Comments on: Pharmacy conscious clauses

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:13:00 +0000

Most state Medical Practice Acts allow physicians to decline from participating in abortions. Now that abortions can be “performed” by medication, pharmacists should also have that right to not participate. The unfortunate dilema arises when we try to define when life begins, as with the whole abortion debate. Some believe that birth control pills are an abortifacient. Some believe the morning after pill is an abortifacient. The majority do not. The majority do not have a problem dispensing these medications. There are those that do and the vast majority have made accomadations to continue to practice pharmacy and still be true to their beliefs and their patients. There are, as in all professions, the sensationalized cases that make the news.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:25:00 +0000

There are professions that have specific requirements. A pacifist cannot join the army and then say that he cannot kill because of his religion. A dancer who insists on wearing scarves because of her religious beliefs will likely find herself in an unemployment line.

Pharmacist is one of those professions. A refusal to dispense a certain drug can hurt other people’s health or even risk their lives. If someone needs to take a specific medication the same day, a refusal of a pharmacy to fill a prescription that was called in by a doctor may cause unacceptable delays.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:47:00 +0000

It is amazing how quick Americans are now to restrict the liberties of others for their own convenience.

Only when the liberties of others infringe on those of others.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:46:00 +0000

Anon at 11:30 and 11:33, there were cases when the pharmacists even refused to transfer a prescription!
Not to mention that in some overly conservative states there may be a situation when no pharmacy would carry a drug someone needs.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:33:00 +0000

It is amazing how quick Americans are now to restrict the liberties of others for their own convenience.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:30:00 +0000

If Joe is going to be so damned picky about what he sells, there will always be room for another pharmacy that will (if two will not survive long-term) drive him out of business by it’s superior attitude towards customer service.

But come on, that really isn’t an issue. The major pharmacy chains make a point to build across from each other so they can compete head to head and never lose a cusomer to convenience. At least 98% of the American people live within 30 minutes of more than one pharmacy–small towns are tied together by concrete roads now. Nearly everyone can drive to another pharmacy in less time than they spent in the doctors waiting room. If it is a particular problem in a particular locale, the doctors can dispense the drug (unless the same overregulating busybodies that want to stop this behavior have banned that too).

There are sometimes good reasons to limit liberty, this doesn’t even come close. My Uncle died for the pharmacist’s freedom to live by his conscience, I can suffer a little inconvenience for it.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:22:00 +0000

If Joe will not sell me my medicine, then I am no worse off than if he had decided to invest his time and efforts elsewhere. It merely means that I have to go somewhere else.
You are worse off. You had your doctor dial the prescription into this pharmacy, now you need to get another one – difficult if you need the drug today. You wasted your time driving to the pharmacy. Joe’s opening a pharmacy there prevented another guy from opening a pharmacy acroos the street because a town may just be too small to have enough business for two pharmacies.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:34:00 +0000

Anon 6:15…What a crock of BS!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 23:15:00 +0000

Pharmacists are and should be completely free to decide not to provide certain services or products. Absolutely no legislative or board restrictions on this behavior would be contemplated in a society that values and loves liberty.

It sound like pretty self-defeating behavior, but it shouldn't be banned.

The fact is, that I am not entitled to have Joe's pharmacy on the corner even exist. If it does exist, it is because Joe invested his money to go into business there. If Joe will not sell me my medicine, then I am no worse off than if he had decided to invest his time and efforts elsewhere. It merely means that I have to go somewhere else.

No person should be compelled to act against his beliefs as a condition of being in business or a profession, even if every single other person in the country thinks the belief to be delusional. We have the right to prohibit certain behaviors, but not to compell people to give a service or sell a product that they don't want to give or sell.

This is simply not a problem. It is rare, and creates a ruckuss only because people feel entitled to some healthcare services as if the providers were public utilities or something--which they aren't unless they work for the government. Show me one person harmed by it and I will show you 10,000 people harmed by the unintended consequences of the governments current major intrusion into the liberty of healthcare providers--EMTALA.

By: RJS

RJS — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 21:50:00 +0000

“From that point of view, the idea of being a ‘conscientious objector’ to dispensing a prescription is an anathema. I imagine that a physician would find him/herself in front of their state medical board pretty quickly if they refused to care for a patient based on that patient’s lifestyle choice or a whether or not that physician’s personal morals or beliefs ran counter to the patient’s.”

Doctor, pharmacist, whatever. Inappropriate behavior doesn’t restrict itself to certain titles.