Pharmacist's "moral" rights.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately Handy, many people are in fact denied medical service, (not refused, but denied altogether) and they die.

I see people begging for a CABG (heart bypass) yet not a single cardiologist will operate on them. The reason cited is usually their age. Another common reason are non-compliance with past medical interventions. Of course, there is also the ever present issue of not being able to pay. Most of the time, the patient believes it is a big conspiracy and the health care system is out to get them. Should they be able to force surgeon to operate regardless? How many people do you think will become cardiologists where they cannot succeed, will not be paid, and if by a stroke of luck a patient does live, he will not be compliant with the aftercare and will die within a year?

I think that the chronic congestive heart failure patient who has been noncompliant for the past 15 years and now wants a CABG is the classic case. We can call it denial of care, refusal to provide a service, call it whatever you want. It happens frequently, and with far greater consequences than not getting birth control. The chronic noncompliant CHF patient dies.

Forcing pharmacists to sell medications against thier beliefs will simply close the small rural pharmacies down. You cannot force a farmer to grow corn. you can entice, you can persuade, but you cannot force him to. I said it before, close the small rural pharmacy down and you will still be driving 4 hours to get your prescription filled anyway, as will Mrs Ethel down the road who only needs a little common Lanoxin. Chances are, Mrs.Ethel won't last long. The pharmacist is not a prisoner to his profession. He can adjust. He can find a new business. He suceeded once, he can do it again. He will close his doors. Even worse, you will have no new pharmacists entering the profession, and eventually medications will be dispensed by the government.

Many already get their medications from the government. It's called the VA. If you want to see a nightmare, take a look at that. The doctor changes a prescription in April, and the VA Pharmacy sends out the right medication in July. No joke, vets are used to this process, as are their doctors who prescribe with it in mind. If nobody goes into pharmacy because of government heavy handedness, we will all enjoy a system like this.
 
I see once again that you avoid the issue.

"Noncompliance" is BEHAVIOR.



Cite an example where medical service (or any other) is a legitmate personal choice based vital stats. You know your age example is poor - that has to do with quality of life/likelihood of survival. That's not what we're discussing.


Nor are we discussing how other injustices excuse this unrelated one. The VA sucks, but they suck equally for all Vets.
 
Noncompliant patients? What are those?

XavierBreath, as always, you are far more articulate than I. The VA example is especially appropriate, and accurate. As one who has lived under a socialized medical system, I want the government as far removed as possible after minimum professional standards are established.
As nurses, there are situations that we deal with on a daily basis that some don't understand, and others refuse to believe. Hang in there.

This has been an interesting philosophical debate. I have enjoyed reading all points of view, even those I disagree with. Handy and Shaggy, your points are well made, but I'll have to agree to disagree.

I can only add that I would rather have less government involvement and intervention than more in any area of business.
 
The 'government' is currently engaged in making laws that protect a pharmacist from action should they fail to serve customers, due to this issue.
 
Really?

Personally, I'd like to see licensing boards withdraw licenses. This would of course be okay, because the license board shouldn't have to license anyone they morally disagree with. ;)
 
until the board disagrees with your moral views?

then it's not ok.

Have enjoyed your point of view though. Has made me think. Have tried to not do that since philosophy classes.
 
No. Until nothing can get done because everyone's morals are more important then fulfilling the function of their job.


I certainly hope my garbageman has no moral issues with me personally, or I'll end up with alot of trash.
 
Handy,
I suggest you petition your State Board of Pharmacy. Driving people out of the profession is not the answer, unless you desire socialized medicine. I see that we will never agree, but I've said my piece. Discussing it on a gun forum will do little towards making the change you desire. Start a petition.

Cite an example where medical service (or any other) is a legitmate personal choice based vital stats.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I don't understand this request for a citation.



They may require the patient make their co-pay in cash, but they still accept the government funds for the remainder of the payment.
Click to expand...
No, Shaggy, some pharmacies do not participate in Medicare. Some physicians do not accept Medicare, Medicaid, or certain insurance companies either. It's just to much trouble and expense.

I myself am in private practice. For that I accept cash. If you do not have cash, then I cannot afford to provide private duty nursing services for free. Accepting insurance, Medicare and Medicaid is a decision a provider makes, and is not a requirement.
 
Xavier, the licensing board comment was a quip.


What I'm asking you to do is cite an example (as you have so many times) of a situation where it is okay to not do your job, but this time the reason for withholding service is based solely on the vital statistics of the patient.

Not the behavior of the person, which is what you've used so far. I'm talking about observation of an adult's race or gender being sufficient reason to withhold some service.

Please explain how this form of prejudice is okay, and how it is different or the same as other forms of prejudice.
 
No, Shaggy, some pharmacies do not participate in Medicare. Some physicians do not accept Medicare, Medicaid, or certain insurance companies either. It's just to much trouble and expense.
Click to expand...

True, there is always the exception to the rule but the vast majority do accept Medicare, Medicaid, and numerous private insurance plans.
 
What I'm asking you to do is cite an example (as you have so many times) of a situation where it is okay to not do your job, but this time the reason for withholding service is based solely on the vital statistics of the patient.
Click to expand...
I thought I had, Handy, by using age as a basis for refusing to do surgery, regardless of the patient's desires.

You used age as a reason in your original example, so I figured it would suffice in mine.

Now how about gender. If a man comes to me desiring prenatal care for himself, I would probably withold the service. Yes, it happens.

How about a prostate exam or a TURP for a woman?

If a physician ordered a test for sickle cell anemia on a person of Chinese descent, I would definitely call it into question.

If a physician ordered a test for tay-sachs on a black man, I would question the order.

As far as refusing to perform the order, as long as the physician had a good reason, then it would be done.
 
And I already posted a response to your old age example - the reason for withholding treatment was medical, not moral.

In fact, all your examples are.


But a pharmacist refusing to fill a doctors prescription without even knowing the medical background is decidedly different. It is a personal decision that goes against medical reasoning. You keep dancing around this point, but have yet to show how it is any different then any other sort of prejudice.

You also have yet to state if you are supporting prejudice in general as a right.
 
The original question was about not filling a perscription that a pharmacists disagrees with, not refusing service to certain people (OK, maybe in a round-about sorta way)
 
You also have yet to state if you are supporting prejudice in general as a right.
Click to expand...
OK Handy,
You listed your "vital statistics", age, sex and race, and I listed an instance for each one where a particular procedure should be questioned if not withheld.

Let me put it this way. I do not support prejudice of any sort. I am not so niave as to believe that any man can remove prejudice from within himself. We all harbor prejudice of some sort. I do not condone it, but I recognize my own prejudice. As a health care provider, I have a choice when dealing with a patient to whom I harbor prejudice. I can try to work through the prejudice and let that affect the therapeutic relationship, or I can find another provider for the patient so that they do not have that interference during thier crisis. My choice has been consistently to find another provider if possible, because it is what is best for the patient. Do I think prejudice is a right? No. Do I think it is a reality we all have to deal with? Yes. Do I think a free man can conduct his business as he desires? Yes. Do I think small businesses will close if they are overly regulated? Yes.

Many people bemoan the health care system, myself included. One thing is certain, without doctors, nurses and pharmacists, there will be no health care system. Without autonomy, people will not enter these professions. People like to demonize doctors nurses and pharmacists. I am not one of them.

I have a feeling that I cannot give you an answer that will finally satisfy you. I have answered your questions as honestly and as best I could, and invested quite a bit of my time doing it. I have a feeling that I will not be able to answer any question you have without you calling my response illegitimate or straying from your wandering point. I see no reason to continue, I am satisfied with my answers to your questions. Since you are not, we will have to agree to disagree. I suggest you take the matter up with your pharmacist or your state board of pharmacy.
 
What's really unbelievable to me is that someone with a pharmacology degree doesn't know enough about the human body to know the difference between contraception and abortion.

All of these pharmacists refusing to fill them based on convictions about abortions are idiots, plain and simple. The morning-after pill is not the same as RU-486.

They have a right, I guess I must admit, not to fill it if they really object, but they should prepare to be fired. The Texas legislature wants to protect them but that is ridiculous. That, after all, is the true "free market". Don't do your job? Get canned.
 
Xavier, really. "Wandering point"? I've been asking you the same question, over and over. You just seem to miss the point of the question, requiring these multiple reclarifications.

One more time:
A pharmacist, in refusing to fill a prescription of female hormones to a woman of child bearing years, is choosing to make a non-medical, non-professional choice based on factors not under the womans control (in this case, age and gender). His reason for doing so is that he BELIEVES, but has no facts, that the prescription will be used for contraception, which is what he has moral qualms with.


So I'm asking you if you support any professional's 'right' to refuse service on grounds that don't relate to his profession, but are based on observation of customers age, gender, race, height, weight, accent (etc) and what he BELIEVES such a person might do with that service?

Is that any different then not serving a black man at Denny's? If not, why not? It contains all the same elements:
1) A service the restaurant is happy to do for some people.
2) An impersonal judgement about the person based on their physical appearance.
3) A decision that is not based on professional expertise, but outside personal factors unrelated to the job.




So if you would be kind enough to explain the difference (if any) between the pharmacy and Denny's, and the moral difference between not providing service for one personal reason over another, I'd like to hear it.

If you feel we've been going in circles - here it is. The question is basically simple as long as you don't keep using examples that don't relate, like factoring age in surgery. Show us how this is distinctly different then racism, or defend the right to use prejudice in your job.
 
What a distressing thread. All you sons of liberty, all you paragons of "choice", all you "patriots" keening about the impropriety of a private citizen, a businessman, making a considered, prudential, moral - moral, what's that? How dare he? - decision, ah, a choice, to eschew a certain business segment.

God help us if this is where defenders of freedom strike their line in the sand.

And dolanp, read up a bit on how contraceptives work before you post. Many, in fact, prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum in the uterine wall - i.e., they are, in fact, abortifacients.

I'm outta here. :mad:
 
I think this thread has run it's course so I'm going to close it.

Feel free to email or PM me if you don't understand the reasons for this action - they should be apparent, though. :)

-Dave

EDIT: I received enough PMs to realize that the reasons weren't as apparent as I thought. The thread wasn't clearly on-topic to begin with, and became argumentative. All opinions seem to have been expressed by the primary participants and the thread then sat dormant for three days. I only saw it because Mr. James' post brought it back to the top. This closure should not be construed as disapproval of Mr. James', or anyone's post in particular. - D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top