Faux pharmacists
by Pete Talbot
Here are a couple of other bills that need our attention: HB 284 and HB 257.
Planned Parenthood of Montana sent me an alert (entire text and links below the fold). Hearings are to be held Wednesday, Feb. 4.
As has been reported here and on other blogs, certain “pharmacists” have decided what drugs they’ll dispense and what drugs they won’t. These bills guarantee that the meds prescribed by folks’ doctors and health practitioners will be filled, even if the pharmacist thinks he/she is morally superior to you.
URGENT ACTION NEEDED!!!!
On Wednesday, February 4th, two bills that protect and expand pharmacy access in Montana will have hearings in two separate committees in the Montana House of Representatives. You may remember that women in Montana have been refused access to legally prescribed birth control based on the personal, not professional, opinions of individual pharmacists. Pharmacies are critical links in our healthcare system and not addressing these refusals would be a disservice to the families of Montana.
The House Business and Labor Committee will hear HB 284 – the Montana Pharmacy Patient Protection Act – sponsored by
Representative Sue Dickenson. HB 284 establishes a system to ensure a patient’s access to legally prescribed medications
stocked by a pharmacy, while defining the ethical conduct standards for individual pharmacists who choose to exercise
their right to make a conscientious refusal. View HB 284 HERE:
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billpdf/HB0284.pdf
The House Human Services Committee will hear testimony on HB 257, sponsored by Representative Robyn Driscoll, a bill that provides commonsense solutions to expanding access to pharmacy drugs in rural Montana. HB 257 clarifies that medical practitioners may dispense a drug if it is not locally available and it provides pharmacy owners a streamlined option to protect access for patients who rely on pharmacies for their medical care when their staff pharmacist chooses to reject a legal prescription for personal reasons. View HB 257 HERE:
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billpdf/HB0257.pdf
Please CALL or EMAIL the committee members today to let them know how important pharmacy access is in Montana. Send an EMAIL message to your legislators here:
http://leg.mt.gov/css/sessions/61st/legwebmessage.asp or see below for personal email addresses.
LEAVE A PHONE MESSAGE for the committee members here:
406-444-4800.
House Business and Labor (critical votes are Reps. Arntzen,
Klock, and Welborn)
Arntzen, Elsie (R) – emarntzen@excite.com
Augare, Shannon (D) – shannonjaugare@aol.com
Beck, Paul (D) – paul.rena@montana.net
Berry, Tom (R) – not available
Boland, Carlie (D) – bolandforhouse@bresnan.net
Fleming, John (D) – flemin@stignatius.net
Furey, Timothy (D) – tjfurey@montana.com
Hunter, Chuck (D) – chunter717@bresnan.net
Klock, Harry (R) – klock@mtintouch.net
Milburn, Mike (R) – mmilburn@mcn.net
Noonan, Pat (D) – pnoonan73@yahoo.com
Reichner, Scott (R) – sreichner@centurytel.net
Reinhart, Michele (D) (Vice Chair) – michelereinhart@gmail.com
Smith, Cary (R) – cary@bresnan.net
Sonju, Jon (R) (Vice Chair) – sonjumt@yahoo.com
Vance, Gordon (R) – not available
Welborn, Jeffrey (R) – jeffw@wesupportwelborn.com
Wilson, Bill (D) (Chair) – bw208@hotmail.com
House Human Services (critical votes are Reps. Ingraham and
Welborn)
Beck, Bill (R) – mtbecks@centurytel.com
Becker, Arlene (D) (Chair) – arlene_becker@bresnan.net
Caferro, Mary (D) (Vice Chair) – marycaferro@gmail.com
French, Julie (D) – julfrench71@yahoo.com
Furey, Timothy (D) – tjfurey@montana.com
Howard, David (R) – d.howard@usadig.com
Hunter, Chuck (D) – chunter717@bresnan.net
Ingraham, Pat (R) (Vice Chair) – pathd13@blackfoot.net
McAlpin, Dave (D) – mcdave94@gmail.com
More, Michael (R) – mp_more@yahoo.com
Noonan, Pat (D) – pnoonan73@yahoo.com
Peterson, Ken (R) – kenneth59@bresnan.net
Sands, Diane (D) – hdsands@aol.com
Smith, Cary (R) – cary@bresnan.net
Stoker, Ron (R) – stoker@montana.com
Welborn, Jeffery (R) – jeffw@wesupportwelborn.com
Recent Comments
Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A… Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att… JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
4&20 blackbirds 
February 3, 2009 at 5:56 pm
And the point goes to Mark T for Pete’s use of “scare quotes”.
http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/literary-shortcuts/
February 3, 2009 at 6:21 pm
I believe the period goes before the final quotation mark, not after, Widowmaker.
February 3, 2009 at 7:55 pm
And you believe wrong ol Petie boy.
February 3, 2009 at 9:17 pm
You could be right, Widowmaker, but all the research I’ve done indicates this:
“In the United States, periods and commas go inside quotation marks regardless of logic.”
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/GRAMMAR/marks/quotation.htm#footnote
Plus, because this is a blog and not the New York Times, I figure I can butcher punctuation and Mark T’s concerns about “scare quotes.” Send me a paycheck and I’ll change my evil ways.
February 3, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I am don’t generally speak up but I personally think this is ridiculous. What the hell ever happened to it being a free country. If a business chooses not to sell a product it’s their own business. If you don’t like it, deal with another business or start your own. If you can’t start a business, ask yourself why? It’s probably because of the bloated intrusive government that you helped to create.
In a free society the government serves one function. To protect the rights of the people. One iota more or less is tyranny. People run around and bitch because the levers of government are being pulled in someone else’s favor instead of their own. Instead why don’t we start running around and bitching about the government pulling levers that they shouldn’t be pulling .
The hardcore democrats become enraged when the government tries to tell them what they can and can’t do, yet at the same time they will insist that the government should intervene on someone else’s behalf. The hardcore republicans cry bloody murder if you touch their pocket book but they will gladly stick their nose in my bedroom. Meanwhile I sit here absolutely dumfounded while I watch my hard earned money being spent on war, unnecessary foreign aid, bibles, abortions, corporate welfare, social welfare, and propaganda for a government to simultaneously run two separate campaign’s ideologically opposed while I pay for the whole thing.
If you wish to support the democratic or republican ideologies I could care less. Just quit spending my money in the process. We should all be busy restoring our country to the principles that made it great Am I the only one that feels this way?
February 3, 2009 at 10:07 pm
what the hell ever happened to what my grandfather used to say; NEVER MIX BUSINESS AND RELIGION…it is a simple enough concept. where do these right wing religious fanatics get the idea that it is ok to take it upon themselves to tell the rest of us how to live our lives?
it is a simple enough concept if you love freedom as these hypocrites like to tell us they do…do your job and allow those of us who do not believe as you do to run our own damn lives…..if you just cannot bring yourself to administer the medicines that your occupation requires you to do, quit and do something else. but don’t sit there with the only pharmacy in a 50 mile radius and withhold a perfectly legal product from any american. that is just plain unamerican. it is religious fasciism. period.
February 3, 2009 at 10:43 pm
problembear, I do not intend to enter this conversation to sling crap, but I would hope that you would entertain me and answer a question. Because to me your statement seems to be hypocritical. You speak of not allowing people to tell you what to do. While at the same time you are wanting to use the force of government to tell a person what to do?
Is this not unamerican?
February 3, 2009 at 10:49 pm
We should all be busy restoring our country to the principles that made it great Am I the only one that feels this way?
the way forward is not latching on to a warped idealization of the past. local government is real and should be supported. they help control where your shit goes, and how your water tastes. state government is usually always sucking the federal tit, except when Brian shoots REAL Id’s for tv ads (after singing some country yarn about clean coal). if states weren’t on the federal tit, 18 year olds could still get drunk in Louisiana, and the feds wouldn’t be able to raid local businesses selling pot toking paraphernalia.
February 3, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Lizard, a large part of those “outdated principles” of our government is local control.
February 3, 2009 at 10:54 pm
anotherelias,
What in Jesus Christ crapping Pop Tarts are you saying here? That makes no sense to me.
February 3, 2009 at 11:16 pm
what doesn’t make sense? Please pick a statement and I’ll elaborate.
February 3, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Please elaborate how requiring pharmacists to engage their duty is a violation of their rights. If they want to be priests, they can molest children, smoke pot and somehow fulfill their nonsensical creed, but there’s still only a certain number of people in a community who can fill a prescription and manage, for example, a cancer patient’s suffering.
February 3, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Wow, and I make no sense. To begin with I don’t believe it is within the proper role of government to MAKE an individual do anything but pay a modest tax, and not violate the rights of others.
I don’t mean to sound judmental but it appears that the only discussion going on here is how bad the “other guys” are. I believe that I have wondered into the wrong place.
It’s the fault of the redemopublicraticans.
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil for every one striking at the root.”
Perhaps I’m wrong, I’ll check back later.
February 4, 2009 at 12:09 am
No, there are many discussions going on here, and the ability have many discussions at once is a skill of the digital era. To start with, this world is too complicated to believe the government has only one or two proper roles. If that is off-putting, then perhaps you have wandered into then wrong time.
So go. There’s no place for you here in the future. Get back while you still can!
February 4, 2009 at 12:36 am
I appreciate your comments, anotherelias, but have to disagree. Yes, the government shouldn’t tell a business what it can and cannot sell — if you’re selling shoes or spuds or widgets.
If you’re a licensed professional who has sworn an oath to provide a service to your community, then you better do it or get out of that business. You’ve made a commitment and you need to live up to it. People are relying on you.
A Christian Scientist doesn’t believe that you should have any medication — that you’ll be healed through the power of prayer. How would you like to have him/her making decisions when filling your prescription?
By the way, I don’t agree with klemz on one point; don’t go away, you’re welcome to comment here anytime.
February 4, 2009 at 7:59 am
i echo pete’s sentiments anotheralias. please keep commenting. we do invite reasonable folks to disagree, and you are certainly reasonable. to answer your question about forcing someone to do something against their will vis a vis a licensed professional who took an oath to fulfill the requirements of their profession, what is the greater right here? the rights of citizens to expect to receive what their doctors prescribe? or the right of a religious zealot to deny citizens a legally prescribed drug?
i would rather live in a society which requires the professional to do their job, or quit the profession. that would be their choice.
to deny a citizen something based on zealous religious beliefs goes against our constitutional rights as citizens.
i would rather live in a country which preserves all rights to choose- the pharmacist can choose to do his/her job or quit; and the citizen can choose whatever legally prescribed drug they are entitled to…does that answer your question? it is a clear cut difference to me and i support freedom in this instance, against religious fascism.
February 4, 2009 at 8:15 am
Sorry to point out problembear, you just dodged a question by answering it with a bunch of other questions.
February 4, 2009 at 8:18 am
Also, as a staunch Rabid Catholic, I am offended by Klemz’ remarks about priests. They have the right to molest anybody they want to, smoke as much erb as they want, and not have to worry about our government telling them what to do. I believe in religious freedoms for Catholics, and limited government. I believe in the Vatican’s sovereignty across any national borders. Stan Jones told me so that’s why!
February 4, 2009 at 8:22 am
Thank you Elanor. I award you three Holy Cards.
It’s about time someone stood up for us… well someone who’s not a priest and doesn’t have blue skin.
Blessed be Elanor.
February 4, 2009 at 9:00 am
I wasn’t telling him/her to go away, just making a point about the role of libertarian ideals in political discussion. I am a libertarian, but that label isn’t license to say, “Well, I’m a libertarian, so you can save your fast talk. I’ll just stay here with my freedoms and wish for a small government.”
That’s not a libertarian. That’s a turtle.
February 4, 2009 at 9:42 am
Libertarians have the luxury of always being right in their own minds simply because their philosophy has never been tested in the real world. “I don’t believe it is within the proper role of government to MAKE an individual do anything but pay a modest tax, and not violate the rights of others” is a nice sentiment, but it ignores reality. Anotherelias hasn’t been paying attention: today’s citizens demand their government provide services and enforce regulations the Founding Fathers never would have dreamed of in 1776.
Anyway, how often do we have to have this discussion? If you don’t want to behave like a professional in your chosen profession, one that’s already regulated by the government, then find another way to make money.
If a science teacher in the public school system taught his students dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by Satan just to make modern man question the existence of God, most people would agree that’s a person who needs to find work someplace else. How is allowing someone else’s ignorance to affect a community’s medical care any different?
It’s an issue of public trust.
February 4, 2009 at 10:07 am
or a bar owner who refuses to serve alcohol…if you are inclined to tell people what to do with their lives, get into religious work, or social work…don’t get a license to administer drugs and then refuse to administer them. that is absurd, but then, what hasn’t become absurd in this new america of up is down and down is up. i say up is up and down is down, no matter what anyone else argues (and of course i will defend their right to argue that down is up…) that is what freedom means…to bears anyway. that’s just how we roll….
February 4, 2009 at 10:09 am
I agree, but I think its incumbent on libertarians to protect the default of deregulation. That’s not to oppose regulation dogmatically, but to aid the public in weaning off what is arbitrary and capricious.
Bureaucracy by nature is a hustle. Both you and I need people around who love to tell them “no”, even if said person is wrong on a given issue.
I personally think the classic libertarian cop out is bad for everyone, but libertarian ideals when properly applied are a virtue imho.
February 4, 2009 at 10:11 am
I changed my wording and left a verb in. Weaning off -> filtering out.
February 4, 2009 at 11:22 am
In line with what Klemz et al espouse, I just need to remind everyone that one of the libertarian’s central platform items in the last election was the elimination of the department of education.
More generally, aside from how crazy their ideas are if actually put into practice, they pave the way for the very kind of freedom-quashing oppression they claim to opposed. For example, if you eliminate the federal government, that will result in the massive privatization of each agency. So, libertarians, do you want bumbling bureaucrats running the country or privately controlled corporations?
Still haven’t seen a persuasive answer from the libs on this one.
The real value of libertarians: God bless them for all the republican votes they steal. God bless them.
February 4, 2009 at 11:56 am
This whole faux pharmacist movement is nothing more than another subversive attempt by the moral (and shrinking) minority to impose their values on the rest of us.
I say the faux farmacists should get jobs cleaning out stables. And when they say they don’t want to shove sh*t anymore, they should just wave their shovels in the air and cry to the state to allow them the right to not shovel sh*t for a living, but get paid anyway.
February 4, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Yes, if a business chooses not to sell a product, they are free to do so. And if that means they don’t meet the licensing requirements for that type of business in this state, they are free to move somewhere else.
February 4, 2009 at 3:31 pm
From the APhA Code of Pharmacist 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.
http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2007/03/oath_of_a_pharmacist_and_code.php
And…the period does go inside the quotation marks in the example above. Once an English teacher, always an English teacher.
February 4, 2009 at 6:44 pm
“Place periods inside, never outside, closed quotation marks.”
Style Manual For Written Communications
Colons, semicolons, exclamation marks and question marks have different rules.
My opinion is that doctors and pharmacists have “the obligation to treat”; isn’t that part of “their oath”?
February 4, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Funny how threads take on a life of their own. This started as a commentary on pharmacists refusing to fill certain prescriptions and has turned into a punctuation lesson.
That’s OK. I’ll take all the grammar/syntax/punctuation help I can get.
February 4, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Well, not to be picky, Pete, but when you are speaking about “threads” in the plural, then it should be:
Funny how threads take on lives of their own.
Or, in the singular:
Funny how a thread takes on a life of its own.
Now, who’s going to come along and correct my correction for not being so “copacetic”?
February 5, 2009 at 12:12 am
You’re right JC. This happens when I publish before proofing.
February 5, 2009 at 7:09 am
I do it all the time. Why doesn’t anyone correct me?
February 5, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Pete asked for some help. ;-)
“I’ll take all the grammar/syntax/punctuation help I can get.”
February 5, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Anotherelais, What if the only Doctor in the emergency room is white and refused to treat blacks because of his religious beliefs. Do you think he would remain a Doctor very long? How is this any different. My medications are between me and my Dr. The pharmacist is just a fucking clerk who gets the godamn pills for me.
The real problem is you can’t ask these lunatics if they have religious conflicts handing out the prescribed medications before hiring them. You also can’t fire them because of thier religious beliefs. So these people are violating my rights by forcing thier religious dogma on me. I should be able to sue them, just like they sue the employers who fire them.
February 5, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Mayor of Mayhem. I’m sure 100% of Pharmacists detest your latest comment. Your ignorance on who they are and what they do was evidence from every line of text. As you so childishly put it, a Pharmacist is NOT just a clerk. I’d safely bet everything I’ll ever earn that they have more education than you. They are DOCTORS. The Pharm D’s know a heck of a lot more about the meds than the MD’s. This is the way the system is set up. Pharmacists are the most educated people in the world about drugs and their side effects. They are supposed to pay attention to 100% of every single pill you take. So, you are completely false, its NOT between you and the doctor that prescribed them, but ALL THREE OF YOU. They don’t “get” you the pills, thats the techs job. If you are honest with them about what else you take, they will determine if its still safe to take what the doctor prescribed. They can also help you you with what OTC medications can be taken with it. Next time you think about barfing out random, false statements about a job, can you look it up first? Oh, and those “clerks” get a starting wage of over 100K in the state of Montana. I’d recommend using their vast knowledge base, compared to seeing them like the 16K a year check out clerk.
February 5, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Next thing you know, these faux farmacists are going to be handing out placebos instead of Viagra to their customers.
February 5, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Widowaker, a Pharm D. does not equal an M.D. They are not doctors of medicine.
Nor are they “the most educated people in the world about drugs.” I’d reserve that for drug researchers and pharmaceutical manufacturers.
And my relationship between me and my doctor is exactly that. The pharmacist is nothing more than the middleman, if I so choose. If I choose to receive my meds via a mail order or online store (like I do for my daughters meds, and her insurance company mandates), I don’t even have to do a face-to face with the pharmacist. My interaction with my pharmacist IS TOTALLY VOLUNTARY. I don’t need you telling me how to relate to the health care system.
Oh, and if you want to look up some facts about pharmacists, I’d suggest starting with the AACP, so you can avoid barfing up bad facts, too.
And here’s an excerpt from the Pharmacist Code of Ethics:
“III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient…”
Nothing in the code asserts that the pharmacists moral beliefs trump those of the patient. In fact, there is nothing in the Code of Ethics that allows a pharmacist to assert the sorts of privileges that the backers of the faux farmacist movement are pushing.
February 5, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“Next thing you know, these faux farmacists are going to be handing out placebos instead of Viagra to their customers.”
It’s not legal for pharmacists to stiff their customers, is it?
February 5, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Depends on how they “stiff” them.
February 5, 2009 at 4:44 pm
widowmaker- it appears you worship money more that freedom from your remarks…your logic is the pharmacist makes more than you do so obey thou knave…is that it?
February 5, 2009 at 5:27 pm
I would argue, and correctly argue against you JC, that your knowledge on Pharm D’s are just slightly better than the ignorance Mayor of Mayhem spewed out. Pharm D’s are doctors. Its what the “D” stands for (as in the fourth letter of the alphabet, to make it easier remember “D” as in “Dog”). In this case “D” as in Doctor. Say it with the rest of the class. “D” as in… A pharmacist is required by law to be…wait for it JC…you ready…A DOCTOR. You don’t need me telling you about your healthcare situation, but you obviously need somebody to fill in the blanks. Mail in meds are dispensed by…DOCTORS. Btw, so Pharm D’s are required by law to be fully educated on drug interaction, much more so than your precious MD’s. So, your quoting of the code is great. No point in this discussion, but it filled otherwise white space that would have been below your post. And you are wrong, it is the Pharm D’s business. They must determine if its a real script, at times calling the doctor. They then can determine if a cheaper drug can do the same thing. And finally it is their business when they see things like Oxy coming down the line. Shoot, I have to see a Pharmacist to buy sudophedrine because of stupid montana laws. They can determine from the consumers demeanor to sell it to them I have been denied, because my cold caused my hands to shake. I don’t see the whiners on this page about such outrageous laws. They have legal consequences for things like Ritalin as well. These legal consequences make it their business. So, just because you’d like to think its just between you and your doctor. You were told wrong. They too are doctors (not MD’s but more so educated in FDA approved medicine) and they too are in the process. Oh and Problembear I was saying since they are a knowledge base, and have gone to school for 6 years+ and get paid so much its a shame NOT to use them. Its like hiring a lawyer to water your plants.
February 5, 2009 at 5:53 pm
a pharmacist’s knowledge base no matter how impressive, does no good if they allow fanatical religious beliefs to dominate their thinking, widowmaker. this is the crux of the problem. hence, the restriction for certain pharaceuticals for certain patients on the part of the pharmacist restricts the patient/client freedom of choice…not because they know more about the drug- but simply because they do not agree with the patient/doctor’s prescription based on extremist religious beliefs. that is simply not professional by any definition.
February 5, 2009 at 6:16 pm
I was actually arguing against a Pharmacist being called “just a clerk”, not for a Pharmacist to be able to do this. I was offended by the generalization; I was a clerk at 16. Pharmacists have earned my respect for their hard work and dedication. I don’t think they should be able to dispense what they want and not dispense others. However, a BUSINESS owner, should be able to control their inventory. Some towns in Montana have less than 50 people. Lets say there is a corner store that sells drugs, but no woman in the town takes birth control pills. Should this business be required to stock expiring pills every month to satisfy this requirement? Absolutely not, I say there has to be enough business to satisfy it being in stock. But, it should not be up to the pharmacist for his moral compass. Some people disagree with Ritalin, but the Pharmacist should still dispense.
February 5, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Widowmaker, why don’t you go to your faux farmacist the next time you need to have surgery. Then come back here and us all how your “Doctor” performed. I doubt a Pharm D. can remove your appendix any better than a PhD “Doctor” in Economics.
Some day you may realize that there are lots of different kinds of, wait for it… slowly now… D-O-C-T-O-R-S.” And there is only one I would trust to practice medicine: The one with the, wait for it, slowly now… “M” before the “D” as in M.D. or really slowly now… M-E-D-I-C-A-L D-O-C-T-O-R. Medical doctor. As in: hey, what’s up, Doc?
“So, just because you’d like to think its just between you and your doctor. You were told wrong.”
No one ever told me I had to interact with a pharmacist (except some whacked out blog commenter). I do so by choice (something the faux farmacist movement is opposed to in more ways than one, it seems). I choose to do so, or not do so according to my own decisions. Show me the law that says I have to listen to, or talk to a pharmacist. There is no such law. I do so because I “TRUST” my pharmacist, as he is an ethical person who doesn’t impose his moral proclivities on me.
No, you are ignorant about the law and ethical duties of pharmacists. You have absolutely nothing to back up your comments except emotions. And that is why this legislation will fail in Montana.
February 5, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Pete, JC & Co.: Remember the Uncle Remus tale of Br’er Rabbit and the Tar Baby? Now…think “Widowmaker” instead of “Tar Baby.”
February 6, 2009 at 9:30 am
Widowmaker, I sure lit your fire. After re-reading my comments I must agree they sound pretty ignorant. However that doesn’t change my opinion on pharmacist’s who refuse to dipsense medications that were prescribed by MD’s. Regardless of the level of that Pharmacists education or his knowledge of drug interaction. his refusal to honor my Doctor’s medical assesment of my condition borders on criminal behavior. I did not ask my pharmacist for medical advice. I simply came to him to obtain medications prescribed by another more qualified medical professional. The pharmacists religious beliefs are irrelevant to my relationship with him.
I am the Vice President of a specialty lighting manufacturer. If your company approached me for a product I didn’t think was right for your application, I would advise you against making that purchase. If you refused my advice I would sell it to you anyway. I would never invoke my relationship with GOD to refuse to provide my customer with what they wanted. If a pharmacist refused to provide a patient with a narcotic because they had multiple prescriptions from different Doctor’s I would say they are earning thier pay. Which as you stated is substantial. I think Pharmacists work in a strictly regulated profession and deserve whatever wage thier employers see fit to pay them.
As far as your comments on my education are concerned, I’ll dismiss them as irrelavent to the subject at hand. I would however caution you that just because a religious zealot lunatic has a couple more years of college than you or me. that doesn’t make them not a religious zealot lunatic
February 6, 2009 at 9:42 am
Just in case it wasn’t clear in my last post. I apologize to any ethical non religious zealot pharmacists who read my first post
February 6, 2009 at 9:59 am
Thanks for the rebuttal Mayor of Mayhem. I actually do not support Pharmacists being able to refuse medicine. I actually think a person has the right to demand their own treatment from doctors too, but thats a different story. I do hope this legislation fails
February 6, 2009 at 11:29 am
Widowmaker, You had mentioned that legislation shouldn’t force business to stock slow moving product. That same business owner should have the right to fire a employee who refuses to perform the job he/she was hired to do for whatever reason. If I hire a devout buddhist to exterminate cockroaches and he refuses to do so because of his religion I should have the right to terminate his services. How are pharmacists any different? In this case business will determine what happens. Viagra and birth control are widely prescribed medications. Any pharmacy who knowingly hires someone who will not dispense these meds is asking for decreased revenue. It’s like hiring a paint salesman who won’t sell any white paint. Why would you do this?
I would like you to consider the fact that most major chain drug stores now have drive up windows. Pharmacists hand out vicodin for people with middle age aches, rittalin for children who are difficult to manage, sleeping pills for housewives who are depressed, and we won’t even start on the anti-depressants. I really wish some pharmacist would take a moral stand somewhere other than on his churches altar.