<p>I’m just a premed, but I still think what they’re doing is horribly wrong. Every medical professional is supposed to act above all as an advocate for the PATIENT, not themselves or their beliefs. When health care professionals compromise their patients well-being for moral posturing, it’s a betrayl of trust for the entire system.</p>
<p>
I just think that’s just insane. Antibotics don’t cause abortions. Are pharmacists going to institute religious tests to see who’s worthy of receiving their meds? Talk about playing God…</p>
<p>(And for the record, I think an overwhelming majority of pharmacists don’t do this. But the number should be zero, period.)</p>
<p>lkf725, if people could buy drugs anywhere, from anybody – then retailers could choose whether to carry them or provide them. But that’s not how it works – we have a system where many drugs can only be distributed by prescription, and only pharmacies are allowed to stock and dispense the drugs. So if you happen to be a pharmacist, you have stepped in to the role of being an authorized representative of the STATE in terms of the role you play as part of the state-regulated system for dispensing drugs. A pharmacist has no more right to refuse to dispense a medication based on your personal moral or ethical beliefs than a jailer would have to refuse to lock up a person because he disagreed with the law the person was alleged to have violated. </p>
<p>The pharmacist’s license imposes certain obligations. It makes him/her an agent of the state and an agent of every licensed physician who writes a prescription, at least for purposes of filling out an individual prescription. It does not make the pharmacist into a machine – they are still suppposed to exercise judgment, so for example if someone comes in with a prescription that clearly appears to be mistaken in terms of the dosage set, or that would likely be harmful in combination with another medication that had previously een prescribed to the same patient – the pharmacist would have an affirmative duty to take appropriate, professional action (such as contacting the prescribing physician to discuss your concerns before dispensing the medication). That is exactly WHY the medications can only be dispensed by pharmacist, and not by just any clerk or cashier the drug store happens to hire. </p>
<p>One reason pharmacists shouldn’t be interposing their personal moral objections objections is because the current law is that women have a constitutional right to have abortions, and both men and women have a constitutionally protected rights to use birth control. Thus, when a licensed pharmacist exercise his ‘moral’ belief to deny the medication, that is in essence using the state-granted pharmacy license to deny a constitutional right. </p>
<p>Basically, for anyone whose profession requires state licensing, the personal ethics & morals can be overridden by their professional obligations. That is part of any profession. Pharmacists don’t get to pick & choose, because it is the FDA that decides what drugs can be distributed. The job of ‘pharmacist’ and the license that goes along with it simply requires the person to respect and adhere to the federal and state laws determining which drugs can be prescribed and which can’t. </p>
<p>If individual pharmacists start picking & choosing the whole system would fall apart – and it would have to be replaced by either a system which allowed all doctors to directly dispense all medications to their patients, or which allowed all retailers to fill prescriptions whether or not they had a licensed pharmacist on staff. In other words, if the pharmacists won’t do their job, then there is no point in having pharmacists.</p>
<p>I have never heard of a pharmacist refusing to dispense. Has anyone here ever personally had that experience? You all are getting hostile over one article about an aberant situation in a retail setting.</p>
<p>There seems to be two objections here. Some of you want no professional pharmacy services. Okay, you have the right to refuse them (but your pharmacist will still be checking your profile for safety because he is obliged to do so.) </p>
<p>Some of you just object to the rare retail pharmacist who refuses to dispense oral contraceptives. <em>While I don’t agree with this</em>, I think that ultimately everyone has to do what they feel is right. Maybe the consequence is that they are fired…who knows. Calmom is correct that women have a constitutional right to abortion and birth control, and they should be able to exercise that right. If you run into that rare pharmacist who won’t fill these prescriptions, go somewhere else and make your dissatisfaction known to the company.</p>
<p>This is really a hypothetical discussion for most of you…because chances are that none of you have ever personally heard of this happening. It’s just that uncommon.</p>
<p>Just a side question to calmom. You stated that a pharmacist does not have the right to refuse to dispense based on moral or ethical beliefs. What is your opinion on filling legitimate narcotic prescriptions for drug addicts?</p>
<p>should police officers decide which laws they choose to enforce? should accountants decide which tax laws they will apply to their clients’ accounts? should a first grade teacher decide they really don’t care to teach reading to their students? Come on, if you take on a profession, you agree to do what is required of that profession. The public has a right to expect that a licensed pharmacist will fill a scrip for any legal drug.</p>
<p>Has anyone here ever personally had that experience? You all are getting hostile over one article about an aberant situation in a retail setting.</p>
<p>No I haven’t had that experience- but then I am not on birth control pills and I have not asked for a morning after pill for years.</p>
<p>Whew, for the last time, I AGREE WITH YOU regarding contraception. The situation described by the OP is very, very unusual.</p>
<p>Pharmacy had TONS of laws and nuances of laws. Pharmacies are inspected annually (hospital, retail and long term care) to be sure they are in compliance with the law. Hospitals have entire departments dedicated to this. </p>
<p>I also believe that any human being in any walk of life must ultimately answer to himself. </p>
<p>(BTW, police officers do not apply laws equally and impartially, and accountants will not always get the same bottom line for their clients. Their professional judgements may have differed.)</p>
<p>“if the pharmacists won’t do their job, then there is no point in having pharmacists.”</p>
<p>I think that’s a little harsh, because this situation does not represent the sum total of a pharmacist’s role. Pharmacists advice physicians and the public on myriad drugs, their uses and side effects. They help people use medication safely. And they help ensure that medications such as controlled substances go for their intended purpose.</p>
<p>Abortion and assisted suicide are two of the big medical/moral issues of the day. They almost seem intertwined. I believe assisted suicide is already legal in Oregon. </p>
<p>In that regard, it would not be a big surprise if, in the future, such deadly drugs as would be required to die would be obtained through a pharmacist as is the morning-after-pill now. </p>
<p>Should a pharmacist be obliged to provide the death-drugs as a requirement of employment or license to those who will want to legally end their life? </p>
<p>I’m torn about this issue. Why should a physician be the only person who can decide (based on personal ethics) which treatments to provide and which not, but a pharmacist denied that same option? Did doctors somehow become gods because of something in their training? Are their laws that require doctors to provide abortions, or for that matter use body parts from cadavers or blood products, or to prescribe Plan B? </p>
<p>My political sentiments are with the laws requiring pharmacists to dispense. My ethical ones are with those that allow maximum latitude for pharmacists in decision-making. (It gets interesting when one stretches this line of reasoning to include other health care practitioners, down to nurses aides, or across professions to include schoolteachers.)</p>
<p>lkf - I am going to say this one more time, you don’t seem to understand. In most states, pharmacists have NO EXPLICIT RIGHT to refuse to fill a prescription on personal moral belief. I don’t know if professional misconduct is called malpractice for pharmacists, but in a state without an explicit right to do so (which, currently, is 46/50), refusing to fill a prescription for such a reason is likely illegal since pharmacists, whatever else you think they should or should not be doing, are NOT supposed to be making moral judgements about my habits.</p>
<p>The very thought of letting people refuse to do a fundamental aspect of their job because of religion is disgusting. What’s next, not making religous Blockbuster employees rent out GTA: San Andreas because they object to its content? Or should religous bookstore employees be able to refuse to sell the Kama Sutra or religous books for a faith other than their own?</p>
<p>You do NOT have a right to a job. If your religion prevents you from having a job because it fundamentally conflicts with the requirements of doing said job, either change your religion or find another job. This isn’t letting someone have a 15 minute prayer brake while they do their job; this is saying that doing your job is optional if it conflicts with your religion. That is a dangerous and slippery slope to start down, especially in the many rural towns with few shopping options - especially given that said rural towns tend to be more conservative and more religous then urban areas with plenty of shopping options.</p>
<p>Sigh…I do understand. I have been a practicing pharmacist for over 25 years. What you don’t seem to understand, lucifer, is that there is not only black and white, but many shades of gray. Medicine advances faster than people can deal with the issues created.</p>
<p>What about organ transplant? It used to be a moral dilemma, but not any longer. How about vaccines (remember polio)? Used to be an issue but not anymore. How about treating a minor christian scientist? Does their right to basic medical care supercede their parents’ right to religion? Birth control, abortion, euthenasia, living wills, stem cell research, etc are all issues the medical field is grappling with. It’s called medical ethics.</p>
<p>The problems created are a testament to the rapid advancements in medicine and healthcare rather than an indictment of the legal snafus created by them.</p>
<p>What about organ transplant? It used to be a moral dilemma, but not any longer.
There are of course still lots of ethical issues regarding transplants- who gets one? Should we allow people to sell things like kidneys?</p>
<p>Birth Control has been around for eons…women have been using herbs, etc forever, and having abortions forever…this is not new as some have implied here and the ethics behind it are not new either. Women have been trying to control their own bodies, and for people to step in and say, gee, no, you can’t, even though we have new technology that makes it safer is misogynistic. Would we tell men, um, no more masturbation cause that is a potential child? </p>
<p>Years ago, a women could not get birth control without her husbands consent!! What is that? But women have been finding ways all through time to not get pregnant when they don’t want to, even in marriage, imagine that, or if accidentaly getting pregnant, ending the pregnancy. In biblical times, it wasn’t even considered a pregancy until 3-4 months or until she started to show. </p>
<p>To equate birth control and abortion with organ transplant is misleading.</p>
<p>The organ transplant dilemma used to be whether doctors should do it or not, even though the technology was available. While patients suffered and died, some opponents felt it was akin to playing God. Now that human to human and animal to human transplants are acceptable, the issue moves to the allocation of these precious resources. </p>
<p>Should we withhold cutting edge therapies from needy patients because the legalities have not been fully explored and every eventuality has not been reduced to paper? I think not, but it is certainly debatable. Medical advancement is full of “gray areas” where we find ourselves running before we are sure how to walk.</p>
<p>Clearly, the majority here wish to discuss the pharmacist conscience laws surrounding the dispensing of oral contraceptives, rather than debating medical ethics with an open mind. So be it.</p>
<p>I have contributed all I can to this discussion.</p>