Washington Pharmacists Don’t Have To Sell Plan B
This issue gets thornier all the time. A federal appeals court let stand a lower court ruling that allows Washington state pharmacists to refuse to sell the Plan B emergency contraceptive pill on religious grounds.
The pill, which is sold by Barr Laboratories, prevents fertilized eggs from implanting, which some people believe is the same as abortion. Generally, Plan B is available over the counter to women who are at least 18 years old, but by prescription to those under 18.
US District Judge Ronald Leighton found that the state rules force pharmacists into an unconstitutional choice between their religious beliefs and their work, Reuters writes. State officials and several women had asked the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals to suspend the judge’s preliminary injunction, which bars them from enforcing the law, while they appeal his ruling.
In a split decision, the appeals court denied that request, finding that the state and the women didn’t show they would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction stays in place pending the appeal. The justices granted the state’s motion to speed up the appellate proceedings, which were set for oral argument on June 3 in Seattle.
Meanwhile, a group of pharmacists wants the Illinois Supreme Court to throw out a rule that forces them to dispense the Plan B emergency contraception pill despite their moral objections, claiming it amounts to illegal coercion. When we wrote about this legal battle two months ago, we ran a reader’s poll in which 70 percent of 143 respondents voted in favor of requiring pharmacist to dispense Plan B.
Former pharma Marketing Exec
I really hope the list of pharmacists that are pushing this issue forward is made public and women and men everywhere in the state of Washington boycott them.
This is frightening in that pharmacists who are supposed to be chemist/scientists can override the right of a women.
The state of Washington mandates that:The sovereign people hereby declare that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to personal reproductive decisions.
Accordingly, it is the public policy of the state of Washington that:
1.
Every individual has the fundamental right to choose or refuse birth control;
2.
Every woman has the fundamental right to choose or refuse to have an abortion, except as specifically limited by this act
3.
Except as specifically permitted by this act, the state shall not deny or interfere with a woman’s fundamental right to choose or refuse to have an abortion; and
4.
The state shall not discriminate against the exercise of these rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.
RCW 9.02.110 Right to have and provide.
The state may not deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, or to protect her life or health. A physician may terminate and a health care provider may assist a physician in terminating a pregnancy as permitted by this section.
http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/120.htm
Anon
So you would eliminate this part of the bill?
RCW 9.02.150 Refusing to perform.
No person or private medical facility may be required by law or contract in any circumstances to participate in the performance of an abortion if such person or private medical facility objects to so doing. No person may be discriminated against in employment or professional privileges because of the person’s participation or refusal to participate in the termination of a pregnancy.
Equally seen as frightening in that politicans/courts who are supposed to be public servents/upholders of the law can override the right of individuals to act according to their believes.
ol cranky
Instead of making a long comment here, I’ll just link to one of my many posts on the subject of “pharmacists rights”. A pharmacist has no right to interfere or impede in the practice of medicine.
There are legitimate reasons to question a prescription by a HCP: the pharmacist has difficulty reading the script; the pharmacist notes that the dose regimen prescribed appears to be out of line with normal prescribing for the product; the pharmacist notes that the patient is taking another drug that is contraindicated with the prescription; the pharmacist thinks the prescription is fraudulent and/or notes that the prescription is for a controlled substance and the patient has had multiple prescriptions for that product from different physicians. In all these cases, the pharmacists should contact the HCP to confirm the prescription. Disagreement with the prescription for personal reasons is not an acceptable reason to refuse to fill and dispense, and to act as such is practicing medicine without a license to do so.
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Anon,
Actually I am bringing attention to clause 3 of the law.
Ol Cranky, I agree with you - separate as to church and state? Health care isn’t a religion it is government regulated, ergo religious beliefs have no place in this instance.
Doc
Doctors are not forced to do abortions in their practices.
When euthansia comes (and it will) doctors will not be forced to ‘Kevorkian’ people, if they choose not to.
Pharmacists should have the right to abstain from dispensing Plan B.
Even restraunts and bars can choose to deny service to customers.
Nathan
It’s funny that we chide heathcare professionals for not having ethics. Then a group of pharmacists stands up against something that they strongly believe is unethical - and suddenly THEY are the ones being chided!
I agree with Doc. Doctors have the right to abstain from prescribing “Plan B”. Patients have the right to abstain from taking “Plan B”. And pharmacists should have the right to abstain from dispensing “Plan B”.
Nathan
BTW if all healthcare professionals stood up for ethical behavior like this group of pharmacists has, then maybe we wouldn’t be facing many of the problems in the pharma industry that we currently are! We should NEVER send the message that ones career might be jeprodized for standing up for your ethics and beliefs.
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Nathan and Doc,
In my opinion shame on you both. You are saying that Plan be is unethical?
It is not at all. What is unethical is men who believe they some how can have dominion over a womans body.
If you look into this matter then condoms and birth control are unethical because they prevent the logical progression of egg and sperm to form a life. Put it that way they we could easily say - no sex at all unless a women is willing to make the investment in having a baby.
Separation to church and state.
It isn’t a mans decision.
Doc, shame on you for comparing this to euthanasia. That is unnecessary sensationalizing of this issue. Plan B works within 72 hours of unprotected sex. Both Medicine and Science have agreed - as per stem cell research laws, that this is not human life at this point.
The scary part is that these pharmacists haven’t been educated at all.
If we do not keep separate church and state, then what about the beliefs of all the other religions represented in the US? Shall we bow to them too? Imagine if you will what that would cause? How do we decide which religious beliefs must be held up above our governmental laws?
Hope you both do some re-thinking, otherwise you are doomed to remain chauvinists.
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Nathan and Doc,
In my opinion shame on you both. You are saying that Plan B is unethical?
It is not at all. What is unethical is men who believe they some how can have dominion over a womans body.
If you look into this matter then condoms and birth control are unethical because they prevent the logical progression of egg and sperm to form a life. Put it that way they we could easily say - no sex at all unless a women is willing to make the investment in having a baby.
Separation to church and state.
It isn’t a mans decision.
Doc, shame on you for comparing this to euthanasia. That is unnecessary sensationalizing of this issue. Plan B works within 72 hours of unprotected sex. Both Medicine and Science have agreed - as per stem cell research laws, that this is not human life at this point.
The scary part is that these pharmacists haven’t been educated at all.
If we do not keep separate church and state, then what about the beliefs of all the other religions represented in the US? Shall we bow to them too? Imagine if you will what that would cause? How do we decide which religious beliefs must be held up above our governmental laws?
Hope you both do some re-thinking, otherwise you are doomed to remain chauvinists.
Nathan
FPME says:
“You are saying that Plan be is unethical?”
Yes, in my opinion. But that isn’t the point. The point is that the INDIVIDUAL should be able to decide what is and isn’t ethical in their mind. You believe that the government shouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies but you believe that the government SHOULD tell pharmacists what to do with theirs. What a hypocritical view.
FPME says: “Both Medicine and Science have agreed - as per stem cell research laws, that this is not human life at this point.”
That’s a bunch of bullshit. Science has not and cannot decide what is and isn’t human life. Since this is such a cut-and-dry issue, why don’t you tell me? Exactly when DOES human life begin? The moment the baby takes their first breath of fresh air? This is a controversial issue and it should be up to the individual health care provider to decide what is and isn’t ethical for them to practice.
FPME says: “Separation to church and state.”
Nobody brought church into this except you. This is an ethical, moral, and religious decision. A government shouldn’t force anyone to sell a drug that will be used for killing someone. Is anyone forced to sell guns? Hand grenades? That’s a CHOICE that someone makes. If they decide to sell it, fine — that’s up to them. But no one should be forced to do so.
Nathan
By the way, just so you think I’m not hypocritical in this view point: If I were asked to do research on some sort of RU486 type of drug, I would decline and sooner resign than do the research. Fortunately, people in industry generally recognize that people have different ethical standards and I really doubt anyone would force me to perform such research. It’s too bad the same freedom isn’t given to pharmacists.
Doc
FPME,
Who said anything about men or women making these decisions? I thought we were talking about pharmacists, who may by the way be either men or women. As far as sensationalizing the issue, I beg to differ. Having spent many hours in abortion clinics I can tell you that your thinking has led to significant de-sensitization of what is an extremely permanent solution to a pregnancy. Many, if not most of those who come in for their ‘procedure’ are so young they have no idea of any consequences of their actions. I won’t argue point of life origin with you, suffice it to say that IF left alone, the fertilized egg will ultimitely become a human being, not a whale, cat, dog or other mammal. Your logic would lead to every OB-GYN being mandated to perform abortions. Guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Nathan
FPME,
One more thing — I realize that I mis-stated my opinion above. I’m not really (personally) ethically opposed to “Plan B”. However, I don’t think that anyone should be forced to sell or prescribe it. I’m really more thinking about RU486. I am definitely ethically opposed to that. Again, I don’t think anyone should be forced to sell or provide it.
To clarify further, I’m not saying that either of these products should be removed from the market. I’m saying that professionals should not be forced to provide a service that they are ethically opposed to.
Nathan
FPME says: “Hope you both do some re-thinking, otherwise you are doomed to remain chauvinists.”
Why do you assume that “Doc” is a male? Maybe you are the chauvinist pig, not us….
ol cranky
Not hypocrital thinking at all. Plan B is only available with prescription and the pharmacist’s job is to fill and dispense valid legal prescriptions, not to second guess the physician’s motives in prescribing a drug or the patient’s for taking it and most certainly not to interfere with a patient’s medical treatment. We’re not talking about refusing to serve restaurant patrons who are rowdy, underdressed or unclean, we are talking about medical treatment and the patients can’t easily just go elsewhere to get the drug. Jehovah’s witnesses are against blood transfusions on medical grounds, they stay out of the way when a patient needs a transfusion and let another HCP handle the situation, they don’t get in the way. Pharmacists, in this instance, are asking to be able to get in the way.
Doc
Ol Cranky,
Then why shouldn’t every OB-GYN be required to perform abortions if asked? Because patients can go to another doctor? If a pharmacist has their own store and don’t want to dispense Plan-B, that is their right. If they work for a chain and the chain has a policy of dispensing Plan-B or you lose your job, then that pharmacist must decide to either abide by their employer’s rule or leave and find another place to work. It’s pretty simple.
Mike M
Ol Cranky,
Since when is Plan B “only available with a prescription”? It sounds to me like you are a bit behind the times, which renders your opinion irrelevant in my estimation. Let’s make sure we have simple facts straight before we make authoritative statements in a professional discussion. Just in case you are not following, Plan B has been available over the counter for greater than a year.
Bob Freeman
Oh, please, a pharmacist has every right to exercise professional judgement. In fact, it is highly likely that a “third class” of prescription drugs will be created that can be dispensed following consultation with patients. Pharmacists are not mindless robots who do not have professional judgement and ethics. It is regrettable this issue is in the context of plan B, which is laden with religious beliefs.
By the way, shop in a French pharmacy sometimes and try to buy ibuprofen. While it’s OTC, you’re not going to get it until you’ve had a thorough discussion with the pharmacist and he/she is satisfied it’s appropriate for you.
ol cranky
Doc:
I don’t really follow your argument. Nowhere did I say that all pharmacies must stock and dispense all medications (including, but not limited to, birth control).
The physician is licensed to practice medicine, the pharmacist is not. A physician should be prescribing medications or performing procedures based on his or her clinical judgment. If a physician prescribes the medicine and the pharmacy stocks it, the pharmacist who refuses to let the prescription be filled and dispensed is intentionally interfering in a patient’s medical treatment and ability to take a medication as prescribed.
A company has a right to require its staff to perform all routine duties listed in a job description (provided those duties are not illegal) so a pharmacy should have the right to require its pharmacists to fill and dispense all legal and valid prescriptions for products they stock. Most pharmacies do try to make arrangements to allow those pharmacists who have a problem dispensing prescriptions for birth control to avoid doing so but this may not always be a reasonable and doable (especially since some pharmacists who will not fill or dispense contraceptives will not return a prescription to allow the patient to get it filled, which can lead to legal action against the pharmacy).
Frankly, if a pharmacist feels so strongly that contraception is murder, I wonder why he or she would work at a pharmacy that would stock something that they think is a murder weapon. There are alternatives available. If someone wants to open a “Christian” pharmacy that doesn’t stock agents they find contradict their religious views, they can do so - provided they do make their policy clear and do not confiscate valid and legal prescriptions that they refuse to fill. The easier route would be to work at a mail-order pharmacy so you can pick and chose what prescriptions you fill (provided your employer is amenable to the solution).
Mike:
you are right, I completely forgot that Plan B is behind the counter. As such, if a pharmacist won’t hand the drug over to someone who requests it (as per the law), they should allow another employee to do so or for the patient to be able to retrieve it herself. Based on your comment, one would have to wonder why you would be concerned about the matter at all or is it just that you want to ensure, since Plan B is behind the counter, a pharmacist be permitted to over-rule a physician (please refer to my earlier post describing legitimate reasons to question a physician about a prescription) and refuse to fill any prescription because the pharmacist has a personal problem with the drug that is prescribed or the person to whom it was prescribed. Any way you cut it, it’s not just interfering with a patient’s medical care, it’s practicing medicine without a license.
Nathan
Doc has raised a question multiple times that you guys have failed to answer: why shouldn’t every OB-GYN be required to perform abortions if asked?
Cranky says: “Any way you cut it, it’s not just interfering with a patient’s medical care, it’s practicing medicine without a license.”
That makes sense, but in the mind of many people, purposefully killing anything beyond a fertilized egg is tantamount to murder. Being an accomplice to murder is simply not an option. Are you suggesting that pharmacists should park their conscience at the door of their store? What about other healthcare providers? Should they also park their conscience at the door?
What about when assisted suicide becomes more accepted and legal? Are doctors and pharmacists going to be required to sell and/or administer the drugs? What about RU486? I presume it is generally administered in a doctor’s office. What about when a version of RU486 becomes available that comes from a pharmacy? Are we going to require pharmacies to carry it? Are we going to require pharmacists to sell it? Don’t say that these are hypothetical questions. These are questions that we WILL have to deal with in the coming decade.
I’m happy that there are pharmacists, doctors, and nurses who have convictions and are willing to risk their jobs to stand up for their beliefs.
Doc
Ol Cranky,
I never mentioned a “Christian” pharmacy. Why are you injecting religion into this discussion? There are many people of all faiths, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, even atheists and agnostics that do not agree with abortion. It seems that you have let us all know your own prejudice. Are you saying that pharmacists are not licensed to practice their clinical judgement? If that is so, just fire them all and replace them with automated dispensing machines that read bar coded Rxs. No pharmacy school in the US graduates anything other than PharmDs today, these are doctors of pharmacy- and yes they do do practice their clinical judgement and should be provided the same degree of autonomy and proffesionalism as MDs and DOs. I also never said anyhting about pharmacists calling the dispensing of Plan-B as ‘murder’ - those are your words. Once again, maybe you give us all insight into your personal thoughts of Plan-B unknowingly. If you want to debate, please don’t attibute arguments to me that I never made.
Skeptic
Ol Cranky, you are quite behind the times on knowing what today’s pharmacy practice is like. As far as being required legally to dispense any script that is presented in a pharmacy, that is sheer nonsense. If I were still practicing pharmacy and a prescription was presented for a SSRI for a child under 5, I would counsel the parent and the physican based on my clinical knowledge of the risks and benefits. If I was not convinced the drug was appropriate, I would not dispense the product. That is my professional perogative and is not practicing medicine.
harpy
Bravo! And I further propose that any man filling an Erectile Disfunction prescription be required to prove he is married and he will use the drug only with his wife because I believe adultery is a sin.
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Nathan my replies to yours below:
FPME says:
“You are saying that Plan be is unethical?”
Yes, in my opinion. But that isn’t the point. The point is that the INDIVIDUAL should be able to decide what is and isn’t ethical in their mind. You believe that the government shouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies but you believe that the government SHOULD tell pharmacists what to do with theirs. What a hypocritical view.
FPME Says in response: The government isn’t telling any pharmacist what to do with their body. This issue is about separation of state and church. Pharmacists serve the PUBLIC. It isn’t a religious conviction.
FPME says: “Both Medicine and Science have agreed - as per stem cell research laws, that this is not human life at this point.”
That’s a bunch of bullshit. Science has not and cannot decide what is and isn’t human life. Since this is such a cut-and-dry issue, why don’t you tell me? Exactly when DOES human life begin? The moment the baby takes their first breath of fresh air? This is a controversial issue and it should be up to the individual health care provider to decide what is and isn’t ethical for them to practice.
Nathan, for the record, science has decided that life isn’t recognized before the 14th day. After that time stem cells from embryos can no longer be stored. This is FACT!
FPME says: “Separation to church and state.”
Nobody brought church into this except you. This is an ethical, moral, and religious decision. A government shouldn’t force anyone to sell a drug that will be used for killing someone. Is anyone forced to sell guns? Hand grenades? That’s a CHOICE that someone makes. If they decide to sell it, fine — that’s up to them. But no one should be forced to do so.
FPME replies: I did not bring religion into this. The pharmacists said they did not want to dispense plan B due to their religious beliefs.
Your profanity is very disturbing…
Former pharma Marketing Exec
To all who posted. The reason why this is so disturbing is that based on religious beliefs public servants such as pharmacists can impede womans right and access to Plan B. Let me be clear that I do not think that Plan B should be used as a form of birth control.
Imagine this scenario: A women, who by the way had to have sex with a man in order to be in this situation, realizes that maybe the condom broke or whatever. They BOTH decide that Plan B is the best option. She has 72 hours to take the pill after which it would no longer be affective. She lives in the state of Washington, cannot access the pill in the time frame and now is doomed to a more difficult procedure or being forced to go along with the pregnancy.
Regardless that the law said she should have access to it, this type of manipulation has overridden the woman’s ability to access what she legally has a right to access.
You cannot spin this in any positive way - it is wrong.
As for Dr’s opting out of performing abortions, if they are not qualified, then there is no argument. So, obviously they will not go and be trained in that procedure.
So, like I said, there needs to be some more thought into the consequences of this type of “rogue” action by the pharmacists.
Nathan
“So, like I said, there needs to be some more thought into the consequences of this type of “rogue” action by the pharmacists.”
Yes indeed, there needs to be more thought. Keep thinking…
I guess after 14 days of incubation you believe that the gift of “humanhood” is magically bestowed onto the mass of cells. Sounds rather arbitrary to me. Let the pharmacists decide when he or she believes life begins. Let them act according the their own conscience.
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Nathan,
As usual you are trying to get off the topic with some sort of “straw man” argument. It won’t work…
For the record I was not the one to help the scientists make the decision about the 14 day cutoff. This was brought about by careful scientific research and understanding as to what is happening with the “mass of cells”.
What appears arbitrary to you is anything that doesn’t suit what you think it should be. Not a very good sign of a scientist. You need to be a bit more objective.
Doc
FPME,
“Imagine this scenario: A women, who by the way had to have sex with a man in order to be in this situation, realizes that maybe the condom broke or whatever.” They decide to NOT have an abortion and the child grows up in 25 years, discovers the genetic basis for 50% of all cancers and provides the solution to this devistating health issue. As long as we are imagining!
CMC guy
FPME you are the one seemingly getting off on tangents. See Doc’s statements as Pharmacist are professional and are not Public servants (unless perhaps they are government employees). You cite WA law but do not point out the section that (I would argue) includes Pharmacist right to Refuse to Perform. You try to argue this is male chauvinism and Church vs State (granted article does cite regelious grounds) igoring that some women believe differently and Separation Doctrine is supposed to work both ways. Even is scientists may have decided “14 days” however it appears based on selection criteria to thwart the fertizaltion/conception view. Nathan did bring up ethics however think he was attempting to illustrate how if people in phrama had/do stand up against wrongs its reputation would not be so soiled.
Finally although in reading aware you are far from atypical for Marketing type the “What appears arbitrary to you is anything that doesn’t suit what you think it should be” sounds more like marketing attitude and practices and raises questions on your objectivity when you accuse someone.
Jack2
I tried to stay out of this one, and apologize that I didn’t read all the posts to this point…
QUOTE FRME: If you look into this matter then condoms and birth control are unethical because they prevent the logical progression of egg and sperm to form a life.
I’d say this takes the cake in a long line of very stupid attempts at extrapolation (and comments in general) from you but it’s just so hard to choose. You, sir, are dumb; your examples here and throughout this board are hypocritical; your ability to somehow have become an “executive” of anything is baffling; you’re understanding of healthcare is repeatedly limited; you’re knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry factually inaccurate; you’re analogies ridiculous; and I find your writing style unusual at best - but more often it reminds me of my own writing style in 5th grade.
Disclaimer: I offered my own opinion on this issue the last time it came up, and I did not change my mind since then (Although I support pro-choice, I also support a pharmacists right to refuse to participate in another person’s choice). I recognize the issue is controversial and morally based, so either side can present a theoretically valid opinion. I don’t mean to belittle the posts of everyone here who disagrees with me.
On the 14th day I rested -Jack2 out
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Doc - Good imagination. Thanks for sharing. Lets stir up some more controversy. You should read the book Freakanomics, of course I didn’t right it. The author says that the real reason for the decline in crime rates is the advent and acceptance of birth control. Un-wed poor mothers did not have the children which would have been invariably raised in poor ghetto neighborhoods and did not resort to crime. But, there are wonderful children who grow up to be amazing leaders and great thinkers and scientists, but you will agree that the odds are stacked against them. It has to do with on the going repression of women - keep them pregnant and poor….
Nathan - ditto.
Both of you have now been completely discredited as being able to offer any realistic objective advice on anything.
JACK 2 - I wish I could take the blame for being “stupid” but this is the very argument that the fundamentalists in this country are using against the stem cell debate. Jack 2, I have way more credentials they you will ever dream of having. So, your opinion of me means nothing, you have credibility.
As I said earlier,women everywhere should find out who these pharmacists are and boycott their pharmacies…
Nathan, Jack 2 and Doc thanks for sharing, I have learned lots, your bias and lack of education on this subject are glaring warnings to anyone who choses to read any comments you may make in the future.
Doc
FPME,
Nice outlook, Margaret Sanger, who established Planned Parenthood, felt like you, keep the poor, often black population, from ‘breeding’ and solve mankind’s problems. Adolph felt the same way for Germany about the Jews. I find your outlook very disturbing. I consider your discrediting of me a badge of honor, if you think the way your posts allude, I want nothing to do with your type of thinking. Basing your arguments on Freakonomics? Pitiful.
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Doc,
I am merely stating what is out there. Nice attempt at yet another “straw man” argument. I never said in any of my posts that we should prevent anyone from having babies - unless they wish to not have them themselves.
My point is that children should be brought into this world who are going to be loved and cared for and nurtured. If a woman decides that she cannot provide for her child in that manner and wants to access Plan B, which the law says she can have access too then the actions of a few individuals should not prevent her from accessing what she legally has the right to.
Since family members of mine have survived Auschwitz, I would strongly caution you to not even think of comparing me to Hitler.
I haven’t discredited you in any way, although I find it interesting that you think I have.
Read what I write carefully or do not comment.
Pharmacists are there to serve the public and must be able to put aside their religious beliefs. That was and remains my point.
Doc
FPME,
I only respond to your specious arguments. You, my friend are the one who tried to link the use of abortion to decrease ‘potential’ children who might be raised in an unloving environment. Of course as usual, you try to distance yourself from the Freakinomics argument, by implying that is their argument not yours. Who can argue that every child born should be loved and cared for? The fact that some are not does not justify taking out those that ‘might’ not have such an upbringing. You do carefully write, so as to make your point, but put it on your reference, avoiding personal responsibility for your thoughts.
My original point, which you do not seem to understand is that pharmacists are professionals, trained to exercise their clinical judgement just as MDs. If they choose to not provide a medication in line with their personal judgement, so be it. Your earlier point that MDs not trained in abortion, should not provide them, is common sense. I can tell you from personal experience, there are MDs trained in abortion procedures, that choose not to do them - however they are qualified. Would you force these MDs to still do abortions?
As far as your family members surviving Auschwitz, good for them for making it through. Unfortunately, those humans who today are aborted, have NO opportunity to make it through, and can’t say anything about it either. And lastly, I love your mindset that all my arguments are flawed, but yours are totally valid, especially your ducking of taking a stand on abortion. It reminds me of Sen Ted Kennedy, “I’m not in favor of abortion, but won’t stop anyone else from having one”. Think down through history at any number of issues and what would have happened if a few good people had taken that mindset. Pretty frightening.
I am finished with this line on the blog, you and I will apparently never agree. I do try to be consistent in my approach to human life, I oppose abortion and I oppose the death penalty - human life is sacred in my view and allowing others to snuff it out, errs on the wrong side. Letting pharmacists exercise their personal ethics, seems only reasonable since MDs have that priviledge.
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Doc, Yes indeed we will agree to disagree.
Here is my stand on abortion - if a women asks for an abortion then she should have safe access to an abortion by a qualified license professional.
If Dr. prefer not to practice abortion than that is their choice, they obviously do not “market” their ability to perform abortions.
Pharmacists, follow orders in a most professional manner. I respect their profession. But much like a store keeper, they cannot keep certain people out of their store, they must serve every one equally.
The state of Washington allowing them to pick and chose which prescriptions they fill is ludicrous. Why? because they could easily ask their colleague to fill the prescription if it offended them so much. A state allowing anyone who is there to serve the public to legally deny serving some members of the public is not at all in the spirit and context of the constitution of the United States.
Does a pharmacist have the right to not sell drugs to a homosexual to treat his AIDS, because he finds his behavior or sexual preferences deviant to his own beliefs? Should a pharmacist not fill the prescription to treat a STD? Do these same pharmacist refuse to sell birth control pills, condoms and viagra?
Pharmacists cannot pick and chose their customers, much like general stores cannot bar people from their stores unless they are harmful and interfere with the business of the enterprise.
Do I think your arguments are flawed? No, I think we all need to broaden our thinking and think about the consequences of the actions. Do pharmacists judge their customers? Do doctors judged their patients? I hope not…
CMC guy
Doc thank you for taking a clear stand which supports Pharmacists as professionals and those who choose to act in accordance with their ethics. However someone who claims to respect Pharmacists then suggests they are just there to follow orders really does not understand the distinction of offering valued services while maintaining professional and personal standards. Individuals must judge themselves and the actions they take. Guess we must adopt anothers view if we are to be objective and board minded.
Justice in Michigan
I have stayed out of this one, for reasons of tone as well as content. But here is a question if anyone still cares.
I am reminded of a colleague at my own workplace. Rather than work on a committee that involved assessing a student’s service project at Planned Parenthood, this person did not feel that she, in good conscience, could have anything to do with anything to do with Planned Parenthood. And so she removed herself from the committe.
Whatever my own views, I respected her choice. Again, this was not simply “recusing” herself for a particular decision, but leaving the committee entirely, service on which was part of her job responsibilities and for which a portion of her salary specifically came. So she literally gave up part of her job. That is a moral choice I can respect.
It is also one which it is almost certainly not realistic, and perhaps not desirable, to expect in general. But, in actual practice, I assume that pharmacists opposed to Plan B most typically choose not to personally dispense it, but do not stand in the way of someone else at that pharmacy doing so, is that correct?
Or have some people literally considered leaving pharmacy entirely or perhaps finding a pharmacy that is ideologically/theologically in tune with their own views (if there is such a thing)?
Again, I’m wondering how pharmacists opposed to dispensing B have balanced their commitments to principles, profession, family obligations, company, and so on in actual practice.