Pharmacist Sue over Morning After Pill

Remove all ads!

NOG and LKD,

I have a question for both of you. Are you siding with the pharmacist because you actually agree that any pharmacy has the right to chose what drugs it will carry, or is it because the specific drug in question is the Morning After Pill?

Following your logic, pharmacies would be greatly deregulated from their present state. Any phamacy would be allowed to decide to not carry any drug for any reason. If we allow religious based reasons, we'd have to allow other reasons as well.

If you come down with the flu and get a prescription from your doctor, I'd imagine that you'd be pretty annoyed if you showed up at the pharmacy and the pharmacist told you they couldn't fill the prescription because the owner decided to not carry that flu medication.

Another pharmacy would not actually be denying grandma her heart medication - she could order it via the internet or go elsewhere. You may find these examples ridiculous, but it is what your proposal could theoretically lead to.

We have the FDA, which already leads to making drugs that are considered safe elsewhere become available much later in the US. That same organization is also the reason why we can't import "substandard" drugs from Canada. I, for one, certainly don't want another layer of red tape to bar me from getting whatever drug I need.

Hmmm... don't pharmacies sell cigarettes? You'd think if they were that concerned over the value of human life they wouldn't... I wonder if the grocery store/pharmacy in question sold cigarettes (and the answer is almost certainly yes). Certainly, the number of people who die each year from cigarettes has to be far greater than the number of fertilized eggs that fail to implant through use of the morning after pill.

 

Actually, Aldeth, in one of my earlier posts I believe I said that I have no problem, personally, with the morning after pill. If I were a pharmacist I would cheerfully sell it. To me, it's not about that at all. It's about a citizen's right not to be involved with something that THEY feel is morally wrong. I disagree with them, and if, as Chandos says, they lose business for their moral stance, then that's the price they pay for it.

But they should not be subject to LEGAL sanction for following their conscience, especially when in this day and age their decision is not likely to stop the customer in question from getting hold of the medicine in an alternate location (examples of isolated communities notwithstanding.)

 

I think the solution is simple: it should be up to the owner of the store, or the corporate policy in the case of a chain store. If corporate policy allows franchise owners to determine whether or not they want to sell a particular drug, then it's their prerogative not to make the MAP available. But if they do, and an employee refuses to sell it, then they do so at the peril of their employment. Their job is to sell the product made available by the business, not make moral choices for their customers. If a McDonald's employee was a vegetarian and refused to sell Big Macs on moral grounds, then the management would be well within their rights to sack her, too.

When I lived in Utah as a teenager, my first job was as a busboy at Sizzler (chain family restaurant). The head cook was a friend of mine, and older than two of the managers by a few years. He'd passed up a management position three times because of their alcohol policy. In the state of Utah at the time, for whatever reason, when a Sizzler customer ordered beer or wine (the only alcohol available at Sizzler), only the managers could deliver the drinks to the table because they hired waiters who were below the legal drinking age of 21, and thus could not serve alcohol. As a devout Mormon, he objected to the serving of alcohol and thus chose to remain as a cook for far less pay and much more stinkiness. I thought it was lame, but I respected his decision on principle. He didn't kick up a big fuss and try to change store policy, he simply kept the issue to himself. Eventually he went on to open his own family restaurant, which was several times better than Sizzler anyway. Of course, it was a dry establishment.

The reaction to this line of thinking may be that a pharmacist has gone his whole career selling products he's comfortable with, and now feels that he's being forced to sell something he considers immoral. If that's how he feels, then since the problem is his, he should try to find employment at another pharmacy that shares his views - as there are plenty here in the states who are refusing to stock the MAP. The pharmacy who chooses to sell the MAP is well within their rights to do so and are doing nothing wrong. The pharmacist has made it his problem, therefore any changes being made should be his.

 

This is completely but I'd like to point out that Utah is rather odd if the state law requires you to be 21 to serve alcohol. While the legal drinking age across the country is 21, most (and before DR's post I had assumed all) states will allow you to serve alcohol (even though you can't drink it) when you are 18. My youngest brother actually serves drinks at a local restaurant, and he is 19.

 

I agree with about 90% of what you are saying, DR, but if the system that the pharmacist has been a part of for years has changed, he has every right to protest those changes -- it's not just "his problem" that the country has swung to the left. If the country were to take a sudden swing to the right, no one would begrudge the leftists protesting the change and trying to roll it back.

 

If everyone in his profession were forced to sell the MAP, I would agree with you. But they're not. It's not about swinging left or right. Also, there's always going to be begrudgers when anyone tries to institute or roll back change, left OR right. (Incidently, I think the Morning After Pill controversy is more of a science vs. misinformation issue than a left vs. right issue, but that's for another topic.)

Pharmacies, at least here in the states, are only regulated by the government - they aren't run by them. They're not required to stock certain drugs, only required to ensure the safety and quality of the drugs they provide. Sure he can protest, but no one is forcing his hand. If he agrees to work there, then he agrees to sell what they stock - period. He can try to convince his boss not to carry the MAP, but if he fails to provide a compelling reason for his boss to change course or the boss' hands are tied by his corporate parent, then it sucks for the pharmacist - but it's still his problem and he should work someplace else, just like any other profession that enacts a policy that a minority of employees decide they can't live with.

Edit: I definitely see your point though, LKD, and I do sympathize with the plight of those involved. I just don't totally agree with the way they're going about it. Just wanted to make that clear.

[ August 08, 2007, 21:07: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Now it's getting interesting. If this is true:

Then if the pharmacists run their own business then this is a non-issue, they are not required to stock the MAP. End of story.

However, if they are mere employees of a chain or franchise holders, then I totally agree that they have no right to say they will not sell a legal product that their corporate superiors want them to sell.

That said, surely there is a compromise to be had -- as was mentioned in an earlier article, perhaps they could be excused from handling the stuff -- a co-worker could do it for them, for example. If they are still adamant and will accept no compromise, then they can seek employment at a pharmacy that more closely mirrors their religious beliefs.

 

I can't wait to see what happens if and when we get some Christian Scientist pharmacists.

Or whatever the name of that group which thinks healing comes only from God, not man & medicine, is.

 

The issue of who employs the pharmacist and looking for another workplace is a non-issue, as the store owners supported the pharmacists' decision. The issue is if the business owner, be it the pharmacist, the grocery store owner, or a national chain franchise, should be forced to stock particular drugs.

Aldeth, I would feel the same way if this was Ritalin or Morphine. This is a basic principle of people being able to run their own lives (and businesses) within safe limits. The law could not force you to drive a certain amount of distance or more weekly, nor could it force you to upgrade your computers to Vista, so it should not force you to sell certain products. Remember, the point of the law is to protect the public (in theory at least). Tell me how this would protect the public and I may just agree with you.

Note: The government has in the past interfered with how people run their businesses on more that just basic safety issues, like price fixing and rationing, but these were done in times of crisis only, and only as emergency measures.

 

LKD:

So the govt. shouldn't have the right to regulate private businesses who performing an important service for the community?

 

Sorry DR, but that simply isn't true. If it was, this case wouldn't be heading to court, because, as NOG correctly points out, the owners support the pharmicists. The very first sentence of the article I posted says:

(Bold type added by me.) While I cannot claim to be familiar with what a pharmacy has to go through to get certified, I think they actually are required to stock a quite lengthly list of drugs. I'm sure that if a shipment gets delayed that there may be instances where they don't have a certain drug on hand, but I do not think they are able to have a policy in place that says, "We won't sell this drug."

 

Hmm. I suppose I stand corrected then, though I don't think the mandate is national. Remember that Washington is a very left-leaning state, so I don't find it a surprise in their case. I admit I didn't read your article. If all pharmacists in the state are indeed mandated to carry the MAP, then I agree that they do have a case. I just hope they don't build momentum and try to take this to the extreme of preventing it from being sold in the state at all.

 

AMaster,
I can't wait for scented fetishes against unwanted pregnancies. Of course they won't work, which is the sole point

 

I've mostly stayed out of this thread, but have been following it with great interest. After a lot of thought, it seems to me that this all boils down to one question. Are pharmacists public servants? If pharmacists are public servants, then they should be required to fill any and all subscriptions which come their way regardless of their personal convictions in much the same way that a Doctor isn't allowed to just flatly deny treatment to, say, a prostitute, a pimp, or a politician.

If, on the other hand, pharmacists are nothing more than private business owners, then they are free to follow their consciences as they see fit.

 

Drew, that is a good point, but I think the doctor analogy is a bit off. While the doctor couldn't refuse a heart-attack patient because he/she is a whatever, they can refuse non-life threatening cases. If the pharmacist is a 'public servant' in the same way a doctor is, then they still have the right to refuse service on non-life threatening cases. If they are a public servant in the same way a police officer is, or a fire fighter, or a judge, then they must provide the drug.

Given that the state doesn't employ the pharmacists, however, I think it is safe to say that the pharmacist is no more a public servant than a private practice doctor is, though he may well be less so.

 

And, when they do so, they can and have been successfully sued for discrimination.

 

@drew, okay lets see the proof of that last statement, as i think it is total BS

 

Well, I'm not going to search back through years of articles on the internet. It's too damn hard to get anything but current events when searching for lawsuits that don't involve celebrities. However, here's a current example of exactly what I'm talking about.

Original article. Last I checked, if you get someone to settle when you sue them, that's considered a success.

 

Interesting. Fertility treatment for lesbians is legal in United States then? Or is that just in the state of California? In Finland they recieved the right only a year ago or so.

 

@Morgoroth: More than just CA, but it does depend on the state. Given that the state of Texas will take your kids away if you are gay, I imagine they don't allow lesbians access to fertility treatment, for example.