Now, I’m all for adhering to your beliefs, but if they are going to interfere with your ability to do your job of filling a prescription for a legal drug…maybe you better look for another job.
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=4274993§ion=news
I’m sure the rape victim didn’t need the moralizing either.
I wonder what “discipline” means?
If he worked for me, he’d be fired. He can open his own fucking pharmacy and sell whatever he chooses.
This is America and he is free to make his protests. Protesting comes with a potential cost though and this should cost him his job.
Haj
I agree completely with ivylass and hajario. I believe life begins at conception, but the pharmacist had no business trying to impose his beliefs on someone needing a perfectly legal drug. You might say I’m pro-life AND pro-choice. If that person worked for me they would be needing to be sure their resume was up to date, because they would be out the door.
I once had a pharmacist that refused to sell me Ketosticks, which are urine-dip sticks for monitoring ketone levels in your urine. They are mostly used by diabetics, but low-carb dieters (like me) use them to make sure we are in ketosis.
Anyways, I tried to get some ketosticks and the pharmacist flipped on me. He started ranting about how I didn’t look diabetic so I had to be using them for low-carbing, and the dangers of low-carbing. Of course, the fact that my grocery cart of low-carb food might have been a tip off.
I always found this funny as not 10 feet away they had a display case full of homeopathic remedies and copper bracelets. Not to mention the growing section of low-carb bars, shakes and powders nearby.
Confusing paragraph of the week:
Almost makes it sound like the rape took place at Eckerd, as well.
When my son was a toddler I asked the pharmacist-tech if they had oral syringes. (For those of you who don’t have kids or are not in the U.S., it’s a thing for measuring liquid oral medication for babies or old people.) The girl looked at me in horror and said “We don’t sell things like THAT!”
Hm. Abortion is a medical procedure, so I suppose you all think doctors should be forced to do abortions whether they want to or not?
I have a friend who owns and operates a pharmacy. She won’t carry it, and that’s her right. Were I a pharmacist I wouldn’t fill a prescription like that either, and my boss would know that the day they hired me.
I’m having trouble understanding why another pharmacist at the same place couldn’t have filled the prescription. And why the hell wasn’t this girl given the pill at the ER when she (presumably) went in for the rape kit?
The pharmacist in the story was not the owner of the pharmacy, the company is. His job isn’t to make moral judgements, his job is to dispence medications. He’s just an employee. His duty is to the company and the customers.
This was a pharmacy tech, not the owner, and the owner obviously chose to stock the medication. As for receiving it in the ER, patients are typically not given medications there that are not required for immediate treatment.
The operative concept here is that your friend owns the pharmacy. When you’re an employee of a pharmacy, you don’t have the luxury of standing on your morals. Your job is to fill prescriptions, period. I hope the person responsible for not filling the prescription is fired and action is taken against him by his state board of pharmacy.
In any event, emergency contraception isn’t designed to abort an embryo that’s already implanted in the uterine wall. It’s designed to keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the first place. A subtle but important distinction, to be sure, but it is there.
Robin
Sorry it’s from a student paper, but it’s the only source I could find.
Not only did the pharmacist in question refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, he refused to transfer them to other pharmacies. I got very worked up about this, so I won’t repeat everything I’ve said. Basically my objections were as follows:
-Birth control pills can be prescribed for other medical conditions (endometriosis) than to prevent pregnancy, or to prevent pregnancy if a woman is taking teratogenic medication (such as thalidomide).
-The pharmacist claims it’s because his “clinical judgment”, yet taking the pill is by far much more safe than a woman giving birth. And if it is his clinical judgement, why did he register his objection on a pro-life board on the basis of morality?
-Since only women can take pills, this is discriminatory by sex. How is this different than seggregationists having a moral objection to serving black people at their business? Or maybe just black people who “act uppity”?
-Pharmacists have to be licensed by the state. As such, shouldn’t they be obligated to serve all people of the state.
-Also, questions of access. This is in northern Wisconsin (though in a larger town), but what if this was the only pharmacy available to the residents? Or the only one that took their insurance.
Sorry for hijacking the thread.
[QUOTE=SnoopyFan]
Hm. Abortion is a medical procedure, so I suppose you all think doctors should be forced to do abortions whether they want to or not?
[QUOTE]
If they’ve taken a job at a women’s health clinic that provides abortions, then yes. If you’re not willing to fulfill the requirements of your job–ALL the requirements–then you need to find employment elsewhere. That being said, counting out pills and putting them in a bottle is not a medical procedure.
Well, as much as it staggers me to admit it, I actually (sort of) agree with SnoopyFan on this one.
I am 100% pro-choice, however I think that extends to ALL peoples choice, including that of the pharmacist who’s moral position didn’t allow him to fill the prescription.
That being said, any moralizing done by him, whatsoever, to the woman beyond “I’m sorry, I can’t fill this for you, but let me get you someone who can.” makes him a disgusting swine.
Generally, there are at least 2 people working at a drug counter at a time - he should have defered to his co-worker.
[QUOTE=CrazyCatLady]
[QUOTE=SnoopyFan]
Hm. Abortion is a medical procedure, so I suppose you all think doctors should be forced to do abortions whether they want to or not?
CrazyCatLady, you’re forgetting that such details matter little to SnoopyFan. The OP wasn’t even talking about abortion, but does it really surprise you that she mentions it? Heck, in Snoopy’s world, dispensing legal (prescribed) meds apparently equals abortion.
SnoopyFan, Everyone knows that you’re not a proponent of abortion. This topic is not about abortion, but about a pharmacist’s job requirement to fill a prescription. If your friend doesn’t want to dispense those meds, so be it. The pharmacist in question has a job and should perform it or seek employment elsewhere.
If you want to discuss whether doctors should be required to perform abortions, then open another topic in the appropriate forum, and let’s see the response.
Then the pharmacist should get a job in research or teaching. There are a lot of drugs out there–it’s not the pharmacist’s job to project his/her feelings/morals into the scenario. Just do your job. If it’s legal and prescribed, the pharmacist’s feelings/morals should not be a consideration.
Ferret Herder
Other states stipulate that hospitals must make such contraception available to victims of sexual assault, but Texas does not.
site:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/04/pharmacist_hit_for_not_filling_post_rape_pill/
(Incidentally, I am pro-choice).
Just out of curiosity, what are the criteria in those states for determining whether a woman who requests this pill is the victim of a sexual assault?
I heard about this on the news the other morning, and I was wondering when it would turn up here, although I figured I’d see it in the Pit, rather than MPSIMS.
I’m not surprised, I’m afraid. As I’ve mentioned a few times, when a friend of mine went to her doctor for birth control after the birth of her second child, he refused her saying, “We don’t do this. This is a Christian practice.” She changed doctors; I would also have done so, saying, “Fine, then I’ll find myself a good Wiccan one!”
I am appalled by the cruelty of this pharmacist’s position. To cast aspersions on the morality of a woman who’s already been through a nasty experience is atrocious, not to mention lousy customer service. I can just picture the exit interview if I ran the store. Pharmacist: “So you’re firing me because I refused to commit an immoral act.” Me: “No, I’m firing you because you directly insulted a customer, led to my business being protested, and cost me money.”
I’m glad the woman was able to get her prescription filled elsewhere, and I hope that those condemning her for the immorality of wanting not to become pregnant by a rapist spare a few words for the immorality of the man who raped her. Sometimes I get the impression that the latter gets overlooked. 
CJ
I’m with SnoopyFan on this - tell the prospective employer what you find morally reprehensible and let them decide whether to employ you or not. Do other Dopers seriously believe the “as an employee you have no right to moral judgements” line? Morality and legality aren’t the same thing. Personally i don’t agree with the pharmacist’s stand but if it’s his moral believe the fact that it is a lawful prescription is meaningless. The right of free speech means you can tell jokes against any segment of society - it doesn’t mean other people have to tolerate it.
By the way I don’t see anything about what the pharmacist said - it may have been no more than “I can’t fill this I believe it is wrong”. Does anyone have a source for him giving the victim a hard time or is just assumed.
I see that someone already corrected the “abortion pill” reference, but as a pro-lifer who sees a world of difference between Morning After Pill and RU-486, I feel it’s important to emphasize the distinction.
Morning After Pill (AKA emergency contraception) is a high dose of plain old birth control pills. It works by 3 possible methods: 1) delaying ovulation, 2) preventing fertilization, or 3) potentially preventing a zygote from implanting in the womb (thus, if MAP worked, you’d never get a positive pregnancy test). The 3rd method is what bothers some people. Thing is, nobody really KNOWS for sure how often birth control pills act in an abortifacient manner, and even pro-lifers don’t agree on contraception issues (for example, see the two different opinions given on this website for pro-life ob/gyns: http://www.aaplog.org/oral.htm for example).
The real abortion pill is RU-486, which is only used after a pregnancy has been confirmed (that is, a positive pregnancy test) with the sole intent of killing the developing embryo or fetus.
I am opposed to abortion (including RU-486), but I would have no problem with giving a person the morning after pill - especially since it’s a rape victim’s only method of contraception. I would rather see people taking the morning after pill than for them to find out they’re pregnant and go on to have a later abortion with RU-486 or surgical methods.
I would want to know what exactly the pharmacy’s policy is on how much autonomy pharmacists have in deciding what to dispense. If they expect pharmacists to fill all prescriptions no questions asked, then the pharmacist is clearly in the wrong. The pharmacy has a right to ask whatever it wants from its workers, and fire those who don’t want to comply.
In that case, he should have found a way to open his own pharmacy where he could be totally true to his beliefs. If I went to a pharmacy that was unapologetic about being Catholic-owned, it wouldn’t shock or offend me if they (hypothetically) didn’t offer condoms for sale even though I see nothing immoral about condoms myself. It would bug me if I went into a store that offered condoms and the cashier refused to sell me them!
BUT…if the pharmacy never made it clear that the pharmacist is not allowed to use his own discretion in filling prescriptions, then that changes things. I think that the pharmacist has a right to his moral view even though I disagree with him about it.