Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
advertisement
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Jason Coleman's column >>

JASON COLEMAN

Home Page
A structural engineer with a love for tech, politics, science, and culture.
Articles Posted: 8  Links Seeded: 1601
Member Since: 1/2006  Last Seen: 8/04/2011

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

The Wonders Of Modern Medicine

Sat Feb 18, 2006 5:28 PM EST
health, opinion, abortion, womens-health, pharmacy, plan-b, contraceptives, morning-after-pill
By Jason Coleman
advertisement

Pharmacists are like engineers in at least one way: when they make the news, it is almost never a good thing. Last Spring, a number of pharmacists made national headlines when they refused to fill prescriptions for The Morning After Pill, which isn't so much a single pill as a short regiment of pills. Brand named Plan-B, made by Barr Pharmaceuticals, went against these professionals' religious beliefs and so they stated that they could not in good conscience sell it. The facts have seemed to me hard to pin down on exactly what happened in any one case, but I have found some records. Particularly, to what level were these women denied having the prescriptions filled? Some reported that two women were simply told to come back at another time and consult a different pharmacist who would be comfortable dispensing the medication. However, other women stated that a pharmacist had taken their prescription, refused to fill it or even give it back so they could go elsewhere. Further yet, some stated that they were given lectures by pharmacists on abortion and religion.

In response, the governor of Illinois signed into law a rule requiring pharmacists to fill these prescriptions without delay. Five pharmacists from Walgreens were suspended or fired, along with at least one from Target. Several more states are considering a variety of laws, from requiring prescriptions to be filled to providing rights of conscience for pharmacists and other health care workers. The pharmacists from Walgreens are suing in Illinois, claiming they were fired in violation of the state's healthcare worker's rights act for not agreeing to uphold the new without delay law. More recently, the Massachusetts state Board of Pharmacy required Wal-Mart to begin stocking and selling Plan-B to comply with the state's law for stocking all commonly prescribed medications.

Allow me to attempt to outlay some of the dangers of both sides of this argument. First, as a licensed professional, telling a pharmacists to just 'shut up and do your job' has severe dangers entailed. They don't sell paperclips back behind that counter. Prescription medications are often dangerous or even life threatening if not taken properly. The pharmacist serves as a safety guard between the physician (who typically only has one course in medications and the pamphlets the drug reps leave behind) and the patient. The number of calls made by the pharmacist to a doctor or nurse alone regarding mis-prescribed drugs is enough to merit their role. They do much more, but let's be clear: they have a license for a reason. They are trained health care professionals whose judgment helps patients' lives. Telling license professionals to shut up and do their job results in tragedies, and when technically ignorant lawmakers step in to force that mentality, the public is receiving a disservice. Particularly in the case of pharmacists, telling them to just fill whatever comes across the counter is a recipe for forged prescriptions, doctor shopping, and drug abuse.

Now, on the other side, becoming a licensed professional requires one to make certain promises to the public, for it is they in the end who have granted us the license to practice. Through a proxy of a state-board of professionals appointed by an elected government, we answer to the public. Not individually, but by consensus. Further, we do not have the authority to think that any one of our judgments so vastly outweighs those of the rest of our field that we can simply ignore any rule or code. Also, we must not be activists for some cause that is wholly separate from our work when performing those duties. We are not robots, and all have our own morals. However, morals must never be confused with professional ethics. Again, in the case of pharmacists, they must refrain from forcing their views upon patients. It is not their professional role to judge and enforce laws which aren't associated with their license.

If a pharmacist is uncomfortable from filling a prescription, for whatever reason, this should be made clear to employers and patients in advance (yes, even posting signs to that effect). When a patient does present such a prescription to the pharmacist, then it is their duty to give them the opportunity to have it filled by another staff member or a pharmacy in the immediate area. Barring that possibility (think rural areas), the pharmacist should fill the prescription. This is essentially what the Illinois law requires and is what the APhA states [pdf] is it's policy on the matter. The notion of being able to deny health-care services to someone a professional does not feel comfortable providing for is a dangerous concept. I can assure you, someone out there doesn't want to help you because of something you are or have done. None of us will be benefited by allowing that to happen (fortunately, the vast majority of health care workers understand that their oaths does not allow for moral judgments of others).

Lastly, and more to the point of this case of Plan-B. I really think that the pharmacists in questions should familiarize themselves more with the science of how the drug works. In laymen's terms, the drug cannot work if if a woman is already pregnant. All it does is prevent the egg from being released or the sperm from fertilizing the egg (it is just a strong dose of birth control, after all, not RU-486). It is no more an abortificiant than a condom is, or for that matter, the fact that you're reading this and not having sex is (blog reading is a very efficient form of birth control). If life begins at conception, as many maintain, then this simply cannot be aborting life. Life by that definition has not yet happened. Pharmacists are health care professionals, and it seems a disgraceful mark on the few that don't wish to be bothered with understanding biology that might conflict with knee-jerk judgment.

My final point: shut up and be a professional. It's a high standard, but it is what you are trained for.

Jason Coleman is a licensed professional engineer who practices in Richmond, Virginia. His wife, Angela, is a licensed Doctor of Pharmacy and he never tells her to shut up under any circumstances.

Note: This article was originally published on JasonColeman.net under a Creative Commons license.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Jason Coleman's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (13)
Ooble

Aw... not fair. I don't have anything to comment on, past the fact that I agree completely. Nicely done.

  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Sun Feb 19, 2006 4:13 PM EST
JP Yun

Excellent article. I would also like to reiterate that Plan-B is not mifepristone, and does not work if the woman is already pregnant. Given this, I wonder why this article is tagged "abortion".

The issue of how your personal beliefs effect your professional life, particularly in fields related to health care, is a tricky one, and one that all of us involved in the field will likely have to face at one point or another. However, it is my opinion that denying a patient medication that they have been prescribed by a doctor is irresponsible and should be punishable by a suspension of license. The issue of unprescribed emergency contraception is a bit more hazy (in my state, a pharmacist can distribute EC without a prescription), but I still believe that it is a fundamental right of the patient to receive medicine. Pregnancy, after all, is a traumatic and often risky experience.

  • 4 votes
Reply#2 - Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:16 AM EST
Jason Coleman

JP Yun: I have to confess, I tagged the article with abortion, more as a related term than anything else. I hadn't done so initially, for your exact reasoning. However, I understand that others might (at least initially) think otherwise, and search based on that term. I also realize that my article isn't likely to sway many readers, if anyone. That's why I included the tag: some people might categorize this article under the term, so I figured I'd go ahead and bring them here first.

  • 2 votes
Reply#3 - Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:30 AM EST
evano

Really good article, Jason. (And just from a writing teacher standpoint: it was very nice the way you tied up your two refrains of "Shut up" and "Be a professional" at the end. A+) I also think the abortion tag was appropriate, if for no other reason than you discussed it in the article, made some interesting and informative points about it, and then differentiated it from Plan B. While the article isn't about abortion, abortion is certainly one of the topics discussed. My take on this issue is very close to yours and I've expressed it in a couple of places around this site, but your article states it plainly and clearly and logically -- the engineer's mind at work. And bravely, too: trying to describe your wife's work without her having the chance to correct you in public -- like tightrope walking without a net. :)

  • 5 votes
#3.1 - Fri May 26, 2006 6:01 PM EDT
Jason Coleman

Thank you for the writing compliments, they are much appreciated. Actually, my wife was consulted on this article quite a lot and we discuss pharmacy related news often. I suppose she could always leave comments here if she felt the need to correct me, but she's probably more passive on the web than that anyway.

    #3.2 - Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:07 PM EDT
    Reply
    JP Yun

    I understand your reasoning now, and I guess it makes sense. I was concerned that upon seeing the word "abortion", people would snap down their usual blinders and be immune to further information.

      Reply#4 - Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:17 AM EST
      miasma

      morals must never be confused with professional ethics

      agreed.
      What of the issues about other drugs pharmacists do not feel necessary?

      There are pharmacists that do not believe that psychiatric meds are necessary. Nor the immense drug cocktails prescribed to HIV patients.

      Don't get me wrong, there are numerous cases where the pharmacist has saved a patient from harm by catching errors that Doctors have made. I don't want to paint a negative picture of this occupation. But if we let someone's personal moral decisions to preempt their professional ethics then where does it stop? Can the police do this? Your attorney? Your doctor?

        Reply#5 - Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:37 PM EDT
        Jason Coleman

        Well, as a professional myself, it is my responsibility to inform my clients if I do not feel that I cannot provide them with the level of service the expect or require. It is not my duty, nor my right, to deny them that service. If someone hired me to design the structure for what I knew to be a concentration camp, I would inform them that this is not a service I feel comfortable providing and cannot perform for them adequately as a result. Lawyers and doctors routinely do just that (far more often than engineers do, I suspect).

        The primary role of a pharmacist, or any health care provided, as I understand it is patient safety and outcome. While lifestyle advice and discussion may certainly be a part of this, it cannot be in the form of a personal judgement which results in the refusal to treat. However, there are guidelines, rules, and ultimately laws for just this. It is very unfortunate that this discussion is over an emergency medication, but the same is true for a medication that has greater than a three-day window for action. The decision of whether to treat mental illness or HIV is not the sole discretion of a pharmacist and the vast majority of that profession understand this. Of course, they can and probably should voice their concerns to the patient and the prescribing physician. However, any one individual does not get to make the decision that mental illness nor HIV should simply not be treated with medication.

          #5.1 - Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:53 PM EDT
          miasma

          But if the caregiver takes the credentials of the care (in this case the Rx) and alters it (in what may be a useless) attempt to cause a decrease in frequency of (what they believe is irresponsible) behavior they have overstepped the boundaries of their profession.
          Emotions do come into play. For example, I personally would have no problem if you as a professional not only didn't take the job from the client wanting a concentration camp constructed, but burnt their CAD files.

          I don't feel so wrong about that.

          But I think there is a big difference between denying medication and refusing to be complicit in genocide.

          True they have days to get the Rx filled. Who are you to say when that clock started ticking? What if they were a victim of rape, or took a humanly amount of time to wrestle with their own morality over going this route?

          I do recognize that there is a large degree of difficulty trying to legislate technical issues. As a professional myself I have been taken to task many times by general legislation being applied to specific technical issues that do not quite fit eachother.

            #5.2 - Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:13 PM EDT
            Jason Coleman

            I personally would have no problem if you as a professional not only didn't take the job from the client wanting a concentration camp constructed, but burnt their CAD files.

            I would no longer be acting in the capacity as a professional at that point, but rather as an emotional human (as you put it). Of course, in this example (which is admittedly a very bad comparison for the emotional aspects of concentration camps) we feel it's okay since it is somehow seen as the greater good.

            I also should be held responsible for such an action, just as I insist that any health care provider be held responsible. I'll stick to that since, as you point out, this example is a really poor one (just trying to speak from the standpoint of my own background). A pharmacist does not have the right to prevent a patient from obtaining medication based on a non-medical reason as far as I can tell (I've yet to see a compelling instance where that might not be true). A prescription that someone does not believe should be filled is not their property to alter, also, as far as I know. I think we are in complete agreement that such a person has overstepped the bounds of their profession. I do want to be clear that pharmacists do and should have influence over the medications that a patient takes. They do not, however, have any professional right to deny a patient medication based on their personal beliefs.

            • 1 vote
            #5.3 - Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:27 PM EDT
            miasma

            Agreed.

            Gee, maybe Engineers should have a "No Death Camp" policy in their guild/charter? ;)

              #5.4 - Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:34 PM EDT
              Jason Coleman

              Well, the ASCE Canons of Ethics do begin with:

              Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public…

              I'd say no death camp would likely fall under that. Fortunately, it's never come up in personal experience. Perhaps a less extreme notion would be someone who is a staunch libertarian not wishing to design a public building such as a school or government office, but it still makes for a poor comparison.

              • 1 vote
              #5.5 - Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:05 PM EDT
              Reply
              Paddy Ryan

              Jason, your article gave me a better insight into the situation in the USA, and was a pleasure to read (especially the last phrase: "never tells her to shut up under any circumstances" :-)

              • 2 votes
              Reply#6 - Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:32 PM EDT
              Leave a Comment:
              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
              You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
              (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
              Newsvine Privacy Statement
              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
              FUN STUFF:
              • Leaderboard |
              • E-Mail Alerts |
              • Top of the Vine |
              • Newsvine Live |
              • Newsvine Archives |
              • The Greenhouse |
              COMPANY STUFF:
              • Code of Honor |
              • Company Info |
              • Contact Us |
              • Jobs |
              • User Agreement |
              • Privacy Policy |
              • About our ads
              LEGAL STUFF:
              • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
              • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
              • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com