Pharmacists refuse to dispense contraceptives...on moral grounds

[Mercutio]

In our local Sunday paper this morning, this story (http://www.fosters.com/September2004/09.26.04/news/cit_0926b.asp).
LACONIA — On a recent Saturday night, a local woman went to a drive-through pharmacy to pick up a prescription for a birth control patch and an emergency contraceptive pill, also known as "the morning after pill."

The woman, Suzanne Richards, 21, was handed the patch but told by a pharmacy assistant at Brooks Pharmacy on Union Avenue the pharmacist could not fill the prescription for the emergency contraceptive.

"But I’ve gotten this prescription filled here before," said a confused Richards.

The attendant went away and pharmacist Todd Sklencar came to the window and confirmed he cannot fill the prescription.

"Can I just ask why?" Richard said.

According to Richard, Sklencar then told her it is his personal belief that life begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg and he is therefore morally opposed to filling a prescription that could possibly terminate a life.

"He said something like: ‘I believe this will end the fertilization of the egg,’ and ‘This conception was your choice.’ When I realized what he was saying, I pulled the car over in the parking lot and just cried." The drug is legal, she has a prescription, he is a pharmacist. It seems to me that becoming a pharmacist was "his choice"; if he cannot accept the consequences of that choice, time to get a new job.

*******

Is this an under-the-radar abortion/choice battle? The article lists other incidents, but also claims there is no evidence of such a trend. The article does give, IMHO, a very good summary of many of the ethical issues from both sides.

[geni]

Originally posted by Mercutio
In our local Sunday paper this morning, this story (http://www.fosters.com/September2004/09.26.04/news/cit_0926b.asp).
The drug is legal, she has a prescription, he is a pharmacist. It seems to me that becoming a pharmacist was "his choice"; if he cannot accept the consequences of that choice, time to get a new job.

People should be alowed to run their business however they like. If they run it in a way that will lose them custom that is thier problem. The pharmacist seems to be acepting the consequences in that he will be asked to do things that he views as unethical very well. That he choses to deal with this by not doing things he regarda as unethical should not be an issue.

[Lisa Simpson]

My feeling is if the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription is also the owner, he has every right not to sell that drug. However, if he is not--and I would say he probably isn't, since she got it filled there before--he doesn't get to make company policy.

A personal rant--How many times does this ditz have to get the morning after pill before she figures out the concept of birth control. What an idiot.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson

A personal rant--How many times does this ditz have to get the morning after pill before she figures out the concept of birth control. What an idiot. Note that the story specifies that she was also picking up her prescription for the patch.

[zenith-nadir]

Pharmacist Todd Sklencar should be able to sell - and not sell - what ever he wants. If he is a religious man and refuses to sell a product on moral grounds then the beauty of a free market economy is that Suzanne Richards can drive down the street to the next pharmacy. Life's too short to waste time on Pharmacist Todd Sklencar. ;)

[Linda]

I've seen several stories where nurses and pharmacists have refused to dispense the "morning-after" pill and each time I am infuriated and appalled. If you're against the concept, then don't take the pill, but you shouldn't have the right to inflict your sense of morality on another person if what they want to do is legal! AAARGH! :mad:

[geni]

Originally posted by Linda
I've seen several stories where nurses and pharmacists have refused to dispense the "morning-after" pill and each time I am infuriated and appalled. If you're against the concept, then don't take the pill, but you shouldn't have the right to inflict your sense of morality on another person if what they want to do is legal! AAARGH! :mad:

They arn't they are simply preventing them for buying the morning after pill in one shop.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Note that the story specifies that she was also picking up her prescription for the patch.

Yes, I know. But couldn't she have figured out birth control after the first time she had to get the morning after pill?

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Linda
I've seen several stories where nurses and pharmacists have refused to dispense the "morning-after" pill and each time I am infuriated and appalled. If you're against the concept, then don't take the pill, but you shouldn't have the right to inflict your sense of morality on another person if what they want to do is legal! AAARGH! :mad: But pharmacist Todd Sklencar is not infringing on Suzanne Richard's legal rights. She is free to go elsewhere and purchase the Morning After Pill. Problem solved.

People are free to decide what they will sell and what they won't sell. Companies do it all the time, for instance, Walmart censors certain magazines and books based on 'morality'. If Todd's a religious nut and doesn't wanna sell the pill then fine, Suzanne can buy her 'drugs' elsewhere. If the entire Pharmacy Association of New Hampshire decided to stop selling the Morning After Pill then that would be cause for attention. :)

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
A personal rant--How many times does this ditz have to get the morning after pill before she figures out the concept of birth control. What an idiot.

Well, remembering back to the days when I first became sexually active, I remember doing a few things that were governed more by hormones than by common sense, including unprotected sex. I think this behavior is pretty common for young people.

My understanding is that this morning after pill only prevents a fertalized egg from implanting in the uterine wall, and is usually taken the day after unprotected sex. This is not a case where this young woman had a couple of abortions before figuring out birth control. Rather, she used one kind of birth control when sex was new to her, and switched to a more permanent kind of birth control when she made a decision that sex was likely to be a regular part of her adult life. This, to me, sound like responsible adult behavior.

For those who say it is the "right" of any individual business owner to conduct their business as they wish, I agree. I would also add that in the same sense of freedom, I'd like to see a few insurance companies refuse to do business with pharmacies that place their individual religious beliefs above business practices. That makes sense too.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
Yes, I know. But couldn't she have figured out birth control after the first time she had to get the morning after pill?

The fact that she had a prescripton for the patch, suggests that she probably *had* 'figured out' birth control.

The fact that she had a prescription for the other pill as a back up, suggests that she probably wasn't such a ditz.

As far as the pharmacist goes, if one converts to Christian Science, do they now have the right to refuse to fill anyone's prescriptions?

[Lisa Simpson]

"But I’ve gotten this prescription filled here before," said a confused Richards.

That means at least once before, she has had to use the morning after pill. Now she is getting a patch and the morning after pill. So once again, she had sex without birth control, even though she had to know the consequences since she had used the morning after pill prior.

This is my own personal rant, anyway, and not the subject at hand.

[geni]

Originally posted by crimresearch

As far as the pharmacist goes, if one converts to Christian Science, do they now have the right to refuse to fill anyone's prescriptions?

Yup. They will go bankrupt in week but so?

[Pescado]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
So once again, she had sex without birth control

Not necessarily. When filling a prescription for birth control, doctors will routinely write prescriptions for the morning after pill "just in case" so that the woman may have it on hand if she is in need of it in the future. Since the sooner the pill(actually pills since it is really just an increased dose of normal birth control medication) is taken the more effective it is, it makes sense for all sexually active women to have a dose on hand in case of unprotected sex or birth control failure(ie; condom breaking).

However, it is also a possibility, as I believe you are saying, that she had to go get the Morning After Pill and the doctor also wrote her a prescription for the birth control patch. But this isn't the only explanation.

The MAP does have its drawbacks, though. It is much less effective than a properly used condom or Ortho(pill or patch), and it can have side effects such as nausea, which is unpleasant. These factors hopefully prevent this birth control method from being used as the only birth control method. However, better something than nothing I suppose.

[pgwenthold]

As a pharmacist, his job is to dispense the medication that doctors tell him to dispense. To refuse to do so requires that he has decided that this patient does not need the medication that the doctor has ordered. He has NO RIGHT and NO AUTHORITY to refuse dispensing prescribed medication. He is practicing medicine without a license and should be charged appropriately.

DOCTORS prescribe medicine. Pharamacists distribute that medication.

If he has a problem with that, then he must give up his pharmacist license.

[Drooper]

Originally posted by geni
People should be alowed to run their business however they like. If they run it in a way that will lose them custom that is thier problem. The pharmacist seems to be acepting the consequences in that he will be asked to do things that he views as unethical very well. That he choses to deal with this by not doing things he regarda as unethical should not be an issue.

I am usually pretty libertarian, but this is a little more complicated than that.

This isn't a shop we are talking about, but a pharmacy. This woman wanted to buy a controlled substance, for which she had obtained the required authority or script. She couldn't go to any old shop, because it is a controlled substance and as such there is no free market to provide these drugs.

I presume this pharmacist operates under licence from the state or federal authority, which imposes on him certain obligations in exchange for the right to sell control substances the 7-11 next door may not.

If it isn't part of his obligations under his licence, then it should be required that he meet the requirements of any legal request for regulated drugs.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
As a pharmacist, his job is to dispense the medication that doctors tell him to dispense. To refuse to do so requires that he has decided that this patient does not need the medication that the doctor has ordered. He has NO RIGHT and NO AUTHORITY to refuse dispensing prescribed medication. He is practicing medicine without a license and should be charged appropriately.

DOCTORS prescribe medicine. Pharamacists distribute that medication.

If he has a problem with that, then he must give up his pharmacist license. Agreed!

A pharmacy is not a grocery or a hard-ware store. An ordinary shop-keeper can choose what to sell at his own discretion, but a pharmacy is NOT an ordinary store. Regardless of local rules, a pharmacist has a moral obligation to make available the drugs that can be expected to be prescribed to people.

Here in Denmark, a pharmacist needs authorisation, and he is legally obliged to honor prescriptions, regardless of his own convictions.

Actually, even those who have advocated fredom of choice for the pharmacist will probably agree with this if we take the case a little further: Suppose this pharmacist becomes convinced by reading Kumar's posts here and decides to refuse to honor prescriptions for anything but homeopathic remedies and tissue salts. Would you still think it was OK and that he should be allowed to call his shop a pharmacy?

Hans

[Cleon]

This has been in the news a lot lately...It makes me wonder if this is an orchestrated campaign by the anti-abortion crowd.

It makes sense if you think about it; I remember the attempts by Operation Rescue about, ooh, 10 years ago or so to try and shut clinics down by chaining themselves to the doors or lying down in front of cars coming into the parking lot (this stopped working so well when one guy finally drove over the $%*&ers). Their capability to mobilize non-violent--and, of course, sometimes violent--nationwide campaigns is fairly substantial, and I can see them trying to focus on pharmacists. It would make for good right-to-life PR to have a lot of pharmacists "taking a stand for moral principles." It makes it seem like there's a medical case for their BS.

[TragicMonkey]

Too bad the right-to-lifers don't concentrate their energies on promoting condom use, which would certainly reduce the number of abortions, not to mention disease.

[Hutch]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
People are free to decide what they will sell and what they won't sell. Companies do it all the time, for instance, Walmart censors certain magazines and books based on 'morality'. If Todd's a religious nut and doesn't wanna sell the pill then fine, Suzanne can buy her 'drugs' elsewhere. If the entire Pharmacy Association of New Hampshire decided to stop selling the Morning After Pill then that would be cause for attention. :)


You know, it seems many have made the assumption that the pharmacist is the owner....most pharmacies these days are part of larger drugstore chains and I wonder how much independence this guy has got regarding "company' policy.

Just a thought..

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Hutch
You know, it seems many have made the assumption that the pharmacist is the owner....most pharmacies these days are part of larger drugstore chains and I wonder how much independence this guy has got regarding "company' policy.

Just a thought..

You know, that's essentially what I said in my first post, but it got lost amidst my rant.

Where does it end, anyway? I went to get my son's asthma medicine filled yesterday and I got a lecture from the pharmacist on how asthma is over-diagnosed these days. He still sold me the inhaler, but I could live without the lecture, thank you very much.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Lisa Simpson
You know, that's essentially what I said in my first post, but it got lost amidst my rant.

Where does it end, anyway? I went to get my son's asthma medicine filled yesterday and I got a lecture from the pharmacist on how asthma is over-diagnosed these days. He still sold me the inhaler, but I could live without the lecture, thank you very much.

I would ask him on what he is basing his claim. Unless it is based on clinical literature, it is meaningless. In order to claim otherwise that it was over-diagnosed, he would have to be diagnosing it himself. Again, he has no business diagnosing illness and certainly can't let that affect the prescription medication he dispenses. I'm glad he gave you the medication the doctor wanted you to have, but it is important to put an end to pharamacists pretending to play doctor.

[El Greco]

As a pharmacist, I can only imagine what would happen should I decide not to sell the morning-after pill, prescribed or not. The woman would go blank for a while, then would keep staring at me with goggle eyes for a couple of minutes. After the initial surprise, something like that would follow:

"What the f*ck ? Are you f*cking out of your f*cking mind ? Is this some kind of f*cking sick joke ? Are you going to give me the f*cking pill or should I start f*cking this place up ?"

Perhaps it would be fun to try it sometime...

[Tmy]

Brooks Pharmacy is a large chain. So its not privately owned by the pharmamsist. Im sure teh company has policies against this behavior.

What troubles me is that this is medically related and timing can be very important. We're not talkig about a paper that refuses to print and offensive add. Its not always so easy to go down the street and have your drugs filled.

Can you imagine if all employees were free to impose there beliefs on others?? "Sorry miss. I cant arrest your husband for hitting you. My religion says its OK. Go find another Police Officer."

[geni]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
I would ask him on what he is basing his claim. Unless it is based on clinical literature, it is meaningless. In order to claim otherwise that it was over-diagnosed, he would have to be diagnosing it himself. Again, he has no business diagnosing illness and certainly can't let that affect the prescription medication he dispenses. I'm glad he gave you the medication the doctor wanted you to have, but it is important to put an end to pharamacists pretending to play doctor.

In some cases the lititure does support his claims

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15281326

[geni]

Originally posted by El Greco
As a pharmacist, I can only imagine what would happen should I decide not to sell the morning-after pill, prescribed or not. The woman would go blank for a while, then would keep staring at me with goggle eyes for a couple of minutes. After the initial surprise, something like that would follow:

"What the f*ck ? Are you f*cking out of your f*cking mind ? Is this some kind of f*cking sick joke ? Are you going to give me the f*cking pill or should I start f*cking this place up ?"

Perhaps it would be fun to try it sometime...

What would you do if you ran out?

[geni]

Originally posted by Tmy


Can you imagine if all employees were free to impose there beliefs on others?? "Sorry miss. I cant arrest your husband for hitting you. My religion says its OK. Go find another Police Officer."

Police are govenmet agents.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by geni
What would you do if you ran out?

If I was on duty and she couldn't find another pharmacy easily, I'd give her a normal contraceptive in modified (increased) dosage (depending on the contraceptive). It's the same thing.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by geni
Police are govenmet agents.

So what? Pharmacists are specially licenesed by the govt. Whats your point.

Plus medical records and backgrounds are strictally confidental and protected by law. Isnt this druggist violating her privacy. Hes supposedto be a robot and hand out the drugs that are ordered. It is not his job to decide whether she needs it or not. In a sense he shared her private information with his personal self.

[geni]

Originally posted by Tmy
[B]So what? Pharmacists are specially licenesed by the govt. Whats your point.

So is every legal driver. They are still allowed not to drive

Plus medical records and backgrounds are strictally confidental and protected by law. Isnt this druggist violating her privacy. Hes supposedto be a robot and hand out the drugs that are ordered. It is not his job to decide whether she needs it or not.


Don't know about the US but that stament is incorrect in the uk (in the uk they are also meant to be able to cheack to make sure presciptions are not going to cause proble,ms in combenation).


In a sense he shared her private information with his personal self.


Err rather a big leap there.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by geni
So is every legal driver. They are still allowed not to drive
.

But you cant just drive in any manner you choose. Its not like the druggist refused to work for a company. They are at work and refused to fill a script. Sort of like parking in the highways fastlane.

My woory is how far you can take this. Can an ER doctor refuse to treat this chick when shes in labor? "Sorry whore, I dont deliver bastards."

IF a company doesnt want to sell this stuff dont they have a duty to advertise that to the public?? I see stores that have signs saying they dont carry OXYCOTIN.

[geni]

Originally posted by Tmy
[B]But you cant just drive in any manner you choose. Its not like the druggist refused to work for a company. They are at work and refused to fill a script. Sort of like parking in the highways fastlane.

Do you know the companies policy in this area?


My woory is how far you can take this. Can an ER doctor refuse to treat this chick when shes in labor? "Sorry whore, I dont deliver bastards."

If you belive in a capiterlist system of medcine then yes (I don't sop this is not a problem as far as I am concerned)


IF a company doesnt want to sell this stuff dont they have a duty to advertise that to the public?? I see stores that have signs saying they dont carry OXYCOTIN.

That is just a matter of convience. It wiould make everyones live's easer if they did but they don't have to.

[mjv]

The article appears to imply the pharmacist was dealt with. It mentions that the original guy is "on vacation" and a new pharmacist who was transferred in was willing to fill the prescription.

People assuming the woman has used the MAP before are jumping to conclusions. Yes she mentions she has had the prescription filled before. That does not necessarily mean she is having unprotected sex. The prescription for birth control is more indicative that she takes precautions. It could be she keeps or uses the MAP as a "just in case" measure.

Like it or not, in most cases a pharmacist does have discretion in filling prescriptions. But the pharmacist should certainly be held accountable for the way in which they excercise their discretion.

[mjv]

Originally posted by Tmy

My woory is how far you can take this. Can an ER doctor refuse to treat this chick when shes in labor? "Sorry whore, I dont deliver bastards."

Originally posted by geni

If you belive in a capiterlist system of medcine then yes (I don't sop this is not a problem as far as I am concerned)

No, the can't do that in an Emergency Room.

They are legally obligated to treat any and all who show up.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by mjv
No, the can't do that in an Emergency Room.

They are legally obligated to treat any and all who show up.

So the big question is should Pharmacists have the same obligation??

Im sure the big chains have rules requireing that they do. I could just see the huge liability suit should somthing happen to a person who was refused service based on personal ethics.

[Skeptical Greg]

"When I realized what he was saying, I pulled the car over in the parking lot and just cried."

:rolleyes:

[gnome]

I am reminded of the "snotty clerk" blonde on MAD TV that keeps turning people away for moral reasons and eventually gets fired.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Diogenes
:rolleyes:

HAHA, no kidding. Thats a total "mental anguish" lawsuit set up answer.

Heres what she really thought "Holy crap, I can only have oral sex tonight!"

[Linda]

Originally posted by mjv
No, the can't do that in an Emergency Room.

They are legally obligated to treat any and all who show up.

And yet I have heard (and this is only anecdotal; I have no sources to confirm it, but I don't doubt that it's happened) that a rape victim was refused a morning after pill because the ER nurse didn't believe in it. Whether the victim was able to obtain it from someone else, I don't know. I would hope so.

My position on abortion or the MAP...if you're against it, don't have one. But you have no right to impose your beliefs on anyone else....especially since it's legal.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by geni
In some cases the lititure does support his claims



That's why I said to ask. If the pharmacists mentiones peer reviewed studies, the proper thing to do is to ask the doctor.

Moreover, even if there are clinical studies that support the claim, they are irrelevent in the case at hand, where the diagnosis depends solely on the symptoms of the patient and not whether it has been misdiagnosed in the past.

It is the responsibility of the doctors to diagnose and prescribe. The pharmacist's job is to dispense the medication s/he is told to dispense.

[mjv]

Originally posted by Linda
And yet I have heard (and this is only anecdotal; I have no sources to confirm it, but I don't doubt that it's happened) that a rape victim was refused a morning after pill because the ER nurse didn't believe in it. Whether the victim was able to obtain it from someone else, I don't know. I would hope so.

Never heard that story before.

Closest I've heard of was a case a year or so ago in Denton, Texas where a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for a rape victim. He was fired, but IIRC it was only because the pharmacy had a specific prohibition against refusing to fill prescriptions based on racial or religious reasons.

[Dorian Gray]

If the pharmacist was the owner, he might not have to fill the Rx - but he risks losing customers. If not, he has to fill it, so he should be fired.

A personal rant--How many times does this ditz have to get the morning after pill before she figures out the concept of birth control. Apparently just once:

LACONIA — On a recent Saturday night, a local woman went to a drive-through pharmacy to pick up a prescription for a birth control patch[b]

Yes, I know. But couldn't she have figured out birth control after the first time she had to get the morning after pill? How do you know that wasn't the first time?

That means at least once before, she has [b]had to use the morning after pill. No, it doesn't. She may just be overly cautious. Why else would she feel it necessary to take the morning after pill when she already has birth control?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by geni
Do you know the companies policy in this area?




That is irrelevent. What is the government's policy on this? The government is the one who licenses the pharmacist, not the company.


This is not a capitalism issue. There are restrictions that come with being granted a license to dispense prescription medication. The pharmacist can no more refuse to dispense prescribed medication than he can hand it out without a prescription.

If a pharmacist were to be caught dispensing medication without a prescription, you would never ask "What is the companies policy (sic)?" The same applies here.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
That is irrelevent. What is the government's policy on this? The government is the one who licenses the pharmacist, not the company.

This is not a capitalism issue. There are restrictions that come with being granted a license to dispense prescription medication. The pharmacist can no more refuse to dispense prescribed medication than he can hand it out without a prescription.

If a pharmacist were to be caught dispensing medication without a prescription, you would never ask "What is the companies policy (sic)?" The same applies here.

Yeah, but generally the government only licenses what you *can* do, not what you *must* do. A doctor can refuse to perform a specific prodedure, like abortion, if they disagree with it. A lawyer can refuse to take a case for any reason. A pilot can refuse to carry cargo for any reason. (Hell, these days, a commercial airline pilot has the authority to kick you off a plane if you make him "nervous.") All of these are licensed professionals, which allows them to carry on their trade, but doesn't dictate the terms that they do.

[geni]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
It is the responsibility of the doctors to diagnose and prescribe. The pharmacist's job is to dispense the medication s/he is told to dispense.

No it isn't. Why do you think paramacists have so many qualifcations? If the job was what you portrayed then they wouldn't need those qualifications.

[Lisa Simpson]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray



How do you know that wasn't the first time?

No, it doesn't. She may just be overly cautious. Why else would she feel it necessary to take the morning after pill when she already has birth control?

Because she said she'd had the MAP prescription filled there before. That usually indicates she's had unprotected sex. There are other possibilites, I agree.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Cleon
Yeah, but generally the government only licenses what you *can* do, not what you *must* do. A doctor can refuse to perform a specific prodedure, like abortion, if they disagree with it. A lawyer can refuse to take a case for any reason. A pilot can refuse to carry cargo for any reason. (Hell, these days, a commercial airline pilot has the authority to kick you off a plane if you make him "nervous.") All of these are licensed professionals, which allows them to carry on their trade, but doesn't dictate the terms that they do.

These comparisons all fail, though, becuase they lack the thing present in this case: a directive.

In fact, if someone with authority comes along, they _can_ force pilots to carry cargo they don't want. For example, the pilot cannot refuse to allow the FBI to bring a suspected terrorist on a plane if they chose to do so (in fact, innocent customers suffer because they will lose their seat).

In this case, the doctor is authorized directly by the state to chose the medication best suited to treat the patient (which accounts for your abortion example, btw). The doctor is the one who tells the pharmacist what to dispense to the patient.

It goes back to my original point: the pharmacist who refuses to give prescribed medication is effectively practicing medicine without a license. Suppose a patient with pneumonia showed up with a prescription for antibiotic, and the pharmacist refused to fill it on the grounds that antibiotics are overprescribed. How is that not a case of the pharmacist deciding that the patient does not need medicine?

The pharmacist is _not_ licensed to make that decision, and therefore there cannot be any discretion. As long as the doctor is prescribing legal medication, the pharmacist has no business applying his/her judgement about whether it is appropriate for the patient.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by geni
No it isn't. Why do you think paramacists have so many qualifcations? If the job was what you portrayed then they wouldn't need those qualifications.

Technically, they don't. Modern pharmacists are nothing but glorified pill counters (shoot, even things like "medication interactions" are now handled through an automated system and don't require scientific training). However, because of the requirements of handling controlled substances, they are required to go through extensive training. That training is mostly in chemistry, not medicine.

Advanced degrees in pharm are very useful in the areas of things like drug design and development, and don't have much with dispensing pills at the local store.

[AtheistArchon]

- I have to say I'm leaning towards pg's position here, although I don't know if it would stand up in a courtroom or not.

- The pharmacist trains in order to ensure the prescriptions that a doctor makes don't conflict with each other, or that the medicines don't have some obscure quirk when combined. That, and to alleviate the doctor from actually being a pharmacist unto himself. If a doctor prescribes something for me, then right there, look at all the conditions that have been met:

1. MY doctor, the one I picked and the one I trust, prescribed the drug. A pro-life doctor with religious objections to the MAP? He tells his patients something different, and the patient either takes it or gets a second opinion.

2. The doctor is (presumably) qualified to prescribe it. Pharmacists are not, nor are they qualified to deny drugs to a patient, unless that drug has some unseen side effect unforeseen by the doctor that would endanger the health of the patient.

3. Abortion isn't illegal, nor is the MAP. The religious objections of the pharmacist don't override those of my doctor, nor my own.

- Basically, any pharmacist denying the MAP to a patient with a valid prescription is taking medicine into their own hands based merely on their own religious beliefs. They become preachers first and medical professionals second... no thank you. The last thing we need these days are modern-day witchdoctors.

[Pescado]

The most ironic part about this whole story is that the MAP is not unique in how it works. From what I understand of it, the pill(and I presume also the patch) not only prevents an egg from being fertilized, but also causes a thickening of the mucus that lines the uterine wall, preventing implantation in the case of a fertilization. Essentially the exact same thing that the MAP does. In order to discriminate against patients on a religious basis consistently, this pharmacist needs to stop filling prescriptions for more than just the MAP.

[El Greco]

I long for the day that a pharmacist's job will be that carefree in Greece too (although by that day I'll probably be doing another job...) Oh, how I'd love to just fill in prescriptions... For the time being, I give about 25% of medicines without a prescription and another 50% with ....hmm... "careless" prescriptions. Besides medicines, there's always the OTC stuff, preparations, orthopedics, cosmetics, supplements, chemicals, etc... Not to mention the literally thousands of health fraud products (homeopathics, copper bracelets, Bach remedies, etc). How far from a "glorified pill counter", although I'd love to be one :D

[daenku32]

I firmly support the notion of fining the pharmacist. If I was his supervisor/manager I'd fire him for not doing his job.

[El Greco]

And to make it slightly more interesting, I also cannot refuse to fill a prescription of a homeopathic doctor. I am also not allowed to criticize it. Hmmmm.... I'd better ask Randi what would he do if he were in my shoes... :D

[fishbob]

As a pharmacist, his job is to dispense the medication that doctors tell him to dispense. If he wishes to not dispense certain medications, then he should notify local physicians of his decision. His silence to the physicians implies a full service pharmacy business.

Then physicians can notify patients, patients can spend their time going to pharmacists that will provide the prescribed medications. Then Mr. Morality can quietly go broke.

[Art Vandelay]

A pharmacist is someone who, among other things, dispenses the MAP. Someone who claims to be a pharmicist but does not do so is engaging in fraud. They are engaging in false advertisement and unfair competition, taking customers away from other stores that dispense MAP. A person has the right to not sell the MAP if they wish, but they don't have the right to claim to be a pharmacist and not sell it.

[El Greco]

His purpose was more than to avoid to dispense the pill. He could easily do so if he had said that he ran out of it, without any fuss or any publicity. This was just an excuse for him to make a pathetic preaching.

[Psiload]

Along these same lines...

There is a clerk who works at a grocery store in my town who refuses to sell alcoholic beverages to pregnant women. She's a crochety old biddy who wears a crucifix that is no less than 1/5th scale size of the cross that Jesus was (allegedly) cruicified upon.

She usually accompanies her refusal with a brow beating, and a 'for shame' speech. My wife is an Ob/Gyn doctor and she frequently hears stories about the clerk from her patients... she even gave one a "note from her doctor" which permitted her one drink per week to present to the clerk.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Psiload
Along these same lines...

There is a clerk who works at a grocery store in my town who refuses to sell alcoholic beverages to pregnant women. She's a crochety old biddy who wears a crucifix that is no less than 1/5th scale size of the cross that Jesus was (allegedly) cruicified upon.

She usually accompanies her refusal with a brow beating, and a 'for shame' speech. My wife is an Ob/Gyn doctor and she frequently hears stories about the clerk from her patients... she even gave one a "note from her doctor" which permitted her one drink per week to present to the clerk.

I wonder if the clerk is willing to sell condoms, or does she have a moral position on that, too? Nice to know the moral decisions are safely out of the hands of the consumer, and into the hands of retail staff!

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Psiload
There is a clerk who works at a grocery store in my town who refuses to sell alcoholic beverages to pregnant women. She's a crochety old biddy who wears a crucifix that is no less than 1/5th scale size of the cross that Jesus was (allegedly) cruicified upon
Has anyone tried this response? "It's not for me. It's for my alcoholic husband. You'd better give it to me, because if come back empty handed, he'll get really angry and beat me". Or "I'm not pregnant, and I resent your commenting on my weight". Seriously, does she not realize that often women are in charge of food shopping, regardless of whether they are consuming it? Does she refuse to sell tampons to men?

[Psiload]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Has anyone tried this response? "It's not for me. It's for my alcoholic husband. You'd better give it to me, because if come back empty handed, he'll get really angry and beat me". Or "I'm not pregnant, and I resent your commenting on my weight". Seriously, does she not realize that often women are in charge of food shopping, regardless of whether they are consuming it? Does she refuse to sell tampons to men? Yes... some women have tried the, "It's for my husband." gambit. She gives them a 'you can't fool Mother Superior' smirk, and refuses to budge. She's kind of a local character, and nobody takes her seriously. She once ran for some local political position on the Right to Life party ticket. It was a publicity stunt, she had no chance of winning, but it did make for some entertaining fare on the public access TV station. She "debated" her opponents, and it went something like this:

Debate Moderator: "Mother Superior, what do you think should be done about the problem of traffic gridlock on Main Street?"

Mother Superior: "Well, if all these godless heathen harlots weren't so busy rushing to the abortion clinic to murder their unborn children, we wouldn't have all of these traffic problems!"

To borrow from Douglas Adams...

she's mostly harmless.

[Mercutio]

Following up the article...the paper also polled readers for their opinions, and report the results this week. (http://www.fosters.com/October_2004/10.10.04/news/su_1010d.asp) As of Thursday, 739 readers had responded and an overwhelming majority — 633 or 86 percent — said that a pharmacist should not refuse to fill legal and medically appropriate prescriptions based on personal beliefs or biases.

Approximately 14 percent, or 102 of the readers who responded to our question, answered that a pharmacist should be allowed to follow his or her beliefs and deny patients prescriptions to which they are morally opposed.
Many respondents are quoted at length.

[nightwind]

Well, if the druggist owns the place, you probably can't do much except go elsewhere . There are probably plenty of other pharmacist who are not morons. I'm not sure if pharmacist have an oath they have to abide by or not. If so, maybe they could be sued. If not then maybe they should. In any event, they should not be trying to legislate their particular morality to others.

If they are employed by a store, then they need to be fired for not doing their job.