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."
According to Catholic moral teaching it is a sin to dispense the birth control pill. So, I think pharmacists should have a right not to go against their religious beliefs.
And does being Catholic give him the right to decide that not only will he not fill the prescription, but he'll steal it so that it can't be filled by anyone else? That's what he did by not returning the prescription! His right to practice his religion stops considerably short of denying a woman her right to make her own healthcare decisions.
And does being Catholic give him the right to decide that not only will he not fill the prescription, but he'll steal it so that it can't be filled by anyone else? That's what he did by not returning the prescription! His right to practice his religion stops considerably short of denying a woman her right to make her own healthcare decisions.
I think that some even non-Catholics have a concern because the BCP often is abortifacient in nature. I don't know too much about this specific case, but in general people should have a right to not go against their conscience. I think that a phamacist has less moral culpability, however, if he works for someone else than if he has his own pharmacy.
The pharmacist has an obligation to notify/inform his customers he cannot dispense certain medications if they go against his beliefs. To deliberately withhold the medications and prescriptions is, to me, very unethical. I wish a pharmacist would weigh in here---how LEGAL was this? To me, the man committed at the very least, an unethical act. He was WRONG!
I think that some even non-Catholics have a concern because the BCP often is abortifacient in nature. I don't know too much about this specific case, but in general people should have a right to not go against their conscience. I think that a phamacist has less moral culpability, however, if he works for someone else than if he has his own pharmacy.
Even if he owned his own pharmacy, he still has no right to keep the prescription, just because it is for a medication he doesn't believe in. This woman has rights, too. He has the right to practice his religion (and if the law says that right extends to refusing to *fill* the prescription, then so be it), but he doesn't have the right to demand his customers practice *his* religion. BCPs are one of the most commonly dispensed medications in retail pharmacies. I'm baffled as to why he chose to work in a chain drugstore such as CVS, and curious as to what he did when previous customers brought him scripts or when he's been given them since this particular incident.
I'm not sure about the particulars. Probably working at a chain store would not be his first choice, but he needed a job. Unfortunately, this society is dominated by forces that do not support people with strong religious values, but is rather beholden to the almighty dollar.Even if he owned his own pharmacy, he still has no right to keep the prescription, just because it is for a medication he doesn't believe in. This woman has rights, too. He has the right to practice his religion (and if the law says that right extends to refusing to *fill* the prescription, then so be it), but he doesn't have the right to demand his customers practice *his* religion. BCPs are one of the most commonly dispensed medications in retail pharmacies. I'm baffled as to why he chose to work in a chain drugstore such as CVS, and curious as to what he did when previous customers brought him scripts or when he's been given them since this particular incident.
As for inconsistancy in his behaviour, perhaps he came to a deepening of his convictions on this matter. Perhaps he had a religious awakening of some sort that demanded he make a stand. But, generally I think people of faith should not be required to go against their convictions and employers need to make reasonable accomadations, just as they would have to with other deviations from the general norm.
According to Catholic moral teaching it is a sin to dispense the birth control pill. So, I think pharmacists should have a right not to go against their religious beliefs.
Then, perhaps, a Catholic pharmacist should not work for any national chains, to avoid such a sin.
People's personal and religious beliefs do not have any place in a CVS-like setting. If someone wants to do thing THEIR way because of their belief, they they should open their OWN pharmacy.
I need a job too. However, this does not extend to me taking or keeping a job where I feel I must do something unethical. I'll wash dishes in a Mexican restaurant (my all time worst job ever) before I'll take or keep a job that requires me to do ANYTHING I feel is morally repugnant (and yes, I have left a job for that reason).I'm not sure about the particulars. Probably working at a chain store would not be his first choice, but he needed a job. Unfortunately, this society is dominated by forces that do not support people with strong religious values, but is rather beholden to the almighty dollar.As for inconsistancy in his behaviour, perhaps he came to a deepening of his convictions on this matter. Perhaps he had a religious awakening of some sort that demanded he make a stand. But, generally I think people of faith should not be required to go against their convictions and employers need to make reasonable accomadations, just as they would have to with other deviations from the general norm.
Religion is NOT a handicap and should not be given the same "accommodation" as someone who has no legs or is narcoleptic. Religion is a strong conviction and a way of life.
Just to look at another type of strong conviction and way of life...I'm willing to bet you won't find a single vegan working in a slaughterhouse. (I can just see it -- "Sorry, I am unable to kill any of these delightful animals, and in fact am letting them loose into the world to roam free, but pay me anyway.")
If you follow with your argument, then it is the pharmacist who is beholden to the almighty dollar -- wants the pay but doesn't want to fulfill the job requirements.
No religion is not a handicap neither is race or sexual orientation but we should not discriminate because of these factors either...there should be a choice in what you are working...if a nurse works in ob-gyn clinic she should be given a choice of not working w/abortion end if the clinic offers this...
this druggist should not have kept the script...shuld have handed it to another pharmiist [ in a large store there had to be more than one]..... or returned it pollitely and referred woman to another drug store...
i am a person of my generational values...generally accept bcp as an acceptable family planning method...could not work with nor could not advise anyone on abortion...am not decided about morning after pill
but i believe that you have to work professionally with those who present themselves to you as patients or [as in this case] customers...i personally find child molesters as the lowest of the low but i have had a patient who had been convicted of this..wasn't too happy but i gave good care..what else can you do
he wasn't worth leaving the job over..probably would have run into worse at the next job
if a nurse works in ob-gyn clinic she should be given a choice of not working w/abortion end if the clinic offers this
I really don't agree with this. I would think that it's up to the nurse to find a job that doesn't interfere with his/her beliefs, i do not think it's right to ask an employer to conform to an employee.
I'm not sure about the particulars. Probably working at a chain store would not be his first choice, but he needed a job. Unfortunately, this society is dominated by forces that do not support people with strong religious values, but is rather beholden to the almighty dollar.As for inconsistancy in his behaviour, perhaps he came to a deepening of his convictions on this matter. Perhaps he had a religious awakening of some sort that demanded he make a stand. But, generally I think people of faith should not be required to go against their convictions and employers need to make reasonable accomadations, just as they would have to with other deviations from the general norm.
You are continuing to fail to address the fact that he seemed to believe his religous convictions give him the right to keep the script. which isn't true. In some states, apparently he DOES have the right to refuse to fill it, and though I don't agree with that, the law is the law. It is possible that part of his actions stayed within it. Reasonable accommodations most certainly DO NOT extend to refusing to return to a customer a valid script for a legal drug! The law requires "reasonable" accommodations. What this guy did by keeping the script is far from being reasonable! It isn't even ethical, and it probably isn't legal
the difference with race or sexual orientation (or even religion) is that those laws address people who want to do the job just the same as anyone of a different race or sexual orientation.no religion is not a handicap neither is race or sexual orientation but we should not discriminate because of these factors either...
it is different when someone wants to do the job but needs extra help to do it, such as someone who needs a wheelchair ramp or a place for the guide dog.
it is different yet again when someone won't do part of the job for whatever reason but wants to be hired anyway.
the first group and the second group want to do the job. the third group wants to do part of the job. doesn't it make sense that that third group seek employment that they want to do? instead of asking the employer to have someone else take on part of their job or even actively driving away that employer's business?
we make sacrifices for our religious or moral convictions; we are not supposed to sacrifice other people for them.
Mystery5
475 Posts
According to Catholic moral teaching it is a sin to dispense the birth control pill. So, I think pharmacists should have a right not to go against their religious beliefs.