Prescriptions must be filled under newly adopted rule

[uppityperson]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003238696_planb01m.html

A pharmacist who personally objects to a legal prescription, such as emergency contraception, would be required to fill it if it's in stock, or face sanctions, under a proposed rule adopted Thursday by the state Board of Pharmacy. But the board's decision is by no means the end to the long-running controversy. Public hearings now must be held on the latest rule proposal. And chances are that many pharmacists will line up against it.

This latest proposal in the debate over the so-called Plan B emergency contraceptive was offered by Gov. Christine Gregoire's office as a carefully negotiated "compromise" and was lauded by women's-rights groups. But a last-minute word change Thursday left no compromise on the most controversial issue: whether pharmacists can refuse to fill a legal prescription for reasons of conscience or religion....

(clip)

Many, if not most, pharmacists believed they already had the right to refuse under state laws. Though there are other issues the rule would address, the primary controversy stems from the fight over Plan B, which some people believe is a form of abortion. But reproductive-rights groups have been fighting for a rule that improves access to the contraception, which the Food and Drug Administration recently approved for limited over-the-counter sales.

The board Thursday took up the proposal from Gregoire's office, which said pharmacies had a "duty to dispense lawfully prescribed" drugs, except in certain listed situations such as drug interactions or fraudulent prescriptions. Many pharmacists accepted that wording, saying it would allow an individual pharmacist to avoid filling a prescription, although the pharmacy would still have to find a way to provide the drug to the patient. But the board changed the wording to put the duty squarely on the individual pharmacist, not the pharmacy. Steve Saxe, former executive director of the pharmacy board, said that change was necessary because the board does not regulate pharmacies, only pharmacists.
(more@link)

What if a pharmacists feels morally that the treatment for 50 yr old obese people with high blood pressure is NOT medicine with potentially serious side effects, but instead refers to weight watchers or the local gym?

[LisaM]

1. It makes me so mad. I want to go to pharmacy school

Become a pharmacist, get a job at Wal-Mart, then refuse to prescribe Viagra or Oxycontin. I know that sounds a little extreme, but honestly, if they were refusing to prescribe Viagra or Cialis, I can only imagine the outcry from men.

[Jade Fox]

2. Why do Pharmacist think they have the right to refuse???

I don't understand that statement. It's not their job to make medication decisions for people. That's what doctors are for.