Should pharmacists be allowed...

[Rubystars]

Ok thanks AFP. So now the question is, how would you feel about it if a pharmacist refused to fill that prescription on a moral basis? The other medicines we talked about have purposes meant to help the health of the people who are receiving them, or prevent problems (such as preventing an unwanted pregnancy from occurring). Suicide drugs are another aspect to this altogether, because they are meant to end the life of the patient, not improve the patient's quality of life.

[AFPheonix]

I could understand why a pharmacist would be squicked about dispensing that. I personally, although I am a tech, would not have a problem, as I stand firmly behind the the assisted suicide law we have in our state. I believe that letting someone end their life peacefully can be better than allowing them to suffer for no reason.

However, since dispensing a lethal dose of meds can be viewed as harming the patient, I could understand why a pharmacist would choose to hand the hardcopy back. That is quite different from a pharmacist refusing to fill something that isn't designed to kill the patient, like birth control.

[BroomJockey]

Suicide drugs are another aspect to this altogether, because they are meant to end the life of the patient, not improve the patient's quality of life.

I'd say, there's people who argue it is improving the quality of life of the patient, if they're to the point where a doctor is prescribing suicide pills. But moving on to the refusal argument...

That is quite different from a pharmacist refusing to fill something that isn't designed to kill the patient, like birth control.

I'd say it isn't different. The argument usually is "I think Birth Control is against the will of God," or some such similar, while against suicide could be "it's interferring in God's plan." Very similar. Same rules apply. If a pharmacist doesn't want to dispense a drug which is legally prescribed, then they're not doing their jobs if they're not either getting another pharmacist to fill it, or tell the person where they can get it filled. If they're not doing their job, for any reason, they should be fired. If I told my manager back at the theatre that I refused to play a film with drug-use featured in it, I'd be fired on the spot. Why should they get to pick and choose what aspects of their job they fulfil? They knew what the job entailed before they ever took it.

[Greenday]

I'd say it isn't different. The argument usually is "I think Birth Control is against the will of God," or some such similar, while against suicide could be "it's interferring in God's plan." Very similar. Same rules apply.

I'd argue that God wants me on birth control then so get with it already.

[AFPheonix]

I'd say, there's people who argue it is improving the quality of life of the patient, if they're to the point where a doctor is prescribing suicide pills. But moving on to the refusal argument...


I'd say it isn't different. The argument usually is "I think Birth Control is against the will of God," or some such similar, while against suicide could be "it's interferring in God's plan." Very similar. Same rules apply. If a pharmacist doesn't want to dispense a drug which is legally prescribed, then they're not doing their jobs if they're not either getting another pharmacist to fill it, or tell the person where they can get it filled. If they're not doing their job, for any reason, they should be fired. If I told my manager back at the theatre that I refused to play a film with drug-use featured in it, I'd be fired on the spot. Why should they get to pick and choose what aspects of their job they fulfil? They knew what the job entailed before they ever took it.

In this case, it would not necessarily be religious ethics. Although I fully support humane euthanasia, I can also see how it is an ethical minefield. I can fully see how a pharmacist, regardless of their religion or lack thereof would not consider dispensing medication that kills a patient on purpose to be for the good of the patient.
After all, we regularly call doctors when they don't pay attention to how they've carried a decimal on some doses, since that could easily kill a patient, or if they prescribe something that the patient is allergic to.
Also, as I've stated, there are specialty pharmacies that cater to patients that choose the route of assisted suicide. Almost all patients are directed to those pharmacies by their doctors.

[BroomJockey]

I can fully see how a pharmacist, regardless of their religion or lack thereof would not consider dispensing medication that kills a patient on purpose to be for the good of the patient.
After all, we regularly call doctors when they don't pay attention to how they've carried a decimal on some doses, since that could easily kill a patient, or if they prescribe something that the patient is allergic to.

Sorry, I shouldn't have brought religion in to my response, it was just the quickest way I could see to illustrate my opinion. Reasons behind the ethics are technically secondary when the result is the same: refusal to dispense medication as prescribed by a trained medical professional. Calling to verify is one thing, and a good thing, as incorrectly prescribed meds are dangerous. But if you're living somewhere that allows assisted suicide, you know that before you even go to study as a pharmacist, same as you know about birth control, and that should factor in to whether you take a job or not. It's not a secret condition you don't find out about until you're hired. If you're not willing to do it either move to somewhere it's not allowed, tell your interviewer upfront so they can factor it in to the decision to hire you, or keep a list of places that will fill the prescription handy. People who repair sewer pipes for a living don't get to complain about dealing with human waste, and pharmacists shouldn't get to pick and choose what aspects of their job they'll comply with, no matter the basis for their objection. If you're unwilling to compromise your ethics for a job, don't take a job that's gonna put you in that position.

[AFPheonix]

In this case, the ethics are fuzzy. And there are lists of pharmacies that will dispense. I live in Oregon, the first state to allow physician assisted suicide. You just simply don't see those scripts willy nilly because patients and doctors alike see that the ethics are tricky there, and steer people to pharmacies that cater to those kinds of patients, or doctors get the meds themselves to dispense to the patient.

There are also many of those scripts that go unfilled, simply because it can be a relief to the patient to know that they CAN go through with it if they wished, and that gives them enough strength to keep going.