I do hope that the pharmacist is at least disciplined and instructed that it’s his job to fill any legal prescription that a customer presents to him. I have no sympathy for his ‘moral rights’ in this - he chose to accept the position, and he should follow the rules that his job lays before him. If those issues have changed since he’s worked there, he should have brought his concerns to his employer beforehand.
My doctor is a strong, Christian man. His practice is a Christian practice. He has never ONCE refused to prescribe certain medications (birth control pills, anti-depressants) based on his religious affiliation. I know that he doesn’t believe in living together before marriage, I know that he doesn’t believe in pre-marital sex, and I know he doesn’t approve of me doing either. But he also knows that he’s my doctor and it’s his responsibilty to keep me healthy. He’s never had an issue prescribing me BC (although it’s mainly for endometriosis, it’s also used for birth control), and has never brought up his own moral concerns to me. Because of that, I think he’s the best doctor I have ever met - he honestly cares about his patients. If he truly thought that the decisions I have made would affect my health, I do think that he would mention it to me. However, he’s never seen that, so he doesn’t push his own morals on his patients.
Perhaps this pharmacist would do well to follow my doctor’s example.
Well, that’s not extremely damning. If she had indeed conceived then taking the pill would end a life. A life the supreme court has said is not deserving of legal protection(and thus can’t override the woman’s choice) but a life nonetheless. Sounded more like a statement in line with exactly the oath Zhen’ka quoted. The only assumption is that the pharmacist obviously considers life as beginning at conception as does biology and medical science in general. The only quote from the pharmacist is the “This prescription would end a life.” one. Quite frankly that doesn’t sound like a lecture on morals as much as a straightforward medical fact. If this was his considered opinion, then it would actually be in violation of his oath to fill the script. If there was more to this “lecture” I’ll happily re-consider. But at the moment this doesn’t sound very damning. It’s not like he’s telling her it is God’s punishment for being a slut and denying her the medication because he wants her to suffer God’s justice.
The bartender analogy needs work. It would be akin to asking a bartender to serve moonshine, which is perfectly legal and available, but which he personally is convinced is responsible for blindness in several cases. Regular alcohol? No problems. This alcohol which he personally considers dangerous? I’d support his right to refuse to be personally involved in a situation he feels will harm another human being.
I agree he should have planned for this situation and I’m kind of suprised that three seperate pharmacists refused to fill the script. Denton is a college town(University of North Texas, fourth largest in the state-more than 30,000 students) and I’m frankly flabbergasted that this hasn’t come up before. In any event, I’m not trying to defend this particular guy as much as the idea of some sort of degree of personal autonomy(especially in matters involving life and death) even in a professional setting. I offer this segment, from the article you cited above, which says pretty much the same thing I’ve been saying. Personal recusal from certain tasks should be within the perrogative of the individual. If they were the only shop in town I may feel differently. I would certainly feel differently if they tried to prevent her from seeking services from some other source. But if a persons own sense of right or wrong drives them to step away from some particular task in their profession then I think they deserve some leeway and it should be an employer/employee issue instead of random strangers throwing accusations of assholery and hypocrisy around. Emphasis mine.
Ouch, what a nightmare. Here in Washington, emergency contraception can be prescribed by a pharmacist. When my girlfriend needed MAP on a weekend, half an hour at Albertson’s is all it took.
If only the woman in this situation had called (888) NOT-2-LATE first, she could have found a pharmacy that wouldn’t give her any hassle.
If someone’s gotten a valid prescription from a doctor, what business is it of the pharmacist? Why would they have the right to decide whether or not to dispense the medication if there’s already a valid prescription? They are not doctors, they have no place in telling these people that they may NOT have the medication that their doctor has told them to have.
What if I went to the pharmacist with my prescriptions for Zoloft and Xanax, and the pharmacist looked at me and said “You don’t look depressed. I’m not giving these to you.”. I understand that they can give the emergency contraceptive if they feel it is an emergency and the person shouldn’t need to go to the doctor for it, but as far as undermining the authority of a physician who has already authorized the prescription? I don’t think they should have that sort of authority.
It’s not a fucking abortion. It’s emergency contraception for someone who has been fucking RAPED. Goddammit, I am so sick of this shit.
If the employee in question truly feels that it’s a violation of his beliefs, then he should find another job. If he wants to stay at that pharmacy, I’d say he’s obligated to do what he was hired to do.
Okay, first I need a couple of clarifications from you, Mtgman:
Is that the case? I’m not under the impression that the scientific community has established this as “fact”. I understand that this issue is just as controversial as it in the general pop. Could someone help me out with this?
Well, let me tell you, I’ve been pro-choice for as long as I’ve had an opinion on the matter, and this sure as hell would be a lecture from my perspective.
Huh? Moonshine is legal?
We are in agreement here.
Here’s where we break.
Well, yes, I agree that one should not be forced to go against one’s moral code, even in a professional setting. Of course he can ask for “personal recusal”. In fact, he had a responsibility to do so. But it’s still his employer’s perogative to say no. Since I believe it is reasonable to assume that he was the employee who was disciplined, he obviously did not express his supposedly strong beliefs to his employer so that some kind of accomodation could have been devised (sorry, I can’t help but be snarky. He feels so strong about it, but the only people he expresses this to is the women who need the prescription???). Especially because Denton is not, as you point out, a small provincial town in West Texas. Eckerd’s is not the only game in town. He simply had no right to say anything to the customer. This, not his feelings about the matter nor whether or not personal automony is desirous in the workplace, is the source of calls of asshole-ery and hypocrisy. He knew they sold MAP there. In sum, if you feel strongly about something, you feel strongly about it. Not just when it’s convenient. And especially about this issue.
Incorrect. Once conception has already occurred, the MAP does nothing. It only prevents ovulation. The scenario in which a fertilized egg is prevented from implanting is only an extremely low probability theoretical possibility and the same theoretical possibility exists for normal BCPs.
Once an egg has been fertilized and implanted the MAP has no effect. None. Nada. It’s NOT a freaking abortion pill.
What bothers the daylights out of me about this whole scenario is this. If the pharmacist had gotten his way, and the woman had been unable to obtain emergency contraception and had gotten pregnant (and there is no way of even knowing if there was even an egg available to be fertilized, let alone one fertilized and on the way to implantation), she would have carried a reminder of her rape for nine months. What incredible, unspeakable cruelty it would be to force her to do that. It might well be worse than any penalty her rapist would incur, if he’s ever caught.
Snoopyfan, Shodan, I’ve got a question for you. I’m single and not on birth control because I’m not having sex and am not in a position where I would consider it moral to do so. If I am raped and do get pregnant as a result, what the hell am I supposed to do? Would you imprison me and force me to bear a child? By your standards, I’m living a pretty moral life, my stances on certain social issues aside. What sin would I have committed that I should be punished by carrying a child conceived not of love and respect but horror, that I should have my body and a part of myself taken from me not for the minutes it takes to be raped, but for months? I believe that having children out of wedlock is a sin, yet, under the circumstances I described, I would bear the shame of a sin which I was not willing to commit. This is a Christian position? Not to me. Surely the Christ I worship would not be so cruel.
Cerebral reaction: Free speech and choice are wonderful. Then again, I thought the general idea behind being in a pharmacy was helping people. If you’re opposed to something like selling these drugs, either make it clear to your employers (hopefully so they can fire you and let you work somewhere else) or find a line of work that is less objectionable.
Gut reaction: This fucker deserves a severe beating for subjecting a rape victim to his bullshit.
You worship a God of love and compassion, Siege, one who understands the frailties of humans and takes them all to His bosom, no matter how lowly.
All, that is, except the Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Who would leave a man naked, beaten and bloody by the side of the road because their doctrine is more important than human suffering.
Too bad all Christians aren’t like you, Siege, instead of the rigid, judgmental, ruthless holier-than-thous who degrade the name of Christian.
The pharmacist has final call on drug interaction stuff. Iirc they are responsible for informing you of drug interaction and denying you access to a drug that would conflict with something else you are taking. Doctors may not know all your meds…especially if you forgot to tell them.
No cites on this except for something I saw on tv a year ago on doctors prescribing drugs that would kill you if interacting with your other meds.
Also, though not precisely applicable in the OP, there is the analogy of a bar being liable for serving a drunk person.
I am a little disturbed by a commercial running in my area by one of the chain drugstores (Eckherd or Rite-Aid). Saying “I’m your pharmacist. We decide what you can take, and what you can’t.”
It’s really starting to annoy me. Siege is the only one who has even brought up the same point (down below) and she already saw it.
Come on, people. Answer, those of you who believe the pharmacist was right. How is this a moral choice in the first place?
People make me sick. Force me to use carry my rapist’s baby to term? In India, young woman used to (and still do) *get killed by their fucking fathers * for **being ** raped. Shall we all go back to those lovely times?
I think he should have the right to refuse to fill the prescription. He should not have taken his complaint to the customer, though. It’s none of his business WHY she was taking it and that was not the time or place to try to talk her out of it. He should have been fired not for refusing to fill it, but for giving her a little speech about right and wrong.
Had I been in the situation, I wouldn’t have filled it. I would have gotten one of my coworkers to do it. If nobody was there, I would have referred her to another pharmacy. She’s going to have it filled and take the drug anyway and I don’t think someone who says “I can’t fill this but I can call another pharmacy and tell them you’re on your way” is doing wrong in that particular situation.
I still don’t understand why she wasn’t given it at the hospital, though. I always thought it was a given: go to the ER, get the rape kit done and you’re offered the MAP. And I’m not clear on how we know she was raped and/or how the pharmacist knew this. Were I raped I don’t think I’d be telling a total stranger about it.
Well, that’s a pretty important thing to consider, then, isn’t it?
We DON’T know if the pharmacist knew. And he needs to keep that in the forefront of his mind before he goes off on his totally innappropriate little speeches, then, doesn’t he? And he needs to consider the unintended consequences of his choice, no? And he needs to make sure that the patient has other options if he refuses to fill the script, right? Because he doesn’t know if he’s dealing with an “irresponsible sinner” or a rape victim.
No he shouldn’t have. It’s not his fucking store. If one of my employees refused to sell a legal product to someone who had the legal right to buy such a product, I’d fire his self rightous, tiny minded ass. On the spot. It’s called dereliction of duty.
If there was another employee there who could sell it instead, it would be fine for him to defer. If he was the only one there that day, he’d have to grit his teeth and sell it or find another job.
He is free to open his own store someday. Dickhead Pharmaceutical is free to stock and sell whatever he chooses.
Again, protest should not come without a potential cost. This should cost him his job. He’d probably get a major chubby over being a martyr too.
This story implies that they told the pharmacy that it was critical for the drugs to be dispensed quickly, although it doesn’t say if the entire situation was told to the pharmacist:
"The woman’s friend, who asked not to be identified, said a woman behind the counter first told him the prescription could be filled in two minutes. Time was pressing, and he had explained the need to her. About 20 minutes later, a pharmacist–not a woman–summoned him to a window. “This medication is designed to end life, and I cannot abide by that. There are three of us here, and we all agree on the issue,” the pharmacist said, according to the friend, who at that point began yelling loudly. "
Well, in my case, being blunt, outspoken, and motor-mouthed in real life as well, on being told, “I can’t fill this; this prescription is intended to end life,” I would have told the pharmacist exactly why I needed the prescription in whatever language I needed to make it clear to him. In other words, I would have made damn sure he knew why I was getting the prescription filled. I think I might even forget to be polite and, as it was put in what Katriona posted, “begin yelling loudly.”
You know, this suprises me, but I think SnoopyFan’s right. In fact, when she posted,
You and Guinastasia have raised similar points. I’ll address both at the same time for convenience sake. The pharmacist took an oath, just like a doctor. They are not supposed to be mindless drones just filling whatever scripts are handed to them. If they have reason to believe this prescription would cause harm then they are supposed to use their own judgement. That’s why they have years and years of education behind them.
The situation you propose above would probably not happen, and if it did then the pharmacist would probably be acting outside their proper role. They are not supposed to second-guess diagnoses they are not qualified to make. They are supposed to act in situations where their training and expertise make the medical impact of filling the script clear. If you came in with a prescription of Zoloft which was far too high a dosage for your build/weight or you were taking some other drug they felt would put you at risk for an adverse interaction, they could certainly(and in fact would be obligated to say) “I won’t fill the prescription. This dosage/drug could cause harm to you or someone near you.” They actually do have that sort of authority. In fact, having a person with that authority is exactly why the profession of “pharmacist” exists.
Still, in this instance the medical implication of the MAP is fairly clear. If a fertilized egg(meeting the scientific/medical defintion of human life) is present then this medication could alter body chemistry(regardless of the odds of it being successful) in a manner which would make it hostile to that life and cause it to be destroyed. In an individual pharmacists own view, and using their own judgement, filling this script could result in harm to a life which would not be in that particular jeopardy otherwise.
Sure thing. The controversy isn’t over “life” or “nonlife”. The controversy is over “personhood” and the extension of rights under a society’s framework. It is a well-accepted medical fact that a fertilized egg is a individual human life. This Wikipedia entry has a fairly balanced view on the matter. Note that the pharmacist is not asserting a fertilized egg is a “person” all he is doing is refusing to fill a script which could/would “end a life.” Medically and biologically speaking, this is true. There was a famous inquiry by a Senate subcommittee on the topic where testimony on the topic of when biological life begins was taken. The consensus was that, biologically speaking, conception was the start of a new individual human organism.
I’m sorry you would feel that way. That doesn’t make it objectively true. To me it reads as a simple, straightforward explination of why, in medical terms, filling this script would violate his oath and why he won’t fill it. Nothing in there seems, at least to me, to be a value judgement on the individual presenting the script. Simply a personal statement of position. As I said earlier, if he had been telling her this was God’s punishment for her being a slut or something then I’d be clearly on the other side. The single quote we have from the actual Pharmacist, without context, is difficult to evaluate. It could have been said in a supercillious manner, or with a sneer, or something which would have made it objectionable, but the words themselves are pretty non-judgemental and read like a medical opinion(a very simple medical opinion, fairly easily validated).
Why? The only quote we have from him is something exactly in the line of his duties and in line with his oath and office. A straightforward medical statement about the effects of this medication and why he feels obligated not to fill the script. I really don’t see the source of offense in what he said.
Pointless nitpickery. Should his oath care that this prescription only has a small chance of ending a life versus a larger chance? What level of potential death should he be ethically willing to subject his clients to? 10% chance of death? 1% chance of death? 0.1% chance of death?
Can we stop for a second? The pharmacist DID get his way. He personally didn’t fill the script. If you somehow think that his goal was to prevent this woman from getting the MAP at all then you should show some evidence for it. The quotes don’t lend themselves to a clear picture of him trying to talk her out of it. He didn’t try to physically seize the script and tear it up did he? Did he call all the other pharmacies in the area and try to pressure them to refuse to fill it? Let’s not lose sight of what happened here. His decision was to personally recuse himself from the process, not to alter her options in any way other than to remove the ONE possible provider of this prescription that happens to live within his own skin. Me saying “I can’t do this” is emphatically NOT the same as “I won’t let YOU do this.”
Enjoy,
Steven On Preview. The longer quote in the Observer, while it seems to slip closer to the line of “lecture” than the original shorter snippet, still seems like a straightforward medical opinion with no clear disparagement on the party seeking the MAP.
The MAP pill does not end a life. It cannot end a life. it only prevents ovulation, just like a birth-control pill. As a matter of fact, it is a birth-control pill. It’s just a higher does of the exact same drug.
Should a pharmacist have a right to refuse to fill a prescription for birt-control pills?
The pharmacist needs to do his fucking job, keep his fucking uniformed, dumbass, moralistic opinions to himself and fill the fucking bottle. His job is to fill prescriptions, not to question them. If he has a concern, he can call the doctor. He does not get to make moralistic decisions for the patient, especially when those decisions are based on WRONG information.
Thankfully, this is about to become moot. The MAP is going to be sold over the counter very soon, despite the objections of the ignorant.