I almost never post comments online, but I can't help myself. If the FDA has approved a drug, isn't a pharmacist obligated to dispense it? I thought that was the whole point of studying pharmacology and becoming a pharmacist, to dispense FDA-approved medication. And if some pharmacists have philsophical issues with doing their job, what's to stop, say, postal employees from refusing to deliver mail that isn't printed on recycled paper? Or hospital dieticians from refusing to serve animal proteins to patients? At what point do we insist people either do the jobs they're paid to perform or find some other line of work?

Pharmacists shouldn't be making political statements by withholding medication.

That having been said...
I don't want the federal government telling businesses what the can and cannot refuse to sell. If a some Gary Baueresque pharmacist doesn't want to stock penicyllin (sp?) because the word looks too phallic, then that should be his choice, and he shouldn't be surprised when soccer moms boycott him for not stocking their children's precious ear-ache medicine. Any American is free to run his or her business into the ground if he or she wants to. That's what I've always liked about this place, it's not illegal to be a dumbass (I don't necessarily like that it is becoming more and more popular).

When I was in high school I worked at an autoshop, pumping gas and fixing tires. The proprieter was the most un-customer-friendly man I've ever met. But the prices were fair and the work was honest and well-done. If a customer had a complaint for him about the work and the conversation lasted more than two minutes he'd cut them off and say, "You don't like what we do here? Then get the fuck out and take your car to the guy down the road."

Even back in the sticks where I grew up there are 15 to 20 pharmacies within a single burough. I don't see why any proprietor cannot say the same thing for any reason (excluding constitutional violations).

Note that I am referring to Pharmacy proprietors and not to some jackass who won't reach under the counter at Rite-Aid.

Being a pharmacist is a kind of public trust. What if every one of those pharmacies, Ted, has a pharmacist who's a religious nut?

Then that opens the door for another enterprising pharmacist without the nut definciency to set up shop and take all of the nuts' non-nut customers.

Plus with all the fierce competition and oversaturation of the market with Eckerds, RiteAids, CVS's, etc. those companies are not going to let religious ideology get in the way of their bottom lines. I'm sure if CVS corporate catches wind that an employee's personal beliefs have cost them a customer, then he's fucking fired.

The problem with your reasoning Ted is that many small and rural communities cannot sustain 2 pharmacies. Or they won't allow a "morning after pill" dispensing pharmacy to exist in their midst.

For example, in Spokane Washington/Coeur D'Alene Idaho, which has over 600,000 people, abortion services do not exist. The closest clinic is in Yakima Washington, several hundred miles away. There are too many people without the ability to travel this distance, so they end up with unwanted babies that become the responsibility of the state.

I agree with Amy- dispensing medications is in the public trust, and should not be hampered by personal opinion.

I am sure that it is difficult for, say, the young girl in Towanda, Pennsylvania to go to her local pharmacist, who probably knows everyone, and get a morning after prescription filled. The chances of that pharmacist taking exception to her prescription are much greater than the young girl going to a pharmacy in Southern California, where people are somewhat more open minded.

I'm vegetarian, but I don't expect my cat to be (or any of my friends, for that matter). Nor should these pharmacists expect all of their customers to share in their particular brand of dogma. What's next, refusing to serve people because they are atheist?

I shudder to think what this selective discrimination could lead to.

I wonder why it is: These people never realize that it's a manifestly bad idea to force anybody to have a baby that they don't want.

Vendors shouldn't be compelled to sell things they don't want to sell. Though it would certainly be CONVENIENT if the were....

So later that night, then when reading the comments to Amy's post, I wonder: What DO these people want?

> ...shouldn't be making political statements...

Why the hell not? Isn't your working life a profound expression (perhaps the MOST profound) of the way you think the world ought to work?

> What if every one of those pharmacies, Ted,
> has a pharmacist who's a religious nut?

Maybe, just maybe, people of differing cosmologies will think twice before fucking. Would that be the end of the world, or must we construct an economy around the impulsive behaviors of our weakest members?

> ...opens the door for another enterprising
> pharmacist...

Yes.

> There are too many people without the ability
> to travel this distance, so they end up with
> unwanted babies...

It's sex practices that fertilize women, not zip codes.

> Nor should these pharmacists expect all of
> their customers to share in their particular
> brand of dogma.

"Dogma" understates the degree of feeling at work in these people's lives. Vendors should not be compelled to answer ALL customer needs at a low price, especially when those sales are morally repugnant to them.

> ...it's a manifestly bad idea to force
> anybody to have a baby that they don't want.

Declining to stock (perceived) abortifacients is not the same thing as forcing someone to have a baby they don't want.

Most of these arguments would hold water if it was the pharmacists who were impregnating these women, but the gals seem to be chosing someone else for the sex, and then holding the pharmacist responsible.... It just ain't right.

While working life may be a profound expression of the way you think the world should be, certain offices, such as police, firemen, and most other professions that deal with the public, have a responsibility to the public. Shall detectives be allowed to refuse to investigate the murder of prostitutes if they find prostitution immoral?

-It's sex practices that fertilize women, not zip codes.-

More meretricious platitudes from the thoughtless. Birth control is never 100% effective. Health care should not depend on your zipcode.

-Most of these arguments would hold water if it was the pharmacists who were impregnating these women-

Prevarication gets old when, as usual, the preacher volunteers the sacrifice he will never have to make.

It is unlikely the states allowing EC to be dispensed without a prescription could require a pregnancy test. Those only work at approximately the time you have missed a period. That said, once you found a pharmacist who dispensed EC, you would probably have to answer a few questions with regard to your health. I'm from a state that does not have OTC EC yet, so I don't know the particulars, it's just an educated guess. Certainly it would be ideal if all states allowed OTC EC. It would be interesting to know just how many pharmacists actually would refuse to fill these prescriptions... in other words, just how difficult it actually is to get these medicines. You are probably familiar with the idea that people tend to focus on negative situations--they are what stand out. The pharmacists I know are pretty open-minded. And, among other things, people generally choose this profession because they want to help people.

Ah, to clarify: Once you found a pharmacist who dispensed OTC EC, you would have to answer a few questions with regard to your health. And specific to that medication. All pharmacists following the standard of care are supposed to have some (fairly limited) knowledge about your health so they can dispense a medication that is appropriate and safe. Sorry to split hairs, but it is an an important point. We aren't asking you these questions to better judge you. We have a responsibilty for your safety. In fact, that is why the profession exists. Medications that are prescription-only are such because there are any number of reasons they could be unsafe.

> ...certain offices, such as police,
> firemen, and most other professions that
> deal with the public...

You went from "certain officed" to "most public professions" in a very few words.

> meretricious platitudes from the
> thoughtless.

Don't be a ninny.

> Birth control is never 100% effective.

Why is that the responsibility of any particular pharmacist?

> Health care should not depend on your
> zipcode.

Liberals are full of 'shoulds,' aren't they? But of course health care is often about NOTHING but biology. Eric, the quietus of your lifetime is happening in Africa in these very years, but I don't see liberals doing much about it. It was Bush who found 15 billion under the blotter for them a couple years ago....

You decline to note the facism inherent in all your 'shoulds.' As suggested above, it's really CONVENIENT to decide that particular positions in our economy should be compelled in particular directions. But it's neither reasoned nor probable.

> the sacrifice he will never have to make.

What sacrifice are YOU making to the will, or morality, of our imaginary pharmacist?

One step after another, this country is going backwards on its gains on the rights of its citizens. However, looking back over the decades, this country has always been going on a crusade which it never quite won. In the 1920s there was the great crusade called Prohibition. What happened? No law was ever more broken & in the end it had to be abolished. (A joint anyone?) Another crusade, that of McCarthy against communism, a witch-hunt that eventually went the way of prohibition, down the drain. A few years later, to the chagrin of the United Staters, the Russians went into Space first. This launched the US into the crusade of landing on the Moon first (Danke schön, Herr von Braun!). Every American kid had to learn math, to the detriment of other subjects. Decades later, US students in maths & sciences (and everything else except pot-smoking) are way beyond students in either Old or New Europe & Asia. Wondering how many non-US Old Europe scientists work at NASA. The most recent crusade, a religious one, is trying to take away the freedom of belief or non-belief, the freedom of choice, the greatest freedom of a Democracy, in order to save our soul. It is also trying to put women back in shackles. This is the crusade that reminds me the most of prohibition. Once we have to face the damages it will have caused, mostly to women who will either have unwanted babies or will get an illegal abortion, with its appalling consequences, the crusade will go down the way others have gone. Because, there is nothing stronger for a woman than the feeling that overwhelms her when she finds out she is going to have a baby she does not want. No law, no sermon will keep her from wanting to get rid of it. It becomes her only aim. This has been going on for centuries & will not stop now. At that crucial time in her life, a woman cares not whether she lives or dies or goes to Hell.

Frania W.

-One step after another, this country is going backwards on its gains on the rights of its citizens

While I do agree and stand against all governmental inroads toward moralism, this just isn't one. I find GOVERNMENT FORCING any entrepreneuring businessman or woman to sell ANY PRODUCT to be more distressing than any refusal on his or her part. I can tolerate all the wackos in the world as long as they aren't making laws that strip me of a freedom. If I open a CD store and refuse to stock Cher because her voice gives me seizures, that's my right. And if some customer's brother's dying request is that he receive a cher CD he bought at my store, I am free to heartlessly tell him his brother's shit out of luck without being ordered by Congress or a court to stock that shite. If that changes, I've lost a freedom.

>For example, in Spokane Washington/Coeur D'Alene Idaho, which has over 600,000 people, abortion services do not exist.

Abortion clinics aren't pharmacies. They are not nearly as profitable or easy to staff and so there are fewer. Furthermore the product/service is in much lower demand comparatively to pharmacies which service half the population just with antidepressants.

> The closest clinic is in Yakima Washington, several hundred miles away. There are too many people without the ability to travel this distance, so they end up with unwanted babies that become the responsibility of the state.

The point is moot. If there are people who lack the means to travel a hundred miles if absolutely necessary, then those people don't have enough money to pay for an abortion, anyway, and the state's responsibility is an inevitability.

>The problem with your reasoning Ted is that many small and rural communities cannot sustain 2 pharmacies. Or they won't allow a "morning after pill" dispensing pharmacy to exist in their midst.

This is a myth. I highly, highly doubt that there is any dot on the American map that is not within 30 miles of a Rite-Aid, Eckerd, CVS etc. There is nothing where my father lives, but there do happen to be six pharmacies on a 1-2 mile stretch of road, plus plenty of others within burough limits. No community is totally without a chain pharmacy just like no community is totally without a Walmart, Target, K-mart etc.

>Dogma" understates the degree of feeling at work in these people's lives. Vendors should not be compelled to answer ALL customer needs at a low price, especially when those sales are morally repugnant to them.

I don't care why a proprietor doesn't stock a particular item. I don't care what that item is. As owner of his own business I don't think government has the right to force him to stock something he doesn't want to.

>I wonder why it is: These people never realize that it's a manifestly bad idea to force anybody to have a baby that they don't want.

Agree with the sentiment. But I don't want government legislating people's thoughts and beliefs as long as they aren't breaking laws.

>While working life may be a profound expression of the way you think the world should be, certain offices, such as police, firemen, and most other professions that deal with the public, have a responsibility to the public

Police and firemen are civil servants--government employees; pharmacists are business owners. Business owners are responsible only to themselves. You can't compel a heart surgeon to operate on a specific person's heart if he doesn't want to for whatever reason. Make pharmacists state-employed and I will agree with compelling them to carry whatever you want them to, even as I tell you that pharmacies should be privatized so as to make their economics more efficient.

If government wants to look at pharmacies, they should look at something more relevant like how they ALL justify charging $180 for a bottle of Xanax that they bought for $20. That reeks of collusion and price-fixing.

Typo! Cut some slack; it was wine night. (Also, whine night.) "But of course health care is often about NOTHING but biology" should read "But of course health care is often about NOTHING but GEOGRAPHY."

Listen, not every problem with health care (and/or sexuality) is from the policy side. It's OK to ask people to get their shit together before demanding that people in particular jobs do things that violate their dearest beliefs.

Hi –


I agree with Frania – the US is curtailing its citizens' rights.


Over here in France, this question has been settled. Which question ? Pharmacists and contraceptives. Here we go. (I'm summarizing all this from the rather lengthy French. At the bottom you'll find the relevant URL. If my English is turgid, it's because the French is particularly so - and because it's been a long day.)


In Bordeaux, France, on June 9, 1995, three pharmacists in partnership refused to sell birth control pills under prescription to three different women. They stated that doing so was against their religious convictions. The very same day the three ladies filed a fomal complaint, stating that there was a "refusal to sell" in violation of (a whole lot of) applicable French civil and criminal laws.


In court, the defense of the pharmacists was that a) they could not legally sell "abortion products" because of b) their religions convictions. On November 16, 1995, the three pharmacists were found guilty of "refusal to sell" by the Bordeaux Police Court (the competent jurisdiction), since a) contraceptive pills were not "abortion products" but "contraceptive products" and b) their religious convictions were not an issue in the public sphere. Fines and suspended prison terms were meted out. The three pharmacists appealed the decision.


On January 14, 1997, the Bordeaux Appeals Court confirmed the lower court's guilty verdict.


The pharmacists appealed the decision to the next level up, the Cour de Cassation (the French equivalent of the US Supreme Court). They maintained that under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (to which France is a signatory), their freedom of religion was being violated and that their personal convictions did not allow them to sell contraceptives with a prescription.


On October 21, 1998, the Cour de Cassation rejected the appeal. It let stand the Bordeaux Appeals Court decision which stated (among other things) that "personal beliefs cannot give pharmacists, to whom the right to sell medecine(s) is reserved, a legtimate motive for refusing to sell".


The three pharmacists then appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, once again invoking Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.


On June 7, 1999, the European Court of Human Rights, in a majority vote, handed down its decision.


Before handing down its decision, the Court quoted the relevant Article 9. Here it is in English:


ARTICLE 9


1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.


2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.


The Court stated that Article 9 protects above all the area of personal convictions and religious beliefs, that is, what is sometimes called the "interior faith". Moreover, it protects acts linked to such behavior, such as devotional acts which are aspects of the practice of religion or a belief in a generally recognized form. The Court then went on to state that Article 9 enumerated various forms that a religion or belief can take, more precisely, worship, religious education, and the practice of rites (the Court quoted several decisions, among them Kalac vs Turkey, July 1, 1997 and Cha'are Shalom Ve Tsedek vs. France, June 27, 2000, as well as other case law).


The Court continued by saying that, to protect this personal belief, however, Article 9 of the Convention does not guarantee the right to behave in the public sphere in a manner dictated by this belief. The term "practice" withing the meaning of Article 9 does not refer to any act or public behavior motivated by or inspired by a religion or a belief.


The Court then stated that "since the sale of this product is legal, under medical prescription, and since such medication must be sold in pharmacies, the plaintiffs cannot refuse to sell by imposing their religious beliefs on others to justify the refusal, the manifestation of such religious convictions being possible in many ways outside the professional sphere."


Finally, the Court stated that the guilty verdict for refusal to sell did not interfere with the exercise of rights guaranteed by Article 9 of the Declaration of Human Rights and, furthermore, that the appeal cannot be accepted under Article 35.3 (which simply says that the Court can reject an appeal if the appeal is in contradiction with the Declaration of Human Rights).


Decision at:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/droitdesreligions/droitdesreligions/ddr_juris_cedh_02102001.html


The European Convention on Human Rights at:

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

Sure glad I live over here in France.

L'Amerloque

Merci, merci, merci!

L'amerloque, in protecting a customer's apparent 'right' to buy anything that they want anywhere they want, you are stripping a business owner of two much more relevant and real rights. The right to sell whatever he or she wants to. The right to not buy whatever he or she wants to.

Pharmacists pay for the products that they stock, and recoup the money on resell. So you now have the French government compelling three citizens to purchase something they don't want to purchase. Shame on them. This is dominionism in reverse.

What Ted said. Guns are legal, and there are times when people's well-being may depend on having one at hand: Should retailers be compelled to sell them?

Having never heard of the European Convention on Human Rights, I went and looked it up. It is, of course, a toothless technocratic instrument, all treaties and protocols... When time comes to actually defend a human (not just his 'rights') with something more persuasive than a scotch-&-soda after a plenary session, the oppressed are going to have to turn to a less effete agency for support.

> Sure glad I live over here in France.

Us too.

Hi !



>>L'amerloque, in protecting a customer's apparent 'right'

>>to buy anything that they want anywhere they want,

>>you are stripping a business owner of two much more

>>relevant and real rights.



? This whole business about "rights" in the USA rarely speaks of "duties". Have you ever noticed that ? (smile) I don't see why should "business" be given priority over, say, "well-being", or; quite simply, "life". The preamble to the US Constitution says "… life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It doesn't say "… business, no taxes and no government", for example. (smile)



>>The right to sell whatever he or she wants to.



Come off it. Businesspeople in the USA already can't sell whatever they want to, and damned right it is, too. The local 7/11 can't sell penicillin or birth control pills: it's not a pharmacy. The local shop cannot sell patent medecine as a "sovereign cure" for all that ails you. The local gunsmith can't sell a tank. And so on and so forth. Look at the interstate alcohol laws, for example. The local porn shop can't sell to minors. Look at all the local laws and ordinances.



>>The right to not buy whatever he or she wants to.



They're already purchasing stuff they don't particularly want to buy, as far as I know. A wholesaler will place a range of products (A, B, C and D) with a retailer, not just one product (A, B, C or D). The businessman might say "Look, I only want product B – just sell me that, that's the one that sells best." The wholesaler replies: "Sorry, pal, ya gotta take the whole range: it's all or nothing." Just look at your local auto dealership for an example. That's where all those discounts come from. (smile)



>>Pharmacists pay for the products that they stock,

>>and recoup the money on resell.



Well, more or less, yes. Of course they pay at 30 or 60 or 90 days, perhaps, but sell to the customer the day after delivery, thus allowing the distributor to finance the sales, but yes, you're right.



>>So you now have the French government

>>compelling three citizens to purchase something

>>they don't want to purchase. Shame on them.

>>This is dominionism in reverse.



Of course it isn't. It's simply saying that a "pharmacy selling pharmacutical products" is not a "business": it's a "public service", just like police and fire services. Nothing wrong with that. It's for the good of the much wider commonweal, not the narrow classes of "businessmen" or "consumers".

L'Amerloque

Okay, I can see both sides here, about people not selling something they don't believe in, not being forced to stock, etc. However, my feeling is, if you are a pharmacist and do not want to dispense certain medications, you are in the wrong profession. You can argue that pharmacists are proprietors, but the truth is, they are in service of the public.

Let me give you an example. I'm pro gun control. I *hate* guns. They exist only to destroy. Wal-Mart sells guns. So, I don't shop there. *Nor do I work there*. They sell something I don't agree with. However, I do not expect my friend, a gun enthusiast, to share my beliefs; we respect that our beliefs are different and we don't lecture each other on it.

I can see where one might say, "you can't force a kosher restaurant to sell pork just because someone wants to eat it" or "you can't force a vegetarian restaurant to serve meat because of public demand". However, restaurants exist in much greater supply than pharmacies, especially in rural areas.

Well, if the doctor took the hypocratic oath, she *does* have to do that if she is a woman of her word. On what basis does a doctor deny lifesaving medical care? *That* is immoral. Even if it was W (I loathe him) on the operating table, if I had the knowledge to save his life, I would do so. Why? Because it would be *immoral* to let him die if I have the knowledge to save him.

A woman who becomes pregnant for whatever reason has more of a burden than a man. Some men easily sit in judgment against a woman for spreading her legs, but in the same breath will brag about their own conquests. This double standard is repugnant.

When you blame a woman for getting pregnant, the blame must be shared with a man, and hey, ACCIDENTS happen. Occasionally, condoms fail. And unless you're very ugly or smelly (and sometimes even then), EVERYONE has sex. Everyone. It's extremely unrealistic to expect people to engage in abstinence when sex is probably the best thing out there as far as making people feel good. I would go as far as to say that abstinence on a long-term basis can make people mentally unstable and turn them into, oh, I don't know - pedophiles, maybe?

So then, what is the answer? It's a tough question. I believe in respecting the convictions of others; however, when it stands between someone and their health care, the issue becomes moot. For example, Premarin is a common hormone therapy for women made from the urine of pregnant mares. I wouldn't take it, because it violates my belief system as a vegetarian; however, I would still give it to a post-menopausal woman if she needed it as a part of her health care.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the patient is not asking the pharmacist to take the medication, which would violate the pharmacists belief. The patient is simply asking the pharmacist to provide the medication necessary for their health care.

To *not* provide necessary medication, such as birth control pills to a 15 year old girl, is immoral. Expecting the teen to participate in abstinence is unrealistic. Provide the birth control or expect to have to provide RU-486 later.

I don't know why this comment didn't post before the paragraph on the hypocratic oath:

"You can't compel a heart surgeon to operate on a specific person's heart if he doesn't want to for whatever reason."

Hi !



>>Having never heard of the European Convention

>>on Human Rights,



Oh, come on. You're interested in political theory and you've "never heard of it" ? Wherever have you been these past few years ? (smile)



>>I went and looked it up.



That's why I put the link. (smile)



>>It is, of course, a toothless

>>technocratic instrument, all treaties and protocols...

>>When time comes to actually defend a human

>>(not just his 'rights') with something more

> persuasive than a scotch-&-soda after a

>>plenary session, the oppressed are going

>>to have to turn to a less effete agency for support.



(smile) The foregoing reminds me, alas, of the abysmally ignorant knownothing "political thinkers" who flourished where I grew up, in John Birch Country, in the 1950s and 1960s. The "European Convention" is hardly "toothless" and its ramifications and influence are felt far more than the "US Constitution" by many countries in the world (dare I say a majority ?). It pains me to say it, since I am American, but Europeans (the first 15 countries in the EU, not the latest 10 newcomers, who have quite a bit of catching up to do), on a daily basis are far freer than Americans in real political terms, thanks in large measure to the ECHR. Too, for the average Joe and Josephine, the standard of living is measurably higher, the life expectancy is longer, the streets (and old-age pensions !) are safer, the schools are better, and privacy is far more preserved. Could there be a connection wirh the ECHR ? (smile)



>>> Sure glad I live over here in France.

>>Us too.



Undoubtedly. (smile) Heard it before. Reminds me of my youth, as I said.



Living overseas allows one to see one's own country much better. Both its advantages and drawbacks are thrown into sharp relief. What appeared (or was asserted) to be true turns out not to be true, and vice versa. Just as I criticize the French who refuse to see further than their borders, so do I criticize my fellow Americans for the same reason. Hopefully they'll wake up before it's too late. Based on history, though, I'm not overly optimistic. Moving backward is so much easier than moving foward.

L'Amerloque

Goddyss, I like you. We're shucking right down to the cob here....

> Some men easily sit in judgment against a
> woman for spreading her legs but in the
> same breath will brag about their own
> conquests. This double standard is
> repugnant.

Men are dogs, but let's not get carried away. The genders have different responsibilities. If women were more selective about, and demanding of, the specific men who father their children, the 21st century would be paradise.

> The patient is simply asking the pharmacist
> to provide the medication necessary for
> their health care.

Right, and the gun nuts are not asking the department stores to squeeze the trigger, they just want guns available wherever possible.

> Expecting the teen to participate in
> abstinence is unrealistic.

First, that's not true. Second, it's not the point. Many reasonable people are not demanding that youths be abstinent, they just that they be RESPONSIBLE, including before their encounters.

A pharmacist who puts his judgment on the medical products authorized by law that he has a license to sell & refuses to sell this one or that according to his religious beliefs should turn in his license & enter the seminary to become a priest. Then he could proselytize all he wants. By the way, I would like to know what God had in mind when He created abortive plants. Before the advent of modern birth control, these plants were of quite common use. If I remember correctly, the first one grew in the shade of the apple tree in the Garden of Eden…

Frania W.

P.S. ... and Eve must have used them because, from what the Bible says, Adam & Eve had only two children.

PPSS: RE my one of my above comments, a dear friend of mine brought the following to my attention: In your comment on Amy's site you said:

"A few years later, to the chagrin of the United Staters, the Russians went into Space first. This launched the US into the crusade of landing on the Moon first (Danke schön, Herr von Braun!). Every American kid had to learn math, to the detriment of other subjects. Decades later, US students in maths & sciences (and everything else except pot-smoking) are way beyond students in either Old or New Europe & Asia. Wondering how many non-US Old Europe scientists work at NASA."

Are you sure you mean "beyond" and not "behind" ?!

Naturally, el Gringo, you are correct! Thank you for seeing it.

Frania W.

>You can argue that pharmacists are proprietors, but the truth is, they are in service of the public.

Not until they are paid by the state. The mere fact that the 'pharmacy' markup (the amount of profit just the pharmacy makes on a drug) can sometimes be as high as 1000%, and is usually at least double what they bought the medication for, proves that they are entrepreneurs who are licensed to sell products that other people can't.

> I don't see why should "business" be given priority over, say, "well-being", or; quite simply, "life".

It shouldn't. Personal freedom should. Government compelling someone to purchase anything he or she doesn't want is quite a bit more odious than the 7/11 failing to provide a person with his or her favorite licorice, even if they'll die without it.

>They're already purchasing stuff they don't particularly want to buy, as far as I know. A wholesaler will place a range of products (A, B, C and D) with a retailer, not just one product (A, B, C or D). The businessman might say "Look, I only want product B – just sell me that, that's the one that sells best." The wholesaler replies: "Sorry, pal, ya gotta take the whole range: it's all or nothing." Just look at your local auto dealership for an example. That's where all those discounts come from. (smile)

I fail to see what wholesaler product packaging has to do with government compelling citizens to buy something they don't want.

> Come off it. Businesspeople in the USA already can't sell whatever they want to, and damned right it is, too

Come off it. This answer is disingenuous, akin to someone saying "America is a free country," and getting the answer "Well, you can't kill people so it's not free."

Casino's have very rigid restrictions, but that doesn't mean that government can compel one to have a craps table if that owner doesn't like the way they look.

>It's simply saying that a "pharmacy selling pharmacutical products" is not a "business": it's a "public service", just like police and fire services

Policemen and firefighters are civil servants, government employees. Police precincts don't compete with other precincts to see who can turn the biggest profits. Police don't go out of business. They are supported by everyone's tax dollars whether they like what the police are doing or not.

Pharmacists are proprietors whose only public service is in price-gouging its pockets. If I don't like something a pharmacist is doing I can tell him to fuck off and go down the road without supporting his business with even a nickel of my money. The former groups do not have one thing in common with Pharmacists.

>Well, if the doctor took the hypocratic oath, she *does* have to do that if she is a woman of her word. On what basis does a doctor deny lifesaving medical care?

Doctor's deny care all the time for various reasons. I saw a woman who needed a 200 lb. tumor removed on the Health channel. Dozen's of doctors refused to do the surgery because they thought they'd kill her and get sued.

>To *not* provide necessary medication, such as birth control pills to a 15 year old girl, is immoral.

If a pharmacist stocks a product and selectively refuses to sell it, I do see a problem and a big one at that.

>Expecting the teen to participate in abstinence is unrealistic

Which is why choosing not to pursue abstinence shouldn't be (and hopefully isn't) illegal. And expecting the government to tell private citizens what they must buy is also unrealistic.

So lets say we let pharmacists impose their religious beiefs on customers. Okay, so some women will have to drive 1/2 a mile, 30 miles, 100 miles to get their prescription filled (and there ARE many isolated communities in the USofA, Ted, further than 30 miles from another pharmacy). Let's pretend it's okay to make women go way out of their way for birth control.

Now the pharmacists can decide what other medications he won't give out. Or who he won't give medications to.

I'm a non-Christian, and my alternate choice of religion has led more than a few people to tell me I worship Satan, am going to burn in Hell, etc. If I believed in Satan or Hell I might be bothered.

Now let's pretend some of these pharmacists are extremists who don't think I deserve life-saving medications. And while they're at it, I mean Muslims are all evil terrorists, right? And Jews eat babies in secret ceremonies, as do Mormons. They certainly don't deserve Penecillin, do they? And perhaps some KKK pharmacists are just tired of having to give medicine to blacks.

If the pharmacist believes these things, it's his/her right to refuse to fill their prescriptions, right?

Now, I realize I just embarked on a very slippery slope, but my point is that there are extremists of every type in the world, and if we let them start deciding how we live their lives now, little by little our own rights will slip away.

My defense of pharmacists begins and ends at property rights. A pharmacist can fail to fill a prescription because he doesn't stock something, but not when he has a particular drug in stock and, say, doesn't want to sell it to a Jew. I'm sure this is all covered in laws relating to restaurants, bathrooms and Jim Crowe.

>Now, I realize I just embarked on a very slippery slope, but my point is that there are extremists of every type in the world, and if we let them start deciding how we live their lives now, little by little our own rights will slip away.

I get what you're saying, but I don't believe that a pharmacist is in a position to tell his customers how to live, and if he tries, he'll likely go out of business. If there is one such coordinate in the US that only has one pharmacist (who happens to be an evangelist) per 200 square miles, and I can't stress strongly enough that there isn't, those unfortunate and imaginary souls can get their birth control or Ritalin at www.legalmedsonline.com or one of the other million online pharmacies. I trust Fedex serves Theoreticalville, USA.

Being that it seems most people around here are secular and afraid of the apparently growing religious right's influence in traditionally secular politics, it may be lost that the truly religious (those whose entire social life revolves around church sculch) are equally afraid that secularism is some new cancer eating away at all they hold dear. That's why they're so fired up right now.

When they see us trying to take 'under god' out (back out, but they don't know that) of the pledge, that's a huge assault on their beliefs because they don't know us (they know only what Heroin Rush and Pat Robertson of Mordor tell them about us) and are afraid we'll take God's name out of the Bible next.

When we make a pharmacist buy an 'abortion' pill and put it up for sale against his wishes, we are forcing him at gunpoint to become an accessory to murder. We can just as easily say, 'this guy's nuts, I'll just get my shit next door,' without wasting more than five minutes and we'll have not pissed them off in the process.

It's small fry shit like these two things that keeps throwing lighter fluid on this crazy spiritual flame. You need to let this one go. Just because you don't like the way one or two particular pharmacists run their businesses doesn't make them an actual problem. Let's stop fanning the flames unless necessary and let this pale fire evanesce.

I'm not usually one for posting comments online either, but I just gotta say this:

Have any of these holier-than-thou's ever thought that sometimes a doctor might prescribe a medication for an alternate use? Birth control pills are not just used for birth control. They are often prescribed if a patient has polycystic ovaries, or is going through menopause. If a pharmacist thinks they really know more than a doctor, then they should go to medical school and prove it.

Extremely good point, Alissa.

Guns are sold for things besides killing people, but that probably doesn't nourish your enthusiasm for them.

very interesting
http://fishingflu.freehostia.com/1/2/halibut-fishing+-charter-seward-alaska.php "> halibut fishing+ charter seward alaska

Thank you!
http://alaskafishing.freehostia.com/1/3/alaska-alaska-coho-fishing+-salmon.php "> alaska alaska coho fishing+ salmon

Did we really go?