Culture wars in the corner drugstore

[SmarterThanYou]

Then you are being deliberately disingenuous and ignoring moral implications to simplify a more complex issue in an attempt to make others look foolish. This will not work here.

You are also deliberately ignoring other ideas that would insure the right of both the pharmacists and the patient/patients in order to proscribe that they folllow your sense of moral values over those that they believe.

so, would I, as a drugstore owner, be in the right if I were to fire a pharmacist because they refused to dispense a drug that I wish to stock?

 

[no1tovote4]

wasnt it just a few weeks ago, maybe longer, that there was a mildly stormy discussion about christian owned business's should be able to hire only christians? So if a drugstore business dispenses morning after pills, shouldnt they be allowed to only hire pharmacists who will dispense it? or does that not count since we're talking about abortion.

That was part of my solution, you clearly have not read enough of the thread to have a valid opinion for participation when you don't even know the stance of the participants that have previously been explained.

 

[no1tovote4]

so, would I, as a drugstore owner, be in the right if I were to fire a pharmacist because they refused to dispense a drug that I wish to stock?

If it were a requirment of employment openly stated at the beginning, yes you would.

 

[Mr. P]

They do not verify with a Doc, often they are forced by law to overrule the Doc and send the patient back for a different prescription. ....

All I can refer to is personal experience...in the store..
I've seen pharmacist call the Doc many times in my life to verify a script. I have never seen a person sent back to the Doc..by a pharmacist. Not saying it can't happen, but I for one would find another place to do business..another office visit cost $$..a phone call, which is what I've witnessed doesn't cost me a cent.

Not only that but if I go to store A, then B and C..that pharmacist has know idea about my medical
history..and thus I am NOT their patient..as I've said, they are there to count pills and fill a script. *yes they have legal duties...but practicing Medicine is not one of them*

 

[SmarterThanYou]

That was part of my solution, you clearly have not read enough of the thread to have a valid opinion for participation when you don't even know the stance of the participants that have previously been explained.

I know that there are some mixed views, not just two. I'm looking for the reasoning and logic some people have that feel its ok to discriminate based on ones beliefs, as long as its the same beliefs they have.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

If it were a requirment of employment openly stated at the beginning, yes you would.

cool, thats what i wanted to hear.

 

[no1tovote4]

I know that there are some mixed views, not just two. I'm looking for the reasoning and logic some people have that feel its ok to discriminate based on ones beliefs, as long as its the same beliefs they have.

What do you think about the solution that I proferred earlier then:

There be a list of inclusion of Pharmacies that gaurantee dispensation of this pill. Each Pharmacy that gaurantees such dispensation can call and be included on the list and they would need to require this as a standard of employment. Each time it is prescribed the patient would be provided with said list and could compare the list with insurance and proximity, etc.

Those pharmacists who do not dispense this drug would not be included on the list and therefore the patient would not be found to be in a place that may be lacking in the pill they wish to purchase.

The benefit of the list is it could be expanded to include other controversial or even simply expensive drugs that might not be on hand at every pharmacy.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

What do you think about the solution that I proferred earlier then:

definitely workable

 

[nosarcasm]

I used to work for a German weapons manufacturer.
We developed and sold naval weapon systems.

In Germany there is still conscription. It was company policy
that when you for personal or religious reason can not support
the sale of weapons it is time for you to leave the company.

e.g. you don't go to the armed forces and do the alternative
civil service they ll get rid of you.

Rightfully so imo.

So the caveat for the pharmacies is that they might not want to store
or sell certain products. As part of the overall health care sysytem
they should be expected to provide service if it makes reasonable profit.

It should not be the place to preach to people what contraceptives to use etc. In the end if the pharmacist owns the company it is his right
to avoid stocking meds he does not approve of. If suddenly all
pharmacies stop selling certain presribed drugs only then a goverment
intervention might make sense.

 

[Mr. P]

I used to work for a German weapons manufacturer.
We developed and sold naval weapon systems.

In Germany there is still conscription. It was company policy
that when you for personal or religious reason can not support
the sale of weapons it is time for you to leave the company.

e.g. you don't go to the armed forces and do the alternative
civil service they ll get rid of you.

Rightfully so imo.

So the caveat for the pharmacies is that they might not want to store
or sell certain products. As part of the overall health care sysytem
they should be expected to provide service if it makes reasonable profit.

It should not be the place to preach to people what contraceptives to use etc. In the end if the pharmacist owns the company it is his right
to avoid stocking meds he does not approve of. If suddenly all
pharmacies stop selling certain presribed drugs only then a goverment
intervention might make sense.

Yep...I'd agree...

 

[no1tovote4]

All I can refer to is personal experience...in the store..
I've seen pharmacist call the Doc many times in my life to verify a script. I have never seen a person sent back to the Doc..by a pharmacist. Not saying it can't happen, but I for one would find another place to do business..another office visit cost $$..a phone call, which is what I've witnessed doesn't cost me a cent.

Not only that but if I go to store A, then B and C..that pharmacist has know idea about my medical
history..and thus I am NOT their patient..as I've said, they are there to count pills and fill a script. *yes they have legal duties...but practicing Medicine is not one of them*

Usually when calling it is to verify the amount and the dosage if they cannot read the prescription. However, if according to their records you are taking medication that is directly in conflict with another, they can and do simply refuse to fill the prescription and you would need a new prescription. They can call the doctor who can provide a new prescription by fax etc but they are not there to simply count your pills for you.

They also can determine their own values as to this pill that is made to end one life or, for that matter, any other time when they feel the drug that has been prescribed may be used for illegal puposes. Some pharmacists would determine the zygote/embryo to be a patient and would have a conflict of interest.

 

[Mr. P]

...

They also can determine their own values as to this pill that is made to end one life or, for that matter, any other time when they feel the drug that has been prescribed may be used for illegal puposes. Some pharmacists would determine the zygote/embryo to be a patient and would have a conflict of interest.

I really haven't gottin into that part of this thread, except to say...if they don't like it they should get another job.

 

[no1tovote4]

I really haven't gottin into that part of this thread, except to say...if they don't like it they should get another job.

So doctors are allowed to determine on the moral value of abortions and not provide them but pharmacists must provide them because you disagree with their moral values?

What do you think about my previous effort at a solution that would insure the rights of the patient and the pharmacist at the same time?

 

[dilloduck]

That post was just to present things from the view of a rape victim.

I have no problem with a pharmacy deciding not to carry these medications. You can't prescribe what you don't carry and I don't think the government should force a pharmacy to carry products. However, if a pharmacy carries the medication, I think there should always be a pharmacist on staff that is willing to dispense it. This is a licensed profession. It shouldn't be a situation where a rape victim is told they can't get the medication at 10am because the pharmacist disagrees with it, but they can come back again at 4pm when their is a different pharmacist. Either carry it and dispense it or don't carry it at all.

Do you think that to even become a pharmacist one should have to agree to dispense anything that a Dr. tells him too ?

 

[Trigg]

Which is exactly why I dont see the problems with this. Competitors will do what they can't. No one wont have a prescription.

I said IF the pharmacy was owned by the pharmacist. In this case the pharmacist worked for a company, so he has no right to refuse to fill a prescription. The company should also be able to dismiss him for his refusal to do his job.

 

[ReillyT]

This denies the individual of the right of religious belief. To assume that because the owner may dispense it that their employees must as well is simply wrong. Just as in hospitals where only one doctor performs abortions, the patient either waits for that doctor to be on duty or goes to another doctor.

As I said before, requiring people to do something against their beliefs is not the answer. To have a specific list of Pharmacies that will always provide the drug and when prescribing them send them to those Pharmacies is a much better fix and still provides for the tolerance of other's beliefs. Especially if they make it a standard for employment at those particular Pharmacies.

To be honest, I think this is pretty close to the same thing I was advocating. Perhaps my post wasn't clear. I do have one problem with your solution though.

If you have a list of pharmacies that will prescribe certain medication, then the owner of that pharmacy will have to ensure that every pharmacist that works there will be willing to dispense the medication. This would be, in effect, a religious test to determine whether a particular pharmacist is qualified to work in certain pharmacies. I see no reason to fire, or refuse to hire, certain otherwise religiously motivated people due to the decision of the pharmacy about which medications it will carry. I would rather that if a particular pharmacy decides to offer a drug, there always be at least one pharmacist available who is willing to do it. That way, otherwise qualified pharmacists who don't want to dispense the drug can just opt out of filling those particular prescriptions.

This just makes me more comfortable. The idea of basing hiring so much on religious beliefs makes me a bit squeamish, and it might be illegal.

 

[ReillyT]

Do you think that to even become a pharmacist one should have to agree to dispense anything that a Dr. tells him too ?

No, unless it gets to extremes of course (if one were a member of a religious sect that didn't believe in medical cures for god induced diseases, it might be hard to be an effective pharmacist). I think there are solutions that protect the individual religious beliefs of the pharmacists and persons attempting to obtain medication.

 

[dilloduck]

This "problem" is rare as hens' teeth. The real issue here is back to the same ole thing. " Religious people are infringing on my rights ". I'm tired of that whine !

 

[no1tovote4]

I said IF the pharmacy was owned by the pharmacist. In this case the pharmacist worked for a company, so he has no right to refuse to fill a prescription. The company should also be able to dismiss him for his refusal to do his job.

If it were an open requirement for employment I would agree with you, the company should be able to dismiss him, but if it were not he has a right of religious freedom and the expression of that regardless of your belief to the contrary.

Simply enforcing your belief on the individual in question without regard to their moral values is not tolerance it is Dictatorship. Just as a doctor who works in a hospital that provides abortions can choose not to participate in such an event so can the pharmacist choose, on moral grounds, not to participate in an equal event.

 

[no1tovote4]

To be honest, I think this is pretty close to the same thing I was advocating. Perhaps my post wasn't clear. I do have one problem with your solution though.

If you have a list of pharmacies that will prescribe certain medication, then the owner of that pharmacy will have to ensure that every pharmacist that works there will be willing to dispense the medication. This would be, in effect, a religious test to determine whether a particular pharmacist is qualified to work in certain pharmacies. I see no reason to fire, or refuse to hire, certain otherwise religiously motivated people due to the decision of the pharmacy about which medications it will carry. I would rather that if a particular pharmacy decides to offer a drug, there always be at least one pharmacist available who is willing to do it. That way, otherwise qualified pharmacists who don't want to dispense the drug can just opt out of filling those particular prescriptions.

This just makes me more comfortable. The idea of basing hiring so much on religious beliefs makes me a bit squeamish, and it might be illegal.

There are many different ways that it could be done, however it would not be a religious requirement but a simple directive and positive injunction that at this pharmacy we provide this service. Basically a "take it or leave it" proposition. Since there is no way to determine a person's beliefs based on their professed religion it would not be a religious test.