A pharmacist who declined to fill a prescription for birth control pills and then refused to transfer it to another pharmacy should be reprimanded and be required to attend ethics classes, an administrative law judge ruled Monday.

Neil Noesen, a pharmacist from St. Paul, Minn. with strong religious convictions, put him in a court of law in front of a judge after he refused to fill a prescription for birth control pills for Amanda Phiede, then a University of Wisconsin-Stout student in July 2002 .

The pharmacist, a Roman Catholic, believed that filling a prescription for birth control pills to be sinful, and had made his views known to his employer before accepting the job as a replacement in a Kmart store.

However, the placement agency had not informed Kmart of Mr. Noesen's religious objections.

When Phiede brought her prescription to the store, Noesen inquired if they were for birth control purposes. He refused to fill the prescription after being told they were.

Phiede then went to a nearby Wal-Mart to have the prescription filled, but Noesen refused to transfer it when that store's pharmacist called.

After hearing testimony in the case, Administrative Law Judge Colleen Baird recommended that Noesen be reprimanded by the state's Pharmacy Examining Board for his actions and ordered him to attend ethics classes and pay for the costs of the court's proceedings.

Judge Baird also said that Noesen would be required to notify any pharmacy where he may work in the future about what practices he will not perform as a matter of conscience to ensure "a patient's access to medication is not impeded" by his beliefs.

Noesen's attorney, Krystal Williams-Oby, said the judge exceeded her authority since Wisconsin does not address this issue in state law and neither the state's Pharmacy Examining Board has any rules establishing proper procedure in such instances.

So, what is your take on the topic?

Source

Just a Reminder : Please Keep this topic to the discussion on topic. Do not attack anyone or their beliefs personally.

Wow, didnt see this update but I was following the story since its been hotly debated as you can imagine!

My thoughts are that just as a hospital or police officer cannot turn away a person based on color, or ***, a pharmacist should not be able to turn away a person or thier presciption based upon the pharmacists religious beliefs.

Sorry to say, but you knew what you were getting into when you chose the proffession.

__________________
Final Fantasy

Ugh, this makes me sick. As an advocate for religious diversity I feel this person needs to be made an example of. Intolerance for others is the true bliss of ignorance. I feel sorry for the girl/k-mart/and those true RC believers.

I need to post this on my forums.

__________________
Image Freak

He shouldn't have taken the job in the first place if he knew he wouldn't have been able to perform it properly.

__________________
Revs | Ecru

Working for a public company, the pharmacist was in the wrong. He needs to take a job at a pharmacy run by a catholic hospital. Only then can he rest on his moral convictions. Being someone who runs a business based on religious and spiritual practices, I know it can be tough sometimes. However, I do not refuse service to someone because their philosophical views differ from mine. It is not my place to make their decisions for them. This is what this pharmacist was doing.

I have known young ladies who practiced abstinance and were still on "birth control" pills for other medical conditions. I know older women who take them because they had a hysterectomy for one reason or another and this is the only way to regulate their hormones effectively. His actions could have caused this woman increased pain and suffering as he did not know why the doctor prescribed them, he just assumed. While he was morally right, he was ethically wrong and should face the consequences.

Whether or not he chose fo fill the prescription (because of his own religious beliefs) he had no right legally not to transfer the prescription to another pharmacist. He has the right to refuse service, I'm assuming, to anyone. However, that doesn't give him the right (in my opinion of course) to keep that person from going somewhere else. He in essence "hijacked" the prescription. I'm sure it wasn't hard for her to get another prescription from her doctor, but the pharmacist was in the wrong.

I wonder sometimes though how people with strong religious beliefs can hold so firmly to one (no birth control) and completely ignore others (thou shalt not judge). I'm not saying he should have filled the prescription, but he should not have passed judgement on her by not letting her get it filled elsewhere.

If a pharmacist has religious convictions about filling certain prescriptions, he should consider giving thought to wheter or not he has chosen the right field of endeavor. He has no right to judge others actions and interfere with them. The woman was not harming anyone and was minding her own business.