Pharmacists refusing to fill orders for The Pill

Published

(Sorry in advance if not supposed to post articles...haven't been on the site in a while and can't find the rules about this.)

Thought you all would want to know about this.

-K.

==========

From http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=710&e=1&u=/usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill

Druggists Refuse to Give Out Pill

By Charisse Jones, USA TODAY

For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.

"I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."

Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.

Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.

In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views.

Some advocates for women's reproductive rights are worried that such actions by pharmacists and legislatures are gaining momentum.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision in September that would block federal funds from local, state and federal authorities if they make health care workers perform, pay for or make referrals for abortions.

"We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America.

"The explosion in the number of legislative initiatives and the number of individuals who are just saying, 'We're not going to fill that prescription for you because we don't believe in it' is astonishing," she said.

Pharmacists have moved to the front of the debate because of such drugs as the "morning-after" pill, which is emergency contraception that can prevent fertilization if taken within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse.

While some pharmacists cite religious reasons for opposing birth control, others believe life begins with fertilization and see hormonal contraceptives, and the morning-after pill in particular, as capable of causing an abortion.

"I refuse to dispense a drug with a significant mechanism to stop human life," says Karen Brauer, president of the 1,500-member Pharmacists for Life International. Brauer was fired in 1996 after she refused to refill a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in the Cincinnati suburb of Delhi Township.

Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the Texas Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March. In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in Denton wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a rape victim.

In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she missed a pill because of the delay.

She filed a complaint after the incident occurred in the summer of 2002 in Menomonie, Wis. Christopher Klein, spokesman for Wisconsin's Department of Regulation and Licensing, says the issue is that Noesen didn't transfer or return the prescription. A hearing was held in October. The most severe punishment would be revoking Noesen's pharmacist license, but Klein says that is unlikely.

Susan Winckler, spokeswoman and staff counsel for the American Pharmacists Association, says it is rare that pharmacists refuse to fill a prescription for moral reasons. She says it is even less common for a pharmacist to refuse to provide a referral.

"The reality is every one of those instances is one too many," Winckler says. "Our policy supports stepping away but not obstructing."

In the 1970s, because of abortion and sterilization, some states adopted refusal clauses to allow certain health care professionals to opt out of providing those services. The issue re-emerged in the 1990s, says Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive issues.

Sonfield says medical workers, insurers and employers increasingly want the right to refuse certain services because of medical developments, such as the "morning-after" pill, embryonic stem-cell research and assisted suicide.

"The more health care items you have that people feel are controversial, some people are going to object and want to opt out of being a part of that," he says.

In Wisconsin, a petition drive is underway to revive a proposed law that would protect pharmacists who refuse to prescribe drugs they believe could cause an abortion or be used for assisted suicide.

"It just recognizes that pharmacists should not be forced to choose between their consciences and their livelihoods," says Matt Sande of Pro-Life Wisconsin. "They should not be compelled to become parties to abortion."

Specializes in LTC,Hospice/palliative care,acute care.
It appears to me also that some of the posters say he should be required to fill the prescription under any and all possible circumstances.

Well-that does make sense....This situation IMHO can't be prepared to nurses being forced into assisting with an abortion against his/her beliefs...A pharmacist is only providing the med---he is not an active participant and in my opinion should not be permitted to refuse to fill any type of script for ANY reason........

Specializes in Happily semi-retired; excited for the whole whammy.

Actually, I don't think anyone has said that it should be filled under any and all circumstances. We go back to the OP which was very specific that this happened at a CVS pharmacy, that does stock the medication in question. I could even accept him not filling the script under those limited circumstances. What I can't understand is how this doesn't rise to a civil rights violation. By keeping her script, that pharmacist was denying her equal access to healthcare, since she was not able to obtain medication that is available to other customers (until, presumably, she called her doctor and told him/her this incredible story and asked them to write another). At a bare minimum, he's guilty of theft, and given that it was a customer he stole from, he should lose his license for the ethical violation.

Well, I checked back in after a while away...wanted to see where the thread I started ended up. Was EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED to see that it turned into yet another string of personal attacks and bickering over a topic OTHER THAN the OP. Mercyteapot and NurseGuy, you two in particular should have just taken your bickering offline and into the PM realm. You hijacked the thread

Back to the OP:

The problem is not one individual pharmacist, but rather the climate of "morality" that allows people to feel justified in judging others' actions and policing their neighbors. What's that thing in the Bible about a speck in the other person's eye versus the log in your own???

And how about the fact that (1) some BC pills are prescribed for things other than contraception, and (2) most Viagara scripts are not prescribed to promote procreation.

The part of the issue that I find most disturbing is the fact that states are passing laws that protect pharmacists who consider themselves the "prescription police."

Kwtlpn:

Can you give more details about Planned Parenthood's work in this area? I went to their site at one point, and had a hard time finding info or links to "action" steps.

Thanks.

Specializes in Happily semi-retired; excited for the whole whammy.

Wow. I haven't been scolded like that since I got caught chewing gum in gym class! And a very happy holiday season to you as well........

So, there's hope then that some pharmacists will refuse to fill those Viagra prescriptions too, because they believe that you must deal with what God gives (or takes away from) you?

LOL! EXCELLENT point! Sadly, my guess is that will never happen. Even if the same chick who wanted birth control (and couldn't get it) came in WITH her partner, I'll bet he would still get his Blue Pills! The irony is that I'll bet this same "anti-birth-control" pharmacist is also a radical "Pro-Lifer" - as a not-so radical-but-lean-that-way "Pro Lifer," I find this INCREDIBLY hypocritical.

Well, I checked back in after a while away...wanted to see where the thread I started ended up. Was EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED to see that it turned into yet another string of personal attacks and bickering over a topic OTHER THAN the OP. Mercyteapot and NurseGuy, you two in particular should have just taken your bickering offline and into the PM realm. You hijacked the thread

Back to the OP:

The problem is not one individual pharmacist, but rather the climate of "morality" that allows people to feel justified in judging others' actions and policing their neighbors. What's that thing in the Bible about a speck in the other person's eye versus the log in your own???

And how about the fact that (1) some BC pills are prescribed for things other than contraception, and (2) most Viagara scripts are not prescribed to promote procreation.

The part of the issue that I find most disturbing is the fact that states are passing laws that protect pharmacists who consider themselves the "prescription police."

Kwtlpn:

Can you give more details about Planned Parenthood's work in this area? I went to their site at one point, and had a hard time finding info or links to "action" steps.

Thanks.

I didn't hijack anything. I stuck to the topic as much as anyone and more than most and resent being picked out among all of the posters. You too could have sent me a private message. Re-read the original thread, several times it mentions that the pharmacist considers birth control abortion. Some people feel that way, so be it. Some people feel that "morality" is "anything goes" in this country, I do not. If all of the posters didn't respond the way you wanted them to, well, that is called healthy debate to me.

Specializes in Gerontological, cardiac, med-surg, peds.

moderator's thought: "ownership" of a thread cannot be claimed by the thread's originator, especially if the op has been away from the board since november 17th! once released onto the bulletin board, the thread takes on a life of its own and takes many turns and explores many venues, while roughly "keeping to the subject at hand." true, some of the posters on this thread had lively and heated arguments, but in the end maintained a peaceful civility (sometimes with a little moderator prodding) :chuckle we actually encourage healthy debate on this bulletin board, as long as personal attacks are avoided.

moderator's thought: "ownership" of a thread cannot be claimed by the thread's originator, especially if the op has been away from the board since november 17th! once released onto the bulletin board, the thread takes on a life of its own and takes many turns and explores many venues, while roughly "keeping to the subject at hand." true, some of the posters on this thread had lively and heated arguments, but in the end maintained a peaceful civility (sometimes with a little moderator prodding) :chuckle we actually encourage healthy debate on this bulletin board, as long as personal attacks are avoided.

thank you. i have my own beliefs but i actually learned a thing or two here from other posters.

Specializes in Happily semi-retired; excited for the whole whammy.
moderator's thought: "ownership" of a thread cannot be claimed by the thread's originator, especially if the op has been away from the board since november 17th! once released onto the bulletin board, the thread takes on a life of its own and takes many turns and explores many venues, while roughly "keeping to the subject at hand." true, some of the posters on this thread had lively and heated arguments, but in the end maintained a peaceful civility (sometimes with a little moderator prodding) :chuckle we actually encourage healthy debate on this bulletin board, as long as personal attacks are avoided.

yet again, the moderators step in with the voice of reason.

I didn't hijack anything. I stuck to the topic as much as anyone and more than most and resent being picked out among all of the posters. You too could have sent me a private message. Re-read the original thread, several times it mentions that the pharmacist considers birth control abortion. Some people feel that way, so be it. Some people feel that "morality" is "anything goes" in this country, I do not. If all of the posters didn't respond the way you wanted them to, well, that is called healthy debate to me.

I agree and have enjoyed this thread.

As I've stated, I think the pharmacist was wrong to keep the RX and wrong to work somewhere where he knew he would be dispensing these drugs.

Again, if it is his own pharmacy, he has the right to stock whatever he wants and let the market decide if he stays in business.

And alot of people who don't agree with the morning after pill (basically BCP's) use as their criticism that they view it as an abortifacient since it can interfere with a fertilized egg.

I don't think the thread was hijacked - just healthy discussion.

steph

Maybe someone just had Cranky Flakes for breakfast that day. :) I've enjoyed this thread with all its twists and turns even if I haven't posted on it much.

I didn't hijack anything. I stuck to the topic as much as anyone and more than most and resent being picked out among all of the posters. You too could have sent me a private message. Re-read the original thread, several times it mentions that the pharmacist considers birth control abortion. Some people feel that way, so be it. Some people feel that "morality" is "anything goes" in this country, I do not. If all of the posters didn't respond the way you wanted them to, well, that is called healthy debate to me.

I agree, NurseGuy. Sometimes, though, healthy debates become irritating to other people when they feel passionate about the subject. I believe everyone should be entitled to their own opinion. I think if we post a topic, and it takes a few turns, then we all learn something. My dad always said opinions are like -------s (censored word): Everybody has one :rotfl: .

+ Join the Discussion