Article

2004-11-11 Home Front: Culture Wars

Pharmacists refuse to give out birth-control pill

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 10:26:30 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 As is an obstetrician who refuses a request to carry out an abortion eh, Aris?

If you ran a newsagents, would I have a right to demand that you sell pornographic magazines? What would give me the 'right'?

Posted by Bulldog 2004-11-11 11:04:20 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:04:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 If true, that's just plain wrong. What if you get some Enviro-nut pharmacist, that starts refusing giving out life saving medicine because it was tested on animals. I think we all know with the LLL in America today that is not far from their reality.

Posted by 98zulu 2004-11-11 11:04:36 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:04:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Unsurprisingly you are wrong Aris.Having worked at a pharmacy myself there are lots of moral/ethical decisions to be made. The pharmacy I worked at for instance would not stock certain drugs due to the concerns of the owner. He would politely point out that he did not stock it and refer them elsewhere.

I would agree that this pharmacist, unless the owner, should be warned to not do this again or risk being fired, but I do not own that pharmacy and neither do you so it is none of our business what they choose to sell or not sell. That is the beauty of a free market as well as freedom of religion.
The woman has a legitimate complaint with that pharmacist. If the pharmacy doesn't change things to suit her she can, and probably should, take her prescriptions elsewhere.Problem solved.

Posted by Kelvin Zero 2004-11-11 11:08:03 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:08:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 I suppose that CVS, a company, has a right to establish its own policies, but they risk losing lots and lots of customers if the policy is not made public and consistent. Unless you all want to argue that sex is only for procreation, you better keep channels to birth control open or live your lives as celibates.

Posted by Jules 187 2004-11-11 11:10:09 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:10:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Aris has no idea how easy it is to get a prescription filled in the US. Even in the middle of downtown Cincinnati, which is relatively free of anything that would make it livable, there are half a dozen places, ranging from national chain to mom-and-pop store. That's not even counting the various hospitals, free clinics, etc.

Out in the suburbs it's even easier.

If one pharmacist says, "sorry, I don't want this business", there are plenty of choices elsewhere.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-11-11 11:14:14 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-11-11 11:14:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 If you ran a newsagents, would I have a right to demand that you sell pornographic magazines?

People depend on pharmacists, they don't depend on porn. And such dependency on drugs received from a pharmacist can be *urgent* in times. The moral equivalency argument must be checked and evaluated at its specific points, you can't just *mention* moral equivalency, and think you've won the debate.

But I wonder what'd *you* think of a *doctor* that refused to treat patient with AIDS because he considers their disease a divine punishment that should not be interfered with.

And since you mentioned abortions, Bulldog, I wonder if you've considered whether the lack of birth control availability is likely to increase them or not.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 11:18:08 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:18:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Unless you all want to argue that sex is only for procreation, you better keep channels to birth control open or live your lives as celibates.

That's not the issue, Jules. Seems as though you've got the wrong end of the stick. The point is that no one has a 'right' to tell pharmacists what to stock. It's up to them (or their employers, or their franchise-issuers). It's not up to anybody else, even [gasp!] Little Hitlers like Aris.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-11-11 11:23:17 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:23:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 just my five cents. (im get five cuz ima speciel) ifn one is por-lifer im not seein how bein against birth control is make any sense. is this guy one of those who are think it a sin to spill him seed so to say on the ground? bah! thisn stoopid. give the woman her pills an quit bein em jackass.
>:(

Posted by muck4doo 2004-11-11 11:24:44 AM|| [http://meatismurder.blogspot.com/] 2004-11-11 11:24:44 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Robert> As you wish. I imagined there existed drugs and prescriptions that only pharmacists could give out. In which case if they have by law been given exclusivity to that right, that at the same time would constitute an obligation to them. (If they didn't accept the obligation, they shouldn't have the exclusivity)

But if the right to give out drugs and fulfill prescriptions isn't exclusive to the pharmacist profession, and everyone can do it according to the laws of the "free market", then I agree with you that pharmacists shouldn't be obliged to follow any rules pertaining to their profession either.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 11:25:55 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:25:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 I believe the pharmacists are well within their right sto refuse to dispense, but should make their policies known publicly. Let market forces reign. If their employer doesn't like it, they'll fire them. If the public doesn't like it, they'll lose business. As usual, Aris, you're entirely wrong about America and free market economics, as well as religion and free will. Doesn't leave much, does it?

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-11 11:30:01 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:30:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 Bulldog> You see pharmacists as shopowners with a right to sell or buy as they wish, I see them as members of the medicinal profession with certain obligations to the public.

We may differ on what these obligations are, but I think it's absurd to call me a "Hitler" over it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 11:30:12 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:30:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 Bulldog, that's the only issue left of the two the incident presents, from what I can see. Are the questions here not 1) Do businesses have right to promote their core principles in the marketplace, including the right to state their promotion of/opposition to birth control? I don't think we disagree there. There are other pharmacies that can pick up the slack.

Where we may or may not disagree is on the other point 2) Whether each couple having sex today is doing so for procreation purposes or other purposes? Does each sex act represent a commitment on both parties' parts to accept the outcome of a pregnancy? People have sex, sex can bring pregnancy; can a woman intervene at the earliest possible moment to prevent a pregnancy?

Posted by Jules 187 2004-11-11 11:34:56 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:34:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 People depend on pharmacists, ...

[insert crying baby image here]

... they don't depend on porn. And such dependency on drugs received from a pharmacist can be *urgent* in times. The moral equivalency argument must be checked and evaluated at its specific points, you can't just *mention* moral equivalency, and think you've won the debate.

That's not the point. If you think you might 'need' drugs, the onus is on YOU to determine whether they will be available for you when the time comes. Not some other party. Your attitude is typical left-wing euro it's-not-my-responsibility bullshit. I suppose you'll be demanding there's a fully-stocked pharmacy within two kilometers of every bed next.

But I wonder what'd *you* think of a *doctor* that refused to treat patient with AIDS because he considers their disease a divine punishment that should not be interfered with.

I'd say he was a bad doctor, and would recommend that the patient get a second opinion. I think the doctor would find retaining employment difficult. A doctor who won't give you what you want is like a pharmacy that won't give you what you want: as good as no doctor or no pharmacy at all. My suggestion would be to move on. Yours attitude is: force them to accommodate my will!

And since you mentioned abortions, Bulldog, I wonder if you've considered whether the lack of birth control availability is likely to increase them or not.

Completely different issue, eel-boy.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-11-11 11:35:14 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:35:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 Aris confuses the exclusive role of an entire profession with the decision of one member.

In the US, as has been noted above, there are many outlets for prescription drugs. These include free or government-sponsored health clinics, commercial drug stores (pharmacies) and hospitals. Moreover, there are no limits on the number of new outlets that can open in response to market demand. So Aris' analysis is weak ... this decision does not limit access to the birth control drugs.

As for side effects of the decision, I personally don't have a moral problem with hormonal birth control, so this pharmacist's decision doesn't resonate with me.

But in point of fact, celibacy is another option (other than abortion) and it's one that has been followed by many unmarried people in a wide variety of cultures for a good deal of history -- modern, cynical snickers notwithstanding.

Posted by rkb 2004-11-11 11:36:29 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:36:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 No snickers intended or expected, rkb-just no hypocrisy when word is compared to action.

Posted by Jules 187 2004-11-11 11:38:13 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:38:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 Jules: I agree totally with what rkb says. I have no problem with pre-conception hormonal birth control at all.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-11-11 11:40:19 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:40:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Aris confuses the exclusive role of an entire profession with the decision of one member.

Do those individual members accept no obligations when they accept the right?

When soldiers are sworn in, we don't leave it up to "market forces" as to whether they'll defend their country or not, they are supposed to take an oath that obliges them to it.

"Your attitude is typical left-wing euro it's-not-my-responsibility bullshit."

Your attitude is typical right-wing "taking up the right doesn't mean I'm taking up any responsibilty" bullshit.

"I suppose you'll be demanding there's a fully-stocked pharmacy within two kilometers of every bed next"

I've not yet lived in a place where there hasn't been a pharmacy within a few *blocks* actually.

In the US, as has been noted above, there are many outlets for prescription drugs.

But not fully libertarian free market, is it? You are still *preventing* some shops from stocking up and selling certain drugs.

And that, for some bizarre reason, doesn't sound to you as Hitleric -- preventing stores without a license from stocking drugs doesn't sound Hitleric to you, *obliging* stores with a license does sound Hitleric?

Can you justify the reasoning of that?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 11:46:42 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:46:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 Basic question. Does this pharmacy stock birth control pills, yes or no? If no, then post this information. If they do, then individual employees should not be making pharmacy policy. If an individual pharmacist disagrees, don't put them on alone behind the counter.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-11-11 11:46:59 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:46:59 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Troll, troll, troll your boat all the way from Greece.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-11-11 11:52:35 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2004-11-11 11:52:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 Sock Puppet> Your IQ needs to be on the single digits to consider me a troll -- which without a doubt it is. Screw you, and leave the thread alone if insults without content is the only thing you have to contribute.

Yeah, employees should be fired if they go against pharmacy policy, and pharmacies shouldn't be allowed to call themselves pharmacies if they don't follow obligations inherent in their license.

The question is what those obligations should be. Or if any such obligations should exist.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 11:57:14 AM|| 2004-11-11 11:57:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 Do those individual members accept no obligations when they accept the right?

Of course they do - just not the ones you want to impose on them. They are obligated to represent correctly the drugs they dispense and they are obligated to store them in such a way that they do not degrade, and to destroy and not dispense those that whose shelf-life has expired.

What they are NOT obligated to do is to dispense every drug to anyone who can get a doctor to prescribe it.

Market forces are messy and inexact ... in fact, they're the worst way of organizing the distribution of good -- except for all the other ways, which are even worse.

Posted by rkb 2004-11-11 12:06:45 PM|| 2004-11-11 12:06:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 I have to agree with Aris. Pharmacists are members of the health care profession and I don't think they have a "right" to deny people a prescription based on their religious beliefs. In this case the woman had been filling her prescription there for some time and sudenly the pharmacist decided not to. The states that have enacted laws to support these "moral" decisions are walking a fine line enacting laws to support a religious view.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-11-11 12:09:07 PM|| 2004-11-11 12:09:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 DB, then you should adress BD's (I like the palindronimic handles) question in #1.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-11 12:11:26 PM|| 2004-11-11 12:11:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 Aris, I am an independent consultant licensed to practice engineering. I exercise my rights to (1) turn down any job that I don't wish to do and (2) turn away any potential client for any reason I choose. I have turned down potential clients solely because they seemed to be arrogant on the phone. I would probably turn you down too.

I'm with the pharmacist on this one, even though I don't agree with the pharmacist's selection of items to sell.

Posted by Tom 2004-11-11 12:16:34 PM|| 2004-11-11 12:16:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 I hear Cuban pharmacists do what they're told, DB.

Posted by Che Geuvara 2004-11-11 12:17:52 PM|| 2004-11-11 12:17:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Of course they do - just not the ones you want to impose on them.

Exactly -- which is why the whole thing of being both a Hitler and a troll is simply because my opinion differs from most people here on what these obligations should be, before a person can be called a pharmacist. If people could stop with the insults and focus on the argument, then debate on Rantburg might one day become meaningful.

What they are NOT obligated to do is to dispense every drug to anyone who can get a doctor to prescribe it.

I think they should be. Unless they think that the doctor has made a life-endangering mistake in which case they should tell the customer about it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 12:20:39 PM|| 2004-11-11 12:20:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 What they are NOT obligated to do is to dispense every drug to anyone who can get a doctor to prescribe it.

I think they should be.

That's why we're glad you don't live here and that we do. We prefer to be free to do as we wish rather than have some know it all tell us what is good for us and what to do. The Democrats are starting to figure this out. One wonders if you ever will.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-11 12:25:16 PM|| 2004-11-11 12:25:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 In this case the woman had been filling her prescription there for some time and sudenly the pharmacist decided not to.

Same pharmacy != same pharmacist.

But the change in policy -- if there was one -- should not have happened without warning.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-11-11 12:38:24 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2004-11-11 12:38:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 This exchange illustrates pretty well one reason why many members of the EU are economically screwed. Aris's attitude is typical of those whose legislation-manias and inability to accept the superiority of free market systems are crippling economies and entrepreneurial spirit. It's all just so much shouldn't-be-my-responsibility bullshit. And very 'Hitlerian'. And impractical. How do you ensure that all pharmacists are capable of providing all medications without adding reams of paperwork and bureacracy and extra obligations onto pharmacists' shoulders? Bureacracy and paperwork, of course, waste time and raise prices. So ultimately less of the actual products can be afforded by anyone. Likely knock-on effects of prescribing the minimum that pharmacists have to stock would be the closure of small, local pharmacies which cannot stock everything, and an increase in the number of unofficial pharmacies who do not request a licence and therefore do not need expert staff. And all because Aris et al were enraged that some pharmacist decided not to stock one convenience drug.

In this case the woman had been filling her prescription there for some time and sudenly the pharmacist decided not to.

If your barman suddenly pulls your favourite beer from his selection, what do you do?

Posted by Bulldog 2004-11-11 12:51:55 PM|| 2004-11-11 12:51:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 You've not answered my question Bulldog -- how can you justify the inconsistency about your so-called "Free Market", when you prevent the non-licensed from handing out drugs, but at the same time you are not obliging the licensed to so hand them out? How is the latter any worse than the former?

You think that the Doctor that refuses to treats AIDS patients because of religious concerns should be left to "market forces" -- I think he should be removed from his profession as clearly unfit. If that makes a "Hitler", so be it -- but I'm tired of arguing with clowns that treat the most minor disagreement of policy as if it was the institution of a genocidal dictatorship.

Yeah, I believe that pharmacies should be obliged to fulfill prescription -- that *clearly* means I'm just one step away from building Auswitz and mass-murdering the Jews. Whatever, you asshole.

How do you ensure that all pharmacists are capable of providing all medications without adding reams of paperwork and bureacracy and extra obligations onto pharmacists' shoulders?

This wasn't a matter of "capability", Bulldog. So that's hardly the issue, is it? In fact it wouldn't even be as big an issue if the pharmacist was merely willing to refer the customer to a pharmacy that *does* stock the item in question. But I guess that'd be as "sinful" as selling it himself.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 1:32:43 PM|| 2004-11-11 1:32:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 BD: i did not read that the pharmacy stopped stocking the drug, only that the pharmacist refused to fill it. This was a refill script, which means the patient did not have a prescription in hand, which in turn means she could not simply go to another pharmacy. She would have to go back to her MD, assuming they were in their office at that time of day, fight her way through their phone system, and try to get another Rx.

Baseline: science does not dictate to religion, and religion does not dictate to science. Pharmacist had an obligation to fill the Rx, hand the patient over to another pharmacist, or make sure an appropriate script was ready and waiting at another pharmacy. Otherwise fire her ass.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-11-11 1:42:24 PM|| 2004-11-11 1:42:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Let me throw a little reality into this debate.

My doctor prescribed birth control pills for me to help my Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. I do not use them as a method of birth control.

Now, this pharmacist objects to chemically preventing pregnancy -- but would he also refuse to fill a prescription that keeps me from resembling a medium sized boulder, barely capable of movement or coherent thought (i.e. for me this is absolutely not a convenience drug)? If yes, then he is an unthinking pig. If no, then he is prejudging the reason his customer has the prescription. Neither is consonant with his professional duties, or an indication that he has the mental capability to engage in the complex logic/knowledge chains necessary to execute his duties in the face of doctor error and possible drug interactions. (BTW Bulldog, I don't know how it is in your part of the world, but in the States pharmacology is a 5-year university program, and the graduates must know everything. They function as high priced insurance policies to ensure that the doctor is not able to screw up. Whatever medications the pharmacy doesn't have on-site can be easily gotten, even by the small, local shops. Those are just less likely to carry a large variety of candies and fizzy drinks at the front end of the store.)

Many medical schools no longer teach abortion techniques because of vociferous objections. What this means is that e.g. when a woman needs to have her dead fetus removed from her womb lest it kill her, there are no doctors capable of performing the procedure. Do those of you who support the pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense, also support the right of the medical profession to refuse to teach necessary procedures?

Posted by trailing wife 2004-11-11 1:45:24 PM|| 2004-11-11 1:45:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 bogus comparison TW - how many doctors, even the strongest pro-life, would refrain from learning surgical or D&C procedures to remove a dead fetus to save the patient's life. I don't buy that. I also don't buy that many med schools refrain from teaching such methods. call me naive...

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-11 1:49:38 PM|| 2004-11-11 1:49:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 BD: just re-read your post. Since when are BCPs a "convienience" drug? Rogaine is a convienience
drug. BCPs, as noted above, are prescribed for a number of reasons, not limited to pregnancy prevention. Plus, we're not talking about all pharmacies carrying all drugs. We're talking about a REFUSAL to dispense. Where the hell are you getting Hitler into this? Or is everyone who disagrees with you a fascist?

Fran G: you're naive

Posted by Weird Al 2004-11-11 2:08:21 PM|| 2004-11-11 2:08:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 ...how can you justify the inconsistency about your so-called "Free Market", when you prevent the non-licensed from handing out drugs, but at the same time you are not obliging the licensed to so hand them out? How is the latter any worse than the former?

LOL '...how can you justify the inconsistency about your so-called "Free Market"...' Does that sound 'Hitlerian', or Stalinist? Both, as a matter of fact. If you really can't see the chasm of difference between entitling someone to provide a service and forcing them to provide a service, you and we non-totalitarianism-inclined are wasting our time debating this issue.

Yeah, I believe that pharmacies should be obliged to fulfill prescription -- that *clearly* means I'm just one step away from building Auswitz and mass-murdering the Jews.

Hitler didn't only murder Jews you know, Aris. He had all sorts of ideas besides genocide. You should read up on the Nazis. They were pretty keen on diktats and state compulsion. Liked things nice and ordered, they did. Got the trains running on time. Like the Soviets did, and the Fascisti. Got the people where they were needed, but didn't like to think of them as individuals capable of individual choices. You really ought to look it all up.

This wasn't a matter of "capability", Bulldog. So that's hardly the issue, is it?

Not for you. But then real-world matters don't often come into your thinking, do they?

In fact it wouldn't even be as big an issue if the pharmacist was merely willing to refer the customer to a pharmacy that *does* stock the item in question. But I guess that'd be as "sinful" as selling it himself.

Go and read rkb's post #14, which I said I agreed with. It's got nothing to do with 'sinfulness'. It's an issue of the pharmacist's right to sell and stock what he chooses. But I think you're projecting again, aren't you? In your eyes this is half about sinfulness - the 'sinfulness' of the pharmacist in holding and expressing intolerably non-PC opinions.

And that's where I end this debate, asshole.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-11-11 2:16:10 PM|| 2004-11-11 2:16:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 Pharmacist had an obligation to fill the Rx, hand the patient over to another pharmacist, or make sure an appropriate script was ready and waiting at another pharmacy

I'd agree with that the pharmacist ought to have chosen one of those options given the circumstances, Weird al, given the circumstances (the patient not having a prescription in hand). In this case the pharmacy had entered into an understanding with the patient that it would provide the drug. Failure to supply in that instance means that the pharmacy has failed in its agreed obligation to the customer.

Baseline: science does not dictate to religion, and religion does not dictate to science.

We're talking about a pharmacist's right to choose.

We're talking about a REFUSAL to dispense. Where the hell are you getting Hitler into this? Or is everyone who disagrees with you a fascist?

Is a CVS pharmacy a private company, or a state-run operation? That makes a difference as to whether obliging them to provide a service is acceptable state-intrusion into private enterprise.

No, of course not everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist. Aris's ideas about obliging all pharmacists to dispense, to anyone, something that is going to be used as lifestyle medication, is excessively authoritarian.

Posted by Bulldog 2004-11-11 2:35:26 PM|| 2004-11-11 2:35:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 If you really can't see the chasm of difference between entitling someone to provide a service and forcing them to provide a service, you

I don't see much difference between putting a service under state control, and putting it under state control. If you want to speak about a libertarian-type "Free Market", then the state doesn't have the right to "entitle" businesses to perform a service which should (under Free Market) be FREE for all to provide as they saw fit. But when we have a system where the state "entitles" businesses to perform service, then the state also has the right to say *what* that service will be, and what guidelines will be followed.

But it seems that the Libertarian argument is as impossible for you to understand, as the Socialist-democrat argument is. You dangle utterly arbitrarily between the two options, and attack everyone who differs in his stance, as if they were idiots or fascists or both.

"You should read up on the Nazis. They were pretty keen on diktats and state compulsion. Liked things nice and ordered, they did. Got the trains running on time"

Yeah, they improved the economy and didn't give a damn about the people, which was btw your attitude in e.g. #29. They also didn't give a damn about the Untermenschen that couldn't take care of their own selves. They also liked to have shops that did not provide services to certain kinds of people.

I wonder what you'll say about a pharmacist that refuses to sell to Jews or blacks. *I* would also remove their licenses -- I'm sure you think it's their Free Market rights to sell or not sell as they see fit.

It's an issue of the pharmacist's right to sell and stock what he chooses

And it seems it's also his right to steal the prescription given him by the customer and refuse to give it back because he morally objects to it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 2:37:37 PM|| 2004-11-11 2:37:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 Frank, normally I weigh your opinion heavily, but in this case you are indeed naive. Medical Students for Choice have this to say about their training:

"Even though abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures that women undergo in the U.S. and Canada, few medical students and residents are learning about abortion and how to provide this procedure. Currently, only 5% of all abortions are performed in hospitals where most medical students and residents are trained.

"Medical students are realizing that even if they donât plan to perform abortions themselves, they will have patients who are facing an unintended pregnancy. They may also need to perform an emergency D&C. An estimated 43% of women in the U.S. will have at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old. Without proper training, tomorrowâs doctors cannot hope to be fully prepared to meet their patientsâ needs."

In the Curriculum Reform page of their website, they mention this: "At UC-Davis, MSFC students reintroduced abortion into the curriculum by working with local providers to write a course module for the third-year ob/gyn rotation and to develop electives for fourth-year students who want to learn abortion procedures."

From the U. ov Virginia Med. Students for Choice site:
University of Virginia Medical Students for Choice 2003

"INCIDENCE OF ABORTION:
o 43% of women have had an abortion by the time they were 45.

o 48% of pregnancies among American women are unintended. Â½ end in abortion.

o There is a <1% complication rate associated with the procedure.

WHO HAS:
o 52% are younger than 25.

o 6 in 10 women having abortions have experienced contraceptive failure.

o 14,000 abortions follow rape or incest.

o 24% of abortion patients must travel over 50 miles, 8% more than 100 miles.

PROVIDERS:
o 87% of counties in the US have no provider, effecting 34% of all 15-44 year old women.

o 57% of OB/GYNs providers are reaching retirement age.

o 91% of OB/GYN residents report having no experience with abortion procedures"

Both sites, I'm pleased to say, mention that abortion rates have dropped significantly across the country for many reasons, including a reduction in the level of "home run" sexual activity amongst unmarried teens. Nonetheless, doctors without either proper training in abortion technique, or experience executing a D&C, are not who I would want poking around my insides attempting to save my life in an emergency.

But to get back to the point of this thread: is it acceptable for that pharmacist to refuse to give me meds, just because he wrongly assumes that I might be trying not to get pregnant?

Posted by trailing wife 2004-11-11 2:38:39 PM|| 2004-11-11 2:38:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 Or, should the pharmacist quiz everybody who brings him a script, to ensure that he is only refusing the right people? What about those who don't know (a husband, for instance, or an old lady with a long list of prescriptions for everything from glaucoma to incontinence), or think him impertinent for even asking? Nowadays lots of meds are prescribed for other than listed symptoms/diseases/conditions (I think thalidimide (that resulted in those poor "flipper babies" when given to pregnant women for nausea) is now being used for MS symptoms). How deeply is the druggist entitled to probe in order to protect his conscience?

Posted by trailing wife 2004-11-11 2:47:46 PM|| 2004-11-11 2:47:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 quoting agendas for choice? unbiased hmmm?

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-11 2:49:38 PM|| 2004-11-11 2:49:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 Thank you, TW, for injecting some real considerations into the mix. I dont know if those statistics are representational or not, but even if we reduced them by a factor of 3, they would still be pretty sobering, particularly if 6 in 10 abortions are the result of the failure of contraceptives. No matter how many circles we run around this issue, we'll all have to come back to the beginning-our own deeply held convictions about sex, procreation, religion, honor, commitment, self-autonomy-and hold hypocrisies up to the light.

Posted by Jules 187 2004-11-11 2:52:41 PM|| 2004-11-11 2:52:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 no disrespect, TW, but I'd prefer an AMA survey, for example, generally less spun.

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-11 2:53:02 PM|| 2004-11-11 2:53:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Do those of you who support the pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense, also support the right of the medical profession to refuse to teach necessary procedures?

I don't. Of course aspiring doctors should be taught how to perform abortions in order to save the mother's life where necessary. A doctor who lacks the knowledge needed to do this is not a complete physician.

This has nothing whatsoever in common with a fully-trained, competent pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription that he is completely capable of filling, that is not a life-saving prescription, and that is readily available at almost no inconvenience and no added cost to the patient.

You and Aris are completely misunderstanding the vast social and professional gulf between doctors and pharmacists, a difference that is encoded in the law and reinforced by the much more extensive array of legal and professional restrictions applying to the former.

Unlike pharmacists, medical doctors do not ply their trade inside grocery stores or Walmarts or next to barbershops and banks. The presumption is that dispensing prescription drugs, while it should be licensed, does not create a sensitive personal doctor-patient relationship imposing all manner of obligations and delicate professional judgments.

Doctors have great obligations under this relationship, obligations that have been reinforced through many years of training and through peer review boards. Pharmacists do not. There is no "Journal of Pharmacological Ethics" or pharmacological equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath. Pharmacists are just guys in white coats with a specialized undergraduate degree who know how to mix drugs.

Posted by lex 2004-11-11 2:54:22 PM|| 2004-11-11 2:54:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 Even in the middle of downtown Cincinnati, which is relatively free of anything that would make it livable,...

Haaahahahahaaaahahahaaaa.....

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-11-11 2:56:57 PM|| 2004-11-11 2:56:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 So if I go to a grocery store and the clerk thinks it is immoral to sell me beer that the store stocks, that is OK? When people serve the public interest, at what point is it permissible to force one's own "moral" values on another? The pharmacist cannot refuse to sell to someone based on their race even though it might conflict with their "moral" values. I don't see the difference here. As for BD's comment, ending a life through abortion is not the same as preventing one. Catholics do practice the rhythm method of birth control. It is still birth control. The customer has no right to "demand" that the pharmacy stock birth control pills if they do not and the magazine customer has no right to demand that pornographic magazines be stocked.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-11-11 2:58:27 PM|| 2004-11-11 2:58:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 No one should have to sell anything they don't want to, but they should have to give the prescription slip back. As I see it, that belongs to the patient until the pharmacist dispenses the medicine.

Aris, I don't think you understand U.S. and state laws regarding drugs and professional licenses. Just because there are illegal drugs in no way implies a right to any legal drug from any legal pharmacist. My state regulates alcoholic beverage sales by only selling them through state-run stores, but that doesn't mean that my local state-run store has to carry or provide every type of alcoholic beverage. And just because I bought something there before does not mean that they have to sell it to me again on demand or on short notice. Do you live in the real world, Aris, or are you still a university student?

Posted by Tom 2004-11-11 3:01:01 PM|| 2004-11-11 3:01:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 So if I go to a grocery store and the clerk thinks it is immoral to sell me beer that the store stocks, that is OK?

Folks, please try to keep your eye on the ball. If you're going to argue by analogy, get the anology straight in the first place. It was the pharmacists' employer, not the pharmacist, who chose not to dispense contraceptives. The right analogy here would be a grocery that does not stock alcohol, not a clerk who refuses to sell the store's alcohol that any other clerk will gladly sell.

Really, this is getting out of hand. Abortion comparisons?! Scenarios in which the checkout girl won't sell beer that's on the shelf?! It's just a pharmacy, folks. There's one on every corner. The hyperventilating here is ludicrous.

Posted by lex 2004-11-11 3:03:36 PM|| 2004-11-11 3:03:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 Agree about the hyperventilation, but say "abortion" and it happens. Sort of like "Nazi" or "slavery". OTOH, Bulldog, you get it! Sure you're not a closet American?

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-11 3:18:26 PM|| 2004-11-11 3:18:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#49 Deacon Blues, there's a federal law against racial discrimination. There's no law that says that a grocery store has to stock beer. If I own the grocery store, that's my choice. It's not a matter of "the public interest". If my employee decides to not sell you the beer that I stock for purposes of selling to you, then he's fired.

Incidentally, re #24, it is not illegal for me to discriminate against Aris on the basis of his arrogance. I spent 20 years in the corporate world taking every assignment that my bosses dished out. One of the big pleasures of self-employment (i.e., ownership) is that I can now say "no" to jerks and crappy projects.

Posted by Tom 2004-11-11 3:18:33 PM|| 2004-11-11 3:18:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 "We're talking about a pharmacist's right to choose." No we're not. We're talking about a pharmacists professional obligations. Again, religion does not have the right to dictate to the scientific community. If the pharmacist feels that strongly, she should work for a pharmacy that doesn't stock the drugs. Again, it's not a life choice drug. How about it's use for prevention of migranes. Or incapacitating menstral cramps. Or etc.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-11-11 3:25:40 PM|| 2004-11-11 3:25:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 Deacon Blues, there's a federal law against racial discrimination.

The fact of the *existence* of the federal law, doesn't make such law either right or wrong.

The full libertarian argument hates that law against racial discriminaiton as much as it would hate obliging pharmacists to sell against their will.

Incidentally, re #24, it is not illegal for me to discriminate against Aris on the basis of his arrogance.

And I'd be willing to defend your right to reject projects on the basis of my arrogance. But then again you are not a doctor or a pharmacist. If you were a doctor or a pharmacist I would *not* defend your right to reject me on the basis of my arrogance. Certainly not without ample notice, anyway, nor without referring me to someone who would accept me.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 3:29:48 PM|| 2004-11-11 3:29:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 Again, folks, THINK: Pharmacists and doctors are not comparable.

The former do not have anywhere near so extensive a set of professional, ethical and legal obligations as the latter. They're hardly more privileged than the other guys employed by Walmart, the ones stocking the shelves with diapers and fizzy drinks.

If you still can't grasp this crucial distinction, then ask yourself why doctor-patient relationships are privileged, or why doctors typically receive over 8 years of post-graduate training while pharmacists have only bachelor's-level training.

Or look at the profound legal differences. If your obstetrician refuses to perform a medically-necessary abortion to save your life, that is a violation of the Hippocratic oath and potentially a fatal catastrophe that may well expose him to criminal prosecution. If the pharmacist on one corner refuses to fill your birth-control prescription, that's an absurdly minor inconvenience that is of no importance to anyone. Get some perspective, and put this asinine non-controversy to bed.

Posted by lex 2004-11-11 3:42:32 PM|| 2004-11-11 3:42:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 Actually, Aris, some doctors in the U.S. are screening and rejecting some patients so as to reduce malpractice claims and malpractice insurance costs. As for referring you to someone else, why would I or a doctor have any obligation to refer you. It just wastes our time and puts us at legal risk if you have a problem later. Refer yourself.

Posted by Tom 2004-11-11 3:43:42 PM|| 2004-11-11 3:43:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 #53. As a physician, you can certainly refuse to accept any patient before the fact. Once one of your staff have made an appointment for that patient, you have a doctor-patient relationship, even before they walk through the door. At that point refusing to refer the patient to someone else without giving 30 day notice opens you to a charge of abandonment, and puts you at both legal and financial risk. Sorry. I have to deal with this every day. And kicking someone out for being a pain in the ass can open you for trouble with their HMO unless you convince the HMO it's OK.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-11-11 3:49:02 PM|| 2004-11-11 3:49:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 If the pharmacist on one corner refuses to fill your birth-control prescription, that's an absurdly minor inconvenience that is of no importance to anyone.

That's a pretty cavalier attitude there, lex. I personally don't know how hard it would be to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy. I do know that missing a pill for just one day can alter the effectiveness of the pill. It may be a minor inconvenience to you if it results in contraceptive failure, but it might be something much more traumatic to someone else.

Posted by Jules 187 2004-11-11 3:52:06 PM|| 2004-11-11 3:52:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#56 I'm not going to get into this in detail, Weird Al, but there are many ways to cause patients/clients to go somewhere else for their procedures without having them realize that your main motivation is to get rid of them.

Posted by Tom 2004-11-11 3:57:28 PM|| 2004-11-11 3:57:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 #56. Of course there are. You don't even have to pretend. Just tell them "you and I don't seem to be getting along". "You have 30 days to find someone else." No problemo. That's not the point. You don't do it without proper warning. If you do in this profession, sooner or later you're going to get nailed.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-11-11 4:03:04 PM|| 2004-11-11 4:03:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 Free-Market Capitalism, again, is the answer. If the company owning the pharmacy doesn't want to sell a product, then that's that. If a Phamacist doesn't want to sell a product offered by the company that employs them, then they should move along - they don't have the right to make the call. Waaaay simple.

Posted by .com 2004-11-11 4:04:32 PM|| 2004-11-11 4:04:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 The article doesn't say the Pharmacist owns the CVS Pharmacy. If that is the case, then the pharmacist may be perfectly within her rights not to sell birth control pills. But to fill the prescription for a period of time and without warning refuse to re-fill it, in my opinion, is wrong.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-11-11 4:08:10 PM|| 2004-11-11 4:08:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 CVS is a HUGE chain - hundreds of stores. I assure you the Pharmacists in question does NOT own it.

Posted by .com 2004-11-11 4:10:15 PM|| 2004-11-11 4:10:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 Thanks, .com. Someone owns the individual store, but as part of the franchise they bought, they follow the rules CVS lays down. Mickey D's don't get to decide whether or not they're selling big macs. Free-market indeed. You work for the chain, you don't like their rules, you go work somewhere else. Way simple .

Posted by Weird Al 2004-11-11 4:15:59 PM|| 2004-11-11 4:15:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 Tom, my point is that in this country (US) people can be forced by law to do things they feel are against their moral principles. Retail stores are considered , for law purposes, to be in the public interest. Hence anti discrimination laws for restaurants or any other retail service. You can't refuse to sell things to people, or provide a service to them based on their race. I never said there was a law that the grocery store has to stock beer. I think the analogy is still the same. Refusal to provide someone a good based on your moral principles. If that is a policy stated up front, fine. A pharmacist who owns the pharmacy can stock and sell whatever he or she wants. Having provided a good previously and their being an implied contract (the statement on the container about refills) the pharmacist is obligated to provide the good again.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2004-11-11 4:23:09 PM|| 2004-11-11 4:23:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 Frank, I'm sorry you don't like my sources. I did a quick google, and those were the first relevent ones to come up. I can't find anything on the AMA site, but WebMD has a nice article that provides similar statistics. WebMD is aimed at the general reader, providing information from the AMA and peer-reviewed journals in layman's terms across the range of medical issues and concerns. I'm not trying to advocate for/against abortion per se, but rather to point out the concern that the current generation of doctors is not properly trained in a necessary technique, because certain individuals have chosen to loudly impose their opinions of one aspect of use of that technique upon the whole field.

But still, you haven't addressed my question: is this pharmacist entitled to refuse to sell me birth control pills that I need for an off-label purpose that directly addresses my ability to function beyond the edge of my mattress? (In case you wondered: I most sincerely wish I were exaggerating about this. But I'm not.)

Posted by trailing wife 2004-11-11 4:26:50 PM|| 2004-11-11 4:26:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 .com-CVS is a huge chain, true, and getting bigger all the time. Osco is fading in Illinois, with Walgreens taking their place and CVS trying to nudge in. When I lived in NY, I got a rude awakening on what NY considers a good drug store. The 2 CVS's I went to in Westchester County were empty, filthy stores attended by rude, clueless clerks. This incident may be exposing a bigger customer service/good business problem with CVS. In which case, the market will decide to push them into insignificance anyway.

Posted by Jules 187 2004-11-11 4:31:40 PM|| 2004-11-11 4:31:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 One must always consider the personal and political motivations behind Aris' posts.

Regarding the article: it seems unlikely to me that it's true. I mean, what kind of birth control pill was it? If there was a change in policy or providers, wouldn't she have known? Is this just ONE person at the pharmacy? A word of caution. Creating straw dogs/fake stories is one of the ploys of Planned Parenthood. One of their main arguments is that the "govenment wants to control your body." Whatever. You'll be hearing scads of these stories throughout the next four years since ("faith-based") Bush won the election. Their goal as an industry is to earn dollars. The abortion industry is a non-regulated industry. They want to keep it that way. But it's losing money becase women are wising up. So I always take anything they say to be geared toward their specific ideological/business concerns. Linking legitimate discourse and critique to extreme occurences is their strategy to limit discourse and critique of the real issues. "If you stop partial birth abortions, they'll take away your birth control pills!" ALERT! ALERT! Religious extremists are so populating pharmacies that you can't get your birth control pills! The religious right is interfering with your life! AHHHhhhhhh! See, we told you!

If the guy really didn't fill her prescription, I generally agree with Weird Al #18, 50 and Kelven Zero #3.

Of course, RU486 pill has been proven to be dangerous due to increased risk of severe hemmorage. It's a bad drug. I wouldn't blame anybody--religious or not--if they wouldn't fill that type of prescription. Some physicians (pharmacists are physicians--lex must be thinking of pharmacy techs) take the (original) Hippocratic Oath seriously.

There is much misinformation out there regarding the subject of abortion, which is what this is really about. For example, a lot of med schools force interns to perform abortions--which goes against the conscience of some. Abortion is big business, and since is it unregulated, many ob/gyns peform abortions on the weekends and earn anywhere from $2000-$10,000 in cash, which they can pocket. If something goes wrong, they send the woman to the hospital claiming a "botched abortion" by some back-alley kook. Of course they want to know how to do it. Follow the money.

As a former prochoice advocate, may I recommend Feminists for Lifeas a starting point for research--the Voices of Women section is really interesting, or this link or this link which feature physcians with interesting viewpoints.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-11-11 4:34:39 PM|| 2004-11-11 4:34:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 I think a pharmacist is free (within the approval of their employer) to dispense whatever they feel correct in dispensing. Should they feel Vioxx (to pick a recent example) is not OK - they should say so up front and publicly and state why. You are free to visit any number of pharmacies, and the company employing a pharm that will not dispense necessary meds for invalid reasons will fire them. This is a spinoff of the requirements that Catholic charities provide birth-control and abortion coverage for all employees - a big argument here in CA. Make the restrictions known upfront and let the consumer choose accordingly

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-11 4:40:37 PM|| 2004-11-11 4:40:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 Jules187 - they are (almost) literally on every corner here in Sin City - and competing head to head with Wahlgren's. Never been inside either, so I can't address that aspect.

But employees do not tell employers what actions they will and will not do on the job. That's just phreakin' stupid - and no matter what BS pseudo-morality might be attached to doing one's job, that is still not an employee's call. Ever. No likee? Fine, pack up your shit and get the fuck out - someone else wants the job. This is an incredibly fucked-up thread --- i.e. it is Arisified.

Posted by .com 2004-11-11 4:41:42 PM|| 2004-11-11 4:41:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 This is an incredibly fucked-up thread --- i.e. it is Arisified.

Yeah, 9 posts of mine out of 67 -- but the length is all again clearly my own fault, and not caused at all by the fact there's real controversy here and people may have honest differing opinions about it.

One must always consider the personal and political motivations behind Aris' posts.

My motivations in this thread have so far been only political. Except when calling Bulldog an asshole, or Sock Puppet a moron.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 4:56:21 PM|| 2004-11-11 4:56:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 Aris, your argument about regulated professions versus laissez faire markets is pedantic and borders on asinine (an improvement from your normal commentary to be certain, but still ....) The licensure of a professional by any government carries with it certain rights and may also impose certain obligations for the good of those served. If the licensing agency chooses to impose a requirement that the professional to be licensed must always perform services upon any demand, they're clearly free to do so.

The proper question here is whether or not the state that licensed the pharmacist in question imposed such a requirement as a quid pro quo for granting said license. If not, as is almost certainly the case, then it is abundantly clear that the pharmacist is free to provide or withhold services as he/she so chooses for whatever reason and with respect to whatever goods. No obligation can exist where none has been imposed.

When a pharmacist acts within the strictures imposed on them by the state that granted thier license but in a manner a customer does not like the issue that arises is between the pharmacist and his/her employer as well as between the business employing the pharmacist and the customer. Both are, of course, more than capable of resolution within the limited free market for pharmacy services that exists in the US.

This is a tempest in a teacup at most.

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-11 6:45:01 PM|| 2004-11-11 6:45:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 "The proper question here is whether or not the state that licensed the pharmacist in question imposed such a requirement as a quid pro quo for granting said license"

The question is not only whether it imposed such a requirement, but whether it *should* impose such a requirement in the future.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 7:24:37 PM|| 2004-11-11 7:24:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#71 And there you have it. The imagined high ground of moral superiority. Justifies absofuckinglutely anything - if you can take it and hold it. At least it does in the eyes of those who believe in the infallibility of the imposed social-engineering game. It's good to be King - of the game.

Posted by .com 2004-11-11 7:35:49 PM|| 2004-11-11 7:35:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#72 Aris, Aris, Aris, how can you be so dumb? No body is going to impose a requirement on pharmacists in this country to fill every Rx they get, any more than the guvmint is going to tell me who I can treat. We both are expected to use our best judgement. That doesn't mean we can abandon patients just because we don't like them. We give them fair warning, then give them the gate. That's all.

Posted by Wierd Al 2004-11-11 7:44:33 PM|| 2004-11-11 7:44:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#73 Aris, Aris, Aris, how can you be so dumb? No body is going to impose a requirement on pharmacists in this country

Why is it so difficult for you people to understand that what *is* isn't always what *should* be?

Why am I attacked for not only discussing the particulars of the law as it currently stand, but also the particulars of the law as I feel it should be?

Are your brains *so* rotted that you can't understand even the concept of disagreement about alternate possible policies?

One thing I haven't discussed or mentioned at all, Weird Al, and that is the *likelihood* of America ever using my ideas. So when you say "Nobody is going to impose a requirement on pharmacists in this country to fill every Rx they get" my response to you is "So? Does the fact that nobody is going to, means that nobody *should*?"

I full-well understand the difference between desire and reality. You people not only fail to understand the difference, you go rabid at the thought of anyone contemplating said difference.

How am I dumb, Weird Al, for saying about what obligations I feel the pharmacists *should* have towards the public? Please do explain that.

As for .com, his main participation in any thread has long since been the effort to attempt to stifle any and all debate. He attacks liberalhawk when he's discussing alternate possibilities, he attacks me for "imagined high ground of moral superiority" using long sentences that amount to squat but a mocking insult -- and is offended at any thread that contains anything else other than booing or cheering. He's particularly offended at this debate since it ended up dividing regular mainstream Rantburger participants as well -- any debate is eeeeevil according to .com. Any thread where not everyone shares the same opinion is "fucked up" and "Arisified".

.com is a fine example of a person offended by even the concept of argumentation or debate.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 8:07:19 PM|| 2004-11-11 8:07:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#74 No Aris, the proper question to be answered before castigating the pharmacist in question is whether or not such a requirement has already been imposed on him/her. If not, no harm no foul. It's as simple as that. The question you're trying to use to blur this discussion is wholly different not in the least because it is necessarily forward-looking as opposed to the proper question which must necessarily look to the past.

There's a practical consideration here as well: namely a Constitutionally protected freedom of religion consideration that you entirely neglect in your analysis. For example, the religious beliefs of conscientious objectors must be respected and protected even by our military largely due to the First Amendment's protection of the freedom of religion in the US. Do you really believe a licensing regulation that rode roughshod over the licensee's freedom of religion for the sake of nothing more than the convenience of consumers would survive a Constitutional challenge? If so you're woefully uninformed.

Argue that the 1st Amendment to our Constitution should be repealed if you will, but I think you'll find that the overwhelming majority of us are very happy with it.

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-11 8:10:13 PM|| 2004-11-11 8:10:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#75 Lol! And the bitch bitches when others put words in his maw. lol! What a hypocrisy trip.

Posted by .com 2004-11-11 8:11:00 PM|| 2004-11-11 8:11:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#76 Why am I attacked for not only discussing the particulars of the law as it currently stand, but also the particulars of the law as I feel it should be?

For one because you're either utterly ignorant of the Constitutional basis of many of the freedoms we enjoy or you don't believe in said Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. When you attack them, as you've done here, you insult the very ideals upon which our nation was founded. That's not going to make you very popular around here.

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-11 8:12:24 PM|| 2004-11-11 8:12:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#77 One thing though: .com succeeded here. By again using my name as an insult in #67 (when my last participation in this thread was 16 posts earlier, btw) he attempted to turn discussion away from the issue of the thread and onto my own person.

And he succeeded. Congrats .com!! Again you managed to destroy a discussion through a personal attack. You are a truly competent villain.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 8:12:33 PM|| 2004-11-11 8:12:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#78 Aris, have you ever noticed you start more arguments than discussions?

Ever wondered why you're the common element?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-11-11 8:13:57 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-11-11 8:13:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#79 I think that Bulldog's conclusion back at #35 should just about wrap it up. "And that's where I end this debate, asshole."
[For those of you who are shocked at his impropriety, please note that Aris used the word first against him in #30.]

Posted by Tom 2004-11-11 8:15:27 PM|| 2004-11-11 8:15:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#80 No Aris, the proper question to be answered before castigating the pharmacist in question is whether or not such a requirement has already been imposed on him/her.

No, I'm allowed to castigate the pharmacist in question regardless of whether he/she was violating the law or not. I don't call him/her a criminal, I called him/her unfit to be a pharmacist. That's a personal judgmenent on my part against him/her, involving what I feel it takes to make a pharmacist worthy of the task inherent in the name.

Or don't you have freedom of opinion in that Bill of Rights?

Do you really believe a licensing regulation that rode roughshod over the licensee's freedom of religion for the sake of nothing more than the convenience of consumers would survive a Constitutional challenge?

I have no idea. America reinterprets the meaning of its Bill of Rights through the courts every couple of decades, after all. I'm not fully aware what the current level of interpretation stands as.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 8:20:57 PM|| 2004-11-11 8:20:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#81 Robert> Ever wondered why you're the common element?

Because I'm an arrogant and opinionated progressive liberal in a forum filled with conservatives.

That seems to me to explain it.

Tom> "For those of you who are shocked at his impropriety, please note that Aris used the word first against him in #30."

Those of you shocked at the impropriety of "asshole", should have first noticed the impropriety of me being called a "Hitler" in #7.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 8:24:34 PM|| 2004-11-11 8:24:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#82 Aris, you are "an arrogant and opinionated progressive liberal"? Don't misrepresent yourself -- you are first and foremost a masochist.

Posted by Tom 2004-11-11 8:33:38 PM|| 2004-11-11 8:33:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#83 That too.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 8:36:09 PM|| 2004-11-11 8:36:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#84 "Does the fact that nobody is going to, means that nobody *should*" Yes, it means no body should. In spades. Christ you are stupid. Valid reasons not to fill a script: 1# The patient has Rx from multiple MDs, and this one is going to interact terrbly with current scripts. 2# the patient is filling multiple narcotic scripts from multiple MDs. #3 The patient appears drunk or stoned and incapable of understanding dangerous side effects. 4# the signature looks forged. Etc. Just as I don't have to write a narcotic Rx for someone just because they demand it. Get a life.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-11-11 8:36:31 PM|| 2004-11-11 8:36:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#85 .com is my idol. Still, you're wrong aris :-)

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-11 8:39:33 PM|| 2004-11-11 8:39:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#86 Nice argument ad hominem (a hallmark of a weak debater) but I'm not going to take your bait or let you off the hook.

I called him/her unfit to be a pharmacist.

You have no objective basis for making that factual assertion because as we've already discussed it's a virtual certainty that there's no requirement that the pharmacist act as you believe he/she should. It would be well within the bounds of discussion to express your opinion e.g., "I don't believe a pharmacist should ..." but you're far out of bounds in making a factual assertion e.g. saying that he/she is, "...unfit to be a pharmacist." Those are very different statements and you have absolutely no basis for the factual assertion.

America reinterprets the meaning of its Bill of Rights through the courts every couple of decades ....

Actually we interpret our Constitution through the courts every day, not "...every couple of decades." You're apparently as ignorant of the process as you are the current interpretation. I'll leave it for others here to judge the merits of your arguments accordingly.

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-11 8:45:29 PM|| 2004-11-11 8:45:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#87 Weird Al> Yes, THOSE are valid reasons. But I don't think "Because I don't wanna" is such a valid reason for a professional in healthcare. And so-called religious objection usually boils down to "I don't wanna".

I don't like the elevation of religious belief beyond what it is -- mere opinion.

"Does the fact that nobody is going to, means that nobody *should*" Yes, it means no body should

You have either a difficulty with parsing language, or a difficulty with understanding of logic, or are conformist extra-ordinaire. You feel they shouldn't for *different* reason that the fact that "nobody is going to".

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 8:47:38 PM|| 2004-11-11 8:47:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#88 AzCat> "but you're far out of bounds in making a factual assertion e.g. saying that he/she is, "...unfit to be a pharmacist." Those are very different statements and you have absolutely no basis for the factual assertion."

There's no difference whatsoever in speech between "I think he's unfit to be a pharmacist" and "He's unfit to be a pharmacist", except that the latter isn't as modest as the former. Other than that *ofcourse* I'm expressing a personal value judgment when I'm calling someone unfit for something. I never said "Anyone who's sane will see it's factual truth he's unfit", I said the plain "He's unfit.", which clearly indicates my own *opinion* on the subject. What else could it be indicating?

If I were humbler I'd have added "IMHO" ofcourse, though "IMAO" would right now be more accurate. But those are decorations. Normal people know that calling someone fit or unfit or something is a matter of opinion. How many of you must have called Kerry unfit for President? Can you all swear you always predated your comments with "I think" and "I believe"? No, those were implied, as is natural in speech.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 8:54:30 PM|| 2004-11-11 8:54:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#89 If you check about a hundred posts back, you'll see that I said emphaticly that the pharmacist should not refuse to fill a script based on religious objections, and I've said that same that over and over. However, I've also said that if she objects, she should get employment where it won't be a problem. Once again, religion cannot dictate terms to a scientific situation, particularly if you are an employee. This is different that saying the pharmacist "should" be made to do these things. No, she should not. In any way. but she shouldn't choose to work in a place where it's going to be an issue. Anymore than she should feel she has a right to hand out religious tracts at her place of employment.

Posted by Weird Al 2004-11-11 9:11:57 PM|| 2004-11-11 9:11:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#90 There's no difference whatsoever in speech between "I think he's unfit to be a pharmacist" and "He's unfit to be a pharmacist".

No difference at all other than the former being a statement of your opinion and the latter being a statement of fact, modesty has nothing to do with it. I suggest that you attempt to discern the difference between opinions and facts before continuing this discussion.

How many of you must have called Kerry unfit for President?

That's entirely irrelevant, we're talking about pharmacists.

Normal people know that calling someone fit or unfit or something is a matter of opinion.

Fit or unfit is a matter of fact where actions of those to be judged can be measured against objective standards. Licensure of professionals impose objective standards of conduct on the licensed professionals, ergo if you cannot show a breach of those objective standards you cannot judge one fit or unfit to practice their profession. It's that simple.

It appears that what you really want to criticize are the licensing standards of the pharmacy profession yet you persist in attacking the pharmacist for acting properly within the existing standards by which he/she is to be judged. You're obviously quite confused. What you intend to say is, "The standards of licensing pharmacists in the state in question do not agree with my own internal moral code" but it keeps coming out as, "The pharmacist in question is not fit to practice his/her profession." A bit of clear thinking would go a long way towards bolstering your argument but that's probably asking a bit much of an admittedly ignorant Greek socialist.

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-11 9:14:57 PM|| 2004-11-11 9:14:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#91 "How many of you must have called Kerry unfit for President?" That's entirely irrelevant, we're talking about pharmacists.

LOL!!! Yeah, I think that says it all for your argument.

AzCat, I suggest *you* learn the difference between opinions and facts -- and you should also understand that beyond the kindergarten level not all opinion need be prefaced by "My opinion is". One is still allowed to simply *state* what his opinion is, and unless he explicitely claims it to be a fact you have no business misrepresenting him as doing so.

It appears that what you really want to criticize are the licensing standards of the pharmacy profession yet you persist in attacking the pharmacist for acting properly within the existing standards by which he/she is to be judged.

If my words keep coming out as "The pharmacist in question is not fit to practice his/her profession", that's probably because that's *exactly* the way I mean them: According to my opinion, the pharmacist in question is not fit to practice his/her profession *AND* if the standards of licensing pharmacists don't reflect that, then said standards should change.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 9:26:34 PM|| 2004-11-11 9:26:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#92 Yeah, I think that says it all for your argument.

Of couse it does. It says that I intend to keep this discussion on-topic rather than allowing you to sidetrack it onto irrelevant issues.

I suggest *you* learn the difference between opinions and facts -- and you should also understand that beyond the kindergarten level not all opinion need be prefaced by "My opinion is".

Interesting suggestion coming from someone who's proven themselves incapable of phrasing a statement properly. Perhaps it doesn't translate well into Greek but there's a very real difference between factual assertions and subjective judgements and how they're worded or at least that's what they told me in law school.

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-11 9:55:02 PM|| 2004-11-11 9:55:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#93 Perhaps it's your own inability to tell your opinions from facts that's at the root of this problem, AzCat. Most people recognize that what they state is their opinions, and that when they make a judgement it's *their* judgment, that's why they don't need to mention it all the time. If I was referring to some universal rating system of pharmacists which factually and objectively had rated him unfit, be sure I'd have let you known.

Same as when I called Bulldog an asshole, I called the pharmacist unfit, using my own judgment. I didn't say "I think Bulldog is an asshole" and for the same reason I didn't say "I think the pharmacist is unfit". Kinda ruins the momentum, don't you think?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 10:07:53 PM|| 2004-11-11 10:07:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#94 Perhaps it's your own inability to tell your opinions from facts that's at the root of this problem....

Not at all Aris, I work with what people actually say without attributing to them things they might or might not mean. Again, there are ways to phrase opinions and there are ways to phrase factual assertions, it's all fairly straightforward.

If I was referring to some universal rating system of pharmacists ....

That would be irrelevant. What would be relevant is the particular licensing standards in place in the US state in question and the interplay of that system with the Constitutional rights of pharmacists in said state. Again, you appear too ignorant of the relevant issues to intelligently comment.

I called the pharmacist unfit, using my own judgment.

Now that you've admitted that your factual assertion was really nothing more than your subjective opinion we can safely ignore your thoughts since objective standards are in place to judge the conduct of pharmacists in their practices. Those objective standards cannot both remain within the bounds of our Constitution and adhere to your own internal code of morality.

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble Aris but within the United States, our Constitution will trump Aris Katsaris' personal code of morality every single time. Thus where your morality conflicts with the US Constitution your view is moot and of no interest and your argument is specious because your position is quite clearly unconstitutional. You must first defeat the concept of freedom of religion as we recognize it here in the US, then you may properly return to the issue of the propriety of the prohibition of the free exercise of religion by professional licensing standards. Cart -> horse. HTH.

Like I said many times: it's all relatively simple but I do understand that it might be a bit much for an admittedly ignorant Greek socialist to comprehend so I've been trying to help you out.

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-11 10:27:24 PM|| 2004-11-11 10:27:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#95 Just repeat "admittedly ignorant Greek socialist" a couple more times and that will exorcise away any need to use any need for arguments or indeed any need for sentient thought.

And as a sidenote I'm only a "socialist" in the sense that I'm not a libertarian.

Now that you've admitted that your factual assertion was really nothing more than your subjective opinion

Oooh, I *admitted* that my stated opinion was my stated opinion. Given that from the start of the discussion I've been framing the issue as a difference of opinion, your late understanding of the same (atleast 80 posts overdue) says something about your own intelligence and understanding of language.

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble Aris but within the United States, our Constitution will trump Aris Katsaris' personal code of morality every single time

And your Constitution says that religious conscience trumps professional obligations? I've not read the Bill of Rights that way, and I seem to have missed the Court decision interpreting as such. Direct me to it, please.

I wonder how far that interpretation extends. For example, if a surgeon on the operating table decided that his religion stated to kill his patient, would he not only be acquitted of murder but even kept in his profession?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-11-11 10:55:40 PM|| 2004-11-11 10:55:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#96 In #9 you recognized that the dispensation of drugs was limited to a select few, namely pharmacists. In #20 and posts infra you explicitly recognized the licensure of pharmacies, only partially correct in that the issue here is the licensure of an individual pharmacist. The licensure of a business that employs individual pharmacists is a tangential issue at best since you framed the issue with respect to the individual pharmacist when you started this thread, but still you did properly recognize the existence of a licensing process.

Given that you were aware that at least someone involved in the pharmacy business must obtain a license prior to engaging in the trade, and given that said licensing process must necessarily include objective standards for licensure and will include objective standards for conduct, your assertion that your later statement on the fitness of an individual to practice this profession was merely opinion is highly suspect. You clearly knew of the existence of a licensing process comprising objective standards and made a statement that is prima facie a statement of fact; ergo if you intended your statement to be interpreted as other than a statement of fact the impetus was on you to clearly identify it as opinion. Since you did not do so the statement must be interpreted in light of the knowledge you displayed earlier, namely as an interpretation of the objective standards which you had early acknowledged.

Thus your statement standing alone was a statement of fact but it was also a statement of fact interpreted in light of your other statements earlier in the conversation. I'm sorry if English it too nuanced for you but that's just how it is. BTW: the âEnglish is only my 12th languageâ argument is the only one you have left. Use it to good effect.

And your Constitution says that religious conscience trumps professional obligations?

Yes it does, no question about it. It's the highest law in the land and where any government action violates it said government action is illegal. That much is crystal clear.

Just repeat "admittedly ignorant Greek socialist" a couple more times and that will exorcise away any need to use any need for arguments or indeed any need for sentient thought.

But Aris you are an admittedly ignorant Greek socialist. Well, you're an admittedly ignorant socialist anyway but I believe you've stated in the past that you're Greek as well.

I give you credit for being at least mildly intelligent thus I inferred that when you claimed to be a "progressive liberal" you meant it in the American sense because in the European sense that phrase is an oxymoron while in the American sense it is merely redundant. You might use such a redundant term in English to reinforce the idea you're trying to convey. Since progressive and liberal (in the American sense) are synonymous we're left to infer that you wanted to express precisely how far off the left end of the political scale you really are. You don't seem like a communist thus I stopped at socialist. Isn't it just dandy when people infer your meaning?

As for your being "admittedly ignorant" that's not an insult that's a factual observation. You stated above that you're ignorant of the current interpretation of our Constitution thus you are, by your own words, "admittedly ignorant."

Better luck next time Aris, it's been fun.

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-11 11:34:13 PM|| 2004-11-11 11:34:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#97 Everybody has to find out for themself what Aris and his redundant agenda is all about.

Cheers! . . . And may I suggest the archives.

(Note: Handy short cut available on post #19.)

Posted by ex-lib 2004-11-11 11:35:11 PM|| 2004-11-11 11:35:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#98 Nobody is answering Trailing Wife's question. I too was prescribed birth control pills for reasons unrelated to preventing pregnancy. Do I have to wear a scarlet letter because the pharmacist has decided that I am a slut?

Posted by SC88 2004-11-11 11:38:21 PM|| 2004-11-11 11:38:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#99 SC88 - I personally don't think the pharmacist should question you about the purpose of your prescription. You and Trailing Wife are more than free to, as a former coworker used to day, "Vote with your feet." That seems the obvious solution since nearly every business in this nation reserves the right to refuse service to any of us for any reason. Why should pharmacists be any different, particuarly when there's a Constitutional issue in the mix?

Posted by AzCat 2004-11-11 11:49:10 PM|| 2004-11-11 11:49:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#100 W00t! 100th comment.

Henceforth, I expect everyone to refer to me as Dr Evil. I was annointed with this honorary title by the Secular EU Angel of Morality hisownself.

Posted by .com 2004-11-11 11:54:30 PM|| 2004-11-11 11:54:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#101 10-4 Doc! But who gets to be your mini-you?

Posted by PBMcL 2004-11-12 12:04:25 AM|| 2004-11-12 12:04:25 AM|| Front Page Top

00:53 Leigh
00:04 PBMcL
23:59 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:57 Zhang Fei
23:54 .com
23:51 Bomb-a-rama
23:50 AzCat
23:49 AzCat
23:46 OldSpook
23:38 SC88
23:35 ex-lib
23:34 AzCat
23:33 True German Ally
23:32 someone
23:27 someone
23:27 Rearden
23:23 Stephen
23:19 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:19 Korora
23:18 Atomic Conspiracy
23:12 Mike Sylwester
23:06 Frank G
23:06 Frank G
23:03 Bomb-a-rama