Oregon
House Bill No. 2010 (1999)
Relating to refusal to fill prescriptions in practice of pharmacy
Introduction
The pharmacy company Fred Meyer had fired a pharmacist who
refused to dispense Preven ('morning after pill'), and, as a result, the
Oregon State Pharmacists Association supported Bill 2010. It wanted to
protect pharmacists who had moral objections to the 'morning after
pill', mifepristone (RU486) and dispensing drugs under Oregon's assisted
suicide law. Some opponents of the bill wanted to force objectors to
assist patients to obtain the controversial drugs from other
pharmacists. The bill as introduced and as finally amended is reproduced below. It was defeated in the House. [Administrator]
70th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
1999 Regular Session
As introduced
NOTE:
Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an amended section is new.
Matter within { - braces and minus signs - } is existing law to be omitted.
New sections are within { + braces and plus signs + } .
Sponsored by Representative WILSON; Representatives ATKINSON, BACKLUND,
BEYER, BUTLER, CLOSE, KNOPP, KRUMMEL, KRUSE, SIMMONS, SUNSERI, WITT, Senator
STARR
A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to refusal to fill prescriptions in practice of pharmacy
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
Section 1.
{ + Section 2 of this 1999 Act is added to and made a
part of ORS chapter 689. + }
Section 2.
{ + (1) A pharmacist who objects to filling a particular
type of prescription on the grounds that to do so would violate the
pharmacist's ethical or religious principles and who has stated this
conscientious objection in writing to the pharmacist's supervisor, shall not
be required to fill such a prescription and may not be disciplined by any
administrative authority for refusing to fill the prescription.
(2) If an owner or operator of a pharmacy objects to filling a particular
type of prescription on the grounds that to do so would violate the owner's
or operator's ethical or religious principles, the owner or operator is not
required to fill the prescription and the refusal to do so may not be the
basis for disciplinary action by any administrative authority.
(3) If a pharmacist refuses to fill, or states the intention to refuse to
fill, a particular type of prescription on the grounds that to do so would
violate the pharmacist's ethical or religious principles and has stated this
conscientious objection in writing, the employer of the pharmacist may not
discharge, discipline, discriminate or retaliate against or deny employment
or promotion to the pharmacist.
(4) A pharmacist who refuses to fill a particular type of prescription
under subsection (1) of this section and the owner and the operator of the
pharmacy at which the pharmacist practices are immune from liability for any
harm resulting from the refusal.
(5) A pharmacist, pharmacy owner or pharmacy operator may not be denied
public funds for which they would otherwise be eligible on the basis of a
pharmacist refusing to fill a particular type of prescription under this
section. + }
A BILL FOR AN ACT
As amended
Relating to refusal to fill prescriptions in practice of
pharmacy.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
Section 1.
{ + Section 2 of this 1999 Act is added to and made
a part of ORS chapter 689. + }
Section 2.
{ + (1) A pharmacist may not refuse to fill a
prescription for a drug that has been approved for prescription
use by the United States Food and Drug Administration.
(2) Issues arising from the conscientious objection of a
pharmacist to filling a particular type of prescription shall be
addressed between the pharmacist and the employer of the
pharmacist in the course of the employment relationship. + }