Completely unacceptable.

Intolerance

Diabloii.Net Member
Completely unacceptable.

Pharmacists fired for denying 'morning after' pill

DENTON, Texas (AP) -- Eckerd Corp. has fired three pharmacists who declined to fill an emergency contraception prescription for a woman who had been *****, one of the pharmacists said.

Gene Herr said Wednesday he and two co-workers were fired January 29, six days after refusing to fill the prescription. He said his own refusal was based on religious grounds.

Eckerd has declined to comment on their employment status. Joan Gallagher, the vice president of communications for Largo, Florida-based Eckerd would say only that the company has taken appropriate disciplinary action.

Herr, 33, of Denton, said he declined to fill the prescription for the so-called "morning-after pill" because he believes it could have killed the embryo if the woman already had conceived. Though he had declined five or six times in the past to fill such prescriptions, it was the first time he had been handed one for a **** victim, he said.

"I went in the back room and briefly prayed about it," said Herr, who had worked for Eckerd for five years. "I actually called my pastor ... and asked him what he thought about it."

The two other pharmacists who were present also declined to fill the prescription. Herr would not name them.

The **** victim had the prescription filled at a nearby pharmacy.

Gallagher said Eckerd's employment manual says pharmacists are not allowed to opt out of filling a prescription for religious, moral or ethical reasons.

Herr said he did not know about that policy until his supervisors questioned him about it shortly before he was fired.

"In my mind if I agree to work for someone knowing that that's their policy, then I should submit to that policy. But I didn't even know about it," he said.

Morning-after pills are higher doses of the hormones in regular birth control pills and have been sold under the brand names Plan B and Preven since 1998. Taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse, the pills are at least 75 percent effective at preventing pregnancy.
Source

Lunacy.
 

Mister 4

Diabloii.Net Member
Where was the hypocratic (sp?) oath in this?

First rule is: Don't cause harm to the patient. Or something to this extent anyway. Weren't they causing her both mental and physical harm?
 

Munch

Diabloii.Net Member
Mister 4 said:
Where was the hypocratic (sp?) oath in this?

First rule is: Don't cause harm to the patient. Or something to this extent anyway. Weren't they causing her both mental and physical harm?
Uhh.... only doctors take the hypocratic oath.

Intolerance, your tendency to post an article and offer absolutely zero input/opinion is annoying. Just thought you'd like to know.
 

Munch

Diabloii.Net Member
Yeah, but what is "Lunacy" directed towards? The pharmacy's policy, the pharmacist's actions, what?
 

tintrail

Diabloii.Net Member
Since Intolerance hasn't yet replied, I think I should say that maybe he didn't want to express his opinion on it. He has the right to not do so, and maybe he wants to see other reaction towards the article.

Granted it may be annoying to you, but I don't see any reason you should call him out on it, since is is in a way rude to do so.

Just my 2.25 cents.
 

toader

Banned
Im glad that he got fired.

Someone in that position cannot be denying pills that have been prescribed by doctors. In fact, I think legal action should be taken against this phamacist (or Eckards). I dunno if there is any precedence for this case, if not, then she should start one. IMO it should be VERY illegal (warrenting heavy fines or small jail times) for pharmasicts to deny prescriptions.

This isnt an abortion issue at all. Whether your for or against abortion, is irrelevant. The issue is denying of prescribed medications, and that is WRONG.


edit:

p.s. Munch, why dont you start a form we can fill out when submitting posts so that you wont get annoyed any longer. :scratch:
 

Munch

Diabloii.Net Member
toader said:
p.s. Munch, why dont you start a form we can fill out when submitting posts so that you wont get annoyed any longer. :scratch:
Fine. Here you go.

<insert facts here>
<insert opinions here>

Done.
 

giantpinkbunnyhead

Diabloii.Net Member
This seems to me like yet another case where the innocent has been made to suffer further in the name of somebody else's religion/belief. I say jail the pharmacist, let him take some rear-action, and then deny him the medications to fight against the STD's he picks up, while telling him that the reason he doesn't get the medical help is because "of religious concerns". Eye for an eye buddy!

I mean, if you wanna be religious, fine. But DONT make me be religious with you! He certainly deserved the termination. He had no right to subject a poor **** victim to his own pathetic agenda.
 

Munch

Diabloii.Net Member
I disagree, gpbh. The pharmacist had every right to not fill that prescription. And the victim had every right to take her business elsewhere. And the pharmacy had every right to fire the pharmacist on the execution of his beliefs.

The only situation the pharmacist was in the wrong was when he told the customer she was immoral and when he refused to transfer her prescription to another pharmacy.
 

Dark Matter

Diabloii.Net Member
Are pharmacists allowed to just dish out Morning After pills to whoever asks for one in the US?

I may be wrong (I have never needed one so am not entirely sure) but I think that the M.A. pill can only be presribed in the UK. I think you need to see a Doctor or go to a clinic to get one.
 

Munch

Diabloii.Net Member
Dark Matter said:
Are pharmacists allowed to just dish out Morning After pills to whoever asks for one in the US?

I may be wrong (I have never needed one so am not entirely sure) but I think that the M.A. pill can only be presribed in the UK. I think you need to see a Doctor or go to a clinic to get one.
You need a prescription, which she had. You're also allowed to take a prescription anywhere you like, which she did. If you don't like the service you're getting, you're allowed to take your business elsewhere, which she did (or was forced to).
 

swami

Banned
toader said:
Im glad that he got fired.

Someone in that position cannot be denying pills that have been prescribed by doctors. In fact, I think legal action should be taken against this phamacist (or Eckards). I dunno if there is any precedence for this case, if not, then she should start one. IMO it should be VERY illegal (warrenting heavy fines or small jail times) for pharmasicts to deny prescriptions.


. The issue is denying of prescribed medications, and that is WRONG.


. :scratch:
what the hell? what do you think the pharmacists role is? The pharmacist has EVERY right to refuse service or NOT dispense against a given prescription. A pharmacist is in the position he/she is BECAUSE he/she can exercise proper judgement on supply of medication.

In this case the patient should have been referred to the nearest place where the lady could obtain her meds. He is in the wrong here because he called the woman immoral.

Your take on pharmacists seems ignorant at best.

edit: just to add, in the UK, a pharmacist CAN deny the supply of emergency contraception if it does impede his/her religious beliefs, but the onus is then on the pharmacist to direct the patient to a different source.
 
Top