Oral contraceptives have been on the market for about 40 years, yet only recently do we hear of pharmacists who refuse to fill these prescriptions because their religious beliefs oppose contraception.
I am, as the saying goes, “calling bullshit.”
If this had been an immediate and widespread issue when the pill was new, in the age of mini-skirts and white lipstick and white girls ironing their hair, when the question of ladies wearing “pant suits” was, in some smaller communities in the US, still a question, it is reasonable to assume that the pharmacy body, whatever it is called, as well as institutions that award degrees and licenses to practice this profession, would have settled the question in short order.
But this is a fairly recent phenomenon, and appears to be confined to the very narrow issue of oral contraceptives. I have yet to hear of a gentleman being told that the pharmacist will be unable to refill his Viagra due to religious prohibition.
There have been no reports of dental patients complaining because a drugstore employee informed them that pain is God’s punishment for sin, so no Vicodin for you.
What do you suppose the manager of the local Subway or Quizno’s would say to a devout Muslim or Jew who declared that he would be unable to prepare sandwiches containing ham?
Would they post a sign? Issue a press release? Ask the lunch line to divide itself into ham and not ham?
Would anyone challenge the employee, ask him, in light of his deeply held religious scruples, why in the hell was he working in a place that would require him to handle non-Halal/non-Kosher meat of ANY kind?
We can only speculate, because this is simply not a problem. Not in the US, not anywhere.
People whose faith precludes certain activities or contact with certain substances simply do not choose careers that require them to violate those beliefs. Duh.
Few Buddhists enroll in butcher school, or seek work in slaughterhouses. You will find a noticeable lack of devout Hindus at beef processing plants, and a similar dearth of conservative Jewish or Muslim men who are constrained from touching unrelated females presiding over a pedicure chair at the local beauty salon. (How about a nice pink-and-white today, Miss Chang? Let me just clip my payess up. There! health regulations, you know.)
Re-Duh.
It is up to the professional pharmacy associations and licensing boards to offer every help and support to those of their number whose recent religious conversions have rendered them unable to practice their chosen profession, to choose a new career that does not compromise their faith, train for it, and obtain employment that will not put them in the difficult position of having to face this moral dilemma every time Mrs. Gul comes in for her (or her daughter’s) birth control pills.
It should NOT be up to patients to lobby, scold, reason and plead with either politicians or pharmacies to please let them have their medicine.
That the appropriate institutions have NOT stepped in, that the issue instead is being debated among politicians, editorial writers, corporate exectutive boards, and again, patients themselves, is an indication that this has nothing to do with religious freedom, and everything to do with the effort to solidify the concept of women as property.
In addition to the obvious clear and present danger to women, it is also an insult to the millions of people who do have strong religious beliefs, and the common sense to avoid career choices that conflict with them.
I am a pharmacist, currently working on a graduate degree in a program where all of the students are already licensed pharmacists, practicing in a variety of settings (hospital, retail, industry, etc). In my most recent class one evening, the professor and I began a discussion of pharmacist refusal to dispense plan B and/or birth control.
We were the only 2 people in the room who were aware of the issue of pharmacists refusing to dispense. That’s right, regular retail pharmacists had no idea that this was even an issue. I think the right wing has pushed to make this an issue where it generally did not exist before, so they could then claim religious persecution with regard to Plan B.
I think people wth religious beliefs that prevent them from providing appropriate medical care in accordance with the patietns and physician’s wishes should find another profession. It is unethical to deny care based on one’s personal beliefs. End of story.
Thank you for this diary! I’ve been thinking along the same lines and have a few more examples to consider.
If a pharmacist belongs to a religion that belives aids was sent to punish gays, can he/she fail to provide medications for HIV?
If a pharmacist believes that the white race is favored by god, can he refuse to dispense medication for sickle cell anemia?
If a pharmacist converts to Christian Science can he refuse to fill all prescriptions?
This issue shows a failure of common sense and demonstrates how cowed politicians have become by religious fanatics. Since extremists of many religions have very controlling views when it comes to women, I guess it is not surprising that women should be the first targeted. This crap has got to stop!
Can I just confess to a petty desire to go back to working in retail pharmacy to just try out the “I’m sorry, but I can’t fill your prescription for Viagra, sir, as I believe it’s God’s will that you are unable to maintain an erection long enough to do anything with it.”
I’d be fired so damned fast if I did that…do you think the fundies would back me? π
“stumbling block of lust” somewhere..
You would really need to demand a marriage certificate from the men so that they can prove they aren’t likely to be having sex outside of the coveted “christian marriage”. That would really get the right -wing-nuts arguing amongst eachother.
Or that all men get reversible vasectomies as soon as they hit puberty, which can only be reversed with the explicit, written, uncoerced permission of their wife. And which must be performed again as soon as their wife decides so, or if they get divorced.
For some reason, I think the theocrats would be less willing to support that.
No, no… Single men can’t have vasectomies performed without a marriage certificate… Single guys with a vasectomy might have “Non-christian-validated sex” and that should never be allowed.
I like what they have below VVV… Imagine the republican that isn’t giving his wife any trying to explain to her why he needs viagara (For a mistress? For shame!)
“Say what Mr. GOP? You want a condomn? Where is your wife and marriage certificate? You see: God wants you to get STDs and have unwanted kids outside of marriage… It will be your punishment for sinning.”
For some reason, I think the theocrats would be less willing to support that.
Absolutely not. The theocrats are interested in fertility, everyone’s fertility. Catholic public hospitals refuse to perform all manner of surgical procedures which would render a person infertile including vascetomies. Indeed, the Church is opposed to the use of condoms as a defense against AIDS transmission. In Africa.
These people are insane.
That might be kind of fun. I can just see myself standing there in my lab coat saying: “Now, how do I know you aren’t going to take this and go off to schtup the neighbor’s wife? You bring your your wife back, with your marriage certificate, and have her give me her permission for you to have this medication, then I will dispense it. Not a moment before.”
Oh my–the cries of emasculation that would ensue. Heh.
Yeah…try wearing THAT shoe. See how well it fits.
If anybody runs into one of these moralists who think they have a hotline to god, let’s see if they would fill men’s Viagra prescriptions, but not women’s contraceptive prescriptions. You can’t have the goose without the gander, and if you’re really interested in controling this immoral, sex-crazed culture, you need to deny Viagra to men as well.
I would like to see the look on Bob Dole’s face if he ever goes into a Pharm and is told he can’t have his Viagra, because, you know, the Bible teaches all sex is sin.
AMEN. Thank you.
I work for a webdesign company; it is sometimes my job to post things on the internet that I find offensive to my (political) values, because I don’t agree with my clients’ political views. But posting it is my JOB, and I respect their freedom of speech. So I post it, because that’s the service they’re paying us for.
If I’m paying a pharmacy to fill my prescription, I expect the same service, no matter what that prescription is or what the pharmacist may think of me or why I need it. That’s his (or her) bloody JOB. Now, if there’s a medication conflict problem, I expect the pharmacist to say something, just as I tell my clients when something’s not technologically feasible (or when it will require extra programming and extra expense).
But otherwise, they should do their job, or find another line of work, or a different workplace (such as a hospital) where they might avoid the conflict.
What I have such a hard time comprehending is that these same pharmacists claim prolife views, no abortions, etc. One would then logically think that birth control is absolutely necessary to prevent unwanted pregnancies. This is just another one of those hot button issues that the radical right wingnuts use to fire up the base. To fire up the crazies that normally won’t vote unless one of these inititives is on a ballot. We saw what they did in 04 with gay marriage and anti abortion issues. It fired up the crazies to go vote. Will they keep these issues dangling for years just to keep them voting?
They are out to control women’s sexuality in any way they can and punishing women with pregnancy for having sex is an excellent way to do this. Look at the fundies reaction to the HPV vaccine — they’re more concerned about possible sexual activity than they are about preventing cervical cancer.
They are afraid that women’s sexual and reproductive autonomy is connected to full human autonomy for women — and they’re right.
The thing that boggles my mind is that there are a number of other reasons to take oral contraceptive. I have not ovulated for the last the 6 years, without taking the pill(I am 38). My doctor prescribed oral contraceptive so that I might actually get pregnant!
Right. Women take the pill for all kinds of reasons. I’ve known very young women (teenagers) who took it to moderate their monthly flows and prevent a week of incredibly painful cramps each month.
What business is it of theirs why a doctor prescribes it?
At the risk of TMI, I’ve been in both categories. And my message to the busy-body lobby:
IT’S NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS WHAT I USE MY PILLS FOR!
There.
That’s better.
When they claim that emergency contraception “takes a life”, ask if their store sells cigarettes.
Fucking Kerry and Hilliary co-sponsered the Freedom to Discriminate Bill with the grand wingnut himself Sanatorum
I still think that the savvy ones of the right use the abortion issue for their own political gain. They do not give one hoot about abortions and birth control. The ‘christian wingnuts’ may truly believe that abortion is wrong but their hypocrisy about guns and killing debunk them. IMHO we need to not get so riled up in front of the scene. We should be diligently working behind the scenes in courts and with our politicians.
It is such a diversion and divisive topic and been used to the MAX by both sides.
I am pro-choice always will be pro-choice and am glad I never had to make that choice. I know many who have had abortions and can only imagine the ones who had one and never mention it. Abortions will always be available be it underground or legal. I just think we should, like so many other things people do, keep it as a private personal choice and let this battle go by the wayside. There are no winners.
I doubt that these laws were ever designed or intended to actually help “devout” pharmacists.
It seems more likely to me that they’re intended to provide cover for corporations. Remember that conservatives believe in forcing everyone else to follow their “morality”. And while relatively few pharmacists are religiously conservative, a large number of corporate CEOs and executives are. I have no doubt that these laws would’ve been used to protect companies who banned contraceptives from their pharmacies, in the name of protecting them from religious discrimination lawsuits. And that fundamentalist CEOs and executives would’ve moved to take over as many pharmacy companies as possible.
Thanks for this diary, DuctapeFatwa. Too many non-political junkie type people are making the mistake of interpreting this issue as one of religious freedom, which of course is an intentional smokescreen, so we need as many people as possible to speak up and explain more clearly how it is really about controlling women.
And where is the Democratic party on this? This is not a rhetorical question. They should be collectively screaming from the rooftops against this. But the last time I heard anything party-representative, it was about Kerry collaborating with that evil black-hearted bastard Santorum to craft legislation that would protect the goddamn pharmacists.
I think that schemes like this are mainly responsible for this mess:
We might need something similar on the left to encourage sane and rational students to take up the field, and others.
I had suspected something like this. Just as the Club for Growth and other right wing groups have been working on taking control of the media, haven’t there been groups working on taking over the birthing and birth control industries?
Several years ago when I was teaching school in East Texas, the area Catholic hospitals cut a deal such that they delivered almost all of the babies, and so did much of the gynecological care of women. Except, oh, that they would not do 1) tying of tubes post delivery (which used to be, at least, an easier time to have tubal ligation), or at any other time; 2) hysterectomies; nor any kind of procedure that sacrificed the infant during emergency delivery or fetus before birth to save the life of the mother. Nor would they allow women to take birth control pills who were in the hospital for other reasons.
I had to have emergency surgery for a rapidly growing ovarian tumor. Just because it might have required a hysterectomy, the hospital would not allow such surgery at their location, so my doctor had to take me elsewhere.
With this sudden appearance of pharmacists denying medicines to women, I have wondered if there were a concerted attempt going on to get fundamentalist students to major in pharmacy.
I hadn’t insurance when this occured but I called my old doctor who knew my history. Getting pregnant could kill me. He knows this. So when there was an accident – as accidents do happen, even with married couples… he was more than willing to write me a prescription.
The only problem…
Finding a pharmacy to fill it.
We have basically Wal-Mart in this area who fills the majority of the scripts.
Now mind you – there is a clock ticking for this prescription. You’re dealing with the emotional pains and decisions as it is. You don’t even know if you ARE pregnant but you MUST take precautions due to your health.
Our old, independant pharmacy not only filled the prescription but took me aside to make sure I understood the directions. He said to me, “this is prescribed when 1. something terrible has happened to you or 2. if your health is at risk. He was very kind.
But what if he wasn’t there? What if he had felt emboldened by this Administration to refuse?
This isn’t just about women. This is about DECENCY and DIGNITY.
This isn’t about abortion. This is about our right to decide. Our right to live. Our right to be out from under the thumb of our government or someone’s bible.
Women as Property. Boo-yah!
Oh wait. I thought I had signed on to my Free Republic account.
Fucking gotta watch Bob Dole push Viagra with subtly perverse references to his fantasies about Brittney Spears while I’m trying to watch the Super Bowl. And someone in the world needs to get all moral about my wife and I not wanting to bring any more kids into this fucking cruel world. Holy shit. I would seriously have to stomp down a pharmacist if he said this shit. I know it is not the pacifist thing to do, but right is right.
One wonders how these “spiritually enlightened” phamacists would reconcile this behavior with the funding cuts to Medicaid and to other social programs. You must give birth but don’t expect any help from the government if you are down on your luck. No, just go seek solace at your local church like a good Christian should and keep working your $6.50/hour job at Walmart. This society would prefer individuals that are like so many sheep, doing what fundamentalist religion and big business tells them to do. Freedom to procreate (or not) and independent thinking are for traitors.
I think a doctor can be punished for failure to provide appropriate care. There is also the Oath of Hippocrates.
Is there a code of ethics for pharmacists? Lots of professions require people to do things that they personally don’t participate in.
Another issue is that many of the pharmacists who have objected to Plan B work for large chains. This implies, either that the chains have a religious basis or that they don’t have any control over their employees.
I wonder what the stockholders think of this?
I don’t know how reliable it is, but Google turned this one up. Of note:
While respecting the autonomy and dignity of the patient is laudable, what the pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription is doing is failing to respect the autonomy and instructions of the prescribing physician.
If he or she sincerely feels that strongly about it, give the lady her medicine and then take it up with the doctor who wrote the prescription, not the patient.
And if the medical treatment industry ever wants to nip this in the bud, all they have to do is get just one pharmacist charged with practicing medicine without a license.
Well, from my pov they’re failing to respect the autonomy of both the patient and the doctor (as well as the doctor’s professional opinion of course), but I certainly take your point. π
I think it’s ludicrous and horrifying that so many people are taking these “suddenly so religious” pharmacists so seriously. Seems like there’s a thousand different legal, effective ways to stop them — if people really wanted them stopped.
but his duty, what he is trained and bound by his ethics to do, is comply with the instructions of the physician.
For example, if your doctor prescribes for you some Pillora, and you say to the pharmacist, can I have Pillina instead, he is not authorized to do that. He is authorized to call your doctor and ask her, or more likely, tell you to call her, and either come back with a prescription for Pillina or have her call it in to him.
If he usurps the doctor’s authority and gives you the Pillina, he will, and should, lose his license, and may also be subject to legal penalties.
Which is also what should happen if he refuses for any reason, to fill your prescription. If he has a legitimate concern, for example if he is aware that you are taking another medication that may react badly with Pillora, or if the FDA just recalled the latest batch, etc, it is your doctor he should consult for guidance, not you.
And I agree that if there was a desire on the part of “authorities” to put a stop to this crap, for once and for all, it would have been done when the first pharmacist refused the first woman.
Okay, a little friendly pedantry, then. π
Of course. But a pharmacist’s duty to the doctor is not mutually exclusive with the existence of an additional, separate duty that the pharmacist has to the patient — which duty I maintain is equally as important to the role the pharmacist performs as another professional licensed by the state, and which I believe is reflected in the language of the Code of Ethics I linked to upthread. (Again, I didn’t ensure that that’s the right Code for the profession, it was just a quickie google search, so I’m not trying to make much of an appeal to authority here.)
I would also elaborate from my pov about the hypothetical you raise where there is a bad interaction between Pill#1 and Pill#2. I would argue that the pharmacist’s duty to intervene is in this case at least an equal duty to both patient and doctor. The duty to follow instructions is present as always, but in this case, the duty to care for the patient’s safety rises in importance such that a doctor’s instructions are not followed without question. And I strongly suspect that pharmacists are under no obligation to dispense medication that they have objective reason to believe will harm a patient (using the old-fashioned, sane definition of “harm”), so in this case the duty to the patient may at times take precedence over the duty to the doctor.
I see concurrent duties and relationships, neither of which is necessarily always hierarchized over the other, but rather, which are in some state of flux depending on the particular context at hand.
And I’m so sorry, but I have to bow out of this conversation because it’s my roommate’s birthday, and she’s leaving town tomorrow for an extended trip so I need to stop obsessively reading blogs for the night. Thanks again for a[nother] great diary. π
My original point was more “snark” than anything else, that even if the pharmacist does NOT respect the patient’s dignity, which he certainly should, he is still bound to respect the physician’s authority, and is prohibited by law, as we all are in almost every country, from engaging in the practice of medicine when we do not have the license to do so.
a responsible pharmacist would call the physician to confirm the prescription — this actually happens quite a bit, especially if you have a patient who sees several specialists who are not part of the same medical group. I actually had a pharmacist call my doctor to confirm a prescription because she could not read the doctor’s handwriting. Objecting to a prescription (or at the least delaying it) in that case I have no problem with. I also have no problem with pharmacists cautioning a customer about drug interactions; when I get a prescription for antibiotics, I always get warned about how they reduce the efficacy of birth control pills (I actually had one pharmacist drop a couple of condoms in my prescription bag — the spouse was picking it up which made it even funnier!).
Oh, and happy birthday to your roomie… π
Hub said-‘Well what are ya gonna do when your pharmacist is a Christian Scientist?’-so you go in there and they just say “NO”.
Here’s the exchange and reply.
Me:
I was greatly saddened to read that Kroger does not require its pharmacists to fill medical prescriptions for women in
need of some types of birth control. Our family will no longer shop at King Soopers until all your pharmacists are
required to fill all prescriptions.
Reply:
Thank you for contacting us. We appreciate the sensitivity of this issue and are grateful for the opportunity to
respond to your concerns.
The pharmacist who took this customer’s call was willing to fill the prescription, however, the call came near the end
of his shift and he knew that the incoming pharmacist would not be able to fill it. He then offered her several
options, which included filling it for her if she was able to get to the store before his shift ended that day or during
his shift the next day or he would call it in to any pharmacy that was convenient for her during the night (whether
another Fry’s location or a competitor pharmacy). The patient refused any of these options. Our pharmacist acted
within the guidelines set by the State Board of Pharmacy.
Sincerely,
Teresa Hanner
Consumer Affairs
Reference: 2753811
Me again:
Thank you for your reply. The question remains as to why the incoming pharmacist was unable to fill it. If this is due to “religious” considerations I ask the following questions:
If the answers are yes, then the issue is clearly one of controlling women and not religious conviction.
Please do let me know. If King Soopers does honor all women’s prescriptions I will shop there. If they do not, then I will share information about this gender discrimination in as many ways as I can.
Thank you for the information.
Then I called my local store only to be dismissed by the idea that “everyone has this policy now and your have to eat so suck it up you stupid feminist”.
So where can I shop now?
Where is this store?? State? and what’s there, ta duh, phone number so that some of us unreasonable wimmen can call and wish them a “nice day”? π
The phone: it’s my favorite weapon π
These stores are all over Colorado. The one I called has a phone number of:
(303) 702-0099
Thanks for calling!
I really like the argument of
do you sell cigarettes…
They say they “respect life and health” yet when asked about smoking they say “it’s one’s choice”… interesting huh?
I’m awaiting relocation informaiton – but I’ll call soon. In a day or two… when the bastards aren’t expecting it π
Make sure all you know start calling.
It’s how I smacked KTVU over airing the Runaway Bride instead of Cindy Sheehan.
My question: Why could he not fill the prescription (which consists of entering the information into the computer, checking for interactions, printing a label, and applying it to the medication packaging, putting it into a bag, and putting it into the bin to be picked up) before he left, and had someone else ring the purchase up on the register? Then, when the offending religious pharmacist came on shift, they wouldn’t have had to particpate in filling the prescription.
Answer: because King Sooper’s response is a load of shit.
AH! You made my day with your answer. I was so frustrated. Now I can go out and rake leaves with a smile on my face- although that may be because I’m envisioning alternate uses for the tines.
Sense & sensibility. That’s CG for you.
Yup, this response just reeks of Corporate Communications speak… I bet their pharmicist threatened to sue them for abrogating his “religious freedom” by making him fill a prescription and they are trying to cover their asses by concocting this ridiculous response.
I want to know how they are defining the filling of a prescription. Is it the entering of the order into the computer, the affixing of the label to the packet, or the handing it over and taking payment? Is it all 3 combined?
Most supermarket pharmacies have both a pharmacist and a technician on the floor at all times. In the case of the letter Tehanu received, there should be no reason that the prescription was not prepared by the pharmacist without a religious problem, and the tech could have rung up the purchase if the young woman couldn’t get there before the religious whackjob pharmacist assumed her duties.
If you want to find out whether your pharmacy REALLY supports the use of EC, call and ask them if they stock plan B or if they would have to order it for you. Given the urgent nature of taking the pills as soon after unprotected sex as possible, they should stock it, especially at larger pharmacies.
Luckily I (and other) women don’t have that problem in Canada. All our pharmacies stock plan B and the pill (and most have extended hours, in some cases open 24 hours)… it is painless and relatively cheap to get Plan B (talk to the pharmacist about when you last had sex to make sure you can still use it and then they tell you how to take it and about any potential side effects)… I’ve never heard of a problem up here. The majority of people just aren’t religious whackjobs up here… or if they are they know to just keep it to themselves… if you don’t want to take the pill, don’t. Simple as that.
It will take a mass movement of women calling these corporations to task for putting women’s health at risk and squashing their civil rights/ freedoms to satisfy some nutbar.
Yes, it is interesting to know how they define “filling a prescription”, although I would bet the pharmasicst who had the problem considered it even having the scrip in his presence during his shift…
The strange thing is that most pharmacists I know are unaware of all this hullaballoo about EC!
Canada sounds like such a lovely place..no Bush, no torture, universal healthcare, no hangups about EC, no obvious religious whackjobs taking over the country….
CabinGirl has such a beautiful brain!!!!!
xoxox!
Good for you for speaking up!
As for shopping, try CostCo if you have one available. They’re not sexist bastards, their CEO donates to Democrats, and they take great general care of their employees, with living wages and reasonable benefit packages. I think CostCo will also mail you your Rx, but you can probably check that at their website.
I will. I will also think good thoughts about you all day!
Thanks for the prompt.