2008 Woodie Awards
The Rise of Religious Pharmacists
Lindsay Wertenberger
Issue date: 8/27/08 Section: Commentary
The 2008 election cycle is bringing talk about healthcare to the forefront, raising issues of affordability and access to health insurance. Although it is important that such pressing issues be held in the spotlight, such an emphasis has lead to decreased focus on other important related issues. Currently, the simple ability for a patient to have a prescription filled for drugs his or her doctor deems necessary is being threatened by a group called Pharmacists for Life.
Pharmacists for Life is a radical yet rapidly growing group of pharmacists who believe that their work should be a reflection of their religious or personal beliefs. In other words, if they don't believe in contraception, they could refuse to dispense it. The group's website cites a 2007 Papal address calling upon Catholic pharmacists to "conscientiously object" to provide products that bring about abortion. The Pharmacists for Life website links to hundreds of editorials and YouTube clips to attack its opponents. Some examples: "Barry Hussein's (Obama) Voting Record for INFANTICIDE" or "WIC (Women, Infants and Children project) teams up with largest abortion chain, refers kids for execution." Pharmacists caught refusing to fill prescriptions are lauded as heroes, such as the "Walgreens Four," fighting their battles "in the home state of the Dictator of the Midwest, Guv 'Slobodan' Blagojevich" (in case you were wondering, the "totalitarian abortoholic Serb" refers to Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich). All opponents are labeled "abortoholics," and the aforementioned bigoted and factually incorrect rhetoric is by no means limited to a few areas of the PFL site.
What's the big deal? As non-threatening as a fringe group of pharmacists may seem, may seem, their extreme and scientifically (not to mention grammatically) flawed teachings are part of a growing movement. More important, the law is on their side in several states. According to the National Women's Law Center, four states (Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota) have laws that either declare pharmacist refusal to be legal or protect a pharmacist from any employment consequences which may occur from refusing to fill a prescription based on personal beliefs. Ten more states have placed bills with similar measures on the docket for the 2008 legislative session.
Our prescription system has a pretty simple set of duties. A doctor examines a patient, considers symptoms and medical history, determines the best course of action for treating the patient and writes prescriptions for any necessary medications. The pharmacist double-checks for any potential drug interactions and fills the prescription. In states without patient protections in place for instances of pharmacist refusal, the pharmacist is under no obligation to find another pharmacist or pharmacy that will fill the prescription for the turned away customer/patient.
Sometimes drugs such as the birth control pill are prescribed for methods other than contraception. Patients are sometimes prescribed "The Pill" for ovarian cysts or irregular menstruation, so a pharmacist might even be refusing a medication to a woman who isn't using it in a way he might deem immoral.
Here it becomes obvious the purpose of a prescription is not a pharmacist's business. It's certainly not something to ask along with insurance information. One person's guess as to whether a drug will be used for "acceptable" or "unacceptable" purposes cannot be a part of the process of filling a prescription. Patients should not be turned away or forced to travel from pharmacy to pharmacy simply to obtain medicine.
Problems with pharmacist refusal are exacerbated in the case of emergency contraception. The FDA's conditions for approval of sales of Plan B require that it be kept behind the pharmacists's counter. Since time is a factor in its ability to prevent pregnancy, the suggested 72 hour window for effective use of emergency contraception doesn't wait for a complaint to be filed with a state's pharmacy board and sanctions to be levied.
People of faiths that prohibit drinking probably shouldn't work in bars. People with certain personal beliefs on modesty might not wish to seek employment in an establishment with cleavage-bearing uniforms. People who wish to act on a belief that they should not dispense certain medications should not work behind a pharmacy counter and take the place of someone who will do the job. Obviously contacting congressmen and state legislators is important to ensure that patient rights are protected, but until those are successfully in place, the National Women's Law Center Pharmacy Refusal Project suggests that anyone either find out in advance if their pharmacy allows pharmacist refusal or keep emergency contraception on hand in case it is needed.
Wertenberger is a Government senior.
Pharmacists for Life is a radical yet rapidly growing group of pharmacists who believe that their work should be a reflection of their religious or personal beliefs. In other words, if they don't believe in contraception, they could refuse to dispense it. The group's website cites a 2007 Papal address calling upon Catholic pharmacists to "conscientiously object" to provide products that bring about abortion. The Pharmacists for Life website links to hundreds of editorials and YouTube clips to attack its opponents. Some examples: "Barry Hussein's (Obama) Voting Record for INFANTICIDE" or "WIC (Women, Infants and Children project) teams up with largest abortion chain, refers kids for execution." Pharmacists caught refusing to fill prescriptions are lauded as heroes, such as the "Walgreens Four," fighting their battles "in the home state of the Dictator of the Midwest, Guv 'Slobodan' Blagojevich" (in case you were wondering, the "totalitarian abortoholic Serb" refers to Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich). All opponents are labeled "abortoholics," and the aforementioned bigoted and factually incorrect rhetoric is by no means limited to a few areas of the PFL site.
What's the big deal? As non-threatening as a fringe group of pharmacists may seem, may seem, their extreme and scientifically (not to mention grammatically) flawed teachings are part of a growing movement. More important, the law is on their side in several states. According to the National Women's Law Center, four states (Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota) have laws that either declare pharmacist refusal to be legal or protect a pharmacist from any employment consequences which may occur from refusing to fill a prescription based on personal beliefs. Ten more states have placed bills with similar measures on the docket for the 2008 legislative session.
Our prescription system has a pretty simple set of duties. A doctor examines a patient, considers symptoms and medical history, determines the best course of action for treating the patient and writes prescriptions for any necessary medications. The pharmacist double-checks for any potential drug interactions and fills the prescription. In states without patient protections in place for instances of pharmacist refusal, the pharmacist is under no obligation to find another pharmacist or pharmacy that will fill the prescription for the turned away customer/patient.
Sometimes drugs such as the birth control pill are prescribed for methods other than contraception. Patients are sometimes prescribed "The Pill" for ovarian cysts or irregular menstruation, so a pharmacist might even be refusing a medication to a woman who isn't using it in a way he might deem immoral.
Here it becomes obvious the purpose of a prescription is not a pharmacist's business. It's certainly not something to ask along with insurance information. One person's guess as to whether a drug will be used for "acceptable" or "unacceptable" purposes cannot be a part of the process of filling a prescription. Patients should not be turned away or forced to travel from pharmacy to pharmacy simply to obtain medicine.
Problems with pharmacist refusal are exacerbated in the case of emergency contraception. The FDA's conditions for approval of sales of Plan B require that it be kept behind the pharmacists's counter. Since time is a factor in its ability to prevent pregnancy, the suggested 72 hour window for effective use of emergency contraception doesn't wait for a complaint to be filed with a state's pharmacy board and sanctions to be levied.
People of faiths that prohibit drinking probably shouldn't work in bars. People with certain personal beliefs on modesty might not wish to seek employment in an establishment with cleavage-bearing uniforms. People who wish to act on a belief that they should not dispense certain medications should not work behind a pharmacy counter and take the place of someone who will do the job. Obviously contacting congressmen and state legislators is important to ensure that patient rights are protected, but until those are successfully in place, the National Women's Law Center Pharmacy Refusal Project suggests that anyone either find out in advance if their pharmacy allows pharmacist refusal or keep emergency contraception on hand in case it is needed.
Wertenberger is a Government senior.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
bO mEISTER
posted 8/27/08 @ 2:21 PM EST
Whaasup wif dat? Get real with "choice" my jewish bro. Choice is for everybody especially someone with a conscience and a minimum 6 yrs of college. Why you using a "Catholic" school's name in your paper if you do not respect people's choices and the right to life of the most innocent creatures?
Hypocrisy shows itself again with crazy radical Christophobes like you and your hate-filled yellow journalism rag. (Continued…)
Post a Comment