Can a Pharmacy Be Anti-Choice?
The DMC pharmacy, opening this summer in Chantilly, VA, will not sell condoms, birth control pills or the Plan B emergency contraceptive. You would think that, at a time when women are being empowered by the “almost” of Hillary Clinton, now, in the 21st Century, we’d be beyond health care that discriminates against women. And this bias is showing up elsewhere as well.
The pharmacies are emerging at a time when a variety of health-care workers are refusing to perform medical procedures they find objectionable. Fertility doctors have refused to inseminate gay women. Ambulance drivers have refused to transport patients for abortions. Anesthesiologists have refused to assist in sterilizations.
So, here is the ethical dilemma: Should a business have the right to do what it feels is proper based in the business owner’s values? A pharmacy may decide, for example, that it won’t sell tobacco products. On the other hand:
“I’m very, very troubled by this,” said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center, a Washington advocacy group. “Contraception is essential for women’s health. A pharmacy like this is walling off an essential part of health care. That could endanger women’s health.”
Who’s right and who’s wrong?
And state licencing authorities allow this?
Can, or does, the medicare/medicaid approval boards/committees have a say?
Didn’t Wal-mart try something similar a couple of years ago; only to retreat under pressure?
June 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Of course! Screw the women and their rights, but by golly fight for the rights of men to have their Viagara covered by Medicare!
June 16th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
This doesn’t make sense. Birth control pills and condoms can prevent pregnancy and thus possible abortion. In the end, isn’t this what these particular business owners would want?
I don’t know what the laws are in regards to these pharmacies providing comprehensive health care for women. It doesn’t seem right to me.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I meant “in regards to these pharmacies providing health care products and prescription items for women”.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Epiphany, birth control pills CAN act as an abortifacient in some cases. They generally prevent ovulation but can prevent implantation of the embryo (thereby aborting it).
Apparently this pharmacy is run by Catholics. As to the specious statement about endangering women’s health, “I’m very troubled” by people who would try to force a business to provide services or products that they don’t feel ethical about providing. Should a physician be compelled to provide an abortion? Of course not.
This is a VERY controversial issue and licensing authorities shouldn’t try to subvert complicated moral decisions like this, especially when the issue is cloudy at best.
Early-term abortions are a more complicated moral issue: late-term abortions are not. :)
June 16th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
It seems that if they feel this way….against handing out meds or preforming medical services that are LEGAL by law and that the patients are qualified to receive….then perhaps they should find another line of work that does not bother their conscience so.
I have family in a small town that has one drugstore with the nearest being 32 miles away. The only drugstore in town should not have the right to say sorry, we’re not selling any condoms or birth control prescriptions. These items affect people’s health choices and it’s a personal decision between them, their significant other and perhaps their doctor. This isn’t like the local drugstore not stocking black fingernail polish or the hottest new line of hair care products.
Good point, TDro. Nice little double standard there. Insurance on Viagara for men is okay while even filling prescriptions for women’s birth control is not okay with some drugstores.
Speaking of Viagara, a while back I heard some on FOX News throw a hissy fit because Trojan had a condom commercial on air. I heard one talking head exclaim that he doesn’t want to have to explain condoms to their young child should they see the ad on TV. But where’s the outrage over non-stop Viagara, Cialis and Levitra commercials? Would they be okay with having to explain to a young child why a guy should “seek medical attention if he has an erection lasting more than 4 hours”? Just sayin’…
June 16th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I’m a Muslim and I own a local restaurant. I refuse to serve dishes containing pork or a pork byproduct (like broth).
I’m a Muslim and I own a local restaurant. I do not allow non-Muslims in to eat. I also refuse to hire anyone who is not a practicing member of my faith.
See the difference?
June 16th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
They can’t be forced to sell condoms, anymore than an organic foods store could be forced to sell Campbell’s soup.
There will still be pharmacies that sell birth control pills and condoms. People who disagree with the “values” of a company who doesn’t sell those products should not shop there. I wouldn’t.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I see what you’re trying to say, Cheryl, but since Campbell’s is not an organic item, it obviously doesn’t belong in an organic food store. Birth control is a health-related item and does belong in a drugstore (pharmacy) which specializes in selling such items to the public.
In areas where there is a choice to shop, one should by all means shop the store that fits one’s values. But knowing that not all small towns have choices, this idea won’t always work.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
good point Cheryl
June 16th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
If your restaurant employs less than 15 people it might be legally able to refuse to hire anyone for any reason, including the color of their hair, according to what the EEOC seems to be saying.
As for the ethical dilemma, I’d say that the owner of a sole proprietorship should have the right to decide what products and services are going to be provided. But a corporation is a legal invention, and as such should be subject to laws, where necessary, requiring that the public be served as it wishes.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Food stores and pharmacies are different things. We do not need that can of Campbell soup. On the other medication given to use by our doctors are normally needed. The pharmacist does not have a right to deny you medication or question why you are getting it just because of he or she believes.
Birth control pills are the most overused and missunderstooded pills medically for other reasons for reason. There are other uses other than just birth control, Alan and others. Some of us have to have use the so called birth control pills to prevent female medical problems and to have the ablity one day to have children.
If anyone got a problem with that then they do not need to be working in a pharmacy.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Nobody has “The Right” to run a pharmacy. This is a privilidge that should be taken away if someone violates the rights of others. We have a right to privacy when filling our perscriptions. We have a right to privacy when dealing with issues ordered by a physician. A pharmacy violates that right to privacy when they inject their thoughts in the process. Their privilidge should be revoked immediately. End of controversy.
June 16th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Right now, this question is tough for me. I believe in women’s rights, but can understand the anger felt by having some complicity in acts which a doctor might not approve of. I think what concerns me most about making it legally binding, is just how far some doctors will go in avoiding selling contraceptives, peforming abortions, etc. Is there an adequate number of pro choice doctors in the event of a shortage? Just how far does the anti choice sentiment of some doctors go?
June 16th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I don’t have a particular view one way or the other on the pharmacist issue except that it is important to assure that birth control is available without serious inconvenience. Frankly, making it available without a prescription might be a better plan than having a pharmacy Gestapo, though.
But this line really caught my eye -
“Ambulance drivers have refused to transport patients for abortions. ”
Seriously? Someone called 911 to go get an abortion? She seriously wanted to take resources intended for saving lives in an emergency for their vanity surgery? She couldn’t drive herself, get a ride from a friend (or god forbid, the father), take the bus? What thought process made her think terminating a pregnancy was an emergency? This is on a par with someone calling 911 for an ambulance to take them to the plastic surgeon. The question here shouldn’t be why did the ambulance driver refuse, it should be why did the dispatcher not laugh loudly then hang up the phone in the first place!
June 16th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I wonder if these pharmacies sell alcohol? “We’ll contribute to sex, but not protection”. What is this Russia?
June 16th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
If the owner has the right to deny contraception prescriptions to women then couldn’t they also deny filling psychiatric prescriptions as well? The owner could be a Scientologist or Christian who does not beleive in psychiatry and is dead set against such medication. What if it’s a smaller community with only a few drugstores and the customer cannot travel elsewhere? Denying someone that kind of medication can be very dangerous.
This kind of situation can get complicated.
We’re not talking about cans of soup or types of food in a restaurant or even carrying Playboy magazine. A pharmacy has to be licensed by the state and there are certain regulations they must follow. I don’t know how all of this works but the pharmacy should be committed to the health needs of the community. Period. It is none of the pharmacist’s business as to why the person needs the medication. If one has problems dispensing certain kinds of medication than maybe one should not be running this kind of business in the first place.
June 16th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Well… I was born a Christian Caucasian male and the answer seems pretty obvious to me. See… Jesus made men in his own image so’s they gets to makes the rules and women’s is like the hair of white Caucasian precious blond haired baby Jesus, it’s pretty and all but it ain’t the brains. So’s long as the men folk is makin the rules and long as the women folks obey them rules then everything be fine. So maybe if a women got herself a special note that gave her permission to buy a condom, from a man folk then everything would be okay but everyone knows that every sperm is sacred cause every sperm is made in the image of the baby Jesus himself but now a contraceptive that just killed female eggs, that would be ok cause it would be like if the baby Jesus got a haircut. I mean cuz men is like Jesus and women is like the pretty blond hair of the precious baby Jesus, I mean it’s pretty and all and as long as one of them sacred sperms don’t get hurt then everything gonna be fine. Follow?
June 16th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
^ LOLOL!!!
And here now for your listening and viewing enjoyment is the legendary…
EVERY SPERM IS SACRED ~ Monty Python
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uNgotUM4gk8
AND DON’T FORGET TO SING ALONG!
June 16th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Thanks, directorpooh.
Epiphany, I agree that this is a complicated issue. It’s only going to get more complicated. Basically I see it like this- as long as everyone’s Constitutional rights are protected, and these pharmacies are adhering to health laws, then we have to roll with it.
I would be interested to find an article where the media has actually done a study, citing statistics, on how this could effect the number of shoppers a pharmacy gets… stuff like that.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Wow 7 posts just disappeared from this thread. What happened?
June 17th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Dunno.
June 17th, 2008 at 2:23 am
It IS a pharmacist’s business to know why the person needs the medication. In fact, he is pretty much responsible for double checking the physician’s prescribing decisions. I’m not aware of what oaths pharmacists take, but physicians obviously take the Hippocratic. “Do no harm” to paraphrase. Not everyone agrees, but a good portion of society thinks that early term abortion is killing a human being. Ethically, should a reasonable pharmacist be compelled to stock medicines that in his mind purposefully harm human beings?
If the pharmacist was arbitrarily not giving certain people medicine, discriminating, etc., then obviously that’s a problem. But on a controversial issue like this?
June 17th, 2008 at 2:59 am
Hey Alan where did my post go? It didn’t contain anything graphic or untoward. I posted at about 9:30 PM.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:46 am
If you want a license, you don’t get to pick and choose.
Do you has the right to withhold Lithium or ritalin, on moral grounds?
What if I have a moral problem with viagra without seeing proof of marriage?
Can a pharmacist who is a Jehovah Witness deny drugs with blood products?
If you have a moral problem with guns, can you be a cop?
So, it’s not REALLY about freedom at all, it’s about people wanting to impose THEIR religious beliefs on others.
June 17th, 2008 at 7:16 am
It IS a pharmacist’s business to know why the person needs the medication. – Flap
No it isn’t. I’ve already been through this years ago. I had a prescription and the pharmacist started questioning me as to why I needed this medication. I told him, I refuse to discuss this with you. If you need more information, other than what is written on the script, call my doctor. He didn’t make the call and instead filled the order. I never went back to that drugstore again.
The pharmacist does NOT have the right to start asking personal and confidential questions of the customer. He does have the right to speak to the person’s doctor and what is told will be up to the discretion of the doctor.
Actually I should have filed a complaint against that pharmacist. Other than him though, most pharmacists are very helpful.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Epiphany, you’re dead wrong. In fact, a hospital pharmacist participates sometimes just as much in care of the patient as the physician. You’re looking at the pharmacist as some sort of “pill bottle filler” which is more what a pharm tech does.
You obviously as a patient have a right to refuse to tell your doctor or pharmacist anything you don’t want to tell them, but that potentially harms you in the long-run.
From Washington State:
(1) A pharmacist’s primary responsibility is to ensure patients receive safe and appropriate medication therapy.
It is perfectly reasonable for a pharmacist to ask you questions concerning why this was prescribed, just as physician would. If he consults with your physician he is, in fact, getting personal information from you via your physician.
Now, the pharmacist does NOT have a right to spread information around that would violate your privacy…HIPAA rules and all that stuff.
June 17th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Old Lefty, if I think murder is wrong, is that a “religious belief”?
Abortion is a secular, moral issue as well as religious one. I find it amazing that over such a controversial issue people constantly pull the “religious belief” card.
The question: is the fetus a human being? If so, should killing the fetus be okay? If so, at all points during gestation?
If a pharmacist believes that abortion is murder early in gestation, which is not an unreasonable position, and by prescribing birth control or morning after pills participates in killing a human being, who are you to question it?
June 17th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Flap, do you know the intimate details of my interactions with all my pharmacists over the last 4 plus decades? No? Then you don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t think of a pharmacist as a “pill bottle filler”. I want the pharmacist to know every medication I’m taking. I have discussed symptons of illnesses and side effects from medications with pharmacists who, over time, I have gotten to know and trust. I have no problem with that. But if the pharmicist who I may not be too familiar with and who I do not necessarily trust wants to ask me if I am sexually active or many other personal questions than I will not answer and it is not his place to ask me such questions or to “moralize” over how I live my life. He is not entitled to the same information as I give my doctor, and doctors have already told me this.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
* I am not talking about basic information that the doctor gives the pharmacist which he SHOULD know, I am talking about very personal and confidential information. No he doesn’t have the right to that which is what I’ve been told by doctors.
June 17th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Flap:
I take issue with your statement above:
Old Lefty, if I think murder is wrong, is that a “religious belief”?
Apparently you don’t think murder is wrong because you condone the murder of our troops and Iraqi civilians.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I disagree with their practice, but they have the right to it. And, of course, they have the right to go out of business should those in disagreement decide not to patronize them.
In my honest opinion, this displays an ignorance resplendent in the Conservative right wing establishment. Folks like this business owner have been duped by it for years.
So, I am not surprised to see it. I hope they fail, frankly.
June 17th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Some women may not feel comfortable explaining to a pharmacist, especially a male, about a female medical problem. I understand the pharmacy has to make sure the person needs the particular medicine and it is your medicine. I understand that.
The problem is they should not have the power to stand there disagreeing with you about what condition you have, deciding what medical condition you have, and giving you the medication they think you need. The pharmacist is not my doctor and I prefer it stay that way.
June 17th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
My CVS Pharmacist never asks me anything, other than “do you have any questions for the pharmacist?”. Then I sign a paper that says I didn’t have any questions. One time I did ask something and they asked one or two polite questions. That didn’t bother me b/c I was seeking clarification, and they wanted a better understanding of my situation so that they could answer me. One of the most common things they’ll ask is if you’re taking any other meds. I don’t have a problem with that, when I’ve initiated the conversation.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
TDro, “killing” is not the same thing as “murder.” If you accidentally run someone down while driving home, is that murder? Intent has something to do with it.
Epiphany, I’m not saying it’s reasonable (most of the time) for pharmacists to ask detailed questions about your condition. But it’s perfectly within the realm of their practice and license to ask if they feel it’s necessary. And, yeah, you should not tell them anything you are not comfortable with them knowing. In your case the pharmacist might have been just unprofessional and nosy. I wasn’t implying that you had to tell them, I was saying it was reasonable for them to inquire about your condition, etc., if there is a good reason for them to. Most of the time there should be no reason for a pharmacist to ask you detailed questions about your meds.
He is not necessarily *entitled* to the same info as you give your physician, but if he has a compelling reason to believe something is not right (usually due to the physician) he also doesn’t have to fill your prescription.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:41 am
flap ,
You said:
“If a pharmacist believes that abortion is murder early in gestation, which is not an unreasonable position, and by prescribing birth control or morning after pills participates in killing a human being, who are you to question it?”
……………………………………………..
I don’t question their belief, I question their right to work in a field, where they can POSE as a health care provider, and then choose for me what care they will or will not provide.
It’s a matter of the law.
The law does not see birth control as murder.
They have every right to believe what they want, but if their belief prevents them from filling LEGAL prescriptions, then they DON’T have a right to be a licensed pharmacist.
If someone is a pacifist, and refuses to carry a gun ,don’t join the military or the police force.
I know a Hindu who believes that life that is born trumps the unborn. To THIS person eating meat is more murder than abortion. They are entitled to their opinion, but I don’t expect them to refuse to sell me the steaks I ordered…Don’t work there then.
And the fact that they dispense viagra but don’t sell condoms, tells me that it’s not really about life, as much as it is about controlling women.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Darn good points, OldLefty.
As told to me by a school chum who is now a pharmacist in Missouri and, contrary to what flap said above, it is NOT the pharmacist’s business to know why the person needs the medication. For instance, the pharmacist does not need to or have the right to know if birth control pills are for contraceptive purposes, for the purpose of helping to regulate a woman’s periods or if it is prescribed for acne issues. That specific info is between the patient and her doctor unless the patient choses to tell their pharmacist.
A pharmacist should check their own records (or previous drugstore’s records if okayed by patient) to see if a patient they are filling meds for are taking any other meds that may conflict. They can call and confirm the prescription with the doctor. They should discuss side effects, let them know what other prescriptions/over the counter meds/herbs may cause problems and make sure that the patient understands the way in which they are supposed to take the meds.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
OldLefty, there are many physicians out there who abhor abortion…are you saying they have no right to be licensed physicians? These are tough ethical issues that are far from resolved, a pharmacist is not just a “pill bottle filler,” and subscribing to an absolutist mentality in this case is wrong. Controlling women? Are you serious? Good grief, and I thought I was cynical.
It was LEGAL to have slaves before the Civil War. Does that make it ethical or moral? Healthcare providers have a responsibility, in a sense, to transcend laws and do what is moral and ethical. The Hippocratic Oath.
Finally, some intellectual honesty from OldLefty. I don’t think that born life trumps unborn life. All life is equal. Before the Civil War, white life trumped black life. Should we be in the business of deciding what life trumps what life? Should we unhook all the babies in the NICU? They cost a ton to keep alive and could be technically in the womb still. Unhook all the geriatric patients? If you are “old” as in “oldlefty” is my life more valuable than yours since I am younger and probably much more vigorous both physically and intellectually?
CheesyPoofs, if your friend is not paying attention to WHY patients need certain meds then I’d be scared to go to him as a pharmacist. That’s breaching the most important part of the pharmacist’s professional duties: to make sure a patient will not be harmed by a medication. The pharmacist has a perfect right to know why the person needs the medication, and that USUALLY includes contacting the physician and checking records but can also include talking to the patient. Not necessary most of the time, but perfectly reasonable.
Hospital/clinical pharmacists participate in care of patients almost to the extent of physicians and nurses. To say that it’s “not the pharmacist’s business to know why the person needs the medication” is just dead wrong. You are relegating pharmacists to mere drug technician status.
June 18th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Flap,
The pharmacist doesn’t need to know why a patient is taking birth control pills because the patient’s doctor who wrote the prescription for them knows the why and has deemed the patient fit to take the med. As I said — as per a pharmacist I know who has been legally and safely dispensing medication since the late ’80s — the pharmacist does not need to know WHY the patient is prescribed birth control pills. The pharmicist needs to know what it could interact with, the side effects and the proper way to take the med. These very actions ARE the pharmacist making sure that the patient will not harmed by the meds. What don’t you get about that? The WHY of the birth control pills is none of the pharmacist business unless the patient choses to tell him/her.
Where do you come up with the statement that it USUALLY involves contacting the doctor? When I talked with my pharmacist friend, she said filling most prescriptions does not involve contacting the doctor. And as I’ve already stated, past and current medication records are checked and, of course, the patient is talked to.
I am not relegating pharmacists to drug tech status. They play a very important role in the health of their patients. But you are gving them the status of a doctor which they are not.
June 18th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Flap,
If someone needs an abortion, they have time to go elsewhere, but only 72 hours for plan B.
Plan B actually:
~Prevents ovulation
~Prevents fertilization by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or egg
~Alters the endometrium, which may inhibit implantation
It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun; it will not affect an existing pregnancy or harm a developing fetus.
In the WORST case scenario, that I can imagine, rape or incest, the woman or a girl’s mother only has 72 hours.
If this is the only drug store for 50 miles, they are in trouble.
I think we are leaving the realm of morals and entering sanctimonious judgment on others.
I tend to think this IS more about controlling women than anything: What is their problem with condoms?
No condoms but viagra?
So basically, if this is a small rural area, with only one drug store and a few guys ( you only need a few), who don’t care about their wives, those women REALLY have no choice! If the men get viagra, these women can’t even count on nature?
Although, these pharmacists who would be our moral betters would feel better if the women turned to abortion, because they could not stop fertilization or implantation?
And again, do they have the right to refuse to give Lithium or ritalin?
You know, not all morals have to do with womens bodies.
June 18th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Cheesypoofs, I was saying that IF a pharmacist needs to gather more information it would USUALLY involve contacting a physician instead of talking to the patient.
I can’t think of a scenario offhand in which a pharmacist would absolutely need to know why a patient was on birth control pills that wasn’t evident by the physician’s prescription, but a pharmacist is clearly shirking his/her duty if somehow the physician cannot be contacted, the pharmacist is unsure about the patient’s condition/comorbidities, and he/she fills the prescription anyway. The idea that a patient’s illnesses should be “shielded” from the pharmacist, again, relegates the pharmacist to a pill bottle filler. A pharmacist is part of the health care team!
Preventing implantation, OldLefty, aborts the embryo. A pharmacist should not be compelled to provide drugs for controversial issues such as abortion. This is NOT on par with lithium, blood products, etc. Why do you keep mentioning Viagra? It’s irrelevant to this issue. We’re not talking about sexual performance, we’re talking about potential death of an embryo/fetus/human being. It may be hard for you to realize, but your position that “it’s just an embryo” is NOT held by everyone. Some people feel very strongly that it’s a human being and it should be protected. I’m not saying these drugs should not be legal, I’m saying that a pharmacist shouldn’t be compelled to do things that he feels are unethical.
In fact, I think a pharmacy and/or pharmacist has a right to stock whatever medicines it wants to. If you libs don’t like that the pharmacist won’t dispense certain meds, go elsewhere. I think it’s not in a pharmacy’s business interests not to stock condoms, etc., but they’re a business, right?
Same goes for physicians. Should pro-life OB/Gyns have their licenses revoked if they won’t perform an abortion in a secluded, rural area? The patient can go elsewhere.
June 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Flap,
Yes, I’m aware that if the pharmacist needs more info they can contact the doctor. I clearly said that in my earlier post. But you originally said because the pharmacist has a right to know WHY the med is needed, they USUALLY contact the doctor. That’s incorrect as the pharmacist does not automatically have the right to know WHY.
When a doctor writes a prescription for birth control pills, there is nothing evident on the prescription that says WHY the pills are needed so your point is moot. Obviously if the pharmacist has a legitimate question about the prescription, he/she would be derelict to fill the prescription without talking to the doctor. But asking WHY (such as if birth control pills are for contraceptive reasons or to regulate a patient’s periods) is not within the bounds of legitimacy. The doctor is already aware of the patient’s conditions/comorbidities (thus the doctor writing the prescription in the first place). I’ve already explained what the pharmacist’s duties to the patient are so there’s no need to explain that to you again I hope.
Some meds are going to make it obvious to the pharmacist what the medical condition of the patient is. But others not so much and the pharmacist does not have a right to know WHY (such as with birth control). Another example is the following: I have one ear that’s prone to very severe and painful ear infections (happens every 1 to 1 1/2 years and has done this for over a decade). My current and past doctors have always prescribed me the Z-pak which knocks the problem right out. But the Z-pak can be used for many reasons such as skin infections, STDs and other numerous things.
The pharmacist who fills the Z-pak for me has NO right to know which of these reasons I’m using it for. Same with a prescription for a Medrol Dosepak I received for some extremely severe poison ivy. Medrol can be used for numerous things and the pharmacist doesn’t need to which reason I’m using it for. Nor do I care for him/her to know unless I have a question for them. If he/she does the duties I outlined in my previous posts, then they have responsibly aided me with my healthcare.
And quit spinning it that I think a pharmacist is nothing more than a pill bottle filler. Clearly I do NOT and even said so in my 5:57pm post so stop the BS.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Should a nurse know why she is giving a patient meds or just follow the doctor’s orders? A nurse doesn’t necessarily have a right to question diagnostic or treatment decisions, but patient safety is definitely a responsibility.
Usually a physician’s reason for prescription is fairly self-evident, as many drugs (or groups) point to a specific condition that’s being treated. I mistyped…I meant to type this: “WHEN there is a question or concern, the pharmacist USUALLY calls the physician as opposed to asking the patient.” That, in effect, is giving away information about your conditions. I don’t honestly see much difference between the pharmacist calling your doc versus you telling the pharmacist.
You and Epiphany are still dead wrong. While there may not be a compelling reason why a pharmacist should specifically need to know your zithro is for gonorrhea or an ear infection, better care is provided and less mistakes are made when pharmacists have the full picture. Just like your physician. Do you withhold things from your doctor? You have a perfect right to, but it’s at your own risk. The pharmacist is the last link in the healthcare provider chain before you get the medicine.
I’m not saying that pharmacists have a right to be nosy or you need to spill your guts to the pharmacist about your diseases. Usually it IS just filling pills. My point is that the pharmacist is an integral member of the healthcare team. Epiphany was making a broad statement about how pharmacists have no right to know about her conditions. In other words, she was implying that they should just be “pill bottle fillers” and leave everything to the physician. They reasonably DO have a right to know patient information since it is their professional ass if they don’t catch a mistake or omission by the physician. It’s very important that they know about conditions that may be pertinent to the drugs you are taking.
In fact, I did some research and RPh’s in six states can WRITE prescriptions for certain drug schedules! I wasn’t even aware of that. Do you think that warrants a little info?
Maybe you’re coming at this from a political perspective. You’re scared that Mr. Evil Uncaring Pro-Life Conservative Pharmacist will invade your privacy or restrict your early-term abortion rights. I doubt it. Most pharmacists probably don’t care. Most physicians are pro-choice.
June 19th, 2008 at 5:30 am
flap,
My main concern is this:
This is the ONLY drug store in the area. The rape/incest victim is a 13 year old child, and the the offender is her uncle. Her father would never believe her over his brother.
You don’t even know IF the egg is fertilized.
The “pro life” pharmacist would refuse to provide her contraception and simply tell her,
‘Tough luck Honey, I care more about the POSSIBLE life of one cell, than I care about YOUR life.’
But this SAME pharmacist would provide her tormenter
viagra.
Sure, this kind of thing happens rarely (hopefully), but it IS this most vulnerable person who has the greatest need and is being harmed by both the molester AND the pharmacist who imposes his morals on another.
I’d rather see a fertilized egg unable to implant, as happens often in nature anyway, then to see another Adrea Yates.
In a society where we dismiss innocent civilian deaths as “collateral damage”,and use cluster bombs that go on killing for years (especially children)…
When the same people seem to be comfortable with so many poor people being unable to afford pre-natal care, and FDA studies have shown rocket fuel in breast milk, I just find this great concern for ‘life’, somewhat insincere.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Oh please.
Are we free in this country or not? Why do Leftists have to impose their strange demented morality onto everyone.
What kind of person after hearing that someone is raped , has as the first thing on their list of things to do: Oh make sure to get an abortion.
And what.. the whole soceity has to accodomate this need to kill?
I dont think so.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Vince P,
We believe that it is YOUR side that wants to “impose their strange demented morality onto everyone.”
You said:
“What kind of person after hearing that someone is
raped , has as the first thing on their list of
things to do: Oh make sure to get an abortion.”
THE first thing is to PREVENT pregnancy! Particularly when the rape is incest. you would deny the victim that.
You said:
“And what.. the whole soceity has to accodomate
this need to kill?”
Tell it to all the dead and maimed Iraqi children!
June 19th, 2008 at 8:31 am
If you care so much that every girl immediately think about aborting after getting raped (you know.. instead of going to the police first.. or a hospital.. the first thing you want is the coat hanger) then open a store to provide the service.
I believe in freedom. No one should be compelled to sell any product they don’t want to.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:38 am
What if the rapist is her father?
And the pharmacist is selling HIM viagra?
The pharmacist doesn’t have a moral problem with that.
“I believe in freedom. No one should be compelled
to sell any product they don’t want to.”
Freedom has NOTHING to do with it.
If I have a moral problem with shooting a gun, I should not join the military, and then expect the other guys in my unit to accomadate me.
The pharmacist who has moral problems filling prescriptions shouldn’t go into that line of work.
Again I have problems with giving kids drugs I don’t believe in , or dispensing viagra to a single man,
You don’t get to pick and choose.
That would be moral relativism.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:54 am
I’m not going down the rabbit hole with you Alice.
Freedom.
June 19th, 2008 at 8:57 am
That’s so funny because we have a local liberal talk show host who ALWAYS says:
“We”re through the looking glass, with these Bush supporters!”
Perhaps you are a fan?
June 19th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Flap,
Now you’re switching over to talking about a nurse? LOL! You and I are talking pharmacists here. I’ve told you what a pharmacist told me their legal, medical and ethical rights and responsibilities to their patients are and you still choose to believe whatever it is you wish to believe.
There are lots of instances where the particular reason WHY a patient is taking is not evident. I’ve given you only 3 such examples. There are plenty more examples. You say you meant to type WHEN there is a question the pharmacist usually calls the doctor. I’ve already stated that the pharmacist can call the patient’s doctor to clear up questions. This is USUALLY done when there is a question about drug interactions with something else patient is taking, if the pharmacist thinks the patient isn’t understanding how the drug is to be used, etc. but NOT because the pharmacist wants to know WHY a patient is taking birth control pills or why I would be taking the Z-pak. Your assumption that if the pharmacist calls the doctor with prescription questions it would automatically give away a patient’s condition is not correct. A pharmacist can easily call to ask a question about a birth control prescription without finding out whether it is for contraceptive reasons or other valid medical reasons.
Thanks for finally admitting that there may be no compelling reason that a pharmacist would need to know WHY a patient takes a particular med. And, no, better care is not provided me by my pharmacist if he/she knows whether my Z-pak meds are for an STD or an earache. Because my pharmacist and I talk about what other drugs/herbs/OTC meds I’m taking, they’ve made me aware of interactions and side effects and told me how I’m supposed to take the drug, I am being provided excellent care. Knowing these things means the pharmacist already has the vital info required to keep them from making mistakes. His/her knowing the exact reason WHY I’m taking a prescription is not necessary for me to receive excellent care from them. In your case, maybe YOU would feel more soothed about your total healthcare picture if you told YOUR pharmacist whether you were taking a Z-pak for an STD or an earache. That’s your perogative but it does not mean that I’m not getting full healthcare if I chose to keep the WHY between my doctor and I.
Do I withhold things from my doctor? You’ve got no other argument so now you set up a straw man? LOL! Of course I don’t withhold things from my doctor. But my pharmacist is NOT my doctor. So now you admit that you think a pharmacist usually IS just a pill filler? LOL! You say the pharmacist is an “integral member of the healthcare team”. Um, I’ve already said a they play a very important role in the health of their patients. Protest all you like but pharmacists do NOT have the right to know the specifics of WHY a patient is taking a med. If the pharmacist is doing all their other duties responsibly, they will catch doctor mistakes.
Of course it warrants more specific info IF a pharmacist is going to be writing prescriptions themselves. But that is NOT what this discussion has been about so quit trying to move the goalposts mid-discussion.
No, I’m coming at this discussion I’m having with you from the viewpoint that a specific medical condition is between the doctor and the patient and that the pharmacist does not have the right to know WHY a patient is taking birth control pills, Z-pak, etc. unless the patient wishes for that to be the case. It’s about patient privacy. Your attempt to turn our specific discussion on this matter in into a political issue shows where you’re coming from.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:35 am
A nurse is a non-physician member of the healthcare team, just a pharmacist is. When a nurse asks you about what conditions you have, do you not tell him or her? (Some patients actually do that.) You told me through YOUR mental filter what you heard from your pharmacist friend, which may or may not be accurate.
Many pharmacists already have access to your full medical records. I certainly know from experience that the VA computers are full of those records. Should they not have access to that? Isn’t it a matter of privacy? Essentially you are saying that the pharmacist should know as little as possible about a patient’s comorbid conditions. That’s insanity, especially in complicate patients. There’s a difference between prying into someone’s personal life and making sure that someone is given the proper drug treatment, Cheesy. YOU’RE making this into a political issue, not me. If a patient is taking birth control pills because she is on Accutane (for bad acne), it certainly behooves the pharmacist to know that so he/she can counsel the patient that if you get pregnant while on Accutane, the baby will be badly deformed. It is not a minor issue.
I would agree that there’s no compelling reason in many cases. In many cases a pharmacist truly does function as just a “pill bottle filler.” Blood pressure meds, cholesterol meds, antidepression meds, etc. That doesn’t mean that the pharmacist, if he is suspicious or unclear about something, and cannot contact the physician, should not ASK the patient. If the patient is so concerned about privacy then the he/she doesn’t have to tell the pharmacist. But it could potentially impact treatment. Though I’m not a pharmacist, if I had a patient who would NOT tell me what other conditions he/she had, and I could not contact the doctor, AND there was an issue that could potentially endanger the patient’s health, do you think I would dispense that medication? I personally have no interest in telling my pharmacist jack squat, I am speaking from the pharmacist’s perspective. You are assuming that the pharmacist has the vital info required to keep them from making mistakes. Most of the time, you’re right. But there are always exceptions. That’s why your idea of “shielding” the pharmacist from your conditions is not receiving the best total care.
Whoa, where is the straw man? We’re talking healthcare providers. You are again wrong: pharmacists have a perfect right to know specifics of WHY a patient is taking a med if it is pertinent. If you go to your physician for a broken leg and he starts asking about your sex life (unless you broke your leg during sex…), that’s inappropriate IN THAT CASE. But a physician in general has the perfect right to know about your sex life as it can affect your health. Now, you don’t have to tell him jack and that’s your right.
Who is moving goalposts? Epiphany said the pharmacist has “no right to know why” and that’s incorrect as a general rule. As a healthcare provider participating in drug treatment he has a right to know if it will affect or endanger your health. A perfect right.
Blah blah blah, I didn’t come from a political perspective in this case, Cheesy. Look, you don’t have to tell your pharmacist jack squat and generally speaking it’s not gonna matter. I would feel uncomfortable as well.
June 19th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
OMG, flap, you make it nearly impossible to have a discussion with you.
I wonder if you actually read any of my posts? I’ve ALREADY said a patient has to discuss with their pharmacist the prescriptions/over the counter meds/herbs. etc. they are taking. When these kind of discussions take place between pharmacist and patient, the pharmacist would know about both the birth control pills and the Accutane and the patient would have been told that she should not get pregnant…which is why she was PRESCRIBED the birth control pills in the first place!
And I’ve also ALREADY said that if the pharmacist has a legitimate question about the prescription, he/she would be derelict to fill the prescription without talking to the doctor. My pharmacist does not have access to my full medical records unless I give them explicit, written permission. Your situation may vary. The topic of my discussion with you was about a PHARMACIST’s right to know WHY a patient is taking a med…not your straw man about doctors’ and nurses’ rights or withholding info from a doctor (as a pharmacist is NOT a doctor). You again said that pharmacists have a perfect right to know specifics of WHY a patient is taking a med if it is pertinent. But, instead of sticking with the pharmacist scenario, you switch off to giving an example of a doctor asking about one’s sex life. LOL! You just can’t seem to stay on topic. And if you can’t see that you obviously moved the goalposts when, completely out of the blue, you started talking about pharmacists WRITING prescribing instead sticking with our discussion about pharmacists FILLING them, then you are a total lost cause.
You cannot show even one place where I made my discussion with you (about whether a pharmicist has the right to know WHY you are taking a particular prescription) into a political issue. YOU brought a political viewpoint into our discussion with the last paragraph of your 5:30am comment.
You can’t stay on topic, try to put words in my mouth, move the goalposts mid-discussion and engage in dishonest, straw man tactics. If you can’t handle that a current, legally registered pharmacist says you are wrong with your idea that a pharmacist has the RIGHT to know WHY a patient is taking a med, then there’s nothing more I can do for you. Apparently you are Liberalland’s resident know-it-all and you are unwilling to listen to anything other than what you mistakenly believe to be the truth. Please don’t bother responding to this as you are beyond redemption at this point.
June 19th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
spelling correction —- And if you can’t see that you obviously moved the goalposts when, completely out of the blue, you started talking about pharmacists WRITING prescriptions instead sticking with our discussion about pharmacists FILLING them, then you are a total lost cause.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:03 am