It seems to me that a state prison system could just order their execution supplies wholesale, store them securely until needed, and leave out the pharmacists entirely. I’m against the death penalty, but if I was a pharmacist I’d go ahead and fill the order. If I was a carpenter, I’d build a guillotine if hired to do it. My logic would be that it was a job, and if I didn’t do it, they’d hire someone else to do the same work. Whether I built it or someone else did was immaterial, it was the government acting within its legal authority to perform the execution.
Similarly, I expect pharmacists to dispense contraception. They can exercise their right to petition the government to make it illegal, but their profession obligates them to dole out what is legal and prescribed for the patient.
This is what you wish their profession obligated them to do, but it’s not. At a minimum, it’s not universal – many states protect the right of pharmacists; some are silent on the matter, and some support your vision (“we decide what your conscience tells you!”) of the job.
I am a pharmacist. I became a pharmacist to dispense substances that people believe will benefit their health. My profession is predicated on dispensing substances that patients take to benefit their health.
A woman comes to me wanting birth control. There is no valid claim I can make that if she takes the birth control, it won’t benefit her health. I am ethically obligated to dispense the birth control.
A warden comes to me wanting execution drugs. There is a valid claim I can make that he does not plan to take the medicine in order to benefit his health. I am not ethically obligated to dispense the execution drugs.
I think there’s a bright line here: is the person for whom the medicine is designed going to see a subjective health benefit from taking the medicine? If so, it’s not my decision to make whether to dispense it. If not, it’s my decision to make.
Can you explain where in your training you were informed that you, the pharmacist, is permitted (or even obliged) to decide that a prescription isn’t benefiting the health of a patient, therefore you’re going to override the wishes of the patient and his/her physician and refuse to dispense it?
In your omniscience, you could do that for many different drugs, based on your beliefs of what medicine should accomplish and what the benefit/risk ratios are (“No Viagra for you.”). But to a lot of people that seems like an awfully arrogant stance for a pharmacist to take, and one that has not been accepted in the health care system to this point (seeing as how the physician-patient relationship has been paramount).
I do not believe it is a pharmacist’s decision to make, regardless of whether some state “conscience” laws have been passed to please the anti-abortion lobby.
And you aren’t ethically allowed to take any other interests into consideration?
I have several family memebrs that are pharmacists and doctors and they have no problems with birth control or even abortion but I don’t think they feel ethically bound to provide abortifacients or elective abortions.
No, I don’t think you are, if you’re going to get a license by the state. The job is to provide people with substances that improve health. Abortifacients fall within this legal framework. Execution drugs do not.
People signed up to do the drug and agreed with the state that they would do that job. If they don’t want to provide abortifacients, they should consider an alternate career. But their licensure doesn’t require them to build bombs, chemical weapons, fireworks, or anything else that involves chemistry but doesn’t involve providing substances that improve the patient’s health.
This line about the function of pharmacists being to dispense substances that people believe will benefit their health…you made that up? Or it’s quoting something official?
(1) Any article recognized in the United States pharmacopoeia and national formulary, or any supplement to them, intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in humans or animals;
(2) Any other article intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in humans or animals;
(3) Any article, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or animals;
(4) Any article intended for use as a component of any article specified in division (E)(1), (2), or (3) of this section; but does not include devices or their components, parts, or accessories."
State lawyers might have a try at using section 3 to allow Pharmacists to participate in killing people, but I suspect that would be interpreted as a step beyond what was inteneded by the legislation.
I would like to think that pharmacists are aware of the many noncontraceptive benefits of birth control pills. It’s so infuriating to think of an ill-informed pharmacist refusing to dispense bc because they think their invisible friend will reward them for it, when in fact they may be denying a patient pain relief.
I was prescribed birth control during a ten year struggle with anorexia for the treatment of amenorrhea. I believe that this is no longer common practice for various reasons, but at the time it was believed that it could potentially prevent osteoporosis.
And to head off a possible objection: the patient is clearly the person ingesting the medication. An abortifacient is ingested by the pregnant woman, not by the fetus, so the pregnant woman is the patient. Execution drugs are ingested by the condemned, not by the warden, so the condemned is the patient.
It can be, in cases of preeclampsia, ectopic pregnancy, some embolisms… Yes, pregnancy can be life threatening. A pharmacist would not need to be informed about any of these conditions. I can fill my anti-seizure/anti-anxiety meds without anyone knowing if I’m epileptic or FREAKED THE F OUT.
I assume you’re reforming to medical abortion above, because hormonal birth control has many uses other than pregnancy prevention.
It’s a “condition”, which insurance companies certainly seem to consider as something potentially to be treated (particularly as a “pre-existing” one).