Our country has a long history of laws designed to prevent discrimination on racial, religious, ethnic or gender grounds. So, one could say, these laws are a natural extension of existing antidiscrimination legislation.
Let's think about that for a minute. As an employer, I cannot discriminate against you because of your race or religion…what you are. These new laws say that I cannot discriminate against you for what you do…whether you do your job or not!
My grandmother was a Christian Scientist. They don't believe in taking any drugs or medicines at all. With these new laws, if she went to work as a pharmacist, she could refuse to dispense any drugs and she couldn't be fired! My grandmother lived to be 101, by the way. Maybe she knew something I should know about drugs!
Or if I were a Vegan, I could get a job as a cook at a steak house and refuse to prepare any meals that included meat. It would be nice to be a Mormon working in a Starbucks or a liquor store. Pretty cushy job…wouldn't have to do a thing. I am a physical fitness nut, so I could get a job in a Krispy Kreme shop and not lift a finger. Hey, maybe I should write a "how to" book with instructions on getting a job that would require no work and has absolute job security. I think it would be a bestseller!
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 83
Yup
Good idea. I need to wait until I see an article on the subject, though. My experience is they won't publish a letter unless it's a current topic.
Wh not blame Greg.
I am hoping that when the state legislatures get down to voting on these things, they will realize how ridiculous they are.
There are so many ways around the problem...like making sure that at least one pharmacist is on duty that will do the job...or, I'm sorry, suggesting to fundamentalist Christians that they will have to deal with the problem if they become pharmacists. By deal with it, I mean acknowledging that not everyone shares their beliefs, and that they must tolerate the beliefs of others. And that their personal ethics are not threatened by someone else with a different set. That is the most important point of all.
Sandy, I also don't think that just because you disagree (as I do) with the far right that you have the right to use the word ignorant...I am sure that they feel that this is the far lefts main category, I read many of your postings that I find silly and duplicitous but I would never call you ignorant.
Nothing will change until we all show a little respect for each other.
Bruce, I think maybe you don't understand the definition of ignorance. You can call me silly all you want, I am silly and will take no offense. Ignorant ignorant means lacking knowledge. Anyone who makes it all the way through a pharmaceutical program without realizing they have chosen a profession that is incompatible with their religious beliefs, and accepts a job in a pharmacy that dispenses birth control is obviously ignorant (hopefully of the teaching of their church - otherwise I wonder what else they missed in class). Ignorance is not a negative term, unless a person has access to the information and chooses to ignore it, in which case, I'd say stupid, not ignorant. I chose ignorant as the kinder option, since I believe many of the religious right do have access to information and the intelligence to process the information, and choose to ignore it.
Bruce,
The point that has been made repeatedly that many poor people who live in rural areas have only one pharmacy within many miles, and many of them do not have access to transportation to just pop over to the next town twenty or thirty miles away to fill their prescriptions. They are the ones that suffer. The wealthy just have a little inconvenience. Same is true for abortions, by the way. When a state outlaws abortions...as some are trying to do...the poor are the ones whose rights are violated. The rest just have a little farther to drive.
Christopher,
The principle is the same whether it's one product or a hundred products. I have merchandise for sale to the public, but I will not sell it to you, even if it is prescribed by a doctor as needed for your health. It is not the pharmacist's job to choose what prescription to fill. At the very least, they should be required to post a sign outside their store, and maybe run ads in the local newspaper warning people that they will not fill certain prescriptions. But I really believe that the pharmaceutical industry...or whoever licenses pharmacists should REQUIRE them to fill all legitimate prescriptions...i.e., those written by medical doctors. Failure to do so should be cause to revoke their license. However the industry is ducking this issue...they don't want to offend anybody on either side.
You are being to kind, Sandy. That is not ignorance. It is stubbon pigheadedness. It is self-righteousness. It is arrogance and intolerance. It is everything that their Christian religion is not.
but...A community that has a Target has options for the consumer.
and...a pharmacist should not need to put aside his or her personal beliefs as a small business owner.
and...Donna why did you 'give' your money to someone so despicable?
and...Sandy I do know what ignorance is and just because you have polar ideals than someone does not make them ignorant. Your writings lead me to believe that you are a socialist that is unhappy with the current roll of the green. I would never call you ignorant even if I thought that some of your core beliefs were. Some of the brightest people I have met are in my mind were 'crazy right wingers' and some of the most downright stupid herd orientated lefty folks work at Harvard (yes it was my stomping grounds for ages).
Bert, I truly believe in euthanasia...in fact I take it to be a persons sole and irrefutable right if they want to end their life. IF...a future administration was to run with that on their agenda and got the right law passed would you also require doctors who apposed the procedure to proceed, or would you respect their personal rights? How did you feel about the Docs refusing at the death penalty case last month in Ca.?
Personal freedom is personal freedom. Go to another store and lets not make a Federal case about it.
Curbing personal behavior, enforcing moral concepts is shaky ground for a democracy. It is the pharmacists job to depense meds, not be judge and jury. I feel if he crosses that line, he loses his licence.
Yes, one is free to exercise personel freedom when choosing a profession or an employer.
Sam, A Pharmacist is a person, He is a free person, He is a small business owner in a free country (I cant believe I am standing up for these cretins) and he has a right to run HIS business as he sees fit.
A Bar owner can refuse service to a drunk, A teacher can refuse to teach an objectionable and disruptive child, These folks have as much right to run their business as they see fit and if the community they serve feels they are doing a crappy job they can take their business elsewhere and order their meds by mail.
If these 'customers' are going to let a shop owner intimidate them on major life choices they should double up on the anti-d's as well as the pill.
If we want to save and insure our freedoms we need to protect everyones freedom not just the ones we agree with.
No seat belt....no treatment
The ...NO GOD....NO GAUZE....treatment protocol.....
A very powerful method of analysis has been developing in many science fields for almost half a century now. That method can be called ' studies of relevant alternative scenarios -- SIMULATIONS'. Mathematics and Statistics are used to explore 'what if' type questions, along with very varied real and assumed type complex issues with very different content involved in them. Like getting a look see at the planet Neptune, and the features of the vehicle to get there to do its planned-for 'thing'.
I love SOUND, logical problems like this one of yours -- altered perspectives which can be 'simulated'. Such 'realistic/hypothetical ' configurations can really inform and help to solve problems. Such alternative as Roles playing can teach much about problems of significant complexity. "IF I were you and you were me, what would you and I do in this XYZ situation?" More White House deliberations could benefit by such exercises I think.
Interesting to speculate on this following one. Maybe a good and imaginative mind couild look into the possibilities of this following logical (non-) possibility, but learn by intellectually SIMULATING it at group meetings: "If the present head of the Iraqi 'nation' replaced George Bush in the USA and George Bush replaced that person in Iraq, who would now have become our new President, what -- if anything -- would happen to USA-Iraqi foreign and domestic policies? In the Short Run? Tomorrow? In the Long-Run?
We might even go to a two pronged easier approach: (1) What would George Bush do if he were the 'head' of Iraq? (2) What would the Iraqi (Sheik?; Imam?; Mr.?) ABC do if he were President of the USA? Maybe some on-site reporters in Iraq -- with connections -- might take a 'swing' at this one to celebrate the start of a new 2006 Baseball Season. Better still: perhaps high ranking politicians on both sides of the getting worse? better? Iraq problem, might wish to participate in alternative-view problem solving and a visit to a few baseball games! Good company! Good SUN? Good food? Perhaps a good game or two or more?
Dick
period.
if you own the store, you can choose not to stock whatever items you wish. good luck making the rent, tho.
Ok in retrospect I agree. I think in this case I am wrong, your point is very well taken.
I AM WRONG ON THIS ONE, WRONG WRONG WRONG...
But that same Pharmacist can still refuse to dispense to HIS underage daughter with no comments from the left...
Richard I am having trouble understanding your comment.
Alright already...I was WRONG
B.
The issue is muddied by the fact that the pharmacist could be the owner of the store, or just an employee. If he/she is an employee, then maybe the owner is ordering them to withold certain drugs. Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and I would favor legislation to prevent the owner from firing the pharmacist for doing his job!
What Sam says about the marketplace is the ideal way to solve the problem...boycott the sumbitches...but in practice, this is hard to pull off.
The people trying to get contraceptives in a predominately Catholic neighborhood, for instance, would have trouble getting enough participation...so they are oppressed by the tyranny of the majority...albeit indirectly.
WM H has a good point about licensing. If you are licensed to provide a community service, then you should perform your job professionally...and I would argue that trying to impose your personal moral beliefs on others is unprofessional and should be grounds for license revocation.
Well, of course my examples were reductio ad absurdum. One would hope such a person would not seek a job as a steakhouse cook.
But one would also hope that a devout fundamentalist Christian would not seek a job as a pharmacist, knowing that they would have a problem dispensing contraceptives or "morning after" pills.
Just kidding. I'd like reservations at your steakhouse, but don't plan on a
$5 tip in the garter belt.
If a person has a prescription for anything, the responsiblity lies with the MD, not the clerk who mixes it up and sells it. If the job is morally difficult, go sell Chevys or insurance or something.
And that will be illegal if some states pass their laws!
LOL! Yeah, but would you refuse to prepare meals with meat in them?
Too bad you have to write that stuff out just so a business can be able to provide services or not to any individual they so choose.
That is actually the main problems of a socialist form of medicine. Doctors are no longer private citizens, they then are public servants with only a choice of leaving the already declining profession. And yes there is a "choice" but not a choice free of coercion.
Good points. I see a distinction between a drug store owner who refuses to dispense certain drugs and a pharmacist who is an employee, who refuses to dispense the drugs.
The owner should be free to refuse service to anyone. The pharmacist, however, is a licensed professional, just as the doctor is who issued the prescription. The AMA disciplines doctors who act unprofessionally. It seems to me the licensing board for pharmacists should to the same.
I am not suggesting that there should be government action forcing any business to sell anything. But I think the proposed laws "protecting" pharmacists from reprisals by their employers if they fail to do their job for whatever reason are wrong. That was the point of this article.
This issue is actually similar to the rioting in France. The law proposed giving an employer the "right" to fire someone. Amazing really.
In this modern litigious society, it is truly difficult to see what rights are and how they should be allocated.
On your last point, I suggest that you have a look at an article that was just published by Sean Kennedy on the mess at GM...what are the rights of the union workers who are going to be sacked by their incompetent management?
Here is the link.
Laurie,
Great idea! Why don't you write an article suggesting that?
So I should be "free" to refuse service to a black man in my restaurant????
I don't think so.
(he'll have to support her child, but it should be his right to refuse to dispense to her)
Now that's a very good point, and I don't know the answer. When I was a kid, most restaurants had a sign posted at the entrance that said, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." This was in Michigan, not in the deep south where it might have had racial overtones.
I haven't seen signs like that lately. What is the law now? Does anyone know?
I was just talking to my wife Suzanne, who is a native Californian, and she reminded me of those signs. That's different, though, from the "anyone" signes that I grew up with.
What if I am black, and I walk into your restaurant. Can you legally refuse service if I have shirt and shoes
I think he'll have to come up with a new job title, because "ob/gyn who won't prescribe birth control" is an oxymoron.
Interesting point that you make: If an insurance company requires that I go to a specific pharmacy, and that pharmacy refuses to fill my prescription, what then?
Donna,
Do you know that the law specifically states that? I'm gonna see if I can find anything on Google that states the law clearly.
Here is a web site that defines the current law. Private businesses cannot discriminate against an individual for a number of reasons, and this has been tested repeatedly in court. I particularly like this paragraph:
I agree with all of that except "Republicans."
An ob/gyn who won't prescribe birth control! I guess he's trying to build his business!
The "number of reasons" certainly includes religious persuasion. So if my religious beliefs allow birth control, refusing to sell them to me would constitute discrimination based on religion. And since federal law almost always trumps state law the various proposed state laws don't stand a chance.
I decided that I needed to sum up the "trip" we have made, so I started a new article called "The Right to NOT Work...Following Up."
I have proposed a set of ideas that describe my revised thinking on the subject. I am sure that not all of you will agree. I certainly hope not! That would be boring!
Please join me there to continue the discussion.
Here is the link.
"Conscientious objectors" are being backed and promoted by groups like Pharmacists for Life, whose underlying goal is to undermine women's access to birth control altogether. And the Bush administration, along with state politicians around the nation, is right there with them.
It's going to be a long, hard fight, and ALL women need to stand up for their rights.
Now these comments are going somewhere!
Pharmacists shouldn't be imposing their views on others. If they are against contraception, or any other prescriptions, they don't need to use them personally. No one is trying to impose personal use upon them. That's called freedom, and it's a right that entitles us all to seek a different career path.
If they get their way, in a few years, you will not be able to buy a "morning after" pill or even a contraceptive in any pharmacy in this nation!
If you decide to have sex with your wife or anybody else, you had better be prepared for parenthood, because in their view, that is the only reason to enjoy intimacy with your loved one.
With an exploding population, I find theiragenda to be not only oppressive and fascist, but totally irresponsible. We need to find a way to limit the exploding population of the earth, which already exceeds sustainable levels by far. But more importantly, they have NO RIGHT to dictate the personal behavior of anyone! I have never in my life felt as threatened by religious views as I do today.
As far as purchasing contraception goes, if it ever does become unavailable in the legal sense, people will resort to acquiring it another way. I don't see how that could be good for the purchasers or the economy, for that matter.
As far as job descrimination goes, in the state of Massachuetts, an employer does not have to prove that a person did not do his/her job. Meaning: all employ is at will, absence of violation of discrimination laws, an employer can fire at will, for cause or for no cause.
There are fundamentalists who believe that "the pill"...the standard contraceptive pill, not the "morning after" pill is equivalent to murder, and of course the Catholic church prohibits its use. They have coined a code word for the 'morning after' pill...they call it an "abortifacient." But I believe some pharmacists refuse to dispense regular contraceptives to young people...don't know where they draw the age line.
There are only a few states so far that have passed laws protecting pharmacists from termination for refusal to dispense. South Dakota is one. I believe New Hampshire has a law...and there are four other states with laws pending, including Indiana and Wisconsin. I don't remember the other two. The danger is that these ill-conceived laws are spreading.
The Religious Right is trying to take us back to medieval times, Kathryn.
And they are making progress...if you can call it that. Scary, indeed.
And I think, btw, that some things have been resolved since you first wrote this article. Funny how this topic doesn't come up much these days. Anyway, I just decided to bow out of the discussion over there on Will's, as it was becoming a little TOO political for me.
Will loves to provoke a little controversy, doesn't he?