Besides theft. 
He said BESIDES theft; didn’t you notice?
Well dereliction of duty doesn’t exactly spring to mind. Come to think of it, there don’t appear to be any other criminal complaints that would apply.
Civil torts probably abound, though.
Pharmacists have a code of ethics that states that they are to be patient advocates. This was not a script for RU-486 or anything, and I’m sure the rx didn’t indicate the meds usage, it could have been hormone therapy.
That SOB RPh needs to quit or get fired. Apart from the above mentioned exceptions, they are not there to make prescribing decisions, let alone ones based on “morality”. Makes me sick.
I talk to way too many asshole pharmacists every day for this to be surprising. Most of them are kind, intelligent and deserving of their almost 6 figure salaries. The ones that can’t do their job right and take it out on the patients are the ones that piss me off. Assholes!
Precisely right in both cases.
These aren’t cases of authority, they are cases of knowledge: The pharmacist’s knowledge of what his long-time client is taking is better than the physician’s knowledge in both these cases, so it is the pharmacist’s responsibility to bring that knowledge to the physician’s attention. It isn’t a challenge of the physician’s authority.
I agree totally. Even if it isn’t criminal, it should be grounds for revocation of license and severe professional censure (to the tune of a few thousand dollars).
Which is what I would do as well, but…
What about in small towns where there’s only one pharmacy to begin with? And what if the person can’t drive to another town to try and get the scrip filled and can’t ask someone to drive them either (the immediate example would be a teenager who has parents opposed to birth control)?
If you’re like me and live in an area with, literally, a pharmacy every few blocks or so, one asshole isn’t that horrible since you have a lot of options. But there are a lot of people for whom this isn’t the case.
Forget Viagara. If that pharmacy stocks condoms – which I’m quite sure every CVS does – then the pharmacist is full of shit and deserves to be fired.
Oh, I don’t think I would have been nearly so discreet. Let’s just say there would not have been a customer in the place who left unaware of the exact details of the situation. Part of it would be that businesses will go to great lengths to placate an irate customer and avoid bad publicity, so they’d give me either the pills or the script just to shut me up and get me out of there. Mostly, though, it would be that folks deserve to know when a business treats their customers so appallingly, so they can vote with their wallets.
You are absolutely right. I just wanted to make the point that, even though I would not be affected directly by such a stance, I would still like to know so I could take my business elsewhere. Loss of $$$$ might be a language they could understand.
As long as you make sure to tell them exactly why you’re not taking your business there, I agree with you 100%!
Yes! A lot of very loud “I need my prescription. You are not allowed to confiscate my prescription just because you don’t personally believe a woman has the right to decide to take birth control pills.”
“My doctor wrote my prescription. If you cannot or will not fill it for me I insist you give MY prescription back to me.”
And I would not have shut up until I got my script back or they hauled me off. I am betting I would have gotten the script back.
Now, the point that zweisamkeit raises regarding the case of a single pharmacy in a small town makes this a lot trickier. I think a call back to the prescribing doctor in that case would be in order. From the pharmacy. Most likely the doc would have been irate and further unwanted attention brought to bear in the pharmacy. Definitely harder choices in that situation.
I am so sick and tired of tightass people trying to dictate morals and ethics. They need to get a life. Preferably one interesting enough to keep them out of mine.
Oh believe me, I would. If I walked into my pharmacy and saw such a sign I would think I had found a delicious soapbox and would waste no time stepping up. Hopefully to a full house. In fact, I think I might wait and come back at their busiest time of day!
From the linked story:
It’s not even the morning-after pill, which I suppose if you stretch your mind enough, will potentially be killing a human being. That’s if you think life begins at conception. I can understand the controversy about that one, even if I don’t agree with the people who are against it.
But some of these pharmacists are refusing to give out the birth control pill, which isn’t “killing” anything at all, it’s simply manipulating hormone levels to prevent ovulation!
Mr. (or Ms.) Pharmacist: It’s part of your job to fill out prescriptions written by a doctor. You don’t get to overrule him on a whim and decide that some medications shouldn’t be allowed to some people (except possibly in a case like **D_Odds ** mentioned). The medication is prescribed by a doctor, and it’s approved by the FDA (or whoever) for use in this situation, so how dare you climb up there on that high horse of yours and decide the young lady in front of you can’t have her birth control pills because it goes against your beliefs? If you can’t do your job, find a new job.
It’s like becoming a gynecologist but refusing to touch women on moral grounds! What the hell?
The way I see a pharmacist’s job is that they have to respect the person’s choice to take or not take a prescribed medication. They can educate them on the possible side effects and drug interactions. They can report to the doctor if they know the patient is getting drugs that should not be getting due to interactions but their involvement with the patient should not go beyond their pharmacy education. They need to remove their own personal thoughts and beliefs from the equation, if they cannot do that then they need another job.
If this is allowed to continue or supported by legislation then what’s next? Refusing to fill anti-depressants because if the patient just loved and believed in Jesus they’d be happy?
Antigen, the kerfluffle about BCP is that it’s got three mechanisms. First and foremost, it prevents ovulation. It also thickens the cervical mucus, so in case you do ovulate, it’s harder for sperm to get in and fertilize the egg. It also thins the uterine lining, so that if the first mechanism fails and you ovulate, and the second mechanism fails and the sperm get at the egg, and all the timing is right for fertilization, then the fertilized egg is unable to implant.
It’s this third mechanism that gets some people’s panties in such an almighty twist. The reasoning goes like this: If life begins at conception, the fertilized egg is a living baby, and killing a living baby before it’s born is abortion. By preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, you’re killing that living baby, thus the pill is an abortifacient.
Though since the catholic church for instance (I assume it’s not the only one but maybe it is) is opposed to contraception, the pharmacist could refuse to sell it just because it’s a contraceptive, and not because in some rare cases it could act as an abortive.
The way I see it – which, incidentally, is the way it actually is, and not some fantasy – is that a pharmacist is not a slave. That is, he may refuse to sell to anyone he pleases, save only that he may not discriminate against certain protected classes.
Now, you may believe that this is an unwise choice for the pharmacist to make, and that’s YOUR choice. But it’s not up to you, just as I can’t force an artost to sell me a painting, a painter to agree to paint my house, or an accountant to do my taxes. All are free to refuse my business. So is the pharmacist.
First of all, the pharmacist has no right to impose his religious views on his cumstomers. Second, birth control pills are also prescribed by doctors for reasons other than preventing pregnancy. They are used for treating some types of acne, for treating irregular menstruation, hormone imbalances, and endometriosis. Who the hell does this shit think he is?
Pshaw! Former pill junkies like myself know that you don’t go to the same pharmacist every time. That’s a rookie mistake. :rolleyes:
Are women not a protected class? Only women use birth control pills, so refusing to dispense those pills woulds be discriminating against a protected class.
No, they aren’t.
My opposition to Bricker’s position is that while Free Market concepts have their applications, they do not belong in the realm of basic health care (matt_mcl and I were actually talking about this last night). It’s not reasonable to put everyone on an even footing economically, but health care is one basic right where everyone should be equal.
Just because you exchange money for basic health care services (shame on you guys for that, by the way), doesn’t mean that it’s fair that rich people are more likely to get the care they need than poor people, which is what happens in a scenario like the one that zweisamkeit brought up.
The pharmacist isn’t a slave, but s/he is getting paid to dispense drugs and keep an eye on drug interactions. They have no more responsibility than that. We’re not imposing something on them that they didn’t take on themselves - we’re just asking them to do their job.