Can pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for legal and properly issued prescriptions that they oppose on religious grounds? The American Center For Law and Justice ("ACLJ")(not to be confused with the ACLU), a public interest law firm specializing in so called "religious liberty" cases filed suit in Illinois last month against Walgreen Drugstores on behalf of four pharmacists terminated by Walgreen for refusal to dispense prescriptions for Plan B, a "morning after " pill. The ACLJ and the four pharmacists claim that the termination violates the Illinois Health Care Providers Right of Conscience Act (the" Act")
Last April, Illinois Governor Rod R. Blagojevich (D) issued an emergency executive rule to force pharmacies in the State of Illinois that sell contraceptives to accept and fill prescriptions without delay. The extent to which individually pharmacists can impose a grid of moral or religious values or personal decisions in the dispensing of legal prescriptions is an issue which has the potential of disrupting the cost and efficiency of pharmacy management, if taken to an extreme. There are a lot of strange and weird "religions" out there. Can this issue be limited to the "right to life" debate or will it migrate to AIDS, obesity and other health issues that might have a religious or moral ramification to a certain group? Illinois also has a companion statute, the Abortion Performance Refusal Act, which protects physicians who refuse to provide abortions.
The Governor's supporters assert that pharmacists are not the type of health care "providers" that the Act was designed to protect. The American Pharmacy Association and the Illinois Pharmacy Association are weighing in the side of the plaintiffs against Walgreen. They cite to the fact that the Act refers to patient "counseling" and the Illinois Pharmacy Practice Act specifically requires pharmacists to counsel "patients" about the use of drugs prescribed and dispensed to them. A number of insurance companies have apparently raised the Act as a concern in providing state mandated contraception benefits in health insurance policies marketed in the state, but the State Insurance Commissioner has rejected the proposition that the Act applies to insurance companies.
While this whole issue could reasonably have been avoided through an effort by Walgreen at providing some accommodation to insistent pharmacists one is reminded that the FDA Advisory Committee voted 23 to 4 to make Plan B available on demand "over the counter." The proposal was overruled by the FDA for apparent political (read "religious" grounds). The agenda does not of course appear to be based upon freedom of personal conduct, but on controlling the freedom of others conduct as well. Since there is an infinite variety of ways that religion and health care can be fashioned into court challenges there is likely to be lost of "irrational exuberance" in this market in the future.
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Posted by: compounding pharmacy | December 24, 2008 at 04:18 AM