pharmacists refusing requests

[bigboab]

In a recent case in the UK an assistant in a pharmacists(BOOTS) refused to serve a customer the morning after pill. Her excuse was that it was against her religion to do encourage this. A Boots spokesperson stated that the customer should have been directed to someone who would have assisted.

Give the following scenario what do you think should happen. The only pharmacist in a small highland town is owned by a person of the above religious persuasion. They are the only employees. The nearest other pharmacy is 20 miles away as is the nearest medical centre. They refuse to serve items on religious grounds. Do you think that the local council would be in their rights to withdraw their licence to trade in that area?

[Cheese]

Yes, because they are supposed to be serving their local community for their medical needs (insofar as a pharmacy fulfills this role). If they can't for whatever reason then they should be replaced.

[Busyman]

Something similar happened in America last year.

The pharmacist is an idiot. If they couldn't do their job properly they need to be fired and if not fired they their licensed revoked.

As far as I know the morning after pill stops conception and does not kill a "baby".

[MagicNakor]

Yes, they would.

Pharmacists don't get to decide which people get which drugs. That decision is ultimately up to the doctor and patient.

:shuriken:

[bigboab]

As far as I know the morning after pill stops conception and does not kill a "baby".

It must stop conception or there would be no point in taking it. This would make it unacceptable to at least two religions that I know off.

[Cheese]

It must stop conception or there would be no point in taking it. This would make it unacceptable to at least two religions that I know off.

So the extreme would be a pharmacist refusing to serve any contraception at all because it is against their religious beliefs? :unsure:

It would be like me refusing to serve someone a lamb chop in Tescos because I'm a militant vegan (you know the type, refuse to even drive through a town with 'ham' in the name...).

I think MN has put it best though:


That decision is ultimately up to the doctor and patient.

[bigboab]

So the extreme would be a pharmacist refusing to serve any contraception at all because it is against their religious beliefs? :unsure:

It would be like me refusing to serve someone a lamb chop in Tescos because I'm a militant vegan (you know the type, refuse to even drive through a town with 'ham' in the name...).

I think MN has put it best though:

You are a Militant Vegan! :ohmy:

[Cheese]

You are a Militant Vegan! :ohmy:

If I was I would simply be called 'With'.

[bigboab]

If I was I would simply be called 'With'.


:lol:

Will they refuse to sell 'ham' flavoured thingyboabers. They wouldn't do that though. Big money involved there. :rolleyes:

[Everose]

bigboab, is this a privately owned pharmacy? Not part of a chain of pharmacies?

Are we talking about two separate pharmacies?

The first was actually an assistant in a pharmacy where other pharmacists would have filled the prescription? In the case of the assistant, I would say that needs to be addressed between her and her employers. If they are willing to work around this, it sounds like it could be done, with other workers filling such prescriptions. If that is acceptable to the owner of the pharmacy. Some people are valuable workers even excluding certain duties. I would say it is the owners decision, and that the assistant should have called another worker over to wait on the customer. By not doing this, the assistant was trying to make a stand, call attention to her cause, possibly?

In the second case, if the Council withdrew the privately owned pharmacy's license, would it be 'cutting off it's nose to spite it's face', so to speak? How hard is it for this area to get pharmacies? I would also have to look at the licensing ordinances to see just how much control of businesses the Council actually has with their licensing. I guess I feel that if it is a privately owned business, they can offer what services they wish; take it or leave it. If they choose to lose a certain faction of the public's business, it is their decision and their resulting loss of income.

I know of a similar situation in a rural area where there is a privately owned Catholic hospital. Good hospital, the only one in the largest City in a rural area. No local tax money involved in the running of it. This hospital refuses to allow Dr's to perform vasectomies or tubal ligations on it's premises. So the same Dr's. that practice there schedule these procedures twenty miles away at a much smaller, publicly owned hospital. No one has disputed this refusal of services by this Catholic hospital that I am aware of. They are privately owned and operate under their belief system.

I guess I feel as long as they are not using public funds, the public doesn't have a lot of input into what they offer, other than taking their business elsewhere if they object to a privately owned business' selective way of doing business. :)

[bigboab]

bigboab, is this a privately owned pharmacy? Not part of a chain of pharmacies?

Are we talking about two separate pharmacies?

The first was actually an assistant in a pharmacy where other pharmacists would have filled the prescription? In the case of the assistant, I would say that needs to be addressed between her and her employers. If they are willing to work around this, it sounds like it could be done, with other workers filling such prescriptions. If that is acceptable to the owner of the pharmacy. Some people are valuable workers even excluding certain duties. I would say it is the owners decision, and that the assistant should have called another worker over to wait on the customer. By not doing this, the assistant was trying to make a stand, call attention to her cause, possibly?

In the second case, if the Council withdrew the privately owned pharmacy's license, would it be 'cutting off it's nose to spite it's face', so to speak? How hard is it for this area to get pharmacies? I would also have to look at the licensing ordinances to see just how much control of businesses the Council actually has with their licensing. I guess I feel that if it is a privately owned business, they can offer what services they wish; take it or leave it. If they choose to lose a certain faction of the public's business, it is their decision and their resulting loss of income.

I know of a similar situation in a rural area where there is a privately owned Catholic hospital. Good hospital, the only one in the largest City in a rural area. No local tax money involved in the running of it. This hospital refuses to allow Dr's to perform vasectomies or tubal ligations on it's premises. So the same Dr's. that practice there schedule these procedures twenty miles away at a much smaller, publicly owned hospital. No one has disputed this refusal of services by this Catholic hospital that I am aware of. They are privately owned and operate under their belief system.

I guess I feel as long as they are not using public funds, the public doesn't have a lot of input into what they offer, other than taking their business elsewhere if they object to a privately owned business' selective way of doing business. :)


It is 'Boots' one of the biggest pharmacy outlets in the world. They produce a lot of their own products. They have a few factories in the UK. They also have a pharmacy/chemist shop in every 'town/city' in the UK.

[Busyman]

It must stop conception or there would be no point in taking it. This would make it unacceptable to at least two religions that I know off.
What religions?

As far as no point, if the pill kills the fertilized egg wouldn't that be a point in taking it too?

A pharmacists job is to fill my prescription, try to answer any questions I might have about said drug, and

:01: :angry: STFU!!!! and GTFO!!!! :angry: :01:

of my face about anything else.

Maybe the lady can drop the newborn off at the pharmacy.

[vidcc]

Was the person in question a pharmacist or pharmacist assistant (just works behind the counter and has to ask the pharmacist to serve certain "over the counter drugs")?
If it was the pharmacist then Boots probably have every right to dismiss him/her if the customer had a prescription. Religious reasons are no excuse to not dispense the drugs, and in my opinion as I don't know British law in this field the pharmacist should have his license revoked.

If it was just an assistant then boots may have trouble sacking the person as they could be place in other areas of the store (tesco lost a case after sacking a non smoker that refused to work the tobacco counter). But then an assistant would probably not be qualified to dispense this pill.

@ busy... off my head the biggest religion I can think of that would be against contraception of any kind would be the catholic church.

[Everose]

Maybe the lady can drop the newborn off at the pharmacy.[/QUOTE]



:lol: :lol: I think she would also be 'carrying things a bit far' to make a point. :D

[hobbes]

A pharmacy which is privately owned can stock whichever drugs it deems acceptable to the owner. It has no obligation to carry all drugs.

The desire to stock the widest variety is to provide for the locals to secure their business, but if the owner takes offense at a certain drug, he has every right NOT to carry it.

That is the free market sytem. The downside is that a competitor can come along and drive you out of business if you are not meeting the needs of a certain community.

In the case of BOOTS, the corporate owners have no problem with the "morning after" pill and therefore all their employees will be required to sell it. That is what the job entails, if you cannot do it, work elsewhere or as Everose says, work it out with your co-workers so that the customer is served.

[Biggles]

Not entirely sure why this person did not ask to see the manager. But as Boots stock (make) all forms of contraception then the individual was perfectly entitled to expect a non-embarrassing visit to their shop.

The assistant should have made her objections known to the manager not the customer.

Presumaly Boots apologised and gave her some free samples.

[hobbes]

But as Boots stock (make) all forms of contraception then the individual was perfectly entitled to expect a non-embarrassing visit to their shop.



Yes, it's like when the person at the adult bookstore yells, "I need a price check on the 10 inch donkey dong vibrator" then asks, at the same volume, if you want some lube with that, it's on sale. :no:

That Mathea, she really liked to dick with the customers and little Jonno was so embarrassed :ph34r:

I think I'll head back to the lounge.

[Busyman]

@ busy... off my head the biggest religion I can think of that would be against contraception of any kind would be the catholic church.
That makes sense since the Catholic church, not the religion, makes no sense. :dry:

[Arm]

The pharmacist is an idiot. If they couldn't do their job properly they need to be fired and if not fired they their licensed revoked.

As far as I know the morning after pill stops conception and does not kill a "baby".
It doesnt matter what the pill does. All these anti-abortion assholes are in to control women, they dont care about life. And the ones who claim they do just do it because it was pounded into their head to believe. :no:

If a pharmacist refuses to serve customers, they need to be replaced and dont deserve legal protection. :01:

[bigboab]

The assistant was not a Catholic. She was a Muslim. As already stated by Boots the customer should have been redirected to someone who would be of help. But to the assistant would that not be just the same as serving the customer?


P.S. I had tried to avoid naming the religion of the assistant. But as the Catholic Church appeared to be getting the blame, I have relented.

[vidcc]

P.S. I had tried to avoid naminmg the religion of the assistant. But as the Catholic Church appeared to be getting the blame, I have relented.

I don't think that the catholic church was getting blamed, certainly not by me, it is just the one that springs to mind when it comes to "no contraception" policy as an example of religions being not just anti abortion but also anti anything that could stop conception

[Skiz]

Let the pharmacist have her own beliefs. Just go across the street to the next store ffs.

Now if the store has their own policy against this (which I'm sure they do), then that can be taken up quietly between the store and its employee.

[bigboab]

Let the pharmacist have her own beliefs. Just go across the street to the next store ffs.

Now if the store has their own policy against this (which I'm sure they do), then that can be taken up quietly between the store and its employee.


That was the whole point of the thread. The next store may be 20 miles away.

[Snee]

I'd think the pharmacist and anyone working for them are bound by law to honour a doctor's prescription. If it's possible to do so with the means they have at their disposal.

To not do so is a violation of ethics, and should be met with punitive measures.

[hobbes]

I'd think the pharmacist and anyone working for them are bound by law to honour a doctor's prescription. If it's possible to do so with the means they have at their disposal.

To not do so is a violation of ethics, and should be met with punitive measures.

As I said before, a pharmacy is a business, and can sell what it wishes.

If the people don't like it, thay can shop elsewhere.

A privately owned pharmacy bears no obligation to anyone.

[bigboab]

I'd think the pharmacist and anyone working for them are bound by law to honour a doctor's prescription. If it's possible to do so with the means they have at their disposal.

To not do so is a violation of ethics, and should be met with punitive measures.


Hear Hear (In type of course). :01:

[Biggles]

As I said before, a pharmacy is a business, and can sell what it wishes.

If the people don't like it, thay can shop elsewhere.

A privately owned pharmacy bears no obligation to anyone.

This is the case if it were an over the counter medicine.

If it were an NHS prescription (and it is not clear if this was the case) then Boots would (if they wished to continue to be paid by the NHS) have to provide the medicines stated. That said this was clearly an individual's personal problem rather than company policy, which has to be one of the largest outlets for contraception in the country.

Boots recruitment and staff training should perhaps have dealt with this issue long before it hit the shop floor. The short piece seem to imply that Boots felt their policy was clear on this matter and suggested that perhaps the staff member, by omission or deliberate subversion, failed to carry out company policy.

[hobbes]

Hear Hear (In type of course). :01:

Yes, but they have no such obligation.

A doctor may make a prescription, but no independent business has any obligation to fulfill it.

[hobbes]

This is the case if it were an over the counter medicine.

If it were an NHS prescription (and it is not clear if this was the case) then Boots would (if they wished to continue to be paid by the NHS) have to provide the medicines stated. That said this was clearly an individual's personal problem rather than company policy, which has to be one of the largest outlets for contraception in the country.

Boots recruitment and staff training should perhaps have dealt with this issue long before it hit the shop floor. The hort piece seem to imply that Boots felt their policy was clear on this matter and suggested that perhaps the staff member by omission or deliberate subversion failed to carry out company policy.


Biggles,

If a business subscribed to a contract that required that all approved medicines should be provided then I have absolutely no objection.

I am just saying that an an independently owned pharmacy can stock what it wishes.

[vidcc]

A privately owned pharmacy bears no obligation to anyone.
In the Uk at least they would need to abide by certain laws and conditions set out in their license.

i would not like to say what the case is in the USA as it is a minefield when it comes to differing state laws.

[sArA]

I don't think it is up to the assistant to judge whether or not to dispense a drug on moral or religious grounds. Its rather like saying to a gay man with Aids that he can't have his drugs as they don't approve of their lifestyle for whatever reason. Another example is the refusal to allow a patient to have their insulin (derived from pig pancreas) for religious reasons.

In a secular and apparently democratic society, surely it is not appropriate for individuals to make moral judgements based on personal religious grounds.

[Snee]

Hmm, I don't know about the UK, but here you need a license to sell drugs, and an education in the medical field, and all of it is sanctioned and in part controlled by the government.

So for someone to not fulfil their duty the way that person did would get them in trouble here, and rightly so.

nvm the last part tho'.

[bigboab]

Yes, but they have no such obligation.

A doctor may make a prescription, but no independent business has any obligation to fulfill it.

In the UK failing to obligate a doctors prescription could result in the loss of your Licence to supply doctors prescriptions. This is not a private matter and is controlled by a Government Department.

[hobbes]

In the Uk at least they would need to abide by certain laws and conditions set out in their license.

i would not like to say what the case is in the USA as it is a minefield when it comes to differing state laws.

Vidcc,

There are "pharmacies" that only provide Chinese herbal remedies. They are not required to carry anything else.

No one is forced to sell anything unless they are subsidized to do so.

[hobbes]

In the UK failing to obligate a doctors prescription could result in the loss of your Licence to supply doctors prescriptions. This is not a private matter and is controlled by a Government Department.

Well, the US is not the UK. To me, in a free market system, no individual should feel compelled to dispense what he does not seem fit.

[bigboab]

Vidcc,

There are "pharmacies" that only provide Chinese herbal remedies. They are not required to carry anything else.

No one is forced to sell anything unless they are subsidized to do so.

They have these in the UK too. They are regarded as 'Cranks' by the majority of people. Doctors will not/can not issue prescriptions for these places as they are not licenced.

[vidcc]

Vidcc,

There are "pharmacies" that only provide Chinese herbal remedies. They are not required to carry anything else.

No one is forced to sell anything unless they are subsidized to do so.

But this is a Uk pharmacy licensed under government control. A herbal remedy pharmacy would not require a license as it is considered an "alternative" remedy and would not be subject to prescription. Herbal pharmacies would come under "foods"
The Uk pharmacy operates with certain very different practices to American ones.

[hobbes]

They have these in the UK too. They are regarded as 'Cranks' by the majority of people. Doctors will not/can not issue prescriptions for these places as they are not licenced.

So what, they are still a "pharmacy"

That is the point.

A pharmacy is not what you want them to dispense, but more what they wish to offer.

[Snee]

Well, the US is not the UK. To me, in a free market system, no individual should feel compelled to dispense what he does not seem fit.
That's fine in theory, as long has no one has to suffer for it.

However, I think a certain amount of control over licensed businesses is a good thing, that way we are sure to get the medicines we need when we need them, and anyone who doesn't like to sell them can go peddle ginseng and omega 3 to their heart's content.

[hobbes]

But this is a Uk pharmacy licensed under government control. A herbal remedy pharmacy would not require a license as it is considered an "alternative" remedy and would not be subject to prescription. Herbal pharmacies would come under "foods"
The Uk pharmacy operates with certain very different practices to American ones.

A pharmacy can offer the approved drugs, but it has no obligation to do so. That is purely a business matter, unless they have a contract which specifizes (misspelled word) otherwise.

A pharmacy is a business, and a business can operate as it pleases.

[hobbes]

That's fine in theory, as long has no one has to suffer for it.

However, I think a certain amount of control over licensed businesses is a good thing, that way we are sure to get the medicines we need when we need them, and anyone who doesn't like to sell them can go peddle ginseng and omega 3 to their heart's content.


So if I open a shop in your town, I am required to offer everything? No, I offer what I want.

You don't like it, go elsewhere.

[vidcc]

A pharmacy can offer the approved drugs, but it has no obligation to do so. That is purely a business matter, unless they have a contract which specifizes otherwise.

A pharmacy is a business, and a business can operate as it pleases.
What we are stating is that all UK pharmacies are under contract as part of being granted permission to operate...... this is what a "license" is.

They may be privately owned but they have to operate by specific rules.

[bigboab]

So if I open a shop in your town, I am required to offer everything? No, I offer what I want.

You don't like it, go elsewhere.

Well they should put a big sign at the entrance to the shop of what they are not willing to do, or sell. If they dont do that then someone should sue them for the embarrassment if they are refused without reasonable grounds. I dont consider religion reasonable grounds. I am sure a court would take the same stance.

In this instance the produce was held in stock. :) Why stock it if you are not going to sell it?

[hobbes]

What we are stating is that all UK pharmacies are under contract as part of being granted permission to operate...... this is what a "license" is.

They may be privately owned but they have to operate by specific rules.

No, a license is to provide approved drugs, it does not obligate one to provide all approved drugs. If it does then I will gladly shut up.

My philosophy is that any person that opens a business can sell what he wishes. If his views on what should be provided are at odds with society then he shall go bankrupt.

My point is that if I wish to provide a portion of the drugs a community needs, that is my wish. Boab stated in his initial post that I should loss my license. I say "no", let me sell what I please and let the market determine if I stay in business or not.

[hobbes]

Well they should put a big sign at the entrance to the shop of what they are not willing to do, or sell. If they dont do that then someone should sue them for the embarrassment if they are refused without reasonable grounds. I dont consider religion reasonable grounds. I am sure a court would take the same stance.

In this instance the produce was held in stock. :) Why stock it if you are not going to sell it?

You are completely right. Nothing more to say.

It was an internal problem.

[Biggles]

A Chemist licensed to issue prescription drugs is controlled strictly and is duty bound to try and fulfil a doctor's prescription and the bulk of the cost of these drugs are met through the NHS.

A Pharmacy in the UK does not have to have a dispensing Chemist on the premises and tends to sell a wide variety of over the counter medicines including herbal and other alternative medicines.

Boots the Chemist (to give them their full name) operate under the first scenario - although they sell lots of other things too.

However, the situation is slightly academic as it was not a case of choosing to not stock the item but rather one individual refusing to handle the item. An internal matter for Boots and pain in the butt for the customer who would have rightly expected better from a Boots employee.

[bigboab]

You are completely right. Nothing more to say.

It was an internal problem.

I am going to bed while I am ahead. Before you think of something I cant reply to. :lol: :lol:

[hobbes]

Biggles,

Can I operate a facility I call a "pharmacy" in the UK and carry what drugs I think are most cost effective? Or do I have to carry what the government insists upon?

[hobbes]

I am going to bed while I am ahead. Before you think of something I cant reply to. :lol: :lol:

Night Boab, pleasant dreams.

[Biggles]

Biggles,

Can I operate a facility I call a "pharmacy" in the UK and carry what drugs I think are most cost effective? Or do I have to carry what the government insists upon?

No, you can operate a "pharmacy" and sell medicnes based purely on water if you want.

You can't call it a dispensing Chemist though.


:ermm: If that makes it clearer?

[hobbes]

No, you can operate a "pharmacy" and sell medicnes based purely on water if you want.

You can't call it a dispensing Chemist though.


:ermm: If that makes it clearer?

I think "bed" is probably a good place for me as well.

[bigboab]

Night Hobbes. The government supplies the Pharmacists with a list of prescription drugs that they have to keep a reasonable supply of. I suppose they will run the stock with normal methods of shopkeeping. Supply and demand etc.

[Biggles]

I think "bed" is probably a good place for me as well.

:lol:

Me too

Night all

Waltons Mountain revisted :helpsmili

[vidcc]

No, a license is to provide approved drugs, it does not obligate one to provide all approved drugs. If it does then I will gladly shut up.

.

Ok English > American translation.

Pharmacist goes to med school, qualifies and is granted a license to dispense drugs.

Business wishes to open that dispenses prescription drugs and for that the business requires a license to operate. ( and that license is dependent on rules and regulations governing the pharmaceutical trade )

One of the conditions is that at all times a licensed pharmacist is on duty at all times when doing trade.

BTW... the stores are called chemist in the UK

[hobbes]

:lol:

Me too

Night all

Waltons Mountain revisted :helpsmili


Goodnight, Johnboy.

http://i.imdb.com/mptv1.gif

[hobbes]

Ok English > American translation.

Pharmacist goes to med school, qualifies and is granted a license to dispense drugs.

Business wishes to open that dispenses prescription drugs and for that the business requires a license to operate. ( and that license is dependent on rules and regulations governing the pharmaceutical trade )

One of the conditions is that at all times a licensed pharmacist is on duty at all times when doing trade.

BTW... the stores are called chemist in the UK

A pharmacist NEVER goes to med school, ever. They are not Doctors that understand drugs and how they react in patients, they are trained in pharmacology.

[Cheese]

A pharmacist NEVER goes to med school, ever. They are not Doctors that understand drugs and how they react in patients, they are trained in pharmacology.

Correct, they have to complete a masters degree in Pharmacy here in the UK.

[vidcc]

A pharmacist NEVER goes to med school, ever. They are not Doctors that understand drugs and how they react in patients, they are trained in pharmacology.
it is not "doctor" med school but it is a "medical" school
Uk pharmacist are different to US. They are not doctors and do not have the ability to write prescriptions but they do have to have an understanding of the drugs.

there are many drugs sold over the counter in the UK that are not here, but then "over the counter" in the UK is not the same either. here it means on the shelf and one can serve oneself. In the uk it means one has to ask the pharmacist for it and he has to ask certain health related questions as well as make sure you are not taking any other drugs that may cause adverse effects if taken during the treatment time.

Uk pharmacist can give consultations on medical matters to a certain degree

[hobbes]

it is not "doctor" med school but it is a "medical" school
Uk pharmacist are different to US. They are not doctors and do not have the ability to write prescriptions but they do have to have an understanding of the drugs.

there are many drugs sold over the counter in the UK that are not here, but then "over the counter" in the UK is not the same either. here it means on the shelf and one can serve oneself. In the uk it means one has to ask the pharmacist for it and he has to ask certain health related questions as well as make sure you are not taking any other drugs that may cause adverse effects if taken during the treatment time.

Uk pharmacist can give consultations on medical matters to a certain degree

And so, how does that relate to this thread?

Pharmacists are people who fulfill a prescription that an MD writes. No pharmacist needs to fulfill a prescription that goes against his religion.

Filling prescriptions is a job, not filling them is a philosophy.

Any business owner can do what he pleases.

[vidcc]

Filling prescriptions is a job, not filling them is a philosophy.

Any business owner can do what he pleases.
I think we are talking at crossed connections here. Are you saying they can or should be able to?
we have been pointing out the legal obligations required of a uk dispensing chemist in order to be licensed as a dispensing chemist business. And this thread is about a uk chemist business.
the uk has a social health system and dispensaries for want of a better description operate under a government licensed contract. If they don't have a drug in stock they must have a supply source where they can get it within a reasonable time, assuming there isn't another chemist nearby that has it in stock that they can direct the customer to

I stated earlier that I have no idea what each state requires here, although I am sure there are regulations that go against your free market stance.

[Busyman]

In America, a pharmacy can refuse to sell what they want.

But that's America.

[lynx]

I hope they sell air freshener, there seems to be an old fart drifting around. :blink:

[Busyman]

To answer the first question.

She should have supplied the drug, or resigned. It's her job and if she is not willing to do it then she should leave. IMO Boots would be perfectly entitled to sack anyone who is not willing to perform their job.

To answer the hypothetical question.

If a shopkeep does not wish to supply a specific product then (s)he simply shouldn't stock it. Given the scenario as painted it is unlikely that the council, or anyone else would take any punitive action. That would hardly be in the best interests of the community as a whole.

With regard to the "morning after pill" it works in two ways. It either stops the ovary from releasing an egg, or if it prevents a fertilized egg from embedding in the womb lining. It is therefore either a contraceptive or a form of abortion, depending on how it works in the specific case.
Is anyone else going to answer the thread question differently or is there someone with the same insight that we've heard before. :dry:

Seriously though, thanks for the clarification on the morning after pill. I thought I heard something about "it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall" but didn't know it prevented ovulation. ;)

[Everose]

[QUOTE=Busyman]Is anyone else going to answer the thread question differently or is there someone with the same insight that we've heard before. :dry:

You have challenged me, Busyman. :D

I live in a small town, but do not get my all my prescriptions from the local pharmacy. I do most of my business at a pharmacy 25 miles away. Not for the same reasons as mentioned in the thread. More as a way to keep my pharmacy choices my business, and not the whole towns. ;)

The distant pharmacy actually delivers daily to their customers in our town. There is no extra charge for this, probably because quite a bit of business is done by this pharmacy in our town.

Bigboab, if your local pharmacy has chosen to overlook some customer's needs, and nothing legal can be done about this, could this be an option?

[Busyman]

[QUOTE=Busyman]Is anyone else going to answer the thread question differently or is there someone with the same insight that we've heard before. :dry:

You have challenged me, Busyman. :D

I live in a small town, but do not get my all my prescriptions from the local pharmacy. I do most of my business at a pharmacy 25 miles away. Not for the same reasons as mentioned in the thread. More as a way to keep my pharmacy choices my business, and not the whole towns. ;)

The distant pharmacy actually delivers daily to their customers in our town. There is no extra charge for this, probably because quite a bit of business is done by this pharmacy in our town.

Bigboab, if your local pharmacy has chosen to overlook some customer's needs, and nothing legal can be done about this, could this be an option?
Thanks Evey. :D

I have Kaiser Permanente for medical and they have their own pharmacy. It's not really a "town" pharmacy.

I have a CVS and Rite Aid 3 miles from my house (they are literally across the street from each other), another CVS 4 miles away, another 2 miles away in the other direction and the Kaiser is next to the CVS that's 4 miles away. All of these are in some way on my way from work except for the one CVS 2 miles away and that's closest to home.

Dontcha love metropolitan areas? Ironically I live in a farm area that's part of the Washington Metropolitan area. :blink:

[bigboab]

Rose

Yes most 'Chemists' do home deliveries. I actually saw this incident reported in the Sunday papers. Had it happened to me I would have had the option to go to another 'Chemist' as there are five in the town. I would have reported the shop to my doctor nevertheless. Not that i have much need for the product.

@ Lynx. If you have a flatulence problem I hope it would not be remiss of me to suggest that you visit one of the above establishments. I have heard that they stock stuff that could help you. Considering your age it would be unkind of them to refuse. :whistling

[Barbarossa]

A Boots assistant once refused to sell me multivitamins and cod liver oil tablets at the same time, saying that if I took both at the same time I would be exceeding my Reccommended Daily Allowance of something or other...

Quite often they refuse to sell me more than one packet of paracetamol capsules at a time too. (must be that miserable expression on my face when I've got a migraine... :frusty: )


Anyway, bottom line is, Boots are a law unto themselves, just deal with it. (I managed to get my multivitamins with no trouble on the following day..)


:shifty:

[Busyman]

A Boots assistant once refused to sell me multivitamins and cod liver oil tablets at the same time, saying that if I took both at the same time I would be exceeding my Reccommended Daily Allowance of something or other...

Quite often they refuse to sell me more than one packet of paracetamol capsules at a time too. (must be that miserable expression on my face when I've got a migraine... :frusty: )


Anyway, bottom line is, Boots are a law unto themselves, just deal with it. (I managed to get my multivitamins with no trouble on the following day..)


:shifty:
Now that's interesting...

It sounds like Boots needs some mindyourbusinessism.
What if you wanted 2 packages of multivitamins?
What if the multivitamins and cod liver oil tablets were for different people?

To much meddling imo. :dry:

A pharmacy like that around here would make the news and the corporate owners would be boycotted.

[manker]

Now that's interesting...

It sounds like Boots needs some mindyourbusinessism.
What if you wanted 2 packages of multivitamins?
What if the multivitamins and cod liver oil tablets were for different people?

To much meddling imo. :dry:

A pharmacy like that around here would make the news and the corporate owners would be boycotted.Too much vitamin A killed some explorer or other that ate a Polar Bear's liver on an Arctic expedition. Taking a lot of paracetamol is bad for you.

So a Boots employee decided not to sell something that could be bad for a person's health.

Sounds like he or she was being responsible - or in the case of the paracetamol, obeying the law.

[vidcc]

i believe that many companies have policies like that. it may seem like meddling but there are reasons under the policy. Some times it does seem silly though with rules like only selling one bottle of asprin at a time.....just go next door and buy another bottle there. I believe i read somewhere that many on the shelf drugs are supplied in smaller packets as well (25 tablets instead of 100)

In my state one is carded (has to give ID) to buy alcohol and tobbacco..... even if you are obviously in you late 70s.
Home depot will not sell adhesive, spray paint or many cleaning products to anyone under 18 here. I assume that may not just be local policy.

[Busyman]

Too much vitamin A killed some explorer or other that ate a Polar Bear's liver on an Arctic expedition. Taking a lot of paracetamol is bad for you.

So a Boots employee decided not to sell something that could be bad for a person's health.

Sounds like he or she was being responsible - or in the case of the paracetamol, obeying the law.
The paracetamol yes, I guess...neva hoid uv it. Is it prescribed or otc?

The other stuff, no but there again is a difference between the UK an America.

OTC medication is just that. I bought buy 1 get 1 free vitamins at CVS and some "overlapped".
Another instance the pharmacist needing some mindyourbusinessism is the fact that colin can take 2 multivitamins at a time to exceed his RDA.

To much meddling.

Furthermore if a record of colin's purchases are not kept (like prescriptions) then the Boot's employee was just being a dick if colin could come back on a shift change and get the same product.....again.

What a waste. :dry:

[Arm]

A Boots assistant once refused to sell me multivitamins and cod liver oil tablets at the same time, saying that if I took both at the same time I would be exceeding my Reccommended Daily Allowance of something or other...

Quite often they refuse to sell me more than one packet of paracetamol capsules at a time too. (must be that miserable expression on my face when I've got a migraine... :frusty: )

That sounds like bullshit to me. :dry: If I wanted to talk to a health care prefessional then ide go see my doctor. It's bad enough when my doctor refuses to prescribe me stuff (I swear I have legit medical use for all of them) I dont need to have that shit from pharmacy people too. :01:

That assistant (and whoever came up with that law) is under the very flawed assumption that your gonna shove all the drugs down your throat the second you walk out the store. :whistling Not take them in moderation and take one at a time. :w00t:

And for the person who argues that pharmacies can prescribe whatever they want, medicine is not a commodity. :cool:

[Busyman]

i believe that many companies have policies like that. it may seem like meddling but there are reasons under the policy. Some times it does seem silly though with rules like only selling one bottle of asprin at a time.....just go next door and buy another bottle there. I believe i read somewhere that many on the shelf drugs are supplied in smaller packets as well (25 tablets instead of 100)

In my state one is carded (has to give ID) to buy alcohol and tobbacco..... even if you are obviously in you late 70s.
Home depot will not sell adhesive, spray paint or many cleaning products to anyone under 18 here. I assume that may not just be local policy.
Well some of those are easily explained.

colin's is a case of adult treated like a child syndrome. At some point personal responsibility takes effect for OVER THE COUNTER MEDICATION.

The alcohol carding is too remain consistent and who's going to boycott Home Depot for not selling those things to children? :huh:
There won't be many protesters if so.

As far as Boots...here some immortal words for them.

"Im a grown-ass man, dawg"

[manker]

The paracetamol yes, I guess...neva hoid uv it. Is it prescribed or otc?

The other stuff, no but there again is a difference between the UK an America.

OTC medication is just that. I bought buy 1 get 1 free vitamins at CVS and some "overlapped".
Another instance the pharmacist needing some mindyourbusinessism is the fact that colin can take 2 multivitamins at a time to exceed his RDA.

To much meddling.

Furthermore if a record of colin's purchases are not kept (like prescriptions) then the Boot's employee was just being a dick if colin could come back on a shift change and get the same product.....again.

What a waste. :dry:Paracetamol is an over the counter drug.

I guess it does seem like pedantry not to sell 2 lots of multivitamins but if the assistant sold Colin the tablets and he got poorly then decided to sue Boots for not warning him that it could happen, the assistant's employers wouldn't be best pleased.

The assistant was doing her job correctly. Her boss was protecting his company's interests.

I'm kewl with that.

[Busyman]

And for the person who argues that pharmacies can prescribe whatever they want, medicine is not a commodity. :cool:
The bad part is....pharmacies shouldn't prescribing a damn thing.

Just hand me what's already been prescribed (or definitely OTC) and try to answer MY FUCKING QUESTIONS. (there's my rehash)

:D

[Snee]

So if I open a shop in your town, I am required to offer everything? No, I offer what I want.

You don't like it, go elsewhere.
If you open a pharmacy here?

Then yes, you are.


If you open a supermarket or a shoestore, or something else, then you can chose what to sell and what not to sell.



Pharmacies aren't regular shops here, and that's the law.

There are stores that call themselves "natural pharmacies" (direct translation) here as well, but such places are limited to selling vitamins and alternative medicine.

From what I remember from medschool anything classed as medication can more or less only be sold at a licensed pharmacy. Some things you might associate with pharmacies, however, (like condoms) can be bought in other places.

Pharmacies, like liquor stores, are controlled by the government here, and aren't really part of the private sector. Sort of state-run monopolies. You can run one, and I guess in a sense own one, but you can't dictate store-policies on your own.

Pharmacists have to have a license, and they have to be properly educated to be eligible to work in a pharmacy. Incidentally, it's possible to start off via medschool, and do the basic training there, as the curriculum entails pharmacology, and then specialize in the field of pharmacology and thus become a pharmacist further on, or you can start off doing natural sciences and then become a pharmacist that way.

Pharmacists are also bound by an oath of confidentiality, and are required to have signed the same kind of agreements that doctors do regarding confidentiality.

The british system is somewhat different, but some of the same rules also apply there, at least regarding ethics and duty.

[bigboab]

The bad part is....pharmacies shouldn't prescribing a damn thing.

Just hand me what's already been prescribed (or definitely OTC) and try to answer MY FUCKING QUESTIONS. (there's my rehash)

:D

In the UK people are advised to go to a doctor as a last resort. They are asked to go to their local pharmacy to see if their problem can be resolved there. If the pharmacist thinks that the patient requires to see a doctor he/she will say so. Exempting emergencies, I can see this becoming mandatory soon.

[Busyman]

If you open a pharmacy here?

Then yes, you are.


If you open a supermarket or a shoestore, or something else, then you can chose what to sell and what not to sell.



Pharmacies aren't regular shops here, and that's the law.

There are stores that call themselves "natural pharmacies" (direct translation) here as well, but such places are limited to selling vitamins and alternative medicine.

From what I remember from medschool anything classed as medication can more or less only be sold at a licensed pharmacy. Some things you might associate with pharmacies, however, (like condoms) can be bought in other places.

Pharmacists here have to go through certian training too but so do barbers.

If I go to pharmacy in your example and I want headache medicine the pharmacy must supply it.
What if it's not in stock? What about certain brand names? Is that dictated by the government?

[Busyman]

In the UK people are advised to go to a doctor as a last resort. They are asked to go to their local pharmacy to see if their problem can be resolved there. If the pharmacist thinks that the patient requires to see a doctor he/she will say so. Exempting emergencies, I can see this becoming mandatory soon.
Gotcha.

Pharmacies prescribe medicine.

[vidcc]

If I go to pharmacy in your example and I want headache medicine the pharmacy must supply it.
What if it's not in stock? What about certain brand names? Is that dictated by the government?

they have no obligation for over the counter/ on the shelf drugs. they can stock whatever brand they wish.

as to presciption drugs being in stock any good business would keep a good supply of high traffic items such as antibiotics, but they don't have to have everything in stock at all times. They do however have to be able to get the item in a reasonable time.

Gotcha.
Pharmacies prescribe medicine.

they can recommend over the counter drugs but not prescription only drugs. If you need those they will direct you to your doctor

[Snee]

Pharmacists here have to go through certian training too but so do barbers.

If I go to pharmacy in your example and I want headache medicine the pharmacy must supply it.
What if it's not in stock? What about certain brand names? Is that dictated by the government?
I daresay they aren't going to run of of something to cure headaches too soon, but if they did, they'd be required to order some in, I think.

Or refer you to a place that had some.

When it comes to prescription drugs it's a bit stricter. If you need insulin, for instance, then they'll write you up, order it asap and call you. In an emergency they'll have it brought in right away. Or they'll, again, refer you to somewhere it's available, like a hospital.

I don't think you can ask for a particular brand name, unless it's a prescription drug in which case they have to get you what the doc ordered.


EDit: There's quite a bit of testing to go through before the government allows it be sold at all, so any drug you buy at a pharmacy has their seal of approval on it, figuratively speaking.

But that's the same everywhere civilised, I think.

[vidcc]

I don't think you can ask for a particular brand name, unless it's a prescription drug in which case they have to get you what the doc ordered.
I thought prescriptions used generic as much as possible and the doctor write the medical name for the drug, not the brand name... the dispenser then give which brand he has.
with over the counter you can ask for whatever brand you want as long as they have it

edit...In the UK

[bigboab]

Gotcha.

Pharmacies prescribe medicine.

The system is in its infancy at the moment. Pharmacies are also allowed to repeat your doctors prescriptions after initial consultation between Doctor/Pharmacy. Except for items printed in italics by the doctor.These are generally prescribed drugs.(Drugs of misuse)

[Snee]

I thought prescriptions used generic as uch as possible and the doctor write the medical name for the drug, not the brand name... the dispenser then give which brand he has.
with over the counter you can ask for whatever brand you want as long as they have it
I've had a doctor write down the exact dosage of a certain brand of drug a couple of times.

When I worked in the hospital there was talk of companies trying to convince physicians to prescribe their drugs, by giving out free samples and frickin gift baskets and whatnot.

Not sure how much of that came from the imaginations of bitter old nurses tho'.

[bigboab]

I've had a doctor write down the exact dosage of a certain brand of drug a couple of times.

When I worked in the hospital there was talk of companies trying to convince physicians to prescribe their drugs, by giving out free samples and frickin gift baskets and whatnot.

Not sure how much of that came from the imaginations of bitter old nurses tho'.

That is going on over here Snny. :(

[Arm]

The bad part is....pharmacies shouldn't prescribing a damn thing.

Just hand me what's already been prescribed (or definitely OTC) and try to answer MY FUCKING QUESTIONS. (there's my rehash)

:D
Well, I meant when it came to honoring prescriptions. :frusty:

[Busyman]

they have no obligation for over the counter/ on the shelf drugs. they can stock whatever brand they wish.

....then this sounds like what hobbes was saying...

The morning after pill is otc in the UK.
They are not obligated.

[vidcc]

....then this sounds like what hobbes was saying...

The morning after pill is otc in the UK.
They are not obligated.

but it's also on the NHS prescription list. this means that it my be aquired free at point of service by someone that qualifies for free prescriptions, or at a cheaper set fee (is it arout the 7 pound mark at the moment?) if one has to pay for prescriptions assuming it cost more over the counter

[Arm]

I believe it is now illegal (in the UK) to sell more than a specific number of painkillers, to the same person, at the same time.

It's a sort of suicide "cooling off" period type of thing.
Thats really fucking stupid. Think about it, 1 bottle of Tylenol is enough to kill yourself with(providing it's maximum strength) and limiting the amount is going to help how? And besides, if you really wanted to kill yourself it wouldnt be hard to go to another store and buy another bottle. ;)

[hobbes]

The original post proposed a situation.

In a freemarket system, I stated that no owner should be forced to stock anything he does not wish.

We have been enlightened that it is a requirement to carry an NHS list of medications and this is a condition which must be agreed upon to obtain a pharmacy license.

There is no discussion then.

If there is a rule and you break it, you will pay a penalty. Can't really discuss that.

[Arm]

The original post proposed a situation.

In a freemarket system, I stated that no owner should be forced to stock anything he does not wish.

We have been enlightened that it is a requirement to carry an NHS list of medications and this is a condition which must be agreed upon to obtain a pharmacy license.

There is no discussion then.

If there is a rule and you break it, you will pay a penalty. Can't really discuss that.
Excellent. :smoke: Now lets lock this topic and start a new argument.

[bigboab]

I believe it is now illegal (in the UK) to sell more than a specific number of painkillers, to the same person, at the same time.

It's a sort of suicide "cooling off" period type of thing.

Sorry if this has already been posted.

This is true. Especially with Paracetamol. Nothing to stop you going to another shop and buying more though. :(

[hobbes]

This is true. Especially with Paracetamol. Nothing to stop you going to another shop and buying more though. :(

Yes, but with "painkillers" you simply fall sleep, stop breathing and die. With tylenol, the course is a long and protracted death.

It is all about what is pleasant. In a pique of depression do I want to hurt myself with a razor, have a long, protracted death with tylenol, or just go to sleep with painkillers.

We must realize that 199/200 suicide attempts are a plea for help, and not to actuallt kill oneself.

[bigboab]

Yes, but with "painkillers" you simply stop breathing, fall asleep and die. With tylenol, the course is a long and protracted death.

It is all about what is pleasant. In a pique of depression do I want to hurt myself with a razor, have a long, protracted death with tylenol, or just go to sleep with painkillers.

We must realize that 199/200 suicide attempts are a plea for help, and not to actuallt kill oneself.

Have you tried any of these self help groups?

How can you have a self help group? It is like having an Anarchist party. :blink:

[hobbes]

Thats really fucking stupid. Think about it, 1 bottle of Tylenol is enough to kill yourself with(providing it's maximum strength) and limiting the amount is going to help how? And besides, if you really wanted to kill yourself it wouldnt be hard to go to another store and buy another bottle. ;)


It is actually not stupid at all.

If you want a painkiller such as morphine, the idea is to give you less than a lethal dose.

Typically, the pharmacist will call the doctor to confirm the prescription for such a highly controlled medication.

The pharmacist will also take your prescription away so that you cannot take it next door.

If you somehow manage to keep it and take it next door, the second call to your doctor in 15 minutes for morphine might just draw some attention.

That is ideally how the system is intended to work.

The way around this is to shop doctors. You go to 4 or 5 different doctors who each write you a 'script for Morphine. Then you cash each in at 5 different pharmacies.

The point that is critical is that such an endeavor cannot be accomplished in a pique of sorrow, it takes a pre-meditated attack plan.

If someone is willing to take the time to do this, they are pretty much bent on killing themselves.

Jpol's plan attempts to thwart the other 199 who really don't want to die from "X"ing themselves while in an acute emotional state.

[Busyman]

There is no discussion then.

If there is a rule and you break it, you will pay a penalty. Can't really discuss that.
I must agree but someone will find a reason to keep it going.

[vidcc]

I must agree but someone will find a reason to keep it going.

like bumping the thread after nearly 28 hours of no new posts :shifty:

[Busyman]

like bumping the thread after nearly 28 hours of no new posts :shifty:
Genius.....you figured it out all by your lonesome. ;)

I've been away for 28 hours too.

[hobbes]

Conspiracy theory states that you 2 were together. :ph34r:

2 people away for 28 hours, you know what I'm talkin' 'bout.

[Busyman]

Conspiracy theory states that you 2 were together. :ph34r:

2 people away for 28 hours, you know what I'm talkin' 'bout.
Not really.

vid had been posting during my "missing" 28 hours.

I was out of town (away and back quick flights) on business. ;)

[lynx]

Thats really fucking stupid. Think about it, 1 bottle of Tylenol is enough to kill yourself with(providing it's maximum strength) and limiting the amount is going to help how? And besides, if you really wanted to kill yourself it wouldnt be hard to go to another store and buy another bottle. ;)Just to clear things up, paracetamol is acetaminophen. Tylenol is USUALLY just acetaminophen, but has variants for different "uses" so may have other additives since it is a brand name - do you actually know what you are taking?

In the UK, paracetamol has been restricted for sale since 1998 to pack sizes not exceeding 16 "maximum" dose tablets. This has resulted in a 21% reduction in paracetamol overdose cases, and a 64% reduction in severe overdose cases.

Edit: in case it hasn't been stated clearly before, this is a VERY nasty way to go. It effectively destroys the liver, a large overdose rarely kills quickly, and most lethal overdoses result in a long, lingering, extremely painful death.

[vidcc]

Conspiracy theory states that you 2 were together. :ph34r:

2 people away for 28 hours, you know what I'm talkin' 'bout.

I was busy making sure the washington post doesn't reveal my identity until after I am dead

[vidcc]

seems we have the same problem in the USA. I can't find the report i read the other day...some are dispensing birth control only to married people :dry:


Pharmacist cites sin in birth control case (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041011-115311-7515r.htm)

source (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/01/birth.control.governor.ap/index.html)

[Busyman]

seems we have the same problem in the USA. I can't find the report i read the other day...some are dispensing birth control only to married people :dry:


Pharmacist cites sin in birth control case (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041011-115311-7515r.htm)

source (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/01/birth.control.governor.ap/index.html)
Yep that's old case.

What I don't understand is what the fuck goes against the religion?

It stops conception. It regulates some women's periods.

This fella was going a step further maybe with trying to prohibit fornication.