Date: 2/3/2004 3:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 20956
i think he was extreamely unprofessional. he is job to provide people with medication, not judge them and decide what they can and cannot have. i think this is quite disgraceful actually, as this woman hadnt been through enough with having to deal with some high and mightly chemist!  |
Date: 2/3/2004 3:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 3688
he has the responsibility to do his JOB if he can not do that, due to his religion he needs to find a job where his morals matter.  |
Date: 2/3/2004 3:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 27403
I think the pharmacist was absolutely and totally in the wrong!!! And,I say that neither from a pro-abortion or pro-life viewpoint! His job is to fill prescriptions that DOCTORS write! Only if the prescription were dangerous to someones health does he has the option of questioning it! If he can't fill the prescriptions the doctors order, he should get a new job!! Love and Light  |
Date: 2/3/2004 3:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 59639
I think that it is their JOB to fill prescriptions, they arent there and are in no position to judge the patients that come in to get their medicines and to decide whether or not to fill the prescription a DOCTOR that is in the position to write it and knows the situation with the patient .When you work with the public you cannot let your personal beliefs come in between the career you chose to do. So, i think the patient should have raised all kinds of hell to the manager at Eckerds and told her doctor exactly what happened when she went to pick up her script  |
Date: 2/3/2004 3:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
is it a matter of private business? you know, "we reserve the right to refuse service" .i'm not sure i understand. there must be some way for him to legally do this as he has gotten by with it. i feel bad that the woman was publically embarrassed like that.  |
Date: 2/3/2004 3:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 16845
WRONG WRONG WRONG! I seriously hope he was repremanded for that!...He has NO RIGHT to do that to anyone...  |
Date: 2/3/2004 3:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 62367
I think he was wrong here. If he has a problem filling this kind of prescription, he should consider working elsewhere, like at a religious hospital(like a Catholic one) that would not give such a prescription. He choose the wrong place to do this. Denton, Texas is the home of this country's largest state womans's university, Texas Woman's University.  |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 3:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 27403
Dohency (is that right), the law says a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription if they think it is dangerous to someone's health. Not their mental health, or their spiritual health, but their physical health, I would surely think. The others are for your shrink and your God! Love and Light |
Date: 2/3/2004 3:28:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13283
Doheny , he did not get away with it . He is under fire and Eckerds has alot of explaining to do . A pharmacist can make some decisions if its done in a person's best interest . There is a big uproar among women in Texas right now . Razzy aka  |
Date: 2/3/2004 3:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 58334
Very wrong. It goes the same for selling condoms. I know they won't sell them to kids under 18 and that is only promoting unsafe sex. But it is his job afterall and it was very unprofessional.  |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 3:31:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13283
I think that since Eckerd's has it on hand for sale , it has to be sold to women . What kind of reprimand should he get ? Razzy aka |
Date: 2/3/2004 3:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 24003
Touchy one! Well, Id have to say he was wrong for not doing his job. I myself dont believe in abortion but I also dont have to answer for what other people do in their lives. Besides, the morning after pill is for an INCASE situation. There was no gaurantee that she was pregnant in the first place, so he would have never known for sure anyways if an abortion had really occured. Either way, if he feels that strongly about it..he needs to have a job that wont put him in situations like that. Take care!  |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 3:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
i could see where a pharmacist would have some leeway in regards to a person's best interest. for instance, my mother was ingesting too much tylenol in her vikaden intake to the point of toxitity (sp?) so he called her doctor and they woorked out an alternative medication. |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 3:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
but this doesn't seem to be within those types of guidelines. he didn't appear to know antything of this woman's situation and was just making a personal moral judgement. |
Date: 2/3/2004 3:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
lightworker, not for this case, but in regards to mental health, i am sure there are times when mental health is a factor in a pharmacist's consult, such as drug interactions with mental health side effects  |
Date: 2/3/2004 3:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 3263
I'm all for having an opinion, and morals, but the reason he didn't sell it was a personal reason. That was unfair to the customer. I hope she never shops there again. Could you imagine? After being in that situation, and then having the pharmacist refuse to sell you the pill? I'd be TICKED if I was her. He should've stepped aside and had someone else help her. If it's such a problem, they need to either not carry that pill @ that pharmacy, or get rid of the clerk(s).  |
Date: 2/3/2004 3:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 32318
I think it was defentiley wrong that he wouldnt sell it to her!! I mean its his job!! and plus he might be against abortion .....but his views arent everyones.  |
Date: 2/3/2004 3:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 40979
I really do not see any thing wrong with a pill if you were raped . I think it was wrong of them to deny her the pill because of morals/religion . They have a job to do and they should do it . It is not their business to know what the costumer is going through or what problems they are facing . I think that guy should be fired .  |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 3:43:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
it is legal and they carry it, he should have filled the prescription |
Date: 2/3/2004 3:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 55009
as long as it is perscribed i see nothing wrong with it, and to be totally honest it is the future mother and fathers decisions and everyone else should stay out of it. it is no ones place to stick their noses in others private affairs unless they get invited into them. instead of being a moron about it the guy should have just done it and let it go, had he done so he wouldn't have gotten any heat from it at all.  |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 3:54:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13283
I wonder what the guy would have done had he known all the facts . Nobody should assume unless they have ALL the facts . Razzy aka |
Date: 2/3/2004 4:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
Conscience clauses are provisions in legislation, regulations, by-laws and other governing instruments that permit individual medical providers, insurers, and facilities to refuse to provide services to which they are morally, ethically and/or religiously opposed. Conscience clauses may also allow the right to refuse to counsel or refer for services. The American Pharmaceutical Association adopted an official policy that recognizes an individual pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medications based on conscientious beliefs. He was well within his rights to not fill.  |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 4:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 3688
it's not his business why she needed it, that holds no bearing. It's his job and that's all there is to it. |
Date: 2/3/2004 4:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 33925
They were very wrong to refuse her service..They chose the job they are doing, and sometimes they may have to sell products they are against..They need to learn to deal with it, or get out of the job they are in..That is disgusting.  |
Date: 2/3/2004 4:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 53052
that's horrible he should be fired moral or not! keep work and personal life seperate! and religion is personal life he did not act professional, the doctor precribed the pill for her! that moral issue or health issue is up to the doctor  |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 4:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
They were not wrong you don't force someone to do something they're morally opposed to, that would be wrong. Abortion's legal does that mean every Dr. should be forced to perform abortions or not be a Dr. or in the states that assisted suicide is legal every Dr. must do it? Abortion, this pill they're legal and just because someone is morally opposed shouldn't take away people's right to choose that road just like just because it's legal shouldn't take away someone's right to morally refuse to perform the service. Try respecting people's moral beliefs on BOTH sides and not just the one you agree with. |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 4:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 53052
a pharmacist has an obligation to tell the person if there is a drug interaction but just becuase he doesn't believe in abortion is no right to do what he did it's a womans right to choose! |
Date: 2/3/2004 5:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
Base, I salute your reply. Everyone should have the right to stand upon their moral convictions. If the drug store across the street filled the order, then good. The woman got her pills and the guy stood with his convictions...  |
Date: 2/3/2004 5:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 49539
The law would overrule morals.  |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 5:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 49539
In the view of the law and the constitution, the pharmacist took away the woman's rights and freedom. You cannot refuse someone because your morals don't agree with the person's decision. Now, if the woman didn't have a prescription from a doctor then it'd be another story. |
Date: 2/3/2004 5:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
Based on the information Base is correct, they can refuse the medication based on their moral reasoning. However I think those are laws that give overall pharmacy the choice to dispense medications that may go beyond their morals. In other words that the government cannot force the Eckerd corporation to carry the RU-abortion pill if they don't morally believe in abortion. However IF the store carries it, then you are working by the companies policy. This depends on whether or not it is Eckerd's company policy to allow their pharmacists to refuse to dispense medication that the pharmacy does carry, but that they don't agree with morally. Somehow I seriously doubt that Eckerd thinks this is good business practice. I use Eckerd for my monthly prescriptions and spent 4 years on birth control. Not once did I have a pharmacist refuse to fill my prescription because they felt it was my job to be home making babies. It's scary to think it's possible that these fruit loops could have that kind of control..LOL  |
Date: 2/3/2004 5:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 9130
This post makes me very angry. That man had NO RIGHT to refuse the woman the pill. It had NOTHING to do with him, and I think he should be fired for what he did.  |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 5:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 9130
Looks like that policy is a little outdated. |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 5:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 27403
Dohency, I HOPE I didn't sound like I approved of this man's actions. When it means you could possibly be physically hurt by a medicine, then I think it is okay for the pharmacist to discuss this with the doctor. But, I feel sure this man was denying to fill the script on moral grounds, not on medical, and that is what I meant to say! Love and Light |
Date: 2/3/2004 5:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 6358
He was diciplined by the management for what he did was totally WRONG! It's not his business to stand in judgement of her. It's against the law to refuse someone a prescription based on moral beliefs if the prescription is legal. I feel for her, I'm glad he was reprimanded, having to have to go through rape and then that is not only humiliating but unfair! I agree with Base's comment to a point, but they would basically have to prove that she indeed was pregnant at the time of taking the morning after pill for it to qualify as abortion and there is no way they would ever know.  |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 5:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
I think you guys are confusing pills here. |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 6:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
They wouldn't have to prove anything Kewlgirl it's his right under the law to refuse service. |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 6:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
The law NEVER over rules moral and religious convictions...that would violate an individuals "religious" freedom. |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 6:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
There are doctors who "do not" do abortions based upon religios convictions. Patients who desire an abortion go to a different doctor. This case is no different. The person went to a different drug store. |
Date: 2/3/2004 6:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 23731
a prescription by a doctor should be filled no matter who the pharmisist feels about the situation. and they dont know the whole story so they shouldnt be judging people.  |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 6:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 19092
But yet you stand in judgment of a man who would not violate his moral convictions. How much of this mans story do you know?? I'll bet you only know what you read on this post...your "two-faced"...you say people shouldn't judge while you judge. |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 6:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 55009
so all of you who say what this guy did was "right" wouldn't be minded at all if all pharmacies chose not to service you because it was against their "morals" to provide someone with allergy medicine because someone in their family died from it or some other medicine that you needed to continue to live healthly and happily because they had some morals against it or religious convictions... thinking of it from that point of view how can you even consider him right in his actions if you were in the womans place, and what if that had been the only place in the town to get a perscription, and with that said would you want to drive maybe more than 15 miles or more depending on what area you live in for a medicine that was a prescription from a doctor? me no i wouldn't want to and what if in the neighboring town they felt the same... morals are good to have and everyone should have them, but they shouldn't be involved when you are dealing with medical things or anything you have the money to pay for as long as they are legal to obtain and you have all the needed things to obtain them. |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 6:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
wouldn't bother me at all I don't force other people to conform to my beliefs or expectations |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 7:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 55009
so you would lie in bed close to dying and not be angry or perturbed that the pharmacy wouldn't allow you to get the medicine you need to survive? the only way you wouldn't mind then is if you cared nothing for life... |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 7:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
Josh your scenario is an appeal to emotion which is pointless and not a valid form of debate, this woman's life was not in jeopardy. |
Date: 2/3/2004 7:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
In many cafes, stores, gas stations, ect ect, they have a little sign there that says, "we reserve the right to refuse services." Or something to that effect. Was it right for those in the south to NOT allow the black's into their establishments? They thought so, and some still do. NOW I dont think that not allowing ,any color of person in an establishment is wrong. Thats just predjuidice *sp* but I think that IF that store belonged to them, then yes they had the right to NOT go against their beliefs.  |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 7:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 55009
ok, what if in the senario she couldn't get the pill and in giving birth she had died... would that not be the pharmacists fault for not giving her the drug and ultimately preventing it all from happening, and in anycase the family could fall back on the mother company that the employee works at and sue them and in our countries courts they could and most likely would have won... |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 7:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
lol no Josh it wouldn't, her family couldn't sue the pharmacist for that he was still within his rights |
Date: 2/3/2004 7:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
As a pharmacist, they have no right to refuse anyone a prescription just because they disagree with what it's used for. She may have a legal case against them for discrimination. I'll say this, I'm pro-life but if I worked in a pharmacy and waited on that girl, I would've said absolutely nothing to her about her prescription other than what's normally said to everyone and I definitely would not have refused to fill it. Great post  |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 7:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
I wanted to add that FB makes a good point about if there is something noted on a wall or in the building about them "reserving the right to not serve someone on certain grounds." A pharmacist that is against abortion, should seek to work in a pharmacy that refuses fill prescriptions for the morning after pill. Otherwise, this is a case of discrimination against this particular pharmacy in my eyes. |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 7:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
if the man has a clause out, he is within his rights. she still had a choice, to choose another pharmacy. i don't believe it would ever get so bad within the law that you could not acess legal medications. it is just too bad she was embarrassed. i would have been mortified. ultimately, she may have even been able to get it from the doctor directly. i don't know if it differs from medication to medication, but a friend was having difficulty filling a prescription that was under review and so she got samples from the doctor. |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 8:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
It's not against the law, but it is "probably" against the stores policy. It appears that the law allows the the store the right to pick and choose which drugs they want to carry. Therefore if Eckerd has chosen not to carry the Ru pill, then so be it. The clerk would have simply told her that the store doesn't carry it for personal reasons. IF the store does infact carry the prescription, then what this guy did was more than likely violate the stores customer service policies. There is no way that a company like Eckerd is allowing their pharmacists to use their personal religious view to dictate who gets what medicine at what store location. |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 8:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
The store's policy cannot supercede the law, Eckerd's has no choice in the matter. |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 8:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
and because by law the pharmacy or pharmacist doesn't have to fill the prescription is the reason the FDA is thinking about making the drug over the counter |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 9:01:00 PM
From Authorid: 27046
Base what I am saying is, I am sure there is something in the store's employee policy that states that you agree to dispense all medications that the company carries. You know kind of like we all have free speech, but not necessarily on the job. If they don't, they probably sure will now...LOL |
|
Date: 2/3/2004 9:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
The store can't do that though AZ because it's against the law and KMART did do it and got sued and the law went into effect after the lawsuit. Plus you can't discriminate against someone based on religion. Personally if it was me I woulda filled it, but that's my choice and a decision I would have to live with. I respect people's right to not have to do something they're morally opposed to. |
Date: 2/3/2004 11:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 62275
The woman was going through enough at the time!!!She sure didn't need some pharmacist making the matters even worse for her!  |
Date: 2/3/2004 11:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 57653
I think that he should have to fill her prescription. I understand that he may be against it but he has a job to do. And unless she is being prescribed a medication that interferes with another medication or an allergy she may have he has no right to refuse. It is his JOB!  |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 12:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 57653
Well, I had never heard of conscience clauses. Since it is the law, he had the right to refuse to fill her prescription. From a customer service standpoint (which is where I was coming from, as I work in retail) it seems like the wrong thing to do. But there are laws protecting this man, laws that say he has every right to do this. I think I can see where he is coming from....If my work sold guns I would not WANT to sell it (though I would as it's my job and in this case NOT protected by a law) but if there WAS a conscience clause that said I DIDN'T have...I WOULDN'T. So, since the law says he doesn't have...he's in the right. I wish this was something more people were aware of though. I'm sure that woman was having a hard enough time already if she had been raped the night before and had to go through the examinations involved, only to be refused the prescription she needed...but she DID get her prescription in the end and I guess that's all that matters. Thanks Base for pointing out the conscience clause, of which I was not aware. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 6:18:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13283
If he had the right to refuse her service , why was he reprimanded then ? I think what happened was that they could not find a pharmacist who could morally give out the pill at that store . Razzy aka |
Date: 2/4/2004 6:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 19220
They aren't wrong for the way they believe but they are wrong for not filling the prescripition for this woman. They have a job to do and they should have done it. Instead they played judge against this woman whom they knew nothing about or what had happened to her.  |
Date: 2/4/2004 7:20:00 AM
From Authorid: 22852
He should have been fired. He is not there to pass judgement on anyone.. he is there to do his job for the COMPANY that hired him. Pure and simple. Now if the company did not want to sell the pills they would not stock them.  |
Date: 2/4/2004 7:38:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Does this mean pharmacists can refuse to give medication to people who require it to keep living?  |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 8:22:00 AM
From Authorid: 27046
The man was probably reprimanded by the store because of the uncooth way he handled the situation. Having the right to refuse the medication is one thing, being a beligerant jerk about the situation is another. |
Date: 2/4/2004 12:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 4144
i think they should be fired. not only the one that refused to fill it but the others that stuck their noses into somebody else's business. i don't care if it was because of rape. the woman had a perscription and that should have been the end of it. if this guy really had any morals he would have kept his mouth shut. he should worry about his own morals and let everybody else do the same.  |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 2:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 9130
I agree with Moma Bug's comment. It was none of his buisness. |
Date: 2/4/2004 3:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 38256
He was definately in the wrong here, it's one thing if the owner of the pharmacy decides not to carry it because they disaprove that's his/her right as a business owner and they suffer the loss of business as a result fine whatever. But for the pharmacist to refuse to give the woman the drug based on his own beliefs is completly unacceptable.  |
Date: 2/4/2004 8:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
Well, one of the key issues in health care is that you must push aside your personal beliefs and do the duty that you are trained to do..you cannot impose your personal beliefs, nor can you refuse treatment based on such beliefs..I don't know if pharmacists are under the same creed, but I would think so.  |
Date: 2/4/2004 9:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Xylanthia, that is a point I agree with. Doctors and nurses, and yes even a Pharmacist, should look for another line of work whenever they, as the author stated, "were the pharmacists at Eckerds wrong for having morals" or should they have gone against their belief", yes, get another job, if they are so inclined to exercise their own beliefs and morals on a patient, and even in a pharmacy, the customer is a patient. The pharmacist is trained to know the difference between life saving drugs, and those that may cause interaction, he may question the physician WHEN he sees the potential for a drug interaction but when it comes to "rights" let him OR her work somewhere else. And I'm betting he will be looking for work. I have never, allowed my inner feelings to govern or dictate my care of a patient, the only time I have ever questioned a physician is when I have seen a mistake that I felt could potentially harm someone, and that has rarely happened, but it is the reason why we have doctors, nurses, and trained, qualified persons who document, prescibe and do the best for every patient possible. REGARDLESS across the board of personal belief, leave it home, at the front door, or find another job where "judgement" does not affect the welfare of a patient and go against the laws of each state that is mandated to provide that care based on the physician's knowledge and medical expertise, not his or her own descision to play the "morals" card with the life of a patient. A pharmacist rarely plays a part in or has a doctor-patient relationship, has no knowledge of said patient and his or her circumstances, medical background and relies entirely on carrying out the order of the physician.  |
Date: 2/4/2004 9:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 56176
the man that raped her needs to go to jail; i myself dont belive in abortion,i have lupus and polycystic kidneys and was told 15 years ago i would die if i did not have a abortion,i was in kidney failure,and conjestive heart failure,and i had 17 kidney surgeries while pregant,and i refused a abortion,i have a beautiful daughter who is healthy,,,but this man who worked at the drug store has a job to do,,,,but i would have did the same thing,,because i dont belive in abortion,,,touchy subject  |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 9:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
If Eckerds fires him they'll be sued and lose. They would have to prove that by not letting him object that it causes an undue burden on them in terms of a substantial monetary loss. I doubt they sell enough morning after pills to do that since some stores don't stock them because there it isn't a big demand for them. Most pharmacies that carry pills like these always make sure at least one person is on duty at all times who's willing to fill the prescription so that the person can object but the customer still gets what they need. That's probably what this pharmacist did was go and ask if someone else there would fill it. I agree that if they stock it that she should have got it but that's Eckerd's fault for not having someone on duty who would. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 9:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Again, anyone who has to impose their own moral convictions on the rights and beliefs of another, find other work. Behind a desk somewhere, study the stock market, whatever. But those who HAVE the power to make a split second discision concerning the life of another human have no place anywhere in the healthcare field. I truely believe that. Especially as a patient. I don't want anyone who can't think higher than his or her own personal feelings and beliefs making any life or death descisions on my behalf. Any thoughts to that are welcome. It expands into a much larger arena people, the folks who make personal judgement calls are the ones who may make a call when it comes to other aspects of healthcare. THINK about it. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 9:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Base, the bottom line is, I don't want this guy filling my scripts. Who knows what his next judgement call may be. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 9:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
Sorry Brenda, contraception isn't covered under saving a life, but it is amusing how everyone wants everyone to conform to their standards and morals while not allowing others the right to theirs. Indeed the ones who want everyone to be tolerant are generally the most intolerant of all. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 9:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
These clauses came into effect because Dr.s and Pharmacist didn't want to be forced into doing something they don't believe in. If a law was passed tomorrow that said all Obstetricians would quit rather than be forced to do it and how many pharamcists would walk out also. That sounds like a good plan lets force people to go against there beliefs to satisfy one group of people and maybe we can really screw people over by not having shortages of Dr.s and Pharmacists. Then we can kill a whole bunch of people when they can't get the life saving medications they really need. I don't know I don't think I'm really into that whole Totalitarian thing. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 9:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
if all Obstetricians had to perform abortions, how many would quit instead of whatever I wrote up there |
Date: 2/4/2004 10:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
YES! He should be FIRED. If you cannot do your job & be a professional, you need to find a new job. How DARE he impose his will on someone else? I am not happy about abortion either. BUT, if I were working in the hospital again, and a patient had an abortion, you can trust they would get full care (and kindness) from me, without the lectures, and me imposing my morality on them (the patient).  |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 10:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
One other thing......the "Morality Clause: does not apply here. 1) Eckerds is a multi-million dollar operation (They have a headquarters in Largo, Florida). The pharmacist is an employee. He is not part-owner of the store, and he is basically a glorified cashier, with a two-year degree in pharmacology. Which leads me to my second point, a pharmacist is NOT a medical professional. Therefore, a pharmacist cannot refuse to dispense a med, unless he realizes there will be a drug-interaction, or a patient allergy, and in that case he would contact the doctor & request a replacement drug. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 10:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Sorry Base, I don't rationalize it that way. Contraception may not be life saving, to you. But regardless, step down if you can't do the job based on your own thinking. That's not right, he is highly trained. What happens when the guy who can't fill this script based on his moral convictions has some qualms about another patient and disagrees with their right to medication. You cannot convince me. If MY physician writes a presciption for me, then the pharmacist has no right to refuse based on his or her personal beliefs, again, find another job better suited for your own emotional needs. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 10:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
An OB may not perform abortions, most don't, some only deliver. But up front the patient should be informed. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 10:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
I wonder, will he refuse to sell antibodics to a teen with a VD? Lower the pain meds to a cancer patient, because he disapproves of morphine treatment? Refuse AZT to a gay patient with AIDS? Sorry, pharmacists who play god need to be shown to the door. PERIOD. Also, to the USM'ers applauding this....this is not a "Good Christians-vs-everyone else". This is not a "religious issue". This is a man imposing HIS will on others. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 10:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
thank you Brenda.... |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 10:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
Spirit Child a pharmacist who was Roman Catholic sued Kmart after being fired for not filling a regular birth control prescription. He was within his rights at the federal level. But lets force everyone to conform to one set of moral beliefs and all the pharmacists covered under the law can quit if they don't want to conform and people can choose another profession rather than becoming pharmacists all because of contraception. Heil Hitlers lets make them conform! |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 10:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Base, I MAKE discisions everyday regarding patients and their care, MANY, many times I've disagreed with physicians, it can sometimes be a PERSONAL thing and it shouldn't be, but it happens. In hospitals, in private offices. No a physician or anyone who cannot be a qualified caregiver based on his or her private convictions should turn that care or decision making over to someone who is not biased, but not everyone will. We all have to abide by not only law but ethics as well, we are taught that. Ethics is more important in the sense that we realize we cannot make personal choices for a patient based on those reasons. Spirit Child is right. Every day, health care workers are making decisions, choices and if you think for one second the guy who has his own priorties in order has the right to make the call on this, think again, the patient has every right. And he should step aside, I won't sway on my own conviction. I'm a nurse, I have lots of years behind me, and some people have disgusted me, totally. But I have NEVER made a descision based on my own "moral" beliefs in the care of any patient. That is where law and ethics divide. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 10:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
So one's own ethical system becomes the law for the patient. I see your standpoint, for the pharmacist, but what about the patient? |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 10:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
It's an easy enough situation to resolve by doing what other phamacies do by having a person on who will dispense the medication rather than making people compromise their beliefs whether anyone agrees with their beliefs or not. I'm not for taking away people's rights when it's not necessary. And since it was the pharmacists who wanted the clause by a large majority and pushed for it taking it away would have a backlash that would do more harm than good. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 10:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
The patient got her prescription and that's what counts that by law it's available somewhere. I wouldn't be for having this pill or even the other outlawed just like I wouldn't be for having abortion outlawed as long as the services are provided somewhere and no one's forced to go against their beliefs I think both sides should be happy with that rather than one side never being satisfied and still continuing to want the other to have to give up their rights completely. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 10:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
And I'm tired, and not debating this well enough. But law and ethics are a huge part of medicine, we are trained specifically in that area, BECAUSE of being human, we must be trained and learn first that our primary goal as a caregiver is doing the best for each patient, regardless. REGARDLESS. If we cannot do that, we don't belong there. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 11:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
As a nurse, I will always do what I am ethically bound to do for a patient, I will set aside my own personal beliefs, my own feelings and do my job. That one person, THE PATIENT, is my responsibility, to do the best that I can. That is my highest moral obligation. I have had younger girls, one I remember who was only 21, had had seven abortions. It still makes me sick, but that little girl was my responsibility to care for, not make any descision regarding THE care I gave, based on her past history but based on her rights as a patient. Those rights supersede mine, they are primary, she is the patient, I am there solely as a caregiver for her, if I cannot do my job based on what I may or may not believe is right or wrong, then I would step out, find another vocation. But that girl needed ME, at that time and as a caregiver, she was my main priorty. As are all patients I attend to and follow orders for. We are bound to a code of ethics that does not allow the patients care to be compromised, otherwise their would be consequences. A trained pharmacist has many years of education, hopefully. There are techs, they should and are always supposed to rely on the pharmacist for the knowledge and guidance they have. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 11:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Almost very patient relies 100% on physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and all other healthcare workers, to provide care without bias, without personal feelings involved, and rightly so. Everyone requiring treatment or medicine expects a highly trained, qualified professional, that can and will make the descision regarding their needs based on that honor code alone. We expect it as patients, and as providors, to be given unbiased, if we cannot fulfill the most basic, ethical expectation of those whose lives depend on that, then we, and myself included, need to find other employment. Trust in heathcare is a huge thing, without that, we are nothing. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 11:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
Brenda has spoken well for all of us who have worked in the Health Care field. We do not know (nor does it truly matter) what caused this young lady to see her doctor to begin with. We do not know the "story-behind-the-story". The Patient had rights. The right to privacy & the right to "compassionate care". The pharmacist acted like the Nazi here. He did not have to become a phamacist. Nor did he have to choose to work for a large drug-chain. He was WRONG. And I, for one, find it scary that a pharmacist made a judgement call based on a personal religious belief. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 11:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Spirit Child, That is exactly what brought me back again to this post. How scarey to think of anyone in the healthcare profession making the call for treatment or medication based on their own "moral judgement". In every capacity, the patient has the right to expect the highest standard of care given without bias, anything less is never acceptable. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 11:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
And that's you and I respect that but the people filling this job don't hold the same opinion as you when it comes to this particular issue. The clauses were invoked because there was a need for them. So if they're revoked and people don't want to do this job because of that, what do you suggest the federal government do then? They foresaw the consequences and dealt with it. I don't see how possibly having a shortage of pharmacists and then really putting people's lives at risk because one side doesn't want to compromise is very ethical. |
|
Date: 2/4/2004 11:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
I really would like to know what you guys who say these people can find other occupations which they threatened to do would do if they walked out. How are you going to get medication to everyone who needs it with a shortage of pharmacists? A woman's right to birth control is more important than a person who needs heart medication? |
Date: 2/5/2004 2:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 51070
I think he was wrong.  |
|
Date: 2/5/2004 8:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
Thank you Brenda for clarifying that better than I could at the time that I posted..I am a nursing student, and have been a CNA for 4 years and that is exactly what I was trying to relay, regarding the ethical issues. |
|
Date: 2/5/2004 9:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Base, there are a shortage of physicians in many fields, here in Northwest Ohio, I can count on my fingers the number of Endos, we have a shortage of nurses. I will repeat my message again and again, better to have a shortage than have that ONE who makes medical descisions based on his personal beliefs. That doesn't work, regardless, across the board, if he makes this descision for her, perhaps he will next decide your grandmother has lived long enough and may be costing the system too much, or perhaps he decides the HIV patient can do without his or her meds, because in HIS mind they are going to die anyway and again, at what cost to the system? Do you have any idea how often this topic comes up? ETHICS are a huge part of health care, huge. Any one individual can bring about, through their own interpretation of right and wrong, how much is enough, how much is needed, and for whom. It has to be straight, across the board. Again I SAY, if you can't do it without getting personal, do society good and find another vocation. Otherwise you will be mired in the legal system as above^^^ and perhaps more. |
|
Date: 2/5/2004 9:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
The bottom line, I would any day take my chances with an overworked professional who understands "quality and standards of patient care, who has the patient's welfare foremost in mind rather than his own individual perceptions. |
|
Date: 2/5/2004 9:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
I have no idea how you rationalize that having a shortage and putting people in jeopardy instead of allowing people the right to refuse to fill certain prescriptions is "ethical." The clause extends only to birth control suicide and euthanasia products. Really you offer no solution other than to screw more people over and at this point just like you would be happier that the guy wasn't a pharmacist I'm just thankful none of you are in positions in the government to make decisions. |
Date: 2/6/2004 11:10:00 AM
From Authorid: 62060
I suppose it's good the pharmacist kept his 'morals', but in doing so he humiliated another - hardly the 'moral' thing to do, is it?  |
|
Date: 2/6/2004 9:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Because it isn't about "putting someone out of business" or shortage" it's about the guy or gal, whatever, the rogue nurse, the doc, the pharmacist, WHOEVER, that DENIES, DENIES the PATIENT the HIGHEST STANDARD of CARE without BIAS! I don't know any other way to say this, except, my opinions on patients and yours are second to the health and welfare od said patient. Take away their right to that care is the beginning of a society that determines SOCIAL doctrine rather than medical care at it's highest level, those who can deliver with the best possible interest and outcome of the patient. I WILL not let go of this! It is more important than anything, the rights of a patient come first, foremost. Those who cannot see where this could possibly lead can go flip hamburgers in my opinion. I DON'T make descisions on the well being of a patient based on my owm moral guidelines, I make them based on my intelligence and the decision to enter into a vocation that may well at times, have others, that I view as human Excrement, but at the same time, I would do all that I could to serve their needs and supply whatever is ordered based on THE descisions of those who act on the behalf of that patient's welfare and well being. |
|
Date: 2/6/2004 9:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
The person who denies the patient based on their belief is the person who needs to step down. Not filling ANY prescription can become the next step to denying anyone the right to a life saving medication. Anyone who can't understand that not always are we allowed to question, to take away the rights afforded a patient, then we need to step away, take a break, allow the choice to be made by someone else, but anytime a prescription has been ORDERED by a physician, every nurse or pharmacist has the right to withhold IF their knowledge is in the best interest of said patient, not themselves. I will Stand up to any physician or pharmacist when it comes to a mistake in my opinion, but I will never sway on the rights of the patient. I would remove myself immediately. No patient needs or deserves my personal convictions or morals, and that should be universal. |
|
Date: 2/6/2004 10:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
You're right our opinions are complete opposites. You care solely for your patient, I forsee the consequences of the actions you wish to enforce. It is all about the shortage. When you have well over half of pharmacists who want a clause you don't just dismiss that because a few people may be humiliated. Your job to care for your few patients is different than the government who has hundreds of millions of people to think about and the code of ethics is you do the least amount of harm to the greatest number of people. A few people being inconvienced or humilated is not as important as the threat of more than half of your pharmacists going on strike. Unless you're God or can do magic I don't know how you think less than half of the pharmacists are gonna do 100% of the work. Your way puts a large number of people's lives at risk where they are unable to get the medication they need to LIVE, or the terminal cancer patient who can't get their pain medication and sits in hours thriving in pain. While you may not care about those people and only about your very limited number of patients, there are people out there who have to have the foresight to do what's best for the greatest number of people. The clause is a compromise, the woman although she may be inconvienced has the right to an abortion, birth control whatever, but not at the expense of jeopardizing people's lives. It's a compromise that both sides should be happy with but of course there's always the one side who has to complain with no better solution to the problem. You cannot make everyone think the same way as you do. Simply stating that they should or trying to force them to or just wishing they would doesn't work. |
Date: 2/6/2004 10:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
The Committee reviewed this topic in the context of a pharmacist’s right to refuse to participate in certain activities which they find morally objectionable, for example, the dispensing of a medication intended to terminate life. The Committee reviewed relevant policies from other professional organizations. The committee concurred with previous discussion by the House where the Delegates chose to support the decisions of individual pharmacists in such situations, rather than prescribing a specific course of behavior. Such a stand supports the profession’s responsibility to the patient, including respecting the decisions that patient has made, without requiring the pharmacist to participate in activities they find objectionable. The Code of Ethics calls for the pharmacist to "respect the autonomy and dignity of each patient", where a pharmacist "promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients." Balancing the needs of pharmacists as individuals with their responsibility as health care professionals poses a difficult dilemma. The Committee reviewed both sides of the issue, and recommends that pharmacists be allowed to excuse themselves from dispensing situations which they find morally objectionable, but that removal from participation must be accompanied by responsibility to the patient and performance of certain professional duties which accompany that refusal. Pharmacists choosing to excuse themselves from such a situation continue to have a responsibility to the patient—ensuring that the patient will be referred to another pharmacist or be channeled into another available health system. Exercising the authority to excuse themselves from the dispensing process, and thus avoiding having personal, moral decisions of others placed upon them, requires the same consideration of the patient—the patient should not be required to abide by the pharmacist’s personal, moral decision. Providing alternative mechanisms for patients in this situation ensures patient access to drug products, without requiring the pharmacist or the patient to abide by personal decisions other than their own. Such policy is necessary to establish professional processes that support both patients receiving what they are seeking—as determined by the personal decision of the patient and the professional judgment of his or her physician, and that pharmacists are not required to participate in activities which they find morally objectionable. In general, pharmacists who provide for the patient while excusing themselves from specific activities should not be penalized by employers.
|
|
Date: 2/7/2004 8:17:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13283
I agree with Base . Razzy aka |
|
Date: 2/7/2004 10:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
There may well be a shortageof pharmacists, and in healthcare there is a shortage everywhere. In our family, we have two nurses and one physician. We are not perfect, we talk about our patients, we discuss cases, we are humans who sometimes bring our work home. Some days the cases (patients) are fascinating to the point we discuss them simply for the sake of opinion and thought. Bottom line is we HAVE direct care of people, we make decisions, we provide care based on the best of our professional knowledge, not our personal feelings or emotions. And sometimes we do. But we are healthcare providors, we are human, and we do the best we can for our patients. Wear our shoes, walk in them, and then tell me a rogue doctor, nurse, pharmacist SHOULD make any choices about your care based on his personal beiefs. Regardless if he can't do it on this issue, he may not be able to on another. We know, in healthcare, that on any given day, we may not agree with a patient, or their morals, or their lifestyle, WE may not like them as people. Some are nasty, behave horribly, may have hurt a child which is where I WOULD love to draw the line, BUT I won't. I will go on doing what I do, every day, for as long as I choose to work in this field, and I will, hopefully always have the best interest of every patient, regardles of my own personal feeling, in their best interest. And I BELIEVE my son-in-law and daughter share my dedication as healthcare professionals. |
|
Date: 2/7/2004 10:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
And I don't understand your tirade, a DOCTOR orders medication, a nurse or pharmacist dispenses it. Anyone who is deprived, although here in NW OHIO we have no one squirming in pain, should that happen, they may seek immediate and direct care from any Emergengy room. We will dispense medication that any phamacist sitting over at Eckards or Rite Aid denies. Government in healthcare is a joke. Do you have any idea how much FREE healthcare is provided by professionals because the government has cannot meet the needs of those who fall through the gaps, those who don't fit the critera? Write Offs, sure we get tax breaks, we get mediocare pay from Medicaid and welfare, but we provide service to those who would have none, IF we lived and abided by our government. Last time I looked, not one provided decent healthcare or coverage. There are many who fall through the cracks, many who would never recieve treatment or medications without those of us who take advantage of drug samples and give time, for no fee for service. |
|
Date: 2/7/2004 10:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Makes me wonder how well all patients would do if all in healthcare based our faith and convictions on their lifestyle and dispensed meds and care according to that... |
|
Date: 2/7/2004 10:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
No committee should ever decide the fate or well being of a patient, if that were the case, when the government decides who should recieve what healthcare needs based on a "committee choice" rather than a personal, professional choice made in the best interest of each individual patient, rather than "across the board" is all the more reason I would urge others to make informed choices on their healthcare, their standards of what healthcare, and whom they decide should be quilified to make those choices if they should become inabled. It isn't just about birth control, and it isn't just about letting the government form a "committee", it's about the cost, and who decides in the end what healthcare will be provided to each person, as an individual based upon their need. |
|
Date: 2/7/2004 11:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Actually government committees will establish guidelines for ethical healthcare. I just hope the person attending me relies on his or her human ethics rather than those prescibed by a government committee. Quite possibly that "split-second" descison may be needed before the committee groups for a vote and makes into law a requirement that would be detrimental to my well being. |
|
Date: 2/8/2004 12:12:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
In Ohio you don't have half of your pharmacists on strike. So what are you gonna do revoke their rights then they strike and then there's a shortage. So you say they can go to the hospitals. You overrun the emergency room for people to get their medication, or do you set up a line that's hours long. You have people worried about family members getting their medication as their standing in line, people are angry and upset, you gonna call the police in also to keep everything in order in the lines or how about the national guard. Since the hospital isn't use to the extra thousands of people needing these medications each day what happens when they run out. You gonna take Dr.s away from patients to help fill the prescriptions or you gonna call in the military for that also? Since you think your solution to make everyone conform is so great and is gonna work, go for it, start a petition, take it to your state's US representatives to start a bill in congress and see if you can change the system. I'm pretty sure you can tick off at least 75% of the population and probably more when there's a shortage and I don't think anyone would find you moral or ethical since jeopardizing people's lives seems so insignificant to you as long as woman don't have to be inconvienced while getting birth control. |
|
Date: 2/8/2004 12:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
So all Obstetricians who don't perform abortions or if assisted suicide was legal in all states any Dr. who wouldn't do it are rogue Drs. and a pharmacist who doesn't dispense euthanasia, suicide or the RU486 pill or other birth control pills is a rogue pharmacist lol ok |
|
Date: 2/14/2004 11:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
We do not have those extremes in Ohio, and I haven't read of other states suffering either. The shortage you speak of is being met every day by simple economics. Health care is big business. It pays, and the shortage will be swallowed up by those who need decent paying occupations, however, they must have ethics, each patient being cared for primary, their health and welfare foremost. If one cannot handle the emotional and internal personal issues within themselves, then they may do well do find another vocation. My primary interest and goal, focus, is on MY patient. I don't spend time worrying about the government and shortage, I do my job, give each patient the care, standard of care they should expect to be given, regardless of my personal convictions. I'm there to help, to serve, and to provide medical assistance, not stand in judgement of what that care should be limited to based on my own perspective. That has nothing to do with STANDARD of care, and a patient's rights to that STANDARD of care given. I won't believe that anyone should take away the rights of the patient, the right of being cared for without judgement. Anything less is means letting others, the government, the "higher ups" take over all those descisions that some of us believe should only be made by the patient based on advice rendered by his or her physician. We are bound to give care based by morals and ethics, not personal position. I don't know anyone, anyone who feels differently or upholds a different standard. |
|
Date: 2/14/2004 11:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
"Referrals" are part of the "business" of healthcare, any doctor, has the choice of terminating care, and referring the patient, but never compromising the care of the patient. That could result in huge malpratice. If he or she can't cope or do the job, render care, or refer the patient to another provider who can. |
Date: 2/15/2004 1:56:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13283
Here is a follow up to this story . The pharmacist was fired recently !  Eckerds found out that this was the fifth time he denied someone meds and they let him go . Apparently he was hired and they told him he had to fill prescriptions regardless of his beliefs and faith . *sigh * Razzy aka |
|
Date: 2/15/2004 4:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
Raz he has a lawyer, they've already been to the press. Did you read where he said he prayed about it and called his minister to see what he should do? That translates to my lawyer is going with my first amendment right to freedom of religion. Eckerds will lose this lawsuit and the other two because they fired three. They'll probably settle out of court and as part of the settlement agreement the terms of the settlement will remain private. This will cost Eckerds millions of dollars that they'll pass on to the consumers. No company can take away someone's constitutional rights. Brenda I'm done trying to explain to you what happened to make this legislature because you can't seem to grasp the concept, you are in the minority with your feelings look at the numbers of people in the health care industry that don't agree with you. You seem to think all these Dr.s and people agree with you but since most of them wanted laws in place to protect them, they don't. Some people actually believe that all people's rights matter not just women during their reproductive years and that women's rights during those years are not more important than the rest of the citizens of this country to have the right to make moral decisions for themselves. |
|
Date: 2/18/2004 11:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Base, how many patient opinions do you have? I'm "done with you" too, simply because every doctor and nurse I know evaluates on ethics, and how best to treat each patient, and every pharmacist who has a gripe or complaint, can refuse to fill a script, but regardless, he or she will end up without a job. The doctor orders, the nurse and pharmacists may question the order, in the end, the only question should be based on the best interest of the patient, otherwise, get out of healthcare. Deny a patient a presciption based om your own "moral" concepts and expect to face the consequences, the first priorty is the patient. THE PATIENT who needs and requests unquestionable healthcare. Sorry, but I won't, back down, healthcare needs dedicated physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and medical technicians who are able to determine and deliver in the best interest of the patient, not one's own ideals or beliefs based on religious convictions or moral standards. Should be quite interesting in today's world to see how this turns out. I don't believe in abortion as a method of birth control, but I don't apply my standards, opinions, to my delivery of care for any patient. Compromising that patient's care would require me to remove myself from my job. |
|
Date: 2/18/2004 11:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
And of course not all will agree with me, but some do, and most will, based on their integrity, and how they choose to fulfill their duties. A pharmicist dispenses medication ordered by a physician, male or female. |
