Ill. Druggists Must Dispense Birth Control

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

[briant]

So what.

[marsh_of_mists]

If they find them so objectionable they refuse to fill out prescriptions perhaps they shouldn't be pharmacists. A pharmacy is a kosher or vegan store; it's an arm of the medical establishment, which has special rules. I feel that if doctors are allowed to prescribe something pharmicists are obligated to fill out those prescriptions.

[Catspaw]

I believe it was birth control pills. Yup, found a brief story on it about half-way down:

http://www.catholicvoiceoakland.org/Archives/Archive101804B.html

[exnavychick]

So it would seem. :(

[sittnick]

A pharmacist isn't simply a merchant, but is also a medical professional. His profession is licensed and regulated by the government. 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. If they don't want to maybe they shouldn't be in that profession. If you disagree with doctor-prescribed birth control pills than fight for their illegalization.

That's insane. By that reasoning, ob/gyns can be required to perform abortions. "Licensed Profession" should not equal "Socialist."

There is a shortage of pharmacists and doctors in Illinois right now. One woman I know who is a part-time pharmacist is a practicing Catholic who will not give out the sometimes-abortifacient birth control pills. She will quit before she will follow such a horrible regulation. This does not help the other 99.8% who are not getting birth control pills.

It is not too impressive that this comes in as an exec order rather than a legislatively-passed law.

So, in Illinois, my state (I live in Rockford), it is illegal for a Catholic to be a pharamacist if there isn't a non-Catholic heloping out. Louis Pasteur (a devout Catholic) could not be a pharmacist on his own in Illinois today by that reasoning.

[sittnick]

article says "birth control prescriptions" that would lead me to believe it just the run of the mill "pill"

The modern "run-of-the mill pill" is low-estrogen, and uses back up post-conception effects in case the estrogen dose doesn't do the job. Therefore, it is not always contraceptive, but is sometimes abortifacient.

[FormerACLUmember]

See post 40, for example.

[Chiapet]

"I think pharmacists should be obligated to fill prescriptions given by licensed doctors. If they don't want to maybe they shouldn't be in that profession. If you disagree with doctor-prescribed birth control pills than fight for their illegalization."

I completely agree. Running a pharmacy is a unique situation, where the average citizen is virtually required to obtain almost all of his or her medication via a licensed pharmacist (the other route would be obtaining drugs illegally, or going to Mexico or Canada). If a person has a moral objection to filling prescriptions, they shouldn't be a pharmacist.

[briant]

Sorry, but we are not automatons in this society. We are free people and this road you want to go down where all educated licensed people just follow orders tends to result in government sectioned evil and then government mandated evil.

[marsh_of_mists]

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

[FormerACLUmember]

99.9999%+ of prescriptions would not be a problem for a devout Catholic. We are discussing one single drug RU-486 ("Plan B").

[briant]

Go to another pharmacist, there are plenty. Beyond that, if you are worried about someone stealing you rights, worry about the government; they are the ones who require you to go the pharmacist in the first place.

Government requires you to go the the state sanctioned person to get a product. Government requires state sanctioned person to perform acts incompatible with their conscious. So who is the real thief of liberty the pharmacist? I don't think so.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

...and refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy.

Prescriptions are not pieces of paper but rather an immaterial license issued by a physician to dispense a controlled substance. The prescription in question wasn't a physical script but was called in. It was not as if the pharmacist refused to give a piece of paper back. To "transfer" this prescription would have required the pharmacist to call another pharmacy and effectively re-prescribe it. Since the drug in question is a known abortifacient, this action would have been material participation in a potential abortion. The employer was aware of this moral reservation and the prescription was filled the next Monday by another pharmacist.

The next "emergency order" from this governor could just as easily be to require all surgeons to perform abortions on anyone who asks them.

[vbmoneyspender]

I think the pharmacist should be able to follow his moral beliefs in this instance. With regard to the doctor example I posed, I take it your response is that the gov't should dictate to doctors what kind of medical procedures they perform or the medicines they proscribe. For example, if a Catholic doctor, or a Catholic hospital for that matter, doesn't want to prescribe birth-controll pills due to moral considerations, I take it you would favor compelling them to do so? What would your position be with regard to abortion or euthanasia (assuming it is made legal in states other than Oregan)?

[ArtyFO]

Of course, a pharmacist could just not have the babykiller drug in stock (sorry, miss, you'll have to wait a few days till I get my shipment in).

[sittnick]

What if your pharmacist refuses to fill your prescription and you live 200 miles away from the next pharmicist?

Show a spot in Illinois or even the USA (outside of Alaska) where there is only one phartmacist within 200 miles of anywhere. When he is forced out of business, how does that help the 99.8% of people who are not getting abortifacient birth control pills. Which can easily be gotten mail order, for those who insist on getting abortifacients.

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

[guitarist]

So what? Did he crumble her paper and throw it away? Let her go elsewhere if that pharmacist wants nothing to do with it.

[abovethefray]

The ILLinois governor, a democrat, does a pretty good dictator impersonation in this instance.
Can someone remind me why Republicans are tarred with the 'nazi' tag?

[briant]

There are many pharmacist, doctors, grocers (the food industry is regulated), airlines and other venders who are regulated. This does not mean they have to be they same. You can go elsewhere.

You are the one who said the phamacists should do what the government says, or ban birth control pills. This is not what I am saying. You seem to want more governemt mandated restricction I want less. I.e. go to another phamacist, don't entangle him in your, what he sees as, sins, and don't argue that birth control pills have to be banned because phamacist x doesn't want to prescribe it.