Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Crime and Punishment
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Illinois’ laws and rules just aren’t mixing well with judges these days. First, the capital plan was knocked down, then some of the McPier reforms were struck and now this…
A Sangamon County Circuit Court judge on Tuesday struck down a 6-year-old state rule that required Illinois pharmacies to dispense emergency contraception.
Judge John Belz ruled in favor of two pharmacy owners — Luke Vander Bleek of Morrison and Glenn Kosirog of Wheaton — who didn’t want to dispense or stock “morning-after” pills or help patients obtain them elsewhere. […]
Belz wrote in his ruling that the state Right of Conscience Act “was designed to forbid the government from doing what it aims to do here: coercing individuals or entities to provide healthcare services that violate their beliefs.” […]
Belz wrote that that state provided “no evidence of a single person who ever was unable to obtain emergency contraception because of a religious objection. … Nor did the government provide any evidence that anyone was having difficulties finding willing sellers of over-the-counter Plan B, either at pharmacies or over the Internet.”
Belz added that the state conceded that any health impact from the pro-life pharmacy owners’ religious objections “would be minimal.”
What do you think?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 6:48 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Crime and Punishment
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Good ruling. No one should be forced to sell anything.
Comment by Anonymouse Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 6:59 am
I think pharmacies that refuse to dispense certain drugs for religious reasons should have signs posted over their businesses saying so. Then I could decide if I want to take my business elsewhere based on my personal beliefs concerning their objections.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 7:22 am
We could call those signs ‘pieces of flair’…
Comment by Returning Dog Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 7:32 am
I agree with Wensicia- let me know if your pharmacy is only dispensing drugs you don’t have “moral problems” with so I can find one that has all modern medicine available to the public.
Comment by Roadiepig Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 7:42 am
Oy. That should be “men”.
Comment by lakeview Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 8:01 am
Maybe there should be a registry and pharmacies/pharmicists that refuse to dispense certain drugs should have to pay a fee to be placed on the registry. We could then start a website that shows the locations of these pharmacies so that the general public will know exactly where these nefarious locations are. Pharmacists in such establishments would be required to wear orange jump suits so they could be easily distinguished from their less morally outraged colleagues. Really Wensica? Just go into the establishment. If they refuse to give you the pills you want, just don’t go back again if it bothers you that much.
Comment by Fed-Up Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 8:07 am
Called it almost 5 years ago….
http://htsblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/there-were-protests-over-pharmacist.html
The argument that pharmacists were not covered was illogical.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 8:09 am
Sounds like an excellent argument to repeal the right of conscience act.
Comment by Dirt Digger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 8:12 am
Good luck with that, I suspect the medical lobby groups will fight that tooth and nail as well at the Catholic hospital systems.
Also federal law
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2008/12/feds-issue-cont.html
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 8:19 am
I think it’s terrible that this was overturned. There are many communittes in downstate IL that are serviced by one pharmacy. If the pharmacist declines to fill a certain drug, it will impose a great hardship on the person.
Religious freedom is great, but not when it comes at the expense of someone else’s health.
If the person can’t fufill the duties of their job, perhaps they need to find another job.
Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 8:24 am
I think politicians should stop passing idiotic laws and construction plans, then the courts would not have to strike them down.
Comment by John A Logan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 8:33 am
So then Ironic should all physicians be required to provide that service medically as well? If a medical practice has any medication on site (such as samples) should they also be required to have the day after medication around?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 8:34 am
- Fed-Up - Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 8:07 am:
“Maybe there should be a registry and pharmacies/pharmicists that refuse to dispense certain drugs should have to pay a fee to be placed on the registry.”
No way. Maybe we should charge a fee to the pharmacies that DO dispense. Nobody should be discriminatorily charged a fee for following the law.
I am agnostic on these morning after pills. A business should be allowed to choose to sell whatever it is allowed to, by law. People are free to choose a pharmacy based on whatever parameters they want to use, by law. Government should not intervene in the relationship between the providers and consumers of goods and services.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 8:52 am
Cincinnatus - FYI, that was written sarcasm in response to Wensicia’s coments. Sorry if that didn’t come through.
Comment by Fed-Up Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 8:58 am
Finally common sense prevails. As a woman I know this pill isn’t health care. It’s a remedy for an uh-oh I screwed up situation - literally. Take a minute and calm down. Forcing your beliefs and wants down someone else’s throat is as wrong as someone forcing theirs down yours. Walk to the next pharmacy. No big deal.
Comment by Belle Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:00 am
“Walk to the next pharmacy. No big deal.”
And what happens when the next pharmacy doesn’t sell it either? Keep walking? Where does the rights of the person who wants Plan B start. We are not talking about abortion clinics here, these are extremists who want to impose their will on their customers and shame women who they deem to be immoral. It’s disgusting.
Comment by L.S. Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:10 am
we’ve certainly come across a string of judicial activism haven’t we?
Comment by Ahoy Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:14 am
Ear infection my eye! What do you really need that penicillin for, Johnny?
From the American Pharmacists Association Code of Ethics:
–III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.
A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.–
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:17 am
Sorry, Fed-Up. Sarcasm meter doesn’t kick in until the second cup of gentleman’s brown. And I am so accustomed to fighting the battle with little or no conservative supporters, I kinda assume all posts are from the liberal point of view…
L.S.
There are plenty of private institutions that support women’s health that can supply these pills, either other pharmacies or places like Planned Parenthood. Reducing the argument that a person cannot run his own private business based on his beliefs because someone, no matter how potentially distressed, has to go to the next facility is absurd. Would you like me to argue that every Ace Hardware in Southern Illinois be forced to sell John Deere Harvesters because the local farmer needs it.
I hate using such an analogy where a women in distress needs help, but quite simply, nobody should be forced to sell, stock, pay for or otherwise help people where it goes against their beliefs. As I said, I am agnostic on the issue, and if I were a pharmacist, I would probably stock and sell these pills. But I cannot condone forcing people to this.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:24 am
I’ve gone to the pharmacy to fill one prescription or another several times in my life to find that the pharmacy didn’t carry that particular drug. I had to go somewhere else to find it, but there is no “shame” in that. I don’t see why that should be a bigger deal for someone who needs Plan B than it was for me.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:25 am
== we’ve certainly come across a string of judicial activism haven’t we? ==
No not really, the law states
From who regulates them (at the state and federal levels), their education requirements, their continuing education requirements and a host of logical observations, I would suggest that calling pharmacists ‘health care professionals’ is not judicial activism.
Rod pulling this to score political points on the other hand.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:27 am
L.S.- I stand by my comments. If you are worried about not being able to find a remedy to the night before….you might just want to reconsider the night before before it becomes the morning after. There are consequences to every action. Take the responsibility for them.
Comment by Belle Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:32 am
I trust the aggrieved pharmacists only fill Viagra prescriptions for married men who pledge to use their purple party pills for pro-creation (with their brides, of course), rather than recreation.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:45 am
Oh, Belle. If only it were that easy. What about instances when a woman has been sexually assaulted? I guess they didn’t plan the night before then either? Do you really think that woman should have to wonder from pharmacy to pharmacy to get the medication she needs?
And as a matter of fact, Plan B does not abort an existing pregnancy. It prevents a pregnancy from occurring, so comparing it to abortion is absolutely false. Plan B is NOT the abortion pill. They are two different things.
Comment by Seriously??? Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:48 am
Many areas of the state are not like Chicago where we have a CVS or Walgreens on practically every corner. If you live in a small town in downstate Illinois the next pharmacy might be miles away. I’m not a pharmacist but it strikes me that their job is to have available any and all drugs that might be prescribed by a doctor. It they want to start substituting their judgment for the patient’s doctor’s, then they should consider getting into another profession.
Comment by LouisXIV Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 9:54 am
Impractical and not cost realistic. Grab a Physicians Desk Reference and see the number of dosages and different drugs out on the market today. It would be cost prohibitive (especially considering how long it takes the state to pay pharmacists now) to keep that stock on hand when it may not be prescribed very often. Some may also require preparation steps that a small or even large pharmacy may not have the equipment, training or time to do (see compounding pharmacies for more info on that)
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 10:03 am
LouisXIV,
Are you claiming that a privately owned pharmacy should be considered a public facility like we do for housing discrimination? There are carve outs in public facility rules for small businesses (think a bed and breakfast). In healthcare, there are carve outs for Catholic hospitals.
If a pharmacy does not take public money, it should be allowed to choose the materials it stocks. Would you tell Costco to stock Pepsi instead of its current selection of Coke?
In this small town example everyone seems to want to use, have you all considered that shelf-life of the product and weighed it against its turnover? Are you saying that a pharmacy should be forced to stock everything that is hardly ever used and constantly thrown away just in case someone may need it under unusual circumstances? That would not be a winning business model. If a pharmacy did choose to stock something, and it is regularly thrown away, they will raise the price on the item to accommodate the loss. Then we would be hearing how the pharmacy is taking advantage of the (fill in your favorite group here) because the price is so high.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 10:03 am
If you are a pharmacist and practice in this state you should have to dispense all legal drugs. Period. The state has every right to regulate business like a pharmacy and force them to dispense all legal drugs. If you are a doctor or a pharmacist and cannot peform all of the legal tasks of your job then I would yank your license in this state, but that is just me. You are not allowed to have moral objections in the medical field as far as I’m concerned. If something is legal you better be willing to provide the service or don’t enter that field.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 10:04 am
One Man, that may be a valid argument, but it isn’t the one the pharmacists used in their court case. They just don’t want to dispense the drug because they disagree with it, not because of the cost of stocking it.
Comment by Seriously??? Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 10:07 am
Well legally I am fairly sure a dermatologist can perform general surgery so in your world if I go see a dermatologist and they refuse to give me brain surgery you would revoke their license?
If I go to the doc in the box and demand they scope my knee and the refuse, they should lose their license as well since it is a legal task.
If I walk into a pharmacy and have a prescription for something they don’t carry and don’t prepare (lets say a radio isotope for cancer treatment) they should lose their license as well.
Hell lets apply that to other licensed fields, so Mr. Architect, you legally can design a house for me, but don’t want to do so, too bad it is something you can legally do.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 10:11 am
Why not just make Plan B available over the counter then? That way it keeps large pharmacy chains from having to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees. It also ameliorates the problem of the 1 pharmacy town by making it likely that other stores might stock the item.
Also, IMO, every non-menopausal woman who doesn’t have moral objections to it, ought to have a dose with her. It’s not expensive and even though there will need to be replacement from time to time (it’s probably not non-expirable), but it will keep her from getting into the fix in the first place.
Fed-Up, the reason I want to know whether a pharmacy is dispensing this med or not is because I believe women should have the right to it. I have never nor will ever need it, but I have a right to shop where my values are respected.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 10:11 am
“You are not allowed to have moral objections in the medical field as far as I’m concerned.”
That has got to be one of the most outrageous statements I have ever seen on this forum.
Comment by Pat Robertson Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 10:14 am
Seriously??? the problem still is if the medication falls under the classification for the exemption you then have to make the argument that a pharmacist is not a medical professional (a rather silly argument IMHO) otherwise federal and state law come into play.
Also it makes sense that medical professionals should be able to refuse to provide a service due to personal convictions.
It may be legal for you to walk into a doctors office and say ‘I am in my right mind, but please remove my healthy leg so I can meet women’ but there should be a way a doctor can say ‘no’.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 10:24 am
Belle, what if the condom breaks?
Comment by lakeview Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 10:27 am
Oh Seriously??? - I should hope a rape victim goes to an emergency room where the after pill is also available. lakeview - go to a pharmacy that carries the pill. Anyone ever hear of calling ahead? You make it sound like hoardes of women are running willy nilly around cities and towns desperately trying to find plan b. That is not the case and never will be. You have to think some things thru and make an effort on your part to do things for yourself instead of trying to create laws forcing everyone else to be there in case you need something. Rape is too serious to be used as a convenient argument to justify your position on this topic. Broken condom? Really? Like it never happened before plan b? Grasping a bit aren’t we?
Comment by Belle Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 10:38 am
I would hope a rape victim would go to an emergency room also. That probably happens in about half the rape cases. Also, what if the only emergency room for miles around is at a Catholic hospital?
I’m for making Plan B over the counter and available widely.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 10:41 am
#
–It may be legal for you to walk into a doctors office and say ‘I am in my right mind, but please remove my healthy leg so I can meet women’ but there should be a way a doctor can say ‘no’.–
That probably doesn’t happen as often as you might think.
Can pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions to treat STD? Or inquire about marital status and monogamy before filling some prescriptions? Can they just violate their code of ethics whenever they feel like it?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 10:44 am
Belle - the premise of your agruments seem to be that women who need plan b are irresponsible and therefore their rights are less important than the rights of a pharmacist who wants to pick and choose which drugs to sell based on their own moral code. While you and certain pharmacists are entitied to that opinion, you are not entitled to prevent someone from getting a legal product becasue your set of “values” doesn’t approve. If you have a pharmacy license you have a responsibility to issue drugs perscribed by a DOCTOR. You’re a middle man in the doctor-patient relationship, not an active participant.
Comment by L.S. Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 10:49 am
Cherly44,
Making it OTC still would allow pharmacies to refuse to stock it. Do you think that would satisfy those posting here who think pharmacies should be forced to dispense it?
Should doctors be required to take Medicaid patients?
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 10:51 am
If that is true, why do we require them to have 6 years of schooling if all they are is pill clerks?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 10:51 am
Could I force my local tavern to stock my favorite beers - or loose their liquor license?
Comment by titan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 11:14 am
A pharmacist has chosen a branch of medicine which is helping people with their medical issues. They are not priests or therapists.
Make it OTC–eliminates all of this drama over the perception of religious beliefs.
Comment by A Different Belle Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 11:35 am
I get very aggravated that there are still overzealous proponents of late term/partial birth abortion who do not see what a huge ethical problem that is for the integrity of the pro-choice movement.
I get equally as irked at those zealous pro lifers who cannot seem to recognize that plan B is a safe and powerful way to reduce abortions due to unplanned and unwanted pregnancies–and is quite consistent with having strong pro life beliefs. While it is cute to say that women should be careful “the night before”, the morning after pill is taken as a precaution way before any human knows IF conception has even occurred. To view taking a plan B pill as “murder” just feels like a bridge too far. For many people that stance de-legitimizes the sanity and stated goals of the pro life movement as surly as a partial birth abortion stance de-legitimizes the sanity and stated goals the opposing camp.
I don’t think pharmacies as a business should be forced by law to sell any particular product so I am OK with the law being stuck down. But I also think that pharmacists who personally object in principle to the morning after pill might reexamine their position and at least make the product available to those who see things differently.
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 11:37 am
- Responsa - Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 11:37 am:
“But I also think that pharmacists who personally object in principle to the morning after pill might reexamine their position and at least make the product available to those who see things differently.”
I agreed with everything you said up to this sentence. Were I to replace “pharmacists” with “Catholic Church” and “morning after pill” with “abortion” would you say the same thing?
Generically, we in America are constantly substituting the judgement of an elite class of people over the constitutional rights of the individual.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 11:44 am
===I agreed with everything you said up to this sentence. Were I to replace “pharmacists” with “Catholic Church” and “morning after pill” with “abortion” would you say the same thing?===
What are you talking about? The last time I checked the Catholic church doesn’t provide women’s health services, nor do they have any governmental authority, etc. etc. etc.
Straw man. And a terrible one at that. Stick to the Quinn bashing; I don’t think analogies are your thing.
Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 11:47 am
–I agreed with everything you said up to this sentence. Were I to replace “pharmacists” with “Catholic Church” and “morning after pill” with “abortion” would you say the same thing?–
And that, my friends, is how you construct a ludicrous strawman. Now, who wants to knock it down?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 11:48 am
Jinx, Word.
Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 11:51 am
The Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers Rule 1.2(b) says “A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.” The practice of law is not a right nor an entitlement, but is a benefit granted to an individual by people through the state acting through the judicial branch. Nor is one entitled to be a pharmacist. One would think that in exchange for being granted the privilege of being licensed as a pharmacist, said pharmacist could dispense legal medicine w/o the act being perceived as a personal statement of some kind. It’s the responsibility you have. Instead we see a continuing aggrandizement of the cult of the individual and the neo-puritan seeking to impose one’s personal morality on society versus the social gospel where we treat each other as a brother and sister and act in their interest and not my own.
Comment by D.P. Gumby Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 11:58 am
Belle, so your solution to “irresponsible” behavior is to force someone to become a parent? why would you wish an irresponsible parent on an innocent child?
Comment by Chicago girl Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 11:59 am
Cincy– I am not sure I understand your hypothetical equivalency or how it applies to what I said. I’m not asking the pharmacist to change his belief nor do I think he should be compelled by law. I just think that, within reason, an individual can hold fast to his own inner beliefs AND and still leave room to acknowledge that another individual’s beliefs and guiding principles may be different. I think that most of us without even thinking about it walk around successfully doing that sort of thing every day.
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:00 pm
Obamarama said,
“The last time I checked the Catholic church doesn’t provide women’s health services…”
Patently false. Several Catholic facilities treat a wide range of women’s health issues including Infertility, rRecurrent miscarriage, premenstrual syndrome (PMS), ovarian cysts, irregular or abnormal bleeding, polycystic ovarian syndrome, postpartum depression, prematurity prevention, hormonal abnormalities, chronic discharges and many others. What you are saying is that they don’t provide abortions.
As far as a straw man, I contend there is logically little difference between requiring the Catholic Church to perform abortions and pharmacists from dispensing Plan B. How can you not see that both instances are telling an individual (or group of individuals) that they must go against their beliefs simply because an elite class dictates it?
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:00 pm
Like arguing with a freaking parrot.
Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:03 pm
Responsa,
I hear what you are saying. I think that the people of whom you speak have thoroughly thought through their position. Why would I presume to ask anyone to do something against their will or belief?
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:07 pm
I don’t have a problem with this decision. But I would make damn sure I never patronized a business that was so clearly against the right of the women in my life to make their own decisions about their reproductive health.
Comment by ChicagoR Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:07 pm
“You are not allowed to have moral objections in the medical field as far as I’m concerned.”
Yeah, therefore as your doctor I should have no objection that an unnecessary and risky procedure may kill you and I should do it anyway because you want it done and it is a legal procedure.
Comment by Nuance Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:07 pm
Obamaram,
Go back and read my initial post. I am totally agnostic on the issue of Plan B. I could care less if it is dispensed, or not. Really. What you fail to understand about what I am saying is that you, or I should not force others to accept our belief system. Foisting an elite opinion on others is the standard MO of our modern day. Each little battle lost is a detriment to the larger picture of the attack on individual liberty.
This pharmacy is minutia in and of itself. But it is indicative of a greater problem…
On an unrelated note, what you call Quinn bashing, some would call pointing out a conclusion one can make based on observing his method of governance, if we can call what he does that.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:14 pm
ChicagoR has it absolutely the right way. The pharmacist should have the decision on what he dispenses, and the patrons should decide if they frequent (or work) in an establishment.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:15 pm
Cincinattus,
And Walgreens or Walmart should have the right to fire a pharmacist who chooses to put his beliefs before his employer’s bottom line.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:19 pm
cermak_rd,
Correct.
I would use the same argument for smoking in privately owned places, and any number of other instances where individual rights but against elite opinion…
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:24 pm
*butt
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:25 pm
Cincy, pharmacists are state-licensed professionals subject to law and regulation in their practice. The Catholic Church is an organized religion.
Plan B is a prescription drug formulated to prevent the possibility of pregnancy after sex. Abortion is a surgical procedure to terminate a live pregnancy.
Other than that, your hypothetical is gold, pure gold.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:30 pm
To me this issue is less about religious freedom, and much more about patient rights.
I see this no differently than a ER doc who happens to be a Jehovah’s Witness. Should they be allowed to prohibit a car accident victim from recieving a blood transfusion simply because the don’t ‘believe’ in them?
This is crap. If the pharmacist doesn’t like Plan B…don’t use it themselves. If a Doctor has prescribed it, they need to FILL it. Period.
Their job is to fill prescriptions based on a medical need that they don’t have any business getting in the middle of.
Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:34 pm
Concerning the argument for small town pharmacies who choose not to inventory and sell this product, if they do not have much demand, why should they purchase and inventory a product which may not sell by the expiration date? There could be reasons for not wanting to stock this drug beyond religious reasons.
Comment by DRB Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:36 pm
Well wordslinger it appears the state court disagrees with you on the distinction.
So it really comes down to this, is the issue
– The medication is not something that can be morally objected to so the law does not apply?
– The Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act does not apply to pharmacists?
– There should be no Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act or federal law along those lines.
Those are the three arguments I think
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:39 pm
Please name one other good that is required by the state to be sold in a private institution.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:41 pm
==Should they be allowed to prohibit a car accident victim from recieving a blood transfusion simply because the don’t ‘believe’ in them?==
Seems to me that Obamarama and Wordslinger don’t recognize a true strawman argument when they see one.
Comment by Pat Robertson Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:46 pm
To those arguing that it should just be made available over the counter–it is! The FDA ruled that Plan B can be made available OTC for 17 year olds and older. Blago forced the hand of the pharmacists before the FDA allowed Plan B to be made OTC. This was in light of the medical and scientific advisory committee of the FDA overwhelmingly recommending that Plan B be made OTC, but the FDA (under the Bush Administration) ruling against the committee.
Prior to the Blago action, there were quite a few stories of women being lectured and refused when they tried to fill a prescription for Plan B. Some of them were pretty awful–pharmacists making a scene and shaming women, so that other patrons would hear.
So, now with this ruling, you can have pharmacists refuse to stock the drug, even though they would not have to actually fill a prescription (for women 17 and older at least). One would hope that with Plan B being available OTC it’s easier to find in all communities, but perhaps not. It is available on drugstore.com, but you’d have to pay a lot to have it shipped overnight to be able to take it in time…
To answer Rich’s question–I oppose the ruling simply because a pharmacist doesn’t have to use their license to fill the prescription, since it’s OTC. So I believe their right to religious objection as a health care professional doesn’t apply here. However, despite being 100% pro-choice and pro-Plan B, I also don’t agree with forcing private stores to stock anything. Many physicians’ offices do not stock the HPV vaccine–not because they disagree with it but because demand has been low and they have had to throw out expired (costly) vaccine. I understand that, even though it saddens me.
And, as a fun reminder–I believe Rod’s first appearance on the Daily Show was over this issue. He appeared with Rep. Stephens, and it was hil-ar-i-ous!
Comment by Plan B Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:47 pm
Which would violate HIPPA, a law intended to prevent just that and can result in significant civil and criminal penalties.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 12:56 pm
My understanding of a pharmacist’s job was that they are to dispense medicine that was legally prescribed by doctors and ensure that it is done safely. That’s all, with no mention of their own beliefs. If we allow this precedent, then we could arguably have many communities that don’t carry a wide-array of medicines based on their cultural, moral, or religious beliefs. The reason the lack of availability of Plan B is especially important is because of the time-sensitive nature of the situations that require it (it prevents pregnancy). Not every rape victim goes to the ER (in fact most do not) and enough studies show that sexual assault is extremely under-reported as a crime. Plus, even responsible adults have contraception failures and do not wish to become pregnant. The point was raised before, but we should not underestimate the difficulties some women might have in “just going to another pharmacy” and the impact of time on the effectiveness of Plan B.
Comment by Veil of Ignorance Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 1:02 pm
LS - I’m actually pointing out the rights of the pharmacist and those seeking plan b are equal. neither should infringe on the other. CG - no clue where you are coming from. Forced parenting? There is abortion and adoption. There is even calling your doctor and planned parenthood. This whole end of the world if we don’t force pharmacists to do what we want attitude is a bit heavy on the drama. It isn’t the end of the world. It may be an inconvenience to go to another pharmacy but that’s about all it is. Again I ask - why not call ahead and see if they have it? No drama and the problem is taken care of.
Comment by Belle Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 1:10 pm
Belle - shouldn’t the increased likelihood of an abortion due to an unwanted pregnancy make these pharmacists more, not less, willing to carry the Plan B drug (which as a reminder, is not an abortion)? That is, if their position was logically consistent. Perhaps they do not care if more abortions might possibly result because they do not have to participate in that procedure. This is not just any business, pharmacies are part of the health care system that serves all people in a pluralistic society. Please consider the implications of your argument for women (including girls) of all backgrounds and situations. The harm to the pharmacist is simply not comparable to the potentially life-altering harm to the woman. I am a person of faith and understand the pro-life position, but this is not an abortion and regardless we all can choose another profession if God calls us to in order to stand up for our beliefs.
Comment by Veil of Ignorance Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 1:28 pm
So then Veil of Ignorance can the state force any other health care provider to be involved in the same?
Can a doctor refuse to prescribe the drug?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 1:31 pm
- Foisting an elite opinion on others is the standard MO of our modern day. -
Oh please, enough with the “elitist” nonsense, this isn’t the Daily Herald comment section.
Pharmacists are licensed to dispense their product and make a profit on it by the state, and that subjects them to regulation by the state. If they want to pursue a career that doesn’t require this, they have all the freedom in the world to do so.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 1:34 pm
Also if the state legalized euthanasia would a doctor be required to provide said service?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 1:35 pm
OneMan,
According to the elite opinion, anyone can be forced to do anything, whether it is morally or otherwise objectionable to an individual if 50% +1 say so, or if any coalition of lesser percentage can get a bill though the legislature.
And elite opinion will vilify anyone who tries to make the case for individual rights as setting up straw men, being a hater, or not caring about the rights of others.
So to answer your question, from the viewpoint of the majority on this thread if they care at all about logical consistency, no, the doctor cannot refuse.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 1:40 pm
What does the Right of Conscience Act say?
If the judge is interpreting the law as its written, does the State of Illinois have a beef with the pharmacists or with the legislature.
Legislators should not expect to pass dumb laws and then have the courts protect them from the consequences of their dumb laws.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 1:42 pm
Well then I offer this question.
Is the issue the ability for a health care provider to refuse to do any legal in-practice scope action or is the issue specific to the ability of a health care provider to refuse to do this specifically?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 1:43 pm
How would you distinguish between a pharmacist who has moral objections to abortion and one who merely wants to discriminate against women because of his conceptions about the proper role of women in society?
Should the state err on the side of protecting the rights of women to be free from discrimination? Or on the side of not offending the conscience of the pharmacists?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 1:49 pm
The concept that pharmacists are required in all cases to dispense prescriptions written by licensed physicians is a false premise. There are licensed doctors who every day write narcotic prescriptions for patients they know are drug abusers or drug sellers. And everyday pharmacists refuse to dispense to these people despite the doctors’ orders. A Pharmacist’s responsibilities go beyond just pill selling and as health care professionals, they should be allowed to choose to refuse services upon moral reasons…and yes,I would conclude that PharmD’s are health professionals in a manner similar to physician assistants.
Comment by Budget Watcher Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 2:02 pm
Those of you who think pharmacists should be forced into this should examine your own beliefs and question whether you would want to be forced to do something you found morally reprehensible. Its okay to restrict their rights but don’t restrict mine! It’s not like there is a huge groundswell of pharmacists who don’t want to dispense this drug, it is just a few. We can talk what ifs all day long! Women who want to obtain this drug will be able to get it. If one pharmacy won’t sell it the next one will because they are all in business to make money.
Comment by Fed-Up Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 2:04 pm
Well, we’ve stopped executing convicted murderers, guess it only makes sense to stop executing unborn children.
Comment by Ryan from Carrollton Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 2:21 pm
OneMan and Cincinnatus - I think the difference between compelling a pharmacy to carry a specific drug, which people may choose to use or not, and compelling a doctor to prescribe a drug regardless of his or her medical judgment are 2 very different scenarios. The issue in this case is tied specifically to access to the Plan B and the limited number of pharmacies, plus the nature of the drug and the situations in which it is sought after (emergencies). Individual rights of course matter, but they must also be balanced with other considerations, especially in this context. I can’t speak to every other legal in-practice scope action given that it’s not what we’re dealing with here, but please bear in mind that it’s a tough sell that a health care business has more rights than the citizens who need access to adequate health service. If access is not an issue, then we’ve got a very different situation. I hope that clarifies.
Comment by Veil of Ignorance Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 2:22 pm
I think as long as the big chain pharmacies continue to stock and sell plan B, the few remaining small independent guys can do what they want without a big impact to anyone, really.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 2:23 pm
VofI
Thanks that helps but still
The exact same thing applies to a doctor, in a small town you may only have one doctor. A doctor can object to writing the prescription just as a pharmacist can refuse to fill one (it does not have to be scope of practice it can be because they object), for the same reasons under the law.
Why is one protected then and one not?
Also does the doctor viewpoint then also apply to nurse practitioners and physicians assistants?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 2:28 pm
I’m not even sure the small town angle isn’t over-reaction. I’ve been in many of IL’s small towns. The average age of the women is well past child-bearing, there.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 2:28 pm
Judge Belz ruling clearly stated that the government did not show that there were access to care problems.
Comment by Budget Watcher Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 2:29 pm
~Making it OTC still would allow pharmacies to refuse to stock it. Do you think that would satisfy those posting here who think pharmacies should be forced to dispense it?~
I’m not terribly worried about whose sensibilities are satisfied, as long as women who need the pill have access.
~Should doctors be required to take Medicaid patients?~
I’m a socialist. I like the Canadian health system where no one is turned away from basic healthcare.
And don’t get me started on late term abortions (which was not you Cincy). Anyone who wants to ban them have no idea what they’re talking about, or don’t care if a woman’s life is endangered by her pregnancy.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 2:35 pm
==Those of you who think pharmacists should be forced into this should examine your own beliefs and question whether you would want to be forced to do something you found morally reprehensible.==
I would not choose a profession in the first place where my beliefs would put me at odds with my duties. A pharmacist does not have the right to impose their belief system on me if I am trying to obtain a legal drug. At the very least the phamacy should make information available as to where I can get the drug if they cannot or do not stock it. In every case where I have gone to my pharmacy and they did not have a drug in stock, they have called around and gotten it for me. This case should be no different.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 2:38 pm
so if a pharmicist doesnt believe in birth control is he not going to dispense a birth control pill? if he doesnt believe in narcotics is he not going to dispense vicodin?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 2:47 pm
OneMan - that’s an interesting point that I’d have to think more about, but my understanding was that an adult woman didn’t need a prescription for Plan B (but a minor who did would). I don’t think anybody should ever pretend that these are easy issues to deal with or that there will be tough situations where a perfect solution exists. The fact that the State failed to show that there were access to care problems doesn’t mean that there wouldn’t be (at least possible) if this ruling stood and other pharmacies started to follow suit. Sorry all, that’s all the time I can spare on this one. If we could all remember though that Plan B access is not abortion and could in fact reduce the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies. I hope that’s a goal we all could rally around. Appreciate your thoughts/feedback.
Comment by Veil of Ignorance Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 2:47 pm
“I would not choose a profession in the first place where my beliefs would put me at odds with my duties. A pharmacist does not have the right to impose their belief system on me if I am trying to obtain a legal drug. At the very least the phamacy should make information available as to where I can get the drug if they cannot or do not stock it. In every case where I have gone to my pharmacy and they did not have a drug in stock, they have called around and gotten it for me. This case should be no different. ”
They chose their profession long before this was even a questions so get real.
Comment by Nuance Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 3:13 pm
–I’m not even sure the small town angle isn’t over-reaction. I’ve been in many of IL’s small towns. The average age of the women is well past child-bearing, there.–
Is that a gag?
–Well, we’ve stopped executing convicted murderers, guess it only makes sense to stop executing unborn children.–
Seriously? This drug is designed to prevents the possibility of pregnancy after sex. It’s not an abortion drug. You could make an argument that it results in fewer abortions.
It’s birth control, like the pill and condoms. I understand some have “moral” qualms about those as well, I just find it hard to believe.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 3:15 pm
wordslinger,
Seriously, check out some of the demographics of the sub 2000 population towns (not counting those near enough (
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 3:18 pm
If we can force a pharmacist to violate their religious principles can we then make Jewish grocers sell unclean swine? Indian grocers to sell cow? Muslim grocers to sell pork? At what point does violating someone else’s rights become repulsive? The seperation of church and state should be followed and that includes the state not forcing citizens or business owners into violating their beliefs.
Comment by Belle Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 3:20 pm
- can we then make Jewish grocers sell unclean swine? -
Trying to make a comparison between time sensitive, possibly life altering medicine and groceries is a little far fetched.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 3:32 pm
If a guy walks into a pharmacy, flashes Texas ID, and asks for sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride, I’d hope that if I were the pharmacist, I would tell that guy to get lost, even if his request were super-extra-ultra-legal. I’d like to think that I would have the courage of my convictions not to participate in a lethal injection.
Now, if my boss fired me for that, I’d consider that somewhat reprehensible, but I could probably live with it. If the state took away my license to practice my chosen profession, I’d begin to question whether I lived in a free society.
Comment by lincoln's beard Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 3:39 pm
I don’t understand how so many ban believe unlimited access to health care is an absolute right when today, even among the insured population, health plans routinely impose limited provider networks, restrictive drug formularies, or other benefit limitations. And everyday doctors and other health professionals refuse to accept new patients, usually with profit margins and cost containment as their primary motivation. We may not like our lchoices to be restricted but we generally accept these healthcare limitations as business decisions. Yet when independent business owners like the two pharmacists in the lawsuit make business decisions based upon their own religious beliefs, we reject this because suddenly we’re entitled to unlimited care.
Comment by Budget Watcher Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 3:40 pm
Well Wordslinger here is the law
So to answer the question about narcotics, no that isn’t listed. So that is outside of scope. Also it does list family planning and BC so even using your definition of plan b it would seem to apply.
So is your argument that it should not apply to those dispensing medication or should it not apply to the entire health care chain?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 3:41 pm
==If a pharmacy does not take public money, it should be allowed to choose the materials it stocks.==
Where would one find a pharmacy that doesn’t take public money?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 3:57 pm
In Illinois all pharmacies take state money, but few see it very regularly.
Comment by Budget Watcher Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:12 pm
To all those who think that a pharmacist should take orders or get out of his or her privileged profession, I would remind you that even the authority of the military to require soldiers to obey orders has limits, and soldiers have been prosecuted and executed for following orders. There must be and is a limit to what you can by law force any human being to do, and I would suggest that forcing a pharmacist to violate his or her conscience by imposing a legal obligation to dispense a product is well beyond that limit.
Comment by Pat Robertson Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:32 pm
–I would remind you that even the authority of the military to require soldiers to obey orders has limits, and soldiers have been prosecuted and executed for following orders.–
Now there’s a stretch. And how it relates to this issue is beyond me.
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, soldiers are obligated to follow legal orders, to disobey illegal orders and to report and try to halt illegal acts by superiors.
For the record, the only U.S. serviceman to be convicted at court martial and executed since the Civil War was Private Slovik in 1945 for desertion.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:51 pm
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 3:57 pm:
==If a pharmacy does not take public money, it should be allowed to choose the materials it stocks.==
“Where would one find a pharmacy that doesn’t take public money?”
Wordslinger,
While a pharmacy will except payment for services rendered from people who are on government insurance, pharmacies do not take direct government subsidies. Bear in mind that even the accepted government insurance payments are only accepted as a courtesy to the client, and is in both the interest of the client and the pharmacy, it is the client that ultimately is responsible for the payment for services.
To others, I am still waiting for an example of any other good that a private facility is forced to sell by the government. I do not see liquor or cigarettes being treated the same way, in fact they are limited for sale by government licensing. I cannot think of a single instance where someone is FORCED to sell a product.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:57 pm
===I cannot think of a single instance where someone is FORCED to sell a product. ===
Insurance industry coverage mandates.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 4:58 pm
–While a pharmacy will except payment for services rendered from people who are on government insurance, pharmacies do not take direct government subsidies.–
Dude, sometimes you make me laugh.
Where’s the money come from?
Just the Bush plan for expanded Medicare coverage to prescription drugs is $50 billion a year. That doesn’t count pharma purchased through government employee insurance.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 5:15 pm
Rich,
Help me out, are you talking about the new healthcare law? what is the specific product the insurance companies are being forced to sell? (No snark intended here, I’m having brain lock.)
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 5:16 pm
Wordslinger,
The customer is the one getting the money. At a doctor’s office, you will sign a Financial Policy statement saying that you, the patient, are responsible for payment. If you are a Medicare patient, you will further sign a statement (called something like an Advanced Benefit Notification) alerting you that there are things that Medicare might not pay for, and you need to decide how you will pay for something if it is not covered by Medicare (this is Federal law). I am pretty sure that such notifications are posted in pharmacies, albeit not in the most obvious places.
The government is not buying the product, the patient is. The government is reimbursing the pharmacy for an expense. As a courtesy, the pharmacies (and doctors) will directly charge the patient. Some doctors will not accept the government insurance directly, and there is a new movement in healthcare where doctors will not accept ANY insurance. The patient must pay for themselves and then submit the bill to the insurance company (government or private) for reimbursement. This business model is being found to be more cost effective for the doctor, and these same doctors often offer lower rates as a result.
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 5:24 pm
===what is the specific product the insurance companies are being forced to sell? ===
There are a kabillion state mandates on insurance companies here requiring coverage of all sorts of maladies and treatments. If you want to sell health insurance in Illinois, you have to include certain items in your coverage. Same goes for other forms of insurance. You have to sell a bare minimum of a certain sort of product.
This is not a new concept whatsoever.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 5:30 pm
Small Town Liberal - life altering is a bit of a stretch don’t you think? For crying out loud a possible pregnancy isn’t the end of the world these days. There are too many options for that to be true. My point is who decides what groups rights are ok to violate? Who gets to decide whose rights aren’t important enough to protect? Who decides what rights should be taken? If it’s ok to force pharmacists to sell a medication that violates their religous beliefs today, who is next in line? I will never ever come down on the side of taking someones core rights away. Especially just so someone else doesn’t have to be inconvenienced. The pill is still available. It just won’t be everywhere. Go where it is. Phone ahead as I’ve said twice before. Deal with the problem. Don’t make it other peoples problem.
Comment by Belle Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 6:25 pm
Cincy, you can dance all you want with obtuse arguments about indirect payments (whatever that means or proves), but taxpayers shell out billions and billions in public money to pharmacies every year.
Your original point was that pharmacies that don’t accept public money somehow aren’t subject to government regulation. I disagree, but there’s also not a pharmacy in the country that doesn’t live off of public money.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 7:19 pm
But again, the law is rather obvious about this. There is a specific exemption in state law for health care providers, for birth control and abortion.
So call it abortion, call it birth control is makes no difference it still is covered by the law pure and simple.
It also seems no one wants to make the argument that those who dispense drugs at a pharmacy are not health care providers.
So what do you do? Do you take the birth control idea out of the law, explicitly remove the folks who deal with medications, do you scrap the law entirely?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Apr 6, 11 @ 8:42 pm