Posted on 04/04/2005 7:52:34 AM PDT by SmithL
A bill making its way through the Legislature would protect state pharmacists for refusing to fill certain prescriptions.
The Pharmacists Freedom of Conscience Act would free from liability or disciplinary measures any pharmacist who cites moral or religious objections to dispensing things like birth control pills or Viagra.
Republican House sponsor Glen Casada of College Grove says pharmacists need such a law, since doctors and nurses are protected in a similar fashion.
However, opponents of the legislation believe it's a disguised effort to limit access to contraceptives.
If a chain decides to allow pharmacists to determine which scripts he will or will not fill, then of course that pharmacist can't be fired for taking advantage of that policy.
However, if a chain decides to dispense RU-486 to every 10 yr old that says "pretty please" then each pharmacist working in that chain needs to decide whether to quit or grin-n-bear-it. If he refuses to do his job then his employer should have every right to find someone who will.
If this really is a way of keeping CVS and Walgreens from getting sued for refusing to dispense RU-486 free with every $10 purchase then these politicians aren't doing THEIR jobs correctly.
So there is no room for a Pro-life Pharmasist, even if their employer agrees with them? You have a strange view of freedom.
And they can, because that is the practice of most Pharmasies.
If this really is a way of keeping CVS and Walgreens from getting sued for refusing to dispense RU-486 free with every $10 purchase then these politicians aren't doing THEIR jobs correctly.
Not sure I follow your point. Yes, this is a way to protect Pharmasists from getting sued, and most states are protecting them from such suits so politicians are doing their job. But yes, more needs to be done at protecting business and people from these kind of lawsuits. However, this law goes further than most since it seems to protect the employee from the employer.
I support the people who have legitimate moral concerns against RU-486. If they see it as murder, then they should not be compelled to do that. But in general, I agree with you, they should find a place that agrees with them philosophically, and have stated that a dozen times. I disagree with the few here that thinks all Pharmasies must fill every Perscription.
I was just curious. RU-486 is a hard issue, but not one that will be taken care of overnight.
If you read post 78 you will see my views on EMPLOYER discretion, but I think you are just interested in stirring the pot. Directly lobbying Congress to ban RU-486 would seem to me the better way to accomplish what you say you are trying accomplish.
Protect an employee from his employer? Why should we?
Turn it around. Imagine a pro-life drug chain that refuses to allow any of its stores to sell RU-486. Now imagine that one pharmacist deliberately disobeys his employer by stocking and selling RU-486.
Should that pharmacist also be "protected" from his employer? Or shouldn't we allow the business owner control over his own business... There's a word for that... What is it again? Ah, yes. Capitalism.
That's fine with me as long as everybody knows the score up front. In the recently publicized case, it was a pharmacist who apparently did not tell his employer that he wouldn't dispense certain drugs until he decided not to. I'm sure he was employed with the expectation that he would dispense all drugs absent medical contraindications and such. This law would keep the employer from firing him, and that is wrong.
Extend this law in keeping with our current nanny state direction, and the employer probably wouldn't be able to deny hiring based on a pharmacist's beliefs over dispensing certain drugs. That is also wrong. If my small pharmacy only has one pharmacist there at any one time, I need that person to be able to dispense all the drugs I have in stock. Telling customers "Come back a six when the other pharmacist is on duty" is not an option.
While I respect individual beliefs, I just don't like the direction the law is going with this one.
I have suggest all along that this law may go to far. I have not advocated that, but I do believe in protecting Pharmasists from frivolous ACLU lawsuits.
I am not trying to stir the pot, I am trying to pin you down on exactly what you advocate. You seem to be saying it is a Pharmacies duty to fill any prescription and that businesses can make no judgments on what kind of business they do. If Walgreens decided they would not fill RU-486 prescriptions, would you be OK with that? Or would you like the ACLU to be able to sue them to force them to sell RU-486.
RU-486 may be a central cause of this controversy, but the freedom of businesses have in making decisions is also an important theme.
You asked for ONE instance where a pharmacist refused to dispense BCP's. Well there was recently a case in Wisconsin where a pharmacist refused to fill an oral contraceptive prescription for a U. Wisconsin student- and a couple of cases in Chicago. An article in last week's Economist said that there have been around 180 complaints of pharmacists refusing to fill prescription for either oral contraceptives or emergency contraceptions like the morning after pill. There was no mention at all of RU 486 or similar. I don't know all the ins- and outs of RU 486, but I do know that it's a 2-dose treatment - meaning many doctors will dispense the medication themselves to make sure that the follow-up dosage is actually taken - so I don't think there are many run-of-the-mill take-your-script-to-the-local-drugstore prescriptions for this drug course.
Pharmacies don't have to stock every drug - e.g. Walmart doesn't carry the Morning After Pill. And I do have some sympathy with pharmacists who don't want to dispense drugs they find questionable (including abusable drugs like pain killers) in certain circumstances. However in some of these cases not only were pharmacists refusing to fill the prescription, but they were also lecturing and haranguing the women who asked for them, and in some occasions refusing to hand back the prescription note (in my view criminal).
The sad truth is that many right-wing religious groups (e.g. Ralph Reed's lot) have had their eye on oral contraceptives for some time - because the Pill - very rarely - can in fact act as an abortifacient in regular prescribed use (but if you were taking it and got pregnant, the abortifacient quality would kick in before you knew you were pregnant - so you'd in fact never know). However, I believe the real agenda is taking away people's reproductive choices - and attacking the Pill which is one of the most effective and only private method of birth control. There are organisations of radical right-wing pharmacists who are openly advocating not filling prescriptions for oral contraceptives - and not returning prescriptions. I personally don't want this radical agenda protected in law.
I just cam across this thread and you are completely right. Blood of Tyrants doesn't know what he is talking about. You can't get Ru-486 (Mifepristone) from drugstore pharmacies. Ru-486 must be taken under the supervision of a physician at a clinic or doctor office. You need to go back to the doctor or clinic at least 2 or 3 times for follow up to check if you're still pregnant ,any complications or infection and they may need to do a regular abortion if the pill didn't work.
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.