Reply With Quote
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.
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.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.
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.
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 some of the other drugs actually help people too.
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 cons ution 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.
"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?
Yes.
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 compe or.
"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 sanc y of human life."
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011026.html
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....jsp?id=107992
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.
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 bull , but thats so often the case isn't it? Freedom only counts for something when people use it to your advantadge.
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.
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.
No, he wouldn't sell drinks at all. Or just not a shot because he thinks them in bad taste.Kind of like "why should a bartender be a bartender if he doesn't want to serve me my millionth drink??"
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.
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 at ude 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.
Last edited by Gatita; 10-20-2005 at 11:27 PM.
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.
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?Can a pharmacist discriminate against his company's stocked products, selling some products but refusing to sell others, for whatever reason?
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.
Last edited by Nbadan; 10-21-2005 at 12:06 AM.
dupe
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
