Revisiting the pharmacist/birth control script refusal debate (sort of)

[Figment]

No its' not up to the employer. I think there are some 20 states that have laws that protect the pharamcist from repercussions from their employer fro refusing to fill BC.

ok, then...60% of the time it is up to yhe employer, & you have no say. 40% of the time the state has decided you have no say. Either way, you have no say.

 

[DisDuck]

figment.. I think you misunderstood what was said about state law. Those states have laws that says the pharmacist CAN REFUSE without any retrobution from the employer. So in those states the employer does not have a 60% say. The employer has Zero say. If that employee is causing loss of business tough luck!

 

[Figment]

But you can't take a job and expect it to cater to your religion.

But, and this has been my point the entire time, if your boss allows you to use your moral code in these cases, you have the right to. What the customer says is irrelevant...unless, of course, it starts to hit the pocket of the owner too hard. The market will decide how long these people can put their moral agenda 1st.

 

[Figment]

figment.. I think you misunderstood what was said about state law. Those states have laws that says the pharmacist CAN REFUSE without any retrobution from the employer. So in those states the employer does not have a 60% say. The employer has Zero say. If that employee is causing loss of business tough luck!

no, i undersdtand. you said in 20 or so states, the law is a pharmacist can refuse without repercussions...that is 40% of the time. in 30 states (60%) of the time, the employer has the final say. If the employer agrees to let the pharmacist make this decision, than the customer still has no say in the matter. In the end, 40% of the time the state says the customer has no say, and 60% of the time the employer has the say, not the customer.

 

[Charade]

You keep using the term "moral code." What is so moral or ethical about sending a woman out there without birth control? When someone is practicing moral behaviour aren't they supposed to be concerned with the masses as oposed to what makes them feel moral? In my opinion, it is immoral behaviour to send someone out there unprepared.

IMO, there is nothing imorral about refusing to dispense BC. Get your BC somewhere else or from another pharmacist in that store.

Is this a catch-22? You think it's immoral for a pharmacist to refuse despensing BC but you have no problem forcing them to do so against their moral beliefs or telling them to find another career. Seems kinda unfair doesn't it?

As I stated before, I'm not against BC. In fact, I'm all for it. I'm just defending the pharmacists right to do so.

What if you owned a store and refused to sell cigarettes to anyone because you think it's immoral to contribute to someone hurting themselves. Should you be forced to sell cigarettes because "how dare you" pass judgment on what someone wants to do with their body?

Wanna smoke? Get your cigs somewhere else.

 

[Charade]

So it's a matter of degree? How much of your job do you feel you should be allowed to refuse to do for personal reasons? 20%? 50%? 90%? And who gets to decide? Should you get your full pay if you aren't doing your full job?

I don't think you should take a job that you aren't willing to do.

It can certainly be a matter of degree. Whatever arrangement you make is between you and your employer. I don't agree that an employee should be able to decide on thier own though.

Employees and employers make all sorts of arrangments that are outside of the normal job description. It probably happens more than you know.

If my employer asked me to do something that I knew was dangerous or completely unethical (against my morals), I have the right to refuse. Whether my right is legally protected is another matter.

 

[Charade]

Charade.. What is your take on the fact that in some states there are laws to protect a pharmacist from his/her employer as regards NOT DISPENSING medications based on religious principals? Is this something a state should do? that is put itself inbetween the employer/employee relationship. With this in mind if a pharmacy is lossing business, ie. income, over its pharmacists refusal then why should not that 'owner' have the right to terminate employment.

What makes this different than other labor laws?

I'm on the fence as to whether or not this should be protected by law.

In regards to a law that requires companies to allow employees to exclude some tasks because of personal moral issues with the side effect of driving away some business...

What about minimum wage? People want the minimum wage raised but don't seem too concerned how that will affect the employers ability to meet that requirement and still stay in business (or keep all his current employees).

Or do we tell them, "if you can't afford to pay what *we* think you should pay, don't start a busniess"?

 

[DisDuck]

Well, I guess I see it as the slippery slope issue at what point do 'we' stop interfering with the operation of one's business. As for minimum wage, at one time I was against it (being a libertarian) and thought it did hurt businesses. But recent statistics that I have seen presented does not show any long term impairment. Short term, a small business might lay off/cut back hours but then finds that reduced staffing hurts more than increase in pay. Logically this actually sounds right to me. If I cut back staff then I may be reducing the service level to my customers with 'loss of income' greater than having to pay increased wages. It's sort of a damned/not damned scenerio. I would rather err on side of paying 'good' wages as I think that has a more positive impact on business in general for the long haul. Giving employees safe haven over 'immoral service' I think of as a big negative in the long haul.

 

[Charade]

Giving employees safe haven over 'immoral service' I think of as a big negative in the long haul.

I sort of agree but it really should be first an foremost between the employer and employee as to what job duties could be negotiated if there is a conflict.

The touchy part of this is religion.

 

[DisDuck]

Yes, it is definitely something that should be between employer/employee even if it is religion. They can negotiate where another pharmacist handles those items and at the least the scrip must be returned. These types of negotiations go on all the time. Some people cannot work on certain days, etc. Buth states should not make laws to protect employees. This is interfering too much.

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Yes, it is definitely something that should be between employer/employee even if it is religion. They can negotiate where another pharmacist handles those items and at the least the scrip must be returned. These types of negotiations go on all the time. Some people cannot work on certain days, etc. Buth states should not make laws to protect employees. This is interfering too much.

I have to wonder though, how one who is so opposed to women being on BCP (or whatever "immoral" presrciption they are uncomfortable with) is going to feel comfortable working for a company that deals in such medications.

Will they be allowed to stand behind the counter making nasty comments at the consumer having the script filled by the pharmacist next to them?

 

[DisneyVillain]

I don't agree that an employee should be able to decide on thier own though.

I very much doubt that these pharmacists are telling their employers before they take the job they they will only dispense prescriptions that fit their personal view of right and wrong.

 

[6_Time_Momma]

Someone referred to the rhythem method earlier on this thread. You may as well be practicing reproductive roulette. It is about what percentage effective?

I didn't see the post you are referring to, but if they were referring strictly to the old rhythm/calendar method, not very effective. If they were referring to natural family planning (which many people call rhythm method), then about 98-99% effective when used correctly.

 

[DisneyVillain]

What if you owned a store and refused to sell cigarettes to anyone because you think it's immoral to contribute to someone hurting themselves. Should you be forced to sell cigarettes because "how dare you" pass judgment on what someone wants to do with their body?

This discussion isn't about the owner of the store that doesn't want to sell cigarettes. It's about the recent high school graduate working the register at the store where the owner has decided that he DOES want to sell cigarettes.

 

[ncgolfer]

I think the disagreement in this thread stems from the following:

Many people think they have a "RIGHT" to receive/purchase medication. No where are you guaranteed the right to medication. We just happen to live in a country where there are pharmacies offering to sell you the medicine. So by not filling a prescription a pharmacist is not stifling your rights as you have none to receive the medication. He is stifling you convenience by not filling the script and forcing you to go somewhere else.

Keeping the script unless the pharmacist believed it was forged or counterfit was defintely wrong and he should be punished accordingly.

Will pharmacies who employ pharmacist who make these decisions probably lose business, etc.. They probably will, but it is within there rights to do so.

 

[ncgolfer]

Sorry double post

 

[chobie]

I think the disagreement in this thread stems from the following:

Many people think they have a "RIGHT" to receive/purchase medication. No where are you guaranteed the right to medication. We just happen to live in a country where there are pharmacies offering to sell you the medicine. So by not filling a prescription a pharmacist is not stifling your rights as you have none to receive the medication. He is stifling you convenience by not filling the script and forcing you to go somewhere else.

Keeping the script unless the pharmacist believed it was forged or counterfit was defintely wrong and he should be punished accordingly.
Will pharmacies who employ pharmacist who make these decisions probably lose business, etc.. They probably will, but it is within there rights to do so.

The problem many of us have is with state legislators passing laws to force pharmacies to keep people employed who lose them business by refusing to fill scripts based on their whims. Their rights are being put above the rights of the consumers and the business owner.

 

[ncgolfer]

The problem many of us have is with state legislators passing laws to force pharmacies to keep people employed who lose them business by refusing to fill scripts based on their whims. Their rights are being put above the rights of the consumers and the business owner.

I don't disagree with that point.

 

[DisneyVillain]

The largest professional organization for pharmacists is the American Pharmacists' Assocation. They support the pharmacists' right to not dispense when they have moral objections, BUT there must other procedures in place for the patient to receive the medication, AND they state that:

"When the profession’s policy is implemented correctly--and proactively--it is seamless to the patient, and the patient is not aware that the pharmacist is stepping away from the situation."

 

[Charade]

I very much doubt that these pharmacists are telling their employers before they take the job they they will only dispense prescriptions that fit their personal view of right and wrong.

You know this for fact? Or is it just a WAG?