Pharmacist Denies Anti-Bleeding Medication Because Woman Might Have Had an Abortion

[Immanuel]

I happen to agree with you about pharmacies not having to employ pharmacists that will not comply. The employer has the right not to hire or even to fire employees that they do not want in their employment. If the employer (in this case Walgreen's) insists that all pharmacists dispense RU-486 and some of their pharmacists refuse to do so on account of the conscious clause, then the employer has every right, IMHO, to terminate their contract or the employee has the right to find employment elsewhere.

A pharmacist who refuses to perform his or her duties might be better of seeking a position in another line of work.

That is hard for me to say because I understand and agree with the need for the conscious clause. However, the employee (in this case a pharmacists) places him or her self under the authority of the employer and thus should comply with the employer's instructions.

Immie

I can understand the conscious clause as it applies to some areas of health care. An OB/GYN resident who is pro-life should not be forced to perform abortions as a requirement to complete their training. That is a procedure that, but for the actions of the person involved, would not have happened.

However, when it comes to a pill, a pharmacist is a barrier between a dispensary and the patient and basically just complies with what a physician writes on a script pad, with some oversight to make sure the correct pills are given out and that they are safe. The patient still has to administer the pill to themselves. The pharmacist has no hand in that.

Frankly, I have never seen expanding this to pharmacists as a matter of conscious. I see it as another attempt by the anti-abortion crew to try and interdict Roe.

Which is why this pharmacist most likely refused to fill a non-abortificant medication simply because it came from planned parenthood.

What if Utah adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Mormon pharmacists don't have to give out pills that have caffeine in them?

What if California adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Scientologist pharmacists don't have to give out psychiatric meds.

I know those are *gasp* hypothetical situations, but this has the potential to get absolutely silly.

I would agree with you with one major point of disagreement. I do not think that a pharmacists should be required to give out drugs that cause abortions i.e. RU-486. I'm sorry, but requiring that is requiring them to assist in the procedure. In the hypothetical of the OP, that was not the case presented and I think the pharmacist was wrong in his/her choice not to fill the prescription simply because the woman may have had an abortion. So what if she did?

I would dearly love to read the pharmacist's side of the story. Maybe he/she had a very good explanation for what transpired.

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

I happen to agree with you about pharmacies not having to employ pharmacists that will not comply. The employer has the right not to hire or even to fire employees that they do not want in their employment. If the employer (in this case Walgreen's) insists that all pharmacists dispense RU-486 and some of their pharmacists refuse to do so on account of the conscious clause, then the employer has every right, IMHO, to terminate their contract or the employee has the right to find employment elsewhere.

A pharmacist who refuses to perform his or her duties might be better of seeking a position in another line of work.

That is hard for me to say because I understand and agree with the need for the conscious clause. However, the employee (in this case a pharmacists) places him or her self under the authority of the employer and thus should comply with the employer's instructions.

Immie

I can understand the conscious clause as it applies to some areas of health care. An OB/GYN resident who is pro-life should not be forced to perform abortions as a requirement to complete their training. That is a procedure that, but for the actions of the person involved, would not have happened.

However, when it comes to a pill, a pharmacist is a barrier between a dispensary and the patient and basically just complies with what a physician writes on a script pad, with some oversight to make sure the correct pills are given out and that they are safe. The patient still has to administer the pill to themselves. The pharmacist has no hand in that.

Frankly, I have never seen expanding this to pharmacists as a matter of conscious. I see it as another attempt by the anti-abortion crew to try and interdict Roe.

Which is why this pharmacist most likely refused to fill a non-abortificant medication simply because it came from planned parenthood.

What if Utah adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Mormon pharmacists don't have to give out pills that have caffeine in them?

What if California adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Scientologist pharmacists don't have to give out psychiatric meds.

I know those are *gasp* hypothetical situations, but this has the potential to get absolutely silly.

I would agree with you with one major point of disagreement. I do not think that a pharmacists should be required to give out drugs that cause abortions i.e. RU-486. I'm sorry, but requiring that is requiring them to assist in the procedure. In the hypothetical of the OP, that was not the case presented and I think the pharmacist was wrong in his/her choice not to fill the prescription simply because the woman may have had an abortion. So what if she did?

I would dearly love to read the pharmacist's side of the story. Maybe he/she had a very good explanation for what transpired.

Immie

I didn't think we'd agree. That's just my opinion on the matter.

 

[Immanuel]

I can understand the conscious clause as it applies to some areas of health care. An OB/GYN resident who is pro-life should not be forced to perform abortions as a requirement to complete their training. That is a procedure that, but for the actions of the person involved, would not have happened.

However, when it comes to a pill, a pharmacist is a barrier between a dispensary and the patient and basically just complies with what a physician writes on a script pad, with some oversight to make sure the correct pills are given out and that they are safe. The patient still has to administer the pill to themselves. The pharmacist has no hand in that.

Frankly, I have never seen expanding this to pharmacists as a matter of conscious. I see it as another attempt by the anti-abortion crew to try and interdict Roe.

Which is why this pharmacist most likely refused to fill a non-abortificant medication simply because it came from planned parenthood.

What if Utah adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Mormon pharmacists don't have to give out pills that have caffeine in them?

What if California adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Scientologist pharmacists don't have to give out psychiatric meds.

I know those are *gasp* hypothetical situations, but this has the potential to get absolutely silly.

I would agree with you with one major point of disagreement. I do not think that a pharmacists should be required to give out drugs that cause abortions i.e. RU-486. I'm sorry, but requiring that is requiring them to assist in the procedure. In the hypothetical of the OP, that was not the case presented and I think the pharmacist was wrong in his/her choice not to fill the prescription simply because the woman may have had an abortion. So what if she did?

I would dearly love to read the pharmacist's side of the story. Maybe he/she had a very good explanation for what transpired.

Immie

I didn't think we'd agree. That's just my opinion on the matter.

As it is just my opinion on the matter as well. I suspect that what happens in the long run regarding the conscience clauses in these matters will depend on future court cases.

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Below is the law, but it may be easier to read at the link.

A couple of points...

#1: To be eligible for application of the "Conscience Law" the health care provided must fall into the defined categories which are "abortion, dispensation of an abortifacient drug, human embryonic stem cell research, treatment regimens utilizing human embryonic stem cells, human embryo cloning or end of life treatment and care". Anti-bleeding medication does not fall into those categories.

#2: The objection to provide those services (which in this case don't apply anyway) must be submitted in writing to the employer in advance.

#3: Given such written notification, the employer is not allowed to discriminate against the employee because of such objection (which would also apply to not hiring the employee to begin with) unless the employer were to show undue hardship. Now in a hospital, that would normally not be a problem as there are multiple doctors/nurses/technicians/staff available at all times. However an independent Pharmacy could make the claim that having to hire two Pharmacists who make over $100,000 is an unreasonable accommodation. Although the counter argument can be made is that if Walgreens is a chain store and there is another Walgreens in the immediate area, then one store can support another and all Walgreens has to do is ensure two objecting Pharmacists are not on duty at the same time at two different store. A scheduling modification/screening would not be considered an acceptable accommodation.

#4: The law provides for immunity in the event of the application of the Conscience Law in the cases of "civilly, criminally or administratively" prosecution. However since the medication prescribed does not meet the critera as an applicable "health care service" under the law the Pharmacist could be open to administrative discipline under the Idaho Board of Pharmacy and if found to be negligent, that would provide a good basis for a civil suit.

>>>>

I am not going to parse the law in an attempt to defend the alleged actions of the pharmacist, I will simply point out that anyone who supports the right of a person to be a conscientious objector in time of war yet opposes the right of anyone in the medical field to always opt out of any procedures they have a similar moral objection to is a hypocrite.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks. That's what I was looking for. I have reservations about the conscious clause, but I can understand the intent. However, it is unfair to force a pharmacy to employ someone that could be harmful to their bottom line. I have a more libertarian perspective on the matter I suppose. Physicians shouldn't have to start playing a "guessing" game about which pharmacies/pharmacists will comply with their plan of care for a patient. There needs to be more equity under this law.

I agree the pharmacist screwed up by refusing a drug that wasn't covered under the clause. I suspect that this issue, or a similar issue, will ultimately be challenged in court.

Why do you have reservations about a conscious clause? Should people be forced to do things that they disagree with simply because it inconveniences others? Do you also support slavery?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can understand the conscious clause as it applies to some areas of health care. An OB/GYN resident who is pro-life should not be forced to perform abortions as a requirement to complete their training. That is a procedure that, but for the actions of the person involved, would not have happened.

However, when it comes to a pill, a pharmacist is a barrier between a dispensary and the patient and basically just complies with what a physician writes on a script pad, with some oversight to make sure the correct pills are given out and that they are safe. The patient still has to administer the pill to themselves. The pharmacist has no hand in that.

Frankly, I have never seen expanding this to pharmacists as a matter of conscious. I see it as another attempt by the anti-abortion crew to try and interdict Roe.

Which is why this pharmacist most likely refused to fill a non-abortificant medication simply because it came from planned parenthood.

What if Utah adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Mormon pharmacists don't have to give out pills that have caffeine in them?

What if California adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Scientologist pharmacists don't have to give out psychiatric meds.

I know those are *gasp* hypothetical situations, but this has the potential to get absolutely silly.

Pharmacist do not get to have a conscious because they are not "real" medical personnel. A rather interesting, and flawed, position.

I could be wrong here, but I am willing to bet that there are no Scientologist pharmacists.

 

[geauxtohell]

I can understand the conscious clause as it applies to some areas of health care. An OB/GYN resident who is pro-life should not be forced to perform abortions as a requirement to complete their training. That is a procedure that, but for the actions of the person involved, would not have happened.

However, when it comes to a pill, a pharmacist is a barrier between a dispensary and the patient and basically just complies with what a physician writes on a script pad, with some oversight to make sure the correct pills are given out and that they are safe. The patient still has to administer the pill to themselves. The pharmacist has no hand in that.

Frankly, I have never seen expanding this to pharmacists as a matter of conscious. I see it as another attempt by the anti-abortion crew to try and interdict Roe.

Which is why this pharmacist most likely refused to fill a non-abortificant medication simply because it came from planned parenthood.

What if Utah adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Mormon pharmacists don't have to give out pills that have caffeine in them?

What if California adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Scientologist pharmacists don't have to give out psychiatric meds.

I know those are *gasp* hypothetical situations, but this has the potential to get absolutely silly.

Pharmacist do not get to have a conscious because they are not "real" medical personnel. A rather interesting, and flawed, position.

I could be wrong here, but I am willing to bet that there are no Scientologist pharmacists.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said what you claimed I said.

 

[geauxtohell]

Thanks. That's what I was looking for. I have reservations about the conscious clause, but I can understand the intent. However, it is unfair to force a pharmacy to employ someone that could be harmful to their bottom line. I have a more libertarian perspective on the matter I suppose. Physicians shouldn't have to start playing a "guessing" game about which pharmacies/pharmacists will comply with their plan of care for a patient. There needs to be more equity under this law.

I agree the pharmacist screwed up by refusing a drug that wasn't covered under the clause. I suspect that this issue, or a similar issue, will ultimately be challenged in court.

Why do you have reservations about a conscious clause? Should people be forced to do things that they disagree with simply because it inconveniences others? Do you also support slavery?

A person's morals might not be relevant if it complicates patient care. Perhaps they should consider another line of work. I have no idea where you are going with "slavery" but I'll venture to guess it's a stretch.

 

[DiveCon]

Thanks. That's what I was looking for. I have reservations about the conscious clause, but I can understand the intent. However, it is unfair to force a pharmacy to employ someone that could be harmful to their bottom line. I have a more libertarian perspective on the matter I suppose. Physicians shouldn't have to start playing a "guessing" game about which pharmacies/pharmacists will comply with their plan of care for a patient. There needs to be more equity under this law.

I agree the pharmacist screwed up by refusing a drug that wasn't covered under the clause. I suspect that this issue, or a similar issue, will ultimately be challenged in court.

Why do you have reservations about a conscious clause? Should people be forced to do things that they disagree with simply because it inconveniences others? Do you also support slavery?

A person's morals might not be relevant if it complicates patient care. Perhaps they should consider another line of work. I have no idea where you are going with "slavery" but I'll venture to guess it's a stretch.

if someone has a problem doing things required of their job, they are in the wrong profession

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can understand the conscious clause as it applies to some areas of health care. An OB/GYN resident who is pro-life should not be forced to perform abortions as a requirement to complete their training. That is a procedure that, but for the actions of the person involved, would not have happened.

However, when it comes to a pill, a pharmacist is a barrier between a dispensary and the patient and basically just complies with what a physician writes on a script pad, with some oversight to make sure the correct pills are given out and that they are safe. The patient still has to administer the pill to themselves. The pharmacist has no hand in that.

Frankly, I have never seen expanding this to pharmacists as a matter of conscious. I see it as another attempt by the anti-abortion crew to try and interdict Roe.

Which is why this pharmacist most likely refused to fill a non-abortificant medication simply because it came from planned parenthood.

What if Utah adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Mormon pharmacists don't have to give out pills that have caffeine in them?

What if California adopts a similar provision and expands it so that Scientologist pharmacists don't have to give out psychiatric meds.

I know those are *gasp* hypothetical situations, but this has the potential to get absolutely silly.

Pharmacist do not get to have a conscious because they are not "real" medical personnel. A rather interesting, and flawed, position.

I could be wrong here, but I am willing to bet that there are no Scientologist pharmacists.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said what you claimed I said.

You said, and I quote.

However, when it comes to a pill, a pharmacist is a barrier between a dispensary and the patient and basically just complies with what a physician writes on a script pad, with some oversight to make sure the correct pills are given out and that they are safe. The patient still has to administer the pill to themselves. The pharmacist has no hand in that.

Apparently, because the pharmacist does not either prescribe, or actually dose, the patient, they do not have a right to have a conscious. While you are correct that you did not say the exact words I used, the words you did use mean exactly the same thing. If you do not like it, why did you say it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks. That's what I was looking for. I have reservations about the conscious clause, but I can understand the intent. However, it is unfair to force a pharmacy to employ someone that could be harmful to their bottom line. I have a more libertarian perspective on the matter I suppose. Physicians shouldn't have to start playing a "guessing" game about which pharmacies/pharmacists will comply with their plan of care for a patient. There needs to be more equity under this law.

I agree the pharmacist screwed up by refusing a drug that wasn't covered under the clause. I suspect that this issue, or a similar issue, will ultimately be challenged in court.

Why do you have reservations about a conscious clause? Should people be forced to do things that they disagree with simply because it inconveniences others? Do you also support slavery?

A person's morals might not be relevant if it complicates patient care. Perhaps they should consider another line of work. I have no idea where you are going with "slavery" but I'll venture to guess it's a stretch.

People's morals are either always relevant, or never relevant. If you support conscientious objector status as a way to keep people from serving in times of war, you have no logical objection to them doing the same thing as a medical professional. What you are actually trying to do here is shove your morality down another persons throat because you think your morality is better than theirs.

Just something to think about.

 

[geauxtohell]

Pharmacist do not get to have a conscious because they are not "real" medical personnel. A rather interesting, and flawed, position.

I could be wrong here, but I am willing to bet that there are no Scientologist pharmacists.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said what you claimed I said.

You said, and I quote.

However, when it comes to a pill, a pharmacist is a barrier between a dispensary and the patient and basically just complies with what a physician writes on a script pad, with some oversight to make sure the correct pills are given out and that they are safe. The patient still has to administer the pill to themselves. The pharmacist has no hand in that.

Apparently, because the pharmacist does not either prescribe, or actually dose, the patient, they do not have a right to have a conscious. While you are correct that you did not say the exact words I used, the words you did use mean exactly the same thing. If you do not like it, why did you say it?

No they don't. Nor did I say they don't have a "right to have a conscious". You see, when you put words in quotation marks you are claiming that I said something I did not say. In fact, you inferred meaning into my post that wasn't there. You can do better than that.

My point was more about what degree of responsibility a person has for an "abortion" with a medical abortion/RU-486 where the patient performs the act versus a surgical or D&C where a Doctor performs the act. Immie apparently got it. You apparently didn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do you have reservations about a conscious clause? Should people be forced to do things that they disagree with simply because it inconveniences others? Do you also support slavery?

A person's morals might not be relevant if it complicates patient care. Perhaps they should consider another line of work. I have no idea where you are going with "slavery" but I'll venture to guess it's a stretch.

if someone has a problem doing things required of their job, they are in the wrong profession

Interesting position. You do realize you are advocating for discrimination based on religion here, don't you?

 

[geauxtohell]

Why do you have reservations about a conscious clause? Should people be forced to do things that they disagree with simply because it inconveniences others? Do you also support slavery?

A person's morals might not be relevant if it complicates patient care. Perhaps they should consider another line of work. I have no idea where you are going with "slavery" but I'll venture to guess it's a stretch.

People's morals are either always relevant, or never relevant. If you support conscientious objector status as a way to keep people from serving in times of war, you have no logical objection to them doing the same thing as a medical professional. What you are actually trying to do here is shove your morality down another persons throat because you think your morality is better than theirs.

Just something to think about.

I only support "CO" status if there is a draft. In a volunteer military, don't sign up for the job if you don't like the business end of the deal. The military feels the same way, and that is why it's virtually impossible to be a CO in today's military and even more impossible to be deemed a CO after you have signed up. You can research the regulations and relevant news stories from Iraq-istan if you doubt it.

I am not really trying to cram my morality anywhere. I am just differentiating between where I see a logical moral rub, and that comes down to the very act of the abortion.

It's a matter of opinion, and I never claimed it should be the law. Immie obviously disagreed and that was all good and fine.

 

[DiveCon]

A person's morals might not be relevant if it complicates patient care. Perhaps they should consider another line of work. I have no idea where you are going with "slavery" but I'll venture to guess it's a stretch.

if someone has a problem doing things required of their job, they are in the wrong profession

Interesting position. You do realize you are advocating for discrimination based on religion here, don't you?

not really
if you are going into a profession that could require you to do something your religious convictions do not allow, then you are putting youself into the ethical dilemma

just like should a strip club owner be forced to hire a muslim dancer that will only wear a burka?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

if someone has a problem doing things required of their job, they are in the wrong profession

Interesting position. You do realize you are advocating for discrimination based on religion here, don't you?

not really
if you are going into a profession that could require you to do something your religious convictions do not allow, then you are putting youself into the ethical dilemma

just like should a strip club owner be forced to hire a muslim dancer that will only wear a burka?

Should nurses be required to assist in abortions?

Should doctors be required to perform abortions?

Should pharmacists be required to provide abortifacients?

By your reasoning anyone who says no to any of these questions should not be allowed to join any of these professions.

 

[DiveCon]

Interesting position. You do realize you are advocating for discrimination based on religion here, don't you?

not really
if you are going into a profession that could require you to do something your religious convictions do not allow, then you are putting youself into the ethical dilemma

just like should a strip club owner be forced to hire a muslim dancer that will only wear a burka?

Should nurses be required to assist in abortions?

Should doctors be required to perform abortions?

Should pharmacists be required to provide abortifacients?

By your reasoning anyone who says no to any of these questions should not be allowed to join any of these professions.

a pharmacist that works at a pharmacy that stocks those drugs, yes(unless the pharmacy has alternatives)
the rest, no

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A person's morals might not be relevant if it complicates patient care. Perhaps they should consider another line of work. I have no idea where you are going with "slavery" but I'll venture to guess it's a stretch.

People's morals are either always relevant, or never relevant. If you support conscientious objector status as a way to keep people from serving in times of war, you have no logical objection to them doing the same thing as a medical professional. What you are actually trying to do here is shove your morality down another persons throat because you think your morality is better than theirs.

Just something to think about.

I only support "CO" status if there is a draft. In a volunteer military, don't sign up for the job if you don't like the business end of the deal. The military feels the same way, and that is why it's virtually impossible to be a CO in today's military and even more impossible to be deemed a CO after you have signed up. You can research the regulations and relevant news stories from Iraq-istan if you doubt it.

I am not really trying to cram my morality anywhere. I am just differentiating between where I see a logical moral rub, and that comes down to the very act of the abortion.

It's a matter of opinion, and I never claimed it should be the law. Immie obviously disagreed and that was all good and fine.

Strangely enough, the military recognizes conscientious objector status even in an all volunteer force. I personally know of two people who, after joining the military, managed to get CO status with minimal hassle. They experienced a real, and profound, change of heart, and where discharged within months. All of the news stories I have about people being refused CO status are from obvious political motivations, like the guy who signed up and then attempted to refuse deployment because the war is illegal. That is not being a conscientious objector, that is being a war protester.

There is no moral, or legal, difference between directly administrating an overdose to someone, and giving the same person the drugs and walking away. Both can get you charged and imprisoned. Your attempt to parse a moral difference between a pharmacist and a doctor and their roles in abortions is not a simple disagreement, it indicates your contempt for pharmacists in the medical field. I find that type of pretension and arrogance offensive.

Your opinion that pharmacists should not be allowed to object to anything is no different than a Christian's opinion that prayer should be allowed in schools. If one is shoving morality down a persons throat so is the other. You can sit back and claim your position is just an opinion, but the rest of us know better. You might not be talking about laws, but you are talking about professional standards, and your contempt for others is clear.

 

[geauxtohell]

Strangely enough, the military recognizes conscientious objector status even in an all volunteer force. I personally know of two people who, after joining the military, managed to get CO status with minimal hassle. They experienced a real, and profound, change of heart, and where discharged within months. All of the news stories I have about people being refused CO status are from obvious political motivations, like the guy who signed up and then attempted to refuse deployment because the war is illegal. That is not being a conscientious objector, that is being a war protester.

Again, it's exceedingly rare. The prevailing notion being that the military makes no secrets about what it exists to do. Anyone that willingly signs up for that, understands what's going on when they sign on the line.

If there were a draft, I absolutely understand why someone would be a CO. That's a much different circumstance.

There is no moral, or legal, difference between directly administrating an overdose to someone, and giving the same person the drugs and walking away. Both can get you charged and imprisoned. Your attempt to parse a moral difference between a pharmacist and a doctor and their roles in abortions is not a simple disagreement, it indicates your contempt for pharmacists in the medical field. I find that type of pretension and arrogance offensive.

I don't have contempt for pharmacists. I have nothing but respect for them, especially PharmD's who round with us and taught me pharmacology. Your attempts to put words in my mouth and misrepresent my personal frigging opinion, which you can only speculate on, is starting to verge on the dishonest and is far beyond being annoying. You don't have to agree with my opinion. Stop putting words in my mouth or telling me how I feel about another group in the health professions.

Your opinion that pharmacists should not be allowed to object to anything

That was never my opinion.

is no different than a Christian's opinion that prayer should be allowed in schools. If one is shoving morality down a persons throat so is the other. You can sit back and claim your position is just an opinion, but the rest of us know better. You might not be talking about laws, but you are talking about professional standards, and your contempt for others is clear.

Is it? You are the only person on this thread that seems to be pitching a hissy fit about it. Perhaps it's because you inferred something that was never really there.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

not really
if you are going into a profession that could require you to do something your religious convictions do not allow, then you are putting youself into the ethical dilemma

just like should a strip club owner be forced to hire a muslim dancer that will only wear a burka?

Should nurses be required to assist in abortions?

Should doctors be required to perform abortions?

Should pharmacists be required to provide abortifacients?

By your reasoning anyone who says no to any of these questions should not be allowed to join any of these professions.

a pharmacist that works at a pharmacy that stocks those drugs, yes(unless the pharmacy has alternatives)
the rest, no

What if the pharmacy adds the drug after they hire the pharmacist? That applies in a lot of cases with older pharmacists and RU-486.