Druggists refuse to give out birth control pill

[chris817]

Druggists refuse to give out pill

By Charisse Jones, USA TODAY

For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.

"I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."

Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.

Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.

In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views.

Some advocates for women's reproductive rights are worried that such actions by pharmacists and legislatures are gaining momentum.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision in September that would block federal funds from local, state and federal authorities if they make health care workers perform, pay for or make referrals for abortions.

"We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

"The explosion in the number of legislative initiatives and the number of individuals who are just saying, 'We're not going to fill that prescription for you because we don't believe in it' is astonishing," she said.

Pharmacists have moved to the front of the debate because of such drugs as the "morning-after" pill, which is emergency contraception that can prevent fertilization if taken within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse.

While some pharmacists cite religious reasons for opposing birth control, others believe life begins with fertilization and see hormonal contraceptives, and the morning-after pill in particular, as capable of causing an abortion.

"I refuse to dispense a drug with a significant mechanism to stop human life," says Karen Brauer, president of the 1,500-member Pharmacists for Life International. Brauer was fired in 1996 after she refused to refill a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in the Cincinnati suburb of Delhi Township.

Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the Texas Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March. In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in Denton wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a rape victim.

In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she missed a pill because of the delay.

She filed a complaint after the incident occurred in the summer of 2002 in Menomonie, Wis. Christopher Klein, spokesman for Wisconsin's Department of Regulation and Licensing, says the issue is that Noesen didn't transfer or return the prescription. A hearing was held in October. The most severe punishment would be revoking Noesen's pharmacist license, but Klein says that is unlikely.

Susan Winckler, spokeswoman and staff counsel for the American Pharmacists Association, says it is rare that pharmacists refuse to fill a prescription for moral reasons. She says it is even less common for a pharmacist to refuse to provide a referral.

"The reality is every one of those instances is one too many," Winckler says. "Our policy supports stepping away but not obstructing."

In the 1970s, because of abortion and sterilization, some states adopted refusal clauses to allow certain health care professionals to opt out of providing those services. The issue re-emerged in the 1990s, says Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive issues.

Sonfield says medical workers, insurers and employers increasingly want the right to refuse certain services because of medical developments, such as the "morning-after" pill, embryonic stem-cell research and assisted suicide.

"The more health care items you have that people feel are controversial, some people are going to object and want to opt out of being a part of that," he says.

In Wisconsin, a petition drive is underway to revive a proposed law that would protect pharmacists who refuse to prescribe drugs they believe could cause an abortion or be used for assisted suicide.

"It just recognizes that pharmacists should not be forced to choose between their consciences and their livelihoods," says Matt Sande of Pro-Life Wisconsin. "They should not be compelled to become parties to abortion."

[bigpoppanils]

or be used for assisted suicide.

oh lord

drano can be used for that. i wonder if the state will ban drano.

[intoxikated]

Ugh

[mahalomenehune]

druggists as in pharmacists, not drug dealers, right?

[kramadas]

druggists as in pharmacists, not drug dealers, right?

No, its the drug dealers - didn't you read the article???

[mahalomenehune]

I could see a story like this happening in foreign soil, but not us soil

[siceone]

There's nothing wrong with it if the company says ok

[mahalomenehune]

No, its the drug dealers - didn't you read the article???

no no i did i just got confused becuz the article also talks about pharmacists i promise i read it

[mahalomenehune]

There's nothing wrong with it if the company says ok

if ur a republican yea

[chris817]

There's nothing wrong with it if the company says ok

But does the company?

If not

The Pharmacists don't answer to a law above the laws of men. They work for Sav-On. The doctors are the ones who make medical decisions because they went to medical school, whereas they were transferred from the counter where people drop off film.

[siceone]

But does the company?

If not

The Pharmacists don't answer to a law above the laws of men. They work for Sav-On. The doctors are the ones who make medical decisions because they went to medical school, whereas they were transferred from the counter where people drop off film.

The problem with your reasoning is that the pharmacy owes no duty to carry or sell every drug that a doctor prescribes. the pharmacist is under no duty to sell you anything if they don't want to. There's no Law period. The pharmacy is a business. they are in the business of dispensing pharmacuiticals. they are Private. Which means they can do anything thing they want if it doesn't cause harm or cause a dangerous situation. hell they could do nothing they have no DUTY to sell the plan b pill.

your Characherization of Pharmacists is assanine at best and just fucking stupid at worst you have to go through 4-5 years of school to be a pharmacist and you have to be licensed by the state in which you operate. you don't get TRANSFERED from anywhere. Pharmacists have to know everything about the drugs they sell and the doseage.

She didn't make a medical decision she made a moral business judgement.

[siceone]

if ur a republican yea

you must be new

[chris817]

The problem with your reasoning is that the pharmacy owes no duty to carry or sell every drug that a doctor prescribes. the pharmacist is under no duty to sell you anything if they don't want to. There's no Law period. The pharmacy is a business. they are in the business of dispensing pharmacuiticals. they are Private. Which means they can do anything thing they want if it doesn't cause harm or cause a dangerous situation. hell they could do nothing they have no DUTY to sell the plan b pill.

your Characherization of Pharmacists is assanine at best and just fucking stupid at worst you have to go through 4-5 years of school to be a pharmacist and you have to be licensed by the state in which you operate. you don't get TRANSFERED from anywhere. Pharmacists have to know everything about the drugs they sell and the doseage.

She didn't make a medical decision she made a moral business judgement.

Thats fine but if abc pharmacy does not sell the pill i agree with you. If abc sells the item, where a customer has always gotten her prescription there and a pharmacist decides against it (on his or her moral believes) that is wrong.

my characherization was a joke, not that i thought anyone would take that seriously. I guess i was wrong

[mahalomenehune]

you must be new

what are most people republican here? should i of not said that?

[siceone]

Thats fine but if abc pharmacy does not sell the pill i agree with you. If abc sells the item, where a customer has always gotten her prescription there and a pharmacist decides against it (on his or her moral believes) that is wrong.

my characherization was a joke, not that i thought anyone would take that seriously. I guess i was wrong

find me a law that says you HAVE to sell things to people if you stock it

[chris817]

find me a law that says you HAVE to sell things to people if you stock it

Not that i know of; but your nitpicking, its called his/her Job. You do not make moral belief decisions at work. Would you defend the companys decision to fire the employee if this happened?

[siceone]

Not that i know of; but your nitpicking, its called his/her Job. You do not make moral belief decisions at work. Would you defend the companys decision to fire the employee if this happened?

yes I would defend the companies decision to fire the employee if he refused someone service. but they company didn't. and it's not nitpicking this is the whole point. the mayor of chicago is trying to force people to sell things which is Unconstitutional.

[chris817]

yes I would defend the companies decision to fire the employee if he refused someone service. but they company didn't. and it's not nitpicking this is the whole point. the mayor of chicago is trying to force people to sell things which is Unconstitutional.

You do NOT have a constitutional right to tell those women what to do about abortion and birth control. You have the right of free speech, but you have no right to tell them they can not do something that is completely legal.

It's the pharmacist's responsibility to fill a doctor-ordered prescription. Just because they don't believe in it doesn't mean they should do it. If they don't want to do their job, then they should find another one. Some women don't even take birth control to control birth. Lots of women take them for other reasons, such as for the treatment of acne, regulating menstration, or for endometriosis.

Here's a clue: NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN YOUR WACKO BELIEFS! Quit forcing them on us!

[mahalomenehune]

You do NOT have a constitutional right to tell those women what to do about abortion and birth control. You have the right of free speech, but you have no right to tell them they can not do something that is completely legal.

It's the pharmacist's responsibility to fill a doctor-ordered prescription. Just because they don't believe in it doesn't mean they should do it. If they don't want to do their job, then they should find another one. Some women don't even take birth control to control birth. Lots of women take them for other reasons, such as for the treatment of acne, regulating menstration, or for endometriosis.

Here's a clue: NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN YOUR WACKO BELIEFS! Quit forcing them on us!

Why cant he say anything, isnt it still under free speech?

[siceone]

You do NOT have a constitutional right to tell those women what to do about abortion and birth control. You have the right of free speech, but you have no right to tell them they can not do something that is completely legal.

It's the pharmacist's responsibility to fill a doctor-ordered prescription. Just because they don't believe in it doesn't mean they should do it. If they don't want to do their job, then they should find another one. Some women don't even take birth control to control birth. Lots of women take them for other reasons, such as for the treatment of acne, regulating menstration, or for endometriosis.

Here's a clue: NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN YOUR WACKO BELIEFS! Quit forcing them on us!

This is a perfect example of you lucid stupidity. Im not trying to force anything on anyone. THe Constitution and the laws of the federal government have say nothing about a business have to sell people anything. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SELL ANYTHING TO ANYONE EVER!!!

You don't take the damn plan b pill for any of those reasons you stated above.

this is the reason we have the rule of law not the rule of your sissy emotions.... Sissy

[chris817]

You don't take the damn plan b pill for any of those reasons you stated above.

this is the reason we have the rule of law not the rule of your sissy emotions.... Sissy

Here's a news flash for you, a lot of women take the pill for non sexual purposes. I hope the next time you need some rubbers or your girl gets her pill you get rejected. Let's see how much you defend this nonsense then.

[sobeton]

pharmacists may have the right to refuse to fill a prescription; however they have no right to retain the prescription itself or refuse to transfer it. retaining or refusing to transfer a prescription, can lead to serious legal ramifications.

if a pharmacist and/or pharmacies want to take the moral high ground, then so be it. the bottom line is birth control is a big business, so the only ones getting screwed ultimately are the pharmacist and/or pharmacies.

Jeez what’s next ?will people refuse to sell condoms, aids drugs, etc.?

[mahalomenehune]

Here's a news flash for you, a lot of women take the pill for non sexual purposes. I hope the next time you need some rubbers or your girl gets her pill you get rejected. Let's see how much you defend this nonsense then.

why would they take it for non sexual purposes?

[sobeton]

non sexual purposes where doctors would prescribe the pill; would be to help control menstrual cramps, controlling bleeding during periods, address hormonal imbalances, etc. it's also been shown that the pill, can help reduce the risk of certain types of cancer related to women. there are valid medical uses for the pill; which are often overlooked.

[mahalomenehune]

o i see alright