re getting the hang of the free market! Some people very well may not stand for their pharm’s decision not to carry Plan B, and those people will take their business elsewhere. Problem solved…and you haven’t even bullied, criminalized, or violated the rights of a single well-meaning pharmacist! If only Gov Blagojevich were as good a student of free market capitalism as you are.
I sense that market solutions take the faith-bashing fun out of it for most of you guys, but I trust you’ll find someone else on whom to focus soon.
Kathy Cole
Setting aside rural pharmacies, where a must-transfer rather than must-fill law could end up imposing serious hardship in a one-pharmacy town, the most critical piece of this order will stop those pharmacists who don’t just decline to fill the prescription, they refuse to return or transfer the prescription, so you can get it filled elsewhere.
And on the side of the pharmacists, there are definitely prescriptions your neighborhood pharmacy will not stock. Thalidomide, for example, has a high paperwork burden that pharmacists can decline to deal with (that was the last chemo agent my mother took). Other items require a compounding pharmacy, which may require visiting the local teaching hospital. I’m sure there are other examples of a pharmacist reasonably declining to carry legally-prescribed items.
(Just so it’s clear, I don’t believe declining to carry Plan B, which is just a high dose of birth control pills, meets the ‘reasonably declining’ test, if the pharmacy carries other birth control meds.)
Hokie
Pardon the pharmacists if they disagree with you
They can disagree all they want. It’s still not their place.
If a janitor’s union decided it was in their job description to start teaching math in light of the fact that “a robot or automaton would suffice” if they didn’t get to teach, well, it’s still not their job. Pardon me if they disagree.
If a pharmacist says they have moral issues about selling the Plan B pill, then we must accept that it’s true.
How very postmodernist of you.
It’s certainly not a huge empathetic stretch to see how they might feel conflicted. If you truly can’t get out of your own head enough to empathize, then just take their expressed feelings at face value.
Actually, I find it completely is a huge empathetic stretch to find a rational reason for them to feel conflicted, their own particular feelings on contraception or abortion aside (and not being of a relativist bent when it comes to ethics, this is rather important if I’m going to give them credit for it).
They stock the drugs already, else they’re not covered by the emergency rule. Pharmacists are not held culpable if there’s a wrong prescription (assuming they filled it properly), so they aren’t moral agents in the chain.
Saying that their own moral feelings about this gives them grounds to deny a perfectly legal, properly prescribed medication is like saying that if some Scientologist pharmacist agrees with Tom Cruise regarding anti-depressants or something like this, they can just not dispense them, because they feel “morally conflicted” about assisting in the epidemic of antidepressants. Or, for that matter, since essentially this boils down to saying it’s legitimate for them to do this simply on the grounds that they oppose abortion, some random pro-life wahoo can physically stop a woman from entering a Planned Parenthood clinic, because they feel “morally conflicted” about just letting her walk by.
Please.
FINALLY, gaz, you’re getting the hang of the free market!
Which as we all know is a wonderfully efficient and always effective means of solving a problem, particularly when sometihng is time-sensitive.
Sojourner
Compuglobalhypermeganet:
Um, the joint response to the NYT’s editorial from all those pharmacy groups was to argue for pharmacists being able to intercede in the event that they thought there was a problem with the prescription: incorrect dose, hazardous interaction effects with other meds, etc.
It was NOT about refusing legally and correctly prescribed meds.
Cynthia
ppgaz: your facts are correct, your conclusions, examples and extrapolations are logical, and your commentary is a riot. Thank you. I suggest that you quit wasting your intelligence and time by arguing with the cognitively unarmed and factually uninformed.
Cynthia
ppgaz, or ppqaz:
That comment was referring to your pharmacist posts, btw.
Cynthia
ppgaz, or ppqaz:
That comment was referring to your pharmacist posts, btw.
cminus
If you need a demonstration of the intellectual vacancy of modern conservativism, you only need consider the use of “property rights” to justify the refusal of a pharmacist to dispense birth control, which is a stunning insult to property rights.
Consider, for a moment, the model Conscience Clause put forward by Pharmacists for Life.
Any such person making such a claim of conscience, or who states a willingness or intention to make such a claim of conscience, shall not be denied employment, or discriminated against in any manner related to employment because of such a claim of conscience.
Now, suppose the following:
1. I own a pharmacy.
2. I want to maximize the profits from my pharmacy.
3. A pharmacist who works for me, in my pharmacy, refuses to sell a legal product to a customer.
The pharmacist has cost me the profit from the sale, and probably the customer’s future business as well. And I can’t reprimand or fire the guy. How is that not a vast violation of my property rights, as the man who actually owns the property?
If this kind of trampling of the rights of a pharmacy owner is legal, I’m going to move to a state with a PFL-approved conscience clause, become a pharmacist, convert to Christian Science, refuse to fill any prescriptions at all and make my employer pay me for doing nothing. And I can sue him if my raises don’t keep up with whatever he pays to the other pharmacists.
eddie
The real problem is that those who want to stand up for their morals, do not think that they should have to pay a price. If I believe that only prayer is legitimate to heal a person’s ailments, then I should not expect to be licensed by the state to be a pharmacist. If my beliefs require me to proselytize, then go ahead and be a preacher, but do not think that the state, which has a civil obligation for the common good of all persons (and not to any particular group of persons, whether defined by race, ethnicity or beliefs), should give you a license to do something that you are purposely going to fail to do.
This use of the moral necessity “excuse” is not dissimilar from those who think that it is moral to kill an abortion provider and that the state should not punish such a “non-crime”. Whatever anyone might say about their own morals, a person should be ready to sacrifice their own life to the extent of their belief, but in no way should anyone think their morals or beliefs permit them to sacrifice someone else’s life. That is not just hypocrisy: It is the root of all evil.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Um, the joint response to the NYT’s editorial from all those pharmacy groups was to argue for pharmacists being able to intercede in the event that they thought there was a problem with the prescription: incorrect dose, hazardous interaction effects with other meds, etc.
It was NOT about refusing legally and correctly prescribed meds.
That wasn’t the point. The point was that pharmacists don’t believe they are, nor are they trained to be, robotic dispensing machines who do whatever the doctors say to do without questions.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
I’m going to move to a state with a PFL-approved conscience clause, become a pharmacist, convert to Christian Science, refuse to fill any prescriptions at all and make my employer pay me for doing nothing. And I can sue him if my raises don’t keep up with whatever he pays to the other pharmacists.
…which is why that Clause is a non-starter. I’m certainly not arguing for it.
Sojourner
Compuglobalhypermeganet:
Yes it was. They were responding to the implication in the editorial that a pharmacist must fill ALL prescriptions. Their point was that they had a professional responsibility not to fill a prescription that could harm someone, the two examples provided being an incorrect dosage and a medication that could interact badly with another medication the customer is taking.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
The real problem is that those who want to stand up for their morals, do not think that they should have to pay a price.
Of course they should, and do, “pay a price.” They lose potential sales of an item. They may lose market share to pharmacies that stock Plan B willingly.
These are the market penalties for exercising a business owner’s right to choose his legal business.
But if you want to sell the idea that a 30-year-veteran pharmacist should lose his job because his moral principles are violated by selling a new drug that he could not have anticipated being sold even 15 years ago, then that’s going to be a tough sell. The pharmacist has done nothing wrong except have beliefs that were NEVER in conflict with the practice of pharmacy until this drug came along which the pharmacist may believe destroys a living person (which is why the Christian-Science-Pharmacist is such an inapt analogy).
This use of the moral necessity “excuse” is not dissimilar from those who think that it is moral to kill an abortion provider and that the state should not punish such a “non-crime”. Whatever anyone might say about their own morals, a person should be ready to sacrifice their own life to the extent of their belief, but in no way should anyone think their morals or beliefs permit them to sacrifice someone else’s life
Yeah. Right. The two are much the same, except that the conflicted pharmacists are ONLY trying NOT to kill, while the abortionist-killers are trying TO kill. Besides that, they are VERY similar. Feel free to paint them with the same brush when appropriate. How about……..never?
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Their point was that they had a professional responsibility not to fill a prescription that could harm someone,
If that were their point, it was badly misplaced in an article about the conscientious objection to dispensing Plan B. You can argue with the APhA about what you think they meant.
I think in the context of that article, their point was that they currently have the right, and regularly exercise the right, not to fill a prescription, period. Which is why, when Hokie made the same claim that the Times did (“Just fill the scrip, pill-monkey! You don’t have any medical training!” or words to that effect), I cited the APhA to make the same point they did.
cminus
Of course they should, and do, “pay a price.” They lose potential sales of an item. They may lose market share to pharmacies that stock Plan B willingly.
These are the market penalties for exercising a business owner’s right to choose his legal business.
Actually, in virtually all cases that have come up, the issue isn’t that the pharmacy refuses to carry the product, it’s that the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription against store policy. For example, Pharmacists for Life is trumpeting the American Center for Law and Justice’s lawsuit against Kmart for firing an Ohio pharmacist who refused to fill a valid prescription for the morning-after pill, even though
Kmart has an explicit policy prohibiting a pharmacist from refusing to fill a valid prescription on religious grounds.
You’ve been arguing from the assumption that the debate has been over people harassing the kindly old white-coated owner/proprietor of the neighborhood druggist. It’s not. The pharmacies want the business; even Wal-Mart, the ultra-conservative pharmacy of last resort, stocks birth control. It’s about employees flouting store policy with government-endorsed impunity. That “Conscience Clause” that you claim you’re not supporting is the heart and soul of the side you’re defending. The laws in Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Dakota that you endorse for granting “conscience” exemptions for refusing to fill a prescription all contain that language. The companies that actually own the pharmacies are all on the other side.
Sojourner
Compuglobalhypermeganet:
Your second paragraph sums it up. They want people to understand that they do more than mindlessly fill prescriptions. They did not, however, get into the issue of whether they have the right to prevent customers from obtaining legally and safely prescribed medications.
Sirkowski
Abortion tickles!
Compuglobalhypermeganet
They did not, however, get into the issue of whether they have the right to prevent customers from obtaining legally and safely prescribed medications.
They don’t have the right to confiscate a scrip (which has happened), but they do have the right not to sell anything they don’t want to sell.
The immutable truths of American capitalism: You can only buy what is offered for sale. Just because you have the right to buy it doesn’t mean anyone is obligated to sell it to you.
Sojourner
ppgaz has made the argument far better than I can. The reality is, pharmacists are playing with fire on this one.
I once was a very loyal customer of a small, woman-owned store. After visiting her store on a monthly basis for several years and spending lots of money there, one day I went in to pick up something I had ordered. She hadn’t ordered it and wanted me to buy something she already had in stock. It wasn’t what I wanted. So I walked out of the store and never went back. Instead, I found another source for my purchases. She subsequently went out of business although obviously not because of me.
I think most pharmacy owners are very aware that customer loyalty is something they earn. Those owners who want to refuse to sell may very well have the legal right to do so, although not the ethical right. Frankly, they have no right to insert themselves into someone’s life just to pump up their own egos.
But these are the same folks who are already under seige from the big boys. They have only themselves to blame if they’re stupid enough to thumb their noses at their own customers.
But I do find it interesting that you’re not up in arms at the possibility of employees costing their employers money by refusing to do their jobs. If legal challenges fail, don’t be surprised if employers look for ways to avoid hiring those of a certain background or legal ways to dump the ones they already have.
Imagine that… discrimination against far right, “Christian” pharmacists.
cminus
Compuglobalhypermeganet:
You can only buy what is offered for sale. Just because you have the right to buy it doesn’t mean anyone is obligated to sell it to you.
True.
And totally irrelevant to the matter at hand.
To use an analogy: suppose I go to a restaurant and order a beer from the menu. I give her my drivers’ license to prove that I’m over 21. The waitress refuses to bring me the beer, because she’s a Shiite and believes that the consumption of alcohol is a sin. Then she refuses to give me my ID back, because I will use it to get beer somewhere else.
If you were to defend the waitress in this example by characterizing my argument as “all restaurants must carry beer,” you would be out of your mind. Yet, replace a Shiite waitress, my ID and beer with a Christian-in-name-only pharmacist, a prescription and birth control pills, and you have exactly the same situation.
Nobody is talking about requiring pharmacies to carry birth control; that’s a strawman argument. They’re talking about allowing pharmacies to force their employees to sell legal products that the pharmacy has decided to carry. These are the two sides. There are no others, and it’s disingenuous to pretend that there are.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Those owners who want to refuse to sell may very well have the legal right to do so, although not the ethical right. Frankly, they have no right to insert themselves into someone’s life just to pump up their own egos.
A) Of couse they have the ethical right to stand up for their ethics.
B) “Pump up their own egos?” You couldn’t be more wrong if you think that’s what this is about.
But I do find it interesting that you’re not up in arms at the possibility of employees costing their employers money by refusing to do their jobs.If legal challenges fail, don’t be surprised if employers look for ways to avoid hiring those of a certain background or legal ways to dump the ones they already have.
Why on earth would I be up in arms about that? If the situation reaches a point where a business owner feels the need to discipline an employee for failing to adhere to company policy, then that is a market solution, which is all I am advocating. If the pharmacy has no contingency plan for filling a Plan B scrip, and a pharmacist has to choose between keeping his job and adhering to his conscience, then that is his/her choice to make.
Many pharmacies have already reached contingency agreements with pharmacists on Plan B, and I haven’t heard of a pharmacist being fired yet. Of course, that’s possibly because it costs more to fire someone (especially in these litigious times) and re-train a suitable replacement than would cost in lost Plan B revenue.
Let the market do its work, and the government won’t have to criminalize, bully and take rights from ordinary consciencious citizens.
Again, not as fun a solution for the faith-bashers, but much more justifiable overall.
Sojourner
Absolutely it is about ego. Pharmacists do not prescribe the med nor do they have to take it. Frankly, it’s none of their business other than to ensure that the prescription is filled correctly. Except they’ve decided to flaunt their ethics in front of the world at the expense of some poor schmuck who’s only trying to purchase a legal med. If they really wanted to be ethical, they would find another line of work rather than forcing somebody else to suffer for their “ethics”.
Actually somebody did get fired in Ohio for refusing to dispense a med she didn’t agree with. That’s what started this whole thing.
Um, I don’t think you understand what’s going on. A company CANNOT discipline an employee if there’s a state law that allows this nonsense. So the company either loses business or has to have two pharmacists on at all times.
“Let the market do its work, and the government won’t have to criminalize, bully and take rights from ordinary consciencious citizens.”
So you’re against states implementing so-called “conscience” clauses since this takes away from a company’s right to run its business the way it wants? And you have no problem with businesses choosing to fire conscientious objectors if they so desire?
Both of these are, after all, consistent with unfettered capitalism.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Nobody is talking about requiring pharmacies to carry birth control; that’s a strawman argument.
Disagree with that unsupported assertion. Look at the text of the order.
Blag’s order says: “If the contraceptive, or a suitable alternative, is not in stock, the pharmacy must obtain the contraceptive under the pharmacy
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Except they’ve decided to flaunt their ethics in front of the world
Yeah, just like Ghandi, Dr. King, and Bono, those rat bastards! Flaunting their ethics and moral principles all for the glorification of their massive egos. So anyone who stands up for his/her rights of conscience is doing it for ego, not for the rights? Your ability to read minds and hearts of people you’ve never met is… well, it’s idiotic.
Look, you may be a stranger to ethical conflicts, but others are put in places where they are fairly common.
If they really wanted to be ethical, they would find another line of work rather than forcing somebody else to suffer for their “ethics”.
So a 30-year-veteran pharmacist should give up his shop because he has ethics issues with a new drug that he believes may be killing living beings? So he should be out on the street rather than to stand up for his rights? How very liberal of you.
Um, I don’t think you understand what’s going on. A company CANNOT discipline an employee if there’s a state law that allows this nonsense. So the company either loses business or has to have two pharmacists on at all times.
Yes, I aware that in four states, the pharmacists’ rights to conscience are legally protected. What’s the point?
So you’re against states implementing so-called “conscience” clauses since this takes away from a company’s right to run its business the way it wants? And you have no problem with businesses choosing to fire conscientious objectors if they so desire?
Yes, as I’ve stated here, I’m against the conscience clause, and for the right to discipline an employee who is violating legal corporate policies.
cminus
So, by the letter of the law, the pharmacists — not just me, mind you — are pointing out that if Plan B is NOT IN STOCK (the Order never says it must ORDINARILY be stocked), the pharmacy must order it.
I stand partially corrected. Based upon your link, there are indeed people who think that’s what the argument is. However, they seem to be incorrect.
For a more in-depth account of what Blagojevich’s order actually says, consider Medical News Today:
“Under the rule, which lasts 150 days, if a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for contraceptives, the drug store must ensure that the patient receives the prescription “promptly” — usually by having another pharmacist fill the prescription, according to the Los Angeles Times. However, the policy does not require all pharmacies to stock contraceptives.”
If it did, then, yes, it would go too far. The Notre Dame pharmacy, for example, didn’t stock birth control, and my personal preferences aside, I’d have joined arms with the university if someone had tried to force them to do so. But that’s not where the pressure is.
As for “Christian-in-name-only”: I am a Christian, a regular church-goer, and I refuse to give up the claim to the name just because a special-interest group keeps identifying it with policies that have little if anything to do with the actual teachings of Christ. If you think it clouds the issue, fine. But then ask the “Christian” Coalition to do the same.
Sojourner
What is the difference between handing a prescription to somebody and telling them what pharmacy will sell them the prescription?
The reality is it’s harassment wrapped in a cloak of sanctimoniousness.
The folks you mentioned (with the exception of Bono) put their lives on the line. These yahoos want a state law to protect their jobs. You’re telling me there’s some equivalence between them?
Oh, I see. You don’t want their ethics to get in the way of a company making a buck. Your defense of these folks suddenly got a whole lot weaker.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
“Under the rule, which lasts 150 days, if a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for contraceptives, the drug store must ensure that the patient receives the prescription “promptly” — usually by having another pharmacist fill the prescription, according to the Los Angeles Times. However, the policy does not require all pharmacies to stock contraceptives.”
Again, there are varying interpretations of the Order. Again, the exact wording:
“If the contraceptive, or a suitable alternative, is not in stock, the pharmacy must obtain the contraceptive under the pharmacy
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Oh, I see. You don’t want their ethics to get in the way of a company making a buck. Your defense of these folks suddenly got a whole lot weaker.
No, my stance has nothing to do with corporate profits. In fact, my stance would almost certainly hurt a pharmacy’s profits.
My stance has everything to do with the right of a business owner to choose its own business. You know, like in America!
cminus
Seeing as how the text of the order requires that the pharmacist order out-of-stock contraceptives under the “pharmacy’s standard procedures for ordering contraceptive drugs“, it seems to me that a pharmacy that said “our standard operating procedure is not to carry contraceptive drugs” has a strong-to-ironclad case for arguing that they don’t need to order any if asked.
That said, we’re arguing over an increasingly arcane point. It sounds as if Illinois completely suspended this order and instead enshrined in law that the “conscience clause” does not prevent a pharmacy from disciplining or firing an employee for refusing to fill a valid prescription for birth control, we’d both call that a win and go home.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
it seems to me that a pharmacy that said “our standard operating procedure is not to carry contraceptive drugs” has a strong-to-ironclad case for arguing that they don’t need to order any if asked.
But if they DO carry contraceptive drugs, just NOT Plan B, then it sounds like they’d be forced by the Order to order Plan B, which is anti-market and anti-American.
Again, so many interpretations = BAD LAW.