Question to a Presidential Candidate... Not Going To Mention Which Candidate.

[Joe Wordsworth]

"How do you feel about women in rural areas not having equal access to morning-after-pills because pharmacists in their area refuse to sell them on moral grounds?"

Nominal answer... "The contract is between the employee and the employer, not the customer... unless explicitly contracted, they don't have to sell morning-after-pills or cigarettes or Coca-Cola or anything. They have freedoms in place that say that they don't have to do these things unless they give up those freedoms contractually."

Response from questioner... "But that infringes on my right to buy these medications if I have the prescription"

. . .

.
.
.
.

What the fuck?

.
.
.

Where in the whole Constitution is there a "right to force someone to sell you something"? They no wanna sell the pills... their employer says they no have to sell the pills... then fuck off... go somewhere else. Just because the market doesn't provide you with adequate contraception doesn't mean the government is supposed to come in and force them to make potentially bad business decisions.

Fuck that lady.

You don't have "freedom to make other people less free". That's not how it works.

.

.

.

edited to add because it really pissed me off:

Me... Taxpayer... I am not responsible for helping pay for your desire for more bureaucracy to ensure you have the convenience of non-essential things in your area. Move. Shop elsewhere. Generate enough of a business interest and open your own goddamn pharmacy. Get enough people in your area to ask the pharmacist to sell the product. Boycott the store and put it out of business and keep doing that until a store that does what you want shows up.

But don't make me spend another ten cents a pay-check for some kind of fucked up regulatory agency to make sure you fuck over the pharmacist.

 

[S-Des]

hehe, Come on Joe, tell us what you really think. You'll never sway people on this one. They can only see it from their side of the argument. I just shrug and say, "Get over yourself and sell them the damn pills". I guess the fault does lie with the Pharmacy who doesn't have their employees sign a contract (can you imagine if the checkout clerk refused to ring up hamburgers or milk because their religion prevented it, or a vegitarian wouldn't scan any meat products?). At some point people have to realize they can't bring all of their personal issues with them to their job . . . hopefully.

 

[Liar]

Are there available competitors? Can I open a pharmacy? Can I sell morning after pills to those women? Fat chance. The theshold for borh buerocracy and profitability is too high for that, and in the gap between functioning competition and people's needs, real human beings suffer. If you don't want goverment ineferring with how pharmacies choose to do business, please go the whole nine yards and make sure there is good growing ground for competition.

You say consumer demand should steer the market. I agree, but comsumer power is a farce unless there's reasonably available options. I like my libertarian principles too, but I'm not ready to let them hurt people because the world doesnt function like I wish it would.

And that is simply not the case.

 

[flavortang]

hehe, Come on Joe, tell us what you really think. You'll never sway people on this one. They can only see it from their side of the argument. I just shrug and say, "Get over yourself and sell them the damn pills". I guess the fault does lie with the Pharmacy who doesn't have their employees sign a contract (can you imagine if the checkout clerk refused to ring up hamburgers or milk because their religion prevented it, or a vegitarian wouldn't scan any meat products?). At some point people have to realize they can't bring all of their personal issues with them to their job . . . hopefully.

Exactly. If some frightened girl strolls up to a pharmacy and asks for Morning After pills, the dumbass behind the counter needs to lose the personal bias and just do their job. Take the money, pop the register, give back the change and the pills and keep their personal beliefs tucked the hell away until they're off the clock.

 

[S-Des]

Are there available competitors? Can I open a pharmacy? Can I sell morning after pills to those women? Fat chance. The theshold for borh buerocracy and profitability is too high for that, and in the gap between functioning competition and people's needs, real human beings suffer. If you don't want goverment ineferring with how pharmacies choose to do business, please go the whole nine yards and make sure there is good growing ground for competition.

You say consumer demand should steer the market. I agree, but comsumer power is a farce unless there's reasonably available options. I like my libertarian principles too, but I'm not ready to let them hurt people because the world doesnt function like I wish it would.

And that is simply not the case.

Actually, here it is. I can name you 15 pharmacies in a 10 minute radius from where I live. If some goof at one refuses to dispense certain medicines, it's easy enough to go to the next place and never bring your business back to the first. Economic pressure and complaints to management will force a change. That said, I hate the idea that a pharmacist can take an already nervous/embarrassed girl and humiliate her publicly (especially if she's asking for something her doctor approved). I'm with Joe, changing laws isn't necessary unless the problem gets out of hand. But I'm all for putting pressure on stores to make it a requirement of hiring that the employee is willing to sell all the merchandise they distribute. I can't see how that could be seen as suppressing the rights of the employee.

 

[impressive]

I agree that this is a business issue. If legislation is involved at all, I think it should just require the businesses to disclose -- both to employees (in its standards of contact) and consumers what its policies are with the regard to the sale of controversial products.

Personally, I prefer advising staff: If we stock it, you sell it. If that's a problem for you, go work somewhere else.

And, consumers: We don't sell this. If you want it, go somewhere else.

 

[cantdog]

I agree that this is a business issue. If legislation is involved at all, I think it should just require the businesses to disclose -- both to employees (in its standards of contact) and consumers what its policies are with the regard to the sale of controversial products.

Personally, I prefer advising staff: If we stock it, you sell it. If that's a problem for you, go work somewhere else.

And, consumers: We don't sell this. If you want it, go somewhere else.

People order cheeseburgers in the emergency room, and demand them as a right.
People are such asses it's a grave bloody marvel any of this is still here. And you notice, most of it isn't in good working order.

You can legislate until your ass falls off and people will still act the fool nine days out of eight.

I don't think you can possibly come up with any sort of idea which will fix this, because the number and proportion of idiots involved in implementing it is always larger than you imagine. You cannot plan. The only proper response is to let go of it, stop tearing your hair, take a breath, and think about something else.

 

[mikey2much]

This is nothing new

I remember back in the sixites, people were talking about serving blacks in their cafes and coffee shops. The feeling was that if they served the blacks they would lose their white customers. The law forced them to override their personal feelings and serve the public if they ran a public business.

The arguements were much the same back then. "I built the place and I can refuse to serve anybody that I choose not to serve." "The government has no right to tell me who I have to sell my services to."

But the law prevailed and now everybody has a right to stop at any business and order food for themselves and their family, regardless of what color they are. I think that is a good thing.

I once talked to a black friend about how it was to live before the law. He told me how hard it had been to explain to his family that they couldn't stop at the white cafes when his children were hungry. Now when I see this sort of thing I think of my friend and hope that nobody has to explain to their children that they are second class people who have no rights.

This sort of thing should not happen in my America, We shouldn't be black or white or jewish or christian. We should all just be Americans, and we should all be able to be proud of that fact.

Joe, I don't know about you but it has gotten much harder for me to be proud of being an American since we have turned to the right wing of the Republican Party.

This seems very similatr to me and I think the same solution would work here also.
mike

 

[Lisa Denton]

Joe I think the real problem is the fucked over regulatory crap already in place, and you are right, the regulations have no place in the personnel dept.

Some of these pharmacists feel they cannot be fired by the business owner for refusing to sell legally prescribed medications due to thier religeous beliefs, there is the debate.

And there should be no debate.

If you go to McDonalds and order a Bic Mac and Super Fries, and the 16 year old check-out girl smiles and says she won't sell you the fries, she gets fired.

If a pharmacist is allowed to refuse sales, and not be fired, then the cute check-out girl can also claim that being a member of the KKK, and hating everyone and in particular France, who invented french fries, the business owner might not be able to fire her.

A business owner should be able to fire anyone, sell anything, without regulations, and tell his/her employees to do thier freakin job or get out.

So the problem is not new regulations, but the regulations already in place.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Odd concept, indeed. The Drugist won't sell the "moring after pill" but has condoms prominatly displayed for sale.

Does that mean the contemplation of sex is ok, but the actual act is immoral?

 

[Pure]

in that new catholic city being set up (FL), there won't be condoms or 'pills' for sale, either.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-18-ave-maria_N.htm

 

[Liar]

So, every pharmacy customer has a reasonably available option to take their business elsewhere?

Everyone where some of you folks live, apparently. Good for you.

 

[JamesSD]

In the US, we regulate pharmaceutical substances. No where is this power specifically granted by the US Constitution, it's generally thrown in under "Interstate Commerce".

In a true free market, a woman wishing to purchase a morning after pill could buy it from any number of willing vendors. (In practice this is true given the internet, but there are safety concerns with pharma products purchased online).

So we've got a non-free market system in place because of societal decisions to regulate drugs. People who become pharmacists know they're entering a regulated industry. Thus, they have no right to cry if regulations are put in place, especially those that only require access to legal medications, and don't hurt livelyhood.

I'm of course speaking of pharmacists that operate as individual proprietorships or partnerships. Obviously, if a pharmacist is working at WalMart and Walmart wants to sell a drug, the pharmacist can't refuse on moral grounds and expect to keep their job. I mean, a bartended can't refuse to sell alcohol on moral grounds, nor can a stripper refuse to take her clothes off.

 

[Lisa Denton]

In the US, we regulate pharmaceutical substances. No where is this power specifically granted by the US Constitution, it's generally thrown in under "Interstate Commerce".

In a true free market, a woman wishing to purchase a morning after pill could buy it from any number of willing vendors. (In practice this is true given the internet, but there are safety concerns with pharma products purchased online).

So we've got a non-free market system in place because of societal decisions to regulate drugs. People who become pharmacists know they're entering a regulated industry. Thus, they have no right to cry if regulations are put in place, especially those that only require access to legal medications, and don't hurt livelyhood.

I'm of course speaking of pharmacists that operate as individual proprietorships or partnerships. Obviously, if a pharmacist is working at WalMart and Walmart wants to sell a drug, the pharmacist can't refuse on moral grounds and expect to keep their job. I mean, a bartended can't refuse to sell alcohol on moral grounds, nor can a stripper refuse to take her clothes off.

But that is exactly what is happening. The owners of these drug stores and pharmacies who leave thier politics and religion at home, and tell thier customers they will sell them legally prescribed medications, are hearing that the pharmacist who was working at the time refused to fill the prescription, based on their religious beliefs.

One pharmacist who was fired got his job back by saying he was fired for his religious beliefs.

To me this says the owner of the business is forced by his employee and the courts to sell only what they want, not what is legal. And more importantly, the owner cannot sell what he wants to sell, in the establishment he owns.

Next time you order a burger you may hear from the check-out clerk "sorry, I'm a vegetarian so you can't have no meat on that, you canabalistic pig"

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

If I want to open a burger-joint that refuses to sell fries... I should be able to.

If I want to open a pharmacy that refuses to sell contraception... I should be able to do that as well.

Whether its a sound business decision or not isn't anyone's business--and the exercise of that freedom of personal choice of business practices that aren't illegal shouldn't be infringed upon because someone believes they have a freedom of getting stuff from people.

Pisses me off.

That and every Democrat candidate for President except Kucinich.

Because he's at least honest, even if he's a wackjob.

 

[Stella_Omega]

This is SO not about french fries.

A drug store's business is to have in stock the many and various medications that a doctor might prescribe. Pharmacists are not physicians, and do not second-guess the doc.

If you, Joe, are the proprietor of the small-town pharmacy, and a girl walks in asking for the morning-after pill that her doctor prescribed for her, and you refuse to sell it to her--(Where are you getting this "get stuff" idea? The meds get paid for, as we all know) and remember, there is a 72 hour time limit for this pill's efficacy--

Will you be willing to adopt the child that you might be forcing her to carry? If I were the girl, I'd drop it on your front door.

You want to refuse to sell french-fries, no one is going to starve. You want to refuse to sell contraception, you will be impacting lives for a very long time-- lives that you have no right to be making decisions for.

 

[cantdog]

If I want to open a burger-joint that refuses to sell fries... I should be able to.

If I want to open a pharmacy that refuses to sell contraception... I should be able to do that as well.

Whether its a sound business decision or not isn't anyone's business--and the exercise of that freedom of personal choice of business practices that aren't illegal shouldn't be infringed upon because someone believes they have a freedom of getting stuff from people.

Pisses me off.

That and every Democrat candidate for President except Kucinich.

Because he's at least honest, even if he's a wackjob.

Kucinich talked a good game last time, too, then threw his support behind a pro-war candidate. It's just talk. In the end, the man is a Democrat.

Democrats are pro-empire. Clinton went to the line for NAFTA when he waffled away from nearly every other campaign position he took. The current Dem Congress has caved in to the president on every issue. That's because they are not actually an opposition party in any meaningful way. Kucinich is no different, as he demonstrated last time around. Republicans have nothing to worry about at the hands of any Dem except that it'll be somebody else taking the bribes and kickbacks.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

A drug store's business is to have in stock the many and various medications that a doctor might prescribe. Pharmacists are not physicians, and do not second-guess the doc.

Doctors are not the proprietor of a store, and shouldn't second guess the proprietor. A Drug Store's business is to make money. It may be /seen/ as a haven for every drug and prescription medication on earth, but it is merely a sophisticated business that stocks something that requires special licensure. It's a liqour store. Its a porn shop. Its intended to stock whatever it intends to sell.

If you, Joe, are the proprietor of the small-town pharmacy, and a girl walks in asking for the morning-after pill that her doctor prescribed for her, and you refuse to sell it to her--(Where are you getting this "get stuff" idea? The meds get paid for, as we all know) and remember, there is a 72 hour time limit for this pill's efficacy--

First... the meds are paid for when they're paid for. A prescription isn't anything more interesting than an order form you got from someone else. I do not have to carry Viagra. I do not have to sell Vicadin. I am not beholden to some doctor, as a pharmacist. We may work hand-in-hand, but he's not the boss... he's some guy who has a whole seperate business.

Will you be willing to adopt the child that you might be forcing her to carry? If I were the girl, I'd drop it on your front door.

I'm not forcing her to do anything, I'm objecting to having to do her bidding. Freedom isn't "you have to do what I say". My store, my rules. My objection. If I felt that meat was bad for people, and I own a grocery store--I am not beholden to you to sell you steaks. I don't have to sell wine at my liqour store. I agree that people rely on prescription medication for potentially life-saving situations, but I'm not a hospital. I provide things that people /want/ to buy. Perhaps things they find very important to enjoy a standard of living they prefer, but I shouldn't be forced to sell Tylenol if I don't want to.

Can we not see the facism in forcing a business owner to do something they think is just morally wrong? How is someone's sex life /my/ problem?

You want to refuse to sell french-fries, no one is going to starve. You want to refuse to sell contraception, you will be impacting lives for a very long time-- lives that you have no right to be making decisions for.

I'm not making their decisions for them. I'm opposed to their making mine for me.

 

[Stella_Omega]

"Why should someone else's sex life be MY business?"

Why should someone else's asthma be your business, why should lumbago, or MS, or the common cold be your business? Because it is your business.

"A Pharmacy needn't sell pharmaceuticals, unless the owner wants it to."

Then-- it ought to be called some other thing. Call it a liquor store. Call it a porn shop. Don't call it a drug store, because there will be-- I know it's weird-- expectations that your store will provide the drugs that your customers need.

Well, in your world of no-drug drugstores, I will introduce you to a sucession of swaddled infants laid on your doorstep. Enjoy your diapering experience!

 

[cantdog]

"Why should someone else's sex life be MY business?"

Why should someone else's asthma be your business, why should lumbago, or MS, or the common cold be your business? Because it is your business.

"A Pharmacy needn't sell pharmaceuticals, unless the owner wants it to."

Then-- it ought to be called some other thing. Call it a liquor store. Call it a porn shop. Don't call it a drug store, because there will be-- I know it's weird-- expectations that your store will provide the drugs that your customers need.

Well, in your world of no-drug drugstores, I will introduce you to a sucession of swaddled infants laid on your doorstep. Enjoy your diapering experience!

I wonder if pharmacists take the Hippocratic oath?

 

[Liar]

If I want to open a burger-joint that refuses to sell fries... I should be able to.

If I want to open a pharmacy that refuses to sell contraception... I should be able to do that as well.

So, if there was no regulation mandating that you have to sell a certain list of drugs...

...could you open a pharmacy? Tomorrow?

If not (and I assure you you couldn't), why? Because pharmacies and pharmacists have to pass through an ass-load of other rules and regulations, buerocracy and restrictions on how they practice their business to set up shop in the first place. Do you oppose those too? No? Yes? Why not as vehemently as this one regulation a certain politician is wanting to add?

I repeat my point from earlier posts: A seemingly "free" market whithout the reasonably available options for the consumer is a mockery of free trade. If you want to de-regulate one aspect of the pharmacy business, de-regulate them all, so that it's easy for anyone to open a business. If not, you're niether shitting nor getting off the pot, and you're reducing the concept of free competition to regurgitating hollow words from a pamphlet.

 

[cantdog]

I know some people who had chosen to act in an unpopular way, on moral grounds. Some of the things they chose to do were illegal, as well. Surely one can hardly fault someone acting to conform to her conscience? Yet these folks I know were detained, and ultimately went to court for their offense to law.

One of the things which is consistently true in trials of civil disobedience is that the arguments are chosen to fit the result desired. Who agrees with the disobedience argues from principle that the disobedience was correct, and who disagrees argues that it was wrong, by choosing a different set of principles. There turn out to be plenty of principles to go around, though; no one is at a loss for premises for their logic. That's because logic is a tool, not a guide.

Pharmacists actually will remove items from their stores which are reported to be deleterious, on the ground that they cause harm. The manufacturer of the harmful product is usually the one who objects the most. These pharmacists feel no onus to leave the items on the floor until the FDA makes a ruling, but act on their own knowledge.

I believe Joe is misdirecting the discussion with his sweeping lists of things a business need not do, particularly when he argues by induction that therefore there is nothing a business need do.

The most cogent example against that one is the Civil Rights Act. It was considered to be in the public interest to set limits on the free option of businesses to sell or not sell whatever to whomever, in that case. There is now quite a body of case law and legislation dealing with those sorts of limit.

The real question in this case is whether an essentially religious impulse not to provide the drug lies outside the limit of the businessperson's remaining area of free action, under law.

The side issue of the pharmacist who sells the drug but whose employee, acting as clerk, thwarts the sale on conscientious grounds, has been dealt with. The responsibility clearly lies with the PIC, the Pharmacist in Charge. The employee may certainly be required to conform or seek employment elsewhere. Case law is pretty clear on that score. The crisis of conscience of the pious clerk may be acute, but it does not force the employer to keep her on.

The question of the extent of free action of the pharmacy itself is by no means open-and-shut, but on the whole I believe that Joe's view of it will prevail. A reasonable compromise may in fact be that the pharmacy would be obliged to give notice that it does not carry the product, especially since the time window within which the drug has any effect is rather narrow.

It is on the grounds of the exigency of the customer's problem, the narrowness of the window, and the hollowness of the religious arguments themselves (the fact that the drug isn't an abortificant, for instance) that the decision may be taken from the pharmacist, if it is. That decision would be limited to that case, the case of the morning-after pill, but its precedent would go on to influence similar decisions later, whether it's decided one way or the other.

Legislation of some sort, or at least an arbitration from the bench, does seem to be called for, here, since both sides claim harm to themselves if the desires of the other be fulfilled. The harm to the patient is obvious, but the harm to the pharmacy is rather abstract, being merely a curtailment of its freedoms, which of course applies conversely, and a sort of non-concrete 'harm' to the pharmacy's principles. On a strict comparison of the potential for harm, the patient should prevail, of course, but we are in a particular place, America, which is lousy with religious nutballs and which worships business. That's why I foresee that the pharmacy will have the say.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

"Why should someone else's sex life be MY business?"

Why should someone else's asthma be your business, why should lumbago, or MS, or the common cold be your business? Because it is your business.

Those things aren't. The business is the stocking and sale of items or services. It happens to have prescriptions there, maybe even primarily, but carrying asthma medication shouldn't be a requirement either. If I don't want to sell asthma medication, then so be it. Let the customers /not/ come. But an asthmatic shouldn't be legislating my private business.

"A Pharmacy needn't sell pharmaceuticals, unless the owner wants it to."

Then-- it ought to be called some other thing. Call it a liquor store. Call it a porn shop. Don't call it a drug store, because there will be-- I know it's weird-- expectations that your store will provide the drugs that your customers need.

Call it a drug store, and let the people understand that "Drug Store" isn't synonyous with "I have every prescription in the world in stock and will sell anything that isn't strictly illegal". Understand that its a business, first, not a government agency.

Well, in your world of no-drug drugstores, I will introduce you to a sucession of swaddled infants laid on your doorstep. Enjoy your diapering experience!

I see this as one of the bigger problems with America... of course its the pharmacist's fault for the pregnancy that he has absolutely no part in--because he's not fixing the problem he didn't start. Self-responsibility. Come on...

So, if there was no regulation mandating that you have to sell a certain list of drugs...

...could you open a pharmacy? Tomorrow?

It is entirely possible to start that process, yes.

If not (and I assure you you couldn't), why? Because pharmacies and pharmacists have to pass through an ass-load of other rules and regulations, buerocracy and restrictions on how they practice their business to set up shop in the first place. Do you oppose those too? No? Yes? Why not as vehemently as this one regulation a certain politician is wanting to add?

They do have licensure and red-tape to go through to be able to sell drugs, yes. Restrictions on what they /can/ sell, restrictions on how they can sell it, and lots of regulation on what they cannot do. That's not uncommon compared to other industries from Law Offices to Construction Companies to Restaurants... I'm opposed to many of the regulations, that's true. Not as vehemantly because I wasn't talking about those in this thread, and it didn't come from a politician--it came from some chick at a Q&A session.

I think she's wrong.

I repeat my point from earlier posts: A seemingly "free" market whithout the reasonably available options for the consumer is a mockery of free trade. If you want to de-regulate one aspect of the pharmacy business, de-regulate them all, so that it's easy for anyone to open a business. If not, you're niether shitting nor getting off the pot, and you're reducing the concept of free competition to regurgitating hollow words from a pamphlet.

I don't have a problem with much of the de-regulation (short of de-regulating things that are harmful and dangerous and "clear and presently hazardous" and whatnot... like Plutonium or something). A free market will either generate options or won't. If there isn't a demand for it, so be it--fuck having to pay for options that don't sell. That's a tax on the businessman or woman whose trying to earn a living.

My "earning a living" has nothing to do with someone else's "oops". I like it that way. I don't want to change that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Self-responsibility. Come on...

ah, I get you now.

No pain-killers for people with broken legs, because they should have known better than to have that accident. No anti-histamines, because allergy sufferers should be smart enough to stay out of the way of the substances they are sensitive to.

Let's see, what other medications can we refuse to supply, in the name of self-responsibility?

It's okay, Joe, you're a real Eighties guy. I understand.

But I have to say, that if your religious sentiments plus your right to make a living interfere with my life-- you get the offspring. I don't care what you think about that, any more than you care about my needs as a consumer.

 

[Grushenka]

It's okay, Joe, you're a real Eighties guy. I understand.

Nearly fell off my husband's lap when I read that.