Pro Life Pharmacists

[Mr. Grim]

I have read accounts of pharmacists not filling birth control and morning after pill prescriptions. This is an outrage. Can we really let the religious freaks get away with this? Christ.

[llcooljabe]

I really hope you're not serious. I need those smiley thingies to judge sarcasm...I'm really clueless without them.

[foghorn]

Originally Posted by Mr. Grim

I have read accounts of pharmacists not filling birth control and morning after pill prescriptions. This is an outrage. Can we really let the religious freaks get away with this? Christ.

Christ,
I would expect this may be true at the church sponsored hospital pharmacies, but I have no experience to know this. Hopefully someone else can answer your question.

Foghorn

[Happy Skunk]

I read some news articles on this a few weeks back. I thought somebody posted about it here.


Anyway, I think it does happen.

[mihirbhatia]

Originally Posted by foghorn

Christ,
I would expect this may be true at the church sponsored hospital pharmacies, but I have no experience to know this. Hopefully someone else can answer your question.

Foghorn

i believe there have been over 100 cases reported in the last year alone. The Illinois Gov. just passed an executive order (law?) requiring pharmacies that have pharmacists who refuse to fill-out prescriptions to have anonther pharmacist to actually fill it out.

Not sure what will happen in the red states though

[Real American Hero]

Maybe I'm not seeing the problem. Is there only one pharmacist available to fill prescriptions in the area?

If not, I think the solution is obvious.
If so, would you have a fit if the only doctor in the same area refused to perform vasectomies?

[Harry]

Originally Posted by Real American Hero

Maybe I'm not seeing the problem. Is there only one pharmacist available to fill prescriptions in the area?

If not, I think the solution is obvious.
If so, would you have a fit if the only doctor in the same area refused to perform vasectomies?

The problem is when the pharmacy has the prescription available, but an individual pharmacist working there refuses to fill it. Seems pretty stupid and seems like the pharmacy should fire the pharmacist for not doing their job. If a pharmacy refuses to stock the prescription, I don't see the problem. I think the executive order says just that: if the pharmacy has it in stock, someone must work there that will fill the prescription.

[Mulan]

Originally Posted by Real American Hero

Maybe I'm not seeing the problem. Is there only one pharmacist available to fill prescriptions in the area?

If not, I think the solution is obvious.
If so, would you have a fit if the only doctor in the same area refused to perform vasectomies?

I think the problem is that when you have a prescription to fill, you expect to have it filled. Morning after pills are more "urgent" than vasectomies - a woman should not have to go from pharmacy to pharmacy to find one that will fill it. And I believe some of the women claimed that they got lectured to as well.

The emergency order is in effect in IL, but I expect that pharmacies' profit motives willl correct this problem.

[Westley]

Originally Posted by Harry

The problem is when the pharmacy has the prescription available, but an individual pharmacist working there refuses to fill it. Seems pretty stupid and seems like the pharmacy should fire the pharmacist for not doing their job. If a pharmacy refuses to stock the prescription, I don't see the problem. I think the executive order says just that: if the pharmacy has it in stock, someone must work there that will fill the prescription.

If that's the case, expect this wonderful intervention by government to be successfully resolved when pharmacies decide not to stock any drugs which have any amount of controversy associated with them. Good job, Rod!

Similar to this tale of wonderful government passing laws to improve peoples' lives: the city of Santa Monica passed a law that said ATMs could not charge an extra fee for withdrawal of cash from another bank (i.e., Bank of America could not charge a fee to Bank One customers to withdraw cash). The local banks, in general, resolved this by making all of their ATMs in Santa Monica accessible only to their own customers (i.e., Bank One customers could no longer get money from a Bank of America ATM).

[Father of two]

Originally Posted by Harry

The problem is when the pharmacy has the prescription available, but an individual pharmacist working there refuses to fill it. Seems pretty stupid and seems like the pharmacy should fire the pharmacist for not doing their job. If a pharmacy refuses to stock the prescription, I don't see the problem. I think the executive order says just that: if the pharmacy has it in stock, someone must work there that will fill the prescription.

Completely agree! I heard about these stories also. If the owner of the pharmacy agrees with the pharmacist, he should not have it in stock and that is his right. If he does not agree, he should fire the pharmacist and that is his right. Seems like parts of the story are missing because I never heard anyone got fired.