Posted on 05/03/2005 5:33:17 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
Rebecca Polzin walked into a drugstore in Glencoe, Minn., last month to fill a prescription for birth control. A routine request. Or so she thought.
Minutes later, Polzin left furious and empty-handed. She said the pharmacist on duty refused to help her. "She kept repeating the same line: 'I won't fill it for moral reasons,' " Polzin said.
Earlier this year, Adriane Gilbert called a pharmacy in Richfield to ask if her birth-control prescription was ready. She said the person who answered told her to go elsewhere because he was opposed to contraception. "I was shocked," Gilbert said. "I had no idea what to do."
The two women have become part of an emotional debate emerging across the country: Should a pharmacist's moral views trump a woman's reproductive rights?
No one knows how many pharmacists in Minnesota or nationwide are declining to fill contraceptive prescriptions. But both sides in the debate say they are hearing more reports of such incidents -- and they predict that conflicts at drugstore counters are bound to increase.
"Five years ago, we didn't have evidence of this, and we would have been dumbfounded to see it," said Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. "We're not dumbfounded now. We're very concerned about what's happening."
But M. Casey Mattox of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom said it is far more disturbing to see pharmacists under fire for their religious beliefs than it is to have women inconvenienced by taking their prescription to another drugstore. He also said that laws have long shielded doctors opposed to abortion from having to take part in the procedure.
"The principle here is precisely the same," Mattox said.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Several years ago I worked in a government VA hospital and there was a nursing shortage. The hospital had a program to send promising LPNs back to school to get their RN. One young woman applied for and was selected for the program. So she went to college at taxpayer expense. Just prior to graduation, the young woman declared that she had converted to a religion in which it was now against her faith to handle or deliver blood products. In other words, she could not hang a transfusion, pull blood samples, etc.
Trust me if this trend spreads there won't be a need. Folks will simply refill their prescriptions via the mail after they receive their initial prescription from the doctor. Pharmacists will be phased out.
Yes, I believe that a part of the OB-GYN curriculum is about abortion. AT least in the programs I am familiar with. There are times (I cannot tell you how many or what percentage) that a woman's life is in jeopardy and aborting the fetus is the only way to save the mother. The fetus wouldn't survive without the mother being alive. I know 2 OB-GYNs personally and both have aborted fetuses to protect the mothers life. Both are pro-life. (In both cases the mother suffered from HELLP, which can cause severe kidney damage, hypertension and greatly increases the likelyhood of a stroke)
He doesn't need to know.
Doesnt seem so easy as simply denying someone a prescription...
She can go elsewhere. In a free society, no one has an obligation to sell any product. They don't need a reason.
Doesn't matter to me if you're a MD, RN or POS.
The pharmacist has every right to his own moral beliefs. That's not in question here.
The question is whether the pharmacist has the moral right to refuse a legally-prescribed drug when not knowing the circumstances behind the prescription. Of course, he can speculate on those circumstances but that's another point.
My feeling is that if the pharmacist is having ethical and moral objections, it's him or her that should seek employment elsewhere.
Did the woman initially sign a paper that obligated her to be a party to any medical procedure, even if it violated her moral beliefs?
A person does not check her moral beliefs at the door just because someone finances their education. That's called "selling out".
Absolutely. As a professional, I have the right to accept or refuse a client for whatever freakin' reason I want. The fact that I am licensed by a state board doesn't give anyone the right to tell me that I must work for any and all prospective clients. Why is it such a big deal for people to accept the notion that a pharmacist should be no different than an engineer, lawyer, accountant, etc. in this regard?
Of course he has the moral right. Indeed, the obligation.
My feeling is that if the pharmacist is having ethical and moral objections, it's him or her that should seek employment elsewhere.
Are you saying his employer has told him he must fill that prescription? I didn't see that in the article.
Or are you saying he should choose another line of work?
"Doesn't matter to me if you're a MD, RN or POS.
The pharmacist has every right to his own moral beliefs. That's not in question here.
The question is whether the pharmacist has the moral right to refuse a legally-prescribed drug when not knowing the circumstances behind the prescription. Of course, he can speculate on those circumstances but that's another point.
My feeling is that if the pharmacist is having ethical and moral objections, it's him or her that should seek employment elsewhere."
Your initial opening line is so offensive that your posts do not deserve to be answered, and will henceforth be ignored. It's a shame that you could not discuss the issue rationally.
That is certainly a valid point, but quite frankly that is a risk you take the moment you rely on someone else (particularly a government-run institution) for a vital product or service like this.
I have worked in ERs for over 20 yeras, and disagree.
I wonder how many people realize that the percentage is that high. If I understand the percentage right, that's 3-5 abortions over the course of being on the pill for nine years (100+ months).
The teaching of the Catholic Church is that every conjugal act must be open to life. It follows that any method or act which seeks to make conception impossible is wrong. Some methods are worse than others because they are both contraceptive and potentially abortifacient. Natural Family Planning is a licit method -- because still open to life -- to plan a family when there are objectively sound reasons for doing so.
You're right so why not cut out the Parmacist all together. Why not have the doctor submit the prescription to the drug manufacturer who then ships the drugs directly to the patient. The patients privacy isn't violated by a busy-body pharmacist and the pharmacist will be free to pursue other employment which doesn't violate his moral beliefs. This could also have the added benefit of reducing the price of prescription drugs.
NFP is a natural contraceptive.
They are teaching you when you can have sex and not conceive a child without using a chemical or mechanical contraceptive.
/sarcasm off/
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.