Interesting story -- Morning after pill

[Monkeyguts]

From CNN:


DENTON, Texas (AP) -- About 40 people gathered outside an Eckerd pharmacy Monday, protesting what they said was a decision to deny a rape victim a prescription for the morning-after pill.

A spokesman for the Florida-based company confirmed that Eckerd has taken disciplinary action in response to an incident at the store.

"Apparently there was a request for a prescription to be filled and the prescription was denied based on a moral or ethical decision made by the pharmacist, and that's not in accordance with our corporate policy," said Joan Gallagher, vice president of communications for Largo, Florida-based Eckerd Corp.

Gallagher told the Denton Record-Chronicle that she could provide no other details.

The protesters carried signs. Some stood silently and others chanted slogans.

Morning-after pills have been sold under the brand names Plan B and Preven since 1998. Taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse, the hormone pills are at least 75 percent effective at preventing pregnancy.

An unidentified friend of the woman seeking the prescription told the newspaper she got the drug from a neighboring pharmacy.

Gay Dodson, executive director of the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, said state law allows pharmacists to decline filling prescriptions if the medication could harm the patient.

"The law does not say that the pharmacy can decline because of moral ground," she said.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Triangulation]

that f'in blows. that pharmacist should lose his licencse.

 

[jemc2000]

I saw that. Amazing, isn't it? Next thing you know, you'll have pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for BCP.

 

[rxdude]

I disagree with Tri. The pharmacist SHOULD NOT lose his/her license based on this particular bad moral decision. I think suspension without pay would be a more fair punishment. Anyhow, I thought it was interesting to see a pharmacist make a decision based on morals, rather than company policy. It's not often you see something like this (unless of course, it makes the homepage of the CNN.com website!)

 

[Triangulation]

Originally posted by rxdude
I disagree with Tri. The pharmacist SHOULD NOT lose his/her license based on this particular bad moral decision. I think suspension without pay would be a more fair punishment. Anyhow, I thought it was interesting to see a pharmacist make a decision based on morals, rather than company policy. It's not often you see something like this (unless of course, it makes the homepage of the CNN.com website!)

that's not his decision to make. If that woman lands up pregnant carrying a baby bc she was raped, he has potentially destroyed her life. that merits the harshest of action. It's not his call. For example, If you're a christian scientist pharmacist you can't just decide you dont' want to give antibiotics bc you're morally opposed to them. You have an obligation to provide service. that is the grossest negligence. I don't go for a lot of this herbal stuff, but that's no reason to refuse providing it to a pt that requests it.

Moreover, i don't even trust that pharmacist anymore. What happens if he doesn't feel comfortable giving something else?

 

[Serfes]

I don't think he should lose his license either. I think if Eckerd's wants to fire him then that's fine because it is their store, but if, for example, a pharmacist wanted to open up a pharmacy and just dispense one type of medication then that should be his prerogative. He shouldn't be forced as a pharmacist to dispense anything he doesn't want to. That's like saying physicians should have to perform abortions whether they want to or not.

 

[Monkeyguts]

I'm not sure about the morning after pill and the ability for a phamacist to refuse such treatment. I know that this is addressed in Oregon's Physician Assisted Suicide Act (a different beast altogether)....does anybody know? If not, I think it should be addressed legally.

The Oregon Statute (for PAS) is as follows:

The Act states, "No health care provider shall be under any duty, whether by contract, by statute or by any other legal requirement to participate in the provision to a qualified patient of medication to end his or her life in a humane and dignified manner." (1) As defined by the Act, the term "health care provider"includes the pharmacist and a "health care facility". Pharmacists who choose to participate are encouraged to adopt policies and procedures for dispensing and medication counseling, as well as for the confidential handling of prescriptions and any required reporting forms for prescriptions written under the Act.

 

[TCB]

The conscious clause in the pharmacy laws allows a pharmacist to refuse to dispense a drug if there is reason to be that the medication will be used to: Cause an abortion, Destroy an unborn child as defined by law, Cause the death of any person by any means of an assisted. The bill protects the pharmacist from claims for disciplinary action , as a result of refusing to dispense under these circumstances. Therefore if the state of Texas had adopt that Law, that pharmacist shouldn't loose his liscense, he was just exercising his right.

Even if Texas didn't adopt that law, there are NO states that have mandated that a pharmacis MUST dispense a prescription. This means that if a pharmacist does not morally agree with the course of treatment, the patient can always be refer to another pharmacist.

 

[Roxicet]

Here's a quote from lord999 from the last morning after pill debate:
"I settled the question for myself this way. When I take the oath, I cease to be just another citizen. I'll be a pharmacist forever, and that may mean doing things that I as a person do not condone. I chose a profession, meaning I have agreed to place the interests of the public above my own, and therefore, I will act accordingly to the social mores of my profession."

I think he took the words right out of my mouth.

Nobody is forced into the pharmacy profession.

 

[Serfes]

I personally feel the same way, but do I think that someone as a pharmacist should have to dispense certain medications whether they want to or not? No.

Whether I agree with it or not, that should be their decision.

 

[Roxicet]

Originally posted by Serfes
I personally feel the same way, but do I think that someone as a pharmacist should have to dispense certain medications whether they want to or not? No.

Whether I agree with it or not, that should be their decision.

It's their decision to become a pharmacist.

To continue my argument about choosing your profession wisely(not directed at anyone...I just feel very strongly about this). I had a choice. I am a research assistant in cancer biology, and I don't believe in killing lab animals. I don't necessarily think it's "wrong," but I just couldn't do it myself because I'm a bit of a pussycat, and the idea of snapping a mouse's neck repulses me. Animal research is necessary, and is common in cancer studies.

My lab has antibodies against cancer proteins that were generated in another lab by injecting either mice or rabbits. We have plenty of antibodies to work with, but say one day my supervisor came in and said "We're getting rabbits tomorrow bc we need more antibodies, and you'll have to sacrifice them."

I would refuse. Should I be fired? ABSOLUTELY, because I did not look far enough into the future to consider that I might be asked to do something that I do not agree with. My refusal would hinder the progress of his research, as in pharmacy, my refusal to dispense medication would drastically affect the lives of many people. I could move to another lab that would never work with animals, but I chose to work in a cancer research lab, and I should have considered all aspects of cancer research, and should accept the consequences.

As far as "the law." The law is not always "right."

 

[Serfes]

If Eckerd's wants to fire him that's fine. It's their store. That's not what I was addressing. Dispensing that medication might have been a condition of his employment, but should not be a condition of being a pharmacist.

My only point is that a pharmacist should not be required, at the risk of losing a license, to dispense ALL medications, whether he/she wants to or not. If you're doing your own cancer research and you didn't want to work with animals then that's fine too -- that's your decision. Should you be required to work with animals if you're doing cancer research? If not, then why should a pharmacist have to dispense a medication that he/she doesn't want to? Should a surgeon have to do all types of surgeries, or do you think it's ok if they limit their practice to only doing the type of surgeries they want?

 

[mlonier]

It would have been easier for the guy to just say "Sorry, we don't have that in stock.", and send them on their way. I've worked as a tech with Pharmacists who would do that to people who hadn't been to our pharmacy before and wanted to pay cash for pain meds. He'd say sorry, we don't have that, or sorry, I don't have enough to fill that, try XYZ Pharmacy down the street. I'm not saying I think it's right, just what i've seen done.

 

[GravyRPH]

Originally posted by mlonier
It would have been easier for the guy to just say "Sorry, we don't have that in stock.", and send them on their way. I've worked as a tech with Pharmacists who would do that to people who hadn't been to our pharmacy before and wanted to pay cash for pain meds. He'd say sorry, we don't have that, or sorry, I don't have enough to fill that, try XYZ Pharmacy down the street. I'm not saying I think it's right, just what i've seen done.

Ya, im sure LYING would be the more moral way to go. That seems like a big cop out too. Now understand I would fill the PlanB with a smile on my face but I don't think a pharmacist should be forced to provide the means for an abortion. Doctors aren't forced to provide abortions. It's not like there are abortion clinic pharmacies that you can avoid working at; there is just one type of retail pharmacy.
Shrug, I don't think I'll convince anyone and I'm not even sure I know what my stand is, I just think there is something wrong with forcing a pharmacist to do something they feel is killing a living human being. It would be a different story if the patient wasn't able to go down the street and get the thing filled. It's a difficult topic, I see it being right a bunch of different ways. I just get leary when we start saying pharmacists have to do things that they think is wrong. From both sides you start to wonder where it will stop?

 

[Modnar]

Originally posted by Serfes
I personally feel the same way, but do I think that someone as a pharmacist should have to dispense certain medications whether they want to or not? No.

Why? As a retail pharmacist, it is not your job to decide what medication is best for the patient or to research the moral implications of that medication. Those tasks are for doctors and the clergy, respectively.

If you believe that you're going to rot in hell if you allow someone a certain medication, either work in a pharmacy where they don't stock that medication (in the case of Plan B, Wal-Mart), or don't become a pharmacist. There are certain drugs on the market that I have a moral objection to (please don't ask me for specifics; I don't want to get off on a tangent), but if someone came into my pharmacy and asked for them, I'd dispense the drugs. Why? Because that's my job. Because I have a responsibility to that patient. Because maybe I'll be in a rural area where there are no other pharmacies. Because if I wanted to dictate morality, I'd have become a minister. Because telling them why I object to this drug isn't going to change their mind, it's only going to make me look like a jerk and leave a bad taste in the patient's mouth.

 

[Serfes]

"Why? As a retail pharmacist, it is not your job to decide what medication is best for the patient or to research the moral implications of that medication. Those tasks are for doctors and the clergy, respectively."

As I said in my last post, it should be Eckerd's decision whether or not to fire him because it is their store and a condition of his employment might be dispensing the medications that pharmacy chooses to stock (although some would argue that a pharmacist should have the right to refuse to dispense a medication on moral grounds without risk). I'm merely responding to the comment that this guy should lose his LICENSE because he refused to dispense it, as if a condition of being a pharmacist should include doing things you don't want to do. Saying that he should lose his license seems to imply that even if he owned his own pharmacy he should have to dispense drugs that he doesn't want to.

 

[Serfes]

"it is not your job to decide what medication is best for the patient"

I think some people might take issue with that comment. If a pharmacist receives a prescription for a medication that he/she knows will harm the patient, isn't it the job of the pharmacist to do something about it? Or just keep their mouth shut because it isn't their job?

 

[Roxicet]

Originally posted by Serfes
"it is not your job to decide what medication is best for the patient"

I think some people might take issue with that comment. If a pharmacist receives a prescription for a medication that he/she knows will harm the patient, isn't it the job of the pharmacist to do something about it? Or just keep their mouth shut because it isn't their job?

It's completely different to notice a dosage mistake and refuse to fill a prescription, than to refuse to fill a prescription because they feel it is morally wrong to use the morning after pill. The pharmacist that refuses to dispense the morning after pill is the same pharmacist that will refuse to dispense HIV meds to you because you probably contracted it because you are gay and you deserved it, or will refuse to fill cancer meds because it's god's will and if you're meant to live, he'll heal you. Sounds ridiculous? So does equating the morining after pill with cutting up a 10-week-old fetus and sucking it out with a vacuum, IMO I will stop there before this becomes an abortion debate.

You're right, I guess losing the license is extreme, but someone who has these beliefs should not be a retail pharmacist. There are so many other areas of pharmacy, and people like this just don't belong in retail. Are they willing to take a big paycut and work as an academic pharmacist, or are they just doing retail for the money? If they don't want to sacrifice the $$$ in the name of their morals, then they should just put up and shut up!

originally posted by Serfes
Should a surgeon have to do all types of surgeries, or do you think it's ok if they limit their practice to only doing the type of surgeries they want?

This is exactly my point. Surgeons have a choice of subspecialty, and don't have to do surgeries they don't want to. But that's a matter of choosing an area of medicine, as you can choose an area of pharmacy. Do judges that don't believe in the death penalty have to preside over cases in which the prosecution is seeking the death penalty? I don't know.

 

[VentdependenT]

Whats the population of DENTON Texas? I have a feeling that there is a lot of inbreeding and southern baptism running rampant in that there town.

 

[Serfes]

"It's completely different to notice a dosage mistake and refuse to fill a prescription, than to refuse to fill a prescription because they feel it is morally wrong to use the morning after pill."

I agree and I never said otherwise. Modnar said it's not the job of a pharmacist to "decide what medication is best for the patient or to research the moral implications of that medication." The latter part of that statement seems to address the issue of the morning after pill while the first part of the statement seems to address something else entirely. Maybe I took what he/she said the wrong way.

" The pharmacist that refuses to dispense the morning after pill is the same pharmacist that will refuse to dispense HIV meds to you because you probably contracted it because you are gay and you deserved it, or will refuse to fill cancer meds because it's god's will and if you're meant to live, he'll heal you. Sounds ridiculous? So does equating the morining after pill with cutting up a 10-week-old fetus and sucking it out with a vacuum, IMO I will stop there before this becomes an abortion debate."

If a pharmacist wants to operate their own pharmacy and chooses not to dispense these medications for the reasons you stated (or for whatever reason) then that should be their right (i.e. they should still be able to have a license). If I own a pharmacy and I don't want to dispense birth control pills then why should I have to? Working for someone else in a retail pharmacy is a different story because you are being employed by someone else. This is not what I'm debating.

I don't understand why people keep responding to me as if I'm stating that the pharmacist in the article should be able to keep his job or that any pharmacist employed by a retail pharmacy should be able to do whatever they want. I've never said that. I just don't think this guy should lose his license for not dispensing something he doesn't want to.

 

[jemc2000]

Originally posted by karmapatroL
I completely agree with tri. When you choose an occupation, you have to consider COMPLETELY the responsibilities of that occupation. This pharmacist believes that killing is morally wrong, and what if he had decided to be a police sniper instead without completely thinking it through? One day he'd be placed in a situation where he'd have to shoot to kill! If someone was holding my daughter hostage and the sniper didn't shoot when he had the chance because "killing is wrong," even though it was his RESPONSIBILITY, heads would be rolling!

You lose your moral choice when you decide to be a pharmacist. You have a responsibilty to protect and serve, just as much as police snipers do! He should have his licence revoked!!! Anyway, the karma police will be knocking on his door someday...

I have to disagree with this. In my opinion, there is a big difference between a police sniper deciding not to kill someone and a pharmacist deciding not to kill someone. I do believe that Eckerd is within their rights to fire him. Or other disciplinary action. He does work FOR them. But I do not believe this is a license revoking action. Just my two cents.

 

[lilmk]

Originally posted by Modnar
Because if I wanted to dictate morality, I'd have become a minister. Because telling them why I object to this drug isn't going to change their mind, it's only going to make me look like a jerk and leave a bad taste in the patient's mouth.

Being opposed to dispensing certain meds is not necessarily the same as dictating morality.

 

[Roxicet]

originally posted by serfes
If a pharmacist wants to operate their own pharmacy and chooses not to dispense these medications for the reasons you stated (or for whatever reason) then that should be their right

Forty years ago the laws would have protected a White pharmacist's right to refuse service to anyone of color. The laws need to be changed again to overcome this new form of ignorance. That's why I'm very careful about who I vote for. This is only my opinion...I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with me.

 

[lilmk]

Originally posted by karmapatroL
Forty years ago the laws would have protected a White pharmacist's right to refuse service to anyone of color. The laws need to be changed again to overcome this new form of ignorance. That's why I'm very careful about who I vote for. This is only my opinion...I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with me.

Being morally opposed to dispensing certain meds is not a form of discrimination. Threatening to take away someone's license because they are morally opposed to dispensing certain meds is a form of discrimination.

 

[Serfes]

There's a difference between choosing not to dispense certain types of medications and choosing not to dispense to certain people. Saying I won't dispense any birth control pills is different than saying I won't dispense birth control pills to a certain race of women.

 

[carpe diem]

Regardless of how one feels on this issue and it is certainly a gray area in many folks mind, the pharmacist is protected under Texas statute and imho should not have been disciplined for refusing to fill the prescription.

Article 4512.7 Sec. 1 of Vernon's Civil Statutes, State of Texas Law states:

"A physician, nurse, staff member, or employee of a hospital or other health care facility who objects to performing or participating, directly, or indirectly in an abortion procedure may not be required to perform or participate directly or indirectly, in an abortion procedure."

This law was enacted, I believe, before FDA had approved some of the drugs currently used to induce abortions. Certainly the spirit of this law (whether you agree with the law or not) would include pharmacists in a hospital, outpatient, or even retail pharmacy setting since some of these drugs are available in retail pharmacies. Pharmacists are involved at least indirectly, if not directly in many of these scenarios.

We as pharmacists and other healthcare providers must respect others' beliefs and rights but we should not give up the protection of our conscience just because we are at work. I think this is an issue where all pharmacists (regardless of one's stand on abortion or contraception) should band together and not allow
our right to practice healthcare with conscience to be taken from us.

I have dealt with this same situation before as a pharmacist and refused to fill the prescription. But I also had no problem with my co-worker filling the prescription because the other pharmacist did not have the same view as I did on the situation. We both practiced pharmacy ,in that instance, with conscience and in a way that permitted the patient to receive a legal treatment.

carpe

 

[lilmk]

Originally posted by carpe diem


We as pharmacists and other healthcare providers must respect others' beliefs and rights but we should not give up the protection of our conscience just because we are at work. I think this is an issue where all pharmacists (regardless of one's stand on abortion or contraception) should band together and not allow
our right to practice healthcare with conscience to be taken from us.

I have dealt with this same situation before as a pharmacist and refused to fill the prescription. But I also had no problem with my co-worker filling the prescription because the other pharmacist did not have the same view as I did on the situation. We both practiced pharmacy ,in that instance, with conscience and in a way that permitted the patient to receive a legal treatment.

carpe

well put.

 

[Modnar]

Originally posted by Serfes
I'm merely responding to the comment that this guy should lose his LICENSE because he refused to dispense it, as if a condition of being a pharmacist should include doing things you don't want to do.

I was not the person who said that. My opinion is that if you have a PharmD and you don't want to dispense Plan B, you either:

1) go work for Wal-Mart, which does not carry it
or
2) don't work in retail.

The nice thing about having a PharmD is that you don't have to dispense meds if that's not your bag. A person with a PharmD could teach, or do research, or work for a pharmaceutical company, or do any number of other things that don't involve Plan B.

And as Karmapatrol pointed out, it is our responsibility to correct the doctor if s/he makes a dosing mistake. I was not referring to this issue in my earlier post, and I do apologize for not being clearer. However, I maintain that it is NOT our responsibility to second-guess the doctor and refuse to dispense something without contacting him/her first. The doctor has more information than we do, and thus the decision of whether or not Drug X is appropriate is best left to him/her. If you have an objection to Drug X, then get someone else to fill it if you must, but for crying out loud, don't leave the patient in the lurch!

 

[Dr JPH]

My personal opinion (I know many of you were eagerly waiting for it)...he should have filled the prescription.

I know a pharmacist who works for a large retail chain and he refuses to stock such products because of his moral objection. He was recently reprimanded for "improperly acting upon the behalf of the company."

If he owned the pharmacy, do what you want.

The role of a pharmacist should not be to refuse medical treatment designated necessary by a physician, unless there is a MEDICAL conflict. Not a moral. Not an ethical. Not a financial...but this is an issue for insurance companies to figure out.

 

[jemc2000]

I'm sure you have seen, but here is the results:

Pharmacists fired for denying 'morning after' pill

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/02/12/pharmacy.firing.ap/index.html

 

[MNnaloxone]

I thought the next to last paragraph was entertaining.

"In my mind if I agree to work for someone knowing that that's their policy, then I should submit to that policy. But I didn't even know about it," he [the fired pharmacist] said.

All that time in pharmacy school, and still claiming that ignorance is bliss.

I bet every single chain has that clause in their Policy Manual.

 

[Roxicet]

I love happy endings. Yeah, I bet the dollar signs floating around his head obscured his vision while he was reading the paragraph that talked about plan B policy.

originally posted by carpe diem
We as pharmacists and other healthcare providers must respect others' beliefs and rights but we should not give up the protection of our conscience just because we are at work. I think this is an issue where all pharmacists (regardless of one's stand on abortion or contraception) should band together and not allow our right to practice healthcare with conscience to be taken from us.

I definitely do respect others' beliefs, but I have a problem when those beliefs are forced upon others. I know that it can be said that others' beliefs or non-beliefs or whatever are being forced upon the pharmacist. But they're not being asked to pass out planB at their church. It would be fine to own a pharmacy and place a sign on the door that states your beliefs. I know I was being a drama queen when I said before that he should lose his license, but I still believe that retail is not the place for these beliefs. So I would not band together and stand up for a coworker who was being fired for similar reasons as the pharmacist in this story; on the contrary, I would help them pack. You're on your own

Conscience is also subjective. My conscience would not let me sleep at night if I didn't give out plan B. There was a 6 month old baby girl killed in a neighboring city last year in a way that was horrifying...she was raped (at 6 months old) by her uncle, bitten thirteen times, and had skull and rib fractures from her mom and uncle and father playing catch with her and throwing her up in the air her but forgetting to catch her sometimes! I could not sleep if I was haunted by the thought that maybe this was one of the women I refused to dispense plan B to. Yeah, what a life I saved, to save myself. That's a little too self-righteous for me. I'm pretty sure women know when they can't take care of a child. It's not fun to grow up unwanted/abused/neglected/in poverty.

originally posted by lilmk
Being morally opposed to dispensing certain meds is not a form of discrimination. Threatening to take away someone's license because they are morally opposed to dispensing certain meds is a form of discrimination.

Sorry, lilmk, I have to disagree with you on this one. It is definitely a form of discrimination against women of child-bearing age who have the right to control what happens to their bodies. Some people will throw the word feminazi around about this issue. In advance, this is what I have to say to them:

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Well, I'm an atheist and pro-choice, so religion and ethics have no bearing on my opinion, but I think the people calling for this man's right to practice are bloody mad.

All I see is something threatening the autonomy of our profession. If a physician can refuse to give advice on such an issue, I'll be damned if I don't have the right to refuse service to someone whose script deals with the same issue.

And for the record, I think the guy in question is a tool.

 

[drx604]

Very lively debate you guys have going... some comments...

I personally am not liscenced in my province to dispense Plan B under the ECP program in British Columbia.... as far as I know, I am not required to undergo the 1 day 'training' course by neither my company nor the provincial College. So technically it would be against Provincial by-law for me to dispense Plan B. I usually refer them to the pharmacy next door.... (there are 3 pharmacies in my mini strip mall complex where i work). So I never hesitate to refer the patients to another pharmacy... i usually call the other pharmacies to make sure that they have a pharmacist on duty that can provide the service. I'm not sure how your laws differ down in the States.

As for this guy getting fired, well... i guess if it's in his company's policy .... then i guess he can be fired based on violating corporate policy.

I don't know much details about the situation... but the pharmacist could've did a pregnancy test to ensure that the woman was not indeed pregnant.... if she's not pregnant... then the PlanB is essentially acting as a contraceptive.. im sure he dispenses contraceptives (ie BCPs, IUD) all the time with no 'moral' issues.... If she were pregnant... then essentially the pharmacist would be contributing to an 'abortion' and depending on how your laws are... can/may be illegal (moral issues aside) ... but whatever... its too late... whats done is done.

I actually never came across any information regarding my company's policy regarding Plan B use.... And to those people refering to WalMart as not carrying PlanB.... is this common fact?? Where did you hear this? I actually am the pharmacy manager for a WalMart... so I'm going to look into this on Monday.... btw... we have PlanB on the shelf.... but none of the other pharmacists are 'liscenced' to dispense PlanB.

As for me.... i have no future plans to become certified to provide ECP... my company nor my College (as far as i know) can force me to.

One last note.... (not intended to stir up too much controversy) but does the fact that this lady was raped really make it a bigger story than it really is? If she was raped... first she should've went to the police ... then the hospital... they could've gave her PlanB there.

 

[Roxicet]

originally posted by drx604
One last note.... (not intended to stir up too much controversy) but does the fact that this lady was raped really make it a bigger story than it really is? If she was raped... first she should've went to the police ... then the hospital... they could've gave her PlanB there.

No, I don't believe the fact that she was raped has any relevance. It's just a key word that the media likes to use to make things seem more dramatic. I think a lot of women are raped in "date rape" scenarios by someone they know or even cared about. Maybe they wouldn't want to get the police involved. You never know what's going through their heads, and someone who is already ashamed probably doesn't really want to put themselves in a situation where they'll be interrogated and made to feel like they're lying. A very large percentage of rapes are never reported; that doesn't mean they didn't happen. And I really doubt she told the pharmacist that she was raped. The article makes it sound like the media pulled out this piece of info from a friend of the victim.

You can't create a hierarchy of who needs this drug more than others. You can't determine how a woman got pregnant just by looking at her. It doesn't matter if she was raped, or if the condom broke with her husband, or if she slept with the entire football team last night. It's nobody's business. An unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted pregnancy, and in the end it's the child that suffers.

 

[lilmk]

Originally posted by karmapatroL


Sorry, lilmk, I have to disagree with you on this one. It is definitely a form of discrimination against women of child-bearing age who have the right to control what happens to their bodies. Some people will throw the word feminazi around about this issue. In advance, this is what I have to say to them:

i get what you are saying because i'm about as pro-choice as they get. but even as a pro-choicer, i still try to understand the other point of view as well. So what i was really trying to get at was that i do agree that the woman in this case was wronged but i don't feel the pharmacist is to blame. i feel that the pharmacist was wronged as well.

Whether we like it or not, there are those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life. ECPs and abortions and such can be legal but that doesn't mean that the pro-lifers are going to automatically change their views and become pro-choice. And it doesn't mean that they are all of a sudden going to feel comfortable going against their whole value system just cuz their pharmacy decides to carry plan B. And no one should be able to tell them that they must do otherwise. Likewise, if abortions and ECPs became illegal, i suspect that pro-choicers wouldn't all of a sudden be okay with a woman losing her right to choose. And i wouldn't want anyone telling me that i should change my views on this and/or act accordingly.

And employers must be aware of this. This is going to happen when drugs like plan B come on the market. There has to be a system in place that not only protects the rights of the customer but also protects the rights of the employee. Situations like this can be tricky and sticky and that's why it's essential for proper policy and guidelines to be in place so that everyone is covered. That woman should not have been left up the creek w/out a paddle (i.e. there should have been another pharmacist there who was willing to dispense it) and that pharmacist should not be forced into doing something he/she does not believe in. I think both of them were wronged by a weak system. If the company doesn't want to employ pharmacists who are not willing to dispense planB, that's fine but they need to be up-front about that. If they are willing to employ a pharmacist who doesn't want to dispense it, then they need to pair that person up at all times w/a pharmacist who is willing to dispense it. This time, i think the company dropped the ball.

And with regard to "discrimination"...again, i see what you're saying but i still think that w/abortion being the tricky topic that it is, discrimination is a strong word to use. it's not like the pharmacist refused to give plan B to her but dispenses it just fine to others. The pharmacist doesn't believe in plan B across the board, period. "Discrimination" implies an inconsistency in the way people are treated. This pharmacist is obviously pro-life and was not being inconsistent in any way. so it's really hard for me to see how "discrimination" holds any water here. I know you are saying that the pharmacist is impinging on the woman's right to choose but if we force that pharmacist to dispense this drug, we are impinging on his/her rights as well. Taking the pharmacist's license away cuz he/she is against plan B, does border on discrimination, i think. Neither of these two people should have been placed in this unfair position and Eckerd needs to run a tighter ship.

Like i said before, i understand and respect where you are coming from...this is just my measly 2 cents. I hate debates...i'm going back to studying now. i'm so behind.