Pharmacist refused to fill prescription for moral reasons

Perhaps I am naive, but in my book, a pharmacist is not the same as a doctor or a nurse. No disrespect to pharmacists, but the only thing you are allowed to do is DISPENSE medicine. You can't prescribe. You can't treat. You are not a healthcare expert. As far as I am concerned, a pharmacist is nothing more than a vendor.

I think the law is a stupid one. I can totally understand it applying to doctors or nurses. I don't see it with pharmacists.

 

You're not NYRocket. Another failed attempt at being funny.

I am terrible at trying to be humerous. It comes across bad.

On a serious note I can see by the report that its wrong to berate someone who is just trying to get a prescription filled.

I would take disciplinary action with the employee.

I wouldn't judge her until I did an written investigation and then I would follow company policy. (I work as a Human Resource Manager- this is what I do all day.)

Any time the words 'religious fundalmentalism' are used I expect the context to be negative. And it catches my eye.

 

They have to make sure that the drugs prescribed can be taken together, so that does take a lot of medical knowledge. Heck the Doctor of Pharmacy at my school get treated as PHDs at graduations, which really makes me mad.

 

I disagree. I think they can be very valuable. They are not machines. I heard an interview with a pharmacist with 30 years experience who refused to fill many prescriptions for many reasons. I think it is dangerous to take away their rationalization. I'm sure many has caught unhealthy drug interactions, mistaken prescriptions, and drug abuse etc.

The question is where do you draw the line.

 

I certainly do not doubt their validity and the validity of their profession. However, I do not put pharmacists in the same category as doctors and nurses in exercising judgment based on individual morality. Discretion in the case of error or abuse is one thing. I fully agree that pharmacists should exercise discretion here. However, not in the case of individual morals because a pharmacist is not a doctor and does not have the qualifications to judge whether one needs a drug or not. That is the job of a doctor and not a pharmacist. That's why pharmacists cannot dispense drugs without a prescription.

 

That is ridiculous. Once again, maybe I am naive, but Pharm.D does not make you a doctor of anything. I don't care what the degree is called. It is the LOWEST degree in the pharmacy hierarchy. Similarly, a J.D. does not make you a doctor. A Ph.D signifies that you have reached the epitome of your discipline. A Pharm.D is the equivalent of a Bachelor's degree in Pharmacy.

 

That is different though than refusing to sell a legal product because of moral reasons.

I think of it like this. A bartender has a duty to cut someone off when he thinks he's had too much but cannot refuse to sell alcohal to someone just because he thinks its immoral to drink.

 

Let's not confuse morality and religious beliefs. You can be an Atheist and be very moral.

 

All the bartenders I know who think it is immoral to drink are bi-polar.

and is that a 'moral duty' or 'amoral duty' ?

 

AggieRocket,

Speaking for my wife who has been a pharmacist for over 20 years,what you know about the duties, educational requirements and achievements, professional, legal, and moral responsibilities of pharmacists would fit on the head of a pin.

 

I have a J.D....and I AM the Doctor of Love.

(cue Barry White music here)

 

Thanks, I have about 5 failed attempts at humor in this thread and all I can do is come across vaguely rude.

I need sarcasm lessons (or I should have got more than 3 hrs sleep last night)

 

Haha. First of all, I prefaced what I said by saying that I may be naive. I think that serves as self-admission that I am not the world's greatest expert when it comes to the pharmacy profession. Secondly, most of what I stated is opinion. In my opinion, pharmacists are not the same as doctors and nurses. If I am wrong in my opinion, then educate me.

As far as educational requirements go, the only statement I made is that Pharm D is the lowest degree on the pharmacy hierarchy. It is the minimum required to be a pharmacist. That is a fact.

I have nothing against the profession at all, and nothing that I have said points to me degrading the profession or discrediting the profession. It is a competititve profession and it is a high paying profession. It requires a lot of aptitude. However, if you expect me to say that doctors and pharmacists are the same, then you will be disappointed. By that, I am not saying that one is superior to the other. They are different.

 

You definitely have all of my respect, Max. I hope you understand that I was not being condescending.

 

not at all!!! i'm not a doctor. that's why i'm a lawyer! i don't have an inflated view of my profession.

 

(cue KISS music here)

You need my love baby, oh so bad
You're not the only one I've ever had
And if I say I wanna set you free
Don't you know you'll be in misery
They call me (Dr. Looooove)
They call me Dr. Love (calling Dr. Looooove)
I've got the cure you're thinkin' of (calling Dr. Looooove)

 

Pharmacy doctor is a five year program at my school, which makes it less than a typical master degree that requires four year undergraduate and 2 year master. However, the pharmacy doctors get their hood put on them by the president of the university, same as a Ph.D graduate. This makes me mad because as a master graduate, I never got that treatment.

 

i can think of nothing more fitting or appropriate for me to walk into my office to every morning than a good KISS song. maybe with some pyro-technics, as well.