Pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions?

[KappaKittyCat]

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.

[Rudey]

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

[KappaKittyCat]

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.

[krazy]

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

[Jill1228]

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

Originally posted by KappaKittyCat
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.

[Jill1228]

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."

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Jill1228
And you know there would be hell to pay if a man's prescription for viagara was withheld! But it is ok if it is the morning after pill or birth control pills, huh?

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

-Rudey

[kateshort]

Originally posted by Rudey
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.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by kateshort
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

[kateshort]

Originally posted by Rudey
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...]

[Rudey]

Originally posted by kateshort
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

[kateshort]

Originally posted by Rudey
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.]

[Rudey]

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

Originally posted by kateshort
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.]

[Jill1228]

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!

Originally posted by kateshort
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.]

[Rudey]

Originally posted by Jill1228
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