Just saw this. Again with the arbitrary definitions. A pharmacist needn’t fill something just because a doctor prescribes it. Why do you think that must be so?
Just as you wouldn’t if there were no pharmacy at all.
The one which should exist, that they should not be able to “opt out” of dispensing medications because of their personal feelings. Again, they should not "Be Allowed To Refuse To Dispense Drugs They Object To. "
An early-term abortion is the same procedure as a D&C, which is a surgical technique that all OB/Gyns are trained to do, and do as part of a regular medical practice. They are not obligated to use that training to do abortions.
That’s my point, if you live in the sticks, it’s best to think ahead and figure out a place to get them, in case you don’t have a last-minute option when the need arises.
Again, without citing a circular definition as support, why would you assert that? Why can’t someone dispense whatever they’d prefer and let you go somewhere else if it doesn’t accommodate you? I can understand if someone says this is inconvenient. But why must the pharmacist fill a prescription just because a doctor wrote it, if the pharmacist finds the prescription objectionable?
Again, you have not given any logical reason for this rule to exist.
Here is an obviously non-binding document that pretty much illustrates what I’m talking about. While there may be a little wiggle room there, it clearly states that the pharmacist needs to keep his morals out of it and abide by the ethics of the profession.
http://students.washington.edu/prepharm/articles/codeofethics.pdf
For argument’s sake, let’s assume this is a good summary of the pharmacist’s code of ethics. What part of it insists that they fill a prescription that they find morally objectionable? I assume you mean section VI. I don’t think this demands what you seem to. Acknowledging that others may hold different values does not, to me, demand that one accept any and every prescription. I don’t see anything in these principles inconsistent with a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription he feels morally objectionable.
And there is an oath, poorly worded as it may be: Atheism and Agnosticism
It certainly doesn’t say anything about picking and choosing which drugs to dispense.
Section IV suggests that they need to leave their religious convictions at the door:
I’m sure doctors’ codes of ethics are very similar, but again, that doesn’t mean they have to perform abortions.
There’s a difference between a restricted practice and a board-certified specialty or sub-specialty. For example, you’ll notice this page http://www.abms.org/Who_We_Help/Physicians/specialties.aspx lists no specialty or sub-specialty in "abortion - nor is there a sub-specialty for gynecology only or high risk pregnancies only. In fact, while searching for abortion providers in NYC, I found only one which might restrict the practice to abortions only - and that one is run by doctors who are board-certified in family medicine and provide non-surgical abortions.The rest of the 15 or twenty (including Planned Parenthood) I looked at also provide general gyn services.
That article also doesn’t say anything about that the origin of that oath or that it must be taken as a condition of licensing in any state. Or any other reason to believe that it is taken by all or even most pharmacists. And while it doesn’t say a pharmacist may decline to dispense certain drugs, neither does it say they cannot. Nor does it say anything about dispensing drugs for an execution or euthanasia. It is so vague that it is almost meaningless standing on its own.
To clarify a few points, from the inside:
-
There is no standard “Pharmacist’s Oath” that corresponds to the Hippocratic Oath for doctors.
-
We are expected to act in the best interest of the patient. If that includes refusing to fill a prescription, even if the doctor wants it, so be it. We have sent issues to the hospital ethics committee for review if we can’t work anything out with the prescriber. Our right of prescription refusal is considered a safety feature for the patient.
-
If we do not act in the patient’s best interest (obviously this is open to legal interpretation), we can have our licenses to practice pharmacy suspended or revoked; we can be sued for malpractice; and, obviously, we can get our asses fired.
If a doctor writes for something I think is a lethal dose (it’s happened, believe me), and I fill it, I am subject to lawsuit and revocation of my license. I would rather lose my job than lose my entire career. And, obviously, I want to do what is best for the patient.
I think the legal issue here–note that IANAL–is whether dispensing abortifacients would be “in the best interest of the patient.” If the pharmacist thinks not, he/she is legally required to not dispense. However, the patient has a right to the medication, which is legally prescribed for her. Hence the debate.
I still think that any pharmacist who doesn’t want to dispense birth control pills or abortifacients should work in a job where he is not required to do so. Otherwise, he should expect to get canned…and ought to have no legal recourse (suing the employer) when he does.
There is, however, no law requiring any business owner to sell particular products. Store owners always may use their own discretion regarding their own merchandise. That’s why Wal-Mart can refuses to carry certain books or videos without being charged with censorship. They can sell (or not sell) whatever they like. The same is true for owners of private pharmacies.
Friend, you’re reaching. This section does not prohibit a pharmacist from not filling a presciption (triple negative in this sentence, no extra charge) if it’s morally objectionable (wait, does that last word make this a rare quadruple negative? Wow!). It just doesn’t.
None of it “prohibits” anything, but the intent is clear. Don’t let your personal feelings get in the way of doing your job. Ethics. They’re not the same thing as morals.
Our governor in Illinois is taking steps to ensure these guys provide medication as prescribed: http://www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=2363§ion=newsroom
I’ll have to look around a little more to see what the latest is on the subject.
And who is the pharmacist to decide, over and above the doctor’s decision, what is “best” for his customer (note I did not say “patient”)? How does this play into a woman’s choice for birth control? Does the pharmacist review her medical records before he makes the decision?
No one is claiming it is a condition of anything. It is pretty clear as to what the industry expects of it’s pharmacists. Quit playing doctor and do your fucking job.
Gee…you don’t have much respect for pharmacists, do you? The fact is, they are professionals who play a different role in the health care system than doctors do…they are not toadies who have to do everything the doctors tell them to do.
Besides that, they are human beings, with rights just like everyone else. I have seen no logical explanation given for why those rights should not be fundamental.
Pro-choice advocates like to talk about not “legislating morality.” That cuts both ways…if you can’t legislate the morality of using Plan B, then you can’t legislate the morality of dispensing Plan B. Everyone involved in the process needs to decide for themselves what is right for them, based on their personal moral code. If a pharmacist does nothing to impede the customer from getting Plan B from another source, then they haven’t violated anyone’s rights, and therefore shouldn’t have their own rights taken from them.
The issue isn’t about pharmacists playing doctor - they’re not saying they won’t dispense Plan B because it’s not in the customer’s best medical interest. The issue is who gets to make the decision about whether dispensing Plan B is a necessary part of each and every retail pharmacist’s job. Some people think the government should require all pharmacists to dispense Plan B. Others ( including me ) think the pharmacist’s employer gets to make that decision. Still others ( those in favor of conscience clauses) think each pharmacist should get to make the decision, and the employer must accomodate that decision.
The “industry” doesn’t have an expectation of pharmacists. Individual employers do.
Walmart refused to even carry Plan B until forced to by state laws ( and I’m sure they still allow individual pharmacists to refuse to dispense when practical), CVS allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense, but requires that they arrange for another employee to do so , Walgreen’s fired a few for refusing to dispense and plenty of small pharmacies don’t stock it. The “industry” 's expectations are all over the map.