Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Pink | In The Hood Today »

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Fundies Lose One in Washington State

Posted by on April 22 at 10:15 AM

The Associated Press is reporting that the Washington state Board of Pharmacy drafted its rules yesterday on whether or not an individual pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription based on moral objections. The answer: Not.

That’s a relief. Women’s rights advocates had feared that a compromise recommendation would carry the day—a compromise between protecting an individual pharmacist’s feelings and protecting a customer’s health. Some “compromise.”

That “compromise” recommendation, from the Washinton State Pharmacy Association, had urged the Board to prioritize an individual pharmacist’s feelings by giving pharmacists with moral objections the right to refuse to fill prescriptions—if the pharmacist directed customers to other pharmacies.

While the Board’s new draft rules do reportedly allow pharmacies to refer patients to another business or recommend a timely alternative if the pharamcy does not stock a certain drug, the rules don’t allow individual pharmacists to send customers away based on their own moral objections.

I haven’t seen the draft rules yet, so I’m not sure if that caveat is problematic, but it seems to me: With or without these new rules, there’s no way to force a private pharmacy to stock a certain drug anyway. However, with these new rules in place, if a pharmacy does stock something like Plan B, there’s no way for a self righteous individual pharmacist to turn the customer away.

Amy Luftig or Sara Ainsworth, if you guys read this post, can you give us your take in the comments thread?


CommentsRSS icon

There certainly is a way for a self-righteous individual pharmacy owner or buyer to turn customers away on moral grounds. Just don't stock the specific drugs in the first place and then tell customers that the drugs will require a special order that could take a week to arrive.

Would we oblige an ob-gyn to perform a legal abortion? Medicine, like pharmacy, is also a state-regulated profession. Is there a difference? What's the distinction?

Um, sorry, but when did morality become just 'feelings'? Not that I agree with the fundies, but it's an important distinction. Is it just feelings when you emphasize the moral health of free speech over the physical health of not getting blown up?

Wonder if this concept extends to needles? I am a diabetic and at the Bartell on top of Pike and Broadway --- there was an asshole who would not sell me needles unless I could prove I was diabetic. Such ID does not really exist, but I would not have complied if I had something.

After running into him twice, I quit going there. It really was strange becaue I am very bold when dealing with such jerks, talking back and making a scene, etc.

No avail. Remember needle sales are not illegal in Washington state, this pharmacist just decided to sort his customers.

Part of my rant back to him, of course, was even if I was a junkie, wouldn/t he want me to have clean needles as a healh care vendor.....cold hearted scum still refused.

Calls to Bartell cenral were also weird. The were very apologetic but said it was his right.

I heard on NPR this morning that another provision included requiring pharmacies to carry particular drugs if there is a demand for it. I'm not aware of the particulars, but it's definately a start.
R.J., there is a distinction because a physician can't be required to have all the materials necessary to perform any kind of care s/he is capable of giving. Simply stocking a popular drug doesn't carry the same financial and time burdens.

Here's a distinction for you: the morning-after pill has nothing to do with abortion. No, I take that back. It does have something to do with abortion: it has the potential to reduce the number of women who must have abortions, by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

The 'moral position' at issue here isn't pro-life: it's anti-contraception.

Pharmacists are not doctors. They fill prescriptions, they don't write them. If a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription written by a doctor, he is interfering with the treatment decided upon by that doctor.

Here's my compromise: pharmacists who refuse to fill legal requests for drugs are fined $10,000, jailed for six months, and lose their licenses.

The "moral position" is that only "sluts" need the morning after pill. Or any kind of contraceptive. It's about keeping women in their place. Can't have them getting it in their pretty little heads that they have any right to control what's done with their bodies. That's the attitude at work here.

The right will dress it up in a lot of misleading rhetoric of course but it's really just the misogyny we've come to expect from them.

thank God! those neocons are really getting outrageous.

I have to second Charles P's comment. I'm for everyone having access to whatever drugs they want, but it's offensive to brush aside religious convictions as "feelings."

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).