BasketCase
Username sez it all
You say you know Mr. RP broke a law, but you can't prove it. 
Case closed. Mr RP didn't break any laws.
Case closed. Mr RP didn't break any laws.
Pharmacist says he feared 'spiritual pain'
- Thread starter Turner
- Start date
De Lorimier
North American Scum
He's not a moron because he doesn't see things my way.BasketCase said:
He's a moron if he doesn't understand what the court's decision would be based on, big difference.
Should we stop judging people because their personal beliefs might lead them to think that they were right anyway?
Good thing we don't do that or we might as well stop judging murderers or rapist who can claim they did "the right thing" based on thier beliefs.
The punitive actions are needed even if the person doesn't think she/he did anything wrong.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
There may be no punitive action at all.
Re-iteration: Mr. RP was up front about his reluctance to dispense birth control medication; his employer accepted this, and made an agreement with him so that Mr. RP wouldn't have to be the one to personally fork over Evil Pills. While digging for info on this case, I didn't find the review boards saying anything about this agreement, so I infer that it wasn't a problem. Mr. RP and his employer were willing to make a compromise on the issue. So am I. You should consider it too.
(There's no requirement you agree, but since this case was not a murder or a rape, you should roll it around in your head)
Re-iteration: Mr. RP was up front about his reluctance to dispense birth control medication; his employer accepted this, and made an agreement with him so that Mr. RP wouldn't have to be the one to personally fork over Evil Pills. While digging for info on this case, I didn't find the review boards saying anything about this agreement, so I infer that it wasn't a problem. Mr. RP and his employer were willing to make a compromise on the issue. So am I. You should consider it too.
(There's no requirement you agree, but since this case was not a murder or a rape, you should roll it around in your head)
De Lorimier
North American Scum
I would totally agree with your last post if it wasn't for the fact that the pharmacist actually refused to transfer the prescription to a near by Wal-Mart drugstore.
Was it also an agreement with the boss that when he went away, there was no way a costumer could get a particular medicine or have the prescription transfered since our beloved pharmacist was behind the counter?
Maybe there's more than one guilty character in this story, but it doesn't change the fact that a mistake, a wrong action, took place against the woman. I am not calling for harsh measures like the ones you quoted from the first two pages. I am certainly calling for a review of why this event took place and for measures to be taken so it doesn't happen again.
If the boss is willing to put up with his employe's particular attitude and work around it, there's no problem... as long as the said employe only imposes his beliefs, or attitude, on the boss only and not on the consumers. When the boss is away, it seems like our man is left alone with the costumers and ends up doing something stupid, like he did.
Was it also an agreement with the boss that when he went away, there was no way a costumer could get a particular medicine or have the prescription transfered since our beloved pharmacist was behind the counter?
Maybe there's more than one guilty character in this story, but it doesn't change the fact that a mistake, a wrong action, took place against the woman. I am not calling for harsh measures like the ones you quoted from the first two pages. I am certainly calling for a review of why this event took place and for measures to be taken so it doesn't happen again.
If the boss is willing to put up with his employe's particular attitude and work around it, there's no problem... as long as the said employe only imposes his beliefs, or attitude, on the boss only and not on the consumers. When the boss is away, it seems like our man is left alone with the costumers and ends up doing something stupid, like he did.
De Lorimier said:
Well said. If indeed such an agreement between the manager and the employee existed, then it was up to the manager to make sure that it never happened. Okay, there are going to be times when it does, and that's beyond his control. But all he had to do was tell the guy to send them somewhere else.
And you keep stating, BC, that no laws were broken. On the contrary (and I'm not going to dig it up), two people have stated that drugstores are legally required to dispense medicine in their inventory. It is, in fact, a law. By not allowing her to receive her medications, either by refusing to fill it, or refusing to transfer it, he was breaking the law. This is my co-worker, who is not only in pharmacy school, but who's father owns a pharmacy, and another poster who was a pharmacy tech.
Should she have gotten the police invovled? Probably not. However, it's easy for us to Monday-morning-quarterback the issue, and say "She should have done this" or "The manager should have done that." At the very least, the manager should have (and probably did) an arrangement in place with the pharmicist so that the patient was turned away. The fact that he didn't follow through on that is on the pharmicist. Not the patient or manager.
BasketCase
Username sez it all
In all the web sites I searched, it was never mentioned once what law Mr. RP broke, if any. The closest any of them got was those articles that metioned "violation of professional"....which word was it...."standards", or something-or-other. There was never any mention of lawbreaking. So no, I can't accept the claim that a law exists unless it's substantiated.
I dug deep and hard on this one, and didn't find much. It was a frustrating search; a bunch of the links merely cross-linked back to the original news article on CNN, which was no help.
I dug deep and hard on this one, and didn't find much. It was a frustrating search; a bunch of the links merely cross-linked back to the original news article on CNN, which was no help.
The agreement allowing Mr. RP to defer birth control prescriptions until the manager could fill them would still impose a delay, even if the manager wasn't away on vacation or wherever; the AMA clearly didn't have a problem with this, because they didn't haul the manager up in front of the board for a review.
Gothmog
Dread Enforcer
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,352
Warning, long post ahead
This is a hot topic in many states today (in general this issue would be covered by a state law and not a federal one) because the anti-abortion, anti-evolution, anti-etc. crowd has really started to use devious political means to reach its desired ends. I have read about these specific issues quite a bit, and here is a summary:
The most common issues are 'morning after pills', 'right to die', and 'assisted suicide'. In these cases a physician has often written a prescription for a drug that has a generally accepted use at one dose (e.g. one tablet a day of norgestrel) but another use at another dose (e.g. two tablets on two consecutive days).
In general current laws suggest that a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription if in his/her professional judgment, the honoring of the prescription would:
1. be contrary to law;
2. be against the best interest of the patient;
3. aid or abet and addiction or habit; or
4. be contrary to the health and safety of the patient.
Now lets be clear, this needs to be a professional judgment and not an ethical/religious one.
A professional judgment is one that requires knowledge of some department of learning or science to be made. Professionals are expected to place the interests of their clients above their own immediate interests. This behavior is most often a requirement for licensing.
Patients expect pharmacists to use professional judgment to make sound, objective, and factual decisions that affect healthcare outcomes and to provide that care without personal judgment of the patient. This is important because the pharmacist is privy to information of a sensitive and personal nature.
This is not to say that a pharmacist does not have the right to personal beliefs, but provisions must be made to accommodate both the patient's needs and the pharmacist beliefs, without destroying the patient-pharmacist relationship or infringing on the patient's right to treatment.
The American Pharmaceutical Association (AphA) has a conscience clause, many local chapters have them too, these are not legally binding. Here is the AphA's conscience clause:
This is the current state of the debate, so as far as this case is concerned the pharmacists error was to inhibit the patients access to legally prescribed therapy. Even the South Dakota law does not suggest that a pharmacist has the right to withhold access to a legally obtained prescription.
It has been suggested that the woman brought in the police too quickly, it is my opinion that the pharmacist knew that what he was doing would bring a legal response and he did it purposely with a desire to test the legal waters. He knew that the woman had a doctor who approved the prescription, he knew that the woman could get the prescription filled elsewhere in time, what do you think his objective was?
This is a hot topic in many states today (in general this issue would be covered by a state law and not a federal one) because the anti-abortion, anti-evolution, anti-etc. crowd has really started to use devious political means to reach its desired ends. I have read about these specific issues quite a bit, and here is a summary:
The most common issues are 'morning after pills', 'right to die', and 'assisted suicide'. In these cases a physician has often written a prescription for a drug that has a generally accepted use at one dose (e.g. one tablet a day of norgestrel) but another use at another dose (e.g. two tablets on two consecutive days).
In general current laws suggest that a pharmacist has the right to refuse a prescription if in his/her professional judgment, the honoring of the prescription would:
1. be contrary to law;
2. be against the best interest of the patient;
3. aid or abet and addiction or habit; or
4. be contrary to the health and safety of the patient.
Now lets be clear, this needs to be a professional judgment and not an ethical/religious one.
A professional judgment is one that requires knowledge of some department of learning or science to be made. Professionals are expected to place the interests of their clients above their own immediate interests. This behavior is most often a requirement for licensing.
Patients expect pharmacists to use professional judgment to make sound, objective, and factual decisions that affect healthcare outcomes and to provide that care without personal judgment of the patient. This is important because the pharmacist is privy to information of a sensitive and personal nature.
This is not to say that a pharmacist does not have the right to personal beliefs, but provisions must be made to accommodate both the patient's needs and the pharmacist beliefs, without destroying the patient-pharmacist relationship or infringing on the patient's right to treatment.
The American Pharmaceutical Association (AphA) has a conscience clause, many local chapters have them too, these are not legally binding. Here is the AphA's conscience clause:
South Dakota is the only state that has adopted a conscience clause in its pharmacy act (Missouri is trying to pass one). Presumably, law will protect only pharmacists in South Dakota who refuse to dispense based on personal beliefs. On the other hand, there are no states that have mandated that a pharmacist must dispense a prescription. Generally, as long as a pharmacist acts in good faith and people who need medications get them, they will not face disciplinary actions. This means that if a pharmacist does not morally agree with the course of treatment, there is a need to refer the patient to another pharmacist.
This is the current state of the debate, so as far as this case is concerned the pharmacists error was to inhibit the patients access to legally prescribed therapy. Even the South Dakota law does not suggest that a pharmacist has the right to withhold access to a legally obtained prescription.
It has been suggested that the woman brought in the police too quickly, it is my opinion that the pharmacist knew that what he was doing would bring a legal response and he did it purposely with a desire to test the legal waters. He knew that the woman had a doctor who approved the prescription, he knew that the woman could get the prescription filled elsewhere in time, what do you think his objective was?
BasketCase
Username sez it all
Thank you, Goth. I was on the receiving end of a lot of "I know you're wrong but I refuse to prove it" until now.
What is Mr. RP's motive? Can't say. I think, however, that if he wanted to test the legal system he wouldn't have confessed up front his difficulties with birth-control pills. He would probably have kept it quiet to make sure he got hired.
What is Mr. RP's motive? Can't say. I think, however, that if he wanted to test the legal system he wouldn't have confessed up front his difficulties with birth-control pills. He would probably have kept it quiet to make sure he got hired.
Gothmog
Dread Enforcer
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 3,352
I don't think so; I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the manager of the pharmacy was complacent in this as well. Not surprised at all to learn that they attend the same church, though I have no information that would suggest such a thing. The manager must have known the law, and the AphA position, too. Consciencious objection is one thing, obstruction is quite another.
This situation is perfect for all concerned (on the anti-birth control side) if one wanted to test these legal waters. The woman's life wasn't being endangered, which would have brought the real issue into a much clearer light. She could even be made out as promiscuous (read: a whore), and the pharmacist made out as the good guy. I see this as part of a bigger picture and don't think the pharmacist was acting soley on his own. But, of course, I could be wrong.
This situation is perfect for all concerned (on the anti-birth control side) if one wanted to test these legal waters. The woman's life wasn't being endangered, which would have brought the real issue into a much clearer light. She could even be made out as promiscuous (read: a whore), and the pharmacist made out as the good guy. I see this as part of a bigger picture and don't think the pharmacist was acting soley on his own. But, of course, I could be wrong.
Mr. Blonde
Dr. techn.
Interesting facts, for instance the agreement between the owner and the employee.
Question: Why didn´t they put a sign on the door "We don´t sell contraceptives" or something similar? This would have prevented a lot of troubles for them, ...unless they want to impose their views on people wanting to buy contraceptives, of course.
Question: Why didn´t they put a sign on the door "We don´t sell contraceptives" or something similar? This would have prevented a lot of troubles for them, ...unless they want to impose their views on people wanting to buy contraceptives, of course.
Jawz II
Oh Dear
wow how you all manage to keep this thread going for 9 pages is beyond me
all this about some guy whose job is to sell pills and dosent want to sell pills?
all this about some guy whose job is to sell pills and dosent want to sell pills?
Milan's Warrior
Peacelord
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Messages
- 621
I did not follow the whole thread. Do we know how the case ended by now? Has he been condemned or not?
BasketCase
Username sez it all
The case is still running through the grinder at this time, AFAIK; about October the 13th, there were news articles about various hearings regarding what sentence (if any) should be imposed on Mr. RP.
Now, a manager who DOES hate birth control pills and so decides not to stock them.....there's another question to have fun with.
Since the manager of the store filled the prescription himself, I think it's because the manager didn't have a problem with birth control pills; his employee did.
Now, a manager who DOES hate birth control pills and so decides not to stock them.....there's another question to have fun with.
