Pharmacy Refuses Birth Control Sales
 

Isn't there a law in the States against this? Or maybe I've got it backwards and it's a law allowing it?

Oh, re-read the quote and I see that in some states there is that law. Anyways, if you want to refuse a prescription for birth control, then I am of the opinion that you had better make sure that there is someone else who will provide them with their prescription. It's one thing if you don't want to give the prescription, but it's not okay with me that you are preventing someone from obtaining the medication that they need.

I have a hard time with situations like this. I understand people want to be pharmacists and not compromise their beliefs to do so, but, at the same time, I don't see how it is in any way a pharmacist's business to do anything but to provide the medicines prescribed by doctors to patients. It'd be like the guy at the counter of an electronics store not wanting to give you the TV you bought from the PoS with the salesman because he doesn't like the brand. Their function is not to decide who gets what kind of medicine or how much of that medicine to give someone or how to use it. Their function is purely as a middle man to package the bulk pharmaceuticals into smaller packages for individual use.

I guess when I think about it, I think that if you decide to be a pharmacist, you should have to leave your opinions at the door, unless you can provide the person with a reasonable alternative to procure their medicine. If you're the only place within 1000 miles, tough cookies. If you didn't want to provide medicine to people based on your beliefs, you should've found a different line of work.

I think this is ridiculous. If the patient has a prescription then they should have to fill it. If my beliefs said I shouldn't sell anything to black people would that make it ok for me not to serve black people?

Agreed. Things like this that seem to put us back several hundred years piss me off to no end.

It's your responsibility to find a pharmacist willing to offer you what you want. Or, rather, sometimes it is and always it should be.

Or you could try making the contraceptive yourself. Then you can credibly claim a 'right'.
-----Added 23/10/2008 at 07 : 44 : 35-----
Should you be allowed to refuse a voluntary transaction of some of your stuff for some of someone else's stuff? Of course.
-----Added 23/10/2008 at 07 : 46 : 32-----
Then you can fire that pharmacist.

What? You're not the employer?

Then why is it any of your business?

This is just one drug store. There are other drug stores in the area (a Rite-Aid, and a Kmart with a pharmacy are both nearby). They are going for a certain niche market. They are practicing in a state where the business practice they have chosen is legal.

I really see no problem with their policy. Everyone knows what to expect when they walk into this store. With a name like "Divine Mercy" it's glaringly obvious that they would like to uphold their faith.

I cannot fault them. I also would not go out of my way to support their business.

What next? Will the pharmacy start selling papal indulgences? Maybe the pharmacists should be cross-trained as pardoners.

What's with the painkillers and acne treatments? Isn't this vanity and the skipping-out on sufferance?

What an odd little store.

However, I can't say it's wrong of them to decide what they do or do not sell if they aren't breaking the law. Some stores don't sell cultural products featuring profanity or sex. That isn't something new.

It's my business when people who have been prescribed medicine cannot get that medicine because a holier-than-thou pharmacist puts his individual beliefs above the medical needs of a patient and the medical advice of a doctor.

Now, as indicated, in this particular instance, that doesn't seem to be a problem, because there are easily accessible alternatives. My concern is what would happen if such a pharmacy were to be the only reasonably accessible pharmacy. I believe that the need of the patients to have their prescriptions fulfilled outweighs the need of the pharmacist to take his moral stand.

But then you get into an obnoxious mess about what is "reasonable" access and "necessary" prescriptions. So I say, do away with it.

This is a privately owned business. Why should anyone have the right to come in and dictate what they must, and must not sell, so long as they operate within the law? Profitability will ultimately decide if the concept and the pharmacy survive.

Suppose a pharmacist decides to get out of the business and convert his pharmacy to a skating rink. Suppose also that his pharmacy is the only reasonably accessible pharmacy for many people. Should he be forced to stay in the business? Does the need of his customers to have their prescriptions filled outweigh his desire to change his business? What if he wants to retire instead, and a replacement can't be found?

There's a Planned Parenthood in Farifax (less than 2 miles from Chantilly). People needing birth control should go there.

Despite having differing feelings on this topic, inBOIL's comment clarified this for me.

For those who feel that the pharmacists should be forced in some way to provide what you feel he should provide, what then is the solution? USPS (US Pharmacy Service)?

I don't feel the pharmacist should be forced, a la inBOIL's comment coupled with others. Perhaps a direct USPS route to the manufacturer? But then they need a server-side system to manage prescriptions :\.

Pharmacists make this so much easier ><.

I guess it is up to them to decide what they will sell in their own store. Shame though, there are other uses for birth control pills. There is always another way.

There are online pharmacies, and I'm sure they sell more than just viagra. It may take a little more planning than dropping off your prescription on the way to work and picking it up on the way home, but I think this is a viable option for most people. It may cost more, but there are so many important goods (food, electricity, gasoline) that cost more in some areas than others.

i have no problem with him not selling whatever he wants. its his store. his business. if me dow ell, and good luck. he may not, and he'll reap what he sows.

theres no difference from say an owner of a 7-11 store who decides he's not going to sell playboy in his store. i have no problem with that either.

like GG said. its not illegal, so be it.

This isn't the pharmacist refusing to sell prescription drugs based upon his own personal beliefs. This is a pharmacy setting up a business model. The name of the pharmacy is even Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy. You kinda know what you're gonna get before you walk in the door. This ain't your father's Rite-Aid.
I have absolutely 0 problem with that. The business will either succeed or fail based upon that model. It will either attract customers, or it will repel them. If you disagree with their business practices, then go to Walgreen's. I would.

Very well said. I have strong feelings about a right to birth control, but I don't think there is a corollary duty of all pharmacists to fill that prescription.

Now I seem to remember hearing about a case a couple of years ago where a big-box pharmacist (Wal-Mart? Target? something along those lines) objected to filling a prescription to b.c. on moral grounds, refused to fill it, AND refused to return the prescription to the customer. Now THAT i'd be pissy about....

SabrinaFair?

Wow! Now there's a name that I haven't seen in a looong time.

Welcome home.

Nope, still isn't your business. Because it isn't the pharmacist's responsibility to take care of every last person with a medical need. The pharmacist's responsibility is to do an adequate job of taking care of those people that s/he chooses to take on.

[/quote]I believe that the need of the patients to have their prescriptions fulfilled outweighs the need of the pharmacist to take his moral stand.[/quote]

That's the problem with a 'right' to medical care: it inevitably intrudes upon property rights in unjust ways. 'Need' != 'right'.

Well, personally, I find it shocking. I think some fields should be regulated more than others, and that applies to pharmacies. And that you can't let personal feelings of pharmacists enter in this, much like doctors are bound by the hippocratic oath. So if a product (birth control) is legitimate, then it should be available, and the pharmacist should not be able to deny it to customers. I don't particularly care if the right of the pharmacist to do whatever they want is infringed upon; in many ways they're already a heavily regulated business in what they can sell or not, and that's the way it should be in my opinion.

But it's not like I'm a libertarian anyway.

No no you guys, you have it all wrong. For you see, this particular pharmacy is actually a physical rift in space time and is a portal back to the year 1923.
Wonder if they make black people stand in a different line in this pharmacy.....
This is just typical reactionary crap from people who think on the right (wrong) side of things.
edit: A pharmacy is tantamount to a public service. A lot of small towns only have one or two pharmacies in them. To deny a basic thing such as birth control merely starts things down a slippery slope: if one place refuses to sell birth control, obviously they would then refuse to sell condoms. And what of treatment of venereal disease? These kinds of crazy right wing places (and the church's stance) say that VD is just god's punishment, so sooner or later said pharmacy cuts back on their basic treatment of disease. It may, on paper, be a private business, but in reality a pharmacy is just as important to the public as a fire hydrant.

There was another thread on TFP about Pharmacies refusing to fill prescriptions a few years ago. It was something about a pharmacy refusing to fill a prescription that couldn't be filled within x miles. This isn't exactly the same thing though. This is about a company deciding not to sell a specific product and that's cool. I don't go to Home Depot looking for tennis shoes, I wouldn't go to a christian pro-life pharmacy to get some morning after pills. I did have a problem with the Wisconsin pharmacy mentioned in the article refusing to fill a prescription then refusing to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy though.

To quote the Dude, "That's just, like, your opinion, man."

I think ktsp really said it well. I don't think pharmacists are "just another business owner." I think they have a unique duty to individuals who come in with prescriptions, and that duty is to fill the prescription given by a doctor to the patient. They don't get to decide to give more or less or a different medicine. Their job is to enable patients to receive the medicine they're prescribed. That's not a "right" to medical care, that's simply the definition of a pharmacy. If someone has a problem with that, I think he has found himself in the wrong field.

frost, does a grocery store have a "unique duty" to provide food for those who can't afford it? Does your local Sell station have a "unique duty" to sell gas at a price that the poorest can afford? At what point does the government have the right to regulate what "must" be sold, at what price? And far, far more importantly, who gets to decide?

For the second time I find mcgeedo summing up my thoughts. xD

Like many others above, I'd simply go somewhere else. But where I think the line needs to be drawn is when the pharmacist refuses to give back the prescription, or refusing to transfer it, preventing the person from obtaining it at all. That's interfering with another's rights.

mcgeedo, I think your grocery store analogy is poor. As Frosstbyte says, a pharmacy is a pharmacy. Not a grocery store. It should be regulated differently. Personal beliefs of the pharmacist should not be allowed to enter into it. We are not talking about a pharmacist denying the poor their medicine. We're talking about a pharmacist denying any person the choice to buy contraception. A pharmacy, is a business that cashes in on peoples' medical needs and in some cases, misfortune. I think the pharmacist is wrong to be forcing his own beliefs upon others, especially in light of the kind of business he has decided to open.

ok a spanner in the works..

say someone who lives next door to this pharmacy....falls pregnant. can they sue this dude for not providing a service of selling contraception?? i think not.

if not, i doubt you can force the guy to sell contraception just because society tells him to.

i personally think its wrong..but its his choice at the end of the day. he's probably selling to a specific market that have the same ideology.

in sydney you have areas where halal food is not sold only by muslim population, but by non muslims too. only for the fact that its what the market is asking forfor those pockets of areas. if the market is hot for something and you provide the goods or services that generate business, then i have no problem with it. unless its drugs or something like that.

OB/GYN doctors are not required to perform abortions. Conscientious objectors are not required to fight and kill in wars. We do not force parents to inoculate their children if it is against their religious beliefs, even though it may pose a danger to other children. One of this country's founding concepts is the belief that every person has the right to exercise (or not) their religious beliefs. The key word there is "exercise", not just have beliefs, but live by them.

If you don't want to dispense legitimate medication to someone who has a prescription, you should find a career in another field. What if they refused to dispense Ritalin because they believe ADD isn't a real disorder? What if a Christian Scientist ... well now I just have a hilarious mental image of an empty Christian Science pharmacy.

Or a Scientology pharmacy with only vitamins and e-meters. Would they get a tax break?

but ADD isnt a real disorder.. :D

ok just kidding..


i see your point, but at what point do you tell religious people that they cannot do there job based on religious views? once again ill bring in the halal analogy....its like telling a halal buchery that is either forced to sell pork with everything else or just close shop because society doesnt agree with him.

No, you should find another store. As the sibling of someone who takes Ritalin for ADHD, you find another store.

We once didn't even have ritalin. How the hell can it be a right? How the hell can someone have a 'duty' to provide it? Are you really sure you're not confusing 'duty' with 'it would be nice if they did this'?

A pharmacist isn't and shouldn't be bound to enter into every possible transaction that their license allows, no more than an OB/GYN is required to handle every single patient request. You misdefine the profession and confuse 'the patient wants this' with 'the pharmacist owes this'.

What is being confused is not rights OR duty. It's "I want" and therefore "I deserve." The government has to take care of me because I can't take care of myself.

This pharmacist is in a situation where he is not only the pharmacist, but the owner of the company. This gives him the ability to make the business policy. Most chain pharmacies sell contraceptives, and a pharmacist who cannot live with the corporate policy in a chain like that does not belong working there. It is not up to the corporation to accommodate his beliefs, it's up to him to find a place of employment that will leave him with a clear conscience.

I would take the halal analogy and turn it around. Should all butchers be required to sell halal meats? After all, it would create severe emotional distress for an observant person who could not obtain the type of meat that they need. Just as it might create severe emotional distress for a woman who can't obtain her prescription in that pharmacy. When does the individual need outweigh the right of the owner of a private business?

Fool Them All makes an excellent point. Just because you have a full capacity of decisions to make as a professional, does not mean you have to enact all those decisions. Forcing a person to take an action against their good conscience is wrong.

I never said it was a right. Just as I wouldn't choose to become a police officer because I would not be willing to enforce certain laws, someone who is unwilling to dispense medication to patients should not choose to become a pharmacist.

A couple of comments/questions.

I think the semantics of this story are all wrong. The continued use of "refusing to sell" is misleading. That makes it sound as if he has a stockpile on hand, but refuses to distribute it. When the truth of the matter is, he simply chooses not to carry that product. I've gone to pharmacies before, with a prescription for various medicines, and been informed that they don't carry that product. They don't tell me whether that decision, is based on philosophical, financial, or logistical reasons. Simply, "we don't have that". So I go somewhere else.

So they could deny someone a prescription because they are black?

Are candy and carbonated beverages against the Catholic church? I also think that it's interesting that they didn't mention cigarettes.

Lastly, I wonder if they sell Kleenex?

I'm apparently not explaining myself very well or very clearly. I do not think of pharmacists as normal business owners who fill the normal role of an individual deciding he needs or wants something and coming to a store and purchasing it from a store selected for purposes of convenience or price or brand goodwill or anything else. They're not like a meat store (halal or otherwise) or a hardware store. I don't go to my pharmacist for him to make any decision or to provide any advice. I go to him because he is a middle man between my doctor and the pharmaceutical industry, and that is all I expect him to be. I expect them to discretely and efficiently provide people with the prescriptions doctors give them and nothing else. I think that it is inappropriate, given that situation, for pharmacists to decide not to provide any type of doctor prescribed drug based on personal beliefs. Ideally, I'd say toss the whole concept and let people get their drugs from doctors or pharmaceutical companies directly so we don't have to worry about nonsense like this.

I'm evidently not going to convince any of you of this, but so it goes.

No, frosst, you're explaining yourself very well. You said "I do not think of pharmacists as normal business owners" but many people do. That's the difference. You have different expectations of what a pharmacist must or should do than some of us.

You also said "Ideally, I'd say toss the whole concept and let people get their drugs..." and I would complete that sentence "from a business that caters to their particular predjucies, rather than mandating that all business people must think the same as you and believe the same as you. "

I don't think it's been mentioned yet in keeping with the context of the profession, but pharmacists aren't just another business owner. They have responsibilities related to their profession. They even have a code of ethics. Many of them do, at least. Directly from the Ontario College of Pharmacists, this particular principle is related to this issue:

I saw at least one other code that listed something similar. It was sourced to the U.S.

This pharmacist might be breaking a code of ethics here. I couldn't find anything on Virginian pharmacists off the bat, but you never know.

EDIT: What's at issue is that this pharmacist not only refused the fill the prescriptions, they also refused to transfer it. I'm still not entirely sure what that means. Does this mean it would be impossible to fill it elsewhere? Is it possible to get the doctor to do it, or maybe write another one for another pharmacy?

Either way, by refusing to transfer would be in violation of the code in Ontario. So now I'm wondering if there is a similar code in Virginia.

You can't transfer a prescription that wasn't filled in the first place. If they wouldn't give back the slip (which is theft), then have the doctor write another one.

Baraka... Yes, a pharmacist is just another business owner. Just as a doctor in private practice is a business owner and chooses who he or she accepts as a patient. This is usually, but not always, based on a business model. A private practice must at least break even to stay open. Many private practice physicians in my home state will not accept medicaid patients, and the reason here is financial. It just doesn't pay enough. There is no legal or moral obligation for any given doctor to treat any given patient and he doesn't have to give a reason.

But this isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about whether a pharmacist broke a code of ethics. A pharmacist is just another business owner, except with a code of ethics specific to his or her profession as deemed by the college that issued his or her license and certification. There's a difference. I'm not saying pharmacists don't need to run a business. This isn't what we're talking about here.

Well since no one answered my other questions, I'll ask another. I wonder if they are also going to choose not to stock HIV (or any other STD for that matter) meds?

On one hand, I think that if you own the store, you can sell whatever you like, and serve whoever you like, but at the same time, not everyone is on birth control to prevent pregnancy. I take the pill to control my periods, as to millions of other women. If I needed a prescription, I expect it to be filled. If some pharmacist refused to fill it, I'd be furious at their assumption that I want it to have sex.

"...I'd be furious at their assumption that I want it to have sex."

You'd be furious that someone might think that a birth control pill might have something to do with... wait for it... birth control? Sorry, that just struck me a little funny.

Anyway, back to the program. Many here seem to think that pharmacists are unique. Discounting the one in the article that was stupid enough to throw away the prescription, many have said that they have some sort of special responsibility that overrides their freedoms to a degree. Are there other business or professions where you feel the same? That your demands.... err, I mean "rights" suprecede theirs?

Pharmacists are licensed by the state in which they practice. Here are the laws for Virginia

Virginia Board of Pharmacy - Laws & Regulations

Admittedly, I don't have time to read a book on this subject, but after a quick scan, I can find no code of ethics. Additionally, you would think with all the publicity this has gotten, if there was an ethics violation of some kind, charges would have been brought. I can't find any articles on the web that say charges of any kind have been filed. Maybe someone else has seen something with more info about this.


I believe that this is more related to specific church teachings against birth control, as in sex for procreation only. This is most prevalent in the Catholic church. I know of no church that prohibits the treatment of HIV or STD's, and as a matter of fact there are quite a few that participate in, and sponsor programs for those who are HIV positive.

Doctors, dentists, nurses, teachers, financial advisors, restauranteurs, and oil-burner mechanics, to name a few. Each of these professions requires some kind of licensing and/or accreditation. With that comes a set of rules, expectations, and regulations that must be followed in order to maintain good standing. As I mentioned in a previous post here, pharmacists are included in this. The responsibilities are laid out by their industry/profession.

This particular pharmacist aside, pharmacists in general should not make this kind of decision if it violates a code they are subject to. In Ontario, a pharmacist would not be able to do what this Virginian pharmacist did without referring the patient to another pharmacist. I think that's fair.

A gentle reminder to read the OP.

It does not say they refused to return or transfer a scrip.

It says they are opening under this business model.

They are not breaking a code of ethics.

They are opening with a religious business model, that is their business.

Also, the repeated analogies about refusing service to black people, that just doesn't work - trying to equate religious beliefs with racism. First off, people buy condoms in order to protect themselves in the choices they make. People don't buy condoms to prevent themselves from becoming black.

The one point I find dubious about their model is that birth control drugs are used for other things than birth control. That was a big push behind the attempt to get RU 486 legalized. But then the FDA would be guilty of refusal also.

It's not like there aren't a thousand places within a few miles of this pharmacy that can sell you what you need, as well as several agencies that will provide it for free.

Therein lies the rub. The overwhelming majority of STDs are transmitted due to extramarital sex, which is also against the church's teachings.

Many non-sexually active women use bc medicine for the sole purpose of regulating/reducing their periods.

Excellent points, Poppinjay. I still believe that even under this business model, the pharmacists are being unethical. That is, I suppose, only if we can assume they wish to operate for the benefit of the general public and they don't help the patient find out how or where they can get their prescription filled. If they were meant to serve their religious community only, then I imagine I'd be fine with it.

There is a difference between refusing to carry soda and candy and refusing to fill a valid prescription. If someone has a religious reason why they can't do their job, then they should at least find the best way to serve the customer.

I like the idea that there is a code preventing pharmacists from deciding what patients receive on the authority of doctors based on something unrelated. I don't like the idea of pharmacists interfering with the work of doctors. They can refuse to do something based on religion, but I expect them to be professional about it.

Certain hormonal contraceptives are prescribed for reasons other than preventing conception.

It says that others following the same "business model" do.
I've read the OP about 50x now, and I can not find that quote anywhere in the text. Could you please point it out?


Actually, I didn't make an analogy or equate anything. I asked a question because the original article states "In Virginia, though, pharmacists can turn away any prescription for any reason." Being black is a reason.

It's not in the OP, it's in the Pharmacist's Code of Ethics quoted upthread.

I think any LEGAL reason is assumed here. You can't deny service in violation of the law. It may be debatable if denial of birth control to anybody is a violation of civil rights. I really think the fact that many health plans that DON'T pay for women's birth control DO pay for Viagra is unethical.

And as far as the Wisconsin case, where the scrip was not returned, that WAS against the law, and the pharmacy was sanctioned.