Hmm, this bothers me.

[jagmeister]

I'm not talking about the issue of birth control but rather whether a pharmacist should be able to pick and choose which prescriptions to fill based on moral grounds.

To give or not to give?

 

[Serena]

I think it's wrong. I can't believe the pharmacist has the right to decide whether they will fill a prescription based on their own morals.
And frankly, if they can't do the job they were hired to do, then they should be fired.

 

[tarmand]

That is absolutely ridiculous. This kind of nonsense is getting out of hand in the U.S. If you don't want to fill prescriptions for Birth Control, then DON'T BE A PHARMACIST!

 

[ahutton]

They aren't always prescribed to prevent pregnancy, and why would the pharmacist feel qualified to contradict your physician's prescribed medication unless they are aware of an allergy problem or that it will conflict with some other prescription they've filled?

 

[Megster]

Didn't they know going into this job that they would have to fill BC prescriptions? I just seems very silly. If they dont want to fill it than fine, but they better figure out someway for it to get done before the costumer comes back.

 

[Danauk]

That is so wrong. Like a previous poster stated not all prescriptions for BC pills are for that reason. My doctor prescribed them for me for a medical condition not for birth control when I was younger.

 

[Rutt and Tuke]

I began on them while I was still "inexperienced" because of ovarian cysts.

Of course, they later came in handy for other things.

 

[remyandhollandsmommy]

That's crazy! No one should be able to take away someone elses right to practice birth control! My cousin can not have children, she has a medical condition that would kill her if she got pregnant, heaven forbid something like that happened to her!

 

[dg39]

Totaly outrageous. What the heck is going on in this world. Its awfully sad when someone other then my doctor or myself has the right to choose what medications I should be on. Where are the laws for the people. These idiots with holier then thou attitudes are sickening.

 

[Bob Slydell]

It's not really the pharmacists that I would be upset at, but rather the store itself. If the store allows their pharmacists to refuse to fill specific prescriptions, then that's their perogative, I guess.

The part of the article that bothered me was the pharmacist who wouldn't fill the script, wouldn't transfer the script and wouldn't even give the written presciption back to the patient. That, to me, is unexcusable and should (as it sounds like it did) be grounds for firing and/or disciplinary action.

 

[DebbieB]

I could see if a pharamcist owned his own store and made that his policy. People would know that and not go there. But a large chain like CVS has agreements to fill prescriptions for certain insurance plans, they should not allow an individual pharmacist to make their own rules. Or that pharmacist should turn that prescription over to someone else, there is usually more than one pharmacist working at a time in large chains.

 

[TheLionKing]

If the pharmacist owns the store, he/she shold have the right to decide what products he/she sells, just as any store owner should. This obviously becomes a little "stickier" if they are the only pharmacy in town.

If it is a big chain pharmacy, then I would think the store manager would want one of the pharmacists to be able to fill the prescription. The store manager certainly wouldn't want that business to walk out the door.

 

[year2late]

I would question the pharmacists credentials if he did such a thing. If he is doing it for "moral" reasons and he does not realize that there are medical conditions that are treated with the same drugs, he should give back his license.

I will bet you a nickel he does not check for a wedding band on every man who requests viagra.

 

[kasar]

I thought birth control pills were legalized years ago.

Pharmacists have an obligation to help their customers, not make moral judgements.

 

[disykat]

I don't think health professionals should have to go against their own morals to perform tasks - however I do think they are obligated to meet the needs of the patient.

The pharmacist should have handed the prescription to another pharmacist.

I remember when the "physician assisted suicide" bill was being touted in Oregon. There was huge concern amoungst the medical community that they would be required to euthenize patients if they requested.

I feel strongly that you can't require a medical professional to do things they are morally opposed to. However I think CVS could fire them for not doing their job and especially for not seeing to it that the patients rights were seen to.