NEWS
Board punishes pharmacist
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ann Babe:
- Legislators introduce Jessica's Law (October 20, 2005)
- Parisi seeks prison releases (October 21, 2005)
- State Street getting 'freaky' (September 14, 2006)
- Concealed-carry veto override attempt fails in Capitol (February 1, 2006)
- Doyle signs bill redefining abuse law (February 17, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Controversy swirls around pharmacist (March 4, 2005)
- Judge denies Green (September 26, 2006)
- Green still on hook with state board (October 5, 2006)
- Supreme Court to take up Green case (January 24, 2007)
- Green bids to Supreme Court (October 10, 2006)
by Ann Babe
Thursday, April 14, 2005
After a session of debate and deliberation, the Pharmacy Examining Board emerged from behind closed doors to reprimand a Menomonee pharmacist who in 2002 refused to fill or transfer a woman’s birth control prescription at a local Kmart.
After reviewing the ruling recommended by the administrative law judge who first assessed the case, the board decided to accept the judge’s order in its entirety, which sided in favor of the woman who filed the complaint against pharmacist Neil Noesen. According to the judge’s verdict, Noesen endangered the woman’s health and welfare by inhibiting her from taking her birth control as prescribed.
Under the accepted ruling, Noesen’s license will be limited for at least two years, during which Noesen must prepare written notices before supplying services. The notices must clearly specify his personal limitations upon the scope of his performance and detail his planned efforts to ensure a patient’s access to medication. They must be submitted, along with a copy of the judge’s ruling, to pharmacy employers prior to employment. Furthermore, Noesen will be required to attend six credit hours of education on pharmacy ethics.
Though the case is now closed, debate continues to rage over the implications of such a ruling. While some organizations find the outcome to be unfair and unreasonable, others, particularly Planned Parenthood, are more than satisfied.
“Planned Parenthood is very pleased that the Pharmacy Examining Board took all the recommendations of the judge,” spokesperson Tanya Atkinson said. “We believe those recommendations were fair and just and kept the patient’s best interest in mind.”
Conversely, Pro-Life Wisconsin is calling for the dismissal of the case, which it views as unconstitutional. According to the organization, a pharmacist holds the basic right to refuse dispensing medications that violate his or her moral beliefs. Pro-Life Wisconsin furthermore maintains it is the responsibility of the pharmacy employer to accommodate a pharmacist’s moral objections.
“Punishing a medical professional for exercising his deeply held religious convictions is wrong and is simply un-American,” Pro-Life State Director Peggy Hamill asserted in a release. “One person’s convenience should not trump another’s conscience.”
In response, Planned Parenthood points to the honored doctor-patient relationship, a liaison that excludes pharmacists. Additionally, the organization argues the essentiality of contraceptives, describing birth control as part of the basic health care to which every woman is entitled.
“Health-care decisions should be made only between a patient and her physician because it’s essential that women be able to access basic health care and not be forced to go to such extensive lengths to access those services,” Atkinson added.
In opposition, Pro-Life Wisconsin cites current legislation that protects employees from discrimination for refusing to participate in surgical abortion. Because Pro-Life sees birth control as nothing more than a method of abortion, the organization calls for the addition of a pharmacists’ conscience clause bill, which would extend protection to those who refuse to participate in chemical abortion.
