Wednesday, January 12, 2011
health care Planned Parenthood: Walgreens Pharmacist Refused to Fill Presciption
Posted by George Prentice on Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:46 PM
A formal complaint was filed with the Idaho Board of Pharmacy in the wake of an incident where a Nampa pharmacist denied filling a prescription for a nurse practitioner with Planned Parenthood.
The incident represents a challenge to Idaho's controversial Freedom of Conscience act, approved in 2010 by the Idaho Legislature. The measure allows pharmacists to refuse dispensation of abortifacients or emergency contraception. While pharmacists are given the option to refuse, they are also instructed to refer the prescription to another pharmacist.
"We have heard of a lot of accounts where individuals across Idaho are being refused," said Kristen Glundberg-Prossor, director of media relations for Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest. "But this is the first incident that we know of involving one of our own nurse practitioners."
Prossor said the prescription was for Methergine, a drug used to prevent or control bleeding of the uterus.
"It is neither an abortifacient or contraceptive," said Prossor. "But the pharmacist asked our practitioner, 'Do you need this because of an abortion?' Our practitioner told the pharmacist in keeping with federal law, she couldn't disclose that. And then the pharmacist said she wouldn't fill the prescription. When our practitioner asked to speak to another pharmacist, she was hung up on."
PPGNW lodged a complaint with the Idaho Board of Pharmacy and contacted the corporate offices of Walgreens, the parent company of the pharmacy.
"Walgreens took prompt action," Prossor told Citydesk. "They told us that this will not happen again, and the pharmacist was told specifically that she should have handed this prescription over to another colleague."
Comments (25)
Showing 1-25 of 25
Absolutely disgusting how far some people will go to push there value system onto others.
like
dislike
Your tax dollars at work: oppressing women.
I guess it's more important to let someone bleed to death than have pharmacists doing their job.
Has nothng to do with pushing "T-H-E-I-R" (you might want to learn to spell) value system onto others. It is knowing right from wrong. Killing an unborn child is wrong. Period. Tax dollars do not oppress women - women have a choice - do not have sex or do not get pregnant. Not a real difficult concept.
Ah, ARRBASQUE, if only life were that simple. Many women - and girls - don't always have the "choice" to refuse sex, and when pharmacists can refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions, we lose the "choice" to "not get pregnant" as well. It seems to me that if you are so strongly opposed to abortions, then the sensible, practical solution would be to make sure contraceptives, including emergency contraceptives, are readily and easily available to ALL sexually active women. The "Freedom of Conscience Act" takes our choices away.
the meds were for controlling bleeding so shut up cause clearly you dont know what THEY are needing it for. i am all for killing unborn and born fetuses HAHAHA
Arrabasque, reading comprehension is your friend. No where did it say anyone had an abortion (which at last check was still legal in this country anyway). Lastly, there are many conditions that may cause uterine bleeding. To deny a woman proper treatment is unethical at best and immoral at worst. But I suppose as long as you get to be on your soap box you don't care what might happen to the woman who needs the medication.
ARRBASQUE, for starters, if you are going to correct someone for their spelling, please make sure you are spelling everything correctly as well. And you said it best when you said "women have a choice." Just because their choice differs from one you might make, they still have the right to choose what they do with their bodies. point. set. match.
Are you kiddng me! A pharmacist should know this is a common medicaton to contract the uterus and decrease bleeding and I have never heard it used as an aboriton stimulating medication, although if you were pregnant it may have the effect of stimulating contractions and loss of pregnancy. ABSURD and uncalled for!
A women's health NP in Boise
It amazes me that people have so much free time that they have nothing better to do than harass other ignorant people online. Of course, here I am. By accident thankfully.
I would also love to know which Walgreens. I will not support a location where someone like this continues to keep her job.
This particular incident occurred on Nov. 6, 2010 at the Walgreens pharmacy on Caldwell Blvd. in Nampa. We'll have more on this story Thursday morning.
The medication in question was NOT an abortifacient drug. It was a common medication used to stop uterine bleeding after miscarriage, abortion or childbirth. Without medication, hospitalization would have been necessary. Because the NP was from Planned Parenthood, the pharmacist made an assumption that was very dangerous for the patient and a complete overreach of the new "conscience" law. This is exactly why refusal laws are so scary. Boooo to Walgreens and all pharmacists who put their own values over their duty to a patient.
The issue is not whether or not the pharmacist had a right to refuse the prescription--because she did. Not only is it the law but it's her perogative as a provider. While her belief system shouldn't direct patient care, you can't expect her to practice according to her patients beliefs either. She did err in refusing to refer the patient to another source especially since there may have been some confusion about the particular drug requested.
Actually, PA-C, I don't think that's entirely correct. The law allows a pharmacist to refuse to provide certain categories of medications, including those used to induce abortion (i.e. "abortifacient"). The drug in question does not fall into the categories listed in the statute. It appears that the pharmacist both violated both the state law and sought information protected by HIPAA. Certainly the situation could have been avoided if the pharmacist had not asked for privileged patient information and had simply handed the matter over to another pharmacist at that location without comment.
The patient's belief system is exactly which beliefs a medical practitioner should practice in accordance with, PA-C. If someone doesn't want to do that, they should not become a medical practitioner.
agreed. so if the man who killed all of those people in tucson was injured and taken to the er and the dr refuses to treat him because of what he knew that patient did, he would go to prison. it is absolutely NO ONES job but the patient herself, to decide if what she is doing is right or wrong. it is the drs job to treat them accordingly. he took an oath. makes me sick.
To you hypocrites who support the actions of the pharmacist;
1. The pharmacist violated the patent's privacy in demanding to know if there had been an abortion.
2. The pharmacist is *not* a doctor of the patient in question & not privy to her medical condition nor should be.
3. The *doctor* prescribed the prescription & I imagine had a good reason to do so. If the pharmacist had any questions, why didn't the pharmacist simply conatct the doctor's office?
4. The pharmacist *endangered* the patient's life by refusing the prescription out of revenge or a desire to punish. How is that moral?
What next, a pharmacist demanding to see marriage licence before selling condoms?
The pharmacist should be fired. If he/she cannot do their job they need to go into another profession!
Control is important. Large companies value control over customer service (do not believe the advertising). Federal & State laws & rules mean little because the pharmacist actually practices corporate law, not federal and state drug laws. Because of this, pharmacists are practicing a stricter more controlling form of law. I am guessing that this pharmacist (by her actions) likes control. She is practicing her own law which is stricter than corporate law. I am sure that Walgreens supports her because control is important. More important than customer service.
Well said, juli. The pharmacist in question was completely unprofessional and obviously looking for an opportunity to "pick a fight". I was horrified when the Legislature passed this act last year, and it didn't take long for it to manifest its absolute idiocy.
a journalist for Boise State University's student newspaper offered an opinion on Idaho's pharmacy conscience clause legislation in leu of recent controversy surrounding Walgreens-http://bit.ly/fK4atp
Let's take this a step further, shall we? Can an EMT refuse to dispense blood products because he is a Jehovah's witness? Can the employer (government, hospital, ambulance company) fire such a person if he won't? Can a cop with a sincere religious conviction that black people are the cursed Sons of Ham refuse to come to the aid of a black crime victim? Does the PD have to keep on racist cops as long as their racism is religiously inspired?
Can anyone refuse any part of any job if it conflicts with their religious principles? Say you own a burger joint. It's small, and everyone, including you, the boss, pitches in and does all kinds of different jobs, depending on what needs to be done at the moment. Your new hire refuses to touch the beef because he's a Hindu. He'll willingly mop the floors, run the register, clean the toilets, whatever, but he won't cook the meat or come into contact with it in any way, even to the extent of picking up a sack of burgers and handing it to the customer. Are you obligated to keep him on?
While I'm all in favor of employers making reasonable accommodations for their employees' religious beliefs whenever they can, I don't think anyone should be required to employ someone who can't or won't do an essential part of the job. An observant Hindu should not look for a job at a burger joint. Jehovah's Witnesses probably shouldn't be EMTs or surgical nurses. People shouldn't be cops if they can't treat everyone equally. Someone who has objections to filling certain prescriptions shouldn't be a pharmacist. It's really that simple.
In this case it's particularly compelling: pharmacists are licensed by the state and must go through extensive training. No one can pretend they didn't know what they were getting into when they chose pharmacy as a career, and no employer should be forced employ a pharmacist who won't do his job.
I think the law in question is appalling, but beyond that I don't actually see how it even applies in this case. The drug in question is not an abortifacient, and so, as far as I can tell, not even covered by the conscience clause.
And I would say that anyone who is willing to let another human being continue bleeding, maybe to death, because she MIGHT have had an abortion, needs a serious conscience tuneup, regardless of their beliefs about abortion.
As a health care provider (and most likely a Pharm.D. or DOCTOR) the pharmacist has every right to know the condition being treated by any medication as there are different dosing regimens for different conditions. Believe it or not pharmacists know more about drugs..uses, side effects, interactions than the doctors...especially more than a planned parenthood nurse. Therefore, under HIPPAA the pharmacist has a right to know what the medicine is being used for. Also methergine is an ergot alkaloid and oxytocic agent and it can cause damage and possibly even miscarriage or abortion due to its ability to stimulate uterine contraction. Drugs are used for uses other than those that are FDA approved all the time....And a good pharmacist like the one everyone feels the need to harass know that since that's what we went to school for. I fully support this pharmacists decision to decline to fill the rx and if I were in the same situation I would also refuse it...based entirely on how the nurse or whoever they let call in scripts at planned parenthood acted.
What I find the most amazing thing about this topic is that most of the anti-abortion fanatics say it is murdering an unborn baby or fetus. That makes it against the laws of God and man. But the same person would never shed a single tear over the murder of person who works at an abortion clinic. Be they Doctor, Nurse Practitioner or Janitor.
There is a huge difference between morals and ethics. Professionals must comply ethically, even if the ethical action is in opposition of their own personal morals. That goes with every professional field, not just medicine.
- Home |
- About BW and FAQ |
- Contact Us |
- BW Classifieds |
- Submit an Event |
- Advertise |
- Post a FREE Ad |
- Subscribe |
- BW Feedback |
- Privacy Policy |
- Submission Guidelines |
- Code of Ethics |
-
|
-
|
- BW Local Guide |
-
|
-
|
- Job Opportunities |
- National Advertising |
- Check Out Food, Music, and Art in Other Cities
