Pregnant Woman Denied Miscarriage Prescription at Walgreens
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
From MSN:
When Nicole Arteaga found out she was pregnant two months ago, she and her husband were ecstatic. But after suffering a previous miscarriage, the couple was hesitant to tell anyone.
On Friday, however, the grief-stricken mother reached out to friends and family on Facebook, sharing news of her pregnancy, along with the heartbreaking discovery that the baby's development had stopped.
According to her post, Arteaga was given two options: Let the doctors perform a D&C (a surgical procedure to remove the contents of her uterus) or take a prescription to end her pregnancy. She chose the latter of the two. However, when she arrived at Walgreens to pick up her medication, Arteaga said the pharmacist refused to fill the prescription. "Last night I went to pick up my medication at my local Walgreens only to be denied the prescription I need," the Arizona mom wrote on Facebook. "I stood at the mercy of this pharmacist explaining my situation in front of my 7-year-old and five customers standing behind only to be denied because of his ethical beliefs."
This post isn't something I generally do, but last night I experienced something no women should ever have to go thru especially under these circumstances or any other circumstances. I hadn't...
"(He) asks me if I'm pregnant, which I say yes, and he tells me, 'I'm not giving you this one. I can't give you this one,'" she told AZ Family.
Her post, which has now been shared more than 35,000 times, goes on to say that this wasn't something she wanted; it was something she had "zero control over"—a "rollercoaster" of emotional pain that no woman should have to go through. Despite understanding his beliefs—"we all have them," she wrote—Arteaga added, "He has no idea what it's like to want nothing more than to carry a child to full term and be unable to do so."
Ultimately, she left the store in tears, "ashamed and feeling humiliated by a man who knows nothing of my struggles but feels it is his right to deny medication prescribed to me by my doctor."
Arteaga said she did what she could to “report the situation.” In addition to contacting store management and Walgreens' corporate office, she filed a complaint with the Arizona Board of Pharmacy. Walgreens later issued this statement: "After learning what happened, we reached out to the patient and apologized for how the situation was handled. To respect the sincerely held beliefs of our pharmacists while at the same time meeting the needs of our patients, our policy allows pharmacists to step away from filling a prescription for which they have a moral objection. At the same time, they are also required to refer the prescription to another pharmacist or manager on duty to meet the patient's needs in a timely manner. We are looking into the matter to ensure that our patients' needs are handled properly.”
Though her prescription was later transferred to another location for pickup without incident, Arteaga's post has since sparked a discussion about ethics, women's rights and moral beliefs.
Tags
Who is online
445 visitors
The pharmacist needs to be terminated immediately. He cannot invoke his religious beliefs to overule a Dr. and he can only refuse to fill a script if there is someone else who will fill it.
Why do these mental midgets feel the need to make the medical lives of others their personal religious crusade? They are supposed to be medical professionals and treat others as they want to be treated instead of acting like evangelical ministers to preach to others where religious belief is neither wanted or welcome. Why do people take a job when their know that their religious beliefs will not permit them to do the job as required by law?
He then has the nerve to question her about her status and condition in front of other customers.
I would have been livid.
Edit: The response from the company was weak.
I would think there's a HUGE HIPAA problem right there.
The financial fallout from this will be ugly. There needs to be some way of keeping religious people out of situations like this without violating their religious employment rights. Why would you want to seek employment in a field when you can only do half the job because of your beliefs, unless their goal is not to do the job but to stand in the way of other's civil rights as a way to further their own religious cause?
That's probably the best motivation to fix this. No company wants to be the one that made a miscarrying mother cry even harder. The optics are terrible, and they know it.
If I were to employ pharmacists, I can't imagine employing one (or more) who refused to fill such a common prescription as the Pill. Most women I know have been on it at some time or other, sometimes for years. Can you imagine having to scramble to find a pharmacist who would cover for that every time someone wanted to fill their birth control script? That would get old in a hurry.
I had a pharmacist or a pharmacy tech put religious literature in a prescription package when it was filled. I called the store and spoke with the manager about the incident. They apologized but I changed pharmacies to another location that was covered by my insurance.
If they can't be a professional then find a different job that they can do without bringing religion into a situation where it doesn't belong. Should we allow Jehovah Witnesses to be hired as phlebotomists and butchers where they refuse to work and then threaten to sue the business if they are fired because of their supposed religious rights?
Society has bent over backward to respect their religious beliefs but it will never be enough for some of them because they seem to believe that this is a religious crusade to convert others and enforce their religious beliefs.
From articles I've read Walgreen's has a policy where a pharmacist that has a religious objection to fill a prescription then the said pharmacist has to call on another pharmacist or recommend another store. Sounds like bullshit to me.
They're supposed to have another pharmacist in the same store dispense the subscription, and that's what didn't happen in this case. Supposedly Walgreens is going to have a company-wide retraining because of this.
In addition, if a pharmacist cannot honor the prescription, they are supposed to refer the customer to another location.
Hospitals owned and operated by religious groups usually as policy will not do abortions or terminate the pregnancy.
No shit. That's why I won't go to a CHI medical facility
It sounds like this pharmacist just didn't want this poor woman to have her medication. What if she had become seriously ill or died because of his bullshit?
Sometimes to the detriment of the woman.
And for no other reason that it might violate his "moral" sensibilities.
I smell lawsuit.
I don't know if there will be a law suit or not. AZ has a "right to refuse" law and while very badly handled the pharmacist did not break the law. According to Walgreens and state law, the pharmacist was within his rights to do this.
I would like to see the law changed. And I wasn't in the store when this happened so I have no opinion on how poorly this was handled.
I doubt there would be a lawsuit, unless the woman suffered harm directly from this incident.
As would I.
Based on the story, it seems it was very poorly handled.
The pharmacist didn't break AZ's law (unfortunately) but he did break Walgreen's policy on this issue.
That's one of the big drawbacks of living in a red state, the fact that bible-babblers can directly interfere with your health care and cause you real harm.
It's a pharmacy, not a hospital that rejected the patient.
Pharmacies should also be required to post a sign indicating how many fully qualified and ethical pharmacists are on staff at any given time. Those who refuse to fill certain lawful prescriptions aren't counted but their names and home addresses should be posted for anyone who might be interested.
At the Rite Aid pharmacy where I have my prescriptions filled, the names of the Pharmacists on duty are always listed on a board by the pick-up counter. There are usually two on duty. It is a very busy pharmacy and having only one pharmacist would take far longer to fill their prescriptions. The addresses are not posted, but, their names are.
You're getting into some dangerous and illegal territory there...
why do you need a home address?
are you going sit outside their home and act like a jackass?
what they are doing is legal, contact your state rep if you don't like it...or is that too civil for you?
You mean like the kind that anti-abortion freaks have so often engaged in? Sounds like karma. Maybe what we really need is a website like the Nuremberg Files which lists the names and addresses of all these unethical and superstitious pharmacists who refuse to do their job properly? We can cross their names off once they find a more appropriate profession.
Isn't that exactly what anti-abortion freaks do to gynecologists? Why are you whining about it now?
so you are encouraging it?
Why on Earth should the public be given pharmacists' private information? Do you require the same to be posted for physicians, psychologists, lawyers, judges, dentists, educators, etc.? That's a very slippery slope!
FYI: on another article about this topic, an unhinged idiot in the comment section posted the pharmacist's MOTHER'S name, home address, cell phone, and home phone.
For the exact same reason that anti-abortion freaks have published the names and home addresses of gynecologists.
If their number and address is already publicly available, it's not illegal to post it.
I don't care to know who it is specifically that is so woefully ignorant about women's health.
The crucial aspect here is that a person's health was put in the hands of a licensed pharmacist that refused the needed medication. WTF !!!!
E.A Are you capable of a civil discussion on those points you have raised?
Forced birth advocates already opened that legal door when they demanded the names and addresses of Drs performing abortions. If it is good for the goose then its good for the gander.
Conservatives seem to have a double standard on this and pretty much every other issue. They want the right to harm others but don't want to be harmed themselves.
These phonier than thou pharmacists need to find another job. I heard they make about $95,000 a year.
There are other places to fill the prescription, usually at the local Krogers store. Or she could have gone to Planned Parenthood and got the med for free. Liberals keep mistakenly thinking they can force people to go against their religious convictions.
She was suffering a miscarriage, Greg!!!!!!!! Jesus fucking christ did you even read the article?????
Walgreens should have had another pharmacist fill it for her and deliver it to her. She was not suffering from a miscarriage at the time of her visit to Walgreens but her doctor stated she would eventually. I do find it troubling to make a customer drive to a different location to get the same medication.
The pharmacist's religious beliefs do not determine the healthcare choices of other people! Don't try to push your religious beliefs on to others, unless you want them to do the same to you and your religious beliefs
Conservatives keep mistakenly thinking they can force their religious beliefs on other people. News flash: You cannot use religion to deny someone their civil rights, it is ILLEGAL.
If the pharmacist knew that the fetus was nonviable, I'm not even sure where the religious objection comes in. Are women to sacrifice their health, and perhaps their lives, to retain dead fetal tissue? How is that pro-life?
Since when do pharmacists override prescriptions without consulting with the prescribing doctor? Sandy, can they do that?
It varies by state. Some states allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill prescriptions for abortifacients or contraceptives. They can't change a prescription, but they can refuse to fill it.
Okay, that surprises me. I thought the doctor was the authority. Thanks!
You're welcome. I've had pharmacists call me to give me a head's up about patients before - maybe I wrote a prescription for a narcotic, and the pharmacist knows the patient is an addict who just got a narcotic prescription from another doctor the day before (also a scenario in which a pharmacist can and may be obligated to refuse to fill), or a patient forgot that he's allergic to an antibiotic (happens more often than you'd think) and I wrote for that antibiotic. So then, the pharmacist doesn't fill the script, but we collaborate on finding an alternative.
That certainly makes sense but the key is that the pharmacist is not unilaterally denying a doctor's prescription. If they work with you (the prescribing doctors) that is a prudent check and balance.
My health insurance company is also keeping tract of my medications and frequency. They will not fill any prescription more than 2 days before the last time it was filled, especially, with any prescribed pain medications. So no matter how many prescriptions I may have for any medication, they will not fill any of them until only 2 days since the last time they were filled. Also, if I need a prescription(s) filled or refilled for medications, if the due date is over along holiday weekend, they will only approve enough medication to last over the holiday period, then I have to have the rest of the prescription filled after the holiday period. It actually works pretty well.
Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at. I've never had a pharmacist override me, although there are legitimate medical reasons why that might happen. But even if it's for a legitimate medical reason, it's unprofessional to do so without the courtesy of a phone call.
I've heard of cases where a pharmacist refused to fill a prescription based on their moral or religious views.
Should be illegal. Filling doctor ordered prescriptions can be serious business that should not be compromised by faith-based beliefs.
I agree, but far too many states have passed these nutty "conscience clause" laws which allow superstitious health care providers to refuse to provide what they were hired to do. Except for those foolish laws most companies would simply fire such a bad employee.
Agreed.
Totally agree, but NOT related to religious or moral views, it's not the worst idea to have a pharmacist that notices that the patient is getting a script that could interact with another medication, perhaps fatally, and denies to fill the medication until they can speak with the doc..
Whether the pharmacist knew if the fetus was viable or not seems unclear. I tend to think he did not know the fetus was non-viable.
I was in a Facebook conversation with Loretta and Verbal Barb, and that article said that both the patient and her husband explained the situation to the pharmacist, and were still refused care.
He should be held liable. The woman was suffering a very real medical condition and his refusal to provide "care" makes him guilty of intentional malpractice, IMO. I'm not a medical lawyer in case you didn't know it.
In that case, the pharmacist was in the wrong and should be held accountable.
My Grand Mother had to have an abortion. She was told by her doctor at the time that the pregnancy could kill her. My Grandparents decided it was best to terminate the pregnancy for obvious reasons. They already had three kids and there was no way my Grand Father could have survived let alone take care of the kids. He couldn't even make himself a sandwich.
They were also very religious people. He was a Methodist minister.
Yeah, I think a lot of "pro-lifers" forget that, although pregnancy is a normal life event, it can also be a dangerous one, for various reasons. Even the Catholic Church used to allow abortion to save the life of the mother, I believe, but lately, it seems that the life of the mother is secondary in importance to some folks.
I wonder where they plan to incubate the fetus if the mother dies?
In situations like that, they don't care. It is not their problem. They are only worried about protecting their own agenda, and the life of the Mother and her child are their own problem.
And then the fetus has no mother to care for it when it reaches the proper developmental stage for birth. How does that make any sense or do any of these twats think of this?
I would rather have had my mother for the short time I did have her than another annoying brother or sister that my father would have had to care for on his own besides the two brats he already had.
My mother had to have an abortion or she would have died. I've told this story here before
ah yes, another situation of the religious trying to assert control over total stranger's lives
According to the article the pharmacist did not say he refused because of religious beliefs.
Just like the case with the baker, there are other options, other sources for the goods and services.
No it's not just like that fucking bigoted baker. Like TG said - Jesus Fucking Christ!
Pay attention to the real issue, Skirting the CoC
I hope the hell you never have a daughter or a wife who needs a medication to assist with a miscarriage and the pharmacist tells you no. Cause I'm real sure you're gonna want to drive another 15-20 minutes to get to that other pharmacy.
Grow the fuck up
And some do not even read the entire story.
yeah....like Greg
They said the same thing to black and interracial customers in the 1950s.
We don't need to shop around because of the beleifs of employees in a public business. Either do your job as required or go work for the church.
7.1.3 Sunshine replied to Greg Jones @7.1 3 hours ago
Just like the case with the baker,
And some do not even read the entire story.
Not you ...referring to other comments.
She should have asked for clarification. You mean you want me to carry a dead fetus to term?
This pharmacist should have his balls cut off and be denied medication.
I hope he needs boner pills and his pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription
I hope the pharmacist gets publicly named and shamed.
LMFAO!!!
Should be required question on application to pharmacy school and if they won't say they will fill these type of prescriptions then they are not qualified for this field
There was a similar situation at a CVS pharmacy in Arizona where the pharmacist refused to fill the hormone therapy prescription for a transgender woman. Fortunately the bigot has been fired but I wonder what's up with Arizona? Have all the superstitious nutbags moved there recently?