Pharmacists refusing to fill scripts ...

[Toxick]

What say you?

Sez, I - they should follow company policy.

If CVS decided that they're no longer going to carry certain types of drugs, based on the beliefs of the board of director's or the CEO or whatever, that's their prerogative, and they should feel free to do so.

However, If CVS has decided that they're not in the business of turning down money, then the bottle-filler behind the counter has no right to deny ANYONE ANYTHING that doesn't violate CVS's established policy.

If they're not going to do their job, then they should be fired.

QED.

 

[BuddyLee]

:shrug:

The federal government regulates prescription drugs; therefore, to allow someone whose job it is to dispense those federally regulated drugs to NOT dispense them based on their religious beliefs is easily construed as "making a law respecting an establishment of religion."

And I clearly agree with you in this stance just as the American Pharmacists Association does. I do believe a pharmacist should have the right to deny you BUT they MUST refer you to another pharmacist to ENSURE you that you will indeed be served thus respecting both your beliefs and that initial pharmacists beliefs.

 

[BuddyLee]

Sez, I - they should follow company policy.

If CVS decided that they're no longer going to carry certain types of drugs, based on the beliefs of the board of director's or the CEO or whatever, that's their prerogative, and they should feel free to do so.

However, If CVS has decided that they're not in the business of turning down money, then the bottle-filler behind the counter has no right to deny ANYONE ANYTHING that doesn't violate CVS's established policy.

If they're not going to do their job, then they should be fired.

QED.

What about privately owned pharmacies?

 

[Toxick]

What about privately owned pharmacies?

Then the owner(s) decide.


My point was: Employees do not dictate company policy. Therefore they should not choose which parts of their employer's policy they're going to abide.

Business owners, however, should not be forced to provide a service which they find abhorrent.

 

[BuddyLee]

Then the owner(s) decide.


My point was: Employees do not dictate company policy. Therefore they should not choose which parts of their employer's policy they're going to abide.

Business owners, however, should not be forced to provide a service which they find abhorrent.

I agree 100%! If the employee's don't like the company policy they can simply quit or protest, either one.

 

[crabcake]

IF that particular pharmacy chooses to NOT carry the medication, that's one thing entirely. Then, it's expected that one would have to go elsewhere.

IF they offer/carry it, and do not fill it based on the government telling the bean counter that if it's against his religious beliefs, he doesn't have to -- regardless of who owns the pharmacy -- that, I would think is unconstitutional because it is not the government's place to acknowledge religion, and the government regulates those medications.

Now, if the government wants to get out of the prescription drug regulation business, then by all means ... Joe Blow Pharmacist and his company can do whatever they want. :shrug:

 

[BuddyLee]

IF they offer/carry it, and do not fill it based on the government telling the bean counter that if it's against his religious beliefs, he doesn't have to -- regardless of who owns the pharmacy -- that, I would think is unconstitutional because it is not the government's place to acknowledge religion, and the government regulates those medications.

Here's the catch: Some people don't view abortion as a religious issue. Some people think abortion is just morally wrong. So how do you tell those people "sorry folks, this is a religious issue when it's not, to them"?

 

[crabcake]

Then the owner(s) decide.

I wouldn't think the owners would have much say over the dispersing of federally regulated medicines except to ensure qualified personnel are hired to dispense them, and ensure the adherence to federal laws governing the dispensing of them. :shrug:

I wish to hell we had a pharmacist or doctor on this forum who could throw in their two cents and provide some procedural background on this; unfortunately, they're probably too busy writing prescriptions or denying they be filled.

 

[crabcake]

Here's the catch: Some people don't review abortion as a religious issue. Some people think abortion is just morally wrong. So how do you tell those people "sorry folks, this is a religious issue when it's not, to them"?

I'm not discussing abortion; I'm discussing prescription medications -- period. The pharmacists are the ones playing pick-and-choose over which medications they wanna be pissy about and why; not me. :shrug: I don't see how it matters what the medication is or what it's prescribed for; that's the doctor's job ... again, the pharmacist is the bean counter.

This really is a simple matter (in my opinion) and yes, one that is quite "black and white". If I want my pharmacists opinions on my medicine and what he thinks is morally acceptable, I'll ask him/her about it in church.

 

[sinwagon]

So what if he deny's BC to someone who is unwed if she gets knocked up and comes back for her prenatal vitimins is he going to deny those too cuz she is not married?

 

[crabcake]

So what if he deny's BC to someone who is unwed if she gets knocked up and comes back for her prenatal vitimins is he going to deny those too cuz she is not married?

There's no end to this pharmacist-moral thing. How many different religions do you have out there? :shrug: I could create my own religion, acquire my pharmacy degree/license, and say it's against my beliefs to issue heart medication because you're just trying to put off the inevitable vs. let nature take its course. :shrug:

 

[BuddyLee]

I'm not discussing abortion; I'm discussing prescription medications -- period. The pharmacists are the ones playing pick-and-choose over which medications they wanna be pissy about and why; not me. :shrug: I don't see how it matters what the medication is or what it's prescribed for; that's the doctor's job ... again, the pharmacist is the bean counter.

I think the big issue IS over abortion and birth control. I thought that's what this debate was about, I thought that's what this poll was about, I thought that's what the first post in this thread was about.:shrug: However, if we're taking this windy route we can apply this to anything. If a pharmacist doesn't want to give you the pills because of moral reasoning then he/she shouldn't have to. That phramacist MUST refer you to another pharmacist though.

This really is a simple matter (in my opinion) and yes, one that is quite "black and white".

If it was simply black and white we'd have the clear and concise answers by now and it wouldn't be a debating matter.

If I want my pharmacists opinions on my medicine and what he thinks is morally acceptable, I'll ask him/her about it in church.

I don't think a pharmacist is going to ask what you and everyone else thinks is morally right or wrong, he has his own mind and his own moral judgement. Again, church may not have something to do with some people's morals. I don't go to church or read the bible or even believe in one particular religion but I do believe stealing and going out to kill another is wrong.

 

[BuddyLee]

There's no end to this pharmacist-moral thing. How many different religions do you have out there? :shrug: I could create my own religion, acquire my pharmacy degree/license, and say it's against my beliefs to issue heart medication because you're just trying to put off the inevitable vs. let nature take its course. :shrug:

And that would be your prerogative. Good luck staying in business though.

 

[crabcake]

I think the big issue IS over abortion and birth control. I thought that's what this debate was about, I thought that's what this poll was about, I thought that's what the first post in this thread was about.:shrug: However, if we're taking this windy route we can apply this to anything. If a pharmacist doesn't want to give you the pills because of moral reasoning then he/she shouldn't have to. That phramacist MUST refer you to another pharmacist though.

If it was simply black and white we'd have the clear and concise answers by now and it wouldn't be a debating matter.

I don't think a pharmacist is going to ask what you and everyone else thinks is morally right or wrong, he has his own mind and his own moral judgement. Again, church may not have something to do with some people's morals. I don't go to church or read the bible or even believe in one particular religion but I do believe stealing and going out to kill another is wrong.

Again, I didn't make this about abortion; the pharmacists did when they refused to issue the prescription for the morning after pill, but some are also refusing to issue birth control pills ... all because they think it's immoral. Who am I to tell anyone else what to do with their body/how so long as it's not hurting me? The pharmacist has no idea why that pill is being prescribed, and doesn't need to know; all he needs to know is 1) that it is a legal prescription; 2) if it will interact with other medications the patient is taking; and 3) if the patient has any questions (moreso done to cover his/her ass.

If the pharmacists' beliefs are being put to the test and they can't handle it, they need to step aside and let someone else in there who can and will do what they were hired to do. This is clearly a constitutional issue, and I think that -- in time -- these states making it okay for pharmacists to do that will be forced to overturn those decisions based on that very principle.

You may not like it, and I may not agree with it; but the liberal left has pushed the separation of church and state to the tip of the iceberg, and I don't see how it is any less applicable in this case (given the government's job of regulating the medication) than it is in the pledge of allegiance or the Alabama judge who had the statue of the 10 commandments in his courthouse. :shrug:

 

[crabcake]

And that would be your prerogative. Good luck staying in business though.

THANK YOU! You just made my point!

There is no difference ... both could be matters of life or death; you don't know that they aren't, and neither does the pharmacist.

If I was told by my doctor that I should NOT become pregnant ... that if I did, it would/could kill me, and I accidentally did, taking that pill MIGHT mean my life ... but it's okay when it's a patient with heart disease who might've clogged his arteries with one too many Biggee Fries.

 

[BuddyLee]

Who am I to tell anyone else what to do with their body/how so long as it's not hurting me?

Because they are health care providing professionals and you are not.

The pharmacist has no idea why that pill is being prescribed

I've worked part time in a pharmacy, you don't think the pharmacist knows what pills do what? I'd constantly have George the pharmacist tell me what these people had because of what was being prescribed for them.

If the pharmacists' beliefs are being put to the test and they can't handle it, they need to step aside and let someone else in there who can and will do what they were hired to do.

And i've agreed with as much.

This is clearly a constitutional issue, and I think that -- in time -- these states making it okay for pharmacists to do that will be forced to overturn those decisions based on that very principle.

You may not like it, and I may not agree with it; but the liberal left has pushed the separation of church and state to the tip of the iceberg, and I don't see how it is any less applicable in this case (given the government's job of regulating the medication) than it is in the pledge of allegiance or the Alabama judge who had the statue of the 10 commandments in his courthouse. :shrug:

I'm not sure how I stand with the religious viewpoint of the issue as of yet, at first glance I'd have to agree with you. However, as I said before, some people don't assume this is a religious issue, not to them at least. Some people just feel this is morally wrong and they have that right to refuse a certain drug if it is conflicting with their personal morals. I'm a strict believer that you should not inflict your beliefs upon another, keep that in the private sector. If the pharmacist has moral problems with the case then he should kindly hand the case over to another pharmacist. Doing just this will save each parties rights.

 

[BuddyLee]

THANK YOU! You just made my point!

One of many. Believe it or not I agree a lot with you on this subject. I just cannot agree that the pharmacist MUST hand it over when his own morals come into conflict with that. We each stand for something, some more than others. When we go against what we stand for how does that make us feel? Who are we if we do that? People should have intelligible morals and should stick to them for their own sake.

 

[crabcake]

Because they are health care providing professionals and you are not.

Right, but the pharmacist is not privvy to the medical records/history of the patient; the doctor (who prescribes the medication) is.

I've worked part time in a pharmacy, you don't think the pharmacist knows what pills do what? I'd constantly have George the pharmacist tell me what these people had because of what was being prescribed for them.

I'm sure they have a clue; they have to ... how else could they dispense advice about the medication and ensure there aren't conflicts with other medications the patient might be taking? :shrug: Doesn't mean they also become a doctor and have the right to tell the patient they can't have it. They should refer the patient back to their physician, which they typically do.

And i've agreed with as much.

I'm not sure how I stand with the religious viewpoint of the issue as of yet, at first glance I'd have to agree with you. However, as I said before, some people don't assume this is a religious issue, not to them at least. Some people just feel this is morally wrong and they have that right to refuse a certain drug if it is conflicting with their personal morals. I'm a strict believer that you should not inflict your beliefs upon another, keep that in the private sector. If the pharmacist has moral problems with the case then he should kindly hand the case over to another pharmacist. Doing just this will save each parties rights.

If they attribute their "morals" to religion, it's a constitutional issue as I said and those "morals" should be overruled. If it's not a religion issue, their "morals" are no different than "opinions", which we both know are like hiney butts ... everyone has one. :shrug:

 

[crabcake]

One of many. Believe it or not I agree a lot with you on this subject. I just cannot agree that the pharmacist MUST hand it over when his own morals come into conflict with that. We each stand for something, some more than others. When we go against what we stand for how does that make us feel? Who are we if we do that? People should have intelligible morals and should stick to them for their own sake.

Like I said in my last post ... opinions are like azzholes. If his opinions are keeping him from doing his job, he needs to step aside and let someone else take home that paycheck ... just like someone who lets their morals preclude them from sticking the needle in the death row inmates arm ... just like the soldier who -- in the midst of battle -- decides that war is wrong and he wants to go home and hug a tree ... :shrug:

If they're so good at counting stuff, they can go work for HR Block.

 

[BuddyLee]

Like I said in my last post ... opinions are like azzholes. If his opinions are keeping him from doing his job, he needs to step aside and let someone else take home that paycheck ... just like someone who lets their morals preclude them from sticking the needle in the death row inmates arm ... just like the soldier who -- in the midst of battle -- decides that war is wrong and he wants to go home and hug a tree ... :shrug:

If they're so good at counting stuff, they can go work for HR Block.

All good points CC, I love a good debate and I thank you for as much. With that, I must hope to beat the great CC some other day.