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

[Patrick Degan]

Why not?

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

Um, ahem:

excerpt:

If the decision to refuse to dispense is made, what legal protection is afforded?

Numerous states have specified that it is the pharmacist's duty to refuse to dispense based on professional judgement. This is supported by the Drug Enforcement Administration rule in the Code of Federal Regulations that states that a pharmacist has violated the law if a prescription is filled that is for a use that is not in the ordinary course of treatment. This does not address the issue of exercising moral or ethical judgement.

The issues of the right to refuse to participate and protection of participants and non-participants in abortion have been discussed and are included in abortion laws enacted in many states. These discussions and laws pertain to surgical abortion, and do not mention pharmacists because pharmacists were not traditionally involved in the surgical abortion issue. With increased prescribing of the morning after pill and more legislation to legalize abortifacients, pharmacists are now involved in the abortion issue. Under the surgical abortion laws, nurses and other support personnel are covered under the blanket of protection afforded physicians who participate and those that refuse to participate. Will pharmacists be included under the same blanket of protection? Those pharmacists that work in clinics and hospitals may, but those that are independent from the clinic or hospital may not.

South Dakota is the only state that has adopted a conscience clause in its pharmacy act. Presumably, only pharmacists in South Dakota who refuse to dispense based on personal beliefs will be protected by law. On the other hand, there are no states that have mandated that a pharmacist must dispense a prescription. Generally, as long as a pharmacist acts in good faith and people who need medications get them, they will not face disciplinary actions. This means that if a pharmacist does not morally agree with the course of treatment, there is a need to refer the patient to another pharmacist. There may be pharmacists that feel that the act of referring makes them a participant in a procedure that they are morally against. It would appear that this is where a patient or employer would have the most leverage legally. Pharmacists have a duty to provide access to drugs to people who need them. If there is a technical problem with a prescription, or if the pharmacist must make a professional judgement to refuse to dispense, it is the expectation that the physician be contacted. The same applies when a pharmacist is faced with making a moral decision. If nothing else, the physician should be contacted; preferably, the pharmacist will refer the patient to another pharmacist.

What are the implications to the patient, the employer, co-workers, the profession of pharmacy, and society?

The patient is entitled to continue the treatment that the physician has initiated.

When a pharmacist takes a job, that employee is obligated to comply with the employer's policies and procedures. It is important that the pharmacist in the job market understand the employer's position on issues that have the potential to conflict with personal values.

When such personal and volatile issues occur without notice in the workplace, people are caught off guard. The tendency is for co-workers to examine the moral beliefs of the pharmacist making the moral decision as well as their own. While this can be enlightening, the time and place is not particularly conducive to open discussion and finding a resolution to the issue.

The effect on the profession could potentially be negative, due to the perception of lack of support by professional organizations. Society has expectations of healthcare workers as professionals, including that there be guidelines by which members of the profession abide.

The codes of ethics for the American Pharmaceutical Association outline the obligations of pharmacists to patients: particularly the obligation to refer a patient to another pharmacist when such conflicts arise. A pharmacist who fails in his obligation could face professional sanction, termination of employment at the discretion of the pharmacy owner, and a civil case might well be made for damages based upon the pharmacist's failure to act in accordance to his professional obligations, thus placing the patient at physical and financial disadvantage for blocking the prescribed course of treatment from a physician. And since the issues involve healthcare decisions made between a physician and a patient, it is not entirely at the pharmacists' own discretion to withhold a prescription on moral grounds alone. Free association and private initiative do not enter into the consideration because this is not a matter of pure commerce and private property. A court would most assuredly hear this case, and so would an ethics board for that matter.

[Darth Fanboy]

Can you sue a department store that won't sell you condoms? Or that doesn't stock them?

And can't you go to a different pharmacy?



This post was paid for by "Petey the Don't Sue People Panda"

[Patrick Degan]

Can you sue a department store that won't sell you condoms? Or that doesn't stock them?

And can't you go to a different pharmacy?

There is a very distinct difference between an over-the-counter product and a doctor's prescription treatment.

[Darth Fanboy]

There is a very distinct difference between an over-the-counter product and a doctor's prescription treatment.

I understand that, but does that change the fact you still make the conscious decision to have sex without the pill resulting in the pregnancy? I think if you can sue a pharmacist for not providing birth control, you can sue a department store for not providing condoms.

"DF you're missing the point, medication as prescribed by a doctor is something you get from a pharmacist. Pharmacists are licensed medical doctors that are bound by oath and law to provide care for their patients, unlike that bitchy store clerk at Wal Mart back when you were 16, which I may add you ended up getting anyway by going to a different cashier."

Oh, ok.

Then that begs the second question, why not go to a different pharmacy for the pills, then go after the one that wouldn't provide them after ensuring your contraception?

[Darth Wong]

There is a very distinct difference between an over-the-counter product and a doctor's prescription treatment.

I understand that, but does that change the fact you still make the conscious decision to have sex without the pill resulting in the pregnancy?

A fact which is completely irrelevant to the question of whether the pharmacist has made an effort to properly fulfill his duty of care. Where the fuck did you learn to read, so that you could studiously ignore the same goddamned point repeated so many times in a row?

I think if you can sue a pharmacist for not providing birth control, you can sue a department store for not providing condoms.

A department store never agreed to a code of conduct which stated explicitly that they would make every effort to provide condoms. Nor is there any societal expectation that all department stores should provide condoms, nor is there an industry norm providing for such. Therefore, your argument is not only wrong, but fucking stupid and ignorant.

Then that begs the second question, why not go to a different pharmacy for the pills, then go after the one that wouldn't provide them after ensuring your contraception?

Plaintiff's "duty to mitigate" can only be used to reduce damages due to sharing of liability. It can't be used to nullify the charge of negligence.

[Darth Fanboy]

A department store never agreed to a code of conduct which stated explicitly that they would make every effort to provide condoms. Nor is there any societal expectation that all department stores should provide condoms, nor is there an industry norm providing for such. Therefore, your argument is not only wrong, but fucking stupid and ignorant.

Degan pointed this out to me, which is why I posted...

"DF you're missing the point, medication as prescribed by a doctor is something you get from a pharmacist. Pharmacists are licensed medical doctors that are bound by oath and law to provide care for their patients...

Plaintiff's "duty to mitigate" can only be used to reduce damages due to sharing of liability. It can't be used to nullify the charge of negligence.

This I did not know, hence why I asked, athank you sir.

[The Kernel]

Mike, do you have any disagreements with the statements I made on the first page? Because I still don't see a good rebuttal to the point of the pill being an elective drug, not a required one.

As an example, assume a plastic surgeon chooses not to perform surgery on a patient and because of this the patient becomes depressed with their physical appearance and goes and kills themself. Does the family of the patient have the right to sue the doctors for not performing the surgery?

It comes down to what the "duty of care" standard you set for pharmacists is, and I don't see how an elective medication (for which there are plenty of over-the-counter alternatives) can be seen as negligence or dereliction of their duties.

[Tsyroc]

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

Nitpick: Pharmacists generally dispense medications and don't prescribe them.

Whether a pharmacist can be sued for malpractice for refusing service will probably depend on the laws of the state they are in and the amount of "harm" that could be proven to have happened because of the actions of the pharmacist.

It's doubtful that failure to dispense birth control pills would fit the bill. Failure to dispense them and not allowing the transfer of the prescription to a pharmacy that would dispense them might be enough.

It's certainly enough to get the attention of most State Pharmacy Boards.

[The Kernel]

The codes of ethics for the American Pharmaceutical Association outline the obligations of pharmacists to patients: particularly the obligation to refer a patient to another pharmacist when such conflicts arise. A pharmacist who fails in his obligation could face professional sanction, termination of employment at the discretion of the pharmacy owner, and a civil case might well be made for damages based upon the pharmacist's failure to act in accordance to his professional obligations, thus placing the patient at physical and financial disadvantage for blocking the prescribed course of treatment from a physician. And since the issues involve healthcare decisions made between a physician and a patient, it is not entirely at the pharmacists' own discretion to withhold a prescription on moral grounds alone. Free association and private initiative do not enter into the consideration because this is not a matter of pure commerce and private property. A court would most assuredly hear this case, and so would an ethics board for that matter.

The problem here is, the statement doesn't make the distinction between elective medications and necessary ones. It is quite a different thing to refuse dispensing of antibiotics then it is to refuse to dispense birth control, especially if there is a good over-the-counter substitute.

Also, I might add that violation of the stated policies of the APA does not necessarily equal negligence as it is not up to the license granter to define what legal professional responsibilities are, that is a matter for the courts.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, do you have any disagreements with the statements I made on the first page? Because I still don't see a good rebuttal to the point of the pill being an elective drug, not a required one.

It's been provided, you just didn't notice it. The elective nature of the drug is irrelevant to the question of whether the pharmacist has properly discharged his duty. It's nothing more than a red herring, just like the "she can keep her legs closed" and "she can drive to the next town" arguments. At best they might indicate that liability is shared; there is no way that they would refute the charge that the pharmacist failed to discharge his duty and was therefore negligent.

As an example, assume a plastic surgeon chooses not to perform surgery on a patient and because of this the patient becomes depressed with their physical appearance and goes and kills themself. Does the family of the patient have the right to sue the doctors for not performing the surgery?

The surgeon has no duty to perform plastic surgery on anyone who wants it. Nobody expects this, it is not the industry norm, and there is no code of ethics requiring it (in fact, the Hippocratic oath may often lead them to deny surgery). To call this a false analogy would be something of an understatement: "stupid irrelevant bullshit" is more accurate.

It comes down to what the "duty of care" standard you set for pharmacists is, and I don't see how an elective medication (for which there are plenty of over-the-counter alternatives) can be seen as negligence or dereliction of their duties.

What part of "their job is to fulfill physicians' prescriptions, not dictate lifestyle choices to the consumer" do you not understand?

[Darth Wong]

The problem here is, the statement doesn't make the distinction between elective medications and necessary ones.

That is a problem for YOUR argument, not mine. If the doctor prescribed it, then the pharmacist is supposed to dispense it.

[Tsyroc]

Mike, do you have any disagreements with the statements I made on the first page? Because I still don't see a good rebuttal to the point of the pill being an elective drug, not a required one.

It depends on what Mike means in his opening post. If he's referring to the original thread the woman was getting what was essentially an overstrength birth control pill to make sure she didn't get pregnant after sex had already happened. This is pretty common in cases of rape and sexual assault and could be considered a required medication at least by the people who need it.

Morally I would as least say that the pharmacist should be required to leave the choice of whether to risk pregnancy up to the woman with the prescription. As it is she's going to be getting pretty ill for a few days from taking the pills and she's going to have to deal with the emotional side as well.

As to whether the regular birth control pill is a required medication. There have been some insurance companies who didn't think so. They'd cover viagra but not birth control because viagra was considered a "quality of life" medication while the pill was a choice.

[The Kernel]

It's been provided, you just didn't notice it. The elective nature of the drug is irrelevant to the question of whether the pharmacist has properly discharged his duty. It's nothing more than a red herring, just like the "she can keep her legs closed" and "she can drive to the next town" arguments. At best they might indicate that liability is shared; there is no way that they would refute the charge that the pharmacist failed to discharge his duty and was therefore negligent.

Even if we grant that the APA says it is the responsibility of the pharmacist to dispense medication or refer to another pharmacist who will, is this going to matter from a legal perspective? I'm not aware of any case law that says the license giver dictates what is considered negligence in the workplace (excluding common sense). I fully agree that they should loose their license by all rights for this, but I don't see the tie between this and legal negligence which would lead to damages being paid.

And in any case, from the research I've done, child support would seem to be an impossibility for a person who is not the childs biological parent. If they satisfied the criteria above, they might be able to sue for damages, but I can't find a single precedent to sue for full blown child support.

The surgeon has no duty to perform plastic surgery on anyone who wants it. Nobody expects this, it is not the industry norm, and there is no code of ethics requiring it (in fact, the Hippocratic oath may often lead them to deny surgery). To call this a false analogy would be something of an understatement: "stupid irrelevant bullshit" is more accurate.

This is true, conceeded.

What part of "their job is to fulfill physicians' prescriptions, not dictate lifestyle choices to the consumer" do you not understand?

Their job being to fill perscriptions does not equal civil liability, unless you have some case law or other form of precedence that says otherwise. You are seeking to levy very specific damages in your argument and unless there is some sort of precedence for this that I am unaware of, how are you so sure that this will lead to any sort of civil liability?

[The Kernel]

The problem here is, the statement doesn't make the distinction between elective medications and necessary ones.

That is a problem for YOUR argument, not mine. If the doctor prescribed it, then the pharmacist is supposed to dispense it.

How does a violation of his license automatically lead to civil damages, especially when there isn't a clear path between A (refusing to dispense the drugs), B (patient having sex) and C (getting pregnant), especially since the courts can take into account the easy accessibility of other forms of contraception. The APA ethics committe might say he's negligent, but why would a civil court judge agree to the argument considering that condoms are readily availible just about anywhere without a perscription? The pharmacist doesn't sell the only form of contraception and a civil court is not going to simply take the APA's word for what constitutes negligence.

[Elfdart]

Couldn't a pharmacy also be sued for fraud and false advertising? They all say "prescriptions filled" or something similar, but they refuse to dispense medicine that they actually have on the premises?

Actually, Kast's position might be legally correct if the fundies get their law passed here in Texas (which sounds similar to the Georgia bill) allowing pharmacies and employees to refuse to sell certain drugs and disallowing lawsuits against them.

Maybe Kast isn't full of shit, but prescient...

[Obloquium]

AFAIK there's been no test of whether a pharmacist has an obligation to fill prescriptions for contraception, and the case law I've reviewed (Collins v. American Drug Stores, links valid prescription to need. The ethical issue appears to track closely to the legal one. So I can't say whether or not contraception would automatically be lumped in with the general notion of a pharmacist's duty of care in common law. On the other hand, a pharmacist can clearly eliminate his liability by properly notifying patients of and referring them to alternative providers. He can also operate in a state where his right to refuse is statutory (Alabama, for example).

[Axis Kast]

On the other hand, there are no states that have mandated that a pharmacist must dispense a prescription.

Hey, fucktard, here’s the essential part of that quotation of yours you somehow managed to overlook. Too bad I can read.

It would appear that this is where a patient or employer would have the most leverage legally. Pharmacists have a duty to provide access to drugs to people who need them. If there is a technical problem with a prescription, or if the pharmacist must make a professional judgement to refuse to dispense, it is the expectation that the physician be contacted. The same applies when a pharmacist is faced with making a moral decision. If nothing else, the physician should be contacted; preferably, the pharmacist will refer the patient to another pharmacist.

The APA is an organization of voluntary members that can eject individuals on the basis of its own statutes and hence penalize their sales (presumably by disallowing them to claim association with a nationally-recognized group), but does not definitively set professional standards in any truly legal sense of the term.

When a pharmacist takes a job, that employee is obligated to comply with the employer's policies and procedures.

This is entirely dependent on the supposition that the pharmacist is not self-employed, and that an employee is therefore breaking the obligations of his contract, which is an entirely separate matter.

No court cases were found that ruled for or against a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense based on personal beliefs.

There’s another little gem from the same source you cited, Deegan. Oops. Concession accepted, dickwad.

[Darth Wong]

Their job being to fill perscriptions does not equal civil liability, unless you have some case law or other form of precedence that says otherwise.

You need me to look up a specific precedent for the nigh-universal precedent that failures to meet consumer expectations, industry norms, and association ethics codes can be used in a liability lawsuit? You're serious? How about every product liability lawsuit in history? How do you think a judge is supposed to determine how much he can reasonably ask of a product manufacturer? Do you think there's some universal golden standard? No, it's always done based on consumer expectations, industry norms, and if applicable, breaches of ethics codes. Since you have all three in this case against you, I see no reason for your casual dismissal of the potential for liability.

Look at every single product warning-label lawsuit! You've heard of those, right? Or do you need me to provide you with a direct cite or you will simply pretend that no such lawsuit has ever existed? This smacks of a shamelsss delay tactic to me.

[Darth Wong]

The APA is an organization of voluntary members that can eject individuals on the basis of its own statutes and hence penalize their sales (presumably by disallowing them to claim association with a nationally-recognized group), but does not definitively set professional standards in any truly legal sense of the term.

Obviously, you are not a member of any professional associations, otherwise you would know that this is generally how professional associations conduct themselves.

[Patrick Degan]

Hey, fucktard, here’s the essential part of that quotation of yours you somehow managed to overlook. Too bad I can read.

Reading a thing, and understanding it are two different things entirely, moron. We've discussed this problem of yours previously.

It would appear that this is where a patient or employer would have the most leverage legally. Pharmacists have a duty to provide access to drugs to people who need them. If there is a technical problem with a prescription, or if the pharmacist must make a professional judgement to refuse to dispense, it is the expectation that the physician be contacted. The same applies when a pharmacist is faced with making a moral decision. If nothing else, the physician should be contacted; preferably, the pharmacist will refer the patient to another pharmacist.

The APA is an organization of voluntary members that can eject individuals on the basis of its own statutes and hence penalize their sales (presumably by disallowing them to claim association with a nationally-recognized group), but does not definitively set professional standards in any truly legal sense of the term.

You truly are an imbecile, aren't you? The very reason "professional standards" exist in the first place is to avoid conduct which can lead to lawsuits and loss of business. And you continue to blunder on with your attempt to cast the issue in terms of criminal law and not civil torts. This is where we keep running into your very evident reading-comprehension problem which we identified several threads back.

When a pharmacist takes a job, that employee is obligated to comply with the employer's policies and procedures.

This is entirely dependent on the supposition that the pharmacist is not self-employed, and that an employee is therefore breaking the obligations of his contract, which is an entirely separate matter.

Which has nothing to do with the issue before the bar and is therefore a Red Herring on your part. And even self-employed pharmacists owning their own shop could have complaints filed against them before a state review board by the patient in question and her doctor.

No court cases were found that ruled for or against a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense based on personal beliefs.

There’s another little gem from the same source you cited, Deegan. Oops. Concession accepted, dickwad.

Only in your warped little mind, perhaps. "For or against" means that there is no precedent one way or the other, therefore no legal bar to a case being heard before the courts should one come forward. Y'see, Axi, that's what "reading-comprehension" actually means. So take your "concession accepted" statement and cram it up your ass.

[The Kernel]

Their job being to fill perscriptions does not equal civil liability, unless you have some case law or other form of precedence that says otherwise.

You need me to look up a specific precedent for the nigh-universal precedent that failures to meet consumer expectations, industry norms, and association ethics codes can be used in a liability lawsuit? You're serious? How about every product liability lawsuit in history? How do you think a judge is supposed to determine how much he can reasonably ask of a product manufacturer? Do you think there's some universal golden standard? No, it's always done based on consumer expectations, industry norms, and if applicable, breaches of ethics codes. Since you have all three in this case against you, I see no reason for your casual dismissal of the potential for liability.

Ahh, but you are not arguing for suing the pharmacist over a breach of the ethics code (which is possible, and I agee with you on), you are trying to argue that the pregnancy is the fault of the pharmacist for not providing birth control.

While you would have a case if the pharmacist refused to dispense critical medication to a someone with a potentially fatal disease, this is a completely different matter. First, the pharmacist had nothing to do with the OPTIONAL B phase here (having sex) which was the direct cause of the pregnancy. Second, the pharmacist is not the sole provider of contraceptives in any given place, that same pharmacy will no doubt sell condoms (In the US usually a pharmacist and the store he is working in are seperate entities) or if not there, any number of gas stations of supermarkets. You would have to show that the pharmacist denied her something she would be unable to reasonably get elsewhere for a court to even CONSIDER this idea, and you can't do that.

Look at every single product warning-label lawsuit! You've heard of those, right? Or do you need me to provide you with a direct cite or you will simply pretend that no such lawsuit has ever existed? This smacks of a shamelsss delay tactic to me.

Product warning labels have nothing to do with this, they result because of direct harm caused by the product. If you want to make this work, show some legal precedence for a person denying product/services to someone which can reasonably be attained elsewhere being responsible for the consequences of an independent action.

[Darth Wong]

Ahh, but you are not arguing for suing the pharmacist over a breach of the ethics code (which is possible, and I agee with you on), you are trying to argue that the pregnancy is the fault of the pharmacist for not providing birth control.

No, I'm arguing that the pharmacist failed to fulfill his duty of care, hence he was negligent. This negligence was a contributing factor to the pregnancy, hence he is liable. He doesn't have to be 100% liable, but he would be liable nonetheless.

While you would have a case if the pharmacist refused to dispense critical medication to a someone with a potentially fatal disease, this is a completely different matter. First, the pharmacist had nothing to do with the OPTIONAL B phase here (having sex) which was the direct cause of the pregnancy. Second, the pharmacist is not the sole provider of contraceptives in any given place, that same pharmacy will no doubt sell condoms (In the US usually a pharmacist and the store he is working in are seperate entities) or if not there, any number of gas stations of supermarkets. You would have to show that the pharmacist denied her something she would be unable to reasonably get elsewhere for a court to even CONSIDER this idea, and you can't do that.

For the umpteenth time, your objections do not nullify the negligence charge. At best, they would only be arguments for shared liability, which I never denied. I never said the liability should go 100% to the pharmacist.

Look at every single product warning-label lawsuit! You've heard of those, right? Or do you need me to provide you with a direct cite or you will simply pretend that no such lawsuit has ever existed? This smacks of a shamelsss delay tactic to me.

Product warning labels have nothing to do with this, they result because of direct harm caused by the product.

Actually, they usually result from direct harm caused by a combination of the product and idiotic behaviour on the part of the user, which is why they ARE relevant.

If you want to make this work, show some legal precedence for a person denying product/services to someone which can reasonably be attained elsewhere being responsible for the consequences of an independent action.

Why is that necessary in order to show negligence? Why are you so resistant to admitting that negligence has something to do with negligence cases?

[The Kernel]

No, I'm arguing that the pharmacist failed to fulfill his duty of care, hence he was negligent. This negligence was a contributing factor to the pregnancy, hence he is liable. He doesn't have to be 100% liable, but he would be liable nonetheless.

Contributiing factor to the pregnancy? He had nothing to do with the direct cause of the pregnancy!

Also let's look at the common sense factor here. No person is realistically going to be unable to procure contraceptives. Sure, the person might not be able to get to another pharmacist but they can get condoms at any corner store! You dismiss this by calling it shared liability whereas I doubt that a court would see an indirect action not caused by the person being sued that could EASILY have been avoided by the plantiff is going to be the fault of the pharmacist.

For the umpteenth time, your objections do not nullify the negligence charge. At best, they would only be arguments for shared liability, which I never denied. I never said the liability should go 100% to the pharmacist.

I take it you are not arguing for child support anymore but damages? I told you before, I have nothing against a suit of the pharmacist for refusal to sell the pill. That is considered negligence by the APA as you and Degan showed, thus it is open for a lawsuit directly for that action.

However, to take it from there and try to tie it to an action by the person they refused to serve with a third party, you are stretching this pretty thin. Equating it

Actually, they usually result from direct harm caused by a combination of the product and idiotic behaviour on the part of the user, which is why they ARE relevant.

Not really because product liability has shared liability and a chain of responsibility because they are a very specific area of law that is required to have such shared liability. You can't equate that (which was desigend to deal with manufactures, supplier, retailer) into a chain that involves, pharmacist, mother, horny teen.

Why is that necessary in order to show negligence? Why are you so resistant to admitting that negligence has something to do with negligence cases?

Because even if he was negligent, that has nothing to do with parental responsibility, nor should any damages be incurred for the resulting pregnancy for which he was not responsible and that despite APA guidlines, it is the responsiblility of the woman to practice safe sex, not the pharmacist.

[Darth Wong]

No, I'm arguing that the pharmacist failed to fulfill his duty of care, hence he was negligent. This negligence was a contributing factor to the pregnancy, hence he is liable. He doesn't have to be 100% liable, but he would be liable nonetheless.

Contributiing factor to the pregnancy? He had nothing to do with the direct cause of the pregnancy!

So? A company which manufactures lawnmowers and forgets to warn you not to stick your hand into the chute did not directly cause your injury either, yet they are still liable. It is clear that you simply don't understand how liability works, since you are still operating off a simplistic "who bears primary blame" mentality.

Also let's look at the common sense factor here. No person is realistically going to be unable to procure contraceptives. Sure, the person might not be able to get to another pharmacist but they can get condoms at any corner store! You dismiss this by calling it shared liability whereas I doubt that a court would see an indirect action not caused by the person being sued that could EASILY have been avoided by the plantiff is going to be the fault of the pharmacist.

So? No person is realistically going to be unable to turn off a lawnmower before sticking his hand in the chute either. The law can and does make people liable for inaction to prevent other peoples' problems, as offensive as this may be to you on a touchy-feely emotional level.

I take it you are not arguing for child support anymore but damages?

Liability damages which would serve the purpose of child sypport.

I told you before, I have nothing against a suit of the pharmacist for refusal to sell the pill. That is considered negligence by the APA as you and Degan showed, thus it is open for a lawsuit directly for that action.

If it is negligence, then they are liable for anything which can be argued to have been caused by that negligence. If the couple tried to use rhythm method and failed (not an uncommon occurrence), they could argue that had the pharmacist not been negligent, they would not have these extra expenses.

Not really because product liability has shared liability and a chain of responsibility because they are a very specific area of law that is required to have such shared liability. You can't equate that (which was desigend to deal with manufactures, supplier, retailer) into a chain that involves, pharmacist, mother, horny teen.

Do you understand WHY product warning label liability has this chain of responsibility? It's because the government can and does hold you liable for inaction which can be argued to be a contributing factor in a problem. It doesn't have to be the direct cause; it only has to fail to prevent. I say again: you need to study more of the history of liability law, because you don't seem to understand how this works.

Because even if he was negligent, that has nothing to do with parental responsibility, nor should any damages be incurred for the resulting pregnancy for which he was not responsible and that despite APA guidlines, it is the responsiblility of the woman to practice safe sex, not the pharmacist.

See above. If you don't know jack shit about liability law, don't go making up your own rules and then using them as premises in an argument.

[Elfdart]

What about doctors and hospitals who refuse to perform abortions? Could they be sued for not providing services? Or would they get off the hook with the "Go somewhere else!" defense?