A PHARMACIST has stopped selling contraceptives because of his strong religious beliefs.
Trevor Dal Broi is telling women using oral contraceptive pills for birth control to take their scripts to another chemist.
He removed condoms from his East Griffith Pharmacy several weeks ago and has banned the sale of emergency contraception morning-after pills.
These pills have been available without a prescription for between $20 and $30 since 2004.
Mr Dal Broi is handing out a leaflet to women with scripts for the contraceptive pill saying that he accepts the official teaching of the Catholic Church against the use of artificial contraception and has a moral objection to dispensing them.
Mr Dal Broi, who is married with four children, yesterday refused to comment.
Not surprised he refused to comment considering how negative the rest of the article is. I say “Three Cheers for Me. Broi!”
More from another article.
“As a practising Catholic, it is my obligation to accept the official teaching of the Catholic Church against the use of artificial contraception,” he said.
“When I dispense an oral contraceptive pill I will ask the lady to sit at our counselling desk where I explain that there is a leaflet in the box regarding our pharmacy policy on the pill.
“It explains that I accept the teachings of the Catholic Church against the use of artificial contraception, and asks the lady to respect my view on the use of artificial contraception and have it filled elsewhere next time if it is being taken for contraceptive purposes.”
Mr Dal Broi said the pharmacy would continue to dispense the pill to women taking it for other medical purposes, such as painful or irregular periods, and hormonal and skin problems. [reference]
20 comments
“A PHARMACIST has stopped selling contraceptives because of his strong religious beliefs.”
I’d like to read an article about someone who does something “because of his weak religious beliefs” just once. I bet it’d be a really thrilling article.
A true catholic. The Chruch teaches Love and Life are inseparable, just as Jesus Christ is both Love and Life. Abuse that act and gift which he has given us and we become animals. Instead of encouraging self- control through abstinence we encourage children to give into their desires giving the notion tthat they can do as they wish without consequences. What a selfish society we are becoming. But if a catholic doesnt agree with Christ’s teaching and the authority given to the Church by Christ to ‘feed His lambs’..then by all means do what over 35,000 groups have done and form your own church that satisfies your human desires.
There are a few pharmicies like his here in the US. Planned Parenthood & all have been very critical. So, the reactions from down under don’t surprize me.
No, of course the reactions aren’t nice, Al. Because we can’t dare judge or tell people what to do with THEIR lives, but – gosh darn it – they have a right to tell us how to live ours, run our businesses, and what is/isn’t important in our faith.
I am not really familiar with the laws where Mr Doi operates but it seems to me that condoms and morning after pills are two different situations.
Condoms are available from many outlets, grocery, department and convenience stores, even gas station, bar and bus station restrooms. Contraceptive pills, likely are available only through licensed facilities with a pharmacist on duty. By not offering the pill to his customers, he is abrogating the responsibility of his licensure and acting in restraint of trade. Because pharmacies have a government monopoly on the sale of contraceptive drugs and customers are limited as to where and under what circumstances they may be obtained, he has an obligation to act as a source point, just as a merchant that holds authorization to sell State lottery tickets cannot pick and choose which type of tickets to sell, who to sell them to or for what reason.
What if he was the only pharmacy in town, many miles from the nearest alternative source of contraceptive drugs?
He should be fined and his pharmacist license should be revoked, thereby allowing another practitioner, willing to provide full service, to take his business.
He should be fined and his pharmacist license should be revoked, thereby allowing another practitioner, willing to provide full service, to take his business.
In other words, believe what you want between your ears alone.
In most (all?) states of the US, you have to have a license to operate as a hair care provider. Does that mean every salon/barbershop owner should have to provide every possible hair styling service or else have her license revoked?
If I own a bookstore miles away from any other bookstore, does that mean I am required to carry pornography, lest my customers be forced to shop miles away to find theirs?
What if he was the only pharmacy in town, many miles from the nearest alternative source of contraceptive drugs?
But he isn’t, is he? So what’s the point of that grasping-at-straws argument?
He should be fined and his pharmacist license should be revoked, thereby allowing another practitioner, willing to provide full service, to take his business.
Nothing is stopping another practitioner from doing this now. Jobs don’t require you to check your morality at the door. It says in the article he’s still providing the pill for non-contraceptive reasons – i.e., ACTUAL health care. Giving the pill to perfectly healthy women for no other reason than thwarting their fertility is NOT health care. Neither are condoms or the “morning after” pill.
The late father of a friend of mine was a urologist who forfeited hundreds of thousands of dollars because he wold not perform vasectomies. May perpetual light shine upon him.
I actually had a friend who argued that, if a bookstore refused to stock any book for any reason, or refused to buy a used book, it was engaging in censorship.
Sorry to niggle, but technically she is engaging in censorship. But it is perfectly just censorship. The error these days that any and all censorship is unjust.
ah, but what about the “non contraception” use for the pill?
Some people use it for heavy or irregular periods, and I was place on it to shrink my ovarian cysts when I was single.
ah, but what about the “non contraception” use for the pill?
I think you missed the last line of the news entry:
“Mr Dal Broi said the pharmacy would continue to dispense the pill to women taking it for other medical purposes, such as painful or irregular periods, and hormonal and skin problems.”
Suzanne,
Of course you don’t have to carry books on porn. You have to carry books about pedophilia and incest. Because people who can only obtain them from your store have the legal right. Well, not yet. But when the law changes, they will and people with Reddog’s moral reasoning will uphold that law with all due rightousness…
Suzanne,
Of course you don’t have to carry books on porn. You have to carry books about pedophilia and incest. Because people who can only obtain them from your store have the legal right. Well, not yet. But when the law changes, they will and people with Reddog’s moral reasoning will uphold that law with all due rightousness…
Nancy,
Women’s health is just too important to let that red herring get a free pass.
If we could just refrain from politics for a moment, we could see that women not receiving the pill would actually benefit, health-wise. The vast majority of the time, women do not need the pill when prescribed it for medical reasons. Instead, the pill covers up medical problems instead of addressing them. (an easy out but not a boon to women who need to address diet, exercise, and medical issues).
It’s kind of like arguing abortion in terms of the mother’s health: it’s so rare that it makes for a very poor counter-arguement, more of a distraction. No ethical pharmicist or knowledgeable Catholic would stand in the way in such a rare situation anyway…
Because pharmacies have a government monopoly on the sale of contraceptive drugs and customers are limited as to where and under what circumstances they may be obtained, he has an obligation to act as a source point, just as a merchant that holds authorization to sell State lottery tickets cannot pick and choose which type of tickets to sell, who to sell them to or for what reason
Governments also have a monopoly on who can be engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. – not everyone in those professions has to provide every possible service and have a right to limit what they want to provide (eg, not every lawyer has to offer criminal defense services). The problem with your analysis is that the government may have a monopoly, but there is no evidence HE does – no evidence that there are not others readily available who can dispense (in our town, you can’t spit without hitting a pharmacy). The ticket sale is not a license in a professional sense, but a license in the contractual sense – he has contracted with the government to supply certain products, just as though he contracted with a private indivudual to sell his wares. A pharmacy license does not require any or particular products must be dispensed.
cA9iIS http://j8Jw83mNs0doPpsqvjrcns5.info
cA9iIS http://j8Jw83mNs0doPpsqvjrcns5.info
cA9iIS http://j8Jw83mNs0doPpsqvjrcns5.info
cA9iIS http://j8Jw83mNs0doPpsqvjrcns5.info