You mean, like being a counselor for a Catholic agency who advises girls about abortion alternatives? Yes, I would not argue if such an employee got an abortion and was subsequently fired. Neither should she.
So how do you deal with the whack job who “confiscates” the prescription, or refuses to provide a referral? It’s theft I think. These pharmacists are worried about their right to refuse service to a customer, a service that has pretty much always been an understood part of their job. What about the rights of the customer to obtain those items that were prescribed by a doctor, which may also be an absolute necessity? How about women who’ve been told they would not survive another pregnancy? How about women who were pregnant because some scumbag attacked them? How about the young couple who just can’t afford a child because they are just starting out in life, and want to wait until they can give it the life it deserves? All this is none of the pharmacist’s business. Likewise, it should not be in his authority to arbitrarily deny these things.
Is it that everyone is equal, but pharmacists are suddenly more equal?
There have been pharmacies for a long long time. I think it’s strange and suspicious that suddenly all these guys have a 'conscience", over things they have already been doing for years - if it was that tough, they should have quit years ago. I smell a rat.
If you don’t want to do the job, and fill the prescription, look for other lines of work.
If someone took on a job with said company and was stupid enough to agree to those terms of employment at the outset, then got an abortion anyway, then yes, she should face certain consequences for having violated the terms of her employment.
Same for a pharmacist working for a pharmacy. If a pharmacist says, “I agree to distribute drugs to the public as their prescriptions and doctors’ orders require,” then that pharmacist should distribute drugs as prescriptions and doctors’ orders require. They can’t decide which prescriptions are necessary and which aren’t for their patrons based upon their moral beliefs. If they feel that BCPs are immoral, that’s their right to believe that. I don’t happen to believe that, though, and neither does my doctor, so a pharmacy that carries and distributes contraceptives damn well better be able to provide me with someone willing to give them to me.
Oh, and Theobroma, I know it’s not my thread, but thanks for your input! I wasn’t aware there were so many other options for pharmacists.
Since you’ve gotten back to pharmacists a bit, I again wish to reiterate that I completely do not grasp how one can equate contraception to abortion (rendering your first two sentences meaningless to me). And to state that the woman’s rights are indeed interfered with, do not continue untouched, and are potentially stopped by refusal. And I don’t mean abortion here. I mean birth control. Contraception. Significantly short of abortion except by the most far-reaching of definitions. Aside from the listed “small town” examples so far, as well as any other limited-availabilty examples we could cook up, denying birth control to women who have been determined to have a valid medical reason (whether it be hormone therapy, acne, or prevention of pregnancy (which itself can carry a broad range of reasons from blood problems that will likely kill the woman and with it the fetus, to simple “I don’t want to get pregnant at this point in my life”)) is really problem enough. As I said in my first post to the thread, the pharmacist is a third party. A dispensary. They are a middle man between the doctor’s substantial medical training and the execution in the patient’s interests, which are none of the business of the pharmacist to inquire or assume. And as others have pointed out, the pharmacist knows full well while going through pharmacy education and training that various birth control drugs/devices will be on the list of prescriptions he will be all but guaranteed to need to dispense, and in this case on a regular basis.
Again I’ll state that pharmacists would assist in contraception, not abortions. Pharmacists, male or female, do not have any worry about obtaining contraception (or abortions). Supplying, yes. Obtaining, no. (Definition: To succeed in gaining possession of as the result of planning or endeavor; acquire.) As to assisting a customer in obtaining contraception, it should be no different than assisting a customer in obtaining arthritis medicine or prescription hemorrhoid cream. The pharmacist is a dispensary who necessarily had to know the primary role of his job is to dispense prescribed medication when he signed on. This is black and white. No gray, no space for conscientious objectorship.
Shodan, it’s seeming more and more like maybe you and I are on the same side of the fence. Only you’re about ten miles downstream. On preview, overlyverbose and I are sharing a picnic.
While this is easy for you, and frankly, I am jealous, major pharmacy chains are giving their employees the latitude to object, so it’s not as easy for me. What is your answer, close them all? Don’t you expect a cop to have discression in writing a ticket? The law is certainly less ambiguous there.
But the only people who can really make that decision (i.e., what the “job” entails) are the employer and perhaps the state boards.
I would be against legislation saying that you cannot fire a pharmacist who refuses to give out the pill. Where do other people stand?
Well, I am a big time libertarian (small l) who thinks that the guy who signs the paychecks calls the shots.
I actually had a job interview with Catholic Charities last fall and one thing they made clear during the interview was their position on birth control and other social issues. While nothing explicit was said, I understood that their health plan would not cover birth control and it would be a good idea if I kept my pro-choice and pro-birth control opinions to myself. I was actually seriously considering the ramifications of getting involved in debates on abortion here if I’d been hired. I never mentioned my views on those particular subjects, although I did voice my support for other things they do. The point is, if Catholic Charities had hired this Episcopalian, I would have adhered to their views in public, especially in any situation where I might conceivably be seen as representing Catholic Charities. I don’t know if that’s what they require; I do know it’s what my own professionalism requires.
I also know this has been going on for a while. Several years ago, a friend of mine asked her doctor for a prescription for birth control pills after the birth of her second child. His response was “This is a good Christian practice. We don’t do that.” Her response was a bit politer than mine would have been; I would have asked for a referral to a good Pagan one! :eek:
Here’s the rub. If I’m going in for birth control, I’ve already made my decision about what is or is not moral. It’s none of the pharmacist’s damn business. Frankly, I consider using reliable birth control a lot more moral and responsible than doing without and risking bringing a child one is unable to care for into the world. I’ll also point out that emergency contraception isn’t just used for one night stands; a case was recently Pitted here in which a pharmacist refused to dispense it to a woman who had been raped. Now, I’ve never been raped, but I suspect that, if I were, it would leave me in a rather foul and desperate move. To imply that I am somehow less than moral by taking steps to limit the damage done by my rapist by making sure that I do not get pregnant seems pretty likely to move me to rather spectacular heights of outrage.
I’m sorry, but if your job requires you do things you believe are immoral, I suggest you find another job. If you enjoy pushing your morals on other people as part of the job, I suggest you find work as a priest or, possibly, counselor. In either case, I would also suggest other people who don’t share your morals avoid doing business with you.
CJ
Good for you. If you can be preceived as a spokesperson, that is admirable.
You should ask just that. It’s good that you would have respected the doctors views. It’s admirable to seek someone with your own views.
No, it’s not the pharmcists opinion that matters to you. It’s what matters to the pharmacist. Why do you think that the pharmacist searched his or her own soul regarding this matter less than you did? What if I asked the following, “You are obviously an adult, have you considered abstaining?” Is that me being a busybody, or someone trying to address the underlying cause? Do I care more or less because I ask?
I agree. What is the ratio of women seeking EC for rape vs. bad decision making?
I need more detail here. I should quit my job because it makes you feel bad when I express my morals? Not sure what it is that you do, but we can talk…
In other threads, many of you felt perfectly comfortable with the idea that a company can fire people for doing things on their own time, which the boss man doesn’t like - smokers can get fired - OK. Overweight people can be fired - OK. Democrats or Republicans can be fired. Things which do NOT have the potential of causing harm to someone else.
But now, with the pharmacists, we have a case where these individuals are in a nutshell refusing to do their job. A refusal which in the most extreme case could cause death. But it’s not OK to fire them.
I have to call BULLSHIT on someone but have no frigging clue where to start. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
But is it part of the job, Shodan?
Discrimination on what would normally be unacceptable grounds IS permissible if you can show the behaviour in question is a geniune, bona fide occupational requirement. As an example, here in Canada, a lawsuit was brought against a utility company by a Sikh who said the company discriminated against him for firing him for not wearing a hardhat, since as a Sikh he must wear a turban. The result; He lost. The court felt wearing a hardhat is a legitimate occupational requirement, and thatthe company was reasonable in mandating such basic safety equipment. But when a similar suit was brough against the RCMP (who tried to force people to wear those Stetson chapeaus) the suit won, since there’s nothing about wearing a Stetson that is really necessary to be a cop.
So, can you show that Company X’s requirement to not have an abortion is a legitimate, bona fide part of the job’s duties? (Theobroma presents one possibility where it might be.) If so, I would heartily agree that it should be permissible. (You’ve presented a damned slim example though, since having an abortion will almost never be something that actually interferes with you doing any job I can think of. But maybe I’m not thinking hard enough.)
In the case of the OP, dispensing prescriptions is pretty much the reason pharmacists EXIST, and birth control is a commonly dispensed product. A pharmacist who refuses to dispense birth control is about as useful as one who refuses to dispense penicillin or blood pressure control medication.
See my above post. Apparently, it’s OK to fire people for things that have jack shit to do with the job. It’s just not OK to fire people who refuse to do their job.
I have to throw this in:
How is filling a prescription assisting in obtaining abortions, unless the pharmacist is force feeding the pill to them? Remember my conservative friend, “Pills don’t cause abortions, people do.”
How far do you want to take this? If an employee of a pharmaceutical company is morally against this, should they be allowed to replace the active ingredients of the pill with filler, in order to not assist in an “abortion”? If that’s okay, can they do the same with AIDS cocktail drugs, since they don’t want to help them homosexuals?
Depends on whose body is in question, doesn’t it? Seems obvious, but maybe it isn’t, that the body’s owner’s morality trumps some random stranger’s in regard to what’s done with it. YMMV, but I can’t see how.
[MP&HG]
“Consult the Book of Pharmaceuticals!”
[/MP&HG]
Again, read the OP, which made reference to “morning after” pills. This often refers to use of standard birth control pills in dosages that, when taken up to 72 hours after intercourse, suppress ovulation (if it has not yet occurred), and also tend to prevent implantation of a zygote (if fertilization has occurred) in the uterus. Since many people consider that life begins at conception, this prevention of implantation is considered an abortion.
That’s what I have been discussing. There have been several attempts to short circuit the discussion by simply asserting that prevention of implantation is birth control rather than abortion. Which does not help, since the topic under discussion is whether or not people should be allowed to make up their own minds on the subject, rather than have someone else’s definition forced upon them.
There I am afraid you are simply mistaken, in my opinion.
There is a right to decide for yourself about abortion. There is none to decide for someone else. Your right to decide about abortion is violated only when steps are taken to prevent you from getting or assisting in an abortion if you want to, or forcing you to get or assist in one if you don’t. The women involved have every right to get an abortion. They have no right to force anyone else to participate, even by filling a prescription for a drug to induce abortion.
The pharmacists have the right to refuse to act. They have no right to prevent others from acting. (Which is why refusing to return the prescription slip was wrong.) The women seeking abortions have the right to act. They have no right to force others to act on their behalf. Thus a doctor who found abortion morally offensive could not be forced to perform one, even if that meant that obtaining the abortion was thereby made more difficult. Same for a pharmacist.
This includes, in my view, referring the patient to someone else or another pharmacy. People have the right to refuse to be involved in abortion at all, or to be compelled to do so.
And just saying “it’s part of your job” doesn’t establish anything. This simply passes the responsibility for deciding away from the individual, as the Supreme Court seems to be saying it belongs, and off to a higher authority. And, for those who didn’t read my spoiler, this does not solve very much.
Maybe interrogating prisoners was “part of the job” at Abu Gharib. That doesn’t excuse the ones involved from moral responsibility. Etc.
That’s exactly the question. Is it? Should it be? And should this be enforced, regardless of the extremely personal and private nature of the decision, as the Supreme Court is saying?
I would not include the state boards. Such licensing organizations are agents of the state, I would say, and since the Supreme Court seems to be saying that the state has no role in determining whether or not abortion is moral, state agencies cannot do this either.
If, in fact, pharmacists’ licensing bureaus are agents of the state. I don’t know for sure. A friend of mine used to serve on the licensing bureau for veterinarians, and he was appointed by the governor. I imagine it is similar for pharmacists.
You’re kidding, right?
I guess if you don’t see how providing the drug that brings about the abortion is assisting in abortion, making it clearer is beyond my rhetorical powers.
See my earlier post about withholding the scrip.
It’s the difference between acting, and refusing to act.
Maybe a bartender thinks you are drunk. He is entirely free to refuse to serve you. He is not free to break into your house and smash your liquor bottles.
Regards,
Shodan
I see you continue to make this assertion, after it’s been pointed out to you that your cite doesn’t say what you claim.
And the pharmacist isn’t trying to decide for someone else, or to at least make it more difficult for them to make a decision he objects to?
At any rate, it still comes down to the basics: the pharmacist can decide for himself, by working in a place that doesn’t sell oral contraceptives.
If you feel your employer is doing the devil’s work, enabling murder, then you leave that evil place, shaking the dust off your sandals as you go, and you get the word out about the evil they’re committing.
But is he free to serve or withhold liquor by some arbitrary standard unrelated to intoxication or legal drinking age? For instance, can he refuse to serve people who attend churches that regard drinking as immoral?
I’d like to alter that question a hair: can he take a job as a bartender, then refuse to serve anything but milk or water because alcohol and caffeine are immoral?