- Joined
- Dec 18, 2004
- Messages
- 534
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm sorry if this has been posted else where, I haven't checked. We used to have some lively ethics case discussion in this forum so I figured I might as well spice things up again. Feel free to comment on the following:
Say you're a pharmacist who opposes abortion and you also have a moral problem with the morning-after pill. It doesn't matter that most doctors don't consider it an abortion drug, that it prevents fertilization of egg by sperm rather than destroying an embryo. In your view, it still ends a human life.
Say you even have a problem with birth-control pills. You consider this a matter of conscience and yourself a conscientious objector.
Does that make it right for you to refuse to fill the prescription?
Right or wrong, that's what a growing number of pharmacists around the country are doing. On principle, they're refusing to fill prescriptions for both the morning-after and regular old birth-control pills.
Principle is one thing, access another. The pharmacists' stance is threatening the access of women to their doctor-prescribed drugs, especially in small communities with only one pharmacy.
So states are stepping in. Illinois' governor issued an emergency rule ordering pharmacies that stock the morning-after pill to fill prescriptions for it. Proposals in California, Missouri and New Jersey would require pharmacies to fill any legal prescriptions.
But even more bills are cropping up that would let pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions on moral or religious grounds. Such "conscience clause" bills have been introduced in at least 23 states.
Some U.S. senators have jumped in with a bipartisan bill that would allow a pharmacist to refuse as long as another pharmacist on duty filled the prescription. In some reported cases, pharmacists have gone so far as to refuse to even transfer a birth-control prescription to another pharmacy or return it to the patient.
This is scary.
I'm sympathetic to the need to heed one's conscience on the job. So I've asked myself what I'd do if I were still an editorial writer and my editor demanded I write in support of something I abhorred - like the death penalty.
Knowing that possibility, before I ever took a job, I used to make sure I knew what I'd be required to do, and that my editors knew which issues I considered non-negotiable.
One former editorial-page editor wrote of his dilemma when his growing religious convictions began to conflict with his paper's editorial positions. He made a decision I respect: He quit. Pharmacists who feel their personal views should supersede their professional responsibilities probably shouldn't be in this field.
Most of us at some point find ourselves working with others who test our beliefs. But we calculate the benefits. Anti-AIDS advocates who arrange clean-needle exchanges don't endorse IV drug use but want to cut down on HIV transmission. Prison volunteers who work with inmates don't condone their crimes but hope to help them reform.
Blocking birth control is self-defeating if you want to stop abortions.
The professional ethics code for pharmacists includes a provision to respect the autonomy and dignity of each patient. Jill June, president of Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, calls pharmacists "part of the sacred trust covenant between the patient and her doctor."
For years, pharmacy was one of the most trusted professions, according to Lon Larson, who teaches pharmacy ethics at Drake's college of pharmacy. Now he sees that stature in jeopardy. What's changed is that in the past, a pharmacist who felt strongly might quietly recuse himself or herself and find another way for the patient to get the medicine. Nothing wrong with that, says Larson. "Things I find morally repugnant I shouldn't be required to do."
But as with most things, this has morphed from a manageable issue to one out of control because of hard-line positions, in this case related to abortion. Instead of balancing interests so everyone's can be met, we're scoring points by demonizing opponents.
Check out the verbiage on the Web site of Pharmacists for Life, which is in the vanguard of the "conscience clause" movement. It refers to a New England pharmacist who "tries to follow his properly formed conscience and not have pro-aborts impose their amoral views on pharmacists like himself."
Being righteous includes being respectful. Where does meddling in the name of conscience stop? The National Law Journal reported that a pharmacist in Dallas last year refused to dispense Ritalin for a child with ADD. As June puts it, "You don't expect the clerk at the grocery store to refuse to check you out because they're a vegetarian and you're buying meat."
Raylene Rospond, the dean of the Drake pharmacy college, worries about Illinois' new rule and any laws that would strip pharmacists of the ability to make professional judgments, noting that not every refusal to fill a prescription is driven by personal beliefs. There might be a potentially harmful drug interactions.
It's a valid concern, and it's hard to believe we've reached the point where new laws may be needed to allow patients to buy their prescribed medicines. But one way or another, that access must be ensured.
Say you're a pharmacist who opposes abortion and you also have a moral problem with the morning-after pill. It doesn't matter that most doctors don't consider it an abortion drug, that it prevents fertilization of egg by sperm rather than destroying an embryo. In your view, it still ends a human life.
Say you even have a problem with birth-control pills. You consider this a matter of conscience and yourself a conscientious objector.
Does that make it right for you to refuse to fill the prescription?
Right or wrong, that's what a growing number of pharmacists around the country are doing. On principle, they're refusing to fill prescriptions for both the morning-after and regular old birth-control pills.
Principle is one thing, access another. The pharmacists' stance is threatening the access of women to their doctor-prescribed drugs, especially in small communities with only one pharmacy.
So states are stepping in. Illinois' governor issued an emergency rule ordering pharmacies that stock the morning-after pill to fill prescriptions for it. Proposals in California, Missouri and New Jersey would require pharmacies to fill any legal prescriptions.
But even more bills are cropping up that would let pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions on moral or religious grounds. Such "conscience clause" bills have been introduced in at least 23 states.
Some U.S. senators have jumped in with a bipartisan bill that would allow a pharmacist to refuse as long as another pharmacist on duty filled the prescription. In some reported cases, pharmacists have gone so far as to refuse to even transfer a birth-control prescription to another pharmacy or return it to the patient.
This is scary.
I'm sympathetic to the need to heed one's conscience on the job. So I've asked myself what I'd do if I were still an editorial writer and my editor demanded I write in support of something I abhorred - like the death penalty.
Knowing that possibility, before I ever took a job, I used to make sure I knew what I'd be required to do, and that my editors knew which issues I considered non-negotiable.
One former editorial-page editor wrote of his dilemma when his growing religious convictions began to conflict with his paper's editorial positions. He made a decision I respect: He quit. Pharmacists who feel their personal views should supersede their professional responsibilities probably shouldn't be in this field.
Most of us at some point find ourselves working with others who test our beliefs. But we calculate the benefits. Anti-AIDS advocates who arrange clean-needle exchanges don't endorse IV drug use but want to cut down on HIV transmission. Prison volunteers who work with inmates don't condone their crimes but hope to help them reform.
Blocking birth control is self-defeating if you want to stop abortions.
The professional ethics code for pharmacists includes a provision to respect the autonomy and dignity of each patient. Jill June, president of Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, calls pharmacists "part of the sacred trust covenant between the patient and her doctor."
For years, pharmacy was one of the most trusted professions, according to Lon Larson, who teaches pharmacy ethics at Drake's college of pharmacy. Now he sees that stature in jeopardy. What's changed is that in the past, a pharmacist who felt strongly might quietly recuse himself or herself and find another way for the patient to get the medicine. Nothing wrong with that, says Larson. "Things I find morally repugnant I shouldn't be required to do."
But as with most things, this has morphed from a manageable issue to one out of control because of hard-line positions, in this case related to abortion. Instead of balancing interests so everyone's can be met, we're scoring points by demonizing opponents.
Check out the verbiage on the Web site of Pharmacists for Life, which is in the vanguard of the "conscience clause" movement. It refers to a New England pharmacist who "tries to follow his properly formed conscience and not have pro-aborts impose their amoral views on pharmacists like himself."
Being righteous includes being respectful. Where does meddling in the name of conscience stop? The National Law Journal reported that a pharmacist in Dallas last year refused to dispense Ritalin for a child with ADD. As June puts it, "You don't expect the clerk at the grocery store to refuse to check you out because they're a vegetarian and you're buying meat."
Raylene Rospond, the dean of the Drake pharmacy college, worries about Illinois' new rule and any laws that would strip pharmacists of the ability to make professional judgments, noting that not every refusal to fill a prescription is driven by personal beliefs. There might be a potentially harmful drug interactions.
It's a valid concern, and it's hard to believe we've reached the point where new laws may be needed to allow patients to buy their prescribed medicines. But one way or another, that access must be ensured.
