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

[crz4mm2]

There are physicians who do not prescribe birth control. So I guess, pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill BC prescriptions..... I do not agree with pharmacists not transferring the RX to a different pharmacy. This is just ridiculous.

It is not up to the pharmacist to judge the patient, it is the pharmacist's JOB to fill a prescription. If he/she owns their OWN pharmacy, I guess he/she can do whatever he/she wants.

I would never refuse to treat a patient that went against my personal belief....
But, that's me

to each their own, I guess....

Cathy

 

[poohandwendy]

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

LOL, kinda like lite beer

I think there has to be a solution. Maybe pharmacies should be required to post signs like "We reserve the right to refuse scripts based on moral/ethical/religious reasons" or "We will not refuse any script based on moral/ethical/religious reasons" (of course, that does not include illegal or dangerous reasons)

At least this way, customers would know ahead of time where there MAY be an issue and they can go elsewhere before being humiliated or inconvenienced. How about that compromise?

 

[Aneille]

LOL, kinda like lite beer

I think there has to be a solution. Maybe pharmacies should be required to post signs like "We reserve the right to refuse scripts based on moral and/or ethical reasons" or "We will not refuse any script based on moral and/or ethical reasons" (of course, that does not include illegal or dangerous reasons)

At least this way, customers would know ahead of time where there MAY be an issue and they can go elsewhere before being humiliated or inconvenienced. How about that compromise?

That would be a nightmare too I think, especially if you have mutliple prescriptions that need to be filled. Go to store 1 for this, store 2 for that etc because you can't find a store that fills them all. And unless the store states exactly what they do and don't fill you would still have to call or go in to find out if the fill BC pills or viagra of maybe even some new heart med that the pharmacists doesn't like because its tested on rats instead of guinea pigs or something similar. It just has the potential to get completely out of hand as stated in the first post.

And what about the people that live in places with only 1 or 2 pharmacies within a reasonable distance. Not a big deal for those in cities, but what if you just can't get a prescription filled.

All I know is if this happened, I'd be purchasing all my meds online annoumously(sorry for the spelling of that!)

 

[BuckNaked]

I think there has to be a solution. Maybe pharmacies should be required to post signs like "We reserve the right to refuse scripts based on moral/ethical/religious reasons" or "We will not refuse any script based on moral/ethical/religious reasons" (of course, that does not include illegal or dangerous reasons)

At least this way, customers would know ahead of time where there MAY be an issue and they can go elsewhere before being humiliated or inconvenienced. How about that compromise?

Something like that might work. I'm really torn on this one...on the one hand, I feel like anyone that becomes a pharmacist has to know that he will most likely be called upon to dispense birth control (or something else that violates his moral/religious beliefs). So why go into that line of work?

On the other hand, I also believe that whenever there is a reasonable alternative, i.e., letting another pharmacist fill the script, or sending it to a different pharmacy altogether, no one should be forced to violate their own religious beliefs in order to do their job.

 

[poohandwendy]

That would be a nightmare too I think, especially if you have mutliple prescriptions that need to be filled. Go to store 1 for this, store 2 for that etc because you can't find a store that fills them all. And unless the store states exactly what they do and don't fill you would still have to call or go in to find out if the fill BC pills or viagra of maybe even some new heart med that the pharmacists doesn't like because its tested on rats instead of guinea pigs or something similar. It just has the potential to get completely out of hand as stated in the first post.

My point was that customers would be aware UPFRONT that there was a possibility of your script being denied. Then you make a decision as a consumer as to whether or not you want to take that chance. I think the policy should be stated for customers to know.

 

[6_Time_Momma]

LOL, kinda like lite beer

I think there has to be a solution. Maybe pharmacies should be required to post signs like "We reserve the right to refuse scripts based on moral/ethical/religious reasons" or "We will not refuse any script based on moral/ethical/religious reasons" (of course, that does not include illegal or dangerous reasons)

At least this way, customers would know ahead of time where there MAY be an issue and they can go elsewhere before being humiliated or inconvenienced. How about that compromise?

I think that would be a good thing.

However, what if both pharmacies in a town did that? I was trying to put myself in a scenario where I might be in need of a "controversial" drug. For example, what if, God forbid, Garrett were to be diagnosed with HIV due to blood transfusions he reciveived 13 years ago with his heart surgery (purely hypothetical and it would never happen to us because I refuse to allow myself to really think that would happen since it would absolutely kill me, but on with the premise of my post) . The docs put him on AZT (or another HIV drug). How would that make me feel if the pharm refused to fill it and we had to drive to another town? What if he thought I had given it to him at birth due to being promiscuous or IV drug user?

To be honest, I would have a problem (if I were a pharmacist) filling BCP and morning after pills due to the aborificant properties. However, it seems wrong to me to have someone refuse to fill and emphysema med or a Ritalin prescription. So, I guess in a sense I am judging my own moral values to be more important than another pharmacist who refuses to fill Ritalin, and that isn't really right of me.

So, I don't know......as I said, I am torn here (can you tell??? )

 

[poohandwendy]

So, I don't know......as I said, I am torn here (can you tell??? )

LOL, that's ok...me too. I mean, legally I do not think it is possible to force pharmacists to fill scripts they have a religious objection to. However, I think the public has the 'right to know' and not have to be publicly humilated when trying to get a script filled. That's why I think there should be a disclosure or something.

I guess it could force people to travel, but that would happen anyways. At least they would know they had to without going through the hassle of getting it denied twice before leaving town.

 

[Aneille]

My point was that customers would be aware UPFRONT that there was a possibility of your script being denied. Then you make a decision as a consumer as to whether or not you want to take that chance. I think the policy should be stated for customers to know.

Making me aware doesn't make me less unhappy or inconvienced if now I need to go to multiple places to fill or out of my way because the pharmacies in my town will not fill my scripts.

This is all hypothetical because honestly I don't see pharmacists all over the country standing up and just refusing all kinds of scripts but its a nice debate to have.

 

[WebmasterAlex]

All of this assumes that the pharmacist knows why the prescription is being filled and for what condition

Birth control pills are given for reasons other than birth control, they are used to control irregular periods etc

The "single" man may need the viagra for his honeymoon

AZT may be for aids caught innocently

The morning after pill can be prescribed for a miscarrige

Since NONE of this is the pharmacists business he has no business refusing any of it even on moral grounds

 

[babar]

All of this assumes that the pharmacist knows why the prescription is being filled and for what condition

Birth control pills are given for reasons other than birth control, they are used to control irregular periods etc

The "single" man may need the viagra for his honeymoon

AZT may be for aids caught innocently

The morning after pill can be prescribed for a miscarrige

Since NONE of this is the pharmacists business he has no business refusing any of it even on moral grounds

Perfect.

 

[Alicnwondrln]

All of this assumes that the pharmacist knows why the prescription is being filled and for what condition

Birth control pills are given for reasons other than birth control, they are used to control irregular periods etc

The "single" man may need the viagra for his honeymoon

AZT may be for aids caught innocently

The morning after pill can be prescribed for a miscarrige

Since NONE of this is the pharmacists business he has no business refusing any of it even on moral grounds

very well said

 

[RitaZ.]

It isn't so much that pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill an Rx based on moral issues, I will accept that. The problem that I have is that some of these pharmacists have refused to transfer the script to another pharmacy and some won't give the customer their script back. That's serious, IMO. The real concern here is that several states have passed laws to protect pharmacists and their rights. What about that consumers rights?

Read these links~

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27.html

 

[BuckNaked]

It isn't so much that pharmacists have the right to refuse to fill an Rx based on moral issues, I will accept that. The problem that I have is that some of these pharmacists have refused to transfer the script to another pharmacy and some won't give the customer their script back. That's serious, IMO. The real concern here is that several states have passed laws to protect pharmacists and their rights. What about that consumers rights?

Read these links~

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27.html

ITA!

All of this assumes that the pharmacist knows why the prescription is being filled and for what condition


Birth control pills are given for reasons other than birth control, they are used to control irregular periods etc

The "single" man may need the viagra for his honeymoon

AZT may be for aids caught innocently

The morning after pill can be prescribed for a miscarrige

Since NONE of this is the pharmacists business he has no business refusing any of it even on moral grounds

The pharmacist should have the right to object on moral/religious grounds, and he should also have the right to err on the side of his moral/religious beliefs, regardless of why the script was written. So long as he doesn't refuse to pass the script on, I really don't have a problem with it. I would question why he would go into a profession where he would have to face these issues on a daily basis, but then again, one is free to choose one's profession, and shouldn't be forced to violate moral/religious beliefs in order to do so.

 

[Beth76]

The problem that I have is that some of these pharmacists have refused to transfer the script to another pharmacy and some won't give the customer their script back.

ITA. Wouldn't that be consider stealing? They took someone's prescription.

And I'm pretty sure that all pharmacies store BCPs on the premises. Whether or not a particular pharmacist happens to need to fill one is irrelevant. He may go day in and day out without ever needing to fill one. But, they are still there, sitting on the shelf in front of him. How does he deal with that? Is he going to destroy all of the drugs that he disagrees with? How is OK that someone else fills it, but not him? The end result is the same. This is plain and simple pushing one's own beliefs on another. I think it's absolutely abhorrant that these people can do this and still keep their jobs.

And what's to stop all the right-to-lifers from becoming pharmacists and flooding the field with people who refuse to dispense certain drugs?

 

[RitaZ.]

Wouldn't that be consider stealing? They took someone's prescription.

I suppose a person could call the police, but I'm not sure that they would get involved. I don't know. It shouldn't have to come to that though, no one should have that kind of power over others. It's like one of the articles said, "the pharmacist becomes the gatekeeper". All very distubing, IMO

 

[yeartolate]

The law that really scares me to pieces is the Conscientious Objector Policy Act in Michigan. It allows most health care providers to refuse on religious grounds to refuse to care for certain patients . They must however not refuse in a true emergency. The main reason the person can be fired is if the things that the employee refuses to do is a large part of their job.

I think that type of law is a slippery slope in the extreme.

 

[CJMickeyMouse]

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 disagree with this statement. The Dr's job is to diagnose/identify illness or injury. Along with the jobs you list, the pharmacist is required to do a reality check and make sure the med is appropriate, safe, etc. Many patients see more than one doctor, and go to more than one pharmacy. The pharmacist is the one who is required to keep up with medications - and therefore they may well know better than the doctor which med may be more effective for a given condition.

Best case scenario - the Dr. and Pharmacist work together to come up with the best treatment for the patient.

Edited to add.... IMO the pharmacist has every right to refuse to fill a prescription. For instance - if they believe it might cause harm to the patient (dose too large, etc.). BUT the moral/religious refusals don't fly with me.

 

[Geoff_M]

The Wall Street Journal this week poked a bit of fun on this topic:

The Accidental Governor

"Governor Rod Blagojevich [Friday] filed an emergency rule with the Illinois Secretary of State's office requiring birth control prescriptions be filled without delay at pharmacies selling contraceptives," reports the Associated Press. It turns out the governor has a very personal interest in the matter:

Blagojevich is a result of a Chicago pharmacist recently refusing to fill orders for contraceptives because of moral opposition.

As Rep. Maxine Waters said at an abortion rally last April, "I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006513

 

[Beth76]

You know, I've been laying in bed thinking about and just had to get up. I've changed my mind. I no longer am willing to give the pharmacist the opportunity to transfer the rx to another pharmacy. That pharmacist better fill that prescription (or give to another person currently at that pharmacy).

Here's why: My BCPs are at the Sam's Pharmacy. So, I take my baby with me and go to Sam's. I always stock up when I'm there, so I have my cart full of groceries and other things. The pharmacy is my last stop before check-out. I go to get my rx. "I'm sorry, I can't fill your rx because I think you are sinning and going to hell". (Best case scenario)"I'll transfer it to Walgreen's for you."

"Um, no. I have a cart full of groceries here and I should not have to make another stop before going home simply because you are trying to push your beliefs on me. I am not forcing you to take these pills. That is completely your right not to take them. But you have no right to tell me what I can and can not do. This prescription in no way conflicts with another one that I'm using."

I would not tolerate at all not being able to get my prescription for that reason.

Here's another thing: Let's say a high school student is assigned a report for English class on whatever she chooses. She chooses some topic on abortion. The teacher, against abortion, refuses to grade the paper. The teacher also refuses to allow another teacher to grade the paper and won't return the paper to the student. This student receives an F. Is this acceptable?

It doesn't even have to be a topic so controversial. What if the topic was something to do with slaughtering animals for meat, or milking cows? Not many people would call these immoral, but some people do. What if this teacher was a vegan and refused to grade a paper based on her moral outlook on veganism? What then?

 

[tiggersmom2]

You know, I've been laying in bed thinking about and just had to get up. I've changed my mind. I no longer am willing to give the pharmacist the opportunity to transfer the rx to another pharmacy. That pharmacist better fill that prescription (or give to another person currently at that pharmacy).

Here's why: My BCPs are at the Sam's Pharmacy. So, I take my baby with me and go to Sam's. I always stock up when I'm there, so I have my cart full of groceries and other things. The pharmacy is my last stop before check-out. I go to get my rx. "I'm sorry, I can't fill your rx because I think you are sinning and going to hell". (Best case scenario)"I'll transfer it to Walgreen's for you."

"Um, no. I have a cart full of groceries here and I should not have to make another stop before going home simply because you are trying to push your beliefs on me. I am not forcing you to take these pills. That is completely your right not to take them. But you have no right to tell me what I can and can not do. This prescription in no way conflicts with another one that I'm using."

I would not tolerate at all not being able to get my prescription for that reason.

Here's another thing: Let's say a high school student is assigned a report for English class on whatever she chooses. She chooses some topic on abortion. The teacher, against abortion, refuses to grade the paper. The teacher also refuses to allow another teacher to grade the paper and won't return the paper to the student. This student receives an F. Is this acceptable?

It doesn't even have to be a topic so controversial. What if the topic was something to do with slaughtering animals for meat, or milking cows? Not many people would call these immoral, but some people do. What if this teacher was a vegan and refused to grade a paper based on her moral outlook on veganism? What then?

I agree with you. If I were at Sam's and the pharmacist did that.....I would "bring the roof down". Yes, I am a type A......I would definitely NOT take "no" for an answer. I couldn't care less WHAT their religion is.....they are there to do a job...if they can't fufill the requirements....get another job.