Pharmacists refuse to fill birth control prescriptions

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: eclavatar
It's funny all these nutjob liberals here are only for freedom if they agree with it.

This is pure example of the socialist views liberals have. "OMG government should force them!". No the government shouldn't, this is a capitalist country, not the USSR.

Ah, so, you're for withholding medical treatment to someone because the person dispensing it has problems with the treatment based on their religious beliefs?


That person shouldn't be working that job or should make it known they will not dispense certain medications. The employer can adjust accordingly. But, giving a patient no option but to be denied medication is nothing that should be tolerated in this country.

Um, that is the law conjur... The pharmacist that broke the law is subject to sanctions by their state board (& they do sanction in cases like this), is open to civil liability as well as the company employing the dipsh1t pharmacist.

A social progressive should be able to understand this.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: eclavatar
It's funny all these nutjob liberals here are only for freedom if they agree with it.

This is pure example of the socialist views liberals have. "OMG government should force them!". No the government shouldn't, this is a capitalist country, not the USSR.

Ah, so, you're for withholding medical treatment to someone because the person dispensing it has problems with the treatment based on their religious beliefs?


That person shouldn't be working that job or should make it known they will not dispense certain medications. The employer can adjust accordingly. But, giving a patient no option but to be denied medication is nothing that should be tolerated in this country.

Um, that is the law conjur... The pharmacist that broke the law is subject to sanctions by their state board (& they do sanction in cases like this), is open to civil liability as well as the company employing the dipsh1t pharmacist.

A social progressive should be able to understand this.

Then why do we have laws like this:

Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.

 

[imported_tss4]

This is a ridiculous arguement. Yeah, it sucks this guy won't sell the pill. But, you can't force him. He looses out on a major revunue source and puts himself at a disadvantage to other pharmacies. Yeah, he sounds stupid, but there's no reason for the government to step in and force him too. Just go somewhere else and get what you need.

There's nothing forcing grocery or convenience stoes to sell condoms, after all.

The whole "what if its the only store nearby" is dumb too. If it is the only one nearby, then someone will open up another one nearby that does sell it and make a killing. Or you could order it through the mail/internet.

He has the right to refuse to sell, just like the company has the right to fire him.

And enough stupid remarks about how nutty liberals are. There are lots of liberals including myself that are consistent and reasonable about there beliefs.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: eclavatar
It's funny all these nutjob liberals here are only for freedom if they agree with it.

This is pure example of the socialist views liberals have. "OMG government should force them!". No the government shouldn't, this is a capitalist country, not the USSR.

Ah, so, you're for withholding medical treatment to someone because the person dispensing it has problems with the treatment based on their religious beliefs?


That person shouldn't be working that job or should make it known they will not dispense certain medications. The employer can adjust accordingly. But, giving a patient no option but to be denied medication is nothing that should be tolerated in this country.

Um, that is the law conjur... The pharmacist that broke the law is subject to sanctions by their state board (& they do sanction in cases like this), is open to civil liability as well as the company employing the dipsh1t pharmacist.

A social progressive should be able to understand this.

Then why do we have laws like this:

Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.

Show me where that statute says the pharmacy has the right to keep the prescription, or deny the patient from having a pharmacist fill it somewhere else.

Shakes head.

I honestly don't agree with it, but as a health care professional, I can see where it has merit & allows a diversity of beliefs among health care providers.

Do you feel every physician be obligated to prescribe the morning after pill or enough pills to comit suicide with?

Some are, some aren't, you seem to feel robots provide health care, they don't.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Amused
Not that I agree with the pro-lifers, but...

In a supposedly "free country" a private business should not be forced to sell anything it doesn't want to sell.

I mean, what if one of you had a "progressive" book store, and the state stepped in forcing you to sell rightwing political and religious books?

Did you read the article? Doesn't seem like it.

What am I missing?

This isn't about a business not selling something it doesn't want to. It's a matter of their employees exacting their beliefs upon the company and its customers.

Then his company has the right to fire him and his customers have a right to go somewhere else.

 

[Spencer278]

All the people talking about the pharmacists freedom can go shove that argument until I have the right to buy my prescriptions from any person. i don't think the pharmacists should be forced to fill the precriptions but if he as a moral objection I think the state should take away his right to be a pharmacists.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
All the people talking about the pharmacists freedom can go shove that argument until I have the right to buy my prescriptions from any person. i don't think the pharmacists should be forced to fill the precriptions but if he as a moral objection I think the state should take away his right to be a pharmacists.

Doctors aren't forced to perform treatments they don't believe in.

Many prefessions have a monopoly on the service they provide but they are not forced to sell thier service to anyone.

Besides finding another pharmacy isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world.

 

[imhotepmp]

I really have no problem with something like this as long as the following points are addressed in the law...

-The prescription must eiher be given to the customer or given to another pharmacist who will fill the order
-Steps must be taken so that managers who may believe in this can not force it upon the regular pharmacists
-Stores must be allowed to fire a pharmicist if they feel it violates their policy. After all they are working for someone else. Frivilous lawsuits must be prevented so that businesses arent intimidated into conceding into a small minorities demands.

Given all that, I think this is really silly and really demonstrates the path this country is taken. Religious zealotry at its best.

Imouthes

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Amused
Not that I agree with the pro-lifers, but...

In a supposedly "free country" a private business should not be forced to sell anything it doesn't want to sell.

I mean, what if one of you had a "progressive" book store, and the state stepped in forcing you to sell rightwing political and religious books?

Did you read the article? Doesn't seem like it.

What am I missing?

This isn't about a business not selling something it doesn't want to. It's a matter of their employees exacting their beliefs upon the company and its customers.

Then his company has the right to fire him and his customers have a right to go somewhere else.

Bingo. No one is exacting their beliefs on customers. They have a choice.

As for employers, they can fire them. If I hired a Muslim and they refused to serve or handle ham, I'd sh!tcan them faster than you can say "religious discrimination." They are incapable of doing the job as I require.

If a company keeps such an employee, than that company obviously approves of that employee's viewpoint and actions by default and should be avoided if you want the product in question.

This does all come down to freedom. Freedom of the company fire or keep the employee who refuses to sell it, and of the employee to refuse to sell it. Any other way abrogates their freedom for yours... and that is an unacceptable solution.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
All the people talking about the pharmacists freedom can go shove that argument until I have the right to buy my prescriptions from any person. i don't think the pharmacists should be forced to fill the precriptions but if he as a moral objection I think the state should take away his right to be a pharmacists.

You have a choice of pharmacists. Your argument falls flat.

Why should the state take away his rights just to satisfy your objection to his beliefs?

How about I force you to sell rightwing media?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: imhotepmp
I really have no problem with something like this as long as the following points are addressed in the law...

-The prescription must eiher be given to the customer or given to another pharmacist who will fill the order

I think just giving the customer back the script would be fine. The script is the customer's property.

-Steps must be taken so that managers who may believe in this can not force it upon the regular pharmacists

A business owner can sell, or not sell what ever he wants and his employees must follow or he should be able to fire them.

-Stores must be allowed to fire a pharmicist if they feel it violates their policy. After all they are working for someone else. Frivilous lawsuits must be prevented so that businesses arent intimidated into conceding into a small minorities demands.

I agree, and this links to my answer above. It is not religious discrimination if a person's religion keeps them from performing ALL the required duties in a job.

Given all that, I think this is really silly and really demonstrates the path this country is taken. Religious zealotry at its best.

Imouthes

It amazes me how people think this is somehow getting worse. It's always existed in this country and has come and gone with different fads. Small isolated cases are being blown out of proportion here.

So she ran into one religious nutjob. I bet every other pharmacist in town would happily fill the order.

Yet it makes headline news.

 

[imhotepmp]

It amazes me how people think this is somehow getting worse. It's always existed in this country and has come and gone with different fads. Small isolated cases are being blown out of proportion here.

I think its alot more than a fad when laws are being enacted regarding the issue. If these laws are not fairly written, these religious 'nutjobs' may get the upper hand in the matter. If this the case and multiple states pass similar laws a precedent can be set and it may explode into a domino effect. Not too plausible, but definitely a possibility.

Imouthes

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: imhotepmp

It amazes me how people think this is somehow getting worse. It's always existed in this country and has come and gone with different fads. Small isolated cases are being blown out of proportion here.

I think its alot more than a fad when laws are being enacted regarding the issue. If these laws are not fairly written, these religious 'nutjobs' may get the upper hand in the matter. If this the case and multiple states pass similar laws a precedent can be set and it may explode into a domino effect. Not too plausible, but definitely a possibility.

Imouthes

Morality laws are on the decline, and have been for the past 75 years. Religious Right groups have ebbed and waned for over two centuries.

The religious right is NOT winning. Even though the political right panders to them, very little of the RR's agenda gets brought up to vote, much less passed on a national scale.

Sure, in some areas local councils and school boards have been hijacked... but, again, this is nothing new and any damage done is almost always overturned by courts.

Every few years you will see a backlash by the RR against what it perceives to be the lack of morality in this thing or that. But the trend has been towards social liberalism for 75+ years and nothing is stopping that. Slowing it down, yes, but not stopping it.

Hell, look at the 50s and how Elvis was the devil. Now they buy his Christian music.

I used to be just like you and thought the RR was going to turn this country into a theocracy. Than I took an objective look and saw they were no where near able to do that.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: imhotepmp
I really have no problem with something like this as long as the following points are addressed in the law...

-The prescription must eiher be given to the customer or given to another pharmacist who will fill the order
-Steps must be taken so that managers who may believe in this can not force it upon the regular pharmacists
-Stores must be allowed to fire a pharmicist if they feel it violates their policy. After all they are working for someone else. Frivilous lawsuits must be prevented so that businesses arent intimidated into conceding into a small minorities demands.

Given all that, I think this is really silly and really demonstrates the path this country is taken. Religious zealotry at its best.

Imouthes

They actually can't, since the laws allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription they have problems with, company policy doesn't supercede state regs, it typically follow them.

Management can ask, as they already do if there are any circumstances in the performance of their job that the pharmacist would have a moral objection to filling certian prescriptions, if that is the case, management is obliged to make policy so that the employee is not put in this setting, or to have an alternative solution, like ensure there is a second pharmacist on duty that will fill said Rx.

It's similar to policies that allow Seventh Day Adventists to have Saturdays off, if management chooses to employ someone of this faith, belief system, they are obligated to attempt to meet those needs.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is no difference here between forcing a pharmacist to sell a drug and forcing him not to. A pharmacist should be able to sell pot as well as not sell the birth control pill.

Edit: And if he can't sell one he can be forced to sell the other.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is no difference here between forcing a pharmacist to sell a drug and forcing him not to. A pharmacist should be able to sell pot as well as not sell the birth control pill.

Edit: And if he can't sell one he can be forced to sell the other.

Take some freedom, take it all, huh?

:roll:

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
I agree that contraceptives are not morally wrong and that pharmacists should sell them.

However, as private businessmen (and women), they have the right to sell and not sell what they want. If the locals decide they no longer want to shop there, then that's their right...

Then that should be a company wide policy that is stated to the costumer before a purchase. Obviously this person took it into their own hands to refuse to serve a regular costumer based on their religious beliefs and not on company policy. If a employee of mine ever refused to serve anyone for a political or religious belief then they would be out of a job ASAP. Unless it is a company wide policy then I do not see how this person still has a job. You are there to work and not to impose your beliefs onto a paying customer. If you have a problem with your line of work in any aspect of it then find a new job end of story.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Amused
Not that I agree with the pro-lifers, but...

In a supposedly "free country" a private business should not be forced to sell anything it doesn't want to sell.

I mean, what if one of you had a "progressive" book store, and the state stepped in forcing you to sell rightwing political and religious books?

Did you read the article? Doesn't seem like it.

What am I missing?

This isn't about a business not selling something it doesn't want to. It's a matter of their employees exacting their beliefs upon the company and its customers.

Then his company has the right to fire him and his customers have a right to go somewhere else.

Bingo. No one is exacting their beliefs on customers. They have a choice.

As for employers, they can fire them. If I hired a Muslim and they refused to serve or handle ham, I'd sh!tcan them faster than you can say "religious discrimination." They are incapable of doing the job as I require.

If a company keeps such an employee, than that company obviously approves of that employee's viewpoint and actions by default and should be avoided if you want the product in question.

This does all come down to freedom. Freedom of the company fire or keep the employee who refuses to sell it, and of the employee to refuse to sell it. Any other way abrogates their freedom for yours... and that is an unacceptable solution.

nail/head response....

Competitive market economics should take care of companies that tolerate such behavior. On the converse companies that dont will dispose of the problematic pharmacists. Done and done

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: imhotepmp
I really have no problem with something like this as long as the following points are addressed in the law...

-The prescription must eiher be given to the customer or given to another pharmacist who will fill the order
-Steps must be taken so that managers who may believe in this can not force it upon the regular pharmacists
-Stores must be allowed to fire a pharmicist if they feel it violates their policy. After all they are working for someone else. Frivilous lawsuits must be prevented so that businesses arent intimidated into conceding into a small minorities demands.

Given all that, I think this is really silly and really demonstrates the path this country is taken. Religious zealotry at its best.

Imouthes

They actually can't, since the laws allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription they have problems with, company policy doesn't supercede state regs, it typically follow them.

Management can ask, as they already do if there are any circumstances in the performance of their job that the pharmacist would have a moral objection to filling certian prescriptions, if that is the case, management is obliged to make policy so that the employee is not put in this setting, or to have an alternative solution, like ensure there is a second pharmacist on duty that will fill said Rx.

It's similar to policies that allow Seventh Day Adventists to have Saturdays off, if management chooses to employ someone of this faith, belief system, they are obligated to attempt to meet those needs.

You just don't understand do you ?? It's not about the person not filling out the order. It's about them refusing to give the costumer back their doctor issued prescription !! The law clearly states that pharmacist MUST give back the prescription. Which clearly did not happen in this article. They have a right to refuse to fill out the order but at the sametime they do not have right to withhold a prescription or to not transfer it to another pharmacist.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Amused
Not that I agree with the pro-lifers, but...

In a supposedly "free country" a private business should not be forced to sell anything it doesn't want to sell.

I mean, what if one of you had a "progressive" book store, and the state stepped in forcing you to sell rightwing political and religious books?

Did you read the article? Doesn't seem like it.

What am I missing?

This isn't about a business not selling something it doesn't want to. It's a matter of their employees exacting their beliefs upon the company and its customers.

Then his company has the right to fire him and his customers have a right to go somewhere else.

Bingo. No one is exacting their beliefs on customers. They have a choice.

As for employers, they can fire them. If I hired a Muslim and they refused to serve or handle ham, I'd sh!tcan them faster than you can say "religious discrimination." They are incapable of doing the job as I require.

If a company keeps such an employee, than that company obviously approves of that employee's viewpoint and actions by default and should be avoided if you want the product in question.

This does all come down to freedom. Freedom of the company fire or keep the employee who refuses to sell it, and of the employee to refuse to sell it. Any other way abrogates their freedom for yours... and that is an unacceptable solution.

nail/head response....

Competitive market economics should take care of companies that tolerate such behavior. On the converse companies that dont will dispose of the problematic pharmacists. Done and done

The problem with his argument ( which I agree with by the way ) is that you will not find about these beliefs and issues until after the fact. Sorry but sometimes people do not disclose their religious beliefs right away. So it still does not prove that the company endorsed this policy. This pharmacy had filled out this women's prescription on multiple occasions in the past as stated in the article. So one can easily deduce that it was not company policy.

In any case the pharmacist had a legal obligation to return her prescription to her or to transfer it to another store. The pharmacist did neither of the two which is in direct violation of the law. Imagine that same muslim he talked about suddenly refusing to return the costumers money back to them once the transaction for a ham sandwich had been made ?? That is totally wrong and should result in termination of that employee.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Amused
Not that I agree with the pro-lifers, but...

In a supposedly "free country" a private business should not be forced to sell anything it doesn't want to sell.

I mean, what if one of you had a "progressive" book store, and the state stepped in forcing you to sell rightwing political and religious books?

Did you read the article? Doesn't seem like it.

What am I missing?

This isn't about a business not selling something it doesn't want to. It's a matter of their employees exacting their beliefs upon the company and its customers.

Then his company has the right to fire him and his customers have a right to go somewhere else.

Bingo. No one is exacting their beliefs on customers. They have a choice.

As for employers, they can fire them. If I hired a Muslim and they refused to serve or handle ham, I'd sh!tcan them faster than you can say "religious discrimination." They are incapable of doing the job as I require.

If a company keeps such an employee, than that company obviously approves of that employee's viewpoint and actions by default and should be avoided if you want the product in question.

This does all come down to freedom. Freedom of the company fire or keep the employee who refuses to sell it, and of the employee to refuse to sell it. Any other way abrogates their freedom for yours... and that is an unacceptable solution.

nail/head response....

Competitive market economics should take care of companies that tolerate such behavior. On the converse companies that dont will dispose of the problematic pharmacists. Done and done

The problem with his argument ( which I agree with by the way ) is that you will not find about these beliefs and issues until after the fact. Sorry but sometimes people do not disclose their religious beliefs right away. So it still does not prove that the company endorsed this policy. This pharmacy had filled out this women's prescription on multiple occasions in the past as stated in the article. So one can easily deduce that it was not company policy.

In any case the pharmacist had a legal obligation to return her prescription to her or to transfer it to another store. The pharmacist did neither of the two which is in direct violation of the law. Imagine that same muslim he talked about suddenly refusing to return the costumers money back to them once the transaction for a ham sandwich had been made ?? That is totally wrong and should result in termination of that employee.

Well i don't think the lady would seek compensation knowing that the pharmacist was terminated due to his actions being against the company policy. Personally i'd just get the manager and convey my severe disappointment and then call the corporate office as well. I'm sure the local TV station would be interesed in the story as well.

If the pharmacist violates the law by keeping the prescription, he'd he his/her ass canned faster than you can say l love jesus

 

[Slap]

I think it would be kinda like the higher ups here at my company asking me to open up access to a porn site so they can look at it because they believe one of our sales guys is going to it. What if I refuse because I think porn is morally wrong and I am the only one here that can bypass the filter? I bet I would get fired and there would be no law to protect me.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: imhotepmp
I really have no problem with something like this as long as the following points are addressed in the law...

-The prescription must eiher be given to the customer or given to another pharmacist who will fill the order
-Steps must be taken so that managers who may believe in this can not force it upon the regular pharmacists
-Stores must be allowed to fire a pharmicist if they feel it violates their policy. After all they are working for someone else. Frivilous lawsuits must be prevented so that businesses arent intimidated into conceding into a small minorities demands.

Given all that, I think this is really silly and really demonstrates the path this country is taken. Religious zealotry at its best.

Imouthes

They actually can't, since the laws allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription they have problems with, company policy doesn't supercede state regs, it typically follow them.

Management can ask, as they already do if there are any circumstances in the performance of their job that the pharmacist would have a moral objection to filling certian prescriptions, if that is the case, management is obliged to make policy so that the employee is not put in this setting, or to have an alternative solution, like ensure there is a second pharmacist on duty that will fill said Rx.

It's similar to policies that allow Seventh Day Adventists to have Saturdays off, if management chooses to employ someone of this faith, belief system, they are obligated to attempt to meet those needs.

You just don't understand do you ?? It's not about the person not filling out the order. It's about them refusing to give the costumer back their doctor issued prescription !! The law clearly states that pharmacist MUST give back the prescription. Which clearly did not happen in this article. They have a right to refuse to fill out the order but at the sametime they do not have right to withhold a prescription or to not transfer it to another pharmacist.

I agree, the pharmacist can refuse to fill an rx, but they have no right to keep the prescription.

That's against the laws/statute, and prob against company policy.

But we're talking about the exception, rather than the rule, I have never met a pharmacist that was that damn crazy, the state will suspend their license, and rather quickly, and management of course has the right to terminate the employment of the individual.

 

[StageLeft]

That's an excellent way to see one's business go through the floor.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: Slap
I think it would be kinda like the higher ups here at my company asking me to open up access to a porn site so they can look at it because they believe one of our sales guys is going to it. What if I refuse because I think porn is morally wrong and I am the only one here that can bypass the filter? I bet I would get fired and there would be no law to protect me.

First of all that is a bad analogy. It has no bearing on the facts of the article. Your boss telling you to open up a website and your refusing due to moral reasons is okay dumb given the nature of IT world. Also you could always have someone else do it for them but you cannot deny your boss access to his network or ability to use his computers.

Maybe you'll get transferred but you do not have say in terms of what your job description and duties say after you have jumped on board with a company. It is your responsibility as a employee to inform yourself on the polices and nature of the work in any company. Imagine a PETA person getting a job with a meat packing company and then not only refusing to handle the meat but also preventing the company from selling it. Sorry but that person just over stepped their bonds once they denied their company and the costumer access to the product.