A group of pharmacists from my home state are suing because Washington law requires them to do their jobs. Their beef is with (surprise surprise) having to dispense emergency contraception.
I’m very sympathetic to the argument that there has to be a balance between job requirements and respecting individual religious and moral beliefs. But I’m not particularly sympathetic to the idea that one should be able to take a job and then simply refuse to carry out the requirements of that job, at the expense of someone else’s health. Anti-choice pharmacists argue that EC is a new medication, and that they didn’t know they’d have to be dispensing it when they chose their occupation. If that were actually true, I’d say they have something of an argument. But EC is the exact same thing as birth control, just a higher dose. And I’m fairly confident that birth control has been around for a while, and pharmacy school students and pharmacy job applicants should have been aware that they would have to fill prescriptions for it.
The Washington rule is pretty fair — it doesn’t require pharmacists to fill prescriptions they find morally problematic, so long as the patient can still get their prescription filled in the same visit:
Under the new state rule, pharmacists with personal objections to a drug can opt out by getting a co-worker to fill an order. But that applies only if the patient is able to get the prescription in the same pharmacy visit.
Pharmacies also are required to order new supplies of a drug if a patient asks for something that is not in stock.
Pharmacists are also forbidden to destroy prescriptions or harass patients, rules that were prompted by complaints from Washingtonians, chairwoman Rebecca Hille said.
Kinda sad when we have to make a state law disallowing pharmacists from destroying prescriptions and harassing patients. But I suppose that becomes a necessity when pharmacists are under the impression that they can decide what kind of medication a woman should be allowed to access, even if she and her doctor feel differently.
This whole phenomenon makes me so damned sick.
Come up to Canada, guys. Even in my tiny rural Ontario hometown, people would be instantly fired for pulling this shit.
Well, despite the gross behavior of thess pharmacists, three cheers to Washington state for passing this legislation. Hopefully other states will follow suit.
Also, I refuse to shop at pharmacies that don’t have similar policies in place (Target, I’m talking to you.) If you want to know who respects women’s health issues, check out this site: http://www.saveroe.com//campaigns/fillmypillsnow
The tactics of such pharmacists are shameful. Would they refuse to fill prescriptions for people suffering from venereal disease? People should start complaining about such pharmacists to their state boards. See the national Code of Ethics at the American Pharmacists Association website: http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2809
I rarely think of anything good to say about K-Mart, but I was in one while visiting my mother and they had a sign up stating their policy that their pharmacists had to dispense any and all medications prescribed. I forget the wording – I don’t think it specifically said EC, but that was obviously the intent. Go K-Mart!
blondie – I don’t know about refusing, but harrassment isn’t out of the question. When I got a prescription for Valtrex, my physician wrote Herpes Zoster in parentheses (and big clear handwriting) right after the medication data. When I asked why, she said “Because otherwise they’ll assume you have genital herpes.”
And I can’t imagine why she would care unless she’s had patients harrassed or refused.
I don’t think the Washington rule is “pretty fair.” I really don’t think there’s any room for religious scruples or individual conscience in the matter. Pharmacists should have to deliver whatever is prescribed. If they find they can’t do it, they should resign, and find other work. No one is required to do work they can’t stomach, but everyone is required to do the work they signed up to do. Which in this case, does not include deciding things that are rightly decided by doctors.
Uuugh, this whole issue is ridiculous.
I’ve heard of pharmacists who have lied about having Plan B in stock. How can someone take themselves seriously as a professional when they pull this sort of crap?
“Anti-choice pharmacists argue that EC is a new medication, and that they didn’t know they’d have to be dispensing it when they chose their occupation. If that were actually true, I’d say they have something of an argument.”
I wouldn’t. Development of new medications for various purposes is an inevitability. What kind of pharmacist thinks s/he will only ever be required to dispense the medications that exist when s/he chooses the occupation? Shortsighted and ridiculous.
Wait – haven’t there been incidents where pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions for regular, non-EC birth control, too? Which, yeah, makes their protestations about EC being “new,” and the newness being the reason they’re all pissy about it, just extra crap.
Ankathry, agreed. It’s not the specific medication that is the issue. The fact is that it is FDA approved and proscribed by a doctor, and all pharmacists knew that they WOULD in fact have to dispense such drugs. In principle, if pharmacists could make perscription decisions based on their anti-choice beliefs, they could refuse to dispense any drug that could harm a developing fetus unless the patient proved then, and before she took each dose, that she was not pregnant. Once you decide the interest of life or potential life outweighs the woman’s health, then you get to the point where the godbags are only letting you take folic acid even if you are dying of cancer. Also, it’s worth noting that unlike popcorn and Hustler, you need a state license to dispense medication. Therefore, it is a monopoly, and a strictly enforced one at that. Those who enjoy the job protection of a monopoly owe a higher duty to the general public than people who sell gummi bears. Without the monopoly, there would be more competition and the ‘go to another pharmacy’ argument would have greater weight.
Thanks for blogging about this. Those refusing Washington pharmacists just don’t get it! In addition to being a fair rule (as you said), the WA rule is also legal. If you’re interested in reading why, check out our blog:
http://nwlc.blogs.com/womenstake/2007/07/refusing-washin.html#more.
I have zero sympathy for Washington state pharmacists who want to pick and choose which prescriptions to fill, because they’ve been known to go way beyond denying EC. A couple of years ago, one pharmacy actually refused to fill a prescription of antibiotics for a woman recovering from her abortion. Another pharmacy refused to fill prescribed vitamins for a pregnant woman because her reproductive health clinic also performed abortions. These pharmacists aren’t simply unwilling to get their hands dirty by ‘participating’ in what they consider an abortion; they are out for a presumed right to punish women for being ‘immoral’.
I don’t think there should be any balance at all between job requirements and religious/moral beliefs. Certainly, there should be a reasonable accommodation of such beliefs to the extent they do not interfere with job requirements, but to the extent they do interfere, I think it’s unfair to make accommodations, especially when such requirements are appropriately disclosed.
The examples are quite easy to think up. An Orthodox Jewish man, who eschews physical contact with any woman not his wife, should not be a greeter at Wal-Mart, because he will very likely be in the position of touching female strangers. An Islamic woman who keeps halal should not work in a German butcher shop, as she will very likely be in the position of handling pork products. And a Christian man, who believes it immoral to dispense birth control to unmarried women or Plan B to any woman at risk of pregnancy should not work in a pharmacy or as an OB/GYN, as he will very likely be asked to prescribe such medications.
I see no compelling reason to make such “conscience” allowances for anyone with religious objections to their job requirements, and I think it’s bigoted of the Christian Reich to claim that they are entitled to same, especially when they would use the same argument I would to limit what Muslims or Jews would do using the “conscience” exception.
I think any pharmacist that would destroy a prescription deserves to be removed from the profession, stat. That is the most spectacularly gross breach of professionalism I can conceive of; it’s along the lines of a police officer using his profession to enable him to commit crimes.
And yes, it’s astonishing that they actually needed a rule against it.
I actually wrote a paper for a medical course I took last semester. I had to write in first-person as a pharmacist. Though this is long, I think it might be able to shape some of the arguments made in this board. I’m sorry that there isn’t a cut-and-paste option here.
As a pharmacist, I feel that it is my duty to be compliant with prescriptions I receive. I am in no way connected to the diagnosis and methods of treatment established by the physician. My occupation is to regulate and disseminate controlled substances according to legal, medical, and safety guidelines. The FDA has approved an emergency contraceptive to be prescribed and administered preferably within seventy-two hours of unprotected sex. To deny treatment of a customer is to place that person or its intended recipient at risk.
My job does not entail being a moral counselor. Customers do not come to my counter to be swayed by my ideological beliefs—they are here to fill a prescription from a physician or to access an OTC EC. Healthcare professionals are state-licensed and hold legitimized, esoteric knowledge that place them in highly authoritative positions. They also are generally not limited in their sphere of care; for example, they are helping other races, sexes, ethnicities, and sexual orientations. There is an issue with the concept of denial of services—where does it end? Suppose that I am a Scientologist that doesn’t believe in anti-depressants; my refusal to fill a prescription may lead to a customer committing suicide, which would be against my high professional standards. What if my refusal to dispense EC results in a dangerous or fatal pregnancy, or complicated abortion? What would be the difference of a Christian pharmacist not dispensing EC and that same pharmacist refusing to fill an Amoxicillin script because the recipient is Jewish? Though this may seem far-fetched, it may not be—a conservative Christian can refuse helping any other religion or non-religious types, which is actually what is happening when a pharmacist refuses to dispense EC and does not have a suitable referral. I highly doubt we would have the same protection of “freedom of religion” when the customer is facing discrimination and being denied care.
Policy Statement on Dispensing Emergency Contraceptives in Our Pharmacy
In compliance with current state and federal laws, pharmacists and other employees in this company have the right to refuse any prescription that she or he finds against their beliefs. This clause is a definitive practice to protect the autonomy of our employees yet this establishment has outlined protocol to best serve patient health care needs, especially during time-sensitive dispensing of medication, such as emergency contraceptives.
Though science and medicine are inherently linked to a great degree, there are autonomy issues regarding the religious perspectives of our employees which are covered under our hiring practices of non-discrimination based on age, sex, disability, and religious affiliation. Employees are to have their religious views reasonably accommodated without corporate retaliation or harassment; however, they are required to reciprocally accommodate those customers not sharing their beliefs.
In the event that a patient interacts with an employee who does not wish to dispense a medication, the pharmacist will engage in non-argumentative and non-offensive mannerisms and language. This will consist of the following script:
Pharmacist: I’m sorry, but I do not dispense (insert name of pharmaceutical). Please give me a few moments to arrange for you the necessary means of acquiring it.
The employee will then follow this procedure:
1.) The pharmacy will have customer copies of, at minimum, three contacts by which acquiring said drug is available. This contact sheet will have the name, address, phone number, and driving directions from the pharmacy to the contact location. The sheet will also have this entire policy printed. Each step of this procedure must be initialed by both parties.
2.) The employee will call those establishments on the contact list to arrange prescription pick-up.
3.) In the event that those on the contact list could not be reached, the employee must notify the customer of the next change-of-shift for the next employee who may be able to dispense the medication.
This policy assures that both parties are given adequate alternatives and resources so neither values nor care needs are compromised. Protecting customer and employee priorities are vital in securing quality customer care and preserving our company image of the ultimate health resource.
Pharmacists who deny EC without using referrals are doing so out of abuse of their authoritative power. There are many pharmacies and drug stores that sell prophylactics such as condoms and spermicidal ointments; drug stores such as CVS and Walgreens also sell magazines that promote non-religious agendas such as pornography and even National Geographic or Scientific American that generally promote anti-Creationism. The salary that the pharmacists are being paid are directly related to the net profit of the entire company. This only shows that the pharmacists are abusing their direct control of substances, yet turning a blind eye and profiting from other non-religious or even ¬anti-religious products being sold three aisles down. Pharmacists filling or not filling prescriptions based on their religious and non-religious beliefs should not affect those patients who have been prescribed a medication that is deemed “unholy” if the medication is legal and of reasonable dosage. As stated in the previous policy example, employees are to have their religious views reasonably accommodated without corporate retaliation or harassment; however, they are required to reciprocally accommodate those customers not sharing their beliefs.
Oh those poor, poor bastards, forced to do their own jobs.
May I laugh maniacally?
MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
When I worked as a veterinary assistant, there was always one sensitive soul at every clinic who managed to get hired despite the fact that s/he could not bear to have anything to do with putting animals to sleep or with animal waste products of any kind. We called them “ex-employees.”
I have a serious problem with liscensing any Pharmacists that have no problem with denying medication to anyone for religious reasons. They can put anyone at risk for death or harm and profit from it.
Personally, I think the individual pharmacist should have the right to not dispense drugs that violate their religion. But that right should not apply to the pharmacy itself. It should apply only to the pharmacist. Thus, if any particular pharmacist refuses to dispense any medication, the pharmacy that hires him would be required to have on duty another pharmacist that will.
This could get expensive for small pharmacies and would result in the “refusers” getting fired. No big deal as this is the consequence of sticking with your principles. Thus, the pharmacist can do whatever he/she feels is appropriate and let the free market affect their employability.
But this should not be a burden on the consumer. Ever.