Jun 22 2008
‘Pro-Life’ Drugstores
When DMC Pharmacy opens this summer on Route 50 in Chantilly, the shelves will be stocked with allergy remedies, pain relievers, antiseptic ointments and almost everything else sold in any drugstore. But anyone who wants condoms, birth control pills or the Plan B emergency contraceptive will be turned away.
That’s because the drugstore, located in a typical shopping plaza featuring a Ruby Tuesday, a Papa John’s and a Kmart, will be a “pro-life pharmacy” — meaning, among other things, that it will eschew all contraceptives.
The pharmacy is one of a small but growing number of drugstores around the country that have become the latest front in a conflict pitting patients’ rights against those of health-care workers who assert a “right of conscience” to refuse to provide care or products that they find objectionable.
“The United States was founded on the idea that people act on their conscience — that they have a sense of right and wrong and do what they think is right and moral,” said Tom Brejcha, president and chief counsel at the Thomas More Society, a Chicago public-interest law firm that is defending a pharmacist who was fined and reprimanded for refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. “Every pharmacist has the right to do the same thing,” Brejcha said.
But critics say the stores could create dangerous obstacles for women seeking legal, safe and widely used birth control methods.
“I’m very, very troubled by this,” said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center, a Washington advocacy group. “Contraception is essential for women’s health. A pharmacy like this is walling off an essential part of health care. That could endanger women’s health.”
The pharmacies are emerging at a time when a variety of health-care workers are refusing to perform medical procedures they find objectionable. Fertility doctors have refused to inseminate gay women. Ambulance drivers have refused to transport patients for abortions. Anesthesiologists have refused to assist in sterilizations.
Read more here.
[From me]
Sounds like a fair idea to me. If you don’t like it then shop at another Pharmacy.
What do you think?
21 responses so far
I like how these “women’s rights” groups act like the world is coming to an end because one pharmacy won’t sell rubbers or the pill.
Steve’s last blog post..Pencil Nub 2.01: Now with Tags
Seems like something our capitalistic system can solve. The stores that do stock Plan B can advertise, “Come here to destroy your offspring!”
The pro-aborts never get the irony: Shouldn’t workers in the health care system have a “choice” of whether to be involved with the sale of abortifacients?
Neil’s last blog post..The audacity of being an abortion survivor
Kevin,
Is it fair because it compels others to abide by your standards, or is it fair because it best preserves the autonomy and the rights of everyone involved (pharmacists have the right to conscience, and patients have the right to legally prescribed medication) - both of which are key requirements for a free society?
As long as you HAVE access to another pharmacy, okay. But I don’t think people in small towns that can only support one pharmacy should have to drive two hours round trip to have prescriptions filled.
I could also note that contraceptives are prescribed by doctors for many reasons other than attempting to prevent pregnancy.
Texas in Africa’s last blog post..outta here
Am I the only one that thinks birth control and condoms aren’t the same thing as the emergency contraceptives?
Michael’s last blog post..Ecclesiastes Chapters 3 - 5 : Turn, Turn, Turn
A3,
I think it is a good idea to allow the person who owns the pharmacy to decide what they want to sell.
TIA,
Why should I be forced to sell something if I own a company?
Texas In Africa,
I’m from a town in which the pharmacy is also part of the hardware store. If the pharmacist decided not to sell contraceptives, then oh well. We were use to driving long distances to get things we needed. If you live in a small town you understand that you have to sacrifice some things. I have no problem with pharmacists only supplying the drugs they feel comfortable with IF they own the pharmacy.
Consumer convenience is not a right.
Michael’s last blog post..Ecclesiastes Chapters 3 - 5 : Turn, Turn, Turn
I believe the pharmacy can sell what the owner decides to sell. After all, it is his/her store and they should be able to sell whatever product they choose (if it is privately owned and not a chain store).
I am curious, will the pharmacy refuse to sell cigarettes? Alcohol? How about weight loss products not endorsed by the FDA? How about candy bars–after all, they lead to weight gain.
To be honest, I appreciate this gentleman’s attitude and conviction, I just wonder where he will draw the line in those convictions. What convicts him may not convict me and what convicts me, may not convict him.
M. Steve Heartsill’s last blog post..The Most Expensive Hamburger in the World
Kevin,
In the days of segregation, business owners believed they had the right to do business however it pleased them - including the right not to serve “coloreds”. On the one hand, the businesses did indeed have the right to autonomy. On the other hand, businesses didn’t have the right to violate the civil rights of others by exercising that autonomy. The government has a duty to protect civil rights and that may require restrictions on autonomy.
The same is true of pharmacists today. They do not enjoy limitless autonomy nor should they. If one pharmacy refuses to dispense medication prescribed by a physician but the other pharmacy down the block complies, then there is no real harm to the customer. However, if it becomes difficult enough for the customer to fill the prescription, then the pharmacy has violated the customer’s rights and the government has a duty to protect them.
M. Steve Heartsill
Good points and good questions.
A3,
There is a big difference between being a racist and having a conviction. If a private business doesn’t want to sell a drug they should have that right. You can go to CVS down the street.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..‘Pro-Life’ Drugstores
I agree that the capitalism of the country should let this decision be made as long as there are options for consumers. My first thought was the same as TIA. What about the many women who take birth control pills for reasons not related to preventing pregnancy? I would question the concern a pharmacist has for the client when preventing working medicines to be given. To carry on with Steve’s thought, I wonder if the store will carry Cialis or Viagra? If they are trying to regulate sexual morality, then all bases should be covered. I also tend to lean more toward the idea of preventing the pregnancy before hand instead of doing the abortion later. I know that isn’t popular, but I’d rather give a peer a condom than have to discuss why she shouldn’t have an abortion.
Women who are pregnant here and have a cold know that they have to go to the older pharamacies and ask at the counter to be able to get real Sudafed. The women either have to go to the right place or do without. While it may be fair to force that decision upon people, I don’t think it is that caring.
Kevin,
I agree - being a racist and having a conviction are different.
The important similarity between the act of refusing to serve “coloreds” and the act of refusing to dispense prescribed medications is that the conflict in both cases is autonomy of the business vs. preservation of the individual’s legal rights. And in both cases, the government should limit the autonomy of the business in order to preserve the individual’s legal rights.
Maybe you missed my earlier comment - I said in my first post to this thread:
“If one pharmacy refuses to dispense medication prescribed by a physician but the other pharmacy down the block complies, then there is no real harm to the customer. However, if it becomes difficult enough for the customer to fill the prescription, then the pharmacy has violated the customer’s rights and the government has a duty to protect them.”
3A-
Customer’s rights? The only “customer’s rights” are granted by a company, not by the government. There are no “rights” for the government to protect.
There is a great deal of difference in the government saying that all citizens are equal and should be allowed to shop at any store and that all products are created equal and should be stocked at every store. That is just a variation of the old Soviet style communism: same 5 products at all stores, same 5 prices at all stores.
I would venture to guess that, given the volatility of this issue, any town that had only one pharmacy and that pharmacy refused to carry contraceptives would get more than enough help from their doctor in finding alternate solutions.
Your “customer’s rights” thesis would make it a requirement for every Ford dealer to stock Excursions if any customer wanted one. Not practical, not legal.
Marty Duren’s last blog post..Look out First Baptist Flowery Branch
How about the the argument that if pharmacists are the sole suppliers and they start refusing to supply, then (because it is the land of the free, or at least thats what we sing about this place), that we pass the responsibility onto some other health care profession. These pills, after all, dont need dispensing, just to be handed over.
http://www.dinahproject.com/articles_view_details.asp?id=295
Marty,
Hey! Long time!
It looks to me that you are responding to the term “customer’s rights” as though I meant “the rights of any customer that shops at any store” - sort of a “bill of rights for shoppers.” By “the customer’s rights,” I meant specifically the right to purchase medication that the customer’s physician says she needs. I was speaking specifically about the pharmacy’s obligation to carry out the health care needs of their customers by filling prescriptions - it is both unethical and illegal for pharmacists to deny patients medications due to personal prejudice or personal bias.
Let me know if you really did understand me correctly and I’ll try to respond to your comments.
3A-
Ok, I’ll bite:
Where in the Bill of Rights is there a “right to purchase medication that the customer’s physician says she needs”? Which law establishes such a right?
And I’m just going to assume here that the pharmacy actually has to stock the item. Is there a legal requirement that says a pharmacy must stock contraceptives of any kind? If so, could you point me to it? What if a pharmacy does not stock sulfa drugs? Are they liable or guilty for a customer who has a prescription for such? Hardly.
Good to hear from you as well. Any concerts coming up?
Marty Duren’s last blog post..Look out First Baptist Flowery Branch
Marty,
3A-
I feel now that we are getting somewhere. You continue to use the word “right” in your comments, yet the only places that rights are secured is the Bill of Rights or the gov’t of a specific state. You mention several states that have restrictions or regulations, including “provide an appropriate referral.” My argument is not that is should be in the Bill of Rights, but that there is no implication of said right as the court has determined about “privacy.”
Since the Chantilly pharmacy is (I assume) in VA, there is no legal requirement such as you have mentioned. Therefore, there is no compelling legal reason for the owner to stock contraceptives. Honestly, with the shenanigans of companies like Brown and Root and Haliburton whether or not a pharmacy stocks condoms doesn’t even seem newsworthy. Must’ve been a slow day at the Post…
Marty Duren’s last blog post..Look out First Baptist Flowery Branch
Marty,
As I understand it, the purpose of the 9th amendment is to protect rights that are not otherwise enumerated (the right to privacy is an example). The idea is that we have inalienable rights that cannot be denied because they are not listed explicitly in the Constitution.
But I agree, I think we are now getting somewhere too. I don’t mean to imply that the federal courts have already settled this - I don’t believe they have. I suggest that we have rights by default unless they are successfully challenged. I think we implicitly have the right to obtain prescribed medication and the courts should settle it in favor of customers who need their prescriptions filled. I think it would be “favorable enough” if the inconvenience of filling the prescription was not sufficient to detour people from actually getting their prescriptions filled (for example, having to travel to the next state would be too inconvenient).
That remains to be seen. If the courts do uphold the right to obtain medication, then the pharmacy could be violating their customers rights by being a licensed pharmacy but refusing to perform the function of dispensing approved medication.
This is America - we can multitask! :))
My time is limited so I must admit that I have skimmed the arguments of 3A, Marty and some others. My daughter is 33 and still a virgin. She has been taking a contraceptive for close to 10 years (or more) now I would guess because of the irregularity and pain involved in her periods. She may have one that lasted 14 days and then turn around and have another one in 3 days. The cramping was excruciating (not good for a school teacher). The doctor found some endimetriosis (sp?) and some other stuff (which I don’t feel needs mentioned) and prescribed bc pills. She takes them not to avoid pregnancy or to live a lifestyle of pleasure (except to enjoy life as a Christ follower) or immorality. I would uphold the “right” of that pharmacist to sell only what he wants to sell and would tell my daughter to find some other pharmacy that will give her the scrip. When Henry Ford first started building cars he wanted to make them available to all and did “as long as they were black.” If people wanted different colors they went elsewhere. HF soon learned his stand was impractical economically. If a pharmacist wants to take the stand this one is and is willing to accept the “payback” then who am I to judge him?
Bill(cycleguy)’s last blog post..What I Learned?
Bill(cycleguy),
How would you feel about it if there were no pharmacists within any reasonable distance that would dispense the medication? Your daughter may not be in that position (yet) but others who live in rural areas are. If this were the case, your daughter would likely have to simply go without and endure the pain. Do you feel that your daughter has the right to purchase the medication that was prescribed by her doctor?
The difficult part of the question is that it implies another question: does the pharmacy have the right to decide what to stock and sell? I see that as similar to the question: does a merchant have the right to chose who to sell to? The answer to the latter is: yes, but not if based on membership of a protected class (like racial minorities for example). Merchants are denied this right because the right is considered less important than the harm it causes society.
I think this is also the case with pharmacies choosing what to stock. Since pharmacies are the primary conduit through which we get our prescribed medications, pharmacies have a duty to make a reasonable effort to make commonly-prescribed medications available. I think this outweighs a pharmacy’s right to choose not to stock a common prescription medication. On the other hand, that need not mean that pharmacists must dispense medications they are not comfortable dispensing. In most pharmacies, if a pharmacist does not want to dispense a prescription, he hands it off to another pharmacist in the pharmacy who will. This usually happens without the customer even realizing it. There is no harm done in this case and the pharmacist should retain this right… which raises yet a third difficult question:
Should a pharmacy owner have the right to not hire (or to fire) a pharmacist based on his religion (remember - religion is a protected class)? The pharmacy owner who wants to sell contraceptives is penalized because if he hires someone whose religious beliefs exempt him from dispensing contraceptives, the owner has to make sure that another pharmacist who agrees to dispense the contraceptives is always on the payroll. Currently, pharmacy owners do not have this right.