Talk about your ‘frivolous’ lawsuits…

April 14, 2005

Four states have laws that allow pharmacists to withhold medication to patients with a prescription, if the pharmacist has a moral objection. Eleven states are considering similar initiatives. One report indicated there have been 180 instances in which pharmacies have refused to fill prescriptions on “moral” grounds in just six months. It was refreshing, therefore, when Illinois bucked the trend.

Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich (D) issued an emergency rule Friday that requires pharmacies to accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives without delay, after a growing number of complaints nationwide that some pharmacists are refusing to dispense birth control pills and the “morning-after” pill.

He also established a toll-free number that residents can call to report refusals by pharmacies.

This was particularly relevant in Illinois after an Osco pharmacy in downtown Chicago refused to fill prescriptions for two women in February. There was some question about the need for the law, but the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation said the new rule “clarifies a duty we believe has always existed.”

So, how is the religious right responding? How else? They’re suing Blagojevich.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a legal group started by TV preacher Pat Robertson, announced yesterday that it had filed suit in state court on behalf of two pharmacists who insist the law — which requires them to do their jobs — requires them to act against their consciences and violates the Civil Rights Act.

“This directive is not only legally flawed but it puts pharmacists in the untenable position of having to choose between adhering to their religious beliefs and violating a law that could cost them their jobs,” said Francis J. Manion, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ, which is representing the two pharmacists. “There are protections in place to prevent employees from being punished because of their religious beliefs.”

I still don’t understand why this is even a controversy. 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. If you don’t like filling prescriptions, then don’t become a pharmacist.

I’m actually glad the ACLJ is suing; when they lose the precedent might be helpful. Too bad it’s not in federal court.

I can’t help but wonder what would happen if one of these so-called religious leaders was turned down filling a prescription for Viagra because a pharmasist believed that their impotence represented God’s wrath for their evil ways and that chemically thwarting it would be a sin…

-jjf

  • It’s not conscience at work, it’s descrimination. Acting ethically means not giving Rush oxy-contin because he is a drug abuser, not depriving someone of a physician-prescribed medication.

    Can I deprive neocons of any services I dispense because I have moral issues with their actions and motives? Can a gas station owner not sell gas to SUV owners because “it goes against their belief system”? Can an electronics salesman refuse to sell a TV set fearing the new owners might watch something offensive?

    The right to have a prescription filled should be upheld just as much as a right to purchase guns. No one seems to question the moral intent of gun buyers during a purchase.

  • Jjf,

    I was thinking the same thing. I think all pharmacists should refuse to fill prescriptions for anti-erectile dysfunction medicine. Within 1 week of that happening, I bet there would be a federal law mandating pharmasist fill all prescriptions–not to mention there would be a parallel move to get a constitutional ammendment to the same effect.

  • That’s not descrimination, unless Ovanon and Oxycontin users could be described as a protected class.

    What’s all the more galling about this is that there is an easy way around this for the pharmacists: Don’t stock the medications you are uncomfortable selling. If I am anti-gun and I own a stationary store, I can refuse to sell guns — I just won’t stock them.

    If you work for a pharmacy chain, say Chicago’s own Walgreens, and they stock the meds for you, and you refuse to sell certain meds to customers, you’ll get your butt fired.

    Go start your own “Belief Pharmacy” and sell what you want. No one can then sue you for anything. What’s next? Suing a kosher restaurant for not selling pork?

  • I think this religious protection should immediately be extended to all food service personnel, protecting waiters of the Jewish and Muslim faiths from being compelled to serve gentiles bacon, pork, or ham.

  • Allen – better yet, vegetartian waiters and waitresses should be able to refuse to take orders for meat.

    What I find most disturbing is the concept that customers have to plead their case to these pharmacists in public areas about why they need this medication. If I had had prostate cancer and truly need Viagra, I would not be happy to have to disclose those facts in public to the pharmicist on shift every time I tried to get a refill. Imagine if a teenage girl had been sexually assualted by her father and the pharmacist then demand to be told in public why the girl needed a morning after pill.

  • Acting ethically means not giving Rush oxy-contin because he is a drug abuser, not depriving someone of a physician-prescribed medication.

    I am sure Rush had prescriptions from a physician. You can’t just walk in and get oxy-contin without one.

  • Chuck, my joking aside, I have a problem with a strictly free market approach. For many Americans, there is precious little choice what pharmacy to use. Aside from putting a lot of folks at the whim of some seemingly weird and pretentious people, this also raises a fundemental question about medical standards and practices.

    Doctors can pretty freely prescribe ‘off label’. For example, a blood pressure medicine might be dispensed to treat, say, OCD symptoms in a disabled adult. Once a pill counter at the RiteAid starts overruling Doctor prescribed treatments based on the on-label usage, they are practicing medicine. Worse, in most of the cases I have read about the patient is being interogated – that is, the pharmacist is making case by case decisions. This aspect is why states are rushing to create laws. If they didn’t, these Laviticans(you certainly cannot call them Christians) would be in deep doo-doo under existing laws.

    I actually think that Viagra and its ilk is actually a great example. The number of prostate cancer patients who use these drugs is pretty small. The lion’s share of the market is relatively young men who want to be able to sexually perform after drinking, and older men who want to boost performance to impress younger woman. I’d love to target a few of these ‘moral’ pill dispensers and loudly and publically ask them why they don’t interrogate these folks before dispensing these drugs – after all, if they weren’t handing out the Viagra to young drunk people, there would be less need for morning after pills. Of course, Viagra, etc. are popular and VERY profitable, so I would also relentlessly ask what morals are more important than profits and which are not…

    -jjf

  • I say if they don’t want to fill the prescriptions then QUIT being a pharmacist!

    It seems half of the country has been taking crazy pills.

  • Dispensing something is not the same as using it, so requiring pharmacists to fill prescriptions they themselves would never use is not infringement of the Free Exercise clause. I think even the current Supreme Court would come to that conclusion, although not unanimously. Of course, if state legislatures keep passing laws that permit pharmacists to refuse to dispense prescribed drugs, it’ll take years of court decisions to get to that ultimate decision point.

    In the meantime, fanatic pharmacists can harbor their fantasies of controlling behavior that they don’t like.

  • This is simple: Boycott. If there was ever a time to organize and ostracize a store, or, hopefully, a chain .. this is it. See if these righteous twerps keep up their grandstanding when sales fall off by forty percent. See how quickly the ownership buckles.

  • This is a great scam!

    I’m going to go get a job at a defence contractor, then refuse to do my job, because I’m a pacifist!

    If they try to fire me, I’ll sue them!

    I’ll become a vegetarian, then get a job at McDonalds. When customers come in and order a Big Mac, I’ll refuse to serve them, since avoiding serving or handling meat is a Civil Right! Lawsuits galore!

    This is a whole new industry just waiting to be born. Sue everybody!

    • Comments are closed.