It seems that more and more I keep hearing about pharmacists who are refusing to dispense birth control or the more controversial morning after type pills.

States are taking different approaches. Some are seeking to pass laws that would force a pharmacist to fill any valid prescription. Others seek to pass laws that would provide a "conscience clause" exception for the pharmacist.


http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar05/307257.asp

My view is that the government cannot force someone to act against his religious or moral beliefs. So I believe any LAW that would force a pharmacist to fill a script would be unconstitutional. On the other hand, I do think a privately owned pharmacy should have the power to decide policy and if the employee does not follow such policy, he can be fired.

Question for Debate:

(1) Should pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill a particular prescription if it goes against his religious beliefs?

(2) Do you believe that a law that forces a pharmacist to fill every prescription regardless of religious beliefs would be unconstitutional?

There had been similar topics in the past, and my stance on the subject is unwavering. If a pharmacist is unwilling to do his job, he should be able to be fired. If I come to work tomorrow saying that I will no longer sell term insurance due to my religious and moral beliefs (which could be ANYTHING), should the company keep me around? If a Hindu gets a job at a deli, should he be able to refuse to sell beef, and keep his job? This is completely ridiculous, these pharmacists knew what comes with the territory when they chose this career path. If a part of a job offends their morals, they can switch careers, or they can cry me a river, build a bridge, and GET OVER IT. It's funny (the same way that the Darwin Awards are funny) that now, all of a sudden, the right is just as guilty of PC lunacy as the left. They just found a different group who is in dire need of sensitivity and a big hug.

Here is a hypothetical (that has been brought up in the past as well): God forbid, your daughter is in some kind of an accident, she gets rushed to the emergency room. The only way to save her life is through and immediate blood transfusion...but the doctor who is working on her happens to be a Jehova's witness. He cannot perform a blood transfusion without acting against his religious and moral beliefs. The transfusion needs to happen NOW. Would you:

A) Be happy your for the doctor and support his right to be true to his morals.
Feel that it's all worth it for the sake of "morality".
or
C) Find a heavy, metallic blunt object and bury it in the doctor's cranium.

This was dealt with in a former thread, maybe someone can come up with it.
Victoria Silverwolf works in pharmacy and has very solid/lawful views on the subject.

The problem Heyleyanne , for me at least, is that a pharmacy worker has no idea if not filling a prescription is life threatening to a patient, only the doctor knows this.
The other problem is small towns across america, which are taking on very pro-religious views of life, a policy of personal refusal could affect , by a counter agent with a skewed view of life- birth control of all types, including the morning after pill (scary indeed), Aids medications, even yeast or STD medications. Most of this would be anti-female. In these places perhaps they are the only pharmacy within many miles, or other related towns may have the same pro-religious (anti-birth control) views.

I believe that a pharmascist should be required to fill a prescription if ordered by a doctor. It should be a given, despite the 'fillers' personal beliefs. I dont understand a counter clerk controlling whether I may get pregnant or not based on his or her personal beliefs. If we must make a law to assure this, than I am for it. The majority cannot be ruled by a minority just because they have gone mad with personal power by God.

If we need to open government pharmacies ( in leu of private firms) to protect the people from religious lunatics, then so be it. We have State controlled liquor stores, so why not?



Perhaps you can help me, but I dont see what the Constitution has to do with this.
Does the Constitution say what a doctor, a professional and studied in his field can prescribe or not? How can a pharmascist decide to take a patients health into their own hands, one who is NOT studied in health and diagnosis? The law suits would be unimaginable!
( Lets face it, this is again about religious freaks who think they can control other peoples lives and will stop at no lack of ethics to do such) THEY are the ones we should be protecting ourselves against, not giving them a pulpit to act out on.
If they have religious problems, find other work!

The most important part of this debate is that any rejection of filling of prescriptions would almost exclusively be against females control of their own reproduction. This is archaiic in a supposedly free nation, unworthy of a first world nation, and religious backlash against women in the worst way. (after all, its all about birth control isnt it? Not heart or diabetes meds)

Sorry guys. My bad. I know there is a topic about this somewhere and I did not easily find it so I started a new one.

What strikes me as interesting about this topic is that both sides posit the extreme scenarios:

The pharmacist who simply seeks to exercise his right to religion by not filling a script (no lecture, plenty of other pharmacists--- even within the same establishment)

and



I think all sides could agree with a different answer in both scenarios. So why do we always get caught at opposite ends of the spectrum based on which "worst case scenario" we feel is more likely to come about?

This is a core problem that I see as getting more and more pronounced in all areas of our lives and in the law.

What is making it so that we cannot compromise more easily and work to adopt positions that meet both needs?

Because HLA, in this case you might have only one pharmacy in Bloomburg, Utah and Joe Schmutz might be a pro-lifer who thinks no birth control should be sold to any woman, he may even own the pharmacy. The next one is 100 miles away and maybe its the same. Yet Jane Doe needs birth control just to control uneccessary bleeding, perhaps a weak uterous and heavy periods, but thats of no concern to the Putz behind the counter who doesnt believe her and thinks he should control her ability to have children or not, in HIS screwed up head. Is she expected to explain her personal situation to a counter clerk, after seeing her doctor for the issue? How ridiculous.

How is it possible for a pharmacist, who has no idea about the health of a patient make these decisions? Its not as if towns of a few hundred have more than one pharmacist.

And I reiterate, almost all rejections would be anti-female. This is a completely anti-female stance about birth control and related reproductive issues. How can you condone such a thing?

Please, anyone tell me we are talking about something other than how women access birth control?

Or perhaps the religious have taken up a cause against sleeping pills lately?

The pharmacist has no "right" to refuse to fill ANY prescription, period. Any pharmacist guilty of that should be fired immediately. This has nothing to do with abortion, birth control, etc. - I would say that a pharmacist who would refuse to fill Rush Limbaugh's drug prescription should be fired, too.
Just imagine if prison wardens would refuse to press the button to administer the lethal mix of poison to death row prisoner... would he be able to keep his job? Looms is dead on on this - if you don't like something that comes with your profession, switch the profession! I don't see anything unconstitutional in the law which requires a pharmacy employee to uphold the law.

We had a discussion on this topic a long time ago here. It's archived now, but was an interesting debate. I said pretty much everything I wanted to on that thread. If the pharmacist's beliefs preclude him/her from doing his/her job, they should find a different job. A pharmacy should not be compelled by law to stock supplies it does not want to sell, and it should reserve the right to fire someone who refuses to sell their products. Just like any other business...the Muslim who doesn't want to sell tickets to immoral shows should not work at the theatre, Hindu who doesn't want to sell meat should not work at McDonalds, ect. The pharmacist should either find a pharmacy that supports his beliefs, open up his own store, or change careers (or, of course, just do his job and fill the prescriptions).

(1) Should pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill a particular prescription if it goes against his religious beliefs?

Absolutely. Each individual is responsible for his or her own actions. If you think your job requires you to do something that you consider unethical or immoral, you have the right to refuse to do it.

Of course, your employer also has the right to fire you for refusing to carry out your job functions.

I do agree with haleyanne that issues like this tend to be dominated by extreme "what if" scenarios. I highly doubt there are areas of the US with one pharmacy in a 100 mile radius. Even if there were, drugs are available (with a prescription) via the internet. No local pharmacy needed and you probably save money.

"What if" we expand this slightly and ask whether or not a lawyer should have the right to refuse to use a legal, but possibly unethical, loophole in the law to foreclose on someone's house. Should the lawyer have the right to refuse to do something they consider unethical? Of course they should. The law should not step in on such matters. However, if the lawyer's boss wants to fire them for refusing to carry out their job functions, that is also within the employer's rights.


(2) Do you believe that a law that forces a pharmacist to fill every prescription regardless of religious beliefs would be unconstitutional?

I don't think the government should have the right to dictate job responsibilities. This is a matter between an employer and an employee.

I think the pharmacy should be required to have someone on staff who will fill the perscription. Teen pregnancy is not something we should be promoting. If someone doesn't want to actually go through the motion of filling it, that doesn't hurt anyone as long as there is someone else to back them up.

If the prescription in question was available elswhere nearby, or even available to be filled by another pharmacist in the same store, I wouldn't have a problem with the "conscientious objectors". Far too often, though, Haleyanne, pharmacists are beginning to refuse to even refer the patient elswhere, as quoted in the link you provided:


It's absolutely outrageous that a pharmacist holds someone's prescription hostage, because of their religious beliefs.

And I found this rather interesting. One of the people quoted in the article, was Karen Brauer:


I noticed though, that they never really talk about who Karen Brauer/Pharmacists for Life is, aside from the passing reference. Perhaps this information will help.

Karen Brauer was fired by a Kmart pharmacy in Ohio for refusing to fill birth control prescriptions. As Brauer acknowledged during an April 16, 2001, appearance on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Brauer didn't merely refuse to fill a patient's prescription, she lied to the patient, as well:



Since her termination by Kmart, and establishing Pharmacists for Life, Brauer, has also expanded her opposition to include even referring the person to another pharmacist.



While most of Pharmacists for Life and Brauer's public comments relate to pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control medication, their efforts are not limited to issues of birth control or contraception. Brauer said during her O'Reilly Factor appearance that she refused to fill prescriptions for diet pills "due to the abuse potential in the area in which I was working."

So, according to this group, the claimed official mouthpiece for "pharmacists of conscience", it's okay to lie to patients about the availability of a drug, it's perfectly fine to refuse to refer the patient to anyone else who will fill a legal prescription, and it's even alright to decide that any other medication prescribed by a doctor is refusable because of the "potential for abuse".

Haleyanne, you say that people take the exteme sides to prove their point, as in Looms Jehovah's Witness doctor, refusing to perform a transfusion. I wouldn't necessarily take it to that extreme, as pharmacist's aren't doctors. However, we already have the admission on national television of a pharmacist refusing to fill other prescriptions, at her sole discretion, as well. So, this isn't some kind of "slippery-slope" argument meant to force an extreme position, the extreme is already happening.

I suppose, according to Karen Brauer's rules, if I were a pharmacist, I could simply refuse to fill any prescription - for Viagra, for insulin, for heart medication, for anything at all - because of my moral code. I mean, I should have the right to conscientiously object, correct?

Except that this isn't about being a "conscientious objector," or being forced into a situation that you aren't comfortable with - these pharmacists chose their line of employment. They knew what they would be called upon to do well in advance of completing their training. If they felt that strongly about it, they could have chosen another line of work. This is really about forcing their religious or moral code upon a third party, against their wishes.


(1) Should pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill a particular prescription if it goes against his religious beliefs?
Absolutely not. As I noted above, these people chose their profession, knowing what they were getting into. The job they are required to do does not violate any laws. If they really object to having to do the job they are being paid for, they should find a new line of work.

(2) Do you believe that a law that forces a pharmacist to fill every prescription regardless of religious beliefs would be unconstitutional?
Absolutely not. Pharmacists are licensed by the State, and as such are subject to all manner of regulation concerning the performance of their job. There are some hospitals and other health care facilities (such as Catholic hospitals) that do not carry "morning after" pills, or other contraception products. They could certainly work at one of these pharmacies, if they wanted to keep their "conscience" intact.

However, if you work for a private company that has decided to carry legal contreceptive products, and other "controversial" prescriptions, and you fail to fill the prescription as required, you should not only be fired, but whatever sanctions the state sees fit to impose on your license should be leveled as well.

I would agree to a point, if my employer asked me to “cook the books” I would obviously quit. But my job doesn’t require me to serve the public. Huge difference.

One of the problems here Amlord is in smaller communities a lot of pharmacists own their own business, they are their employer. That’s why there should be a law on the books.

It’s just simply not a matter of employer and employee. The ramifications reach far beyond this basic premise.

This reminds me when Kerry was asked how he can be a Catholic but pro-abortion. I thought his response was on the money. He stated that he can’t let his religious beliefs stand in the way of what his constituency wants.

Same applies here: a pharmacist should apply their trade to customers regardless of their own beliefs. Who are they to pass moral judgments based on their religion? A true believer assists all, remember, Mary Magdalene was a prostitute but she was assisted, accepted and forgiven, not turned away.

I missed out on the original thread but would agree with the points made her by, Mrs. P, Artemise and the example provided by Looms.

(1) Should pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill a particular prescription if it goes against his religious beliefs?

To echo a lot of what has been said, absolutely not. If you really have strong enough religious convictions that would prevent you from dispensing birth control pills, then you need to find a new job or you should be fired. You should also potentially have your license revoked by the state in my opinion.

When you take a job that means you have to accept everything that goes along with it, unless it is some kind of completely unreasonable (and illegal) request.

Anyone that goes through pharmacy school and doesn't expect to fill quite a few birth control perscriptions just isn't very smart or informed in the first place.

If you follow this to its obvious conclusion then you have potentially opened the door in all kinds of industries for people to object to doing their jobs based on religious grounds. Also, what if someone is not Christian and makes decisions based on their religious beliefs? Let's say that a pharmacist belongs to some group that believes the heart is sacred and shouldn't be tampered with. You come in with your heart medication prescription and they refuse to fill it. Still fair?

(2) Do you believe that a law that forces a pharmacist to fill every prescription regardless of religious beliefs would be unconstitutional?

I can't see why we would need such a law in the first place. We already have a regulating body for pharmacists and if this lunacy gets to the point where it needs to be addressed I'm sure that body can make some kind of rule or start taking action against pharmacists that do not fill prescriptions they don't agree with.


Respectfully, this is complete bunk as applied to this situation. If you are an accountant and someone asks you to hide money for the business that is one thing. If you are a pharmacist and you refuse to dispense medication which you should know you'll be required to before you ever take your first class that is quite another. Birth control prescriptions are probably one of the most commonly recurring prescriptions a pharmacist fills. It is pure stupidity for someone to say that they didn't know that was a requirement of the job.

Question for Debate:

(1) Should pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill a particular prescription if it goes against his religious beliefs?

Yes, but he should not be protected from being fired.

(2) Do you believe that a law that forces a pharmacist to fill every prescription regardless of religious beliefs would be unconstitutional?

State law, no. Federal law, yes.

In both issues the issue is really property rights. A business owner should not be forced to sell a certain product. Nor should he be forced to retain an employee who refuses to sell a product the businessman stocks.

Dispensing birth control products is a requirement of the job only if the employer says it is.

How exactly is that different from a Country Club owner refusing to accept a black or jewish golfer? According to you, he "should not be forced to sell a certain product" (in this case, a Country Club membership). Actually, we can take it a step further and say that the taxi driver or a bus driver should be able to NOT sell his product (his services) to a black person if he or she doesn't wish to?

Ditto to the majority view here so far. If a pharmacist doesn’t want to dispense perfectly legitimate medications ordered by a doctor, quit. If I walked into a pharmacy and came across one of these people, I’d have to look around and ask, “excuse me, did I just wander into a church by accident?” A pharmacist dispenses drugs by definition. You can’t cherry pick which drugs you like and which ones you don’t. How stupid.

Well, heck, ol’ Bill couldn’t even have gotten his Oxycontin from this pharmacist, could he? Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.

My goodness, there are so many drugs with a potential for abuse, the mind boggles. What would these so-called Pharmacists for Life have left to prescribe? Even pregnancy tests are OTC. Viagra? I bet they have no problems dispensing that!

They need to leave their religion at the door when they go to work (like the rest of us), or find another line of work.

Edited to add:
Hooray for Illinois!!

Well, first a business owner should have the right to discriminate. That is a whole other debate though.

We are talking about a business owner choosing his product line. This should be his choice. He is not discriminating against anyone. Regardless of who you are he sells you any product which he chooses to sell to anyone else. His product may be determined by profitability, it may be defined by his individual morality. If his individual morality puts too big a dent in sales the free market will put him out of business.

Was at a gun show a few months ago. A vendor was selling shirts depicting the confederate flag. There were no Malcolm X shirts in his inventory. Any black guy I am sure could have bought a confederate flag shirt.

Is it Victoria Silverwolf that is the pharmisict here or is it someone else? I forget? Perhaps they can shed some light on the licensure aspect of this- I know, that in most medical proffesions, you are licences, and have to live by the constraints of that license, or forfiet that license and the privileges that go with it- so, working in those fields is a PRIVILEGE not a right- same as most licensed fields. In the medical world, you frequently have to withhold or suppress your own beliefs and do your job. I work with serial killers, rapists and pedophiles. If it were up to me, we would deny them air, much less meds LOL- however, I am a proffesional, and I never let my personal distaste show, and am friendly and respectful as my job requires throughout my duties. A pharmisict is no different, no protected class of medical proffesional. Just do your darn job and quit whining!

I personally think one of the hardest jobs for some surgeons is heroic medical measures they are required to perform on evil poeple. I know a doc that had to operate on a very ill pedophile. He did his job, cost the state alot of money, and did his job as best he could. Venting with me afterwards he said "God, I just wish I could have put aside my ethics and profesionalism for a moment and just knicked the aorta, no one would be the wiser, and the world a better place"- he never seriously considered doing so, but it crossed his mind, along with many others in that room.

The medical profession is unique from all other professions, in that it deals with humans lives. Our personal beliefs have to be suspended every day in order to do our jobs. Pharmicists should be treated no differently.

To a point you are correct Hugo, but simply classifying a Pharmacy as a "business" is oversimplification. It is widely acknowledged by pharmacists everywhere (I think they even have an oath to that effect) that they are providing a service for the good of the community.

When you have obligations other than profit, your simplification of things is no longer valid. In order to fulfill their duty and obligation to the community a pharmacy must carry certain items and they must make an attempt to serve their community.

To deny their community birth control hurts far more than those darn promiscuous women that don't want to get pregnant - a good majority of them are married, and plenty of them use birth control to control and regulate medical conditions. If you live in a big city and the next pharmacy is only a mile or two away, big deal, it is an inconvenience. But if you live in a small town and there is only one pharmacy that is a whole different story. It is the principle that counts.

Pharmacists like doctors implictly agree to certain things by getting into their profession. One of them, generally stated, is that they must keep the best medical interests of the patient in mind. If that patient wants their soul saved they don't go to a pharmacist, they go to a priest.

What if a Jewish clerk refused to sell you spam? The pharmacist's job is to follow the orders of the doctor, not his own orders. I, personally, do not believe in some of the medications being sold. However, if I were a pharmacist, if there were a written note from the doctor, I would sell these medications. If a drug is immoral, it is the job of the doctors not to prescribe it, the patients not to request it, and the manufacturers not to produce it, but it is not the job of the pharmacist not to sell it.

A government does not have the right to infringe on the First Amendment by forcing someone to engage in actions they consider a sin. An employer may do this. Let us use an example. A man owns the only pharmacy in a small town. He now converts to Roman Catholicism and takes the teachings of the Church quite seriously. He decides he cannot sell certain items and be consistent to his faith. This is his First Amendment right. To ask the man to participate in sin or sell his business is to put a high cost on his exercising of his basic rights. What happens if he closes the only pharmacy in town? Can the state force him to remain open? What happens then to the rights of the heart patient to get his medicine conveniently? Do people with serious health problems no longer have access to that pharmacy just because somebody procrastinates and can't keep their zipper up, or their skirt down, until an internet delivery?

No, the state cannot force him to stay open. But you are forgetting that Pharmacists have to be licensed by the state. That means that they have certain obligations imposed upon them in order to continue to operate. Those obligations include filling doctor's prescriptions unless they feel that it would be medically dangerous to do so. That is their job and that is the condition of them maintaining their license.

Now a regular business owner has no special license, they can do business as they see fit. But when we are talking about licensed professionals it is a different story.

If what you are saying is true...then why are we having this debate? Clearly neither laws, or the pharmacy profession, are currently forbidding the refusal by pharmacists of filling certain prescriptions in the states where this is up for debate.

Well first of all what I am saying is true, go look it up. Pharmacists are certified and must have a license to practice pharmacology just like a doctor or lawyer has to remain certified to practice their trade.

The reason we are discussing this, like many things at AD, is because something new has happened and neither the state or federal government has really reacted to it yet. Furthermore, the organizations regulating pharmacists have not to my knowledge reacted to it yet. I don't there has ever been a time that I can remember anyway, where a pharmacist has refused to dispense medication based on "religious beliefs".

The questions for debate are clearly speculative Hugo, not everything is black and white.

I want to ask you (and others who feel the same) something in all seriousness. Do you only have sex to procreate? Are there still people that do this? It reminds me of the joke:

Question: Do you know what you call a couple who practices the rhythm method?
Answer: pregnant

I cannot believe that there are that many people in this world that never have sex unless they want to get pregnant, or already are. Am I wrong?

I'm not arguing that pharmacists are not licensed. I am arguing this subject would not be up for debate if pharmacists were required to fill any prescription. The pharmacy profession can act or the employer can legitimately act to require the pharmacist to fill all prescriptions. Government should not be involved. I can tell Achmed, my employee, to stop kneeling down and praying five times a day and get to work. The government has no right to do this.



I enjoy sex and have never wanted to become the first pregnant male, despite the millions I could make on a book deal. The point is, Daffy, no one should be required, by law, to help ensure you don't get pregnant.

Ok Hugo, here is the Board of Pharmacy Regulations for NJ. Every state has one of these with similar rules, if you'd like to track them down feel free to do so. There is one section that describes what kind of "judgement" a pharmacist may exercise when filling prescriptions:


You'll notice that nowhere in there does it state that a pharmacist's religious beliefs are a valid reason for refusing to fill a prescription. Hayleyanne's original post suggests that some states are considering adding clauses to their pharmacy regulations allowing this. I'm sure that in states where it has happened the cases are currently under judicial review and therefore no decision has been reached on the legality.

So, the debate is whether or not they should be able to since doing so would conflict with the general mission and duty of a pharmacist.

This debate looks fun. Hope you don't mind if I jump in
(1) Should pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill a particular prescription if it goes against his religious beliefs?
NO! No one should be able to stop anyone from doing anything based solely on religious beliefs.
(2) Do you believe that a law that forces a pharmacist to fill every prescription regardless of religious beliefs would be unconstitutional?
It would be at a federal level but not state.



Hugo you do have a right to tell Achmed to get off the floor and Achmed has a right to pray. If you fired Achmed for praying, he also has the right to sue you for everything your worth.

State licensing requirements are government regulation. The government cannot require people to act contrary their first amendment freedom to exercise their religion.

Clearly, if the state were to require a pharmacist to fill a prescription to which he has a religious objection this would violate the first amendment.

Ah- then hayleyanne- so then the state has no right to regulate drugs and who takes them? Because that is the reason for Pharmicists- those who dispense drugs only available by prescription.

So, unless you are the libertarian sort that think all drugs should be over the counter, coke or pot or whatever, you have a very conflicted view of what regulations are for!

Also- the courts have sided with the feds on drugs that can be used for religious purposes- for instance, if I started a sect that worshipped using coke and pot, can the goverment make a regulation against it> What about consensual human sacrifice in religion? You see, goverment makes regulations about religions all the time- polygamy- Muslims definately have a very long standing allowance for polygamy that is still relevent today- the goverment regulates religion there as well- so where does one regulation of religion become okay and the other, not okay?

I would certainly say that my job as a Licensed professional and denying someone care based on my religious beliefs is much more harmful than the goverment regulating polygamy- and directly harmful, or even lifethreatening, which you can't say for polygamy.

So, do we regulate religion or not?

Sure they can. Police officers are required to protect their communities. If a police office has religious beliefs that "homosexuals are evil and should be cast from the earth" variety is he justified in watching a homosexual get beaten by a few men because he objects to helping him on religious grounds? That is ridiculous.

That would not be a violation of the 1st amendment Hayleyanne. The first amendment states:

By requiring pharmacists to fill prescriptions as ordered by doctors and not allowing "religious beliefs" as a reason not to perform their duties Congress would neither be establishing a religion nor would they be permitting you the free exercise of your religion.

You are probably keying off the last item there I'm sure, but saying that distributing birth control as required by your job violates the free exercise of your religion certainly wouldn't be a very textualist position Hayleyanne. Especially since the sole purpose of birth control pills is not simply to prevent pregnancy, some women use them to regulate and control other medical problems. Here is a link that describes some of the reasons why premenopausal women use them - link.

I'm no doctor but I'm pretty sure the benefits I italicized apply to all women.

Also, last time I checked a ceremony buring birth control pills in a great bonfire was not part of any religion. The free exercise clause has to do with attending services, wearing symbols and observing religious holidays. It would be a very activist position indeed to translate that into saying that applied to morality.

The simple fact of the matter is, if your religious convictions are strong enough that you simply can't distribute birth control then you need to find yourself a new profession because that is clearly one of the requirements of your profession and anyone who is not brain dead knows that going in to it.

The only reason this has become an issue is because of the increasing boldness of the religious right elements of society. They continue to push the limits in this culture war we are all waging just as their counterparts on the other side push the limits in different ways. In the end, society loses.

The Court would apply the established test in the Free Exercise arena and ask (and I forget the exact language) whether the religious interest/restriction is a legitimate one etc. This kind of test obviously would take care of the human sacrifice hypo and the let's kill all homosexuals hypo.

I do think there is a strong argument that a law requiring a pharmacist to dispense birth control pills or whatever it is -- if it is against his religious beliefs-- would be found to be unconstitutional.

And I think you are going to have to do a little better than that As I stated, the sole purpose of birth control pills is not simply to prevent pregnancy. There are legitimate medical reasons for doctors providing them to women as I just listed. Furthermore, there is even less of a chance of this being taken seriously in court because birth control pills are not abortive, they simply prevent a pregnancy from ever happening.

Denying someone a medically necessary treatment is equivalent to saying human sacrifice should be protected by the free exercise clause.

This is one of those things that is a legal hair that can't be split Hayleyanne- do you, yes or no, agree that there is restrictions on religion already in this country that has been found to be constitutional?

If yes, then this life or death issue for the pharmicist- the willingness or non-willingness to despense health related drugs with a doctors prescription, which your license, issued by the state, at thier pleasure for meeting thier criteria for dispensing medication, should be allowed to continue to exercise THIS PRIVILEGE OF BEING A PHARMICIST- YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE A PHARMICIST- so, the state should just remove thier license for not fulfilling the requirements of that license- period.

I think I heard somebody call my name . . .

Despite the fact that this is my line of work, I'm not any more qualified to express an opinion on this than any of you. All I can do is offer a few insights into how my job actually works.

First of all, there has never been any legal duty for a pharmacist to fill every prescription in exactly the way it is written. In fact, when my professional judgement tells me that a prescription is inappropriate for the patient, I am required to refuse to fill it as written. The professional journal Drug Topics states this in very strong terms:

"Drug Topics"



and again:



This seems pretty clear.

It's interesting to note, however, the reaction of many in my profession to the case of a Wisconsin pharmacist who declined to transfer a prescription for birth control pills for religious reasons:




And so on. It's interesting to note that this journal (hardly a hotbed of liberal activism) offered no comments of support for the Wisconsin pharmacist's refusal to transfer the prescriptions.

State law also agrees with this, in most cases:



There are some states which do not require transfer, but this seems to be the exception.

I offer you all this (rather boring) information in order to support my position on this issue. I can see both sides of this question, and I tend to have a moderate (or wishy-washy) opinion. To answer the questions for debate directly:

1. Pharmacists already have the legal right (if I read the law correctly) to refuse any prescription for any reason. They do not have the legal right (in most states) to refuse to transfer the prescription. This seems a reasonable compromise.

This raises the question of what can be done in the case of a genuine emergency, as in the case of a prescription for a "morning after" pill when there is no other way for the patient to obtain the medication within a reasonable amount of time. I have no easy answer for such a situation. Perhaps a law requiring a pharmacist who has this medication to dispense it in an emergency situation would be appropriate.

2. I'm not sure if such a law would be "unconstitutional," as much as impossible and foolish. I see no realistic possibility of such a law ever existing, to be honest, given the current state of pharmacy law.

Allow me to offer my own personal opinion that a pharmacist who refuses to dispense birth control pills may be acting legally, but she is also acting immorally.

(1) Should pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill a particular prescription if it goes against his religious beliefs?

Think I finally got my arms around this. We in the United States of America are too liberal with religious beliefs. As it stands now, anyone can come up with whatever they personally deem as being a religious belief. We need a stricter legal interpretation of what is and what is not a religious belief.

Refusing to fill a prescription for a specific drug has to be upheld by:

1) an established religion accepted as being legal -- those that existed during the signing of the Constitution or have since established a membership of at least one million individuals (arbitrary, sure, but it's a line in the sand)

2) specific scripture that disallows the dispensing of the specific drug and supported by legally accepted theologians numbering at least three.

That should stop all the super-spiritual, self-proclaimed protectors of the one and only true faith who just happened to one day crave a spot on television/radio talk shows.

(2) Do you believe that a law that forces a pharmacist to fill every prescription regardless of religious beliefs would be unconstitutional?

Problem solved by the above religious belief requirements. Let's define what we are talking about, eh?

A proper punishment for not meeting the religious belief tests would be requiring a number of hours of community service in a public daycare center.

(1) Should pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill a particular prescription if it goes against his religious beliefs?
Like various others, my answer is "no, not if he wants to remain a pharmacist." And I'm not willing to make the distinction in this matter between employees and self-employed pharmacists.

In principle, I can agree with the notion that a businessman should not forced to provide a good or service to which he objects on grounds of personal moral code (be it motivated by religion or otherwise), but pharmacists are an exception. Pharmacists are the only people legally authorized to sell prescription drugs; this means that, to (legally) acquire a prescription drug, you (the consumer) are forced to engage the services of a pharmacist. As has been noted, a pharmacist is licensed by the state to purvey certain substances which the state has deemed should not be commonly available, subject to certain conditions.

As any first-year political science student will tell you, authority and repsonsiblity are two sides of the same coin (authority is legitimate power, and it is the concomitant responsibility which makes it legitimate). The pharmacist has the authority over you, the consumer (and the responsibility to the state) to refuse to sell you the controlled substance you require unless you have a prescription, duly issued by a licensed physician. Concomitantly, therefore, he also has the responsibility to sell you the controlled substance in question if you are in possession of a valid prescription.

If controlled substances weren't controlled, it would be a different story, but because you are legally obliged to go to a pharmacist to acquire certain products, the pharamacist is obliged to provide them to you if you meet the legal requirements.

(Edited to acknowledge Victoria Silverwolf's point concerning pharamacists' authority to refuse to fill prescriptions if doing so would go against their professional opinion; however, professional opinion is not informed by a religiously-based moral code.)

(2) Do you believe that a law that forces a pharmacist to fill every prescription regardless of religious beliefs would be unconstitutional?
Not in the slightest.
A law which requires Joe Blow the Pharmacist to do something is not the same as a law which requires Joe Blow the Religious Person to do that something. If joe Blow the Pharmacist is required to do something which Joe Blow the Religious Person finds objectionable, the conflict can be reconciled by Joe giving up one of the aspects of his identity. In English, if he quits his job and goes into another line of work (which, frankly, he should have done in the first place), the law can no longer force him to act contrary to his religious beliefs.

Individual freedom, and that includes freedom of religion, is not an absolute. It is restricted by the need to respect other individuals' freedoms. As the saying goes, "your freedom to throw a punch stops where my face begins." Your religion may require you to Smite the Unbeliever and Lay Waste to his Unholy Places of Worship, but the state is justified in forbidding you from setting fire to the "Unbeliever's" church, because by doing so you would be impinging upon his freedom of religion. Ultimately, the only place your freedoms are truly inviolable is in the space your body occupies at any given moment. If you have a religiously motivated problem with birth control pills, well, as long as nobody forces you to ingest them, your freedom of religion is secure. But imposing our worldview on someone else is a no-no, so why don't you just take the lady's prescription and money, give her the little cardboard box and mind your own business?

And, by the way, it is me or are you working on the Sabbath?

But is it not an infringement of the pharmacist's right to practice his religion as well? The usual place this comes up is not so much in the birth control pills area but in the dispensing of the morning after type pill. Many believe that this is akin to "abortion". So let's say that the pharmacist had no problem with bc but does have a problem with what his religion teaches is abortion. He spent lots of money getting his degree to be a pharmacist and has worked in the area for decades. Only recently with the advent of this new type of pill-- does he feel religiously bound not to fill the script. You would force him to quit his established occupation? Doesn't seem fair does it? Why not support a compromise position as VS suggests where the pharmacist can personally refuse to fill the script but must give back the prescription?





Is it the government's place to dictate what a religion should require? Some religions take this provision in the bible very seriously, others do not.

And the Court did find South Carolina's law unconstitutional where it denied unemployment benefits to a Seventh Day Adventist who turned down a job opportunity that included Saturday work (Sherbert).

Ok HLA, perhaps the girl was raped. Does she now have to explain this over the counter to a clerk, after having done so with a doctor, while that person assesses thier personal morals on this matter and decide if she should carry a rapists child or not?

Is the pharmacist going to adopt that child, raise it as their own? Perhaps after giving birth she should drop the child off at the pharmacy counter and say, you chose this now deal with it!

Edited to add: Do I have the right to judge if the pharmacist is living up to his own religious beliefs and get a print-out about his life actions which are infallible to his convictions? Might I ask, since he is refusing me, if he has divorced, if his wife uses birth control or has ever had an abortion, does he have anyone HIV positive in his family he fills scripts to- if he believes in capitol punishment or stoning, does he masturbate or visit prostitutes or view pornography?
If he is in fact a hypocrite? IS his life under the same scrutiny as mine when he assumes he can make assessments on my life, beyond MY DOCTORS healthful diagnosis of my situation?

When one presumes to advocate a moral standpoint, they had better be sqeaky clean- and in my experience, noone is.

Back in 1991, our pharmacist at the University of Florida campus dispensary refused to fill prescriptions for the ECP. The campus doctors got around this by prescribing the pill and providing specific instructions as to how to use it for ECP purposes. The ECP is basically high strength birth control pill hormones that act as post-coital contraception if taken in a certain dosage. He eventually resigned anyway.

Is it the government's place to dictate what a religion should require?

No, but it is the government's place to dictate what constitutes a legal religion and a legal religious belief.

For example, at one time you could set up yourself as a religion to get out of paying taxes. That hole was shut down. For another example, government makes sacrifices illegal when it involves ritual killing. I think that law covers animals as well as humans.

Yet another example is if a religion preaches the violent overthrowing of the government.

To the pharmicist example, and using birth control pills specifically in the argument, I'd say it'd be up to the pharmicist to prove that dispensing birth control pills goes against the claimed religious belief. Considering the many dangerous side effects of other drugs, the pharmicist might argue his/her way out of a job, and so be it. It'd be interesting if three theologians familiar with the religion in question were to testify. Maybe the pharmicist, not being a theologian, is all wet in the claimed belief.

Now if the pharmicist simply doesn't like dispensing birth control, then a change in profession would be the reasonable solution. I agree with the arguments put forth along this line.

This is just another ploy to limit a woman's right to safe and legal contraception. The notion that a woman can just go look for another pharamacy only works if you live where there is a Walgreen's and CVS on every corner. Not every woman that needs access to contraception aid enjoys that option.

How is this an infringement of the pharmacist's right to practice his religion, Hayleanne. Nobody is stopping Pharmacist X from going to church or worshipping whatever deity he or she chooses to worship. What about his employer's right to make a profit and run a business by servicing the needs of the customer?

Aren't what you're advocating is the creation of a "special right" for morally conflicted pharmacists? Why should a pharmacist be allowed to impose their private morality over the medical needs of women?

Hell yes, I'd force him to quit his (or her) established cccupation if they refused to dispense birth control, morning-after or any other contraceptive aid to a woman who presented a valid prescription. So what if Pharmacist X spent beaucoup dollars on their education? Two words for that: boo and hoo. Find another job with another employer who allows religious dogma to trump good business sense. How long am I going to stay in business if my pharmacist is cherry-picking whose scripts he will fill as long as they don't conflict with his morality?

The pharmacist has a right to his religion. The customer has a right to expect a drugstore will fill her prescription when presented. The owner of the drugstore has a right to make a profit and fire any employer whose private beliefs are incompatible with the right to make a honest buck.

(1) Should pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill a particular prescription if it goes against his religious beliefs?

I don't think society or the government should grant a special right to pharmacists protecting them from discharge from their employer based on religious objections to filling customer's prescriptions. You have a unqualified right to your religious beliefs but you do not have an unqualified right to your job. If an employer chooses to stock the given drug in question and makes it a condition of your employment to fill legitimate prescriptions without regard to your own personal religious objections, then you know you can only refuse such a prescription once, accepting that the day you do is the day you prompted your own firing for cause.

Conversely, I think it would be okay for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if either 1) the employer deliberately chooses not to stock the drug for that prescription in the store, or 2) makes it company policy that their employeees can refuse prescriptions based on sincere religious beliefs, but must return the original prescription form to the customer so that he or she could go elsewhere. I am very sympathetic to the plight a young woman desperately trying to get a birth control or plan-B prescription filled, who might live in a geographic area with limited options; but we can not legally force a given store to sell a specific commercial drug, or to fire an employee who is in compliance with store policy.

(2) Do you believe that a law that forces a pharmacist to fill every prescription regardless of religious beliefs would be unconstitutional?

I don't think such a law would necessarily violate the free exercise clause. However, I don't think such a law is a necessary or prudent measure because it is overbroad and does not allow for the in-between compromise. Rather than passing federal legislation ordering all pharmacists to leave their religious convictions at the door to the store, it would be simpler to let stores continue to set their own policies, in accord with their owners. If an employer wants to sell a particular drug, the pharmacist must fill the prescription if he or she wants to keep working for that particular employer. If an employer does not carry the drug or has a policy that its employees may decline to fill a prescription based on sincere religious objections, then the pharmacist may keep his or her job.

I would support a version of such a law that had a narrowed focus instead, simply legally prohibiting a pharmacist from refusing to return the original prescription document to the customer, provided that the pharmacist's employer has made it company policy that the pharmacist can decline prescriptions based on sincerely held religious beliefs. A scenario in which a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription AND confiscates or destroys the customer's prescription document is outrageous.

I don't see why. Freedom of religion means the right to determine your own moral code on the basis of your religious beliefs, but it does not give you the right to impose that moral code on others, because to do so would impinge upon their freedoms. Again, your freedom to throw a punch stops where my face begins, and your freedom to practice your religion doesn't go so far as to allow you hamper my freedom.

As I noted earlier, to legally acquire prescription-only medication, the consumer/patient has no choice but to go to a pharmacist. Now, I acknowledge this is an unlikely scenario, but what if the situation arose that every pharmacist in the country decided their religious principles prevented them from filling prescriptions for BCPs? If the notion that pharmacists' religious beliefs should be allowed to trump those of their customers (which is essentially what we're talking about here) were to be sustained, what we would in effect have is that comparatively small group of people, probably far smaller than 1% of the population (in Washington state, there is approximately 1 licensed pharmacist for every 1,000 inhabitants), would be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on an entire country.Well, for starters, that's a less than accurate representation of reality. Though the FDA didn't approve any type of ECP until 1997 (getting on for a decade ago as it is), ECPs were originally developed in the 1960s, and have been in use in other countries for decades. The US was comparatively (extremely) late in approving ECPs, and I suspect the reasons for the delay were political rather than medical.

Here's a counter-scenario for you. Imagine a pharmacist decided, on the basis of his religious beliefs, that STDs are his deity's retribution exacted upon the immoral and should not be interfered with; since antibiotics, such as penicillin, can be used to treat gonorrhea, this pharmacist refuses to fill prescriptions for antibiotics, on the off-chance that they might have been prescribed for the purpose of treating an STD. After all, what's few untreated infections, possibly leading to amputations or death, when compared to a man's right to impose his religious values on somebody else?I think it seems quite reasonable. Perhaps not quite the way you paint the scenario, but then, you did so rather unrealistically.

The fact of the matter is that medical science makes new advances every year, and new pharmaceuticals are developed as a result. Anyone who becomes a pharmacist may be reasonably expected to be aware of the possibility that a new drug may be developed at any time which might pose a personal moral dilemma. If you can't deal with that prospect, then pharmacy probably isn't the career for you.

Hey, here's another interesting hypothetical scenario: suppose a pharmacist had refused to fill a prescription for Viagra or Cialis until the customer provided proof that he was married and that he intended to have sex solely for the purpose of procreation. Do you think anyone would be leaping to the defense of the pharmacist? Do you think we'd even be having a discussion like this one?
"Must give back the prescription" is part of a compromise position? That's absurd.
The government has nothing to with it. Whenever anyone presumes to impose their own beliefs on somebody else, I tend to look rather critically at how consistently that person actually adheres to that belief. Call me strange, but I refuse to respect the beliefs of someone who evidently cherry-picks scripture in such a way that it limits the behaviour of others but not his own. An excellent example is someone who cites Leviticus 20:13 to argue that homosexuality should be prohibited, but has no compunctions about eating pork (prohibited in Leviticus 11:7) or shrimp, lobster, oysters, etc. (Leviticus 11:10). It's either all or none. Similarly, I would have a hard time indeed taking seriously the sincerity of someone who refused to fill a BCP prescription for an unmarried person on the basis of his interpretation of Deuteronomy 22, but regarded the third of the Ten Commandments as optional.

Areas like this are where where some of my libertarian fringe seems to glow. I think the government has a compelling interest in regulating prescription drugs to the degree that pharmacists have the ability to distribute controlled substances and thus should be able to exercise judgement in the filling of prescriptions. Imo, that's where the government's interests end.


(1) Should pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill a particular prescription if it goes against his religious beliefs?
Yes. And as has been stated here by many, the employer reserves the right to terminate said employee for refusal to perform job functions implicit in their licensure.

(2) Do you believe that a law that forces a pharmacist to fill every prescription regardless of religious beliefs would be unconstitutional?
The unfortunate answer in this case is "it depends" Language in this area needs to be specific in order to accomodate First amendment concerns. It also may have some commerce clause issues if it were at the Federal level. A state law is less restricted by these guidelines so again it would depend on how close the law came to tempting 14th amendment inclusion.

Frankly, I think the government should keep their noses out of it. Laws favoring either side are unnecessary extensions of power and would be protecting implied rights at best, non-existant at worst.

Doc

If that's your point of view, Doclotus, would it not be better in your opinion for the government to simply abolish the prescription requirement for BCPs, thereby making the question of the pharmacist's freedom of religion moot entirely, and removing an element of government intrusion into people's lives into the bargain?

There are problems with this approach. The food and drug administration must act to remove a medication from prescription to over-the-counter status. This has recently been done with the the antihistamine Claritin and the acid blocker Prilosec. When a medication becomes over-the-counter, the patient pays for it rather than the insurance company. This is bad for those of us who would rather milk the insurance company rather than have it milk them.

My opinion is that pharmacists should fill all prescriptions as written by a doctor.

A similar incident happened a little more than a year ago in the college town of Denton--located about 40 miles from worth. In this instance a pharmacist denied a morning after prescription for a rape victim.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/stat...ast/7862364.htm

Link may require registration.

This question can be more complex than it might seem on the surface. If there is only one pharmacy in a town, a monopoly, the government can (and probably should) require that pharmacy to fill prescriptions no matter what-- if the owner of the pharmacy has a problem dealing with the added government regulation that comes from being a monopoly, the owner should sell the monopoly to someone who can meet the government's requirements in good conscience.

When there are mulitple pharmacies, then the owners of the pharmacies should set policies to serve the interest of public health, and if they object to certain medicines, so long as those prescriptions can be filled elsewhere in town, the pharmacy owner has the right not to sell anything she doesn't want to sell, especially when if they believe they would be violating "first do no harm."

Employees of pharmacies should be expected to either carry out the legal wishes of the pharmacy owner-- if the pharmacy cannot reasonably accomodate a pharmacist's conscience, then the pharmacy should be free to hire someone who can meet the job description.



Laws that "force" anybody to do anything regardless of their beliefs are usually unconstitutional violations of liberty. But there is a public health interest in making sure prescription drugs get distributed-- if a pharmacy is willing to hire pharmacists who refuse to distribute certain drugs, that's their own business, but it better not negatively impact someone's health.

As far as I know, there aren't any laws that force all doctors to perform elective abortions-- until that happens, we shouldn't have any laws that force all pharmacists to distribute abortion pills.

Forcing pharmacists to distribute abortion pills would be a little like forcing Chick-fil-a (or any other business) to stay open on Sundays. It would be like forcing all bookstores to sell bibles, or forcing all women's clubs to recruit male members, or forcing all newsstands to sell pornography. Some groups are going to do those things on their own, and others are not-- in the interest of liberty, the government should usually stay out of it, but there are exceptions. Public health issues are an exception, but no one should be forced to deal out death against their will, if that is what they believe RU486 to be.

I tend to throw this in my "what does it hurt?" bag.

Like how I feel about pledge of allegience or a president saying Merry Christmas. People tend to sit back and overanalyze and make excuses to make the wrong choice.

My response is. IT'S YOUR JOB. Just shut up and fill the prescription which is legal. If you morally feel you cant then get a new job.

I really do not feel the need to go back to the founding father's or research state and federal laws. Not on this.

So that being said:

Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse? They should never be put in that position if they are going to refuse to serve a legal prescription. So no.

Do I think a law that forces Pharms. to distribute legal medication would be unconstitutional? No. I think it is the pharmacists who are making a mockery of the constitution.

This is totally irrelevant. There are ample specialists who perform abortions. Why would anyone want an ear nose and throat specialist or a family practitioner to perform an abortion in the first place.

Your analogy falls apart. As far as I know there is no specialization among pharmacists.

There are ample pharmacists who distribute RU486 (except where monopoly conditions exist as I noted in my post).