Idaho Pharmacists Can Deny Medicine

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by XnavxeMiyyep, Mar 20, 2009.

  1. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #1
    http://www.idahopress.com/news/?id=21411

    They can refuse to do their job (which is to provide medicine to people who need it) based on their religious beliefs, but in the U.S., you cannot be fired for your religious beliefs.
     
  2. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #2
    if his/her belief system doesn't allow a person to properly perform a job, that person shouldn't be allowed to perform that job.
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    I'm sorry. If you refuse to do your job, you shouldn't be allowed to have that job.
     
  4. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #4

    Ditto. I'd like to see how long I last at my company if I told my manager it's against my religious beliefs to write Java code :D
     
  5. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #5
    Hmm, I wonder if I could convert to a religion opposed to ALL medicine, then get a job as a pharmacist in Idaho. Easiest job ever!:D
     
  6. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #6
    +1


    Why would someone choose a career and then choose not to do all of it? Just to prove their goddamn point? Wankers.
     
  7. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #7
    If for a brief moment one gave any credibility to the idea that there was anything good about this kind of rule... how would this actually work?

    We're talking about the right particularly of the pharmacist and not the pharmacy itself, right? So a pharmacy would sell birth control, for instance, but a pharmacist could refuse to give it out, forcing the individual to come at another time when another pharmacist was on duty, or go elsewhere. So consumers really would have no idea if their pharmacy would be willing to fill their prescription when they go there?

    A pharmacist would still not be able to discriminate against patients, presumably? Does anyone track to make sure a pharmacist isn't denying oral contraception to individuals he/she deems unacceptable to receive it and then turning around and granting the same to others (e.g. only giving contraceptives to married individuals)?

    This kind of thing would, practically, be a major nuisance in a city, like here in Chicago. In rural Idaho... it could be a disaster.

    As a totally random aside, that "Peel Back" advertising flash code that the Idaho Press-Tribune site uses is actually pretty cool. :eek:
     
  8. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #8
    The only way this is not a complete crock of sh*t is if part of the law stipulates that there is a pharmacist always on duty who is willing and able to fill any valid prescription.

    This is my favorite part of the article:

    Lethal
     
  9. arkitect macrumors 601

    arkitect

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Location:
    Bath, United Kingdom
    #9
    Hmmm. I think the Christian Scientists would like to hear from you then…

    ;)
     
  10. No1451 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Location:
    Ottawa, ON
    #10
    Overused but oh so appropriate for this:

    [​IMG]

    I just can't get my mind wrapped around this. A worker is allowed to refuse to do their job because of religious beliefs? F**king ridiculous.
     
  11. drewsof07 macrumors 68000

    drewsof07

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Location:
    Ohio
    #11
    I'm fairly sure this law was aimed toward "the morning after" pill and contraceptives. I'm not too sure that people "need" those medications to sustain their lives...

    They want a "choice," why not choose a different pharmacist who will give them what they want?

    You all are acting like they are denying heart medication and other drugs that are medically required, which is NOT what this is about...

    As far as doing their jobs, as an RN I have an ethical responsibility to request a different patient if I find the effectiveness of my care is suffering due to a moral dilemma with a patient that conflicts with my own values. This is a right to every healthcare worker I can think of: to request another member of your team to take your place, while you do their work.
     
  12. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #12
    Because when you go to a pharmacy you don't usually expect to be judged by the person who should be doing their job.

    Plus birth control pills are something that needs to be filled in a timely fashion and have more uses than simply avoiding pregnancy... not that it is necessarily any of the pharmacist's business.
     
  13. drewsof07 macrumors 68000

    drewsof07

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Location:
    Ohio
    #13
    See my edited post above for the "doing their job" part.
    Healthcare is different from other professions.

    And yes I'm aware birth control is used for hormone stabilization in females, and it shouldn't be an issue to get this.
     
  14. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #14
    I think it may make more sense for you as an RN than for a pharmacist who should just be giving people their medication.

    Even though I don't agree, I can almost understand why a very religious pharmacist may feel morally conflicted on the morning after pill but birth control pills? That's just ridiculous. It is probably one of the most common prescriptions given to women and for them to get up in arms about a big part of their job seems inappropriate to me. They chose their profession and if they can't keep their opinions out of it, I think another line of work might have been a better idea.
     
  15. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #15
    Well the problem I have is, how do you prevent these people from getting the jobs in the first place? You can't deny them based on religion so how do employer's get through this?
     
  16. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #16
    This is where you lost me. Prescriptions do not generally include indications. I actually am a believer in managed and team care, and I don't generally adopt the opinion that no one should have oversight on a physician's prescriptions, but it really isn't a pharmacist's role or training to be evaluating indications for prescriptions and deciding whether to fill them or not, any more than it would be the role of our check-in desk staff to decide whether my patients have "real" psychiatric diseases and deserve to be seen by me or are just "whining" and should be sent home. As their assessing and treating clinician, I've already made that determination -- I receive and should receive varying kinds of oversight, but not from someone who is untrained.

    Pharmacists have training in oversight of medications when it comes to limited areas, particularly related to issues of polypharmacy and drug interactions. Their input can be invaluable in these areas, although their role is still to consult with the prescribing physicians and not fiat changes on their own. They don't have any training that would make them appropriate to determine whether oral contraceptives were indicated for a patient or not by reviewing their history while they're in line at the pharmacy window.

    Again, also, as I said previously, this is a nuisance issue in the city, where one can walk a few blocks and go to several other pharmacies. This is not the situation in much of rural America, and Idaho is a very rural state. The litmus test for the appropriateness of this kind of law is what happens in some little one-stoplight town in Idaho where there is only one pharmacy that is only open during banker's hours and is run by a single pharmacist, against whom the patients have no reasonable alternatives.
     
  17. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #17
    Fire them for not doing their job. That's how you get around it.
     
  18. drewsof07 macrumors 68000

    drewsof07

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Location:
    Ohio
    #18
    No, I was simply saying that there are many applications for oral contraceptives besides their intended use, which would be determined by the doctor without interpretation of a PharmD.

    Also, as you pointed out, Pharmacists are no more "pill pushers" who stand on one side of a counter and sell you drugs, they are actively involved in planning and implementation of drug remedies that parallel the physicians medical goals. This means they are given somewhat more independence than in "traditional" roles.

    I totally agree, withholding birth control is silly. I think this is mainly about the morning after pill, as there was a lot of commotion amongst pharmacists when it hit mainstream.
    Silly catholics.
     
  19. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #19
    There are most likely laws that many police officers have moral problems with. Do we excuse them from their duties because of that?

    And nowhere does this bill specifically state anything about a morning after pill. It's very general.
     
  20. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #20
    But not only will this law protect but if they throw the "religion card" they can sue for discrimination.

    This is going to be a mess. Get sued by someone because you deny treatment or get sued because you deny a denier a job.
     
  21. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #21
    Right, that's why this legislation is a huge problem. Before, dispensing prescriptions was considered a mandatory part of the job; now it is not.
     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    That's exactly why this law should not pass. Since when does not performing your job get legal protection?
     
  23. pooky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #23
    This is a VERY good point. What about Rastafari police officers? Should they be excused for not enforcing laws that criminalize marijuana? I'm guessing many of the folks who support this pharmacy law would loudly voice opposition to the idea.
     
  24. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #24
    There are honestly some not-so-subtle differences between the social contract between the people and their police officers and the one that exists between the people and their pharmacists. The pharmacist doesn't generally work for the state. They are not generally engaged in enforcing the law. They are also not employed in a general sense by the sole purveyor of their service -- one can in principle go to another pharmacist but one cannot go to another police department.

    In these ways, I don't think the situation is completely analogous. Although I tend not to greatly respect this particular desire for civil liberty on the part of pharmacists, I would think it would be generally okay if there were some kind of provision that at least one pharmacist always be on site to provide the desired service or else another pharmacy that did not deny the service be located within a certain maximum distance or something like that. But again, this is not always the case in rural areas.
     
  25. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #25
    That would be quite a bit of added cost for a rural pharmacy, wouldn't it? This simply should not be happening at all.
     

Share This Page