A year ago, in this thread, we discussed at length the various obligations to dispense medicine that we felt pharmacists should have.
An Illinois court just decided Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich. Illinois adopted an administrative licensing rule requiring pharmacists to dispense emergency contraceptives, regardless of their moral objections.
The Court decided that the rule violated the Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act, the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Free Exercise Clause of the US Constitution.
Since this result was predicted by some and denied by others in the linked thread, I thought it would be interesting to discuss it again in light of this judicial finding.
No idea what the “Illinois Healthcare Right of Conscience Act” and “Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act” have to do with being able to get badly needed prescriptions without the druggist deciding that his moral standards are being violated.
But I’d probably support a “Right To Obtain Lawfully Prescribed Drugs Act”.
Hopefully this decision you report will be overturned by a higher court.
By the way, I recall you stating in the previous thread that while you had been, um, on the fence regarding this issue, the arguments for pro-patient rights so offended you that you had decided to support the Moral Pharmacists and send money to the cause. How much did you end up donating?
It says that the court puts the malice of religious bigots over the rights of women to control their bodies. No surprise; they saw an opportunity to punish women, and took it. They’d probably have the same reaction to a pharmacist refusing to sell AIDS medication to a homosexual because God wants gays to die.
That statement of Der Trihs about punishing women might seem over the top, but it’s difficult to see this reported case as representing anything else.
*"Idaho Board of Pharmacy Executive Director Mark Johnston confirmed that the board received the complaint alleging that on Nov. 6 a Walgreens pharmacist refused to fill a prescription ordered by one of Planned Parenthood’s Boise-based nurse practitioners. The prescription was for a Planned Parenthood patient for Methergine, a medicine used to prevent or control bleeding of the uterus following childbirth or an abortion…Planned Parenthood officials said the complaint states that the pharmacist inquired if the patient needed the drug for post-abortion care. The nurse refused to answer the question based on confidentiality of health information.
According to Planned Parenthood, the pharmacist then stated that if the nurse practitioner did not disclose that information, she would not fill the prescription. The nurse alleged that the pharmacist hung up when asked for a referral to another pharmacy that would fill the prescription."*
The only human life at stake in that situation was the patient’s. Apparently she needed to be punished. You can just bleed out, you immoral woman.
Not sure how that complaint will be decided, though the law in Idaho appears to be on the pharmacist’s side (the legislature last year passed a “conscience” law allowing druggists to refuse medication based on not jeopardizing their lofty moral standards.
How much right does a pharmacist have to know what a customer is being treated for? Or conversely, do patients and doctors have the right to keep the patient’s medical information private from pharmacists?
I would’ve have thought it self-evident that pharmacists should not be entitled to the details of their customer’s medical treatment, beyond what is necessary to prevent adverse drug interactions. Certainly not entitled to demand the information under threat of withholding service… am I wrong in assuming this?
How does the “Free Exercise Clause” figure into this?
We have a right to Free Speech to and we have no problem circumscribing that law such that a newspaper cannot libel you.
A pharmacist should dispense legally prescribed drugs. Period.
What if a religion prohibits the use of medicine so a pharmacist practicing that religion refuses to dispense anything? Yeah, I know pretty extreme and absurd but seriously…where is the line drawn? If a medicine is produced using pigs can a Jewish pharmacist decide not to dispense those?
If you have a problem doing a particular job because your religion gets in the way then choose another profession where that issue does not exist.
Frankly, a pharmacist refusing to dispense a drug because of their religious beliefs is imposing their religion on me.
The Free Exercise Clause includes a freedom “from” religion as well I think.
Yes, if a person has a religious objection to carrying out part of the work of a profession, they should not join that profession. Why must some one else make the sacrifice for their convictions?
As I said in the other thread, as far as I’m concerned a pharmacist should be able to refuse to carry any drugs he cares to, for any reason. He should not be allowed to discriminate – sell it to some people or for some reasons and not others – but if he doesn’t want to carry ED pills or birth control or antibiotics or aspirin or whatever, let him go out of business from lack of customers. I’m not opposed to a law requiring the pharmacist to give referrals, though, for products he doesn’t carry.
I think this is what might trip up the Nampa, Idaho pharmacist, even if the state Board of Pharmacy were to find the complaint accurate but let him off the hook on “conscience” grounds. I can’t imagine how demanding details of the patient’s history as alleged here would be anything but a violation of patient confidentiality under HIPAA, plus whatever other statutes might apply locally. Maybe an Idaho pharmacist could get away with refusing to dispense any drugs whatsoever to Planned Parenthood patients even if there’s no conceivable (sorry) connection to abortion :dubious:, but he’d be setting himself up for trouble trying to interrogate health care providers about patient history, so he could pick and choose which customers were acceptable.
No, because most have no expertise in the matter, nor do they necessarily have the equipment lying around. Now, doctors who are trained and equipped for abortions shouldn’t be allowed to refuse patients just because they are lesbian, or Jewish, or black, or so on.
No, because they are not required for marriage. They are not the legally mandated gatekeepers for marriage the way pharmacists are for drugs.
It is broad statements like this that I object to.
Believe it or not, but pharmacists DO actually provide a valuable service to society. They do not just take pills from the big bottle and put them in little bottles. Pharmacists are the experts in the medical field in drug therapys and drug interactions. As such they have a duty of care to their patients to ensure that they have the best possible drug therapy for their condition. Just about any pharmacist can tell you stories where they have prevented the probable death of a patient because the prescribing doctor made some sort of mistake.
Pharmacists absolutely have to be able to question any prescription, otherwise they simply cannot do their job. Worse than that people will die as a result because doctors do not always have all of the information about different drugs, and especially what combinations of drugs may do to someone.
Requireing pharmacists to dispense all legally obtained prescriptions would be an absolute disaster.
So, they should be able to get back to the prescribing physician, and question the appropriateness of the drug prescribed. I don’t think anyone has a problem with that. It’s when they allow their religion, rather than their professional training and judgment, to intervene.
First off, I don’t think it is unreasonable for a pharmacist to ask about a patient’s medical history. Their medical history may be important in determining the correct drug therapy for them, and therefore the pharmacist needs to know to be able to do their job.
Secondly, I think the actions of the nurse in this situation are unspeakably rude. Pharmacists are medical professionals, and to just refuse to give needed medical information is IMHO a slap in the face to pharmacist. Maybe he was looking to find an excuse to not help the woman. Or perhas there was some issue with the prescribed drug, and the pharmacist needed more information to determine the best treatment for them. And when the Planned Parenthood nurse refused to give that information, she simply couldn’t do her job. That I think is the more likely explaination, without going into some sort of “woman hating” conspriracy.
Pharmacists are the experts in drug therapy, not doctors. Doctors simply do not have the training that pharmacists do. Our current system relies on pharmacists having the ability to express their opinion based on their medical training. If you take that away, you take away an important patient safeguard.
Ugh. Since when is a pharmacist in modern medicine a medical professional?
I think all pharmacists who work with agencies that receive federal funding should be required to dispense whatever is prescribed.
Any pharmacy that has a medication in stock should not be able to refuse a script.
Any person seeking to fill a script from a pharmacy where a pharmacist objects should be able to obtain it from another pharmacist at the same pharmacy within a reasonable amount of time. If not, the pharmacy shouldn’t be able to deal with any patient on Medicaid.
You also take away “an important patient safeguard” if they are allowed to prescribe according to religious or political dogma. Should they be allowed to refuse antibiotics to blacks? Ever hear of the Tuskegee experiment? Should a pharmacist be allowed to perform his own micro-version of that? Because that’s what you are defending.
