Something else to get pissed off about

[wendyzski]

Apparently there is growing phenomenon of some pharmacists and even doctors who are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control on the grounds that a possible effect of them (preventing implantation of a possibly fertilized egg) is morally objectionable to them.

The article from Prevention Magazine is here.

With the trend towards more use of managed health plans, it seems to me that this is very likely to limit many women's access to birth control of any kind, if their primary care physician decided that they won't deal with this, and it takes the woman time to arrange to switch PCPs. Also, there is the huge issue of women taking oral contraceptives for a variety of other medical reasons. I sure don;t think it's the pharmacist's business why I am taking any particular medication.

Thank the gods that Illinois has a law that insurance companies MUST cover birth control at the same rates as other medications.

Yet another reason to count the days until November....

Comments

Re: What is the function of insurance?

[eacole72.livejournal.com]

I think the point of the comment about insurance is that in many HMO's, a patient does not get to choose their doctor. The doctor is assigned by the insurer. And, the choice of pharmacies is often regulated by the insurance company.

If the patient is assigned to a physician who will not prescribe BCP, it may be next to impossible for her to be transferred to a physician who will write the prescription. And, if she DOES get that scrip, she might well run across a pharmacist who will not fill it for her.

It comes down to insurance rules allowing medical professionals to force their personal version of morality on patients. And, as someone who works in the healthcare industry, I find it to be a violation of professional ethics for the practioners to do so.

Re: What is the function of insurance?

[foolscap001.livejournal.com]

Agreed, that is the point, but I couldn't let the other issue, i.e. whether people have the right to turn insurance into what is effectively welfare, pass.

The fundamental problem is the tying of insurance to employment, which dates back to WWII when it was a way to work around government-imposed wage controls. If that hadn't become entrenched, this (and other issues) wouldn't be an issue (or issues). If one insurance company requires you to go to a pharmacist who refuses to sell a given medication, you could take your business elsewhere, and if enough people did so, they'd have to reconsider their position.

Of course, the converse issue is: from the "pro-life" pharmacist's point of view, we're talking about people wanting to force their personal version of morality on the pharmacist. Again, if people had a choice, there wouldn't be a problem.