NC "Pharmacists for Life"

There are many doctors who oppose "Plan B" because if its inherently high risk of acting as an abortifacient rather than a contraceptive. If you want to have ready access to this drug, you find a doctor willing to dispense it. Ditto for pharmacists.

 

All commonly used drugs should be available at all pharmacies. Can you imagine a pharmacy that decided they just wouldn't stock Blood Pressure medicines, or antibiotics and you had to call around, just to get what your doctor prescribed. Very few doctors carry drugs in their offices. Most insurance companies only allow certain pharmacies to be used. I know doctors who do not carry medications, as they are not able to keep the staff or the stock at their offices. It is a drug, it should be able to be purchased where any other drug is.

 

Right, Kastenfrost! In the USA there are a LOT of pharmacists who give people who need pain or antianxiety meds a hard time. And calling the doctor everytime they fill a prescription wastes everybody's time. If the RpH beleives there is a real problem that is one thing, but espeically in the case of a severe pain attack, waiting, maybe all day or until the next for the doctor to call the pharm back, just to get a medication he just wrote is asking too much from the patient. And the doctor's consider it a Pain in the Ass a good part of the time, as well.

 

Such pharmacies likely wouldn't stay in business very long. It's an absurd comparison. "Plan B" has no true medicinal use.

 

It may not have a medicinal use in the sense of healing, but it is a chemical that has severe influences on the human body, is prescribed by a doctor, who outweighs the benefits and the risks, and has a certain purpose. I believe a pharmacy is the right place where you can get this, if you have a prescription.


And how is Plan B an abortifacient, if it doesn't even prevent pregnancy in 100% of the cases, and if it has to be taken in the 2-3 days after unprotected sex, a time span, where it is impossible to know wheather actualy something has happened or not, and in a timespan where lot's and lot's of fertilzed eggs get expelled from the women's body within her next period anyway, even without the woman's knowledge?

Are you sure you're not referring to the abortion pill (RU somethingsomething) which you will only get after you have tested postitive for pregnancy, and which aborts only in very early stages of the pregnancy. This is a pill you probably won't get at a pharmacy, since it's effects are so severe that it is usually taken in a clinic under the supervision of a doctor.

Those two are not to be mixed up. The one is an abortion pill, and the other one an emercency contraception. I know churches really like them to be mixed up to give them a bad image, since many religions, for example catholisism are against any means that allow to have nonreproductive sex... And now we are again in the section: "How morals can get in the way of being a professional....."

*I don't want to imply that being professional means one has to be immoral. I just want to say that strong religous influenced morals and scientific things can get in the way of each other, and should not be mixed up.

 

Well said. I absolutely agree. It is the medical professionals job to educate the patient about medical treatment options, and then provide and supervise the treatment. The patient needs to be the focus, not ones personal morals.

 

No. Plan B has NO risk of acting as an abortifacient. Many drugs do, including, but not limited to RU486, but no contraceptive will act as an abortifacient. They have absolutely no effect once pregnancy has begun.

 

The "medical" use of contraceptives is relatively insignificant in numbers, and the same hormones can be prescribed without being packaged as a contraceptive.

I am not debating against you, this time, but this is a weak argument.

 

Hmmmm, Ergormar and DHE are migraine medicines, which are not all that effective against migraine, but can abort an implanted zygote, or even a fetus. Should the pharmacies stop carrying this, too?

Plan B is NOT an aborfacient. It prevents ovulation or IMPLANTATION, and the womyn is not considered "pregnant" until implantation in complete! I've documented this before, from SEVERAL OBGYN web sites.

There are plenty of drugs which have no "medicinal" reasons for use. How about Retin A, or some of the newer prescription only wrinkle preventers? No "medicinal use" as wrinkles are not a medical problem.

 

More quotes about the FACTS of when "pregnancy" begins.

 

I agree that the personal views of an RPh or PharmD should not interfere with the healthcare decisions of patients.

This issue with birth control, however, is a very small one. Well over 99% of pharmacist have no problem dispensing birthcontrol, and the overwhelming majority have no problem with Plan B. This is all about politics.

States, such as yours, Maggie, that have enacted laws requiring pharmacists to fill all birth control prescription are ANTI-WOMEN! The law in your state make no exception for denying scripts due to valid medical reasons. You could have an extensive history of blood clots, and birth control very well could kill you, but your pharmacist now will have to fill your prescription, "no delays, no hassles, no questions asked". This is just a scheme thought up by a politician to make him or herself look better to women voters.

ANY profession should be regulated by involved professionals, not judges or governers. We don't need more legislation. In fact, we often need less.

 

I am sure that calling the doctor IF the womyn has a medical problem where the drug would cause a problem is allowed. I could E Mail Gov Blago and see what he has to say, though. AFAIK, the law has never allowed pharmacist to totally refuse a prescription, if the doctor deems it neccesary, no matter what the pharmacists view on the patient's medical background. I think in most cases the doc has a pretty good handle on the patient's history. I think in the unlikely event that a womyn kept her blood clot history a secret (and believe me, when a doctor give you a BC script, he GRILLS you for your medical history.) then there more problems with the doctor patient relationship than just a prescription being written. MOST Plan Bs are either filled at PP clinics or called in by a womyn's own doctor (at least from what I have seen) PP is very good at getting medical history, and a womyn's own doctor is going to know her history.

In any evern I think the doctor can make the decision whether or not the patient should take the drug. The law had to step in because womyn were being abused by pharmacy staff who decided THEY had the final choice in a womyn's life decision. IF these people had not done that, this law wouldn't be neccesary.

The doctor also has to have some responsibility in giving these prescriptions. If the patient had a extensive history of blood clots, most of the time the doctor is going to know about it. Wouldn't he?

 

Just did a little research. Went to the Gov's website to get the complete information.

Here is the EXACT wording of the code. Including EXCEPTIONS made for theraputic problems and drug interactions. NO ONE is going to try to stop a pharmacist from doing what he is supposed to do, help the patient, and make sure she is safe.

 

Pharmacists are allowed to deny ANY prescription, so long as doing so will not directly cause harm to the patient. In that case, they would be denying treatment.

You would certaintly hope so, Maggie, but you wouldn't believe what I see, EVERYDAY!.

Again, there are only a FEW isolated events of this occuring. Believe me, I am an advocate for BC's, ECP's, etc. I DO NOT agree with a pharmacist dispensing morality in lieu of drugs. In reality, though, this is a political move, disguised as the best interests for women.

Again, you would hope so.

Law or no law, I will NOT sell a patient any product that is likely to cause more harm than benefit. At the same time, I will NOT deny access to any medication because of my personal feelings on it. I think most pharmacies operate under similar principles.

 

WOW!

Obviously, I was misinformed, at least regarding your state. This is okay with me. I believe in a balance between both the rights of healthcare workers and the rights of patients. In fact, I would go a step further, and say it is ok for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense a medication so long as they could refer the patient to a willing pharmacist within a reasonable proximity. Inconvienence is not the same as infringement of patient rights, in my opinion.

That being said, I do not know why any pharmacist who opposes contraceptives, or any other medicine, works in community pharmacy. There is so many other jobs they can do that will not interfere with their conscience.

 

I totally agree!

Hugs and love,

Maggie

 

If that's true, then I would say that pharmacists should also be free not to fill regular BC prescriptions.

They should be free to decide this.

Only if you redefine pregnancy as beginning when the six- to seven-day-old human embryo begins implanting in the uterine lining. But medical textbooks uniformly agree that pregnancy is "the gestational process, comprising the growth and development within a woman of a new individual from conception ... to birth" (Mosby's Medical, Nursing & Allied Health Dictionary, 2002). In fact, a hormone called early pregnancy factor, which is produced by the developing embryo, can be measured in the mother's blood at three days before implantation. Pretending pregnancy begins at implantation is simply a ploy to avoid admitting the abortifacient properties of hormonal "contraception."

- http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-willsprint032102.html

I don't know why anyone would morally object to these, but again, that is their right.

 

I would have to say that if a person has a moral objection to certian perscriptions then they should not be a pharmacist. A pharmacists job isnt to decide the ethics of this or that pill, their job is to fill perscriptions and counsel patients on their usage. They should not have the freedom to trun down certain perscriptions based on their personal morals. Who are they to impose their ideals on another persons life? Especially when it comes to someones medications.

Many women take BC because of reproductive problems. Endo and ovarian cysts put my on BC before I was sexually active. If I didn't have those pills I would experience extreme pain and ruptures of cysts that would land me in the hospital most likely monthly. I wouldn't want some conservative idealistic pharmacist to refuse my perscription, he'd be paying my emergency room deductible!

 

Again, find a pharmacist who shares your values. Same goes for your doctor.

As I said before, "Plan B" is different. To my knowledge, it has no medicinal use.

 

Not everyone has a plethera of choices when it comes to pharmacies and doctors.

No matter what your ideals, it just isn't a pharmacists place to make moral decisions for another person.