Druggist Refuse to Give Out Pill - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ScottKuma · 11-11-2004, 11:48 AM

Simply put:

A pharmacist can refuse to issue ANY medication, for ANY reason. This is simply to protect his/her license and/or liability against lawsuits. For example, if a person comes in with a perfectly valid script for Oxycontin, but the druggist knows that the person has come in with three other scripts in the same week, s/he can refuse to fill it.

I know this because I work for an electronic prescription company, and some pharmacists have refused to fill our scripts because they didn't trust that they were valid. There wasn't a DAMNED thing we could do about it.

Admittedly, it is stretching the argument a bit to include moral reasons. But I certainly believe in their right to refuse. Ultimately, they are jeopardizing their business or the business of their employer. If they are self-owned...then tough titties! If they are owned by some mega-chain, I suspect that reporting this to the chain management might cause some grief for the pharmacist in question.

Either way, go down the street a bit and I'm SURE there is a pharmacist willing to fill the script.

VitaminH · 11-11-2004, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottKuma

Simply put:

A pharmacist can refuse to issue ANY medication, for ANY reason. This is simply to protect his/her license and/or liability against lawsuits. For example, if a person comes in with a perfectly valid script for Oxycontin, but the druggist knows that the person has come in with three other scripts in the same week, s/he can refuse to fill it.

Either way, go down the street a bit and I'm SURE there is a pharmacist willing to fill the script.

We are pretty much taught from day one we have the right to refuse any prescription. Most of us are sane enough to only do so when we have reason to believe it's fake, or if it's going to kill the patient. However, there are always some bad apples.

This in the news is a hot topic of discussion at school today (considering we're all going to be pharmacists) and it was talked about extensively in a class. I'm going to try and line up some facts for anyone who cares.

***Some of this may only apply to IL law, since that is the only state law that I am familiar with.

As previosuly stated, pharmacists reserve the right to refuse to fill any prescription. However, company policy may say otherwise and it may very well result in a loss of your job.

The law is not clear cut on who actually "owns" the prescription, however my opinion, and the general consensus of professors and students at my school says that it's essentially the patient's until the prescritpion is filled, in which case the law states it becomes property of the pharmacy (NOT pharmacist, unless s/he is the owner) for record keeping purposes. Thus, this pharmacist should have given it back, and I think.

As Dr Susan Winkler said (she is even a prof at my school!!) it is extremely rare a pharmacist refuse to fill something on moral grounds, and even more so for one to refuse to transfer it to another store. The ONLY time both should happen is if the pharmacist believes it is fake. Even if we know the script could kill the patient, we should still transfer it or return it.

This is not the first time something like this has happened, and is likely not the last. A more controversial medication is the Day After Pill, or Plan B. Since some people gauge this as a form of abortion, there are a number of pharmacists who will not fill it. However, almost all should return the Rx or transfer it to another store for you. Any who doesnt, well is an asshole and extremely unprofessional as far as i'm concerned.

This pharmacist is generally considered a jerk by most of my peers, and I imagine will be shunned by a large part of the parmacy community. It's not as bad as that asshole who was diluting chemo drugs a few years back and did a lot of damage to the image of the pharmacist, but it still is unnaccpetable behavior in my eyes.

I would not refuse to work with this person however, as because then if I was in the store, I would willingly fill the scripts that s/he doesn't want to. heh.

I've rambled enough, and I hope I've helped some people understand a little more about what's going on here. If anyone has any questions or issues about pharmacy they'd like cleared up, you're free to PM me.

If you're still reading clear down here, congratulations!

denim · 11-11-2004, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fohur2

Oh my,good laugh.

You think he's joking. You must be an optimist.

filtherton · 11-11-2004, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

so what?

So you are in favor of denying him his right to sell or not sell a product?

One person's freedoms taken away for another person's freedoms?

it is very simple, don't bitch about it, go to another store.

I'm saying that he's a self righteous prick if he makes his personal morality a higher priority than the opinion of her doctor. He isn't qualified to make medical decisions for this woman. He doesn't know her situation.

I have another simple statement, if you're morally opposed to doing your job, find a new one.

raeanna74 · 11-11-2004, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

sure, agreed, but IMO not any more different of a problem than someone robs and murders.

I ask the questions because if it's so important, then why did this come to light in after the 2004 election and not at all in 2003? Why suddenly this surfaces?

I once worked with Right to Life in our town. I have family who help them pass our literature, etc. I've heard them propose just this long time ago. When ONE pharmacist "takes a stand" it encouranges others of the same belief to do the same. I do see the possibility of more people taking such a position but not enough to cause a big problem.

Really there are other professions that require some of the same education and would allow the person to hold to their beliefs. I wouldn't work in an abortion clinic because my conscience would not allow me to. But if I had a medical degree I would work to find a position in perhaps geriatrics - abortions would not be an issue in that field. You have to pick what you do based on your beliefs. I don't think it's their right to regulate what another woman does or decide if she's using the medication for something that you believe is morally wrong.

ShaniFaye · 11-11-2004, 05:09 PM

taken from here
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0426/p11s01-usju.html

cvs company policy says

Quote:

CVS states that its pharmacists must ensure that "customers promptly receive all medications for which they have a lawfully written prescription."

The American Pharmacists Association maintains a two-part policy.

Quote:

"The pharmacist has the right to conscience, and the patient has the right to legally prescribed medication," says spokesman Michael Stewart. A pharmacist who objects to dispensing a particular medication must tell an employer. If one pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription on grounds of conscience, another pharmacist must do it Some customers may be referred to another pharmacy. Other prescriptions may be delivered by mail..

ShaniFaye · 11-11-2004, 05:14 PM

one more http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest...acy.firing.ap/

Quote:

Eckerd's employment manual says pharmacists are not allowed to opt out of filling a prescription for religious, moral or ethical reasons

Cynthetiq · 11-11-2004, 05:31 PM

Quote:

"My client was not judging the patient," she says. "He was judging his own heart. He sincerely believes he would be committing an act of sin to dispense [birth control], and to call someone else to dispense it." She sees this as a religious liberty issue.

Quote:

Others see the issue differently. "This is a situation where certain people of certain faiths seem to be fair game for discrimination, which is egregious," says Peggy Hamill, director of Pro-Life Wisconsin in Brookfield. She tells of pharmacists who refused to fill prescriptions and have had to move from one place to another. Others have taken jobs in nursing homes.

shani these two quotes to me open the door to someone saying,"Islam says that I don't have to help or assist infidels and heathens."

Or someone else saying,"He's jewish? I'm sorry, no I cannot do anything for him because well you saw what the jews did to Christ..."

One picks and chooses their battles, if they choose this path and are rewarded with only being able to get jobs at nursing homes, tough, they made their choices and have to stick by the consequences.

While I commend some people for having enough conviction for their morals and beliefs, it should not be foisted up on anyone else.

ShaniFaye · 11-11-2004, 05:39 PM

I completely agree

There are lots of women (me included) that take b/c pills for a reason other than preventing pregnancy. I take them to reduce the amount of cysts that form in my uterus thus preventing a hysterectomy.

I was just showing that these people were clearly violating their company policy. And so that the other girls would know whats SUPPOSED to happen should they find themselves in that very situation.

billege · 11-11-2004, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

sure, agreed, but IMO not any more different of a problem than someone robs and murders.

I ask the questions because if it's so important, then why did this come to light in after the 2004 election and not at all in 2003? Why suddenly this surfaces?

*I chose to completely edit my post here, becuase I could not find the article I was referring to in the deleted text, and felt that was a disservice to readers.*

This isn't news. The war against reproductive rights has been chipping steadily away at those rights, especially in the last four years. It's certainly possible to believe there's a connection between that, and a born again Christian president. I don't know how that's possible, but just maybe...

It's not just W though, not by a long shot. Here are some facts women and those who believe in civil rights should already know:

source
"also the election of new senators like Tom Coburn, who advocates the death penalty for doctors who perform abortion, and Jim Demint, who believes single mothers should not be allowed to teach in public schools."

Glad they were elected, aren't we?

I can't post the text here, because they are all .pdf's, but this page is a very easy to access list of what states do what concerning reproductive rights.
Yes, the site is pro-abortion (fuck the cop out phrase "pro choice"), but if you can ignore the slant...laws are laws. Listing them even with slanted comments, doesn't chage the laws that are there. Read them.

There are plenty of people out there willing to enforce their religious beliefs on you and me. The seperation of church and state is a neat theory. Maybe one day America will remember to practice that theory.

archer · 11-12-2004, 12:46 AM

I'd make my usual comments about this being what happens when you let your country be founded by puritans, except that even here in Oz we've got idiot politicians in power who seem to think they should be able to make choices about other people's sex lives.

For those against abortion I say:
Abortions are (almost always) a result of unwanted pregnancies. This lost life so often spoken about is the life of an unwanted child, born into a family unprepared for them. This is not a good life.
Many abortions are the result of accidental pregnancy. The potential babies lost here should not have gotten to the conception stage. The parents have actively tried to prevent pregnancy, this is just a last resort when contraception fails.
Anyone who tries to deny a woman access to abortion when she is carrying a child resulting from rape is, as far as I'm concerned, a prime example of why some pregnancies should be terminated.

archer · 11-12-2004, 12:51 AM

Damn, got a bit ranty there and forgot to add my main thought.
Pharmacists are running a business in... you guessed it PHARMACEUTICALS!
They have no place peddling conservative morality, especially not to the point of refusing to fill prescriptions.
Any pharmacist attempting to impose their opinions on their customers in this way should have their licence immediately revoked.

Some people need to take a step back and seriously consider whether some things are actually any of their damn business, if not, move along.

analog · 11-12-2004, 04:02 AM

I worked in a pharmacy for 2 years. The pharmacist is not obligated by law to anything he or she does not deem appropriate for the patient- be it for medical reasons or otherwise. The LAW states that if this is the case, they must release the prescription to another pharmacist who can. Just like with a doctor and getting a second opinion. If they were the only drug store on the planet and the only pharmacist, then you'd possibly have a case of their right interfering with your right- but get a clue, people. There are shitloads of pharmacies out there, and tons of choices. It IS a free market.

Believing that the pharmacist simply "reads a piece of paper and puts pills in a bottle" is an ignorant and dangerously misguided way to continue thinking.

Cynthetiq · 11-12-2004, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billege

*I chose to completely edit my post here, becuase I could not find the article I was referring to in the deleted text, and felt that was a disservice to readers.*

This isn't news. The war against reproductive rights has been chipping steadily away at those rights, especially in the last four years. It's certainly possible to believe there's a connection between that, and a born again Christian president. I don't know how that's possible, but just maybe...

It's not just W though, not by a long shot. Here are some facts women and those who believe in civil rights should already know:

source
"also the election of new senators like Tom Coburn, who advocates the death penalty for doctors who perform abortion, and Jim Demint, who believes single mothers should not be allowed to teach in public schools."

Glad they were elected, aren't we?

I can't post the text here, because they are all .pdf's, but this page is a very easy to access list of what states do what concerning reproductive rights.
Yes, the site is pro-abortion (fuck the cop out phrase "pro choice"), but if you can ignore the slant...laws are laws. Listing them even with slanted comments, doesn't chage the laws that are there. Read them.

There are plenty of people out there willing to enforce their religious beliefs on you and me. The seperation of church and state is a neat theory. Maybe one day America will remember to practice that theory.

I haven't been living under a rock and know that reproductive rights are important and under constant battles.

My question is about the timing of this press. Someone else said it happens all the time, really, it does, pharmacists that don't give out birth control pills? Maybe they were talking about chipping away at the rights, but I don't see anything about a pharmacist not giving out birth control except for this news story. Where? What other paper, news story, something where it happened and made news? This particular incident happened in 2002. Why didn't it make headlines in 2003? or even earlier in 2004?

Again, I'm not rallying against anything but questioning the timing of this discussion. I've heard this now on the news, Howard Stern, here, etc. Why didn't I see any of this earlier? Even FARK gets the most absurd and obscure stories. I'd like to see one from earlier as people have stated that it happens all the time and has been happening.

ShaniFaye · 11-12-2004, 06:09 AM

this one is from July 2004

http://www.borderlandnews.com/storie...9-148612.shtml

Quote:

Fabens pharmacist won't fill orders for birth control pills

Diana Washington Valdez
El Paso Times

Victor Calzada / El Paso Times
Idalia Moran tried to have a prescription for birth control pills filled at the Medicine Shoppe pharmacy in Fabens but was told the pharmacy would not fill the order.

A Fabens pharmacy owner is one of hundreds of pharmacists worldwide who are refusing to dispense medically prescribed birth control pills for religious or ethical reasons.

"Since this was in the news, I've gotten calls from people who are upset with me and others who see no problem with it," said pharmacist Steve Mosher, who owns the Medicine Shoppe in Fabens. "Some people are even blaming me for teen pregnancies in Fabens."

Idalia Moran, who is staying temporarily in Fabens with her mother, said she was shocked when she tried to obtain birth control pills on Saturday at the Medicine Shoppe, the only private pharmacy in the small town east of El Paso.

"A person at the counter told me that the pharmacist wasn't going to sell them to me because it was against his religion," Moran said. "I said, 'What?', and I had to go to a Walgreens in El Paso to get them. My husband was very upset. It's stupid. What does religion have to do with my prescription?"

Mosher, a Christian, said he dispensed birth control pills until last fall, when he listened to a medical expert on a radio program who described "the pill" as an abortifacient -- a drug that destroys a fertilized egg's ability to survive in the womb.

"I had waffled over this for years, but I've since stopped dispensing them," he said. "It was also a financial issue, and I've lost a lot of business because of my conviction. I fill some prescriptions for the pill, as long as it is used for menopause or other medical reasons besides birth control. I don't carry the 'morning-after' pill or anything like that."

An organization known as Pharmacists for Life International has a Web site devoted to pharmacists in the United States, Canada and elsewhere in the world who believe as Mosher does.

The group claims to have 1,500 members.

Texas pharmacy expert Barry Coleman said the American Pharmacy Association supports the ability of pharmacists to make judgments based on personal convictions, "but it also holds the position that a pharmacist who will not fill an order should refer the patient to someone else who will. What makes me uncomfortable here is that there is just one pharmacy in Fabens, which is a long way from El Paso."

Coleman said someone who has a complaint against a pharmacist may contact the Texas state board of pharmacy, "but it is difficult to go against this because pharmacists are free to follow their beliefs."

El Paso Planned Parenthood CEO Betty Hoover said the pharmacy owner is creating a barrier for women in Fabens who lack other means to readily obtain birth control pills.

"Planned Parenthood believes everyone should have access to family planning services," Hoover said. She added that "it's unconscionable" to prevent a woman from obtaining a legal prescription for birth control.

how does this guy know for what reason a script was given? My doctor never hand wrote out on my script "shannon needs b/c pills but its not to prevent pregnancy, its to prevent cysts in her uterus"

ShaniFaye · 11-12-2004, 06:21 AM

I wonder if the same druggists fill Viagra? Do they make sure that the person getting it is in a married relationship and that the drug is only going to be used to satisfy their lawfully wedded wife?

Cynthetiq · 11-12-2004, 06:34 AM

thank you shani...

from that article...

Quote:

"I had waffled over this for years, but I've since stopped dispensing them," he said. "It was also a financial issue, and I've lost a lot of business because of my conviction. I fill some prescriptions for the pill, as long as it is used for menopause or other medical reasons besides birth control. I don't carry the 'morning-after' pill or anything like that."

You apparently take your pills due to medical reasons... how is he supposed to know and why should you have to tell him? HIPPA laws and privacy laws apply somewhere there.

11-11-2004, 05:39 PM	#49 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	I completely agree There are lots of women (me included) that take b/c pills for a reason other than preventing pregnancy. I take them to reduce the amount of cysts that form in my uterus thus preventing a hysterectomy. I was just showing that these people were clearly violating their company policy. And so that the other girls would know whats SUPPOSED to happen should they find themselves in that very situation. __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

11-12-2004, 06:21 AM	#56 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	I wonder if the same druggists fill Viagra? Do they make sure that the person getting it is in a married relationship and that the drug is only going to be used to satisfy their lawfully wedded wife? __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

11-11-2004, 11:48 AM	#41 (permalink)
ScottKuma Insane Location: Maineville, OH	Simply put: A pharmacist can refuse to issue ANY medication, for ANY reason. This is simply to protect his/her license and/or liability against lawsuits. For example, if a person comes in with a perfectly valid script for Oxycontin, but the druggist knows that the person has come in with three other scripts in the same week, s/he can refuse to fill it. I know this because I work for an electronic prescription company, and some pharmacists have refused to fill our scripts because they didn't trust that they were valid. There wasn't a DAMNED thing we could do about it. Admittedly, it is stretching the argument a bit to include moral reasons. But I certainly believe in their right to refuse. Ultimately, they are jeopardizing their business or the business of their employer. If they are self-owned...then tough titties! If they are owned by some mega-chain, I suspect that reporting this to the chain management might cause some grief for the pharmacist in question. Either way, go down the street a bit and I'm SURE there is a pharmacist willing to fill the script.

11-12-2004, 12:46 AM	#51 (permalink)
archer Upright Location: Australia	I'd make my usual comments about this being what happens when you let your country be founded by puritans, except that even here in Oz we've got idiot politicians in power who seem to think they should be able to make choices about other people's sex lives. For those against abortion I say: Abortions are (almost always) a result of unwanted pregnancies. This lost life so often spoken about is the life of an unwanted child, born into a family unprepared for them. This is not a good life. Many abortions are the result of accidental pregnancy. The potential babies lost here should not have gotten to the conception stage. The parents have actively tried to prevent pregnancy, this is just a last resort when contraception fails. Anyone who tries to deny a woman access to abortion when she is carrying a child resulting from rape is, as far as I'm concerned, a prime example of why some pregnancies should be terminated.

11-12-2004, 12:51 AM	#52 (permalink)
archer Upright Location: Australia	Damn, got a bit ranty there and forgot to add my main thought. Pharmacists are running a business in... you guessed it PHARMACEUTICALS! They have no place peddling conservative morality, especially not to the point of refusing to fill prescriptions. Any pharmacist attempting to impose their opinions on their customers in this way should have their licence immediately revoked. Some people need to take a step back and seriously consider whether some things are actually any of their damn business, if not, move along.

11-12-2004, 04:02 AM	#53 (permalink)
analog Banned	I worked in a pharmacy for 2 years. The pharmacist is not obligated by law to anything he or she does not deem appropriate for the patient- be it for medical reasons or otherwise. The LAW states that if this is the case, they must release the prescription to another pharmacist who can. Just like with a doctor and getting a second opinion. If they were the only drug store on the planet and the only pharmacist, then you'd possibly have a case of their right interfering with your right- but get a clue, people. There are shitloads of pharmacies out there, and tons of choices. It IS a free market. Believing that the pharmacist simply "reads a piece of paper and puts pills in a bottle" is an ignorant and dangerously misguided way to continue thinking.