I don't think pharmacists have a right to express their opinions on this matter.

Their job is not to tell people how to live, their job is to accurately fill my prescription and make sure it doesn't have any contraindications.

If my job asked me to do something that I found morally repugnant, it would be time for me to rethink my career options.

I am getting really sick and tired of certain groups forcing their beliefs into the workplace, the government, and my life.

To me the sticking point is that pharmacists are licensed by the state, so this speaks to finding the exact place the indivisual, church and state find their edges, legally.

I heard the same piece on NPR. Pharmacies should have the right to fire any individual who does not dispense legal medication that the employer wants to sell. As an employee, I have every right to freedom of speech outside of the work place, but within the work place that speech is limited in a variety of ways, including turning away or being dismissive of customers. My years as a salesperson in stereo equipment and as an assistant manager at a drugstore make me question why pharmacists expect special rights that other employees do not have.

Secondly, after the pharmacists are fired for insulting customers, I'm sure (note sarcasm) they will find a job in a right to life pharmacy. Seriously, now, why not form a right to life chain of pharmacies where drugs are not dispensed for birth control, in vitro fertilization, or abortion, where condoms are not sold along with any other form of contraception, and where not drugs derived from methods that right to lifers claim abhorrent (like the chicken pox vaccine) are sold? There would then be no conflict with the store and it's employer. Let the market place determine the survival of these stores.

I'm not convinced there is a huge difference between "stepping away" and "stepping in the way." I have mobility impairments at the moment: I can't drive, and it's not easy for me to walk or negotiate public transit. Getting to another pharmacy actually is a significant hardship. And frankly, it strikes me as a little annoying that medical professionals, of all people, are so ablist that they think it's no biggie to force someone to haul herself to another drug store.

For most people it is "no biggie". That's not "ablilst" its the norm. It sucks that people don't take disability into account with their everyday thinking, but frankly, disablity is the exception not the rule.

It is complete and utter BS that the pharmacist not fufill ANY prescription prescibed by a doctor. I agree totaly with nephthys on this issue, but I am willing to take it a step further. Much like a doctor who witholds aid or medical attention, I think that a pharmacist who doesn't fufuill his professional duty should have his liscence revolked.

It sucks that people don't take disability into account with their everyday thinking, but frankly, disablity is the exception not the rule.

You have, in fact, very nicely summed up ableism there.

I don't understand your need to spew off here about things you know nothing about. Do you get a kick out of making a fool of yourself?

I currently have a hard spot for disability law. In my building we have an old elevator that can't fit a wheelchair, but if we were to repair the motors and cables to make it operational, it would have to be brought up to code to fit a wheelchair and that would cost 10's of thousands more to modify the shaft, walls, and structure. So guess what? No elevator for anyone.

I apologize if my venting (read: foolish spewing) upset your obviously delicate sensibilities.

There is no part of me that is particularly delicate, t, including my sensibilities. But thanks for resorting to asinine sexist stereotypes the second you're called out on anything.

The APhA's position is that pharmacists have some sort of sacred right to deny people drugs, and if that right is taken away, their professional prestige is somehow diminished. So far, this has played out with regards to birth control, and most (although by no means all) people who use birth control have normal mobility. But there's no reason to think it will stop there. According ot the APhA, pharmacists have a sacred right to deny drugs to AIDS patients because they think AIDS is God's punishment for promiscuity. They have a sacred right to deny drugs that have been tested on animals because they believe in animal rights. They have a sacred right to deny people pills that are orange because they're Irish-American and they think the color orange is a symbol of oppression. They have a sacred right to impose whatever hairbrained, nutty, evil pseudo-morality they want on the general public. And a significant portion of drug consumers are just like me: people for whom it's difficult to go to another pharmacy or to come back when a non-asshole pharmacist is on duty. The APhA's stance is that it's ok for pharmacists to impose hardship on the drug-consuming public, including the substantial portion that is mobility impaired, because their professional prestige is more important than our access to medication. And that's ableist. It's also really stupid.

At the risk of sounding asinine, are these drugs available on line? Do on-line pharmicies fall under the same guidlines?

There are two problems with internet pharmacies. The first is that many people don't have internet access. And the second is that a lot of drugs are time-sensitive. I can show up at my local pharmacy and get my meds in a half an hour. If I have to wait three days for the drugs to be delivered, it's very likely that I will miss a dose. If the drug is emergency contraception, by the time it's delivered it will probably be too late.