February 29, 2012
Pharmacists and Jesus Freaks
Local Pharmacies Are Defying State Law by Refusing to Stock Emergency Contraception Medicine
Robert Ullman
Tools
The ruling was not as terrible as it could've been: On February 22, US District judge Ronald Leighton in Tacoma found that one family-owned pharmacy in Washington State and two licensed pharmacists with objections to issuing the emergency contraceptive known as Plan B cannot be forced to carry or sell the drug, as it infringed upon their religious freedom. But the ruling, although narrowly applied to those three plaintiffs, sets a troubling precedent that will likely be challenged.
"As a practical matter, it sends a disturbing free-for-all message to pharmacies that want to refuse emergency contraception and other drugs," explains Lisa Stone, executive director of the women's advocacy group Legal Voice, which assisted in the case.
Stranger Personals
If Judge Leighton's ruling were upheld in higher courts, legal experts say, it could allow a wide array of medical professionals to deny services based on moral objections. For example, a Catholic doctor could deny lesbian couples fertility treatments.
But for now, while Attorney General Rob McKenna's office considers taking the case to the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—they have until March 22 to file an appeal—state attorneys say that the law of the land is clear: Every other pharmacy in Washington State must abide by a 2007 Board of Pharmacy rule that requires all pharmacies to stock and sell medications for which there is a community need—including emergency contraception.
Nevertheless, many still refuse, so The Stranger called 16 pharmacies around the state to find out why.
"We don't carry it because our pharmacists don't want to carry it," said a Vancouver, Washington, pharmacist—who refused to identify himself—from the Apothecary at Salmon Creek. When pressed for a reason, he hung up. A call back confirmed that, like the plaintiffs in the recent lawsuit, the decision was for "religious reasons, because what if baby Jesus had been aborted?" another pharmacy employee said.
(For the record, Plan B is not an abortion drug—it's basically an extra-strength dose of birth control.)
But Assistant Attorney General Rene Tomisser, who defended the state in the recent Plan B ruling, says this pharmacy and others are flagrantly disobeying the law. "Even if they have a religious objection, they simply wouldn't be able to refuse to comply," Tomisser explains. "They would have to file an injunction as the plaintiffs in this case did."
And yet a November 2011 survey conducted by NARAL Pro-Choice Washington found that roughly 12 percent of the state's 1,432 licensed pharmacies refuse to carry emergency contraception. That's roughly 172 pharmacies out of compliance with state law.
"We do not stock it," confirmed Geraldine, a pharmacist from the Maple Leaf Pharmacy on Roosevelt Way Northeast. She helpfully added that if someone requested it, they "can order it and get it in 12 days."
Plan B is highly effective at preventing pregnancy if ingested within 72 hours of unprotected sex, but its efficacy diminishes as time passes. The drug isn't recommended after 5 days, let alone 12 days later.
Women in search of the over-the-counter drug could find themselves in a race against the clock. This places an undue burden on women living in rural areas, where pharmacists are more likely to be conservative and pharmacies are fewer and farther between.
So why isn't the state intervening?
"We don't proactively go out and ask folks what their beliefs are and if they're following the rule," explains Tim Church, a spokesman for the Department of Health, which is responsible for licensing and monitoring pharmacies. "It's really a complaint-driven process." And since 2009, the DOH has received just two complaints against pharmacies for denying women access to Plan B. Neither complaint resulted in the business or an employee being reprimanded.
And while Plan B is a political piñata, it isn't the only medication pharmacies are refusing to dispense. According to Stone, who has represented patients who've been refused medication, a pharmacist in the Puget Sound area refused to fill a pregnant woman's asthma prescription because she believed it would be bad for her baby (the pregnant woman wound up in the ER), a man in Southwest Washington was refused an erectile dysfunction drug from a pharmacist who believed he would use it to cheat on his wife, and an Oregon woman was denied her anti-
anxiety medication—her pharmacist told her to try yoga instead. Stone says, "Today it's Plan B, but tomorrow someone could be refusing to fill a patient's HIV medication." 
1
None of these people should be allowed to practice for picking and choosing which medications they deem fit to dispense based on personal beliefs.
These pharmacists/pharmacies should have their license to practice revoked immediately.
These pharmacists/pharmacies should have their license to practice revoked immediately.
2
The Apothecary is Salmon Creek is not a regular retail pharmacy. It's an outpatient pharmacy located on the third floor of a medical office building next to the hospital, is tiny and has limited hours of operation. It's basically a cubby near an atrium.
Now rules is rules, but Legacy System employees can and do use thier insurance at a nearby chain pharmacy that has always carried Plan B, dating back to the "protocol required" days.
So one could argue that Legacy employees are being inconvenienced, but not that much, because many of them go to the nearby chain for their prescriptions anyhow.
Leaving readers with the impression that The Apothecary at Salmon Creek is a full sized retail pharmacy is a dereliction of journalistic practice. This is an incredibly important issue, and there's no justification to skew things, whether accidentally or on purpose. I trust Cienna Madrid will add the appropriate information to the on-line version.
Now rules is rules, but Legacy System employees can and do use thier insurance at a nearby chain pharmacy that has always carried Plan B, dating back to the "protocol required" days.
So one could argue that Legacy employees are being inconvenienced, but not that much, because many of them go to the nearby chain for their prescriptions anyhow.
Leaving readers with the impression that The Apothecary at Salmon Creek is a full sized retail pharmacy is a dereliction of journalistic practice. This is an incredibly important issue, and there's no justification to skew things, whether accidentally or on purpose. I trust Cienna Madrid will add the appropriate information to the on-line version.
3
@2 I guess the size of the place is why the man answering refused to talk to a journalist for any longer period of time or give his name and position? Or refused to say the very same thing you said...? Why didn't he? Is he lazy? Drunk? Careless? What kinda people do you guys employ?
["Leaving readers with the impression that The Apothecary at Salmon Creek is a full sized retail pharmacy is a dereliction of journalistic practice. This is an incredibly important issue, and there's no justification to skew things, whether accidentally or on purpose. I trust Cienna Madrid will add the appropriate information to the on-line version."]
If its such an important issue tell the people working there that they may look better if they actually go out and mention this as reasons why they don't carry it.
I trust you will tell employees answering the phone to either pass it on when someone asks a question or at least give a journalist a reason why they don't stock something.
["Leaving readers with the impression that The Apothecary at Salmon Creek is a full sized retail pharmacy is a dereliction of journalistic practice. This is an incredibly important issue, and there's no justification to skew things, whether accidentally or on purpose. I trust Cienna Madrid will add the appropriate information to the on-line version."]
If its such an important issue tell the people working there that they may look better if they actually go out and mention this as reasons why they don't carry it.
I trust you will tell employees answering the phone to either pass it on when someone asks a question or at least give a journalist a reason why they don't stock something.
4
Why is this even a question?
Isn't it similar to refusing to serve non-white customers in a diner?
Isn't it similar to refusing to serve non-white customers in a diner?
5
i'd like to request a list of any pharmacies that refuse to fill prescriptions of any type on "moral grounds", so that i can either call them assholes to their faces... or at least make sure i never shop there.
6
Here is what I don't get:
A pharmacy can refuse to stock products based on any number of reasons. If it doesn't sell well, or if doing so could put the pharmacy at risk (like stocking crap that could get them robbed easily, like oxy), the pharmacy can refuse to stock those products. This has never been a problem, to my knowledge.
But because the reason for not stocking this product is religious in nature, that makes it unacceptable? If a pharmacist refused to stock contraceptives, or plan B, or whatever, because they didn't sell well and it was a prudent business decision, would there still be uproar?
I am a dedicated atheist, so I have no pony in this fight what so ever. But I still find it fascinating.
A pharmacy can refuse to stock products based on any number of reasons. If it doesn't sell well, or if doing so could put the pharmacy at risk (like stocking crap that could get them robbed easily, like oxy), the pharmacy can refuse to stock those products. This has never been a problem, to my knowledge.
But because the reason for not stocking this product is religious in nature, that makes it unacceptable? If a pharmacist refused to stock contraceptives, or plan B, or whatever, because they didn't sell well and it was a prudent business decision, would there still be uproar?
I am a dedicated atheist, so I have no pony in this fight what so ever. But I still find it fascinating.
7
How does the size of the pharmacy make any difference at all? That dosen't make any sense. It would be one thing if they didn't carry it because they had limited space and that wasn't a popular drug. But they probably have plenty of space, and it is probably plenty popular. Bottom line--the second person who answered the phone said they didn't carry it for religious reasons (shouldn't a pharmacist understand how medications work? Plan B doesn't cause abortions...)
8
That last paragraph is really killing me. "I won't give you this drug because I THINK you might cheat on your wife." ?!!???!! "Try yoga." ??!?
And withholding the asthma drug? Pharmacists are not doctors. If the woman's doctor wrote her a prescription for it, presumably they discussed risks and benefits. The doctor is better positioned to know the overall health status of both mother and baby, and decide accordingly.
SUCH. INCREDIBLE. BULLSHIT.
And withholding the asthma drug? Pharmacists are not doctors. If the woman's doctor wrote her a prescription for it, presumably they discussed risks and benefits. The doctor is better positioned to know the overall health status of both mother and baby, and decide accordingly.
SUCH. INCREDIBLE. BULLSHIT.
9
jj41243 - The examples you cite, (no demand, increased security threat), are not examples of drugs used in an emergency, that need to be administered within a specific, narrow time frame to achieve efficacy.No one has a sudden emergency that only Oxycontin can cure, for instance. Moreover, the examples you cite can be said to be based on rational factors - The store had two break-ins targeting drug X, or there are few elderly people in this community so we don't regularly stock drug Y, etc. There is only one reason not to stock Plan B, and that is a relativist, moral one. Hence, there are laws to protect 50% of the population, i.e. women, from the moralizing of a radical, religious minority.
10
'A call back confirmed that, like the plaintiffs in the recent lawsuit, the decision was for "religious reasons, because what if baby Jesus had been aborted?" another pharmacy employee said.'
I've never grasped how an all-powerful deity, which is capable of creating 100 million galaxies with 100 million stars in each one, could be stymied by someone taking a prescription drug. It would seem to me that their dogma would dictate that if their deity wanted you to have a baby you would not have any choice in the matter.
I've never grasped how an all-powerful deity, which is capable of creating 100 million galaxies with 100 million stars in each one, could be stymied by someone taking a prescription drug. It would seem to me that their dogma would dictate that if their deity wanted you to have a baby you would not have any choice in the matter.
11
@6,
It's the law. What about that don't you understand?
Every other pharmacy in Washington State must abide by a 2007 Board of Pharmacy rule that requires all pharmacies to stock and sell medications for which there is a community need—including emergency contraception.
It's the law. What about that don't you understand?
12
@8,
And you know what's really terrible for a fetus? The mother having an asthma attack. I mean, fuck. Asthma can kill. That pharmacist should go to jail.
And you know what's really terrible for a fetus? The mother having an asthma attack. I mean, fuck. Asthma can kill. That pharmacist should go to jail.
14
Also, if it is a complaint-driven process, why were complaints not filed against the 172 pharmacies refusing to carry it? Who are they?
18
Oh, and again, I request for a simple solution to this, continue to publish the names of (particularly high volume) pharmacies that refuse to stock plan b. Let us all do our best to avoid them.
19
@18: http://www.prochoicewashington.org/issue… This has a pretty comprehensive list of pharmacies that do not stock Plan B.
20
Pharmacists who do this are PIGS in it only for the MONEY. They should INDEED have their licenses yanked!
I agree with @11 & @12. THese pigs should be sent to prison--and NOT pass "GO", and NOT "collect $200"!
@19: Thanks for the heads up. I now know where to boycott.
I agree with @11 & @12. THese pigs should be sent to prison--and NOT pass "GO", and NOT "collect $200"!
@19: Thanks for the heads up. I now know where to boycott.
21
The Maple Leaf Pharmacy takes 12 days to fulfill an order that they don't have on hand? The Safeway pharmacy takes 1 day to get it in - and I've needed some pretty obscure shit.
No wonder the Mom and Pop pharmacies are going out of business. If it takes them two weeks to get pills in, good fucking riddance. I look forward to Maple Leaf Pharmacy folding, but only because I don't abide a poorly run business.
No wonder the Mom and Pop pharmacies are going out of business. If it takes them two weeks to get pills in, good fucking riddance. I look forward to Maple Leaf Pharmacy folding, but only because I don't abide a poorly run business.
22
@17>>Good point! "Sorry, everyone! Sorry the world as you know it is ending, but Mr. Know-It-All pharmacist over here refused to sell me Plan B, because he was afraid it would put to end the birth of the new messiah! Blame him!"
23
This is gut wrenching beyond belief. What next, will they be able to stop carrying ALL CONTRACEPTIVES....... what about the anti-viral agents for HIV? Will we allow these PUBLIC VENDORS, LICENSED BY THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS, TO BEHAVE LIKE INDEPENDENT NATIONS UNTO THEMSELVES..... OR LIKE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS...... OR AGENCIES OF REPUBLICAN POLITICS. This crap must make Santorum's toes curl.
TIME FOR AN ALL OUT BOYCOTT OF ANY PHARMACY THAT REFUSES TO ACT AS A RESPONSIBLE COMPANY, RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL OPINIONS ASIDE.
UGH!!! Shit like this destroys my faith in humankind. How dare they decide what to supply to people in need...... AND YET MOST OF THEM STILL CARRY CIGARETTES.... and a multitude of overpriced, ineffective drugs because the markup is so unreal.
I won't go on.....
TIME FOR AN ALL OUT BOYCOTT OF ANY PHARMACY THAT REFUSES TO ACT AS A RESPONSIBLE COMPANY, RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL OPINIONS ASIDE.
UGH!!! Shit like this destroys my faith in humankind. How dare they decide what to supply to people in need...... AND YET MOST OF THEM STILL CARRY CIGARETTES.... and a multitude of overpriced, ineffective drugs because the markup is so unreal.
I won't go on.....
24
You can open a cantina and have only one kind of beer.
I don't think the state can make a place stock or sell anything and I dont like the state being the only one able to sell hard liquor?
the few places that wont carry them are not worth one day of court costs.
and its just more lawyer food
I don't think the state can make a place stock or sell anything and I dont like the state being the only one able to sell hard liquor?
the few places that wont carry them are not worth one day of court costs.
and its just more lawyer food
25
The pharmacist quote "what if Baby Jesus had been aborted" made my head spin all through lunch. I see screenplays, board games, years of musing... wow!
Well first of all Jesus wouldn't have known about it and the omnipotent Christian god would have been thwarted at a stroke. The world's gentler religions might dominate the west. Tens of thousands of Muslims wouldn't have been raped and slaughtered by hairy European barbarians in the odious crusades, and the World Trade Center would still be standing. The mind reels.
Well first of all Jesus wouldn't have known about it and the omnipotent Christian god would have been thwarted at a stroke. The world's gentler religions might dominate the west. Tens of thousands of Muslims wouldn't have been raped and slaughtered by hairy European barbarians in the odious crusades, and the World Trade Center would still be standing. The mind reels.
26
First off, I am agnostic, and if I were to open a pharmacy I would gladly sell plan B. I do however find this law and argument to be hypocritical. It does infringe on freedom of religion in that the government is intervening in the practice of private organizations. They are forcing them to sell a product which goes against their religion. And by the way, these people in rural areas that are running the no plan B pharmacies are pretty dead set on the "word of god." So if you alienate them enough, they are not going to start selling the product, they are going to go practice elsewhere. The argument "Today it's Plan B, but tomorrow someone could be refusing to fill a patient's HIV medication." parallels "Today they're forcing Plan B, tomorrow there is no pharmacy."
If you want to keep church and state separate, then the government should be out of these private practices just as religious figures and institutions should not be in charge of the government.
If you want to keep church and state separate, then the government should be out of these private practices just as religious figures and institutions should not be in charge of the government.
27
A pharmacy is a business, and should be able to stock whatever it's proprietors want to stock. One can opine endlessly on WHY they might want to stock some items and not others (profitability, theft mitigation, religious grounds).
Where there is a demand for contraceptive pills and an available wholesale supply, certain retailers will follow.
Others will abstain. Some for monetary reasons. There's a fast food chain in the South that isn't open on Sundays. The old man who started the business did it because he sincerely didn't want to force his employees to miss church. His grandchildren continue the practice because they know a percentage of their customers like the "principle" and seek out the restaurant over their competitors specifically for its fortitude.
There may be pharmacy customers (even in Seattle) who respect certain principles and extend their loyalty on that basis. A proprietor should be allowed to operate within this premise.
Even in Seattle.
Where there is a demand for contraceptive pills and an available wholesale supply, certain retailers will follow.
Others will abstain. Some for monetary reasons. There's a fast food chain in the South that isn't open on Sundays. The old man who started the business did it because he sincerely didn't want to force his employees to miss church. His grandchildren continue the practice because they know a percentage of their customers like the "principle" and seek out the restaurant over their competitors specifically for its fortitude.
There may be pharmacy customers (even in Seattle) who respect certain principles and extend their loyalty on that basis. A proprietor should be allowed to operate within this premise.
Even in Seattle.
28
Go open your own pharmacy or go to school and become a pharmacist and prescribe abortifacients until the cows come home......this is what liberty is about; if you don't like it then go to live somewhere else
29
And the mom&pop corner drugstores wonder why they're going out of business? Scary to realize that 'licensed pharmacists' don't understand how a pharmaceutical works. Probably the same guys who tried to make boys feel embarrassed to ask for a condom. (Small-town drugstores have always been so eager to help preteens end up in unhappy marriages and drop out of high school.)
If the standards are so low for these 'licensed pharmacists', perhaps I should apply... and announce that I'm a Christian Scientist, so giving out any lifesaving drugs is against MY religion... !
If the standards are so low for these 'licensed pharmacists', perhaps I should apply... and announce that I'm a Christian Scientist, so giving out any lifesaving drugs is against MY religion... !
30
Those people saying "pharmacies are businesses" have to remember that pharmacists are registered health care professionals.
Getting registered as a health care professional means accepting some responsibilities that take away your rights to make certain choices. As a nurse, I can't tell someone to take a medication that won't work but will make me more money, while as a private citizen, you can. Same with pharmacists. They have a legal obligation similar to doctors, nurses, dentists, midwives.
If they aren't living up to their professional obligations, it's malpractice.
Getting registered as a health care professional means accepting some responsibilities that take away your rights to make certain choices. As a nurse, I can't tell someone to take a medication that won't work but will make me more money, while as a private citizen, you can. Same with pharmacists. They have a legal obligation similar to doctors, nurses, dentists, midwives.
If they aren't living up to their professional obligations, it's malpractice.
31
Free market arguments don't apply here; I can't just start carrying Plan B in my bakery when the pharmacy next door refuses to stock it. The only way consumers can buy this product is through a state-licensed intermediary, so when the sole pharmacist in a neighborhood/small town decides to refuse to sell it, they can't walk over to the grocery store, convenience store, or gas station to buy it.
32
Women need to have the options they need. However, each pharmacist should be able to sell what they want.
However, women need to get what they need by at most doing some simple looking around- and not with a lot of hooplah involved.
President Bush's greatest impact in the Middle East was having schools built in places like Afhanasan. It was against a lot of their religious principles to send girls to school but it happened and the ME will eventually be a better place for it.
However, women need to get what they need by at most doing some simple looking around- and not with a lot of hooplah involved.
President Bush's greatest impact in the Middle East was having schools built in places like Afhanasan. It was against a lot of their religious principles to send girls to school but it happened and the ME will eventually be a better place for it.
34
I really don't understand why super religious people take "freedom of religion" as license to interfere with the choices and freedoms of the rest of the world. In this country, can believe whatever you want, but if a person not only refuses to do their job--stock and /or dispense drugs--because are morally opposed to dispensing certain drugs but to be so presumptuous to overrule someone's doctor, they need to have their credentials revoked. After all, willfully not complying with the law should be grounds for that. These people need to work in an industry that is less offensive to their morals and let the rest of us live our lives.
Any pharmacist arrogant enough to pull this nonsense needs to have their pants sued off in addition to being held criminally liable as in the case of the pregnant woman who was denied her asthma medication. As CanadianNurse pointed out, it is malpractice. All the pharmacies that practice this need to be on public display so that the customers can make an informed decision on where they want to leave their money.
Any pharmacist arrogant enough to pull this nonsense needs to have their pants sued off in addition to being held criminally liable as in the case of the pregnant woman who was denied her asthma medication. As CanadianNurse pointed out, it is malpractice. All the pharmacies that practice this need to be on public display so that the customers can make an informed decision on where they want to leave their money.
35
@34 But putting these pharmacies on public display is also going to attract people that support their decision - like me. And you can call it "arrogant" all you want but virtually EVERYONE has ethical lines they are not comfortable crossing even if the law were to tell them otherwise...right? So is it only "arrogant" when you don't agree with them?
36
@35 I do think it's pretty arrogant--to say the least--to only comply with laws you agree with, which these pharmacies are doing. If a pharmacist has ethical problems dispensing drugs, go into another line of work or apply their personal morality TO THEMSELVES ONLY. The rest of the world is likely to not share their morality and should not have it forced on them.
"But putting these pharmacies on public display is also going to attract people that support their decision - like me."
That is exactly my point. I'm willing to bet more people will avoid those pharmacies rather than patronize them. At the least these places need to face their responsibilities of not complying with the law and not get off scott free like they have been. If they want to continually face fines (or whatever penalty) to do business the way they want to, so be it.
I fail to understand this just from the point of basic business sense. If I offer a service and then refuse to do it because for some reason I find it offensive--what kind of business is that? It seems logical if you're going to pick and choose who you're going to serve, you deserve to go bankrupt. It's just plain bad customer service--you can't make money if you alienate your customers. I would love to see what would happen if one of these pharmacies refused to fill your prescription on "moral" grounds. If they can refuse to give asthma medicine who's to say your medication will be next?
As a side note, I have yet to hear of a story where this happens to a man. What would happen if these pharmacist refused to dispense Viagra?
"But putting these pharmacies on public display is also going to attract people that support their decision - like me."
That is exactly my point. I'm willing to bet more people will avoid those pharmacies rather than patronize them. At the least these places need to face their responsibilities of not complying with the law and not get off scott free like they have been. If they want to continually face fines (or whatever penalty) to do business the way they want to, so be it.
I fail to understand this just from the point of basic business sense. If I offer a service and then refuse to do it because for some reason I find it offensive--what kind of business is that? It seems logical if you're going to pick and choose who you're going to serve, you deserve to go bankrupt. It's just plain bad customer service--you can't make money if you alienate your customers. I would love to see what would happen if one of these pharmacies refused to fill your prescription on "moral" grounds. If they can refuse to give asthma medicine who's to say your medication will be next?
As a side note, I have yet to hear of a story where this happens to a man. What would happen if these pharmacist refused to dispense Viagra?
38
#36 They obviously don't agree with your moral view that is wrong for them to refuse to stock Plan B. So why do YOU want to force YOUR personal morality on them?
And are you going to tell me government could never make a law you wouldn't comply with? Of course they could. We all draw the line somewhere.
And for someone who has an established business it is not always so simple to just "go into another line of work."
And are you going to tell me government could never make a law you wouldn't comply with? Of course they could. We all draw the line somewhere.
And for someone who has an established business it is not always so simple to just "go into another line of work."
39
@36: Don't be silly! Viagra is an essential part of humane and decent health care!
(Or, Wil Wheaton said it better: http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/185667…)
(Or, Wil Wheaton said it better: http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/185667…)
40
@38 - So, if I read you right you're saying they should have the right to break the law based on religious based moral fortitude?
*scratches head* Why does 9/11 suddenly spring to mind...?
Ok, to be fair it's not on that magnitude but such non-compliance will still get your license revoked or land you a prison sentence.
Why enter into a practice where they know they'd be forced to do things against their moral viewpoint?
*scratches head* Why does 9/11 suddenly spring to mind...?
Ok, to be fair it's not on that magnitude but such non-compliance will still get your license revoked or land you a prison sentence.
Why enter into a practice where they know they'd be forced to do things against their moral viewpoint?
42
THERE you go---for all these asshole "pharmacists" with their so-called "moral issues": let's take away THEIR Viagra---and hit 'em where it hurts with a Santorum cream pie!
44
I just can't get on board with the state telling a pharmacist what they must dispense. Making sure all women have access to contraception, emergency contraception and other reproductive health related services is absolutely a legitimate goal for the state, but that means providing it in areas where it's not otherwise available, not forcing a private business owner with a religious objection to dispense it. One could make the argument that pharmacies that don't stock it shouldn't be able to accept state funds, but I'm pretty sure the payment rate on medicaid patients is so crappy that most pharmacies aren't accepting those plans anyway.
On the other hand, a pharmacy that chooses to stock plan B, or whatever else these folks object to, should be able to fire an employee that refuses to sell something the store offers. The pharmacists who object can bloody well go work for a mom and pop outfit that won't stock it.
On the other hand, a pharmacy that chooses to stock plan B, or whatever else these folks object to, should be able to fire an employee that refuses to sell something the store offers. The pharmacists who object can bloody well go work for a mom and pop outfit that won't stock it.
45
Okay Seattle, time for a civics class pop quiz. Ready?
"Oh sure we can GET it, but it's a special order item that could take a LOT longer than you're willing to wait."
The above sentence refers to:
a) PlanB emergency contraceptive
b) Consistent enforcement of licensed pharmacies
c) Government ethics and fortitude, in general
d) all of the above
"Oh sure we can GET it, but it's a special order item that could take a LOT longer than you're willing to wait."
The above sentence refers to:
a) PlanB emergency contraceptive
b) Consistent enforcement of licensed pharmacies
c) Government ethics and fortitude, in general
d) all of the above
46
You all sound really pathetic, but then again I am one of those as you all call Jesus Freaks! And I am proud of it. I sit and read all your remarks and shake my head and have pity on you, because one day that babe named Jesus is coming back and you are not going to like what is dished out. And Praise God I won't be here with you all! At least the Atheist knows when an where to pick his fights. But, I will be praying for your souls.
47
Pharmacists insist that drugs should be regulated and that we must do business with them to access certain drugs. If pharmacists can pick and choose which drugs they don't want to dispense then I should be able to get any of those drugs without having to deal with a pharmacist.
48
#44 Many of the folks who insist they don't have to dispense if they don't want to are associated with the same groups who lobbied both state and federal governments to keep Plan B from being sold over the counter. Yes, we do have the right to tell them what they have to dispense. Their lobbying allies insist on telling us we can't have needed drugs independent of pharmacists, then they don't get to deny women those same drugs. They brought this on themselves.
49
@46 I applaude you for your ability to make the act of praying for one's soul sound like a threat.
And the Atheist's argument completly circumvents the legality of the situation. I've got nothing but respect for a person who sticks to their religious practices but I can't respect it when it becomes a legal issue or harms another.
And the Atheist's argument completly circumvents the legality of the situation. I've got nothing but respect for a person who sticks to their religious practices but I can't respect it when it becomes a legal issue or harms another.
50
Hey Curtsip..
Totally dig the ZardOz avatar, man. Cuz, ya know: "The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!"
You were making a point without realizing it there homey.
Word.
Totally dig the ZardOz avatar, man. Cuz, ya know: "The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!"
You were making a point without realizing it there homey.
Word.
51
#49 So you would have had no respect for someone in the past who violated the law and stood up to slavery based on their religious views?
52
Hey Curtsip..
Totally dig the ZardOz avatar, man. Cuz, ya know: "The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!"
You were making a point without realizing it there homey!
Word.
Totally dig the ZardOz avatar, man. Cuz, ya know: "The gun is good. The penis is evil. The penis shoots seeds, and makes new life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was, but the gun shoots death, and purifies the Earth of the filth of brutals. Go forth ... and kill!"
You were making a point without realizing it there homey!
Word.
53
@48 - It has to be enough to make it possible for people to have access to contraception and other forms of without forcing people who have "moral" objections to be participate. So these guys are assholes who don't respect people's ability to make reproductive choices for themselves, why should progressives become assholes who try to force their will on other people? Just to make sure the assholes are absolutely right about us?
54
@49 i put it to you that your mythical person from the past would more likely be wearing a white hood.
55
if a pharmacist has a moral issue with Plan B, they probably shouldn't be a pharmacist. Their job is to fill prescriptions, not to judge other people's decisions. Lastly, Plan B is NOT an abortion pill. Why is that so difficult to understand?
56
#6, I'll tell you why. Maybe corporations are "people," but only individuals have "religious freedom," not buildings. This "building" is infringing on the rights of an individual.
57
"Conscience clauses" are now standard in red states. And it's only going to get worse. Look for church-operated private universities to launch pharmacy degree programs. Why? So they can churn out right wing assholes to work your local Walgreen's and make sure no women folk get any drugs they don't approve of. Lipscomb University here in Nashville is a Church of Christ affiliated school which just launched a pharmacy program, but other fundie schools are doing likewise.
58
@46: You truly sound truly pathetic, but then again, I really don't give a shit if you're right here with me when The End is near.
Hopefully you don't go by Harold Camping's prophecies.
Hopefully you don't go by Harold Camping's prophecies.
60
You lied in your story Cienna, I told you I could get Plan B order 12 the next day, nobody gets their drug orders 12 days later, everyone gets drug orders every day. The board of pharmacy just inspected us and never mentioned plan b, if it was truly mandated that we have it on our shelves then why were we not cited and docked points from our inspection grade? Because there is no mandate that we have it on our shelves. Like the law states we have to have a stock of what the community needs and we comply with that law to the letter. As I told you we do not stock it because there is no community need, our client base is elderly. I have worked there for 22 years and in all that time only have had one request for Plan B and ordered the product and dispensed it the next day no problem. The law intent is speaking of dispensing and refusing to dispense. That is a completely different issue than stocking a product. We do not refuse to dispense anything unless it is not a legal prescription or the dose would be dangerous to a person. No pharmacy can afford to stock all products available on the market. We also do not stock HIV or cancer medications because their costs are out of this world and we have no patient base for those products and from a business standpoint that is just dead money sitting on your store shelf. But thats not to say that if a person brought in a prescription for those items that we would deny filling them just because we did not have the product. We give them the option to order and get the next day or if it's an emergency call around to see who has it and have the store hold it for them and tell them the patient is on their way. This whole issue is so vitriolic on both sides it's ridiculous. The only questions we ever recieve on the product are from reporters on both sides of the extreme on the issue. It's a rare occation that a consumer calls with questions on the product and when a consumer calls and has an emergency we do what we did before Plan B ever was around. We ask them a whole bunch of personal questions and then ask if they have a parial pack or full pack of birth control pills in their possesion and 9 times out of 10 they do, we then give them the proper protocol for the morning after regimen that has been in place for decades and the same protocol the hospital uses when someone has been raped,The hospital gives them not plan b but pills out of pack of birth control pills and has them take the first round in front of them before they ever leave the hospital,then gives them the remaining pills with the directions on how to take the rest the following days. Plan B is not a necessary drug, it is just a money making machine for the drug company, there are many more cheaper alternatives that have been around for ever. And for that 1 person out of 10 that does not have a packet of pills lying around, there is also a protocol in place of stores that were specially trained to dispense the morning after regimen without a prescription, meaning the pharmacist has prescriptive authority to dispense whatever drug he has on hand to accomplish the stated goal and to properly councel the patient. We give them the list of pharmacies in their vacinity to go to and their phone numbers to call ahead. Access is not an issue. For the people who live in far off distant places they need to be pro-active with their health, just as they would want to prepare ahead for fire and rescue to get to them in an emergency if they live that far off from civilization they need to have a plan for contraception if they are of child bearing age. No reporter that has questioned me on the issue has ever reported honestly or accurately. No reporter has ever asked me my relgious stance or if we would dispense the product. They only ever ask if we stock it. A good reporter should ask if we would dispense it because that is the real issue. And we no longer need to dispense it because it no longer requires a prescription. So the question should be would we sell it to someone and the answer would be yes. And if you are in need and are on your 72 hours threshold of time I would go above and beyond what is required and find it for you. But it only seems todays reporters are of the extreme Left or Right and have their own agendas and lose sight of the real issue. The extreme right sends us nasty vitriolic letters and emails for selling the product and vows to boycott our business, and the extreme left sends us nasty vitriolic letters and emails for not stocking the product next to our condoms and vows to boycott our business. As a woman I am insulted on a daily basis by both extremes. And as a woman I am going to tell you right now we as women are not held down, held back, or underserved. And as a human being I'm not going to try to tell someone else how to think or feel or run their life or their business nor do I want the government to try to do the same to me. I am a strong woman and am raising my daughter to be strong also and take responsibility for her own actions, and to be independent and make things happen for herself. If a store doesnt carry a product I want, I ask the store if they would mind carring the product so I can purchase it and I have done this many times and have never been refused. But if it ever happens to me I will find another store that is willing. It's not the end of the world.
So Cienna If you are not an honest true reporter, but aspire to be, then I would ask you to really do some more research on the subject with an objective non judemental mindset. Research the pharmacy law and lingo so you know the appropriate questions to ask. If you really want to be a consumer advocate interview those people who had those bad expierinces at those particular pharmacies, then with the proper facts recreate the scenario and go to that pharmacist and see how you are treated. Undercover is what I am getting at. Then armed with the evidence file a complaint to the board of pharmacy to move to have that pharmacist license suspended. That is the only way to get rid of some nutball pharmacist who has no business in the practice of pharmacy. Which I can assure you nutballs like that are few and far between but need to have their licenses removed for the safety of the public. The dept. of health can't act by word alone they have to have clear and convincing evidence of law breaking and a hand written complaint form to take action. And in this day and age of internet, phone cameras and video I don't think it would be hard to catch a nutball in action. Thank you for listening to my gibberish. Geraldine.
More...
So Cienna If you are not an honest true reporter, but aspire to be, then I would ask you to really do some more research on the subject with an objective non judemental mindset. Research the pharmacy law and lingo so you know the appropriate questions to ask. If you really want to be a consumer advocate interview those people who had those bad expierinces at those particular pharmacies, then with the proper facts recreate the scenario and go to that pharmacist and see how you are treated. Undercover is what I am getting at. Then armed with the evidence file a complaint to the board of pharmacy to move to have that pharmacist license suspended. That is the only way to get rid of some nutball pharmacist who has no business in the practice of pharmacy. Which I can assure you nutballs like that are few and far between but need to have their licenses removed for the safety of the public. The dept. of health can't act by word alone they have to have clear and convincing evidence of law breaking and a hand written complaint form to take action. And in this day and age of internet, phone cameras and video I don't think it would be hard to catch a nutball in action. Thank you for listening to my gibberish. Geraldine.
RSS
Twitter
Comments (60) RSS