Pharmacist Refused to Fill Woman's Miscarriage Prescription (1 Viewer)

[Optimus Prime]

As much as I disagree with the baker and the gay wedding cake at least it was his business, he owned it.

An employee unilaterally deciding not to serve a customer for personal reasons should be grounds for immediate dismissal
===========================================================================================================================================
Rachel Peterson had a difficult and potentially life-threatening pregnancy before she found out her fetus had no detectable heart rate at the end of June.

The 35-year-old cardiovascular sonographer from Michigan told the Detroit Free Press that her doctor had given her three options: Wait and see whether her body would completely miscarry without any intervention; try the drug misoprostol to aid in the completion of the miscarriage; or schedule a dilation and curettage procedure to surgically empty the contents of her uterus.

Peterson chose the least invasive option, but after the process took longer than expected, her doctor prescribed misoprostol to help the miscarriage along and lower her risk of developing an infection....

But on July 1, the day Peterson was supposed to pick up the medicine, a pharmacist called and refused to fill her prescription. He stated that "he could not in good conscience fill this medication because he was a good Catholic male and could not support an abortion," she told CNN.

Along with aiding in the completion of a miscarriage, misoprostol can also be used to prevent stomach ulcers, induce labor and treat postpartum hemorrhaging. It can also be used to end a pregnancy when combined with another drug.

Peterson explained to the pharmacist that the fetus no longer had a heartbeat and that she needed the drug to miscarry safely.

"I felt ashamed, and I didn’t have to tell him that information but I thought, for my safety, to be able to have children again, this was an important step to take. And he denied that to me," she told the New York Times.

But she said the pharmacist didn't believe her. She also said he refused her requests to speak to another pharmacist or manager and refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy.………………….

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/me...riage-prescription/ar-BBOJqPo?ocid=spartanntp

 

[superchuck500]

These are always tricky. It's weird to me when people are in professions that conflict with their personal beliefs.

I don't necessarily think that refusing to serve a customer is necessarily grounds for termination, and when the reason stated by the employee is religious, the employer better be careful. I'm somewhat dubious of the claim that she couldn't speak to a manager or transfer the prescription.

At the same time, the pharmacist's oath states that "I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal outcomes for my patients." This pharmacist was willing to substitute his own (non-medical) beliefs for the judgment of her physician and may have actually led to an outcome for the patient that was less optimal.

If that's the case, the Michigan board of pharmacy should consider whether this pharmacist's actions meet the expectations of the board. It may be that the pharmacist's refusal for personal religious reasons isn't problematic (and perhaps protected by religious freedom law) but the additional action of refusing further assistance or accommodation by another pharmacist was unacceptable (and non-protected) behavior.

 

[mt15]

The article states the Med could be used for other reasons, so to me the pharmacist was out of line assuming he knew why she was getting it. Plus I don’t know if the Catholic Church itself would deny a woman that drug in the case of fetal demise. What would be the point of denying that drug when the fetus is already deceased?

I know this has happened more than once. It’s just heartbreaking that women who are already dealing with this terrible situation are made to feel like crap by a vigilante pharmacist.

 

[CapitalCitySaint]

The article states the Med could be used for other reasons, so to me the pharmacist was out of line assuming he knew why she was getting it. Plus I don’t know if the Catholic Church itself would deny a woman that drug in the case of fetal demise. What would be the point of denying that drug when the fetus is already deceased?

I know this has happened more than once. It’s just heartbreaking that women who are already dealing with this terrible situation are made to feel like crap by a vigilante pharmacist.

At my last job, I worked for a very large Catholic healthcare delivery system. They refused to perform any medically necessary 'abortions' (so to speak) unless it was a dire emergency, the mother's life was at risk and there was no time to transfer them to another hospital outside our network. Whenever possible, they always tried to transfer the woman elsewhere - even if deemed medically necessary.

 

[mt15]

Even after the fetus had expired? What would be that rationale?

 

[SystemShock]

The rapture can't come soon enough.

 

[rajncajn]

My usual disclaimer: I tend to sway on the pro-life side, but see the need for abortions in many cases, where it involves the health of the mother or the child will not be healthy or rape, incest etc. That said, If he holds those beliefs then he shouldn't be working for a pharmacy that provides such drugs. Otherwise, keep your morals to yourself and push your pills.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

personal views are about how you expect to conduct yourself
foisting your views on others is not personal, it's social - and his social views don't mean ****

 

[Maxp]

At my last job, I worked for a very large Catholic healthcare delivery system. They refused to perform any medically necessary 'abortions' (so to speak) unless it was a dire emergency, the mother's life was at risk and there was no time to transfer them to another hospital outside our network. Whenever possible, they always tried to transfer the woman elsewhere - even if deemed medically necessary.

This is the case throughout the South.

 

[donato]

Denying someone prescriptions unless it's a doctor error / dangerous should be criminal. Unacceptable.

 

[Goatman Saint]

The baby was dead. There isn’t an issue of terminating a life. There was no life to terminate. This is mother’s health only. Fire him

 

[rajncajn]

Denying someone prescriptions unless it's a doctor error / dangerous should be criminal. Unacceptable.

I don't have a problem with pharmacies not carrying certain medications based on their beliefs, but you're right, they shouldn't deny someone something that they stock. I also don't believe in shaming someone by telling them it's against your morals to prescribe them something unless it's a health risk. In a case where they refuse to stock something they can always refer the customer elsewhere.

Edit: that was meant to say "shouldn't deny"

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I don't have a problem with pharmacies not carrying certain medications based on their beliefs, .

if a jewish butcher in a regular deli refused to sell you pork loin, you'd be cool with that?

 

[rajncajn]

if a jewish butcher in a regular deli refused to sell you pork loin, you'd be cool with that?

Oy vey

Yes, but to further or clarify the point, the pharmacy doesn't have to and probably shouldn't tell someone that they don't carry something based on religious beliefs unless specifically asked, but rather simply state that they do not provide it and refer them to another pharmacy.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Oy vey

Yes, but to further or clarify the point, the pharmacy doesn't have to and probably shouldn't tell someone that they don't carry something based on religious beliefs unless specifically asked, but rather simply state that they do not provide it and refer them to another pharmacy.

that would be a better approach than "my soul is more important than your health"
snarky quip aside, i appreciate your response