Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on The Return of the Fundy Pharmacists

1

I'm kinda shocked the "Christians" resorted to something other than death threats to get their point across. Or maybe they did that and I missed it.

Posted by Mike of Renton | July 27, 2007 10:26 AM
2

I wonder hey these people would feel if Scientologist pharmacists started refusing to dispense valium.

It only helps the thetans you know.

Posted by mason | July 27, 2007 10:30 AM
3

Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

If we're going to tell pharmacists that they are required to subjugate their professional judgement to the legislature, why don't we just get rid of pharmacists? The pharmacist is legally, ethically, and morally responsible for the effects of the medication they dispense.

Think about it from the other direction: If, somehow, a pharmacist dispensed a medication that caused a woman to lose their pregnancy, and that woman intended to carry through her pregnancy, would the pharmacist be liable? Clearly. Therefore, it is the pharmacist's sole responsibility to make professional judgements about when and whether to dispense medication.

I think there should definitely be a professional code of conduct on this matter. It is indeed irresponsible for a pharmacist to attempt to impose their morality on their patient. I think Dockter is right on point, even though she happens to be a Christian.

Posted by Lee Gibson | July 27, 2007 10:37 AM
4

3 -"Think about it from the other direction: If, somehow, a pharmacist dispensed a medication that caused a woman to lose their pregnancy, and that woman intended to carry through her pregnancy, would the pharmacist be liable? Clearly."

Uh - no. The doctor who prescribed the medication would be liable, not the pharmacist. If the pharmacist prescribes the _wrong_ medication, he/she is liable. If the medication was over-the-counter, the company that produced it might be liable. But the pharmacist would not be liable for simply supplying a requested drug without error.

Posted by tsm | July 27, 2007 10:42 AM
5

correct: "If the pharmacist provides the _wrong_ medication" ... not "prescribes".

Posted by tsm | July 27, 2007 10:42 AM
6

"Uh - no. The doctor who prescribed the medication would be liable, not the pharmacist"

That's simply not true. The pharmacist is a check on the system: They bear the same responsibility as the doctor to exercise their judgement on whether the medication prescribed is appropriate, and they are legally and ethically responsible.

Again: If a pharmacist is just a dude that hands out drugs, you don't need to have pharmacists. Pharmacy technicians can do that. Pharmacists are there to exercise their professional judgement. The legislature needs to stay out of it.

Posted by Lee Gibson | July 27, 2007 10:50 AM
7

I work in the financial services industry, and if I have a problem lending money to people because charging interest violates my religious beliefs, not to mention a clear Biblical injunction against being a borrower or a lender, does that mean I have the right to refuse to do loans?

I doubt my employer or a court would agree. Career over.

Likewise, if pharmacists refuse to fill a legally valid prescription from a doctor for their patient – an integral component of their job, then they need to find another line of work. Pharmacists don’t decide patient treatment or practice medicine, that’s the doctor’s job. It's that simple.

Posted by Original Andrew | July 27, 2007 11:24 AM
8

The pharmacist I discussed this issue with says that he corrects ten errors a week on legally valid prescriptions from doctors.

Should a pharmacist be excercising their judgement or not? If not, why have pharmacists? If they're just filling prescriptions, why train them so thoroughly?

It's a simple question of responsibility. If the pharmacist is responsible for the outcome of that prescription, (and they are), they should be able to exercise their judgement.

Posted by Lee Gibson | July 27, 2007 11:30 AM
9

But Lee, the pharmacist is a check on medical issues that might come up with a prescription, not moral ones, which is what this is about: christian fundamentalists imposing their phony morals on unsuspecting patients.

If there is a legitimate medical reason an individual patient should not get Plan B, I don't think there's anything in this law to force it to be dispensed regardless.

Posted by Levislade | July 27, 2007 11:53 AM
10

The pharmacist is legally, ethically, and morally responsible for the effects of the medication they dispense.

Lee Gibson -- where the fuck do you get "morally responsible" from? What does this random standard that you made up to justify the insertion of the pharmacists' personal religious beliefs even mean?

Posted by ChinaTown | July 27, 2007 1:05 PM
11

The pharmacist is morally responsible, because their action has the potential to harm. They have a moral responsibility not to harm.

I don't happen to agree with somebody who says that emergency contraception is immoral. I certainly don't think it's any more or less immoral than contraceptive pills. Thing is, though, it's not my opinion that matters...it's the pharmacist's.

Again: Either the pharmacist is responsible, or they're not. We could make up all kinds of thought experiments to analyze this, but it's really quite simple. One either decides that pharmacists are trusted to make these judgements, or not.

I even think there's a good argument to be made that a pharmacist would be liable for denying fulfillment of a prescription on a religious basis. But that's a pretty fine point to write into a law...which is why we have courts.

And, Chinatown, I know it's difficult, but do you suppose we could keep this a civil discussion?

Posted by Lee Gibson | July 27, 2007 1:16 PM
12

The pharmacist is morally responsible, because their action has the potential to harm. They have a moral responsibility not to harm. The "random standard that I made up" is simply the assertion that we are each responsible for the forseeable outcomes of our own actions. I didn't think that was so much of a reach.

I don't happen to agree with somebody who says that emergency contraception is immoral. I certainly don't think it's any more or less immoral than contraceptive pills. Thing is, though, it's not my opinion that matters...it's the pharmacist's.

Again: Either the pharmacist is responsible, or they're not. We could make up all kinds of thought experiments to analyze this, but it's really quite simple. One either decides that pharmacists are trusted to make these judgements, or not.

I even think there's a good argument to be made that a pharmacist would be liable for denying fulfillment of a prescription on a religious basis. But that's a pretty fine point to write into a law...which is why we have courts.

See the point I made above where the profession of pharmacists should develop a code of conduct on this matter. My single onliest point is that the legislature is the wrong body to be making this determination.

And, Chinatown, I know it's difficult, but do you suppose we could keep this a civil discussion?

Posted by Lee Gibson | July 27, 2007 1:21 PM
13

@Lee Gibson,

The pharmacist is morally responsible, because their action has the potential to harm. They have a moral responsibility not to harm.

Absolutely correct. If a woman who has a history of heart disease or stroke shows up with a scrip for Plan B (basically a high dose of the birth control pill -- the pill increases the risk of heart disease in women), the pharmacist has a moral and professional responsibility to refuse to fill that prescription.

I don't happen to agree with somebody who says that emergency contraception is immoral. I certainly don't think it's any more or less immoral than contraceptive pills. Thing is, though, it's not my opinion that matters...it's the pharmacist's.

Thing is...Plan B is not medically dangerous, not to any woman who isn't already pregnant or doesn't have a history of heart disease. Therefore, pharmacists have no business denying legal prescriptions (that are completely safe for the patient) just because they don't like it.

Got it? This is an issue of fundamentalism vs. science, not of professional ethics and standards.

Posted by keshmeshi | July 27, 2007 2:07 PM
14

I'd also like to point out that pharmacists are not doctors. They know medications and pretty much only medications. How they interact, their side effects, who shouldn't be taking certain types of medication. They do not have the medical expertise to make medical decisions for patients.

In fact, these fundamentalist pharmacists know so little about anatomy and medicine that they're stupid enough to believe that Plan B is an abortofacient. It's not.

Posted by keshmeshi | July 27, 2007 2:39 PM
15

"Got it? This is an issue of fundamentalism vs. science, not of professional ethics and standards."

The pharmacist in the article linked above, and the pharmacist with whom I spoke, disagree with you and the Legislature. Hence the lawsuit.

Either the pharmacist is responsible or not. Simple.

Posted by Lee Gibson | July 27, 2007 3:02 PM
16

As an aside, some pharmacists are indeed Doctors of Pharmacy. If you meant to say they aren't medical doctors, you're right. However, that does not mean that they're just dumb pill-counters.

Posted by Lee Gibson | July 27, 2007 3:04 PM
17

Lee Gibson,

You've yet to address the analogy that I presented @ 7. Why should I do my job if it conflicts with my morals? Why should anyone?

Besides, whose morals and values are the fundy pharmacists going to judge by?

I find forcing women to complete a pregnancy and have a baby they don't want to be immoral and none to good for the future, potential kids either.

Fundy pharmacists need to stop forcing their phony "morals" on everyone else.

Posted by Original Andrew | July 27, 2007 3:41 PM
18

Or for that matter, what's to stop right-wing pharmacists from refusing to fill prescriptions for AIDS patients 'cause they think it's all part of the baby Jesus' Homosexual Extermination Program®?

Where do you draw the line?

Posted by Original Andrew | July 27, 2007 3:53 PM
19

@15,

Those pharmacists are lying. This isn't a matter of disagreement. Their only professional responsibility is to ensure the safety of drugs that they dispense. If they don't know that, then they're stupid and that stupidity should disqualify them from working as pharmacists.

It's that simple.

Posted by keshmeshi | July 27, 2007 6:22 PM
20

And @16,

I didn't say they're just dumb pill counters. I said that they know medication, not medicine, not anatomy, not biology, not science. It is not their place to decide what medication is right and proper for a patient. That is the doctor's job.

Posted by keshmeshi | July 27, 2007 6:25 PM
21

@18,

An even better analogy is a pharmacist who refuses to dispense HIV medication to a patient who's gay. It is a real medical concern when patients on the cocktail have unprotected sex. A fundy pharmacist could warp that and deny medication to anyone deemed too "promiscuous" for the privilege.

Posted by keshmeshi | July 27, 2007 6:32 PM
22

In the Slog post Josh Feit says "We've been here before."


Actually, here in Olympia, we've been battling this same pharmacy owner, Stormans, Inc., owner of Ralph's Thriftway and the pharmacy therein, on their unwillingness to stock Plan B, continuously for over a year. It would be more accurate to say, "We're still here." The boycott is a year in, and this latest round with the lawsuit is the result of a year of local pressure and organizing, part of which was utilizing the citizen complaint process with the Board of Pharmacy.


The filing of the lawsuit is, I believe, a win. Here's why: For a year now, Kevin Stormans, the Vice President and public face for Stormans, Inc., has been claiming that the law requires him to neither stock, nor to have his pharmacists dispense Plan B. In the last few days since the Board of Pharmacy issued the clarifying rules of stocking and dispensing, Kevin Stormans has changed his tune to a refusal to follow the law. It is an admission that he is not doing what the state requires him to do in order to have a licensed pharmacy.


Here are the clarifying rules from the Board of Pharmacy, effective July 26, 2007:


WAC246-869-010 Pharmacies' responsibilities.


WAC246-863-095 Pharmacist's professional responsibilities.


Kevin Stormans is not a pharmacist; he is a business owner who believes that Plan B can interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg. This has never been proven scientifically, he just feels it to be true. It is interesting that he got two pharmacists to join the company in the lawsuit, because one of his pharmacists quit immediately after we began picketing. It would be interesting to seek him out to see if he would have refused to dispense Plan B had he been allowed by Stormans to stock it.


It is notable the Ken Stormans, President of Stormans, Inc., is on the board of Daniel's House of Prayer, a house in the South Capitol neighborhood of Olympia which many suspect is a hub for lobbyists working against (so-called) gay marriage and gay rights issues.


Frankly, many of us who are boycotting Stormans, Inc., will never go back to shopping at Bayview or Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia, no matter what happens to the pharmacy.

Posted by Diana | July 27, 2007 9:22 PM
23

"You've yet to address the analogy that I presented @ 7."

The analogy is a false one. Clearly, pharmacists have no objection to dispense drugs in general. However, a pharmacist is indeed responsible to make a case by case determination as to whether the medication prescribed is appropriate and safe for the person who is standing in front of them, presenting the prescription. That's really their ONLY responsibility.

I keep beating this drum. I think it would be appropriate for the profession of pharmacy to provide a code of conduct for pharmacists. I think pharmacists who don't wish to practice their profession according to that code of conduct should find another job. However, I think that the Legislature does not have the expertise to codify that judgement in law.

Exactly like I think that Congress does not have the expertise to choose between legal abortion procedures in law.

If you'd read the article linked above, Dr. Doktor (I don't know if she's actually a Pharm D or not, but I think the alliteration is funny) makes just that point. It's not about religion, it's about professionalism.

I (and the pharmacist with whom I spoke, who actually has to deal with this issue) don't really see any issue with Plan B. However, I can see how the prescription of an abortifacient might indeed present a conundrum.

Let's do a thought experiment. What if a pharmacist somehow mistakenly dispensed RU-486 to a woman who didn't want to lose her baby? That pharmacist would absolutely be liable for the termination of that pregnanacy. Therefore, the pharmacist is obligated to consider not just the health of the mother, but the health of the fetus.

Again: It's a question of responsibility. If the pharmacist is responsible for the forseeable consequences of filling a prescription, how could they not be permitted to exercise their own judgement?

Posted by Lee Gibson | July 27, 2007 9:57 PM
24

I support the right of Stormans, Inc. to choose whether to have a state-licensed pharmacy.


However, since Stormans, Inc. chose to have a pharmacy, they and the pharmacists who work there are obligated to follow the rules and laws governing state-licensed pharmacies. If they don't want to do that, then perhaps they shouldn't have a pharmacy.


You can argue all day long, Lee Gibson, without basis I might add, that the Washington State Department of Health, and the Board of Pharmacy (most of whom are pharmacists) are not qualified to create rules that govern the safety of state-licensed pharmacies and pharmacists, but the fact is they have, and they do.


Lee Gibson, your logic puzzle involving RU-486 doesn't absolve pharmacists of the obligation to follow the rules governing pharmacies. Not sure what the rules are? Go to the Board of Pharmacy and check it out. The new section covering pharmacies begins, "Pharmacies have a duty to deliver lawfully prescribed drugs or devices to patients..."


Finally, your if-then argument fails ("IF the pharmacist is responsible for the foreseeable consequences... THEN how could they not be permitted to exercise their own judgment"), and it fails because the first portion is a misrepresentation of what a pharmacist's primary legal obligation is, which is to follow the laws governing pharmacies and pharmacists.


As I mentioned before, Stormans, Inc. has spent an entire year claiming that they don't have to either stock or dispense Plan B because they don't believe the law requires them to do so. Now that the State of Washington has made it crystal clear that it is the law, Stormans, Inc. has come out in favor of anarchy by asserting that they should get to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. They have stated that they have no plans to follow the law. In this country, deliberately breaking the law may come with legal consequences.


It is unfortunate that the Board of Pharmacy has only fines and possible removal of a the pharmacy license on the table, as it would seem that jail time would also be an appropriate measure for Kevin Stormans in particular, as a person who either believes the law does not apply to him, or chooses to deliberately break the law. When a person morally and consciously chooses to break a law, such as when nuns trespass on the property of the School of the Americas, they do their jail time with the honor and pride that are born of moral conviction. I'd like to see Mr. Stormans muster up some of that honor, and take whatever lumps he has coming for choosing to break the law.


Well, I've already said most of this here already, and I have definitely said most of this elsewhere on (gasp) other blogs today, so I'll carry on my merry way now, with the wishful vision of scofflaw Kevin Stormans behind bars to entertain me.

Posted by Diana | July 27, 2007 11:06 PM
25

Lee - "Let's do a thought experiment. What if a pharmacist somehow mistakenly dispensed RU-486 to a woman who didn't want to lose her baby?"

What an idiotic question. What if a pharmacist mistakenly gives any drug to a customer that damages them? My mother once was given Vicodin
instead of lasix. For my mom it wasn't such a big deal, but say the guy with the lasix was out hiking and kept taking more "Vicodin" for the pain and dehydrated himself and died, that would be a big deal. So Lee by your logic we should allow pharmacists not to carry Lasix (Furosemide) because what if they gave it to the wrong person. There are many many drugs that if given to the wrong person or even in the wrong dose that can cause great harm.

If one signs up to be a pharmacist, one should understand that precriptions written by doctors must be dispensed unless there is a drug conflict with what the customer is currently taking.


Posted by whatever | July 28, 2007 9:48 AM
26

Lee, the Washington State Legislature has not been involved in rule-making involving pharmacist's responsibilities or the availability of Plan B. The new rules are WACs, created and adopted by the Board of Pharmacy.

Posted by Janet | July 29, 2007 7:11 PM

Comments Closed

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