Refusing to dispense the morning after pill because of his 'beliefs'

[Albion]

There's a big difference between "whatever a customer wants" and a customer going to a pharmacy to get a prescription filled.

If the customer expected to receive multiples of what the prescription offered that would be different. If the customer demanded the prescription be provided in a neon blue glittery bottle because they disliked bog standard orange plastic that would be different. Expecting a pharmacy to fill a prescription isn't exactly a far-out proposition though.

As someone else already commented, if the pharmacy really didn't want to offer that product they could always avoid stocking it. The nature of the morning after pill is such that telling a customer "we can get it in for you, it will be ready on Wednesday" isn't actually helpful to them, so it becomes much easier to refer them to a different pharmacy.

not unless you have some specific comparison to pass along to us for our consideration.

Except it isn't really very similar at all. It's one thing for a private business to take a specific stance (e.g. the pharmacy deciding not to stock the morning after pill at all), where that stance is made clear. It's a different thing entirely when you can't tell whether you'll be served or not, and being served depends on who happens to be behind the counter at any given time.

See my reply to atpollard.

Since you mentioned the Colorado baker it would seem more akin to a gay couple going to the baker, ordering their cake, being given a delivery date only to show up to collect their cake and find the person who happened to be working at the time refused to hand it over, saying they were welcome to return to collect it in a few hours when a different person should be in the shop.

No, that wouldn't be "more akin to" the incident we're discussing now.

 

[Josiah]

.

NOTE: The national survey found that 46 states had laws protecting medical professionals and institutions from being sued for harm to patients related to a refusal to provide services out of conscience, researchers report in JAMA. I think this is a very good and proper thing.


Here's an report noting this:

Most states protect doctors who refuse to do abortions because of religion

The vast majority of U.S. states have passed laws blocking civil lawsuits that might result from a doctor refusing to perform an abortion or certain other medical procedures because of religious beliefs, a new study shows.

www.reuters.com

I don't know if Minnesota is one of the 46 States that protects medical professionals in this way, but I suspect so since the civil case is for gender discrimination;; a case I suspect is pretty hard to prove unless this professional always gives the "morning after pill" to GUYS. I think they'd have to prove that to show gender discrimination.


On a side point, we have this controversy right now in The People's Republic of California (where abortion is a Sacrament). This is one of those 46 states... indeed, "the state also a "conscience clause" legislation which allows health care workers to be excused from providing abortions simply by signing a written declaration. The existence of this legislation has created a situation whereby a county must provide abortions but has difficulty locating a physician to perform the procedures." Because so many doctors in California have signed such a legal declaration, there ARE areas where it's hard to find a doctor that will do abortions. THUS, the State is trying to permit non-doctors to do the horrific deed... and has recently passed a rule that med schools in CA MUST train ALL doctors in abortion - but oddly can't ask them to actually do one since med school students often also sign this declaration.




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I saw nothing that would suggest the pharmacist in this case objects to "filling prescriptions."

It does seem, though, that there might be an "unless..." hooked on to the end of that thought (in his mind). But, then again, I don't really know his mind

 

[Albion]

It does seem, though, that there might be an "unless..." hooked on to the end of that thought (in his mind). But, then again, I don't really know his mind

What I was saying is that any claim about him supposedly being opposed to "filling prescriptions" is unfounded.

He declined to fill this one...and that's because doing so would have impacted his oath and commitment as a pastor of a Christian church (whether we happen to agree with its stance on this issue or not). In addition, he did the best he could to direct the lady to someone who would most likely fill her prescription. She chose to drive 50 miles, one way, to another pharmacy with no better a guarantee of success than to wait several hours where she was.

By the way also, Federal law permits doctors to opt out of care that is in conflict with their religious or moral beliefs; is a pharmacist declining to fill a prescription somehow more outrageous? Perhaps you noticed that no one here gave me a straight answer to the question I posed in my first reply.

 

[tango]

not unless you have some specific comparison to pass along to us for our consideration.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

If the pharmacy didn't want to stock a time-critical product it would make more sense to refer people to another pharmacy than to invite them to come back in a couple of days, by which time the product would be less useful.

No, that wouldn't be "more akin to" the incident we're discussing now.

I think it would. In this case the business will provide the product in question but a specific individual decided not to. That would be more akin to a bakery accepting an order for a cake only for one employee to refuse to hand it over when the happy couple showed up to collect it.

 

[tango]

By the way also, Federal law permits doctors to opt out of care that is in conflict with their religious or moral beliefs; is a pharmacist declining to fill a prescription somehow more outrageous? Perhaps you noticed that no one here gave me a straight answer to the question I posed in my first reply.

The whole idea of allowing doctors to refuse to provide care they find objectionable seems like it creates a huge minefield. I can only imagine the fun if someone is found bleeding profusely, only to find the doctor on hand is a Jehovah's Witness who refuses to perform a life-saving blood transfusion. Too bad critical patient, you can just die because the doctor doesn't want to offer the care that will save your life. But hey, another doctor will be here in a few hours, if you're still alive by then.

 

[Josiah]

The whole idea of allowing doctors to refuse to provide care they find objectionable seems like it creates a huge minefield. I can only imagine the fun if someone is found bleeding profusely, only to find the doctor on hand is a Jehovah's Witness who refuses to perform a life-saving blood transfusion. Too bad critical patient, you can just die because the doctor doesn't want to offer the care that will save your life. But hey, another doctor will be here in a few hours, if you're still alive by then.

@tango

This has been the case in most of the USA, in at least 46 states. I'm not aware that it's caused the kind of situations that concern you. The only "problem" known to me is that in some areas, it's hard to find a doctor who will perform a medically unnecessary abortion - but I doubt that has meant even one less abortion (sadly).

IMO, it would be tragic to demand that those in health care professions must sin if a patient desires that - just so they can practice medicine. I suspect most of these professionals WANT to help people and care for them - and we need them! If they are told they must do as requested by a patient - regardless of the morality of that - I suspect moral persons would evade that profession.

Just my perspective.


- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

The People's Republic of California....

A bit of research for my state discovers that not only is CA one of 46 US states that legislates that ALL "health care professional" are protected from suits because they refused to provide services due to "conscience" but the state specifically includes pharmacists. In California, a pharmacist may refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control for example, not only if that violates his "religious" views but simply if it "conflicts with personal values."

I'm kind of surprised my socialist, liberal state still even knows that values can exist. But I'm glad.



.

 

[Lamb]

The People's Republic of California....

A bit of research for my state discovers that not only is CA one of 46 US states that legislates that ALL "health care professional" are protected from suits because they refused to provide services due to "conscience" but the state specifically includes pharmacists. In California, a pharmacist may refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control for example, not only if that violates his "religious" views but simply if it "conflicts with personal values."

I'm kind of surprised my socialist, liberal state still even knows that values can exist. But I'm glad.



.

I'm surprised by this too!!

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

If the pharmacy didn't want to stock a time-critical product it would make more sense to refer people to another pharmacy than to invite them to come back in a couple of days, by which time the product would be less useful.

However, the pharmacist did NOT suggest that she "come back in a couple of days."

What he said was that his replacement would be there in several hours. And she lives in a very rural area, which is why she had to drive a long way to get to the pharmacy she then chose, meaning that there may not be another pharmacy nearby.

 

[Lamb]

The Pharmacist won the case.