Pharmacists Can’t Say No to Contraception

[Mr. P]

Have at it!

In April, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich issued an administrative order that allows pharmacies not to sell contraceptives of any kind. But if they do, they are required to fill prescriptions for EC or risk loosing their license. Illinois is the first state to do so.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_gene_c___051130_pharmacists_can_92t_sa.htm

ST. LOUIS — Walgreen Co. said Tuesday it has put four Illinois pharmacists in the St. Louis area on unpaid leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule.

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsnews/305nd3.htm

 

[dilloduck]

Have at it!


http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_gene_c___051130_pharmacists_can_92t_sa.htm


http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsnews/305nd3.htm

For that matter, why do we need phamacists at all? Why can't I just walk down an aisle in a grocery store and buy morphine?

 

[Bullypulpit]

For that matter, why do we need phamacists at all? Why can't I just walk down an aisle in a grocery store and buy morphine?

Yeah, if you could do that, drug-addled gasbag, Rush Limbaugh wouldn't be in a pickle over his illegal oxycontin purchases. Of course, if that's the route you want to go, be sure to legalize heroine, cocaine (both powder and rock), and let's not forget weed, crank, LSD, 'shrooms, ecstasy, roofies and any other designer drug that comes down the pike. That'll go over with the religious right like a turd in a punch-bowl.

If an MD legally prescribes a medication for a patient , a pharmacist is obligated to fulfill that prescription unless there is a valid, medically sound reason for doing so, such as drug/drug interactions, and then they should be calling the MD to find out why the med is being prescribed. Their moral qualms about birth-control or their beliefs about conception do not enter into the picture.

 

[Trigg]

If an MD legally prescribes a medication for a patient , a pharmacist is obligated to fulfill that prescription unless there is a valid, medically sound reason for doing so, such as drug/drug interactions, and then they should be calling the MD to find out why the med is being prescribed. Their moral qualms about birth-control or their beliefs about conception do not enter into the picture.

 

[Gem]

What a surprise...I disagree with Bully ( : ) But don't worry...I only disagree a little bit.

I think that a pharmacist has every right to refuse to fill prescriptions that go against his religious or personal views....

As long as he works in a privately-owned pharmacy that lets it be known that they are a religiously based/run pharmacy that will not fill certain prescriptions due to moral reasons.

If he works for a big name pharmacy like RITE AID or Wal-Mart - a store that claims from their headquarters to run pharmacies that fill prescriptions regardless of the religious beliefs of the pharmacists...then he better fill the friggin prescriptions without incident or he should be fired (AND, in my opinion, liable for medical expenses and/or pain and sufferring for the results of any pregnancy that results from a woman who went to that pharmacy for the morning after pill and didn't get it!).

 

[Hobbit]

What a surprise...I disagree with Bully ( : ) But don't worry...I only disagree a little bit.

I think that a pharmacist has every right to refuse to fill prescriptions that go against his religious or personal views....

As long as he works in a privately-owned pharmacy that lets it be known that they are a religiously based/run pharmacy that will not fill certain prescriptions due to moral reasons.

If he works for a big name pharmacy like RITE AID or Wal-Mart - a store that claims from their headquarters to run pharmacies that fill prescriptions regardless of the religious beliefs of the pharmacists...then he better fill the friggin prescriptions without incident or he should be fired (AND, in my opinion, liable for medical expenses and/or pain and sufferring for the results of any pregnancy that results from a woman who went to that pharmacy for the morning after pill and didn't get it!).

I don't think they should have to fill perscriptions agains their religion just because they work at a chain, but I also think they should only be afforded that luxury if they notify their employers ahead of time. I have religious objections to working on Sunday morning, when I should be in church, but I let my employers know that I can't work before 1 pm before I start my first day at work, preferably on my application. If my employer asks me to work on Sunday, I refuse, but then again, I'm entitled to becuase they knew before asking that I couldn't work on Sundays. If a pharmacist refuses to fill certain perscription for religious reasons, it should be stated before employment. There will be few instances where a store can deny you employment because of that, since it would violate your first ammendment rights (with an exception if the store would have to leave you alone in the pharmacy with nobody else to fill the perscription). If you don't tell them, however, it's your own fault.

 

[MissileMan]

There will be few instances where a store can deny you employment because of that, since it would violate your first ammendment rights (with an exception if the store would have to leave you alone in the pharmacy with nobody else to fill the perscription).

I don't know what kind of fairy-tale world you live in, but in the world of reality, the employer dictates policy. If any employee doesn't like policy they have two choices...suck it up, or find a new job.

 

[dilloduck]

Yeah, if you could do that, drug-addled gasbag, Rush Limbaugh wouldn't be in a pickle over his illegal oxycontin purchases. Of course, if that's the route you want to go, be sure to legalize heroine, cocaine (both powder and rock), and let's not forget weed, crank, LSD, 'shrooms, ecstasy, roofies and any other designer drug that comes down the pike. That'll go over with the religious right like a turd in a punch-bowl.

If an MD legally prescribes a medication for a patient , a pharmacist is obligated to fulfill that prescription unless there is a valid, medically sound reason for doing so, such as drug/drug interactions, and then they should be calling the MD to find out why the med is being prescribed. Their moral qualms about birth-control or their beliefs about conception do not enter into the picture.

Ahhhhhhh Pharmacies are the govts way of protecting me from myself?

 

[Mr. P]

... There will be few instances where a store can deny you employment because of that, since it would violate your first ammendment rights (with an exception if the store would have to leave you alone in the pharmacy with nobody else to fill the perscription). ...

Wrong, at least in Georgia where we live, Hobbit. An employer can hire AND fire at will, and your first amendment rights don't even come into play.

 

[Hobbit]

Wrong, at least in Georgia where we live, Hobbit. An employer can hire AND fire at will, and your first amendment rights don't even come into play.

That will never stand in the Supreme Court if it can be proven that your rights were violated. Nobody is above the Constitution. That's like those schools that don't penalize fighting. It's all fine and dandy until somebody takes it up with a higher authority. I've seen the courts hold up cases where somebody was refused a job because of weight. The court ruled that the company had no grounds to refuse employement, and that doing so solely for weight reasons violated her constitutional rights.

 

[Mr. P]

That will never stand in the Supreme Court if it can be proven that your rights were violated. Nobody is above the Constitution. That's like those schools that don't penalize fighting. It's all fine and dandy until somebody takes it up with a higher authority. I've seen the courts hold up cases where somebody was refused a job because of weight. The court ruled that the company had no grounds to refuse employement, and that doing so solely for weight reasons violated her constitutional rights.

Well, as far as I’m concerned these few were not doing the job they were hired for, and an employer has every right to fire them. I’d fire them without cause. Let them get an attorney if they want, IMO they don’t have a case.

I agree that if they were upfront when hired as to what they would and would not dispense for whatever reason, the employer is in a legal pickle, but I don’t think that’s the case.




This is a catch all, and favors the employer as the burden of proof of wrongful discharge
lays with the employee. Sure the EEOC will assist in some cases but you still need your own attorney, and $$$$

In most states of the United States all employees are considered "at will" employees. That means that the employer can terminate or change the employment relationship "at will", unless there is a contract with the employer. In general, an employer can fire an "at will" employee, or change the employee's position or compensation with no notice and no reason. Likewise, the employee can terminate his employment "at will" without notice or reason.

http://employment-law.freeadvice.com/firing/no_fire.htm

The odds of successfully winning a wrongful discharge claim if you are an "at-will" employee are slim because your boss has the right to fire you for any or no reason at any time so as long as all protections afforded by state and federal law have been followed. Where no wrong has been committed, "at-will" employees have no remedy for employment termination.

http://employment-law.freeadvice.com/firing/action_wrongful_termination.htm

 

[GotZoom]

That will never stand in the Supreme Court if it can be proven that your rights were violated. Nobody is above the Constitution. That's like those schools that don't penalize fighting. It's all fine and dandy until somebody takes it up with a higher authority. I've seen the courts hold up cases where somebody was refused a job because of weight. The court ruled that the company had no grounds to refuse employement, and that doing so solely for weight reasons violated her constitutional rights.

The employer needs to be smart and not tell the employee why they are being fired.

"It isn't working out."

End of story. Said and done.

And MissleMan..write today's date down - I agree with you.

If you work for someone, they dictate policy. You don't follow policy, you can be terminated.

If you don't like it, go into business for yourself.

As Gem said, if he/she owns his/her own pharmacy, then turning down the presciptions is fine. But if he/she works for someone else, there isn't much that can be done - except find another job.

 

[Bullypulpit]

What a surprise...I disagree with Bully ( : ) But don't worry...I only disagree a little bit.

I think that a pharmacist has every right to refuse to fill prescriptions that go against his religious or personal views....

As long as he works in a privately-owned pharmacy that lets it be known that they are a religiously based/run pharmacy that will not fill certain prescriptions due to moral reasons.

If he works for a big name pharmacy like RITE AID or Wal-Mart - a store that claims from their headquarters to run pharmacies that fill prescriptions regardless of the religious beliefs of the pharmacists...then he better fill the friggin prescriptions without incident or he should be fired (AND, in my opinion, liable for medical expenses and/or pain and sufferring for the results of any pregnancy that results from a woman who went to that pharmacy for the morning after pill and didn't get it!).

If the pharmacist in question has "religious or personal views", then he/she is obligated to find someone who will fill the legally issued prescription in question. As an RN, I am obligated to care for my patients regardless of any "religious or personal views" about them. If I cannot care for them, I must find someone who will, or lose my license for patient abandonment. But I have never felt I could not care for my patients. As a result, I have cared for murderers, raists, child molesters with the same skill and compassion I give to anyone else in my care.

In short, if a pharmacist feels that he, or she, cannot meet their professional responsibilities, they need to find another line of work. Refusing to dispense legally issued prescriptions for "religious or personal reasons" is tantamount to practicing medicine without a license.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Ahhhhhhh Pharmacies are the govts way of protecting me from myself?

No, just a means of protecting society from idiots.

 

[Mr. P]

No, just a means of protecting society from idiots.

Oh so TRUE!

 

[Hobbit]

If the pharmacist in question has "religious or personal views", then he/she is obligated to find someone who will fill the legally issued prescription in question. As an RN, I am obligated to care for my patients regardless of any "religious or personal views" about them. If I cannot care for them, I must find someone who will, or lose my license for patient abandonment. But I have never felt I could not care for my patients. As a result, I have cared for murderers, raists, child molesters with the same skill and compassion I give to anyone else in my care.

In short, if a pharmacist feels that he, or she, cannot meet their professional responsibilities, they need to find another line of work. Refusing to dispense legally issued prescriptions for "religious or personal reasons" is tantamount to practicing medicine without a license.

I agree with you up until that last paragraph. I fully believe that if there's a perscription you cannot fill due to religious reasons, the burden is on you, rather than the customer, to find somebody who can.

 

[Gem]

Bullypulpit Wrote:

In short, if a pharmacist feels that he, or she, cannot meet their professional responsibilities, they need to find another line of work. Refusing to dispense legally issued prescriptions for "religious or personal reasons" is tantamount to practicing medicine without a license.

Sorry Bully, but your example of you caring for people as a nurse isn't exactly the same as a pharmacist objecting to filling a prescription for moral reasons IF that prescription can be filled at that time, in that place, by another pharmacist and if the pharmacy agrees to be respectful of his/her moral qualms. Often, I'd imagine, if you don't do your job immediately, people could die. If a pharmacist doesn't fill a prescription, but rather turns to another pharmacist and says, "You do this one." No one is going to die. In fact, if such contingencies are planned for, no one except the pharmacists even need to know.

I agree with you completely that if a pharmacist is hired by a pharmacy that claims to sell the morning after pill...and that pharmacist has not made their moral claims known, then they should be fired (and I would consider making it a crime worthy of losing their license) for not fufilling their duty as a pharmacist.

However, if the pharmacist works for a privately-owned drug store...or if the pharmacy knows and has accepted the pharmacists moral objections...then the only thing that pharmacy is obligated to do is to make sure that a woman's prescription is filled by someone in a timely manner...and that the pharmacist who is morally against the morning-after pill does not voice his opinions to the customer of the store while acting as an employee of that store.

 

[dilloduck]

No, just a means of protecting society from idiots.

Well chalk that plan up as a failure and move on---idiots have taken over.

 

[olgoat]

In my opinion I think they should have to fill any order from a MD unless there is a medical reason not to. Some people don't have luxury of a half dozen pharmicies to get their medicine from. In small towns or people that have limited access to a pharmacy or for that matter some plans say you have to fill your orders at a certain place. What will be next then? If a pharmacist decides that gee I don't believe this medicine is the right one so I'm not going to fill it then? If you can't do the job then get another.

 

[Hobbit]

In my opinion I think they should have to fill any order from a MD unless there is a medical reason not to. Some people don't have luxury of a half dozen pharmicies to get their medicine from. In small towns or people that have limited access to a pharmacy or for that matter some plans say you have to fill your orders at a certain place. What will be next then? If a pharmacist decides that gee I don't believe this medicine is the right one so I'm not going to fill it then? If you can't do the job then get another.

You don't seem to understand the concept of religious freedom. Telling a devout Catholic that he has to give people the morning after pill to anybody with a perscription, even if he has already given fair warning and has expressed his views, is like forcing a devout Muslim to eat a hot dog at the company picnic, or making a devout Christian take the Lord's name in vain as part of a company slogan. You can't just put relgion in a box. For anybody serious about religion, it isn't something to do on Sunday, it's a way of life.