Bricker, the day that pharmacists aren’t required to be registered by the state, you can start talking about their “freedom” to deny prescriptions because of their personal beliefs.
As it stands now, pharmacists enjoy a favored status; only they are allowed to sell prescription medication. This favored status, so long as it exists, should come with its responsibilities, including the responsibility to sell to whoever has the authorization (i.e. the prescription) to buy those drugs. If they have personal objections to selling any prescription drugs, they should find another line of work.
Gotta disagree on this one. Without Medicare, the patients that it covers would not be able to afford to buy as much medicine, resulting in lower revenue for the pharmacy. Therefore, he’s getting the benefit from the government.
You know my argument on that – on what conceivable grounds do or did you take money from people for giving legal advice when other people legally cannot do so? If you believe in the free market, you should be out there lobbying for repeal of the laws prohibiting non-Bar members from charging for legal advice, or refunding the money you extorted. (It wasn’t a free-market transaction, but one where they had only a small pool of possible sources from, a pool which chose its own members – i.e., a oligopolistic trust, free to set its prices high because it was legally protected from any possible competition. Therefore it was extortion.)
It’s funny how conservative free market principles only go so far – and stop short of goring the conservatives’ own ox.
Yes, the pharmacist has a right to his own moral views – but should not be in a business where he has a legally protected monopoly or oligopoly to force those views on others through denying them something they have the legal right to obtain. If he were a painter, they could buy a painting from someone else. If he were a carpenter, they could hire another carpenter. But he and only he (and any other pharmacists in the subject area) can dispense prescription drugs; his monopoly is legally enforced. In undertaking a protected-profession business, he has agreed to abide by the laws governing his business – to dispense legal prescriptions unless medically contraindicated.
And, for the record, a very close friend of mine and my wife’s was on birth control from menarche on – not because she was sexually promiscuous at age 12, but because she was severely diabetic, and it was medically necessary for her to take them in order to mature sexually and have normal menstrual cycles. (I don’t know the full story, but that much of it was explained to all friends of the family, since a 12 or 13 year old girl popping a birth control pill every day was an odd sight if you didn’t know why.)
But it’s her fault! She shouldn’t have been such a slut and gotten herself knocked up. So it goes in Brickerworld.
I’m sorry, but a pharmacist refusing to fill BCP scripts is like a vegetarian working at a steakhouse and refusing to make steaks, or a Scientologist working at a mental health clinic and refusing to do anything. If it’s your job, you don’t have to like it, but you do have to do it. And if you don’t like giving women their pills, maybe you should pursue a career in, I don’t know, any other line of employment in the world. There’s only one job out there that makes you sell BCPs, and that’s being a pharmacist. Did this man not think that the issue would come up somewhere down the line? Did he honestly think he could go through his entire career without having to fill a script for BCPs? They’re like, the most commonly prescribed medication in America! Didn’t this guy at some point during his schooling think, “gee, maybe I should pick a different major, this one might make me forsake my values and sell something I morally disagree with.”
By the way, Bricker, there’s also a number of vitamins as well as certain foods that have a microscopic chance of being abortive during the first couple of days of pregnancy. Should we ban vitamin C too, just because it might be an abortifacient?
It’s not like birth control just came on the market and now all these pharmacists are faced with a moral issue they weren’t expecting. The Pill has been around for, what? 30 years now? Did they think this wouldn’t come up? They would work at the one pharmacy where no one wanted birth control. What the fuck were they thinking? :mad:
condoms are better than birth control pills anyway, since they don’t mess with your hormones
the pill is not always that great on your system
and you don’t have to have a prescription for condoms
Sorry, that’s lame!
oppressing other people isn’t freedom
(though one person not filling a prescription doesn’t exactly sound like oppression to me, either, but I just thought this was a dumb remark)
I remember recently hearing a history professor of mine saying politicians in the sixties defending not following civil rights laws as “freedom”
This was an interesting point, because there is a strong possibility in some conservative areas (especially if people see this as an example) that people really would have no where to go to get their pills
This is how, in many places in the country, abortions have become, while not technically illegal, very difficult to get
I don’t think a doctor should have to perform an abortion against his or her will, either, but just to point out this sort of strategy can work where outright banning something won’t
It’s true that pharmacies will not return a prescription once entered into their system- the FDA prohibits them from doing so. However, the pharmacy will not be entered unless it is being filled, which obviously didn’t happen in this case.
More importantly, the pharmacist in question refused to return or transfer the prescription.
It’s likely that a charge of theft is unwarranted. IIRC, the Rx remains the property of the issuing MD until it has been filled, when it becomes property of the pharmacy.
Wisconsin probably has legislation making it a crime to prevent or attempt to prevent an individual from seeking medical aid, and I’m going to leave it up to Wisconsin law-dopers to find such a statute and determine if it applies.
The fact remains that the pharmacist should be fired and have his license revoked.
Condoms do not do jack about menstrual irregularites, which is a problem many women take birth control pills to help correct. (Re Polycarp’s post somewhere back there.) Sometimes messing with your hormones is a very GOOD thing.
Condoms are not as reliable as birth control pills for preventing pregnancy, unless you’re using them properly EVERY SINGLE TIME, which isn’t always a realistic goal in the heat of the moment.
Popping a pill can be completely private and is the responsibility of the woman alone. Condoms require the consent and cooperation of your partner to use, and clearly there are situations where you aren’t going to get them. (Rape is an obvious one; a partner who refuses to wear one 'cause it diminishes his own pleasure is maybe less obvious but more of a pregnancy risk.)
You can’t say one method is unequivocally better than another. They exist for different purposes; you use the method that best fits your situation. For some women, that is clearly the pills. And it really bothers me that there are supposed professionals out there who will go to lengths to keep women from acquiring proper health care, out of some misguided belief that their own morals trump someone else’s.
Jenaroph, don’t bother hedging with that “unless” statement. EVEN when used properly EVERY SINGLE TIME, male condoms have a 3% failure rate. Females condoms have a 5% failure rate. BCP’s have a 0.1-0.5% failure rate. Of course, these numbers reflect nothing but theory. In the real world, failure rates are much higher.
In the real world of “oopses,” Male condoms have a 14% failure rate, female condoms a 21% failure rate and BCPs 5%.
You cannot comprehend the difference between fist/nose and prescription/fill it?
The fist/nose argument favors ME.
Your right to swing your fist (get your prescription filled) ends at my nose (me filling it for you).
In general, the quesiton is one of DUTY.
You have a legally understood duty not to hit people in the nose. There is no duty on the part of a pharmacist to fill a given prescription.
When I was single, Helen Hunt prevented me from enjoying my freedom to have sex with her by refusing to so much as date me. But that wasn’t an aborgation of my freedom because Helen Hunt did not have (more’s the pity) any particular duty to date me.
Is there anyone in this thread who believes otherwise? That is, does anyone contend that a pharmacist HAS a duty to fill all prescriptions in the same way that, say, an emergency room doc has a duty to treat all incoming patients?
If you believe this, please provide a cite. (Hint: “I’m really really sure it should just be that way,” does not constitute a cite, just your opinion.)
Yes, in answer to your question. In IL, the Registered Pharmacist Licensing Act states that one of the reasons a pharmacist’s licensed may not be renewed is: "Failing to sell or dispense any drug, medicine, or poison in good faith. “Good faith”, for the purposes of this Section, has the meaning ascribed to it in subsection (u) of Section 102 of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act." ((225 ILCS 85/30), number 22) (bolding mine)
Now, I realize that the section above applies specifically to controlled substances, which BCP’s are not. But it does give us *some * legal standing for “pharmacists have to fill legal prescriptions, even if they think it’s a bad idea.” The pharmacist is allowed to take 6 specific things into account when making a decision whether or not to fill a prescription. Morality, ethics and religion are not three of them. And the Licensing act does state “any drug, medicine or poison,” indicating to this reader that the same 6 criteria would apply to the decision to dispense any drug, medicine or poison, not just controlled substances.
Here’s a blog by a pharmacist who was fired by KMart for refusing to fill BCP prescriptions. In the first sentence, she writes, “In at least 45 out of the 50 States of the U.S., an employee pharmacist can be fired for refusing to dispense an abortifacient drug. They have no legal recourse against their employer.” While she does not cite laws, I find no reason to disbelieve her.
Finally, it should be pointed out that all of the groups that have come forward to state that pharmacists should have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions on moral grounds are professional, social or religious groups. I can find no legal groups, legislatures or licensing boards making similar claims. Therefore, I can only conclude that while this may be a sticky moral debate, and one that many groups have differing answers for, legally a pharmacist must still fill prescriptions.
Well, heck, Bricker, then the hardware store employee can refuse to sell duct tape because kidnappers and rapists often use it on their victims. Could be a crime about to happen. Maybe stockbrokers should refuse to sell shares of companies that engage in immoral practices. Things that, you know, they find to be wrong.
Or what about condoms? Those prevent fertilization. Why is the focus always on the woman’s body and her choices?
How’s about we let people decide how to live their own lives? Sounds like freedom to me.
Oh, damn. All that work, and now I review and find that it states it in the bloody OP!!!
So the state pharmacy board of Wisconsin found his actions illegal (or it may, which would indicate it has legal reason to take action) and he did it because of his religious views. Not because he’s afraid of laws against murder applying to fetuses, not because of ethical concerns as a health care provider - because of his religious views.
Hell, I’m still waiting on your cite that a fetus is a person. (Hint: “I’m really really sure it should just be that way,” does not constitute a cite, just your opinion.)
Why is it that you define things as they are in law when is suits your purpose, but when it doesn’t you ignore what the law actually says? When others do the same thing, you are often the first person on the scene, condescending your way through a thread of hopeless fools who just don’t understand the law. (Hint: “I’m really really sure it should just be that way,” does not constitute a cite, just your opinion.)
It’s unbelievably tiresome.
As for the OP, I believe pharmacists should be given a list of requirements for dispensing medications upon licensing. If they cannot fulfill those requirements, they should say so and receive either no license or a restricted license (my preferred solution). Those possessing said restricted license would then not legally be permitted to be the only pharmacist on duty at any time. Any pharmacist who claims to be willing to fulfill the requirements who then refuses without notifying the licensing board would have his or her license revoked.
Why, of course not! He’s free to reject a prescription like, say, an emergency room doctor is free to reject a black guy with a gunshot wound. Because he’s probably a gangster or a drug dealer and deserved it. He’s been given enough help with affirmative action, anyhow.
Right?
Ideally, you should do your job or quit. If this isn’t the pharmacy’s policy, he should be fired. No, not because of his belief - he can believe whatever he wants - but because he refused to do his job.
And if this is the pharmacy’s policy, they should be outright and proud about it so that the public can make an informed decision in either direction.
Ridiculous. If you want a justification, don’t ask for beliefs.
Ideally, you should do your job or quit. If this isn’t the pharmacy’s policy, he should be fired. No, not because of his belief - he can believe whatever he wants - but because he refused to do his job.
[QUOTE]
So a pharmacist in Oregon should have to fill a script for assisted suicide no matter his or her beliefs in the matter? [the law aside].
Pharmacy policy/ the beliefs of the pharmacy manager can also manifest in more subtle ways- say, not stocking the morning after pill. This was the coworker of a friend of mine; both worked in a big chain [only 2 RPhs, not a busy store]. Just didn’t stock it because he would not dispense abortificients. They would get snippy about it- since my friend enjoyed pointing out that BCPs do that too.
Bad analogy. The law was specifically written that doctors, pharmacists, nurses and other health care professionals can refuse to assist with a suicide, even in Oregon. Birth control pills have been legal, with no opt-outs, for 40 years. The only conceiveable way in which your argument might hold would be for a pharmacist who chose his career before 1964. That would make him roughly 70 years old. Is there evidence that the pharmacist in the OP was 70? If not, he chose to get into a career where he would be legally required to do something against his religion. His bad, not mine.
:mad: