Pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions?
 

I'm freaking out 'cuz this is happening WHERE I LIVE. I'm very glad that I get my bc through the mail.

Pharmacists' Rights at Front Of New Debate
Because of Beliefs, Some Refuse To Fill Birth Control Prescriptions

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 28, 2005; Page A01

Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.

The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized -- or force them to carry out their duties.

Read the rest of the article here, on the Washington Post's website. Free registration is required.

So you get your birth control in the mail and this doesn't apply to you but yet you're freaking out because it happened right where you live?

-Rudey

I just started getting my pills in the mail because that's how my new job's health insurance does maintenance prescriptions. Before that, I was stuck going to Walgreens just like these women. And when I change jobs, who knows?

What upsets me is not that the pharmacists are refusing to fill the prescriptions themselves, but that they are holding the prescriptions hostage and refusing to transfer them back to another pharmacist/pharmacy. Once my doctor has given me a prescription for something, then that should be that. The pharmacist doesn't know my medical history or anything like that. It's none of his business. His job is to fill my prescription.

What if a pharmacist converted to Christian Science and started holding people's antibiotics hostage? You'd better believe there'd be an outcry. The only reason that people aren't more upset about this is that the pharmacists interfering with women's health care are practicing the nation's majority religion.

Didn't everyone already state their opinions when this article came out last year?

And you know there would be hell to pay if a man's prescription for viagara was withheld! :rolleyes: But it is ok if it is the morning after pill or birth control pills, huh?

Article in yesterday's Washington Post:

Pharmacists' Rights at Front Of New Debate
Because of Beliefs, Some Refuse To Fill Birth Control Prescriptions
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 28, 2005; Page A01


Some pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control and morning-after pills, saying that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or religious beliefs.

The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized -- or force them to carry out their duties.

"This is a very big issue that's just beginning to surface," said Steven H. Aden of the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom in Annandale, which defends pharmacists. "More and more pharmacists are becoming aware of their right to conscientiously refuse to pass objectionable medications across the counter. We are on the very front edge of a wave that's going to break not too far down the line."

An increasing number of clashes are occurring in drugstores across the country. Pharmacists often risk dismissal or other disciplinary action to stand up for their beliefs, while shaken teenage girls and women desperately call their doctors, frequently late at night, after being turned away by sometimes-lecturing men and women in white coats.

"There are pharmacists who will only give birth control pills to a woman if she's married. There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to prescribe it to anyone," said Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which tracks reproductive issues. "There are even cases of pharmacists holding prescriptions hostage, where they won't even transfer it to another pharmacy when time is of the essence."

That is what happened to Kathleen Pulz and her husband, who panicked when the condom they were using broke. Their fear really spiked when the Walgreens pharmacy down the street from their home in Milwaukee refused to fill an emergency prescription for the morning-after pill.

"I couldn't believe it," said Pulz, 44, who with her husband had long ago decided they could not afford a fifth child. "How can they make that decision for us? I was outraged. At the same time, I was sad that we had to do this. But I was scared. I didn't know what we were going to do."

Supporters of pharmacists' rights see the trend as a welcome expression of personal belief. Women's groups see it as a major threat to reproductive rights and one of the latest manifestations of the religious right's growing political reach -- this time into the neighborhood pharmacy.

"This is another indication of the current political atmosphere and climate," said Rachel Laser of the National Women's Law Center in Washington. "It's outrageous. It's sex discrimination. It prevents access to a basic form of health care for women. We're going back in time."

The issue could intensify further if the Food and Drug Administration approves the sale of the Plan B morning-after pill without a prescription -- a controversial step that would likely make pharmacists the primary gatekeeper.

The question of health care workers refusing to provide certain services first emerged among doctors, nurses and other health care workers over abortions. The trend began to spread to pharmacists with the approval of the morning-after pill and physician-assisted suicide in Oregon, with support from such organizations as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Pharmacists for Life International, which claims 1,600 members on six continents. Its members are primarily in the United States, Canada and Britain.

"Our group was founded with the idea of returning pharmacy to a healing-only profession. What's been going on is the use of medication to stop human life. That violates the ideal of the Hippocratic oath that medical practitioners should do no harm," said Karen L. Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, who was fired from a Kmart pharmacy in Delhi, Ohio, for refusing to fill birth control prescriptions.

No one knows exactly how often that is happening, but cases have been reported across the country, including in California, Washington, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, New Hampshire, Ohio and North Carolina. Advocates on both sides say the refusals appear to be spreading, often surfacing only in the rare instances when women file complaints.

Pharmacists are regulated by state laws and can face disciplinary action from licensing boards. But the only case that has gotten that far involves Neil T. Noesen, who in 2002 refused to fill a University of Wisconsin student's birth control pill prescription at a Kmart in Menomonie, Wis., or transfer the prescription elsewhere. An administrative judge last month recommended Noesen be required to take ethics classes, alert future employers to his beliefs and pay what could be as much as $20,000 to cover the costs of the legal proceedings. The state pharmacy board will decide whether to impose that penalty next month.

"He's a devout Roman Catholic and believes participating in any action that inhibits or prohibits human life is a sin," said Aden of the Christian Legal Society. "The rights of pharmacists like him should be respected."

Wisconsin is one of at least 11 states considering "conscience clause" laws that would protect pharmacists such as Noesen. Four states already have laws that specifically allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their beliefs. At the same time, at least four states are considering laws that would explicitly require pharmacists to fill all prescriptions.

The American Pharmacists Association recently reaffirmed its policy that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions as long as they make sure customers can get their medications some other way.

"We don't have a profession of robots. We have a profession of humans. We have to acknowledge that individual pharmacists have individual beliefs," said Susan C. Winckler, the association's vice president for policy and communications. "What we suggest is that they identify those situations ahead of time and have an alternative system set up so the patient has access to their therapy."

The alternative system can include making sure another pharmacist is on duty who can take over or making sure there is another pharmacy nearby willing to fill the prescription, Winckler said. "The key is that it should be seamless and avoids a conflict between the pharmacist's right to step away and the patient's right to obtain their medication," she said.

Brauer, of Pharmacists for Life, defends the right of pharmacists not only to decline to fill prescriptions themselves but also to refuse to refer customers elsewhere or transfer prescriptions.

"That's like saying, 'I don't kill people myself but let me tell you about the guy down the street who does.' What's that saying? 'I will not off your husband, but I know a buddy who will?' It's the same thing," said Brauer, who now works at a hospital pharmacy.

Large pharmacy chains, including Walgreens, Wal-Mart and CVS, have instituted similar policies that try to balance pharmacists' and customers' rights.

"We obviously do have pharmacists with individual moral and ethical beliefs. When it does happen, the pharmacist is asked to notify the manager that they have decided not to fill the prescription, and the manager has the obligation to make sure the customer has access to the prescription by another means," said Tiffany Bruce, a spokeswoman for Walgreens. "We have to respect the pharmacist, but we have to also respect the right of the person to receive the prescription."

Women's advocates say such policies are impractical, especially late at night in emergency situations involving the morning-after pill, which must be taken within 72 hours. Even in non-urgent cases, poor women have a hard time getting enough time off work or money to go from one pharmacy to another. Young women, who are often frightened and unsure of themselves, may simply give up when confronted by a judgmental pharmacist.

"What is a woman supposed to do in rural America, in places where there may only be one pharmacy?" asked Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, which is launching a campaign today to counter the trend. "It's a slap in the face to women."

By the time Suzanne Richards, 21, finally got another pharmacy to fill her morning-after pill prescription -- after being rejected by a drive-through Brooks Pharmacy in Laconia, N.H., one late Saturday night in September -- the 72 hours had long passed.

"When he told me he wouldn't fill it, I just pulled over in the parking lot and started crying," said Richards, a single mother of a 3-year-old who runs her own cleaning service. "I just couldn't believe it. I was just trying to be responsible."

In the end, Richards turned out not to be pregnant, and Pulz was able to obtain her prescription last June directly from her doctor, though she does not think she was pregnant, either.

"I was lucky," Pulz said. "I can sympathize with someone who feels strongly and doesn't want to be involved. But they should just step out of the way and not interfere with someone else's decision. It's just not right."

Where did you get that? Who is giving hell if Viagra is withheld?

-Rudey

Nobody is. That's why she said "if a man's prescription for viagara was withheld." IF.

It sucks that Viagra is usually covered under prescription plans, but BC pills often aren't covered, or are covered only if you do by-mail plans or are only partially covered. Yeah. It's cheaper to keep me NOT pregnant in the long run, people.

Ummm again, I don't know how you can make that claim then. Using the word "if" as a preface to something doesn't all of a sudden let you slide in a claim.

If Ifs and Buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry christmas.

I'm sure you all can stand up for your birth control rights without attacking men and burning bras...or if you could, you would.

-Rudey

It's already been shown that many prescription programs will cover Viagra at the highest levels, but won't cover women's birth control medications at the same level of coverage. That isn't an attack against men. It's a statement of fact that people running some of those those programs are providing prescription coverage to men for something related to sex, but aren't giving women coverage for something related to sex.

To me, that seems unfair. -shrug- Then again, I think it'd be nice if all prescriptions were covered to the same extent. Need meds? $10 per bottle. Done. That'd be the best thing for everyone.

[Who wants to burn a bra for anything, anyway? The Girls should be kept upright if you don't want 'em sagging later in life...]

But really, we're talking about if a prescription was withheld - not about insurance coverage.

-Rudey

You questioned whether it had happened that someone had withheld Viagra. I pointed out that the Original Poster was posting a "what if." I stated that she probably made the comparison/prediction/"what if" of there being a different and stronger reaction to that "what if" of Viagra meds being withheld based upon the inequality of how men's and women's Viagra and BC pill prescriptions are already covered.

It seems that people have no problem getting men easy access and full prescription coverage for Viagra, a drug that helps men have sex (whether or not they're in a marriage or committed relationship), but that when it comes to women's BC pills (whether or not they're in a marriage or committed relationship), those prescriptions are not fully covered, and are now being withheld.

[On a total side note, it makes me wonder whether the pharmacists who are so worried about withholding BC pills from women on the grounds that it interferes with God's will are equally concerned about giving Viagra to men who may or may not be married and may or may not be committing adultery while on the meds. 'Cause, y'know, adultery is one of the ten commandments... I wonder whether the pharmacists who are being supported for not filling women's prescriptions *would* be equally supported if they stopped filling prescriptions for Viagra and other men's ED meds.... which I believe is the point that the original poster was trying to make.]

But again, there is little connection between insurance coverage for viagra over birth control to how folks would react if viagra was withheld. Simply an invalid point. In fact you question it yourself at the end of your post. I doubt many people would be in an uproar and oh by the way, I like girls on the pill.

-Rudey

Exactly my point!

I am not bashing men in the least. I don't care if the pharmacist is a man or a woman. They have NO RIGHT to hold a prescription for hostage. They don't know the client's situation or know them from Adam. If they feel uncomfortable about filling a prescription, give the person back their script and send them on their way. They need to keep their moral beliefs out of it!

I still stand by my point that these same pharmacist that would hold a BC script hostage would be the same ones that wouldn't have a problem filling an ED prescription. And that is a crock!

Yeah my friend still stands by his point that pigs can fly.

-Rudey

ehhhhhhhhhhhh... i'm glad i'm on depo and i get it straight from the doctor's office. some people are just so misguided. a lot of women take BC to regulate hormones.

-marissa

Well-put, and right in line with the Hippocratic element of the thing.

Not even close to valid - any support for this? Or are you just 'not bashing men in the least'?

Ya got a point there, KSig.

I don't know the Pharmacists personally but I admit you have to wonder about their motives and ways of thinking.


I know insurance coverage is different from the actual pharmacists, but the point is still the same that some insurance companies would not cover BC but would cover ED meds.

When I lived in Virginia, I had insurance thru my employer. However, I had to book an appointment about 2 months in advance (if you could get thru) at the City Health Dept because my insurance would not cover my pills. It was pretty much jumping through hoops and that should NOT happen.

Going into being a pharmacist you know that you might have to fill someone's BC prescription, so why if you are morally opposed to BC would you then become a pharmacist? Excuse me, but the last time I checked, it's none of the pharmacist's GD business what prescription I pick up. For the pharmacies that have condoms behind the counter, are they saying no to selling those too?:rolleyes: Last time I checked it wasn't up to the pharmacist to tell me what I can and can't do with myself.

Jill~
I know we worked for the same company, and I think our insurance was the same (though your state is unionized, Alaska was not), and neither BC or ED was covered. However it stated in my benefits packet that those were available with documetation of need from the doctor. At least the plan was equal in that respect. There was a list of other meds that needed further documentation as well, weight loss aids being one of them.

What really irritated me is that we'd have to use the work pharmacy to get our drugs at a decent price, so it kind of made it harder to keep things as private as one liked. We had four locations in Anchorage, but the way people went between stores you never knew who would ring up your stuff. They pushed the mail order scrips big time, but it always came late or was messed up.

ETA: (Slightly OT) There was a point when the company Jill & I worked for was the only pharmacy in the STATE of Alaska that would carry Plan B (the morning after pill), and people tried a boycott. Just to put in perspective this is in a state where there was one Planned Parenthood, and only three doctors in the whole state would perform abortions, and all were located in Anchorage. There were plenty of pharmacies & pharmacists in Alaska that wouldn't carry or sell BC or Plan B, so there is no option of driving to another pharmacy or getting it by mail in a timely manner.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/...ill/index.html

It is amazing to see that Big Pharma isn't as pissed off with this BC stuh as they would be if some idiot pharmacist did not fill a full paying customer's script for Cialis, Vitamin V, Levitra, etc...

Not saying that it has not happened, yet...

Just saying that the mentality of a lot of men is they rather die hard up in it, than poop out softly in the night...

And it would be interesting to see how the sales are doing for Birth Control... I bet Big Pharma ain't making that much money. Otherwise if they were, they would pitch a fit.

Maybe has to do with population size... We need more "Home Grown Americans"... :rolleyes:

So, basically, ladies, y'all need to get your freak on and start crankin' out those babies!!!

EFF of a stable "nuclear family" with "father knows best"--we are marching you to the "Handmaid's Tale"...

Yet some want additional legislation to protect pharmacists who believe certain birth control drugs are forms of abortion, Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, told the Reuters news agency. The group provides legal advice and support to pharmacists.

Brauer told Reuters she believes doctors will eventually begin ordering women to abort disabled children, or refuse to treat them after birth.

"They'll force women to kill their children ... It will be like China. It's the next logical step," she told Reuters.

Wow, slippery slope much? Next logical step my ass.

I'm assuming that this legislation would prohibit companies from firing pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control. What a crock. If you don't want to dispense birth control, don't be a pharmacist, and if you have an employee who doesn't want to dispense birth control, fire him or her.

I think of it like this -- I'm a vegetarian, so I'm not about to go work at a job that would require me to serve meat. Seriously, DUH.

Exactly. This is pretty scary...and it's even worse that a woman is against pharmacists being required to fill birth control prescriptions.

And some of these same people who won't dispense birth control think abortion is wrong and gripe about welfare moms who keep having babies.

I totally sign on to that!

These pharmacists aren't just performing an act of protest. They are using their position and power to prevent women from doing something which they have the right to do. This isn't a freedom of religion issue. Freedom of religion is "you can't force me to do X." Freedom of religion is not "I'm going to take a job where I know they will want me to do X and when they ask I am not only going to refuse but I am going to twart all other people's attempts to do X." That is a direct interference with other people's rights. It's wrong.

And while I know Rudey is going to be pist for this comment, the truth is that if this was a man's issue, it would be taken a lot more seriously by the people who make the laws (who are also mostly men). The problem is that women are not harnessing their political and economic power strongly enough on this issue. I wrote to Walmart about this because they expressly allow their pharmacists to refuse to dispense BC or EC. They actually have a stock email which they write back. It basically says "this is they way we do it. If you don't like it, screw you. We don't want to hear it." But when you look down the asiles of a Walmart, you know what you see? WOMEN! Shopping everywhere. In this patronizing patriarchial store, the people who are shopping are women. If women don't stand up and admit that they want access to BC and EC, and not just for hormonal regulation :rolleyes: , we aren't going to have any access. If you want to make a statement on these issues look into the places where you purchase stuff and ask yourself whether you really want your money going to a company that thinks that some random pharmacist should be able to override your constitutional right to BC.

Yeah, whazzup with that? You can't have it both ways :rolleyes:

And some don't?

-Rudey

[b]Brauer told Reuters she believes doctors will eventually begin ordering women to abort disabled children, or refuse to treat them after birth.

"They'll force women to kill their children ... It will be like China. It's the next logical step," she told Reuters.[b/]

Man, what a funny guy. I could just imagine some doctor "ordering" a patient to have an abortion. At which point the patient would either laugh, or leave. Also, I'd like to see how long a doctor could keep his license for refusing to treat disabled children.

In addition, it's completely unreasonable to try to connect the infanticide of female babies in China to the US. Our society doesn't have a large value discrepancy between the sexes, so people wouldn't kill babies because they were of the undesirable sex. People might kill babies if they have too many of them, but I imagine that a parent would kill indiscriminently until the number of their offspring was equal to what they were willing or able to support. Now, if those parents who didn't want the babies had access to birth control, then maybe they would be saved the trouble of murdering their children and disposing of the bodies later. (Also, BC would save the government money on paying for maternity hospital bills or prosecution of baby-killers.)

Good news.
 

From http://www.wxow.com/news/publish/art...cle_3079.shtml

Pharmacist Sought
La Crosse
Oct 24, 2005


A Wisconsin pharmacist, who made headlines when he refused to fill a prescription for birth control pills, is back in the news.

La Crosse County has issued a warrant for the arrest of 31 year old Neil Noesen whose last address is St. Paul.

Poice arrested Noesen in July after an incident at the Onalaska Wal Mart. Noesen was working as a temporary pharacist when he again refused to fill a birth control prescription. He created a disturbance when management asked him to leave the store, police were called and officers arrested him.

But, Noesen failed to show up for a court date last week and the warrant was issued. Three years ago, Noesen refused to fill a birth control prescription when he worked at a pharmacy in Menomonie.

His refusal led to an official reprimand from the state licensing board. Noesen says he is a devout Roman Catholic and that filling a birth control prescription would be a sin.

So I have a question:

If the woman in question with the BC Rx then got pregnant, could she then sue the pharmacist for the cost of the OB/Delivery claiming it was his fault she got pregnant??

Hey, as crazy as that sounds, you know SOMEONE would try it....

Re: Pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions?
 

I wish a ....ahem... I mean I wish somebody would refuse to fill my Seasonale! I don't use it for BC (women familiar with Seasonale would understand) and I would literally choke the life out of pharmacist that even looked like their lips were parting to say "No". :mad:

Re: Re: Pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions?
 

What she said! WW III would be happening up in there!

The short answer is it most probably wouldn't fly. Most states don't recognize wrongful pregnancy as a basis for suit. Getting pregnant isn't an "injury" as defined by most state courts.

It kind of sucks though. If these pharmacists think it's so great for these women to have babies, it seems they should have to come by and change some diapers or something... Learn a little about the not so fun parts of having kids. It's not all a "blessing" when you're not ready for it.

Re: Good news.
 

I wonder if this schmuck has ever sold a condom. That's just as much against Catholic teachings as the Pill, if he wants to play that way.