If you believe in birth control...

[declansdad]

No, I'm saying that if your beliefs are preventing you from performing your job properly you should find another.

Going into pharmacy, you know that you may have to depsense drugs that you do not approve of. If you don't like it, you should either look into another career, or just deal with it. It's not the pharmacists place to decide what is/isn't right for the woman.

Goodness, if a pharmacist did that here there would be nationwide outrage! And rightly so!

If the pharmacist is deciding what medication is right or wrong then yes I would be outraged. But if is a simply saying that their beliefs are preventing them from doing it, to me that is different.

Would you expect a person who is a Seventh Day Adventist (I think they are people with this belief) to not become a doctor because they do not believe in blood transfusions? What I am trying to say that there are two sides of the issue and neither side should condemn the other for their beliefs.

 

[VSL]

If anyone part of your job would cause you severe angst, then yes you should find another job or an employer that will allow you to not perform that one part.

In fact, I've done this myself! So I'm not just preaching, I've practiced!

I worked part-time in a supermarket (I'm a student) and was a checkout operator. In this particular supermarket, the checkout operators had to wash the checkout area down every night. They didn't give us gloves and my skin completely dried up, cracked, and were covered in blood. It got so bad that I called in and said that I would be coming to work that night but would not be cleaning due to the cleaning products (and the fact that they didn't provide necessary protection). They said, 'no, you're cleaning', so I handed in my notice that same day and found a job elsewhere (where it was a much nicer environment as well!).

Hmm.. I wish I had sued them for not complying with legal procedures though! Never mind!

 

[VSL]

If the pharmacist is deciding what medication is right or wrong then yes I would be outraged. But if is a simply saying that their beliefs are preventing them from doing it, to me that is different.

Would you expect a person who is a Seventh Day Adventist (I think they are people with this belief) to not become a doctor because they do not believe in blood transfusions? What I am trying to say that there are two sides of the issue and neither side should condemn the other for their beliefs.

But they are making the decision that you cannot have BCP because of what they believe!!

And I thought it was Jehovah's Witness' who didn't believe in blood transfusions... and no, if being a surgeon who had to give a blood transfusion as part of their job conflicted with their beliefs and caused them to say 'no, I don't believe in this, go find a surgeon who does', then they should find themselves another career.

I don't think you're quite understanding or reading my posts properly:
I haven't condemned anyone for their beliefs, I just said that I think that they should do their job properly, regardless, and if their beliefs cause them problems then they should find themselves another job which doesn't involve prohibiting people from getting a legal drug prescribed by their doctor!

 

[mickeyluv'r]

a pharmacist that truly stood up for himself or herself wouldn't accept employment from a company that dispensed birth control. if my wife and I decide d she needed to go on birth control and her doctor agreed, a guy filling pill bottles is a third party. his opinions don't matter. if you want to make your opinions known, flush all of the birth control products down the toilet and quit. take a real stand. no, they just want have a chance to look a woman in the eye, and judge her. all they have to do is have one of the techs fill it if they can't do it because of their moral grounds. but nooooo.

A tech can't fill prescriptions. I'm pretty certain it's also quite illegal for pharmacists to take or destroy any meds. They go to jail all the time for missing narcotics.

A police officer has to enforce laws he finds morally objectionable. It is his sworn duty to uphold the law. Teachers (and other employees who work with kids) are compelled to report child abuse to the proper agencies - even if the person is a relative or friend. Firefighters are compelled to control fires.
Doctors can't choose which patients to help. Lawyers are expected to defend clients they know are guilty to the best of their ability. Even judges are supposed to uphold laws they find objectionable. Even realtors and bank agents can't discriminate.
I don't think it's a matter of choosing an employer, but rather choosing a profession. If you don't like blood, you don't become a surgeon. If you can't uphold the law, you don't become a police officer, and so on. If you don't want to fill prescriptions, why would someone become a pharmacist in the first place? Lots of people leave professions when they disagree morally.

The nature of democracy is that everyone's rights should be protected under the law. Up until this week, I thought getting a legal prescription filled was one area where everyone's rights were protected.

Again, my intent on starting this thread was not to debate whether or not pharmacists have moral objections or not, or whether birth control is the right choice for anyone, but just to inform everyone of a current trend that is occurring. Also, perhaps to be informed by someone who works for one of these companies if this policy is changed.

If you feel that pharmacists should be able to refuse prescriptions they object to, then that is your right. You may want to write to Planned Parenthood, Target, Wal-mart, or any other companies which have this policy, and let them know. However, I suspect that if enough people disagree with their policy either laws will be passed, or the free market will prevail, when those who disagree boycott their stores.

But plese, let's keep the discussion civil!

 

[declansdad]

But they are making the decision that you cannot have BCP because of what they believe!!

Just as you are asking them to give you something because of your beliefs.

I don't think you're quite understanding or reading my posts properly:
I haven't condemned anyone for their beliefs, I just said that I think that they should do their job properly, regardless, and if their beliefs cause them problems then they should find themselves another job which doesn't involve prohibiting people from getting a legal drug prescribed by their doctor!

I don't think you are understanding mine either. I am not condeming anyone, in fact I believe in birth control. What I am saying is that if you argue that pharmacist are imposing their beliefs by refusing to fill your perscription, the same arguement can be raised the other way.

 

[froglady]

What I'm trying to say is that just as you would have a choice to take a form of birth control based on your personal beliefs/convictions, why shouldn't the pharmacist have the same freedom of choice with regards to dispensing the drugs?

Because unless he is a dispensing pharmacist (there are a few around) he doesn't have a choice over ANY prescriptions he fills...he's merely following the doctor's/ PA/Nurse Practioner (if licensed to write scrips) directions.

He doesn't decide whether or not a patient gets pain meds, cardiac meds, etc., he just dispenses them. If the pharmacy carries it in its formulary, he has an obligation to dispense it as written. If he has a question about it, only the doctor who wrote it can change the drug, dosage, etc.

I have had instances when I've had to go to a certain pharmacy within a chain to get specific pain meds for my dad (when he was in intractable pain prior to his death) but that was because of financial/safety issues on the pharmacies part.

Edited to add. I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription until he can double check with the physician. This goes on all the time, especially in the case of narcotics. I do have a problem with him/her outright refusing to fill it, regardless of the med involved.

 

[froglady]

That is like saying if you don't beleive in any one part of your job, you should find another.

I realize that this is a very important issue and i'm not trying to make light of it but there are two sides to every issue and sometimes when we have a personal attachment we forget the other side.

If you can find a job where your belief can be easily accomodated, it isn't a problem. This pharmacist could find a job in a faith-based hospital, clinic, etc or in a large pharmacy with at least one other pharmacist who doesn't have a problem dispensing them working at all times.

As for the doctor and blood transfusions, there are many specialties where that would not be an issue. However, none of the surgical specialties would be an option, and I doubt that any med/surgical residency would accept someone who couldn't deal with it.

another edit.

When I was in a new graduate nurse working on a neurosurgical unit, there was a student who refused to give peri-care due to her religious beliefs, which precluded young, virginal women from seeing a male's "privates."

She was able to be accomodated by her fellow students, but it caused a bit of resentment (as most of the students/nurses were young single or married women who really would prefer not to do this) but she was advised by the nursing supervisor that she should probably look elsewhere once she graduated and had to adhere to a job description.

 

[VSL]

Just as you are asking them to give you something because of your beliefs.



I don't think you are understanding mine either. I am not condeming anyone, in fact I believe in birth control. What I am saying is that if you argue that pharmacist are imposing their beliefs by refusing to fill your perscription, the same arguement can be raised the other way.

I understand your arguments, but they really are irrelevent when it comes down to the fact that, regardless of a pharmacists' beliefs, they have a job to do.

See:

A police officer has to enforce laws he finds morally objectionable. It is his sworn duty to uphold the law. Teachers (and other employees who work with kids) are compelled to report child abuse to the proper agencies - even if the person is a relative or friend. Firefighters are compelled to control fires.
Doctors can't choose which patients to help. Even judges are supposed to uphold laws they find objectionable. Even realtors and bank agents can't discriminate.

Back to declansdad..
If they're uncomfortable with the job requirements, they should find something else, not prevent someone from getting their medicine.

Oh, and it's not the customer who is imposing their beliefs on the pharmacist, it is the employer, with whom the pharmacist no doubt signed a contract stating that they would do their job properly, regardless. If the pharmacist has issues, they should take it up with their employer, not take it upon themselves to prevent a customer from getting their medicine.

 

[declansdad]

Because unless he is a dispensing pharmacist (there are a few around) he doesn't have a choice over ANY prescriptions he fills...he's merely following the doctor's/ PA/Nurse Practioner (if licensed to write scrips) directions.

He doesn't decide whether or not a patient gets pain meds, cardiac meds, etc., he just dispenses them. If the pharmacy carries it in its formulary, he has an obligation to dispense it as written. If he has a question about it, only the doctor who wrote it can change the drug, dosage, etc.

I have had instances when I've had to go to a certain pharmacy within a chain to get specific pain meds for my dad (when he was in intractable pain prior to his death) but that was because of financial/safety issues on the pharmacies part.

Edited to add. I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription until he can double check with the physician. This goes on all the time, especially in the case of narcotics. I do have a problem with him/her outright refusing to fill it, regardless of the med involved.

I agree with you if there is a legal requirement for the pharmacist to fill the perscription then they should be made to fill the perscription. (Of course that open up on another discussion on religious freedoms.) However, if there is no legal requirement both sides can cite the same arguement.

 

[mickeyluv'r]

Incidentally, if a doctor makes a mistake on a dosage of a particular drug, the pharmacist can call the doctor, but if the doctor insists that the dosage is correct, he is still obligated to fill it as directed.

 

[froglady]

I agree with you if there is a legal requirement for the pharmacist to fill the perscription then they should be made to fill the perscription. (Of course that open up on another discussion on religious freedoms.) However, if there is no legal requirement both sides can cite the same arguement.

I believe their licensure requires that they fill any prescription presented to them written by a licensed physician for any med carried in their formulary exactly as written, or the doctor must be contacted before a change can be made.

Again, they are not to make decisions about the med, unless a doctor is contacted.

So if their pharmacy carries it, and if it's in stock, they have to fill it. Now, the question of whether or not a pharmacy can refuse to carry specific drugs is a different debate.

 

[cardaway]

However, if there is no legal requirement both sides can cite the same arguement.

Not really. The person refusing to fill the perscription would have make a bad choice in choosing a profession or where to work. The customer made a choice where to shop, and unless it's against written store policy, their choice was correct.

 

[bicker]

What I'm trying to say is that just as you would have a choice to take a form of birth control based on your personal beliefs/convictions, why shouldn't the pharmacist have the same freedom of choice with regards to dispensing the drugs?

The pharmacist can decide not to be a pharmacist.

The pharmacy can choose not to be in the business of selling drugs.

A rape victim doesn't get to choose not to be pregnant.
​

We can quibble back and forth about abortion rights in general, and I can grant that there are legitimate points on both sides of the issue. However, there is no legitimate defense for withholding whatever is necessary to prevent or terminate a pregnancy which is the result of rape.

That is like saying if you don't beleive in any one part of your job, you should find another.

No, it is like saying that if you don't believe in any one part of your job, you should evaluate whether that one part is critical enough to warrant finding another job. I had a job where I traveled 200 days per year. I didn't like that part of the job. I still did the job for five years. Then my priorities changed. I found another job.

This isn't rocket-science.

Would you expect a person who is a Seventh Day Adventist (I think they are people with this belief) to not become a doctor because they do not believe in blood transfusions?

If it means they wouldn't prescribe blood transfusions when they're medically warranted, as per the standard guidelines for medical care in this country, then yes.

What's your point?

What I am trying to say that there are two sides of the issue and neither side should condemn the other for their beliefs.

I'm all for that. The condemnation isn't of the beliefs, but rather is of the practice.

 

[declansdad]

I surrender!!


edited to add:

why did rape suddenly become part of this discussion?

 

[beckmrk04]

I surrender!!


edited to add:

why did rape suddenly become part of this discussion?

I believe the rape issue was entered in because many women who seek the morning after pill have had it prescribed to them by their ER physicians who have done rape kit examinations. Having been a sexual assault victim advocate, I have sat through a few of those exams with some scared young women. And each and every one of the girls I have sat with has been prescribed the morning after pill. Some can take it in the ER. Some choose to take it later. Can you imagine, after being raped, realizing you could potentially become pregnant, you decide just to go get the meds, go home and try to get some rest, but NO. The pharmacist doesn't want to give you the medicine you have been legally prescribed? Becuase he/she doesn't believe in it? Nevermind what you have been through. Go tell your story to yet ANOTHER person. Can you imagine how horrific this must feel? How judged and degraded a woman would feel?

The issue though is NOT rape. I agree with most other posters in this board that if a pharmacist does not want to dispense BC, don't be a pharmacist. Mickeyluv'r put it perfectly- police have to uphold the laws- even the ones they don't agree with. THAT is the job. It is NOT a judgement seat. And women, NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE, should be able to get their medicine.

Otherwise, where do we draw the line? This pharmacist doesn't believe in antidepressants- sorry. This pharmacist doesn't believe in painkillers- tough it out. It's ridiculous.