Wisconsin court decision helps define rights of patients and pharmacists

WAUSAU, Wisc. A ruling against a pharmacist who refused to give a patient birth control pills, as well as refusing to transfer her prescriptions somewhere else, has been upheld by a state appeals court.

According to published reports, the ruling that the punishment given to the pharmacist, Neil Noelson, by the state Pharmacy Examining Board did not violate his state constitutional rights.

The original incident, according to published reports, took place in 2002, when a student from the University of Wisconsin-Stout wanted to refill her birth control subscription at a Menomonie Kmart. Noeson refused to do so because of his religious stance against contraception, and explained that he would not be responsible for “impairing the fertility of a human being.”

In 2005 he was ordered to attend ethics classes and inform all future employers that he would not dispense birth control pills due to his religious beliefs. He also was ordered to outline all steps that would ensure that a patient has access to medication. The court also made him liable for $20,000, the cost of the suit.

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and others, such as Larry Dupuis, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, praised the courts decision, citing that it was a perfect distinction between rights of patients and rights of a pharmacist. “A pharmacy should accommodate its pharmacists’ religious beliefs but it can’t leave a patient high and dry,” Dupuis stated.