Declining Abortion Meds soon to be a reality?

[WVUPharm2007]

Can we also discuss how this isn't an issue anymore, anyway? Actual abortificants are generally administered in clinic. Plan B is OTC.

Remember the argument we had on here like 8 years ago before it went OTC where we decided that the solution was to put strategic vending machines in public places?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GoldfishPharmD]

Posts like this sadden me. I really hate the idea of imposing your beliefs onto other people especially when you have no idea about what the other person is going through. If you had a problem with certain medications, maybe you should have chose a career where there wouldn't be an opportunity for you to do actions that are against your personal beliefs. What's next? Not helping homosexuals because you don't agree with their lifestyle?

 

[touchpause13]

Can we also discuss how this isn't an issue anymore, anyway? Actual abortificants are generally administered in clinic. Plan B is OTC.

Remember the argument we had on here like 8 years ago before it went OTC where we decided that the solution was to put strategic vending machines in public places?

I know this is a problem in ND.
I know in IA they are trying to straight up ban telemedicine (in that circumstance it is administered in a clinic setting) so I don't really know what's going to happen there.
I'd love if this wasn't an issue anymore, but I don't think that's the case. **** accessing plan B is still a problem - I know people who have been refused that.

 

[mustang sally]

Don't we have a professional duty to protect the patient? If a pharmacist believes that abortion is murder, how can you say that by denying the prescription they are not fulfilling their professional duties?

More importantly, who wants to be the judge that has to decide if denying an abortion pill is protecting the patient?

Good point, but here is a "for example" of how I view ethical situations.

Let's say you believe that homosexuality is a sin. Fine, people can believe whatever they want. Then don't become a homosexual. But I don't believe that that gives you the right to interfere with other people who wish to marry the same gender, or to oppose their pursuit of happiness in any way.

If a patient has a legal right to a prescription and you refuse to fill it based on your personal beliefs, then you are imposing your personal morals onto their ability to obtain healthcare.

 

[deleted480308]

Good point, but here is a "for example" of how I view ethical situations.

Let's say you believe that homosexuality is a sin. Fine, people can believe whatever they want. Then don't become a homosexual. But I don't believe that that gives you the right to interfere with other people who wish to marry the same gender, or to oppose their pursuit of happiness in any way.

If a patient has a legal right to a prescription and you refuse to fill it based on your personal beliefs, then you are imposing your personal morals onto their ability to obtain healthcare.

Your analogy is bad. No one gets to make anyone violate their belief. I don't get to stop you from marrying who you want, you don't get to force me to be involved

Same thing for providers

 

[Rouelle]

Good point, but here is a "for example" of how I view ethical situations.

Let's say you believe that homosexuality is a sin. Fine, people can believe whatever they want. Then don't become a homosexual. But I don't believe that that gives you the right to interfere with other people who wish to marry the same gender, or to oppose their pursuit of happiness in any way.

If a patient has a legal right to a prescription and you refuse to fill it based on your personal beliefs, then you are imposing your personal morals onto their ability to obtain healthcare.

I agree with the bolded statement but still think a Catholic priest should not be compelled to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony if it goes against his fundamental ideals.

 

[touchpause13]

I agree with the bolded statement but still think a Catholic priest should not be compelled to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony if it goes against his fundamental ideals.

I agree but with this issue I think we have to consider access. I think it's one thing to say "I won't do this" and another thing to say " I won't do this, I won't help you find someone else who will do this, I won't inform anyone ahead of time that I won't do this, and by the way no one else does this in this town"

I understand not wanting to break your own moral code, what I don't understand is completely refusing to provide that patient with access to someone who doesn't have that same moral obligation

 

[PharmBeanz]

I agree with the bolded statement but still think a Catholic priest should not be compelled to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony if it goes against his fundamental ideals.

I don't think that's the same thing. The nature of a Catholic priest's business is to pass moral judgement. That is not in any job description for a pharmacist. Also, the priest actually performs the ceremony. A pharmacist isn't actually performing the abortion.

I also don't think anyone would go to a catholic priest to perform their same-sex ceremony, because they would have the expectation that it could not be done. Most people do not walk into a pharmacy expecting to be denied access just because the pharmacist doesn't agree with your lifestyle.

To add another analogy on top of the many used already (probably not the best one either)... If it's against your moral code to drink/be drunk, it's ridiculous to go work in a restaurant and then deny people liquor simply because it's not in line with your moral compass.

 

[deleted480308]

I don't think that's the same thing. The nature of a Catholic priest's business is to pass moral judgement. That is not in any job description for a pharmacist. Also, the priest actually performs the ceremony. A pharmacist isn't actually performing the abortion.

I also don't think anyone would go to a catholic priest to perform their same-sex ceremony, because they would have the expectation that it could not be done. Most people do not walk into a pharmacy expecting to be denied access just because the pharmacist doesn't agree with your lifestyle.

To add another analogy on top of the many used already (probably not the best one either)... If it's against your moral code to drink/be drunk, it's ridiculous to go work in a restaurant and then deny people liquor simply because it's not in line with your moral compass.

but that's only ridiculous if your employer wants you to sell alcohol....it's not ridiculous to open a restaurant and just not sell alcohol. You don't owe anyone a particular product

 

[touchpause13]

but that's only ridiculous if your employer wants you to sell alcohol....it's not ridiculous to open a restaurant and just not sell alcohol. You don't owe anyone a particular product

But the pharmacy does sell drugs that are used for termination. If your employer has decided to provide that service, then do you think the pharmacist has the right to deny the patient the medication? Or more so, deny the medication and not provide any other options (aka have another person there actually dispense the drug)

 

[littleowl]

but that's only ridiculous if your employer wants you to sell alcohol....it's not ridiculous to open a restaurant and just not sell alcohol. You don't owe anyone a particular product

I think we've established that if you're operating an independent pharmacy/misc. healthcare practice site, you can refuse to perform duties that you deem immoral because you OWN the rights to your business operation. This discussion is primarily for those healthcare providers that want to caterwaul about their "moral code" while collecting a paycheck from an employer who expects you to provide services to the best of your professional ability instead of imposing personal judgement on your patients by refusing treatments that you don't agree with.

 

[touchpause13]

Exactly. If it's your business it's your business, you don't have to provide a service you don't want to, we are talking about employees at companies that *do* provide this service.

 

[deleted480308]

But the pharmacy does sell drugs that are used for termination. If your employer has decided to provide that service, then do you think the pharmacist has the right to deny the patient the medication? Or more so, deny the medication and not provide any other options (aka have another person there actually dispense the drug)

that's between the employer and their employee, if they want to make it a condition of employment they can fire people who won't dispense. But no business owes that product to you, so no, they don't have to provide a different employee to do it. But in speaking of chains, we all know they will require them to dispense because it's good for business.

I think we've established that if you're operating an independent pharmacy/misc. healthcare practice site, you can refuse to perform duties that you deem immoral because you OWN the rights to your business operation. This discussion is primarily for those healthcare providers that want to caterwaul about their "moral code" while collecting a paycheck from an employer who expects you to provide services to the best of your professional ability instead of imposing personal judgement on your patients by refusing treatments that you don't agree with.

there are people here on this forum who do think that it's a professionalism issue and don't think you should be able to be a pharmacist if you exercise your conscience.

 

[touchpause13]

I think you can exercise your conscious without denying care

 

[Digsbe]

Patients have the right to access care, your license (which is yours, for which you are accountable for) legally empowers you to practice in your profession. Patients are not entitled to force your hand and use your license in ways that make you uncomfortable or violate your personal morals as an individual. They are not entitled to your services, having your license doesn't mean forced servitude and a surrendering of your rights as another human being. There are ethical issues outside of abortion. What if the state had an order for lethal drugs to be used for executing a death row inmate? What if you're in a state with legalized physician-assisted suicide and you don't want to fill a medication that you know is intended to end a patients life? People have the right to access your service and you can't take that away, but they aren't entitled to your service or have the ability to force servitude and have you violate your beliefs in states that protect the rights of practitioners with conscience clauses. Healthcare isn't slavery, there are laws about providing life saving emergency services for those who may not be able to pay but outside of that practitioners shouldn't be forced to violate their beliefs and use their licenses in ways they don't approve of. They put in the work, they got the license and it's their practice, not the patients.

 

[littleowl]

It isn't your practice if you're employed by a third party wherein your license affords you the opportunity to earn a living with said employer. Healthcare isn't slavery but your rights end where someone else's begin. That means you have every right to refuse services/treatments...but your employer has every right to terminate your employment contract for failure to provide the services for which you are being paid. Why would you enter a career that would supposedly have you compromising your sacred beliefs constantly? That seems like a foolish decision and a recipe for disaster.

 

[sakigt]

So Pharmacists who refuse to dispense abortion drugs would also refuse to dispense oral chemotherapy as well? Or will we skate around that issue as because the "unintended consequence" of chemo would be disruption of the growing fetus?

And man oh man, if you refuse to dispense medication based on your personal belief your life better be squeaky f-ing clean. Its like anti-vaxxers who eat McDonalds....

 

[BidingMyTime]

I think everybody agrees that if you are working for an employer, you do whatever (legal) job your employer wants you to do.

The issue is individual self-employer pharmacists (or anyone) being forced to provide a service against their moral beliefs. In IL, this issue is working its way to the courts, as our last governor (who is now in prison) passed a law making it illegal for pharmacists to refuse to dispense/sell Plan B. An independent pharmacy owner is suing to have this law overturned, and I strongly support him. Why should an independent pharmacy owner be forced to sell Plan B, if he doesn't want to? NO pharmacy carries every possible drug that available, decisions on what to carry is usually made based on the finances, but if an owner wants to make the decision based on his morals/ethics, who is the government to tell him he can't?

 

[touchpause13]

I think everybody agrees that if you are working for an employer, you do whatever (legal) job your employer wants you to do.

The issue is individual self-employer pharmacists (or anyone) being forced to provide a service against their moral beliefs. In IL, this issue is working its way to the courts, as our last governor (who is now in prison) passed a law making it illegal for pharmacists to refuse to dispense/sell Plan B. An independent pharmacy owner is suing to have this law overturned, and I strongly support him. Why should an independent pharmacy owner be forced to sell Plan B, if he doesn't want to? NO pharmacy carries every possible drug that available, decisions on what to carry is usually made based on the finances, but if an owner wants to make the decision based on his morals/ethics, who is the government to tell him he can't?

Yeah I think that we should be dispensing the **** like candy but I'm uncomfortable with forcing business owners to provide a particular service.

 

[SClENCE]

Posts like this sadden me. I really hate the idea of imposing your beliefs onto other people especially when you have no idea about what the other person is going through. If you had a problem with certain medications, maybe you should have chose a career where there wouldn't be an opportunity for you to do actions that are against your personal beliefs. What's next? Not helping homosexuals because you don't agree with their lifestyle?

By refusing to fill it, you are not imposing your beliefs on the patient. This argument could easily be turned around to say "The patient is imposing her beliefs on the pharmacist by making him facilitate an abortion"

I am not pro-choice, however I couldn't give a **** less what other people do. I'd fill it just to avoid the headache and make my employer happy because that's what I'm paid for.

 

[GoldfishPharmD]

By refusing to fill it, you are not imposing your beliefs on the patient. You are simply refusing to take part in something that doesn't fall in line with your beliefs. This argument could easily be turned around to say "the patient is imposing her beliefs on the pharmacist by making him facilitate an abortion"

I am not pro-choice, however I couldn't give a **** less what other people do. I'd fill it just to avoid the headache

I just feel like it's a slippery slope. Also, as health care providers we have an obligation to patients, not the other way around.

 

[SClENCE]

I just feel like it's a slippery slope. Also, as health care providers we have an obligation to patients, not the other way around.

Well the baby wouldn't be getting very good health care since it's dead

 

[GoldfishPharmD]

Well the baby wouldn't be getting very good health care since it's dead

Cause the person carrying the "baby" doesn't matter...

 

[SClENCE]

Cause the person carrying the "baby" doesn't matter...

Well a healthy pregnancy in no way compromises the health of the patient so I don't see why it would matter, given that you are obligated to the health of the patient

 

[GoldfishPharmD]

Well a healthy pregnancy in no way compromises the health of the patient so I don't see why it would matter, given that you are obligated to the health of the patient

Not going to get into this debate on here.

 

[GoldfishPharmD]

Well a healthy pregnancy in no way compromises the health of the patient so I don't see why it would matter, given that you are obligated to the health of the patient

Also, you'd be making assumptions on if a pregnancy is healthy or not. Like I stated above, people in here are trying to make decisions without knowing all the facts or the person's story...

 

[SClENCE]

Also, you'd be making assumptions on if a pregnancy is healthy or not. Like I stated above, people in here are trying to make decisions without knowing all the facts or the person's story...

This is why id fill it anyways and avoid the headache weather i agree with it or not

 

[CVS Rph 1980]

I have worked in an independent and corporate retail setting. There is much more leeway in using your professional judgment in the independent pharmacy, obviously. I have seen some younger generation pharmacists try exercising the same decision making process in CVS for the past decade and it only got them in hot water or a pink slip. If this bill gains serious traction nationwide, these billion dollar pharmaceuticals will not go down without a fight

 

[touchpause13]

Well the baby wouldn't be getting very good health care since it's dead

Seriously, dude?

 

[deleted480308]

I think the point isn't about trying to convince people whether abortifacents/birth control are wrong or not. That won't be accomplished here. The question is, should I be able to use the government to force a provider to do something against their conscience?

 

[sakigt]

Well a healthy pregnancy in no way compromises the health of the patient so I don't see why it would matter, given that you are obligated to the health of the patient

What?

Im at month 7 and my health has been compromised, thank you very much. Its fairly obvious theres a boy behind that keyboard... Not only was I more likely to die during the flu season but in a few weeks here Ill have a fairly better chance than you of bleeding to death. I mean, seriously dude.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I mean, being pregnant is basically the same as going to Syria to fight ISIS. That's why there have only been like 100 billion women ever give birth.

 

[SClENCE]

What?

Im at month 7 and my health has been compromised, thank you very much. Its fairly obvious theres a boy behind that keyboard... Not only was I more likely to die during the flu season but in a few weeks here Ill have a fairly better chance than you of bleeding to death. I mean, seriously dude.

These are risks associated with a healthy pregnancy. Are you telling me that the due to the increased risk of the flu that it is in the best interest of your health to abort? LOL

 

[PharmBeanz]

I think the point isn't about trying to convince people whether abortifacents/birth control are wrong or not. That won't be accomplished here. The question is, should I be able to use the government to force a provider to do something against their conscience?

Let's start small with making the government force Chic Fil A to open on Sundays.

 

[mustang sally]

Let's start small with making the government force Chic Fil A to open on Sundays.

Good plan.

Anyone else ever notice how you always want to eat Chick-fil-A or shop at Hobby Lobby on a Sunday?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Good plan.

Anyone else ever notice how you always want to eat Chick-fil-A or shop at Hobby Lobby on a Sunday?

No. One has ****ty, overrated chicken. The other I didn't know existed until they showed up in the news.

 

[deleted480308]

No. One has ****ty, overrated chicken. The other I didn't know existed until they showed up in the news.

The chicken is very good but the real champion is the waffle fries

 

[touchpause13]

These are risks associated with a healthy pregnancy. Are you telling me that the due to the increased risk of the flu that it is in the best interest of your health to abort? LOL

I think she's telling you that you are vastly overstating how healthy it actually is to be pregnant. It's not a walk in the park by any stretch of the imagination and I wouldn't want anyone to have to go through that who absolutely didn't want to.

 

[touchpause13]

The chicken is very good but the real champion is the waffle fries

BK fries all day erry day foreva

 

[sakigt]

These are risks associated with a healthy pregnancy. Are you telling me that the due to the increased risk of the flu that it is in the best interest of your health to abort? LOL

You said there were no risks. Now youre saying there are risks. Which is it?

Im saying there are risks, that you, on the other side of the Pharmacy counter may or may not be aware of. And frankly, I dont think its any of your darn business. I had a patient roll through whose pregnancy abdominal pain turned into a pancreatic cancer diagnosis, after which careful discussion among many doctors she decided to terminate the pregnancy to start chemo to spend a few more months-years with her 2 year old. So yeah, be grateful you get to be so judgey and not in the drivers seat of THAT decision.

 

[Dalteparin]

So Pharmacists who refuse to dispense abortion drugs would also refuse to dispense oral chemotherapy as well? Or will we skate around that issue as because the "unintended consequence" of chemo would be disruption of the growing fetus?

I can't speak for anybody else, but as someone who would refuse to dispense abortion drugs (and drugs for an execution, and drugs for assisted suicide, but my job doesn't expect me to do any of that), I would not refuse to dispense oral chemo to a woman of childbearing age. I would tell her that this drug is known to cause birth defects and she should avoid pregnancy while she's taking it. How she chooses to avoid pregnancy is none of my business. And its worth noting that a lot of oral chemo drugs have REMS programs which require documentation of two negative pregnancy tests before the drug can be dispensed initially, plus monthly tests thereafter.

 

[VCU07]

I think in many states (including mine) pharmacists can refuse to fill abortion meds, you can't destroy the prescription but you can refuse to fill it. I find no problem with that.

I assume your ok paying child support? Eventually, this will make it into a legal case.

 

[BenJammin]

I assume your ok paying child support? Eventually, this will make it into a legal case.

Huh? So it's the fault of the pharmacist that the child is born, not the parents of the kid? Ridiculous.

 

[Promethean]

Huh? So it's the fault of the pharmacist that the child is born, not the parents of the kid? Ridiculous.

That doesn't mean it won't be litigated.

 

[mustang sally]

Eh, I don't see what all the hoopla is about.

Pick a job that you are willing and able to do. If you strongly object to some part of a position, then maybe it isn't the best choice for you.

 

[BenJammin]

That doesn't mean it won't be litigated.

Everything can be litigated so your point is a moot one.

 

[Promethean]

Eh, I don't see what all the hoopla is about.

Pick a job that you are willing and able to do. If you strongly object to some part of a position, then maybe it isn't the best choice for you.

The hoopla is that there are people who feel entitled to have both. They don't want to have any trade offs. Give them the job they want AND the ability to refuse to perform that job when it suits them. For reasons.

I don't think that an independent pharmacist can or should be required to fill scripts they aren't comfortable with. "Sorry, we just don't have that drug in stock." But if the pharmacy stocks it, and the doctor prescribed it, and the patient wants it, and there is no medical reason not to provide it... then refusing to do so because of your personal beliefs is unprofessional and unethical. I also don't see how a reasonable person could argue with that. (Without inserting strawmen about government force or slippery slopes.)

 

[MajorBubblez]

The hoopla is that there are people who feel entitled to have both. They don't want to have any trade offs. Give them the job they want AND the ability to refuse to perform that job when it suits them. For reasons.

I don't think that an independent pharmacist can or should be required to fill scripts they aren't comfortable with. "Sorry, we just don't have that drug in stock." But if the pharmacy stocks it, and the doctor prescribed it, and the patient wants it, and there is no medical reason not to provide it... then refusing to do so because of your personal beliefs is unprofessional and unethical. I also don't see how a reasonable person could argue with that. (Without inserting strawmen about government force or slippery slopes.)

I've been following this thread without interjecting but I agree with this 100%. This isn't an issue of someone forcing you to provide a service unpaid for, this is an issue of allowing your personal beliefs to inhibit your professional responsibilities. Pharmacists are not morality police; they're pharmaceutical experts.

 

[BenJammin]

I don't think that an independent pharmacist can or should be required to fill scripts they aren't comfortable with. "Sorry, we just don't have that drug in stock." But if the pharmacy stocks it, and the doctor prescribed it, and the patient wants it, and there is no medical reason not to provide it... then refusing to do so because of your personal beliefs is unprofessional and unethical. I also don't see how a reasonable person could argue with that. (Without inserting strawmen about government force or slippery slopes.)

Have you read anything that was posted in this thread? Nobody accepts the premise of your garbage question. If a pro-life pharmacist believes that providing a medication that would abort or prevent a pregnancy is a medical reason to refuse a prescription then what is your point?

 

[deleted480308]

I've been following this thread without interjecting but I agree with this 100%. This isn't an issue of someone forcing you to provide a service unpaid for, this is an issue of allowing your personal beliefs to inhibit your professional responsibilities. Pharmacists are not morality police; they're pharmaceutical experts.

morality police would be pharmacists running around in parking lots slapping pills out of people's hands, a professional exercising their right to a conscience is simply not partaking in the transaction.

There is no professionalism aspect to be discussed here. The only question is if your employer requires it as part of your employment.