20080815

February 27, 2007

Pharmacist Refusal in South Carolina

The National Women’s Law Center has launched the Pharmacy Refusal Project. They believe that religious refusals to fill prescriptions for contraception, including emergency contraceptive (EC), are a growing problem in the U.S. Initial research conducted by the South Carolina Emergency Contraceptive Initiative found that the majority of South Carolina pharmacists are filling birth control prescriptions.

Despite this fact, state Senator Bryant (R- Anderson) has introduced a pharmacist refusal bill, S. 126. He states on his blog that the bill has broader implications than RU486, the abortion pill. This must be true since RU486 can only be obtained directly through a trained physician or clinic, not a pharmacy. We at TellThem! wonder, if by broader implications, Senator Bryant is referring to a woman’s access to contraceptives? If this is the case, what does Senator Bryant suggest a woman who lives in a rural South Carolina community do when the one pharmacist in her town refuses to fill her prescription at his or her discretion? Perhaps she should walk to the next town to get her prescription filled?



S. 126, Relating to Pharmacy Refusal
The Need for Birth Control Protection in South Carolina
Pharmacy Refusal 101 Factsheet
Don’t Take No for an Answer: A Guide to Pharmacy Refusal Laws, Policies and Practices
Posted by at
Labels:

1 comment:

Tell Them! said...

9 Comments »
What about the rights of the woman who needs her birth control filled? If a drug..any drug is FDA approved, shouldn’t it be available at any pharmacy. And, it is a bit ridiculous to think that a woman should have to drive to another pharmacy b/c of this. Do you honestly think a pharmacist’s personal beliefs should interfere with a patient/provider privacy?

Lets get real..

Comment by bparrish — February 28, 2007 @ 9:50 pm

Thanks for speaking out against pharmacist refusal! I feel I have a right to get my birth control pills on time, without delay!

Comment by smurphy — February 28, 2007 @ 10:19 pm

There’s a ton of reasons that pharmacists and other people (including legislators) should respect privacy and self-determination, starting with medical decisions are between doctor and patient only.

here’s a scene, from one hour ago here in Beaufort, of a pharmacist doing his job- professionally and customer service-oriented:

Standing in line at the Kmart pharmacy, the young mother in front of me discusses the many prescriptions she’s filling. Mr. Pharmacist leans over the counter to say hello to the boy, and even though I’m standing 10 feet back leaning on a display of Depends to give them some privacy, I hear that they’re discussing how it’s a challenge to take so many pills. He is very sympathetic, and the customer (who’s wearing her church clothes and slippers) leaves happy.

I’m next. He has my prescription for Nuvaring ready. I’m concerned that my prescription is running out next month, even though I have 3 refills left. I confirm the dates with him, and realize that next month I’ll have to spend $180 to get all 3 refills at once. He says hey wait! and gets out a calculator, and does the math– buying 3 refills at a time will save me $25. We both agree that is a good savings ($100 a year!) and I thank him for his help.

do I want a friendly neighborhood pharmacist or a fundamentalist control freak?

do I want to be able to discuss my prescription (a controlled substance) with a professional, or with an uptight nut case who can’t direct his emotions in an appropriate & positive way?

does Kmart want to get a thank you note from a satisfied customer, or do they want to be in the middle of a controversy?

Comment by lisa — March 4, 2007 @ 9:29 pm

Thank you Lisa for your comment. That is a great story!

Comment by TellThem — March 5, 2007 @ 5:54 pm

This silly loop hole reaches its illogical conclusion when the grocery store clerk refuses to ring up potato chips because they contain trans fat and trans fat is poison to the body which the clerk considers God’s temple. Surely the clerk cannot be complicit in such an ungodly consumption of potato chips. No potato chips for you! Bottom line is that when you agree to engage in a certain job or profession, you agree to a code of conduct — the store clerk rings up your purchases and the pharmacist fills legal and valid presecriptions.

Comment by watchtheright — March 6, 2007 @ 3:41 pm

I see many issues with regard to this subject - so many I am having trouble picking just one to write about. I believe individuals have the right to refuse to do something they believe is immoral. I also believe the pharmacy is there to serve my medical needs and not a pulpit from which the pharmacist spreads their personal message.
I reluctlantly accept that Catholic hospitals (maybe not all of them) will not perform vasectomies or tubal ligations because they are forms of birth control. As such, I would expect a Catholic pharmacy, if there is such a thing, to not carry any form of birth control products, including prescription medications. However, when I enter the local non-denominational, presumably secular chain drug store, I would never expect the staff to refuse to fill a prescription that met all legal criteria. I guess I should find out where my local pharmacies stand on the issue so I can boycott if necessary!

Comment by sleroy — March 7, 2007 @ 6:35 pm

sleroy- I agree - doing research on your local pharmacies is important. Larger chains will feel the pressure if enough customers refuse to shop where birth control prescriptions are not filled.

We believe that if a pharmacist is going to refuse, there needs to be another pharmacist on duty to fill a woman’s prescription on time, with out delay. This bill as it is written does not require this. In addition, pharmacists can already refuse; so, we are not sure why this bill is necessary unless it is just there to place further restrictions on accessing contraceptives.

Comment by TellThem — March 7, 2007 @ 6:41 pm

Pharmacists are hired for a job that acts as a service to patients under advice of a doctor. Until their job requirements include “Moral Judgments” or “Ethical Censure,” their opinions and preferences, while being the right of the individual, should stay out of their jobs. If they cannot, for personal reasons, fulfill their duties that they are paid for, they are not indentured servants. It is a two-way contract with their employer, and they are free to leave their jobs.

This is on the same level of absurdity of a cab driver refusing to drive you to a movie theater because he/she does not like the movie you plan to see.

Comment by KIP — March 16, 2007 @ 1:29 am

I feel that a pharmacists beliefs have nothing to do with their job, just as doctors go to jail for helping a patient kill themselves so should pharmacist for refusing medication. Regardless of what the medication does NO ONE should be denied medication prescribed by thier doctor!!!!

Comment by Freemenow — April 4, 2007 @ 6:56 pm

August 15, 2008 at 10:37 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)