Druggists refuse to give out pill
 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...etogiveoutpill

Druggists refuse to give out pill
Tue Nov 9, 6:54 AM ET

By Charisse Jones, USA TODAY

For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.

"I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."

Some pharmacists, however, disagree and refuse on moral grounds to fill prescriptions for contraceptives. And states from Rhode Island to Washington have proposed laws that would protect such decisions.

Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills. Yet some pharmacists have refused to hand the prescription to another druggist to fill.

In Madison, Wis., a pharmacist faces possible disciplinary action by the state pharmacy board for refusing to transfer a woman's prescription for birth-control pills to another druggist or to give the slip back to her. He would not refill it because of his religious views.

Some advocates for women's reproductive rights are worried that such actions by pharmacists and legislatures are gaining momentum.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision in September that would block federal funds from local, state and federal authorities if they make health care workers perform, pay for or make referrals for abortions.

"We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

"The explosion in the number of legislative initiatives and the number of individuals who are just saying, 'We're not going to fill that prescription for you because we don't believe in it' is astonishing," she said.

Pharmacists have moved to the front of the debate because of such drugs as the "morning-after" pill, which is emergency contraception that can prevent fertilization if taken within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse.

While some pharmacists cite religious reasons for opposing birth control, others believe life begins with fertilization and see hormonal contraceptives, and the morning-after pill in particular, as capable of causing an abortion.

"I refuse to dispense a drug with a significant mechanism to stop human life," says Karen Brauer, president of the 1,500-member Pharmacists for Life International. Brauer was fired in 1996 after she refused to refill a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in the Cincinnati suburb of Delhi Township.

Lacey, of North Richland Hills, Texas, filed a complaint with the Texas Board of Pharmacy after her prescription was refused in March. In February, another Texas pharmacist at an Eckerd drug store in Denton wouldn't give contraceptives to a woman who was said to be a rape victim.

In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she missed a pill because of the delay.

She filed a complaint after the incident occurred in the summer of 2002 in Menomonie, Wis. Christopher Klein, spokesman for Wisconsin's Department of Regulation and Licensing, says the issue is that Noesen didn't transfer or return the prescription. A hearing was held in October. The most severe punishment would be revoking Noesen's pharmacist license, but Klein says that is unlikely.

Susan Winckler, spokeswoman and staff counsel for the American Pharmacists Association, says it is rare that pharmacists refuse to fill a prescription for moral reasons. She says it is even less common for a pharmacist to refuse to provide a referral.

"The reality is every one of those instances is one too many," Winckler says. "Our policy supports stepping away but not obstructing."

In the 1970s, because of abortion and sterilization, some states adopted refusal clauses to allow certain health care professionals to opt out of providing those services. The issue re-emerged in the 1990s, says Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which researches reproductive issues.

Sonfield says medical workers, insurers and employers increasingly want the right to refuse certain services because of medical developments, such as the "morning-after" pill, embryonic stem-cell research and assisted suicide.

"The more health care items you have that people feel are controversial, some people are going to object and want to opt out of being a part of that," he says.

In Wisconsin, a petition drive is underway to revive a proposed law that would protect pharmacists who refuse to prescribe drugs they believe could cause an abortion or be used for assisted suicide.

"It just recognizes that pharmacists should not be forced to choose between their consciences and their livelihoods," says Matt Sande of Pro-Life Wisconsin. "They should not be compelled to become parties to abortion."

Omigod..Omigod...and people try to argue that religion and politics is separate in this country...HELP! HELP!
Oh, and as a side note, that's all we need, more f**king people... :rolleyes:

You've got to be kidding me. What a load of bull**** :mad:

Nope this has been going on for a while.

This pisses me off on so many levels...

First - it's NOT their place to say what someone else is taking...birth control is a legal substance..

Second - not all women take birth control pills soley for contraception...they are great for regulating monthly cycles, helping ease extreme cramps etc....

Third...this is just CRAP! crap....sure not as strong an argument...but true nonetheless

This is another issue that leaves me wondering what country I am living in. :shrug:

Actually, the crap thing IS a strong argument. To me, trying to defend it by saying that some women don't take it solely for contraception - well, it's true-
but i think it weakens the argument that women should be able to take it for whatever the hell reason they want, and it's none of anybody's damn business.
And i smell something else behind this - I mean, drug companies have a giant rich lobby...so i'm suprised that this law, or whatever, is even being considered. I seriously sense some sort of sinister plot behind this...Yes, i know the extreme right is involved, but I would say the drug lobby is definitely equal to that. it makes me think they have some other reason, some other drug, some other plot they want to sell us, or put into operation, or something...well, i guess if it becomes harder to get, it will become more expensive. But that's so obvious. Nevertheless.... :shrug:
Amber "politics ain't bout nothing but money" g.

I would say "So it begins. . . " but this BS has been going on for awhile now!

Oh for goodness sake! This is rediculous. And it's been happening for a while out there? BTW... are your birth control pills expensive out there? We get them free on the NHS over here

Pip

Birth Control pills aren't free here unless you're uninsured I believe...and in that case I think you can get them through state Department of Health offices - but I know in my home town you have to have a full examination and keep up with the exams in order to receive free birth control pills...

ANd - there are certain insurances that don't cover them unless they are used for something other than contraception - :shrug: God forbid we PREVENT unwanted pregnancies....I just don't get it...

Birth control pills have a higher co-pay ($10) on my health plan than other medications.

But they cover Viagra and the sort - can you tell who runs the drug companies and ins. companies :laugh: :rolleyes:

Hold onto your hats because they also cover those "size enhancement" pills. :rolleyes:

They began with refusing to dispense the morning after pills----and now they're trying to get rid of having to dispense BC pills at all--of any kind. These folks really believe that contraception of any kind is wrong. They care totally about the fetus or even the egg but nothing about a child once they're hear. They gladly cut school funding, daycare, HeadStart, welfare, medicaid, you name it--and see no problem with punishing children (and their parents) after the children are born. But they'd rather kill you than see a fetus destroyed or prevented from being conceived. That's their mindset in a nutshell. And nuts are just so applicable when discussing these right-wingers.

Isn't there some Ledgie out there somewhere in Europe or Australia or Canada who wants to adopt us US left-wingers??????

You mean those things worK???????

SIGN ME UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

:cool:

:laugh:

How can those things be safe for you in the long run, though? They make it so that more blood flows into your penis and blocks it from leaving for a long period of time. It just doesn't seem safe. :shrug:

I do not know, but I am tired of masterbating with tweezers :eek:

:laugh: :laugh:

Lest people accept that as true, it was hyperbole :cool:

This is complete and utter crap. It should be illegal. I totally agree with DeeGe in that no one cares about the children that are born who are unwanted. They can starve, be abused, whatever. But heaven forbid we prevent an egg from fertilizing. :eek:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I just spit Diet Coke all over my keyboard.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

The cover viagra? Such utter bull****..that makes me so angry...

This is yet another issue where I totally and completely differ from my religion...I am so pro contaception...but what irks me about this is that birth control pills, again, and not used just for birth control....

:eek: :lol:

You're on a roll today! :xoxo:

That was how it was in New Mexico ( a place that NEEDS cheap birth control so badly) but here in NY the co-pay for b/c pills is only $5!

the fact that i can't understand the american way, is it coz i'm
a. stupid
b.high
c. it's not me who's not okay
anyway, birth control pills are being subsedized here by any health insurence, including the most basic/mandatory ones, in fact, they are so cheap, that i know of some dogs and cats owners who give them to their pets instead of getting them neutered :eek:

It was only $5 not too long ago but it went up! Ugh. I wonder what the co pay on Viagra is? Maybe I should try to get a 'script. ;)

I've had to pay as much as $20 a month for mine, as my insurance co-pay! And there for awhile, they weren't covered at all--which meant that I had to spend $30 to $35 a month for them! Women really started to raise hell when we found out that they covered Viagra but not Birth Control pills and some of the insurance companies reluctantly began to cover them too.

Definitely "c".

:shocked: Wow.

I remember insurance companies trying to get away with this. It's unbelievable. These medications aren't even "expensive". IF THEY WERE FOR MEN THEY WOULD BE FREE!!!! :mad:

My co-pay was always $15- I finally started going to Planned Parenthood, where the cost of the exam and monthly supply (also $15/month, for any method- ring, pill, etc.) was cheaper than it was for me to go through my insurance.

I thought reading about this happening with the morning after pill was disgusting... this is on a whole other level. Just obscene.

I'd raise hell too...I was shocked to find out that the pill wasn't covered at all by my old insurance - unless used for something other than birth control....good thing I was using it for something else otherwise I couldn't have afforded it...:mad: (perhaps tmi :laugh: )

ha, i know you weren't really laughing, but this makes me want to vomit into my own shoes and then throw them at whoever is f***ing responsible.... :mad: !@#$%^&* :mad:

well, that's one question answered... :cool:

If I sound wishy washy on this issue, I apologize. I don't agree with abortion unless the baby's birth poses a fatal health risk to the baby or the mother. The seed has been planted. On the other hand, I have no problem with contraceptives. The couple is taking steps to insure that the seed remains unplanted. In any case, I don't believe that somone behind a drugstore counter should be given the power to make such decisions. This instance of the woman having her refill refused on grounds of conscience sets a dangerous precedent. Someone else is forcing their views on her.