We’ve all heard of cases in which pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions for “morning after pills”, birth control, etc. More infuriating are the cases in which the pharmacist issues a lecture on his/her beliefs and/or the immorality of the woman’s behavior. Yet more infuriating still are the cases in which the pharmacist refuses to refer the prescription to another pharmacist and refuse to return the prescription so that the woman can’t get it filled elsewhere. :mad: :mad:
Okay, so why can’t the pharmacist be prosecuted for theft? He/she is refusing to return something of value to it’s owner, and since raising children is expensive it is very valuable indeed (don’t gimme any crap about how “it’s just paper”… money’s just paper, too). Yeah, she gave it to him/her voluntarily but it was with the reasonable expectation that it would be filled, that is, exchanged for something of even more value, the drugs themselves. At the very least, couldn’t he/she be prosecuted for obtaining something under false pretenses (since she had every reason to believe it would be filled), a crime in most places?
Are these people calling the police, or just going right to the media? I think what alot of people arn’t realizing, is that simply getting the local police over to the pharmacy will probably get the job done. All you have to say is “Officer, this pharmacist stole my medicine. I gave him my prescription, he refused to fill it and also refuses to return it to me. I’d like my medicine, my presciption or information on how to file charges against him.” I’d think you’d likely either get the pills or the paper back.
That’s what I’m thinking. The people get denied their meds and their scripts. Some call the police and get it straightend out (I would), some go home, call the doctor and get a new one written, and some call the media. The ones who call the media are the only ones you hear about. But I could be wrong, it’s just a WAG.
Nope. We covered this in another thread, where I did some actual research and found out that you don’t “own” the prescription. It belongs to the doctor who issued it, until it belongs to the pharmacist. It’s unclear and never done, though possible, that your *doctor *could sue for theft, but not you.
I’d still call the police (I’m willing to bet a cop wouldn’t know that rule) and let them handle the situation. I’m guessing once the cops show up, the pharmacist will give up the script.
It really happens. It’s on the news from time to time.
I’d still call the police, and if that didn’t work, THEN I’d think about calling the media. Even the most pro-life pharmacist has got to understand that if they don’t just hand the script back, they’ll wind up losing alot of customers.
I can see that the pharmacist would need to keep the prescription if he’s filling it. (Just to keep you from getting it filled a second time.) But if he’s not filling it, I don’t see how he can keep it.
Acutally, I’d be worried (and would mention this to…ummm someone) that he might use it to charge my insurace and collect the money, which in turn my mean that I can’t get another script filled of the same drug for a month.
Damn. Thought I had a good idea… Stupid is right, if true (wouldn’t mind a cite). That doctor pressing charges thing, that still has promise… All it takes is one doctor with a backbone, then they’ll all do it.
Still, I’m with Joey P on this. Threaten the pharmacist with legal action, loudly mention the words “insurance fraud” several times within earshot of other customers, and if all else fails, go to the cops and hope no one knows any better.
I guess this would fall under the rubric of ""two wrongs DO make a right?’
We seem to agree that the pharmacist is not committing insurance fraud – he’s simply not filling the perscription; no insurance is at issue here. And we seem to agree (subject to a supporting cite for WhyNot’s claim) that this is not theft.
Assuming WhyNot’s synopsis is correct, I don’t see how even the doctor can press theft charges.
It’s unclear to me when the ownership of the physical piece of paper changes hands, but regardless of the precise “magic moment,” the paper is handed willingly to the pharmacist; he legally possesses it. There might be some sort of civil conversion issue in play, but I don’t see how the crime of theft, even if considered in the light of “from the doctor”, can be made out.
If it’s not theft, then perhaps it is fraud? Surely one could make a case that the pharmacist accepted the paper in bad faith. The customer comes in with full expectations of a phramacist filling the prescription. The pharmacist accepts the prescription but then refuses to complete the transaction. Isn’t this in the same league as “bait and switch”?
I’m sorry, guys, I’m looking for the other thread where it’s cited and everything, but Search hates me right now. It’s not returning any results for my Username and “pharmacist”, not even this one! I will keep looking - perhaps after their morning exercise ball, the hamsters will be in a better mood.
The thread was about a woman whose prescription was taken away from her, and the debate was whether or not a pharmacist is bound by his licensing to fill any prescription, even one he found morally objectionable. Someone in that thread suggested the woman charge him with theft.
Of course, I don’t remember where I found the information in the first place. I believe it was in the Illinois pharmacist scope-of-practice, combined with something else. Damn! I will try to recreate it, but my mom’s on her way over and I may not have much computer time today.
That’s the way I see it. As I mentioned in the OP, it’s illegal to obtain something under false pretenses. For example, a few years ago I read about a celebrity look-alike who pretended to be the celebrity to obtain a free meal at a restaurant (not to be billed later, free). He was discovered and charged with this crime (after all, he didn’t “steal” it, it was gladly given to him…under false pretenses, that he was the real celebrity).
Yes, but I handed the prescription to the pharmacist with the expectation that he would fill it. If he is unable or unwilling to do so, I believe he should return it to me so I can get it filled elsewhere. Does he have the right not to do so?
Nope, no posts by me that I can find in there, but it must have been around the same time. ::laughs:: Very similar thread, though! Wow, we could just recycle threads every year to save strain on the hamsters, huh?
Bait and switch is a specific tactic that is outlawed by specific legislation – it prevents a merchant from falsely advertising a paerticular deal in order to induce people to visit his store, and then “switching” by offering them another product or deal.
In this case, the pharmacist is simply refusing to deal at all with the customer. He’s not offering another product or service; he’s simply refusing to serve the customer. I don’t think any existing bait-and-switch laws are relevant.
Fraud is a common-law crime, although different states may define it in ways subtly different than the common law does. But at common law, criminal fraud occurs when you have:
[ul]
[li]An intentional misrepresentation of material facts[/li][li]Reliance on that misrepresentation by its recipient[/li][li]Causation - the misrepresentation induces the recipient to act[/li][li]Damages - the recipient suffers a loss as a result of his act[/li][/ul]
The first element may not be so easy to prove. What I’m picturing here is, I should point out, pharmacists who are open about their practice as regards these sorts of prescriptions. A pharmacist who ran ads saying, “Fill your contraceptive prescriptions here!” and then acted as we’re discussing is a different story. But you can’t prove this element constructively – you’ve generally got to show an actual, intentional, misrepresentation. The customer’s subjective belief that all pharmacies should be expected to fill all prescriptions is unlikely to qualify.
So without even delving any further, it’s unlikely to qualify as criminal fraud, at least in a common-law state.
Now, there may well be some state board or licensing requirements that impose upon a pharmacist a duty to fill all prescriptions – that, I cannot speculate upon. But then obviously the remedy would be complaint to that board or licensing agency.
Stupid is right, if true (wouldn’t mind a cite). That doctor pressing charges thing, that still has promise… All it takes is one doctor with a backbone, then they’ll all do it.