Let’s say you own a grocery store. Because you think smoking is an unhealthy habit, you make the decision that your store shouldn’t sell cigarettes or other tobacco-related products. However, you happen live in a state where a lot of people choose to smoke. Because smokers have a lot of political clout, they convince the state legislature that their “right” to buy cigarettes supersedes your right as a store owner to choose which products to sell. In response, the legislature passes a law that says every grocery store in the state must sell cigarettes and other tobacco products – even if the store owner has personal or moral objections to selling them.
What if you decide to sell tobacco products but have an employee that finds smoking or using tobacco immoral and refuses to sell them when customers ask to purchase them? Should you be able to fire the employee or should his religious or moral beliefs supplant your right to sell legal products to customers?
In a perfect world most people would recognize that the law passed in the first example is tyrannical and would be outraged that a store would be forced to sell a product the owner finds objectionable.
In the second example most people would realize no one has a right to a job; therefore, if an employee objects to a product that a business sells, the employee is free to find work elsewhere.
Sadly, we live in a time when most people choose to be victims and believe that when one of their “rights” has been violated they should be able to force their supposed rights on others via laws, regulations, or judicial fiat. When that happens, you get laws like the one that went into effect this week in Washington state that pits the rights of drugstore owners, employees, and consumers against each other.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - gonzo marx
you entire argument is completely fallacious due ot being built on a false premise
nice try in attempting to conflate tobacco with a doctor's written prescription
here's why you are totally wrong
you need a Pharmacy license, issued by the state, in order to run a pharmacy, this is due to handling controlled substances and public safety concerns
this license says you have to fill the prescriptions sent to you by a physician
NOT the ones you like, or agree with, or feel are moral..or anything else...the ones a Doctor writes, you have to fill for the patient...period
those are the terms of the license, don't like it...don't be a pharmacist
just that fucking simple, don't let the bullshit or smoke and mirrors distract you from the facts
state license means following the rules and laws of the state, YOU don't get to decide...the Law has and you agreed to follow said law when you got the license
/end bullshit alert
Excelsior?
2 - Baronius
Well-articulated article, Abel.
3 - Clavos
gonzo #1:
I'm not so sure about the point that the pharmacist MUST fill out every prescription presented to him/her. Here's why:
First, a caveat; perhaps the pharmacy laws have some variation from state to state; I don't know.
Here's my point, which is based on a true personal anecdote:
Our pharmacist (at a national chain drugstore) recently refuse to fill out a prescription my wife had received from one of her doctors on the grounds that it had been prescribed in violation of the manufacturer's instructions. His specific objection was that the drug is not supposed to be taken for more than 5 days at a time, and the doctor had written the script for a 30 day supply of daily use.
I knew about the 5 day limit (if taken longer, it can take out your kidneys and liver), and had questioned the Dr. myself about it - twice.
Reluctantly I had accepted the dr.'s judgment, and had taken the srcipt to be filled. At that point, my wife had already taken the drug for three weeks, and the pharmacist knew that. I asked the pharmacist to call the doctor for verification, and his response was that, if he were to dispense the prescription as written, knowing what he knows about the dangers of it, even though the Dr. had ordered it that way, he (the pharmacist) could be held responsible if my wife should die from it.
I took the script to another pharmacy to get it filled.
I don't know if he was BSing me, but I wasn't willing to fight him about it.
My wife hasn't died yet.
4 - gonzo marx
Clavos..what you are talking about is a pharmacist correctly following the rules and regulations pertaining to his license, and correcting a mistake made by a doctor UNDER THE LAW
the entirety of this Article is NOT about that, but about a pharmacist placing not legal or medical considerations, but their own opinion, ABOVE that of a medical practitioner and failing to fill a LEGAL prescription
THAT is against the license you need to operate as a pharmacist all across our nation...look it up, i have
see the difference?
Excelsior?
5 - Clavos
No, because the Dr. wasn't making a mistake; he was deliberately prescribing the meds with full knowledge of the possible results, and the prescription WAS legal.
Your original point was:
"this license says you have to fill the prescriptions sent to you by a physician"
And:
"a pharmacist placing not legal or medical considerations, but their own opinion, ABOVE that of a medical practitioner and failing to fill a LEGAL prescription"
The second pharmacist (who DID fill it) warned me about the complications, but didn't hesitate to fill it.
I'm not so sure, as I said, that in Florida at least, a pharmacist HAS to fill a script if he/she doesn't want to.
6 - gonzo marx
Clavos...you yourself stated that it was against the manufacturers directions
this in itself warrants at least a consultation between pharmacist and physician...which IS covered under the law since pharmacists are specialists in tthe medications and routinely check for possible bad interactions an dside effects
all of this is based on MEDICAL considerations, NOT personal opinion about the theoretical morality of dispensing the Rx
see the difference here?
Excelsior?
7 - Clavos
"Clavos...you yourself stated that it was against the manufacturers directions
this in itself warrants at least a consultation between pharmacist and physician...which IS covered under the law since pharmacists are specialists in tthe medications and routinely check for possible bad interactions an dside effects"
I agree that it warranted a consultation; and, as I said, I asked for one, but the pharmacist refused, in a manner that left no doubt (at least in my mind) that he felt he was legally able to do so. And I'm not intimidated by doctors, much less a pharmacist.
As I said, I don't know if he was BSing me or not. But, Florida is kind of a maverick state, so I wouldn't be surprised if a pharmacist could legally refuse to fill a script for any number of reasons.
8 - gonzo marx
for medical reasons sure...covering his ass against possible liability is allowed in most states statutes
but not for "moral" reasons
let's look at the same scenario, but twist it a bit
down south a KKK member owns a pharmacy, and refuses to fill an RX for insulin for a Jew, or a black person...
get it now?
this is a simple case of someone , for their own reasons based on their religious viewpoints, refusing to follow the strictures of their license to operate...
in either the case of a medical disagreement, or a cases like the one under discussion, the licensing authority can be notified to rule on it...and in EVERY case so far...they have ruled that the pharmacist has to fill a legal script written by a doctor
so, i am fine in letting it play out with due process, but i'm not too happy with some folks thinking they can impose their morals via medicine or healthcare
what's next...some Fundamentalist not filling prescriptions for the damned unless they get born again?
there's a reason for the laws and regulations about equal access to healthcare
how about a Muslim pharmacist not filling prescriptions for "infidels"?
on and on
Excelsior?
9 - Clavos
How would you feel about a Muslim not selling a suit to an infidel? Or a car?
10 - gonzo marx
a suit or a car are NOT state licensed activities involving healthcare
your analogy fails thew test of basic logic, same as this Article
see..cigarrettes, a car,a suit...that's one thing
but healthcare is another...a consumer product falls under "management reserves the right to refuse service"
i have no problem with that
but healthcare providers who NEED a state license to operate HAVE TO follow the provisions of said license
just...that....fucking....simple
Excelsior?
11 - Clavos
Actually, car selling is state licensed activity (at least here, as are boats - I have to have a yacht sales license); in fact most businesses must have licenses of some kind to do business.
It is ILLEGAL to refuse to sell ANYTHING to ANYONE for racial, religious, or national origin reasons, which is why I set up that hypothetical.
Therefore, it REALLY DOESN'T MATTER what the laws specifically applying to pharmacists say; the pharmacist can't refuse to sell anything (even Playboy, except to a minor in some states) for religious reasons, it's religious discrimination.
12 - gonzo marx
/sigh
again, i stand behind the age old "management reserves the right..."
but also state that when it comes to healthcare, and the VERY specific licenses involved (doctors, nurses, pharmacists)..a much more stringent standard is inherent
a restaurant is within it's rights to enforce a dress code....a hospital is not
can't make it any more clear
Excelsior?
13 - Clavos
"again, i stand behind the age old "management reserves the right..."
I don't.
No one should have the right to discriminate against anybody for religious, racial, national origin or sex reasons. No one and nobody. Period.
And if a restaurant can have a dress code that has nothing to do with the healthfulness of the place, why should a hospital not be able to do so, too?
"Ladies nights" at bars should be illegal too.
14 - gonzo marx
i tend to Agree, in principle
but i also Recognize that folks running their business have certain leeway to run it as they see fit (such as ladies night, a dress code and so on)
but i ain't touching all of that right now
i'm talking very specifically about the case in point raised by the Article...pharmacists not filling a prescription
nuff said...
Excelsior?
15 - Clavos
As you've seen, I agree. I just carry it further.
And, after two years intense experience with at least three hundred medical "professionals," including nurses, physicians and patient care specialists I have a VERY low opinion of them as a group, so am not surprised to hear about the pharmacist.
I think the day's not far off when you'll see the same kinds of things from physicians - look at those guys in London.
"First, do no harm" my ass.
16 - gonzo marx
i do know that this conversation is making me rethink my propensity for discussion around here...
much to ponder
Excelsior?
17 - Clavos
Was it something I said?? :>)
18 - gonzo marx
not what, but the HOW sometimes
it's not about you, per se...more about the medium, and me
as i said, much to ponder...how is it that good people can be so at odds at times over small details, when agreeing in basic principle, how is it i can get very angry/upset over it at times...frustrated that what appears clear to me, is completely not Understood even after careful explanation...
would i be better served just stating my Thoughts, then never looking at a Thread afterwards...writing my thinking as an Article and ignoring the discourse?
not certain, but a lot to consider, imo
Excelsior?
19 - Dave Nalle
Some of our participants find the artilce writing and ignoring the comments route to be a good one. I know I've considered it from time to time when beset by particularly annoying commenters, but it's in my nature to never run away from a scrap, I fear.
I do tend to take the best ideas that come to me in the comment section and eventually turn them into articles with the thoughts more completely worked out, though.
dave
20 - STM
Clav: "Ladies nights" at bars should be illegal too."
Ooh, I dunno Clav. I reckon it's a great excuse to gather up all your mates and go to a different bar.
21 - Nancy
Unless a prescription endangers the patient's life, no pharmacist has the right to second guess the physician; certainly not on personal moral/religious grounds that don't involve actual danger to the patient.
22 - troll
so...here's the oath (with commentary)
nothing about having to sell everything and anything
this is just another example of Statism vrs a free market of products and ideas
23 - Christopher Rose
This is the 500,000th comment on Blogcritics, so I think my rights should prevail!
24 - Clavos
You're right about the Oath, troll, but gonzo's point was that the laws which deal with pharmacist licensing require that they must fill ALL legitimate and legal prescriptions presented to them.
And Chris, don't they always?
25 - troll
like I said - Statism...rule of law and all that