Pharmacist refuses to sell birth control pills

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It would be easy to just get things filled at a corporate pharamacy then. Walgreens, Rite-Aid etc.

Not every town has such an option.

[MrRant 0]

I would bet that every town in America outside of gas station towns have a corporate pharamacy of some type.

 

Your arguement holds very little water.

[the max 0]

I have three WalGreens, two Eckerds and a Target Pharmacy within four miles on the same street.

 

I'd say the odds are that every town has to have at least one within driving distance.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I would bet that every town in America outside of gas station towns have a corporate pharamacy of some type.

 

Your arguement holds very little water.

And changing pharmacies with your insurance company can be hell in a handbasket depending on policies. Again, I don't think over the counter stuff is an issue, but if we get into the area of perscription drugs, you have to understand that if you choose to work in this kind of environment that you may find yourself doing something you yourself don't agree with. You're a participant in the medical process, helping people, and getting paid for it too.

 

Not giving people drugs for religious reasons is the same as the people who complain about the health of people who work in bars and casinos and have to breathe a lot of smoke. If you don't approve of it, DON'T GET INTO THAT BUSINESS. If your belief is Christian Science, maybe pharmaceutical just isn't for you.

[Guest BDC]

Not giving people drugs for religious reasons is the same as the people who complain about the health of people who work in bars and casinos and have to breathe a lot of smoke. If you don't approve of it, DON'T GET INTO THAT BUSINESS. If your belief is Christian Science, maybe pharmaceutical just isn't for you.

 

Your comparison doesn't make any sense. Your example is for people that complain... screw it.

 

You're really stretching here, Jobber. You're implying a great deal by saying he's a Christian Scientist and that he shouldn't be in pahrmaceuticals. Guess what? He's just NOT SELLING ONE PRODUCT. He is standing up for something he believes in and you're calling him ignorant, saying that he can't do his job. WHERE IS HE NOT DOING HIS JOB? The pharmacy is still open, stocked and in operation, he just chose not to carry one item to make a point. It's his JOB as OWNER to determine what his store sells and carries. Seems to me he's doing his job and making a point at the same time.

[Guest SP-1]

I'm not sure where you're getting that he's a Christian scientist, Jobber. Being a Christian doesn't automatically mean you're a Christian scientist. Most of us look at medicine as a gift from God to help us get better, fight off infection, and stabilize brain functions (anti-depressants and such). Not all of us refuse to carry our kids to the doctor when they get the flu.

 

He's an apparently honest business owner who has chosen to not sell certain products because he believes it is wrong to do so. In most other discussions if this guy popped up he'd be called a money-grubbing hypocrite for being a Christian with an anti-abortion stance who sold birth control through his pharmacy.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Well, it's a terrible business practice. Birth control is the most perscribed thing in the US.

 

Also, a couple of you need to go ahead and check out how the "morning after" pill actually works. This is not RU486, the fabled "abortion pill" from Europe. All it is is a double-dosage of the Tri-Cycline meds you can get from any perscription. It doesn't "kill" a zygote, it prevents implantation into the uterus, which is how normal birth control works.

 

Personally, I think birth control pills should be OTC, as well as mixed into high school lunches.

[Guest Ether]

As a pharmacist, I can add a few tidbits of information.

 

I personally don't agree with these pharmacists on this issue, but it is an important issue to us. If a pharmacist sees something wrong with a prescription, for whatever reason, we should not be obligated to dispense it. It rarely becomes an issue; another pharmacist can usually fill it, either at the same store or another. Problems occur when the patient isn't given the choice to do that (more on that below). Unless this is a very rural area, there will be plenty of other pharmacies to go to.

 

It's a terrible business practice

Not necessarily. Birth control is typically an expensive, low mark-up item that pharmacies don't really profit from (that has changed some over the last few years, especially when generics coming into the market). If anything, it will attract those with similar religous attitudes. Look at the presidental race for proof of that; many of my in-laws will vote for Bush, no matter what, because the Christian Coalition tells them to.

 

The problem these pharmacists have is that while oral contraceptives usually work by stopping ovulation, sometimes ovulation still occurs. A second "back-up" mechanism is that they change the lining in a woman's uterus to make it harder for the egg to implant. To some people, keeping a newly fertilized egg from implanting is abortion.

 

This is actually a very mild case. I'd love to see your reactions regarding a Wisconsin pharmacist who not only refused to fill the prescription, but also refused to transfer the prescription and refused to give the actual prescription back to the patient. There was another one where the pharmacist lied about having the medication in stock.

 

Also, the rules and positions can vary from state to state. Most Boards of Pharmacy won't touch this unless they're forced to. The Wisconsin pharmacist I believe does have a meeting with the Wisconsin Board.

 

I'll try to post a link a pharmacy magazine that ran a cover story on this issue in the next few days; my computer won't access the web site for some reason.

[EricMM 0]

Look SP, you can call people emasculated pushovers all you want, but the fact remains a lot of what you pawn off as Christianity is W-R-O-N-G.

 

I said he needs a theology lesson because he, like you, seems to think that birthcontrol and premarital sex, (possibly even, like you, basic lust) is a sin.

 

Are these things against the commandments? No! Are these things against the golden rule? No! You may be able to find some obscure OT line about causing a child's death; I don't even know if there's anything about premarital sex; either way it's always seemed to me that deem that things are against God's plan if they don't like them.

[Guest thebigjig]

Look SP, you can call people emasculated pushovers all you want, but the fact remains a lot of what you pawn off as Christianity is W-R-O-N-G.

 

I said he needs a theology lesson because he, like you, seems to think that birthcontrol and premarital sex, (possibly even, like you, basic lust) is a sin.

 

Are these things against the commandments? No! Are these things against the golden rule? No! You may be able to find some obscure OT line about causing a child's death; I don't even know if there's anything about premarital sex; either way it's always seemed to me that deem that things are against God's plan if they don't like them.

I love the picking and choosing of the Bible's golden rules of many hardcore Christians... basically, what fits their agendas at any given time

 

I long for the day when legislation is passed through congress that allows disobediant children to be stoned in public

 

because if we're going to take the bible LITERALLY...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm not sure where you're getting that he's a Christian scientist, Jobber.  Being a Christian doesn't automatically mean you're a Christian scientist.

Again, I'm not talking about this guy. Everyone seems to think I am. I already said that I think he's worrying a bit too much about whether he's sinning by helping other people out in a way the Lord wouldn't agree with, since supposedly the Lord forgives you of your sins in the afterlife.

 

Regardless of that, I'm talking about a much more large-scale situation, involving prescribed drugs such as painkillers or what have you. It doesn't have to be this guy doing it. I'm talking completely in hypothetical land.

[Guest Fire and Knives]

Pharmaceutical work isn't just about birth control. He dispenses medicine to people who actually NEED the medicines, not just the couple trying to shirk the responsibility of having sex.

 

He's just not giving it to the people who want to fuck like rabbits and not be responsible for it.

 

he's not letting people or business matters push him into doing something that, at the end of the day, is wrong.

 

This astonishes me in all the wrong ways.

 

Now, I know that abortion is terrible, birth control is abortion, and those of us that have the nerve to enjoy sex more than once every nine months are terrible irresponsible people. I went to Catholic school just long enough for those really important lessons.

 

But what the hell happened to "judge not, lest ye be judged"? I'm pretty sure that's still in the Bible, isn't it? Aren't they using that one anymore, or did it get the slightest bit overused while the church was scampering around Boston playing Protect The Pedophiles? Is sex outside of marriage wrong unless you're wearing a white collar, and then it's perfectly fine as long as the commoners don't catch you? What's the standard here, exactly?

 

 

Refusing to sell birth control is this guy's right, yes. It's also ignorant, reactionary nonsense, and most people involved in this discussion seem to have a handle on that. Defend this moron's right to be a blithering moron, sure - but for Christ's sake, get a blog if you really must pontificate on The Right Way To Do Everything whenever you get the chance.

 

"I'm just looking for a little consistency, people." -- Carlin.

 

K.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Carlin.

Post more.

[Styles 0]

And: Advil is an entirely different issue than birth control medication. Invalid.

What if he was a Christian Scientist?

[Guest SP-1]

Pharmaceutical work isn't just about birth control. He dispenses medicine to people who actually NEED the medicines, not just the couple trying to shirk the responsibility of having sex.

 

He's just not giving it to the people who want to fuck like rabbits and not be responsible for it.

 

he's not letting people or business matters push him into doing something that, at the end of the day, is wrong.

 

This astonishes me in all the wrong ways.

 

Now, I know that abortion is terrible, birth control is abortion, and those of us that have the nerve to enjoy sex more than once every nine months are terrible irresponsible people. I went to Catholic school just long enough for those really important lessons.

 

But what the hell happened to "judge not, lest ye be judged"? I'm pretty sure that's still in the Bible, isn't it? Aren't they using that one anymore, or did it get the slightest bit overused while the church was scampering around Boston playing Protect The Pedophiles? Is sex outside of marriage wrong unless you're wearing a white collar, and then it's perfectly fine as long as the commoners don't catch you? What's the standard here, exactly?

 

 

Refusing to sell birth control is this guy's right, yes. It's also ignorant, reactionary nonsense, and most people involved in this discussion seem to have a handle on that. Defend this moron's right to be a blithering moron, sure - but for Christ's sake, get a blog if you really must pontificate on The Right Way To Do Everything whenever you get the chance.

 

"I'm just looking for a little consistency, people." -- Carlin.

 

K.

I'm not Catholic. Nor do I prescribe to the idea that sex is merely for procreation. That's much more a Catholic thing than a Christian thing.

 

My base is that sex outside of marriage is wrong. A huge target group who use birth control. As well is tampering with the ability to create life, or trying to stop life from forming. I'm confident in saying that this pharmacist probably operates out of a similar belief system. If you're going to have sex then you need to be prepared to deal with the possible consequences. Sex can be awesome and purely for pleasure, but there's a proper context and a proper time: when you're ready to deal with the potential outcome. By selling birth control, he's encouraging people to continue using sex in ways it wasn't intended for. I can see where he's coming from as far as that point.

[Styles 0]

By selling birth control, he's encouraging people to continue using sex in ways it wasn't intended for.

That's according to you. Not all religions believe that. It reminds me of the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry asks Sheryl why Christians try to force everyone to like Jesus so much...

 

"I like lobster, you don't see me going around to people saying, 'here, try some lobster, it's good! Try some more lobster! I mean, you all go to other countries, 'here, try some lobster, you need to have it'"

 

I think people resent attitudes like yours that act so self riteous like your way is the only way. The only thing more irritating is what you do so often by going "I don't judge, I'm tolerant of all people, and I'm very modest about my religion, but what I say is still right because the Christian intepretation of the bible says so".

 

None of us will know until we die, and we might not even know then. So by all means, believe and practice how you will, but don't act like everyone else should too, because people believed many things before Jesus arrived and lived good lives, and people have and will continue to live good lives after Jesus whether they follow Christianity or not.

 

If you couldn't tell, I'm not a religious person, yet I DO respect those who are, and believe strongly in allowing everyone to have their faith and using it to help others in need, but I just get sick of the holier than thou attitudes sometimes.

 

Just needed to get that off my chest.

I just opened the can of worms didn't I....

[Highland 0]

Well said.

 

I also wonder how SP feels about the AIDS pandemic in Africa, and whether he supports better education and prevention, which includes contraceptions, or should they just ignore human nature and sit on their thumbs and resist the temptation to have sex if they're not married?

 

Most religous attitudes towards sex are insulting and demeaning and dangerous , and basically classifies fully one half of the population as nothing but breeders.

[Guest SP-1]

Where did I try to force you to like Jesus? Where, anywhere in my post, did I do so? The hostility towards Christians is amazing.

 

To be blunt, don't lecture to me about the "different religions" route. I've been there. I've dabbled in them. I've walked more than one road and I've quite a bit of experience in several things that were most definitely NOT Christian. I was not a corn-fed Christian from a Christian family. I've made alot of mistakes in my lifetime.

 

And at the end of the day, it was encountering the risen, still living Jesus Christ that made a difference. That changed me on a heart level. That turned my life around. Not a set of rules, not a religious Dogma. It was taking the risk and telling an unseen figure that I believed he could do it.

 

And He did.

 

Spirit Guides? New Age philosophies? Been there. Hinduism? Mormon Theology? Animism? Others? Studied them.

 

You want to give the "Not everyone believes!" speech? Fine. Give it to some Christian that thinks their set of rules lights the way. Give it to someone that has followed all the rules but never actually asked Christ to show up. You give that to them. Give it to the ones that haven't encountered spirit guides and dark figures, that haven't been awoken by their bed shaking violently for no reason after they started studying theology in depth. You give that little speech to each and every Christian that assumes they know what in the hell they believe and what their about.

 

But don't even think you can tell me something I don't already know about how other people have other beleifs. I've broken bread with them. I've believed with them. And I've seen people damaged almost irreperably, often times by bad "Christian" theology just as badly as other world religions. I've been there. And it is ONLY because of the grace available in Jesus Christ that I was ever able to clear my head and make use of those experiences well.

 

I believe because I investigated. Because I learned. Because I've personally encountered. Not because of dogmatic rules and regulations. I'm not a political Christian or a Sunday Christian. I'm the real deal that's walked on both sides of the fence and knows what else is out there. And I'm so sick and tired of having people jump down my throat when I am open and honest about my beliefs or defend another Christian's actions when I think it's appropriate. Discuss the matter at hand intelligently or stow it. Attacking me doesn't do a damn thing except expose close-mindedness and a clear bias while accusing me of the same traits. There's a difference between just deciding to disregard other beliefs "just cause" and having investigated them to form a viewpoint.

 

/rant

[MrRant 0]

[NoCalMike 0]

So I guess the message is that Christians should unite to increase the number of unwanted children in the world.

[Guest MikeSC]

So I guess the message is that Christians should unite to increase the number of unwanted children in the world.

I love hearing the open-minded left just slam Christians left and right for being intolerant.

-=Mike

...Look up irony, kids...

[Guest Fire and Knives]

So I guess the message is that Christians should unite to increase the number of unwanted children in the world.

I love hearing the open-minded left just slam Christians left and right for being intolerant.

-=Mike

...Look up irony, kids...

The problem is all this 'pretending to be open-minded' garbage. CE is not here because we are open-minded people. CE is here because you have your conservative ideals and I have my liberal ideals and goddamn it, we're going to fight about it until we're all bleeding from the eyes and everything that makes us human has been stripped away. And because that's a lot of fun to do to each other.

 

It's much easier to just be honest. For example, I distrust anything the Catholic church does and I'm instantly skeptical of anybody that's extremely talkative about their religion. See how much more goddamned sense that makes than, "We should be more tolerant and open...except of those damned intolerant Christians! We can't tolerate them at all!"

 

I command the rest of the left to stop pretending to be open-minded. Nobody's buying it but us, guys. Time to move on.

 

K.

[MrRant 0]

*cough*

[Styles 0]

*cough*

 

Sounds like you could use some, you can even choose which flavor you want!

[MrRant 0]

I use NyQuil... little n.. little y... BIG FUCKING Q.

 

[NoCalMike 0]

So I guess the message is that Christians should unite to increase the number of unwanted children in the world.

I love hearing the open-minded left just slam Christians left and right for being intolerant.

-=Mike

...Look up irony, kids...

I love the right and their new found sense of humor. It was a joke. I was just trying to understand what message the pharmacy owner was trying to send, and made a light-hearted joke in response.

[Guest thebigjig]

I find, that alot of extremely religious Christians (and other religious sects as well) have a hard time realize that morality is not just a word with a common set of rules as to what is right and what is wrong. Different people, have different morals. Some believe its immoral to dance for Christ's sake. Oh, and some believe it's immoral to use Gods name in vain, but goddamnit I like using Gods name in vains, so I'm going to continue to do it!

 

My point... is that while there are some moral values that we can all agree is right and wrong (murder, stealing for example) most moral values vary in importance from person to person.

 

My personal belief is that sex has become depressingly cheap and meaningless thanks to a society that now views it as nothing more than a hobby. That depresses me because I am old fashioned in that I won't sleep with someone unless I really care for them... though I am not an advocate of 'sex only after marriage.' HOWEVER, though those are my personal morals, I will not preach at, nor will I use those morals to determine what I believe is right and wrong from a legal standpoint... because I realize that not everyone should be forced to act upon the way that I personally think.

 

If I were the pharmacist, I would've given the girl the pill because that is my job, whether I personally disagree with it or not... and if my disagreement is that strong, then I would quit and find another line of work.

 

And here's an interesting question... many hardcore christians feel that homosexuality is wrong... and I often see the word "homsexuals" placed alongside hot button issues as "abortion." So using that logic, if you refuse to sell the morning after pill to a girl because of your extreme moral convictions, would you refuse to sell some kind of medication to a homosexual?

[Vyce 0]

If I were the pharmacist, I would've given the girl the pill because that is my job, whether I personally disagree with it or not... and if my disagreement is that strong, then I would quit and find another line of work.

 

I think BDC has an interesting point in nothing that he's just choosing to sell ONE product - and yet many here are dismissing him because he's not choosing to sell one product. By not doing so, it's not as if his entire career as a pharmacist is a failure.

 

Let me pose YOU a hypothetical here: let's say that you buy a store, already established and operational. Let's say is a small general store, sells a little bit of everything - including a small amount of guns, for personal protection or hunting purposes. You decide, after purchasing the store, that as the new owner / manager you're not going to stock firearms anymore because morally you are opposed to distributing firearms so easily. Do you think it's fair for someone, perhaps one of the previous customers who had bought a firearm under the old management, to come up to you and say that you should quit and find a new line of work because if you aren't willing to continue to sell firearms, you aren't capable of doing your job?

 

That analogy is not perfect, I know, but perhaps it could give you some perspective. Yes, morality means different things to different people, but in the hypo I gave someone could easily turn around and claim that YOU are unwantingly imposing YOUR morality upon them.

 

I think what this guy's doing is silly, but if he feels this strongly about it, it's his choice to do so, and while I question the logic of making THIS issue his own personal "line in the sand", if you will, I'm not going to say something like "he needs to get out of the pharmacy business" because he refuses to sell this product.

 

And here's an interesting question... many hardcore christians feel that homosexuality is wrong... and I often see the word "homsexuals" placed alongside hot button issues as "abortion." So using that logic, if you refuse to sell the morning after pill to a girl because of your extreme moral convictions, would you refuse to sell some kind of medication to a homosexual?

 

I suppose I consider myself a "softcore" Christian, and quite frankly, I don't have a problem with selling the morning after pill, and I certainly wouldn't have any qualms about selling medication or any other product to homosexuals. Any Christian who does isn't a true Christian. No matter how much they may disagree with a person's lifestyle, true Christians are SUPPOSED to love all of their fellow men and treat them as brothers. I mean, c'mon, Christ hung out with lepers - any Christian who couldn't fill out a homosexual's prescription is a fucking hypocrite.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Why shouldn't it be over the counter? I want someone to argue this.

[Guest thebigjig]

Let me pose YOU a hypothetical here: let's say that you buy a store, already established and operational. Let's say is a small general store, sells a little bit of everything - including a small amount of guns, for personal protection or hunting purposes. You decide, after purchasing the store, that as the new owner / manager you're not going to stock firearms anymore because morally you are opposed to distributing firearms so easily. Do you think it's fair for someone, perhaps one of the previous customers who had bought a firearm under the old management, to come up to you and say that you should quit and find a new line of work because if you aren't willing to continue to sell firearms, you aren't capable of doing your job?

 

That analogy is not perfect, I know, but perhaps it could give you some perspective. Yes, morality means different things to different people, but in the hypo I gave someone could easily turn around and claim that YOU are unwantingly imposing YOUR morality upon them.

 

I think what this guy's doing is silly, but if he feels this strongly about it, it's his choice to do so, and while I question the logic of making THIS issue his own personal "line in the sand", if you will, I'm not going to say something like "he needs to get out of the pharmacy business" because he refuses to sell this product.

That's an interesting question, and I see where you're coming from. As I've said, I think now that he should be allowed to make that decisions since it is, afterall, his store, I just question the logic. Either way, I see your point and I guess it's one of those issues that, when put that way, I can see both sides