43 Comments - VanillaMan - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 11:29 am: I am glad they did this. It is ridiculous to allow a governor to raise specific non-emergency medical drugs to a priority Blagojevich has raised the “morning after” drugs. We have not seen a governor demanding specific market responses while disregarding a business’ right to operate as they so choose. There are literally thousands of stores distributing these kinds of medications without demanding that all stores distribute them. It is definately worthy of legal considerations. We all win when we continue to recognize the right to run one’s private business as one sees fit. - Amy - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 11:44 am: some areas are without services to women because hospitals refuse requests for care. now, a lack of service with medicines. scary. and wrong. - How Ironic - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 11:47 am: VM, Usually I agree with you, and love your poems/music. But I have to disagree with you on this one. The pharmisist MAY work for a private business. However, that pharmacy gets money from the state via payments for drugs. If the pharmacy want’s to stop providing a service, they need to recuse themselves from ALL dealings with the state. Secondly, the pharmacy should not be in a position to overrule a DR. in the case of medicine to be dispensed. The pharmacist doesn’t know, need to know, or even have to hazard a guess as to why a drug has been prescribed. In larger cities, it may be easier for a customer to go to another pharmacy to get their prescribed medicine. However, in some smaller towns, it may not be that easy. Why should the beliefs of one person override the health considerations of a legally prescribed medication for a patient? Their job is to dispense medication, not make moral judgements. If they want to do that, they should be working at a church. - JR - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 11:49 am: quick correction to your description Rich. The rule didn’t require pharmacists to dispense it. It required PHARMACIES to dispense it (if they carried it). An individual pharmacist could always go get a coworker to fulfill the request. Any pharmacy that doesn’t want to dispense it simply doesn’t have to stock it… Its one of the only good things the Governor has done… Hate to see this go awry. - wordslinger - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 11:53 am: If any of you out there are confused by this item, rest assured, we are in the 21st Century. - Pat Collins - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 11:53 am: some areas are without services to women because hospitals refuse requests for care Care to name two or three? - Smelly Cat - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:05 pm: VM- EC is also an emergency drug… especially in the case of rape! Get your facts right before even think of labeling any drug or action. - Amy - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:16 pm: anywhere there is only a Roman Catholic hospital for miles around. this is a service issue across the country. - Belle - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:23 pm: I’m glad they did this. The ‘morning after pill’ is just a way to flush away any fetus created before. To many people, that is abortion and we all know how that never ending argument never ends. It isn’t like the women have need of medicine so they won’t die! It’s a choice, my sisters. Yea court! - BIG R.PH. - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:27 pm: Here are the issues if anyone cares to read/listen. 1) ALL health care workers in the State of Illinois are covered by the right of conscience. This includes doctors, nurses, dentists, podiatrists, nurse practioners and physician assistants as well as pharmacists. Pharmacists ARE part of the health care team. (Yes we do more than take pills out of a big bottle and put them into a smaller bottle!) Therefore, just like any other health care worker pharmacists are covered by the Act which happens to be the law in the State of Illinois passed by the elected Legislature and signed by the sitting governor. 2) A single elected politician decides, by executive “emergency order” that he wants to change the law. This particular politician has no medical background or training or experience to make this decision he just does it because he thinks it is a “good idea”. 3) Here comes the slippery slope…The next politician comes along and says, for example, that anyone that complains of pain must be given narcotics. Then every drug seeker in the country will be moving to Illinois to be treated because they have to be. And all because of one individual bozos decision! - Jason - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:39 pm: People need to get their facts straight on what plan B actually is. It doesnt “Flush away Fetus”. An embryo doesnt become a fetus until 11 weeks. Plan be works up to 3 days and if you are already pregnant it doesnt stop anything. Anti biotics stop cell growth which can kill cells, I dont see anyone object to prescribing them because of religious views against killing. People need to get a grip. - smarty pants - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:40 pm: VM: Amy is right on!! Big R. PH: there is a matter of opinion that not all the individuals you have identifed are really covered under the right of conscience act. I think you’re reading more into the act then what is there. Simply being a health care worker is not enough. - legal scholar - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:44 pm: These christians need to stop forcing their views on everyone. If they can’t leave their views athome when they enter the public square they should simple stick to manual labor. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:45 pm: ==If the pharmacy want’s to stop providing a service, they need to recuse themselves from ALL dealings with the state.== So are you willing to start telling Illinois businesses that if they wish to provide services to the poor, dependant on state payments, they may choose not to provide those products and services? That doesn’t sound right. As to rape - when a rape occurs, a crime occurs. To think that a rape victim will not have appropriate medical assistance is ridiculous. Naturally, any medication would be appropriate. So this issues has nothing to do with the criminal act of rape, nor the appropriate medical response for the victims of rape. To believe that the “morning after” pill is a medical emergency requiring all pharmacies in Illinois to have this medication on hand at all times and in all circumstances, mocks what is a medical emergency. No one is going to die if they have to go across the street to another pharmacy which distributes the appropriate medication. Your rape argument is nonsense and inappropriate. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:50 pm: ==An embryo doesnt become a fetus until 11 weeks.== But when conception occurs, a human life is created. How you wish to dehumanize all humans at that stage of biological development is little more than legalese and defies the truth. It is right and appropriate for all societies to protect human life, regardless of how lawyers, supposed enlightened critics, and fleeting fads wish to define what is human. - How Ironic - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:53 pm: VM- The rape arguement is NOT nonsense. Who are you to decide that it is? If a woman is raped, she should be able to take the pill to prevent a pregnancy. Why should she be subject to someone deciding that they are not “worthy” of treatment because they don’t know the situation. And you can’t be so glib about the ablity to travel to another pharmacy. Not everyone lives in a big city, and not every small town has more than one pharmacy. And if a company is going to take taxpayer money, then they should be subject to some level of oversight. And the pharmacists duty is to provide a service. Not pass judgement. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:53 pm: ==The pharmacist doesn’t know, need to know, or even have to hazard a guess as to why a drug has been prescribed.== A doctor does not know what medications you are on, the amount of the medication you are taking, the side effects of the combinations of medications, and over the past few years, the role of a Pharmacist in guiding each of us in how medication is injested, when it is taken, with what it is taken, is recognized as important as the knowledge of other medical practitioners. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:55 pm: ==Their job is to dispense medication, not make moral judgements. If they want to do that, they should be working at a church.== You sound qualified to work with our current governor in that he also doesn’t have a problem with those willing to leave their morals behind them. - How Ironic - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:56 pm: VM, if a pharmacist sees that there will be a drug interaction, it should be addressed. The pharmacist “feels” that a patient shouldn’t take a pill because of their moral compass they should keep their mouth shut. It’s not their job to preach their morals. Again, work in a church. Not at a pharmacy. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:57 pm: ==These christians need to stop forcing their views on everyone.== You are not much of a legal scholar if you do not recognize the very crux of our legal beliefs. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:58 pm: VM, chill a bit, please. You’re completely dominating this thread. Allow others to have their say. - facts - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 12:59 pm: I think it is important to get the facts straight here. Only “JR” got it right. - VanillaMan is wrong - this rule does not require every pharmacy to carry plan b The rule is very simple. Use the google. All it says is that if a pharmacy carries Plan B, the pharmacy has to fill prescriptions for it without delay. Plan B is already an approved drug. So that debate is over. If a pharmacist doesn’t want to distribute Plan B, they don’t have to. They need to have their coworker do it. If you are the ONLY pharmacist, then all you have to do is not carry plan b. That’s all the rule requires. A lot of incorrect info being floated around. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 1:01 pm: ==If a woman is raped, she should be able to take the pill to prevent a pregnancy. == We are not in disagreement. When a rape occurs, appropriate medical needs are applied. It is considered a medical emergency, the corner pharmacy is not where a rape victim is taken for treatment. This is not a viable argument in this particular case. - How Ironic - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 1:13 pm: VM- It is if the woman is treated at a Catholic Hospital. They don’t carry Plan B. So, the patient would need to leave the facility to get her medication. It is relevant. - legal scholar - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 1:19 pm: And that is why catholic hospitals need to be shut down… If they want to be a church, be a church, if you want to be a hospital leave your tired fabricated unthinking beliefs at home. - Leroy - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 1:21 pm: Amy said: “now, a lack of service with medicines.” more accurate: “now, a lack of service with non-therapeutic medicines.” What’s next? The governor dictating state hospitals must now must perform cosmetic surgery? - Pat Collins - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 1:33 pm: need to stop forcing their views on everyone You mean like the NRA wants to force all stores to sell guns and ammo? Like some want to FORCE people do perform an act they dont agree with? - BIG R.PH. - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 1:39 pm: Smarty Pants: Yes this has been ruled on by the supreme court of Illinois and yes pharmacists ARE covered by the Health Care Worker Right of Conscience Act. Please do your research before you start typing. - Black Robe - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 1:41 pm: Legal Scholar wow! Your comments dont convey much evidence of scholarship. The fact is that pharmacists were fired who refused to dispense that medicine. They were not given the option of handing the prescription to another to fill. Walgreens policy in this regard was particularly egregious. I know three pharmacists that lost their job. Moreover, many pharmacies in this state are staffed by only one pharmacist at a time so the option to punt to another is not available. Regardless of your personal opinion regarding abortion and/or contraception, I encourage all posters to revisit the 1st Amendment of the US Const. and contemplate the meaning of the phrase that govt. “shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The issue of freedom of consciousness is not a triffling matter. One may hate religion, and may find religious people idiotic, but their constitutional rights are the same as your. So, as you contemplate urinating on their rights, remember it is your rights too that will be getting soaked. - Martin - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 1:42 pm: If a pharmacist is a member of the Church of Scientology, then he/she can refuse to dispense drugs for treatment of psychiatric conditions. The CO$ is very opposed to psychiatry. I think we can find other such examples. Could a Jain refuse to dispense antibiotics since they kill living creatures (i.e. bacteria). We will need billboards outside pharmacies, clinics, hospitals, etc listing what treatments are not available because of “conscience” issues. - Ghost - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 2:03 pm: 2 quick points. First, the pharmacists are not named in the right of consciousness act; they went before the legislature to have themselves enumerated in the act and were denied. Second, the pharmacists are major hypocrites and this has nothing to do with religion. Any Pharmacy is 100% fre to refuse to stock and sell contraceptive medicine. this rule does not change that. the problem, all these religious values pharmacies and pharmacists get a big chunk of money from contraceptive meds, so they want to sell them. let me repeat that, the pharmacies raising this issue wants to sell contraceptives to make money. they have no moral compunction with selling the contraceptives. If they decline to sell any contraceptives they are not impacted by this rule. Plan B in formualtion is just a months worth of contraceptive meds in a single dose. So the pharmacies are already selling this medicine, they just want to object to this specific package and dose. Also, a number of drugs, including steroids, have abortive side effects. How many of these pharmacies and pharmacists are refusing to dispense these drugs to women? A pharmacist is not licensed to prescribe drugs or treat medical problems, they have a limited oversight role is selling the product. If they have a moral issue with carrying out the serivces have tey have the State to license them to perform, then carry out another profession. - How Ironic - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 2:06 pm: Legal- Thats not a very good viewpoint. They (Catholic Hospitals) don’t carry Plan B, thus are not subject to the ruling. They do good work in the community, and in some smaller population areas, the non-profit hospitals are very important for the local economy. It’s not that they can’t prescibe the Plan B, but they just don’t have them on site to dispense. - cermak_rd - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 2:31 pm: Some Catholic hospitals will give Plan B if the woman has not yet ovulated (thus making the alleged “abortifacient” properties of Plan B moot). In that case, Plan B acts as an ovulation inhibitor. The pharmacists that were fired were fired by Walgreens, not the state of IL. Walgreens did not want to pay to have 2 pharmacists on site at the same time. I can’t say I blame them. As a private business, it has the right to determine who it will hire and retain. The pharmacist can always go find a pharmacy that does not sell or dispense Plan B or contraception, or perhaps found one themselves. Certainly no person should ever be preached at by a pharmacist just for presenting a script. One of the founders of Pharmacists for Life relayed a story in which he not only didn’t fill a script, but would not return it either, lest he abet her in her “sin”. For that, he should have had his license suspended forever. That is never excusable. And it is a good reason why I will never support anything that organization supports. Because they appear to me to be anti-contraception zealots. I did not start out in life being anti-Christian, but groups like this could sure turn me into one. - Anon - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 3:23 pm: Thank you, Ghost. As a primary care physician at a major hospital I occasionally need to prescribe Plan B for my patients which I find a soul-searching, but ultimately necessary decision which resides between myself and my patient. Frankly, I make life and death decisions nearly every day of my life and so the moralistic consequences of such difficult decisions have already been considered. If some pharmacists can’t handle the heat of this type of medical intervention then I suggest they completely get out of the contraception kitchen. VM: I also respect your political input here, but your knowledge of what treating physicians know and don’t know about their patient’s medications and the potential side-effects of multiple medications is stunningly ignorant. While I respect and depend on the critical input of my pharmacist colleagues, with all due respect I deal with the consequences of my daily decisions in real time and in person, not behind a counter looking at a profile and database. - smarty pants - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 3:39 pm: Big R.PH: I have done the research and you are reading much more into the SC response that what is there. Putting a positive spin on an opin that isn’t doesn’t make it so. They did not say what you thin as they sent it back to the lower courts to be ruled on - Black Ivy - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 4:30 pm: Unfortunately, this decision will have far-reaching implications for the pro-choice struggle in Illinois. Pharmacists are licensed scientists who should leave their socio-political beliefs at the door when dispensing legal drugs. Women seeking emergency contraception should be able to purchase these drugs from licensed facilities. Just as physicians must provide abortion services at certain clinics or hospitals in Illinois, pharmacists must too fulfill their duties - Gabriel - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 4:48 pm: ==Just as physicians must provide abortion services at certain clinics or hospitals in Illinois, pharmacists must too fulfill their duties== But they don’t. The Doctors can abstain based on their rights of conscience. All the ILSC said was that the plaintiffs have the standing for legal review of their case. This is good. The State was punting. It was blocked. Now the courts can review the civil rights of the plaintiffs. Although, perhaps the State will appeal to federal court. - Black Robe - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 4:56 pm: Anon Doc, While your conscience is not sufficiently offended by Plan B such that you would not prescribe it when indicated, eroding the scope and protection of the conscientious medical objector is not wise. Careful who you root for on this one. Consider the poem of a german intellectual who mused:(I paraphrase) first they came for the communists, I did not speak up because I was not a communist, then the trade unionist same, then the jews,same, and when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up. Guard the right jealously my friend and thanks for your service. - Amy - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 5:17 pm: Leroy, in your comment above, you compared reproductive medicine to cosmetic surgery. this is a slap in the face to women and the care of their bodies. and completely ridiculous. - Anon - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 5:56 pm: Thank you, Black Robe. I don’t claim any moral or intellectual superiority on these issues. I’m just willing to walk into the metaphorical dark alley of tough decision making and conflict. Many others do the same thing everyday and I thank them too for their service. - Gabriel - Thursday, Dec 18, 08 @ 6:10 pm: ==in your comment above, you compared reproductive medicine to cosmetic surgery. this is a slap in the face to women and the care of their bodies.== Are they or are they not two forms of medicine that take perfectly functioning aspects of the human body and alter them to the preference of the user for purposes clearly outside of life saving circumstances? Both, in an incredibly small number of cases, do in fact relate to life saving practices. However, both are far and away utilized for other purposes. There’s plenty of good reasons to support both sides, but there are also many analogous methods to ruffle the feathers of your opponent. - cermak_rd - Friday, Dec 19, 08 @ 8:50 am: Couldn’t they just solve this problem by making Plan B available at the counter instead of behind it? Just make it an off the shelf type purchase. I suspect that’s what will happen if pharmacists make it a problem for women to get Plan B. - Ahem...The REAL Anonymous - Tuesday, Dec 23, 08 @ 12:30 am: ========================== We will need billboards outside pharmacies, clinics, hospitals, etc listing what treatments are not available because of “conscience” issues. ========================== There you go. If certain pharmacists are allowed NOT to dispense the “morning after pill”, then they should state so on their websites and post signs at the door. The last thing a woman needs is to make that tough call, walk in the door, present her script, and be judged–and possibly humiliated in front of all of her neighbors standing at the counter because someone refuses to fill her prescription. The “moral” playing field is leveled. ALL those who feel they can’t agree with a Pharmacy NOT filling a drug that was legally prescribed can stay clear of the Pharmacy. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.