State legislatures are debating a bill that would give pharmacists the right to refuse to dispense birth control pills. This debate is the result of a pharmacist, Neil Noesen, who refused to dispense birth control pills to a customer or transfer the prescription to another pharmacy. Noesen was reprimanded not for refusing to dispense the prescription, but for refusing to transfer the prescription.
Apparently some believe that pharmacists should not be required to dispense a drug that goes against their moral beliefs. Perhaps those pharmacists made a bad career choice. It is not their job to make choices for patients or impose their beliefs upon others. Their job is to fill the prescriptions written by medical personnel. This bill, if passed, would set a bad precedence. What other “rights” could people argue that they should have at work? Could a grocery store clerk that is a vegan refuse to serve customers that are buying meat? Imagine the possibilities. The time to exercise moral beliefs is when choosing a job.
Should pharmacists have to right to refuse birth control? No, but if such a right is granted, then the rights of pharmacies and customers should also be redefined. I have a few suggestions:
Pharmacies that employ pharmacists that refuse to dispense birth control pills will be required to post on their entrance that they employ such a pharmacist and when they are on duty. Failure to post such a notice would result in a fine to the pharmacy and a reprimand to the pharmacist. Continued violation to post a notice would result in a hearing to remove the license of the pharmacy and pharmacist.
Pharmacies have the right during the hiring process to ask pharmacists if they would refuse to dispense birth control pills.
Pharmacies have the right to refuse to employ or dismiss pharmacists that refuse to dispense birth control pills.
Good point. Pharmacists know perfectly well when they enter their profession that the dispensing of birth control prescriptions is part of the territory. Something they should have carefully thought about before taking that board exam.
I’ve heard some pharmacists point out that that doctors are allowed to make moral judgment calls under some circumstances and refuse certain treatments against a patient’s wish. They believe that pharmacists should be allowed the same latitude. However this argument is flawed, as the doctor-patient relationship is the central focus of medical treatment. It is an intimate point of trust between the physician and the patient seeking treatment. A patient cannot be expected to place the same level of trust in a pharmacist as he does with his doctor. In fact, when these renegade pharmacists refuse to fill a prescription, their action (or inaction) interferes with this doctor-patient relationship. I think the doctor is in a better position to know what is the best treatment option for the patient. It is not up to the pharmacist to second-guess the moral compass of either the doctor or patient. The pharmacist’s job is to follow the will of the doctor and patient and provide the medication the doctor has chosen for the patient.
The pharmacist performs a very important, yet perfunctory role in medicine. They are empowered to make sure the patient is getting the correct medication, at the correct dosage. Pharmacists provide important information about the characteristics and possible side-effects of medicines. And from time to time, they catch errors in prescriptions written by careless physicians. But interjecting moral/political prejudices into the doctor-patient relationship is not one of their functions. If we grant them that power, we create a slippery slope.
Cheers.
Comment by Kevin Brady — Friday 27 May, 2005 @ 22:08