Scandal over the “Morning After Pill”
Recently a scandal has arisen out of the fact that some pharmacists refuse to carry, or sell the “morning after” pill. One such example is a group of 3 pharmacists who worked for an Eckerd’s in Denton, Texas. A young woman who was raped came to the pharmacy seeking a morning after pill. The three pharmacists working there that night refused to fill the prescription. Due to Eckerd’s policies on the matter, the three were fired.
In my opinion, this is exactly how this should work. The owner of an establishment chooses what products are and are not available for sale, and chooses whether their employees may, or will, refuse to sell particular products or not. If the employees refuse to follow these procedures, the employer then enacts disciplinary action such as docking pay, written warnings, or termination. This represents the basic freedoms to contract, associate, and do business that are underpinnings of our free market.
Now for a little bit more background.
The “morning after” pill is a street name for levonorgestrel, a synthetic hormone that is sold under the brand names Plan B and Preven. It is a higher dosage of the medication used as a part of long term birth control medications.
Levonorgestrel is believed to have one or more of the following effects:
- Delays the release of a woman’s eggs
- Reduces the ability of sperm and egg to meet
- Reduces the ability of the uterus to accept a fertilized egg
According to some, life begins at the point where sperm fertilizes an egg, and thus they consider this third potential effect to be abortion. Some pharmacists refuse to sell the pill based on their belief in this matter. Some stores, such as Eckerd’s, have policies which state that such a refusal of service are not allowed. Until recently Target carried the pills but allowed their employees to refuse to sell them on religious or moral grounds. This policy has since changed. Walmart did not use to carry Plan B, but has since changed this policy. It still allows it’s pharmacists to refuse to fill these prescriptions, however.
The scandal has reached such proportions that some states such as Wisconson, and Illinois have required pharmacies to carry the morning after pill.
Out of the entire set of facts above, it’s those in the most recent paragraph that worries me most. In general, merchants have the right to decide what products they will and will not stock their shelves with, and what disciplinary action (if any) they will level against their employees for denying or providing certain services or products.
They cannot discriminate against people based on race, class, gender, or disability status. “Hey, blind man, get that dog outta my store!” However, this is a far cry from them being required to carry any product their customer decides they want.
If a store has limited space, and what store doesn’t, what other products might be forced off the shelf? Perhaps it will be a commonly bought money making product such as Tylenol or Aspirin. It could be a life saving product such as the EpiPen. Maybe it’ll be another women’s health product such as a pregnancy kit, or a product for fighting yeast infections.
Who should be the one to decide what products a Pharmacy carries? I say it should be the owner of said pharmacy. Who should be the one to choose where the consumer shops, and where, if at all, the consumer protests? I say it should the consumer.
September 7th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
The problem being that there are too many in this country who think that what they believe is the most correct way, and any who do not do so out of potentially selfish or malign reasons. Therefore, in order to correct this moral deficiency, the government must make thing x mandatory. I personally think this extends to such behavior as public smoking bans in commercial spaces, helmet and safety belt laws, and even New York’s new trans-fat ban. Some might go so far as to say abortion laws as well. A line has to be established at some point between an individual’s freedom to choose and the interest of public safety. There are quite a few people on both sides of the aisle who display a very low level of trust in the capaciy of rational people to choose a course of action, and who feel that there are far too many people who, if given the choice, would just as soon injure themselves. This sort of mindset needs to be dialed back, as the power it wields now is positively corrosive on our individual liberty.
September 8th, 2007 at 8:49 am
Morality is a continuity of grey areas with shades of right and wrong with scant few points of pure white or black. As individuals, we have the luxury of seeing these subtleties. A legal system, however, must deal in discrete terms of legal and illegal actions. The end result of this is that laws will ALWAYS go too far, not far enough, and usually both at the same time. Throw in special interest groups for flavor.
On this issue, I’d rather see mandatory advertising. Discreet but clear signs like “This business does/does not sell contraceptives/abortions/morning after pill/whatever.” Or at least providing the police, hospitals and the like that information. Rape victims go through enough hell; they should have some means of being able to get what they need without having a pharmacist judge them.
September 8th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Impresario, I’m afraid that you’ve got a brighter view of society than I do in this case. Personally I believe this is more a case of “That person isn’t doing what I want! Mommy/Government make them do it!”
I do not feel it is the place of government to force the religious views of others on people. That goes both ways. The government should not make a pill illegal because of the religious views of some that it is bad.
It also should not force the religious views of the many on the few by forcing pharmacies to carry those pills against the religious views of the owner, or pharmacists to dispense it against the will of the pharmacist, and the understanding they may have with the owner of said pharmacy.
Our government was founded on the concept of protecting people’s freedoms. This requires that the government act responsibly and thus remind people of the responsibilities that come with those freedoms.
I do not see any problem with legally allowing those people who believe that the morning after pill is morally acceptable to buy it. Thus far, all of the objections to them being able to do so are made on a religious basis, and thus in my opinion, it has no place in the law.
I also do not see any problem with stores deciding not to carry a product, and that decision being legal, as this is just a basic freedom that is taken for granted in all other realms of mercantile ventures.
As for the idea of these signs being mandatory… how many people currently read the little booklets that come with every bottle of pills? Not many, because there’s to much information. Why is there so much information? Because sometime, somewhere, someone decided that every bottle of medicine out there should have a certain kind of information on it. How long before small pharmacies just don’t have enough room for all of the signs if we go down the rout of mandatory signs?
If a person goes into a pharmacy and says “Excuse me, I need the morning after pill.” And the pharmacist says “I’m sorry, but we don’t carry that product.” “Do you know where I can get one?” “I’m sorry, I don’t keep track of what other pharmacies carry.” That should be fine, and that should be the end of it.
If, on the other hand, the pharmacist gets judgmental and makes the experience harder on the person, I think it’s perfectly acceptable for the person to go to the manager later, and then for the store to be the target of negative advertisement if nothing is done. Such as word of mouth, etc.
September 8th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Regarding information overload, the information is there because sometime, somewhere, someone could become injured by some product, so to avoid the multi-million dollar “pain and suffering” damages juries award in such instances they put as much information as possible so as to say, “See? We told them so!” It’s pure CYA, and it has positive intentions, but the practical result is that people skip the information - simply because there’s so -much- information. And they still sue the company when the thing hurts them.
September 11th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Right. And I don’t think a new form of “CYA” is a good idea.
I’m generally in favor of more freedoms, and less legal requirements. This leaves us all freer, makes it more likely people will actually read our laws, and makes it easier to fight legal battles without paying lawyers half your yearly salary.
If the legislative law can’t fit in a single book my grandma can carry around, it’s to big.