being a pharmacist is against my religion, or, more signs of theocracy

[melon]

So, you are in favor of the government forcing pharmacies to sell the abortion pill?

Yes. However, I do know that RU-486 is not a matter of going to the neighborhood pharmacy, going home, and sitting back while the pill does the abortion. It is a hospital-supervised medication, so, chances are, it is only dispensed in hospital pharmacies by doctors. People can correct me if I'm wrong.

At that point, pharmacists would just have to avoid working in hospital pharmacies.

Melon

 

[melon]

Personally, I do have a moral problem with abortions. However, if I were a pharmacist, I would feel no guilt in dispensing these drugs, as I am merely filling a prescription written by a doctor and requested by a patient. I believe that the "morality" is ultimately up to the patient who makes the initial request and will make the choice as to whether to take the medication or not.

If I were a pharmacist and received a prescription for birth control or even RU-486, I would have no problem dispensing it.

Melon

 

[80sU2isBest]

Yes. However, I do know that RU-486 is not a matter of going to the neighborhood pharmacy, going home, and sitting back while the pill does the abortion. It is a hospital-supervised medication, so, chances are, it is only dispensed in hospital pharmacies by doctors.

Oh? I didn't know that. That's a good thing.

 

[anitram]

As I said, the pharmacy in my question isn't singling out a certain type of person to not sell birth control to;

Women.

I don't see them tossing out their condoms on the street.

It's always the same old tired story.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Women.

I don't see them tossing out their condoms on the street.

It's always the same old tired story.

I posed a hypothetical situation, in which a pharmacy owner sets policy that his pharmacy will not sell birth control; what exactly do you think a condom is, if not "birth control"? The pharmacy in my question would not, therefore, sell condoms.

Your attempt at bringing gender-discrimination into this is reaching, at best, ridiculously ludicrous at worst.

 

[anitram]

Fair enough, I was talking more about the pharmacists who are causing this ruckus (they continue to sell condoms) than your proposal.

As for your proposal, I still disagree. The pill is not used solely or universally for birth control.

The pharmacist has no right denying it to those who are using it for "valid" medical reasons. You could have a nun needing it and no, she should not be inconvenienced by having to go "down the street."

If the government has to step in - power to them.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Fair enough, I was talking more about the pharmacists who You could have a nun needing it and no, she should not be inconvenienced by having to go "down the street."

If the government has to step in - power to them.

So, a little inconvenience is worse to you than the thought of the government dictating what a business must sell.

 

[anitram]

In this case?

Absolutely and without question.

End of discussion for me on the matter.

 

[Irvine511]

So, a little inconvenience is worse to you than the thought of the government dictating what a business must sell.

in this situation, i'm far more afraid of napoleonic pharmacists insisting on enforcing their particular sense of "morality" than i am of the government.

this seems precisely the role that the government should play -- the regulation of business to make sure that it behaves ethically. we have the (underfunded, on purpose) SEC, among other things.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Irvine511,
How is the pharmacy in my question enforcing their morality? There are pharmacies that will sell birth control, so nothing is being forced on anyone.

 

[Dreadsox]

Irvine511,
How is the pharmacy in my question enforcing their morality? There are pharmacies that will sell birth control, so nothing is being forced on anyone.

Welcome back 80's

Don;t stay away so long.

 

[sallycinnamon78]

So, a little inconvenience is worse to you than the thought of the government dictating what a business must sell.

Well, of course - it is the principle of the matter.

 

[jessi-ma-ca]

in this situation, i'm far more afraid of napoleonic pharmacists insisting on enforcing their particular sense of "morality" than i am of the government.

this seems precisely the role that the government should play -- the regulation of business to make sure that it behaves ethically. we have the (underfunded, on purpose) SEC, among other things.

that is the exactly what the governemnt should be doing. enforcing uniform regulations. it is neither the pharmacists job, or place to be juding other peoples choices to uses certain drugs. cause that is what it comes down to, these pharmacists feel its inapropreate, thus do not despence the drugs.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Welcome back 80's

Don;t stay away so long.

Thanks, Dread.

Hopefully, I'll be able to stay away after this. You know how into it I get.

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine511,
How is the pharmacy in my question enforcing their morality? There are pharmacies that will sell birth control, so nothing is being forced on anyone.

as has been said, not everyone lives in a town where there is more than one pharmacy.

and that doesn't account for the fact that said pharmacist is simply not doing their job by refusing to dispense FDA approved medication.

 

[80sU2isBest]

and that doesn't account for the fact that said pharmacist is simply not doing their job by refusing to dispense FDA approved medication.

When birth control becomes "FDA Mandated" instead of "FDA Approved', I just might agree with you.

For the record, I think that anyone who works at a pharmacy where birth control is sold should work under the orders of his/her boss or find new employment.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Another thing to consider is the idea of public and private businesses. To answer your question about your analogy of web page design, 80sU2isBest-web page design can vary from being either a public or a private business, so if your job was a privately owned one, you would indeed have the right to deny certain things to certain people. And I also assume that there's various branches of the public version of the web site design industry-the branch may be one where pornographic stuff isn't in the job description for that specific branch, so therefore, a person in that field wouldn't have to worry about that.

But since pharmacies aren't privately owned businesses, since they are public buildings, they have to go by government regulations, and if the government says they must sell this or that, they are to follow those laws.

Angela

 

[melon]

But since pharmacies aren't privately owned businesses, since they are public buildings, they have to go by government regulations, and if the government says they must sell this or that, they are to follow those laws.

Pharmacies are privately owned.

The difference, though, is that there are "professional ethics" that exist in the medical industry ever since the early 1900s from the Progressive Era. These "professional ethics" dictate that it is unethical to refuse to dispense medication on the basis of personal objections. It is the duty of any medical professional to act uniformily according to these ethics. We cannot make exceptions for "some people" based on their "morality," unless the professional ethics change.

If these pharmacists had moral objections, why did they become pharmacists in the first place? I'm just utterly baffled as to why some people cannot separate personal morality from business. I mean, we berate soldiers who suddenly develop a revulsion to killing on moral grounds. The fact remains that if you cannot do your job anymore, quit.

Melon

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Pharmacies are privately owned.

Oh, really? Yeesh, didn't know that-I've never really been to a pharmacy myself. My parents have from time to time, but I myself haven't, so I didn't know . But still, I agree with you anyway.

Angela

 

[sallycinnamon78]

that is the exactly what the governemnt should be doing. enforcing uniform regulations. it is neither the pharmacists job, or place to be juding other peoples choices to uses certain drugs. cause that is what it comes down to, these pharmacists feel its inapropreate, thus do not despence the drugs.

Well said Jessi!

 

[BonosSaint]

A pharmacist is a pharmacist, not a physician. All medical decisions are between physician and patient. The pharmacist is out of that equation (and I love pharmacists. I spend much more time discussing medication with them than with the physician). What other moral opinions will come into play? Can a pharmacist then refuse to dispense any medication that was tested on animals or uses animal product? Can a pharmacist refuse to dispense narcotics because of his/her position on drug use or believes someone should just tough out pain? I would not trust the professional judgment of any pharmacist that refused me medication based on his/her nonmedical judgment.

Certainly a pharmacist has the right to question a prescription, a right (maybe a duty) to notice similar prescriptions by various doctors that may indicate doctor shopping for illicit purposes. But pharmacists are not licensed to practice medicine.

Ah, this gives me an idea for another thread.

 

[LoveTown]

For a pharmacists he's not very educated.

I agree with this. I don't know if somebody has already said this but many women have problems with their menstrual cycle. Birth control pills are often given to regulate periods, lessen severe cramping or to prevent extremely heavy bleeding....

pharmacists also need to take these factors into consideration.