Pharmacists can't refuse Plan B pill

[Immanuel]

Ya'll might be shocked but I have a proposal that makes too much sense. The conflict here is the contention between pharms being forced to carry meds and the public having access to emergency pills that are morally questionable. How to resolve thisv

1. Every pharmacist must have a sign stating whether or not they carry plan B. If they do not carry plan B then have the name/address/phone # of the closest pharms that do.
(That part is pretty much in the works already)

What about a situation where there are no pharms within 50 square miles that carry plan b?

2. In order to provide public access there must be at least one pharmacy within a 50 square mile radius providing plan B. Ie. If you have 5 pharmacies and all refuse plan B then force one to carry the pill for one year and allow the other 4 the option to not carry it. After the one year period has ended the next pharm in line stocks it.

This would avoid forcing all pharms to carry it while also ensuring reasonable public access.

Not exactly something I would jump on board with right away. We'd have to discuss it some more.

For instance, I would counter why not have the Department of Health in each county provide Plan B if there are no pharmacies around that do? How about County Hospitals? Don't they all have pharmacies?

I do, however, appreciate that options are thrown out on the table. There is nothing that says we can't thrown them onto the table and come to some kind of an agreement even if you did win in the long run.

Immie

Because that is too close to socializing healthcare and pharmacies are much more efficient at medication dispensing which is why pharms and hospitals are different entities to begin with.

First, let me say I agree with Sarah in post 99.

My part of this discussion has been regarding the little guy drug store that really no longer exists. I am not talking about the employee of the chain pharmacy. I am talking about the independent drug store owners... if there are any that still exist that is.

Second, I completely disagree with your statement about it being to close to socializing medicine. If that were true, then we should not have county hospitals at all.

Third, all hospitals that I know of, have pharmacies in them already and will sell to the general public. In fact, I have had doctors recommend that I go to the pharmacy in the hospital to get what I need rather than to the CVS.

Immie

 

[Flopper]

No, it goes beyond that issue as they are requiring people to sell a specific product. The abortion issue gives this product a fanatical following to defend it (as well as fanatical opposition) but it still amounts to a requirement to sell a specific product. IMO, I could care less about the reasoning or the product, a store has the right to sell and not to sell whatever it pleases.

I believe the obligation of the pharmacist is too fill the doctor's prescription. The pharmacist should not have the option of denying the patient a drug that the doctor has prescribed because of personal beliefs. If the pharmacist can deny Plan B, because of his personal beliefs, he can refuse to sell any drug for any of a number of reasons. In small rural communities there are not a lot of drug stores to choose from. If one drug store in a community refuses to sell a drug then others can also. Being a pharmacist is not like selling shoes where the seller can pick and choose what he wants to sell.

Something else to consider here.

If the drug costs me $5/dosage to buy from the manufacturer and the market rate that I can sell it for is $3 why should I have to sell the product? It costs me capital to hold product that I cannot sell.

Immie

A pharmacist is state licensed and has obligations to the community unlike most retail businesses. He can't just carry the most profitable drugs. There are a number of services that are considered necessary for the health and safety of the community and the providers are not allowed to choose who they will served and what they will sell based on their personal preferences.

The reason the pharmacist refused to sell Plan B was not a financial issue but a personal one.

 

[CurveLight]

Ya'll might be shocked but I have a proposal that makes too much sense. The conflict here is the contention between pharms being forced to carry meds and the public having access to emergency pills that are morally questionable. How to resolve thisv

1. Every pharmacist must have a sign stating whether or not they carry plan B. If they do not carry plan B then have the name/address/phone # of the closest pharms that do.
(That part is pretty much in the works already)

What about a situation where there are no pharms within 50 square miles that carry plan b?

2. In order to provide public access there must be at least one pharmacy within a 50 square mile radius providing plan B. Ie. If you have 5 pharmacies and all refuse plan B then force one to carry the pill for one year and allow the other 4 the option to not carry it. After the one year period has ended the next pharm in line stocks it.

This would avoid forcing all pharms to carry it while also ensuring reasonable public access.

Not exactly something I would jump on board with right away. We'd have to discuss it some more.

For instance, I would counter why not have the Department of Health in each county provide Plan B if there are no pharmacies around that do? How about County Hospitals? Don't they all have pharmacies?

I do, however, appreciate that options are thrown out on the table. There is nothing that says we can't thrown them onto the table and come to some kind of an agreement even if you did win in the long run.

Immie

Not exactly something I would jump on board with right away. We'd have to discuss it some more.

For instance, I would counter why not have the Department of Health in each county provide Plan B if there are no pharmacies around that do? How about County Hospitals? Don't they all have pharmacies?

I do, however, appreciate that options are thrown out on the table. There is nothing that says we can't thrown them onto the table and come to some kind of an agreement even if you did win in the long run.

Immie

Because that is too close to socializing healthcare and pharmacies are much more efficient at medication dispensing which is why pharms and hospitals are different entities to begin with.

First, let me say I agree with Sarah in post 99.

My part of this discussion has been regarding the little guy drug store that really no longer exists. I am not talking about the employee of the chain pharmacy. I am talking about the independent drug store owners... if there are any that still exist that is.

Second, I completely disagree with your statement about it being to close to socializing medicine. If that were true, then we should not have county hospitals at all.

Third, all hospitals that I know of, have pharmacies in them already and will sell to the general public. In fact, I have had doctors recommend that I go to the pharmacy in the hospital to get what I need rather than to the CVS.

Immie

Counties exist for the indigent and they are not as efficient as privately run pharmacies. This is all about access and equal treatment. We also aren't talking about normal medication. This is an emergency contraception so time senstive applications obviously merit more consideration.

 

[ConHog]

Is there a town in America which doesn't have a freaking Wal Mart or a Wal Greens? I doubt it and you know they will sell this.

This doesn't have anything to do with access and has everything to do with shoving morals , or lack therof, down someone elses throat.

 

[FA_Q2]

Their job is to dispense drugs, not to judge the patient. YOU are way off trying to make people believe that Plan B and the abortion drug are one and the same. Do you also think a pharmacist should have a choice about whether to dispense BC pills or condoms?

Arm yourself with information before posting that way you won't look dumb.

?? Try arming yourself first. I never stated any such thing. Quit making up things as you go along.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.....so....​

"Plan B does not allow the egg to implant in the wall AFTER fertilization, the point at which many feel life begins at."

.....you don't (officially) count yourself as one-o'-many.....so as to avoid any risk o' defending such a theocratic-agenda....right?



(Being out-numbered surely-does seem to dilute you "conservatives'" righteousness. )​

I have shown my views on abortion several times here. I support a woman's right to choose through the first trimester and portions of the second. Just because I do not agree with those that do not support abortion does not mean I do not understand their stance.

 

[JBeukema]

This pill is OTC medication, not prescription, but it's held in the pharmacy. Pharmacists who object to selling it should get out of the business. They don't need to bring religious beliefs to work and attempt to impose them on pharmacy patients.

Soon they'll try to control what their employer sells and simply be fired.

They dispense drugs, they're not there to provide moral advice.

Your way off Sarah - it is the owners that are limiting the sales as is their right. If an employee will not sell a specific medication they must be up front before they are hired or I see no reason they should not be fired for refusing to do the job they were hired for. Of course they will likely file suit claiming breach of religion but that is not the topic here. Why do you think a business owner should be required to sell a product?

Their job is to dispense drugs, not to judge the patient. YOU are way off trying to make people believe that Plan B and the abortion drug are one and the same. Do you also think a pharmacist should have a choice about whether to dispense BC pills or condoms?

Arm yourself with information before posting that way you won't look dumb.

They're not judging anyone. They're simply not carrying a given product.

Is Walgreens judging me by choosing to not sell vodka?

 

[Immanuel]

I believe the obligation of the pharmacist is too fill the doctor's prescription. The pharmacist should not have the option of denying the patient a drug that the doctor has prescribed because of personal beliefs. If the pharmacist can deny Plan B, because of his personal beliefs, he can refuse to sell any drug for any of a number of reasons. In small rural communities there are not a lot of drug stores to choose from. If one drug store in a community refuses to sell a drug then others can also. Being a pharmacist is not like selling shoes where the seller can pick and choose what he wants to sell.

Something else to consider here.

If the drug costs me $5/dosage to buy from the manufacturer and the market rate that I can sell it for is $3 why should I have to sell the product? It costs me capital to hold product that I cannot sell.

Immie

A pharmacist is state licensed and has obligations to the community unlike most retail businesses. He can't just carry the most profitable drugs. There are a number of services that are considered necessary for the health and safety of the community and the providers are not allowed to choose who they will served and what they will sell based on their personal preferences.

The reason the pharmacist refused to sell Plan B was not a financial issue but a personal one.

So you are saying that an architect who is state licensed has certain obligations to the community and must design a brothel in Las Vegas if someone wants to hire him to do it? How about a Christian CPA? He is licensed by the state is he required to serve the porn industry?

Ya'll might be shocked but I have a proposal that makes too much sense. The conflict here is the contention between pharms being forced to carry meds and the public having access to emergency pills that are morally questionable. How to resolve thisv

1. Every pharmacist must have a sign stating whether or not they carry plan B. If they do not carry plan B then have the name/address/phone # of the closest pharms that do.
(That part is pretty much in the works already)

What about a situation where there are no pharms within 50 square miles that carry plan b?

2. In order to provide public access there must be at least one pharmacy within a 50 square mile radius providing plan B. Ie. If you have 5 pharmacies and all refuse plan B then force one to carry the pill for one year and allow the other 4 the option to not carry it. After the one year period has ended the next pharm in line stocks it.

This would avoid forcing all pharms to carry it while also ensuring reasonable public access.

Not exactly something I would jump on board with right away. We'd have to discuss it some more.

For instance, I would counter why not have the Department of Health in each county provide Plan B if there are no pharmacies around that do? How about County Hospitals? Don't they all have pharmacies?

I do, however, appreciate that options are thrown out on the table. There is nothing that says we can't thrown them onto the table and come to some kind of an agreement even if you did win in the long run.

Immie

Because that is too close to socializing healthcare and pharmacies are much more efficient at medication dispensing which is why pharms and hospitals are different entities to begin with.

First, let me say I agree with Sarah in post 99.

My part of this discussion has been regarding the little guy drug store that really no longer exists. I am not talking about the employee of the chain pharmacy. I am talking about the independent drug store owners... if there are any that still exist that is.

Second, I completely disagree with your statement about it being to close to socializing medicine. If that were true, then we should not have county hospitals at all.

Third, all hospitals that I know of, have pharmacies in them already and will sell to the general public. In fact, I have had doctors recommend that I go to the pharmacy in the hospital to get what I need rather than to the CVS.

Immie

Counties exist for the indigent and they are not as efficient as privately run pharmacies. This is all about access and equal treatment. We also aren't talking about normal medication. This is an emergency contraception so time senstive applications obviously merit more consideration.

I still disagree with you.

Tell me why a woman who would use Plan B could not purchase it from a pharmacy in another town (if her local pharmacy did not carry it) and store it in her medicine cabinet until it was needed.

Note: I'm not talking about cases of rape, which I thought about as I was typing that paragraph. That is something I would have to think about and be willing to consider alternatives too.

I still do not like the government forcing business owners in this manner.

Immie

 

[FA_Q2]

A new law here in Washington forces pharmacies to carry and sell the Plan B pill. Owners of several pharmacies have filed lawsuit based on the freedom of religion claiming that Plan B is against their beliefs and they refuse to sell the contraceptive. Lawmakers are contemplating changing the law to read that they do not have to carry Plan B if they refer customers to a nearby store that does sell the pill.

I wonder what the take on this concept is here. I am somewhat taken aback by this as I would have thought that it would naturally be the right of the business owner to decide what he or she sells. What right does the state have to mandate that a particular business sells anything. I understand regulation and placing limitations on items that a business is allowed to sell but forcing one to sell something seems over the top. What are your thoughts?



Pharmacists can't refuse Plan B pill, appeals court says - Los Angeles Times

You and these pharmacists who sued that they shouldn't have to dispense on religious grounds are attempting to portray the Plan B drug as being the same thing as RU-486 and it is not.

Pharmacists are obliged to dispense the Plan B pill, even if they are personally opposed to the "morning after" contraceptive on religious grounds, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

In a case that could affect policy across the western U.S., a supermarket pharmacy owner in Olympia, Wash., failed in a bid to block 2007 regulations that required all Washington pharmacies to stock and dispense the pills.

The sources I looked at last night said that you should call ahead first to see whether they have the drug in stock. I don't believe they have to stock the drug if they can give you the name of a pharmacy who does stock it.

This is not rocket science. If they carry birth control pills and hand them to the customer and it doesn't go against their religious beliefs, the Plan B pill should not go against their beliefs either. As someone stated earlier, you could take a handful of BC pills and get the same affect as they both have the same contraceptive make up.

The RU-486 drug actually aborts the pregnancy. The pharmacists do not sell this drug directly to the customer, the doctor gives the drug to the patient.

You are making a mistake if you think that Plan B and RU-486 are the same drug and I get the impression from your post that this is what you are doing.

This is the SECOND time you have placed that argument on me. I never said that the day after pill was anything like RU-486 and never equated it to abortion. I did explain why some religious people are against it. DO NOT continue putting words in my mouth.

 

[JBeukema]

The Pharmacist is not necessarily the owner of the pharmacy. The law had to do with a pharmacist objecting to selling the Plan B pill, not whether they had it in stock.

!!!!!
FROM THE SECOND SENTENCE IN THE LINKED ARTICLE.

In a case that could affect policy across the western U.S., a supermarket pharmacy owner in Olympia, Wash., failed in a bid to block 2007 regulations that required all Washington pharmacies to stock and dispense the pills.

And you are the one that stated:

Arm yourself with information before posting that way you won't look dumb.

Try and at least understand what you are arguing against in the first place. MAJOR FAIL Sarah. If you can't even bother to read the article don't come here making shit up.

that has to sting

 

[saveliberty]

Pretty simple. Just ask the person to come back in an hour to pick it up and then make sure its not ready. Most people will jsut go somewhere else after two or three times of that. Paperwork does get missed placed you know.

 

[topspin]

That woman should not have to be inconvienienced by a political nut job. Take the morons license away.

 

[ConHog]

Pretty simple. Just ask the person to come back in an hour to pick it up and then make sure its not ready. Most people will jsut go somewhere else after two or three times of that. Paperwork does get missed placed you know.

What SHOULD be simple is if a business doesn't carry a product you need or want, fucking shop elsewhere. DUH! This isn't communist Russia where every town has only one store and what they carry is what they carry.

 

[JBeukema]

You and these pharmacists who sued that they shouldn't have to dispense on religious grounds are attempting to portray the Plan B drug as being the same thing as RU-486

Cite, please

. I don't believe they have to stock the drug if they can give you the name of a pharmacy who does stock it.

So you've renounced your moronic position and and adopted my earlier proposal?

This is not rocket science. If they carry birth control pills and hand them to the customer and it doesn't go against their religious beliefs, the Plan B pill should not go against their beliefs either. As someone stated earlier, you could take a handful of BC pills and get the same affect as they both have the same contraceptive make up.

And? Their ignorance of how the drug works is irrelevant here. They do not wish to sell a given product. That is the end of the story.

 

[FA_Q2]

1) I think if you were actually reading what I have said, you would not have made that first comment. I did not say I would not stock it. I stated that I would research it more before I did.

2) You and I will always disagree on the second paragraph here. I respect your beliefs, but I do think you are wrong about it not taking away my freedoms. I believe in a merchant's right to choose what he or she wants to stock. I am opposed to the government's interference in that choice.

It appears to me by your last sentence that you believe you have the right to decide what a merchant does and does not stock. Sorry, I will never agree with that.

Immie

I have been reading what you said:

(Posted by Immie)

"Maybe this has been mentioned as I have not read the entire thread, but here is how I would deal with this issue.

"I'm sorry, I am out of stock at the moment and do not know how long it will be before I receive my next shipment."

Every time someone entered my store, they would get the same reply.

The government cannot force me to stock items I do not care to stock.

Immie"

We aren't talking about Target stocking blue shoes. This is not simply a "merchant" but a healthcare provider. Pharmacies should be forced to stock emergency medications and unlike a normal merchant, the government pays pharmacies through federal taxes such as medicare.

That is backwards thinking. The pharmacies are not the ones that are sucking off the government tit with Medicare, it is the beneficiaries that are. The pharmacy is simply supplying the product they are using that money for. That is the same as stating that grocery stores are sucking off the government tit because they accept food stamps, bullshit. On that same logic, the government should mandate what food a grocery store carries of they accept food stamps or WIC. After all, most stores do not off all the available options that on those programs. From now on, every grocery store MUST carry Cheerios because there may be someone from WIC that needs them.

 

[JBeukema]

Being a pharmacist is not like selling shoes where the seller can pick and choose what he wants to sell.

Why not?

They're a private company. Why shouldn't they be able to decide whether they wish to sell condoms, trident gum, Red Vines, or any other given product?

So far we've all called for the Health Department making BC available, and I''m sure few would have any reasonable objection to hospitals making Plan B available.

It's a violation of the state licensing rules. Also the court ruled a patient's right to timely medication supersedes a pharmacist's personal convictions.

So the earlier poster can sue acme because it was the recommended product and the pharmacy didn't carry it?

And everyone here has expressed support for making Plan B available at the hospital and the Health Department.

 

[JBeukema]

Being a pharmacist is not like selling shoes where the seller can pick and choose what he wants to sell.

Why not?

They're a private company. Why shouldn't they be able to decide whether they wish to sell condoms, trident gum, Red Vines, or any other given product?

So far we've all called for the Health Department making BC available, and I''m sure few would have any reasonable objection to hospitals making Plan B available.

When you're ready to take Plan B, you have a very short window of time. That is one reason they don't require a prescription, you don't have time to get one from your doc say on a weekend.

You have 72 hours. If that's enough to go to one pharmacy, it's enough to go to another pharmacy or the Department of Family Planning and Women's Health.


In instances of rape, everyone here has voiced support for having the medical professionals make Plan B available to the victims.

You, however, can't keep your story straight and have shown you don't even know what the thread is about.

 

[saveliberty]

That woman should not have to be inconvienienced by a political nut job. Take the morons license away.

Inconvienienced? Is that what we are calling abortions now a days? Pharmacists are not supposed to dispence medicines that do harm. The kid gets killed.

 

[JBeukema]

If Pharms don't want public responsibility they need to find a new profession. It is not up to them to control others' live through their own self righteous glass gavels.

How is not selling a product controlling your life?

Laws that force businesses to carry certain products control peoples' lives.

 

[JBeukema]

What if they don't carry your brand of toilet paper, should Congress pass a law requiring it?

The Pharmacist is not necessarily the owner of the pharmacy. The law had to do with a pharmacist objecting to selling the Plan B pill, not whether they had it in stock.

If you are talking about the employee of the pharmacy that is a different manner. I think those of us on the opposite side from your point of view are looking at it as the owner of the pharmacy. I know that is how I see it.

If I am the employee of the pharmacy and I don't want to sell product that the owner wants to sell, then I can always quit and go elsewhere. I work for the employer. He/she does not work for me.

Immie

She doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about and was called on t.

Read the second sentence in the article linked in the OP.

 

[FA_Q2]

I see no one has yet taken up my challenge on why a pharmacy is not required to stock my chemotherapy medication that is damn well LIFE THREATENING if doses are missed yet for some reason plan b is required. Should I drop the last pill in the drain I must go immediately to the nearest hospital that can cater to that field (not always the closes as I have had to drive over 50 miles before for something along these lines) and receive my medication there. For some reason, that was okay because I was just dealing with plain old cancer, nothing major like a POSSIBLE PREGNANCY!

If the government deems plan b a necessary available product then it is the community hospitals that should be required to carry as they are COMMUNITY hospitals, not private pharmacies. That is what they are there for, serving the community.