Comments on: Meet The Pro-Life Pharmacy - No Contraceptives

By: Jane

Jane — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:12:04 +0000

At the very minimun these Pharmacy’s should have to post in clear view they are pro -life pharmacy’s and do not fill birth control items. It would seem to be an invasion of my privacy to have to hand them a presciption with my name and doctor information only to tell me I have to go someplace else.

By: HorusCat

HorusCat — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:34:39 +0000

Robert,
They aren’t forbidding anyone else to do anything–they just aren’t aiding and abetting. Freedom cuts both ways–freedom to abort, freedom to prevent conception, but also freedom to refuse to participate in that. And I don’t believe that disqualifies one from owning a business. The customers can go somehwere else. These pharmacies aren’t replacing the local CVS…and I am sure they aren’t opening in isolated outposts in the wilds of Montana, either. Wherever these stores may open, I would wager there are competitors. These stores didn’t exist a year ago–what were these outraged women doing for contraception before that?

What this is a case of is “I want what I want and YOU better give it to me” and I’m going to use the government to force you. It is animosity to the faith-based action of another human being, because we have totally misread the constitution on the role of the state in religion. And in this society, it is pc to insult and coerce Christians. Muslims in this country are refusing to scan pork items at the grocery or carry passengers with alcohol in cabs; no one is yapping about church and state there. No one’s rights are being infringed if a pharmacy doesn’t fill Rxs for birth control pills or stock condoms.

No one has the right to coerce another into selling something. I don’t understand what’s so hard to get about that point–let the customers drive to the nearest Walgreen’s.

By: Robert Bird

Robert Bird — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:02:47 +0000

HC - That would be true for themselves, but I’m not certain that they can reasonably apply that rule to others. Abortion seems a arguable point - though it isn’t murder (legal determination), there is a second life that lots of people treat as human to be factored in (it might be considered that if they sold Plan B, they might be asking the pharmacist to assist in the moral equivalent of murder). It seems different to forbid others from doing something you disagree with (but which doesn’t put the lives of others at risk) than to be asked to participate in what you believe to be a murder (where there is someone else who life may be at stake).

By: HorusCat

HorusCat — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:17:49 +0000

Robert,
Strict Roman Catholics may believe that preventing pregnancy in any way is not within the guidelines of their faith. Such believers are relatively rare these days, but I went to school with a number of kids who came from extremely large RC families–the only birth control practiced was what was then known as the rhythm method. Similarly, there are some Protestants who believe that birth control is proscribed.

By: sosonj

sosonj — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:36:24 +0000

The pharmacist should facilitate the proper dispensing of a physician and alert the patient to proper administration and dosage. It should not be the function of a pharmacist to intrude on the doctor-patient relationship or the prescribed medication. The pharmacist has neither the training nor the legal right to diagnose or prescribe. If the pharmacist has an ethical objection to filling a legally prescribed medication, find another job but do not put the onus and inconvenience on the patient.

By: Robert Bird

Robert Bird — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:22:12 +0000

I wouldn’t think anyone could force pharmacists to deliver a service - but I would think that they should have to tell people what services they are willing to provide and which they are not. Once that is known, people can go where they wish to fill prescriptions - if they wish to support them, they can, or alternatively go elsewhere. This only works where pharmacies grow like fungus, though - if an area doesn’t have enough people, it may only support one chain drugstore, not more than one. The presence of alternatives is necessary for them not to be dictating behavior to all rather than simply following their own call.

Their position, however, seems not to be prolife - if so, not providing Plan B would make sense but not refusing to sell contraceptives (which have uses other than simply allowing people to have sex without getting pregnant). If you are interested in preventing abortion, providing contraception is likely better than not providing it (even with the failure rates of contraception, the increase in sex will likely not compensate for the failure rate of no contraception). This seems more like a method of attempting to give pharmacists control over their customers’ behavior, which makes little sence when doctors do not in general have such power (but have the responsibility of fixing the consequences, while pharmacists do not).

By: Jack2

Jack2 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:03:15 +0000

I’m with HC. If you don’t like it, make sure you never go to this pharmacy for any reason. If you really, really, don’t like it, open a pharmacy next door and make it clear that you do provide those products.

By: HorusCat

HorusCat — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:51:18 +0000

As I pointed out earlier–a small, independent pharmacy such as this is not likely to be the only game in town. They are not going to find it profitable to open up where large-volume chain stores haven’t found it profitable. So there will almost certainly be a choice of places to fill your scrips. The free market works–people spend their money where they choose, and stores open and close in response. The sense of entitlement in America is unbelievable–you don’t have a RIGHT to force someone to sell something.

By: Choirgirl337

Choirgirl337 — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:15:32 +0000

Oh, that’s just lovely. I take Levora (a brand of the birth control pill) because my body doesn’t produce the proper female hormones, and without it I would have (have had, in fact) periods that last up to three months - I think that we can all agree that bleeding for three months straight is NOT healthy. Not all of us who take birth control are trying to prevent pregnancy.

By: Robert Bird

Robert Bird — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:14:24 +0000

It depends what expectations/requirements if any for availability of services whether they should have to state openly the unavailability of birth control/Plan B services - if there is no expectation of such, then they don’t have any reason to announce their refusal to sell such services. Of course, if they refused to carry antibiotics people might be peeved, and if they didn’t carry tobacco, junk food, or candy, their profits would be peeved.

From the response, I assume that part of the purpose in refusing to provide services is to prevent behavior they don’t like (refusal to state their position or to reveal availability elsewhere). I don’t believe in giving the power over self to my pharmacist, and it would be an easy decision for me to go elsewhere. In some cases, though, that may not be possible, and it seems to bring back the birth control issues of pre-1960’s America, with availability of certain services depending on where you live. This doesn’t seem like a good thing to me.

Oh, and a detail - didn’t the concept of sperm being sacred die with the Monty Python skit? Just curious.