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

[yeartolate]

In the case of BCP, no matter the reason WHY you are taking them, the BCP still has the same effects of preventing pregnancy. I think the objection is more to the drug's properties rather than the pharmacist is thinking one is sleeping around.

The drug only POSSIBLY has those properties if the woman is sexually active. Are only sexually active womwn allowed to have regulated periods?

 

[Maleficent13]

We had this debate on the old DB once, and my brother, who is a pharmacist, chimed in. I had made the suggest PAW made a couple pages ago about posting a disclaimer at the pharmacy letting the customer know prescriptions may refuse to be filled based on pharmacist belief system/perogative/mood, etc., and he rebutted that it wasn't possible for some reason which I completely forget. I am going to PM him this link and see if I can get him to respond again.

I am firmly on the side of posting the disclaimer...so I know when I walk in that I should walk back out.

 

[Galahad]

But it should illegal to force your religious belief on someone , especially when health is in question.

But logically this doesn't wash.

1) It is also forcing a religious belief on someone to require that they fill the prescription. You are saying to them....because of your religious practices, you may not be in this profession. That may be acceptable to you in this case, but I'll bet it wouldn't be in many others.

2) You, the customer, are not obligated to go to any one pharmacist. Nor is there a "right" not to be embarrassed, if that is what you would feel being refused. Most pharmacies are trying to adhere to privacy laws when the deal with customers at their counters. If this pharmacist doesn't adhere to these laws then that would be a problem.

 

[Maleficent13]

The drug only POSSIBLY has those properties if the woman is sexually active. Are only sexually active womwn allowed to have regulated periods?

 

[EsmeraldaX]

I have been on BC since I was 14 years old. It was the only thing that made me be able to get up and walk around during the first few days of my period each month because I would get excruciating cramps. (Men - imagine being kicked repeatedly you know where for several days...that's the kind of pain I felt).

So my doctor (a pediatrician actually) suggested BCPs to help with this and I've been on it ever since.

It sounds to me like this idiot would have denied me my medication and called me a heathen.

 

[CJMickeyMouse]

Being a pharmicist is a job.

When you take a job, you should consider all of the things you may be required to do before agreeing to the position they hire you for.

Part of this mans job is filling any and all prescriptions that come into his pharmacy.

Not necessarily true..... if someone is given a prescription for a lethal dose of medication - the pharmacist is not required to fill it. If the business does not accept the person's insurance.... if the patient owes money to the business already.....

There are many reasons for refusal. It's just not that simple!

 

[Crankyshank]

BCP's have been around for almost 50yrs now. Unless the pharmacist is in his 70's then s/he went to school for pharmacy knowing these pills exist and imho it's a logical assumption to assume you're going to have fill this type of prescription on a daily basis.
So knowing you're going to deal every day with a prescription you are morally opposed to, then pharmacy is probably a profession you shouldn't be in unless you went into research.

 

[Beth76]

About the disclosures. If a pharmacy has one of these holy-rollers working there who will refused any of the drugs mentioned or any others, then I expect that pharmacy to not keep these drugs in inventory. They should have a sign listing which drugs are not available. If the drug I need is in that pharmacy, then I should be able to receive it whenever I want regardless of who's there to dispense it. I've said before that if someone's going to have a problem dispensing a drug for moral reasons, then they should not tolerate the drugs being on the premises.

 

[Charade]

The drug only POSSIBLY has those properties if the woman is sexually active. Are only sexually active women allowed to have regulated periods?

I thought the religious reasons for opposing the BCP was because it interfered with ovulation and not necessarily whether she had a partner or not.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

The drug only POSSIBLY has those properties if the woman is sexually active. Are only sexually active womwn allowed to have regulated periods?

You missed my point. My point was that the pharmacist was not making a moral judgment on a person but rather a judgment on a drug. And for what it's worth I take BCP, have for many, many years and not for regulated periods. Every woman has a right to a regulated period, and a pharmacist (I believe) has the right not to fill a prescription that he/she feels infringes on his/her religious beliefs. I also agree that a disclaimer would be a good idea. That way one is forewarned.

 

[toto2]

"1) It is also forcing a religious belief on someone to require that they fill the prescription. You are saying to them....because of your religious practices, you may not be in this profession. That may be acceptable to you in this case, but I'll bet it wouldn't be in many others."

First , i dont have any religious belief ...
second , i never said they shouldnt be in this profession , everybody can do the job they want.But religious belief are personnal and when you refuse drugs or health treatment because of those religious belief , you are putting my health in danger. I am lucky , i live in a big city (Montreal) so finding a pharmacy will never be a problem ( and again those type of things would never happen in my province).

Maybe the best exemple would be the Jehovhas witness who dont believe in blood transfusion ( it might be another religious group) If you are a doctor or a nurse and that you are JW , you cannot refuse me a blood transfusion based on your religious belief.

 

[yeartolate]

I thought the religious reasons for opposing the BCP was because it interfered with ovulation and not necessarily whether she had a partner or not.

There is a belief that the drug will abort an egg that may be fertilized.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Not necessarily true..... if someone is given a prescription for a lethal dose of medication - the pharmacist is not required to fill it. If the business does not accept the person's insurance.... if the patient owes money to the business already.....

There are many reasons for refusal. It's just not that simple!

Those are legal reasons. There are no lethal doses generally prescribed in most US states to the best of my knowledge. The doctor who wrote that prescription would be in pretty big trouble.

If you are unable to pay for any service you typically do not get it.

These are LEGAL issues. Not moral ones.

It really is that simple. If you are too concerned with YOUR PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, you should consider what you will have to do before taking a job in a pharmacy.

As Crankyshank put it so well, BCP has been around for over 50 years. Women get these prescriptions filled every single day for a variety of reasons. If you can not handle filling all of the legal prescriptions that come your way, do not be a pharmacist. It's THAT simple.

 

[Charade]

It sounds to me like this idiot would have denied me my medication and called me a heathen.

Why is he an idiot?

 

[CJMickeyMouse]

Those are legal reasons. There are no lethal doses generally prescribed in most US states to the best of my knowledge. The doctor who wrote that prescription would be in pretty big trouble.

I agree.... with what you have said about legal vs. moral/ethical. But most people think all pharmacists do is count and that could not be further from the truth. Many would be surprised at how many "questionable" prescriptions are seen (and corrected with a call to the Dr.) at any given pharmacy.

 

[DisDuck]

Charade.. It is a stretch but somemany scenerios are a stretch today. In the 60's when blacks would enter a store 'for white's only' that was litigated as a 'refusal of service' based on 'color'. The civil rights laws passed made these scenerios illegal. If I walk into a pharmacy and am 'refused service' due to the type of prescription then I am being discrminated against for 'perceived immoral values'. Sort of the 'scarlet A' scenerio.


One can argue all day on the 'right to job' issue, ie. someone should not be barred from a profession for religious reasons. And I would defend that concept completely. However, once you take that job (and it is any job) you have an obligation to fulfill that job as required by your company under its guidelines. It is one thing to say it is OK to wear a headscarf or yamulka or cross, etc at work. This items do not interfere in the performance of your job. Where they do the courts have ruled that it can be requested to eliminate the 'interference'. Refusing to fill certain prescriptions because of your religious beliefs does not fall into the class of 'wearing a turban and being a firefighter where the turban interferes with proper wearing of fire clothing'. If you believe that filling/handing over of that medication is participating in its use and therefore morally objectionable for then move to another job. What 'that' person does with that medication is known of your business and you are interfering.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Why is he an idiot?

Um, for getting into a profession he had to have known he could not handle based upon his morals?

For risking having his company get sued and lose a lot of profit by putting his personal beliefs above the legal prescriptions he had to fill?

Also, I am just jumping to a guess here, but since he is so anti BCP, I imagine he'd have prefered a person like me sit in excruciating pain for a few days every month rather than take the medication that could help. I suppose he'd rather sexually active teens go ahead and have kids they can't afford because BCP is the great evil?

Like I said in a previous post, taking a job in a field you are morally against is stupid and seems to lack all common sense.

Hence my choice of the word idiot.

 

[Beth76]

Why is he an idiot?

In this case, it's a term of disrespect, just as I used "holy roller" earlier. This person is disrespecting other people, so I have no respect for him.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

One can argue all day on the 'right to job' issue, ie. someone should not be barred from a profession for religious reasons. And I would defend that concept completely. However, once you take that job (and it is any job) you have an obligation to fulfill that job as required by your company under its guidelines. It is one thing to say it is OK to wear a headscarf or yamulka or cross, etc at work. This items do not interfere in the performance of your job. Where they do the courts have ruled that it can be requested to eliminate the 'interference'. Refusing to fill certain prescriptions because of your religious beliefs does not fall into the class of 'wearing a turban and being a firefighter where the turban interferes with proper wearing of fire clothing'. If you believe that filling/handing over of that medication is participating in its use and therefore morally objectionable for then move to another job. What 'that' person does with that medication is known of your business and you are interfering.

Exactly. Good post DisDuck...

 

[minniepumpernickel]

One of the pharmacists was on the Abrams report. He claimed that birth control is dangerous to women and thats why he won't prescribe it, although he'll give out viagra like it was candy. He just came off as a controlling, mysogynistic, women hater! It was so infuriating listening him try to cover up his real agenda. He also violated his oath by lecturing female clients. I truly hope that he gets fired!