NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, so the pharmacist not only refused to fill her prescription (even though he was working for a company that does dispense birth control), but also refused to transfer it to another pharmacy when she asked.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/10/12/contraceptive.complaint.ap/index.html

Now, asking her what it would be used for is a breach of privacy. Refusing to fill the prescription is completely outside of the responsibilities allowed by the job (if he has a problem with a prescription, it is his job to call the doctor, not to decide for himself whether or not to give it), but refusing to transfer the prescription is just plain stupid.

Ok, so the pharmacist not only refused to fill her prescription (even though he was working for a company that does dispense birth control), but also refused to transfer it to another pharmacy when she asked.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/10/12/contraceptive.complaint.ap/index.html

Now, asking her what it would be used for is a breach of privacy. Refusing to fill the prescription is completely outside of the responsibilities allowed by the job (if he has a problem with a prescription, it is his job to call the doctor, not to decide for himself whether or not to give it), but refusing to transfer the prescription is just plain stupid.

The world is filled with freaking idiots.

Hehehe, kiss his license goodbye.

The pharmacist should be repremanded if not fired.

His job is to dispense drugs and offer advice on how to use them.

Spiritual advise is not part of the reason you go to the pharmacy.

His right to Religious expression is at most saying "I really don't think it's a good idea to use them."

Refusing to transfer the prescription?

I don't know about Wisconson but in California, you can transfer it to whom ever you want. They don't own it.

She could have simply picked a new pharmacy and called the doctor. They can fax whatever they need.....

Refusing to transfer the prescription?

I don't know about Wisconson but in California, you can transfer it to whom ever you want. They don't own it.

She could have simply picked a new pharmacy and called the doctor. They can fax whatever they need.....

I don't think you understand - she didn't walk up to them and hand them a little piece of paper. When you have a prescription for the pill, you usually go to one pharmacy just after you get it and put the prescription in. Then you go there for the rest of the year until the prescription runs out. The doctor typically will not reissue a subscription until you have a new pap - something that you usually have to schedule months in advance.

The way she could have transferred this prescription is exactly the way she tried, and the pharmacist refused.

I believe that the pharmacist has the right to refuse to dispensing the medication.

However, I believe that his actions were criminal when he denied her the choice to take her business elsewhere.

I believe that the pharmacist has the right to refuse to dispensing the medication.

In other words, you believe the pharmacist should keep his job even if he isn't do it?

Wow, I'm going to start saying my job is against my religion so I don't have to work.

Seriously though, the pharmacist has no right to refuse to dispense medication unless he expects to get fired. If a pharmacist has a problem with a prescription, they are supposed to call and consult with the doctor, not make a medical decision which they are not qualified to make.

However, I believe that his actions were criminal when he denied her the choice to take her business elsewhere.

Well, at least we agree on something. Although they were not technically criminal, he should certainly lose his job and license.

In other words, you believe the pharmacist should keep his job even if he isn't do it?

Wow, I'm going to start saying my job is against my religion so I don't have to work.

Seriously though, the pharmacist has no right to refuse to dispense medication unless he expects to get fired. If a pharmacist has a problem with a prescription, they are supposed to call and consult with the doctor, not make a medical decision which they are not qualified to make.

Well, at least we agree on something. Although they were not technically criminal, he should certainly lose his job and license.
I think there is some issue of criminality involved... give me a bit to research this one.
Actually a pharmacist is qualified to make decisions on prescriptions. They have to go through intensive education and obtain a license. They are the only "line of defense" against 2 different doctors prescribing 2 different medications that would have harmful or even lethal affects if they were combined.
Being a pharmacist isn't simply having to read the doc's handwriting (no small feat there) and filling pill bottles.

I think there is some issue of criminality involved... give me a bit to research this one.

Possible, but what I have turned up says that there is not.

Actually a pharmacist is qualified to make decisions on prescriptions. They have to go through intensive education and obtain a license. They are the only "line of defense" against 2 different doctors prescribing 2 different medications that would have harmful or even lethal affects if they were combined.

I never said that is all a pharmacist is. However, the pharmacist cannot simply say, "Oops, your doctors prescribed medicines that will be harmful if combined. Go home without your medicine!" nor can he prescribe a new medicine. As I said, the authority of the pharmacist if he has a problem with the prescription is to call and consult with the doctor. The pharmacist has absolutely no authority to simply deny a patient their medication.

Being a pharmacist isn't simply having to read the doc's handwriting (no small feat there) and filling pill bottles.

Nope, but they are not allowed to deny medicine or prescribe either. They know a lot about it, but are not qualified to make the final decision on what medication a patient receives.

bump

*evil grin*

bump

*evil grin*
Now now.. you know the rules.. one bump a week...

So I'll look for this thread again next Thursday.

Can a pharamacist be found liable for filling a valid prescription where doing so leads to injury? You know in cases where there is a misdiagnosis or the medication turns out to be defective (like some of the statin drugs). If that's the case I would imagine then pharmacists always have the discretion not to dispense. So what he did wrong was not refusing to fill it, but refusing to transfer it to someone who would.

Begs the question why she just didn't get another one phoned in to a different pharmacy though. I'm guessing this is not the first time this guy's done this.

how he hell can he/she say its against their religion to do their job? they deserve to be fired and have their liscensing revoked. what if they refused to give an elderly person NEEDED medication and they died?

Well, according to the article, he was just filling in at some walmart, he was an independent pharmacist. Maybe because he is an independent pharmacist, he reacted as if he were in his own place or something of that nature.

Can a pharamacist be found liable for filling a valid prescription where doing so leads to injury? You know in cases where there is a misdiagnosis or the medication turns out to be defective (like some of the statin drugs).
in that case im pretty sure they are still obligated to inform the doctor who made the prescription of the problem before doing jack

I don't think you understand - she didn't walk up to them and hand them a little piece of paper. When you have a prescription for the pill, you usually go to one pharmacy just after you get it and put the prescription in. Then you go there for the rest of the year until the prescription runs out. The doctor typically will not reissue a subscription until you have a new pap - something that you usually have to schedule months in advance.

The way she could have transferred this prescription is exactly the way she tried, and the pharmacist refused.

Well it's not something I am usually knowledgable! ;)

He was wrong and should be punished.

His job isn't to moralize......

Can a pharamacist be found liable for filling a valid prescription where doing so leads to injury? You know in cases where there is a misdiagnosis or the medication turns out to be defective (like some of the statin drugs). If that's the case I would imagine then pharmacists always have the discretion not to dispense. So what he did wrong was not refusing to fill it, but refusing to transfer it to someone who would.

Begs the question why she just didn't get another one phoned in to a different pharmacy though. I'm guessing this is not the first time this guy's done this.

No he can not as his information comes from others. The pharmies are supposed to get nailed for that.

A pharmacist can have issues with drugs that aren't supposed to be taken together. The wrong amount priscribed, etc.

However, he Relgious Morality views are to be left at the door.

Well, according to the article, he was just filling in at some walmart, he was an independent pharmacist. Maybe because he is an independent pharmacist, he reacted as if he were in his own place or something of that nature.

Yea. Walmart would have canned his but for that.

She probably has legal action as he can't hold her prescription.

in that case im pretty sure they are still obligated to inform the doctor who made the prescription of the problem before doing jack

All I meant was if they, you know, just sort of passed the buck to another pharmacist. Why would they have to call the doctor then. If the other pharmacist is willing to do it then what difference would it make. Say they just didn't like the customer, you can't make them dispense, as long as they are prepared to pass on the prescription to another guy.

I still think the most reprehensible thing he did was to withhold from her the choice to go to another pharmacist.

Object if he feels he must, but he can't deny her the right to seek help elsewhere.

He asked her why she was taking birth control pills. WTF did he think she was taking Birth Control pills for? I would have said " i take them so i can have unprotected sex with my priest you religious wacko".

This is one time when someone ought to keep their beliefs to themselves. AFter all, birth control pills aren't just contraceptives. In my case, they allow me to menstrate regularly because I don't produce any estrogen or menstrate naturally.

He's a nutjob alright.

But for the sake of argument, what if the drug had been Baycol, or a phen/fen just before they withdrawn. If he hadn't dispensed because he believed they were injurious, then he would have been within his rights, so long as he transfered the prescription to someone else to fill.

So the point is not him refusing to fill it, but him refusing to transfer it after he refused to fill it.

He's a nutjob alright.

But for the sake of argument, what if the drug had been Baycol, or a phen/fen just before they withdrawn. If he hadn't dispensed because he believed they were injurious, then he would have been within his rights, so long as he transfered the prescription to someone else to fill.

So the point is not him refusing to fill it, but him refusing to transfer it after he refused to fill it.
If it had been a case about safety, I think he would have informed her up front about that, and explained then that he couldn't give her the prescription on those grounds.

This is one time when someone ought to keep their beliefs to themselves. AFter all, birth control pills aren't just contraceptives. In my case, they allow me to menstrate regularly because I don't produce any estrogen or menstrate naturally.

Exactly, It's none of his business, and should not have done what he did, in my opinion. Not to mention, what did he think was going to happen? Of course it would not go over easy, its bad for his rep, its bad for the company's rep, it's just trouble for a lot of people.

Exactly, It's none of his business, and should not have done what he did, in my opinion. Not to mention, what did he think was going to happen? Of course it would not go over easy, its bad for his rep, its bad for the company's rep, it's just trouble for a lot of people.
He has a job. He should leave his religious beliefs at home. They have no place in the work place, unless of course he works in a religious institution ;)

If it had been a case about safety, I think he would have informed her up front about that, and explained then that he couldn't give her the prescription on those grounds.

Don't misunderstand me (that happens quite a bit around here :( ) I'm not defending what he did. He's a nutjob alright.


I'm just saying that it would seem to me that a pharmacist has the right to refuse to fill a prescription as long as they are either prepared to transfer it to someone else to fill or fill it after further consultation with the patient's doctor. But I suppose they could only do the later if they had a bona fide reason, not just religious whackery.

I'm just saying that it would seem to me that a pharmacist has the right to refuse to fill a prescription as long as they are either prepared to transfer it to someone else to fill or fill it after further consultation with the patient's doctor. But I suppose they could only do the later if they had a bona fide reason, not just religious whackery.

Exactly. The pharmacist can absolutely refuse to fill a prescription if they have a safety concern. However, their job is not to just outright refuse it - but the consult with the doctor. If the pharmacist has a problem with a prescription, he calls the doctor and voices it. It is up to the *doctor* to decide if there is something wrong with it. If the pharmacist still has a problem, he can transfer it over at her request. However, it is not up to the pharmacist to make final decisions on what medicine a patient receives.

Exactly. The pharmacist can absolutely refuse to fill a prescription if they have a safety concern. However, their job is not to just outright refuse it - but the consult with the doctor. If the pharmacist has a problem with a prescription, he calls the doctor and voices it. It is up to the *doctor* to decide if there is something wrong with it. If the pharmacist still has a problem, he can transfer it over at her request. However, it is not up to the pharmacist to make final decisions on what medicine a patient receives.

Well either way he's in deep doo-doo.
:)

Another reason the Catholic religion should be abolished.

-Phil.

Regardless of his right to disagree with potentially fatal medications and his right to his religion, this was not a possibly fatal case and he has no right to force his religion on her.
Also, the worst case would come from him NOT giving the prescription.