Even if the pharmacists win their case, the government has a trump card. They can refuse medicaid/medicare reimbursement to pharmacies that refuse to distribute the medication. That is the big club they hold over all medical facilities to ensure compliance with JCAHO inapections. Fail that inspection, lose your funding. Highly motivating.
That was also the tactic used to force all states to move the drinking age to 21. If it’s less than 21 they don’t get funds for road and highway maintenance.
“The government” does have that option… but isn’t Medicare/Medicaid a federal program? I don’t see the current administration getting bent out of shape about somebody refusing to supply emergency contraception. Look how long it took to get it approved for OTC sales.
The feds could do that, but they won’t. It’s up to the states to ensure that people have access to the drug.
There’s a law in Washington state that pharmacies have to provide every legal prescription drug, or be willing to order it into their stock should they not have it when presented with a prescription. They have a legal obligation to deliver it to patients who have a legal right to receive it. See post 92.
If their boss is fine with the job they are doing, and they aren’t doing anything illegal or unethical then I’d say they are living up to the responsibilities of their jobs.
It is unethical to refuse to fill a valid prescription for a patient.
Says you.
Just out of curiosity, how much of the actual job does this entail? By that I mean, what percentage of the business of a normal pharmacy, or even of the medicinal part, does this particular drug make up? How many of these are sold by any given store in, say, a month? (And yes, I understand it’s going to vary widely by location, but so will the general volume of business.)
You’re confusing morals with ethics. They’re not interchangeable. These self-righteous pricks (and prickettes) need to seek new employment.
First of all, from what I’ve read in Ms. Magazine and a couple of other places, training in how to perform an abortion is quite rare. Please bear with me, because I’m trying to remember stuff on less than 5 hours sleep. Most ob/gyns haven’t been trained to perform them, let alone most doctors (do you want an eye, nose, and throat guy performing an abortion? Or even a PAP smear?). When South Dakota* passed its recent ban on abortion, there was only one doctor in the entire state, and she flew in from out of state.
Second, not all hospitals carry Plan B in their rape kits. In Pennsylvania, Catholic hospitals refused to carry it on moral grounds because it may cause an abortion.
Mswas, you said if your pharmacy refuses you, go to another one. When I moved back to Pennsylvania, I didn’t drive and the nearest pharmacy was a mile and a half away. The next two nearest were three miles and three and half miles away. I could and did bicycle, but the to get to other pharmacies involved some rather significant hills. In cities and towns going to another pharmacy’s easy. In small towns or out in the country, it’s not quite as easy and remember, we’re working with a 48 hour time frame. If it takes more than two days, Plan B’s not going to do you any good.
Jehovah’s Witnesses won’t accept blood transfusions - should they therefore be denied surgery? And I certainly would not try to compel a doctor to perform an abortion if he thought it was morally wrong.
I was under the impression that Roe v. Wade made abortion a special case. No one is allowed to interfere in the private decision of whether or not to have (or support someone else having) an abortion. By compelling a pharmacist to dispense abortifacients, the state is interfering in that decision. If the state refuses to license someone who won’t assist with abortions, then the state is denying the right of that prospective licensee to choose.
You can have a right without having the ability to force someone else to assist you in exercising that right.
Regards,
Shodan
Missed the edit window.
A good point.
What we have is a conflict of rights - the right of a woman to an abortion, and the right of everyone to decide for themselves is abortion is right or wrong. We can decide to what extent the rights of one can be curtailed to allow for the exercise of the rights of the other. Shouldn’t the relative burden imposed matter? Either, [ul][li]you have to drive an extra twenty miles, or [*]someone gives up their livelihood. [/ul][/li]
Seems disproportionate to me.
Regards,
Shodan
Pharmacologically, Plan B (active ingredient is Levonorgestrel) is not an abortifacient, it’s a contraceptive. It’s the same drug that’s used in regular birth control pills, and it works by preventing ovulation or possibly by preventing implantation. Either way, it acts before implantation and therefore legally is considered contraception, not abortion.
Those who would permit pharmacists to refuse to dispense Plan B - would you also let them refuse to dispense “regular” birth control? I’m sure that’s a much larger volume of sales, and it would affect far more customers.
Would you be okay with forcing every woman in a small town to drive twenty miles every month just to pick up their regular birth control?
Just my two cents.
Many pharmacists have jobs that have nothing to do with handing out medications. Many work in corporate positions, in education, and in various scientific positions. So, if you are a pharmacist and the dreaded anti gay pill comes to market you actually have three options; give up on being a phramacist, compromise your morals, or find another job that still allows you to use your education and skills but doesnt put you in a difficult position.
I work for Walgreens. My understanding of our company’s policy is that no pharmacist has to fill anything they have an objection to, but if they refuse to fill a script it is their responsibility to find a way for the patient to get their medication and the solution must satisfy the customer.
I’ve only heard of this coming up a few times. Every time the situation was explained and the customer whent to a nearby store without complaint.
One of the issues that most concerns me personally is the disproporationate burden refusal places on low-income women, and the extent to which this “solution” – drive to the next town – completely disregards that. Many low income women do not have the ability to just “drive to the next town.” They don’t have cars; they don’t have licenses; they have families to care for or jobs to go to and lack the resources in time, money, or support to dick around trying to get a prescription filled. This is a time-sensitive drug, and one of the more reprehensible things about failing to dispense it is that the consequences of that refusal will almost certainly impact those who live in poverty to a far greater extent than those who don’t. YOU could just drive to the next town; that doesn’t mean everybody can.
This seems a sensible and equitable policy. So why can’t more people follow something like this?
I like this too. My next question would be, what if the pharmacist’s efforts don’t satisfy the customer (for instance, arranging for them to pick it up in a town they can’t get to)? Does he get fired? Does he arrange for and pay for a taxi? And if so, doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose anyway? I mean, he effectively is providing the substance he refuses to provide.
I would assume from the objection of the pharmacists that they consider that life begins at conception, not implantation.
I am not aware of a Supreme Court ruling that established a right to contraception in the same way that Roe v. Wade did for abortion. As I mentioned earlier, abortion has been made a special case, and the “right to choose” is especially established. I.e., the pharmacists’ “right to choose” should be considered.
Yes, if by that you mean “do I believe that the state should take no action if all pharmacists in a small town refuse to fill prescriptions for regular birth control”.
Would you be okay with forcing a doctor in a small town to perform an elective, non-emergency abortion where the patient’s life is not otherwise at risk if the alternative were the patient driving twenty miles to the next town?
Regards,
Shodan
Sorry I’m so late back to the thread…meat space interfered.
Others have answered this better than I, but it boils down to pharmacists doing the jobs they are hired to do…dispense meds. Not make judgements on whether meds should be available or who they should be available to. And I don’t think anyone should be offending anyone else’s morals—the simplest way to avoid this would be for someone to not become a pharmacist or to leave the profession if they find it to be against their morals to perform the duties of that job.
If my boss asks me to do something I find morally objectionable, I can either leave my job or do the task. I chose a line of work where my morals and ethics are happy. Pharmacists can to:
Problem solved—go get a job that doesn’t require dispensing meds.
Also, if a pharmacist does not understand what Plan B actually does, and believes it is equivalent to abortion, I’m not sure I want that person to continue to be a pharmacist. That person would not be using professional judgment—instead that person is relying on morals to inform the decision of what to dispense. I find that unacceptable.
While that’s certainly a problem for the poor women, I don’t entirely see why the law should intervene to fix it. I mean, it’s also possible that there might be some places where there’s no pharmacy at all in the town. Should the government mandate the existance of easily accessable pharmicies? Isn’t it, ultimately, a market question?
What we have is the right for people to receive legal medications as directed by their doctor being thwarted by someone who thinks they know better. The pharmacist doesn’t know why a medication was prescribed–that is not included on the prescription. Although I don’t know of any off-label uses for Plan B that doesn’t mean there aren’t any, and again, it’s not up to the pharmacist to decide whether the person should get the med. They are there to provide medications to the person standing in front of them, not hypothetical people.
Would you think it was okay for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense birth control pills to a 15 year old female because they don’t think 15 is old enough to have sex? They don’t know why that girl is taking BCPs–maybe she has other problems, as both of my daughters did.
How about if they decide that my husband is an addict because he comes in every month to refill his Percodan? So they refuse to refill and we have to take our business elsewhere? How would that be a benefit to anyone? If the doctor says that mr.stretch needs the meds, it’s not up to the pharmacist to decide. As long as there are no interactions and the doctor prescribes it, the pharmacist needs to fill it.