Okay doing a little more background research here....
Michigan doesn't have an explicit right to refuse -- ie, the right of pharmacists to refuse to issue a prescription on the basis of personal beliefs. But it also doesn't have a an explicit prohibition on refusals, or at least not a clear one. So far as I could tell (which isn't far, my background research ran up against a hard limit of laziness) Michigan as a state hasn't fallen on one side of this issue or another just yet.
I did find a statute that says a pharmacist "shall" fill a prescription if certain requirements are met... but one of those requirements is the pharmacists own determination that the prescription fills a legitimate need, and this pharmacist seems to have determined by whatever means that it didn't. It's pretty hinky, but it's an easy escape clause to take.
Giving out patient information is definitely actionable.
Michigan doesn't have an explicit right to refuse -- ie, the right of pharmacists to refuse to issue a prescription on the basis of personal beliefs. But it also doesn't have a an explicit prohibition on refusals, or at least not a clear one. So far as I could tell (which isn't far, my background research ran up against a hard limit of laziness) Michigan as a state hasn't fallen on one side of this issue or another just yet.
I did find a statute that says a pharmacist "shall" fill a prescription if certain requirements are met... but one of those requirements is the pharmacists own determination that the prescription fills a legitimate need, and this pharmacist seems to have determined by whatever means that it didn't. It's pretty hinky, but it's an easy escape clause to take.
Giving out patient information is definitely actionable.
Being an antipistevist is like being an antipastovist, only with epistemic responsibility instead of bruschetta.
Ignore list includes: 1 douche bag (Drich)
Ignore list includes: 1 douche bag (Drich)
