Destined to end badly

Although it’s clear who dropped the ball:

An Arizona woman has said she was left “in tears and humiliated” after a staff member at US pharmacy chain Walgreens refused to give her prescription medication to end her pregnancy — even though her doctor had said she would ultimately have a miscarriage.

Nicole Mone had discovered at a doctor’s appointment on Tuesday that her baby was not developing normally.

Knowing her two-month pregnancy would not run to term, she was given a choice to end it through a surgical procedure or prescription medication, and chose the latter.

When she went to a Walgreens in the city of Peoria to get her prescription, she says a pharmacist refused to serve her on moral grounds — a stance which is within the company’s rules.

She told the BBC the staff member was “very short, not compassionate at all.”

This is not a reference to the guy’s height.

“I stood at the mercy of this pharmacist explaining my situation in front of my 7-year-old and five customers standing behind, only to be denied because of his ethical beliefs,” she wrote on Facebook and Instagram.

“I get it, we all have our beliefs. But what he failed to understand is, this isn’t the situation I had hoped for — this isn’t something I wanted. This is something I have zero control over. He has no idea what it’s like to want nothing more than to carry a child to full term and be unable to do so.”

And apparently this wasn’t handled according to Walgreens policy, which the company describes as follows:

Which, it appears, is not what happened:

Ms Mone said that did not reflect her experience, however, as the pharmacist “could have just passed me on to the lady that was standing next to him” — which she says did not happen.

Instead, the prescription was transferred to another Walgreens store. Ms Mone picked it up there after seeking her doctor’s help to ensure the second pharmacy would give it to her.

My idea of “in a timely manner” does not include having to go several miles to another store.

Ms Mone, after talking to Walgreens corporate, has filed a complaint with the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy.


  1. fillyjonk »

    25 June 2018 · 10:43 am

    I suppose the problem is that “what is abhorrent to you, do not do to your neighbor” gets interpreted a bit loosely here. My “abhorrent” would be “making a person already in emotional and physical pain go to even more trouble so I can continue to feel pure in my beliefs” but apparently his “abhorrent” was something different.

    Humanity is endlessly disappointing to me these days.

  2. McGehee »

    25 June 2018 · 11:19 am

    Ms Mone … has filed a complaint with the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy.

    I hope she gets satisfaction, but I wonder whether “the lady that was standing next to him” was a qualified dispensing pharmacist. Ms. Mone might not have been able, in her distress, to distinguish the uniform of an associate from that of a pharmacist. The Walgreens stores hereabouts don’t always have two R.Ph.s on duty.

  3. Barks »

    25 June 2018 · 11:24 am

    Humiliated by the public encounter? But OK with sharing her details with millions worldwide? Something’s amiss here.

  4. hollyh »

    25 June 2018 · 11:31 am

    This is the problem with zero-tolerance beliefs and policies. Surely this would be approved as a legitimate exception by even the most conservative Right-to-Life adherent. This bureaucrat simply refused to exert even the smallest amount of mental effort to consider reasonable alternatives. This kind of pettiness is so often the cause of stress for everyone.

  5. CGHill »

    25 June 2018 · 11:48 am

    One personal encounter equals about 17,000 “impressions” on social media.

RSS feed for comments on this post