Pharmacists Refuse to Dispense Emergency Contraception

Dr. Imago

Master Poster
D
Joined
Aug 6, 2001
Messages
2,620
What do you all think about this?

Across the country, some pharmacists have refused to honor valid prescriptions for emergency contraception. In Texas, a pharmacist, citing personal moral grounds, rejected a rape survivor's prescription for emergency contraception. A pharmacist in rural Missouri also refused to sell such a drug, and in Ohio, Kmart fired a pharmacist for obstructing access to emergency and other birth control. This fall, a New Hampshire pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for emergency contraception or to direct the patron elsewhere for help. Instead, he berated the 21-year-old single mother, who then, in her words, "pulled the car over in the parking lot and just cried." Although the total number of incidents is unknown, reports of pharmacists who refused to dispense emergency contraception date back to 1991 and show no sign of abating.

Though nearly all states offer some level of legal protection for health care professionals who refuse to provide certain reproductive services, only Arkansas, Mississippi, and South Dakota explicitly protect pharmacists who refuse to dispense emergency and other contraception. But that list may grow. In past years, legislators from nearly two dozen states have taken "conscientious objection" — an idea that grew out of wartime tension between religious freedom and national obligation and was co-opted into the reproductive-rights debate of the 1970s — and applied it to pharmacists. One proposed law offers pharmacists immunity from civil lawsuits, criminal liability, professional sanctions, and employment repercussions. Another bill, which was not passed, would have protected pharmacists who refused to transfer prescriptions.
Click to expand...

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/19/2008

Personally, I think this is appalling. The pharmacist is intervening in a decision that has already been made between the patient and the doctor, and does not involve him/her. This should be grounds for immediate termination from employment from that pharmacy. In fact, were I an owner of a pharmacy in one of those states with laws on the books supposedly protecting a pharmacist, I'd still fire them. And, hopefully it'd get through the Supreme Court before Bush plants 3 or 4 more justices on it.

-TT
 
I'm pro-choice. I believe a pharmacist shouldn't have to fill any prescription for any reason they choose.

For that matter, my jewish butcher won't make me pork chops. I could very well go to another butcher but I think I''ll sue this one for being such a bigot.
 
Re: Re: Pharmacists Refuse to Dispense Emergency Contraception

csense said:
I'm curious. Can you define exactly what this substance is.
Click to expand...

Coat hanger, some ky jelly, and plunger?
 
Re: Re: Pharmacists Refuse to Dispense Emergency Contraception

csense said:
I'm curious. Can you define exactly what this substance is.
Click to expand...

From context I would suppose it's the kind of contraception you take after you've been raped.
 
It's the so-called "morning after pill", or Plan B (levonorgestrel). There was some debate about whether or not it should be over the counter - initially it was planned, and the FDA balked and made it prescription. This has a LOT to do with politics at the FDA, including Bush's appointment of David Hager (and attempting to make him chairman) to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee.

Originally posted by corplinx
I'm pro-choice. I believe a pharmacist shouldn't have to fill any prescription for any reason they choose.

For that matter, my jewish butcher won't make me pork chops. I could very well go to another butcher but I think I''ll sue this one for being such a bigot.
Click to expand...

Straw man.

If you are given a prescription for a medicinal compound and you take it to a pharmacy - and that compound is legally available in that pharmacy, no one should deny you access to that compound. A pharmacist does not have the right to refuse to sell you that compound. If he/she does, then the owner of that pharmacy has the right to fire that person for not doing his/her job. They should not be protected under "conscientious objection" provisions. If that pharmacist is incapable of carrying out his/her job without prejudice or personal bias, then he/she should find some other suitable profession that doesn't involve imposing his/her morals on others... such as flipping burgers at Burger King.

-TT
 
Warning then removal of licence to practice. These people are licenced and regulated practitioners, not just someone who decides to open a meat shop. With thier right to make money out of dispensing drugs comes the responsibility to do thier job....which is not to second guess what a Doctor decides and a patient agrees to....

anyway...if God didn't want this woman to take the damn tablet a lightning bold would do the trick and be much more newsworthy...
 
I agree that if a pharmacist has moral problems (ie morning after pill) filling a prescription, they souldn't have to. But they should refer the patient to a pharmacist who will fill the prescription.

I'm familiar with the Texas case (happened in Dallas). He also refused to refer the woman to another pharmacy. He was subsequently fired IIRC. Pharmacist are in such great demand, I'm sure he had no problem finding another job.

Charlie (fill my prescription for medical pot!) Monoxide
 
The Fool said:
With thier right to make money out of dispensing drugs comes the responsibility to do thier job....which is not to second guess what a Doctor decides and a patient agrees to....
Click to expand...

Welcome to Bush's America....

-TT
 
corplinx said:
I'm pro-choice. I believe a pharmacist shouldn't have to fill any prescription for any reason they choose.
Click to expand...

Yes they should, but they should also call her a slut when they hand it to her.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
You wouldn't be saying that if your boyfriend could get pregnant.
Click to expand...

I finally figured out what your orange swordfish means. That's disgusting.
 
While I don't see why the pharmacist should be forced to dispense in this case, I can certainly see why the employer has every right to fire the pharmacist for refusing to do their job.

My question would be, could the employer be held liable for their employees' refusal to dispense?
 
mortimer said:
My question would be, could the employer be held liable for their employees' refusal to dispense?
Click to expand...

You can't call customers sluts, I know that much. A manager can do it though, like if you own the drug store all by yourself.
 
mortimer said:
My question would be, could the employer be held liable for their employees' refusal to dispense?
Click to expand...

Only a lawsuit will tell. For example, if you're the store manager at your local Kroger, and suddenly a woman comes to you and says your pharmacist refuses to sell her the Plan B pill, what are your repercussions? You're not specifically trained to know what Plan B is even for; that's the pharmacists job. So, you go and ask the pharmacist, and he/she says that he/she won't sell it because it's against their beliefs. Now, you're in a situation that you can't immediately remedy, short of sending the woman to another pharmacy where she can get the prescription. Clearly, time is of the essence here (there is a reason why it's called the "morning after pill" and not the "week later" pill).

If you are supervising that pharmacist as the manager of the store, what duty do you have to that woman who can't get the prescription there? That's the question that a court challenge would have to settle. I think that the pharmacist would be the only one solely liable, but then again I don't think pharmacists are required to carry malpractice insurance (someone correct me if I'm wrong)... maybe they should.

-TT
 
ThirdTwin said:

A pharmacist does not have the right to refuse to sell you that compound.
Click to expand...

Why not? Is it a government pharmacist? Since when do you have the "right" to have something sold to you by another party at your whim.

What if it turns out the woman can't afford the prescription? Does she still have the right to the product? Can the pharmacist deny it for nonpayment.

Does the woman have a "right" to the product or the "right" to dictate that another person give them the product.

Sorry, but your viewpoint is called fascism unless the pharmacist is uncle sam.


Perhaps your critical thinking skills might kick in if you broke this down to "party A wants to buy a product from party B" instead of focusing on contraception/religion/etc.
 
corplinx said:
Why not? Is it a government pharmacist? Since when do you have the "right" to have something sold to you by another party at your whim.
Click to expand...

I'll snip your straw man arguments, but this one does warrent attention. Prescription drugs are under government perview and pharmacies (at least in Texas) are under state perview.

Now about your straw men, I'll offer one of my own.

If a person getting cancer treatment goes to get a prescription filled and the pharmacist refuses because he believes in faith healing for cancer would you still support his right to chose?

At what point do we draw the line between people having access to prescribed medications and drugs and pharmacists being able to impose their beliefs on someone just trying to fill a script?
 
A good solution is to have a pharmacy inside hospitals or clinics.

Funny thing is when these folks wonder why the Mega-Walmart moves in down the street.
 
corplinx said:
I'm pro-choice. I believe a pharmacist shouldn't have to fill any prescription for any reason they choose.

For that matter, my jewish butcher won't make me pork chops. I could very well go to another butcher but I think I''ll sue this one for being such a bigot.
Click to expand...
You are missing several important points:
Usually, failure to obtain pork chops will not result in life changing consequences.
Your butcher is not trying to impose his own morals onto you. His intent is not to prevent the consumption of pork chops.
Usually, Jewish butchers make it clear that they are Jewish, thereby alerting customers to the possibility that they will be unable to obtain pork products. If I walked into Safeway and went to the deli section, and the person there refused to sell me pork chops, I'd be rather annoyed. I wouldn't sue, but I wouldn't consider this a valid exercise of his "choice". I would have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to fill certain prescriptions, if it were clear what those prescriptions are. Once a potential customer has gone to the trouble of driving to the pharmacy with the belief, fostered by the pharmacist, that she will be able to obtain the prescription, the pharmacist is morally obligated to sell it. A person who claims to be a pharmacist, with no qualification, but who refuses to dispense certain prescription, is engaging in fraud.
 
Could the lady in question sue the pharmacy for all costs incurred as a result of her inability to get emergency contraception ?

It seems that there are two ways to define what people can and cannot do. You either do it the European way, in which the government makes the decision or you do it the U.S. and let the courts decide. If the costs involved in failing to dispense the emergency contraception are considerable then the pharmacy will have to make a choice whether it can afford its principles
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom