Who is conspiring to do this, Pharmacists? Health care providers?
To be honest, where pharmacists are really important is for people that are quite sick and/or taking multiple medicaqtions. Large numbers of presciptions are usually fine, especially when the patient is not taking other medications as well. I have never had one of my prescriptions for simple anti-biotics challenged either. However when people get quite sick and take multiple drugs, or in cases where the dose is inappropriate or whatever the pharmacist can check with the doctor about the diagnosis and details of the case. The prescription should have the prescribing doctors contact information (like phone number) on there, so if there is any concern the pharmacist can give them a call and discuss their case.
From the sounds of it, this is what happened in this case. The pharmacist called the prescribing nurse-practicioner for extra information and she refused to give it.
Calculon.
:rolleyes: The anti-abortion movement. Obviously. You may have heard of them.
And it came from PP…what do you think it’s for. So, you’re a pharmacist, you get a script for a drug to control bleeding from the uterus from an abortion clinic. Do you really have to ask what the person just had done. I’m confused as to why we’re talking about this…what did internal bleeding have to do with anything?
The only reasons she was “including” the pharmacist in her “overall treatment” was because there’s no legal way to get prescription meds without a pharmacist involved. It’s not like she could buy it off the shelf but wanted his guidance instead.
As for why she didn’t go to another pharmacy, I’d assume that’s because it takes a really long time to get a script filled. She probably dropped it off, left, came back an hour later and then started in on all this. She probably assumed that it was easier to just argue with him then get it back and start over.
Look at it this way. You’re 21 years old. It’s your birthday today. you go to the liquor store, put the beer on the counter, pull out your ID and the clerk says he doesn’t feel you look responsible enough to drink yet so he’s not going to sell it to you. Don’t you think before you walk out and go to the next liquor store you might spend at least a minute trying to convince him (or one of the other clerks) to sell you instead of wasting 20 minutes running around town?
Also, in a lot of these cases the pharmacist has been known to refuse to hand the script back to the patient, which opens a whole 'nother can of worms that I suggest we don’t get into in this thread since it’ll derail it. It’s entirely possible that’s what started this as well.
Be that as it may, had the nurse had told the pharmacist that the patient had just had an abortion, the outcome would have been identical. I know the thread drifted in that direction, but the OP was about pharmacists refusing to give out abortion related meds on moral grounds which is what happened here.
I don’t understand. A DA who doesn’t want to prosecute a man who murdered his wife’s rapist is okay? What if attorneys started following their personal religious beliefs and disregarded the law? Or a teacher who “falls in love” with a seventeen year old minor?
This is why pharmacists should not be allowed to get all choosy with what they want to dispense.
I’m not talking about PharmDs in a VA hospital here.
Again, if I had internal bleeding, can’t go to my pharmacist for medical treatment. My pharmacist can’t prescribe anything for that. He can recommend I take this or that over the counter medicine, but that’s it.
Pharmacists are useful in medicine, yes. But it’s a** doctor **who treats a patient after an abortion. Pharmacists can be experts in pharmacology, but doctors train to diagnose and treat. My former SO is a PharmD at a local teaching hospital. He works with the neuro staff. Neuroleptics are his area of interest. He doesn’t treat anyone.
Correction: I said in a previous post that pharmacists have PharmDs. That’s not always true. Still, a PharmD does not = physician.
Oh, I thought we were talking about Pharmacist and their moral/legal obligation to provide their services to the public. I must have missed the connection to the anti-abortion movement.
The fact that they oppose any such moral and legal obligations, to the extent of getting laws passed that relieve pharmacists of those legal obligations. You know; the subject of this thread.
(my bolding)
How many since Roe v. Wade? I imagine a few hundreds for any real conspiracy. Please don’t tell me more people have died queueing for and iPhone.
I would expect the pharmacist to ask if there was any concern. It is their job to make sure that the patient is safe and well treated. You do that by asking questions, not just by making assumptions. If the pharmacist guessed, and guessed wrong, then there would be an outcry over their incompetence.
Secondly, the prescription was for internal bleeding. The uterus is inside the body. The drug prescibed stops the uterus from bleeding. Therefore, the prescription was for drugs to do with internal bleeding. It is part of the details of the case.
You are including a lot of details here that are not included in the linked story just to make it sound worse than it possibly was.
In any case my point was that the woman chose that pharmacist for treatment. Since they were involved by her choice they have the right to know about her medical history as pertains to her prescription. If you ask someone for help you have to allow them to do their job. I don’t think it is reasonable to just grab the pharmacist and expect them to just give you the drug, which they are ultimately responsible for, without giving them extra information that they may need.
Also, we have no actual evidence that the pharmacist intended on not prescribing the drug. I find it plausible that the pharmacist simply refused to deal with the (IMHO) unprofessional (because she did not give relevant patient history) actions of the planned parenthood nurse.
I don’t think pharmacists should be allowed to confiscate prescriptions unless they suspect that they were illegally obtained (ie: stolen). If that is the case then I would not defend that action. However there is no evidence in the story that is what happened. In fact I strongly suggest that it didn’t otherwise that would be a large part of the Planned Parenthood complaint against them.
Calculon.
Enough to pass laws enabling this behavior. And of course, to pass laws all over the country restricting abortion, terrorize & murder doctors for performing abortions, get multiple Presidents to enforce the murderous anti-abortion “Mexico City Policy”.
This isn’t about pharmacists. It’s about punishing women.
So, let me get this straight. Because some Pharmacist oppose providing some services to to some people, for whatever personal reason, this makes them radical anti-abortionist?
http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/113433439.html
“Planned Parenthood tells us the pharmacist said she wouldn’t fill it if it was used following an abortion. The practitioner did not give her that information based on HIPAA laws.”
There’s plenty of other articles out there, they all sort of dance around the issue, the closest I could get to something from the pharmacist’s side was ““Walgreens took prompt action,” Prossor told Citydesk. “They told us that this will not happen again, and the pharmacist was told specifically that she should have handed this prescription over to another colleague.””
I think it’s fair to believe that this med was going to be refused.
Excuse me? Why do you think they’ve been refusing women drugs related to abortion and contraception, and only that? Why do you think a law was passed making a religious exception to their professional ethics? This is all a part of the anti-abortion crusade, nothing more. There’s no morality here, no professional issues; just the hatred of women. That is the only “personal reason” involved.
There are all silly examples that have nothing to do with pharmacists.
- The DA should be fired and they should get someone in who will prosecute them. I am fine with employers firing pharmacists who refuse to legally dispense certain drugs.
- In the case of the attournies, pharmacists are not breaking the law in not dispensing certain drugs, so that does not apply.
- The teacher depends on the minor and where they are. If the minor is actually one of their students, then I would say that they are violating the rules surrounding something that they chose to do. Part of teaching teenage girls is that you don’t fall in love with them. If they were involved in adult education, and “fell in love” with some seventeen year old minor, that would be different. It may still be illegal, but it should not impact on their role as an adult educator. Similarly with pharacists their refusal to dispense birth control should not impact on the other drugs they can dispense.
[/QUOTE]
I think what we have here is different definitions of the verb “to treat”. I agree that what a pharmacist does for a patient is not the same as what a doctor does, and in that sense the same verb should not be used. However I object to the commonly held opinion that pharmacists do nothing at all apart from putting pills in bottles, and therefore I like indicating that the pharmacist is actually applying their medical expertise to the situation.
Calculon.
Given the obvious political agenda of Planned Parenthood, and the obvious profit motives of Walgreens, I am not sure I really trust either source entirely.
That being said, even though I am pro-life I would have given the woman her drugs, subject to the usual medical checks. Even if she did have an abortion that does not make her life any less valuable. Also the drugs in question were to protect her after the abortion, not aid in her actually doing it.
Even though it is not what I would have done, I would still support:
- The pharmacist in being able to make this choice and remain a registered pharmacist
- Walgreens firing the pharmacist over this issue because it is their policy to fill these types of prescriptions.
Calculon.
I was responding to what you said about government interference with people’s jobs. You said:
So you agree with me.
A couple things, first, pharmacists do have a right to know the indication of a medication, partly because it is another double check that the script is correct and not an error (this is becoming more important now that a lot of doctors are using computer systems, get rid of errors caused by bad penmanship, but add a lot of errors of doctors clicking the medication above or below what they wanted on the drop down list), and also because there are drug interactions with disease states, not just with other medications. Second, HIPPA is not in play when it comes telling a pharmacist a patients medical information, we are part of the health care team, and are covered under the exceptions to HIPPA.
This is just asking for disaster. A pharmacist is just as much a member of your health care team as your doctor, and your nurse is. An MD or DO spend 4 years in med school to learn how to diagnose and treat your disease state, most med schools only have one semester of pharmacology and drugs, and some schools don’t even have that. While, us Pharmacists have 4 years of pharmacology and drug treatments, learning everything there is to know about medications, but, we only get one semester of learning actual diagnosis and physical exams. I’ve met doctors who don’t know the difference between Metoprolol Tartarate (Lopressor), and Metoprolol Succinate (Toprol XL).
I’ve had doctors call the pharmacy before asking what the proper dose of a medication for an indication is, or asking which drug in a class they should prescribe. Just because an MD/DO doesn’t tell you to reference the pharmacist, doesn’t mean he doesn’t do it.
Now, I’m against any laws that limit what a pharmacist can and cannot do, even if I agree they shouldn’t let their religious beliefs interfere with their oath as a pharmacist. You don’t want to sell Plan B, or Methergine, or whatever; fine, but at least do your part to tell them where they can go, or transfer the script to another pharmacy. Also, I’m actually surprised whenever I see stories about this, every pharmacist and pharmacy I’ve worked at, when we didn’t want to fill something for whatever reason, just say “Sorry, we don’t have this in stock”.
Disclaimer: I have used “us” and “we” all throughout this post, however I am not a licensed pharmacist yet… I graduate Pharmacy school with my PharmD in 69 days.
Not if they are willing to put dogma over medicine; then they are your enemy, not “part of your team”.
Why should pharmacists have legal permission to engaging in malpractice any more than doctors do?
I corrected myself in the next post.