Could pharmacists refuse to dispense Viagra?

That was one of the scenarios that were raised during the House debate on House Bill 216, a pharmacists’ conscience bill.

The bill, which passed 48-21, would allow pharmacists to refuse to provide any care or drug that violates his or her conscience.

Democrats who spoke in opposition talked about a variety of instances where pharmacists could, in theory, refuse to dispense drugs.

Rep. Anne Pasley-Stuart, D-Boise, mentioned end-of-life drugs to ease suffering, fertility drugs, depression drugs, insulin and, yes, Viagra.

Insulin, she said, is animal-based and if a pharmacist belongs to an animal rights group and objects, it could be denied.

Rep. Jim Rusche brought up contraceptives — which many feel is at the heart of this bill — but also HIV drugs. If a pharmacist had an objection to homosexuality and saw the disease as a punishment, Rusche said, he or she could deny medicine.

Who owns the pharmacy

It will come down to who owns the pharmacy. If it is a corporate store like Walgreens or Rite-Aid then wont it be up to the corporations? If the pharmacy manager doesnt follow corporate procedures then he/she will be replaced by someone that will. As far as the mom and pop pharmacy's are concerned....wait i havent seen one of these in a long long time. Long live Capitolism.

That is the problem

A company will not be able to fire a pharmacist if they refuse to fill a prescription. This bill give protection to the pharmacist to not be fired if they refuse to fill a prescription because it goes against their believe. It may not be a big deal in Boise, but in rural communities were there is only one pharmacist it could be a huge issue.

Watch out, rural women

This could potentially lead to a pharmacist denying birth control to unmarried women. Or birth control to any woman.

it should be

It should be the company has the right not to hire a christian if that christian is going to force their religion on its employer. That is freedom OF/FROM religion. I think pharmacists should start saying it is their religion to offer people the drugs they sell....THEN WHAT DO WE DO. We all look like jack#### instead of the christians looking that way by themselves.

The first time a pharmacist...

The first time a pharmacist refuses to fill a legal prescription I write I will file formal ethical charges with the Board of Pharmacy.

Amazing...

the inconsistency in Republican philosophy. Reduce government interference in our lives until it brings on the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression or until it comes to managing our private lives. Once they start with pharmacists, where will this current thread take society - a whole new generation of political correctness.

PHARMACISTS......

shouldn't be the ones to say you can't take this drug. That is taking the power out of the hands of the DOCTOR who prescribes those medications. There is a reason why Doctors are the one writing prescriptions and pharmacists are the one who are supposed to fill them without bias and without allowing their personal beliefs from interfering with their jobs.

Last I checked that is a violation of our first amemdment right and a form of prejudice and opens the state and the pharmacists to a huge tort claim.

Why

Well, if business can not fire an employee for not working, because of their beliefs, that will mean that the Right to Work Law is non and void. Go ahead and pass this law.

Mormon cashiers ...............

Lets pretend there is a Mormon cashier at Fred Meyers . She looks up and sees a 12 pack of beer coming down the belt . She throws her hands up , screams and runs into the bathroom to cry . Now Butch doesn't get lunch .
Meanwhile over in the hard drug dept. a Catholic pill counter refuses a birth control script - screams and runs to the bathroom .
------------
Folks , we have to do something - I have to pee and the bathroom is filling up .
By the way Idaho , people are again pointing and laughing at us AGAIN .

Reddog

Well played, very well played...

...

That is already happening

Muslim cashiers are refusing to handle meat products.

I've seen some of that, and so far it appears the individual

businesses have been the ones making accomodations (Target in one article I saw). So be it. They risk losing my business.

What I don't want happening is for it to be codified into law, as Idaho is doing. In the Twin City cab driver brouha I believe the outcome was that the city refused to accomodate; if the cab driver refused a fare, he had to go to the back of the line.

it's more than that now

they can lose their licenses for two years.

Muslim meat handling

I wouldn't want a Muslim handling my meat anyway.

In some cities

they've had problems with Muslim cab drivers refusing to carry passengers with alcohol or dogs (including service dogs).

The ironic thing, as Representative Pasley-Stuart pointed out, is that a pharmacist isn't needed to dispense Plan B, because it's sold over the counter without a prescription.

cashiers

Love it Reddog. What about the mormon clerk at Starbucks? hey, now we can claim moral conflict and not work. We will still get paid. Lawyers can get rich on this one. Moral discrimination.

vote

was 48-21

Votes on the bill

According to Eye on Boise ...

Here’s how the House voted on HB 216a, the pharmacist conscience bill that passed 48-21: All but two of the 18 House Democrats voted against the bill; the exceptions were Reps. Mary Lou Shepherd, D-Prichard, and Branden Durst, D-Boise. All but five of the 51 House Republicans present for the vote cast their votes in favor (Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, missed the vote). The five House Republicans who voted against the bill were Reps. Darrell Bolz, R-Caldwell; George Eskridge, R-Dover; Leon Smith, R-Twin Falls; Tom Trail, R-Moscow; and Fred Wood, R-Burley.

Beyond absurd

What will our exalted law givers give us next. This is pandering at best. It's time we the people stand up and vote these people out! Clean sweep fresh slate. I will vote for anyone who runs against an incumbent.

More fresh thinking from the 1950s

Courtesy Rep. Tom Loertscher, the same guy who killed the child-care safety bill two years ago with the quaint plea, "What can we do to keep Mom at home?"

(And continually pregnant as well, no doubt.)

I've been pregnant for 30 years and I'm a guy.

I GAR-ON-TEE your predicament is initally more fun than overeating.

After that it's murder on your back too.

Nobody's making 20 dollars an hour so stop right there, as I remember it take two opposing humanoids to tangle. We're all in this together and crazy or not, some people dig this stuff.

I want a dog.

----------
There are idiots in all manner of ways, ask me and I'll demo them. It won't be too hard.

Can the Statesman or perhaps

Can the Statesman or perhaps someone here PUT THE NAMES of the PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR THIS RIDICULOUS BILL on the website so we can see who the IDIOTS are? Thanks

Don't worry SWEETLOU

They don't sell Spanish flies at pharmacies.

They got here illegally and take US flies jobs!

(well, DUH, not paying attention are we?)

----------
There are idiots in all manner of ways, ask me and I'll demo them. It won't be too hard.

From the Spokesman Review:

Here’s how the House voted on HB 216a, the pharmacist conscience bill that passed 48-21: All but two of the 18 House Democrats voted against the bill; the exceptions were Reps. Mary Lou Shepherd, D-Prichard, and Branden Durst, D-Boise. All but five of the 51 House Republicans present for the vote cast their votes in favor (Rep. Eric Anderson, R-Priest Lake, missed the vote). The five House Republicans who voted against the bill were Reps. Darrell Bolz, R-Caldwell; George Eskridge, R-Dover; Leon Smith, R-Twin Falls; Tom Trail, R-Moscow; and Fred Wood, R-Burley.

SWEETLOU

It might be faster just to check the restroom at Fred Meyer .

War on sex?

I guess pharmacists on on the front line on the "war on drugs" so they may as well be on the front line of the "war on sex". I though even the Christian right believed sex between a husband and wife in the missionary position was OK for the purposes of reproduction only. As long as neither participant enjoy it presumably.
Now even that will be denied to those couples where the guy can't get it up. For example diabetics. Oh I forget we are going to kill them off for lack of insulin. Of course they must have been sinners or Jesus would not have let them get ill!

Jesus is still a nice man who married my ex-GF's daughter.

----------
There are idiots in all manner of ways, ask me and I'll demo them. It won't be too hard.

Well.. Im a Scientologist so

Well.. Im a Scientologist so not Anti-depressants for you... and you are gay and have HIV so you need to Pray the Gay away... No medicine for you... and I dont believe in Birth Control.. Try the Rhythm method... The list goes on and on.. These people "Less Govt" yeah right..> WHAT A JOKE!

Who is for less government?

The conservative claim it as one of their goals, but it seldom ever comes to be. Who brought us the Patriot Act, abortion laws, stem cell research bans, ect.. Why not let the free market decide this? I find that liberals fight more for less government interference in our lives than the present day conservatives. Are the parties flopping platforms again?

Considering the strong position of the Republicans among

southern whites, I doubt they can claim the mantle of the Party of Lincoln anymore.

Any pharmacists involved in this debate

So far, I haven't heard from any pharmacists who have been forced to dispense drugs against their will. Is that a real issue? When has it happened in Idaho, and will that pharmacist(s)please step forward into the public policy debate. Otherwise, I think this is just another solution in search of a problem. We have enough problems in search of solutions for them to focus on - why on EARTH are they bothering with this???

Skyjockey ideology...

If there is any other reason it hasn't been offered.

They're trying to bait and switch, distract, hoodwink you, SAVVY

----------
There are idiots in all manner of ways, ask me and I'll demo them. It won't be too hard.

Hospitals Denying Blood Transfusions

I suggest that, along with this bill, they sponsor one giving emergency room doctors the right to deny trauma patients blood transfusions. That's right... if the doctor is a Jehovah's Witness, then he should have a right to deny blood transfusions to anyone who needs them. A bill such as this would make as much sense as the current pharmacist consciousness one.

Now you know why

The current two-party system has failed.

Fortunately the pharmacy biz is extremely competitive and there is one on every corner. If you can't get your scrip filled just walk across the street.

The pharmacy owners won't put up with this BS for long - it's about money stupid. They will look for any reason to let go a pharmacist who refuses to fill scrips.

The online pharmacies will have even a bigger heyday now.

What a bunch of morons that get elected - says something about the voters wouldn't you say?

This is the New Depression, remember? They'd like one party.

Russia couldn't even afford only ONE party and the grocery store swears I have TWO-PARTY CHECKS?

On TEN DOLLARS? Do they do enough drug testing there?

----------
There are idiots in all manner of ways, ask me and I'll demo them. It won't be too hard.

Pharmacists

Anybody whose prescription is refused by a pharmacist or anybody who knows somebody who is refused should write letters to the editor, to on TV, anything and everything to call attention to this fiasco. Chalk up another success story for the Idaho Legislature.

Our Law Makers Are Supposed To Be "The People's Voice".....

They obviously forgot that when voting their own personal religious beliefs and forcing the vote/law on the 'people'! Bigoted legislature!

pharmacy bill

Any time we allow the "conscience" of a few impose their ideologies on the many, we are in BIG trouble. Our most foundational American baseline; i.e., of being a democracy (not a theocracy) is theatened.

Most phamacists I know probably need Viagra anyway.

----------
Granola whimpers upon spying my countenance

As they say, if you don't use it, you lose it...

Tried a baptist church once. Wow, the damnation they throw down is not conducive to a stout disposition.

Have you considered that whether the bill passes or not...

1. The law likely violates many laws and will be overturned at some point.

2. Doctors will become proactive themselves and point people to the 'right' places, also

3. Planned Parenthood

4. State health and social workers will network to assist as allowed.

These people are already functioning in that manner to some degree already.

Pharmacies make MONEY selling medicines. Any chain will not advocate discrimination against a legal distribution of a pharmaceutical or medical device they sell anyway. Furthermore, all pharmacists are liscensed and must meet DEA guidelines to dispense medicines regulated by them (class IV, etc). It is possible that some things would lead to a suspension on revocation of these priveleges and that means burger flipping or watching TV at the gray bar motel.

Any debate here is a distraction from the reality that there are too many factors OUTSIDE the beliefs of the pharmacist.

Do not forget that the Hippocratic Oath extends to the pharmacy. Pharmacies are an outgrowth of duties a physician had to do himself originally, mixing substances to treat illness. The 'drug store' is to a doctor as Safeway is to a farmer.

----------
There are idiots in all manner of ways, ask me and I'll demo them. It won't be too hard.

What gives them the right to second-guess my doctor?

Well I'm glad I don't live in Idaho! I have a real problem with pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control pills. What gives them the right to second-guess my doctor? My daughter was put on birth control at 16 to treat a medical condition (endometriosis.) If some self-righteous old man had EVER told me he couldn't give her the medication that relieved her pain, I think I would have been arrested for assault! I am surprised that there are pharmacists who don't know that birth control pills are prescribed for other uses, like regulating erratic menstrual periods. When doctors prescribe a medication, they don't have to describe in detail WHY they are prescribing it, and they shouldn't have to. Here's the irony, these same pharmacists probably have no problem with dispensing highly addictive narcotics, even though many people get addicted to prescription drugs. I guess they only care if you're breathing, your health is not their concern.

Maybe the pharmacist is seeing your wife. ASK QUESTIONS.

----------
There are idiots in all manner of ways, ask me and I'll demo them. It won't be too hard.

This bill DID NOT come from the pharmacists

The pharmacy associations are not supporting it. It came from David Ripley and Idaho Chooses Life. It is a solution looking for a problem.

There are already legal protections for an employee's religious beliefs and ways in which an employer can "reasonably accomodate" any religous restrictions they may have. This bill is wide open to any whim a pharmacists may have with no protection for patients or employers.

It's a David Ripley / Idaho Chooses Life fundraising scheme, nothing more.

there are idiots everywhere!

there are idiots everywhere! lol.

Especially newbies who don't read the DATES of the articles.

It's 2010 now...I wondered how all the banned IDs showed up again.

It was a good quality debate though.

I didn't even remember what my signature was then!

----------

If I think of something I'll let you know but I can't stand a naked signature.