|
Pharmacists
refuse to fill birth control prescriptions
on moral grounds
Recently,
it seems like more pharmacists will not
fill birth control prescriptions for moral
reasons only. This refusal is curbing access
to a prescription drug, and those who have
been prescribed the drug by a doctor should
have full access whether or not they are
using it for birth control or other medical
reasons.
In
July, the El Paso Times wrote that a pharmacist
in Fabens, Texas refused to sell birth control
because it was against his religion after
hearing a radio program that explained the
pill as an abortifacient, something that
destroys the ability of a fertilized egg
to survive. The pharmacist does fill some
prescriptions for the pill, as long as they
are used for other medical reasons besides
birth control. He also refuses to carry
the morning-after pill. This is the only
pharmacy in Fabens. The closest birth control
carrying pharmacy is all the way in El Paso,
Texas.
K-mart
recently fired a pharmacist for refusing
to sell birth control pills, despite the
fact that she transferred the prescription
to a competing pharmacy and explained how
the birth control pill affects the body.
Still, she was fired for refusing to distribute
the medication.
In
these cases, the pharmacist is forcing their
beliefs on another person, but it is a type
of freedom of expression and people should
be able to live in accordance with their
beliefs. The pharmacist's job, however,
is to sell a product and if the company
carries the product, the pharmacist should
not have the right to refuse that service
to the public. The pharmacist should choose
another job field if they have serious moral
problems with what they are hired to do.
In
another Texas case, a pharmacist working
for Eckerd Drugs, later bought by CVS, refused
to fill a morning-after prescription to
a rape victim. He told the patient that
the pill would destroy a child's life if
the victim were pregnant and refused to
fill her prescription. The company sided
with the customer and the pharmacist was
fired.
This
is obviously a worst-case scenario but it
brings to mind a what-if situation.
If
a person does not want to state the reason
for their birth control prescription, might
the pharmacist assume the reason and refuse
to fill it, even if it were for menopause
or some other medical reason?
According
to ProChoiceAmerica.org, 41 percent of California
counties have no abortion provider, so birth
control is an important factor in preventing
abortion.
The
California Attorney General's Web site says,
"Any woman, single or married, including
a woman who is under 18 years of age, may
obtain birth control medication or devices
without the permission of either parent
or husband." It is not the choice of
the pharmacist whether or not a woman takes
birth control. It is the choice of the woman
and her doctor.
Arkansas
and South Dakota have laws protecting the
pharmacist in these situations. Other states
are considering the law, but none have passed
yet. A law such as this could stop millions
of prescription drugs from being filled.
The pharmacist should not be making moral
decisions for other people. If the job is
a conscious problem, then that person should
find another field.
The
American Pharmacists Association supports
a pharmacist's right to morally make decisions
if there is something they feel uncomfortable
with, but they must also provide another
way for the patient to access the legal
drug. For small towns though, this could
mean a three-hour drive to the nearest birth-control
carrying pharmacy.
If
this kind of moral decision-making is allowed
to continue, the next step could be refusing
to prescribe Viagra if it is suspected for
use in an affair, not selling condoms to
someone suspected of being gay, or not selling
them at all.
In
a case where the drugs in question are legal
and prescribed by a certified doctor,
if the pharmacy carries them, the consumer
should have full access and not be barred
by the beliefs of the person behind the
counter.
|
