No Birth Control for You! (1 Viewer)

[walrus]

In case the text didn't convey it well enough - the title of this thread was meant to be read in the voice of the "Soup Nazi" from Seinfeld -

This incident happened locally but it is my understanding that it has happened throughout the country. A woman went to a Walgreens pharmacy to fill a prescription for birth control. According to the woman's own statement, the (female) pharmacist politely told her that she could not fill that prescription on moral grounds. She told the customer that another pharmacist would be in shortly and that he could fill it, or she could call her prescription in to another pharmacy. The woman is now outraged, litigious, and promoting a law requiring pharmacists to fill all legal prescriptions put before them.

What do you think?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

How are perscription birth control pills against anyone's morals?

I wouldn't mind a law requiring pharmacists to fill perscriptions, but all in all I'm fairly indifferent.

 

[Fantasea]

In case the text didn't convey it well enough - the title of this thread was meant to be read in the voice of the "Soup Nazi" from Seinfeld -

This incident happened locally but it is my understanding that it has happened throughout the country. A woman went to a Walgreens pharmacy to fill a prescription for birth control. According to the woman's own statement, the (female) pharmacist politely told her that she could not fill that prescription on moral grounds. She told the customer that another pharmacist would be in shortly and that he could fill it, or she could call her prescription in to another pharmacy. The woman is now outraged, litigious, and promoting a law requiring pharmacists to fill all legal prescriptions put before them.

What do you think?

Perhaps the pharmacist felt that she was entitled to exercise her first amendment freedom. Can we expect the ACLU to weigh in on this?

 

[26 X World Champs]

Perhaps the pharmacist felt that she was entitled to exercise her first amendment freedom. Can we expect the ACLU to weigh in on this?

Great logic, again! So if a pharmacist is against certain medications she has the right to not dispense them? Anyone who would support depriving anyone of any prescription is living in a sick Fantasea world....

 

[ludahai]

How are perscription birth control pills against anyone's morals?

I wouldn't mind a law requiring pharmacists to fill perscriptions, but all in all I'm fairly indifferent.

Because for some people, birth control pills violate their religious principles. The Catholic Church teaches that the use of birth control pills are a moral wrong. I happen to agree with that position.

Great logic, again! So if a pharmacist is against certain medications she has the right to not dispense them? Anyone who would support depriving anyone of any prescription is living in a sick Fantasea world....

This isn't like most other prescriptions which are designed to cure someone from some kind of illness. This inteferes with the natural order of the creation of human life. This is something that is a violation of the moral belief of millions of Americans. Should someone be driven out of a profession that they have trained for and perhaps even love because they have a moral objection to one class of medication? There are plenty of other pharmicists who WILL fill out the prescription. Let them fill it!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

How are perscription birth control pills against anyone's morals?

It's not just Catholics who have reservations about certain forms of birth control. I suupose that someone in the pharmacists' position might equate it with you being asked to help support war.

I wouldn't mind a law requiring pharmacists to fill perscriptions, but all in all I'm fairly indifferent.

So if a pharmacist is against certain medications she has the right to not dispense them? Anyone who would support depriving anyone of any prescription is living in a sick Fantasea world....

This is a tricky situation. In general, I'd say that someone's right to observe their religious conviction would outweigh someone's need for The Pill. Yet, the issue has further ramifications than just bc.

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Perhaps the pharmacist felt that she was entitled to exercise her first amendment freedom. Can we expect the ACLU to weigh in on this?

Great logic, again! So if a pharmacist is against certain medications she has the right to not dispense them? Anyone who would support depriving anyone of any prescription is living in a sick Fantasea world....

Why not? The pharmacist was not placing the woman's life in danger.

Hospital personnel who are not Pro-Death can't be forced to participate in abortion procedures.

Depending on ones philosophical leanings, Wal-Mart either practices censorship or exercises its first amendment rights in refusing to sell CDs it had deemed to be offensive.

Why should anyone be forced to act against his conscience?

 

[akyron]

Why not? The pharmacist was not placing the woman's life in danger.

Hospital personnel who are not Pro-Death can't be forced to participate in abortion procedures.

Depending on ones philosophical leanings, Wal-Mart either practices censorship or exercises its first amendment rights in refusing to sell CDs it had deemed to be offensive.

Why should anyone be forced to act against his conscience?

They should not. They could work somewhere else. An alternative would be to just hang a sign:

We reserve the right to refuse service.

 

[shuamort]

Why not? The pharmacist was not placing the woman's life in danger.

Hospital personnel who are not Pro-Death can't be forced to participate in abortion procedures.

Depending on ones philosophical leanings, Wal-Mart either practices censorship or exercises its first amendment rights in refusing to sell CDs it had deemed to be offensive.

Why should anyone be forced to act against his conscience?

You'll have to remind us all how these pharmacists were FORCED to work these jobs.

 

[Fu_chick]

Perhaps the pharmacist felt that she was entitled to exercise her first amendment freedom. Can we expect the ACLU to weigh in on this?

There is no such thing as freedom of speech in a private business. I would be livid if that happened to me. If she has such a problem dispensing certain meds, then maybe she is in the wrong business. If someone has such an issue with it they either need to have a second pharmacist with them at all times who CAN fill the subscription, or they need to to find somewhere else to work. I have always used Walgreen's, but if one of their people pulled that crap they would at the VERY least they would b getting a nasty letter from me.

 

[Schweddy]

1. This was not birth control pills - this was morning after pills.
2. What if she was Muslim and not Catholic?
3. There are plenty of other places to get it filled, if she just "could not wait" a few minutes.
4. I support her descision. The person behind the counter told her why she would not, the other was being demanding.
5. Private workplaces can do this. But, at the same time she can be fired if Walgreens has issue with it.

 

[Fu_chick]

1. This was not birth control pills - this was morning after pills.
2. What if she was Muslim and not Catholic?

Again, if she can't handle dispensing meds, she shouldn't be in the business. Unless there are going to be 2 people on at all times or there is going to be a sign posted warning customers that there is a chance that they might not be served at all, she should have to get over it and dispense the medication. When she was going through school to become a pharmacist she KNEW this would be a possibility.

 

[shuamort]

1. This was not birth control pills - this was morning after pills.

True, but some pharmacists also are abstaining from selling birth control pills as well.Pharmacist Neil Noesen refused to fill a prescription for contraceptives while working at a retail pharmacy in Menomonie, Wis., and then refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacist

2. What if she was Muslim and not Catholic?

Insanity runs across the whole religious and non-religious spectrum.

3. There are plenty of other places to get it filled, if she just "could not wait" a few minutes.

True, but what if the Dr. had moral objections to things like insulin? A diabetic's life can be contingent on these things.

4. I support her descision. The person behind the counter told her why she would not, the other was being demanding.

You mean, if you go to McDonald's and the person behind the counter is a PETA nut, that you'd consider yourself to be demanding when asking for a Double McCheese?

5. Private workplaces can do this. But, at the same time she can be fired if Walgreens has issue with it.

Wrong. Several states have already enacted laws protecting pharmacists who choose their morals over their work duty. That ignores private enterprise if you ask me and forces employers to lose money especially if they disagree with the pharmacist's position. I hate the fact that a state can legislate it so that a person who is not doing their job can't be fired.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

There is no such thing as freedom of speech in a private business.

I think that the part of the first ammendment referred to is the one that relates to religion, not speech. the implication being that teh pharm had religious issues with the effects of the medication.

 

[Fu_chick]

So if a Muslim woman works at a clothing store, should she be able to refuse to sell revealing clothing? Should Jewish waitresses refuse to serve pork? Should a Baptist working at a grocery store refuse to sell ANYONE alcohol?

There is a difference between expressing ones religion and infringing on others.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So if a Muslim woman works at a clothing store, should she be able to refuse to sell revealing clothing? Should Jewish waitresses refuse to serve pork? Should a Baptist working at a grocery store refuse to sell ANYONE alcohol?

The question is whether or not they should be made to do so by law.
I think that the rights of a business owner to employ people who will sell his wares should be respected. I think that people with particular objections should not place themselves in jobs where they will be asked to do things they find morally objectionable.
But, given a choice between upholding someone's right to adhere to their religious beliefs and someone else having to wait a few niutes until another pharmacist or clerk can come to take care of a request, I'll prob'ly always see the few minutes wait as the lesser of the two.
Freedom of religion is an important issue. It must be respected even though it may sometimes mean a few moments' inconvenience while shopping.

There is a difference between expressing ones religion and infringing on others.

Certainly. However, I don't think that there is a right to be served by a specific or particular clerk or pharmacist.

 

[Fu_chick]

But don't Catholics (for example) believe that THEY shouldn't be taking birth control? How does that translate to restricting others?

I do believe that unless there is some legitimate MEDICAL reason, pharmacists should have to dispense meds. If they don't like it, switch professions.

 

[Schweddy]

You mean, if you go to McDonald's and the person behind the counter is a PETA nut, that you'd consider yourself to be demanding when asking for a Double McCheese?

Absolutely. I ask, if they say they won't - I do the human thing and go elsewhere. It's thier business. How do I have a say in how they run thier show? I didn't say it was the smartest choice, but they do indeed HAVE that choice.

Wrong. Several states have already enacted laws protecting pharmacists who choose their morals over their work duty. That ignores private enterprise if you ask me and forces employers to lose money especially if they disagree with the pharmacist's position. I hate the fact that a state can legislate it so that a person who is not doing their job can't be fired.

I agree'd until the last sentence. You say this as though a pharmacist is a social worker or some kind of hero - they are not.

Hypothetical - If a pharmacy only sold 'morning after pills' and a worker refused to sell them. It would be just silly to hire them in the first place. But, if it is a true pharmacy, they sell and have plenty of stuff to do while someone else whom doesn't have that core conviction sells the product.

I just do not see how a person can DEMAND a product be sold to them. That is proposterous! If its an insolin thing, like an example given, then they should be liable for failing to render aid if that person was to die or something tragic happen to them.

 

[shuamort]

Absolutely. I ask, if they say they won't - I do the human thing and go elsewhere. It's thier business. How do I have a say in how they run thier show? I didn't say it was the smartest choice, but they do indeed HAVE that choice.

You mean, you wouldn't mention it to the manager that one of their employees wasn't willing to sell their product?

I agree'd until the last sentence. You say this as though a pharmacist is a social worker or some kind of hero - they are not.

Hypothetical - If a pharmacy only sold 'morning after pills' and a worker refused to sell them. It would be just silly to hire them in the first place. But, if it is a true pharmacy, they sell and have plenty of stuff to do while someone else whom doesn't have that core conviction sells the product.

I just do not see how a person can DEMAND a product be sold to them. That is proposterous! If its an insolin thing, like an example given, then they should be liable for failing to render aid if that person was to die or something tragic happen to them.

It's not that birth control is used solely for birth control either. There are several other symptoms and diseases that a woman may have that require them to take birth control. PMS, Severe cramps, or endometriosis are three that come to mind and have nothing to do with "the sanctity of life" but the health of the patient.

 

[Schweddy]

You mean, you wouldn't mention it to the manager that one of their employees wasn't willing to sell their product?

Of course I would complain to the manager. But, I would not DEMAND it be sold to me. If they don't want to sell thier product - I will go elsewhere.

It's not that birth control is used solely for birth control either. There are several other symptoms and diseases that a woman may have that require them to take birth control. PMS, Severe cramps, or endometriosis are three that come to mind and have nothing to do with "the sanctity of life" but the health of the patient.

Excellent retort. :applaud

 

[Mixed View]

You shouldn't force people to sign something. That just seems wrong. I agree that if a doctor has the choice to give an abortion or not that a pharasist should have the same choice for signing off birth control. I'm not completly against birth control. I'm for it when a girl gets raped, but if you choose to have sex, make the guy wear a condom. It's pretty simple people. Maybe there wouldn't be such a problem if people weren't so freakin lazy!

 

[Fu_chick]

Pssst--condoms are a form of birth control.

 

[Mixed View]

psssst--but they don't kill the feotus

 

[Fu_chick]

:roll: If you're going to discuss birth control, it might help if you actually KNEW WHAT IT WAS.

But they do kill sperm! Who will stand up for the rights of the sperm? WHO?

 

[Fantasea]

You'll have to remind us all how these pharmacists were FORCED to work these jobs.

Well, I guess that the pharmacist could always give up her professional license and become a lap dancer.