Store owners in Olympia, Washington are refusing to stock emergency contraception, and are opposed to state regulations that allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions provided that another pharmacist at the store will do it.
Maybe I’ll drop out of law school and go to pharmacy school. Then I’ll get a job at a busy pharmacy, convert to Scientology and refuse to fill any prescriptions. It’s my religious freedom.
Or maybe I’ll go to med school, become a doctor, and then refuse to care for my patients — but only if they’re rape victims.
Image via.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 46 comments }
Good career options, but you forgot about becoming a phlebotomist and a Jehovah’s witness at the same time. You’ll never have to work again.
Me, I’m going to become a pro football player and refuse to work on the Lord’s Day. They won’t draft me? BIGOTS!
No no, what you need to do is become a pharmacist and refuse to fill viagra prescriptions. Things would change so fast our heads would spin.
If you want to understand where these people are coming from, you have to imagine that you are a pharmacist being asked to fill prescriptions for a med that does something *you* think is wrong. For example, suppose it were legal to prescribe heroin to children, and imagine being a pharmacist who is being asked to fill a heroin prescription for casual use by a 12 year old girl. You might refuse, and you’d probably be right to refuse. So it isn’t as if refusing to fill prescriptions that are wrong is objectionable as such. As a result, this refusal on moral grounds to fill any and all prescriptions isn’t what makes the pharmacist an asshole. You just disagree with the specific moral views of the pharmacist in this case. Now maybe you’re right to disagree with those views. But I also don’t think it is fair to say that a guy is an asshole just because he thinks emergency contraception is wrong.
I bet they don’t realize that Emergency Contraception is just beefed-up birth control, and does not work like RU-486.
Uh, no. They realize it. A lot of them refuse to fill birth control pills, too.
Except there’s a huge difference between refusing to fill a prescription that is physically damaging to someone, and refusing to fill a prescription because you think it causes abortion when it absolutely, demonstrably does not.
And that aside, pharmacists today were well aware when they signed onto their profession that they would have to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. EC is the exact same thing as birth control. It’s not like this is some brand-new thing that they never had to deal with before. They knew what they were getting into, and if they can’t fulfill the obligations of their occupation, they should find a new one.
I’m tried of everyone else deciding for ME what my health needs are. Pregnancy is a very dangerous medical condition. You can DIE from it. If my Doctor says that I need a prescription, and it is legal, then everyone should shut up. I personally don’t think old guys need to get it up either, but if it was my job to give out Viagra then I would do it with a smile. If you don’t like the morals of the job find another job. Birth control has been legal for a long time. Come on, how stupid can you be to pick a job that would force you to do something you don’t approve of? What’s next? No Aids drugs? No fertility drugs?
Also, Chad, I did put myself in that scenario with the Scientologist quip. Scientologists believe that many kinds of drugs are harmful. They certainly believe that anti-depressants and other psychological drugs are harmful. They think those drugs do bad things. They are morally opposed to them.
So the question is, is it permissible for a Scientologist to get a job as a pharmacist and refuse to fill anti-depressant prescriptions on moral grounds? What about to refuse to fill any prescriptions that aren’t approved by a leader of the sect? If not, why is it permissible for a conservative Christian to get a job as a pharmacist and refuse to fill birth control prescriptions on moral grounds?
Oops Jill beat me to it.
You say that there is a “huge difference” — you mean that there is a huge moral difference. So, just as I suggested, you’re disagreeing with their moral views, not their practice of allowing moral views to influence how they do their jobs.
When you say “EC is the exact same thing as birth control” you mean that the pills used are the same. So what? Suppose that the pharmacists only failed to fill prescriptions when it was clear that the pills were going to be used for EC rather than for normal contraception. You still would not like it. And maybe you’re right not to like it. My point is that I don’t think you should call them assholes just because you have a moral disagreement with them about a relatively complex moral issue.
And working off of Vail’s point, how about this:
I think that sex before marriage is immoral. Therefore, I will not fill prescriptions for birth control for unmarried women, and I will not fill prescriptions for Viagra for unmarried men. I will not fill prescriptions for UTI or yeast infection medication for unmarried women, since those are often side-effects of sexual activity. Also, my personal morality dictates that you should only have one sexual partner (your husband/wife), and if you have more than that, any punishment God levels on you is something you have to live with. Therefore, I will not fill prescriptions for STI treatments.
Or try this one: I am religiously opposed to interracial relationships. Before I’ll fill your prescription for anything sex-related (birth control, Viagra, whatever), I’ll need to see a picture of your significant other, and a signed statement that you are both white Christians. You know, just to make sure that I’m not violating my religion.
Should I be able to keep my job? Or am I just an asshole?
And my point is that the issue isn’t all that morally complex. When they got jobs as pharmacists, they were well-aware that they would have to fill birth control prescriptions — lots of them. If you think that’s morally wrong, then pick a different occupation.
I personally think that eating meat is a really complex moral issue. Lots of people agree with me. Lots of people think it’s absolutely, morally wrong, and that no one should eat meat ever. If that person gets a job as a cook in a restaurant and then refuses to prepare the meat dishes on the menu, they’re being stupid. And they’re being an asshole.
That’s what pharmacists are doing, but with something that has much, much greater consequences that someone not being able to eat their burger.
Well, yeah, because that makes them both hypocritical and stupid. Their argument is that EC causes abortion, which is patently untrue. But if EC causes abortion, then so does regular birth control. So it doesn’t make sense to refuse to prescribe only EC if abortion is actually your objection. But you get to an interesting point here: Abortion is the veil to their real objection, which is women having sex without the “consequence” of pregnancy. And, sorry, but pharmacists don’t get to decide what kind of behavior is acceptable for their clients. Would it be ok if they refused to fill prescriptions for STD treatments too?
You’re fast Jill!
I never said I thought they are right to refuse filling the prescription. I said I think that their actions are understandable given their moral views (unlike, I think, in the meat case and the viagra case), and I said that their moral views do not make them assholes (unlike the interracial relationship case). I dont know how to say, in general, how a person’s moral views should affect how they do their job. Some of the examples you bring up make it pretty clear that this is a difficult question.
“Hypocritical and stupid” seems mistaken to me. There are differences between EC and ordinary birth control that someone might think are morally relevant without being hypocritical or stupid.
I get notified via email every time a comment is posted, so I have an advantage ;-)
My point, though, is that their morality here is incredibly inconsistent, and is about punishing women. They don’t think that EC harms women. They have to be supremely intellectually dishonest to think that EC causes abortion. Personally, if someone’s “morality” is that women who have sex deserve to be punished for it (and that pregnancy should be a punishment, or “consequence” in their parlance), then I think their morality is as odious as a person whose morality leads them to oppose interracial relationships.
What are the differences that are morally relevant? I’m asking in good faith, because I really don’t know. It’s the same drug, and it has the same effect — to prevent pregnancy. I don’t see how it’s somehow worse to take EC than birth control, but I could be missing something…?
Such as?
Do these stores not sell condoms? I’ve never run across even a cashier who refused to ring up a box of Trojans. I’m thinking this is an equal protection violation.
The moralists’ arrow actually points in the other direction. Single women who take birth control are planning to have sex, therefore they are sluts. Single women who don’t take birth control, but have sex anyway, lacked intent; they were merely swept away on a tide of passion. Therefore their culpability is less and they deserve to have retroactive birth control.
I find it really dubious to think that these folks hold the view you attribute to them about how sexually active women deserve to be punished. I can’t see how you could possibly support that, but maybe I’m missing something. Anyway, someone could think that it is immoral to take action which has a high probability of causing the destruction of a fertilized egg without thinking that sexually active women deserve punishment. Someone might think of unwanted pregnancy as a tragedy in which no one is at fault, but nevertheless deny that EC is morally acceptable.
The difference between EC and ordinary birth control (I take it–I’m not an expert) is that EC works by causing the fertilized egg not to implant, while ordinary birth control typically works by stopping ovulation. Of course ordinary birth control *sometimes* stops implantation too. But that is, I take it, far less frequent. Someone might find that to be a morally relevant difference.
You must be quite new to this site.
Well, Chad, let’s look at this real-life example:
Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis have been refusing to accept passengers who have alcohol with them. Not drunk passengers, just people coming home from the grocery store with a bottle of wine in their bag.
This is a 100% legitimate religious belief — alcohol is forbidden by the Koran, and the cab drivers genuinely believe that they are committing a sin by allowing someone to transport alcohol in their cab.
So you must be on board with allowing cab drivers to refuse to transport passengers who have unopened bottles of alcohol with them, yes?
I am morally apposed to Viagra due to the fact it was more important to make sure old guys got it up then to approve the morning after pill etc. Viagra was rushed through the approval process, where as other things waited and waited. And why wouldn’t it be a moral issue to refuse to give out Viagra to unmarried men? I mean they are gonna use it for s-e-x, right?
Chad, please refer to any of the myriad of websites which debunk the ‘ Plan B causes implantation to fail’ myth. Here’s a good one by a noted science blogger.
Plan B explained
There is no evidence that plan B causes implantation not to occur. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
You may also like the chart which shows cause and effect of certain reproductive policies, regarding punishing women.
Amp’s wonderful chart
An article from the Religious Coalition on Reproductive Choice about the agenda being advanced here.
Oh God I should have gone to that Religious Coalition link. It brings up bad memories of chatting with my Allergy Doctor. I casually mentioned that I was adopting and he turned to me and said (I swear to God). “Does your husband know? Is he ok with that?” I was floored.
what makes these people assholes, Chad, is not having particular moral beliefs, but imposing those beliefs on others. if you think EC is immoral. don’t TAKE it yourself, but don’t use your profession to keep anyone else from taking it.
Personally, if they’re the owner of the cab, sure. It’s their own money their losing. If they’re in the employ of a company, then that’s between them and their boss, but I’d sure as hell fire them immediately.
I feel the same way about a pharmacy. If some religious person owns the pharmacy and doesn’t want to fill prescriptions for this and that, then fine, it’s their joint. I think it’s silly and unproductive, but whatever. But if a pharmacist under employ is refusing to do his job in opposition to company policy, he ought to be fired. He’s hurting the business, so I wouldn’t care if he objects on religious or moral grounds, he’d be gone.
Stick around, Chad, you might learn something.
Because “sex has consequences” (something you hear frequently in discussions of abortion and EC) in wingnut-speak translates to “sex is immoral, and babies are a punishment for having sex.” Same with talk of “personal responsibility” or “you shouldn’t have had sex if you weren’t willing to get pregnant,” or, if they get wound up enough, talk of “spreading [one's] legs.”
As for your misconception (NPI) about the way EC works, that’s understandable in a layperson, but it’s something that works to the religious-nut pharmacist’s advantage. Now they, on the other hand, with all that biology and chemistry they have to take, should know quite well that it takes several days for the sperm and egg to even meet, so if one takes EC within the 72-hour window, it’s really damn unlikely that there’s a fertilized egg to do anything with.
Incidentally, an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Pregnancy doesn’t happen when the sperm hits the egg; pregnancy happens when a fertilized egg implants. So, no implantation=no pregnancy to abort. It’s also in the interest of the religious-nut pharmacists to spread the misinformation that pregnancy begins at fertilization.
You don’t even have to read a debunking of the Plan B prevents implantation. Planned Parenthood has a chart up for how many birth control pills of each brand you can take to have the same effect as EC. It doesn’t work in different ways than bc because it’s the SAME THING.
There is only one problem with having the person who owns the pharmacy to pick what they’ll dispense. If it is the only pharmacy in town then where will people go? Besides there are policies that you have to agree to (even if you don’t agree with them) to do business. For example you have to conform to fire safety, employee safety etc. If you don’t like ‘em tough, your business gets shut down. This is the same thing. You are there to dispense legal meds. You don’t like it, get out of the business. It is NOT ok to force your morals on someone else when it might harm them. Write your congressperson, adopt an unwanted child, help kids do after school programs whatever, just realize that YOUR rights don’t trump OUR rights.
Chad, heroin is a schedule I controlled substance in the U.S. Doctors cannot legally prescribe it to anyone of any age.
Now, if I was a pharmacist or pharm tech, and I got a huge-ass scrip for morphine (a schedule II controlled substance, i.e. legal to prescribe with limits) for a 12-year-old? I’d certainly have questions about the validity of the scrip, especially if it was written with refills. (Schedule II drugs are supposed to be prescribed for one-time fill only; a new scrip has to be written each time the patient needs more.) That’s a heavy drug to give to a kid, and I’d certainly want to make sure the prescription was legal and legitimate before I filled it. Maybe I’d even want to ask the doctor or nurse, “Are you sure?”, especially if I was relatively new at this and hadn’t seen a scrip for morphine ever written for someone that age.
Pharmacists are passed scrips off stolen scrip pads all the time, or scrips written by people who are punchy and don’t know what they’re doing and maybe check something off when they shouldn’t, or by someone whose handwriting is really bad and there’s no way to tell whether maybe the scrip says meperidine (Demerol) rather than morphine. It’s part of the pharmacist’s job to make sure the scrip is legitimate and filled accurately; that’s not what we’re talking about here. Once the doctor has said, “Yes, this substance for this patient, I’m absolutely sure of that,” I butt out. I do not get to overrule anyone’s legitimate doctor just because I don’t like that particular drug.
I guess I didn’t know what I was talking about when it comes to EC. But the whole issue seems a bit beside the point I was making, since I suspect Jill would’ve called them assholes even if it was over RU-486 (or whatever hypothetical drug really would cause an abortion in the most full-blooded sense of ‘abortion’). I’m not advancing any agenda but that of not calling people assholes for no good reason. I don’t in general have a problem with firing a pharmacist for making this choice. I just don’t think that the pharmacist’s choice makes him an asshole.
Zuzu, point taken–the pharmacists should know better than me. But the key player in the present story was in fact a “store owner”–I don’t know if he was a pharmacist. And, anyway, it still seems like a jump to conclude that they were motivated by the weird “punishment” view you describe.
Also, anyone who thinks it wrong to have an abortion early in a pregnancy is going to think it is wrong, for the same reasons, to destroy a fertilized egg that hasn’t yet implanted. So whether we call all of these ‘abortions’ seems, as they say, “merely verbal.” Not that words don’t matter for political purposes–of course they do. But there isn’t any substance in this issue.
You didn’t answer my question, chad — if you think that pharmacists should be allowed to not fill prescriptions because of their moral beliefs, do you also think it’s okay for cab drivers to not transport people who are carrying things that conflict with their moral beliefs?
Yeah, chad, God forbid we should call people assholes, right, when they’re only trying to make our medical decisions for us. We’re so rude. Good thing you’re able to focus on something productive like chiding us.
The pharmacists who refuse to dispense Plan B because they think it causes abortion should have their license immediately suspended and be required to undergo several rigorous examinations prior to having a license reinstated, and ultimately loss of license if they can not demonstrate adequate comprehension of the subject matter.
If they don’t understand the nature and properties of medications …they are unqualified to be a pharmacist.
Off topic but I must know: When is Lybrel finally going on the market?
anna,
the company is in ‘launch’ mode, i.e. training sales staff, discussing formulary issues with managed care groups, etc.
I just don’t get it. You have to pay taxes even if you have a moral objection to them. If you’re a fireman you don’t get to pick who you save from a burning building. If your a cop you’re not supposed to help people based on their color. You can not choose to deny renting to someone who is of the wrong sex/color/marriage status. When are these people going to get slapped with fines? Why aren’t they getting shut down?
chad,
Your heroin example is flawed. Prescribing a controlled substance for *recreational* use is not equivalent to selling an OTC drug which has a medical indication (pregnancy prevention).
More to the point, refusing to fill a prescription/sell an OTC drug because you object to the indication for use is wrong. Contrast that with refusing to fill a rx because of a dosage mistake, contraindication, drug interactions, etc.
Slightly OT, but relevant in the larger sense.
I had an outbreak of shingles recently. I was promptly prescribed the appropriate anti-viral, which is most commonly used for treatment of genital herpes. For the only time in my life, my diagnosis (Herpes Zoster) was written in large, clear handwriting beside the medication information. Why? Because pharmacists have been known to harrass people (though no refusals to provide that I know of), for being horrible enough to have an STD.
I swear if it happens again, I’m going to request the clarification be left off. If some twit is harrassing people over getting a needed medication, they deserve to have their ass nailed to a wall, and I’d love to have the chance to do it.
Ah, Olympia. Memory: circa 1991, graffiti on State Ave that said simply: U.S. Out of My Uterus.
It’s a strange place, where loggers and legislators and (very) leftist Evergreen students collide. I organized their first Queer Pride march, in ‘92. A lot of people stayed home, thinking we’d get shot at. But around 500 showed, and despite the protesters holding placards that said “Die, Fags” and such, it was awesome.
But anyway, my point. A good source for info on the EC issue, in terms of how local activists are addressing it, would be Works in Progress. Found a great abundance of articles, would not link all of them in this comment (I’d be in the mod queue for years, presumably), so interested parties may simply go to their search page and type in emergency contraception.
“I do not get to overrule anyone’s legitimate doctor just because I don’t like that particular drug.”
Thank you for noting that a pharmacist does NOT have a license to practice medicine. If her doctor has prescribed it for her, the pharmacist should fill the prescription. Anything beyond checking for the legitimacy of the doctor’s order constitutes an ethical breach by the pharmacist.
It never ceases to amaze me, how the “pro-life” folks can commit any ethical violation they want, and still lecture the rest of us on morality. Then-Senator Frist’s barging in on Terry Schiavo’s medical treatment violated two ethical precepts: he was not her doctor, and he was a transplant surgeon — the very type of doctor absolutely forbidden to judge the condition of a comatose patient, for obvious reasons. Why Frist wasn’t hauled before a medical ethics board and publicly humiliated, I cannot say.
I may soon go on a contraceptive pill to deal with certain physical symptoms that are making my life difficult. I can assure anyone who wants to know that it’s not for contraception. I made sure I got my tubes tied some years back. But really, how is it anyone’s business what I’m taking it for?
I recently learned, much to my amusement, that if the symptoms of another syndrome get bad this winter, Viagra may be prescribed. I”m very female. Apparently it does have other uses than just for men.
Chad, the problem with this sentiment is that both the pharmacist and the cab driver (usually) are licensed by the government to provide a service. They both exercise monopoly power enforced by the state. Only a pharmacist can store and dispense scheduled substances. Only the holder of a cab medallion can generally pick up fares.
It would be different if anyone with an interest could dispense prescription medications. Or if anyone with a car could legally pick up fares. Then you might reasonably say “their money, their decisions.” But so long as pharmacists and (to a lesser logical extent) cab drivers are quasi-agents of the state, and unlicensed others cannot step in, no amount of discrimination against any legal activity standard to the profession is acceptable.
If a cabby doesn’t want to carry fares with alcohol, he should give up his medallion and go “gypsy.” If a pharmacist doesn’t want to dispense legal medication, he should give up on pharmacy and sell crystals.
Um, Mike, that wasn’t my comment, it was Henry’s.
Comments on this entry are closed.