Does your pharmacist or insurer have more rights than you
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
The following clipped article talks about the debate between the rights of pharmacists versus the rights of the customers they serve. It's an issue that has become more important in recent times, as there have been insurers and even employers that have used and imposed their own moral values on customers and employees.
The topic seems ripe for debate and discussion, so here goes - who would you prefer to have more rights and is it ever appropriate in your mind to allow someone like a pharmacist to decide to withhold treatment -- even if preventative (as in birth control) -- from a customer because of their own beliefs?
Headline is linked.
Pharmacists' Rights at Front Of New Debate
Because of Beliefs, Some Refuse To Fill Birth Control Prescriptions
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 28, 2005; Page A01
Some pharmacists across 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 the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized -- or force them to carry out their duties.
... (much) more at linked article
There's a lot more to the article, and I encourage readers of this blog entry and message thread to read through the entire article. Please note that you may have to "register" for the Washington Post web site, but their request for information is minimal.
With the information from the article noted, do you feel that you should have your medical treatment determined by the beliefs of the dispenser? Is it appropriate that an employer or an insurer can preclude you from getting birth control materials? What if the treatment was for aids or HIV, even if contracted through a transfusion, rather than through IV drug use or via sexual daliences?
This "trend" (as noted in the article) scares me on many fronts. Pharmacists and other health care providers have confidential information about you or me. Information that is needed for proper treatment and/or preventive medicine. If they abuse that confidences or let their own beliefs interfere and over-rule your preferred treatment, it can lead to consequences for you. The thought that states are going out of their way to protect the rights of the pharmacists is almost unbelievable. I'm a big fan of the free market, but I also realize that there are many rural areas where it may not be easy for someone to switch pharmacies, or go to a different doctor. It may not be easy to switch employers and change insurance companies.
In the end, we lose choice. Even if we agree with the morals behind the decision, it's still a loss of an option that can be important for us.
Thoughts from other Joe Users?
The topic seems ripe for debate and discussion, so here goes - who would you prefer to have more rights and is it ever appropriate in your mind to allow someone like a pharmacist to decide to withhold treatment -- even if preventative (as in birth control) -- from a customer because of their own beliefs?
Headline is linked.
Pharmacists' Rights at Front Of New Debate
Because of Beliefs, Some Refuse To Fill Birth Control Prescriptions
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 28, 2005; Page A01
Some pharmacists across 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 the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized -- or force them to carry out their duties.
... (much) more at linked article
There's a lot more to the article, and I encourage readers of this blog entry and message thread to read through the entire article. Please note that you may have to "register" for the Washington Post web site, but their request for information is minimal.
With the information from the article noted, do you feel that you should have your medical treatment determined by the beliefs of the dispenser? Is it appropriate that an employer or an insurer can preclude you from getting birth control materials? What if the treatment was for aids or HIV, even if contracted through a transfusion, rather than through IV drug use or via sexual daliences?
This "trend" (as noted in the article) scares me on many fronts. Pharmacists and other health care providers have confidential information about you or me. Information that is needed for proper treatment and/or preventive medicine. If they abuse that confidences or let their own beliefs interfere and over-rule your preferred treatment, it can lead to consequences for you. The thought that states are going out of their way to protect the rights of the pharmacists is almost unbelievable. I'm a big fan of the free market, but I also realize that there are many rural areas where it may not be easy for someone to switch pharmacies, or go to a different doctor. It may not be easy to switch employers and change insurance companies.
In the end, we lose choice. Even if we agree with the morals behind the decision, it's still a loss of an option that can be important for us.
Thoughts from other Joe Users?