If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Minneapolis Star Tribune)   Minnesota pharmacist refuses to fill birth-control prescription because she's morally opposed to it   (startribune.com) divider line 1077
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

17731 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 May 2005 at 3:03 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1077 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-05-03 02:11:41 PM
ArcadianRefugee: When was that? Or do you not like having statements you make corrected or refuted?

You corrected my poorly worded broad generalization that the doctor knows more about the patient than the pharmacist. I'll accept that. But you missed the part about making "half-baked decisions involving peoples' health based on their religous dogma, even if they have the right to do so" by bringing up the pharmacists right (nee, duty) to refuse service based on known medical and health issues or conflicting prescriptions. Apples and oranges.
 
2005-05-03 02:12:15 PM
Actually, ArcadianRefugee, I'd have the same problem with a vegan refusing to serve meat to a customer. But of course, we're not talking about vegans, we're talking about fundies, and for some reason, that's different. But nice dodge anyways.

I guess I get a little tired of all the arguments detailing the pharmacist's right to her beliefs, and the pharmacy's right in hiring/firing who they want, because we've sight of what's maybe more important (at least in my view) - the rights of the uninvolved citizen.

ahem...YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS SHOULD NOT DICTATE WHAT I AM FREE TO DO OR NOT TO DO

If this were a Muslim pharmacist refusing to dispense meds, this would be a very different thread, methinks. But it's okay, as long as it's a Fundie Christian doing the denying.

And hey, AMBoFC - you amaze me with your ability to selectively interpret and reply. You win today's Fred Astaire award for tapdancing around an important issue in order to keep your indoctrination straight. Enjoy!



/loves me the flarefx button
 
2005-05-03 02:12:20 PM
A Midnight Bout of Frenzied Concupiscence
"I think the pharmacy should fire that woman faster than she can recite a commandment."

I think they should too.

But I also think that it should be left up to the pharmacy to do so.


The only thing you've said so far that I can honestly say I support.

Ont he same hand, I also believe it's well within a person's rights to sue said pharmacist/pharmacy for denying them product. Or at least go check out what options you have. A lawyer could very well say it's legal, andthere you go.
 
2005-05-03 02:13:21 PM
A Midnight Bout of Frenzied Concupiscence: Without men, this wouldn't be an issue to women either.

Again, you're assuming that the prescription was for birth control and not any of the other uses the same medication can be used for. Or you're assuming that all doctors are women.
 
2005-05-03 02:13:28 PM
AMBoFC

That wasn't meant as a "men suck" thing. I'm just saying that it's very easy to say such things from the sidelines when you don't actually have to worry about it.

I really would like to see what would happen if pharmacists suddenly decided that it was against their morals to fill hypertension scrips. After all, if you'd just stop slutting around at McD's and not eat Big Macs you obviously would have no need for such a pill.
 
2005-05-03 02:14:32 PM
HA! I just figured out what AMBoFC stood for.

Carry on...
 
2005-05-03 02:15:16 PM
mediaho: Or you're assuming that all doctors are women.

Men, damnit.
 
2005-05-03 02:15:57 PM
If this biatch had denied me those pills, my ass would be over to the nearest court filing papers against her. Her religious beliefs are directly interfering with my doctor/patient privilege.

In no way am I infringing on her rights by requesting medication legally prescribed by my doctor. Her refusal, based on her own religious ideals, are directly infringing on my rights to receive proper medical care (Life), for me to live my life as I see fit (Liberty), and to choose to not have children (Pursuit of Happiness). Sounds like what she is doing is unconstitutional to me.

For the record, I'm a mom, so.....I like kids, but not everyone feels that way and I respect their opinion to do so.

/pushing the envelope?
 
2005-05-03 02:18:11 PM
That does it. When I get my cysts removed I am having them lacquered so I can drive around the country beaning these idiot pharmacists in the head with them.
 
2005-05-03 02:18:36 PM
AMBoFC

Without men, this wouldn't be an issue to women either.

Besides the assumption that reproduction is the only reason a woman would have brth control prescribed, you also seem to assume that Men automatically have an equal amount to lose as a woman in the case of unplanned pregnancy. In a perfect world, maybe, but in the real world... I think my father and grandmother wouldn't agree and my grandfather won't be showing up to help defend your position.
 
2005-05-03 02:21:18 PM
/pushing the envelope?

Speaking the truth usually does, suebhoney. I wouldn't worry about it.
 
2005-05-03 02:21:21 PM
And hey, AMBoFC - you amaze me with your ability to selectively interpret and reply.

If I feel I've answered a question already, I won't reply. I'm commenting enough in this thread already. To have me say "I've already answered that 100 times" is silly and redundant.

Thanks for the label, though.
 
2005-05-03 02:21:44 PM
soze

That does it. When I get my cysts removed I am having them lacquered so I can drive around the country beaning these idiot pharmacists in the head with them.

Funny and informative. Nice! :)
 
2005-05-03 02:21:54 PM
People defending her, here's my similar situation:

I work for McDonalds but I am a vegan. The menu offers a variety of meat products, but I am opposed to it. Every time someone orders a double cheeseburger, I give them a salad. I am fired.

Why am I fired? Because I didn't fulfill the requirements of my job because it would violate my ethics. I complain about it, people call me an idiot for accepting the job in the first place.

It's not the pharmacist's choice to pick what a patient can and can't have after the doctor (I hear they go through YEARS of schooling) prescribes something.

Please sit back and evaluate the insanity of the situation.
 
2005-05-03 02:22:23 PM
AMBoFC

I'm curious as to how you would feel if this same person decided to deny selling you condoms. Would you drive the 2 hrs. there and back to another pharmacy to purchase them?

Wouldn't you feel like your rights to do what you wanted, when you wanted (having sex) were being infringed upon because the person behind the counter may feel that you have no business using condoms based on their religious beliefs?
 
2005-05-03 02:22:47 PM
A question. How does birth-control suddenly become life-saving medicine? Aren't oral contraceptives a convenience drug?
 
2005-05-03 02:23:39 PM
GooberMcFly

It's called beneficial side effects.
 
2005-05-03 02:24:26 PM
GooberMcFly: A question. How does birth-control suddenly become life-saving medicine? Aren't oral contraceptives a convenience drug?

Covered already. It's this kind of thinking that the pharmacist probably had. I'll forgive Goober though, since he probably has no medical training.
 
2005-05-03 02:24:31 PM
suebhoney: Is there something within the state laws of prescription dispensing that allows for this behavior?

"Unprofessional conduct shall include, but is not limited to, the following acts of a pharmacist or pharmacy:
...
Refusing to compound and dispense prescriptions that may reasonably be expected to be compounded or dispensed in pharmacies by pharmacists, except as provided for in Minnesota Statutes, sections 145.414 and 145.42.
--Rules of the Board of Pharmacy of the State of Minnesota
 
2005-05-03 02:26:04 PM
ArcadianRefugee: Board of Pharmacy of the State of Minnesota

Forgot to include the URL for the main site for the Board:

http://www.phcybrd.state.mn.us/
 
2005-05-03 02:26:21 PM
I can print t-shirts too, if you want AMBoFC.

I guess I'm just disappointed - I've greatly enjoyed sparring matches with you in the past, but your heart doesn't seem in it this time. Normally you make some semblance of sense, and you seem a decent fellow, but all anybody can get out of you today is "up hers, the biatch can drive somewhere else for her meds."

I guess I'll never understand why being a dick to someone because of a religious hang-up is revered over basic common sense (i.e. don't do a job that you'll have moral qualms with.) Maybe there's no explanation, and that's just the way things are now. Oh well.

/kicks stone, hands-in-pockets, walks away
 
2005-05-03 02:27:03 PM
The only thing you've said so far that I can honestly say I support.

Ont he same hand, I also believe it's well within a person's rights to sue said pharmacist/pharmacy for denying them product. Or at least go check out what options you have. A lawyer could very well say it's legal, andthere you go.


Good. I think you're one of the few who's gotten it. If you don't like the way a business works, hit them where it hurts--in the wallet.

Now you see why legislation is not needed. If pharmacies know they can lose money, they'll either keep a tighter hold on their employees, or they'll be very upfront on why they choose not to offer certain products, allowing potential customers to go elswhere before this becomes an issue.
 
2005-05-03 02:27:20 PM
Can you cite a Supreme Court case stating that private businesses open to the public are subject to the same limits as state governments when fundamental rights are concerned?

It started out in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II, Section 201(a) and was first applied in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. The public accomodations in the Act are quite limited. However, most states followed suit but with much broader definitions of public accommodations. In fact, in Minnesota where this ocurred, the Minnesota Human Rights Act states that it is illegal "To deny any person the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation because of race, color, creed, religion, disability, national origin or sex" and that a public accomodation is "a business, accommodation, refreshment, entertainment, recreation, or transportation facility of any kind, whether licensed or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the public." Minn. Stat Section 363.01

This statute was the subject of a Supreme Court case in Roberts v. United States Jaycees 468 U.S. 609 which upheld the statute.
 
2005-05-03 02:27:34 PM
mediaho: I'll forgive Goober though, since he probably has no medical training.

I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 
2005-05-03 02:29:08 PM
Abagadro: This statute was the subject of a Supreme Court case in Roberts v. United States Jaycees 468 U.S. 609 which upheld the statute.

Damned activist judges.
 
2005-05-03 02:29:23 PM
That wasn't meant as a "men suck" thing. I'm just saying that it's very easy to say such things from the sidelines when you don't actually have to worry about it.

Of course it is. Everyone here is talking from the sidelines. Without sideline talk, there would be no Fark forums.
 
2005-05-03 02:31:13 PM
ArcadianRefugee

Both of those statutes cover abortions. Birth control pills do not induce abortions.
 
2005-05-03 02:32:01 PM
I'm curious as to how you would feel if this same person decided to deny selling you condoms. Would you drive the 2 hrs. there and back to another pharmacy to purchase them?

No. I'd probably just garbage bag it. ;)
 
2005-05-03 02:32:39 PM
I must admit that I am not surprised that those who are most stridently in favor of "the pharmacist's rights" are men who don't have to deal with this shiat.

no farking kidding. well said, sistah.
 
2005-05-03 02:32:52 PM
AMBoFC

Good. I think you're one of the few who's gotten it. If you don't like the way a business works, hit them where it hurts--in the wallet.

The problem is that one customer leaving (or even one hundred) might not hurt enough to change anything. That means you're inconveniencing one hundred people because of the beliefs of one. It seems silly to me. I think pharmacists should be required to fill whatever the doctor prescribes, but that's just me.
 
2005-05-03 02:33:07 PM
What if the Pharmacist was "morally opposed" to left-handed people and refused to fill a prescription that could save the life of a left-handed person? The Pharmacists refusing to fill legal prescriptions need to get another profession or deserved to fired. They are a danger to society.
 
2005-05-03 02:33:10 PM
ArcadianRefugee

In essence, you've proven the point that she was wrong in denying the dispensing of the pills.

/that's what I'm getting out of it
 
2005-05-03 02:34:56 PM
A Midnight Bout of Frenzied Concupiscence

Now answer the important part of that question. Would you feel like she had a right to deny you purchasing condoms based on her religious beliefs?
 
2005-05-03 02:36:46 PM
Vorticity the Monkey: YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS SHOULD NOT DICTATE WHAT I AM FREE TO DO OR NOT TO DO

They aren't.

But of course, we're not talking about vegans, we're talking about fundies, and for some reason, that's different.

So ... you disriminate because it involves religion?

I'd have the same problem with a vegan refusing to serve meat to a customer.

So you enter a restaurant and order a steak. The waitress refuses because she's a vegan. Do you (a) complain to the manager and try to get her to serve you a steak, or fired; (b) complain to the manager, find out that restaurant policy allows her to make that decision, then complain to everyone you know in an effort to start a massive boycott against the company; (c) ask for another waitress; (d) go to another restaurant; (e) complain that there should be laws against this?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2005-05-03 02:37:30 PM
Abagadro

There are statutes stating that businesses may not practice certain types of discrimination, but the Supreme Court's decision on what is a fundamental right does not control what rights are granted by statute. If the Supreme Court declares a constitutional right to sodomy that does not create a right of sodomites to be free from discrimination by business. Conversely, if they declare that there is no right to sodomy that would not overrule the Massachusetts law prohibiting businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

So unless there is a stricter requirement of federal law, refusing contraception would not violate state antidiscrimination law unless it was proved to be because of "race, color, creed, religion, disability, national origin or sex".

(I see a law was cited above that appears to make the pharmacy's refusal illegal, but that's not an antidiscrimination or civil rights law.)
 
2005-05-03 02:38:02 PM
I am really disliking the restaurant/waiter analogy. Pharmacies don't serve food. They serve life-saving drugs.
 
2005-05-03 02:42:24 PM
holy threads.

/new TFer as a few minutes ago
 
2005-05-03 02:42:50 PM
A Midnight Bout of Frenzied Concupiscence

Now you see why legislation is not needed. If pharmacies know they can lose money, they'll either keep a tighter hold on their employees, or they'll be very upfront on why they choose not to offer certain products, allowing potential customers to go elswhere before this becomes an issue.

$20 says that if pharmacies begin terminating employees for refusing to dispense birch control due to religious protests, that there will be class action suits and calls for protective legislation on the basis of religious freedom filed by the pharmacists, religious organizations and their assoicated lobbies.

I will put an extra 20 on Delay championing legislation to protect the religious rights of the pharmacists. And being oh-so-very vocal about it.

/that whole double-edged religion thing is such an oogy mess.
 
2005-05-03 02:42:51 PM
suebhoney: In essence, you've proven the point that she was wrong in denying the dispensing of the pills.

Assuming that the two linked statutes agree (I ain't read 'em) then yes, that is what I have proven, legally or by the code of the governing organization.

mediaho: But you missed the part about making "half-baked decisions involving peoples' health based on their religous dogma, even if they have the right to do so"

Actually, I wasn't addressing that at all, since I do not believe that is the case.

Question: what if, rather than an individual pharmacist refusing to fill the prescription, it was the pharmacy who refused to stock that medication. Would that be any different to you?
 
2005-05-03 02:44:42 PM
ZAZ

You are talking about two different things I said because I didn't say them very well. So I will break them out:

1) You can't discriminate based upon religion in public accomodations under the state civil rights act I mentioned above. Since these refusals are based upon religious beliefs, it would be a violation of these statutes (at least arguably and in my opinion definitively).

2) Birth control is considered a fundamental right under the law and has been for a long time. So saying that it is no big deal to make it difficult/impossible to get or that it is analogous to not getting a steak is pretty stupid.

I mushed the two together when they don't have anything to do with one another really and didn't explain myself. I was therefore unsure as to what you were asking.
 
2005-05-03 02:47:41 PM
ZAZ

Can you cite a Supreme Court case stating that private businesses open to the public are subject to the same limits as state governments when fundamental rights are concerned?


What Abogadro said. Also ZAZ, my beloved state of Minnesota has a generally strong tradition of progressivism re: reproductive rights (see Doe v Gomez(?) from 1995)
 
2005-05-03 02:49:37 PM
ArcadianRefugee: Question: what if, rather than an individual pharmacist refusing to fill the prescription, it was the pharmacy who refused to stock that medication. Would that be any different to you?

See my 2005-05-03 01:51:52 PM post. I asked because it seemed there was some confusion. I am all for pharmacies selling whatever the hell they want. If it's in stock and doesn't pose an obvious health risk to the patient, then it should be dispensed per the physician's instructions.

Actually, I wasn't addressing that at all, since I do not believe that is the case.

What do you think the case is?
 
2005-05-03 02:49:38 PM
The problem is that one customer leaving (or even one hundred) might not hurt enough to change anything.

Sting them enough, and they'll feel it. This is why I'm convinced that this is all very isolated. If it were a big problem, certain pharmacys would be feeling the pinch.
 
2005-05-03 02:50:37 PM
I am really disliking the restaurant/waiter analogy. Pharmacies don't serve food. They serve life-saving drugs.

Of course pharmacies don't serve food.

You can spell analogy, but can you understand them?
 
2005-05-03 02:51:11 PM
fritzpizitz:
Whatever. Maybe the lady getting the prescription has a condition that would mean death or serious illness should she get pregnant.

Then she can go to another pharmacy. Free market. Problem solved.
 
2005-05-03 02:51:35 PM
Would you feel like she had a right to deny you purchasing condoms based on her religious beliefs?

If that was here reasoning, then yes, it would be her right. I'd never do business with that pharmacy again, though.

It's still her choice.
 
2005-05-03 02:54:04 PM
ArcadianRefugee

They aren't.

Not for lack of trying, though. It's more the attitude I dislike than anything - the notion that you can abuse your power as the dispenser of medication to force your religious beliefs on me that disgusts me. Yeah, I could just drive to another pharmacy, but why be a dick in the first place? If you can't in good faith do your job, get a different job. That's the 'moral' thing to do, right?

So ... you disriminate because it involves religion?

Nope, I was saying that apparently it's okay in this country for religious fundies to impose on other people if they worship the right god.

So you enter a restaurant and order a steak. The waitress refuses because she's a vegan...

I complain to the manager. If the manager supports the vegan, I leave the restaurant and post it on Fark. I then watch people like you lambast the vegan for pushing her agenda on other people.

But let's compare apples to apples - if I went to a pharmacy and was denied medication by a pharmacist based on their moral beliefs, I would indeed seek legal recourse, since medical decisions between my physician and myself should not be subject to the whims of some fundie.

Both cases are wrong for the same reason. What I'd do for each case is different because of the situation: one is denying me a tasty piece of cow, the other is interfering with my health decisions. One of these things is not like the other, as the song goes.
 
2005-05-03 02:54:38 PM
zeromus

Of course pharmacies don't serve food.

You can spell analogy, but can you understand them?


You twit. My point is that the analogy doesn't work because food is not as *immediately* essential as prescription drugs. Denying someone food service will, at worst, make them hungry. Denying someone vital medicine will, at worst, kill them.

Do you see the difference in the analogy, or were you just trolling for fun?
 
2005-05-03 02:55:02 PM
A Midnight Bout of Frenzied Concupiscence

So her choice infringes on your freedoms to purchase a legal product and you're ok with that? Right. Just wanted to make sure I understood that.
 
2005-05-03 02:56:00 PM
Now I want a steak.
 
Displayed 50 of 1077 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report