I'm late in this post, but I will say....assuming the patient's side of the story is 100% true (which is most likely is not), then the whole situation is appalling. Especially since it likes the pharmacist was already filled, their were technicians who could have done the physical selling, and if only counseling was required wouldn't it be possible for the pharmacist to call a willing pharmacist in the same chain to do the counseling? This really seems like a situation that should never have happened. Even so, I agree with others about the public thoughts, even of doctors here, that pharmacists should fill every prescription period.
Am I required to tell a pharmacist what im using an RX is for? What is the legal/HIPPA on that?
No you aren't required to tell me what you are using an RX for....but I'm not require to fill your prescription either.
That's the thing though, the Bible says a whole lot more that people don't follow. Shouldn't they not dispense birth control or pde5 inhibitors?
You can't pick and choose from the Bible.
There are independent pharmacies that do not carry any birth control (I don't know about PDE5 inhibitors....I've never heard of people making a moral issue about that....although I'm sure there are rare individuals out there who would) It is literally impossible for an pharmacy to carry every drug, if a pharmacy doesn't want to carry an entire class of drugs, well it's probably not a wise business decision, but it should be there decision to make.
And within those groups a number wouldn’t use it thenself but would dispense
I count myself in this group. As someone who strongly leans liberatarian, I'm not going to tell someone else what they should or should not be doing. I guess this also shores up with my religious beliefs, as I believe God often tolerates sin or less then ideal behavior, as we are all still learning. Just like a parent's expectations for a 2 year old's behavior are far different than they are for a 16 year old's behavior (or at least they should be!), similarly I also believe that God has different expectations for each person's behavior based on their religious/spiritual age. I can't, nor should I try, to teach algebra to a 2 year old, nor should I be trying to impose my religious beliefs on anyone else (as I have no idea what their religious/spiritual age is.) *IF* there is a sin involved, then it will be on them.
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.
Here is the GREAT thing about the 1st amendment....it gives "freedom of religion" to ALL religions (yeah, yeah, I know atheism is a hair color in the same way that bald is a hair color, but I think we can agree that atheist's beliefs are protected under the 1st amendment.) There is NO requirement that a religion be logical. People have greatly differing interpretations of the Bible, and that is their right in the US. You even have religious groups, like B'Hai or Mormons who believe the Bible is correct, but that later religious writings are more important in understanding/interpreting/superceding the Bible (just like Christians believe about the New Testament.) So, while you may think it's religiously wrong for a pharmacist to pick one thing from the Bible and only believe that (and this is most likely not true at all), but even if it were, that is a valid religious belief in the US. Most people agree that religion can't be "proven" in a scientific lab, so whatever someone says is their religious belief, is indeed a valid religious belief....for them.
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
I extremely doubt that is true. Illinois has a law that pharmacists can NOT deny prescriptions for moral/ethical reasons, but in Illinois pharmacists absolutely can and do deny prescriptions for medical reasons. Now, it appears there was NO medical reason to deny the prescription we are talking about here, and I'm sure that is the kind of cases that WA law is saying is illegal. But medical reasons? Absolutely.
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".
Can I just say "religion" and get away with anything?!
Yes (in their personal life) and no (in their public life.) I completely agree with you, as do probably all religious people, excepting those who think taking any drug is wrong. Maybe the patient was lying, but why wouldn't the pharmacist think that the sin was on the patient for lying? It hasn't been that long ago that misoprostol was used to induce labor for healthy pregnancies (rarely done these days because of bad outcomes....), just pointing out that misprostol is far more than an "abortion drug", and it is poor practice for the pharmacist to assume the patient is using it for abortion, instead of assuming it is being used for other indications.
, but all pharmacists in retail chains provide the service of dispensing medication.
Nothing requires a pharmacist to dispense all medications, and it is literally and physically impossible for any pharmacy to stock all medications. And it's not unheard of for pharmacies to deny filling a prescription because of cost (a small pharmacy is not going to order a exorbitantly-priced brand name bottle of #100 tablets, for a person with a 1x prescription for #20 tablets....they will tell that person they don't stock the medication and they will have to get it else where) Another example, where I highly doubt that WA law would require pharmacists to fill such a prescription that would cause a great monetary lose to their pharmacy.
Because, again, their function is the same thing regardless of medication. They verify safety and dispense. They might provide some counseling. They make sure the dose entered was correct. That is the same regardless of medication. We, as physicians, have already determined something is necessary for our patients, and, so long as it is not in error,
Wrong, wrong, wrong. What pharmacists should never do is 2nd guess the DIAGNOSIS that a doctor has made, but we absolutely have the right, and duty, to determine appropriateness of a medication based on the diagnosis, and/or other medications that the pt is on, and/or other diagnoses that the pt may have. Now, 95% of doctors, will be quite reasonable when a pharmacist calls and explains the issues with a medication that the doctor had prescribed (oh, did I write methimazole for my newly diagnosed diabetic patient, I don't know what I was thinking, I meant metformin. I know bad example because the dosing is totally different, but let's ignore that for the sake of discussion.) And many times, there are times there is additional information that the doctor has, and then the pharmacist will totally understand the reasoning why it was prescribed (ie the patient doesn't really have diabetes but has dementia, but thinks they must because "diabetes runs in their family.") I have, unfortunately, talked to doctors who will never admit they made an error, no matter how egregious it is, and pharmacists have every right, indeed duty, to document and refuse to dispense such a medication.