Whot you dispense birth control pills?

[Bananay]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

"EDWARDSVILLE, Ill. - Four pharmacists who refused to sign a pledge promising to dispense the morning-after birth-control pill sued Walgreen drug stores Friday, alleging they were illegally fired." yahoo news

I am just trying to get your opinion about this disturbing issue. at what point will your career interfere with your religion?

 

[Abilify]

Well, which patient are you trying to treat?

The potential mother or the "child"?

This isint about religion, it's about your right to refuse

 

[clarrkkent]

"EDWARDSVILLE, Ill. - Four pharmacists who refused to sign a pledge promising to dispense the morning-after birth-control pill sued Walgreen drug stores Friday, alleging they were illegally fired." yahoo news

I am just trying to get your opinion about this disturbing issue. at what point will your career interfere with your religion?

I guess I look at this differently. I would ask at what point would your religion interfere with your career/ability to perform the job?

My answer, it shouldn't at all unless the career is based on/around religion.

As a place of business, a right is given to refuse service. This right does not, however, supercede the right of a person to have access to a drug/prescription they need because of conflict in personal beliefs. If the morning-after pill issue starts a trend, who's to say that any number of people belonging to various religious groups would decide not to dispense additional pharmaceuticals because conflict arrises with their beliefs. A standard must be set that does not allow prejudice against a patient.

It is not ethical for someone in a position of power to FORCE their ethics, religious beliefs or moral standards upon another person.

 

[Abilify]

It is not ethical for someone in a position of power to FORCE their ethics, religious beliefs or moral standards upon another person.

You're right.

If a supervisor came to me and forced me to dispense Plan B, they would be forcing their ethics, religious beliefs or moral standards upon me and that wouldn't be ethical or pretty.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

I guess I look at this differently. I would ask at what point would your religion interfere with your career/ability to perform the job?

My answer, it shouldn't at all unless the career is based on/around religion.

As a place of business, a right is given to refuse service. This right does not, however, supercede the right of a person to have access to a drug/prescription they need because of conflict in personal beliefs. If the morning-after pill issue starts a trend, who's to say that any number of people belonging to various religious groups would decide not to dispense additional pharmaceuticals because conflict arrises with their beliefs. A standard must be set that does not allow prejudice against a patient.

It is not ethical for someone in a position of power to FORCE their ethics, religious beliefs or moral standards upon another person.

Exactly, if pharmacy is truely a profession, then the pharmacist must have the right to choose what drugs it want to or not to dispense. Furthermore, remember the basics of the pharmacist oath. .. do no harm.

 

[DHG]

From experience I've found it impossible to have logical conversation with religious fundamentalists. They don't believe in logic. It's a waste of time.

 

[dgroulx]

If Walgreen's policy is to dispense Plan B and you work there, then you are obligated to dispense it. If you don't like it, then go to work at Walmart.

What if the patient was taking a teratogenic drug and her birth control failed? It is better to stop this possible pregnancy before it begins.

 

[alwaystired]

If Walgreen's policy is to dispense Plan B and you work there, then you are obligated to dispense it. If you don't like it, then go to work at Walmart.

What if the patient was taking a teratogenic drug and her birth control failed? It is better to stop this possible pregnancy before it begins.

Exactly, if you don't like the companies policy, work at a different company. And I agree with DHG. Religious fundamentalists are impossible to argue with. I am sure that you can't even accept that they should go work for a different company.

As a pharmacist, it is not about me. I don't agree with things, but it isn't my place to judge. How do you know that men you dispense Viagra to aren't using it to rape or that the person who gets 200 oxycodone is not going and selling it to teenagers on the street? You don't know. Just like you don't know if the person picking up Plan B was raped. You don't know the conditions behind every prescription you fill.

It is not your job to judge, it is your job to fill prescriptions that are prescribed for the patient and provide adequate non-judmental couseling.

 

[Abilify]

From experience I've found it impossible to have logical conversation with religious fundamentalists. They don't believe in logic. It's a waste of time.

ahh...so your one of those science types that can explain the creation of the world because everything is logical....

Exactly, if you don't like the companies policy, work at a different company. And I agree with DHG. Religious fundamentalists are impossible to argue with. I am sure that you can't even accept that they should go work for a different company.

As a pharmacist, it is not about me. I don't agree with things, but it isn't my place to judge. How do you know that men you dispense Viagra to aren't using it to rape or that the person who gets 200 oxycodone is not going and selling it to teenagers on the street? You don't know. Just like you don't know if the person picking up Plan B was raped. You don't know the conditions behind every prescription you fill.

It is not your job to judge, it is your job to fill prescriptions that are prescribed for the patient and provide adequate non-judmental couseling.

I also agree with dgroulx. Pharmacists have the ability to move around due to the demand. If you don't like walgreens policy, you are more than able to find a job elsewhere.

Your view of a pharmacist is disgusting at best. I am not an automaton. If I feel that a prescription will cause harm to the patient, I simply will not fill the prescription.

 

[Sosumi]

That has nothing to do with causing harm to the patient. It's all about the pharmacist forcing their moral beliefs on the patient. You are damaging the reputation of pharmacists as a profession and your company by refusing based on personal beliefs rather than professional behavior. I've actually once had a pharmacist refuse to dispense Plan B yet filled her Ortho Evra...

 

[Abilify]

That has nothing to do with causing harm to the patient. It's all about the pharmacist forcing their moral beliefs on the patient. You are damaging the reputation of pharmacists as a profession and your company by refusing based on personal beliefs rather than professional behavior. I've actually once had a pharmacist refuse to dispense Plan B yet filled her Ortho Evra...

Oh really? hmm...

When does life begin?

You can give me the precious scientifically held answer of implantation (actually, that's pregnancy, but besides the point) but the fact of the matter is, there are quite a few pharmacists who feel otherwise.

The pharmacist doesn't "force" anything upon their patient unless you get the rare idiot that tears up the prescription and won't give it back. The patient is more than free to go elsewhere. They don't have a gun held to their head saying "ABORTION IS MURDER" do they?

Lets get real here...what would you like to see? A law similar to Illinois that says YOU MUST FILL EVERYTHING? I sure don't.

 

[f_w]

- You work for walgreens, you better stick to walgreens policies. You don't like their policy, go work somewhere else.

- You own an independent pharmacy, you shouldn't be forced by law to do something that conflicts with your religious convictions. However, making planB available to patients who need it is good public health policy. If your practice works against the interests of state policy, the state should have the right to exclude you from benefiting from public programs administered by the state (e.g. bar you from billing medicaid).

 

[walkamile]

My 2 cents

I do not condone illegal drug use, however anyone who comes up to the counter asking for "my incapacitated grandmother's diabetic needles" gets needles no questions asked. I figure its better than spreading disease by forcing them to use old needles when they cannot find new.

I consider myself a religous person, I have 2 kids and i REALLY REALLY don't like plan B. I dispense it anyway. Consider the alternatives, what type of life an unwanted child would have in this world, abortions are still legal, there is always the good old coat hanger method, throw them in a dumpster and leave them to starve or be crushed by garbage maybe?

This is reality, in reality there will always be unprotected sex and unwanted children. Plan B as its place like it or not (I don't), but if you don't dispense it someone else will. Don't get me wrong here, but I feel by not dispensing it you are pushing your own morals onto the patient.

 

[aptekmies]

Most of us have either been accepted, attending, or graduated from a professional program. We should be given the trust that what we are doing is professional and not some law making us do it.

Many of you are aware that most states are making a law over this issue. When we start filling these prescriptions like robots and stop thinking about the patient and what they are doing to their body then our career has lost its focus(maybe even lose our jobs, after all why do you need a pharmacist anymore if you have to fill everything.) If you don't want to dispense plan B and work at Walgreens with a fill always policy then you can leave and start your own pharmacy. (You will learn what happens in a capatilist country when you deny someone a product.) And if that is more important to you then great.

We need to act like professionals on our own without laws making us become professionals.

 

[imperial frog]

I can see Wags getting into trouble with the law if they didn't enforce its policy of filling the prescriptions. Not doing so could result in religious discrimination lawsuits against the company because they would be in fact denying services based on imposition of the pharmacist's religious beliefs. Walgreen's offers a public service and can't deny it to anyone because of their race, color, religion, etc. It wouldn't be too hard for the ACLU to convince a jury that a phamacist refusing services because of differences in religious beliefs, which is what it boils down to, is no different than if a Catholic pharmacist refuses to service Jewish customers. Without the policy, Wags would ultimately be on the hook as long as they continue to stock the drug in the first place.

Bottom line, if the pharmacists don't want to have to sell it, they need to look for a company that doesn't stock it for sale to the public.

 

[imperial frog]

I can see Wags getting into trouble with the law if they didn't enforce its policy of filling the prescriptions. Not doing so could result in religious discrimination lawsuits against the company because they would be in fact denying services based on imposition of the pharmacist's religious beliefs. Walgreen's offers a public service and can't deny it to anyone because of their race, color, religion, etc. It wouldn't be too hard for the ACLU to convince a jury that a phamacist refusing services because of differences in religious beliefs, which is what it boils down to, is no different than if a Catholic pharmacist refuses to service Jewish customers. Without the policy, Wags would ultimately be on the hook as long as they continue to stock the drug in the first place.

Bottom line, if the pharmacists don't want to have to sell it, they need to look for a company that doesn't stock it for sale to the public.

 

[DHG]

ahh...so your one of those science types that can explain the creation of the world because everything is logical....

Not really, more like the opposite. By fundie I mean someone who takes a literal interpretation of the Word. No concept of allegory or symbolism for a fundie. That's what I can't stand. What a narrow view of God that must be. I believe God gave me a brain so I'm going to use it... imagination and logic alike.

But back on topic. I don't want to see a law forcing pharmacists to fill either. That has too many other implications.

 

[sdn1977]

I hate to keep bringing this up, but pharmacy laws are a state by state issue, except for controlled drugs. However, even in these cases, state laws always trump federal laws if state laws are more strict. So...a corporate policy can never exceed that which state laws allow. All states have now recognized the professional judgement required by a pharmacists in excuting their duties as a pharmacist. Prior court judgements have clearly indicated that pharmacists do not own rxs and cannot refuse to transfer it or return it to the patient if the pt chooses to not fill it. If Walgreens or any other corporation forces their pharmacists sign a statement of compliance that the pharmacist is obligated to fill an rx (for Plan B or any other prescription drug) then the real question here is....is Walgreen's trying to override the pharmacists judmental capability? This, IMO, is the crux of the legal dispute currently - legally, it has nothing to do with the morality or otherwise of Plan B. It should not matter if it is Plan B or Thalidomide for myeloma - can a corporation override professional judgement??? We could bring up all sorts of "moral" issues which involve shoulds and should nots. However, the problems arises when someone outside the situation (a corporation in this case) requires someone (a pharmacist) to do a task which requires a certain professional discretion.

If you'll allow...I'll give you an example from a long time ago....When I was early in my career, I was the IV Clinical Pharmacist in a staff of 8 pharmacists of a community hospital which had a progressive cardiovascular surgical service. The chief of the CV surgery group asked us to make (about 8PM mind you..) a nitroglycerin drip. Now, this was before this product was commercially available, but it had been written up in the literature. I made it (from Sl tablets), but the next weeks were filled with meetings about if we would continue to make it or not....what were the complications, liabilities, etc (you can imagine...potency, lability, adherence to tubing, pyrogens, pathogens, on and on and on..) Some (the Asst Director) wanted to insist all pharmacists had to make it, others wanted to follow their own judgement - same discussion, but this now had consequences we could see - patients fared better with the drip. However, we all came to the consensus (except for the Asst Dir - she never agreed to this) that we would follow our own judgement and we developed protocols for how to handle the situation when someone was working who did not feel comfortable making it.

I guess I'm trying to show it is an argument that has to do with the pharmacist's ability to have independent judgement. I will always dispense Plan B and have counseled my own children & their friends in its existence and how it is obtained in this state. However, I will respect the right to have another pharmacist not want to dispense it as long as they allow the patient the ability to obtain it elsewhere. I will also NEVER sign a corporate mandate to dispense anything since I use my professional judgement on each and every rx I fill. Sorry for the long post!

 

[imperial frog]

I hate to keep bringing this up, but pharmacy laws are a state by state issue, except for controlled drugs. However, even in these cases, state laws always trump federal laws if state laws are more strict. So...a corporate policy can never exceed that which state laws allow. All states have now recognized the professional judgement required by a pharmacists in excuting their duties as a pharmacist. Prior court judgements have clearly indicated that pharmacists do not own rxs and cannot refuse to transfer it or return it to the patient if the pt chooses to not fill it. If Walgreens or any other corporation forces their pharmacists sign a statement of compliance that the pharmacist is obligated to fill an rx (for Plan B or any other prescription drug) then the real question here is....is Walgreen's trying to override the pharmacists judmental capability? This, IMO, is the crux of the legal dispute currently - legally, it has nothing to do with the morality or otherwise of Plan B. It should not matter if it is Plan B or Thalidomide for myeloma - can a corporation override professional judgement??? We could bring up all sorts of "moral" issues which involve shoulds and should nots. However, the problems arises when someone outside the situation (a corporation in this case) requires someone (a pharmacist) to do a task which requires a certain professional discretion.

I guess I'm trying to show it is an argument that has to do with the pharmacist's ability to have independent judgement. I will always dispense Plan B and have counseled my own children & their friends in its existence and how it is obtained in this state. However, I will respect the right to have another pharmacist not want to dispense it as long as they allow the patient the ability to obtain it elsewhere. I will also NEVER sign a corporate mandate to dispense anything since I use my professional judgement on each and every rx I fill. Sorry for the long post!

I don't think anyone here (aside from the few trolls who have popped up and said pharmacists should fill anything a doctor writes) is saying that pharmacists have to relinquish using their judgement when filling an ill-advised script. However, as long as abortion is legal, the issue of not filling it on religious grounds and using the argument that it's an appropriate professional judgement is going to be on shaky ground. If a court agrees with that position, it would make a case for overturning Roe v Wade. As long as RvW stands, this is not a professional judgement that can be supported by law, it's a personal one which carries far less weight, which these 4 pharmacists are going to soon find out. The only way I can see them winning is if the language of Wags contract eliminates using professional judgement in any situation.

 

[sdn1977]

Imperial Frog - that's my point! How can a corporate policy specifiy rules for one drug only (not even a drug class - just one drug?). That would override what laws we use to apply to all drugs! Just think of the havoc which would come if a corporation chose to apply dispensing restrictions to other medications - our courts are already wading through the burden of insurance companies which try to restrict valid therapies to illness & fortunately the insurance companies usually lose on those. I will admit I have not seen the actual wording, but if Walgreens restricts the ability of the pharmacist to independently judge the rx, I am betting they will lose - weren't they the corporation which would pay for ED medications for their employees, but would not cover BC for employees? They had to back off that and pay for coverage for BC, but it was not without a fight.

 

[f_w]

If a patient comes with a lawful script for planB and you put your religious beliefs above the interest of the patient, you are acting unprofessional. One of the tenets of a profession is that you put your patients interest above your interests. And religion is just that, an interest.

(if your professional judgement is that this persons health would be put at a risk if you filled the script for planB, you are well within your rights to contact the prescriber to find an alternative. if your moral judgement is that she was a bad girl and ought to be punished, your license should be pulled)

 

[sdn1977]

f_w...it's not as black and white as that. Plan B, in many states, occupies a unique position as not requiring a prescription from a prescriber (MD, DO, NP, etc..) In many states - mine included - I am allowed to "prescribe" & dispense it. There are many factors that go into the "prescribe" part of the prescription which I don't have to get into when I am presented with an rx for something else (like a steroid or ACE inhibitor). In this situation, a nationwide corporation is attempting to override what each state law allows their pharmacists to do or not do. Also...we as pharmacists, we are always able to refuse to fill anything "off-label" or if we feel it is not appropriate. We don't always exert that ability, however, I have & it has usually been for pts I feel have an addiction issue. It is important to know that just because a prescriber writes an rx does not mean a pharmacist is obligated to fill it - prescribers can be a problem too and are held liable for abuse of prescriptions, which is currently an issue in pain management specialities.

 

[Abilify]

If a court agrees with that position, it would make a case for overturning Roe v Wade. As long as RvW stands, this is not a professional judgement that can be supported by law, it's a personal one which carries far less weight, which these 4 pharmacists are going to soon find out. .

Roe V Wade was never about abortion.

 

[Abilify]

If a patient comes with a lawful script for planB and you put your religious beliefs above the interest of the patient, you are acting unprofessional. One of the tenets of a profession is that you put your patients interest above your interests. And religion is just that, an interest.

(if your professional judgement is that this persons health would be put at a risk if you filled the script for planB, you are well within your rights to contact the prescriber to find an alternative. if your moral judgement is that she was a bad girl and ought to be punished, your license should be pulled)

Thanks for sharing!

I had no idea my faith was a mear interest!

If it is my personal judgement that the child's health is at risk, you're damn right I will do something about it to find an alternative. It's not just a moral judgement as you say

 

[imperial frog]

Imperial Frog - that's my point! How can a corporate policy specifiy rules for one drug only (not even a drug class - just one drug?). That would override what laws we use to apply to all drugs!

That wasn't my point though. My point is that pharmacist need to have the ability to use professional judgement in filling prescriptions, and this is the big but, it is not professional judgement when choosing not to fill plan B because of a religious belief that abortion = murder. A valid professional judgement, as far as what will be admissible in a court which is the concern of the topic, is going to need reasonable backing and in this case would require the courts to allow that abortion is not a right. Even the courts under W isn't going to allow that to happen.

Again, I don't know what Wags contract said, but they could reasonably get away with the restriction by requiring all meds carried by the store to be filled unless there is a valid accepted medical/legal reason why not, and further defining said reason as not a religious or personal belief. That covers not specifically singling out a drug, even though we know what it means.

 

[sdn1977]

Roe V Wade was never about abortion.

Also.....Plan B is not about abortion. But, as someone said before...those who want it to be about abortion will make it so...

 

[imperial frog]

Roe V Wade was never about abortion.

That's sort of like saying the Civil War wasn't about slavery because the South only started fighting because the North attacked Fort Sumpter. Hell, it's not even like that because R v W was and is about abortion and to say it was never about it is disingenuous to say the least. Lemme see, it was brought before the courts to challenge a law making abortion a crime...yeah, that kind of makes it about abortion.

 

[imperial frog]

Thanks for sharing!

I had no idea my faith was a mear interest!

If it is my personal judgement that the child's health is at risk, you're damn right I will do something about it to find an alternative. It's not just a moral judgement as you say

What child are you talking about?

 

[ultracet]

That's sort of like saying the Civil War wasn't about slavery because the South only started fighting because the North attacked Fort Sumpter. R v W is about abortion and to say it was never about it is disingenuous to say the least.

it wasn't about slavery
it was about economics

but this is a pharmacy forum not a history one...

back on topic....

 

[Abilify]

What child are you talking about?

If I believed life begins at conception, that child

 

[bananaface]

I don't think anyone here (aside from the few trolls who have popped up and said pharmacists should fill anything a doctor writes) is saying that pharmacists have to relinquish using their judgement when filling an ill-advised script. However, as long as abortion is legal, the issue of not filling it on religious grounds and using the argument that it's an appropriate professional judgement is going to be on shaky ground. If a court agrees with that position, it would make a case for overturning Roe v Wade. As long as RvW stands, this is not a professional judgement that can be supported by law, it's a personal one which carries far less weight, which these 4 pharmacists are going to soon find out. The only way I can see them winning is if the language of Wags contract eliminates using professional judgement in any situation.

Can you explain why the outcome of this would set the stage for overturning Roe v Wade? As I see it, RvW is about the government not prohibiting women from conducting private business with a willing provider. No particular provider is required to participate in abortion services. If you want to draw a comparison to the abortion issue, having individual providers determine which services they will and will not provide would be consistent with current abortion policy, would it not?

 

[imperial frog]

it wasn't about slavery
it was about economics

but this is a pharmacy forum not a history one...

back on topic....

I'm on the wrong network again?

 

[sdn1977]

Before getting wound around highly charged words like abortion & conception, IMO, it is important to remember what Plan B actually does & does not do: it is not effective in changing a pregnancy which has already occurred & it is not effective once implantation has begun. It does prevent ovulation or fermentation by altering tubal transport of sperm or ova. It also may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium. Everyone has their own perceptions and beliefs of when conception occurs and it is not my intent to change nor alter those. However, Plan B is not RU 486 and does not cause abortions in the sense we use it medically today. It will prevent conception, just as diaphragms, prophylactics, rhythm method & temperature methods do.

 

[imperial frog]

Can you explain why the outcome of this would set the stage for overturning Roe v Wade? As I see it, RvW is about the government not prohibiting women from conducting private business with a willing provider. No particular provider is required to participate in abortion services. If you want to draw a comparison to the abortion issue, having individual providers determine which services they will and will not provide would be consistent with current abortion policy, would it not?

A major point in the decision is that a fetus is not a person protected by the constitution. A court accepting the position that professional judgement prevents someone from selling a drug because they believe it's killing a child validates that judgement on a legal level. The Supreme Court really doesn't like going there unless it has the votes to overturn it which it probably doesn't even with the new justices.

As far as the second part, in this instance Walgreen's is the service provider and it does offer the service of offering plan B to the public. As employees, if they are uncomfortable with meeting Walgreen's expectations, then maybe it isn't the place for them.

 

[imperial frog]

Before getting wound around highly charged words like abortion & conception, IMO, it is important to remember what Plan B actually does & does not do: it is not effective in changing a pregnancy which has already occurred & it is not effective once implantation has begun. It does prevent ovulation or fermentation by altering tubal transport of sperm or ova. It also may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium. Everyone has their own perceptions and beliefs of when conception occurs and it is not my intent to change nor alter those. However, Plan B is not RU 486 and does not cause abortions in the sense we use it medically today. It will prevent conception, just as diaphragms, prophylactics, rhythm method & temperature methods do.

Which makes the professional judgement part of it even more less professional and much more personal.

 

[imperial frog]

It will prevent conception, just as diaphragms, prophylactics, rhythm method & temperature methods do.

That's why I'm against selling thermometers.

 

[sdn1977]

A major point in the decision is that a fetus is not a person protected by the constitution. A court accepting the position that professional judgement prevents someone from selling a drug because they believe it's killing a child validates that judgement on a legal level. The Supreme Court really doesn't like going there unless it has the votes to overturn it which it probably doesn't even with the new justices.

As far as the second part, the pharmacists are not independant service providers. If they are uncomfortable with fulfilling the services that their employer provides, then maybe they shouldn't be there.

Imperial frog - an employer cannot require an employee to be held to a standard which is more stringent than state law allows. If the law allows the pharmacist to use his/her judgement, the employer cannot require the pharmacist to give up this ability for this one drug only. We often will tell a potential "patient" we don't have Oxycontin or Duragesic in stock if we feel its a misrepresented rx just because we don't want to deal with the hassle of a drug addicted angry person. Many pharmacists deal with this same Plan B situation the same way - sorry, I'm out of stock and they will continue to do so with or without a corporate edict.

 

[imperial frog]

Imperial frog - an employer cannot require an employee to be held to a standard which is more stringent than state law allows. If the law allows the pharmacist to use his/her judgement, the employer cannot require the pharmacist to give up this ability for this one drug only. We often will tell a potential "patient" we don't have Oxycontin or Duragesic in stock if we feel its a misrepresented rx just because we don't want to deal with the hassle of a drug addicted angry person. Many pharmacists deal with this same Plan B situation the same way - sorry, I'm out of stock and they will continue to do so with or without a corporate edict.

The judgement has to be reasonably valid though. You're first example with a misrepresented rx is valid. But let's say I claim that it's ok for me not to fill a script for an Indian because I don't like Indians in my store. Not so valid and not so supportable when I get sued for it. The laws don't allow just any judgment claim by the pharmacist as an excuse for their actions and I just don't see a supportable one from the ones who do refuse to fill plan B. If they don't want to sell it and use the excuse that they are out...well, let them do it if they want, but it's not the case with the pharmacists in question.

 

[alwaystired]

Imperial Frog: you are rude and I do not deserve to be called a troll.

When I say fill it, I do not mean pharmacists are automated machines that just fill anything. Why would I be suffering the countless hours learning clinical this and clinical that only to be a glorified technician? I know that we have to use our judgment. But in this case, I don't feel moral judgement belongs. Judgment for the interest of the patients, yes, but not judgement for our own interests and beliefs. These boards are starting to be quite tedious in that you have to explain every single step of you're thought process or you get eaten alive by several key individuals.

From my experiences so far in retail (limited I admit) big retail pharmacies (the main players) have the right to terminate you if you say you will fill all prescriptions and then you refuse. You think the patient will just leave the pharmacy and let it go, no. They are going straight to the manager and then up from there. If you signed a contract to fill everything, your butt is in trouble. So yes, these contracts take away our professional judgement, but we will be the ones who sign them or don't sign them.

 

[imperial frog]

Imperial Frog: you are rude and I do not deserve to be called a troll.

Hmm...when did I call you a troll? Did you post somewhere that pharmacists should fill anything a doctor writes?

 

[ultracet]

These boards are starting to be quite tedious in that you have to explain every single step of you're thought process or you get eaten alive by several key individuals.

hmmm....
wonder who you're talking about....


so as not to throw the tread off....
one of the most unfortunate things about this debate is the rift it causes in the profession.
we have enough trouble speaking as a cohesive group as it is.

i think reserving the right to refuse is a very important one. after all, as a health care provider i do not believe that i should ever be forced to do something i'm not comfortable with.
i honestly believe that with this plan b argument that is where we are headed

i don't really care what your moral beliefs are the right to refuse should be a top priority for the entire profession... after all, why not just be a tech if you're just going to do what the md says seems like a waste of an education to me...

 

[f_w]

If it is my personal judgement that the child's health is at risk, you're damn right I will do something about it to find an alternative. It's not just a moral judgement as you say

Which child ? Are you talking about planB for minors ?

 

[bananaface]

A major point in the decision is that a fetus is not a person protected by the constitution. A court accepting the position that professional judgement prevents someone from selling a drug because they believe it's killing a child validates that judgement on a legal level. The Supreme Court really doesn't like going there unless it has the votes to overturn it which it probably doesn't even with the new justices.

As far as the second part, in this instance Walgreen's is the service provider and it does offer the service of offering plan B to the public. As employees, if they are uncomfortable with meeting Walgreen's expectations, then maybe it isn't the place for them.

I don't see how ruling in the pharmacist's favor would determine that a fetus is a person protected by the constitution. The crux of the issue seems to be whether a pharmacist may opt out or not, not whether a fetus is a person.

I agree that the employer should be able to set and enforce standards if the contract language permits. Personally, I feel that is how this issue needs to be dealt with.

Imperial frog - an employer cannot require an employee to be held to a standard which is more stringent than state law allows.

If it is written in the contract language, the employer can certainly require such a standard.

I'm not for making every provider being required to dispense Plan B. I am, however, in favor of making Plan B accessible on the community level.

 

[sdn1977]

I don't see how ruling in the pharmacist's favor would determine that a fetus is a person protected by the constitution. The crux of the issue seems to be whether a pharmacist may opt out or not, not whether a fetus is a person.

I agree that the employer should be able to set and enforce standards if the contract language permits. Personally, I feel that is how this issue needs to be dealt with.If it is written in the contract language, the employer can certainly require such a standard.

I'm not for making every provider being required to dispense Plan B. I am, however, in favor of making Plan B accessible on the community level.

I should have said "in my state" cannot set & enforce standards which go against state law and state law in CA does not allow a corporation to force filling of EC for two reasons. First, when our EC law went into effect in 2002, it specifically allowed for the voluntary participation of the pharmacist. Second, each pharmacy (this means each corporate site - not the corporation as a whole) has a pharmacist-in-charge which is a legal designation for the person ultimately responsible for compliance with all statutes, regulations, & federal law which include not just drug law, but also federal & state laws regarding anti-trust violations, false or misleading advertising & unfair business practices. Falsely respresenting the existence of an absolute dispensing requirement would fall under unprofessional conduct in my state. Finally, I have never signed any employment contract with any of my employers in my 29 years of being an employed pharmacist. I am considered an "at will" employee under CA's labor code. However, those pharmacists who are members of a union (mostly So. CA) may have "contracts". Sorry for the generalization....we will have to see how this particular state's court handles this situation.

 

[museabuse]

I have a question for those who will refuse to dispense plan B...
Although I don't agree, I can understand how someone who is very religous and believes life begins when the sperm enters the egg has a problem dispensing Plan B. However, My question is... If you are that against dispensing Plan B, wouldn't you be against calling another pharmacy and telling them exactly where to go to get it? Aren't you still proving then the means to obtain Plan B. It may not be as direct but your still helping them obtain it. If it was me, and I felt that strongly about when life begins, I would feel guilty doing that....
To me it would be like saying... "You can't kill your child hear but go ahead and kill you child down the road, in fact I will make a reservation and draw a map how to get there."

Also... If you are that religious and against Plan B wouldn't you be against regular BC? Isn't it possible to get pregant on Birth Control right? So, I wonder how many times you dispensed B/C and an egg got fertilized but did not attach to the lining of the uterus due to the hormones from the B/C.

Also... I wish people would stop using the argument that we need the right to refuse because we need to make judgements based on safety, abuse, and therapuetics and whatever.... Nobody is trying to take away those rights... And stopping pharmacists from refusing plan B is not going to get the snowball running and we are going to become robots...


Also pharmacists that refuse plan B because of religious reasons really should work in an area where they have less contact with the community. Because people of a community come in all shapes and sizes and if you can't be non judgemental and you let your religous beliefs get in the way then you should work in mail order or nursing home or somewhere your beliefs won't get in the way of healthcare.

Refusing to dispense Plan B really is reflecting negatively on our profession.

 

[jme102]

Article

just something to chew on

 

[Janusdog]

Refusing to dispense Plan B really is reflecting negatively on our profession.

Yes, it is. It makes the general public believe pharmacists are not committed to public welfare and are more interested in exerting power.

 

[drugmanrx]

Yes, it is. It makes the general public believe pharmacists are not committed to public welfare and are more interested in exerting power.

I would like to see that poll.........last time i checked pharmacists are the still "most trusted profession"....seriously though, since when is having the right to "choose" to despense exerting power? Last time I checked, its called freedom.

 

[bananaface]

I would like to see that poll.........last time i checked pharmacists are the still "most trusted profession"....seriously though, since when is having the right to "choose" to despense exerting power? Last time I checked, its called freedom.

We are near the top, but I don't think we have actually been AT the top since the one guy got busted a few years ago for diluting chemo. I think nurses have tended to occupy the very top slot over the past few years.

Yes, it is. It makes the general public believe pharmacists are not committed to public welfare and are more interested in exerting power.

For the pharmacists involved, it's about not being forced to do something they believe is wrong, not (typically) about selling their philosophy to the patient. You assume that dispensing of Plan B is in the interest of the public. Some people don't feel that way. Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. Is it reasonable to expect them to cave in? Are there other more viable solutions to improve access? Are pharmacists the only limits on access? Are we even in the top 5? Personally, I see the top 5 barriers to access as 1) lack of education about what Plan B is 2) lack of access to healthcare services in general 3) the difficulty of finding a PCP who is willing to prescribe 4) time and 5) patient specific resources (money, transportation).

 

[that1guy]

3) the difficulty of finding a PCP who is willing to prescribe

That's an interesting point. Do those of you who think that pharmacist's should not have a moral or religious choice in dispensing Plan B also think that all providers should be forced to prescribe it upon a patient's request? If there are no other health conflicts, I mean. And if so, why no big uproar about making that law?