Pharmacists that refuse to fill prescriptions on religious or moral grounds

[Amy6627]

What is the appropriate and accurate reply to people that think it's the pharmacists 1st Amendment right to refuse filling prescriptions?

[rkc3]

1. Do your job or quit the profession.

On edit:

Misread your question. That's what I'd say to the pharmacist.

For another idiot, just look at them and tell them for a lobotomy patient they sure speak clearly.

[Inland]

2. State licensed.

Because there are a limited number of pharmacist positions available, fill all legal prescriptions for all comers or do something else.

If your conscience won't let you fill a bottle after the doctor and the patient agree on a legal scrip, you are in the wrong place. Bear the burden of conscience and quit rather than putting the burden on somebody else.

[forgethell]

3. Go to someplace else that will, and

give them all your business. That way, everybody's rights are protected. Nobody is forced to violate their conscience or do without their prescription. It's a win/win solution.

[Amy6627]

12. The only problem with that is, people who live in very remote areas

of the country don't have the luxury of going down the street to someone else.

[forgethell]

14. They got a problem, but

in the end the pharmacist should not have to do something against his principles. There are other solutions besides coercion.

My own philosophy is everybody should be free to do what they want just so long as it does not actively hurt someone else. AS almost everything we do probably will passively hurt someone else, I don't think we have the right to tell people they must not passively hurt someone else.

For instance, my bone marrow may be the only available in the world that would help you with your transplant. Willing as I might be to share it, I do not think that I should be forced to by the state, no matter what happens to you because I didn't.

Selfish? Yes, possibly, but only if I don't share it. But we have the right to be selfish. That doesn't make it right to do so, however.

[Amy6627]

15. Read post #6 by TiredTexan, it's very compelling. n/t

[forgethell]

18. No, it's not.

I have no disagreement with a company insisting that its employees follow its policies and dispense whatever drugs. I am only concerned with the state mandating this. In other words, if Wal-mart wants to require that its pharmacist must dispense the prescriptions, OK with me. If Wal-mart says that if Jane doesn't want to do it, then another employee can, OK. If wal-mart says, we won't dispense this, then that's OK, too. Just so long as there is no state coercion, I'm alright with it.

[TiredTexan]

31. Unfortunately, what the red states are doing

with legislation is attempting to prohibit companies from enforcing longstanding employment conditions on those that refuse to do part of their job duties because of religious objections. For example, a condition of employment could be that a person must work on Saturday, and the employer will make this clear to the prospective employee during the hiring process. However, after one of these proposed laws is enacted (if the scope of the legislation is broad enough), a Jewish employee could refuse to work on the Sabbath. Christian Scientists could refuse to sell aspirin, and Quakers could refuse to sell guns.

Presently, companies are allowed by federal law to require certain duties being performed as a condition of employment (so long as they are legal), regardless of whether or not they offend an employee's religion. The new legislation being discussed (and already passed in some states) will prohibit companies from doing this.

Another problem may arise with this legislation. To the extent that laws are crafted only to apply to pharmacists, this likely will generate new litigation from other religions demanding equal protection. In other words, attempting to craft this legislation in such a way as to avoid the slippery slope of many religious people simply refusing to do many tasks of employment may well run afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution. Generally, one set of people cannot have more rights than others.

It's a can of worms, really.

[beam me up scottie]

16. They should not be able to sell

some drugs but not others.
They are there to dispense medication, it's none of their goddamn business what the patient uses it for.

[forgethell]

17. I disagree.

they are simply refusing to sell it; they are not asking what they're using it for. Rights apply to everybody. You can always go to another pharmacy.

[beam me up scottie]

19. They are making the decision not to

fill the scrip based on their assumption of what the drugs are being prescribed for.
Why else would they refuse to sell them?
Birth control pills are prescribed for a number of different medical reasons, not just to kill "babies".

[forgethell]

21. We seem to have

a basic philosophical difference. I don't care why they refuse to sell it. I just think they have the right to do so. Nobody should be forced, by the state, to violate their own personal code of ethics or morality.

[beam me up scottie]

23. Pharmacists take an oath to serve their patients.

There is a code of ethics that they are expected to follow.
Here are some of them:

***

I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.

Considering the patient-pharmacist relationship as a covenant means that a pharmacist has moral obligations in response to the gift of trust received from society. In return for this gift, a pharmacist promises to help individuals achieve optimum benefit from their medications, to be committed to their welfare, and to maintain their trust.

***

II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient at the center of professional practice. In doing so, a pharmacist considers needs stated by the patient as well as those defined by health science. A pharmacist is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the patient. With a caring attitude and a compassionate spirit, a pharmacist focuses on serving the patient in a private and confidential manner.

***

IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience. A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.

***

*Emphasis mine.

IMO a pharmacist's loyalty should be to the patient, not the church.



edit to add link:
http://www.aphanet.org/pharmcare/ethics.html

[AndyTiedye]

40. Not Being Forced. Fulfilling Their Conditions of Employment

They were hired as pharmacists. Their job is to fill prescriptions
for their customers. That is what they are paid to do. The state
is not forcing them to do anything. They are free to quite their jobs
at any time.

The element of state coersion is that the state is in some cases
allowing employees to refuse do the job they are hired to do, and
requiring their employer to continue to pay them.

The fact that a pharmacist is expected to dispense birth control pills
could not possibly come as a surprise to anyone entering the profession.

The reason this is coming up so much is that a lot of talibornagains
are becoming pharmacists for the express purpose of cutting off access
to birth control.

[Tux]

28. Libertarians

Controlled anarchy at best for them.

Comparing your bone marrow to these pharmacists isn't justified. They're selling meds to help people. If they have a problem doing that, change fields and let a competent person take over. You are right, no one can force bone marrow from you but when a business is setup to sell meds then refuse to go along due to religious reasons, they are hurting people {i}actively{/i} by not filling the prescription. I do see this expanding out to other types of meds though such as anti-depressants (accept Jesus), erectile dysfunction pills (can't have sex for fun), and AIDS treatments (God is punishing you).

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

41. Wow.

Now I had a BIG deja vu.

Why do I hear Rumba?

[justsomegirl]

32. mail order

no, but they might be able to do mail order for their prescriptions.

[Jade Fox]

4. Freedom of speech does not guarantee the right to force people to...

listen to you and agree.

The truth is these folks want to force their moral values
on women seeking contraception. Otherwise,
they would simply get into a line of work where they are not
asked to do things they are uncomfortable with.

As another DUer put it: That's like getting a job in a Sporting Goods store
and refusing to sell rifles because you are opposed to hunting. Logic says
hey, it comes with the territory!

[pscot]

5. Toss a brick through their front window

N/T

[TiredTexan]

6. Lots of legal and logical arguments ...................

Many First Amendment rights are regulated in the workplace. Companies can enforce rules against hate speech, speech with sexual content, sexual harassment, and many other types of speech on the job. Moreover, where certain tasks are an intricate part of a job (like dispensing birth control for a pharmacists), employers can make doing those tasks a requirement of employment whether or not it offends religious beliefs. Failure to do those tasks can result in termination, as has occurred on several occasions with pharmacists.

And, where does the slide down this slippery slope end? Can Catholic checkers at the checkout counter refuse to sell condoms, spermicide, etc.? Can religious fundamentalist employees question buyers of KY Jelly to make sure that they are married, and only intend to use it with their opposite sex spouse? Can Jewish checkers refuse to sell pork and shellfish? Can science teachers in public schools refuse to teach evolution? Can atheists refuse to recognize US currency as valid because it has "In God We Trust" on it? Can Christian Scientists become pharmacists and refuse to dispense any medicine at all? Can health care professionals refuse to treat gays or those with AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases, or refuse to perform medically approved procedures because the procedure offends their beliefs?

As to a logical argument, I've always heard it said that a person's right to swing his fist ends when it connects with someone else's face. Those that refuse to prescribe medications to others are controlling the other person's rights, not theirs. They don't have to use birth control if it offends their beliefs, and they have no right to force their religious construct on others through their position of authority as a pharmacist. Their fist is connecting with others faces as they swing it.

And, isn't it interesting that while workers are losing many of their rights during this Bush administration, the right to impose religious beliefs on others is being defended?

[Amy6627]

13. This is an excellent response! Thank you very much. This is just

what I was looking for.

[TiredTexan]

30. Thanks............

nt

[arwalden]

42. Right Click... Save As... (I'm Also Bookmarking It)

Well said! I'm bookmarking this and keeping it for later. I'd like to forward this on to a few folks in my email address book too. May I?

-- Allen

[noamnety]

7. Don't take a job that's against your morals

I'm not really big into prostitution. Therefore, I don't plan to become a prostitute that refuses to sleep with my customers "on moral grounds."

Likewise, I have issues with cigarettes, and tobacco companies. So I've never accepted a job where I have to sell tobacco. If I fell on hard times and had to become a cashier in a store that sold them, I would suck it up and sell the cigarettes. That's the kind of compromise you make when you need to feed your family.

If it's my morals, I'm the one to make the sacrifices. It's not a medical patient's responsibility to make sacrifices on my behalf.

[benevolent dictator]

29. Ha. I was totally thinking the same thing.

If part of a job is against your morals, then don't take that job - unless you have to, but only take it if you're actually going to DO your job.

It makes me think of the city and province officials in Canada who don't want to have to marry same-sex couples. Don't like the job description? Don't take the job. It seems pretty simple to me.

It seems like pharmacists should just be fired for not filling the prescriptions. I'm sure they would be fired if it were a matter of them refusing to fill a prescription for someone's blood pressure medication based on "moral grounds."

[DesEtoiles]

8. Be consistent: no condoms, no viagra either

[beam me up scottie]

11. HA!

Like that would ever happen...
Excellent response though.:applause:

[BattyDem]

9. Ask them ...

if they think it would be alright for environmentalist toll collectors to refuse to allow gas-guzzling vehicles to pass through the toll booth and on to the highway?

Or if they think it would be alright for vegetarian waiters to refuse to serve meat to customers?

Or if they think it would be alright for Christian Conservative librarians to refuse to let people check out "liberal" books or books that talk about non-Christian religions?

Or if they think it would be alright for Christian teachers in public schools to refuse to teach children who aren't Christian?

Or if they think it would be alright for judges to rule based upon their moral beliefs ... in other words, they rule against anyone who's non-Chrsitian, gay, pro-choice, liberal, etc., regardless of the evidence presented.

Or if they think it would be alright for police officers or firefighters to refuse your 911 call because you're not Christian, or you're gay, divorced, living with someone you aren't married to, pro-choice, a Democrat, an athiest, a gypsy fortune teller ... pick a reason and insert it here!

Or if they think it would be alright for employers to refuse to hire non-Christians, homosexuals, women who aren't virgins, women who take birth control, women for any reason (because women belong in the home and shouldn't be working), people who cheat on their spouses, people who don't go to church, people who vote Democratic, people are pro-choice, people who aren't white, people who are older than 40, people who have gay children or children "living in sin" with a boyfriend or girlfriend ... the list is endless.

People can literally refuse to do anything based upon moral and/or religious grounds and by doing so, they'll be completely bypassing all the anti-discrimination laws this country has ... and that is what their aiming for. This is just the test case. Right now, they're laying the groundwork. If Pharmacists are allowed to refuse to do their job based upon their religious or moral beliefs, how long will it be before other people in other jobs demand the same right? "Religious and moral" exemptions will be demanded for every possible reason, ranging from abortion to skin color.

[benddem]

10. the pharmacists who

refused to fill the scrips and then wouldn't give them back to the customers should go to jail.

[forgethell]

20. I haven't heard about this on

They wouldn't give back the prescriptions? Yes, they should be punished. You got a link? I'd like to read that for myself.

[beam me up scottie]

22. Here's one:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_200503/ai_n11839155

[forgethell]

24. Thanks, that was interesting n/t

[beam me up scottie]

25. I have given this

some more thought and I'm not quite sure I would want the government to force pharmacists to fill scrips
I would like for them to have to inform their employer of such limitations and for the pharmacy to have an alternate pharmacist in the store or on call for such situations.
This is the only way to assure that their responsibility to the patient is not compromised.

[forgethell]

26. that's what I

think the solution should be. I do believe that they should inform the customer of other alternative pharmacies also.

[beam me up scottie]

27. Agreed.

If there is more than one pharmacy in the immediate area, another good idea would be to post such restrictions where customers can read them before they turn in their prescription.

Unfortunately, nobody's asking us...:shrug:

[politicat]

33. The problem is when the pharmacist refuses to inform the customer,

refuses to give back the scrip, refuses to transfer it, and basically refuses to do his or her job. This is what is happening.

If the checker at the front of the Walmart refused to sell bullets, s/he'd be fired. The same standard needs to apply to all employees, no matter what.

[beam me up scottie]

34. My thinking was this:

If the pharmacy was required to advertise the fact that they would not sell BCP, they would lose many customers, both existing and potential.
I would love to see these signs put up in the window, on the doors, in advertisements and yellow pages:
"DUE TO OUR PHARMACIST'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, WE DO NOT SELL BIRTH CONTROL".
I certainly would never give such a pharmacy my business, would you?
The pharmacist would have a difficult time finding employment, to say the least.
We can't win the war against such bigots by forcing them to compromise their "religious beliefs" because that could be considered religious discrimination.
We can let them know that customers won't just accept such blatant hypocrisy. I have yet to read about a doctor or pharmacist refusing to sell Viagra, have you?
What do you think? Women could even do this on their own, without the courts. Picket the reichwing pharmacists. If they really are concerned about their salvation, they shouldn't mind.

[politicat]

35. Should I ever run across one, I'd be more than willing to do this!

So far, I've been lucky. (And the fact that I don't use the pill doesn't hurt.) I also live in an area where this is unlikely to be an issue.

But that seems like a good solution - put it on the front door in big, bold letters.

[beam me up scottie]

36. I think living in a red state

has helped me to understand fundie thinking, ewwwwwwwwwwww.
Time to hop on the next boxcar headed north...
:D

[politicat]

37. I live in a red state.

I happen to live in a fairly violet county in a red state, but I lived and worked for several years in the literal shadow of Focus on the Family. I do understand Fundie thinking.... to my great dismay....

I still think the issue is not whether a pharmacist has a moral objection to dispensing a product (what ever the product is). I think the issue is whether ANY employee should be allowed to refuse to sell a product offered by a store when any other employee would not be allowed to do the same.

I think there's a bias here. The pharmacists are college educated "professionals" even if they are working at Walmart. Thus, they get a pass. However, the high school dropout who opposes gun sales is not allowed to refuse to process the credit card of the ammo buyer. The latter person would be looking for a job very quickly; the pharmacist gets praised and coddled.

I just think the rules should apply equally, regardless of education and position.

[beam me up scottie]

38. I agree. I posted

a link above and cited some examples of the Pharmacist Code of Ethics.
I don't believe they should be licensed if they want to practice pseudo-medicine. It is not up to the druggist to decide if the use of a particular drug is "sinful". They are not prescribing it, merely dispensing. Another poster mentioned condoms, spermicide and lubricant, are those to be sold along with viagra?

These particular "pharmacists" are not exercising their religious beliefs, they are forcing them on patients. But because they scream "persecution!" they will no doubt be allowed to continue.
The only way to stop them is to make it next to impossible for these neanderthals to find employment. Pharmacies couldn't afford to have them on the payroll if it was ultimately detrimental to their bottom line.

I hate what's happening to this country, it's revolting.

[NMMNG]

39. Fill my prescription or I will take *all* of my business elsewhere

BTW, how many Viagra prescriptions have you refused to fill you hypocrite?:evilgrin: