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

[ladyjayhawk]

Do you feel that the pharmacist has the right to not give a normal woman BCP's for just his so called moral objection?

Yes, and the law backs that up too.

 

[GoodFairies]

oh boy

so, the only ethical matters that should ever color a person's behavior must be non-religious...makes sense.....

I didn't say that at all. I said religion definitely shouldn't come into play. But it's a lot harder to tell someone their ethics (that aren't necessarily religious in nature) don't belong. That's why I said IDEALLY neither would come into play, and it would be simply a matter of doing one's job vs. not doing one's job. One person's ethics (religious based or not) aren't another's, and doing a specific job shouldn't entail judgment.

 

[DisDuck]

"I need to page DW now and see what she's done with the other half of her brain."


Ah, Galahad. This reminds me of some of your posts from the OLD DB days.

 

[Maleficent13]

yes, when in the opinion of the pharmacist, the prescription would be detrimental to the health of the patient...suppose the doctor ordered a drug that would have a negative reaction to a current medication the patient was taking? Should the pharamcist still fill the order? Absolutely not.

No, the pharmacist should not fill it if it would be harmful to the patient filling the script. But as someone else already pointed out, in that case the pharmacist would contact the doc, explain the potential situation, and get a new script from the doc that would not be harmful to the person filling the prescription but achieve the same effect as the original prescription. Thus all the customer's needs have been fulfilled by the pharmacist.

 

[Figment]

Do you feel that the pharmacist has the right to not give a normal woman BCP's for just his so called moral objection?

yes, i do...now, if his employer feels differently, I believe he should be held accountable. but, if not, tough cookies...find another pharmacist.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Yes, and the law backs that up too.

The law also says that jaywalking is illegal, and so is premarital sex in some states is too, right? Or a lot of bizarre laws are still on the books.

You are female right? What good can come form a pharmacist who enjoys demeaning women, and trying get them all to be barefoot and pregnant? I'm just so lost here. Thats probably a sign that means that this is not the argument for me, LOL!

 

[Charade]

I said religion definitely shouldn't come into play.

Having certain moral beliefs is not necessarily tied to being religous. I'm not a religious person but I can certainly believe that certain things are immoral.

 

[DisDuck]

Ah, lady.. As has been said many times on other threads here on the CB because something is 'legal' does not make it 'right'.

My understanding of the question here is not 'legal' but is it 'right' to refuse dispensing and why?

 

[Charade]

You are female right? What good can come form a pharmacist who enjoys demeaning women, and trying get them all to be barefoot and pregnant? I'm just so lost here. Thats probably a sign that means that this is not the argument for me, LOL!

Now there you go again...

 

[Figment]

The law also says that jaywalking is illegal, and so is premarital sex in some states is too, right? Or a lot of bizarre laws are still on the books.

You are female right? What good can come form a pharmacist who enjoys demeaning women, and trying get them all to be barefoot and pregnant? I'm just so lost here. Thats probably a sign that means that this is not the argument for me, LOL!

so, being opposed to birth controll = demeaning women.

 

[ladyjayhawk]

If one does not like the practice of a particular doctor go to another.

And if you don't like the practice of a particular pharmacy, go to another.

Comparing doctors and pharmacists is not comparing apples to oranges. You go to see a general practitioner. You want the doctor to prescribe BC and he/she refuses due to moral beliefs. You find another doctor. It should be the same with pharmacies.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

yes, i do...now, if his employer feels differently, I believe he should be held accountable. but, if not, tough cookies...find another pharmacist.

From what I have read, it isn't just an issue of tough cookies. The pharmacist is obligated to refer a woman to a different pharmacist.

 

[GoodFairies]

I agree with Galahad's position regarding doctors. There are so many specialties that to say well if morals preclude then dont' become a doctor. Also, the function of an OB/GYN is not just to write prescriptions. One goes to doctors for physicals, etc. My wife doesn't go to an OB/GYN just for one purpose.

If one does not like the practice of a particular doctor go to another. Certainly when picking an OB/GYN I would expect that b/c and related issues would be a necessity in choosing that particular doctor over another. However, a pharmacist has pretty much 1 function that is to read, interpret and fill prescriptions. Doing that job does involve determining if what was written is correct medically. Yes a doctor might make a mistake on dosage or how many to take, etc. If a pharmacist spots such an error the 'patient' should be informed and the doctor contacted. However, these types of issues aside if the prescription is legit as to dosage/strength/instructions then rejecting due to religious beliefs is imposing. Trying to use the doctor comparison is apples/oranges. Doctors don't have to write prescriptions for every patient they see (some don't need any) while pharmacists can only fill prescriptions. They don't do physicals.

I agree with this. It is not at all the same to compare doctors to pharmacists for this reason. I used the word "ideally" in that situation only because then it would be a black and white issue of doing what one was trained to do vs not doing it, leaving out ethics and religion. Unfortunately the world is gray. I still think a pharmacist has no right to "play god" whereas I don't have a problem with an OB/GYN who refuses to do abortions as long as he/she performs other aspects of the job competently. I don't think these two views clash in light of this debate, although some are suggesting they do.

 

[Teejay32]

Teejay.. A very thoughtful post from an insider. But 2 things: 1) did anyone rejecting the prescription refuse to give it back; and 2) were any of these objections based on religious beliefs. Rejecting an Oxycotin prescrip to a new patient would seem to be one based on 'legal' issues not 'moral' issues.

1) An appropriate legal prescription? No.
2) "Rejecting an Oxycotin prescrip to a new patient would seem to be one based on 'legal' issues not 'moral' issues." Neither really. A lot of decisions were predicated upon knowing the patient and the doctor. Pharmacies tend to be territorial. We didn't have oxycontin then so let's use MS Contin (same idea) - an unknown customer has a perfectly decent-looking prescription for this high-powered addictive pain medicine. The pharmacist has no idea how appropriate the med is for this person, the circumstances are beyond a certain comfort level. You would hear "I don't feel comfortable filling this script", or "sorry, we don't carry this." Or he or she might call the doctor for more info and then decide whether or not to fill it. It's professional judgement.

 

[poohandwendy]

Ah, lady.. As has been said many times on other threads here on the CB because something is 'legal' does not make it 'right'.

My understanding of the question here is not 'legal' but is it 'right' to refuse dispensing and why?

But, the legal angle of it is important. If it is legal, then we have no recourse. I totally agree it is not 'right' for your beliefs to inconvenience another person who is expecting you to do your job, but if they are protected by the law...I at LEAST want to be warned that this could be an issue where I shop. I will then choose to go elsewhere.

 

[GoodFairies]

Having certain moral beliefs is not necessarily tied to being religous. I'm not a religious person but I can certainly believe that certain things are immoral.

I addressed this in the ethics part of that post and a later post. It is easier to dismiss religion because we are so used to doing it (like with the whole public school issue). But it's much harder to dismiss or even control personal ethics that aren't necessarily based in religion.

 

[Galahad]

"I need to page DW now and see what she's done with the other half of her brain."


Ah, Galahad. This reminds me of some of your posts from the OLD DB days.

Sorry.....got carried away......

 

[minniepumpernickel]

so, being opposed to birth controll = demeaning women.

How do people who are opposed to birth control live their lives? Do they just marry really young and keep pro-creating until they can't anymore? If so then why don't we see more families with 10 or twelve kids like we did in the past.

I remember my grandmother saying that it was common in the old days to have one or two children die really young because of the health care issues, etc. Or to be born stillborn. Women must have gone through so much back then.

Having choices today seems like the best option. What do you think?

 

[ladyjayhawk]

The law also says that jaywalking is illegal, and so is premarital sex in some states is too, right? Or a lot of bizarre laws are still on the books.

You are female right? What good can come form a pharmacist who enjoys demeaning women, and trying get them all to be barefoot and pregnant? I'm just so lost here. Thats probably a sign that means that this is not the argument for me, LOL!

Are you kidding me? Moral beliefs do not equal demeaning women. In my state there are several FEMALE pharmacists working to ensure that all pharmacists here retain the right to refuse to a fill a prescription based on religious/moral beliefs.

 

[DisDuck]

Teejay.. I agree with your answers and the pharmacist should do precisely what you wrote. However, b/c or viagra or AZT kinds of medications are in a different class to me. I know the 1st two are not addictive and the last one someone who does need it would be crazy to take it. So to me the refusal would be on 'religious' grounds. That is where the issue lys.

While it is currently legal to do so, I believe it is forcing your choice on others. In the ideal world as some write, there would be 'other' pharmacys or pharmacists available. But 'we' live in the 'grey' world where in some towns locations choices are not available or choices might be monetarily prohibitive, ie. one pharmacy is covered by your plan (but refuses to dispense) and another is not (will dispense). The cost deferential could be significant.