“Allowing pharmacists to put their religious beliefs between doctors and patients is a prescription for disaster”
13 March 2008 by Stardust
Pharmacists should be not be allowed to refuse to dispense prescribed medication because of personal ethical problems with that medication. Period. Pharmacists are part of a profession dedicated to help, not harm the patient. If they don’t want to fill prescriptions determined necessary by the doctor, then maybe they should find another field to work in.
As Austin Cline points out;
Refusals to dispense contraceptives because of one’s moral objections to contraceptives is not like refusing to dispense medication that will have a bad interaction with some other medication or because of a health condition that the patient has. In these latter cases, the pharmacist is making a judgment that the physician would have made if they had been aware of the relevant information — the pharmacist is not substituting their medical or ethical judgment for that of the physician or the patient.
That, however, is exactly what is happening when the pharmacist refuses to dispense contraceptives. This isn’t a medical decision and it isn’t a judgment that we can assume the doctor would have made given more information. Instead, the pharmacist is substituting their own personal and religious standards for those of the patient, something that not even the physician has a right to do when it comes to standard medical care.
Here is the latest news from Americans United of just one of the many battles concerning this issue:
Washington State Has The Right To Require Pharmacists To Fill Doctors’ Prescriptions, Says Americans United
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
“Regulations Ensuring Patient Access To Medication Are Neutral And Do Not Single Out Religious Belief, Argues Watchdog Group In Court Brief”
A Washington State Board of Pharmacy regulation that requires pharmacies to dispense all medications in a timely manner does not trample on religious freedom rights and should be upheld, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has told a federal appeals court.
Attorneys with Americans United filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. In the brief, AU asks the appellate panel to send the decision back to the district court for consideration.
“Allowing pharmacists to put their religious beliefs between doctors and patients is a prescription for disaster,” said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “These regulations are simply designed to make sure that pharmacists do the job they are paid to do.”
13 March 2008, on 8:35 pm
I just don’t get it. Pharmacists are licensed and regulated just like doctors. They have a duty to uphold because they are working for the public good. They are granted the privilege of being pharmacists and thus have to keep up their end of the bargain. Thus, we have every right to dictate that they must dispense perfectly legal medication regardless of their personal religious beliefs. If they can’t hold up their end of the bargain then they need to have their license revoked and they can find another line of work. Now how hard is that?
They have their religious freedom by choosing not to become pharmacists in the first place. They can’t be that stupid (at least I hope not) to not realize that they will most likely have to dispense birth control and after morning pills and whatever else they may have a problem with because those things are perfectly legal and people have an expectation that they will be available from a pharmacy.
If you don’t want to serve the public good then anything related to medicine is probably not a good choice for you. I’m sure you can find some other place to do God’s work without having to threaten people’s health.
13 March 2008, on 9:03 pm
As I’ve pointed out before in similar posts, there are safeguards (for patients) in place for just such circumstances. As an occupational therapist, I am required BY LAW and the NBCOT to provide the patient with the highest quality treatment possible, regardless of my beliefs or how those beliefs might differ from those of the patient. I can think of no medical licensing board in the country, off the top of my head, that does not hold their respective medical professionals to that same standard. In other words, personal beliefs of ANY kind cannot play a role in my decision to provide or withhold a particular treatment/modality. If I have a member of the KKK as a patient, and their goal is to get back to their role as grand-dragon, I have to treat them accordingly, regardless of how repugnant I find their beliefs to be.
I have a hard time understanding how this can be any different for pharmacists. As Bruce pointed out, when they made the decision to become pharmacists, these religious idiots agreed to put their godbothery aside when making medical decisions for their patients. Why is there even any discussion about this issue?
13 March 2008, on 9:29 pm
How has this issue not yet been settled? Do we have to go through this each and every time another loony religious fascist pharmacist tries to impose his or her will in a different one of the fifty states?
It’s simple. The drugs are legal. They are on your shelves. I have a proper, duly signed doctor’s prescription. So fill it, asshole!
13 March 2008, on 10:39 pm
I await the day with bated breath when some High Priest pharmacist gets his ass sued for all he’s worth because he refused to dispense birth control, threw away the prescription, and the woman got pregnant. That’s going to to be the only thing that will wake people up to these occurrences. I would slap these holy-roller idiots with a lawsuit faster than they can say “misogyny for Jeebus!”
13 March 2008, on 10:45 pm
Honestly, this ruling would set precedent for other religions to refuse to do things. Remember the bruhaha over the Muslim cashier who refused to ring up pork? If this passes than she has the right to do so and nothing can happen.
Boy I bet the Christians would just LOVE that one.
14 March 2008, on 5:39 am
I think the only moment in which people will realize just how stupid this is is the day when some High Priest pharmacist gets herself raped by one of her congregation and is about to lose her life as well if she doesn’t get the contraceptives.
For the sake of humanity, I sure hope that the issue will be settled without the need for something like that to happen.
14 March 2008, on 8:26 am
Pharmacies are also businesses… refusing to sell a legal item to someone who is prepared to buy it isn’t a very good business practice.
14 March 2008, on 9:37 am
Bruce,
The argument, as I understand it, is that these pharmacists are trying to use the same exemptions that an MD has regarding abortion or other similar “matters of conscience”. (In other words, you can’t make an MD give a woman an abortion).
Not that I am defending it, but I believe this is the loophole these wankers are trying to exploit. Where I think it falls apart, is that the Dr/patient decision should supercede all other health care professionals opinion, unless that treatment is contraindicated for the patient. In that case, both the Dr. and the patient should be notified.
14 March 2008, on 11:10 am
When a pharmacist is dispensing prescribed drugs, it’s the National Health Service who pays for them (less a “small” fee ….. I believe Thatcher had something to say about that). So really, pharmacists dispensing prescriptions are working for the Queen, and failure to dispense the proper drugs is Treason! Maybe if it were punished accordingly …..
Whatever happened to “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen” ?
14 March 2008, on 12:39 pm
How about atheist pharmacists refusing to dispense medication to fundies? “Well, sorry m’am, but if your god is so powerful, why don’t you just pray for him to make you feel better?”
14 March 2008, on 1:00 pm
Tommy,
Can’t do that. It would be persecution if you expected Xtians to actually live what they say they believe.
14 March 2008, on 2:21 pm
I always thought that your choice of a career was just that, your choice.
So how is it that you can choose a career where you KNOW that you will be required from time to time to do something that goes against your principals?
14 March 2008, on 9:52 pm
They probably have no problem fill orders for Viagra.
I’ve suggested to folks before, maybe even here, that if you find a store like that you should take all of your friends there to shop. Load up your carts with a weeks worth of whatever it is you need and then ask them to fill your prescription, if they refuse, simply leave the store and the cartful of goodies in the aise. Rinse and repeat.
14 March 2008, on 10:34 pm
I think pharmacists DO have this right to use their own moral judgment. But that does not mean the pharmacy has that right.
So by all means let the pharmacist do what he/she wants, but the pharmacy itself would be required to have a second pharmacist on, even if it’s on off hours and only one is needed.
And this would also apply to a pharmacy owned by the pharmacists who has this “moral” problem.
Moral choices sometimes have consequences. The consequence of this would be that this dilemma is gone from the customer v pharmacist and become a dilemma between the pharmacist v pharmacy.
14 March 2008, on 10:59 pm
Any pharmacy concerned with staying in business will consider pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions while in their employment a huge liability.
That is no a very realistic solution. A pharmacist is there to fulfill a doctor’s order, not to play judge if a person should or should not have contraceptives or certain other medications. That pharmacist may be putting a person’s health in jeopardy if that person needs a contraceptive for health reasons. In addition, it is none of the pharmacists business what a person is taking a drug for. He/she just needs to fill the damn prescriptions of find another line of work that is more “moral” for them.
Also, I wonder how this would go over in any business to tell one’s employer that they refuse to do something because it was against their morals? Like working for a video store and refusing to sell R-rated videos for example. They would be out the door.
And refusing to fill a legal prescription for a patient may have serious medical consequences for a patient, not to mention legal consequences for the pharmacist who refuses to fill the prescription as well as the pharmacy that pharmacist works for.
14 March 2008, on 11:20 pm
Well, as we all know…pro-life is anti-woman. All these fundies want is live babies so they can make them into dead soldiers.
15 March 2008, on 10:11 am
democommie says:
I wouldn’t be surprised if someone would refuse to fill a Viagra prescription for a gay man.
Check out this religion-in-medicine story.
15 March 2008, on 5:15 pm
A couple of points. Your physician can choose not to give you an Rx or do a procedure because it is against his/her religion. You hospital can prevent drugs or procedures from being performed that are against its board’s religion. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else.
WHAT IS DIFFERENT?
To the comment that said the pharmacist is there to fill the doctor’s order. Bull. That’s what you want when things go well. When the physician made a mistake and the pharmacist does not catch it, then you want a professional that it capable of judgment. You cannot have it both ways.
By the way since ~2000 all new graduates of schools of pharmacy in the US received the Doctor of Pharmacy degree (PharmD), so it is likely your pharmacist should be addressed as Doctor, just like your physician.
BTW, I have had no moral objections to any RX presented to me, but I reserve the right to refuse service or RX to anyone for any legal reason.
15 March 2008, on 5:33 pm
RPh, A pharmacist does not know the medical history of a patient, therefore must assume a doctor does and his or her reasons for prescribing such medication is legitimate. Not all places in the USA have a pharmacy on every corner, and unfortunately, rural areas are more apt to have pharmacists who base their refusal to dispense a prescription based on backwards religious belief systems.
16 March 2008, on 1:29 am
RPh
“If you don’t like it, go somewhere else.”
Sometimes there is no where else to go. Besides, who’s Goddamned business is it what medical procedures I undergo, as long as there is a medical need that is not MEDICALLY contraindicated.
“To the comment that said the pharmacist is there to fill the doctor’s order. Bull. That’s what you want when things go well. When the physician made a mistake and the pharmacist does not catch it, then you want a professional that it capable of judgment. You cannot have it both ways.”
I think you’re missing the point here. Yes, the pharmacist is there to catch mistakes or harmful drug interaction, but the pharmacist is NOT there to prescribe–that’s the MD’s job. Either way, catching mistakes/interactions is entirely different from refusing to fill a prescription because it upsets your imaginary friend.
“BTW, I have had no moral objections to any RX presented to me, but I reserve the right to refuse service or RX to anyone for any legal reason.”
Great. But there is no rational reason (rational being the watch word here) to make laws allowing health professionals to refuse a service based on their personal fear that providing said service will make Jesus cry.
16 March 2008, on 4:28 pm
Does this door swing both ways?
Where does the line between “Moral Choice” and “Personal Choice” end? Can you purchase it?
How hard would it be for me to refuse to sell anything on moral grounds because they’re not paying me a moral fee?… and how could you prove that it’s not my faith that drives me to cast out the non-fee paying companys?
16 March 2008, on 10:20 pm
vIRTUALLY ALL OF THESE COMMENTS/RESPONSES,HAVE IGNORED THE BASIC POINT: DOES THE PHARMACIST HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO REFUSE TO FILL A PRESCRIPTION?
THE ANSWER WAS UNEQUIVOCALLY YES. THIS WAS BASED ON THE LEGAL CODE WHICH IMPLIES THAT NO LICENCED PROVIDER MAY BE HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF
CARE THAN ANY OTHER. HISTORICALLY, HOSPITALS AND PHYSICIANS HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE “PRIVILEGE” OF REFUSING TO TREAT CERTAIN PATIENTS OR TRAUMAS WITHOUT RETRIBUTION FROM ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY(ABORTIONS, RACE, RELIGION, SELF-INFLICTED WOUNDS, ETC.) TRY TO GET AN ELECTIVE ABORTION IN A CATHOLIC OR BAPTIST HOSPITAL. NO STATE MEDICAL BOARDS HAVE OFFICIALLY CHANGED THIS.
ALSO, NO PHARMACIST HAS BEEN SUCCESSFULLY CONVICTED OF MALPRACTICE OR MALFEASANCE FOR THESE TYPES OF REFUSALS, ALTHOUGH SOME HAVE BEEN PUNISHED BY ADMINISTRATIVE FIAT. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT & DOES NOT REGULATE THE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE OR PHARMACY.
RECENTLY, HOWEVER, A FEW STATE PHARMACY BOARDS WERE COWED AND PRESSURED INTO FORCING THE ENACTMENT OF RESTRICTIONS ON PHARMACISTS CONCERNING THEIR RIGHT OF REFUSAL. NONE OF THESE NEW RESTRICTIONS HAVE YET BEEN TESTED IN COURT. LEGALLY, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
HOWEVER, IF ANY OF THESE NEW RESTRICTIONS IS FOUND TO BE LEGAL. IT MUST BE APPLIED TO ALL LICENSED PROFESSIONALS, INCLUDING PHYSICIANS & NURSES. WE SHALL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
17 March 2008, on 12:04 am
ZARDOZ, YOU DON’T NEED TO SHOUT AT US IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS TO MAKE YOUR POINT. YOU CAN USE PROPER UPPER AND LOWER CASE AND PROPER PUNCTUATION TO MAKE YOUR COMMENT. IF ANYTHING ALL CAPS MAKES IT VERY HARD TO READ AND DISTRACTING.
Then the consumer will be forced to go elsewhere to have that prescription filled, which causes said pharmacy to lose money, and in turn that pharmacist will be forced to find work elsewhere after his/her employer fires his/her ass.
Fundies should stay the fuck out of the medical fields, period.
17 March 2008, on 10:43 am
Stardust:
In many cases it’s the owners who are involved. And losing a few sales while gaining (at least in their eyes) a moral highground is worth it.
I really don’t understand the drive to get other people to breed in religion. Seems counter intuative. And I won’t write it off to something stupid like ‘wanting bodies for wars’ or crap, that’s not the mindset… it’s something else.
More people to convert? Or is it just something that goes along with the religious training? I know the bible has instructions on having large familys, but lets face it no one does anything in the bible they don’t want to so that’s not it. (or did everyone stop shaving and working on sunday?)
Even if the children are going to die at a young age after a horrible life they want them… it makes no sense. Missionarys in Africa refuse birth controll to people with AIDS, furthering the epidemic… just because it’s against their faith (which equates to against their personal opinion).
from another artical:
“And while US law supposedly stands in the way of using Federal funds for evangelizing, Epstein reports that “every abstinence event I attended involved much praying and discussion of Jesus”. Sadly, it is precisely in Uganda, Epstein’s success story, where the tide appears to have turned in recent years, and where Epstein now encounters condom burnings in the name of Jesus. Reversing this alarming trend is now among the most crucial steps in supporting the work of Africans who struggle to solve the wrenching problem of AIDS. “
17 March 2008, on 10:43 am
sorry for no link, I try to show my work when I post sometyhing like that. http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article3489526.ece?Submitted=true
22 March 2008, on 3:24 pm
I have endometriosis and as a result of scarring from this disease I can not have children. I take birth control pills to control the symptoms of the endometriosis. Some of these symptoms can be debilitating. Some idiot is going to tell me that I can’t control my disease because of his religion?