• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Woman was denied morning-after pill because of pharmacists' beliefs: Lawsuit

wolfsgirl said:
How did he know that refusal wouldn't put her at risk? Her physician thought she should have the medication, maybe it was very important medically that she have the medication, the pharmacist doesn't know her medical history.
Click to expand...

Because she clearly had other options to get the drug.
 
Lursa said:
So your opinion is that people should take jobs that they cannot do properly or fully?
Click to expand...

My stance is that pharmacists should retain the right to not dispense a drug to a patient for whatever reason they decide. Their professional autonomy is critical to maintain if you want good pharmacy services.

Once you impose restrictions, you force them to go against their professional judgement, and this is a slippery slippery slope.

Believe me... if you force the drug to be dispensed, you’ll have lots of mysterious drug-drug interactions popping up and BS excuses and runarounds to avoid dispensing.
 
Mashmont said:
Preventing the killing of a little baby in the womb is not 'impeding health care'. What a twisted bit of 'logic'.

If i were a pharmacist, I wouldn't sell the abortion pill. I applaud the pharmacist for standing up and being counted.
Click to expand...

This is about the morning after pill, *not* the abortion pill.
 
Threegoofs said:
My stance is that pharmacists should retain the right to not dispense a drug to a patient for whatever reason they decide. Their professional autonomy is critical to maintain if you want good pharmacy services.

Once you impose restrictions, you force them to go against their professional judgement, and this is a slippery slippery slope.

Believe me... if you force the drug to be dispensed, you’ll have lots of mysterious drug-drug interactions popping up and BS excuses and runarounds to avoid dispensing.
Click to expand...

Those are easily dealt with via complaints to their licensing bodies. If they are refusing on non existent grounds, they can lose their licence.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Those are easily dealt with via complaints to their licensing bodies. If they are refusing on non existent grounds, they can lose their licence.
Click to expand...

But... professional judgement needs to have a wide interpretation. And the grounds of refusal wouldn’t be non-existent- just not accepted by most practitioners.
 
jimbo said:
So a baker can't refuse to bake a cake because of his religious beliefs, but a pharmacist can refuse to dispense prescribed drugs because of his.

And that makes sense to you?
Click to expand...

On one hand, the baker refused to make a cake he normally makes. Nothing out of the ordinary. Usual cake. Usual skill set. Object selling to a specific person (gay)

WIth the morning after pill he objected to the purpose of the pill and would not sell to anybody.

Believe me, I am not siding with him..just answering the question.
 
Mashmont said:
Preventing the killing of a little baby in the womb is not 'impeding health care'. What a twisted bit of 'logic'.

If i were a pharmacist, I wouldn't sell the abortion pill. I applaud the pharmacist for standing up and being counted.
Click to expand...

You probably need to educate yourself on the difference between the morning after pill and the abortion pills.
 
Threegoofs said:
Professionals need to be able to use their judgement to treat patients.
Click to expand...
Yeah, professional judgement in the name of safety, not personal judgement to impose his religious beliefs onto others. If he had found that the pill would be harmful to her health, good on him and this wouldn't even be a story on DP. But that's not what happened here. His decision was not based on professionalism, it was based on personally held religious beliefs which have no place in science or medicine. If the pharmacy he works at carries the item, then he should use his professional judgement when providing it to customers and leave his personal judgements out of it. Otherwise he should find another pharmacy to work at.
 
Mashmont said:
Preventing the killing of a little baby in the womb is not 'impeding health care'. What a twisted bit of 'logic'.

If i were a pharmacist, I wouldn't sell the abortion pill. I applaud the pharmacist for standing up and being counted.
Click to expand...


year2late said:
You probably need to educate yourself on the difference between the morning after pill and the abortion pills.
Click to expand...

Exactly a morning after pill just delays the woman from ovulating for a few days if she had not already ovulated ( released an egg.)

It does not prevent the fertilization of an egg nor does it abort an egg that has already implanted in the womb.

In fact the morning after pill is made of the artifical hormone Egtrogen.

In fact Estrogen aids pregnacy. It is used during IVF treatment or in women prone to miscarriages to help keep the pregnancy and prevent miscarriage.

So if the woman was pregnant when she took the morning after pill it will not cause a miscarriage.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
Exactly a morning after pill just delays the woman from ovulating for a few days if she had not already ovulated ( released an egg.)

It does not prevent the fertilization of an egg nor does it abort an egg that has already implanted in the womb.

In fact the morning after pill is made of the artifical hormone Egtrogen.

In fact Estrogen aids pregnacy. It is used during IVF treatment or in women prone to miscarriages to help keep the pregnancy and prevent miscarriage.

So if the woman was pregnant when she took the morning after pill it will not cause a miscarriage.
Click to expand...
I am curious if this pharmacist refusing selling all contraception to women.
 
Lursa said:
But what about a pharmacy owner who stocks those products and has an employee pharmacist that refuses?

Should he have to keep that employee, since he wont do his job fully or properly?
Click to expand...
I would hope that he fully disclosed to his new employer that he would not be able to sell specific items. That is not about his religion, that is about his ability to do his job.

My friend worked at a surgery center. They did all sorts of surgery - but 2 days a week, abortion would occur. They had staff that worked there for years who liked their schedules . She was told that the days she worked would be on abortion days and she would be required to assist. No problem. She was told that if she did have objections, they would gladly keep here resume until other days opened up . She started work and day one refused to assist on religious grounds. She filed suit.(My guess is that this was the point all along). Went nowhere. You sign up for a job that will specifically require you as a normal part of your daily activity that - that is on you to find a job where the normal activity meets your moral standards.

IMHO, if part of the job entails things that may be objectionable to the employee...it is vital that the prospective employee disclose....and it should be up to the employer to decide whether they can accommodate their needs. Not sure how that matches up with law.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Yeah, professional judgement in the name of safety, not personal judgement to impose his religious beliefs onto others. If he had found that the pill would be harmful to her health, good on him and this wouldn't even be a story on DP. But that's not what happened here. His decision was not based on professionalism, it was based on personally held religious beliefs which have no place in science or medicine. If the pharmacy he works at carries the item, then he should use his professional judgement when providing it to customers and leave his personal judgements out of it. Otherwise he should find another pharmacy to work at.
Click to expand...

As I said, it’s a slippery slope. Banning personal judgement will affect professional judgement. Keep it transparent, and a very small number of people will be mildly inconvenienced vs loss of professional autonomy for pharmacists.

Easy trade for me.
 
Binary_Digit said:
Yeah, professional judgement in the name of safety, not personal judgement to impose his religious beliefs onto others. If he had found that the pill would be harmful to her health, good on him and this wouldn't even be a story on DP. But that's not what happened here. His decision was not based on professionalism, it was based on personally held religious beliefs which have no place in science or medicine. If the pharmacy he works at carries the item, then he should use his professional judgement when providing it to customers and leave his personal judgements out of it. Otherwise he should find another pharmacy to work at.
Click to expand...


That's the sensible way to run a business. Unfortunately, the law says that a pharmacist does not have to sell products that are counter to his/her deeply held religious beliefs.
 
year2late said:
On one hand, the baker refused to make a cake he normally makes. Nothing out of the ordinary. Usual cake. Usual skill set. Object selling to a specific person (gay)

WIth the morning after pill he objected to the purpose of the pill and would not sell to anybody.

Believe me, I am not siding with him..just answering the question.
Click to expand...


The baker was breaking Colorado laws about selling to the public, whereas the law permits the pharmacist to refuse to sell products that are against his sincerely held religious beliefs.

Additionally, Trump tried to impose an executive order that allowed all medical personnel to refuse service to people based on the religious beliefs of the provider. The court blocked it.
 
Threegoofs said:
But... professional judgement needs to have a wide interpretation. And the grounds of refusal wouldn’t be non-existent- just not accepted by most practitioners.
Click to expand...

If the pharmacist is using a "reason" that is scientifically false, it should be easy to get something done.
 
Scrabaholic said:
If the pharmacist is using a "reason" that is scientifically false, it should be easy to get something done.
Click to expand...

I still would like to know if he refuses to dispense all contraception for woman.

It really seems like he thinks this is an abortion pill. And if a licensed pharmacist believes that the morning after pill is an abortion pill....his license should be in question.
 
JasperL said:
I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea of a given pharmacist not handing out the prescription, but only as long as the pharmacy has on staff those who will. And lying about another pharmacy is clearly WAY outside the bounds of appropriate.

I don't know what the law is in that state, but pharmacists making moral judgments before handing over prescriptions is IMO wrong on principle. How about they demand proof that a man getting ED drugs is married, and having sex with his wife? Denying birth control because they don't believe in it? Not filling STD drugs if contracted outside marriage? What if they don't believe in treating mental health with drugs, but want people turning to religion? Seems to me if you work in a pharmacy, you fill all legal prescriptions, THE END.

And the distance between her home pharmacy and the CVS and Walgreens is also a problem. When we discuss these things, we assume generally that some other pharmacy nearby will fill the order, so no harm no foul. But someone without a car might not be able to GET to one 25 minutes drive away, and why should they have to? The pharmacist isn't the doctor or the patient and unless their prescription is somehow unsafe because of interactions, fill the damn thing and do your job, not insert yourself into the doctor patient relationship.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Not everyone has a driver's license and ensures they are within walking distance of retail establishments that will provide necessities. There is only a CVS within walking distance of me. The next closest is a different CVS about 5-10 miles away that is off the side of a highway, a major thoroughfare for our area, with no sidewalks or crosswalks between to that business.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
wolfsgirl said:
Not saying that the pharmacist is right, because he isn't, but how is this sex discrimination? Would he sell the same medication to a man?
It seems that discrimination based on sex wouldn't apply to this case, I'm not sure what it would fall under though.
Click to expand...
A man wouldn't have his own personal prescription for the morning after pill though. He would still be picking it up for a woman.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
washunut said:
The article does not cite why CVS refused to fill here prescription, does another know why? While I agree that the first store she went to was wrong to to fill here prescription,what damages does see seek to be compensated for? The cost of her time going to Walgreens?
Click to expand...
If the pharmacist at CVS had refused simply because they did not have it, that would have been fine. But he then lied to her about the Walgreens being out too, which would be an issue and cause for the suit against CVS/their pharmacist.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Threegoofs said:
Because she clearly had other options to get the drug.
Click to expand...
That required far more time and expense to her, and may not have been true for need.

I have had to wait until the next day to get my sons seizure medicine due to my normal pharmacy being out (and not getting their shipment in until the next morning that had my sons medicine on it) and most other pharmacies in our area not accepting our insurance (he uses a very expensive medication) or closing before we could get over there. It was a drill weekend and I had just got off drill to pick it up when I found out and also had drill the next day.

The morning after pill is critical to be taken as soon as possible and cant wait that extra time to shop for a pharmacy that has it and is willing to dispense it, and takes her insurance. So it wasnt just an inconvenience. It could have meant much more due to nothing more but religious beliefs and failure to provide an alternative by the pharmacies.

I would have waited at the first pharmacy until someone got there who could/would dispense it.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
If the pharmacist at CVS had refused simply because they did not have it, that would have been fine. But he then lied to her about the Walgreens being out too, which would be an issue and cause for the suit against CVS/their pharmacist.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I understand what the pharmacist did was wrong. That being said is everything someone does wrong a reason for a lawsuit? What are her damages? What did CVS do?
 
washunut said:
I understand what the pharmacist did was wrong. That being said is everything someone does wrong a reason for a lawsuit? What are her damages? What did CVS do?
Click to expand...
Their employee should technically be HD responsible. However, if CVS allows the employee to stay with them after that (the lie after refusal (I cant believe no one else was there though, my CVS always has 3 people at least working back behind the pharmacy) which by not getting someone else and/or telling the woman another pharmacy was out when they werent likely violated the religious exemptions law), then they would be responsible, for that would show they condoned the actions of their employee while on the clock.

It is just like if I cuss out a customer on the phone, my employee can get sued and would likely have to pay, especially if they knew I was potentially likely to do it (having a bad day, showed a temper on the phone on other occasions).

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
A man wouldn't have his own personal prescription for the morning after pill though. He would still be picking it up for a woman.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well, he could be a pre-op transgender, still having his uterus and ovaries. The pharmacist wouldn't necessarily know that.
 
Scrabaholic said:
Well, he could be a pre-op transgender, still having his uterus and ovaries. The pharmacist wouldn't necessarily know that.
Click to expand...
But also likely wouldn't accept that person as a man either, so could still be seen as sex discrimination. Pretty obvious that such a prescription would be for someone born a woman, or at least who has a uterus.

Plus its transgender, this would be sex discrimination vice gender discrimination.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom