Should pharmacists be allowed...

[The Shadow]

...to refuse to dispense things like birth control, EC and RU-486 if it's against their religious beliefs?

For the last few years, we've been hearing a lot of stories about such pharmacists, especially in the U.S. And the now the Louisiana state legislature wants to pass legislation that would protect them from losing their jobs over it.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/...ap6445339.html

Out of all the people who wait tables for a living I wonder how many of them are vegetarians? My guess is quite a few. What do these folk do, I wonder, if they have a customer who orders something like steak or ribs -- "I'm sorry but I'm afraid I can't do that because I'm a vegetarian and therefore by serving you meat I would be going against my personal beliefs."

Yeah, I'm sure that would go over real well.

I think it's pretty obvious where I stand on this issue. If they're not prepared to do their godamned jobs, they need to find another line of work. It's as simple as that.

[AdminAssistant]

A pharmacist is there to provide his patients/customers with medicine that they need that has been prescribed by a doctor. It's the doctor's decision whether or not the patient gets the medicine, not the pharmacist.

[Nyoibo]

I don't have a problem with them not filling the prescription, as long as there's someone else that the patient can get the medication from, otherwise I'm gonna work in a pharmacy and claim I'm a Practical Darwinist.

[AFPheonix]

I absolutely despise when I get a pharmacist in that is tweaked by Plan B or diabetic syringes. Thank god it's over the counter now, I can just elbow on by and sell it.

I'm of the opinion that if you want to be a stinker about dispensing birth control, then you get to start your own business that can cater to people who think like you. If you work for a chain store, then you damn well dispense the orders that come to you, unless of course the doctor wrote the prescription badly, the patient is getting too many of something from other doctors/pharmacies, forged script, etc. If you are the only game in town, then you get to dispense the drug whether you think someone's a hussy or not.

It absolutely fries me that this is always over birth control or some other med targeted at women. It's never ED drugs, it's never over drugs that mediate things like cholesterol that would be alleviated by healthier living. Where's the militant hippies who refuse a morbidly obese person their Lipitor because they have a moral problem with enabling someone who overeats? No, it's always puckered conservatives fixated on other people's genitals.

Hell, I've seen some elderly women getting BC pills lately, they're using them as hormone replacement therapy.

Sorry about my rant, it's partly due to one pharmacist that we have work at least once a week who is a goddamn religious spaz.

[Rubystars]

I don't have a problem with birth control or emergency contraception because I think these medicines prevent abortions. I do have a problem with abortion medicine and I would not hand something out like that.

I think if someone's religious beliefs are against something they shouldn't be forced to dispense it. If the manager of a pharmacy decides to dispense a particular medication, they should have another employee that can do it so the person with moral or religious objections doesn't have to. Usually when I go to a pharmacy there is more than one employee working there.

I would be extremely upset if I had been raped and then a pharmacist refused to give me emergency contraception, so I understand both sides of the issue. I just think both sides can be accomodated without anyone's rights being violated.

[Peppergirl]

It's very simple:

If you have religious convictions that would prevent you from doing any aspect of your job, then you should seek another profession.

I'll make the comparison like this:

I'm a travel agent. Back in the days where I did vacation and leisure travel (as opposed to corporate/emergency travel that i do now), we had several clients who booked 'gay-friendly' cruises and packages.

That said, if I were anti-gay (which I'm definitely not), would it be okay for me to refuse to book these packages? Or to pawn them off on a co-worker based upon my personal beliefs? The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT.

It would be my responsibility to seek alternate employment. A job in which my personal beliefs would not prevent me from doing MY JOB to the best of my ability.


How in the world this is even a question is BEYOND me.

[AFPheonix]

I don't have a problem with birth control or emergency contraception because I think these medicines prevent abortions. I do have a problem with abortion medicine and I would not hand something out like that.

I think if someone's religious beliefs are against something they shouldn't be forced to dispense it. If the manager of a pharmacy decides to dispense a particular medication, they should have another employee that can do it so the person with moral or religious objections doesn't have to. Usually when I go to a pharmacy there is more than one employee working there.

I would be extremely upset if I had been raped and then a pharmacist refused to give me emergency contraception, so I understand both sides of the issue. I just think both sides can be accomodated without anyone's rights being violated.

There may be more than one employee, but except for very busy pharmacies, there's only one pharmacist on duty at a time, with perhaps a small overlap in the middle of the day. Techs cannot get a script ready without a pharmacist checking our work.
If it's a small town, there may only be one pharmacist on duty all day, period. Those pharmacists' customers are the ones we need to keep in mind whenever this debate comes up. If you don't live in a large population center, it's not like you can go to the next pharmacy down the road when the next town over is very far away and you need the drug pretty quickly.

Further, pills used as abortifacients like Misoprostol are also used for other purposes as well. How can a pharmacist make a call not to dispense a drug that, say, causes contractions if they think they're using it to abort when in fact it's also used after a woman has miscarried and they're making sure all tissue is out so she doesn't go septic?
That's the thing. It's not like your diagnosis is written on the script typically. We don't know very often what you're using the drug for specifically, although pharmacists will often ask during counselling so they can help counsel you better on how to use the med properly. Pharmacists who don't dispense based on reasons other than patient welfare are absolutely engaging in malpractice in my opinion.

[Rubystars]

You're making a good point there AFP that someone might need a particular medicine for a legitimate reason, such as clearing out a miscarriage, and there might not be anyone else who can fill the prescription. I think in those situations when the pharmacist doesn't know, they shouldn't assume that it will be used for nefarious purposes. If a pill has only one use, then I think maybe the pharmacy manager should always make sure the person on staff is able to dispense it if they choose to carry that medicine.

[AFPheonix]

That's expensive and not particularly expedient, especially in the case of the aformentioned small pharmacies in small towns where there is only one pharmacist.

Besides, if it's something like RU-486 that we're talking about, that is more often than not dispensed in a clinical setting because patients need to be monitored. It's not like you get sent home with the pill and a roll of paper towels or something like that.

[Rubystars]

I don't understand why pharmacists object to contraception or emergency contraception. I would like to meet someone who doesn't want to dispense these medications and talk to them about it a little bit. Here's what I would ask them.

1. Is it better for a woman to use contraception and prevent an unwanted pregnancy, or is it better for the woman to get pregnant and then have an abortion which is much more dangerous for the woman (and of course it kills the developing child)?

2. If your religion objects to members of your religion using contraception, does that necessarily apply to members of other faiths? (sort of like how Muslims aren't allowed to draw pictures of Mohammed, but other groups should be able to if they want to).

3. Why would you not want to protect a rape victim from pregnancy and give her Emergency Contraception? It doesn't abort the baby. If a conceptus has implanted, then it will not abort it, but if it hasn't implanted yet, technically pregnancy has not begun.

4. Are you aware that most conceptus do not implant anyway if nature is left to its course?

It'd be different for me if someone deliberately took a human embryo and killed it, but in this case you're just preventing pregnancy from developing and merely increasing the already high odds that a conceptus won't implant. EC is not abortion.

[AFPheonix]

Because some numbnuts completely ignore the reams of data out on birth control and instead state that it and Plan B causes abortion.
That's why. They feel that conception is part of God's plan and they don't want to be "interfering" with it.

Never mind the fact that we interfere with "God's Plan" every time we fill any kind of script. That ibuprofen we just handed out? we just interefered with God's plan for inflammation to cause pain and swelling on that patient.
Furosemide? It was God's will that that person had high blood pressure and swollen ankles.

The pharmacists that hold these opinions go through years of school, tons of biology, and they still manage to hold onto their beliefs. The stupidity is staggering.

[Rubystars]

I wouldn't necessarily call them numbnuts. I respect it if someone feels queasy about selling something. I just think that if they feel that way, that the pharmacy should make sure that there is a pharmacist there that can take care of the patient.

As for the years of biology, here's what baffles me. I can't understand how some people can go through all those biology classes and still emerge as young earth creationists. Those are the ones who don't make any sense at all to me.

[AFPheonix]

If they were honest about why they didn't want to dispense, then fine. I could respect that. I simply cannot respect a professional who ignores repeated studies that proves their stances wrong. It's intentional ignorance.

That pharmacist I was ranting about earlier is a young earth creationist, and an evangelical. She's been bringing books for people to read >.<
If I see her bring anything again, I swear, I am going to buy a copy of The God Delusion and leave it for her.

[Rubystars]

Maybe you could read each other's books and then discuss them, but I don't know if she'd be able to do that or not. I used to debate with creationists in a chat room a lot and one of the things I learned is that most of them don't have the vaguest idea what evolution is or how it works. That's why they're so against it.

Transitional fossils like Lucy and Acanthostega were what really convinced me, in addition to adaptive radiation. I was really happy because I got to see Lucy when she was in Houston and I left a note in the book at the Museum where guests could leave comments.

[Slytovhand]

TBH, I'm a little conflicted on this issue, because it basically gets into the nuts and bolts of what it is to be a human being living in a society with other human beings - what do you have to give up (and keep) as an individual to fit in with the others.

Do we have the basic right to choose to align our actions with our beliefs, or should they be over-ridden - should we go against our basic beliefs to appease others?

I can understand a person deciding on a career to help other people, and choose to do so by being knowledgable about drugs and their effects, and get themselves qualified to dispense them (and be sought for advice, etc), but still hold onto particular beliefs and attitudes. After all, is it so different for a Christian/Muslim/Zen Monk to want to help people get closer to XYZ to help sort out their lives (cos it's done great for them and the people they know), and thus become a qualified counsellor...and push people in that direction (subtley, of course).

We all have our particular beliefs, and we all act in certain idiosyncratic ways based on those beliefs - and they all effect people around us... (including the belief that using various drugs on the body is ok...)...

So - dunno! Not sure how I feel about it... Should the pharmacist have to give up a career because it contradicts other people's beliefs?? Should the people change their beliefs to coincide with the pharmacists??