By Elaine Magliaro
A Georgia woman named Brittany Cartrett was about five weeks into her pregnancy when she suffered a miscarriage recently. In order to avoid health problems that could be caused by her miscarriage, Cartrett’s doctor gave her two options: “an invasive ‘dilation and curettage’ procedure which would surgically remove the contents of the uterus, or a pill that would have the same effect but would be less invasive. She opted for the second option.”
The doctor told Cartrett that she should take the medicine that he prescribed for her because it would help her “to pass naturally” so that she wouldn’t “have to go the more invasive route.”
Dilation and curettage (also called D&C) is when a doctor removes tissue from the lining of a woman’s uterus. Dilation (“D”) is a widening of the cervix to allow medical instruments into the uterus. Curettage (“C”) is the scraping of the walls of the uterus.
The drug that Cartrett’s doctor prescribed for her is called misoprostol, which expels the contents of a uterus. It is used to treat abortions as well as incomplete miscarriages.
Unfortunately, Cartrett was not able to get the drug her doctor had prescribed for her from her local pharmacy because the pharmacist at the Milledgeville Walmart refused to fill it.
WGXA:
The doctor’s office called the Milledgeville Walmart to fill the prescription but they were told no and they were not given a reason.
Even though Cartrett was able to get her prescription filled at another pharmacy, she brought up the issue when she went to Walmart to fill out another prescription.
Mother Jones:
When she asked the pharmacist why she wouldn’t fill her prescription, Cartrett claims, “She looks at me over her nose and says, ‘Because I couldn’t think of a reason why you would need that prescription.'” Cartrett says she then explained that she’d had a miscarriage, and the pharmacist replied, “I don’t feel like there is a reason why you would need it, so we refused to fill it.”
Raw Story:
A pharmacist for the store, Sandip Patel, told WGXA that under state law, pharmacists are able to turn down prescriptions. A Walmart spokesperson said the company encourages its pharmacists to “use their professional judgement” on a case-by-case basis.
Arturo Garcia of Raw Story said that the Georgia law, “which states that pharmacists ‘shall not be required to fill a prescription for an emergency contraceptive drug,’ is part of some states’ response to the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade verdict legalizing abortions.”
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCLS) has stated that the “issue is expanding as pharmacists are refusing to fill emergency contraception and contraception prescriptions. This movement resulted in the term ‘conscience clause,’ which gives pharmacists the right to refuse to perform certain services based on a violation of personal beliefs or values. Most of the debate revolves around a pharmacist dispensing emergency contraception.”
Treatment of a miscarriage, once it has begun, depends on your symptoms. The primary goal of treatment during and after a miscarriage is to prevent hemorrhaging and infection…
If all pregnancy-related tissue wasn’t expelled, a condition known as an incomplete miscarriage, you may need treatment to stop the bleeding and prevent infection. The most common procedure is a dilation and curettage (D&C), which involves the widening of the cervix and scraping of the uterine lining, called the endometrium. Sometimes suction is used along with scraping. This procedure can be uncomfortable, so it is most often done under general anesthesia. Another option is to take medication (misoprostol), which will help your body expel the tissue…
Cartrett slammed the Walmart pharmacy in a Facebook post. She said “she felt like the pharmacist was judging her — and thus, refusing to help her — because of a negative view of abortions. She also told WGXA that she has been contacted by women in similar circumstances who have also been turned away.”
Cartrett said, “I’m not going to see that pharmacist, I’m going to see a doctor. If it’s because of that due to the conscience clause, I think it’s called, then what other decisions are they making based on our health and our needs by not giving a prescription to someone who may or may not need it?”
Do you think pharmacists should have the right to refuse to fill a prescription that your doctor has ordered for you?
SOURCES
Walmart Pharmacist Refuses To Fill Prescription For Miscarriage Patient Citing ‘Conscience Clause’ (Addicting Info)
Walmart uses Georgia ‘conscience clause’ to refuse woman’s miscarriage treatment (Raw Story)
A Miscarrying Woman Was Denied Medication Because of “Conscience” (Slate)
Milledgeville Pharmacist Refuses to Fill Prescription for Miscarriage Patient (WGXA)
The Scary Law That Allowed Pharmacists to Deny This Woman the Drugs She Needed After Her Miscarriage (Mother Jones)
Nicole Plyler Fisk
Gene Howington
FFS Guest Blogger
Joy of Fishes
Chuck Stanley
shortfinals
Terry Welshans
ann li-summers
wordcloud9
Flowers For Socrates 
When did a pharmacist get to override the doctor’s opinion? Disgusting. I have just decided that it is against my conscience to pay any bills.
He needs to lose his pharmacist license.
If the pharmacist in our saga couldn’t fill the Rx on grounds of conscience she should have referred it to another pharmacist next to her who could. That way both persons rights are protected and professional ethics are maintained. While she may have a right to not fill the script she has no right to hinder the patient’s right to the drug under that same set of laws. This really isn’t an insurmountable problem so long as all the pharmacist don’t go religion crazy.
Yes, a pharmacist should have the right to refuse to fill a prescription that your doctor has ordered for you.
The pharmacist can resign, immediately. The pharmacist does not want to fulfill the duties of the profession, and therefore should cease being a pharmacist. Wasn’t one, to start with.
Bob:
No one can make a lawyer take a case or a surgeon perform surgery or a minister perform a marriage. The pharmacist has the same professional discretion. As I said, it is unethical for all of these professions to hinder, in any way, their clientele from lawfully engaging in what the professional cannot do by virtue of their conscience. That would be imposing their personal views on others. That respect for both conscience and professionalism are foundational principles of Western thought.
This is inane and amounts to no more than making another person suffer based on your own personal values.
Perhaps I am missing some vital element of the equation, but the pharmacist was preventing nothing except the sale of a drug that is associated with a procedure that that they disapproved of. A drug that does not cause the abortion correct Elaine? But is instead used as an after treatment in some cases.
So even in the worst possible scenario that could have existed in the pharmacists poor little judgemental head, this woman (the pharmacist’s paying customer by the way) was only following after the fact health concerns.
The most the pharmacist would have hoped to accomplish with this “iron willed stand for infection in the name of infection” would be what?
Am I understanding this wrong this wrong?
In other words, pharmacists have the right to be as idiotic as anyone else in any other profession.
Now I’m going to get a law passed that anyone filling a Viagra prescription be required to show the pharmacist their limp dick.
Caitlyn,
Misoprostol
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a689009.html
Why is this medication prescribed?
Misoprostol is used to prevent ulcers in people who take certain arthritis or pain medicines, including aspirin, that can cause ulcers. It protects the stomach lining and decreases stomach acid secretion…
Other uses for this medicine
Misoprostol is also used sometimes to treat ulcers and to induce labor. Misoprostol is used in combination with mifepristone to end an early pregnancy. Talk to your doctor about the possible risks of using this drug for your condition.
This medication may be prescribed for other uses; ask your doctor or pharmacist for more information.
Mespo & Bob,
If I read some of these “conscience” laws correctly, the pharmacists in a situation like that can elect to not provide additional birth control information. I wonder if that extends to refusal to tell the patient where such information can be found. Now I am wondering if such laws protect them from referring to a colleague who is less dogmatic. However, since states that have passed those “conscience” laws are right to work states, the employer can fire them. In good conscience, of course.
As for the comment about not being able to imagine any need for the drug, I wonder just how ignorant the pharmacist is about medications, including off-label use.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/pharmacists-refused-woman-drugs-miscarriage-walmart “Cartrett is blaming the incident on a law, passed 15 years ago, that guarantees pharmacists the right to refuse to provide contraceptives or abortifacients on religious or conscientious grounds. Georgia is one of six states with such a law on the books.”
My reading of the pharmacist’s response is more along the lines of thinking she knew more than the doctor. How does one know if the person has ulcers, a primary use of the drug? The pharmacist was within the law but the law is wrong imo.
A family member of mine was nearly killed by a doctor who wrote two prescription, one a refill and the other new. The pharmacist filled both prescriptions at the same time. Family member took the medication as directed, woke up in the middle of the night knowing something wrong. He had extremely low blood sugar and took action to correct. Called the doctor who told him to take only half of the new medication. Same problem. He called me for help. We found that BOTH medications identified the other as a “do NOT prescribe”.
mespo,
Then, I guess that the pharmacist also has the discretion to substitute any drug he/she chooses, in place of the drug requested?
Western thought got us where we are today.
Western “thought” would be a good idea.
And refusing to perform your profession is not professional.
I was going to give the link for the milledgeville Walmart but I’m on my I-pad.
Mark: “No one can make a lawyer take a case or a surgeon perform surgery or a minister perform a marriage. The pharmacist has the same professional discretion. As I said, it is unethical for all of these professions to hinder, in any way, their clientele from lawfully engaging in what the professional cannot do by virtue of their conscience. That would be imposing their personal views on others. That respect for both conscience and professionalism are foundational principles of Western thought.”
Okay Mark,
Please explain why professionals are permitted to decline services as a matter of discretion; whereas wedding photographers and bakers may not decline as a matter of discretion and may be forced by a virtual system of peonage to specifically perform on contracts not executed and engage in speech that goes against their conscience.
LOL, blouise. (at 6:46) I really want to see someone try imposing similar obstacles for healthcare for the menz. This nonsense would stop immediately.
Pharmacist is incompetent in not knowing that there are other uses for the drug. Surely there is also a code of ethics for pharmacists. In any case, the patient should make formal complaints to both the licensing board and Walmart.
blouise and JOF,
The rulz is different for menz and guyz. Cain’t have some pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for Viagra or Cialis for some poor feller who cain’t perform his manly duties, can we?
I wonder of maybe a generous application of Argo starch might work?????
New game for cashiers: “I’m sorry but my religious beliefs prevent my ringing up your purchase of [product] because [reason].”
Example: “I’m sorry but my religious beliefs prevent my ringing up your purchase of Viagra because God obviously doesn’t want you f…ing around.”
“No one can make a lawyer take a case or a surgeon perform surgery or a minister perform a marriage. The pharmacist has the same professional discretion. As I said, it is unethical for all of these professions to hinder, in any way, their clientele from lawfully engaging in what the professional cannot do by virtue of their conscience.”
Mark,
I disagree with your premise that a Pharmacist has the same discretion as a lawyer, surgeon or a Minister. This might have been the case many years ago when there were corner drugstores. In this day and age Pharmacists have become little more than clerks and this is especially true in large chains like Walmart’s, Walgreens and CVS. As for the necessity of the Pharmacists knowing about drug interactions the company’s computer system now alerts them as to drug interactions. As someone whose life depends on a variety of prescription medications, some exotic I know this to be true. The idea that service can be refused as a matter of conscience is ridiculous, but is merely another way that certain States have gone against the ruling in Roe v. Wade and the separation of Church and State. These same laws also would allow Pharmacists to turn down requests for birth control pills. Perhaps this is why the “Bible Belt” States have the highest rates of teen pregnancy, STD’s and HIV.
“whereas wedding photographers and bakers may not decline as a matter of discretion and may be forced by a virtual system of peonage to specifically perform on contracts not executed and engage in speech that goes against their conscience.”
Bob,
Patent nonsense and a mis-characterization of people’s positions. Then again, I guess that you’d be in favor of refusing service to Blacks and to Jews on the basis of serving them going against their conscience.
Elaine,
Argo starch? In his underwear? That’d work, but not for that problem!
Mike,
I noticed that Bob Stone had commented. No need to even read it, really. I know what it’s going to say. No defense of bigotry is going too far. Some people’s minds fossilize in later life. Unfortunately, they’re still able to type, and thereby shame themselves in public.
Bob S.,
You object to bakers and florists being forced to to provide their services for gay and lesbian weddings. Do you also object to pharmacists being required to fill doctors’ prescriptions for their patients for religious reasons?
Blouise and Elaine, just thinking here… I am not a medical professional, making me fully qualified for weighing in on medical matters. No viagra or cialis unless: 1) full medical examination — including urethral probe and rectal exam, 2) wife’s signed permission (no wife, no nookie), 3) watch a video on all probable, possible, improbable, & impossible complications (fractured penis and hairy palms for two), 4) performance must be under strictly supervised conditions in an approved clinic setting, and 5) full report to state health department.
Elaine and JOF,
Good going ladies, you caught my inference. If pharmacists are permitted to stick their long noses into what is private and protected between physician and female patients then they should be required to check out every limp dick that needs artificial assistance to rise.
No looky; no nooky.
JOF,
Excellent list … especially # 4. All clinics should be staffed by pharmacists and the pills can only be dispensed in the clinic.
Bob:
“Please explain why professionals are permitted to decline services as a matter of discretion; whereas wedding photographers and bakers may not decline as a matter of discretion…”
*******************
Photographers, florists, butchers, bakers, candlestick-makers are not professionals in the classic sense whose training is state-mandated and whose judgment is critical to performance of services for the public and whose activities are subject to state regulation. That said, a professional does not have unfettered discretion to decline a case. For example, if a lawyer refuses a case on racial or gender grounds alone, that might be a case of unlawful discrimination. Same for a doctor who does so based on ethnic origin. The proof problems are multitudinous but assuming that’s possible, the professional has no right to violate the law in his decision. The difference is in how the law treats regulated professionals who have to make life-critical decisions with less than perfect information versus tradespeople who exercise some discretion but not the type legally protected. This difference is designed to insure that professional services remain accessible to the public with some standard of professionalism intact. It’s not the same thing, Bob, as you well understand and trying to conflate these apples with those oranges does your argument no credit.
Mike S:
You and I disagree about the role of modern day pharmacists who may work for a large corporation but who still are answerable for professional mistakes. I am aware of three cases where large corp. pharmacists have prevented serious injury or death by refusing to fill the Rx as written by the patient’s physician who either failed or was unable to take into account the drug interactions with other prescribed medications. That’s discretion-worthy to my way of thinking.
Mark,
“The difference is in how the law treats regulated professionals who have to make life-critical decisions with less than perfect information versus tradespeople who exercise some discretion but not the type legally protected.”
Lawyers, ministers, dentists and accountants make life-critical decisions?
“This difference is designed to insure that professional services remain accessible to the public with some standard of professionalism intact.”
The reason I asked you in the way I did was to point out how you’re affording professionals more freedom and discretion to act on their conscience than non-professionals. Yet, in your attempt to articulate the principle upon which you’re basing your argument, it turns out that professionals, by your definition, should have less discretion to follow their conscience than lowly “tradespeople.”
Are professionals more entitled to preserve their conscience and “individual freedom of mind” than tradespeople?
Alphas and Betas shall have “individual freedom of mind” whereas Gammas, Deltas and Epsilons shall do what the state demands of them?
there are a number of different jobs regulated by the state. So what?
Does state regulation somehow override conscience? I have heard about a time in history when that happened, it didn’t end well.
Which amendment carries more weight? How do you determine that? Is the first better than the 14th? It seems to me that the test is with the individual and whether his rights are preserved. I have a right to my thoughts and my conscience. I also have a right to act on those thoughts and in accordance with my conscience assuming we live in a free society. I don’t have a right to harm another individual financially or physically. I cant cheat someone or bash them over the head with a bat.
In the normal course of day to day life, my actions based on my conscience are not going to do any harm to anyone. There is always another baker, another doctor, another pharmacist to fill in if I decline to serve someone. I know this for a fact, we all see things differently.
If there is no emergency why force someone to act against their conscience? Why base your morality on a state of emergency where people must act against their conscience for the best outcome for the group? You cannot live your life in a lifeboat. A lifeboat morality restricts individual action and makes it harder for people to act with directed purpose. At some point society suffers from the lack of purposeful action as people hesitate to act for fear of reprisal. It is the purposeful action of individuals which make any society work, I for one am willing to allow acts of conscience for the greater good of society.
I experienced something akin to what mespo mentioned when a dentist prescribed an antibiotic that would react with a heart med Tex was taking. The pharmacist called the dentist. A different antibiotic was chosen and I only found out about it when I went in to pickup the prescription.
That isn’t even close to what went on in this story out of Georgia so let’s not confuse this particular pharmacist’s actions with stalwart pharmacists saving lives.
If there is no emergency why force someone to act against their conscience? – Bron
Because in this particular story conscience is not the issue. Stupidity disguised as conscience was the main factor in play.
Blouise,
I’d say that closedmindedness had something to do with it too. The pharmacist didn’t appear to care why the drug was prescribed for Cartrett. She knew that misopostrol could be used in conjunction with another drug for an abortion. She didn’t seem to care that misopostrol could be used for other health reasons.
Walmart Withholds Medicine From Lady Who Miscarried, Because She’s Probably A Sinner
http://wonkette.com/582714/walmart-withholds-medicine-from-lady-who-miscarried-because-shes-probably-a-sinner
Excerpt:
Imagine you are a lady, and you are going through the sadness that comes with a miscarriage. This is one of those times in life, we imagine (as we are a dude), that you really don’t want to deal with any bullshit, just a guess? So you go to the doctor, and he gives you a prescription for Misoprostol, which will help your body pass the tissue, instead of having to go through an invasive, unpleasant procedure to extract it. Doc calls your scrip in to the friendly neighborhood Walmart, but the pharmacist refuses to fill it, because Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs. You see, this particular drug can ALSO cause an abortion, which is not a FUCKING PROBLEM if you have already miscarried, now is it?
Elaine,
This is no act of conscience and, as the article you just posted indicates, this could be the purposeful inflicting of unnecessary emotional abuse/pain and actionable on those grounds. I would pursue it as Wal-Mart tends to settle out of court. I would also bring an individual suit against the pharmacist outside of the Wal-Mart action. The Wal-Mart suit would take about 3 1/2 years. The suit against the pharmacist about 7. My lawyer would make money on the Wal-Mart suit. There would be little money made on the individual pharmacist but a great deal of satisfaction from watching the pharmacist’s funds shrink to nothing over that 7 year period. My conscience wouldn’t bother me one bit.
Walmart Says It Didn’t Deny Drug to Woman for Religious Reasons
http://jezebel.com/walmart-says-it-didnt-deny-drug-to-woman-for-religious-1697962623
Excerpt:
Walmart is denying that a Georgia store refused to fill a prescription for a miscarrying woman because the drug, misoprostol, is also used in medication abortions. A Walmart spokesman says that the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription because she “believed that it was not medically indicated because it wasn’t FDA-approved” for miscarriage management.
That’s a bullshit excuse and I don’t believe it, but first, the facts: on April 9, Brittany Cartrett posted a public status update to Facebook saying that she’d just been denied miso at a Milledgeville, Georgia, Walmart, one of two pharmacies that refused to fill the prescription. (Ironically, Cartrett also says she used to work at the Milledgeville store.)
Cartrett wrote that she’d learned she was pregnant in March. “At the first ultrasound we knew immediately that baby#2 was not progressing like he/she should be,” Cartrett wrote. “And after going to the doctor every week since then, we finally were able to confirm I miscarried, probably around 5-6 weeks. After discussion with my Doctor, we decided to go the less invasive route and choose a medicine that I could take at home to help miscarry naturally, especially since my body wants to hold on to the little miracle.”
In other words, rather than having a dilation and curettage (a D&C, the same method using many early abortions) to get the fetal remains out of her uterus, Cartrett’s doctor was recommending that she take miso instead to gently pass the tissue.
Her pharmacist had other ideas…
Between 2002 and 2012, extensive safety testing of a controlled-delivery formulation of misoprostol was performed, and misoprostol was approved in the EU under the trade names “Misodel” or “Mysodelle”.[7][8] The US FDA, though, refused to grant approval to this formulation, and it remains unapproved for labor induction in the US.
Missed miscarriage[edit]
Misoprostol is sometimes used to treat early fetal death in the absence of spontaneous miscarriage, but further research is needed to establish a safe, effective protocol.[15]
Neilson, James P; Hickey, Martha; Vazquez, Juan C (2006). Neilson, James P, ed. “Medical treatment for early fetal death (less than 24 weeks)”. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (3): CD002253. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002253.pub3. PMID 16855990.
Further research is required to assess effectiveness and safety, optimal route of administration and dose. Conflicting findings about the value of mifepristone need to be resolved by additional study.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD002253.pub3/abstract
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-rise-of-the-diy-abortion-in-texas/373240/
bron,
The information from your last link is dated July 19, 2006. That’s nearly nine years ago. Do you suppose additional studies have been conducted since that time?
Did Cartrett tell the pharmacist what the prescription was for? It does have uses that have nothing to do with her “female parts” and those reasons aren’t immediately observable. Why didn’t the pharmacist call the doctor? Pharmacists checking on the reasonableness of a prescription can be a life saver, but the pharmacist should not automatically overrule the doctor. There is a device called the telephone that allows two people, e.g. pharmacist and doctor, to communicate. If a smug self-righteous pharmacist has trouble using the phone, perhaps she could find a teen to help her.
blouise, et al, I really like your suggestions about legislators practicing medicine for men in the same way they do for women. It might make them realize what ignorant, incompetent jerks they really are. (Would love to be able to add something funny but this topic just makes me angry.)
bron,
I was referring to the comment you posted at 5:29 pm.
bettykath,
Here’s an excerpt from my post:
WGXA:
The doctor’s office called the Milledgeville Walmart to fill the prescription but they were told no and they were not given a reason.
Even though Cartrett was able to get her prescription filled at another pharmacy, she brought up the issue when she went to Walmart to fill out another prescription.
Mother Jones:
When she asked the pharmacist why she wouldn’t fill her prescription, Cartrett claims, “She looks at me over her nose and says, ‘Because I couldn’t think of a reason why you would need that prescription.’” Cartrett says she then explained that she’d had a miscarriage, and the pharmacist replied, “I don’t feel like there is a reason why you would need it, so we refused to fill it.”
Too bad Cartrett didn’t just tell the pharmacist to ask her doctor if she intended to prescribe this particular med. It isn’t the pharmacist’s business why the doctor made the prescription, just that it was done and it wasn’t in error.
Why shouldn’t a pharmacist overrule a doctor? Legislators do it all the time. Legislators did it when they gave the pharmacist the right to refuse to fill prescriptions for any reason whatever.
Bob:
“Are professionals more entitled to preserve their conscience and “individual freedom?”
***************
No, but they are entitled to protection of their professional judgment and to enjoyment freedom of conscience within the bounds of the law — which are not mutually exclusive concepts.
One more attempt, over many hours of conviction — that’s right “hours” of conviction — to post a measly five-hundred-forty-five words!!
See the next post, if this one makes it!
How did I know this would happen?
Triplicate comment here — not that I think it’s worthy, but just to point out the failures of code — heads up WP. I’m pretty sure the past three attempts will appear the instant this one does — much like my immediate post above.
Cheers to all!
———————————————————
“The rulz is different for menz and guyz. Cain’t have some pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription for Viagra or Cialis for some poor feller who cain’t perform his manly duties, can we?
I wonder of maybe a generous application of Argo starch might work?????” — Elaine
Starch absorbs moisture much too quickly to be of any use in this particular scenario!! Trust me on this one, ;).
————————————————–
Mike S.,
“[To Mark] I disagree with your premise that a Pharmacist has the same discretion as a lawyer, surgeon or a Minister.”
I agree.
“As for the necessity of the Pharmacists knowing about drug interactions the company’s computer system now alerts them as to drug interactions. As someone whose life depends on a variety of prescription medications, some exotic I know this to be true.”
But this assumes that any prescription is: 1) prescribed from the same doctor/clinic/access to records structure, and that, 2) the prescriptions are filled by the same pharmacy (not necessarily a physical definition.)
—————————————————-
I’ll never forget the four months I spent in the great state of Florida helping my father recover (for a short time) from what would be congestive heart failure. Upon his release from ICU we went to the surgeons’ office, (two surgeons, their office removed from the facilities where procedures were performed), that placed four coronary stents.
This meeting was essentially a recap of all the dietary and lifestyle changes that my father should abide by if he wanted to stay alive. Upon leaving the surgeons’ office the nurse gave me a two day supply of medication for my father, and the prescriptions to refill them (eight pharmaceuticals with a quite complex pattern of use.)
After the four-hour drive home, bathing, feeding, and getting my father into bed — while attempting to reassure my mother that all would be well for a time — I discovered that the prescriptions given by the nurse were not intended for my father, but for someone with a very different name. At this point I did not trust the two day supply of medication meted out, even though my father’s name was on the labels.
I immediately called the surgeons’ office and presented their mistake to them. I was “assured” that the two day supply and regimen was correct, and that I could “stop by” the following day to pick up the correct prescription slips.
I was having none of this. I insisted that I was starting the four-hour drive back immediately, and that upon my arrival I expected to be presented with a two-day supply of meds for my father, physical proof that these were correct (visual/and imprinted code comparisons to the Physician’s Desk Reference, 53rd edition) and insisted on comparison between the prescriptions written by the surgeons in the hospital where my father’s stints were placed, and the prescriptions as currently existing in their separate office.
Two mistakes of dosage were found through this last insistence. I eventually left with the proper medication, and prescriptions; but I was not impressed.
————————————————-
So what is this rant all about? I think a pharmacist should not be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription — with the caveat of some complication arising due to the pharmacist’s records of past medications dispersed to the same individual.
“I think a pharmacist should not be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription — with the caveat of some complication arising due to the pharmacist’s records of past medications dispersed to the same individual.”
gbk,
CHF was what almost killed me and it’s sad your father didn’t have my luck. Having suffered from a heart condition since almost the beginning of my marriage I was lucky to have a wife who researched every medicine I was prescribed and intervened when something didn’t make sense. You did the same for your father, as Blouise does for Tex. The truth is that people should never trust anything done in the medical field blindly. I have seen to many mistakes made. I had an MI on vacation in Virginia Beach some years ago. The following morning I was awakened at 5:30am to take a stress test on a treadmill. I told them to forget it and the nurses were shocked at my rebellion. AT 8:30am the Cardiologist called to apologize to me and said it was an oversight. The test would have probably killed me if I allowed them to do it. When my wife arrived at 9:00am I told her what happened and other incidents through the night and said that I wanted to leave because this hospital couldn’t be trusted. Since this had been my third heart attack I knew the way they went and knew myself well enough to know that the worst part was over. My wife agreed (which is why I love her). We left there AMA. I rested for a day and the next day took the wheel of my car and drove back over the Chesapeake Bridge and Tunnel system which is a beautiful sight. We hit New York 8 hours later and called my Cardiologist at home. Some might call that reckless but I call it common sense. Never take anyone’s advice without checking it.
However, as you said, the pharmacist was wrong in refusing to provide the drug. From my perspective those who brought up that pharmacists had a role to play in watching prescription interactions as somehow justifying this pharmacists actions are missing the point. This was done as a religious political statement and not out of concern for the patent.
It is impossible to have any serious diatribe, umm…, sorry, I meant discussion, with only very short posts making through the Croissant filter — or was that Kismet, or maybe Kermit?
I love the future!!!
Maybe if I
gbk,
I freed one of your comments in the string from the filter. It is probably the dashed line separators triggering the filter, fyi. But who knows for sure. That Askimet filter is a temperamental beastie.
chop all my posts up into small chunks
a few words of possible significance
might make it through.
Damn, I forgot what sentence I was writing.
And that’s ok.
Bob:
“Are professionals more entitled to preserve their conscience and “individual freedom?”
***************
Mark: “No, but they are entitled to protection of their professional judgment and to enjoyment freedom of conscience within the bounds of the law — which are not mutually exclusive concepts.”
Mark,
That’s not what you originally said. You originally framed the issue in terms of “the professional” retaining the right to decline services as a matter of discretion and conscience so long as there was no hindering of their prospective clientele from lawfully engaging in what said “professional” was refraining from doing.
Of course, the clientele would also have a duty to cover; wouldn’t they Mark?
Ya can’t go suing people when you can’t show any real damages now can you?
gbk
Try laying in a hospital bed while a nurse hooks up a separate IV bag and then hearing the words “oops, that’s not yours”. Fortunately I have no known allergies.
Bob:
I’m not sure how I’ve been inconsistent here, Bob. I said no one can make a professional exercise his skill, judgement and discretion when that refusal is lawful. I said that is different from regular commerce which is largely unregulated and unpoliced as professions are. I said freedom of conscience is a bedrock principle of Western thought and I said you can have freedom of conscience existing with professionalism by not hindering the public from lawful acts which you fundamentally disagree with. Your issue of cover or more commonly called mitigation of harm is a red herring since we’re not talking about the right to sue here or the quantum of damages. We’re talking professional ethics which requires practitioners to account for the needs of his clients and to do nothing to cause them harm. Refraining from acting when other avenues are available to enable the clients’s lawful desires is not unethical and probably not actionable either unless it violates some prohibited discrimination. Not all discrimination is unlawful Bob. As you well know.
If pharmacy school candidates have religious reasons for not filling prescriptions, they should make that plain while filing for admission. Merely stating, “I won’t follow a doctor’s orders if it makes me squeamish,” would solve the problem, and open more slots in pharmacy school.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/texas-woman-invokes-religious-freedom-argument-fight-2000-fine-feeding-homeless