[PhillipHer]

I don't think we should be putting people to trial for upholding their conscience. We expect pharmacists to uphold a code of conduct that does not permit them to do harm to their customers. I don't see how this has anything to do with the current issue. Oh, right, "the customer" includes the recently fertilized egg in your mind. Ok, nevermind that bit.

Anyway, I generally want a society wherein people are free to follow their conscience (up to the point where it harms others, obviously), but at the same time a person who has a perscription has a justifiable expectation that the perscription will be filled by a pharmacist. There has to be a way to accomodate both sides here, in a manner that does not invalidate the whole idea of a "morning after" pill (in other words, in a manner that ensures women can get access to the pill in the required timeframe, even in a rural environment where there might only be 1 pharmacy nearby).

-Arrian

[Noilemaillilm]

Actually thats not real feasible. Its probably law that only a licensed pharmacist can dispense it, and most pharmacies are going to have times when only one licensed pharamacist is on duty.

TBH alot of devolution of powers to nurses is happening in Britain.

[assohillA]

Originally posted by Krill
I wonder if it is legal to choose to employ a pharmacist who would be willing to dispense the morning after pill over a pharmacist who would not, on the grounds that their religion would stop them from preforming that section of their job. Oooh. Juicy.

-Arrian

[irrascaft]

Why not just go see some other pharmacist. Who the hell cares what he thinks? **** him. What an *******.

Spec.

[JesikaFclq]

Originally posted by Spec
Why not just go see some other pharmacist. Who the hell cares what he thinks? **** him. What an *******.

Spec. That's all well in good in areas with multiple pharmacies. But there are rural areas in which that doesn't work.

Proteus I agree that a devote believer who doesn't want to dispense the morning after pill (or any other medicine, for that matter) should inform their employer. Failure to do so is on the employee.

-Arrian

[snislarne]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Reality here - no Pharmacy stocks everything. Its not economical. So sometimes youre going to have to go elsewhere, cause what they have isnt in stock. Even something you need on time sensitive basis. A good way to deal with this is to call ahead, and make sure they are in stock. There was another thread on this a while ago. Stocking the morning-after pill is economical; there's a clear demand. The criteria I would use in this sort of situation are it must be economical (check) and it must be time-sensitive (check), otherwise you could just order the medication (can't you?).

[loginereQQ]

Originally posted by LordShiva
To take it a step further, say you're a pharmacist, and you need to unexpectedly close your pharmacy one day (a relative died, unfortunately). Should the government take away your license because of your belief that it's appropriate to attend a relative's funeral, thereby denying a potential customer of a time-sensitive drug? I think there's a difference between closing the pharmacy to everyone and denying someone a specific drug because of your religion, thus in a way imposing your religious beliefs (e.g. a ban on contraceptives) on everyone who can only come to you for medicine.

[xsexymasterix]

Originally posted by Arrian
That's all well in good in areas with multiple pharmacies. But there are rural areas in which that doesn't work. Should they be forced to stay open 24/7, 365 days a year?

[BWJfEkOB]

Me too.

[sat23neus2]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


These workers are still part of emergency services (not exactly, but I can't think of a better name for things like police/fire/health/air traffic controllers/etc), even if not employed by the government. I think it's fair for government to regulate a part of the economy that is critical to people's lives but which is run by the private sector.
Police and fire and air traffic controllers are all govt employees. Health workers are all over the map.

Of course govt can regulate the pharmaceutical profession - it does, heavily. The question is what kinds of regulation are reasonable.

[xADMlNx]

The morning after pill is most effective for 12 hrs after sex, and has a limit of 72 hrs. I pretty sure someone can find a chain pharmacy store within 12 hrs. I live in a town with a pop

[LxtdK9i4]

I know Krill, but the law they were talking about was a California law.

[Patgaepx]

I don't think there is a place in Cali, in which a person is 12hrs or 72hrs away from a chain pharmacy or another pharmacy that is willing to sell the MAP. Course I've never been to Cali, so im just speculating.


Anyway, isn't the MAP about to become OTC.


If I found the right law, it isn't severe as it seems:

SECTION 1. Section 733 of the Business and Professions Code is
amended to read:
733. (a) No licentiate shall obstruct a patient in obtaining a
prescription drug or device that has been legally prescribed or
ordered for that patient. A violation of this section constitutes
unprofessional conduct by the licentiate and shall subject the
licentiate to disciplinary or administrative action by his or her
licensing agency.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a licentiate shall
dispense drugs and devices, as described in subdivision (a) of
Section 4024, pursuant to a lawful order or prescription unless one
of the following circumstances exists:
(1) Based solely on the licentiate's professional training and
judgment, dispensing pursuant to the order or the prescription is
contrary to law, or the licentiate determines that the prescribed
drug or device would cause a harmful drug interaction or would
otherwise adversely affect the patient's medical condition.
(2) The prescription drug or device is not in stock. If an order,
other than an order described in Section 4019, or prescription cannot
be dispensed because the drug or device is not in stock, the
licentiate shall take one of the following actions:
(A) Immediately notify the patient and arrange for the drug or
device to be delivered to the site or directly to the patient in a
timely manner.
(B) Promptly transfer the prescription to another pharmacy known
to stock the prescription drug or device that is near enough to the
site from which the prescription or order is transferred, to ensure
the patient has timely access to the drug or device.
(C) Return the prescription to the patient and refer the patient.
The licentiate shall make a reasonable effort to refer the patient to
a pharmacy that stocks the prescription drug or device that is near
enough to the referring site to ensure that the patient has timely
access to the drug or device.
(3) The licentiate refuses on ethical, moral, or religious grounds
to dispense a drug or device pursuant to an order or prescription. A
licentiate may decline to dispense a prescription drug or device on
this basis only if the licentiate has previously notified his or her
employer, in writing, of the drug or class of drugs to which he or
she objects, and the licentiate's employer can, without creating
undue hardship, provide a reasonable accommodation of the licentiate'
s objection. The licentiate's employer shall establish protocols that
ensure that the patient has timely access to the prescribed drug or
device despite the licentiate's refusal to dispense the prescription
or order. For purposes of this section, "reasonable accommodation"
and "undue hardship" shall have the same meaning as applied to those
terms pursuant to subdivision (l) of Section 12940 of the Government
Code. So the pharmacy can just transfer the prescription to another pharmacy if it is close enough and just has to notify his/her employer that they refuse to sell the pill.

[9TWSg835]

just has to notify his/her employer that they refuse to sell the pill.

Of course this means the pharmacy also has to have someone else working there that will dispense said drug to "ensure that the patient has timely access". That, in itself, may jeopardize the pharmacist's job.

[Sapremolz]

Dont they have trade unions in Britain? Shouldnt this be a matter for the union grievance committee?

[elton]

Originally posted by Elok
I think I agree with lotm's take on this, more or less. If you don't want to give out a certain drug, and your employer doesn't mind the loss of business, fine. If your employer does mind said loss, your butt is toast. Works for me. But it doesn't work in small towns which often just have one pharmacy or for poor people without cars (like say... a pregnant 16 year old girl) who might not be able to get to a different pharmacy.

Also there was the problem that several large chain stores refused to carry the morning after pill (Walmart was a prime example). The California solution solved this major access problem so that people can get the medications they need as quickly as possible.

[paydayus]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You don't think there are places in California with only one pharmacy? Sure. We have tons of tiny towns. It's a big state.