‘No refills for you’

If there’s a logical defense for this, I can’t think of it.

The New York Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint on Tuesday against three pharmacists in upstate New York claiming that the pharmacists “refused to fill prescriptions for refill doses of emergency contraception,” the Associated Press reports. What is particularly striking about this case — as opposed to the run-of-the-mill pharmacists who refuse to fill E.C. — is that the women needed refills.

The pharmacists apparently had no religious or moral objections to E.C. the first time around; it was that second time that proved the women’s behavior was “irresponsible” as Andrea Barcomb, a CVS supervisor, put it to the AP. (Actually, it seems to us that taking preventive measures as soon as possible to avoid unwanted pregnancy is the very definition of responsibility.) As Elisabeth Benjamin, director of NYCLU’s Reproductive Rights program, told the AP, “these refusals seem to just be based solely on moralistic assumptions of women’s sexuality.”

I will never, ever understand how this issue became a legitimate controversy. Pharmacists, by virtue of their professional responsibilities, agree to fill prescriptions. Doctors prescribe a remedy, a patient seeks that remedy, a pharmacist provides the remedy. It’s a pretty simple system.

If a pharmacist realizes that he or she may be called on to perform tasks with which they’re uncomfortable, this person has a choice: do the job or find a different job in which these moral quandaries won’t be an issue. In other words, if you don’t like filling prescriptions, don’t become a pharmacist.

This New York example is particularly egregious because the pharmacists were willing to provide emergency contraception once — everyone, apparently, is entitled to a single mistake — but they took it upon themselves to say twice is too many. Women can prevent one pregnancy, but after that, they’re out of luck. These pharmacists created their own one-strike-and-you’re-out policy, and they expect it to be a legitimate policy stance.

Of course, as Sarah Goldstein noted, “[A]ll of this could have been easily avoided if E.C. were available over the counter, where women have complete control and discretion over their decisions.”

That’s an important point, and as of yesterday, we’re getting closer to just such a policy.

Reuters reported:

Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. has refiled its application to sell the Plan B “morning-after” pill without a prescription, a Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman said on Friday.

FDA spokeswoman Susan Bro gave no other details about the application. Last month, the FDA urged Barr to reapply to sell the emergency contraceptive without a prescription to women 18 and older.

This, coupled by the FDA’s new-found willingness to approve the application, offers some hope of progress.

  • Under the philosophy that pharmacists should not provide drugs for the treatment of “irresponsible” behavior, is it now the policy of CVS (a drug store I never go to because of their higher-than-everyone-else prices, and a general store attitude that sucks, which so obvious in the “eagerness” of their employees to be helpful on anything, not just pharmaceuticals) that they won’t provide drugs for the treatment of STDs for men, since their behavior in getting the disease was “irresponsible”???

    I suppose it was “irresponsible” of me to be driving on that section of the street where the guy shot out of the driveway in front of me and I hit him, so they shouldn’t prescribe me any painkiller for the result of my “irresponsible” behavior.

    These fundamentalist assholes need to be kicked – unfortunately, doing so to the area between their legs or above their shoulders wouln’t harm anything important.

  • If a pharmacist realizes that he or she may be called on to perform tasks with which they’re uncomfortable, this person has a choice: do the job or find a different job in which these moral quandaries won’t be an issue. In other words, if you don’t like filling prescriptions, don’t become a pharmacist.

    There’s another choice: Go work for a company which publicly proclaims is rigid companywide moralistic policies. I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with CVS denying birth control to men and women as long as everyone knew their store policies right up front. Put the Christian fish symbol on the front doors. Quote Bible verses in your circulars. State you won’t serve “irresponsible” women of loose virtue. Just give the rest of us an idea that there might be a huge unnecessary hassle in getting prescriptions filled.

    It solves two problems. It gives the intolerable scolds a place to work and feel righteous. And it gives the rest of us an idea of what stores to avoid.

  • In every international comparison of sexual knowledge and prejudices and behaviors, the United States of America appears off the chart in comparison with others. The explanation seems to lie in our hyper relgiosity coupled with our nearly puritannical view, namely, that there is only one sin, that being sex. Ignorant adolescents all.

  • There needs to be a national listing of pharmacists (actually, let’s call them what they are—Pharmaphobics) who will not provide EC. Then people who believe in EC can exercise “their” moral right—to boycott these pretenders on a scale so massive that, in order to keep their doors open, the pharmacy chains will refuse to hire people who say they’ll do the job—and then refuse when the refusal suits their personal need to “lord it over” the person with the prescription in their hand.

    So here’s the idea—start naming names, and keep those names in the public eye. Every mailbox; every radio broadcast; every television signal. Email the names to people. Establish websites that provide names and photographs of these fictitious clowns. Big, glossy photographs. They want their name in lights? I say—give them what they want—and let them pay the price for whatever the outcome may be….

  • […] our nearly puritannical view, namely, that there is only one sin, that being sex.
    Comment by Ed Stephan

    It’s in the language now, too. When’s the last time you heard the term “amoral” used? When’s the last time you heard the term “immoral” used as applied to anything other than bedroom behaviour?

    The original meaning of “moral” has been lost; it now applies to one sub-set of the society’s behavioural norms and customs (mores) only — sex. The rest — cheating, stealing, murder — are now referred to not as “immoral”, but “unethical”. “Morals” and “ethos” may mean the same thing, but “ethos” is a more difficult and less ingrained word, so it doesn’t seem to reverberate as strongly with lots of people.

  • If pharmacists and the companies backing them have the right to over-ride a doctors judgment, what is stop them from changing prescriptions or even creating prescriptions.

    If their defense is moral inclinations, couldn’t the same argument be made both ways ?

    All this non-sense about lists of who will and who won’t fill prescriptions is BS. The reason pharmacists exist is to control drug distribution under the direction of a licensed MD. There is no wiggle room. I despised the phrase ‘slippery slope’ because it is over used, but this really is. Before you know it, these people could refuse to fill heart medication X because it was derived from stem cell research. They could seriously start endangering people lives, especially is small towns where pharmacy options are very few.

  • As liberals we should object to the acts (or refusals to act) of these pharmacists, but we should not be basing our objections on the idea that an employee has no right to an act of protest, based on conscience, against corporate or government policy, or against the standards of his profession.

    This issue is less of a slam-dunk than CB or the commenters here would have it. In fact it is quite difficult. I have no easy answers to it, for sure.

  • Comments are closed.