Troubled Pharmacy Student

[Kaninchen]

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

Back to the pharmacist implying that the customer is being very, very naughty.

It would be really up to the proprietor to decide, of course, whether to employ pharmacists of that kind.

 

[elizabeth_petra]

The customer does NOT have an absolute right to get whatever he asks for or whatever the doctor prescribes. To assert this is to completely demolish the profession of pharmacy and reduce pharmacists to mere vending machines. ALL pharmacists are (or should be) making moral decisions dozens of times every day about whether to supply things which have been requested/prescribed. In some cases (eg dispensing prescriptions for narcotics to someone whom they know is a drug addict/dealer) it is against the civil law to supply and pharmacists can be de-registered for NOT refusing supply. Also a pharmacy student is more than just a checkout operator. A qualified pharmacist is legally and morally responsible for his/her own professional decisions and the law does NOT excuse a pharmacist from breaking the law simply because he/she was acting under instructions from his/her boss.

To the OP, welcome to the pharmacy profession! We NEED lots of young pharmacists like you who think about the morality of their actions. Please don’t abandon our noble profession to be populated only by the merchants of the Culture of Death!

My advice is that you should summon up your courage and go to your boss and tell him you are morally unable to supply contraceptives and most definitely not abortifacients like “Plan B”. No doubt you know that the once-daily oral “contraceptive” pills also frequently (and unpredictably) “work” through aborting a very young child.

If your boss says that he won’t make arrangements so that you don’t have to supply them (and yes just handing over what someone else has prepared also involves you supplying them) and tells you to either supply them or get fired, and if you need the job and are unable to get another one, I guess you would have to supply them, and just try to minimise your involvement with them as much as possible without directly disobeying your boss.

Good luck! I’ll be praying for you, that one day you’ll own your own pharmacy where you can decide not to stock this stuff.

Well answered!

 

[LeahInancsi]

You say you’re a pharmacy “student”? I suggest you change your major.

From my experience as the daughter of a pharmacist, there will always be some conflict of one sort or another if you insist on being responsible for the actions of others.

 

[LeahInancsi]

Back to the pharmacist implying that the customer is being very, very naughty.

It would be really up to the proprietor to decide, of course, whether to employ pharmacists of that kind.

I agree. If the pharmacist is not willing to perform all duties of the job as defined by the employer, then the employer should not employ that pharmacist.

 

[Catholig]

You say you’re a pharmacy “student”? I suggest you change your major.

From my experience as the daughter of a pharmacist, there will always be some conflict of one sort or another if you insist on being responsible for the actions of others.

Again…this is the wrong suggestion.

Catholig

 

[rpp]

You say you’re a pharmacy “student”? I suggest you change your major.

From my experience as the daughter of a pharmacist, there will always be some conflict of one sort or another if you insist on being responsible for the actions of others.

I do not believe the OP was claiming that he was responsible for the actions of others. But we can sin by cooperating in sin.

I believe your advice is neither correct nor consistant with Catholic Moral teachings. Pharmacology is a noble profession, like medicine itself. And pharmacists save lives too. Like a doctor who can refuse to perform abortions, surgical sterilization, or prescribe birth-control, a pharmacist should have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions or sell product whose only purpose is immoral. That would include the “Plan B” pill and contraceptives.

Customers do not have the right to force their religious beliefs on store owners just like store owners do not have the right to force their beliefs on customers. If you do not like someone’s belief, vote with your wallet, go elsewhere.

 

[drafdog]

If the original poster is having difficulties at this stage of his/her education in pharmacology, poster would do well to change majors and go into another field entirely. The only way to conclusively refrain from dispensing medications whose uses may be sinful is to be the owner/operator of the pharmacy. In that way absolute control over stock is controlled. No medication that the owner finds problematic would then be stocked and the customer who wants it is simply met with the “out of stock” response. However, it is highly unlikely that a pharmacology graduate will have sufficient capital to purchase or establish his/her own dispensary.
Many of the problems and responses in this thread are not real in the first place. One response was that the pharmacist should find out why a particular medication is prescribed. No physician is going to supply information which is protected by doctor/patient confidentiality. You’re not going to get it, and a doctor asked for such privileged information might well refuse to talk to anyone from that pharmacy. The morality of drug use is generally covered under the Wisdom of Sirach which enjoins us to go the the physician and take the medication prescribed. The physician’s wisdom is from God, according to the scripture.
Thomistic philosophy of man concludes that no one knows the mind of another, so it is impossible for anyone to know that the purpose of another is to commit sin. Any refusal to dispense a medication based on the idea that by doing so is to condone, encourage, contribute to the sin of another is simply nonsensical within the framework of Thomistic philosophy.

Matthew

 

[LeahInancsi]

Thank you, Matthew.

Regardless of how we, as Catholics, may view birth control, abortion, etc., we still have to function in a larger, more corrupt society. A pharmacist is a Professional, not an activist. If they cannot do their job as required by their employer they should change professions or find another field within pharmacy (which are somewhat limited).

When my mother and the man she worked with, both devout Catholics, went to college and were well into their professional carrers, they did not have to deal with these issues. When birth control pills came on the market, they dispensed them because it was their job as professionals. Anything else would have been insubordination and career ending. Their priests know what their jobs required and never questioned their state of sin. In fact, the very well respected pastor of our parish gave my mother’s business partner’s eulogy.

 

[Petergee]

Back to the pharmacist implying that the customer is being very, very naughty.

You imply that it’s a bad thing for a customer to be tacitly prompted to consider (perhaps for the first time) the moral questions involved in contraception and abortifacients (commonly promoted as “contraceptives”). I say it’s a good thing and there should be more of it. Thinking about our proposed actions never did anyone any harm.

It would be really up to the proprietor to decide, of course, whether to employ pharmacists of that kind.

Up to a point, beyond which it becomes unjust discrimination.

 

[Petergee]

You say you’re a pharmacy “student”? I suggest you change your major.

From my experience as the daughter of a pharmacist, there will always be some conflict of one sort or another if you insist on being responsible for the actions of others.

That question does not arise here. It is only about the pharmacist being responsible for his OWN actions in supplying preparations which he knows or strongly suspects will be used to perform immoral actions, including frequently murder. Would you sell a man a gun when you knew he intended to kill someone with it, claiming that you’re not responsible for his actions?

Even the Hippocratic Oath traditionally taken by doctors on graduation states “I will do all necessary to uphold life, and in particular I will not give a woman a preparation to induce abortion.”

Every occupation involves some circumstances where to act in a moral way will produce some sort of conflict with others. That’s life. Deal with it.

 

[Petergee]

If the original poster is having difficulties at this stage of his/her education in pharmacology, poster would do well to change majors and go into another field entirely. The only way to conclusively refrain from dispensing medications whose uses may be sinful is to be the owner/operator of the pharmacy.

No, thank God there are quite a few proprietors who are willing to refrain from forcing employee pharmacists to supply contraceptives/abortifacients even though the proprietor himself has no problem with stocking and supplying them.
Btw the name of the profession and academic discipline is “Pharmacy”. “Pharmacology” is merely the science of the actions of drugs in the body. To become a pharmacist one usually has to major in all three of pharmacology, pharmaceutics (the preparation, presentation and delivery of mediccines to the appropriate site in the body) and medicinal chemistry (the structure of drugs).

In that way absolute control over stock is controlled. No medication that the owner finds problematic would then be stocked and the customer who wants it is simply met with the “out of stock” response.

You’re assuming that the only possible response is to lie that “I’m out of stock”, rather than to tell the truth that one deliberately has not ordered stock and has no intention of doing so. Besides some pro-life pharmacists keep small quantities of stocks of contraceptives to supply for the rare occasions where they are required for legitimate therapeutic use.

Many of the problems and responses in this thread are not real in the first place. One response was that the pharmacist should find out why a particular medication is prescribed. No physician is going to supply information which is protected by doctor/patient confidentiality. You’re not going to get it, and a doctor asked for such privileged information might well refuse to talk to anyone from that pharmacy.

Sorry that’s rubbish. It’s impossible for a pharmacist to do his job properly unless he knows for what purpose the drug has been prescribed. It is unprofessional at least and probably malpractice for a doctor to refused to tell the pharmacist this, and it should immediately ring alarm bells to the pharmacist to suggest that the drug is NOT being prescribed for a legitimate purpose.

The morality of drug use is generally covered under the Wisdom of Sirach which enjoins us to go the the physician and take the medication prescribed. The physician’s wisdom is from God, according to the scripture.

A “physician” in those days was the equivalent of both a modern doctor and a modern pharmacist.

Thomistic philosophy of man concludes that no one knows the mind of another, so it is impossible for anyone to know that the purpose of another is to commit sin.

Except when the other plainly tells you that that is his purpose.

Any refusal to dispense a medication based on the idea that by doing so is to condone, encourage, contribute to the sin of another is simply nonsensical within the framework of Thomistic philosophy.

Matthew

I’m pretty sure St Thomas would have told pharmacists not to supply contraceptives and abortifacients, and that it’s your twisting of his statement that is “nonsensical”.
He was pointing out that we cannot look into another’s soul and mind and know how much ignorance/knowledge, grace etc. the person has which might reduce(not completely blot out) the subjective sinfulness of the person who is performing an objectively sinful act. This does NOT give us open slather to encourage and assist others to perform an objectively sinful act based on the idea that “I don’t know for certain whether it is subjectively grievously sinful for that person right now”.

 

[Petergee]

Thank you, Matthew.

Regardless of how we, as Catholics, may view birth control, abortion, etc., we still have to function in a larger, more corrupt society. A pharmacist is a Professional, not an activist. If they cannot do their job as required by their employer they should change professions or find another field within pharmacy (which are somewhat limited).

No, I’m sorry, pharmacists were doing their jobs as professionals for centuries before people started trying to force them to supply contraceptives and abortifacients. The very essence of being a professional is making moral decisions.
I would say at least one-quarter of all Australian pharmacists did not stock or supply contraceptives until the great homosexual-lobby-inspired and government-financed and -fanned AIDS hysteria of the 1980s when it fell to maybe 10% of pharmacists. As for abortifacients, their supply and import was strictly prohibited by law when most current pharmacists enetered the profession and no-one asked pharmacists if they wanted to change this, and we never in our wildest dreams thought the day would come when they would not only be legal, but that some people would be trying to make it illegal NOT to supply them. In fact abortifacients are still technically illegal and the only way abortifacients have gotten onto the market here is that at the urging of the manufacturers the government falsely defined them as “contraceptives”.

When my mother and the man she worked with, both devout Catholics, went to college and were well into their professional carrers, they did not have to deal with these issues. When birth control pills came on the market, they dispensed them because it was their job as professionals.

That’s not being a “professional”, it’s being a vending machine. What about the proprietor/government telling you that you have to supply a Kevorkian/Nitzschke-style “exit kit” (euthanasia kit). Will you object then? It will be too late. It will be a matter of when, not if, this is coming, if pharmacists let proprietors and the government ride roughshod over their professional ethics re contraceptives/abortifacients.

Anything else would have been insubordination and career ending. Their priests know what their jobs required and never questioned their state of sin. In fact, the very well respected pastor of our parish gave my mother’s business partner’s eulogy.

I’m sorry to hear that. If more of our priests had the courage to step up to the plate and fearlessly speak the truth, the situation might not have gotten this bad, and the laity wouldn’t be so confused and uncertain. Unfortunately most priests seem to be overly terrified to say anything to a parishioner about any sinful aspect of their lifestyle, presumably out of an exaggerated fear that it might make the parishioner quit going to church. And contraception seems to be the biggest bugaboo of all - I think I’ve only once in 40 years heard a priest mention contraception in a homily or even in casual conversation.

 

[mesquite_magic]

I do not believe the OP was claiming that he was responsible for the actions of others. But we can sin by cooperating in sin.

I believe your advice is neither correct nor consistant with Catholic Moral teachings. Pharmacology is a noble profession, like medicine itself. And pharmacists save lives too. Like a doctor who can refuse to perform abortions, surgical sterilization, or prescribe birth-control, a pharmacist should have the right to refuse to fill prescriptions or sell product whose only purpose is immoral. That would include the “Plan B” pill and contraceptives.

Customers do not have the right to force their religious beliefs on store owners just like store owners do not have the right to force their beliefs on customers. If you do not like someone’s belief, vote with your wallet, go elsewhere.

It’s not the same. A doctor who doesn’t preform abortions or steralizations has their own business where they can pretty much choose their own patients.

Unless this student plans to open their own pharmacy, they are at the mercy of the pharmacy owner.

As a customer, I’d be pretty PO’d at standing in line, only to be told by the only pharmacist working that they wouldn’t fill my perscription. You can bet I’d be speaking to his employeer, and possibably getting him fired.

If you find the job morally objectionable, then you should probably find another profession, or start your own pharmacy. The pharmacist’s job is to put medicine in a bottle, lable it, counsel the paitent on adverse affects, and hand him the bottle. If the customer wanted a lesson in morality, he’s go to church.

Kim

 

[Petergee]

It’s not the same. A doctor who doesn’t preform abortions or steralizations has their own business where they can pretty much choose their own patients.

Yes it is the same. And most doctors DON’T own their own business.

Unless this student plans to open their own pharmacy, they are at the mercy of the pharmacy owner.

I’m pretty sure that even in the USA, the proprietor of a business is not an all-powerful dictator, there are numerous laws severely restricting what he can make his employees do.

As a customer, I’d be pretty PO’d at standing in line, only to be told by the only pharmacist working that they wouldn’t fill my perscription.

Just like the customers we pharmacoists have to deal with all the time who get PO’s because they can’t get what they want immediately because it’s out of stock, or the doctor hasn’t written the prescription correctly, etc.

You can bet I’d be speaking to his employeer, and possibably getting him fired.

Nice. How’d you like someone to “get you fired” because you didn’t give them exactly what they wanted when they wanted it?

If you find the job morally objectionable, then you should probably find another profession, or start your own pharmacy.

The job is not morally objectionable. The profession of pharmacy is a noble one. The problem is that some people are trying to force pharmacists to ditch their professional ethics and do morally objectionable things.

The pharmacist’s job is to put medicine in a bottle, lable it, counsel the paitent on adverse affects, and hand him the bottle.

Boy, you know nothing about a pharmacist’s job.
For one thing, in my jurisdiction it is an offence for a pharmacist to supply a prescription medicine “for a purpose which is not in accordance with therapeutic standards”. This is a statutory offence, that is, “I didn’t know” is no excuse. So in effect the pharmacist is compelled by law to find out what the purpose is: by asking the doctor what purpose he prescribed it for, if he cannot find out any other way.
It’s nonsense to suggest the purpose of use does not concern the pharmacist. That’s a major part of what his profession is all about.

If the customer wanted a lesson in morality, he’s go to church.

Kim

Little lessons in morality come at us every day from all around whether we like it or not. Many people choose to ignore most of them, and many customers will ignore the chance to think about the morality of their proposed contraception/abortion. Nothing the pharmacist does threatens their freedom to ignore it.

 

[mesquite_magic]

Yes it is the same. And most doctors DON’T own their own business.
Ok, I used the wrong language. Many doctors are in Private Practice and therefore can pick and choose their own patients.

I’m pretty sure that even in the USA, the proprietor of a business is not an all-powerful dictator, there are numerous laws severely restricting what he can make his employees do.

The pharmacist’s job is to give a customer the medicine their doctor perscribed. If they don’t want to do their job, the employeer has a right to fire them. As a business owner, yes, he is an all powerful dictator.

Just like the customers we pharmacoists have to deal with all the time who get PO’s because they can’t get what they want immediately because it’s out of stock, or the doctor hasn’t written the prescription correctly, etc. Nice. How’d you like someone to “get you fired” because you didn’t give them exactly what they wanted when they wanted it?

If I were refusing to do my job I would expect to be fired. Not having something in stock or doctor errors are completely different from pushing your moral agenda.

The job is not morally objectionable. The profession of pharmacy is a noble one. The problem is that some people are trying to force pharmacists to ditch their professional ethics and do morally objectionable things. Boy, you know less than nothing about a pharmacist’s job.

Unless you are a compounding pharmacist, I have the job pretty much nailed. As a non-compounding pharmacist, when was the last time you put that chemistry degree to use? Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
I don’t disagree that pharmacology is a noble profession. I never said it wasn’t. However, it’s a job, like any other no more noble and no less than any other job. Professional ethics and moral agendas are two different things. No one is asking you to ditch your professional ethics.We’re asking you to BE a professional and keep your moral agenda to yourself.

Little lessons in morality come at us every day from all around whether we like it or not. Many people choose to ignore most of them, and many customers will ignore the chance to think about the morality of their proposed contraception/abortion. Nothing the pharmacist does threatens their freedom to ignore it.

As a professional, his job is to tell me the uses and adverse affects of the medicine I’m taking, NOT give me a sermon

 

[Kaninchen]

You imply that it’s a bad thing for a customer to be tacitly prompted to consider (perhaps for the first time) the moral questions involved in contraception and abortifacients (commonly promoted as “contraceptives”). I say it’s a good thing and there should be more of it. Thinking about our proposed actions never did anyone any harm.

I wonder how Catholic shoppers would react to people at the check-out who decided that they were not going to deal with items that were not Kosher (or Halal) - many would find it curious, even a little exotic. It wouldn’t take many visits to the store before it got really ‘tired’ as a process and decisions were made to shop elsewhere.

Up to a point, beyond which it becomes unjust discrimination.

Or just discrimination, of course.

 

[Petergee]

Yes it is the same. And most doctors DON’T own their own business.
Ok, I used the wrong language. Many doctors are in Private Practice and therefore can pick and choose their own patients.
**Most doctors here work in multi-doctor practices where they DON’T choose their patients; either the patient chooses the doctor or the doctor is told to take the next patient in the line. **

I’m pretty sure that even in the USA, the proprietor of a business is not an all-powerful dictator, there are numerous laws severely restricting what he can make his employees do.

The pharmacist’s job is to give a customer the medicine their doctor perscribed. If they don’t want to do their job, the employeer has a right to fire them. As a business owner, yes, he is an all powerful dictator.
**As I said it’s obvious you don’t have much idea what a pharmacist’s job is. A pharmacist is not a doctor’s delivery-boy. **
Nice. How’d you like someone to “get you fired” because you didn’t give them exactly what they wanted when they wanted it?

If I were refusing to do my job I would expect to be fired. Not having something in stock or doctor errors are completely different from pushing your moral agenda.
**And you think supplying this stuff is somehow NOT pushing a moral agenda? ALL the choices we make in life have consequences. **

The job is not morally objectionable. The profession of pharmacy is a noble one. The problem is that some people are trying to force pharmacists to ditch their professional ethics and do morally objectionable things. Boy, you know less than nothing about a pharmacist’s job.
Unless you are a compounding pharmacist, I have the job pretty much nailed. As a non-compounding pharmacist, when was the last time you put that chemistry degree to use? Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Hey, I’m doing my best but you’re spitting out so many errors about pharmacy that it’s hard keeping up with correcting them all. Firstly as I said before whether a medicine is extemporaneously compounded or ready-made, is completely irrelevant to the subject. Secondly compounding is a branch of pharmaceutics, not of chemistry. Thirdly as I said the main part of a pharmacist’s job is ensuring that drugs and medicines are used correctly for legitimate therapeutic purposes. And contraceptives and abortifacients are no exception.

I don’t disagree that pharmacology is a noble profession.

It’s a noble field of study I’m sure, but it’s not a profession. I already explained the difference between pharmacy and pharmacology but you don’t seem to be taking anything in.

I never said it wasn’t. However, it’s a job, like any other no more noble and no less than any other job. Professional ethics and moral agendas are two different things. No one is asking you to ditch your professional ethics.We’re asking you to BE a professional and keep your moral agenda to yourself.

Impossible. Professionalism is simply another name for morality as applied to the work of professionals.

Little lessons in morality come at us every day from all around whether we like it or not. Many people choose to ignore most of them, and many customers will ignore the chance to think about the morality of their proposed contraception/abortion. Nothing the pharmacist does threatens their freedom to ignore it.

As a professional, his job is to tell me the uses and adverse affects of the medicine I’m taking,

That’s one small part of his job

NOT give me a sermon

No-one suggested any pharmacist give a sermon, so please don’t misrepresent us.

 

[Petergee]

I wonder how Catholic shoppers would react to people at the check-out who decided that they were not going to deal with items that were not Kosher (or Halal) - many would find it curious, even a little exotic. It wouldn’t take many visits to the store before it got really ‘tired’ as a process and decisions were made to shop elsewhere.

Jews/Moslems have no problem with supplying non-Kosher/non-Halal food, nor with non-Jews/non-Moslems eating them.

 

[Kaninchen]

Jews/Moslems have no problem with supplying non-Kosher/non-Halal food, nor with non-Jews/non-Moslems eating them.

Well, I wouldn’t say that I have ‘no problem’ with things like that, it’s that I don’t think that it’s any of my business.

 

[mesquite_magic]

Yes it is the same. And most doctors DON’T own their own business.
Ok, I used the wrong language. Many doctors are in Private Practice and therefore can pick and choose their own patients.
**Most doctors here work in multi-doctor practices where they DON’T choose their patients; either the patient chooses the doctor or the doctor is told to take the next patient in the line. **

Pardon. I didn’t realise that you weren’t in the US. Here, things are done differently.

I’m pretty sure that even in the USA, the proprietor of a business is not an all-powerful dictator, there are numerous laws severely restricting what he can make his employees do.

The pharmacist’s job is to give a customer the medicine their doctor perscribed. If they don’t want to do their job, the employeer has a right to fire them. As a business owner, yes, he is an all powerful dictator.
**As I said it’s obvious you don’t have much idea what a pharmacist’s job is. A pharmacist is not a doctor’s delivery-boy. **

Please, enlighten me.

Nice. How’d you like someone to “get you fired” because you didn’t give them exactly what they wanted when they wanted it?

If I were refusing to do my job I would expect to be fired. Not having something in stock or doctor errors are completely different from pushing your moral agenda.
**And you think supplying this stuff is somehow NOT pushing a moral agenda? ALL the choices we make in life have consequences. **

Once again, the consequences are mine to decide. Your job is to tell me the adverse reactions, not to tell me your religious beliefs.

The job is not morally objectionable. The profession of pharmacy is a noble one. The problem is that some people are trying to force pharmacists to ditch their professional ethics and do morally objectionable things. Boy, you know less than nothing about a pharmacist’s job.
Unless you are a compounding pharmacist, I have the job pretty much nailed. As a non-compounding pharmacist, when was the last time you put that chemistry degree to use? Please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Hey, I’m doing my best but you’re spitting out so many errors about pharmacy that it’s hard keeping up with correcting them all. Firstly as I said before whether a medicine is extemporaneously compounded or ready-made, is completely irrelevant to the subject. Secondly compounding is a branch of pharmaceutics, not of chemistry. Thirdly as I said the main part of a pharmacist’s job is ensuring that drugs and medicines are used correctly for legitimate therapeutic purposes. And contraceptives and abortifacients are no exception.It’s a noble field of study I’m sure, but it’s not a profession.** I already explained the difference between pharmacy and pharmacology but you don’t seem to be taking anything in.** **Impossible. Professionalism is simply another name for morality as applied to the work of professionals.
**

As to your first comment, why is it irrelevant? If you aren’t mixing the medicines, what are you doing?
Your second comment, I have no idea. I will admitt that I don’t know the difference between chemistry and pharmaceutics. So I guess I’ve learned something.
Your third comment… you can ask what the script is for. It is important so that you can give factual assistance for proper use of the medication. What you don’t have a right to do is push your morality on someone.

Little lessons in morality come at us every day from all around whether we like it or not. Many people choose to ignore most of them, and many customers will ignore the chance to think about the morality of their proposed contraception/abortion. Nothing the pharmacist does threatens their freedom to ignore it.
That’s one small part of his jobNo-one suggested any pharmacist give a sermon, so please don’t misrepresent us.

Don’t misrepresent you? If you came to my door telling me your moral veiws, I could close the door. When I’m standing in line waiting for my perscription, I have no choice but to listen to your little speech on morality. That is sermonising in my opinion.

** I already explained the difference between pharmacy and pharmacology but you don’t seem to be taking anything in.**

And this was just downright rude. That’s ok. Your “noble profession” makes it ok to be an acemdemic snob I guess?