Tobra

I heard on the radio that a pharmacist at Osco in Chicago told a woman she would have to come back later and get her RU 486. She would not fill the prescription. The Governor of Illinois is involved in this, saying the pharmacist must fill the prescription, or there will be fines or closing of the pharmacy for violating the woman's right to have a pharmaceutical abortion. Who do you think is right and why?

I personally feel that a medical professional can refuse to do something if they are opposed to it for personal or professional reasons. I don't see how you can compel a licensed professional to do something that is against their better judgement, but I have a bit of a libertarian bent.

e3NiNe

there has to be more to the story than that, but the pharmacist is not a doctor and should fill the prescription. that's their job.

Tobra

A nurse or pharmacist has a responsibility to their patients, just because they are not a doctor does not release them from this resposniblity. For example, a doctor tells a nurse to do something they know is a mistake, give chemotherapy through a peripheral line for example, they are supposed to do the right thing, not what the doctor tells them to do. A pharmacist is not a tech, they go to school for 3-4 years, I think the degree is actually a Doctor of Pharmacy.

lil_1_2002

Yes but what would be the reason not to fill the perscription? KNowing that she has only a few hours to take the pills for its greatest effectivness. I think the gov is right in fining the pharmacist for not filling it.

e3NiNe

the only thing that should stop someone from taking that pill is if they're past, i think, 72 hours of the incident.

anything after 48 hours is risky because that pill will injure a fetus, but not kill it.

so ... here's a possible situation
pharmacist = P, girl = G

P: Did the ejaculation occur within the past 3 days?
G: No, it was a week ago
P: I can't fill your prescription

that's the only case I can see in favor of the pharmacist.

Tark

I understand what you are saying... but think about how it can be interpreted. That would mean that a doctor could refuse to help someone of a minority groupe (and the other way around obviously). I think there is no room for personal convictions in the medical field.
In this case the the pill is available and I dont think its up to the pharmacist to decide that the law is unacceptable and so decide that he will not give that pill to his patients.

sherwood

it is like working at mcdonalds and not giving someone chicken mcnuggets cause you are against caged or fenced in (non-free-range) chickens

:edit:
she should be fired, and if the lady is forced to have a normal abortion, sued for damages

Tark

You probably know more about this then me... but my understanding is that a pharmacist goes to school to learn the effect of different drug and the interaction between them. His responsibility is to make sure that the drugs the patient is taking is safe for him.

94civicEX

RU 486 is different from the morning after pill/emergency contraception.

ECP's (Emergency Contaception Pills) are usable up to 72 hours after the incident. These are usually a combination of pills taken within a 12 hour period. ECP's prevents pregnancy by stopping ovulation, fertilization and implantation. It is not an "abortion pill" as it doesn't effect an existing pregnancy.

RU 486 is usable during the first 9 weeks of pregnancy. It's basically an "abortion pill" without sugically having one. RU 486 is an antiprogestin that inhibits the female hormone progesterone that must be present to maintain a pregnancy.

It is not a morning after pill.

Now that you're educated, I don't think the pharmacist had any right to refuse the prescription. That is her job to prescribe medication and if it led to a physical abortion I think she should be sued. This is an easy way for women who are not wanting to be pregnant to avoid it, without having to live with the agony of a surgical abortion.

I've saved a lot of people from having children :happysad:.

benjamin

It is absolutely wrong to deny filling the prescription. The pharmacist is in no position to be enforcing their morality on customers. Should a pharmacist be allowed to refuse to fill a medical marijuana prescription? Should a pharmacist be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription for an unmarried man for viagra? No and no.

I hate to tell you, but a real libertarian would insist that the individual be allowed to get a prescription for whatever they want along with some over-the-counter crack cocaine if they feel like it.