Re: Patient, not pharmacist, gets to decide what's right

Dear Hawki,

This issue is a bit on the mature side, at least a year old, but it stems
from a case (I can't recall the state) that a physician wrote a Rx for
RU486, The morning after pill, and the pharmacist not only refused to fill
it on religious grounds, but also destroyed the written Rx.
It's one thing to direct the patient to another pharmacy saying they wont
fill it on religious grounds and send them to another pharmacy. It's another
thing to break federal law by destroying the prescription.
I like to think I maintain a middle of the road view of things, that
extremist behavior in either direction, left or right is tearing the country
apart. It's the laws that keep Peoria from becoming downtown Baghdad.
Intentional destruction of a prescription by a pharmacist is breaking the
law, period.
If the pharmacist wants a medical practice that caters to Christian
fundamentalism, he need a little bit more schooling and he can open his
practice to whatever clients he wishes. Being a pharmacist, he has no idea
what the back story is, (i do believe it was a rape and a precautionary
step) so a pharmacist needs to look at interactions and then fill the
bottle. She (the patient) should not have to under go explaining the
embarrassing situation to some hard head on the other side of the counter,
and despite all this Hippa garbage, whatever friends and neighbors might be
milling about, taking notes.
The most frightening aspect of the whole thing is the current administration
is behind the limited medical training of the pharmacist (where it serves
them). If we had less babies having babies and entire section of social ills
would come crashing down, never to be heard from again.
One can only wonder how may fetuses have been destroyed by the wild Bush
daughters...
The next step is anti viral drugs, after all the "homo's" are an abomination
before god. Sickle cell drugs would be next. It's only black people after
all. Once headed down this slippery slope, where does it end? No antibiotics
because you look too jewish? You speak with an accent, your skin is not
"pink enough", you get no drugs here.
Where does it end?
They need to shut up and count the pills, the patient already has a
physician and as much as they want, a pharmacist is not a doctor, and has no
right to pass judgement on a patient.
Didn't mean to write a novel. Hope all's well with you and yours. Even if
you disagree, you know I still luv ya.

All my best--og


<Hawki63@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ziqIh.372$JZ3.289@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"LooseCannon" <lambchop.LC@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:esss4k$fqn$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Top posted:
Absolute fuckin insanity to write a 'conscience clause' into any laws.
Since when do PHARMACISTS need protection in the law? It's PATIENTS! In
this article, this one part summed it up for me:
"It's not appropriate for a
pharmacist to turn a patient away over his or her own feelings about a
drug. And after a point, a pharmacist experiencing such deep conflicts
should wonder whether this is the best field to be in, where these
choices are not yours to make."

Yep, if they arent up to filling a legal med, they need to find another
job.

This isnt even political correctness. Its just another subversive way to
undermine the reproductive rights. But what could come out of it could
far exceed reproductive issues.


are you suggesting..then..that doctors..and nurses for that matter...be
required by law to participate or perform abortions??


it is actually the same thing...and no..doctors and nurses have never been
forced to participate in abortions



The world has gone mad.

Sean C wrote:

Basu: Patient, not pharmacist, gets to decide what's right By REKHA BASU
REGISTER COLUMNIST

March 9, 2007
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070309/OPINION
01/703090343/1035/OPINION

When you hear the term "conscientious objector," you think of people
refusing to serve in an unjust war - of someone so committed to a
principle, he or she is willing to put life or body on the line to
challenge it.

But in Iowa, there's a move afoot to extend our definition of
conscientious objection to personal interactions between a pharmacist
and a client.

It's a dangerous one.

A proposed rule change by the Iowa Board of Pharmacy Examiners would
authorize pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions to which they
have moral or ethical objections. The pharmacist would first have to
notify the pharmacy owner and tell the patient another way to get the
medication.

But that's not much help when the next-closest pharmacy is 40 miles
away. It's also demeaning for a patient to have to face a pharmacist's
implied condemnation over something so private.

In most cases, that disapproval has been over pregnancy-prevention
drugs. Around the country, pharmacists have gone so far as to refuse to
transfer a prescription to another pharmacy, or even return it to the
patient.

Any grown woman who has been refused by a pharmacist or doctor while
seeking birth control knows how humiliating that can be. As a link in
the chain of medical command, pharmacists have a responsibility to
dispense medications to patients who present legitimate prescriptions.
They can't pick and choose which ones to fill unless the prescription
was wrongly written and could endanger a patient's health. In that
case, the prescribing doctor should be consulted.

But when the morals of pharmacist and patient conflict, it's the
patient whose value system must prevail. It's not appropriate for a
pharmacist to turn a patient away over his or her own feelings about a
drug. And after a point, a pharmacist experiencing such deep conflicts
should wonder whether this is the best field to be in, where these
choices are not yours to make.

Writing a conscience clause into the law could open up a Pandora's box
of risky possibilities. A Christian Scientist might refuse to fill
certain medicines in the belief that only God is the ultimate healer. A
vegetarian could refuse to fill a prescription for a drug tested on
animals. In Dallas, Texas, a pharmacist refused to dispense Ritalin for
a child with Attention Deficit Disorder. It could turn awfully
meddlesome.

Jane DeWitt teaches Pharmacy Law and Ethics at the Drake College of
Pharmacy. She tells students not to judge or put themselves in the way
of patient rights. But she thinks there is a place for pharmacists to
act on conscience. She asks: What if it's not contraceptives but a
lethal-injection solution for the death penalty?

Withholding a lethal-injection prescription would at least be a
symbolic act against the state, not a subversion of individual rights.
But in either case, if you think the laws are unjust, lobby to change
them.

Pharmacist conscience clauses have been introduced in at least 23
states. Some would allow a pharmacist to refuse as long as another
pharmacist on duty filled the prescription.

Other states have gone in the opposite direction to protect patient
rights. In California, Missouri and New Jersey, laws have been proposed
to require pharmacies to fill any legal prescription. Illinois'
governor issued an emergency executive order requiring pharmacies to
fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill if they stock it. He's
been sued over it.

If people are being reasonable, the occasional true moral conflict
could be handled quietly and discreetly without jeopardizing a
pharmacist's convictions or embarrassing or inconveniencing a patient.
Unfortunately, this movement has the potential to devolve into just
another weapon in the arsenal aimed at undermining reproductive rights.

This rule should be rejected.




.

Loading