I have no sympathy for these pharmacists. They did not suddenly discover that pharmaceutical products exist that are not on James Dobson’s Approved List. They willingly entered a profession in which their duty is to fill all lawfully written prescriptions, not just those of which they approve. The existing law is more than fair in allowing them to avoid this “sin” if they can find a heathen, whose soul is lost anyway, to fill the prescription. If they want to, they can even perform an exorcism in the stock room to cleanse the place of sin after the transaction is finished.
It is noteworthy that the pharmaceutical profession has existed for so long, but only recently have we seen the appearance of devout druggists who suddenly cannot fill prescriptions. All during the administration of a demagogic president who has pandered shamelessly to the Christian right for six interminable years.
God, is there no end to this stream of pseudo-devout poseurs?

Hypocrites! These pharmacists have a problem selling contraceptives but apparentely have no issues with selling dangerous and very addictive drugs that kill and harm far more people than do “illegal” drugs.

The State’s action is deplorable. Essentially, the State is requiring pharmacists to knowingly aid and abet what they consider HOMICIDE. Our fictional “right to privacy” (read the Constitution front and back, it’s just not there) is toppling the First Amendment.
Pharmacists should not be forced to choose between having a clear conscience and getting a new job.

What is sad is the ignorance of these pharmacists…gluttony is a sin, so will they not precribe medicines
that treat conditions of obesity? Drinking is a sin in many religions, so will they not prescribe medicines for those suffering from alcohol induced liver diseases? And AIDS may have come from illicit sexual encounters- will they not prescribe medicines to alleviate the suffering of these patients? The State of Washington cannot allow this- otherwise, medicines will only be dispensed to those “approved of” by the pharmacist. They are not licensed to “judge”- they are licensed to dispense medicine ordered by a medical doctor.
Where are the voices of the AMA to silence these psuedo-pharmacists? And of true Christians? Jesus did not judge…he healed.

I’m not willing to spend a lot of time fighting about this issue, but it does strike me as upsetting that soon, orthodox Christians—not to mention people of other religions—simply aren’t going to be able to go into medicine anymore. Again, I’m not necessarily talking about the merits of this case, but as more and more things that people find immoral are becoming common, and then start to be considered “rights,” pretty soon religious people simply won’t be able to become doctors, pharmacists or whatever, because to do so would require them to do things they think is wrong.
God bless.

What about Doctors?
Would people who support these pharmacists also support a Doctor who refuses to treat patients that may not stack up with their “deeply held religious and moral beliefs”?
Believe it or not, some doctors have actually fought for the ability to refuse to treat patients – even in emergency settings – who don’t jive with their personal faith. I can see it now; “Sorry Mr. Gay-Bashing-Victim-With-A-Punctured-Lung, I refuse to help gays. Praise Jesus!”
In my opinion, if you enter the medical field, be it as a doctor, nurse, paramedic or pharmacist, you should check your religious-based objections to such things at the door. The PATIENTS rights always win. Period.
I’d personally like to see the pharmacist who denies emergency contraception to a raped 12 year old tarred and feathered.

I find myself conflicted on this issue. I guess I just don’t see it as being as black and white as many others do. They say that a person’s right to swing his fist ends where another person’s nose begins. In cases like these the dividing line between nose and fist seem rather fuzzy.

NightLad—the issue here is different than the example you give, because the issue has nothing to do, really, with who the patient is, but what the procedure (in this case, a sale) is. A doctor should never be able to say that he won’t treat such-and-such a PERSON; the question is, can he say that he won’t do such-and-such a TREATMENT?
God bless.

Joey
I do see what you’re saying. But let me turn the tables a little while skirting the edge of your own anology;
Let’s say that a strict Hindu went to work at The Keg steakhouse. If this person tried to sue their employer so they would not be forced to serve customers steak, but they demanded to keep their job and get a full paycheck nontheless, do you think they’d win?
Personally, I don’t think so. If they feel that their religious convictions trump their ability to perform their job – the job they signed up for all on their own – then they can just as easily leave it.
The customer/consumer/patient should not have to suffer with poor service or, in this case, lack of medical treatments, because of the serviceperson’s beleifs. This fact is what makes the case unique; the individual pharmacist is no longer asking for their own religious beleifs to be respected; they are demanding that their religious beleifs superceed the medical rights of the patient. To me, that’s just scary, because it will not end with “Plan B.”
Be bless.

So, how’s that whole “Good Samaritan” parable working out for you guys? Doesn’t sound like it struck a chord.
Give me good works over faith any day.

“a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between “their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs.” ”
Then find another job! As the Bible says, “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.”
Matthew 5:29-31

These Pharmacists need to rethink their argument. They are supposed to be Professional people and I’m sure they had classes on medical ethics when they went to college. The Doctors who prescribe medication for their patients expect professional behavior and cooperation from Pharmacists who fill the prescriptions for the patients. They aren’t supposed to think personally about these patients, just do what they were trained to do and get on with the next patient. If they can’t they shouldn’t be in a profession of co-handling patients with doctors. They could work in hospitals where they aren’t connecting with patients I suppose.

“This fact is what makes the case unique; the individual pharmacist is no longer asking for their own religious beleifs to be respected; they are demanding that their religious beleifs superceed the medical rights of the patient.”
And this is where the whole thing gets fuzzy for me. Constitutionally, medical rights are not mentioned yet religious rights are explicitly guaranteed. At the same time, I find the notion that medical providers should be able to deny certain services on the basis of their moral convictions problematic as well. As I struggle to find an acceptable middle ground, I suppose I would tend to err on the side of the pharmacists in this case, but it makes me uneasy all the same.

Tysson, think of it this way, the Medical Society supports the therapy that is being given in this article. The law of our country supports it as well. We as a nation of sick people, and hopefully well, too, all have different beliefs, and have more in common then we have uncommon. Now, the drugstore isn’t an extension of somebodys Church, it is a drugstore that serves ALL people, and when one joins the Profession of a healer one helps heal ALL people, even if we don’t agree with a prescription being given by a doctor for a patient. Does that make it less fuzzy? or is it still a problem for you? I understand people have their personal beliefs, and respect them, but this seems unprofessional and bordering on extremism of one’s faith to me, as one who has worked in the medical field.

Ted—I also see what YOU’RE saying, but to turn the tables back to you, I would point out that this is a new regulation, so your analogy doesn’t really apply—rather, it’s more like the case of a Hindu who worked at a vegetarian restaraunt, which then was sold to a steakhouse. Maybe you say the Hindu needs to quit now, but you can’t say that this was his fault for not thinking of this in advance.
And I’m basically agreeing with what you’re saying, but I’m just pointing out—yes, from now on lots of people will consider this before choosing a career in pharmacy. But as a result, the next generation may have less pharmacists, now won’t they? As you point out, this may not stop at Plan B—I’m really most concerned about what will happen if, for example, things like abortion start becoming mandatory for certain professions, something I admit probably wouldn’t happen soon but may in the future. It would be a shame if a person who could do a lot of good wouldn’t be able to, because they would be afraid of having to do some bad (at least from their perspective) in the process.
God bless.

“Does that make it less fuzzy?”
I’m afraid it doesn’t.
On the one hand, I understand how a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for the morning after pill is interfering with the freedom of a patient to choose her medical treatment. In a pharmacy that employs multiple pharmacists with differing moral views on the drug or in a town with multiple competing pharmacies, the refusal of a single individual to fill a prescription doesn’t rise much above the level of inconvenience for the patient and I am comfortable letting market forces work as they will. In rural areas and small towns, however, a patient may have severely limited choice and the pharmacist’s objection becomes considerably more than a simple nuisance.
On the other hand, I find it equally troubling to argue that a pharmacist must leave his or her religious convictions at the drug counter. Most pharmacists have been practicing longer than the morning after pill has been approved by the FDA. Should they suddenly have to give up their careers simply because a new technological advance is approved that conflicts with their morals? Is it reasonable to shut them out of the public discussion about these controversial issues?
Don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with the morning after pill, abortifacients or even abortion. I do, however, worry that this law crosses the line of First Amendment protections, or at the very least walks dangerously close to it.

Joey — will the next generation have less pharmacists? I doubt it. 3 people are suing, but out of how many thousand employed in this profession?
But again, I feel that your points place the pharmacist’s private religious beliefs above the patient’s rights. I believe the change in policy came about due to people being refused prescriptions, and certain medications/products removed from pharmacies all together. Personally, I think this change in police was a good one, because Doctors make the decision as to what drugs are appropriate and required for their patients; the final decision does not, and should never, rest with the Pharmacists spiritual beliefs.
Just to continue the trade in analogies a little further; what if you went to a pharmacy to get a prescription of anti-viral medication filled for your sick infant, but the Wiccan pharmacist refused the order because the company does not practice eco-friendly policies and she found it spiritually offensive?
Truthfully, the anology exchange could go on all day; you make good points, and I’m glad we can at least understand each other’s point of view, even if we do not fully agree on every point.

I’m personally glad that they came upon this new policy. The only thing this NEW policy does it make it so the patients get the “Treatment” they need by the pharmacy. It in no way changes the FACT that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a perscription bases on thier personal, subjective morality. What it does do is make sure that the Pharmist that refuses to fill that perscription then either: A.) Passes the script to a co-worker to fill that does not have an objection to doing so and B.) That they return the script to the patient whom they are treating via providing the medication If there is no one else to fill it.
Unfortunately, Under the law as it stands and stood in this state prior to this change these “MORAL” objectors where often NOT returning the scripts back to the patient to take to get filled else where Or NOT passing the script to a co- worker to fill that had no such Objections. Thusly, Denying the patient the treatment they require.
So, for People to act like this is such a BIG deal against pharmacists is silly. They got to keep it their way nothing has changed as far as that goes. Just now they can’t be bullys to patients about it.
I personally, don’t think they have a case. The 2 individual Pharmasists have no legs to stand on and this case is frivolous on thier behalf. They’re just upset that they can’t bully patients anymore IMO. As far as the actual pharmacy that’s ify because the article does not say whether or not this particular pharmacy is an across the board ” Morality” objecter or if it is just supporting it’s employees right to refuse to fill scripts. If it’s the later they are SOL as well in this case. If it’s the former they might have something IMHO.

Interesting conversations here.
The pharmacists could, presumably go to work in a bigger store where there would always be some real pharmacists on duty who could fill all prescriptions. So they do not in fact have to choose between their profession and their religion. If they have to take such a job in a different town, it’s not the first time people made sacrifices for their religions. The customers, on the other hand, has a very short time to get their medicine and some don’t have transportation to go from pharmacy to pharmacy or to another town. There are all sorts of ways these pharmacists can meet their needs but some of the customers would not have more than one choice.
To the extent people search their consciences before choosing a profession, that’s a good thing. On the other hand if law suits like this one succeed, may there not be people who choose professions so they can use them to impose their beliefs on the rest of us?
And we are not talking about “unborn babies” here; it’s a sperm and an egg; that’s about it. Uncounted sperms and millions of eggs are discarded every day with no one complaining; the fact they are attached doesn’t make them human in any physical sense. If you are going to end a pregnancy this is the best of all possible times to do it. If you are going to prevent one this is the last chance. That some people try to keep these pills from those who need them shows just how perverse some people are.

I don’t see a constitutional crisis here. The pertinent facts are that: 1) America is a secular nation of laws; 2) the law says that a certain treatment is legal; and 3) pharmacists are to fill legal prescriptions. There is nothing unique about the idea that the circumstances of a job may change and the new circumstances are offensive to some employees; I know of no legal right to sue because circumstances change. So these pharmacists don’t like the new rules? Well, they have the FREEDOM to choose to stay and work within the rules, or leave. To say that they shouldn’t have to choose is ridiculous, because if this were not about religion — which should have no special standing in a legal sense — this entire situation would be a non-story. Companies change hands and introduce new policies, all legal. Some people grumble. Some of those who grumble stay and comply, while other grumblers leave. Life’s a bitch, ain’t it?

“It in no way changes the FACT that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a perscription bases on thier personal, subjective morality.”
Your post is misleading, at least according to the details outlined in the article. You are correct that the law provides an opportunity for a pharmacist to pass the prescription on to another pharmacist on duty. However, as stated in the article, “that applies only if the patient is able to get the prescription in the same pharmacy visit.” If this is reported accurately, then a pharmacist working alone would have to fill the prescription. He or she could not simply return the prescription in order that it be filled elsewhere. The same would apply if all the pharmacists working for the establishment objected to the use of the morning after pill.
On a different note, your repeated use of quotation marks around the word “morality” is puzzling. I am assuming your choice of punctuation is an indication that you operate from a different “personal, subjective morality” than the pharmacists. I do, too. However, I believe a fundamental principle embodied in the Bill of Rights is that every one is entitled to “personal, subjective morality” and that a person should not be compelled by the government to act against his or her conscience.

If you can accept tuition assistance from the public, then you serve
the public. The people that pay the taxes that support the tuition assistance and grants you get to go to school have a right to expect
you to provide the service you trained for. If your religion prohibits
you from doing so, then you should not be getting public money. You
might try to open a “Christian Pharmacy” or going to work for one.
Good Luck.

“If they have to take such a job in a different town, it’s not the first time people made sacrifices for their religions.”
This just doesn’t sit right with me. Perhaps it’s because I spent considerable time in my youth living in small towns, but there seems something onerous about compelling an individual who has lived and worked in a town all his life, who may have roots in the town extending back generations, to either close shop or move because a new drug comes along, a drug that was not on the market when the individual began practicing.
“The customers, on the other hand, has a very short time to get their medicine and some don’t have transportation to go from pharmacy to pharmacy or to another town.”
And this doesn’t sit right with me either, again because I grew up in small towns and, as such, I can appreciate how limited the choices for many patients can be. One of the greatest challenges of living in a pluralistic society is resolving conflicts when individual rights collide.
I honestly don’t know where the line in this case can be drawn fairly. However, I do wonder if it would be possible to allow doctors who prescribe this drug to carry it themselves for distribution to patients.

“Companies change hands and introduce new policies, all legal. Some people grumble.”
Yes, but companies are not, yet, governments. The reason this raises Constitutional concerns is precisely because it is the government that is compelling individuals to act against their conscience.

“If you can accept tuition assistance from the public, then you serve the public.”
This seems an even more dangerous argument than any I’ve heard so far in favor of this bill. If a Quaker accepts public tuition assistance, should he or she then be compelled to military duty in service to the public? If so, then I have an even bigger problem with Federal Financial Aid services than I thought!
“If your religion prohibits you from doing so, then you should not be getting public money.”
So in your opinion a person who puts himself through pharmacy school without tuition assistance should be free to ignore this law. I’m not sure the law, itself, provides for any such distinction.
“You might try to open a “Christian Pharmacy” or going to work for one. Good Luck.”
If I understand the law correctly, even such a “Christian Pharmacy” could not refuse to fill a prescription for the morning after pill.

In a free state, government cannot compel a citizen to violate his or her own religious convictions. Freedom of religion was, after all, one of the basic issues in the minds of the founding fathers. Government has to show that an individual’s choice does significant harm to the public good. Since there will always be other pharmacists whose conscience allows them to sell the drug, no public harm is done by a pharmicist refusing. Customers who want the drug can just go down the street. This is an example of government invading the rights of a private citizen when there is no compelling public interest in doing so.

“Customers who want the drug can just go down the street.”
By and large I agree with your position. However, this statement is not always true. I have lived in a number of towns where there was only a single pharmacist. Granted, this does not apply to most Americans, but it does seem some sort of provision should be made for such patients. As I proposed above, though, it seems that allowing doctors the option of distributing the drug would be a better solution.

This has NOTHING to do with “government forcing someone to violate his or her moral convictions.” Government is not forcing the pharmacist to fill the prescription; the pharmacist has the right to quit if it seems sufficiently important. I repeat: suppose this were not a religious issue, but a case of a company being taken over by another company that institutes new polcies, all perfectly legal, but which some of the workers dislike. Would anyone take it seriously if an unhappy worker filed a lawsuit because he or she dislikes the new policies? These are the choices we face in life. And may I add that pharmacists can work anywhere, and if they are so unhappy where they are, they can find a bigger pharmacy where there will always be a godless heathen colleague who will smile while sinfully filling the immoral prescription. I have far more sympathy for unskilled workers who don’t like the new policies introduced in the companies where they have worked, because they may have far fewer options than some pseudodevout druggists have.
This is exactly the problem about religion in America. The first amendment forbids the institution of an official religion and also guarantees that people can practice their religion without interference (although it is clear that free practice of religion does not permit acts that are outright violations of the law). Well, no one is interfering with these druggists’ right to make all the loud religious noises they want to make; they just feel that they are entitled to special treatment that is not afforded to any other workers who don’t like new policies, because THEIR objection is religious. To me, the first amendment should be interpreted as saying that government gives no special attention to religion whatsoever: no establishment of religion, no outlawing of religion, no interference with religious practices Ias long as the practices remain within the limits of the law), AND NO SPECIAL FAVORS TO RELIGION. No special tax status, and no special rights to sue because a new policy offends their religious sensibilities.

Our American Constitution tells us that all men are created equal and have the right to practice any religion or no religion any time they please, as long as it is not on government property, paid for by government funds, or given government support and does not INFRINGE on the RIGHTS of others. The Doctors and Patients rights are infringed upon if Pharmacists refuse to fulfill their Professions jobs, because of their religious beliefs.

I think that this is a very sticky situation. On the one hand, when you go into a profession designed to help people, you must realize that the help you will be giving them will sometimes be to remedy a problem that they brought on themselves, sometimes willingly. On the other hand, a person’s religious beliefs are very strong for them and I can see the “I will not advocate this problem.” as being an outspoken thing. I would have to rule for the people, however. When you go into a profession of medical ideas you are taught about problems and are supposed to be able to professionally deal with them. It’s like joining the military and then getting angry if you have to go to war.

All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)
If I were a Christian, since I work at a bank, am I allowed to distribute everyone’s bank accounts to where they all have equal balances? Remember, it’s a religious conviction.

“This has NOTHING to do with “government forcing someone to violate his or her moral convictions.”"
I have tremendous respect for your usually thoughtful discussions and the balanced approach you usually take to debate. In this instance, however, I believe you are absolutely wrong. This is EVERYTHING to do with government imposing on the ability of individuals to act according to their moral convictions.
“Government is not forcing the pharmacist to fill the prescription; the pharmacist has the right to quit if it seems sufficiently important.”
But that is precisely what the government is forcing the pharmacist to do, at least in many instances. I try not to argue from slippery slopes, but you seem to be leading us down some very unstable ground when you argue that the government is offering a reasonable accommodation of religious conviction by allowing an individual the “choice” between compliance and his livelihood.
“I repeat: suppose this were not a religious issue, but a case of a company being taken over by another company that institutes new polcies, all perfectly legal, but which some of the workers dislike. Would anyone take it seriously if an unhappy worker filed a lawsuit because he or she dislikes the new policies?”
And again I repeat that this analogy is fatally flawed. We are not talking about a company changing its policies. We are talking about government. In constitutional terms the difference is night and day.
“I have far more sympathy for unskilled workers who don’t like the new policies introduced in the companies where they have worked, because they may have far fewer options than some pseudodevout druggists have.”
One of the benefits of living in a free society is that people should have the liberty to negotiate a price for their services however they best see fit. The business relationship between an employer and an employee is a considerably different transaction that that of the government and its citizens. I am also curious by what measure you have determined these druggists to be “pseudodevout.” I disagree strongly with their moral foundation, but I see no reason to question the sincerity of their beliefs.
“Well, no one is interfering with these druggists’ right to make all the loud religious noises they want to make; they just feel that they are entitled to special treatment that is not afforded to any other workers who don’t like new policies, because THEIR objection is religious.”
Could you provide some examples from other professions to illustrate your point? I am having a hard time thinking of analogous situations.
“AND NO SPECIAL FAVORS TO RELIGION.”
I’m still having a hard time seeing how allowing a person to act according to his or her consciousness is somehow a “special favor.” Indeed, I thought that was a founding principle upon which this nation was built.

As I see it, the pharmacists have the option of quitting their jobs if they find them morally or ethically offensive. Is it easy? Nope. But, they didn’t sign up to be selective about who they served or what legal medications they would dispense. And no one ever promised that following your beliefs would be easy. We all have ethical/moral/religious choices to make and we all live with the consequences of those choices. Policies change, laws change and controls change. Those are the times when we have to decide how we will or will not change. We don’t generally have the option of eliminating the change.

Does anyone else find it ironic that the same people clamoring that the government is ‘infringing on our freedoms’ are the same group of people who are more than happy to impose their beliefs on abortion and same-sex marriage onto the masses through that same government entity?

“The Doctors and Patients rights are infringed upon if Pharmacists refuse to fulfill their Professions jobs, because of their religious beliefs.”
This, again, is where I find the situation fuzzy. However, if we accept that where government has a vested public interest in regulating something that may infringe on individual liberty it must do so in a way that is least intrusive, then a far simpler and, in my opinion, far more reasonable solution is to allow for a direct transaction of the drug between doctor and patient. As far as I can tell, such an approach would infringe on no one’s rights and would insure that the patient gets the course of treatment she and her doctors have decided upon.

Why isn’t anyone debating against the American Constitution? Because it is what it is. You are free to worship anyway you please, except in Government owned facilities, and if you “infringe on anothers rights it isn’t allowed”. This law makes all other debate useless.

“Policies change, laws change and controls change.”
Indeed they do. However, the cornerstone of our Constitution is that those changes must nevertheless protect the individual liberties outlined in the Bill of Rights. I find it rather frightening that people have so lost sight of this principle that they think forcing people out of business or out of their profession because of their religious convictions is reasonable.

“Does anyone else find it ironic that the same people clamoring that the government is ‘infringing on our freedoms’ are the same group of people who are more than happy to impose their beliefs on abortion and same-sex marriage onto the masses through that same government entity?”
Well, that’s certainly not the position I’m arguing from. However, I do find that trend equally alarming.

Hello Tysson,
I have lived in small towns for over 20 years now and not once have I’ve gone into a pharmacy that has had only 1 Pharmasist on duty. Also in this day and age most scripts are electronically transferred to the pharmacy thusly it is possible for the Day shift pharmisist whom has therse objections to pass it off to the one that comes in the afternoon or an underling to fill (in states where this is permitted). All they need to do is call the patient and tell them when their script will be ready so that only one trip is necessary.
And my quotation marks around the word Morality is because to me this is in no way an issue about morality. To me it is about religious people wearing thier religious idiology like a chip on their shoulder and using it to abuse and negate their legal responsibilities. They are using their religious dogma to DENY thier patients treatment via the refusal of Plan B and/or birth control. What I would like to know is if these same pharmacist fill Birth control scripts because if they do then they are hypocrites IMNSHO.
Also if a Pharmacy only has one pharmacist on the payroll that has objections to doing their job due to self righteous religious based idiology then that pharmacy can hire another pharmacist that does not have those same objections. This is more possible then it is for you to expect all Doctor offices to have a built in pharmacy which is to costly for them to do. This bill in no way negates a pharmacists religious idiology it holds the pharmacist accountable to the patients that they are providing treatment for. Or should we just go back to Jim Crow laws? After all those laws were all backed by religious idiology in the south and blacks were refused treatment in white only hospitals and pharmacies. So should we have Christian only Hospitals and pharmacies? How about Pagan only pharmacies? Or Islamic only pharmacies? What makes Christian idiology more important than the rest which requires them to recieve special treatment under this law? Also, why is that only Christian pharmacist seem to be incapable of doing their job while hiding behind Christian idiology? I find that more telling and interesting. I’m not saying ALL Christian Pharmacist but I am referring to those like the ones in this article.
Just my two cents, your milage may vary.

“I have lived in small towns for over 20 years now and not once have I’ve gone into a pharmacy that has had only 1 Pharmasist on duty.”
Well, there are small towns and then there are small towns. The smallest we ever lived in (well, near, really) had a population of 5. Naturally, it didn’t have a pharmacy so it doesn’t really count in this discussion. Nevertheless, when I visit my mother, who still lives in a small town (population 5,700), we often run by the local pharmacy where it is not at all uncommon for there to be only one pharmacist on duty at a time. In fact, it’s not at all uncommon to have to wait for that pharmacist to get back from lunch or some other errand. In many of the towns where I grew up, the pharmacy was independently owned by the pharmacist so your suggestion that the pharmacy can simply hire another pharmacist would present for them the same moral dilemma.
“They are using their religious dogma to DENY thier patients treatment via the refusal of Plan B and/or birth control.”
As much as I disagree not only with their moral position on birth control but, in fact, the very religious foundation upon which their moral position is based, I nevertheless respect their right to their religious beliefs. Moreover, I think it’s rather disingenuous to suggest they arrived at their moral position in order to deny others their rights.
“This is more possible then it is for you to expect all Doctor offices to have a built in pharmacy which is to costly for them to do.”
I hardly think it would take a “built in pharmacy” for doctors to keep some Plan B on hand. I am sure the storage facilities they already have for the other pharmaceuticals they use in their practice would suffice.
“Or should we just go back to Jim Crow laws?”
I’m not going to entertain this hyperbole. To compare the systematic denial of voting rights to an entire class of American citizens to an individual pharmacist objecting to a particular treatment is, frankly, silly.

“I find it rather frightening that people have so lost sight of this principle that they think forcing people out of business or out of their profession because of their religious convictions is reasonable.”
Is it reasonable? I don’t know. I do know that in my time I’ve had to quit two jobs because the requirements of my employer conflicted with my beliefs. My employers made decisions about various assignments and job requirements based on their best interests which forced me into a position of having to make a decision based on maintaining my beliefs. It never occurred to me to sue them to change their policies, which were legal and justified in their eyes. It happens in many fields to people who try to follow a moral/ethical/religious path. The pharmacists cannot reasonably claim special status.

tysson,
Respectfully, I don’t think the analogies I drew are fatally flawed at all. But we may just have to disagree on that point. As for my characterization of the druggists involved as “pseudo-devout,” it reflects my cynicism, given the fact that UNTIL this administration began pandering to the Christian right, I had never once heard of any such cases. My profession is in the medical field (formerly in clinical practice, but most of my career has been as a journal editor and ghostwriter for the medical literature), so I think I would have been aware of such events had they happened. I can’t swear that it never happened before, but I am sure that there has been a mini-festival of such events over the past several years. Christian fundamentalism isn’t new. Pharmacy isn’t new. Approval of drugs that Christians may not like isn’t new. Only thing new is this sudden rash of born-again druggists who have simultaneously discovered that their religion forbids them from filling certain legally issued prescriptions. Sure sounds to me like grandstanding, or at least bandwagoning. Maybe these druggists have convinced themselves that they are sincere, but I find this little boomlet of piety in pharmacy unconvincing.

“Does anyone else find it ironic that the same people clamoring that the government is ‘infringing on our freedoms’ are the same group of people who are more than happy to impose their beliefs on abortion and same-sex marriage onto the masses through that same government entity?”
Highly ironic but not at all surprising.
H4C, well argued as usual. I’d say some of those things but you said them better.

“My employers made decisions about various assignments and job requirements based on their best interests which forced me into a position of having to make a decision based on maintaining my beliefs.”
I am puzzled by the number of people posting to this discussion who cannot differentiate between an employer and the government. Once again, the government mandating moral behavior and an employer creating store policy are not analogous!
Look, when you take a job you enter into a kind of contractual agreement with an employer. Both employee and employer are acting, under the law, as individuals. Both sides of this agreement are protected by the Bill of Rights. A disagreement with an employer’s policies, then, is a disagreement of conscience between individuals and, if the disagreement is significant enough, either side is free to terminate the arrangement through legal means.
To bring this closer to the situation at hand, a pharmacy owner has every right to establish as a requirement for employment that its pharmacists distribute Plan B. Pharmacists, in turn, have the right to decline working for owners who make this a requirement. They can work for other pharmacy owners or they can go into business for themselves. This is just how things ought to operate in a free society.
Note the important difference here. A pharmacist who objects to conditions of employment merely has to choose to work elsewhere within his or her chosen profession. Under a governmental decree, by contrast, the pharmacist much choose a completely different profession if he or she objects to this single treatment on moral grounds. This is a far, far greater burden to bear for conscientious objection than a contractual dispute with an employer.
If there were no less onerous options readily available, then I might see an argument for such legislation. As I have pointed out, however, it would be simple enough for doctors to provide Plan B directly to their patients, much as they distribute other pharmaceuticals in their practice.

“As for my characterization of the druggists involved as “pseudo-devout,” it reflects my cynicism, given the fact that UNTIL this administration began pandering to the Christian right, I had never once heard of any such cases.”
Well, in all fairness, Plan B wasn’t approved by the FDA until, what, the very end of the 90s? As I recall, this was not without controversy at the time and this before Bush came to office.
Be that as it may, America has always been a place where religions can grow, change and thrive. I don’t recall anything in the First Amendment that guarantees protection of religious sentiments only if they have been established for a set period of time.

“I am puzzled by the number of people posting to this discussion who cannot differentiate between an employer and the government. Once again, the government mandating moral behavior and an employer creating store policy are not analogous!”
Sorry that I didn’t make myself clearer. One of my former employers WAS the government. And I do get the difference between the two examples.
However, within the health care field, I believe the practitioners have established a different criteria for themselves. If a Jehovah’s Witness decided to become a doctor, would they be within their rights to refuse to give a patient a blood transfusion? Or would we insist that they provide state of the art treatment for whoever appeared before them? In lieu of that ability, one would respectfully suggest that they specialize in something that did not violate their personal beliefs, such as dermatology or something unlikely to cause them a moral difficulty. Pharmacists’ jobs are to dispense proscribed medicines to patients as directed by physicians. It is not their job to judge whether or not a medication in ethical. Would these same pharmacists refuse birth control for unmarried women? At what point is the line drawn?
I’m sure that pharmacists with this position could find work in the Catholic hospital system, where such a dilemma would never arise. They have options, but I don’t think that one of their options should be to deny services to patients with legitimate prescriptions.

This is not meant to be sarcasm people. Perhaps as one Christian to the Christian Pharmacists in this article, they could save a lot of court time by just asking God to give them the grace to accept what they cannot change, and fill whatever RX comes in front of them. If this is the worse they have to do in life to support themselves and their families they’ll be doing good.

“Pharmacists’ jobs are to dispense proscribed medicines to patients as directed by physicians.”
On a lighter note, one would hope that pharmacists would not dispense proscribed medicines.
That notwithstanding, a pharmacist’s job consists of considerably more than counting pills at the behest of doctors. Indeed, pharmacists have oversight responsibilities as well. You do ask, however, a legitimate question about where the line should be drawn and I confess that I do not know of an easy answer.
At odds are the separate rights of two individuals, the right of the patient to pursue a course of treatment and the right of the pharmacist to be free from state interference with his or her religious convictions. I believe that both rights are important. However, unlike most posters here who would put the patient’s rights first, I tend to side with the pharmacists in this case. I base my conclusion on the fact that medical rights must be inferred from the Constitution whereas religious rights are clearly spelled out under the First Amendment. From that perspective, I hope that the pharmacists win this case. However, I also fervently hope that the Washington state legislature finds a less onerous way to ensure that women have access to this health care option. I have outlined one possible solution that violates no one’s rights as far as I can tell. I am sure there are other solutions as well.

LOL,
blasted spell checker doesn’t throw out real words!
It might be interesting to figure out a non-birth control, non-medical parallel and see if a guideline works there as well. This issue can tend to make people give in to knee-jerk reactions. Perhaps someone can think of something using police officers or some other group that must respond and assist no matter their personal beliefs or inclinations.

tysson,
If the situation involved a choice between complying with the law and leaving the profession entirely, I would consider the dilemma faced by the pharmacists with a bit more sympathy. But that would mean that in order to remain in their profession, they personally would have to fill every Plan B prescription that comes in. Not so. They can punt off to a heathen colleague. The ONLY time they would be forced to fill the prescription is if they are the only ones on duty at the time, and that is a function not of government decree but of where they work. This is why I don’t see why you place such emphasis on the difference between government policy and private employer arrangements. If they are working in a setting where they are the sole personnel on duty, they can negotiate with their employer to hire a heathen in case someone comes in with a sinful prescription, or they can leave and find a pharmacy that already has a heathen on staff.
As for the 1st Amendment guarantees about freedom of religion: I think we would agree on the following:
1. Freedom applies to religion in general, not any particular religion.
2. If a given religion called for human sacrifice, we would unhesitatingly interfere with that particular aspect of religious practice, because we have laws against murder — not laws against murder EXCEPT in the case of sacrifices performed as part of religious practice.
The issue then would hinge on how we see a third concept:
3. There is a difference between a government edict specifically desugbed to nterfere with a religious practice that some people find offensive but does not violate any law (not even as vague an offense as “creating a disturbance”). and a government action taken for purposes that have nothing to do with religion, but which nevertheless offends certain religious beliefs.
On this 3rd point, I believe there IS a profound difference. The first scenario would be a clear violation of constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion. The second would not, because its purpose was to make a change considered useful for society, and that change was approved without seeking religious approval. And I regard that as fitting and proper in a secular — i.e., non-theocratic — society. Would we not be a de facto theocracy if we sought religious approval for proposed laws and policies?
As citizens, religious people could and did flood the FDA with messages expressing their opposition to Plan B. Nevertheless, Plan B was approved. It can now be legally obtained via prescription. And again, if it is so offensive to them, all they need do is find a different place to work, one where someone else can fill the prescriptions that they do not wish to sully their hands by filling.

Correction to previous:
In point #3 above, “desugbed” is my my clumsy mistyping: that should be “designed.”

HfC, if desugbed is designed, then nterfere must be interfere. I knew what your code words were, they look like mine and jestrfyls, sometimes.

My questions are:
do these pharmacists fulfill scripts for Viagra, Cialis, and other erectile dysfunction medications? Why? How do they know that God did not intend these men to be impotent?
do these pharmacists also sell condoms? Why? Isn’t that a violation of “God’s” reproductive plans for people?
as for pharmacists having rights that supercede those of the patients: then the pharmacists should go into a different line of business: would you want police to come only if there were a murder, but not a burglary? an emergency room physician who would treat a heart-attack, but not a stroke? an accountant who would do your state taxes, but not your federal (because he/she disagreed with Federal policy, the war in Iraq, for example)? No. A professional handles all the situations with which he/she is presented in a professional manner.

&**&^%&*Does anyone else find it ironic that the same people clamoring that the government is ‘infringing on our freedoms’ are the same group of people who are more than happy to impose their beliefs on abortion and same-sex marriage onto the masses through that same government entity%%%%%
How is wishing for the same freedoms that others have impose those choices on anyone else? No one is insisting that they enter a same sex marriage or have an abortion. They are only asking for the right to make their own choices. Since marriage at this time is regulated by the government, where else should they turn?
As for the pharmacists, If I wish their opinion about what drugs I am taking I will as for it, unless they are inquiring about a drug interaction with another one. I know lots of people are against kids taking meds for ADD, but the pharmacist doesn’t have a choice over whether or not to fill, the prescription. It is their job to put it in a bag and hand it over, not make a decision that has already been made by the patient and their doctor.

Ruairi,
Just in case it wasn’t clear, the posting that asked “Does anyone else find it ironic…?” was referring to the Christian right as the same people who are claiming that the law is interfering with these devout druggists’ freedom of religion, yet are simultaneously seeking to have the government force their own “Christian values” restrictive repressive views on abortion and same-sex marriage onto everyone else.

I saw my name and typing skills called into question. Fat fingers, dyslexia ( a cruel word) and thinking far faster than I can make the keys work is the problem. Personally, I like the word desugbed and think it is simply in need of a definition. Any creative ideas?
With all that in mind, and nonetheless, there are more issues at work inthis article. The plaintiffs own their own company and are simply refusing to order, supply, and sell that product. If it were a type of battery, tissue, or cold medication, there would be no hubbub. Do they also choose to sell Viagra or Cialis? Is there a problem there? I think not. I side with the plaintiffs on this one. We cannot compell any one merchant to sell any particular product.
However, if this were a corporate franchise and one or two pharmacists on a certain shift proclaimed they would not sell a certain medication on their shift, I think they might be targets for dismissal. If the company (be it pharmacy, steak house, or tattoo parlor) chooses to be a vendor for a certain product, the employees are agreeing to do that business.
Freedom means we do not have to do everything for everyone. I hope some other pharmacy in that town decides to sell this medication (a worthy product) – but not to take advantage of the controversy and jack up the price.
I’ll try to keep my “coded” messages to a minimum and even re-read and edit now and then. Thanks for coming to my defense, HEnrietta. Now, I have to go to eBay and find a new desugbed.

desugbed – v. the act of hauling someone out of bed the morning after the night before. past tense – desugbeded. As in “I desugbeded my brother this morning before father found out he’d been out carousing last night.”
(graduate school totally warped my mind!!)
Cheers all!

Actually, we have a non-medical version.
Interestingly, I did this as a hypothetical when talking about this issue years ago, and people pooh-poohed it as a ‘well, in theory, but will never happen HERE’. But lo and behold, it has.
We have recently had a large influx of Muslim Somali immigrants into Minnesota. Remembering that they are still learning English, and job opportunities are not surprisingly limited. So, such jobs as cashier, or driving a taxi aren’t uncommon choices.
Also, they came from a very homogeneous society, where most people were of the same religion as they are, and their culture was already set up around the religious requirements of their faith. But the US is not Somalia.
So, they are dealing with issues they never had to in their original country.
Some have been somewhat accommodated. Most employers, if aware of it, are allowing special time for prayers, for instances. Private facilities, washing facilities for the ablutions beforehand. And as long as safety issues aren’t a factor, allowing religious garb to be worn to work. Like the headscarves. (A major concession in some factory jobs where any loose material can be seen as a hazard.)
But in each case, the person is able to do ALL of the job they were hired to do.
But there were some exceptions to that. There were cashiers who refused to check out customers who were buying alcohol or pork products, in regular grocery stores. And there were taxi drivers who were refusing to carry customers who had alcohol in their baggage. (A common thing when transporting airline customers, a major market, with duty free bags.)
You have the right to practice your religion. You don’t have the ‘right’ to receive a paycheck from a particular company for not doing your job, due to your religious convictions.

Oh, and the government DID step in when it came to the taxi drivers. Because, the same reason that some of the first de-segregation laws was with hotels, restaurants and public restrooms, the needs of travellers, as being in a particularly vulnerable situation, where options may be limited, were seen as needing special protection. After all, if you are an African American, for instance, and all the hotels in the town where you don’t know anyone are ‘whites only’, you have NOWHERE to sleep.
So, there was an actual law passed (the government stepping in) and it was stated that the taxis had to accept ALL customers, as it would be an infringement upon the customer’s religious rights to refuse service for non-compliance with the mores or requirements of someone else’s religion.

Some examples..
Should a salesman working for a company who doesn’t have a problem with it, be able to refuse a woman who isn’t covered? Should a Scientologist pharmacist be able to refuse to dispense psychiatric drugs? Should a Jehovah’s witness doctor be able to refuse to do or to authorize blood transfusions? Can a person who determines their religion requires veganism be able to refuse to dispense drugs that either contain animal products (including eggs, feathers, etc) or had been at some time tested on animals?
Interestingly, a Catholic site approved of the ruling on the taxi drivers, saying that they had to make accommodations for the job, but were appalled at the same being expected of the Pharmacists.

Oregonian,
I like your definition, but would it not apply more to deSLUGbed? Nonetheless, good thoughts.
Karen,
Your exaples to this case do not apply. There are many pharmacies that do not carry one type of med or another becaue of cost, particular requirements in dispensing or for other reasons. The question as to why must this pharmacy be compelled to carry this particular product has not been addressed. You examples are for employees within a larger company. This is one company making its own choice for itself alone. I still side with the pharmacists, simply because the rules in a market driven society do not compell someone to carry one brand or product if they do not choose to. I do agree that this would get more sticky if it were the only pharmacy in a tiny community out in the wilderness. But there they would be (hypothetically speaking) providing a public service as much as they are selling products. In Olympia I expect there will be many more pharmacies.

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned that there have been numerous objections (on religious grounds) to various medical treatments/procedures throughout modern history.
Ex. Use of medical anesthesia during childbirth. The use of chloroform to ease the birth of Prince Leopold by Queen Victoria in 1853 was debated due to the biblical dictum to Eve “Thou shalt bear thy children in pain”.
Ex. Treatment of venereal disease (See “Dr Ehrlich’s Magic bullet”) was objected to due to the possible removing of the stigma and consequences (divine retribution?) of these diseases.
Ex. Current day treatment of AIDs (see Treatment of Venereal disease, above).
To my knowledge, no one in the medical field currently objects to these treatments. Are they settled issues? Is it only a matter of time before the issue now on the table is settled as well?

“the individual pharmacist is no longer asking for their own religious beleifs to be respected; they are demanding that their religious beleifs superceed the medical rights of the patient”
And in fact, IMPOSED on the patient!
The “individual pharmacist” can only abide by the tenets of his/her religion when he/she does not TAKE said medications/treatments THEMSELVES (as in, if you think contraception is wrong, then don’t use them). Their rights do NOT extend to refusing to fill other people’s legal prescriptions. Their refusal is bashing their customers as surely as denying the morning after pill to a rape victims.
Some “morals” – phooey!

Tysson,
“In a pharmacy that employs multiple pharmacists with differing moral views on the drug or in a town with multiple competing pharmacies, the refusal of a single individual to fill a prescription doesn’t rise much above the level of inconvenience for the patient”
Sorry, I disagree. The patient has a right to the proper medical treatment prescribed by his or her doctor. The pharmacist’s “beliefs” are personal and as such can ONLY govern the pharmacist, not his or her customers. That is the wall against the pharmacist’s ‘fist’ hits – i.e. the ‘end’ of his “rights’ – he cannot practise other people’s ‘morality’ FOR them.
“On the other hand, I find it equally troubling to argue that a pharmacist must leave his or her religious convictions at the drug counter.”
Wrong again. If a pharmacist believes that contraceptives are immoral, he (or she) shouldn’t USE them. It is NOT their job to determine (or DICTATE, as is the case here) OTHER PEOPLE’s moral beliefs for them.
“Should they suddenly have to give up their careers simply because a new technological advance is approved that conflicts with their morals? Is it reasonable to shut them out of the public discussion about these controversial issues?”
Their end of the discussion can only govern their own actions, not the action sof others.

Curiouser raises an excellent point. To take it further, if a druggist believes that a certain drug is wrong (sinful, immoral, evil, supplied by Satan Pharmaceuticals Inc), then its use is wrong no matter WHO fills the prescription for the drug. Therefore, to say, “Go to a different pharmacy” is NOT upholding any moral standard; it is saying, “Go get the drug somewhere else and be damned, and damnation to whoever gives it to you.” The drug would still be used, and all the druggist is saying, “Hey! My hands are clean.” If it is so wrong that the pious druggist cannot in good conscience sell it, then sending the customer elsewhere is NOT interfering with the supposed wrongness, but just looking to pin the blame on someone else.
I’ll go still further: If these druggists are so sure it is wrong and they send the customer to a different pharmacy, is that not like encouraging if not entrapping the other pharmacy into committing sin? To me, what it all adds up to is some pious prigs wanting to ensure that God won’t blame them but not caring that the “sin” is taking place anyway, and not caring that their refusal to fill the prescription simply punts off the sin onto others.
They may reply, “We can’t help what others choose to do. We make our choices, they make theirs.” But not every pharmacist is a Spirit-Filled, morally upright Christian. Some are not any kind of Christian. Maybe they have no clue as to why Plan B would be considered wrong. Then what will they say? “Well, if they’re not Christians, they’re going to hell anyway, so it doesn’t matter if they fill the prescription.” And once again, we see that our Good Christian Druggists don’t care about the fact that the prescription gets filled anyway — as long as THEY don’t get blamed.
Wow. Really Christlike.

Tysson,
“They say that a person’s right to swing his fist ends where another person’s nose begins. In cases like these the dividing line between nose and fist seem rather fuzzy.”
Not fuzzy to me. The “nose” in this case is the patient/customer. Neither a doctor NOR a pharmacist have the “right” to deny treatment” (the ‘swing of the fist’ into the nose of the patient).
Joey,
“A doctor should never be able to say that he won’t treat such-and-such a PERSON; the question is, can he say that he won’t do such-and-such a TREATMENT?”
In THIS case, the “treatment” is the prescription for contraceptives. And in this case, the pharmacist is most definitely trying to NOT “treat” the “sinful” customer by denying them this legal treatment to their customer.
Morality has to do with how we treat one another. If contraception offends the morals of the pharmacist, then the pharmacist should abstain from using contraceptives. They do NOT have the “right” to deny ANY legally prescribed treatments, no matter who the patient is – THAT is determining OTHER PEOPLE’s morality for them, hence the nose/fist analogy is totally apt. Maybe the holier-than-thou pharmacists should simply stop swinging their fists so much and start treating their customers as human beings.
Who would jesus discriminate against?

TopaaxMoons,
” It in no way changes the FACT that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a perscription bases on thier personal, subjective morality.”
This is NOT a “fact”. it is merely the desire of some pharmacists. As you said yourself, it involves a “personal, subjective morality”. Morals can only pertain to your own self, i.e. they’re “personal” and ‘subjective”.
In this scenario, the pharmacists are denying their customers their OWN personal, subjective morality, and imoposoing their own on them.

Tysson,
You continue to miss the point…
“a person should not be compelled by the government to act against his or her conscience”
One’s conscience can only govern one’s self, not the consciences/actions of others. These ‘pharmacists’ are denying that very same right – to act on one’s OWN conscience – to his/her customers.
if a pharmacist’s conscience dictates that, for them, the morning after pill is evil/a sin, then the pharmacists should not take or use them. They CANNOT make that determination for others.

Windsors Child,
“In a free state, government cannot compel a citizen to violate his or her own religious convictions.”
As stated repeatedly avove, the fovernment is NOT violating the pharmacists’ convictions. If they beleieve that using the M/A Pill is wrong, they are still free NOT to take it. They are NOT free to deny others their OWN “religious convictions”. Obviously, the customer/patient does NOT feel the use of such a pill is immoral or a “sin”.
Compelling a citizen to biolate his or her own religious convictions would be forcing the pill down the throats of the pharmacists. That is NOT happening.
“Government has to show that an individual’s choice does significant harm to the public good.”
Denying someone a legal medical treatment surely causes harm to said members of the public.
“Since there will always be other pharmacists whose conscience allows them to sell the drug…”
Will ther “always be”??? Especialy if these ones get their way?
“no public harm is done by a pharmicist refusing”
I absolutely and categorically disagree.
“Customers who want the drug can just go down the street.”
No they can’t – not always. And you fail to explain what happens when the customer DOES go ‘down the street’ and runs into yet another such “pharmacist”. How many streets must one (wo)man go down before they call him a patient – and TREAT him/her as such???
“This is an example of government invading the rights of a private citizen when there is no compelling public interest in doing so.
Hogwash! they should either do their jobs or quit (or better yet, be FIRED). Patients don’t go to the pharmacy to get a lecture on other people’s “morality”. Your contention is VERY dangerous to the “free state” you applaud.

The right of a privately owned business to decide which products to carry and which not to carry is real. A bookstore, for example, is not required to carry pornography even though some customers may want to purchase that.
However, I don’t think the analogy holds in the case of a drugstore carrying products ordered by a physician for the health of a patient. It is true that the bookstore owner may have moral objections to pornography just as the druggists in this case have moral objections to Plan B. However, a reading selection can hardly be equated with a medically prescribed treatment. And the bookstore owner, in refusing to carry a type of product that some customers might want, is merely disappointing certain readers who make a personal and individual decision to purchase porn. The druggists are interfering not with a personal and individual decision but with the physician-patient relationship. It is not at all a stretch to say that the pharmacist is damning the physician for writing the prescription — akin to saying to the patient, “Your physician is immoral and damned, and you will be damned for seeing that physician.” Do these druggists have the nerve to say that? If so, how will the named physicians respond to being publically denounced in that manner? Will the pharmacy establishment as a whole back up druggists who identify specific physicians as immoral and damned? How will the medical establishment as a whole respond to physicians being publically denounced?
This is yet another example of what wars are really all about. Not My doctrine vs Your doctrine. It is rationality vs fanaticism. It is ALWAYS rationality vs fanaticism.

Tysson,
“As much as I disagree not only with their moral position on birth control but, in fact, the very religious foundation upon which their moral position is based, I nevertheless respect their right to their religious beliefs.”
Ah, but even when they MUST dispense legally prescribed drugs/treatments, they are still free to believe that the USE of said treatments/drugs is immoral, as are the customers/patients who might use them. They can “believe” what they want about their customers, BUT THEY CANNOT REFUSE THE TREATMENT. Such refusal is the denying of rights to others (the fist in the face, as it were).
“Moreover, I think it’s rather disingenuous to suggest they arrived at their moral position in order to deny others their rights.”
That may not be HOW or WHY “they arrived at their moral position”, but it most definitely IS “deny[ing] others their rights”.

not-so-flakeyOregonian,
“If a Jehovah’s Witness decided to become a doctor, would they be within their rights to refuse to give a patient a blood transfusion?”
Excellent analogy. For a JW, HAVING a blood transfusion themself would be the “sin”. In a healing profession, one cannot deny treatment to others based on one’s OWN personal religious convictions. One acn only make those determinatios for one’s self.

Tysson,
“At odds are the separate rights of two individuals, the right of the patient to pursue a course of treatment and the right of the pharmacist to be free from state interference with his or her religious convictions.”
His or her own convictions can ONLY govern his or her own actions, NOT the actions or convictions of others. IF the pharmacist believes the morning after pill is wrong, then the pharmacist shouldn’t take them. (Sort of like the same-sex marriage analogy – if YOU think they’re “wrong” or a “sin”, then DON”T HAVE ONE. You do not get to decide for others!!!)
“I am sure there are other solutions as well.”
How about the pharmacists, um, MIND THEIR OWN FREAKIN’ BUSINESS!!! (I know, what a concept, eh?) Now THERE’s a solution.

Folks seem to be operating out of the assumption that all pharmacies carry all the same range and types of medication. As anyone who has had an exotic diagnosis or be told to take an unusual dilution of a medication will tell you, not every pharmacy carries everything. Many people have to search for a pharmacy that carries just the medication prescribed by their medical professional. This is a part of the market based economy in which we all operate. So, forcing one pharmacy to carry what another might is a violation of that basic premise. Until every pharmacy is required to carry every possible pill and elixir, there is way to compel any one company from making any selection among the medications they carry..
Paring these arguments down to such selective particulars does not move the conversation forward.

Actually, Jestrfyl, I wasn’t dealing with the idea of there being no other place for people to go. Though the regulations did have to acknowledge that as a possibility. Not just because it is the boonies, and there’s only one pharmacy (and as someone who LIVED in tiny towns in places like Minnesota, or West Virginia, I can say that this is not as uncommon as you think), but also that people within a particular community sharing the same viewpoint isn’t that uncommon. Therefore, it is possible that the OTHER pharmacists might hold the same view, and then it WOULD be a hardship trying to get that prescription filled.
That WOULD be similar to the Somali taxi drivers, for instance, or the ‘whites only’ hotels, because often, in those same areas, it might be hard, to impossible, (because it was a common view in the area, such as the South during the 50′s) to find someone who would or could provide the service.
And yes, if this is upheld, you WILL hear of pharmacists refusing to dispense birth control pills, or psychotropic drugs, or ones that involve animal products or testing, not even counting the non-pharmacy related applications.
Secondly, about the pharmacy carrying various drugs, etc, this case has nothing to do with that. This case is about individual pharmacists, not acting within the policies of their company, but on their individual beliefs and consciences, and where the medicine is available (some medicines are rare, and handing back a prescription and saying, ‘We don’t have this in stock, and it’d take quite a while to get it, you might want to try another pharmacy/the hospital pharmacy isn’t disallowed, or uncommon), refusing to fill the scrip. In some cases, even refusing to give it BACK so they can get it somewhere else, much less just handing it off to another pharmacist.

The pharmacy/bookstore comparison is invalid.
You don’t need a prescription (yet, anyway) to read any book. You DO need a prescription to get certain drugs/treatments (specifically the morning after pill). You can’t get the pill from your librarian.
Obviously, they don’t believe they’re in one of the “caring” professions, but in a judgemental one instead. If they can’t do their job, they should quit or be fired.

Karen,
I have lived and worked in some areas with only one of anything, pharmacy, bank, grocer, etc… So I can attest to what you are saying. As this article is written – which is the only information to whch I have accesson this discussion – the pharmacists are expected to sell something, as a company (small though it may be), that htye choose not to sell. Yes, this opens the door to other companies, like WalMart for instance, choosing which meds to carry and which not. This then becomes a legislative issue, not a legal issue. As I understand it, there is no law that compels a pharmacy to purchse and dispense any one particular medication. The only relief from an instance like this, even in a rural area, is internet ordering. However, in the case of a medication like this one, timing is essential and waiting on an internet order is not viable. If the local pharmacy is unwilling to carry this drug, then i expect the physians and other medical professionals will know, and they will make some accomodation. Until the law itself is changed I don’t think there is any other recourse. Is it legal? yes. Is it moral? I don’t think so, but I am not the pharmacist.
If a pharmacist refuses to return a prescription to a customer/patient that constitutes a form of theft and is prosecutable. They do not have the right to withold that document – until they actually dispense the med. Any pharmacist who acts this way ought to be avoided, if possible because you never know what else may offend them. Also, if it does happen the patient ought to return to the med. prof. and explain what happened – in th ehopes that an alternative can be worked out. Ican easily see this becoming an episode in a show like the late, great Northern Exposure. I noticed Men in Trees is still on, though I expect it is only reruns. But it might be a great place to work through a story like this as well.

curiouser,
No argument. I made up the bookstore example specifically to show that it is NOT an analogous situation, in response to the efforts of some of the Defenders of Devout Druggists to make it into a simple business decision about what kind of product line to carry.
And on the same topic, the point about not every pharmacy carrying every pharmaceutical product is correct, BUT misleading for at least 2 reasons. Most pharmacies DO carry products that are in common usage for common conditions, and I don’t think a possible pregnancy is an “exotic condition.” And even if the only pharmacy in town happens not to carry a product for a genuine exotic condition, it will obtain the needed drug as quickly as possible if a patient shows up with a prescription for it.

Actually, that’s the point. The ‘pharmacist’ is NOT ‘the company’. Unless the pharmacist is the sole proprietor of a pharmacy, which is a rare thing these days, the pharmacist is an employee of a larger company, such as the grocery or drug store that the pharmacy is located in. And these companies, as far as I’ve read in the court cases, doesn’t have any policy at all, for or against, specifically, the dispensing of these drugs. (Which is understandable if they aren’t concerned with the issue. They also don’t have a specific policy for the selling of televisions, or anti-fungal creams.) This has nothing to do with business OWNERS, and their rights to sell or not sell, or carry, certain items.
This has to do with employees OF a company, who DOES carry the drug in question (they aren’t, again, refusing to dispense based on availability. The case is solely about their moral objections), and they are refusing to dispense the drug in the inventory, available for purchase, to a customer with a valid prescription, purely on the basis that the dispensing of that particular drug is against their religious beliefs, period.
This has nothing to do with availability. If companies start, en masse, refusing to STOCK such drugs, that’ll likely, eventually, become the subject of a further suit. But it isn’t the subject of this one.

@curiouser and curiouser
According to an August 2006 FDA ruling, a female over the age of 18 does not need a prescription to receive Plan B. The FDA Press Release says that “Plan B will remain available as a prescription-only product for women age 17 and under.” However, you’re correct by saying that you “can’t get the pill from your librarian. Rather, “Plan B will only be sold in pharmacies/stores staffed by a licensed pharmacist.” Nevertheless, the FDA ruled that the OTC pill should be widely available to anyone over the age of 18 in order to “fulfill [the Association's] responsibility to protect the health of all Americans.”
See: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01436.html

KevinM,
I did not mention age limits, not did I say anything about “licensed pharmacists”.
Regardless, if “the FDA ruled that the OTC pill should be widely available to anyone over the age of 18 in order to “fulfill [the Association's] responsibility to protect the health of all Americans” I agree wholeheartredly. Obviously these particular pharmacists disagree, and therein lies the danger. They only seem to care about the so-called ‘spiritual health’ o fSOME Americans; the rest can go to Hades, I guess. (Or at least they ‘think’ they will.)

The article states:
“The plaintiffs are pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen, and Stormans Inc., the owners of Ralph’s Thriftway in Olympia, a grocery store that includes a pharmacy.”
It seems according to the article, the plaintiffs are the pharmacy company in question. Again, I do not think an entire company can be compelled to carry any particular product, even if it is a medication, and especially if it is otc for people over 18.
I actually sympathize with the women who need access to this medication. But I also sympathize with the pharmacists. It is a tough decision, weighing freedoms and access. I think, in this case, it is better side side with freedom, especially given that I expect the med is available at another pharmacy. It will open a can or worms, but I think it is a can that must be opened.

But the point is, the case isn’t based on ‘is a company required to carry a specific drug’. It is based on, specifically, the moral objections of the pharmacists to DISPENSING the drug. There is nothing about ‘do we have to order the drug’.
There’s nothing in the case (owner or not) about if a store has to carry it. Its about being required to fill a prescription when they feel the act is against their religious beliefs. All other issues are not germane to the case.
Do you, putting it simply, if a company IS carrying the drug, think that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a legal prescription based on their religious beliefs?
Remember, this can be extrapolated far beyond ‘Plan B’. It can include such things as birth control, anti-depressants, drugs tested on animals, or that use blood products (Jehovah’s Witnesses), etc. If it is allowed for THIS drug, and based on that tenet, ALL religions are going to be allowed to do the same thing, based on THEIR beliefs.
And I quote..
In a lawsuit filed in federal court Wednesday, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday violates their civil rights by forcing them into choosing between “their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs.”
Note, NOT ‘can pharmacies be forced to carry any and all drugs’. But can they be mandated to fill a prescription if filling it is against their ‘deeply held religious and moral beliefs’.

I suspect that this case arose less as a matter of moral conscience and more because these devout druggists wanted to play Holier Than Thou before the news cameras. That said, the danger is that it accelerates the trend toward social fragmentation along religious lines. And no wonder conservative politicians love it — for six years or more, they have benefited from cheap demagoguery, pandering, and demonization of opponents without a care about the fact that were tearing apart the fabric of American society.
This is not a new debate. Ibsen’s early play Brand dealt with a fanatically religious man and the way religious fanaticism simply does not fit into a non-fanatical society.

jestrfyl,
I have to disagree with you on this…
“But I also sympathize with the pharmacists.”
I sure as heck don’t sympathize with them. They’re placing their own personal religious beliefs (which SHOULD govern only THEIR actions, not the actions and choices of OTHERS – note, no one is forcing the pharmacists to take or use the drug themselves!) over the freedoms and choices that other people are supposed to be able to make.
“It is a tough decision, weighing freedoms and access.”
The “freedom” of the pharmacists in fact DENIES both freedom AND access to legally prescribed drugs to other people. No one has the right to deny OTHER PEOPLE their own freedoms, choices and access to medcial treatments.
“I think, in this case, it is better side side with freedom”
This ignores the freedoms of the customers.
“especially given that I expect the med is available at another pharmacy.”
Not necessarily a correct ‘expectation’! The article states: “that applies only IF the patient is able to get the prescription in the same pharmacy visit.” It isn’t clear from the article that this is the case.

I see this debate raged on in my absence, as well it should. Unfortunately, it seems we’re covering largely the same ground as before, with neither side giving an inch. Perhaps, then, it’s best simply to agree to disagree and move on to more interesting debates.