Pharmacist Sue over Morning After Pill

Remove all ads!

What about a doctor treating a rapist, or any other criminal? Would they be allowed to say "no, i dont want to treat this man?" I think not. If its your job to treat patients, or to sell drugs, then you have to do so.

 

Dalveen, by treating a rapist you don't help him rape anyone. You would be actively helping him if you sold him anaesthetics in the form of a pill dissoluble in water, which could be used as a date rape pill.

 

Again, it's not a matter of "I will help this person, I will not help that person". It's a matter of "I cannot in good conscience be involved in the dissemination of this product. They are not taking upon themselves the right to judge anyone but themselves.

Rights belong to all people, not just left wingers or right wingers. If these people have a concern with what the government is asking them to do, they have every right to fight it -- they might lose, but you get my point. They are not the insidious destroyers of a woman's right to contraception they are being made out to be.

 

Very true, and in an ideal world, these pharmacists wouldn't have to do something they find morally...well, there's no other word for it: WRONG.

And YES, every citizen has the right to seek redress through the courts for what they consider to be an injustice against their rights; I welcome this court case. I also - PERSONALLY - hope that they lose this court case, because I believe that the rights of the two pharmacists are outweighed by the rights of all their Plan B customers; you may not think that my decision is fair, or just, or equitable, but these beliefs are mine. Just take comfort that my opinion holds NO legal weight or influence on the outcome of the court case.

Actually, I'd be inclined to disagree with that conjecture and direct attention to something Rags brought up earlier in this same thread:

We got flint, and we got steel, and we got a pile of wood shavings. I'd rather not call it 'fire' by not letting these things interact enough to become fire, but again, I have no ability to prevent the first and second rubbing each other over the third, so I guess I just sit back, wring my hands and watch the drum to see what lottery balls fall out.

 

je,
indeed.

Chev,
The entire case hinges around whether one views the morning after pill as abortion or not. You and this doctor do, I do not, with good reason. That means that all the agonizing here spent on 'he should not be forced to participate', subconscious blovitations about the 'free market' are pointless side shows because in the end it is very simple: If it is abortion, the doctor might have a right to refuse distribution - if it is not and just normal medicine, he must not refuse.

In my understanding it is plainly evident that this question is the legal reason why this case is brought. A court ruling in their favour will help their case to ban the morning-after pill altogether. The religious and political dimension aside, what a decision in favour of the pharmacist will yield is that you end up with basically a subjective standard to what medicine is and what drugs are.

I explained that the morning after pill is not abortion, and why. In reply you wrote something like Humm-but-it-can-have-an-abortive-effect. So does excessive drinking, chemotherapy and whatnot. What you imply with that clearly is that in your view the morning after pill thus is abortion. You then solidified your argument by showing a flash of genius elaborating about 'Befehl ist Befehl!.

Analogies are fine and well, but if you compare two things that are unlike, and then declare both analogous what you do is to conflate. That is what you do when you mention, constantly as you do, abortion and the morning after pill in one breath. Both are not alike. That was what I expected you to notice. In fact I think you did notice, but didn't like it, and then ignored it. That is sloppy, and probably intentional. In my view you are making an emotional appeal. You feel deeply about this issue, fine, but do not tell me or anyone else that you're making an objective case. And that's pretty much the reason why this isn't getting anywhere.

 

Actually, there's a distinction between what pro-lifers term 'chemical abortion' which 'Plan B' and other Emergency Contraceptive Pills can create and a 'physical abortion' which is what most people think of upon hearing the word 'abortion.'

From Wiki

So the former prevents a fertilized egg from anchoring in the uterus, while the latter physically removes same said fertilized egg after it has anchored and begun to grow and be fed by its host mother.

My personal views aside as to whether this is or isn't 'abortion', Chev apparently does, so as respect for him, I'll assume it to be also.

Of course, this ALSO means any woman who has a period after fertilization is, by this definition, a 'murderer'.

No, it's not supposed to happen; the menstrual cycle is supposed to be suspended during pregnancy, but biology doesn't function on virtually infallible binary actions like a computer - a hormone may not get produced due to a genetic abnormality of one woman, and the 'flow' carries on, sloughing off the surface of the uterus, taking that embryo out right along with it, regardless of whether it has implanted or not.

Heck this sort of irregularity, among others, can cause a miscarriage, which is termed in the medical community a "spontaneous abortion". Are these women to be charged with murder? Especially when more than a third of them do nothing to cause the spontaneous abortion?

 

I personally believe that these two pharmacists should be forced to provide the morning after pill. Personal opinion should only be respected when that opinion is deserving of respect. The notion that preventing a blastocyst from implanting is equivalent to murder is absurd. The job of a pharmacist is to provide legal drugs to patients in need. If their retarded religious dogma conflicts with law, and the standards of their profession, then that's just bad bloody luck. Find a different profession.

In my eyes, such behaviour by these pharmacists is the equivalent of a Christian pharmacist denying barrier birth control to their customers, because 'every sperm is sacred'.

 

Speaking of which .....

 

Haha, yes! I was thinking of Monty Python when typing that post. *salute*

 

Aah yes, I now remember the phrase: 'fishing for precedents'. Apt description.

 

Be a franchise manager and it's just the same. If you ever get the chance, read one of those contracts. I don't get what you're so upset about. It is that way in about every field that touches sensitive substances - firearms, explosives, nuclear material and medicine - indeed - poisons and the like.

Oh I get it: All the substances above should be in the free and unregulated market, which would in itself address all the difficulties and problems inherent with these substances. Riiiiiight.

The private market is about profit maximisation and self-interest, even very short term self-interest. I agree with you that those are indeed, among others, key driving forces in advancing modern society. However, whether it benefits the common good is a secondary concern to the forces of the market.

The market is a means to an end, no end in itself. It is helpful to remember that from time to time.

The market has limits, just like individual liberty has limits, usually right where it starts to infringe on the rights of others. So why should the market which is all but a vessel to achieve individual liberty be unbound? I find all this huff-puffing about the 'free market' just hysterical, even more so in this context.

 

It has nothing to do with nationalism, but corporate welfare. The drug componies are one of the most "protected" industries by the Republican government, and an excellent example of corporate welfare. Think of it as how there used to be a distribution chain in the oil industry. Now the big oil companies own the whole network, including all the stations. The day will come when the drug companines will be telling the outlets how to run, and then eventually take them over.

After the Prescription Drug Bill was passed, do you know how many Bush staffers went to work for the big drug companines? They went very quickly after passage of the bill, and at very high salaries. Those are your "market forces" at work. Welcome to Amercia, home of the "free market."

 

Chandos,
you miss that a libertarian on that will reply that this is not an unregulated market but a rigged one, where such corrupted laws privilege well connected cronies and distort competition. Which is basically true. Now my approach to solve that is transparency, checks and balances and accountability, things you only have with public institutions - whereas a libertarian will want to abolish the rules and leave it all to the private sector and the beatifying mystic powers of the holy market — which reminds me of the faith in Marx' dialectical materialism and the idea of the inevitable progress of history and the eventual triumph of communism.
One has to keep in mind that the libertarian and neo-liberal ideas as proposed also served a purpose, and were in part formulated in response to communism, as a 'fighting ideology' in a great ideological struggle. Context is absolutely crucial here. Most ideologies, once established, are rarely challenged, and that also counts for much of the libertarian and neo-liberal 'orthodoxy' - especially considering that they perceived themselves vindicated and victorious at the end of the cold war.

But what was my primary point is that pricing aside, rules about dangerous goods, and rules concerning the distribution of important goods are sensible things to do. The infringement of some person's individual liberties is an acceptable price for the benefits gained for society.

I am also denied my freedom to drive 250 miles per hour on the highway if I feel like it. Too bad. So what?

Here it is not as if the pharmacist's property is confiscated. He is forced to do some things he may not like, but left to his own devices and preferences for pretty much all the rest of his business, much unlike a franchise taker by the way, who is infinitely more restricted. But much like a franchise taker the pharmacist accepts that when choosing his job. To start getting upset about freedom and market over this is, as I said, hysterical, lacking a stronger term.

PS: Not to mention that looking at this particular case from a deregulation point of view shows confused thinking, because what the plaintiff here has in mind is not so much individual liberty but to get a different regulation - one that would ban any sales of the morning-after-pill - which would then as much 'infringe on a pharmacist's liberties' as forcing him to sell. It'll be just the flipside of the current rules.

*PPS: This post has been extensively edited*

[ August 06, 2007, 21:00: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

The Libertarian response would be that there should not be a prescription drug program in the first place. And that government entitlement programs open the door to corruption, so we are better off without them. Even though without such programs many people would not be able to get the care they need. Liberals don't like the notion that people are sick and maybe dying because they cannot afford the drugs and medicines that would make them better. All that free market jazz is largely a lot of mythology.

 

Yup, you're right

 

I find I must side with the pharmacists here. I know, big suprise, but listen to me. I don't know of any regulated service industry that is required to offer specific services, only to meet minimal safety standards. A bar can serve any legal alcohols they want, and as many or as few as they want, and if the proprieter of a private bar denies service to an individual, it is their right to do so. The regulation and liscencing are to ensure that alcohol is despenced safely and legally, not to make sure that everyone's desires are met. In fact, the bar owner could refuse to sell alcohol all together and not violate his liscence, he's just not choosing to use it.

The same applies to hospitals. As long as it is not life threatening, they can refuse any patient they want. A hospital is not required to perform an abortion, so a pharmacist should not be required to provide a convenience drug.

The other issue is whether or not the pharmacist has the moral right to refuse someone else's choice. The answer is of course they do. By selling the drug, they become an accomplice to the act. If a man walks into a gun shop with a proper gun permit and everything, passes the background check, and then says he wants to buy that glock to kill his wife, not only does the gun shop owner have the moral right to refuse the sale, but if he does sell the gun, he is legally accountable for the crime.

Finally, the claim that they are preventing the customer from ever getting that drug is rediculous. At the very least, I'm pretty sure anyone with the internet and a valid prescription can order prescription drugs online. And yes, they could just go to another pharmacy, even if it is 20+ miles away.

Mountain Hare, your post is uninformative and intentionally offensive. I find both, especiallly in combination, to be inappropriate to these topics. Just because you don't respect opinions that disagree with yours, doesn't mean they aren't worthy of respect.

 

Offensive? So what? Pharmacists should be allowed to deny their customers legal drugs, yet I'm not allowed to express my God to honest opinion?

Well aren't you a champion of free choice!

 

NOG summed my feelings up very nicely. I just don't see the scenarios presented here as being plausible enough to claim that some pharmacists following their conscience constitutes a violation of the rights of others.

 

That's an interesting point because I think people should shop their consciences as well, which is really a boycott. There are some companies I just won't do business with because of political differences. But most business people realize that to partition themselves off from large groups of customers because of politics is just bad business. Why would companies spend millions on advertising and then turn people away? Or invite a boycott? Giving up market share on purpose is just silly.

But if making a politcal statement is the over-riding concern for being in business, and not taking care of your customers, then more power to ya. Anyone in busimess knows this rule, that if you don't take care of your customers, someone else will.