Illinois Governor: Fill Contraception scripts

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-050401blago,1,6669620.story?coll=chi-news-hed


Gov: Pharmacies must fill birth control orders quickly

By Maura Kelly Lannan
The Associated Press
Published April 1, 2005, 2:41 PM CST

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.''

Fernando Grillo, head of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, said the emergency rule clarifies an existing requirement.

"This rule is in response, a very affirmative and strong response, that we will not tolerate pharmacies and drug stores in the state of Illinois not meeting their obligation to the women of this state in providing them good health care,'' Grillo said.

His department also filed a formal complaint against an Osco pharmacy in Chicago's South Loop where a pharmacist did not fill orders for contraceptives. The pharmacy was cited for ``failing to provide appropriate pharmaceutical care to a patient,'' Blagojevich said.

An Osco spokeswoman did not immediately return a call for comment Friday.

The formal complaint against the pharmacy starts the disciplinary process, which includes a hearing. Penalties could include a fine, reprimand or revocation of a pharmacy's license.

Blagojevich's emergency rule requiring birth control prescriptions be filled without delay at pharmacies that sell contraceptives takes effect immediately, spokeswoman Abby Ottenhoff said. It will remain in effect for 150 days, and the administration will seek to replace it by a permanent rule.

Under the emergency rule, if the contraceptive is not in stock, the pharmacy must order it or transfer the prescription to another local pharmacy of the patient's choice, Blagojevich said. If the pharmacist does not fill the prescription because of a moral objection, another pharmacist needs to be available to fill it without delay.

Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area CEO Steve Trombley praised the state's efforts Friday.

"When medical professionals write prescriptions for their patients, they are acting in their patients' best interests,'' Trombley said. "A pharmacist's personal views cannot intrude on the relationship between a woman and her doctor.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[markd_nscr986 0]

If it's not against the law,they should fill the 'scrip.......if they have moral objections to doing what they are paid to do......drive a f*#@ing truck

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[TheAnvil 0]

Hmm...I don't agree with this for myriad reasons.

1) The customer has a choice to go to another pharmacist to get their prescription.

2) If the government can force a pharmacist to do something against their moral values, what about a doctor? Will Catholics doctors be directed by the gov't to perform abortions next?

3) If the gov't can force pharmacy to carry drugs that are contradictory to the beliefs of its owners, will it next force hospitals to perform procedures contradictory to the beliefs of its owners/sponsors? St. Josephs Abortion Clinic - here at the behest of YOUR government?

4) Will 'Are you Christian?' become a mandatory question for pharmacists desiring to work at chain pharmacies out of fear of lawsuits? Will that be a discriminating factor in the hiring process?

No. I can't say as I support that rule at all. If a customer wants a product they can't find at Kmart but can get at Wal Mart then they should go to WalMart. The gov't would have no business ordering Kmart to stock the item.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Hmm...I don't agree with this for myriad reasons.

1) The customer has a choice to go to another pharmacist to get their prescription.

2) If the government can force a pharmacist to do something against their moral values, what about a doctor? Will Catholics doctors be directed by the gov't to perform abortions next?

3) If the gov't can force pharmacy to carry drugs that are contradictory to the beliefs of its owners, will it next force hospitals to perform procedures contradictory to the beliefs of its owners/sponsors? St. Josephs Abortion Clinic - here at the behest of YOUR government?

4) Will 'Are you Christian?' become a mandatory question for pharmacists desiring to work at chain pharmacies out of fear of lawsuits? Will that be a discriminating factor in the hiring process?

No. I can't say as I support that rule at all. If a customer wants a product they can't find at Kmart but can get at Wal Mart then they should go to WalMart. The gov't would have no business ordering Kmart to stock the item.

From the American Pharmaceutical Assoc. code of ethics:

II.A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient at the center of professional practice.

Note that it does NOT say the pharmacist places his personal values above those of the patient.

This pharmacist should lose his license.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kbordson 8]

Interesting post... and potentional for discussion.
Vinny, I agree with your statements, but there has to be some difference between a large commercial pharmacy (Osco, Walmart...ect) and the small corner store pharmacies. If you go to the small local one, that might not carry too much in stock besides the monthly meds for the local customer, then it might be better to go to the larger one. But... if you're going to Osco (and remember, that insurance sometimes dictates where you get meds filled), you should be able to get the meds that the doctor did write for.
Should there be room for dissent? Of course. Sometimes the dr might not be writing for the best option and calling them and educating them is fine, or maybe the wrong dose is written.... but if it's a matter of morals and the large chain pharmacy commonly has rx's for OCP.... I think that pharmacist needs to put aside his reservations or find a job in a location that is better suited for his spirit.

Karen

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

From the American Pharmaceutical Assoc. code of ethics:

II.A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient at the center of professional practice.

Note that it does NOT say the pharmacist places his personal values above those of the patient.

This pharmacist should lose his license.

And how is exercising one's religious beliefs placing one's own values above those of anyone else? How is refusing to fill a prescription because its use contradicts one's beliefs uncaring, bereft of compassion, or unconfidential?

If a woman goes to a Catholic funded hospital and demands an abortion, should the doctors who refuse to perform the pre-natal murder lose their licenses as well?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[unformed 0]

Quote

And how is exercising one's religious beliefs placing one's own values above those of anyone else? How is refusing to fill a prescription because its use contradicts one's beliefs uncaring, bereft of compassion, or unconfidential?

He has a job to do. He should do the job or suffer the consequences. I, personally, would fire him in a heartbeat.

This ad space for sale.

[TheAnvil 0]

Ahhh...and when you fire the pharmacist and he/she sues you for religious discrimination, how will you respond? "I don't hire Catholics", "I don't hire Jews", "I don't hire Christians", etc?

And how about answering any of the questions you quoted in your post?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[AndyMan 7]

No, you reply by saying "I hired a pharmacist, and you're refusing to do your job".

Having a pharmacist hold religion as an excuse for not handing out drugs makes as much sense as a jew refusing to deliver the Eucharist working as a Catholic priest. If his beliefs are a contradiction with the job, he should find a new job.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[TrophyHusband 0]

in this instance the woman was unable to go elsewhere to get her prescriptioon filled. that then forced this woman to abide by the pharmacist's personal belief's reguarding contraception. that is where the problem comes in. if she had been able to say "fine i'll just take my business to rite aid" this wouldn't be an issue.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[kbordson 8]

1) The customer has a choice to go to another pharmacist to get their prescription.

True, except that the insurance plan might only specificy certain pharmacies. Then if they go somewhere else, it's an out of pocket expense due to someone elses religious beliefs... not a good option, especially if the patient has limited funds to begin with.

2) If the government can force a pharmacist to do something against their moral values, what about a doctor? Will Catholics doctors be directed by the gov't to perform abortions next?

The govenrnment can not force him to do something against his moral values, he has the right to quit, to get a job in line more with his values. Saying that he is being forced is like saying that a doctor working in an abortion clinic is being forced to do the D&C's if it's against his/her beliefs, as in your second comment. Again a false statement. If it's against your code of ethics and you're in private practice, you can remove yourself from that after you've found her a referral that would be appropriate. But if you work in an abortion clinic, you can't then claim religious exception. If it's against your morals, don't work there.

3) If the gov't can force pharmacy to carry drugs that are contradictory to the beliefs of its owners, will it next force hospitals to perform procedures contradictory to the beliefs of its owners/sponsors? St. Josephs Abortion Clinic - here at the behest of YOUR government?

Again, you're confusing private owned companies/practices/hospitals with corporations. I believe that there is difference. If you are a major pharmacy, and take many insurance plans, you should be responsilbe to fill all perscriptions covered on the formulary of the different plans. Maybe not have all of them in stock, but they should be able to be ordered and available to your patients. (note: if there are any pharmacist out there, please correct me if I'm mis-speaking)

4) Will 'Are you Christian?' become a mandatory question for pharmacists desiring to work at chain pharmacies out of fear of lawsuits? Will that be a discriminating factor in the hiring process?

I don't think that question should be necessary. I think that the beliefs that you hold should not infringe on the beliefs of other people, especially patients. You can be a Jehova's Witness and have your thoughts on recieving blood products, but if your patient bleeds out and dies because it was against your "moral code" to give a blood transfusion - it's wrong. I think each person is entitled to his/her perceptions on life/spirituality and happiness.... as their pharmacist, what would give you the right to say "birth control pills are evil"

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Funny how you don't hear them giving lectures about viagra or any other meds. Where does the Parmacist get to draw the line??? I'm glad our Gov came out with very strong words on this subject.

I'm thinking it shouldn't be too long before GW is involved in this to take away another right from the state (and women).

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[TheAnvil 0]

Nicely stated. I agree and disagree.

I think the pharmacy owner or corporation handled this poorly. The correct way to handle that would have been to have another pharmacist fill the prescription and then deal with the problem internally. If the woman's beliefs interfere with her being a pharmacist so much that her services no longer generate income for the company/LLC for which she's working, then she shouldn't work there, this is true. I don't see that as the case here.

I don't think it an onerous out-of-pocket expense to drive to another pharmacy, but that's just me.

With regards to the government forcing a doctor to perform procedures he/she might find unethical, I disagree entirely. The 'perform the procedure or get into another line of work' position is akin to placing a 'Catholics Need Not Apply' sign out there for several fields of medicine. This issue came up in the news in the past few of years when Sens. Feinstein and Boxer were pushing some UN treaty - the acronym CEDAW comes to mind for some odd reason; have to look that up. It also came up more recently when performing an abortion was made part of an ob/gyn curriculum. Never heard much more about that. I find such things perturbing on many levels.

I don't follow your distinction between private companies/corporations as it applies to the issue at hand. If a company or person is under contract to provide a service then that service legally has to be provided. The pharmacist in question could have had a colleague fill the thing and avoided this imbroglio and unnecessary gov't involvement.

The very fact that such a case exists makes any HR person worth anything required to think about the ramifications of hiring any Christian in that industry now. If they don't ask about their beliefs and if they would fill such a prescription, then the HR person isn't doing their job and should be canned. Lawsuits cost money and corporations exist to make profits for shareholders.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[DrewGPM 0]

Quote

If it's not against the law,they should fill the 'scrip.......if they have moral objections to doing what they are paid to do......drive a f*#@ing truck

or go work for a pharmacy that doesn't carry them. As I read it, this new contraceptive law only applies to you if your pharmacy carries contraceptives. There is no law that says you have to carry them.

The case behind this law was that a woman decided to sue the pharmacy because they refused to fill the script. She could have gone to another pharmacy a get the stuff. She chose to sue the pharmacy.

The pharmacy owner should make a decision. Either sell the stuff and hire people who will fill the script, or stop selling them altogether. He messed up my choosing to sell it, but hiring a person who refused to serve them.

A Jewish friend bought a restaurant. He hired his family to work there. Rather than ask them to serve pork, he took all the pork items off the menu. The pork eaters started going to a different place for dinner...and nobody got sued.

Would you keep going to my friends restaurant and asking for pork chops? No, you go somewhere else. The pharmacy owners are gonna do the same thing with contraceptives.

You shouldn't put up with anyone refusing to serve you a product that they sell. Complain to management and see if they fire that person. If they don't, feel free to go to a different pharmacy...you have a choice.

I can't wait to see the lawyers battle this one. If you don't fill this script, you should be fired for not doing your job. But employees are gonna sue, saying they were fired because of his/her beliefs. But you were fired for refusing to do your job. This law gives the business owner some protection, so he/she can fire your ass for hassling my customers. The lawyers are gonna have fun with this one.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I don't think it an onerous out-of-pocket expense to drive to another pharmacy, but that's just me.

That shouldn't factor into any decision in this. Besides, what if it was too much for them to drive to another pharmacy? This could happen in rural Illinois areas.

Also, the pharmacist has no idea why the script was given. It could be for health reason other than birth control.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Nicely stated. I agree and disagree.



With regards to the government forcing a doctor to perform procedures he/she might find unethical, I disagree entirely. The 'perform the procedure or get into another line of work' position is akin to placing a 'Catholics Need Not Apply' sign out there for several fields of medicine.

He cannot find it unethical, he has already gotten licensed voluntarily by a profession that has a written code of ethics that he agreed to comply with. The code of ethics states quite clearly that the patient comes first.

He violated the written code of ethics of his profession. He should lose his license.

If the written code of ethics conflicts with his personal beliefs, he could always quit his job and become a priest, there's a shortage of those.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AndyMan 7]

I think your simile falls apart because the pharmacy is there to provide a critical service.

Unlike a restaurant, it's more like Com-Ed deciding they won't sell a certain thing to a certain person, for whatever reason. Or, a soldier on the front line deciding his orders go against his religion.

Denying medical care can make people seriously ill, and its a travesty whenever people don't get the care they need. It's even more of a travesty if its a part of the medical system causing the problems.

Birth control pills are a lot more than a tool to avoid pregnancy.

They also effectively control hormonal imbalances, which can manifest in a lot of different ways, some of which include vaginal hemoraging. If left untreated (with birth control pills), such issues can sometimes be fatal.

Pharmacists play an important part in the medical system. They're foot soldiers, when the doctors are the 4-star generals. When the people on the front lines start ignoring their orders, people die. A pharmacist has no business refusing to follow the orders of the doctor. Because they took an oath to serve public health, they don't get to make that kind of choice.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[AndyMan 7]

Should a Catholic also complain when he's asked to perform a Bar mitzvah, or is it maybe simple enough to say that are some jobs that a person just shouldn't take?

I think most Catholics would disagree with your (and the churches) suggestion that they shouldn't be part of a system that uses birth control.

I know of Catholic doctors, pharmacists, and patients who all gladly perscribe, sell, and take birth control pills. Strangely, they're all able to sleep at night.

On another note, I find it odd at how quick the Church is to jump into a conflict with science. You'd think, given the historical precedent, that's a conflict they'd rather avoid.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Overall, women ought to know before they schlep it to the druggist's that they'll get their pills.

The Pharm's dogma is none of the consumer's concern, nor should it affect them.

The Asshat in Milwaukee that started all this not only refused to fill the script, but refused to transfer it to someone who would. That is theft. He should have been arrested.

If you are devoutly religious, find a pharmacy that doesn't stock the Pill. What if the pill is the only thing stopping a gal with Premenstrual Dysmorphic Disorder from killing her kids?

How do these people feel about selling condoms or even antibiotics (which could be used to treat STDs), or hormones to a transsexual?

FUCKING IDIOTS.

[FallRate 0]

Interesting info about the development of the birth control pill: apparently during the development it was widely illegal for researchers to share information on the subject of birth control, and birth control means at the time were regularly restricted or outright banned in different parts of the US. I can't remember why I know this...I'm thinking the subject made an appearance during a lecture on social mores, or something along those lines. Or I dreamt it...I make no guarantees.

FallRate

[craichead 0]

Quote

Or I dreamt it...I make no guarantees.

Or you watched the PBS American Experience documentary about The Pill while you were half-asleep.

Interesting stuff: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[kelpdiver 2]

The foot soldier label is very apt.

Anvil, you're mistaken in what the role of the pharmacist is. He is not the approver for a customer's use of drugs. He merely fills the proper prescription and potentially screens for conflicts.

[Nightingale 0]

The pharmacist who caused this issue ought to lose his license. He not only refused to fill the woman's prescription, he refused to transfer it to another pharmacy, preventing her from getting her medicine, period.

[billvon 3,111]

>1.) The customer has a choice to go to another pharmacist to get their prescription.

Not if the pharmacist refuses to transfer it. That's the problem here.

>4) Will 'Are you Christian?' become a mandatory question for
> pharmacists desiring to work at chain pharmacies out of fear of
> lawsuits? Will that be a discriminating factor in the hiring process?

I would prefer a question "are you willing to do your job regardless of your personal feelings towards the patient?"

Imagine what you would say if the situation was a soldier who enlists voluntarily but then decides he has a moral objection to war. Or a pharmacist who refuses to fill antibiotic prescriptions to Down Syndrome children because he feels they pollute the gene pool.

>No. I can't say as I support that rule at all. If a customer wants a
> product they can't find at Kmart but can get at Wal Mart then they
> should go to WalMart.

So you OK with a hospital ER denying care to patients because they're black? After all, the doctors may have a moral objection to treating an 'inferior race.'

[TheAnvil 0]

Quote

>No. I can't say as I support that rule at all. If a customer wants a
> product they can't find at Kmart but can get at Wal Mart then they
> should go to WalMart.

So you OK with a hospital ER denying care to patients because they're black? After all, the doctors may have a moral objection to treating an 'inferior race.'

I neither follow this analogy nor care what color anyone is.

Quote

Imagine what you would say if the situation was a soldier who enlists voluntarily but then decides he has a moral objection to war. Or a pharmacist who refuses to fill antibiotic prescriptions to Down Syndrome children because he feels they pollute the gene pool.

I can follow that - you're right, I'd be ticked the hell off and using all sorts of vile and heinous adjectives to describe the sorry bastards who did such a thing.

I still maintain that the pharmacist shouldn't lose their license. Firing - perhaps. Transfer to a non-customer service pharmaceutical job - absolutely. Loss of license - no.

The question 'are you Christian' is now mandatory for all aspiring corporate pharmacists unless corporate HR departments are completely inept. Government intervention of this nature perturbs me along the lines I mentioned previously.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!