After a woman suffered a miscarriage in Georgia, she was told her local pharmacy wouldn't fill the prescription because the pharmacist "objected" to the medication being used for her to finish miscarrying at home.
Thoughts?
-
My thought is not fit to print. The censored version is: WTF
-
My thoughts are that if you have "objections" to people taking medication their doctor prescribed for them, then you should not be a pharmacist. And if you are a pharmacist you should keep your mouth shut and your opinions to yourself and do your damn job. Which is to provide medicine.
I just don't understand this. If you morally object to part of your job, then don't do that job. Find something that doesn't offend you.
-
I honestly can not comprehend how this is legal.
-
That pharmacist should be fired. Your job consists of dispensing medications, not personal opinions.
-
I think it's horrible, but I'm not surprised.
-
This really bothers me.
-
I don't understand how they are suddenly doctors?! Also it's none of your business?!
-
I think it's so crazy that we live in a country where a doctor can legally prescribe something, but a pharmacist can say they won't fill it.
So like, cashiers that don't believe in birth control don't have to sell condoms if you get in their line? Or people who are anti GMOs don't have to sell packaged foods? How long would they keep their jobs? And yet, pharmacists are allowed to do this. It's insane.
-
@ShootingStar: Yes yes yes!
I can't believe this is legal!
-
I read this article yesterday. So fucked up. If you're opposed to filling prescriptions then maybe you shouldn't be a pharmacist!
-
This is nuts!!!!
-
This makes me so angry.
-
this is awful!
-
I too, cant believe this is legal!
-
The woman said the pharmacist said "Well, I don't feel like there is a reason why you would need it, so we refused to fill it."
I am flabbergasted!
-
What's next? A doctor refusing to treat a homosexual person based on their 'conscience'? Where do we draw the line?
This makes me so ragey I can't even put my thoughts into words.
-
Wtf?!
-
This makes me so ragey as well. DH got an earful after I read this. If a pharmacist has articulable medical reason for not filling a prescription, fine. If the decision is based on your conscience, the pharmacist needs to find a new job.
Why did the doctor not get on the phone and insist on speaking directly to the pharmacist? Misoprostol for ob/gyn use is off label, but I feel like this could have been easily cleared up during a conversation between ob/gyn and pharmacist.
-
I'm actually a little torn on this. The pharmacist should have filled the prescription. The doctor called it in and the pharmacist should know all of the medication's purposes. I don't like that the pharmacist made access to quality care more difficult. You would think if Walmart stocks all of these medications, then the staff would have to sell them.
But, I like that the pharmacist is not treated like a robot. I would rather see the pharmacist use their discretion to not fill a Rx for someone who already looks high and abusing the meds like we hope bar tenders cut off inebriated people.
This story reminds me of http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/12/17/little-adolf-hitler-denied-birthday-cake-at-new-jersey-grocery-store/. CNN just had a quiz on their site showing how some discrimination is legal.
-
My understanding is that pharmacists are allowed to use their discretion in cases of things like multiple medications that might interfere with each other. But the conscience clause thing just PISSES me off. Especially for something like this. He didn't even bother to find out if it was going to be used for an abortion. He just assumed. And if it was, still none of his damn business. I don't get this new mindset that people should be allowed to do/not do whatever they want, without any consequences. It reminds me of the people who got all up in arms about the Duck Dynasty thing, because "free speech." Free speech doesn't mean you're free to say whatever you want with no consequences. The government didn't step in and censor him; his free speech was allowed. But he has to deal with the consequences just like everyone else. In this case if he doesn't want to dispense a potentially abortion causing drug, fine. But he shouldn't be allowed to keep his job either.
This is a good article on that. http://www.flowerhorne.com/blog/2013/11/26/get-your-fake-conscience-objections-off-my-lawn
-
This is ridiculous. Refusing service based on "conscience" should not be allowed. Pharmacy service should be based on science, not on feelings. Prescription drug abuse gets worse and worse, but as far as I can tell pharmacists continue to distribute oxycontin with hardly a care in the world. Yet this person's morals prevented them from providing necessary medication to a woman who in such a vulnerable position? That's infuriating. (Note: not saying pharmacists shouldn't give out painkillers, just that if my "conscience" was going to prevent me from serving anyone it wouldn't be a woman having a freaking miscarriage!)
-
@Torchwood: That article is fantastic and exactly how I feel! Thank you for sharing!
-
@ShootingStar: 100%
-
@Ree723: honestly I think there are some who might not be comfortable with it. When I was working in scheduling, the majority of the LGBT patients who called in saw only a handful of doctors within the statewide medical system I work for. We actually have a clinic that is known as the LGBT clinic because the doctors advertise that they specialize in care of LGBTs.
Yeah I don't see this as an ethical issue. So does he refuse to dispense plan b and other day after pills?
-
Fuck that guy. UGH!!!!! That poor woman
-
This is so screwed up. I needed that medication to complete my miscarriage and it was bad enough when the pharmacist asked me what I needed it for. Like you need this shit when you are cramping and bleeding and heartbroken. Poor girl.
-
I think this is wrong based on my own views, but I can almost understand where the pharmacist was coming from. He doesn't know that it isn't for abortion, so to me It's similar to docs who will not perform abortions or pharmacists who will not dispense plan b, etc for personal beliefs. I thought it was legal for pharmacists to refuse on the basis of personal beliefs? Not that it's right to do but if legal, he didn't really do anything legally "wrong" and shouldn't be chastised. That being said, another pharmacist on staff should have been called to dispense the medication. Personal beliefs shouldn't interfere with patient access. Reasonable accommodations should be made for the patient.
-
If pharmacists can be allowed to use discretion based on conscience and not science (interactions, etc), where does the boundary lie... "I believe you should've managed your health better, so you don't get high cholesterol meds from me", or " You never should've smoked to begin with, so I won't fill your smoking cessation Rx"?? I mean come on... If the Dr prescribed it, it is none of the pharmacist's biz WHY she needed this Rx. Have a colleague fill it instead if you are so high & mighty to not be able to see past yourself in someone else's medical situation, or better yet, go take a position in one of hundreds of other settings a pharmacist can work in to shelter yourself from the occasional "offensive" Rx you may be asked to fill.
-
@catomd00: except the lady says she told the pharmacist why she needed the meds! I feel like that could be easily cleared up...."incomplete miscarriage" on the prescription.
-
I had a conversation about this last night with someone who is trained in pharmacy, and I'm realizing that the situation is a little more nuanced than what it seems. Misoprostol is listed by the FDA as a category X drug, which means it can cause terrible things to an unborn fetus (i.e. it can cause abortion, but also birth defects and other major issues). So basically, the FDA is saying that this drug should not be given to a pregnant women. The FDA does not actually approve this drug for completing miscarriages. If a pharmacist knows that a woman is pregnant and then she gets this prescription, technically the pharmacist could be "protecting" the woman in the case where the drug was prescribed incorrectly.
That being said, the pharmacist should call the doctor, who should explain the situation, so this all really shouldn't be an issue. But it does leave this case in more of a gray area than pure "decision of conscience." I'm still angry about the case in the article!
-
@catomd00: Just because it wasn't legally wrong doesn't mean he shouldn't be chastised. I'm not going to try to get him arrested, but I'm going to judge and chastise the heck out of him.
Although, to your other point about doctors refusing to perform abortions based on personal beliefs, I don't think that should happen either. Abortions are legal, as a doctor there is a definite possibility that will be part of your job (based on what kind of doctor you are, of course). I would say the same thing about a Jehovah's Witness doctor not performing blood transfusions or something. If you are morally opposed to part of your job, you should't be doing it.
-
@catlady: very well said, thank you for that.
-
F'd up.
@Mrs. Lemon-Lime: I do think pharmacists should be active with their consults- doctors can overprescribe meds too- but I just don't think the pharmacist should have had the final say.
-
I had a pharmacy just last week deny giving me the Whooping Cough vaccine. She at first told me yes and to give her a few minutes to prepare it. Then when I stepped back from the counter and she saw I was pregnant she said no. Said that my insurance wouldn't cover it and that I had to have a doctor administer it. I even had a prescription from my OB for the shot. This is my second pregnancy and I went to the pharmacy the first time to get it. Like all have said above it's not their job to make those type decisions.
-
@MrsSCB: for me, these types of things should be about directing anger at the law or institution that allows it, not necessarily at the person acting within their legal right. I am vehemently pro choice and against these types of laws, but it's legal and he is entitled to his beliefs whether or not I share those beliefs.
-
@turkeylurkey: that's weird! I disagree with the blanket statement that docs have final say though. Pharmacists (when we'll educTed) have a very important role in ensuring proper mess and doses are being dispensed to reduce adverse drug events.
-
@turkeylurkey: That's ridiculous. The CDC a recommends it during each pregnancy. How on earth could she not do it?
-
@turkeylurkey: This is beyond stupid, the CDC recommends Tdap for all pregnant women in their 3rd trimester of every pregnancy. When I got mine at Walgreens, the pharmacist asked how many weeks I was and said that I was in at a great time because she clearly knew the CDC recommendations. This recommendation is supported by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Nurse-Midwives
http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/pregnant/mom/get-vaccinated.html
-
@catlady: the article is an example of lazy journalism. If the drug was further described in the piece the way you described it here, then it makes sense why the pharmacist would have paused. Now, that doesn't excuse the pharmacist from not filling in the script once learning straight from the doctor why it's being prescribed.
Reply
Subscribe to our newsletter
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite0
39 comments