Spokane7
65°Quick links: 2012 graduating seniors • Summer camp guide • Jobs: The Road Ahead • Prep sports • News quiz
More Info: The so-called “conscience protections” are for pharmacists who have moral, ethical or religious objections to dispensing birth control pills and other medications. Idaho law already gives hospitals and doctors authority not to fill prescriptions. The bill passed the committee Wednesday on a voice vote. It stands a good chance of passage in the full House. Idaho Pharmacy Board Executive Director Mark Johnston told the House State Affairs Committee that pharmacists already can deny drugs because there is no state law requiring them to fill prescriptions.
Question: Do you support or oppose the “conscience protections” for pharmacists?
D.F. Oliveria is a columnist and blogger for The Spokesman-Review. Huckleberries Online was judged the best 2008 Idaho newspaper blog by the Idaho Press Club. And the best 2007 news blog in the Pacific Northwest by the Society for Professional Journalist. Print Huckleberries is a past winner of the Herb Caen Memorial Column contest by the National Association of Newspaper Columnists. The Readership Institute of Northwestern University cited this blog as a good example of online community journalism.
999 W. Riverside, Spokane, WA 99201
P.O. Box 2160, Spokane, WA 99210
Main switchboard: (509) 459-5000 • (800) 338-8801
Newsroom: (509) 459-5400 • (800) 789-0029
Customer service: (800) 338-8801
© Copyright 2012, The Spokesman-Review
Terms of use • Privacy policy • Copyright policy
Find DFO on Facebook
DFO on Twitter
Aliasjax on March 19 at 9:45 a.m.
While I hate the…um…logic(?) behind not wanting to sell certain meds, I hate the thought of Govmnt telling business owners what products to sell/not sell even more.
If there is no law mandating the sale of meds, then we don’t need a law that says one doesn’t have to sell them.
Personally, the market should decide. For instance, if I become aware of druggists who refuse to fill prescriptions on moral grounds, I’ll not shop them for any product. It’s not unlike what PatrickH is proposing re: The Press and racism. The racist has a right to speak, The Press has a right (duty?) to publish, and consumers have the right to respond by not supporting the business, which in this case is The Press.
JeanieSpokane on March 19 at 9:48 a.m.
I am a little bothered by this bill - it is absolutely nobody’s business to make a “judgment” call on me taking birth control pills.
florined on March 19 at 9:59 a.m.
Well, let’s extend this thinking a bit: my pharmacist is morally outraged at the ethical violations of a drug company. So he/she refuses to sell the drug that has no “generic” version and for which the drug company has a patent. Oh, that drug could add a couple of years to my life? Too bad.
Cabbage Boy on March 19 at 10:43 a.m.
Well put Alias. One doesn’t have to agree with the expression to still value the freedom.
This bill is needed to protect pharmacist from overbearing bureaucrats. It goes to the same concept of when some conservatives didn’t mind Bush’s intrusion into our freedoms because he was supposedly conservative. Trouble is, those intrusions into our freedoms don’t go away when the powers change hands.
Beez on March 19 at 11:21 a.m.
Pharmacists shouldn’t be playing God. If they have a moral problem with dispensing certain drugs that have been prescribed by doctors in conjunction with their patients, they should find another line of work.
This whole thing is really nothing more than another end-around by the pro-lifers to restrict Americans’ freedoms.
Sisyphus on March 19 at 11:35 a.m.
Dead on Beez. The job is mostly ministerial. Moreover the original draft of the bill wasn’t confined to pharmacists but included “any person”. The ‘preserving freedom’ spin is rather ludicrous. I doubt some gal prescribed medicine she can’t obtain without a three hour drive somewhere feels all that free. And I guarantee you that in some places in this state any pharmacist who doesn’t currently have an objection to dispensing certain medication, they will develop one particularly if they belong to the dominant religion in the area.
Both the AMA and the AphA are opposed to this legislation.
idahogie on March 19 at 11:49 a.m.
Let’s extend the law to insurance companies, then. Why should an insurance company be required to cover a procedure that is decided upon between a doctor and patient? Why shouldn’t insurance companies be allowed to refuse payment based on “personal conscience?”
I’d love to see the conservatives supporters of this bill when they see what becomes “unconscionable” then.
What about it, conservatives? Do you want “free market” insurance with “conscience protections” built in?
A pharmacist is basically just a middle-man business between the doctor and the patient. And they shouldn’t have any say in the treatment options.
sue on March 19 at 12:01 p.m.
I suppose if it was viagra they had a moral problem with, we wouldn’t have this legislation. The Idaho taliban legislature just wants to give more people authority to keep women in their place. What silly things they waste their time on, but still can’t seem to figure out how not to tax our food.
sue on March 19 at 12:03 p.m.
Speaking of letting free market decide, do you suppose they could at least require a disclaimer to be posted at each pharmacy, listing the drugs they will not dispense? At least that way, we will have knowledge of which businesses to support or not.
DFO on March 19 at 12:09 p.m.
>do you suppose they could at least require a disclaimer to be posted at each pharmacy, listing the drugs they will not dispense? — Sue<
Excellent point, Sue. If this passes, a pharmacy that takes such a stand should be required to post such a notice, as a public service, if nothing else.
LukeB on March 19 at 12:12 p.m.
You’re in the wrong line of work if you have “moral” problems with either prescribing or dispensing medication that a patient requires.
BlueinIdaho on March 19 at 1:23 p.m.
Cabbage Boy and Alias, I’m not certain you understand the bill. A pharmacy is not required to carry any medication and this law does not impact whether they carry certain forms of medication. What this does is even if the pharmacy carries the meds, it allows the guy in the white coat to decide who gets the meds and who doesn’t regardless of whether the person has a valid prescription.
So, next time you go to Walgreens lets hope that the particular guy or girl in the white coat doesn’t have the “conscience” on that particular day that will result in you not getting the meds that you may need to recover from what may ail you. It is not just about contraceptives— think about Tom Cruise; Scientologists do not support the use of psychotropic drugs that assist those with mental ailments.
It’s not about government it’s about now handing the power to play God to a guy that puts pills in a bottle for a living.
Lizard_People on March 19 at 2:05 p.m.
No- you’re the one who wants to play God by forcing someone to do something that is against their will to do.
Simple as that.
The free market is all about individual decisions based on preference and that includes conscience.
BlueinIdaho on March 19 at 2:21 p.m.
Lizard you’re not understanding. No one is forcing the market to do anything or carry anything. Many Catholic owned pharmacies do not carry Plan B, for example. This law doesn’t impact that. What it does do is allow an employee of the pharmacy that DOES carry Plan B OR ANY OTHER medication to make the determination over your own physician of whether you in particular can obtain the script.
So, for example, you would like medication for the increasing scale on your body. Your dermatologist writes the script and you take it to your friendly neighborhood Bimart to get the relief you need from the incessant itching and embarassment. Bimart carries the medication, but their employee, Phil the Pharmacist, is an avid Christian Scientist and believes in the power of prayer. He tells you to “go crawl under a rock and pray to Jesus, you’re not getting your cream”.
Is that the “free market” to you?
No one is forcing Phil or Bimart to do anything but honor the prescription for the medication THEY CARRY.
Aliasjax on March 19 at 2:37 p.m.
Look, first of all, don’t conflate my free market stand with conservatism. Conservatives are no more free market than liberals.
Secondly, even if your interpretation, IdaBlue, is correct, I think any seller of any product should be free to pick and choose to whom they’ll sell.
What? Do you really think as Sis does, that for every one pharmacy that doesn’t sell birth control pills there wouldn’t be 2 or 3 or 100 that would - even in Idaho? If so, you’re deluded. The problem with liberals on issues like this is that they don’t seem to understand that if there is a market need and profit to be made, that need will be met - and the fact is, there is money to be made on both sides of this issue. The Bible-thumping neanderthals will go to the no-sex pharmacy and the enlightened masses will go to the other.
It’s a stupid law…just as stupid as one that would mandate pharmacies sell stuff they don’t want to sell, regardless their reason.
Lizard_People on March 19 at 2:48 p.m.
I was wrong. Sorry.
Whether there is or isn’t a pharmacy within a person’s walking distance from their baby daddy’s house is irrelevent.
But where I can find common ground with Blue in Idaho is that the pharmacy that DOES carry medication X should have the freedom to be able to fire a pharmacist for any reason, including morally objecting to a pill.
No one should be able to force a pharmacy owner to employ a pharmacist. That’s not free market.
Sorry again.
(slithers away)
BlueinIdaho on March 19 at 2:56 p.m.
Alias, part of my work is interpreting this and other laws, so the interpretation is just the facts. But, we’re not talking about contraceptives and that is the problem with the majority of the discussion in this issue. This bill touches all medications, whether sex related or not. And, because pharmacies by law are the only avenue in which to obtain controlled substances which are medically necessary to free individuals such as yourself, I do believe that there is a different standard than “the seller of any product”. We’re not discussing widgets, we’re talking about access to legal, necessary, medication, that could potentially be the difference between life or death to an individual.
And, again, I’m not saying that the pharmacy should carry anything, just if they do, their employees should not be able to step in between you and your doctor on the subject. And, furthermore, as a fallback position, if a pharmacy is going to allow their pharmacists to arbitrarily deny legal medication to individuals those pharmacies should be required to ensure that they have another pharmacist on staff who will.
It’s really not a political issue….and I do have four close family members who are pharmacists.
Sisyphus on March 19 at 3:14 p.m.
“It’s really not a political issue”—bingo. No reason for government to rear its ugly head here.
Lizard_People on March 19 at 3:16 p.m.
“because pharmacies by law are the only avenue in which to obtain controlled substances”
That’s another good point…. we’re not even talking about a free market at all. So it is all messed up. No wonder we need lobbyists.
Aliasjax on March 19 at 3:17 p.m.
Contraceptives are just one example…and your expertise in interpreting these things notwithstanding, the intent of this law is a political end.
My point is that even if this silly measure empowered individual pharmacists to decide who gets what meds, it wouldn’t prevent anybody from getting the meds they’ve been prescribed because for every 1 morally superior pharmacist, there’d be 100 who’d be willing to fill the script.
I hope, though, that I’ve been clear - this issue doesn’t need regulation one way or the other.
Phaedrus on March 19 at 3:33 p.m.
Unless you live in Potlatch, Idaho which only has Northwest Pharmacy on Pine Street. What do the people do if that pharmacist won’t sell them their meds?
Aliasjax on March 19 at 3:41 p.m.
If it were me, Phaedrus, in the short run, I’d go to any of the 1 million or so online pharmacies…in the long run I might open another pharmacy and put the morally superior moron out of business.
Lizard_People on March 19 at 4:04 p.m.
They move. We can’t dictate what’s right or what’s wrong based on the fact that some people make choices to live in isolated areas.
hmoffsuite on March 19 at 4:07 p.m.
I have read all of the good posts on this subject. I’m listening to both sides of the the argument. I can’t decide what I think on this one. So, being on the border, I would err in favor of doing nothing with this bill. Let the pharmacies and their patients figure out how to handle things.
cantyoureadthesigns on March 19 at 10:39 p.m.
There are PLENTY of widely scattered towns in rural Idaho that have only one, maybe two, pharmacies.
And it is likely that pharmacists is such areas may have “moral reservations” about dispensing certain drugs, like Plan B, birth control pills, and other such pills, perhaps even the high potency pain pills like Oxycontin. Maybe the Pharmacist believes that since Jesus suffered, so should this person who has a valid prescription.
Why should a patient with a valid prescription from his/her Physician have to drive 30, 50, even a 100 miles, or, as AJ suggests, wait at least a day, likely more, ordering from an on-line pharmacy to get a prescription filled? Especially when the time is of the essence?