Pharmacist refuses to fill presecription because of belief (health issue, insurance, vs)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"It's WARY, or LEERY (weary means tired)"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: A Yankee in northeast TN
16,098 posts, read 21,222,224 times
Reputation: 43692
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by coschristi
A Pharmacist should know that drug could be prescribed for either a spontaneous or elective abortion. It's also prescribed for stomach ulcers & postpartum bleeding. He had no business making assumptions.
He did have a right to refuse to be party to an elective abortion; not to refuse to dispense a particular pharmaceutical.
I'm sorry you have had fallout, but if a pharmacist doesn't know why the drug is prescribed and the drug MAY be used for elective abortions it seems their default would be to not dispense it because it might be used for something that goes against his/her beliefs.
Journalist these days don't always check their facts before printing. Not doubting there were two other pharmacy employees, but in most states the pharmacist, and only the pharmacist, has to verify the prescription is ready for the patient before it's released to the registers. Unless this is a very busy store the chances of more than one pharmacist on duty are slim to none.
That's a bit like saying a doctor who won't perform abortions, or a plastic surgeon who refuses crazy body modifications need to find another line of work.
Patients lie. Not that this woman did, but pharmacist hear a lot of stories and deal with a lot of crazy people.
Regardless, he's within his rights to refuse to fill the prescription and he followed the company policy so it's unlikely he'll be fired.
Company policy is to advise the customer to go to another walgreens and transfer the prescription to them. He violated the policy and should be fired
Based on what? Her say so, the same woman who seems to think one of the other two people in the pharmacy could have filled her RX?
I'm not sure what you're asking. The pharmacist is required by company policy to refer the patient to another pharmacist. Either in that store (presumably at another time as there usually aren't two working at once) or to another store in the same chain (Walgreens, IIRC). The customer was not told this info by the pharmacist and went to another store on her own (across town) and they filled the prescription for her later that day. That's when she became aware of the policy. Walgreens corporate office also confirmed the policy to the news.
There is no "based on her say so" because there is no need for the patient to lie or anything. It doesn't matter what the drug is or why she was prescribed it. All that matters is that she was denied at one store and (per policy) should have been told to go to another store. The policy violation is all that matters here, not the reason for the prescription.
"Arteaga later learned the pharmacist sent her prescription to another Walgreens location. She was able to pick up the medication with no issues Saturday."
There was no other pharmacist on duty, despite what Ms. Arteaga believes. So he sent her prescription elsewhere, following Walgreens policy.
Status:
"It's WARY, or LEERY (weary means tired)"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: A Yankee in northeast TN
16,098 posts, read 21,222,224 times
Reputation: 43692
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightbitguy
I'm not sure what you're asking. The pharmacist is required by company policy to refer the patient to another pharmacist. Either in that store (presumably at another time as there usually aren't two working at once) or to another store in the same chain (Walgreens, IIRC). The customer was not told this info by the pharmacist and went to another store on her own (across town) and they filled the prescription for her later that day. That's when she became aware of the policy. Walgreens corporate office also confirmed the policy to the news.
There is no "based on her say so" because there is no need for the patient to lie or anything. It doesn't matter what the drug is or why she was prescribed it. All that matters is that she was denied at one store and (per policy) should have been told to go to another store. The policy violation is all that matters here, not the reason for the prescription.
No, the patient received an email from the pharmacy that her rx was ready after the original pharmacist transferred it.
from her fb post.
"Update: 6/23/18-
After I walked out of Walgreens Thursday night without my prescription I received email notification that my prescription was ready at location across town. Brian H. ultimately had it transferred to another location that had it in stock after I had left upset. Yesterday morning I went to my see my Dr for his help in making sure that pharmacist at the second location would give it me. I picked up my prescription from that Walgreens with no problems."
Note that she states she called her doctor to make sure she could get the rx at that location, after receiving the text. She didn't go to that location on her own and ask for her prescription there. So it's uncertain whether he did or did not try to tell her she could pick it up at another location or at another time. (Thanks to Fluffy for the new link, in it the patient states the pharmacist did give her alternatives) I have worked with many pharmacist and I don't think I've ever seen one simply refuse a prescription without offering an alternative. OTOH I have seen many patients too upset or angry to actually listen to what they are being told.
The pharmacist is required by company policy to refer the patient to another pharmacist. Either in that store (presumably at another time as there usually aren't two working at once) or to another store in the same chain (Walgreens, IIRC).
And that is exactly what he did.
I get it. Some people don't think other people should be able to think differently and act on their beliefs, even if acting on them is perfectly legal. This whole "my feelings trump your ethics" thing is abhorrent. But people do strange things when they are grieving.
Yes, it is terrible that her baby died in the womb.
This pharmacist should be fired and license revoked! Who the f does he think he is judging people and denying them prescribed medicine! This is outrageous! Where does it stop, denying black people because of beliefs, how about Asian people, or the Irish, or Italians? WTF is going on in this country. Thank you trump for enabling crack-pots and trying to take away our freedom.
Actually I do have a pretty good idea of how a pharmacy works. If there were only three people in that pharmacy it's very, very unlikely that two of them were pharmacist, simply because that's a gross misuse of payroll for one thing.
Secondly as I mentioned earlier it's quite possible he told her she could pick it up later or at another store, but she was probably already off on her mission of outrage by that point and didn't listen to what he was saying. I deal with such scenarios often.
lol, right. Sure, no opinions and assumptions on your part. You have misrepresented the facts already when you claimed he followed company policy, and you continue to twist them to fit your own biases.
The pharmacist needs to be fired. His ignorance is dangerous and he needs to choose a different line of work. It's unconscionable that he does not understand what a miscarriage is after getting a doctor of pharmacy degree.
Furthermore, if he does not want to provide the medication for the purposes of elective abortion he needs to be in another business, too.
Right, wrong or indifferent, in his state, as well as most states, The State Board of Pharmacy allows a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription if it goes against his/her moral base.
I once worked for a Catholic pharmacist (store owner) who refused to stock birth control pills, diaphragms and condoms
Today, the Ohio BOP allows another pharmacist to dispense. If another pharmacist is not present, he/she must transfer Rx to another store.
All chains (CVS, Walgreens, etc) allow their pharmacists to make personal decisions.
I cannot find the reference, but occurrences such as this thread, are extremely rare. But, make a lot of noise even if legal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have misrepresented the facts already when you claimed he followed company policy, and you continue to twist them to fit your own biases.