Fed Judge: No Plan B for You!

[WVUPharm2007]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

We've already got one good pissing match on here...how about another:

A federal judge has suspended controversial state rules requiring pharmacies to dispense so-called "Plan B" emergency contraceptives, saying the rules appear to unconstitutionally violate pharmacists' freedom of religion.

LINK

So I guess this cancels out that **** they got going on up in Illinois and Washington. I like this debate because both sides are wrong (or right if you aren't as cynical as me...) and they scream at each other for years about it all.

*Grabs popcorn*

 

[evilolive]

I can understand the moral objection, but I still disagree with the judge. ACLU time! The pharmacist's primary duty is to serve the patient. The law is supposedly objective, but the only point about objectivity is that it was determined by subjective agreement that went together to benefit the majority population's beliefs and needs. It remains to be said how this will pan out.

 

[genesis09]

So I guess this cancels out that **** they got going on up in Illinois and Washington. I like this debate because both sides are wrong (or right if you aren't as cynical as me...) and they scream at each other for years about it all.

*Grabs popcorn*

We've been going through the Illinois Pharm Practice Act in Law, and today, we skimmed through that section. Ironic, isn't it.

 

[bananaface]

I can understand the moral objection, but I still disagree with the judge. ACLU time! The pharmacist's primary duty is to serve the patient. The law is supposedly objective, but the only point about objectivity is that it was determined by subjective agreement that went together to benefit the majority population's beliefs and needs. It remains to be said how this will pan out.

How do you apply that position to the pharmacist's role in assisted suicide (which is legal in OR)?

 

[evilolive]

How do you apply that position to the pharmacist's role in assisted suicide (which is legal in OR)?

I believe in euthanasia, although not necessarily through the way that the notorious Dr. Kevorkian has publicized everything in the media frenzy. People should be allowed to end their lives if they want help doing so in their terminal months of illness and suffering. It is my belief that we should be able to exert control over our own destinies, and if that means dying on my own terms, then that's my prerogative. I'm not quite sure why there's such a debacle over assisted suicide other than the pro-life movement and the utter squeamishness that surrounds this topic. What do you think? Pharmacists may have to do things that comprimise their own moral integrity (not that I would't object to something similar in situation myself, but from a purely theoretical standpoint, pharmacists should be required to), but that comes as a part of the job of being a health care professional. We're the ones who have to make tough decisions, as we set the precedence for future debate.

 

[njac]

"But opponents of the rules argued that pharmacists, like other health providers, should be able to refuse to provide a service that they object to on conscience or religious grounds"

My mother is an ICU turned dialysis/ER/coumadin clinic nurse. Her big argument is that she has never been allowed to deny someone care - be they a murderer, rapist, smelly, in there for a suicide attempt, etc etc.

Do other health providers truly have this option?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

We've been going through the Illinois Pharm Practice Act in Law, and today, we skimmed through that section. Ironic, isn't it.

More of a coincidence...but, yes, that's quite odd....

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I disagree with legislating morality that is of a debatable personal nature. I say we take a hands off approach. Go Adam Smith on it. Though I'm not religious, I can see where they are coming from.

I mean, if I was asked to wear a Pitt Panthers shirt as a part of my job, I would contact my lawyer immediately. That's against my personal ethical code. And from what I understand, under the tenants of Christianity, Buddhism, and whatever the hell else is out there, doling out Plan B is considered anything between "frowned upon" and "enforceable by the Master Boss via damnation eternal".

Now if I believed that stuff as much as I know Pitt Sucks....I could totally see me refusing to give out Plan B. Walking a mile in the shoes of another and what not. So let the pharmacists do whatever they want, let the patients do whatever they want. The only place where I could see something go awry is in the rare, rare instance in which a person is in a location where there is only one pharmacy in a 500 mile radius. But that's just the exception....in any other case, the patient could just go elsewhere. Is it really the patient's right to infringe on the rights of another person to uphold their beliefs?

 

[evilolive]

I disagree with legislating morality that is of a debatable personal nature. I say we take a hands off approach. Go Adam Smith on it. Though I'm not religious, I can see where they are coming from.

I mean, if I was asked to wear a Pitt Panthers shirt as a part of my job, I would contact my lawyer immediately. That's against my personal ethical code. And from what I understand, under the tenants of Christianity, Buddhism, and whatever the hell else is out there, doling out Plan B is considered anything between "frowned upon" and "enforceable by the Master Boss via damnation eternal".

Now if I believed that stuff as much as I know Pitt Sucks....I could totally see me refusing to give out Plan B. Walking a mile in the shoes of another and what not. So let the pharmacists do whatever they want, let the patients do whatever they want. The only place where I could see something go awry is in the rare, rare instance in which a person is in a location where there is only one pharmacy in a 500 mile radius. But that's just the exception....in any other case, the patient could just go elsewhere. Is it really the patient's right to infringe on the rights of another person to uphold their beliefs?

I see what you're saying, but where do we draw the line? Our society is held together by a commonly agreed upon moral code which is malleable in the study and interpretation of law. Having complete freedom in that respect would be disastrous to the point of gridlocking pluralism. Consider the prospects if everyone banded together to the point where there would be no uniformity whatsoever. Red tape and administration, sadly, serves a purpose.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

It's easy. You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't screw with somebody else's right to do what they want to do....and I'm sure there are logical exceptions as there are exceptions to everything. And IMO, Plan B isn't one of them.

 

[soyroger]

I totally view this from a pharmacist's rights point of view. If a pharmacist declines to dispense Plan B then the pt is in no way obligated to adopt his beliefs/morals/religious views. The pt will be inconvenienced, but since the average residence in America is 2.36 miles from the nearest pharmacy it is the ultra rare exception that someone really is denied the opportunity to get it b/c of the pharmacist's decision. I don't understand why more pharmacists/students don't stick up for our own rights more often.

 

[njac]

I dunno, I have family in a town in west Texas that has one pharmacy. And they're about 60 miles from the next town. If you're a 15 year old girl that might be a tough one.

 

[Lurkerkat]

I'm torn on the issue.

On one hand I find it infuriating to know that someone can decide to refuse to dispense me a legitimate medication based on the unproven possibility that it might prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. This would be a different ball game if there was definitive evidence supporting that this was one of the mechanism of action.

On the other hand I can respect someone's belief in their immortal soul and not wanting to condemn themselves to hell on the crap shoot of maybe this drug works by preventing implantation.

Still I think before entering a career (especially in the situation where now we know Plan B is on the market, we know it's OTC and we may have someone request us to dispense it) you have to consider your beliefs and whether they'll be in conflict with a certain career. Take a little personal responsibility and not put your soul in harm's way. Obviously this sentiment doesn't apply to those who never imagined facing this conflict with Plan B and entered the field previously not knowing this would eventually happen.

 

[evilolive]

I'm torn on the issue.

On one hand I find it infuriating to know that someone can decide to refuse to dispense me a legitimate medication based on the unproven possibility that it might prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. This would be a different ball game if there was definitive evidence supporting that this was one of the mechanism of action.

On the other hand I can respect someone's belief in their immortal soul and not wanting to condemn themselves to hell on the crap shoot of maybe this drug works by preventing implantation.

Still I think before entering a career (especially in the situation where now we know Plan B is on the market, we know it's OTC and we may have someone request us to dispense it) you have to consider your beliefs and whether they'll be in conflict with a certain career. Take a little personal responsibility and not put your soul in harm's way. Obviously this sentiment doesn't apply to those who never imagined facing this conflict with Plan B and entered the field previously not knowing this would eventually happen.

Interesting point...

 

[Quiksilver]

I guess I will drop the bomb on this, moreso for the sake of everyone's opinion...

for those who say no, how could one tell a rape victim that they can't get Plan B. What is the justification for not dispensing?

Man there is a huge grey area, where does one draw the line from contraceptives/the pill..... morning after pilll...... abortion... One all of the same. And even when dealing with abortion, that area too is grey because the issue becomes when do they become a person and not just a human being. Now I do not want to step on anyone's toes about abortion but therein lies my point on the matter, we won't agree other then the fact that a line should be drawn somewhere. Where do we draw it is where problems exist.

 

[soyroger]

I dunno, I have family in a town in west Texas that has one pharmacy. And they're about 60 miles from the next town. If you're a 15 year old girl that might be a tough one.

Then I guess she has about 72 hours to get herself 60 miles down the road (a Saturday bike ride for me). Ok, all joking aside I didn't mention it previously but I feel there are definitely exceptions (including the rape example above). There are exceptions to nearly everything. If the pt can't get it anywhere else then it becomes a different situation and then the pharmacist (assuming there is only one that the pt can get to) does have control of whether or not the pt has access to Plan B or whatever else they need. In that specific case I personally wouldn't deny them, but my previous post was basically covering my view of the topic in general, the rule and not the exception. Discussing the exceptions would take all night so I generally start with the rule and then move on to the exceptions. Trying to address the exceptions without first establishing the rule muddles things up. For that reason I don't want to sit on the fence with this issue, and I also happen to feel strongly about pharmacist's rights.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

What if the pharmacist is deathly allergic to the ink on the Plan B box and having it in his/her pharmacy will cause a deadly reaction? I mean, if we're going to throw out rare situations...

 

[njac]

but what about what I brought up earlier - nurses can't say "no, I won't take care of this patient because he's a rapist" ER docs who think suicide is selfish can't say "nope, he wanted to kill himself, I won't treat him"

a private practice dr in an office is one thing, but in urgent/ED/ICU settings you don't get to pick and choose - how is the Plan B scenario that much different?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

but what about what I brought up earlier - nurses can't say "no, I won't take care of this patient because he's a rapist" ER docs who think suicide is selfish can't say "nope, he wanted to kill himself, I won't treat him"

a private practice dr in an office is one thing, but in urgent/ED/ICU settings you don't get to pick and choose - how is the Plan B scenario that much different?

It's because the treatment itself is equivalent to murder in their mind. If I see the world through the eyes of a religious person, I could see the difference.

 

[Old Timer]

Our society is held together by a commonly agreed upon moral code which is malleable in the study and interpretation of law

What moral code would that be?

The trouble with the scenario as listed is, the pharmacist will soon be unemployed. Unless he/she owns their on place, their employer will take a dim view of them:

• Inconveniencing a patient, especially a rape victim.
• Sending the patient to the competition

They have the right to do as they please and if this is their moral belief then they should be willing to accept the consequences.

 

[evilolive]

What moral code would that be?

The trouble with the scenario as listed is, the pharmacist will soon be unemployed. Unless he/she owns their on place, their employer will take a dim view of them:

• Inconveniencing a patient, especially a rape victim.
• Sending the patient to the competition

They have the right to do as they please and if this is their moral belief then they should be willing to accept the consequences.

The moral code doesn't really have any strict definition or confines other than just a standard of what is acceptable within society factoring the ruling part/entity's viewpoints (ie constitutional law, but ask any lawyer/law student and the constitution really is meaningless in strict interpretation, as the complications of law extends now far beyond the scope of that piece of paper. you basically pick an argument and support it because you can twist anything to be supported by the framework; it's whether or not people will agree with you that matters). All the rules we have now were decided by some group at one point in time and has evolved according to shifting views and technology in this country since its inception. Morality and popular opinion are always present in the laws in this country (duh), but the question is how powerful are these voices in order to effect change and how it affects the perception of authority. The positions of authority have shifted from science, to leadership, to popular opinion with the newcomer player: religion. For example, within the past 20 years, the Evangelical movement has amassed a great deal of political clout in its agenda, affecting plenty of policy constructs ever since the movement's leaders were regularly invited to the Whitehouse during the Reagan administration. I believe President Bush still has meetings every monday with religious leaders, though not everyone within the Republican Party endorses or believes in their points; Cheney has notoriously labelled them as religious nuts, but he's a very shrewd and pragmatic man - you don't ignore a powerful voter base if they can support your own political agenda and put you in a position of power. There is a growing religious voice behind general politics that seeps into aspects of other American institutions that have historically remained for the most part secular. The question in the future now is to see how the neoconservative shift will exert its influence over the Supreme Court, which is typically the slowest to change with time compared to the turnover rate from the executive and legislative branches of government.

 

[soyroger]

With all this talk of morals and standards it makes it even more difficult to draw that proverbial line in the sand. Mainly b/c society doesn't really have standards. Although there are morals calling them standards is a bit of a misnomer. That's b/c our collective morals are ever shifting and what we consider right and wrong today may be quite different 10 or 20 years from now. That means we'll have to keep moving the line along with our shifting views. Of course with so many opinions and beliefs there will always be a group of people who are offended with the decision of the majority.

 

[Old Timer]

The real problem for society is:

If there is no transcendent source for your values, you just have personal preference. Some prefer to build hospitals and some prefer to build gas chambers. It's only personal preference.

The people who founded this country understood that concept and that is why our founding document, The Declaration of Independence clearly stated:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Our rights comes form a transcendent source, therefore they cannot be abolished or altered by man.

 

[Farmercyst]

"But opponents of the rules argued that pharmacists, like other health providers, should be able to refuse to provide a service that they object to on conscience or religious grounds"

My mother is an ICU turned dialysis/ER/coumadin clinic nurse. Her big argument is that she has never been allowed to deny someone care - be they a murderer, rapist, smelly, in there for a suicide attempt, etc etc.

Do other health providers truly have this option?

I don't think the refusal to dispense on moral grounds has anything to do with who the person is. I doubt the pharmacist is thinking I won't dispense this to you because you're a *****. (They may think this, but that's not where the moral grounds comes is) They refuse to dispense because they feel by dispensing they are contributing to the death of a soul. A doctor could easily refuse to assist in suicide, I'd have to look, but I'm pretty sure a doctor can't be forced to perform an abortion (possible exception of risk of death to mother.) A nurse can refuse a patient's request to do anything that would knowingly harm themselves or another person. Refusing to serve a dirty or smelly person is not even close to the same. Of course maybe my view of the moral objection is different than these other people, or perhaps I'm just naieve.

 

[evilolive]

The people who founded this country understood that concept and that is why our founding document , The Declaration of Independence clearly stated

Not exactly - it was rather a document that expressed freedom from British authority, including the church. The point was that God created them in an egalitarian manner to justify individual sovereignty against ANY oppression.

Our rights comes form a transcendent source, therefore they cannot be abolished or altered by man.

That was from the declaration of independence, not the constitution. It is not the framework of which they decided to govern, regardless of their religious affiliation and goals. It is true that they recognize that our rights come from a transcendent source, though it is not what you exactly alluded to: freedom of choice. James Madison also stated that "Religion itself may become a motive to persecution and oppression"; it is also why this was added in Article 6:

No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

He was so wary of religious oppression and influence in the governmental body that he made this argument when discussing the First Amendment:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

They wanted the motives of our country to be free by our own values, which are fundamentally malleable and transitory. That is what the Founding Fathers understood, especially in their reverence to God.

 

[Old Timer]

They wanted the motives of our country to be free by our own values, which are fundamentally malleable and transitory. That is what the Founding Fathers understood, especially in their reverence to God.

That is not what they wanted. Laws are malleable, governments are malleable, even the Constitution was designed to be malleable, not the values they are based on. Rights given by the creator are by definition not malleable and this why they are described as unalienable.

They devised a system of a secular government and a religious society. That was the goal, that no particular religion dominate, not that "NO RELIGION" or what we call secularism dominates. It is a paradoxical system, but is what we as a nation were founded on. Their goal was NOT a society of atheists.

It is also difficult to pull individual statements by individual founders and try to apply them to a given argument. John Quincy Adams said:

“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with those of Christianity."

I don't necesarily subscribe to those particular sentiments.

I'm speaking only about values as a concept. Only if you have a framework can you have real discussion. If values are malleable then Hitler might have been right. If values are transcendent, he could never be right.

 

[evilolive]

Point taken, I misunderstood your original position.

 

[pancreas]

Here's a stupid question regarding Plan B. This came up last week at my rotation site. I'm currently on rotation at a store that stocks Plan B. None of the pharmacists or techs have an issue about selling it, however they are worried about this scenario:

*A male comes in and wants to purchase Plan B. He takes it and gives it to his underage girlfriend who then takes it. Her parents find out, then come and sue the store.

Or this scenario:

* A female (over 18) comes in and wants to purchase Plan B. She buys it, then gives it to a minor. The minor's parents find out, then come sue the store.

The question is...can you sell Plan B to a male? As long as the purchaser is over 18, is it legal, or is it only to be sold to the person that will be taking the drug?

My preceptor was thinking of designing some sort of form for Plan B purchasers to sign...just something that says the person that is buying it is over 18 and will be the person taking it....something to that effect. I'm not sure if that's legal either, but the store is worried about getting sued by a parent of a minor.

Anyone work for a store that makes a Plan B purchaser sign a special form?

 

[genesis09]

You can sell Plan B to anyone over 18. Being female is not a requirement. We didn't make anyone sign a form to get Plan B.

 

[KARM12]

Here's a stupid question regarding Plan B. This came up last week at my rotation site. I'm currently on rotation at a store that stocks Plan B. None of the pharmacists or techs have an issue about selling it, however they are worried about this scenario:

*A male comes in and wants to purchase Plan B. He takes it and gives it to his underage girlfriend who then takes it. Her parents find out, then come and sue the store.

Or this scenario:

* A female (over 18) comes in and wants to purchase Plan B. She buys it, then gives it to a minor. The minor's parents find out, then come sue the store.

The question is...can you sell Plan B to a male? As long as the purchaser is over 18, is it legal, or is it only to be sold to the person that will be taking the drug?

My preceptor was thinking of designing some sort of form for Plan B purchasers to sign...just something that says the person that is buying it is over 18 and will be the person taking it....something to that effect. I'm not sure if that's legal either, but the store is worried about getting sued by a parent of a minor.

Anyone work for a store that makes a Plan B purchaser sign a special form?

I don't know if other states are different...but in IL we can sell to anyone over the age of 18 (female or male) as long as they produce a government issued ID. We do not take down any personal information about the purchaser. At my store we sell a lot of Plan B. We get a lot of frantic college students. You can never be sure of who is actually going to use it...

 

[Old Timer]

Here's a stupid question regarding Plan B. This came up last week at my rotation site. I'm currently on rotation at a store that stocks Plan B. None of the pharmacists or techs have an issue about selling it, however they are worried about this scenario:

*A male comes in and wants to purchase Plan B. He takes it and gives it to his underage girlfriend who then takes it. Her parents find out, then come and sue the store.

Or this scenario:

* A female (over 18) comes in and wants to purchase Plan B. She buys it, then gives it to a minor. The minor's parents find out, then come sue the store.

There is no legal liability as long as the store followed all applicable state and federal regulations.

My preceptor was thinking of designing some sort of form for Plan B purchasers to sign...just something that says the person that is buying it is over 18 and will be the person taking it....something to that effect. I'm not sure if that's legal either, but the store is worried about getting sued by a parent of a minor.

Anyone work for a store that makes a Plan B purchaser sign a special form?

Only an academic who lives in the theoretical world as opposed to the real world would come with a method to:

• Increase paperwork
• Self-impose regulation on already over regulated profession
• Invite a law suit. Yes, if you have a form and fail to use it, now you are liable to be sued even though you followed all state and federal regulations.

 

[avgjoe1977]

From Lexi-Comp online -
For Plan B
Mechanism of Action; Pregnancy may be prevented through several mechanisms: Thickening of cervical mucus, which inhibits sperm passage through the uterus and sperm survival; inhibition of ovulation, from a negative feedback mechanism on the hypothalamus, leading to reduced secretion of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH); and inhibition of implantation. Ovulation is also inhibited in some cycles. Levonorgestrel is not effective once the implantation process has begun.i

I don't see the moral dilemma. I am a Christian, and I am pro-life, but I don't see the difference in dispensing Plan B as opposed to BC pills...... If a pharmacist has an moral issue with it, he/she probably doesn't know the mechanism of action.

Maybe I am wrong... if so, enlighten me. 🙂

 

[legaldlr]

Morals aside;
Physicians have the right to prescribe certain drugs or not. We all know that there are lots of MDs that won't write for certain drugs (ie: controls etc.). So why doesn't a pharmacist have a right to what he/she will dispense? When PlanB was still Rx only, there were only certain docs willing to write for it. Right? So I don't understand why it was ok for patients to have to find a doc willing to write for it but not ok for them to have to find a pharmacist willing to dispense? I promise the access is still much, much better now than when it was Rx only.
Perhaps the argument is that this is the reason it was made OTC. ?
I think for most people this has less to do with morals and more to do with someone taking away pharmacist choice.
Maybe someone already addressed this, IDK, but I'm in a hurry and don't have time to read all the posts. So sorry if that's the case.

 

[Lurkerkat]

From Lexi-Comp online -
For Plan B
Mechanism of Action; Pregnancy may be prevented through several mechanisms: Thickening of cervical mucus, which inhibits sperm passage through the uterus and sperm survival; inhibition of ovulation, from a negative feedback mechanism on the hypothalamus, leading to reduced secretion of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH); and inhibition of implantation. Ovulation is also inhibited in some cycles. Levonorgestrel is not effective once the implantation process has begun.i

I don't see the moral dilemma. I am a Christian, and I am pro-life, but I don't see the difference in dispensing Plan B as opposed to BC pills...... If a pharmacist has an moral issue with it, he/she probably doesn't know the mechanism of action.

Maybe I am wrong... if so, enlighten me. 🙂

The issue is that it might also work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. Some people view a fertilized egg as the beginning of life and that inhibiting implantation is akin to an abortion.

 

[evilolive]

Here's a stupid question regarding Plan B. This came up last week at my rotation site. I'm currently on rotation at a store that stocks Plan B. None of the pharmacists or techs have an issue about selling it, however they are worried about this scenario:

*A male comes in and wants to purchase Plan B. He takes it and gives it to his underage girlfriend who then takes it. Her parents find out, then come and sue the store.

Or this scenario:

* A female (over 18) comes in and wants to purchase Plan B. She buys it, then gives it to a minor. The minor's parents find out, then come sue the store.

You can say the same about a gun store that sells a gun that is used to kill someone but the background checks were all okay. That thought is actually a little disturbing to me.. but we're all supposed to be able to have guns if we want them.


If these pills are made OTC, pharmacists wouldn't have to deal with the ethical dilemma, right?

 

[bananaface]

The issue is that it might also work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. Some people view a fertilized egg as the beginning of life and that inhibiting implantation is akin to an abortion.

We KNOW that hormonal contraceptives like BC pills, Nuvaring, and Ortho Evra thin the endometrium, so if someone wants to use that argument and remain consistent, they need to also object to dispensing those items. I have never found evidence that the lining of the uterus can be altered by a single dose of progesterone in the time frame that Plan B would act. Anyone else want to play lit search monkey?

 

[Lurkerkat]

The best I could find was this:

http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/MOA.pdf

Within the letter it had a bunch of references that I'm much too lazy/burnt out to search through but it looks like the motherload of journal articles dealing with this topic specifically.

 

[Old Timer]

We KNOW that hormonal contraceptives like BC pills, Nuvaring, and Ortho Evra thin the endometrium, so if someone wants to use that argument and remain consistent, they need to also object to dispensing those items.

There are people who do, I am sorry to say.....

 

[njac]

hey, at least they're consistent.

 

[avgjoe1977]

We KNOW that hormonal contraceptives like BC pills, Nuvaring, and Ortho Evra thin the endometrium, so if someone wants to use that argument and remain consistent, they need to also object to dispensing those items. I have never found evidence that the lining of the uterus can be altered by a single dose of progesterone in the time frame that Plan B would act. Anyone else want to play lit search monkey?

That's what I'm saying... no real difference between bc pills and plan b.

 

[museabuse]

That's what I'm saying... no real difference between bc pills and plan b.

THere should be a law that says if you refuse plan B then you lose your right to dispense BC. I don't mind if you believe plan B is immoral but logic should say you should think BC is immoral too. If you dispense BC but not plan B then your a ***** and a hypocrite.
Lets see how many retail jobs you can find if you don't dispense BC.

If your gonna be a pharmacist in the community you need to be non judgmental and tolerate. If you can't be because of your beliefs or whatever then go get a desk job in a cubical.

 

[PossiblyCrazy]

THere should be a law that says if you refuse plan B then you lose your right to dispense BC.

A law should do this? What country do you think we live in?

If your gonna be a pharmacist in the community you need to be non judgmental and tolerate. If you can't be because of your beliefs or whatever then go get a desk job in a cubical.

This statement makes you sound intolerant to others.

 

[ForcedEntry]

Personally, I don't have a problem with either scenario. However, for the argument that doc's can't refuse the patients they see, I say poppycock. Furthermore, using critical care rapist/murder patient's as your example is nothing more than a red herring.

Doling out BC and Plan B is a choice, and is equivalent to MD's and nurses choosing to work in abortion clinics; they don't HAVE to.

Therefore, the Fed can require all pharmacies to stock Plan B, but cannot require me, as an individual, to dispense it.

Regardless of statute, I retain my choice and am willing to bear any consequence it may incur.

 

[museabuse]

Doling out BC and Plan B is a choice, and is equivalent to MD's and nurses choosing to work in abortion clinics; they don't HAVE to.

.

You don't HAVE to work in retail either.

 

[museabuse]

This statement makes you sound intolerant to others.

I'm not intolerate to crazy christian wackos, I just think they should not be working in a position where they encounter people that have different beliefs and then force their beliefs on to those people by not giving them access to certain legal meds. They can work at insurance companies or hospitals or many other places where plan B and BC will never come up.

 

[ForcedEntry]

I'm not intolerate to crazy christian wackos, I just think they should not be working in a position where they encounter people that have different beliefs and then force their beliefs on to those people by not giving them access to certain legal meds. They can work at insurance companies or hospitals or many other places where plan B and BC will never come up.

Hmmm...so you would turn a professional blind eye and dispense anything crossing your counter?

 

[museabuse]

Hmmm...so you would turn a professional blind eye and dispense anything crossing your counter?

of course not, I am for the right to refuse. I am just saying that plan B is nothing more that BC and if you refuse plan B then you should be refusing BC otherwise you are refusing it for some other reason than believing life begins at conception.

I am also saying if you are refusing BC then maybe community pharmacy is not what you should be focusing on.

Thats all, end of story.

 

[PossiblyCrazy]

I'm not intolerate to crazy christian wackos, I just think they should not be working in a position where they encounter people that have different beliefs and then force their beliefs on to those people by not giving them access to certain legal meds. They can work at insurance companies or hospitals or many other places where plan B and BC will never come up.

1. Wackos..interesting..I'll bet you are one of those people that preach political correctness, yet still like to call "certain" people wackos. Sounds about right.

2. You do have to worry about Plan B in a hospital setting actually, ever heard of an emergency room?

3. I respect your opinion, seriously. It is a tough debate, but try to stop the name calling, please. If you want to keep calling people names, you should let us all in on your top 5 strong beliefs so we can ridicule you too. That might be fun.

 

[museabuse]

1. Wackos..interesting..I'll bet you are one of those people that preach political correctness, yet still like to call "certain" people wackos. Sounds about right.
.

Ok maybe I was too broad but I do think Jerry fallwell, pat robertson, and this lady are wackos:
[YOUTUBE]JARF7q2S6ns[/YOUTUBE]

 

[PossiblyCrazy]

Ok maybe I was too broad but I do think Jerry fallwell, pat robertson, and this lady are wackos:

I've seen that before, That's hilarious!!! Ok Ok Ok... You can use the word wacko. Although, I don't quite see her working at Walgreens or in some pharmacy