This makes me SOOOOO happy
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Reports of pharmacists with particular religious and moral beliefs denying prescriptions for birth control have prompted legislation that would ensure all prescriptions are filled.
House and Senate backers unveiled a bill dubbed the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act (ALPhA) on Thursday.
It would allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription only if the prescription can be passed to and filled by a co-worker at the same pharmacy.
According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, a reproductive rights group, legislators in 10 states are considering bills that would permit pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. A federal law, if passed, would pre-empt any state law.
"What have we come to in this country?" Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat and House sponsor of the bill, said Thursday morning at a rally on Capitol Hill. "We are merely saying, 'let the laws in this country stand.' Let a woman be treated with dignity. When she has a prescription from her doctor, that privacy should be respected."
Yet some want additional legislation to protect pharmacists who believe certain birth control drugs are forms of abortion, Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, told the Reuters news agency. The group provides legal advice and support to pharmacists.
Brauer told Reuters she believes doctors will eventually begin ordering women to abort disabled children, or refuse to treat them after birth.
"They'll force women to kill their children ... It will be like China. It's the next logical step," she told Reuters.
The American Pharmacists Association favors letting pharmacists follow their conscience, but says customers should have alternative means of getting prescriptions, spokeswoman Susan Winckler told Reuters.
"Nobody has a right to come between any person and their doctor," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat and co-sponsor, said Thursday. "Today they might not fill prescriptions for birth control pills. Tomorrow it could be painkillers for a cancer patient. Next year it could be medicine that prolongs the life of a person with AIDS or some other terminal disease."
As medical professionals, it is highly unethical to simply deny service out of hand. I'm not sure about my colleagues, but the information I've gleaned from the (admittedly small amount of) medical ethics I've been taught directly contradicts the idea of someone just saying "No, I can't do that because of a personal belief." If a patient is asking for something that is considered a standard part of care that does not put them in immediate danger (and "immortal souls" don't count), a medical provider MUST either provide the service or find another comparable colleague who is willing AND able to take over care of that patient. I see no reason this requirement should not be extended to pharmacists.
I also find it offense that a pharmacist would deny to fill a prescription that believe was written by the correct medical professional. There is a sort of professional agreement between the script fillers and the script writers. We assume they will fill the scripts we write if they are medically (not morally) appropriate. That's their job. If there was an interaction, or there was a new warning the physician might not know about, then it is acceptable because the pharmacist’s job is to make sure the script is MEDICALLY appropriate. However, the pharmacist does not know this patient, has not interviewed or examined this patient, has not built a provider-patient relationship with this patient, and, therefore, has no right to decide on whether or not some should or should not be on a med if there is a valid prescription and no medical contraindications.
As medical professionals, we HAVE to put the well being above our own religious beliefs. I'm not saying they should be atheists at work. However, they have to treat each patient as entities to make their own decisions. If something is just such an affront to their morals, you can't just leave someone hanging. It is the medical professional’s responsibility to find a colleague who can do it. Plain and simple.
Ok, rant over.">
House and Senate backers unveiled a bill dubbed the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act (ALPhA) on Thursday.
It would allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription only if the prescription can be passed to and filled by a co-worker at the same pharmacy.
According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, a reproductive rights group, legislators in 10 states are considering bills that would permit pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. A federal law, if passed, would pre-empt any state law.
"What have we come to in this country?" Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat and House sponsor of the bill, said Thursday morning at a rally on Capitol Hill. "We are merely saying, 'let the laws in this country stand.' Let a woman be treated with dignity. When she has a prescription from her doctor, that privacy should be respected."
Yet some want additional legislation to protect pharmacists who believe certain birth control drugs are forms of abortion, Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, told the Reuters news agency. The group provides legal advice and support to pharmacists.
Brauer told Reuters she believes doctors will eventually begin ordering women to abort disabled children, or refuse to treat them after birth.
"They'll force women to kill their children ... It will be like China. It's the next logical step," she told Reuters.
The American Pharmacists Association favors letting pharmacists follow their conscience, but says customers should have alternative means of getting prescriptions, spokeswoman Susan Winckler told Reuters.
"Nobody has a right to come between any person and their doctor," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat and co-sponsor, said Thursday. "Today they might not fill prescriptions for birth control pills. Tomorrow it could be painkillers for a cancer patient. Next year it could be medicine that prolongs the life of a person with AIDS or some other terminal disease."
As medical professionals, it is highly unethical to simply deny service out of hand. I'm not sure about my colleagues, but the information I've gleaned from the (admittedly small amount of) medical ethics I've been taught directly contradicts the idea of someone just saying "No, I can't do that because of a personal belief." If a patient is asking for something that is considered a standard part of care that does not put them in immediate danger (and "immortal souls" don't count), a medical provider MUST either provide the service or find another comparable colleague who is willing AND able to take over care of that patient. I see no reason this requirement should not be extended to pharmacists.
I also find it offense that a pharmacist would deny to fill a prescription that believe was written by the correct medical professional. There is a sort of professional agreement between the script fillers and the script writers. We assume they will fill the scripts we write if they are medically (not morally) appropriate. That's their job. If there was an interaction, or there was a new warning the physician might not know about, then it is acceptable because the pharmacist’s job is to make sure the script is MEDICALLY appropriate. However, the pharmacist does not know this patient, has not interviewed or examined this patient, has not built a provider-patient relationship with this patient, and, therefore, has no right to decide on whether or not some should or should not be on a med if there is a valid prescription and no medical contraindications.
As medical professionals, we HAVE to put the well being above our own religious beliefs. I'm not saying they should be atheists at work. However, they have to treat each patient as entities to make their own decisions. If something is just such an affront to their morals, you can't just leave someone hanging. It is the medical professional’s responsibility to find a colleague who can do it. Plain and simple.
Ok, rant over.">