I agree that on the surface, yes, those statements appear to be of the same vein. But the difference between them is that a job is chosen, whereas sex is an innate instinct that none of us (well, most of us) do not escape. Sex is a part of life, like crossing the street, which is what I was trying to convey. It cannot simply be pushed aside. Severe psychological problems can arise when something like sex is suppressed.

However, when you choose your profession, you should probably consider whether your religion (or anything else) will allow you to adequately do your job. Sure, I'd love to be an actor, but I suck at acting. Do I still get to make movies just 'cus I want to? No. It is not a worker's "right" to continue in their profession when they cannot adequately do their job. Unions protect workers that work hard and are good at what they do. If a company fires a worker because they do sub-par work, that is not something a Union would try to overturn.

1) It's okay to say "religion gets in the way of your job, get another job"
2) It's blasphemy to then say "if you don't want kids, don't have sex"

They both follow the same logical vein.

I'm still amazed that there are so few on what is a consistently liberal blog that do not support worker rights.

Oh..and in relation to perceived intraweb comment credibility, i'll somewhat quote what i heard on the boob-tube the other night. "where did i put that rats ass that i could give".

Why don't you contribute to the discussion instead of arguing insignificant points in an attempt to win some credibility back, because it's not working.

Clearly, these are person-by-person situations, if the pharmacist has certain beliefs. Anyway, Walgreens shouldn't get the bad press on this, but only the Oxford, MS branch.

I'll let you think on that a while.

I bet you also think you made a clever reply to begin with.

Good for you...whoops...your starting to drool.

If an ultra-vegan PETA protester chooses to work at mcdonalds, they have every right not to serve meat. Mcdonalds also has a right to not hire the person, or fire the person if they cannot do their job.

What's hard to understand about this?

There is, however, no law or store policy that says a vegan can refuse to serve meat at McDonald's. It's a double standard, which was jurijuri's point.

In this specific case, the pharmacist did not HAVE to perform their duties...but they also do not get to expect to have that job for long if they exercise that right. I agree with those saying that the pharmacist shouldn't have accepted a job that might have conflicts with their personal beliefs, but to say that the pharmacist HAD TO provide Plan B is false. Perhaps Walgreens HAS TO provide it upon request, but the pharmacist doesn't. As a representative of Walgreens, it is in the pharmacist's best interest to follow company policy, but, yes again, nothing is in place to force them to comply with company policy other than fear of termination.

All of the people that work at this pharmacy have the patients' best interests in mind. Sometimes we see some crazy stuff back there, so believe me selling plan B is NOT a big deal.

My sister is a pharmacist for CVS and the threat of lawsuit is something she has to be paranoid about, constantly. The driver's license act? It's a means of identification, usually taken after a customer has been "difficult" or raised "suspicious behavior" that would indicate they may possibly be ready to abuse a drug (or in this case) pass it on to a minor. When your gf refused the proof of insurance, that may have raised some "where is this pill actually going to go?" questions.

Yeah, and Mississippi is not a backwards place. Get over that argument, move on.

I understand you may have felt like it was "None of their damn business!" and that maybe it was some kind of puritanical throw back, but it seems more like a pharmacists worried about controlling inventory. Don't pitch a fit in front of the pharmacist next time, and maybe you won't get flagged. Plan B has side-effects and some pretty gnarly interactions.

So, do you think an ultra-vegan PETA protestor should be allowed to work at McDonalds while refusing to serve meat?

It's ludicrous to tell someone...religion gets in the way of your job..find another. In fact..that is whats wrong with our culture as it is. Don't like your wife..get a new one. Didn't know that sex leads to pregnancy..kill the child. Didn't like "x" well, go get "y" to satisfy that empty space you are trying to fill.

All this is moot however because as I've said..i don't care if they sell it or not. I wouldn't hesitate to fill the prescription my self. I do however take issue with how many folks here seem to think that an employee doesn't have rights within the scope of their job.

There is a difference in being a pharmacist and a train conductor. You realize that of course, but apparently you like to think apples are oranges. Go you.

How does someone "have" to go through a pregnancy? Did they not know that sex can and often does lead to pregnancy? I would have thought that to be common sense...guess i was wrong.

A choice is a choice but whether it's based on morals or ethics is a different question as they are two different things. Denying someone a prescription because it's going to mess them up is different from denying someone a prescription because you FEEL it will mess them up. Denying someone a prescription based on an actual negative reaction that will statistically occur (5% chance of death or similar) is just not the same as "my beliefs won't allow me to give you something because they will make me feel bad or guilty about my actions because I'll be breaking a personal moral code".

According to comments left on the Feministing website, Walgreens Corporate contacted some of those Feministing readers who had taken the time to call Walgreens Corporate to complain. Walgreens said they investigated the allegations made on the Consumerist website and found they were unsubstantiated.

I hope that Consumerist will pursue this further with "Michael", the person who originally posted this complaint.

A worker

I absolutely agree with him too. I feel that if a job conflicts with your moral or religious beliefs to the degree that it would affect your willingness to do it, then you probably shouldn’t take it. You have the right to take it for sure, and I don’t think anyone suggested otherwise, but I personally feel that if you do so in spite of being aware of the potential for moral conflicts to arise, then you ought to be able to do that job without imposing your world-view on other people. If you can’t keep from doing that, then you might want to reconsider your field of employment. In other words, if religion gets in the way of doing your job, you should probably find another one. Job that is. Not religion.

Of course if you don’t have a choice, then that’s another matter entirely. However, I’d like to think that people in that situation ought to be able to tolerate a little more in the absence of alternatives. After all, what’s more important during an economic downturn? Is it keeping your family fed, or forcing your self-righteous morality on people over whom you have no actual authority, and doing so at the risk of the only job opportunity likely to be available to you for some time? Right, I’d go with the option that allows me to keep food on the table too.

So yeah, doesn’t sound like such an actionable post after all, eh? That’s because it’s not. Really and truly. ;)

Probably because it's a 'big' city full of transplants, I've never met the southern stereotypes I was warned about before moving down here. I've actually met a lot of southern hospitality. Also, please keep in mind that problems with buying alcohol are from old Blue Laws...which extend up the entire East Coast (NY, CT, etc). When I lived in Chicago I would stock up on Sundays at the nearest grocery store...now you can't buy on Sunday and the grocery stores aren't allowed more than wine and beer. But I can buy as many guns as I want.

I've never heard of anyone blinking an eye for things like Plan B or Sudafed. The last time I bought me some Sudie I was giddy with anticipation at my Most Favorite Cold Remedy, and the clerk couldn't care less. Haven't needed Plan B (fingers crossed I won't need it!), but reading this crap about idiot pharmacists makes me want to go out and buy some just to gauge the reaction.

So yes getting upset when a tech asks about insurance info on a med that may be covered is getting pissy.

Basically, it costs more for me to live in the Greater New Orleans area than it does to live in other cities I've looked at. I lived in Chicago for about a year after Katrina. I paid less in rent for a nicer place and paid roughly the same for bills (and food). Rent here is beyond insane, and housing prices if you're buying are still overpriced since too many people decided they would make tons of money flipping houses. In terms of, say, a weekly grocery bill, the South is dirt cheap compared to other places I've been to. Problem is when I'm paying way too much for shelter that I actually pay more than I would in a major city. Obviously the rent issues don't apply to Northern LA as much, but pretty much anything along the I-10 corridor is at the point where rent is disproportionally high compared to what you can earn.

Louisiana historically has higher insurance rates than other places. Most recent numbers I could find (via google) have the most expensive auto insurance rates as: DC (sometimes not counted), NJ, NY, MA, LA, FL. In terms of homeowners, LA is like 2 (and they don't pay out when it finally does happen) and MS is like 4.

I'm looking at it in terms of "where would I like to settle down" before I get strapped with a career and/or kids. This entire region isn't exactly a place I'd like to raise a family mainly because of safety (mostly NO area here), educational opportunities (almost universally bad), and job market for my skill set (not really existent/not enough pay). Not to mention the state has absolutely no longterm plan, and they simply can't lure in big companies to invest here (AL and MS obviously can and have) mainly because in order to actually do business in LA you have to be in the good ole boys club. I'm sure there are worse places out there (yeah, WV is pretty bad, I forgot about it which should actually say something), but there can't be many.

@Nik in NOLA: "lack of opportunities" - have you looked the different car manufacturers that have come into Mississippi and Alabama in the past 5 years? What is it, Nissan in Canton, and didn't Toyota recently announce they were building a plant in Mississippi? And I believe Alabama has a Mercedes plant that has been a great job producer there.

"disproportionally higher costs of living" - okay, where have you been looking? Seriously, I'm asking here - where have you been looking at? I would love to have the cost of living from most of Mississippi, and Alabama (I can't say Louisiana because when I lived there it was on-base and not based off the local economy).

"Higher insurance rates" - really? I've been a state farm customer everywhere I've gone, and playing the percentage game, the South was either at the same price as other places or well lower.

No offense is intended here, but alot of what your saying seems like its based off of antiquated stereotypes. Don't get me wrong here, I have lots to complain about the south, for instance, on a cross country trip, literally - the worst drivers I dealt with were East of Monroe, LA to Pearl, MS. Without a doubt. The lack of consumer options (at the time) in MS - if I needed a specific part for a computer system, or my car, I had very few choices to go to. And if they didn't have what I needed, I was SOL.

Believe me - I'm not saying that MS, AL, or LA are the best places to live in the US. (Personally, the best I've been in have been Texas, Washington State, or Colorado). Just don't think they are the worst. (Cough, West Virginia, Cough, Cough).

"I think any pharmacist that does not dispense a prescription should be fired."

which is a blanket statement and does not specify as to the refusal of medicine. But you cleared that up in your post. =)

Please give links so such studies. I can also site off random sentences and say there are many studies out there as well. If I remember correctly, I have also heard of studies that say Canadian drugs are cheaper per out of pocket expense.

"All you idiots with a cause (abortion rights) hate it when people express a different view from your own."

Blanket statement. I am for pro abortion rights but certainly respect (if not at least civil to) MOST other views. (However, regarding this topic, I am sure there are many people who don't respect the anti abortion view in this because of the logic and reasoning (religious views) behind it.) Besides, there is nothing wrong with them "hating" or rather disagreeing with another persons views. This is what creates debate, among other things.

"You are one of the most intolerant bunch of fools ever to infect the human race. Your hypocrisy is sickening. "

Generally people seem to feel that the religious zealots and many others who are anti abortion are actually intolerant. While many pro abortion people are willing to compromise and give outs (such as banning abortion but allowing it in such circumstances such as a woman being impregnated via rape), I have found that just about every anti abortion person I have ever talked to on this issue is not willing to compromise at all. Thus, I find it hard to swallow your comment on that.

-Phex
-3rd Year PharmD/MBA Candidate

I merely pointed out how asinine the statement was. I also support the idea that as an employee, if there is something in my job that goes against my convictions religious or not is within my right. I also like the idea that as an employer, if the person cannot fulfill their duties i can find someone else. I'm weird like that i suppose.

I understand the point of view of consumer privacy (and I firmly believe in privacy), but this is also a drug that is being put into ones body. Certainly a pharmacist could actually refuse to sell this drug if the buyer said it was for someone who was age 14 or 15. Even if the buyer was over the age of 18.

-Phex
-3rd Year PharmD/MBA Candidate

That's what I'd do if a pharmacist refused to give me plan B - write down their full name and sue them and the store!

@Mary Marsala with Fries: Oops. I lived through Katrina. It wasn't anyone's particular fault outside of the Army Corp's and their defective levees. Sorry. Nice try. But if you want me to bite, you assume the risk living in any particular place. Don't like hurricanes? Get out of the Gulf South. Don't like wildfires? Don't live in SoCal. Don't want to deal with tornadoes? Get out of Tornado Alley. Hate midwestern winters? Don't live there. But that isn't the point.

The point is that when you're in areas that go overboard with pushing their form of morality, you expect it and you aren't surprised when clerks (or even pharmacists) even at larger chains give you a BS hassle over buying something that they may disagree with.

@SalmaBabblebox: Who's insurance covers OTC meds?

Young lady then gets pissy...
If telling someone "No, let me speak to a manager" is getting pissy you're probably not going to like the OPs in the other articles on this web site.

Don't want to get run over by a bus...don't cross the street. Don't want to die in an airplane crash...don't fly. Don't want to get dumped....don't date.

@SebastianMus: How is it any of your business who he's buying it for?

It's always funny that the "choice" folk are into forcing others to do whatever it is they want. Gotta love the hypocrisy.

You are in no more emotional pain if a pharmacist refuses you service, and if you were raped, you really should go to the hospital which will most likely have a pharmacy on hand that can fulfill your prescription. Sheesh.

But what if a meteor was speeding toward earth and i needed it after i had been raped by cannibalistic clown and i needed it before i went into hiding in the mountains because the government picked me as someone to repopulate the earth and we don't need a child that might become a cannibalistic clown when the dust settles.

If you cannot think outside of your mind set to see that every job has moral implications for the employee...i really can't help you.

Without going into the religious viewpoint on it, I would like to point out one thing.

If it is in stock, the store expects someone to buy it.

Why on earth would they even stock it if they are so all-fired opposed to selling it?

@bwcbwc: No, there's not an explanation for the wait - for a prescription, the pharmacist has to do a bunch of work.

For Plan B, all they have to do is hand you the box. They don't put a prescription label on it. It should be LESS trouble than buying Sudafed, because they have to gather information for the registry (to track who's buying too much per day/week/month) when you buy Sudafed.

And a 1-hour wait is particularly inexcusable and unjustifiable when you consider that Plan B is less likely to be effective when taken later. (It's best to simply have it available already in case you need it, but if you are out of town or something and you need it, then you want to be able to get it as quickly as possible.)

I don't suppose you think the people who died in Katrina should have known to live somewhere better, etc.?

Eek.

(I took the pill for a while, then switched to a non-hormonal IUD to give the ol' system a break from chemical modification. Seems to have worked great...but the "withdrawal" from hormones is no fun!)

;)

@skipjack: Because saying that a person can refuse service, but could be fired for refusing that service, doesn't fix the problem of the original customer.

If I need Plan B *right now* (maybe because I was raped) and I go to the only 24-hour drugstore in a small and I'm told "nope, sorry, it's against my religion", then I have been subjected to more (emotional) pain. So the next day, I go to the business-hours pharmacy, and they also refuse me. They say to come back tomorrow, when there's a different pharmacist on staff who will sell me the contraceptive.

So I finally get it after 3 trips and 48 hours. Plan B becomes less effective as time passes . . . . So now I get to wonder whether I got it in time. Even if I don't wind up pregnant, I have suffered harm as a result of the actions of those pharmacists.

Is the notion that the pharmacies *may* fire those people if I complain loudly enough going to make the additional pain okay?

That's what I was wondering. If the pharmacist had a problem with selling it on moral grounds, then why did he not step aside and let one of his colleagues take care of it?

Cheers!

@skipjack: Every job will challenge a person in some moral area....
Really? How is a construction worker challenged morally?

An accountant may have clients who wish him to engage in unethical practices, but a recognized accounting practice that is completely legal and ethical is unlikely to be prohibited by the accountant's religion....

As for law, there are some lawyers who engage in morally dubious practice, but if your religion forbids contingency billing then you can just specialize in an area in which hourly billing is the standard...

Outside of medicine and medications, what fields of work have situations where certain people have religious beliefs that forbid things that other people find morally acceptable or even morally recommended?

Just curious: who is this "they" you are speaking of?

I would point out that the subject of birth control and Plan B varies from religious person to religious person, as I am sure you are aware. I'm not sure that there is some "vast right wing conspiracy" trying to implement Christian sharia law here in the U.S.

Cheers!

@GardnerIshed: I would advise a doctor who was opposed to chemo on religious grounds that (s)he probably shouldn't be an oncologist.... Sure, not every patient will need chemo, but a lot of them will.

If you have a religious objection to the use of contraceptives, why go into a profession where people will come to you with prescriptions for contraceptives on a regular basis?

@CaliforniaCajun: And as a male, you would feel no responsibility towards the pregnant woman or the child?

Maybe you can't personally get pregnant, but a pregnancy can result. If it does, have fun paying that child support for the next 18 years or so....

@jodark: And little considerations like wanting some reassurance that you won't be one of those women who winds up pregnant should be tossed out the window?

What about wanting to take some precautions to prevent the possible pregnancy, so you aren't faced with a decision of whether to abort?

@skipjack: And taking birth control can help lessen the risk. Also very basic.
And if there's some problem with your normal method of birth control, Plan B helps reduce the risk of pregnancy. So it's not a bad idea to keep it around. Very basic.

So in what way is it "moral" for a pharmacy worker (tech, pharmacist, whatever) to refuse to sell me something that I'd like to have around in case I need it?

The worker doesn't know if I'm married, doesn't know if getting pregnant could be physically dangerous, doesn't know if I've been raped or molested - doesn't know anything about me. But thinks that he or she can decide whether or not it's appropriate for me to use birth control?

I just wanted to answer Michael's questions, clarify a few things, and offer our assistance.

First, Mississippi does have a law that allows pharmacists and pharmacies to refuse to dispense any drug for any reason. It is one of only four states with a law like that. On the positive side, 14 states have laws that help individuals get access to medication. See our map at http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/PharmacyRefusalPoliciesJanuary2008.pdf.

But MS's law does not mean the pharmacist can impose a waiting period or give out propaganda. And the requirements for sale of Plan B require only that the individual (male or female over 18) show an ID - pharmacists should not be taking down anyone's information when they buy Plan B.

So what can Michael and his girlfriend or someone in a similar situation do?

First, contact Walgreen's headquarters. Walgreens actually has a good policy on the issue of refusals. We have contacted headquarters in the past when a person was refused or when pharmacy staff did something they weren't supposed to do when selling Plan B. Walgreens has disciplined pharmacists and retrained pharmacy staff, even in red states. They appreciate being made aware when there's a problem and customers are being hassled.

Second, consider filing a complaint with the state pharmacy board. It sounds as if the pharmacist engaged in unprofessional conduct by imposing a waiting period and giving propaganda - the pharmacy board might impose discipline for that.

If Michael or his girlfriend or anyone else reading this who has faced problems is interested in pursuing one of those options, you can contact us at info@nwlc.org or (202) 588-5180. We would be happy to help (and you can even remain anonymous).

When it all boils down to it, I think that they are. Common sense is more or less "common" to all of us, but ethics and religious belief vary markedly from person to person, but they influence people's moral decisions all the same.

Cheers!

An employee has every right not to do a function of their job...the employer also has every right to punish the employee for not doing their job function which has nothing to do with discrimination.

I ended up going to Super D instead. Michael, take your girlfriend to Super D.

@bwcbwc: Except that this isn't a prescription.

When I bought it (in Ohio), the pharmacist made a point of telling the tech to check my ID for my age but NOT to record any identifying information.

@Eyebrows McGee: Thanks for outlining those. I'm extremely pro-choice, but have mixed feelings about fertility treatments & IVF. I definitely wouldn't want them restricted, or the ability to have them taken away from people who are interested, but the industry makes me feel uneasy. "Non-neccessary" is definitely the way I see it.

(But I've also never been in a situation where IVF or other fertility treatments were even contemplated, so I probably lack sympathy....).

One thing I'd like to add: Having the option of fertility treatments can also put strain on a couple to 'keep trying' until it works, and female friends who've been through it said they often feel like a failure, or broken, or as though stopping the attempts is 'giving up' even though they physically feel like they can't keep doing it. It seems like a lot of medical technology - because the option exists, people feel compelled to use it - and with this one, there can be lots of extra judgementalism & guilt & blame involved.

What's weird to me is that this "legally required" sign is posted at one local Walgreens and not at another one I regularly visit. I wonder if the one with the posted sign has a pharmacist that won't fill Plan B.

Are we OK with a pharmacist who refuses to give a nice white couple birth control because "you all need to be breeding more white babies for the Master Race"? How about a pharmacist who will not issue a Medicaid prescription to somebody Jewish because "you people have all the money and should pay for it yourselves"?

On that note, here's another reason that moral issues don't stand in the case of prescribing birth control. I'm on birth control pills in order to prevent a recurrence of ovarian cysts, not to prevent pregnancy. In fact, I am taking another medication that actually negates the "birth control" part of the birth control. I don't need a self-righteous pharmacist telling me that I'm immoral and wrong for getting the pill when I'm not using it for birth control in the first place.

@pgaulrapp: There's sometimes a grey area that some pharmacies (and hospitals) have tried - if the patient/customer asks for something the provider feels contradicts their moral values, they can say, "I'm sorry, I can't fulfill that request, but please talk to [my coworker]" and then the other employee fills the prescription, etc. If that can be done, I think it's a decent compromise - but there are a lot of problems with it. Logistically - what if there's not another employee at the time? What if everyone is super-busy? Morally - are you really sticking to your beliefs if you just walk away and let whatever it is happen through someone else's actions?

I think it's an option worth exploring in some pharmacies, and I wouldn't be surprised if Walgreens tried it. Other chains (CVS, Eckerd and Walmart) will not let pharmacists refuse, but others don't have set policies, and if you have a savvy manager and staff interested in compromise & customer service, it could work.

You'd think we were on 4Chan or something.

@jscott73: Sorry to hear you got hassled. Male friends of mine have been successful purchasing Plan B in different parts of PA, and I couldn't find any concrete restrictions when I looked it up about a year ago. Glad to hear you eventually got what you were looking for! I wish there was less headache involved in all of this.

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★: Funny story, I used to work at a Walgreen's, and this was a few years ago when places were just starting to carry Plan B. A guy, probably late 20's walks up to the pharmacy counter, asks if they are selling it, THEN proceeds to ask the pharmacy tech on a date. Everyone thought he might have been getting a little ahead of himself.

Oh, yeah. Thankfully, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot didn't go around blowing up buildings. I guess they were too tied up in mass starvation and genocide.

Really, why bother acknowledging the complexities of human nature when it's easier to be bigot and paint all theists with the same brush, while incorrectly assuming that atheists somehow exist on some preternatural moral plane.

How is it that you folks see one thing...then completely miss the other? Confusing indeed.

@katiat325:

sadly most of the colleges there are full of over-achieving students with no sex life. i would know, i grew up there.

I just went to Walgreens in NW Indiana to get Plan B last week (missed pills, broken you know what, me being extra paranoid about the bad combinations of events) Walked out of there with absolutely no problem. It was even ten minutes to the pharmacy closing and they were nothing but helpful even when I asked a few questions. This seems like a local store level problem. That just sucks. Especially the waiting since you're supposed to take it as soon as possible.

So the shot: good for many, really super oh my god bad for many.

@Nik in NOLA: I wasn't assuming anything really, I was just going off your statements against Mississippi. And to be quite frank, Baton Rouge AND New Orleans should be included in your statement. I like going to New Orleans, but the last time I was there, it was one of the crappiest experiences I've had buying a six pack. Don't think I've ever had a problem in Shreveport however...

Believe me, there are a lot worse places in the US (I've seen more than 1/2 probably) than Mississippi, Lousisana, or Alabama, for both crazy conservatism and just plain crazy ass people. Parts of Georgia? Oh my. Of course there are parts of the nation that you go in and buy a six pack or condoms that I've gotten a bad feeling from. The last place was a small (SMALL) town in New Mexico.

@katylostherart: I've tried all BC, one of those people who goes crazy on hormonal ones. I got the Copper IUD back in November, by June my body had rejected it and pushed it half out and it started to imbed.

What bothers me most about this post - is not so much the argument whether the morning after pill is abortion, whether men can buy it or not, or all that rhetoric -- it's the plain and blunt fact that other people are establishing power over my body.

No one should have a say but me.

Would i personally refuse them? nope...stuff doesn't bother me.

I obviously was wrong.

Every job will challenge a person in some moral area....so using your logic...no one should really have a job.

My statement stands as is. If you want to add meaning that isn't there to my statment in order to be popular among your friends here on the consumerist...have at it...apparently they are very important to your perception of yourself.

They were, however, more than happy to dispense Viagra though, saying "oh sure, I dispense Viagra--I've helped plenty of men get lucky!"

Statistically sterilization has about the same failure rate on women as the BC pill or condoms. In about 1% (some specialists say 2%) of the patients the body heals so well that the tubes get reconnected.

And since a lot of women think they are save, yeah it ends up in some pregnancies

What's next - Scientologists refusing to fill prescriptions for Zoloft because mental illness is caused by body thetans? Christian Scientists refusing to fill any prescriptions?

What is this, the United States or Iran? If you want to enforce your crabbed religious beliefs over religion-neutral commerce, then quit your job and go become a snake handler.

You know, this Playing God routine could be a heck of a lot of fun!

@undertakernv: Should've punched her (pharmacist) in the ovaries, him in the gonads.

too bad one or two goofy pharmacists make the rest of us look bad. i have always sold as long as the legal requirements are met. for every one pharmacist that has a problem there are thousands of other that take care of the patient.

@snoop-blog: I agree. I mean come on, I respect those that can remain abstinent (it's gotta be super hard) but most of them were scared into it because of STDs.

As for the OP, I just went to Planned Parenthood and god my plan B pill there for free (it worked). I don't think it was fair at all for them to interfere. It feels crappy enough just asking for the pill, and then they made her feel worse.

I went just because I wanted to be extra careful and wasn't even sure it was necessary. I tried to ask the nurse if she thought I really needed it but she basically avoided my questions and just handed me the pill package. I didn't need to show any id at all (as is the standard at PP), just had to fill out a patient/consent form.

So, other than the waiting room time, it really was an easy peasy process.

Young lady gets pissy when asked her insurance information.
Young lady then gets pissy being made to wait for a medication to be dispensed by the pharmacist.
Then the young lady gets pissy when the pharmacist covers his ass on the age verification by logging the DL number.

Does that about sum it up? If this is all it takes to get this young lady upset, please stock up on the Plan B, you don't need children.

But then again I don't speak for every Walgreens, for the most part they are all ran the same. But little things like that might change from one location to the next one that is 2 miles away. Pharmacist play a huge roll in that factor and yes I agree with all that scream "Do your job and keep your religion out of it"

I personally would put in a complaint about it, there should be a number to call on the receipt or email corporate about it. It gets sent to the store manager and they review it.

I'm sorry it happened to you, again.. it varies so much it's hard to apoligize to the numerous people that have any kind of issue.

I think everyone should have a box of plan B available "just in case". Especially if you have multiple partners/not committed relationship. Its a lot cheaper than a Baby, and certainly makes for a less nail biting next day for both parties.

It delays ovulation. That's all it does. That's it's sole contraceptive effect. As a result it can't possibly be an "abortion pill" regardless of how you classify it.

This is incorrect. Men can purchase Plan B. You can find this information on Plan B's website, but for the best authoritative answer, go directly to the FDA. See question 7b.

http://www.fda.gov/Cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA20060824.htm

@johnva: Ah, that's true. Sorry, I worded that poorly. Still, it doesn't seem as rare when it happens to a close friend. She's still pretty depressed over everything.

@Phexerian: Yes they should be fired for refusing a prescription based upon a moral objection. It's one thing to refuse because interactions...that has happened to my father. That's fine because you are looking out for the patient however refusing plan B because you think it's wrong is not the same as safety precautions due to drug interactions.

-Phex
-3rd Year PharmD/MBA Candidate

There are other reasons for refusing drugs besides moral objections. Some of these reasons include drug interactions and drug seekers. Pharmacists are allowed to use professional judgment in refusing drugs to people. You can't just say they all pharmacists should be fired for refusing to give someone drugs. We do more than just count and sell pills and we surely don't work for the physician.

-Phex
-3rd Year PharmD/MBA Candidate

If someone refused to sell me Plan B, I would simply inform the store manager that I refuse to buy anything from their store ever again. There's my freedom of choice right there. Ha!

Also to the idiot who said go to Canada to buy your drugs: A recent study (amongst many others) showed that Canadians pay an average of 30% more for their drugs than Americans.

All you idiots with a cause (abortion rights) hate it when people express a different view from your own. Let people have whatever moral beliefs they want to have. You are one of the most intolerant bunch of fools ever to infect the human race. Your hypocrisy is sickening.

-Phex
-3rd Year PharmD/MBA Candidate

Mucinex with cough suppressant is the ONLY thing that will make me stop coughing!

Let's keep it civil, folks - I know this is a topic that invites inflammatory rhetoric, but remember the rules when you post.

if any woman takes 2-3 times the daily dosage she will most likely terminate the pregnancy. that's the thing behind plan b, a short term spike in hormone levels destroying the fertilization/implantation. but pharmacists and doctors have refused to give regular bc out too. oh and then we have nut jobs standing with pickets in front of planned parenthood because a lot of american women can't get reproductive care and have to go there for the sliding scale.

yeah, this system totally works.

so my medical care IS on my dime and has been since i turned 18. i end up paying personally for everything i get since i didn't manage to get cancer in the past 4 months and probably won't develop it in the month of december although seeing how this year has gone i see it as a possibility.

so if i get into an accident and the nearest hospital is a catholic one i get taken there against my will by an ambulance. and when i am discharged I PAY. I PAY for every service and treatment i receive. if that is the only hospital or center offering care within a reachable distance I PAY. it's the same for city hospitals. MY money, MY treatment. i do not owe less money because the hospital i went to has a denomination and a patron saint.

and most of america is like that too. it's not like the catholic hospitals are getting less money from their patients than city hospitals. i haven't made my healthcare reliant on anything. that was done before i was born, that was done while i was learning to read and write. i'm 26 years old. absolutely nothing about the way the country is run as far as social welfare has been because of me.

and pharmacists DO receive money in the form of medicare/medicaid reimbursements. if they want to continue to receive those, do not use any "god said so" rules on your patients.

and another thing, why don't freaking christian organizations expect some compassion from its members? yeah it looks great on paper but damn you straight to hell when you show up at the counter asking for help.
--------------

"Some corporations whose policies say "dispense Plan B" are hiring these guys who won't because THEY CAN'T GET ANYBODY ELSE and they'd rather lose 1 person's business than 200 people's business."

and back to other social systems. so much for job training. if there's a shortage in pharmacists maybe the government should stop taking my money and giving it to africa and start training the idiot highschoolers that graduate every year with no skills and nothing to do.

When faced with that scenario, I asked if I would be refused the drug if I wouldn't consent to them putting my information on file. The pharmacist stammered a bit but said that no, they wouldn't refuse to sell me the drug; I said fine, I refuse to give you that information; and I got my meds.

Immediately after that, the media got hold of the "keeping personal information" on file story, there was a bally-hoo, and pharmacists no longer keep any information about over-the-counter drug buyers on file.

Looks like it's time the media in the States raised a bally-hoo, too.

@AnonymousRachel: I'm amending my comment to say that you must show your driver's license or other proof of age to purchase Plan B without a prescription, but it is never appropriate (or legal) for the pharmacy to document information like your driver's license number, social security number, etc.

This goes for Michael and his girlfriend, and anyone else reading this article: Don't ever let a pharmacist, a pharmacy technician, or a pharmacy clerk tell you that you must show your driver's license, insurance card, social security card, etc. to purchase Plan B. This is absolutely NOT LEGAL in any circumstance, in any state, "conscience clause" or no. I have worked in a pharmacy for nine years and am about to graduate with a PharmD, and I have never encountered any evidence that supports the legality of any of those practices.

-Phex
-3rd Year PharmD/MBA Candidate

The funny thing is that the girl I was getting it for could have been under 18! She's 24, as am I... but she could have just as easily been a minor. Strange.

I am a guy. I walked into Walgreen's, said, "I would like to buy Plan B Emergency Contraception."

He said, "OK." He didn't ask to see my ID. He got the pills right away and charged me (I think) $50.

I asked him, "I don't suppose insurance covers this?" He said, "no."

I walked out and gave the pills to my girlfriend and she thanked me.

I can't imagine why they asked your girlfriend for proof of insurance when the guy indicated to me that "no" insurance would cover it. Also, this took me no time. I would consider that the individual pharmacist at the Walgreen's in this post was the culprit of non-service. Perhaps they were either ignorant and tied to routine or they just didn't ant to be helpful to someone they disagreed with politically. I would think that Walgreen's would have been previously exposed if they had purposefully taught pharmacists to give non-service on Plan B.

While I have waited hours if not days to get other prescriptions verified then filled, especially for those pesky scheduled drugs, I have *never* been subject to a "waiting period" as such for any OTC drugs, including Plan B and anything containing pseudoephedrine (like sudafed). There is no need for a waiting period. Honestly. :|

This IS a sexist issue because men are not subjected to a 1 hour waiting period with mandatory literature to buy condoms or spermicide. Plan B, while hormonal, is just another over the counter way of preventing implantation. I don't have the same hardware, so I need to use a different method. Why discriminate? Why make it easier for men to access contraceptives than women? After all, pro choice or anti choice, it's everyone's goal to lower the number of abortions. Pharmacists are not god and they are not doctors. A woman could have a medical condition that pregnancy could worsen... and frankly, as a currently (and very happily, although sore) pregnant women, I am tired of the potential for life having more rights than me, an actual living human being. In fact, I found it very interesting to learn that the whole "life begins at conception" thing was a very, very recent development in our societal discussion. Up until the 1900s, a fetus was not considered to have rights until it was "quick with life" aka, started to detectably kick around 6 months gestation, or, until it was actually born. More than a few visibly pregnant female criminals were executed by courts in far more god-fearing times without being granted a stay to deliver the child.

Sorry for the TMI, but as a pregnant lady, I have never been more adamant about women's reproductive rights than I am now. The responsible thing to do is support everyone who is making smart decisions about reproduction even if it doesn't fit some people's particular worldview, not get all judgey and scare tacticy. /End of didactic rant :)

For what it's worth, I did buy something containing pseudoephedrine a few months ago (in CA), and I was asked for ID and that ID swiped and number recorded. I've also purchased Plan B (you never know when keeping it around the house can be useful) and the pharmacist just asked for ID to verify I was over 18, then gladly finished up my purchase, even cut short the speech about risks and how I shouldn't be relying on Plan B when I told her it was cause I wanted it as backup in case the ring, a condom, and withdrawal still gives me a nagging feeling. None of this inane hassle. I'm very glad to be living in a state where all my options are available to me without a middleman pissing me off for the stupidest reasons.

I guess you know, now, how it feels when all those self-righteous liberal blue-staters go all politically correct on speech, i.e. speech is free unless you're voicing an opinion that the liberals don't agree with.

So I have to ask -- how does it feel, bee-atch? Sucks, doesn't it? Maybe this'll make you think twice before you try to tell conservatives how to act/speak/think? Because don't forget, they have the same "rights" that you do.

Step 2: n/a

What I object to is the bait and switch. These people entered into what they believed was a secular pharmacy. If they'd gone into St. Augustine's Pharmacy, I would not be surprised. This however, is a national chain that does not claim to have a religious affiliation. It's fine to not dispense birth control if it goes against your beliefs. But don't claim to be a pharmacy with no religious ties.

Many ob/gyns recommend you have it on hand for the emergencies, so that you're not running around at 3 a.m. looking for an open pharmacy that dispenses. (Before Plan B was available, many ob/gyns would get you an extra pack of BC pills, which can be used as a morning-after pill when you take a high enough dose of active pills. Some inserts even tell you what that dose is, tho typically it's an off-label use.)

Not everyone who's sexually active is able to use chemical birth control; they may be stuck with barrier methods. Chemical birth control can have problems, too -- you might skip a dose, you might be on antibiotics, you might forget to refill, whatever.

It's not irresponsible to have the emergency backup on hand in case the emergency DOES occur. I'll keep the fire extinguisher in the kitchen, despite the fact that I have absolutely no *intention* of being so careless as to set the kitchen on fire. :)

And while I share the general concern of people misusing emergency interventions as routine treatment, my impression is that taking Plan B ONCE would be enough to convince most people it's not a good idea to use it as a routine thing instead of just for emergencies. High dose hormones --> much puking. (Imagine taking it hung over, ugh.)

CVS sent me an official letter of apology. I love sticking it to the man.

There's also a lot of ground covered in "fertility treatments" from shots to extend one's luteal phase to help the egg implant, which I don't really know of anyone objecting to, to a couple doing surrogacy with donor sperm and donor eggs so there's like five "parents" involved!

But anyway, if we're talking, like, test tube babies-and-more-complex, a lot of anti-abortion folks are also anti-fertility treatments. Generally moral objections to interfering in the creation of life in either direction. (creating it or destroying it)

(So remember kids, God doesn't want you to pull out!)

Common reasons for objecting to fertility treatments include:
--Overpopulation
--There are lots of children needing adoption
--A moral objection to interfering in the beginning (and often ending) of life
--Medical objections to the level of danger in a non-necessary procedure
--Medical objections to a treatment that doesn't treat or fix a problem, but provides a workaround (I'm meh on this one, but there's some pretty passionate literature out there)
--Medical objections to the multiple-fetus risks (for both mom and the fetuses)
--Moral objections to eugenics (some forms of fertility treatments have gotten sophisticated enough to go there)
--It's extremely expensive and diverts life-saving medical resources from people in need to serve the lifestyle "wants" of people with money
--It often ends catastrophically badly: Typically, there's little or no family/mental health/social screening done. Many (not ALL! Don't say I said all! I didn't even say most!) couples who pursue fertility treatments have serious problems: The big two are a halfway broken marriage they're convinced a baby will fix (frequently the stress of the treatments breaks it for good); or a narcissistic personality issue on the part of one of the parents, where only THEIR genetic offspring will be good enough, and that child will be turned into a mini-me to the point of emotional abuse. An appalling number of these cases end up in court where NOBODY wants the kid now that the marriage is broken. Of course people reproducing by traditional means can have the same problems, but interfering to create the life I suppose creates the responsibility to ask if non-interference would be the better solution here.

I object to the multiple-fetus risk, which is fairly easily controlled in other countries by only implanting 2 eggs at a time (or whatever), but this raises the expense and number of attempts you must undergo; the eugenics (which has gotten utterly horrifying in some cases); the scarce resources issue (which is a systemic problem, not so much one for individual doctors/practices to solve); and the bad endings, which I don't really know how you solve.

@maztec: Simple health requires prevention. If people thought as carelessly as you do about not needing to prevent health issues, then we'd be living in the Middle Ages with open sewers in the street and half our children dying from preventable childhood diseases.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case, since I'm a guy, but I suppose that maybe I'm just doing the sex thing wrong. Please, enlighten me as to how, as a hetero male, I can get pregnant by having sex.

@ThunderSaid: I suppose your gloat would be amusing if it was defensible. How many atheists blow up buldings in the name of Godless, eh?

This is actually a difficult line to hold, because if Plan B is a potential abortifacient, then chemical birth control is as well. So you could *probably* successfully argue that if he dispenses birth control but not Plan B, his objection is discriminatory.

However, the inevitable outcome of that would be that a bunch of BC-dispensing, non-Plan-B-dispensing pharmacists (there are many; there are also those who already refuse to dispense both on abortifacient grounds) would quit dispensing birth control. Which would be an Even Bigger Problem, so it's probably not a great tack to take.

Which is the problem with a lot of solutions to this problem: They create hella more problems than they solve.

So as far as we know plan B/Birth control could not do anything once a egg is fertilized. Also Both plan B and Birth control work mainly through the prevention of ovulation.

Generally, medical professionals may refuse to perform a procedure (or dispense a drug) they find objectionable, but they may NOT refuse to treat a category of patients they find objectionable. So you can refuse to perform fertility treatments because you object to fertility treatments; but if you perform them for some patients, you can't refuse to perform them for lesbians because you object to lesbians having babies.

So if the pharmacist thinks HIV positive patients "deserve what they got," that's objecting to a category of patients, so that's discrimination. (If he came up with some moral objection to AZT, like, oh, he refused to dispense any drugs tested on animals, he'd be okay. Stupid, but okay.) But if he objects to Plan B for moral reasons (typically because he believes it's abortifacient, or else he likes the Monty Python song about every sperm being sacred and not wasting them or God becomes irate and whatnot), that's an objection to the DRUG, not the patient.

Now, if he'll dispense Plan B to married but not single women (very common for birth control, once upon a time), we've got ourselves a discrimination issue.

Of course it's very difficult to untangle "moral objection to abortifacient potential" from "moral objection to people having sex I disapprove of" ... and I'm not sure we can without becoming the thought police.

(Actually, I can think of half a dozen pretty interesting test cases by which you could attempt to prove the pharmacist's problem is "moral objection to people having sex I disapprove of," some of which border on the entertainingly absurd.)

@pwnstar182: My university pharmacy AND gyno exam rooms have handy charts on the walls detailing all the brands of birth control AND their "emergency contraception" dosage. You take 2-6 of the individual pills (2 for the older super-high estrogen content, 4ish for most, 6 for some of the low-dose ones) to get the equivalent of a dose of Plan B. Also, is anyone else's submit button hiding behind the border of the submission box?

Maybe I'm missing something, but by the tone of your post you indicate that everyone in the state is some sort of crazed right winger out to strip you of all your rights. Perhaps if your girlfriend was more friendly, and the both of you where less hostile to people who do not hold the same beliefs as you, you would find people much more friendly and open to you.

I traveled for a living for many years all over the southern states, and never once had a problem when purchasing alcohol, contraceptives, or anything else of that nature. If you try respect and tolerance first, then perhaps you won't have nearly so much to feel persecuted about.

Just my 2 cents...

@maztec: I've had a mishap where I wasn't having penetrative sex and some sperm...ended up where it shouldn't have been. That was back when Plan B required a prescription - and trust me, it's a lot more embarassing having to explain to your regular gyno why you need it than just telling a pharmacist.

There are two problems with this. The first is that "saving the fetus's life at the expense of the mother's" is actually a different formulation than "abortion for the mother's health." Catholic health care policy (at least in the US) does not save the fetus's life at the expense of the mother's. Go to Catholic medical school and they teach you to D&C. There was a very famous case where a woman with some ridiculous number of pre-existing children (8?) wanted to die so her questionably-viable fetus could live for religious convictions, and they actually called in her bishop who told her her moral obligation was to live for the children, and that saving her life wasn't an "abortion" when it resulted in the death of the fetus. (Neither is, say, cancer treatments that result in the loss of the fetus. It's called the doctrine of double effect.)

The second problem, a practical one, was illustrated in Illinois some years ago, when the governor decided that all hospital ERs that took federal or state funding (that is, all of them) should be required to provide abortion on demand. (It was for some stupid political reason, not because he's particularly in favor of abortion rights.) The Catholic hospitals said, "All righty then, we'll be closing our doors, as we can't comply with that mandate." (They actually issued a statement that said something like "We look forward to putting the 500 million dollars a year we funnel into providing charitable health care to the citizens of Illinois into other endeavors like education" -- a not too subtle, "Hey, look at what your tax increase is going to be!") Which of course meant the state had to back down -- something like 28 counties downstate are ONLY served by Catholic health services: the state pulled out YEARS ago because it costs too much to provide rural health care. Many of the poorest parts of Chicago are served by the Catholic system -- because the state decided it was too expensive.

So the Catholic Church's morals AREN'T on your dime -- they're subsidizing the crap out of your dime if you live in a state with a substantial Catholic health care system. So you can EITHER pay substantially higher taxes to create a real STATE system, a system that the state allowed to atrophy years and years ago to save money, often at the expense of the poorest members of society, OR you can continue to dance with the devil and let the devil call the tune. Because when you've made your health care system absolutely and totally reliant on the charitably-subsidized services that various religious organizations provide, you're not going to be able to detach yourself from their moral imperatives.

There's a similar, tho slightly different, problem with pharmacists. Most areas of the country are experiencing relatively drastic pharmacist shortages. Let's say we remove from the profession all pharmacists who have moral problems with dispensing whatever legal drug happens to be in question. Now instead of a 24-hour pharmacy that dispenses 99% of prescriptions, you've got an 8-hour pharmacy that dispenses 100% ... but how much access do people have when hours are shortened and some pharmacies are closing? Some corporations whose policies say "dispense Plan B" are hiring these guys who won't because THEY CAN'T GET ANYBODY ELSE and they'd rather lose 1 person's business than 200 people's business.

So, again, that's a systemic problem that needs solving, not so much a problem with the ethical system.

Just to clarify, I think it's totally moronic to refuse to dispense Plan B. (And downright offensive to offer up lectures and adoption brochures with your birth control method of choice.) But the issue of professional ethics is too important to subordinate to that single issue.

Oxford is very liberal - I suspect this was an isolated incident and won't be repeated...I hope.

@katylostherart: I used to be interested in IUDs...until I saw one of the potential complications is ectopic pregnancy. One of my friends had an IUD, and she had to be rushed to the hospital a couple weeks ago because she had an ectopic pregnancy that ruptured. Scary stuff. I think I'll stick to hormonal BC. o.o

I was actually referring to US sterilization treatments, not Nazi sterilization treatments. :) (Although modern medical ethics codes are heavily based on lessons from the Holocaust and Nuremburg trials, so they are inextricably linked with the horrors and excesses Nazi "medicine".) But the point does stand -- many people at the time felt that routine sterilization for "undesirable" members of the US public was sensible, humane, scientific, and darn good policy. Just because the majority of people think something's a good idea doesn't make it moral. We need people to be able to stand up and say, "THAT'S IMMORAL!" even if their view is extremely unpopular. And the majority of the time, they're probably wrong -- such as all the folks screaming "that's immoral!" about interracial marriage. Or gay marriage. But the ability to make the objection remains important.

Pharmacists are not, generally, public servants. They're typically employees of private corporations. So they're more similar to your doctor at a private ob/gyn practice. The complaint goes to the corporation, not to the ability of pharmacists to make ethical objections to treatments.

"If a football player comes to the emergency room with a broken leg, you suggest a doctor should have the right to refuse to set it on the basis that the athelete may just injure himself again?"

ER doctors do sometimes refuse to treat patients they suspect are going to go forth and do themselves harm if they're treated. And some doctors simply refuse to treat patients whom they feel are non-compliant or creating their own problems. Sometimes this seems at least understandable if not necessarily humane (doctor refusing to continue treating someone with emphyzema who continues to smoke three packs a day); sometimes it just seems obnoxious (doctor refusing to treat an elderly woman who lives alone with minor allergies who won't get rid of her single companion cat).

It took a ton of bravery to go across the street to the CVS to ask for it, and the woman there was very polite and quick about it. I know they have to ask for a drivers license, because in my state you have to be over 18 to get it without a prescription, so she did that but only glanced quickly. She was very quiet and polite, and, being in the emotional state I was in at the time, I really appreciated it.

I feel so bad for women who live in areas where they can't just drive to a different pharmacy. I don't know what I would have done.

Consumer Relations Contact Information

Phone: toll-free (800) 925-4733
7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central Time, Monday thru Friday

Address: Walgreen Company Consumer Relations
200 Wilmot Road, Mail Stop #2273
Deerfield, IL 60015

Lastly, this happens nationally on a daily basis.

@Robert112: I haven't been to Hattiesburg in a while, but last time I was in Jackson (or any of the costal areas), I always had this feeling that I was going to get the shit beaten out of me because "I don't belong [there]." From what I've seen in the US (about 1/3 of it), Mississippi is near the bottom.

Likewise, if you don't want to sell cigarettes, don't work at a tobacconist's.

@katiat325:

One of the reasons people decide to keep plan B on hand is just the sort of garbage this story discusses - don't want to have to go pharmacy-hopping if you actually need it, because time can be of the essence.

@floraposte: Some states allow for medical workers to deny services/product based on religious and moral beliefs.

@bobpence: That's not the point. The point is that if someone has a moral affliction to dispensing certain drugs, they can say "I refuse to provide you with this drug. Please try elsewhere". Instead, the pharmacist decided that they needed adoption literature and a waiting period, which isn't part of Walgreen's policy and possibly not part of the law. I know where I live (in Michigan), a pharmacist can refuse to sell a drug to you because they find it morally reprehensible, but they can't make you jump through hoops to buy the drug.

I can understand why a pharmacist would not take Plan B themselves because of religious beliefs but what does that have to do with dispensing it to others. It's your job. I think any pharmacist that does not dispense a prescription should be fired. If the pharmacist is so against plan B then I think it would be great for a person who was denied the pill to sue the pharmacist to help incur the cost of the child. It would never happen but I wonder how many pharmacists would dispense it then if they knew that they can be hit up with a lawsuit to cover something like child support.

@JustThatGuy3: Then they also needed to stop selling makeup in the store, except to married women, since that encourages sex - in a round about way...

No, a guy can't by Plan B. Only a woman over 18 can.

@katylostherart: If some lawmaker tried to outlaw fertility treatments then the anti-abortion (pro-life) folks would probably freak out. Interesting concept though, and proposed anti-abortion laws should be tied to anti-fertility treatment laws. And throw in a proposal for a law limiting the number of children a family can have for good measure. Maybe then they would get a clue- - -probably not.

They asked for ID, but only to verify her age. She was asked if she knew how to take it and left. Don't know if this makes a difference, but the pharmD was a younger lady. She was very sympathetic.

This was in New Orleans. It is, of course, the same store that refused to sell me cigarettes because my license expired a few weeks prior.

"Last week, I sent my boyfriend to Walgreens to purchase Plan B for me, because I was unable to leave work and wanted to take it as soon as possible. He was turned away by the pharmacist, who told him that they did not sell Plan B to men at all. He thought that was strange but didn't question it.

I was PISSED and forced to wait another 6 hours before I got off of work to be able to go pick it up.

Of course, I did a little research and found out that the FDA has approved it for sale to both men and women over the age of 18. I sent them a letter (copied below), asking whether or not it is company policy or a rogue (or mistaken) employee.

The district manager got back to me very (very, very) quickly to apologize and to let me know that they do in fact sell Plan B to men, and that they would make sure that the store employees would be informed of this."

@maztec: No, I completely understand your point, but I do disagree with some of it. Who knows when the condom will break, where you'll be when that happens, and how accessible the pharmacy will be to you in the next 3 days. IT's not a bad idea to have it somewhere in the house for the extreme case, or at the very least, if there are roommates that have sex and something happens, they'll have a friend with plan B. No girl in her right mind would use that as a normal BC -- the feeling you get isn't exactly great in the 24 hrs after you take it. Also, it's possible that people can run out of condoms and the stores in the area are closed and by the time you drive out to an open store and back, mood's gone, no fun, and both are frustrated.

Also, for young college couples, just BC is probably not enough as it doesn't protect you from STDs. College (and younger and older people too) boys and girls can have a number of partners in a short amount of time. That makes condoms a must, and a great thing to have the EC pill available to take within the 1st hour of a broken condom. I doubt they'll be having sex as the pharmacy opnes up, and pharmacies aren't exactly 24 hr.

@picardia: true, like if you get shot...it's God's will so just die already. Or if you had a heart attack, and are dying, what right does a doctor have to try and save you if it may be a message from God. I don't like those God arguments. However, I agree withher that even though I am for choice, I am morally against abortion -- not contraceptives. I just think that if people are careless enough to get pregnant in an age where BC if so abundunt and with so many choices, why the heck are ppl getting pregnant? I would probably not do it unless of extreme circumstances, but like her, I won't stop someone else from doing it to themselves if that is their final decision.

According to most literature and studies, rape isn't so much about sex/sexual urges as it is about power and humiliation over another person. However, I believe that pedophilia and other sex crimes ARE about sex. But not (most) rape.

@pwnstar182:

Frankly, the people who object to dispensing plan B would be very happy to no longer dispense any other form of BC as well.

As soon as you say you need plan B they need to get the box that plan B comes in, check your ID, and they are done. Every minute wasted decreases the effectiveness of the medication, thus it should take priority over everything else and it only takes 5 seconds to do.

@JiminyChristmas: I think you're missing muddgirl's point. The problem isn't simply the fact that the pharmacist asked for ID; it's that he asking for ID and giving a pamphlet, which shows he was trying to make a religious/moral point by putting up unnecessary barriers to a legitimate pharmaceutical request.

@Eyebrows McGee:

Absolutely, if a pharmacist morally objects to dispensing birth control, they shouldn't be forced to. But they SHOULDN'T BE A PHARMACIST. It's a licensed profession, and there are requirements. How about a pharmacist who refuses to dispense AZT, because he believes that HIV positive people deserve what they got?

@P_Smith: Seriously, writing down the license number (or other form of state ID) could be a legal requirement to verify ID check and meeting the age requirement.

@katylostherart: Bravo!

Looking at this logically - isn't a good thing the women raped wont become pregnant by the rapist? Not being able to buy plan B wont prevent the rape, and it wont ruin any evidence, and I'm sure as hell that the women herself would want to get plan B/not get pregnant, so even in the extreme case presented why not sell to rapists? It wouldn't change anything other then preventing the women from becoming pregnant with the rapist's child.

Yes, allowing professionals to exercise their moral judgment means you're going to run into assholes, and into people whose views simply don't fit the dominant views of society. But it's a far better system than the alternative."

any doctor working for a hospital that receives state or federal funding should not be allowed to exercise their moral judgments when it comes to denying a patient a PERFECTLY LEGAL procedure. and there is a big difference between elective and necessary procedures. it IS a catholic stance that abortion has no mitigating circumstances including the mother's health.

"even within the bounds of your professional life" ends when you get any taxpayer's money. and if you want to make the case for pharmacies being private businesses, many of them receive federal money in the form of medicaid/medicare payments as well as the pharmaceutical companies themselves receiving money from the federal government for research.

your morals on your dime, not mine.

@speedwell: my first time having sex w/o condoms was 2 days before i got my BC pills, so I was super thankful to have EC available to me, for $30 in SF, but the feeling it gave was horrible. I didn't throw up, but i felt sick the whole day, and dizzy and tired...and had to do a bunch of data entry at work too. Not fun, but super thankful.

Fun stuff. I use to work at a Walgreens pharmacy in Arkansas and this is one sour subject. In Arkansas, it is up to the discretion of the PHARMACIST on duty if he or she would allow customers to purchase Plan B. What really pissed me off was the fact that almost all the technicians/cashiers I worked with considered the choice up to them rather than the customer and pharmacist. Their method of forcing their views on customers was unacceptable and was a huge factor in why I quit and advise anyone and everyone to go somewhere else.

What makes my day is the fact that Plan B is just overpriced birth control pills (forget which one it was but it is nothing special). So in essence if their uncomfortable selling Plan B then any B.C. should be evil as well, but ignorance always prevails even in a pharmacy!

Just a thought- What is the difference between a moral judgment based only on religious beliefs and a moral judgment based on common sense and ethics? Are they the same thing?

In Alexandria, LA, all the CVS stores were "sold out" of Plan B. I do not if that was a real reason...it was not the day after Prom.

Now the cramps that came along with the pill were awful for my girlfriend.

The manufacturer of plan B doesn't know of/mention any and I couldn't find any. While there has been concern about what you mentioned as far as I know no measures have been passed preventing a male from buying plan B.

That said, the shot is a good option for many and a terrible option for many. I understand it's worked great for you but you've only been on it 4 months.

@katylostherart: You make no sense. First of all, why do you assume everybody takes infertility as a message from God? Second, what point are you trying to make? Science shouldn't be applied to reproduction? Well, why apply it to heart disease then? Or to physics? Why bother attempting to understand the natural world, much less influence it for the better? No, let's all just dwell in total ignorance and passively accept whatever fate deals out. Maybe there's a message from God in there somewhere. Or not.

@maztec: yay california! lol. wait...yay northern california!...nevermind, yay Bay Area with it's abundance of sex craved college students that attend the 6+ univs and 15+ colleges here!!!

@Eyebrows McGee: Sorry, but your examples fail. The fundamental boundary of "your freedom" versus "my freedom" is the boundary where your exercise of freedom involves taking away my freedom. And that's where we are here. Not performing breast augmentation on a 13-year-old doesn't fall anywhere near the level of infringement of refusing someone emergency contraception. So maybe stop lecturing people about choosing bad examples until you come up with less farcial -- and unconvincing -- ones of your own.

[english.pravda.ru]

But then to the other side of the argument, it is technically an OTC medication, so anybody should be able to get it. But, a man buying it is still suspicious to me.

@Eyebrows McGee: Let's look at some of your analogies.

"Must you provide plastic surgery on demand to 13-year-old girls seeking breast enhancement? [This is not a life-saving procedure and not time-sensitive like Plan B]

"Must you provide $60,000 fertility treatments to all comers when some of your patients can't afford life-saving medicine?" [Again, not life-saving or time-sensitive that immediate treatment is required. And how does refusing an expensive treatment from some patients somehow impact other patients who don't have health insurance? Apples and oranges]

Must you provide abortions on demand? If you're in private OBY-GYN practice, certainly your choice of what services you offer, but if you are on-staff at a public hospital, a little murkier]

Must you practice sports medicine, where the purpose of the medical treatment is to let the patient go forth and risk reinjury as quickly as possible? [If you have this objection, then Sports Medicine is likely not the ideal career path, now is it? If a football player comes to the emergency room with a broken leg, you suggest a doctor should have the right to refuse to set it on the basis that the athelete may just injure himself again?]

Yes, governments can pass laws that are unjust or immoral, and I am all in favor of peaceful civil disobedience. A doctor should certainly use his First Amendment rights to protest injustice in the public square, but denying someone lifesaving treatment or time-critical treatment (like Plan B) is not the place to voice objections to a law he finds objectionable.

You are a medical ethics teacher and yet you also equate Nazi era forced sterilizations (unwanted procedures forced on unwilling patients) with denial of services (willing patient unable to receive legal and otherwise appropriate service)? Wow. Completely invalid analogy.

We've often agreed in the past, but I am shocked that you teach ethics yet cannot make a more coherent argument supporting a doctor's right to deny services on moral grounds.

@maztec: Plan B isn't the freaking abortion pill!!! When will ppl get that through their heads? It's usually only effective in the first 72hrs (maybe a few days though) but to get a girl who's already a few weeks pregnant, it won't do squat! It's not a legitimate concern. But there is an ABORTION pill, totally different, that can do the job. A pharmacist would have to be a complete idiot to think the 2 are the same thing with the same results.

Yes because in your personal experience of living in the suburbs you can't imagine a rural town where there is only one pharmacy so you have a problem with the notion that plan B should be dispensed by all pharmacies.

I pity your lack of imagination/empathy/experience.

Also pity your lack of education since Plan B has not been proven to do anything to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg (and does not harm the egg itself), and works the same way as a regular birth control pill. I assume you are against all birth control pills with your current position, otherwise you would be a hypocrite.

When I go to buy Sudafed, I'm usually sick as a dog and look like death warmed over. If they give me a strange look, I suck up my snot, cough, and tell them "Look man, I'm way to sick to go home and cook this crap up."

@skipjack: I have to say, that on a blog like this it's really funny that people take your comment seriously.

Plan B is an "Oops, the condom broke." You then go and buy it as the backup plan and take it that day. It's not a, "If we get a little crazy, we'll use Plan B instead of a condom, that's okay."

Either way, if you are legitimately worried about a broken condom, and are having enough fun with each other, then by all means go out and buy birth control. Skip this whole Plan B nonsense. Its place is not the backup, waiting for when you or the condom mess-up, simply pull it out of the closet. Its place is in the pharmacy, where if you do have an accident or mess up, you have to go request it and get it as needed. At least this is how I see it. And I am sure I will be screamed out for imposing some sense of morality on the issue. But, rather, my concern is simple health and purpose.

@Katxyz: in that same comment, he said that walgreens has every right to fire said employee and that he supports that.

@Oranges w/ Cheese: no, it's not. there are a few surgical procedures than can leave both sexes infertile/ unable to reproduce but still enjoy the pleasures of sex. For example, I can go get my tubes tied tomorrow and never get pregnant again! mauahahahaha! <-- sorry.

@skipjack: Let me put it to you this way...

No one would argue that sex is an adult decision and kids should wait to be adults to have sex. The problem with that statement is that kids are not responsible individuals and therefore many of them have sex before they are adults. You know how many stupid things I or the average person has done when they were younger? You know how many things I did back then I wish I could take back? Shit happens. If you don't want an abortion than as current law stands you don't have to get one and vice versa. I don't think anyone is so lazy they just say "you know what it's okay if I do get pregnant because I can always get an abortion so why use birth-control.

If were as easy as you put it, there would be no sex addicts. No rapists. No planned parenthoods etc. the fact is everybody's sex drive is different. We are all programmed to want to have sex. But if we only had sex when we wanted a child it would be a pretty lousy existence and I can already tell you me and my wife would divorce because I can't put up with her attitude when she hasn't "had any" in a while.

Also eventually we'd end up like Japan being way too overpopulated which a lot of people already feel we are.

@HurtsSoGood: not a jerk, just a smart ass -- nothing wrong with that. jeez, everyone's blasting a guy for saying something that we think is funny anyways and nobody can see the humor?

@rte148: Are you someplace far from any other pharmacy? Honestly, for something that's once-a-month, you could split your meds between two pharmacies (and maybe even get a gift card for each transfer you do to the second pharmacy).

Which is my beef with Plan B complainers. I have yet to see someone stuck in the middle of nowhere and unable to get it by simply going to another drug store a few blocks away, or sometimes even in the same parking lot! (In Northern Virginia, we had a Catholic pharmacy open in the same shopping center as a K-Mart with a pharmacy counter.)

Even if you don't believe that life begins at conception, I urge you to treat an embryo, even a zygote (fertilized egg), with more respect than a mere clump of cells. Seeing it as less valuable than the life of the (non)mother or that of an infant or of a fetus that is a few weeks or month older, does not mean it has zero value or deserves zero consideration.

They were only writing down the license number?

I wouldn't put it past such pricks to write down your friend's address and harass her at her home. It's happened before to people who go to abortion clinics.

@skipjack: every job has a job description to go with it. there are parts people won't like, but they do them anyway because they know they'll get fired. in most jobs employees have a confidential line to call to complain about something or other. but to work as a pharmacists, they should have known this comes with the territory. are they also going to deny someone their AIDS meds because they have some notion that the person receiving them is gay/lesbian and so is shunned by god and doesn't deserve the meds? even though it's completely unfounded. But I do agree with you that walgreens should have every right to fire those employees, since employers have the right to fire ppl if they don't do their jobs and end up discriminating on top of it.

Mississippi isn't really as bad as everyone makes it out to be. Sure there are some batshit insane laws, but most are confined to less populated areas. Hattiesburg and the Jackson area are some of the better places.

As for Plan B, I had no problems picking it up for my girlfriend. Didn't even have to show my id. In fact, I usually get an "oh yeah!" from whoever is working behind the counter when I get a box of condoms.

@MichaelBrazell: that is very true. I am a fan of condoms, especially for younger people. But I think for those that have been tested and are clean, and are in a commited relationship, condoms become somewhat unnecessary since many other birth control pills are available. But in terms of affortability while not having health insurance, and assuming they're in a stable/committed relationship, I do think that the shot is easier, more convenient, and cheaper than BC pills (unless you order them online through a Canadian pharmacy -- my friends do that, saves them soo much money).

@Nik in NOLA: Wow. This coming from someone who admits to live in Louisiana? Don't know how many times I've had to be in that state and buy anything. It's always been a shitty experience.

@probablykate: yeah, I knew about that, and once the year is up on my depo, i'll be switching over to BC (if I have insurance) for a year, and then to depo again. love depo.

@Yurei: I guess it really does depend on the person, but I have been on the shot for 4 months now, and don't have the bad side effects. They should consult with a doctor/nurse about it first. I tried a few BC pills, and found that they significantly alter my mood, and any pill with Ortho pretty much messes me up in general: bad skin, cramps, unexpected bleeding, feeling like shit. I had good results with Yasmin and do recommend that to friends. However, I was without health insurance for 7 months, and went to kaiser to get a pack for 1 month of pills: $105!!! So the shot ended up being the best answer for me.

@muddgirl: The basic ingredient in many cold medicines, pseudoephedrine, is a key methamphetamine component. Until a few years ago, you could go to the drug store, buy as much Sudafed as you could carry and make your merry way back to your meth lab.

I'm sure the law varies in other states though. Where I live, you have to show ID and provide a signature at the pharmacy counter and you can't buy more than 3 or 4 packages at a time.

@jodark: "First rape ends in pregnancy like 1% or less times or something like that."

Okay forgive me for not want statistics on a figure that has "or something like that" attached to it.

I'm not saying that the number is incredibly low but just that it seems you don't have any real evidence to support you opinion. Point of the "don't get raped" comment was to be equally rediculous to the "don't want kids, don't have sex post".

@PrincessSparkle: Honestly, it really just depends on the person. I live in a very conservative area, but I know its easy to go into the Walgreens here and get the Plan B, but you go into the same place with another person working it, you can barely buy a decongestant w/o calling the manager. Why? Because the person is a lazy douchebag.

The story here is quite interesting, obviously written by either a transplanted northerner who hated the state before they ever placed a foot there, or someone who grew up there, but had delusions of grandeur that they were better than everyone else, and in turn acted that way.

@jodark: It would be, if that was what I had said.

@ludwigk: And why are you wondering if I read it? Did I make any claims that contradicted it?

@econobiker:

But try to finding an atheism book in a religious book store...

\fixed

@speedwell: It is never about the babies or life- it is about the morals behind someone else's decision to have sex.

If it truly was about babies or life, then all the most ardent anti-abortion (and anti-contraceptive- if abortion is outlawed) protesters would adopt children- special needs children, older children, etc...

I only support any of their legal requests to outlaw abortion when there is a waiting list for adopting children from state care and not one child waiting. Until that day, abortion and contraceptives need to be legal...

And know that they WILL protest contraceptives if abortion is outlawed...

I despise Walgreens for more reasons that I feel like typing right now. Terrible chain run by fools. Reading stories like this have made me realize that there are so many stupid morons in this world, that it has almost become unihabitable. I feel sorry for your bastard children. :(

This isn't Catholic health care policy, incidentally. They'd be better examples if you picked ones that are actual issues.

"If you are in a profession that impacts the health or safety of others, your duty to provide the best possible care trumps any personal beliefs. If you are unable to perform the duties of your chosen career, then yes, you must change careers."

This would be a terrible set of policies, honestly. What are the "duties of your chosen career" if you're a doctor? Must you provide plastic surgery on demand to 13-year-old girls seeking breast enhancement? Must you provide $60,000 fertility treatments to all comers when some of your patients can't afford life-saving medicine? Must you provide abortions on demand? Must you practice sports medicine, where the purpose of the medical treatment is to let the patient go forth and risk reinjury as quickly as possible?

If you forced all doctors who refused to perform some PERFECTLY LEGAL aspect of medicine they personally found morally questionable, you would have no doctors left.

MOREOVER, it IS the responsibility of professionals (medical, legal, etc.) to stand up to what they see as moral abuses. I'm sure you're aware that "I was following orders" is simply not an excuse for immoral behavior in the wake of Nuremburg. It takes moral courage -- AND THE FREEDOM TO EXERCISE ONE'S MORAL JUDGMENT -- for doctors to stand up and say, "No, it's wrong to sterilize the poor and members of minorities. Eugenics is a violation of human rights." Legal, sanctions and paid for by the government, but a violation of human rights. Your proposed schema assumes that's what's legal is moral, what can be done should be done, and that is patently false -- and has been repeatedly demonstrated in history as not just false but dangerous.

Part of your First Amendment rights as an American is the right to exercise your moral judgment even within the bounds of your professional life. Health care is not as simple as "tab A, slot B" -- it involves a lot of judgment calls. Removing the ability of doctors and other health care professionals to make those judgment calls is dangerous and leads to serious degradation in quality of care. And some MEDICAL judgment calls are INEVITABLY going to cross into moral areas, especially when we start to think of "medical" issues as including mental health, lifestyle issues, etc. I, for example, am generally against most fertility treatments, for reasons that are medical, practical, AND moral in nature. If I were a medical professional (I'm just a medical ethics teacher), it would be entirely impossible for me to extricate my medical and practical objections from my moral objections. They all run together because medical issues ARE moral issues in many, many cases.

Part of being an American -- and it bothers me that so many Americans are so intolerant about this -- is that while you have the freedom to exercise your moral and religious beliefs, SO DO OTHER PEOPLE, EVEN WHEN YOU DISAGREE WITH THEIR BELIEFS.

Yes, allowing professionals to exercise their moral judgment means you're going to run into assholes, and into people whose views simply don't fit the dominant views of society. But it's a far better system than the alternative.

@nicemarmot617: First rape ends in pregnancy like 1% or less times or something like that.

Second, its not rape if you yell "SURPRIZE!!" first. C'mon people lrn2ntrnt.

Right, so what was your original disagreement with jurijrui? If anything, advising that religious people be intelligent when making job considerations and not start a job that can't finish is both kinder and less of a waste than firing people once they already have the job. You said the suggestion the religious people shouldn't get jobs that interfere with their beliefs is "asinine," but agree it's appropriate to fire people for doing just that. So...shouldn't religious people just save everyone, including themselves and managers, the hassle, and find another job in the first place?

@skipjack: Yeah buddy let me tell ya, I mean they have only been teaching abstinence since before I was in highschool (graduated in 01) and it sure has been a real winner! In fact condoms have become obsolete thanks to the words of wisdom "don't want kids, don't have sex"

Or are you living proof that abstinence is the real answer? LMFAO!!!

Also, just because one pharmacist has objections to dispensing it, does that mean they have to have one on hand that doesn't have objections?

In any case #@$! Walgreens - I've had to deal with them exclusively b/c they're the only ones who carry a pain med I've been on for 10 years, and I still get the stinkeye when I bring a script in for fentanyl (same doc, same rx, same pharmacy for 5 years, every 30 days) and I get treated like a criminal every time.

These results suggest that postovulatory contraceptive efficacy of LNG [Plan B] may not involve alterations in the mechanisms associated with endometrial receptivity.

...

In addition, this study does not support an anti-
implantation contraceptive effect of LNG in EC (emergency contraception).

@speedwell: But atheists don't care about you reading about God. But try to buy an atheism book in a religious book store...

I live in Tallahassee and my local Walgreens pharmacist did not give me any problems. As a matter of fact, I actually forgot my driver's license at home and they used my insurance information to verify my date of birth.

@speedwell: Isn't saying that procreation rights are only a woman's issue sexual discrimination? After all, men are just as invested in ensuring the survival of humanity. On top of that, it can't happen without a man.

i don't know anyone who spent more than a couple months on the pill/shot without some serious issues when they got off it.

The pharmacist is within their right to refuse to dispense a medication, regardless of how you may judge their convictions. If there are other options available and there is no immediate danger, then the pharmacist can refuse treatments like Plan B (please don't make comparisons to "would they refuse my insulin?" Absolutely not, if your life were in danger. Trust me, they know the laws).

And the writing down of the license is not a privacy issue. When you purchase a regulated OTC, the pharmacy can be liable if there is a side effect, so keeping records is not uncommon or unwarranted. No violation of privacy has taken place from the recording of legitimate information. If they then used that information or distributed it, yes, that is a violation of practices.

For all of you getting mad at Walgreens for this, please note that this is not a corporate policy nor a standard practice. If you have a complaint about an individual pharmacy, contact a VP or the district RX supervisor. They take complaints seriously, and it will be followed up on. And remember that just because someone has beliefs that aren't your own, you shouldn't ridicule them or act so intolerant. I may agree with the stance that Plan B should be freely available (and I do) but I've also seen it abused and used carelessly. Some precaution on all drugs is necessary, but especially those that can have serious side effects if used improperly.

The title should be "A Walgreens jerked one person around...." I have sold plenty of Plan B in my time, and the only question I ever asked is to see an ID and if they knew how to use it.

@skipjack:I'm glad you are like the camel of no sex and can go long periods of time without, but some of us want to have sex and no children.

Let me mangle you first comment if I may,

Original comment: "Don't want to have kids...don't have sex"

Don't want to have kids? Just be Homosexual.

Don't want to have kids? Better not get raped then.

Man nevermind. It's no wonder your only friend is Bladefist.

I can't get over the attitude of these religionista who fight tooth and nail against medical birth control technology. It's like they're saying, "Babies are precious gifts of God whose lives must be cherished at all costs, so we want to inflict them upon the careless as punishment for their sexual sins."

Perhaps you should double check before trying to play gotcha.

@TinyBug: Exactly. A moral exemption creates a defacto way for the public to ignore the law.

Let's look at the Brown vs. Board of Ed. decision that desegregated schools. With the 'moral exemption' excuse, all teachers in many Southern schools would have likely claimed the exemption and refused to teach African-American students. This would give individuals the right to legally ignore the law.

@TinyBug: Many atheists work at bookstores, and I haven't heard of anyone refusing to sell a Bible.

Plan B - Dispensing Plan B information for pharmacists

@LucyTuzy: They don't make Drixoral anymore? Crap.

If you have a doctor, next time you go, get a prescription for the old kind of Sudafed, sign up for the four-dollar Wal-Mart deal (or an equivalent deal at your drug store or grocery store), and go from there. Since you will have a prescription, you can get enough for a month without having to beg the snotty pharmacy clerk.

"A worker has every right to refuse to do a part of their job based not only on religion, but moral grounds, or just wanting to be a jerk."

A work has the right to refuse to do a part of their job simply to be a jerk? Yeah, of course they have that right, but those people are typically fired. I can't tell if you're trying to refute or support the original argument.

Amen brother. A few more possibile examples:

The Scientologist pharmacist who refuses to dispense psychiatric meds?

The Vegan pharmacist who won't sell you Insulin because it's an animal product?

The Jewish pharmacy who refuses to sell your mother thyroid medicine because it's not kosher?

The Seventh Day Adventist ER doctor who refuses to do a blood transfusion on your critically injured spouse or child? I'm sure all those "Right of Consciense" folks would simply get a different doctor, yes? Unless they weren't available to make that decision. Then they'd just have to accept the docs "conscience driven" decision when they find out about it later.

Or the Muslim doctor who refused to treat women, or non-Muslims. I wonder how the morality crowd feels about that.

If someone has a moral or religious objection to performing the duties required by a certain job, they shouldn't be doing that job. If they take the job anyway, then there's no fucking excuse for them to fail to fulfill their obligations. A pharmacist who who refuses to dispense certain medicines because of "moral objections" deserves exactly the same treatment as a vegetarian who goes to work for McDonald's and then refuses to sell hamburgers.

@skipjack: The comment of yours OwC was replying to wasn't a reply to another comment. Check the links, and do please try to keep up.

@speedwell: Scientific facts? Dear god man (er woman?)! This is America. We don't need no stinking scientific facts.

this is just wrong because they had no idea why she was getting plan b. she could've been raped, how is it anyone else's business if they're taking the responsible road about children. you can't bitch about irresponsible people getting pregnant and ending up on welfare and then turn around and drag them through the mud when they try to fix a problem.

and yes, in this case, pregnancy is obviously a problem.

@jurijuri: If sexual urges were as easy to control as you make it sound than there would never be any rapists.

@Phexerian: So informative & complete! And a good reminder of the power of state laws.... I think they're what end up influencing our day-to-day lives the most.

Most states allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense for moral reasons. It's also typically part of pharmacists' ethical obligations. Contrary to popular belief, pharmacists are not mere pill dispensing machines who do what the doctor tells them to do, but medical professionals with a responsibility to their patients. (Like refusing to give accutane to a teenage girl who admits to being sexually active and refuses protection; or refusing (back in the day) to give sterility-causing drugs to poor people for the sin of being poor; or refusing to give birth-defect causing drugs to pregnant women; or refusing to fill opiate prescriptions for a drug-seeking addict; or refusing to sell sudafed to the local meth manufacturer.)

The flip side of giving pharmacists this responsibility and the freedom to exercise their professional judgment is that every profession has assholes, and every profession has members whose ethics go against the dominant norms of society. Hopefully we as a society can understand that this is the price we pay for the benefits of being able to exercise our OWN moral judgment.

On Plan B specifically, the place to complain is to Walgreens corporate. The pharmacists are free to make moral decisions, but the corporation is free to fire them (within certain limits) if their moral decisions (as they relate to doing their job) don't comport with Walgreens's company policy. (In the same way that an abortion clinic has no obligation to hire/retain a doctor who refuses to perform abortions.)

Plan B (and the other one I can never remember the name of) is also available by mail. You can get it at drugstore.com. Ideally, you want to have Plan B in your medicine cabinet for emergencies, so you aren't stuck trying to locate some place that sells it (or a pharmacy that's open!) when you need it IN the emergency.

Perhaps the longer-term solution IS a pill-dispensing machine for safe but potentially controversial OTC drugs like Plan B or even Sudafed. A machine is entirely capable of scanning an ID to verify age and dispensing.

(And, yeah, Plan B's not a spermicide, people!)

The pharmacists was very nice and actually had the pack in her hands but then said I needed to have my wife's ID with me or my wife could even fax it over to her.

In the end it turned out to be easier for my wife to go pick it up herself, at a different place but with a very nice pharmacist as well. No issues at all, we do live in Southern California so I wasn't really expecting any issue though.

My comment wasn't geared toward the OP...it was geared toward the comment i replied to. please pay attention.

@speedwell: Same and same. By amazing coincidence, the day I needed to use it was the day after it went over the counter - and it was a Saturday. Student clinic at my U (which I knew stocked it) was closed, didn't know how I could get a prescription at the last minute.... until the nurse answering the phone at the clinic suggested I just go to CVS.

I have never been more relieved in my life, and deeply appreciate the professional attitude of the dispensing pharmacist. All he did was glance at my ID and ask very sincerely if I had questions or wanted to talk. When I said no thanks, he handed the box over.

I didn't have the puking, but definitely felt quite ill and achy.

To anyone who thinks that a religious or moral exemption is acceptable in a healthcare (or any public service) setting, how about:

A Catholic hospital saving the life of an unborn baby at the expense of the mother's life?

A police officer refusing to arrest a same-sex partner of domestic violence?

A Vegan animal control officer refusing to euthanize a violent animal?

A fireman refusing to put out a fire at a home for unwed mothers?

If you are in a profession that impacts the health or safety of others, your duty to provide the best possible care trumps any personal beliefs.

If you are unable to perform the duties of your chosen career, then yes, you must change careers.

Let's thicken the plot:

What about a prison doctor who refused to perform CPR on an injured pedophile prisoner?

What about an army medic refusing to perform lifesaving actions on a suspected terrorist?

Don't want to have kids, Don't get raped!

Duramed has a website for Plan B, and I would imagine that they're also "up" on state laws regarding the sale of their product. They might know if there is a state law in MS about a mandated waiting period for purchase. If this imposed waiting period was the pharmacist's idea and not the result of a state law, Duramed might be willing to contact the pharmacist to "educate" him regarding the proper way to dispense this drug.

I'd also suggest that Michael contact the State Board of Pharmacy in MS and find out if there is a complaint process that Michael or his GF could initiate for the treatment they received at this pharmacy. Certainly if MS mandates a "waiting period" for the purchase of Plan B, the State Board of Pharmacy would be aware of that particular state law. If there is no state law (and I can't imagine there would be), then the Board of Pharmacy may have a procedure for reaching out to this pharmacist regarding his treatment of Michael and his GF.

I'm going to be sending the link of this Consumerist article to some of the feminist blogs I read regularly, as I've certainly read similar stories about women having problems getting Plan B dispensed, and I know feminist blogs like to keep up on reproductive health issues.

My point is, Michael, don't take this lying down. Make noise. Follow up with the appropriate supervisory/regulatory agency in MS about this. If you had problems with this pharmacy, other people have had/will have problems as well. It's important that this pharmacist know that he cannot intimidate/harrass or shame people who want to purchase emergency contraception.

@The Name's Ash78, Housewares: My thoughts exactly. I've had my Driver's license number taken for everything from a box of sudafed to a bottle of wine.

It takes two people to get pregnant. I hold the man more responsible than the woman because in most cases, the man gets his and leaves.

But hey, if i'm more than happy to be a sexist. As a man, i think men should be held highly responsible for not being able to control themselves. As it is, that's not the case.

I'm sure you'll still find something to be offended about...since your looking so hard.

Plan B is not merely spemicidal, it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg. Many people define life to begin at implantation (it may be that the majority of fertilized eggs, zygotes, never implant), but as others feel it begins at conception, I have no problem with their being allowed to refer patients elsewhere.

That said, it MUST be aboveboard. Medical providers have gotten hinky with me and with a friend w/r/t wanting to pay outright for something because, if our insurance covers it, it could be a problem. Not sure if some insurance covers Plan B, since it is different from most OTC stuff. Writing down a DL number is no big either, as it proves the clerk checked as required. I want to suspect the OP or his girlfriend was a little self-conscious and saw obstruction in mere process, but the "waiting period" definitely alarms me.

@skipjack: That would be called "Plan A".

@oneandone: bad typo. I meant as long as he is over 18. oops.

Yes, abstinence is the *only* guaranteed way not to get pregnant. But it is stupid to not have sex if you can be a responsible adult and use contraceptives properly (and no, that doesn't mean getting pregnant and automatically having an abortion - but that's another can of worms.)

The OP was being responsible and getting protection incase of mishap, which many many many young people are NOT doing, and should be doing.

@Phexerian: Thank you.

@Applekid: Yeah, how about that? I also consider that sexist, only towards men this time. An idiotic sexist statement doesn't magically become non-sexist because you turn it around and fire it at the "privileged" sex.

This site gives all the known drug interactions with Plan B subdivided into major, moderate, and minor with an explanation of each drug interaction.

Sale of Plan B is pursuant to state laws, not federal. Each state will have different laws regarding the sale of Plan B, much like Sudafed.

Plan B in most states is not considered "OTC" but is more behind the counter so there are restrictions to buying it such as age. I've never heard of a sex requirement so males can also purchase Plan B I would assume. Regarding any OTC (over the counter) product that is not behind the counter, one should not have any problems buying those.

The pharmacist did not treat you very well and certainly seems to have an alternate agenda from Walgreens. If you would like to complain, call the store or another Walgreens store and get the pharmacy district managers name and number and talk to him/her. It must be the PHARMACY district manager, not the retail district manager.

The state of MS may require a license number to be written down pursuant to state law but this is something you would have to look up. My state does not require a license number for Plan B but does for Sudafed. Other states are bound to be different. Since this is from a conservative state I would not be surprised if a license number was required. Your license number most likely won't be given out by Walgreens either. Those numbers are kept in a book or kept electronically in the store for state regulators to check maybe once or twice and then they are discarded after a few years.

Also, as mentioned above, Plan B is not a spermicide but rather a contraceptive as it prevents implantation and fertilization. It is not an abortifacient contrary to religious nut job beliefs.

Regarding a pharmacists rights to refuse the sale of Plan B; they may be able to refuse in your state. Once again, this is a state issue. Not all states have this and your state may not yet. Unfortunately, the pharmacy profession is pushing for these laws more and more. I personally do not like the laws but that is not the issue at hand. A good way to find out about some of the laws are to call around to some different pharmacies and ask the pharmacist on duty if there is such a law.

However, your first step should be getting in contact with the pharmacy district manager. He/She may not like the fact that one of their pharmacists is pushing out anti abortion propaganda in their pharmacies. On the other hand, that district manager may also be the person turning a blind eye to it. It is also very possible the store manager has something to do with this as well since the store manager technically has authority over the pharmacist (something I very much disagree with).

Good luck.

-Phex
-3rd Year PharmD/MBA Candidate

But isn't Plan B really considered more than just spermicide? This is if the condom breaks not for having unprotected sex, right?

My two experiences getting it (accidents both times) before it was "over the counter" were horrendous - mostly because they had to ensure I wasn't raped, I wasn't already pregnant via blood test and all sorts of other nasty things.

The government's current agenda to get Plan B and other oral contraceptives labeled as "abortion" so they can then be outlawed is a blatant religious topic.

If you can't justify why you're banning or restricting something WITHOUT bringing YOUR religion into it, it isn't for the masses. Period.

@speedwell: How about, "don't want to pay child support..don't have sex."

How's this for sexist: a woman decides she doesn't want offspring so she has an abortion. A man decides he doesn't want offspring so he's out of luck. A woman exercises her right to choose, a man is just a deadbeat.

It's a sexist topic. If someone makes a comment that gets interpreted as sexism it's clearly by inheritance.

@skipjack: The more you try not to understand, the dumber you'll get (if possible in your case). Let's try this again, slowly: Which sex has the babies? Which sex has to use the birth control (as things stand now)? Which sex are you telling not to have sex if they don't want babies? Want more time?

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★: Technically, a guy could (as long as he is over EC). He would probably get a lot of questions.

Walgreens does not require its pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception (and maybe other 'objectionable' drugs like birth control? I'm having a hard time finding their policies.

Eckerd, CVS, and Wal-mart do not allow pharmacists to morally refuse to fill a legit prescription. Eckerd fired someone in 2004: [hr.blr.com]

Wal-mart tried to get around this by not stocking emergency contraception for a while - so all pharmacists would have to refer customers to a different pharmacy, regardless of moral belief. But birth control brings in the $$, so they've changed policy.

So the pharmacist can ask as a favor for personal info, but it is not necessary and not standard procedure. They have to give the drugs over after verifying the age. Once the age of 18 is established their right to withhold is gone, and either themselves or another pharmacist has to provide the drug.

The FDA wanted it available on the shelf next to the condoms, but despite unanimous approval by the board, the board chairman, appointed by Bush, refused to approve it on moral/ethic grounds. After a Long fight, they compromised and made it OTC for 18+.

The FDA did want Plan

@IrvCrapper: Nice try. Atheists have better morals than that. Plus most are against guns. Don't attempt to make it look like we're violent criminals, like religious fundamentalists are, or we'll... we'll... ARGUE you to death. So there.

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★: It's over the counter and if it weren't for the not-medically-based age requirement, you could sell it out of vending machines.

I used Plan B once. It's no fun. It's a deliberate, violent shock to your hormones and it makes you puke your stomach inside out. But I'm so grateful it's available.

@skipjack: "The Obvious," as you put it, only applies to women.

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★: I wasn't disagreeing with you, sorry if it sounded like I was.

I was just wondering as, the way I understand it, Plan B is a larger dose of hormones than the standard pill, so I wondered if given the larger dose, it could cause some problem that lower doses wouldn't.

@jurijuri: I second that. I would think that pharmacists knew what they were getting themselves into before they began their studies.

The forced waiting period and adoption pamphlets are just insulting though. That would definitely get my blood boiling. I wonder if that's a state mandate or just the pharmacist there being a redneck asshole. I'm sure he has no problems handing out fistfulls of Oxycontin to people who don't need it.

@xip: If you're not sure about what plan B does, don't guess. I've linked to the exact study above.

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★: There might be a legitimate question or two about smoking or other risks for blood clots. Rare, but important side effects associated with birth control hormones, particularly for smokers or women with high blood pressure for other reasons.

But that doesn't seem to be the case here. I haven't heard of any other major side effects or drug interactions a pharmacist might feel compelled to mention before sale - I'd expect them to just emphasize that the purchaser read the leaflet carefully.

/ not a pharmacist or medical doctor

AFAIK from a quick search, they do allow for refusal on moral grounds, but don't have any requirements for propaganda or waiting periods. I'm not really sure they needed your driver's license info either. I'd complain to corporate about it. If they were going to refuse on moral grounds, they should have just done so.

and on a personal note, I really do suggest her getting the Depo shot -- lasts for 3 months, and is about 99% safe(better than condoms, and cheaper than getting Plan B each time.) It ends up being cheaper to get that done once every 3 months than get BC pills from a pharmacy without having insurance. Check out any planned parenthood sites in the state -- not all are abortion clinics -- as well as call hospitals/clinics in the area to get quotes and advice on available services.

I'm not even going to touch this topic with a 10 ft pole.

I would be curious to know if this is a state law. It certianly isnt walgreens policy. If it is not state law and your gf ends up pregnant you could sue walgreens for wasting a valuable hour of time - (plan B becomes less effective every minute you wait).

Heck you probably could sue just for the potential danger/risk the pharmacist put on your GF even if she doesn't end up pregnant.

"They also insisted on writing down her driver's license number."

This is not necessary and is a violation of privacy.

Especially if you start seeing religious or adoption/abstinence literature in your mail or otherwise harassed.

@The Name's Ash78, Housewares: i agree. but thats the world we live in today. i dont really go anywhere nowadays without thinking im gonna get screwed or inconvenienced in some form or another.

@The Name's Ash78, Housewares: So what if they did have a chip on their shoulder? It wasn't the job of the pharmacist to knock it off.

As for the questions about this, different stores and states have different policies for administering drugs. Not all OTC drugs are treated the same, and the FDA classifies Plan B differently from something like Advil, or other OTC by-request drugs. The FDA has published their findings on several occassions on their website.

Next time, go to a compounding shop and ask for "Cipro or Zithromax, the BABY dose, if you know what I'm sayin'"

@skipjack: Don't want to be shunned... don't say ridiculous, sexist things.

Anyway, the Walgreens employee's response sounds stupid. Being a guy, I have never had to buy EC. However, my friend got some one time... she got it in a small, conservative town and had no trouble at all. I don't think the issue is with the pharmacy company. It's with the idiots who work there. I would contact Walgreen corporation and raise some hell.

@skipjack: Have your doctor prescribe a box of Kleenex instead?

and yes, they could get "uppety" when trying to buy other contraceptives if they feel it goes against their moral beliefs. Sometimes, it's just better to buy online through Canada or get your girl on the shot. If you attend the university, you should be able to access the school health center with your school-provided insurance. Plan B is emergency contraceptive, so all you'd need to do is go to their pharmacy. And if you're not in the university, still ask them about whether or not you are allowed to get that pill or other services from them, wouldn't hurt.

Plan B is not actually a spermicide. It isn't at all an abortion pill, either. Here is a paper explaining the scientific facts, for those who are interested:
[bvs.insp.mx]

Don't want to have kids..don't have sex.

unfortunately I think it's legal, although I'm not 100% sure on that. It may soon get a lot harder too, since Bush is trying to push another regulation through the dept. of health (Planned Parenthood was concerned enough to alert anyone they could about it and it may still be on their site.) Next time, either tell them to refuse it outright and go somewhere else, or demand it up front without hassles because the law does not require additional reading material or an hour waiting period for it.

Sounds like the same amount of hassle I go through to buy Sudafed.

Frankly, from their tone, it sounds like they had an axe to grind before walking in the door (preemptive defensiveness?). Just my sense of the tone here.

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★: IANAD, but I looked this up once out of curiosity. Not terribly many common medicines are interfered with by hormonal birth control, but some common medicines interfere with their effectiveness (certain antibiotics are notable for this, for example). If the gal went to her own pharmacist, the information about her other medications would have been on file. If she went to a different one, the question "what other medications are you currently taking" would have been sufficient. There wasn't any excuse for the waiting period, the propaganda, or the drivers' license intimidation tactics.