"Walgreens pharmacist denies woman miscarriage medication due to his beliefs"

[PharmDminus]

I don't follow the Bible but I thought it condemned premarital sex.

yes it does, but birth control could be used for other things (dysmenorrhea), and in the case of pde5 inhibitors would you expect the rph to screen if each patient is married? By that note, should the rph be screening every pt who picks up amitriptyline or acetaminophen to ensure they dont plan on using it for a suicide attempt? There are grey areas and you have to draw the line somewhere. i dont agree with what the decision the misoprostol rph made but if he felt convicted about it then it is certainly 100% his right as a professional to refuse.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[wagrxm2000]

yes it does, but birth control could be used for other things (dysmenorrhea), and in the case of pde5 inhibitors would you expect the rph to screen if each patient is married? By that note, should the rph be screening every pt who picks up amitriptyline or acetaminophen to ensure they dont plan on using it for a suicide attempt? There are grey areas and you have to draw the line somewhere. i dont agree with what the decision the misoprostol rph made but if he felt convicted about it then it is certainly 100% his right as a professional to refuse.

So the pharmacist picked one thing from the Bible? Doesn't should very Christian. Sounds like it's ok to not follow anything.

That's the thing though, the pharmacist didn't take the time to find out what was going on here either. He just blanket refused it.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

So the pharmacist picked one thing from the Bible? Doesn't should very Christian. Sounds like it's ok to not follow anything.

That's the thing though, the pharmacist didn't take the time to find out what was going on here either. He just blanket refused it.

I never understood this stance of "rrrreeeeee!! You have to read the dead Sea Scrolls in the original language and follow it to the letter or you can't do it at all!"

You don't hear this from edgy atheists about Islam. I wonder why that is.

I wonder why that is.

 

[wagrxm2000]

I never understood this stance of "rrrreeeeee!! You have to read the dead Sea Scrolls in the original language and follow it to the letter or you can't do it at all!"

You don't hear this from edgy atheists about Islam. I wonder why that is.

I wonder why that is.

Well the Bible is a completely outdated book anyways.

I just find it interesting people say it's against their religious beliefs.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Well the Bible is a completely outdated book anyways.

I just find it interesting people say it's against their religious beliefs.

Yeah well you have millionaires that believe in Xenu.
Big whopp

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You don't hear this from edgy atheists about Islam. I wonder why that is.

I wonder why that is.

Because Christianity is the largest source of stupidity we have to deal with in our every day lives. If there were a bunch of Muslims in Washington trying to ban pork, I'd turn my ire their way.

Also, most people in the US know little about the intricacies of the Quran when compared to knowledge about the Holy Bible. I'd imagine Atheists in the Middle East do the same thing, but pick apart the giant plot holes in the Quran instead.

Make no mistake. Islam and Christianity are both crutches for weak, pathetic people without any semblance of critical thought in their tiny little skulls. Only one, however, is somehow still setting the course for the laws in my country even though it was written 2000 years ago by half-literate sheep herders that made up a bunch of nonsense that doesn't even make sense.

 

[Mad Jack]

Like always we're going to talk about an extremely small population to prove our point.

Because precedents are precedents for a reason

 

[Mad Jack]

Okay. But this person took a job in a major metro with a company that allows this sort of thing in a state that grants him the right to do it in.

If religious people are going to practice pharmacy, then he literally picked the perfect place to do it. He got to not participate in an activity he didn't want to...the patient still got their drug. It seems like a pretty good outcome to me.

I've said it a million times. Something about this issue makes people go beyond reason. Female reproduction is the one issue where liberals are as off the rails insane as Trump supporters are on immigration.

Implying this pharmacist's behavior wasn't off-the-rails insane and completely out of line with any major doctrine. This was a person practicing their ignorance, not their beliefs

 

[wagrxm2000]

Because precedents are precedents for a reason

Well that same apparently rural pharmacy may have also not even had it on stock.

Even if you have to drive an hour, that's not unreasonable. I've seen it done all the time where a customer needs a back order drug.

While I disagree with the decision, it's still the pharmacists right no matter how ridiculous it is.

 

[Mad Jack]

Well that same apparently rural pharmacy may have also not even had it on stock.

Even if you have to drive an hour, that's not unreasonable. I've seen it done all the time where a customer needs a back order drug.

While I disagree with the decision, it's still the pharmacists right no matter how ridiculous it is.

It would very likely not stand a SCOTUS challenge in this context though, as whatever decision was made would apply to the entire country. I'd love to see this challenged in a legal manner

 

[percyeye]

What if this lady was a super conservative anti-abortion herself who has a history of wanting children but has trouble with miscarriages. She had a miscarriage but instead of having surgery for her medical needs she wants to do it with medication? How ridiculous is it that a Pharmacist at a Walgreens makes her day worse because of their belief with a brand of a certain medication. Because at this point it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion a life, it has to do with making the patient healthy again. I didn't know in the bible it says "Thou shall not dispense Plan-B medication." As I said before I hope people like this have a harder time finding a job because in reality they are less useful than someone who can fill all medications. And with the oversupply of Pharmacists it could happen.

 

[wagrxm2000]

It would very likely not stand a SCOTUS challenge in this context though, as whatever decision was made would apply to the entire country. I'd love to see this challenged in a legal manner

You want to deny pharmacists the right to not fill a script based on their beliefs?

All this pharmacist would do then is either not carry it or lie that he doesn't have it (like he should have done).

 

[Mad Jack]

You want to deny pharmacists the right to not fill a script based on their beliefs?

All this pharmacist would do then is either not carry it or lie that he doesn't have it (like he should have done).

Absolutely, when their beliefs serve no logical or religious function and have the potential for harm should they become precedent

 

[wagrxm2000]

Absolutely, when their beliefs serve no logical or religious function and have the potential for harm should they become precedent

Then they wouldn't keep it in stock.

 

[Mad Jack]

Then they wouldn't keep it in stock.

Hard to do when they're working for a corporation

 

[PA_dud3]

Make no mistake. Islam and Christianity are both crutches for weak, pathetic people without any semblance of critical thought in their tiny little skulls. Only one, however, is somehow still setting the course for the laws in my country even though it was written 2000 years ago by half-literate sheep herders that made up a bunch of nonsense that doesn't even make sense.

Not trying to start an argument or anything, but some of the most brilliant minds of history and even today subscribe to Christian theology. Religion =/= Ignorance/Stupidity. I think it's a bit unfair to say that all who believe in a higher power are idiots.

Also, the Bible is actually a very intricate collection of literature. OT or NT.

Just my opinion.

 

[wagrxm2000]

Hard to do when they're working for a corporation

The individual pharmacies control what they keep in stock. You can return anything you don't want.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Absolutely, when their beliefs serve no logical or religious function and have the potential for harm should they become precedent

It clearly served a "religious function." His imaginary sky diety would be angry at him if he was part of the murder of a fetus. That's Christianity. Stupid? Yes. His right under the law? Again, yes.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

Because Christianity is the largest source of stupidity we have to deal with in our every day lives. If there were a bunch of Muslims in Washington trying to ban pork, I'd turn my ire their way.

Also, most people in the US know little about the intricacies of the Quran when compared to knowledge about the Holy Bible. I'd imagine Atheists in the Middle East do the same thing, but pick apart the giant plot holes in the Quran instead.

Make no mistake. Islam and Christianity are both crutches for weak, pathetic people without any semblance of critical thought in their tiny little skulls. Only one, however, is somehow still setting the course for the laws in my country even though it was written 2000 years ago by half-literate sheep herders that made up a bunch of nonsense that doesn't even make sense.

Muh stop liking what I don't like

 

[Mad Jack]

It clearly served a "religious function." His imaginary sky diety would be angry at him if he was part of the murder of a fetus. That's Christianity. Stupid? Yes. His right under the law? Again, yes.

No fetus would die. This was an already deceased fetus, long dead. No Christian interpretation of God would be angry with saving a living woman by passing the remains of her dead child.

 

[wagrxm2000]

No fetus would die. This was an already deceased fetus, long dead. No Christian interpretation of God would be angry with saving a living woman by passing the remains of her dead child.

The pharmacist did not know this...well I assume.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

The pharmacist did not know this...well I assume.

The woman says she told him it was for a miscarriage. Now obviously we can't know for sure, but I'd be inclined to believe her. If a pharmacist is refusing to fill a medication, most people will try to explain why their case is different (not that I have to tell y'all that).

 

[wagrxm2000]

The woman says she told him it was for a miscarriage. Now obviously we can't know for sure, but I'd be inclined to believe her. If a pharmacist is refusing to fill a medication, most people will try to explain why their case is different (not that I have to tell y'all that).

Unfortunately people lie.

Everything still comes down to the patient can always go elsewhere.

I still see no reason for the pharmacist to deny it but it's still his right.

 

[JustAnotherRph]

I'm still annoyed with this whole "the Pharmacist MUST do" and this nonsense of HIPPA violations. I love how its the pre-pharmacy and medical doctors who keep posting about how a Pharmacist MUST dispense. Well then, every doctor MUST perform abortions. Every doctor MUST prescribe everyone whatever they come in and ask for. You ARE NOT allowed to use your ethical belief to deny anyone an abortion, a controlled substance, or an unnecessary surgery. If a patient has body dysmorphic disorder, you MUST comply with the patient wishes, be it amputation or prescribing of stimulants for weight loss to an already severely underweight individual just because you "believe" that prescribing a medication could potentially harm them.

At the end of the day, it is not me to judge what a person believes. I may be an atheist but I'm not going to go around and scream that a religious person can't believe what they want. To most people, religious and ethical beliefs blur into each other and one doesn't exist without the other. To them, their code of ethics is based on their religion.

A Pharmacist should be allowed to practice with the same construct that a medical doctor can. If they don't want to do it, they don't have too. End of story.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I'm still annoyed with this whole "the Pharmacist MUST do" and this nonsense of HIPPA violations. I love how its the pre-pharmacy and medical doctors who keep posting about how a Pharmacist MUST dispense. Well then, every doctor MUST perform abortions. Every doctor MUST prescribe everyone whatever they come in and ask for. You ARE NOT allowed to use your ethical belief to deny anyone an abortion, a controlled substance, or an unnecessary surgery. If a patient has body dysmorphic disorder, you MUST comply with the patient wishes, be it amputation or prescribing of stimulants for weight loss to an already severely underweight individual just because you "believe" that prescribing a medication could potentially harm them.

At the end of the day, it is not me to judge what a person believes. I may be an atheist but I'm not going to go around and scream that a religious person can't believe what they want. To most people, religious and ethical beliefs blur into each other and one doesn't exist without the other. To them, their code of ethics is based on their religion.

A Pharmacist should be allowed to practice with the same construct that a medical doctor can. If they don't want to do it, they don't have too. End of story.

OK you realize that there's a difference between not wanting to dispense an abortion drug and actively harming someone because of bad practice, right?

For what its worth, again, I completely support a pharmacist refusing to dispense anything at any time, but let's not use stupid analogies. It doesn't help the cause.

 

[wagrxm2000]

OK you realize that there's a difference between not wanting to dispense an abortion drug and actively harming someone because of bad practice, right?

For what its worth, again, I completely support a pharmacist refusing to dispense anything at any time, but let's not use stupid analogies. It doesn't help the cause.

While some of his analogies go a little too far, do you think all doctors should be required to prescribe misoprostol if their patient comes in asking for it?

 

[Mad Jack]

The pharmacist did not know this...well I assume.

So they don't even know why they aren't dispensing something? Sounds incompetent to me

 

[wagrxm2000]

So they don't even know why they aren't dispensing something? Sounds incompetent to me

You realize there are different indications for meds right?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

While some of his analogies go a little too far, do you think all doctors should be required to prescribe misoprostol if their patient comes in asking for it?

You didn't even read my 2nd sentence, did you?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

So they don't even know why they aren't dispensing something? Sounds incompetent to me

Seriously?

OK I write for lisinopril and don't include a diagnosis code (because you're not required to). Am I treating hypertension? Or maybe CKD? Or maybe CHF?

Or prednisone. Am I treating poison ivy, COPD, asthma, lupus, RA, sore throat, gout, MS, PMR, or eczema?

But you're right, its totally the pharmacist being incompetent.

 

[CetiAlphaFive]

I'm still annoyed with this whole "the Pharmacist MUST do" and this nonsense of HIPPA violations. I love how its the pre-pharmacy and medical doctors who keep posting about how a Pharmacist MUST dispense. Well then, every doctor MUST perform abortions. Every doctor MUST prescribe everyone whatever they come in and ask for. You ARE NOT allowed to use your ethical belief to deny anyone an abortion, a controlled substance, or an unnecessary surgery. If a patient has body dysmorphic disorder, you MUST comply with the patient wishes, be it amputation or prescribing of stimulants for weight loss to an already severely underweight individual just because you "believe" that prescribing a medication could potentially harm them.

At the end of the day, it is not me to judge what a person believes. I may be an atheist but I'm not going to go around and scream that a religious person can't believe what they want. To most people, religious and ethical beliefs blur into each other and one doesn't exist without the other. To them, their code of ethics is based on their religion.

A Pharmacist should be allowed to practice with the same construct that a medical doctor can. If they don't want to do it, they don't have too. End of story.

I don't agree with what you're saying, but what you mean is correct.

Pharmacists do not have to dispense anything, outside of social justice kafka-courts.

 

[wagrxm2000]

You didn't even read my 2nd sentence, did you?

I did but I wanted to simplify what the previous person said.

Wasn't really directed towards you.

 

[Mad Jack]

You realize there are different indications for meds right?

And if you're going to claim to not dispense based on ethical grounds, you should be familiar with those indications and dispense appropriately when it is being used for something that does not fall afoul of your personal sense of ethics. To not do so is incompetence secondary to ignorance

 

[Mad Jack]

Seriously?

OK I write for lisinopril and don't include a diagnosis code (because you're not required to). Am I treating hypertension? Or maybe CKD? Or maybe CHF?

Or prednisone. Am I treating poison ivy, COPD, asthma, lupus, RA, sore throat, gout, MS, PMR, or eczema?

But you're right, its totally the pharmacist being incompetent.

It's as simple as the patient providing their visit summary or the pharmacist calling the physician.

 

[wagrxm2000]

And if you're going to claim to not dispense based on ethical grounds, you should be familiar with those indications and dispense appropriately when it is being used for something that does not fall afoul of your personal sense of ethics. To not do so is incompetence secondary to ignorance

Again, they can go to a different pharmacy.

 

[JustAnotherRph]

OK you realize that there's a difference between not wanting to dispense an abortion drug and actively harming someone because of bad practice, right?

It goes into the weeds of definition of harm. If you're a devout religious person, a fetus is a living person and dispensing an abortifacient will now cease life and cause irreparable harm. While the lady may have said that she is using it to induce a miscarriage of a dead fetus, we all know people lie. She could have been told to say this so pharmacists will dispense the medication, even when that isn't the intention.

While I agree that some of my examples were absurd, but in the land of public opinion, they all mean the same thing. A patient deserves to get what he/she/binary sex wants regardless of it being good medicine. The opioid crisis is a true definition of bad medicine but it's perfectly acceptable since a doctor prescribed it.

 

[Mad Jack]

I don't agree with what you're saying, but what you mean is correct.

Pharmacists do not have to dispense anything, outside of social justice kafka-courts.

Per the ruling in Stormans, Inc v Wiesman, in states that require dispensing such as WA, pharmacists have no Constitutional right to decline. This doesn't apply in this case, but it is to say that pharmacists do have to dispense in some states

 

[Mad Jack]

Again, they can go to a different pharmacy.

That isn't how precedent works, and I am hoping this becomes a case that sets precedent

 

[wagrxm2000]

That isn't how precedent works, and I am hoping this becomes a case that sets precedent

You can post rulings and keep saying the same thing over and over again but nothing is going to stop a pharmacist from simply saying.... Sorry I ran out.

 

[owlegrad]

I truly cannot wrap my head around any pharmacist refusing to fill a medication that a patient needs to prevent complications from a miscarriage. The patient had a miscarriage. The patient told the pharmacist she had a miscarriage. This has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. If the pharmacist wants to refuse it because he thinks it is for an abortion doesn't he at least have a moral duty to confirm that is what it is really being used for?

If it was you or a member of your family that couldn't get this medication because that pharmacist decided you/she were lying about why they needed it (miscarriage vs abortion), would you still think this is their right?

I can't even wrap my head around anyone thinking this was ok to deny for "religious reasons". The only religion I can think of that might reject this medication is Christian Scientist and I think that hypothetical pharmacist would have a very hard time indeed finding a job to accommodate their beliefs.

Seriously can anyone give an example of a religion that does not allow for the medical treatment of a woman who has suffered a miscarriage?!

If the pharmacist refused to dispense Metformin or furosemide or any other drug that has nothing to do with abortions on religious grounds would anyone support that nonsense?

Can I just say "religion" and get away with anything?!

 

[Mad Jack]

You can post rulings and keep saying the same thing over and over again but nothing is going to stop a pharmacist from simply saying.... Sorry I ran out.

That's fair, I just would like to live in a world where every time that happens and a call is made to corporate about a potential lawsuit due to denial of service and they look into things and a pharmacist has been denying meds that were stocked or has repeatedly not stocked a medication, well I'd love to live in a world where that person loses their job for violating a patient's rights and is blackballed in that state

 

[wagrxm2000]

That's fair, I just would like to live in a world where every time that happens and a call is made to corporate about a potential lawsuit due to denial of service and they look into things and a pharmacist has been denying meds that were stocked or has repeatedly not stocked a medication, well I'd love to live in a world where that person loses their job for violating a patient's rights and is blackballed in that state

I'm curious what your huge fascination is with forcing pharmacists to dispense what that aren't comfortable with dispensing. Why can't they just go elsewhere?

I hope you realize there is a huge group of people that disagree with you.

 

[wagrxm2000]

I truly cannot wrap my head around any pharmacist refusing to fill a medication that a patient needs to prevent complications from a miscarriage. The patient had a miscarriage. The patient told the pharmacist she had a miscarriage. This has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. If the pharmacist wants to refuse it because he thinks it is for an abortion doesn't he at least have a moral duty to confirm that is what it is really being used for?

If it was you or a member of your family that couldn't get this medication because that pharmacist decided you/she were lying about why they needed it (miscarriage vs abortion), would you still think this is their right?

I can't even wrap my head around anyone thinking this was ok to deny for "religious reasons". The only religion I can think of that might reject this medication is Christian Scientist and I think that hypothetical pharmacist would have a very hard time indeed finding a job to accommodate their beliefs.

Seriously can anyone give an example of a religion that does not allow for the medical treatment of a woman who has suffered a miscarriage?!

If the pharmacist refused to dispense Metformin or furosemide or any other drug that has nothing to do with abortions on religious grounds would anyone support that nonsense?

Can I just say "religion" and get away with anything?!

Oh come on, you know no pharmacist has time to make phone calls......well at least the ones that post here.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

It goes into the weeds of definition of harm. If you're a devout religious person, a fetus is a living person and dispensing an abortifacient will now cease life and cause irreparable harm. While the lady may have said that she is using it to induce a miscarriage of a dead fetus, we all know people lie. She could have been told to say this so pharmacists will dispense the medication, even when that isn't the intention.

While I agree that some of my examples were absurd, but in the land of public opinion, they all mean the same thing. A patient deserves to get what he/she/binary sex wants regardless of it being good medicine. The opioid crisis is a true definition of bad medicine but it's perfectly acceptable since a doctor prescribed it.

And I actually agree with your point, you just made it very badly which hurts the argument

 

[owlegrad]

I'm curious what your huge fascination is with forcing pharmacists to dispense what that aren't comfortable with dispensing. Why can't they just go elsewhere?

I hope you realize there is a huge group of people that disagree with you.

Let's be honest here. Should any pharmacist not be comfortable disposing misoprostol to treat a miscarriage? Is that reasonable from any angle?

Honestly if you aren't comfortable treating a miscarriage maybe you shouldn't be a pharmacist at all? (Generic use of you)

 

[owlegrad]

Oh come on, you know no pharmacist has time to make phone calls......well at least the ones that post here.

Ha, this is actually a fair point.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm curious what your huge fascination is with forcing pharmacists to dispense what that aren't comfortable with dispensing. Why can't they just go elsewhere?

I hope you realize there is a huge group of people that disagree with you.

I'm well aware, but given that I'm likely going to practice in a state where dispensing medication is a duty, not a discretionary privilege, I am obviously fine with this.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I truly cannot wrap my head around any pharmacist refusing to fill a medication that a patient needs to prevent complications from a miscarriage. The patient had a miscarriage. The patient told the pharmacist she had a miscarriage. This has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. If the pharmacist wants to refuse it because he thinks it is for an abortion doesn't he at least have a moral duty to confirm that is what it is really being used for?

If it was you or a member of your family that couldn't get this medication because that pharmacist decided you/she were lying about why they needed it (miscarriage vs abortion), would you still think this is their right?

I can't even wrap my head around anyone thinking this was ok to deny for "religious reasons". The only religion I can think of that might reject this medication is Christian Scientist and I think that hypothetical pharmacist would have a very hard time indeed finding a job to accommodate their beliefs.

Seriously can anyone give an example of a religion that does not allow for the medical treatment of a woman who has suffered a miscarriage?!

If the pharmacist refused to dispense Metformin or furosemide or any other drug that has nothing to do with abortions on religious grounds would anyone support that nonsense?

Can I just say "religion" and get away with anything?!

I'd still think its their right.

Just like its my right to make a big stink about it.

Don't get me wrong, the pharmacist screwed this one up by seeing "Misoprostol" and immediately going hard core "I will not help you have an abortion" and not backing down when told otherwise. It was ****ty and does make me question him being a pharmacist. But I think its his right to be stupid and likely Walgreens right to fire his stupid self.

 

[wagrxm2000]

Let's be honest here. Should any pharmacist not be comfortable disposing misoprostol to treat a miscarriage? Is that reasonable from any angle?

Honestly if you aren't comfortable treating a miscarriage maybe you shouldn't be a pharmacist at all? (Generic use of you)

If the pharmacist 100% knew? No

From what I read that wasn't clear. I thought the pharmacist asked if it was for pregnancy and the person said development wasn't occurring and her body was slowly getting ready to miscarry Not that it was a miscarriage. This also wasn't an emergency so even if it was a rural area, she could go elsewhere or wait until the pharmacist left.

 

[wagrxm2000]

I'm well aware, but given that I'm likely going to practice in a state where dispensing medication is a duty, not a discretionary privilege, I am obviously fine with this.

You may want to watch your wording when you say it's a duty.