Druggist Refuse to Give Out Pill
 

Link

God. I don't even know what to say. This makes me sick. What makes it their right to refuse any woman her medication because of MORAL standings??? Fucking hell. So will these same druggists refuse to sell a man a box of condoms?

Unreal.

Im at a loss for words over this :crazy:

Loss of liscence....six months working at an orphanage......seems a good sentance to me.

What if a 72 year old man comes in for his heart medication. Can the druggist say "Sorry sir, but I believe if you take this medication you are furthering your life, and if you have a bad heart, well then apparently God wants you to die. It's against my morals to do something that is against God's will"

GRRRRR!

Before everyone gets all up in arms about this...

I ask, is this an isolated incident? If not, how many times does it happen?

Think of the total women out there and how many people there are filling prescriptions etc. and if it's just this one incident or even a handfull it's not indicative of a trend. It just happens to be a situation that has happened.

I'm even beginning to think that it's alarmist propaganda as it happened in 2002 and we're just hearing about it now right after an close election.

If it happens just once, it's a problem.

Enough to make a state law about it, apparently.

This really pisses me off. Pharmacists are not there to be judges, philosophers, theologians, or moral crusaders. Their sole legitimate purpose is to make you sit around for an hour waiting for them to dump some pills into an orange bottle. If they have moral problems with dispensing certain types of pills for a legitimate prescription, then they need to find another line of work.

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?

If you are a pharmacist that has a moral objection to handing out birth control pills, then I think it's time to look for another job. Here are customers actively trying to do what so many other groups are reiterating over and over, practice safe sex and responsible sex, and the pharmacists just don't want to get with the program. The woman in the story was 33, not like she was 16 or something.

-Mikey

This didn't just show up. These incidents have been happening for a few years now. I never been a person who thought that a person has any right to force their views and beliefs onto others and this is about as bad as it gets. If they don't want to do their job and prescribe the medication as prescribed by a licensed doctor, then they should find a job that doesn't conflict with their morals. These morons should know that birth control pills are prescribed for other medical issues besides preventing birth. Instead of a law protecting them, there should be a law which prevents them from refusing to fill a doctors order, especially since they have no idea why the drug was prescribed. They only know what, how much and how often to use it...not the symptoms behind the reason.

Individual pharmacists, yes, they should adhere to their employer's guidelines. If a private company chooses to not distribute certain drugs, however, that is within their right. And, really, if the private company wants to have an official stance that it is the discretion of the pharmacist, that is within their ability as well. Nowhere does it say access to birth control is one of our unalienable rights and I'd rather be getting things from someone who can service me with a good conscience than force someone to do something which is against their conscience. I believe it is wrong to force moral standards on someone on EITHER side of the debate.

Hmmm.. he won't return the presrciption slip? Sounds like robbery to me. Call the cops.

Then have some friends come by and do some after-work asskicking.

Yes, not returning the prescription slip, no matter if the company has a policy of not filling the prescription or not, is in fact theft.

Some women NEED it to regulate hormones for certain things (my girlfiend, for example).

If she misses a day, it's not a problem.

But still, that doesn't matter. If an old man misses his heart medication for one day, it won't be a problem, but I don't think he really wants to test it.

I'd LOVE to get a pharmacist that pulls this shit. They'll be in for quite a surprise ;)

Unbelievable. I seriously doubt this is an isolated event with the "1,500-member Pharmacists for Life International" working in the medical field. Yeah, people are entitled to their own beliefs, but this is just a little overboard. Serve up some pills or find a job where your skewed views won't conflict with your work.

Nice. That's good for a first offense. Second offense should be loss of license and blacklisting.

It's bad enough that these people obstruct others lives. If they insist on getting more offensive like this, I easily see a civil war erupting over it. And since they're not willing to make any move to take life, I suspect I know who will win.

Well put, sir.

i agree with waterboy...seriously...your job is to fill prescriptions..if your "moral" issues get in the way then go work at a church or anyplace where its acceptable to behave that way. i've had druggests give me long moral lectures when i went to pick up my birth control pills but none so far have tried to stop me or have refused to give them to me. as to refusing to give the morning after pill...thats just wrong and selfish.

I don't think that there should be state laws condoning this type of behavior. I think it should be up to the particular store. If a pharmacist wants to deny someone their medication, then the customer can complain and have the pharmacist fired. If the store wants to have a policy that allows pharmacists to refuse, that's should be ok. However, it should be illegal for the pharmacist to refuse to hand back the perscription. Taking the perscription slip is just asinine.

ever roll a ball down a hill.. or better yet toss a rock down a hill and it starts a rock slide it gains momentum and all hell breaks loose. political correct.. that was a fad. yet you still see it everywhere and in a ironic greater number.

lets see ban birth control, of all forms. we as a society have two choices. no sex.. (yeah right) or there will be a huge increase in the family .. oh good plan there.

lets see whats next .. *snaps fingers* the terminally ill ... they are gonna die anyways lets just help them along. my inner well being couldnt handle knowing thier pain. Oh your a christian. you cant come into my store im a jew. or vice versa.

ive always said it.. give the people too much rope and they will hang themselves

I believe their national organization has guidelines for these types of things. They don't have to fill a perscription but are supposed to direct the customer/patient to someone who will.

This is fucking ridiculous. If they have a potential moral conflict with part of their job, they should not be allowed to work as a pharmacist. If a doctor refused to treat a black person because he was a white supremacist, or an illegal immigrant because he was here illegally, he'd sure as hell be in deep shit. When dealing with peoples' health, you should have a moral obligation to keep your religious and political opinions to yourself or go find a different calling. Like as a missionary. Or maybe that crazy guy preaching on the corner.

Hell in a handbasket, I tell you.
*goes hunting for the Canadian immigration web site*

Like Secret said earlier in this thread, if it is an private store, then can sell/not sell whatever they please. There is no law that says every drug prescribed must be dispensed.

This is a free-market people. If they don't want to sell it, they don't have to. If you don't want to buy it, then don't buy it.

It's not like she couldn't go to another pharmacy.

/goes looking for the Candian immigration web site if the laws in this country change and tell me (or anyone else) what I can or can't sell in a store that I (or anyone else) owns.

//go to a jewish/muslim meat store and ask for non-kosher meat. They won't sell it for religious reasons--should they be forced to as well?

///freedom means freedom, to sell something or to not sell something. We are in a competitve marketplace, one person sells it one person doesn't--so what?

(bitter sarcasm) Well, sure, if everyone else can decide who we're allowed to marry, why can't they decide whether or not we can use birth control? (/bitter sarcasm)

Honestly, I'm not surprised. A little pissed off, yes, surprised, no.

This isn't a product that they aren't selling because they don't stock it. This is a product that they've been selling this woman for a year. Then, one day, a morally superior pharmacist decides that he is too moral to do her job. This isn't a free market issue. This is a "don't get hired for a job if you are morally opposed to doing your job" issue.

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 don't think it would be out of line to require a store or individual pharmacist to post a sign stating what drugs they morally object to and will not dispense. Then everyone in the community who disagrees with this moral stance can shop someplace else (where they do sell birth control pills, presumably) and the offensive store can either lose sales and possibly go out of business or change their policy. Or if a majority of the people in that community agree with this policy, then the other store goes out of business. Democracy in action.

OK, it is time for me to step into it. I am a physician an I have no moral problem with contraception. However, I have absolutely no doubt as a biologist and as a physician that an embryo and later a fetus is maintaing homeostasis and is undergoing cellular reproduction. I am also convinced that at no point will it change species. The point is, leaving religion out of the thought process, but objectively looking at professional ethic, taking any action to avoid pregnancy after conception is not something I am willing to do as a physician. More importantly, no one can force me to.

When oral contraceptives where introduced they worked by preventing ovulation. In other words, they did allow for conception to occur. Over the years, the hormone dosages have been cut the least effective dose. This is important to reduce the risk of side effects. Eventually we came to realize that even though these doses were preventing pregancy, they were not preventing ovulation. Ovulation frequently does occur, but the homonal effects of the newer pills causes changes in the endometrium that does not allow for implantation. While I understand that many of you will disagree with me (and I respect that) this leads me to conclude that precsribing oral contraceptives is the moral equivalence of performing an abortion. There are many nuances that are worthy of discussion but are not relevent to this thread.

I now refuse to write scripts for the Pill. I know that there are other reasons to take it, but because I don't write for it most of the time, I don't keep up with all the changes. These women benefit from seeing ther gynecologists anyway, so just refer them anyway. I have never made a women feel uncomfortable about using the Pill and I only explain why I don't if a patient really pushes the issue.

I may loose patients because of this. I don't think that has had any real effect, but it is possible. I also understand that, as an employee, the organization that owns my practice could choose to terminate me for this.

I came to this conclusion after I spent eleven years in training and had several years of experience in practice. I work hard and I think I am an above average primary care physician. My patients seem to think I am providing a valuable service for them. Do some of you really believe that the government should make it illegal for me to continue in my current practice and find another career?

For the record, I think CVS should force this pharmacist to fill the prescription. She is not in a position to know the reasons the patient is taking it. That is between the doctor and the patient. CVS carries the drug. If the pharmacist owns her own pharmacy and is willing to take the financial hit of not carrying a given drug or class of drugs, she should be free to do so. But it is clear that CVS has not made that choice, and the pharmacist should follow company policy.

The company is free to fire the pharmacist if they so please. If they don't want to, the pharmacist is free to perform his or her duties in a manner he or she deems appropriate, and the customer is free to go to a different company for their prescriptions. I don't understand what's hard to understand here: there is no "right to buy things" or "right to force people to do things they don't morally agree with." And, no, they shouldn't choose another job - that's like saying a cardiologist shouldn't be a doctor because he's morally opposed to abortion. (Interestingly enough, they're actually working on that as I understand some medical schools force med students to perform abortions.) The fact is, there are plenty of reasons to be a pharmacist, even when one is opposed to certain drugs.

I don't want other people forcing their morals on me and I certainly won't work to force other people to go against their morals because I don't agree with them.

I agree that at least theoretically a pharmacist shouldn't have to dispense a pill that is against his or her moral judgment. The problem is those cases where the woman doesn't have another option. I can easily imagine places in rural America, where the fundies are strong and pharmacies are few and far between where a pharmacist refusing to hand over the pill would mean having to drive 40 or 50 miles to get a prescription filled. Let's say you're a teenager and mom and dad don't know about the pill. Probably you're just not going to get it filled, and probably you're gonna get pregnant.

I remember a similar situation somewhere in Texas where they couldn't find a contractor who would pour the cement for a Planned Parenthood clinic that would be the only abortion clinic for a couple hundred miles. Certainly, the contractor has a right to not support an activity he/she considers murder, but if everyone refuses a woman's right is essentially nullified.

Seriously though, saying a pharmacist should find a new job because he or she doesn't want to give out birth control pills is ridiculous. I don't imagine filling birth control prescriptions is a large part of a pharmacist’s job, or that that many people get into the profession because of a zeal for birth control. If your mechanic won't fix your Pinto because he thinks it’s a POS car, you don't expect him to give up the trade entirely. I say this as a person who is very happy his girlfriend is on the pill and who would take one himself if they made a male version of it.

To turn the tables on you, if a med school belives that a woman's right to choose is important, and that it is essential that there be doctors available to perform this procedure, isn't it their right to require students to learn it? Can't the students simply go to another med school if they don't like it? (I haven't heard of any med schools doing this, but I'm sure that there are many med schools that do not require it, in fact I bet there are many that don't even teach it anymore).

heh, I didn't say it wasn't within their right (provided they are a private institution), just that they are doing it. However, if it is a public institution (for example, University of Illinois at Chicago Medical School) then such a practice would be unacceptable as it is forcing a morality on a person.

my opinion is kinda harsh, but i think anyone who fucking takes on a job filling out prescriptions should just STFU and do their damn job. people who've got moral objections to certain drugs should either stop bitching or choose a different job. it's their JOB, they get PAID to take the slip from the customer, read it, get the drugs into the bottle, take the money, hand the bottle to the customer. it shouldn't have to be so complicated....

i cannot believe that someone would deny service because of their morals. what if a restaurant owner refused service because i came in and wanted food and i have an eyebrow piercing? or what if a black man came into an insurance agency and they said "sorry, we don't believe it's morally right for black people to have insurance." it's their FUCKING JOB. get over yourselves people.

I'm studying to be a pharmacist, and I promise I won't be like this! That is all.

I could literally type for an hour on this subject, but I am not about too. Allow me to give a student pharmacist's perspective (almost there to the full thing...).

First of all, druggist is a dated term, we're Pharmacists dammit :)

I, as a student pharmacist think any of my own personal morals and such go straight out the window when I am at work, and would definitely fill an Rx for 'the pill'. However, allow me to play the devils advocate here...

The number one rule of medicine I believe is to "do no harm" to the patient. Take now, for example a script written by a doctor that would obviosuly kill a person to the pharmacist, should the pharmacist fill that prescirption? According to many of you, it's all between the patient and doc and none of our buisness so we should. So it gets filled the patient takes it and dies, and now it's my ass as well. It's not always so clear cut.

Now, honestly I don't know about not giving the prescription back being theft or not. What if we get a script that's very blatently falsified? It's our job to confiscate the Rx immediatly and refuse to fill. Is that then theft?

Another situation. What if we have a known dirty doctor who is writing scripts for controlled substances for addicts? Is that a doctor patient relationship? I can tell you right now that if we didn't intervene in that, once again it's goodbye liscense and it's my ass going down with the rest.

Many of you have stated that the pharmacist doesn't know why she is taking this medication so she should not have refused to fill it. Well, we don't know that. The pharmacist may very well have asked. I noticed the lady who didn't get her birth control said it wasn't our job to regulate what people take. I'm going to disagree with that as well. The final prescribing is done by a physician generally yes, however pharmacists are constantly consulted on medications. It happens more in a hospital setting, but I can tell you at the pharmacy I work at, nurses and doctors constantly call me and consult with myself or a full pharmacist at the store to aid in a patient's drug therapies. With the ridiculous number of drugs out on the market now it is near impossible for Physicians to keep up, and in some medical schools that I know of, out of their 4 years (8 semesters), med students get a mere 1 semester of pharmacy. THis is all hearsay to me, so take it as you will. However, pharmacists are becoming an integral part of treatment and we're not just some guy behined the counter taking the pills out of the big bottle and putting them into the little bottle.

I reiterate once again, that I feel what this pharmacist did was wrong, but it's an extremely complicated world out there in this stuff, and it's hard to always be able to make the right decesion every time. This is why they make us get doctorates now.

So please, don't go to your local Walgreens and punch the pharmacist in the face. Feel free to burn down the Walgreens though, that company is bad for our profession :D

Our Job is considerably more than that. And the job is EXTREMELY complicated.

rather than type out a lengthy redundant response... just put me in the same column as secretmethod.

There's a difference between holding on to a prescription that is suspect, and refusing to return a perfectly valid one because of moral reasons. I respect the job that a pharmacist has, and respect their work in preventing unhealthy results, but I have to disagree with refusing to administer medicine on purely moral grounds.

I completely agree with you. Allow me once again to restate my position: I think what this pharmacist did was stupdi and wrong, and my own person morals do not come into play when I am working. I am concerned only their the patient's health and not their religious salvation.

If you think this is bad, just wait until legislation is passed that will make it more difficult, if not impossible, for unmarried women to even get a perscription for it.

The proposed solution: abstinence.

Oh my,good laugh.

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.

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! :)

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

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.

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.

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


cvs company policy says
The American Pharmacists Association maintains a two-part policy.

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

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.

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 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'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.

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.

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.

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.

this one is from July 2004

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

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"

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?

thank you shani...

from that article...

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.