Muslim pharmacist denies "morning after" pill from woman

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I wouldn't call this thread anti-muslim. More like anti-idiot.

If your religion won't let you do your job then you need to find a new job but if you stay at the job you must do all that the job requires. End of story.

The real idiocy seems to be, that this conscience clause in UK and obviously some US states even supports such a behavior,
as under this clause the pharmacists are allowed to refuse to dispense abortion pills if it´s against their conscience.

[Kuciwalker]

For members of the police and fire departments, teachers, and many other government service employees it is illegal to not do your job (see what happened to the air traffic controllers under Reagan). Pharmacists aren't employed by the government, but I think the argument can be extended to them, particularly in the case of the morning-after pill, which is time-sensitive.

[Barnabas]

Why? It is not like she was sick in any way, babies are not a disease

If he owns the store, he can choose to sell or not sell, superfluous goods like the morning after pill, even if that implies bankrupcy.

[flash9286]

Originally posted by Oerdin
California got this one right. In California legally all pharmacists must distribute all legal medication and anyone who refuses to do so, even once, loses their licence. That means they have to get a new job because they're legally bared from being a pharmacist.

That is the way it should be. If the perscription is valid and the drug legal then the phramacist is not a doctor and he must fill it. If he dosn't want to, for what ever reason, then he has failed one of the primary responsibilities of being a pharmacist and so he needs to find a new line of work.

Maybe this is a stupid question, but couldn't this be a violation of the free exercise clause. Making the pharmacist violate his religion just to keep his job?

[Kuciwalker]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but couldn't this be a violation of the free exercise clause. Making the pharmacist violate his religion just to keep his job?

Same deal for a Quaker executioner or an Amish nuclear engineer.

[flash9286]

yea yea yea I know about those cases. But in Tramm v. Porter Mem'l Hosp a district court I think said that the hospital had to accommodate nurses who objected to cleaning instruments used in abortion.

In Kenny v. Ambulatory Centre of Miami the court said the centre had to accommodate nurses who didn't want to help preform abortions.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


The real idiocy seems to be, that this conscience clause in UK and obviously some US states even supports such a behavior,
as under this clause the pharmacists are allowed to refuse to dispense abortion pills if it´s against their conscience.

Agreed. It is completely idiotic to allow people to not do their jobs and to retain their licence. Those people need to find new lines of work if they are unable to perform the duties of their current one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by flash9286
Maybe this is a stupid question, but couldn't this be a violation of the free exercise clause. Making the pharmacist violate his religion just to keep his job?

When you can't get away from distribution of the pill in the context of doing the job, then no. In cases of hospitals, the nurses can be put on doing stuff. Not like a pharmacist can do something other than dispense pills.

[flash9286]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


When you can't get away from distribution of the pill in the context of doing the job, then no. In cases of hospitals, the nurses can be put on doing stuff. Not like a pharmacist can do something other than dispense pills.

Well they do more than just distribute pills. They counsel patients, call doctors and receive doctor calls, they compound drugs, prepare solutions, and if then own their store they do general business work.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well then this pharmacist can do that .

Neutrally applicable laws are valid even if they impact religion (ie, like not taking drugs).

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by LordShiva


No, that's not the way it should be. Not doing one's job should not be against the law - it's the concern of the employers, employees, and customers, and not of the government.

As other have mentionned, you would be right in most cases, but most people (and most government) agree that some jobs are to be considered critical and are exceptions.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Oerdin
California got this one right. In California legally all pharmacists must distribute all legal medication and anyone who refuses to do so, even once, loses their licence. That means they have to get a new job because they're legally bared from being a pharmacist.

That is the way it should be. If the perscription is valid and the drug legal then the phramacist is not a doctor and he must fill it. If he dosn't want to, for what ever reason, then he has failed one of the primary responsibilities of being a pharmacist and so he needs to find a new line of work.

QFT

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Oerdin
California got this one right. In California legally all pharmacists must distribute all legal medication and anyone who refuses to do so, even once, loses their licence. That means they have to get a new job because they're legally bared from being a pharmacist.

[Victor Galis]

If a man's religion prevents him from doing his job, he should never have taken that job in the first place, and his employer should waste no time in rectifying that mistake.

[lord of the mark]

Lets say Im a pharmacist. I own my own pharmacy (so the issue of employer rights is not at issue) I am Sabbath observant. I choose not to keep the pharmacy open on Saturday. Someone needs a medication on Saturday? Whats their choice? Obviously go to someone else. Should I lose my license for that reason? Should I choose a different profession?

Reality here - no Pharmacy stocks everything. Its not economical. So sometimes youre going to have to go elsewhere, cause what they have isnt in stock. Even something you need on time sensitive basis. A good way to deal with this is to call ahead, and make sure they are in stock.

Now whether the employer is OBLIGED to accommodate an employee, is another question.