Suspeckted

Join Date 02/2004

Moral Grounds Prevent Me From Doing My Job!

A year ago, a rape victim in Denton, Texas, went to an Eckerd drugstore to fill a prescription for emergency contraception, sometimes known as the "morning after pill." When taken within 72 hours of intercourse, the drug prevents conception. At the counter of the drugstore, however, the woman got an unpleasant surprise: The pharmacist on duty, Gene Herr, declared that it was against his moral beliefs to dispense the drug.

It turns out that the nation's largest pharmacy chain, the CVS Corporation, has instituted a policy tailor-made for employees like Herr. Under the rule, CVS pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions on the basis of "deeply held personal beliefs."

Link

If someone has deeply held personal beliefs against dispensing products carried by their employer, then perhaps they should....oh, I don't know....not work there. Such implications suggest the job market should be alive with such employee rebellions. Soon we'll have vegetarians working in the meat department at the local grocery store refusing to sell meat, Wal-Mart cashiers refusing to sell certain CDs, the church organist refusing to play christian music, or waiters and waitresses refusing to sell us a beer. All joking asside, this is a serious matter. It's a horrible decepton to allow women to believe that they live in areas where they are protected by the legal availability of such products only to find out that they may encounter an employee that chooses to use their "deeply held personal beliefs" to interfere with their ability to make an autonomous decision. Women and/or couples in these situations don't need one more thing to worry about after they've already made such a decision to acquire such products.

Suspeckted

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Awesome article, Suspeckted...if I had an insightful left, I'd give it to you...maybe I'll swing back by later when I get one saved up...

Successfully updated karma reason!

I can kinda see both sides here. But as far as this goes... that girl had been through enough. She didn't need some pharmacist telling her what she was asking for was immoral. Fortunately, there is usually more than one pharmacist behind the counter at places like CVS. If they want to make this rule continue, they should make sure there is at least one person who is willing to sell all the drugs. It sounds like a pain and will cost them extra money, but their job is to serve the customer while trying to be fair to their employees. But that's just my hill-o-beans.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Awesome article, Suspeckted...if I had an insightful left, I'd give it to you

I agree, and I have plenty, so you're getting one form me....

Successfully updated karma reason!

Just as an aside, you do realize that if this place is big enough to have a CVS they are also going to have a county health department and/or Planned Parenthood, right? You can always get these medicines there.

I do think it is irresponsible for CVS to not have someone there at all hours the store is open to dispense any and all medications available. I respect their decision to give their employees a choice as well, but they really need to have someone there at all times who will dispense any FDA approved medication.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think CVS's policy is a load -o-crap!

Pharmacists, being part of the medical community have an obligation to do their jobs. If they have a moral objection to dispensing certain kinds of drugs, he/she should have chosen a different profession.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's all grand about their "moral rights" not to dispense the drug...but don't the customers have the right to buy it?

That's the most idiotic policy I've ever heard.

Good article, Suspeckted

~Zoo

Successfully updated karma reason!

Pharmacists, being part of the medical community have an obligation to do their jobs. If they have a moral objection to dispensing certain kinds of drugs, he/she should have chosen a different profession.

Tough call there thatoneguy, since Medical Professionals are entitled to withhold treatment at their discretion. Just as patients have an the right to refuse any recommended treatment, we have the right to refuse to offer any medical treatment, with the exception of life-threatening cases.

And spreading your legs and getting knocked up usually ain't considered "life-threatening".

Like I said, I think CVS has the responsibility to have someone there at all times that will dispense any FDA approved medications with appropriate prescriptions. But people really need to get over the idea that medical professionals are to behave at the whim of every person they meet. There are an awful lot of OB/GYN doctors who don't do abortions, so I suppose they should all seek a different profession as well?

Successfully updated karma reason!

And I find it intersting that no one has bothered to acknowledge that you can get this type of contraception at any county health department or Planned Parenthood.

For every person saying that this guy should choose to work elsewhere or that CVS shouldn't have the right to make those types of choices I would posit that the patient can always choose to shop elsewhere. I don't think anyone forced her to go to CVS now did they? Oh, that's right, people only have rights if you agree with them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And spreading your legs and getting knocked up usually ain't considered "life-threatening

I believe the article was specifically talking about a rape case. So this isn't your ordinary "knocked-up" on prom night story.

I agree that Medical Professionals shouldn't be required to perform every procedure out there at the whim of their patients, but I do think that these employees shouldn't be allowed in interfere with such an important decision that the customer made before they set foot in CVS. And that's what this woman was, a customer, not a patient to the pharmacist. I think we can all appreciate the fundamental difference between patient and customer.

These other places might not be within reasonable reach of women in need. Women seeking this drug are likely to be reluctant to tell others about it and may worry that someone might see them going into a Planned Parenthood, or who knows. I think there are too many scenarios in which someone refusing to sell someone a product that their employer carries would seem completely rediculous. Someone who sells someone a gun at a gun shop legally wouldn't be raked over the coals if the customer later shot someone with it would they?

Thanks for adding to the discussion BlueDev,
If nothing else, I hope we can agree that it's a very bizarre policy and could create a number of headaches.

-suspeckted

Successfully updated karma reason!

When I wrote that I had forgotten the rape part of the story. Personaly opinion there: it is tantamount to a medical emergency and should be treated as such. You treat absolutely. Thanks for pointing that out.

And that's what this woman was, a customer, not a patient to the pharmacist. I think we can all appreciate the fundamental difference between patient and customer.

The problem is, in America patients are customers, except in emergency cases. Just like your hairdresser, your restaraunt, etc. you choose your doctor based on the services they provide and how well they provide them in your opinion. So, again excepting emergencies, I don't see that big of a difference between a patient and a customer. And, can't you be denied any service as a customer too? No shirt, no shoes, right? Places of business put restrictions on who they will/won't treat every day, and what services they will/won't provide.

Women seeking this drug are likely to be reluctant to tell others about it and may worry that someone might see them going into a Planned Parenthood, or who knows.

They might, but tough. To use a medical analogy, should your Opthomalogist be required to give you Viagra (not you personally, you generally as an example

) because you might be reluctant to go to a Urologist? I mean, the Opthomalogist is licensed to write a perscription for Viagra, so. . . Just because someone is uncomfortable with something doesn't mean a business should change their policies, is it?

Bottom line though. I think it is entirely irresponsible to not have someone there at all times that will dispense any FDA approved drug with the proper prescription. But at the same time I will defend CVS right to make a decision, even if I find it irresponsible and stupid.

If nothing else, I hope we can agree that it's a very bizarre policy and could create a number of headaches.

I think we actually agree on more than that, underneath it all. I guess I am just not comfortable damning a business for making a decision I don't like. I would have to damn a lot of businesses then.

Successfully updated karma reason!

And, can't you be denied any service as a customer too? No shirt, no shoes, right? Places of business put restrictions on who they will/won't treat every day, and what services they will/won't provide.

absolutely, but a CVS isn't a doctors office. There's no doctor/patient relationship here. And I think I might even look at it differently if the CVS employee wouldn't dispense it out of concern for the woman's health, but it was on the basis of his "deeply held personal beliefs."

This seems to be a very slippery slope.

As for the incident involving the Texas pharmacist who refused to dispense regular birth control pills, CVS did make a nominal gesture of atonement. Tracylyn Dubois, a CVS customer relations representative, wrote in a letter to a NOW member that the pharmacist in that case had violated company policy by not referring the woman to another drugstore where she could get her prescription filled. The pharmacist in question wasn't fired, but instead was "counseled" to "ensure she follows our policy in this matter."

I think it is entirely irresponsible to not have someone there at all times that will dispense any FDA approved drug with the proper prescription. But at the same time I will defend CVS right to make a decision, even if I find it irresponsible and stupid.

Fair enough, especially if they are required to refer them to a place where they can get it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

especially if they are required to refer them to a place where they can get it.

That should absolutely be a requirement.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hmm, I might not have been clear. What I was trying to say is either way you look at it I suppose CVS can deny service. Doctors decline to perform certain operations/offer certain treatments. So if we look at as a medical professional there is precedent for refusing service. And doctors do have a right to refuse to perform something they find morally wrong (eg. not all OB/Gyns do abortions).

But if we also look at it from a strictly business side, there are plenty of examples of businesses refusing to offer their services to any customer they want. So if we consider CVS a business, there is also precedent for refusing to attend to a customer (and often for reasons even worse than deeply held moral beliefs).

But I suppose I am just running in circles. I already said what I personally believe, but was just defending CVS' right to make their own business decisions. This was brought up in another thread a while back and someone here said it was an example of how our country is becoming a fascist state. I sat there scratching my head. So, because the government ISN'T forcing a company to do something we are becoming a fascist state? I recommended that person actually figure out what a fascist state would be by definition first. I just don't think it would be appropriate for the government to be stepping in mandating how CVS bahave in this situation, and while that wasn't put forth in your thread, I noticed it in another on the same subject.

Good discussion by the way.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Facism gets thrown around a lot as does everything related to it (hitler, nazis, gestapo, etc..) Seems that these elements are the universal bad. So eluding something else to them is just an attempt to associate something else that someone believes is bad with something most everyone believes is bad. Sorry, I know the wording there is far from perfect.

I apperciate your devil's advocacy Bluedev, but I don't think anyone is forcing someone to do anything that compromises their beliefs, as perhaps performing some surgical procedure might. This CVS employee wouldn't be putting this pill down this woman's throat and forcing her to swallow it. It seems to me that if selling the drug to a customer is against their deeply held personal beliefs than it's probably safe to assume that the mere availability of these drugs in the store they work in is against their deeply held personal beliefs as well. This leads me to believe that this person maybe should find somewhere else to work. Wal-Mart stores refuse to carry the "morning after pill" altogether so at least no one can be specifically denied it from an employees personal belief system, that decision was made at the corporate level because it's not even available in the first place.

I think the policy of "deeply held personal beliefs" runs a high risk of abuse since it is completely subjective and broad in language. Any employee could discriminate against a customer with the excuse that they were exercising their right to voice their "deeply held personal beliefs."

-suspeckted

Successfully updated karma reason!

I apperciate your devil's advocacy Bluedev, but I don't think anyone is forcing someone to do anything that compromises their beliefs, as perhaps performing some surgical procedure might. This CVS employee wouldn't be putting this pill down this woman's throat and forcing her to swallow it. It seems to me that if selling the drug to a customer is against their deeply held personal beliefs than it's probably safe to assume that the mere availability of these drugs in the store they work in is against their deeply held personal beliefs as well. This leads me to believe that this person maybe should find somewhere else to work. Wal-Mart stores refuse to carry the "morning after pill" altogether so at least no one can be specifically denied it from an employees personal belief system, that decision was made at the corporate level because it's not even available in the first place.

That is actually an excellent point, one I hadn't really thought of yet.

And I agree that the "deeply held personal beliefs" bit does run a risk of being abused. In the end, a stupid policy that is going to cause them more problems than perhaps they have given thought to.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sadly enough, as for the WalMart example, WalMart already made the decision FOR the cashier. They don't carry any "offensive" music (although I haven't yet mounted my "John Tesh's Music should have a warning label" campaign, so maybe even potential Muzak will be off limits)

Successfully updated karma reason!

dont health-care professionals take a pledge to "first...do no harm?"

The hippocratic oath isn't it? Be sure to read the part from the original oath.
Link

Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Interesting that you brought this up Little Whip because in the original oath written by Hippocrates - The Father of Medicine part of it reads...

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

dispensing this drug is tantamount to helping someone end a human life

Something (within a very limited time period) they have every legal right to do.

(although I haven't yet mounted my "John Tesh's Music should have a warning label" campaign, so maybe even potential Muzak will be off limits)

Ha Ha! Let me know when that starts. I had to drive by a billboard advertising John Tesh's latest album release for months on my way home...absolute torture.

-suspeckted

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm wondering if I was a pharamacist and someone came into to fill a perscription for depression and I decided that anti-depressants are something I am strongly opposed to because of my "deeply heald personal beliefs" if I wouldn't get in any sort of trouble not filling that kind of perscription.

And also in this particular case I believe the woman was definitely raped twice, once by the perpetrator and another time by this ridiculous policy. I mean the RU487 is one thing but the morning after pill? I mean here she is trying to make it to the drug store on time to make her chances of being impregnanted by the rapist slimmer and so later on she WON'T have to seek an abortion! I mean c'mon we should be applauding her! Do people not understand that the morning after pill does not terminate a pregnancy, if you're pregnant, you're pregnant. I think this is getting confused with the actual abortion pill that isn't taken oraly.

I do want to know if that policy of deeply held personal beliefs applies to all perscriptions besides just birthcontrol, cause that would be a very risky policy to have with all the contraversies about different things. I mean it's just not good if pharmacists won't give out the morning after pill...especially when it's SO time critical. I mean of course it's easy for us to be like, yea she could just go to another location but what about lacking a car/time off work/time in general. I mean you'd be pretty pissed if you went to a pharamicst to get a PERSCRIPTION FILLED that you and YOUR DOCTOR have all worked out and some jerk is like sorry I'm going to waste your time because I have deeply held personal beliefs about your situation... and like Suspeckted said, it could totally be used as an excuse to discriminate against others. I'm just appalled at that idea more than I am about pharmacists doing their JOB despite their opinion. Hell, I am that vegetarian that has to serve meat because I choose to work in a Dining Center and that's just the thing. If the CVS was making their employees take the pill, that's different, but serving it to the customer...c'mon.

Even if this pill wasn't invented when people came into the profession, they are pharmacists, and birth control has been around for quite sometime!! I mean really with that policy we have given them a NEW duty, to decide with each customer if what they are giving them goes against their deeply held personal beliefs when before they just had to do their job and not worry about it, now we are asking them to do more than a transaction, we are asking them to analyze the customer, their politics, their religion, values, morals with each perscription which I believe stems beyong the duty of a pharmacist.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm wondering... could he have just refered her to someone who COULD have given her the medication?

Maybe that was immoral too...

Successfully updated karma reason!

UPDATE
Link

The most recent version of the bill stated, "The [pharmacy] board must not discipline a pharmacist for refusing to dispense, or refusing to assist a patient in obtaining, a prescription whose use the pharmacist opposes for moral or religious reasons" (emphasis added).

This bill may have affects on even referring a customer.

And also in this particular case I believe the woman was definitely raped twice, once by the perpetrator and another time by this ridiculous policy. I mean the RU487 is one thing but the morning after pill? I mean here she is trying to make it to the drug store on time to make her chances of being impregnanted by the rapist slimmer and so later on she WON'T have to seek an abortion! I mean c'mon we should be applauding her! Do people not understand that the morning after pill does not terminate a pregnancy, if you're pregnant, you're pregnant. I think this is getting confused with the actual abortion pill that isn't taken oraly.

Lil' Sis, I confess that I don't know what the difference is. Could you please enlighten us?
Thank you for contributing such a lengthy comment to the discussion as well.

-suspeckted

Successfully updated karma reason!

The morning after pill does not end a pregnancy. The morning after pill is like birth control times three literally. It is just a higher dosage of the pills we women take every single day to prevent pregnancy. Here this quote from plannedparenthood might help a little with the understanding ECP (the Emergency contraception pill)... is used only if a woman is not already pregnant from a previous act of intercourse. EC prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation, fertilization, or implantation. It will not cause an abortion. The other pill termed the abortion pill RU486 is taken in a four step day process (including the 24 hour waiting period that the bush admin added recently). The woman who is taking this pill does not go to the pharamicst since the doctor must be present to see the pills being taken...here is where there is some confusion because there are different methods of "the abortion pill" some forms you swallow, others inserted...but again she does not visit the pharmasicts for these pills, the doctor hands them to her and watches her take them. The results of this pill are usually that a woman bleed a lot and then have to return to the doctor in another 48 hours to complete the abortion having a doctor use prostaglandin. Then several days later the woman returns again to make sure it is complete. This pill became available in the United States in 2000, probably why there is still so much confusion over it. I hope I helped, I might not have even gotten all the answers right, brother. Hope you're having a good week!

~lil sister

Successfully updated karma reason!