Should Pharmacists Be Allowed To Deny Service?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/07/25/3684270/court-pharmacy-religious-grounds/

[homersapien 11,354]

If I had religious objections to dispensing certain legal medications or products, I would have chosen another line of work.

[Mikey 16,550]

Unless it's a publicly supported pharmacy, then they should be able to deny service to anybody for any reason or no reason at all, as should any other private business. Don't want skinny white males wearing Auburn caps in your store? Tell me so and I'll go somewhere else where they want my business. No problem.

[quietfan 233]

I assume the pharmacy accepts Medicare/Medicaid payments. If you accept federal money, you should comply with federal regulations/laws/court orders.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I assume the pharmacy accepts Medicare/Medicaid payments. If you accept federal money, you should comply to federal regulations/laws/court orders.

This and should have to put up a sign.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I don't think you should be able to refuse drugs to people based on them living in ways you don't approve. But I do think a pharmacy should be able to refuse to carry drugs that do certain things that violate ones beliefs. A Catholic-owned pharmacy should be under no compulsion to carry birth control products or abortifacients like RU486 for instance.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

I don't think you should be able to refuse drugs to people based on them living in ways you don't approve. But I do think a pharmacy should be able to refuse to carry drugs that do certain things that violate ones beliefs. A Catholic-owned pharmacy should be under no compulsion to carry birth control products or abortifacients like RU486 for instance.

Do you think that right rests with the owner or the individual pharmacist?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I don't think you should be able to refuse drugs to people based on them living in ways you don't approve. But I do think a pharmacy should be able to refuse to carry drugs that do certain things that violate ones beliefs. A Catholic-owned pharmacy should be under no compulsion to carry birth control products or abortifacients like RU486 for instance.

Do you think that right rests with the owner or the individual pharmacist?

I would say certainly the owner. I think the owner should make reasonable accommodations for the individual though. I'll admit, if I were a pharmacist and really loved that field, I would have to seek out a place of employment that would understand that I cannot in good conscience fill a prescription for something that will kill a human being. It would be nice if that were something that were legally enshrined as my right.

[AURaptor 1,121]

I'm inclined to say " nope "

[TitanTiger 20,471]

For the record, this case was about store owners that chose not to stock or fill certain kinds of prescription drugs. The uber-liberal 9th Circuit was the one smacking this down.

My bet is that the owners prevail on appeal.

[alexava 6,973]

They can not offer certain drugs due to beliefs, then they must register their business as ----church affiliated and incorporate that into the name of said business. So patients don't waste time and humiliation on them. My two cents.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

They can not offer certain drugs due to beliefs, then they must register their business as ----church affiliated and incorporate that into the name of said business. So patients don't waste time and humiliation on them. My two cents.

Why should they have to do that? If you came in looking for a certain kind of cough syrup (let's say, Delsym) and they didn't carry it - they only have Robitussin and Dimetapp - should they be forced to carry Delsym just because you want it? Not every pharmacy carries every product. Or even every category of product. Big deal.

If a Catholic-owned drugstore chooses not to carry any kind of contraceptives (condoms, sponges, spermicide, pills), that should be their right. And frankly, they shouldn't have to give any explanation as to why if they don't want to.

[AUTUmike 79]

In my opinion, a pharmacy should be able to choose not to carry a particular drug; however, if they carry it they should not be able to withhold it from any patient with a valid prescription. And within any pharmacy, no individual should be able to refuse service based on their religious objections.

[quietfan 233]

Should a for-profit pharmacy or pharmacist doing business with the general public be allowed to deny lifesaving drugs to a customer if their own personal beliefs are that said customer shouldn't be living...say perhaps an alleged "radical Muslim", "Satan-worshiper", "homosexual", KKK member, member of an "inferior race", or criminal they think should have gotten the death penalty?

[AUTUmike 79]

Should a for-profit pharmacy or pharmacist doing business with the general public be allowed to deny lifesaving drugs to a customer if their own personal beliefs are that said customer shouldn't be living...say perhaps an alleged "radical Muslim", "Satan-worshiper", "homosexual", KKK member, member of an "inferior race", or criminal they think should have gotten the death penalty?

Of course not. When you open your doors to the public, you open your doors to the entire public--even the most unsavory among us.

[triangletiger 1,599]

This question gets more complicated when you consider that many pharmacies these days are franchises. Despite his or her religious beliefs, a franchise owner cannot make business decisions like this in isolation.

[cptau 169]

Is there a govt law or regulation that mandates a public pharmacy to stock and dispense a certain approved drug or obtain it if not in stock?

There are some drugs that have multiple uses and possible abuses. How do they know?

Tobacco products are harmful, period. They would need to stop selling those which some drugstores like CVS have.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Should a for-profit pharmacy or pharmacist doing business with the general public be allowed to deny lifesaving drugs to a customer if their own personal beliefs are that said customer shouldn't be living...say perhaps an alleged "radical Muslim", "Satan-worshiper", "homosexual", KKK member, member of an "inferior race", or criminal they think should have gotten the death penalty?

There is a difference in "I don't carry this product or type of product" and "I have this product but I'm not selling it to you because you're a bad person."

And last time I checked, condoms, birth control pills, and Ella are not "lifesaving drugs."

[alexava 6,973]

They can not offer certain drugs due to beliefs, then they must register their business as ----church affiliated and incorporate that into the name of said business. So patients don't waste time and humiliation on them. My two cents.

Why should they have to do that? If you came in looking for a certain kind of cough syrup (let's say, Delsym) and they didn't carry it - they only have Robitussin and Dimetapp - should they be forced to carry Delsym just because you want it? Not every pharmacy carries every product. Or even every category of product. Big deal.

If a Catholic-owned drugstore chooses not to carry any kind of contraceptives (condoms, sponges, spermicide, pills), that should be their right. And frankly, they shouldn't have to give any explanation as to why if they don't want to.

if i development a relationship with this rx, my dr has that info. He prescribes and sometimes calls it in so it will be ready when i get there. If they don't have it in stock but will get it( my pharmacy will bring it to my house in that scenario). If they have no intention of service to me i do not want to be inconvenienced. They should make that known upfront. If they are that devout they shouldn't mind. I value my service over their beliefs. I don't deny them that righ. But i shouldn't have to learn when it happens. Not just birth control, anything.

[quietfan 233]

Should a for-profit pharmacy or pharmacist doing business with the general public be allowed to deny lifesaving drugs to a customer if their own personal beliefs are that said customer shouldn't be living...say perhaps an alleged "radical Muslim", "Satan-worshiper", "homosexual", KKK member, member of an "inferior race", or criminal they think should have gotten the death penalty?

There is a difference in "I don't carry this product or type of product" and "I have this product but I'm not selling it to you because you're a bad person."

And last time I checked, condoms, birth control pills, and Ella are not "lifesaving drugs."

Condoms and birth control pills can save lives (perhaps even "morning-after" pills if pregnancy is a grave threat to a woman's life), but that's not really the point.

Rather, I ask where does one draw the line in allowing a retailer to say "I have this product but I'm not selling it to you because you're a bad person [or it will let you do bad things]" ? If the seller can arbitrarily make that decision regarding contraceptive items, then why not with say antibiotics, insulin, or heart medication?

I agree with all who say the question of stocking a particular drug is a different issue. I don't know what legal standards or regulations apply there.

But as a simple matter of physical reality/storage space, it's probably impossible for any individual store to stock EVERY pharmaceutical on the market. They probably makes decisions almost daily as to what to stock based on supply, customer demand, and importance of the drug. (I would imagine, for example, there's less demand for contraceptives in heavily Mormon, heavily fundamentalist, or conservative Catholic neighborhoods. And perhaps no demand at all for a pharmacy in an overwhelmingly Christian Science market.) So I would anticipate some flexibility written into the law as far as the choice of items stocked.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Condoms and birth control pills can save lives (perhaps even "morning-after" pills if pregnancy is a grave threat to a woman's life), but that's not really the point.

They are not life-saving in the sense that the word is normally used. And even if they were, a pharmacy is still not under any obligation to carry every available product or product category.

Rather, I ask where does one draw the line in allowing a retailer to say "I have this product but I'm not selling it to you because you're a bad person [or it will let you do bad things]" ? If the seller can arbitrarily make that decision regarding contraceptive items, then why not with say antibiotics, insulin, or heart medication?

That's exactly what I'm not saying. If you carry the product, you sell it to all who can legally purchase it. But you should be able to choose not to stock a product.

I agree with all who say the question of stocking a particular drug is a different issue. I don't know what legal standards or regulations apply there.

But as a simple matter of physical reality/storage space, it's probably impossible for any individual store to stock EVERY pharmaceutical on the market. They probably makes decisions almost daily as to what to stock based on supply, customer demand, and importance of the drug. (I would imagine, for example, there's less demand for contraceptives in heavily Mormon, heavily fundamentalist, or conservative Catholic neighborhoods. And perhaps no demand at all for a pharmacy in an overwhelmingly Christian Science market.) So I would anticipate some flexibility written into the law as far as the choice of items stocked.

Agreed. But that is precisely what the 9th Circuit is trying to force this pharmacy to do - to stock a product they have chosen not to.

[WarTim 3,456]

I don't think you should be able to refuse drugs to people based on them living in ways you don't approve. But I do think a pharmacy should be able to refuse to carry drugs that do certain things that violate ones beliefs. A Catholic-owned pharmacy should be under no compulsion to carry birth control products or abortifacients like RU486 for instance.

Agree

[MDM4AU 330]

http://www.becketfund.org/stormans-case/

This is another explanation of the case I found. This one actually points out clearly that the pharmacy has to stock and fill the objectionable drugs.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

I think it's pretty clear the state is going to lose this case. The 9th circuit is the most overturned circuit in the country and they it's fairly obvious to anyone that if you permit pharmacies to not stock a product because of those other considerations, you can't single out conscience and disallow that.

Sin makes you stupid.