Pharmacist fired for denying "morning after" pill

I know that this was already posted but I really feel that it deserves its own thread!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest....ap/index.html

DENTON, Texas (AP) -- Eckerd Corp. has fired three pharmacists who declined to fill an emergency contraception prescription for a woman who had been raped, one of the pharmacists said.

Gene Herr said Wednesday he and two co-workers were fired January 29, six days after refusing to fill the prescription. He said his own refusal was based on religious grounds.

Eckerd has declined to comment on their employment status. Joan Gallagher, the vice president of communications for Largo, Florida-based Eckerd would say only that the company has taken appropriate disciplinary action.

Herr, 33, of Denton, said he declined to fill the prescription for the so-called "morning-after pill" because he believes it could have killed the embryo if the woman already had conceived. Though he had declined five or six times in the past to fill such prescriptions, it was the first time he had been handed one for a rape victim, he said.

"I went in the back room and briefly prayed about it," said Herr, who had worked for Eckerd for five years. "I actually called my pastor ... and asked him what he thought about it."

The two other pharmacists who were present also declined to fill the prescription. Herr would not name them.

The rape victim had the prescription filled at a nearby pharmacy.

Gallagher said Eckerd's employment manual says pharmacists are not allowed to opt out of filling a prescription for religious, moral or ethical reasons.

Herr said he did not know about that policy until his supervisors questioned him about it shortly before he was fired.

"In my mind if I agree to work for someone knowing that that's their policy, then I should submit to that policy. But I didn't even know about it," he said.

Morning-after pills are higher doses of the hormones in regular birth control pills and have been sold under the brand names Plan B and Preven since 1998. Taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse, the pills are at least 75 percent effective at preventing pregnancy.

JUSTICE IS SERVED!!

Well, they certianly deserved it.

And it bothers me that they put the part that the gril had been raped. It shouldn't matter how she got pregnant....seems like that is her business and her business alone.

They're paid to fill prescriptions, not make judgements. I hope no one else hires them.

I'm all for freedom of choice....
What does it matter if she is a rape victim or not? It IS her body, her life and her choice. Morning after pills and what not may prevent some kid ending up in a dumpster somewhere...Is allowing THAT to happen ethical in any religion?

Quote:

---

They're paid to fill prescriptions, not make judgements. I hope no one else hires them.

---

I agree Katt...no one gave them licence to deny a perscription. Its people like that that get others killed...What if they decided that giving some old person drugs to keep them alive longer was unethical? Sheesh....:confused:

Wow.... THREE pharmasist refused her! Sickening. I'm glad they were dealt with.

:mad:

Oh, and just in case anyone still thinks it does, EC does NOT cause abortion, and in fact will not work if you are already preggo!

http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html

No, use of emergency contraception does not cause an abortion. In fact, emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and thereby reduces the need for induced abortion. Medical authorities such as the United States Food and Drug Administration/National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists define the beginning of pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a woman's uterus. Implantation begins five to seven days after fertilization (and is completed several days later). Emergency contraceptives work before implantation and not after a woman is already pregnant. Depending on the time during the menstrual cycle that they are taken, ECPs may inhibit or delay ovulation, inhibit tubal transport of the egg or sperm, interfere with fertilization, or alter the endometrium (the lining of the uterus), thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg. The copper in copper-T IUDs can prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg and can also alter the endometrium, thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg. When a woman is already pregnant, emergency contraception does not work. Emergency contraception is also harmless to the fetus and the mother.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WolfChan

"I went in the back room and briefly prayed about it," said Herr, who had worked for Eckerd for five years. "I actually called my pastor ... and asked him what he thought about it."

---

lolololololol.....

I was more concerned about eternal damnation and
'What Jesus Would Do' had he been handed that piece of paper....


Now comes the 'unlawful termination' lawsuit...

Then they'll have to make special rules about hiring pharmacists, Don't ask, Don't tell, The 'Jesus Fish' in the window means you cannot fill
MA/BCP scripts at this establishment....

For pete's sake......

That's what I'm talking about. I posted the original thread about the pharmacist refusing to fill the prescription in the first place. Really, though, that crap about not knowing the policy, that's his own fault. It's like saying when you get pulled over for speeding that you didn't know the speed limit was 45 mph. Doesn't matter. Ignorance doesn't make it ok. And, besides, if I was a pharmacist with those particular religious beliefs, you can bet your bottom dollar that the first thing I would have done would be to ask specifically about that kind of situation. That's one of the main reasons I have problems with organized religion, so many of them (and I know not all of them, so, please don't anyone take it that way) are so self righteous and judgemental. Ugh. Anyway, that IS a different story. ;) I'm just glad he's not working there any more. I have a little more respect for Eckerd's now. I probably still won't shop there, just cuz of the prices, though.

I personally feel that life begins at the moment of conception. Not because I'm the "crazy religious type" but because I believe in life. That is why I personally would never use emergency contraception. I do happen to agree with the action taken against the pharmacists though. Even though I believe it's wrong to take an EC, it is NOT my place to deny it to someone who wants it. Now, if someone wants it because they're too stubborn to use reliable contraception, or are too busy fooling around to think about the long term implications of pregnancy, that would leave a VERY bad taste in my mouth. A rape victim is different. If this woman really was a rape victim then she didn't make the choice to fool around without reliable protection. In that case it is the Pharmacists moral obligation to prescribe the drug. So good for Eckerd to fire the pharmacist. Regardless of personal beliefs, a pharmacist has to do their job, even if it interferes with their ethical code. If I were to put myself into the pharmacists shoes and had valid reason to suspect that the woman was NOT truly a rape victim, I would not have filled the Rx either. That's why I'm not a pharmacist :rolleyes: :D :D

I agree with most everyone in here as it wasn't the pharmacist's business as to why she was getting the pill. And, to me, she was raped again by the press for saying she had been a victim. I hope she knows who did it and hopefully the idiot won't get to do it again,

I believe that that embryo has a soul from the moment of conception and I think that abortion, including the "morning after pill" should be illegal. I would have gladly walked away from that job, feeling good. I would have been a murder to have given that pill to her. I hope he opens a pharmacy of his own, or finds a humane one to work for. Rape or whatever reason, that was a innocent baby that was killed by taking that pill. She had other options. If she didn't have the money to have the baby then she could have gone somewhere for help, and then give the baby up for adoption. I'm sorry that she was raped, but she shouldn't have raped her child out of a life.

Once again:

The Morning After Pill does not cause abortion. It does prevent the implantation of the egg in the lining of the uterus, thus preventing conception and negating the need for an abortion.

Thank you Cheshirecat! People seem to be overlooking that fact.

this just needs to be bumped up again. I'm glad people are pointing out that the morning after pill isn't abortion.

it seemed obvious what the pro-life people on here are trying to say, but just to clarify. This is the definition of conception from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate dictionary as provided by dictionary.com

con·cep·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-spshn)
n.
Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.


The morning after pill does not prevent conception. Conception occurs at the moment of fertilization. You can argue about that till the cows come home, but that's just the truth. The morning after pill DOES prevent implantation. So it IS an ethical choice if you think that a baby is not a baby until implantation. However, what the people on here are saying is that they (and I) believe that life begins at the moment of fertilization/conception.

So, in short I just wanted to clear up the medical terms that are being picked apart. EC's do not prevent conception. They prevent implantation. If you think that a baby is not a living thing before implantation than go ahead and support the morning after pill. But stop trying to stomp on others and tell us that we don't understand how it works. It's a matter of your personal ethical code. I believe that EC's are abortive because I view the beginning of life as being at the moment of conception (fertilization) You guys believe that EC's are not abortive because you believe that life starts later. Can't we just agree to disagree?

I'll bet a lot of the anti-choice people would change their tune if they were put into the situation.

I started to rant, but I deleted it due to a high content of personal info. -_-

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sirrahsim
it seemed obvious what the pro-life people on here are trying to say, but just to clarify. This is the definition of conception from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate dictionary as provided by dictionary.com

con·cep·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-spshn)
n.
Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.


The morning after pill does not prevent conception. Conception occurs at the moment of fertilization. You can argue about that till the cows come home, but that's just the truth. The morning after pill DOES prevent implantation. So it IS an ethical choice if you think that a baby is not a baby until implantation. However, what the people on here are saying is that they (and I) believe that life begins at the moment of fertilization/conception.

So, in short I just wanted to clear up the medical terms that are being picked apart. EC's do not prevent conception. They prevent implantation. If you think that a baby is not a living thing before implantation than go ahead and support the morning after pill. But stop trying to stomp on others and tell us that we don't understand how it works. It's a matter of your personal ethical code. I believe that EC's are abortive because I view the beginning of life as being at the moment of conception (fertilization) You guys believe that EC's are not abortive because you believe that life starts later. Can't we just agree to disagree?

---

Well, personally, it wasn't a matter of agreeing to disagree, I simply didn't know. Thanks for the information. I agree that life starts from the moment of fertilization, but, I guess, in this case, what made me so mad was just that she'd been raped, and, I've always personally been more ok with interferring with implantation in those cases. But, again, for me, I wasn't disagreeing, I just simply was under the impression that the morning after pill didn't abort. So, yeah, I can see how if you're against abortion no matter what the situation, that this would be an unethical choice. I still think, though, that the pharmacist should have chosen to work in a pharmacy that didn't stock the product. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WolfChan
I know that this was already posted but I really feel that it deserves its own thread!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest....ap/index.html

DENTON, Texas (AP) -- Eckerd Corp. has fired three pharmacists who declined to fill an emergency contraception prescription for a woman who had been raped, one of the pharmacists said.

Gene Herr said Wednesday he and two co-workers were fired January 29, six days after refusing to fill the prescription. He said his own refusal was based on religious grounds.
at a nearby pharmacy.

JUSTICE IS SERVED!!

---

AMEN! What judgemental twits! They deserved to be fired. All that palaver about "not knowing policy" was gutrot - what organisation would be foolish enough to align its policies with religious sentiment? What a great way to lose customers ...

And its once again time to roll out "cast not the first stone..."