Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse to dispense certain drugs?

[Gabu]

Private businesses are allowed to refuse service as they like, as long as it is on the basis of behaviour and not ethnicity or the like.  Why should we create a seperate standard for pharmacists?

So women don't have the right to medication, but blacks do? What kind of affirmative action logic is that.

I would presume that gender is included in "or the like".

[Alcon]

Private businesses are allowed to refuse service as they like, as long as it is on the basis of behaviour and not ethnicity or the like.  Why should we create a seperate standard for pharmacists?

So women don't have the right to medication, but blacks do? What kind of affirmative action logic is that.

Uh, women are included in "or the like."

There is no right to medication;  there is a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of gender, ethnicity, and (in some states) sexual orientation, though.

[Cubby]

Private businesses are allowed to refuse service as they like, as long as it is on the basis of behaviour and not ethnicity or the like.  Why should we create a seperate standard for pharmacists?

So women don't have the right to medication, but blacks do? What kind of affirmative action logic is that.

Uh, women are included in "or the like."

There is no right to medication;  there is a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of gender, ethnicity, and (in some states) sexual orientation, though.

I know you didn't make the law Alcon, but for any free market/de-regulation types here, why are those categories worthy of government involvement, but other ones not? If every other decision should be made by the employee and his boss, why do race and gender get special treatment?

[??????????]

If some pharmacist who works for a company refused to fill the drug and the company he works for does not approve of his actions, then they have the right to do to him whatever they like. If the drugstore owner says he won't dispense the drug he absolutely has the right to refuse someone that drug they are opposed to.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

yes

[MODU]

Pharmacies belonging to private companies should have the right not to stock nor supply certain medications.  After all . . . it's part of being a private company.  Personally, I think people should go back to having their prescriptions filled at their local hospitals.  Keep the medication where it belongs.

[Mr. Paleoconservative]

A resounding yes.  Pharmacists who do not want to take part in selling the morning after pill should not have to.  If the Pharmacy in question does WANT to sell it, it seems like they can ask the PHARMACIST on the job application if they object to those products.  It is pretty simple, but it seems that, to some people, since some folks do not want to force business owners into aiding a culture of death that they are somehow "fundies" and lunatics who want to force women back into the 18th century. 

Give me a break.

This option protects PHARMACIES and PHARMACISTS.

[angus]

A resounding yes.  Pharmacists who do not want to take part in selling the morning after pill should not have to.  If the Pharmacy in question does WANT to sell it, it seems like they can ask the PHARMACIST on the job application if they object to those products.  It is pretty simple, but it seems that, to some people, since some folks do not want to force business owners into aiding a culture of death that they are somehow "fundies" and lunatics who want to force women back into the 18th century. 

Give me a break.

This option protects PHARMACIES and PHARMACISTS.

goddamned right.  Now this is the kind of attidude that wins my vote.

[opebo]

A resounding yes.  Pharmacists who do not want to take part in selling the morning after pill should not have to.  If the Pharmacy in question does WANT to sell it, it seems like they can ask the PHARMACIST on the job application if they object to those products.  It is pretty simple, but it seems that, to some people, since some folks do not want to force business owners into aiding a culture of death that they are somehow "fundies" and lunatics who want to force women back into the 18th century. 

Give me a break.

This option protects PHARMACIES and PHARMACISTS.

goddamned right.  Now this is the kind of attidude that wins my vote.

So, you support theocracy, angus.

[jokerman]

If you mean, should it be legal to refuse to dispense certain drugs, then yes. If you mean, should pharmacists who refuse to dispense certain drugs be protected from dismissal, then no.

^^^^^

[opebo]

So, you support theocracy, angus.

almost on cue, just in case anyone doesn't quite yet understand why you guys are losing.  It's not that your ideas aren't good, as many of them are, it's just that your judgemntal, narrow-minded attitude puts off even the serious swing voters.

You are quite mistaken, angus.  It is your Religious Party which represents the judgemental and narrow-minded intolerants.

[angus]

No mistake.  There are times when the swing voters who put Bush over that threshhold wonder... but then a guy like you comes along and clarifies things.  I bet the dems just love you, baby.  I mean, they're all thinking, wow, opebo and the deaniacs and their ilk is the best thing since sliced foreskin.  Glad he's on our side.  Wink.

[opebo]

No mistake.  There are times when the swing voter who put Bush over that threshhold wonders, but then a guy like you comes along and clarifies things.  I bet the dems just love you, baby.  I mean, they're all thinking, wow, opebo and his ilk is the best thing since sliced foreskin.  Glad he's on our side. 

Angus, these religious wish to ban the morning after pill entirely! (among so many other things). 

Surely you can see that my position, which merely requires professional standards to match the rewards of professional licensure is far less hostile to personal freedom than the position of your Religious Party.

[angus]

There is nothing religious or antireligious about the posts I've made herein.  If anything, my post was irreligious at best.  Moreover, I have said to you many times how much I agree that the government has no business preaching "values"  But that was not Reagan Raider's point in this post (as nearly as I could tell) and it certainly wasn't mine.  But you were very quick to take a point out of context and attempt to make sure everyone understood that it was.  Which was false.  And everyone can see that it is false.  And that's disingenuous.  And that's the only point I'm making now.

Of course I think safe birth control should be available.  But I also think any pharmacist who has conscientious objections to selling anything (even a Milky Way bar) should not be forced to sell it.  As Reagan Raider said, if it appears to be a controversial issue, let the application state clearly that this is a condition of employment.  This is really a private matter between employee and employer, imho.

[Beet]

No offense angus but I hardly think you're the typical swing voter. Like most individuals on this board, you have very strong opininons and while you consciously avoid avatars and love to constantly expound on how moderate you claim to be in practically every thread, I can think of a number of Republicans who are less consistent than yourself in taking the conservative side in their posts. That said, you do have a good point about opebo making Dems look bad.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

That said, you do have a good point about opebo making Dems look bad.

Who cares? The people he interacts with most are prostitutes, and not even American ones at that. Certain people here seem to be under the delusion that somehow opebo is so well known nationwide that he can scare off thousands of potential Democratic voters.

[KEmperor]

As long as they are not hurting anyone, private businesses should be allowed to do whatever they want.

^^^^^^^^^^

[Ebowed]

No.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

No.