Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds? Such as birth control? Morning after pill? Etc?

I do not think so. I mean, I know its his job to fill perscriptions, but I wouldnt do anything I didnt believe in. I would get another pharmasist to fill the perscription.

Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds? Such as birth control? Morning after pill? Etc?

Well, if I was the owner of the Walgreen's where this Pharmacist worked, I would make sure that this particular pharmacist was never working a shift in which she or he was the only pharmacist on board. If, however, this Pharmacist was employed in a private hospital that followed teachings that didn't believe in birth control, then the Pharmacist should have that right.

As a customer, I would not use a retail pharmacy that encouraged their employees to make my life difficult. I would transfer my prescriptions to a competitor and would notify the pharmacist, the district pharmacy manager, and Corporate exactly why I would no longer do business with them. Retail pharmacies are falling all over themselves trying to snatch customers from other retail outlets (hence the 30%-off coupons for transferring rx); if it vbecomes a big enough issue for the retail pharmacy, the store policy will change.

Personally, I think that if you can't or won't perform ALL of the job's duties, maybe you should consider a new career. That's just me though.

Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds? Such as birth control? Morning after pill? Etc?

Yes it is his/her job if they do not believe in it then they can choose not to take it. Their religious views should not matter when filling MY prescription. If they don't like all the LEGAL meds out there then they should get a new profession.

I mean heck what if a church of Scientology member was a pharmacist and they morally opposed my zoloft and depakote because they are psychiatric meds? Should they be able to NOT fill my meds and put MY health at risk? Its the same damn thing when it comes to birth control or the morning after pill.

As a pharmicist, it isn't his/her medical responsibility to decide what that "prescription" has been prescribed for, so YES, I do believe that it is their JOB to fill it and provide the medicine to the patient/customer as they are being PAID to do. That is what they went to school to do, that is what they are getting paid to do, and if they don't like their job, then don't do it, go home. A pharmicists personal beliefs should not be allowed to float over into their work environment because so many medicines are used for numerous different things.

Birth control is used for more than birth control.

Absolutely! If they can't do their job, they need to find a new one.

It's like a gyno not being comfortable with seeing a woman's vagina. Or a butcher being a vegan! :lmao

Personally, I think that if you can't or won't perform ALL of the job's duties, maybe you should consider a new career. That's just me though.

My thoughts exactly. They would either do their job, or find another one.

My thoughts exactly. They would either do their job, or find another one.

I agree :mrgreen

It's the doctor's JOB to prescribe the medicine to the patient. It is the pharmacist's JOB to fill the prescription. Who are they to force their own beliefs on someone who is trying to make a smart choice and prevent an unwanted pregnancy? And how do they know that it's not to control heavy bleeding or for severe cramps or some other female problem? I'm a firm believer that everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs, but that if their opinions and beliefs interfere with the CAREER they have chosen, then they should rethink that career decision. You don't just get to pick and choose things in life so that everything is sunshine and roses, and we all have to do things we don't want to do.

If there's another pharmacist on duty, I don't have a problem with them asking the other guy/gal to fill it. However, if they are the only pharmacist on duty, they should have to fill all prescriptions presented to them. It's not fair to the customers to say "sorry I won't fill this because I don't agree with it" and then them have to transfer their prescription elsewhere, or go without until a different pharmacist is available. Not cool.

Absolutely! If they can't do their job, they need to find a new one.

It's like a gyno not being comfortable with seeing a woman's vagina. Or a butcher being a vegan! :lmao

:lol

I agree. A doctor is not allowed to refuse to treat you simply because he/she disagrees with your lifestyle choices. Pharmacists should act in the same way.

Yes. Because when you choose to work somewhere you choose to do what's required of you.

I think that if they are unwilling to fill prescriptions they don't agree with, then they must always work with someone who WILL fill them... and they MUST give that other person the prescription to fill.

If you don't want to fill it... fine... but then you get to have someone else do it anyway.

all the prescriptions you would have to fill are LEGAL and part of your job, therefor... work somewhere private where you don't have to, or get another job.

YES. If they want to have a job dispensing pills they should DISPENSE THE DAMN PILLS. Don't like the pills, then don't take them, but it is not their job to save everyone else's soul. A pharmacist is NOT a doctor. A pharmacist is NOT every patients pastor, bishop, reverend, or God. A pharmacist is a damn pharmacist and needs to do their JOB instead of worrying about all of their patients morality.

Personally, I think that if you can't or won't perform ALL of the job's duties, maybe you should consider a new career. That's just me though.

Yes it is his/her job if they do not believe in it then they can choose not to take it. Their religious views should not matter when filling MY prescription. If they don't like all the LEGAL meds out there then they should get a new profession.

I mean heck what if a church of Scientology member was a pharmacist and they morally opposed my zoloft and depakote because they are psychiatric meds? Should they be able to NOT fill my meds and put MY health at risk? Its the same damn thing when it comes to birth control or the morning after pill.

As a pharmicist, it isn't his/her medical responsibility to decide what that "prescription" has been prescribed for, so YES, I do believe that it is their JOB to fill it and provide the medicine to the patient/customer as they are being PAID to do. That is what they went to school to do, that is what they are getting paid to do, and if they don't like their job, then don't do it, go home. A pharmicists personal beliefs should not be allowed to float over into their work environment because so many medicines are used for numerous different things.

Birth control is used for more than birth control.

Absolutely! If they can't do their job, they need to find a new one.

It's like a gyno not being comfortable with seeing a woman's vagina. Or a butcher being a vegan! :lmao

:lol

I agree. A doctor is not allowed to refuse to treat you simply because he/she disagrees with your lifestyle choices. Pharmacists should act in the same way.


:yes :yes

I feel if there is a pharmacist on shift that opposes it, there should be a pharmacist on the same shift that doesn't. That way neither pharmacist has to go against their ethics, but the customer doesn't have to have one pharmacist's ethics forced on him/her.

As a pharmicist, it isn't his/her medical responsibility to decide what that "prescription" has been prescribed for, so YES, I do believe that it is their JOB to fill it and provide the medicine to the patient/customer as they are being PAID to do. That is what they went to school to do, that is what they are getting paid to do, and if they don't like their job, then don't do it, go home. A pharmicists personal beliefs should not be allowed to float over into their work environment because so many medicines are used for numerous different things.

Birth control is used for more than birth control.

ABSOLUTELY. My sister has been on bc since she was 13 because her periods were so completely crippling that she couldn't even attend school or get out of bed.

Ummm...I think people should do the job they have or they should find a new one.

personally i would be pissed if someone told me they weren't gonna give me my bc because they didn't believe in it. my religion has nothing wrong with it. and i don't like other religions cramming things down my throat. they shouldn't become a pharmacist if their religion is going to interfere with their job and vice versa.

personally i would be pissed if someone told me they weren't gonna give me my bc because they didn't believe in it. my religion has nothing wrong with it. and i don't like other religions cramming things down my throat. they shouldn't become a pharmacist if their religion is going to interfere with their job and vice versa.

Yeah. I would be absolutely furious.

no but they should ensure that there is someone there who can or will fill it

yes unless they are working in a place that follows their teachings.
You know being a pharmacists that you have to dispense pills. BC, plan B and all that are not sooo new that they wouldn't know that going through school.
I don't force my ethics on their life why should they force theirs on mine.

Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds? Such as birth control? Morning after pill? Etc?

If there are no other pharmacists available at the time to fill it, then yes. If you start letting pharmacists choose what drugs they will fill, then who knows what drugs they will 'choose' not to fill. What about viagra, or ritalin, or hormone replacement, or HIV Drugs......

If there are no other pharmacists available at the time to fill it, then yes. If you start letting pharmacists choose what drugs they will fill, then who knows what drugs they will 'choose' not to fill. What about viagra, or ritalin, or hormone replacement, or HIV Drugs......

GOOD point. What if someone with the belief that "HIV is a punishment from God and only gays and sinners get HIV" refused to give HIV drugs to an HIV+ person?

If there are no other pharmacists available at the time to fill it, then yes. If you start letting pharmacists choose what drugs they will fill, then who knows what drugs they will 'choose' not to fill. What about viagra, or ritalin, or hormone replacement, or HIV Drugs......

Excellent point!

If there are no other pharmacists available at the time to fill it, then yes. If you start letting pharmacists choose what drugs they will fill, then who knows what drugs they will 'choose' not to fill. What about viagra, or ritalin, or hormone replacement, or HIV Drugs......
:agree
its a slippery slope to be on.

Also... if a pharmacist won't fill it...

I don't think it should be the pharmacy's responsibility to make sure there's ALWAYS a secondary pharmacist there to accommodate his personal beliefs.

I just wouldn't hire him/her. :dunno

Also... if a pharmacist won't fill it...

I don't think it should be the pharmacy's responsibility to make sure there's ALWAYS a secondary pharmacist there to accommodate his personal beliefs.

I just wouldn't hire him/her. :dunno

And that's where I think the marketplace will determine how this ends up.

Only about 40% of all pharmD's actually go into retail pharmacy. The rest are in clinical facilities, pharmaceutical research, academia, pharmaceutical sales, pharmaceutical law, etc.

There are any number of places and ways that a PharmD can be gainfully employed that won't go against his or her personal beliefs.

Also... if a pharmacist won't fill it...

I don't think it should be the pharmacy's responsibility to make sure there's ALWAYS a secondary pharmacist there to accommodate his personal beliefs.

I just wouldn't hire him/her. :dunno

i think there should always be a secondary pharm. d on hand not just because of this but to double and triple check things

And that's where I think the marketplace will determine how this ends up.

Only about 40% of all pharmD's actually go into retail pharmacy. The rest are in clinical facilities, pharmaceutical research, academia, pharmaceutical sales, pharmaceutical law, etc.

There are any number of places and ways that a PharmD can be gainfully employed that won't go against his or her personal beliefs.

That is why I am opposed to laws that force pharmacies to hire someone even if they refuse. Someone posted an article recently about this. It would be illegal to refuse to hire someone (and so in turn, fire someone) if they refuse to dispense certain medications because of their "morals" (although I don't see how refusing someone medication prescribed by a doctor is moral, but whatever). If that happens it takes away the whole "capitalist free market" aspect. The market won't be able to decide until it comes down to people actually refusing to get their prescriptions filled at said pharmacy and forcing it out of business. Somehow I don't see that happening because either A) people are too lazy to drive somewhere out of the way if they aren't getting BC filled even if they don't think that pharmacists should be able to refuse, or B) the government will bail them out anyway.

That is why I am opposed to laws that force pharmacies to hire someone even if they refuse. Someone posted an article recently about this. It would be illegal to refuse to hire someone (and so in turn, fire someone) if they refuse to dispense certain medications because of their "morals" (although I don't see how refusing someone medication prescribed by a doctor is moral, but whatever). If that happens it takes away the whole "capitalist free market" aspect. The market won't be able to decide until it comes down to people actually refusing to get their prescriptions filled at said pharmacy and forcing it out of business. Somehow I don't see that happening because either A) people are too lazy to drive somewhere out of the way if they aren't getting BC filled even if they don't think that pharmacists should be able to refuse, or B) the government will bail them out anyway.


Yep- and if that's what that law will do, it's a bad law.

BUT-- I could see a whole new niche in the advertising market: "Here at Wal-Rite-S, our pharmacists pledge to fill ALL prescxriptions that are legally prescribed by your doctor!!!!!"

Personally, I think that if you can't or won't perform ALL of the job's duties, maybe you should consider a new career. That's just me though.

:agree

Yep- and if that's what that law will do, it's a bad law.

BUT-- I could see a whole new niche in the advertising market: "Here at Wal-Rite-S, our pharmacists pledge to fill ALL prescxriptions that are legally prescribed by your doctor!!!!!"

Me too! I would HOPE that whoever does make it a practice to make sure their pharmacists actually do their jobs would do that.

I was a pharmacy technician for 7 years and I did work with a few people who refused to fill RXs for Plan B, Preven, etc.
I would always send the patient to a pharmacy I knew would fill it. And that's what I think they should do. If they don't want to fill it, send the patient somewhere else.
As of now, the law states that they don't have to fill any RX they don't want to. But, as a responsible, caring person, they should send the person elsewhere.
Even if that law were to change and force a pharmacist to fill those scripts, all they would have to do is say "sorry we don't have any in stock." They do that all the time when they get shady looking scripts for narcotics.

Pharmacist don't legally have to fill them. They can refuse them if they want to. I work in a Pharmacy.

Yep- and if that's what that law will do, it's a bad law.

BUT-- I could see a whole new niche in the advertising market: "Here at Wal-Rite-S, our pharmacists pledge to fill ALL prescxriptions that are legally prescribed by your doctor!!!!!"

Me too...

Hey - what if McDonalds stopped serving Double Cheeseburgers to those they didn't think needed it?? They'd be up for a lawsuit....same type of issue, don't you think?

Yep- and if that's what that law will do, it's a bad law.

BUT-- I could see a whole new niche in the advertising market: "Here at Wal-Rite-S, our pharmacists pledge to fill ALL prescxriptions that are legally prescribed by your doctor!!!!!"

I would go to that pharmacy :yes

Pharmacist don't legally have to fill them. They can refuse them if they want to. I work in a Pharmacy.

What pharmacy so I know not to go there?

Pharmacist don't legally have to fill them. They can refuse them if they want to. I work in a Pharmacy.

Depends on the laws of the state.

Me too...

Hey - what if McDonalds stopped serving Double Cheeseburgers to those they didn't think needed it?? They'd be up for a lawsuit....same type of issue, don't you think?

Nooooo kidding!


What pharmacy so I know not to go there?

Yeah, me too. I am going to start checking what the policies of the pharmacies are here because I do not want to give my money to the places that would actually refuse to dispense medication.

Personally, I think that if you can't or won't perform ALL of the job's duties, maybe you should consider a new career. That's just me though.

:hail

I would go to that pharmacy :yes



What pharmacy so I know not to go there?

Nooooo kidding!



Yeah, me too. I am going to start checking what the policies of the pharmacies are here because I do not want to give my money to the places that would actually refuse to dispense medication.

Don't forget that those laws are in place not only for controversial drugs, but for RXs that a pharmacist feels could hurt a patient (they can refuse to fill until they speak with the patient's doctor) and also fake or shady looking RXs. To be honest, I think that when the law was put into place it probably wasn't for controversial drugs at all. It's just a change with the times, you know?
In my experience pharmacists know A LOT more about drugs and interactions than doctors do. I always call my pharmacist when I get prescribed a new drug and there have been a few times I've had to call my doc and have them change it because of possible interactions and things.

Don't forget that those laws are in place not only for controversial drugs, but for RXs that a pharmacist feels could hurt a patient (they can refuse to fill until they speak with the patient's doctor) and also fake or shady looking RXs. To be honest, I think that when the law was put into place it probably wasn't for controversial drugs at all. It's just a change with the times, you know?
In my experience pharmacists know A LOT more about drugs and interactions than doctors do. I always call my pharmacist when I get prescribed a new drug and there have been a few times I've had to call my doc and have them change it because of possible interactions and things.

Absolutely. Pharmacists have doctorate degrees too.... PharmD. It's a four-year course of study beyone undergrad/pre-reqs, and it's a doctorate degree.

I figure sometimes public defenders or such have to defend people they may privately suspect are not telling the truth or may actually be guilty of they crime they're accused of and they still have to do their job. Why would pharmacists be any different. You get paid a salary to fill prescriptions, do your job.

Don't forget that those laws are in place not only for controversial drugs, but for RXs that a pharmacist feels could hurt a patient (they can refuse to fill until they speak with the patient's doctor) and also fake or shady looking RXs. To be honest, I think that when the law was put into place it probably wasn't for controversial drugs at all. It's just a change with the times, you know?
In my experience pharmacists know A LOT more about drugs and interactions than doctors do. I always call my pharmacist when I get prescribed a new drug and there have been a few times I've had to call my doc and have them change it because of possible interactions and things.

I've never had a pharmacist teach me anything about drugs... they ask if my doctor explained them and went over it... I say yes (because my doctor DOES) and they ask if I have anymore questions. I already asked my doctor... so I say no.

And that is the best of times... normally they just fill it, no questions asked. No matter WHAT the prescription is for. They assume my doctor explained. They are ALWAYS willing to answer questions of course... but I've only ever had ONE actually INSIST on talking to me about one.... and one I had been taking for months too so it just annoyed me.

I've never had a pharmacist teach me anything about drugs... they ask if my doctor explained them and went over it... I say yes (because my doctor DOES) and they ask if I have anymore questions. I already asked my doctor... so I say no.

And that is the best of times... normally they just fill it, no questions asked. No matter WHAT the prescription is for. They assume my doctor explained. They are ALWAYS willing to answer questions of course... but I've only ever had ONE actually INSIST on talking to me about one.... and one I had been taking for months too so it just annoyed me.

That's kind of why they don't push you if you say you don't have any questions. And if you were prescribed something that interacted with one of your other drugs your pharmacist would most def talk to you about it (at least in my experience).

That's kind of why they don't push you if you say you don't have any questions. And if you were prescribed something that interacted with one of your other drugs your pharmacist would most def talk to you about it (at least in my experience).

yeah... I've only ever been on one drug at a time... and I've talked to my doctor about whether or not I was... I trust my doctor to give me the information I need, to make sure I am doing well... and I trust my pharmacist to answer any questions I didn't think of at the doctors and to ultimately just give me my prescription.
I would expect my pharmacist to be able to give me ALL the exact same information as my doctor... but I never NEED them to. what I need from them is to just fill the prescription my doctor and I already talked about.