Pharmacist refuses to fill precription

Sevens

Sevens

Forum Dominatrix
Mods, I didn't think this really qualified as political, but if you want to move it there or anywhere else where you feel it would be more fitting, please do so.

This has caused quite the stir here in little old Idaho. Basically it boils down to a pharmacist at Walgreens (yes, I know the pharmacist involved) refusing to fill a prescription for a drug that is given to stop/slow bleeding after live births, miscarriages, and abortions. She refused to fill it because the patient refused to tell her if she'd had an abortion. Now under Idaho law, a pharmacist doesn't have to fill a precription that goes against their personal tenets. This was passed in part because of the morning after pill and a lot of pharmacists feeling it was wrong to dispense that particular drug. The law states basically that the pharmacist may refuse to fill the scrip, BUT he or she MUST do everything in their power to find a pharmacist who WILL fill the scrip. I was just curious what you think. Was the pharmacist in the right because of the law? Or was she in the wrong because its not her place to implement her beliefs on others? Personally I'm on the side of the patient and Planned Parenthood. I think it was wrong of this pharmacist to refuse to fill the medication and I feel she needs to be more severely punished (she was only required to "re-study" Walgreens policy on scrip filling). What if this patient had died because of her refusal to fill the scrip? *shakes head* So longer post, shorter I'm just curious what others think about this.


http://www.kboi2.com/news/local/113433439.html

http://www.ktvb.com/news/Planned-Parenthood-files-complaint-against-Nampa-pharmacist-113429849.html

http://www.kivitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13841719
 
That is screwed up to say the least.

It's none of the pharmacists business if the woman had an abortion or not. It's her job to fill the prescriptions and if she wants to be so damn pro-life she'd rather have the potential death of another life on her hands then so be it - but she certainly shouldn't be employed anywhere where her personal beliefs could cause death.

As for IF that woman had an abortion the blood is on her hands and her doctors hands - PLUS there could be other circumstances other than just a simple "I didn't want the baby" non-sense. Any way you look at this though this pharmacist had no right to make her personal opinions into medical judgments on this woman's choices.

On a side note, what if this woman did have a miscarriage? "Have you had an abortion?" I can't think of anything so callous and hurtful someone could ask after losing a baby.

People like this pharmacist make me sick that I consider myself a pro-life supporter.
 
It's none of the Pharmacist's business what a drug is to be used for. If you have a scrip or if the drug is available without one and you have the money it is just another sale.

Surely privacy laws protect the purchaser's right to buy anything they have a scrip for.
 
This is not the first time this has happened. There was a similar case about a decade ago. And if I remember correctly the courts said that the pharmacist was required to fill the prescription as the prescription was perfectly valid, he was needlessly putting the patients health at risk, and he had no right to deny a person treatment based on his own personal religious views.
 
HIPAA protects a patient's privacy to a point, but that law is mostly for insurance companies. I worked at Walgreens (THIS one that's under fire actually) for over four years, so I know what the laws are regarding patient privacy, but I can't tell you anymore than that about those particular laws. As Pixie pointed out, what if she'd had a misacarriage? Maybe she's been trying for years to have a child and this was another unsuccessful attempt. How heartbroken would that woman would be, and then to have someone ask her if she aborted her baby? It digusts me that this pharmacist passed judgment without knowing anything really about the woman's situation, and it angers me that this pharmacist is allowed under Idaho's stupid morality law to pass that judgment and refuse service. And because Walgreens is a worthless company that likes to sweep everything under the rug lest outsiders know how dirty they truly are, they'll pay a fine and this woman will get to keep her job and go on to violate others as she did this patient.
 
mmarsh said:
This is not the first time this has happened. There was a similar case about a decade ago. And if I remember correctly the courts said that the pharmacist was required to fill the prescription as the prescription was perfectly valid, he was needlessly putting the patients health at risk, and he had no right to deny a person treatment based on his own personal religious views.
Click to expand...


Yes, but Idaho has a law on the books, passed in late 2009, early 2010 that states a pharmacist CAN refuse to fill a scrip if it goes against their personal beliefs, such as the morning after pill to a pro-lifer. BUT they have to do everything in their power and within reason to find a pharmacist who WILL fill the prescription. I'm trying to find a link to better explain this ridiculous law, but am not having much luck.


Oh I spoke too soon. Here you go. An article about the bill.

http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?/article/idaho_pharmacists_can_now_say_no_04032009328/
 
Last edited:
Sevens said:
Yes, but Idaho has a law on the books, passed in late 2009, early 2010 that states a pharmacist CAN refuse to fill a scrip if it goes against their personal beliefs, such as the morning after pill to a pro-lifer. BUT they have to do everything in their power and within reason to find a pharmacist who WILL fill the prescription. I'm trying to find a link to better explain this ridiculous law, but am not having much luck.
Click to expand...

Ah that refreshes my memory abit more. In the previous case ruling (I think it went to the USSC) I mentioned, part of the courts reasoning was that there was no other pharmacist nearby. The defendant would have been required to go a unreasonable amount of distance to find another. Sounds like Idaho is trying to worm its way around a established ruling by using a loophole.

I have a problem with the idea of a pharmacist sticking his unwanted and unasked for opinion in other peoples business. The job of pharmacist isn't complicated. Customer gives a valid prescription, the pharmacist fills the order as its written. If filling a prescription poses a moral quandary, then he/she better find another line of work.

As says the 11th Commandment (from George Carlins 10 Commandments) "KEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF!"
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Ah that refreshes my memory abit more. In the previous case ruling (I think it went to the USSC) I mentioned, part of the courts reasoning was that there was no other pharmacist nearby. The defendant would have been required to go a unreasonable amount of distance to find another. Sounds like Idaho is trying to worm its way around a established ruling by using a loophole.
Click to expand...


Pretty much. The article I just read (and posted) states that apparently in Idaho the pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription and doesn't have to help the patient in anyway at that point. I was always told that the pharmacist could refuse, but had to find someone who would fill the scrip. So.....its a muddled mess. As are most laws. LOL
 
Sevens said:
Pretty much. The article I just read (and posted) states that apparently in Idaho the pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription and doesn't have to help the patient in anyway at that point. I was always told that the pharmacist could refuse, but had to find someone who would fill the scrip. So.....its a muddled mess. As are most laws. LOL
Click to expand...

I hope this legislation costs Idaho taxpayer plenty getting them sorted out of this mess. It serves them right for passing such an idiotic law.

Whats next? How about they let Vegans refuse to serve/cook meat at restaurants?

Can you imagine this scenario say. at McDonald's?:

"I'm sorry sir, I refuse to make your Big Mac because it goes against my moral beliefs about eating meat. But I can recommend another McDonald's a few miles away, maybe they will make your sandwich".
 
Oh give it time, mmarsh. With some of the ridiculous pieces of legislation getting passed these days....*shakes head*....pretty soon we won't be able to smile at or say hi to a stranger without expressed written consent.

I'm happy to know I'm not the only one who finds this ridiculous. When I first heard about it, I thought it was just my absolute hatred of Walgreens coloring my opinion of the incident. Its nice to know I'm not the only one who feels this patient was violated.
 
You don't have thell that woman the truth if you need that drug, if I needed a drug like that to help me I would tell her anything to get the drug and sort out later when I felt better.
 
This should be in the PF. IF it was the owner of the pharmacy, he should have to right to refuse a prescription, it's his business. An employee needs to do his job or quit working in that area.
 
If the pharmacist can't due his job due to their convictions, then they should find a job they can do. I don't see how a pharmacy could afford an employee who wouldn't do their job every time.
 
Sevens said:
They can't. That store has lost so much business. And I think its well deserved.
Click to expand...
+1

I hope they go out of business. I wouldn't feel comfortable with the knowledge that a store would support someone like that when my life might be hanging by a pill the next time someone has an opinion.

Filling a prescription has nothing to do with opinion, it has to do what the doctor has concluded is in the best interest of the patient.
 
George said:
This should be in the PF. IF it was the owner of the pharmacy, he should have to right to refuse a prescription, it's his business. An employee needs to do his job or quit working in that area.
Click to expand...

A pharmacists job is to fulfill the subscriptions as ordered by the doctor. Not pass morals standards on others. Its really that simple. If a Pharmacist has a problem filling ANY prescription then they need to find another line of work.

I have no tolerance with stupid laws like this, pharmacists should either do the job (holding their nose if they must) or find another one. There is no middle ground.

Suppose ALL the pharmacists in a area decided they don't want to fill prescriptions related to abortion, or if the pharmacist happens to be in a very desolate part of the country where the next pharmacist is 60 miles away (like say in the North/Northwest)?

This is allowing pharmacists to impose their moral views on the entire society, which in this case is illegal. Whether you agree with Roe v Wade or not, individuals cannot overturn a Supreme Court ruling on their own volition. The courts has already established that a woman has the right to an abortion, therefore it is not up to the pharmacist to deny that right.

Furthermore a pharmacist is a critical service, like a market/supermarket is. People are depend on them solely to get prescriptions, its not like they can go to a 7-11 to get their proscribed medication. It is the pharmacist that must accomodate the customer, NOT the other way around.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
A pharmacists job is to fulfill the subscriptions as ordered by the doctor. Not pass morals standards on others. Its really that simple. If a Pharmacist has a problem filling ANY prescription then they need to find another l;ine of work.
Furthermore a pharmacist is a critical service, like a market/supermarket is. People are depend on them solely to get prescriptions, its not like they can go to a 7-11 to get their proscribed medication. It is the pharmacist that must accomodate the customer, NOT the other way around.
Click to expand...
I agree IF "the pharmacist" is an employee. Totally disagree if you think the Govt can force a business owner to sell ANY THING. The market/supermarket will usually try to supply the customers needs, but once again if the owner chooses not to sell a product or open his business on any particular day, it's his business, not anyone elses. Another example of Govt overreach.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top