Pharmacists denying birth control on moral grounds

jay gw

Unregistered
J
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
1,821
A growing number of pharmacists across America are refusing to dispense birth control and the morning-after pill, because it goes against their religious and moral convictions.

This development has led to state legislatures across the country taking action, either to protect women's rights to obtain birth control or to uphold the pharmacist's right to refuse it.

The issue has become heated in several states, which already have laws allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, including birth control pills.

In Arizona, the House of Representatives recently approved legislation that would put into place a conscience clause for pharmacists who have objections to handing out birth control.

But in April, Illinois Governor Rod R Blogojevich filed a rule requiring Illinois pharmacies to dispense all such prescriptions immediately and without question.

"More and more pharmacists do not want to hand over the birth control package and feel that it is within their rights to lecture women about their morals," said Judy Waxman of the National Women's Law Centre in Washington DC. "There are many incidences of pharmacists not giving back the prescription so that the women can fill it somewhere else."

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=4/23/2005&Cat=5&Num=5
 
Nobody should be able to push their beliefs on others. If they don't like the stuff, then they don't have to take it themselves. It is their job to provide it to those who have been prescribed it. It's none of the pharmacist's business why it is prescribed, and it's their job to fill their prescription.

If they can't fill it due to their own stupidity, then they should get a job they don't find so damn objectionable. Make the chumps quit their jobs if they don't like doing it.
 
I wouldn't have thought that would have been legal for them to do in the first place. Shame on them.
 
I don't think the government should be able to force a pharmacist to dispense something he considers to be immoral. On the other hand, any employer should let him know that his choice is to dispense it or find somewhere else to work.
 
"More and more pharmacists do not want to hand over the birth control package and feel that it is within their rights to lecture women about their morals"

A fundamental principle is that rights are accompanied by responsibilities. These pharmacists are going beyond mere lecturing; they are actually presuming to make decisions regarding other people's lives. Where the results of that decision include unwanted pregnancy, are the pharmacists willing to stand by their decision by assuming some of the costs of supporting the child?
 
A few points:

First, birth control pills are prescribed for medical concerns other than birth control. As Eos said, it's not the pharmacist's business why the pill is prescribed. It is the physician, not the pharmacist, who decides whether a drug is appropriate for a patient.

Second, it is presumptuous of a pharmacist to assume that a patient will use a particular drug in an immoral manner. Nearly every drug that crosses the pharmacist's counter can be abused in a "sinful" way. It would be ridiculous for a pharmacist to refuse to grant a prescription for, say, codeine because the drug might be used to create a feeling of euphoria.

If pharmacists can refuse to dispense some drugs on moral grounds, then they can assert that they ought not to dispense other drugs on moral grounds: anti-AIDS drugs, anti-depressants, antibiotics....

Third, those who want to refuse to dispense drugs often cite "traditional" values. Well, one of the traditions associated with the pharmacy is that people in need of help get it, in a discreet and timely manner.
 
I think pharmacists who refuse to provide medications on moral grounds ought to lose their license. It's not their job to preach morals. This nation is not centered on one religion, but many.

A soldier who fails to disclose 'conscientious objector' status, then refuses to act properly in battle is discharged from the military. This is no different, IMO.

ANY person in ANY secular position who refuses to do their job based upon a personal moral ought not to be in that job. A doctor who fails to perform a required procedure on moral grounds. A lawyer who fails to defend a client on moral grounds. A teacher who fails to teach the material - or who teaches extraneous material against the given curriculum - on moral grounds. Each one of these ought to be pounding pavement looking for new work.

It is especially wrong regarding distributions of medicines. After all, if the government allows pharmacists to refuse to issue birth control on moral grounds, how long before some Christian Scientist makes his way through and becomes a Pharmacist who refuses to give any medicine based on his own morals?

And what happens if a regular AIDS treatment comes around - will Pharmacists be allowed to refuse to administer it on moral grounds as well?

Fire the jackanapes who refused, yank their licenses, and teach them to ask, "You want that supersized?" Let them deny Biggie Fries on moral grounds. Jerks.
 
The government has no business forcing a pharmacist to sell anything he doesn't want to sell. A pharmacist refusing to sell birth control puts his job and/or his business on the line for his beliefs. That's the risk he takes and it is a risk he is entitled to take.
 
DaChew said:
The government has no business forcing a pharmacist to sell anything he doesn't want to sell.
Click to expand...

Why not?

The pharmacist is granted a special license to sell things that other, normal businesses can't sell. In exchange for that, s/he has a responsibility to dispense the medication that the doctor tells hem/her to dispense.

Pharmacies are NOT regular old businesses, who have the right to sell what they want and to whom. They are specifically allowed by the government to sell things that others cannot. In exchange for that priviledge, they are responsible for serving the clients without regard to personal morality. They want to "eat their cake and have it, too." They want to have the right to sell controlled substances, and still want to have the right to operate as a normal business.

If they want to refuse service to customers on moral grounds, they need to give up their license to sell controlled substances.

More importantly, as others have noted, the pharmacist has absolutely NO business evaluating the morality of any prescription, for the reason that they don't know why the doctor prescribed it! To reiterate, things like birth control pills can be and sometimes are dispensed for health reasons other than birth control. I go a step farther than most people on this:

A pharmacist refusing to dispense prescribed medication is in effect practicing medicine without a license and therefore should be prosecuted.

If the pharmacist has a concern about any medication that the patient is trying to obtain, he/she needs to contact the doctor and convey those concerns, and it is the doctor's responsibility to resolve any problems.

The pharmacist is not able to determine which medications are appropriate for a patient, and only has the job of dispensing medication ordered by the physician.
 
An example: my housemate, mother of three children, takes the b.c. shot. She is now separated, completely chaste, and not at any risk - but she takes the shot, because it helps correct a hormone imbalance that affects her moods and clarity of thought.

So a pharmacist should be allowed to deny selling her the shot, on moral grounds?

I also have a close friend who takes the pill, for similar reasons. Should she also be denied her medicine on moral grounds?

pgwenthold has the right of it - Persecute these pharmacists for practicing medicine without a liscence.
 
zaayrdragon said:
pgwenthold has the right of it - Persecute these pharmacists for practicing medicine without a liscence.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure how much I think they should be "persecuted," but definately _prosecuted_.

:D
 
DaChew said:
The government has no business forcing a pharmacist to sell anything he doesn't want to sell. A pharmacist refusing to sell birth control puts his job and/or his business on the line for his beliefs. That's the risk he takes and it is a risk he is entitled to take.
Click to expand...

Let's take this away from the birth control domain for a moment. Let's hypothesize a small town's sole pharmacist who converts to Christian Science. Place the small town in East bumfork, Montana. He no longer believes in humans taking medical action against God's will.

How do you respond to this example?

Or, how about one who believes homosexuality is an abomination. Does he or she have the right to refuse dispensing AIDS medications because of this belief?
 
What about a pharmacist who's White and doesn't want Blacks to have medicine?

One that doesn't sell to "immigrants"?
 
pgwenthold said:
More importantly, as others have noted, the pharmacist has absolutely NO business evaluating the morality of any prescription, for the reason that they don't know why the doctor prescribed it!
Click to expand...

http://www.uspharmd.com/rxcode.htm

Snip:
A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience.
Click to expand...

Not voting one way or the other. I just think the 'official' code of ethics is an important aspect to this debate.
 
Either the pharmacist owns or has a financial and policy stake in the shop he works in, or he does not.

If not, he either sells what his boss tells him, or he will be fired.

If he has the authority to decide what's on sale, for whatever reason, even that he does not like the rep for that drug company, then he has every right not to sell it. Or not to sell it to YOU if he prefers not to. His business.

And his customers have every right to vote with their feet.
 
Rob Lister said:
http://www.uspharmd.com/rxcode.htm

Snip:


Not voting one way or the other. I just think the 'official' code of ethics is an important aspect to this debate.
Click to expand...

Rob,

Did you read the rest of that link? Such as:
pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.
Click to expand...

or...
A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.
Click to expand...
 
BillHoyt said:
Let's take this away from the birth control domain for a moment. Let's hypothesize a small town's sole pharmacist who converts to Christian Science. Place the small town in East bumfork, Montana. He no longer believes in humans taking medical action against God's will.

How do you respond to this example?
Click to expand...


They are going to go bankrupt very fast so people will have to travel to get their precriptions. However they will also have left a gap in the market that is probably going to be filled quite fast.


Or, how about one who believes homosexuality is an abomination. Does he or she have the right to refuse dispensing AIDS medications because of this belief?
Click to expand...

Yup once again it is likely to wipe out his/her business but that is thier choice.
 
The pharmacist has the right to refuse, at least under current laws. Of course, if word gets out, he could be fired, he is hurting the business, especially if he's not the owner.

I would personally would never use a pharmacist that did this, who knows what other kinds of "advice" he might be handling out.

The biggest problem is of course, a small town where he is the only pharmacist and the only available source of birth control.
 
pgwenthold said:
The pharmacist is granted a special license to sell things that other, normal businesses can't sell. In exchange for that, s/he has a responsibility to dispense the medication that the doctor tells hem/her to dispense.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen this agreement any other place except your post. Is it your opinion of how you think things ought to be? Or does it actually exist in the real world?

Originally posted by jay gw
What about a pharmacist who's White and doesn't want Blacks to have medicine?
Click to expand...
That's specifically covered under the Civil Rights Act. Selling birth control, on the other hand, is not.

A pharmacist who does this should be either fired by his employer, or if he is the owner of the business, boycotted and driven out of business. But I haven't seen anything that makes me think that the government has the ability to force a pharmacist to sell something he doesn't want to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom