Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right, wrong or indifferent, in his state, as well as most states, The State Board of Pharmacy allows a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if it goes against his/her moral base.
I once worked for a Catholic pharmacist (store owner) who refused to stock birth control pills, diaphragms and condoms
Today, the Ohio BOP allows another pharmacist to dispense. If another pharmacist is not present, he/she must transfer Rx to another store.
All chains (CVS, Walgreens, etc) allow their pharmacists to make personal decisions.
I cannot find the reference, but occurrences such as this thread, are extremely rare. But, make a lot of noise even if legal.
However, in this case there was absolutely no reason for anyone to have a moral objection to use of the drug. It was not prescribed for an elective abortion. The fetus was already dead. My problem with the pharmacist is that he does not understand the difference between a miscarriage and an elective abortion. He should not refuse to dispense the medication to someone who is not going to use it for an elective termination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1003
I refused to fill narcs from pill mills, and for known abusers, for over 50 years
In, fact most states now have databases that show when and where controlled Rxs were filled. In Ohio, and (again) most states, a pharmacist (and Drs) must check and refuse controlled substances for patients with muli fills because of Dr shopping
I think the comparable situation would be a pharmacist who refused to fill any narcotic prescriptions, when there was no evidence that the person presenting the script was an abuser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1003
Not sure that you are correct here
Electronic records are now required for any state or federally funded program. Medicare, Medicaid, Worker's Comp, VA, etc.
And, I believe (99% sure) all insurance companies require electronic record keeping.
Medicare penalizes docs who do not use electronic records. Commercial insurance companies so far are not doing that. Only about two-thirds of docs are currently using them. The rest were wise enough to accept the Medicare penalty and wait and see what happens.
It's off topic a bit, but EHRs are a mess. They are expensive, they are designed by computer geeks, not doctors, and they consume an excessive amount of physician time. It would seem to me that any electronic system that is so burdensome that docs are hiring scribes to do data entry is obviously a train wreck. I do not want my doctor to be looking at a computer screen during my office visit. I want his attention on me, not clicking boxes. EHRs contribute very little to patient care in most instances. Doctors are about ready to revolt over the issue. They are great for Medicare to do data ming, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanyBelle
Would this be allowed with HIPAA laws?
I think this should be posted in the pharmacy that "so and so pharmacist" will not prescribe certain drugs due to their ethical/religious beliefs.
By presenting the prescription to the pharmacy you are giving the pharmacist permission to consult with the doctor who wrote it. There is no HIPAA violation involved in the pharmacist calling the physician.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
Interesting discussion..
It seems members here are either on the side of individual rights for ALL individuals, or only individual rights for SOME individuals.
The latter seem to forget that the pharmacist did offer an alternative to the patient. They also seem to think sever punishment is the only remedy, and it's not sufficient to simply re-educate/train the pharmacist on one small point of company policy. I would guess, then, that they would also favor debtor's prison and capital punishment for stealing bread.
For those who feel the guy should find another profession, then you probably also feel nobody should go into the window washing/oddjobs business unless they were willing to wash windows on the 97th floor or clean old septic systems. If they can't do all odd jobs, then they shouldn't be allowed to do any.
As I have said several times, there is absolutely no moral ground to deny that prescription to the patient in the OP. None. Zero. Zilch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
and I am not a Ted Cruz fan or supporter, but everyone has a right to live life as they see fit based on religion or other beliefs. By your rules and beliefs it seems you would say Jews working in a meat market should be required to sell pork.
I would not expect a Jew to put himself in a position in which he might have to sell pork to a customer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciesmom
And if a Muslim waitress declined to accept your order for bacon with your pancakes at IHOP would you say the same thing?
And that isn't life threatning.
From my point of view, the waitress should not accept the job if she cannot provide service to any customer who walks in the door.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita
you obviously didn't read the outcome of this story. if you really believe so much in freedom, you would respect the freedom of the pharmacist who was practicing his beliefs and I hope with cleaner language.
There was no reason for the pharmacist to practice his "beliefs" since the drug was not being used to terminate a pregnancy electively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spazkat9696
True, but they would still need a release.
HIPAA does not require a release for your pharmacist to talk to your doctor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coschristi
Oh, I agree, actually. Firstly; I’m not sure what information they normally have & the only for sure instance that they would know the indication would be for a PRN order.
Doctors often put the diagnosis code right on the prescription. There is no reason to hide it from the pharmacist. The doctor and the pharmacist can share that information. However, it is wrong for the pharmacist to share it with anyone with no legitimate need to know it. That includes other patients in the pharmacy area. The patient in the OP apparently let people in line know what was happening. That is not a HIPAA violation either. She can tell her health information to anyone she wants to.
As a woman, why would I do business with a pharmacy that cannot meet my needs?
Yes, speaking as a woman and a consumer, it would be helpful info if they had a sign up saying that individual staff members could personally decide at their own discretion whether or not to fill my legal prescription. Then I could make a better informed decision as a consumer whether or not to give that store any of my business.
It is not his job to make moral judgements on the behalf of the client/patient. Particularly when he is not fully informed as to the individual situation. It IS his job to ensure the prescription does not conflict with other medications, that the prescription is legal and safe for the client.
And, what background do you have to make such a statement?
The SBoPs sets the regs and the companies set the policies backing what this pharmacist did
As I said earlier, I would not have done it, but he exercised his legal, moral and company policies backed right to refuse
I can't judge someone else or apologise for someone else's behavior. I can only state law and policy.
If you don't like it, petition your state pharmacy boards
No, the patient received an email from the pharmacy that her rx was ready after the original pharmacist transferred it.
from her fb post.
"Update: 6/23/18-
After I walked out of Walgreens Thursday night without my prescription I received email notification that my prescription was ready at location across town. Brian H. ultimately had it transferred to another location that had it in stock after I had left upset. Yesterday morning I went to my see my Dr for his help in making sure that pharmacist at the second location would give it me. I picked up my prescription from that Walgreens with no problems."
Note that she states she called her doctor to make sure she could get the rx at that location, after receiving the text. She didn't go to that location on her own and ask for her prescription there. So it's uncertain whether he did or did not try to tell her she could pick it up at another location or at another time. (Thanks to Fluffy for the new link, in it the patient states the pharmacist did give her alternatives) I have worked with many pharmacist and I don't think I've ever seen one simply refuse a prescription without offering an alternative. OTOH I have seen many patients too upset or angry to actually listen to what they are being told.
I was going off published news reports and not her personal facebook updates. In this case, if the pharmacist told her he was transferring it and she didn't hear, she's in the wrong. If he didn't tell her but then did it afterwords when corporate called him on it, he's in the wrong.
and I am not a Ted Cruz fan or supporter, but everyone has a right to live life as they see fit based on religion or other beliefs. By your rules and beliefs it seems you would say Jews working in a meat market should be required to sell pork.
A Jew working in a meat market that regularly sells pork? Yes, I'd expect them to sell the pork as part of their job. If they did not feel they could do so, I'd expect them to look for a different job. Not the same as saying that a Jewish owned Kosher meat market should be required to sell pork.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancaisDeutsch
That's a Jewish store serving Jewish people. I wouldn't expect pork there.
A public pharmacy is not a religious entity - it is a paid-for service to the public. You cannot impose your religious beliefs on other people in the public square.
It's like Kim Davis: Her job required her to issue gay marriage licenses. She chose not to do so. So that means that Kimmy should have had to find herself another job. Kim was never forced to do anything against her moral conscience because she could have quit the job. That's how it is.
If you don't like selling assault rifles, then don't work in a gun shop. That's the way it is. There are no other solutions.
As I read it, the woman couldn't go to another pharmacy because the original pharmacist wouldn't give her back her prescription. I think he eventually did, but I read some of the comments on this story and some women said that when this had happened to them, the pharmacist didn't give back the prescription and they were forced to go back to the doctor for another one.
The woman said she remained in the store crying for an hour until she was asked to leave.
I think the thing we're missing here is when you make a law, it covers everyone in the same situation.
A lot of people are saying the woman could just go to another pharmacist. Let's look at the case of Catholic hospitals.
A woman is giving birth. She wants her tubes tied after she gives birth and arranges that with her doctor. Unfortunately, the birth turns out to be a risky one and the woman is taken to the nearest hospital, which is a Catholic hospital. They refuse to let the doctor do the tubal ligation.
Or this woman could live in a town where there is only one hospital and the next nearest non-Catholic hospital is ninety miles away. Who sends a woman with a risky birth to a hospital ninety miles away when there's one right across the street?
Well, those who say a woman can just go to the next pharmacy or the next hospital have to understand that while they live in an area of multiple hospitals and pharmacies, other people don't. So when a law is passed that says a pharmacist can refuse to give out prescriptions he doesn't agree with, it affects not only women who live in large cities and towns, but also women who live in small towns and have a much greater distance to go before they get to the next pharmacy. That law that covers all women may sound trifling to people who live where there is a drugstore on every corner, but we need to realize it causes undue hardship to a number of other people who aren't as lucky to have more than one pharmacy or hospital in their town.
There is also the emotional aspect to this story. This is a woman who wanted her baby. I'm pro-choice, which means I want you to have a choice whether or not to have your baby and this woman obviously chose to do so. The heartache alone must have been unbelievable.
What if it were your spouse who was choosing to die because he was in tremendous pain and you were the one who had to pick up the prescription that he would use to kill himself (if you lived in one of the states that allowed this)? What if the pharmacist, somehow figuring out what was going on, decided he wouldn't give you the prescription? Would you be in any kind of mental condition to just walk out and drive away to find another pharmacist? I don't know about you, but I think I'd be a staggering, ragged wreck and in no condition to hunt up pharmacists trying to find one who could fill my prescription.
I can't see how anyone would have the heart to send this woman, who was so clearly upset, on a chase to find a pharmacist who would give her her prescription when she was already at a store with her prescription ready to go.
I did not read she stayed for an hour crying. If she did then that’s on her. Why would anyone stand in a pharmacy, with their 7 year old child, and cry for an hour? That’s just crazy.
Chances are the prescription was electronically transmitted from the doctors office to the pharmacy so there was no paper copy. She could have asked to have it changed to a different pharmacy. Also on the TV interview it was said she hadn’t lost the baby yet, but the doctor said it was unavoidable which is why she was getting the medication. She didn’t want to wait for it to terminate on its own. A call to the doctor would not have resolved her issue since she had not yet lost the baby.
Or she could just go to a different pharmacist and not make a big thing out of it. When you compromise your religious beliefs you start compromising everything. Although in this case, since the fetus had already died I'm not understanding what his issue is. I couldn't click on the link because I think my computer is dying. It won't load anything that has pictures.
The idea of going to another pharmacist doesn't work.
In a small town, there may be a limited selection of pharmacies. They may not be open at the hours that are needed. There are reasons why pharmacists are a profession and are licensed as such. Certain duties go along with it. Those duties include serving all customers who come in the door and not simply those that the pharmacist likes or wants to serve. State licensing imposes duties on individuals that are not imposed on common laborers. A license should not be given to someone who will not accept that responsibility.
If a person has strong religious convictions about dispensing any particular medication than a pharmacy that serves the public is not an appropriate work setting for him/her.
Its not a question of choice when there may be no choice for some customers.
I did not read she stayed for an hour crying. If she did then that’s on her. Why would anyone stand in a pharmacy, with their 7 year old child, and cry for an hour? That’s just crazy.
Chances are the prescription was electronically transmitted from the doctors office to the pharmacy so there was no paper copy. She could have asked to have it changed to a different pharmacy. Also on the TV interview it was said she hadn’t lost the baby yet, but the doctor said it was unavoidable which is why she was getting the medication. She didn’t want to wait for it to terminate on its own. A call to the doctor would not have resolved her issue since she had not yet lost the baby.
And why would someone dare to judge the emotional state of a woman who had just miscarried a very desired pregnancy.
The woman had been told by her doctor that there was no heartbeat, so yes, the baby was dead. The wait was for her pregnant body to realize that and to let go of the pregnancy, which in some cases can take a while. She chose to not prolong her agony but instead take a prescribed medication that would prompt her body to induce the contractions and not have to wait for however long it would take to occur on its own.
The idea of going to another pharmacist doesn't work.
In a small town, there may be a limited selection of pharmacies. They may not be open at the hours that are needed. There are reasons why pharmacists are a profession and are licensed as such. Certain duties go along with it. Those duties include serving all customers who come in the door and not simply those that the pharmacist likes or wants to serve. State licensing imposes duties on individuals that are not imposed on common laborers. A license should not be given to someone who will not accept that responsibility.
If a person has strong religious convictions about dispensing any particular medication than a pharmacy that serves the public is not an appropriate work setting for him/her.
Its not a question of choice when there may be no choice for some customers.
That’s irrelevant to this story. I’d also like someone to find this mythical town that fits this nightmare criteria that’s also open for late night emergencies which people keep posting about. BTW that wasn’t the case here. A quick look for pharmacy locations in her town shows there are a lot of choices.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
