The nation's health care policies should recognize both pharmacists' rights to conscientiously object to filling prescriptions and patients' rights to obtain legally prescribed and medically appropriate medications.
That's the gist of a policy statement the AAFP Board of Directors approved May 3 and a resolution the AAFP National Conference of Special Constituencies adopted May 7.
Let Pharmacists Object, but Preserve Relationships, Say Board, NCSC
By Leslie Champlin & Sheri Porter
5/12/2005
Ann Butler, M.D., a former practicing pharmacist, warns that the pharmacist conscientious objection issue could create a backlash against physician autonomy. "I want my right to say 'no' to be preserved," she says during an NCSC debate on a resolution addressing pharmacists' right to refuse filling prescriptions.
The policy the Board adopted: "The AAFP believes that a pharmacist's right of conscientious objection should be reasonably accommodated, but to safeguard the patient-physician relationship, governmental policies must be in place to protect patients' rights to obtain legally prescribed and medically indicated treatments."
The Board action addresses the implications for the doctor-patient relationship when a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription and the potential fallout if public policy requires health professionals to act against their consciences, said AAFP Board Chair Michael Fleming, M.D., of Shreveport, La. The policy also reflects AAFP members' concerns about patient care and professional autonomy.
"We recognize that anyone should have the right to object" to filling prescriptions to which they object on the basis of their religious, moral or ethical values, said Fleming. "But we also have to protect the patients' right to get the medical services they need. I don't think these have to be mutually exclusive."
The Commission on Legislative and Governmental Affairs in April had recommended that the Board approve a policy on pharmacists' right of conscientious objection.
Physicians at NCSC urged AAFP to work with the American Pharmaceutical Association to explore "how to preserve the therapeutic plan conceived within the patient-physician relationship and establish accountability for patient access to medication while also respecting the right of conscientious objection of the individual pharmacist." The NCSC resolution will go to the Congress of Delegates for action in September.
"You're opening yourself up to a lot of things," said Ann Butler, M.D., of Augusta, Ga., a former practicing pharmacist, during the NCSC discussion of the resolution. "If pharmacists can't object to something, then physicians can't either."
Colette Willins, M.D., of Westlake, Ohio, agreed, adding, "Access should be maintained while the pharmacist can personally refuse."
Debate over pharmacists' rights to conscientiously object to filling prescriptions came to the fore in March when national news media picked up on the issue. Since then, 10 states have introduced bills that protect pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions based on conscientious objections. Four states have bills that would require pharmacists to fill all legally written prescriptions.
Meanwhile, federal lawmakers Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Debbie Wasserman-Schwartz, D-Fla., introduced the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act, which acknowledges individuals' rights to religious belief and to legal contraception, but says, "An individual's right to religious belief and worship cannot impede an individual's access to legal prescriptions, including contraception."
The Board action addresses the implications for the doctor-patient relationship when a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription and the potential fallout if public policy requires health professionals to act against their consciences, said AAFP Board Chair Michael Fleming, M.D., of Shreveport, La. The policy also reflects AAFP members' concerns about patient care and professional autonomy.
"We recognize that anyone should have the right to object" to filling prescriptions to which they object on the basis of their religious, moral or ethical values, said Fleming. "But we also have to protect the patients' right to get the medical services they need. I don't think these have to be mutually exclusive."
The Commission on Legislative and Governmental Affairs in April had recommended that the Board approve a policy on pharmacists' right of conscientious objection.
Physicians at NCSC urged AAFP to work with the American Pharmaceutical Association to explore "how to preserve the therapeutic plan conceived within the patient-physician relationship and establish accountability for patient access to medication while also respecting the right of conscientious objection of the individual pharmacist." The NCSC resolution will go to the Congress of Delegates for action in September.
"You're opening yourself up to a lot of things," said Ann Butler, M.D., of Augusta, Ga., a former practicing pharmacist, during the NCSC discussion of the resolution. "If pharmacists can't object to something, then physicians can't either."
Colette Willins, M.D., of Westlake, Ohio, agreed, adding, "Access should be maintained while the pharmacist can personally refuse."
Debate over pharmacists' rights to conscientiously object to filling prescriptions came to the fore in March when national news media picked up on the issue. Since then, 10 states have introduced bills that protect pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions based on conscientious objections. Four states have bills that would require pharmacists to fill all legally written prescriptions.
Meanwhile, federal lawmakers Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Reps. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., and Debbie Wasserman-Schwartz, D-Fla., introduced the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act, which acknowledges individuals' rights to religious belief and to legal contraception, but says, "An individual's right to religious belief and worship cannot impede an individual's access to legal prescriptions, including contraception."
