If so, and I owned a Burger King, I might be willing to work around it.
You might be surprised how difficult it can be to staff these kinds of jobs with reliable workers. But the point is really this: as a business person, I have to weigh these decisions. I used to field these kinds of requests from employees and potential employees all the time:
“I can’t work on Wednesday afternoons, that’s the day I run the carpool to soccer practice…is that ok?”
“I would rather not work Monday nights…that’s my book club.”
“I’m only available 2 nights and one weekend day, because of my other job.”
“I can’t work Sunday because of my religious observance.”
And from the younger people, a lot of this kind of thing:
“Did I mention that I’m going away this weekend? That’s not a problem, is it?”
etc. etc. etc.
Of course, none of these is exactly analagous to this situation, because the job I was staffing had nothing involved that someone might have a moral objection to. But it basically works out to be the same thing…heck, once I had to work around someone who was scared to use a computer! We were doing surveys on the telephone, so I could only put that person on projects that were not computerized (in those days, that was maybe about 1/2 of our workload). She was a great employee, so I worked around it. That’s what you do when you run a business…you give consideration to reasonable requests, because otherwise, you will be training new people constantly.
Yeah, but they don’t have the strength of their convictions. Hell, going even further back, if you had the strength of your convictions, you damn sure shouldn’t have gone into a field wherein you knew full well that you would be presented with situations just such as someone wanting Plan B. Or condoms. Or oral contraceptives.
Too, according to the story linked to, the manager (I believe) said that the pharmacist, “. . .had the law on his side.” I’m genuinely curious as to how a pharmacist can have the law on his side when the product in question is not a prescription. Even taking into consideration his alleged “conscientious objector” status.
Ideally, but not always. I would go so far as to say usually, as a matter of fact.
Who exactly is harmed if the pharmacy owner chooses to work around an employee who doesn’t want to dispense Plan B? I wouldn’t require the owner to work around it, but it’s actually a lot easier than the vegan at Burger King- the vegan at Burger king won’t be able to do anything for most of the shift, while the pharmacist who won’t dispense plan B could go days or weeks without the situation coming up.
That avoids the whole question of how much control the government has simply because of a licensing issue. I don’t see how that can work, since it doesn’t happen with any other profession. Doctors (even ob/gyns) don’t have to perform elective abortions just because they are licensed. They don’t even have to write Plan B prescriptions just because they are licensed. Lawyers don’t have to represent the KKK just because they have a license. Contractors are free to turn down the job at the Republican party headquarters.
It also avoids the whole “choice” question- because if I don’t believe the people who are opposed to Plan B should impose their morals on me by making it illegal, then I don’t see how I can justify imposing my morals on a pharmacist who has objections to dispensing it.
That was supposed to be my original point…if the pharmacy owner doesn’t care, why should anyone else? Whatever agreement the employee can come to with the employer is their business. For that matter, if the pharmacy owner doesn’t want to carry Plan B at all, that is his business, IMO.
That is all exactly right, or at least the way I see it, too. Rights work both ways. Who in this scenario do we want to take rights away from? Does the customer have a right to the product that overshadows the pharmacist’s right not to fill the prescription if they object? I don’t think so. You may think the pharmacist is an evil SOB. You may decide that’s the last time you darken the door of that pharmacy. That’s fine…it’s the risk the pharmacist takes, and it’s your clear right. But to force the pharmacist to dispense the drug…I don’t see a constitutional leg to stand on, there.
I think your analogies have removed a layer that is significant to the discussion. Doctors don’t have to perform elective abortions, but if they work for an organization that says they provide elective abortions, then they would be derelict in their duty if they refused. Ditto a lawyer who refused to represent the KKK if he worked for a firm that advertised they represented the KKK. Neither should have chosen to work for their respective companies.
It’s almost irrelevant what the product or service is that is morally opposed; it’s an issue of performing your job as the conditions of your employment dictate. I’m not saying pharmacies and pharmacists should be forced to dispense products they object to morally; that would be as egregious an infliction of values as denying Plan B to people. But if you’re a pharmacist and the owner of your pharmacy stocks Plan B, you have no right to keep it from customers.
A Pharmacist is a doctor, they go to school almost as long as your local MD does. Pharmacy school is 4 years long, just like Med school. You can not become a pharmacist by correspondence course, and saying that just shows you don’t know what your talking about.
As I said in the old thread, before it was disapeared, I am against any laws that would force a pharmacist to dispence a drug. There are many reasons a pharmacist would refuse to dispence a drug, like the addict trying to get a script for a controlled substance filled. There is also OTC drugs that are behind the counter for good reasons, like codine cough syrup (where its still OTC), psudoephedrine, and more.
For the record, I have no problems selling Plan B, infact I’ve sold one myself.
You have no right to keep it from the customer. You have no right to refuse to dispense it if your employer requires you to. But that has to do with losing your job, not your license. I’ve got no problem if the owner fires the pharmacist, no problem if the owner works around it, no problem if the owner doesn’t stock it and no problem if the pharmacy closes down because the customers take their business elsewhere business. My only problem is if the pharmacist loses his license, is fined or arrested.
OK, but what if the product in question didn’t exist at all before you took the job? To entertain yet another bad analogy, suppose the FDA approves Justhink Corp Mechanical Suicide Machines - and these are installed in pharmacies. Can an existing employee be ethically compelled to operate them, assuming he strongly objects?
I know what my answer would be*, but I’m curious about others.
*My answer would be that finding yourself professionally compelled to carry out an action to which you strongly morally object, the only right thing to do is to quit your job - if you don’t think it’s serious enough to warrant that course of action, you probably don’t morally object to is as strongly as you imagined
Huh? My Burger King situation would be easier. Didn’t you read what I wrote? The person could work the register or the french fry station or the drive through, or sweep the floor, or clean the restrooms, or stock the freezers, or do inventory. But Sarahfeena was originally talking about having to adjust the schedule so this hypothetical non-PlanB-dispensing person would only work certain shifts. That would take MUCH more accomodation.
That’s exactly what I was talking about. This is obviously a morality issue, not a convenience/logistics of running a business issue.
You’ve obviously never worked in a fast food restaurant or really paid attention to the people working in one. The cashier handles meat, stocking the freezer involves handling meat, the french fry station is covered either by the cashiers or the cooks (who both handle meat), the people sweeping the floor and cleaning restrooms also clean the tables (meat again), and inventory isn’t a separate job. Sure, you could have someone just clean the restrooms and sweep the floor while another cleans the tables, but they will both will be standing around doing nothing for half the shift. It only becomes that difficult to work around the pharmacist if there is only one pharmacist on duty at a time (in which case a work-around is impossible, not just difficult), or if a large proportion of the prescriptions filled involved Plan B.
This is a running a business problem- and if you’re going to have your business open for more than one shift a day, five days a week, you’ll either make some effort to accomodate scheduling requests or constantly be hiring as you lose employees to employers who will.
My local independent newspaper had a bit of information that’s relevant to this debate.
First of all, Kalhoun, you got it right the first time. Plan B doesn’t require a prescription. The article in the paper said that Planned Parenthood will be dispensing Plan B for free on Valentine’s Day. The pills are good for “several years”, so, as Sarahfeena noted in the other thread, there’s nothing to stop a person from obtaining them well before they’re ever needed. In fact, I can see some single women keeping Plan B around “just in case” the way some single men keep a condom or two around. If the occasision arises, it’s better to have it on hand and available rather than having to scramble around at the last minute. If I lived in rural area where there weren’t that many pharmacies, that would seem like an even better option.
Thanks for the update! Wouldn’t it be great if guys kept a stash around, right next to the Trojans and tampons? Now that’s every girl’s dream boyfriend!
Oh geez, seriously. This is a ridiculous debate over what employee quirks a manager might be willing to work around. Anyone who thinks that not being able to work Wednesdays or who has a moral problem with one product out of the literally tens of thousands there probably are in a drug store has obviously never managed a store of any kind.
Obviously, the manager would be within his rights to ONLY allow people whose schedules were completely open to whatever shift he or she wants them to work, and be completely inflexible about changing them around under ANY circumstances. But you would spend about 90% of your time hiring & training if this was your attitude, and that is not really a definition of a good manager.
The POINT is to the entire thing that I, personally, would consider not wanting to sell Plan B to fall under the “reasonable” category. I have no problem with Plan B myself, that’s why I have agreed to stop it at my hypothetical pharmacy. So, lowbrass, if you want to subscribe some nefarious pro-life motives to me that I don’t actually, have, I guess you can, but you are wrong.
Someone brought up earlier the point about Scientologists and drugs for mental illness. I’m not sure how many there are, or how often a pharmacy sells them, but if it was possible, I would work around that too for a good employee. And I think that teaching of Scientology is the next thing to ridiculous. So, no, it’s not MY morality that has anything to do with it.
From the bottom of your own link regarding the online course.
The Parmacy major is an exhaustive program.
That’s just the admission course work, then you have to take the full four years of courses which looks a little like this.
Here’s just one year’s worth of courses;
Also, for those unaware the course work for Pharmacy is heavy in calculus, chemistry, and biology. Not easy by any stretch.
Also to note, pharmacists will know more about toxicology and drug interaction than most doctors. It is their job to ensure that the patient be knowledgable of the drugs they recieve (counsel) and to make sure that drug interaction is controlled. They aren’t just pill counters that must do what the doctor says, not even close.
I agree with you wholeheartedly in your hypothetical case.
But this was a case where the pharmacist knew full well going in that people would be coming to anyplace he might work and would ask for things that he might feel were morally wrong. That being the case, he really should have given thought to a different line of work.
I’d never hire someone whose religious beliefs would interfere with my customer’s rights. You may choose to work around it, but to me it’s just another example of Pretendy World leaking into Reality World and making an icky mess. For those who cannot distinguish between the two, or for those who feel their religious rights trump a customer’s right to medical care, I’d advise them to get a job within the confines of Pretendy World. No one will try to stop them.