Can you sue a pharmacist who won't dispense the Pill?

[Aaron]

That is always been something I'm very uncomfortable with. Yes, perhaps it's not rational of me to dislike abortion (I refuse to support any motion to outlaw them however, so don't start) and then turn around and support a rape victums right to abort or destory the fetus/child. But I cannot find in me to lay any futher burden on a victum of such a crime, it just seems wrong.

Well you are entitled to your opinion, and there's no law stating that it has to be rational.

Rape is a whole other ball game than a pregnancy concieved through consensual sex. If the woman had no say in the matter, how can the government or a health care professional refuse her the right to abort the pregnancy or take pre-emptive measures to ensure she doesn't get pregnant. If she is forced to carry the child to term, she will severely scarred mentally and if she keeps the child, she will most likely start to resent him/her, which will lead to an unhealthy upbringing for the child.

As a health-care professional pharmacists are obligated to leave their personal beliefs and feelings aside and do what is in the best interests of the patient. And if some of them have these beliefs, why are they in a medical profession to begin with?

[Lord Zentei]

For the umpteenth time, liability law is about neglecting your duty of care. Does a pharmacist have a duty of care to dispense prescribed medicines, and a responsibility if his failure or refusal to do so leads to undesired outcomes? I don't see why that doesn't apply, and if someone is going to offer a counter-argument, they could at least do so based on actual liability law rather than off-the-cuff bullshit.

Is it actually possible to get a prescription for birth control pills?

[The Third Man]

Is it actually possible to get a prescription for birth control pills?

In the UK, AFAIK, you must have a prescription to get them.

In fact, this weakens some of the possible arguments I put forward in my previous post, as here a pharmacist could be regarded as a health-care professional, and therefore subject to a higher standard re duty-of-care, than, say, a supermarket selling condoms.

[Tsyroc]

Pharmacists can be sued for malpractice so I would imagine that if the case could be made about birth control pills being denied for a non-medical reason that there could be a pretty good chance of winning at least something.

The various organizations for pharmacists are also a lot weaker (too much spineless asskissing) than national organizations for physicians and even thos for nursing. They are much more likely to cave and stick it to a pharmacist than the AMA would stick it to a physician.

[Darth Wong]

Are you asking whether you can sue a pharmacy for its choice of stock?

Why not? Let's suppose that the only pharmacy in a podunk town refuses to carry any insulin for some bizarre religious reason on the part of the pharmacist. A diabetic on vacation loses his insulin somehow, comes in looking for some, can't get it, then loses consciousness on his way to the next town looking for some while at the wheel and dies as a result. Would his family sue the pharmacist? Goddamned right they would.

Which are not analgous situations. Plying somebody - who is presumably unable to think clearly - with alochol is proactive. Refusing to sell somebody something they consider prerequesite to the kind of sex they'd like to have is not in the same ballpark at all.

Show how this distinction affects the logic of the analogy, dumb-shit.

So? If I live in a small town, I can't sue the only gas station into stocking more or a given product.

The consequences of a gas station not having a certain octane of gasoline are considerably different than the consequences of a pharmacy refusing to stock or sell certain medications, moron.

I am not aware that a pharmacist is required by law to fill everyone and anyone's perscriptions.

What part of "liability != criminality" are you too goddamned stupid to understand even after several repetitions, fucktard?

[MKSheppard]

The birth-control pill thread gave me this idea: if a pharmacist refuses to dispense the birth control pill and you got pregnant as a result, could you not sue them for child support payments in civil court?

*bwhahahahahaha*

Seriously, you'd be laughed out of court.

If it actually gets to any serious stage, your case is shot dead after the pharmacist has his DNA typed against the child's, proving that he is not the child's father.

[Darth Wong]

The birth-control pill thread gave me this idea: if a pharmacist refuses to dispense the birth control pill and you got pregnant as a result, could you not sue them for child support payments in civil court?

*bwhahahahahaha*

Seriously, you'd be laughed out of court.

If it actually gets to any serious stage, your case is shot dead after the pharmacist has his DNA typed against the child's, proving that he is not the child's father.

Are you really this stupid, or do you just try to pretend that you're an idiot for kicks? Do you even begin to understand what I'm arguing here, or do you actually think the child-support liability argument would be as a result of actual paternity?

[MKSheppard]

Do you even begin to understand what I'm arguing here, or do you actually think the child-support liability argument would be as a result of actual paternity?

Actually, that's why it is. If it's not your child, and you are not part of the child's life, IE, you are not an adoptive parent, etc, why the fuck should you pay for someone else's mistake. In other words, they were too stupid to keep their damn legs shut.

Or they could have just done the sure-fire method to prevent pregnancy:

Anal Sex.

[Tsyroc]

IIRC people have won suits for $$$ when they've ended up having kids after they or their partner were supposedly sterilized surgically. I think they had to prove that something was botched in some way but they didn't have to prove that the physician who performed the procedure was the father of the child in order to get "damages".

[Darth Wong]

Do you even begin to understand what I'm arguing here, or do you actually think the child-support liability argument would be as a result of actual paternity?

Actually, that's why it is. If it's not your child, and you are not part of the child's life, IE, you are not an adoptive parent, etc, why the fuck should you pay for someone else's mistake. In other words, they were too stupid to keep their damn legs shut.

If you don't know jack shit about how liability law works, why don't you shut your trap instead? You have shown quite clearly that you have no intention of arguing this based on liability law, but rather, based on your knee-jerk reactions and ideologue ranting.

Or they could have just done the sure-fire method to prevent pregnancy:

Anal Sex.

Of course, but that has no bearing on the question of whether the individual has a reasonable expectation of a pharmacist dispensing prescribed medications.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It is total bullshit for them to make up laws allowing pharmacists to shirk their professional responsibilities to distribute legal and prescribed medications to their customers (particularly since they are being provided by their employer and they are being employed for that purpose).

Should M.D.'s who are Jehovah's Witnesses deny a patient a blood transfusion in a trauma ward and have it protected from civil suit and dismissal by the hospital?

Its the same exact thing.

[Axis Kast]

Pharmacists can be sued for malpractice so I would imagine that if the case could be made about birth control pills being denied for a non-medical reason that there could be a pretty good chance of winning at least something.

Pharmacists can be sued for malpractice when they prescribe the wrong or harmful medications, not when they fail to provide service.

Show how this distinction affects the logic of the analogy, dumb-shit.

Are you fucking brain-dead? The analogy has no logic. It is faulty. Refusing to stock a certain item is not analogous to perpetrating a malicious act.

The consequences of a gas station not having a certain octane of gasoline are considerably different than the consequences of a pharmacy refusing to stock or sell certain medications, moron.

By your logic, I can sue my local pharmacy for any conceivable shortfall in combinations of drugs sold. That’s blatantly false. If you think otherwise, then the onus is on you to prove that all pharmacies must stock and sell a specific number, type, or combination of drugs.

Why not? Let's suppose that the only pharmacy in a podunk town refuses to carry any insulin for some bizarre religious reason on the part of the pharmacist. A diabetic on vacation loses his insulin somehow, comes in looking for some, can't get it, then loses consciousness on his way to the next town looking for some while at the wheel and dies as a result. Would his family sue the pharmacist? Goddamned right they would.

That is the pharmacist’s choice as a business owner. For example, many pharmacises would not fill orders for medical marijuana.

What part of "liability != criminality" are you too goddamned stupid to understand even after several repetitions, fucktard?

Your argument requires you to prove that point, shithead. You must prove that a pharmacist is bound by law to stock and sell the pill.

[Vohu Manah]

In the UK, AFAIK, you must have a prescription to get them.

Same in the US. If I recall correctly, a pharmacy may already choose not to carry a particular drug in the US (WalMart doesn't carry the "Morning After" pill for instance). I would agree though that the pharmacist could be held liable should they not notify the customer where the prescription can be filled (WalMart requires its employees to do so in reference to previous policy).

[Darth Wong]

Pharmacists can be sued for malpractice so I would imagine that if the case could be made about birth control pills being denied for a non-medical reason that there could be a pretty good chance of winning at least something.

Pharmacists can be sued for malpractice when they prescribe the wrong or harmful medications, not when they fail to provide service.

Well duh, that's obviously your position. However, you have not explained why you hold that position. Why does a pharmacist not have a duty of care to maintain a fairly comprehensive inventory and dispense medications when prescribed? It is a normal societal expectation, is it not? They are capable of doing this, are they not?

Show how this distinction affects the logic of the analogy, dumb-shit.

Are you fucking brain-dead? The analogy has no logic. It is faulty. Refusing to stock a certain item is not analogous to perpetrating a malicious act.

Wrong, dumb-fuck. Malice or lack thereof is a RED HERRING. Negligence has nothing to do with the question of whether something is caused by malice or incompetence, you idiot.

By your logic, I can sue my local pharmacy for any conceivable shortfall in combinations of drugs sold. That’s blatantly false. If you think otherwise, then the onus is on you to prove that all pharmacies must stock and sell a specific number, type, or combination of drugs.

Yes, by my logic, a pharmacy has a duty of care to the public. What a shock. You may not understand how liability law works, but the fact is that it DOES often require proactive actions on your part. You cannot slough off any charge of negligence by simply saying that passivity can never be negligent; MOST charges of negligence involve passivity.

What part of "liability != criminality" are you too goddamned stupid to understand even after several repetitions, fucktard?

Your argument requires you to prove that point, shithead.

It is a FACT OF LAW that liability is not synonymous with criminality, you idiot. Your profound ignorance of the law is not my problem.

You must prove that a pharmacist is bound by law to stock and sell the pill.

No I don't, moron. You still don't understand the distinction between criminality and negligence.

[Vohu Manah]

Should M.D.'s who are Jehovah's Witnesses deny a patient a blood transfusion in a trauma ward and have it protected from civil suit and dismissal by the hospital?

Though I can no longer find the story (as this happened months ago), I do believe a major pharmacy chain (Rite Aid?) fired a pharmacist and is seeking the loss of his license for failing to provide the morning after pill (a drug the company stocked) to a recent rape victim. She never sued, but was forced to go to another pharmacy (hospital was out or didn't carry it, prescription came from there). He claimed he didn't feel right filling the prescription and didn't give her an alternative pharmacy to pick it up.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Need it also be stated that the birth control pill is sometimes prescribed to young girls as a means of moderating and regulating their hormonal cycles in the interest of their health.

But you would have pharmacists being given a blank cheque to be this girl's doctor by default by deciding what drugs his community needs on his own personal and arbitrary moral grounds.

[Axis Kast]

Well duh, that's obviously your position.

No, you fucking idiot, it’s a fact. A pharmacist may be required by his or her employer to sell a specific item if so requested; a pharmacy, however, is not obligated to dispense any form of medication.

However, you have not explained why you hold that position. Why does a pharmacist not have a duty of care to maintain a fairly comprehensive inventory and dispense medications when prescribed? It is a normal societal expectation, is it not? They are capable of doing this, are they not?

This is not a subjective argument. I am offering you objective statements of fact. You asked a fucking question. I told you, in response, that there are no laws that make legal the kind of recourse you think is appropriate.

Wrong, dumb-fuck. Malice or lack thereof is a RED HERRING. Negligence has nothing to do with the question of whether something is caused by malice or incompetence, you idiot.

You’re dodging my point. There is no law that holds independent pharmacists/pharmacies responsible for providing X, Y, or Z medication. You asked a question, and that’s an objective answer.

Yes, by my logic, a pharmacy has a duty of care to the public. What a shock. You may not understand how liability law works, but the fact is that it DOES often require proactive actions on your part. You cannot slough off any charge of negligence by simply saying that passivity can never be negligent; MOST charges of negligence involve passivity.

And I am telling you that most courts in the United States will not hold a pharmacist responsible for not selling X, Y, or Z item, regardless of whether their clients have prescriptions. If you think that ought to change, well, that’s not what’s being entertained here.

It is a FACT OF LAW that liability is not synonymous with criminality, you idiot. Your profound ignorance of the law is not my problem.

And IT IS A FACT OF LAW that businesses can sell and dispense what they like. A pharmacist is required to provide ethical service in support of the products he does sell, or to faithfully answer the questions he or she is asked. As a business owner, however, a pharmacist is not required to stock X, Y, or Z of any given item, or to sell said items, regardless of your opinion on whether or not that should be the case.

No I don't, moron. You still don't understand the distinction between criminality and negligence.

If you think there are grounds for a lawsuit, you must prove that a law is being violated, dumbshit. I’m not arguing the correctness of the problem, I’m arguing the legality of the issue. Apparently, however, not satisfied with the answer you got, you’re trying to strawman the whole issue to some other, subjective level so you can project your dissatisfaction.

[Darth Wong]

No, you fucking idiot, it’s a fact. A pharmacist may be required by his or her employer to sell a specific item if so requested; a pharmacy, however, is not obligated to dispense any form of medication.

Not by law, no. That doesn't mean you can't sue them. What do you not understand about the fact that you don't need a law saying "you have to do this" in order to be potentially liable in civil court?

<snip several more repetitions of your ignorant belief that it is impossible to sue someone for failing to do something which the law does not explicitly order them to do>

If you think there are grounds for a lawsuit, you must prove that a law is being violated, dumbshit.

Wrong. You do not need to break a law in order to be potentially liable in civil court. Your ignorance of the law is quite profound and rather breaktaking.

[MKSheppard]

If you don't know jack shit about how liability law works, why don't you shut your trap instead?

Actually, it's Child Support Law which is the crux here. Remember, you stated in the OP that this was for child support?

You have shown quite clearly that you have no intention of arguing this based on liability law, but rather, based on your knee-jerk reactions and ideologue ranting.

Mike, Are you seeing some alternate universe MKSheppard? I would not call a few sentences of extremely blunt and simple replies "ranting". But I guess I must have
somehow gotten confused with Mr. Kast somehow, and I will forgive you this time.

Of course, but that has no bearing on the question of whether the individual has a reasonable expectation of a pharmacist dispensing prescribed medications.

Actually, we had a case like this. The in(famous) Turkey baster case, where a court
ruled on child support involving a man who was a sperm donor to a lesbian couple
who used a turkey baster filled with the man's sperm to inseminate one of them.

The court ruled that the man was the child's biological father and had to pay child
support, despite him donating his sperm so the lesbians could have a child. Somehow,
I do not think that they will order the pharmacist to pay child support, since he has no
biological link to the child.

[Darth Wong]

If you don't know jack shit about how liability law works, why don't you shut your trap instead?

Actually, it's Child Support Law which is the crux here. Remember, you stated in the OP that this was for child support?

Or an equivalent amount of money, which is what liability lawsuits are all about. It certainly doesn't have to be administered in the same manner or with the same rationale. All that matters is the money; surely you know this about lawsuits!

Actually, we had a case like this. The in(famous) Turkey baster case, where a court ruled on child support involving a man who was a sperm donor to a lesbian couple who used a turkey baster filled with the man's sperm to inseminate one of them.

The court ruled that the man was the child's biological father and had to pay child support, despite him donating his sperm so the lesbians could have a child. Somehow, I do not think that they will order the pharmacist to pay child support, since he has no biological link to the child.

It's not paternity child support; it's liability damages equivalent to child support. That is obvious from the fact that we're talking about a liability lawsuit rather than a paternity lawsuit.

[Axis Kast]

Not by law, no. That doesn't mean you can't sue them. What do you not understand about the fact that you don't need a law saying "you have to do this" in order to be potentially liable in civil court?

And I am telling you that a civil court is highly unlikely to make a ruling that, in effect, states that a private company can be held liable for what business-owners choose to stock, which is essentially what you're saying a suit would boil down to, in this case.

Go read the other thread on the topic. In all cases, pharmacists are termined by employers who choose to oblige their employees to sell certain drugs. There is never reference to a rule that the employers themselves - or independent pharmacies - must sell X, Y, or Z drugs, or attempt to fill X, Y, or Z perscriptions. To sue somebody because they don't live up to that standard? Probably not going to get you very far.

Wrong. You do not need to break a law in order to be potentially liable in civil court. Your ignorance of the law is quite profound and rather breaktaking.

I assume you want your plaintiff to actually standing a chance of winning the case, dumbshit. That usually means the discarding nonsensical suits that won't even get standing.

[Axis Kast]

Oh, and I forgot to mention that all of this is especially true because the suit would essentially entail suing the pharmacist for the couple's own unilateral decision to have sex without proper safeguards.

By the same grounds, I could sue Pathmark for not carrying condomns. Do you think that's going to get me anywhere? Not bloody likely.

[Darth Wong]

Not by law, no. That doesn't mean you can't sue them. What do you not understand about the fact that you don't need a law saying "you have to do this" in order to be potentially liable in civil court?

And I am telling you that a civil court is highly unlikely to make a ruling that, in effect, states that a private company can be held liable for what business-owners choose to stock, which is essentially what you're saying a suit would boil down to, in this case.

Why not?

Go read the other thread on the topic. In all cases, pharmacists are termined by employers who choose to oblige their employees to sell certain drugs. There is never reference to a rule that the employers themselves - or independent pharmacies - must sell X, Y, or Z drugs, or attempt to fill X, Y, or Z perscriptions. To sue somebody because they don't live up to that standard? Probably not going to get you very far.

What you obviously don't understand about liability lawsuits is that the standard of care itself is not written in law; it is determined by the court based on various criteria including consumer expectations and industry norms.

Wrong. You do not need to break a law in order to be potentially liable in civil court. Your ignorance of the law is quite profound and rather breaktaking.

I assume you want your plaintiff to actually standing a chance of winning the case, dumbshit. That usually means the discarding nonsensical suits that won't even get standing.

And you have failed to explain why it would not stand. Instead, you posted an absurdly ignorant claim that you need to actually BREAK THE LAW in order to be sued for something (which is completely false, as easily demonstrated by a cursory examination of successful lawsuits over perfectly legal behaviour), and now, instead of conceding your massively humiliating error, you simply plunge on, simply stating that you think it would fail without even bothering to explain why.

[Axis Kast]

Why not?

Because that would be trampling on private initiative and free association. A court isn’t likely to do that.

What you are saying is that, because you personally believe that pharmacists should avoid allowing religion to motivate what they stock and sell, you think it is credible for people to go to court and force them to that standard.

You then insist that there are somehow credible grounds for such a suit to go through – on the basis of some expectation that a court is going to accept that since one individual “expected” that a store should carry and sell something, it is correct and legal to force them to do so – a decision that would go against the long-standing notion of private enterprise and the Constitutionally-enshrined promise of free association.

People could bring this to court. I just can’t think of a credible one that would honor the argument with a decision in its favor.

I expect my local 7-11 to stock condoms. A court would laugh me out on my ass if I tried to force the 7-11 to do so on the grounds that every store should follow an “industry norm” established not by markets or preferences, but state planning.

In fact, taking this to a subjective level, by advocating it, you’re the one imposing on people here. Part of your argument that gay marriage should be legally protected is that no group should have the right to terminate another’s free association. But by forcing pharmacists to sell certain products, you’re forcing your desires and expectations on them, rather than accepting that some people don’t want to have free association with others, and should, in other iterations of your argument, have that right. It’s a highly contradictory stance on your part that puts you in the company of the very people you claim to hate so strongly.

[Darth Wong]

Why not?

Because that would be trampling on private initiative and free association. A court isn’t likely to do that.

You seriously think that liability lawsuits can be thrown out for "trampling on private initiative and free association"? You actually believe that defense would hold up in court against a charge of negligence? Do you know anything about liability law? I guess not, since you vehemently insisted earlier that you have to break the law in order to get successfully sued.

What you are saying is that, because you personally believe that pharmacists should avoid allowing religion to motivate what they stock and sell, you think it is credible for people to go to court and force them to that standard.

No, I'm saying that consumer expectations and industry standards are used in order to determine a professional's duty of care. It's apparent that reading comprehension is not your specialty, especially since all of the countless lawsuits over perfectly legal behaviour throughout history have somehow escaped your attention.

You then insist that there are somehow credible grounds for such a suit to go through – on the basis of some expectation that a court is going to accept that since one individual “expected” that a store should carry and sell something, it is correct and legal to force them to do so – a decision that would go against the long-standing notion of private enterprise and the Constitutionally-enshrined promise of free association.

Pssst ... news flash. Liability lawsuits are not politics. The rules of politics and the kind of grandstanding that works just fine in politics don't fly worth shit in a courtroom during a liability case. You have obviously not studied even a shred of liability law, and you have made this painfully obvious. Why do you insist on continuing to try and bluff your way through this?

In fact, taking this to a subjective level, by advocating it, you’re the one imposing on people here. Part of your argument that gay marriage should be legally protected is that no group should have the right to terminate another’s free association.

Wrong, dumb-shit. My argument against a ban on gay marriage is that it is a form of sexual discrimination in law, as is all anti-gay legislation.

But by forcing pharmacists to sell certain products, you’re forcing your desires and expectations on them, rather than accepting that some people don’t want to have free association with others, and should, in other iterations of your argument, have that right.

Get used to it, fucktard. When you're a professional, the expectations of others are your concern. Any engineer learns this during his liability law training; it is a pity that you are so incredibly arrogant that without having studied a shred of liability law, you think you can just bluff your way through talk of it by trying to import the kind of language and arguments normally used in political debates.

Let me explain this for you, slowly and carefully so that your infantile brain will absorb it:

Rule #1: The fact that something is legal does not mean it is immune to lawsuits. People get sued for doing perfectly legal things all the time.

Rule #2: The fact that something is Constitutional does not mean it is immune to lawsuits. People get sued for doing things that are within their Constitutional rights all the time.

You obviously think that you can win this argument with the same grandstanding bullshit rhetoric that you would normally use in a debate over some political candidate's party platform. That is not the case, fucktard. In a court of liability law, only one thing matters: liability law. And you obviously don't know jack shit about it.