Let's Hear it for Illinois

[rolanni]

Illinois governor: No delays in birth control prescriptions

Friday, April 1, 2005 Posted: 7:29 PM EST (0029 GMT)

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Gov. Rod Blagojevich approved an emergency rule Friday requiring pharmacies to fill birth control prescriptions quickly after a Chicago pharmacist refused to fill an order because of moral opposition to the drug.

The emergency rule takes effect immediately for 150 days while the administration seeks a permanent rule.

"Our regulation says that if a woman goes to a pharmacy with a prescription for birth control, the pharmacy or the pharmacist is not allowed to discriminate or to choose who he sells it to," Blagojevich said. "No delays. No hassles. No lectures."

Under the new rule, if a pharmacist does not fill the prescription because of a moral objection, another pharmacist must be available to fill it without delay.

The rest of the story

Comments

Re: Hooray and...

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

Hooray for Illinois. But at the same time it's scary when enforcing a basic human right is seen as a courageous moral stand.

Be interesting to see how much flack there is as they try to turn the emergency order into a permanent rule.

The head of one of the state pharmacy groups is already objecting, according to the expanded story in the online NYT. Her concern is that phamacists who feel a drug is being wrongly prescribed may be prohibited by this law from questioning the prescription.

A spokesperson for the governor's office said, no, the intent of the directive is only to keep the pharmacist's personal feelings out of it. In so many words.

Re: Hooray and...

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

The head of one of the state pharmacy groups is already objecting, according to the expanded story in the online NYT

Quote from the NYT, which is kind of ...interesting in its take of what it is pharmacists do...

But Susan C. Winckler of the American Pharmacists Association, which represents 52,000 pharmacists, said she had concerns about the emergency rule in Illinois. The association, she said, believes that pharmacists should be allowed to "step away" in cases where they feel uncomfortable dispensing a particular drug - so long as their customers can still get their drugs from alternative sources.

Ms. Winckler said she also worried that Governor Blagojevich's new rule might reach beyond the question of a pharmacist's own moral sensibilities, and require pharmacists to dispense all prescriptions, even those that were "clinically inappropriate" for patients. Such cases might include ones in which a pharmacist discovered a customer's allergy or a potential drug interaction that a prescribing doctor had missed.

"Depending on the wording of the rule, there is a real risk that the governor could be creating," Ms. Winckler said. "The pharmacist is not a gas station attendant where if there is gas you have to sell it. Pharmacists are supposed to assess the appropriateness of a drug."

Rest of the story here (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/national/02pharmacy.html?ex=1270098000&en=d5d72e7b4f09d1a2&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland)

Re: Hooray and...

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

Ok, she reps a national organization, not a state one.

I can understand a pharmacist feeling the need to 'step away' if they feel a a drug addict is being overprescribed, but in that case, aren't they required to report the matter? I work with enough pharmacists--I should ask one.

Re: Hooray and...

[indiw.livejournal.com]

If the issue is for overuse of a narcotic, I think most pharamcists tell the doc (so it doesn't get prescribed *again*) and the same for the allergies -- but if the doc thinks the medicine is justified; if the risk for an allergic reaction negligible, then the pharmacist should fill it -- it's on the doc's head. (From what I can tell, if it's the pharamacist not filling the medicine, the doc has to find out, one way or the other. If it's the patient not picking up the med, of course that's a whole other story).

Even seemingly minor changes -- the doc prescribing some odd number of pills that doesn't seem right to the pharamacist, the pharmacist generally sends/calls the doc for clarification.

The bit about the birth control pills doesn't seem to be a question of patient safety, which the other examples cited are, but of someone imposing their moral beliefs on another.

Re: Hooray and...

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

but in that case, aren't they required to report the matter? I work with enough pharmacists--I should ask one.


I'd be interested in the answer to this question from a working pharmacist point of view...

Re: Hooray and...

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm out of the office this week (yes!), but next week I'll ask around. Many of the pharmacists still do a few hours of retail a week to maintain their licenses.

Re: Hooray and...

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm out of the office this week

Yay!

but next week I'll ask around.

Thank you.

Re: Hooray and...

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

What part of if a pharmacist does not fill the prescription because of a moral objection, another pharmacist must be available to fill it without delay did she miss?

I don't see that this regulation requires a pharmacist to fill a prescription over his own moral objections. It just says that the prescription will by golly get filled.

You know, I've never heard before of an RC pharmacist refusing to fill a birth control prescription (and what if it's not for birth control, huh? huh? ever think of that, you turkey?). They might not approve, but they'd do it. Refusing seems to me to be a more fundamentalist kind of response. And fundamentalism and Roman Catholicism.... oh, well. It's been a long time since I attended Mass. Things have changed.

I guess the fundamentalist movement has sanctioned, you should forgive the pun, a lot of actions in churches where they never used to exist.