The Washington Board of Pharmacy is apparently going to revisit its regulation requiring every pharmacy to dispense all legal prescriptions. The controversy arose when a small pharmacy chain refused to dispense Plan B contraception based on the religious beliefs of the chain’s owners and fears it could act as an abortifacient. To coerce the company into dispensing Plan B, the Board passed the regulation described above. The company sued and a trial court ruled that it violated the company’s right to freedom of religion. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, claiming that as a general applicable regulation, it did not violate the 1st Amendment–ignoring, or better stated, knowing and not caring–that the only companies likely to oppose contraception dispensing would be owned by people with religious objections. Thus, based on the appeals court ruling, it appeared as if all conscience rights of pharmacies were to be quashed.
My concern had to do with lethal prescriptions for assisted suicide, legal in Washington. If pharmacies could be forced to dispense contraception based on the regulation, but also, drugs intended to kill. But now, the Pharmacy Board has decided to revisit the issue and agreed to revise the rule. From the story:
The state Board of Pharmacy and pharmacists suing it over Plan B want out of court. The litigants asked federal district court Judge Ronald Leighton last week to put their legal fight on hold pending the resolution of a new rule-making process. The move angered advocates of unfettered access to Plan B emergency contraception. They contend the delay signals an undoing of a 2007 victory: the passage of rules requiring pharmacists to dispense a drug unless another pharmacist is available in person or by phone to step in.
The pharmacy board voted last month to reopen the rule-making process to consider “facilitated referral,” which is essentially the “refuse and refer” rule that the board embraced in 2006. Under that rule, pharmacists with moral objections to Plan B – some consider it tantamount to abortion because it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg – could refuse to dispense it as long as they took steps to help patients get it elsewhere.
That would still force pharmacies to be complicit in objectionable (to them) dispensing, and hence, I would prefer that the conscience rights of pharmacies be fully protected–with the condition that it publicly and clearly publicize and post signs in the stores which prescriptions it won’t fill. In other words, a pharmacy that doesn’t wish to participate in the killing of a patient in assisted suicide should not be forced to have anyblood on its hands–even if indirectly. Still, this is good news because it permits those in support of conscience to make their case and help craft a noncoercive approach to dispensing controversial drugs and medications.
Here’s a more lengthy article setting forth my views of conscience rights.
July 17th, 2010 | 1:53 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Lisa. Lisa said: BIOETHICS WATCH => Washington Revisits Quashing of Pharmacy Conscience Rights http://dlvr.it/2k1pP #912 #ocra #ucot #rs #tcot #tlot #sgp [...]
July 17th, 2010 | 2:06 am
[...] Washington Revisits Quashing of Pharmacy Conscience RightsFirst Things (blog)My concern had to do with lethal prescriptions for assisted suicide, legal in Washington. If pharmacies could be forced to dispense contraception based on …and more » [...]
July 17th, 2010 | 9:30 am
Not in disagreement in any way…but I wonder. Given a law that requires a pharmacy to dispense a particular medication that they do not _want_ to dispense, are there any regulations concerning price? It occurs to me that if the going price for the Plan B drug is $25 (and sorry, I have absolutely no knowledge of what the price actually is), is there any reason why the pharmacy can’t charge $125 for the same item? Now for euthanasia drugs, price probably wouldn’t make a difference, but for contraceptives? who’d buy it at that price if they could drive down the road and save $100??? And no – I don’t think anybody should be required to sell anything they don’t want to – but just wondering about a bit of passive resistance here. Till they get things straightened out…
July 18th, 2010 | 12:17 am
I think what we really need to ask is, what’s a pharmacist’s job? We’re not licensing him to practice medicine. We’re not licensing him to practice sociology. We’re licensing (and paying) him to practice pharmacy — i.e., to dispense the lawful prescriptions written by doctors. I don’t give a damn what his religious practices are, or even if he worships a little bronze image of Hippocrates that he keeps behind the counter. If he can’t do the job he’s supposed to do then he should become an auto mechanic (assuming, of course, that he has no great religious scruples about repairing cars whose owners might be engaging in amorous adventures over in the next county; you never know with these types).
It may make no difference to suek whether her neighborhood pharmacist proselytizes from behind the counter. For all I know she lives someplace where there’s a pharmacy on every other corner, so people can go shopping around for the best price on Plan B. Besides, any pharmacist who’s stupid enough to charge $150 for something in order to “make a statement” when all his competitors are charging $20, is going to find that his only customers will be the 20 or 30 religious zealots you find in every community — and since that’s hardly a big enough clientele to keep him in business, the whole matter may have a kind of Darwinian self-correction about it.
Of course a pharmacist has the right to refuse to sell any product he feels like. And that shouldn’t stop other people from doing exactly what THEY have the right to do, which is to go elsewhere. Or maybe even to picket his pharmacy and carry signs reading “This pharmacy is owned by a member of the American Taliban.” You know, just like the right-to-lifers.
July 18th, 2010 | 9:44 am
>>We’re licensing (and paying) him to practice pharmacy — i.e., to dispense the lawful prescriptions written by doctors.>>
“We” as in who? If you mean the pharmacy itself, then I agree that whatever the problems may be, they should be settled as a condition of employment. You seem to be assuming a pharmacist working for Thrifty’s of some such. Many pharmacists are self employed, so the question of paying him to do a job for which he is not prepared doesn’t arise. But then you add the “licensing” to the “We’re”…that sounds as if the government has a voice in this. “‘We’ll’ only license you if you’ll do certain things.”…or “If we license you, you must agree to do thus and so”. That’s rather facist.
>>For all I know she lives someplace where there’s a pharmacy on every other corner >>
Irrelevant. A business owner is not required to sell product simply because a potential customer wants it. Sure it’s good business, and if the business owner doesn’t give some heed, s/he’ll soon be out of business. But it’s still his/her business what s/he sells.
>>Of course a pharmacist has the right to refuse to sell any product he feels like. And that shouldn’t stop other people from doing exactly what THEY have the right to do, which is to go elsewhere.>>
Exactly. And here I thought we disagreed!
July 18th, 2010 | 9:45 am
By the way, HW, would you also require that muslim grocers carry pork??
July 18th, 2010 | 6:36 pm
HistoryWriter:
“Of course a pharmacist has the right to refuse to sell any product he feels like.”
Okay. That contradicts what you’d been writing earlier.
“And that shouldn’t stop other people from doing exactly what THEY have the right to do, which is to go elsewhere. Or maybe even to picket his pharmacy and carry signs reading ‘This pharmacy is owned by a member of the American Taliban.’”
Sure. And I can call Barnes and Noble “the American Taliban” if they refuse to sell me a package of drill bits. And it will be no less stupid than referring to a pharmacy with that term.
July 19th, 2010 | 5:48 am
bmmg39. Maybe you’ve never been inside a bookstore (it sounds likely from your comment).
Bookstores carry books and related publications, not hardware. And drug stores carry (duhhh) DRUGS.
July 19th, 2010 | 5:55 am
suek: The “we” that licenses pharmacists is the state in which we live. In other words, “we the people.” While you might think it’s preferable to have UNlicensed pharmacies run by religious zealots, it’s kind of silly to equate professional licensure standards with “fascism.” Butchers are not professionally licensed by the state. This may be a difficult concept for you to grasp, but it’s actually so. Pharmacist license=YES, Butcher license=NO. Got it?
July 19th, 2010 | 11:08 am
Besides – I have feeling that the Taliban would also condemn birth control. For _any_ reason. It would interfere with their plan for populating the world with muslims.
July 19th, 2010 | 6:14 pm
suek: Actually, orthodox Muslims DO condemn it, and abortion too. So did Adolf Hitler. So does the Pope. So do any number of Christians who believe that “babies are a gift from God” and that preventing them from coming is liking sticking your elbow in the Almighty’s eye. Look kid, the world is full of weird beliefs. Go figure. For my part, I wouldn’t care to see it populated by fundamentalists of any stripe.
July 20th, 2010 | 10:44 am
>>The “we” that licenses pharmacists is the state in which we live. In other words, “we the people.” >>
>>While you might think it’s preferable to have UNlicensed pharmacies run by religious zealots,>>
Strawman.
>>it’s kind of silly to equate professional licensure standards with “fascism.”>>
Is it? if the State _requires_ that by being given a license the same State can also _require_ you to dispense whatever it tells you to dispense, isn’t that a State controlled pharmaceutical?
In fact, the license is given – in all probability – to those who have already been judged to have adequate knowledge by university or professional exams. The license is simply an imprimatur by the State.
By the same token, at least in California, a horse racing trainer need not have _any_ knowledge of training horses. The license required by the State requires that the trainer knows the various laws regarding racing – but does nothing to verify that the trainer knows anything about training. That’s up to the horse owner. I’d be willing to bet that the State licensing of pharacologists is virtually the same. Submit some papers that you’ve passed a test given by someone else, and bingo – you have a number.
>>Butchers are not professionally licensed by the state.>>
Yeah – that job probably belongs to the Union.
>> Pharmacist license=YES, Butcher license=NO. Got it?>>
Got it. Pharmacist needs permission to give out lifesaving or life taking drugs. Butcher needs no permission to kill.
Actually…that’s not true. A slaughter house needs to be permitted – licensed. A butcher only cuts up the carcass after it has been slaughtered. So – I guess you _do_ need a license to kill – just not to cut it up after death.
Which brings up an issue – just exactly what _is_ the function of licensing???
Other than restriction of trade??
July 22nd, 2010 | 3:25 pm
What is the function of licensing:
a. Revenue
b. Consumer protection, by establishing minimum standards for various professions and trades that may have an adverse impact on public health.
c. A means (by the possibility of revocation) of preventing the incompetent from continuing to engage in a trade or profession when they screw up badly and/or often enough.
You may think that’s a “restriction of trade” until you’re unfortunate enough to go into a hospital for a minor procedure and die because of improperly administered anesthesia.
August 6th, 2010 | 3:58 pm
[...] steamroll the consciences of pharmacists–likely to bring the case to the Supreme Court–the state took a second look and now seems to have softened its earlier rigidity by allowing objecting pharmacists to refer to other providers. The governor is not happy, nor [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact