Culture wars in the corner drugstore

[dilloduck]

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.

An injunction from who? State Courts ?

 

[ReillyT]

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.

That might work. I still worry a little bit about the legalities, but maybe I just maintain a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

[no1tovote4]

An injunction from who? State Courts ?

From the employer.

 

[ReillyT]

An injunction from who? State Courts ?

I don't think he meant a judicial injunction. It would just be a statement given to potential employees that this is the position of the pharmacy, and that if you want to be hired, you must agree to prescribe all requested medication.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't think he meant a judicial injunction. It would just be a statement given to potential employees that this is the position of the pharmacy, and that if you want to be hired, you must agree to prescribe all requested medication.

Looks like religious discrimination to me.

 

[ReillyT]

Looks like religious discrimination to me.

I don't know. That worries me too, but on the other hand, you wouldn't hire a Muslim as a butcher of pigs (someone else's fine example), and I don't think that is religious discrimination. It is part of the job, and if a person wants the job, they have to be willing to do what the work requires. What worries me most is what you do when another person or entity buys the pharmacy and changes the policy. Is the person that until that time had refused to dispense this medication then going to be fired?

 

[no1tovote4]

Looks like religious discrimination to me.

Not necessarily. The Catholic Hospitals here do not prescribe the drug or even suggest somebody who can, they impose this upon their employees regardless of what they may believe. As a condition of employment it is made clear at the beginning.

And once again, since there are many Catholics and Protestants that would be willing to give such prescriptions their attention you cannot say it would be based on their beliefs. It simply is a clear indication of the requirements of employment at a place. Like the Police Officers being required to quit smoking in Denver, it is a requirement for employment.

 

[Trigg]

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.

If a Catholic pharmacist refuses to fill birth controll prescriptions, that's a problem that should be discussed at the beginning of his employment. If the pharmacist doesn't make his religious feelings known to his employer, and if he's going to refuse to fill prescriptions, than the company should have the right to let him go.

Yes, a religion is personnal, but if it might interfer with a persons ability to do their job, then it should be brought up by the person wanting the job.

You brought up the doctor at a hospital refusing to do abortions at a hospital that offers them. This Dr. should mention his religious feelings regarding abortion at the interview, that way the hospital has the option of not hiring him. If he's hired for a job and after being hired refuses to do it, he should be let go.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't know. That worries me too, but on the other hand, you wouldn't hire a Muslim as a butcher of pigs (someone else's fine example), and I don't think that is religious discrimination. It is part of the job, and if a person wants the job, they have to be willing to do what the work requires.

Right now there apparently isn't a good definition for " what the work requires".

Are we having a problem with them Muslims not wanting to butcher pigs again?

 

[no1tovote4]

If a Catholic pharmacist refuses to fill birth controll prescriptions, that's a problem that should be discussed at the beginning of his employment. If the pharmacist doesn't make his religious feelings known to his employer, and if he's going to refuse to fill prescriptions, than the company should have the right to let him go.

Yes, a religion is personnal, but if it might interfer with a persons ability to do their job, then it should be brought up by the person wanting the job.

You brought up the doctor at a hospital refusing to do abortions at a hospital that offers them. This Dr. should mention his religious feelings regarding abortion at the interview, that way the hospital has the option of not hiring him. If he's hired for a job and after being hired refuses to do it, he should be let go.

Read the post directly above yours. We are already discussing this.

 

[dilloduck]

Not necessarily. The Catholic Hospitals here do not prescribe the drug or even suggest somebody who can, they impose this upon their employees regardless of what they may believe. As a condition of employment it is made clear at the beginning.

And once again, since there are many Catholics and Protestants that would be willing to give such prescriptions their attention you cannot say it would be based on their beliefs. It simply is a clear indication of the requirements of employment at a place. Like the Police Officers being required to quit smoking in Denver, it is a requirement for employment.

Smoking is not protected by the constitution

 

[Trigg]

I don't know. That worries me too, but on the other hand, you wouldn't hire a Muslim as a butcher of pigs (someone else's fine example), and I don't think that is religious discrimination. It is part of the job, and if a person wants the job, they have to be willing to do what the work requires. What worries me most is what you do when another person or entity buys the pharmacy and changes the policy. Is the person that until that time had refused to dispense this medication then going to be fired?

Many states have employment at will, no reason has to be given for a person to loose their job. So yes, if a pharmacy changes owners and the new owner doesn't want a pharmacist who refuses to fill certain prescriptions, they should have the option of firing that person. This has nothing to do with persecuting a person for religious beliefs, this is about money.

 

[no1tovote4]

Smoking is not protected by the constitution

Neither is employment, the employer has just as much right to their expression was my point. The Catholic Hospitals can require that nobody talks about this drug, the pharmacy owner can proscribe equal restrictions it is their freedoms in question as well.

 

[dilloduck]

Many states have employment at will, no reason has to be given for a person to loose their job. So yes, if a pharmacy changes owners and the new owner doesn't want a pharmacist who refuses to fill certain prescriptions, they should have the option of firing that person. This has nothing to do with persecuting a person for religious beliefs, this is about money.

Good thing we have judges to sort this stuff out for us !

 

[ReillyT]

Many states have employment at will, no reason has to be given for a person to loose their job. So yes, if a pharmacy changes owners and the new owner doesn't want a pharmacist who refuses to fill certain prescriptions, they should have the option of firing that person. This has nothing to do with persecuting a person for religious beliefs, this is about money.

Under employment at will, you can be fired for good reason or no reason, but you can't be fired on the basis of sex, race, national origin, religious beliefs, etc. I think I may agree that firing a pharmacist for refusing to dispense this medication is probably okay, but it is getting pretty close to firing them for religious belief (the distinction that being their termination was not based so much on religious belief as refusal to do the common requirements of the employment). It just makes me unsettled. It is probably legal, but I would be shocked not to see a legal case made out of it.

 

[Mr. P]

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?

There's no reasonable comparison here. Doctors typically own or co-own their practice. They can turn away anyone they wish to. The majority of Pharmacists work for someone else and don't enjoy that luxury. They are employees, not owners of the business. Nor are they Medical practitioners as I've said before, and I nor are you "their" patient.

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?

The list? I don't have a problem with that at all.

 

[no1tovote4]

There's no reasonable comparison here. Doctors typically own or co-own their practice. They can turn away anyone they wish to. The majority of Pharmacists work for someone else and don't enjoy that luxury. They are employees, not owners of the business. Nor are they Medical practitioners as I've said before, and I nor are you "their" patient.
The list? I don't have a problem with that at all.

Doctor's nowadays typically work in HMOs and do not own their own practice. And Pharmacists are often considered caregivers and have patients just as doctors do. You and I can change doctors as often as we change pharmacists if we so choose, it doesn't make us any less of a patient.

 

[dilloduck]

Doctor's nowadays typically work in HMOs and do not own their own practice. And Pharmacists are often considered caregivers and have patients just as doctors do. You and I can change doctors as often as we change pharmacists if we so choose, it doesn't make us any less of a patient.

and additionally are bound by privacy laws.

 

[Mr. P]

Doctor's nowadays typically work in HMOs and do not own their own practice. And Pharmacists are often considered caregivers and have patients just as doctors do. You and I can change doctors as often as we change pharmacists if we so choose, it doesn't make us any less of a patient.

Well, I don't belong to an HMO and don't see those Docs, I avoid em like the plague. I've never consider a pharmacist a caregiver and probably never will. They don't provide me any care above the legal requirement for dispensing medications properly, as ordered by a Doctor, PA or NP, FDA.
I am simply their customer.

 

[dilloduck]

Well, I don't belong to an HMO and don't see those Docs, I avoid em like the plague. I've never consider a pharmacist a caregiver and probably never will. They don't provide me any care above the legal requirement for dispensing medications properly, as ordered by a Doctor, PA or NP, FDA.
I am simply their customer.

I think you're pretty safe from the "morning after pill dilema" anyway