Muslim pharmacist denies "morning after" pill from woman

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

But there seems to be a doc in town. The doc can dispense it.


If the doc was unwilling to write the RX, thered be nothing anyone could do about it.

True. If the doctor was going to place his politics over the welfare of his patient then the patient would be screwed.

[flash9286]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

just has to notify his/her employer that they refuse to sell the pill.

Of course this means the pharmacy also has to have someone else working there that will dispense said drug to "ensure that the patient has timely access". That, in itself, may jeopardize the pharmacist's job.

Well I have no problem with a private employer firing someone. Though that might violate title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

[Elok]

Actually, now that I think of it I wouldn't especially care if the morning-after pill went OTC. I guess there might be people dumb enough to try and abuse it somehow, but I can't imagine how.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
A physician can choose not to prescribe any given medication, for any particular reason - cause they question its effectiveness, cause they dont believe in it ethically or religiously, or cause the company rep didnt give them nice pads and pens. Granted a pharmacists role is different, but the extreme of denying them a license on this issue, is politics. Just as attempts to protect them from employers on this issue is politics the other way.

Huh?
I hope you are describing the existing situation as it is, and not how things are meant to be.

A physician having any consideration that is not dictated to him by his profession is immoral and illegal. That's why physicians, unlike people of other professions - take an oath to uphold professionalism.

A physician choosing one drug over another, because the company rep gave him nice pads and pens is bribery.

Religion is also a totally irrelevant to this profession.

It isn't like a restaurant which can choose to observe kosher laws or not. There is a single stadard which they should follow - and that is federal and state laws and FDA regulations.


Imagine your pharmacist suddenly denies you of contraceptives...

Imagine your physician would deny you of some for of resuscitation, because his religion says that only god can choose who lives and who dies?

[Elok]

Idunno if you already know this, but the pads and pens comment is a reference to pharm companies' use of branded crap they give to doctors' offices and the like as promotional material. It's more advertisement than bribery; they get to have a doctor scribbling down notes all day with a pen that says "Try new Vixovegorol!" on the side. My mom used to work at a nursing home and we still have tons of that crap floating around the house. Other popular items include magnets, stress-reliever toys, and just about anything that could arguably be used in the office of a healthcare professional.

So "because he didn't like their pads and pens" is probably more of a subconscious thing, the way one might react negatively to an annoying advertising campaign on TV.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Lets say Im a pharmacist. I own my own pharmacy (so the issue of employer rights is not at issue) I am Sabbath observant. I choose not to keep the pharmacy open on Saturday. Someone needs a medication on Saturday? Whats their choice? Obviously go to someone else. Should I lose my license for that reason? Should I choose a different profession?

There's a huge difference here also.

Not keeping your shop open on Shabbat is an administrative decision. Working hours has no effect on the professional decision about a patients treatment.

Not administering a perfectly legal drug, which solves the patients ailment, means you have damaged your professionalism on the basis of a personal belief.

Reality here - no Pharmacy stocks everything. Its not economical. So sometimes youre going to have to go elsewhere, cause what they have isnt in stock. Even something you need on time sensitive basis. A good way to deal with this is to call ahead, and make sure they are in stock.

This could be used as a great excuse - like your father did. Saying "I don't have this in stock" and intentionally not stocking it.

But that would be intentional obstruction.


A doctor can say he's all out of scalpels, if he doesn't believe in making this or that operation procedure. That would be obstruction and not fulfilling his legal and ethical duties.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Elok
Idunno if you already know this, but the pads and pens comment is a reference to pharm companies' use of branded crap they give to doctors' offices and the like as promotional material. It's more advertisement than bribery; they get to have a doctor scribbling down notes all day with a pen that says "Try new Vixovegorol!" on the side. My mom used to work at a nursing home and we still have tons of that crap floating around the house. Other popular items include magnets, stress-reliever toys, and just about anything that could arguably be used in the office of a healthcare professional.

So "because he didn't like their pads and pens" is probably more of a subconscious thing, the way one might react negatively to an annoying advertising campaign on TV.

Uhm I'm actually veyr well aware of this.

Branded gifts is indeed a sort of half-advertisement half-bribery. It is a known bussiness axiom.

Obviously a branded pen is not high value enough to be considered bribe- but a branded convertable sports car would be, would it not? The difference here is not in essense but in value.

[Elok]

Dude, it defeats the purpose to be driving down the road in a Mustang convertible with "Viagra worked for me!" sprayed on the side.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Elok
Dude, it defeats the purpose to be driving down the road in a Mustang convertible with "Viagra worked for me!" sprayed on the side.

It might work for that doctor with well-known performance issues in the past.

[aneeshm]

This is ridiculous . As far as I know , there is no specific injunction regarding this in Muslim law ( but I'm not an expert , so I may be wrong ) , but he is allowed to do something distasteful like this in order to earn money . So denying that pill was totally his fault , not that of Islam .

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

A physician having any consideration that is not dictated to him by his profession is immoral and illegal. That's why physicians, unlike people of other professions - take an oath to uphold professionalism.

1. the determination of what is an effective and worthwhile treatment, and ethical, and moral considerations, are often muddy. Some psychiatrists prescribe antidepressants. Some absolutely never do. The argument over AD's (as you may have picked up here) mixes in issues of effectiveness (double blind studies, et al) with issues of definition of the disease, of the best way to deal with it, of what kind of a person one wants to be, etc. If an anti AD doc says to a depressed person, you dont need meds, you can work this out with willpower and relationships, and you will be stronger for it - is the doc making a medical decision, or imposing his morality - you can make a case either way. Of course a doc who doesnt believe in ADs can simply make it a point of not keeping up with the lit on them, and then hes "not qualified" to supervise their use, so he can of course have a justifiable reason not to give them. IIUC docs who dont believe in abortion simply dont learn to do the procedure. In many parts of the US there are whole states where this hardly a single physician who will perform an abortion. And theres no forcing them. Of course an abortion will solve "the condition" - just those docs dont consider pregancy a disease. Ditto, Im sure no one would consider compelling a physician to write an Rx for a morning after pill.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Uhm I'm actually veyr well aware of this.

Branded gifts is indeed a sort of half-advertisement half-bribery. It is a known bussiness axiom.

Obviously a branded pen is not high value enough to be considered bribe-

Of course I know that - i was halfjoking, i dont think the docs really value the trinkets - my point was that non-medical issues are an inevitable part of the process of doctors making decisions, and its extremely difficult in the nature of things to regulate that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ditto, Im sure no one would consider compelling a physician to write an Rx for a morning after pill.

Exactly. Pharmacists are professionals, not merely pill dispensers. Why should we force pharmacists to dispense a drug when we would not force doctors to write a prescription?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. the determination of what is an effective and worthwhile treatment, and ethical, and moral considerations, are often muddy. Some psychiatrists prescribe antidepressants. Some absolutely never do. The argument over AD's (as you may have picked up here) mixes in issues of effectiveness (double blind studies, et al) with issues of definition of the disease, of the best way to deal with it, of what kind of a person one wants to be, etc. If an anti AD doc says to a depressed person, you dont need meds, you can work this out with willpower and relationships, and you will be stronger for it - is the doc making a medical decision, or imposing his morality - you can make a case either way. Of course a doc who doesnt believe in ADs can simply make it a point of not keeping up with the lit on them, and then hes "not qualified" to supervise their use, so he can of course have a justifiable reason not to give them. IIUC docs who dont believe in abortion simply dont learn to do the procedure. In many parts of the US there are whole states where this hardly a single physician who will perform an abortion. And theres no forcing them. Of course an abortion will solve "the condition" - just those docs dont consider pregancy a disease. Ditto, Im sure no one would consider compelling a physician to write an Rx for a morning after pill.

About Anti-Depressants - the difference is that the doctor's opinion is based on his profession. He does not think that AD's are evil because god had told him so - rather because he thinks there's a better treatment.

As far as abortion goes - I'm aware its a problematic issue in the US.

I'm not familiar with the exact laws in different states.

In Israel, you can have an abortion up to a certain point in a pregnancy, and then you have to go through a "councelment" in which they try to talk you out of it.

In any case, if a person is 'granted' an abortion, there is no way he'll be scheduled to have one, and his doctor will decide "not today".

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Exactly. Pharmacists are professionals, not merely pill dispensers. Why should we force pharmacists to dispense a drug when we would not force doctors to write a prescription?

Give me a break.

Pharmacists are give a professional judgement. This decision of his was NOT a professional one, but a religious one. He tried to prevent that woman from aborting a (not yet existing!) pregnancy.

Had he said "I'm sorry maam, but I see you're allergic to chemical X, which is in this pill, and I won't prescribe it to you" I would have applauded his decision.

His motivation however, was his own personal beliefs being PROJECTED on the patient.