(SF)

Original Story Here



SEATTLE -- Pharmacists have sued Washington state over a new regulation that requires the sale of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill" and sold under the name Plan B.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court here, a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists say the rule that took effect Thursday coerces them into "choosing between their livelihoods and their deeply held religious and moral beliefs."

The state ruled earlier this year that druggists who believe emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion can't stand in the way of a patient's right to the drugs.

The state's Roman Catholic bishops and other opponents predicted a court challenge after the rule was adopted, saying the state was wrongly forcing pharmacists to administer medical treatments they consider immoral.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed Wednesday are pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen, and Stormans Inc., the owners of Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia, a grocery store that includes a pharmacy.

The owners of Ralph’s Thriftway said that for moral and religious reasons they oppose the use of Plan B pill because it interferes with the growth of a fertilized egg.

Gov. Chris Gregoire did not immediately respond to requests for comment from The Associated Press.

Plan B emergency contraception is a high dose of the drug found in many regular birth-control pills and can lower the risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

Some critics consider the pill related to abortion, although it is different from the abortion pill RU-486 and has no effect on women who already are pregnant.

The federal Food and Drug Administration made the morning-after pill available over the counter to adults in August.

Under the new state rule, pharmacists with personal objections to a drug can opt out by getting a co-worker to fill an order. But that applies only if the patient is able to get the prescription in the same pharmacy visit.

Pharmacies also are required to order new supplies of a drug if a patient asks for something that is not in stock.

Pharmacists are also forbidden to destroy prescriptions or harass patients, rules that were prompted by complaints from Washingtonians, chairwoman Rebecca Hille said.

__________________
Put me on wheels and I'll turn tricks.

Clever? Nah, I ran out of that years ago. But if you find this, let me know, k?
"The road goes ever on..." ~ Tolkien

In memory of my friend skip...
Go then, there are other worlds than these

it’s kinda tricky. i can understand they're loathe to make anything available that may go against their nature and beliefs. after all, it’s not as if we require doctors to perform abortions, or practice any form of medicine for that matter; they choose their fields on their own. but i think it's a sign of the times that most doctors are open minded, normally withholding judgement and just providing treatment or a service. it wasn't always that way. they have come to be a mostly progressive lot and have sort of evolved the hippocratic oath to mean do not judge as well as do no harm. in a way, they have been policing themselves to keep pace with society’s value changes, and although a pharmacist's duties are not totally dissimilar to a medical doctor's, they haven't necessarily taken on the "public servant" role that so many doctors have, and they don’t have that ever important oath that would bully, cow or shame them into providing a wanted or needed service. if we allow arbitrary moral judgement by such a powerful branch of community for any drug (after all, the drugs they provide us can be life-saving as well as just life-improving), then we must allow it for all drugs, and i don’t think i’m willing to let joe doper at the pharm-aide down the street start deciding to withhold drugs i’m taking because he finds them or me morally reprehensible.


i feel for ya, i really do, but when it comes down to it you don't a.) have the training (or my permission) to override what a doctor has decided is good or bad for my body, or b.) the right to heave your morality onto my shoulders.

__________________
Trees give peace to the souls of men * Nora Waln

The forest would be very quiet if no other birds sang than those who sing the best * Henry van Dyke

some fairly sordid tales, rambles, and anecdotes
Hypothetically Speaking * Something More * Cammy Interrupted * An Experimental Vacation * Masked * so..damn..hot * Thank You * My toy, his idea * no.19 Maple Lane * I Have A Surprise For You * Yesterday * In a Quiet Kitchen * help me decide * untitled prose * more untitled prose

A christian police officer/fire fighter can not decide to not save/help a family in crisis simply because they have a wiccan symbol on their front door.

Do your fucking job. I can't preach to my students or tell them their beliefs are right or wrong cause it's not my fucking job.

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

Well, keeping in the vernacular ...

It is not the State’s fucking job to compel its citizens to perform actions which they do not wish to do.

Keep the State the fuck out of the private lives of its citizens.

At least that is what the Constitution sets out as a goal.

__________________
Eudaimonia

But the Pharmacist choice to dispense drugs. They went to school to learn how to do it. And now they are refusing to do the job that they signed up to do. They also have a STATE lisence which gives the state the right to set regulations on that business.

__________________

Scarecrow,

That is NOT what THEY signed up to do.

That is what the State has passed a law COMPELLING them to do.

That, I believe, is the basis of the lawsuit.

__________________
Eudaimonia

jseal,

They signed up to dispence medication that has been discribed by a liscened prescriber and they now refuse to do that job. Please have them leave their private views at home and not in the work place. If you did not want to do a specific part of your job would your boss say 'ok just let someone else do it'.

__________________

Their job is to make sure when a Dr. prescribes medication that the patient gets the correct dosage for the needed amount of time. If they didn't want to dispense medication they should have chosen a different line of work.

*edit*
I was posting the same time as Scarecrow... LOL
Almost the same statement.

__________________
Put me on wheels and I'll turn tricks.

Clever? Nah, I ran out of that years ago. But if you find this, let me know, k?
"The road goes ever on..." ~ Tolkien

In memory of my friend skip...
Go then, there are other worlds than these

Gentlefolk,

Before this gets out of hand, the State – or at least the Federal Government, does retain the right to regulate Commerce. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 ..: "The Congress shall have Power ...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

That being said, the notion that deeply held religious and moral opinions entitles individuals to special – even exceptional – handling has been recognized for many years. One need look no further than conscientious objection to serving in the Armed Forces in times of war to be reminded of this.

So yes, wyndhy is correct – it is NOT an open and shut // slam dunk // black or white issue. Read her post carefully.

__________________
Eudaimonia

The difference is that a conscientious objector was being drafted not having chosen their own career path. If my pharmacist does not believe statins lower cholesterol enough to make dispensing them a good idea, due to their side effects and they refuse to dispense them he/she is overstepping his/her bounds and should be expected to complete his job as state licensing requires. If he/she refuses to dispense Plan B because he/she feels the religious side effects are too overwhelming he/she is again overstepping his/her bounds as he/she is neither a doctor or a clergy. He/she has the right to choose another line of work that does not cause conflict with his/her faith as in the case of conscientious objectors.


The federal government has approved this medication. It is time sensitive medication and for a pharmacist to deny someone their right to a medication (especially if it is available in the pharmacy) opens up their employers to unbelievable legal risk. I hope pharmacies will be careful when selecting pharmacists.

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

I need only point out that the rules of the game were changed after the pharmacists had made their career decisions, so the involuntariness of the situations are quite comparable. Given then that exceptions to the rules do occur, we might consider two principle concerns of Medical Ethics which will reviewed in the courtroom.

I think that many, if not most, people would agree that a medical practitioner should act in the best interest of the patient. For example, if a pharmacist is aware that some a medication is contraindicated under some particular circumstances, and the patient presents compelling, or more problematical only a persuasive example of such a circumstance, most people would agree that the pharmacist would be justified in delaying dispensing the prescription until after review.

Take as an example the situation where a female pharmacist is aware that the FDA approval of new medication X was based upon studies conducted upon young males. Such was often the case until recently. Now if an elderly woman presents the prescription to be filled on a Friday evening to be filled, would it be unreasonable for the pharmacist - having a real concern for the welfare of the patient foremost, and having a strong suspicion that this prescription may not be the best for that patient – to insist on a review before filling the prescription?

If you can bring yourself to acknowledge that there exist situations where the immediate actions of a patient (“Please fill this prescription.”) may not be in the patient’s best long term interests, then the pharmacist can and should exercise caution.

There is a second, similar principle: "First, do no harm". In this instance, as the intent, object and goal of the prescription is to NOT induce a spontaneous abortion as does, for example RU-486, but only to prevent conception, then I believe that these objecting pharmacists’ are on rather shakier ethical ground than they may think. The purported death of the baby can not occur as a result of what the pharmacist dispenses, as the fetus is human following conception, not before.

On balance though, it is clear that there are grounds here for honest people to disagree. In democracies, when people disagree with the applicability of laws passed by the Legislature, they seek redress in the Judiciary, and that is what these aggrieved pharmacists are doing. If they strike out there then they will have to make some difficult decisions.

__________________
Eudaimonia

Amen Sister!

Your morals and beliefs are not mine. If you're allowed to express your beliefs by not serving me...are you not denying me my morals and beliefs?

If I am required by law to obtain a prescription from an authorized location and the person working there refuses to fill the prescription...they are jeapordizing my wellbeing. How does the pharmacist know that a young lady's life might be in danger should she conceive? They don't. They're not supposed to know because they are not the doctor that prescribed the substance. They're the ones that are supposed to fill the prescription.

This is not a case of them being aware of some potential reaction between two medications prescribed to one individual, or them noticing that an inappropriate dose was prescribed. This is them refusing to provide a legal substance to a person who is authorized to obtain it.

It's kind of like a recovering alcoholic working as a cashier that refuses to sell beer to a person legally able to purchase it just because they themselves don't approve of it.

__________________
Though I am different from you,
We were born involved in one another.

For it was not into my ear you whispered, but into my heart. It was not my lips you kissed, but my soul.

Complete surrender should not just come at moments in which one faces overwhelming odds, but in the calm when it seems one is personally in complete control of one's life.

WildIrish,

That would be true only if YOUR morals (which are, after all, quite OK, otherwise you would have already corrected them) permit you to COMPEL and COERCE others to serve you.

__________________
Eudaimonia

I don't compel or coerce, I demand.

__________________

The practice of putting women on pedestals began to die out when it was discovered that they could give orders better from there.~ Betty Grable

If I wanted your opinion, I'd remove the duct tape and ask you for it.~ Me
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
One man's dream is another man's nightmare~~~~> §¤ Lilith ¤§
~>My Scribbles<~
==>Gone Shopping<== ~Just a Quickie~ *~A Celebration Vacation~* ~Surprises~ Sleeping With the Window Open
What Did You Do Today? Self Defense Class ~Short Sweet Snippets~ § Summer Spin § Story Challenge Submission Pajamas

Farewell freedom!

__________________
Eudaimonia