Culture wars in the corner drugstore

[Bullypulpit]

<blockquote><a href=http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0408/p01s02-ussc.html><h2>Culture war hits local pharmacy</h2>
Many druggists across the country refuse to give out morning-after pills. Legislators weigh in.</a>

By Amanda Paulson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

CHICAGO - The culture wars have already seeped into hospices, movie theaters, and the Super Bowl. Now, even the corner drugstore has become a battleground.

From rural Texas to Chicago, more instances are cropping up of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for oral contraceptives and the morning-after pill. As a result, politicians around the country are stepping into the fray.

It's a debate that weighs personal morals against professional responsibility. It pits religious rights against patients' rights and raises the question of just where pharmacists stand on the spectrum of health-care professionals.

Many pharmacists point to the "conscience-clause" exceptions that nearly every state has in place for doctors, allowing them to recuse themselves from performing abortions or other procedures they object to. They believe they should have similar protection.

Critics point out that filling a prescription is a very different job from writing one, and question whether pharmacists can deny a legal drug on moral grounds. And the patients who have been denied are simply angry to see their prescriptions become fodder for a public debate - especially when the prescriptions they wanted filled were for something as time-sensitive as emergency contraceptives, often known as the morning-after pill.</blockquote>

Refusing to fill a prescription for a legal medication written by an MD or PA is, essentially, practicing medicine without a license. If the pharmacists has qualms about his or her ability to perform the functions of their job based on moral grounds, they need to find another line of work.

Citations:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0408/p01s02-ussc.html

 

[Mr. P]

....
Refusing to fill a prescription for a legal medication written by an MD or PA is, essentially, practicing medicine without a license. If the pharmacists has qualms about his or her ability to perform the functions of their job based on moral grounds, they need to find another line of work.

Citations:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0408/p01s02-ussc.html

I agree 100%.

 

[Shattered]

Refusing to fill a prescription for a legal medication written by an MD or PA is, essentially, practicing medicine without a license. If the pharmacists has qualms about his or her ability to perform the functions of their job based on moral grounds, they need to find another line of work.

I'll be damned.. I agree with Bully 110% on this one. If you're incapable of doing the job for which you were hired, no matter the reason, find another. You have no business in that line of work.

**scurries off to mark calender**

 

[dilloduck]

<blockquote><a href=http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0408/p01s02-ussc.html><h2>Culture war hits local pharmacy</h2>
Many druggists across the country refuse to give out morning-after pills. Legislators weigh in.</a>

By Amanda Paulson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

CHICAGO - The culture wars have already seeped into hospices, movie theaters, and the Super Bowl. Now, even the corner drugstore has become a battleground.

From rural Texas to Chicago, more instances are cropping up of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for oral contraceptives and the morning-after pill. As a result, politicians around the country are stepping into the fray.

It's a debate that weighs personal morals against professional responsibility. It pits religious rights against patients' rights and raises the question of just where pharmacists stand on the spectrum of health-care professionals.

Many pharmacists point to the "conscience-clause" exceptions that nearly every state has in place for doctors, allowing them to recuse themselves from performing abortions or other procedures they object to. They believe they should have similar protection.

Critics point out that filling a prescription is a very different job from writing one, and question whether pharmacists can deny a legal drug on moral grounds. And the patients who have been denied are simply angry to see their prescriptions become fodder for a public debate - especially when the prescriptions they wanted filled were for something as time-sensitive as emergency contraceptives, often known as the morning-after pill.</blockquote>

Refusing to fill a prescription for a legal medication written by an MD or PA is, essentially, practicing medicine without a license. If the pharmacists has qualms about his or her ability to perform the functions of their job based on moral grounds, they need to find another line of work.

Citations:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0408/p01s02-ussc.html

Guess that would be up tho the boss unless state legislatures step in-- I assume that the pharmacies refusing to fill these perscriptions will be identified and Dr.s will recommend other pharmacies for thier patients to use until the issue is finally resolved.

 

[Avatar4321]

I actually don't have a problem with this. There are other phramacists. Why should these pharmacists not be allowed to avoid aspects of the job they find morally reprehensible?

I mean maybe if they had views similar to the JWs who are against all kinds of medical stuff i could understand a problem with it. but i dont see problems with this.

 

[Shattered]

I actually don't have a problem with this. There are other phramacists. Why should these pharmacists not be allowed to avoid aspects of the job they find morally reprehensible?

I mean maybe if they had views similar to the JWs who are against all kinds of medical stuff i could understand a problem with it. but i dont see problems with this.

Their job is to fill prescriptions written by doctors. Not judge the worthiness of those prescriptions. They are not medical doctors. They are licensed to count pills, put them in to a bottle, and explain the side effects of said prescriptions. If you're incapable of fulfilling the duties outlined in your job description, it's time to move on to a different job that's more in tune with your own personal standards.

If I receive a prescription from a doctor, and it's one that I choose to fill (some, I don't bother with, because I know the side effects will alter my capablities for as long as I'm on them - Ex: Cough meds with codeine...), I don't expect to have my doctor second guessed by the person behind the counter in my local drug store. Nor should I have to travel 30 miles to the next drug store, just because someone doesn't "feel up to" doing his job.

 

[dilloduck]

Their job is to fill prescriptions written by doctors. Not judge the worthiness of those prescriptions. They are not medical doctors. They are licensed to count pills, put them in to a bottle, and explain the side effects of said prescriptions. If you're incapable of fulfilling the duties outlined in your job description, it's time to move on to a different job that's more in tune with your own personal standards.

If I receive a prescription from a doctor, and it's one that I choose to fill (some, I don't bother with, because I know the side effects will alter my capablities for as long as I'm on them - Ex: Cough meds with codeine...), I don't expect to have my doctor second guessed by the person behind the counter in my local drug store. Nor should I have to travel 30 miles to the next drug store, just because someone doesn't "feel up to" doing his job.

The job of the pharmacist is to do what his boss tells him to do. Blame the company for allowing him to pick and choose.

 

[Mr. P]

I actually don't have a problem with this. There are other phramacists. Why should these pharmacists not be allowed to avoid aspects of the job they find morally reprehensible?

I mean maybe if they had views similar to the JWs who are against all kinds of medical stuff i could understand a problem with it. but i dont see problems with this.

Huh? you mean it's okay as long as it goes your way? Oh boy, sounds hypocritical to me.

If a phamacy does not stock a med. fine, that's their choice. If they do stock a med. then it is the phramacists job to dispense that med. with a valid script from a Doctor, else get another job.

 

[Shattered]

Huh? you mean it's okay as long as it goes your way? Oh boy, sounds hypocritical to me.

If a phamacy does not stock a med. fine, that's their choice. If they do stock a med. then it is the phramacists job to dispense that med. with a valid script from a Doctor, else get another job.

Exactly.

 

[dilloduck]

Exactly.

What if the pharmacist owns the company---are you going to force him to stock items that he doesn't want to?

 

[Trigg]

What if the pharmacist owns the company---are you going to force him to stock items that he doesn't want to?

IF the pharmacist ownes the company than that's another story. Of course he might loose business because people are going to another store that stocks everything they want.

 

[Mr. P]

What if the pharmacist owns the company---are you going to force him to stock items that he doesn't want to?

I know you're not asking me, but.
No I wouldn't do that, however as I understand this, it wasn't a matter of stocking a med, it was a refusal to dispense said med with a valid script, big differance. I also heard that some of the pharmacist refused to return the script to the customer, thus preventing them from going elsewhere (I don't know if that's true).

 

[dilloduck]

I know you're not asking me, but.
No I wouldn't do that, however as I understand this, it wasn't a matter of stocking a med, it was a refusal to dispense said med with a valid script, big differance. I also heard that some of the pharmacist refused to return the script to the customer, thus preventing them from going elsewhere (I don't know if that's true).

It just appears that you are advocating the government step in and tell a company what their policies should be

 

[Shattered]

Unfortunately, it looks like a pharmacist can do whatever he likes, since there are no specific laws against using his moral judgement - a specific example used is in the case of a woman being raped, given a prescription for the "morning after" pill, and having said prescription denied only because the pharmacist is pro-life - no other reason.

http://www.nm-pharmacy.com/body_rights.htm

The purpose of this article is to discuss legal and ethical issues regarding the pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense based on personal beliefs. Five ethical principles - nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy, loyalty, and justice are used to deliberate the issue. Legal facts are used to clarify the position that pharmacists may find themselves in should the decision to refuse to dispense be made. It is imperative that pharmacists assume responsibility for reducing the severity of the implications of this issue by taking a proactive approach in considering the impact of these and other moral dilemmas before they are presented in the workplace....

...more at the link above.

 

[Shattered]

So.. in other words, one doesn't want the government stepping in and making a decision on someones personal life, but it's ok to let a complete stranger behind a counter make a life-altering decision for you because of his/her own personal beliefs...

 

[dmp]

I support the Pharmacists.

 

[Shattered]

I support the Pharmacists.

Right now you do.. What would happen if it were to become a very personal issue for you?

 

[dilloduck]

Right now you do.. What would happen if it were to become a very personal issue for you?

isn't having the right to make decisions based on ones own morality a personal issue?

 

[no1tovote4]

I support the Pharmacists.

What if they denied you Morphine for your pain because they were against getting high? What if they denied it because it can be used to commit suicide if you overdose?

Which drugs should they deny and on what grounds?

 

[Shattered]

Here, also, is a link to how one company handled it.

http://www.consciencelaws.org/Conscience-Policies-Papers/PPPMedicalOrg03.html