I pulled this thread http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=284722 from GD regarding a pharmacist who refused to fill a birth-control prescription.  Most of the replies (except for mine) seem to be from men, and I'm curious as to what you all think about the issue.  Being a woman and therefore able to bear a child, I believe that a woman's perspective is far more relevant than a man's regarding this particular scenario.  (Note that I didn't say that a man's opinion is not relevant; it is, just less so because they can't get pregnant.)
BTW, I am a pharmacist, too.

GC

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=284722

Made the link hot for you.

Read the link. The pharmacist was out of line. He went against store policy too. He should not let his personal religious beliefs affect his work.

Thanks for making the link hot, Jack!

It is within his rights to refuse service; however, it is within his employer's rights to fire him and within the customer's rights to go elsewhere to get it filled.  It shouldn't require a prescription by my estimation.  

Someone in GD suggested that the pharmacist shouldn't let his moral beliefs interfer with his job!  Wrong.  Wrong. Wrong.  That's what integrity is about; however, if your moral beliefs impose on someone else, that is where the law steps in.  Though in this case, his being morally culpable for this woman's choice is questionable.  

By law, she is allowed to buy pills, but the law should not require a company or person to sell them to her.  Theoretical question... What if every licensed pharmacist refused to sell birth control pills?  Since this is a regulated profession and unlicensed persons are not permitted to sell birth control pills, it throws a monkey wrench into an otherwise simple situation.  If I read the initial post right, his refusal to remit or transfer the prescription would be the customer's most valid complaint.

Quoted: It is within his rights to refuse service; however, it is within his employer's rights to fire him and within the customer's rights to go elsewhere to get it filled.  It shouldn't require a prescription by my estimation.   Someone in GD suggested that the pharmacist shouldn't let his moral beliefs interfer with his job!  Wrong.  Wrong. Wrong.  That's what integrity is about; however, if your moral beliefs impose on someone else, that is where the law steps in.  Though in this case, his being morally culpable for this woman's choice is questionable.   By law, she is allowed to buy pills, but the law should not require a company or person to sell them to her.  Theoretical question... What if every licensed pharmacist refused to sell birth control pills?  Since this is a regulated profession and unlicensed persons are not permitted to sell birth control pills, it throws a monkey wrench into an otherwise simple situation.  If I read the initial post right, his refusal to remit or transfer the prescription would be the customer's most valid complaint.

The bit in red is also the only part the pharmacist is in trouble for.

Quoted: My sister was on birth control pills for a while. Was she sexually active?  Nope.  The pills kept the PMS/cycle correlated emotional problems to a minimum. You'd think that a pharmacist of all people would have thought that kind of thing through beforehand.

That's why I have to take them, and that's the only reason I take them.

I read thru the whole thread. The only thing I can say is wow.

If the man had been running his own pharmacy, I could see him refusing to fill the prescription. But at that time, he needed to allow her to fill it elsewhere.  The only reason I say that is because it would have been his store. He can then refuse service to anyone. When you are working for someone else, I believe to pass on your faith and judgements is wrong.  Since he was working fro K-mart, refused to fill and transfer, he was deadwrong.

So GC, from a legal standpoint, what will happen to him since he refused to fill and refused to transfer?

Quoted: My sister was on birth control pills for a while. Was she sexually active?  Nope.  The pills kept the PMS/cycle correlated emotional problems to a minimum. You'd think that a pharmacist of all people would have thought that kind of thing through beforehand.

From the article:

Mr. Noesen, the only pharmacist on duty at the store at the time, asked if the prescription would be used for contraception, then refused to refill it when she said it would.

You aren't the first person to bring this up - but it is clear the pharmacist was aware there are other uses for the pill.  The girl herself admitted to wanting them for contraceptive purposes.

I think the operative words here are "former pharmacist".

Quoted: I pulled this thread http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=284722 from GD regarding a pharmacist who refused to fill a birth-control prescription.  Most of the replies (except for mine) seem to be from men, and I'm curious as to what you all think about the issue.  Being a woman and therefore able to bear a child, I believe that a woman's perspective is far more relevant than a man's regarding this particular scenario.  (Note that I didn't say that a man's opinion is not relevant; it is, just less so because they can't get pregnant.) BTW, I am a pharmacist, too. GC

Can't bear a child without a penis being involved somewhere along the line.

Don't mind me you just happen to hit a nerve.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My sister was on birth control pills for a while. Was she sexually active?  Nope.  The pills kept the PMS/cycle correlated emotional problems to a minimum. You'd think that a pharmacist of all people would have thought that kind of thing through beforehand. From the article: Mr. Noesen, the only pharmacist on duty at the store at the time, asked if the prescription would be used for contraception, then refused to refill it when she said it would. You aren't the first person to bring this up - but it is clear the pharmacist was aware there are other uses for the pill.  The girl herself admitted to wanting them for contraceptive purposes. I have problems with reading comprehension when drunk and really tired

So what you're saying is - you pretty much have reading comprehension problems 24/7?

Quoted: My sister was on birth control pills for a while. Was she sexually active?  Nope.  The pills kept the PMS/cycle correlated emotional problems to a minimum. You'd think that a pharmacist of all people would have thought that kind of thing through beforehand.

Dude, you have a sister?

Why wasn't SHE at gunstock?

Quoted: Quoted: I pulled this thread http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=284722 from GD regarding a pharmacist who refused to fill a birth-control prescription.  Most of the replies (except for mine) seem to be from men, and I'm curious as to what you all think about the issue.  Being a woman and therefore able to bear a child, I believe that a woman's perspective is far more relevant than a man's regarding this particular scenario.  (Note that I didn't say that a man's opinion is not relevant; it is, just less so because they can't get pregnant.) BTW, I am a pharmacist, too. GC Can't bear a child without a penis being involved somewhere along the line.   Don't mind me you just happen to hit a nerve.

This may be a bit off topic but I have to agree with Wedge on this one.  Birth control should involve a couple, not just a man - not just a woman.  I realize you said that a man's opinion is relevant.  However, I feel that women who think that birth control is completely in their control should not feel that they have the right to pursue a man for child support.  I know this is wrong but some women and men, should think before they act.  My point is it should be a couple's decision.

And the pharmacist was wrong.  By working for someone else, he is obligated to follow their rules whether he agrees with them or not.  He had the option of not working for someone whose rules went against his beliefs.

Quoted: I read thru the whole thread. The only thing I can say is wow. If the man had been running his own pharmacy, I could see him refusing to fill the prescription. But at that time, he needed to allow her to fill it elsewhere.  The only reason I say that is because it would have been his store. He can then refuse service to anyone. When you are working for someone else, I believe to pass on your faith and judgements is wrong.  Since he was working fro K-mart, refused to fill and transfer, he was deadwrong. So GC, from a legal standpoint, what will happen to him since he refused to fill and refused to transfer?

I agree, Mrs. GH, that if the guy was truly an "independent pharmacist" (which really means that he/she owns his/her own pharmacy, BTW) that the guy did cross a serious line by imposing his standards on the female college student.  Yeah, he was dead ass wrong, no question about that.

The one huge legal issue that has the pharmacist in deep shit is that he refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy.  A prescription is a legal document and is 'owned' by the person the physician gives it to.  So, any prescription made to "Mrs. GungHo" is legally owned by "Mrs. GungHo" and is controlled by you as long as those conditions follow state and federal law.  Therefore, the pharmacist actually "stole" the student's prescription by refusing to transfer it to another pharmacy.  That's the official legal reason he's in trouble.

The other, far more subtle reason that he's in trouble with the Board of Pharmacy is that he's decided that his version of what is and is not moral has interfered with his ability to practice medicine as a licensed professional.  Let's just hypothesize that this pharmacist decides to take a job in a hospital pharmacy to make some extra money on weekends because his retail experience wasn't that great.  And during his first weekend there (alone) there's an emergency room case in which a patient needs 'drug X' to live; without it he or she will die.  Yet, this pharmacist feels that dispensing this medicine is against his moral and religious standards and might spiritually endanger the patient and him/herself.  And the patient dies.  The state Board of Pharmacy would be culpable.  

What has happened with this whole mess is that the pharmacist has proved himself to be incapable of doing his job.   He is no longer able to fulfill his obligation to the public as a medical professional, albeit under the guise of religious freedom.  It's a shame that he made it through the painful rigors of pharmacy school and the various interships/externships that we are required to experience without dealing with this issue prior to licensing.  But that's what we have, and, it's unfortunate, is a case of professional incompetence.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I pulled this thread http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=284722 from GD regarding a pharmacist who refused to fill a birth-control prescription.  Most of the replies (except for mine) seem to be from men, and I'm curious as to what you all think about the issue.  Being a woman and therefore able to bear a child, I believe that a woman's perspective is far more relevant than a man's regarding this particular scenario.  (Note that I didn't say that a man's opinion is not relevant; it is, just less so because they can't get pregnant.) BTW, I am a pharmacist, too. GC Can't bear a child without a penis being involved somewhere along the line.   Don't mind me you just happen to hit a nerve. This may be a bit off topic but I have to agree with Wedge on this one.  Birth control should involve a couple, not just a man - not just a woman.  I realize you said that a man's opinion is relevant.  However, I feel that women who think that birth control is completely in their control should not feel that they have the right to pursue a man for child support.  I know this is wrong but some women and men, should think before they act.  My point is it should be a couple's decision. And the pharmacist was wrong.  By working for someone else, he is obligated to follow their rules whether he agrees with them or not.  He had the option of not working for someone whose rules went against his beliefs.

I agree totally.  And if all men were responsible, caring, and involved like you, Wedge, I would have never made the statement to begin with.  Unfortunately for all society today, you are the exception, not the rule.  (And I do think that you rule!  And this is NOT a trap!)

GC

Grateful Cowgirl
If I read this right, he can lose his license because of his refusal to do his job(transfer or fill the prescription) on religious beliefs?

Quoted: BTW, I am a pharmacist, too. GC

Just curious are you a RPh or got a PharmD too?

Quoted: Quoted: BTW, I am a pharmacist, too. GC Just curious are you a RPh or got a PharmD too?

Edited:  OOPS!  Replied under my man's sign-in...this is Grateful_Cowgirl.

Just an RPh with a prior BS in Chemistry and Biology, too.  I was in hematology/oncology research until I decided to take a year off and work with my horses...five years ago.  I'm in Science education now; love my job, get to travel, have anywhere from 1 to 120 employees at any one time.
It's a cool gig and I'm way happier now than when I was in medicine.

GC

Quoted: Grateful Cowgirl If I read this right, he can lose his license because of his refusal to do his job(transfer or fill the prescription) on religious beliefs?

Edited:  This is Grateful_Cowgirl...evidently my man forgot to sign out last night.  Not for the first time, either.  At least he remembers to put the toilet seat down .  

Yes, I believe that the Board of Pharmacy's beef is because he refused to transfer her prescription to another pharmacy.  It's a legal document and she (the patient) owns it, not the pharmacy.  This wouldn't be the case if, for example, there were medical/safety reasons for not filling/transferring the script, or if it was a forgery, etc.

Quoted: Edited:  This is Grateful_Cowgirl...evidently my man forgot to sign out last night.  Not for the first time, either.  At least he remembers to put the toilet seat down .

what's more important... signing out, or the toilet seat down?!?!
I'll take the toilet seat down everyday! I can always edit to add it's me like GC just did, and I do on occasion. I can't forget that cold water on my ass when I sit down in the middle of the night. There is no taking that back!!!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I pulled this thread http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=284722 from GD regarding a pharmacist who refused to fill a birth-control prescription.  Most of the replies (except for mine) seem to be from men, and I'm curious as to what you all think about the issue.  Being a woman and therefore able to bear a child, I believe that a woman's perspective is far more relevant than a man's regarding this particular scenario.  (Note that I didn't say that a man's opinion is not relevant; it is, just less so because they can't get pregnant.) BTW, I am a pharmacist, too. GC Can't bear a child without a penis being involved somewhere along the line.   Don't mind me you just happen to hit a nerve. This may be a bit off topic but I have to agree with Wedge on this one.  Birth control should involve a couple, not just a man - not just a woman.  I realize you said that a man's opinion is relevant.  However, I feel that women who think that birth control is completely in their control should not feel that they have the right to pursue a man for child support.  I know this is wrong but some women and men, should think before they act.  My point is it should be a couple's decision. And the pharmacist was wrong.  By working for someone else, he is obligated to follow their rules whether he agrees with them or not.  He had the option of not working for someone whose rules went against his beliefs. I agree totally.  And if all men were responsible, caring, and involved like you, Wedge, I would have never made the statement to begin with.  Unfortunately for all society today, you are the exception, not the rule.  (And I do think that you rule!  And this is NOT a trap!) GC

I understand why the argument always comes down to it being a woman's responsibility.  In the shitty parents department the men seem to be leading the women (although there are more than enough shitty parents on both sides).  When a baby is born there are three people who are responsible for that child.  God, the mom and the dad.  God always holds up His part, but in our society it seems to many times one or both parents can’t seem to look past themselves and do what is right for their child.  I don't understand the attitude and I never will.

Thank you for the kind words, like I said you just hit a nerve.  In a perfect world all parents would want the best for their children.

Quoted: Quoted: Edited:  This is Grateful_Cowgirl...evidently my man forgot to sign out last night.  Not for the first time, either.  At least he remembers to put the toilet seat down .   what's more important... signing out, or the toilet seat down?!?! I'll take the toilet seat down everyday! I can always edit to add it's me like GC just did, and I do on occasion. I can't forget that cold water on my ass when I sit down in the middle of the night. There is no taking that back!!!

Guns people!  GUNS!  Lets focus on guns here.  In the case of this forum Chics with guns.  Geez I have to sign out from now on.  That is what I get for sharing my hobbies.  What other posts have I made lately that I don't know about?

Quoted: Thank you for the kind words, like I said you just hit a nerve.  In a perfect world all parents would want the best for their children.

Perfection died long ago.

To me best is not the issue, in simpler terms it would be nice if parents could just put their children first.  I never met a kid who asked to be here.  Kids don't need the best of anything, they just have needs that should be met to the best of the parents ability.