Target Pharmacy Refuses Emergency Contraception Prescription
Very disappointing. No, make that outrageous. Details here. Target's response/confirmation here. Most importantly, take action here.
Learn more about emergency contraception.
posted by Chuck Olsen @ 12:35 AM |
| 
24 Comments:
I just got back from my overnight shift on Labor & Delivery where I spent my night tending to a thirteen-year-old patient who is now somebody's mommy. The idea of further restricing access to legal prescriptions and procedures is deeply disturbing to me...don't get me started about the "conscious letters" that my fellow nurses are allowed to keep in their personnel files so that they don't have to take patients that fit don't fit nicely into their supposed moral framework. Now it's spread to Pharmacists? I'm forwarding that Planned Parenthood link to everyone I know. And let's get the word out that if healthcare workers don't jive with current meds, laws & practices, they should go work at Orange Julius instead where their opinions won't mess with other peoples' lives.
Lemme get this right, health workers need to align with the law so everyone should see what Planned Parenthood has to say.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=32099
This would be the Planned Parenthood that was just found guilty of violating the law.
I think what you meant was "if your beliefs don't jive with mine you're wrong."
There are two things that you as a good citizen can do, I wonder if either crossed your mind.
1. Vote with your $$$. Take your business elsewhere. Always a good option.
2. Change the law to make this illegal. It shouldn't be hard if so many people are right thinking.
The link is OK, but how seriously do you expect to be taken with that sort of weasel worded note. If I hadn't read the article I'd have little idea it was about abortion pills. (ook - that's "emergency contaception")
I like this one, "I expect your pharmacies to guarantee women the right to obtain their prescriptions -- without delay or personal judgment."
Just out of curiosity, anyone really think these are rights?
BTW I think these drugs ought to be legal. I also think that it should be up to an individual business to decide its own inventory and practices.
-Censored
Lack of planning on your part does not make the consequences an emergency on my part.
Lack of planning, huh?
I hope you never have trouble getting your chemo prescription filled because your pharmacist is a Christian Scientist who doesn't believe in drugs.
Pharmacists who don't dispense prescriptions are not doing their jobs. They should be fired.
'lack of planning'? Geez, let's see..set the table, mow the lawn...oh and get raped...is that enough planning for you?
ahhhh...that explains all the money Target gives to rethugs like John Kline:
Ulrich, Robert
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Target Corporation/CEO/Chairman KLINE, JOHN P (R)
House (MN 02)
KLINE FOR CONGRESS $2,100
general
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Robert_Ulrich.php
Ulrich, Robert
Minneapolis, MN 55436
Target Corporation/CEO/Chairman KLINE, JOHN P (R)
House (MN 02)
KLINE FOR CONGRESS $2,000
general 06/29/04
Ulrich, Robert
Minneapolis, MN 55436
Target Corporation/CEO/Chairman KLINE, JOHN P (R)
House (MN 02)
KLINE FOR CONGRESS $2,000
primary 06/29/04
http://dumpjohnkline.blogspot.com/
Luke,
Good points, except they aren't really pertinent.
We're not talking about christian scientist pharmacists, we're talking about abortion. Its a hot topic and alot of people have strong feelings about it.
Would you say that a physician that didn't do abortions wasn't doing their job and should be fired? Of course not, there's lots of reasons for it, perhaps they took a job in a Catholic hospital because it reflected their beliefs...
Now if that same Dr takes a job at an abortion clinic and refuses to do abortions, well that's different - fire away.
But what if the job changed?
I think its a little more accurate to recognize that we're not talking about chemo or cough drops (or even contraception.) We're talking about abortion.
Taking people who never had to make a moral judgement on this issue and throwing them in a situation where they do have to, and you can expect some to struggle.
There is clearly room for Dr's who work at Catholic hospitals and who won't do abortions in the world and there is room for pharmacists that work at "moral" businesses that won't help either.
The world is a better place when all people have choices, not just those that want to choose your perspective.
-Censored
"Abortion Pills". Nice. I'm not touching that one. I'm also not going to plow ahead and defend Planned Parenthood to the death, becuase even liberal-ol'-me has some issues there. Look, there are plenty of places for people with strong feelings about contraceptives/morning after pills/terminations to work. There are religiously affiliated hospitals & clinics, etc. There's also Orange Julius. But when you are talking about mega-stores that may be the only gig in town (like Target, Wal-Mart and what-have-you) then you're talking about restricting people's access--whole counties, even--there may NOT be many places for women to get their prescriptions filled. Yes, people have a right to that access. Yes, people also have a right to their opinions: but healthcare is an industry where you need to leave your judgement behind and help people. Pharmasists DISPENSE MEDICATION FOR A LIVING. That is their job. You can still be a doctor and and not do abortions if you don't wish to. You're job may be more encompassing than one single procedure. As a pharmacist, though, YOU FILL PRESCRIPTIONS. Healthcare is about helping people. Given the laws on the books today, people who don't like them should stay out of Women's Heath. If those laws change, then we can talk.
Yeah, I think it's necessary to be clear here, the Morning After Pill and the abortion pill (RU486) are two different things entirely.
I think Censored is making a good point when you filter out some of the noise. Essentially, technology and science are often a step ahead of both public and private policy, not to mention our own value framework.
I imagine some people that work at pharmacies are ignorant of advances in medical science, and didn't consider they'd be asked to dispense a drug they'd find immoral. Obviously a Christian Scientist wouldn't be there in the first place - but a "life begins at conception" pro-lifer? This happened in Missouri, mind you.
So we're in this tense period of adjustment. Individuals refusing (and being refused) prescriptions, businesses deciding how to act toward their employees and customers, citizen-consumers pressuring businesses and policy-makers. Obviously this post is part of this process -- to influence Target to keep legally available drugs available in practice. The public health benefit of this drug, and real life-altering consequences of its refusal, outweighs the individual moral objections.
Times have changed, and will keep changing. This drug exists and is legal. The job of working at a pharmacy is never going to be frozen in time. Medical science will never stop bumping into moral boundaries. People employed in this field need to be aware of that, probably as a condition of their employment.
However - religious-based medical institutions do offer an accommodating alternative for both practitioners and consumers.
Except in some cases the women have been refused their prescription for "the pill".
Not a new drug, but one that has been dispensed for over 30 years.
So though I agree with the concept that technology can move more quickly then one can adjust... It is part of the pharmaicist's job to keep track of that movement and adapt as needed. In other words the industry should be developing standards and guidelines.
As one who is in the computer industry I've had to adapt from a time when things were pretty open to one where I can be sued for patent infringment and/or liability if my code doesn't work as expected. Both were unheard of 20 years ago. I've kept pace as I don't have the option to refuse to do something (e.g. standardized code of ethics via IEEE and ACM, NDA's with customers, libitily insurance, etc.)
Same for the pharmacists... their professional organizations should be providing guidelines and practices as opposed to what we have now. Individuals able to refuse to serve you and in some cases holding on to the prescription and refusing to foward it on to another pharmacy. (Again for the pill, not some new drug.)
Apples and oranges.
I don't have a right to have a particular car dealership or even any car dealership within my neighborhood, city or even county. No matter how much I need a car.
I may be wildly committed to Apple Computers, but if the big box retailer near me doesn't carry them, I can either open my own store, move to where the products and services I want are located, or deal with it.
I completely disagree with missbhavens' remark, "healthcare is an industry where you need to leave your judgement behind"
How would you feel if I said that about a soldier? Blindly follow orders. Anything you were ordered to do is justified.
I reject the notion that acting without conscience is ever a good idea.
So far as the statement that "phamacists fill perscriptions..." that's a gross oversimplification. I could say "doctors perform medical procedures" and be just a correct, and we've already agreed that not all actions are equal.
Lorinka - in some people's minds (including me) morning after pill = abortion. That's the reality of it.
I think of abortion as terminating a pregnancy before delivery but after conception, where I think of contraception as preventing the pregnancy. The morning after pill sure sounds like post conception to me. (I'm a pro-choice guy, so it doesn't particularly bother me, but it is what it is.)
The core of the issue is still about choice. Do I have the choice to decide what to carry in my store? As an employee can I participate in redefining my job in changing times?
Regardless of how bad you need the car, orange julius, condom or abortion, the answers should be yes.
To clarify my comparisson...
I'm not talking retail. I'm a programmer, so in a service industry like a pharmacist, doctor, lawyer, etc.
If my company wants to develop software for an abortion clinic and tells me to go do the job guess what... I either do the job or find a new company.
And the above is not hypothetical. I used to work for a company that created scheduling and patient tracking software for hospitals. Some of those hospitals performed abortions. Guess what would happen if I had told the company that I can't support client x and y but I can support z? If I talk to my boss before the situation comes up, then most likely no problem. But if I spring it on them (sorry can't take this call, but I will take that one) then I get to find a new job.
I agree, a pharmacist does not just dispense drugs and just like in my industry, the professional bodies need to step in with guidelines and standards. But if you don't like the line of work, you have to talk to the employer first and make sure there are other options. Instead we are seeing situations where the pharmicist is taking their moral high ground out on the customer. Which is not fair to anybody.
And on a side note... the pill (the old style one, not the morning after) essentially prevents implatation of the egg, whether or not it is fertalized. Morning after pill is similar in that it acts (if I recall) alsot to prevent implatiation. So technically not an abortificant like RU486.
I feel the need to adress the morning after pill being referred to as an "abortion pill". This is especially for the people who feel that life begins at conception. Conception itself does not normally occur for at least 48 hours after intercourse. It is easiest to concieve if one has intercourse for 6 days leading up to ovulation, less likely if you only have intercourse in the two days before ovulation, and essentially impossible is you have intercourse the day of or after ovulation. This has to do with the shelf life of sperm, and how long it takes the egg to travel down the fallopian tubes.
If the morning after pill is taken as prescribed, you are actually taking it before conception, and it is deffinately taken before implantation. Even if an egg is fertilized, that doesn't mean it will implant.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but the morning after pill won't work after implantation anyways. Missbhavens, maybe you can corroborate this for me?
Quickie note on morning after pills vs RU486. Morning after pills do indeed prevent implantation, because they basically ARE birth control pills, there are packaged differently for marketing purposes and to clearly distinguish them from regular lower-dose birth control. They are not an abortifacient, they are a large dose of the hormones that are found in birth control pills. That's why they're called "emergency contraception". They prevent ovulation, fertilization and zygote implantation. They won't abort a fetus. Because of the time frames described by hw2k, it is possible, even likely, that you are not yet pregnant by anyone's standards when the pills were taken. We'll never have stats for how many women who take morning after pills were almost pregnant, pregnant, or not even remotely pregnant (this is probably the only example where there IS such a thing as almost pregnant).
The pills come in different combos depending on the brand. If I had my bc pills lying around the house after a condom broke or I was assaulted, taking x-number of them would have the same effect. I certainly don't advocate that, I'm just trying to illustrate how they work.
Censored, are you a pharmacist? I'm just curious. We can simply agress to disagree on...probably everything from healthcare issues to whether brussel sprouts are tasty (I believe that they are nasty), and that's cool. But let's not compare the healthcare industry to the military. Nothing against the noble profession that is Pharmacy, but pharmacists are about the farthest thing from soldiers I can think of. And you don't honestly think that we have young people go into the military so that they can use their judgement, do you? I don't feel it's an oversimplification to say "Pharmacists dispense meds". Of all the professions in healthcare, it's the most straightforward. Pharmasists dispense meds.
I know termination issues make people hot under the collar, it makes me hot under the collar, too. But of all the things to rally against, morning after pills ain't it. Their purpose is to prevent pregnancy and reduce the number of abortions. And super-importantly, reduce the number of self-guided abortions that women will need to turn to if we aren't careful. And it's not just wire hangers, throwing yourself down the stairs and drinking weird teas, these days. Any idea what the street value of 200mg of Cytotec is in New York City? That stuff is dangerous.
edgaralgernon wrote, "If my company wants to develop software for an abortion clinic and tells me to go do the job guess what... I either do the job or find a new company."
Exactly right. See earlier Catholic Doctor posts. But we're discussing two different things. First, the company's right to decide what goods (or services) it offers. Second, the role of the workers in helping define that work when controversial issues are raised.
As a member of management, I can tell you that if a number of my employees came to me with real reservations about a proposed project (or good or service) I'd listen. Especially to knowledge workers who are so difficult to replace.
Let's face it, these guys (pharmacists) aren't like union wrench turners for NWA, this is skilled labor. Attracting and retaining these workers is essential to the business' success. As management I've got to balance the needs of employees and customers in a way that maximizes shareholder return. That may mean steering clear of controversial products or services.
The notion that I should manage my business in a way that meets the approval of anyone else is non-sensical.
hw2k
We can split hairs on when conception occurs but that doesn't address the issue. I don't think there's anyone out there who's going to say, "Oh, it only prevents implantation - I suppose that's OK..."
I think for most people, the distiction is that taking "morning after" pills is an act of comission that results in the termination of a pregnancy (if there was one that would have resulted.) Without the pills, the pregnancy can proceed. That makes taking the pills the equivalent of an abortion. (And providing the pills equivalent to providing other means that would end a pregnancy.) Its really not a question of mechanism.
missbhavens,
Nope, not a phamacist. Again, I'm pro-choice, I favor the availability of both these drugs and RU-486 types. More choices is better. For consumers, companies and their employees.
I do not favor you or anyone else trying to mandate how businesses behave, deciding that they have to carry these products, or that they have to force phamacists to fulfill perscriptions for them.
That is a question that should be handled between the business and the pharmacist. (Within the context of the shareholder which includes the customer experience.)
But individuals can't just make things up as they go along, no matter what their opinions are, and that's EXACTLY what some pharmasists (and nurses, and MDs) are doing. You're in management, so you know this. Refusal rights laws are sketchy in lots of places, if in place at all. I got an email from Target insisting that they "require...pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner" whether by their own hand or, if they cannot for moral reasons, by referal. Who's going to keep an eye on that?
I don't think there's anyone out there who's going to say, "Oh, it only prevents implantation - I suppose that's OK..." I think for most people, the distiction is that taking "morning after" pills is an act of comission that results in the termination of a pregnancy (if there was one that would have resulted.) Without the pills, the pregnancy can proceed. That makes taking the pills the equivalent of an abortion.
I'm not getting into a semantic argument with you about your term "abortion pills" any more. "Most people"? Well, maybe in your circle. Not in mine. Most people I know feel exacly opposite of you. I know dozens of people for whom the implantaion issue changed their entire perspective. It just depends on your circle. And you're missing the big picture here: would you rather have women have freely available morning after pills or wait 22 weeks and have a D& E?
I'm also not going to get into the fact that there's no national crisis involving a shortage of pharmacists.
All this capitalist spewing about shareholders and mandating and such is just not the point for me.
Quote:
"As a member of management, I can tell you that if a number of my employees came to me with real reservations about a proposed project (or good or service) I'd listen. Especially to knowledge workers who are so difficult to replace. "
And there is the crux of this problem... The pharmicists who are refusing to fill prescriptions are..
1) Not telling managment they have an issue, but taking it out on the customer.
2) Not just restricting this to the moring after pill, but in several cases regular contraception as well.
3) In one case (Wisconsin I believe) holding onto the prescription and refusing to give it back to the customer and/or forwarding it on to another pharmacy.
In other words, they are not behaving professionaly as one would expect. Again in any other high end service job the employee would be expected to warn management of any potential issues so it coudl be worked out. But this is not happening, these pharmicists are standing in judgement over the customer. Far beyond a simple ethical stand and direclty affecting the company's profit and respect.
In any other industry they would be fired in a heartbeat...
1) Censored, and all anon commenters, sign your anon posts or they're toast.
2) THANK YOU hw2k and missb for enlightening and educating us on exactly what the "morning after pill" does in medical terms. It's a high-dosage birth control pill. Some people obviously choose to not to be educated. Not much we can do about the ignorant. Oh yeah -- except fire their asses!
3) Sorry, I just can't let this go. If you think birth control pills, and anything that prevents conception, is the same as abortion... then condoms are abortion, bad hair is abortion... hell, being a flag-waving Bush lover = abortion! That's not a moral issue, that's what you call a *logic* issue, son.
Y'know what- this has to be one of the stupidest issues ever.
If a doctor were to give someone a prescription for some drug, then it is, in fact, essential that that person holding that prescription get those medically-ordered drugs.
As it happens, there are all sorts of drugs that a pharmacist might be loath to dispense- from pain killers to anti-depressents to birth control- it all depends on what kind of prejudices they have developed.
Now, if a pharmacist has some kind of a problem giving me something that I am entitled to and necessary to my health, than I see no problem with hopping over the counter and breaking their knees.
Because if this happens more and more, that is going to be the result- sooner or later.
Yea, Andy - you try jumping a pharmacy counter and see what the DEA does to your "knee-cappin" sorry self.
For the serious comments.
Missbhavens - "would you rather have women have freely available morning after pills or wait 22 weeks and have a D& E?"
That's a false dilemma. There are an infinite number of ways to address this. Not two, and reducing it just two inappropriate.
You also signal that "freely available" means available from any pharmacist. I'd submit that birth control is not available from pharmacys at Catholic hospitals as a counter example of how you can respect the rights of the pharmacist and the patient without subverting one's to the other.
edgaralgernon
Your three points.
1. You don't know that.
2. Regular BC is not the issue, BC pills have been available for a long time, and if you accept a job that includes filling this perscription, you need to come to grips with your job requirements before you go to work. To not do it is to no longer meet the requirements of the job as you knew and understood prior to accepting. That's grounds for action up to dismissial.
But if the job changed, not the heart of the pharmacist, but the job. Then its a compelely different circumstance.
3. Taking a perscription and refusing to return or fill it would be a different circustance. Go ahead and fire that guy/gal. No objections.
But if we're talking about a phamacist that returns the perscription and tells the patient that they will not be able to fill that perscription because of their beliefs, and that they will have to go elsewhere...and its done respectfully - that's a horse of a different color.
Chuck,
OHHH! You hate Bush? I didn't know. Thanks for sharing.
Actually you raise a good point. Your contention that stupid people should be fired. Well, its not that easy (thanks in large part to the liberals and collectivists) firing someone typically requires more than a difference of opinion.
Let me put the shoe on the other foot here. Lets say that you are a deeply left wing, god, man and America hating, angry feminist. You take your spiked hair bad self down to the county building each day where you are a clerk (and a shop steward) and you have consistently recieved satisfactory reviews for several years.
One day, the supervisor tells you that the law has changed and now a county clerk will be responsible for taking applications and sending out permits for concealled carry pistol permits. That is now your assignment.
You object, showing them your Brady/gin control inc. calendar as evidence that this violates your deep personal convictions.
Now keep in mind, issuing permits is a law, where filling perscriptions is only a business decision. And there is a huge backlog of civil service qualified people rather than masters degree holding board certified pharmacists.
Can you be fired?
I'll give you hint, the answer is no. You can't be fired for your beliefs and if the job changes to require you to violate your beliefs, then the employer has to show necessity of change and evaluate all alternatives for opportunities to de-conflict, and even then attempt to make a reasonable accomodation (like the other clerks have to do this, but you don't.)
That's how it really works.
Oh, and BTW, the employee is NOT required to bring a potential conflict to management attention until it actually occurs.
Of course, there's no law that says that. Only court decisions. If you delve into it you'll find very little "employment law" was ever passed by a legislature. Interesting side note.
-Censored
Yeah--ummm. Censored, I grow weary of your weird arguments."... then the employer has to... evaluate all alternatives for opportunities to de-conflict, and...attempt to make a reasonable accomodation (like the other clerks have to do this, but you don't..."
This is silly. Dump the work on the other employees? What about them? Why should they pick up the slack? That's why businesses have to create more cut & dry rules about refusal rights. Do you know what gets dumped on me because of the "beliefs" of my fellow staff? (I use quotes there because a lot of them are just plain lazy, and abuse the refusal rules to their advantage, which disgusts me and makes thing difficult for everybody).
I am out of this argument. It's been fun. Signing off.
Bye bye.
i'm done too.
who wants abortion cakes!
Post a Comment
<< Home