"Pro-life" Pharmacists

[atlanta_pharm]

I just wanted to get everyones opinion about pro-life pharmacists who refuse to fill birthcontrol scripts. Is it about religion or is it about patient care? If pharmacists refuse to fill birth control Rx's are they basically minimizing the focus of women's healthcare? I believe it is the small community pharmacies that are refusing to fill birth control Rx's so far. If birth control is such an issue why not refuse to fill other Rx's which could lead to complications? Let it all hang out guys!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DHG]

I just wanted to get everyones opinion about pro-life pharmacists who refuse to fill birthcontrol scripts. Is it about religion or is it about patient care? If pharmacists refuse to fill birth control Rx's are they basically minimizing the focus of women's healthcare? I believe it is the small community pharmacies that are refusing to fill birth control Rx's so far. If birth control is such an issue why not refuse to fill other Rx's which could lead to complications? Let it all hang out guys!

I find this extremely disturbing, and hope that those doing it realize they are putting the future of the profession at risk. See the thread about the legislation in reference to this... A friend of mine works at a Pharmacy in a pretty large-sized town, not exactly rural, and he does this practice.

Now, besides the disenfranchisement of women issue, and the disrespect shown them by not allowing them to follow through with care that they and their doctors have decided on, but ALSO there is the possibility that there are other things going on that the woman might be prescribed birth control. What if she had a script on file at another pharmacy for Acutane (do they still sell that stuff?) and her new doctor advises her she needs to be taking birth control as well, regardless if she's in a relationship or not, just to be safe.... That's probably not a great example, I know, so don't pick that one apart please... the point though is that there may be other reasons birth control is prescribed that are valid. Not that it should matter, though, ...

Is this mostly a problem with Pharmicists not filling the "morning after" pill or just not filling regular birth control?

 

[koby_2004]

I believe this problem is not centered on birth-control, but more so on the morning-after pill, since birth control does not kill the baby, just doesn't let conception occur. Whereas, the morning-after pill, would do it's job after fertilization ahs occurred, which to many people marks the beginning of life.

 

[tetra327]

I'm not sure if this pharmacist is still around, but at a CVS in MD there was a woman rph that would not fill rxs for any type of birth control...the morning after pill or just the plain old ortho tri-cyclen brand. For her this was a religous thing...it was kinda hard to believe that a chain like CVS would let that occur though, but it was when there was the greatest shortage of rphs in our area. I rather any person that wants BC pills get them than pay more taxes for the babies that get born into welfare families.

 

[LiveLoveFartRepeat]

what you said about the birth control pill needs an update:

it is an birth pill issue also..because...most birth control pills are actually "abortificant" they prevent the FERTILIZED egg to implant to the lining of the uterus..only few and really...few do not let conception occur.

So, to some people an fertilized egg is already a potential baby ( like you pointed it out)...to them birth control are therefore really causing one to get ride of a potential human being.

I, too, believed for a long time that most birth control prevent conception, until i learned the slim but big difference on the way most of them "prevent" one to be pregnant...Morning-after pills are just the same version of them at a higher dosage...

I believe this problem is not centered on birth-control, but more so on the morning-after pill, since birth control does not kill the baby, just doesn't let conception occur. Whereas, the morning-after pill, would do it's job after fertilization ahs occurred, which to many people marks the beginning of life.

 

[nikkai]

I personally think people should just wait till they're married till they have sex. Would save a lot of headaches (pharmacy and nonrelated).

*duck*

But that's just me.

Of course, if you're married and don't want to have kids yet, that just adds to the complexity of the matter...

 

[DHG]

I personally think people should just wait till they're married till they have sex. Would save a lot of headaches (pharmacy and nonrelated).

*duck*

But that's just me.

Of course, if you're married and don't want to have kids yet, that just adds to the complexity of the matter...

That's a perfect example. What if the couple has been tested and know that their children will have Kreutzfelt-Jacob's or some other horrible thing... Or what if the woman becoming pregnant would endanger her health, so they chose not to have children....

I mean, I think if the stuff is legal, and it is, that the Pharmacist should fill it. End of story. Unless they put a sign up front or wear a badge that says "I do not fill scripts for Birth Control under any circumstance." That way people could go elsewhere without being put through the hassle and maybe even embarassment of trying to fill a scrip there....

But really, I feel just as strongly that it's morally wrong for Pharmacisits to withhold birth control as the pro lifers feel that it's wrong to dispense it. It's a case where there will be no compromise from either side, I'm afraid.

 

[nikkai]

That's a perfect example. What if the couple has been tested and know that their children will have Kreutzfelt-Jacob's or some other horrible thing... Or what if the woman becoming pregnant would endanger her health, so they chose not to have children....

Well, in that case I would suggest instead of spending XXXXX dollars on BC, just go get the tubes tied for women or the big V for men...

*ahem* *crosses legs and shivers*

 

[ultracet]

I believe this problem is not centered on birth-control, but more so on the morning-after pill, since birth control does not kill the baby, just doesn't let conception occur. Whereas, the morning-after pill, would do it's job after fertilization ahs occurred, which to many people marks the beginning of life.

ok someone touched on this but you are way off.....
estrogen prevents ovulation
progestin creates a hostile enviornment for the egg and the sperm (messes with pH, viscosity of mucous etc) and can also prevent ovulation. when i say the sperm i'm not talking after fertilization i'm talking while the little guy is swimming.

the majority of birth control pills are combination pills with a few that are progestin only

the morning after pills are NOT abortifacients. they are progestin only pills

they are simply a high dose of birth control pills (the same result can be achieved with a higher dose.. several pills.. out of their BC pack)

The abortifacient people talk about is mifipristone (RU-486) and that can be taken up into the first trimester



At the very least people need to find the facts and look into the MOA of the drugs before making judgements.

 

[yatzek]

i dont see the argument for not dispensing them...they are legal, it is not the pharmacists job to decide peoples moral problems... they are only there to look after their health. it seems these pharmacists are getting a kick out of being paternalistic... imho, this is really, really bad for the pharmacists image

 

[trishias]

I agree with bbmuffin, these pharmacists should know their MOAs before they refuse to dispense on moral grounds. I also believe these pharmacists also chose the wrong field to go into. Being a pharmacist is about facilitating the proper medication treatment for a patient and if it is BC than so be it. I am not saying there is anything wrong with having a moral conscience but telling a patient they cannot have BC because u dont think it is morally, not professionally, right is an abuse of power.

As for nikkai, it would be wonderful if everyone would not have sex until after they are married because there would be less unwanted kids and fewer single mothers and that would save many more headaches and more taxpayers dollars. But we cant tell people (except our children) that as a pharmacist anymore than we can tell them not to use birth control.

I am off the soapbox now.

 

[Asnchic]

I'm not too keen on the subject but my friend and I have talked about the issue of it and we both agreed that it tied a lot into other things too.

I personally would have no issue dispensing any type of drug because you're administering care as a health care provider. As a pharmacist, that's your job and that's what you signed up to do. You should have read the job description beforehand, imo. If you can't do it though, because of religious beliefs etc. then at least recommend them to another pharmacist working there. If you don't at least do that, then you're blatantly refusing care to a patient and for that, there is no excuse in this world that will cover for that.

I think if you're a Pharmacist (or any branch of healthcare for that matter) that it is crucial that you do one thing and one thing well, provide care. If you can't provide your services as a Pharmacist, at least guide them to someone who can.

Extreme circumstances aside, I think that there's been so many issues regarding the boundaries between what is alive and what isn't that this country has gone somewhat off the deep end with invading the personal lives of others (Terry Shiavo anyone?). I think the line has become somewhat blurred, especially as of late. Since when was it that people (pharmacists, the media, anyone really) can start enforcing their personal beliefs on the lives of other individuals?

 

[DHG]

Well, in that case I would suggest instead of spending XXXXX dollars on BC, just go get the tubes tied for women or the big V for men...

*ahem* *crosses legs and shivers*

But that's not really fair, either. Tubals are pretty much permenant. And what if her husband DIES or something and she remarries a man who doesn't carry both recessives (as in the earlier CJ example...) so now she wants kids?

Let the woman decide what she wants to do. Birth control is available, it's legal, and if she wants it she should have it. I would sue a pharmacist that did not dispense me birth control if I walked in with a scrpit. I really would. I would raise a huge stink over it. I think it's wrong, to deny a common, legal substance that their doc has recommended, (exceptions would be where there was an obvious mistake on the doc's part, or something where it is questionable... in which case the pharm should verify it first). But a common, standard pack of BC should not be denied. I agree that is abuse of power.

 

[Bob_Barker27]

But that's not really fair, either. Tubals are pretty much permenant. And what if her husband DIES or something and she remarries a man who doesn't carry both recessives (as in the earlier CJ example...) so now she wants kids?

Let the woman decide what she wants to do. Birth control is available, it's legal, and if she wants it she should have it. I would sue a pharmacist that did not dispense me birth control if I walked in with a scrpit. I really would. I would raise a huge stink over it. I think it's wrong, to deny a common, legal substance that their doc has recommended, (exceptions would be where there was an obvious mistake on the doc's part, or something where it is questionable... in which case the pharm should verify it first). But a common, standard pack of BC should not be denied. I agree that is abuse of power.

Or you could just go to the pharmacy across the street, and get the script filled there. I don't think pharmacists should be forced to fill a script if they have a moral problem with doing so, especially when there are plenty of other pharmacists around that would be willing to fill it.

 

[koby_2004]

Ok, everyone, thanks for correcting me. I am obviously not a pharmacist, YET!

 

[Roxicet]

I personally think people should just wait till they're married till they have sex. Would save a lot of headaches (pharmacy and nonrelated).

*duck*

But that's just me.

Of course, if you're married and don't want to have kids yet, that just adds to the complexity of the matter...

Right, because all marriages are perfect and never leave children to be raised by single mothers after an ugly divorce, and nobody is ever raped. You're lucky you ducked, because I did throw something at you. Your naivete is annoying beyond description. I'll just stop there and go back to studying.

FYI for everyone else who still thinks there's something special about the morning after pill (Preven), note that the same effect can be acheived by taking 2 doses of 2 pills of 50 mcg ethlnyl estradiol/0.5 mg norgestrel 12 hrs apart, 2 doses of 4 pills of 30 mcg ethinyl estradiol/0.3 mg norgestrel 12 hrs apart, or 2 doses of 5 pills of 20 mcg ethinyl estradiol/0.1 mg levonorgestrel 12 hrs apart, (all common birth control) for example, within 72 hrs of unprotected sex. Plan B is the same progestin-only type of birth control as the depo provera injection, only at a higher dose.

 

[trishias]

I'm not too keen on the subject but my friend and I have talked about the issue of it and we both agreed that it tied a lot into other things too.

I personally would have no issue dispensing any type of drug because you're administering care as a health care provider. As a pharmacist, that's your job and that's what you signed up to do. You should have read the job description beforehand, imo. If you can't do it though, because of religious beliefs etc. then at least recommend them to another pharmacist working there. If you don't at least do that, then you're blatantly refusing care to a patient and for that, there is no excuse in this world that will cover for that.

I think if you're a Pharmacist (or any branch of healthcare for that matter) that it is crucial that you do one thing and one thing well, provide care. If you can't provide your services as a Pharmacist, at least guide them to someone who can.

Extreme circumstances aside, I think that there's been so many issues regarding the boundaries between what is alive and what isn't that this country has gone somewhat off the deep end with invading the personal lives of others (Terry Shiavo anyone?). I think the line has become somewhat blurred, especially as of late. Since when was it that people (pharmacists, the media, anyone really) can start enforcing their personal beliefs on the lives of other individuals?

AMEN!

 

[bananaface]

I personally would have no issue dispensing any type of drug because you're administering care as a health care provider.

I wonder how many people would be uncomfortable dispensing suicide or execution meds. For people who believe that the potential for BC pills and the morning after pills to act as an abortifacient, their dilemma is not so different from those scenarios. Some pharmacy schools still teach that the MOA does not always exclude abortificient effects. And, some people use their own definition of abortifacient, referring to conception rather than implantation as the beginning of pregnancy.

It's easy to judge when you are not the one having to live with a guilty conscience. We each have to live with our own decisions. I respect the right of my peers to abstain from practices which they find morally objectionable, not because I approve, but because my own rights are invariably tied to theirs. I do, however, encourage them to refer.

 

[atlanta_pharm]

I personally think people should just wait till they're married till they have sex. Would save a lot of headaches (pharmacy and nonrelated).

*duck*

But that's just me.

Of course, if you're married and don't want to have kids yet, that just adds to the complexity of the matter...

Well the issue isn't the morality of premarital sex. My concern are the small pharmacies with the Jesus Fish plastered on the front door. Why would a patient get their Rx filled there knowing the ridicule and judgement they may face? Remember, religious ppl aren't hypocritical at all . Why not come up with a Christian formulary or perhaps an all ***** formulary. Your religious beliefs have no place in health care or the science of health care. Just like religion has no place in the court room or in an operation room. If you wanna pray in your car before you fill scripts all day more power to ya. Don't deprieve a patient of the therapy their doctor prescribes. Don't you feel guilty when you go over the speed limit? Perhaps go 35 in a 25 mph school zone? Let's not pick and choose what you want to be moral about. If religious beliefs will hender a Pharmacists from doing his/her job, he/she needs to find a new line of work......I believe the positon of Pope is open

 

[WVURxGal]

I don't think there should be any types of laws that force a pharmacist to fill anything, just because they could easily be abused in cases where a pharmacist refuses a script because of possible interactions, and the physician refuses to listen to the pharmcist's argument. I'd hate to be forced to dispense anything if I knew it would harmful, provided of course that I had reliable sources to back me up.

That said, I totally diagree with an Anti-Choice pharmacists refusing to fill birth control. Do they not fill it for every single patient, or just unwed teenagers? A few specific cases? How do they know it's not for a reason other than reducing the risk of pregnancy? Personally, I've been on ortho tri since I was 13. I promise I wasn't having sex with men at that age, I just got terrible nausea/vomiting/cramping that was pretty much debilitating. If I was denied therapy because of someone's morals... well, I probably would have dragged my bloated, PMSing self down to the pharmacy and had words. And heck, if the vomiting came back while I was there, and it happened all over their lab coat... their problem, not mine. If a pharmcist is going to refuse birth control prescriptions, there should be huge sign on the door warning of such. I don't feel like getting a lecture on morals and how I'm killing my baby and 5 reasons why I'm going to hell when I get a prescription. I appreciate sound medical advice, a proper dosing schedule, interactions to be cautious of, etc. Bringing morals into the work place is totally unprofessional unless you work at a Christian hospital or missionary.

If religious beliefs will hender a Pharmacists from doing his/her job, he/she needs to find a new line of work......I believe the positon of Pope is open

I like you.

 

[DHG]

Or you could just go to the pharmacy across the street, and get the script filled there. I don't think pharmacists should be forced to fill a script if they have a moral problem with doing so, especially when there are plenty of other pharmacists around that would be willing to fill it.

Oh sure, after the embarassment of trying to fill it here, with people in line behind you... and what used to be a confidential matter between you and your doctor is now a public matter becuase the pharmacist wanted to cause a scene? That is, unless you have that sign posted in the window: "No birth control under any circumstances." Probably have to own your own store for that, though? Thank God for corporate.

When they become liscensed, and are behind that counter, there is an implied responsibility they have as a healthcare provider, which leaves no room for refusal to do something perfecty LEGAL to make a politico-relgious point. If you can't handle dispensing birth control, you don't need to be a pharmacist. It's not like you didn't know what you were getting into. That being said, it implies that the field of pharmacy was then specifically sought after in order to prevent distribution of birth control, since there's no excuse for knowing that you'd have to..... And that is wrong on so many levels.


I hope all you women pro-lifers will go do some homework. This country, and countries where women are not 2nd class human beings, are few and far between. I'm not a raging feminist, but I do recognize that systematically withholding birth control from women is one step toward disenfranchisment of women. Open your eyes and see what's going on in this country. It scares the crap out of me.

 

[bananaface]

Most of those refusing have been in the prefession for many years. It's a bit silly to tell an educated 55 year old business owner that he or she needs to sell their business and become a fry cook.

 

[DHG]

Most of those refusing have been in the prefession for many years. It's a bit silly to tell an educated 55 year old business owner that he or she needs to sell their business and become a fry cook.

Birth control pills were introduced to the public in the 1960's, so an older pharmacist would have been in his/her teens, or younger, at that time,...ie, not practicing. So I don't buy that.

Two quick questions.

1. Would you refuse BC for the girl with the severe menstral symptoms?
2. Do you have it posted somewhere that BC is not stocked/filled at your store?

 

[ultracet]

I honestly will absolutely explode if they legislate filling of Rxs in any capacity.. I don't think most of you realize how dangerous this practice could be.

If you would like to discuss how dangerously bills can be written there is another thread in pharmacy about Illinois's new legislation.

You might as well start saying "Do you want fries with that?"

 

[lynzee]

Could you paste the link for the Illinois' legislation on prescriptions, because I can't seem to find it. Thank you!

 

[GibbysGal]

I live in a small town and work in another small town. There is a pharmacy near where I work that does not fill bc scrips under any circumstances. I am unaware if there is a sign but that is a good question and I will try and find out. It is an independent so I feel he can do what he wants it is his store. When his customers want their bc scrips filled they go elsewhere, including the pharmacy I work at. I have heard he is Catholic so I'm guessing that is why; But even if he is not it is his perogative. I am also interested in the Illinois legislation link. Thanks in advance.

 

[bananaface]

Birth control pills were introduced to the public in the 1960's, so an older pharmacist would have been in his/her teens, or younger, at that time,...ie, not practicing. So I don't buy that.

Two quick questions.

1. Would you refuse BC for the girl with the severe menstral symptoms?
2. Do you have it posted somewhere that BC is not stocked/filled at your store?

They have been refusing for years and only had their practices questioned lately.

I am personally pro-choice. I would not refuse to fill. But, someone worried about potential abortifacient effects should not care about whether the drug is for prevention of pregnancy or relief of dysmenorrhea. They are concerend with the life/death issue, not the sex/abstinence issue.

I don't see why anyone would be obligated to post a sign. It might be courteous if they left a note as a part of their Dr's line message.

 

[spacecowgirl]

If religious beliefs will hinder a Pharmacists from doing his/her job, he/she needs to find a new line of work......I believe the positon of Pope is open

I love it.

I don't think the pharmacy counter is the place to be making this sort of moral stand. If you disagree with the idea of BC pills, the place to take that up is with your elected official (because we all know they listen ).

By the way - people against BC pills should techinically be against all types - including vasectomy and tubal ligation. These methods are all prohibiting the natural formation of life as well, which is the reason people cite in the bible as to why they are against birth control in the first place.

I just can't think about this issue without Monty Python's Meaning of Life popping into my head.

 

[ultracet]

Could you paste the link for the Illinois' legislation on prescriptions, because I can't seem to find it. Thank you!

Its still on the front page!

 

[Sosumi]

I love it.

I don't think the pharmacy counter is the place to be making this sort of moral stand. If you disagree with the idea of BC pills, the place to take that up is with your elected official (because we all know they listen ).

By the way - people against BC pills should techinically be against all types - including vasectomy and tubal ligation. These methods are all prohibiting the natural formation of life as well, which is the reason people cite in the bible as to why they are against birth control in the first place.

I just can't think about this issue without Monty Python's Meaning of Life popping into my head.

*sings* Every sperm is saaaaaacred...

 

[b*rizzle]

*sings* Every sperm is saaaaaacred...

rotfl 'tis one of my favorite movies of all time.

In response to the overall issue: Opinions are like buttholes -- everyone has one and everyone is bound to use it at some time or another. Recently it's become trendy for people to "express" themselves in such a way just because they can.

I've dealt with this issue personally. I've been taking BCPs since I was 12 years old b/c I suffer from debilitating dysmenorrhea and it's the only way I can manage to function each month. When I was 15, we switched pharmacies and the new pharmacist refused to fill my Rx for the Pill.

Let me tell you something: I understand that everyone is bound to disagree about some things at one point or another, but I was not too receptive of the pharmacist's efforts to "save me from myself," and neither were my parents.

 

[Jeddevil]

Why not come up with a Christian formulary or perhaps an all ***** formulary. Your religious beliefs have no place in health care or the science of health care. ..I believe the positon of Pope is open

Neither does ignorant religious bigotry! You need to step back and think before you post crap about Christian = ***** in the same sentence. It shows the real reasons you have a problem with the issue.

As far as beliefs having no place in health care, in a health care based world they wouldn't be there. But, in this world, one filled with centuries of wars over religion, you are never going to find ANY arena without religious beliefs in it. When it comes down to it, the people making decisions all usually have some sort of religious preference, and those beliefs mean more to them then any other. So good luck on your get religion out of health care crusade. Religion will always mean more to the majority than science.

 

[spacecowgirl]

I didn't notice that before, perhaps it was a typo and they meant to type "MorMon"? I don't know...trying to give the benefit of the doubt, I am interested to see a response from atlanta_pharm


bbmuffin I am interested in the slippery slope phenomenon you are describing, could you explain? (that's an honest questions, not a snarky one)


BTW - when a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate!

 

[nikkai]

There really is not going to be a firm resolution in this discussion. People will stubbornly hold onto their own stance and claim that they are taking an objective viewpoint, even though that is practically impossible.

*sigh*

 

[gablet]

I wonder how many people would be uncomfortable dispensing suicide or execution meds. For people who believe that the potential for BC pills and the morning after pills to act as an abortifacient, their dilemma is not so different from those scenarios. Some pharmacy schools still teach that the MOA does not always exclude abortificient effects. And, some people use their own definition of abortifacient, referring to conception rather than implantation as the beginning of pregnancy.

It's easy to judge when you are not the one having to live with a guilty conscience. We each have to live with our own decisions. I respect the right of my peers to abstain from practices which they find morally objectionable, not because I approve, but because my own rights are invariably tied to theirs. I do, however, encourage them to refer.

Excellent point!

As long as the pharmacist is not taking away a legal prescription from a patient, I do not see the issue - when there are plenty of pharmacists that will fill it.

 

[aubieRx]

People who object to birth control pills need to stop being such knuckle draggers. Seriously! If they had any sense at all they would realize the planet is quickly becoming overpopulated and a surplus of babies would spell faster death for more people.

 

[nikkai]

People who object to birth control pills need to stop being such knuckle draggers. Seriously! If they had any sense at all they would realize the planet is quickly becoming overpopulated and a surplus of babies would spell faster death for more people.

Uh.

Surplus of babies??

I have never heard it worded like that before. =P

 

[Sosumi]

Uh.

Surplus of babies??

I have never heard it worded like that before. =P

I work two blocks down from Planned Parenthood. 80% of our customers are on medical assistance. Thank God many of them are on birth control, which are covered fairly easy relative to other medications, especially when Viagra is covered by medical assistance too... So many of them are single moms with many children. One of the technicians that works with me has 5 kids and she's only 26 and is a single mom to all of them. Imagine how much more of a burden it'd be on our tax dollars if they were having more children.

I wonder what anti-abortion pharmacists feel about dispensing Viagra/Cialis/Levitra.

 

[njac]

I wonder what anti-abortion pharmacists feel about dispensing Viagra/Cialis/Levitra.

I don't know - but I joke with people that if there are still pharmacists refusing to dispense BC when I'm a pharmacist I'm refusing to dispense ED drugs!

Like I've said before - I don't agree with fertility drugs or some cancer drugs (yes, if Terri had been my boyfriend I'd have her tube pulled too - can't help it, my parents are ICU nurses, I know what that costs!) but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't dispense them.

 

[CSzGirl]

I think it's going to be extremely interesting if the next pope is relatively more liberal and within the next couple of years the Catholic church says "birth control is okay." Now, I am a Catholic - admittedly not a good/textbook one, by any means - but I know plenty of Catholics (and people from other denominations and other religions) who take their stands on different subjects because it's what the church tells them is "right" and not necessarily because they've ruminated over the subject themselves

Disclaimer - I know this is not all Catholics, Christians, etc., but I've met many many like this in my personal experience.

 

[BMBiology]

Pharmacists have no right or power to interpret the law. We do not only have the moral and legal obligation but also professional obligation to follow the law like everyone else! If a pharmacist wants to intrepret the law then he/she should become a judge and work for the court, not for Sav-On!

 

[atlanta_pharm]

Neither does ignorant religious bigotry! You need to step back and think before you post crap about Christian = ***** in the same sentence. It shows the real reasons you have a problem with the issue.

As far as beliefs having no place in health care, in a health care based world they wouldn't be there. But, in this world, one filled with centuries of wars over religion, you are never going to find ANY arena without religious beliefs in it. When it comes down to it, the people making decisions all usually have some sort of religious preference, and those beliefs mean more to them then any other. So good luck on your get religion out of health care crusade. Religion will always mean more to the majority than science.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_19.pdf.
Some reasons why SOME women/girls should be on BC.

Actually I did mean Mormon. But in Jeddevil's case I'll leave it as *****. A thousand apologizes oh pious one . BTW Jeddevil I hope you're not a Eric Rudolph supporter but hey he is a man of God right? Anywhoooo, my original point was that religious zealousy has no place in the pharmacy. I guess living in the bible belt doesn't help matters lol. I didn't see it much in NY or on the west coast. I'm not trying to demean any one b/c of the religious beliefs they hold but let's take care of patients first and talk about religion later. I went into a local pharmacy that claims it's a Christian pharmacy. They said they do not fill BC but they sell condoms,beer and cigs Bottom line, we need to take care of the patients that need ALL OF US. BTW I will not fill BC scripts to midgets....they scare me

DISCLAIMER: This statement no way reflects the views/opinions of SDN. The above statements are the personal views of atlanta_pharm. In fact, SDN loves everyone, including midgets.

 

[DHG]

I agree with the previous post about laws, and a pharmacists right (or lack of one) to interpret the law based on personal moral beleifs. The APA's stance is of course the most diplomatic, and I think also the best (Lord knows I don't want to see stuff legislated if it can be avoided, for any issue).

The American Pharmacists Association’s (APA) policy concerning objections to the filling of a prescription is to at all times ensure patient access to legally prescribed medications, according to the NWLC. Thus, a pharmacist should immediately transfer a prescription if he or she feels uncomfortable filling it. “What we suggest,” Susan Winckler, APA’s vice president for policy and communications, told the Washington Post, “is that [pharmacists] identify those situations ahead of time and have an alternative system set up so the patient has access to their therapy.”

But some of these pharmacists are refusing to pass the prescription to someone else who will fill it. And because this issue has already spawned legislation in several states, either for or against, I think it's time to speak up.

Pharmacists are liscensed by whatever state they work in, and as such, they have implied responsibilities and liabilities under their state's laws. They are also in a sense servants of the public, hence the need for licensure. As such, it is totally inappropriate to deny birth control on moral grounds.

The scenerio I'd like to hypothesize is this one:
A pharmacist begins to refuse birth control to whites, but he dispenses it to blacks and hispanics, because he feels it is deeply and morally wrong for these other races to be reproducing (!?!?). How is this any different? He's just doing what he feels is right.....right?

Or maybe Atlanta_Pharm starts denying midgets certain care, because he hates midgets. ( ). You see where this can lead??? Lets stick with the law, and make your stands in a more appropriate forum, NOT behind the pharmacy counter.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

What if a physician refused to write a script for birth control due to moral concerns, would he be acting in an unprofessional manner?

 

[ultracet]

Spacecowgirl: The problem i see is this.... if legislation occurs stating a pharmacy/pharmacist has to fill a valid (not forged) prescription when it is presented to them then you are stuck with a problem

for example the law IL is working on could be interpreted as filling BC no matter what because after all.... it is not a rph's job to determine if it is a good drug for the patient it is up to the dr. and the dr. can give what he/she wants and they "know" the interactions.

it is not a pharmacists job to intrepret the law however we will end up being sued and i fully expect the law to be as constrictive of us as possible. After all the people reviewing it are not necessarly health care providers.

in my opinion once you start saying that a pharmacist has to fill that is all we will be good for a high dollar education for something a vending machine can do.

if the courts judge that the dr. knows best on those instances i'm sure it will fall over to other medications as well and therefore prevent a pharmacist from calling to try to offer a better solution (even in the same class of drugs)
or even force us to become an outlet for someone's habit


so in essence.... do you want fries with that?

 

[DHG]

What if a physician refused to write a script for birth control due to moral concerns, would he be acting in an unprofessional manner?

Yes, if the decision was soley based on his moral POV, and not in the best interest of the patient.



And bbmuffin, I essentially agree with you. I think legislation needs to be VERY CAREFULLY worded if there's to be legislation at all... But you are missing the point, which is that these pharmacists are employees in a store where the item is stocked. If it was a person who owned their own store, and just didn't stock the item at all, that would be OK. That would be his/her perogative. But when you are an employee of a corporation, and they stock that item, and that item has been recommended by another healthcare professional, and the patient has a legal prescription, the pharmacist's responsibility to his/her profession should override. If they want to refuse on DRUG INTERACTION grounds, or something legitiamte (ie, not just moral grounds), that is fine. But to refuse on moral grounds alone IS NOT in the best interest of the patient. If they don't want to fill it, they need to either just immediatley pass it to their co-worker who will, or they need to go open their own place.

One particular case that started the cascade of legislation was the result of a Kmart employee that refused to fill the script, and then got fired because of it. She told the customer that they were "out of stock," and the customer somehow found out she was lying, and reported it to Kmart. This pharmacist told Kmart that she would not fill BC scropts, and so Kmart fired her. This ex-employee is now pushing for legislation that would protect pharmacist's rights to refuse, which sounds OK at first, but if you think about it, it means that businesses would be forced to retain people who don't do their jobs, based on moral grounds. It would have implications bigger than what were intended.

I don't think an employee that refuses to follow company policy on moral grounds should have protection under the law, unless the company is trying to make them do something illegal...

What if I work for Texaco, and I start refusing to sell gas to SUV owners, because I think it is morally wrong to own an SUV? Should Texaco be allowed to fire me? SURE! If this legislation goes through it would have implications that this employee would have protection under the law.

What if I work for a restaraunt, and a bi-racial couple sits at one of my tables and I refuse to serve them because I feel it is morally wrong for people to marry outside their race? Can my employer fire me? YOU BET! and that is as it should be.


The legislation that gives the pharmacist the "right to refuse" is just as scary in its implications as the ones that "compell" them to fill. These implications are what make me wish there was no legislation either way... My state is one considering a law that gives Pharms the right to refuse. I am writing my state senators in opposition of this legislation, for the reasons stated above.

 

[nikkai]

The sad thing about this entire situation is that some "pro-life" pharmacists truly believe that by doing what they are doing, it will bring their customers closer to Christ.

Christianity is not a religion of judgement - in fact in Romans, there lies the discussion of submission to the local laws and governments. Christianity is the religion of love, the only religion that was and is designed for the future members. When we start judging and condemning others, we lose sight of who we our and where we came from in the first place.

Granted, this takes a step back from the entire pro-life/pro-choice/law discussion, but I don't want people walking away from these boards with pre-conceived ideas of what makes a Christian or a non-Christian.

 

[DHG]

The sad thing about this entire situation is that some "pro-life" pharmacists truly believe that by doing what they are doing, it will bring their customers closer to Christ.

I agree. This is sad.

 

[bananaface]

Employers should be able to fire people for not dispensing IF the employee has agreed to and then broken specific terms of the contract. If there is no aghreement in the contract, I feel that employees shoudl retain the right to use their discretion. Basically, people need to decide their boundaries at hiring.

You do have a point about laws giving the right to refuse dispensing. If I were an employer I woulde able to hire employees who would follow my wishes.

 

[nikkai]

If I were an employer I woulde able to hire employees who would follow my wishes.

Bananaface wants to be her pharmacists' pimp.