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

[Joanne M]

When I was interviewing for a job transfer, which was an informal situation, I was asked if I had a problem with abortion. Because this position was in a genetics lab, some diagnoses could be cause to terminate a pregnacy.

I thought that was a great question to ask BEFORE hiring someone, regardless of how legal a question it was. That's another topic entirely. But I assured my future director that not only did I not have a problem with abortion, I was pro-abortion in some situations.

Some of the fetal syndromes we dealt with meant that if the fetus survived to delivery, they would be born only to suffer for a day or two with terrible defects before dying. I don't blame parents one bit if they wanted to avoid that kind of pain for the child and for themselves.

I think some people should just not get into professions they are not suited for. I also think some employers should screen potential employees for suitability prior to hiring.

As for the pharmacist in question, if he owned the pharmacy then maybe he would be in a position to only accept certain prescriptions, although I am not sure what state regulators would do about that. But if the pharmacist works for a larger company, then his opinion/belief is meaningless.

 

[Caradana]

I realize this is a serious subject, but I can't help but crack up at those that are saying they wouldn't tolerate being told no...what are you going to do if the pharamcist simply refuses?

I'm calling the police, filing whatever complaint I can, and then when I get home, I'm calling Channel Four and becoming a major public relations disaster for whatever major pharmacy chain denied me. I'm then contacting a whole variety of policy think tanks, and an attorney. I'm willing to attach my name and my face to a cause like that. I would not be afraid to get on TV and say that I'd tried to have a script filled for the morning after pill, and was denied, and that I found that to be at the edge of accepted pharmaceutical practice. You know I'd do it, too, Brenda.

The pharmacy chain would probably offer to pay me off to quiet me down. It might be a reasonably good moneymaker.

 

[Charade]

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.

Should expect all workers to become amoral when they arrive at work?

What if you were a clerk at the 7-11 that sold porn magazines and you had strong moral convictions about pornography and refused to sell them to customers? If the employer is ok with that, then I don't see a problem. Go to another clerk or go to another store to buy your porn.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Should expect all workers to become amoral when they arrive at work?

What if you were a clerk at the 7-11 that sold porn magazines and you had strong moral convictions about pornography and refused to sell them to customers? If the employer is ok with that, then I don't see a problem. Go to another clerk or go to another store to buy your porn.

Or, how about...don't take a job you can't morally handle.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Should expect all workers to become amoral when they arrive at work?

What if you were a clerk at the 7-11 that sold porn magazines and you had strong moral convictions about pornography and refused to sell them to customers? If the employer is ok with that, then I don't see a problem. Go to another clerk or go to another store to buy your porn.

Charade, you never think these things through! Why would someone who objects so strongly to porn work for a place that sells porn?

 

[Galahad]

I thought that was a great question to ask BEFORE hiring someone, regardless of how legal a question it was.

This is a great point though. DW's group recently interviewed a doc to add to their practice (OB/GYN). He was the head of his local chapter of a "right-to-life" group. He had also spent his entire career in the military, where they do no abortions and little to no abortion counseling. They asked him several questions about how he would handle various situations (I don't know if he was offered a position). Now, simply not doing terminations is not a problem. In her group, about 75% of the docs (DW included) do terminations only for medical or genetic reasons. Most of the remainder don't do any abortions of any kind. There is one doc that will pretty much do it for any reason. Most of the docs that don't do terminations will do the counseling but not the actual procedure. The point is, how will you fit into the environment you are going to work in? If a pharmacist is going to be one of several at a pharmacy, was asked these questions, and then hired anyway, understanding that he wouldn't be filling certain scripts, I don't see a problem with that. If it never came up until after the fact he is certainly creating a problem for his employer.

 

[Caradana]

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

Not exactly. There is a belief that it may prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, which happens naturally all the time, for a variety of reasons. It doesn't reverse the process; it discontinues the process, prevents it from moving forward. There's a subtle but meaningful distinction there.

 

[Maleficent13]

When I interview anyone, I hand them a copy of the job description for that position. I let them read it, and then ask them if they will be able to perform all duties on that job description. If they say no, then I don't hire them. I wouldn't have the item on the job description if I didn't need the employee to accomplish it. Seems a fairly simple, straightforward process.

 

[Crankyshank]

I work at a research facility that it is part of a medical school. We have animal test subjects here. When I was interviewed for my job I was absolutely asked how I felt about animal testing. I definitely think if there is something associated with a job that could be morally oppositional, interviewers should ask prospective employees where they stand and hire accordingly.

But in the case of pharmacy, again - it's not like filling BCP as part of his job was going to be a surprise.

 

[BuckNaked]

But dispensing prescriptions has nothing to do with practicing their religion. No one is forcing these people to use the drugs. This is simply forcing a belief on someone else.

To many Catholics, dispensing birth control would be aiding in the commission of a mortal sin, which is a sin in itself. And please explain to me how refusing to fill a prescription, provided it is referred to someone else, is forcing a belief on someone?

 

[Charade]

Charade, you never think these things through! Why would someone who objects so strongly to porn work for a place that sells porn?

Because they needed a job and that's all they could find? And that's not all they sell. However, I wouldn't think a person who objects to porn would want to work in a porn shop.

I think it's unreasonable to expect everyone to become totally amoral as terms of their employment as long as there is an agreement between the employer and employee.

 

[DisDuck]

OK buck.. you sort of know how I think. provided that there is a 'someone' else then I have no problem. In fact the customer does not even half to know who filled it. For example, when I go my pharmacy I had the prescription to an assistant who does the prelimenaries, ie. check name, insurance coverage and such. There are probably 2-3 pharmacists on duty at any given time so I do not know who actually put the pills in the bottle. However, what if there is only 1 pharmacist in the store (mom & pop type operation) or only 1 pharmacy in the town. Then What? Take AZT or an antibiotic for g.herpes. By not filling it that person may suffer a medical consequence/emergency. So should that pharmacist be held accountable for the medical consequence of not filling? The 'sword' cuts both ways.

 

[Caradana]

And please explain to me how refusing to fill a prescription, provided it is referred to someone else, is forcing a belief on someone?

Brenda, this is really not hard to understand, and I'm befuddled as to where you're stuck with it. It's forcing a belief in terms of mandatory inconvenience, in that one person's morals force a change in the behavior of another. In a sense, when they have to go to another pharmacy, it's a half-hour of their life wasted by another person's moralistic superiority complex. This is a country implicitly built on the idea that we protect everyone's right to an individual moral code - you can be as morally superior as you want, for yourself, and the others around you must deal with it - but we draw the line at the idea of one person's morals negatively impacting another's behavior. We decided that individual morals should reign in Roe v. Wade (that wasn't the crux of the judgement, but that's the spirit of it), and most reasonable people feel that individual morals should reign here: the pharmacist should be allowed to feel however he feels, but it's his duty to choose a career accordingly, because we won't tolerate his moral code inconveniencing others.

 

[Teejay32]

My sympathies are with pharmacists here. I was a pharmacy tech, that was my job. I worked with many pharmacists; dispensing is their profession. Big difference. Countless prescriptions are rejected in the business every day, moral and ethical issues arise all the time. Mostly over pain meds. A script for 50 oxycontin will be approved for a familiar cancer patient, most likely will be rejected for a new customer off the street, even if the prescription is legitimate. In between, it's all judgement calls. Handling fake scripts was a judgement call too. Some pharmacists called the cops for that and we busted the people in the store, some didn't and merely told the perps to get lost. They keep those scripts.

I think some people have it backwards. CVS can dispense medications only through individual registered pharmacists, because CVS and others like it are only department stores otherwise. I worked for them for a while, but the working relationship between the store and the pharmacists wasn't my concern then, I have no idea what it really is in practice.

I don't remember ever seeing a script for BCPs with instructions other than "use as directed" or "one every day", the usual, but it seems like it would be easy enough to indicate on a script if they were being used to abort a possible pregnancy. Which would raise moral questions. This can be avoided. You still might have people out there refusing to dispense BCPs to unmarried women, maybe, but egads, that's only the tip of the iceburg when it comes to moral issues in a drugstore. yes they might be in the wrong profession.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Because they needed a job and that's all they could find? And that's not all they sell. However, I wouldn't think a person who objects to porn would want to work in a porn shop.

I think it's unreasonable to expect everyone to become totally amoral as terms of their employment as long as there is an agreement between the employer and employee.

I'm going to pick on you again, hope that you don't mind! You seem to be one of the few on here arguing the other side.

The store sells condoms right? Are they objecting to the sale of those too? The pharmacists take an oath. I am not exactly sure of the exact wording of this oath. It has something to do with treating each client with respect and not stigmatizing or judging them. By refusing to sell BCP's aren't they making a judgement?

What do you consider to be amoral behaviour? How can giving out a legal doctor prescribed prescription be considered amoral by anyone? Why can't they just admit that it is all about controlling women? It drives me crazy!

 

[LurkerLisa]

Why does everyone assume that a script for BC is for preventing pregnancy? Not that it's anybody's business, but my daughter is on BC for hormone replacement due to MANY health problems and has been since she was 13! If some "moral" pharmacist refused to fill it - I'm thinking that I might have a wee meltdown. The last thing I need as the mother of a teen with medical problems is some nosey parker passing judgement on me or her! Well, I guess you can tell this really ticks me off.

Lisa

 

[luvmk]

I have been reading through this thread this morning--it just keeps growing. Anyhow, I saw a couple of posts somewhere that stated pharmacists didn't have to fill prescriptions if they were of a lethal dose etc. Okay, to me this is a whole different discussion. First, if it is truly a lethal dose, then a call should be made to the prescribing physician to make sure it was written correctly. The same goes for if it intereferes with another drug. Make the call and get it corrected. My guess is once the correction has been made, the prescription is then dispensed. So, this really isn't the same thing at all. The customer isn't being refused or sent to another pharmacy. The med is most likely being dispensed. That isn't a moral objection, that is a pharmacist doing their job.

For the record, I am religious, I do use birth control(not the pill) and I am against pharmacists being able to pick and choose what meds they are going to dispense to whom.

Rachel

 

[GoodFairies]

The answer is very simple here.
If one can't do everything one was trained to do in all those years of schooling, one should not be a pharmacist.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Now here we are talking about issues that can be construed as being sexual. I see some of the webmasters starting to post. So hopefully we all won't be banned for admitting that we are sexual creatures and we have issues to discuss that deal with sex and reproduction, and in some cases just hormones. Good grief!

 

[Galahad]

The answer is very simple here.
If one can't do everything one was trained to do in all those years of schooling, one should not be a pharmacist.

So if an OB/GYN will not do abortions they should not be a doctor?

How can giving out a legal doctor prescribed prescription be considered amoral by anyone?

Again, there are legal medical procedures that are considered immoral by large numbers of people. We may disagree with that assessment, but legality and morality are not the same.