Prescription For Trouble

C

cattyfan

Guest
I would ask that people read this carefully before responding. There is an analogy toward the end that I think is especially pertinent.


Prescription for Trouble​

What if your doctor says you need a medication, but your pharmacist refuses to provide it? This situation is being discussed across the country—Does a pharmacist have the right to decide what should be dispensed to a patient?

Before I delve into this topic, let me clarify my own beliefs. Some people have misconstrued my viewpoint as being tantamount to tacit approval of a catalog of transgressions. I’ll be blunt: I don’t approve of promiscuity, fornication, adultery, abortion, or homosexuality. I have family members and friends near and dear to me who have participated in one or more of these immoral behaviors. By some people’s definitions of sin I’ve probably occasionally behaved questionably as well. I understand perfectly the idea of not doing something because it is contrary to values. I want everyone to be clear: I am not supporting the violation God’s Word in any fashion.
That being said, I don’t accept the notion the pharmacist should have veto power for my prescribed medications.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich recently signed an order prohibiting pharmacists from refusing to fill prescriptions. Already two pharmacists have filed suit to overturn the order and they’ve requested a preliminary injunction allowing them, until the legal case is settled, to turn away prescriptions they deem ‘contrary to their morals and religious beliefs.”

The issue most often cited in the news media, or should I say the medication mentioned most often, is emergency contraception, sometimes called the ‘morning-after pill’ and frequently confused with RU486. Emergency contraception is chemically not the same thing, and there is considerable grey area as to where it falls in the realm of preventing conception versus causing a miscarriage.

If RU486, which is used for abortions, was the sole concern, I might be inclined to side with the pharmacists. I would even be open for debate on emergency contraception. The problem is there are other prescriptions going unfilled, but those aren’t being as widely recounted. It’s easier to profile the dispute as another pro-life quarrel. It’s better copy and allows the liberals to squawk about women’s rights, and if the left-wingers win the fight, no other medications will be in dispute. But by severely limiting the scope, the crux of the disagreement has been lost.

The debate about allowing pharmacists to follow their individual conscience isn’t, or at least shouldn’t be, about “reproductive rights.” It’s about privacy. It’s about the right of the patient to follow the medical advice and treatment prescribed by their physician.
In the last few years, virtually everyone has been asked to review and sign a document detailing the HEPA laws. They are the rules requiring medical personnel and related entities to maintain patient secrecy. Records can’t be sent to insurance companies without permission…pharmaceutical companies can’t purchase patient lists for mass propaganda mailings…in theory, a nurse can’t stand in earshot of the waiting room discussing a patient’s lab results. It isn’t a perfect system, but it’s improving.

I remember signing the HEPA form before picking up medications at Walgreen’s years ago, so I know the pharmacy is supposed to adhere to these rules as well. I also know they sometimes fail, as the pharmacy technician at the counter has been known to say quite clearly, “Your name? Your address? And Mrs. Eddy, do you have any questions today about your prescription for (fill in the blank)?” That’s not exactly guarding Mrs. Jones and Mr. Smith from learning my business. As I said, it isn’t a perfect system.

However, the HEPA laws in part reinforce my argument that pharmacists have no right to overrule my doctor’s assigned treatment. It was bad enough when the snotty little nurse working in the North Carolina insurance company office who had never laid eyes on me or my medical file tried to tell me that she had a more thorough knowledge of what I needed than did my doctor. (By the way, she lost that fight.) I shouldn’t have to defend my medical therapy to the pharmacist. I understand pharmacists have extensive education, but they are not doctors and they are not privy to a patient’s complete medical or personal history.

It’s not just RU486 that is causing the controversy. Some pharmacists are refusing to dispense ‘birth control pills’ and AIDS medications. Many of these pharmacists claim dispensing these meds “violates their beliefs.” Here’s where things start to get slippery.

Some objections are based on the pharmacist being pro-life while other opposition is to the patient’s lifestyle. There is a flaw in both protestations.

Let’s first examine a refusal based on being pro-life. ‘The Pill’ is a misnomer. So-called birth control pills are not always prescribed solely for preventing conception. The medication is comprised of hormones and is given out for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to, hormonal imbalance, excessive or dangerous monthly bleeding, and irregular or painful periods. The patient may not even be sexually active, and the medication in question is vital to her health. Should a patient who is holding a prescription for ‘birth control’ have to discuss with the pharmacist her “feminine difficulties” before getting the prescription necessary to alleviate her medical infirmities?

The second objection is lifestyle. The woman holding the prescription for birth control would now be asked to defend why she is using something to keep her from getting pregnant. Is she married or single? Why doesn’t she want children? Would pregnancy be a health risk for her? How big of a risk? These topics are not something a complete stranger has any reason to know.

Let’s turn the birth control conundrum on its ear: will a woman taking fertility drugs have to endure an inquisition about being able to afford multiple children if they should result? If there is more than one baby, is she likely to abort one for the “safety” of the other? Is she married…single…how did she become infertile?

What about the person with over-the-counter contraceptive creams and condoms? Should they be quizzed about how and with whom those items will be used?

Similar objections to lifestyle are being employed by several pharmacists to defend their choice to not dispensing AIDS treatments to patients. The patients are homosexual and the pharmacists don’t support that. What they are saying, essentially, is gays deserve suffering and death because they are sinners. Last I checked, we were all sinners. How does refusing these people treatment bring them to Christ before they die?

Theoretically, a patient could be expected to explain to the pharmacist how they contracted HIV to make sure the cause meets with the pharmacist’s approval. Will the pharmacist refuse to treat the needle-sharing addict, or even the child born to an infected mother because they inherited ramifications of their mother’s particular sin? Will the pharmacist then be asking everyone with herpes (even “cold sores”) to tell exactly how they were infected? Fornicators and adulterers are out of luck getting their medications, but those infected through casual contact or lying partners form a line over here—You can have your prescription after filling out this brief questionnaire.

If a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription based on their point of view, the door is opened for a host of controversial decisions. Perhaps the patient with emphysema shouldn’t be treated. Smoking a pack a day really makes the ailment the patient’s fault, no different than the consequence of catching an STD that someone indulging in promiscuity faces. A patient with high cholesterol could be denied their drug. Their abhorrent eating habits caused the problem, and the pharmacist may believe it’s wrong to consume certain foods. Since the patient chose the unhealthy lifestyle, they should suffer the negative results.

Unfortunately the pharmacists who have already been documented as objectors for varying reasons have proven I’m not being an alarmist. These professionals have defied the dictum of The American Pharmacists Association which states the following:

“Serving our patients and helping them make the best use of their medication is our priority, which is why our organizations support the two part policy stressing the need to assure patient access to legally prescribed, clinically appropriate therapy in a timely manner when a pharmacist steps away from working with a prescription based on personal beliefs. Pharmacists must not use their position to berate, belittle or lecture their patients—our organizations oppose such action.”


The guidelines go on to say a pharmacist who declines to dispense medication due to personal beliefs is required to refer the patient to an accessible facility that will fill the prescription. The pharmacists who have refused to distribute medications in most cases have not done this, thereby blocking access, and in some cases (such as with the prescriptions for AIDS patients) causing harm, all in the name of their values.

The pharmacist who arbitrarily decides who receives physician-prescribed treatment and who doesn’t not only thumbs their nose at their own association, they are abdicating their responsibility and role in the health system. Additionally, I would question if they are acting in accordance to God’s will or their own.

Think of it this way: a pharmacist who refuses to dispense medications normally sold through the pharmacy which employs them would be like someone getting a job as a check-out person at the grocery store and then refusing to scan the chicken and beef because they are a vegetarian. They knew going in the store had a meat department, but they won’t handle the products because consuming animals is against their beliefs.

I’m not advocating these apothecaries abandon their morals. I would suggest they seek a more appropriate venue in which to practice. For example, a pharmacy in a conservative Christian hospital would allow them to follow their heart without infringing on the patients’ rights. But they need to make sure the patients who seek treatment are immediately aware of the position of the personnel in the facility.

There are times when finding a pharmacy reflective of the pharmacist’s beliefs may be difficult. But it’s no more of a strain than demanding a patient to seek another pharmacy. Not every town has a Walgreen’s every six blocks.

Until an equitable solution is reached there need to be precautions taken so the patients receive the care deemed necessary by their physicians, and not have it second-guessed by someone who isn’t, and shouldn’t be, completely informed about the rationale behind the treatment. It’s called doctor/patient confidentiality for a reason.

—Berta Collins Eddy
Almost Normal Publications 2005
 
Last edited:

wholearmor

Member
I ain't reading that whole thing, but the part I did read prompted me to answer like this. One reason I'm not a Pharmacist is because I'd have to refuse to perform part of my duties and that would be correctly unacceptable to my employer and he should have the right to let me go.
 
C

cattyfan

Guest
wholearmor said:
I ain't reading that whole thing, but the part I did read prompted me to answer like this. One reason I'm not a Pharmacist is because I'd have to refuse to perform part of my duties and that would be correctly unacceptable to my employer and he should have the right to let me go.


this would be the part of the article most applicable to your response:



The pharmacist who arbitrarily decides who receives physician-prescribed treatment and who doesn’t not only thumbs their nose at their own association, they are abdicating their responsibility and role in the health system. Additionally, I would question if they are acting in accordance to God’s will or their own.

Think of it this way: a pharmacist who refuses to dispense medications normally sold through the pharmacy which employs them would be like someone getting a job as a check-out person at the grocery store and then refusing to scan the chicken and beef because they are a vegetarian. They knew going in the store had a meat department, but they won’t handle the products because consuming animals is against their beliefs.

I’m not advocating these apothecaries abandon their morals. I would suggest they seek a more appropriate venue in which to practice. For example, a pharmacy in a conservative Christian hospital would allow them to follow their heart without infringing on the patients’ rights. But they need to make sure the patients who seek treatment are immediately aware of the position of the personnel in the facility.

 

Free-Agent Smith

New member
I’m not advocating these apothecaries abandon their morals. I would suggest they seek a more appropriate venue in which to practice. For example, a pharmacy in a conservative Christian hospital would allow them to follow their heart without infringing on the patients’ rights. But they need to make sure the patients who seek treatment are immediately aware of the position of the personnel in the facility.
Don't abandon your morals but leave them checked at the door. You could just go work some where else where other Christians work. You can't descrimminate against our customers, you stupid Christian. And since they have cash and you can be replaced, you have better let them know that you are retarded enough to have morals. Oh yeah and your uncle is a monkey.


Can I call that "artistic license"?
 

Free-Agent Smith

New member
I’m not advocating these apothecaries abandon their morals. I would suggest they seek a more appropriate venue in which to practice.
If it is suggested that Christian morals need to seek more appropriate venues, do we need to make sure there are job openings specifically for them so they won't offend anyone?
And why should a Christian have to put heir morals on the back burner?
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Free-Agent Smith said:
If it is suggested that Christian morals need to seek more appropriate venues, do we need to make sure there are job openings specifically for them so they won't offend anyone?
Perhaps because the society in which these people are living is not run on your version of "Christian morals" that would include denying legal health care services to holders of legitimate perscriptions from medical staff.

And why should a Christian have to put heir morals on the back burner?
They shouldn't, but no one requires that anyone be a pharmacist, so far as I've heard. They can always change their profession if it conflicts with their belief system. I did, when I left the ministry. It worked out fine for me and my family.
 

Free-Agent Smith

New member
Zakath said:
Perhaps because the society in which these people are living is not run on your version of "Christian morals" that would include denying legal health care services to holders of legitimate perscriptions from medical staff.
I'm not the one looking for a job because my employer has a problem with my beliefs. My employer knows that they can't fire me for my beliefs.
They shouldn't, but no one requires that anyone be a pharmacist, so far as I've heard. They can always change their profession if it conflicts with their belief system. I did, when I left the ministry. It worked out fine for me and my family.

An example of what I see at this point:
A guy goes to college to become a pharmacist. What a great relief, seven years of college over with. Oh but now he has the problem of getting a job. There isn't a single Christian oriented pharmacy for 50 miles. At this time he can't afford to move. Oh well time to go flip burgers.




Don't get me wrong. I understand the perspective you are taking here. I just get the idea that this is going to set it up to where the employers can refuse Christians jobs.
 
C

cattyfan

Guest
It's a matter of finding a position that allows you to maintain your morals while doing your job. I know a doctor who started her own practice because she is pro-life and the hospital she previously worked for doesn't support that position.

If a pharmacist goes to work for Walgreen's or Osco, they know that pharmacy dispenses birth control (which, as the article points out, is not the only thing those drugs are used for.) If they have a conflict, they should work elsewhere.

It would be like a waitress getting a job at a resturant and bar, then refusing to serve alcohol because she doesn't approve of drinking. She knew going in what the job would entail.

Or a lab assistant getting a job somewhere that uses animals in experiments and then refusing to do the research because he doesn't approve of animal experimentation.

Or how about someone who gets a job at a Christian church, then announces they are a Satanist and people who come to the office will receive answers in line with the Satanist's beliefs. Obviously the Satanist shouldn't be working there...it would be an inappropriate job for someone who isn't a believer in Christ.

There are positions at hospitals and clinics available to people who don't want to dispense certain meds. And as the article points out, what meds will be next on the list of objections?

It's not a matter of "checking your morals." It's a matter of finding a position that is in line with your morals.
 
C

cattyfan

Guest
Free-Agent Smith said:
I'm not the one looking for a job because my employer has a problem with my beliefs. My employer knows that they can't fire me for my beliefs.


An example of what I see at this point:
A guy goes to college to become a pharmacist. What a great relief, seven years of college over with. Oh but now he has the problem of getting a job. There isn't a single Christian oriented pharmacy for 50 miles. At this time he can't afford to move. Oh well time to go flip burgers.




Don't get me wrong. I understand the perspective you are taking here. I just get the idea that this is going to set it up to where the employers can refuse Christians jobs.

they aren't refusing to give the Christian the job...the Christian is refusing to do the job for which they were hired.


And what about the patient in that region which has no other pharmacy for 50 miles?
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Free-Agent Smith said:
I'm not the one looking for a job because my employer has a problem with my beliefs. My employer knows that they can't fire me for my beliefs.
If your beliefs, whatever they might be, keep you from fulfilling the terms of your employment, you can be terminated in most states.

For example, if you are a phlebotomist and convert to Adventism, you cannot refuse to draw blood or handle blood and still remain a phlebotomist. If you cannot do your job, you can be terminated for non-performance of your duties.

An example of what I see at this point:
A guy goes to college to become a pharmacist. What a great relief, seven years of college over with. Oh but now he has the problem of getting a job. There isn't a single Christian oriented pharmacy for 50 miles. At this time he can't afford to move. Oh well time to go flip burgers.
Sounds like the fellow should have done his career research before he spent seven years (and an undisclosed quantity of someone's money) in school to prepare for a career where he cannot find a job... :doh:

It's called due diligence and personal responsibilty.

Of course he could always endure a bit of inconvenience and move to someplace he can find a job. :car:

Don't get me wrong. I understand the perspective you are taking here. I just get the idea that this is going to set it up to where the employers can refuse Christians jobs.
Certainly it might. Just like Christians, or Muslims, or Jews in many venues can already refuse to hire people who have religiously offensive tatoos or whose personal life violates their moral standards. It's merely applying what already exists to Christians instead of exempting them.
 

Thia

New member
Firstly, may I say that I think Berta Eddy is a living doll and I love her writing style.

Secondly, refusing someone medication because of a pharmacist's personal beliefs is wrong and against medical ethics. I am friends with a Catholic nun who needs to take birth control pills because she experiences hormonal difficulties and it is the one method that seems to work with her. Who is to say she shouldn't benefit from that particular prescription because it MIGHT be used for birth control? Certainly not the pharmacist!

It's a luxury to be able to work for a company that fits all of one's moral and ethical needs, but it CAN be done. I left a huge corporation because I disagreed with the ethics of some of their legal tactics, as well as some of their 'best practices'. I took a huge pay cut in order to work for a religious institution, which suited me perfectly. When this institution for which I worked refused to dispense condoms in the school store and the dorm bathrooms, I applauded their decision. When the institution's student health clinic (located at a Catholic hospital), refused to refer pregnant students to abortion clinics or proffer birth control, I applauded that as well. When some of the non-Christian law professors insisted on removing the crosses on the classroom walls, I complained. You know, if you're not happy with your workplace environment, there ARE other options!

Ciao.
 

billwald

New member
If there is a demand for these drugs then a supply will develop. Next thing there will be a law requiring that grocery stores sell chicken noodle soup.
 

Free-Agent Smith

New member
cattyfan said:
they aren't refusing to give the Christian the job...the Christian is refusing to do the job for which they were hired.


And what about the patient in that region which has no other pharmacy for 50 miles?
Like I said before I understand the position that I have argued against. Personally I agree with you.
If I hired someone that couldn't do the job I hired them for I would fire them. This is somewhat of a topic of conversation in my employee retention meetings. Honestly I used this as a way to hear other arguements against the "oppressed". I do not believe that most Christians would put themselves in a job that was against their moral/religious beliefs if they have other options.
 

billwald

New member
If the patient doesn't have a pharmacy within 50 miles she can buy by phone or web. Conventional "emergencies" don't require morally questionable drugs. An intelligent person who normally has extra marital sexual encounters should purchase her abortion supplies in advance. I suspect that most hospitals have the stuff in their rape kits. If she has her wing ding on Christmas eve does she expect her family doctor to write her a perscription on Christmas day?

Second, some people have moral scruples that disqualify them from some jobs. Should a person accept a job in a cafe and then refuse to serve beer? How is this morally or legally different than a pharmacy job? I have the same problem with universal smoking bans.
 

jeremiah

BANNED
Banned
Ru486 is a pill with the purpose of killing a baby. It should be illegal. Of course it is not, because we Christians lost the battle to keep abortion illegal. Any pharmacist who does not believe in abortion, should not dispense that pill for any reason, any store policy, or any law. He should be willing to risk losing his job, for what he-she believes in . There is a cost to our beliefs, in a world which has fewer and fewer each year. They have a choice, just like the doctor who prescribed it, and the lady who wants the pill. He can potentially save lives, and lose his job, or he can compromise his beliefs, in order to provide for his family ? Tough call!
Personally I would applaud anyone who lost their job for such beliefs. But my blessing and $4.00, will only get you a cup of coffee at Fourbucks.
The thousands of Christian public school teachers who stopped bringing Bibles to school, and or praying with students, do not get my blessing or approval. I look down at them, just as I look down at myself, each time I have compromised myself, or failed to speak the name of God, or quote the Bible, at certain times in my life, when it was definately called for.
If you have Christian moral beliefs, it is going to cost you something, in this country today! I do not believe that there should be any law compelling a Pharmacist to dispense RU 486. If there is, then people can fire him, if they choose. To me it is that simple.
As far as the other drugs mentioned in the article, to me it would seem preposterous that a pharmacist would deny aids drugs. That person should try to open their own pharmacy.
The birth control pills are questionable, because as was pointed out, even celibate women take them for hormonal reasons. A pharmacist unwilling to dispense them for purely birth control reasons, should find a job where they are not stocked, or again, they could risk losing their jobs for what they believe in.
For a real Christian to be a Pharmacist, is a moral minefield which is difficult to traverse. Almost all of the teenage school killers have been on the psycho tropic? drugs. Also many of the father- mother massacres of their own children involve the same drugs.
There are many good and safe drugs, but the list of questionable prescriptions increases every year!
 
C

cattyfan

Guest
jeremiah said:
A pharmacist unwilling to dispense them for purely birth control reasons, should find a job where they are not stocked, or again, they could risk losing their jobs for what they believe in.

a patient shouldn't have to explain to the pharmacist why a medication has been prescribed for them.
 

jeremiah

BANNED
Banned
cattyfan said:
a patient shouldn't have to explain to the pharmacist why a medication has been prescribed for them.

I agree! I was not suggesting that they should interrogate each person at their counter to see whether or not their use of a birth control pill is moral or not. I can see how it sounded like that was what I meant.
Rather I think it more practical to make a decision whether one is going to dispense them to everyone, or to no one. There can be acceptable uses for birth control pills that do not end in the killing of a baby. Therefore it is a very tough call. The only example I can think of that is close, is before background checks, you sold guns to almost anyone with the cash. You did this knowing that 99% ? of your buyers were not going to ever murder someone with the gun that you sold them, but potentially some one will.
You don' know, and shouldn't have to know, what a person is going to use a birth control pill for. For RU486 you know with virtual certainty what that pill is going to do!
 

Lovejoy

Active member
cattyfan said:
a patient shouldn't have to explain to the pharmacist why a medication has been prescribed for them.
Is this true? I don't think it is. Pharmacists are considered "Learned-Intermediaries" and are held responsible (legally liable) for far more information that most people realize. That includes whether or not a drug is appropriate in consideration of all factors concerning the client, ie pregnancy, possible pregnancy, current controlled or non-controlled medical conditions, and whether or not the drug is being used "off-label" for a condition other than what it was intended for. How can a pharmacist determine safe or therapeutic dosage and appropriate indications for use without all applicable health information? In truth, if a person refuses to disclose information about their condition, a pharmacist may be obliged to refuse to dispense, and at least would be required to consult the prescribing physician.
 
C

cattyfan

Guest
Lovejoy said:
Is this true? I don't think it is. Pharmacists are considered "Learned-Intermediaries" and are held responsible (legally liable) for far more information that most people realize. That includes whether or not a drug is appropriate in consideration of all factors concerning the client, ie pregnancy, possible pregnancy, current controlled or non-controlled medical conditions, and whether or not the drug is being used "off-label" for a condition other than what it was intended for. How can a pharmacist determine safe or therapeutic dosage and appropriate indications for use without all applicable health information? In truth, if a person refuses to disclose information about their condition, a pharmacist may be obliged to refuse to dispense, and at least would be required to consult the prescribing physician.

Patients don't always get the details correct. If the pharmacist has a question, it should be directed to the physician...especially with the privacy laws now in place. And because a patient won't always know about medication interactions or warnings because of other medical conditions.
 
Top