Yet another pharmacist refuses to fill morning after pill

Post by **Roofus** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 5:59 pm

"Walgreen Co. said it has put four Illinois pharmacists in the St. Louis area on unpaid leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule." ... "Walgreen policy says pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions to which they are morally opposed _ except where state law prohibits _ but they must take steps to have the prescription filled by another pharmacist or store."

Link

Before we get into the "He's just standing up for what he believes him" vs. "He's in the wrong job" stuff, consider this: Should a Christian Scientist be allowed to refuse to fill all prescriptions?

Wagh · Post by **Wagh** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:03 pm

No. It's their job. If they don't like it move on to a different profession. To me that's like a fire fighter refusing to investigate a call in a lower scocioeconomic class.

404NotFound · Post by **404NotFound** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:11 pm

Pharmacists probably have the right to refuse filling them, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be fired outright for not filling a prescription.

FETUS · Post by **FETUS** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:28 pm

The laws say a pharmacy can carry or not carry whatever they want. However there is no law protecting a pharmacist if he refuses something. So if he doesn't want to give out the morning after pill and wants job security then he can bu his own business and run it how he would like.

toastman · Post by **toastman** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 6:37 pm

!*? wrote:The laws say a pharmacy can carry or not carry whatever they want. However there is no law protecting a pharmacist if he refuses something. So if he doesn't want to give out the morning after pill and wants job security then he can bu his own business and run it how he would like.

Ditto. These pharmacists work for Walgreens. Walgreens wants to sell the morning after pill. There are policies for handling pharmacists who don't want to fill the prescription. They are allowed to find another pharmacist who is willing. Except where it is illegal to refuse, like in Illinois.
I think the pharmacists are making a bigger deal out of this than they should. Walgreens is even offering to help them relocate to a state without the law.

Post by **melancholy** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 10:02 pm

I wonder what kind of weird moral or religion-related thing is going to pop up next year that none of us thought about. Seriously, was this even a problem 5 years ago? Hell, I've never heard it happen until last year, and now it's the cool thing for pharmacists to do.

404NotFound · Post by **404NotFound** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:34 am

melancholy wrote:I wonder what kind of weird moral or religion-related thing is going to pop up next year that none of us thought about. Seriously, was this even a problem 5 years ago? Hell, I've never heard it happen until last year, and now it's the cool thing for pharmacists to do.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was a problem before, but now everybody loves those crazy-religion stories.

SuperMegatron · Post by **SuperMegatron** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:37 am

Honestly this is a hard issue. If you morally believe your sinning by selling the pill you should have be forced to by law.The laws of a state cant encroach on a person religion like that. It wouldn't surprise me if some challenged the law on constitutional grounds.

Post by **|darc|** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:15 am

SuperMegatron wrote:Honestly this is a hard issue. If you morally believe your sinning by selling the pill you should have be forced to by law.The laws of a state cant encroach on a person religion like that. It wouldn't surprise me if some challenged the law on constitutional grounds.

Then you shouldn't be a pharmacist. Maybe I should convert to a Jehovah's Witness and get a job doing blood transfusions and sit around all day because I object to it.

Sir Savant · Post by **Sir Savant** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:20 am

OMG |darc|, can we actually do that?

Seriously though, this is like becoming President of the United States and being on vacation when the Nation is in need.

farrell2k · Post by **farrell2k** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:27 pm

Savant wrote:OMG |darc|, can we actually do that?

Seriously though, this is like becoming President of the United States and being on vacation when the Nation is in need.

The nation doesn't need Bush.

mikozero · Post by **mikozero** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 7:44 pm

just a little skunk on the weekends

Chaniyth · Post by **Chaniyth** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:22 pm

Who said the man was a Christian? I know athiestic people who are anti-abortion.

Also, I don't really see the morning after pill as abortion... it takes 24 hours for the sperm, and egg to fertalize together, so the morning after pill basically is just blocking the pregnacy, either killing the egg, or the sperm, not taking a human life.

Post by **Roofus** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:49 pm

Go to a restaurant and order a three chicken omlet. See what kind of reation you get.

arrowhead · Post by **arrowhead** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:55 pm

He should be fired. Its not his choice. He is forcing her into an unwanted pregnancy if she cant get to another pharmacy. If a dipshit pharmacist causes a person to get pregnant by not filling the morning after pill, his paycheck should be docked for the price of the abortion, and be made to wear a shirt that says "I caused an abortion by not filling a prescription, and I suck at life".

SuperMegatron · Post by **SuperMegatron** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:18 pm

arrowhead wrote:He should be fired. Its not his choice. He is forcing her into an unwanted pregnancy if she cant get to another pharmacy.

He isnt the only guy that works there. He refused to sell it but I am sure the average wallgreens has like 5 people there who can fill it.

Chaniyth · Post by **Chaniyth** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:19 pm

"Unwanted pregnacy"? Pshh, obviously the bitch hasn't ever heard of condoms.

Not only that, but i'd not wanna tap someone without using a condom... HIV and AIDS is running amok, more and more in the country (USA).

Wagh · Post by **Wagh** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:21 pm

Invizix wrote:"Unwanted pregnacy"? Pshh, obviously the bitch hasn't ever heard of condoms.

Not only that, but i'd not wanna tap someone without using a condom... HIV and AIDS is running amok, more and more in the country (USA).

I know it's hard to beleive but condoms are not 100% effective and never have been. Even then there are scares. Ever lost a condom on the inside? I have. I was a fucking wreck for a week.

that_guy · Post by **that_guy** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 10:33 pm

Pro choice vs. pro life. That's what this boils down to. I am personally pro choice on the matter. If the person doesn't want the kid and there is something that can be done, ie the doctor prescribing a pill to stop the joining of the sperm and egg, than who is to say that the pharamcist should have a say in it. I understand Walgreens not wanting to force their employee's into a choice they don't want to do, but just like many have said, it is their job; do it or don't come to work.

404NotFound · Post by **404NotFound** » Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:40 pm

It's kind of degrading to the pharmacist to reduce them to pill counters, though. They have to go through a ton of schooling.