Posted on 03/16/2004 10:33:27 AM PST by Chummy
Pharmacist faces complaint over failure to dispense birth control
(Published Tuesday, March 16, 2004 09:10:04 AM CST)
Associated Press
MADISON, Wis. -- The state Department of Regulation and Licensing has filed a complaint against a pharmacist who refused to fill a woman's birth control prescription because of his religious beliefs.
The complaint against Neil Noesen was filed with the Wisconsin Examining Board over an incident that happened in the summer of 2002.
It said Noesen, 30, was working as a fill-in pharmacist at the K-Mart Pharmacy in Menomonie and had told the managing pharmacist he wouldn't fill prescriptions for contraceptives that would cause what he believed to be an abortion. The managing pharmacist had apparently said he would fill such prescriptions when he was in.
But Noesen was the only pharmacist on duty on the weekend when the young woman came in to refill her prescription for birth control pills.
According to the complaint:
Noesen asked the woman whether she was using the drug for birth control. When she said yes, he told her he wouldn't fill it.
She asked him where she could go to have the prescription filled, "but because of his personal religious objections, (he) refused to provide (her) with that information."
Later that day, she went to a Wal-Mart Pharmacy for the refill. When the Wal-Mart pharmacist called Noesen to transfer the prescription, Noesen refused and said it was against his religious beliefs to do so.
The woman returned to the K-Mart with two police officers, but Noesen still refused, and police took no action.
The managing pharmacist refilled the prescription when he returned to work that Monday.
Department of Regulation and Licensing spokesman Christopher Klein said Noesen has 20 days to respond to the complaint, which was filed Friday.
Noesen was out of town and could not be reached for comment Monday.
That should be up to his employer.
and lose his license - no question.
Government has no business sticking its nose in this.
Who does the pharmacist work for - KMart or the government?
That's the root of the problem. Government originally claimed licenses were necessary to prevent charletans from selling snake oil. Predictibly, mission creep has taken hold and now every pharmacist is beholden to the state's every whim.
Free people do not need priviledges granted to them by their masters to earn a living. It is every free man's birthright to earn his way in this world by offering his services to others. And it is the market that will determine whether his services are desired. If the market decides pharmacies/pharmacists who will not fill contraceptive prescriptions are unaccaptable, they will not patronize him and he will be fired in effect by his customers.
As for the quality control issue that government used to sneak its camel nose under the tent, independent standards/endorsements can and should be used similar to UL approval for electrical products.
For me it couldn't be more clearcut. He deserves at the very least to face disciplinary action from whatever board oversees pharmacists, and his employer seriously needs to consider whether or not his employment should continue. He did not act in a professional manner, and definitely not in a way expected of a person in his profession. Moreover he opened himself, and more importantly his employer, to potential litigation. And 'moral issue' or not, he had no right to refuse to transfer the prescription. He did not only refuse to do his job in meeting the legitimate needs of the customer, but on top of that refused the customer to meet her needs anywhere else!
Government has no business sticking its nose in this. ----Freeee
And as for the issue of the government getting involved. Well, it should in this case! Why? Because pharmacists are subject to the state Dep. of Regulation and Licensing, and Wisconsin has a stake in ensuring that its pharmacists conduct themselves in a manner befitting their station. In the same way the medical board or the bar association would step in if a doctor or a lawyer, respectively, did something that did not fit with established protocol. This is not 'big guvumin' trying to meddle with things. The state dep. for regulation and licensing ensures that when you go to pick up a prescription that the pharmacist does not act in an improper manner. For example to ensure that when you go there you do not meet a person who, due to his personal religious beliefs, believes that you should not take medicine for things like pain, rheumatism, asthma, etc ....that instead all you need to do is pray and be healed. Or someone who thinks that the medicine the doctor prescribed is not the one you should be taking but something else. Or someone who feels he has the right to refuse to give the prescription, and then refuses to transfer it. Not all government regulations are bad, and this one is one of them.
Anyways the guy deserves to be investigated by the Wisonsin Examining Board for certain, and they need to apply some disciplinary action on him (partly for refusing to accept a legit prescription, but more importantly for refusing to transfer it). And his employer needs to think whether he should continue working there ....he opens them up to litigation. People have been sued for much less. And if he thinks he cannot fulfill his obligations fully then he needs to find something else to do.
In the same way if a mail delivery person felt that delivering smut magazines in the mail was anathema, and he decided to withhold them and dispose of them, then he would be way out of line (and i believe facing serious prosecution for mesisng with mail). If he didn't feel he could deliver any legitimate mail that came up then he needs to be doing something else.
Free people do not need priviledges granted to them by their masters to earn a living. It is every free man's birthright to earn his way in this world by offering his services to others. And it is the market that will determine whether his services are desired. ----Freeee
You can't be serious! I guess then that Crack Cocaine is ok. After all people do not need 'priviledges granted to them by their masters' to earn a living, it is every 'free man's birthright to earn his way in this world by offering his services to others,' and there is definitely a huge market for crack so the market has determined his 'services are desired!' Come on! And anyways, the government licensing thing is not to stop 'every free man' from excersing his 'birthright!' It is to ensure that when you go to get a prescription you do not meet Joe Blow pharmacist from hell who tries to sell you the most expensive drug in the store that has nothing to do with what is ailing you. Or from Jane Doe doctor to Usama who tries to take you for surgery when all you need is an apple a day and a good night's sleep. It is to prevent quacks from running things in medical Dodge!
If the 'guvermin' starts to tell doctors to prescribe tylenol only and no asprin then wake me up. If it is ensuring weird pharmacists don't withhold prescriptions then i am fine with it.
Something tells me that the same people who are saying what this guy did was not wrong would be screaming to high heaven if he refused a 10yr old girl Asthma prescription because last Sunday his spiritual mentor told him prayer is all is needed.
Post no. 16.
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.