The customer is always right — except, these days, when it’s a woman trying to buy an emergency contraceptive. There is lots of public support for the idea that pharmacists shouldn’t be forced to fill prescriptions that conflict with their moral beliefs. But a pharmacy is a business, and it’s bad business to put the customer in the situation of being judged, perhaps scolded and refused service just for trying to fill a legal prescription. That’s what happened at a Wichita Walgreens in December, and it rightly prompted a protest this week.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
75 Comments
I haven’t heard a valid argument supporting the right pharmacists to refuse to dispense prescriptions. Are Jehovah’s Witness surgeons justified in withholding blood transfusions because it violates their beliefs? Of course not, which is why JW doctors go into fields with very little chance of transfusion (i.e., NOT emergency medicine).Pharmacists complete their PharmD knowing that their job may entail dispensing ECPs. If they can’t do that, they need to pick a different profession.This issue is especially critical when you consider how time is of the essence with Plan B and other ECPs. A pharmacist’s refusal to fill (or even transfer) the prescription requires the patient track down her doctor and have it resent to a different pharmacy. In the case of holidays, this could take a day or so. One day can make all the difference between a near miss and supporting a child for the next 18 years.What I would like to see is more than one pharmacist on staff if one one of them is anti-ECP. That would solve the problem, except most businesses can’t shell out an extra $80,000 a year to pay for a second pharmacist.
Oh, and the scolding–completely inappropriate.Transferring the prescription to another pharmacy (along with all of the insurance information so all the patient has to do is drive to a different one and pick up her pills) seems kind of reasonable, but I am reminded of a case at a texas Target last year where the pharmacist point-blank refused to fill or transfer it.The problem is, if someone is without a car, there might be only one pharmacy within walking distance, in which case the transferring policy discriminates against people with lower incomes.
Oh, and I boycotted Target until I found out they fired the pharmacist for refusing to refer the customer to a different pharmacy.It would be better if they were more like Wal-Mart in that Wal-Mart has a blanket ban on ECPs–none of the stores carry it, I believe. So, doctors know not to send ECP prescriptions there, unlike with Target’s “Leave it up to the pharmacist” approach, which could cause critical delays in preventing pregnancy.
Ok, I’m done. Sorry for the rant.
I believe the pharmacist has every right to refuse to fill a perscription. It is not the right of the customer to force a business on what to do or what to provide.
Sure! It is inconvenient for the person, but it is not like there is a monopoly of pharmacist in the area. Take your pick, they are everywhere.
I believe it is bad business to refuse to perscribe a perscription based on moral grounds, but the pharmacist made the choice and was inline with company policy. End of story! Go to another Wal-Greens or another pharmacist.
I hope that they don’t pass laws forcing businesses to despense drugs no matter what. But I can see it coming, just because of this sorry issue that made media attention.
I’m not defending the pharmacist because of some God Squad platform. I’m defending the pharmacist on the basis of business rights. If a business or a person in that business refuses to sell drugs or even a candy bar, that is their choice and they must live with the consequences of possible decrease business even boycott. But don’t pass laws forcing businesses to provide products at the customers request. Please don’t!
The pharmacist is an individual and can make his own decisions. You may not agree with the decision he makes, but he has that right.
There are local hospitals that will not perform certain legal proceedures because those proceedures violate God’s law.
Maybe a solution would be for a pharmacy to have a large bold lettered sign that their pharmacist will NOT fill these perscriptions.
This bold sign should also give the customer a list of what options are availible for them in this case.
Myself, I like the idea of a sign, because then I would know I do NOT want to do business with a pharmacy that hires individual who can’t/won’t perform the job they were hired for.
I have to work a round of 2nd shift once every six weeks. I didnt’ hire in as 2nd shift. I dont’ want to work 2nd shift. I have options. I can quit my job.
It’s a job duty, most people will be fired if they decide they aren’t doing theirs.
Why should a pharmacist be different. It’s their job.
Joe, since I’m sure you’ve never been raped you would have no idea what amount of courage it was for the lady to walk into ONE pharmacy and face the world.You think she should have to go to how many? pharmacies before one gives her the prescription?It’s not inconvenient, it’s cruelty to subject the victim to being a victim once again.
Walgreens should fire the phamacist. They have the right to do so.
I don’t think anyone should be forced to do something that is against their moral beliefs. Catholic hospitals don’t do abortions and their pharmacies don’t dispense birth control. At Wesley, they couldn’t force a nurse to participate in an abortion procedure, either.I like Sum1’s idea. The pharmacies need to post signs saying that they won’t despense certain drugs and in addition to that, doctors need to be given lists of pharmacies that will and won’t carry certain drugs. That’s only fair, no one should be forced to go against their conscience.
I believe a prominent sign that is displayed in many businesses goes something like:
“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”
Businesses exist to make a profit, not to carry out good will, do good deeds, better humankind, etc. As such, it is within their operational rights to function in a way they see fit.
If you don’t like the way a business operates, don’t do business with them.
Or, shall we pass more laws forcing businesses to do the “right thing”? Then, who is it that determines the right thing? Is it the moralistic anti-abortionists? Or is it the more liberal right to lifers? Who gets to determine?
Free market economy says you have a choice. If you do not like a particular store, do not spend money there. But, trying to force your opinion on the way they operate is ridiculous. Their business model works for them.
When you apply for a job, you do so knowing the job has certian requirements. If you can’t fill those requirements, you shouldn’t be in that job. If a person has such qualms about filling a perscription, I have to ask my self; why did this person go into pharmacoligy in the first place? A person has the right to pick and choose what parts of a job they will perform? Yeah, right….
This is just another way for the religious fanatics to punish women for having sex.
Sum1. That is a ridiculous emotional aurgument to make. To say that an inconvienence to somebody is the same as torture. You can make the same aurgument for the pharmacist.
The pharmacist is so entrenched in his beliefs that FORCING him to do something that he feels is against his religious beliefs is considered torture.
Sum1, do it on logic and not emotion. Sure! A rape victim should recieve the care and treatment that she needs. And you provided a great idea about a sign listing the drugs that he/she refuses to sell. That would be a good policy for Walgreens to follow.
But rhetorial responses is what will lead to legislation, and lets not go there.
I understand the American sentiment that no one should have do anything against their moral conscience; that is why there are a list of businesses I could never work for. However, pharmacists, doctors, police officers, firemen are functionaries of the public trust. Would you suggest that a police officer can choose not to arrest someone on counts of spousal abuse or child abuse, if their moral stance is women must be obedient and “spare the rod and spoil the child”? Would they not protect people in a gay bar because of their morality? As a nurse or doctor, you have to treat a drunk driver just as much as the victim. It is fine to say, well they can just go somewhere else for plan b, but we live in Kansas. Many places have only one nearby pharmacy. Many people have limited means to get to a pharmacy. And, why do these pharmacists not refuse Viagra for unmarried men? Makes you wonder. Anyway, they are supposed to be pharmacists, not pharisees.
Allie, what a wonderful point to make.This is a persons job. If you will not perform the job duties then you should find a different line of work. This pharmacist knew the established procedures but didn’t follow them.Raptor if businesses exist to make money then not filling the prescription goes against that, woudnlt it?
Hospitals aren’t forced to provide abortion services or dispense birth control. Doctors and nurses aren’t forced to participate in abortion procedures or write scripts for birth control or the “morning after” pill. Aren’t they all “functioaries of the public trust”? Pharmacists are members of the medical profession, and should have the same right to opt out of something they believe is immoral. This is America, if you don’t agree with them, then don’t shop there. There are plenty of pharmacies that will carry the drugs. To say that women with limited transportation living close to only one pharmacy won’t be able to go anywhere else in time to prevent a pregnacy seems like a bit of a “red herring” to me, Allie.
This becomes a problem in small towns where there might be only one pharmacy. Somehow there needs to be a mechanism to assure availability of prescribed medications. In a reasonably-sized city like Wichita the case might become moot; particularly since chains like Walgreens in fact have a corporate policy to fill such prescriptions. That is why I said the phamacist should be fired; she violated company policy.
I need to clarify my position. I believe the pharmacy owners have the right not to carry the drug, but they it choose to, then the pharmacist and pharmacy tech has a responsibility to fill it or find someone else who works there who will. Otherwise they should go to work for Walmart, where they won’t be put into that position in the first place
You know after reading all this, this is a pointless and stupid arguement to be having. Of course if it is your job you do not have a right to refuse to do it. It is the same as if I were a cop and refused to help a victim because they are black and I am a racist!It is my belief and should be considered…PLease!
If I already had these beliefs or they are new founded. I have a obligation not to go into that field or quit and find one that better suits my belief. What next we will refuse to serve a customer because they are Moslem, black, a jew, a Christian? This is America, you have the right to belief or dis-belief anything you want. But you can not refuse someone just because you do not like their beliefs. It is a personal matter not a public matter. WE should be beyond this pettness!I am a Christian and ever I am beginning to feel Christians are nuts!
Many doctors do not perform abortions because of their religious beliefs. Why would anyone be surprised that a pharmacist would refuse to perform an abortion by proxy for the same reasons?
Just make the drug OTC and remove the obstacle.
“It is the same as if I were a cop and refused to help a victim because they are black and I am a racist!”
I think you may have injured your shoulder with that reach.
Comparing the ‘public trust’ of pharmacists with cops is quite a reach. There are no competing law enforcement agencies in a town, cops are paid for with public funds, and they literally can protect from life and death.
But a pharmacist? Oh puhleeeze. A pharmacist works for a for-profit business, is not paid for with public funds (except Medicare for you nit pickers) and is not the thin blue line between life and death.
Get real…if you don’t like the pharmacist, don’t go there. You don’t have a choice with cops.
Not a valid comparison.
Damoon-A red herring? You may live in Wichita with a car, but not everyone does. Just because it is easy for you to go somewhere else, doesn’t mean that it is for everyone else. You love to dismiss legitimate complaints out of hand (”la, la, la, I can’t hear you”); go ahead and dismiss it because you don’t believe it. True, physicians are not legally required to provide abortions or birth control. That wide latitude in legal requirements is really part of professionalism – self-governance. We don’t make it illegal; we expect physicians to professionally provide continuity of care. In everything I have read on medical ethics, they are professionally obligated to refer patients in a timely manner to someone who will provide legal medical services. Physicians, even at St. Francis, are required to care for the complications of abortions or birth control pills. It is far easier to know your personal physician’s moral sentiments and act accordingly before you need emergency services than it is to roll the dice that you are going to get some sanctimonious pharmacist. Some pharmacists (and some doctors) have moved beyond simply not filling to not being willing to refer or allow someone else to fill the script. That contradicts the precepts of professionalism. I don’t care if a pharmacist won’t personally fill a script and will get someone else to do it right there. But, for them to deny medicine to a patient by their own judgment is practicing medicine without a license, and they may be professionals but they are not doctors.
Todd makes a great point. I believe the morning after pill and birth control is over-the-counter in most countries. It should be here in America.
A pharmacist is not the one who decides what medications are appropriate and which are not. That’s the doctor’s job! A pharmacist’s job is to see that prescriptions are filled and labelled accurately. If a pharmacist has concerns about a particular drug, he may discuss it with the doctor, but in the end, it’s the doctor’s decision. A pharmacist who refuses to fill a woman’s legal prescription, and refuses to return or transfer the prescription to a nearby drug store, is a just plain dishonest, manipulating control freak, who needs to lose his license fast! And, if he’s doing it because god told him to, he probably needs psychiatric intervention as well.
Medicine is a professional community with standards. Disagreements of this sort should be debated elsewhere. If you can’t handle it, fine. . . .leave!
If that seems a bit harsh, well, I have yet to pee in a bottle for anyone (yes, I’m “clean,”–have you checked the price of dope these days?–but f— those scumbags anyway!). I basically can’t work for anyone who has government contracts. Since we’re in a “right-to-exploit” state, that’s the way it works–you can say no, and look for work elsewhere.
Allie, Of course physicans (and nurses) are required to care for post abortion or birth control complications, or anyone with a medical emergency. You’re comparing apples and oranges. A woman has 72 hrs to obtain emergency contraception after the fact, it may be inconveinent, but it can be done no matter where you live in the state of Kansas. DOCTORS should be the ones to make the referrals to the pharmacies that supply the drug, and pharmacies have the right not to stock it if they choose. Pharmacies don’t stock every drug that doctor’s prescribe, sometimes you have to look elsewhere for a particular medication. I have 4 different pharmacies that I have to go to to get all my patients medications, so why should emergency birth control be any different? You can’t get any birth control at any of the Catholic hospital pharmacies, so what? You see everything so black and white, and you accuse me of not seeing the legitimate problems. Believe me, I live in the real world, and I don’t see this a major problem for anyone. Do you know anyone personally who got pregnant because she couldn’t get a ride to the pharmacy in time? I doubt it.By the way, I have no problem with dispensing birth control (we had a way of getting around it in the Catholic hospital where I worked for 17 yrs), and I would have no problem with giving any woman the morning after pill, either. This is not a pro life issue for me, but it may be for someone else and they have a right to stand by what they believe.On another note, I’m not so sure that emergency contraception should be available over the counter, it’s not like treating a cold or constipation. There can be severe side effects, so any woman who takes it needs to be under the care and supervision of a doctor.
Hey, Damoon, I live in the real world. There is a difference between not having a drug in stock and refusing to dispense something that’s sitting on the shelf.
Did I miss something?
Let’s say that I have sex on Friday night, and the condom breaks. I have to wait until Monday to see my doctor to get a prescription.
So I take of work Monday morning and beg them to squeeze me in 56 hours after I did the deed.
Then I stop at the pharmacy on the way to work, but they won’t sell it to me. I don’t have time to go bopping around checking phamacies right now and I have to get to work.
Let’s say I put in a ten hour day, now it’s 67 hours after I did the deed. That gives me three hours to find this medication.
Why put a woman through all this stress. Just make the drug easily available without a prescription. If she has issues, then I’m sure she’ll call her doctor.
And if I happen to live outside the city where there aren’t many pharmacies, I could really be in trouble.
Emergency contraception is tons less traumatic than an unwanted pregnancy.
It would be a bad idea to force pharmacists to dispense prescriptions. What if RU-486 was approved in the U.S.? Should pharmacists be forced to (effectively) administer an abortion? Of course, I personally believe that if they chose that profession, they should suck it and do their job, but my personal beliefs are separate from what good public policy should be…
I think the best bet here is to leave it up to the pharmacy to decide whether to carry it or not, and pharmacists who are anti-ECP should only work at places like Wal-Mart that don’t carry it. That way, if a pharmacy DOES carry it, and a pharmacist refuses to fill it, he or she can be fired.
I don’t know how to solve the problem of one pharmacy being in walking distance for those without cars. Sure, we’ve never heard claims that someone got pregnant because she couldn’t get a ride to the pharmacy on time, but it’s certainly possible. It needs to be taken preferably before fertilization, and definitely before implantation. Correct me if I’m wrong, but mere hours matter here, don’t they?
About selling them OTC–we don’t sell birth control pills OTC because they need to be taken under a doctor’s guidance (some people can’t follow directions, you know). I’m not sure why we should sell ECPs over the counter when they are the exact same thing, packaged differently.
I wonder if there’s a way to obtain a prescription for it 24 hours a day. Does it require a physical examination? If not, you could call a ECP hotline, talk to a doctor and have a prescription sent to a 24 hour pharmacy within minutes.
What bothers me, is that a pharmacist is medicating, or in ths case, not medicating as a Doctor. This is not what the relationship with the patient is defined to be. He, or she is not is not entitled to pick and choose what course of action they can pursue with regard to the patient’s welfare. Their Certifiaction does not entitle them to make arbitrary life or death decisons about a patent’s welfare.
Rage, go back and reread my post. If a pharmacy stocks it, then I believe that it’s a pharmacist or tech responsibility to fill the prescription, unless it goes against their conscience and there is someone else at the pharmacy that can dispense it. If someone refuses to dispense it when the pharmacy stocks it, and as a result the prescription won’t be filled, then yes, that person should be fired and maybe go to work for Walmart, where they won’t be put in that position. WHAT I BELIEVE IS that pharmacies should have the choice to stock the drug or opt out. The doctor should be able to tell a patient which pharmacy will fill her script.
Cookie, someone’s sexual mishap doesn’t supersede a person’s right not to participate in something that they find morally wrong. We can sit here and come up with all sorts of hypothetical situations, but the bottom line is that no one should be forced to do something they think is wrong. I’d suggest you not spend your money at the pharmacies who choose not to stock the drug if you believe they should.
Gster, what about dispensing or not dispensing birth control is life threatening? If a pharmacy is going to stock a drug, they’ll dispense it. If they don’t stock it, they won’t. This isn’t rocket science.
FYI there is no law that states that the Police have to answer any call.Not such a reach, in fact many times it is a judgment call on what calls to answer.
Good idea, Tara. Why don’t all those who think it should be readily available set up a hotline? I’ll donate to the cause. It makes sense, as long as a doctor is involved and a woman has access to medical help if there are complications.
y’all do know that emergency contraception doesn’t end a pregnancy, it prevents one from occuring, right?
So what’s not to love? What would anyone find morally reprehensible about that?
I think the problem is that all medical textbooks define pregnancy as beginnning when the fertilized egg implants into the uterus. However, some people believe that life begins at fertilization. One of the ways EC can prevent pregnancy is by altering the uterine lining so the fertilized egg can’t implant. According to some religions, this is just as bad as an abortion. You’re not going to change people’s minds on this, so arguing the semantics of “is it killing a baby or not?” is a moot point.
Damoon,– I don’t understand what you are saying.When I go into a pharmacy to get a prescription filled, I do so for just that: there is not a sign or notification that this service, that is State licensed, is at the whim of the practioner. I have already has medical treatment from my Doctor, and now I am seeking the culmination of that treatment, i.e. the “pill packeging” of that medical treatment by the pharmacist- nothing more or less. That is the function that they enter into when they are licensed by the State.I am unaware of any options they have when so certified.
Most state policies require pharmacies to provide all “commonly prescribed medicines.” I guess a pharmacy could claim ECP’s are not commonly prescribed and still be state licensed.
Lots of meds aren’t routinely stocked in the pharmacy, sometimes pharmacies will order meds that they don’t stock, but they’re not readily available. When I was going through my cancer treatment, I had a medication prescribed that my pharmacy didn’t keep on hand because it was too expensive. They’d order it for me, but it took almost a week to get there. I don’t think ECPs are commonly prescribed.I understand your point, Gstr, but some people are morally opposed to ECPs, so for them it would be wrong to aid someone in obtaining a prescription, a devot Catholic for example. You can’t go to a Catholic pharmacy and get birth control, you can’t get an abortion at a Catholic hospital, even though your gynecologist might have recommended it. If a woman wants to get an abortion, I don’t have to be a part of that just because I’m a nurse. But I wouldn’t be working in situation where I would have to make that choice, either.The issue really is whether or not someone should have to dispense it if they work at a pharmacy that stocks it, I would say “yes”. If they knowingly work at a pharmacy that sells ECPs but oppose their use, then they should be willing to dispense it if no else is available to do it. If not, they should work for a pharmacy that won’t stock it. BUT, it should be up to the pharmacy whether or not to stock it.
cookie, you asked why get upset when no pregnancy occurs.
That’s got to be a rhetorical question, right?
I think this is another example of where the coservative GOP exposes a more fundamental agenda, to regulate sexual behavior between consenting adults.
That’s not what they always say in public, but I firmly believe that it’s exactly what many of them want: strict enforcement of new laws governing what is lawful sexual behavior in the US. Many of them would be more than happy to jail you if you and your partner behave in a way they object to (I guess some of them might support some 21st century version of a scarlet letter instead).
Another example is Phil Kline and his abortion clinic witch hunt (disguised this time as an attempt to protect underage girls…and according to this morning’s Eagle applying a different standard to underage boys, a standard Kline was unable or unwilling to define for a federal judge on Friday). Check the front page story in today’s Eagle, the unintentionally snicker-inducing (surely) title of which is “Kline’s teen sex position unclear.” And the Kansas legislature’s attempt to pass laws specifically targeting abortion clinics while the same procedure, if performed in a hospital, is ignored.
I think it’s pretty clear by now what you’re in store for, sooner or later, if you reward social conservatives with your vote.
I found a site that gives lots of information about ECPs and provides a list of close providers ID’d by one’s zipcode. A woman can get them at any Planned Parenthood. They have doctors on staff, so it’s “one stop shopping”.
Sorry, the site is “Not-2-late.com”
BTW, a woman can take the hormones up to 5 days after “the condom breaks”.So if a woman is really motivated, she can walk to a site that will dispense ECPs from anywhere in Kansas. Just kidding. OK, I’m done.
I think something that people are overlooking is the fact that while EC is effective up to 72 hours (some sites say 110 hours) after unprotected sex, they often neglect to mention that the efficacy is increased when taken sooner. So basically the sooner the better. Pharmacists need to realize that they are providing services to a public that doesn’t necessarily share their moral hang-ups. They should fill the prescriptions or consult another pharmicist at the same location. The patient should not be forced to “shop around”, especially considering that most insurances require you to use only certain pharmacies. To me this represents and undue burden.
That should be “an undue burden”…over zealous typing fingers…lol
I agree with you, Nicki. It is an undue burden for a woman to have to shop around for a prescription like that.
BTW, does WalMart stock Viagra?
Seems a bit of a odd standard to encourage men to have lots of sex, but then when there’s unintended consequences to punish women.
I just wish the wingnuts would leave our uteruses (uteri?) alone.
I guess that socialized medicine in this country is inevitable. Just look at all the people who think you have some kind of right to medical treatment for a non-life threatening condition.
Nobody is forcing a phamacist to take a morning-after pill. Why does he think it’s his job to deny it to someone? If it was an antibiotic, and the pharmacist refused to dispense it because it was against his religion to destroy a living bacterium, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, because the pharmacist wouldn’t have a job!
Hmmm how to tackle this one…..
Well, on the one hand, on every job I’ve had, I have been forced to compromise my own beliefs in many and various ways under pain of termination. So a worker rights arguement leads me to support this pharmacist.
On the other hand, the beliefs I was forced to compromise…….while critical to me and even to what I saw as public justiuce or even safety, were not something I could ascribe to “divine assignment”. So that makes me wonder why he sould be any better protected than I was.
Now I could delve further into this, worker rights vs employee accountability and the greater sad regard for the latter as opposed to the former that we currently have……..but really why bother?!
If you choose a field that is regulated by government regulations…….such as Pharmacy. Then you must adhere to those regulations. The morning after pill is legal. If you have a problem with this, then you have chosen your field of work poorly. YOu are free to act in what you see as a moral direction to change the laws that govern this. You are not free to place your own particular religious judgements over the laws and regulations that you chose to work under by way of using your position to substitute your “morality” for the law.
We have some pharmacists that are wanna be preachers. This should be THEIR PROBLEM. It should be up to them to find a place in theology or the church. It should not be incumbent on members of society to be victimized or judged to the standards of someone who has chosen the wrong vocation…..or worse, used their vocation to promote their own prejudice.
That is not what this is about.
Something everyone has gotten away from is that this woman was RAPED. She was a victim. Had already gone through a horrible ordeal. Just walking into the pharmacy to pick up the prescription would have been another ordeal. When the pharmacist singled her out to refuse her service he made her a victim again.He didn’t follow established procedures.
This discussion isn’t about consnensual sex without protection.
Damoon,Maybe he had a right to deny her perscription, but he had NO right to not notify management.
If the pharmacist denied her prescription because he refuses to stock it in his drug store, then fine. If it’s there sitting on the shelf, then he’s obligated to fill it, or find someone who will. In either case, he should have kept her confidentiality in tact. I think the pharmacist in this case was out of line.A woman shouldn’t have to “shop around”, if the doctor is going to give her a script instead of the drug (at planned parenthood, you can see the doctor AND get the drug), then he should be obligated to tell her where she can get it filled. I’m sure that’s what will happen after this whole flap. Women shouldn’t have to be put into a position where they’ll feel embarrased. BTW, ECPs are less than %80 effective at preventing pregnancy, and if a woman chooses to use it very often, it becomes even less effective. If I were still at a child bearing age, I wouldn’t bet on those odds.
Jed, just because I’m a nurse, that doessn’t mean I’m required to go along with something that goes against my conscience. I just doen’t put myself in those positions where I would have make the choice to compromise or not compromise my values. That’s MY responsibility. I shouldn’t expect the place where I work to adjust it’s business practices around my personal beliefs.ECPs are not the same as antibiotics, there is a moral and religious question involved here. No one should be required to be a part of something they don’t believe in. BUT, they shouldn’t put themselves in that position in the first place.I think it should be up the the individual pharmacies to decide whether or not to stock the drug. But if someone chooses to work in a place that does, then they need to be OK with dispensing it.
You cannot force people of faith to limit their beliefs to “church” or “only on Sunday”. You must not ask a believer to sin by compromising their faith just because it makes someone else “uncomfortable”. I’m sorry, but once again, your rights end where mine begin, and you would not force me to choose the feelings of man over the laws of God. Last time I checked there was no Constitutional separation of church and marketplace!The only thing that was done incorrectly, was the procedures were not followed.. a manager should have been called. Personally, I would find it difficult to use a pharmacist that would give up his/her integrity just to make a customer happy.
Kansassam,I have a right to have my legal prescription filled, if the drug is stocked in that pharmacy. That is, in fact, what pharmacies are intended to do, not provide the sanctimoneous with jobs. So, your rights stop where mine begin, too. Get someone else to fill it, work at a pharm that doesn’t fill it, or become a minister, I don’t care.
Allie…READ MY POST…..And then go get a manager….If my company doesn’t require it.. you can’t make me do it. If my company would require it, then I would have to go to another company.
Da,There is a moral and religious question about ECP’s only because a particular religion takes a stand about them. Other than that, they are simply chemicals.If the only pharmacist in your area happened to be a devout Buddhist who felt that antibiotics were a destroyer of lifeforms on the path to Nirvana, and you had a severe infection, you might feel differently! You may follow whatever moral beliefs you want, but when you impose them on those whose beliefs differ from yours, they are no longer moral!
Kansassam,Your second post makes no sense. I think it is a pharmacist’s job description that pharmacist are required to fill perscriptions. I simply don’t agree with the idea that your right to inflict your morality on me somehow supercedes my right to have a legal prescription filled. Your rights aren’t the only ones at stake.
Talk about a stretch!! I’ve yet to see a Buddist pharmacist with the only drug store in town who refuses to fill a script for antibiotics. This is a non issue. Anyone can get a script filled, maybe not at every pharmacy, but it can be done. If a drug is legal, it’s available.Some see ECPs as “mini” abortions, and if ECPs prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall, then they have a valid argument. A person with those beliefs probably shouldn’t be working in a pharmacy that sells them. I would never work in Tiller’s clinic or for a doctor that performs abortions. I don’t think that’s imposing my values on anyone. There are plenty of doctors who feel the same way I do, and if I ever decide to work in an office, I’ll work for one of them.
AlliePoint is… the pharmacists religious beliefs are Constitutionally protected. Your right to getting a prescription filled is not.
If you force him to compromise his beliefs then you are forcing YOUR morality on HIM. In a court of law, you lose!
Just ask for a manager or change pharmacies. Simple enough….
Sam, This isn’t a freedom of religious expression issue, even in the penumbra of the 1st amendment. Moreover, there is a legal distinction between religious belief and religious practice. The right to religious believe is absolute, but the rights to religious practice and expression are not absolute. You have the right to any religious belief, but your actions are not likewise protected. If it interferes in your ability to preform your job to fill legal prescriptions, work it out so the woman can get her script without being hassled. Stores should address the issue before it happens; if a system that includes a manager or second pharmacist (yeah, they’ll love that one) providing the prescription is worked out, fine. And, I think the pharmacist can be fired if an appropriate system cannot be found or the are regularly being difficult or lecturing young women, without calling it religious discrimination. They are just being bad employees. But, there are Christian pharmacist (I think it was in Georgia) who refused to transfer to another pharmacist or pharmacy. They felt that ANY envolvement that produced the woman getting her script made them culpable. That is incompatable with the job, no matter what faith reasons support it. Those people are also less likely to be forthright in admitting that the will not fill the script, because they see it as a plus if they can keep a woman from getting her pills.
Damoon- Because it happens, and not just a couple times or only in Kansas, it matters. Your analogy of something you haven’t seen in pointless. It would be nice for everyone to take your approach and not put themselves in a position to have to do it. Some fanatics go into places where they can have a “positive” influence by keeping such things from happening.
Give me an example.
The Catholic church takes the approach you describe. If any Catholic participates in ANY way to assist a woman in getting an abortion, then it’s automatic excommunication from the church. That’s church law. I doubt that most Catholics in the US follow church doctrine to the letter. Most Catholics I know use birth control and limit the size of their families. If a pharmacist is a devout Catholic, then he would be forbidden to assist a woman with the script in any way. That’s Catholic law.I respect a person’s right to live their values, but someone in that situation has a responsibility to find employment that won’t threaten their values.On the other hand, I get tired of all the extreme examples. ECPs are readily available to those who will use them. It would be my guess that MOST pharmacies will stock them. If a woman lives in a small town with one pharmacy who refuses to stock the drug, then she may have to take a road trip to get her script filled. I know life can be inconveinent, but people shouldn’t have to compromise their religious beliefs in order to make life easier for others.
Kerry and fat Teddy amongst others supprt abortion but they have not been excommunicated.
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
I don’t think they’re in good standing with the church. Kerry and Ted Kennedy are “ala cart” Caholics, like most Catholics in the US.
I respect your arguements Kssam and yours in particular Damoon. I also wholeheartedly disagree.
Think on the path that you are suggesting. It could beatruly bad “slippery slope”
Now Jed gave us a good example uthread. I’ll give you some more.
Now I don’t think it unreasonable to suggest that the religious right has a great deal of power in vast areas of America. It is not unreasonable to speculate that they might use that, and their general control of commerce to enforce their own ideology on others. We might imagine a concerted effort to gain control at the pharmaceutical and management levels. A woman needing Emergency Contraception might eventually have to search very far and very wide and thus be unable to secure the script while she can still safely and successfully use it.
But that is just the beginning. It is a great thing that we have religious freedom……or freedom from religion. But “defense of the right to individual religious conviction” could mushroom into a tremendous problem since indivdual religious conviction is a very subjective thing.
What if I was an atheist pharmacist and a KNOWN evangelist came to me for a script? MIght I be justified in refusing to fill that script and telling the person seeking it “My religion is science. But you trust God over science. Go and seek your Lord to heal you. I will be intersted to see the results and if your faith prevails in the absence of my interference”?
From an article in the Washington Post (Mar 28,2005) “No one knows exactly how often that is happening, but cases have been reported across the country, including in California, Washington, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Texas, New Hampshire, Ohio and North Carolina. Advocates on both sides say the refusals appear to be spreading, often surfacing only in the rare instances when women file complaints. “
JR…
In an extreme case, possibly, but not likely. I know alot of Christians that have no problem with dispensing whatever because it is their job. But.. most people do not understand that if a person DOES believe it is wrong, then to do it is a sin, which is in effect denying Christ. A Christian cannot be a Christian at church and something else at work. So, are you saying that Christians can’t be Pharmacists? How about Christians can’t be Doctors because they won’t perform abortions? The can’t be bankers because they might not lend money to a porn shop? Where does it end? Where is the “tolerance” that non-Christians constantly stand on and use against Christians every day?What I think should happen is if someone requests a prescription that the pharmacist will not fill, it is his/her responsibility to quietly pass it on to someone who will. If there is noone in that pharmacy that will fill it, that fact should be publicly posted in advance and there should be a reference to a pharmacy that will fill it.
Sam-Doctors,who believe in no abortion or no birth control, no matter what and no referring, should not go into gyn or family practice. They may not have to perform abortion, but they are obligated to release the woman’s records even if they are going to the abortion doctor. There are conditions incompatable with pregnancy and there are women who need birth control for hormonal balance. It isn’t like saying, a person who doesn’t believe in birth control can’t work in a drug store at all; they just can’t be responsible for dispensing it.Choosing biased examples to make your point works both ways. What about banks that won’t offer loans to blacks because they are black? That isn’t ok, right?Tolerance is a statemen on beliefs. I tolerate your right to have a divergent view of Christianity. Tolerance does not condone all religious, or supposedly religious, actions. It isn’t what you believe; it is how your beliefs are affecting women who need to fill their perscriptions. Hidding actions behind tolerance of divergent opinions is inappropriate. The KKK can hate whomever they want; they just can’t burn a cross in my yard about it.
I must say the start of this blog was expected since Rhonda Holman is a flag waving member of NOW and staunch supporter of Planned Parenthood.
Walgreens or any pharmacy or pharmacists has the right to refuse any customer as with any other business has the same right. PP and NOW only believe in choice when it suits their purposes and always villify those that disagree with them just as a government in central Europe did seventy years ago. PP and NOW only want to continue the mass killings they so proudly tout as “a choice”. Well their choices have killed more humans than all the combined socialists governments, i.e. Nazis and Communists and Islamists, have. What should be protested and aborted is NOW and PP!
If these refusals are really about morality and piousness, shouldn’t pharmacists also be doing a background check on men who seek Viagra scripts to make sure they’re only having sex with their wives? Therin lies the hypocrisy: at the behest of their brainwashers, “God’s prescription fillers” have singled out one drug on which to draw a line in the sand. It’s another sickening display of the faux religious fervor that’s taken this country since the All-hat-no- cattle cowboy stole his way into the White House.
Samantha – There is a serious logical disconnect in your post.
And that’s not even going into your tying this event to the White House.
Samantha – Was this your attempt to inject your own socialists values?
Todd & rr,You’re the ones with the disconnect. Answer the question!