There has recently been a great push in the world of women's health to consider prescription birth control (oral contraceptives, IUD, DepoProvera, etc.) not only a "right" but indeed a necessity – the "standard of care," if you will. The fact that ever-growing numbers of registered pharmacists are refusing to fill legal prescriptions for such birth control has caught the attention of quite a few powerful pro-choice and "feminist" groups, who have made it their goal to force such professionals by law to fill all such prescriptions with no questions asked. As a practicing pharmacist, I would like to try to address this issue.
First of all, I am one such pharmacist – I choose not to participate in any type of abortion, be it a physical or a chemical abortion. Let me start, then, by stating reasons why many consider birth control to be an abortifacient. The basic mechanism of most chemical birth control is three-fold: 1) to prevent ovulation 2) to thin the cervical fluid 3) to harden the uterine wall. Obviously, if a woman does not ovulate she cannot get pregnant, and since this is the primary mechanism of action, many would argue that abortion does not occur. However, no person or drug is perfect. Therefore, if and when ovulation does occur (a patient may forget to take it one or more days in the cycle, the dose may be too low for her body type, other medications/herbals may interfere, etc.) the other two mechanisms become important. The thinned cervical fluid makes it difficult for the sperm to reach the egg so that fertilization is unlikely. But should fertilization occur, the womb is now a hostile environment in which the fertilized egg is not likely to be able to implant. Now, this may be an area of dispute, but to me, life begins at fertilization (new DNA = new person), so when the fertilized egg is flushed out with the next period, an abortion occurs.
In my opinion, the two greatest pieces of evidence to prove that this is not so rare an occurence as we would like to believe are the number of pregnancies that occur while women are on birth control (we all know someone who got pregnant on the pill, and how many embryos were lost before that hearty one beat the odds?) and the fact that the so-called "morning after" pill is just a higher dose of the same hormone combination, given with specific intention of removing any fertilized eggs. It is impossible to know how compliant anyone is with her medications and therefore how likely she is to have one (or many) of these "silent abortions." I will not risk being a part of any of them – it is still killing and blood would be on my hands.
The groups that are pushing for pharmacists like me to "shut up and fill the prescription" argue that no matter what I believe about birth control, the decision occurs between a woman and her physician and I should not push my "morality" into the situation. I should not councel any patient about how this drug works (by the way, when was the last time your doctor told you how any drug works?) so that she can reconsider her decision, I should not warn her that birth control has been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer or can cause life-threatening thromboembolic events (blood clots) including stroke, I should not tell her about other side effects such as peripheral edema (swelling mainly of the ankles), severe nausea, decreased glucose tolerance (which can lead to diabetes), depression, anxiety, etc., and I most certainly should NOT be able to refuse to fill it. To me this is the same as forcing an OB/GYN to perform an abortion.
Why, then, does my profession exist? Why did I spend six years earning a doctorate in order to be told I play no part in the decision of what is appropriate drug therapy? Let me turn the situation around. Let's say a young woman is trying to get pregnant and succeeds but is not yet aware of the pregnancy. Unfortunately, she comes down with pneumonia. When she goes to the doctor, she tells him/her that she is allergic to penicillins. Said doctor prescribes doxycycline, but in haste forgets to ask if she may be pregnant and/or give the simple urine test to confirm such diagnosis. She brings me a prescription which is the right dose, duration and frequency, is perfectly legal, and seems to make sense for her infection. According to the above mentality, I should be required to fill it with no questions asked, since this treatment decision was already finalized between her and her physician. Indeed, I should not even bother mentioning whether the prescription was appropriate or not since it was legal – after all, that's all that counts, right? However, doxycycline is listed as pregnancy category D, meaning that it is known to be harmful to developing fetuses, and her baby is born with severe birth defects, or worse yet, does not survive. When her lawyer is making the list of health professionals to sue for malpractice, my name will be on it and I will have my license suspended if not revoked.
It is a horrible double standard to expect pharmacists to be on guard for honest mistakes in prescriptions, allergies and sensitivities, drug-drug and drug-food interactions, side effects, and other drug therapy problems that can cause illness or death, and yet to turn a blind eye to what they feel is murder. It is insulting that I am expected to only use my training and conscience to their full extent when it serves the whim of the masses and expected to act like a candy dispenser when the same training and conscience interfere with someone's comfort or lifestyle. It is discouraging that "freedom of choice" does not include the freedom of a licensed professional to practice the way that she chooses.
Two things —
First, you seem to be operating under the assumption — or wanting us to operate under the assumption — that “the pill” is only used for birth control. While that is certainly its most common use, I would think you would know as a pharmacist that it is not the only use. I have a lesbian friend who’s on the pill. It’s not because she’s afraid of getting pregnant.
Second, I have never understood how a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for a medication approved by the FDA and prescribed by a doctor can be a justified course of action. Essentially, what you’re saying is that you know better than the Food and Drug Administration and the doctor prescribing the medication. That’s not your professional duty, that’s professional arrogance. It’s also inserting your own sense of morality into other people’s legal decisions.
Let me ask you this: Which other prescriptions do you refuse to fill on moral grounds? Do you, for instance, refuse to fill prescriptions for viagra on the grounds that it could lead to extramarital sex or rape, or even indirectly to abortion? Do you refuse to fill prescriptions for narcotic drugs because the patient could become addicted to said drugs? Do you refuse to fill prescriptions for psychoactive drugs on the grounds that these drugs could lead to violence, murder, or suicide?
I suspect that the answer to all of these questions is no, and a “no” answer reveals the bankruptcy of your argument. You’re refusing to fill prescriptions because you don’t like what the drug does. It’s just that simple. And that, friend, is professionally reprehensible.
Nathan, I daresay there are many *legal* things that the pharmaceutical industry does with regard to shaping medical opinion, but that you may find immoral. If the healthcare professionals cannot make their own decisions about moral matters (whereas the FDA is more concerned about technical issues–the moral and legal ones are formed by public opinion, which in turn influences who runs the FDA), what then keeps them from being the footsoldiers of Big Pharma, or the regulator whims of government? Be careful what you wish for. Now and then an MD or PharmD may disagree with you on something you hold dear, but in stamping out their right to dissent, you may open the floodgates to far worse things.
No matter how much training and expertise he or she may have, does the clerk at McDonalds really have any legal or logical explanation for denying me my large french fries, simply because they may offend their personal belief system to sell them to me? You might be offended by that comparison, but for some of us out here, it really is that cut and dry.
And really, sadly for you and others who think this way, I imagine that's what most Americans want – shut up and fill the prescription. Maybe not in cases as politically or religiously heated as this, which seems to be the only saving grace for your argument. However, if you were to say, deny someone their insulin or blood pressure medicine on similar grounds – I'm imaging the vocal support from the Right and religious groups wouldn't be there. And presumably your job, either.
Nathan, though it’s not in the article, I do know that the author fills prescriptions for the pill when it’s prescribed for non-contraceptive use.
Seems to me that a pharmacy has a natural right to dispense only the medications it actually has. If the pharmacy is owned by the pharmacist, then the two entities are equivalent for the purposes of discussion. Now if the pharmacist instead works for a pharmacy, then his or her decision to fill any prescription comes down to the employee relationship. If PrescipCo Pharmacy is perfectly happy in honoring the Conscientious Pharmacist’s freedom of conscience, then fine. If not, it seems the Conscientious Pharmacist will soon need to find new employment. Perhaps he or she could open up a competing Family Friendly Pharmacy across the street. At any rate…
If a place of business (e.g., pharmacy) has no hormonal birth control pills, then it obviously cannot dispense them. And, tho’ many on the “lifestyle left” might disagree, no law ought to exist to force a place of business to stock them.
Now if instead a Pharmacist stocks certain drugs because they occasionally have licit uses, this seems to open up a can of worms. First, how can the Pharmacist know whether the patient intends a licit or illicit use. And without such knowledge, which may require an intrusion upon the patient that violates “professional standards” or about which the patient might simply lie, the pharmacist is forced to make potentially arbitrary selections about to whom he or she will dispense the drug.
In short, there is no doubt in my mind that the right of the pharmacist to act on a deeply held religious belief vastly outweighs the right (if it exists at all) for a person to engage in “consequence-free” (ha!) coitus. But fair and rational implementation of the pharmacist’s natural right is rather a moral mindfield.
My $0.02
Thanks, Funky. Just to elaborate, my own OB-GYN does not prescribe oral contraception for purposes of contraception, nor does she perform tubal ligations. She takes a lot of heat as well. When medically necessary, she will prescribe OC and will in addition write the patient’s diagnosis on the prescription (i.e. endometriosis). In such a case, it would be absolutely morally reprehensible to refuse to dispense the drug, because that would indeed mean assuming more about the patient’s personal life than it is my duty to know.
If your lesbian friend came to me with her prescription, I would probably ask her what she’s using it for. Would it be that hard for her to say, “endometriosis” or whatever her diagnosis may be? I would still counsel her on the side effects and explain to her my beliefs, because I’m not going to know she’s a lesbian.
Lastly, you’re absolutely right – I just don’t like what the drug does. I believe the drug kills babies. All your other drug examples pale in comparison – none would have the same propensity to kill anyone.
I pray this never happens to you, but if you ever need to be treated for cancer with a drug called vincristine, tell your pharmacist not to worry about how the doctor writes to give it. It’s none of his/her business that it’s 100% fatal if given intrathecally.
why does it seem that everyone (those in the pro-oc, pro-abortion, anti-God in America camps) state that we “shouldn’t force our morality” on them, but it’s okay for them to force their immorality on us?
“shouldn’t force our morality” on them, but it’s okay for them to force their immorality on us?
Yet it is okay to force “your” morality, isn’t it? Not even stated that you shouldn’t be allowed to, it’s is done. And in the recent case that prompted much of this debate I’m sure, it was clearly forced, as the Pharmacist was the person in the position of power here. Right?
That just seems a weird, flawed stance to take on this imo.
in terms of the double standard, several people who i have encountered supporting the “we should force people to fill prescriptions” camp seem to have no problem with an engineer (ie me) who doesn’t want to work on defense projects. we should only enforce morality they agree with on everyone. 😉
I simply can’t believe we’re having this discussion. There are days when I don’t know why I am either Catholic or Christian, and this is definitely one of them. The level you people will stoop to in order to enforce your religious agenda is sickening, and then to turn around and declare that normal people not allowing you to enforce your agenda is religious intolerance — that’s just preposterous.
I’ll tell you, though, the day my pharmacist denies me or anyone I know a prescription based on his so-called morality, while he probably drives an SUV with a flag and a “Support Our Big Killing Machine” sticker on it, will be the day that I rip him a new one and demand his job on the spot. I don’t want a priest, I want a damn pharmacist.
“you people” as opposed to “normal people” like yourself, of course, eh? Come on. Anyone else could very well accuse you of being “you people” and refer to herself as “normal people.” Come on. Your first comment indicates to me that you have a brain and a little bit of tact, but your second really, really doesn’t reinforce that observation.
Try to be civil, maybe?
A Jewish or Islamic deli owner can refuse to to sell, or even stock, pork. Nobody blinks an eye.
A pharmacist refuses to sell a drug that induces chemical abortion – murder of human persons. All hell breaks loose.
Nathan, for a lot of people – a number of whom are readers of this blog – abortion isn’t just a matter of faith. If it was, they know they’d have no right to try to force their view into law. You need not be a Christian to believe that a fetus is a human person, though. Abortion is murder.
If, like Stuff, you are a pharmacist who realizes that, selling chemical abortifacients (like EC) would be unconscionable. While you’re at it, why don’t you ask her to feed arsenic to her kids? BTW, get off your !@$#$ high horse about the environment and the Iraq war. I’m an envirmomentalist and a pacifist, too. However, I recognize that ignoring the slaughter of millions of innocent children is wrong for the same reason that ignoring the slaughters in Africa is wrong. Politics shouldn’t override basic respect for human life and dignity. If Stuff, or any other pro-life pharmacist, happens to drive an SUV and support the military, I’ll be disappointed and try to change her mind, but I won’t make too much of it, because the holocaust we oppose together is more important than the stuff we disagree on.
Just one more thing: most people I know with a magnetic ribbon showing support for troops is/was praying for the safe return of a loved one. It’s not necessarily a political statement. For many, it’s just a way of saying, “My loved one is in Iraq/wherever. Please pray for him and and thank him for putting his life on the line for his country if he gets home alive.” My parents are liberals who oppose Bush and his hawk policies. When they put one on their car, it was because my brother in law was in Iraq. Thankfully, he’s home safe and sound. They’ll probably keep the ribbon on the car, though, as a sign that they’re still rpaying for guys who aren’t home yet. Think of that the next time you turn your nose up at one of those ribbons. Think of it before you leave an assine comment like you did this morning.
Erech and Nathan, I could say you are forcing morality on others as well. Your morality obviously includes ignoring property rights and your trying to force us all to live in a world where one cannot choose how to use your own property. The drug belongs to the owner of the pharmacy, not the customer. You don’t have a “right” to the drug. Either go to a liberal/indifferent pharmacist or find another way to prevent pregnancy. Noboby should be able to interfere with your lifestyle, however the consequences of your lifestyle is your responsibility and nobody should have to give up there right to use there property in order for your whims to be satisfied
Indeed Jay, forcing a pharmacist to act against a deeply held religious belief is indeed “forcing morality” on him. Refusing to sell or stock morally objectionable (again based on deeply held religious belief and not mere whim) is NOT “forcing morality” on anyone. Folks seeking to fulfill such a description can simply go to the pharmacist/pharmacy across the street. As I said, one persons right to refuse an act based upon deeply held cannot justly be trumped my another’s right to mere convenience (if again in fact there even is such a right).
Interesting related question: Does the pharmacist/pharmacy stock condoms? AFAIK, these (in contrast to oral contraceptives) have NO licit use in Catholic teaching… except say as rather suggestive water balloons… no wait! Is that a licit use?
Cheers!
Morality doesn’t necesarily have to do with religion. If a pharmacist doesn’t want to sell gum drops forcing him to do so would still be forcing morality on him. I think defending one’s property rights is moral.
“I could say you are forcing morality on others as well.“
You could say it, but you’d be wrong. I’m only talking about something – I am in no position of power to force anything on you. At least I hope that’s the case…
“The drug belongs to the owner of the pharmacy, not the customer. You don’t have a “right” to the drug.“
That’s ridiculous. A pharmacist is a facilitator and a business, the drug technically belongs to the pharmaceutical companies if you want to play a semantics game. Furthermore, if the pharmacist stocks a drug/product, for sale and purchase by paying customers, then refuses to allow certain people to purchase – that’s discrimination. And as stated elsewhere, if it’s a product that the pharmacy doesn’t stock, then the whole argument becomes moot.
The argument isn’t refusing to stock, it’s refusing to sell something that is stocked.
“nobody should have to give up there right to use there property in order for your whims to be satisfied“
Nobody the private citizen yes, but a business as an entity is expected to perform their service under certain rules and regulations. That old adage of ‘reserving the right to refuse service to anyone’ is something of a myth in what a business is allowed to get away with. Legally, at least.
“I think defending one’s property rights is moral.“
Maybe, but that isn’t what this situation is about really.
erech,
it would only be discrimination if stuff refused to dispense to *some* customers and not others, particularly if it was based on a personal characteristic. however, how is it discrimination if she refuses to dispense ec/bc to *anyone*???
Edey, it wouldn’t be, if it wasn’t sold to anyone. Why stock a product if you aren’t going to sell it then, is my side question?
I’m glad the word “legality” crept in here. I would like to again point out that I am a licensed, registered pharmacist. Think about other licensed professionals you may or may not have to deal with – for example, electricians. You may ask your electrician to wire something in your home or business using a legally acceptable wire but one that he/she feels is unsafe and might start a fire. Can you force him to use that wire simply because it might save you money in the long run? I’m pretty sure you can’t. You can call another electrician. He/she loses your business and you suffer the inconvenience of calling a different electrician who may not be as close or might not keep convenient hours. But in the end, you can’t take legal action for him refusing to use his license in a way that offends his conscience.
By the way, I am also licensed to operate a motor vehicle, and the one I choose to drive is a 2000 Chevy Metro. 3 cylinder. Gets about 40 miles per gallon. thanks for asking!
What’s stocked is not up to Stuff. It’s up to her employer.
Condoms may have no licit use, but their use does not ipso facto destroy any human life that might already be present.
the owner chooses what to stock. stuff chooses which products she wants to dispense. if she chooses not to dispense these items to *anyone*, she’s not discriminating. there may be other pharmacists at her place of work that do dispense these items (hence why the owner stocks them).
Erech,
As another point of clarification, drugs stocked in a pharmacy have indeed been purchased from the drug companies and therefore are indeed the private property of the pharmacy. The drug companies still may or may not own the patent to the drug formulation, but once they sell actual product to a pharmacy or doctor’s office (yes, MDs have dispensing authority), it belongs to the purchaser as property, not an item of semantics.
While it is possible to obtain medication directly from a manufacturer or even distributor, it is a long and involved process requiring lots of paperwork – it’s much easier for a *licensed* pharmacy to purchase it. Which reminds me – the licensure of the building itself (to stock prescription and controlled substances) is a separate entity than the individual licensure of the pharmacists employed therein.
Thanks for reading!
erech,
in other words you wouldn’t personally force me to sell you the drug if you were in the position to do so? Don’t tell me this is beside the point. This discussion is about morality and that is a moral question.
It seems that your point is that you are not forcing morality on me if you don’t personaly prevent me from selling you the drug. However if you get the government to do it for you, somehow your not responsible.
If you don’t want religious morality enforced by the state, fine niether do I. I also don’t want non-religious morality enforced by the state. Your “rules and regulations” which you obviously support are a way of forcing morality on people. Not all off them, but the ones that regulate property rights such as the one in which we are discussing.
As to whether the pharmacist ownes the drugs or the pharmacutical company does, that only affects which of those two desides the conditions on which the product is sold it grants no additional right to the consumer.
That electrician analogy lost me. In your analogy, the electrician is the doctor, the expert on the overall problem. The more accurate analogy would be the electrician wants to put in some bit of hoohoo, the homeowner agrees and puts his trust in the certified expert. So the electrician goes down to the hardware store, and tries to purchase some electrical goodies. The clerk at Home Depot who has their own feeling on the product, decides he doesn’t want to sell them to the electrician because they believe they might cause fires which in some form would be murder because the clerk sold them and is duplicit in whatever tragedy may occur, or something else which offends their religion. The clerk is “protected” in this because the clerks employer is far more afraid of lawsuits from employees in regards to religious persecution vs discrimination from patrons lawsuits.
“here may be other pharmacists at her place of work that do dispense these items “
I didn’t get the impression that “Stuff” made that option available though. And in the incident at the Target which started this, it seemed clear that option wasn’t made either. “Stuff” is a representative of the company she works for – to the average customer “Stuff” IS the company. Her not selling to someone if another pharmacist would (especially if there isn’t another pharmacist on duty/present who can) is a clear case of discrimination against the customer. The notion seems even more clear if a pharmacist there chose to not serve a black patron, or chinese, whatever, for whatever “moral” reasons they had.
and yes, if the owner of the drug wants these items sold by everyone employed at the pharmacy, then all employees have to sell them or if he wants to protest he has to be prepared to lose his job.
property rights work both ways.
“As another point of clarification, drugs stocked in a pharmacy have indeed been purchased from the drug companies and therefore are indeed the private property of the pharmacy”
Stuff, my point to whoever I said that to, was that the property was not yours personally, or the tech at the Target, wherever. It belongs to the pharmacy, and only then as a company with certain limitations and legal responsibilities are they allowed to own and purchase in the amounts they are. And as a pharmacy (should we agree to define what that is) they act as a reseller or agent of the drug companies. The pharmacy cannot OWN the product it sells, or it no longer retains that reseller status. The pharamacy only regains a portion of the profits along the distribution of these drugs, not ownership in any – even if you have physical possesion of the product.
Further, while yes it could be (ahem) harder for me to purchase a metric ton of Sudafed, were I as a private citizen to try and resell it, would clearly be a against the law.
Property rights as was stated, are not what this is about. If you are trying to say that it is, then I’m gonna go sit in the corner over here and scream into a pillow, ok? 😉
Instead of screeming into a pillow, please explain how property rights are not applicable.
Jay,
you have to have rights to property for there to be property rites. Why don’t you explain how you think it applies?
This is not about property rights to me. It is about my rights as a professional (read – NOT A CLERK).
My point with the electrician analogy is that the electrician carries a license. The clerk at Home Depot does not. If the state in which I practice (ALL states require licensure) sees my position as important enough to require licensure, then there must be some level of expertise to what I do. Most doctors I interact with agree that I do, in fact, know more about the drugs than they do. That is where the level of power lies, which I think you brought up earlier. I DISPENSE the drug, while the technician or clerk may actually be the one who rings up your purchase on the register. It is that process of dispensing that is my right, not yours.
And can I just try to emphasize that medications from your pharmacy are NOT comparable to fries, they are potentially deadly on the spot. I could give you an overview of medication law history to talk about why they are controlled in the manner they are (once upon a time antifreeze was used to make cough syrup), if that would be helpful. The FDA and individual states have seen fit to make the dispensing of medication a part of the health care continuum that is distinct in and of itself and subject to accountability. In fact, I am given a 0% margin of error. That means that if I ever make a mistake and it is caught I lose my license, end of story. Regardless of outcome, good or bad.
If you take away my right to refuse to dispense ANYTHING, you also take away that accountability. You tie my hands to protect you from potentially fatal, though perfectly legal, prescriptions. You would be surprised at how common those are.
But not all pharmacies require you to have a doctorate, nor know anything about practising medicine beyond drug interaction. You aren’t saying you refuse to give out DRUG A because it will harm a customer this or that way, you are saying you refuse to give out ALL abortion causing drugs based on moral reasons – “blood on your hands”.
One instance falls under the purview of your job, the other is your hubris and personal beliefs overstepping someone elses “right to choose” etc. Let’s be honest here about it. You have the luxury of your anonymity, why try and pretend otherwise?
“One instance falls under the purview of your job, the other is your hubris and personal beliefs overstepping someone elses “right to choose” etc.”
they still have a right to choose. they can choose to go to a different pharmacy.
In order for you to have rights as a professional with regards to a product, someone has to have rights to use or sell the product who then as owner desides whether and how the drug is to be sold.
So who potentially can take away your right to refuse to dispense things you fell are harmful- the govt.
how do they do it-by substituting their rules in place of your knowledge about what is safe, this is a violation of your company’s property rights since the govt essentially controls the product and I don’t see how you can defend your right to dispense or not dispense a drug without first claiming ownership and control to be free of govt, after which you can privatly influence the drug owner to follow your best judgement, which he shouln’t have a problem with since that’s what he hired you for.As for some right as a professional separate from the property owner if you company wants to sell something harmful then speak out against it, but you don’t have a right to refuse to fill birth control perscriptions if your pharmacist says you do.
On the practical side I wouldn’t trust the govt to decide what is safe.
I didn’t say the state required me to have a doctorate, although it’s the only degree you can get anymore coming out of pharmacy school. My requirements are licensure and registration.
I also didn’t say I practice medicine. I said I practice pharmacy as a separate area of expertise, just as nurses practice nursing – we work hand in hand with physicians, but our specific duties are unique.
I also fail to see the distinction between my duty to do no harm to the patient and my duty not to participate in the murder of fetuses. As I tried to point out in the original post, when a fetus is “wanted,” that fetus is also my patient in need of my protection.
I don’t think the patient’s right to choose has to overstep my right to practice pharmacy in the way I choose. There are other pharmacists and pharmacies.
Just out of curiosity, would you agree to forcing a nurse to participate in an abortion if he/she were morally opposed? If not, how is that case different?
Just another quick thought – I know many times the convenience issue comes up, as in “what if the only other pharmacy is eons away…” and I would like to reiterate the dispensing authority of the prescribing physician. If the drug therapy is that important to the MD, he/she can order it and dispense it from the office without dragging me into it against my will.
Let me make a couple of things clear —
First, I respect the right of a business owner to stock whatever he or she wants. Privately owned pharmacies have the right to refuse to stock birth control or any other kind of medication. But I make a distinction between this and pharmacists who work for an employer who expects them to dispense a drug stocked by them. I believe that the employer has the legal right to fire any pharmacist refusing to dispense a drug that is in stock, and that the pharmacist will just have to get over it. You’re not there to make moral judgements, you’re there to do a job. If you’re not doing it, you can and should be fired.
I believe that pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control are morons, plain and simple, regardless of whether or not they own their own pharmacies or work for someone else. The difference is that the ones who own their own businesses have the right to be morons with their own businesses, and the ones who work for another employer do not have the right to be morons with that employer’s business.
As a side note, let me also point out that I believe that OB/GYNs who refuse to perform tubal ligations are also morons, especially since these procedures are always contraceptive rather than abortifacient in nature. Refusing to perform a tubal ligation does indeed go beyond the sphere of medical ethics and into the sphere of religious belief, in that there is no ethical justification for refusing to perform a tubal ligation, and in that the only religion in existence which condemns artificial contraception is the Catholic Church. Refusing to dispense non-abortifacient contraception or perform non-abortifacient contraceptive procedures would have nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with enforcing one’s own religious beliefs — something which simply cannot be allowed in the public square of a nation founded on religious freedom.
Second, this isn’t personal for me. I’m a gay man, I have no use for “the pill” or any other kind of birth control. But given that the pill is rarely abortifacient, and given that ethicists dispute the personhood of a pre-implantation zygote, I think it’s assinine for pharmacists to refuse to dispense hormonal birth control. I don’t believe that preventing the implantation of a zygote can be legitimately viewed as abortion, especially if one does not have the intention of preventing implantation but rather the intention of preventing conception — here the principle of double effect would take over.
I’m usually civil, but to be honest I’m really tired of the Right and all of its bullpuckey.
“I believe that pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control are morons, plain and simple, regardless of whether or not they own their own pharmacies or work for someone else. The difference is that the ones who own their own businesses have the right to be morons with their own businesses, and the ones who work for another employer do not have the right to be morons with that employer’s business.”
Have I ever commmented on one of your posts in such an unseemly and rude manner? I’ve said some contentious things, but I’ve never been insulting to your friends and readers.
“As a side note, let me also point out that I believe that OB/GYNs who refuse to perform tubal ligations are also morons, especially since these procedures are always contraceptive rather than abortifacient in nature. Refusing to perform a tubal ligation does indeed go beyond the sphere of medical ethics and into the sphere of religious belief, in that there is no ethical justification for refusing to perform a tubal ligation, and in that the only religion in existence which condemns artificial contraception is the Catholic Church. Refusing to dispense non-abortifacient contraception or perform non-abortifacient contraceptive procedures would have nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with enforcing one’s own religious beliefs — something which simply cannot be allowed in the public square of a nation founded on religious freedom.”
Tubal ligations are ELECTIVE. If you can elect to have it done, Dr. Whomever can elect to not so it. Don’t like that? FIND ANOTHER !@#$%%^ DOCTOR!!! We’re not talking about bypass surgery here. No doctor should EVER be forced to perform an ELECTIVE procedure.
I’m usually civil, but to be honest I’m really tired of the Left and all of its entitlement BS.
Thanks again, Funky, though I do have to admit I’ve been called worse 🙂
I think you’ve hit on something important here – some of the arguments have equated the pill to blood pressure meds or insulin or other drugs that either improve the health of someone with a disease or preserve life. The pill as a contraceptive does neither – by dispensing it I don’t save a life but a lifestyle. And just as there are other ways to lower blood pressure and control blood sugar, there are other ways to prevent a pregnancy that don’t require potentially killing babies.
In short, hormonal birth control is also elective.
You can call my boss and the PA State Board of Pharmacy and tell them you think I’m a moron, but I don’t think they will fire me or revoke my license for that. I’m always prompt with my CEs, and there’s still a shortage of pharmacists. 🙂
Dare I say it, but I think the solution to this problem is simpler than everyone thinks. Stuff gets hired at Pharmacy A. After being hired, the manager of Pharmacy A asks Stuff if she opposes selling prescription birth control, to which she answers yes. When making the schedule for Pharmacy A, the manager pares Stuff with Pharmacist B who doesnÂ’t appose selling birth control. So when a customer asks Stuff to fill a birth control prescription, all Stuff has to do is pass the buck to Pharmacist B. The customer isn’t denied the birth control, and Stuff doesnÂ’t have to compromise her conscience. Nathan and Erech, you are not the ones being asked to compromise you conscience, so perhaps some sympathy is in order. While I don’t think this is the ideal solution that will please everybody, I also think this problem is beyond being able to please everybody. But with this solution, at least we don’t have to lose a brilliant pharmacist (having known Stuff personally, I have no doubt in my mind that she is nothing but brilliant). And like she says, there is a shortage of pharmacists.
First, I apologize if I’m repeating anything in this comment thread, as it’s difficult to remember everything that’s been said so far here.
It’s been suggested a few times in this thread that refusing to dispense a particular drug in a particular situation is “discrimination.”
Perhaps in a more general sense of the word, this is true, but in a legal sense, discrimination can’t be claimed in these circumstances under current law (unless people seeking certain medication have been added to the list of protected classes).In fact, as far as I know, a pharmacist has a legal obligation to act responsibly, much the same way a doctor does.
If a pharmacist’s interpretation of acting responsibly includes not dispensing a particular drug, then isn’t that within the right of the pharmacist? If the employer has a problem with that, then the employer may be able to take action, but I’m pretty sure the customer has no direct recourse to take regarding the pharmacist personally.
In my job, I hold a federal certification to perform auditing tasks for my company. It’s my call to decide if certain things are safe. If I say they are unsafe, the federal government has stated that nobody, at any level, can coerce me into changing my decision — in a legal sense I am completely autonomous when performing this task. Someone else employed by my company who possesses an equal level of certification may step in for me and make a different decision, but I cannot be forced to change my decision. On the other hand, it may be later found that I acted inappropriately in making the decision I made. At that point, I might lose my certification, or worse, my job.
Perhaps the same is true in the case of a pharmacist, but I would hope that if a pharmacist truly believes in not dispensing certain drugs the pharmacist in question would be willing to go to the wall for that principle, otherwise it’s pointless.
Have I ever commmented on one of your posts in such an unseemly and rude manner? I’ve said some contentious things, but I’ve never been insulting to your friends and readers.
Some of my readers have been very offended by comments you’ve made in the past, and have even asked me to delete them. I didn’t, even though the comments also offended me.
I will say, though, that I am usually much more civil than I have been in these comments, and I apologize for the tone I’ve taken. To be honest, it’s been a rough couple of weeks and I think that’s somewhat responsible for my tone. I’m very sorry for expressing myself the way I have; pharmacists who won’t dispense medicine based upon religious and moral principles do indeed make me very angry, because as I said I am not looking for a priest but a pharmacist. But I should have expressed myself better, and I apologize.
I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on this matter. I don’t see any legitimate reason to refuse to fill a prescription for artifificial birth control.
Nathan,
Although agreeing to disagree is probably wise, might I ask a favor of you, if you have the time? Could you reiterate your argument in light of the comments posted after the one in which you originally laid out your position? (I ask because I’m interested, and don’t have a well-formed opinion on the matter.)
As a side note that’s probably not important…
“and. . . the only religion in existence which condemns artificial contraception is the Catholic Church.”
Sorry, but there’s also the Orthodox Church, and, I suspect, perhaps the Oriental Apostolic Churches as well. So you’re left with, out of the four major Christian divisions (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Oriental), the Protestants and, MAYBE, the Oriental Churches. That’s either one or two out of four.
On contraception in the Orthodox Church:
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12279632&dopt=Abstract
2. http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/oct/04100710.html
3. His Grace, Bishop +Kallistos, in his authoritative work The Orthodox Church, states on page 302 that “Artificial methods of birth control are forbidden in the Orthodox Church.”
4. The Orthodox Church in America, in the 1992 encyclical letter of its Holy Synod regarding Marriage, states: “The greatest miracle and blessing of the divinely sanctified love of marriage is the procreation of children, and to avoid this by the practice of birth control (or, more accurately, the prevention of conception) is against God’s will for marriage.”
It should also be noted that every mainline Protestant group forbade contraceptives until 1930. Even then, the provision was only for married couples. Of course, that opened the flood gates and soon everyone wanted sex contrary to the will and plan of God as revealed in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
“I don’t see any legitimate reason to refuse to fill a prescription for artifificial birth control.”
1) If you believe a fetus is a human person, then killing that fetus is murder and a grave evil.
2) Abortion kills fetuses.
3) Birth control pills, particularly EC, can cause chemical abortion.
4) Therefore, birth control pills are dangerous to fetuses.
5) Pharmacists don’t wish to dispense dangerous drugs.
6) Therefore, pharmacists that believe birth control pills are dangerous to fetuses will only dispense them under certain circumstances, such as when the pills are prescribed for theraputic use.
Step 1 does not require a leap of faith. If you’d like to learn about groups that do not use religion to oppose abortion, check out my right sidebar. You don’t have to understand or even appreciate why someone would think a fetus is a human person for reasons other than faith. You need only respect it and give them the freedom to act according to their consciences.
I got the following comment in an email:
Once again, in an effort to defend your position this great analogy that “your buddy” tried to use to justify not doing his job was insufficient and illogical! If a pharmacist fails to notify their patrons of harmful side effects of a drug they were prescribed, yes they are careless. If a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription for a patron and that patron fully knows the purpose and intent of said script, they are overstepping their bounds. These two cases are fair from analagous. Explaining side effects and how a drug works is one thing. Shoving your opinion down someone else’s throat is not. Using thier position of power (the pharms are the ones with the drugs) they are forcing their will upon someone else. So he disagrees with using EC, the patron doesn’t. Why should he win out?
EC is not an abortion. Pharmacists dispense drugs, surgeons perform abortions.
Your buddy falsely believes what he thinks about what someone else does with their body matters. And thankfully, it does not.
“it is still killing and blood would be on my hands….” Are you serious??? – Tasha
I don’t understand the anger against “stuff” and other pharmicists who won’t dispense abortion-causing drugs. I would be very grateful to a pharmicist who informed me of effects of a drug which could harm or kill me or my child. Too few people bother to really find out what these drugs do before they take them or what the alternatives might be. Furthermore, I would respect the integrity of someone who refused to participate in something that would, in her professional opinion, be killing. Would you prefer a pharmicist with no conscience? Even if I disagreed with her judgment, I’d know that this was a person I could trust.
1) If you believe a fetus is a human person, then killing that fetus is murder and a grave evil.
2) Abortion kills fetuses.
3) Birth control pills, particularly EC, can cause chemical abortion.
4) Therefore, birth control pills are dangerous to fetuses.
5) Pharmacists don’t wish to dispense dangerous drugs.
6) Therefore, pharmacists that believe birth control pills are dangerous to fetuses will only dispense them under certain circumstances, such as when the pills are prescribed for theraputic use.
The problem here is with #1. We’re not talking about a fetus. We’re not even talking about an implanted embryo. We’re talking about a pre-implantation zygote. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe there’s any evidence, scientific, ethical, or otherwise, that leads to the conclusion that a pre-implantation zygote is a human person or even a human being. And I don’t feel that I have to respect someone else’s belief that it is.
“And I don’t feel that I have to respect someone else’s belief that it is.”
OK, I’m going to be deliberately provactive just to make a point. What if I said, “I don’t believe that homosexuality is anything but a chosen set of sinful behaviors and I don’t feel that I have to respect someone else’s belief that it is”?
I don’t actually belief that. I think it’s far more complicated and nuanced than that, so please don’t start an argument on the basis of my hyperbole.
My point is that I don’t think that would go over well with you. I think you’d present logical, perhaps even biomedical, reasons that I am wrong. And well you should. I think also that you’d take offense at the statement on moral and ethical grounds.
This brings to mind a broader question, that perhaps would be better presented in a new post, but I’ll try out here. In pluralistic societies, wherein many mutually exclusive and contradictory ideas are held by the populace at once, at what point ought respect of others’ free consciences be ignored by the state and its citizens? More specifically, is the refusal to dispense EC that heinous that pharmacists ought to be compelled to ignore their consciences?
Almost forgot: I stanf corrected on the fetus/zygote matter. It doesn’t change my argument, though.