Ill. Druggists Must Dispense Birth Control

AP ^ | 4/1/05 | MAURA KELLY LANNAN

[GSlob]

Why? Anyone going to the pharmacist goes there for the drugs, not for the lectures [or they would be asking for the lectures with the drugs or even instead of drugs]. While the pharmacist has freedom of speech, the customer has much more fundamental freedom not to listen - and not to be unduly bothered. The regulation in question helps to guard the customer from unwanted lectures.

[briant]

Doctors being perfecly just and moral, every one.

[sittnick]

What none of you seem to understand is that pharmacists are part of the medical establishment and the medical establishment is already, to a great extent, controlled by the government.

Everything from supermarkets to furniture sales is "to a great extent controlled by the government"

Under the current system, this makes the profession of pharmacy in a nebulous position that does not seem to me to be entirely within the private sphere.

Neither is anything else that can be somehow classified as "interstate commerce"

Now, if you disagree with this system, fight to change it in one way or the other.

Uh, that's what we are doing right here.

Advocate deregulation of the medical establishment. Claim that pharmacists should be considered solely private merchants, and not recquire governmentally issued licenses to practice their trade.

That's a "straw man" and you know it. We could also outlaw abortifacients, which would be of questionable legality if not for ROE (GRISWOLD occurred during the era of hi-dosage estrogen pills), or we could simply acknowledge that a pharmacist's conscience should not be interfered with on such matters. In any event, the pharmacist must be allowed to use his professional judgement, which includes his moral judgement, in his profession. And no, the definition of profession is not quasi-governmental employee. The ABA and the old guilds were not governmental organizations.

But the idea that pharmacists should be able to pick and choose which prescriptions they fill out runs entirely against the current system, for better or for worse.

There are lots of ways to change the system, and one is to challenge it. I knew a med student at Yale-New Haven, a devout Italian Catholic (Italian as in, a citizen of Italy). There were 24 OB-GYNs in his class in the late '80's. He was the only one who stood his ground and refused to perform any abortions in his training. The rest of the students resented the heck out of him for it, because they figured that meant they "had" to do more. They didn't have the gumption to stand up to the current system. If the Bloombergs and Blagos of the world systematically rid the professions of those who have a disagreement with the "system," (Which has operated in these types of matters in this manner for only 40 years at the most, out of centuries) there will be no credentialed profesionals to challenge the system.

I'm sorry but pharmacists and doctors should not be junior Mengeles waiting for a reg to be changed.

[AlguyA]

"Therefore, the government does have certain control over him, as it does over doctors. I think pharmacists should be obligated to fill prescriptions given by licensed doctors."

In this vein, I wise poster once noted:

"Such injustice! History is filled with righteous people being persecuted by the law for their actions. This woman(pharmacist) stands in a long and noble tradition of practitioners of civil disobedience."

[traderrob6]

If they don't like the lecture with their drugs, let them go down the road. Pharmacist's don't have 1st amendment rights?

[sittnick]

And what about Catholics like me who would RATHER get my prescriptions from somebody who won't get his hands involved in abortifacients?

Find some capital and open a Catholic-friendly pharmacy.

Great idea, but under Blago's reg. that would be illegal. (BTW, there are pro-life mail-order pharmacies, so that is a reasonable partial solution.)

For the record, here in Illinois there also appears to be a rule that there must be a Walgreens every eight blocks or so in all directions. There is no danger of not finding another pharmacist.

[FormerACLUmember]

Well, there is such a thing as civil disobedience (if a pharmacist wanted to continue refuses to take birth control perscriptions in defiance of the goverment), but under that tradition you have to accept legal penalties imposed in you. Unless you think--and I don't think you do--that our current establishment is so corrput we should openly rebel against it.

Certain requirements (killing the innocent and the defenseless) and certain individuals (that evil Illinois governor for one) must be opposed by men and women of conscience. You clearly have a problem with this.

[lainde]

That's a good idea...No one says you have to stock EVERYTHING. It's a business decision. It may help small pharmacies that are privately owned and not part of huge chains.

[GSlob]

Not as a pharmacist.

[TXBubba]

For the record, here in Illinois there also appears to be a rule that there must be a Walgreens every eight blocks or so in all directions.

I think it is every other block here in Texas.

[traderrob6]

Don't bet on it

[marsh_of_mists]

There is an enormous difference between medical practitioners and furniture salesman.

There is also a difference between birth control pills and abortions. I agree that abortions should be illegal altogether. There is no regulation forcing OB/GYN's to perform abortions. There shouldn't be because a) abortion is a medically risky intervention and doctors are allowed to refuse to perform dangerous procedures, and b) abortion is a much clearer moral issue in that it involves the taking of a life; birth control pills are objected to on moral grounds based solely on ideas of proper and improper personal lifestyles.

[marsh_of_mists]

This has nothing to do with abortion; we're talking about birth control pills. As to abortion, exactely how do you propose "men and women of conscience" oppose it beyond what they are doing now in the pro-life movement?

[dr huer]

You want drug xyz. We don't stock it. Its real expensive. We could order it. Please pay in advance. We don't want to be stuck with it if you change your mind. It'll be a week or so. Go try Walmart.

[Oztrich Boy]

"No delays. No hassles. No lectures."
Sounds like a 1st Amendment violation to me.

And the person at the DMV is entitled to insist on giving his/her opinion to you before registering your SUV. And the Sheriff in a "shall-issue" state can make you watch a VBrady/VPC film he just happens to have before issuing your CCW. Anything else would trample on their Right to give you their opinion - it's in the Constitution!

[SampleMan]

I think I would just forget to order that Rx. "Sorry we're out."

[marsh_of_mists]

Then let them engage in civil disobedience, but by doing so they have to accept the legal consequences, that's the idea of civil disobedience.

[elli1]

Guees that means if you own a pharmacy you must sell what the government tells you too.

Well, at least you gotta' sell what the doctor prescribed. Otherwise, you'd have a bunch of environazi pharmacists trying to make political statements by refusing to sell pills on the grounds that the pills were tested on animals.

[madprof98]

Should all OB/GYN's be required to perform abortions too?

Coming soon! Already some who are in training are required to do a rotation in an abortion mill. I believe the RINO mayor of NYC is responsible for that abomination.

[FormerACLUmember]

This has nothing to do with abortion; we're talking about birth control pills.

RU-486 is not a birth conrol pill. It is for at home (and dangerous) abortions.

As to abortion, exactely how do you propose "men and women of conscience" oppose it beyond what they are doing now in the pro-life movement?

Uh, not be coerced into doing them. For Pro-Life physicians see the following listing of people you would remove from the medical profession: http://www.omsoul.com/nfponly.php