Yeah, there’s a line to draw somewhere on this issue of whether a pharmacist can refuse to dispense drugs for moral reasons. At some level, I’m sympathetic to the notion that there should be accomodations for different beliefs, but it isn’t the simple answer that advocates of allowing pharmacists to decide on a case-by-case basis.
Blagojevich was absolutely right to issue an emergency order that requires pharmacists to dispense birth control.
Going forward from there, if there is going to be an accomodation, the answer has to be that any pharmacy that refuses to fill a prescription should have to publish specifically what they refuse to dispense and immediately notify the Doctor or patient that they refuse to do so and allow them to take the prescription elsewhere. There should also be a rule that a pharmacist may not hold onto a prescription–if they refuse to fill it, then they should pass it on to a pharmacy that will.
Very simply, if a chain pharmacy is going to not dispense at some times then they should not dispense at all. There is no excuse for the rules to change on what will be dispensed by the time of day. If pharmacists want to argue that their health care role is important, than being clear about the type of care provided and providing it consistently should be a requirement of that role. And if the chain wants to be involved in such sales and the employee doesn’t, the employee has a choice to find another pharmacy that doesn’t dispense drugs they don’t want to dispense.
For those that disagree, perhaps they should explain why Christian Scientists shouldn’t be pharmacists.
UPDATE: (via Capitol Fax)To clarify the issue here’s a quote from the Post Dispatch
She said the rule says that if a pharmacy does not have contraception prescriptions available, they must either order more or give the patient a choice between transferring their prescription to another pharmacy with the product or taking back the prescription.
So, actually, if a pharmacy doesn’t want to dispense birth control, they don’t have to have it. They can just give the patient the prescription back or transfer it.
The Governor is absolutely right on this issue and should be commended for it.
UPDATE 2: Pharmacy creates problems in comments so replace one letter with a *. It’s a spam protection thing.
Second, the title is satire. I’m not sure if my satire is entirely unfunny, or if the world has gotten weird enough that I can’t write satire on it anymore.
>If pharmacists want to argue that their health care role is important, than being clear about the type of care provided and providing it consistently should be a requirement of that role.
I would take that one step further: if pharmacists really want an expanded role in health care, then with responsibility comes liability. Seriously, if they are “screening for drug interactions”, as one chains ads so proudly declare, and if they want to impose their judgements (moral or medical) on their customers, then they should carry malpractice insurance and pay up in the settlement when the drugs they dispense kill or injure somebody.
It strikes me as a similar case to the one the ISPs face. Are they common carriers, or are they responsible for the content their customers, and thus forced to screen that content for possible law violations for which they are liable? Are pharmacists drug dispensers who have the option of pointing out potential drug hazards as a service to their clients, or are they health care providers who are liable if they fail to do so?
I don’t usually doubt you, but I haven’t seen anywhere else that the pharmacist was a Christian Scientist. Can you provide a link?
This whole issue troubles me to no end. Why do people who are so opposed to abortion want to restrict access to the birth control as a way to prevent pregnancy?
I’m foreseeing “Christian” and “secular” pharmacies coming out of this. Of course that assumes that Christians don’t want birth control, which just isn’t true for most.
No, you should doubt me on the title–it was meant to be satire. I’m clearly having trouble marking my satire well enough, or the world has gotten so weird, that my satire is no longer satire.
I think the answer is a lot easier after seeing what the order actually does. It just requires that a pharm*cy dispense what it carries. Pharm*cies can decide not to handle any drug with which they have moral qualms and so it’s not really an issue to me. The rest is for the pharm*cy to work out with employees. Some won’t carry it, but that is true already so it’s fine with me. But for those that do carry it, they have to dispense on the Doctor’s prescription.
You know, I read the post three times, hoping it was satire, but wasn’t sure. Glad to know it was…
My wife’s a Pharmac*st and has worked retail for the last 17 years. The only scripts she’s ever chosen not to fill were obvious forgeries or narcotics scripts for drug addicts. Even then, if it was a real script, she would give it back to the customer. And then suggest the patient get the script filled at another pharm*cy. The real situations that have to be taken into account are the forgery scripts for narcotics. If some law is passed that required pharm*cists to fill every script regardless, this could cause a problem. As long as the script can be returned the the patient, my wife won’t care what law is passed. This protects her and the patient.
I’d say I’m confident there will always be a fraud exception that includes not returning a fraudulent script (evidence of crime), but who knows with the lege–but very good point. And I think individual pharmacies should be able to choose to not dispense specific drugs—I can think of choices beyond contraceptives having to do with a ph*rmacies evaluation of the safety of a drug, but when the ph*rmacy chooses to dispense something, it shouldn’t be an inconsistent choice to dispense.