About pharmacists and the "day-after" pill

[hedgehog]

I understand that this medication could be prescribed for several different reasons including treatment of miscarriage. If a pharmacist dispenses the medication with the warning that it would interfere with implantation, hasn't he or she fulfilled his or her resposibility? My pharmacist informs me all the time about possible side effects and interactions. Maybe that's being too Jesuitical, but it seems to me that it is up to the patient to determine intent, not the pharmacist.

[AngryOldDem]

1. I think it does

When I take a legally written prescription to the pharmacist, I want it filled. I don't care how the pharmacist personally feels about my medication, or why I need it. It's really none of his business. I don't mind, though, the usual pamphlets that explain the drug and its side-effects, and I agree that this is enough to fulfill the responsibility of one's sense of personal morality. Ultimately, I am responsible for my own actions.

I think there's more immediate controversy along these lines over the Pill, but there was one case in Texas where a pharmacist denied the morning-after drug to a rape victim.

We all have jobs to do. If we can't abide by the descriptions of those jobs, we're free to leave that line of work, or set up a shop where we can, in good conscience, do our work.

[hedgehog]

2. A pharmacist is supposed to be something more than a licensed

clerk. If you've ever worked with a good one, you know that he or she takes a responsibility when dispensing medicine. Abortion is legal, but no doctor or nurse is forced to be a provider. My question is whether a pharmacist in clear conscience can dispense a drug with multiple uses once he has assured that he is dispensing it accurately and has given the patient full information. Maybe we're saying the same thing. Who is responsible for the intent, the pharmacist or the patient?

[etherealtruth]

3. Pharmacists ARE much more than clerks ...

They are responsible for assessing the safety of drugs with respect to allergies, drug interactions and specific patient conditions and physiological deficits and differences. They are charged with providing information about safe drug use and recognizing untoward effects. They have proved to be a defense against physician errors.

What they are not intended to do is impose THEIR moral values on patients.

Physicians and nurses are not required to participate in abortions----however it is assumed that if they oppose abortion they will not choose to work in a family planning clinic.

If parts of a job are morally objectionable to you --- YOU have a responsibility to seek a different job. I would not work in a sporting goods store because I am opposed to gun use. As a nurse (former) I would not accept a job at a family planning clinic.

Do not delude yourself --- you may not agree with the next wave of moral decisions that others make for you.

[hedgehog]

4. Let me re-phrase the question-

Pharmacists are being told that it is their moral duty not to distribute the "morning-after pill" on the grounds that to do so is to take part in an abortion. I am suggesting that this is a false dilemma because the pharmacist is not responsible for the ultimate use of the medication. It can be prescribed to ensure that a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is completed ( an alternative to the D&C that used to be the standard follow-up?). Is the pharmacist more involved in an abortion than say the person who works for a laundry service that happens to service an abortion clinic? It's my guess that a good many drugs prescribed for other purposes also induce abortion. Once the pharmacist warns a patient of possible side effects, what other responsibility does he have? .

[AngryOldDem]

6. Then they need a conscience clause...

...which some states are in the process of enacting. And no, the pharmacist is not responsible for the ultimate use of the medication, if he has acted in good faith with the customer and fully disclosed all the information about the drug in question.

[AngryOldDem]

5. I'm well aware of the job duties of a pharmacist

But it is not within his job description to make moral judgments concerning why I may need a particular drug that may have multiple uses that he, as an individual, might have trouble with. If he informs me of all the side effects, consequences, what-have-you, then he has done his job.

If he has a problem with doing his job, again, he's free to find another line of work.

To answer your question, I am responsible for my own actions, as I am in every other sphere of my life. People can advise, counsel, cajole, warn, etc., but ultimately I choose what to do. And, accepting responsibility for my actions goes hand in hand along with this.

[hedgehog]

7. I'm not talking about job description

I'm asking whether as a Catholic or Orthodox Christian you think a pharmacist has a moral responsibility in this matter beyond dispensing what was prescribed and offering information about the drug's effects. I tend to think that that is indeed the extent of his moral responsibility, but I'd like to hear what others think.

In other words, I'm asking whether a Catholic pharmacist would need a conscience clause. I don't think so because the patient's intent is not his concern.

[AngryOldDem]

8. Didn't I answer those questions?

I think we are on the same page here, but I really can't tell.

Let's try it one more time: The pharmacist's responsibility -- moral and otherwise -- begins and ends with his informing the customer of all the potential side effects and other consequences of the drug. He cannot be responsible for how that drug is used, or who uses it, or why, after it is bought and paid for and taken out of the store. If he finds that he cannot even inform customers without it bothering his conscience to such an extreme, then he needs to reconsider some things.

That's just restating your sentence, "I don't think so because the patient's intent is not his concern."

I don't know how more plainly to say it, and frankly, I'm too damned tired to care.

[Bunny]

9. A co-worker recently had to take a drug in order to induce a

miscarriage. She was carrying a blighted ovum. This is the second time this has happened to her. The first time, they did a D&C to remove the tissue. This time, the doctor wanted her to have a miscarriage, to try to reduce scar tissue, thus preserving what fertility she may have. She did not miscarry naturally, so she was prescribed something. She took the medicine, and it did not work. Three days later she had to take it again. That time it did work.

She lives in a VERY conservative community. I wondered if she'd get any sort of hassle getting the prescriptions filled. It doesn't appear that she did.

But why should a pharmacist have any business denying her the prescription? She was not carrying a human embryo, just some tissue that was never going to develop into anything. In an emotionally devastating time like this, the last thing she'd need is some self-righteous ass trying to impose his or her "morals", without having any idea of the circumstances.

[hedgehog]

10. This is a good example of why I don't think this is an issue of

conscience. Oddly enough, I probably would consider the morning after pill a form of abortion if it were taken to prevent implantation. However, it is not the pharmacist's moral duty to determine motive, only to dispense drugs accurately and with information. I think a lot of pharmacists are being dragged though the fire for no reason. I think we're all on the same page here. I just wanted a clear analysis from the pharmacists' point of view without trying to balance the patients' rights.