Pharmacists & Prescriptions

[RichfieldMN]

A Pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for a birth control pill and some are refusing to even hand them back after refusing.

Do you think a pharmacist has a right to refuse to fill a prescription.

In the case in question, the women was left sobbing after abuse by the pharmacist, and had to drive 35 miles to get her pills.

Where does it end will the pharmacist refuse to fill prescriptions for addicts, HIV patients, STD Patient, etc

Are we going down a slippery slope?

[Newer Oxford]

Does a doctor have the right to refuse to perform an abortion?

If euthanasia was legalized in the future and a doctor prescribed a lethal medication for a patient who wished to die, would the pharmicist have a right to refuse to fill that prescription?

[Greek People Nation (GPN)]

That is hard to choose. If they patient is form the ages of 14-16 or lower, I would have to say that the Pharamicist has the right to say no. By giving them the pills is promoting Unprotected Sex. Yes, it is the person's choice, but by refusing I think it is helping promote safe sex.

Now if they are 17 and older no the pharamicist shouln't have the right to refuse. They are old enough to make their own desicions.

[Sheynat]

Depends on who runs the joint. If this guy were in my employ, he'd be fired on the spot, and I'd try to make it as humiliating as I could. Only fair, considering how badly he humiliated the woman. This guy is not hired to abuse people. And refusing to give the slip back is outright illegal. I personally think this guy should lose his job. It's not his job to sit there and spew his morals. He's allowed to have feelings. He's not allowed to refuse to do his job because of them-at least not and still take the paycheck.

[Newer Oxford]

I would pretty much have to agree with that. And it is definitely out of line to refuse to give back the prescription, and it is an extremely poor performance to berate the person about it in addition to all else.

However if it is a privately owned pharmacy, the owner has every right to decide what to stock and what to not. Free market will determine whether or not a pharmacy that does this will succeed. For example, there was a shop in town near where I live that sold only counted crosstitch. The shop went out of business after about a year because not many people wanted to shop at that store if they would have to make a separate stop to pick up, say for example, crocheting yarn. In all likelihood, other shops that sold crocheting yarn would also sell counted crosstitch supplies, so the first shop put itself out of business.

In this case, even if the pharmacy was privately owned, there are still issues that are seriously wrong with the situation. As long as it is legal to prescribe a medical item, it is legal to possess a prescription for it, and it is theft for the pharmacist to refuse to give it back.

[Sheynat]

If the pharmacy itself simply didn't stock it, that's one thing. If the pharmacy did stock it and refused to dispense it, that's another thing entirely-that's the pharmacist refusing to do his job.

[Estayland]

*brings back memories from undergrad ethics*

I think I actually presented this same thing in my class. If there was abuse and humiliation, that's the pharmacists err. However, I believe he should have the ability to deny a non-life saving or non-medically necessary prescription to anyone he wishes. Since birth control is not medically critical, he can say he only wants to give it to married women. Now, Ive heard (and of course as a guy I truly dont know) that girls do take birth control to ease their periods. So this one is truly tough.

As a free-market capitalist, I say he can deny it, especially if its for some young girl who's only doing it to be promiscuous (sp) in her sex life. If he is employed by someone who didnt like that decision, he can be fired. If other people in his market dont like the decision, they should stop patronizing his pharmacy.

[TheSensitiveNewAge]

I have known some people take birth control to deal with acne that were not sleeping around. Also, birth control makes menstration more regularly scheduled. Given stuff such as this, I would say the pharmacists has no right to deny a person birth control. Pharmacists are not supposed to get into people's private affairs.

As to doctor's refusing to perform abortions, I would say that is a different matter. Birth control prevents pregnancy, I fail to see how that could be morally wrong. Even if the birth control is taken to facilitate promiscous behavior and we take that as a sin, that is a sin people choose to engage in voluntarily. Now, I don't believe this is right, but I can at least understand the argument that abortion is murder. Murder takes a life, involuntarily. So if a doctor felt abortion was wrong, I understand the doctor not performing one. However, if the patient wants an abortion, the doctor should list practioners who will perform one. The pharmicist I feel should provide the medicine, especially since many some towns only have one drugstore.

[Klington]

RichfieldMN said:

A Pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for a birth control pill and some are refusing to even hand them back after refusing.

Do you think a pharmacist has a right to refuse to fill a prescription.

In the case in question, the women was left sobbing after abuse by the pharmacist, and had to drive 35 miles to get her pills.

Where does it end will the pharmacist refuse to fill prescriptions for addicts, HIV patients, STD Patient, etc

Are we going down a slippery slope?

Really vague question, normally I would say no, but there may be a time when a pharmasist may have to deny a prescription, for whatever reasons. But I feel whatever reasoning present here was foolish and biased. If you can't handle birth control, don't get a job adminstiring birth control pills.

[Klington]

Sheynat said:

Depends on who runs the joint. If this guy were in my employ, he'd be fired on the spot, and I'd try to make it as humiliating as I could.

A chivalrious act, but maybe not to wise in light of other employees.

[Bratesbourgh]

I would say, if it was a privately owned pharmacist, then yes he can refuse to grant a medication. However, he should refer the person to another who does. He should however, return the prescription, as that does not belong to him.

This is a problem in small towns, though, in most cases abortion after-morning pills can be, and will be dispensed from a hospital, and they do it regularly. As for euthanasia, in the state of Oregon, it is legal. It needs to be done through proper steps, but anyone can refuse to participate in it.

[Newer Oxford]

Some birth control pills (such as the morning after pill) are abortive. I had assumed that would be the moral issue, but after giving it a second thought, some people might not want to distribute birth control supplies of any kind on the basis of not wanting to encourage promiscurity. Catholics usually tend to be pretty strict about birth control, not sure who else tends to be though.

[RichfieldMN]

I honestly feel like Sheynat said above that this Pharmacist should face disciplinary action and dismissed from his job as a pharmacist. Like Klington said if you can't dispense the medication why take the job.

I firmly believe it is the doctors job to prescribe medication, and the responsibility of the doctor to outline the risks of the medication to the patient. If the patient has any questions they can always "ask" the pharmacist who should be able to answer questions about side affects etc...

The pharmacist has a job and that is to dispense the medication the doctor prescribed. They are not there to make moral judgements about the patient or the medication. They are allowed personal opinions and they should hold them in check on the job. If they for any reason can not prescribe the medication, ask a colleague to do so, or recommend a time the patient can come back, or refer them to another pharmacy. I have no truck with referals at all, that is fine.

The question is not really vague, it asks if the pharmacist should be able to refuse, the answer to that is no, but they can always refer

I suppose I really should have had 4 options

Yes
Yes-but refer them
No
Depends

[Rock McLargeHuge]

Hmm, this is a question of forcing your morals onto someone.

If there was a good reason for the Pharmacist to not prescribe the medication, then fine but if it was just his moral indignation then he should have prescribed it.

After all he signed up to help everyone he could, not just the ones he wanted. It his not his job to judge his customers after all. I've known Hindu's that work in McDonalds, and they wouldn't belittle a person who wanted to buy a beefburger, and if they did then they would be sacked.

[Addendum]

After reading up, I saw that a couple of people posted the exact same thing as me, so I apologise to them. I wasn't cheating I swear!

[Stewie States II]

No I believe this to be unfair. As the others said it is a forceing of morals on someone and refusing an act because of it.

Beside it is unmoralistic of this person to refuse this woman. It may promote her to have no protection at all. So that is unmoralistic unless your morals are of someone who likes to see people pragnant anywhere.

Also as previously stated, if you refuse someone birth control where are you going to stop, flu, STD, HIV/AIDS. This man should be fired and be refused a job in any pharmacy.

[Sheynat]

Let me put this in different terms. Say I'm your child's babysitter. My politics are such that I favor the legalization of marijuana. Howeer, if I found that your child was smoking weed, I would take the weed and tell you when you get home. I would do so reluctantly, but it's my job. It's what you pay me for. Would you not fire me on the spot had I concealed that from you? In fact, wouldn't you press charges?