STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

lindsayp · Kenneth Cole

Pharmacists disciplined for not filling birth control

lynnie · Chanel

i'm torn about this. I think the best compromise should be to always have a physician on hand that is not opposed to administering these pills. I don't think someone should be forced to give them out per se, even if it is the law and i'm opposed to any company that says otherwise, but i can see how it might be really hard for them to personally do so.

Maddie · Coach

I feel like if someone isn't comfortable doing their job, they should find an alternate form of employment. I'd be slightly more understanding if they were handing out RU-486 or something, but they're not.

-- Edited by Maddie at 22:41, 2005-11-30

blubirde · Chanel

I might have more sympathy for these pharmacists if they owned their own pharmacy or something similar. Basically, I'm shopping at Walgreens, not at Pharmacist X's store. As a customer of Walgreens, I expect certain professional standards. If I was shopping at Pharmacist X's store, I would expect his/her own standards/rules.

It's just like being an attorney. If I wanted the big bucks, I'd have to sacrifice to get them by working for clients I don't morally agree with at big firms. As is, I've made a decision to go an alternate route. My pocketbook suffers but my ethics and morals don't. You don't like Walgreen's rules? Don't work at Walgreens. Easy as that.

Andrea Julia · Coach

So...

1. These pharmacists work in a pharmacy in IL that sells contraceptives and therefore must sell emergency birth control.

2. They got in trouble for not dispensing emergency birth control specifically.

That leads me to believe that they are (were) dispensing regular old birth control with no argument. What I'm wondering is what religion believes that it is okay to dispense other types of birth control but not the morning after pill? I know one prevents a new life from happening and one (arguably) ends a new life that has started to develop, but most mainstream religions oppose birth control all together. If they are so religious that they won't hand over emergency birth control, they should be so religious that they won't give out any birth control. And therefore, they should not be working at the pharmacy in Walgreens in the first place because there is no way they can work there and not be involved in the sale of emergency birth control. If they were at the counter and someone came up with their prescription and they handed it over to another pharmacist to fill, how is that any better than if they had filled it themself? They still had a role in it.

blubirde · Chanel

Is it weird that all these pharmacists are all of a sudden refusing to fill Plan B? It's not like the drug just started getting prescriped. What's the deal? Is it just that the media is just now covering it? I'm at a loss...

bumblebee · Coach

good point, bluebirde, on the choice of employment issue. i think you're so right about that.

i find it a bit prejudicial that they chose to run this random stock photo along with the article--i am assuming these two aren't the actual pharmacists who were disciplined? i know that sometimes wire stories have to use stock photos when names aren't released, but did they have to choose the one of the older gray-haired white man to illustrate "those who have a moral objection to dispensing birth control"? just a personal opinion, onbviously, but i think that choice is a tiny bit questionable.

sephorablue · Marc Jacobs

I think if it is a part of their job description they should do it, and their personal beliefs don't get to enter into it. It's not like their employer asked them to do something which was outside of their job description which they considered unethical, or which was an obvious deviation from generally held ethical standards as applied to their job duties. It's a routine part of their job duties. If you know that you will be asked to do something as part of your job that violates your principles, don't choose that f**king job. It's that simple.

scarlett · Marc Jacobs

I agree. They chose to enter this profession, and by entering it, they must fulfill their duties to dispense medications. Their personal beliefs shouldn't come into play.

halleybird · Hermes

scarlett wrote:

I agree. They chose to enter this profession, and by entering it, they must fulfill their duties to dispense medications. Their personal beliefs shouldn't come into play.

seriously. I mean, pharmacy school is very tough, and it isn't quick. Had they never considered this?

PS - maybe this is off-topic, but is the guy in the photo one of the ones refusing? If not, running his photo with the story is very unethical.

scarlett · Marc Jacobs

I dunno if that's the same pharmacist...it's possible that picture is from a stock photos archive. I don't know a lot about journalism in that way but would that be questionable, ethically?

bumblebee · Coach

halleybird wrote:

scarlett wrote: I agree. They chose to enter this profession, and by entering it, they must fulfill their duties to dispense medications. Their personal beliefs shouldn't come into play. seriously. I mean, pharmacy school is very tough, and it isn't quick. Had they never considered this? PS - maybe this is off-topic, but is the guy in the photo one of the ones refusing? If not, running his photo with the story is very unethical.

oh good--i'm glad you commented on this, too. i did earlier. i didn't know it was technically unethical, but i do question the choice, because it's at least misleading and prejudicial.

halleybird · Hermes

scarlett wrote:

I dunno if that's the same pharmacist...it's possible that picture is from a stock photos archive. I don't know a lot about journalism in that way but would that be questionable, ethically?

I think it's definitely ethically questionable -- if I were that guy, I would be pretty mad about being pictured with that story. A lot of people skim headlines and photos without reading the text. If I see "Pharmacists disciplined over contraceptives rule violation" and his pic, my first thought will be that he was disciplined, not that it was a stock photo.

Technically, it borders on false light, because it implies that the man in the photo was disciplined at his job, which he likely was not. I doubt he'd win a lawsuit, because he'd have to prove his reputation and earning potential were damaged, and he probably signed a release for that photo anyway. But it's one of those "grey areas" I talk to my students about all the time -- when a publication places its interests (having a photo to go with the story) over the interests of people who haven't done anything wrong.

from Poynter.org:

"In false light suits, the facts in a story can be true. It's the implication of the facts that counts. Such suits, not allowed in some states, often involve less serious situations and smaller verdicts than libel cases.

For example, a story in West Virginia about sexual harassment was illustrated with a photo of a female miner who had not sued anyone. She was correctly identified, but the photo created the false implication that she had sued."

nicoley · Coach

scarlett wrote:

I agree. They chose to enter this profession, and by entering it, they must fulfill their duties to dispense medications. Their personal beliefs shouldn't come into play.

I dont know how i didnt come across this post earlier, but I am actually in Pharmacy School right now, and Before the quarter ended I had a big group presenation I gave specifically on this topic, and we had a big class discussion on this and how people felt. There are alot of things that should be considered about this topic.

1. The only Contraceptive situations we see in the news are the ones that are not handled properly by pharmacists. As in the situations that are being handled correctly are not spread across newspapers, etc..

2. If I were to be totally unbiased, and this is basically the consensus of our class.. That it is ok for a pharmacist to not want to fill a prescription, however, it should be handled properly in that another pharmacist working could fill it, basically, the patient could still be given the prescription, it just doesnt have to be THAT pharmacist that gives it the patient.

3. Heres my feelings...As pharmacists, and pharmacy students, we are given this education so that when we get out into the real world we can use our PROFESSIONAL judgement. Now that does not include ethical judgement. The only time we should refuse to fill a prescription is if it is not in the best interest of the patient, or would harm the patient, or does not follow their health regimen. And that is where our judgement lies... making sure that the best interest of the patient is met.

atlgirl · Gucci

it is ok for a pharmacist to not want to fill a prescription, however, it should be handled properly in that another pharmacist working could fill it, basically, the patient could still be given the prescription, it just doesnt have to be THAT pharmacist that gives it the patient.

I'm sorry, nicoley013, but I disagree. If you - or anyone - takes a job and the duties of that job clash with their moral/ethical beliefs, then that person has two choices. Do the job anyway, though it may trouble the conscience, or find another job. What happens if there's only one pharmacist on duty and that pharm. doesn't want to fill the scrip? What if someone called out sick and there's no other pharm. there? Or the other pharm. is on lunch break, or had to leave because of an emergency, or something...I can't see instituting "another pharmacist will fill your scrip if the first one disagrees with you morally" being a feasible solution to this.

If I took a retail job, and a woman wanted to buy a pair of pants, but my religious beliefs indicated that I felt women should only wear skirts and dresses, and I then refused to sell to her, what would you say about that? It's okay because another SA will sell the pants to her? Obviously this is not as life-affecting as contraception, but the same principle applies. I wouldn't go work with a Neo-Nazi group because I don't support what they believe in. I wouldn't go work for Peta because I don't support what they do - not that they are anti-fur, but I can't stomach their tactics. And if I needed the morning after pill, and the pharm. at my local Walgreens refused to give it to me, I'd be mad as hell.

nicoley · Coach

Atlgirl... I agree with what you said... maybe I didnt convey what I was trying to say correctly. I think what you are saying about only being one pharmacist and no one to fill the scripts etc.. Falls in the same line as using your professional opinion.. and whats in the best interest of the patient... As a pharmacist you need to make sure the patient leaves with the medicine they need, as long as it will not harm them. I agree that ethical issues should not get in the way of our job. I dont agree that a pharmacist should throw their ethical issues in the face of the patient, and if they for some reason refuse to fill it, i feel it is their professional duty to make sure they recieve their medication, if there is no other pharmacist to fill the script, then i agree that that pharmacist must fill it.

tina242 · Kate Spade

I agree with the above posts - in a nutshell, if you don't agree with the duties that the job entails, don't do the job. I'd be outraged if a pharmacist refused to fill my prescription due to his/her moral/religious beliefs. Your job is to fill my prescription, and you refuse? Can you imagine trying to buy condoms and having the cashier refuse to sell them to you?

I work in insurance and I can't refuse to write a policy (be it home, auto, health, life, etc.) b/c of personal beliefs. I just wouldn't - it's my job. In example, we have a household with lesbians with an adopted child. Our regional office tried to give us trouble for that, stating they're not married and shouldn't get the same discounts married couples get. I was shocked. They ended up getting the discounts, but what if someone refused to write the homeowners insurance due to their religious beliefs?

And AndreaJulia, that's an interesting point - it does seem hypocritical to fill a prescription for birth control but not for emergency contraception. There does seem to be quite a few people out there who are ok with birth control but not ok with abortion, and emergency contraception is often viewed as a form of abortion.