The Badger Herald

NEWS

Controversy swirls around pharmacist

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Rachel Patzer:

AG replies to birth control bill (April 7, 2005)
State to sue EPA over mercury issue (April 12, 2005)
Prison sex change law passes Senate (April 13, 2005)
Lab mistakenly ships deadly flu worldwide (April 14, 2005)
Stem cells could treat ALS (April 20, 2005)

by Rachel Patzer

Friday, March 4, 2005

An adminstrative law judge issued a controversial reprimand Monday to a pharmacist who refused to refill or transfer a birth control prescription to another pharmacy because of religious concerns.

Pharmacist Neil T. Noesen has stirred debate among birth control supporters and opponents, with stark opposition from both sides concerning what penalties Noesen should face.

The reprimand issued by the judge suggested the revocation and limitation of his license. The Pharmacy Examining Board will determine a course of action April 13.

Ohio-based Pharmacists for Life International supports the right of Noesen to refuse to refill the prescription based on his religious beliefs and believes the judge’s decision was flawed.

“[Noesen] is carrying out his duties as a pharmacist the best he can … he has knowledge about drugs that others do not know, lie about or refuse to believe,” said Karen Brauer, President of Pharmacists for Life International.

The decision the judge made is not based on actual, existing, pharmacy regulations. There is no law against refusal to refer or to transfer, according to Brauer.

“We are the ones with the knowledge of these drugs. It is a pharmacists’ duty to protect the client from drugs that can be harmful,” Brauer said.

A number of groups have voiced their support of the judge’s decision to reprimand Noesen and believe he acted inappropriately.

Few people have encountered a pharmacist who refused to transfer, Chris Taylor, political director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin, said. Noesen should have been aware of what type of conduct other pharmacists are practicing, what types of behavior are acceptable and what actions are atypical, according to Taylor.

“Wisconsin does have a code of ethics that establishes that this practice must be patient centered,” Taylor said.

NARAL, a pro-choice organization, also supports the judge’s suggestion to reprimand Noesen.

“It is not acceptable for any health-care professional to put his or her own personal belief above the patient,” Kelda Helen Roys, executive director of NARAL Wisconsin, said.

Last year, 19 states, including Wisconsin, considered measures allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense medication on the basis of religious beliefs.

State Rep. Carol Owens, R-Oshkosh, is currently composing a bill protecting pharmacists from jeopardizing their jobs on the basis of beliefs. The bill will likely be introduced this spring.

“[The bill] says you can’t be fired for refusing to do something against your moral belief,” Owens said.

First-year pharmacy student Emily Doll said Noesen’s concern is about the mechanism of action of birth control, which, secondary to preventing ovulation, prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.

“What it comes down to is whether you believe a fertilized egg is life or not, and if you believe it is life, then it’s no longer a [matter] of opinions; it’s a matter of defending a group of people that don’t have a voice of their own.”

Those in support of and opposition to abortion are using this event as a catalyst for the major argument between duty and moral belief. This includes newly introduced legislation on the Birth Control Ban launched by State Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, and Sen. Joe Leibham, R-Sheboygan.

The bill was referred to the State Affairs Committee Tuesday.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (March 4, 2005 @ 7:56am):

Karen Brauer is full of shit. Noesen's intent wasn't to protect the woman who wanted a prescription filled, it was to prevent the patient from preventing the possible creation of a new life. By Brauer's logic, Noesen would be doing the right thing if he denied medication to a pregnant cancer patient that would kill the cancer but also abort the fetus.

Anonymous (March 4, 2005 @ 9:31am):

I hate these wacko right-wing fundies that are trying to mess with science. Listen, muthafuckas, if you don't believe in evolution or global warming or birth control, please leave the sciences and go back to molesting little boys.

Anonymous (March 4, 2005 @ 9:34am):

Poster #2: I wish your parents had been a touch more careful with their birth control.

Anonymous (March 4, 2005 @ 10:34am):

"It is not acceptable for any health-care professional to put his or her own personal belief above the patient,"

THIS is most important point as I don't want the State to be in the business of determining what "religious belief" could validly interfere with the above. The mythologies underlying "religious belief" are many and varied but of course "wacko right-wing fundies" only accept the "true faith" (because god's on thier side - LOL).

Refusing to refill a prescription is one thing, maybe that could be acceptable. Refusing to transfer a prescription to another pharmacy is quite another thing and should be subject to legal sanction as well as a lawsuit for damages.

Anonymous (March 4, 2005 @ 12:06pm):

"Refusing to refill a prescription is one thing, maybe that could be acceptable. Refusing to transfer a prescription to another pharmacy is quite another thing and should be subject to legal sanction as well as a lawsuit for damages."

Exactly. My problem is not with the pharmacists who don't want to fill the prescription, it's with the ones who tear it up right in front of you and refuse to transfer it.

Also, birth control pills are sometimes used as hormone therapy for non-birth control reasons. There are other drugs available for this. However, they are more expensive. If Noesen had any integrity at all, he would be willing to pay the difference out of his own pocket each and every time. However, I bet you anything that he wouldn't, and would just stick it to the customer.

Anonymous (March 4, 2005 @ 12:24pm):

Here's what I don't understand; why would this person even become a pharmacist in the first place? Did they not realize that there would be drugs out there that would interfere with their obviously ingrained religious philosophy?It just doesn't make any sense.

Anonymous (March 4, 2005 @ 1:53pm):

"Did they not realize that there would be drugs out there that would interfere with their obviously ingrained religious philosophy?"

Absolutely! I'm certain that drugs sometimes save lives of unholy people scheduled to die (or at least suffer horrible pain) for their sins. How dare they interfere with god's will!

Anonymous (March 6, 2005 @ 11:43pm):

Yes, this is another shining example of the Oshkosh morals. Way to go Carol! This is just another reason that those of us smart enough hightailed it out of that rightwing blackhole. For the love of everything that is left uncensored in this country, please get involved in your hometown local races, so then we can kick these people out of office, and reclaim Wisconsin as the liberal state we once were, instead of this barely beating Bush margin from last fall. Forward ho!

Anonymous (March 7, 2005 @ 9:19am):

keep your fucking jesus out of this. it interfers with the patient's right to put your own crazy ass beliefs above the medical rights of a patient. here is an example where if you are a crazy religious bigot maybe you should go into priest school and not pharmacy school. you know what's funny? as i read this article i took a birth control pill. have you heard of women's rights? or separation of church and state? and how does this pharmacist have sex? is he against condoms as well? if so, he must be either abstinent or blessed with 45 children. quit your evangelical nonsense. most of us dont need to be saved