U.S.A. Today - pharmacists refusing Birth Control scripts

[Lucy!]

Whats even more frightening is if Bush appoints right wing conservatives judges to replace the two that will be stepping down soon, Roe vs Wade can be overturned and we will shave off at least 30 years of struggle for equality

[abcrystcats]

Judih and Everyone

I actually had a change of heart on this since I posted originally. I think I agree with Lightning Rod (were you serious, L-Rod?) with certain provisions.

Lucy asked, "When did morals ever entagle themselves with business?" I think the answer is : All the time. Haven't you ever seen those signs that say that the business reserves the right to refuse service to anyone? We have a right to purchase what we want, but that doesn't interfere with the vendors right to refuse to sell it.

I think the pharmacists who refuse to sell birth control pills ought to be required to post a prominent sign in their businesses declaring that they don't sell them. If there are other drugs they refuse to sell, then the names of all the drugs should be included in the posting.

Stealing people's scripts and refusing to give them back ought to be treated as common theft, and the perpetrators should end up behind bars, like any thief. If that had happened to me I would have called the cops.

I hate to say it, but I think they are within their rights to refuse to sell anything, they are just not within their rights to deliberately obstruct your process when you attempt to fill your prescription. Refusing to disclose their predetermined moral decision not to carry birth control pills is obstructive because it delays your ability to get them on time.

Furthermore, it obstructs your ability to make your own corresponding moral decision to refuse to patronize their pharmacy at all because of their stand on birth control.

So I say, fine, let them do it, but let them post their decision publicly so I don't waste my time giving them prescriptions they won't fill.

******

I am curious about something: Do they fill the birth control RXes when the reason for the RX is NOT birth control? Lots of women take the Pill as therapy for a gynecological condition. What do these Bible-beaters have to say about those cases? Do they deny these women's scripts as well, therefore refusing them medical attention?

Obviously these people haven't worked out the kinks in their self-righteous "moral" decision, have they?

[judih]

hi abcrystcats,

i was also thinking about this issue while biking to school this a.m.
What would happen if on personal grounds, i refused to mark a paper due to content opposed to my beliefs?

Impossible. i, as a gov't teacher, am employed to teach form and grammar and self-expression. My job requires me to be impartial to all students, no matter if one looks like my crazy ex-husband, or if another scrawls extreme chauvinist attitudes.

Likewise with a pharmacist. Even with the sign in the window:
" This pharmacy believes in the suppression of our clients' personal rights. Do not expect service unless you conform to this pharmacy's personal code."

That pharmacy is not doing its job.
Homeopathic pharmacies sell homeopathic remedies.
Naturopathic supply stores advertise what they sell.
Pharmacies are supposed to supply pharmaceuticals, not selected specimens, but the usual list of medications that doctors prescribe.

A pharmacy is a pharmacy is a pharmacy.

If capitalism allows for these biased venues to flourish, then more 'normal' pharmacies will need to open up and start up businesses across the street from the selective services sort. (50/50)

judih

[Doreen Peri]

OK, Cat.

I agree that the pharmacy shouldn't be required to carry any medication they don't want to carry.

But that wasn't the case in the article judih presented (as I read it anyway). Looks to me like the pharmacy owners had the birth control medication in stock, but the employee refused to fill it because of her own so-called morality reasons.

I look at it this way.

There's a pharmacy which, like most, carries other products, not just perscription meds. Toiletries, etc.

Maybe the owners of the pharmacy are morally against smoking so they decide not to stock cigarettes. Maybe they feel that if you listen to music, you are a sinner and you will go to hell so they refuse to stock music cds.

Maybe they don't stock any make-up because they think a woman shouldn't be wearing make-up.

They can stock or not stock whatever they want. Birth control pills, too. That's their option.

But IF the owners of the pharmacy stocked cigarettes, I don't think it's right for a clerk to tell a customer, "Sorry, I can't sell you cigarettes because it's against my moral code. You'll have to go elsewhere to purchase them."

Or, "Sorry, you can't buy that CD from me because I don't believe you should be listening to music."

I agree that the owners of the company can refuse to carry any medications they want to refuse to carry and they can publically display a list of those medications.

I've tried to flll perscriptions before and had pharmacists tell me, "We don't carry that. You'll have to go somewhere else."

The employee, though, doesn't have the right to refuse service if the owners carry the meds or any other product they find offensive.

[mnaz]

I agree with you, Doreen. The way you tell it in your post is the way it should be, in my opinion.

However, if I read correctly, the American Pharmacists Association, in its code of ethics, technically does recognize the right of individual pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions on the basis of personal moral beliefs, as long as they provide a viable referral to another pharmacy which will fill the prescription. In addition, Mississippi and Arkansas have state laws which allow this practice, and thirteen other states are considering adopting such laws.

This is not a particularly clear, or straightforward issue to consider.
Certainly, a pharmacist should not be compelled by the state to be complicit in providing that which he is morally opposed to.

But the problem is that in actual practice, this can cause real harm to patients who are in need. A so-called "referral" by a pharmacist bent on keeping a prescription from being filled might just lead to another dead-end. Some people in rural areas may not have access to an alternate pharmacy which stocks what they need. In these ways, "referral" can all too easily become a barrier to access. If we're going to allow a "refusal clause" in the Pharmacy Code of Ethics or in state law, then I would say that at the very least, further clarifications are needed to protect patients' rights; clarifications which deal with the above issues, along with penalties specified for pharmacists who refuse to give referrals and/or confiscate prescriptions.

Well, that's my first take on it.

[Doreen Peri]

Well said, mnaz.

I agree with you.

These new state laws aren't right, for the very reasons you stated.

But there's another qualm I have with it, too - from a business-person's perspective.

Let's say I am the owner of a pharmacy. I decide to stock birth control pills and I hire a pharmacist as my employee. If my employee refuses to fill a perscription for birth control pills, I may lose customers. It was MY decision to stock the pills. My employee needs to fill the perscription because he or she works for me. If he or she refuses to fill a perscription for a medication I have decided to stock, I should have the right to fire them.

These new laws are bogus. I don't think the state should have the right to override a business owner's decision to stock medications and fill those perscriptions. By making it a law that protects the pharmacist's personal morality code (my employee, in this illustration), as a business owner, I lose control of my operation.

This may sound like a little thing compared to the importance of people getting the medication they need.

But it's not really a little thing at all.

It is government getting too big for its britches.

[mnaz]

Well, Doreen...... once again I agree with your assertion that the state should not have the right to override a business owner's decision to stock medications and fill those prescriptions.

At this point, I must confess that I'm not familiar with the actual wording of existing and proposed state laws on this matter. In my Google search, I did come across articles which cited cases where pharmacy employees who refused to fill prescriptions were in fact fired because of it. I took this to mean that, yes, a pharmacist may legally refuse to fill a prescription, but at the same time, the pharmacy owner may also legally fire this employee for failing to meet company policy. But again, since I've never actually read any of the "refusal clause" laws, I honestly don't know if these laws somehow prohibit pharmacy owners from firing pharmacy employees for their "refusal". Perhaps I can research this later, or perhaps someone else here knows.

[hester_prynne]

Wow.
Reading everyone's input boggles my mind.
Suddenly, an issue that seems simple is complex and I just want to go get really stoned.
And a quote by one of my favorite character actresses is suddenly drifting through my mind...

"it ain't fittin, it ain't fittin, it aint' fittin. It jus ain't fittin...."

H

[abcrystcats]

LOL, Hester!! My sentiments exactly!

As for the rest of you -- you've focused on the problem impressively and I wouldn't dare add much. Seems to me -- and this is just fly-by-the-seat of-my-pants logic:

The pharmacist's first duty is as an employee. When he/she is on the job his actions should directly reflect the employers instructions.

If the instructions are not to his taste, he can always go get another job where they are.

I don't think any laws should interfere with that.

As for the pharmacist's oath, I read it too, and it did authorize the pharmacist to use morals and ethics when filling prescriptions. But it also authorized several other things, such as:

"consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns ...

apply my knowledge, experience and skills to the best of my ability in serving the public and other health professionals ...

obey the laws governing the practice of pharmacy"

Those things came before the "morals and ethics" clause, so it seems to me the message is clear: the pharmacist's first goal is to serve the public, relieving human suffering in the process.

If the pharmacist puts his own moral/religious convictions before fulfilling these other obligations, he's technically breaking his own oath. I don't know how enforceable that is, but it ought to be VERY enforceable since pharmacists are health care providers.

I still think that if a pharmacy chain or small-town pharmacy owner decides not to stock birth control, he/she ought to be able to do it.

I certainly did not mean to imply that individual maverick pharmacists should be able to do what they please, ignoring the instructions of their employers. No way. Those people ought to be fired.

I suspect the lady in my story was fired, or she quit. If she did to others what she did to me in that instance, it would have been very noticeable.

[Doreen Peri]

I didn't think it was getting complex at all.

I thought we were just talking about the topic.

[hester_prynne]

Oh there I go again, being a jerk for the love of a joke. Heh.
I was joking, really. I've gotten alot out of this whole discussion, it's fascinating to hear what people are thinking and very comforting to know that others are upset by this, what I perceive to be, very dangerous trend for women and our rights, or loss of them if you will.
Sometimes I have to relieve myself with humor, or what I think is humor....
Anyway, I'm sorry.
I know it probably wasn't fittin.

H

[Doreen Peri]

No need for apology, hest.... I'm just a duh sometimes... I didn't get it... I left my sense of humor at the door last night, i guess

You want to read something that's really not funny? Just got this in my email today with a petition at the bottom....

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new members. This position does not require Congressional approval.

The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy termination.

Dr. Hager is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." The book blends biblical accounts of Christ healing Women with case studies from Hager's practice. His views of reproductive health care are far outside the mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from Premenstrual syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient (a pill that causes an abortion).

We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect women's lives or to preserve and promote women's health. Hager's track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate to serve as chair of this committee. Critical drug public policy and research must not be influenced by antiabortion politics. Members of this important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women deserve no less.

[firsty]

it used to be that moral people only pursued careers that fit their preferences. now i guess morality can be jammed into each career in order to fit the selfish selfrighteous (frighteous?) needs of its practitioners. it's a true sign of arrogance and liberty defined for the few when a pharmacist can choose to pursue his career unburdened by the definition of that career. i wonder whether or not pharmacy professors would be allowed to select their students based upon whether or not their morals agree. of course, if selective freedoms were practiced freely, few moralists would ever be allowed to leave the house.

[abcrystcats]

Firsty, the way I was taught, if your employer asks you to do something you don't believe in, YOU LEAVE. You put morals before groceries, before getting ahead, before everything. You don't do it anyways, disobeying your conscience to collect a paycheck. And you don't look for ways to violate your employer's morals (unless perhaps what he's doing is ILLEGAL) when his back is turned.

When someone tells me maverick pharmacists are being insubordinate to their employers instructions and denying women birth control because of their "morals", I don't get it. And I REALLY don't get it when they request legal protection for their actions so they can keep their jobs!

Yeah, Doreen, when I read that piece you posted I was really really glad I am almost past childbearing age. I think the American people have re-elected a psychopath who wants to drag women back into the Dark Ages. How can his wife and daughters stand him?

This is nuts.

[knip]

if pharmacies are run down there the same way they are run up here, then they are private businesses

last time i checked, a private entrepreneur had the right to choose who they serve

or do they? they can't refuse service to blacks, chinese, or whites, for that matter

but they can refuse service based on apparel...no shoes, no shirt, no service...that type of thing

i wonder where the legal line is drawn