This is a totally SPECIOUS argument but wow, doesn't it just get your liberal juices flowing to PRETEND this woman was BLEEDING OUT right there and how it was this big EMERGENCY thing going on here - and this pharmacist refused to come to her assistance? Sorry, its all bullshit and typical liberal drama queen antics.
Well let's just establish from the beginning, I'm not a "liberal", I'm a Republican and have been such since I voted in my first Congressional Election which was in 1978. Individually I fall right of center on fiscal issues thinking that the government has grown way to much over the last decades and oppose it's continued growth. On social issues I advocate for smaller less intrusive government and greatly respect the positions of Barry Goldwater "Father of the Modern Conservative Movement". Today those views conflict with what some call "social conservatives" but which I call "social authoritarians" because their position actually advocates FOR increased government intrusion.
Be it known though that my personal opinion on what "should be" does not preclude the discussion of reality and what "is". Something that some people are unable to differentiate, they think that there opinion reflects reality, which is often not the case.
1. A pharmacy is not an emergency clinic and pharmacists are not doctors, they are NOT health care providers AT ALL. They run a privately owned business and their business is selling prescription and non-prescription drugs, medications and supplies.
First of all this is factually incorrect. Pharmacists are doctors, in all States and territories owned by the United States - Pharmacists must earn a "Doctor of Pharmacy" degree to qualify under State law to be issued a Pharmacist License to be be able to operate as a Pharmacist (
LINK: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics).
The second factually incorrect statement is to say that Pharmacists are "NOT health care providers AT ALL". Pharmacists are an integral part of the health care system and as part of that system they are health care providers. Again from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics...
"Pharmacists distribute prescription drugs to individuals. They also advise their patients, physicians, and other health practitioners on the selection, dosages, interactions, and side effects of medications, as well as monitor the health and progress of those patients to ensure that they are using their medications safely and effectively."
Finally, if Idaho Pharmasicts are "NOT health care providers AT ALL", as you say, then they would not be excepted under the Idaho Conscience Law which applies to health care providers and the exemption from prosecution or civil action provided under that law. Can't have it both ways - either they are health care providers and are covered or they are not health care providers and do not have the immunity the law provides for.
Feel free to walk into any meeting of doctors, nurses, or pharmacists and tell them that pharmacists are not health care providers and watch how you are laughed out of the room.
But they do NOT sell every kind of medication that exists -nor are they EVER required to either.
Could you point out anywhere in the claim made by the prescribing authority for the prescription, the Idaho Board of Pharmacy, or anyone in this thread has stated that a pharmacist must sock each and every medication that could be required to supplied?
Basically this statement is hyperbole and not relevant to the case under discussion. The claim wasn't that the pharmacy didn't stock the bleeding medication proscribed, the claim was that care would not be provided based on a moral judgement of the patients based on medcial history, not that the drug was not in stock.
2. Pharmacists take NO oath at all, much less an oath to fill any and all prescriptions that cross their counter. They can't take such an oath or the smaller ones in particular would quickly be driven out of business. Smaller pharmacies ROUTINELY tell someone they have to get a prescription for an uncommon medication filled somewhere else because they don't stock it and they don't want to mess with an uncommon one at all.
Actually a non-binding oath may still be administered as part of the pomp and ceremony depending on the University where the Doctor of Pharmacy received their degree, I do concede though that such a ceremonial oath would be non-binding in a court of law.
Here is a sample oath approved by the American Pharmacists Association, who through it's accrediting association with the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy sanctions college programs for Doctors of Pharmacy.
"I promise to devote myself to a lifetime of service to others through the profession of
pharmacy. In fulfilling this vow:
• I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of suffering my primary concerns.
• I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal
outcomes for my patients.
• I will respect and protect all personal and health information entrusted to me.
• I will accept the lifelong obligation to improve my professional knowledge and competence.
• I will hold myself and my colleagues to the highest principles of our profession’s moral,
ethical and legal conduct.
• I will embrace and advocate changes that improve patient care.
• I will utilize my knowledge, skills, experiences, and values to prepare the next generation of
pharmacists.
I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am
entrusted by the public.”
LINK
However under State law (and in Idaho you should refer to the Idaho statues Title 18 and Title 54, chapter 17 that have to do with Pharmacists and their licensing) Pharmacists are subject to state public accommodation laws and the rules and regulations established by the State Board of Pharmacy including those pertaining to ethics and negligence. If the Board decides that the pharmasict in question was negligent or violated the State Board code of ethics, then they would be subject to disciplinary action which may include a fine, revocation of their license in full, or restrictions on the use of their license.
The courts have already ruled on this under various guises. If your pharmacist will not fill a prescription for ANY reason, even if you don't LIKE his reason (with the exception of refusing because of your race or gender) -you must take it to a different pharmacy. But you can't FORCE a pharmacist to sell a drug against their will and you can't FORCE a pharmacist to violate their conscience.
Please cite the precedence bearing cases as they apply to Idaho that state that a pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription because of they feel that a persons prior actions are immoral.
The Idaho law is very specific in that the Conscience Law exempts the pharmacists from having to fill prescriptions for abortion inducing drugs, contraceptives, "emergency" contraceptives, and drugs derived from embryonic stem cells. The drug prescribed falls into non of the exempted categories - as such there are no exemptions granted under the Idaho Conscience Law for the Pharmasicts actions and will be subject to review and (possbibly) disciplinary action **IF** the board finds the claims made are factually true.
It is no different from if the situation was that pharmacy doesn't carry it or won't have any more for three days but you want it now you have to go to another one. THAT'S LIFE. Just because the goods being sold are medication instead of ice cream shakes changes nothing -a store in the private sector can sell or NOT sell their choice of goods. Period. Go buy it somewhere else just like if you want that pineapple shake you have to go get it where someone is willing to sell it!
Logically speaking there is a great difference between not stocking a drug, informing the patient of that, and referring them to a different pharmacy and the claims made in this case where the drug was refused based on the pharmacists moral opinion of why the person might possibly have been issued the prescription.
But PULLEEZE let's stop with the DRAMA QUEEN antics on this story already! THIS does not represent "emergency" and the pharmacist was NOT there to provide any type of medical care to her whatsoever.
Actually fulfilling a prescription for medication is - well - part of "medical care". The biggest medcial problem I've ever had was a couple of kidney stones, and believe me, the prescription for pain medication was a very important part of my "medical care".
A pharmacist would be well aware of the most common and routine use of this drug following an abortion - and make a pretty accurate guess why this woman had been prescribed the drug. And according to the courts in similar cases, would be within his rights to refuse to participate or play ANY role in ANY aspect of the abortion industry whether it was before, during or after an abortion. Or any OTHER reason he had for not filling this particular prescription (except reasons of race or gender).
Again you cite the courts, can you substantiate your claims or is the application to the Appeal to Authority Fallacy claiming a higher power substantiates your claim.
So lets see your Idaho court case that says that Pharmacists are not subject to disciplinary action by the Idaho State Pharmacy Board if the board finds them to be negligent in not filling a valid prescription for ethics violations when they act under assumptions about the moral conduct of the person who was issued the prescription.
Should be interesting reading.
Now if you understand why the court did in THAT case, then you can surely understand why courts have upheld the right of pharmacists to refuse to play any kind of supporting role in the abortion industry. It is why courts have also said you can't force a pharmacist to sell the morning after pill and you can't force a pharmacy to sell birth control pills. If a pharmacy doesn't have or won't sell you what you want -you must go elsewhere. That's life.
Again, you invoke the courts. Let's see the cases that provide that a pharmacists is exempt from filling non-abortion related prescriptions (in that they medicine is not being prescribed to cause an abortion) based on the pharmacists opinion of the moral history of the patient.
If you are going to invoke "The Courts" as a basis of discussion, then you should be prepared to cite and discuss they cases you feel are relevant.
Thank you for your consideration and time in supporting your invocation of "The Courts".
********************************************
Since "Public Accommodation Laws" were previously mentioned, let me provide a short statement of my opinion of them (<<-- Note Opinion). Basically they are an expansion of government, which may have been needful in the past, but which have outlived their usefulness and now encroach on the operation of private business. I have no problem with Public Accommodation Laws as they apply to government entities and believe that those laws should apply to limiting the governments ability to enter into legal contracts with businesses who routinely exercise discriminatory policies. Businesses should be free (as a private entity) to discriminate, just as the government should be free not to purchase goods and services from them. I know this will sound slightly hypocritical, but I do recognize the need for certain laws as they apply to ethics and negligence for certain health care providers in the event of certain emergency/life threatening situations.
Again, my opinion of what should be is different then the reality of what is.
>>>>
