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

[rkrivas]

Another potential issue that could cause further aggravation is if the pharmacy that won't fill the prescription participates in your prescription plan, but others in town don't. This could result in people having to pay more for medication.

 

[BuckNaked]

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 picturing women storming the formulary...

 

[Mermaid02]

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

**STANDING AND APPLAUDING**
Perfect Response!

 

[DisDuck]

Here's my take on this. If the Pharmacist OWNS the store then as the proprietor that person has the write to refuse 'entry' to anyone which means also what prescriptions wants to fill. However, that store can probably be hit with a Civil Rights violation lawsuit so this policy would be a stupid business practice as ultimately the market place will close that store. If that store was the only one in town then under that circumstances 'he' is fullfilling a 'vital' service to the community and therefore should be required to fill all that come.

On the otherhand as an employee of a store that pharmacist is obligated to fulfill the job description, if not then grounds for dismissal. So that pharmacist either quits or does the job.

WebAlex stole the thunder on my other points.

Bottomline.. What you 'practice' in private is your business but if you then impose that 'practice' on me you are violating my rights.

 

[BuckNaked]

Bottomline.. What you 'practice' in private is your business but if you then impose that 'practice' on me you are violating my rights.

So long as the pharmacist doesn't take the script away from you, thus making it impossible for you to get your medication, I fail to see how your rights are being violated. I also don't see how a patient's "right" to convenience is any more important than a pharmacist's right freely practice his religion.

 

[poohandwendy]

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

Alex, I wholeheartedly agree...HOWEVER, what does the law say? That is what I am questioning.

Can a pharmacist legally refuse to fill a script based on personal moral/religious beliefs with or without knowledge of why a person is taking a medication? (seems that they can from the cases I have heard about) If so, then we can talk about what is the 'right' thing all day long and the injustice of it all, but if they have the law behind them there is not a thing we can do about it.

That is why I think they should have to publicly disclose, in a prominent area, if they employ one or more pharmacists who may refuse a script based on those reasons and their policy on how it would be handled. This gives the consumer the right to go elsewhere. I think we have the right to know where this COULD happen without being humilated or inconvenienced.

Of course, drug stores would probably fight this sort of disclosure because they know they would lose more than just prescription sales.

 

[DisDuck]

Practicing one's religious beliefs is a private affair. By imposing those beliefs thru your non-religious oriented job should be unlawful. The pharmacist chose that profession, no one put a gun to that person's head and said YOU MUST BECOME A PHARMACIST OR ELSE. Going in you knew that some prescriptions would be for medicines that covered practices you do not believe in. As Alex so ably pointed out there are many other reasons for certain prescription that are not violating religious tenets. Take viagra for one. Some married men do not wear rings and certain medications cause the problem for which viagra is the 'cure'. So the pharmacist in making that 'moral' decision might actually be contravining another belief, 'be fruitful and multiple'.

It is not the province of any pharmacist to make 'moral' decisions for others. Either fill it, give it to another pharmacist in the same store (if more than 1) or find another profession.

Buck.. Can pharmacists in the armed forces refuse to fill certain prescriptions?

 

[poohandwendy]

Practicing one's religious beliefs is a private affair. By imposing those beliefs thru your non-religious oriented job should be unlawful. The pharmacist chose that profession, no one put a gun to that person's head and said YOU MUST BECOME A PHARMACIST OR ELSE. Going in you knew that some prescriptions would be for medicines that covered practices you do not believe in. As Alex so ably pointed out there are many other reasons for certain prescription that are not violating religious tenets. Take viagra for one. Some married men do not wear rings and certain medications cause the problem for which viagra is the 'cure'. So the pharmacist in making that 'moral' decision might actually be contravining another belief, 'be fruitful and multiple'.

I am in agreement, I am just not sure what the law says. Does anyone know if any of these cases has resulted in a lawsuit and what the result was?

If pharmacists are protected by law to not fill scripts for personal reasons, I, as the consumer, want to know who they are so that I can avoid their place of employment or business. I don't want to find out when I walk up to the counter.

 

[BuckNaked]

Practicing one's religious beliefs is a private affair.

Not necessarily. I believe that businesses are required to allow their employees to live/practice their religious beliefs in the workplace, so long as doing so doesn't impose an undue burden on the employer/company.

By imposing those beliefs thru your non-religious oriented job should be unlawful.

So long as there is either someone else there to fill the script or so long as the script is referred to another pharmacy, those beliefs aren't being imposed on anyone else.

The pharmacist chose that profession, no one put a gun to that person's head and said YOU MUST BECOME A PHARMACIST OR ELSE. Going in you knew that some prescriptions would be for medicines that covered practices you do not believe in.

That's where I do have a problem, i.e., they could have chosen another profession. However, I can also see the argument that since the majority of prescriptions being filled most likely wouldn't violate anyone's religious beliefs, the person might feel that they can do good as a pharmacist and that the good outweighs the bad.

It is not the province of any pharmacist to make 'moral' decisions for others.

I agree, but the pharmacist isn't making moral decisions for others, he's making them for himself (other than those that take the prescription and refuse to return it).

Buck.. Can pharmacists in the armed forces refuse to fill certain prescriptions?

I honestly don't know if they can or not. My experience in the military has been that the service goes out of their way to make it as easy as possible for us to meet our religious obligations, so long as doing so doesn't interfere with the performance of our military duties. Based on that, I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are instances where a pharmacist could refuse to fill a prescription based on religious beliefs, whereas in other instances the refusal would not be permitted.

Having said that, comparing the military to a regular business is apples and oranges. Joining the military is an implicit agreement to surrender some Constitutional rights in various degrees and instances.

 

[Galahad]

Buck.. Can pharmacists in the armed forces refuse to fill certain prescriptions?

Many Military hospitals employ civilians in the pharmacy. I don't know the answer to this, but a corollary might be abortion. There are no elective abortions done in any military hospital, but there are abortions done for medical necessity. But, if a military physician is opposed to doing any abortion for any reason, they are allowed to refuse. It is, in practice, generally not a problem since there are several docs at any given hospital.

 

[puggymom]

BC pills are often prescribed for reasons other than birth control. I know several women who have taken them to regulate/control the pain of their cycle. There medicinal reasons for these pills as well.

 

[chobie]

If a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription and thereby loses the business of customers who need those particular prescriptions, as well as the other customers who object to this practice, then they are placing an undue burden on the store owner and should be fired.

Where does the right to not do your job based on religious/moral grounds end? Why should just pharmacists have this right? How about the cashier at Wall-Mart refusing to sell condoms or spermicides?

How about the waiter refusing to serve fettuccine Alfredo to an overweight customer? After all, there is something in the bible about the body being a temple, right?

 

[Beth76]

I believe that businesses are required to allow their employees to live/practice their religious beliefs in the workplace, so long as doing so doesn't impose an undue burden on the employer/company.

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.

However, I can also see the argument that since the majority of prescriptions being filled most likely wouldn't violate anyone's religious beliefs, the person might feel that they can do good as a pharmacist and that the good outweighs the bad.

Then they need to take the bad with the good. Everyone does things in their job that they don't want to do.


And I'm reposting what I said last night....

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?

 

[yeartolate]

I would hope that larger businesses that have pharmacies would do their best to keep at least one heathen on with one holyroller.

As a consumer, if I went into Walmart to get my prescription and do some shopping while I waited only to find out that my prescription could not be filled on moral grounds, I would leave my full cart with the manager of the store and explain to him why I will be shopping at Target from now on. They have the right to practice their religion, I have my right to be a consumer.

Now, if the pharmacist refused to give me my little piece of paper back, I would most certainly call the police - that is theft in my book.

Also, I totally agree with the posters who stated that those moraly reprehensible medications have other purposes - viagra treats pulmonary hypertension, BCP can regulate periods , etc. Is he asking the user what the medication is for?

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I am not well versed on the law here, but if it is legal then I think a pharmacist should be able to refuse to fill a prescription provided that the prescription is either filled by another pharmacist or given back to the owner. Some of these "potential situations" that people are coming up with are just a little far-fetched.

 

[clutter]

[
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.


Kristy, there are reasons for taking BCPs OTHER than to prevent pregnancy. Ok, so this pharmacist's moral objections are now creating privacy problems, which is now a legal problem. My reasons for being on BCPs are purely medical (unfortunately...) but that, legally, is only between my doctor and me. I should not, legally, ethically or morally, have to divulge my medical reasons (or my sex life or lack thereof) to a pharmacist in order to receive a prescription that is doing one thing -- preventing me from having major surgery. So, not only are you judging your own moral values to be higher than others, you're making incorrect assumptions about people who use various drugs, too. Not everyone that takes an anti-viral drug has the g-form of herpes. Not everyone that needs AIDS drugs contracted AIDS through outside-of-marriage-sex. And the reality is that pharmacists KNOW this.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

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. If he, for whatever reason, has a moral problem with some of the medications/situations he should have considered that before taking that job.

Let's say I was against abortion? I probably would not take a job at a clinic that performs them. Let's say I was against fur. I would not take a job on a fur farm. It seems like common sense to me. If you don't think you can handle a job, for whatever reasons, moral or otherwise, seek other employment.

 

[toto2]

" 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."

But it should illegal to force your religious belief on someone , especially when health is in question. It is a question that hopefully , we will never have to deal here in MOntréal. We do have universal medecine coverage , where we only pay a fraction of hte price of medecineif you dont have a health plan at work, so since the governement pays for the medecine , pharmacvist will never be able do pull something like that.
PS: The morning after pill is availabe without prescription , and soon over the counter ( you wont have to ask for it) So you can see , different philosophies !

 

[Miss Jasmine]

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.

 

[Charade]

However, that store can probably be hit with a Civil Rights violation lawsuit so this policy would be a stupid business practice as ultimately the market place will close that store. If that store was the only one in town then under that circumstances 'he' is fullfilling a 'vital' service to the community and therefore should be required to fill all that come.

Violation of Civil Rights? How so?