Now that the morning after pill is available without a prescription - the pharamacists who refused to dispense it can keep their jobs.

Women have access to birth control and Catholic pharmacists don't have to choose between their jobs and their religion.

A pharmacist is paid to dispense drugs, not freaking morality. If he is paid to do a job, he should be doing the freaking job. Screwing over desperate females who need this pill because of his religion is not doing his job. This is utter freaking bullshit. Fire any asshole who refuses to do the job he was paid to do. His morality should not be a part of his job.

quote:

---

I agree. It's better than no access at all of course, but pharmacists should do their job or find another career.

---

Let me give you another example. Let's say that part of the job description for police officers is to wear the uniform. The uniform guidelines are very specific and do not allow for the wearing of a turban.

Do you feel that Sikhs who are unwilling to remove their turbans should be fired, even though it is part of their religion? Would you tell them to do their job or find another career?

Is that what you would say to people of other religions who have to ask certain holy days off?

Do you not believe that religous belief should not be accomodated where possible?

And since this change has been brought in, it is very possible.

quote:

---

Here's my compromise. Any pharmacist that finds the pill objectionable on moral grounds

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duck:

Will you use this same rational when a soldier refuses to do his job based on his freaking morality?

---

Given that I generally agree with the original sentiment, I'll respond by saying, for my own part, yes, obviously, a soldier who does not obey orders isn't much good as a soldier, and should not be part of the profession, at least until someone figures out how to organise operationally effective anarchist peacekeeping forces (good luck with that one).

If a soldier refuses to perform his duties as laid out by his superiors, he may rightfully enough be dismissed from his position, sure. Now whether soldiers who disobey orders on ethical grounds or go AWOL should receive dishonourable discharge or other punishments for breach of their contract with the military is a more complex debate which is heavily subject to circumstantial factors (i.e., what the ethical grounds happen to be and whether they are justified).

[ 25 August 2006: Message edited by: Yst ]

It will be rationalised as concerned consumer position, much like Michael Moore's program to get bullets out of the K-Mart stores.

quote:

---

believe it is based on religous grounds, not on moral grounds. There is a difference.

---

You know what Pearson? As a female I could care less if it is moral or religious (and they are the same thing BTW). How far are you willing to go Pearson, to allow someone to not do what they are paid to do? Is it okay to not provide condoms because they don't believe in birth control? What else do you think a PAID employee should be able to not provide because it's against his/her 'morals'?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
If he is paid to do a job, he should be doing the freaking job.

(snip)

Fire any asshole who refuses to do the job he was paid to do. His morality should not be a part of his job.

---

What if the pharmacist is the owner of the pharmacy, which is quite common in smaller towns? An owner is not going to "fire" him or herself. So, would one standard apply to the owners of pharmacies and another standard would apply to those pharmacists who are "merely" employees of a pharmacy?

And Do you no what Stargazer? Maybe a pharmacist values his soul the same, or more, than a soldier values his life. And do you know what Stargazer, these professions are chosen by people of all beliefs.

Who are you, Stargazer, to critique the morality and religious beliefs of all on earth, regardless if they are men or women?

[ 26 August 2006: Message edited by: Madwow ]

[ 26 August 2006: Message edited by: Madwow ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Madwow:
And Do you no what Stargazer? Maybe a pharmacist values his soul the same, or more, than a soldier values his life. And do you know what Stargazer, these professions are chosen by people of all beliefs.

Who are you, Stargazer, to critique the morality and religious beliefs of all on earth, regardless if they are men or women?

---

quote:

---

Now that the morning after pill is available without a prescription - the pharamacists who refused to dispense it can keep their jobs.

---

[with tongue in cheek], But can the cashier refuse to ring it up or the bagger to put it in the sack or the truck driver refuse that delivered it to the store or the shelver that put it out?

quote:

---

Are you saying that that person should have the right to stop paying taxes because part of every tax dollar the person pays will pay for (i.e., support) abortions?

---

It's a good point. I suppose their rationale is that giving out the morning after pill is more of a direct link than paying their taxes.

Indirectly, we're all responsible for everything that happens on the planet - if you take it far enough.

quote:

---

[with tongue in cheek], But can the cashier refuse to ring it up or the bagger to put it in the sack or the truck driver refuse that delivered it to the store or the shelver that put it out?

---

Well ultimately, if someone is unable to do their job, they need to be fired.

However, if the job can be modified so as to accomodate them, then it should be done.

The odds of everyone in the pharmacy having the same religious belief, such that a customer can not get service from anyone, is very unlikely - unless it has been intentionally set up that way by the owners.

Third question is, why are there absolutely no women posting in this thread, on a topic which has a real impact of control over their own bodies?

My guess is that the feminist forum has been hijacked as well by some men who fail to see putting anti-feminist junk in the feminist forum is their right.

But what do I know, I'm just a woman and all you're talking about, in essence, is the right of a person's morality to dominante over a woman's right of access to this pill. So I leave you, Pearson, and your other buddies like Madwow, to ponder this issue, which so clearly troubles you.

[ 27 August 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

As to the issue on the table, why don't pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for Zoloft and Xanax that women are prescribed all the time? Because such medications are legitimate ways to affect social control over women, yes? And we all know that's always a good thing! I haven't heard of any pharmacist having "moral" problems dispensing this crap to women by the frikking truckload.

The morning pill isn't abortion, not by a very long slippery slope, which is the far-right's attempt to draw us into their framing of this "debate". Don't fall for it.

On a separate note (or is it?), let's look at this phenomenon: Viagara (or V!agara) and other penile/erectile enhancement drugs are available all over the place. And cheap, according to spam I get.

But the morning after pill! It's controversial! It could cause conflict with differing morality and religious beliefs!! We must spend time debating! Should individual pharmacists' religious and moral values prevail over their jobs!!

Whatever.

[ 26 August 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duck:
"A pharmacist is paid to dispense drugs, not freaking morality. If he is paid to do a job, he should be doing the freaking job. Screwing over desperate females who need this pill because of his religion is not doing his job. This is utter freaking bullshit. Fire any asshole who refuses to do the job he was paid to do."

Will you use this same rational when a soldier refuses to do his job based on his freaking morality?

---

That's Soo Stooopid -even Comparing the established right of women to take birthcontrol and the non-right to invade other countries and kill other people. The actual libertarian credo is that our own rights end where the others begin -starting with our bodies- one of the few things they ever got right. But this "Duck" fool more or less gets away with this.

You're right Stargazer, I never realised before just how Many white males thought it was their inborn Right to intrude in other peoples space and tell Them what they think. (which is apparently not much bloody much in most cases....) If I've done the same before I'm truly sorry. I'm now going to retreat from this thread, and hope some other women step in to help stem the blue tide of BS. Or maybe a mod.

Oh, I see BCG beat me to it; good stuff, thanx.

[ 26 August 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
...Zoloft and Xanax that women are prescribed all the time? Because such medications are legitimate ways to affect social control over women, yes? And we all know that's always a good thing! I haven't heard of any pharmacist having "moral" problems dispensing this crap to women by the frikking truckload.

---

[THREAD DRIFT]

Why do you say that Zoloft is marketed to women (implying it's only marketed to women. At a personal level, Zoloft was prescribed to me and it's been a godsend.

I said

quote:

---

why don't pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for Zoloft and Xanax that women are prescribed all the time?

---

which I maintain is true. I could add Prozac and numerous other anti-depressants to the list.

Even the most cursory search of anti-psychiatry and consumer/survivor websites will get you the information that women are prescribed tranquilizers at consistently higher rates than men, and that pharmacists (among many other professionals) have had no moral problems with this.

Especially since the vast majority of "pro-lifers" in both Canada and the US(progressive "seamless garment types excepted, of course)believes that they have no obligation to help women take care of any children who are brought into the world solely because abortion or contraception are restricted. Those people generally demand massive cuts in social services, oppose day care, and want women with unwanted children to basically be consigned to trailer parks on the wrong side of the tracks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
It seems that drugs are only effective for women when the drugs (via professionals) control women's bodies, not women utilizing access to drugs (such as the morning after pill) in control of our own bodies.

---

The so-called Christian right in this country fought the Plan B rule tooth and nail right down to the end, complaining about what this would do to teenage promiscuity and morals. Of course, if you're under 18, you can't but Plan B so they'll have to get an adult to buy it for them. I don't get the CR, but I never do anyway - they want teenagers to carry babies to term no matter what, I guess.

The basic problem is allowing religion/superstition to intrude on public health rulemaking.

Pharmacists are paid to prescribe legal medications upon presentation of a legal prescription. If they can't do that they need to find another line of work. Period.

In the last several months I've had enough psych meds (Zoloft, Xanax, Effexor just to name three) thrown at me to drug a draft horse. The last straw was being prescribed Serzone
by someone who I told I was planning (hopefully) to immigrate to Canada. Read the history - HealthCanada won't even allow this drug to be prescribed due to liver damage warnings.

At that point something inside me snapped - but a good snap! I'm off everything and have never felt better in my life. I've fired all my doctors and have resolved to take control of my own health.

That's similar to the whole furor over plan b - women taking charge of their own health - a notion that scares the hell out of the Christian right, the male medical establishment and others.

So, hopefully, these noble pharmacists should stop selling condoms and coffee grains (they make you impotent, you know).

She has defined this as a question concerning women's bodies. And it is. But it is also a question of the rights of employees not to be dismissed from their jobs.

So, to me the question is accomodation. If pharmacist "A" has religious and moral beliefs against abortion and this pill, then he or she should be allowed to maintain this belief and not lose the job IF there is someone else in the company who WILL issue the pill to the purchaser.

The alternative is to foreclose certain jobs to people of certain religions.

Similarly, a person who felt that it is immoral to dispense Xanax, or any other legal drug, should not be fired for it IF there is someone else willing to do so.

I think that it important for us, generally, to prefer people to think morally about what they are doing in their work. Again, the alternative would privilege obedience over thought.

quote:

---

As to the issue on the table, why don't pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for Zoloft and Xanax that women are prescribed all the time? Because such medications are legitimate ways to affect social control over women, yes? And we all know that's always a good thing! I haven't heard of any pharmacist having "moral" problems dispensing this crap to women by the frikking truckload.

---

Well, it's a different issue, entirely. Catholic pharmacists believe that in dispensing the morning after pill, they are killing a person. They do not get this from their own interpretation of the bible, but rather directly from the views of the pope.

quote:

---

Pearson, you are in an extreme, woman-hating minority on this issue even among men.

---

Ah I see, I hate women do I? And that is evidenced because I am pleased that the morning after pill is now available over the counter? What incredible deductive reasoning you have there, Ken.

quote:

---

Most of us believe that women's right to control their bodies outweighs the rights of a pharmacist to impose his vicious misogynistic sanctimony upon those women.

---

You see Ken, if your comprehensive ability was above a grade six level, you would have been able to ascertain, that I have never indicated that a pharmacist's right to avoid dispensing should trump a woman's right to birth control.

Instead, I have suggested that religious belief should be accomodated where possible (meaning where women are not denied birth control as a result).

This is because, unlike you Ken, and other bigots, I am tolerant of religious belief, whether they be Muslim, Jew, Christian, Jehovah's Witness or Catholic.

If a pharmacy owner is going to fire a pharmacist because he will not dispense, when it is quite easy to get the store clerk to do it, he is essentially firing that pharmacist for being Catholic. This amounts to religious discrimination, much the same as if a person of Jewish faith is fired for refusing to work on Yom Kippur.

quote:

---

Men like Pearson justify the continued existence of the feminist movement and the Commission on the Status of Women.

---

Jeff, I am 100 percent pro-worker. I am NOT and will never be an advocate of people who refuse to help people out because it is against their religion or 'morals'. What if I felt it was against my morality to not dispense Viagara to seniors? I simply don't think male seniors should have kids. So, in that light I simply won't give any male senior Viagara.

I'm sure that allowing a pharmacist to opt out of doing his job because of his morals is not a good choice because that does lead to all sorts of people opting out of doing their jobs based upon religion. This is a secular society. If some clown doesn't feel like doing his job (i.e. providing the medications he/she is supposed to fill) then that person meds to get another job.

quote:

---

I'm sure that allowing a pharmacist to opt out of doing his job because of his morals is not a good choice because that does lead to all sorts of people opting out of doing their jobs based upon religion. This is a secular society.

---

This is a secular society which grants significant importance to religion and ethics, particularly by way of the Charter of Rights.

However, as it applies to something like the morning after pill where easy and quick accessibility is so important, how would you answer a womans legitimate needs where there may be entire communities where pharmacists would decline to dispense the pill. Further, there are so many social conservative organisations which would pressure pharmacies, both on an individual level and an industry wide level not to offer these pills.

If there is another easy avenue which is accessible to the client, ie. another pharmacist in the same building, I think that ethical objections can be taken into account.

But I also think that the individual's right to the product should be primary. So, if there are no other pharmacies around, you're obliged to provide whatever is legal.

quote:

---

As to the issue on the table, why don't pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for Zoloft and Xanax that women are prescribed all the time? Because such medications are legitimate ways to affect social control over women, yes?

---

quote:

---

I think we can grant employees a right to refuse ethically-troubling work, and yet have a secular society.

---

quote:

---

You see Ken, if your comprehensive ability was above a grade six level, you would have been able to ascertain, that I have never indicated that a pharmacist's right to avoid dispensing should trump a woman's right to birth control.

---

You implied that it was just as much an unjust imposition to expect a "pro-life"(and remember, you aren't "pro-life" if you support Tory social, economic and foreign policies)pharmacist to fill a prescription for emergency contraception for a rape victim as it was for the woman to have to GET a prescription for the emergency contraception in the first place.

Not having emergency contraception directly affects a woman's life and future. Having to fill a prescription for it does not in any meaningful way affect the life or rights of a "pro-life" pharmicist.

You set up a truly insulting false moral equivalence.

Also, for your information, I am a progressive Christian, so it isn't your place to accuse me of being antireligious.

[ 27 August 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
A pharmacist is paid to dispense drugs, not freaking morality. If he is paid to do a job, he should be doing the freaking job. ... Fire any asshole who refuses to do the job he was paid to do.

---

A pharmacist who owns her own business is free to sell whatever drugs she deems appropriate: If she doesn't want to sell aspirin, that's up to her -- though it may be bad for business. I certainly do not think that a pharmacist should be forced to sell every drug on the market, just as a magazine vendor should not be forced to sell every newsmagazine on the market.

quote:

---

However, as it applies to something like the morning after pill where easy and quick accessibility is so important, how would you answer a womans legitimate needs where there may be entire communities where pharmacists would decline to dispense the pill.

---

The point of this thread is that is no longer a problem. The pharmacist does not need to be involved. The customer can merely take the pill off the shelf and purchase it at the counter. Women have even better access to birth control, and pharmacists with that belief can keep their jobs.

quote:

---

Further, there are so many social conservative organisations which would pressure pharmacies, both on an individual level and an industry wide level not to offer these pills.

---

This becomes more difficult. A business owner should have the right to determine what products go into one's store. However, one solution might be that if a business calls itself a pharmacy, then people have the right to expect it to sell certain products. That way, women will not drive 20 miles to get the morning after pill, only to find out that they don't carry it.

quote:

---

You implied that it was just as much an unjust imposition to expect a "pro-life"(and remember, you aren't "pro-life" if you support Tory social, economic and foreign policies)pharmacist to fill a prescription for emergency contraception for a rape victim as it was for the woman to have to GET a prescription for the emergency contraception in the first place.

---

No, actually Ken, I said (nor did I imply)nothing of the kind. I have said that it is wonderful that women can get emergency contraception over the counter, and that pharmacists do not have to choose between their faith and their job.

At no time, have I said, implied, indicated or hinted that a woman's right to birth control should not trump a pharamcist's "right" to not dispense. What I said is that now both sides can be happy. How can it get any better than allowing customers to get it over the counter? No prescription. No doctor visit. No pharmacist. Just walk in - grab it off the shelf and go pay for it? What exactly is the problem here?

quote:

---

Not having emergency contraception directly affects a woman's life and future.

---

Fascinating. Unfortunately, if you had taken the time to both read and comprehend, you would see that in the new scenario, the woman actually has greater access to contraception. Apparently, that is not enough for you.

quote:

---

Also, for your information, I am a progressive Christian, so it isn't your place to accuse me of being antireligious.

---

[ 27 August 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

The fact that 17 year old girls will have to get prescriptions is still really scary.

---

I have to agree with that. It's a bad idea and it may lead teens to try their own home remedy on it, rather than tell their parents - particularly if their parents are devoutly religious.

quote:

---

Ya, it's really all about imposing their views on others, fundies just like to hide behind 'religious freedoms' while refusing to recognise similar rights for others.

---

Well, this will be a real test, then won't it? If Catholic pharmacists aren't happy about this decision, then it is clear that they are trying to impose their view on others.

quote:

---

But they're Never satisfied for long with compromise.

---

I would suggest that those unhappy with Catholic pharmacists keeping their job, despite the pill being available OTC aren't satisfied with compromise.

quote:

---

If anyone in the medical professions can't recognise that others safety comes before their own superstitions then they should try a less responsible line of work.

---

When you refer to a religion as a superstition, it shows that you don't have any respect for the religion or their beliefs.

quote:

---

If courts can rule that Mormons can't block doctors from giving their children needed transfusions then they should be able to overrule this smokescreen as well. Enough from me, all the best.

---

quote:
Ya, it's really all about imposing their views on others, fundies just like to hide behind 'religious freedoms' while refusing to recognise similar rights for others.

Well, this will be a real test, then won't it? If Catholic pharmacists aren't happy about this decision, then it is clear that they are trying to impose their view on others.

I hope it's not, but have little doubt left that the religious rightwing will fight this tooth and nail. Maybe this will bring the loons out in Harpers caucus, though I'm sure the Liberals will try not to take a firm stand either way while receiving full credit for standing up for women's rights in our only halfway progressive media, the CBC and Star. I sure hope the attitudes I see among most Liberals here aren't indicative of their average level of "liberalism" now.

quote:
But they're Never satisfied for long with compromise.

I would suggest that those unhappy with Catholic pharmacists keeping their job, despite the pill being available OTC aren't satisfied with compromise.

I'd suggest you haven't been watching the fundamentalist phenomena closely enough, or hold some conservative religious beliefs yourself. Fundies have a Plan which ultimately excludes everyone else having any rights at all. I consider these highly programmed movements more political than spiritual at heart, but try telling Them that.

Mainstream Catholics can carry on ignoring particular Vatican injunctions Re birth control and sex, just like they always have.

quote:
If anyone in the medical professions can't recognise that others safety comes before their own superstitions then they should try a less responsible line of work.

When you refer to a religion as a superstition, it shows that you don't have any respect for the religion or their beliefs.

Not at all. I'm quite interested in and tolerant of religion in general. Religion runs deep in my own family, good, bad and indifferent depending, but I'm eternally grateful my mother was independent enough not to pass the conditioning onto me.

Insisting that "life begins at conception" is of course based on superstition. Other traditional cultures which happened to practice infanticide insisted it begins at birth, with the "spirit" not becoming firmly set in our bodies till the first moon after. Who's to say who's right about when this "spirit" actually enters our bodies, if at all?

Science now says that life begins incrementally, most feotuses aren't minimally viable outside the mothers body naturally till nearly seven months, and most have no brain waves at All until well after the first trimester. The "day after" hardly qualifies. We now pull the plug on people with more "signs of life", with far less protest from most fundies. We do however know that all mothers have independent spirits, consciousness and judgement. As well as legal responsibility for any children they might end up with.

I can't believe we're still debating this on Babble, let alone the Feminism forum.

quote:
If courts can rule that Mormons can't block doctors from giving their children needed transfusions then they should be able to overrule this smokescreen as well. Enough from me, all the best.

It wasn't Mormons, it was Jehovah's Witnesses. JW's never have anything ruled in their favour by the court or the government because they don't vote.

Right, it was the JW's not Mormons, sloppy of me. My maternal grandparents were followers of their predecessors, the Bible Students. They however aren't the only sect who believe such strange things, Christian Science is another, and this precedence should now apply to All regardless of how many "votes" particular groups now command.

[ 28 August 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

quote:

---

would suggest that those unhappy with Catholic pharmacists keeping their job, despite the pill being available OTC aren't satisfied with compromise.

---

[ 28 August 2006: Message edited by: Sineed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
From those angles, the things to watch for are not only whether the courts rule 'individuals' have a 'right' to deny others access to legal prescriptions, based on their own personal beliefs over others potential safety, but whether owners of pharmacy outlets, rather than individual dispensers, would be allowed to deny others. They often operate as chains now, sometimes American owned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
In Canada, can an Ob/Gyn refuse to perform an abortion on religious grounds?

---

It is simply basic human rights law.

Sineed makes the point that health care professionals such as herself have an overriding responsibility to the patient/client.

She also points out that owners of pharmacies have no duty to stock any particular product.

Of course, the two are mutually exclusive propositions.

There is a pharmacist out west who will not fill rxs for birth control pills and ECs. Customers of that pharmacy can get these drugs if they go in when that person isn't working. Basically, that pharmacist is able to hold her customers hostage to her beliefs because there is a widespread chronic shortage of pharmacists. If there wasn't, I doubt she would get away with this unprofessional behaviour.

The example of the OB/GYN who refuses to perform abortions is different because these doctors are providing a service rather than a product. If I refuse to dispense ECs, I am failing to reach onto the shelf behind me and handing the product to the customer, while a physician who is morally opposed to abortion likely has never learned how to perform them.

quote:

---

I can easily see a company decision to avoid dispensing that pill altogether if a special interest group started to boycott a company to effect a company decision not to dispense the pill at all.

---

If a chain of drug stores started refusing to sell a certain pill, this would greatly displease the pharmaceutical company that makes it. I suspect to a drug store the pressure of the drug companies could far outweigh pressure by special interest groups.

quote:

---

The example of the OB/GYN who refuses to perform abortions is different because these doctors are providing a service rather than a product.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by otter:
Still, i am baffled that so few are championing the need for a morning after prescription to deal with the consequences of who we end up with after an evening of drinking and partying has never been adequately addressed either.

---

And I am baffled by that sentence.

Did you mean that more people should be championing the use of emergency contraception by those who have sex after drinking heavily?

Did you mean to say that those who advocate the availability of emergency contraception need to be asking why so many people end up having casual unprotected sex with near strangers after a night of substance abuse?
(Which, by the way, is the only possible explanation as to how our current president managed to father children.)

Or did you mean something else? please clarify.

[ 28 August 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
In Ontario, a pharmacist is legally obligated not to refuse to fill prescriptions unless there is a legitimate medical reason.

---

I'm just curious: do you have a source for this?

That's WHY we want women to have access to it. Well, "we" being my buds here on babble and feminists I know, anyways. For every 100 women who take it, not every woman has actually disrupted conception/prevented a pregnancy.

And can we also get clear about the fuzzy value judgement that I sense going on here? Scenario: If I need the MA pill because
a) Condom broke and I was drunk and irresponsible
b) Condom broke and I was drunk and responsible
c) Condom broke and I was sober
d) I forgot to take BC pills
e) We didn't use any BC method
f) Any other fucking reason (pun intended)

and it's because I had sex with
a) a longstanding partner
b) a stranger
c) any other combination

It's nobody's #$%@#&#@ business!! Why are we discussing this as if it's up for debate, which women are worthy of having access to this pill and which women aren't? Or even why women take it? Further control and judgement of what women do with our bodies?

Blech!

And Proaxiom, I have to agree with this:

quote:

---

I suspect to a drug store the pressure of the drug companies could far outweigh pressure by special interest groups.

---

quote:

---

though I'm loathe to supoprt the calling of women a "special interest group".

---

From the Pharmacy Act-Regulations:

quote:

---

6. Discontinuing professional services that are needed, without reasonable cause, unless,

i. the patient requests the discontinuation,
ii. alternative services are arranged, or

iii. the patient is given a reasonable opportunity to arrange alternative services.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
It's professional misconduct if a pharmacist refuses to fill prescriptions without just cause.

From the Pharmacy Act-Regulations: ...

---

Section 6 of the regulations forbids a pharmacist to discontinue a service that is already in place; not to refuse the service in the first place. However, we can turn to Section 19, which includes the following as an act of professional misconduct:

19. Refusing to perform a medically necessary service unless all or part of the fee is paid before the service is performed.

Now, I wonder if a pharmacist who simply does not stock some particular drug, for example, could be accused of refusing to perform a service. Moreover, I wonder if a pharmacist could argue that some particular drug is not medically necessary. Presumably these are questions to be decided by a court, unless parliament wishes to settle them with explicit laws.

[ 29 August 2006: Message edited by: Martha (but not Stewart) ]

quote:

---

Pharmacists respect the rights of patients to receive pharmacy products and services and ensure these rights are met.

Guidelines for interpretation

1. Pharmacists who object, as a matter of conscience, to providing a particular pharmacy product or service must be prepared to explain the basis of their objections to pharmacy management, not the patient.

2. Pharmacist who object, as a matter of conscience, to providing a particular pharmacy product or service have a responsibility to participate in a system designed to respect a patient's right to receive pharmacy products and services. The system must be pre-arranged to enable the patient to obtain the product or service in a timely and convenient manner, minimizing suffering to the patient.

3. Pharmacists have a duty, through communication and co-ordination, to ensure the continuity of care of patients during pharmacy relocation or closure, job action, natural disasters or situations where continuity of care may be problematic.

---

quote:

---

We went through this stupid discussion less than a month ago.

It hasn't improved since.

---

Since the pill was not available OTC one month ago, it seems unikely that this conversation happened one month ago.

As for why the conversation digressed into a conversation of pharmacist right vs patient right - I am not sure - as with it becoming OTC these rights are no longer in conflict with eachother.

quote:

---

Now, I wonder if a pharmacist who simply does not stock some particular drug, for example, could be accused of refusing to perform a service.

---

Standards of practice and legislation affecting pharmacy practice in Ontario is available at The Ontario College of Pharmacist's site. Sorry, I couldn't link to the bit of legislation I quoted from earlier because babble wouldn't let me quote an url with parentheses in it for some reason.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
Here's a document I could link to: Position Statement on "Refusal to Fill for Moral or Religious Reasons."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
What's next? A racist asshole not serving black people because he doesn't like them?

---

Now c'mon Stargazer, you know we've never had anyone like that here in the good ol U.S of...

quote:

---

True. Pearson still doesn't get it that pharmicists NEVER have the right to impose their morality on their customers.

---

Once again, I reiterate, mainly for the benefit of others reading this dialogue, that pharmacists are not imposing their morality on women, they are asking to be non-participants in a process which they view as murder.

The fact that these pills are now available over the counter, means that women will have even easier access to the pills than ever before, and the pharmacist need not be involved whatsoever.

quote:

---

Therefore, he has no idea why his "win-win situation" remark was so deeply inflammatory and offensive to pro-choice people.

---

Since, you obviously have an idea Ken - why don't you share that with me? What is it precisely that women need, that is not addressed by making it OTC? What is needed for you to consider it a victory, now that women have easier access to these morning after pills than ever before?