They are pharmicists... their job is to dispense medications...
Many women are on birth control... try having to go on the pill for Accutane (acne medication) or having severe endometriosis (which leaves you lying on the floor, doubled over in pain or puking in the toilet for a couple days each month).
If my pharmicist refused to fill my birth control pills, i don't know where i would go (many insurance companies will only pay for meds at certain drugstores!!!!!!!!!). If I couldn't get my pills, i'd have to call into work sick at least 2 days a month.
Filling medications eis part of their job. If they don't like their job duties, then pick another profession!!!!!!!
You don't approve of "conscious objectors"?
All doctors should be forced to administer abortions?
Some schools believe so.
If the owner of a store refuses to stock a product, that's THEIR CHOICE. It doesn't matter if its a tavern owner refusing to stock Coors or a pharmacist refusing to stock the pill.
They didn't give up their moral obligations just because they chose pharmacy as a profession. You obviously don't know much about their "job duties".
Maybe you should take care of YOUR PROBLEMS before you run out of birth control pills. You can take your business elsewhere.
I despise Planed parenthood,but pharmacists should not be allowed to refuse to sell birth control pills or medicines they don't like.This idea is a dog that could come back to bite us all.
Oh, baloney. Perhaps they should pick another employer or ask to be reassigned, but there's a place for pharmacists with a conscience. (I know I want those who work at my local Walgreens have a conscience and *do not* want them to practice stiffling it.)
The pharmacist most likely does know which patients are on Accutane, etc.- or should, since they could be held accountable for effects.
If you are a biologist, you have studied the embryology of sexually reproducing species - even if it was just in Bio 101 before you specialized. You know that the embryo is a member of the species and should be able to understand that there is no clear concensus on the actual function of hormonal contraception in women who ovulate despite being on the hormone.
Personally, I'm convinced that in the case of normal hormonal birth control pills, the hormones from the corpus luteum are available in much higher levels than that of the pills. However, I'm not so convinced in the case of the post-coital protocols.
In my practice, I won't prescribe OCP's or depoprovera (the shot - which I am convinced is the best at reliably blocking ovulation) without very careful informed consent about the risk and concerns about the effects on the uterus if a woman does ovulate on the hormones. I have only written a prescription for the Progesterone-only pills one time in the last 10 years when I was covering for someone else - even then I explained the 10-fold risk of ectopic pregnancy that these pills carry.
I would only prescribe the "morning-after pill" if I were absolutely certain that the woman couldn't have possibly ovulated within the last 5 days.