Have we discussed this one yet?
Voraciously-religious pharmacists are still at it. Recently, in San Jose, one such pharmacist refused to fill a (legal) prescription for an emergency contraceptive because it went against his beliefs in protecting human life. A pharmacist in Wisconsin had his license restricted for the same thing.
This issue is perhaps a tougher one than it may seem on the surface.... the right and ability of patients to obtain legal prescriptions, vs. the right of pharmacists to adhere to their ethical beliefs in practice.
Any thoughts on this?
(Sorry if this one has already been discussed.... I've kind of been, well, out-of-the-loop, for awhile...)
More Pharmacy Wars (ethics)
I forgot to mention..... I come down on the side of accessibility to legal prescriptions for patients. Even though I don't think it's specifically covered in any official code of ethics, I think a pharmacist should be made responsible to fill any and all legal prescriptions. I think this should be written into the oath....
-
judih
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13399
- Joined: August 17th, 2004, 7:38 am
- Location: kibbutz nir oz, israel
- Contact:
Pharmacists making decisions which prescriptions they'll fill and which not, should be written up in a guide to businesses. If, in fact, there's a law that gives them choice in whom or what to serve, then the public has a right to know.
The biggest problem lies when it's the only pharmacy in town. Then such a choice should be illegal.
This has been discussed before - not sure if we talked about it here in the Studio, but it needs to be refreshed.
Rights can be ridiculous when they infringe on others' rights.
The biggest problem lies when it's the only pharmacy in town. Then such a choice should be illegal.
This has been discussed before - not sure if we talked about it here in the Studio, but it needs to be refreshed.
Rights can be ridiculous when they infringe on others' rights.
-
abcrystcats
- Posts: 619
- Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm
I think the pharmacist has the legal obligation to return the prescription back to the customer if they refuse to fill it. That means the customer can take their business elsewhere. In the incident we discussed previously, the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription AND retained the scrip.
I'm also wondering if such pharmacists ought to have a notice pinned up in a public place affirming their right to refuse to fill prescriptions based on personal notions of ethics. I think if they did that, the ones who are refusing to fill these types of orders would lose a lot of business. All the women who are on birth control would probably take their business elsewhere, for good.
I'm also wondering if such pharmacists ought to have a notice pinned up in a public place affirming their right to refuse to fill prescriptions based on personal notions of ethics. I think if they did that, the ones who are refusing to fill these types of orders would lose a lot of business. All the women who are on birth control would probably take their business elsewhere, for good.
in my opinion:
if the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription for religious reasons, he should face a professional ethics tribunal to decide whether he should lose his license to be a pharmacist.
and, further, if he refuses to return the written prescription note to the patient, after deciding not to fill it, he should be prosecuted for theft.
if the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription for religious reasons, he should face a professional ethics tribunal to decide whether he should lose his license to be a pharmacist.
and, further, if he refuses to return the written prescription note to the patient, after deciding not to fill it, he should be prosecuted for theft.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.
-
abcrystcats
- Posts: 619
- Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm
I agree with the second part. That is against their rules, anyways.
The first part, I'm not so sure. The pharmacist is employed by someone. If his employer tells him to fill prescriptions without regard to his personal ethics, religious or otherwise -- just obeying state/national laws -- then the pharmacist ought to do it. Not doing it is insubordination to his employer, and he can and should be fired.
If his EMPLOYER decides that they are going to refuse to fill certain prescriptions based on the employer's personal or religious ethics, then I suppose the employer is within their legal rights to do so.
I think anybody who experienced that at a pharmacy would take their business elsewhere, forever. So, it would be the customer punishing the business for not providing a service.
On the other hand, I've just begun to explore the suppression of certain products by corporations. I didn't even know it was happening. I just read about Wal-Mart placing restrictions on music CD content in order for the music producers to sell there. Corporations are acting within their rights when they do this, but then that means they have the right to limit our choices.
It's messed up.
I always thought the law of supply and demand would take care of things like this. Now I am wondering just HOW strong public demand really is, and whether or not our choices can be forced away from us by big business.
The first part, I'm not so sure. The pharmacist is employed by someone. If his employer tells him to fill prescriptions without regard to his personal ethics, religious or otherwise -- just obeying state/national laws -- then the pharmacist ought to do it. Not doing it is insubordination to his employer, and he can and should be fired.
If his EMPLOYER decides that they are going to refuse to fill certain prescriptions based on the employer's personal or religious ethics, then I suppose the employer is within their legal rights to do so.
I think anybody who experienced that at a pharmacy would take their business elsewhere, forever. So, it would be the customer punishing the business for not providing a service.
On the other hand, I've just begun to explore the suppression of certain products by corporations. I didn't even know it was happening. I just read about Wal-Mart placing restrictions on music CD content in order for the music producers to sell there. Corporations are acting within their rights when they do this, but then that means they have the right to limit our choices.
It's messed up.
I always thought the law of supply and demand would take care of things like this. Now I am wondering just HOW strong public demand really is, and whether or not our choices can be forced away from us by big business.
i mostly agree with you, cat, although i've been wrestling with an opinion on this pharmacy business...
i think there are rights, and then there are obligations...obligations sometimes have higher priority than rights...for instance, although folks have the right to strike, sometimes the public good overules and folks are ordered back to work
this is sort of the same, because pharmacies are owned by someone, or some corporation, and they should have the right to stock whatever they want...but because this is a public health issue, there are certain obligations, as well
that's about as far as i've gotten in my reasoning on this, though...
i still haven't decided where i think that line should be...a pharmacy not stocking certain things based on moral grounds in new york city is different than in upper mushwash, nebraska, where there is only one pharmacy
i think the cours or legislators have a job to do here
i think there are rights, and then there are obligations...obligations sometimes have higher priority than rights...for instance, although folks have the right to strike, sometimes the public good overules and folks are ordered back to work
this is sort of the same, because pharmacies are owned by someone, or some corporation, and they should have the right to stock whatever they want...but because this is a public health issue, there are certain obligations, as well
that's about as far as i've gotten in my reasoning on this, though...
i still haven't decided where i think that line should be...a pharmacy not stocking certain things based on moral grounds in new york city is different than in upper mushwash, nebraska, where there is only one pharmacyi think the cours or legislators have a job to do here
-
abcrystcats
- Posts: 619
- Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm
I haven't decided yet what I believe about this.
I thought I had my mind made up before, but if corporate interest has this much influence over the market then perhaps I was wrong. I thought laws of supply and demand would take care of these issues automatically. Don't know if that holds true anymore ...
I thought I had my mind made up before, but if corporate interest has this much influence over the market then perhaps I was wrong. I thought laws of supply and demand would take care of these issues automatically. Don't know if that holds true anymore ...
Very interesting topic. Didn't know this was going on in the States. I hope no one minds if I throw my cupcake at the fat kid to see if it sticks....
In my opinion, the pharmacist should lose his license and be banned from practising pharmacology in the future. He can uphold his religious rights by never taking a drug that goes against his religion, which is certainly fair...but what gives this person the right to limit someone else's beliefs with his own when a pharmacy is set up to serve the good of the public. Also, isn't it just kinda hypocritical of the pharmacist to even be a pharmacist if he has such strong religious convictions? He is working in an industry with top sellers such as erection pills and anti-conception meds....not to mention oodles of ethically and morally questionable business practises. Technically if he is of such morally high religious fiber, he shouldn't even be selling condoms or birth control and not just banning the use of the "morning after" pill. Some may even argue that a "true" religious person shouldn't even be selling any form of pharmacueticals. It may sound cold, but if he doesn't agree with some of what his line of work does, then perhaps he shouldn't have been a pharmacist.
Though pharmacies are privately owned, they are under some strict government guidelines because they are used to serve the good of the public, much like hospitals or the doctor's themselves. They are given the trust of the public to operate within these guidelines and are expected to uphold this trust. They are given the distinguished position of dispensing drugs... and in my opinion, that is a large responsibility and should not be taken lightly. Lets imagine for a second the pharmacist was a Jehovah Witness who was so strong about their convictions they never dispensed a drug regardless of what prescription came in. If we are going to start allowing personal religious beliefs to determine the fate of public service then it will become self serving system rather than a public serving system. Which is fine if you're selling shiny bobbles, but has horrible results when you are a key factor in maintaining the physical health of a society.
Lets imagine firefighters refusing to enter a burning mosque because they are Christians... or police refusing to protect certain groups because of their religious beliefs ... or doctors refusing to put people on donor waiting lists because they feel God will fix them if He wants them to live. Private doctors and pharmacists are still in the same public service grouping as fire fighting and police, though the latter is publically owned and operated in most cases ... the big difference being where and how each group obtains their funds. They all are heavily restricted by government guidelines as to what and what they can not do because their whole existence is for one purpose, to serve the public. And without this service being provided, we have no use for them. A pharmacist who whimsically decides who and what and when to distribute medication - based upon loosey goosey religious convictions, is about as helpful as putting pharmacies in churches and letting priests decide the same. Not to mention it also renders doctors as redundant. A doctor shouldn't have to worry about the opinion of a high priest of drugs when prescribing a remedy to someone. Can you imagine a doctor saying to you, "Well I'd recommend this to help eleviate the pain of your cancerous brain tumor but I know you won't be able to get this medication because its not very Christian."
Anyways, that's my two cents.
In my opinion, the pharmacist should lose his license and be banned from practising pharmacology in the future. He can uphold his religious rights by never taking a drug that goes against his religion, which is certainly fair...but what gives this person the right to limit someone else's beliefs with his own when a pharmacy is set up to serve the good of the public. Also, isn't it just kinda hypocritical of the pharmacist to even be a pharmacist if he has such strong religious convictions? He is working in an industry with top sellers such as erection pills and anti-conception meds....not to mention oodles of ethically and morally questionable business practises. Technically if he is of such morally high religious fiber, he shouldn't even be selling condoms or birth control and not just banning the use of the "morning after" pill. Some may even argue that a "true" religious person shouldn't even be selling any form of pharmacueticals. It may sound cold, but if he doesn't agree with some of what his line of work does, then perhaps he shouldn't have been a pharmacist.
Though pharmacies are privately owned, they are under some strict government guidelines because they are used to serve the good of the public, much like hospitals or the doctor's themselves. They are given the trust of the public to operate within these guidelines and are expected to uphold this trust. They are given the distinguished position of dispensing drugs... and in my opinion, that is a large responsibility and should not be taken lightly. Lets imagine for a second the pharmacist was a Jehovah Witness who was so strong about their convictions they never dispensed a drug regardless of what prescription came in. If we are going to start allowing personal religious beliefs to determine the fate of public service then it will become self serving system rather than a public serving system. Which is fine if you're selling shiny bobbles, but has horrible results when you are a key factor in maintaining the physical health of a society.
Lets imagine firefighters refusing to enter a burning mosque because they are Christians... or police refusing to protect certain groups because of their religious beliefs ... or doctors refusing to put people on donor waiting lists because they feel God will fix them if He wants them to live. Private doctors and pharmacists are still in the same public service grouping as fire fighting and police, though the latter is publically owned and operated in most cases ... the big difference being where and how each group obtains their funds. They all are heavily restricted by government guidelines as to what and what they can not do because their whole existence is for one purpose, to serve the public. And without this service being provided, we have no use for them. A pharmacist who whimsically decides who and what and when to distribute medication - based upon loosey goosey religious convictions, is about as helpful as putting pharmacies in churches and letting priests decide the same. Not to mention it also renders doctors as redundant. A doctor shouldn't have to worry about the opinion of a high priest of drugs when prescribing a remedy to someone. Can you imagine a doctor saying to you, "Well I'd recommend this to help eleviate the pain of your cancerous brain tumor but I know you won't be able to get this medication because its not very Christian."
Anyways, that's my two cents.
I started writing this early this morning but had to come back to it. I fully agree with Trevors thoughts on the matter, and also see that giving pharmacist the power to make ethical choices for others could cause a backlash in other professions.
My first problem with a pharmacist refusing to fill any prescription, they ethically chose to, is that they are not able to diagnose medical problems or write a person a new prescription in order to replace a pill that may be medically needed. They are not given the power to write them, so, they do not qualify as having the knowledge to deny them. Some women are prescribed birth control to regulate out of control menstrual cycles. One woman I know was prescribed the pill to regulate her period because she only had one every three months and when they did come she bled so heavily she passed out. So, imagine this particular woman living in a town with only one pharmacy and no transportation and the pharmacist arguing with the town’s only doctor about why the woman needs the pill. An ethical pharmacist would fill all the towns’ scripts. To include the morning after pill, those only work for a limited time and if the script isn’t filled it’s possible the window will be missed. What right does the pharmacist have to decide whether a woman carries a pregnancy to term? What qualifies the pharmacist to decide anything for someone they’ve never met? Beyond the pharmacist not being medically qualified to make heath choices I have issues with anyone making ethical choices for other people. What qualifies the pharmacist to make others quality of life decisions? If a pharmacist is ethically against a pill then they should not take it! Because from my understanding, whoever is without sin are the only ones allowed to throw stones. I bet the pharmacist has no right from a religious stand point to force anything on others.
Does the pharmacist have the ability to take care of all the children that would be born to the world without contraceptives and the morning after pill? The world is already overpopulated and we are consuming our resources faster than they replenish. What might the world look like if there had never been access to birth control or abortions? In ’72 in the US alone over 500,000 legal abortions were preformed. By 1980 over one million, add over one million every year after 1980. Also, by now the abortions from the seventies have likely had their own children doubling, possibly tripling the number to more of a population explosion the abortions in the seventies prevented. Then add all the pregnancies that were avoided using contraception to the list. The way I see it the pharmacist’s god is trying to starve us all and I didn’t even mention world figures. We would have likely already reached the world’s oil peak and would lose the population to a number of complications that would have driven to a lack of fuels that would have closed down the pharmacy anyway. The way I see it, it’s ethically necessary to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Besides my opinion, a pharmacist is not an elected official, and hasn’t any legal right to make decisions for other people. I have no right to, and the pharmacist has no right to either. They could find another career that doesn’t present them with ethical challenges. That is the only right the pharmacist has in this case.
My first problem with a pharmacist refusing to fill any prescription, they ethically chose to, is that they are not able to diagnose medical problems or write a person a new prescription in order to replace a pill that may be medically needed. They are not given the power to write them, so, they do not qualify as having the knowledge to deny them. Some women are prescribed birth control to regulate out of control menstrual cycles. One woman I know was prescribed the pill to regulate her period because she only had one every three months and when they did come she bled so heavily she passed out. So, imagine this particular woman living in a town with only one pharmacy and no transportation and the pharmacist arguing with the town’s only doctor about why the woman needs the pill. An ethical pharmacist would fill all the towns’ scripts. To include the morning after pill, those only work for a limited time and if the script isn’t filled it’s possible the window will be missed. What right does the pharmacist have to decide whether a woman carries a pregnancy to term? What qualifies the pharmacist to decide anything for someone they’ve never met? Beyond the pharmacist not being medically qualified to make heath choices I have issues with anyone making ethical choices for other people. What qualifies the pharmacist to make others quality of life decisions? If a pharmacist is ethically against a pill then they should not take it! Because from my understanding, whoever is without sin are the only ones allowed to throw stones. I bet the pharmacist has no right from a religious stand point to force anything on others.
Does the pharmacist have the ability to take care of all the children that would be born to the world without contraceptives and the morning after pill? The world is already overpopulated and we are consuming our resources faster than they replenish. What might the world look like if there had never been access to birth control or abortions? In ’72 in the US alone over 500,000 legal abortions were preformed. By 1980 over one million, add over one million every year after 1980. Also, by now the abortions from the seventies have likely had their own children doubling, possibly tripling the number to more of a population explosion the abortions in the seventies prevented. Then add all the pregnancies that were avoided using contraception to the list. The way I see it the pharmacist’s god is trying to starve us all and I didn’t even mention world figures. We would have likely already reached the world’s oil peak and would lose the population to a number of complications that would have driven to a lack of fuels that would have closed down the pharmacy anyway. The way I see it, it’s ethically necessary to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Besides my opinion, a pharmacist is not an elected official, and hasn’t any legal right to make decisions for other people. I have no right to, and the pharmacist has no right to either. They could find another career that doesn’t present them with ethical challenges. That is the only right the pharmacist has in this case.
-
Dave The Dov
- Posts: 2257
- Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 7:22 pm
- Location: Madison Wisconsin which is right here
- Contact:
These pharmacists are inhibiting a person's freedom of choice and I view them as traitors to this country. They should be immediately be stripped of their licenses and be banned from filling prescriprtions ever again. This proof that the Religious Right is doing what ever it takes to get their agenda across and have it be the way they want it to be.
_________________
Honda CL100
_________________
Honda CL100
Last edited by Dave The Dov on March 13th, 2009, 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Well knip, seems like there is a first for everything...finally I made some sense to someone...lol
One thing I'd like to comment on is something Cynthia touched on :
"They are not given the power to write them, so, they do not qualify as having the knowledge to deny them."
Not sure if pharmacies were created as a measure of checks and balances to what doctors prescribe or simply as just another industry in itself. However, regardless of the reason pharmacies came to light, many do sometimes act as a saftey measure. They don't have the legal authority to write or change a prescription, however I believe legally they are allowed to postpone a prescription based on potential health risks to a client. So possibly they can deny them. For example, if a pharmacy notices you are taking Drug A for your heart, and a doctor prescribes drug B for a digestive problem, and the pharmacist is aware that mixing drug A and B together causes siezures or heart failure, then legally he can halt the prescription, contact the physician and inform them of the potential health risk. Now i'm not sure if legally after all this, if a physician still okay's the drug, is he still obligated to fill the prescription or not? Not sure who would legally be liable if this were to happen. If I had to guess I would say legally he is not obligated to fill the prescription if he knows it could have a lethal effect. Now as a form of a safety precaution, I think its good system to have an outside source away from doctors fill prescriptions. Just from personal accounts I've heard, occasionally doctors don't mix and match medicines very well, especially for the elderly.
Another big problem I have with all this is a medical decision being made not based on medicine, but on a religion. The pharmacist is not even qualified to know whether or not this woman may be pregnant as a result of having unprotected sex the night or a couple nights before (not even a doctor could tell so soon) -- thus he couldn't possibly know if filling this prescription goes against his beliefs because it would be nothing more than a flushing of the system, and not an abortion, if no conception had occured. So potentially, filling the prescription may not even go against his religious beliefs if in fact no conception had even occured. So not only is the pharmacist smoothering someone with his loose religious beliefs, but he is also unintentionally making a medical decision at the same time based solely on ignorance. All of this resulting in the misuse of his position. And like I've said earlier, if we are going to allow this type of conduct from someone in a publicly serving and trusted position such as pharmacists, we might as well just put pharmacies inside the churches and mosques and so on and let our spiritual leaders decide which medicines we can have....or hell, for shits and giggles, cut out the middle men, get rid of doctors and pharmacuetical companies and let the churches start making our medical decisions....perhaps they can put the medicine in communion waffers...can't hurt the taste...in fact it may just improve it...lol...I can see it now..."All those with high cholesteral please rise"...lol
Anyways, just wanted to add a few more loose thoughts on the subject.
One thing I'd like to comment on is something Cynthia touched on :
"They are not given the power to write them, so, they do not qualify as having the knowledge to deny them."
Not sure if pharmacies were created as a measure of checks and balances to what doctors prescribe or simply as just another industry in itself. However, regardless of the reason pharmacies came to light, many do sometimes act as a saftey measure. They don't have the legal authority to write or change a prescription, however I believe legally they are allowed to postpone a prescription based on potential health risks to a client. So possibly they can deny them. For example, if a pharmacy notices you are taking Drug A for your heart, and a doctor prescribes drug B for a digestive problem, and the pharmacist is aware that mixing drug A and B together causes siezures or heart failure, then legally he can halt the prescription, contact the physician and inform them of the potential health risk. Now i'm not sure if legally after all this, if a physician still okay's the drug, is he still obligated to fill the prescription or not? Not sure who would legally be liable if this were to happen. If I had to guess I would say legally he is not obligated to fill the prescription if he knows it could have a lethal effect. Now as a form of a safety precaution, I think its good system to have an outside source away from doctors fill prescriptions. Just from personal accounts I've heard, occasionally doctors don't mix and match medicines very well, especially for the elderly.
Another big problem I have with all this is a medical decision being made not based on medicine, but on a religion. The pharmacist is not even qualified to know whether or not this woman may be pregnant as a result of having unprotected sex the night or a couple nights before (not even a doctor could tell so soon) -- thus he couldn't possibly know if filling this prescription goes against his beliefs because it would be nothing more than a flushing of the system, and not an abortion, if no conception had occured. So potentially, filling the prescription may not even go against his religious beliefs if in fact no conception had even occured. So not only is the pharmacist smoothering someone with his loose religious beliefs, but he is also unintentionally making a medical decision at the same time based solely on ignorance. All of this resulting in the misuse of his position. And like I've said earlier, if we are going to allow this type of conduct from someone in a publicly serving and trusted position such as pharmacists, we might as well just put pharmacies inside the churches and mosques and so on and let our spiritual leaders decide which medicines we can have....or hell, for shits and giggles, cut out the middle men, get rid of doctors and pharmacuetical companies and let the churches start making our medical decisions....perhaps they can put the medicine in communion waffers...can't hurt the taste...in fact it may just improve it...lol...I can see it now..."All those with high cholesteral please rise"...lol
Anyways, just wanted to add a few more loose thoughts on the subject.
-
Lightning Rod
- Posts: 5211
- Joined: August 15th, 2004, 6:57 pm
- Location: between my ears
- Contact:
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest