More on "Plan B" and "Conscientious Objector" Pharmacists
---
Scientific American Blog points to a poll that suggests that over two-thirds of all pharmacists may feel entitled to deny emergency contraception (the so-called "Plan B" pill) on moral grounds alone:
I tackled this issue back in April, and my view is unchanged.
Putting aside questions of whether pharmacists are strictly private actors or whether licensing requirements and government reimbursement (or private insurance) can "attach strings" to a pharmacist's conduct, the real issue is whether pharmacists have a right to "blindside" customers by doing business with them by filling other "inoffensive" prescriptions but then suddenly turning them away, without prior notice, when it comes to Plan B.
It's neither costless nor trivial to fill a first-time prescription with a new pharmacy. A patient is entitled, once that relationship is established, not to face the unexpected hassle of having a prescription denied and thereby having to re-establish an entirely new relationship with an entirely new pharmacist.
A reasonable compromise would be to allow individual pharmacists, and entire pharmacy chains, the prerogative of declining prescriptions merely on "moral grounds," provided that they disclose this fact to potential customers before they fill the first prescription. This way customers have the option, upfront, to seek out "non-judgmental" pharmacists and avoid any potential for a future denial of service. Pharmacies would compete on "fill any prescription" pledges the same way they compete on location, hours, delivery options, non-pharmacy offerings and other factors.
Pharmacists may have a right to be "conscientious objectors," but if that's the case then customers have a right to know that fact upfront.
Preliminary disclosure of a "refuse to fill" policy is an ideal balancing of both sides' interests and an optimal policy to resolve the "Plan B" debate.
More thoughts at Disinterested Party.
--69% of the pharmacists indicated that pharmacists should have the authority to refuse filling prescriptions for emergency contraception such as the morning after pill.I had no idea the number of "conscientious objector" pharmacists was so high. This is obviously not just a policy thought experiment.
--While 39% of pharmacists indicated that state laws should not require them to fill certain prescriptions, a significantly smaller percentage of pharmacists (23%) believe that the patient's rights should prevail if a legal drug is prescribed by a doctor.
--37% of pharmacists feel that although they should have the right to refuse, they should also be required to refer patients to another pharmacist who will fill the prescription.
I tackled this issue back in April, and my view is unchanged.
Putting aside questions of whether pharmacists are strictly private actors or whether licensing requirements and government reimbursement (or private insurance) can "attach strings" to a pharmacist's conduct, the real issue is whether pharmacists have a right to "blindside" customers by doing business with them by filling other "inoffensive" prescriptions but then suddenly turning them away, without prior notice, when it comes to Plan B.
It's neither costless nor trivial to fill a first-time prescription with a new pharmacy. A patient is entitled, once that relationship is established, not to face the unexpected hassle of having a prescription denied and thereby having to re-establish an entirely new relationship with an entirely new pharmacist.
A reasonable compromise would be to allow individual pharmacists, and entire pharmacy chains, the prerogative of declining prescriptions merely on "moral grounds," provided that they disclose this fact to potential customers before they fill the first prescription. This way customers have the option, upfront, to seek out "non-judgmental" pharmacists and avoid any potential for a future denial of service. Pharmacies would compete on "fill any prescription" pledges the same way they compete on location, hours, delivery options, non-pharmacy offerings and other factors.
Pharmacists may have a right to be "conscientious objectors," but if that's the case then customers have a right to know that fact upfront.
Preliminary disclosure of a "refuse to fill" policy is an ideal balancing of both sides' interests and an optimal policy to resolve the "Plan B" debate.
More thoughts at Disinterested Party.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Healthcare Provider "Right to Refuse" Movement Gaining Momentum
- More on "Plan B" and "Conscientious Objector" Pharmacists
- On Compulsory Pharmacology
Posted by Kip on
16 December 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
