Should pharmacists be made to dispense a type of medication they hold morally wrong?

Morning after pills =abortion

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BIRTH_CONTROL_PHARMACISTS?SITE=PAPOT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-01-28-07-07-38

Pharmacists Sue Over Birth Control Policy  
 
EDWARDSVILLE, Ill. (AP) -- Four pharmacists who refused to sign a pledge promising to dispense the morning-after birth-control pill sued Walgreen drug stores Friday, alleging they were illegally fired.

The lawsuits accuse Walgreen Co. of violating the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. The pharmacists were being represented by the American Center for Law and Justice, a public-interest group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson.

A new state rule requires pharmacies that sell federally approved contraceptives to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control "without delay" if they have the medication in stock. The rule is being challenged in federal court.

In response to the rule, Deerfield-based Walgreen asked pharmacists to pledge in writing that they would fill prescriptions for contraceptives such as the morning-after pill. The plaintiffs were suspended indefinitely without pay when they refused to sign the pledge in November.
 
"It couldn't be any clearer," said ACLJ senior counsel Francis J. Manion. "In punishing these pharmacists for asserting a right protected by the Conscience Act, Walgreens broke the law."

Walgreen spokesman Michael Polzin said the company needed to ensure that its stores would comply with the new regulations regarding the dispensing of emergency contraceptives.

"We are required to follow the law. We don't have a choice in the matter," he said.

Walgreens hires these guys to dispense drugs.


They refuse to dispense drugs on "moral grounds".

Walgreens says "you're fired I'll find someone else".


I don't see the problem with that.

Don't like what your hired to do, go work someplace else.

Quoted: Should pharmacists be made to dispense a type of medication they hold morally wrong?

No. But neither should walgreens be prevented by force from firing someone who won't do the job they were hired to do.

Quoted: Walgreens hires these guys to dispense drugs. They refuse to dispense drugs on "moral grounds". Walgreens says "you're fired I'll find someone else". I don't see the problem with that. Don't like what your hired to do, go work someplace else.

Did you miss the part where there is a law in IL that they don't have to, and that they can't be fired because of it?  Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act

Quoted: Quoted: Walgreens hires these guys to dispense drugs. They refuse to dispense drugs on "moral grounds". Walgreens says "you're fired I'll find someone else". I don't see the problem with that. Don't like what your hired to do, go work someplace else. Did you miss the part where there is a law in IL that they don't have to, and that they can't be fired because of it?  Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act

And did you mis the part where there's a law that says the pharmacy must provide all legally available contraceptives, and do so "promptly" and "withuot delay"?

Don't like the job? Go work somewhere else.

Quoted: Quoted: Walgreens hires these guys to dispense drugs. They refuse to dispense drugs on "moral grounds". Walgreens says "you're fired I'll find someone else". I don't see the problem with that. Don't like what your hired to do, go work someplace else. Did you miss the part where there is a law in IL that they don't have to, and that they can't be fired because of it?  Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act

Retarded law. Should be removed.

add one for "dont like it....  bye.. "

they have moral issues with this now...


what happens when someone has moral issues with dispensing heart meds..   blood presure meds. ?

Having thought about this since the subject first came up, I can now say that I feel that pharmacists should have their licenses suspended or revoked for not dispensing medicines. The license they are granted is supposed to allow them to dispense medicines that other people can't get any other way. If proof that the pharmacists refuse to do that can be presented, then simply suspend (twice) and then revoke the license (third time).

Someone in the other thread pointed out that a pharmacist who runs their own store shouldn't be required to stock any medicine they don't "morally" agree with, but I think that is simply false here--the need for ALL people to be guaranteed access to ALL medications is greater than the need to avoid offending any individual pharmacist's personal beliefs. Pharmacists should simply be reasonably required to stock all medications requested, and dispense them properly to anyone. The pharmacists morality simply cannot enter into it, in any way.

If Pat Robertson walked into a pharmacy for some medicine he needed and a Moslem pharmacist refused it for "religious reasons", Mr. Robertson would be the first to grab a lawyer and file a discrimination lawsuit. A cardiac stabilizer is no different than a morning after pill: "if you are to die without these pills, then it is the will of Allah". Pat doesn't mind religious discrimination when it's a type that he agrees with--but he would cry unfair if he got the short end of it.

So let's just all admit: when you walk into a pharmacy to buy any medication, wether you get that prescription filled or not shouldn't be at the whim of anyone else's moral judgement. A pharmacist license is after all a business license--and the government should take it away if you're not doing the job properly.
So stuff your morality or get the fuck out--even if it is your shop.
~~~~~~~

amen.consience has nothing to do with your job

Quoted: Having thought about this since the subject first came up, I can now say that I feel that pharmacists should have their licenses suspended or revoked for not dispensing medicines. The license they are granted is supposed to allow them to dispense medicines that other people can't get any other way. If proof that the pharmacists refuse to do that can be presented, then simply suspend (twice) and then revoke the license (third time).

That's an interesting take on it that I hadn't thought of.

People are prevented by law from buying these drugs without the help of a .gov licensed pharmacist.

Quoted: Quoted: Having thought about this since the subject first came up, I can now say that I feel that pharmacists should have their licenses suspended or revoked for not dispensing medicines. The license they are granted is supposed to allow them to dispense medicines that other people can't get any other way. If proof that the pharmacists refuse to do that can be presented, then simply suspend (twice) and then revoke the license (third time). That's an interesting take on it that I hadn't thought of. People are prevented by law from buying these drugs without the help of a .gov licensed pharmacist.

What next, revoking a doctor's license for not prescribing a woman the 'morning after' pill or narcotics for a patient claiming to be in pain.

I think revoking their license is bullshit....but if they are working for a private company and won't do their job tough luck. Find a new job.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Walgreens hires these guys to dispense drugs. They refuse to dispense drugs on "moral grounds". Walgreens says "you're fired I'll find someone else". I don't see the problem with that. Don't like what your hired to do, go work someplace else. Did you miss the part where there is a law in IL that they don't have to, and that they can't be fired because of it?  Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act And did you mis the part where there's a law that says the pharmacy must provide all legally available contraceptives, and do so "promptly" and "withuot delay"? Don't like the job? Go work somewhere else.

It's a state rule, not a state law.  They were not suspended/fired for not dispensing meds, they were suspended/fired for not signing a "pledge" that they will dispense morning after pills.  

In response to the rule, Deerfield-based Walgreen asked pharmacists to pledge in writing that they would fill prescriptions for contraceptives such as the morning-after pill. The plaintiffs were suspended indefinitely without pay when they refused to sign the pledge in November. "It couldn't be any clearer," said ACLJ senior counsel Francis J. Manion. "In punishing these pharmacists for asserting a right protected by the Conscience Act, Walgreens broke the law."

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Walgreens hires these guys to dispense drugs. They refuse to dispense drugs on "moral grounds". Walgreens says "you're fired I'll find someone else". I don't see the problem with that. Don't like what your hired to do, go work someplace else. Did you miss the part where there is a law in IL that they don't have to, and that they can't be fired because of it?  Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act And did you mis the part where there's a law that says the pharmacy must provide all legally available contraceptives, and do so "promptly" and "withuot delay"? Don't like the job? Go work somewhere else. It's a state rule, not a state law.  They were not suspended/fired for not dispensing meds, they were suspended/fired for not signing a "pledge" that they will dispense morning after pills.   In response to the rule, Deerfield-based Walgreen asked pharmacists to pledge in writing that they would fill prescriptions for contraceptives such as the morning-after pill. The plaintiffs were suspended indefinitely without pay when they refused to sign the pledge in November. "It couldn't be any clearer," said ACLJ senior counsel Francis J. Manion. "In punishing these pharmacists for asserting a right protected by the Conscience Act, Walgreens broke the law."

I'd like to seethe exact wording of the pledge... there's spin enough to go around here, and you can't know exactly what they're talking about otherwise.

My *guess* is that it was some kind of "policy" statement or memo that in effect CLARIFIES the job duties of the pharmacist who chooses to work there.  

We had something similar in my workplace that clarified privacy policies about computer use.  It was a clarfication of the terms of use, and was prompted by some changes/problems with misuse.  You could agree to abide by the policy, or decline to use the computer system.  Couldn't do the job without the computers, so you had to choose.

My *guess* is it's a similar situation.

Again, the employer has a right to set policy on how you do your job.  I would VERY seriously doubt Walgreens is trying to tell anybody what they should believe, just how they have to act in these situations.

Oh, and BTW, the law doesn't insist that any pharmacy carry these drugs.  So, if the pharmacist wants to work somewhere more in line with his beliefs, he should look for those places.  

People sue for the stupidist shit.  

Pat Robertson is going to "sew socks in hell" if you know what I mean.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Having thought about this since the subject first came up, I can now say that I feel that pharmacists should have their licenses suspended or revoked for not dispensing medicines. The license they are granted is supposed to allow them to dispense medicines that other people can't get any other way. If proof that the pharmacists refuse to do that can be presented, then simply suspend (twice) and then revoke the license (third time). That's an interesting take on it that I hadn't thought of. People are prevented by law from buying these drugs without the help of a .gov licensed pharmacist. What next, revoking a doctor's license for not prescribing a woman the 'morning after' pill or narcotics for a patient claiming to be in pain.

Not prescribing and not filling a prescription are very different things.

Legit script and they have the money to pay for it. Fill the fucking script and STFU.

Pretty interesting when you just look at the legal basics of what the case is about and not that it is about abortions or morning after pills.

The basics are that IL has a law in effect that a health care professional doesn't have to perform acts against their conscious (abortions, assisted suicide, etc) and that an employer can't force them to. www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/kansas202.htm

The, the govenor signs an executive order basically revoking that law for pharmacists.  

But on April 1, their objections slammed into the long arm of the law. That’s when Gov. Rod Blagojevich issued an emergency executive order requiring pharmacies that carry birth control to also fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill — “no delays, no hassles, no lectures,” according to Susan Hofer, spokeswoman at the state Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, which licenses pharmacists and pharmacies.

www.illinoistimes.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A4365

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, since the precedent would travel over to every area of law.

Quoted: I could be wrong, but when this was first reported on the local news I think it was reported a Pharmacist had taken a prescription, saw what it was, refused to fill it, then refused to return it to the woman so she could go elsewhere.  If my recollection is correct, and that's what happened, that is BS.  This has been going on for a couple of years in this general area.  It's interesting to watch.

I don't know which story you read/saw/heard/whatevered, but that was definitely the case in one incident which was argued on the board a year or so ago.  FLAL1A and I were among the arguers in that thread.

Furthermore, my recollection, possibly incorrect, is that the prescription was for ordinary birth control pills, not an "abortion pill" or "morning after pill", and the pharmacist refused on the grounds that contraception was against the Pope's r00lz.

Walgreens hired them to dipense drugs for medical purposes. Not give abortions. Its not birth control, its an abortion. They were hired berfore the abortion pill was legal by law.If a woman wants this medicine let her go to an abortion clinic.It is her right after all.If its life threating for her to be pregnant let the doctor dipense it.

You are asking a person to go agianst there morals for a job they DID NOT sign up for. To change it AFTER they were hired them.

Its not medicine its an abortion. Its legally the womens right she can exercise it . Why should a doctor or pharmacistis be a part of it if they choose not to.

Quoted: Walgreens hired them to dipense drugs for medical purposes. Not give abortions. Its not birth control, its an abortion. They were hired berfore the abortion pill was legal by law.If a woman wants this medicine let her go to an abortion clinic.It is her right after all.If its life threating for her to be pregnant let the doctor dipense it. You are asking a person to go agianst there morals for a job they DID NOT sign up for. To change it AFTER they were hired them. Its not medicine its an abortion. Its legally the womens right she can exercise it . Why should a doctor or pharmacistis be a part of it if they choose not to.

The morning after pill in not RU486.  The morning after pill is just a super strong birth control pill that prevents ovulation.

Quoted: Quoted: Walgreens hired them to dipense drugs for medical purposes. Not give abortions. Its not birth control, its an abortion. They were hired berfore the abortion pill was legal by law.If a woman wants this medicine let her go to an abortion clinic.It is her right after all.If its life threating for her to be pregnant let the doctor dipense it. You are asking a person to go agianst there morals for a job they DID NOT sign up for. To change it AFTER they were hired them. Its not medicine its an abortion. Its legally the womens right she can exercise it . Why should a doctor or pharmacistis be a part of it if they choose not to. The morning after pill in not RU486.  The morning after pill is just a super strong birth control pill that prevents ovulation.

Same results not matter the treatment.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Walgreens hired them to dipense drugs for medical purposes. Not give abortions. Its not birth control, its an abortion. They were hired berfore the abortion pill was legal by law.If a woman wants this medicine let her go to an abortion clinic.It is her right after all.If its life threating for her to be pregnant let the doctor dipense it. You are asking a person to go agianst there morals for a job they DID NOT sign up for. To change it AFTER they were hired them. Its not medicine its an abortion. Its legally the womens right she can exercise it . Why should a doctor or pharmacistis be a part of it if they choose not to. The morning after pill in not RU486.  The morning after pill is just a super strong birth control pill that prevents ovulation. Same results not matter the treatment.

Are you saying birth control pills should be banned too?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Walgreens hires these guys to dispense drugs. They refuse to dispense drugs on "moral grounds". Walgreens says "you're fired I'll find someone else". I don't see the problem with that. Don't like what your hired to do, go work someplace else. Did you miss the part where there is a law in IL that they don't have to, and that they can't be fired because of it?  Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act And did you mis the part where there's a law that says the pharmacy must provide all legally available contraceptives, and do so "promptly" and "withuot delay"? Don't like the job? Go work somewhere else. It's a state rule, not a state law.  They were not suspended/fired for not dispensing meds, they were suspended/fired for not signing a "pledge" that they will dispense morning after pills.   In response to the rule, Deerfield-based Walgreen asked pharmacists to pledge in writing that they would fill prescriptions for contraceptives such as the morning-after pill. The plaintiffs were suspended indefinitely without pay when they refused to sign the pledge in November. "It couldn't be any clearer," said ACLJ senior counsel Francis J. Manion. "In punishing these pharmacists for asserting a right protected by the Conscience Act, Walgreens broke the law."

And because of that 'state rule', walgreens is threatened with 'state lawsuits' and loss of licensing.

They have to look out for their shareholders first and foremost.

For some reason this story doesn't include the fact that walgreens offered these pharmacists jobs in neighboring states where no such rules exist. An important point, but for some reason not reported.

So walgreens is faced with a dilema:

1- be sued by some pharmacists with lawyers
or
2- be sued by a state government with nearly unlimited resources.

They're handling it the best way they can now.

Quoted: Walgreens hired them to dipense drugs for medical purposes. Not give abortions. Its not birth control, its an abortion. They were hired berfore the abortion pill was legal by law.If a woman wants this medicine let her go to an abortion clinic.It is her right after all.If its life threating for her to be pregnant let the doctor dipense it. You are asking a person to go agianst there morals for a job they DID NOT sign up for. To change it AFTER they were hired them. Its not medicine its an abortion. Its legally the womens right she can exercise it . Why should a doctor or pharmacistis be a part of it if they choose not to.

If a women sat down with her physician and discussed a course of treatment, and they were both in agreement, then the pharmacy should fill the prescription aside from their religious beliefs. The pharmacist does not know the reason the prescription was written. He/She does not know the conversations that took place in the doctors office. His/Her job is to fill the presriptions. If they do not like it or suspect something is amiss, then they notify Law enforcment to conduct an investigation.

These pharmacist refusing to fill these prescriptions are forcing their moral and religious beliefs on other people. They are making assumptions about people that is not part of their job. They are trying to control adoctors ability to treat a patient, when they are not supposed to.

Edited to add:

Many drugs when they are first approved for a course of treatment are later found to effctive treating other illnesses. The drug then goes through an approval process to treat then new illness or disease it has shown to be effective in. It falls back to the doctor to have a discussion with the patient about what the drug does and potetial side effects it might have.

I think that they should hand them out in Pez dispensers...for free...

The human race needs a thinning of the herd..and an reduction in new stock..

How did you get that out of my statemnet? I'm saying no one should have to go agianst there morals for a job that they did not sign up for. They were asked to do something they find morally offensive after they were hired.No matter if its a clinic ,RU486 or a super strong contraceptive or coat hanger its aborting a child. Granted this is given if there MAY be a chance of pregnancy but if she is its an abortion

I'm all for birth control pills or whatever. Its what should be used before this choice has to be made. It should not be easy to abort for the woman just because it can be.

To be honost I'm totallly agianst abortion in 99% of the cases. If my wife would become pregnant now we would have to do some long and hard thinking. I believe a third child would kill her.It would be almost impossible because we take every prrecation.

I dont think the woman using this method is in most cases. If  its going to injure or kill her its a case for a doctor.

I'd think it odd that a pharmacist would dispense birth control pills but would balk at the morning after pill.  I was always under the impression that they were the same thing in different forms, with about the same action in the body.  I know before the morning after pills were on the market it was common to use multiple BC pills at once as an equivalent.  Seems a pharmacist should have access to that information.

It also seems to me that this is about the equivalent of a clerk at WalMart not only refusing to ring up your 10-22 or shotgun at her reigster, but perhaps also tearing up your (now completed) paperwork as well.. Because guns kill kids and it's against the will of the UN.  Should Wallyworld fire her?  

One would also imagine that the pharmacist might realize that with the current push to make morning after pills OTC, perhaps their denial of access (with or without confiscating the doctor's slip) might be counterproductive for their moral cause anyway.  I've seen no medical argument against OTC sales, only moral ones.  Arguments for OTC sales center around limited availability of the pills in the best of circumstances. The FDA is currently over a barrell with many believing they are using politics to decide medical questions.   It's very possible that forcing the issue in this way might very well pave the way for even less pharmacist oversight over those pills.  

Quoted: How did you get that out of my statemnet? I'm saying no one should have to go agianst there morals for a job that they did not sign up for. They were asked to do something they find morally offensive after they were hired.No matter if its a clinic ,RU486 or a super strong contraceptive or coat hanger its aborting a child. Granted this is given if there MAY be a chance of pregnancy but if she is its an abortion I'm all for birth control pills or whatever. Its what should be used before this choice has to be made. It should not be easy to abort for the woman just because it can be. To be honost I'm totallly agianst abortion in 99% of the cases. If my wife would become pregnant now we would have to do some long and hard thinking. I believe a third child would kill her.It would be almost impossible because we take every prrecation. I dont think the woman using this method is in most cases. If  its going to injure or kill her its a case for a doctor.

Which is why they need to go to a pharmacy- to fill a prescription that was made by a doctor.

BTW if pregnancy would kill your wife why are you having sex without one of you all being snipped?

Quoted: Quoted: How did you get that out of my statemnet? I'm saying no one should have to go agianst there morals for a job that they did not sign up for. They were asked to do something they find morally offensive after they were hired.No matter if its a clinic ,RU486 or a super strong contraceptive or coat hanger its aborting a child. Granted this is given if there MAY be a chance of pregnancy but if she is its an abortion I'm all for birth control pills or whatever. Its what should be used before this choice has to be made. It should not be easy to abort for the woman just because it can be. To be honost I'm totallly agianst abortion in 99% of the cases. If my wife would become pregnant now we would have to do some long and hard thinking. I believe a third child would kill her.It would be almost impossible because we take every prrecation. I dont think the woman using this method is in most cases. If  its going to injure or kill her its a case for a doctor. Which is why they need to go to a pharmacy- to fill a prescription that was made by a doctor. BTW if pregnancy would kill your wife why are you having sex without one of you all being snipped?

If she is at the doctor let him dispense it. Dont drag a guy who never signed on for it.If the doctor will sign the script he obviously does't have a problem with it.

Thanks for caring about my wife. This is planned to happen soon. The one thing we wanted to leave open was a me being the father of another child for us. I was wanting to go the cheap route instead of clinically, but she nixed it.  

I think we need a law that evangelical fucktards retake biology so we can teach them that their pastor is wrong.  The morning after pill is a contraceptive.

They'd be singing a different tune if some scumbag raped their wife.

from:  Emergency Contraception Website operated by the Office of Population Research at Princeton University

"How Do Emergency Contraceptives Work?
Depending on the time during the menstrual cycle that they are taken, ECPs may inhibit or delay ovulation, inhibit tubal transport of the egg or sperm, interfere with fertilization, or alter the endometrium (the lining of the uterus), thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg. The copper in copper-T IUDs can prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg and can also alter the endometrium, thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg."

I think the part in bold is what they don't like...  if the egg is already fertilized...

This thread will go nowhere!  It's the classic Pro-Lifers against the Pro-Killers!

Quoted: Quoted: What next, revoking a doctor's license for not prescribing a woman the 'morning after' pill or narcotics for a patient claiming to be in pain. Not prescribing and not filling a prescription are very different things.

A woman without insurance and no primary care doctor walks into an ER and demands the 'morning-after' pill.  The ER doc refuses since it is incompatible with his beliefs.  The ACLU sues the doctor on behalf of the woman and files a complaint to the state Medical Board.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What next, revoking a doctor's license for not prescribing a woman the 'morning after' pill or narcotics for a patient claiming to be in pain. Not prescribing and not filling a prescription are very different things. A woman without insurance and no primary care doctor walks into an ER and demands the 'morning-after' pill.  The ER doc refuses since it is incompatible with his beliefs.  The ACLU sues the doctor on behalf of the woman and files a complaint to the state Medical Board.

Still a very different scenario.


I'd have no problem with the doc saying "nope, I'll have nothing to do with prescribing that kind of drug".

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: What next, revoking a doctor's license for not prescribing a woman the 'morning after' pill or narcotics for a patient claiming to be in pain. Not prescribing and not filling a prescription are very different things. A woman without insurance and no primary care doctor walks into an ER and demands the 'morning-after' pill.  The ER doc refuses since it is incompatible with his beliefs.  The ACLU sues the doctor on behalf of the woman and files a complaint to the state Medical Board. Still a very different scenario. I'd have no problem with the doc saying "nope, I'll have nothing to do with prescribing that kind of drug".

Yep. The rule says the pharmacist must dispense all legal contraceptives if the pharmacy carries it.  It doesn't say all docs have to give whatever their patients demand.

Otherwise, the pharmacists can refuse to sell anybody condoms, spermicides, and coat hangers if it doesn't "agree" with them.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Walgreens hired them to dipense drugs for medical purposes. Not give abortions. Its not birth control, its an abortion. They were hired berfore the abortion pill was legal by law.If a woman wants this medicine let her go to an abortion clinic.It is her right after all.If its life threating for her to be pregnant let the doctor dipense it. You are asking a person to go agianst there morals for a job they DID NOT sign up for. To change it AFTER they were hired them. Its not medicine its an abortion. Its legally the womens right she can exercise it . Why should a doctor or pharmacistis be a part of it if they choose not to. The morning after pill in not RU486.  The morning after pill is just a super strong birth control pill that prevents ovulation. Same results not matter the treatment.

If by results you mean that the end result is no child, then yes.

But no, they don't give the same results.  Emergency contraception prevents fertilization of an egg.  There's about a 72-hour window in which it's effective in doing so.  If taken after that, it more than likely won't affect the already fertilized egg.  

RU-486, on the other hand, does terminate an embryo up to a few weeks after fertilization.