Troubled Pharmacy Student

[AkronPonderer]

How is taking part in a financial transaction involving female hormones different than taking part in transactions involving guns that sometimes kill people, booze that sometimes leads to dangerous driving, or perhaps other items/chemicals that MAY BE used as “folk” contraceptives?

If certain combinations of female hormones were called something like “estrogen/progesterone tablets”, rather than “birth control pills”, would taking part in financial transactions involving them also be wrong?

Is teaching dancing wrong because it MAY cause someone else to sin against chastity?

It seems to me full culpability resides with the consumer.

 

[drafdog]

As an employee of a dispensary it is the obligation of the technician to fill prescriptions for legally manufactured and prescribed medications. You are taking their money and the owner/manager of the dispensary is within his rights to demand that you fulfill the conditions of your employment.
As you do not know the reason for the prescription, you are not in a position to make a moral judgement on its use. For example contraceptive pills supress ovulation by altering the hormonal balance of the body. This also supresses the sexual urge in the female. It acts as an aid to help women refrain from having sex when they shouldn’t.
Pharmacists are indeed for the most part simple dispensers of manufactured medications and medical devices provided by pharmaceutical companies. No longer does the pharmacist compound his own medicines and roll his own pills. You may think that it should be otherwise but it won’t ever be like that again in all probability. Few pharmicists want to go to the expense of getting approval to sell their own products.

Matthew

 

[Petergee]

How is taking part in a financial transaction involving female hormones different than taking part in transactions involving guns that sometimes kill people, booze that sometimes leads to dangerous driving, or perhaps other items/chemicals that MAY BE used as “folk” contraceptives?

That’s exactly the reason why we have laws restricting supply of guns, booze, herbal and other “alternative” and “folk” remedies, and even chemicals like fertilizers that might be used to make a bomb, and why responsible suppliers exert further judgment whether to supply, beyond just obeying the letter of the law. Even more so when we are talking about a pharmacist, as making these types of decisions is the very basis and heart of the pharmacy profession.

If certain combinations of female hormones were called something like “estrogen/progesterone tablets”, rather than “birth control pills”, would taking part in financial transactions involving them also be wrong?

A “financial transaction” would be eg withdrawing money out of a bank. Supplying a preparation is not “a financial transaction”, even though money may change hands.

Is teaching dancing wrong because it MAY cause someone else to sin against chastity?

It seems to me full culpability resides with the consumer.

Maybe we should just let people put Valium, cyanide, thalidomide, heroin, methamphetamine, enriched weapons-grade uranium, etc etc. in vending machines on every corner eh? All these things COULD be used for innocent purposes, so why blame the supplier for what the end-user does with them?

 

[Petergee]

As an employee of a dispensary it is the obligation of the technician to fill prescriptions for legally manufactured and prescribed medications. You are taking their money and the owner/manager of the dispensary is within his rights to demand that you fulfill the conditions of your employment.

No “conditions of employment” agreement can sign away your moral and legal obligations. Such an agreement cannot force you to do anything immoral or illegal. Any sections which purport to do so are null.

As you do not know the reason for the prescription, you are not in a position to make a moral judgement on its use. For example contraceptive pills supress ovulation by altering the hormonal balance of the body. This also supresses the sexual urge in the female. It acts as an aid to help women refrain from having sex when they shouldn’t.

Any pharmacist who dispensed the contraceptive Pill for this purpose is professionally negligent to say the least. The Pill’s many side-effects may sometimes include decreasing sexual urges, and just as frequently INCREASING them.

Pharmacists are indeed for the most part simple dispensers of manufactured medications and medical devices provided by pharmaceutical companies.

Your comments may apply to unqualified dispensary technicians but they do NOT apply to pharmacists. A pharmacist, regardless of whether he is a shop-owner or an employee, is personally and professionally responsible for everything he supplies, and if he doesn’t know what it is intended to be used for it is his professional duty to find out and to act accordingly.

No longer does the pharmacist compound his own medicines and roll his own pills. You may think that it should be otherwise but it won’t ever be like that again in all probability. Few pharmicists want to go to the expense of getting approval to sell their own products.

Matthew

Irrelevant. Regardless of whether supplying home-made or pre-manufactured preparations, a pharmacist’s primary duty is to ensure that the preparations are supplied and used correctly for a legitimate therapeutic purpose.

 

[jman507]

I think it might do well to point out that unlike other medications, or guns, or booze, the problem with Plan B is that all use is abuse. Granted there is still play in as if rape happens if it’s ok to use, favoring the side of it’s ok. Correct me, if I misstate anything. If a thing is objectively wrong, then under no circumstances it is right.

If you disagree with the pharmacist stance against wanting to sell Plan B, you have your opinion. It could be valid and sound or it might not be. That’s the case with any opinion you hold or object.

The one thing I would advocate is to at least try to understand the arguements. If anything, the worst possible case would be to leave ethics at the door of the medical profession. If medical professionals have a line on what they think is right, even if you disagree, it is far better than anything goes. I’d rather see professionals hone their ethical principles than to go down any path blindly.

 

[Catholig]

The simple truth is that this pharmacy student shouldn’t compromise his values and shouldn’t be forced to abandon his career.

Btw - maybe the catholic pharmacists out there could found their own pharmacies eventually…

Catholig

 

[Kaninchen]

I suppose the only real problem arises where there’s only one pharmacy around – for those of us living in more populated areas, all that would be required would be signs saying something like “Catholic pharmacy” (or whatever) so we’d know to shop somewhere else.

 

[Catholig]

I suppose the only real problem arises where there’s only one pharmacy around – for those of us living in more populated areas, all that would be required would be signs saying something like “Catholic pharmacy” (or whatever) so we’d know to shop somewhere else.

I think it’s ludicrous that any pharmacy should be “forced” into selling birth control or ECs (like wal-mart’s were). Maybe they should just use the word “pharmacy” and then if anyone comes in asking for Birth Control they could say that they don’t carry it.

Catholig

 

[Kaninchen]

I think it’s ludicrous that any pharmacy should be “forced” into selling birth control or ECs (like wal-mart’s were). Maybe they should just use the word “pharmacy” and then if anyone comes in asking for Birth Control they could say that they don’t carry it.

Catholig

So that it can be implied to the customer that the pharmacist thinks they’re being very, very naughty?

No, it should be made quite clear beforehand.

 

[Petergee]

I think it might do well to point out that unlike other medications, or guns, or booze, the problem with Plan B is that all use is abuse. Granted there is still play in as if rape happens if it’s ok to use, favoring the side of it’s ok. Correct me, if I misstate anything. If a thing is objectively wrong, then under no circumstances it is right.

I’m afraid you did mis-state something there. Rape does not make abortion OK. Children should not be punished for the crimes of their fathers.

If you disagree with the pharmacist stance against wanting to sell Plan B, you have your opinion. It could be valid and sound or it might not be. That’s the case with any opinion you hold or object.

The one thing I would advocate is to at least try to understand the arguements. If anything, the worst possible case would be to leave ethics at the door of the medical profession. If medical professionals have a line on what they think is right, even if you disagree, it is far better than anything goes. I’d rather see professionals hone their ethical principles than to go down any path blindly.

Yes, pro-life pharmacists will tell you that even people who come in and ask for contraceptives nearly always respond, when told the pharmacy doesn’t supply them and why, “I don’t agree with your principles but it’s good to meet a pharmacist who’s actually got some (and I’ll buy all my non-contraceptive supplies here in future).”

 

[Catholig]

So that it can be implied to the customer that the pharmacist thinks they’re being very, very naughty?

No, it should be made quite clear beforehand.

The customer might be embarrassed or upset, but I doubt that. And really it doesn’t matter. I don’t think this should be a reason why a pharmacy should be forced to qualify its name with its religion when 90 some odd percent of the drugs a regular pharmacy can distribute would be distributed there.

In fact that is the issue that a lot of people seem to miss - even if this pharmacist or any other pharmacist refuses to sell condoms, ECs, birth control pills, birth control patches, et cetera he’d still be able to fill the vast majority of the prescriptions without a problem.

Catholig

 

[Kaninchen]

The customer might be embarrassed or upset, but I doubt that. And really it doesn’t matter.

Only market research and experience will tell, of course. I wouldn’t be embarrassed, it’s more a case of “save me the moralizing”. Then again, I don’t live in the US so the question is purely academic, but my experience of having done so would suggest that I’d be far from alone.

I don’t think this should be a reason why a pharmacy should be forced to qualify its name with its religion when 90 some odd percent of the drugs a regular pharmacy can distribute would be distributed there.

It’s really a question of customer reaction to the general ‘morality prescribed here’ theme.

 

[Petergee]

I suppose the only real problem arises where there’s only one pharmacy around

Only if you think that lack of access to contraceptives and abortifacients is somehow “a problem”. In practice even if there’s only one pharmacy around there’s plenty of alternative sources like doctors, mail-order pharmacies, etc.

– for those of us living in more populated areas, all that would be required would be signs saying something like “Catholic pharmacy” (or whatever) so we’d know to shop somewhere else.

No. There is and should be no such thing as a “Catholic pharmacy”. For one thing it implies non-Catholics aren’t welcome. For another it implies that the morality of contraception and abortion is purely a Catholic religious issue, rather than a universal moral issue based on the natural moral law implanted in the soul and mind of every human being.

And to have any “warning sign” at all would prevent many opportunities for pharmacists to counter the woeful public ignorance on these subjects. eg most women using the contraceptive pill have no idea that it often “works” by causing abortion; many people don’t even realise that contraception involves consideration of any moral issues at all.

 

[Kaninchen]

Of course, it would soon get around the local market that one should avoid a particular place so it would only be the first few customers who would be disconcerted.

 

[Petergee]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by Catholig
I think it’s ludicrous that any pharmacy should be “forced” into selling birth control or ECs (like wal-mart’s were). Maybe they should just use the word “pharmacy” and then if anyone comes in asking for Birth Control they could say that they don’t carry it.

Catholig **
So that it can be implied to the customer that the pharmacist thinks they’re being very, very naughty?

Well duh, that’s the whole point, it’s immoral. And it’s bad for people’s health, that’s what pharmacy should be about, protecting health. What’s the alternative? – to buy into, and recirculate in the public’s mind, the typical bigoted line that “opposition to contraceptives has no moral basis, it’s just some crazy idea the Catholic Church came up with because they hate women and they’re hopelessly out of touch with reality, and this pharmacist is just a typical dumb Catholic who can’t manage to think for himself but just robotically follows the Pope’s orders without having any idea why he should, except that it was drilled into him as a child by sadistic nuns and monks”?

 

[Kaninchen]

Well duh, that’s the whole point, it’s immoral. And it’s bad for people’s health, that’s what pharmacy should be about, protecting health. What’s the alternative? – to buy into, and recirculate in the public’s mind, the typical bigoted line that “opposition to contraceptives has no moral basis, it’s just some crazy idea the Catholic Church came up with because they hate women and they’re hopelessly out of touch with reality, and this pharmacist is just a typical dumb Catholic who can’t manage to think for himself but just robotically follows the Pope’s orders without having any idea why he should, except that it was drilled into him as a child by sadistic nuns and monks”?

Actually, it’s a market problem - it’s a matter of how enthusiastic about/indifferent to catholic morality the local population is.

One can be indifferent to catholic morality without thinking catholics crazy robots.

 

[Petergee]

Only market research and experience will tell, of course. I wouldn’t be embarrassed, it’s more a case of “save me the moralizing”. Then again, I don’t live in the US so the question is purely academic, but my experience of having done so would suggest that I’d be far from alone.

It’s really a question of customer reaction to the general ‘morality prescribed here’ theme.

There’s no question of “moralizing”. You just tell people you don’t stock/supply the product requested. Then **if **they ask you why, you briefly tell them. **If **they indicate that they want to continue discussing the topic, you tell them more about your reasons. But in no case does it involve telling them “you’re immoral”.

 

[Kaninchen]

There’s no question of “moralizing”. You just tell people you don’t stock/supply the product requested. Then **if **they ask you why, you briefly tell them. **If **they indicate that they want to continue discussing the topic, you tell them more about your reasons. But in no case does it involve telling them “you’re immoral”.

Works for a ‘catholic pharmacy’ but not for a general pharmacy where certain employees refuse to take certain prescriptions/sell particular goods.

 

[Petergee]

Works for a ‘catholic pharmacy’ but not for a general pharmacy where certain employees refuse to take certain prescriptions/sell particular goods.

Sure it does. Just instead of “sorry we don’t stock that”, it’s “sorry I don’t supply that.”

 

[Petergee]

Footprints04, in case you weren’t aware of it, here’s the address of the Pharmacists for Life site which you should find helpful:
pfli.org/

Note this item: most of the people support your rights:

Jul. 19, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Most American adults would favor a “conscience clause” allowing pharmacists to avoid dispensing drugs if the use of those drugs violates their religious or ethical beliefs.

A survey by Baraga Interactive found that 65% of respondents supported the right of a pharmacist to decline a prescription order for moral reasons. The survey of 1,249 adults confirmed a Medscape study in 2005 in which a similar proporation of US respondents-- 69% --supported pharmacists’ rights of conscience.