Complaints against Broadus pharmacist dismissed
by Jay Stevens
Way back in ancient times – December – there was quite a fuss made about a Broadus pharmacist who refused to fill prescriptions for contraceptives because of religious beliefs. Apparently a number of complaints were filed against the pharmacist, and yesterday the Gazette reported that all the complaints were dropped by the Montana Board of Pharmacy.
So it is now apparently legal for pharmacists to choose which prescription drugs they dispense.
Two comments in the Gazette story, I thought, effectively summed up the two sides of this issue. First, Libertarian:
This issue comes down to the right of the property owner. Lane has every right to refuse service if he owns the business. People in Missoula don’t believe in property rights as Libertarians do. Property rights include all sorts of things, including the right to let people smoke on private property open to the public.
… the reality is that people across Montana should be concerned that a state-licensed pharmacist can deny services based on his personal beliefs. Pharmacists are critical to the delivery of healthcare in our rural state. Not having any sort of guidance or standards for that licensure means that patients, who have legal prescriptions, can be denied care because the pharmacist disagrees based on his personal religious beliefs. John Lane took an oath to be a pharmacist, not a priest. If he can no longer fulfill the obligations of his chosen profession – for all of his clients – then he should consider a new line of work.
While I realize matching the rhetorical skills of “Libertarian” against “Liberty Girl’s” is an unfair fight, I think the core of the debate here is clear: at what point can the state dictate how a property owner uses her property? In this case, I think Liberty Girl is clearly in the right. A pharmacist is providing a licensed service and must adhere to the ethics and rules of his profession. And no one – especially a pharmacist — should insert their personal morality between a doctor and her patient. Doing so might be injurious to a patient’s health and well being.
It seems to me, though, that the actual support of Lane’s decision has less to do with property rights than it does with general support for his “morality,” such as it is. If, for example, Lane were a Christian Scientist and dispensing prescription medicine based on that sect’s attitude towards healing, there’s no debate.
-
Recent Comments
JC on Memorializing War Swede Johannson on Memorializing War Swede Johannson on Rape is not “knucklehead… 
larry kurtz (@larry_… on Memorializing War larry kurtz (@larry_… on Memorializing War Turner on Liz’s Weekly Poetry Seri… lizard19 on Memorializing War
March 12, 2008 at 2:13 pm
On No, busness owners can decide who to do business with.
March 12, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The moment the government started telling me what I HAD to sell, I’d sell my business and leave the state. I’d hope the state government would go bankrupt and laugh in their communist faces. If I owned a car dealership and I had to sell Kia’s even though I want to sell Fords. Another way to put it this is like the government telling me I have to sell Hybrids even if I morally object. This is def. crossing the line of extreme government control. This is all about freedoms that we enjoy, and the government staying out of our lives. This is no different then me shopping at the Good Food Store and not finding a particular item. Could I sue? I sure hope not…
March 12, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Cars and groceries are not terribly good examples, though. Your health isn’t at risk if you can’t get a summer squash or a Kia.
What if you went to the doctor for an X-ray, and she said, sorry that’s against my religion? Or if you’re in the military stationed in Iraq, and you want to drink clean water, but the contractor says, sorry, clean water’s against my religion?
March 12, 2008 at 3:13 pm
On No, busness owners can decide who to do business with.
This isn’t who you do business with, but how.
Should you allow a bus or taxi company hire drivers who don’t have valid drivers’ licenses? Should you allow doctors to practise without acquiring a medical degree? Should you allow a grocer knowingly sell produce contaminated with e coli?
March 12, 2008 at 3:21 pm
One day I was upset when I went to go buy bacon at the grocery store; and the only clerk was Muslim. He refused to check out my bacon. I was ticked, I REALLY wanted bacon. I had to go out of my way. Was that illegal for refusal of service. I thought it was wrong because the owner chose to sell bacon but a worker took it upon himself not to sell something. I hope he was promptly fired. A business owner, we are not talking life or death when water is required immediately in a desert. A doctor at a zero tax funded, 100% private clinic refusing an X-ray that depends. Lets say its owned by Muslims. Husband and wife. The person’s leg may be broken but if involves touching and skin, etc. Husband is gone and only the wife. I say she has a right to refuse service and tell him where the hospital is. Remember a private business would be a private clinic. We’re talking about basic freedoms here. A contractor probably isn’t a private business if they are operating on a Forward Operating Base in Iraq. That would probably be an AAFES situation; which is a massively owned business that has been IPO’d. Should the government force you to sell something and force their religion on you for a private business. I believe that violates the Constitution in every way it was formed.
March 12, 2008 at 3:26 pm
If this was about HOW he was doing business, it would be WHERE he got the drugs. Fake anti-biotics for example. But, stocking and selling what goods he chooses. Its about store selection. Comparing it to ecoli would be like selling expired drugs. This would be like him pulling the whole lettuce line of food. Not selling lettuce with ecoli.
March 12, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I guess that’s how I see it. I mean, if your health is impacted because you expect to go in and get your needed drugs…
March 12, 2008 at 3:49 pm
When a physician prescribes a drug for me, I expect the pharmacist to fill it. I expect his/her professional ethics to trump their personal biases. As Jay said, we’re not talking cars or cabbages here, we’re talking medicine that a doctor believes will improve my life and health.
But I suppose this pharmacist prefers abortions to birth control.
March 12, 2008 at 3:59 pm
My vehicle requires a certain type of tire. If I don’t get the exact right everything it will not be so safe. Its literally life and death. Should Tire-Roma be required to have all types of tires. Since, the right tread pattern is literally life and death on ice. No. Why? Because when I call around in Missoula, SOMEONE has them. I guess I just see this very simply. The government should be as small as possible. Requiring businesses to stock certain goods takes away hard fought freedoms. I say if its Joes private Pharmacy they should be allowed to carry whatever they want. Whats next, a new AID’s drug comes out tomorrow. By Friday would you sue if they didn’t have a supply for AIDS patient in a 500 mile radius? But, what about the public hospital pharmacy itself, thats not private. They should stock basic things. I hear a lot of claims of people supporting “Mom and Pop” stores but they sure want to run them by the largest entity on earth, the US government. I trust the smartest people on earth; the US citizen as an individual.
March 12, 2008 at 4:05 pm
This debate seems to come back to the same circular argument: he pharmacist operates under a state license. I don’t care what the pharmacist does/doesn’t believe, but if he/she wants to operate under the state license, then its conditions must be met. And the state has the authority to offer licensure under whatever conditions/restrictions it wants.
Thus, if the state wants to mandate that pharmacists dispense any legal prescription offered by doctors before they can receive a license, then fine by me. Montana should mandate that pharmacists licenses be contingent on filling all legal doctors prescriptions.
If a pharmacist refuses to want to operate under state rules, well, then they can just go and peddle whatever drugs they can legally do without a pharmacist license.
If you want to be a pharmacist, you gotta play the game by the rules. Just like doctors, lawyers, CPAs, over the road drivers, etc.
Personally, I’m sick of the argument that a pharmacist can define the scope of their practice, and I don’t care how many analogies, situations, comparisons, what have you that the right-to-lifers want to put out there, it just ain’t gonna wash.
If you want to argue about it, just bring your abscessed tooth to my dental clinic, and I’ll explain to you how I don’t believe in novacaine or pain killers, but I’ll take care of it promptly with some pliers.
It’s called standard of care! Meet it or beat it.
March 12, 2008 at 4:06 pm
We’re talking about basic freedoms here.
Widowmaker (and Ayn), we’ve already been over this argument before, in my earlier post. John Lane freely chose to enter a business already heavily regulated by government, the same government from which he has to obtain a license to practice his profession. The government already tells him what medications to dispense (for instance, marijuana, despite what Montana voters said two years ago, is still unavailable down at my local CVS). John Lane chose a profession that is far, far outside the boundaries of “basic freedoms”.
Besides, the law already recognizes there are certain “basic freedoms” business owners can’t enjoy. If a landlord refuses to rent a house to a black man or an employer will not hire gays or lesbians, you better believe the government will force a private business to do the right thing.
As for the Board of Pharmacy, how are they chosen? Peers or politics? If the latter, then voters should make sure we elect folks who will write, support and vote for laws requiring all professional pharmacists in Montana to dispense all legal prescriptions. Perhaps the Board is just waiting for legal precedent to relieve John Lane of the duties of a job he clearly cannot perform.
March 12, 2008 at 4:17 pm
And was that bacon-Muslim story for real, Widowmaker, or just a bit of hyperbole designed to play on any Islamo-phobia among our less enlightened readers?
March 12, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Don’t y’all know it’s fruitless to argue with libertarians? They have no souls. Just abstract principles born out of an unnatural obsession with absolutes.
March 12, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Rebecca, honestly (and admittingly) it was a bit of a stretch. Mainly, I was trying to point out an ironic point. In New York City Muslim cab drivers legally can refuse to pick up people with wrapped wine and blind people with eye dogs. But I hear nothing from the left. A Catholic (Evangelical doctrine has nothing against birth control) person refuses birth control, and I see rage. I find it ironic. Fearing a Catholics beliefs is “tolerance” and pointing out a Muslim truth is “Islamophobia”
March 12, 2008 at 10:42 pm
This religious tolerance argument really doesn’t hold water.
If I was a 7th Day Adventist, I wouldn’t open a coffee shop or work on a pig farm.
If I was a Mormon, I wouldn’t run a bar
If I was a Scientologist, I wouldn’t become a psychiatrist
If I was Hindi, I wouldn’t work in a McDonald’s
If I was Muslim or Jewish, I wouldn’t open a sausage shop
If I was a Quaker, I wouldn’t join the military
If I was a Jehovah’s Witness, I would not run for political office
Get the picture? This list can go on and on. If one chooses to enter a profession that is antithetical to their beliefs, then their actions are either hypocritical, or meant as a way to subvert the profession. Right-to-lifers who choose to become pharmacists do so to impose their own morality and religious beliefs on others.
March 13, 2008 at 7:45 am
Good point, JC.
March 13, 2008 at 7:56 am
I think this is one of those cases where you cross your fingers and simply hope he goes under due to the number of customers he might’ve lost pulling this stunt.
March 13, 2008 at 8:59 am
But I hear nothing from the left.
If what you say is true, it’s a shame. But that’s NYC! If that happened in Missoula, I’d give it a moment’s thought…
March 13, 2008 at 11:36 am
under starry skies above
“Besides, the law already recognizes there are certain “basic freedoms” business owners can’t enjoy. If a landlord refuses to rent a house to a black man..”
Race is definitely a protected class. I don’t think sexual orientation is. Carrying bacon or wine isnt.
People seeking legal drugs. Is that a protected class?
That would be my short answer analysis.
My opinion is that his license should be revoked, but right now I have a hard time backing that up legally. JC’s dental analysis is as close as I’ve seen. Ouch!
I don’t see a libertarian argument here unless we de-couple pharmacists from the state enforced monopoly they support.
Another man bullying women from whatever position of authority he posesses, it appears.
March 13, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Good news!
I wonder if we can get some local legislators to sponsor this new law?