« Will Crude Prices Plummet? (No) | Main | Font Question »
April 12, 2006
Thought Experiment
Since we've now got pharmacists expanding their conscientious objector status to non-contraceptive prescriptions written at clinics that perform abortions, here's a question: scientologists, who are recognized, for tax purposes, as a religious sect, do not believe in antidepressants. They believe in vitamins. How do you think society would react if a significant number of scientologist-pharmacists at major drug stores ceased filling prescriptions for Paxil and Prozac and began offering vitamins instead? And if you don't think folks would be pleased, explain to me why it's a different, more-pernicious state of affairs.
April 12, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d834269b1753ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Thought Experiment:
» Give them an inch, and they'll burn you at the stake. from apostropher
There is a very good reason why you never, ever, ever appease the Christian Right on anything, no matter how innocuous it seems. Because they won't ever be satisfied. Apparently some pharmacists are now refusing not only to fill women's... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 12, 2006 4:47:14 PM
» Expanding the War on Women from Hughes for America
From The Washington Monthly:The Stranger reports on the latest escalation in the pharmacy wars: pharmacists who not only refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, but have refused to fill prescriptions for antibiotics and vitamins simp... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 12, 2006 7:56:26 PM
Comments
I really don't see the issue. It doesn't matter if this is Paxil or birth control.
Now, if this were not a privately owned enterprise, then they might be forced to sell objectionable drugs. However, as a private enterprise, it is difficult in a free society to force them to do so.
I will pre-empt the argument that it will hurt consumers. Paleeeze....there are a dirth of pharmacies in every town and if that wasn't enough, there are thousands on the internet all just waiting for your business.
Bottom line: Let them run their business as they see fit. If it pisses off the public greatly, then they will soon be out of business. Commercial Darwinism.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 12, 2006 4:17:03 PM
Sounds like a windfall for non-scientologist pharmacists!
Posted by: slickdpdx | Apr 12, 2006 4:17:41 PM
Fred,
Dirth [sic] means the opposite of how you used it.
Posted by: TJ | Apr 12, 2006 4:25:18 PM
Freudian (Fredian?) slip. In many towns, particularly rural and poor ones, there are a dearth of pharmacies, which is what makes this stuff so very galling.
Posted by: Ezra | Apr 12, 2006 4:32:31 PM
Ezra,
but they can just jump on the computer down at the grange, or at the bodega.
Posted by: TJ | Apr 12, 2006 4:37:44 PM
plus the difficulty of often getting to a pharmacy if you don't have a working car, which many people do not. I experienced this recently when my car was not working, and I spent probably three hours trying to get a prescription filled (not for nefarious reasons, just regular incompetence), what with walking and taking the bus. and I am healthy. What if I couldn't walk far?
Sorry Fred, that I don't have hours and hours to spend trapsing around to various pharmacies just to get some medication.
And the free market can't easily solve the problem because there is a huge entry barrier into the pharmacy market.
Posted by: Kathleen | Apr 12, 2006 4:37:55 PM
Well, first off, I'll second what Ezra said about rural areas.
Second of all, these are not regular commercial entities - pharmacists have an ethical duty, much like a doctor, to treat their patents. People shouldn't have to play roulette when they get their presciptions filled. Many, especially the poor, don't have all the free time in the world to jump around town (if they have a car) to find a pharmacist that will fill their prescription. Additionally, it's not the company making these decisions - it is the individual pharmacists. If you have a moral objection to some medications, DONT BECOME A PHARMACIST!!! Geez...
Posted by: NoVA liberal | Apr 12, 2006 4:42:28 PM
I fail to see what the moral problem is when dispensing vitamins or antibiotics to anybody. The behavior of the pharmacy/pharmacist involved is clearly intended to be punative, which has nothing to do with conscience and every thing to do with self-righteousness. I doubt a pharmacy would get away with someone who refused to fill a fertility drug for an interracial couple because their religion forbids the mixing of races.
Posted by: David W. | Apr 12, 2006 4:45:07 PM
Take a look at this post: http://allbleedingstops.blogspot.com/2006/03/pharmacists-vs-patient-autonomy.html
Think of all the objectionable people that doctors are required to treat, especially ER docs.
Then explain to me why two medicines which ARE NOT ABORTIONS should be an exception for pharmacists, who also take oaths of service.
Posted by: Kate | Apr 12, 2006 5:05:11 PM
Why not force pharmacies to put signs stating which medicines they refuse to sell?. It would save the customers's time, at least.
Posted by: Carlos | Apr 12, 2006 5:08:34 PM
Better yet, why not just make sure that someone who will fill such objectionable prescriptions is also on duty? That way everyone can be satisfied, with the possible exception of the pharmacy that has to pay for additional help. If they have a problem with that though, they can just hire pharmacists who don't have a problem with filling lawful prescpritions.
Posted by: David W. | Apr 12, 2006 5:12:57 PM
To sort-of piggyback on Kate's point, what baffles me most about this, especially now that it's apparently reached my local CVS, is why this is acceptable to employers.
Think about it - it wouldn't fly in any other profession. Suppose you flip burgers at McDonald's. One day, you watch "Supersize Me," and decide you can no longer in good conscience stuff America's arteries with meat product. The next day, you announce that you refuse to serve burgers. That's fine, but I suspect you'll very shortly thereafer cease to work at McDonald's - you certainly wouldn't get some kind of "conscientious objector" status.
I don't object to pharmacists being morally unwilling to dispense birth control, but then they shouldn't be pharmacists. I don't know if I could personally perform abortions, but I've nicely solved that problem by not pursuing a career that would entail my performing abortions. Point is, when you become unwilling to do your job, for just about any reason, aren't you supposed to be fired from it?
Posted by: Daniel A. Munz | Apr 12, 2006 5:17:49 PM
Right Fred- and all them dark-skinned folk are objectionable to some business owners (scares away the whites), so let the owners kick them out if they want to- it's a private business.
Posted by: SP | Apr 12, 2006 5:19:56 PM
The role of a pharmacist is to dispense medication. They are trained and licensed so that we, as a society, are responsible with certain classes of drugs. A trained, licensed pharmacist makes sure that these drugs are dispensed correctly, meet certain safety guidelines and are kept safe. Because of their training, we have started to use pharmacists as sources of advice, which is a good thing.
But it is my doctor who prescribes the damned medicine, for a condition that I and my doctor know about. It isn't their business to make a judgment as to whether or not I really need a certain medicine. In fact, they can disagree with the doctor's prescription, but they can't keep the medicine away from me because of that.
Aside from the utter bullshit-icity of the whole thing, is the fact that these "concientious objectors" are basing their objections on junk "science." It's disturbing to me that we train these people for so long and they end up with such erroneous beliefs about the effects of medications.
BTW, if they aren't Catholic, then their claims about it being against their religion are all bullshit. (I'm assuming that there are very few scientologists or representatives of other groups within the ranks of pharmacists.) No American church/denomination, to my knowledge, has a stance that makes birth control or Plan B against their faith. I defy anyone to find an official statement that says otherwise.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 12, 2006 5:31:46 PM
"Better yet, why not just make sure that someone who will fill such objectionable prescriptions is also on duty?"
Better yet, why not make people DO THEIR FRICKIN' JOB! Sorry, my objections to this are entirely based on employment law, where this sets a horrible precedent. You are enshrining in law people's ability to refuse to do things that are clearly part of their job due to personal objections. What objections are valid enough to merit protection? Fundies not dispensing birth control? Me refusing to give out fertility drugs due to a deeply held objection to overpopulation? A pharmacist who converts to Christian Science and refuses to fill ANY prescription? Where's it end?
Unless you want government breaking down just how valid everyone's beliefs are, this is one can of worms you don't want to open. If you object to part of your job, it's up to YOU to find an employer who will entertain your objections. Lacking that, you've got find outher work: no pharmacist will EVER have to fill out an objectionable prescription as a realtor.
If the business OWNER insists on being a jerk...provided he doesn't take dime one of public funds, he's allowed to be a jerk. If he's benefiting from public largesse without doing his part for the public good, that's a different story.
Posted by: Kylroy | Apr 12, 2006 5:33:46 PM
The problem with this whole 'conscience clause' thing is that it's a complete misapplication of the word 'conscience'. Conscience is a purely individual thing. It applies to one's own actions; it doesn't require one to stop other people from doing things one disagrees with. The religious authoritarians have hijacked the meaning of the word to their own political ends.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Apr 12, 2006 5:35:29 PM
Kylroy, well said. See my comment three above.
Posted by: Daniel A. Munz | Apr 12, 2006 5:36:02 PM
Better yet, why not make people DO THEIR FRICKIN' JOB! Sorry, my objections to this are entirely based on employment law, where this sets a horrible precedent. You are enshrining in law people's ability to refuse to do things that are clearly part of their job due to personal objections.
So...I'm guessing you're against 'conscience clauses' for vegetarian butchers and Amish bus drivers.
;-)
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Apr 12, 2006 5:40:06 PM
What Kylroy said. The whole point of these conscience clauses is that they don't allow people to "run their business as they see fit". You're really not a very clever troll, Fred.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Apr 12, 2006 6:20:36 PM
He's gotten 18 (19...) responses, so he's just clever enough.
A far more interesting question than this 'conscientious objector' piffle (to paraphrase Ali, ain't no Plan B ever called me n[uthin]...) is what about a pharmacy chain refusing to stock certain items such as Plan B.
Perhaps 'refusing' is a bit too loaded a word: 'choosing not to stock'. Surely we can't expect every pharmacy everywhere to stock everything conceivable. At a certain point, the owner has got to make a living, and forcing them to purchase drugs they don't feel they can profitably sell can't be right. How involved in the 'business decisions' of such an outfit do we want the government to become?
Posted by: Pooh | Apr 12, 2006 7:36:22 PM
I suspect Fred would support the right of a business to fire a problem pharmacist. Calling him a troll doesn't elevate the discussion anyhow. I thought the point of a thought experiment is to provoke thoughtful discussion.
The issue is that in the small towns Ezra is worried about, a lot of pharmacies are mom and pop operations where the business owner agrees with or is the same as the objector. Then we get to Pooh's point. Anyhow, I think the competing values create a closer contest than people are willing to acknowledge because they want the right answer to win out (and I agree that it is right that licensed professionals should behave according to their licensing requirements).
What about a doctor, who chooses not to perform abortions or to prescribe an abortion drug? The rules of the profession and what is required to practice in the profession are probably the difference betwen what should happen to the doctor and the pharmacist. Make it a rule of the profession if its not.
Posted by: slickdpdx | Apr 12, 2006 7:58:28 PM
We have state-run liquor stores in many states. Why not state-run pharmacies?
While we are busy making felonies of varies things, how about making it a felony to violate your oath as a pharmacist by refusing to sell certain drugs that the owner of the business has stocked?
Talk about slippery slope: MD's who refuse to see Democratic patients? Dentists who refuse to see Christians?
Let's broaden the public accomodation laws to include protection for the right of the public to obtain a legally written prescription if it is stock, or require the pharmacy to obtain it promptly from another pharmancy if not stocked?
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 12, 2006 8:06:07 PM
slick,
you mean in my scenario (arguable 'business decision') the competing values create a closer contest or in the original "yeah, we've got it right here but I'm not giving you any" scenario?
Posted by: Pooh | Apr 12, 2006 8:48:40 PM
In the first place the obvious difference is that the morning after contraceptives have to do with sex and sexuality as opposed to mental health. If you're going to be annoyed about this, at least be honest that America's overall notion of its sex life is pretty far from the reality.
Probably the more salient point is that there aren't a lot of "Scientology Pharmacists" - if there were, I'd bet you would see a brouhaha over antidepressants, and probably some other psychtropics, and the discussion wouldn't be pretty - as bad as Americans are on sex, mental health and mental illness are not things many people are comfortable discussing, and there'd be a certain "reasonableness" to the line of argument that might make some inroads. Not to give Scientology any ideas...
Finally, to tie this together, I'd point out that one can get harassed by a Pharmacist over lots of things - it is the profession where our psychological, sexual and other intensely personal secrets are on display as part of a commercial transaction and it can be uncomfortable, whether the purchase is painkillers, sleeping pills, or birth control. I'm thinking of the scene in Magnolia where Julianne Moore has a brilliant "Fuck you" moment with the pharmacist who questions her Valium prescription, pointing out that it's none of his business what she's taking or why. It isn't, and yet... well, it's reasonable to be somewhat concerned. I don't know that there's a good answer to this - and I'm not sure I'm completely closed to the idea that pharmacists can make some decisions about which prescriptions they're comfortable filling. Even as I contemplate the implications to access to birth control. It strikes me that this is a fight that needs to get resolved long before we get to the drugstore counter.
Posted by: weboy | Apr 12, 2006 9:17:41 PM
weboy,
But in contradistinction to the julia roberts example the pharmacists who are refusing to fill prescriptions (and in some cases retaining them or tearing them up) for birth control are specifically *not* doing so for the benefit of the woman/patient in question but for the putative benefit of their own consciences or soul. So the proper analogy isn't to, say, a bartender having the right to refuse an obviously drunk patron more drinks but to something else and I"m not sure what. The obvious comparisons are muslim butchers refusing to sell non-kosher meat (in a non kosher store), or jewish butchers (in a non kosher store) refusing to serve pork, or jewish stock boys refusing to stock shrimp, or a catholic priest refusing to give comfort to a dying non catholic *because he thinks its wrong for him to do so*. In none of these cases is the act (the refusal) to serve predicated on the needs of the client but on the needs of the server. And I think we can see from all these that there is no reason to distinguish between pharmacists and other service professions.
Needless to say,by the way, these pharmacists are demanding the right to refuse prescriptions to customers who may not even be present to be judged fit or unfit since you don't have to pick up your own prescription and the pharmacist may never see you at all.
aimai
Posted by: Kate G | Apr 13, 2006 7:32:15 AM
