Firstly, I think that when a proper prescription (we'll get to that in a moment) is presented it should be filled however that does not mean it MUST be in such cases. Some states have made legal provision that allows refusing to fill on religious grounds. Again, I don't like that but as an attorney, the law is the law.
Secondly "between doctor and patient" is a non-existant standard for good reason. Do you know what happens if an MD decides to prescribe massive amounts of Oxy in a criminal scheme and a pharmacist fills them? They are participants in a crime and there is no such obligation on a pharmacist. If the prescriber insists on going down a path that any reasonable and prudent peer would determine would be harmful? then they have a duty to NOT fill that prescription. He or she can have their license revoked and be legally liable for damages for not using their considerable professional expertise. "I was only following orders" does not hold as a legit standard of practice. I recall a prescription for nitric acid to be applied to a wart near a child's eye by an old VT doc. No, I wasn't going to participate in that just like I didn't give a pregnant woman a Compazine suppository with the directions to use every four hours. That was wildly inappropriate and dangerous. Yes, I called the doc in both cases and the latter said: "I've been practicing for 20 years and no one has ever questioned a prescription". They should have, absolutely. I explained to the patient that if she were my wife I'd get a second opinion and that this medication is never intended to be used as prescribed. Not filling was my only legal, ethical, and professional choice.
Fortunately docs today understand that pharmacists are the last line of defense with medications. If we don't catch it then there is nothing preventing a potential disaster.
That's all nice and I completely understand that pharmacists are the last line of defense between an incompetent MD and prescribing meds that are obviously contra-indicated. And I also understand the legal implications of a pharmacist and MD working in tandem to skirt the law vis a vis oxy/hydrocodone overprescribing/diverting. That's illegal.
But what's being described here is having another's religious belief being forced upon someone without want or desire to have that done. The prescription the woman wanted to fill is a legal prescription and wasn't contra-indicated in her case, only a pharmacist refusing to do his job because religion.
Seems to me that a very vocal yet minor segment of our population routinely screams about how their religious preferences are being "ignored" or not respected, yet that same segment of the population seems to have no problem having their religious beliefs forced upon others without their consent or approval. Seems kinda Taliban-ish or facist in that respect. Sorta like when the Puritans who settled in what was Mass Colony would kill a woman for disagreeing with the Puritan belief system.....and yes, it happened. The Puritans hung a female Quaker simply because she refused to have their beliefs shoved down her throat. Not to mentin, Catholics were on a death watch if they entered Boston and were found to be Catholic.
This sorta smacks of that sort of totalitarianism via religious "freedom" shit the Puritans did during their heyday in the U.S.
I worked in the medical field for ~25 years (LPN, RN) and for the life of me, I cannot fathom how anyone in the medical field would refuse to work with, administer to, assist, or otherwise do their jobs if/when having to have a patient with a completely different belief system than I have. Would call into question my sincerity of my own committment to the profession and to people.
Let me ask you this.....should a pharmacist refuse birth control pills for a woman simply because the pharmacist doesn't believe in providing them from some misguided religious belief? Why?
www.yahoo.com
Facebook
Twitter