How should we respond to Pharmacists

[LibInternationalist]

who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions?

[theboss]

1. Write to the state licensing board

CC the pharmacist on the letter.

[elehhhhna]

50. Do they ask for a guys marriage license before disbursing Viagra?

[wickywom]

2. boycott stores who won't crack down

[Webster Green]

3. Revoke their licenses....

This fundie shit is getting ridiculous

[Dogmudgeon]

4. We should publish a list

It would be strictly informational -- a list of the pharmacists and/or pharmacies that do not fill BC Rxs. It would be a list of places to avoid, and possibly for wingers to patronize.

No stalking, no historionics, just the people involved and their Pharmacists' license numbers. Simple, plain, and legal.

--bkl

[bunkerbuster1]

54. Screw that. Include home addies and phone numbers.

Time to give these RW pigs a taste of their own medicine.

[Feathered Fish]

5. WHAT?!

Does this really happen? Sorry, but that is disgusting and troubling.

[LibInternationalist]

8. They just had a segment on Unfiltered

about this

[Feathered Fish]

18. ok -

To me this cannot be tolerated at all. Soon, reproductive health will be a thing of the past. The misogyny that runs rampant in the government and in America everywhere is getting out of hand. Take these pharmacists to task - for sure it goes beyond a boycott. It is a refusal of rights and a denial of personal health.

[leesa]

58. They don't care. Yes. Welcome to the nightmare.

[K-W]

16. Welcome to the culture war. EOM

[wicket]

25. Here's a link on all of this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=2&u=/usatoday/20041109/ts_usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill

[Feathered Fish]

40. Thanks Wicket

it's official - they not only want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen - but they also want us to be gagged without rights. These 'pharmacists' should be kicked out of the professional association and never be allowed back. I'm all for people who have their own opinions about these things - no matter how ignorant they might be, but medicine and health is no place for 'christian morals' - especially reproductive health. I mean we are not even talking about a zygote - please. :eyes:

[MountainLaurel]

65. Yep -- check this out

http://www.pfli.org/

This would be the organization that is supporting these negligent shits in their attempt to take women back to the Dark Ages.

[Nicholas_J]

6. Usually the store management

Will give them a hard time, if it is a larger chain,

[da_chimperor]

7. By letting them know that their meddling in the personal affairs of women

means that neither we, nor any of our friends and family will ever frequent their establishment again.

[kittenpants]

9. didn't bush appoint the fundie who spearheaded this nonsense

to some sort of national health committee? he calls birth control a silent abortion! I can't even begin to detail all my disagreements with that one.

[snippy]

10. This needs to become a political issue.

Because this is what happens when people vote republican.

[eek]

12. At the Walgreens in my nabe:

back in the pharmacy are displayed headshots with name and brief quote of the 4-5 pharmacists that work there.

One guy has this with his picture:
"my goal is to be a good christian pharmacist"

When I moved here a year ago I just thought "whatever, dude" but eventually figured out the code.

BTW this pharmacy is heavy on students and super-low income types.

Neat.

Hope he has a similar goal to adopt all the children born to the college girls and methadone clinic folk his Christian goals will promulgate.

Grr.. them Jesists burn me up sometimes.

[hlthe2b]

11. I would like a lawyer to weigh in on the following: it seems that

pharmacists who refuse to fill a prescription (and apparently some refuse to even give the script back to the patient), are making a judgement impacting the woman's health care. To me, this constitutes substituting their opinion for medical judgment on care. As such, it could be pursued using existing state law and medical board regulations that provide for pentalties for those deemed to be practicing medicine without a license.

State Medical Associations should take this on (as should the AMA, but we already know they are a worthless spineless body at this point...)

DU Legal Beagle comments? thoughts?

[theboss]

13. It would depend on the licensing requirements in each state

I don't what the requirements are for pharmacists to fill every prescription presented to them. If I were faced with this situation, I would rate the state board for a ruling.

[kittenpants]

15. I'm not a legal beagle, but some women need the pill for health reasons,

to regulate cycles... Why don't the Puritans refuse to fill prescriptions for Viagra in case it could be used for an adulterous affair?
In ohio I think it's illegal for a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription, but I'm sure they'll get around that law real soon...

[snippy]

17. Some states have laws protecting pharmacists who do this.

Other states are trying to pass such laws. The state laws supercede any other authority. Neither Congress nor state legislatures should practice medicine, but that is what happens when people vote republican.

[Scairp]

23. They are getting away with it...for now at least

Certain state licensing boards are protecting these idiots and laws are being proposed in some states to allow this kind of behavior. If that starts happening then we will be in the courts fighting it out....against Bush appointees on the bench. This has been the true goal of the anti-choice movement all along, to control the sexuality of women through the denial of easy access to reliable birth control. They just have never gotten vocal about it because they didn't want to alienate the more moderate members of their groups. Lots of women who don't want abortion to be legal still use hormonal birth control and they cannot risk it. I think the answer is going to be to get your pill or patch directly from your doctor, or to get the stuff on the Internet. Young women though, will always have a harder time, and should this trend continue, we will see an increase in teen pregnancies.

[truth2power]

43. WHAT???? ARE YOU KIDDING ME???

They REFUSE to hand back prescriptions??

How in the world can they take YOUR prescription? Hasn't any lawyer stepped up to the plate on this? Good Cawd almighty!!! :mad:

[hlthe2b]

47. I would have called the police if they had refused, but it has been

reported...

[dsc]

14. How about going to another pharmacist?

While I don't agree with refusing to dispense birth control, I fail to see why pharmacists shouldn't have that choice. I have never lived in a town without at least 4 or 5 drug stores.

[eek]

20. I have switched but switching w/o letting them know why

doesn't do any good.
And, fwiw i have not thought to tell the Christian Pharmacy why I dumped them but now I will.

It is like the lousy service thing. If you leave NO tip you look like a dick or you forgot.
If you leave a dinky tip it sends the desired message.

[dsc]

35. of course you should let the pharmacist know why

and in all likelyhood it would show he was losing business.

[dsc]

36. of course you should let the pharmacist know why

and in all likelyhood it would show he was losing business.

[zbird]

24. Often a possibility, but there have been cases in which a woman tries to

obtain a refill at a particular pharmacy, the pharmacist refuses to refill said prescription and also refuses to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy in the area. Sorry, but if I have a LEGAL prescription, NOBODY has the right to deny or hinder my access to my medication.

[Mike Daniels]

57. I would think an individual pharmacist that owned his business

could refuse to stock the pill and that would be perfectly legal. May cause him business but that's his choice and right.

A pharmacist who works for a particular company however, would probably be able to be legally fired unless his concerns were revealed at the interview. Even then, I'd imagine if the company still hired said person knowing their moral stand that the company would have to make sure another pharmacist was on duty as well in order to fill any prescriptions the one may refuse to honor.

However, refusing to give the prescription back to the customer should be cause for legal action and possible stripping of license.

[MountainLaurel]

66. A lot of places don't

And if the nearest pharmacy is a couple towns over, and you're a mother of three and your husband has to take the car to work, travelling all over creation -- by catching a ride with someone or public transportation -- trying to get a prescription filled, is nigh impossible.

[Heyo]

19. fired

shouldn't have the job if you religious beliefs prevent you from performing your duties.

Heyo

[kslib]

21. A state licensor

answered my question about this. She said that a pharmacist does have "the right" (she almost choked on that) to refuse to fill a prescription, but must do one of the following:

1. Ask another pharmacist in the store to fill the Rx
2. Transfer the Rx to another pharmacy who will fill the Rx. (done especially if you decide not to buy from that store as a statement/boycott).

If the pharmacist refuses to do either, as was the case in another example of this where the pharmacist tore up the prescription, then the pharmacist is definitely open for lawsuit/criminal charges or getting his/her license revoked. She also recommended calling your doctor to let him/her know that this pharmacy employs a pharmacist who refuses to fill some prescriptions. Some doctors will be mad enough to give the pharmacy a piece of thier mind, as well as telling their patients not to go to Pharmacy X to fill the prescription because it may not get filled. If the pharmacy knows about it, they are sometimes spurred into action. (like firing the pharmacist, revising store policy regarding prescription fill, etc.)

Discuss away!.....

P.S. I live in Kansas, and am not sure if this is a state reg. or a federal reg.

[DemBones DemBones]

22. I think pharmacists should have the right to refuse

to fill prescriptions. If a pharmacist can be forced to fill prescriptions for "morning after" pills or drugs to commit suicide, he or she is being forced to participate in killing.

It's a form of conscientious objection. Forcing people to act against their own moral beliefs is not consistent with liberalism.

[CornField]

26. Pharmacists are not doctors

They have no idea the thought process behind a prescription. They have only their own narrow-view of what the prescription *might* be used to do.

[McDiggy]

61. Change that to 'retail'pharmacists and maybe I'd agree with you......

...otherwise you have no idea what you are talking about.

[wicket]

27. They do have a right to refuse...

...but they are supposed to transfer the prescription to a pharmacy who will fill it; many are not doing that.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=2&u=/usatoday/20041109/ts_usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill

[DemBones DemBones]

48. Then that's the issue, though I can see why

a pharmacist would refuse to transfer a prescription s/he refuses to fill.

If there is a law saying they must transfer a prescription they refuse to fill, then it comes down to whether they are willing to pay a legal price for standing firm on their principles.

And they are standing firm on principles when they refuse to fill certain prescriptions, much as most DUers disagree with those principles.

[McDiggy]

63. not quite....

That's just what the APhA thinks, it's not law. That is determined by each state's board of pharmacy. However, I think you probably have to give it back to them if you refuse being as though it is, in theory, their property. Exceptions are usually made with idiots doctor shopping for Vicodin.

[snippy]

28. Conscientious Objectors should not join the military.

Orthodox Jews should not work in a sausage factory.

Amish people should not be auto mechanics.

These people have a choice.

[DemBones DemBones]

49. So people who have conscientious objections to war shouldn't

be drafted, right? They should be allowed to perform alternative service, right? Or do you think we should outlaw conscientious objection so we can draft all able-bodied persons? They are only a small percent of the population who are "so unrealistic that they can't understand war is sometimes necessary "-- so they should be forced to go in the army and sent into combat, right? No exceptions for principles.

People who go into medicine, nursing, pharmacy, etc., should not have to participate in abortions if they have conscientious objections to abortion.

[progressivebydesign]

29. Oh bullshit.

Pharmacists are SCIENTISTS! If they can't handle the human side of pharmacy, then they need to find a job in a research company.

These pharmacists don't fucking KNOW what the birth control pills are prescribed for!!! MANY MANY women take these to control hormonal problems, etc. BIRTH CONTROL IS NOT ABORTION!!! These people need to be fired...

[Kathryn7]

30. I agree. No one would force a gynocologist to give an abortion

if they didn't want to do it.

[snippy]

33. Not the same thing. At all. Not even close. Not even remotely. n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

51. Not to YOU. But if you believe life begins at conception,

the "morning after" pill can be just as much an act of killing a human being as a surgical abortion is. Of course, with the "morning after" pill, no one really knows if a child has been conceived or not, so it's a kind of Russian roulette "If I'm pregnant, this will end the pregnancy."

The fact that a woman asks for the drug shows she believes conception has likely occurred. A pharmacist who refuses to fill her prescription is agreeing with her belief and refusing to help her abort, just as many gynecologists refuse to perform abortions.

[kittenpants]

34. poor analogy

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemBones DemBones]

55. It was science that made me pro-life. I realized that

all the characteristics of life are present from the moment of conception, thus the zygote is a life. And the zygote is a human life because it has human genes. People on the left don't want to deal with those facts. I know I didn't. I never wanted to be pro-life; it's hardly a popular position among progressives, as this thread shows. But after years of teaching biology, one day I realized that I was avoiding the facts.

I don't support making abortion illegal. I do support people knowing the facts.

[soleft]

69. Wouldn't it behoove you in a progressive community to say that you are

anti-abortion and pro-choice.

I am anti-abortion and pro-choice. I'm sure that there are lots of people on this board who are also anti-abortion and pro-choice, and you have as much said that you are as well.

But identifying yourself as pro-life, you are saying that a) you align yourself with a community who wish to make abortions illegal even in cases of rape and incest b) you are identifying yourself as aligning with people who say those who are pro-choice are anti-life.

I'm just saying that in communicating with people in the progressive community, you serve yourself better and make better connections by making your position more clear up front, and by saying you are pro-life, you seem to mistake your position convoluted.

[kslib]

31. How about

if the store's policy (say Walgreens, as an example) says that pharmacists must fill all prescriptions. (or call the doctor if they think a mistake has been made) Then should the pharmacist go to another store that has policies that permit him/her to make judgement calls, or refuse to fill based on religious beliefs? I asked my mom the same question, and she compared it to abortion. It's legal, but some doctors or nurses don't agree with it. She said that those people should not work in abortion clinics, or places that routinely perform abortions, because, while they have the right to choose (ironic, isn't it) whether or not to perform the abortion, they don't have the right (she believes) to work wherever they want if they have a belief system that "doesn't jive" with the company's policies/procedures. I think that on the face of it (there are always exceptions), I agree with her.

[omnithrope]

32. Horseshit.

n/t

[fishnfla]

37. Ask yourself: Where does it end?

The are pharmacists, not God.

Like the one article said, this is just the tip of the iceberg

[DemBones DemBones]

56. You're correct that they are pharmacists, not God, but they don't want to

play God, either, by causing death. Pharmacy is supposed to be about healing people, not killing them.

[LisaLynne]

41. My take on that reasoning.

My friend has always been a pacifist. She is also an amazing and talented draftsperson and engineer. She was once offered a HIGH paying job, but the company did a lot of defense work for the government ... so she didn't take the job because she didn't want to design bombs and who knows what.

To me, if you hold your beliefs in such high regard, there might be areas of work that you might want to steer away from. I don't believe in, say, eating meat, therefore, I'm not a butcher.

[progressivebydesign]

45. I quit a great job at a medical company..

..when I found out they were killing Pigs and dogs (from the pound) for experiments on cosmetic surgery products. I liked my job, liked the people.. but couldn't hang with seeing invoices for "adult golden retrievers" from the pound, to be killed at the hands of researchers for vanity.

If the pharmacists can't hang with their DUTIES, then they should resign.

[DemBones DemBones]

So golden retrievers are important to you. Unborn children are

equally important to some people.

The difference between the two situations is that the company you worked for used animals in research on a regular basis; you couldn't work there without being a part of that. You might be able to find a similar job at another company that doesn't use animals in research.

People who go into medicine and allied health, including pharmacy, shouldn't have to take part in abortion or euthanasia if it's against their principles. 99% of a pharmacist's job, probably 99.9%, has nothing to do with either abortion or euthanasia, so why should pharmacists who oppose abortion and euthanasia have to leave the profession?

[SemperEadem]

44. unless the pharmacist has access to the patient's medical file

then their feelings and guesses about how a drug is going to be used doesn't qualify them to supercede the doctor's instructions.

Seeing that the pharmacist doesn't have access to the patient's file, they are only guessing, at best, what the prescription's need fills for the patient... they are substituting their own fantasies for that patient's reality.

If they are worried about using a drug as a method of suicide, then perhaps they should get the second amendment repealled---or cars outlawed, since you can run a hose from the exhaust pipe into the car parked in a garage... or perhaps your local natural gas provider or gas stove manufacturer should be run out of business... or rope and even bedsheet makers should shut down because you can use both to hang yourself.

[mondo joe]

72. If they don't want to fill prescriptions they shouldn't be pharmacists

It's simple - if they don't want to fill prescriptions they shouldn't be pharmacists.

[MsTryska]

38. Boycott. nt

nt

[ibegurpard]

39. Picket them

And any other way you can think of to stir up the majority of the public who would be aghast at this.

[hippiechick]

42. "May I take your name and number ,

SO THAT I CAN HAVE THE BABY DELIVERED TO YOUR HOUSE WHEN IT'S BORN ???????"


:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:


:hippie:

[Frumious B]

52. I think this issue is being way overstated.

I work for a pharmacy that is chock **full** of Bush supporters and none of the pharmacists would ever consider refusing a prescription for any reason other than suspicion that it is forged or that a patient is "Limbaughing" (my terminology, not theirs) i.e. paying a bunch of different physicians of questionable ethics to wite RXs for controlled substances.

[MountainLaurel]

68. Overstated?

That's why more than 10 states have passed laws saying that this is perfectly acceptable, and even more are in the process of doing so?

Easy to say if it's not you or your partner . . .

[slappypan]

53. How do HMOs and health insurers fit into this?

After all, they ultimately call the shots in our system. And doctors need to take a stand when pharmacists usurp their authority.

[McDiggy]

59. As a 2nd year pharmacy student AND an atheist:

I think the pharmacists NEED the right to refuse any prescription. Pharmacists are not the lap dogs of physicians. We know so much more about drugs than physicians it really ain't funny. They take about 1-2 semesters of Pharmacotherapy whereas we take 4 full professional years of pharmacotherapy. This is especially true for pharmacists that complete residencies. In the ideal setting, a physician would diagnose - that which they are experts - and would consult us for drug therapy - that which we are experts at (of course this will never happen due to the stronghold the AMA has on the field.) When it has been tried in experiemental settings it has been proven, many times, to increase drug efficacy and drastically lower costs.

Now what does this have to do with contraceptives?

Well, nothing, I was just trying to prove our worth...

But there has to be a line drawn. No, I do not agree in any matter with the religious nutcases that are refusing medication based on religous motives - but there needs to be the option for a pharmacist to never have to fill anything he/she doesn't want to. I hope to God you don't expect me to fill a script for a couple of drugs that have absolute drug contraindications just because the doctor was mesmerized by the latest drug some pharmceutical rep has been pushing around town. (Don't even get me started on pharmaceutical companies...) And legally, as long as there is another pharmacy within a 20 miles radius, we can refuse to fill your prescription if we don't like you.

[DemBones DemBones]

60. Thanks for weighing in. I hadn't even gotten to the arguments that

"Doctor knows best." GOOD doctors know a lot but they also know that pharmacists know more about drugs and drug interactions.

Although I suspect most of these pharmacists are people who are very right wing, people I would not want to have to be around much, I support their right to refuse to dispense drugs that conflict with their principles.

[slappypan]

62. Your only priority should be the safety of the patient.

If any health professional can refuse treatment because they don't "feel like it" the system is compromised. There has to be a higher standard, we are not talking about a new hair style here, we are talking about potentially serious discomfort, permanent injury or even death.

[McDiggy]

67. ....technically no.

As long as it is not an emergency, we can refuse (and when will this ever happen in a retail pharmacy.) As long as there is another pharmacy nearby, we can refuse.

Now if said pharmacist is in a remote hospital pharmacy, a girl was raped, he's the only pharmacist, and the ER doc wanted emergency contraceptive - that's a whole nother ball of wax.

[mondo joe]

73. Big difference between not filling contraindicated drugs and this

No one has suggested pharamcists be forced to fill contraindicated drugs.

But there's a world of difference between not filling a dangerous
combination of drugs and something you simply don't want to fill.

[DemBones DemBones]

64. OK, there were ten replies to my original post

(#22, I think it was) and I think I've addressed the substance of all of them, though I didn't reply to each one of the 10 individually.

I'll be out for the rest of the day, unable to answer flames until later. ;-)

I'll always believe in peoples' right to stand by their principles, even if I don't agree with them.

[liberalitch]

70. make it public and BOYCOTT....

also, tell your doctor.

[mondo joe]

71. Let them all refuse. Let middle America see what they voted for.

You think those SECURITY MOMS want to have 12 kids?

Let them see what they voted for.