I think most of the readers here agree that a pharmacist who refuses to dispense Plan B, when company policy does not allow for such refusal, is failing to do their job and should either quit or be fired. This doesn’t address the question of company policies against selling Plan B.

People have argued both that it’s the obligation of a pharmacy to dispense any medicine a doctor prescribes, and that stores should not be forced to stock products their owners have moral objections to (with the analogy of the vegan supermarket). Both these ideas are valid, and I think I see a way to combine them.

Would it be possible to legislate so that a pharmacy that refused to dispense Plan B would be vulnerable to false-advertising charges, by legally defining a pharmacy as dispensing (either stocking or being willing to order) anything a doctor prescribes? Stores that wouldn’t sell Plan B (or any other medicine they objected to) would be allowed to operate - they just wouldn’t be allowed to call themselves pharmacies, and would have to advertise with something like “We provide limited pharmacuetical services” instead.

To tie into the ‘vegan supermarket’ analogy - the situation would be similar to a law saying “any supermarket that doesn’t sell meat must include the term ‘vegitarian’ in their name”. There are some obvious problems but I thitnk it could be workable.

Are pharmacist’s refusing to perscribe the pill, if it’s being taken for non-contraceptive reasons (i.e. to stop painful periods, acne etc) ?

Pharmacists don’t prescribe medicine. They fill prescriptions given to patients by Doctors. By refusing to fill a legal prescription, regardless of why it was prescribed, a pharmacist is involving them self in a doctor-patient relationship.That is not their job or place. Their job is to fill legal prescriptions and inform the customer of possible drug interactions. It is not their job to pass moral judgement on medical treatment. And if they can’t or won’t do their job, they need to find another line of work.

Excuse my lack of understanding but how does allowiung a hospital to formulate its own policy vis a vis contraception violate the separation of church and state?

Because part of state sanctioning is the public reassurance that said medical folks have met the standards required and are committed to upholding those standards to ensure good health care.

Dispensing moralistic or religious advice or judgement is NOT covered under this state sanctioning, and their asses should be on the line for dereliction of duty when such occurs. I go to my doctor with the full expectation that my health care is their first priority, and that moralizing on their part will not affect any information or decision making that comes my way.

The pharmacist as well has a medical role to fulfill. They are there to make sure that medications I might take congruently don’t have bad affects. They are there to make sure that past allergies are remembered when prescriptions occur to ensure my health won’t be at risk. What they aren’t there is to decide which medical care via prescription is moral for me to receive or not.

“Doesn’t the US constitution have an explicit separation of the state and the church? Excuse my lack of understanding as to what this means but I can’t see why an institution that requires a state licence (hospital or pharmacist) is allowed to restrict legal services based on religious concepts?”

Uh- the fact that the state licenses something doesn’t mean that the state owns it. Excuse my lack of understanding but how does allowiung a hospital to formulate its own policy vis a vis contraception violate the separation of church and state?

This is what I dislike about liberals. I thought separation of church and state means that the church does not impose its beliefs on people through the government, and the government leaves the church alone. Liberals think that separation of church and state means that the government has the power to restrict the church in whatever way it wants and the church can’t complain. In other words, they see separation of church and state and secular governemnt as meaning not that the government must not be neutral toward religion, but actively anti-religion.

VK:

“Would you take [male birth control]? Would you support allowing people to refuse to dispense it for religious reasons?”

I probably wouldn’t if it worked after fertilization. As for allowing people to refuse to dispense it, I believe that whoever owns the pharmacy has the right to determine what drugs his pharmacy caries and what drugs it doesn’t. This applies if it is cold medicine or if it is birth control. The pharmacist should have to dispense whatever the pharmacy tells him to or they can fire him.

Seems not many have it, and even fewer without restrictions, but its not a universal no.

Glaivester:
I’ve heard that argument before but don’t understand it. Conception, in medical terms occurs when the blastocyst implants. It is not viable until implanted (hence the start of pregnancy). How do you make an argument that pregnancy begins at fertilization if the zygote is not viable (and frequently fails to implant)? Is the arguement solely on religious grounds? Not trying to be critical, just want to understand…

What if a religious group wants to start a religious hospital with its own pharmacy (say a Catholic hospital)? I don’t think it is right to force them to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do so.

Doesn’t the US constitution have an explicit separation of the state and the church? Excuse my lack of understanding as to what this means but I can’t see why an institution that requires a state licence (hospital or pharmacist) is allowed to restrict legal services based on religious concepts?

(And it seems somewhat ironic that here in the UK where we have an official state religion that the church has an almost negligible impact on politics…)

No plan B.

(It’s as if they were Catholic or something!)

Have you seen this ? It suggests writing to pharmacetical companies and telling them you would support continued development in these areas.

What if they developed a male pill, that mainly stops sperm production, as a secondary effect deforms them so they can’t penetrate the egg’s outer layer, and possibly deforms the fertilised egg so it cannot implant as easily (but is fine once it does implant). To make a complete parallel, suppose one side says that it is an abortifact because it harms fertilised eggs, and so phramacists are right not to give it to you, and are legistrating to make it more difficult for you to get it, but the other side claims the third effect simply does not happen.

Would you take it? Would you support allowing people to refuse to dispense it for religious reasons?

But I don’t think it’s fair to essentially force Catholic hospitals to either close or abandon Catholicism.

Agreed. Is it fair to allow these hospitals to impose their religious belief on others, by refusing to offer certain treatments, or by refusing to refer someone to another hospital for those treatments, or even to tell them those treatments exist?

Okay, let’s go over this one more time:

The reason people see Plan B as an abortifacient is that in some cases it prevents implantation rather than ovulation. A large number of people see fertilization, not implantation, as defining conception. And the snarky comment in an earlier post “They think pregnancy starts when you think about having sex” is of course ridiculous. (If that were the case, then the Religious Right would be telling people that once they think about sex they need to have it). You may disagree with that position, but there it is.

I’m uncomfortable with the idea of post-fertilization birth control myself, although I haven’t formed a definite opinion on it, and would not seek to ban it. Fortunately, I have managed to avoid worrying about the situation in my personal life by avoiding sex (I’m a 26-year-old male).

Actually, I’d really like to see a male pill (actually a patch would be better) come out, as any male-oriented birth control would avoid such concerns.

In any case, my main concern in terms of conscience clauses isn’t about secular pharmacies. My main concern is what if a religious group wants to start a religious hospital with its own pharmacy (say a Catholic hospital)? I don’t think it is right to force them to abandon their religious beliefs in order to do so. (Admittedly, I’m not certain of the policy in most Catholic hospitals today).

I do agree that if there are pharmacies who don’t fill certain prescriptions, they should be clearly identified so that people won’t be blindsided when they try to fill a prescription. But I don’t think it’s fair to essentially force Catholic hospitals to either close or abandon Catholicism.

If you believe pharmacists to be middlemen who can intelligently be classified, along with clerks and truck drivers, as simply part of the distribution network for a product whose decision characteristics are outside the distribution network, then I assume you now agree with libertarians that pharmacists should not be regulated as professionals by the state.

As a theater owner or producer, you decide not to hire the orthodox for economic reasons. That’s your privilege, of course. But you COULD hire the orthodox if you wanted to - and you might voluntarily bear the costs of that. For example, you might not have shows on Friday night and Saturday. Would that be your privilege as the business owner?

Only in your conception of their actions, Amanda. They aren’t going out and telling reporters that women should be punished for sex, or that sex without pregnancy is evil, or any of the other themes being promulgated here. They just don’t morally approve of a particular drug treatment, and they don’t want to be associated with its distribution. That’s pretty much exactly what Jesus would tell someone to do in their circumstance.

So Jesus would tell the pharmacist not to sell the drugs, but tell the clerk to shut up and do what they’re told because they’re only a functionary, and not acting in a professional role?

Ampersand, who decides whether to hire the orthodox Jew for the Broadway show? The legislature, or the producer of the play?

The producer of the play. And, in my proposed system, the owner of the pharmacy decides who to hire, as well. So what’s the problem?

Let’s put it anther way. Let’s say that the legislature requires all pyrotechnics set off inside a theater to be overseen at every performance by a licensed pyrotechnician. As it happens, I’m putting on a production of “The Phantom of Miss Saigon’s Cats,” which is famous for substituting explosions for a decent score.

Am I going to hire a frum Jewish pyrotechnician? Probably not, because I’ve got at least two and perhaps three performances a week she can’t attend, and it’s cheaper for me to hire a single pyrotechnician who can oversee all the shows.

Are the liscensing requirements for theater owners anti-Semitic? No, they aren’t. Is this a case of the legislature saying “theater owners can’t hire frum Jewish pryotechs?” No, it’s not.

* * *

By the way, I agree with everyone else here that there’s no logical reason to let a pharmacist follow his conscience but not a clerk. In either case, they’re middlemen. (Middlefolks?)

Aren’t these pharmacists violating Jesus’ instructions not to judge lest you be judged yourself, anyway?

yes, but that’s not the issue, at least now, in post martin luther christianity. see, in catholicism, the preists interpret the bible, and the word of jesus, and spread it to the faithful. in the protestant denominations, each individual has their own bible, and is free to intrepret it, and the word of jesus, as they see fit. that way, they can pick and choose what words they like for themselves, what words are only for others, and what words to discard.

I don’t understand why unskilled/semi-skilled workers don’t get to have a conscience. Why does a pharmacist, arguably a less-skilled worker than a doctor (at least when it comes to making medical/treatment decisions), get to veto a doctor’s orders, while a clerk couldn’t do the same?

Right on the money here. We’re talking about a moral qualm that is causing these pharmacists to not dispense drugs, not a health related qualm. Clerks, and even truck drivers may well have such qualms as well.

I think if we go so far as to enact a bill such as described, we should also make people wear public taggings that show whether they are pro or anti choice so when I get back into the work force I can exercise my right of moral objection to not provide any services to people that are anti-choice, or those that would proliferate anti-choice messages. Considering I’m going to school to be a teacher, all that would require is having all children of pro-choice folks in my classroom. Right?

There is a perfectly simple solution to this conflict.

Yes. Fire pharmacists who overrule a doctors medical advice. They’re the same as cashier clerks, as far as I’m concerned, and neither deserves to overrule a doctor.