Revisiting the pharmacist/birth control script refusal debate (sort of)

[6_Time_Momma]

Awhile back, there was a debate regarding a pharmacist who refused to fill a script for BC pills. Now, the pharmacist was within his right to refuse to fill them based on his beliefs. The problem came in, apparently, when he refused to refer her to another pharmacist or transfer the script.

Now, originally, I was in support of the pharmacist (in not filling the script, not about not transferring the script). However, I heard a radio talk show today that made me stop and think a bit more.

It was saying that there was a case where a pharmacist refused to fill a script for ritalin because he believed it was wrong to medicate children for that (whether he didn't believe ADHD was a real disorder or not, I'm not sure). Another case involved a pharm refusing to fill a script for viagra for a single man.

I guess I still feel they should have the right to refuse if they transfer or have another pharmacist to fill it, but at the same time, I can see where it could be headed. Someone refuses to fill a script for AZT as the person may have gotten AIDS from an "unapproved" lifestyle. SOmeone refuses to fill a script for Zovirax (herpes) for the same reason. What about meds for emphysema? I mean , they probably got that from smoking.

I can certainly see a big potential for problems. However, I also realize that, as a nurse, there may come a time where I am faced with doing something that would go against my beliefs, and I would still want the right to refuse to do that (and to have another nurse do it).

What do you think could/should be done, if anything, to ensure the pharmacist's right (based on moral/ethical/religious) grounds, but to prevent the potential of having meds not filled? Is it enough simply to make sure the script is transferred?

I don't know if this is really debate material or not, but it did get me thinking.

 

[golfgal]

If he had moral/ethical issues with ANY medication then he is in the wrong field. I would say that he can refuse to fill any in his own store, that he personally owns, but to refuse to transfer the script elsewhere is just wrong. I also think it borders on practicing medicine without a license (his is licensed to dispence meds, not decide if someone needs it or not).

 

[lewdyan1]

I definitely think it is debate material. IMHO I just don't understand how they can override a decision made between a doctor and patient. You made many good points about where this can lead, it's kind of scary...

 

[babar]

sorry, but there is no excuse for refusal to fill a prescription. I don't really care what your moral beliefs are, because if i'm getting birth control, then your beliefs don't mean crap to me.

You don't have to take the pills, but you can't stop anyone from taking them. Especially when this is your chosen field.

If this wasn't so pathetic, I'd laugh about it.

 

[RobinMarie]

Most of these situations people in these professionals ought to consider before accepting the job. Most positions have a job description and refusing to do job related duties may result in termination. My belief is as long as the practices are consistent and not based on discrimination against a group I'm pretty ok with it.

If the refusal to do a job related duty has a direct result on harming a person, then there ought to be consequences. Everyone's rights need to be respected.

 

[Alicnwondrln]

if they have issues filling perscriptions based on how they feel then they need a new job
im sorry i am soo sick of these type of people
you cnat let your feelings or beliefs dictate OTHERS lives and choice
we do live in a free country
they have a right to feel whatever they want but there choice shouldnt effect others lives

 

[pw2pp]

I heard this topic on the Mitch Albom show yesterday (at least part of it).
I don't think that a Pharmacist should refuse to dispense a medication based on his "beliefs".
A person and the meds they are prescribed are between them and their Doctor. The Pharmacist is there to follow the directions and dispense the medication, except in the case that the med. may be fatal to the patient (then he can question/refuse to dispense).
If a Pharmacist has "beliefs" that go against Birth Control, Viagra, etc..... well then maybe he is in the wrong field.
The Pharmacist is not there to pass judgement on people, he is there to dispense meds.... period.

 

[debster812]

I don't think there is anyone that disagrees that you are certainly free to refrain from doing something that goes against your own personal moral code. However, one person's moral code is not neccessarily the same as the next person's. In cases such as the pharmacist refusing to fill a script, or a nurse not feeling right performing a certain task, as long as the act itself was not illegal, I think the person refusing the to perform the service, or fill the script, is bound to refer the customer or patient to another goods or services provider.

As an example, I think the pharmacist was well within his rights to refuse to fill the birth control script, however, his refusal to refer her to another pharmacist or to simply transfer the script to another pharmacy, was reprehensible.

And I can tell you, whatever chain pharmacy this guy worked for, would never see another penny of my money once I had resolved the situation, had it been me.

 

[chobie]

I think that the government should err on the side of capitalism when it comes to this issue. If a particular pharmacy wishes to employ "moral" pharmacists who like to override doctors at their whim, then so be it. On the other hand if a pharmacy does not wish to allow its employees to refuse to fill certain prescriptions then they should be able to do this as well. Either way they should be able to advertise what kind of pharmacists they hire and then let the consumer choose which pharmacy to go to.

 

[poohandwendy]

Kristy, you have finally seen the light!!!! What you described is exactly why I had such a problem with it, the first time I heard about it. What about all of the different ailments that someone could judge you for?

Bottom line, a pharmasict has a duty to fill the scripts, period. If they cannot for some reason...they need to make sure it is done by someone else (without making any comments to the customer)

 

[RitaZ.]

I remember that thread and I'm sure this will turn into a debate.

My opinion on this was and still is that if a pharmacist feels that they can't not fill an Rx based on moral beliefs, then he/she is in the wrong profession. My friend's husband is a pharmacist and he wants nothing to do with working in a pharmacy, so he works in research.

Does anyone know if anything else happened with that case?

 

[Pin Wizard]

They should have a sign clearly posted that certain meds won't be filled. To expect them to give up the profession is ridiculous. There are OB/Gyns out there that won't do abortions. Expect them to give up their careers as a physician?

If they're working at a chain, ie, Eckerds, I might look for someone higher up and make sure they're aware a pharmacist is doing this. After all, it's taking the almighty $$$ away from the store.

 

[6_Time_Momma]

I don't think there is anyone that disagrees that you are certainly free to refrain from doing something that goes against your own personal moral code. However, one person's moral code is not neccessarily the same as the next person's. In cases such as the pharmacist refusing to fill a script, or a nurse not feeling right performing a certain task, as long as the act itself was not illegal, I think the person refusing the to perform the service, or fill the script, is bound to refer the customer or patient to another goods or services provider.

See, this is kind of how I feel, but what if there is only two pharmacies in town and both refuse to fill it. Then someone has to drive out of town.

So, I guess I'm kind of torn here.

 

[Shugardrawers]

I have to agree that a pharmacist who owns the shop has the right to refuse to fill any prescription he feels goes against his beliefs. I also think he has the right not to refer the patient to another pharmacy. There are plenty of pharmacies out there so it's not hard to find a place to get it filled. If the pharmacist works for a chain such as Walgreens and that chain doesn't have a policy against say filling birth control rx's for single women then he gave up the right to refuse that rx based on his personal beliefs.

I also agree that the pharmacist doesn't have the right to say a particular medication isn't needed by a particular patient. He's a pharmacist, not a doctor. His job is to dispense the medications prescribed and educate patients on their use.

I guess I don't have anything original to add lol, just wanted to put my 2 cents in.

 

[pw2pp]

One of the cases that was discussed on the Mitch Albom show was in the case of the "Morning-After Pill". The Pharmacist believed that taking the pill would be equivalent to performing an abortion. In that case, I think it would be okay for the Pharmacist to let another Pharmacist fill it instead of him.....
but to refuse to fill regular BC Pills prescriptions and Viagra is ridiculous.

 

[alliecats]

It is a pharmacist's JOB to fill prescriptions. It is not his job to : pass judgment, play God as to what he does and does not approve of, or to refuse to do his job. If he has a problem with the day-after pills, tell you what, then he should not take them. But he should do the job he is paid to do. They are pharmacists, not self-appointed morals police.

 

[lulugirl]

sorry, but there is no excuse for refusal to fill a prescription. I don't really care what your moral beliefs are, because if i'm getting birth control, then your beliefs don't mean crap to me.

You don't have to take the pills, but you can't stop anyone from taking them. Especially when this is your chosen field.

If this wasn't so pathetic, I'd laugh about it.

ITA.....

 

[Aneille]

If he had moral/ethical issues with ANY medication then he is in the wrong field. I would say that he can refuse to fill any in his own store, that he personally owns, but to refuse to transfer the script elsewhere is just wrong. I also think it borders on practicing medicine without a license (his is licensed to dispence meds, not decide if someone needs it or not).

Well put. Honestly I'd be pretty po'd if a pharmacist refused my script even if it was his own store. The script is between me and my doctor not the pharmacist. Honestly if a pharmacist has very strict moral/ethical beliefs he/she probably should have chosen a different career. But if its their store, its their right to refuse if thats what the law says (I have no idea).

As far as a typical pharmacy atmosphere (ie CVS, Walgreens etc) they should simply not handle the script and give it to one of the other pharmacists working.

Refusing to do something because you think it is wrong is one thing, but intefering to the point of making something legal a headache to get done or impossible is just wrong.

If its not illegal a Dr., pharmacist or any other person you pay for their expertise should aid you either themselves or by giving you a referral to someone that will.

For me its a non-issue. If your moral beliefs are so strong that you can't get yourself to refer them to someone else then you probably should get out of your line of work. Or at least find somewhere else to work that your moral beliefs are more inline with those your helping.

 

[6_Time_Momma]

Kristy, you have finally seen the light!!!! What you described is exactly why I had such a problem with it, the first time I heard about it. What about all of the different ailments that someone could judge you for?

Bottom line, a pharmasict has a duty to fill the scripts, period. If they cannot for some reason...they need to make sure it is done by someone else (without making any comments to the customer)

LOL! Well, I don't know if I've seen the light completely.......maybe a light glow.

 

[debster812]

LOL! Well, I don't know if I've seen the light completely.......maybe a light glow.

Baby steps....baby steps....