Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse filling prescriptions for reasons of conscience?

Question

If a patient has gone to a doctor and received a prescription for medication, should a pharmacist be permitted to say "I'm not going to do it" and deny the patient medication? I say no...fill the order or get another job.

If I'm an attorney and I get one of these pharmacists as a client, I'd be in for it if I said "my conscience prevents me from representing you."

What do y'all think?

Answer 1

It is not a pharmacist's job to pass judgment on the necessity of the prescription. It is also not the pharmacist's business what the patient is using the prescription for. That is doctor-patient confidentiality.

Not a single pharmacist gets into the job thinking, "There will never be a situation where I disagree with what I'm being asked to do." They know it's going to happen. And if they don't want to do what they are being asked to do in their job description, they shouldn't take the job.

Answer 2

I think that if a person is going to study to be a pharmacist, they should know that they are required to dispense WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED. The Pharmacist is not a doctor, not a diagnosician and can only disobey the doctors prescription for a MEDICAL reason. If someone is taking another medication that might conflict with the new one, the pharmacist doesn't fill it. At that point, the pharmacist would call the doctor and notify him/her that you are taking another medication that cannot be mixed.

Now, that being said, if the Pharmacist is the OWNER, he can refuse to do business with anyone. He must post his refusal or intent to refuse in a prominent place.

Answer 3

I think that it is important to look carefully at a career before one takes expensive training, to make sure that you aren't going to be asked to do something that opposes your beliefs, or that might go against your conscience. This is something I considered carefully when I chose my training and my career.

If one develops these beliefs AFTER one has become a pharmacist (the type of beliefs that would lead to refusing to fill a prescription based on one's own morality, not the legally defined morality to which pharmacists are held accountable), then it might be necessary to leave the profession. Or a pharmacist working in a pharmacy filling prescriptions might wind up being fired. But if I'm not mistaken, there are other things one can do with a pharmacy degree... research and development perhaps.

I would never train to be a pharmacy pharmacist if I knew I'd be faced with having to do something I found morally wrong. But if I developed those beliefs later, I believe I would try to use my training in a different, more harmonious, fashion.

In my opinion, people who make a point of refusing to do something for which they have purposely trained, claiming reasons of conscience, and in doing so attract attention to themselves, and deny another their right to a service, are pursuing an agenda, calling attention to themselves, and behaving in a deliberately oppositional manner. This is far from noble, regardless of what they are claiming. It is political, and designed to control others. I would not patronize a business that employed such grandstanders.

Answer 4

Yes. This covers a lot more than RU-486. What if a pharmacist suspects someone is abusing a prescription? or selling it? or suicidal? Can they refuse (and even report) to fill the prescription in those cases? and couldn't those cases fall under "reasons of conscience"? What would be the different?

I say: Let the pharmacist refuse to fill prescriptions if they don't want to for personal reasons and they can sleep with a clear conscience. The customer can go somewhere else. What's the big deal? Heck, this is America....there is always somewhere else to go!

Answer 5

I agree with most of you in saying it is their job, and fill the prescription. Now, not being a pharmacist and not knowing the laws about it, I would think there should be something in place for the situation mentioned above. "Someone comes in with 3 scripts from 3 different docs for the same med, that happens to be a narcotic". I would think that they could alert the docs and let them decide whether to put refills on the script. The doc's may not be aware of what is going on, and it is for the safety of the patient. In that they may prevent it from happening again, and possibly stop that person from illegally selling prescription meds, or what ever they are doing with that amount of a controlled substance.

Answer 6

I think it's difficult because there are so many grey areas. If for example, a doctor prescribes a medication that will interact badly with a patient's other medications, a pharmacist should have the right to refuse to fill it until they speak with the doctor, HOWEVER...I do NOT think a pharmacist should be allowed to impose his/her own moral values on this decision. I assume you're talking about the morning after pill. What if they ARE allowed to refuse? What next? They can refuse to sell propecia because they think hair regrowth is vain, and shouldn't be allowed? There are instances where I do feel that a pharmacist should have the right, and the responsibility to refuse, but clashing moral values is not an acceptable reason.

Answer 7

Hello. To start things off, there's a BIG difference between being a lawyer and a pharmacist. Many lawyers, NOT saying you personally, are not known for their moral nobility or scruples. Another thing to note is that though lawyers do partake in the dispensing of justice potentially, pharmacist dispense drugs and medical knowledge to aid and assist people in their health and life. This consequently is of more far reaching implications. So yes, I believe that a pharmacist should be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription based on reasons of conscience and morality. The pharmacist is the next primary thing basically to a doctor, and if he or she has issues with it they should not have to throw their beliefs out when they come through the door to work. I would prefer far more pharmacists with a better base of morality and genuine concern than those who don't give jack and go on and take the money into thecompany's fiscal bottomline! I wish many more pharmacists and doctors would not submit themselves to the pressure to prescribe medications that are more expensive just to increase the pharmaceutical companies financial standing and thereby please the shareholders. Lastly there is a big difference in representing a pharmacist who helps people tlhan for a lawyer to pass up one customer for one who would be less upstanding but would fit the essential bill for a new client. And that's my ruling!

Answer 8

No. Like doctors, pharmacists are required to help. If someone comes in needing a prescription, they need to fill it. If they WANT to descriminate, they need to open their own shop. And attorneys take cases they don't agree with all the time. Think of the poor buggers who are the lawyers provided by the state for low-lifes that can't afford an attorney.

Answer 9

if someone is getting, say, 3 different medicines that cause some sort of reaction and could kill the customer, then point it out to them and make sure they understand, and fill out the order.

but if it's something personal (i mean, i'm assuming you're talking about abortions) then just fill the prescription and get on with it. after all, it's not illegal (yet, it is in costa rica, and in the schools they teach everyone that it is a social obligation to protest abortions)
and it's the customers choice, after all, the pharmacist can't posibly know why the customer decided to do it, there are just to many factors involved for another person to simply say ''no'' and mess up a life,

Answer 10

It's not the job of the pharmacist to determine whether or not a prescription should be filled. That's the job of the doctor. The doctor went to school for such things, and he should know if a patient needs medicine or not.