Woman refused pregnancy termination drugs at Walgreens pharmacy that were prescribed

[Kasierith]

The idea is that he is not personally involved in her actions that way.

- - - Updated - - -



That sounds outright dangerous. So if someone with a very restrictive religion, medically speaking, bought out the only pharmacy in some far off village, they could kill people legally by denying them medication

I think you meant figuratively, not legally. Because legally withholding aid is not killing someone, as has been established by a few hundred years of common law.

You also have to remember that pharmacies fall under ambulatory care, not emergency medicine. In other words, they're for if you're healthy enough to move about (very generally speaking what falls under ambulatory care is very complicated). If you are literally dying, go to the hospital. Beyond that... while that situation would suck, not having ready access to a pharmacy is a constant problem for millions in the US, esp when you get into the huge states with low populations. There are plenty of small towns with nothing even remotely close that only have a single pharmacy, and if their insurance doesn't cover it than their choices are pretty limited. This is the basis for how mail order pharmacy started to expand.

[Tradu]

The prescription is the property of the doctor and the patient, until it is received and the medication dispensed (that paper/pad you sign when you pick up a script basically serves as a transfer of property for the physical paper and such). Even when a pharmacist believes that a script is fake, unless they have directly confirmed with the doctor by the phone, they do not have any right to hold onto it.

As for transferring out, most states require referrels at least in some areas under the umbrella of not altogether denying medical services. For states like Arizona, it falls more under company policy and providing the best service possible given the pharmacists' refusal.

I had no idea prescriptions worked like that in the US, pretty interesting way of doing it. There's no paper or signing of anything involved here(Denmark).

[Hexian]

You're probably not far off, if people dig a little deeper into the story.

My wife had miscarried in the past, so I let her read the article and asked what she thought. Ironically enough, she and I jumped on the same point: the lady in the story was embarrassed/distraught to tell her story in the store, yet more than comfortable enough to post it to the world on Facebook and Instagram immediately after this incident (she posted it to social while at this Walgreens, yay location/time tracking of posts). Yeah, it completely sucks to miscarry, but you can't have it both ways. The pharmacist transferred the prescription to a nearby Walgreens immediately after the incident (she received email notification upon leaving Walgreens) where she was able to pick it up no problem the next day. She also released the name and location of the pharmacist on her social media, which I don't really agree with in cases like these, as I'm sure there are enough crazies who only look on the surface of these stories and react in uncouth ways. Walgreens did what anyone would expect, standard apology and such, but we don't really have the other side of the story unfortunately.

As a fellow pharmacist he was completely in his right to deny the prescription. In my profession I have done it multiple times due to the Dr fucking up a script, opioid seeking, allergies/conditions, etc.

And if he transferred the script immediately so she could pick it up elsewhere and she still released his name and pharmacy on social media then honestly fuck her.

[Kasierith]

As a fellow pharmacist he was completely in his right to deny the prescription. In my profession I have done it multiple times due to the Dr fucking up a script, opioid seeking, allergies/conditions, etc.

And if he transferred the script immediately so she could pick it up elsewhere and she still released his name and pharmacy on social media then honestly fuck her.

The most "fun" is when you deny scripts for what basically amounts to "the doctor has literally no idea what they're doing and I'm not going stick my hands in this mess."

[Better]

My religion means I have to refuse service to non whites.

Is that ok, too?

Race/Skin color is a protected class. It's unlawful for a business to discriminate against protected classes, so no it wouldn't be ok.

[Hexian]

The most "fun" is when you deny scripts for what basically amounts to "the doctor has literally no idea what they're doing and I'm not going stick my hands in this mess."

I am really enjoying the upcoming gabapentin epidemic we are about to have since we are really cracking down on opioid use. Or the good ol combo of benzos and short acting narcs.

[Kasierith]

I had no idea prescriptions worked like that in the US, pretty interesting way of doing it. There's no paper or signing of anything involved here(Denmark).

US laws related to who owns what is pretty complicated esp since there are different ways to prescribe. In terms of what's most relevant to this situation, though, is this:

the pharmacist has 50/50 responsibility, legally and professionally, for the end result of the prescription. In other words, the pharmacist is not just helping the doctor. The pharmacist shares in the responsibility for the end result, good or bad, and thus if the doctor is using off-label drugs to skirt around having to order a drug in (likely for insurance reasons) the pharmacist is fully in their right to say that they do not want to participate.

- - - Updated - - -

I am really enjoying the upcoming gabapentin epidemic we are about to have since we are really cracking down on opioid use. Or the good ol combo of benzos and short acting narcs.

I have trouble as is with doctors and nurses not thinking that tramadol can be addictive/abused. Gabapentin is going to be a nightmare. We're already treating it as a control.

[Hexian]

US laws related to who owns what is pretty complicated esp since there are different ways to prescribe. In terms of what's most relevant to this situation, though, is this:

the pharmacist has 50/50 responsibility, legally and professionally, for the end result of the prescription. In other words, the pharmacist is not just helping the doctor. The pharmacist shares in the responsibility for the end result, good or bad, and thus if the doctor is using off-label drugs to skirt around having to order a drug in (likely for insurance reasons) the pharmacist is fully in their right to say that they do not want to participate.

Also if the doctor is illegally prescribing medications (yup, it happens people) the pharmacist can also be held liable.

- - - Updated - - -

US laws related to who owns what is pretty complicated esp since there are different ways to prescribe. In terms of what's most relevant to this situation, though, is this:

the pharmacist has 50/50 responsibility, legally and professionally, for the end result of the prescription. In other words, the pharmacist is not just helping the doctor. The pharmacist shares in the responsibility for the end result, good or bad, and thus if the doctor is using off-label drugs to skirt around having to order a drug in (likely for insurance reasons) the pharmacist is fully in their right to say that they do not want to participate.

- - - Updated - - -



I have trouble as is with doctors and nurses not thinking that tramadol can be addictive/abused. Gabapentin is going to be a nightmare. We're already treating it as a control.

Same, I think in the next phase of pharm law we are going to make it a C5

[Deleted]

Race/Skin color is a protected class. It's unlawful for a business to discriminate against protected classes, so no it wouldn't be ok.

What about clowns? I refuse to serve clowns.

[kreationkin]

I'm a pharmacist. This pharmacist appears to have acted legally. I believe this pharmacist should have spoken to the provider to understand what the medication was being prescribed for before turning away this patient. I would have happily filled misoprostol to induce labor for a pregnancy that had ended in fetal death. If he had a medical reason for concern (e.g. did not feel that the increasing taper of the medication would be safe) I would have no problem with him denying the fill. Instead he claimed a moral objection (although I would wager he did not fully understand the situation, I have never heard of religious/moral objections to maintaining a pregnancy that has a dead fetus).

While my personal views based on what I've read about this situation are straightforward, This conversation becomes a lot murkier when we talk about moral objections to say end of life care. I strongly believe in one's right to end their own life. However, I equally strongly believe that right does not and should not require me or any other pharmacist to dispense a prescription with lethal directions for administration. I would not want to see a new law that would have made this pharmacists actions illegal.

I am leery of giving up room for professional judgment within the law. Being forced to dispense any prescription subverts my judgment.

- - - Updated - - -

Also if the doctor is illegally prescribing medications (yup, it happens people) the pharmacist can also be held liable.

- - - Updated - - -



Same, I think in the next phase of pharm law we are going to make it a C5

I've been treating gabapentin and cyclobenzaprine as scheduled drugs for a while now and would recommend any other pharmacist do the same.

[Darththeo]

This is something I dislike ... I am sorry, people need to do their fucking job and that's it.

You're a baker? Bake the cake. You're a pharmacist? Provide the drugs.

Yes, there are cases where refusal is perfectly valid, but when at work, your rights are limited EVEN when you own your own business as you do not have a right to run a business. You agree to follow the laws of the town, county (where applicable), state and federal levels.

[Hexian]

This is something I dislike ... I am sorry, people need to do their fucking job and that's it.

You're a baker? Bake the cake. You're a pharmacist? Provide the drugs.

Yes, there are cases where refusal is perfectly valid, but when at work, your rights are limited EVEN when you own your own business as you do not have a right to run a business. You agree to follow the laws of the town, county (where applicable), state and federal levels.

He was acting within the law. The laws state the pharmacist has discretionary powers when filling prescriptions. He/she isn’t some mindless grunt that reads a piece of paper and hands you pills.

[Najnaj]

I'm going to assume this wasn't the only pharmacy in the vicinity and she could easily walk down the street to another pharmacy. I mean, it's not like you are gay and you have to buy gay wedding cakes from Christian bakeries.

Or that black people necessarily need to sit on that specific bench.

Think before you type.

[Lochton]

That sounds like a cause to fire him. Can't even do your job. You aren't meant to mix religion into it.

I now have the urge to study medicine. So that I can become a pharmacist. So that I can get a job near where that guy works. So that at some point in the future, when he is in need of a prescription drug that may save his life, I can hope that he will come to me to get that prescription filled, so that I can deny him his prescription. Because my religion does not believe that assholes should be allowed to continue to use up valuable oxygen.

Mate, you gotta fulfill your calling. You have an obligation to the rules of karma.

[Najnaj]

He was acting within the law. The laws state the pharmacist has discretionary powers when filling prescriptions. He/she isn’t some mindless grunt that reads a piece of paper and hands you pills.

He overruled modern medicine with bronze-age mythology..I think that makes him worse than a mindless grunt.

[Osmeric]

The real travesty is that there's a legally established profession of "pharmacist". Why does there have to be this rent seeking middleman, when doctors could just give patients their medicines directly?

[Darththeo]

He was acting within the law. The laws state the pharmacist has discretionary powers when filling prescriptions. He/she isn’t some mindless grunt that reads a piece of paper and hands you pills.

Then the law is stupid.

[Hexian]

He overruled modern medicine with bronze-age mythology..I think that makes him worse than a mindless grunt.

Overruled modern medicine? He chose not to dispense a medication to a pregnant woman that carries a strict warning to not take if pregnant. He then transferred the script so she could get it easily elsewhere. Sounds to me like he was doing his job.

[cuafpr]

a lot of times i support the rights of a business to refuse specific services (such as baking cakes) however the exception I've always had is if you provide medical service ... this was a prescribed meds from a doc that should over rule beliefs in this case. At worst he should have called a co-worker do to hand over the pills, and if he was on the only one working suck it up butter cup.

[Kasierith]

Then the law is stupid.

The law is in place because doctors couldn't keep up with modern medicine and an independent checks and balances was required. The profession of pharmacy in its modern form is a direct result of the medical side being unable to keep up with literally every aspect of medicine simultaneously.

- - - Updated - - -

Overruled modern medicine? He chose not to dispense a medication to a pregnant woman that carries a strict warning to not take if pregnant. He then transferred the script so she could get it easily elsewhere. Sounds to me like he was doing his job.

Question since I'm guessing based on a post of yours in a previos thread that you've been in the profession longer than I have. Given that medicinally induced abortions are not a standard duty of a pharmacy and are referred to doctors offices and clinics purportedly for continuity of care, and that this would have been an off-label use, would insurance have covered the pharmacist being sued for any complications given that the pharmacist was fully aware that the medication was being prescribed for something handled outside of the profession of pharmacy?