Pharmacists - Refuse To Fill Prescriptions On Moral Grounds?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

organichemistry

*********
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
509
Reaction score
0
Hey guys. I'm a pre-dent taking a health ethics class this semester and I've got an interesting paper assignment and I was hoping I could hear from some pharmacists or pharmacist students on what they think of the matter.

Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions on moral grounds? I.e. not give out morning after pills because of a belief that it is in essence an abortion. That's not the only example of course, but that's the type of issue I am talking about.

Just curious to hear what your stances are, and why you feel that way.
 
organichemistry said:
Hey guys. I'm a pre-dent taking a health ethics class this semester and I've got an interesting paper assignment and I was hoping I could hear from some pharmacists or pharmacist students on what they think of the matter.

Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions on moral grounds? I.e. not give out morning after pills because of a belief that it is in essence an abortion. That's not the only example of course, but that's the type of issue I am talking about.

Just curious to hear what your stances are, and why you feel that way.

I just had a fellow wanting a REFILL on his viagra along with a laundry
list of maintenance drugs for cardiac and pulmonary ailments INCLUDING
sublingual nitroglycerin. I refused to dispense the viagra kicking the issue to my clinical coordinator who bypassed the prescribing resident to talk with the head of the internal medicine department. The resident was overruled.

Every instance of refusing to dispense is an ethical/moral issue. Remove the right to refuse to dispense and you no longer require an educated person to perform the dispensing function. With barcoding machines anyone who can read can throw medicine out the door. However they may not be sued and may not be held accountable for their actions because they were only following the law.
 
Agreed. Since one of our roles is to intervene when errors are made by prescribers, we need the ability to refuse to fill.

Clearcut error or not, we are a paternalistic profession, who has a moral obligation to protect our patients from harm when we feel the risks of a therapy outweigh its potential benefits. For example, if a pregnant woman is prescribed a drug which is pregnancy category D (meaning its known that there is a risk of harm to the fetus), I may or may not be willing to fill it, depending on how I percieve the risk: benefit ratio. If it was for allergies, I would turn it away flat, asking that something else be prescribed. Allergies are not a justifiable reason to risk a category D drug. If the prescription was for control of epilepsy (uncontrolled epilepsy can also result in harm to a developing fetus), I may or may not feel comfortable filling it. Before I filled it, I would need to know that both the patient and prescriber are aware of the risks and have agreed that this is the way they want to go. If there were a safer therepeutic alternative, I may end up refusing to fill. Then again, if someone is established on a medication, you may not want to tinker with it during pregancy and risk a seizure, if the seizures are severe. If they were absence seizures, tinkering might be ok. My point is that risk:benefit in this case is not so clearcut.
 
bananaface said:
Since one of our roles is to intervene when errors are made by prescribers, we need the ability to refuse to fill.

I agree. If pharmacists are "required" to fill any prescription for any reason, I think that sets a very dangerous precedent that ultimately undermines the purpose of the whole profession. Doing or not doing something because you have a moral obligation to the patients health and safety is the job of a pharmacist, and I think the previous posts are talking about this kind of morality. But from what I understand, some of these cases have absolutely nothing to do with the patient's health and safety.

For example, I have heard of pharmacists refusing to fill even oral contraceptive prescriptions for normal healthy patients, and this refusal based solely on their personal religious beliefs. I can somewhat understand the morning after pill objection (after all, doctors are not required to perform abortions if they don't want to either). But birth control? IMO, that is extremism and it has no place in professional decision making.

That being said, I think it objectionable for religious and moral restrictions to be imposed on pharmacists by the government or an employer under any circumstances. However, I think it is equally objectionable for pharmacists to abuse their position and the power it holds by imposing their personal moral and religious convictions on a patient. As a patient, if you didn't learn it in pharmacy school, and if it has nothing to do with my biological health or safety, I don't wanna hear it.
 
Monarch said:
For example, I have heard of pharmacists refusing to fill even oral contraceptive prescriptions for normal healthy patients, and this refusal based solely on their personal religious beliefs. I can somewhat understand the morning after pill objection (after all, doctors are not required to perform abortions if they don't want to either). But birth control? IMO, that is extremism and it has no place in professional decision making.

uneducated people like you drive me crazy
 
organichemistry said:
Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse to fill prescriptions on moral grounds? I.e. not give out morning after pills because of a belief that it is in essence an abortion. That's not the only example of course, but that's the type of issue I am talking about.

The morning after pill (plan B) does not cause abortion. It is emergency birth control.

I do have an obligation to do no harm, so I would not knowingly give an abortifactant or a teratogenic drug to a patient without counseling the patient first. I'd probably have them sign a statement that they have been counseled on the effect of the drug and that they chose to accept the drug anyway.

I would never force my moral or religious beliefs on others, so being able to fill or not to fill does not affect me. I will do whatever the law says.

I think it is immoral to force morality on others who do not want it, if that makes sense. So, someone who refuses to fill my birth control is immoral for forcing their morals on me.
 
dgroulx said:
I think it is immoral to force morality on others who do not want it, if that makes sense. So, someone who refuses to fill my birth control is immoral for forcing their morals on me.
By the same token, we are forcing our morals on others within our profession, by saying that they are wrong for refusing to dispense in certain scenarios. It's not a one way street, although we typically make it out to be.

From what I understand some schools are still telling students that abortion is a potential MOA. For some people, that in itself is enough to bring the risk:benefit ratio to a resounding halt. It is clear that not everyone agrees about every risk: benefit assessment. This assessment is not radiaclly different that any other, except that we publicly disagree as to what constitutes harm, what the potential risk is, and to what extent it should be weighed. Not every pharmacist is going to make the same assessment on the same drug. That's an unavoidable consequence of clinical judgement.
 
Caverject said:
What do you call the morning after pill? Yeah..thats right..birth control...hence the uneducated comment...

In other words you just said it's okay to use it for one purpose but not the other because it's "extreme"ism

I was obviously using the colloquial reference of "birth control" to refer to "the pill" or non-emergency contraceptives like Ortho Tri-Cyclen. Sheesh.

I was trying to point out that there is a widely held moral distinction (whether it is scientifically reasonable or not) between emergency and non emergency birth control drugs, and that I think most people would find it to be more "morally extreme" to use religion as a grounds to refuse to fill non-emergency contraceptives when compared with religion-based refusal to fill emergency contraceptives (morning after pills).

Personally, I find any type of religious imposition from a provider onto a patient to be equally extremist.
 
Monarch said:
I was obviously using the colloquial reference of "birth control" to refer to "the pill" or non-emergency contraceptives like Ortho Tri-Cyclen. Sheesh.




the morning after pill is the SAME as some birth control pills

in fact.....
you can take BCPs for the SAME effect

so no
if they are going to refuse to fill plan b they might as well refuse BCP too...
 
Monarch said:
I was obviously using the colloquial reference of "birth control" to refer to "the pill" or non-emergency contraceptives like Ortho Tri-Cyclen. Sheesh.

I was trying to point out that there is a widely held moral distinction (whether it is scientifically reasonable or not) between emergency and non emergency birth control drugs, and that I think most people would find it to be more "morally extreme" to use religion as a grounds to refuse to fill non-emergency contraceptives when compared with religion-based refusal to fill emergency contraceptives (morning after pills).

Personally, I find any type of religious imposition from a provider onto a patient to be equally extremist.
You obviously dont understand the colloquial reference of "birth control" because "the pill" IS used for emergency contraception as well.

Here's your proof. Look at the table about halfway down

http://www.uspharmacist.com/index.asp?show=article&page=8_1567.htm
 
bbmuffin said:
and the uneducated part of you is still what is talking

the morning after pill is the SAME as birth control pills

in fact.....
you can take BCPs for the SAME effect

so no
if they are going to refuse to fill plan b they might as well refuse BCP too...

Oh, right! I used to know that but have since forgotten. Hee hee. My bad.
 
dgroulx said:
I think it is immoral to force morality on others who do not want it, if that makes sense. So, someone who refuses to fill my birth control is immoral for forcing their morals on me.

The exercise of professional judgement requires that the health and well being
of the patient be the first priority. The ethical and moral framework of the practitioner factor in to DEFINING the meaning "of health and well being of the patient". Because we bring different ethical and moral backrounds
to the bench when we practice there will be variation in the definition since it cannot be precisely defined by law. In essence, it becomes a semantic argument. The rubber meets the road when the patient feels injured as a result of your professional judgement. This circumstance is already addressed by existing board regulation and law. No new laws are needed and you will be obliged to defend your definition of "health and well being" in front of a board of your peers according to current law and standards of practice.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
Some people think it's broken, though. I would say, even if it is, the cost of fixing it is not worth it, since patient care in general would suffer greatly if we were not allowed professional discretion.

Shoot, if a woman came to a pharmacy with an Rx for Plan B and said she had undiagnosed vaginal bleeding, every last one of us should refuse to fill, as that is a contraindication for use.
 
Just think of what's happening with the internet. Sites selling drugs without a prescription, or making it easy to get a prescription.

Then again there are sites that try not to promote such behavior. Here are a couple I just found on the Google:

Example of good practices:
http://online-pharmacies.onlinepharmacybuy.com/no-prescription.html

Example of bad practices:
ttp://allsearchlist.com/s.php?q=no+prescription
 
Article here



Rape victim: 'Morning after' pill denied

By Carla McClain
ARIZONA DAILY STAR

Although it is safe, effective and legal, emergency contraception - the "morning after" pill - can be hard to find in Tucson. After a sexual assault one recent weekend, a young Tucson woman spent three frantic days trying to obtain the drug to prevent a pregnancy, knowing that each passing day lowered the chance the drug would work. While calling dozens of Tucson pharmacies trying to fill a prescription for emergency contraception, she found that most did not stock the drug. When she finally did find a pharmacy with it, she said she was told the pharmacist on duty would not dispense it because of religious and moral objections.

"I was so shocked," said the 20-year-old woman, who, as a victim of sexual assault, is not being named by the Star. "I just did not understand how they could legally refuse to do this."

But many stores are. A 2004 survey of more than 900 Arizona pharmacies found less than half keep emergency contraception drugs in stock, with most saying there is too little demand, but some cite moral reasons, according to the Arizona Family Planning Council. Yet, family-planning agencies say they've seen a 60 percent increase in demand for the drug in recent years. The statistics are creating what advocates say is a frightening situation for some women. But others are glad pharmacists have a choice.

Women who report sexual assaults to police receive treatment, examination and the immediate offer of emergency contraception at a local emergency room, according to the policy of most Tucson hospitals. But, like many sexual assault victims, the 20-year-old woman did not report the assault because she felt traumatized and guilty she had put herself in a situation that left her vulnerable. She was mistakenly locked outside a gathering at a friend's house and accepted the offer of a neighbor to stay at his place.

"This (sex) was with someone I did not even know and did not want to have intercourse with, and I am in no place now to have children," she said. "I just don't think this should be the pharmacist's decision." The manager of the Fry's pharmacy at 3920 E. Grant Road, where the refusal occurred, offered to find another location where the prescription could be filled, according to a Fry's spokeswoman. But the young woman said she was offered no other options.

Although emergency contraception drugs have been around in one form or another for more than two decades, they remain highly controversial, with anti-abortionists and religious conservatives saying they can abort a fertilized egg. To be taken within three to five days of unprotected intercourse, emergency contraception - also known as "Plan B" - prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation, fertilization or implantation of a fertilized egg. The sooner the emergency contraception is taken after intercourse, the more effective it is. More widespread use of emergency contraception could prevent as many as 800,000 surgical abortions a year, according to family-planning groups such as Planned Parenthood.

Controversy over emergency contraception is roiling now at the national level, with FDA scientists resigning over the agency's refusal to allow emergency contraception to be sold over the counter, without a prescription.
The issue surfaced in Arizona last winter, when Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed a bill that would have permitted pharmacists to refuse to dispense it on moral or religious grounds. But her veto was essentially meaningless, as most of the drugstore chains that dominate Tucson already allow that as a matter of corporate policy. Most also require that the customer be immediately referred to another pharmacist or drugstore willing to fill the prescription. "The idea is, if our pharmacist won't dispense it, the patient will know where to go to get it," said Michael Polzin, a national Walgreens spokesman. That same policy is in effect at all Fry's Food Store pharmacies, said Fry's spokeswoman Kendra Doyel.

On the night three weeks ago when an on-duty Fry's pharmacist refused to fill the emergency contraception prescription, the pharmacy manager offered to find another pharmacy that would, according to Doyel. "He felt he was making every attempt to help her get what she needed. A pharmacist would never just say 'you're out of luck,' " said Doyel, who would not allow any of the Fry's employees involved in the incident to be interviewed.

But a friend with the sexual assault victim that night strongly disputed that account. "He (the manager) said he would fill it himself if we could get there before his shift ended, within 10 minutes," said Sabrina Fladness, a University of Arizona student and owner of a computer service business. "But we were more than 10 minutes away, so that was impossible. So he said we would have to come back the next morning" - after the shift of the refusing pharmacist ended. "He made no provision for getting it that night," she said.

The two also attempted to obtain the drug at a Planned Parenthood clinic, but could not afford the $70 cost and apparently were not informed that Planned Parenthood will work out payment on a sliding scale fee. "We have all kinds of compassion for a rape victim - in that case, Plan B is OK, the church has no problem with it," said Ron Johnson, with the Arizona Catholic Conference, which supports the right of any health-care worker to refuse to dispense emergency contraception and lobbied hard for passage of the Arizona law to allow it.

But the biggest roadblock to obtaining emergency contraception was that most pharmacies simply do not stock it, Fladness said. She said she called nearly 50, before finding two that had it and agreed to dispense it. The Fry's spokeswoman could not immediately say how many of its stores had emergency contraception in stock. Polzin, the national Walgreens spokesman, said only one of the 50 Walgreens in the Tucson area did not have the drug on the shelves last week.

But that somewhat contradicts the formal Arizona Family Planning Council survey that found only 43 percent of Arizona pharmacies keep it in stock, with most that don't - nearly 60 percent - citing lack of demand as the reason. Another 10 percent cited moral reasons. At the same time, officials at Planned Parenthood say they have seen a dramatic rise in demand for emergency contraception in recent years - filling more than 5,000 prescriptions for it this year, compared with 3,000 last year.
 
Hm. She says no one had it in stock. Walgreens pharmacy on heands indicate that 49 of 50 stores had the drug in stock. 43% of stores in the state stock the drug. Something about the story the patient is telling does not add up.
 
bananaface said:
Hm. She says no one had it in stock. Walgreens pharmacy on heands indicate that 49 of 50 stores had the drug in stock. 43% of stores in the state stock the drug. Something about the story the patient is telling does not add up.

Just because Plan B or Preven is not in stock, I am sure that Lo-Ovral is in stock at all those pharmacies. The doc just needs to change the prescription.
 
baggywrinkle said:
Just because Plan B or Preven is not in stock, I am sure that Lo-Ovral is in stock at all those pharmacies. The doc just needs to change the prescription.
Baggy dude...you're losing your touch...you will never find Preven in stock (it's no longer made) 😉

I agree with banana, the patients story sounds fishy. However, I do understand that the way around the problem is not to stock it, it sounds as if a concerted effort was made. Now, if she had to drive a distance to get to the pharmacy that had it and the patient refused because she didn't have transportation, that is the patient's problem
 
She was also at Planned Parenthood and claims they didn't tell her about the sliding scale and let her walk out the door. If she had told anyone there she had a problem, they would have told her about the sliding scale.

How can anyone search frantically for something for 3 days and not find it when it is right there in front of them? I wonder if she was calling and saying something like "I have this prescription for Plan B but no money. Can I get that at your store?"
 
We were discussing this and wondered why doctors that are willing to prescribe Plan B can't also dispense it similar to they way they dispense samples. I'm sure y'all can tell me why 🙂 It just seems like a good way around this problem since the doctor must obviously be OK with it if they prescribe it.

Why can't people go to their local hospital, I know we provide kits that include Plan B and antibiotics in the case of sexual assault.
 
Doctors may not necessarily get requests for Plan B all the time. This is one thing I'd be glad to see them dispense out of the office, as the efficacy is so time dependent.

You can get it from some hospitals. But, some hospitals won't stock it, per religious affiliations.
 
This whole thing is falling on pharmacists unjustly. Where is the flax that doctors HAVE to dispense OC or perform abortions? Untill doctors are forced by law to dispense OC, and catholic hopsitals are ordered to perform abortions, have their doctors write for OC and plan B then there should be no law forcing pharmacists to dispense. I have no problem dispensing plan B, but i feel its the pharmacists choice for my reason stated above. People still have a horrible view of pharmacists and this whole conflict is just demostrating it.
 
npage148 said:
This whole thing is falling on pharmacists unjustly. Where is the flax that doctors HAVE to dispense OC or perform abortions? Untill doctors are forced by law to dispense OC, and catholic hopsitals are ordered to perform abortions, have their doctors write for OC and plan B then there should be no law forcing pharmacists to dispense. I have no problem dispensing plan B, but i feel its the pharmacists choice for my reason stated above. People still have a horrible view of pharmacists and this whole conflict is just demostrating it.


while i don't disagree, i think there's a difference between a doctor not performing an abortion and a pharmacist not dispensing emergency contraceptives.

for one, emergency contraception is not an abortion medically speaking. it's not killing a ball of cells or a fetus... it is merely preventing that ball of cells or fetus from ever coming together. it's about as close to an abortion as it is to a condom, in my opinion.

another difference is the time sensitive nature of emergency contraception. when a doctor doesn't perform an abortion, the patient almost assuredly still has the time to find one who will. emergency contraception on the other hand is very time sensitive and refusing to fill said prescription could be the difference in the drug working and the drug being ineffective.

like i said, i don't disagree with your post, or even completely agree with the argument I just presented.... but there is a legitimate argument on the other side.
 
bananaface said:
By the same token, we are forcing our morals on others within our profession, by saying that they are wrong for refusing to dispense in certain scenarios.

I think we're chasing our tails on this issue. To be entirely honest, I don't even feel like it's a true battle of morality anymore; the issue has become too politicized, and as such I tend to take issue with the manner in which emergency BC is refused, as it can often be embarrassing and uncomfortable to the patient.

It's about tact.

I can totally respect the objection of the pharmacist to filling emergency BC, as long as they give the patient the option of getting it filled somewhere else, unless there is a legitimate reason to not fill the prescription:

bananaface said:
Shoot, if a woman came to a pharmacy with an Rx for Plan B and said she had undiagnosed vaginal bleeding, every last one of us should refuse to fill, as that is a contraindication for use.

As baggywrinkle said:

baggywrinkle said:
The exercise of professional judgement requires that the health and well being of the patient be the first priority. The ethical and moral framework of the practitioner factor in to DEFINING the meaning "of health and well being of the patient". Because we bring different ethical and moral backrounds to the bench when we practice there will be variation in the definition since it cannot be precisely defined by law. In essence, it becomes a semantic argument. The rubber meets the road when the patient feels injured as a result of your professional judgement.

If I were refusing a prescription for EC on the basis of personal beliefs, I would simply tell the patient that I'm out or that the pharmacy don't stock it. Then I'd tell them where they could find it. That's all that needs to be said. There's absolutely no reason to go out of your way to inform the patient that it's against your moral constitution to fill emergency contraception; no matter how polite and courteous you are. The bottom line that the patient takes away from it is that you think what they're doing is wrong. Telling the patient simply that you don't stock it or you are out does not violate your personal beliefs (and if you claim that it does, I'll have a hard time believing you), and you can tactfully turn away the patient without upsetting them.

I speak from personal experience. The summer before I moved out of my parents' house, the pharmacy near my house not only told me that my insurance wouldn't pay for EC (which I told them I knew when I dropped off), but also that the pharmacist refused to fill it on moral grounds. I was mortified. I mean, I was surprised by my own reaction until I realized that I felt that the pharmacist was passing unneccessary judgement on my personal life, which was not the case, but regardless...the pharmacist didn't even come to tell me himself. He made a tech do it, even though the pharmacist took in the script.
 
bananaface said:
Doctors may not necessarily get requests for Plan B all the time. .

I know a certain Nurse Practitioner-midwife in Graham that writes scripts for
Plan B with prn refills. How's that for promoting responsible behavior in teens? :laugh:
 
baggywrinkle said:
I know a certain Nurse Practitioner-midwife in Graham that writes scripts for
Plan B with prn refills. How's that for promoting responsible behavior in teens? :laugh:

why not just write for regular bcps in that case? :laugh:
 
baggywrinkle said:
I know a certain Nurse Practitioner-midwife in Graham that writes scripts for
Plan B with prn refills. How's that for promoting responsible behavior in teens? :laugh:
Have you never heard of advanced provision before? 😕

The studies on advanced provision show that it does not decrease the rate of oral contraceptive use among women, but that women are slightly more likely to miss pills. I would rather they get it ahead of time than be SOL. I wonder if this NP has found that pharmacies in her area are not setting up prescriptive protocols and is using this as a way to allow her patients to have access.
 
npage148 said:
This whole thing is falling on pharmacists unjustly. Where is the flax that doctors HAVE to dispense OC or perform abortions? Untill doctors are forced by law to dispense OC, and catholic hopsitals are ordered to perform abortions, have their doctors write for OC and plan B then there should be no law forcing pharmacists to dispense. I have no problem dispensing plan B, but i feel its the pharmacists choice for my reason stated above. People still have a horrible view of pharmacists and this whole conflict is just demostrating it.
You make a very good point.

Pharmacists, like physicians, work in chosen niches. We wouldn't expect to be able to walk up to a clinical pharmacist on an Oncology floor with a prescription for Plan B and have them fill it for us. Compounding pharmacies often choose not to offer any commercial meds. Neither pharmacists nor the lay public appreciate that business owners pick and choose the exact services they offer at their pharmacies.

What needs to happen is business owners need to take responsibility for deciding what services will and will not be offered, if they feel that inconsistent policy leaves them open to legal liability. They should either stock or not stock the med, based on their chosen scope of practice. And, they need to specify job duties during the hiring process and fire employees who won't perform them. That's really how EC issues need to be dealt with.
 
Not to beat a dead horse, but Yahoo news ran this article yesterday about Walgreen's in Illinois.

ST. LOUIS - Walgreen Co. said it has put four Illinois pharmacists in the St. Louis area on unpaid leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule.

The four cited religious or moral objections to filling prescriptions for the morning-after pill and "have said they would like to maintain their right to refuse to dispense, and in Illinois that is not an option," Walgreen spokeswoman Tiffani Bruce said.

A rule imposed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich in April requires Illinois pharmacies that sell contraceptives approved by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control. Pharmacies that do not fill prescriptions for any type of contraception are not required to follow the rule.

Ed Martin, an attorney for the pharmacists, on Tuesday called the discipline "pretty disturbing" and said they would consider legal action if Walgreen doesn't reconsider.

At least six other pharmacists have sued over the rule, claiming it forces them to violate their religious beliefs. Many of those lawsuits were filed by Americans United for Life, the Chicago public interest law firm with which Martin is affiliated.

The licenses of both a pharmacy and that store's chief pharmacist could be revoked if they don't comply with the Illinois rule, Bruce said.

Walgreen, based in Deerfield, Ill., put the four on leave Monday, Bruce said. She would not identify them. They will remain on unpaid leave "until they either decide to abide by Illinois law or relocate to another state" without such a rule or law. For example, she said, the company would be willing to help them get licensed in Missouri and they could work for Walgreen there.

Walgreen policy says pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions to which they are morally opposed — except where state law prohibits — but they must take steps to have the prescription filled by another pharmacist or store, Bruce said.

Bruce said Wednesday the four pharmacists were the first Walgreen had disciplined under the state's rule. Walgreen has 488 stores in Illinois, out of about 5,000 nationwide, with generally three to five pharmacists employed at each one.

It was not clear whether other large pharmacy chains had taken similar action.

Jean Coutu Group Inc., which owns more than 1,900 Eckerd and Brooks stores, requires its pharmacists to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, spokeswoman Helene Bisson said. But she wouldn't say if Jean Coutu has taken action similar to Walgreen.

CVS Corp., the nation's largest retail pharmacy, did not immediately return calls.


There is a huge discussion about this article on www.fark.com (http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1785563), which I found both interesting and depressing. There are a LOT of people out there that don't seem to have a clue about what pharmacists really do and that being a pharmacist is more than just putting pills in a bottle.

On a tangent, it seems to me that the recent articles about the very few pharmacists that are refusing to fill rxs has harmed the public's perception of pharmacy. What do you think that we can do to alter this view?
 
npage148 said:
This whole thing is falling on pharmacists unjustly. Where is the flax that doctors HAVE to dispense OC or perform abortions? Untill doctors are forced by law to dispense OC, and catholic hopsitals are ordered to perform abortions, have their doctors write for OC and plan B then there should be no law forcing pharmacists to dispense. I have no problem dispensing plan B, but i feel its the pharmacists choice for my reason stated above. People still have a horrible view of pharmacists and this whole conflict is just demostrating it.

I completely agree! I'd be interested to see what would happen if a similar controvery happened in the medical community.

organichemistry said:
while i don't disagree, i think there's a difference between a doctor not performing an abortion and a pharmacist not dispensing emergency contraceptives.

for one, emergency contraception is not an abortion medically speaking. it's not killing a ball of cells or a fetus... it is merely preventing that ball of cells or fetus from ever coming together. it's about as close to an abortion as it is to a condom, in my opinion.

That is your opinion. However I would venture to say that people who refuse to fill EC, or BCPs for that matter do consider them equivalent. I don't. You don't. But then we aren't the ones objecting to being forced to fill these Rxs either. This seems to be one of those things that people on both sides will never agree upon; it's too fundamental to compromise. I agree that companies should have explicit policies and those pharmacists not willing to follow them find employment elsewhere. But I also think that pharmcists should be able to retain their right to refuse.
 
Moxxie said:
They will remain on unpaid leave "until they either decide to abide by Illinois law or relocate to another state" without such a rule or law. For example, she said, the company would be willing to help them get licensed in Missouri and they could work for Walgreen there.

😡 Another company fine, another state? Ridiculous.
 
Well....you asked for thoughts from practicing pharmacists. I've been one a long time and this argument over OC & Plan B is popular right now, but this is a similar argument to what occured about 20 years ago when it was first published that "loading" Ovral would do the same thing as Plan B does now (altho with more side effects!). Whatever your personal thoughts...Plan B will stay and will be available more widely as time goes by. In CA - we dispense it without an Rx by a qualified pharmacist. And yes....I do run out - particularly after a long weekend. Funny though....it is not used so much by teenagers in my practice - mostly 30-somethings and I'm near 1 MAJOR university, 2 junior colleges and 2 high schools! Now...for controversy...the most difficult decision I have ever been involved in was 25 years ago when one of our cardiovascular surgeons wanted me to mix an IV nitroglycerin drip from NTG sublingual tablets (are any of you old enough to remember when that was not available?????) Well....after a frantic MedLine search (well...the equivalent at the time) and much discussion with surgeons and anesthesiologists...I agreed, but at least half of my colleagues did not. We were concerned about stability, potency, pyrogens, sterility, etc....But, in the end....we each chose what we felt was right and later developed a protocol which we all could live with - aaah the 70's - cutting edge pharmacy! Now...its available commercially! Now..take a minute to project what the status of Plan B will be in 2020? I know what my thoughts are.....
 
bananaface said:
Pharmacists, like physicians, work in chosen niches. We wouldn't expect to be able to walk up to a clinical pharmacist on an Oncology floor with a prescription for Plan B and have them fill it for us. Compounding pharmacies often choose not to offer any commercial meds. Neither pharmacists nor the lay public appreciate that business owners pick and choose the exact services they offer at their pharmacies.

Exactly, so if a pharmacist is going to have a moral problem with filling the communities BCPs or plan B then don't become a community pharmacist. Work in mail order, hospital or wherever you don't have to deal with the community. Pharmacists that are refusing based on moral reasons are only hurting our profession.

Of course doctors aren't forced to perform abortions... thats why they choose not to become an abortion doctor. Pharmacists can choose not to serve the community, they can become the order entry pharmacist of a hospital.

If I was homophobic I wouldn't work in a pharmacy located in the gay area of san francisco. So if you have a problem with women trying to prevent a pregnancy then don't work in any community retail setting because they are everywhere. :laugh:
 
b*rizzle said:
It's about tact.

If I were refusing a prescription for EC on the basis of personal beliefs, I would simply tell the patient that I'm out or that the pharmacy don't stock it. Then I'd tell them where they could find it. That's all that needs to be said.
So it's OK to lie to the patient? The druggists are not only forcing their moral beliefs down the patient's throat but they also are bad liars.
When did your PERSONAL moral belief become a contraindication for not filling a valid prescription?
 
So it's OK to lie to the patient?

Yes. Good, god, yes. Have you ever tried to get one of those crazy women in their 40s that are addicted to their Xanax to wait for their refill? Yeah, sure, I COULD refill it as the insurance company would pay for it 7 days early, but it isn't going to happen. I tell them "nope, can't refill it until the 29th day." Lying is a useful tool, I say.


lnn2 said:
When did your PERSONAL moral belief become a contraindication for not filling a valid prescription?

I can refuse to fill a prescrition because I don't like the shirt you are wearing. In fact, I think I did that last summer one time. Or I imagined it. I dunno.

BTW, I'm serious about the Xopenex thing I mentioned at one point, too. I swear to IPU that the next time a person comes in with a script for Xopenex, I'm refusing to fill on the grounds that it's runs against my moral code of not screwing people out of their money for no damn reason. Same goes for Clarinex.

The whole issue pisses me off at it's very essence, anyway. On one side I have a bunch of religious wackos making my profession look bad with their pithy understanding of pharmacology AND ON THE OTHER SIDE I have these little douchebags that think I shouldn't have any autonomy and think my function is to shut my brain off and count tablets. I really don't want to agree with any of them because they both annoy me. I say we just take every person who has a strong opinion either way and throw them into a giant frickin' volcano. There, case closed. I'll grab my riot shotgun, some steer rustlin' rope, and hijack a helicopter. Who's with me?
 
museabuse said:
Exactly, so if a pharmacist is going to have a moral problem with filling the communities BCPs or plan B then don't become a community pharmacist. Work in mail order, hospital or wherever you don't have to deal with the community. Pharmacists that are refusing based on moral reasons are only hurting our profession.

Of course doctors aren't forced to perform abortions... thats why they choose not to become an abortion doctor. Pharmacists can choose not to serve the community, they can become the order entry pharmacist of a hospital.

If I was homophobic I wouldn't work in a pharmacy located in the gay area of san francisco. So if you have a problem with women trying to prevent a pregnancy then don't work in any community retail setting because they are everywhere. :laugh:
Your assumption that community pharmacists are as a whole dispensers of Plan B is incorrect. Not all community pharmacists fill the same niche, just as not all physicians fill the same niche. Both pick and choose exactly what services their practices will offer, be it abortions, abortion meds, prescribing of Plan B, or dispensing of Plan B.
 
lnn2 said:
So it's OK to lie to the patient? The druggists are not only forcing their moral beliefs down the patient's throat but they also are bad liars.
When did your PERSONAL moral belief become a contraindication for not filling a valid prescription?
There is no cause to come here and start throwing around antiquated terminology intended to be derogatory. Keep it respectful or keep it to yourself.
 
Top