Pharmacists have right to conscience
http://thedaily.washington.edu/article/2007/12/3/pharmacistsHaveRightToConscience
By Thomas Walker
The ACLU, the same people who would defend a transgender man with a dress and lipstick to be an elementary school teacher, apparently don't think that pharmacists have a right to conscience.
And again, not forcing pharmacists to make decisions counter to their conscientious beliefs is all this is about.
--------------
Just a reminder of why we should vote every chance that we can do so.
they have the right to refuse to do thier job? thier not doctors, thier job is to take a script, fill it, and give it to the customer, regardless of the script, thier a dispensary service. dont want to do it? quit.
R :police:
This is still being argued through the courts, Governor's office, Board of Pharmacists, and State legislature. It's not over and many suspect the Board will win and require pharmacists to fill any prescription written by a doctor. This issue isn't Plan-B but any prescription, so it's unfair to limit the discussion to Plan-B. It was the trigger. And the issue is if a pharmacists is allowed to refuse, what define "another available source."
Is it the same pharmacy, a nearby one or what, and at what price? Some rural areas only have one phamacy, so the next available one is an hour or more drive. The final question will be if everyone negotiates so pharmacists can refuse for moral grounds, where's the limit to any pharmacists conscience, such as birth control, drug treatment, hormones, sex enhancment, or what?
This only came up with Plan-B but opened the pandora's box of medicince. In reality the phamacist must respect the physician's request for the patient. They're not doctors, but pharmacists. The patient isn't asking their opinion or approval for the drug(s), but simply to fill the prescription. But the Governor and/or legislature may balk at an absolute as they want for fear of voters.
--Susan--
Quote from: Rachael on December 03, 2007, 08:26:48 AM
they have the right to refuse to do thier job? thier not doctors, thier job is to take a script, fill it, and give it to the customer, regardless of the script, thier a dispensary service. dont want to do it? quit.
R :police:
I agree with that 100%, as long as people have a legitimate script then their should be no problems.
it can be abused... pharmacist doesnt like someone? refuse to serve them...
R :police:
Quote from: Rachael on December 03, 2007, 10:43:57 AM
it can be abused... pharmacist doesnt like someone? refuse to serve them...
R :police:
Yeah, but that would be crazy and in some cases quite dangerous.
OMG, this infuriates me.
Since when does a pharmacist get to decide what's "moral" for me to take? And based on THEIR religion?
If they're going to make the dispensing of drugs into a religious event, they need to find another job, preferably within their church.
~Kate~
Why not let the pharmacists have the right to concience.
But (and it's a big BUT,) they have to advertize in advance where all can see what 'scrips they won't fill.
If they don't advertize they won't fill a 'scrip (and the reason they won't,) they have to fill it until it's up on the signboard.
Tell 'em they can attract like-minded customers that way, and build the business on their concience.
AND, save people with such 'concience' 'scrips from wasting their time shopping there -- ever...
Karen
Quote from: Karen on December 03, 2007, 06:01:17 PM
Why not let the pharmacists have the right to concience.
But (and it's a big BUT,) they have to advertize in advance where all can see what 'scrips they won't fill.
If they don't advertize they won't fill a 'scrip (and the reason they won't,) they have to fill it until it's up on the signboard.
Tell 'em they can attract like-minded customers that way, and build the business on their concience.
AND, save people with such 'concience' 'scrips from wasting their time shopping there -- ever...
Karen
I think that is a brilliant idea Karen. I think they should have a right to conscience but not to the detriment of the rest of us. They may not stay in business long, but it would give all parties involved the freedom to express themselves and choose.
Quote from: Ayana on December 03, 2007, 06:35:48 PM
Quote from: Karen on December 03, 2007, 06:01:17 PM
Why not let the pharmacists have the right to concience.
But (and it's a big BUT,) they have to advertize in advance where all can see what 'scrips they won't fill.
If they don't advertize they won't fill a 'scrip (and the reason they won't,) they have to fill it until it's up on the signboard.
Tell 'em they can attract like-minded customers that way, and build the business on their concience.
AND, save people with such 'concience' 'scrips from wasting their time shopping there -- ever...
Karen
I think that is a brilliant idea Karen. I think they should have a right to conscience but not to the detriment of the rest of us. They may not stay in business long, but it would give all parties involved the freedom to express themselves and choose.
I can see the signs now...
HOMOSEXUALS NOT SERVED HERE. GET YOUR AIDS DRUGS SOMEWHERE ELSE OR CHANGE YOUR LIFESTYLE
YOU WANT ANTIBIOTICS? MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE ATTENDED CHURCH MORE OFTEN OR GOD WOULDN'T BE PUNISHING YOU
No. Fire the phamacist for being a moron. Sue the pharmacy for running a church under the guise of being a "business."
~Kate~
Oh no, ??? this hits very close to home ;) Just FYI not every pharmacist thinks that way. If you consider the number of doctors that pray in the OR or the ones who don't want to transfuse blood to patients due to religious beliefs, so..yeah....but anyway...I agree with all of you, the pharmacist's job is or (should be) to dispense the medication prescribed, nothing more.
tink :icon_chick:
Quote from: Karen on December 03, 2007, 06:01:17 PM
Why not let the pharmacists have the right to concience...
I agree except not at work. They get a license from the state to serve all customers who want their prescriptions filled. They can express their morality outside their pharmacy all they want, just not with prescriptions.
The issue here became critical when several pharmacists in rural areas of eastern Washington wanted this option, leaving people to drive 60 or more miles to the next town. And it opened the door to them not decline filling other prescriptions, as mentioned, birth control, aids, drug treatment, and so on.
The Pharmacy Board got some backbone to refuse to change the rules but the legislature may give them an opt out option because of fear of the religious vote. The pharmacists have turned this into a moral and free choice issue instead of serving everyone as required by their state license. And it's a small group of pharmacists too, which distorts the popularity of it.
You open that door and what's next? Teachers refuse to teach the children of same sex couples?
No, if they can't do their job, they shouldn't be permitted to. Go pump gas. Or maybe they'd refuse to fill SUV's because of the environmental impact.
Dennis
somtimes, there is such think as too much freedom.
R :police:
Quote from: Dennis on December 04, 2007, 01:48:33 AM
You open that door and what's next? Teachers refuse to teach the children of same sex couples?
No, if they can't do their job, they shouldn't be permitted to. Go pump gas. Or maybe they'd refuse to fill SUV's because of the environmental impact.
Dennis
Nice. I agree though. Only because it's pharmaceuticals does this issue make such a wave in the news. I have worked in the entertainment business providing home electronic entertainment equipment sales and installation along with sales and installation of Satellite receiver systems for premium TV programming. I would have been out of a job a long time ago if I would have told all the fat, unbathed and obviously lazy people I've meet that I could not in good conscious install a new system for them just so they could continue to sit on their O.O's and watch TV. I smile, work through the stench and piles of dirty clothes in their bedrooms or other crap around the house, install the system as quickly as possible and leave hoping to the God's that I did not contract some contagious disease while in there that would make me turn out like them.
Also, on a side note:
http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071202/OSH/312020027/1128/OSH01 (http://www.thenorthwestern.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071202/OSH/312020027/1128/OSH01)
The "public" has made this drug illegal because of their conscious beliefs that it's killing a life. So people will do what ever it takes to get it if they really want it. Imagine if my beliefs about how some people use television to slowly commit suicide were to create a law that TV was banned because it's unhealthy O.o
::) There's a simple solution to this.
Like any occupation, if one doesn't like the job one was hired to do, one finds another job!
In principle I would agree that people have a right to choose who they would do business with.
On the other hand, these are legal scripts for legal drugs, and I don't think they get the right to pick and choose. As pointed out above, in many places people might not have access to a lot of other choices. Moreover, what if such a person would become head of some big box store and determine policy for all the stores under him? I don't think he has that right either.
kat
They are licensed by the state to fill medical prescriptions. The choice is not theirs to make. I find it difficult to understand how any RX professional can hope to get away with this.
Cindi
Quote from: Cindi Jones on December 04, 2007, 01:44:30 PM
They are licensed by the state to fill medical prescriptions. The choice is not theirs to make. I find it difficult to understand how any RX professional can hope to get away with this.
Is that true though? Now I'm wondering... I mean they are a retail store, so don't they have a right to sell - or not - whatever they want?
But the problem is that we're not talking about tables here though... a bigoted pharmacist could harm someone by not selling a medication a sick customer expected to be available. Isn't there some clause in the license requiring them to dispense drugs to anyone with a proper prescription?
~Kate~
Quote from: Kate on December 04, 2007, 01:59:49 PM
Is that true though? Now I'm wondering... I mean they are a retail store, so don't they have a right to sell - or not - whatever they want?
That's true as far as it goes. But once they have elected to dispense drugs, they become regulated by the state.
Most of you haven't picked up the ultimate issue here. Suppose I am a pharmacist working for Walgreens. All of a sudden I convert to Christian Science and no longer believe in treating people with anything other than prayer. So I go to my boss and tell him/her, "I don't believe in dispensing any medicine, but you have to go on paying me as a pharmacist because this is a matter of conscience." What is the employer supposed to do with this gold-brick?
Quote from: Lisbeth on December 04, 2007, 02:30:21 PM
That's true as far as it goes. But once they have elected to dispense drugs, they become regulated by the state
Does that regulation *require* them to dispense any drug requested by valid prescription?
I don't care if a particular employee decides they can't fill a prescription for whatever reason... as long as the store has another employee who WILL. IMHO, the customer deserves to walk out of there with the drugs they were prescribed. I'm hoping that as part of that licensing process, the store agrees to make a reasonable effort to fill all valid prescriptions. If the store wants to put up with a self-righteous employee, that's their choice. But the customer shouldn't have to suffer for it, especially when we're talking about health issues.
"Go to a store that treats your kind" just isn't acceptable.
Ultimately, this comes back upon the store itself. If the store starts making it's own rules as to what's appropriate for each customer (aside from drug interactions), then they've overstepped their bounds and should lose their license. I'd assume that the employee represents the store, which in turn due to being licensed represents the state... so if the state says it's legal to sell, the store either abides by the rules or loses it's privileges.
~Kate~
A Christian Scientist is concerned only with themselves and family. If non-believers choose to use chemicals to treat illness, that is not of their concern. The difference is that the believer pharmas think that by their actions they are being complicit with the act, and I think that on a moral and ethical level, they are correct in that assumption. I give the C.S. this much, they do live their faith. When they get sick, they go to god not a doctor. Its tragic more people of faith don't follow that practice.
As for the gold bricking pharma, no worries, I 'm sure Bush would quickly appoint him to head the National Institutes of Health, or the Center for Disease Control, after all, faith-based disease control is an idea who's time has come (and gone, I think we called it The Dark Ages).
Quote from: Kate on December 04, 2007, 02:49:50 PM
I don't care if a particular employee decides they can't fill a prescription for whatever reason... as long as the store has another employee who WILL. IMHO, the customer deserves to walk out of there with the drugs they were prescribed. I'm hoping that as part of that licensing process, the store agrees to make a reasonable effort to fill all valid prescriptions. If the store wants to put up with a self-righteous employee, that's their choice. But the customer shouldn't have to suffer for it, especially when we're talking about health issues. "Go to a store that treats your kind" just isn't acceptable.
Bear in mind that usually your prescription has already been filled and is waiting when you get there, you probably wouldn't even know.
Quote from: tekla on December 04, 2007, 02:51:11 PM
As for the gold bricking pharma, no worries, I 'm sure Bush would quickly appoint him to head the National Institutes of Health, or the Center for Disease Control, after all, faith-based disease control is an idea who's time has come (and gone, I think we called it The Dark Ages).
LOL!!!
Doctors swear the hypocrtatic oath... they swear to treat anyone, regardless of race, religion, colour, right, or wrong. they sideline thier conscience for the the medical welfare of thier patient....
pharmacists seem to want to play mini doctors at the moment, if they want to, they get LESS choice over who they cant treat...
America land of the free? yeah maybe, but the customers have thier right to thier prescribed medication, and personally, id LAUGH, if a fedex employee refused to give me a package because he didn't like my being Jewish..., id laugh, then sue his ass to Argentina and back...
pharamcists have no right deciding whats been decided. if they dont want to do the job, gfto...
R :police:
Quote from: Kate on December 04, 2007, 01:59:49 PM
Is that true though? Now I'm wondering... I mean they are a retail store, so don't they have a right to sell - or not - whatever they want?
Not in the State of Washington. All pharmacies are separate entities whether alone or in local or chain store. The store can't determine what the pharmacy will do or sell - that's the jurisdiction of the State Board of Pharmacy (https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/hpqa1/HPS4/Pharmacy/default.htm) as prescribed in the Washington Administration Code. The store can only set the hours they want it open for business. Even the employees who work with or dispense drugs are separate, not being just any employee, because of the status as a pharmacy.
The only loophole where they can refuse to fill a prescription is be out of stock, and even then they have to make a good faith effort to keep all drugs in stock, obtain the drug if out of stock or help the patients get the prescription filled at the pharmacy of the patients choice, including theirs. The pharmacists' issue to exclude some drugs requires the Board to interpret the rules to allow pharmacists to exempt some drugs or ask the legislature to amend the code to accommodate to pharmacist's personal morality. But as noted, it's the slippery slope only going downhill.