Current Events > Pharmacist denies woman miscarriage medicine due to his ethical beliefs.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/walgreens-pharmacist-denies-pregnant-woman-miscarriage-medication-over-his-ethical-beliefs/67-566977558

Nicole Arteaga was looking forward to the birth of her second child.

Already a mom to a 7-year-old son, Arteaga, 35, was nine weeks pregnant when her doctor delivered the worst news she could hear. Her unborn baby had stopped growing and had no fetal heartbeat.

She would have a miscarriage.

The doctor gave Arteaga three options: undergo a medical procedure to remove the lifeless fetus, wait for nature to take its course or take prescription medication to help her body let go of the deceased unborn baby.

After a day of thinking, she opted to take the medication. The drug, Misoprostol, causes a woman's uterus to contract and allows the fetus to come out.

Arteaga, who lives in Phoenix, Arizona, received an email Wednesday evening, saying her Misoprostol was ready for pickup at her local Walgreens. But, when she went to pick it up Thursday night, the pharmacist on duty refused to give her the drug.

She stood, humiliated, as the pharmacist said he would not give her the prescription because of his own ethical beliefs. Her 7-year-old son and a group of other customers were all listening.

He had it in his hand and refrained from giving it to me," Arteaga explained. "...I was completely shocked. I couldnt believe what was happening.

Arteaga said she left Walgreens in tears.

"Having a miscarriage and having to deal with this is like a double dose of terribleness," she said.

The pharmacist arranged for her to pick up the Misoprostol the next day at another Walgreens located 20-minutes away.

James W. Graham, senior manager of media relations for the pharmacy chain, confirmed what happened and issued a statement on behalf of Walgreens.

"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."

But, Arteaga said the corporate statement wasn't entirely true. According to her, Walgreens didn't reach out to her. Arteaga said she reached out to them.

And, if the policy calls for another pharmacist or manager on duty to help in a situation like hers, Arteaga said there were other workers available who should have processed the transaction. According to her, there were two other employees in the pharmacy at the time -- both of whom were assisting other customers. And, even if they refused too, she said there was surely a manager at the store to help.

I was not given the option to have someone else in that store give me the prescription," Arteaga said. "...Those guidelines were broken.

Arteaga filed a complaint with the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy. And, she wants a law in place that would require pharmacies to fill prescriptions approved by doctors. Currently, Arizona law allows pharmacies to refuse to process prescriptions for religious or moral reasons. Pharmacists aren't legally obligated to refer customers to another pharmacy. Although, companies like Walgreens have adopted their own policies for employees.

Despite all the trouble, Arteaga said she was thankful for all the support she has received after sharing her story on social media. She said multiple other women have since shared similar pharmacy experiences.

It was a difficult situation. And, looking back at those comments, its nice to know that people understand the situation and what Im going through," Arteaga said.

---

I'm not sure what ethical belief this dude is trying to protect. That woman shouldn't have to deal with a miscarriage? I don't know.
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

I'm not sure what ethical belief this dude is trying to protect. That woman shouldn't have to deal with a miscarriage? I don't know.

There is no ethical belief. That dead fetus needs to come out. The pharmacist is doing her a disservice.

I better not hear this shit when I start working in my residency next week.
---

fire him, and pray she doesn't sue the shit out of you.

he even had a policy in place to protect him, and he didn't follow it. fuck him.
---

That seems odd. It's not like the medication was going to cause an abortion. The miscarriage had already happened. I can't imagine the moral imperative behind waiting for nature to remove the corpse from her body.
---

He should lose his job.

Before people compare it to the baker and the cake, there is no possible argument about art or expression in giving someone a prescription. The guy should be fired and lose his license.
---

ThePrinceFish posted...

That seems odd. It's not like the medication was going to cause an abortion. The miscarriage had already happened. I can't imagine the moral imperative behind waiting for nature to remove the corpse from her body.

There is no moral imperative. The dead fetus is a source of infection and she can die from sepsis.
---

Sexism 101?

A_Good_Boy posted...

I'm not sure what ethical belief this dude is trying to protect. That woman shouldn't have to deal with a miscarriage? I don't know.

Yeah that was kind of odd... I mean if she was asking for that Plan B stuff yeah sure that's an abortion type thing I get where religion would come into play, but medicine for a miscarriage?
---

whitelytning posted...

He should lose his job.

Before people compare it to the baker and the cake, there is no possible argument about art or expression in giving someone a prescription. The guy should be fired and lose his license.

pretty much this

Fuck that guy and his stupid ethics.
---

Nature doesn't always take its course though. Women have died from septic shock because of situations like this. It's disgraceful.
---

Hope this guy gets fired and/or sued

Check your beliefs at the door and do your fucking job. My pharmacists go to church every week, but they would never deny someone medicine over beliefs.
---

treewojima posted...

whitelytning posted...

He should lose his job.

Before people compare it to the baker and the cake, there is no possible argument about art or expression in giving someone a prescription. The guy should be fired and lose his license.

pretty much this

But he didnt actually break store policy or state law. There technically isnt a reason to fire him

if you hold such strong "ethical beliefs" you shouldn't get into a field that may see those beliefs challenged in a way that could hurt someone else. Fire his ass and tell him to go work doing something else.
---

what a surprise, josh can't read.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Nature doesn't always take its course though. Women have died from septic shock because of situations like this. It's disgraceful.

I learned this back in 2011 when I did the tour on the psychiatry museum. Shit is way too scary for a newcomer.

TheVipaGTS posted...

if you hold such strong "ethical beliefs" you shouldn't get into a field that may see those beliefs challenged in a way that could hurt someone else. Fire his ass and tell him to go work doing something else.

i was about to suggest having him transfer the prescription to another pharmacist within the city. even then he wouldn't have to give her the medication it wouldn't be his problem.

if it costs money to transfer, take it out of the pharmacists paycheck.
---

Medussa posted...

what a surprise, josh can't read.

He said he tried to obey store policy:

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

Arteaga said there were other workers available who should have processed the transaction. According to her, there were two other employees in the pharmacy at the time -- both of whom were assisting other customers.
.

And state law:

Currently, Arizona law allows pharmacies to refuse to process prescriptions for religious or moral reasons.


Now. I dont understand what his moral reasons werw but under current policy and law, he technically did nothing wrong. He probably should have done it and id love to hear his reasoning but since he didnt break any rules, he doesnt deserve termination

Religion was a mistake
---

Where does it say he tried to obey store policy?
---

never knew arizona law had that in play.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Religion was a mistake

Nothing hints at this being religious

A_Good_Boy posted...

Where does it say he tried to obey store policy?

It literally says they were busy. Where does it say she waited in line?

Y2J0_sHBK_Blue posted...

Nothing hints at this being religious

I guess it is possible he is just a jackass that wants women to die from dead fetuses, but it's not likely.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Y2J0_sHBK_Blue posted...

Nothing hints at this being religious

I guess it is possible he is just a jackass that wants women to die from dead fetuses, but it's not likely.

It seems incredibly likely.

Y2J0_sHBK_Blue posted...

It literally says they were busy. Where does it say she waited in line?

A_Good_Boy posted...

I was not given the option to have someone else in that store give me the prescription," Arteaga said. "...Those guidelines were broken.

no go the fuck back to the hellhole that is 261
---

Y2J0_sHBK_Blue posted...

Medussa posted...

what a surprise, josh can't read.

He said he tried to obey store policy:

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

Arteaga said there were other workers available who should have processed the transaction. According to her, there were two other employees in the pharmacy at the time -- both of whom were assisting other customers.
.

And state law:

Currently, Arizona law allows pharmacies to refuse to process prescriptions for religious or moral reasons.


Now. I dont understand what his moral reasons werw but under current policy and law, he technically did nothing wrong. He probably should have done it and id love to hear his reasoning but since he didnt break any rules, he doesnt deserve termination

Do you completely lack reading comprehension or something? The policy said he was REQUIRED to get someone else to complete the transaction if he had moral objections in doing it himself. He stonewalled her at the register which made her feel the need to leave and transfer the prescription to another pharmacy to pick up the next day.
---

Paragon21XX posted...

He stonewalled her at the register which made her feel the need to leave and transfer the prescription to another pharmacy to pick up the next day.

even worse. the pharm transferred the scrip to another store the next day.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Religion was a mistake

debatable
---

Reis posted...

Hope this guy gets fired and/or sued

---

I is smart posted...

A_Good_Boy posted...

I'm not sure what ethical belief this dude is trying to protect. That woman shouldn't have to deal with a miscarriage? I don't know.

Yeah that was kind of odd... I mean if she was asking for that Plan B stuff yeah sure that's an abortion type thing I get where religion would come into play, but medicine for a miscarriage?

Plan B is not abortion related. It prevents pregnancies from ever occurring. Misoprostol is used in abortions though. Perhaps he thought she may have been using it for an abortion. Who knows. Either way, Walgreens needs to remove that bullshit policy that pharmacists can refrain from dispensing a medication.
---

Paragon21XX posted...

Y2J0_sHBK_Blue posted...

Medussa posted...

what a surprise, josh can't read.

He said he tried to obey store policy:

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

Arteaga said there were other workers available who should have processed the transaction. According to her, there were two other employees in the pharmacy at the time -- both of whom were assisting other customers.
.

And state law:

Currently, Arizona law allows pharmacies to refuse to process prescriptions for religious or moral reasons.


Now. I dont understand what his moral reasons werw but under current policy and law, he technically did nothing wrong. He probably should have done it and id love to hear his reasoning but since he didnt break any rules, he doesnt deserve termination

Do you completely lack reading comprehension or something? The policy said he was REQUIRED to get someone else to complete the transaction if he had moral objections in doing it himself. He stonewalled her at the register which made her feel the need to leave and transfer the prescription to another pharmacy to pick up the next day.

Do you? It says that the other pharmacists were busy which nobody would know about unless he or someone else actively looked for it. No policy was broken.

Y2J0_sHBK_Blue posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Y2J0_sHBK_Blue posted...

Nothing hints at this being religious

I guess it is possible he is just a jackass that wants women to die from dead fetuses, but it's not likely.

It seems incredibly likely.

lawl Good day.
---

Y2J0_sHBK_Blue posted...

Paragon21XX posted...

Y2J0_sHBK_Blue posted...

Medussa posted...

what a surprise, josh can't read.

He said he tried to obey store policy:

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

Arteaga said there were other workers available who should have processed the transaction. According to her, there were two other employees in the pharmacy at the time -- both of whom were assisting other customers.
.

And state law:

Currently, Arizona law allows pharmacies to refuse to process prescriptions for religious or moral reasons.


Now. I dont understand what his moral reasons werw but under current policy and law, he technically did nothing wrong. He probably should have done it and id love to hear his reasoning but since he didnt break any rules, he doesnt deserve termination

Do you completely lack reading comprehension or something? The policy said he was REQUIRED to get someone else to complete the transaction if he had moral objections in doing it himself. He stonewalled her at the register which made her feel the need to leave and transfer the prescription to another pharmacy to pick up the next day.

Do you? It says that the other pharmacists were busy which nobody would know about unless he or someone else actively looked for it. No policy was broken.

lol

How did you even manage to make so many accounts with this level of illiteracy
---

If restaurant managers can throw people out of their businesses due to political beliefs, pharmacists can refuse business on moral beliefs.

This is the world we live in today, everyone has to take a stand.
---

A_Good_Boy posted...

He had it in his hand and refrained from giving it to me," Arteaga explained. "...I was completely shocked. I couldnt believe what was happening.

He even held it in his hands and still refused to do his job.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

If restaurant managers can throw people out of their businesses due to political beliefs, pharmacists can refuse business on moral beliefs.

This is the world we live in today, everyone has to take a stand.

Shut up, Hoth

things are beginning to come together now. Josh is Hoth too.
he's going to flat out admit it i bet.
---

Seriously though. If you have moral beliefs that prevent you from providing healthcare, then get the fuck out of the field and don't let the door hit your dumb ass on the way out.
---

0TiamaT0 posted...

If restaurant managers can throw people out of their businesses due to political beliefs, pharmacists can refuse business on moral beliefs.

This is the world we live in today, everyone has to take a stand.

not the same thing at all. Medical situations should never be grouped together with restaurants. one is a necessity and the other is a luxury. If my beliefs were that cancer medication is wrong and all cancer should be treated naturally, i shouldn't be allowed to withhold actual medication from someone who needs it on the same basis that I wouldn't serve a republican a piece of chicken they wanted.
---

ShutTheF---__Up posted...

Y2J0_sHBK_Blue posted...

Paragon21XX posted...

Y2J0_sHBK_Blue posted...

Medussa posted...

what a surprise, josh can't read.

He said he tried to obey store policy:

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

Arteaga said there were other workers available who should have processed the transaction. According to her, there were two other employees in the pharmacy at the time -- both of whom were assisting other customers.
.

And state law:

Currently, Arizona law allows pharmacies to refuse to process prescriptions for religious or moral reasons.


Now. I dont understand what his moral reasons werw but under current policy and law, he technically did nothing wrong. He probably should have done it and id love to hear his reasoning but since he didnt break any rules, he doesnt deserve termination

Do you completely lack reading comprehension or something? The policy said he was REQUIRED to get someone else to complete the transaction if he had moral objections in doing it himself. He stonewalled her at the register which made her feel the need to leave and transfer the prescription to another pharmacy to pick up the next day.

Do you? It says that the other pharmacists were busy which nobody would know about unless he or someone else actively looked for it. No policy was broken.

lol

How did you even manage to make so many accounts with this level of illiteracy

According to her, there were two other employees in the pharmacy at the time -- both of whom were assisting other customers

TheVipaGTS posted...

0TiamaT0 posted...

If restaurant managers can throw people out of their businesses due to political beliefs, pharmacists can refuse business on moral beliefs.

This is the world we live in today, everyone has to take a stand.

not the same thing at all. Medical situations should never be grouped together with restaurants. one is a necessity and the other is a luxury. If my beliefs were that cancer medication is wrong and all cancer should be treated naturally, i shouldn't be allowed to withhold actual medication from someone who needs it on the same basis that I wouldn't serve a republican a piece of chicken they wanted.

People Needing medicine isnt a protected class. This is literally what you argued in the other topic. Dont backpedal now

Y2J0_sHBK_Blue posted...

People Needing medicine isnt a protected class. This is literally what you argued in the other topic. Dont backpedal now

dude i know you're not seriously this dumb. but hey if this is what brings you joy in life go ahead and keep doing it. just leave me out of it.
---

He's like one of those users that practically begs to be ignored but he gets banned and comes back with new accounts so frequently that there's just no point.
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

dude i know you're not seriously this dumb

Are you sure?

He's not exactly giving people a reason to believe otherwise
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Guys please dont turn this into another topic where Y2Josh trolls for hundreds of posts while people pretend hes being genuine

Why do people respond to idiots like him?
---

God, some people are really shitty.
---