Refusing medication on moral grounds?

[VashFC]

There are some states that have or are in the process of making it okay for a pharmacist to deny perscriptions to patients or for medical practitioners to deny procedures based on their moral grounds.I understand if a doctor doesn't want to perform an abortion, that's fine, but these laws allow pharmacists to deny women birthcontrol or for that matter, based on the loosley defined terms, anything that they morally protest. It's just not right. They shouldn't have the right to make choices like that for people.

Read about it here:http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...tpill

What do you all think?

- Chris

[SeVa-S13]

Wow, that's kinda crazy.(I only read the first two paragraphs. )

[JDMaholic]

My brother is a pharmacist and he told me that the law really doesn't matter, pharmacist have to uphold a standard of ethics tought to them in school. They learn how to tell if a prescription is fake or if someone is an addict and they can reject request to these people, most of the time they call whoever wrote the prescription, these are the only ones they refuse to fill, and that has been a law for a long time. This new law would technically alow them to interjec their own decisions, but by doing that they would be breaking their own code of ethics and frowned upon by other pharmacist. Someone who makes 150k+ a year is not going to risk loosing their liscence and it will have little effect, plus they cvan get it filled somewhere else

[Drift Machine]

Still it has to do with robbing people of their personal freedoms.

[w1ngzer0]

this is all due to these over sensative people sueing for everything. Oh, this man did feed me my jello right and i was hurt by that.

Thats why i have normal health insurance and extra health insurance. Air lift and in case i have cancer

[hudy]

Dad has been a Pharmacist for 30 years. He is opposed to the pill but serves em anyhow b/c he knows it is his job.

[AZhitman]

The real hubbub here was brought by a small contingent of women upset that certain pharmacists will not fill a Rx for a "morning after" pill based on moral grounds.

Sort of like a store refusing to carry alcohol based on the proprietor's moral grounds, which is PERFECTLY ok.

These women are alleging that in cases of rape, should a pharmacist refuse to fill their Rx, they would somehow be "forced" to carry the fruit of this horrible crime to term.

Seems to me to be an AWFUL big stretch of logic here. Maybe the law should require pharmacists to fill the Rx only after the victim has filed a police report, agreed to press charges and cooperate with the judicial system. Something tells me that this isn't the pressing social crisis it's being made out to be.

Ladies, your thoughts?

[Rex]

It's called Freedom To Choose.

They chose not to sell/dispense, you choose to take your business eslewhere. It's funny how people (not people here) complain when someone else exercising their freedom causes them to go another mile to get something, but they think everyone else should accomodate their choices.

Sorry, if this comes off nasty, I have a headache .

[AZhitman]

Yep - They also need to recognize that the next logical progression of this is that they're gonna cry and whine when a doctor refuses to prescribe (or a pharmacist refuses to fill) for an overdose for the purpose of suicide.

A pharmacist is under NO obligation to fill a Rx that he or she believes may be being abused.

BTW, pharmacists are FAR more knowledgeable than doctors - they understand the mechanism of action of medications, whereas doctors prescribe on the basis of glossy ads, pretty drg reps, and even kickbacks from big pharmaceutical companies. Shame shame.

[Rex]

Oh and as noted above on the "code of ethics", the pharmacist is free to choose to take actions that may jeopardize their license, knowing the consequences.

[NY94J30]

I think that is the crux of the issue, while a store is free to not carry a product, and an employee may have the ability to refuse a customers request, the issue becomes one of professional responsibilty and or store policy. Therefore, recourse should be sought through those avenues, i.e. if violative of store policy seek to have the employee fired, and if professional responsibility, seek to have the pharmacist disciplined/sanctioned.

I don't think that anyone would argue that, as a 'private person," the pharmacist doesn't have the right to take actions that are violative of his moral code, however, the question becomes whether in his capacity as a pharmacist he may make those choices.

[NY94J30]

doctors prescribe on the basis of glossy ads, pretty drg reps, and even kickbacks from big pharmaceutical companies. Shame shame.

Come on Greg, that may be your experience, but thats a bit overborad and offensive.

[slw240sx]

i think the big deal here is not that they can refuse you the script, but they keep you from goin else where to fill it, ie they confistcate it.

that they shouldnt do unless its aforgery

[AZhitman]

^ I don't think that's what's happening, unless i read something wrong.

[hannibal]

very interesting dilemma...

Once a doctor writes a prescription, he has determined the patient needs or is fit to receive the medication. A pharmacist overtuning this decision seems inappropriate.

Taking it a step further, a pharmacist that refuses to fill a script for AIDS medication becuase the patient is gay is just wrong. How can a pharmacist decide that the patient doesnt deserve a drug prescriibed by a doctor??

Pharmacists job is to fill prescriptions, not second guess the doctor's motives or the morality of the patient.

[Jesda]

Power of Supply and Demand > Power of Morality

If someone wants a drug, and someone else has it, there inevitably will be an exchange. If one pharmacist denies, there's always another to approve.

[NY94J30]

Again, going to responsibilities as an employee - not moral imperatives - as a state goverened monopoly - i.e. the only agents allowed to dispense prescrption drugs -, pharmacies/pharmacists don't have the right to refuse customers on any other grounds than are prescribed by the state licensing agencies. Refuse if you like, however, be prepared to face the consequences with the licensing agency.

[AZhitman]

States have differing laws on this matter.

Legal in NH and TX for a pharmacist to decline.

A Google search reveals this has happened several times before, with varying results.

My question is, if this woman had already endured a traumatic experience AND been examined by a doctor AND been through the misery of submitting her body for evidence for criminal investigation, WHY IN THE HELL would she not receive the medication at the hospital or crisis center where support is available?

With the exception of the rapist (burn in hell) there are ONLY victims in this matter.

[JDMaholic]

A pharmacist is under NO obligation to fill a Rx that he or she believes may be being abused.

BTW, pharmacists are FAR more knowledgeable than doctors - they understand the mechanism of action of medications, whereas doctors prescribe on the basis of glossy ads, pretty drg reps, and even kickbacks from big pharmaceutical companies. Shame shame.

Ya, greg is right to a certain extent, pharmacist are not under obligation to fill a prescription they feel is being abused, I thought this was strange and asked my brother about it. He said that if it is a drug that is needed even if they feel it is being abused they will usually give them enough for a day or 2 and then contact the police about the matter. He also said that it is VERY obvious when one is being aboused, i.e someone writing their own scripts and selling the drugs on the street. Sometimes they say they are checking on somehting and call the police, then they tell the person it will take 25min to fill, and when the police get their, busted.

Also ya, doctors do get some kickbacks very little though from what I've heard and the majority of doctors choose to exercise good judgement, my father prescibed drugs and he got alot of info from the drug reps. Doctors do know alot about the drugs, but they don't learn as much about the intracices and interactions, sometimes my father would contact my brother when he had questions about a drug. Also drug reps. make a ton of money promoting their product and in some cases as a doctor gets older it is thier main source about new drugs.

Also the only time that they take scripts from someone is when it is a VERY obvoius script, that someone forged, If it actually from a doctor and they think someone is abusing it they still give it back. I would assume this applies to drugs they feel unethical about as well.

[msaskin]

Speaking to the drug rep side of things (my dad is both a doctor and does presentations w/ drug reps for certain medications), not to mention that I work in the medical field, the very though that a drug company would "bribe" a doctor to prescribe is completely ludicrous.

Not only would the company face federal fines, but the doctor would face suspension of license, and trust me, no doctor is going to risk a $200K+ yr. job because no drug company can offer a big enough bribe on a regular basis to compensate for it.

The most I've ever seen (having worked around the medical field for about 6 years now) is drug reps provide food when giving a presentation...that's all.

That all said, I think the fact that a pharmacist has a right to dispense (or not dispense) based on moral grounds is completely overboard. In my view, a pharmacist is serving a very simple job:-verify validity of prescription from a doctor-fill said prescription-inform prescribee (is that a word??) of possible interactions with other medications, dosage schedule, side effects, etc.

A pharmacist should not have the right to refuse to fill a prescription on moral grounds. Now, I understand that the pharmacist is required to pass the script on to someone else in that case, but I don't even think that should be necessary. This is akin to someone arriving in the emergency room and an ER doc refusing to treat them because of sexual orientation, or perhaps because they're HIV+.

~matt

[JDMaholic]

.

That all said, I think the fact that a pharmacist has a right to dispense (or not dispense) based on moral grounds is completely overboard. In my view, a pharmacist is serving a very simple job:-verify validity of prescription from a doctor-fill said prescription-inform prescribee (is that a word??) of possible interactions with other medications, dosage schedule, side effects, etc.

A pharmacist should not have the right to refuse to fill a prescription on moral grounds. Now, I understand that the pharmacist is required to pass the script on to someone else in that case, but I don't even think that should be necessary. This is akin to someone arriving in the emergency room and an ER doc refusing to treat them because of sexual orientation, or perhaps because they're HIV+.

~matt

Umm I think you are thinking of a pharmacy technician, A pharmacist's job involves much more than that, and they know far more about the drugs than a doctor does, that is why they go to school for 8 years to learn purely about drugs. That is why if a doctor needs to know more about a drug he asks a pharmacist, and why pharmacists can change prescriptions for saomething safer and more effective.

And yes doctors do get some "kickbacks" so do pharmacist not like someone is going to give them a check for 10k or something, but they supply them with free samples, and have informative "dinners" in nice locations or trips for the weekend to learn about their drug.

[VashFC]

A pharmacist should not have the right to refuse to fill a prescription on moral grounds. Now, I understand that the pharmacist is required to pass the script on to someone else in that case, but I don't even think that should be necessary. This is akin to someone arriving in the emergency room and an ER doc refusing to treat them because of sexual orientation, or perhaps because they're HIV+.

That's exactly what bothers me. If they begin to give an inch, people will take a mile. It will start with pharmacists having the right to refuse certain prescriptions to be filled such as birth control, but what if someone is morally opposed to gays or other races for that matter? It technically IS their right to have those opinions, wrong or right as other may feel that they are, but most would agree that would be discrimination, right? I understand what these laws were intended to do... but people will misuse them, I'm sure. Someone will deny medication to some gay handicapped minority and then justify it since they're "morally opposed" to it for some reason. Crazy, I know... but people are crazy, right?

Matt is also right about how it's a job. Just do your freakin job. My father works at a poultry plant. He's a Supervisor of Evisceration. His job is to make sure that chickens get killed and their guts removed in an orderly manner. Do you think he likes it? I bet if one day at work he said he was "Morally Opposed" to killing the chickens, they'd laugh at him and Fire his *** before he knew what happened. Like I said.... give an inch and they'll take a mile. Just do your damn job and save your morals for when you're OFF THE CLOCK. Pharmacists are getting payed (a lot I might add) to dispense medicine, not to impart their moral beliefs on others at the expense of their freedoms. People are such p****** these days....

- Chris

[hannibal]

...my dad is both a doctor and does presentations w/ drug reps for certain medications...

Not to get off topic, but if he is representing the drug company, that sounds like a conflict of interest. Your dad has an incentive to prescribe drugs made by the company he receives a paycheck from.I'm not attacking your Dad and I know a lot of MDs do this kinda thing, but thats is pretty close to a kickback IMP.

[msaskin]

Not to get off topic, but if he is representing the drug company, that sounds like a conflict of interest. Your dad has an incentive to prescribe drugs made by the company he receives a paycheck from.I'm not attacking your Dad and I know a lot of MDs do this kinda thing, but thats is pretty close to a kickback IMP.

It's not. He's a Psychologist, a Ph.D. (read: doesn't prescribe).

~matt