It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
And, in my opinion; if a pharmacist is uncomfortable filling certain prescriptions -be it an abortifacient or a pain reliever or a steroid or an antibiotic- then that pharmacist should quit and get a job that does not cause moral conflict.
Originally posted by JayTee
I think the Idaho Board of Pharmacy did the right thing by not pursuing any action against the pharmacist. Not only that, it was also a hit at Planned Parenthood, which has it's roots in eugenics. People shouldn't be forced or coerced to do anything, especially if it goes against their conscience. Not only that, there's a pharmacy in every Wal Mart and grocery store. They aren't hard to come by.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
I think we want our pharmacists being proactive and alert. I know I want my pharmacist being proactive and alert!
Originally posted by AnneeI would really love to see proof of that law.
III.The Duty to Warn On The Part Of Pharmacists
A.Common Law Tradition
A court will almost always hold liable a pharmacist who makes an error in dispensing the prescription drug. Considered a mechanistic task, filling a prescription is given no latitude for error.[20] Slightly more restless is the doctrine governing the plight of a pharmacist who correctly fills a prescription, but does not warn the patient of potential side effects of the drug.
The general thrust of the case law finds a pharmacist without a substantial duty to warn the patient of drug side effects. Some courts, however, have held pharmacist to a higher standard. For example, the court in Hand v. Krakowski[21] found negligent a pharmacist who correctly filled a prescription for a psychotropic drug, but dispensed it to an alcoholic patient. The court held that the pharmacist had actual knowledge of the customer's alcoholism and knew or should have known that the prescribed drug and alcohol are contraindicated.[22] Since he nevertheless continued to refill the prescription for six years, the court held the pharmacist liable for his actions. Though this case seems to suggest a duty to warn principle on the part of pharmacists, its relatively narrow factual scenario precludes any significant precedential effect. It is rare for a pharmacist to have such clear and personal knowledge concerning a customer. Moreover, in such situations, where there is virtually no added cost of acquiring information of a potential hazard, a duty to warn the patients seems to be a well-founded moral obligation; no legal prod is necessary.
In Rift v. Morgan Pharmacy, the pharmacist also filled the prescription as written by the physician but this time failed to inform the customer or the physician of an obvious error in the prescription itself.[23] While the physician's order instructed the patient to administer one suppository every four hours to ease a headache, the patient went unwarned that no more than two suppositories should be used per headache and no more than five used in a single week. Ignorant of these hazards, the patient misused the drug and sustained permanent nerve damage. In support of a "safety net of overlapping responsibilities" where each member of the health care team is, in part, "his brother's keeper,"[24] the court held the pharmacist liable for his failure to correct the obvious error in the prescription. Here again, however, the pharmacist's duty to warn rests on a narrow factual scenario in which the physician's prescription was clearly erroneous in light of a toxicity well known among pharmacists.
At most, Hand and Rift establish an extremely limited duty to warn for pharmacists. Far more representative of the courts' position is the recent Washington State Supreme Court ruling in McKee v. American Home Products Corp.[25] There the court refused to attach liability to a pharmacist who had accurately filled a prescription but had not warned the patient of the potential side effects associated with extended use of the prescription drug. In a lengthy discussion of the issue, the court confirmed that under the learned intermediary doctrine the duty to warn falls only on the shoulders of the physician; the pharmacist bears no responsibility to convey to the patient nonjudgmental information regarding potential hazards of drug use. Consistent with Hand and Rift, the court held that "the pharmacist still has a duty to accurately fill a prescription...and to be alert for clear errors or mistakes in the prescription." A pharmacist, however, "does not...have a duty to...warn customers of the hazardous side effects associated with a drug."[26] The McKee court crystallized the position of many other state courts and reaffirmed the general common law principle -- pharmacists do not have a broad duty to warn their customers of the potential dangers of prescription drug use.[27]
Originally posted by Annee
Originally posted by Kailassa
Originally posted by Annee
That is ridiculous. Pharmacists need to be required to fulfill any prescription written by a patients doctor. They are not in the position to refuse on personal belief.
I don't know what the law(s) on this are in America, but in Australia the pharmacist does a 4 year university course and can be prosecuted for correctly filling a harmful prescription.
Thank you for your post.
I would really love to see proof of that law.
Obligations
1.2 A pharmacist must not purchase, sell or supply any medicinal product where there is reason to doubt its safety, quality or efficacy or where there is clear, new evidence that demonstrates or places doubt on previously established product safety or where a product may impose a hazard to the patient's health or condition.
Originally posted by Annee
In my experience - - - the pharmacist explains the medicine prescribed - - then require customer to sign that they understand. OR - - the customer (patient) can refuse explanation and is required to sign that they were offered explanation and declined.
In no way is it the responsibility of the pharmacist to make the decision whether you should have the medication or not.
It makes no sense for the pharmacist to override what a doctor prescribes.
Originally posted by JayTee
I think the Idaho Board of Pharmacy did the right thing by not pursuing any action against the pharmacist.
Not only that, it was also a hit at Planned Parenthood, which has it's roots in eugenics.
People shouldn't be forced or coerced to do anything, especially if it goes against their conscience
Not only that, there's a pharmacy in every Wal Mart and grocery store. They aren't hard to come by.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Busymind
And, in my opinion; if a pharmacist is uncomfortable filling certain prescriptions -be it an abortifacient or a pain reliever or a steroid or an antibiotic- then that pharmacist should quit and get a job that does not cause moral conflict.
But what if the pharmacist has an eerie feeling about a prescription but fills it anyway and the autopsy reveals it was an overdose because of over-prescription?
Or, what about a prescription they expect to be fake (that is what got Jeb Bush's daughters in hot water in Florida. An alert pharmacist spotted the faked prescription).
What about drug interaction? The pharmacist sees that a doctor might have made a mistake, are they not bound to dig deeper before handing over a potentially lethal combination?
What about a questionable person picking up the prescription? They have the right information, but they seem a little shady. Should the pharmacist hand over a narcotic or a potential poison to someone different than the patient, just because they seem to have the right permission?
I think we want our pharmacists being proactive and alert. I know I want my pharmacist being proactive and alert!