Can I Have My Medicine, Please?

[BlackShanglan]

The difference is that committing murder isn't legal. Prescription drugs are.

This is, I would point out, an opinion rather than a fact.

 

[rgraham666]

But the point is just as Colly says, the pharmacist is making the call. Whether the pharmacy desides to carry the pill(s) is another question that is not at issue here.

Does a Licensed Pharmacist have the right, even though the owner of the Pharmacy decides to stock the pill(s) in question and tells the Pharmacist to dispense said pill(s), too disregard a legally obtained prescription from a client of the Pharmacy?

The pharmacists in my mind, do have the right to not dispense the drug for what they regard as moral reasons.

The pharmacy also has the right to let them go for not following company policy.

Moral decisions often have consequences, especially when your morals are in the minority.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Damn but I hate this question. It raises too many flags for anyone to be comfortable with it.

We did have an interesting conversation on this in work not too long ago. The best comment about this was made by one of our doctors. He questioned the ethics of anyone who is liscenced to care for another person, (As are Pharmacists.) to with hold care or medication from another because of their moral values. Licensed Profesionals should not push their views or values on those under their care. That is not their job.

I can use Oncology as an example. If a woman shows up at the hospital in crises due to her Sickle Cell Anemia, (Yes this does for some reason fall under the heading of Oncology.) the doctors can't stop treatment for her crisies because she is pregnant. They may not like the fact that she is pregnant. (Many don't because of the possibility of transmitting the Sickle Cell Gene to another generation.) They may not like the fact that they will now have to use heavy pain killers, (Narcotics) when she is pregnant, and they will counsel her on this. But they still have to treat her or refer her to another doctor. They can't with hold treatment! (And yes Sickle Cell Crises does require Narcotics, as well as Blood Transfusions.)

In the same vein a doctor can't force a person who is not allowed by their religion to receive blood or blood pruducts to have a transfusion. Even if that is what is required to save their life. ( I have seen this on several occasions, one in which both the mother and the fetus died because of this.)

Cat

Exactly the point I tried to make earlier, but made much better by Cantdog.

I find it difficult to believe that dogmatic, hard and fast, black & white ethical lines aren't the first things to go in the course of healthcare training. There are legalities that one must become aware of, obviously.

But taking a stand on birth-control drugs alone is not a consistent ethical position. It's political grandstanding, at the expense of people's healthcare.

Doctors can choose to avoid doing abortions, as they can choose to specialize in orthopedics or oncology or eye ear nose & throat. For Pharmacists, the choices include that they can become a "compounding" pharmacist, who mixes up medicines themselves; but there isn't a general class of "ear pharmacists" or "orthopedic pharmacists" - the profession doesn't 'specialize' in the same way that doctors or nurses do. Bill collectors aren't allowed to not call poor people. Foreclosure agents can't choose who they want to act against. Sherriffs can't refuse to evict a family that hasn't paid their rent.

Jobs conflict with personal ethics all the time - a pharmacist's job is to dispense drugs, and refusing to do that with the expectation of keeping their job is just not a tenable position. Would you care to license a law enforcement officer that decided he would enforce only the laws he agreed with?

 

[Huckleman2000]

This is, I would point out, an opinion rather than a fact.

Not really. A 'person' is pretty well defined in legal terms, even if abortion opponents keep trying to expand the definition. This isn't entirely a specious argument - since a fetus can't live on their own without substantial help, are they disabled and therefore entitled to Social Security payments? If the mother doesn't do all the things she 'should' do to ensure a viable birth, is that negligent homicide? Suppose early in the pregnancy she climbs a ladder at work to remove something she needs from an upper shelf, and falls. She is not harmed, but a day or two later she miscarries. Does her fetus have a wrongful death claim against her employer?

It seems to me the purpose of a pharmacy is to dispense drugs that are legally prescribed by doctors or others legally enabled to do so. They are licensed by the state. The state doesn't license "Evangelical" pharmacies, or "Catholic" pharmacies - that's obviously over the line between church-state separation.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

My point is that requiring all pharmacies to stock the drug would involve you enforcing your morals on someone else. Why would that be more right?



To the objecting pharmacist, you can substitute "right not to commit murder" for "right to have this drug," and all of the same complaints are valid. I'm not arguing that the buyer has no rights - only that requiring all pharmacies to stock this drug creates a conflict of rights situation, not a straightforward "one person exercising his/her rights without affecting anyone else" issue. I'm not saying that the buyer doesn't have rights, but forcing a pharmacy to stock the medicine involves someone else who also has rights.

No Shang, it's not the same. I cannot get my drugs on my own. I HAVE to go through a pahramcist. He or she is there by volition. If he or she dosen't like giving out a drug, they can go somewhere else. I, if I am poor and in a town like this one, have to hike over 30 miles to get to another pahrmacist. And where he or she chooses to be in the profession, I don't have any choice but to go to them if I need the drugs.

I'm not enforcing any moral on them. But they damned sure are enforcing theirs on me. I'm not enfocing cause I have no enforcement power. They do. they have the power to deny me medication, even if my doctor says I need it. And that's just plain wrong.

GWB can't force his morals on me without the approval of congess, and judical review. Your telling me my pharmacist can enforce his view on me without even having to stand for election?

 

[zeb1094]

Right, and I think I'm going to have to add this to each of my posts to clarify. Back in the early days of this thread, I said that I had no problem with sacking a pharmacist who did not do his/her job. I then went on to state that that situation would be fine to me so long as the pharmacy as a whole had the option not the stock the drug. Someone - who, I now forget - stated that s/he felt that was not an option. That's the issue I'm talking about - not the pharamacist being required to dispense the drugs his/her employer requires, but the possibility of the pharmacy as a whole being required to stock and dispense it.

Actually, that person was me! And I may have been mistaken. I do believe the FDA does say what they can stock but doesn't require them to stock anything.

It all depends on the Pharmacy whether they are going to stock the item.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Not really. A 'person' is pretty well defined in legal terms, even if abortion opponents keep trying to expand the definition.

Given that the term "murder" existed several centuries before our government and its current definition thereof, I believe "opinion" still the better and more accurate description.

I'd also point out that in legal terms in the United States, the legal definition of "person" is not well defined, but a tangled and contradictory mess. For example, in criminal law, the gold standard for distinguishing when you've got one person and when you have two is DNA; a crime scene containing two different DNA profiles is axiomatically considered to have been occupied by two people. Other than the very rare condition of being a genetic chimera, it is only in the area of reproductive freedom that anyone has suggested the opposite: that two seperate DNA profiles could represent the same person.

 

[BlackShanglan]

No Shang, it's not the same. I cannot get my drugs on my own. I HAVE to go through a pahramcist. He or she is there by volition. If he or she dosen't like giving out a drug, they can go somewhere else. I, if I am poor and in a town like this one, have to hike over 30 miles to get to another pahrmacist. And where he or she chooses to be in the profession, I don't have any choice but to go to them if I need the drugs.

It is in fact quite the same. If a pharmacist who wishes not to supply the drug lives in a small town, s/he is as much at the mercy of the employer as you are, and faces the loss of his or her livelihood should that employer choose to supply the drug. That's the nature of individual rights. When they conflict, someone generally can't have his or her right. We can call it denying someone else's right, enforcing his or hers, or simply what it is: the inabilty of two rights to be exercised at the same time.

GWB can't force his morals on me without the approval of congess, and judical review. Your telling me my pharmacist can enforce his view on me without even having to stand for election?

Again: the same argument works precisely as well for the other side. This is my point. When individual rights inflict, which they inevitably will, "I have a right to this" is not enough of an argument, because both sides are making it and making it with good reason.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Actually, that person was me! And I may have been mistaken. I do believe the FDA does say what they can stock but doesn't require them to stock anything.

It all depends on the Pharmacy whether they are going to stock the item.

Then perhaps we can let this die a merry little death. I'm reasonably content with that state of affairs, and given that even (and in fact especially) the smallest towns tend to be served by the big chains that stock that stuff, I imagine that those in favour of its supply might be as well.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It is in fact quite the same. If a pharmacist who wishes not to supply the drug lives in a small town, s/he is as much at the mercy of the employer as you are, and faces the loss of his or her livelihood should that employer choose to supply the drug. That's the nature of individual rights. When they conflict, someone generally can't have his or her right. We can call it denying someone else's right, enforcing his or hers, or simply what it is: the inabilty of two rights to be exercised at the same time.



Again: the same argument works precisely as well for the other side. This is my point. When individual rights inflict, which they inevitably will, "I have a right to this" is not enough of an argument, because both sides are making it and making it with good reason.

You keep ignoring the fact that his or her right to oppose abortion is still his or her right. Outside their job, they can do whatever they like. Their job, however, is causing them the problem and they have the option of getting another job and or working somewhere else. I don't have any option to get my medicine.

If an army is encamped in a safe area and weapons and ammunition are stored in the armory and the unit is attacked, the soldiers have no choice, but to go to the armory to get the means to fight. If the guy behind the door at the armory happens to be a concientious objectorand refuses to open the door and distribute guns and ammunition, what happens? He enforces his morals and everybody dies.

It's the same deal. His job is to issue guns and ammo to the troops. If he can't bring himself to do that do to his religious or ethical views, he shouldn't be the guy with the keys to the armory. But the soldiers getting cut down for his beliefs didn't put him there, they are just paying the price so he can feel good about himself.

A truly moral or ethical person, wouldn't accept a job where the job description entails violating their moral or ethical code. that's the case here. This isn't s asurprise, they know full well when they choose to be Pharmacists that their job description is to dispense drugs. The risk is there that you might have to give posions to a Chemo patient, The 50 count of percoct you fill might be used by the patron to commit suicide, you might have to give out birth control pills, or morning after pills, Viagra. It's your job.

If I have done what I am supposed to do, gone to see a liscenced doctor and gotten a prescription, it's suposed to be filled. The Pahrmacist has no right, no taining and grounds to dispute a doctor's diagnosis or course of treatment. He or she does have the power and the responsibility to check if he sees someone getting two drugs that are dangerous when given together.

If I have a legal perscription for a leagl drug it's supposed to get filled. His or her moral or ethical qualms with my lifestyle are NOT supposed to be limiting factors on me getting a script filled.

He has every tright to oppose abortion or to oppose birth control. He has absolutely no right to enforce that view upon me. I have no legal option to fill my scripts, except by going to a doctor geting ascript and filling it. He has every option to quit his job and find another, if the responsibilities of his job are too much for him to handle.

You are making his poor career choice my bad luck. And that's wrong Shang. You are giving him absolute power over my medial decisions, a power he has no expertise or authority to assume. In basis, you are minking his ethics my law. Because lawfully, I have to go through him to get my medication.

What if my gas station attendant thinks I should be driving a hybrid and refuses to sell me gas? Or my Walmart manager decides women shouldn't work on their own vehicles so he refuses to sell me motor oil? At least with those two rediculous examples I can go somewhere else, but a Pharmacist has a monoploy in a lot of towns.

Your position then, boils down to this. I have fredom to obtain legally prescribed drugs from a liscenced doctor, if and only if, I have the means to get to a pharmacist who deigns to fill scripts for me.

I don't even live in the backwoods, I live in New York, but, here is the deal here. there are three dcotrs in town, but only one pharmacy. If right aide refuses to fill a woman's script. Her options are:

Hike over storm king and down into veils gate. Hike down to Bear mt. bride, a distance of about 15 miles, cross, and hike back up stream about 15 miles to croton on harmon.

Hike down to 293, all the way out to 23, over long mountain and into Woodbury.

Hike all the way down 9w, over Dunderburg mountain, and into stony point.

HIre a limo, since we have no taxi service and drive.

Buy a tcket ont he shortline, down to Pomona, fill it there and catch the bus on it's return trip from NYC.

I've got a car. I can just drive it. But you are adding the cost of gas to me, when I am on a fixed income, for something I should be able to fill right here in town.

I have lived in southern towns, wher the nearest town is 45 minutes by car. If that won's pharmacist wouldn't fill my script, it would have been a pain in the ass for me. Probably next to impossible for someone who did not own a car.

A pharmacist is doing a job and if that job is disagreeable, they have the option to get another. I am a patient and need my medicine, I may not have an option other than the local phamacy. You want Pharmacists to be able to tell me I can't have safe sex, because thay say so.

that's not how I understand freedom to work.


.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

just an aside... Illinois is very conservative about a LOT of things... between this and their homeschooling and homebirthing laws, you couldn't pay me to live there...

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Shouldn't we all be grateful that there are God-fearing, morally uptight, self-righteous men and women working in pharmacies all over the US, who take it upon themselves to take the decision out of the hands of all modern, delusional, independent women, and stop them from trying to get control over their own bodies and their own sexualities?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Apologies in advance if this doesn't end up making much sense. It's been a long day, and looks to be a long night. But I think we're closer to agreeing with each other than might initially be clear, so I'll have a go at this.

You keep ignoring the fact that his or her right to oppose abortion is still his or her right. Outside their job, they can do whatever they like. Their job, however, is causing them the problem and they have the option of getting another job and or working somewhere else. I don't have any option to get my medicine.

I wasn't attempting to ignore the facts you state, but I think we've somehow missed each other on what I was talking about. I agreed earlier in the thread that no one should take a job that s/he doesn't want to do, and agreed that any pharmacist employed by a pharmacy that dispensed the drug needed to dispense it or find another job. In that we wholly agree. My argument, which is in an earlier post, but which I probably should have restated more frequently, is not that individual pharmacists should not have to do the jobs for which they were hired. They should. It was that an owner of the establishment - the person who stocks the drugs and decides what to sell - should not be compelled by the government to stock the drug, which someone else had suggested might be the case. That person, Zeb I believe, posted later to say that actually the government doesn't seem to require that. Given that it doesn't appear to be required, I have no objections to what appears to be the current situation. People who want to stick to their convictions can either open their own pharmacy or not be pharmacists; people who want the drug can go to a pharmacy that sells it, which the large chains are certain to.

If an army is encamped in a safe area and weapons and ammunition are stored in the armory and the unit is attacked, the soldiers have no choice, but to go to the armory to get the means to fight. If the guy behind the door at the armory happens to be a concientious objectorand refuses to open the door and distribute guns and ammunition, what happens? He enforces his morals and everybody dies.

It's the same deal. His job is to issue guns and ammo to the troops. If he can't bring himself to do that do to his religious or ethical views, he shouldn't be the guy with the keys to the armory. But the soldiers getting cut down for his beliefs didn't put him there, they are just paying the price so he can feel good about himself.

A truly moral or ethical person, wouldn't accept a job where the job description entails violating their moral or ethical code. that's the case here. This isn't s asurprise, they know full well when they choose to be Pharmacists that their job description is to dispense drugs. The risk is there that you might have to give posions to a Chemo patient, The 50 count of percoct you fill might be used by the patron to commit suicide, you might have to give out birth control pills, or morning after pills, Viagra. It's your job.

Yes. Wholly in agreement here. My only point was that - as the government in fact recognizes - it's not right for the government to force someone to violate a principle as central and sacred as not killing. I'm given to understand - but I am certain that here you know better than I do - that the government recognizes this by placing drafted conscientious objectors in non-combat positions, although I gather that they scrutinize such claims fairly closely in times of war. That's all I'm saying here - that the fairest way to deal with this to say that if someone volunteers to be in that position, s/he should do the job, but that it's best for the government not to force someone into that position if it's avoidable.

You are making his poor career choice my bad luck. And that's wrong Shang. You are giving him absolute power over my medial decisions, a power he has no expertise or authority to assume. In basis, you are minking his ethics my law. Because lawfully, I have to go through him to get my medication.

I agree that this would be very wrong, but I promise sincerely that it's not what I'm saying. My point was not that an individual pharmacist should not be required to do his/her job, but that the owner of an establishment should not be required by the government to stock the drug. While I recognize that that could theoretically lead to similar conflicts in a one-store town, I'd suggest that that's unlikely given that the big chains own nearly all of the small-town stores. Yes, it's conceivable that there are towns where they don't, and that in one of those towns someone might choose not to stock the drug. However, I think that by that point we're at a conflict of rights in which the only fair compromise is the one generally enacted by the capitalist marketplace; I'm free to sell and you're free not to buy, and I'm free to buy and you're free not to sell. We all have basic requirements - food, shelter, clothing - but there is no law compelling any owner of a business to sell us those things, and that I think is as it should be.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Apologies in advance if this doesn't end up making much sense. It's been a long day, and looks to be a long night. But I think we're closer to agreeing with each other than might initially be clear, so I'll have a go at this.



I wasn't attempting to ignore the facts you state, but I think we've somehow missed each other on what I was talking about. I agreed earlier in the thread that no one should take a job that s/he doesn't want to do, and agreed that any pharmacist employed by a pharmacy that dispensed the drug needed to dispense it or find another job. In that we wholly agree. My argument, which is in an earlier post, but which I probably should have restated more frequently, is not that individual pharmacists should not have to do the jobs for which they were hired. They should. It was that an owner of the establishment - the person who stocks the drugs and decides what to sell - should not be compelled by the government to stock the drug, which someone else had suggested might be the case. That person, Zeb I believe, posted later to say that actually the government doesn't seem to require that. Given that it doesn't appear to be required, I have no objections to what appears to be the current situation. People who want to stick to their convictions can either open their own pharmacy or not be pharmacists; people who want the drug can go to a pharmacy that sells it, which the large chains are certain to.



Yes. Wholly in agreement here. My only point was that - as the government in fact recognizes - it's not right for the government to force someone to violate a principle as central and sacred as not killing. I'm given to understand - but I am certain that here you know better than I do - that the government recognizes this by placing drafted conscientious objectors in non-combat positions, although I gather that they scrutinize such claims fairly closely in times of war. That's all I'm saying here - that the fairest way to deal with this to say that if someone volunteers to be in that position, s/he should do the job, but that it's best for the government not to force someone into that position if it's avoidable.



I agree that this would be very wrong, but I promise sincerely that it's not what I'm saying. My point was not that an individual pharmacist should not be required to do his/her job, but that the owner of an establishment should not be required by the government to stock the drug. While I recognize that that could theoretically lead to similar conflicts in a one-store town, I'd suggest that that's unlikely given that the big chains own nearly all of the small-town stores. Yes, it's conceivable that there are towns where they don't, and that in one of those towns someone might choose not to stock the drug. However, I think that by that point we're at a conflict of rights in which the only fair compromise is the one generally enacted by the capitalist marketplace; I'm free to sell and you're free not to buy, and I'm free to buy and you're free not to sell. We all have basic requirements - food, shelter, clothing - but there is no law compelling any owner of a business to sell us those things, and that I think is as it should be.

Shanglan

Okies. I see what you are saying now. I would agree no one should be forced into stocking a drug at their drug store.

I thought you were saying a pharmacist should have the right not to fill my script, despite having the drug on hand, because it conflicted with their morals.

Mea Cupla for not carefully back reading. the misinterpretation was no fault of your own, that one is all on me.

 

[zeb1094]

just an aside... Illinois is very conservative about a LOT of things... between this and their homeschooling and homebirthing laws, you couldn't pay me to live there...

Hey, I live there!

 

[BlackShanglan]

Okies. I see what you are saying now. I would agree no one should be forced into stocking a drug at their drug store.

I thought you were saying a pharmacist should have the right not to fill my script, despite having the drug on hand, because it conflicted with their morals.

Mea Cupla for not carefully back reading. the misinterpretation was no fault of your own, that one is all on me.

No, no problem at all - I don't read every post in a thread with scrupulous attention, and I don't know why I assumed that everyone else had that kind of time free. Please forgive the fuzzy thinking; I'm a little unfocused after a hectic week.

I'm awfully glad that we agree on this; it gives me that nice warm "all is right with the world" feeling.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Interesting addendum. Evidently the right of the pharamacist to choose what to stock is in legal limbo:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/01/walmart.contraception.ap/index.html

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Interesting addendum. Evidently the right of the pharamacist to choose what to stock is in legal limbo:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/01/walmart.contraception.ap/index.html

I know it's not exactly the same, but Kroger food stores are unionized. Mississippi is a right tow rok state. When Kroger came tomississippi, they tried to enforce a closed shop. The state courts decided rather swiftly that their corporate policy was not protection from state law and they eithr had to get rid of their closed shop policy or cese operations in the state.

If Mass. Law requires you to stock something, I don't think your corporate policy is going to be much of a shield.

 

[zeb1094]

I know it's not exactly the same, but Kroger food stores are unionized. Mississippi is a right tow rok state. When Kroger came tomississippi, they tried to enforce a closed shop. The state courts decided rather swiftly that their corporate policy was not protection from state law and they eithr had to get rid of their closed shop policy or cese operations in the state.

If Mass. Law requires you to stock something, I don't think your corporate policy is going to be much of a shield.

And as the Wally world spokesman said, once the attorney general provides an interpitation of the law, they will comply if required.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

And as the Wally world spokesman said, once the attorney general provides an interpitation of the law, they will comply if required.

Yeppers. I suppose in this case, it's all going to come down to what the judge finds to be commonly prescribed and for the general use of the community.

 

[zeb1094]

Yeppers. I suppose in this case, it's all going to come down to what the judge finds to be commonly prescribed and for the general use of the community.

Not even a judge, Colly, but

He added that Wal-Mart would formally request clarification of the state regulation from Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly or the state's Board of Pharmacy.

So this will most likely be on hold until that clarification is made.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I'm sad to say that you're not alone. Sweden, aka the 53:rd state of USA, has a lot of conservative busy-bodies who are eager to take away young women's right to their own choices.

A pharmacist in Jönköping (Swedish bible-belt) refused to sell Day-After-Pills, because of religious reasons. RFSU (National Union for Sexual Enlightenment) stormed against him, and the pharmacy had to give in and sell the pills. They revenged by a)keeping the pills behind the counter, to not make it "too easy" for young girls to buy them, and b)raising the price with 70% (!) - "because there was so many people buying it". Apparently, they don't want it to be easy for women to protect themselves.

The National Organization for Grocery Shops encouraged their members to boycot newspapers whose headlines contained sex - like "15 Good Ways To Get An Orgasm" or "Famous Celebrity Thrown Out of Club For Having Sex - Charges Pending". They thought it was very unpleasant to walk into a grocery store with your children, if there were headlines like that outside. Are these the same parents who gladly bought Grand Theft Auto for their little angels?

A lingerie shop in Örebro started selling sex toys - not porno movies, just the toys themselves, vibrators and ben wa balls (the latter which can also be bought in pharmacies), and the landlord claimed that the shop had turned into a porn shop, and kicked them out. He said "we don't like this type of things. It's not very nice." Unfortunately, the law says he IS allowed to kick them out if he doesn't like their business - no matter what they sell, porn or dog foood.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I know it's not exactly the same, but Kroger food stores are unionized. Mississippi is a right tow rok state. When Kroger came tomississippi, they tried to enforce a closed shop. The state courts decided rather swiftly that their corporate policy was not protection from state law and they eithr had to get rid of their closed shop policy or cese operations in the state.

If Mass. Law requires you to stock something, I don't think your corporate policy is going to be much of a shield.

*nods* I agree. Their legal position seems clear. Whether it is right for them to be in it, however, I find more open to debate.

 

[amicus]

Not that it matters...but I am uncertain as to the necessity of Pharmacists at all.

Since I believe government has no 'right' to determine some substances are banned, restricted, controlled, et cetera.

I tend to see Pharmacists as I did the Railroad Unions keeping Brakemen and Coal Shovelers on trains just to preserve their jobs when the work was no longer needed.

Someone mentioned a Compounding Pharmacist, but I mainly see them counting tablets from a large container to a small one.

I think this concept also widens into the area of socialized medicine, aka, Canada, where government determines not only what medical procedures will be performed by doctors, but they also dictate which medicines can be prescribed and payed for by the plan.

Politics and abortion aside, can anyone offer justification for the existence of Pharmacists? Or is it just that the law requires prescriptions to be filled by a trained person? And if that is the case, why can it not be done on a large scale basis at the manufacturer?

In other words, I am saying that I think it is possible that Pharmacists are just un needed middle men that raise the cost of prescription medicines.

amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Not that it matters...but I am uncertain as to the necessity of Pharmacists at all.

Since I believe government has no 'right' to determine some substances are banned, restricted, controlled, et cetera.

I tend to see Pharmacists as I did the Railroad Unions keeping Brakemen and Coal Shovelers on trains just to preserve their jobs when the work was no longer needed.

Someone mentioned a Compounding Pharmacist, but I mainly see them counting tablets from a large container to a small one.

I think this concept also widens into the area of socialized medicine, aka, Canada, where government determines not only what medical procedures will be performed by doctors, but they also dictate which medicines can be prescribed and payed for by the plan.

Politics and abortion aside, can anyone offer justification for the existence of Pharmacists? Or is it just that the law requires prescriptions to be filled by a trained person? And if that is the case, why can it not be done on a large scale basis at the manufacturer?

In other words, I am saying that I think it is possible that Pharmacists are just un needed middle men that raise the cost of prescription medicines.

amicus...

I can give a ouple:

Drugs need to be mixed sometimes. The mixtures have a markedly shortened shelf life than the component parts. So you need a pharmacist to do the mixing on an on order basis.

Pharamcists also provide a trined preofession to answer questions. More then once I have seen a pahrmacist save patients hundereds of dollars by suggsting a generico even an OTC witht he same properties.

Finally, pharmacists are, in m any ways, better able to protect patients from drug reactions. A person may have several doctors, but usually they fill all their scripts at the same place. this makes the pharmacist an added alyer of protect for Doctors and manufacturers from lawsuits and protects pateints from accidental reactions.