Quote:

---

NuperSova said:
Potentially harmful in whose opinion though? Say I know just as much as the pharmacist does, well read, knowledgeble, well-rounded, hell, went to med school too, and I wanted birth-control pills? And I asked for them and a pharmacist told me "No" because it was harmful to my potential children, and I said that I didn't think it was? Then what?

But besides that d33p, you're argument really doesn't work because they're refusing medications on the basis of moral beliefs and opinions. You say a child is formed at this particular time, I might say it's not.

---

Quote:

---

Ancalagon said:

Quote:

---

NuperSova said:

Quote:

---

Ancalagon said:
Just scanned (operative word) through this and I can't seem to figure out what is so abhorrent. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a PRIVATE business conducting its affairs in whichever way it chooses; you don't have a RIGHT to be sold birth control pills from pharmacies. What are these people doing that is actually wrong?

---

Well, legally they aren't wrong, since they are covered by the law. But if they had qualms about dispensing certain drugs, then perhaps they should have shared this with their employers during the interviewing process, because their beliefs would interview with their ability to serve the customers and do their job. And it is their job to dispense medication as prescribed doctors, and paid for by the customer.

Chryss

---

The final decision should obviously rest with the owner of the establishment. My point was simply that your rights are not being violated and no laws (to my knowledge) are being broken if the owner of a pharmacy on whatever grounds, moral or otherwise, decides not to sell you a product.

---

Quote:

---

So Seuss especially you fail to realize that it is the duty of the pharmacist to protect the customer from taking potentially harmful medications.

---

Quote:

---

What if a pharmacy refused to carry birth control, a privately owned pharmacy? should they be made to do so?

---

Quote:

---

Seuss said:

Quote:

---

So Seuss especially you fail to realize that it is the duty of the pharmacist to protect the customer from taking potentially harmful medications.

---

Incorrect. There is a large difference between protecting the health of a customer by recognizing that two medications do mix without complications and pretending to be a doctor and deciding what medications a patient should take.

---

Quote:

---

retread said:
So they should be FORCED to do this, right? what if a pharmacy refused to carry birth control, a privately owned pharmacy? should they be made to do so?

---

Quote:

---

The_Red_Crayon said:
Yea but this is eckerds. Pharmacists are getting paid to prescribe these medications. If i went to my pharmacist and he wouldnt prescribe me Geodon. I would be fucked. Well you see what im trying to get at.

---

Quote:

---

The_Red_Crayon said:
I worked at Eckerds and i knew all the pharmacy people and im pretty sure its not company policy to not prescribe the birth control because the person thinks its a violation of their morals.

If this was Mr. Joes pharmacy on Main st. Than it would be more logical but this is a publicly traded company on the stock market.

Its not within their rights to push their morals on said people. They get paid to do the job.

---

Quote:

---

Seuss said:
> And pharmacists are more qualified to perscribe medication regardless.

I think this must be where we disagree. A pharmacist knows drugs, knows what drugs do not mix, and knows what drugs help fix what problem. A pharmacist is not qualified to diagnose what problem a patient has. When a medication is prescribed to a patient, it is done so based on a diagnoses of a problem, which is the doctors realm, not the pharmacists.

---

Quote:

---

Well i never stated pharmacists are more qualified to diagnose a problem, but they sure are more qualified to prescribe a medication.

---