pharmacist and birth control pill and license

[gdk420]

Can a pharmacist loose his/her license for not dispensing birth control pills. Why or why not? I don't see any where that mandates that we have to dispense birth control pills in order to continue our licensure? In general, what specific actions or there lack of would consider a violation of our licensure?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I'm all for pharmacists having the right to not dispense whatever they want. The more people that do not dispense it, the more money for me. Economics.

The debate itself is quite simple, it is that of whose autonomy is going to be upheld. Is the potentially knocked up patient's right to urgent (not emergent, mind you, we're not giving out 2-PAM to Sarin gas victims, here) meds more important than the pharmacist's right to have the autonomy to be an ass that is willing to tell off a person that is more than likely in emotional distress? Either way, someone is getting reamed in the ass philosophically.

I say we just become anarchists. Less laws to memorize.

 

[jake7]

Can a pharmacist loose his/her license for not dispensing birth control pills. Why or why not? I don't see any where that mandates that we have to dispense birth control pills in order to continue our licensure? In general, what specific actions or there lack of would consider a violation of our licensure?

Why stop there?

Why not just remove all of the condoms from the shelves during your shift?
Also, deny any one with HIV their Sustiva or AZT. They are sinners right? I am sure you will get the extra credit you are looking for from your god on judgment day and the acclaim from your religious community. You might even get a guest spot on the 700 club! While you are at it, make sure you don't fill any cancer prescriptions for smokers, any high blood pressure / diabetes prescriptions for fat over eaters.... If we follow your logic pretty soon only perfect christian saints will be able to get medicine dispensed.

 

[Shizelbs]

Without the presence of a drug interaction or contraindication, or some other clinically relevant reason not to dispense BCPs to the patient, you will be reprimanded for not dispensing the pills in a timely fashion. Penalties would vary by state and their respective board of pharmacy.

What is your grounds for blocking the BCP Rx anyways?

 

[insipid1979]

Without the presence of a drug interaction or contraindication, or some other clinically relevant reason not to dispense BCPs to the patient, you will be reprimanded for not dispensing the pills in a timely fashion. Penalties would vary by state and their respective board of pharmacy.

Not all states will discipline you for refusing to fill the prescription.

 

[Shizelbs]

Not all states will discipline you for refusing to fill the prescription.

Lame. My state recently ruled that Plan B must be dispensed in a timely fashion, or say, I, I could decline to fill it only if there was another pharmacist on site that would.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Without the presence of a drug interaction or contraindication, or some other clinically relevant reason not to dispense BCPs to the patient, you will be reprimanded for not dispensing the pills in a timely fashion.

Uh, no. I can not fill a script for whatever reason I want. It comes in handy with drug seekers.

 

[Shizelbs]

I was more or less paraphrasing the conclusion reached by the Washington State board of pharmacy.

In regard to seekers, if you suspect that the prescription is forged, falsified, or that they are getting narcotics, whatever, elsewhere, those are legitmate reasons independent from 'I just don't wanna.'

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I was more or less paraphrasing the conclusion reached by the Washington State board of pharmacy.

In regard to seekers, if you suspect that the prescription is forged, falsified, or that they are getting narcotics, whatever, elsewhere, those are legitmate reasons independent from 'I just don't wanna.'

I can also tell them to go away if I don't like them, or any other reason.

 

[bananaface]

I was more or less paraphrasing the conclusion reached by the Washington State board of pharmacy.

In regard to seekers, if you suspect that the prescription is forged, falsified, or that they are getting narcotics, whatever, elsewhere, those are legitmate reasons independent from 'I just don't wanna.'

I am in WA and that info hasn't trickled down to my store from the BOP yet. When did that go down?

 

[Shizelbs]

Recently. Last couple months.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003033507_webpill01.html

This is from today's paper. Read about it.

 

[gdk420]

Without the presence of a drug interaction or contraindication, or some other clinically relevant reason not to dispense BCPs to the patient, you will be reprimanded for not dispensing the pills in a timely fashion. Penalties would vary by state and their respective board of pharmacy.

What is your grounds for blocking the BCP Rx anyways?

1. First I demand an apology from the Jake7. I am neither Christian nor Catholic. I readily dispense birth controll pills everyday. I was simply asking a question.

2. Secondly, I demand that he/she be reprimanded since I thought the rules state that there will be no disparaging remarks. Otherwise, I will start going off with tons of four letter expletive.

3. Hypothetically, if I was Catholic, couldn't I deny the prescription base upon Amendment I of the Bill of Rights? As long as I give the prescription back to the patient and tell her the next nearest pharmacy where it could be filled, I haven't denied her any rights have I?

4. So I have to dispense all medications as long as it was clinically relevant and there was no contraindications? What if an HIV positive person came into my pharmacy and brag about how he was going to have unprotected sex tonight with his wife. He complains to me that he needs his Viagra right away because he can't have sex without it. His wife doesn't know he has HIV. However I am still force to dispense his viagra? What if it was HPV and he was using a condom, but his wife doesn't know about his HPV?

 

[Shizelbs]

Wow. I guess I was wrong and way out of line. I apologize.

In my face.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Wow. I guess I was wrong and way out of line. I apologize.

In my face.

I don't think you did anything offensive???

 

[gdk420]

Wow. I guess I was wrong and way out of line. I apologize.

In my face.

It is okay. I did not want you to apologize since you did not wrong. I said Jake7.

 

[gdk420]

I don't think you did anything offensive???

It was not him, it was meant for Jake7.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

It was not him, it was meant for Jake7.

Yeah, I got that.

 

[NCRxgal]

Wow, this is kind of funny

 

[gdk420]

Yeah, I got that.

dingus is okay? If that is the case, then I am going to start throwing the word Antichrist around. Better yet, how about ****en dingus, that should be better.

 

[gdk420]

Wow, this is kind of funny

I am glad I amuse you so much. The rules either apply to everyone or they apply to no one. I am telling you, I feel the word ANTICHRIST coming along.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

dingus is okay? If that is the case, then I am going to start throwing the word Antichrist around. Better yet, how about ****en dingus, that should be better.

What are you talking about?

All I said was that I understood who your "I want an apology" post was directed at.

For the record, I don't agree with using foul language and insulting others on message boards either.
But I do think "antichrist" is a lame insult.

 

[ajmataz]

So I'm in Seattle, and read the Seattle PI yesterday about pharmacists having the right to REFUSE someone requesting the morning-after pill.

The articles stated that if it went against the beliefs of the pharmacist, they had the right to refuse dispensing the drug.

To me, that's some b.s. Who has the right to try to morally judge the stranger asking for the pill. Were it an issue about abuse, then that's a different story. But the article seemed to focus more on the morality issue than safety.

But I will also be the first to admit my ignorance, so I'm curious to what you think.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

So I'm in Seattle, and read the Seattle PI yesterday about pharmacists having the right to REFUSE someone requesting the morning-after pill.

The articles stated that if it went against the beliefs of the pharmacist, they had the right to refuse dispensing the drug.

To me, that's some b.s. Who has the right to try to morally judge the stranger asking for the pill. Were it an issue about abuse, then that's a different story. But the article seemed to focus more on the morality issue than safety.

But I will also be the first to admit my ignorance, so I'm curious to what you think.

I don't agree with pharmacists who refuse to dispense based on their own personal beliefs. I don't like what they are doing.

But, I'm not in favor of laws forcing pharmacists to dispense anything. That seems like a slippery slope to me.

So, really - I'm not sure what the solution is.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

So I'm in Seattle, and read the Seattle PI yesterday about pharmacists having the right to REFUSE someone requesting the morning-after pill.

The articles stated that if it went against the beliefs of the pharmacist, they had the right to refuse dispensing the drug.

To me, that's some b.s. Who has the right to try to morally judge the stranger asking for the pill. Were it an issue about abuse, then that's a different story. But the article seemed to focus more on the morality issue than safety.

But I will also be the first to admit my ignorance, so I'm curious to what you think.

It's an issue of dual autonomy that can't coexist. If we force the pharmacist to dispense, then we are therefore making him/her accept a different set of morals. How can you say a patients right to a service trumps another person's right to have intellectual independence? The best solution, IMO, is to make it an OTC drug or dispense it out of obgyn offices.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

It's an issue of dual autonomy that can't coexist. If we force the pharmacist to dispense, then we are therefore making him/her accept a different set of morals. How can you say a patients right to a service trumps another person's right to have intellectual independence? The best solution, IMO, is to make it an OTC drug or dispense it out of obgyn offices.

I've wondered why more OBGYN's don't keep it in their office.
I guess it's a cost thing.
I don't think they'd be able to sell it to patients at a profit.
I wonder if they are allowed to sell it at cost?

 

[shantster]

I would be mad if my pharmacist decided to not give me my birth control pills. I, like a large number of other females, am on it for primarily medical reasons. With my family history of ovarian cysts that would prevent me from having children someday and the hormonal problems I have when I'm not taking it, the pharmacist denying me my prescription would be doing something that's detrimental to my health. What about people who have a family history of ovarian cancer? The pill prevents against it and wouldn't you want people to be taking the pill so that they don't get a cancer that is so hard to treat because it does not get detected until the later stages?

Plan B is a completely different issue that is a little more slippery, but with normal birth control, you can't just judge someone that is on it.

 

[imperial frog]

dingus is okay? If that is the case, then I am going to start throwing the word Antichrist around. Better yet, how about ****en dingus, that should be better.

Hmm...I'm unfamiliar with a perjorative spelled ****en. Perhaps you mean ****ing.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

would be mad if my pharmacist decided to not give me my birth control pills. I, like a large number of other females, am on it for primarily medical reasons.

^ This is why, in the end, I am for pharmacists being able to do as they choose. If you don't like it, don't go to that pharmacy. Come to mine. I'll fill it. More scripts for me means more money for me means I can buy a nicer car. If the religious nutters want to take food from their own mouths, that's their business.

 

[ajmataz]

I think people should relax - this is a public online forum, nothing should be taken to heart and e-tempers shouldn't be flying.

That said...

It's an issue of dual autonomy that can't coexist. If we force the pharmacist to dispense, then we are therefore making him/her accept a different set of morals. How can you say a patients right to a service trumps another person's right to have intellectual independence?

I don't agree with "accepting a different set of morals" because pharmacists aren't diagnosing and prescribing, right? Their job really is to just dispense (and check for interactions, safety, etc.). When it comes down to medications prescribed through diagnosis, it doesn't seem like pharmacists should be able to refuse the patients medication, because it was through the prescription of a physician.

On the other hand, plan B doesn't need a prescription, anyone can go up to the counter and ask for it. And I don't believe pharmacists should be decide on dispensing due to moral beliefs as opposed to abuse/safety issues.

Word.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I don't agree with "accepting a different set of morals" because pharmacists aren't diagnosing and prescribing, right?

Ok, I don't PERSONALLY agree with it, but a pharmacist knows what Plan B is used for and what birth control is used for. They see themselves as an accessory to what they believe (what's been pounded into their mind in church, anyway) is murder. To them it goes directly in opposition to their moral code: do no harm. They think the fertile zygote is a person, so they feel as if they can't fill it. It has nothing to do with being the person that diagnosed, it's that they are part of the process.

Their job really is to just dispense (and check for interactions, safety, etc.).

That opinion will change in 3 years being that you haven't started yet. I hope, anyway. That entire perception of pharmacy is what the profession is VERY STRONGLY trying to change.

When it comes down to medications prescribed through diagnosis, it doesn't seem like pharmacists should be able to refuse the patients medication, because it was through the prescription of a physician.

Yes we can, it's called autonomy. I can and have in the past refused to fill something for someone because I don't like them. You know, those guys with the Lortab scripts that complain that you are taking too long as you are about to check them out? Then they start throwing crap around in the waiting room? I tear the audit sticker off the back and hand it back to them and tell them to leave without the drug. I'm not going to fill that script for them unless they act civilized. It is but it isn't the same point. I don't have to fill anything for anyone I don't want to.

What about drugs used for euthenasia? If you are given a script that says 200 mEq KCl IV PUSH, would you fault a person for not filling it if they are opposed to euthenasia? Put yourself in the shoes of a person that believes Plan B is a tool of evil (or whatever) and the two scenarios are very similar.

On the other hand, plan B doesn't need a prescription, anyone can go up to the counter and ask for it. And I don't believe pharmacists should be decide on dispensing due to moral beliefs as opposed to abuse/safety issues.

Maybe in your state, but that's not a nationwide initiative quite yet. In WV, it is still Rx only.

Word.

Ok...uh....homey...I think that's what the kids say these days....

 

[ajmataz]

You know, those guys with the Lortab scripts that complain that you are taking too long as you are about to check them out? Then they start throwing crap around in the waiting room? I tear the audit sticker off the back and hand it back to them and tell them to leave without the drug. I'm not going to fill that script for them unless they act civilized. It is but it isn't the same point. I don't have to fill anything for anyone I don't want to.

Good point. I've been told this happens far too often and that pharmacists should be able to turn these people away. But that's beside the point on the topic of moral issues. More along the lines of safety.

Word.

 

[JRock]

Maybe in your state, but that's not a nationwide initiative quite yet. In WV, it is still Rx only.

Still Rx only in KY as well.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

More along the lines of safety.

It's more along the lines of I just don't like them, not safety.

 

[sdn1977]

Wow - I go away on vacation & look what happens!!!

The OP asked..I think...can our license be taken away for not filling an rx. In CA (as of Jan 2006 - new law), if we violate the section of the law which specifically covers when & why we are allowed to refuse to fill an rx, we can be accused of unprofessional conduct which can subject us to disciplinary procedures which "include, but is not limited to citations, fines, a letter of abatement or a letter of admonishment." So...no, not lose your license, but it can be everything short of that.

Hope that helps, but thats CA only.