Woman refused the morning-after pill because it was against the pharmacist's religion

[Chilly Willy]

From the Pharmacist's Pledge. Note- no mention of selectively filling rx based on personal belief. The pharmacist is supposed to be a servant of the community. Not a moral judge.

If I want my vicodin, xanax, morning after pill, etc. script filled and have the funds to pay for it- fill the effing script and pass the pills my way. Do not offer your opinion unless I opt for conseling. I don't give a rat's ass on your personal beliefs- you are there to make sure that my drugs do not interact with each other and to verify that I am getting the correct medication.


Now pass me the tiara.

*passes tiara to Zorbs*

[MrsDark]

^ You don't have to have a script to get this pill, do you?

Hmm. Interesting. For women over 18 MayoClinic.com says no, as of 2006. But apparently it's still "controversial". Yes (script needed) for women 17 and under.

But if no script needed, if anything, the potential liklihood of a rape victim being one of those refused just went way up!

Apparently women of childbearing age who happen to be under 18 are not fit to prevent the unwanted implantation of an egg fertilized by a rapist without a grown-up's approval. How lovely!

Carry your pepper spray, girls.

[katerpillar]

*passes Zorbeet some complimentary victory Vicodin, as well*

[Mel1973]

Hmm. Interesting. For women over 18 MayoClinic.com says no, as of 2006. But apparently it's still "controversial". Yes (script needed) for women 17 and under.

But if no script needed, if anything, the potential liklihood of a rape victim being one of those refused just went way up!

If no script is needed, why not just hand these damned things out at the doctor's office? I bet a lot of doctors do just that. If I called my doctor and said "look I fucked up, a condom broke" - whatever - I'm pretty sure he would give me one. We need someone (besides JKM) who's had one of these pills - because JKM got hers at the hospital, I want to know about someone getting it from the pharmacy. I mean, if it's really "kinda" otc, they should have the little old lady that works at the cigarette counter handing them out and checking ids. Plus, much like cigarettes, you could get an older female friend to just go in and get you one. Seems a bit uncontrolled to me.

[Zee]

I am wearing my tiaras and crunching on Vicodin.

Life is good today.

[Lobelia]

I am wearing my tiaras and crunching on Vicodin.

Life is good today.

Not so fast, missy. Your case is under review & your tiara privileges may be revoked at any moment.

[katerpillar]

The morning after pill doesn't require a prescription in Australia. It's over the counter here - I can remember when it was changed, about 3 years ago.

[Mel1973]

No script needed, no pharmacist needed...

[Lobelia]

Stop making sense.

[Mel1973]

*writes post it note to self ... or some other alter ego*

[MrsDark]

No script needed, no pharmacist needed...

That's what I say too. Put it out on the shelves.

I don't need a script for Sudafed either, but unfortunately I have to deal with a fucking pharmacist who not only wants my name, address, DL#, etc. on his little "you're not cooking meth with these" list that goes into a database to put a cap on the amount I'm allowed to purchase per month (if I'm not mistaken), but has to physically hand me the box in exchange for the little card I bring up from the slot on the shelf where the actual meds used to be.

[katerpillar]

No script needed, no pharmacist needed...

Not over the counter in the sense that you just get it off the shelf yourself - you still have to ask the pharmacist for it. You just don't have to go to a doctor to get a script to get it.

[Dahli]

Oh don't EVEN try to tell me what to think or do. I'm sure your little 20 year-old brain has thought this issue through more thoroughly than anybody else, but I stand by my opinion. I don't give a rat's ass about religious freedom in this situation because religion doesn't even factor in. People can believe that life begins at conception and not even be religious. It's irrelevant. My point is that, until the US has socialized healthcare, the small business owner has a right to run his establishment as he sees fit, and if you don't like it, don't patronize him.

As for the hypothetical woman who had unsafe sex and has no transportation and lives in some area with only one pharmacist who *happens* to be the one with this hangup, well, life is tough sometimes. Let's impose a bunch of regulations & laws on society because of this person.

I think this is a good post. There have been others as well but I don't want to quote too much. Thank you to those who haven't jumped down my throat.

In my view the woman in this case got the pill. So the what if if if arguments don't apply. This is why I find these debates to be hysterical. The woman went to another pharmacy and she got the pill. So all the what ifs don't apply. So why are people arguing as if they do?

Again why are people arguing as if the what ifs apply in this case? They don't. The case is not what people are suggesting it is.

What the law states is that if the pharmacist can't send the woman elsewhere then he has to dispense it himself. So the what ifs are totally covered. So what is the argument?

To me, as some have stated, they want to hold society and the pharmacist responsible for protecting the woman against unwanted pregnancy. Now if I lived in a remote place and I wanted to have sex I'd buy the plan b pill in advance and keep a few in my cupboard in an emergency.

Otherwise, what if the pharmacy ran out? What if you couldn't get a prescription in time, what if your car broke down?, what if the pharmacy burned down? You could "what if" anything.

To me the issue gets treacherous when we disregard the pharmacists rights as an individual. He has a right to his religious beliefs and should not be forced to do something he sees as immoral. I agree with that. The comparisons of the concentration camp are not how I see the issue but how some of the pharmacists see it. They see it that they are being forced to be complicit in murder. I can respect that view even if I think they are completely wrong. Its a fine line issue and one that no one has ever successfully resolved. So understandably it is going to really bother someone to be complicit in murder. The fact that women don't give a damn and want to rah rah women's rights the issue out the door, shows a total lack of respect for another person's rights. And so I'm not really sure why anyone should care about your rights when you say fuck all to everyone else's?

Maybe that's why no one cares that you are running around looking for birth control solutions after the fact without a car or money to get you where you need to go. Maybe shoulda thought of that before you got yourself into the mess? How does that sound? So to me the best thing is to try to respect everyone involved. Help the woman get what she needs without disregarding the rights of the pharmacist. In this case it worked out fine. So why the newspaper article? Eh?

[MrsDark]

So you feel the same applies to the women who were rape victims? I'd like to think maybe you haven't gotten as far as my post yet to consider them instead of merely the irresponsibly unprepared hussies who are willingly having sex.

[Zee]

I'm lost. What is the argument? Oh yeah, doctor dispensed a rx and the pharmacist refused to fill it because of moral objections. This is preventing access to treatment IMO and a pharmacist does not have the licensing required to practice medicine.

I always am curious if there is any interview screening to identify the moral objectors and protocol to deal with customer's needs vs. moral objector beliefs.