Many druggists across the country refuse to give out morning-after pills.

[Triggerfish]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2352&ncid=2352&e=4&u=/csm/20050408/ts_csm/apharmacy

I personally do not think it's unreasonable to allow druggists to refuse to give out the prescription as long as there is another druggist in the store or there is another drug store nearby but refusing to transfer the prescription and especially refusing to give back the prescription so they can get the drug somewhere else is wrong. In the latter situation the druggists is forcing his beliefs on the woman and denying her her choice. JMHO

 

[Ken King]

It seems that the druggists that refuse to fill a rightfully created prescription are violating the essense of their profession, providing the medications that a doctor has approved for a patient. Shouldn't pharmacists be bound by the same ethical principle, like the Hippocratic Oath, that others in the medical profession adhere to? It isn't their decision to decide the course of treatment and they shouldn't interfere or prevent it either.

 

[FromTexas]

Pharmacists are allowed to decline any prescription they feel either ethically, emotionally, etc is without merit, but they are required to send you to another pharmacy with the prescription. Right or wrong, thats the way it is.

 

[vraiblonde]

If he actually owns the pharmacy, okay. But if he's just the dude behind the CVS counter, tough noogs - fill the friggin' prescription and leave your moralizing at home next time you come to work.

 

[Ken King]

Really? Well, right now, here in Maryland, I don’t see where a pharmacist has the right to not perform the duties of his position that are contrary to his personal beliefs without obtaining a waiver from the State Board.

Maryland Code : HEALTH OCCUPATIONS : TITLE 12. PHARMACISTS AND PHARMACIES : SUBTITLE 4. PHARMACY PERMITS : § 12-403. Required standards.

(5) Shall provide complete pharmaceutical service by preparing and dispensing all prescriptions that reasonably may be expected of a pharmacist;
(6) Shall provide services to the general public and may not restrict or limit its services to any group of individuals unless granted a waiver from this requirement by the Board;

 

[FromTexas]

Really? Well, right now, here in Maryland, I don’t see where a pharmacist has the right to not perform the duties of his position that are contrary to his personal beliefs without obtaining a waiver from the State Board.

Maryland Code : HEALTH OCCUPATIONS : TITLE 12. PHARMACISTS AND PHARMACIES : SUBTITLE 4. PHARMACY PERMITS : § 12-403. Required standards.

(5) Shall provide complete pharmaceutical service by preparing and dispensing all prescriptions that reasonably may be expected of a pharmacist;
(6) Shall provide services to the general public and may not restrict or limit its services to any group of individuals unless granted a waiver from this requirement by the Board;

A textbook explanation of Principle 2 of the Pharmacists Code of Ethics:

Principle Two
The pharmacist actively promotes the well-being of every patient in a caring, compassionate manner. The patient's well-being is at the centre of the pharmacist's professional and business practices. This principle ensures that no patient shall be deprived of pharmaceutical services because of the personal convictions or religious beliefs of a pharmacist. Where such circumstances occur, the pharmacist refers the patient to another pharmacist who can meet the patient's needs. The pharmacist exercises his or her professional judgement to ensure that patients' needs are met in situations where emergency services or care may be required.

The waiver above you refer to is for not serving a group of individuals (discimination) from all services.

The clause above that with "reasonable" expectation is used in many circumstances in the law. For instance, there are OB/GYNs who will not prescribe birth control because they are devout Catholics, but, by obligation of their oath, they will refer you to either a partner or other physician who may see to those needs (after they make you aware of their personal dilemma and try to talk you into natural control methods). Yet, you will find similar laws like the one you quoted above for physicians in many states. A similar pharmacist can reasonably be expected to not engage in a practice that is oppositional to the core of their faith.

However, the problem above would be if they did not make arrangements for you to go to another pharmacy (by their own code of ethics). While they have every right to not participate in something they consider murder, they do not have the right to prevent you from receiving the treatment prescribed by your physician or changing that course of action.

 

[FromTexas]

If he actually owns the pharmacy, okay. But if he's just the dude behind the CVS counter, tough noogs - fill the friggin' prescription and leave your moralizing at home next time you come to work.

Exactly. CVS can uphold its own corporate policies. They may require, as part of taking the position, that you dispense ALL medications as prescribed (unless reasonable belief the precription is fraudulent or some such).

 

[Lenny]

Selective quotation of Maryland statute weakens the argument (at best). The pharmacist, as a professional, is required to exercise professional judgement when asked to dispense medications.

The use of hormones/birth control pills to abort a pregnancy or prevent a pregnancy is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The pharmacist's license and livelihood are at risk should the medication lead to a complication (like blood clots, fatal pulmonary emboli, etc.) And he would not have a leg to stand on.

Off-label prescribing is common in the medical profession. Many pharmacists dispense medications despite the failure of the pharmaceutical industry or medical community to get the FDA to approve the unapproved indication. But a pharmacist is not required to dispense contrary to the law.

 

[Ken King]

Selective quotation of Maryland statute weakens the argument (at best). The pharmacist, as a professional, is required to exercise professional judgement when asked to dispense medications.

It is a requirement for them to get a permit to operate in the state. Find a portion of the statute that allows them to not provide services because of personal beliefs.

The use of hormones/birth control pills to abort a pregnancy or prevent a pregnancy is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The pharmacist's license and livelihood are at risk should the medication lead to a complication (like blood clots, fatal pulmonary emboli, etc.) And he would not have a leg to stand on.

RU486 was approved by the FDA in 2000. What has not been approved is the OTC version of the drug. If the prescribing physcian meets the requirements to write the prescription then the pharmacist should fill it.

 

[Baja28]

The pharmacist needs to go find another job if he cannot do his. Dispense the meds or take a hike! MHO

 

[Mikeinsmd]

The pharmacist needs to go find another job if he cannot do his. Dispense the meds or take a hike! MHO

 

[FromTexas]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-04-04-birth-control-access_x.htm

 

[Vince]

If he actually owns the pharmacy, okay. But if he's just the dude behind the CVS counter, tough noogs - fill the friggin' prescription and leave your moralizing at home next time you come to work.

They need to do their job.

 

[Bustem' Down]

The pharmacist needs to go find another job if he cannot do his. Dispense the meds or take a hike! MHO

Agreed, let's take this to a hypothetcal extreme. Should the same pharmacist be allowed to refuse to dispense AIDS medication to a homosexual make because he believes homosexuality is wrong? Like I said, hypothetical extreme, but I could see it happening.

 

[Triggerfish]

Next thing you know, the clerk at the K-mart will refuse to sell shotgun shell because he doesn't believe in guns. Or..........the checkout person refusing to sell meat because he/she is a vegetarian. Tobacco products?

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't think any of those scenarios are particularly extreme, considering what the original story was. Why people take jobs that are going to offend them, I have no idea.

 

[Triggerfish]

I don't think any of those scenarios are particularly extreme, considering what the original story was. Why people take jobs that are going to offend them, I have no idea.

If the druggist is allowed to refuse to sell certain medications/drugs based on his moral beliefs in the future it may affect less important things. Then again to some people having access to shotgun shells may seem more important to them than morning after pills.

I have a job that often offends me, but I keep on doing it since I signed a contract. 6 more yrs to go.....

 

[Bustem' Down]

So should I stop paying speeding tickets because it offends me that the goverment would infringe on my personal freedoms by posting a speed limit? Maybe I should be allowed to shoot someone because thier mere presence offends me?

 

[vraiblonde]

Maybe I should be allowed to shoot someone because thier mere presence offends me?

Boy, wouldn't that be nice?

We have so much wealth and so much leisure time in this country that we sit around thinking up things to complain about. It's a sign of success.

 

[sleuth]

It is a requirement for them to get a permit to operate in the state. Find a portion of the statute that allows them to not provide services because of personal beliefs.


RU486 was approved by the FDA in 2000. What has not been approved is the OTC version of the drug. If the prescribing physcian meets the requirements to write the prescription then the pharmacist should fill it.

Ken,

How would you compare this to signing a flight clearance? In my line of work, we get flight clearance requests all the time, and occasionally there is one that comes through that we don't feel entirely comfortable with and we don't want to sign - our reputation is at stake, as is our own conscience. We pass it up to the next level, and leave it to the higher-ups to decide if they want to take a risk and overrule us despite our refusal to sign.

So, in a pharmacy, if the guy behind the counter at the pharmacy for some reason believes that he shouldn't fill it, and he has conscientious objections, do you think he is like or unlike the guy who has an objection to a flight clearance?

I'm not saying right or wrong either way - it's a difficult issue. But I would say that if I were in a job that required me to go against my beliefs, I wouldn't do the job. Now, obviously, if it were happening on a routine basis (I'm sure this pharmacist has many customers seeking these pills), then I think I'd find another place/profession to work in.