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.
Status:
"It's WARY, or LEERY (weary means tired)"
(set 20 days ago)
Location: A Yankee in northeast TN
16,147 posts, read 21,288,283 times
Reputation: 43929
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53
The article said there were two other employees there that could have helped her, to do that, they must have been pharmacists also.
Journalist these days don't always check their facts before printing. Not doubting there were two other pharmacy employees, but in most states the pharmacist, and only the pharmacist, has to verify the prescription is ready for the patient before it's released to the registers. Unless this is a very busy store the chances of more than one pharmacist on duty are slim to none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luckyd609
Pharmacists that have ethical problems about filling certain prescriptions need to find another line of work.
That's a bit like saying a doctor who won't perform abortions, or a plastic surgeon who refuses crazy body modifications need to find another line of work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCZ
Does this even apply after a miscarriage? The fetus was already dead. You can't murder something that's dead. And don't say the pharmacist didn't know. The patient informed him.
Patients lie. Not that this woman did, but pharmacist hear a lot of stories and deal with a lot of crazy people.
Regardless, he's within his rights to refuse to fill the prescription and he followed the company policy so it's unlikely he'll be fired.
There were other employees there who could have helped her, but she wasn't given that option.
The pharmacist did not follow company policy and should be fired.
Most likely those were pharmacy technicians. They can get the meds, put them in the bottle, and label them but before they can be given to the patient the pharmacist has to check to make sure the correct medication is being issued and it matches the doctor’s order.
Seems like he could've handled this differently so it didn't blow up in the news, yet still been within his rights and stay true to his religious beliefs.
He could've said the prescription would be ready the following morning during another pharmacist's shift.
He could've said it's not available, try the pharmacy across the street or the pharmacy in the grocery.
Just as she shouldn't have to give a reason why she got it, he shouldn't have to give a reason why he won't dispense it.
Seems like he could've handled this differently so it didn't blow up in the news, yet still been within his rights and stay true to his religious beliefs.
He could've said the prescription would be ready the following morning during another pharmacist's shift.
He could've said it's not available, try the pharmacy across the street or the pharmacy in the grocery.
Just as she shouldn't have to give a reason why she got it, he shouldn't have to give a reason why he won't dispense it.
Or he could have confirmed the diagnosis with her doctor, instead of assuming the medication was being used for an elective abortion and that the patient was lying.
There were other employees there who could have helped her, but she wasn't given that option.
The pharmacist did not follow company policy and should be fired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spazkat9696
Most likely those were pharmacy technicians. They can get the meds, put them in the bottle, and label them but before they can be given to the patient the pharmacist has to check to make sure the correct medication is being issued and it matches the doctor’s order.
Pharmacy technicians cannot fill specific medications (i.e. Schedule II) and cannot override interactions (i.e. drug-drug interactions, allergies to medications). Pharmacists handle these responsibilities. They also check behind pharmacy technicians ensuring prescription were filled properly.
Or he could have confirmed the diagnosis with her doctor, instead of assuming the medication was being used for an elective abortion and that the patient was lying.
All doctors assume all patients are liars, why shouldn't pharmacists?
Or do you hold the drug pushers to a higher standard?
Status:
"It's WARY, or LEERY (weary means tired)"
(set 20 days ago)
Location: A Yankee in northeast TN
16,147 posts, read 21,288,283 times
Reputation: 43929
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG
Seems like he could've handled this differently so it didn't blow up in the news, yet still been within his rights and stay true to his religious beliefs.
He could've said the prescription would be ready the following morning during another pharmacist's shift.
He could've said it's not available, try the pharmacy across the street or the pharmacy in the grocery.
Just as she shouldn't have to give a reason why she got it, he shouldn't have to give a reason why he won't dispense it.
I don't think pharmacist are allowed to lie about the availability of a drug (saying they are out when they aren't), that does seem like it would be a policy violation.
He probably did tell her she'd have to come back and she probably got insistent and demanding at that point. People dealing with a lot of emotional stress can get very unreasonable and extremely belligerent when they feel like they aren't getting what they need. They stop listening the moment they realize they aren't getting exactly what they want.
I work retail near a funeral home and a hospital, people dealing with grief sometimes behave in ways they would never otherwise do under normal circumstances. Their anger at their loss spills out and it doesn't always take much to set off an emotional tirade, from reading her emotional fb post and seeing the lack of understanding of what is and isn't permissible, it seems likely to me this is what happened.
I think the pharmacist was in the wrong. It is not our place to judge or decide. If you cannot separate your personal beliefs from your job then you shouldn’t be in that field. For example I am personally pro life and a Christian but I fully support the right to choose for someone else. Your beliefs are just that - yours - and not meant to be forced on someone else especially in this situation.
Then why didn't she ask one of THEM after she was refused by the first?
Probably pharmacy clerks. Just because they worked there doesn't mean they could dispense.
It's not the customer's responsibility to know company policy and to figure out how she can get her Rx filled. The employee is the one who broke the policy.
Quote:
Despite the law in Arizona, Walgreens told local 10 News that company policy requires an objecting pharmacist to refer the prescription to another pharmacist or manager on duty. That is not what Arteaga said she experienced, even though there were two other employees who could have helped her.
Status:
"It's WARY, or LEERY (weary means tired)"
(set 20 days ago)
Location: A Yankee in northeast TN
16,147 posts, read 21,288,283 times
Reputation: 43929
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
It's not the customer's responsibility to know company policy and to figure out how she can get her Rx filled. The employee is the one who broke the policy.
Again, it's highly unlikely those two employees were able to legally dispense her meds. Just because that's what she thought doesn't make it so.
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.
