The Religious Consultation
|
|
Chicago Tribune, March 28, 2005 EDITORIAL: Plan
B for pharmacists For years, state and federal law has recognized that doctors and other health professionals who oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds cannot be forced to participate in those procedures--or be penalized for their refusal. But what about pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control pills or emergency contraceptives, saying that the effect of such pills is equivalent to abortion? Planned Parenthood says Illinois law doesn't apply to pharmacists. The group's Chicago-area office says it has filed two complaints with the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation on behalf of two clients against a pharmacist at a Loop Osco who, last month, refused to dispense morning-after pills. The American Pharmacists Association says pharmacists can't be compelled to dispense a medication to which they have moral objections. But the association also says there must be an alternative system in place to make sure the patient gets the drug the doctor has prescribed. There's been no litigation in Illinois to settle the question of whether pharmacists are among the health providers covered by the state law. But the reach in the law is broad, so it's likely they are. Nor are there reliable statistics on how many times refusals occur. As a matter of policy, Walgreens and others recognize the pharmacists' right to refuse to fill certain prescriptions, as long as they follow procedures to ensure customers are otherwise served, either by another pharmacist at the same store or at another store. To dwell on the intricacies of the law is to lose sight of a larger point. Turning customers away is bad for business. Pharmacies are in business to sell drugs. It's not good enough to tell a customer to call back tomorrow when a different pharmacist is on duty, or just go somewhere else. That may be relatively easy in a big city, albeit a good way to lose that customer's repeat business. But in some rural areas, the next pharmacy isn't a few blocks away, but many miles. That's why it's in every pharmacy's best interests to know when problems like these could arise and do its best to avert them. Much of the recent controversy seems to be centered on dispensing the morning-after pill, which is most effective in preventing pregnancy when taken within 24 hours of unprotected intercourse but remains effective for up to 72 hours. Women seeking morning-after pills often don't have the luxury of time to find another drugstore and pharmacist who won't have moral qualms about filling a prescription. Fortunately, this may be moot soon: The federal Food and Drug Administration appears to be close to approving such pills for over-the-counter sale. Pharmacists must be free to exercise their professional judgment. They provide an important check on doctors, and are a valuable source of information for patients. But there's another, arguably more important relationship that could be violated here: doctor and patient. It's easy to see how patients might find a pharmacist's refusal to fill a prescription an unwarranted intrusion into that relationship. Good business practice dictates that employees' moral qualms cannot be ignored. But in respecting one set of concerns, pharmacy owners need to make sure another doesn't get trampled. << Chicago Tribune -- 3/28/05 >> |