Fallacy of the excluded middle.
What have I excluded?
Let’s simplify things. Pharmacists have to be licensed, don’t they? Why is that fair? What business has the government got telling non-pharmacists they can’t dispense controlled substances?
If that’s the case, then his employer should fire him. Obviously his employer wishes to sell the product – else why order it?
I don’t think Joe should be your example here. He owns his store. why would he order the product and then not sell it?
But let’s say Joe goes to work for his brother-in-law, Steve Gets-along. Steve orders the product, stocks it, but for some reason having to do with family harmony, won’t fire Joe. When Steve works the counter, he dispenses everything; when Joe not-so-independent is on duty, he still steadfast refuses to sell.
I have no problem with that.
Now, could Joe refuse to sell to women under 25? Sure.
To interracial couples? No.
You characterize me as saying that the government has no business regulating pharmacists. I never said that.
Your question suggests that there are only two possibilities: the government may not regulate pharmacists, or the government can compel them to sell contraceptives. But there is a wide range of middle options that include regulation, but not of this subject.
For example, if you had said, “All pharmacy names must be in the form of a website address,” and I objected, your fallacy would be evident.
“Why not? Don’t you believe the government can regulate pharmacies?”
Yes, I do. But not to the extent of mandating that their business name be in the form of a website URL.
See now?
Do I really need to answer this, given what I have said above?
What is the distinction between requiring pharmacists to attend X hours of continuing education classes and requiring them to dispense birth control?
This.
I’ve heard of people in allergic shock running into drugstores to get an Epi-pen.
Well some states do, I believe, “protect the conscience” of individual employees who choose to refuse to sell the product. I think we would be in agreement that those laws are misguided.
Joe is a perfectly good example here. He has no problem with contraception for single race couples, or for women over 25. He just thinks, based on his religion, that interracial sex is a sin, and that 24 year olds will be damned to hell if they fornicate, as will he for enabling said fornication.
I guess what I am asking is not whether you think the government should require him to sell to the 24 year old woman, but if they could. You accept that a government/societal policy of reducing racial descrimination can override his personal religious beliefs here, so I was wondering what other government policies should be allowed to do that.
Pharmacists distribute prescription drugs to individuals
*Pharmacists in community pharmacies dispense medications, counsel patients on the use of prescription and over-the-counter medications, and advise physicians about medication therapy. They also advise patients about general health topics, such as diet, exercise, and stress management, and provide information on products, such as durable medical equipment or home healthcare supplies. *
From- http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos079.htm
If a doctor prescribes or recommends a legal and scientifically proven medication or treatment and a pharmacist refuses to provide it, then they are getting in the way of the doctor/patient relationship. If they are so tied to their silly superstitions, then they need to find a line of work that is more compatible with it.
You bet. And there’s ample public support and legal precedent for requiring pharmacists to dispense legally prescribed medications as part of their job.
I also think police should protect demonstrators at a legal public protest, even if they abhor those protestors’ beliefs. And religiously devout firefighters should be compelled to put out fires at the homes of atheists. And cabbies shouldn’t be permitted to refuse passengers who they think are carrying alcoholic beverages, based on their personal religious convictions. And so on.
If you want any or all of these folks (who have in common belonging to highly regulated professions) exempted from certain job duties based on personal beliefs, try to get those exemptions codified into law. You’ll face plenty of well-founded opposition.
Well, not necessarily. Pharmacists are required to check for adverse drug interactions and allergies and so on that the prescribing physician may have missed, and can (and should) refuse to fill such prescriptions.
As a person who helped people apply for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War, this is not an open and shut case for me. Personal stances on abortion galvanize the debate, so think of other cases like vegans having to sell products made by killing animals, or Muslims having to dispense vaccines made from pigs, or people who oppose sex-selective abortion of girls having to sell a kit that consists of a test for sex packaged with an abortificant. It becomes even more complicated when it is the owner who has the views, Can we force a pharmacy to carry a drug made cruelly from animals if there is alternative medicine that is just as effective?
I’m not sure what the right answer is. We could say you can’t own a pharmacy if you aren’t willing to carry certain classes of drugs, but what if this means that a small town will not have a pharmacy at all?
The employee issue is a little more clear to me. If the store is large enough that a reasonable accommodation can be made, then I think it’s OK to require a pharmacy to do so. If it is too small to have more than one person on a shift, then there is no reasonable accommodation.
It seems to me that any protection of religious belief or practice in the workplace should be limited to the extent that the employee can perform his or her duties, allowing for reasonable accomodation.
If I ran the world, employees in scenarios such as these would be protected:
[ul]
[li]Kathy is a devout Seventh-Day Adventist who eats no meat in order to observe her religion’s prohibition against consuming blood. She works in a restaurant that serves that Polish delicacy, soup thickened with duck’s blood. She would never eat the soup herself, but she’ll bring it to the table when it’s ordered. If her table orders a meal heavy on the blood products, she’ll swap with another server if she can. She’s trying to get a job in a nearby vegetarian restaurant where she doesn’t have to deal with this.[/li][li]Patrick is a devout Catholic. In keeping with the teachings of his religion, he and his wife do not use any contraceptive devices or substances. He is a pharmacist in the pharmacy department of a busy, popular chain store. He works the day shift, with at least one other pharmacist and a couple of pharmacy techs. He’s uncomfortable knowing that he may be dispensing contraceptives to other Catholics (particularly people he recognizes from church), so when such a request comes in, he hands it off to one of the other staff if he can (he trades off with Janelle, who’s freaked out by needles and doesn’t like dispensing them to diabetics). On occasions when the other pharmacist is away, he takes care of the contraceptive prescriptions as well, telling himself that the customer is ultimately responsible for deciding whether or not to use the products, and therefore responsible for any sin that might be committed.[/li][/ul]
These employees would not be protected:
[ul]
[li]Laurel is a devout Seventh-Day Adventist who eats no meat in order to observe her religion’s prohibition against consuming blood. She works in a restaurant that serves that Polish delicacy, soup thickened with duck’s blood. She would never eat the soup herself, and refuses to serve the dish if one of her tables orders it. Usually another server will notice and bring the dish out for her, but this doesn’t always work. This results in soup being brought to the table late or after it’s gotten cold, and this, in turn, pisses off the customers.[/li][li]Joe is a devout Catholic. In keeping with the teachings of his religion, he and his wife do not use any contraceptive devices or substances. He is a pharmacist in the pharmacy department of a busy, popular chain store. He works the day shift, with at least one other pharmacist and a couple of pharmacy techs. He’s uncomfortable knowing that he may be dispensing contraceptives to other Catholics (particularly people he recognizes from church), so when such a request comes in, he sets it aside for someone else to handle; if the prescription belongs to someone in his congregation, he’ll take the opportunity to remind them of the teachings of their shared belief system. On occasions when the other pharmacist is away, he sets all contraceptive prescriptions aside on the assumption that the night shift will take care of them. This means that customers can’t simply wait around for their prescriptions to be ready, and often means they need to come back another day.[/li][/ul]
What the hell does conscientious objector status have to do with it? Nobody is sent to pharmacy school at gunpoint.
Being a pharmacist doesn’t mean you give up all rights of conscience. Do all Drs perform abortions just because they are able? Now, I disagree with the the pharmacists’ decisions, but it’s not clear that they should be required to dispense a drug they don’t agree with morally.
It is a problem for a small isolated town, and I’d like to see if there are ways to address that, but in general, I don’t like the idea of forcing people in specific professions to drop all of their moral objections. Government service is one thing, but a pharmacists isn’t a public employee.
Nope - not all Doctors perform abortions, but I would have no moral issues with a law requiring them to. I think I would have practical issues with it, on the basis that it woudl reduce the number of available doctors.
Don’t want to dispense prescription drugs? Don’t become a pharmacist. Seems simple to me.
Regarding Joe Independent, I think that if it’s not a law that a liscensed pharmacy should stock and fill legal prescriptions, it should be. If they don’t do this they are deliberately providing a public disservice and there’s no reason the government should support them via a liscence.
I think that if Joe refuses to stock and sell over-the-counter contraceptives, he’s a douche. But that should be legal. And all right-thinking people should boycott the bastard.
And any employee who goes against his employer’s wishes by refusing to sell an inventory item that the store is stocking with intent to sell should be fired.
Well, where do you draw the line? Should an emergency physician be allowed to deny care to a criminal?
I think I want to become an emergency room doctor, but I don’t like children much. I think I’ll just refuse to treat anyone under the age of 18.
Well, if the debate were “Villa, if you were king of the world, would you make doctors perform abortions and pharmacists dispense contraceptives and abortifacients?”, then this remark would be interesting and/or relevant.
As it happens, the real debate is how to square (1)(a) a person’s liberty interest in choosing an occupation that he is qualified for, (1)(b) a person’s First Amendment right to free exercise of his religion, and (2) the public’s interest in ensuring access to medicines that occupy a place of controversy.
Frankly, it does not seem to me that the supposed ill-effects of allowing conscientious refusal to dispense has occasioned enough of a social harm (which seems to be a real but slight burden involving finding another pharmacist*) to justify abridgment of the rights/interests listed as (1) above.
But perhaps you can show that your rule represents the most narrowly tailored approach to advancing an important state interest, the test required for overcoming limitations on free exercise rights and fundamental liberty interests.
- There is no such thing as a right not to have to go to multiple drug stores or a liberty interest in pharmaceutical convenience.