posted
I think I didn't make my point clear. IMO, if your job requires you to do things that violate your ethics/beliefs/whatever you can't generally just refuse to do them, yet keep your job. You quit.
Why should pharmacists (or doctors) be different?
I'm not saying don't BE a doctor or pharmacist. (My cousin, for example, is still an accountant -- he just doesn't work at that firm.) But choosing to work at a company that made the choice to offer those products should not include you refusing to do your job -- and yet expecting to keep it. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What practicality would there be of a PETA anti-hunting activist working for a gun shop? There is nothing illegal in them working there, but if they are so morally opposed, why work for them in the first place?
Yes, it is the same kind of deal. It is using the same logic placed in a different set of circumstances. While I may not agree with the extreme anti-hunting PETA crowd, they view game hunting as just as murderous as pro-lifers view abortion.
No, it's not the same kind of deal. Birth control pills are one extremely small part of a pharmacist's potential stock. A gun store sells guns.
quote:The problem isn't one of should these pharmacists fill the prescriptions if they do not want to, it is that they should not place themselves in the unethical situation of working for a company that fills such prescriptions and then break company policy while making a moral statement. As for the doctors not prescribing, they are creating an unethical situation where patients are not being made aware that certain treatments will be denied them if they patronize that doctor. If they are up-front about their refusal to prescribe, then they are behaving ethically.
First, we don't know this is against company policy. It would be easy for most pharmacies to allow their workers to have ethical exceptions, as long as they plan for them in advance. Second, many of the complaints here aren't about someone breaking company policy, but are essentially about someone caring enough about what they believe to sacrifice income for it. It's the equivalent of saying, "If you have strong moral stands, please be good enough to avoid all fields of human endeavor where those morals might require you to do something about them."
quote:It isn't about morals or legality, it's about ethics. These people are pretending to take a moral high ground by taking part in ethically dubious behavior. That sets a bad precedent for their cause, and will eventually make their cause (pro life) look even worse in the long run.
They're not "pretending" anything. Nor is it ethically dubious.
quote:I have an even bigger problem with a pharmacist doing this though, because they aren't doctors, so IMO they should leave their ethical opinions at the door when they go to work.
I really don't want to live in your world where people leave their ethics at home.
quote:I feel that it is an ethical decision....and I don't like someone shoving their ethics down my throat.
If you work at a chain drug store, or for someone who feels the same that you do, then fine. But for you to refuse to dispense a legally obtained persciption that is doing no harm to the patient, and possibly enhancing their longevity....well, that is immoral and unethical.
It's immoral to decide not to dispense a drug that they have the perfect right not to dispense? A pharmacist carries thousands of life-saving medicines, but because I don't want to dispense this one class of pills I can't belong to that profession? Sure, let's abrogate personal responsibility and leave all our ethical decision-making up to a board of experts somewhere.
No. I want to live in a world where people act on their ethics, even if it inconveniences me in some way. Nor do I think people need to be afraid of taking public ethical stands for fear of being accused of "shoving it down someone's throat."
The pharmacist isn't uninvolved in his own decision process to dispense or not dispense the pill. It's his decision. It's yours if you want to take it. Just don't force people to assist you.
quote:Why not let your parents make all the decisions for you for your whole life? Because you have both the prividledge and the responsibility to make your own choices, right?
So why wouldn't you get upset when someone you barely know uses faulty science and morals you don't share to remove choices from you?
A) you haven't presented ANYTHING that says the science is faulty. B) The choice hasn't been removed from you. Believe it or not, no one has the duty to help you exercise all your choices.
quote:Or are you saying that anyone who wants to make their own moral decisions rather that having them imposed on them is dishonest.
I just don't think they have the right to do this, and I would be very upset if it happened to us.
You're saying he doesn't have the right to not commit murder. That because of one very small class of pills, he has to forgo a profession that allows him to help people.
quote:I think I didn't make my point clear. IMO, if your job requires you to do things that violate your ethics/beliefs/whatever you can't generally just refuse to do them, yet keep your job. You quit.
Why should pharmacists (or doctors) be different?
I'm not saying don't BE a doctor or pharmacist. (My cousin, for example, is still an accountant -- he just doesn't work at that firm.) But choosing to work at a company that made the choice to offer those products should not include you refusing to do your job -- and yet expecting to keep it.
But Kwea has said that a pharmacist doesn't have that right to work in the profession in accordance with his own ethical and moral beliefs. It's "shoving morals down" his throat.
posted
Re: “faulty science” – the article linked to in the first post alludes to it, and if you follow the “post fertilization effect?” link in the article you find that there never has been a study that shows birth control pills make it less likely for a fertilized egg to implant. The claim was part of the original marketing of the pill, claiming a “three fold defense” against pregnancy, but the only part of that which was scientifically documented was the fact that it suppresses ovulation. There’s even a quote from the vice president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists saying that “the post-fertilization effect was purely a speculation that became truth by repetition."
So absent anyone linking to an actual study, I think it was faulty science when it was being used by BCP advocates, and it’s still faulty science when used by BCP opponents.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying it had been proven. I'm saying that there's enough doubt that it makes sense for someone who cares about this issue to act on that doubt. That's not faulty science; that's a healthy respect for the limitations of science.
posted
I disagree. The people making the choice not to use birth control have every right to act on even a possibility of doubt, no argument there. But for the original marketers to make the claim that the probability of implantation was reduced with absolutely no evidence is faulty science. In fact the quote from Dr. DeCook – “speculation that became truth by repetition” is practically the definition of (one form of) faulty science.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, I like you. But this type of argument is why people don't care for lawyers.
I never said that they had to leave all their ethics at the door, I said they
quote: they should leave their ethical opinions at the door
, meaning that they don't have the right to preach religion/ethics to me...they can feel/believe whatever they want, but they don't have the right to preach morality at me. That is what I feel they are doing here, using the workplace as a soapbox, and trying to enforce a morality on me that I don't agree with.
I feel that I have the right to the meds my doctors prescribe. I also know that most of the chains don't allow this type of behavior because it is bad for business. I don't go to a pharmacy for moral judgments, nor do I care about the pharmacists feelings on birth control.
I don't have to prove that they don't cause abortions. As a lawyer, you should know the futility of trying to prove a negative. It is up to the doctors who believe this to prove it, using the scientific method. No one has been able to do so yet, and until then the "scientific" claims are merely a smokescreen for moral posturing in the workplace.
If they can do this, and it is clear that in some cases they do, then I have a right to protest against it too, right? Or are they the only one with rights again?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But Kwea has said that a pharmacist doesn't have that right to work in the profession in accordance with his own ethical and moral beliefs. It's "shoving morals down" his throat.
Where did I say this? They could work for religious hospitals, or small stores that don't stock this type of materials....
Anywhere but a chain, really...all chains carry the pill (that I am aware of) and sometimes there is only one pharmacists working, so.....
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree....one is not appropreate to any business transaction.
Or are you saying that anyone who wants to make their own moral decisions rather that having them imposed on them is dishonest.
I just don't think they have the right to do this, and I would be very upset if it happened to us.
I may not be able to stop them, but I can use any and all legal sanctions on them...including protests if i so desired.
I would be happy to see them fold...and if they are at a chain, they should be fired. IMO.
If that's not what you meant, than good. But I still think chains should make policies that allow ethical exceptions where possible. It's not that hard to do.
quote:I disagree. The people making the choice not to use birth control have every right to act on even a possibility of doubt, no argument there. But for the original marketers to make the claim that the probability of implantation was reduced with absolutely no evidence is faulty science. In fact the quote from Dr. DeCook – “speculation that became truth by repetition” is practically the definition of (one form of) faulty science.
Fine. But when "faulty science" was used here, it was aimed at the people acting on the possibility of doubt.
quote:I never said that they had to leave all their ethics at the door, I said they quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- they should leave their ethical opinions at the door --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,, meaning that they don't have the right to preach religion/ethics to me...they can feel/believe whatever they want, but they don't have the right to preach morality at me.
To me it's a distinction without a difference. Someone's ethical opinions are what inform their ethical choices. The two are inseperable.
Here's what I don't get: on the previous page, you said if a pharmacist told you they didn't carry birth control pills you'd demand to know why. It's like you're looking for a reason to be offended. If someone simply doesn't carry them, and only tells you why when you ask, how are they "preaching."
quote:That is what I feel they are doing here, using the workplace as a soapbox, and trying to enforce a morality on me that I don't agree with.
They're trying to live up to their morality. Not affect yours.
quote:I feel that I have the right to the meds my doctors prescribe.
No, you have the right to buy meds prescribed by your doctor from a willing seller.
quote:I also know that most of the chains don't allow this type of behavior because it is bad for business. I don't go to a pharmacy for moral judgments, nor do I care about the pharmacists feelings on birth control.
Yet you would ask why someone doesn't carry them? I don't get it.
quote:I don't have to prove that they don't cause abortions. As a lawyer, you should know the futility of trying to prove a negative. It is up to the doctors who believe this to prove it, using the scientific method.
No you don't. But a pharmacist doesn't have to prove to your satisfaction that they might in order to choose what to sell.
quote:No one has been able to do so yet, and until then the "scientific" claims are merely a smokescreen for moral posturing in the workplace.
A "smokescreen" that costs the pharmacists money. Call it posturing makes it sound like you have no respect for people trying to live up to their beliefs.
quote:If they can do this, and it is clear that in some cases they do, then I have a right to protest against it too, right? Or are they the only one with rights again?
Of course you have the right to protest it. And I have the right to protest your protest. And when you claim the moral high ground over people trying to get along in a profession while living up to difficult ethical beliefs, expect those protests to be vigorous.
quote: Re: “faulty science” – the article linked to in the first post alludes to it, and if you follow the “post fertilization effect?” link in the article you find that there never has been a study that shows birth control pills make it less likely for a fertilized egg to implant. The claim was part of the original marketing of the pill, claiming a “three fold defense” against pregnancy, but the only part of that which was scientifically documented was the fact that it suppresses ovulation. There’s even a quote from the vice president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists saying that “the post-fertilization effect was purely a speculation that became truth by repetition."
I'll have to look into this, because my doctors have both said that it is true, and the info sheet that comes with the pills says it too.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not looking to be offended, I would just want to know why...as in are they out, or should I switch pharmacies. Duh. I have said 20 time that i don't care what their moral opinion on this issue is, I just want the damn pills.
Stop trying to twist my words.
How else would I know if they would be carrying them later on in the week unless I would ask? Am I telepathic?
IMO, I think that preaching is what they would be doing. I also have said that this mostly applies to chains, which do carry the pill. If the company sells them, then why would the pharmacist be able to refuse to sell them to us? What if he is the only one on that night? That happens a lot!
You are the one being argumentative. I would not want to buy anything from a store that would allow their employees to do that. And I would inform my friends and family why I refused to go there again. And I would write the company and tell them how I felt about it.
I am not saying that they would be terrible people, or that they shouldn't be pharmacists; just that I don't want others to impose their morality on me in this type of instance.
Last I checked I was still allowed to do those things here in America.
quote:You're saying he doesn't have the right to not commit murder. That because of one very small class of pills, he has to forgo a profession that allows him to help people.
How is he helping me, Dagonee? I need the pill for a number of valid health reasons, as do many other women who suffer from PCOS. And there's no way that I could possibly be pregnant. What if I get endometrial cancer because he wouldn't sell me the pill? What kind of morality is that?
Tullaan, can you give some more information on the law that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions (maybe a link)? If it was made to prevent potentially fatal mistakes, then isn't it violating the spirit of the law to refuse to fill on moral grounds? Where does it end? I think that behavior-modifying drugs are overprescribed for children, does that give mean I can refuse to fill ritalin prescriptions?
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea....ergh. What you are doing is asking the professional to go against their beliefs to make you happy. What good is it for a person to have an ethical opinion if it doesn't effect how they live their life?
You might as well tell someone, "I don't care if you are against murder. Don't preach that to me, just kill this person like I asked you to."
It's one thing to suggest that if they don't want to give you the pill, they are in the wrong line of work. (Or working for the wrong company.) But truly, you can't expect someone to give up their beliefs to give you what you want. It's not about you, it's about the fact that THEY have to sleep at night.
posted
And regarding the post-fertilization effect:
The only studies I can find are from extremely conservative or liberal sites, and argue both sides, so I am loathe to post them. But it stands to reason that it would occur, because that's how progestin WORKS. They know that it keeps the uterine lining from developing properly, (also causing periods to stop when taken continuously) so it stands to reason that the embryo won't implant. (Since the lining forms to give the embryo something to attach to in the first place.)
Does there need to be a study to prove this? We have proof that progestin works the way it does, and no one disputes that. The only dispute is over whether the lack of lining affects implantation. It seems like the answer to that would be "duh", since many women suffer from the inability to get pregnant precisely because their uterus doesn't form a sufficient lining.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that killing is illegal, and immoral. Most of the time.
I don't think they should have the right to block my access to legally prescribed drugs.
Unless there is a drug interaction, or allergy, or an obvious mistake on dosage; that is why the law was put in place.
Not so they can go all pro-life on me.
Funny part of this whole argument is that I have pro-life belief myself, it's one of the things I made sure I discussed with my wife before we were married. I wanted to make sure that we were on the same page as it could affect our future; fortunately we were .
I just don't like how people use these types of false arguments trying to give themselves the right to impose their moral judgments on others. I will never protest at an abortion clinic, and I wouldn't do it outside the pharmacy that did this either....but I have the right to do so if I so choose.
Doctors prescribe, and pharmacists double check then fill. Anything else isn't a good thing for the medical field, IMO. That is their job, and if they can't in good conscience do it, then why work there. That is like saying "I work at McDonald's, but he is too fat for a big mac...I'll only sell him a salad!".
Not a perfect analogy, of course, but you get the point. Fetuses don't have personhood.....so the do no further harm doesn't apply to them.
Do no further harm, people. It's not rocket science. Refusing to fill this is wrong...they are refusing to fulfill their duties as a pharmacist.
All this id IMO, of course.
Fortunately, most employers feel the same way; or I think they do, anyway. Hopefully I never find out.
posted
What's "not rocket science" is that no one should be forced to do something that goes against their beliefs, whether or not it's illegal. IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU.
----
Okay, Kwea, why don't you go ahead and explain the science on how an embryo can implant in the fallopian tube? (Which is not only extremely rare, by the way, but doesn't result in a viable baby.)
posted
I don't have to....it occurs, so it can be proven. Therefore, the lining isn't alway necessary for an embryo to attach.
When I go to get something filled, it is all about me, or whomever it is for; that is why they are there, to serve the customer. In refusing to do so, they are imposing their beliefs on me. That is not why the law was enacted, and to use it as such is immoral, and unethical.IMO.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, I have to disagree with you here. The pharmacist is not being forced to do something that goes against his or her beliefs. He or she is is free to choose another profession.
Frankly, someone who believes that filling prescriptions of oral contraceptives is murder should probably not be a pharmacist. Oral contraceptives are widely prescribed and a pharmacist has to know that he will be put in that position again and again.
Also, it is about me, and my health. My mother had endometrial cancer, which could have been prevented by oral contraceptives. As someone with PCOS and a family history of endometrial cancer, I am greatly at risk. I think it's immoral for anyone to deny me the drugs that can prevent me from getting endometrial cancer.
Let me give you an extreme example. What if every pharmacist in my town thinks that prescribing the pill is murder and I die from endometrial cancer because I was denied access to a preventative? Isn't that murder, too?
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mrs. M: I've already stated several times that the pharmacist should choose another profession (or company) if they don't like doing something vital to their job. My argument is against the idea that when a person makes a personal decision for themselves, and someone nearby is affected, that they are trying to preach or espouse their ideas onto another person and should be stopped.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is he helping me, Dagonee? I need the pill for a number of valid health reasons, as do many other women who suffer from PCOS. And there's no way that I could possibly be pregnant. What if I get endometrial cancer because he wouldn't sell me the pill? What kind of morality is that?
Except that his not selling it to you won't be what gives you cancer. Your not getting it from another source would be. If there were no other sources available, then a pharmacist with these beliefs would have to ask why the pill's being used, which would be intrusive. Given that other sources ARE available, the least intrusive thing to do is simply not carry it for any reason, given that the majority of users don't have your specific circumstances.
quote:Tullaan, can you give some more information on the law that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions (maybe a link)? If it was made to prevent potentially fatal mistakes, then isn't it violating the spirit of the law to refuse to fill on moral grounds? Where does it end? I think that behavior-modifying drugs are overprescribed for children, does that give mean I can refuse to fill ritalin prescriptions?
Why does it have to end anywhere? If a pharmacist has moral objections to enough drugs, he won't be able to stay in business. If it's only a few, then what's the problem?
Considering the state of this country, I'd think people would welcome someone sacrificing financial gain on moral principles. Even if you don't agree with the instant principle, isn't it better that people have principles and are willing to sacrifice for them?
quote:I'm not looking to be offended, I would just want to know why...as in are they out, or should I switch pharmacies. Duh. I have said 20 time that i don't care what their moral opinion on this issue is, I just want the damn pills.
Stop trying to twist my words.
How else would I know if they would be carrying them later on in the week unless I would ask? Am I telepathic?
If the pharmacist doesn't carry them, he doesn't carry them. It's not twisting your words.
quote:You are the one being argumentative. I would not want to buy anything from a store that would allow their employees to do that. And I would inform my friends and family why I refused to go there again. And I would write the company and tell them how I felt about it.
I am not saying that they would be terrible people, or that they shouldn't be pharmacists; just that I don't want others to impose their morality on me in this type of instance.
Last I checked I was still allowed to do those things here in America.
During the course of this thread, you've said they don't have the "right" to refuse to dispense for moral reasons, and you've called people who choose to do so immoral. That sounds pretty argumentative to me. Imposing morality would be trying to stop someone from doing something they consider immoral - like you're trying to do. The pharmacist is not stopping you from obtaining the pills, he's just refusing to help you do it.
You keep bringing up that you have the right to complain about this, as if someone in this thread has said you don't. I said people have the right to protest this all they want, before you ever posted in this thread.
quote:In refusing to do so, they are imposing their beliefs on me. That is not why the law was enacted, and to use it as such is immoral, and unethical.
So to be moral, a pharmacist must dispense any prescription brought to him or abandon his profession if he cannot do so for ethical reasons? These are the only two options you seem to have left him.
Instead of allowing people to come to their own ethical equalibrium, you seem to want people to modify their ethics to accomodate you.
posted
They don't have the trianing to treat medical conditions. Therefore they should do thier jobs and keep their noses out of my medical treatments. Or my wife's, as the case may be.
I they were a doctor and refused, I wouldn't pay them for the visit, unless they had told me that up front.
Last I checked, patient had the right to decided if they want to take the pill. A doctor refusing to give a script would piss me off, and I would never return to him again.
At no point in their job description is moral teachings mentioned, other than in the oath they take when they graduate.
They don't have to take the pill themselves, but they shouldn't be able to block access to it for others.
I souldn't have to go to another store if the chain carries them. If the store has them, it is their job to dispence them.
How is any of the courses of action forcing my morals on anyone? I just refuse to allow their decisions to limit my choices.
quote:Except that his not selling it to you won't be what gives you cancer. Your not getting it from another source would be. If there were no other sources available, then a pharmacist with these beliefs would have to ask why the pill's being used, which would be intrusive. Given that other sources ARE available, the least intrusive thing to do is simply not carry it for any reason, given that the majority of users don't have your specific circumstances.
So what if there aren't other sources available to me? I grew up in a very tiny rural town that didn't even have its own pharmacy - we had to go to the next town over. That pharmacy actually would not stock the pill (or any contraceptives at all, for that matter). The next closest pharmacy was over an hour away and we were too poor to go there on a regular basis. If my mother (who does not have PCOS) had had access to the pill, her endometrial cancer could have been prevented. Instead, because of these so-called moral pharmacists, I came home from school when I was 14 to find her unconscious in a pool of blood. She was rushed to the hospital for an emergency hystorectomy. There were terrible complications that caused my mother untold suffering for years. How many more women in my mother's circumstance will have to go through the same ordeal because of these pharmacists? Personally, I think one is too many.
Also, it's estimated that more than 10% of the female population has PCOS, so my circumstances are far from rare.
quote:Considering the state of this country, I'd think people would welcome someone sacrificing financial gain on moral principles. Even if you don't agree with the instant principle, isn't it better that people have principles and are willing to sacrifice for them?
Dag, if you re-read this, you will realize that it's a very general and sweeping statement. My general and sweeping answer is no, I don't think it's better.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My wife works with them daily....reread it yourself please. The law was put in place to allow them to refuse to fill mistakes made by doctors, not to allow them to make ethical or moral decisions that affect their patients.
quote: A pharmacist is required to catalogue and monitor a patient's drug therapy. Using professional judgement in refusing to dispense an improper medication isn't just a right, it's a responsibility; if a drug causes a patient harm the pharmacist will get sued right along with the doctor, even if they were filling a prescription exactly the way the doctor wrote it.
I even talked to some pharmacists I know, and they agree with me. It isn't their place to make moral choices for their customers. The law is to prevent medication from being dispensed incorrectly, to do no further harm ...if you are wondering why I keep repeating that phrase, it is part (the most important part) of the Hippocratic Oath. I know, I took it as an EMT.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because nothing gives them the right to strip the patient of their right to autonomy (assuming the patient is of sound mind). That right is a fundamental right in North American medicine and overrides individual ethical concerns. The health care worker has the right to educate the decision of the patient, but not the right to influence that decision. It's a tough line to walk and disagreements over safety and effectiveness crop up all the time.
Ethics, however, are another kettle of fish. While I sympathize with the pharmacist in this case, they are there to aid the patient in his or her decisions regarding their care. The fact of the matter is, they are there to aid the patient with the care he or she and their doctor have decided on. They are free to call the doctor if they have safety concerns, they are even free to talk to the patient (although many patients may consider this "crossing the line") but they aren't free to deny the patient their right to care because of the pharmacist's ethical concerns. That is not your fetus and, as it stands in America, the decision of whether or not it is a human life is not yours to make.
If you chose not to stock the drug, fair enough. There isn't room for every drug back there in that little stock room. But you do have to aid the patient in obtaining it. By order, by an address of somewhere that will provide it, or the like. Again, you have a duty to the patient that overrides your own ethical (and there's a world of difference between "ethical" and "medical") concerns. If someone cannot make their peace with that than they should find another profession. There are plenty of professions where you may be ethically opposed to a few small things, Dags. You either make your peace with them or you move on. There is no fundamental right to be a practicing pharmacist Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea: The point is only that they have medical responsibility too, and that goes far beyond the "give me the #$%^ pills" role that you want them to fill. You make comments like "They're not doctors" and I don't know why, except that you maybe want to show that they don't have the same responsibility to your health that your doctor has? I could go on about how pharmacists probably know more about the medicine prescribed than the doctor does, but that's kinda irrelevant. I could say that when I have a question about what to give my child or how much medicine she needs, I call the pharmacist. They aren't robots.
I am NOT saying that they have a responsibility to decide if you should have pills or not (based on a moral judgment). You keep missing this. I AGREE with you. But I don't agree that you have the right to destroy their life and profession because they made a PERSONAL decision that they can't in good conscious violate.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Bob, that is what I was trying to get at. In the medical field things are different that in other professions. There is an overriding concern for the patient (or there is suppose to be) that is fundamentally more important than individual beliefs. That is why the patient always has the last word on his/her treatment, not the doctor.
A doctor is free to refuse to preform abortions, but that is an act he commits. I am not asking the pharmacist to take the pill for me, merely to do his job, which is to dispense meds that have been prescribed.
If a pharmacist doesn't (working for a place that stocks the pill) due to ethical considerations, then he is saying that his personal ethics are more important to him than my healt....he doesn't have the knowledge or experience a doctor has, and shouldn't be impinging on the rights of others to follow a prescribed course of medical treatment.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dags, if you read this thread, I meant "small things" in terms of number of times they crop up, not in terms of severity.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If they don't like the pill, they don't have to take it or recommend it. But to refuse to fill it is overstepping their rights, IMO. I feel that there obligation to me as their customer/patient, and to their employer, is more important than their individual feelings.
If they can't, then it is time to replace them with someone who can.
I agree with this too. What about a pharmacist with his own business, or one that works for a pharmacy with his same beliefs?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked this discussion (Edit: and the participants), but we're all starting to repeat ourselves, and our starting positions are both fundamental and unlikely to change.
Dagonee Edit: I'm mean in a cage match. I get my beautiful manager to slip me a T-ball bat and it's all over.
posted
Dag, I'm just frustrated because Kwea seems to think I totally disagree with him, but I don't. I'm repeating myself because, although I thought I made my opinions known in the first page, he keeps arguing things that I don't agree with or never said.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the only thing standing in the way of this conversation is that we understand each other too well? Yeah, that's why I waited so long before posting anything.
Something tells me my cage matches would look a lot like Homer's boxing matches. Only more me getting punched in the face and less me standing up afterwards.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest difference I see in the sides on this discussion is the question of "who is the patient".
The pharmisists who refuse to sell the pills assumes the patient is the fetus, and as such, believes they have a responsibility to it that overrides their responsibility for the convience of the mother. "That pill is a poison. I refuse to sell poison."
Those who are against this pharmisist's decision believe that the patient is the woman buying the pills. His decision not to prescribe the legal requested medication is an attempt to force his beliefs on the mother. "That pill is a sin. Stop sinning."
From the pharmisists point of view, he is saving lives, or at least refusing to be part of taking them.
From the customer's point of view, the pharmisist is preaching. Preaching is bad customer relations unless you are a minister.
My opinion: I agree that the pharmisist has a right to his moral standing. However he fails in two areas. 1) He assumes that the pill is a poison while the science he practices has no proof of this. 2) He assumes a use for the pill--contraceptive--that is not the only use for that pill. As such he may be doing more harm than good. This shows he is making a moral stand without giving that stand the true deep thought it requires. He is playing Don Quixote, more enamoured by his martyrdom and valor than in the realities of his decisions.
My solution, if a pharmisist gave me such a speech about not promoting abortion by selling the pill, I would explain to him his mistakes, not in the poisonous of the pill, but in the other uses that the pill can be put to, and that his decision needs to be further examined.
His reaction to my calm reciting of these facts would determine if I would ever return to this pharmacy, report him to his manager, or remain a good customer.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey dudes. This thread has gone a long way since I read it last. I'm not going to join the fray because I'm trying to save my posts until I figure out what my landmark is going to be. But I thought I'd use one to clarify a couple of things.
First, Kwea keeps saying that pharmacists are not doctors. The fact is that most of them are. In fact, any pharmacist graduating today is required to get a doctorate of pharmacy. I know it's not an MD, but it is a six year degree, and a fairly intense six years at that, so be careful what you say a pharmacist isn't qualified to do.
Second, pharmacists are required to use professional and moral judgement in filling, or refusing to fill, any prescription. It's not just scanning for interactions. A computer program can do that. There are many legal and valid reasons that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription. Some doctors try to write prescriptions for morphine for themselves, friends or family members. If you've got a friend who's a doctor and you can convince him or her to feed your smack habit, the prescription he or she writes for you would be just as legal as the one they write for oral contraceptives. The only way a doctor can get morphine is through a pharmacy, and if a pharmacist gets the idea that they're diverting or abusing it, we get to refuse to fill it. It still may be a valid legal prescription. We don't even need legally feasable evidence, since we're not prosecuting anyone. To refuse to fill it, we need nothing more than a suspiscion and a moral qualm. It's no less a moral decision than refusing to fill birth control and it's perfectly within a pharmaicst's rights to do it.
I've never had a doctor try to write controlled substances for themselves. But I've seen some try to write prescriptions that weren't in their scope of practice, and I've refused to fill them. And if the patient tells me that one of my colleagues would fill it, I tell them that they can come back when that person is working.
You may say that your health care is between you and your doctor, and whether or not I agree with you, I think we can agree that a chain pharmacist's employment is between him and his employer. It's a free market, and you're free to complain, but every pharmacist, at one time or another, eventually refuses to fill a prescription for some professonal or ethical reason. And if Walgreens wants to keep them on and DOPL won't revoke their license, you can tell them to get another job all you want, but it's probably not going to happen.
As I said earlier, I agree with you on this specific issue, but I think you're misinformed on the duties of a pharmacist in general.
quote: I just think that as the pharmacists should stick to what they know best...looking for allergies, drug interactions, and whatnot. The doctor knows why I need the meds, where the pharmacists might not.
Leave the doctoring to the doctors.....why is that so hard to understand?
Kwea,
I tried to read through most of you posts and made it to where you claim that pharmacists are not doctors. I take your offensive insults personally, since I am pharmacist, and if I had the opportunity to meet you in person, I would slap you in the face for insulting the profession I love. I am not a violent person, but you have severely upset me, and I expect an apology. Until then, consider yourself off my list for poinsettas at Christmas.
I could quote all the other inflammatory crap that you have spewed out, but I would be wasting my time. The fact that your spouse works in a pharmacy should enlighten you to the fact that not all pharmacists are the same. Anyway, there are much more important issues to discuss.
1. A pharmacist can only refuse to not fill a prescription if they believe the patient is at risk to be harmed, or they deem the prescription not appropriate or legitimate. This clause is mainly in response to controlled substance prescriptions, but also applies the the reasons that Tullaan made.
2. The laws that support a pharmacist making a decision based on political, religious, or ethical grounds are very very gray. The one Tullaan has referred to is the same one I refer to as well. There was a Pfo-Life bill that was proposed to the House of Representatives that would enable a pharmacist to refuse to fill abortive medications based on their beliefs, but due to support of more than one kind, did not pass.
3. If you owned your own pharmacy, you are entitled to practice pharmacy in whatever way you choose, as long as you follow laws and regulations. What this means is that if someone like Kwea came into my pharmacy and insulted me to my face and practically brought me to violence, I would still have to fill his medication, as long as it was in good faith as described above. I may not want to fill a prescription because someone is an @$$, but I have to.
As far as I am concerned, no matter my religious beliefs, I am required to fill a prescription as long as I believe it to not be harmful to the patient, in good standing and legitimate, and falling within the other rules and regulations that apply to my profession.
We talked about this at length in another thread: Wafer Nazis: No Jesus for you!
In essence, this is a very difficult dilemma to deal with. I applaud a pharmacist for having such strong faith or belief that they do not want to take another life. That is a noble endeavor in a religious sense. However, I am also saddened in that the pharmacist has severed the doctor-patient-pharmacist relationship and has refused legitimate service to a patient that our laws and regulations require.
There are no easy answers here, and almost always, someone is offended.
posted
Um, Wal-Mart sells guns, too, but if you are against the sale of guns, would you work there? Would you stand at the counter and refuse to sell guns to people because they kill things? Do you deserve to keep your job at the sports counter if you refuse?
posted
Please read the whole thread before adding to a 2-page controversial discussion. There's a clear set of distinctions between the two situations, which have been addressed by those on both sides of the issue.
posted
Please don't be rude when I've already read the two pages. I don't agree. It's a conflict of ethics. Refusing treatment without clearly stating that one refuses treatment is unethical. If they laid it out quite clearly that they did not, much like how Jehovah's Witnesses make it quite clear there are medical practices they will not allow, then all is within ethical bounds.
This situtation is not. If you want to be morally superior, behave morally superior. Not underhanded like that.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not a question of agreeing. It's a question of repeating an earlier post without even addressing the reasoning posted in response to it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
