Should pharmacists be allowed to refuse filling prescriptions for reasons of conscience?

If a patient has gone to a doctor and received a prescription for medication, should a pharmacist be permitted to say "I'm not going to do it" and deny the patient medication? I say no...fill the order or get another job.

If I'm an attorney and I get one of these pharmacists as a client, I'd be in for it if I said "my conscience prevents me from representing you."

What do y'all think?
Answer:
It is not a pharmacist's job to pass judgment on the necessity of the prescription. It is also not the pharmacist's business what the patient is using the prescription for. That is doctor-patient confidentiality.

Not a single pharmacist gets into the job thinking, "There will never be a situation where I disagree with what I'm being asked to do." They know it's going to happen. And if they don't want to do what they are being asked to do in their job description, they shouldn't take the job.

---

No

---

No they should not be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription. They were hired to do a job and they should do that job or be replaced. This is like letting Muslim cashiers in Target not scan pork products because it offends their religion. Its ridiculous. Scan it or be fired. Fill the prescription or be fired.

I dont care what their conscious does or does not approve of, if that is the case they should have picked another profession.

---

Actually, an attorney is perfectly free to refuse a client- and businesses everywhere have the right to refuse service. It's wrong to force anyone to act against their conscience.

---

Pharmacists have professional judgment and should exercise it.

Say someone gets three prescriptions from three doctors for Darvocet. Should the pharmacist use your logic and just fill the prescriptions? Of course not.

---

The contract of care is between the Doctor and patient. The pharmacists is their to follow orders.

---

No, they shouldn't. If you are a pharmacist, if someone presents you with a legitimate prescription and proof of identification, you should under law, be required to fill it.

If someone's conscience is so strong, why be a pharmacist? Big pharmaceutical companies have the worst track records of any medical corporation. They are all about the profit, developing drugs to treat symptom rather than to cure.

---

No, that would be like a cop refusing to enforce the law in favor of something he didn't like, or firemen refusing to respond to a fire at a bar because they're anti-liquor. A pharmacist has a public trust as a licensed professional. If they don't like all their job duties for reasons of their own, they can seek another line of work, just like anyone else.

---

Most of these employers will not retain a pharmacist who refuses to fill certain prescriptions. If the pharmacist truly feels it is unethical to fill some prescriptions, he/she has chosen the wrong profession.

---

If the pharmacist works for a parent company, it's not his direct choice to turn you away. Most major retailers have an inhouse pharmacy: Target, Wal-Mart, etc. Anyone may turn someone away from their business or service if it doesn't hinder rules laid down by a higher authority.

---

As a pharmacist sometimes it is good judgment that we refuse patients. I personally would not refuse to fill birth control like some do but there are instances that I can tell that someone is abusing drugs and even though I can't prove it I can refuse to fill it. I sleep a lot better at night knowing this. Also it serves as protection for me. If somebody does something that may cause them or someone else harm with the drugs that I gave them in some instances I can be held legally responsible. I did not spend all of that time and money to have my license taken away from me when I could have just said no. It is a very personal and professional choice and I think everyone no matter what you do has the right to make.

---

I think it's difficult because there are so many grey areas. If for example, a doctor prescribes a medication that will interact badly with a patient's other medications, a pharmacist should have the right to refuse to fill it until they speak with the doctor, HOWEVER...I do NOT think a pharmacist should be allowed to impose his/her own moral values on this decision. I assume you're talking about the morning after pill. What if they ARE allowed to refuse? What next? They can refuse to sell propecia because they think hair regrowth is vain, and shouldn't be allowed? There are instances where I do feel that a pharmacist should have the right, and the responsibility to refuse, but clashing moral values is not an acceptable reason.

---

I think that if a person is going to study to be a pharmacist, they should know that they are required to dispense WHAT THE DOCTOR ORDERED. The Pharmacist is not a doctor, not a diagnosician and can only disobey the doctors prescription for a MEDICAL reason. If someone is taking another medication that might conflict with the new one, the pharmacist doesn't fill it. At that point, the pharmacist would call the doctor and notify him/her that you are taking another medication that cannot be mixed.

Now, that being said, if the Pharmacist is the OWNER, he can refuse to do business with anyone. He must post his refusal or intent to refuse in a prominent place.

---

i think coke is bettr then sprite


sorry i can't answer ur question i dont get it

---

Hello. To start things off, there's a BIG difference between being a lawyer and a pharmacist. Many lawyers, NOT saying you personally, are not known for their moral nobility or scruples. Another thing to note is that though lawyers do partake in the dispensing of justice potentially, pharmacist dispense drugs and medical knowledge to aid and assist people in their health and life. This consequently is of more far reaching implications. So yes, I believe that a pharmacist should be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription based on reasons of conscience and morality. The pharmacist is the next primary thing basically to a doctor, and if he or she has issues with it they should not have to throw their beliefs out when they come through the door to work. I would prefer far more pharmacists with a better base of morality and genuine concern than those who don't give jack and go on and take the money into thecompany's fiscal bottomline! I wish many more pharmacists and doctors would not submit themselves to the pressure to prescribe medications that are more expensive just to increase the pharmaceutical companies financial standing and thereby please the shareholders. Lastly there is a big difference in representing a pharmacist who helps people tlhan for a lawyer to pass up one customer for one who would be less upstanding but would fit the essential bill for a new client. And that's my ruling!

---

No; too many watch dogs now.

---

It's not the job of the pharmacist to determine whether or not a prescription should be filled. That's the job of the doctor. The doctor went to school for such things, and he should know if a patient needs medicine or not.

---

No, I cannot choose what I want to do at work so :P

---

No. Their job is to fill prescriptions. If they don't like to prescribe a certain pill (I.E., The morning after pill) that's okay. They don't have to like it. If they're not comfortable with the idea of taking the pill, then they shouldn't take it. But they should still prescribe it.
It's a dangerous idea isn't it? What if a police officer didn't feel it morally just to defend people of color? or to step in on a domestic abuse call? It's a slippery slope.
They should do their job. Or Pray for our souls if they feel so inclined.

---

Yes they have a right to refuse if they think your abusing drugs. Some doctors will keep writing prescriptions for any thing, any time the person ask. So it`s the pharmacist duty to keep up with the drugs your taking.

---

Absolutely not. If they don't want to do the job, don't become a pharmacist. They have a duty under law to prescibe legal drugs that a doctor has decided are necessary to their patient.

It's not up to pharmacists to play god, or be our moral compass - they get paid a huge amount to do a pretty simple job and should just get on and do it without whining.

---

Of course not. If you can't do the job, get another one. It's my medicine, not yours, so its my conscience that matters, not yours.

---

Hi Bill. I agree with you 110%. It makes me furious when people let their narrow minded opinions rule their lives. If my pharmacist refused to fill a legal and legitimate prescription from a doctor, it would be lawsuit time. He would regret his decision.

---

I think that it is important to look carefully at a career before one takes expensive training, to make sure that you aren't going to be asked to do something that opposes your beliefs, or that might go against your conscience. This is something I considered carefully when I chose my training and my career.

If one develops these beliefs AFTER one has become a pharmacist (the type of beliefs that would lead to refusing to fill a prescription based on one's own morality, not the legally defined morality to which pharmacists are held accountable), then it might be necessary to leave the profession. Or a pharmacist working in a pharmacy filling prescriptions might wind up being fired. But if I'm not mistaken, there are other things one can do with a pharmacy degree... research and development perhaps.

I would never train to be a pharmacy pharmacist if I knew I'd be faced with having to do something I found morally wrong. But if I developed those beliefs later, I believe I would try to use my training in a different, more harmonious, fashion.

In my opinion, people who make a point of refusing to do something for which they have purposely trained, claiming reasons of conscience, and in doing so attract attention to themselves, and deny another their right to a service, are pursuing an agenda, calling attention to themselves, and behaving in a deliberately oppositional manner. This is far from noble, regardless of what they are claiming. It is political, and designed to control others. I would not patronize a business that employed such grandstanders.

---

No. Like doctors, pharmacists are required to help. If someone comes in needing a prescription, they need to fill it. If they WANT to descriminate, they need to open their own shop. And attorneys take cases they don't agree with all the time. Think of the poor buggers who are the lawyers provided by the state for low-lifes that can't afford an attorney.

---

No they are to be a disinterested third party if a doctor prescribes something they should fill it. If they think abuse is happening they need to notify the proper authorities to have them investigate. Whether that is the police or doctors involved.

---

Yes. This covers a lot more than RU-486. What if a pharmacist suspects someone is abusing a prescription? or selling it? or suicidal? Can they refuse (and even report) to fill the prescription in those cases? and couldn't those cases fall under "reasons of conscience"? What would be the different?

I say: Let the pharmacist refuse to fill prescriptions if they don't want to for personal reasons and they can sleep with a clear conscience. The customer can go somewhere else. What's the big deal? Heck, this is America....there is always somewhere else to go!

---

I agree with most of you in saying it is their job, and fill the prescription. Now, not being a pharmacist and not knowing the laws about it, I would think there should be something in place for the situation mentioned above. "Someone comes in with 3 scripts from 3 different docs for the same med, that happens to be a narcotic". I would think that they could alert the docs and let them decide whether to put refills on the script. The doc's may not be aware of what is going on, and it is for the safety of the patient. In that they may prevent it from happening again, and possibly stop that person from illegally selling prescription meds, or what ever they are doing with that amount of a controlled substance.

---

You really can't compel people to do anything they don't want to do, but actions have consequences, and in this case, I'd say the penalty for refusal to issue doctor prescribed medicine should be loss of license to practice

---

No they do not have a right to deny a customer a legal prescription.

I have heard of Pharamcist refusing to give women birth control because they are unmarried or they just dont believe in birth control. Interestingly I have never heard of a man being denied a prescription for viagra.

---

+1 for realst 1 that was a great answer.