The W
Views: 97733433
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
27.7.07 2329
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Some Pharmacists Refuse to Fill Birth Control Prescriptions
This thread has 1 referral leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(337 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (30 total)
Dahak
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 592/772
EXP: 1432409
For next: 53528

Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 1939 days
Last activity: 1591 days
#21 Posted on 30.3.05 2115.30
Reposted on: 30.3.12 2115.38
Birth control is definitely a very common prescription. Something like half of all women in the childbearing years use it so a RPH who turn a woman down for it is being pretty stupid.
The BC part is only 1 of the reasons that women take the pill. My ex took the pill after she got an IUD for lots of female reasons. So how is the RPH going to know that a woman is taking the pill to not get knocked up or because she wants to normalize her menstrual cycle?
Sorry, but this is a pretty weak agruement to not fill the prescription because of your moral beliefs. Also as long as the religous right doesn't learn the difference between birth control and abortion they are going to keep losing these type of debates.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 1106/3338
EXP: 13027824
For next: 63529

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#22 Posted on 30.3.05 2145.30
Reposted on: 30.3.12 2149.52
    Originally posted by Dahak
    Birth control is definitely a very common prescription. Something like half of all women in the childbearing years use it so a RPH who turn a woman down for it is being pretty stupid.


Stupid... yeah, a woman (my wife happens to be a woman RPh) making a choice in one direction is applauded, but in another, she isn't. In that case, she's "stupid".

See, that's why I, personally, find the arguments of many people I would consider to the left politically perplexing. I'm not sure why a choice for a woman (or a man) in this case wouldn't be acceptable.

Now my Steph wouldn't do it, but these is a large segment of the Christian world (Roman Catholics) who oppose birth control in all its forms. Now you may think that "stupid", but that is their right. And business owners can choose to stock or not to stock anything they choose. I was consulting Mrs AWA tonight and she says it is very common for phramacies to not stock C2 schedule drugs (whatever those are - I got the impression they were some sort of serious drugs - I guess the Oxi-cotins and Morphines and whatnot)) because of the liabilities and dangers associated with them. As I said before, her hospital pharmacy forbade dispensation of BC medications because it was a Catholic Owned hospital. Of course, no abortions not related to the saving of the mother's life were performed there.

And, I suspect that St Anthony's (The place she worked) did have the BC meds for some of the other ailments that they treat and would dispense them if the doctor ordered. The Doc's prescription indicates the reason for the prescription.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1940/2042
EXP: 6250529
For next: 142270

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2946 days
Last activity: 160 days
#23 Posted on 31.3.05 0800.34
Reposted on: 31.3.12 0813.45
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Now my Steph wouldn't do it, but these is a large segment of the Christian world (Roman Catholics) who oppose birth control in all its forms. Now you may think that "stupid", but that is their right. And business owners can choose to stock or not to stock anything they choose.


Except that this debate isn't over business owners refusing to stock Prescription X, but over employees making independent decisions to refuse to fill Prescription X that go beyond their businesses' standard practice, and claiming religious privilege in doing so. If the pharmacy has a clearly-stated policy up front that said "We will not honor prescriptions for X, Y or Z," that's a different story.

A pharmacist at a Catholic hospital, for example, would not expect to be called upon to distribute the morning-after pill. That's part of his job description at that establishment -- to fill prescriptions that are considered acceptable by management.

Pharmacies like Walgreen's, on the other hand, are not explicitly "Catholic" per se, and distribute birth control prescriptions to patients thousands of times every day. There is no clear expectation that when one walks into Walgreen's with a prescription, the Lord had better approve of your pills or you're not getting them there. As such, if a pharmacist has moral objections that go over and above the roles he's expected to fill at Walgreen's, his proper course of action is not to self-righteously refuse to perform his role, but to find another employer whose policies more closely match his own moral code.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 1107/3338
EXP: 13027824
For next: 63529

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#24 Posted on 31.3.05 1033.49
Reposted on: 31.3.12 1040.51
    Originally posted by vsp
    Pharmacies like Walgreen's, on the other hand, are not explicitly "Catholic" per se, and distribute birth control prescriptions to patients thousands of times every day. There is no clear expectation that when one walks into Walgreen's with a prescription, the Lord had better approve of your pills or you're not getting them there. As such, if a pharmacist has moral objections that go over and above the roles he's expected to fill at Walgreen's, his proper course of action is not to self-righteously refuse to perform his role, but to find another employer whose policies more closely match his own moral code.



And I agree with you on this. And I also agree that the employer has the right to terminate said employee. But let's say it's "Saybo's" pharmacy and they choose not to stock Birth Control pills, for whatever reason - that's a perogative of the business owner, right? You're not in the camp that says "because it's a pharmacy, you MUST have X Y and Z" like the other W who said, if you're and OBGYN, you MUST perform abortions. I don't mean to compare the two positions so harshly, but both are the right and perogative of the business owner (in the case of the Doc, they're nearly always independent contractors, much like Pro Wrestlers (but without the cool boots).
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1941/2042
EXP: 6250529
For next: 142270

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 2946 days
Last activity: 160 days
#25 Posted on 31.3.05 1536.12
Reposted on: 31.3.12 1546.07
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    And I agree with you on this. And I also agree that the employer has the right to terminate said employee. But let's say it's "Saybo's" pharmacy and they choose not to stock Birth Control pills, for whatever reason - that's a perogative of the business owner, right?


It makes me itch... it really does... but I'll agree.

If this was a case of a record-store owner who refused to sell Ozzy records because they were "anti-Christian," it'd be one thing, because it's hardly something necessary. When it comes to health care, the stakes are higher.

The point comes back, of course, that nobody's picketing Catholic hospitals for refusing to hand out RU-486. Why? Because everybody _knows_ that Catholic hospitals have moral objections to that drug. If pharmacies similarly state their refusal up front and post it clearly, so that patients don't have rude surprises when they bring their prescriptions in and doctors have a good chance of knowing better than to call in those prescriptions there, I feel a little better about it.
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 281/449
EXP: 641059
For next: 19110

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 458 days
Last activity: 325 days
AIM:  
#26 Posted on 31.3.05 1719.43
Reposted on: 31.3.12 1721.46
It's not a problem for business owners to not stock birth contol medicine IF there is an alternative that everyone can easily get to, especially those with no transportation.

bash91
Merguez
Level: 55

Posts: 413/711
EXP: 1284372
For next: 29826

Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 711 days
Last activity: 42 min.
#27 Posted on 31.3.05 1823.03
Reposted on: 31.3.12 1829.01
    Originally posted by messenoir
    It's not a problem for business owners to not stock birth contol medicine IF there is an alternative that everyone can easily get to, especially those with no transportation.




Close, but no cigar. It's not a problem for business owners to not stock birth control medicine, period, no other clause necessary in that sentence.

We don't require other businesses to carry material that they find objectionable, witness edited copies of music or chain stores that won't carry adult material. We also, as noted above, don't require every pharmacy to carry every drug for every situation. For goodness sake, when I was working in the hospital pharmacy, it wasn't an unusual occurrence for us to have to call around in order to find an uncommon or rarely prescribed medication. At my sister's pharmacy, they carry no CII's and very few CIII's as a matter of practice. If an independent pharmacy makes the decision, for whatever reason, to not carry a medication, then that's their decision to make, not anyone else's.

Tim

Dahak
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 593/772
EXP: 1432409
For next: 53528

Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 1939 days
Last activity: 1591 days
#28 Posted on 31.3.05 1832.44
Reposted on: 31.3.12 1840.36
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by Dahak
      Birth control is definitely a very common prescription. Something like half of all women in the childbearing years use it so a RPH who turn a woman down for it is being pretty stupid.


    Stupid... yeah, a woman (my wife happens to be a woman RPh) making a choice in one direction is applauded, but in another, she isn't. In that case, she's "stupid".

    See, that's why I, personally, find the arguments of many people I would consider to the left politically perplexing. I'm not sure why a choice for a woman (or a man) in this case wouldn't be acceptable.

    Now my Steph wouldn't do it, but these is a large segment of the Christian world (Roman Catholics) who oppose birth control in all its forms. Now you may think that "stupid", but that is their right. And business owners can choose to stock or not to stock anything they choose. I was consulting Mrs AWA tonight and she says it is very common for phramacies to not stock C2 schedule drugs (whatever those are - I got the impression they were some sort of serious drugs - I guess the Oxi-cotins and Morphines and whatnot)) because of the liabilities and dangers associated with them. As I said before, her hospital pharmacy forbade dispensation of BC medications because it was a Catholic Owned hospital. Of course, no abortions not related to the saving of the mother's life were performed there.

    And, I suspect that St Anthony's (The place she worked) did have the BC meds for some of the other ailments that they treat and would dispense them if the doctor ordered. The Doc's prescription indicates the reason for the prescription.


First I meant stupid in a buisness sense. If a woman can't get her BC pills at her pharmacy she isn't going to shop at 2 or 3 different pharmacies she will just go to the one that will sell her everything that she has a prescription for. That usually ends up being 4 or 5 prescriptions for her kids and husband not being filled at Wallgreens (or wherever) that can end up being a lot of money pretty fast.
Second by no means am I a liberal. Far from it actually. I am not saying the govt should force pharmacists to give out BC pills. if you make a bad choice that is your choice not someone else's fault.
Third you are guessing that there are drugs that help out with female issues but don't perform the contraceptive aspects and probably there are. But is a Dr. really going to write "wants to have sex and not get knocked up" on the little note?
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple
Level: 114

Posts: 917/3844
EXP: 16001954
For next: 307663

Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 364 days
Last activity: 325 days
#29 Posted on 31.3.05 1854.53
Reposted on: 31.3.12 1859.01
Funny that the possibility of a medical person denying a procedure based on their religous belifs. From what I've heard, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act being considered by Congress would give them that right, among other things. The intention is that people could not be fired for their religious beliefs. For example, a Jew could not be fired for refusing to work on Rosh Hashanah (hope I spelled it right).

But, as opponents say,

“The concern here is that employers would have serious difficulty resolving instances where an employee posts a sign reading ‘God hates fags’ in his office or cubicle; where workers proselytize on the ‘sins of the homosexual lifestyle’ over lunch and on breaks ...”

The article I read also said
"HRC also expressed concern that WRFA could allow health care professionals to refuse to provide basic services for a gay or transgender patient." Or presumably a woman getting an abortion. Or whatever.

Didn't mean to threadjack, but it's funny that we were just talking about this.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 1109/3338
EXP: 13027824
For next: 63529

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 8 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#30 Posted on 31.3.05 2235.44
Reposted on: 31.3.12 2239.47
    Originally posted by Dahak
    Third you are guessing that there are drugs that help out with female issues but don't perform the contraceptive aspects and probably there are. But is a Dr. really going to write "wants to have sex and not get knocked up" on the little note?


Actually, as I may have mentioned, I am NOT guessing. My significant other is an RPh. There are many Non-BC reasons for prescribing "the Pill"
1. menstrual regulation: for women with irregular periods, from none at all (amenorrhea) to too many (polymenorrhea) or too few (oligomenorrhea) or to decrease heavy flow.
2. to treat benign ovarian cysts (including polycystic ovary syndrome)
3. to decrease menstrual cramps (dysmenorrhea)
4. to decrease the symptoms of premenstrual syndrome (PMS) (OK, I am for it...)
5. to increase appetite in underweight or anorexic women (the wife says this is very rare)

The script typically includes a "for" reason. As in

"Take 4 times a day for pain"

or

"Take once a day for birth control"

AMA policy Policy H-120.965 encourages Docs to do this, and if they don't, many RPhs call them and make them tell them because it is their policy to put it on the dispensing label.


ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: Sandy Beger to Plead Guilty Today
Next thread: GOP Bill to Reinsert Schiavo Feeding Tube Signed by Bush
Previous thread: Johnnie Cochran Dies
(337 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Some Pharmacists Refuse to Fill Birth Control PrescriptionsRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.299 seconds.