what are your thoughts on this news story?


Druggist refuses to give out pill

Another ludicrous "politically correct" activity.

Riddle me this Joker: Why the HELL did that person become a pharmacist if they knew they would be dispensing those kinds of drugs.

Are they also going to refuse to fill Oxy-Contin, because it leads to drug abuse? Are they going to refuse to dispense mood altering drugs because it might lead to suicide?

Get the hell out of the business if you have a problem with it.

Quoting from our friend Greedy:

ASSHATS!

for real Yoss! I know of a similar instance- a person I know of that is a family doctor, will not write a script for a patient who is requesting birth control. The doc is Catholic & therefore it's against her beliefs.

Very bad trend! They want to make abortions illegal, and now they want to let people refuse to allow you to protect yourself from becoming pregnant? C'mon, now!

I'm sure that if I was a young woman and I told my husband that he couldn't have any sex because the pharmacist didn't believe in birth control, he would be perfectly willing to accept that explanation and do without! Maybe the fuss that will end up being raised over this issue will be more from men than women - men tend to get a bit aggravated when they don't get what they consider is their "quota" of sex.

Since my father tried to make me into a Catholic, he never explained the "whys" behind some of their silly policies. But somebody told me that the reason that Catholics don't believe in birth control is because they were being killed so often that they needed to have more babies to increase or sustain their population. I don't see anybody being thrown to lions anymore; they need to change that attitude.

I'm sure there are "a number" of ob/gyn's who refuse to perform abortions.

My question is why would you want to go into a profession that you, for reasons ad infinitum, would refuse to perform the work of that profession?

What's next, Christian Scientist Paramedics?
Mormon Police Officers?
Amish Truck Drivers?
Buddist Poker Players?

I just gotta shake my head at all this.

Would you folks want to require that every doctor with the ability to do so agree to perform abortions? Or perform purely cosmetic plastic surgery (say, breast or lip augmentation) on anyone who wants it and could legally receive it, even if that might be a 12 year old girl?

In a different vein, would you criticize a SPCA worker who would do everything but refuse to euthanize animals?

Amish truck driver - good one!

Well, CVS is a pretty large chain, so chances are, that person is either no longer employed by CVS, or if it's a large enough store, no longer assigned those types of prescriptions to fill. I doubt CVS is going to let one person who performs his job duties in accordance with his personal beliefs impact or potenially impact their ability to make money. I would think that a pharmacist is a highly sought-after person, so they probably won't have any trouble finding a new job, hopefully in a town full of post-menopausal women.

BMIC, I understand how you feel on the subject I brought up, but as a woman, I don't think it's at all fair of "the system". Try to put yourself in a woman's shoes for a minute: if some people had their way, abortions would be illegal for anybody, but that's OK, because she is on birth control pills, and takes them religously in order to prevent that eventuality. However, her pharmacist decides to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills based on his conscience, and won't give her back her prescription so she can get it filled elsewhere. So, she goes home with the intention that she'll call the doctor in the morning, explain the situation, and ask for another prescription. However, when she walks thru the door, she's got a horny husband on her hands. So now what? Despite her best efforts to prevent a pregnancy that she does not want, she's screwed in every sense of the word. If she turns her husband down, he's not at all pleasant to live with, and if she doesn't, she could get pregnant.

Now you can say that "it's God's will", but it isn't - it's the pharmacist's will, and he's not the one who's going to be around to help raise the child that she was trying so hard not to have to begin with. Basically, it's another way that men have refused to allow a woman to determine her own future.

So, maybe I could drive the wrong way down a one-way street, and it would be OK because I don't believe in driving the way they want me to?

This pharmacist must have been looking for attention, otherwise he wouldn't have done that, and I'd be interested to see whether the woman sues CVS - I think she has every reason to.

oh for crying out loud BMIC!
Did you take a freakin' college course to learn that?

Twisting People's Words 101.

You've indicated, I believe, that you're in biomedical research. Forgive me if I have that wrong, but I think that's true.

Would you refuse to do a certain kind of research that was required of you, if it went against your "christian" principles? And if so, would you still expect to be employed?

BTW, no, I wouldn't want just ANY doctor to be required to perform that procedure.

I've no intention of laying out my principles... but I will say this:

I can understand, in a way, simply because I would never do a job that I considered immoral, nor would I complete a task that went against my basic value system.

If, for example, my boss asked me to do something I considered immoral--even if it were legal--I would refuse.

However, if that particular task was a requirement of my job, I would also expect to get fired.

<shrugs> I guess, as a hippie-type activist, it pleases me to see someone stand up for their values, whether I agree with those values or not. Seems like so many people take the path of least resistance these days.... but I digress.

The thing is, what many men don't realize is that birth control pills aren't solely taken for contraceptive reasons. Many times it is prescribed to treat ovarian cysts, cramps, and whatever else a woman has to go through sometimes when ovulating. So for this pharmacist to deny this woman her drugs, solely based on what he thinks it may be for, is just ridiculous. He could be denying her medication that is used to treat cysts or pain.

You're right. That's an excellent point.

Peacefrog -- Good point -- leave it between the employer and employee.

I might have missed somethign scanning the original article -- did the pharmacist refuse to give back the script? If so, IMO, he went from refusing to do something that he was against based on his religion to theft. He might object to porn, too, but he can't go around taking other people's copies of porn tapes.

sorry, didn't mean to delve into your personal life.

Could I do the same? well, yeah... I could.

And have.

BMIC, try the National Cancer Institute at Frederick at http://web.ncifcrf.gov/careers/default.asp

I contracted for renovation of enough tissue culture rooms over there, they must do something related to your field, and it shouldn't offend your beliefs (as long as you aren't involved in one of the AIDS research projects).

I guess I'm fortunate in this respect. As a contracts person, I have regulations that I have to follow, and if I break them, I get a different type of striped suit! And to think we're usually the ones everybody blames when they can't do what they want.

What does that mean?

Coming from a pharmacy background, I just don't see why this person took a job dispensing drugs that are "objectionable". Why not work in a hospital...they don't dispense b/c on a routine basis since most patients bring in their own if they will need them during the stay. Or a manufacturing/ QC position? Or compunding for a nursing home supplier? Or a rep for a drug company? There are plenty of jobs to be found...there is a serious shortage of pharmacists. Oh wait, retail pays 6 figures! And you can bet most pharmacies don't have double coverage. It costs too much! That's why there is one pharmacist whom ALL orders must go through and three techs (who make minimum wage).

To the personal values end, I had a pregnant former co-worker whose OB/GYN encouraged her to marry the father because it would be bad for the baby to grow up fatherless. I agree to on principle, but the guy was old enough to be her father, wouldn't get a job, made her pay all of his credit cards and child support payments. That doc needed to MHOB when it came to relationship advice!

B, what would happen if you couldn't find an employer that suited your moral standards?

I have to agree with Yoss, if you going to become a pharmacist then you should realize that you might have to dispense drugs such as birth control whether you believe in it or not. I remember a case a few years ago where a pharmacist at Kmart refused to dispense birth control, and they actually fired her. I would hope CVS would do the same thing.

What do you mean, what does that mean? I smell a trap - sorry, not going there and getting stormed tonight. I'm still licking the wounds I got at work today!

I like the way you think.

::BIGOTED:: (according to BMIC's definition)

And dam proud of it.

Gee BMIC, I was just thinking basically the same thing about some of the things you've written ....

Personally, no, I wouldn't insist on somebody being fired for refusing to work on a Sunday. But that's totally different than refusing to dispense birth control pills because you don't believe in them - you're comparing apples and oranges.

IMO, if the druggist works for a chain store like CVS, he needs to leave and open up his own pharmacy where he can follow his own beliefs. There are plenty of other pharmacies for folks to go to in order to get what he won't dispense.

But seriously, birth control pills are a neccessity these days. They are not only for birth control (as mention above) but needed by many women in order to live pain (& other complications) free. I know...I've been there! This guy needs to get out of the dark ages with regards to the pill.

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

One entry found for bigot.
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb


ummm.... let me repeat that:

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

Hey BMIC!

Does that fit anyone here other than those you named??? :sarcasm:

I'd like to see some answers to B's question.

Also, why can't we just leave it up to the employer and employee, within the bounds of the law?

If that's not acceptable to some folks, maybe they need to read the definition of bigoted - which is rather open.

Is B's question even realistic? Would the KKK even hire an African American CPA? Highly doubtful.

Besides, I think that dispensing medicine - for a person's health - is not the same as working the books for some organization. I believe that as a doctor, you are required to take some kind of oath to do everything you can in order to save someone's life. What if there was a black doctor in the emergency room and a KKK member was shot and brought into the emergency room? That doctor would be required to do everything he could to save that racist man's life, even though he probably would recover and continue hating that doctor simply for the color of his skin. In my opinion, there's no room to push personal beliefs on people when it comes to science/medicine. People in the medical field are there for the purpose to help, heal, save lives, and whatever else makes a person's life more comfortable (i.e., dispensing birth control pills to ease the pain of cramps).

Before certain people here start to argue that the pill shouldn't be used for pain relief, I feel I need to state that my doctor prescribed them to prevent abnormal growths and endometriosis from occurring. I don't need to go into detail here, but I know the argument will come up!

Can't get around it that easy, Phish. The issues of stem cell research and euthanaisa are just 2 where personal beliefs and religion DO enter science/medicine. So we have to deal with it, not just wish it away.

What about using risky experimental treatments on convicts sentenced to death -- we're gonna kill 'em anyway, how about using them as guiena pigs in highly risky experiments first?

I got no problem with that...

Oh my god, no. I don't really believe in the death penalty anyway, so I certainly don't condone human experimentation! I don't even condone animal experimentation!

I guess you're right that religion and medicine occasionally have to be confronted. And even though I may not agree with their particular stance, I can still find it reasonable for someone to refuse conducting stem cell research, or euthanasia due to religious beliefs. However, in this particular case, refusing to administer birth control pills, is something that I find to be unreasonable (for the reasons I stated in a previous post on this thread).

We've got a guy here at work who thinks that on Christmas Eve we should send the prison guards home for a week's vacation, and send nerve gas thru all of the prisons. Then, when vacation is over, the gas is gone, you just go in, clean up and watch to see if the prison population grows to the same level by the next Christmas Eve. Repeat the cycle until crime is basically non-existent.

That's a bit over the top to me, but you know, sometimes you've just got to wonder.....

I believe that I've already answered B's question, but if he needs more explanation, a CPA does not have the same life-and-death responsibilities as a doctor, and to some extent, a pharmacist. Why is it OK to prosecute a pharmacist for not putting the proper level of chemicals in pills for cancer, but to condone a pharmacist's refusing to refill any prescription from a doctor for any reason other than it would have an effect with the other medicines the customer takes?

As I said before, comparing this pharmacist with a CPA is like comparing apples to oranges, or even bananas!

He wasn't fired for his beliefs. He was fired because his beliefs prohibited him from doing his JOB.

I have to ask the same question Yoss asked - why would someone apply for a job when certain aspects of the job would be offensive, and therefore, they couldn't perform all functions of that job? Better yet, why would they be hired for the position?

Personally, if I had to choose between 2 people for a position - one who could perform all aspects of that position, and the other who could perform MOST aspects, but not all. I think the choice would be obvious.

No, you try again B. You're defining a word using the word you're defining. A definite no-no.

intolerance?

I rest my case.

If the shoe fits, wear it. You appear to be a bigot also. You show an intolerance for others' opinions. IMO of course.

[QUOTE]As in your and many others' very obvious and offensive intolerance of this Pharmicst's religious beliefs.[QUOTE]

B, I can only speak for myself, and not for the other folks on this board, but I have not based my opinion on this subject based on the pharmacist's beliefs, specifically. I base my opinion on the pharmacist's ability to do the job. If he refuses to fill a prescription for whatever reason (other than drug interactions), he is not able to fully do his job.

As far as putting a pharmacist on a pedestal, I never thought I did that, but I can think of a couple of times my pharmacist went to battle with the insurance company for me to get me the medicine I need, and for that, I surely DO think he belongs on a pedestal!

And look at the suggestion that the pharmacist open his own store up in this light: It would allow him the same freedoms you are trying to have in your current job search, not a prejudice.

Nobody is persecuting you because you have strong religious opinions, OK? But likewise, don't expect us to accept them as our own just because it offends you if we don't.

HE REFUSED TO PERFORM THE JOB FOR WHICH HE WAS HIRED TO DO!

If he informed his employer of his beliefs prior to being hired, that's a different story. He was hired as a pharmicist. He was hired to dispense controlled medication as directed by medical practitioners. That was his job. If medication conflicted with other medication, he was duty-bound to bring that to the attention of the patient and the doctor. He didn't have the authority to decide whether or not a medication was morally reprehensible.

If he was "born-again" then he had a responsibility to inform his employer that he would no longer perform some aspects of his job. At that time, there may have been grounds for the employer to make certain adjustments to be politically correct.

He arbitralily decided that he wasn't going to dispense medication based on his sudden finding of conscience.

You're not even trying to be reasonable, B. One can't argue with unreasonableness, and it's not worth the energy to continue.

I gotta' agree with sheash on this one.

Trap? Nah, just asking you to explain why you mentioned "as long as you aren't involved in one of the AIDS research projects" and how this applied to BMIC. Are your own words a trap?

Well, all I know is if I were at the local CVS to get an Rx filled and the pharmacist stated that he/she couldn't fill it because it was against his religious beliefs; and they didn't have a back-up pharmacist available...I would be pissed!

X2

Nope, my words aren't a trap. You know very well how I feel about homosexuality, and we all know how B feels about it, too. Whenever I open my mouth about certain subjects, B and others descend upon me like flies on you-know-what, and I didn't want to walk into that minefield again.

I have no problem with AIDS research or with Cancer Research. I am much happier that I worked on that side of the base, and not the Army side.

CVS sucks anyhow.

"Can you come back in an hour?"

Yeah... sure.... just about the time the novacaine wears off... I'll be more than happy to drive back. :sarcasm:

The only thing they have going for them in the pharmacy is they are usually close to home.

Ever try to talk to one of their pharmacists?

Plus, unless you have a prescription insurance plan, they're probably more expensive than other pharmacies.

Try Martins -- they seem a bit faster and less hurried.

Or, try something from the evidence locker. j/k !!!

Again, the problem with most pharmacies is that they don't have 2 pharmacists on duty at a time. There may be some shift overlap, but it is too expensive to pay for 2 RPh at a time. Paying for 2 WOULD affect the conduct of the employers business financially.

You have got to be the most incredibly rude person on this forum...it's not even worth being on here to participate in a discussion if this is the kind of response one can expect.

BMIC...this is exactly what I was referring to. Duh.

Naomi,

You harshly criticize a comment, then emulate it!

Trust me, "no duh" is not the most rude comment handed out around here!

Oh please...I'm being "harshly" critical??? Well gee, I guess I should be happy that I'm not being called a bigot!

Like I said, this isn't worth it.