PHOENIX (KRON) - An Arizona woman says a Walgreens pharmacist denied her prescription miscarriage medication over his ethical beliefs.
the pharmacist was wrong here. the child was already dead
As a pharmacist (never worked in a retail setting), I find the actions wrong on a number of levels. I do hope the Board does investigate. The desire to enact a law requiring any valid prescription to be filled, however, is also wrong and ill-conceived.
The article never says if the pharmacist knew the baby was already dead. And he made arrangements for another pharmacist to fulfill (which according to the article is company policy).
This is a little speculation here, but I bet she never told him the baby was already dead. The drama is a little more intense if leave that part out then just scream “He would not give me my medicine!!”
That would be another lapse, just filling a script without knowing the indication.
Part of the pharmacists’ duties in processing a prescription. It’s not just the right drug, strength, route, quantity, and patient.
But women with live babies also take this to get rid of a baby they want to carry to fill term right? Is he supposed to ask each woman if her baby is still alive? What is ratio of using this medicine to expel a dead baby versus an abortion of convenience?
My guess is there is more to the story. It’s just a juicer headline to say pharmacist denies pregnant woman meds.
(On a side note…Someone please answer me this: is she still technically pregnant if the baby is dead?)
No doubt, there is more to the story than the clickbait headline.
Flat out ask the woman if the baby is alive, no. That would or should come out as part of the counseling process for the med. if a pharmacist has a moral or religious conviction (as I do) for not dispensing a drug, one should be prepared for that and be able to converse with the patient in a knowledgeable, professional manner.
Yes, that is one of the uses for misaprostol. It is also used to induce labor at full term.
The headline is why I ask about when does the pregnancy end.
If the baby has died, she is not pregnant and the medical situation needs to be treated promptly.
So the headline IS a total lie? There was no pregnant woman who was denied abortion services?
According to the article the situation did not need to be treated promptly. She could have waited for the body to expel the dead baby naturally. So, was it unreasonable for this pharmacist to delay the fulfillment one day?
I will go ahead and answer my own question: the article, especially the headline, was designed to make the pro life pharmacist look like an intolerant rube.
This is not medical advice! My opinion is no, it would not make a difference. If it would, the physician probable wouldn’t leave it up to the patient to go get the prescription filled on her own.
So this woman wasn’t really denied anything then, was she?
She was denied a medical treatment prescribed by a doctor.
And since she wasn’t technically pregnant it wasn’t an abortion.
But again, the question has to be asked, did she tell the pharmacist? The pharmacist in question, seeing a woman in the early stages of pregnancy, most likely assumes the child she is carrying is live. Hence, he did correctly follow policy, though maybe he should have referred immediately to manager, not another pharmacy tomorrow. If she had told the pharmacist the child was not viable, it may have removed the moral implication for him, and this would not even be an issue.
Since she was able to get the prescription filled at another pharmacy, what was she denied?
Not only that, it is also possible the Dr. made a mistake, and that the baby is still alive. Why not get a second opinion or an ultrasound? Heartbeats have been missed before…
I know two women who have gone through this extremely traumatic experience, Both of these women were childless at the time and very much wanted a baby. One of them was my daughter-in-law.
I cannot find words to express how horrible this situation is. My daughter-in-law was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in her early twenties and had to have an ovary removed. Fortunately, she did not have chemotherapy nor radiation, but having children was questionable for her - which my son knew when they married.
Although she was able to conceive, she had a number of early miscarriages. I don’t remember how many. It was emotionally upsetting as well as physically difficult. It’s been over seven years now so I don’t remember how far along one of the pregnancies was when the baby died. The experience of losing any child is filled with grief, but carrying a deceased child has a dimension of loss that is incomprehensible - unless it happens to you…
My daughter-in-law was also prescribed a medication to expel the fetus. I cannot imagine how emotionally destructive it would have been for the pharmacist to refuse her medication due to “moral beliefs.” This pharmacist should lose his license.
In my daughter-in-law’s case, the medication did not work. Her doctor recommended an “abortion.” Yes, the procedure to remove the deceased fetus is called an “abortion.” My daughter-in-law was beside herself. My position was that it didn’t matter what it was called, the child inside her had died and the doctor felt that it should be removed.
Miraculously, my daughter-in-law went on to have two healthy children but not without more miscarriages and a medical condition (placenta previa) that endangered her own life. I just cannot understand a pharmacist daring to question a doctor’s judgement based on “moral beliefs.” It just should not happen.