Patronizing businesses based on corporate beliefs

[AFPheonix]

It might be a workable compromise in a big city, where there would be lots of competitors available and (most) people could rely on public transit to get there. In more rural areas, that could be a big problem, especially taking poverty into account - not everyone has access to a vehicle or public transport. There are some places that literally only have one pharmacy for miles around; what do you do when that pharmacy refuses to carry certain medications because of personal beliefs, and you can't get to a rival that does carry it because the closest one is like 50+ miles away?

Also, some pharmacies that practice "moral clause" won't even refer the customer to a place that does stock particular meds; in a few worst-case scenarios, a couple of pharmacists have been known to refuse to give the customer back her prescription, and at least one that I know of even tore it up right in front of the customer's face!

And that's why, at least the Oregon Board of Pharmacy, puts in the caveat that a pharmacist can only refuse to dispense IF the conditions that a nearby pharmacy has the product in stock and that the pharmacist has checked has been met. If they cannot be met, then the pharmacist must dispense the product if they have it or order it in a timely manner if it's not on hand.

If pharmacies have "moral clauses" that go against their states' board rules, then they can be called on it and punished, including a hefty fine. That pharmacist that ripped up the script without the doctor's say so should have been reported to the Board. Was he?

[Sylvia727]

Depends on who you talk to.

For many women, it is a necessity. For many women, it is a convenience or a luxury. I'm certainly not denying the importance of birth control. Women who use it should have the right to buy it, even if it isn't 'necessary'. I just don't think that a pharmacist should be forced to supply it if there's a viable alternative.

It might be a workable compromise in a big city, <snip> There are some places that literally only have one pharmacy for miles around; what do you do when that pharmacy refuses to carry certain medications because of personal beliefs, and you can't get to a rival that does carry it because the closest one is like 50+ miles away?

In that case, I think the pharmacist should be required to carry the medicine, because there is no viable alternative. But I think that system is wide open to abuse anyway. A rural town, where the nearest rival is 50 miles away, is going to have a small population. People are naturally nosey about their neighbors. Any pharmacist who went into that situation intending to make judgement calls about certain things is going to see many opportunities to abuse that power. Even if the government requires them to stock it, they could harass the customer in a variety of ways, like calling the doctor back each time for "illegibility", announcing the script loudly when there's a line, even a significant eyebrow waggle to the neighborhood gossip.

I'm not defending this behavior at all. But it is important to note that each community has a different makeup. A young woman in a small, intolerant community is less likely to risk ostracization by publicly purchasing evidence of an active sex life.

Also, some pharmacies that practice "moral clause" won't even refer the customer to a place that does stock particular meds; in a few worst-case scenarios, a couple of pharmacists have been known to refuse to give the customer back her prescription, and at least one that I know of even tore it up right in front of the customer's face!

Sadly, that behavior is not limited to birth control. When my mom got out of surgery, her doctor prescribed pain medication. However, the pharmacist refused to dispense them, claiming some nonsense about conflicting dates. She also refused to give my mom back the paper script, saying that "no other pharmacy will dispense this either". Mom argued with the pharmacist and her boss for 30 minutes before she got her paper script back - which is legally her property. And what do you know? The next pharmacy Mom went to dispensed the pills, no problem. To this day, none of my family members will shop at this pharmacy or the grocery store it's attached to.

IMO there's a fine line between respecting religion and just being a jerk about something,

Yup. And all of my arguments thus far have assumed an honest, if close-minded, pharmacist who is geniunely bothered by birth control. Someone who abuses the moral clause deserves to be punished by the appropriate authorities. We shouldn't shut down all of them just because most are assholes.

If BC is so objectionable to these people, they don't belong in an industry that puts them into contact with it, period. <snip> Someone else pointed out that it's akin to a vegetarian working at a meat-based restaurant and refusing to serve meat-based dishes (or vice versa), and I agree.

I don't think it's like a waiter in a steakhouse, more like a vegetarian opening a sandwich shop. There are thousands and thousands of medicines that a non-bc-dispensing pharmacy can still sell. Yes, many people need red meat in their diet, but if there's another valid source for them, why should the vegetarian be forced to sell roast beef?

[Amethyst Hunter]

In that case, I think the pharmacist should be required to carry the medicine, because there is no viable alternative. But I think that system is wide open to abuse anyway. A rural town, where the nearest rival is 50 miles away, is going to have a small population. People are naturally nosey about their neighbors. Any pharmacist who went into that situation intending to make judgement calls about certain things is going to see many opportunities to abuse that power. Even if the government requires them to stock it, they could harass the customer in a variety of ways, like calling the doctor back each time for "illegibility", announcing the script loudly when there's a line, even a significant eyebrow waggle to the neighborhood gossip.

So very true - and I've lived in small towns most of my life so I know *exactly* what you mean!

A young woman in a small, intolerant community is less likely to risk ostracization by publicly purchasing evidence of an active sex life.

It's a logical assumption to make, that's true - only thing is, unless one were to follow that woman home and peer into her bedroom window (hellooooo stalking), we have no way of knowing *for sure* what the intended use is going to be; for all we know she could be on BC for the same reason I am (fix a wonky cycle). I mean, my folks are smokers, but I'm not, and sometimes they'll send me down to the corner store to buy them cigarettes as a matter of convenience. I'm sure the clerks there probably think I have a pack-a-day (or close) habit...but at least they're nice about it.

I just worry that women may be looped into having to prove themselves to such judgmental types - "Hi, here's my ultrasound and my bloodwork and a doctor's note saying that this is what I need and this is why I'm taking X medication..." (And even that's no guarantee, if you run into a particularly stubborn one) I don't think anybody should have to be forced into those kinds of humiliating straits. It's absolutely none of my business why someone is taking X medication, and so long as there's no concrete evidence that they're selling it on the street or otherwise engaged in illegal activities related to it, I'm perfectly willing to keep my nose to myself.

Sadly, that behavior is not limited to birth control. When my mom got out of surgery, her doctor prescribed pain medication. However, the pharmacist refused to dispense them, claiming some nonsense about conflicting dates. She also refused to give my mom back the paper script, saying that "no other pharmacy will dispense this either". Mom argued with the pharmacist and her boss for 30 minutes before she got her paper script back - which is legally her property. And what do you know? The next pharmacy Mom went to dispensed the pills, no problem. To this day, none of my family members will shop at this pharmacy or the grocery store it's attached to.

Conflicting dates?? That doesn't sound right to me either. The only legitimate reasons I can think of for a pharmacist to refuse any prescription would be a) the customer is being rude and abusive, in which case the right of service is invoked, or b) the person is already on some other kind of medication that could cause serious conflicts when taken along with the new medication, and in that case I would wonder why the doctor didn't catch it before it got to that point. (Although mistakes can happen, I know)

What store/pharmacy was this, if I may ask? I'm wondering if it's a Target or a Walmart, as those are the two big chains I know of that have pharmacies along with their grocery stores, and I've heard iffy stories about both related to pharmaceutical practices.

And all of my arguments thus far have assumed an honest, if close-minded, pharmacist who is geniunely bothered by birth control. Someone who abuses the moral clause deserves to be punished by the appropriate authorities. We shouldn't shut down all of them just because most are assholes.

Why would said hypothetical honest pharmacist continue to work in an industry that offers a product he or she personally disagrees with? If such people do exist (and I'm not saying that they do or don't), it boggles me. If the principle of their religion is that important, it should override all others, including those of money and love of job. If I had a problem with, say, a retail store selling real fur coats (a whole 'nother bag 'o fratchworms), I wouldn't work there, I'd just find someplace else to get employment (which, for some folks, might be easier said than done, but I digress). I wouldn't be standing behind the counter waiting to throw paint buckets at customers who enjoy the feel of real fur (which is nice, I will admit, even though I'd never buy a real fur coat myself, not that I could ever afford one LOL). (Maybe that's not the best example, but it's all I can think of at the moment - hooray allergy medication, whee!)

I agree that genuine people who are merely following the tenets of whatever religion they profess shouldn't be punished for doing so; the question (and problem) becomes to what extent do their actions affect others for the negative? Finding reasonable compromises and accommodations for everybody is one thing, caving in to unrealistic demands by a minority group is another.

That pharmacist that ripped up the script without the doctor's say so should have been reported to the Board. Was he?

I don't know, offhand. I don't even remember the state in which this took place, though I seem to want to recall that it was either out west or down south. I'm pretty sure I read about it in one of the girlie trash mags like Glamour...I could be wrong though.

[AFPheonix]

Any pharmacist who went into that situation intending to make judgement calls about certain things is going to see many opportunities to abuse that power. Even if the government requires them to stock it, they could harass the customer in a variety of ways, like calling the doctor back each time for "illegibility", announcing the script loudly when there's a line, even a significant eyebrow waggle to the neighborhood gossip.

Again, that would be a HIPPA violation and easily fixed with a call to the board and the complaint to the owner of the pharmacy or district if it's a chain pharmacy. That sort of thing is simply not legally allowed.

Sadly, that behavior is not limited to birth control. When my mom got out of surgery, her doctor prescribed pain medication. However, the pharmacist refused to dispense them, claiming some nonsense about conflicting dates. She also refused to give my mom back the paper script, saying that "no other pharmacy will dispense this either".

It's entirely possible that the doctor put the incorrect date on the script, which happens a lot. In fact, we had 2 just today the doctor accidentally post-dated. Since they were controlled drugs, we had to call and confirm that the doctor wanted them dispensed today, as often doctors will give their patients post-dated scripts to control the rate the patient gets refills. It's really fun if it's a new year and the doctors keep writing the previous year on the script which also prompts a call if it's a CIII-CV as those are only good for 6 months after the prescribed date. Again, we cannot just assume.
It's also possible that the 2nd pharmacy simply missed what the first pharmacy caught. I've found mistakes later that made it through a phalanx of techs and at least one if not 2 pharmacists, such as a CII script that was a forged photocopy. Don't just assume they were dicking you around, most of the time we're far too busy to even bother.

[Sylvia727]

I just worry that women may be looped into having to prove themselves to such judgmental types - "Hi, here's my ultrasound and my bloodwork and a doctor's note saying that this is what I need and this is why I'm taking X medication..."

Absolutely not, that's not what I'm saying at all. But if the pharmacist doesn't care for one use of a particular drug, he should not have to stock it. If he thinks a wonky "diet" pill is harmful, he shouldn't have to stock it. I don't like Big Brother imposing *unnecessary* rulings. The only pharmacy for 50 miles around? Yeah, it's necessary for them to stock it. One of three pharmacies in a 5 mile radius? Unnecessary.

Every time I say "pharmacist", I mean pharmacy owner, not pharmacy tech. The rules should be the same across the board, and they should be enforced politely and respectfully.

What store/pharmacy was this, if I may ask?

A chain of local grocery stores. Nothing national.

Why would said hypothetical honest pharmacist continue to work in an industry that offers a product he or she personally disagrees with?

Because it offers 100,000 products s/he feels are of great benefit to humanity? Or maybe it's the best way to earn an honest living in this town? Why does it matter what the pharmacist's motives are? He doesn't have to defend his choices, because they are his choices. If his customers don't like it, they can vote with their feet.

I agree that genuine people who are merely following the tenets of whatever religion they profess shouldn't be punished for doing so; the question (and problem) becomes to what extent do their actions affect others for the negative? Finding reasonable compromises and accommodations for everybody is one thing, caving in to unrealistic demands by a minority group is another.

I think it's a reasonable compromise to allow pharmacists not to stock products they disagree with, as long those who need or want them will still have access elsewhere.

Again, that would be a HIPPA violation and easily fixed with a call to the board and the complaint to the owner of the pharmacy or district if it's a chain pharmacy. That sort of thing is simply not legally allowed.

Assuming the woman knew this... Assuming she had the courage to make the call... Assuming the local authorities weren't biased and took her complaint seriously... Assuming there was evidence of the illegal activity... Assuming anything actually gets done about it... the pharmacist could very well assume that there will be a break in this chain somewhere, and do it anyway. And at that point, her reputation and her lifestyle could be ruined.

It's entirely possible that the doctor put the incorrect date on the script, which happens a lot. <snip> It's also possible that the 2nd pharmacy simply missed what the first pharmacy caught.

I simplified the story from its five page rant story. Mom checked the dates, and had the 2nd pharmacy check the dates. The 2nd pharmacy even called the doctor, on Mom's request. There was no problem with the script whatsoever.

Don't just assume they were dicking you around, most of the time we're far too busy to even bother.

It was the woman's attitude that seriously pissed Mom off, and the fact that she refused to return Mom's property. Mom actually had her cell phone out to call the police and report a theft before the manager would return the script.

The pharmacist made a judgement call that Mom was a drug user who would abuse the medication, and refused to follow the proper channels if this had really been the case. Furthermore, she treated Mom like shit, like she wasn't even a real human being. I know y'all weren't there and can't know what happened; I just included this as an example of the power pharmacists have and how some of them can abuse it.

[Zyanya]

If I get pregnant again, I stand a very real chance of dying.

Do you have the right to deny me LIFE SAVING MEDICATION because of your personal belief that I should not have sex with my husband unless I want a kid?

I had someone try to deny me a birth control script once. I looked him dead in th eye and said 'are you then taking full responsibility for the abortion?'.


Fill the script. My sex life is none of your business.

[Amethyst Hunter]

But if the pharmacist doesn't care for one use of a particular drug, he should not have to stock it. If he thinks a wonky "diet" pill is harmful, he shouldn't have to stock it. I don't like Big Brother imposing *unnecessary* rulings. The only pharmacy for 50 miles around? Yeah, it's necessary for them to stock it. One of three pharmacies in a 5 mile radius? Unnecessary.

I don't like the whole Big Brother deal either; I can't imagine anyone who does. The problem with *any* kind of medicine is that it can be abused, or someone could find fault with it for whatever reason. The abuse of OTC drugs is why we now have sign-for sheets at some places for cold medications that can be used in the making of crystal meth. I have a friend whose parents didn't believe in vaccinations for their kids because they were afraid that the vaccines were worse than the actual disease. Once we start applying certain distinctions to certain medications, shouldn't we also then apply those same distinctions to other drugs as well, if only to be fair?

I could live with a compromise wherein large metropolitan areas could have pharmacists with varying stances on certain medications; however, I just don't trust politics not to screw it up (local politics can be just as bad if not worse than national!), and that's why we have the policies in place that we do now.

Why does it matter what the pharmacist's motives are? He doesn't have to defend his choices, because they are his choices...The pharmacist made a judgement call that Mom was a drug user who would abuse the medication, and refused to follow the proper channels if this had really been the case.

Why does it matter what the customer's motives are (assuming they're legal, that is)? She doesn't have to defend her choices either. Isn't the pharmacist making a judgement too by refusing particular medications that, to date, have *not* been proven to cause half the things that some people say they do? That's what I'm trying to understand, is why it's okay to single out one medication and give a free pass to the others. Not that anybody should be denied anything or that people should get to abuse with abandon, but I don't get why pharmacists who dislike BC aren't invoking their 'moral clause' to turn down other things (diet pills, steroids, cold medications that people could use to get high off of, etc. - ties in with that whole 'your body is a temple' ideal) that could potentially conflict with their choice of religion. I would think that they'd be all over that chance, if the religion is that important to them.

It was the woman's attitude that seriously pissed Mom off, and the fact that she refused to return Mom's property. Mom actually had her cell phone out to call the police and report a theft before the manager would return the script.

I don't blame either you or your mom for being pissed; I'd have definitely called the cops if it'd been me there. I'm sorry you had to go through that crap.

I had someone try to deny me a birth control script once. I looked him dead in th eye and said 'are you then taking full responsibility for the abortion?'.

What was the outcome of the story, if I might ask?

[AFPheonix]

Assuming the woman knew this... Assuming she had the courage to make the call... Assuming the local authorities weren't biased and took her complaint seriously... Assuming there was evidence of the illegal activity... Assuming anything actually gets done about it... the pharmacist could very well assume that there will be a break in this chain somewhere, and do it anyway. And at that point, her reputation and her lifestyle could be ruined.

Just about any customer knows to complain if shit goes down. Also all of our licenses are displayed in the pharmacy where customers can see them, and you can plainly see who granted the license. It's really no different than taking on a bad doctor. Actually as pharmacy schools phase out the bachelor of pharmacy and institute the PharmD degree, it's exactly the same idea as taking on a bad doctor or other health care professional. Also, there's always civil court, which would be easily winnable if there were laws like HIPPA broken. There are plenty of avenues.

I simplified the story from its five page rant story. Mom checked the dates, and had the 2nd pharmacy check the dates. The 2nd pharmacy even called the doctor, on Mom's request. There was no problem with the script whatsoever.



It was the woman's attitude that seriously pissed Mom off, and the fact that she refused to return Mom's property. Mom actually had her cell phone out to call the police and report a theft before the manager would return the script.

The pharmacist made a judgement call that Mom was a drug user who would abuse the medication, and refused to follow the proper channels if this had really been the case. Furthermore, she treated Mom like shit, like she wasn't even a real human being. I know y'all weren't there and can't know what happened; I just included this as an example of the power pharmacists have and how some of them can abuse it.

Ah. In that case, you did run across a bad seed, or even one who's had a few too many drug seekers come through. I see quite a few pharmacists float through who are pretty jaded from dealing with people doing illegal things. We've had several people arrested in our lobby who have passed faked or altered scripts before and threatened action against several others who tried to keep up their charade. And we're a pharmacy in a relatively good part of town.
But again, you have the power to ding a bad pharmacist's record by complaining to the Board. I don't know about other states, but the Oregon Board takes complaints seriously. We had someone call and complain about us several months ago because they insisted that we did not dispense the full quantity of their controlled drug. It was a large enough quantity that we had to put it in 2 bottles and documented as such on the script. We had video evidence to show the inspector that came that the pharmacist who reviewed it put both bottles in the bag and securely stapled it, and when it was time to sell it, the bag still had both bottles when the tech sold it and the pharmacist counseled.
My particular chain has several avenues to complain to: in person, by phone or through our website. They also pay attention to complaint sites.
I have little doubt that if I worked in a crooked pharmacy (and I don't) that we'd be quickly caught and held to account if people complained. Want something to happen? Do something about it.

[AFPheonix]

I forgot to mention that if someone theoretically has a spawn of satan for a local pharmacist who won't dispense birth control, doesn't have another pharmacy nearby, and is too chickenshit to do something about it, there's always mail-order pharmacies, available through just about every major pharmacy chain and prescription insurance carriers.

[Sylvia727]

I'm starting to feel that I'm defending a hypothetical position that does not exist in sufficient quantities to be worth debating. I shall sum up thusly: denying pharmacy clients a drug because one suspects that their intended use does not fit with your beliefs is bad. Big Brother unnecessarily forcing a private business owner to stock a product against his beliefs is bad. The gap between the two may not be as large as I initially assumed.

I forgot to mention that if someone theoretically has a spawn of satan for a local pharmacist who won't dispense birth control, doesn't have another pharmacy nearby, and is too chickenshit to do something about it, there's always mail-order pharmacies, available through just about every major pharmacy chain and prescription insurance carriers.

A valid point, though I object to the word 'chickenshit'. Many women may not feel so strongly about the issue that it is worth the hassle or negative reputation to them. That doesn't make them cowardly.

[AFPheonix]

I was simply responding to your assertion that a woman would not report a bad pharmacist to the Board because she lacked courage. Could I have used a less colloquial word? Yeah, but I'm a 12 year old boy in a 28 year old woman's body

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm attempting to spread awareness that women who deal with idiot pharmacists have recourses available to them. They're not powerless in the least. Do me a favor and spread the word that there are ways to get crappy pharmacists in trouble.

[Sylvia727]

I was simply responding to your assertion that a woman would not report a bad pharmacist to the Board because she lacked courage. Could I have used a less colloquial word? Yeah, but I'm a 12 year old boy in a 28 year old woman's body

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm attempting to spread awareness that women who deal with idiot pharmacists have recourses available to them. They're not powerless in the least. Do me a favor and spread the word that there are ways to get crappy pharmacists in trouble.

I see. I obviously misunderstood you. Though I was not asserting that she was cowardly either, merely that she might not want to go through with it for any number of reasons. And yes, I will keep that tidbit filed away for the future. I've dealt with crappy pharmacists and never reported them, so I will be sure to pass that on.

[Zyanya]

What was the outcome of the story, if I might ask?

I got to witness a grown man throwing a temper tantrum that any toddler would find awe-inspiring and his boss filled my script. Don't know if he was fired because I never went back to that pharmacy.