home

Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill Contraceptive Scripts

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 08:18:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has struck back at pharmacists who think it's okay to play the morals card at work:

Gov. Rod Blagojevich filed an emergency rule Friday requiring pharmacies that sell contraceptives to fill prescriptions for birth control quickly, following recent incidents in which a Chicago pharmacist refused to fill orders for contraceptives because of moral opposition.

"Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy or the pharmacist is not allowed to discriminate or to choose who he sells it to or who he doesn't sell it to," Blagojevich said. "The pharmacy will be expected to accept that prescription and fill it ... No delays. No hassles. No lectures."

[link via Atrios.]

Update: The New York Times has more.

< Too Many Trolls | Colorado Legislator: Gay Marriage Will Lead to Interspecies Marriage >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill Contraceptive Scripts | 24 comments (24 topical)
    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 01, 2005 at 09:50:18 PM EST
    You gotta wonder if its not only birth controll perscription pills the Phamacists won't fill or if its for other stuff also like medicines to combat diseases like aids or sexual contracted diseases. Just found your site today, and find it very interesting. I'm mostly new to this blogging scene. I have my own blog where I answer people's questions they send into Me. I've definately booked marked yours. Morris

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#2)
    by cp on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 04:03:49 AM EST
    it's not now, nor has it ever been, a pharmacist's job to decide whether or not to fill your prescription. if they have a concern regarding possible negative interaction with other drugs you are taking, that concern is rightly taken up with the prescribing physician. i watched one pharmicist (female) on cnn, attempting to justify her refusal to fill a prescription for birth control pills, but only if they were prescribed for contraception, not any other reason. she should have her license revoked, and be sued by the customer. this shouldn't even be an issue for discussion. if a pharmacist wants to play doctor, they can go to medical school and get an md legitimately. however, it would only be fair to potential patients that they advise them in advance of their moral qualms. if they're so certain, this should not only not be a problem for them, they should welcome the opportunity to let the community know it now has an official witch doctor available.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#3)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 06:40:00 AM EST
    “if a pharmacist wants to play doctor, they can go to medical school and get an md legitimately.” If an MD can refuse to perform a procedure on religious grounds (abortion) by extension a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription (RU486,BC). Pharmacist should be free of state interference to fill or not, whatever. Likewise employers should be free to fire anyone whose absurd beliefs cripple their job performance. ~95% of women in the US use prescription birth control at one time or another. It would be a rare pharmacy that would employ one of these religious nuts. Anyway, a prescription should simply be a way for a patient to remember what they need to buy, off the shelf, no permission needed; to hell with the DEA/FDA.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 09:03:01 AM EST
    Pigwiggle -- Uh, no. A pharmicist's job is to fill prescriptions. He is neither qualified nor certified to do anything else. For an example in another field of what happens when somebody tries to second guess the experts, check out the walkway collapse at the Kansas City Hyatt. Basically, the builder "fixed" an "error" that the architect made. This is why we have certifications in the first place. If a person cannot in good conscience fill prescriptions from an MD, that person has no business presenting himself as a pharmicist. Don't like what your job requires you to do? Quit.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#5)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 09:43:42 AM EST
    lightning- “Uh, no. A pharmicist's job is to fill prescriptions. He is neither qualified nor certified to do anything else.” Certainly a pharmacist is qualified to not fill a prescription. “For an example in another field of what happens when somebody tries to second guess the experts, … Basically, the builder "fixed" an "error" that the architect made” You really missed the point. They are not second-guessing the efficacy of a prescription. Rather, they have a moral objection to specific treatments, effective or not. The pharmacist isn’t replacing birth control with, say, aspirin. “If a person cannot in good conscience fill prescriptions from an MD, that person has no business presenting himself as a pharmicist.” I’m a physicist funded by the DOD; at some point I may refuse to do my job if I think the results could be morally objectionable. May I then not present myself as a physicist? Ridiculous; I should hope my employer sympathizes with my objection and reassigns my project, or otherwise find new employment. “This is why we have certifications in the first place.” Wrong; the point of certification is to assess competency. Should we mandate that any physicist who refused to work on a given DOD project otherwise be barred from working in their field? This is a repugnant affront to personal freedom. Let employers decide whom they want to employ and how willing they are to let it affect their bottom line. I think you would be pleased with the result. “Don't like what your job requires you to do? Quit.” Don’t like how your local pharmacy defines the duties of its pharmacist, then shop elsewhere.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 10:29:18 AM EST
    Why are you against a pharmacist's moral objections and yet for a soldiers objects to service based on moral grounds???

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 10:29:45 AM EST
    Rather, they have a moral objection to specific treatments, effective or not. The pharmacist isn’t replacing birth control with, say, aspirin. It is not their place to dictate such things. It is not within their powers to do as much. This is why every conservative legislature from here to kingdom come has been trying to rush bills through trying to make the refusal legal. Because at the moment, its not, and would result in a severe disciplinary action. I got the vibe, from your comment with the DEA and FDA that you are of a libertarian persuasion. And while I have my beefs with the FDA and the DEA, this issue has nothing to do with either. Unless the perscription is a controlled substance (and not all drugs are) a DEA control number is not needed, nor does the DEA have anything to do with it. As for the FDA, all they do is approve the medicine. It's local pharmaceutical boards that control the activities and regulate the behaviour of its member pharmacists. And while its nice to think pharmacists can just refuse to fill perscriptions due to "moral qualms", this would cause effective chaos in hundreds of rural areas across America, and with hundreds of people who may not be able to acquire emergency contraceptive in time. It's nice to talk theoretics of a pharmacists private right, but when that private right stomps all over the effective distribution and use of a LEGAL perscription drug, thats just ridiculous.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 10:31:15 AM EST
    pigwiggle: The job description of a pharamacist is filling prescriptions, nothing more, nothing less. The job duties or descriptions shouldn't be changed to meet the whims of a few who don't want to fill certain prescriptions. If they don't want to fill LEGAL prescriptions then they can find another line of work, period.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#9)
    by Adept Havelock on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 11:05:38 AM EST
    This is a simple, self-correcting issue. Pharmacies are in business to make a profit. Pharmacy Owner to applicant:"Will you sell contraceptives, which are a substantial part of my business?" Applicant: "No. My mommy said it makes baby Jesus cry." Pharmacy Owner: "Thank you for your time. Next applicant please"

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#10)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 11:13:20 AM EST
    “FDA and the DEA, this issue has nothing to do with either.” I disagree. We wouldn’t be having this discussion if anybody could purchase birth control pills over the counter. The FDA decides if a drug can be bought/sold, and if a prescription is necessary. Even beyond this, they regularly conduct undercover investigations into the possible non-prescription sale of prescription drugs, even veterinary. “this would cause effective chaos in hundreds of rural areas across America,” Then by extension, would you advocate pulling the license of a physician who refused to perform certain medical procedures? Abortions, maybe? “It's nice to talk theoretics of a pharmacists private right, but when that private right stomps all over the effective distribution and use of a LEGAL perscription drug, thats just ridiculous.” This isn’t about the rights of a pharmacist but the right of an employer to define the duties of their employees. Again, I don’t think a pharmacist who refuses to fill any given prescription has a right to employment. Interesting you value the market above individual liberty though. ********************************* “The job description of a pharamacist is filling prescriptions, nothing more, nothing less. The job duties or descriptions shouldn't be changed to meet …” The job description of a pharmacist is dictated by the pharmacy. In my local pharmacy the pharmacist stocks the candy display and doubles as cashier.Has congress defined your job description yet? Should they mine? ******************************** “Why are you against a pharmacist's moral objections and yet for a soldiers objects to service …” It’s not about consistency. It’s about using the full force of the state to reinforce/force their ideology. A single moral objection to an insignificant part of your job? You’ll never practice again, irrespective of a willing employer.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#11)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 12:16:06 PM EST
    The job description of a pharamacist is filling prescriptions, nothing more, nothing less That is way too simplistic, and a bit of a slight to people who study their butts off to become pharmacists. Pharmacists are highly trained medical specialists. They make quite a few medical decisions that often will supercede or change the original physician order. They catch a s**tload of medical mistakes. Pharmacies contract with multiple third party carriers to dispense perscriptions to patients under those health plans. If this particular pharmacist will not fill contraceptive RX's, the patients will have to go to another pharmacy that takes their health plan. I don't know of any regulations that compel a pharmacist to dispense a particular medication if is not a danger to the patient. If an MD can refuse to perform a procedure on religious grounds (abortion) by extension a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription (RU486,BC). I would not participate in an abortion for my own personal reasons, even though I will not interfere with a woman's right to choose (after consultation with a physician). Just because a procedure is available, a practitioner should not be compelled to perform it. But then, I would did choose gynecology for a specialty so it would not be an issue. This particular pharmacist should have been aware of the existence of contraceptives before he made a career decision like that. Unless he is older than the pill. Also, it would be illegal, would it not, for a pharmacy to ask an applicant about thier religious beliefs and then not hire based upon those beliefs. I offer no solutions. This is a tough issue.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#12)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 12:18:15 PM EST
    Sorry the section form Pigwiggle's post shoud have been in italics. Sorry Pig.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 12:22:49 PM EST
    We wouldn’t be having this discussion if anybody could purchase birth control pills over the counter. Actually yes we would. Invariably there would be those stores that would not offer to sell said birth control pills. Now of course you could respond, well, someone else will set up a store that does. Well thats nice, and in a perfect world where there exists no start up costs, a non-existent barrier to entrance, and basically no reality, such a thing could happen. But in many small time rural areas, where there is only room for a small number of store, where said people may not have access to a computer in which to order things online, and may not have a car or other means to get out of their city, they're de facto screwed. Again, theoretics are nice until they run up against reality.
    Interesting you value the market above individual liberty though.
    That's misconstruing what I said. A person who has a legal, legitimate perscription, and whom is paying for said drugs either out of pcoket or through insurance, has a right to those drugs. Pharmacists can't act like wanna be gate keepers when thats not their job. Their job is to fill the order given to them. That's not valuing the market over the individuals right. You don't have a right to play God with someone elses personal choices because it smacks around your own morality. Period. You have a right to your own personal reproductive choices, and no one can effectively remove that because they dislike it. The job description of a pharmacist is dictated by the pharmacy. In my local pharmacy the pharmacist stocks the candy display and doubles as cashier.Has congress defined your job description yet? Should they mine? That's just being ridiculous, and you know exactly what he means. The job of a pharmacist, as licensed to practice is to dispense drugs given to him in prescription form, to inform the patient of any possible contraindications or problems, and to also make recommendations on over the counter drugs or even suggest possible prescritpion drug treatments to ask a doctor about. That is what they're licensed to do. They are not licensed to be gate keepers. Doctors have that right to a very limited extent, and to my knowledge they can't refuse a medically necessary abortion. A single moral objection to an insignificant part of your job? A single moral objection? Do you understand the tremendous havoc the concept of allowing you to not dispense medications due to "mroal reasons" could create. What if I don't want to give a gay man his medication for AIDS? What then? Again, theoretics are nice until you hit the real world.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#14)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 12:38:42 PM EST
    “A person who has a legal, legitimate perscription, and whom is paying for said drugs either out of pcoket or through insurance, has a right to those drugs.” We are talking availability; your example of a rural setting. If availability of birth control was so compelling to require a pharmacy to dispense shouldn’t we also require gas stations in rural areas to stock condoms or spermicidal cream? By your reasoning (legitimate, legal) I would also have a ‘right’ to have congress dictate the stock of my local rural store, reflecting those products which are legal for my purchase.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 12:50:04 PM EST
    Did these people realize that pharmacists sell condoms, bc, RU486? Someone who morally objects to war doesn't join the army. If you are too crazy, or self-riteous to do your job, you should be fired.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 02, 2005 at 03:43:06 PM EST
    Posted by Adept Havelock: "This is a simple, self-correcting issue." No, it is not. ANY common Rx drug should be available and ANY pharmacy. Period. Otherwise, women are again stigmatized, and have to hunt around for a pharmacy that sells what they need. But pharmacy is not like a gas station. It's a regulated trade, with a mountain of rules. Among those rules is one similar to gas stations. A gas station is not allowed to refuse to sell gas because of someone's religion. So if selling gas to Mormons is against one's religion, then one cannot keep a licence to sell gas. A pharmacist has a licence. If they don't want it, then they can work at a gas station, provided they are willing to sell gas to Mormons. These are easy choices. Morality is not decided at the pharmacy level. That's why we have legislatures, and that's why this kind of discriminatory behavior is yet another attempt to shortcircuit democracy from the wingers who HATE it. And the usual method? REVERSAL. Make the pharmacist who is breaking the law the victim.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#18)
    by cp on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 05:39:50 AM EST
    i should no more have to concern myself with the particular religious beliefs of a pharmacist, than i should with the those same beliefs of a doctor, when seeking either the filling of a lawfully prescribed medication, or treatment for injury or illness. religious beliefs have no legitimate business in the practice of medicine, period. with the exception of the cloth, no professional ethics standards allow for a litmus test based on religious beliefs. if your beliefs conflict with your ability to perform your professional duties, the honorable thing to do would be to get out of that profession, period. if you enlisted in the military, and suddenly find you are unable, due to personal moral objections, to meet the terms of your contract, leave when your enlistment expires. until then, honor the terms of the contract you freely entered into. if you're an officer, resign your commission. a pharmacist's job, as a pharmacist, not a clerk, is to fill lawfully prescribed medications, whether they like them or not. if they have concerns about those medications, they are required to contact the prescribing physician, not make decisions on their own, that they aren't qualified to make. a doctor's job is to provide legal, competent, medical care, not decide whether it meets their high moral standards. to be blunt, i shouldn't have to go shopping around for either a pharmacist or physician, to find one who'll actually perform their duties as a they freely agreed to, when admitted to pharmacy or medical school, and when they were licensed by the state. for the state, any state, to insert a "conscionce" clause is an invitation to disaster, in the area of medical care. is the state going to be a party to the medical malpractice suit that ensues when someone is injured, as a result of a doctor's or pharmacist's refusal to provide care they deem immoral? probably not.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 07:09:29 AM EST
    Just having somewhat recovered from a tussle with the flu bug, let me see what we might add to the duties of the pharmacist. Oh, I know. Since I live in a smallish town, and both pharmacies close at 6PM, let's pass a law that they must remain open 24/7, or provide free transportation to one that does. After all, it is my right to have whatever I want whenever I want it. You know, the constitution does say, "Life, liberty and happiness," doesn't it?

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 08:50:19 AM EST
    Make 'em toe the mark when it's a leftist notion, "freedom to dissent" when it isn't. The left...consistent in hypocrisy. [Dr. Ace, this is your fourth comment today, please return another day.]

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 09:07:15 AM EST
    et al - It occurs to me that the pharmacist has willingly and knowingliy entered into a profession that is licensed by the state. So the pharmacist has no more right to refuse to fill a Rx than to sell illegal drugs.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 11:51:11 AM EST
    Right PPJ...if a pharmacist refuses to fill a proper prescription, the State can yank the license. That's precisely what Gov. Rod has said.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 01:44:27 PM EST
    "The job description of a pharmacist is dictated by the pharmacy. In my local pharmacy the pharmacist stocks the candy display and doubles as cashier." I doubt it's actually the pharmacist that is stocking the candy and doubling as the cashier. It's probably one of the assistants, who are just basically sales clerks, but working behind the pharmacy desk. They are the ones who take the prescription and insurance info, and then hand the prescription to the pharmacist. Pharmacists are an often-overlooked treasure trove of medical information. In some countries they are even consulted by customers for minor ailments. They are not simply pill providers. They are highly educated and very knowlegeable. That said, I don't think it's their business to impose their moral values on their customers by refusing to fill prescriptions. It really isn't the same thing as refusing to perform an abortion. I think to compare the two is quite a stretch.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun Apr 03, 2005 at 05:42:12 PM EST
    I agree with Pig, if a pharmacist has a moral issue with dispensing the drugs they should not have to. That said, the employer should have the right to terminate same pharmacist for impeding their right to make money. If the government in turn does not allow a competitor the opportunity to obtain a license in a rural community where there are one or two pharmacies with like minded pharmacists, then I would have a problem. If there is one store in a town with a pharmacist that will not sell birth control pills, another store or licensed pharmacist would suddenly appear. That is capitalism 101.

    Re: Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 01:05:59 PM EST
    We as a society are starting to learn that a person in the medical field, including a pharmacist have religious and moral grounds for not participating in ceratin health procedures that are against their beliefs. Fouty six states have realized this and have enacted conscience clauses to protect all medical personal including hospitals and even those who support hospitals financially the right to choose to not particpate in certain procdures such as abortion. A step in the right direction.

    Ill. Passes Rule Requiring Phamacists to Fill Contraceptive Scripts | 24 comments (24 topical)