Druggists Refuse to Give Out Pill...

somewhere else in the article it mentioned that some of them even refuse to pass the script off to another pharmacist to fill. I personally, would be calling someone in that case, and I would certainly be leaving with my pills. But it causes a lot of annoyance that shouldn't even be happening.

 

hmm, that would suck. If it happened to me (doubtful, because even the nurses who administer my BC think it's a fab thing) I'd probably make a huge deal out of it. Make them call the manager, etc... everyone should have access to BC, you shouldn't have to go hunting around for a ruddy pharmacist just to get some pills.

 

"Fertilized egg" is only medically accurate for approximately the first 24 hours after conception. Substantial embryonic development occurs in the week prior to implantation:

http://www.ortl.org/life_in_oregon/01_08/fertilized_eggs.html

I see your point. However, this argument would clearly not apply to the "morning after" pill.

I think it is perfectly reasonable for a pharmacist to have such information. As Photogra1 has noted, they are not merely assembly line workers.

 

Well, some HMOs have contracts with only one pharmacy. If that one has "opted out" and someone needs a drug they are not carrying, then that person is going to have problems. Prescriptions have little or nothing to do with people's "desires" and everything to do with needs.

I am a pain patient and have had pharmacists refuse to fill my scripts on a few occasions. (I refuse to partronize those pharmacies any more, and letters to their corporate offices were sent.) One guy said he "wanted to see my medical records to see if this is the only drug that is good for you." Fuck him. I called my doctor and told him and my doctor got livid at the pharmacist. He said the pharmacist had every right to call him to verify a prescription, but NO right to my medical records, and, in fact, didn't even need to know the reason I was talking it.

The prescription was filled elsewhere.

Keeping a prescription, unless the pharmacist feels it is an illegitamate prescription and intends to call law inforcement, is against the law, as the script belongs to the patient. The patients who had their scrip confiscated have legal rights to sue for damages. And in some places the pharmacist is actually breaking the law by not giving the prescription back. In no place is BC pills a Scheduled drug, or "abusable" so the keeping of a BC scrip is illegal.

I also agree heartily with Ellis about the idea of all drugs being legal. People should KNOW what they are putting in their bodies, perhaps making people do their own research would make them pay attention to what they are taking.

 

I agree with you about that. I'm focusing on just your basic, pop-a-pill-a-day BC, since that is something I take. I've never done the "morning after" thing.

I understand that too. The thing is, it's so invasive! I'd rather not have to explain my use of the pill at all, since whether or not I'm having sex, it's still rather personal information. I give it out freely on here, but that's because the only person on this board that I see face to face is my fiance lol. I just am not the kind of person that can stand mentioning my personal problems, or even the fact that I have sex (yes, rather prudish) to a stranger, even if it is a pharmacist. I'm that way with doctors too. I've only gone to doctors I know, or that my family has known and trusts (I realize I'm going to freak whenever I get married and move down here to FL "permanently"). To me, it's just TMI to be specifying why I need the pill. I'm also the same way with my zoloft. I had to deal with weird looks for that anyway when I got it for the first few times, I'd hate to have to talk about it. Anyway, I'm sure you get the point lol, but anyway, I'm sure I'm not the only woman out there like this (besides my family lol, we're all rather silent about this stuff).

 

HuckFinn, do you mind if I ask if your stance changes at all if the person requesting BC/morning after pill was a rape victim? Obviously she didn't make the choice to have sex or to potentially become pregnant... do you really think that she would be able to handle being pregnant with her rapists child (I realize some women are strong enough to through this, but very few) let alone treat it well if she were to keep it instead of giving it up for adoption? Just curious.

 

that's the only time the birth control pills would have anything to do with it anyway.

 

Yes, I think that rape is the only case in which the risk of the "morning after" pill's abortifacient effects is justifiable. However, if I were a pharmacists, I'd want to verify that the patient/victim had filed a police report.

No. If they prevent implantation, they work up to a week after conception.

 

hmmmmmmmmm....... could through some sort of technical-ness be right on that one. but anyway, screw that, i love my birth control pills.

 

From the woman who posted the article on the other board:

And nature has indeed dealt her a bad hand, along with a horrific gynacologist who messed her up big time with a VERY painful, VERY harmful procedure, when she was only 17. Given the risks of her getting pregnant, and the fact that she and her husband haven't found a doctor yet who would do a vasectomy (or any other form of sterilization for that matter) because, as they've all told them, they're "too young", should she be denied the pill? Should she be denied sex with her husband, OR risk a possibly fatal pregnancy, if she was denied her pills?

 

If a pharmacist is going to ask me about my usage for birth control for the sole reason of wanting to keep track of my medications to make sure things don't interact, or to make sure there's nothing in it that matches my "medical allergies" list, then fine. (although I still don't see what the difference would be... the components of medication do not change depending on whether you're having sex or not). But if it was to make sure that it didn't go against their "moral values," then I would definitely have a problem with it. Alert me of the side effects, remind me that they won't work if I'm taking antibiotics, but don't tell me I'm a bad person preventing human life. The way I see it, I am waiting on human life until that life and I are ready for eachother. And that's nobody's business. If these pharmacists have a problem with that, then they should find a new job.

What about those of us who started taking them for health reasons other than sex? When we started having sex later on, should we have our birth control REVOKED because suddenly our reasons change?

 

I just had another thought... what about condoms? Should they refuse to sell condoms too, because of the "moral implications," even though by refusing to sell condoms they could be preventing safe sex? Would they rather people were running around having unprotected sex? (These are for you, Huck Finn)

 

The pharmacist does understand the indications for drugs, but can never be certain as to why they are being prescribed. Typically, it would only be discussed and advice would only be dispensed at the request of the patient, for something such as BC's. A drug, such as clozapine, for example, requires weekly blood count monitoring by the pharmacist, and will require more pharmacist intervention.

 

If it really wasn't insurance, and only a requirement of the pharmacist, I would find a new pharmacist, and quick.

 

Many small towns only have one pharmacy, and many large cities are largely dominated by one chain. I said I was against the corporation determining which drugs to stock. In Richmond, the chain I work for has over 50 different stores. I have worked in about half of them. While each of them have the same "top 200" drugs, the rest of the inventory, about 80%, varies widely. A pharmacy should work with community doctors and patients to establish a relevant inventory.

 

what if something like this happens to you?
sure, i can write my congressman, but they don't read the bills they sign, let alone the letters they receive.
how can we fight this?

 

This is true. If a pharmacist refuses a script, he or she is supposed to write on the face of the script that it was refused, sign it, and put a phone #, & give it back to the patient. Most pharmacists would never do this. They would just be "out of stock."

In regards to your pain script, it is absurd for the pharmacist to request your medical records. The pharmacist does have the right to know why you need any certain drug, or a certain dose, if it is not routine. The pharmacist should get all the information he or she needs from a telephone consultation with your doctor.

I have a patient who is on #15 75mcg Duragesic patches, #40ml of Demerol 100mg/ml injection, #200 Demerol 100mg tablets, #200 Norco 10/325mg tablets, and #60 Dextrostat 10mg each month. This is an example of aggressive pain treatment that is not routine, requiring us to document the patients opiate history and diagnosis.

 

Unfortunately, Super_Grrl, this has also happened. Kmart just had a big ordeal with this.

 

A pharmacist also monitors drug usage, and sometimes needs to know the indication in order to make sure the most appropriate drug is being used. This is legitamate, a pharmacist has at least 4 years of drug training, doctors often receive 1 year, and sometimes 1 semester. In reality, in many cases doctors should diagnose, and pharmacists should treat/prescribe (although this would require major changes in the way pharmaceutical services are administered). In regards to birth control, however, there is little cause for pharmacist intervention, so I agree with you.

 

Wow, that's crazy! I had no idea this type of thing was actually legal!

Hugs.