Posted on 06/26/2023 1:13:56 PM PDT by Morgana
Without an understanding of a patient’s medical condition, any decision they think they are entitled to make in variance of the physician’s orders could be a harm. They are acting as presumptuous jackasses, and should be fired- if not by the pharmacy, then by the patient.
They are no more “medical doctors” than a PhD in biology. They aren’t licensed to practice medicine.
They aren’t licensed to practice medicine. I once had a pharmacist refuse to fill a script with the branded product, instead insisting upon a generic sub.
The physician had written “no substitutions” on the script at my direction. I could get the branded product free, while the Gx version would have cost something.
I had to take the script out of the pharmacist’s had and walk out of the store, and she ran out & tried to stop me. I asked her if she’d like me to report her for a HIPPA violation (which I would have), and that froze the arrogant witch in her tracks.
Screw these arrogant gatekeepers.
That has absolutely nothing to do with not filling a prescription for moral reasons. You also know to never go back to that pharmacist again. Any pharmacist should know that sometimes the generic is NOT the same. A neurologist friend of mine (RIP) told me that the base in a certain epilepsy med was different, and that could cause a problem. (btw, due to the nature of this thread, I will remind readers that I am not a medical doctor, and that my fr name is based on a comic book character)
There is no moral or ethical basis for a pharmacist, who knows nothing of the patient’s medical condition, to play gatekeeper.
Physicians are sometimes accused of having a god complex- well, an ignorant pharmacist refusing to fill the script is an example of a bureaucratic demon complex.
Count the pills, put them in the bottle, and ring up the purchase. Thank you, Mr. medicine supply chain stock clerk.
I really disagree. Part of the reason our country is in a mess is because people just follow orders. That goes from a Pharmacist handing out Plan B Abortion pills to a driver delivering Zyklon B to a Nazi Camp. There is not much lower on the status chain than a convenience store clerk, but if he doesn’t want to sell porno magazines, even he has the right to negotiate terms with the operation.
This is the Walgreens at 50th and Telegraph in North Oakland.
The neighborhood has a good number of Ethiopian and Eritrean immigrants, many of whom I understand are (Coptic?) Christians. Also, about ten blocks south is a Muslim neighborhood. These are the people behind the counter, probably very traditional-minded and not willing to tolerate nonsense.
I don’t understand how a pharmacist can make a moral or ethical judgment about a prescribed medicine without understanding the patient’s health condition (which I would never want them to be privy to).
Levonorgestrel is not just used to stimulate abortion. It’s been used for years as an oral contraceptive, as well as a treatment for PCOS. Who is the pharmacist to draw conclusions just from the treatment written on the script?
That is an important point. Of course the pharmacist can ask questions about the use. Certainly they do if there are questions about interactions, if the prescription is off-label, or if federal schedule opiates are involved.
In the case of Plan B, the dosage size probably tells us much. Other types of prescriptions, (Estrogen for men) have fewer possibilities. Again, the pharmacist had the right to decide. The customer can take his business elsewhere.
We are at the point in Canada where the doctors are treated like you suggest pharmacists should be treated. If they are not PARTICIPATING in abortion (for obgyns especially), trans-everything, and especially Euthanasia, they can lose their right to practice. Dr. Jordan Peterson is a high profile case of someone who is in danger of losing his right to perform therapy because of the way he expresses his opinions. It will cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight this. He has the resources. Many don’t, and either give in or quit altogether.
I would rather maximize freedom, and minimize state (including professional boards) interventions and I am willing to extend it to pharmacists as well as doctors.
Yes, like a good soldier he should have ignored his conscience and followed orders.
Oh wait.
But he wasn’t a soldier. As an employee he should have just followed company policy to assist in the horrid mutilation of children?
The problem isn’t too many of such people. The problem is there far too few.
She needs a shave in the worst way.
How can the pharmacist make such a moral evaluation when he knows absolutely nothing of the patient’s medical condition or health status?
I think a pharmacy should be able to decide what scripts it fills, and which it doesn’t, for whatever reasons it chooses.
But it’s just right-wing virtue signaling to pretend that it’s an informed moral judgment.
You don’t want to answer the question?
“How can the pharmacist make such a moral evaluation when he knows absolutely nothing of the patient’s medical condition or health status?”
I said in the same post that a pharmacy should be able to refuse to provide service for any reason (and IMO this should be the case for all businesses). There doesn’t need to be any moral preening even if the reason relies on moral presumptions.
I had already answered it when I stated the pharmacist could ask. We seem to agree that the government and professionap boards should not be setting the guidelines. Businesses can set them, and employees can negotiate terms. Hi personally sought out pro-life/anti-contraception pharmacies, but unfortunately the one I had found in AZ went out of business. CVS/Walgreens is quite the behemoth.
Note: I was just including you on the comment. It was the other person who made a snide comment that I was responding to.
Yes, you and I agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.