RonSonic ? wrote:
>
> Oh ********. Nobody (well, okay, nobody important) is trying to regulate
> everyone's sex lives. But don't we all think it well to encourage kids not to
> grow up to be characters in a Kevin Smith movie. Ten thousand years of history
> have taught that if you really work at it you can raise people to be judicious
> and prudent in their sexual decisions. And that if this isn't done hideous
> diseases are only the worst of a wide array of unpleasant consequences.
>
> If you can't liberate yourself from Ms Grundy's disapproving look you just ain't
> a grown-up yet. And that's really what all of this comes down to. Those people
> don't deserve more than a chuckle if you know you're right.
Article from the Seattle Times:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Pharmacists Say No to Filling Birth-Control Prescriptions
by Rob Stein
An increasing number of pharmacists around the country are refusing to
fill prescriptions for birth-control and morning-after pills, saying
that dispensing the medications violates their personal moral or
religious beliefs.
The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over
reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over a pharmacist's
right to refuse to participate in something he or she considers
repugnant, versus a woman's right to get medications her doctor has
prescribed.
It has triggered pitched political battles in state legislatures across
the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect
pharmacists from being penalized or to force them to carry out their
professional duties.
"This is a very big issue that's just beginning to surface," said Steven
Aden of the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious
Freedom in Annandale, Va., which defends pharmacists.
"More and more pharmacists are becoming aware of their right to
conscientiously refuse to pass objectionable medications across the
counter. We are on the very front edge of a wave that's going to break
not too far down the line."
An increasing number of clashes are occurring. Pharmacists often risk
dismissal or other disciplinary action to stand up for their beliefs,
while shaken teenage girls and women desperately call their doctors,
frequently late at night, after being turned away by sometimes-lecturing
men and women in white coats.
"There are pharmacists who will only give birth-control pills to a woman
if she's married. There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe
contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to [dispense] it to
anyone," said Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New
York, which tracks reproductive issues. "There are even cases of
pharmacists holding prescriptions hostage, where they won't even
transfer it to another pharmacy when time is of the essence."
That's what happened to Kathleen Pulz and her husband, who panicked when
the condom they were using broke. Their fear spiked when the Walgreens
pharmacy near their home in Milwaukee refused to fill an emergency
prescription for the morning-after pill.
"I couldn't believe it," said Pulz, 43, who with her husband had long
ago decided they could not afford a fifth child. "How can they make that
decision for us? I was outraged."
Supporters of pharmacists' rights see the trend as a welcome expression
of personal belief. Women's groups see it as a major threat to
reproductive rights and one of the latest manifestations of the
religious right's growing political reach.
"This is another indication of the current political atmosphere and
climate," said Rachel Laser of the National Women's Law Center in
Washington. "It's outrageous. It's sex discrimination. It prevents
access to a basic form of health care for women. We're going back in time."
The issue could intensify further if the Food and Drug Administration
approves the sale of the Plan B morning-after pill without a
prescription — a step that would likely make pharmacists the primary
gatekeepers.
The question of health-care workers refusing to provide certain services
first emerged over abortions. The trend began to spread to pharmacists
with the approval of the morning-after pill and physician-assisted
suicide in Oregon, with support from such organizations as the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Pharmacists for Life
International, which claims 1,600 members on six continents, primarily
the United States, Canada and Britain.
"Our group was founded with the idea of returning pharmacy to a
healing-only profession. What's been going on is the use of medication
to stop human life. That violates the ideal of the Hippocratic Oath that
medical practitioners should do no harm," said Karen Brauer, the
Pharmacists for Life president, who was fired from a Kmart pharmacy in
Delhi, Ohio, for refusing to fill birth-control prescriptions.
No one knows exactly how often that is happening, but cases have been
reported across the country, including in Washington, California,
Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, New Hampshire, Ohio
and North Carolina. Advocates on both sides say the refusals appear to
be spreading, often surfacing only in the rare instances when women file
complaints.
Pharmacists are regulated by state laws and can face disciplinary action
from licensing boards. But the only case that has gotten that far
involves Neil Noesen, who in 2002 refused to fill a University of
Wisconsin student's prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in
Menomonie, Wis., or transfer the prescription elsewhere.
An administrative judge last month recommended Noesen be required to
take ethics classes, alert future employers to his beliefs and pay what
could be as much as $20,000 to cover the costs of the legal proceedings.
The state pharmacy board will decide whether to impose that penalty next
month.
Wisconsin is one of at least 11 states considering "conscience-clause"
laws that would protect pharmacists like Noesen. Four states have laws
that specifically allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions that
violate their beliefs. At the same time, at least four states are
considering laws that would explicitly require pharmacists to fill all
prescriptions.
The American Pharmacists Association recently reaffirmed its policy that
pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions as long as they make sure
customers can get their medications some other way.
The alternative system can include making sure another pharmacist is on
duty who can take over or making sure another pharmacy nearby is willing
to fill the prescription, said Susan Winckler, the association's vice
president for policy and communications.
"The key is that it should be seamless and avoids a conflict between the
pharmacist's right to step away and the patient's right to obtain their
medication," she said.
Large pharmacy chains, including Walgreens, Wal-Mart and CVS, have
instituted similar policies that try to balance pharmacists' and
customers' rights.
Women's advocates say such policies are impractical, especially late at
night in emergency situations involving the morning-after pill, which
must be taken within 72 hours.
Even in nonurgent cases, poor women have a hard time getting enough time
off work to go from one pharmacy to another. Young women, who are often
already frightened and unsure of themselves, may simply give up when
confronted by a judgmental pharmacist.
"What is a women supposed to do in rural America, in places where there
may only be one pharmacy?" asked Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL
Pro-Choice America, which is launching a campaign today to counter the
trend. "It's a slap in the face to women."
But Brauer defends the right of pharmacists not only to decline to fill
prescriptions themselves but also to refuse to refer customers elsewhere
or transfer prescriptions.
"That's like saying, 'I don't kill people myself, but let me tell you
about the guy down the street who does.' "
Pulz, of Milwaukee, eventually obtained her prescription directly from
her doctor.
"I was lucky," Pulz said. "I can sympathize with someone who feels
strongly and doesn't want to be involved. But they should just step out
of the way and not interfere with someone else's decision."
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody important trying to regulate the sex lives of others, Ron "Sonic"?
--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)
