New version of Toledo Talk

Ohio looking to protect phamacists who won't fill prescriptions - Protestors today demonstrated at a local Wal-Mart. Kathy King is reacting to a statement Wal-Mart sent 13 Action News. Wal-Mart pharmacists may decline to fill a prescription based on personal convictions. However, they must find another pharmacist, either at at Wal-Mart or another pharmacy, who can assist the customer filling the prescription. At issue are birth control and emergency contraception.

Wow, I want to become a Wal-Mart pharmacist. That way I can be a racist, sexist, religious a**hole and refuse to serve anyone because of my "personal convictions". If we're going to legalize refusal of service based on the morals of the person dispensing a prescription, then let's go back to legalizing it on the basis of color, gender, religion, and so on, okay? How long before someone says that they are morally obligated not to serve non-white non-male non-Christians?

Oh, and let's not forget that "birth control" has uses other than birth control. So when the pharmacist sees a Rx for birth control, it doesn't mean the person is taking it for that purpose, but hey, the pharmacist doesn't know that -- the only way they'd know is if you told them, and I doubt anyone would like their privacy invaded.

Oh, but I forgot the part that is really scary:

Ohio lawmakers are considering what are called conscience clause laws. That would protect pharmacist who would refuse to fill prescriptions. Right now four states have them on the books.

Can I get a law passed that protects my right to refuse to pay taxes? My morals don't support paying for Lipitor, Oxycontin, and Viagra for Bob Taft and our state legislature.
posted by anonymouscoward to politics at 6:01 P.M. EST     (8 Comments)

Comments ...

Just what this country needs, more political correctness and touchy-feely legislature. If part of your job contradicts your moral convictions, you need to choose another profession instead of trying to change the whole profession to suit you.

-Dan
posted by photodan at 11:09 P.M. EST on Sun May 08, 2005     #

There is a whole movement out there of pharmacists who don't believe in birth control, who feel that if their religious beliefs conflict they have the right to determine above what the physician writes as a script. Personally I feel if they are not willing to do the job they should go elsewhere but there appears to be a statement in their own code of ethics that gives them the ability to refuse.

Ironically though you never hear of them refusing to fill scripts for viagra or the like, only birth control.....
posted by psyche777 at 01:06 A.M. EST on Tue May 10, 2005     #

I’m a pro-life person myself, but refusing to fill a birth control prescription just seems silly. In fact it would seem like the lack of birth control would actually increase the number of abortions. The pharmacist who refuse to fill the prescriptions seem like the type who go way out of their way to be offended.
posted by mike2004 at 06:28 A.M. EST on Tue May 10, 2005     #

I too am a pro-lifer.

I'd rather that an unwanted conception be prevented than a baby killed.

I agree with dispensing of contraceptives to children of all ages.

It is better that a conception be planned and wanted than be seen as a consequence to be "dealt" with.

Besides, we already have too many "old babies" running for, and winning public office, mucking up our personal lives and this country...

The gene pool is definitely in need of more chlorine.
posted by Hooda_Thunkit at 07:08 A.M. EST on Tue May 10, 2005     #

What's next?

Walmart cashiers who won't ring up condoms?

Bookstore clerks who won't sell how-to books on living wills?

Restaurant servers who won't serve a glass of wine to pregnant women?

Flight attendants who won't take care of Muslims?

Things are getting ridiculous, friends. Where do we draw the line?
posted by historymike at 11:19 A.M. EST on Tue May 10, 2005     #

It is quite interesting that our politicians debating this bill never bring up how this will infringe upon the rights of a business owner to fire an employee for not doing their job!
posted by timault at 12:02 P.M. EST on Tue May 10, 2005     #

Besides politicians trying to appear caring and a small handful of pharmacists, does anybody think this is a good idea?

-Dan
posted by photodan at 01:33 P.M. EST on Tue May 10, 2005     #

Dan,

Not really.

As historymike said, "What's next?"

Although I can see the pharmacist's point of view, maybe it's time for him/her to find another profession...

Just another case of someone not doing the job they're being paid to do...
posted by Hooda_Thunkit at 02:24 P.M. EST on Tue May 10, 2005     #

<< Older Fast-food tax, an idea for Toledo?    |    The Blade gets its way: Ohio's return on... Newer >>

This is an old topic and is no longer allowing comments.