Comments on: Pharmacy Debate: Refusal to Fill http://www.studentdoctor.net/2007/04/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/ An educational community for students and doctors spanning all the health professions. Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:10:17 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: CarissaO. http://www.studentdoctor.net/2007/04/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-7079 CarissaO. Wed, 03 Jun 2009 02:24:17 +0000 http://studentdoctor.net/blog/2007/04/22/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-7079 I live in the state of Ohio. We are now facing an epidemic of Pharmacy Refusals in Toledo and some of our suburbs. There have been a large number of incidents reported to us where pharmacies and pharmacists are refusing to fill legally obtained prescriptions. Most of these refusals are not only causing undue hardship to these patients, but they are also establishing to us a pattern. This is discrimination. Almost all of the reported cases are low income people who are people of color as well as people who have government insurances, and alot of the prescriptions are not typically covered or paid for by their prescription/insurance coverage/plans. These Toledo area pharmacies are ranging from small local pharmacies to large chain pharmacy companies, such as Walgreens Pharmacies, Food Town, Walmart Pharmacies, K-Mart Pharmacies and some others. Our small law firm came accross these refusal complaints because we handle Social Security/Disability claims and represent a large number of low income, disabled, & some unemployed clients. These refusals have really hit these people hard because most don't have the option to drive outside of the city, or go to several different pharmacies until they find a place that they may obtain their prescribed medication. It's extremely prejudice & there has to be a resolution to this problem because the current status of it is not acceptable. Here in Toledo we are going to start seeking further legal solutions, in the sense of monitary damages if these acts are not rectified by these pharmacies and pharmacists. I hope that all of the pharmacists and health care providers reading these blogs come to understand the hardships they cause. Yet, they continue, with these acts of discrimination in which they impose their judgements upon people who are in need of their entitled health care. They should come to realize that if the tables are turned and they themselves are at the pharmacy counter with a migraine seeking relief through use of Imitrex, or if they had cancer and were seeking pain relief through use of their prescribed OxyContin, and their pharmacist denied them access with no legal justification, only the pharmacists personal opinion about them, they then would see how it is to need the medication but not to have their rightful access to it. I live in the state of Ohio. We are now facing an epidemic of Pharmacy Refusals in Toledo and some of our suburbs. There have been a large number of incidents reported to us where pharmacies and pharmacists are refusing to fill legally obtained prescriptions. Most of these refusals are not only causing undue hardship to these patients, but they are also establishing to us a pattern. This is discrimination. Almost all of the reported cases are low income people who are people of color as well as people who have government insurances, and alot of the prescriptions are not typically covered or paid for by their prescription/insurance coverage/plans. These Toledo area pharmacies are ranging from small local pharmacies to large chain pharmacy companies, such as Walgreens Pharmacies, Food Town, Walmart Pharmacies, K-Mart Pharmacies and some others. Our small law firm came accross these refusal complaints because we handle Social Security/Disability claims and represent a large number of low income, disabled, & some unemployed clients. These refusals have really hit these people hard because most don’t have the option to drive outside of the city, or go to several different pharmacies until they find a place that they may obtain their prescribed medication. It’s extremely prejudice & there has to be a resolution to this problem because the current status of it is not acceptable.
Here in Toledo we are going to start seeking further legal solutions, in the sense of monitary damages if these acts are not rectified by these pharmacies and pharmacists.
I hope that all of the pharmacists and health care providers reading these blogs come to understand the hardships they cause. Yet, they continue, with these acts of discrimination in which they impose their judgements upon people who are in need of their entitled health care. They should come to realize that if the tables are turned and they themselves are at the pharmacy counter with a migraine seeking relief through use of Imitrex, or if they had cancer and were seeking pain relief through use of their prescribed OxyContin, and their pharmacist denied them access with no legal justification, only the pharmacists personal opinion about them, they then would see how it is to need the medication but not to have their rightful access to it.

]]> By: big dog http://www.studentdoctor.net/2007/04/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-6845 big dog Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:23:37 +0000 http://studentdoctor.net/blog/2007/04/22/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-6845 i am wondering about the rights to fill or not fill a prescription. i had 1 refill left on my pain meds and had to see my dr. they wrote me a new prescription and i filled it then remembered i had 1 more refill on the old prescription. can they refuse to fill it because my insurance will not pay for it. i offered to pay for it without my insurance but they refused to fill it. i thought i would keep them for back up because i travel out of town on my job and sometimes i am gone for several weeks at a time. is this illegal for me to try to get this filled? thank you i am wondering about the rights to fill or not fill a prescription. i had 1 refill left on my pain meds and had to see my dr. they wrote me a new prescription and i filled it then remembered i had 1 more refill on the old prescription. can they refuse to fill it because my insurance will not pay for it. i offered to pay for it without my insurance but they refused to fill it.
i thought i would keep them for back up because i travel out of town on my job and sometimes i am gone for several weeks at a time. is this illegal for me to try to get this filled?
thank you

]]> By: David http://www.studentdoctor.net/2007/04/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-255 David Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:06:34 +0000 http://studentdoctor.net/blog/2007/04/22/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-255 I am interested to know if anyone has an answer for Samantha. What that doctor/thief did seems to me, at the very least, extremely unethical. I am interested to know if anyone has an answer for Samantha. What that doctor/thief did seems to me, at the very least, extremely unethical.

]]> By: SH http://www.studentdoctor.net/2007/04/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-254 SH Thu, 11 Oct 2007 05:04:34 +0000 http://studentdoctor.net/blog/2007/04/22/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-254 I don't see what the problem is. Each state has its own policies on whether pharmacists have a say on dispensing morally objectionable drugs. Just like how each institution, whether it be a hospital or drug store, has its own policies and procedures that pharmacists have to abide to. You can interpret the pharmacist's code of ethics anyway you want. You can argue both ways how administering plan B is in the best interest of the patient or how it isn't. The point is if you have a huge problem with the policies of an institution, you shouldn't be working there. It's the pharmacist's responsibility for finding a workplace that he or she is comfortable with. Otherwise, you pretty much have to abide by the rules of where you work. Isn't that how America works? I don’t see what the problem is. Each state has its own policies on whether pharmacists have a say on dispensing morally objectionable drugs. Just like how each institution, whether it be a hospital or drug store, has its own policies and procedures that pharmacists have to abide to. You can interpret the pharmacist’s code of ethics anyway you want. You can argue both ways how administering plan B is in the best interest of the patient or how it isn’t. The point is if you have a huge problem with the policies of an institution, you shouldn’t be working there. It’s the pharmacist’s responsibility for finding a workplace that he or she is comfortable with. Otherwise, you pretty much have to abide by the rules of where you work. Isn’t that how America works?

]]> By: Avi Rosenberg http://www.studentdoctor.net/2007/04/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-253 Avi Rosenberg Sun, 12 Aug 2007 04:26:38 +0000 http://studentdoctor.net/blog/2007/04/22/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-253 I have dispensed hundreds of Plan Bs to Christian girls and will gladly do so for the remainder of my pharmacy career. I have dispensed hundreds of Plan Bs to Christian girls and will gladly do so for the remainder of my pharmacy career.

]]> By: Samantha http://www.studentdoctor.net/2007/04/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-252 Samantha Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:07:46 +0000 http://studentdoctor.net/blog/2007/04/22/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-252 I apologize if this is considered off topic. My question has to do with a doctor refusing to prescribe viagra not a pharmacy filling it. My boyfriend has been seeing a doctor and has asked him for viagra. The doctor has stated in every appointment that he will not prescribe it due to his high blood pressure. The doctor told him that if he gets his b. pressure down to the 140's he would give it to him. After many months of working at getting it down, going in to appts to get checked and repeatedly asking for it, today, he went in and it was at 144. When the doctor walked in his head was down, boyfriend said "doc, you said you'd give it to me and i'm at 144". Unbelievably, the doctor goes into some speech that he will not prescribe to unmarried men due to his belief. What sort of crap is this? The doctor has known for MONTHS that was his goal! If he didn't prescribe it he should have told him from the first time it was brought up. Instead he has gotten paid and paid for every appointment. What a hypocrite. Such how moral standards yet he's been taking his money knowing he would deny him. My question is...IS THIS LEGAL??!! The doctor also went on to tell him that he's been sued before and they've lost, he told him to go ahead and sue him. I feel so bad for him and I'm angry seeing his disapointment. Any input or advice would be appreciated. I apologize if this is considered off topic. My question has to do with a doctor refusing to prescribe viagra not a pharmacy filling it.

My boyfriend has been seeing a doctor and has asked him for viagra. The doctor has stated in every appointment that he will not prescribe it due to his high blood pressure. The doctor told him that if he gets his b. pressure down to the 140’s he would give it to him. After many months of working at getting it down, going in to appts to get checked and repeatedly asking for it, today, he went in and it was at 144. When the doctor walked in his head was down, boyfriend said “doc, you said you’d give it to me and i’m at 144″.

Unbelievably, the doctor goes into some speech that he will not prescribe to unmarried men due to his belief.

What sort of crap is this? The doctor has known for MONTHS that was his goal! If he didn’t prescribe it he should have told him from the first time it was brought up. Instead he has gotten paid and paid for every appointment. What a hypocrite. Such how moral standards yet he’s been taking his money knowing he would deny him.

My question is…IS THIS LEGAL??!! The doctor also went on to tell him that he’s been sued before and they’ve lost, he told him to go ahead and sue him.

I feel so bad for him and I’m angry seeing his disapointment. Any input or advice would be appreciated.

]]> By: Matthew D. Swanson http://www.studentdoctor.net/2007/04/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-251 Matthew D. Swanson Mon, 11 Jun 2007 07:36:46 +0000 http://studentdoctor.net/blog/2007/04/22/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-251 I believe that the biological and bioethical argument in support of mandating pharmacists to fill Plan B prescriptions has been well defended in this thread. From the legal perspective, however, I want to quickly extend previous arguments to dispute the original author's curious assertion that "A mandate to participate would harm some practitioners, forcing them to choose between religious or moral convictions and their perceived professional duties. Where religious freedoms are denied, such legal statutes may be unconstitutional. Ironically, such laws could make lawbreakers out of otherwise good practitioners who refuse to stand down on the issue." It is legally indefensible to argue that it is unconstitutional for states to produce a statute which renders illegal the refusal of a pharmacist to fulfill his or her professional responsibilities in filling a prescription on grounds of the 1st amendment free exercise clause. As articulated above, ensuring the private exercise of one's religious beliefs does not grant a blank check for people to practice those beliefs at the expense of other people's physical welfare (a simple but sound application of the harm principle best articulated by JS Mill, a fallible logic but nonetheless a consitutionally sound one which was endorsed by the Founding Fathers). The license of pharmaceutical practice imbues one with privileges of that practice as defined by the state, while the negative liberty to determine the rightness or wrongness of action is strictly ensured by the constitution on an individual basis. Neither professional privilege nor the right of personal moral choice may infringe upon the patient's right to physical wellbeing. Religious conviction has no place in carrying out one's professional responsibilities as a pharmacist, and refusing to fulfill these clearly defined responsibilities is both professional unethical and potentially threatening to the patient's right to his or her own health and welfare. Just as the constitutionality of statutes prohibiting assault are not conditional upon the religious beliefs held by assailants, the constitutionality of statutes prohibiting the refusal of pharmacists to provide prescribed medications must not be conditional upon the religious convictions of the pharmacist in question. I therefore believe it is constitutionally appropriate for states to develop legislation which places restrictions on the privileges of a pharmacist to refuse to fill Plan B prescriptions. I trust this puts the legal argument to rest. I believe that the biological and bioethical argument in support of mandating pharmacists to fill Plan B prescriptions has been well defended in this thread. From the legal perspective, however, I want to quickly extend previous arguments to dispute the original author’s curious assertion that

“A mandate to participate would harm some practitioners, forcing them to choose between religious or moral convictions and their perceived professional duties. Where religious freedoms are denied, such legal statutes may be unconstitutional. Ironically, such laws could make lawbreakers out of otherwise good practitioners who refuse to stand down on the issue.”

It is legally indefensible to argue that it is unconstitutional for states to produce a statute which renders illegal the refusal of a pharmacist to fulfill his or her professional responsibilities in filling a prescription on grounds of the 1st amendment free exercise clause. As articulated above, ensuring the private exercise of one’s religious beliefs does not grant a blank check for people to practice those beliefs at the expense of other people’s physical welfare (a simple but sound application of the harm principle best articulated by JS Mill, a fallible logic but nonetheless a consitutionally sound one which was endorsed by the Founding Fathers). The license of pharmaceutical practice imbues one with privileges of that practice as defined by the state, while the negative liberty to determine the rightness or wrongness of action is strictly ensured by the constitution on an individual basis. Neither professional privilege nor the right of personal moral choice may infringe upon the patient’s right to physical wellbeing.

Religious conviction has no place in carrying out one’s professional responsibilities as a pharmacist, and refusing to fulfill these clearly defined responsibilities is both professional unethical and potentially threatening to the patient’s right to his or her own health and welfare. Just as the constitutionality of statutes prohibiting assault are not conditional upon the religious beliefs held by assailants, the constitutionality of statutes prohibiting the refusal of pharmacists to provide prescribed medications must not be conditional upon the religious convictions of the pharmacist in question.

I therefore believe it is constitutionally appropriate for states to develop legislation which places restrictions on the privileges of a pharmacist to refuse to fill Plan B prescriptions.

I trust this puts the legal argument to rest.

]]> By: For PlanB!! http://www.studentdoctor.net/2007/04/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-250 For PlanB!! Thu, 07 Jun 2007 04:48:52 +0000 http://studentdoctor.net/blog/2007/04/22/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-250 Oops! I amde a mistake above. I meant to write: "The doctor is just asking them to do their job and FILL it. If Plan B has been approved to be safe, then it is ok to prescribe." Oops! I amde a mistake above. I meant to write: “The doctor is just asking them to do their job and FILL it. If Plan B has been approved to be safe, then it is ok to prescribe.”

]]> By: For PlanB!! http://www.studentdoctor.net/2007/04/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-249 For PlanB!! Thu, 07 Jun 2007 04:32:33 +0000 http://studentdoctor.net/blog/2007/04/22/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-249 According to the textbook Biology, by Campbell and Reece (undergrad textbook used at many schools) the definition of conception is "The fertilization of the egg by a sperm cell." Plan B does not work if the egg has already been fertilized. It can only prevent fertilzation, and therefore prevent conception. It is not killing anything if nothing is there. I know it sounds blunt, but that is just a plain fact. Why is women's health such an issue? Why can't people debate the dispensing of Viagra? The ability of a male to become erect effects his ability to impregnate a woman, and therefore produce a life. And, I incorrect? Have I taken the argument out of context? What if a women had sex without her consent? Doesn't she have a right to Plan B? The reason the woman is filling a prescription for Plan B is not the business of the pharmacist. Obviously if she has a vaild prescription, the doctor already evaluated her situation. No one is making the pharmacist take Plan B. The doctor is just asking them to do their job and prescribe it. If Plan B has been approved to be safe, then it is ok to prescribe. According to the textbook Biology, by Campbell and Reece (undergrad textbook used at many schools) the definition of conception is “The fertilization of the egg by a sperm cell.” Plan B does not work if the egg has already been fertilized. It can only prevent fertilzation, and therefore prevent conception. It is not killing anything if nothing is there. I know it sounds blunt, but that is just a plain fact.

Why is women’s health such an issue? Why can’t people debate the dispensing of Viagra? The ability of a male to become erect effects his ability to impregnate a woman, and therefore produce a life. And, I incorrect? Have I taken the argument out of context?

What if a women had sex without her consent? Doesn’t she have a right to Plan B? The reason the woman is filling a prescription for Plan B is not the business of the pharmacist. Obviously if she has a vaild prescription, the doctor already evaluated her situation.

No one is making the pharmacist take Plan B. The doctor is just asking them to do their job and prescribe it. If Plan B has been approved to be safe, then it is ok to prescribe.

]]> By: clayton http://www.studentdoctor.net/2007/04/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-248 clayton Sun, 27 May 2007 21:24:46 +0000 http://studentdoctor.net/blog/2007/04/22/pharmacy-debate-refusal-to-fill/#comment-248 I'm in an urban area where corner pharmacies are a dime a dozen, so access is not a problem. But if I were in a situation, like using the hospital's pharmacy, where a single pharmacist's refusal to fill Plan B would create a significant inconvenience or delay in treatment, I'd just turn around and order a pack of regular birth control pills. Then tell the patient to take the appropriate quantitiy of active pills immediately, and another again 48 hours later. Exact same effect. Or do we have pharamcists nowadays who refuse even to dispense the pill? I’m in an urban area where corner pharmacies are a dime a dozen, so access is not a problem. But if I were in a situation, like using the hospital’s pharmacy, where a single pharmacist’s refusal to fill Plan B would create a significant inconvenience or delay in treatment, I’d just turn around and order a pack of regular birth control pills. Then tell the patient to take the appropriate quantitiy of active pills immediately, and another again 48 hours later. Exact same effect.

Or do we have pharamcists nowadays who refuse even to dispense the pill?

]]>