Rape victim subject to a pharmacist's morals
The Star's view: A patient with a legal prescription should not have to worry that her doctor's orders will become subject to her druggist's conscience.
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 10.25.2005
If one more group assumes moral responsibility for what is allowed in the United States, the nation may soon sink under the weight of its superfluous righteousness. A debate over the ethical implications posed by the morning after pill are a case in point.
A story in Sunday's Star illustrated the perils of allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense the "morning after" pill if they have moral or religious objections to doing so. The article described what happens when a pharmacist's personal beliefs create a barrier between a doctor and a patient in need of medicine.
The particular incident reported in the story was alarming - a rape victim goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for an emergency contraception drug, the so-called morning after pill, and the pharmacist refuses to fill it - but the broader implications of this case should send shock waves throughout society.
The medicine in question "prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation, fertilization or implantation of a fertilized egg," according to Sunday's story. Religious conservatives and others opposed to abortion object to the use of the pill on grounds that it is essentially a nonsurgical abortion.
That a person has such objections and acts upon them is a personal choice. A pharmacist who objects to the morning after pill is certainly entitled to his or her opinion. But that person should not be making decisions for the rest of us.
Sunday's story noted that pharmacy chains have policies that, at least in theory, respect the pharmacists' personal principles while at the same time taking care of a customer's needs. The policies say that a pharmacist who refuses to dispense the morning after pill is obligated to find the consumer another pharmacist who will fill the prescription.
As the story in Sunday's Star illustrates, such a policy is bogus. When the rape victim called the pharmacy at Fry's, the pharmacist told her he'd fill her prescription if she got to the store before his shift ended, in 10 minutes. That was impossible because of where she lived, which left her in the position of having to wait until the pharmacist coming on duty, who would not dispense the pill, had finished his shift. Or she could find a different pharmacy.
Delays are important. Experts say the pill must be taken within three to five days after having unprotected sex, but the sooner it is taken after intercourse the more effective it is.
Finding another store that stocks the emergency contraceptive is not simple. A survey of 900 Arizona pharmacies last year found that that less than half of them stock the drug. A friend of the rape victim profiled on Sunday said she called nearly 50 pharmacies in Tucson before she located two that stocked the drug and were willing to dispense it.
Availability is clearly a major problem, but it's a problem compounded by pharmacists imposing their value judgments on women who may ultimately be in a life-or-death situation. It is not illegal for pharmacists to refuse to fill a valid prescription, but it should be.
Employers should require that pharmacists park their personal religious beliefs at the door when dealing with consumers. A woman with a legal prescription is not a criminal.
We do not suggest that a person abdicates moral responsibility when he or she goes to work for someone else. But if pharmacists are allowed to create a firewall between doctor and patient with respect to one drug, where will that end?
We may someday end up with pharmacists refusing to dispense antidepressants or blood pressure medicines because they believe prayer and meditation are solutions more compatible with their religious beliefs.
Pharmacies should fill prescriptions and leave the proselytizing to the person in the pulpit.
- S.N.
Orig. Story: http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/opinion/99299.php
Fuck you christian neo-cons, and fuck the moderator. Fuck, fuckity fuck fuck!! It's just a word, baby.
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 10.25.2005
If one more group assumes moral responsibility for what is allowed in the United States, the nation may soon sink under the weight of its superfluous righteousness. A debate over the ethical implications posed by the morning after pill are a case in point.
A story in Sunday's Star illustrated the perils of allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense the "morning after" pill if they have moral or religious objections to doing so. The article described what happens when a pharmacist's personal beliefs create a barrier between a doctor and a patient in need of medicine.
The particular incident reported in the story was alarming - a rape victim goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for an emergency contraception drug, the so-called morning after pill, and the pharmacist refuses to fill it - but the broader implications of this case should send shock waves throughout society.
The medicine in question "prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation, fertilization or implantation of a fertilized egg," according to Sunday's story. Religious conservatives and others opposed to abortion object to the use of the pill on grounds that it is essentially a nonsurgical abortion.
That a person has such objections and acts upon them is a personal choice. A pharmacist who objects to the morning after pill is certainly entitled to his or her opinion. But that person should not be making decisions for the rest of us.
Sunday's story noted that pharmacy chains have policies that, at least in theory, respect the pharmacists' personal principles while at the same time taking care of a customer's needs. The policies say that a pharmacist who refuses to dispense the morning after pill is obligated to find the consumer another pharmacist who will fill the prescription.
As the story in Sunday's Star illustrates, such a policy is bogus. When the rape victim called the pharmacy at Fry's, the pharmacist told her he'd fill her prescription if she got to the store before his shift ended, in 10 minutes. That was impossible because of where she lived, which left her in the position of having to wait until the pharmacist coming on duty, who would not dispense the pill, had finished his shift. Or she could find a different pharmacy.
Delays are important. Experts say the pill must be taken within three to five days after having unprotected sex, but the sooner it is taken after intercourse the more effective it is.
Finding another store that stocks the emergency contraceptive is not simple. A survey of 900 Arizona pharmacies last year found that that less than half of them stock the drug. A friend of the rape victim profiled on Sunday said she called nearly 50 pharmacies in Tucson before she located two that stocked the drug and were willing to dispense it.
Availability is clearly a major problem, but it's a problem compounded by pharmacists imposing their value judgments on women who may ultimately be in a life-or-death situation. It is not illegal for pharmacists to refuse to fill a valid prescription, but it should be.
Employers should require that pharmacists park their personal religious beliefs at the door when dealing with consumers. A woman with a legal prescription is not a criminal.
We do not suggest that a person abdicates moral responsibility when he or she goes to work for someone else. But if pharmacists are allowed to create a firewall between doctor and patient with respect to one drug, where will that end?
We may someday end up with pharmacists refusing to dispense antidepressants or blood pressure medicines because they believe prayer and meditation are solutions more compatible with their religious beliefs.
Pharmacies should fill prescriptions and leave the proselytizing to the person in the pulpit.
- S.N.
Orig. Story: http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/opinion/99299.php
Fuck you christian neo-cons, and fuck the moderator. Fuck, fuckity fuck fuck!! It's just a word, baby.
-
question about* -
the cds are awesome...especially the compilation... -
World Issues with Saderholm all over again, eh? -
you're back? Yeah! -
ok, you say it's extreme, but again, what makes it right to kill an innocent baby because of someone else's wrong doing? -
life hits us hard some times and there's nothing that can be done about it. when things like that happen, we just need to keep on going and things will get better. i find it funny that most people who are pro-choice are against the war in Iraq. so once the kid is born, it shouldn't die, but it's fine while still inside. makes no sense. -
Hahahahaha. -
that story is troubling -
i'm coming to raleigh this weekend! -
have a good Thanksgiving, my friend. Make sure you come back hugely fat! -
in response to letenele, War, hu, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing...sounds familiar? Yeah, I'm against a war. What are you talking about people aren't dying? How many Iraqis are dead? -
Hmm.. Theravada Buddhism, I can't say I know anything about that one. -
i am vehemently pro-life, but i do not think that the phamacist had the right to violate the doctor-patient relationship. -
In response to letenele's comment of "there's no baby in semen." that is true, but if you read the post the article state that the morning after pill, "prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation, fertilization or implantation of a fertilized egg." There is a baby in a fertilized egg. when the sperm penetrates the egg, that completes the chromosomal pattern of a human being. it is biologically human, the morning after pill aborts that human. -
wow...this conversation was so over like a year ago... -
Yeah, fuck the fuckin moderators. The fuckers. -
I've been away for about a year, but I'm happy to see that some things haven't changed. Like how irishgal always seems to be responding to invisible arguments.