Arlos, we may agree

[Donnel]

Or we may not:

New York Times, April 2, 2005

Illinois Pharmacies Ordered to Provide Birth Control

By MONICA DAVEY

CHICAGO, April 1 - With a growing number of reports of pharmacists around the country refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and emergency contraception, Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich on Friday filed a rule requiring Illinois pharmacies to accept and dispense all such prescriptions promptly.

"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 or who he doesn't sell it to," Mr. Blagojevich, a Democrat, said. "No delays. No hassles. No lectures."

Two Chicago women, he said, reported in February that they had been turned away from a downtown drugstore when they tried to fill prescriptions for morning-after birth control pills. On Friday, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation filed a formal complaint against that pharmacy, one in the Osco chain, and said it could face discipline ranging from a fine to the revocation of its license. No one from Osco's corporate offices could be reached for comment on Friday.

Nationally, the leaders of Planned Parenthood and Naral Pro-Choice America said they had seen more and more cases like that over the past year. They emphasized that women in smaller communities or in rural areas, with perhaps only one pharmacy to use, might be left unable to receive their prescribed birth control if the pattern was allowed to continue.

"Pharmacies have an ethical and legal obligation," said Nancy Keenan, the president of Naral.

Governor Blagojevich, saying that his emergency rule clarified an existing state requirement, said he suspected that the pattern of complaints over the past year was no coincidence, but rather "part of a concerted effort" to prevent women from getting the birth control they wanted.

Under the emergency rule put in place in Illinois, pharmacies that do not have a particular prescribed contraceptive would be required to order some or to send the prescription to another pharmacy.

But Susan C. Winckler of the American Pharmacists Association, which represents 52,000 pharmacists, said she had concerns about the emergency rule in Illinois. The association, she said, believes that pharmacists should be allowed to "step away" in cases where they feel uncomfortable dispensing a particular drug - so long as their customers can still get their drugs from alternative sources.

Ms. Winckler said she also worried that Governor Blagojevich's new rule might reach beyond the question of a pharmacist's own moral sensibilities, and require pharmacists to dispense all prescriptions, even those that were "clinically inappropriate" for patients. Such cases might include ones in which a pharmacist discovered a customer's allergy or a potential drug interaction that a prescribing doctor had missed.

"Depending on the wording of the rule, there is a real risk that the governor could be creating," Ms. Winckler said. "The pharmacist is not a gas station attendant where if there is gas you have to sell it. Pharmacists are supposed to assess the appropriateness of a drug."

Abby Ottenhoff, a spokeswoman for Mr. Blagojevich, said the new rule did not take away a pharmacist's right to counsel a patient about a prescription within the confines of existing state law.

"That doesn't change," she said. "What cannot happen is the pharmacist cannot allow personal factors and feelings to interfere."

I don't see where the government of Illinois can legislate that a particular store has to sell a particular item. It wasn't discrimination. These women weren't turned away because they were women, or because they were a minority (if they were) they were turned away because the store they went to didn't carry the item they wanted.

Next we are going to see Target fined for not stocking Garanimals clothing. Why do we allow any government to tell us how to run our businesses in this way? Illinois should not be able to tell a business to decide between keeping its license and keeping its conscience.

Arlos while we disagree on many things I was wondering if you were with me on this one being a traipsing over of the pharmacists rights.

Oh and the house and senate are both introducing legislation to make this a nationwide thing.

[Donnel]

"Mom and Pop bookstore sued for not carrying the works of Anton LeVay, news at 11"

[Eziekial]

Forget slipery slope, it's turning into a god-damn landslide. I'm going to propose a law to implant tracking chips into newborns to fight kid-napping and run aways just to prove my point. I bet it sails through without so much as a "WTF?".

[Langston]

It's not the first time that the Government (state or Federal) have trampled on the rights of private industry and forced them to sell, not sell, or price fix.

We claim to have a market economy, but we turn a blind eye to these things.

Now, I agree that price collusion should be illegal... but a private company should have full rights to tell some to buzz off... to anyone that they choose. It's their choice to sell or not to sell. There are some cases, I suppose, where there would be a place to say that basic necessities (food, clothing, electricity, water, etc) could be important enough to force a company to provide to all reasonable parties... but morning-after pills wouldn't fall into that category.

[Wrath Child]

Pharmacists rights? If you're a pharmacist, do your job and fill prescriptions. What someone does with the condoms or morning after pills they buy is up to them, not you.

If you do feel it involves you, then be prepared for lawsuits from victims of Meth users who's Meth was created by products you sold! Same with opiate based pain killers. If someone gets addicted, clearly it's your fault since you sold it to them.

Everyone who goes into a pharmacy school knows that birth control pills are a HUGE part of that business. If a woman gets pregnant after you refused to fill her prescription, you are partially responsible for the abortion she then goes and has.

What's worse:

Taking part in the possible prevention of a fertilized egg becoming attached in the uterus...

Or

Taking part in the actual abortion of a fully formed baby?

[Martrae]

Yeah, it's the pharmicists fault someone was irresponsible enough to get pregnant. It never said he didn't carry birth control...just the morning after pill.

Perhaps you don't know that pharmacies can only keep the meds on the shelves for so long before they cannot sell them any longer. If that pharmacists didn't think there would be demand enough for that med then forcing him to stock it is just putting a strain on his resources.

Since it sounds like an independent pharmacy (rare anymore) he most likely has to pick and choose which meds to keep and those would be the hot sellers not something he may sell once a month.

[Donnel]

Bull

Not all pharmacy's carry all brands or all types of drugs to begin with. What happens then? You go to a different pharmacy.

Why should a pharmacy be forced to sell something? Birth control is not a necessity, it's a luxury.

PS directed at Wrath Child

[Wrath Child]

The bottom line is, if you oppose the morning after pill, you are heartily supporting abortion clinics. It's called picking the lesser of two evils, kinda like America did last election.

[Donnel]

Actually I can oppose both, regardless of your opinion. I don't have to settle for the lesser of two evils, you see, we live in a democracy.

[Martrae]

And he opposes the pill just because he doesn't carry it? You really are a simpleton.

[Wrath Child]

Yeah, it's the pharmicists fault someone was irresponsible enough to get pregnant. It never said he didn't carry birth control...just the morning after pill.

Perhaps you don't know that pharmacies can only keep the meds on the shelves for so long before they cannot sell them any longer. If that pharmacists didn't think there would be demand enough for that med then forcing him to stock it is just putting a strain on his resources.

Since it sounds like an independent pharmacy (rare anymore) he most likely has to pick and choose which meds to keep and those would be the hot sellers not something he may sell once a month.

It's kinda hard to be responsible when you have an idiot for pharmacist who can't tell the difference between a human being and a fertilized egg preventing you from purchasing birth control pills. I guess married women who don't want any more children should just stop having sex or get her tubes tied to make it so?

Tell me, are you one of those evil, babykilling women who have or are currently using birth control pills?

[Wrath Child]

Actually I can oppose both, regardless of your opinion. I don't have to settle for the lesser of two evils, you see, we live in a democracy.

No, we don't. Get a clue.

[Martrae]

Is this moron Mindia under a different account name?

How can you COMPLETELY ignore my entire post and type in that drivel?

[Donnel]

Yeah, it's the pharmicists fault someone was irresponsible enough to get pregnant. It never said he didn't carry birth control...just the morning after pill.

Perhaps you don't know that pharmacies can only keep the meds on the shelves for so long before they cannot sell them any longer. If that pharmacists didn't think there would be demand enough for that med then forcing him to stock it is just putting a strain on his resources.

Since it sounds like an independent pharmacy (rare anymore) he most likely has to pick and choose which meds to keep and those would be the hot sellers not something he may sell once a month.

It's kinda hard to be responsible when you have an idiot for pharmacist who can't tell the difference between a human being and a fertilized egg preventing you from purchasing birth control pills. I guess married women who don't want any more children should just stop having sex or get her tubes tied to make it so?

Tell me, are you one of those evil, babykilling women who have or are currently using birth control pills?

Go to a different pharmacy, or mail order, or purchase online. There are countless alternatives then legislating a pharmacy's inventory.

[Langston]

It's kinda hard to be responsible when you have an idiot for pharmacist who can't tell the difference between a human being and a fertilized egg preventing you from purchasing birth control pills. I guess married women who don't want any more children should just stop having sex or get her tubes tied to make it so?

Tell me, are you one of those evil, babykilling women who have or are currently using birth control pills?

I'm getting the distinct impression that Wrath Child doesn't know how babies are made and how to prevent it from happening.

[Arlos]

There's a difference between over-the-counter medication and prescription medication. I would actually assume that it's not an uncommon occurance for a pharmacy to sometimes not have a given medication on its shelves, and need to place an order for it when they're presented with a prescription. After all, there are how many different prescription drugs? No way a small pharmacy could have ALL of them on the shelves at all times. There's no reason whatsoever that they could not fill the prescription by placing an order for the drug. They might not be able to do so until the following day, to allow shipping time, but lack of shelf space or concern about shelf-life of a drug is no excuse whatsoever.

Note:

pharmacies that do not have a particular prescribed contraceptive would be required to order some

All in all, I think that the intent behind the Illinois law is a good one. It is *DOCTORS* who should be deciding what medication patients receive. Period. Pharmacists exist to dispense the medication that licensed MDs say their patients need or should have. Pharmacists do NOT have even remotely the same medical training as doctors, it is not their place to decide what medication a patient should or should not be receiving, except within the narrow confines mentioned in the article, of drug interaction problems or allergies.

If a Pharmacist is allowed to refuse a prescription based on "moral beliefs", it breaks the whole system. After all, what could be next? I myself had a prescription for amphetamines at one point. What if the pharmacist I went to refused the prescription cause he didn't want to be dispensing speed? How about a cancer patient with a morphine prescription encountering a pharmacist who doesn't feel that opiates are right, and refuses that prescription? There are, as I mentioned, innumerable drugs out there; how many of them could someone find a "moral reason" to object to? It is far far too slippery a slope for such precident to be allowed to stand.

Doctors order prescriptions. Pharmacists fill them, assuming there's no drug interaction or allergy issues that the doctor may have overlooked. Period. It is in no way the place of a pharmacist to decide not to fill a legal prescription.

-Arlos

[Wrath Child]

And he opposes the pill just because he doesn't carry it? You really are a simpleton.

This isn't just about this one pharmacy, who's part of the Osco chain. You might have heard of them. Maybe you missed this part:

But Susan C. Winckler of the American Pharmacists Association, which represents 52,000 pharmacists, said she had concerns about the emergency rule in Illinois. The association, she said, believes that pharmacists should be allowed to "step away" in cases where they feel uncomfortable dispensing a particular drug - so long as their customers can still get their drugs from alternative sources.

And before you start yammering on and on that a person can just go to another alternative source, take your tunnel vision glasses off for a few seconds and realize not everyone lives within a mile or two of a pharmacy. For some, the nearest one that might carry it could easily be 100+ miles away.

I bet you anything he carries Viagra, though!

[Donnel]

You are right Arlos those are all valid concerns, however, if that pharmacist DOES refuse to fill said prescription, he should lose a customer and nothing more. It's not as if there aren't hundreds of other pharmacies usually in close driving range (heck there's a Walgreens on every corner in this City) that would fill it without question, not to mention the availability of online or mail order alternatives. Legislating that a business has to sell something that it doesn't want to is a major breech of business rights, especially if the item in question is a non-necessity.

[Martrae]

Uh...married women who don't want any more kids make their hubs get fixed exactly like I did.

Perhaps it's just me...but I definitely wouldn't call the morning after pill birth control. Birth control is planned items you use BEFORE having sex. The morning after pill is the irresponsible person's pill.

[Langston]

Arlos - I believe the question is should the government be able to force a private company to sell a product that they don't wish to sell to people that they don't wish to do business with?

It makes no difference if we're talking Morning After pills or Pepsi vs. Coke... should PRIVATE enterprise lose it's rights to choose it's products and patronage because we allow our government to dictate it by fiat?

[Wrath Child]

Is this moron Mindia under a different account name?

How can you COMPLETELY ignore my entire post and type in that drivel?

How can you COMPLETELY ignore the broader picture the article paints? Which, unlike your mere assumptions, is clearly laid out.

The pharmacist is nothing but a short-sighted wacko.

[Arlos]

The difference is that pharmacies are a government-licensed industry. They're not a typical grocery store, say. As such, when you apply for the license, you are bound by certain rules as to conduct and so forth. Stores know this in advance when they apply for the license, and go into it with eyes wide open. Pharmacies are required to have licensed pharmacists on staff to dispense the medication, who themselves need to have at least a 4 year degree as well as receiving a state license to practice.

There's a *BIG* difference between such an outfit and a corner store deciding whether or not to sell coke or pepsi. Also, while I agree that if someone lives in a large city there are many other stores that would be able to fill their prescription, what about someone who lives, say, in an extremely rural town, 2-3 hours from any large city? If a pharmacist in such a town were to refuse, the person trying to get the prescription would be SOL, pretty much, without going to some pretty extreme measures to get their LEGALLY PRESCRIBED medication.

Donnel: It's not for you, me, OR that pharmacist to decide whether or not the medication in question is or is not a necessity. That's the DOCTOR'S job. If he feels that a patient needs a certain medication, well, that's why he went through 10 years of college and medical school, plus however many years of residency. No one BUT the patient's doctor should have any say whatsoever on whether or not a medication is "necessary".

-Arlos

[Martrae]

Several points:

I'd actually bet pharmacists know more about drugs than most docs do.

Kinda negates the purpose of a 'morning after' pill if it has to be ordered.

Susan C. Winckler isn't the pharmacist in question so anything she says on the topic is irrelevant. She could spout off about the pharmacist not liking green so he won't carry green pills and it would not necessarily be what is going on.

If a pharmacist decides he doesn't want to carry green pills that is his right as a business owner/manager. All businesses are governed by what people actually buy vs what sits on the shelf. There's no money to be made in an item that sits there.

[Arlos]

As I recall, Martrae, the morning after pill is viable for the first 72 hours after the encounter in question. So yes, if she saw her doctor the day after, went to the pharmacy the same day, and had to wait til the day after that to get the pill, it would still be within the useable window. Also as I recall, the morning after pill is basically just a mega-dose of the same hormones that are in normal birth control pills. Very different entity from that RU-486 drug that Mindia was gleefully crowing about having killed people. So, if the pharmacy is refusing morning after pill prescription, they'd likely refuse ordinary birth control prescriptions, and there are NUMEROUS medical reasons for someone to be on birth control regardless of whether or not they're having sex.

Again, though, WHAT the medication was that was refused is functionally irrelevant. Pharmacies are licensed by the states with strict rules on their role and mandate. Allowing ANY pharmacist to deny a patient ANY drug for "moral reasons" is wrong. Period. You let it happen for 1 drug, it'll happen for others, I guarantee you.

-Arlos

[Wrath Child]

Uh...married women who don't want any more kids make their hubs get fixed exactly like I did.

Perhaps it's just me...but I definitely wouldn't call the morning after pill birth control. Birth control is planned items you use BEFORE having sex. The morning after pill is the irresponsible person's pill.

Of course it's birth control! Are you such an idiot to think that most women who use it only do so after hauling ass to the nearest pharmacy after waking up in someone else's sopping bed? Most women who use it - it's been available for years in Europe - use it because they don't want to deal with the side effects of regular birth control pills. Something your husband has no doubt had too.

Hopefully, the FDA will do the right thing and soon make it an over-the-counter product, like they should. Then we can all watch abortion clinics across the country wither and die from a lack of business!