Doc and Me
When I go to the doctor's, I have a reasonable expectation that we enjoy doctor-patient confidentiality. I also presume that if I need medication, he will prescribe the correct drugs. I expect to go to the drugstore, get the prescription filled, and hopefully be treated, whether through being cured or managing whatever problem/disease I have.
Yet in this age of HMOs, religious right-wingers, and an increasing erosion of privacy rights, I'm not so sure that my expectations and rights are guaranteed anymore. Since I possess a penis, I don't suffer quite as much as those that lack one. The topic of patient rights at the drugstore has been in the news lately, as first the governor of Illinois, to his credit, passed an emergency resolution requiring pharmacies to fill birth control prescriptions. Just yesterday, it's reported that Congress has followed suit with a similar proposal.
I'm probably saying the same thing thousands of other (and better known!) people have already said on the subject, but I'm gonna pitch in my two cents. What business is it of anyone other than me and my doctor to determine what medicines I'm going to take or not take? Why is it a pharmacist's, pharmacist's apprentice's, or a drugstore clerk's right to decide whether or not to give me my pills? For that matter, why is it their prerogative to wield that kind of power over anyone, male or female? In this day and age of chain superpharmacies such as Walgreen's, Long's, Rite Aid, and CVS, chances are pretty high I don't know my local druggist. The day and age of the local, independent drugstore has passed. These people don't know me, only see me a few times a year for five minutes, tops, each time, and know nothing about me beyond my name, my address/phone number, my insurance company, and the medication I'm taking. Yet there are druggists all across this country that have taken it upon themselves to pass judgment on me, my wife, my family and friends, and my neighbors. If one of us is taking something that druggist deems objectionable, we don't get it. Bam. That's it, too bad.
My reaction? If you can't handle being a pharmacist by keeping your yap shut and your morals to yourselves, then maybe you need to consider another line of work. Right now it's the politically and emotionally charged medications and prescriptions related to abortion and birth control. What happens down the line when it's something else? Maybe someone I know has AIDS-- will they be denied their lifesaving drug cocktails because someone presumes to pass judgment on the fact that they have AIDS? What about the brave new world of stem cells? Will some righteous pharmacist deny me my medicine simply because it originated in stem cells or stem cell research? What if someday cannabis is legalized nationwide? Am I going to have to forego my painkillers simply because someone decides it's pot and I shouldn't have it? Where do you draw the line?
A pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions, pure and simple. Nothing else. Personally, I think pharmacists should do their jobs or get out, but the bills and rules being considered now will permit a pharmacist to refuse to handle a prescription as long as another druggist at the same store can fill the order. I think that's a cop-out, but I suppose it's a good compromise for all concerned. I hope these bills can be passed without the kind of problems that have plagued abortion and birth-control related legislation, but I'm probably being too optimistic.
Still, I have yet to have any problems with pill-popping. So far, when it comes to determining how to manage MY health, it's just Doc and me.
Yet in this age of HMOs, religious right-wingers, and an increasing erosion of privacy rights, I'm not so sure that my expectations and rights are guaranteed anymore. Since I possess a penis, I don't suffer quite as much as those that lack one. The topic of patient rights at the drugstore has been in the news lately, as first the governor of Illinois, to his credit, passed an emergency resolution requiring pharmacies to fill birth control prescriptions. Just yesterday, it's reported that Congress has followed suit with a similar proposal.
I'm probably saying the same thing thousands of other (and better known!) people have already said on the subject, but I'm gonna pitch in my two cents. What business is it of anyone other than me and my doctor to determine what medicines I'm going to take or not take? Why is it a pharmacist's, pharmacist's apprentice's, or a drugstore clerk's right to decide whether or not to give me my pills? For that matter, why is it their prerogative to wield that kind of power over anyone, male or female? In this day and age of chain superpharmacies such as Walgreen's, Long's, Rite Aid, and CVS, chances are pretty high I don't know my local druggist. The day and age of the local, independent drugstore has passed. These people don't know me, only see me a few times a year for five minutes, tops, each time, and know nothing about me beyond my name, my address/phone number, my insurance company, and the medication I'm taking. Yet there are druggists all across this country that have taken it upon themselves to pass judgment on me, my wife, my family and friends, and my neighbors. If one of us is taking something that druggist deems objectionable, we don't get it. Bam. That's it, too bad.
My reaction? If you can't handle being a pharmacist by keeping your yap shut and your morals to yourselves, then maybe you need to consider another line of work. Right now it's the politically and emotionally charged medications and prescriptions related to abortion and birth control. What happens down the line when it's something else? Maybe someone I know has AIDS-- will they be denied their lifesaving drug cocktails because someone presumes to pass judgment on the fact that they have AIDS? What about the brave new world of stem cells? Will some righteous pharmacist deny me my medicine simply because it originated in stem cells or stem cell research? What if someday cannabis is legalized nationwide? Am I going to have to forego my painkillers simply because someone decides it's pot and I shouldn't have it? Where do you draw the line?
A pharmacist's job is to fill prescriptions, pure and simple. Nothing else. Personally, I think pharmacists should do their jobs or get out, but the bills and rules being considered now will permit a pharmacist to refuse to handle a prescription as long as another druggist at the same store can fill the order. I think that's a cop-out, but I suppose it's a good compromise for all concerned. I hope these bills can be passed without the kind of problems that have plagued abortion and birth-control related legislation, but I'm probably being too optimistic.
Still, I have yet to have any problems with pill-popping. So far, when it comes to determining how to manage MY health, it's just Doc and me.
posted by Mr. Sandman | 4:49 PM
<< Home