Politics Fundies Lose One in Washington State
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?
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.