[thecavemaster]

I go out with a pharmacist sometimes. She tells me that some pharmacists refuse to dispense the "morning after" pill, even going so far as to tell patients that "we don't carry that" (which is not true). She feels this to be professionally irresponsible. I see her point: it is a legal drug, being asked for by a patient. Does the pharmacist have the right to make a moral judgment for the patient?

[ronald_reagan]

I go out with a pharmacist sometimes. She tells me that some pharmacists refuse to dispense the "morning after" pill, even going so far as to tell patients that "we don't carry that" (which is not true). She feels this to be professionally irresponsible. I see her point: it is a legal drug, being asked for by a patient. Does the pharmacist have the right to make a moral judgment for the patient?

Maybe or maybe not? Anyone here know if its legal to do that?

I also know of many people who won't sell alcohol, and have to get another cashier to ring it up... but its based upon their belief of contributing to it. She never just DIDNT sell it.

[thecavemaster]

Let's say that pharmacist works for the Widget Pharmacy Company. i've got to believe that that company could be in quite a bit of liability trouble if a patient finds out that a pharmacist made the judgment for her/him.

[ronald_reagan]

Let's say that pharmacist works for the Widget Pharmacy Company. i've got to believe that that company could be in quite a bit of liability trouble if a patient finds out that a pharmacist made the judgment for her/him.

I think I saw that if they take federal money, like medicaid/medicare (i hope that neither are used for this.. especially senior citizens lol)... then the government has control over them selling it, making sure it gets done. I'm not for sure though.

But... considering that it IS private property.. I don't know that it could be illegal to deny it to someone?

[Crossbones]

I go out with a pharmacist sometimes. She tells me that some pharmacists refuse to dispense the "morning after" pill, even going so far as to tell patients that "we don't carry that" (which is not true). She feels this to be professionally irresponsible. I see her point: it is a legal drug, being asked for by a patient. Does the pharmacist have the right to make a moral judgment for the patient?

In a privately owned pharmacy. The "we don't carry that" remark, will make them liable. They can refuse to sell it though. "Go to another pharmacy". My wife works for a major Pharmacy and has refused to fill the prescription. In other words, someone else filled it, but she didn't have to if it went against her beliefs. Now, If she said, "we don't have that" and they actually do, then yes, she would be liable for making a false report. That is my understanding of it from the way she explained it to me. But to answer your ?, No, the pharmacist does not have that right, from a legal standpoint. They can alter or change meds. prescribed by the doctor though.

[thecavemaster]

Interesting.

[ronald_reagan]

Interesting.

My first cousin is a pharmacist. I'll see what he has to say about it.

[The Guru]

the guru,

it actually goes back to the beginning.. i'm not too for sure the catholic church was too concerned with money at that point.

good thought process though. never thought of it that way.

It might not have been about money, but it very well could have been about keeping the Church thriving and populated.

[OffTheHook]

Well, some people might not agree with this BUT, To me if a female has already been told that she is pregnant. I disagree with the use. This would be like abortion. BUT, if she has no clue, say the morning after, and she wishes to use this, just in case. I see no problem with it. Just another form of birth control. BUT, that is just my opinion.

As far as the Pharmacist goes. They should have an obligation to fill any legal request or legal perscription that any patient or custumer of the legal age, gives them. If the Pharmacy cares the drug, I don't feel that she/he has the right to choose based on what morals they possess.

[thecavemaster]

Found to be a constitutional right, judicially limited. "The Supreme Court is not final because it is right; it is right because it is final."

[ronald_reagan]

Found to be a constitutional right, judicially limited. "The Supreme Court is not final because it is right; it is right because it is final."

That quote is something I've said all too often. The constitution IMO couldn't have been written much, if any better..... However.... today we have 'opinions' in the courts, more so than 'explanations' and 'solutions'.

Even when a decision is made... it termed, 'the opinion of the court'...

[thecavemaster]

If this informs it all, in understanding: "We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice....secure the blessings of liberty..." AND "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all human beings are created equal and endowed... with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty,and pursuit of happiness."