Hi Beth
Thank you for a well considered article. Yes, it is a reality that when facing issues to do with sex and responsibility in relationships, most of us run into a defensive huddle and look out for who we can hold responsible for our predicament.
I applaud Dal Broi and John Wilks for the stand they have both taken. When we study the facts and let them stand, we do gain a better picture of what is actually happening in our world. The statistics quoted by John Wilks are very interesting. Do you have a link to this information?
Vic

While I agree with the article's stance on an individual's right to his own conscience, I thought it was worthwhile to point out that the Church's teaching is against using the Pill (or condoms for that matter) when the intent is solely or principally to prevent conception. So far as I know there is no requirement for a Catholic woman who is, for example, prescribed the Pill for reasons to do with health (such as regulating painful or irregular periods)to feel she must abstain on religious grounds.
And while I also agree that the condom is not the great saviour that it was held up to be, I also assume that if there was some health issue that required the use of condoms (some women, for example, are allergic to their husband's semen) there would also be no moral grounds forbidding their use for that reason.
When the Pope spoke out against the use of condoms recently, he was not actually condemning their use per se, just making the point that they are not the answer to the problem of AIDS.

Seems my post vanished into thin air.

Pharmacists (people who are given a special privilege of selling, and granting permission to receive medications), deserve NO such right to let their personal beliefs cut access to medicines. It is no less than an abuse of authority and sets quite a dangerous standard.

The 'go elsewhere' argument is lame. This only works for customers who happen to live in an area with plenty more chemists that DO sell their full products- and not everyone that relies on a chemist has the mobility.
And even if they did, they shouldn't have to.

The "right" of the chemist holds everyone else's right to access what they want hostage.

You can buy condoms and lube at Woolworths and Coles, at convenience stores and from vending machines at some pubs.

I actually wonder why pharmacies even bother to stock condoms, except as a sidelight to their main business and for the convenience of some customers.

Condoms are not a medical device, they do not require aprescription. If it is argued that pharamacies must sell condoms then it could be argued that they should also sell a wide range of 'marital aids'. Of course, that would be ridiculous.

But it would be also as ridiculous as, given that some convenience shops sell condoms, to demand that all convenience shops sell condoms.

I am also aware that some pharmacies do not take part in methadone administration programs, nor do they have needle exchanges, but I do not see anyone being critical of that.
Not all pharmacies carry ever single medicine that is available under prescription in Australia, sometimes out of choice, sometimes out of conscience. Some pharmacies still carry sinus medications with pseudoephedrine, and will sell it only to people who are regular customers. Others don't carry it at all.

But it seems that there is a concept that if people have an urge for sex then that every pharmamcist should have to carry something to satisfy that urge.

We live in a liberal democacy, which means we have a choise as to whether we have sex or not. Pharmacies have a choice under the same grounds to sell or not to sell.

Trevor Dal Broi of East Griffith - you are a champion of someone who is more interested in ethics and decency than secular dogma that leads to disease and death. I take heart and strongly hope someone will nominate you as Australian of the Year. May many more Australians act on conscience rather than secular dogma and we will reduce aids, baby killing and many other diseases. The permissive high priests have been fooling our youth for to long and now we see the appalling fruit of their inward corruption and teachings.

I guess Catholic pharmacists who want to push their views onto
their customers, could always hang up a sign in the window,
pointing to that fact. A little picture of the pope perhaps?

That would give customers like me the knowledge that I
need, so that I can avoid their business completely and
take my custom to more tolerant and sensible business
operators.

The Catholic Church has done enough damage with this policy
in the third world.

I cant believe anyone would object.

What a waste of an article. The biggest non-issue article I've ever seen. So many words to say some guy shouldn't have to sell condoms. I think the biggest mistake the author and the Chemist are making is that anyone bloody cares!

'Courageous' stand? Hahahahaha. I think the biggest fear of the chemist and the author would be if nobody notices.

It's not quite as simple as the article or some posters may want to make it out to be. The rules around it don't seem to be simple but pharmacies like many other busineses get some government protection. There are rules about proximity to other pharmacies, the number of pharmacies in relation to other shops etc. There is some coverage of this at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/ED90D96B6729FF84CA256FBA0016F956/$File/finalpartc.pdf

The author and some posters have focussed on condoms and if this was just about them I'd agree but the discussion is about any form of contraception. Pharmacists as a group/industry fight to maintain the right to be the source for certain products. There are good reasons why that can be beneficial (some medications should not be on the shelves at Woolies and I suspect that the pill and the morning after pill both fit in that category) however with the restictions on other vendors comes responsibility.

It's argued that pharmacists don't stock every medication but that looks like a diversion. Contraceptive products (especially the pill) are used by a large number of people, they are not an obscure medication where the call for them is very limited. Not stocking contraceptive products is not the same as not stocking many other products where the customer has the option to switch to another product which achieves similar results.

It's not just a case of pharmacist conscience, because of the nature of pharmacies and medication it's about a denial of access to products which are important to a lot of people. For those of us living in cities it's unlikely that such restrictions would have practical impacts, but it's not to difficult to envisage the situation in smaller communities where this could create a genuine lack of access for people to reliable contraception.

R0bert

So we're really really worried about the chance of a one pharmacist town, where the pharmacist is a strict god botherer, and where one or more of the inhabitants don't have any access to transport and could not possibly go to another town, or get someone they know to go to another town or find a doctor who would give them a years script so they need only do it once a year.

I'm weeping for the plight of all these theoretical people.

Well balanced article.

Trevor Dal Broi's actions are repugnant. I feel sympathy for any person so viciously oppressed/bullied by allusions to demonstrably false obligations. One can only hope his pain and confusion is met with a wake up call - such as gay children or a pregnant teen.

Better still, does he sell syringes as is his choice under Harm Minimisation? Apparently the bible has verses warning against illicit drug use - so wonderful is hindsight mixed with fear.

A bisexual, pregnant, IV drug addicted teenage daughter is the description of tens of thousands of Aussies. I can only hope this is this chaps lot.

Will he apply this formula?: He Abraham, his children Isaac? Kill your children as a test? Faced with reality, his formula is pathological.

Sounds offensive, yes? Welcome to the world of non theism.

Christianity argues the binary opposite of the above, complete with threats to torture one for eternity. It is this threat - not conscience - that sees this poor misguided man, acting in a morally crippled manner.

I would put it to any compassionate human that the schism between the 'kind Christian' and 'warrior Christian' continues to grow. The church is forever disassociated with "sanctuary", more properly noted as "prison".

Yet, it is the useless and dangerous rubbish that this man sells at mark-up that exposes his greed. His diet scam has been labelled by Choice and independent nutritionists as "disgraceful and irresponsible". It is in breach of childhood guidelines; and this man claims moral superiority?!

He will continue to sell vitamin and herbal preparations that not only do not work, but interact with actual medication.

Panadeine and St. Johns wort. The latter speeds up the hepatic oxidation of opioid analgesics. Purchase both; result is poor efficacy re pain relief which cannot be alleviated by any herb. Or tricking ill patients who fill antibiotic scripts to also "boost your immune system" with the "pharmacist brand" herbs/vitamins. Substrates can in no way "boost" immunity.

These lies are played out in stores across the nation. Dal Broi is a dangerous/arrogant fool.

http://atheistage.org/?p=1977