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

[chobie]

I don't get the "passing judgment" or a "power trip" comments.

Walmart doesn't sell porn magazines because THEY don't want to. I doubt it's because they don't want YOU or others to look at it. They are certainly not trying to prevent you from getting that kind of stuff elsewhere. I don't think they are passing judgment on me because they won't sell it to me.

Another way to look at this is to respect *their* right not to sell stuff they don't want to and don't take it so personal. Shop elsewhere. It's not all about *you* (not you personally Chobie, the general you).

I really don't understand the mentality where people should be able to buy anything they want from a drug store just because they have a prescription from a doctor.

Whether or not is good business decision is a totally different debate.

Not being able to buy porn does not affect your health or you quality life. Being denied medication prescribed by your doctor does.

Looks like we agree that ultimately the capitalists should decide. If a pharmacy thinks that makes good business sense to have pharmacists that pick and choose which prescriptions they fill, then so be it. However, the store should have the right to hire or fire pharmacists for refusing to fill prescribed medications if they do not wish to be a "moral" pharmacy.

I do not for one minute think that a pharmacist would deny a woman birth control because they are morally opposed to the women being treated for PCO, endriometriotis, periods so heavy the woman is losing dangerous amounts or iron, cramps so debilitating the female cannot attend work/school a few days each month etc. They are refusing because they have made the judgment that the woman is trying to "get away" with having sex and not paying the consequence of bearing children. JHMO of course

 

[6_Time_Momma]

I do not for one minute think that a pharmacist would deny a woman birth control because they are morally opposed to the women being treated for PCO, endriometriotis, periods so heavy the woman is losing dangerous amounts or iron, cramps so debilitating the female cannot attend work/school a few days each month etc. They are refusing because they have made the judgment that the woman is trying to "get away" with having sex and not paying the consequence of bearing children.

Actually, I think a lot of them refuse because of the abortificant properties the pill can have, not due to sexual activity of the woman in question.

 

[chobie]

Actually, I think a lot of them refuse because of the abortificant properties the pill can have, not due to sexual activity of the woman in question.

Again, though, they do not know the individual circumstances of each women so they are making a judgment call and that is where the wrong lies IMO.

 

[chobie]

If a person would be the type to second guess doctor's medical advice for any reason then they should probably go to medical school and not go into pharmacy.

 

[yeartolate]

I don't get the "passing judgment" or a "power trip" comments.

Walmart doesn't sell porn magazines because THEY don't want to. I doubt it's because they don't want YOU or others to look at it. They are certainly not trying to prevent you from getting that kind of stuff elsewhere. I don't think they are passing judgment on me because they won't sell it to me.

Another way to look at this is to respect *their* right not to sell stuff they don't want to and don't take it so personal. Shop elsewhere. It's not all about *you* (not you personally Chobie, the general you).

I really don't understand the mentality where people should be able to buy anything they want from a drug store just because they have a prescription from a doctor.

Whether or not is good business decision is a totally different debate.

I don't see it as a differen't debate. I respect their right not to sell stuff that they don't want to. They need to respect my right to buy elsewhere when convinience stores are no longer convinient. I agree they have the right to practice their religion. Yet I retain the right to be a consumer. Using your porn magazine analogy --- If porn magazines is what I wanted to buy frequently and Walmart did not have porn, but Target did, I would frequent Target for my porn and other shopping because I don't like to travel from store to store if I don't have to.

In terms of the BCP - I think it is unsafe to get one prescription from here and another from there. The pharmacies have databases now that will alert you to dangerous interactions - and the pharmacist will intervene to potentially save your life. This is not the case if you get one script from here and another from there. Like I said, if they lost my business for one, they lost it for all.

 

[yeartolate]

Actually, I think a lot of them refuse because of the abortificant properties the pill can have, not due to sexual activity of the woman in question.

And it can only have abortificant properties if the women taking BCP is sexually active. They are certainly making a judgement.

 

[chobie]

In terms of the BCP - I think it is unsafe to get one prescription from here and another from there. The pharmacies have databases now that will alert you to dangerous interactions - and the pharmacist will intervene to potentially save your life. This is not the case if you get one script from here and another from there. Like I said, if they lost my business for one, they lost it for all.

Good point. And that is where the line should be drawn-when one's "morals" affect another person's health.

BTW, if anyone feesl the need to use this comment as a springboard for an abortion debate-start another thread.

 

[Charade]

Not being able to buy porn does not affect your health or you quality life. Being denied medication prescribed by your doctor does.

True. But you can get either somewhere else so the denial is limited to that one store or just one pharmacist.

Looks like we agree that ultimately the capitalists should decide. If a pharmacy thinks that makes good business sense to have pharmacists that pick and choose which prescriptions they fill, then so be it. However, the store should have the right to hire or fire pharmacists for refusing to fill prescribed medications if they do not wish to be a "moral" pharmacy.

Capitalists? Is there an underlying dig there? I prefer the term "free market".

But either way, I agree. For an pharmacist who owns the business, it's his call. For an pharmacist who's an employee, it's between him/her and the employee.

Like I said, whether or not it's a good business decision is a new debate.

I do not for one minute think that a pharmacist would deny a woman birth control because they are morally opposed to the women being treated for PCO, endriometriotis, periods so heavy the woman is losing dangerous amounts or iron, cramps so debilitating the female cannot attend work/school a few days each month etc. They are refusing because they have made the judgment that the woman is trying to "get away" with having sex and not paying the consequence of bearing children. JHMO of course

Certainly not all. We are talking about a very very small number of pharmacists. And you have no idea what's going on in the mind of that pharmacist. I don't understand why the person who (for whatever reason) needs those meds just doesn't shop somewhere else. Would it be an inconvenience? Sure. But it's not the end of the world.

And no one has answered (unless I missed it) why this isn't any different than a doctor who refuses to perform abortions. Want an abortion and your doctor won't (assuming they can but won't), find one that will.

Just so I'm not sending the wrong message. I'm only defending the pharmacists right to make that decision, I'm not defending the decision itself because I have no problems with BC.

 

[Charade]

If a person would be the type to second guess doctor's medical advice for any reason then they should probably go to medical school and not go into pharmacy.

Totally disagree.

As has been stated before, pharmacists do second guess a prescription if their database shows you are on a med that will have a negative interaction with a new prescription and either recommend an alternative or check with the doctor to see what alternative med they would want to use.

Personally, I *want* my pharmacist to keep a check on the meds I'm taking to keep me safe.

 

[6_Time_Momma]

If a person would be the type to second guess doctor's medical advice for any reason then they should probably go to medical school and not go into pharmacy.

Doctors are "second guessed" a lot, actually. That's part of what keeps a person safe. Doctors make mistakes as well. Nurses second guess doctors often. Call them and say "hey, doc. You ordrered this for Ms. Jones, but we noticed that she....."

there would be an awful lot of docs and no nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, etc if noone was allowed to second guess doctors!

 

[gina2000]

The doctor makes the decision to perform an abortion and if he/she considers it murder, then I can understand the necessity not to perform the procedure. The same with a hospital that doesn't allow abortions (many Catholic ones don't). And they will always refer you.

The trouble I have with a pharmacist not filling a prescription is that he doesn't make the decision to injest the pill. He also does not make the decision to prescribe the pill. He is merely a conduit between the physician's prescription and the patient's necessity/desire to take the medication. To me, I would liken him to a surgeon's scalpel rather than the surgeon or the patient. But that's me.

I personally have never seen a pharmacist refuse to fill a prescription based on moral grounds. I find it rather strange to choose that sort of profession because if a person's religious convictions are so strong, (s)he will be constantly at odds with the field of science as research offers different options to those who need them. Birth control pills, stem cell transplants, in vitro fertilization and day after pills are merely the tip of the iceberg. There are many, many medications that have muliple applications and to decide which morally offend you based on personal beliefs puts you at odds with your job every day. We've come a loooong way, baby, and medical science has been considered "the devil's workshop" many times during the history of mankind. People should avoid what they cannot condone or work to change the laws. To alter the job at a whim seems shortsighted and foolish especially in the wake of medical breakthrough.

 

[Charade]

The doctor makes the decision to perform an abortion and if he/she considers it murder, then I can understand the necessity not to perform the procedure. The same with a hospital that doesn't allow abortions (many Catholic ones don't). And they will always refer you.

True. But why should a pharmacist be forced to be a willing accomplice in what they believe it morally wrong?

If a Dr. doesn't want to perform abortions, should they find another career or just work for a place that won't fire them if they refuse to?

The trouble I have with a pharmacist not filling a prescription is that he doesn't make the decision to ingest the pill. He also does not make the decision to prescribe the pill. He is merely a conduit between the physician's prescription and the patient's necessity/desire to take the medication. To me, I would liken him to a surgeon's scalpel rather than the surgeon or the patient. But that's me.

Even if we don't include the moral aspects of the current topic, he's certainly more than a mere conduit between the dr. and patient. IMO, he plays a bigger role than just dispensing pills. If that were the case, we'd have smart prescription cards and meds dispensing machines. (wait.... that's a good idea! Don't anyone steal it!).

To alter the job at a whim seems shortsighted and foolish especially in the wake of medical breakthrough.

IMO, moral convictions are not determined on a whim.

 

[gina2000]

I knew I was going to get called on the whim comment.

Quite frankly, a pharmacist's job is to dispense pills. His decision making capacity has to do with interactions or abuses. We're talking about morality and in that context, he's merely a conduit, not an active, decision making participant in the transaction unless he makes himself one. If he makes himself one, it is for his own needs, not the needs of the patient.


I also think that when an organization makes a decision to stock or not stock an item (Walmart and Playboy is a good example), it is a decision that is nationwide and not one that is based on a store by store decision. It's constant. The same goes for Catholic hospitals. Once you introduce an individual's preference into an organization's makeup, it alters the composite whole and changes each store based on preferences. For a customer, I think that's unexpected and unfair especially in small towns where choices may be limited. When a pharmacist owns his own business, however, it's his choice. He may find himself at odds with the general public's perception of full service, however, and that is his choice and his risk.

 

[gina2000]

Oh, and many doctors have their own practices and as such, have the right (as do individuals who own pharmacies) to make decisions based on their morality. Again, though, it is market perception of full service which will determine whether or not that business is viable in the area in which it is located.

 

[chobie]

I do think this whole trend for pharmacists to not fill BC scripts is based on whims stemming from the current political climates. IMO a person whose "moral" convictions are that strong about BC would have not gone into a career where they would be forced to choose between their job and the morals. There are plenty of things a truly moral person cold do with their life that would not put them at constant odds with the science surrounding their field. HMMM, perhaps running a mission in a third world country, yes dedicating one's life to ministering to the poor would be a great choice for someone who cannot put their "moral" convictions aside to perform the obligations of their job.

Of course that is just one example. However, the mere fact that there does exist a myriad of career choices a person can choose that would not be at odds with there religious convictions leads me to believes that this "moral pharmacy" is just a bunch of ****. JMO

 

[Serena]

I just think that the pharmacist has no justification for refusing any pills based on morals. He/She has no idea why a certain pill is being prescribed and it isn't up to him to make that determination and to refuse to do his job.

 

[DisDuck]

chobie just gave me a pause to think. Hm.. have some pharmacists since the 1960's refused to fill b/c presciptions (or diaphragms for that matter) or this is a 'new' phenomena?

I think this is an important question. Before b/c was available there was the diaphragm. Are this pharmacists refusing to dispense that? If a pharmacist has been refusing for decades then I can see it as a 'moral' conviction the conflict of which that pharmacist has trouble resolving so decides not to dispense. However, if that pharmacist is jumping on the current 'moral' bandwagon then I think it falls into the I will impose my view because only now has the climate seemed to have tilted towards moralistic posturing.

 

[yeartolate]

I began thinking about pharmacists denying BCP without knowing why the person was taking them or even if the woman was sexually active.

It made me curious if the same pharmacist would have no problem selling accutane or many of the anti-seizure meds to women of child bearing years. These drugs are well known for their ability to harm a fetus. Is it ok to mame a fetus, but not ok to allow a fertilized egg to implant?

 

[Maleficent13]

Quite frankly, a pharmacist's job is to dispense pills. His decision making capacity has to do with interactions or abuses. We're talking about morality and in that context, he's merely a conduit, not an active, decision making participant in the transaction unless he makes himself one. If he makes himself one, it is for his own needs, not the needs of the patient.

I just had to jump in here, because although I am on the side of the pharmacist in this instance being wrong, I am seeing a lot of maligning of pharmacists going on in the thread and I wanted to speak up.

A pharmacist's job is NOT just to dispense pills. His job requires alot more than that; if it did not, then he/she wouldn't have to spend 5-6 years learning how to do it. You, or I, or the nearest literate person who could read a drug label could do it. And this is not the case.

FYI, are you aware in several states, pharmacists actually hold the title of "Doctor" (just to be clear, there is no schooling above and beyond a normal degree in pharmacy required to hold the title), and are able to prescribe certain meds on their own, without a doctor's prescription? I'm with Charade on this one ( , btw); if there was no knowledge base required, we'd just have dispensing machines. A computer can cross check interactions.

 

[chobie]

I just had to jump in here, because although I am on the side of the pharmacist in this instance being wrong, I am seeing a lot of maligning of pharmacists going on in the thread and I wanted to speak up.

A pharmacist's job is NOT just to dispense pills. His job requires alot more than that; if it did not, then he/she wouldn't have to spend 5-6 years learning how to do it. You, or I, or the nearest literate person who could read a drug label could do it. And this is not the case.

FYI, are you aware in several states, pharmacists actually hold the title of "Doctor" (just to be clear, there is no schooling above and beyond a normal degree in pharmacy required to hold the title), and are able to prescribe certain meds on their own, without a doctor's prescription? I'm with Charade on this one ( , btw); if there was no knowledge base required, we'd just have dispensing machines. A computer can cross check interactions.

I'm glad that pharmacists go to school and learn to look for drug interactions. Anything they need to do to keep people healthy is fine. However, when they start harming people's health and well-being by denying medications bases on their beliefs system, that is a problem.

If we are going to grant the rights for employees to be able to pick and choose which parts of their job they do based on their "moral" code than ALL employees should have that right. The Wall-Mart cashier should be able to not sell condoms or OTC BC to people without fear of reprisals. The Muslim Deli worker should be able to refuse to make a ham sandwich etc, the waiter should be able to refuse to serve fattening foods.