Pharmacists foisting their religious views on their customers

The Coffee Shop
1

Pharmacists are refusing to provide birth control and morning after pills to women with valid doctor prescriptions.

What’s next? Will the vegetarian clerk at my grocery store refuse to sell me meat? Will the recovering alcoholic clerk refuse to sell me alcohol? Will the non-smoker refuse to sell cigarettes?

What scares me the most is that the article mentions that some legislators are trying to push through laws that allow the pharmacists to refuse to serve customers that don’t fall in line with their religious views. Who voted these people in to office?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4425603.stm

2

Doctor’s can already refuse to participate in certain procedures. Or should all doctors have to perform abortions, brain surgery, cancer treatment?

If the vegetarian grocer doesn’t want to sell meat, they shouldn’t carry it in their store and that is there choice. Same thing with the person selling alcohol. Should the bartender be legally obligated to serve you as much alcohol as you want? I thought they were supposed to cut you off.

Pharmacists are different at least in IL. They are legally obligated to fill the prescription that gets brought in to them. So, if they own their own pharmacy they are required to carry and dispense treatments that they do not believe in. Shouldn’t they be given a choice as to what to carry in their own store?

3

I believe they have the right not to carry a particular product in their store. I don’t believe they have the right to decide who does and doesn’t get the drug if they do happen to carry it. I’m not sure if it’s true, but I’ve heard that some pharmacists are supplying birth control to married women, but not unmarried women. Rather than lecture the women, it would be sufficient to say that the store does not stock that particular medicine and tell them they have to go elsewhere.

Dawn

4

a pharmacist, and I know quite a few, is the person who provides the drugs to the pt that the doctor thinks is medicallylly neccessary. They also make sure drug to drug interactions are not going to take place. They should not be able to say no to something that the doctor has deemed medically necessary.

5

That’s part of the problem, at least in IL, pharmacists can’t chose to not carry birth control. Pharmacists are required to fill the prescriptions that are presented to them. So if someone had a prescription for birth control pills the pharmacist would have no choice but to fill it.

Now if said pharmacist worked for the hospital/Walgreen’s/CVS/etc, then it should be up to those stores whether or not to carry it, but they can’t make that decision.

Now with the supplying married women and not unmarried ones that’s probably not a very defensible argument.

6

Below is the pharmacists creed. It seems clear to me that pharmacists that refuse to fill legal prescriptions are violating their canon of ethics. http://www.ga-ascp.com/img9.gif I hold my patients’ interests above all others.

I take responsibility for my patients’ medication-related needs.

I ensure that my patients’ medications are the most appropriate, the most effective available, the safest possible, and are used correctly.

I identify, resolve, and prevent medication-related problems that may interfere with the goals of therapy.

7

I would say it depends on the State/Federal/Medical view of the role of a pharmacist. Doctor’s are required to help people (probably within a certain amount of reason), part of the code of ethics.

It’s slightly muddled because being a pharmacist does not require an MD, though it does require specific education and accreditation. Here’s some interesting info from the DOL: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos079.htm

The Pharm.D. is a 4-year program that requires at least 2 years of college study prior to admittance, although most applicants have 3 years prior to entering the program. Entry requirements usually include courses in mathematics and natural sciences, such as chemistry, biology, and physics, as well as courses in the humanities and social sciences. Approximately half of all colleges require the applicant to take the Pharmacy College Admissions Test (PCAT).

So while it is a business, and they are allowed to not sell certain items or offer certain services, there is still this code of medical ethics that are involved.

And as with many issues, it falls into the “Should it or shouldn’t it be a State’s rights issue?” and that complicates any issue. So far it seems to be purely a State’s rights issue, but it is a possibility that it might change if State’s don’t necessarily follow what non-state congresspeople like the paths take.

I haven’t decided yet what I fully think on this. I can only see minor harm/duress resulting from pharmacies deciding they will or won’t sell certain pills. But I’m not sure if national chains will force pharmacists to sell what the chain says or not either.

It does beg the questions: Can pharmacists stop selling certain medicines for absolutely no reason beyond that they don’t want to? Can they start not selling other drugs/medications/products because they don’t like what they are used for? (condoms or viagra for sexual sin purposes, propecia or cosmetics for sins of vanity)

8

One would think that, but . . .

I hold my patients’ interests above all others.

  • My interest is in their long-term salvation, therefore I will not provide them with medications that will enable them to sin.
  • EDIT: I’m not sure how this fits in with Christian doctrine in and of itself as a creed. Sounds to me like it is saying they put their patient above God, which would not be consistent with my interpretation of what a Christian would believe. There has to be an obvious answer to this though, or else there would be no Christian pharmacists, and clearly there are.

I take responsibility for my patients’ medication-related needs.

I ensure that my patients’ medications are the most appropriate, the most effective available, the safest possible, and are used correctly.

  • It is most appropriate that I not provide them with drugs/medicines/products that God has deemed to be a sin. It is not safe for me to assist them in sinning.

I identify, resolve, and prevent medication-related problems that may interfere with the goals of therapy.

  • I identify that taking certain medications/drugs/prodcuts are a sin, I resolve that by not providing my customers with those items. The goal of therapy is to help heal them while not damning them to hell.
9

the article mentions that some legislators are trying to push through laws that allow the pharmacists to refuse to serve customers that don’t fall in line with their religious views.

No, the article mentions that some legislators are trying to enact laws protecting pharmacists who don’t want to dispense drugs in violation of their own religious beliefs. That’s not the same thing.

10

Funny how your version of the creed is different than the ones I found on the web.

Pharmacists are health professionals who assist individuals in making the best use of medications. This Code, prepared and supported by pharmacists, is intended to state publicly the principles that form the fundamental basis of the roles and responsibilities of pharmacists. These principles, based on moral obligations and virtues, are established to guide pharmacists in relationships with patients, health professionals, and society. 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. 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. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients. 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. A pharmacist maintains professional competence.

A pharmacist has a duty to maintain knowledge and abilities as new medications, devices, and technologies become available and as health information advances. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals.

When appropriate, a pharmacist asks for the consultation of colleagues or other health professionals or refers the patient. A pharmacist acknowledges that colleagues and other health professionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply to the care of the patient. A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs.

The primary obligation of a pharmacist is to individual patients. However, the obligations of a pharmacist may at times extend beyond the individual to the community and society. In these situations, the pharmacist recognizes the responsibilities that accompany these obligations and acts accordingly. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.

When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair and equitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.

*Adopted by the membership of the American Pharmacists Association October 27, 1994.

http://www.ashp.org/bestpractices/ethics/Ethics_End_Code.pdf#search=‘pharmacist%20code%20of%20ethics’

http://www.pharmacy.wisc.edu/Student_Services/handbook/content.cfm?ID=100

http://www.aphanet.org/pharmcare/ethics.html

That’s only the first three I found. None of them say anything of what your version said. Now, the above may be completely wrong as I am not a pharmacist and do not know what the creed is, but three for three said the same thing so I’ll believe it.

In the creed above I see “moral obligations”, “dignity of the patient”, and “community, and societal needs”, all of which could be argued by a pharmacist in choosing not of fill a certain prescription.

11

the article mentions that some legislators are trying to push through laws that allow the pharmacists to refuse to serve customers that don’t fall in line with their religious views.

No, the article mentions that some legislators are trying to enact laws protecting pharmacists who don’t want to dispense drugs in violation of their own religious beliefs. That’s not the same thing.

Semantics.

12

Semantics.

I agree- it was a semantic abuse on the part of the poster I was responding to. There is no legislation being considered that would force any pharmacist’s beliefs on a patient. The legislation only protects the religious beliefs of the pharmacist, and prevents him from being forced to act in opposition to his beliefs.

13

Funny how your version of the creed is different than the ones I found on the web.
Proves that any argument can be supported by data found on the internet.

In the creed above I see “moral obligations”, “dignity of the patient”, and “community, and societal needs”, all of which could be argued by a pharmacist in choosing not of fill a certain prescription.

Your creeds also state autonomy and dignity of the patient. I read what you found and I interpret that it supports pharmacists not being able to refuse to fill prescriptions. Community and societal needs can be interpreted as upholding the law. At this point in time the drugs being prescribed are legal and moral according to most current community standards.

14

One would think that, but . . .

I hold my patients’ interests above all others.

  • My interest is in their long-term salvation, therefore I will not provide them with medications that will enable them to sin.
  • EDIT: I’m not sure how this fits in with Christian doctrine in and of itself as a creed. Sounds to me like it is saying they put their patient above God, which would not be consistent with my interpretation of what a Christian would believe. There has to be an obvious answer to this though, or else there would be no Christian pharmacists, and clearly there are.

My faith teaches me to respect the views and opinions of all. To understand and accept that others may not necessarily share my articular views.

I understand and appreciate your point. Why are there christian pharmacists? Isn’t the dispensing of any drugs an interference in the will of God?

15

Sorry, but that’s BS. When pharmacists lecture customers on birth control, treat married and unmarried customers differently, take percriptions and not give tem back so the customer can’t fill them elsewhere, etc… we’re not talking simply protecting the employee’s religious beliefs here.

Now if you had a situation where Joe Catholic doesn’t want to fill the perscription but there’s another pharmacist to do so, that’s OK with me. The customer gets the birth control and the employee doesnt have to directly be involved.

Also, when you’re talking about a Mom and Pop pharmacy that’s run by the owner, I dont see any problem if the owner decides not to carry birth control or morning after pills.

Mainly, my point is that when the state decides a drug is legal, and a pharmacy makes the decision to carry that drug, employees of that pharmacy shouldnt be hindering the dispensement (is that a word?) of said drug.

16

Pharmacists are different at least in IL. They are legally obligated to fill the prescription that gets brought in to them. So, if they own their own pharmacy they are required to carry and dispense treatments that they do not believe in. Shouldn’t they be given a choice as to what to carry in their own store?

First part of your statement is correct, I believe the last sentence isn’t.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=23061

USA - The Center for Law & Religious Freedom on Friday announced it has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a Chicago pharmacist challenging Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s (D) emergency rule requiring pharmacies in the state to accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives “without delay,” the second such lawsuit filed this month, the… AP/Belleville News Democrat reports (AP/Belleville News Democrat, 4/15). Blagojevich earlier this month issued the emergency rule and established a toll-free hotline for state residents to report refusals. Under the rule, which is effective for 150 days, a pharmacy or drug store must make arrangements to “promptly” fill prescriptions for contraceptives if the pharmacist on duty refuses to fill the prescriptions for moral reasons. However, the policy does not require all pharmacies to stock contraceptives. If a pharmacy stocks contraceptives but refuses to fill a valid prescription, it risks losing its license, according to Susan Hofer of the Illinois Department of Financial & Professional Regulation, the state agency that oversees pharmacies. The state is scheduled to hold hearings over the next few months to make the emergency ruling permanent (Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 4/15)…

17

Interesting points that get lost in other discussions. Thanks for finding that info. I guess I don’t have any problems with this.

a) the pharmacist can refuse to fill the prescription, but another pharmacist at that store must then fill it

b) an independent pharmacist can choose whether or not to carry contraceptives

Thanks for your post.

18

i think you and vitus both raising valid concerns. i do believe that the purpose of the legislation is to provide pharmacists with a means of exercising their conscious by legally permitting them to deny certain prescriptions and not carry certain drugs. i think you also highlight that some are abusing the privilege and crossing the line between protecting their own beliefs and foisting those beliefs on someone else. moreover, i’ve also heard stories of the pharmacist taking the prescription, which i also find to be an abuse of their position.

for my part, i think the public policy/public good aspect of the service pharmacies provide means that pharmacists’ morals/religious beliefs might have to take a backseat in favor of said public good. pharmacists would have to realize that it’s just the nature of the business ahead of time…

19

For clarity: The first addition I made to the bullet point was not my opinion, just what I thought might be a Christian pharmacist who believes their faith precludes them from dispensing certain meds would say. The Edit comments were my personal questions. Having read the two items before it wasn’t very clear.

As to your questions, I can’t answer either of the two for anyone else. To me, I think free will means we get to choose whether we seek medical assistance, but like you I accept that others won’t share this opinion. Seems to me a Christian pharmacist would get into the biz in order to help people (aka “do God’s will”) through medicine. Morning after pills would seem to be a contradiction to helping another person if they are Catholic or Evangelical (those are the only two groups I can say for sure would be against it, probably a Baptist as well; and typically Presbos aren’t against all abortions, but aren’t for them frivolously )

20

“I understand and appreciate your point. Why are there christian pharmacists? Isn’t the dispensing of any drugs an interference in the will of God?”

Huh? What faith are you? you seem to have some pretty fundamental misunderstandings about Christianity.