The whole thing is a market question. In theory, if there’s no accommodating pharmacy in your whole state, you can just fly yourself one state over – assuming you have the resources to do so. But that is obviously unrealistic, and the point at which accessing an alternate supply is in fact unrealistic will vary based on the resources a person has. So the question becomes: At what point do pharmacies’ or pharmacists’ refusal to dispense amount to a denial of access to medical care? The public’s actual ability to access the care they need is certainly relevant when considering that question. I don’t consider it dispositive, but I think it is worth keeping in mind that the so-called “solution” to this problem – expecting people to just go someplace else – is not in fact a “solution” for those who lack the resources to do so. It’s not a matter of askig the law to “intervene” to “fix” that problem; it’s a matter of acknowledging that the problem exists, when thinking about whether “go someplace else” is really a solution or not.
As I understand it, because the pharmacists who are objecting see having or letting someone else fill the prescription as aiding and abetting murder.
That’s the solution I’m often given when I say that people shouldn’t be governed without their consent — “Just move somewhere else.” And in that case, people are being asked to abandon their land, their homes, and all the fruit of their labor. In your case, people don’t even own the drugs they want. You’re just presuming their right to have at them.
The two situations are not equivalent, even if pro-lifers would like believe they are.
I would not force a doctor (who has a choice of what specialty they practice, and presumably, if they were against abortion, wouldn’t be an OB who is trained to do abortions - some OBs aren’t), to perform an elective, non-emergency abortion for a (likely small number) of patients.
Hormonal birth control pills are widely used by many women every month, and often for medical reasons other than the birth control itself. (Personal example in spoilers below). Forcing large numbers of women to undergo a large inconvenience - even more so if they don’t have easy transportation or the ability to travel - so they can obtain routine, needed, properly prescribed medications is asinine. I take birth control because if I don’t my periods are only every two months or so, with massive bleeding and cramps, I might start a heavy period and then continue to bleed heavily for weeks on end, and I periodically get polyps that require surgical removal).
Great question. I honestly don’t know the answer. To my knowledge its never come up. With my company the stores are almost always pretty concentrated so I doubt there is a Walgreens located 20 minutes away from the next (possible though). Also most stores run 2 to 3 shifts of pharmacists so it might mean you’d have to come back in a few hours if you didn’t want to drive.
If it were my store and I had a pharmacist who didn’t want to fill something and a customer who didn’t want to come back after the shift change and no way to make it to the next store I’d give them a ride myself or get an employee to drive them. If that wasn’t good enough, if the customer demanded that medication right then from our location… I’d apologize profusely, give them our corporate number hope for the best. The next step would be up to the suits.
As far as finding someone else to fill it being the same thing… Well morality is always a matter of degrees. If the pharmacist refuses to play a role of any kind in dispensing the medication, but work for a company that sells it are they still supporting it on some level. We all make compromises.
If I had an employee who didn’t want to fill a prescription, I’d refer him to my employee incentive plan:
“Do your fucking job or you’re fired.”
oops
Just for the record I have little sympathy for these pharmacists. I think they should do their damn and shut up about it. Unfortunately, they have us over a barell. There are not enough pharmacists to go around. If we tell them to do what we say or buzz off they will. They will find jobs somewhere else. They will not be inconvienced we will. Some employer will welcome them with open arms.
We do the best we can in an imperfect world.
mswas, what is your stance on the situation described in this post? I don’t think that should be allowed, and I think it is a good thing that pharmacists are required by law to fill all legal prescriptions (not just Plan B) because of situations like that. The person could have died from the infection, through no fault of their own, just because the antibiotic prescription came from a place the pharmacist objected to. That’s reprehensible, and shouldn’t be allowed.
In both instances, a person’s “right to choose” is being abrogated. So, to that extent, they are equivalent.
So, in principle, there are some circumstances in which you believe that a person’s right to choose supercedes someone else’s right to choose differently. Good - I agree.
I would bet that the number of non-emergency*, elective abortions in the US greatly exceeds the number of women who have to drive an extra twenty miles to get Plan B. So, if it is relevant that the number of abortion patients is small, then the number of Plan B patients who are inconvenienced is going to be even smaller.
Regards,
Shodan
*I guess I should have added that what I meant by “non-emergency” is “can be performed sometime in the next twenty-four hours”.
I have to wonder about this from an employer/employee standpoint. If I was Mrs. Walgreen, and I opened a pharmacy and was in the market for a pharmacist. I would think that I would want to know about any “conscientious objections” they may have in performing the routine functions of their job. I would be forbidden to NOT hire someone because they are a bible-thumping, misled, fundie, because they are a protected class, however, if that protected classification encompassed a code that prevented them from performing their duties, I’m not sure how the laws handle that.
IMHO, that should be a question allowed to be asked. “Do you have any personal beliefs that you feel could impact your ability to perform your duties as described?” The other thing is that as an employer, if something comes along that could be construed as causing an ethical dilemma for a pharmacist, I would certainly want to know how it would impact each and every one of my pharmacists. I would never want my customers to be the first to know about any potential conflict.
I think that the right to freedom of moral belief trumps the right of a person to not have to deal with the consequences of their actions, regardless of their economic situation. I don’t think that forcing Pharmacists to accomodate the outside cases really makes sense at all. There are many problems that come from being poor. If you wanted to address issues that relate to endemic poverty, I will agree with you wholeheartedly, but I don’t think that moral burden can be placed upon the shoulders of the Pharmacist. I feel sorry for all of the women who were dually unlucky, unlucky enough to be raped, and unlucky enough to be raped while ovulating. That’s a very small subset of the population however. If she’s raped it shouldn’t be an issue because she should be going through the hospital pharmacy anyway. If it isn’t rape, then we have to ask the question as to why she was having unprotected sex if she couldn’t afford another child? If the condom broke, that sucks, but I don’t think that we should require a pharmacist who got into a business to help people with their health should be responsible for that.
The reality of the situation is that this drug will mainly go toward people who engaged in a risky behavior, and we are putting the moral onus upon a person who was not engaging in that behavior. I don’t think that’s fair.
You have a good point. It’s a tricky situation. I am pro-choice myself, but very uncomfortably so. I tend to err on the side of liberty when I am fairly equally divided on an issue, so I think a woman should have the right to choose. That being said, I completely and understand the moral repugnance that people have toward abortion. I am certainly glad that of all the things I have to feel guilty for, that is not one of them. I am totally against abortion morally, but I am willing to tolerate it legally.
The situation you described is a place where the system breaks down. I think it would be fair for a hiring company to ask a prospective pharmacist whether or not they have moral objections to filling certain prescriptions, and allowing that to affect their hiring decisions. Sure it discriminates against people based upon belief, but it is an area where there is a practical concern.
The situation you linked to, while I appreciate its relevance is not the same as being absolved of the responsibility of unprotected sex, at the expense of someone else’s morals.
To be fair on this though, Jesus did tell his followers that they might have to sacrifice everything that he has in pursuit of pure conviction.
From another angle, I think we’d have a suddent pharmacist shortage if we started disallowing Christians who were opposed to abortion from being pharmacists.
Dang, should’ve been a pharmacist. Sounds like I could write my own ticket. Funny, I play in the band for a pharmacy school graduation every year; seems like they’re cranking them out. Who knew there was a shortage?
And I think this is a bullshit position, frankly. You don’t get to impose your moral beliefs on me by refusing to do your job and thereby preventing me from receiving medical care my doctor has prescribed. I don’t care what the grounds are for needing the medical care – is my HIV a consequence of my own actions? Is my obesity? My lung cancer? – and I frankly think that judging whose actions are spotless enough to entitle them to care and whose are not is a moral quagmire that none of us need to wade into.
Just because we can’t addess every issue doesn’t mean we can’t address any. Again, the point about unequal access was made to show that “they can get their meds someplace else” is not really a solution because in many cases, people can’t. It doesn’t increase the burden on pharmacists; it argues that they should not be allowed to avoid the duty they have anyway, because the rationale for allowing avoidance (care can still be easily obtained) is not necessarily correct.
If find it sort of offensive that you would set yourself up as the arbiter of whose moral purity entitles them to care and who doesn’t: “yes” to those who can show they were (a) raped and (b) raped while ovulating, but “no” to everyone else. My medical care is not your business. The determinations made by my doctor regardinig what is in the best interests of my health are not your business. I don’t owe anyone an explanation as to why I need Plan B, and I sure as hell don’t owe that explanation to the pharmacist.
What if the hospital pharmacist won’t dispense it? What if the hospital she’s taken to is a religious one and won’t dispense it? What if she is a victim of date rape or rape by an abuser, and does not want or cannot go to the hospital?
See, this is exactly the sort of question that we definitely don’t “have to ask.” The most objectionable part of the so-called pro-life position is the way it permits and even requires that people sit in judgment of women after asking intrusive personal questions about matters that are patently not their business. This whole line of inquiry offends me.
Why do you get to decide what his job is? Do you own him? What I think you should be advocating, given your premises, is that government should conscript people to dispense medicines in accordance with a central plan. I think your argument would make more sense if you argued that point.
If you’re bright and have an intrest in medicine/science its a good job. I’m surprised more people don’t choose it.
I wonder how big a problem this would be if there was no shortage. If I could say “do your job or buzz off” and there wouldn’t be five other companies waiting to hire them would they still pull this stuff?
This starts walking a fine line that makes me kind of uncomfortable, though. It’s getting a little too close to providing a “Religion:” field on an application, which could open the flood gates to discrimination based on a person’s religion.
I completely agree with this.
So far so good.
Whoa Nelly! That didn’t go the direction I was expecting. I thought you were going to point out that the pharmacist is interfering with the patient’s private decision.
I’m curious why you don’t see it that way, though…?
This is a good point, but doesn’t quite capture the essence of the problem. I think it’s reasonable for the government to mandate pharmacies that carry a certain drug, to provide it.
You and I apparently share the same views on abortion.
All we’re asking of these pharmacists is to “tolerate it”. Noone’s asking them to take the pill themselves.
LilShieste
Even if the government passes a law requiring pharmacists to dispense all legally prescribed medications, I still don’t see how that is “conscription”. No one is forcing you to become a pharmacist. But if you choose to enter that profession, you must abide by laws that regulate it. No conscription there.
Telling a pharmacist to do their job and dispense a medication is hardly the same thing as telling a pharmacist to start flipping burgers.
What do you mean by “conscript people”?
LilShieste