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

[Maleficent13]

I'm glad that pharmacists go to school and learn to look for drug interactions. Anything they need to do to keep people healthy is fine. However, when they start harming people's health and well-being by denying medications bases on their beliefs system, that is a problem.

Not arguing that point; I agree that this particular pharmacist was wrong, especially in refusing to return the prescription to the patient. But I have seen several posts on this thread stating in various words that a pharmacist should be an unthinking pill dispensing machine, and that is just not the case. Don't malign all pharmacists, their education, their skill, and their intelligence just because one did something questionable.

 

[Figment]

If we are going to grant the rights for employees to be able to pick and choose which parts of their job they do based on their "moral" code than ALL employees should have that right. The Wall-Mart cashier should be able to not sell condoms or OTC BC to people without fear of reprisals. The Muslim Deli worker should be able to refuse to make a ham sandwich etc, the waiter should be able to refuse to serve fattening foods.

That is up to the employer to decide, not you. If an employer decides to allow his/her employee to make decisions based on his/her moral code, your opinion really means nothing, until the loss of business makes the employer look at the situation anew.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

That is up to the employer to decide, not you. If an employer decides to allow his/her employee to make decisions based on his/her moral code, your opinion really means nothing, until the loss of business makes the employer look at the situation anew.

What if an employee does not want to sell a black person a can of coke because they are morally opposed to the color of their skin?

It's not just up to the employer. The pharmacist has a code of ethics that they must adhere to.

 

[Maleficent13]

It's not just up to the employer. The pharmacist has a code of ethics that they must adhere to.

I assume you mean an official code, published by the Board of Pharmacy. Can you please post this code of ethics for us, so we can see it? Thanks!

 

[minniepumpernickel]

I assume you mean an official code, published by the Board of Pharmacy. Can you please post this code of ethics for us, so we can see it? Thanks!

I heard about it on the Abrams report. I would like to read it too. I'll try to look for it a little later.

Do you work in the field?

 

[chobie]

That is up to the employer to decide, not you. If an employer decides to allow his/her employee to make decisions based on his/her moral code, your opinion really means nothing, until the loss of business makes the employer look at the situation anew.

No its' not up to the employer. I think there are some 20 states that have laws that protect the pharamcist from repercussions from their employer fro refusing to fill BC.

 

[Maleficent13]

I heard about it on the Abrams report. I would like to read it too. I'll try to look for it a little later.

Do you work in the field?

I have worked in the field in the past. And my mother and I are the only members of my family who are not pharmacists (she is a nurse and I am in healthcare as well). So I am VERY familiar with pharmacy.

Since pharmacists are licensed by the individual states, I would assume that if there are "codes of ethics", they would be issued by the state one is practicing in. I have been searching, and cannot find one for my state. I will keep looking, but my point is, what may be a requirement in one state, may not be in another. I do know that reciprocity is not practiced by all states. My parents wanted to move to FLA, but they would not extend reciprocity for my father's license. He would have had to take the FLA boards.

 

[yeartolate]

What if an employee does not want to sell a black person a can of coke because they are morally opposed to the color of their skin?

If I am not mistaken, that would be illegal.

I think that situation is like comparing apples and oranges.

I have no problem with a person not doing something that is against their religion. I have a bigger issue with them chosing a job that would frequently put them in the position of doing something against their religion.

I should be able to get all my drugs at one pharmacy - it is a safety and convinience issue.

Sure, they can practice their religion --- but I can practice my rights as a consumer and go where it is more convinient and safe.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

I have worked in the field in the past. And my mother and I are the only members of my family who are not pharmacists (she is a nurse and I am in healthcare as well). So I am VERY familiar with pharmacy.

Since pharmacists are licensed by the individual states, I would assume that if there are "codes of ethics", they would be issued by the state one is practicing in. I have been searching, and cannot find one for my state. I will keep looking, but my point is, what may be a requirement in one state, may not be in another. I do know that reciprocity is not practiced by all states. My parents wanted to move to FLA, but they would not extend reciprocity for my father's license. He would have had to take the FLA boards.

That is interesting. My aunt is a nurse in PA, and she can also practice in NY. I don't know, I was wondering if it varies by state too in different fields.

I had a roommate in college who was a pharmacy student. She had tons of chemistry and she was only pulling C's in those classes. It seems like a really difficult field to study.

I always research my doctors credentials before I go to one. I'm glad that any sanctions of conduct is open to the public. I'm weird about stuff like that. I'm probably too nosy, lol!

 

[chobie]

I have worked in the field in the past. And my mother and I are the only members of my family who are not pharmacists (she is a nurse and I am in healthcare as well). So I am VERY familiar with pharmacy.

Since pharmacists are licensed by the individual states, I would assume that if there are "codes of ethics", they would be issued by the state one is practicing in. I have been searching, and cannot find one for my state. I will keep looking, but my point is, what may be a requirement in one state, may not be in another. I do know that reciprocity is not practiced by all states. My parents wanted to move to FLA, but they would not extend reciprocity for my father's license. He would have had to take the FLA boards.

OT, but FLA not reciprocal on a lot of licenses. The only one they are reciprocal on is teaching, because they have such a shortage. The reasoning, or so I"ve been told, is because they don't want sno-birds coming down fro a few months and taking business aways from year-round residents.

I completely hear what you are saying about disrespecting pharmacists. Form my perspective it is disrespecting women to not fill legally prescribed BC medications based on whims, or whatever you want to call it, especially since it involves judging what the pills may or may not be used for.

BC has been around since the 60's anyone going into Pharmacy since that time knew that they would be receiving those scripts and if their moral convictions were that strong about it, they should have chosen another field.
If they suddenly had a conversion after becoming one then they should have the right to not work at a place that sells BC. That is where the right should end. Laws should not be passed to protect their "morals" over the business owner's right to not lose customers. That is my opinion.

 

[Charade]

BC has been around since the 60's anyone going into Pharmacy since that time knew that they would be receiving those scripts and if their moral convictions were that strong about it, they should have chosen another field.
.

And abortion has been legal since the 70's so does that mean no one should become a doctor if they won't perform one?

I hear what your saying but honestly, you can't hold a pharamcist and a doctor to different standards when it comes to something they cannot perform because it is against their moral code.

 

[DisneyVillain]

And abortion has been legal since the 70's so does that mean no one should become a doctor if they won't perform one?

Doctors who don't want to perform abortions don't work in places where it is part of the job. If a doctor took a job at an abortion clinic, then yes, I think it would be reasonable to expect them to perform abortions.

 

[Charade]

Doctors who don't want to perform abortions don't work in places where it is part of the job. If a doctor took a job at an abortion clinic, then yes, I think it would be reasonable to expect them to perform abortions.

I would too just as I wouldn't expect a pharmacist who won't dispense BC pills to work at a place that only (or primarily) dispensed BC pills.

But that's not what we are talking about.

 

[yeartolate]

Doctors who don't want to perform abortions don't work in places where it is part of the job. If a doctor took a job at an abortion clinic, then yes, I think it would be reasonable to expect them to perform abortions.

A friend of mine works in a Surgery Center. They essentially do orthopedic operations, plastic surgery, and first trimester abortions. She has worked there for a decade. It was expected that you rotated to all areas. A late shift emplyee (worked there less than a year) came to early shift. Because the abortions were always done on the early shift, she never had to help with abortions. When she finally got first shift she raised her objections to assisting with abortions. The effect of her not assisting with abortions meant that my friend (who has massive seniority) essentially would primarily assist with abortions, which she does not like.

Even though she signed a contract stating that her job responsibilities would include assisting with abortions, she still tried to go the lawyer route to stop them from "forcing " her to assist with abortions. She was offered her 2nd shif job back (which would not include abortions) and she was let go when she refused.

That was over 2 years ago and I guess she could not make a go of heer lawsuit.

Sorry, but you should not work in a place that you will be asked frequently to do things against your religious beliefs.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

I would too just as I wouldn't expect a pharmacist who won't dispense BC pills to work at a place that only (or primarily) dispensed BC pills.

But that's not what we are talking about.

You keep using the term "moral code." What is so moral or ethical about sending a woman out there without birth control? When someone is practicing moral behaviour aren't they supposed to be concerned with the masses as oposed to what makes them feel moral? In my opinion, it is immoral behaviour to send someone out there unprepared.

Someone referred to the rhythem method earlier on this thread. You may as well be practicing reproductive roulette. It is about what percentage effective?

 

[DisneyVillain]

I would too just as I wouldn't expect a pharmacist who won't dispense BC pills to work at a place that only (or primarily) dispensed BC pills.

So it's a matter of degree? How much of your job do you feel you should be allowed to refuse to do for personal reasons? 20%? 50%? 90%? And who gets to decide? Should you get your full pay if you aren't doing your full job?

I don't think you should take a job that you aren't willing to do.

 

[DisDuck]

Charade.. What is your take on the fact that in some states there are laws to protect a pharmacist from his/her employer as regards NOT DISPENSING medications based on religious principals? Is this something a state should do? that is put itself inbetween the employer/employee relationship. With this in mind if a pharmacy is lossing business, ie. income, over its pharmacists refusal then why should not that 'owner' have the right to terminate employment.

I think this is part of the problem. Nothing wrong with living one's beliefs. It is when that belief imposes on someone else that to me there is a problem. In this case I am not talking about the customer but the owner who has the right/expectation that an employee would not drive away customers.

 

[Maleficent13]

So it's a matter of degree? How much of your job do you feel you should be allowed to refuse to do for personal reasons? 20%? 50%? 90%? And who gets to decide? Should you get your full pay if you aren't doing your full job?

Very good question.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Sorry, but you should not work in a place that you will be asked frequently to do things against your religious beliefs.

Exactly.

We have a choice in this country, more than many other people around this world have, thats for sure. But too often people want it both ways. They want the world to cater to them.

Guess what?

You can work wherever you want in the USA, as long as you qualify!

You can practice any religion you want!

But you can't take a job and expect it to cater to your religion. You can go ahead and start up your own business if you want and have it cater to your religion, but don't whine that you are not getting as much business as the company down the road who caters to everyone. And don't take a job at someone else's company and then complain that you can not perform certain duties that y0our job requires due to your religious background.

You have many freedoms in this country. But sometimes, freedom comes with choices. Do I want this job? Or do I want a job that is more suited to my religion? Which is more important?

 

[DisDuck]

Es.. You stole my idea I was going to sugges that 'we' open a pharmacy dedicated to those who do not wish to dispense or take medications against their religious beliefs. I wonder if that specialized store would be a success. More to your point.. Absolutely right choice is what is the issue (see my signature line). You make your choice; I make my choice. Just don't choose for me and I won't choose for you.