http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dsnews/305nd3.htm

 

 

Four Walgreen pharmacists disciplined for not filling contraceptives

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

By Jim Suhr

he Associated Press

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ST. LOUIS — Walgreen Co. said Tuesday it has put four Illinois pharmacists in the St. Louis area on unpaid leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule.

Ed Martin, an attorney for the four, called the discipline "pretty disturbing" and said the pharmacists would consider legal action if Walgreens doesn't reconsider.

 

Citing religious or moral grounds over filling prescriptions for the morning-after pill, the four "have said they would like to maintain their right to refuse to dispense, and in Illinois that is not an option," Walgreens spokeswoman Tiffani Bruce said.

 

A rule first imposed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich in April that became permanent in August requires Illinois pharmacies that sell contraceptives approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control such as the morning-after pill. Pharmacies that do not fill prescriptions for any type of contraception are not required to follow the rule.

 

At least six other pharmacists have sued over the rule, claiming it forces them to violate their religious beliefs. Many of those lawsuits were pressed by Americans United for Life, a Chicago-based public interest law firm with which Martin is affiliated.

 

"If you're a pharmacist and a woman has a prescription for contraceptives, you should have to fill that prescription," Blagojevich said Tuesday during an appearance in southern Illinois.

 

Illinois' rule requires that prescriptions for emergency contraception be filled "without delay" and not complying can result in the suspension of a pharmacy's license and that site's chief pharmacist, Bruce said.

 

Deerfield-based Walgreens put the four on leave Monday to comply with the rule, she said. Bruce would not identify the four pharmacists involved or the stores where they worked.

 

They will remain on unpaid leave "until they either decide to abide by Illinois law or relocate to another state" without such a rule or law.

 

Martin said the four may take their case to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or sue to get reinstated and collect lost wages.

 

"There's some hope Walgreen will snap out of it and that these people would get their jobs back," Martin said.

 

Walgreens policy says pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions to which they are morally opposed — except where state law prohibits — but they must take steps to have the prescription filled by another pharmacist or store, Bruce said.

 

The four pharmacists can be reassigned to a Missouri store if they choose and Walgreens would help them get licensed in that state.

 

"As far as I know, they have not taken us up on that offer," Bruce said.

I think Walgreen is following the best course of helping those people get licensed in a state where they can refuse to aid in an abortion.

Shouldn't the yea be directed at Blagojevich on this one? If there was no law, do you think Walgreen would have suspended them? I'm guessing no, but it would be great if they'd just stop hiring pharmacists who would try something like this.

Shouldn't the yea be directed at Blagojevich on this one?  If there was no law, do you think Walgreen would have suspended them?  I'm guessing no, but it would be great if they'd just stop hiring pharmacists who would try something like this.

 

 

Of course..

 

They "yea" for Walgreens is because they didn't fight for them, like the pharmacists thought they would. It's not an automatic suspension.

I doubt potential employees would be so forthcoming.. "Oh.. FYI.. if I don't agree with a script. I aint fillin' it.. When should I start..?"

I doubt any pharmacy is going to risk their license to operate over this law.

Of course..

 

They "yea" for Walgreens is because they didn't fight for them, like the pharmacists thought they would. It's not an automatic suspension.

I doubt potential employees would be so forthcoming.. "Oh.. FYI.. if I don't agree with a script. I aint fillin' it.. When should I start..?"

 

Good point, I guess as long as they weed them out as soon as it becomes evident that they will do this, that's probably the best the pharmacy can do. Yea Walgreens indeed!

Guess I'm wacky, I side with the pharmacists on this one. Especially with a pill THAT controversial. Regular birth control is one thing, but this one I understand why some would NOT want to be a part of it. Call me crazy. Oh, and no need to argue with me on it, I won't change my views on this pill.

Guess I'm wacky, I side with the pharmacists on this one. Especially with a pill THAT controversial. Regular birth control is one thing, but this one I understand why some would NOT want to be a part of it. Call me crazy. Oh, and no need to argue with me on it, I won't change my views on this pill. 

 

 

Then go work somewhere where it's legal to refuse to fill a script of something you are against.

 

 

 

 

And ya might want to read up on "that pill". It's "regular" birth control at a higher controlled dose.

Then go work somewhere where it's legal to refuse to fill a script of something you are against.

 

'kay...sometimes it's easier said than done.

 

And ya might want to read up on "that pill". It's "regular" birth control at a higher controlled dose.

 

'kay...thanks.

I think Walgreen is following the best course of helping those people get licensed in a state where they can refuse to aid in an abortion.

 

Is it really considered an abortion if the cells haven't even started to split yet???

Is it really considered an abortion if the cells haven't even started to split yet???

Or, more actually, the egg hasn't even been fertilized. . .

It's the application that some pharmacists find objectionable. The best analogy I can offer is the same device used for liposuction, could also be used for an abortion. A surgeon may wish to use that to improve the appearance of someone, but not to perform an abortion.

 

It is one thing to prevent a pregnancy via birth control pills, it is another to terminate an existing pregnancy.

 

It's a moral decision I can understand some people taking. I would not have a problem dispensing the pill, but respect those individuals that have a moral objection to helping an abortion.

There are laws I don't like, but if I break them there are consequences to pay.

These pharmos can refuse to fill a script, but they shouldn't whine about their consequences. Make the choice, pay the toll.

There are laws I don't like, but if I break them there are consequences to pay.

These pharmos can refuse to fill a script, but they shouldn't whine about their consequences. Make the choice, pay the toll.

 

Yep, good way of putting it.

 

 

And don't the chances for side effects increase because of the higher dosage?

Yep, good way of putting it.

And don't the chances for side effects increase because of the higher dosage?

 

 

 

There are arguments both ways, as with anything you put in your body.

 

The studies, per capita, have been statistically favorable to it's safety.

It's a moral decision I can understand some people taking. I would not have a problem dispensing the pill, but respect those individuals that have a moral objection to helping an abortion.

 

 

The laws are clear, so those people should seek different jobs--period. If pharmacists are allowed to break laws based on their own beliefs, where does it end? Do we let Christian Scientist doctors treat patients only through means that coincide with their beliefs? No.

 

I couldn't actually kill an animal, so I don't work ina meat processing plant. I hate guns, so I won't pursue a career in law enforcement. I don't believe that marijuana should be illegal, so I am not in government. You play by the rules of the game, or you get out and go someplace else.

'kay...sometimes it's easier said than done.

 

 

What's the difficulty when researching a potential career - one that requires planning and schooling - not to pick one that will test your morals...?

 

 

One doesn't wake up one morning, decide to be a pharmacist, and hop in the car for an interview at the local Walgreens..

What's the difficulty when researching a potential career - one that requires planning and schooling - not to pick one that will test your morals...?

One doesn't wake up one morning, decide to be a pharmacist, and hop in the car for an interview at the local Walgreens..

 

Are you suggesting they should have thought

 

A. Someday, someone may invent a pill or procedure that I may find morally upsetting.

B. The government may pass a law making it illegal for me to not dispense the pill.

 

I think that's a little unfair.

Are you suggesting they should have thought

 

A. Someday, someone may invent a pill or procedure that I may find morally upsetting.

B. The government may pass a law making it illegal for me to not dispense the pill.

 

I think that's a little unfair.

 

 

What part of "when researching a potential career - one that requires planning and schooling - not to pick one that will test your morals" wasn't clear...?

The laws are clear, so those people should seek different jobs--period.  If pharmacists are allowed to break laws based on their own beliefs, where does it end?  Do we let Christian Scientist doctors treat patients only through means that coincide with their beliefs?  No. 

 

I couldn't actually kill an animal, so I don't work ina meat processing plant.  I hate guns, so I won't pursue a career in law enforcement.  I don't believe that marijuana should be illegal, so I am not in government.  You play by the rules of the game, or you get out and go someplace else.

These are new laws that need time to shake out. Sometimes we pass dumb laws and there are better solutions.

 

Every MD is not required to perform abortions. Restaurants are given the right to refuse service. Evil can refuse to print a flier for an gun control rally or the opening of an abortion clinic. A book store can refuse to carry pornography. Doctors can refuse to write the perscription. Psychiatrists can refuse to treat certain disorders.

 

If you check yourself into a Catholic Hospital, they will not perform an abortion, which is consistent with their beliefs. And yes, a Christian Scientist Doctor can refuse to offer treatments inconsistent with his beliefs.

What part of "when researching a potential career - one that requires planning and schooling - not to pick one that will test your morals" wasn't clear...?

 

What part of this law and pill wasn't around 10 years ago so how were pharmacists suppose to factor it into their decision?

 

My son is going into Psychology. What advances in the field, and laws that will be enacted in 2015, should he be researching before making his decision?

What part of this law and pill wasn't around 10 years ago so how were pharmacists suppose to factor it into their decision?

 

My son is going into Psychology. What advances in the field, and laws that will be enacted in 2015, should he be researching before making his decision?

 

 

And pharmicists who have been in the field for years would just now be researching if they want to be pharmacists...?

 

Clearly I was referring to those not yet licensed.

These are new laws that need time to shake out. Sometimes we pass dumb laws and there are better solutions.

 

Every MD is not required to perform abortions. Restaurants are given the right to refuse service. Evil can refuse to print a flier for an gun control rally or the opening of an abortion clinic. A book store can refuse to carry pornography. Doctors can refuse to write the perscription. Psychiatrists can refuse to treat certain disorders.

 

If you check yourself into a Catholic Hospital, they will not perform an abortion, which is consistent with their beliefs. And yes, a Christian Scientist Doctor can refuse to offer treatments inconsistent with his beliefs.

 

Thank you. I'll talk to my father in law about this one for sure. He's one of them there drug prescribers. I'll ask him if when he went into the career if he ever thought he would have to prescribe a medicine of this sort. I bet he's going to say "no". In my town, if the Walgreens refuses it, I can walk across the street to the Osco...if they refuse, I'll got to Wal-Mart...if they refuse...maybe Target...

 

It's not like there is a shortage of places to go. I think the pharmacist are getting a bum rap here a bit.

Thank you. I'll talk to my father in law about this one for sure. He's one of them there drug prescribers. I'll ask him if when he went into the career if he ever thought he would have to prescribe a medicine of this sort. I bet he's going to say "no". In my town, if the Walgreens refuses it, I can walk across the street to the Osco...if they refuse, I'll got to Wal-Mart...if they refuse...maybe Target...

 

It's not like there is a shortage of places to go. I think the pharmacist are getting a bum rap here a bit.

 

 

Which is why your father in law has the right to fight the law - like the other 6 mentioned in the article are doing.

And yes, a Christian Scientist Doctor can refuse to offer treatments inconsistent with his beliefs.

 

Not at a public hospital he can't.

 

I guess the best solution is to ensure that if there is a pharmacist working who would not dispense the morning-after pill due to religious beilefs, the pharmacy will have another pharmacist on site that will.

 

Everyone wins?