Walgreens pharmacist refuses women's drugs to end her unsustainable pregnancy

The New York Times Service

10:37

Nine weeks after her pregnancy, Nicole Arteaga received from her doctor distressing news: There was no fetal heartbeat and the pregnancy ended in miscarriage.

Rather than having a surgical procedure to remove the fetal tissue from her uterus, Ms. Arteaga, a freshman teacher who lives in Peoria, Arizona, decided Wednesday to take misoprostol, a drug that can be used to put end to a failed pregnancy.

The drug is approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration for use by a provider authorized to terminate a pregnancy in the first 10 weeks, for what is known as a medical abortion.

She filed a prescription for the drug and that night received an email saying that he was ready to be picked up.

But when she tried to get the drug from her local Walgreens on Thursday, the pharmacist asked if she was pregnant. When she said that she was, he refused to give her misoprostol, citing "her ethical beliefs," she recalled in a detailed account on Facebook.

Ms. Arteaga described her response in the post, which was shared more than 30,000 times.

"I stood at the mercy of this pharmacist who explained my situation in front of my 7-year-old client and five clients who stood behind to be refused because of her ethical convictions," she writes, adding: "I have Walgreens left in tears, shamed and humiliated by a man who knows nothing of my struggles but who feels that he has the right to refuse the medications prescribed by my doctor.

Walgreens said Saturday that he had contacted Ms. Arteaga "and apologized for the way the situation was handled," but suggested that the employee had not violated the policy of the company by refusing to fill the order.

"To respect the sincere beliefs of our pharmacists while meeting the needs of our patients, our policy allows pharmacists not to fill a prescription for which they have a moral objection," the company said in a statement.

In an update to her original message, which includes a photo of the pharmacist's business card, Ms. Arteaga said her prescription was eventually transferred to another Walgreens, where she was able to obtain the "no problem" medication.

Ms. Arteaga's story sparked strong reactions on social media, where some have called Walgreens to dismiss the pharmacist and others have threatened to boycott the company.

"I was shocked," said Ms. Arteaga, 35, on Sunday. "I could not believe that he would tell me that I would not be able to get my prescription."

She tried to explain her situation but he remained impassive. "What I have in me, it's an undeveloped baby," she recalls, telling the pharmacist. "I need that to help him get out of it."

In its statement, the pharmacy chain stated that pharmacists who oppose a drug are nevertheless "obliged to refer the prescription to another pharmacist or service manager to meet the needs of the patient in a timely manner" and that He "examines the situation. "

A spokesman for the company, Jim Graham, declined to explain what the investigation might imply.

Six states – including Arizona – explicitly allow pharmacies or pharmacists to refuse to provide drugs for religious or moral reasons, according to the National Women's Law Center, a nonprofit and advocacy group interests.

Nancy Berlinger, a researcher at the Hastings Center, an independent research institution in bioethics, said that so-called conscience clauses have been established for years.

"It's a very, very well protected right in the United States," so much so that a principle called due diligence can sometimes be compromised, she said.

"You have the right to go away, but you do not have the right to pass from one patient to another and to have access to legal and medically appropriate treatment options." "she added.

The name on the business card photographed by Ms. Arteaga, Brian Hreniuc, is in a directory of licensed pharmacists in Arizona. Nobody could be reached on Sunday afternoon at a phone number associated with this name.

Ms. Arteaga's post described her anxiety about her pregnancy complications – a pain she suggested – he might not be able to empathize with it.

"I understand that we all have our beliefs," she writes. "But what he did not understand, is that it is not the situation I had hoped for, it is not something that I This is something that I have no control over.It has no idea what it's like to want nothing more than to carry a child to term and to Be unable to do it. "