Texas pharmacist refuses pill for rape victim

[Ben Kenobi]

There is nothing wrong, IMO, with religious people wearing apparel, or any accessory that expresses their religious belief in non-demeaning ways at workplaces.

Not in France. Such 'non-demeaning ways' now extends to all such accessories worn in a classroom by a student.

[quote
But when someone decides to play God and take such arrogant, inane, grossly insensitive, ignorant, hateful, sexist, extremely unfair action such as this dope did, he is LOOKING to get fired.
[/quote]

1. Arrogant? All religous folks are arrogant?

2. Inane? It's the teachings of his religion.

3. Insensitive? True, he could have handled the situation in a more tactful manner.

4. Ignorant? Again, he knows how the pill works, but rejects the rationale.

5. hateful? The man has no beef with the customer, but rather the pill.

6. Sexist? Again, the gender of the complainant had nothing to do with his reasons fro not prescribing the pill.

7. Extremely unfair? How so? Did he let one woman have the pill, and not another?

It's getting so I could almost dismiss your post as mere rhetoric, Mr. Fun.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Mordoch:

True, but it still fails for the same reason as the claim that one's religion only allows them to work a 4 day week. Religious freedom does not need to accomodate the hypothetical, but rather the actual beliefs.

And private employers don't have to accomodate it if such expression would put on them undue burden.

My company only recognizes the official government holidays. Jewish employees must take vacation time for Jewish holidays, as Catholics must for Good Friday. If there were any Muslims, the story would be the same, I'm sure, for their holy days.

Likewise, Eckert has no legal compunction to allow a man to exercise his religious beliefs while representing them as a company. By refusing this woman service, the man was effectively enshrining his belief as the company policy. That's wrong, and he deserved to be reprimanded for it. If he does it again, he should be fired.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not in France. Such 'non-demeaning ways' now extends to all such accessories worn in a classroom by a student.

That clearly is a difference in what "religious freedom" entails. Surely they can be different from you?

[Mr. Harley]

Reference the earlier note on a conscientious objector - due to his beliefs, he MAY NOT serve as an armed soldier. However, the military can make a reasonable accomodation, it's called a Corpman (frontline medical personnel - think EMS).

(hijack warning) It's why I have nothing but contempt for draft dodgers, either those with the guts to do it directly, or indirectly (I am including the last two presidents of the US, by the way). In Vietnam conscientious objectors serving as corpman had, from my understanding (source read years ago, cannot document) the hightest ratio of Medal of Honor among serving personnel. They also had hideously high fatality rates, the Viet Cong considered them a primary target. I wouldn't have the guts to go into a combat zone without the ability to shoot back. I call that a strongly held conviction - they are willing to die for it while saving others.

[Ben Kenobi]

I wouldn't have the guts to go into a combat zone without the ability to shoot back. I call that a strongly held conviction - they are willing to die for it while saving others.

I don't mind the jack. It's an important point, because that is the only acceptable service for Mennonites. To me, that's the best adaptation that can be made, to get the person receiving the accomodation to do something particularly distasteful or difficult that the others cannot or will not do.

In the case of strongly held beliefs, you will find the person most willing to accept the trade off. You've reminded me of an a point to distinguish what is meant by strongly held beliefs, as opposed to those done for convenience only.

[Ben Kenobi]

That clearly is a difference in what "religious freedom" entails. Surely they can be different from you?

Most would consider the decision of France a gross violation of religious freedom.

[Jaguar]

I hate to look like a pro-choicer, but I'm gonna have to come down against you on this one, Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

For what reason?

[Jaguar]

If he didn't want to sell birth control pills, then he shouldn't have become a pharmacist.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Mordoch:

True, but it still fails for the same reason as the claim that one's religion only allows them to work a 4 day week. Religious freedom does not need to accomodate the hypothetical, but rather the actual beliefs.

Ok, here's a rather good real life example. The Church of Scientology has an extremely negative view of Psyhiatric Drugs. Here's site that definately appears to have been set up by a Scientologist in which it list among other drugs, Prozac and Xanax as being " all dangerous and should not be used by anybody under any circumstances".

http://www.sntp.net/drugs/drugs.htm

It actually is quite possible that a Scientologist would believe that he has a moral duty to refuse to provide a patient with Prozac or Xanax when the patient comes in with prescription. However, when not talking about psychiatric drugs, I believe that Scientology does not a have a problem with them. Therefore its quite possible to have Scientologist pharmacist who is perfectly willing to provide most drugs, but refuses to give any psychiatric drugs to any customers. Concievably this could lead to someone running out of Prozac, falling into a deep depression and killing himself. How would you handle a situation like this which could actually occur if it hasn't already?

Update: Here's some more evidence of Scientology's views on Prozac.

The latest wonder drug, Prozac, which is linked with violence, permanent mental instability and death, has been consistently exposed by CCHR. The Food and Drug Administration has received more adverse reaction reports on this drug since it was introduced in 1987 than any drug in history. Yet it is still being prescribed to millions of people around the world. CCHR has conducted a massive public awareness campaign to make the facts known, demanding its removal from the market.

http://www.scientology.org/reform/new/8psych.htm

[Ben Kenobi]

If he didn't want to sell birth control pills, then he shouldn't have become a pharmacist.

First of all, this pharmacist objected not to the birth control pill, but to the morning after pill. There is a difference between the two. The only function of the morning after pill is to prevent the implantation of the unborn child.

Secondly it is entirely possible for this pharmacist to have been a pharmacist well before the morning after pill became distributed by the company.

Fianlly, if we follow your logic, no Catholics should become pharmacists, a situation that seems absurd.

[Dis]

only catholics that feel the need to impose their values upon others.

[Rogan Josh]

Re: Re: Texas pharmacist refuses pill for rape victim

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
If someone has a "moral opposition" to filling a legally valid prescription, he or she shouldn't be a pharmacist.

I disagree. Although I am not 'pro-life', I don't think anyone should be forced by their employers to do anything immoral. He should have just passed her on to one of his colleagues though. Also, presumably she didn't tell him she was a rape victim.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Fianlly, if we follow your logic, no Catholics should become pharmacists, a situation that seems absurd.

Again, the company has no legal obligation to change its legal business practices to appease a religious group, no matter how big or small. Pharmacists are required by their employers to dispense all medications they have as the company policy dictates, not the pharmacist.

Any employee might object to serving a customer on any grounds gussied up under religious beliefs. What if he had refused to dispense medications to a black woman because his religion taught that black people were immoral and didn't deserve medication? Why would that be acceptable for the company?

As I said before: when a pharmacist is working for a company like Eckert, in the performance of his duties he is acting as their official representative. If he takes a moral stance such as this in his job, he is presenting his own philosophy as that of the company's. No company is obligated to tolerate that so long as the business practice in question is legal. So they had every right to discipline him. If the man has a moral qualm with doing ANY part of the job required of him, then he should find new employment. He does not have "squatters rights" to the job, so even if the introduction of the pill came long after he was a pharmacist, his professional duty is to conform to the new standards or to resign if he is unable to do so.

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Re: Re: Texas pharmacist refuses pill for rape victim

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I disagree. Although I am not 'pro-life', I don't think anyone should be forced by their employers to do anything immoral.

The only thing that determines what is "moral" and "immoral" in a business context is what is legal and illegal. Dispensing the medication is legal, so the company has every right do so AND to expect all of its employees to do so.

My company, years ago, did some work for a major company that proved itself to be incredibly homophobic in its hiring practices. I asked to be recused from the work, and it was granted (not out of any obligation, but because they were generous). However, 2 years later we got a bunch more business from them. It was made clear to me that, while the company understood my position, I could not recuse myself this time, because the amount of work involved required everyone play a part. I simply had to swallow my pride and do the work, because in the end I knew I was being paid to act as an agent of my company, not to soothe my own moral conscience. Had my moral objection been stronger, I simply would have had to quit.