Pharmacists refusing to fill scripts ...

[vraiblonde]

Crabcake, you're just being so sensible and rational these days. Are you feeling okay?

 

[crabcake]

Crabcake, you're just being so sensible and rational these days. Are you feeling okay?

I blame it on the DC smog; it's had a good 6 months to seep out since I last resided in the area, clearing the way for rational thought.

 

[Fred Hoeck]

In summary, I see this as a tough position for pharmacists, but one in which they knowingly choose to be in the middle. You don't see anti-death penalty folks applying to be the switch-puller on death row. There aren't a ton of Jehovah's Witnesses serving in the military, to my knowledge. Why would you continue working in a job that requires you to do something that you morally object? :shrug:

How about this fact. A phamicists job is more than filling these scripts, so why should they have to avoid this profession for a few cases? It is not the military whose job is to be ready to kill. As has been said all along, another phamacist can fill it. Also, these pills were not around when many of these people went into the profession, why should they give up their life's work now? Is this a Republic or a Dictatorship?

 

[vraiblonde]

Is this a Republic or a Dictatorship?

Republic. Therefore pharmacists have the right to choose whether or not they will fill certain prescriptions, and their bosses have the right to decide whether or not they will employ someone who refuses to do their job.

 

[crabcake]

How about this fact. A phamicists job is more than filling these scripts, so why should they have to avoid this profession for a few cases? It is not the military whose job is to be ready to kill. As has been said all along, another phamacist can fill it. Also, these pills were not around when many of these people went into the profession, why should they give up their life's work now? Is this a Republic or a Dictatorship?

Puhleeeeeze! I am not driving all over a city searching for pharmacies to fill a prescription that a PHYSICIAN determined was safe for me because some pharmacist decides it's "against his religion"; nor will I sit thumbing through the yellow pages calling them. It's not a medication for him to take; it's mine. And my insurance info isn't on file with every pharmacy in the state, and depending on where one lives, they may not have many options for pharmacies. Do you know how many po-dunk, one-pharmacy-towns there are in America? :shrug:

No ... given our constitution, I don't see the pharmacists having any stance in this one to deny women a prescription legally prescribed by their doctor.

There are all kinds of things that go on in the world morally and ethically that I don't agree with, but that doesn't give me the right to deny those people the freedom to do what they see fit, if it's legal. :shrug:

 

[BuddyLee]

And there you have it.

If it's his pharmacy that he owns, let him refuse whatever he wants. But if he's working for someone else, then he should do his job of find another one.

That's the point I was going to make. Just like any restaurant or bar, they CAN refuse to serve you.

 

[crabcake]

That's the point I was going to make. Just like any restaurant or bar, they CAN refuse to serve you.

I beg to differ on this. In normal circumstances, when a person is offering a good/service that is not regulated by the federal government, I'd agree; however, in this instance, that's not the case. The pharmacist is issuing federally controlled substances. And when you're dealing with Uncle Sam, you can't discriminate.

And to take it even one step further, the pharmacist doesn't know the reason a medication is prescribed. Like I said, birth control pills are prescribed for a lot of reasons that aren't always as their name indicates. The pharmacist doesn't know this when he/she fills the script. Take Wellbutrin, for example. I know of a couple doctors who will prescribe it as that vs. Zyban b/c most insurance companies won't cover it if it's listed as Zyban (for quitting smoking); but they will if it's prescribed as Wellbutrin (for depression). Yet, all Zyban is is the exact same drug called a different name. :shrug:

 

[BuddyLee]

I beg to differ on this. In normal circumstances, when a person is offering a good/service that is not regulated by the federal government, I'd agree; however, in this instance, that's not the case. The pharmacist is issuing federally controlled substances. And when you're dealing with Uncle Sam, you can't discriminate.

And to take it even one step further, the pharmacist doesn't know the reason a medication is prescribed. Like I said, birth control pills are prescribed for a lot of reasons that aren't always as their name indicates. The pharmacist doesn't know this when he/she fills the script. Take Wellbutrin, for example. I know of a couple doctors who will prescribe it as that vs. Zyban b/c most insurance companies won't cover it if it's listed as Zyban (for quitting smoking); but they will if it's prescribed as Wellbutrin (for depression). Yet, all Zyban is is the exact same drug called a different name. :shrug:

I gotta disagree. First off, how is this a federally controlled substance when you can get it at your local pharmacy?

Secondly, the pharmacist (if he's the owner) does reserve the right to withhold whatever he/she wants.

Lastly, the pharmacist doesn't have to know your reasoning for the drug, it is HIS reasoning to prescribe or not prescribe. We're looking along the lines of ethical principles more than anything else. For every one who doesn't sell you this drug there will be another right down the road who will. If that pharmacist doesn't want to make the buck for what he believes then so be it. Are you going to infringe your beliefs on him and try to make him give it to you or will you simply take your candyass down to the next pharmacy?

 

[crabcake]

I gotta disagree. First off, how is this a federally controlled substance when you can get it at your local pharmacy?

Secondly, the pharmacist (if he's the owner) does reserve the right to withhold whatever he/she wants.

Lastly, the pharmacist doesn't have to know your reasoning for the drug, it is HIS reasoning to prescribe or not prescribe. We're looking along the lines of ethical principles more than anything else. For every one who doesn't sell you this drug there will be another right down the road who will. If that pharmacist doesn't want to make the buck for what he believes then so be it. Are you going to infringe your beliefs on him and try to make him give it to you or will you simply take your candyass down to the next pharmacy?

1) If it wasn't a controlled substance, you could get it over the counter, which you cannot.

2) If a medication is prescribed by a DOCTOR for medical purposes, the pharmacist is doing the patient a disservice by withholding it for ANY reason. It's for the betterment of the patient's health. If the phamacist needs a script for his/her conscience, they can go see a doctor themselves.

3) Pharmacists don't prescribe; doctors do. Pharmacists count the pretty little pills.

4) You and I might have the convenience of several pharmacies, but travel across the country a time or two, and you'll see that is NOT the case in every town.

5) I'm not infringing my beliefs on him at all. If I'm prescribed BC pills, it's for the betterment of my health. To deny me that is NO different than to deny you a tube of PrepH to remedy your hemmorhoids.

 

[vraiblonde]

I gotta disagree. First off, how is this a federally controlled substance when you can get it at your local pharmacy?

Must have prescription, Danieh-san. Federal laws say so

Secondly, the pharmacist (if he's the owner) does reserve the right to withhold whatever he/she wants.

But in this case, pharmacist not owner

Lastly, the pharmacist doesn't have to know your reasoning for the drug, it is HIS reasoning to prescribe or not prescribe.

Pharmacist no prescribe drug - doctah prescribe drug. Pharmacist simply dispense

Any more questions?

 

[crabcake]

Any more questions?

psst he's thinkin' long and hard on this one, I bet.

 

[BuddyLee]

1) If it wasn't a controlled substance, you could get it over the counter, which you cannot.

2) If a medication is prescribed by a DOCTOR for medical purposes, the pharmacist is doing the patient a disservice by withholding it for ANY reason. It's for the betterment of the patient's health. If the phamacist needs a script for his/her conscience, they can go see a doctor themselves.

3) Pharmacists don't prescribe; doctors do. Pharmacists count the pretty little pills.

4) You and I might have the convenience of several pharmacies, but travel across the country a time or two, and you'll see that is NOT the case in every town.

5) I'm not infringing my beliefs on him at all. If I'm prescribed BC pills, it's for the betterment of my health. To deny me that is NO different than to deny you a tube of PrepH to remedy your hemmorhoids.

1) Agreed.

2) Your doctor gives you a slip for arsenic, the pharmacist refuses it saying "This will kill you!". Are you going to trust your doctor or the pharmacist? Both are health care providing professionals and both have the right to not participate.

3) Pharmacists can prescibe, they can precribe you not to take those pretty pills.

4) If you need something for your health and in this instance, I'm sure you'll travel, great distances if you care enough for yourself.

5) You are prescribed by one and that is taken care of by another. In an ideal world both would share the same views. So now, you want someone to go against their beliefs to appease yours?

However, if a pharmacist does reject you HE/SHE is supposed to refer you to another pharmacist and not keep your slip as stated by the American Pharmacists Association. If he/she doesn't refer you to another pharmacist so that he/she is cleared then that pharmacist is wrong.

 

[crabcake]

1) Agreed.

2) Your doctor gives you a slip for arsenic, the pharmacist refuses it saying "This will kill you!". Are you going to trust your doctor or the the pharmacist? Both are health care providing professionals and both have the right to not participate.

3) Pharmacists can prescibe, they can precribe you not to take those pretty pills.

4) If you need something for your health and in this instance, I'm sure you'll travel, great distances if you care enough for yourself.

5) You are prescribed by one and that is taken care of by another. In an ideal world both would share the same views. So now, you want someone to go against their beliefs to appease yours?

However, if a pharmacist does reject you HE/SHE is supposed to refer you to another pharmacist and not keep your slip as stated by the American Pharmacists Association. If he/she doesn't refer you to another pharmacist so that he/she is cleared then that pharmacist is wrong.

Nice try, but your arguments are based on "what would be nice" while mine are based on law/fact, so there is no real argument here. We can talk about the ideal world all we want, but that doesn't make it so and it surely doesn't make it legal. :shrug:

As things stand right now, there is no legal right for the pharmacist to deny anyone their prescription for any reason UNLESS there is a medical problem (i.e, cross-medication interaction).

 

[BuddyLee]

Nice try, but your arguments are based on "what would be nice" while mine are based on law/fact, so there is no real argument here. We can talk about the ideal world all we want, but that doesn't make it so and it surely doesn't make it legal. :shrug:

On the contrary, I see it as the ideal world as compared to your views.

Here's some quick snips for ya' if you want to get into laws being proposed...

And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.
Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm
These are the stats and ethics presented that I see.

Where are your laws?

 

[crabcake]

On the contrary, I see it as the ideal world as compared to your views.

That's what I said. You're talking about the ideal world; I'm talking about how the constitution applies to this case.

Here's some quick snips for ya' if you want to get into laws being proposed...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-11-08-druggists-pill_x.htm
These are the stats and ethics presented that I see.

Where are your laws?

It's called the constitution. :shrug: And that's exactly what this argument will come down to when it goes to the supreme court.

 

[crabcake]

And from your article in USA Today ...

Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.

I don't know that the constitutional connection has been made yet between "separation of church and state" and it's applicability in this case because of the federal regulation. If it hasn't, I'm sure pharmacists "morals" will take a back seat to it when it does go to court.
The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.

You left that last line off your copy/pasted from the article, and I think it's key to this matter. Pharmacists were offered an "out" to ease their conscience, and in some cases, they're still not doing what they're supposed to, in those instances.

 

[BuddyLee]

So then, show me in the constitution where it states this.

 

[BuddyLee]

And from your article in USA Today ...


You left that last line off your copy/pasted from the article, and I think it's key to this matter. Pharmacists were offered an "out" to ease their conscience, and in some cases, they're still not doing what they're supposed to, in those instances.

I left that out but I still addressed the point, look at my prior posts. I said that the pharmacist can refuse but they MUST refer you to another pharmacist and NOT keep your slip, if they do otherwise they are wrong.

 

[crabcake]

So then, show me in the constitution where it states this.

Amendment I (1791)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

:shrug:

The federal government regulates prescription drugs via the FDA*; therefore, to allow someone whose job it is to dispense those federally regulated drugs to NOT dispense them based on their religious beliefs is easily construed as "making a law respecting an establishment of religion."

* edit/added

 

[crabcake]

:shrug:

The federal government regulates prescription drugs; therefore, to allow someone whose job it is to dispense those federally regulated drugs to NOT dispense them based on their religious beliefs is easily construed as "making a law respecting an establishment of religion."

And I'd like to thank 2A for having that link conveniently located in his siggy for easy reference for me.