www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Pharmicists refusing to give out the Pill

Interesting - some pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for the Pill, morning after pill, etc., on moral grounds and this article says legislation is in the works to back that decision.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...pl_usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill

Frankly, this is appalling.

The pharmacists in question have no comprehension of what the birth control pills may be being prescribed for...In rare circumstances, the Pill is given not as contraception, but to aid in other uterine problems. I, for one, know that this has been discussed on this very Forum. In addition, I personally know a 40 year old RC woman, who has never been in the sort of relationship where she would need birth control, but HAS had several uterine surgeries. She takes the Pill as no other alternative exists, and because she is not in a position where the issue is contraception or possible abortion, so there is no conflict with her religious beliefs. For a pharmacist, who does not know WHY someone is taking the drug, to presume not to fill it, or to refuse a referral, is monstrous.

Gaudior, saying that a thing can be carried too far....

Dear Gaudior,

The pill is also prescribed to women who have unbearable menstrual cramps with no underlying condition or reason, and also for other menstrual irregularities.

Regards,
Alice

Methinks y'all doth protest too much. I am willing to bet that 99.9% of the time the birth control pill is prescribed for [duh] birth control . I am further willing to bet that in the .001% of the prescriptions where this is not the case, that these pharmicists would be happy to fulfill the prescriptions. God bless these pharmacists and their witness for Life and Truth.
-Daniel, who really doesn't understand anyone not wanting babies

Daniel, it is not for pharmacists to inquire as to WHY the patient has a prescription. If you think that the counter of a CVS with lots of strangers in line behind you is the place to confidentially tell your medical troubles, you're definitely not thinking of the fact that people value their medical privacy. And, if you read the article, it said that the lawsuits that were filed were for the refusal to give a referral to another pharmacy, or to give the prescription back.

If you had a daughter who was not sexually active, who needed the Pill for other reasons, and missed a dose for someone's religious beliefs, what would you say?

I agree that sexual promiscuity is a bad thing, and am all for babies...and against birth control. However, if I had a daughter who needed that for any OTHER reason, I'd be outraged that a pharmacist presumed to inquire into her sex life in a public forum like a drugstore counter. Nor should she have to defend her actions to some stranger.

Gaudior, who thinks things can be carried too far.

I am in agreement with you. A pharmacist could object to the pill in good conscience and not want to fill a prescription, but he has no right to confiscate a prescription. That prescription is the property of the patient until it is filled. I don't support promiscuity either. For that, the best birth control pill would be an aspirin held firmly between the knees.

Charles:

Your prescribed foil does hold long enough against a battering ram!

Amado

While I agree in theory with Gaudior that a pharmacist should not be involved in the "whys" of any prescriptions, I'm surprised by how much he slams those pharmacists who don't want to prescribe the Pill. It seems to me that his proportionality is all off. Let's look at the reality for a minute.

The Pill works as an abortifacient in some instances (meaning it kills already created human beings), and it is likely that over 95% of prescribed Pills is for birth control means. So these pharmacists are literally giving a loaded gun to most of the women they distribute the Pill to. Doesn't this outweigh the somewhat minor inconvenience to those very few women who use it for other means?

I realize that the pharmacist is not morally obligated to not distribute the Pill, but I think that it is understandable that one would not want to be involved in such a horrid practice (but still feel that they can be a good pharmacist).

There are pros and cons on both sides - and though I am not in favour of oral contraception by any manner of means it is a personal choice - so let's leave that on one side for the moment.

What does worry me is that, according to that article, the cases reported of folk who have been refused their 'expected' supply - went to renew their supply after taking the last one of the current packet - now that is just plain irresponsible ! You should always make sure that any long term prescribed medication does not run out .

Here GPs who do not wish to prescribe it have to ensure that it is possible for a woman to be able to consult either another doctor or attend a Family Planning Clinic. It is not unknown for a woman , whose GP is Catholic to sign on for Contraception with a GP who is prepared to prescribe OCs.

I have not heard of Pharmacies refusing to supply OCs.

Now the subject of Over The Counter [ OTC] medications such as the so called ' morning after Pill ' - that is different - the pharmacist does have to follow a protocol before its supply - so there could be problems here - well at least in the UK that is.

Anhelyna

grrh

Francis:

I can't believe you just said that.

So, what do you propose? All women who use the pill for "other means" are supposed to suffer for a moral system which they may or may not beleive in?

Just another one who wants to live in a theocracy, I guess.


Hal, who doesn't know whether to use the or the gremlin

Dear Anhelyna,

Was that a bitter pill you swallowed there?

Alex

Daniel:

Admittedly this is off the topic, but I just had to chime in here.

What of those who have taken mosastic vows? These are people who (by definition, at least) have foresaken the joys of marriage and children for a life devoted to prayer and service to God.

Surely ALL of us cannot be called to bring new life into this world.

hal

Dear Hal,

I think Daniel accepts that monastics should not have wives or children . . .

At least, if they can help it, they shouldn't . . .

Alex

What are you talking about? Where did I ever talk about making laws or establishing some "theocracy"? What I am saying has nothing to do with a particular religion or faith. I'm simply proposing a conscience clause.

It is a medical fact that the Pill can sometimes cause an abortion, thereby killing an unborn human being. Many people, including non-Catholics and non-Christians, believe this is morally reprehensible. I am simply suggesting that pharmacists who feel such a way should be allowed to not prescribe these pills. Should we require doctors to perform surgical abortions, regardless of their convictions? It's morally equivalent.

The number of women who use the Pill for non-birth control means is tiny, whereas the number of innocent children killed by the Pill most likely dwarfs the number of surgical abortions performed. Where's the moral outrage for that? Again, the proportionality here is suspect. Furthermore, many doctors do not believe the Pill is ever the only option for those non-birth-control issues, so the example given is probably a canard anyway.

Francis, increasingly surprised that my position seems radical here...