pharmacist have 1st Amendment right to refuse to dispense Plan B

[Syphon]

Are you that ignorant of who is ringing you up? Pharmacist rarely ring anyone up at the counter. Hence the pharmacy technicians.

The OP is disingenuous. Ignorance is no excuse.

pharmacists actually do ring up a lot of the customers. just ask the ones who work at the 24 hr locations.

Yes, but I don't think they are usually alone even at 3am. So, if the product is available at the store, then someone besides the pharmacist (or the person that objects to the product) could in fact ring up the sale.

That doesn't mean though that I have changed my position. A person who objects to the product should not be forced to dispense it and the pharmacy that objects to it should not be required to carry it.

Immie

agreed, i was just pointing it that it does happen. especially at drive up pharmacy's

 

[saveliberty]

The script and drug ALWAYS goes through the hands of the pharmacist before delivery to the patient. The Constitution will be made clear on this subject. The appeals court has laid out the religious framework very nicely.

 

[Immanuel]

The script and drug ALWAYS goes through the hands of the pharmacist before delivery to the patient. The Constitution will be made clear on this subject. The appeals court has laid out the religious framework very nicely.

Yet, if Plan B does not require a perscription as I understand the case to be, then neither the drug nor the script would necessarily have to go through the hands of the pharmacist.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you that ignorant of who is ringing you up? Pharmacist rarely ring anyone up at the counter. Hence the pharmacy technicians.

The OP is disingenuous. Ignorance is no excuse.

The law in Washington requires a pharmacist to dispense Plan B, hence the suit filed by a pharmacist that objected to dispensing it. If you do not like the law in Washington complain to them, not me, I did not have anything to do with it.

You would actually know this if you read the link I provided, and the actual decision. Like you said, ignorance is no excuse.

As for a registered pharmacist having to staff a counter...that was your brain fart; not mine. Again, it's not dispensed. Perhaps you mean "order" for a patient if they request it. It's only an Rx for a kid under 17.

From the article in the OP.

Washington state regulations violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by compelling pharmacies and pharmacists to dispense the...

Here is what it says on the website of the maker of Plan B on obtaining it in Seattle.

Go to the pharmacy counter and ask for Plan B One-Step®—accept no substitutes. It’s the only one-pill emergency contraception available over the counter, for consumers age 17 and older. You can get it at your pharmacy without a prescription, as long as you show a government-issued photo identification that proves you are 17 or older. Valid IDs include your driver's license, state identification card, or passport. If you feel uncomfortable asking for Plan B One-Step®, you can download and print a Plan B One-Step® Request Card to hand to your pharmacist.

Plan B One-Step® Consumer: Where to get Plan B One-Step® - Learn More

Even if all the pharmacist does is pick up the package of Plan B and take your money they are still dispensing it. Plan B is not something you walk into a drug store and ask the clerk for, you have to ask for it at the pharmacy counter, which is manned by a registered pharmacist or a pharmacy tech of some type supervised by a pharmacist. For some reason, the regulations in Washington require a pharmacist to actually hand the medicine to people who ask for it, meaning a pharmacist the person that dispenses, not orders, the Plan B.

No brain farts, no disingenuity, no ignorance. At least, none of it is coming from me. This is, however, the end of my patience in explaining the obvious.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are you that ignorant of who is ringing you up? Pharmacist rarely ring anyone up at the counter. Hence the pharmacy technicians.

The OP is disingenuous. Ignorance is no excuse.

pharmacists actually do ring up a lot of the customers. just ask the ones who work at the 24 hr locations.

Yes, but I don't think they are usually alone even at 3am. So, if the product is available at the store, then someone besides the pharmacist (or the person that objects to the product) could in fact ring up the sale.

That doesn't mean though that I have changed my position. A person who objects to the product should not be forced to dispense it and the pharmacy that objects to it should not be required to carry it.

Immie

Actually, this case came about because the owner of the store was unable to keep a second, registered pharmacist, in the store all the time. Washington state pharmacy regulations require a pharmacist to dispense all medicine from the pharmacy, which makes my OP entirely accurate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The script and drug ALWAYS goes through the hands of the pharmacist before delivery to the patient. The Constitution will be made clear on this subject. The appeals court has laid out the religious framework very nicely.

Yet, if Plan B does not require a perscription as I understand the case to be, then neither the drug nor the script would necessarily have to go through the hands of the pharmacist.

Immie

If only Washington had that much common sense.

 

[Syphon]

The script and drug ALWAYS goes through the hands of the pharmacist before delivery to the patient. The Constitution will be made clear on this subject. The appeals court has laid out the religious framework very nicely.

Yet, if Plan B does not require a perscription as I understand the case to be, then neither the drug nor the script would necessarily have to go through the hands of the pharmacist.

Immie

as i understood the law, its suppose to go through the hands of a pharmacist as a part of regulating who actually purchases it. thus ID must be shown to verify who you are and your age

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The script and drug ALWAYS goes through the hands of the pharmacist before delivery to the patient. The Constitution will be made clear on this subject. The appeals court has laid out the religious framework very nicely.

Yet, if Plan B does not require a perscription as I understand the case to be, then neither the drug nor the script would necessarily have to go through the hands of the pharmacist.

Immie

as i understood the law, its suppose to go through the hands of a pharmacist as a part of regulating who actually purchases it. thus ID must be shown to verify who you are and your age

That is exactly how it works, they don't want teenage girls using it. Not sure how an ID is going to stop a mother or an older sister from picking it up for the teen, but laws rarely make sense. Come to think of it, there is nothing to stop an older boyfriend from buying it for the teen either, unless they discriminate on the basis of sex.

 

[Syphon]

Yet, if Plan B does not require a perscription as I understand the case to be, then neither the drug nor the script would necessarily have to go through the hands of the pharmacist.

Immie

as i understood the law, its suppose to go through the hands of a pharmacist as a part of regulating who actually purchases it. thus ID must be shown to verify who you are and your age

That is exactly how it works, they don't want teenage girls using it. Not sure how an ID is going to stop a mother or an older sister from picking it up for the teen, but laws rarely make sense. Come to think of it, there is nothing to stop an older boyfriend from buying it for the teen either, unless they discriminate on the basis of sex.

its a regulation to control distribution. thus they will require ID to verify you are the one purchasing the drug. its not meant to stop people from purchasing it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

as i understood the law, its suppose to go through the hands of a pharmacist as a part of regulating who actually purchases it. thus ID must be shown to verify who you are and your age

That is exactly how it works, they don't want teenage girls using it. Not sure how an ID is going to stop a mother or an older sister from picking it up for the teen, but laws rarely make sense. Come to think of it, there is nothing to stop an older boyfriend from buying it for the teen either, unless they discriminate on the basis of sex.

its a regulation to control distribution. thus they will require ID to verify you are the one purchasing the drug. its not meant to stop people from purchasing it.

If I go in to buy something how am I not the one buying it?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

That is exactly how it works, they don't want teenage girls using it. Not sure how an ID is going to stop a mother or an older sister from picking it up for the teen, but laws rarely make sense. Come to think of it, there is nothing to stop an older boyfriend from buying it for the teen either, unless they discriminate on the basis of sex.

its a regulation to control distribution. thus they will require ID to verify you are the one purchasing the drug. its not meant to stop people from purchasing it.

If I go in to buy something how am I not the one buying it?

you have more patience than I.

 

[Syphon]

That is exactly how it works, they don't want teenage girls using it. Not sure how an ID is going to stop a mother or an older sister from picking it up for the teen, but laws rarely make sense. Come to think of it, there is nothing to stop an older boyfriend from buying it for the teen either, unless they discriminate on the basis of sex.

its a regulation to control distribution. thus they will require ID to verify you are the one purchasing the drug. its not meant to stop people from purchasing it.

If I go in to buy something how am I not the one buying it?

someone posted it here earlier, that ID checking originally had to do with controlling substances that were being used to cook meth. not sure if that is exactly a valid argument here with Plan B. i would assume Plan B would be just to verify age. same as purchasing alcohol. you know those signs that say if you look under 40 we will ID. same principle.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Its about 50-50 at my local Krogers pharmacy. At another, you can always consult with the pharmacist.

I used to do a lot of prescription pick-ups at pharmacies for customers, and typically, the actual pharmacist was busy doing patient consultations, while the pharmacy techs were doing most of the ringing-up and paperwork and such. Certainly, the pharmacist CAN do those things as well, but if they're at all busy, he's pretty much tied to the consultation window, since he's the ONLY one who can do that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

its a regulation to control distribution. thus they will require ID to verify you are the one purchasing the drug. its not meant to stop people from purchasing it.

If I go in to buy something how am I not the one buying it?

someone posted it here earlier, that ID checking originally had to do with controlling substances that were being used to cook meth. not sure if that is exactly a valid argument here with Plan B. i would assume Plan B would be just to verify age. same as purchasing alcohol. you know those signs that say if you look under 40 we will ID. same principle.

I don't show my ID to purchase alcohol, I don't want clerks to know my name and address.

 

[Ravi]

While I agree a pharmacist should discuss with a patient possible side effects and alert the prescribing doctor of a potential dangerous drug combination there is no danger to the patient standing in front of him from the morning after pill. He or she should be concerned about the person in front of him, not some potential life. He does not have the moral authority or even the knowledge to deny the drug. For all he knows the woman or girl was raped by her father.

If someone's morals prevent them from doing their job they should find other work.

If he were my employee I would work to find a replacement and then fire him.

 

[Syphon]

If I go in to buy something how am I not the one buying it?

someone posted it here earlier, that ID checking originally had to do with controlling substances that were being used to cook meth. not sure if that is exactly a valid argument here with Plan B. i would assume Plan B would be just to verify age. same as purchasing alcohol. you know those signs that say if you look under 40 we will ID. same principle.

I don't show my ID to purchase alcohol, I don't want clerks to know my name and address.

what do you show when they require it then?

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

While I agree a pharmacist should discuss with a patient possible side effects and alert the prescribing doctor of a potential dangerous drug combination there is no danger to the patient standing in front of him from the morning after pill. He or she should be concerned about the person in front of him, not some potential life. He does not have the moral authority or even the knowledge to deny the drug. For all he knows the woman or girl was raped by her father.

If someone's morals prevent them from doing their job they should find other work.

If he were my employee I would work to find a replacement and then fire him.

Let me ask you this.

Suppose I own a tire shop and you come in and ask me to sell you some BGF tires, and I say no I can sell you some Hankooks though.

Do you sue me?

Simple yes or no please.

 

[Syphon]

While I agree a pharmacist should discuss with a patient possible side effects and alert the prescribing doctor of a potential dangerous drug combination there is no danger to the patient standing in front of him from the morning after pill. He or she should be concerned about the person in front of him, not some potential life. He does not have the moral authority or even the knowledge to deny the drug. For all he knows the woman or girl was raped by her father.

If someone's morals prevent them from doing their job they should find other work.

If he were my employee I would work to find a replacement and then fire him.

Let me ask you this.

Suppose I own a tire shop and you come in and ask me to sell you some BGF tires, and I say no I can sell you some Hankooks though.

Do you sue me?

Simple yes or no please.

let me ask you this.

lets say you break your leg in a car accident and your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin. you show up at the pharmacist and ask for Vicodin, but the pharmacist say nope, i wont carry that. how about Tylenol? is that an equal?

Do you sue him now?

 

[Full-Auto]

While I agree a pharmacist should discuss with a patient possible side effects and alert the prescribing doctor of a potential dangerous drug combination there is no danger to the patient standing in front of him from the morning after pill. He or she should be concerned about the person in front of him, not some potential life. He does not have the moral authority or even the knowledge to deny the drug. For all he knows the woman or girl was raped by her father.

If someone's morals prevent them from doing their job they should find other work.

If he were my employee I would work to find a replacement and then fire him.

Let me ask you this.

Suppose I own a tire shop and you come in and ask me to sell you some BGF tires, and I say no I can sell you some Hankooks though.

Do you sue me?

Simple yes or no please.

let me ask you this.

lets say you break your leg in a car accident and your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin. you show up at the pharmacist and ask for Vicodin, but the pharmacist say nope, i wont carry that. how about Tylenol? is that an equal?

Do you sue him now?

no

Does the thought of taking your business elsewhere ever occur to you.


Or are you like a good peasant and just take it?

 

[Syphon]

Let me ask you this.

Suppose I own a tire shop and you come in and ask me to sell you some BGF tires, and I say no I can sell you some Hankooks though.

Do you sue me?

Simple yes or no please.

let me ask you this.

lets say you break your leg in a car accident and your doctor gives you a prescription for Vicodin. you show up at the pharmacist and ask for Vicodin, but the pharmacist say nope, i wont carry that. how about Tylenol? is that an equal?

Do you sue him now?

no

Does the thought of taking your business elsewhere ever occur to you.


Or are you like a good peasant and just take it?

so if you live in a small town, where its 20-30 miles to the next pharmacy, then its your fault for living there and having a religious nut as the town pharmacist?