Pharmacists Using “Right to Refuse” Laws to Deny Patients Access to Ivermectin, Claims Doctor
Protecting Religious Beliefs or Hindering Patient Care?
According to doctors, a law originally designed to safeguard pro-life workers’ religious convictions is now being exploited by pharmacists to withhold ivermectin from patients. These so-called “right to refuse” laws, initially intended to protect pharmacists from violating their religious beliefs, are now being used as legal cover to deny COVID-19 treatments that they find objectionable.
In Texas, Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, founder of the Coalition of Health Freedom, expressed her concerns about the law’s impact on patient care. She explained that the law, combined with the increased discretion granted to pharmacists during the pandemic, has become a significant obstacle in providing her patients with the necessary care, particularly when it comes to prescribing off-label ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment.
“It’s absurd to claim a religious or moral belief as a reason to deny my patients access to ivermectin, but that’s exactly how they exploit the law,” said Dr. Bowden. “This nonsensical situation causes significant delays in providing patients with the necessary medications.”
(Courtesy of Mary Talley Bowden)
In Texas, House Bill 2561, signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott in September 2017, grants pharmacists broad discretion. This law allows pharmacy workers to refuse filling prescriptions based on moral and religious reasons, citing “freedom of speech regarding a sincerely held religious belief.”
Dr. Bowden revealed that in recent years, many pharmacists have taken it upon themselves to decide which medications can or cannot be prescribed. Consequently, doctors are forced to invest more time and resources into finding ways to get prescriptions filled, diverting attention away from patient care.
“Before COVID, this was never an issue. Now, it’s a daily struggle I face as a doctor, and it’s emotionally draining,” lamented Dr. Bowden.
“Right to refuse” laws differ from state to state. While some states explicitly allow pharmacies or pharmacists to refuse prescriptions for religious or moral reasons, others permit refusal but prohibit obstructing patient access to medication. The National Women’s Law Center reports that six states fall into the former category, including Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, and South Dakota, while seven states, including Alabama, Delaware, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Texas, fall into the latter.
Furthermore, most state practice codes enable pharmacists to refuse filling prescriptions if they question the validity of the medicine, suspect drug abuse, or aim to protect the patient’s health and welfare. However, during the pandemic, pharmacists have expanded their discretion, as noted by Dr. Bowden.
‘We Need an Intervention’
Ivermectin, a decades-old drug, became a subject of controversy in 2020 when medical opinions on its effectiveness for COVID-19 treatment diverged. Consequently, many pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions for the medication.
In 2023, Dr. Bowden and other medical professionals brought the issue to court. On August 8, a lawyer representing the FDA confirmed that doctors were indeed authorized to prescribe ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment.
“The FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID,” stated Ashley Cheung Honold, a Department of Justice lawyer representing the FDA, during the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit hearing.
Despite the FDA’s statements affirming doctors’ rights, Dr. Bowden claims that many pharmacists across the country continue to refuse filling prescriptions for ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment.
Dr. Bowden emphasizes that individual pharmacists are not always to blame, as they often follow orders from corporate leadership. However, she has also witnessed cases where pharmacists obstructed her patients’ access to medication due to their personal agenda.
Dr. Bowden believes that unless new legislation guarantees patients’ right to have their prescriptions fulfilled by healthcare experts, people must continue pressuring pharmacies to leave the practice of medicine to doctors.
“Consumers can fight back, but it will require time and money,” explained Dr. Bowden. “Whether it means boycotting pharmacies that refuse to fill prescriptions or advocating for new legislation to protect patient rights, there are no easy solutions. However, it’s evident that we urgently need some form of intervention.”
How can the balance between protecting religious beliefs and ensuring patient care be achieved in the context of medication access and the role of pharmacists
O ensure patient safety. However, the increasing use of “right to refuse” laws in relation to ivermectin raises concerns about the motivations behind these refusals.
Ivermectin has gained attention as a potential treatment for COVID-19, despite limited scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness. The drug, primarily used to treat parasitic infections in humans and animals, has been touted by some as a miracle cure for the virus. This has led to a surge in demand for ivermectin, resulting in shortages and pharmacists being placed in the position of deciding whether or not to fill prescriptions for the drug.
Proponents of “right to refuse” laws argue that pharmacists should not be compelled to dispense medication that they find morally objectionable or that they believe may harm the patient. They argue that giving pharmacists this discretion is essential in protecting their rights and beliefs. However, opponents argue that this discretion is now being misused to withhold medications based on personal bias or unsupported beliefs.
Dr. Bowden emphasizes that the decision to prescribe medication should be made by the patient’s healthcare provider, not the pharmacist. While pharmacists play a crucial role in ensuring patient safety and preventing medication errors, they should not have the authority to override a physician’s decision without valid medical reasons.
This issue raises important questions about the balance between protecting religious beliefs and ensuring patient care. Should pharmacists have the right to deny access to medications based on their personal convictions? Should there be stricter guidelines in place to prevent the misuse of “right to refuse” laws?
Ultimately, the well-being of the patient should be the top priority. When a patient is denied access to medication that their healthcare provider has deemed necessary, it can have serious consequences for their health and well-being. It is crucial to strike a balance between protecting the rights of pharmacists and ensuring that patients receive the care they need.
In light of the controversy surrounding the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment, it is essential for healthcare professionals to rely on scientific evidence and follow approved treatment protocols. While debate and discussion about potential treatments are important for advancing medical knowledge, decisions should ultimately be based on sound scientific evidence and made by qualified healthcare providers.
The exploitation of “right to refuse” laws to deny access to ivermectin is a concerning trend that warrants further examination. Ensuring that patient care is not compromised due to personal beliefs or biases is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the healthcare system. Stricter regulation and clearer guidelines surrounding the use of “right to refuse” laws may be necessary to address this issue and protect patient rights.
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve, it is essential for policymakers, healthcare professionals, and the public to engage in thoughtful discussions about the intersection of medical care, personal beliefs, and the responsibilities of healthcare providers. Finding the right balance will ensure that patients receive the necessary care while respecting the rights and beliefs of all involved parties.
