US pharmacists and the morning after pill

[_alanna]

I find this article utterly appalling. How dare these pharmacists impose their morals on their customers... especially when those customers have a prescription from their doctors

Comments

[ar_gemlad]

On the one hand, I think that employees should be able to refuse to do things against their moral code (eg serving alcohol in a supermarket if drinking is against their religion), as long as the service is still provided.

But then I think of strange situations, for example, if a religion prohibited drinking alcohol only to women, and the supermarket cashier in the previous example served booze to men but not women. My initial argument obviously breaks down at this point as this kind of situation is unworkable.

Thinking about my example combined with yours has just put a rather bizarre image in my head - a supermarket tannoy announcement along the lines of "Supervisor to checkout 17 please - someone wants to buy condoms".

Sorry, I'm rambling now...

[cardinalsin]

It would be easier if shops simply specified in their recruitment criteria what staff will be expected to do. Moral code objections would be thusly nullified. Of course you then have the problem of employers refusing to do stuff on the basis of their moral code, which seems more in line with what the article is talking about.

[_alanna]

Re employees, I imagine that's probably what will start to happen if this situation continues in the US.

Employers is trickier, but there must be some professional standards you have to achieve before you can call yourself a 'pharmacist'... so it will largely depend on what the standards body decides... which will probably depend on legal decisions such as those the article mentions.

[_alanna]

I'd be happy to tolerate that position as long as, as you say, "the service is still provided". The idea that some of the pharmacists were retaining the women's prescriptions is just plain wrong.

But even so, I still object to the pharmacist's moral code being imposed on those women. I'll bet the pharmacist would object if I tried to force my (purely hypothetical) moral code on her and browbeat her into having a medical abortion, or refuse to acquiesce to a DNR request, or refuse to sell her meat products in a supermarket (you can bet I wouldn't keep my job long in that last example :P)...

If one profession can refuse to fulfill parts of their job descriptions on moral grounds, it's descrimination if other professions can't do this as well.

hypothesis on hypothesis

[applez]

The fundamentals are -

There are some pharmacists who did retain the prescription, and there are many regions of the US where any given person has very few pharmaceutical options - it may well be that they may be the only pharmacy.

Re: hypothesis on hypothesis

[kawolski]

They're not allowed to retain the prescription if they don't fill it unless they have reason to believe it is forged or stolen. The article doesn't go into detail about retained prescriptions. It's merely stated in a second-hand quote that it is supposedly going on without citing examples or circumstances.

If you have a mailing address, you can get pills overnight delivered to you. If you live in the middle of nowhere, your "24 hour Walgreens" options are limited, which is all the more reason to make sure that you have the morning after pill the morning before you do the deed in case you need to use it and the local pharmacy is sold out or doesn't carry it or the pharmacist is on vacation.

The woman, whom was NOT raped, has nobody to blame but herself.

I'm all for abortion, but there's got to be a point where the individual needs to take some personal responsibility.

Re: hypothesis on hypothesis

[_alanna]

The woman, whom was NOT raped, has nobody to blame but herself.

It's a little bit beside the point but the last time I checked it still takes two people to make a woman pregnant.

Re: hypothesis on hypothesis

[kawolski]

It's completely beside the point because it doesn't make any sense.

A woman's husband or boyfriend can't see a doctor on the woman's behalf to get a drug prescription for ANYTHING. It's the woman's sole responsibility to get the morning after pill because the pill is prescribed to the WOMAN, not the MAN.

The most the man can do is pay for it.

Re: hypothesis on hypothesis

[_alanna]

The man could have suggested getting the pill via the mail, or indeed he could have done it for her. The man could have suggested having some handy in advance in case there was a problem. The man could have used a condom and averted the whole thing (assuming it wasn't a condom that broke). Once the woman has a prescription, the man could go and pick it up for her (this may not be true in the US).

The attitude that a woman has the sole responsibility for 'getting herself pregnant' is an extremely narrow minded view.