Can pharmacists refuse to dispense the "morning after" pill?
Pharmacists have adopted a "conscience clause," saying they should not have to dispense a drug if it violates their moral beliefs. But the Northwest Women's Law Center is now asking the State Pharmacy Board to revoke or suspend the licenses of pharmacists who refuse to dispense the "morning after" pill. They say, the pill is most effective within the first 72 hours and women should not have to drive around, searching for a pharmacist who's willing to carry it. Pharmacists say, there are plenty of pharmacies that offer the pill and it's not fair to force a pharmacist to act against his or her convictions.
We're replaying this broadcast of KING 5 News Up Front because the State Pharmacy Board is holding hearings next week. Do pharmacists have the right to refuse? How do you balance their conscience with the rights of patients to get medication?
Why is giving out Plan B (emergency contracptives) a moral dilemma? According to the packaging of Plan B and disclaimers given by numerous community family planning groups, Plan B does NOT work if the egg and sperm have already met. It isn't abortion. There is no fetus. And if their is? Plan B isn't gonna work anyways.
It's very disconcerting that in our seemingly progressive society that news outlets (on occasion King 5... sorry guys, I love ya but sometimes bias is unavoidable and unintentional... I still watch ya everyday:) continue to paint these pharmacists as saints, as holier than thou protectors of unborn babies. I can only imagine the horror of being a 14 year old girl panicking because of a unintended or unwanted sexual encounter going to her family pharmacist to prevent an unwanted pregnancy and being told that she better go somewhere else. How frightening.
And isn't that just what we WANT our young people to do? Take responsibility for their actions? Sure, engaging in sexual acitivity at a young age can be considered immoral or wrong, however no matter how many pharmacists refuse to dispense Plan B, kids are still going to have sex.
Going to get Plan B to prevent pregnancy is a responsible thing to do and is NOT morally wrong. If Plan B was not dispensed, perhaps more girls would get pregnant and they would be faced with 2 decisions, either of which could be considered more morally wrong than giving out Plan B.
1. Have an abortion. Which I would think pharmacists against giving out Plan B would be even more against.
2. Have the baby, give it up for adoption or keep it, burdening the family and more than likely forcing the young woman or her entire family to go on welfare.
Pharmacists have a job to do just like everyone else. And if pharmacists are allowed to refuse Plan B willy-nilly, where does that stop? No more birth control at all?
I mean, pharmacists are more than willing to dispense Viagra or Cialis, but not Plan B? How does that make sense?
Not to say that pharmacists are suppose to have hearts of stone without any values or opinions, but what if everyone could react that way? Could a grocery checker refuse to sell cookies and candy to an obese customers? Or refuse to sell alcohol to certain people?
Could veterinarians refuse to service certain dog breeds?
Could teachers refuse to cover certain subject matter because they found it morally wrong to instruct certain races or genders?
Could a doctor refuse to treat a patient who was on drugs or was engaging in behavior that he or she did not agree with?
No. The law says that women are allowed Plan B. If a pharmacist has a problem dispensing a legal medication, then perhaps I would question the oath he or she took to become a pharmacist and perhaps he or she should be made to reevaluate the career they chose to pursue. Pharmacists are suppoe to help people.
Sure a woman/girl could go to another pharmacy but how is that different than, back in the civil rights era, refusing to help a black person at a white hospital or refusing to let a black person patron a white restaurant?
I sincerely hope that some action is done so that girls and women are given the opportunity provided them by law.
D Hunt said:
I look at the Consitution for this one.
My say on it is NO, they don't have the right.
It is freedom of religion, NOT freedom to FORCE religion.
Besides, if these people really want to force religion, then they sould NOT work in a business that will put them into this type of position.
Gordon Hamilton said:
I can not believe the hypocrisy of some pharmacists. If they have real moral problems with dispensing needed medications then they should get out of the business or go into a place where they do not have to dispense what they object to. Rather I would make not dispensing any legally prescribed prescriptions, unless a conflict arises because of conflicting medications or confusion about what was prescribed because of handwriting etc., a misdemeanor and if they get three in their career they lose their license in this state. If it is a birth control med then they would be charged with rape if a pregnancy results and serve hard time. If they are to serve the time for the crime because of moral objections that is OK but I believe that moral objections will become less after the first day in jail for the first conviction under the law. It is like Doctors in a Catholic Hospital choosing for the mother if she should give up her life to save the baby. I believe they should be charged with first degree premeditated murder and serve the time. If a mother wants to give up her life to save her baby that is to be defended but no one should make that decision for her.
judy said:
Well..here's the deal. A pharmacist is technically a doctor. All MD's are not required to perform abortions, and all MD's are not required to write prescriptions for doctor assisted suicide. It is basically the same thing. If MD's are not going to be fired for not performing abortions or giving prescriptions for doctor assisted suicide then you have to allow pharmacists the same right of refusal.
Mike said:
Well, since I am a pharmacy student who was recently certified to give emergency contraception I thought I should point out a few things:
According to the latest research emergency contraception (EC) probably does not work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, the sticking point for most people opposed to EC. It works primarily by suppression of ovulation, much the same as all other oral contraceptives.
Pharmacists in Washington are leaders in providing EC. Currently More than 1100 pharmacists are licensed here to prescribe and dispense it on the spot when a woman asks for it. EC is obtained from pharmacists much much more often than by prescription from a MD. Pharmacists are not impeding access to EC, they are the major providers of it.
Requiring pharmacists to dispense every legal prescription they receive, as governor Gregoire is suggesting sets a dangerous precedent and can have far reaching impacts, beyond EC. There are many instances when a legal prescription is not appropriate. Taking away a pharmacist’s right to refuse a prescription is a very dangerous proposal and could bring harm to many people.
Even though I am an enthusiastic proponent of emergency contraception and wish that every woman could have access to EC when they need it, a pharmacist’s discretion is a very important part of their job that we should not take away. Let’s not have a knee jerk reaction to plan B that will affect the way pharmacists are able to practice. Instead, why not make a compromise where if a pharmacist refuses to dispense EC, they must refer a patient to a provider who can give it to her. Is that so hard?
Raymond Gessel said:
A Pharmacist has a constitutional right to his or her religious beliefs. If someone does not adhere to those same beliefs, they can find another pharmacist. What pro-abortionists really want is everyone to adhere to their belief that it is okay to terminate human life prior to birth. That is what this debate is about.
If pro-abortionists are really interested in preserving health, moral and ethics, they would start with encouraging adoption rather than termination in the event of unwanted pregnancies.
Despite arguments made by some, Pharmacists who refuse to dispense morning-after pills are not outspoken zealots, but, are rather life loving individuals who quietly go about their business on a daily basis. How dare anyone criticize or mock them for their belief regarding the sanctity of life. If a person chooses to not accept the belief of such a pharmacist, that person has the freedom to do business with someone whose beliefs more closely align with theirs.
Beyond that, the morning after pill is not a "need" rather a quick and immoral solution resulting, in most instances, to immoral behavior and poor choices. In those rare instances of rape and incest, there are plenty of resources to deal with the pregnancy or potential pregnancy without requiring the knee-jerk response that most abortionists want which include adoption and counseling. Far more damage will be done to our society by requiring professionals to dispense morning after pills than allowing them to use their own judgment in what they will and won't dispense. No one should be required to leave a profession simply because their beliefs contravene the selfish desires of a would be customer. The pro-abortionist proposal of requiring Pharmacists to dispense against their conscience is one more attempt to have society accept immorality. Shame on those who, in the phrase of "reproductive freedom" attempt to force their selfish beliefs on a Pharmacist who is just adhering to his or her own beliefs.
Chris said:
What truly concerns me about this debate is very simple, and can be summed up in one word, CHOICE.
What the Northwest Womans Law Center is saying, in my opinion, is that the CHOICES/RIGHTS of a group of highly educated and motivated people (Pharmacists) are irrelevant.
I will not stand on my soap box and preach morality, i'll let others do that. As has already been pointed out Viagra and Cialis are available, so how can a Pharmacist say no to Plan B.
The answer is easy, CHOICE. They have the right to sell what they want. Forcing them to sell Plan B, is like telling a grocery store they have sell certain vegetables.
Lets not mistake Plan B with heart medications, or antibiotics. It is a pill to prevent pregnancy, not save lives.
The pill is available, and fairly easy to get. The question that is more important than this silly pill is, again in my opinion, is what other choices should be taken away in the name of convenience.
Mike said:
After reading the previous posts I have to agree with those who say the Gov. and the Womens Law Center is going to far. While I have no problem at all with the pill being dispensed I do have a problem with mandating an action that takes away the discretion of the pharmicist.
Many of the reasons given for forcing them to dispense the pill are specious. First, forget religion. I could care less about religious reasons for not dispensing a prescription. Pharmacists are trained extensively and I will bow to their judgement. This is like individuals with no training telling their doctor which procedures they have to perform regardless of their judgement, personal beliefs, etc. It is ludicrous.
Second, defining help or the oath as an indication of behavior for health care professionals is not a black white issue. To the reader who suggested giving the pill is a help I would say many would argue it is not. Where do you draw the line? Who decides? Already doctors are having to deal with complex issues and not reaching agreement. It is not that simple.
Finally, the red herring about civil rights is a nice distraction but irrelevant. It is not an analogy that makes sense. You assume that a prescription is a right. Unfortunately, tell that to the 46 million uninsured, the 45 million underinsured, and the many health plans that have limitation on certain types of prescriptions.
In every profession individuals have to make judgement calls. Let them do their job. Once again for the people who forgot what I wrote in the beginning I am not against dispensing the pill. I am against untrained extremists on both sides attempting to mandate what a professional pharmicist should do. I would not want that to happen in my profession and I doubt you would either.
gillian said:
While I understand the issue here is a pharmacist's right to not dispense emergency contraception, I think the real issue has been missed. This medication should by all FDA processes for OTC medication approvals, be offered OTC. If the FDA had done their job of looking at science instead of politics, we would be taking this medication out of the hands of the pharmacists and empowering women to be able to care for themselves safely. Bottom line, this medication DOES NOT cause an abortion, so the moral issues should not factor in to the decision making.
O M G said:
First it is emergency contraception, What next?
Jean said:
My daughter used this method after she was raped last year. Fortunately, she was given access to it in the emergency room rather than having to search for an understanding pharmacist to help her heal.
Personally, I considered its use when my birth control method failed. It failed one time, the calendar said it was probably okay, and I didn't know where to get the perscription, so I prayed.
I can't afford health insurance.
Robert Foedisch said:
I think that if the pharmacists dont want to perscribe the "morning after" pill they aqre in the wrong profession. Maybe the next thing the will demand is to have the right to pick and choose which patients they will serve. In a sense this protestation about the "morning after" pill is just that choosing who they will, as a member of a medical team chhose to care for. What arrogance. I think the governor should replace every member of the pharmacy board that agrees with this insipid and short sighted policy
you're a doctor, act like one said:
Hippocratic Oath—Modern Version-Selections
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Susan said:
Hippocratic Oath -- Short verison
My way or the hiway. My views are correct and yours are not.
Pharmacists have adopted a "conscience clause," saying they should not have to dispense a drug if it violates their moral beliefs. But the Northwest Women's Law Center is now asking the State Pharmacy Board to revoke or suspend the licenses of pharmacists who refuse to dispense the "morning after" pill. They say, the pill is most effective within the first 72 hours and women should not have to drive around, searching for a pharmacist who's willing to carry it. Pharmacists say, there are plenty of pharmacies that offer the pill and it's not fair to force a pharmacist to act against his or her convictions.
Why is giving out Plan B (emergency contracptives) a moral dilemma? According to the packaging of Plan B and disclaimers given by numerous community family planning groups, Plan B does NOT work if the egg and sperm have already met. It isn't abortion. There is no fetus. And if their is? Plan B isn't gonna work anyways.
It's very disconcerting that in our seemingly progressive society that news outlets (on occasion King 5... sorry guys, I love ya but sometimes bias is unavoidable and unintentional... I still watch ya everyday:) continue to paint these pharmacists as saints, as holier than thou protectors of unborn babies. I can only imagine the horror of being a 14 year old girl panicking because of a unintended or unwanted sexual encounter going to her family pharmacist to prevent an unwanted pregnancy and being told that she better go somewhere else. How frightening.
And isn't that just what we WANT our young people to do? Take responsibility for their actions? Sure, engaging in sexual acitivity at a young age can be considered immoral or wrong, however no matter how many pharmacists refuse to dispense Plan B, kids are still going to have sex.
Going to get Plan B to prevent pregnancy is a responsible thing to do and is NOT morally wrong. If Plan B was not dispensed, perhaps more girls would get pregnant and they would be faced with 2 decisions, either of which could be considered more morally wrong than giving out Plan B.
1. Have an abortion. Which I would think pharmacists against giving out Plan B would be even more against.
2. Have the baby, give it up for adoption or keep it, burdening the family and more than likely forcing the young woman or her entire family to go on welfare.
Pharmacists have a job to do just like everyone else. And if pharmacists are allowed to refuse Plan B willy-nilly, where does that stop? No more birth control at all?
I mean, pharmacists are more than willing to dispense Viagra or Cialis, but not Plan B? How does that make sense?
Not to say that pharmacists are suppose to have hearts of stone without any values or opinions, but what if everyone could react that way? Could a grocery checker refuse to sell cookies and candy to an obese customers? Or refuse to sell alcohol to certain people?
Could veterinarians refuse to service certain dog breeds?
Could teachers refuse to cover certain subject matter because they found it morally wrong to instruct certain races or genders?
Could a doctor refuse to treat a patient who was on drugs or was engaging in behavior that he or she did not agree with?
No. The law says that women are allowed Plan B. If a pharmacist has a problem dispensing a legal medication, then perhaps I would question the oath he or she took to become a pharmacist and perhaps he or she should be made to reevaluate the career they chose to pursue. Pharmacists are suppoe to help people.
Sure a woman/girl could go to another pharmacy but how is that different than, back in the civil rights era, refusing to help a black person at a white hospital or refusing to let a black person patron a white restaurant?
I sincerely hope that some action is done so that girls and women are given the opportunity provided them by law.
I look at the Consitution for this one.
My say on it is NO, they don't have the right.
It is freedom of religion, NOT freedom to FORCE religion.
Besides, if these people really want to force religion, then they sould NOT work in a business that will put them into this type of position.
I can not believe the hypocrisy of some pharmacists. If they have real moral problems with dispensing needed medications then they should get out of the business or go into a place where they do not have to dispense what they object to. Rather I would make not dispensing any legally prescribed prescriptions, unless a conflict arises because of conflicting medications or confusion about what was prescribed because of handwriting etc., a misdemeanor and if they get three in their career they lose their license in this state. If it is a birth control med then they would be charged with rape if a pregnancy results and serve hard time. If they are to serve the time for the crime because of moral objections that is OK but I believe that moral objections will become less after the first day in jail for the first conviction under the law. It is like Doctors in a Catholic Hospital choosing for the mother if she should give up her life to save the baby. I believe they should be charged with first degree premeditated murder and serve the time. If a mother wants to give up her life to save her baby that is to be defended but no one should make that decision for her.
Well..here's the deal. A pharmacist is technically a doctor. All MD's are not required to perform abortions, and all MD's are not required to write prescriptions for doctor assisted suicide. It is basically the same thing. If MD's are not going to be fired for not performing abortions or giving prescriptions for doctor assisted suicide then you have to allow pharmacists the same right of refusal.
Well, since I am a pharmacy student who was recently certified to give emergency contraception I thought I should point out a few things:
According to the latest research emergency contraception (EC) probably does not work by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, the sticking point for most people opposed to EC. It works primarily by suppression of ovulation, much the same as all other oral contraceptives.
Pharmacists in Washington are leaders in providing EC. Currently More than 1100 pharmacists are licensed here to prescribe and dispense it on the spot when a woman asks for it. EC is obtained from pharmacists much much more often than by prescription from a MD. Pharmacists are not impeding access to EC, they are the major providers of it.
Requiring pharmacists to dispense every legal prescription they receive, as governor Gregoire is suggesting sets a dangerous precedent and can have far reaching impacts, beyond EC. There are many instances when a legal prescription is not appropriate. Taking away a pharmacist’s right to refuse a prescription is a very dangerous proposal and could bring harm to many people.
Even though I am an enthusiastic proponent of emergency contraception and wish that every woman could have access to EC when they need it, a pharmacist’s discretion is a very important part of their job that we should not take away. Let’s not have a knee jerk reaction to plan B that will affect the way pharmacists are able to practice. Instead, why not make a compromise where if a pharmacist refuses to dispense EC, they must refer a patient to a provider who can give it to her. Is that so hard?
A Pharmacist has a constitutional right to his or her religious beliefs. If someone does not adhere to those same beliefs, they can find another pharmacist. What pro-abortionists really want is everyone to adhere to their belief that it is okay to terminate human life prior to birth. That is what this debate is about.
If pro-abortionists are really interested in preserving health, moral and ethics, they would start with encouraging adoption rather than termination in the event of unwanted pregnancies.
Despite arguments made by some, Pharmacists who refuse to dispense morning-after pills are not outspoken zealots, but, are rather life loving individuals who quietly go about their business on a daily basis. How dare anyone criticize or mock them for their belief regarding the sanctity of life. If a person chooses to not accept the belief of such a pharmacist, that person has the freedom to do business with someone whose beliefs more closely align with theirs.
Beyond that, the morning after pill is not a "need" rather a quick and immoral solution resulting, in most instances, to immoral behavior and poor choices. In those rare instances of rape and incest, there are plenty of resources to deal with the pregnancy or potential pregnancy without requiring the knee-jerk response that most abortionists want which include adoption and counseling. Far more damage will be done to our society by requiring professionals to dispense morning after pills than allowing them to use their own judgment in what they will and won't dispense. No one should be required to leave a profession simply because their beliefs contravene the selfish desires of a would be customer. The pro-abortionist proposal of requiring Pharmacists to dispense against their conscience is one more attempt to have society accept immorality. Shame on those who, in the phrase of "reproductive freedom" attempt to force their selfish beliefs on a Pharmacist who is just adhering to his or her own beliefs.
What truly concerns me about this debate is very simple, and can be summed up in one word, CHOICE.
What the Northwest Womans Law Center is saying, in my opinion, is that the CHOICES/RIGHTS of a group of highly educated and motivated people (Pharmacists) are irrelevant.
I will not stand on my soap box and preach morality, i'll let others do that. As has already been pointed out Viagra and Cialis are available, so how can a Pharmacist say no to Plan B.
The answer is easy, CHOICE. They have the right to sell what they want. Forcing them to sell Plan B, is like telling a grocery store they have sell certain vegetables.
Lets not mistake Plan B with heart medications, or antibiotics. It is a pill to prevent pregnancy, not save lives.
The pill is available, and fairly easy to get. The question that is more important than this silly pill is, again in my opinion, is what other choices should be taken away in the name of convenience.
After reading the previous posts I have to agree with those who say the Gov. and the Womens Law Center is going to far. While I have no problem at all with the pill being dispensed I do have a problem with mandating an action that takes away the discretion of the pharmicist.
Many of the reasons given for forcing them to dispense the pill are specious. First, forget religion. I could care less about religious reasons for not dispensing a prescription. Pharmacists are trained extensively and I will bow to their judgement. This is like individuals with no training telling their doctor which procedures they have to perform regardless of their judgement, personal beliefs, etc. It is ludicrous.
Second, defining help or the oath as an indication of behavior for health care professionals is not a black white issue. To the reader who suggested giving the pill is a help I would say many would argue it is not. Where do you draw the line? Who decides? Already doctors are having to deal with complex issues and not reaching agreement. It is not that simple.
Finally, the red herring about civil rights is a nice distraction but irrelevant. It is not an analogy that makes sense. You assume that a prescription is a right. Unfortunately, tell that to the 46 million uninsured, the 45 million underinsured, and the many health plans that have limitation on certain types of prescriptions.
In every profession individuals have to make judgement calls. Let them do their job. Once again for the people who forgot what I wrote in the beginning I am not against dispensing the pill. I am against untrained extremists on both sides attempting to mandate what a professional pharmicist should do. I would not want that to happen in my profession and I doubt you would either.
While I understand the issue here is a pharmacist's right to not dispense emergency contraception, I think the real issue has been missed. This medication should by all FDA processes for OTC medication approvals, be offered OTC. If the FDA had done their job of looking at science instead of politics, we would be taking this medication out of the hands of the pharmacists and empowering women to be able to care for themselves safely. Bottom line, this medication DOES NOT cause an abortion, so the moral issues should not factor in to the decision making.
First it is emergency contraception, What next?
My daughter used this method after she was raped last year. Fortunately, she was given access to it in the emergency room rather than having to search for an understanding pharmacist to help her heal.
Personally, I considered its use when my birth control method failed. It failed one time, the calendar said it was probably okay, and I didn't know where to get the perscription, so I prayed.
I can't afford health insurance.
I think that if the pharmacists dont want to perscribe the "morning after" pill they aqre in the wrong profession. Maybe the next thing the will demand is to have the right to pick and choose which patients they will serve. In a sense this protestation about the "morning after" pill is just that choosing who they will, as a member of a medical team chhose to care for. What arrogance. I think the governor should replace every member of the pharmacy board that agrees with this insipid and short sighted policy
Hippocratic Oath—Modern Version-Selections
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
Hippocratic Oath -- Short verison
My way or the hiway. My views are correct and yours are not.