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

Let's not.
Unless you wish to defend the implication that Gaudior and Neil are part of the pro-abortion group.

Hal,

Does that mean you received my retainer?

Many years,

Neil

Garrett & Daniel,

You're right. It was inappropriate and uncharitable of me to label your posts and that of Francis as "stupid" and I sincerely apologize to the three of you and to the Forum.

I do, however, stand by my description of the posts as chauvenistic. I think you are willing to impose both a hardship and significant pain on persons whose medical needs are unrelated to abortion. And, since I cannot reconcile the idea of allowing pharmacists to intrude into everyone's private life with their need to ascertain why a med was prescribed, that has to be where it stands from my perspective.

If anyone wants to translate that into me being pro-abortion, they are welcome to make such judgements about my immortal soul as they see fit. I will rely on the judgement of the Judge.

Many years,

Neil

Neil- Partial apology accepted. I do, however dislike having my opinion dismissed because I am a male. Unfortunately for your argument the most eloquent spokesperson on this thread who is defending the dissident pharmacists is a woman and a physician. Is she also a chauvanist?
And I certainly do not accuse you of being proabortion; I think you raise valid concerns; however I must defend the primacy of conscience.
-Daniel, guilty of being male
ps: I just noticed that I have been consistantly mis-spelling your name as "Neal"; sorry, don't know why I have been doing that. -Danyel

Dear djs:

No, I never thought of implying that Gaudior or Neil is pro-abortion. I am not privy to their stance on this matter.

I was just reflecting on the CURRENT state of affairs as far as the "inclusion" of pharmacists under the protection of "conscience laws," where physicians and nurses have been granted by various States.

This is looming as a battle area between employees exercising their conscience and employers protecting their financial turf. A critical labor dispute nonetheless!

And the laywers will come marching in!

Amado

Thanks Amadeus.

OK here's my weird idea.
There may or may not be a real moral issues supporting refusal to dispense. But I want to go a step back - what about a stock-boy, who doesn't want to take the delivery of htese drugs or put them on the shelf? ISTM, that any cooperation here is getting to the point of immateriality and very remote. And if this is still too material and too proximate, then think to the next step removed.

ISTM that in such cases the person - even though their action is not required to avoid sin - may may still want to avoid the action in order to raise a prophetic call. That may be a good thing, but I don't think that it should be supported in law (whereas the avoidance of sin should be, IMO). What kind of prohetic voice is it, if it also feels entitled to protection of the state. To have its cake and eat it too.

Dear djs:

I see your point, but first things first.

Under the provisions of existing "conscience laws," protection is granted only to physicians and nurses as these two professionals are deemed "health care professionals." They are the most proximate dispensers of drugs.

A pharmacist is a proximate dispenser as he/she is licensed to fill or refill presciptions. Should he/she be included in the term "health care professional" as defined by "conscience laws" or not?

This is the specific issue that the States of Miss, NDakota, and Arkansas have hurdled. These States have included "pharmacist" in the above definition. So, pharmacists in those States have now the right to seek re-instatement if terminated for not filling or refilling prescriptions based on their belief or faith.

This is a BIG step.

Amado

Well, the formality and proximity of doctor or nurse seem clear. It just isn't so clear for pharmacis, and so on. Now I have said that accomodation to avoid sin is clear enough, whereas to avoid the usual fate of prophets seems to co-opt the witness.

In a mutli-cultural society, there has to be some limit on accomodation. We ban polygamy, and I think we also ban ritual use psychotropic drugs. (IIRC there wad a great deal of interest some time ago in converting to the religion of certain tribes of the SW USA.) AFAIK there is no attempt to ban ritual use of wine for those under 21.

What about accommodating things we don't want to do. I don't see the problem with the simple solution, if the work offends you, find other work.

First of all, I think we might need to have a workshop on the word chauvinistic, which is neither spelled chauvenistic nor chauvanistic.

Neil,

I don't think you are "pro-abortion" (or you either, djs)- - -and I'd never presume to judge your soul. Please, don't insult me.

I understand and respect your position, but I do happen to disagree. I think a little hamrless prying into one's reasons as to why she desires birth control is far (faaaar!) better than taking the chance that it will be used for its overall purpose. If it can be ascertained (as much as it's possible to totally ascertain anything) that it's not being used in this purpose, then of course I don't see a problem with issuing or prescribing it.

Logos Teen

P.S. Since I took a cheap shot with the "chauvinistic" reference, any and everyone is free to critize and correct my terminology, spelling, and/or syntax. :p

Would be happy to oblige if I only knew what it meant to critize. :p

You can never tell about spelling. I cannot type worth anything. And am hideously undisciplined about proof-reading. But I am an excellent spelller.

Teen,

I disagree. There is no such thing as public "harmless prying". It is better to refuse in all cases to dispense the Pill, than it is to have a pharmacist making a judgment call about whether it is being used for birth control.

In all cases where it is against the conscience of the pharmacist to dispense, he or she must do so, AND HAND THE PATIENT THEIR PRESCRIPTION BACK. To do anything else is both invasion of privacy and theft.

Gaudior, who states that pharmacists have a right not to fill prescriptions, due to conscience reasons, but not to decide on a person's health or morals.

Djs,

What an ironically placed typo on my part...you've caught me rde-hadnde.

Gaudior,

Whether or not the prying is harmful, it can never be as bad as the other option, IMHO.

Anyway, to many who refuse to prescribe or refill, the same exact thing is being done by giving back the prescription. The point is that the pharmacist should have the option to have nothing to do with the process. By being in possession of that prescription, the pharmacist is being coerced into assisting the pill-taker by handing back the prescription. I actually don't see the difference between filling the prescription out oneself and handing it back to the patient, knowing she will simply get it filled elsewhere- - -you are thus aiding her in her awful endeavor.

It is not "theft" or mean-spirited to do this! God's Law is above the law of man, and these pharmacists do not have to take part in this procedure, no matter what the guidelines say.

No one is forced to comply with this, and that includes handingback a prescription!

Logos Teen

Take a look at a web site for a pro-life pharmacist - Lloyd's Remedies Apothecary in Gray, Louisiana.http://www.lloydsremedies.com/Home.htm. He advertises himself as openly pro-life. Other pharmacists who are pro-life often are clear in their advertising. Some of the ones I know run compounding pharmacies, specializing in natural bioidentical hormones. The ones who get into trouble are the younger pharmacists who are employed by the big chains.

The pharmacists I know consider themselves health professionals who have provider-patient relationships, and do not regard themselves as mere dispensers of drugs. This larger role is what is they are taught in the pharmacy schools. I agree that it is not feasible for pharmacists to ask patients about the purposes of the drugs or level of sexual activity. For oral contraceptives, they might be ethically prescribed for a celibate person's menstrual cramps but not for a married woman's. The Catholic pharmacist must make the decision with his confessor about how far to go with all of this. "Emergency contraception" is packaged in a way to be used for only one thing, whereas ordinary contraceptives are not. Some pharmacists will do OC's but not EC's. Don't worry, Neil, there aren't that many truly conscientious Catholic pharmacists. Those who are end up in their own pharmacies like Lloyd or working in compounding pharmacies.

I believe that it is wrong to not consider pharmacists bound by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Service. Quoting from Part 4 of the of the directives on Issues in Care for the Beginning of Life: "Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life 'from the moment of conception until death.'" How can a Catholic pharmacist think that he is not supposed to pay attention to this? Catholic pharmacists are to consider themselves in a health care MINISTRY.

Teen, about giving the prescription back, it is the patient's property and belongs to her. The pharmacist is avoiding involvement in the process by giving the prescription back. This is NOT the same thing as providing an abortifacient drug himself, and cooperating with the abortifacient process. By handing the prescription back he is REFUSING to participate in the abortifacient process. But the patient's free will and following the law are also important considerations. Refusing to provide certain drugs or services is NOT passing judgment on anyone. This is very important. It is merely setting one's own boundaries in the ethical practice of one's profession.

Magdaleni

FYI
Here is a link for the Pahrmacists for Life organization.
http://www.pfli.org/

Magdaleni

Dear Teen,

As the Church has repeatedly told us, the end does not justify the means. As I have said, I agree with you on contraception, however, that does not justify theft. If you take the woman's prescription, all that will happen is that she will call her doctor, and go elsewhere for it..at a cost of time and money, for which she might justifiably prosecute you for theft, and sue you in civil court for any losses (the cost of a return visit to the doctor, say). A pharmacist who steals a prescription has saved no life, and opened himself up to being barred from his profession, where a pharmacist who on moral grounds refuses to participate in the filling of prescriptions for oral contraceptives is keeping himself free of the sin of aiding abortions, and also making a strong moral statement to the patient which is not disregarded because he, who claims morality, has broken the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Steal".

Gaudior, who says that a pharmacist who takes this position should refrain from the sins of judgment, and theft.