Can I Have My Medicine, Please?

[R. Richard]

Apparently, in the state of Illinois, if a pharmacist doesn't think you need medicine, he/she thinks he/she can refuse you the medicine. This is not about people trying to obtain controlled substance without prescription, this is about someone who is not a doctor trying to tell people that they can't have approved medication. IMNTHO people who think that they can make personal medical decisions for other people do not just need to be fired, they need to be confined somewhere that they can't get at anyting hard or sharp. Comments?

Pharmacists Sue Over Birth Control Policy

EDWARDSVILLE, Ill. - 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.

 

[zeb1094]

Just to agree with you. Althought the two laws do contradict each other, that will most likely be resolved in the Illinois ledgislature in the near future.

Personally, I think that any Pharmacists who refuse to fill a prescrption issued by a licensed medical doctor should be removed from there position and any and all licenses they hold revoked without chance for appeal.

 

[Guest]

i wonder if this is just the morning after pill or if it applies to any drug.

 

[zeb1094]

i wonder if this is just the morning after pill or if it applies to any drug.

It was basically over the morning after pill but spread to any birth contol drug that required a prescription. Several Pharmacists at Walgreens refused to dispense birth control pill to customers who presented valid prescriptions, theh were promptly fired by Walgreens.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Comments?

Without taking a stance on the issue itself, which I think a very difficult one, I would suggest that you have not reasonably characterized the issues at stake with this description:

Apparently, in the state of Illinois, if a pharmacist doesn't think you need medicine, he/she thinks he/she can refuse you the medicine.

This is not an issue of the pharmacist deciding whether a medicine is necessary for the desired effect. It would be more reasonable and accurate to say:

Apparently, in the state of Illinois, if a pharmacist believes that supplying you with a medicine will directly result in the death of another human being, he/she thinks he/she can refuse you the medicine.

I believe that that would more accurately identify the reason for the law and the conflict of rights and conscience involved.

 

[rgraham666]

Surprisingly enough, in spite of my dislike for those moved by fundamentalist philosophy, I am mostly on the side of the pharmacists. If it is against their morals to dispense the pills, I don't believe they should be forced to do so.

Also agree with their employer. The pharmacists were hired to dispense legal but controlled drugs. If they won't do their jobs, they shouldn't be working for that company.

Following your ethics often costs. It cost me often enough in my life.

Nobody ever said it was going to be easy.

 

[Guest]

Surprisingly enough, in spite of my dislike for those moved by fundamentalist philosophy, I am mostly on the side of the pharmacists. If it is against their morals to dispense the pills, I don't believe they should be forced to do so.

Also agree with their employer. The pharmacists were hired to dispense legal but controlled drugs. If they won't do their jobs, they shouldn't be working for that company.

Following your ethics often costs. It cost me often enough in my life.

Nobody ever said it was going to be easy.

i agree with you rob.
if you have such strict moral ethics that wont allow you to do the work you were hired for, then you need to find another place of employment.
its a freedom here.

 

[zeb1094]

Surprisingly enough, in spite of my dislike for those moved by fundamentalist philosophy, I am mostly on the side of the pharmacists. If it is against their morals to dispense the pills, I don't believe they should be forced to do so.

Also agree with their employer. The pharmacists were hired to dispense legal but controlled drugs. If they won't do their jobs, they shouldn't be working for that company.

Following your ethics often costs. It cost me often enough in my life.

Nobody ever said it was going to be easy.

Don't the pharmacists take an oath, similar to doctors? I'll have to have a talk with my pharmacist on the subject.

If they do, are they not violating their own oath?

I'm also sure that they knew they would be dispensing drugs like these before they became pharmacists.

 

[Guest]

Don't the pharmacists take an oath, similar to doctors? I'll have to have a talk with my pharmacist on the subject.

If they do, are they not violating their own oath?

I'm also sure that they knew they would be dispensing drugs like these before they became pharmacists.

im not sure they do take an oath but as a cardiac tech, i had to sign an agreement with the hospitals i worked for to agree to their standards of care.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Surprisingly enough, in spite of my dislike for those moved by fundamentalist philosophy, I am mostly on the side of the pharmacists. If it is against their morals to dispense the pills, I don't believe they should be forced to do so.

Also agree with their employer. The pharmacists were hired to dispense legal but controlled drugs. If they won't do their jobs, they shouldn't be working for that company.

Following your ethics often costs. It cost me often enough in my life.

Nobody ever said it was going to be easy.

I'm generally in agreement, so long as the pharmacy also has a choice. That is, if the pharmacy can choose not to carry the medicine, then it's a reasonable choice to me.

 

[zeb1094]

im not sure they do take an oath but as a cardiac tech, i had to sign an agreement with the hospitals i worked for to agree to their standards of care.

Well that's what the lawsuit is over, the signing of an agreement to do their assigned job.

I also have had to sign things in order to keep my job(s), non-disclosure agreements, non-compete agreements, employment contracts, etc.

It doesn't keep me from doing my job!

 

[zeb1094]

I'm generally in agreement, so long as the pharmacy also has a choice. That is, if the pharmacy can choose not to carry the medicine, then it's a reasonable choice to me.

I think what the phamacy stocks is dictated by the FDA as those are the drugs doctors can and will prescribe.

 

[rgraham666]

Human beings are good at fooling themselves, zeb.

I'm sure the pharmacists in question hoped that dispensing birth control drugs would never happen. And if it did, that they would suffer any consequences for deciding they couldn't.

Or perhaps they thought they could dispense the drugs and found that they felt more guilt than they expected and that guilt was eating away at them.

Life hands you a lot of surprises over its length.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think what the phamacy stocks is dictated by the FDA as those are the drugs doctors can and will prescribe.

Then that I think something of a sticking point. We don't license doctors based on whether or not they are willing to perform abortions; we recognize that it is a matter of personal conscience, and that even in areas where abortion providers are scarce, it's not reasonable to ask a doctor to perform an abortion if s/he thinks it involves killing a human being. We also recognize that there is value to having a doctor who performs all other services, but not that one. I think it would be more reasonable to take the same view on pharmacies. I recognize that the point may feel largely academic; the big chains will insist that the medicine be stocked, and then it's a workplace requirements issue. I have no problem with people not being hired if they won't do the job. However, I do have difficulties with the govenment making it impossible for a person of strong conscience to run his/her own pharamacy that does not supply that medication.

 

[zeb1094]

Human beings are good at fooling themselves, zeb.

I'm sure the pharmacists in question hoped that dispensing birth control drugs would never happen. And if it did, that they would suffer any consequences for deciding they couldn't.

Or perhaps they thought they could dispense the drugs and found that they felt more guilt than they expected and that guilt was eating away at them.

Life hands you a lot of surprises over its length.

True, I then think they should move on and choose another profession, like maybe the legislature, then they could try to change things the right way.

 

[R. Richard]

Without taking a stance on the issue itself, which I think a very difficult one, I would suggest that you have not reasonably characterized the issues at stake with this description:

Originally Posted by R. Richard
Comments?

Without taking a stance on the issue itself, which I think a very difficult one, I would suggest that you have not reasonably characterized the issues at stake with this description:

Apparently, in the state of Illinois, if a pharmacist believes that supplying you with a medicine will directly result in the death of another human being, he/she thinks he/she can refuse you the medicine.

I believe that that would more accurately identify the reason for the law and the conflict of rights and conscience involved.

I think that describing the use of the "morning after pill" as resulting in the death of another human being is a bit of a stretch here. I think that refusing to supply birth control pills on the same basis is sufficient grounds that the State of Illinois should permanently revoke the license of any person who makes such refusal.

If you think that a person can refuse to supply legal drugs because of personal beliefs, then please answer me this. A pharmacist refuses to supply black people with sickle cell anemia drugs becasue he/she sincerely believes that black people are inferior to the point where they are not really human and deserve to die so that they may not "contaminate" other, human races. Would you support this act of conscience? I think not.

I have always believed that medical decisions made by a person and agreed to by a licensed medical doctor are the businsess only of the person and their doctor.

JMHO.

 

[zeb1094]

Then that I think something of a sticking point. We don't license doctors based on whether or not they are willing to perform abortions; we recognize that it is a matter of personal conscience, and that even in areas where abortion providers are scarce, it's not reasonable to ask a doctor to perform an abortion if s/he thinks it involves killing a human being. We also recognize that there is value to having a doctor who performs all other services, but not that one. I think it would be more reasonable to take the same view on pharmacies. I recognize that the point may feel largely academic; the big chains will insist that the medicine be stocked, and then it's a workplace requirements issue. I have no problem with people not being hired if they won't do the job. However, I do have difficulties with the govenment making it impossible for a person of strong conscience to run his/her own pharamacy that does not supply that medication.

I don't know if that's true, but if I gave my pharmacist a script and they said they didn't stock that drug, I would promptly switch all my business to a pharmacy that did. So the laws of supply and demand come into play also.

 

[3113]

This is not an issue of the pharmacist deciding whether a medicine is necessary for the desired effect.

I'm afraid it is as the Morning After Pill can be used to help people with other diseases (I forget which, but I recall a woman arguing for it's being sold in the U.S. back when because it helped her enormously with a life-threatening disease she had). And it's none of the Pharmicist's business what the pill is being used for.

Also, the Pharmicist DOESN'T know if the woman's pregnant. Women don't take this pill because they know they're preggers, just because they're afraid they might be. So a pharmicist can't argue that the woman is killing anything. If she's not preggers, she isn't. He'd have to prove she was preggers to know.

And if she IS preggers, and he can prove it, then he might decide not to dispense to her any drug she might use that could harm the child. Medicine for her husband? Medicine for her ailing parents? There are other pills, for other things, which, in combination, can create the same result. Pharmacists could decide not to dispense those medicines just because the combination could be given to a woman to induce a miscarrage.

It's a slippery slope.

 

[elsol]

They were hired to do a job.
They refuse to do it.

What's the issue?

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[BlackShanglan]

I think that describing the use of the "morning after pill" as resulting in the death of another human being is a bit of a stretch here. I think that refusing to supply birth control pills on the same basis is sufficient grounds that the State of Illinois should permanently revoke the license of any person who makes such refusal.

Yes, I recognize that you do not feel that it involves the death of a human being. However, given that the pharamacist does, that is in fact the reason for denying the drug.

If you think that a person can refuse to supply legal drugs because of personal beliefs, then please answer me this. A pharmacist refuses to supply black people with sickle cell anemia drugs becasue he/she sincerely believes that black people are inferior to the point where they are not really human and deserve to die so that they may not "contaminate" other, human races. Would you support this act of conscience? I think not.

Which is precisely why I felt it important to identify the pharamcist's reason for wishing not to supply the pill. The nature of the reason, as your example illustrates, is everything. If the reason is "I'm a racist jackass," then no, you are not generally accepted to have an acceptable point of conscience. If, however, the reason is "I believe that I am killing an innocent human being," then one is generally accepted to have a fair point of conscience. Society as a whole does not recognize preserving racist values as a significant point of conscience; it does recognize not killing people as a significant point of conscience. While the topic of abortion has made clear the fact that different people consider a human life to have begun at different times, it does not thereby make a desire not to kill an illegitimate point of conscience.

I have always believed that medical decisions made by a person and agreed to by a licensed medical doctor are the businsess only of the person and their doctor.

In this case, however, we're running back into the chief issue at stake in abortion and reproductive rights issues. Some people believe that the individuals you list are the only people involved. Others believe that there is a third person, the conceived human life that they belief to be present. In that case, by handing over the medicine, they would be directly aiding in the destruction of that life.

Given that there is no conclusive evidence acceptable to both sides on the topic of when human life begins or what consitutes a human life, I think it's reasonable that people be allowed some choice in whether they participate in that act. I agree that in the workplace, one must do one's job, but I think it's reasonable to believe that one ought to be allowed to structure a workplace in which one is not required to kill other humans.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I don't know if that's true, but if I gave my pharmacist a script and they said they didn't stock that drug, I would promptly switch all my business to a pharmacy that did. So the laws of supply and demand come into play also.

*nods* That was my intent when I said that I thought the big chains would demand it be stocked.

 

[elsol]

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Oregon's 'Right to Die' law was just upheld... by the Highest Court in the land.

This means in Oregon if you jump through all the right hoops, you can buy the farm yourself.

So what happens when a drug company, pharmacist, medical supplier decides it's against their 'morals' to supply drugs?

So you can go to the ultimate arbitrers of legality, win and your next neighbor can say "Sorry, Bob... I just don't agree with this so fuck off!"

I guess we've given up on the concept of 'rights'.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm afraid it is as the Morning After Pill can be used to help people with other diseases (I forget which, but I recall a woman arguing for it's being sold in the U.S. back when because it helped her enormously with a life-threatening disease she had). And it's none of the Pharmicist's business what the pill is being used for.

I think you misunderstand me. My point was not that the pill had no other uses. My point was that the pharamicst's objection was not based in him/her deciding that the pill was not necessary to the resolution of the condition, whatever it might be. The objection is rooted in the desire not to kill another human being. Therefore, the pharamacist's objection is not to the necessity of the pill as a medication, but to the effects of the pill on a third party.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I guess we've given up on the concept of 'rights'.

Sincerely,
ElSol

No. We've recognized that there are times when two rights cannot be exercised at the same time, and are trying to work out which right gets precedence. This is a very common situation, and one that has never meant that either right doesn't exist. It just means that if my right and your right can't be exercised at the same time, we need a way to resolve that issue. It's the basis of most law.

 

[elsol]

No. We've recognized that there are times when two rights cannot be exercised at the same time, and are trying to work out which right gets precedence. This is a very common situation, and one that has never meant that either right doesn't exist. It just means that if my right and your right can't be exercised at the same time, we need a way to resolve that issue. It's the basis of most law.

A job is not a right.

Being able to buy something which has been decided as a legal commercial product is (vis a vis rights to property... you can have property without acquiring in some legal fashion... i.e. buying it).

There is no rights vs. rights argument.

This is a 'Your morals' vs. 'My rights' argument.

Edited to add: Nobody on the morals side gets to win this argument, not without pouring lube on the 'slippery slope' by the gallons.