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

I'm getting more and more puzzled !

Now here we have GPs who are permitted to refuse to prescribe Contraception - OK in some practices it is made difficult for them and indeed for some Doctors trying to get into a Group Practice and at interview it is mad clear to them that they are required to offer contraceptve services.

But I have not heard of problems with Pharmacists . OK - we still have very few large Supermarkets in which there are Pharmacies - tight control is still held over expansion into that area.

I do have sympathies with these women - though I still insist that any woman who is so stupid as to actually consume the last pill in a packet before getting the prescription renewed and then made up needs , in our parlance , ' her head looking at '

And here the pharmacist is supposed to check that, where folk are taking medication that may react with other things - like OC and some antibiotics , the customer/client is aware of this. To this end all pharmacies have a small area where there is adequate privacy - this is also where some medications that require supervision , are dispensed.

Just as an afterthought - is it impossible for a reasonably discreet sign to be displayed informing folk that prescriptions for some medications , such as hormonal contraceptive drugs , will not be dispensed and should be taken to another pharmacy - giving a list of these ?

I do agree though - that the actual prescription should NOT be retained by the pharmacist.


Anhelyna

Magdaleni,

I am intimately familiar with the Ethical Directives for Health Care Professionals. Nowhere in the Directives will one find any clause that can be relied upon for a pharmacist to substitute his or her moral or theological judgement for that of a prescribing provider with respect to medication which has multiple uses, not all of which are contrary to Church teaching. Similarly, one will not find there any clause suggesting that a pharmacist ought to interrogate a patient as to his or her reasons for having had the medication prescribed. Additionally, one will certainly not find there any clause under which a pharmacist could justify confiscating a script from a patient because he or she did not intend to fill it and considered that the patient did not have the right to have it filled elsewhere.

And, as I am certain you are aware, the use of medication that has the consequence of avoiding conception, or otherwise interfering in the procreative process, is deemed absolutely licit under Humanae Vitae, when employed for therapeutic purposes unrelated thereto:

I would suggest to you that this is an issue for the prescribing provider. A pharmacist is not ordinarily privy to the underlying diagnosis and has no inherent right to be.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Magdaleni,

Have you never had to prescribe the pill to a non sexually active woman (EGADS--these dinosaurs do exist! ) for severe menstrual cramping that did not respond to pain killers, in order to alter and make her cycle lighter?

Another question: along the lines of logic involving the conscience of the pharmacist above, shouldn't these pharmacists also then remove other forms of birth control, including the male form (if you know what I mean) from their shelves?

Alice, who is simply wondering,
and doesn't think that CVS would be amused

P.S. disclaimer: these are hypothetical or third party situations which in NO way involve me personally.

P.S. What is the stand of conscientious Catholic obstetritians on helping their patients with InVitro Fertilization?

Dear Anhelyna,

Here, in the USA, many HMOs and other insurance providers will not make a payment for a prescription if it is not within 4 days of a refill. This can cause problems if someone is going on vacation, returning from vacation, or even ill and unable to get to their pharmacist before the last, or next to the last, pill runs out...of any medication. In other cases, a three day weekend may intervene, giving a narrow margin of refill time, indeed. However, in the vast majority of cases, the patient is a forgetful, careless individual.

Our pharmacists are also to make sure that there are not drug interactions, but use computers that will trigger (one hopes) an alert indicating that there is a conflict, and potentially dangerous situation. In the USA, we have very few independent pharmacies left without such systems. However, despite this requirement, there are no "pharmacist consulting rooms" in the USA. That is a splendid idea, though, to have them.

Also, a discreet sign is possible, in most places.

I re-iterate that a pharmacist who does not wish to fill a prescription for a patient should not have to. But they must in turn allow that patient to take their prescription elsewhere.

Dear Daniel,

Sadly, if we come to a point that euthanasia is legal, we will likely have death parlours similar to hospital rooms where an IV drip is let into the patient's system, and they can die with family, friends and pets around. I doubt it would take the form of a pill. We are too touchy-feely a society to do that. However, if it ever did come to the abhorrent scenario you describe, someone denied the filling of a death pill prescription could just buy some over-the-counter sleeping pills, and exit that way. Not denied his constitutional right to pursue earthly happiness at the extent of his immortal soul at all. Just denied his choice of means, as, though there may be only one way to cure someone, there are lots of ways to die. Your argument is not relative.

Gaudior, annoyed.

Gaudior,

Most pharmacies have a semi-partitioned area of the counter for "counseling" patients about medication, but that's only done if the patient requests it. It's supposed to provide a modicum of privacy.....


Sharon
(who drives 20 minutes out of the way to patronize a small, locally owned pharmacy for the stuff we havent been forced into mail order for)

Sharon,

None of the areas available in pharmacies around Eastern Massachusetts, Southern NH, or Rhode Island for "counseling/ questions", etc., would ever be mistaken for something providing a modicum of privacy.

Many years,

Neil

Yes, a counter with partitions is available, so that only the 5-10 people in line behind you can possibly hear what you are saying.

Gaudior, who has a different view of privacy than that.

I still think we need a moral theologian to weigh in on the real moral dimensions of this problem. For example,

ISTM that there isn't any way that selling medication to tread HIV/AIDS involves any kind of cooperation in a sin. There is no moral imperative AFAIK for refusing to sell such drugs.

Neil,

I think your calling others' opinions "stupid and chauvinistic" is inappropriate for this Forum.

I wasn't going to comment on your post because you promised to not speak further on the subject. Upon continuing to read the posts, however, I see that you have continued to speak on this issue, so I'll give my two cents as a reply.

By being legally forced to prescribe or handout certain medicines to which a pharmacist morally objects, he is being forced to choose between his conscience and his livelihood. This is appalling and despicable.

I believe that it's this forced coercion that is a total affront to the privacy and freedom of every citizen. Obviously, you believe that by not participating in acts of evil (i.e., purposely preventing human life), these pharmacists are somehow infringing upon the rights of these women. So be it- - -that's your view. But don't denounce those who don't wish to have a hand in this as "stupid and chauvinistic."

Logos Teen

Yes, Neal, I must agree with Garrett; further, such personal attack is unlike you, who are usually charitable.
How about the morning-after pill? Do you think a pharmacist should be able to refuse to fulfill that prescription? I am not sure, but there likely are other conditions for which that could be prescribed.
-Daniel, who believes in the primacy of conscience

Interestingly, pharmacists often don't fill prescriptions anymore in the larger pharmacies. It is often done by pharmacy technicians and the pharmacist merely looks at it to see that it was filled correctly. Some pharmacists also have very little direct contact with the public. The techs do that.

Friends:

Let's be content, temporarily, that THIS dilemma on the part of pharmacists is just an emerging "skirmish" between pro-life and pro-abortion groups.

Everybody's opinion counts until various States, in addition to Miss, NDakota, and Arkansas, tackle their own conscience laws and determine the "fate" of their State-licensed pharmacists.

Thereafter, let's wait for the State courts to exercise their judicial interpretation.

It is becoming a draw between the usual suspects: moral (natural) law versus civil law. But for sure, "conscience laws" are the "special laws" and "employment laws" remain the "general laws." The former are the exception.

The rules and regulations to be issued in implementation thereof will determine their compliance.

A host of suits will arise as pharmacists whose employment has been terminated by the mega drug dispensers flock to the courts for redress of their grievances.

Amado

Aha! MORE work for lawyers!

Yours,

hal