Pharmacy ruling is bad medicine
By Susan Paynter
P-I Columnist
Crisis? What crisis? That was the "What, me worry?" attitude expressed by Washington State Pharmacy Association director Rod Shafer this week following the state Pharmacy Board's ruling in favor of "Refer Madness."
That's "refer," not "reefer." You probably know by now that, late last week, the board decided it was OK for pharmacists to refuse to dispense or fill prescriptions for not only the "Plan B" morning-after pill but also anything else that offends their personal moral or religious beliefs. Instead, they could "simply" refer the customers to another druggist.
Simply? For a woman counting the hours while counting on a safe and legal remedy to an unwanted pregnancy, nothing is simple about this except the mindedness behind it.
The watery, vague and yet intrusively moralistic ruling drew a strong dose of reaction in Olympia on Monday from Gov. Christine Gregoire. "They (the board) made a mistake," she said. "It's time that it's corrected."
If they don't, the Legislature could prescribe a bitter-tasting cure pharmacists may not want to swallow.
The current draft of the decision says pharmacists may not "obstruct a patient in obtaining a lawfully prescribed drug or device." Meaning? They can't jump between the customer and counter chanting prayers and incantations?
It goes on to say that if pharmacists "can't" dispense the medication they must provide timely alternatives. But the miles of room for interpretation in that statement could prove equal to the distance between drugstores in many rural areas of this state.
"The idea of consumers having to navigate some moral minefield looking to get a prescription filled is preposterous," Rep. Brendan W. Williams, D-Olympia, told me on Monday. He's one of more than 40 legislators who have signed petitions and written letters to the board and the governor protesting "Refuse and Refer."
Even if we were only talking about the morning-after pill, there would be plenty to protest, Williams said. But, before people revel too much in this decision they ought to consider that it could cover a multitude of medications they, themselves, might want.
What about being refused AZT because a druggist assumes the HIV-positive patient is gay and disapproves of his or her "lifestyle?" (To me that always sounded like disliking someone's taste in patio furniture rather than one's inherent sexual orientation.)
Click here to read the full column.
| 
