April 7, 200521 yr http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/01/birth.con...r.ap/index.html Illinois governor: No delays in birth control prescriptions Friday, April 1, 2005 Posted: 7:29 PM EST (0029 GMT) CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Gov. Rod Blagojevich approved an emergency rule Friday requiring pharmacies to fill birth control prescriptions quickly after a Chicago pharmacist refused to fill an order because of moral opposition to the drug. The emergency rule takes effect immediately for 150 days while the administration seeks a permanent rule. "Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy or the pharmacist is not allowed to discriminate or to choose who he sells it to," Blagojevich said. "No delays. No hassles. No lectures." Under the new rule, if a pharmacist does not fill the prescription because of a moral objection, another pharmacist must be available to fill it without delay. The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation has also filed a formal complaint against the Chicago Osco pharmacy for the February 23 incident. The pharmacy was cited for "failing to provide appropriate pharmaceutical care to a patient." Penalties could include a fine, reprimand or revocation of the pharmacy's license. An Osco spokeswoman did not immediately return a call Friday. Steve Trombley, CEO for Planned Parenthood in Chicago, praised the state's efforts. "When medical professionals write prescriptions for their patients, they are acting in their patients' best interests," Trombley said. "A pharmacist's personal views cannot intrude on the relationship between a woman and her doctor." The Chicago pharmacist was not the first to attract attention for refusing to fill a birth control prescription. In February, a judge recommended that a Roman Catholic pharmacist in Wisconsin be reprimanded and required to attend ethics classes after the pharmacist blocked a woman's attempt to fill a prescription for birth control pills in 2002. I'm not a fan of Blago at all, but he's exactly right. If you don't agree with birth control, that's fine, but don't be a jerk off and refuse to fill doctor written prescriptions just because you don't think it's morally right. Fill the prescriptions and shut up, and if you don't agree with birth control, don't use it, simple as that. I freaking hate embarassing religious fanactics that make all Christians look bad by taking these lame "moral high grounds" on issues and by doing so refuse to do WHAT THE LAW SAYS IS LEGAL like allow folks to take birth control.
April 7, 200521 yr Start looking for laws in certain states that will allow pharmacist to refuse to fill these prescriptions on moral grounds. The very idea of pharmacists deciding what I can and cannot take in terms of legally prescribed drugs is ridiculous. What's next? A cop not arresting a wife beater because the wife had an extra marital affair?
April 7, 200521 yr as an individual you should have the right to not fill the prescription. all the customer can do is complain to management and hope something is done. that's an intrussion of government in my opinion.
April 7, 200521 yr it seems refusal to perform your job to select individuals is discrimination it is up to the doctor to determine if a medicine is appropriate for the patient it's upto pharmacist to fill a script, inform the individual about the drug, dosage, etc if you worked at the counter in a drug store and refused to sell people cigarettes there would be problems if you worked at a book store and refused to serve black people because you were morally opposed to them reading, there would be major problems
April 7, 200521 yr Plus isnt a pharmacist a profession hence they have to get licenses hence the government is able to regulate them to a degree. That is, at least to the extent of saying "if you want you license, then you have to fill all prescriptions asked of you."
April 7, 200521 yr it seems refusal to perform your job to select individuals is discrimination it is up to the doctor to determine if a medicine is appropriate for the patient it's upto pharmacist to fill a script, inform the individual about the drug, dosage, etc if you worked at the counter in a drug store and refused to sell people cigarettes there would be problems if you worked at a book store and refused to serve black people because you were morally opposed to them reading, there would be major problems 732780[/snapback] great points. If this is ever held up in case law the slope is slippery.
April 8, 200521 yr This should never go to court, unless if the courts are trying to steal even more of our civil liberties. Its this simple, the pharmacist does not have to filla prescription if he doesnt want to. BUT, by that same token his employer cna reprimand and/or fire him for not filling it out. These people need to be regulated by employers not the govt. The pharmacist isnt doing anything illegal. If the pharmacy owner agrees that birth control pills shouldnt be given to customers, then change pharmacies, let them go out of business, let the market handle itself. This is being overblown and is stupid. If work at publix and i refuse to give out 5 dollar bills b/c i dont like lincoln, I shouldnt be arrested, just fired.
April 8, 200521 yr it's different though it's a refusal to service a customer because of a particular reason and can be deemed as discrimination it's not a matter of bad service, inconvenient service, etc .. it's a matter of flat out refusal to perform your job in a service based industry to a particular client what if a pharmacist refused to fill a script for sickle cell or diabeties medecine? What if it was a drug to help combat the effects of AIDS? Pretty much the stance is pharmacists are allowed to discriminate against those doing things that they deem inappropriate. I agree that the pharmacist is free to do whatever they please, but I also feel it is upto the employer to enforce a code of conduct. If that code is breached (i.e. - failure to do your job) then a reprimand of some substance should be imposed. If the company fails to discipline an employee who causes damages to a client then the organization is going to court. 3rd party discrimination, sexual harrassment, etc cases are very common due to just this. If a single teen age mother came into McDonalds and the counter kid refused to sell her a big mac because she has a child out of wedlock, you can bet your butt that McDonalds would take issue with that employee or have a very public case on their hands
April 8, 200521 yr This should never go to court, unless if the courts are trying to steal even more of our civil liberties. Its this simple, the pharmacist does not have to filla prescription if he doesnt want to. BUT, by that same token his employer cna reprimand and/or fire him for not filling it out. These people need to be regulated by employers not the govt. The pharmacist isnt doing anything illegal. If the pharmacy owner agrees that birth control pills shouldnt be given to customers, then change pharmacies, let them go out of business, let the market handle itself. This is being overblown and is stupid. If work at publix and i refuse to give out 5 dollar bills b/c i dont like lincoln, I shouldnt be arrested, just fired. 734013[/snapback] Actually no legacy. The rules are different when dealing with a profession. The law has and always will say this. Doctors who do certain activities that may be acceptable as free market behavior may still lose their license to practice medicine. The public expects a much higher degree of professionalism from certain professions because they require a much higher degree of trust. This isnt the same as selling a candy bar at the store. I know that the free market has recently undermined the legal profession. 50-100 years ago, a lawyer was not really allowed to advertise his services. Im not just saying he wasnt allowed to lie about his services. He wasnt allowed to flat out advertise his services. It was considered unprofessional. Lawyers are still heavily regulated in this matter but a lot of free marketers have undone past rules which is why you see those annoying ads on tv. The same applied to pharmacists. So youre wrong. If the state so chooses to regulate, they are absolutely within their bounds.
April 11, 200521 yr This should never go to court, unless if the courts are trying to steal even more of our civil liberties. Its this simple, the pharmacist does not have to filla prescription if he doesnt want to. BUT, by that same token his employer cna reprimand and/or fire him for not filling it out. These people need to be regulated by employers not the govt. The pharmacist isnt doing anything illegal. If the pharmacy owner agrees that birth control pills shouldnt be given to customers, then change pharmacies, let them go out of business, let the market handle itself. This is being overblown and is stupid. If work at publix and i refuse to give out 5 dollar bills b/c i dont like lincoln, I shouldnt be arrested, just fired. 734013[/snapback] Actually no legacy. The rules are different when dealing with a profession. The law has and always will say this. Doctors who do certain activities that may be acceptable as free market behavior may still lose their license to practice medicine. The public expects a much higher degree of professionalism from certain professions because they require a much higher degree of trust. This isnt the same as selling a candy bar at the store. I know that the free market has recently undermined the legal profession. 50-100 years ago, a lawyer was not really allowed to advertise his services. Im not just saying he wasnt allowed to lie about his services. He wasnt allowed to flat out advertise his services. It was considered unprofessional. Lawyers are still heavily regulated in this matter but a lot of free marketers have undone past rules which is why you see those annoying ads on tv. The same applied to pharmacists. So youre wrong. If the state so chooses to regulate, they are absolutely within their bounds. 734063[/snapback] It isnt that the state CANT regulate. Its that the state shouldnt regulate and doesnt have to regulate. A whole new can of worms can be opened here, the state forces pharmacists to give prescriptions that are against their religious beliefs. Looks like discrimination to me. I dont understand why people always insist on regulation when it isnt necessary. Just fire them. I'm right.
April 11, 200521 yr Do states mandate specific minimum inventory makeup and inventory stocking levels for a pharmacy?
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.