Pharmacists should not decide who can receive birth control
By Cay Crow
San Antonio Express-News
Margaret Sanger would have a fit! Pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions? Excuse me? Are we in the Dark Ages? The last time it happened, the pharmacist not only refused to fill the prescription, she would not refer the patient elsewhere or return the original prescription. By the time the patient had the prescription filled elsewhere, she had missed a pill. A Wisconsin pharmacist could be disciplined by his pharmacy board for a similar refusal.
A little perspective first — pharmacists en masse are not refusing to fill birth control prescriptions. It has happened a few times (twice in Texas) but each occurrence has received ample media attention, thereby amplifying the issue. As best I can tell, the trend of refusing to fill prescriptions actually began with emergency contraception and drugs possibly intended for euthanasia. Extending the moral boycott to include birth control requires an illogical leap into faith, rather than science. Here is my problem with this: Pharmacists, like physicians and nurses, are primarily trained in the science of medicine. Any overview of the scientific research shows that the birth control pill, aside from sterilization, is the most effective means of birth control available. Like other medical professionals, pharmacists take an oath to fulfill the obligations of their license. Dispensing birth control pills, whatever their purpose, is part of that obligation. According to the American Pharmacists Association Web site, "Current APHA policy addresses the ability of a pharmacist to refuse to participate in certain activities which conflict with their professional judgment, but there is no policy that addresses decisions based on personal, moral opinions. "Pharmacists choosing to excuse themselves from such a situation continue to have a responsibility to the patient — ensuring that the patient will be referred to another pharmacist or be channeled into another available health system. Exercising the authority to excuse themselves from the dispensing process, and thus avoiding having personal, moral decisions of others placed upon them, requires the same consideration of the patient — the patient should not be required to abide by the pharmacist's personal, moral decision. Providing alternative mechanisms for patients in this situation ensures patient access to drug products, without requiring the pharmacist or the patient to abide by personal decisions other than their own." Pharmacists do not necessarily know why an individual is taking a certain medication. The pill has about 20 uses besides birth control. By making the assumption that a woman takes the pill for birth control, isn't a pharmacist invading a woman's privacy? Should a woman need to explain that the pill keeps her acne or painful periods under control? I respect an individual's right to live and work by a moral code. But when you impose that moral code on others, it smacks of fascism. If a pharmacist does not feel that he or she can fill a prescription out of conscience, then refer the patient elsewhere for their medical care. But do not obstruct a patient's right to care by retaining the prescription. That is unconscionable! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Send your questions to Cay Crow, c/o Features Department, San Antonio Express-News, P.O. Box 2171, San Antonio, TX 78297-2171 or e-mail them to askcay@yahoo.com. Crow's advice column runs Saturdays in S.A. Life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online at: http://www.mysanantonio.com/columnists/stories/MYSA20041211.09P.crow.20da7f.html
| 
