Target Goes Pro-Life

[Nbadan]

Imagine walking into a pharmacy with a prescription and being told by the pharmacist, "I won't fill it. It's my right not to fill it." Yes, it's outrageous, but this is exactly what happened to a 26-year-old woman who presented a prescription for emergency contraception at a Target in Fenton, MO, on September 30. Planned Parenthood is demanding that pharmacists dispense medication, not moral judgment, and we need your voice to be
heard, too.

Target has ignored three attempts by Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) to determine their national policy regarding pharmacists' refusal to fill valid, legal prescriptions for birth control, including emergency
contraception. But they cannot ignore hundreds of thousands of
potential customers.

Pharmacies must ensure that women get their prescriptions filled
in-store, without discrimination or delay!

Karen Pearl
Interim President
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
On behalf of the Planned Parenthood community

PPAction (http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/fillmypillsnow_target2)

What if that pharmacist said no to Black peoples' medicine because he was a racist? Or won't sell pain killing medication because he feels that suffering is good for the soul? How about doing the job that you were trained and hired to do without the personal input?

At the store where I get our prescriptions filled, the owners put up a sign that states that it is store policy to fill all valid prescriptions and if there is any problem with that to ask for the store manager immediately.

I asked the pharmacist about it and he said that he would be fired on the spot for putting his personal beliefs before a customers' needs.

[mookie2001]

What if that pharmacist said no to Black peoples' medicine because he was a racist? Or won't sell pain killing medication because he feels that suffering is good for the soul? How about doing the job that you were trained and hired to do without the personal input?

no joke

[Marcus Bryant]

So having a conscience and acting on it is only valid for 'left-wing' causes and not 'right-wing' ones. Understood.

[mookie2001]

well the point is if you work at HEB and refuse to checkout porkchops because its your religion, than you have that right, you just dont have the right to keep your job

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure and the company faces that pressure as well from its customers.

It would be more like if a company sold products made in overseas sweatshops and a checker refused to ring those up because they could not bear participating in the 'exploitation' of those poor workers. Then Nbadan would be posting about how great it is that the checker was standing up to the neocons and globalists or whatever.

[Yonivore]

no joke
Racial discrimination is prohibited (in certain circumstances) by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent amendments thereto. Baby killing is not.

Oh, and I didn't realize there was "black people's medicine."

[Marcus Bryant]

There are a variety of ethical/legal conflicts in medicine. We could see a pharmacist run into trouble for providing a terminally ill patient in severe pain with a lethal (and illegal) dose of some medication.

Bringing race into this is asinine.

[mookie2001]

he meant the medicine black people take
as in posses

naturally

[Dos]

last I heard target was still a privately owned business that can decide what it wants to sell and to whom it wants to sell it too...

[MannyIsGod]

Don't see a problem with this at all. Since when are people forced to shop at Target? Go to another damn pharmacy.

[Phenomanul]

Don't see a problem with this at all. Since when are people forced to shop at Target? Go to another damn pharmacy.


^^^My first thought on the issue exactly....

[Dos]

another great example of people going nuts over what some private company decides to do with it's own company...

Starbucks stirs things up with a God quote on cups
By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY Wed Oct 19, 7:25 AM ET

Coffee drinkers could get a spiritual jolt with their java in the spring when Starbucks begins putting a God-filled quote from the Rev. Rick Warren, author of the mega-selling The Purpose-Driven Life, on its cups.

It will be the first mention of God in the company's provocative quote campaign, The Way I See It. In 2005, Starbucks is printing 63 quotes from writers, scientists, musicians, athletes, politicians and cultural critics on cups for company-run and licensed locations to carry on the coffeehouse tradition of conversation and debate.

Some mention "faith in the human spirit," but none is overtly religious. Last month, Baylor University pulled Starbucks cups after objections to a quote from writer Armistead Maupin saying that "life is too damn short" to hide being gay.

Warren says the idea of a grande pitch for God as creator came to him after seeing a Starbucks quote on evolution from paleontologist Louise Leakey. Because Starbucks solicited customer contributions for 2006, Warren sent his in. On Tuesday, Starbucks spokeswoman Sanja Gould confirmed that it would be used.

The cups carry a disclaimer that the opinions "do not necessarily reflect the views of Starbucks."

But a few companies plant clues to Christianity in their wrappings, music or signs precisely because the owners are believers.

In-N-Out Burger, the California-based fast-food chain, has included tiny notations for Bible verses in some of its burger and drink packaging since Richard Snyder, son of the founders, called for it in 1987. "He told me, 'It's just something I want to do,' " company spokesman Carl Van Fleet says.

After Snyder's death in 1993, "the family felt strongly about keeping this just as he had done it" at its 196 outlets in California, Arizona and Nevada. The Bible book and verse in minuscule type "are so subtle most of our customers never notice."

One who did: Don Chang, the deeply religious founder of clothing chains Forever 21 and XXI.

Five years ago, the clothier copied In-N-Out by stamping the Bible book, chapter and verse notation John 3:16 on the bottom of his stores' shopping bags: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

It's "evidence of faith," corporate spokesman Larry Meyer says.

Other owners making a faith statement in the secular marketplace include David Green, whose craft chain Hobby Lobby plays only Christian contemporary music in its 362 stores, and S. Truett Cathy, who advertises that Chick-fil-A sandwich shops nationwide are closed on Sundays to free employees to focus on faith and family.

"Americans are more accepting of overt religiosity these days, and corporations are good at figuring out how to do it with a light touch, one that's not going to scare off unbelievers," says sociologist David Halle, director of the LeRoy Neiman Center for the Study of American Society and Culture at the University of California-Los Angeles.

Alaska Airlines has put baseball-card-size prayer cards on hot-meal trays for 30 years "just to differentiate us from the competition," spokeswoman Amanda Tobin says. "Compliments have always far outweighed complaints."

[Clandestino]

Racial discrimination is prohibited (in certain circumstances) by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent amendments thereto. Baby killing is not.

Oh, and I didn't realize there was "black people's medicine."

it's called hypnotiq.. with a Q

[Nbadan]

The basic question is this, where do you draw the line? Would you allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill prescriptions for Viagra for unmarried men? Would you allow them to refuse to fill prescriptions for AIDS drugs? Would you allow one of your cashiers to refuse to ring up a sale for condoms because they don't "believe" in birth control? Where do you draw the line?

The part that I find particularly inconceivable is that Target is willing to let these pharmacists turn away a PAYING customer. Isn't Target in business to make money?

The simple fact is that Target is letting it's pharmacists engage in egregiously sexist behavior based on personal beliefs. I have shopped at Target for years now as an alternative to Wal-Mart. That stops as of today. I will no longer patronize this business and will encourage my friends and family to shop elsewhere as well until the day that your corporation stands up to religious bullies and insists that they do their job...which the last time I checked was to fill legal prescriptions, not to practice medicine or proselitize for their religious views.

[xrayzebra]

The basic question is this, where do you draw the line? Would you allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill prescriptions for Viagra for unmarried men? Would you allow them to refuse to fill prescriptions for AIDS drugs? Would you allow one of your cashiers to refuse to ring up a sale for condoms because they don't "believe" in birth control? Where do you draw the line?

The part that I find particularly inconceivable is that Target is willing to let these pharmacists turn away a PAYING customer. Isn't Target in business to make money?

The simple fact is that Target is letting it's pharmacists engage in egregiously sexist behavior based on personal beliefs. I have shopped at Target for years now as an alternative to Wal-Mart. That stops as of today. I will no longer patronize this business and will encourage my friends and family to shop elsewhere as well until the day that your corporation stands up to religious bullies and insists that they do their job...which the last time I checked was to fill legal prescriptions, not to practice medicine or proselitize for their religious views.

I may take all my business to Target as of today. I see no difference in this and having a Christmas scene on public property. Public is the key word to me. I own it just like those who object to it do, do they have more rights than me? I don't thing so. They don't like it then wait till Christmas is over with and put up an anti-Christ display, I can ignore it. So there.

[spurster]

Don't see a problem with this at all. Since when are people forced to shop at Target? Go to another damn pharmacy.
Maybe Fenton, MO doesn't have a Walgreens on every major intersection?

Anyway, a pharmacist's job should be to fill prescriptions, not as a moral gatekeeper. If there seems to be a problem, the pharmacist should consult the doctor and/or the manager. In this case, Target should have a clear policy of what actions pharmacists are allowed, and then the consumer can take from there. In any case, this seems open to some sort of legal case. What if the patient is harmed by the pharmacist denying the prescription?

[xrayzebra]

Maybe Fenton, MO doesn't have a Walgreens on every major intersection?

Anyway, a pharmacist's job should be to fill prescriptions, not as a moral gatekeeper. If there seems to be a problem, the pharmacist should consult the doctor and/or the manager. In this case, Target should have a clear policy of what actions pharmacists are allowed, and then the consumer can take from there. In any case, this seems open to some sort of legal case. What if the patient is harmed by the pharmacist denying the prescription?

I think maybe some of the companies may have a hard time finding qualified pharmacist to go to work for them. So when something is in short supply you don't run off the hired help. Something is better than nothing. Especially if you need a prescription filled that has nothing to do with the problem being discussed.

[mookie2001]

Anyway, a pharmacist's job should be to fill prescriptions, not as a moral gatekeeper.
no joke

[Shelly]

Maybe Fenton, MO doesn't have a Walgreens on every major intersection?

Anyway, a pharmacist's job should be to fill prescriptions, not as a moral gatekeeper. If there seems to be a problem, the pharmacist should consult the doctor and/or the manager. In this case, Target should have a clear policy of what actions pharmacists are allowed, and then the consumer can take from there. In any case, this seems open to some sort of legal case. What if the patient is harmed by the pharmacist denying the prescription?

Agree 100%

[BronxCowboy]

I guess everybody is going to have their opinion and nobody is going to change their mind, but I'm going to throw mine in there too.

I don't have much of a problem with emergency contraception. I think it's mostly a good thing and more people should probably be informed about it.

That said, no one should ever be required to violate their own conscience because of their job. We may not all have the same convictions, but I support people who stick to their convictions.

I understand where NBADan is coming from, ie, where does it end? But on the other hand, where does it end if we require people to do things that violate their conscience as part of a job? Should all doctors be required to provide abortions? What if a draft happens again? Should conscientous objectors be required to kill people in combat? Remember that at one time slavery was legal, and anyone who happened upon a runaway slave was required by law to report them, your conscience be damned.

In this country, we are supposed to have the right to our own moral convictions, whether everyone else agrees or not, and it should never be any other way. The only limitation is that we harm no one else.

By the way, in case anyone reading this needs emergency contraception or knows anyone who does, you can call 1-800-NOT-2-LATE to find out how to get the morning after pill where you live. You can use it up to 3 days after sex, or depending who your doctor is, up to 5 days after.

[BronxCowboy]

it's called hypnotiq.. with a Q

Your open racism never ceases to amaze and apall me.

[Duff McCartney]

Personally, I think pharmacists should stay the fuck out of my business. You're a pharmacist, fill that fucking bottle and give to me. Don't ask any god damn questions.

[SpursWoman]

If that ever happens at HEB, I'll just go to Walgreens. No biggie, I'm sure I'll find someone who'll want my business.

[Spam]

Target sucks ass.

[Shelly]

I would never, ever give up Target. NEVER!

[Spurminator]

That said, no one should ever be required to violate their own conscience because of their job. We may not all have the same convictions, but I support people who stick to their convictions.

I agree to the extent that no one should be prosecuted for refusing to compromise their convictions, but I would also support the right of the company to fire that person.

[ChumpDumper]

Why is the pharmacist working in such a place that even carries these drugs?

It's clear he should quit his job if his beliefs are this strong.

My guess is he likes the pay too much.

Nice spine.

[gtownspur]

Kind of like "why should a bartender be a bartender if he doesn't want to serve me my millionth drink??"

dont be an airhead.

[Trainwreck2100]

Why is the pharmacist working in such a place that even carries these drugs?

It's clear he should quit his job if his beliefs are this strong.

My guess is he likes the pay too much.

Nice spine.

Because some of the other drugs actually help people too.

[MannyIsGod]

What about the pharmacists freedom to act how he wishes and the comany's freedom to choose what kind of employee decisions and behavior to allow? I didn't know the constitution had a section in it devoted to getting the kind of service you want at Target or any other pharmacy.

You make your business the pharmacists business when you take him your business. If you do not like the way they handle it and the decisions you make, I suggest you take your business elsewhere.

But you cannot force a company to sell you a product nor can you force a person to do something they do not want to do. This is not sexist. This is a pharmacist standing up for what he believes in. Whether or not that is a noble and justified cause is another issue, but do not act as though this is some attack on women. Issues dealing with contraception and birth control are not automatically sexist.

[boutons]

"you cannot force a company to sell you a product"

Yes you can, based on anti-discrimination/civil rights laws. A black real-estate agent can't refuse to sell a whitey a house in a black neighborhood because the buyer is white.

Rosa Parks cannot be forced out of a purchased seat on a bus because she's black. Try to refuse to sell Rosa Parks a seat on the bus because she's black.

Can a pharmacist discriminate against his company's stocked products, selling some products but refusing to sell others, for whatever reason?

[travis2]

Yes.

[jochhejaam]

Yes, they do have that right bouts.

Target isn't the only one that lets the Pharmacist decide whether or not to dispense birth control/ contraceptives. Albertson's does the same;

Tuesday :: June 07, 2005
Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscience Guide Prescription Filling
Crooks and Liars reports this was in an email sent by James Dobson's group to its "Citizen Link" subscribers.

Albertsons Agrees to Respect Pharmacists' Right of Conscience

Albertsons Corporation agreed to accommodate its pharmacists' right to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their religious or moral beliefs. The accommodation came on the heels of a lawsuit filed by
attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and the Christian Legal Society (CLS) against Albertsons and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on behalf of pharmacist David Scimio.

Blagojevich imposed an "emergency rule" stating that a pharmacist "must dispense . . . without delay" contraceptives, including so-called emergency contraceptives such as the "morning after" pill, despite the state's right-of-conscience act.

Steven H. Aden, chief litigation counsel of CLS's Center for Law and Religious Freedom, said the right of conscience is an important component of religious liberty. "Pharmacists should not be forced to fill prescriptions for the 'morning after' abortion pill," he said, "if it violates their conscience."

Shortly after ADF and CLS filed suit, Albertsons distributed a memo to all its Illinois pharmacists stating it would accommodate their right of conscience by permitting them to refer prescriptions to which they conscientiously object to another Albertsons pharmacist or
to a competitor.

"We applaud the decision by Albertsons to restore to Mr. Scimio and other Albertsons pharmacists the same rights they had prior to the governor's action," Aden said, "and allow them to be true to their beliefs about the sanctity of human life."

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011026.html

[jochhejaam]

It's starting to look like an epidemic

CONFRONTATION AT THE COUNTER

Jul 26, 2004
By: Carol Ukens
Drug Topics

CONFRONTATION AT THE COUNTER
The issue of pharmacists' versus patients' rights is producing conflicts and pink slips

When a Wisconsin pharmacist was presented with a prescription for birth control pills, he not only refused to dispense the script or refer it to another pharmacy, he refused to give it back to the patient based on his religious beliefs. He is now facing a disciplinary hearing brought by the state board of pharmacy.

Last February, an Eckerd pharmacist in Denton, Texas, refused to dispense emergency contraception to a woman identified as a rape victim. The pharmacist was fired.

Last spring, a Raleigh man complained to the North Carolina pharmacy board that a pharmacist refused to dispense an emergency contraceptive to his wife and lectured her on religion. The pharmacist was reportedly fired.

In March, a CVS pharmacist in North Richland Hills, Texas, refused to refill a prescription for birth control pills because the drug violates her personal beliefs. CVS declined to comment on whether the pharmacist was fired.

The refusal of the CVS pharmacist to dispense birth control pills was a wake-up call to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which had been focusing on protecting abortion rights, not women's access to birth control pills. President Gloria Feldt fired off an angry letter to CVS, demanding that the drugstore chain's CEO personally promise that such a "completely inexcusable" incident would never happen again.

Suddenly, Americans are waking up to the fact that women are being confronted at the counter by pharmacists asserting a religious or moral right to refuse to dispense hormonal contraceptives or emergency contraceptives. An estimated 12 million American women use hormonal contraceptives for birth control. But the drugs can also be prescribed for many other indications, including acne, fibroids, endometriosis, and to regulate menstrual periods.

(snip)


http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=107992

[travis2]

I don't believe the pharmacist has the right to lecture the patient. Nor does the pharmacist have the right to retain the prescription if it is not filled.

[MannyIsGod]

"you cannot force a company to sell you a product"

Yes you can, based on anti-discrimination/civil rights laws. A black real-estate agent can't refuse to sell a whitey a house in a black neighborhood because the buyer is white.

Rosa Parks cannot be forced out of a purchased seat on a bus because she's black. Try to refuse to sell Rosa Parks a seat on the bus because she's black.

Can a pharmacist discriminate against his company's stocked products, selling some products but refusing to sell others, for whatever reason? So you want to compare the refusal to sell a product to the refusal to sell to a certain person? Those are 2 entirely different situations. This is not discrimination against a person but discrimination against the pill. Last time I checked the pill does not have any rights what so ever.

Yes, a pharmacist may choose wich products he wishes to sell and a corporation may allow him that freedom should they choose to. Once again, you are not forced to shop in any particular place for your good and services and are more than welcome to take your business elsewhere.

Some have shown this as knock on Target, but I see it as a sign of a company giving their employees the freedom they should.

What is ironic about this is how Boutons sits and is incredibly critical on Bush's assualt on freedom yet wishes to pose his own assualt on freedom when it suits his needs/desires. Thats bullshit, but thats so often the case isn't it? Freedom only counts for something when people use it to your advantadge.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't believe the pharmacist has the right to lecture the patient. Nor does the pharmacist have the right to retain the prescription if it is not filled.
I don't see any reason the pharmacist can't lecture anyone. They do so at their own risk, however.

As for retaining the prescription, absolutely not. They have no right to confiscate the other persons prescription. Not acting upon it due to a personal choice is one thing, but impeding the patient is quite another.

[Extra Stout]

I don't believe the pharmacist has the right to lecture the patient. Nor does the pharmacist have the right to retain the prescription if it is not filled.The company probably has a policy about badgering customers. It's not so much a "rights" issue as a "company policy" issue. I can be belligerent towards you and not break a law, but if I do it while representing my company, maybe they discipline or fire me.

As for confiscating the prescription? The pharmacist should be fired, lose credentials as a pharmacist, and face civil action. That's BS.

With regard to the prerogative of a pharmacist to dispense or withhold medication based upon personal beliefs, I think that should extend only to that particular employee. In other words, if a head pharmacist is morally opposed to the morning-after pill, then he/she doesn't have to dispense it personally, but he/she shouldn't be able to order the other technicians not to fill it.

And there needs to be a way for the company to become aware of the employee's moral stance while still providing reasonable accomodation to the employee's religious beliefs, so that it can best meet the needs both of its employees and its customers.

And the store should reserve the right not to carry certain prescriptions if it chooses.

[ChumpDumper]

Kind of like "why should a bartender be a bartender if he doesn't want to serve me my millionth drink??"No, he wouldn't sell drinks at all. Or just not a shot because he thinks them in bad taste.

Has this guy let his feelings been known to Target?

How can he work in a place that carries baby killing drugs? If he doesn't dispense them, can't the other pharmacist do it? Show us how really important this is.

[Gatita]

Code of Ethics for Pharmacists

PREAMBLE
Pharmacists are health professionals who assist individuals in making the best use of medications. This Code, prepared and supported by pharmacists, is intended to state publicly the principles that form the fundamental basis of the roles and responsibilities of pharmacists. These principles, based on moral obligations and virtues, are established to guide pharmacists in relationships with patients, health professionals, and society.

I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.

Considering the patient-pharmacist relationship as a covenant means that a pharmacist has moral obligations in response to the gift of trust received from society. In return for this gift, a pharmacist promises to help individuals achieve optimum benefit from their medications, to be committed to their welfare, and to maintain their trust.

II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient at the center of professional practice. In doing so, a pharmacist considers needs stated by the patient as well as those defined by health science. A pharmacist is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the patient. With a caring attitude and a compassionate spirit, a pharmacist focuses on serving the patient in a private and confidential manner.

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.

IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act with conviction of conscience. A pharmacist avoids discriminatory practices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the best interests of patients.

V. A pharmacist maintains professional competence.

A pharmacist has a duty to maintain knowledge and abilities as new medications, devices, and technologies become available and as health information advances.

VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals.

When appropriate, a pharmacist asks for the consultation of colleagues or other health professionals or refers the patient. A pharmacist acknowledges that colleagues and other health professionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply to the care of the patient.

VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs.

The primary obligation of a pharmacist is to individual patients. However, the obligations of a pharmacist may at times extend beyond the individual to the community and society. In these situations, the pharmacist recognizes the responsibilities that accompany these obligations and acts accordingly.

VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.

When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair and equitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.

* adopted by the membership of the American Pharmacists Association October 27, 1994.

[Gatita]

Kind of like "why should a bartender be a bartender if he doesn't want to serve me my millionth drink??"

dont be an airhead.

Because legally he could be at fault if something were to happen to you, say a car accident. A bartender (with a license) cannot sell you a drink if he knows you are intoxicated. The "license" that the bar requires of its bartenders to have, is because they want to protect their own ass. If an unlicensed bartender served up a drink to someone who was already drunk and that person got into a car accident, the bar would be liable.

[Nbadan]

Can a pharmacist discriminate against his company's stocked products, selling some products but refusing to sell others, for whatever reason?

I think you'll are seeing this all wrong. This isn't an individual right's issue, it's really a company policy issue and I'll tell ya why. Since the company stocked these pills, their obvious intent is to sell them, other-wise they would post big signs at the door saying they didn't sell those types of prescriptions regardless of the patient's medical condition. Fair deal. The company should have a standardized policy for this kind of thing already in place in which the pharmacist should have voluntarily agree to abide by before he was hired. If the company didn't have a policy in place, and let every one of it's sale assistants decide individually on which kind of products it would or wouldn't sell, I think you can imagine the chaos this would cause for businesses, consumers and the market place. What if the Middle-Eastern guy behind the gas-counter stopped selling gas because of his opposition to the Iraq War? Or what if a doctor refused to prescribe pain medication because he believed in homeopathic recovery?

All this being said, I think there is definitely some legal liability on the part of the business for not having a standardized policy already in place, or if the policy was in place, for not immediately firing the Pharmacist and hiring one that would follow the companies set policy of not discriminating the sale of individual medication.

[Nbadan]

dupe

:hat