A modest idea.....

[patgund]

Over at dark_christian, there was a post about a chain of pharmacies opening catering to those phamacists that refuse to sell contraception or certain other medicines, even with proper perscriptions, and even when the medicines are being used for reasons other than contraception.

'Pro-Life' Drugstores Market Beliefs

Now my personal opinion is that medication is a matter between the doctor and the patient, and a pharmacist should be limited to counsel and making sure the meds don't conflict with other medications. Refusing to sell certain types of medication interferes with this and I personally think the pharmacist is practicing medicine without a licence.

So, here's my modest suggestion on how to deal with these types.

a) Require all stores with this policy to have it clearly marked. Make sure it's clearly displayed that it is a limited-service pharmacy and that the categories of medication provided are clearly displayed at the counter. Perhaps even require that pharmacies be labeled as "full-service" and "limited service" to clearly distingish between the two.

b) Require state boards to restrict the title "pharmacist" to those that agree as part of their license to provide all types of medication to all customers. Those that wish to opt out on religious or moral reasons are given a restricted license, and are called something like "licensed medicine dispenser" or "vocational medicine dispenser" rather than a "pharmacist".

c) Those opting for the limited license are only allowed to sell antibiotics, certain types of pain killers, heart and diabetes medicines, and other basic needs. They are not allowed to sell contraceptives, hormones for fertility treatments, male ED medicines, or anything else dealing with reproductive medicine for either men or women. They are limited in the types of painkillers and other more potent medication they can sell.

Comments

[jeran.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about B and C. My preference is for your A, plus:

1. If they don't want to dispense contraceptives, they can't dispense any reproductive-health drugs. Period. That includes ED drugs like Viagra, and fertility-treatment drugs. They can carry anything not related to reproductive health, but in that area they have to choose all or nothing.

2. The pharmacy must, upon request, refer customers to pharmacies that do dispense those items. If the customer's insurance is involved, the referral must be to a pharmacy that also accepts that insurance under the same terms as the referring pharmacy. If there are no such pharmacies within a reasonable distance, the pharmacy must dispense the items.

3. The choice as to what to dispense belongs to the owner of the establishment, not the pharmacist (unless he's also the owner). The pharmacist's right to his believes does not supersede the owner's right to decide what his business will and will not do.

[roostur.livejournal.com]

I'm of the personal belief that a pharmacist that puts their needs above the customers in any capacity should not be allowed to distribute anything beyond what is already on the shelves for the customers to get themselves. They are paid to give instruction, and dispense. Judging other people's use of medicine is not part their job description.

[jeran.livejournal.com]

Well, a pharmacist is supposed to be a medical professional, and they are supposed to exercise some judgment in what's dispensed. They're often the last line of defense against bad interactions between medications, or against medications that may be contraindicated by the patient's reactions to other medications already tried.

But I agree with you about a pharmacist substituting their own morals for the medical judgment of a physician without even examining the patient or having the kinds of detailed discussion a physician's supposed to have had with the patient. The doctor may be prescribing a contraceptive not because the patient doesn't want to have kids but because there's a high risk to either the patient or any fetus if she becomes pregnant (eg. she's currently on a drug that causes severe birth defects). In cases like that, the pharmacist is playing around the edges of professional malpractice when they decide what drugs are and are not appropriate with reckless disregard for the patient's medical condition and history.

[roostur.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I misspoke, judging a patient's need for that medication is not part of their job. But like you said, they can change the prescription if they know about a potential hazard with the one that a doctor has recommended. The end result is that the patient is given a solution to suit their needs, and not denied to them for the sake of moral qualms or religious dogma.

[kmarier.livejournal.com]

I've been incensed when I've read about pharmacists playing God for spurious reasons. I think your ideas are reasonable and certainly provide ideas for a workable solution which I've seen very little of. I think the limited license idea, while good in theory, opens up the dorr to a slippery slope and I'm not sure how well it would work in practice. Still, good ides to consider though.

[kk1raven.livejournal.com]

I'm all for people refusing to do what they believe is morally wrong. Someone who believes that certain legal and medically appropriate drugs are morally wrong should be refusing to become or work as a pharmacist not trying to impose those views on customers though.