Muslim pharmacist denies "morning after" pill from woman

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


These workers are still part of emergency services (not exactly, but I can't think of a better name for things like police/fire/health/air traffic controllers/etc), even if not employed by the government. I think it's fair for government to regulate a part of the economy that is critical to people's lives but which is run by the private sector.

Police and fire and air traffic controllers are all govt employees. Health workers are all over the map.

Of course govt can regulate the pharmaceutical profession - it does, heavily. The question is what kinds of regulation are reasonable.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


There was another thread on this a while ago. Stocking the morning-after pill is economical; there's a clear demand. The criteria I would use in this sort of situation are it must be economical (check) and it must be time-sensitive (check), otherwise you could just order the medication (can't you?).

Whether a given drug is economical to stock will likely vary from place to place, and is something that we generally let individual pharmacies determine. We DONT require pharmacies to stock every drug or device that the govt determines is economical to stock. We COULD do that, but we dont. So my point is that expecting every drug you need as part of the service of a pharmacy is simply not a reasonable expectation.


BTW, my dad was a pharmacist. This never came up. What did come up, IIRC, was folks with Rx's for Qualudes. Which were used recreationally, and which everyone knew were often prescribed by docs purely as a revenue generator, no medical rationale whatsoever. I dont recall what my Dad exactly did with them - IIRC, he did everything he could to avoid filling them, including insisting on calling the docs, and trying not to be in stock. He was an employee, for a heartless chain, and had a family to support, so I dont think he ever simply refused to fill one when he had it in stock. But filling them was definitely one of the more difficult aspects of an often trying job.

I also seem to recall reluctance to stock certain items that were favorites of thieves.

[flash9286]

The morning after pill is most effective for 12 hrs after sex, and has a limit of 72 hrs. I pretty sure someone can find a chain pharmacy store within 12 hrs. I live in a town with a pop <6000 and we have 3 pharm. (2 chains, 1 family owned). A law like this is pretty unreasonable attack on religious freedom when a women can just go to a nearby chain store and by the morning after pill.

[Krill]

This is in the UK Flash. There are alot of places in the UK where there is but one pharmacy. My home village is one such place, and I expect there will be alot on the Scottish islands, and in the periphery of the country. Unfortunately your arguement assumes those places don't exist.

[flash9286]

I know Krill, but the law they were talking about was a California law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You don't think there are places in California with only one pharmacy?

[flash9286]

I don't think there is a place in Cali, in which a person is 12hrs or 72hrs away from a chain pharmacy or another pharmacy that is willing to sell the MAP. Course I've never been to Cali, so im just speculating.


Anyway, isn't the MAP about to become OTC.


If I found the right law, it isn't severe as it seems:

SECTION 1. Section 733 of the Business and Professions Code is
amended to read:
733. (a) No licentiate shall obstruct a patient in obtaining a
prescription drug or device that has been legally prescribed or
ordered for that patient. A violation of this section constitutes
unprofessional conduct by the licentiate and shall subject the
licentiate to disciplinary or administrative action by his or her
licensing agency.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a licentiate shall
dispense drugs and devices, as described in subdivision (a) of
Section 4024, pursuant to a lawful order or prescription unless one
of the following circumstances exists:
(1) Based solely on the licentiate's professional training and
judgment, dispensing pursuant to the order or the prescription is
contrary to law, or the licentiate determines that the prescribed
drug or device would cause a harmful drug interaction or would
otherwise adversely affect the patient's medical condition.
(2) The prescription drug or device is not in stock. If an order,
other than an order described in Section 4019, or prescription cannot
be dispensed because the drug or device is not in stock, the
licentiate shall take one of the following actions:
(A) Immediately notify the patient and arrange for the drug or
device to be delivered to the site or directly to the patient in a
timely manner.
(B) Promptly transfer the prescription to another pharmacy known
to stock the prescription drug or device that is near enough to the
site from which the prescription or order is transferred, to ensure
the patient has timely access to the drug or device.
(C) Return the prescription to the patient and refer the patient.
The licentiate shall make a reasonable effort to refer the patient to
a pharmacy that stocks the prescription drug or device that is near
enough to the referring site to ensure that the patient has timely
access to the drug or device.
(3) The licentiate refuses on ethical, moral, or religious grounds
to dispense a drug or device pursuant to an order or prescription. A
licentiate may decline to dispense a prescription drug or device on
this basis only if the licentiate has previously notified his or her
employer, in writing, of the drug or class of drugs to which he or
she objects, and the licentiate's employer can, without creating
undue hardship, provide a reasonable accommodation of the licentiate'
s objection. The licentiate's employer shall establish protocols that
ensure that the patient has timely access to the prescribed drug or
device despite the licentiate's refusal to dispense the prescription
or order. For purposes of this section, "reasonable accommodation"
and "undue hardship" shall have the same meaning as applied to those
terms pursuant to subdivision (l) of Section 12940 of the Government
Code.

So the pharmacy can just transfer the prescription to another pharmacy if it is close enough and just has to notify his/her employer that they refuse to sell the pill.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


There was another thread on this a while ago. Stocking the morning-after pill is economical; there's a clear demand. The criteria I would use in this sort of situation are it must be economical (check) and it must be time-sensitive (check), otherwise you could just order the medication (can't you?).

The economic feasability of carrying the MAP depends on the pharmacy. A small pharmacy next to an old folks home isn't going to find carrying it as profitable as carrying something else for instance.

On the larger issue I think that conscience laws like the one mentioned in the article suck. Pharmacies should be able to fire anyone immediately who isn't serving their customers for personal (ie non-medical) reasons. If the employer wants to make an exception, then that's up to them, they'll have to pay the consequences other than the results of any unwanted pregnancies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

just has to notify his/her employer that they refuse to sell the pill.

Of course this means the pharmacy also has to have someone else working there that will dispense said drug to "ensure that the patient has timely access". That, in itself, may jeopardize the pharmacist's job.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

just has to notify his/her employer that they refuse to sell the pill.

Of course this means the pharmacy also has to have someone else working there that will dispense said drug to "ensure that the patient has timely access". That, in itself, may jeopardize the pharmacist's job.

It should, or better still, the reluctant pharmacist should be replaced.

[lord of the mark]

Dont they have trade unions in Britain? Shouldnt this be a matter for the union grievance committee?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by LordShiva

No, that's not the way it should be. Not doing one's job should not be against the law - it's the concern of the employers, employees, and customers, and not of the government.

The state licences all pharmacists and if you want to retain that licence then you must jump through what ever hoops they decide to make as long as the hoop is justifiable. Requiring pharmacists to fill all valid perscriptions (unless there is a good medical reason) is a very reasonable requirement.

Don't like it? Find a different job.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Elok
I think I agree with lotm's take on this, more or less. If you don't want to give out a certain drug, and your employer doesn't mind the loss of business, fine. If your employer does mind said loss, your butt is toast. Works for me.

But it doesn't work in small towns which often just have one pharmacy or for poor people without cars (like say... a pregnant 16 year old girl) who might not be able to get to a different pharmacy.

Also there was the problem that several large chain stores refused to carry the morning after pill (Walmart was a prime example). The California solution solved this major access problem so that people can get the medications they need as quickly as possible.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin


But it doesn't work in small towns which often just have one pharmacy or for poor people without cars (like say... a pregnant 16 year old girl) who might not be able to get to a different pharmacy.

But there seems to be a doc in town. The doc can dispense it.


If the doc was unwilling to write the RX, thered be nothing anyone could do about it.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You don't think there are places in California with only one pharmacy?

Sure. We have tons of tiny towns. It's a big state.