Apparently, there is a law in Arizona that allows pharmacists the right to refuse to fill a prescription for medications that pharmacist feels goes against their moral code. When this occurs, according to store policy, that pharmacist is supposed to tell another pharmacist (one not so hindered) to fill the order.
Well, that did not happen in Peoria Arizona when a lady ordered a medication that would induce a miscarriage because the ten-week fetus had stopped developing. The Pharmacist who received the order refused to fill it citing the law. However, he also broke store rules by not referring the matter to another pharmacist.
This person should be fired for not following store policy and he and his store should be sued for the suffering it has caused this woman who made the only decision she could when faced with this tragic situation.
People who subscribe to the extreme forms of Right to Life view should use some common sense. There is no life if the fetus has stopped developing at ten weeks. Show some decency.
This pharmacist belongs in a different profession. Hobby Lobby is hiring. There should be openings in the supply department of that fine bastion of conservatism and family values after all those people with the illegal smuggling of priceless artifacts from Iraq were revealed.
https://www.azcentral.com/…/z-arizona-walgreens-…/727805002/
https://www.azcentral.com/…/sarah-huckabee-sande…/729391002/
https://www.azcentral.com/…/walgreens-peoria-pha…/729189002/
https://www.azcentral.com/…/pharmacy-board-inves…/732364002/
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/2/17310444/hobby-lobby-bible-museum-antiquities-iraq-smuggling-illegal-artifacts-doj
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“If the pharmacist did not refer the customer to another pharmacist or pharmacy, then he or she should be disciplined. The law we passed was meant to balance the competing needs of patients getting prescriptions filled and pharmacists who have sincere moral or religious objections to participating in abortion. ”
With all due respect to Sen. Kavanagh, he is confusing the law that he created with Walgreens’ corporate policy. Unlike the Walgreens policy – which *does* require that the objecting pharmacist to refer the customer to another pharmacist or a manager – his AZ law requires no such provision. The objecting pharmacist can just hand the prescription back to the customer.
https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02154.htm
At least in this case, the customer was able to get the prescription filled at another Walgreens. What if she was in a rural area? What if there was another pharmacy, but it was out of network?
This Arizona law provides no “balance” – only proof that we need more legislators in Arizona who are willing to stand up and champion women’s rights.
Including the personal moral decision of the pharmacist?
It should have been linked to a post below, where I eventually linked it.
That said, the Pharmacy Board is investigating this case. If the pharmacist did not refer the customer to another pharmacist or pharmacy, then he or she should be disciplined. The law we passed was meant to balance the competing needs of patients getting prescriptions filled and pharmacists who have sincere moral or religious objections to participating in abortion. No medical practitioner should have to give up their career because they remained true to their sincerely held moral or religious beliefs, when the source of the dilemma can be served alternately.
Unfortunately, the law that we passed did not envision circumstances where the drug which causes abortion is being prescribed for a non-abortion purpose, which would not shield a pharmacist. The question here is did the pharmacist know that the drug was not for an abortion and by know I mean was it so stated on the prescription. Probably not and in the future it probably should be to avoid these cases in the future. I am not sure if a verbal attestation by the patient about the drugs purpose would suffice. It is a difficult question.
Senator, why does the religious conviction of the pharmacist carry more weight than that of the woman involved? Yes, perhaps this case’s complexity should make you think a little more seriously about legislating what happens inside of women’s bodies. Maybe thats just not something that should be done by a committee (elected or not) of politicians, but by a doctor. And maybe if a pharmacist has so many strictures about his or her job, he or she should look into a different profession!
I hate to “assume”, but when you say you “did not envision” circumstances like this, is it because you didn’t consult any doctors when you passed the law?
Because it sounds like you didn’t talk to any doctors about a law regarding women’s health and, you know, doctor stuff.
Of course I cannot help to wonder if a female pharmacist had a religious objection to Viagra, (as the failure to get an erection might be considered God’s will, hence interfering with it might be interfering with His will), would she be treated so leniently.
John doesn’t think things through.
John, you didn’t talk to anyone about this “legislation” but Cathi Herrod. The only thing a pharmacist needs to know is 1. Is the prescription legal and valid, 2. Is the product legal. All other assumptions about the product’s use is between the patient and her doctor, and certainly not the business of the Arizona legislature, or misjudgments of a pharmacist. The most grossly misused phase in your circles now is the oxymoron, “religious freedom.”
Senator: what is the relevance of your question?
This situation is outrageous and anyone, especially someone who doesn’t believe in Big Government, should know better than inserting it into the most private parts of a woman’s life, body and emotional state. Perhaps such heartless and mysoginist intervention is legal here in Arizona, but a citizen boycott of Walgreens, and of that Walgreens in particular, might go a long way towards encouraging such places to think twice before hiring a pharmacist or anyone else who feels that they have more of a right to decide on a patient’s access to healthcare than her doctor. Here are numbers for contracting the Company: 1-800-WALGREENS
1-800-925-4733
or Write
ATTN: Consumer Relations
Walgreen Co.
200 Wilmot Rd, MS #2002
Deerfield, IL 60015
Can I infer based upon your mentioning the nonviability of the unborn child as a factor in this case that, were it still alive, you would have supported the right of the pharmacist to refuse service based upon a sincerely held religious or moral belief against abortion, assuming that the pharmacist complied with state law and handed the customer off to a pharmacist who would serve her?
Senator,
My piece faulted the pharmacist for not following store policy, not the law.
If that is the case, then we agree. Be careful, you may be banned from BfA.
The woman had an expectation and right to have that prescription ready. Most drug stores are staffed by multiple pharmacists. This could have been handled by the staff before she came to pick up the medication. What this person did was like that multiple married person in Kentucky who would not give the same-sex couple a marriage license. Individuals in those positions do not have the luxury to choose who they can or cannot serve. If they have a moral objection, they should pass on the responsibility to someone else who has a different perspective.
The so called state law is complete nonsense. It is not up to a service provider to judge a customer’s morality. It is not up to the slaves of Cathi Herrod to ascertain the morality of customers. The raving hypocrisy of he anti regulations party is breathtaking. Stay the hell out of an individual’s personal decisions.
Including the personal moral decision of the pharmacist, assuming he or she meets the law’s standard.