2
3

Denying medicine for religious reasons (self.DebateAChristian)

SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist が 投稿

Context.

This is the Washington State case where a pharmacy is required to provide all medicine even if the owner objects on religious grounds.

This is yet another religion vs law case involving businesses. I tried to be consistent on the topic and my feeling is this:

  • A business is not a person and as such, does not and cannot have religious rights. The only exception is in the case of sole proprietorship where 100% of the business is 100% of the person. In all other cases, you have more than one person and as a result, you no longer have religious freedoms which are only given to individuals.
  • Someone else mentioned a compromise that I'm actually happy with: pharmacists themselves aren't required to dispense medicine they disagree with on religious grounds but the pharmacy itself is required to dispense it. I.e. hire someone who doesn't have religious objections to dispense the particular medicine. This makes sense to me. Say you're a bigot who doesn't like black people and you don't want to serve them. Ask your fellow coworker to serve them. See, no problem - the customer is helped and your bigotry isn't an issue. If you're the owner of the business, this is just the chance you take when opening up a store that serves everyone.

There is a final objection here that I feel should be voiced more frequently... denying anything based on religious reasons discriminates against atheists who cannot have such reasons. So you'd either need to make an exception for atheists who can use any excuse not to be compelled into doing something, allow such discrimination (which I think is illegal due to equal protection), or remove religious protections for these types of cases.

全 61 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Shorts28 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don 't think it's right to deny medicine for religious reasons. It goes with the territory that you should give equal treatment to all. Surgeons have to operate on criminals. Pharmacists should have to dispense medicine, regardless of a person's ethnic group, racial status, religious preference, age or gender.

[–]sd095 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

I think this is similar to the county clerks and gay marriage. You are a medical professional and drugs are regulated mostly by the government. If you disagree with something find a different profession.
 
On a personal level though I don't agree with the federal government interfering in these sorts of things. If anything it should be regulated at the county and city levels. I believe that any business should be able to discriminate against any customer for any reason or lack of reason. The public should decide whether or not it stays in business by providing the establishment with income. If a business wants to only serve a certain kind of people, people with certain beliefs, or people of a particular income bracket that's fine. The general public should decide if that's acceptable and boycott that place if it is not.

[–]EdwardHarleyAgnostic Atheist 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

What should happen in the case of a small town where there's one pharmacy, one hospital, etc and they refuse to serve all gay people (or anyone else)? Both are owned by religious organizations, and the next closest is over 100 miles away, what should happen?

The county decided that it was okay to do this, so does that make it acceptable? Is it okay to make what would then be considered a sub-group in that community go on a road trip every time they needed medical assistance of any kind?

[–]sd095 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not for people discriminating. I would simply like to see it solved outside of the government. So in this situation, a resolution could be that an established private non-profit who works specifically in this situation provides the funds to move these people out of the community. Nationally, people write letters to companies threatening to boycott if they continue to provide supplies to the area. Companies then provide pressure due to public outcry that if the region doesn't change it's policies they will no longer supply there product. Due to a lack of supplies and the inability of a community to survive on it's own people either all move to different areas, the facilities go out of business, or the policy is changed. In the mean time a private non-profit that provides community education on acceptance and tolerance moves into the area to hopefully reorient the mindset of individuals. Simply fixing the situation and not the deep-seeded beliefs that caused it is not enough. It's idealistic... but by no means unrealistic.

[–]mrandishAtheist, Ex-Christian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What should happen in the case of a small town where there's one pharmacy, one hospital,

This is where the concept of public accommodation comes from in anti-discrimination law. There are also narrower definitions like 'essential public accommodation' which, depending on state definition, could address your scenario of one pharmacy in a large region.

[–]alnilham -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

IF this happens, sub-group prolly wouldn't live there.

[–]SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't agree with the federal government interfering in these sorts of things

Me neither - I prefer local to federal when necessary. However...

it should be regulated at the county and city levels

This leads to problems like counties not allowing this and having a huge impact. San Bernardino county in California is 20,000 square miles. If the whole county said to do something, you could have major problems. Same with cities... look at Chicago- it's not exactly Boston in its size.

I believe that any business should be able to discriminate against any customer for any reason or lack of reason.

My problem here is historical. Sure, they should discriminate - if a customer walks in without a shirt, shoes, or they're wielding a gun, perhaps a business shouldn't tolerate it. However, the flip side is we have a history of discrimination against various groups, like based on race, gender, nationality, and religion. This shouldn't be tolerated because if enough groups discriminate, it would lead to lack of choice for those being discriminated against. In places like small towns, it could devastate families.

The public should decide whether or not it stays in business by providing the establishment with income.

Again, if you have a small town that just doesn't like black people and it suddenly decides not to serve black people, firing all black people, closing all their bank accounts, loans, and mortgages, and not serving them in any store - this would not be OK. The general public is OK in this case but it's actually not OK in reality. There's no tyranny of the majority here - the minory needs protection as well. We ended this type of discrimination in the past. Do you think if we allow it again that it won't happen again?

[–]nae32Christian 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

My objection is the idea that a pharmacy must stock and sell drugs that the owner considers tools for murder. If person X owns the pharmacy then I don't see why he can't stock the drugs he wants to stock.

I think a better fix for drugs like Plan B would be to allow them to be sold anywhere (not just the pharmacy). If I can buy Plan B in Washington without a prescription (you totally can) why is it the law that only pharmacies can carry it and not grocery stores, gas stations, the internet, etc?

[–]SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't know what the laws are regarding pharmacies to be honest. It's possible that they require to sell particular types of medicine including this.

IF that is the case, then that's part of being in the pharmacy business. IF that is not the case, I don't see this should be required by the government.

If I can buy Plan B in Washington without a prescription (you totally can) why is it the law that only pharmacies can carry it and not grocery stores, gas stations, the internet, etc?

Perhaps licensing? I'm not sure.

[–]KataphractoiAtheist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If a doctor's going to deny medicine or procedures to someone based on their religious beliefs, then frankly they need to find a new line of work. Simple as that.

[–]mrandishAtheist, Ex-Christian [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

As an atheist I'm generally unsympathetic to "religious reasons" to justify exceptional treatment but as a libertarian I'm also opposed to excessive government intervention in freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

So at the first layer, we have an impasse of conflicting principles. I find that such impasses can usually be resolved by peeling back deeper layers toward increasing freedom. In this case, if we unwind the monopoly that government enforces to the benefit of pharmacists who dispense and doctors who prescribe, we get to a place where anyone can sell the chemical compounds known as "medicine" and citizens can make their own choices about what to ingest or imbibe, while being personally responsible for the results.

Some will say, "But that will end in disaster because citizens are too dumb to know what drugs to take and will kill themselves by ingesting the wrong things". First, I don't think that's true. A hundred years ago people could mostly get whatever medicines they wanted. In today's world of HMO doctors who spend an average of 6.5 minutes per patient, I do my own research on all my prescriptions and dosages and make recommendations to my doctor which he usually accepts. While he tries his best given the constraints he's under, I have a stronger incentive to get an optimal result than my doctor does.

Second, there are huge number of substances and devices in every Home Depot that can easily kill a human if used incorrectly. Yet we don't feel the need to create a prohibition for those things and people figure out how to use them or, in my case with any power tool, figure out they are dangerous in my hands and hire a trained expert to tell me what I need and utilize said tool on my behalf.

The core principle here is self-ownership. At the most basic level, do I own my own body or not? As an adult human, am I free to choose to do risky or even perilous things with my own body (assuming no harm to others and that I bear all costs and consequences of my choices)?

So in addition to ending the incredibly harmful and costly drug war, ending medicine prohibition will solve this problem because it stops pharmacists from being monopolists who must be regulated and coerced to solve the problems created by monopolistic scarcity in the first place. If anyone can sell medicine, alternate suppliers will enter the market to efficiently and happily meet unmet consumer needs, if existing suppliers choose not to meet those needs. Problem solved and net freedom of choice increased for both consumers and pharmacists. Though the pharmacists may not appreciate the increased competition, they've had their monopoly long enough, let's let companies like Amazon create internet-based pharmacies. Not only will it dramatically reduce the prices of medicines for consumers, I think safety, service and selection will go up.

[–]SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm also opposed to excessive government intervention in freedom and the pursuit of happiness

I'm not a libertarian but I'm like this too.

if we unwind the monopoly that government enforces to the benefit of pharmacists who dispense and doctors who prescribe, we get to a place where anyone can sell the chemical compounds known as "medicine" and citizens can make their own choices about what to ingest or imbibe, while being personally responsible for the results

Do you believe the quality will remain the same? For example, you can buy drugs off the street or on the Internet. Are they the same quality and won't hurt anyone? This is why government regulations are there - to ensure quality and prevent deaths.

First, I don't think that's true.

A solid minority believes the Sun orbits our planet. A lot of people on medication are also elderly and don't have the same resources you do. A lot of times when you're sick, you go to a doctor as a source of trust to get you well with the least amount of pain. If you Google it, you'll get into problems.

Second, there are huge number of substances and devices in every Home Depot that can easily kill a human if used incorrectly.

This is silly. Vast majority of people know that hitting yourself on the head with a hammer will probably hurt. We learned this as children. Considering the particular problem you're having, the various cures, and the long-term effect, it's not as simple as not touching a moving rotating saw.

As an adult human, am I free to choose to do risky or even perilous things with my own body

Sure but what if you're not aware of the risks? In addition, a solid number of medicine has long-term effects which aren't immediately clear - it could take years to kill you and you have no way of knowing what's killing you.

I feel like this is generally getting off topic though. You seem to want to simply dismantle something like the FDA and every single source of quality assurance and testing for all medicine rather than discussing the topic of denying medicine based on religious reasons.

You're assuming the market will always work out, it rarely does, and lots of people die in the process and considering how much money is involved, you'd still have powerful groups who are killing people by cutting costs.

[–]Pretendimarobot [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

There is a final objection here that I feel should be voiced more frequently... denying anything based on religious reasons discriminates against atheists who cannot have such reasons. So you'd either need to make an exception for atheists who can use any excuse not to be compelled into doing something, allow such discrimination (which I think is illegal due to equal protection), or remove religious protections for these types of cases.

This is some kindergarten level logic right here. Atheists are feeling left out on the 'object to things based on non-personal ethics' game, so we should either let them say whatever they want, or keep religious people from exercising their beliefs?

If you want to insist that atheists have no beliefs, then there is no discrimination going on at all! Everyone is allowed to object to things based on their beliefs. That atheists have no beliefs on which to base their objections does not mean that they are not allowed to object to things based on their beliefs.

I'm curious, do you think there is any medicine that it is ok to object to providing based on any ethics? For instance, I'm guessing you wouldn't casually allow a dietary supplement made from fresh-ground toddler bones, even if it was proven to help patients with multiple sclerosis. So if some ethics are okay, why are religious ethics not? Because they don't fit with your particular worldview?

[–]SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist[S] [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

This is some kindergarten level logic right here.

How about we make a law that says Christians can't complain either and let me know how Christians will swallow this.

Our laws are based on equality - if one group has some rights and another group can have the same rights then they should have the same rights.

If you want to insist that atheists have no beliefs, then there is no discrimination going on at all!

Let's say you can ONLY have religious non-profits. This discriminates against non-religious non-profits. So we have laws that have non-religious non-profits that share in the tax benefits.

It's not a question of a belief system, it's a question of representation. For example, Buddhists and Jainist would be also discriminated against if only theists can have non-profits because those two religions have no Gods.

keep religious people from exercising their beliefs

Citation needed where PEOPLE are forbidden to exercise their beliefs. Mind you, when people do this as part of a business, they're no longer people... they're representatives of that business.

Also, atheists have beliefs. Plenty of them. They just don't include a belief in Gods.

do you think there is any medicine that it is ok to object to providing based on any ethics

Medicine is typically approved by the FDA (in the US anyway) and is well-regulated. If we do have medicine from fresh-ground toddler bones and it's legal in the US, why would I complain if it's medicine? Do you know where some medical procedures and drugs came from?

[–]Pretendimarobot [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Our laws are based on equality - if one group has some rights and another group can have the same rights then they should have the same rights.

You have the same rights! You just don't have a legitimate reason to exercise them. It's like complaining that you don't get maternity leave, just because you don't have a kid.

Citation needed where PEOPLE are forbidden to exercise their beliefs.

What you're suggesting, where people are not allowed to deny business based on religious reasons.

Also, atheists have beliefs. Plenty of them. They just don't include a belief in Gods.

And if any of those provide a reason to deny medicine, it is well within their rights to do so, according to the law you're talking about. There is no discrimination going on here.

If we do have medicine from fresh-ground toddler bones and it's legal in the US, why would I complain if it's medicine?

Because it involves removing bones from toddlers? Are you even serious right now?

[–]SobanSaChristian, Protestant 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

If I was in their situation, I might just conveniently forget to have emergency contraceptives in stock.

[–]SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's OK for Christians to lie? Also, this is a big risk - if someone finds out via camera, that's definitely going to be a bigger problem.

[–]SobanSaChristian, Protestant 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not lying, I would genuinely not have any in stock.

[–]kleedracAtheist, Ex-Christian 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

So you'd be a shitty pharmacy for your imaginary friend? Seems like you should just find another line of work shouldn't you? I thought jebus was into fish or something?

[–]alnilham -1ポイント0ポイント  (42子コメント)

interesting...

why force someone to sell something?

[–]SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist[S] 5ポイント6ポイント  (41子コメント)

In this particular case, because it's medicine. If it's not sold in time - it was about emergency contraception - then it's serious business where if too much time passes, it'll be too late.

If you come into a pharmacy, its role is to dispense medicine. Denying medicine is a serious issue.

[–]keel_bright 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

Pharmacists have the right to "deny medication" (for drugs scheduled as prescription drugs) for no reason at all. Pharmacists roles are to make an assessment of therapy. If a pharmacist believes a patient is diverting medication or non-adherent, they have the right to refuse it. If a pharmacist believes a patient will be put in unnecessary risk or the medication is unnecessary for the patient, they have the right to refuse it. If the pharmacist believes a physician is incorrect even after consulting them, they have the right to refuse it. And if the pharmacist just doesn't believe it's the best thing for a patient, they have the right to refuse it. And because there are so many factors to that, they do not have to specify a reason.

Based on this understanding (as healthcare professionals understand of pharmacists), I was very surprised indeed when I saw this headlines. Turns out, the headline is incorrect. The actual ruling is:

The state of Washington can require a pharmacy to deliver medicine even if the pharmacy's owner has a religious objection, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday, the latest in a series of judgements on whether religious believers can opt out of providing services.

[–]SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

The way I see it - it's the pharmacy not the individual pharmacist - that's the issue here. I wrote this in the OP.

[–]keel_bright [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

A pharmacy isn't really a unique entity, just an area where a pharmacist is allowed to conduct business. If you forced a 'pharmacy' to dispense all medication even though all of its pharmacists disagreed with it (effectively barring the pharmacists' assessment process), you'll find your country's emergency rooms packed with 3 day waits.

[–]SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist[S] [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

just an area where a pharmacist is allowed to conduct business

Neither is a hospital, therefore they have no regulations? I don't get it.

If you forced a 'pharmacy' to dispense all medication even though all of its pharmacists disagreed with it

Then it's possible that pharmacy won't be licensed to sell medicine.

[–]keel_bright [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

What if there was a drug interaction? What if the physician thought it wasn't too risky but the pharmacist disagreed? Do you think pharmacies and pharmacists should be absolved of all liability if they follow a prescribing doctor's word to the letter and a patient dies or is seriously injured? Do they still have to dispense all medications?

In that case, you must disagree with the DEA's decision to crack down on pharmacies because those pharmacies "should have known, that a large number of the prescriptions it filled were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose." They were just doing their job and dispensing all medications, and it's not their job to question, right?

[–]SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist[S] [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

What if the physician thought it wasn't too risky but the pharmacist disagreed?

I'm sure there's a hierarchy, like a physician is an actual doctor and a pharmacist is someone with less education. Besides, let's stick to the point - we're talking about religious objections here.

Do you think pharmacies and pharmacists should be absolved of all liability if they follow a prescribing doctor's word to the letter and a patient dies or is seriously injured?

I think that's how it is now.

They were just doing their job and dispensing all medications, and it's not their job to question, right?

That's correct, DEA is wrong unless pharmacies have a poor verification system for checking prescriptions.

[–]keel_bright [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I'm sure there's a hierarchy, like a physician is an actual doctor and a pharmacist is someone with less education. Besides, let's stick to the point - we're talking about religious objections here.

What hierarchy?

Do you think a physician knows more than a physiotherapist about how to physically rehabilitate an injured limb? Do you think a physician knows more than a dietician about how foods can benefit or hurt an individual with different disease states like Parkinson's or Lupus? Why do you think a physician would know more about medications and their effects than a pharmacist, someone who has dedicated their entire education to drugs and their effects? There's no hierarchy - everyone has a job to do, and a written prescription is a baton pass.

Drugs are the last line of treatment in just about every single disease state there is. Depression, Diabetes, Osteoporosis, CVD, you name it. Physicians are involved in the entire medical treatment process from start to finish, with drugs being the last options. That's why drug specialists, aka pharmacists, are involved. Pharmacists do a 5 year doctorate program on top of their undergraduate degree, with possible residencies after.

With the way any modern pharmacy works, pharmacists aren't actually involved in dispensing - only consultation with patients, physicians, and assessment of whether therapy is appropriate. Believe me, CVS would absolutely LOVE to fire all of their pharmacists and get rid of their 120k salaries so they can just have the technicians count the pills and sell them to you. It would also cut the waiting time down from 30 minutes to 60 seconds. But pharmacists need to perform their assessment, as mandated by government law.

I think that's how it is now.

Nope. Pharmacists are usually more liable than physicians in any situation involving drugs harming a patient. Because it's their job. The DEA is also correct in their actions.

I'm sorry, but the assumptions you made are just plain wrong, and it makes me question your actual understanding of the healthcare system on which you base your opinion. But I don't really want to go through a 101 on the first-world medical system with you just to explain why pharmacists are as of this moment legally able to 'refuse' any prescription. But it's the same reason that a physician is allowed to 'refuse' to write a prescription.

But know this. An 18-year-old patient who was extremely healthy died two years ago from a blood clot from taking a hormonal birth control pill. Yes, this particular pill (Diane-35) has a higher risk than other hormonal agents like Alesse, but only by about 0.13%. All hormonal birth control agents increase your risk for stroke and heart attack. So when Oregon pharmacists are able to prescribe prescription hormonal birth control next year, you and I had better hope that they are doing a proper medical assessment before doing so. I'll be concerned if I don't hear any complaints of pharmacists refusing people.

[–]alnilham [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

so you clearly know a lot about the trade. Thanks for the input. Do you have an opinion about the Federal Court Decision? Good, bad, indifferent?

[–]SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What hierarchy?

Pharmacist earns a Doctor of Pharmacy. This is not the same thing as Doctor of Medicine - which is why they have different titles. So, doctor > pharmacist. Different degrees, different levels of schooling and continued education. You're not going to have a pharmacist override a doctor's prescription. Well, I've never heard of it - do you have any info on when this happens? I haven't seen any reputable sources where they legally can do this.

Your link goes to Canada. DEA I'm talking about is the US version.

it makes me question your actual understanding of the healthcare system on which you base your opinion

Almost like I'm neither a pharmacist or a doctor but a regular person who can only look up so many things. I know doctors though most of them are surgeons but I don't know any pharmacists. Whenever I do need to go to the pharmacy, they basically all do what the doctor tells them and give the various drugs they are told to give in the quantity they are told to give. Their only reply is if I have any questions and if I do, they read off of the label that's printed out by a computer based on the prescription given by a doctor. They're only real task - other than handing me the drugs - is to make sure the prescription is valid. So I have no citation about pharmacists being equivalent to doctors and I have personal experience of pharmacists who put in less work than fast food servers. I guess I go by that. I could be wrong but this is where I'm coming from.

I'll also add that I'm not quite sure how we got here from pharmacists denying medicine based on religious reasons.

why pharmacists are as of this moment legally able to 'refuse' any prescription.

Oh I don't care about that. I don't care about pharmacists. In my OP, I talked about PHARMACIES, as in if some pharmacist doesn't want to do this then fine, get me a competent pharmacist who will actually give me the medicine without any religious objections. This is per the source link I cited which is a government case that now says yes, pharmacies are required to give the medicine. Individual pharmacists don't matter here. I also said in my OP that there are some workarounds where you are required to provide options (other than praying).

[–]alnilham 0ポイント1ポイント  (31子コメント)

yes, but if the owner doesn't want to sell the product, why force the owner to sell the product? Why make owners sell anything? If there is a market for a product, won't it naturally get people who would want to sell it? And if this owner can stay in business without selling something he doesn't want to, so be it.

[–]SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist[S] 4ポイント5ポイント  (30子コメント)

if the owner doesn't want to sell the product, why force the owner to sell the product

I don't know - I'm not a fan (by default) of government mandating what products can be sold. Perhaps it's some legal thing where you are required to sell contraceptives if you're a pharmacy.

Note: my comment is specifically about pharmacists due to medicine and health reasons. Gamestop should not be required to sell Xbox, for example.

[–]alnilham -1ポイント0ポイント  (29子コメント)

sure. Maybe if this product was vital to health, and it is typically sold at the type of store your business is associated with. But, will someone die if they do not take this product and the business you have is where people go to get said product? (I don't think the contraceptive is a medical necessity and if you don't get it, you'll die.)
I think this is the government coming down on a minority. I bet most pharmacies have supplies of the product, but somebody went to one of the few stores that didn't, and then sued, and here we are. Is the store to blame for someone's predicament?

[–]Lauranis 3ポイント4ポイント  (10子コメント)

I don't think the contraceptive is a medical necessity and if you don't get it, you'll die.

That's a tricky one in the specific case in question, which is talking about emergency contraceptives. In that case there is a possibility that conception might take place necessitating either a chemical or surgical abortion. In that case (by some peoples measure of things) someone may die if the medicine is not available.

[–]SobanSaChristian, Protestant 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'll note here that my analysis of some emergency contraceptives do kill the embryo rather then preventing fertilization,

[–]Lauranis 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

No problem, everyone falls somewhere on the spectrum after all!

[–]alnilham -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

is it really someone may die??? Or someone may get pregnant?

if emergency contraceptives do really save lifes, I guess they should be sold at pharmicies. I don't know much about it.

[–]SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

is it really someone may die??? Or someone may get pregnant?

People getting this are getting it because they don't want to get pregnant. If they get pregnant, the next step is abortion which is an invasive medical procedure at best.

[–]Lauranis 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

is it really someone may die??? Or someone may get pregnant?

The point is that a pregnancy may occur due to the lack of availability of emergency contraceptives and that can in some people necessitate either a chemical or surgical abortion (both of which by many are considered killing the child).

Pregnancy is in itself a dangerous thing, but even aside from the natural risks of pregnancy there are plenty of people for whom pregnancy is a severe health risk either physically (some women have conditions that make pregnancy extremely detrimental for their health) or psychologically (in the case of extreme cases of tokophobia suicide attempts are not uncommon).

The point is that emergency contraceptives is a necessary and extremely time limited form of medication that can prevent potentially by far worse health issues.

if emergency contraceptives do really save lifes, I guess they should be sold at pharmicies. I don't know much about it.

I don't mean to be bitchy/snarky, but if you don't know much about it perhaps educating yourself about the implications of various forms of contraception might be a worthwhile endeavour?

[–]alnilham -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

right. but, again, are not people in charge of their actions? And mandating stores to carry this product?

[–]Lauranis 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

I have no objection to a pharmacy being mandated to supply the product. If an individual has a moral or ethical opposition that is fine but they should either A) act professionally and do their job or B) have someone on site that can in their place.

Note I come from the UK, pharmacies are treated like any other medical service provider here. There job is to provide the service and not pass judgement in any way.

Edit: autocorrect changing meaning

[–]SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (17子コメント)

I don't think the contraceptive is a medical necessity and if you don't get it, you'll die

Again, I don't know the legal bits about selling medicine. I don't think it's anyone's call to say what medicine is life threatening or not - there's probably a blanket rule that says all medicine is important, so sell it before someone dies and you'll be sued for wrongful death.

I bet most pharmacies have supplies of the product, but somebody went to one of the few stores that didn't, and then sued, and here we are. Is the store to blame for someone's predicament?

Using this line of thinking, what if a few pharmacies in a conservative state - like vast majority of them - decided not to sell the product and you can't get it. What then? What ratio would you want for product availability?

[–]alnilham 0ポイント1ポイント  (16子コメント)

Does the right of an emergency contraceptive result in forcing people to sell you one?

[–]SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (15子コメント)

You need to back up and realize that you're not selling it personally - you're representing a business. It has no religious rights and businesses fall under government regulations.

Government is elected by people who feel providing emergency services is non-negotiable.

[–]alnilham 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

I guess that's one way to look at it. I still think it's forcing people into transactions they may not want to be in. What if you had a newstand, and government told you sell Religious material you don't want to? Not the best comparison, but the idea is the same, forcing someone to sell something.

[–]SsurebreCAgnostic Atheist[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (13子コメント)

You're not forcing people - you're forcing businesses.

I don't know about newstands compared to here because it's not as important (health vs. news) and because newstands could be sole proprietors.