Should there be legislation to force pharmacists to fill all prescriptions

[napi21]

This is the question on Lou Dobbs program tonight.

Please vote:

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

[Shoeempress]

1. done

[put out]

2. Done. n/t

[militaryWife]

3. done

[ailsagirl]

4. done but honestly--

that there's a need to even ASK this question is mind-blowing

:mad: :grr: :crazy:

[Pallas180]

5. done - so far we;re winning.

:mad:

this religion crap...THEIR choice of religion is inflicted on all of us.....theocracy anyone?

[Lilyhoney]

6. I don't want to denied anything I want

But I also do not want people to do things that they think are wrong just because it was their job.

[Der Blaue Engel]

11. Then they should get a job that doesn't conflict with their "morals"

The next step is doctors don't have to treat gays, or provide OB/GYN services to single women, or allow Jews or Muslims to be admitted to their emergency room.

There is no middle ground on this.

[etherealtruth]

21. Exactly ...

DO NOT choose a job or a profession that forces you to compromise your values. It's simple!

[margaritamama]

14. What!

A pharmacist job is to fill prescriptions as ordered by a doctor. They are not doctors and should not even attempt to change or deny anyone the prescription they need. A prescription is the result of confidential medical care. Drugs are often used for off label indications some of which a pharmacist has no idea of. Simply put they should do their job and let the doctors do theirs! If they don't think their job is right then they should find another one.

[JuniperLea]

16. oh, you mean

like soldiers in a meaningless war?

[Warren DeMontague]

Right. So, say, I don't like your politics and I'm a firefighter...

I can just refuse to put out your house--- because I think it's "wrong" to help people like you. Right?

[Lilyhoney]

25. In the movie gangs of ney york

thats what thry did.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. And, this is supposed to be a good thing?

Bottom line: If you're a pharmacist and your "personal beliefs" interfere with your ability to do a state-licensed job, you need to find another line of work.

[gollygee]

24. Which is exactly why people from PETA don't work at slaughterhouses

the answer isn't for slaughterhouses to not make PETA members slaughter animals, the answer is that PETA workers shouldn't be working at slaughterhouses in the first place.

It is the job of a pharmacist to distribute medicines legally prescribed by a doctor. If their personal morals won't let them do that, then they should get a job that doesn't trouble them in that way.

[SoCalDem]

7. Why would anyone think it's ok to NOT fill all prescriptions?

If someone has such a strong view, they should not become a pharmacist.

How about a woman pharmacist who refuses to fill viagra scrips because she feels that old guys should just "settle down"..:evilgrin:

(if god had wanted them to get it on when they were old, he would have given them better plumbing)

[ailsagirl]

13. tsk, tsk-- you're being far too RATIONAL

Those people don't operate on logic and rationality.

:freak:

[peacebird]

8. done. 91% yes, 9%no.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. 91% say yes

It's only common sense. When a person goes to pharmacy school, they know what sort of medications they will be expected to deal with. As long as there is a valid medical prescription, there should be no problem. If someone has religious scruples, they should go into some other line of work. I can't imagine a Christian Scientist being a pharmacist, can you?

[JuniperLea]

15. right

and there are many reasons to prescribe birth control pills. it's none of the pharmacists business; it is between the dr. and the patient.

are they going to start telling surgeons what to do next? no hysterectomies because that will keep children from being born? no tubal ligations?

[margaritamama]

18. They would just love

to do that! Isn't that what they are really trying to do?!:shrug:

[Not_Giving_Up]

10. Done

91% yes
9% no

[JuniperLea]

12. done

i'm offended that vegitarians don't eat beef.

i'm offended that alcoholics pass on a good pint of beer.

i'm offended that jews won't eat cheeseburgers.

not really:)

but i am offended that some people think they have the right to impose their own 'morals' upon me. even god gave me free will. who is any human being to take that away from me?

[rasputin1952]

17. I voted yes...91/9% for legislation when I voted....

A pharmacist is a necessity in the health care team. They are the ones that catch the errors and situations before they become problems.

But for them to intercede w/a legal prescription, is a horror. It is not just BC pills, what would happen if the only pharmacy in a town refused to fill an Rx for a necessary anti-biotic? Does the person get worse,or perhaps die,because someone thinks the medication is "immoral".

For those that refuse to fill Rx's, regardless of what they are for, they simply need to get a new job...:grr:

[spanone]

19. 93% Yes!!! They should revoke the license of any phamacist

who refuses to fill a prescription. Who the fuck do they think they are?

[H2O Man]

20. I don't understand

how it could not already be illegal to refuse to fill a prescription. If a pharmacist said he believed Irish were devils, and refused to fill a medical prescription based on his religious beliefs, I do not think anyone would question the need for legal consequences. If a hotel manager said her beliefs prevented her from serving Christians, I think the administration would be hopping mad. This is bigotry with republican backing. It is clear-cut. I would hope that a group like the Center for Constitutional Rights would take this type of thing to court.

[napi21]

22. From what Lou said, it's been happening for a very long time.

They've now gotten beligerant because of the morning after pill.

[Warpy]

23. It should be right there in the state pharmacy practice code

and every state has one of those.

The way to attack this bunch of pious shitheads it to write letters of complaint to the state pharmacy licensing boards! Threaten their damn licenses and they'll decide to do their damn jobs!

[Lilyhoney]

26. Why can't the right to refuse service

apply to pharmacists? The first line of hipocratic oath is ...first do no harm. And if they believe that the pill is causing harm, then I think thay have the right to refuse service. I know then all the pharmacists will boycott the pill and you will have to drive 300 miles to get more.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. Because if you can't do your job you need to find another one.

Pharmacists are licensed by the state to perform a service. If they can't do that state-licensed job, they shouldn't be pharmacists.

[Heddi]

29. Pharmacists do not have the power to prescribe medications

Only specialized medical personnel (MD's, Physicians Assistants, Nurse Practitioners, etc) have prescribing authority.

The job of a pharmacist is to fill a prescription written by someone with legal authority to write prescriptions in that state.

The job of a pharmacist is to ascertain that the medications being filled do not counteract with any other medications that the patient may be taking.

The job of a pharmacist is to advise the patient on the correct way to take a medication, the correct dose, and of any side effects or adverse effects that may present themselves once the medication is taken.

The pharmacist has no reason to know why a patient is taking a particular drug. They have no reason to second guess the medication prescribed by a licensed practitioner unless that medication inherently reacts in a negative way with other medications that the patient is taking.

Minoxodil was originally a medication used to treat high blood pressure (it still is in some cases). However, one of the side effects of Minoxodil is hair growth--that's why it's been re-marketed as a hair growth formula. It is not the pharmacists job to know why I'm taking minoxidil (for blood pressure? for hair growth?).

Birth control pills (oral horomones) are used for a variety of reasons aside from contraceptive reasons. Women with endometriosis are often prescribed low level birth control pills to relieve symptoms associated with their endometriosis. Many post-menopausal women are prescribed low-level estrogens to combat the sometimes painful changes that are associated with menopause.

Depo-Provera, an injectable contraception, is used by men for hormonal regulation.

A pharmacist is in no way or reason dependent to know why a particular drug is being taken by a patient. As long as the prescription is valid, and the drug is in stock, they should have an obligation to fill that prescription, regardless of their personal beliefs regarding that medication.

I now turn to other professions, and how 'moral' outrage could affect YOUR care, or the care of someone you love:

If Pharmacists are allowed to 'opt out' of prescribing medications they have moral conflicts with, then it would only make sense that:

Doctors would have the right to opt out of treating, even in an emergent situation where they are the only physician available, anyone who was another race or religion than they are because their religion specifically bars them from treating people of different races or religions.

Police officers refuse to come to the assistance of someone who is a drug user because they believe that drug users are abhorrent and undeserving of public assistance

Nurses refusing to care for AIDS patients because they see AIDS as a scourge of God, and punishment for living an unwholesome lifestyle (Gay, drugs, etc).

Mormon waiters or cashiers who refuse to ring up or serve you any products containing alcohol or caffeine, as it goes against their personal beliefs to consume these products.

A nurse who is a Jehovah's Witness who refuses to assist in a blood transfusion because her religion prohibits blood transfusions. She is the only qualified personnel to do this task, and by her refusing to do this procedure, the patient dies.

A Jewish chef who refuses to make a cheeseburger, or to serve patrons shellfish or pork items off of the menu because it interfers with his religious belief that meat and milk should not be mixed, and shellfish and pork are unwholesome to eat.

So where do we draw the line? Just at pharmacists? JUST birth control? OR do we allow EVERYONE in EVERY professional capacity to make off-hand decisions on a daily basis regarding who they will and won't treat, who is and who isn't worthy of their treatment, and what is and what isn't morally acceptable?

Pharmacists are licensed, not by the state itself, but by the CITIZENS of the state in which they are licensed. The CITIZENS of the state have said, that upon meeting X school requirements and passing X exam, then that pharmacist meets the minimum standards for practice in that state. There is no "morality" clause, and if a pharmacist can go through years of training and not realize until AFTER the licensing exam and AFTER getting into practice that they are "morally opposed" to certain medications, then I'd have to wonder what that person was doing through years of pharmacology and physiology classes....certainly not paying attention....

[kliljedahl]

30. 90% yes

What kind of morans are in that 10% that voted no?


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[Xithras]

31. What if they simply don't stock it?

Here's the problem with legally mandating that the prescriptions be filled. Pharmacies are a business, and like all businesses they stock drugs that sell frequently while avoiding drugs that don't. When my wife was prescribed an uncommon drug after a surgery two years ago, I had to call six different pharmacies before I finally found one that had it...and they only had enough on hand for a three day supply (they special ordered the rest of it in the next day). When I picked it up, the pharmacist explained to me that pharmacies don't stock drugs that don't sell, and that it's up to the pharmacies to determine which drugs to stock.

So while you can pass a law that prohibits pharmacists from refusing prescriptions, how are you going to deal with all of the smaller pharmacies that simply won't stock it? They aren't "refusing" if they don't have the drug in the first place.

[Lilyhoney]

32. you made the point

I won't bother to type.

[yankeedem]

33. That is a good point

However, it is not a point in favor of letting pharmacists refuse prescriptions.

A companion law could be passed that would mandate, that when a pharmacy is presented with a legal prescription, that they have to source the prescription in 48 hours, or face a fine. That would cut all of that out.

Otherwise, we give pharmacists a license to practice medicine. And they are not qualified.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Here's the REAL SOLUTION. Make oral contaceptives avail. OTC.

Then if establishments don't want to stock it, it's not a pharmaceutical decision but a business one, and access wouldn't be nearly the problem it is today.

[NMMNG]

35. Done

Yes 89% 4309 votes

No 11% 506 votes
Total: 4815 votes


If they have no qualms about prescribing medications with side effects that can harm or kill the person they are prescribed, why do they get all high and mighty about BC/"morning after pills"?

[me b zola]

36. yes->89% no->11%