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

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-02-06 01:27pm

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?

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2005-02-06 01:33pm

I don't think so.
You are not forced to have sex if you can't find any pills.
You could sue him if he sold fake pills.
And ideally you should be able to call the police and to force him to sell what he has to sell, but I don't know if it is possible everywhere.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-02-06 01:34pm

You SHOULD be able to, but a judge would probably rule that you could have had a legal abortion, or used a coat hanger.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-02-06 01:47pm

If it was the only pharmacist in town, couldn't you sue simply if he refused?

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-02-06 01:48pm

Just like how we are forced to have certain channels in cable television, the reply will be "you don't like it go someplace else" (in the case of television it is get satellite, in the case of birth control it is go to another drugstore), and probably Judge will say there are plenty of other places to buy birth control pills.

Brian

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-02-06 01:52pm

If he's the owner, why would he bother even stocking it in the first place? In which case, you'd be shit out of luck and have to find a different pharmacy anyway. I doubt there's a law saying pharmacies must stock certain drugs.

If it's an employee with an agenda, why not take it up with the owner? I imagine he wouldn't be happy that his employees were costing him potential sales.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2005-02-06 02:06pm

it has been done before. In Seattle IIRC

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2005-02-06 02:07pm

I don't think so. As far as I'm aware, most retailers have the right to refuse a sale (for example if I believe someone is buying alcohol for underage drinkers I can refuse to sell them, even if I have no proof). I don't imagine its any different for medical products unless you have a prescription

In such a case though I can't see why it wouldn't be sold. If a pharmacist stocks it, then they likely don't have any issues with it. If an employee refuses, then I still don't think you have any legal grounds, but you could take it up with the manager.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2005-02-06 02:07pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:it has been done before. In Seattle IIRC

gah! Disregard that. my reading comprehension sucks today.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2005-02-06 02:12pm

The law that's being passed in Georgia right now would say that pharmacists can legally refuse to give birth control pills on "moral" grounds or somesuch shit. So once it's passed, not here. *dueling banjos*

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-02-06 02:37pm

You people are confusing the issue. It doesn't matter whether it's legal for the pharmacist to refuse service. It only matters whether the pharmacist has neglected his duty of care, and whether this breach of care on his part has led to damages.

The counter-argument is that you are not forced to have sex, which is a stupid counter-argument since you are not forced to drink either, yet someone who continues to ply an obviously drunken person with alcohol can and has been held liable for his actions afterwards. The analogy to "changing the channel" is completely false, since one cannot simply click a button to get the prescription filled by another pharmacy. At the very least, one must travel, and what happens if you live in a small podunk town with only one pharmacy? You have to drive? What if you don't have a car?

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.

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2005-02-06 02:39pm

Darth Wong wrote: The counter-argument is that you are not forced to have sex, which is a stupid counter-argument since you are not forced to drink either, yet someone who continues to ply an obviously drunken person with alcohol can and has been held liable for his actions afterwards.

True, if you sue for neclecting his duty of care, but non if you sue for child-support.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-02-06 02:40pm

Melchior wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: The counter-argument is that you are not forced to have sex, which is a stupid counter-argument since you are not forced to drink either, yet someone who continues to ply an obviously drunken person with alcohol can and has been held liable for his actions afterwards.
True, if you sue for neclecting his duty of care, but non if you sue for child-support.

Don't be stupid. What do you think you would logically ask for in damages if you successfully sue him for neglecting his duty of care?

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-02-06 02:43pm

Darth Wong wrote:You people are confusing the issue. It doesn't matter whether it's legal for the pharmacist to refuse service. It only matters whether the pharmacist has neglected his duty of care, and whether this breach of care on his part has led to damages.

What kind of liability does a pharmacist have to a person other than making sure that drugs are dispensed properly? And, if there is a law that allows a pharmicist to not dispense the drug, well then you have a conundrum.

The counter-argument is that you are not forced to have sex, which is a stupid counter-argument since you are not forced to drink either, yet someone who continues to ply an obviously drunken person with alcohol can and has been held liable for his actions afterwards. The analogy to "changing the channel" is completely false, since one cannot simply click a button to get the prescription filled by another pharmacy. At the very least, one must travel, and what happens if you live in a small podunk town with only one pharmacy? You have to drive? What if you don't have a car?

You can't just click a button to change to satellite either. What if you don't have a car to buy a satellite dish, what if satellite is more expensive, the same arguments can be made. The argument is not about changing the channel, the argument is based on the required "Canadian content" on cable television, and some people think you should be able to choose what channels you want a la satellite. Fine, its a matter of degree then -- if the person can prove that he could not reasonably find another birth control pill anywhere else, then I see a point, if not I don't see any.

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.

Yes but what happens if there's a law that allows a pharmicist not to dispense the drug. Conundrum. Is liability law supposed to supercede whatever law allows pharmacists to object on moral grounds? Obviously a pharmacist wouldn't object in juristictions where there was no law (or he'd get fired).

Brian

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2005-02-06 02:44pm

What about the morning after pill? Some of those who require it, did not have a choice in the activity.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-02-06 02:45pm

Brian: if you don't know shit about liability law, then don't pretend you do, moron. You completely ignored the entire point of my post by insisting that if you are legally permitted to do something, then it cannot possibly be a breach of your duty of care, which is completely false. Why the fuck do you think liability lawsuits exist in the first place, you idiot? If it was criminal, do you think you would need to pay a lawyer to sue the guy yourself?

brianeyci · Post by **brianeyci** » 2005-02-06 02:55pm

Darth Wong wrote:Brian: if you don't know shit about liability law, then don't pretend you do, moron. You completely ignored the entire point of my post by insisting that if you are legally permitted to do something, then it cannot possibly be a breach of your duty of care, which is completely false.

No, I said it was a conundrum. I'm guessing this is the conundrum you have too.

Why the fuck do you think liability lawsuits exist in the first place, you idiot? If it was criminal, do you think you would need to pay a lawyer to sue the guy yourself?

I never said it was criminal, nor that I knew anything about liability law. In fact, what I said was phrased in the form of a question rather than a statement.

Brian

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-02-06 03:08pm

Well, Mike, is there any precedent that you can think of? Any examples of a seller of some product refusing to sell said product to a person who for whatever reason, needs it, and later being held liable for the consequences of whatever occurs as a result of that person not being able to get ahold of that product? I can think of a few examples of a party being held to be negligent for selling a product, but not for refusing to sell it.

Let me see if this analogy works; if a health insurance provider refuses to pay for medically necessary operation for a policyholder, can it be considered to be in breach of its duty of care? Obviously they can be sued for breach of contract if they are in fact refusing to pay for an operation that is indeed covered by the policyholder's policy, but if it isn't an operation covered by the policy, it seems to me that the policyholder would be unable to hold the insurance company liable for any damages resulting from his being able to get the operation he needed. Like the pharmacist, the insurance company can't be held liable for whatever results from its refusal to do something that isn't within its duty of care to do.

So, my guess is that with the current legal environment in the country, the pregnant woman wouldn't have a case against the pharmacist. However, it would mean very radical changes in liability law if the pharmacist were found to be negligent and in breach of his duty of care in a civil court.

Melchior · Post by **Melchior** » 2005-02-06 03:11pm

Darth Wong wrote: Don't be stupid. What do you think you would logically ask for in damages if you successfully sue him for neglecting his duty of care?

A bigger, one-time compensation?
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems more logical: he has to pay you back of his wrongdoing, which was he not selling you the pill, not the birth of your children.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-02-06 03:25pm

Melchior wrote: A bigger, one-time compensation?
Maybe I am wrong, but it seems more logical: he has to pay you back of his wrongdoing, which was he not selling you the pill, not the birth of your children.

Cause and effect?

Remember that although not the primary cause, the pharmacists actions will be a contributory cause in your newfound possession of a family.

If you lives somewhere that allowed abortions, and had one, you might only claim the associated and likely much higher costs.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2005-02-06 04:27pm

You people are confusing the issue. It doesn't matter whether it's legal for the pharmacist to refuse service. It only matters whether the pharmacist has neglected his duty of care, and whether this breach of care on his part has led to damages.

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

The counter-argument is that you are not forced to have sex, which is a stupid counter-argument since you are not forced to drink either, yet someone who continues to ply an obviously drunken person with alcohol can and has been held liable for his actions afterwards.

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.

The analogy to "changing the channel" is completely false, since one cannot simply click a button to get the prescription filled by another pharmacy. At the very least, one must travel, and what happens if you live in a small podunk town with only one pharmacy? You have to drive? What if you don't have a car?

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

Hell, it's even entering a grey area to say that it's easy to sue them for refusing service to specific individuals. After all, it's a private concern. You might be able to get them on discrimination, and you might not.

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.

What if a pharmacist is unable to fill an order because he cannot obtain the desired drugs?

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

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-02-06 05:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:You people are confusing the issue. It doesn't matter whether it's legal for the pharmacist to refuse service. It only matters whether the pharmacist has neglected his duty of care, and whether this breach of care on his part has led to damages.

I think for this to work you have to define what the duty of care of a pharamacist is before this argument can work. I've seen no presedence that a pharamacist should be held liable for not dispensing an elective medication, just as doctors are not held liable for refusing to perform elective surgery.

Also I might add, there is no precedence that I am aware of for anyone but the biological parents to pay child support in the US. You might be able to sue for damages, but child support itself is a totally different issue.

The counter-argument is that you are not forced to have sex, which is a stupid counter-argument since you are not forced to drink either, yet someone who continues to ply an obviously drunken person with alcohol can and has been held liable for his actions afterwards. The analogy to "changing the channel" is completely false, since one cannot simply click a button to get the prescription filled by another pharmacy. At the very least, one must travel, and what happens if you live in a small podunk town with only one pharmacy? You have to drive? What if you don't have a car?

There are other forms of contraception besides the pill.

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.

Establish a duty of care standard for the pharmacist then, and show some case law to support this assertion that they have a "duty of care" standard for elective medication. I don't see one since doctors have a lower established standard for duty of care then you prescribe to pharmacists.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2005-02-06 05:38pm

frigidmagi wrote:What about the morning after pill? Some of those who require it, did not have a choice in the activity.

From what I've seen of the people that object to such devices as "immoral" would simply prefer the person to carry the baby to term, regardless of whether the woman was raped.

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2005-02-06 05:47pm

There may be some wriggle room for the pharmacist on the grounds that, because no transaction took place, the mother-to-be was not, in law, a client of the pharmacist, and therefore the pharmacist owes no duty of care. This would depend on the scope of liability laws (which I don't have to hand); does an organisation owe a duty-of-care to all the world in general, or only to those that it has a business relationship with?

A stronger case might be made regarding acts of commission versus omission, and whether or not a failure to supply is a direct, contributory factor to the ensuing pregnancy. An argument could perhaps be made that the failure to supply is directly contributory only to the woman being in a fertile state, and that the extent of the pharmacists liability ends there.

By analogy - a motor factor could refuse to sell me brake pads for my car. Would he then be liable for damages caused if I chose to knowingly drive the car in a brakeless state?

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2005-02-06 05:55pm

From what I've seen of the people that object to such devices as "immoral" would simply prefer the person to carry the baby to term, regardless of whether the woman was raped.

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.