The lawsuits between, women being refused their prescription for emergency contraceptive, and the pharmacists refusing to fill their prescriptions, are based on individual morals supported by their religion. When a person’s religious Truth is involved, to the individual it is a clear cut issue, I am absolutely right while you are wrong (Jarosch, 2009).
This debate first saw light in April 2005, when Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich created a law which required dispense of emergency contraceptive to be done “without delay,” like all other prescriptions. The first case on this issue was in January 2006, when four pharmacists in Illinois refused to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptive because of their religious beliefs on this issue. As a result the pharmacists were put on unpaid leave. When the prescription was refused to be filled, the pharmacists were going against the law that was created in 2005. In return, the pharmacists filed a suit in opposition to the law that was created in 2005, saying that the law violated their constitutional rights. Pharmacists should be able to maintain their religious autonomy, and the state should not interfere.
The lawsuit against the 2005 Illinois rule created a compromise between pharmacists, the state, and pharmacies. The pharmacists want religious autonomy, and women need insurance that they have the right to emergency contraceptive without the pharmacist imposing their personal religious belief. This lawsuit created a shift, the duty to fill prescriptions was no longer the job of individual pharmacists, now it is the job of the pharmacy. Non-pharmacists can give emergency contraceptive with the approval of offsite pharmacists. Or individual pharmacists can decline the prescription as long as they return the prescription to the individual.
Not all states have addressed the issue of emergency contraceptives. As of 2009, only thirteen states have directed attention on this issue either through legislature or executive action. Four states have refusal laws, allowing pharmacists the right to refuse. Five states have broader refusal laws allowing several health care providers a right to refuse various services such as emergency contraceptives. In all of the states that allow the pharmacist the choice, they must return the prescription to the individual if they refuse to fill it. Four states protect the access of emergency contraceptives, saying if the medicine is in the back, and it is a valid prescription, then pharmacists must fill the prescription.
There are not many cases seen for women filing claims because women must have damages as a result of the pharmacist not filling the prescription, meaning the woman must become pregnant. When a woman was raped and then refused her prescription for emergency contraceptive she did not win her lawsuit because she did not become pregnant. Because of the unclear and conflicting rules and statutes, individual cases have unpredictable results.
In the last four years, thirteen states have created laws around woman’s right to emergency contraceptive verses pharmacist’s right to decline this medicine. This issue is a result of individual morals/beliefs. Pharmacists are concerned with the state taking away their religious independence while the other side of the argument does not want the imposing of the pharmacist personal religious beliefs on woman.
Goldberg, Michelle. The Christian Rise of Nationalism: Kingdom Coming. New York. Norton Paperback, 2007. P.129-133.
Jarosch, Jeffrey Paul "FINDING SPACE FOR OPPOSING CONSCIENCES: REHABILITATING THE MORAL MARKETPLACE FOR THE EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION DEBATE." Northwestern University Law Review 103.3 (2009): 1461-1493.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is insane that physicians are denying people the right to a contraceptive pill, while they are quick to hand out pills for everything else. Doctors will prescribe ADD pills to children who have to much energy, and Viagra to old people who cant get it up, but will refuse to give out a morning after pill after a women gets raped. It does not make sense to me.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to make laws for the pharmacists that go against their religious beliefs when the people asking for these prescriptions could go elsewhere to recieve them. You can even pay for the emergeny contraceptive if you'd like! On the other hand if pharmacists are denying their position as a pharmacist in order to stand by there religious belief it makes me believe they should be in another profession. Their job is provide you with what you need no questions asked. They are the middle men between you and your doctor, not your dictator.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Perhaps pharmacists, in going through their education and training, should be obliged to take an oath more similar to the hippocratic, which was agreed upon by all states. I've read that it depends on the state whether an oath, such as The Oath of the Apothecary, is mandatory. I believe only a handful of states force pharmacists to fill prescriptions by law. Nonetheless, ethics concerning pharmacists have always been contentious. Clearly, they should prepare themselves mentally and morally if they are to take the role of pharmaceutical providers.
ReplyDeleteThis is a difficult situation. If the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription, he is infringing upon the rights of the women; yet if he does fill the prescription, then his own rights are being infringed upon. The only solution is to not have pharmacists with beliefs that hinder their job performances.
ReplyDeleteI believe that pharmacists should fill perscriptions regardless of their personal beliefs. If you are applying to a job you should be able to conduct all duties assigned to you, otherwise you are not qualified for the job. This has to do with being qualified for a job not your religious beliefs. Would a vegeterian be working at Hotdog on a Stick? lol
ReplyDeleteI have a problem with this "moral" controversy. Giving a pharmacist the right to choose which prescription they feel necessary to fill for a patient is like allowing a stranger to determine your fate. If a person believes that they may not be able to do their duty as a pharmacist and fill requested prescriptions, then they have simply chosen the wrong career. That is like a doctor going into medicine but not being sure that they can handle losing a patient. It is going to happen and for ANY pharmacist to think that they have the right to make a personal choice for another person, without that person asking them to do so, is absolutely absurd!
ReplyDelete