|
Only specialized medical personnel (MD's, Physicians Assistants, Nurse Practitioners, etc) have prescribing authority.
The job of a pharmacist is to fill a prescription written by someone with legal authority to write prescriptions in that state.
The job of a pharmacist is to ascertain that the medications being filled do not counteract with any other medications that the patient may be taking.
The job of a pharmacist is to advise the patient on the correct way to take a medication, the correct dose, and of any side effects or adverse effects that may present themselves once the medication is taken.
The pharmacist has no reason to know why a patient is taking a particular drug. They have no reason to second guess the medication prescribed by a licensed practitioner unless that medication inherently reacts in a negative way with other medications that the patient is taking.
Minoxodil was originally a medication used to treat high blood pressure (it still is in some cases). However, one of the side effects of Minoxodil is hair growth--that's why it's been re-marketed as a hair growth formula. It is not the pharmacists job to know why I'm taking minoxidil (for blood pressure? for hair growth?).
Birth control pills (oral horomones) are used for a variety of reasons aside from contraceptive reasons. Women with endometriosis are often prescribed low level birth control pills to relieve symptoms associated with their endometriosis. Many post-menopausal women are prescribed low-level estrogens to combat the sometimes painful changes that are associated with menopause.
Depo-Provera, an injectable contraception, is used by men for hormonal regulation.
A pharmacist is in no way or reason dependent to know why a particular drug is being taken by a patient. As long as the prescription is valid, and the drug is in stock, they should have an obligation to fill that prescription, regardless of their personal beliefs regarding that medication.
I now turn to other professions, and how 'moral' outrage could affect YOUR care, or the care of someone you love:
If Pharmacists are allowed to 'opt out' of prescribing medications they have moral conflicts with, then it would only make sense that:
Doctors would have the right to opt out of treating, even in an emergent situation where they are the only physician available, anyone who was another race or religion than they are because their religion specifically bars them from treating people of different races or religions.
Police officers refuse to come to the assistance of someone who is a drug user because they believe that drug users are abhorrent and undeserving of public assistance
Nurses refusing to care for AIDS patients because they see AIDS as a scourge of God, and punishment for living an unwholesome lifestyle (Gay, drugs, etc).
Mormon waiters or cashiers who refuse to ring up or serve you any products containing alcohol or caffeine, as it goes against their personal beliefs to consume these products.
A nurse who is a Jehovah's Witness who refuses to assist in a blood transfusion because her religion prohibits blood transfusions. She is the only qualified personnel to do this task, and by her refusing to do this procedure, the patient dies.
A Jewish chef who refuses to make a cheeseburger, or to serve patrons shellfish or pork items off of the menu because it interfers with his religious belief that meat and milk should not be mixed, and shellfish and pork are unwholesome to eat.
So where do we draw the line? Just at pharmacists? JUST birth control? OR do we allow EVERYONE in EVERY professional capacity to make off-hand decisions on a daily basis regarding who they will and won't treat, who is and who isn't worthy of their treatment, and what is and what isn't morally acceptable?
Pharmacists are licensed, not by the state itself, but by the CITIZENS of the state in which they are licensed. The CITIZENS of the state have said, that upon meeting X school requirements and passing X exam, then that pharmacist meets the minimum standards for practice in that state. There is no "morality" clause, and if a pharmacist can go through years of training and not realize until AFTER the licensing exam and AFTER getting into practice that they are "morally opposed" to certain medications, then I'd have to wonder what that person was doing through years of pharmacology and physiology classes....certainly not paying attention....
|