Bob Ellis has this to say:
How about a Jewish or Muslim grocery store owner being forced to sell pork. After all, don't we all (Christians, anyway) have a right to get pork without encumbrances, hardships, or even moral judgments?
It's funny he mentions that, because Target in the Mpls/St.Paul area has faced this very issue when Muslim cashiers refused to handle pork in their checkout lines.
What did Target do? THEY GAVE THOSE CASHIERS DIFFERENT JOBS.
I don't know why we should treat pharmacists who won't fill birth control prescriptions any differently.
25 comments:
Well, you're sort of missing the point. Remember that pharmacists aren't exactly like cashiers at grocery stores. In a lot of cases pharmacists are management, or even the owners, of the pharmacy.
If I owned a pharmacy and I wanted the people to work there to dispense birth control and they objected, I'd fire them (or possibly move them to another position if possible).
But if I owned a pharmacy and I objected to dispensing birth control, why should I have to?
And why should a Muslim who owns a grocery store have to sell pork?
What you're being is called "intolerant."
I honestly don't remember the last time I dealt with a pharmacist who wasn't working for someone. I don't know the actual numbers, but I would have to imagine a huge number of pharmacists are employees of Wal-mart, K-mart, Target, grocery stores, Walgreens, etc.
Furthermore, rob, South Dakota law doesn't give business owners the ability to shift pharmacists to other positions or fire them - business owners have to accommodate the religious objections of their pharmacists. So presumably you'd oppose the law we have in this state.
Anna, might I ask what position you think "Wal-mart, K-mart, Target, grocery stores, Walgreens, etc" ought to move these pharmacists to?
On the other hand, with these stores in mind, and the fact there is normally more than one pharmacist on duty at any given time -- why does the pharmacist with objects have to handle what he/she objects to? Why doesn't the other pharmacist handle those instead? What is so difficult about that?
Well, Carrie, because South Dakota law seems to indicate that pharmacists who object don't have to refer patients to other pharmacists who will fill their order.
and p.s., yes, I've experienced that personally in Sioux Falls, at a chain pharmacy.
Anna, here is what you do...
You get on the phone and you call whatever pharmacy and ask if they have any objection to filling your prescription. When they say no, which I am sure most will tell you, you go there and get it filled.
What a concept!
...unless of course, the person on the phone says they'll fill it, and my prescription is routed to the one pharmacist on staff who won't fill it, and who won't refer me to another pharmacist. (Again, yes, this has happened to me.)
Anna, that would mean that your experience is a matter totally different than the one we are discussing at the onset.
No, what happened to Anna (and she's not the only one) is exactly why South Dakota law needs to change. Anna is an intelligent, informed woman. I worry most about people who have no idea they're going to be refused until they get to the pharmacy counter and then don't know what to do. It's not like the asshat pharmacist is going to tell them.
K is exactly right. The pharmacist in question, just to continue the story, also originally refused to release the prescription so that it could be filled elsewhere. He was actually attempting to prevent me from getting the prescription filled, ever. And Carrie, the thing is, that's not actually different at all from what we're discussing. This happens more than you'd think when pharmacists think their conscience trumps mine.
Luckily, I had the time, money, and available transportation to get this matter settled. It took three days and a meeting with the chain's pharmacy manager in Sioux Falls to get the prescription transferred to another pharmacy.
Luckily, I had a supply of the pills already, and my order wasn't for a time-sensitive medication, such as Plan B.
There is no reason on Earth this should ever happen to me or anyone.
I still say we are talking TWO different things here!
If a pharmacy says it will fill specific prescriptions -- then it is the obligation of the pharmacy, by law, to see that those prescriptions are filled. However, this does not mean that the pharmacy, or the public, has a right to say that a "specific" pharmacist will fill the prescription he has objection to filling.
If a pharmacy says it will fill specific prescriptions -- then it is the obligation of the pharmacy, by law, to see that those prescriptions are filled.
Can you point us to the law, Carrie?
K...I'm not an attorney, nor do I suggest to be one. However, I would think this would fall under "false advertising", wouldn't you? It's one of the things I would be asking about, if I believed a business wasn't providing me with something they suggested they "do" provide.
Carrie,
So, your solution to this problem - which is that SD pharmacists do not have to fill prescriptions for whatever drug they have issues with (birth control, EC, hormones, Viagra, Premarin, anything made with animal ingredients - could be anything, as long as the pharmacist has a moral/religious objection to it) - is that pharmacies simply need to be upfront about what prescriptions they will and won't fill? What about people who live in areas where there are no pharmacies that will provide their doctor-prescribed medications?
Why would anyone become a pharmacist if s/he is unwilling to actually perform the job? This is like someone taking a job working with infants in a daycare but refusing to change diapers.
But what it really is, is a person deciding that their personal beliefs about what others should do are more important than those others' consciences - exactly as Anna has said. If you don't want to handle pork, then you don't work at the meat counter. And if you don't want to fill prescriptions, then you don't work at the pharmacy.
Should ERs work the same way? I ask, because a friend of mine showed up at Sioux Valley, bleeding and in shock, from a botched surgery, and the doctor on call WOULD NOT TREAT her because he disagreed with her lifestyle. Perhaps she should have called ahead to make sure that her life-threatening emergency would be treated?
But if I owned a pharmacy and I objected to dispensing birth control, why should I have to?
Because that's what pharmacies do. They fill prescriptions. It's none of their business what the prescription is for. That is not part of their job description.
Keep in mind that right now this debate is about EC and birth control and hormones. It could easily be about almost anything. What if you're on anti-depressants and your pharmacist is a Scientologist?
Carrie, I think you're confused about the current law and what the law does.
Currently, the law state:
"36-11-70. Refusal to dispense medication. No pharmacist may be required to dispense medication if there is reason to believe that the medication would be used to:
(1) Cause an abortion; or
(2) Destroy an unborn child as defined in subdivision 22-1-2(50A); or
(3)Cause the death of any person by means of an assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.
No such refusal to dispense medication pursuant to this section may be the basis for any claim for damages against the pharmacist or the pharmacy of the pharmacist or the basis for any disciplinary, recriminatory, or discriminatory action against the pharmacist."
The pharmacy is off the hook administratively, criminally, and civilly for any denial. Period. All SB 164 would do is exempt those who believe birth control is abortion from being covered under the law.
As far as "false advertising," I have yet to find anything in the South Dakota code that would govern such a situation relating to pharmacists, but even if it did, the above law would basically make it moot. If a pharmacy owner has an employee who suddenly decides not to fill certain prescriptions, there isn't much they can do.
Plain(s)feminist, your example of the ER incident with your friend, doesn't have a thing to do with the discussion I was having with Anna and K. A discussion that was about whether a "specific" pharmacist should be required to fill a prescription he has moral objections to filling.
As for your other comments...
In this day and age, it really doesn't matter how remote the area. Prescriptions can be delivered by mail, therefore, can be filled by tons of agreeable pharmacies. Might even be cheaper.
You say...
"But what it really is, is a person deciding that their personal beliefs about what others should do are more important than those others' consciences - exactly as Anna has said."
I guess that is, in your opinion, a one-sided belief?
plain(s)feminist, is it the pharmacist's business if he notes a doctor has inadvertently ordered meds that the person is highly allergic to?
Is it any of the pharmacist's business if he notes someone is getting an over-abundance of a specific med or meds that work against each other?
Are you saying that a pharmacist should put blinders on and just dish out the meds regardless, or otherwise, he is imposing himself upon the person?
K, as I said, I'm not an attorney, but I don't see how that law would make it moot if a pharmacy failed to provide prescription types it promised to fill. After all, if it isn't going to fill them, it shouldn't tell the public it will and then not.
On the other hand, I still say that a pharmacist, and even and entire pharmacy, should have the right to say they will not fill specific types of prescriptions, such as what we are discussing.
Anna, I forgot to mention.. If the pharmacist didn't release your prescription back to you, that is totally different than a pharmacist simply refusing to fill it based upon his moral/religious objections.
I think pharmacists who refuse to dispense certain medications should be upfront about their refusal, and should refer patients elsewhere for their prescriptions to be filled. I really don't think that's too much to ask. As a customer, I think I'm entitled to that information while I'm making my decision about where to have my prescription filled.
The problem with South Dakota law as it stands is that the patient is entitled to no information about what they're getting into. All the power is with the pharmacist.
And Carrie, I don't think the ER situation that PF mentioned is really all that different than what we're discussing. It's just an ER doctor exercising his conscience, right? Which he should have the right to do, right?
Anna, I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about then. I agree that the pharmacist should be upfront that he/she is not going to fill the prescription because of his/her personal beliefs.
As for the ER scenario... if that was a life-threatening situation and a doctor refused treatment -- that is an entirely different matter.
I'm not sure what to say other than to point you to the law, Carrie. The law was written by citizen legislators and meant to be read and understood by citizens -- it doesn't require a law degree.
You said:
If a pharmacy says it will fill specific prescriptions -- then it is the obligation of the pharmacy, by law, to see that those prescriptions are filled.
This is not true. 36-11-70 exempts them from any such requirement. If you do think they should be obligated by law to see that those prescriptions are filled, you have issues with the law, just as we do.
plain(s)feminist, is it the pharmacist's business if he notes a doctor has inadvertently ordered meds that the person is highly allergic to?
Is it any of the pharmacist's business if he notes someone is getting an over-abundance of a specific med or meds that work against each other?
Are you saying that a pharmacist should put blinders on and just dish out the meds regardless, or otherwise, he is imposing himself upon the person?
Um...all of these examples are actually examples of a pharmacist doing his or her job. What we're talking about in the case of so-called "moral" objections to filling a random prescription has nothing to with a pharmacist's job. I suspect that you have no problem with this because the objections have so far been around birth control and EC. Wait until animal rights activists don't fill prescriptions that were tested on animals. How will you feel about that? Or when Scientologists don't fill prescriptions for anti-depressants? Will you still stand by your position?
As for the ER scenario... if that was a life-threatening situation and a doctor refused treatment -- that is an entirely different matter..
In your view, then, it's ok for a doctor to refuse to treat someone if that doctor disagrees with that patient's lifestyle, as long as it's not a life or death situation?
In this day and age, it really doesn't matter how remote the area. Prescriptions can be delivered by mail, therefore, can be filled by tons of agreeable pharmacies. Might even be cheaper.
Think about this. Why would you assume this would work for EC, which is most effective within the first 72 hours?! Much less any drugs that need to be taken quickly.
Post a Comment