Perhaps the pharmacist felt that she was entitled to exercise her first amendment freedom. Can we expect the ACLU to weigh in on this?walrus said:In case the text didn't convey it well enough - the title of this thread was meant to be read in the voice of the "Soup Nazi" from Seinfeld -
This incident happened locally but it is my understanding that it has happened throughout the country. A woman went to a Walgreens pharmacy to fill a prescription for birth control. According to the woman's own statement, the (female) pharmacist politely told her that she could not fill that prescription on moral grounds. She told the customer that another pharmacist would be in shortly and that he could fill it, or she could call her prescription in to another pharmacy. The woman is now outraged, litigious, and promoting a law requiring pharmacists to fill all legal prescriptions put before them.
What do you think?
Great logic, again! So if a pharmacist is against certain medications she has the right to not dispense them? Anyone who would support depriving anyone of any prescription is living in a sick Fantasea world....Fantasea said:Perhaps the pharmacist felt that she was entitled to exercise her first amendment freedom. Can we expect the ACLU to weigh in on this?
Gandhi>Bush said:How are perscription birth control pills against anyone's morals?
I wouldn't mind a law requiring pharmacists to fill perscriptions, but all in all I'm fairly indifferent.
26 X World Champs said:Great logic, again! So if a pharmacist is against certain medications she has the right to not dispense them? Anyone who would support depriving anyone of any prescription is living in a sick Fantasea world....
It's not just Catholics who have reservations about certain forms of birth control. I suupose that someone in the pharmacists' position might equate it with you being asked to help support war.Gandhi>Bush said:How are perscription birth control pills against anyone's morals?
Gandhi>Bush said:I wouldn't mind a law requiring pharmacists to fill perscriptions, but all in all I'm fairly indifferent.
26 X World Champs said:So if a pharmacist is against certain medications she has the right to not dispense them? Anyone who would support depriving anyone of any prescription is living in a sick Fantasea world....
Why not? The pharmacist was not placing the woman's life in danger.26 X World Champs said:Great logic, again! So if a pharmacist is against certain medications she has the right to not dispense them? Anyone who would support depriving anyone of any prescription is living in a sick Fantasea world....Originally Posted by Fantasea
Perhaps the pharmacist felt that she was entitled to exercise her first amendment freedom. Can we expect the ACLU to weigh in on this?
Fantasea said:Why not? The pharmacist was not placing the woman's life in danger.
Hospital personnel who are not Pro-Death can't be forced to participate in abortion procedures.
Depending on ones philosophical leanings, Wal-Mart either practices censorship or exercises its first amendment rights in refusing to sell CDs it had deemed to be offensive.
Why should anyone be forced to act against his conscience?
You'll have to remind us all how these pharmacists were FORCED to work these jobs.Fantasea said:Why not? The pharmacist was not placing the woman's life in danger.
Hospital personnel who are not Pro-Death can't be forced to participate in abortion procedures.
Depending on ones philosophical leanings, Wal-Mart either practices censorship or exercises its first amendment rights in refusing to sell CDs it had deemed to be offensive.
Why should anyone be forced to act against his conscience?
Fantasea said:Perhaps the pharmacist felt that she was entitled to exercise her first amendment freedom. Can we expect the ACLU to weigh in on this?
vauge said:1. This was not birth control pills - this was morning after pills.
2. What if she was Muslim and not Catholic?
True, but some pharmacists also are abstaining from selling birth control pills as well.Pharmacist Neil Noesen refused to fill a prescription for contraceptives while working at a retail pharmacy in Menomonie, Wis., and then refused to transfer the prescription to another pharmacistvauge said:1. This was not birth control pills - this was morning after pills.
Insanity runs across the whole religious and non-religious spectrum.vauge said:2. What if she was Muslim and not Catholic?
True, but what if the Dr. had moral objections to things like insulin? A diabetic's life can be contingent on these things.vauge said:3. There are plenty of other places to get it filled, if she just "could not wait" a few minutes.
You mean, if you go to McDonald's and the person behind the counter is a PETA nut, that you'd consider yourself to be demanding when asking for a Double McCheese?vauge said:4. I support her descision. The person behind the counter told her why she would not, the other was being demanding.
Wrong. Several states have already enacted laws protecting pharmacists who choose their morals over their work duty. That ignores private enterprise if you ask me and forces employers to lose money especially if they disagree with the pharmacist's position. I hate the fact that a state can legislate it so that a person who is not doing their job can't be fired.vauge said:5. Private workplaces can do this. But, at the same time she can be fired if Walgreens has issue with it.
I think that the part of the first ammendment referred to is the one that relates to religion, not speech. the implication being that teh pharm had religious issues with the effects of the medication.Fu_chick said:There is no such thing as freedom of speech in a private business.
The question is whether or not they should be made to do so by law.Fu_chick said:So if a Muslim woman works at a clothing store, should she be able to refuse to sell revealing clothing? Should Jewish waitresses refuse to serve pork? Should a Baptist working at a grocery store refuse to sell ANYONE alcohol?
Certainly. However, I don't think that there is a right to be served by a specific or particular clerk or pharmacist.Fu_chick said:There is a difference between expressing ones religion and infringing on others.
Absolutely. I ask, if they say they won't - I do the human thing and go elsewhere. It's thier business. How do I have a say in how they run thier show? I didn't say it was the smartest choice, but they do indeed HAVE that choice.shuamort said:You mean, if you go to McDonald's and the person behind the counter is a PETA nut, that you'd consider yourself to be demanding when asking for a Double McCheese?
I agree'd until the last sentence. You say this as though a pharmacist is a social worker or some kind of hero - they are not.Wrong. Several states have already enacted laws protecting pharmacists who choose their morals over their work duty. That ignores private enterprise if you ask me and forces employers to lose money especially if they disagree with the pharmacist's position. I hate the fact that a state can legislate it so that a person who is not doing their job can't be fired.
You mean, you wouldn't mention it to the manager that one of their employees wasn't willing to sell their product?vauge said:Absolutely. I ask, if they say they won't - I do the human thing and go elsewhere. It's thier business. How do I have a say in how they run thier show? I didn't say it was the smartest choice, but they do indeed HAVE that choice.
It's not that birth control is used solely for birth control either. There are several other symptoms and diseases that a woman may have that require them to take birth control. PMS, Severe cramps, or endometriosis are three that come to mind and have nothing to do with "the sanctity of life" but the health of the patient.vauge said:I agree'd until the last sentence. You say this as though a pharmacist is a social worker or some kind of hero - they are not.
Hypothetical - If a pharmacy only sold 'morning after pills' and a worker refused to sell them. It would be just silly to hire them in the first place. But, if it is a true pharmacy, they sell and have plenty of stuff to do while someone else whom doesn't have that core conviction sells the product.
I just do not see how a person can DEMAND a product be sold to them. That is proposterous! If its an insolin thing, like an example given, then they should be liable for failing to render aid if that person was to die or something tragic happen to them.
Of course I would complain to the manager. But, I would not DEMAND it be sold to me. If they don't want to sell thier product - I will go elsewhere.shuamort said:You mean, you wouldn't mention it to the manager that one of their employees wasn't willing to sell their product?
Excellent retort. :applaudIt's not that birth control is used solely for birth control either. There are several other symptoms and diseases that a woman may have that require them to take birth control. PMS, Severe cramps, or endometriosis are three that come to mind and have nothing to do with "the sanctity of life" but the health of the patient.
Well, I guess that the pharmacist could always give up her professional license and become a lap dancer.shuamort said:You'll have to remind us all how these pharmacists were FORCED to work these jobs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?