Pharmacist refuses to fill prescription, due to possible abortion

Pharmacists who are philosophically opposed to abortions shouldn't have them. Other than that, they need to do their f***ing job or find a new career.

Devil Ledbetter said:

Pharmacists who are philosophically opposed to abortions shouldn't have them. Other than that, they need to do their f***ing job or find a new career.

Click to expand...

Agreed. There must be professional licensing boards and a code of ethics, which I'm sure don't permit pharmacists to insert their personal views into their professional responsibilities.

Shadow Dragon said:

So they shouldn't be able to refuse to do their job and keep it. How many other jobs let you get away with refusing to work? Well, other than congressman.

Click to expand...

Do we know that she got away with it? The article said following the complaint, Walgreens took "corrective action" against the pharmacist. Not exactly sure what that means, though.

Here's the part I don't get: Apparently, this drug is used to clamp down on bleeding, etc. So, presumably, the deed was already done. The pharmacist wasn't preventing any abortion, near as I can tell. And the bleeding could have been the result of something else, such as a miscarriage, forex.

It makes no sense to me to refuse the medication.

ETA: Crossed with Shadow Dragon.

Shadow Dragon said:

That's probably the worst part about this. We don't even know if the woman had an abortion or not. The pharmacist is refusing because this drug can be used for abortion aftercare. She doesn't even know whether or not that's the real reason for the prescription.

Click to expand...

Yes, but even if it was for aftercare, that doesn't matter. As Cranky pointed out, it was after the fact so there'd be nothing on the pharmacist's conscious ... unless the patient bled to death on her way to a less "pro-life" pharmacy.

Seriously. This wasn't even about preventing an abortion--it was about preventing a woman the pharmacist suspected had already gone through with an abortion medically-needed aftercare.

That makes me incredibly angry. What, because she MAY have had an abortion, she deserves to bleed out? Is that it?

Oh, FFS. I'm giving myself a time out, now. See you guys later in the day, maybe.

Legally the pharmacist can refuse to fill any prescription on religious grounds. In the same way, physicians can not be forced to perform abortions. Being employed in healthcare does not eliminate the providers' right to their own religion.

The time it gets sticky is if they are providers for things like medicaid or if they are employees of companies which do cover/provide abortions. Legally and Philosophically refusing care to the mother after the fact is another matter. I'm pretty sure the law would always side then with the mother.

If the mother is preemptively getting prescriptions prior to the abortion to take care of her postoperatively most jurisdictions are likely to side with the pharmacist. Of course most pharacists would not make a bid deal of it, they'd just politely tell her, "You might want to try another pharmacy becuase our supplier is unable currently to get that medicine."

Devil Ledbetter said:

Pharmacists who are philosophically opposed to abortions shouldn't have them. Other than that, they need to do their f***ing job or find a new career.

Click to expand...

Right on and amen. If this twit can't handle being a trustworthy pharmacist, then would that pharmacist handle getting her ass sued because the patient couldn't get her prescription in a timely manner and something worse happened. Infuriating.

I don't know what Walgreens official policy is, but the pharmacist should have known so at best, since he was disciplined he was obviously just trying to make an issue out of the whole thing. Maybe he's trying to get fired?

GeorgeK said:

Legally the pharmacist can refuse to fill any prescription on religious grounds. In the same way, physicians can not be forced to perform abortions. Being employed in healthcare does not eliminate the providers' right to their own religion.

Click to expand...

Well, I think that's completely ass-backwards. If you are employed in healthcare your only duty ought to be to the health of your patient. If you can't commit 100% to that because of your religious views, I think you ought to get out of the profession.

Torgo said:

Well, I think that's completely ass-backwards. If you are employed in healthcare your only duty ought to be to the health of your patient. If you can't commit 100% to that because of your religious views, I think you ought to get out of the profession.

Click to expand...

Legally, a health care provider is entitled to their own constitutional rights. In the eyes of those opposed to abortion, there are 2 patients, not one when the issue of abortion comes up. The law has consistently agreed with that stance as acceptible. In that situation they are working at 100%. To most of them they see no difference between a physician who performs abortions and the guy in Philly at http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202204
and the laws support that point of view as a legitimate stance in terms of providing care. As before, after the fact is a whole different ball of wax. My other concern is that if the pharmacist is working off information that he should not have had access to, then somewhere along the line there's been a HIPPA violation. As has been said upstream, she could have had a miscarriage or a D&C. That medicine is not solely prescribed for abortion care in the same way that some women are taking birth control pills for things other than birth control. The pharmacists don't get a detailed medical history.

GeorgeK said:

In the eyes of those opposed to abortion, there are 2 patients, not one when the issue of abortion comes up. The law has consistently agreed with that stance as acceptible. In that situation they are working at 100%.

Click to expand...

This is a good point and one I had not considered. I think in the OP's scenario we can all agree that the pharmacist was being a total ass, though.

Just to sidestep the abortion issue, though, in the extremely hypothetical situation that you had Jehovah's Witness, MD being asked to perform an emergency blood transfusion - would the constitutional right to their religious beliefs trump the patient's right to life? Hmmm.

Torgo said:

Just to sidestep the abortion issue, though, in the extremely hypothetical situation that you had Jehovah's Witness, MD being asked to perform an emergency blood transfusion - would the constitutional right to their religious beliefs trump the patient's right to life? Hmmm.

Click to expand...

IMO, it's inappropriate to call on constitutional rights. They have a constitutional right to their religion. They do NOT have a constitutional right to a certain job, especially if they fail to perform it based on their religion.

If I'm an airline pilot and fall into a religion which forbids flight, I can hardly expect to keep my job on constitutional grounds. I have a constitutional right to my religion, and a responsibility to find work that lets me adhere to it.

Torgo said:

This is a good point and one I had not considered. I think in the OP's scenario we can all agree that the pharmacist was being a total ass, though.

Just to sidestep the abortion issue, though, in the extremely hypothetical situation that you had Jehovah's Witness, MD being asked to perform an emergency blood transfusion - would the constitutional right to their religious beliefs trump the patient's right to life? Hmmm.

Click to expand...

The doctor in question would be working outside standard of care (assuming the patient in question is not also a Jehovah's Witness) and would have no legal defense.

As another aside, I helped do trauma care one time on a bus full of Jehovah's Witnesses that went off the road. One lady bled down to a Hgb of 3 and eventually walked out of the hospital using her experience of proof of her religion. She was sure that it had nothing to do with how we made the decision to excede standard protocols about the lengths and frequencies of time in the hyperbaric chamber. Every time her O2 saturation started to drop, we popped her back in there. We set up a makeshift ICU spot right next to the chamber. Also operating on a Jehovah's Witness is annoying if you are working on the urinary tract where the best suture is usually chromic catgut. We had to use synthetic sutures that were monofilament but eventually absorbable. There weren't a lot available then.

regdog said:

If a person's religion is going to interfere with their ability to do their job without prejudice they need a new occupation.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't feel that doctors who are pro life should be forced by law to perform abortions. I could even have some sympathy if a pharmacist didn't want to fill prescribtions for the morning after pill. But none of these seem relevant to this case as it was after the fact and the fact may have been a different fact altogether.

regdog said:

If a person's religion is going to interfere with their ability to do their job without prejudice they need a new occupation.

Click to expand...

The interesting thing about republics and democracies is that no one person gets to decide what "prejudice," is.

Torgo said:

Well, I think that's completely ass-backwards. If you are employed in healthcare your only duty ought to be to the health of your patient. If you can't commit 100% to that because of your religious views, I think you ought to get out of the profession.

Click to expand...

I agree. Pharmacists are different than doctors. Doctors can choose an area of practice. Doctors can choose to work in a facility that doesn't perform abortions. Pharmacists who don't want to fill ALL prescriptions that doctors write need to get out of the business. Pharmacists aren't doctors- they dispense medication.
I used to take birth control without the placebo so I wouldn't get my period (before they had meds that did the same thing) for a medical problem. A Catholic pharmacist against birth control would be judging my need for the medication for the wrong reasons (I'm lesbian- so pregnancy prevention was never an issue).
A pharmacist shouldn't be able to turn away a rape victim who wants the morning after pill. If that happened in my area I'd get a group of feminists together and protest until the store changed their policy.

Vince524 said:

I could even have some sympathy if a pharmacist didn't want to fill prescribtions for the morning after pill.

Click to expand...

I couldn't. It's not like a pharmacist didn't know s/he was going to have to do this. Get over it, or get another job.

PinkAmy said:

A pharmacist shouldn't be able to turn away a rape victim who wants the morning after pill. If that happened in my area I'd get a group of feminists together and protest until the store changed their policy.

Click to expand...

I'd amend that to "anyone who wants a morning after pill." It's none of the pharmacist's business. If my doctor prescribed it, the pharmacist's role is to fill it. Not second guess my doctor, me, or the reasons involved.

Pharmacists, like everyone else, should apply their sexual mores and moral agendas to themselves and forget trying to foist their religion on everyone else.

ColoradoGuy said:

This comes up fairly frequently in my world of pediatric critical care. If the parents refuse a life-saving transfusion for their child, we go to court. Even at 2 am we can get a judge out of bed within an hour. They assume temporary custody of the child and allow the transfusion. In my experience, the parents are relieved -- they got to live by their religious convictions, and their child got to live. Oddly enough, I've had some grandparents who hated me for it, though.

Click to expand...

You know...I knew this. But it hadn't occured to me that it does relate to something like this. A parent's religious belief does not take precedent when it comes to patient care. So why should a doctor's or a pharmacist's?

Vince524 said:

Well, I don't feel that doctors who are pro life should be forced by law to perform abortions. I could even have some sympathy if a pharmacist didn't want to fill prescribtions for the morning after pill. But none of these seem relevant to this case as it was after the fact and the fact may have been a different fact altogether.

Click to expand...

While employers ARE required to make some "reasonable" concessions to employees regarding religion, I wonder that it could be a problem affecting what's available. Many people may feel so strongly about the issue that they choose careers as pharmacists, just so they can refuse to fill certain prescriptions. What would it do to society when an overwhelming majority of pharmacists won't fill certain prescriptions?