Great, guess I'm not shopping target now

[ptpgrad]

From the Planned Parenthood newsletter. This issue infuriates me even more as I am on the pill not for sexual use but for medical reasons. The arrogance infuriates me.

"When the pharmacist told me she wouldn't [fill the
prescription] I went from disbelief to shock to anger. I guess
I'm still pretty angry. It seems unbelievable to me that a
medical professional could/would deny access to a federally
approved drug and impose their personal beliefs in a
professional setting. I am also grateful that I did not need it
filled at that time. I don't know how it would be if I had just
been raped or if the condom broke and I was a feeling confusion
and panic anyway -- and then was denied access and told to go
across the street."

More >> http://www.ppaction.org/ct/kpALwud12zoS/

Comments

[dreamtigress.livejournal.com]

Hrm... See... Remind me to relate to you some stories about how Planned Parenthood has threatened to withhold my Depo shots if I didn't cooperate with *their* procedures and regulations.

[ilostonjeopardy.livejournal.com]

It's happening at pharmacies all over the country. Moral objections to filling the Rx. Some pharmacists going so far as to hold the Rx and refusing to give it back, as they feel that they would be aiding you in getting the medication if they give it back.

I think most chains have had a pharmacist do this lately. I've made a mental note to only get my refills and what not on weekdays, in case I need to call the office and have another prescription written.

[dawntreader]

whether that particular anecdote is true or not, it has nothing to do with Target specifically. any pharmacist can do the same thing whenever they like whereever they are employed.

i thought it was amusing though on Snopes (when i tried to find it--yours is not listed) that they have Wal-Mart being listed as the PP target of choice for the Preven drug.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/walmart.htm

Also:

[chimp-ninja.livejournal.com]

PP says the incident occurred on 9/30/05, but the usually-pretty-comprehensive Google News Search doesn't seem to pull up any reports, even after a few permutation of keywords (fenton and birth control, target and contraceptive, etc.).

If it was Target policy or anything, it'd be all over the news. And unlike most of the stories PP cites on that page, this one isn't linked to an outside news source.

[thatliardiego.livejournal.com]

It's not necessarily the chain -- it's the pharmacist. Note that the Target was in Fenton, MO. Missouri is where joy goes to die -- the Rush Limbaugh state. Much of the state outside of St. Louis and Kansas City is very fundamentalist; think "John Ashcroft." I doubt Maryland is the same way except perhaps in places like Cecil county and some parts of the eastern shore.

If I recall, Target is a "blue state" company (so is Costco, and Costco's pharmacy prices blow everyone else's away). I wouldn't hold it against them.

[tchwrtr.livejournal.com]

...and Cecil county is changing...it's a bedroom community to Wilmington, Philly, Baltimore, and even DC. That much influx from the cities has to change something.

[rsteachout.livejournal.com]

Of course, not all Republicans and red-staters (as could be implied from your comment) are opposed to birth control or approve of what the pharmacist did.

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

Here's an article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5490-2005Mar27.html) about this (from March this year).

There are some significant complicating factors in this issue: first, it is probably not a US Constitutional issue, and as such, would likely be left in the hands of the individual states; also, if a government dictates that pharmacists must dispense drugs as prescribed, then it might become a constitutional issue based on freedom of religion (dictating that someone must perform actions against their religion might violate the 1st amendment); additionally, it is dangerous to suggest that pharmacists who don't like it can seek work elsewhere -- there are simply far too few pharmacists in the country already, and it is not a highly chosen profession by most.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding info.

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

http://www.aphanet.org/pharmcare/ethics.html (http://www.aphanet.org/pharmcare/ethics.html) is the Pharmacist Code of Ethics which can be read two ways. One portion reads In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients. yet in another portion it states The primary obligation of a pharmacist is to individual patients. However, the obligations of a pharmacist may at times extend beyond the individual to the community and society. In these situations, the pharmacist recognizes the responsibilities that accompany these obligations and acts accordingly.

However, given those two statements, I think that a pharmacist is required by the ethical statement of their calling (adopted in 1994), to NOT avoid dispensing birth control due to religious views.