[url=blowero]Not only that, but putting the condom on properly helps too…
[/quote]
Now ya tell me. 
Shodan, very few people are arguing that the phamacist should be forced to do something against his moral code. The problem is:
a. these guys are picking and chosing which of their moral codes to follow.
b. People with extra privledges have a responsibility beyond themselves.
The morning after pill is not an abortion. If you consider that an abortion then any method of preventing conception can be.
Forget the abortion…that’s just the tip…where does it end? I decide that sex is only for reproduction, therefor you don’t need vigara because you’re wife’s too old to conceive. Is that okay? Because it’s what I believe.
You don’t deserve high blood pressure medicine because I saw you eat at MacDonalds. Sorry, that’s what I believe.
I’m a PETA supporter and won’t sell anything that’s been tested on animals, sorry no meds for you. It’s what I believe.
Where do YOU draw the line, between public service and personal liberty? Does the line end at “abortion” or is there no line at all? Is the line determined SOLELY based on religion? I don’t have a religion, do I have a say or do I have to follow orders?
There are certain jobs that require the submersion of ones personal beliefs in order to serve the public. You understand that going in, if not then find a position that allows you to live with yourself. Don’t penalize other people, whose lives you are unwilling to completely co-op, but through your actions, screw up.
I didn’t read that this pharmacist was willing to help raise and support this woman’s child, if she fell pregnant.
- The morming after pill is not a prescribed medication. It’s available OTC.
- Under British Law, a pharmacist is legally allowed to withold sale on moral grounds.
- It wasn’t their job prior to 2001 when the drug was introduced.
- Poicemen are employed by the state to uphold the law. Pharmacists are not.
From coverage of a case a while back, I did hear that Wal-Mart will not dispense the 4 or 8 estrogen pill pack known as the Morning After Pill because someone at corporate level believes it to be an abortifacient. Doctors have gotten around this by prescribing a one month supply to a patient and giving the patient very explicit instructions about which pills to take, how many, and when.
It sounds like the issue of the pharmacist is already settled. His company’s cool with it and apparently so is the law. Why are we still arguing? 
Because we’re Dopers. 
You… don’t have a Wal-mart? :eek: How weird.
You know, as someone who completely supports this woman’s right to her medication, I can’t get behind legislating that this pharmacist must sell her the pill.
I can get behind attacking this chain for standing behind employees who don’t fulfill their job requirements and subject their patrons to embarrassment and discomfort.
This place should be called on their horrible customer service. An employee should NOT be able to send you to another store for something that’s sitting 10 feet behind them.
I’m not saying that the gentleman should ignore his religious leanings and hand it to her with a smile, but a simple, “I’d be happy to help you, I’ll be with you in a moment!” before he slips into the back of the pharmacy to ask another pharmacist to handle this particular request would be the appropriate thing to do.
There is no reason to allow this customer to see a moral disconnect between you and your job expectations. That’s just tactless, horrible customer service right there.
Hey, I learned it the hard way.
Nope, there ain’t none in the Big Apple. Although we got us some K-Marts!
Everything you said is true. In Britain. I was just trying to introduce an American wrinkle into the situation. So as to your numbers 2 and 4, in America, the pharmacist is a licensed professional, and must serve the public equally.
And Zev, I agree that a barber doesn’t have to give someone a Mohawk if he can’t do one. Isn’t this obvious? :smack: But if he can give someone a crewcut, he can’t arbitrarily say, “Oh, I see you’re a Bush supporter. No crewcuts for you. Next!”
Quote from Zev: Just because a person provides a service or good doesn’t mean that they have to provide every form of that service or good.
That’s not my point at all. Of course you can’t force someone to carry the New York Times and the Washington Post. But you can’t arbitrarily say that you won’t sell them what you do have!
I agree with BwanaBob’s post entirely.
And sorry Shodan, the substitution of “soldier” works. Especially when it’s an all-volunteer army, as we have in the US. A soldier doesn’t get to decide which valid orders he carriers out. That’s a little thing called mutiny. If the soldier has some conscientious objection to something, then that’s what the soldier should be - a conscientious objector.
See, as I see it, the difference here (and by here, I do mean the US) is that the pharmacist is licensed by the government. That makes all the difference in the world. As someone upthread pointed out, a Christian Scientist pharmacist would not work - he wouldn’t sell any drugs to anyone. It just doesn’t work that way. It’s a little thing we call separation of church and state.
You keep making this assertion without any proof whatsoever. Please provide same.
I would think it would be pretty obvious that you can’t arbitrarily discriminate against someone, but if you wan’t proof:
It’s a SCOTUS case, I believe called the Heart of Atlanta v. Katzenbach, from 1965. It was about a motel that refused to let black people stay. They found that this was discriminatory, and within the power of the federal government to regulate due to its effect on interstate commerce.
How does refusal to sell a particular product to everyone (note, the pharmacist was not discriminating who he would sell the pill to, from all reports) hinder interstate commerce, again?
Hey, I don’t write the opinions, I just have to live by them. SCOTUS said, generally, that if “common carriers”, like motels, are allowed to discriminate, then, en masse, the effect would be to discourage black people from travelling. Obviously, if there’s no place for them to stay, they won’t come, and interstate commerce is affected.
The SCOTUS jurisprudence has extended this line of thinking to just about anything you can conceive of. Except when it came to federally mandated drug-free zones of 1000 feet around schools. SCOTUS said that the commerce clause couldn’t be stretched that far.
I agree, the pharmacist isn’t discriminating here - as you point out, he’s refusing to sell a product his store carries to anyone. Here, the application is that because he receives his license from the government (even though it’s a state government), he has to sell whatever he has. Or at least, that’s what I think. I don’t know if there’s case law on this.
As I pointed out, if a Christian Scientist were a licensed pharmacist, that person would have to set aside religion and sell whatever the store carried, because of the licensing!
If the store chooses not to carry it in the first place, that’s a different question, and one I’m frankly, not prepared to answer! See above, where I ask about what will happen if Walmart refuses to carry RU486.
Can Walmart legally refuse to carry a drug that’s been approved by the FDA? I don’t think they can, but then again, as Zev keeps pointing out, the government can’t make Walmart carry every drug in existence!
Notably, however, the FDA doesn’t approve drugs for a purpose; they just certify that it’s safe. So, for example, if Prozac helps men get erections, doctors can prescribe it to treat erectile dysfunction. So RU486 is not approved as an “abortion pill”; it’s just approved, period. (Oops, bad unintentional pun there.)
This is a riot. OK, just to give you something to do, can you provide a cite for this extremely interesting assertion?
What body orifice are you pulling these contentions from? I’ll retract this question, if (again) you can actually provide a cite.
There are doctors in the U.S. (who know how to perform abortions) who are licensed but still refuse to perform abortions based on morals. Are you saying that because you (as a pharmacist) are licensed, you have to throw your morals to the dogs because he’s dealing with the public? If this pharmacist refused to fill this woman’s prescription, don’t you think he’ll treat the rest of the public “equally” by not filling the same prescription with anyone else in the public? If the pharmacist does give someone prescription A, and then withholds the same prescription from someone else, then you may have something…A “possible” discrimination case.
Substitution Does Not Work. Soldiers sign a contract with their government to serve their country. Soldiers that do not adhere to that contract are in breach of said contract. Pharmacists do not sign a contract with the government to serve their country. They are merely licensed to operate in the state under state/federal guidelines that are nowhere near as stringent as a soldier’s obligation to serve their country…come on, give a soldier more credit than that!
Licensed to operate in that capacity, yes. Under contract to follow explicit orders of the government and their superiors, no.
Church and State has NOTHING to do with it. You don’t have to be religious to refuse dispensing said prescription. The pharmacy is not federally/state owned, either. Separation of Church and State does not extend to privately-owned (or shareholder) businesses.
Provide specific credible cites to refute this. I double dog dare ya!
Refusing only black people to stay…discriminating.
Refusing all people to stay…not discriminating. Not good business, but legal.
The latter applies to this thread.
To answer the OP, I think it would be better if pharmacists didn’t have the choice of refusing to dispense medicine. And everyone would be happy.
Yeah, I was trying to think of an analogy to this, but couldn’t really come up with anything.
Maybe if I work for a video rental/tanning business. I’m a clerk there. For whatever reason, I don’t want to deal with the tanning part of the business. The owner knows this, and doesn’t mind, so whenever I’m there working by myself, no one can use the tanning beds. Now, I realize this isn’t good business practice, but I don’t think it’s illegal.
Um, no, everyone wouldn’t. Starting with, oh, let’s say, the pharmacist who would prefer not todispense the medicine.