Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Help Draft Al Gore | Faith Night »

Friday, June 2, 2006

The Morning News

Posted by on June 2 at 5:56 AM

Good Morning Gov. Gregoire. You are now the Governor of a state, a blue state, that’s poised to have a Refusal Clause on the books. That is: On your watch, your Board of Pharmacy endorsed new rules that allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for whatever reason they want. The Seattle Times has the front-page story this morning.

Although, it’s not clear The Seattle Times truly gets it.

They say the Board’s proposed rules prevent a pharmacist from obstructing a patient’s ablility to obtain a prescription.

But here’s the language of the Board’s proposed rule (which I Slogged & slogged about yesterday afternoon…and Wednesday too ):

(1) A pharmacist and pharmacy ancillary personnel shall not obstruct a patient in obtaining a lawfully prescribed drug or device. If a pharmacist cannot dispense a lawfully prescribed stocked drug or device, then the pharmacist must provide timely alternatives for the patient to obtain treatment. These alternatives may include, but are not limited to: (a) referring the patient or patient’s agent to another on-site pharmacist, (b) if requested by patients or their agents, transfer the prescription to a pharmacy of the patient’s choice; (c) providing the medication at another time consistent with the normal timeframe for the prescription, (d) consulting with the prescriber to provide an alternative medication therapy, (e) return unfilled lawful prescription to the patient or agent, (f) provide to patient or agent a timely alternative for appropriate therapy.

It’s no wonder The Seattle Times was a little confused. This language is so bad that, am I reading this correctly, it says one of the options for providing a timely alternative is “providing medication another time” …. ? Much worse: the language says a pharmacist can “return the unfilled prescription” … if “they cannot dispense [it]” even though the rule begins by saying “a pharmacist shall not obstruct a patient in obtaining a lawfully prescribed drug or device.”

The story is also on the front-page of the PI.

I’ve been writing and Slogging about this issue for months. Here’s the first story I wrote last April when I broke the news that the board had received formal complaints about pharmacists, including a Seattle pharmacist, who were already refusing to fill prescriptions related to birth control.

All along, I urged Gov. Gregoire to use her bully pulpit to pressure the Washington State Board of Pharmacy (which she appoints) to prioritize a patient’s health over a pharmacist’s feelings.

I don’t know if she simply never took the issue seriously, but she never weighed in…in a substantive way. Now, Gregoire—who campaigned in 2004 on the fact that Dino Rossi was a scary social conservative—is stuck w perhaps the scariest, socially conservative “conscience clause” in the country: One that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for any reason at all. “You want birth control? You’re not married? Sorry, I can’t fill that prescription.”

You blew it Gov. Gregoire. A lot of people (like the Northwest Women’s Law Center & Planned Parnethood & NARAL) are disappointed in you…and pissed. I know that they are meeting w you today to pressure you to finally…finally do something. (At this point, I’m not sure what you can do. If the Board puts this in the rule book at its final August 31 vote, only the legislature can undo it.)

Here’s what I wrote a month ago:

During Christine Gregoire’s lackluster campaign for governor in 2004, the Democratic Party—aware that Gregoire wasn’t giving Democrats any meaty reasons to vote for her—resorted to badmouthing Gregoire’s opponent, Dino Rossi. The Democrats rightly painted Rossi as a social conservative who opposed blue-state litmus tests like abortion rights. And so Gregoire, despite running as a cipher, eked out a victory based on who she’s not. But it turns out she’s not who she’s not.

With social conservatives launching a massive assault on women’s rights in Olympia, Gregoire is nowhere to be found.

Gregoire finally showed up yesterday afternoon when she fired off an angry letter to the Board. However, Seattle pharmacist Donna Dockter, the board member who drafted the new rule, scoffed at Gregoire: “The Governor is not a pharmacist,” she said.

The governor doesn’t seem like much of a governor either.


CommentsRSS icon

I am shocked that one of the alternatives is providing the medicine at another time. Just think about that with emergency contraception. Getting the meds a week or month later (there appears to be no 'reasonability' restriction in the language of the rule) not only defeats the medical purpose of the prescription, but potentially creates a medically serious situation for the person seeking the contraception.

Now think about emergency medication for persons inadvertantly exposed to HIV. A month later and you're HIV positive.

This is nothing less than a license for pharmacists to kill.

gosh people. why don't you just pull out early?

Really! I mean haven't you learned from porn that you are supposed to cum on her face??


Yeah, that pull-out method really works. I know someone who tried that and how he has twins.

Christ, Feit, honestly. You are way off the mark here, and your lack of knowledge shows painfully. Gregoire sent a letter to the board right off the bat in Jan. laying out how she felt. And another one a few months later ... and another yesterday.

Contrary to your belief, a governor generally doesn't need to go totally apeshit in the press to make their stance known, Blagojevich notwithstanding. A letter from the big boss saying "I am in charge. Here is what I want" typically has the desired effect.

What would you have the gov. do? It's clear the board doesn't care what she, the Leg. or the human rights commission thinks. So the Leg will have to do what it does - make a change if it doesn't agree with the board's rule.

Ridiculous post. Savage, pls. revoke this guy's keyboard privileges until he sobers up.

During Christine Gregoire’s lackluster campaign for governor in 2004, the Democratic Party—aware that Gregoire wasn’t giving Democrats any meaty reasons to vote for her—resorted to badmouthing Gregoire’s opponent, Dino Rossi.

Actually, that sums up the Democratic party's strategies, period. This includes the campaigns of Al Gore in 2000, of John Kerry in 2004 and of Eli's beloved Darcy Burner today. The Democratic Party — aware that (candidate) wasn’t giving Democrats any meaty reasons to vote for (him/her)—resorted to badmouthing (candidate)’s opponent.

If you keep beating your head against a brick wall, it's not gonna fall over.

my head hurts something fierce today.

Read b4 you post, CW.

My original article, which I linked (+ this monrnig's post) talk about Gregoire's letters.

Please consdier this as well: Illinois Gov. Balgojevich did a poll. He found that his state opposed Refusal clauses by 66%. He used his bully pulpit and exploited those Blue state numbers to pass rules guaranteeing patients' rights at the pharmacy counter.

Illinois has a D gov., 2 D senators, 10 Ds in Congress out of 19 seats, and went for Kerry 55 to 44.

Washington has a D gov., 2 D senators, 6 Ds in Congress out of 9 seats, and went for Kerry 53 to 46.

In other words, the two states look similar politically.

So, it's safe to say, that in the run up to this thing, Gregoire could have used the microphone to rally the public to prevent a renegade board from icing women's and patient's rights.

“The Governor is not a pharmacist” is right, she is a lawyer. And has been in the "civil" servant role a little too long.


So, what is she trying to do here? Give pharmacists a new legal standing? Really, WTF?!?!

I seem to recall some professor in college going on about how lawyers are professionals who have a "right of refusal", or some such thing that gives them the legal right not to take a client's case(yeah, GIYS), so a professional pharmacists should have the same right? That's what my score card says anyways.


The thing is that the board can do whatever it wants. The gov. and public opinion notwithstanding. Yah the gov can refuse to reappoint people who don't so what she wants, but that’s a bit heavy handed and likely to backfire. I mean who is really gunning to be on the pharmacy board.

The best option at this point is to get the leg to act. It could be a good time to reaffirm that everyone in Washington has a right to contraception and that pharmacists must fill such prescriptions.

actually, recent scientific papers have proven that the "rythm method" kills more sperm than any other method ...

">http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/272566_jaws02.html


The drugs seemed safe and have transformed life for patients with cancer and with osteoporosis. But recently, there have been reports of a new and serious side effect: death of areas of bone in the jaw


If I was a pharmacist, seems like those doctors who prescribe this class of drugs are flat out wrong for doing so. Sorry, but in a few weeks, I could refuse to stock them, but, as I will tell the customer, I heard that there is a place in Spokane where you can get that wickied script for poison filled. Or maybe you can have your doctor give you a class of drug which I feel the studies support as being safe.

Oh, but you can have a morning after pill, because, wink,wink I'm not one of those kinds of pharmacists.

Thanks Josh.

This is an outrage. And where are legislative leders with strong opinions, as well as the Gov?....

Gregoire really lacks political skills. She has real power and seems afraid to use it.

Too bad. What an ugly precedent. I have a friend who is diabetic and has had many refusals to sell him insulin and needles, neither of which require prescriptions. He dresses very raggy and I am sure is viewed as a street person.

Pharmacy people can be totally arogant. Not good.

Here is Rod Shafer, Executive Director of the Washington State Pharmacy Association, email:

rshafer@wsparx.org

I would love to be a pharmacist - creating a rule that allows you to slack off for "moral" reasons. I morally object to numerous things associated with my job but I have to do as I'm told - it's my JOB!

My friends bitched me out for voting for Rossi (I thought new blood in the state bureaucracy would be good, and didn't see a substantial difference between he and Gregoire). Now I feel vindicated.

The legislature needs to act and should probably have acted on this in the last session. Gregoire could have pushed this issue there and in public.

If the legislature does act soon, these pharmacists may come to reqret that they decided to force their morals on to the patients of actual doctors when the legislature invades their little regulatory kingdom.

[I also just emailed a modified form of this to the Governor and plan to send one to my state legislators]

using the email address supplied by Ginger above for the Director of the State Pharmacy Association: rshafer@wsparx.org

I sent this email.

Dear Mr. Shafer:

It is outrageous that the Pharmacy Board has chosen to implement rules that allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for religious reasons.

Among other negative things:

1) It is potentially life threatening because the pharmacist is delaying access to prescribed medication.

2) It is practicing medicine without a license because it overturns the judgement of the prescribing physician.

3) It is religious discrimination because it discriminates against patients who do not share the refusing pharmacist's religious views.

4) It is demeaning to patients.

Pharmacist is a respected occupation, but it is also historically an important public service occupation. It would be unconscionable and unacceptable for a fireman or emergency response technician to refuse to provide or delay services to someone on the basis of their race, gender, or religion. The occupants of those jobs have always known this. Up to now this has also been true of pharmacists in Washington and pharmacists have always known this. But now the Pharmacy Board has put religious prejudice above public service. It is shameful.

I hope you and the Board will change direction and save the legislature from having to do what the Board should have done in the first place.

From this morning's P-I story (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/272563_planb02.html):

"But state Rep. Karen Keiser, D-Kent, said, 'The people of Washington should not have to go pharmacy shopping to get a prescription filled.' She said she would introduce legislation to reverse the decision."

I think anyone who feels, as I do, that the board's decision is outrageous should send Senator. Keiser a letter of thanks and encouragement:

keiser.karen@leg.wa.gov

I think that what is the most appalling about this is the hypocrisy of the position of the "moral" pharmacists.

True convictions are something that are deeply held, and that you should be willing to sacrifice for. If you really, truly feel that certain drugs are morally wrong, your position should be to resign from practice, not to continue doing a piecemeal job.

It's typical of the religious hypocrisy so prevalent these days: Beat your breast and talk loudly about your religious faith, interfere with the moral decisions of others, but when it comes down to it, do nothing that would inconvenience you or cause you to sacrifice anything.

Ok,
In addition to Shafer and Gregoire, I also contacted my 3 state legislators and sent an thank you email to Senator Keiser as Maddog13 suggested.

I got blisters on my fingers!

So, if memory serves, this governor was once the president of a, was it finally decided if it was racist or not?, sorority at the UofW back in the 60's. She had a good liberal answer to the losers attacks, something about change from the inside, it wasn’t her, just the national chapter at the time… something like that. It sounded like a load of crap at the time, but hell, at least she wasn't a total loser to say that.


So what is the load of crap this time? Puritan beliefs are the beliefs of all Americans, and their beliefs must be respected, if not outright adopted, by those who came after?

Yeah, Seth. Rossi would have been so much better on issues of reproductive freedom. A real fighter.

I liken the 2004 Rossi-Gregoire race to tonights Mariners-Royals game at Safeco Field, a blah game between two blah sides both trying their damndest to give the contest away.

Neither side had enough good stuff to offer, so it became an anti-battle of anti-wills. Which passive-aggressive non-candidate could back their way into Olympia?

"(d) consulting with the prescriber to provide an alternative medication therapy"
And this seems to be the pharmacists' new right to second guess a doctor's prescriptioins. I guess the medics will ove that...

But we shouldn't always only tlak about religious right pharmacists. I bet there are lots of them who belong to scientoloigy. We know the 'reasonable' opinion those people have towards psychotheapie. Do Washington State citizen really want scientology pharmacists to have a word on which drugs they should take and which not?

It seems to me that this is the time for the general public to get a REAL petition together for either a constitutional amendment or to explore ways to limit the power of the Pharmacy Board.

If the public can gather the signatures to strip the gay community of their equal employment rights, then perhaps the public should rise up against this crap and ensure that "religious" activists are not provided special rights to impose their beliefs on the doctor/patient relationship.

We already know the overwhelming majority of the general public opposes this boards intended policy. . .isn't there some way the public can demand something SO important to everyone be decided by the public?

According to David Postman in this moning's Times none of the members of the pharmacy board have ever been confirmed--Gregoire could replace all of them if she wants to.

The link is here:
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/davidpostman/

actually, recent scientific papers have proven that the "rythm method" kills more sperm than any other method ...

Whether this is true or not, doesn't matter. Condoms don't prevent pregnancy by killing sperm - they prevent pregnancy by preventing sperm from passing a latex barrier and racing for the egg. So it's entirely possible that the rhythm method "kills" more sperm than any other method, but at the same time is not an effective birth control strategy. Just like Nonoxyl-9 (sp?) by itself is not an effective birth control method.

It would be unconscionable and unacceptable for a fireman or emergency response technician to refuse to provide or delay services to someone on the basis of their race, gender, or religion.

Sadly that's happened...as recently as 1999...in the very liberal Washington DC, no less.

A woman was refused emergency treatment on scene simply because the EMTs found out she was not born female.

Said woman, Tyra Hunter, died on the scene.

Only after a VERY vocal campaign that spanned years was anything done to punish the EMTs.

I am a pharmacist in the State of Washington. I am one of a growing number of Washington Pharmacists who can prescribe the 'morning after' regimen, either high-dose Ovral or Plan B. I have done so several dozen times a year for over half a decade. I have dispensed countless prescriptions for birth control. I have dispensed and even helped administer methotrexate to terminate a very early term pregnancy when the life of the mother was at stake. I am as blue a liberal as any you have ever known. I've voted Democrat or Green every election that's been held since my majority. I participated in the actions of Nov/Dec 2004 to ensure Ms Gregoire became Governor. All this said, I'm ashamed to have supported Ms Gregoire.

We as Democrats make a big deal about 'choice'. We speak mightily about 'conscience'. Apparently, it only applies when the choice is that deemed 'correct'. I thought it was the religious right who was trying to tell people how to live. How to think. Apparently I was mistaken.

I support the right of a conscientious objector to the military. I support the right of a whistleblower to follow their conscience. I support the right of as union member to follow their conscience. I support the right of a physician to follow their conscience and not write a prescription. Why can't the right of a pharmacist to exercise their conscience be given the same respect? Particularly when safeguards are in place to ensure the patient may go elsewhere to recieve care?

Comments Closed

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