U.S.A. Today - pharmacists refusing Birth Control scripts
denying service to a customer based upon one's religious beliefs is the same as denying them because of the customer's religion beliefs, no? it's essentially the same thing. they're refusing to provide them with doctor-ordered medication because the customer doesnt share the pharmacist's religious beliefs. it's clear discrimination.
i'm not sure it's that clear..you cannot deny service based on race, but you can based on clothing
there has to be a legal line somewhere
frankly, if i owned a pharmacy and didn't want to issue BC pills, i just wouldn't stock them...who can tell me what to stock in my own store?
don't get me wrong ...i think it's crap...just saying...
there has to be a legal line somewhere
frankly, if i owned a pharmacy and didn't want to issue BC pills, i just wouldn't stock them...who can tell me what to stock in my own store?
don't get me wrong ...i think it's crap...just saying...
Yes. Correct.
But what about when the pharmacy stocks the item and one of its employees refuses to sell it for personal moral reasons? That's what we're talking out.
My opinion is that this employee should be allowed to refuse, but that he/she must also issue a viable referral to another pharmacy; one which is subject to distance and availability requirements/constraints which should be written into law. The idea here would be to preserve an individual pharmacist's right to follow his/her own conscience on the job, while also trying to prevent the practice of refusal and referral from becoming a serious barrier to access. Reasonable access to legal, prescribed drugs should trump individual morality, if they are in conflict. If a pharmacist cannot give a viable referral for a patient, then he/she should be bound by law to fill the prescription anyway, or to resign and look for another job.
And of course, presumably, anything that a business owner chooses to stock is intended to be sold to the public as a matter of implied company policy. Thus, by refusing to sell a certain item that is both legal and in stock, an employee is willfully violating this company policy (and adversely affecting the bottom line as well), and I think most people would agree that a business owner should have the right to fire any employee who willfully violates company policy.
btw.... this is my more diplomatic, compromising view on the matter.
My real view is that these self-righteous freaks should be required to fill all legal prescriptions, period. If they aren't willing to do that, then why the hell did they become pharmacists to begin with?
Bah!
But what about when the pharmacy stocks the item and one of its employees refuses to sell it for personal moral reasons? That's what we're talking out.
My opinion is that this employee should be allowed to refuse, but that he/she must also issue a viable referral to another pharmacy; one which is subject to distance and availability requirements/constraints which should be written into law. The idea here would be to preserve an individual pharmacist's right to follow his/her own conscience on the job, while also trying to prevent the practice of refusal and referral from becoming a serious barrier to access. Reasonable access to legal, prescribed drugs should trump individual morality, if they are in conflict. If a pharmacist cannot give a viable referral for a patient, then he/she should be bound by law to fill the prescription anyway, or to resign and look for another job.
And of course, presumably, anything that a business owner chooses to stock is intended to be sold to the public as a matter of implied company policy. Thus, by refusing to sell a certain item that is both legal and in stock, an employee is willfully violating this company policy (and adversely affecting the bottom line as well), and I think most people would agree that a business owner should have the right to fire any employee who willfully violates company policy.
btw.... this is my more diplomatic, compromising view on the matter.
My real view is that these self-righteous freaks should be required to fill all legal prescriptions, period. If they aren't willing to do that, then why the hell did they become pharmacists to begin with?
Bah!
-
abcrystcats
- Posts: 619
- Joined: August 20th, 2004, 9:37 pm
I'm confused, Mnaz.
I started to write something out but then realized you were contradicting what I was about to write in your third paragraph.
In your second paragraph -- when you are saying, "this employee should be allowed to refuse" do you mean LEGALLY allowed?
Because in your third paragraph you say that "a business owner should have the right to fire any employee who willfully violates company policy".
If this is what you are saying, I believe the employee is legally allowed to be insubordinate to his employer, anyways. Nobody is going to throw you in jail for disobeying your boss. And I don't think a pharmacist could get his license revoked for doing it, either. I suppose it's possible, but if he/she could show they were following their moral conscience, I think it would be allowed.
I agree with you when you say that any employee who wilfully disobeys his employer should be fired. I really don't think there's a way to allow an employee to follow his conscience instead of his boss's directives, and still protect his job.
In any case, I think we are united in our opinion that these people are "self-righteous freaks" (good choice of words) no matter whether they are employers or employees.
I just don't think the law can order a business owner to stock a particular kind of drug and sell it to the public. Not in a free-market economy. That would be the decision of the business owner, not the government and not his employees.
I started to write something out but then realized you were contradicting what I was about to write in your third paragraph.
In your second paragraph -- when you are saying, "this employee should be allowed to refuse" do you mean LEGALLY allowed?
Because in your third paragraph you say that "a business owner should have the right to fire any employee who willfully violates company policy".
If this is what you are saying, I believe the employee is legally allowed to be insubordinate to his employer, anyways. Nobody is going to throw you in jail for disobeying your boss. And I don't think a pharmacist could get his license revoked for doing it, either. I suppose it's possible, but if he/she could show they were following their moral conscience, I think it would be allowed.
I agree with you when you say that any employee who wilfully disobeys his employer should be fired. I really don't think there's a way to allow an employee to follow his conscience instead of his boss's directives, and still protect his job.
In any case, I think we are united in our opinion that these people are "self-righteous freaks" (good choice of words) no matter whether they are employers or employees.
I just don't think the law can order a business owner to stock a particular kind of drug and sell it to the public. Not in a free-market economy. That would be the decision of the business owner, not the government and not his employees.
Don't you just love it
Don't you just love it when all of us crowd around a thought and contemplate its weight? We artists are a great group of philosophers. Your discussions are great to read.
lucy-
lucy-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests