Eckerd’s notifying all pharmacy employees that it is company policy to keep their moral/religious/political views OUT of the performance of their job duties;
Notice to said employees that violation of this policy is grounds for termination of employment;
Consequences to the employee who created this mess, sufficient to get his attention. I’d be inclined to make an estimate of the economic damages to Eckerd’s resulting from his conduct and pursue him for payment of the sum, but I suppose the company wouldn’t be able to actually carry that out.
And if some employees have a problem with certain duties, then they have the choice of seeking a reasonable accommodation from their employer, or resigning and seeking more congenial employment.
I notice no one is answering our point, Intent. I would really like to hear how anyone can justify denying the woman birth control pills at this point.
Incidentally, another thought occurs to me. In my original post I assumed the pharmacist didn’t know she’d been raped. What if he had known? Is it still OK for him to stand on his morals, people?
And if yes? So we’re back to telling me that if she got raped it’s her fault? You must be, since she would have to keep the product of what would most likely be the most nightmarish experience in her life.
And, frankly, if the pharmacist is dispensing birth control pills and doesn’t understand these basic facts, or if he doesn’t understand what MAP is pharmacuetically, then he’s a pretty fucking scary “pharmacist” to begin with.
In most cases, it’s likely that he was the only phamacist on duty. He can’t ‘pass it off to a tech’ since a script filled by a tech under him requires he take responsibility for it. That long time in school, having to get a license, and the fact he can get his ass sued if the prescription is screwed up. Hence, he earns big bucks and techs get smaller ones.
If he has strong enough moral objections to refuse to fill it- since she later got it filled he obviously gave the script back to her-why should he help her get it filled elsewhere? The point is that he has objections to it getting filled, period.
I know an RPh. Having read the thread, he wanted to point out that, in Ohio, he is under no obligation to fill a script just because a doctor wrote it. With most employers, he’d best have a good reason for not filling it (ie, it’ll kill the patient, the doctor’s made a mistake, interactions); moral objections may be valid to the pharmacist and not to the employer. In his experience, it is not the store (ie, Eckert) ordering the meds and deciding what is stocked- it the pharmacy manager. This might be more of a conflict between him and his supervisor, who may be aware of his moral objections, and chose to stock it anyway.
He also finds it hypocritical to fill for b/c and not for MAP, but that’s just him. A coworker of his would fill for b/c and not for MAP. Since the coworker usually did the ordering, that pharmacy didn’t carry MAP- even though he(my friend) would have filled it. When he (the friend)ordered MAP, his coworker sent it back. He called around 5 or 6 pharmacies in the general area, and found out none of them carried MAP. Not carrying the drug solved the moral dillemna of filling it.
Sure, but everything I proposed was caveated by “if” and “he may have” and the like. I wasn’t flat out asserting that this is how it had gone down as you were. I’m not trying to prove he did or didn’t do things, all I’m doing is poking holes in assertions based on assumptions not backed up by facts in evidence. As a way of poking a hole in your “the pharmacist didn’t find someone else for her to give her the pills, he just refused to give them to her.” statement. He may have tried to find someone else, or asked her to wait a couple of hours for someone to come in to fill it and she didn’t feel like waiting. The fact that she left without the prescription filled is about all we know from the article. We don’t know that he just flat out refused, although it certainly is a possibility.
I maintain that accusations of moral hipocrisy should be reserved for situations where the facts are all on the table. In other words, how do you KNOW, as you stated factually, that he did not “plan for a situation like this” and his plans simply failed for reasons beyond his control. He may completely deserve it and I will join in if he did things like lecture her on the evils of abortificants and such, but in the meantime I’d like to think some measure of autonomy on the job(ie being able to say “no” when asked to do something which violates your own moral code and have it be an employer/employee issue instead of a “stop the presses! Call the cops! Picket the store!” situation) is a reasonable expectation. As such I see that I should support the general principle of refusing to serve abortificants even if the guy went about it completely wrongly in this incident.
Sorry to burst co-worker’s bubble, but doctors have been prescribing BCs *for years * for this very same purpose. And while he may think he’s taking the “high road” dispensing BCs and not MAP, there is probably a very strong chance that he has, in actually, dispensed exactly that.
The story also says that 3 pharmacists refused to fill the script, but mentions only one that “violated company policy”.
First, I don’t think anyone said “call the cops”. Second, I stand by my bartender analogy. It isn’t like this was sprung on him with absolutely no knowledge that this sort of thing could ever happen. I guarantee you that no one from Eckerd told him, when he was hired, “you will never have to sell contraceptives or ‘abortificants’”.
Example: A girl is on ortho and for whatever reason doesn’t take her pill for three days. She has sex, implantation occurs and the next morning takes three pills. Same result.
Um, no.
The fertilized egg doesn’t implant for quite a while after conception, which occurs in the fallopian tube.
When I got pregnant I knew I was implanting a couple of days before the stick showed 2 lines. Why? I was cramping, more than I ever had while on an actual period. Couple that with a missing period and voila, you’ve got a baby.
That was around Halloween. Guess what? I got pregnant in mid-October! We’re talking two weeks or so. So your “has sex, she implants and the next day takes the pills” isn’t going to fly. It just doesn’t work that way.
The Morning after pill is no more an abortion pill than a regular birth control pill. It prevents ovulation just like a BAP
The MAP has a theoretical chance of preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg (it’s an extremely low possibility) however, the SAME theoretical chance exists for just taking a normal regimen of BCPs.
Because if he did plan for this situation, (that is, told the owner about his objections so they could have a back up person, or at least so the owner would say, ok, I agree that you don’t have to fill these kinds of prescriptions and it is fine to turn people away) then he wouldn’t have been punished for his actions. I don’t see how it logically follows that he had planned for this situation but then got punished for following through with the agreed plan.
Snoopy you DO know that the morning after pill has to be taken within 3 days (72 hours) of sex in order to be effective, making the analogy pretty well EXACTLY the same, right?
Mgtman, the pharmacist didn’t find someone else for her to give her the pills, he just refused to give them to her. If he had gotten another pharmacist to take over for him I don’t think this controversy would have happened. If he feels this way he should have made arrangements for this scenario beforehand with his boss or coworkers that he could discreetly get another tech to fill the prescription. He obviously knows they carry the pills, so there is no reason for him not to be prepared for someone to come in with a prescription for them, right? He also should not have let the woman know that he didn’t want to fill the prescription himself, he could have just told her to hold on a moment, then gotten someone else.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry to nitpick, but as a pharmacy student, I want to point out that a pharmacist and a pharmacy technician are not the same thing. So to just say “he could discreetly get another tech to fill the prescription.” is wrong. (bolding mine) The tech can fill and label the script, but it has to pass through the pharmacist before it leaves the pharmacy. The pharmacist has to verify the prescription before it gets dispensed to the patient, the technician cannot do that. Sorry to be a pain about that, but just wanted to put that out there. After six years of school for this stuff, I get a little defensive.
I personally think that the pharmacist should have done his job and acted in a professional way, it doesn’t seem like that really happened here.
That quote is from Velma who was responding to Mgtman.
I did not mean to confuse that up. I screwed up the quoting thingy and I’m sorry for making it look like that quote was from Mgtman, it was not, Velma was responding to a quote from Mgtman. My bad!!!
You’re quibbling about a technicality. In the scenerio quoted, taking several birth control pills will cause hormonal changes in the endometrium which will prevent the fertilized egg from implanting - it’s EXACTLY the same scenario as taking the MAP, which works in the same fashion. Both the MAP and a high dose of ordinary birth-control pills prevent pregnancy by blocking implantation, which you seem to regard as equivalent to abortion. If you are opposed to the sale of MAP, how can you condone the sale of birth control pills (or other drugs such as methotrexate, which is prescribed for several non-gynecologic disorders but which can also be used to terminate a pregnancy)?
Guess he didn’t take his Oath too seriously:
Oath of a Pharmacist
At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy.
I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.
I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.
I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy.
I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct.
I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.
I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.
Developed by the American Pharmaceutical Association Academy of Students of Pharmacy/American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Council of Deans (APhA-ASP/AACP-COD) Task Force on Professionalism; June 26, 1994
Of course, no one is saying that. We’re saying the MAP PREVENTS IMPLANTATION because it takes a couple of days to happen, just like you said in your amazingly relevant story about how you knew you were pregnant before anyone else (??)
Or are you suggesting now that a sperm just hanging around in the uterus by itself, leaning against the wall is human life as well?
Let’s also remember, there’s no way ANY of us can EVER know if she had conceived or not so now you’re judging someone on an ASSUMED abortion without having proof. Speaking as someone who works her ass off to have sex right at ovulation time, not even precision like timing guarantees a pregnancy, much less a random rape on a random day.
