Another pharmacist refuses to fill meds for religious beliefs

[beautifulrobot]

I am surprised this hasnt made the rounds here yet: Michigan Pharmacist Refused to Dispense Miscarriage Medication, Citing Religious Beliefs

Looks like this pharmacist was let go from his job, although they dont explicitly describe the circumstances of why he doesnt work there anymore.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wagrxm2000]

I am surprised this hasnt made the rounds here yet: Michigan Pharmacist Refused to Dispense Miscarriage Medication, Citing Religious Beliefs

Looks like this pharmacist was let go from his job, although they dont explicitly describe the circumstances of why he doesnt work there anymore.

Because this was already exhausted here?

 

[pencilandpen]

yawn, it gets old after a while

 

[beautifulrobot]

Because this was already exhausted here?

We have 20 new threads about saturation every week, I thought people enjoyed beating dead horses here?

Although honestly I don't have much to add to this story.

 

[Mad Jack]

Michigan pharmacist who denied miscarriage drug no longer in job

Hey, at least he got fired as he deserved

 

[Digsbe]

I always find it skeptical in these situations that the "pharmacist refused to transfer it." Any pharmacist I know knows if you refuse an Rx you must refer someone elsewhere and you cannot refuse to transfer something as that's impeding on a patient's right to select their pharmacy. Either way, he should have filled it especially after being told it was for a miscarriage. Per the article he didn't trust her word, he should have called the prescriber to verify if that was also the case.

 

[VictorOfHungerGames]

Interesting...

I always find it skeptical in these situations that the "pharmacist refused to transfer it." Any pharmacist I know knows if you refuse an Rx you must refer someone elsewhere and you cannot refuse to transfer something as that's impeding on a patient's right to select their pharmacy. Either way, he should have filled it especially after being told it was for a miscarriage. Per the article he didn't trust her word, he should have called the prescriber to verify if that was also the case.

If anything, he could've called the doctor's office and verified. I don't remember any religious beliefs dictating what I should or shouldn't do as a pharmacist when I was being sworn in during my graduation... this is ******ed.

 

[confettiflyer]

Taking a written Rx and refusing to return it or transfer it is theft IMO.

May it may not be related to above case, I didn’t read the article.

Do your fcking job. No one cares about your “feelings.”


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[BC_89]

Don’t see why he couldn’t verify with the provider as others have stated... it was indeed for a current miscarriage.

I’ll give it a shot:

I ‘spose I could add that the comparison the American Civil Liberties Union made for a male with the same medication (as in: his prescription / diagnosed by provider / his name on it) was somehow a perfect simile of favoritism over this situation of a woman using the same medication (for a completely different purpose). Well, I guess that’s similar to being denied buying a k-bar hunting knife while picking up some Zoloft since it could imply PTSD with suicidal ideation...

Food for thought

 

[lord999]

I always find it skeptical in these situations that the "pharmacist refused to transfer it." Any pharmacist I know knows if you refuse an Rx you must refer someone elsewhere and you cannot refuse to transfer something as that's impeding on a patient's right to select their pharmacy. Either way, he should have filled it especially after being told it was for a miscarriage. Per the article he didn't trust her word, he should have called the prescriber to verify if that was also the case.

That is a state matter and definitely not the case in AZ or MN, there's actually been issues with pharmacists impounding scripts and such too (but the AZ board only allows it for "legitimate" and "reasonable" suspicions of fraud or out of scope, etc.). I completely agree with the other matters, I hope the license draws regulatory attention.

I disagree, @confettiflyer on the theft matter even in these cases. I'm actually on the side that if someone hands me a script, I am not obligated to return it to them if I have overt and explainable reasons to not, it's no longer in the patient's hands at that point as it is my property at that point. On the same token, if I both refuse to hand back or act on a prescription, I'd better be taking some other action as well as being able to explain myself on the matter. I think you would feel the same.

In this case, I do think this is bad faith and unprofessional on the part of the pharmacist having no intentions of acting on the prescription or working to address the issue somehow.

 

[owlegrad]

Well these threads are no fun until someone comes along to defend the pharmacist but I am going to go ahead and "pile on". The pharmacist is 100% in the wrong and deserves to be fired. Perhaps have action taken against his license. I wouldn't go so far as to all for him to lose his license though - a stiff fine would suffice for me.

He can always try to get a job where this issue wouldn't come up. For example in LTC I have never ever had this issue pop up.

 

[radio frequency]

I agree this pharmacist was in the wrong and acted in bad faith toward this patient. If he couldn’t fill it, he should have found a pharmacist somewhere locally who would. She deserved better treatment.

What I don’t agree with is her statement that she didn’t necessarily have to tell the pharmacist what the medication was being used for. For all medications, without a known diagnosis, it’s impossible to know if it is an appropriate and safe choice for the patient. If patients reserve the right to not share their what they are treating, I reserve the right to not fill (though I would never deny a misoprostol...I always feel bad for women getting it, for whatever reason, as it’s almost always an unhappy event).

 

[Sine Cura]

I mean if I were this pharmacist I would go HAM and say women 35 and older shouldn't be getting pregnant and this is God's punishment PBUH whatever. Go out with a bang

 

[eeyore spice]

What I don’t agree with is her statement that she didn’t necessarily have to tell the pharmacist what the medication was being used for.

Normally I would agree, but all she'd really have to say is that she's not pregnant or already miscarried. Not sure why the RPh didn't believe her, though. Also, OB/GYNs in rural areas with only a few pharmacies should probably know whether any pharmacists would refuse to dispense misoprostol. At least call the pharmacy in advance.

 

[BidingMyTime]

then declined to help her obtain the drug elsewhere.

The article didn't say he refused to give the RX back to her or transfer it, and while that might have been the case, it could have also been he just refused to call around to find another pharmacy that would fill it and told her to have the transferring pharmacy call him.

I really don't get this. I am pro-life, but misoprostol can obviously be used for other things than an abortifacient. I still occasionally see RX's in-house to use it for "cervical ripening" for a normal L/D, even though this really isn't recommended. My feeling is don't ask/don't tell, why would anyone deny someone a drug that could be used for a miscarriage or even a normal L/D, because they "think" it might be used for an abortion. I could "think" a lot of things about prescriptions and what someone is planning to do with those prescriptions, but "thinking" isn't the same as facts. In this story, there was no reason not to believe the patient and the drug should have been dispensed (or as someone else mentioned, if he really had concerns, he should have called the dr for clarification.) I almost suspect that certain pharmacists are looking for situations to deny filling a prescription, so they can feel morally superior.

 

[Sine Cura]

No joke. I knew a pharmacist who refused to dispense Arthrotec to a woman who wasn't pregnant.

 

[Apotheker2015]

Just looked him up on the BOP website. His license is active. "As a good catholic male" - *yawn*

 

[BenJammin]

I disagree, @confettiflyer on the theft matter even in these cases. I'm actually on the side that if someone hands me a script, I am not obligated to return it to them if I have overt and explainable reasons to not, it's no longer in the patient's hands at that point as it is my property at that point. On the same token, if I both refuse to hand back or act on a prescription, I'd better be taking some other action as well as being able to explain myself on the matter. I think you would feel the same.

I don't agree with any of this. The prescription always belongs to the patient. If you haven't filled it then you have no reason to deny its return by request.

 

[deleted480308]

I don't agree with any of this. The prescription always belongs to the patient. If you haven't filled it then you have no reason to deny its return by request.

the script with the questionable signature for oxy30 q1hr in a 90day supply? you hand that paper back? because I don't think you do

 

[BenJammin]

the script with the questionable signature for oxy30 q1hr in a 90day supply? you hand that paper back? because I don't think you do

Are you making the claim that the prescription is a forgery or fake? If so, it's not the patient's property since it's not a valid prescription. Warfarin 10mg take 12 tabs QD #360 you will refuse to return to the patient?

 

[deleted480308]

I don't agree with any of this. The prescription always belongs to the patient. If you haven't filled it then you have no reason to deny its return by request.

and what you said here ^....is not the same as down there v

Are you making the claim that the prescription is a forgery or fake? If so, it's not the patient's property since it's not a valid prescription. Warfarin 10mg take 12 tabs QD #360 you will refuse to return to the patient?

 

[BenJammin]

and what you said here ^....is not the same as down there v

It's exactly the same. Can you answer the question?

 

[owlegrad]

LOL Ben you don’t even see how inconsistent your posts are? So a prescription is always the patient’s property, unless you suspect it is a forgery in which case it is not?

And how can it be the patient’s property after they have surrendered it to the pharmacy? At what point does it belong to the pharmacy?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[BenJammin]

LOL Ben you don’t even see how inconsistent your posts are? So a prescription is always the patient’s property, unless you suspect it is a forgery in which case it is not?

And how can it be the patient’s property after they have surrendered it to the pharmacy? At what point does it belong to the pharmacy?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Absolutely no inconsistency. Are you trying to say that a forged prescription is somehow property? That a forged prescription is indeed...gah, a prescription? The prescription belongs to the patient until you fill it. Haven't filled it? It's not yours to keep. Period.

 

[owlegrad]

Absolutely no inconsistency. Are you trying to say that a forged prescription is somehow property? That a forged prescription is indeed...gah, a prescription? The prescription belongs to the patient until you fill it. Haven't filled it? It's not yours to keep. Period.

So you merely thinking it may be forged reduces it to 'not property'? What if you refuse to give it back but then it turns out not to be forged? Were you in fact a thief to keep said prescription from its rightful owner? Or you may in fact keep the script until you determine if it is valid, in which case it is permissible for a pharmacist to refuse to give back a prescription to its owner in some cases (not as you put it, "you must give it back, period")?

 

[BidingMyTime]

What I was taught in law class when back in the day was that the prescription belongs to the patient. In addition to that, as a manner of course, for my safety and desire to avoid conflict, I would always return a prescription to the patient if I were not going to fill it. *if* I knew for a fact that the prescription was written on a stolen prescription blank (and I've never had this situation), then that clearly isn't the patient's property and I would keep it. Unless they threatened me, then they can have it, and I'll let the police handle the manner. Depending on the circumstance, I might add a helpful note to the RX for the next pharmacist who handles it (like refill too soon until 11/20/18 or unable to reach doctor for verification of dosing, etc.)

 

[ExpressMaiL]

Oh look, religion causing another problem.

 

[BidAsk]

Some of these pharmacists are prob the ones who banged several chicks in college and drank out of beer bongs. And now all of a sudden are trying to claim “devout catholic” on the the job. Gtfoh.
These cases should be immediate termination, no questions asked. As a matter of fact, because it is becoming pervasive, employers should start making it a condition of employment. First interview question....can u separate religion and work? If not, getta steppin’.