Misguided Morality- Pharmacists Overstep Their Bounds

In an earlier post I spent a few moments discussing morality and some of the problems we encounter in a society in which a few try and claim the role of arbiter of just that, morality.

One of the current examples of this is a group that call themselves Pharmacists for Life. They are working on establishing legal grounds for pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions that are in conflict with their own moral or ethical code.

It is another concept that may sound good on paper but really should never become anything more than the pipedream it currently occupies.

There are some professions in which morals should not prohibit your executing your job responsibilities, doctors, pharmacists, fire fighters, paramedics and police all come to mind. They serve the public interest. They are employed to protect and to serve. It is not their job to determine who deserves their services and who does not.

In the case of Pharmacists for Life they are under the misguided impression that they can choose what drugs to dispense and to whom. Media Matters has done a good job of collecting some information that should be of interest here.

"The Issue:

Brauer and Pharmacists for Life are at the forefront of a growing movement aimed at giving pharmacists the right to refuse to fill prescriptions if filling them would be inconsistent with their moral or ethical beliefs. Thus far, the fight has primarily revolved around birth control prescriptions.

On February 10, the Associated Press reported:

Last year, Mississippi lawmakers passed a bill that allows all types of health care workers and facilities to refuse performing virtually any service they object to on moral or religious grounds. Anti-abortion organizations and a group called Pharmacists for Life are urging pharmacists to refuse to distribute emergency contraceptives.

Examples of pharmacists doing exactly that abound; USA Today highlighted two in a November 9, 2004, article:

In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views.

[...]

In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in Denton wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a rape victim. In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she missed a pill because of the delay.

A February 7, 2005, National Law Journal article illustrates that while the bulk of attention has been given to pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills, the potential exists for pharmacists to refuse to dispense a wide range of essential, prescribed medicine if advocates of the so-called "conscience clause" for pharmacists are successful; the article noted that in 2004, "a Dallas pharmacist refused to fill a mother's prescription for her son's Ritalin."

Though "conscience clause" advocates prefer to focus on birth control pills -- and the media reports that cover the controversy do likewise -- their position that pharmacists need not fill prescriptions they disagree with has far-reaching implications. By the same rationale, a pharmacist who believes, as the Rev. Jerry Falwell once claimed, that AIDS is "God's punishment for homosexuals" could refuse to fill a prescription for an AIDS patient. Pharmacists could refuse to fill prescriptions for heart medicine for the elderly, antidepressants for a suicidal patient -- anything.

According to The Washington Post, "The American Pharmacists Association [APA] recently reaffirmed its policy that pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions as long as they make sure customers can get their medications some other way." APA vice president for policy and communications Susan Winckler explained:

What we suggest is that they identify those situations ahead of time and have an alternative system set up so the patient has access to their therapy. ... The key is that it should be seamless and avoids a conflict between the pharmacist's right to step away and the patient's right to obtain their medication."

I disagree with the idea of allowing pharmacists the option of refusing service. This is a profession that should service people as if the pharmacist was blind, that is they should act as if they cannot see the race/color/religion/gender and just provide the drugs that their physician prescribed for them. It is not their place to try and determine who deserves what.

The Media Matters article that I pulled this information is much more extensive than the sections I cited so I urge you to read it. But because I feel this is exceptionally important I want to pull a couple more pieces from it.

"On CNN, Brauer said that, though she refused to fill a prescription for birth control pills, she "offered to transfer her prescription to the pharmacy of her choice, because the prescription is her property in the state of Ohio."

But Brauer and Pharmacists for Life have both publicly denounced such transfers. The Washington Post reported on March 27:

Brauer, of Pharmacists for Life, defends the right of pharmacists not only to decline to fill prescriptions themselves but also to refuse to refer customers elsewhere or transfer prescriptions.

"That's like saying, 'I don't kill people myself but let me tell you about the guy down the street who does.' What's that saying? 'I will not off your husband, but I know a buddy who will?' It's the same thing," said Brauer, who now works at a hospital pharmacy.

Likewise, the Associated Press reported on September 16, 2004, that Brauer "does not believe there should be any obligation to refer rebuffed customers to another pharmacist who would fill their prescription. 'Forced referral is stupid,' she said. 'If we're not going to kill a human being, we're not going to help the customer go do it somewhere else.' "

Brauer further explained her opposition to referrals in Drug Topics:

"There is no moral or ethical obligation to tell a person where to get a drug that is detrimental," Brauer said. "Any patients who can transport themselves to a pharmacy can obtain the product they desire without need of a direct referral. Patients have proven themselves to be quite resourceful in obtaining pharmaceuticals. The referral rhetoric has been a tool to obtain involvement by the unwilling in dispensing drugs that stop human life or are detrimental. Obtaining the involvement of the unwilling has been used as a tool to legitimize the procedures and drugs that are in controversy."

Brauer's organization, Pharmacists for Life, goes even further, explicitly denouncing pharmacists who -- as Brauer claims to have done -- refer patients to other pharmacists who will fill the prescription:

A pharmacist by virtue of properly understood conscience cannot be licitly compelled to cooperate in such a fashion with what he knows will result in a chemical abortion and, hence, a dead baby. Such activity is called material cooperation. Further, it is not an inconvenience to refuse to refer such a client since the pharmacist is doing the woman and her preborn child a favor in terms of physical and spiritual health."

The US is at another crossroads in which we are at war externally and internally. Some may call that description the height of drama, but I would strongly disagree. The most recent presidential election and the events of the last few years are all indicative of a society that in my opinion is reacting instead of acting on the events around them.

Here is what I would like to see happen. The push to bring values into our homes is valid and should be encouraged, but the methods and energy can be rechanneled. That means that I think that it is the obligations of parents to instill values within our children with little to no government intervention.

We need to return to a place in which divergent points of view are acceptable and not labeled in pejorative terms. It is ok to hold different points of view and it should be encouraged. The current rhetoric seems to consist of attacking a person's patriotism or suggesting that they are an unthinking dittohead who is incapable of rational thought.

There is a middle ground and it allows for you to maintain strong positions on various topics, it just doesn't allow for you to live on the far left or the far right. There is a reason why most successful politicians end up here. Think about it.