Well, it appears we have a group called "Pharmacists for Life" that is advocating and refusing to fill presciptions if they believe filling them would be in conflict with their moral or ethical values. AP news reported that Mississippi has passed a bill that lets all health workers and facilities to refuse almost any service on the same grounds. USA Today reported on a Wis. pharmacist facing disciplinary action for refusing to transfer a birth control presciption to another druggist and for refusing to return the script. A Texas pharmacist refused contraceptives to a rape victim. Etc. Is this Ethical??? Source: http://mediamatters.org/items/200503300002
Ethical? No. Not according to Hippocrates, in the spirit of the oath. Illegal? No again. Most of these cases refer specifically to birth control/morning after/abortion pills, not to medications that would deal with life threatening situations in general. And most businesses reserve the right to refuse service. These people have been refused service. For stupid reasons, but legal ones nonetheless.
I think it was totally wrong to refuse a rape victim contraceptives... this is just terrible and doctors and pharmacists should be obligated to provide people with these services... what if it was the only doctor in town and someone urgently needed these services??? Appauling!
A pharmacist having a title does not force him/her to perform whatever action a customer wants them to do. They have the right to refuse any prescription for any reason except for those legally protected--race, creed, age, religion, sex, etc. etc. If they don't want to fill it, then they should hand the prescription back to the customer and tell them to go elsewhere. The only thing I believe that could be unethical in the situation is to not give the prescription back or force the pharmacist to perform an action because he has a title.
It's not very ethical is it? In this country, I think a pharmacist who acted like that would probably go out of business pretty quickly, as people would get pissed off with being refused this or that drug. If they want to be pharmacists, let them just be pharmacists - if they want to dictate their own moral agenda to everyone else, maybe thay should quit chemistry and become preachers or ethical philosophers. My response to such a druggist would be simply to boycott their shop.
But he is PAID to have the title. Don't you think that he would have known that if he would become a pharmicist he would be asked to fiill prescriptions for contraceptives? But then he took the job anyways, figuring he would refuse to fill them? It's like a casheir refusing to ring up condoms, or hamburgers.
Complain to the manager. If you don't like the manager's response, then take you're business elsewhere. Freedom is a wonderful thing. And a cashier doesn't need to worry about every sale they ring up killing someone, losing their license to practice their craft, and civil and possibly crimal action on them personally.
Its not so simple as taking your business elsewhere. In some American states you might find that every pharmacist in the county believes a woman must bear a rapist's child. Honestly it wouldn't suprise me if the redneck states actually outlaw contraceptives once Bush gets this new Supreme Court Justice in.
I don't know if it is 'unethical' not to fill presriptions, but it is flat wrong IMO. Doctors write prescriptions and decide who is entitled to what medication. A pharmacist (IMO) is there to dispense them. Period. Countless prescriptions could end a life if the dosage isn't adhered to. On NPR they likened this story to a fast food worker who would refuse to sell hamburgers because they are vegatarian. Of course that wouldn't be a very exciting story, the worker would be fired. There and then. No ifs ands or buts about it. That's EXACTLY what should happen to these pharmacists.
Yes, it is that simple. Are they holding a gun to your head? Go to a different county. If you live in a part of the country that you don't like then move. Don't be a drama queen. The Supreme Court has no arm of enforcement. If they start doing crazy things they can simply be ignored. The conservatives will still be outnumbered on the court 4 to 5 anyway and only two of the three conservatives on the bench right now are idealogues.
Pharmacists aren't simply there to dispense drugs. If that were the case, then drugs would be dispensed at the doctor's office cutting out the middle man.
Pharmacist (definition): A person trained to prepare and distribute medicines and to give information about them. If Pharmacists can decide who should and should not receive medications why do you need a doctor's prescription? Why don't we just go to the pharmacy and cut out the middle man?
I'm glad to see you backed off of your initial definition. You should probably add that their main job is to catch physicians' many, many prescriptive mistakes. That's easy. Very few pharmacists are trained to diagnos diseases; that's left to MDs, PAs, and NPs.
I really wouldn't say that's their 'main' job. Their main job is to measure and FILL prescriptions. Occasionally, IF they have a complete list of medications a person is taking they can help patients avoid adverse drug interactions. They are also not trained to prescribe medications, or to provide moral judgements on their clientel.
Anyone with basic reading and mathmatic skills can measure and fill a prescription (assuming it is not written in latin), and a properly programed computer can catch drug interactions. There actually is a reason why a person filling a prescription needs a doctorate and state licensing to do so. Actually they are trained to prescribe medications. Give a pharmacist an age, sex, and medical condition, and they will shoot out what drug should or should not be prescribed. It's actually what all their fancy schoolin' and book learnin' is for. And, fortunately for free people, moral judgement takes no formal training or governmental licensure.
If a person thinks that certain medicines go against their morals/ethics/religion-perhaps they should find a different place to work. Would a vegan chef work at a hamburger joint-them refuse to touch hamburger meat? Would a scientologist work at a pharmacy and then refuse to dispense ALL medicines? I agree that pharmacists are more than just pill dispensers, BUT they are NOT morality dispensers!
is it ethical no, is it illegal no, is it ignorant yes. Its not ethical because,whether you like it or not, humans and animals alike do not always have sex for procreation, sometimes it is just for the sake of fucking. No that being said, people are not going to stop having sex because of moral and religious laws. They shouldn't its their body and they can do what they will with it, moral or not. They want abortions illegal and people not to have them, so they expect people to stop having sex, well thats just not going to happen. The logical thing to do to cut down on the abortions are this, give them the birth control or condoms or whatever. Second, its not illegal to uphold a moral standard, but it is ignorant taking a job in that area then denying someone their prescription because of moral status. Finally, you take the job, you do your job or you leave and find a new one.
