Some Pharmacists Refuse to Sell Birth Control Products

At least here in Germany, pharmacies have to sell/give what's on a prescription - otherwise they wouldn't get the license for their business.

I share Phoenix' attitude about this. If a pharmacist wishes to take such a stand, that's his perogative but IMO, it should be law that they must make this information known to their customers with a prominent posting in the front window. We'll see then who's willing to go the distance with the prospect of losing money hanging over their heads.

As far as holding perscriptions hostage, that's simply against the law. Return to the drug store with a cop in tow and you'll get your perscription back.

You have a prescription, you get it filled. No one has a right to make a moral decision for you. Especially withholding when it might not be to prevent pregnancy. There are plenty of cases where birth control pills are prescribed for endometriosis. I guess those women are "morally corrupt and loose" because they were unfortunate to have to deal with a very painful disease.

I believe that a licensing requirement for all pharmacies should be that they carry or obtain upon request all legal pharmaceuticals.

In Michigan it is covered by law. This was done Spring 2004...

Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays

(Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.
The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.

The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.

The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.

Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.

Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.

"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.

"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.

Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.

"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement.

Show me a female pharmacist who refuses to sell contraceptives and I'll eat my hat.

Is it made of chocolate?

of course...with cherries on the brim

<Why did Bella forget about the origin of the cherry in her mouth?>

Tell us Walter...we want to know

I didn't forget....I just didn't know everyone else knew....

Walter wrote


So too should it be here. Unfortuneatly, religion is beginning to rule the roost in this nation and it will never happen.

I agree with your position entirely, Phoenix. Part of me can see the decision to not dispense drugs that one morally objects to, but most of me thinks that anyone going into medical services of any kind, including pharmacy, should treat the patient to the full extent of thier ability.

There have been cases when the prescription for the pills are filled by a different pharmacist within the pharmacy, but the case where the objectioning pharmacist is the sole licensed employee (or owner) should be clearly posted.

One needs to put their own private beliefs aside and be
professional, otherwise one should not be a Pharmacist.
A prescription is a prescription and it needs to be filled.

What's next? The Pharmacist of your choice is a Jehovas
Witness and doesn't believe in dispensing certain medication?

Would it stop at the Pharmacists? Would a physician be
allowed not to treat a pregnant minor as this is against
his beliefs?

If one is in the profession of public medical service,
one has an ethical obligation to serve without judging.

If a pharmacy refuses to sell contraceptives to ANYBODY, that's basically within their rights I would think. That's the same as not wanting to sell firearms or dynamite. On the other hand, a pharmacy which sold contraceptives to married people but not to the unmarried would appear to be in violation of civil rights laws in the same way in which they would be by refusing to sell beer to Indians while selling it to whites.

A hundred and twenty years ago and on back, the United States was a free country. Most Americans living today have no real idea of what that would mean in practical terms. In those days, a physician was basically a consultant for the most part. You'd walk into a doctor's office and say



or something like that and the doctor would reply



And then you'd go over to the pharmacy and buy the three drugs, no prescription needed or anything like that, and while you were there you might buy some whiskey, some cocaine, some marijuana, a few boxes of 45/70 ammo for your rifle, some 45 Colt ammo for your pistol, and some dynamite for blasting stumps, and some class C fireworks for your kids, only they'd have merely been called by their genetic names since classes for fireworks didn't exist. In every instance the working assumption was that you were fully competent, knew what you were doing, and had some rational reason which was none of the store's business for wanting each of the items.

How's that sound? Think there's be any problem buying birth control pills in a country like that?

equating contraceptives with firearms? I can't make the stretch

Nor can I. I can see Phoenix's point and others who say that the pharmacist should have the right to not sell it but that they should make sure everyone knows. Still, I don't see how being a pharmacist allows you to basically pass moral judgments on your customers and refuse them legal, approved, and prescribed medications. Could they refuse to fill AIDS meds too in protest of a lifestyle they feel is immoral? Either you're a pharmacist or you're not, IMO, and if you are then you should be required to fill all prescriptions so long as they are in stock.

I guess I can foresee that there might be certain geographical areas in which no pharmacy within reasonable distance will stock birth control pills, and then what? Do the women of that area have to drive to another county? Move? What?

With the internet, people can always get prescriptions by mail, if they live in a one horse town. The only problem that I could forsee is the "morning after" pill, which has to be taken immediately. I suppose that you could order them by mail, and keep a supply handy.

Many doctors pick and choose whom they will treat. If you are in an HMO, you can only use physicians who are on the insurance provider's list. The rest will not honor your insurance.