398 replies to this topic

[MeOmYo]

Why should they? Because people have rights, including pharmacists.

[Spidergawd]

Women survived without them for thousands and thousands of years before now.

Actually the life expectancy for women in 1950 was 71, not 30.

So again "Birth control pills are only about 60 years old, why are they "necessary?"

You stated "thousands and thousands of years". Thousands of years ago life expectancy was hardly 71.

[Depends]

Pharmacists do have rights, and they used one of those rights to choose a profession that may not match their moral compass.

Should a vegetarian checkout person at a supermarket be allow to not ring up meat products?

[Spidergawd]

And forcing someone to go against their religious beliefs and making them sell something that will take a life could send someone over the edge is acceptable? Why is the "comfort" of one more important than the comfort of another?

Because health>religion.

/thread

[MeOmYo]

Pharmacists do have rights, and they used one of those rights to choose a profession that may not match their moral compass.

Should a vegetarian checkout person at a supermarket be allow to not ring up meat products?

if said checkout person owns the store. absolutely

If they don't, I'm guessing the owners will find another checkout person. Or should there be a law to force that employee to ring up meat products?

[Depends]

You stated "thousands and thousands of years". Thousands of years ago life expectancy was hardly 71.

Life Expectancy for women was 69 in 1950 and is 79 as of 2010. Some of this may be based on medications that were not available in 1950.

[hoagie]

This isn't about my beliefs. This is about what a Pharmacist is required to do by law under the oath of their license.

If a murderer is shot by a cop and taken to the emergency room, should the hospital have the right to say, "Sorry, we don't take that kind of patient, maybe try the hospital down the street across from the Home Depot."

No this would be mega-wrong, and id LOVE to hear how it would be ok with anyone.

[Depends]

Again, I'm not sure if the law, as stated refers to a Pharmacy, or a pharmacist.

The way I read it, and I admit, I know next to nothing about the law, is that a PHARMACIST has the right not to fill a prescription, even if another pharmacist in the same shop could/would. The pharmacist could not be fired for not filling a prescription. Said pharmacist could be fired for saying he would not fill blood pressure meds, simply because he doesn't want to.

[hoagie]

I think if you want to go through the trouble of obtaining a pharmacist license and open your own business, you should have the right to not sell a goddam thing if you so choose.

albeit a poor business plan, you should have that right.

Yes eeryone has the right to be an idiot, i agree.

[hoagie]

Again, I'm not sure if the law, as stated refers to a Pharmacy, or a pharmacist.

The way I read it, and I admit, I know next to nothing about the law, is that a PHARMACIST has the right not to fill a prescription, even if another pharmacist in the same shop could/would. The pharmacist could not be fired for not filling a prescription. Said pharmacist could be fired for saying he would not fill blood pressure meds, simply because he doesn't want to.

Wait....what??

[Joker]

Apples and oranges.

Why would anyone choose a profession that may require them to compromise their moral and religious beliefs?

Who knows, I'd imagine there are many reasons. Perhaps the pharmacists in these states did so knowing they were legally allowed to make the decision themselves.

[Depends]

Wait....what??

Yes, In Kansas, a pharmacist can not be fired for:
Refusing to fill a prescription because of moral beliefs.
Refusing to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy

South Dakota and Arkansas have similar laws.

So, a woman can feel shamed in a public place, not have her prescription filled, simply because of who is on duty at a particular time.

It is NOT always the shop owner, but rather the pharmacist on duty at that time.

[hoagie]

Religion strikes again.

[MeOmYo]

Yes, In Kansas, a pharmacist can not be fired for:
Refusing to fill a prescription because of moral beliefs.
Refusing to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy

South Dakota and Arkansas have similar laws.

So, a woman can feel shamed in a public place, not have her prescription filled, simply because of who is on duty at a particular time.

It is NOT always the shop owner, but rather the pharmacist on duty at that time.

not to get off track but Kansas, Arkansas and SD are right to work states. So, you can be fired for no reason at all.

[JBetty]

Who knows, I'd imagine there are many reasons. Perhaps the pharmacists in these states did so knowing they were legally allowed to make the decision themselves.

Many reasons?
And yes, there may be a handful, but these are relatively new laws.

[Joker]

I probably wouldn't have taken this into sensationalist argument realm had Joker not gone all, "Well BC's only been around 60 years, blah, blah, blah."

FTR my post was in response to LittleFrog's and it had nothing to do with your post

[JBetty]

Yes, In Kansas, a pharmacist can not be fired for:
Refusing to fill a prescription because of moral beliefs.
Refusing to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy

They can refuse to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy?

[concert andy]

[Tim the Beek]

They can refuse to transfer the prescription to another pharmacy?

This, I'm not down with. At all.

[Joker]

Birth control pills are only about 60 years old, why are they "necessary?" Women survived without them for thousands and thousands of years before now. I would think if they were absolutely necessary they could get then directly from their doctor. Those who would refuse to sell them aren't denying anyone else's right to use them as it seems they'd still be allowed to get them from another pharmacist, either at the same store or they'd be free to go to another store.

You mean when their life expectancy was like 30 years? Gotcha. I guess that's good enough.

You stated "thousands and thousands of years". Thousands of years ago life expectancy was hardly 71.

Yes, my point being that they have never been "necessary" and women have survived that long without them. I still don't understand what their life expectancy has to do with this.

I almost put "for 6000 years since the earth was created" rather than the thousands and thousands

[hoagie]

Any pharmacist who isnt going to sell BC is gonna go out of business, or build up a terrible reputation eventually. It makes poor business sense to take this tack, even if they are te most piou people ever ever.

I do agree, they have every right to throw away a good career and stand by their morals.

[JBetty]

Yes, my point being that they have never been "necessary" and women have survived that long without them. I still don't understand what their life expectancy has to do with this.

I almost put "for 6000 years since the earth was created" rather than the thousands and thousands

People have survived for thousands and thousands of years without chemotherapy too.
I don't get your point.

[hoagie]

People have survived for thousands and thousands of years without chemotherapy too.
I don't get your point.

Yes, what IS the point?

[Depends]

not to get off track but Kansas, Arkansas and SD are right to work states. So, you can be fired for no reason at all.

They can be fired for no reason at all, yes. but the CAN'T be fired for refusing to fill BCP. Just the same as they can't be fired for race/color/creed. The right to work laws do not trump civil rights laws.

[Tim the Beek]

Would just like to say that TtB appreciates the overall tone of civility this discussion has taken thusfar.

[hoagie]

Thats because we can all agree that this particular pharmacist is a total business failure, so any disagreement is really just speculating. We all know not filling BC scripts will bankrupt you eventually if you are a pharmacist.

[Depends]

Any pharmacist who isnt going to sell BC is gonna go out of business, or build up a terrible reputation eventually. It makes poor business sense to take this tack, even if they are te most piou people ever ever.

I do agree, they have every right to throw away a good career and stand by their morals.

BUT it is not the pharmacy OWNER that gets to make the call. It is the PHARMACIST. The Pharmacy owner is in a bind. They can't refuse to hire someone based on religion. They can't fire someone for refusing to fill a prescription. Even if the owner does not share the same beliefs.

So, a man and a woman can walk into a pharmacy. He can buy condoms, and the woman can be refused. Can the checkout person refuse to sell condoms? and NOT be fired?

[Depends]

Would just like to say that TtB appreciates the overall tone of civility this discussion has taken thusfar.

I gotta figure out where to throw in a couple of STFUs. Im totally ruining my hard earned reputation as an asshole...

57 years, and NOW I'm civil? Crap, a whole career down the drain.


Hey Spidergawd. JOTCOM.


ahhhh thats better...

[hoagie]

So they find some other reason to let religion pharmacist go. Easy enough.

[Joker]

I don't get your point.

my point being that they have never been "necessary"

[Depends]

So they find some other reason to let religion pharmacist go. Easy enough.

against the law. get sue'd.

[Joker]

I gotta figure out where to throw in a couple of STFUs. Im totally ruining my hard earned reputation as an asshole...

57 years, and NOW I'm civil? Crap, a whole career down the drain.

[TakeAStepBack]

BUT it is not the pharmacy OWNER that gets to make the call. It is the PHARMACIST. The Pharmacy owner is in a bind. They can't refuse to hire someone based on religion. They can't fire someone for refusing to fill a prescription. Even if the owner does not share the same beliefs.

So, a man and a woman can walk into a pharmacy. He can buy condoms, and the woman can be refused. Can the checkout person refuse to sell condoms? and NOT be fired?

It seems that if you work for someone else (employee), you follow the policies/rules put forth by the business owner. It's not a state or even federal legislative issue. If Tom's Pharmacy in dumbville USA wants to only allow patrons who are white men, let him do it. If you work for Tom and you dont like his policies, quit working for Tom. If Tom wants to ruin is competitive edge by only serving white men, that is Tom's business. Leave people alone.

I think Tom's policy is a business strategy folly. But it isn't my, or anyone elses business to tell Tom who he should serve.

[MeOmYo]

BUT it is not the pharmacy OWNER that gets to make the call. It is the PHARMACIST. The Pharmacy owner is in a bind. They can't refuse to hire someone based on religion. They can't fire someone for refusing to fill a prescription. Even if the owner does not share the same beliefs.

So, a man and a woman can walk into a pharmacy. He can buy condoms, and the woman can be refused. Can the checkout person refuse to sell condoms? and NOT be fired?

If pharmacy owner wants pharmacist gone, pharmacist will be gone. this is they way it has worked for 6000 years.

it's against the law if you give a reason that violates civil liberties. BUT, you don't have to give a reason.

pharmacy owner: you're fired

pharmacist: why?

pharmacy owner: because, sorry but you're fired

[Depends]

theer are 1000's of medications that are not "necessary". Most ailments can be cured by diet, making the medication not necessary

[hoagie]

against the law. get sue'd.

Burden of proof'd. There are just as many reasons to fire someone. Chronic lateness. Downsizing. In this case, how would anyone prove they were let go for not prescribing BC if they can be let go for ANY reason?

[hoagie]

If pharmacy owner wants pharmacist gone, pharmacist will be gone. this is they way it has worked for 6000 years.

it's against the law if you give a reason that violates civil liberties. BUT, you don't have to give a reason.

pharmacy owner: you're fired

pharmacist: why?

pharmacy owner: because, sorry but you're fired

Yep that'll do

[Depends]

If pharmacy owner wants pharmacist gone, pharmacist will be gone. this is they way it has worked for 6000 years.

it's against the law if you give a reason that violates civil liberties. BUT, you don't have to give a reason.

pharmacy owner: you're fired

pharmacist: why?

pharmacy owner: because, sorry but you're fired

And Phamacy owner gets sued for unlawful termination. Hundreds if not thousands of cases of gender/race/religious bias bear this out. The law is protecting that worker from being fired. You can fire him/her, but then you have broken the law, and will pay for it. This is the problem with the law, it doesn't protect the consumer, it doesn't protect the shop owner. It protects the employee. The shop owner has an option, and that is to open his shop in a state that does not have this law.

[hoagie]

Prove it, Depends.

[Depends]

Black employee?
Your'e fired,
why?
No reason

Female employee?
You're fired.
why?
no reason

Hindu/muslim/catholic/jewish employee?
You're fired
why?
No reason.


It doesn't work that way. There are laws to protect people because of their race/color/creed/gender/disability etc.

[MeOmYo]

How have you broken the law if you do not provide a reason for termination. Knowing that you are not legally obligated to do so.

[Depends]

Prove it, Depends.

Prove what? That there are laws that protect employees from being fired? That there are cases upon cases of wrongful termination because of race/gender/creed bias?

Are you new in this country?

[JBetty]

JBetty, on 12 December 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:


I don't get your point.

Joker, on 12 December 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

my point being that they have never been "necessary"




So by this logic, no medications of any sort are "necessary" since people lived with out them for thousands and thousands of years.
Is that what you mean?

[TakeAStepBack]

The state says you're not legally obligated, federal affirmative action laws say differently. I am an at will employee, but I can still claim discrimination (well, not really, my type is not a protected special interest) if I am fired for any reason that may hint to breaking affirmative action laws.

[hoagie]

How have you broken the law if you do not provide a reason for termination. Knowing that you are not legally obligated to do so.

For Depends.

[hoagie]

The state says you're not legally obligated, federal affirmative action laws say differently. I am an at will employee, but I can still claim discrimination (well, not really, my type is not a protected special interest) if I am fired for any reason that may hint to breaking affirmative action laws.

All the owner need do is create a list of complaints such as strong body odor, arguementitive, chronically late, does not perform duties to specifications, etc...there are a bazillion reasons to fire someone. And in at will states, the burden of proof will be on the employee that was fired. It would be very hard to prove that u were terminated due to religious reasons. I have no idea how one would go about proving that.

[Joker]

JBetty, on 12 December 2012 - 11:19 AM, said:


I don't get your point.

Joker, on 12 December 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

my point being that they have never been "necessary"




So by this logic, no medications of any sort are "necessary" since people lived with out them for thousands and thousands of years.
Is that what you mean?

Birth control pills are not "necessary" in order to survive

[MeOmYo]

The state says you're not legally obligated, federal affirmative action laws say differently. I am an at will employee, but I can still claim discrimination (well, not really, my type is not a protected special interest) if I am fired for any reason that may hint to breaking affirmative action laws.

and it would be your obligation to prove such

we're not talking about a racist firing a minorty. we're talking about a pharmacy owner firing a pharmacist where race isn't even a factor.

[Depends]

You are kidding, right? There are hundreds of cases.
http://www.insurance...0/16/266775.htm

[Depends]

and it would be your obligation to prove such

we're not talking about a racist firing a minorty. we're talking about a pharmacy owner firing a pharmacist where race isn't even a factor.

all the pharmacist would have to show was that he refused to fill orders, and he was fired. The law is there to protect him. Whether it works in practice is NOT the issue. The issue is that there is a law to protect that employee. Why have the law at all?