I think it depends. If the state doesn’t require them to stock certain medications, then I’m OK with it, too. But I’m perfectly fine with the state saying they must stock a given list of medications because the state is setting them up as an intermediary between me and the drug companies and I have to go thru them to get the medications.
No, you’re right. They are making a moral, not a medical, judgment. I was actually referring to the crowd of people who apparently believe “The pharmacist’s responsibility is to just fill whatever is written and don’t think anything more about it”. My point was that the people who are advocating that we tie the hands of pharmacists and make them simply tools of what’s written on a prescription pad, so we can punish the people who have BAD judgment, you’re denying them every element of professional judgment that I feel they’ve worked hard to earn. I think that’s within their rights as long as they are not an impediment to the person obtaining the prescription elsewhere by destroying it, voiding it, harassing the patient, etc. I think those are all despicable behaviors that shouldn’t be tolerated on any level, least of all on a professional level. But simply the objection to filling the prescription is not an inherently evil act.
Forcing someone to jeopardize their own health because of your so-called “morals” is what’s repulsive. This has fuck all to do with “liberty”.
And, said pharmacists are required to be registered by the state board. If they refuse to adhere to the law, then get another job.
Really, the state has set up a lot of intermediaries through which you must get medications. The FDA, a licensed physician, and finally a pharmacy. If the pharmacy was state-run and operated, then I’d say you have a point. But until that happens, it’s a privately owned business just like any other, and just because the health department must inspect the restaurant you eat in doesn’t mean they can’t refuse to serve you filet mignon at McDonald’s, or kick you out of their establishment for any reason they see fit.
And I’m sure you’ll be the first to pop in to cite where refusing to fill a prescription on moral grounds is in violation of state pharmacy laws, since nobody has so far.
Missed the edit window:
ETA: I’ve googled, and the only thing I have found have been 3 states which have enacted legislation specifically targeted at the refusal to fill EC, but not that the refusal itself constituted any violation of law. Pharmacists are permitted to refuse prescriptions that they believe to be harmful to the patients, and some sick and twisted people honestly believe that Plan B is a dangerous drug. I’d like to get it out of the way that I do not and fully support the OTC status of Plan B.
I’m not sure how anyone could have missed the controversy over Plan B, yet still know about it’s existence.
Again, it’s up to the owner of the pharmacy. HIV medications can be ordered online, through the doctors office, or another pharmacy.
A raped women doesn’t have a responsibility to foresee herself being raped, so I have no problem requiring it in this case. However, it’s highly unlikely that a raped women has access to only one pharmacy. Likely she will be in the hospital undergoing a rape kit, and there is most likely going to be someone there to give her the pill.
No problems, again assuming the employer is ok with it. Condoms and contraceptive pills are easily obtainable through the internet, or through your doctors office.
Nope, actually, I will. Illinois’ Pharmacy Practice Act states that a pharmacist’s license may be revoked for:
While for some ogforsaken reason, I can’t seem to locate the Illinois Controlled Substance Act, much of the same language is contained in SB0100
It appears that some pharmacists have illegally and unethically tried to circumvent this law by lying to customers and telling them the drug is out of stock. Our governor was not pleased. He made a law which states that every pharmacy has to post written information about patient’s rights to medication and professionalism. They’re in every pharmacy now (that article is about a year old.)
Interesting, but the quoted requirements under the “good faith” clause only constitute legality in dispensing, not in refusing to dispense. The pharmacist’s license may be revoked, but he hasn’t violated any law.
I searched around and found this interesting pdf, http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/8-2005_Don’tTakeNo.pdf
but even that says:
“Three states explicitly require pharmacists or pharmacies to fill
prescriptions. On April 1, 2005, prompted by several refusal
incidents, the governor of Illinois issued an emergency rule to
make it clear that pharmacies in that state must fill valid
prescriptions for contraception, including EC, without delay.”
but also:
“Four states—Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South
Dakota—have passed laws or regulations explicitly allowing a
pharmacist the right to refuse to fill prescriptions based on his
or her religious, moral or personal beliefs or protecting a
pharmacist from adverse employment action for doing so.”
and:
“While not binding as law, at a minimum, national and state
policy statements and guidance provide some notice to
pharmacists of what is expected of them when serving the
public.”
So this document that advocates how patients can combat this sort of behavior even points out that there aren’t any national laws that are binding which punish pharmacists for refusing a prescription, and only a handful of states have enacted legislation that has been targeted as a response to these kinds of issues.
Thank you for the information though, WhyNot 
Sorry for the repeated posts, I just realized how stupid this sounds. Of course he has violated the law, that’s why his license can be revoked. :smack:
IANALawyer, and I am hesitant to interpret these rules, but here they are
Here (pages 76-79) are the WA state requirements for a pharmacist and pharmacist’s assistance to obtain and maintain a state license. There is no requirement whatsoever that states a pharmacist must fill all prescriptions to get or keep their license.
Which means whatever penalties there may be for refusing a prescription, it would apparently not involve revoking an individual’s license. It is difficult for me to imagine refusal could be considered a form of malpractice, as it is a refusal to practice rather than practicing incorrectly.
OTOH, the WA state pharmacy board shall:
So, apparently the board would indeed have the power to institute rules for revocation of licenses for refusal to fill prescriptions. AFAICT, they have not yet chosen to do so.
Here is the WA state Board of Pharmacy’s “Rules of Parmacist’s Responsibility”. The relevant text is:
It sounds to me as if the pharmacists would be in a better position to refuse to sell Plan B if it were totally unrestricted. OTOH, it also sounds like a rather meaningless statement – it does affix responsibility of refusal on pharmacists, but doesn’t actually deny them the right to do so. It read it as an attempt to open up refusing pharmacists to liability lawsuite, but IANALawyer. Maybe I am misreading it.
Here are the WA Board’s rules for the responibility of pharmacies. I am going to quote this in it’s entirety:
Combined, this sounds to me like the Board is saying The Pharmacy has an obligation to make any legal drug available, but individual pharmacists don’t have an individual professional obligation to do so.
I wonder what all this means in practice? It does seem to suggest that a pharmacy has a duty to provide SOMEONE who will fill any legal prescription. And it implies that they may have an obligation to discipline or fire a pharmacist if the individual refusal to practice results in a failure on the business’s part.
I’b be very interested in other interpretations of these rules. I don’t have a great deal of confidene in my own.
Granted, it’s not quite the same thing, but I still see it as a form of discrimination. The pharmacist is providing their service to some people (i.e., “That person got their codeine, and that person got their insulin.”), but denying it from others - based solely on their beliefs. I think that it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to expect society to be tolerant of their personal beliefs. I think it’s completely unreasonable for someone to force another person to bend over backwards to accommodate those beliefs.
If you have a set of beliefs that you strictly adhere to, then you should be fully prepared to make sacrifices for living your life while accommodating those beliefs. Hoisting those sacrifices off on some random person is silly.
Not as repulsive as forcing someone to accommodate someone else’s morals.
I didn’t realize pharmacists were forced into their profession at gunpoint.
I don’t care how high of a pedestal you place yourself on - you have no right to force your beliefs on me or anyone else. As soon as you do that, you need to acknowledge that you’ve become a villain.
It’s the pharmacist’s beliefs, so they should be the one making the sacrifice.
Accepting a job involves responsibility. If you can’t handle those responsibilities, then don’t accept the job.
They already exercised their right to decide. Now their wanting to call “backsies”.
Noone is taking away the pharmacist’s ability to discuss the prescription with the patient’s doctor. But that’s not what they want. They want to use their position to deny the prescribing doctor the element of professional judgment that they worked so hard for.
Agreed - they can object all they want, as long as they fill the prescription.
So, the pharmacist shouldn’t be forced to fill the prescription against their morals, except in some cases? Just how strong are these morals, anyway?
LilShieste
Drive to the next town. I don’t think a pharmacist has a moral obligation to save you from your sexual proclivities.
Is there a law in Washington that says that pharmacists have to sell every drug that they possibly can?
It’s not fair to tell someone that spent years in school and has built their business over the years that suddenly because of the development of this drug that removes the consequences of your hedonism, that they have to choose between their business and their morality.
It’s funny how often this board will throw out religious freedom over some current cause celebre. Of course you’ll say, “He can have all the freedom he wants, if he’s willing to abandon his livelihood.”, which of course Jesus would completely agree with, but I don’t see why the right of someone to fuck without protection trumps the right of a Catholic to be a pharmacist.
No one’s forcing anyone, take your business elsewhere.
They chose what they thought was an honorable profession. I don’t understand why people here think that a pharmacist should give up his profession so that someone doesn’t have to drive to the next town to get their retroactive contraception.
No one is forcing anyone, they can take their business elsewhere.
Right, give up the career you built for years so that someone doesn’t need to shop elsewhere.
This drug didn’t exist when most of them accepted the job.
Whatever the validity of your other points, this one does not obtain. Pharmacists know, becuase it’s their profession that new drugs are coming out all the time. It’s not a surprise to them. Professional education is inherent in the job - they must study new drugs to be able to meet their professional obligations. It’s immaterial whether or not the drug existed when they chose to go to school, it exists now, and is part of their professional domain.
It’s your morals, so you deal with them. In a way that doesn’t impact the rest of the world.
It is an honorable profession. IMO, they’re tarnishing the profession by leaking their beliefs into the mix.
I don’t understand why some people think that it’s OK for someone to force their beliefs on someone else.
I despise cigarettes. I believe people are slowly killing themselves with the things. I don’t go around knocking cigarettes out of people’s mouths, though.
As has been mentioned countless times already - they can’t always take their business elsewhere. These pharmacists, however, can quit their jobs at any time.
For people who sought to join an “honorable profession”, they sure seem a bit preoccupied with their own well being. Nevermind the fact that they’re turning their backs on the very people they’re supposed to be helping.
Something that they should have been prepared for. Any pharmacist that doesn’t expect new drugs to constantly be developed should simply not be a pharmacist.
LilShieste
Fair enough.
Part of the basis for why discrimination is illegal is that your race, religion, or sexual orientation should have no impact on your ability to do your job. When you put it in the way of your job, you are begging to get it run over.
Some of our people at the book warehouse I worked in had issues with Harry Potter to the point of refusing to handle that inventory. This ran up the chain of command and right back down with basically, you are getting paid to pack boxes of books, not make moral judgements about the content.
I have no idea, but I would suggest they should do. Of course, this isn’t really workable in practice, but I would have no trouble with a law mandating the selling of certain items, of which birth control pills and the like would be included.
Cite examples, please. And yes, i’m serious.
And you’re a sick bastard who wants raped women to carry their babies to term, living forever with a child that reminds them of their trauma.
Now that we’ve got pointless emotional language out of the way, let’s try talking seriously, shall we? I would point out that condoms and the like can break, at times, and the point made earlier by others that pills can be time-sensitive. I’d also point out that one “right” doesn’t trump the other, since the Catholic is perfectly free to be a pharmacist; it means, rather, that he will no longer want that job.
Oh dear, I feel sarcasm coming on. I take it that you’re equally against all the jobs involved in the death penalty, since a pro-life person couldn’t take them. I’m guessing likewise that all slaughterhouse jobs’ll have to have their animal-killing part removed, since Buddhists couldn’t do them, and their rights to perform that job must be maintained. Leatherworking? Dairy processing? There’s all those vegans who wouldn’t do those jobs, so we’ll just take out the animal-parts-handling so their right to do the job isn’t affected. No more killing for the military. Don’t even get me started on the gambling industry. We’ll be lowering the age requirements for being in governmental jobs, so as not to interfere with the rights of young people to be President. I’m sure you have taken your views to their logical conclusion, such as it is.