Opinion Talk

By YKnot

March 26, 2006 11:09 PM | Link to this

If a pharmacist is hired to fill a prescription written by my physician and he refuses to do his job, he should be fired. He is NOT my doctor or my clergyman and has no right to act as either. In my job, I don’t agree with some of the things I am required to do, but I understood my job when I was hired, and I do it or stand the chance of losing my job. If you don’t want to fill certain Rx’s, then make a new career choice.

By Van

March 27, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this

Terrible question. This shows the overt bias from the AJC.

Based on the question, you have no frame of reference.

If emergency services are required, that is the job of the hospital’s emergency room or trauma unit. If emergency contraceptives to prevent pregnancy are required, then it is the duty of the hospital to full them as part of the emergency services, not the cornor pharmacy.

I do not see the role of the local neighborhood pharmacy to dispense “emergency” medicine.

By chidog

March 27, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

The question didn’t really ask about emergency services. It asked if they should be able to refuse to fill prescriptions. I agree with Ynot. It is not their role to make those decisions. I bring up the slippery slope argument. It could spiral down to pharmacists making decisions about treatment plans for diseases - again not their place!

By Van

March 27, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

chidog,

The article by SARAH L. COOK, was dealing with the treatment in the ER. This is where emergency medicine is done. A victim of rape or other such crimes would be treated there.

Again,I do not see the role of the local neighborhood pharmacy to dispense “emergency” medicine. If you have the time to drop into your local pharmacy, it isn’t an emergency.

I too believe that an individual might object to filling a prescription, but overall the pharmacy should fill it. I objection is where. The hospital pharmacy should be handling emergency medicines.

By J&J Ranch

March 27, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

If pharmacists want to right to refuse filling medications, they should become doctors.

Should there be a medication that could cause fatal side effects, the pharmacist should consult with the patient and explain the side effects. Other than that, the pharmacist, is merely the pharmacist.

By Syed

March 27, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

It looks pretty simple to me. pharmacist’s JOB is to fil the prescription written by a doctor. If they don’t want/like/agree to do it, they should look for another job. Period. If a cop doesn’t like to fight the crime, he should leave the job. Again, whether it’s emergency or not, Godly or not, right or worng, that’s none of his business. A doc writes a prescription and he should fill up, ‘cause he is not smart enough to go to Med school

By kimberly

March 27, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Gentlemen, have you ever had your Viagra or Cialis prescriptions refused for a NON-medical reason? Anyone? Anyone? Right. Equal protection under the law for all Americans.. Uh-huh. You right-winger woman-haters (you know who you are) need to stop pretending you believe that “freedom and justice for all” stuff. You DON’T.

By Logical Dude

March 27, 2006 05:06 PM | Link to this

We have a system of doctors and pharmacists. If it was as simple as doctors saying “take this”, then doctors could give you the medicine. As it is, doctors do not know everything about every medicine except for the intended use. Other medicines can interact with certain medicines, and pharmacists are trained to identify these interactions.

Their job is to fill the prescriptions and identify if the medicine could harm the patient, and let the patient know the side-effects of the medicine.
If those side-effect outweigh the benefit, then the pharmacist should let the patient know and to contact the doctor for resolution. It is not the job of the pharmacists to deny medicine based on religious belief.

By Brian Curtis

March 27, 2006 05:57 PM | Link to this

Calling it “emergency” contraception is a dodge; it’s a prescription like any other, whether you call it the morning-after pill, RU-486, or extra-strength Sudafed.

The pharmacist’s role in this transaction is limited:

Moral imperative? ZERO. Save it for your off-hours, like every other working stiff. A pharmacist has no right to judge or presume anything about the patient and his/her presciption, which is between you and your doctor… much less try to duck the issue by claiming that “emergency contraception should come from the emergency room, so get out, you filthy whore.”

By E. Lewis

March 28, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Your sense of morality should fit with your job.

If you are a pacifist the military probably isn’t for you. Would the government forgive soldiers who decided that guns were immoral and refused to fight?

If you don’t want to dispense legally available, doctor prescribe and over the counter medication because some of them affect your sense of morality, then you should be looking for work elsewhere.

By Eric

March 31, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this

If the prescription is not filled, that’s an issue for the pharmacy. There is no right to get anything you want from any store. If you complain to the pharmacy, they will decide whether to take action. If you don’t like the action, go somewhere else. I would go out of my way to support a pharmacy that refused to fill these prescriptions, since I’m not aware of any other role of a pharmacy that intentionally causes death. However, I’m sure the pharmacy will supply and the pharmacist was acting alone and will probably be suspended/fired.

By Carlton Wyatt

April 3, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

What if there is only one pharmacy in an area? There are several rural areas where you might not have much of a choice “to go elsewhere”. Also, some people fail to realize that even in the ER and hospitals, a pharmacist is required to dispense medications, they simply work for the hospital/ER. And then there is the misguided, either by ignorance or intent, notion that the “morning after” prescriptions cause death or abortions. That is completely false, they PREVENT pregnancy, they do not abort an already established pregnancy.

I am fully against abortion, especially as a method of birth control. I feel there is almost nothing more reprehensible in our society. These “morning after” drugs could help lessen the want for abortions. I see that as a good thing.