Muslim pharmacist denies "morning after" pill from woman

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


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.

In almost all cases I can think of that applies to govt employees only, not to private workers.


A physician can choose not to prescribe any given medication, for any particular reason - cause they question its effectiveness, cause they dont believe in it ethically or religiously, or cause the company rep didnt give them nice pads and pens. Granted a pharmacists role is different, but the extreme of denying them a license on this issue, is politics. Just as attempts to protect them from employers on this issue is politics the other way.

[Elok]

I think I agree with lotm's take on this, more or less. If you don't want to give out a certain drug, and your employer doesn't mind the loss of business, fine. If your employer does mind said loss, your butt is toast. Works for me.

[LordShiva]

To take it a step further, say you're a pharmacist, and you need to unexpectedly close your pharmacy one day (a relative died, unfortunately). Should the government take away your license because of your belief that it's appropriate to attend a relative's funeral, thereby denying a potential customer of a time-sensitive drug?

[Ben Kenobi]

A physician can choose not to prescribe any given medication, for any particular reason - cause they question its effectiveness, cause they dont believe in it ethically or religiously, or cause the company rep didnt give them nice pads and pens. Granted a pharmacists role is different, but the extreme of denying them a license on this issue, is politics. Just as attempts to protect them from employers on this issue is politics the other way.

Exactly. It's not just about denying a license, but also about stripping licenses away from already practicing pharmacists.

What did pharmacists do before the morning after pill was invented? Why should a pharmacist be forced to leave the profession for which he has been trained simply because he refuses to dispense one pill? I should think most of the folks here would be up in arms if pharmacists were forced to dispense medication because the big drug companies paid the owner plenty of money. Why is this any different?

I can understand the frusteration that some folks might have but the reality of the situation is that just because one pharmacist chooses to exercise her right to freedom of conscience, does not prevent that customer from shopping elsewhere. All they have to do is express their displeasure with the pharmacy by going down the street.

[Proteus_MST]

In case of the christian pharmacist they really had the morning after pill in stock (and the pharmacist was employee of a large pharmacy chain).

I suppose the case for the muslim pharmacist is similar, as he was also employed by a pharmacy chain.

So one should expect that he is supposed to sell the things he has in stock

As for Pharmacists and holidays:
In germany every pharmacy has a shield in their windows, which tells you the adress of the nearest pharmacy which is open during the time when this pharmacy is closed and also to pharmacies which are open when all other pharmacies are closed (i.e. during the night for example).
So going on a religious holiday as a pharmacist is no problem as long as you inform your customers, where they could get their medicines during the time when you´re closed.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
In case of the christian pharmacist they really had the morning after pill in stock (and the pharmacist was employee of a large pharmacy chain).

I suppose the case for the muslim pharmacist is similar, as he was also employed by a pharmacy chain.

I hope his employer disciplined him for not doing his job. That's whose responsibility this is.

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
So going on a religious holiday as a pharmacist is no problem as long as you inform your customers, where they could get their medicines during the time when you´re closed.

So refusing to sell something is no problem, since your customers can see on the little shield where the nearest competing pharmacy is.

[Arrian]

This is mainly an issue, I figure, because of the time-sensative nature of the morning-after pill. There isn't always another pharmacy down the street where the customer can go. There would be in my town. In more rural areas, though?

-Arrian

[Spiffor]

Re: Muslim pharmacist denies "morning after" pill from woman

What an *******

If you're so religious that you refuse to dispense some legal drugs, you should be banned from the pharmacist profession

[Proteus_MST]

Yes, in small villages where there is only one pharmacy it can be a problem.

I think if you own the pharmarcy the problem can be avoided by not habing the pharmacy in stock. No one can blame you for not selling something you don´t have.
But if you are just an employer and have the things in stock however...

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Exactly. It's not just about denying a license, but also about stripping licenses away from already practicing pharmacists.

What did pharmacists do before the morning after pill was invented? Why should a pharmacist be forced to leave the profession for which he has been trained simply because he refuses to dispense one pill? I should think most of the folks here would be up in arms if pharmacists were forced to dispense medication because the big drug companies paid the owner plenty of money. Why is this any different?

I can understand the frusteration that some folks might have but the reality of the situation is that just because one pharmacist chooses to exercise her right to freedom of conscience, does not prevent that customer from shopping elsewhere. All they have to do is express their displeasure with the pharmacy by going down the street.

If you own the pharmarcy, O.K.
But if you are an employee in a large pharmacy chains it should be your duty to inform your employer that you won´t sell the morning after pills, so that he can decide if he keeps you as employer regardless of the circumstances or if he fires you because you are not able to fulfill your job in every case.
And failure to inform the employer should de facto result in a trial where it is determined if you can keep your licence or not.
After all you deny your employer of the chance to adjust to the situation (i.e. an employee who doesn´t sell all medicines in stock) either by firing you or by employing a second pharmacist who sells all of the medicines which you aren´t able to sell.
Therefore by not informing your employer about the situation you deliberately harm your employer and his customers.

[Ben Kenobi]

But if you are an employee in a large pharmacy chains it should be your duty to inform your employer that you won´t sell the morning after pills, so that he can decide if he keeps you as employer regardless of the circumstances or if he fires you because you are not able to fulfill your job in every case.

The owner knows that he has a muslim employee in this case. Would it not make sense as the owner to consult with said employee prior to making the decision to supply the morning after pill?

And failure to inform the employer should de facto result in a trial where it is determined if you can keep your licence or not.

I don't think we should be putting people to trial for upholding their conscience. We expect pharmacists to uphold a code of conduct that does not permit them to do harm to their customers. For example, what would we think of a pharmacists that adulterated the drugs that he used, exposing people to considerable harm?

If we expect the pharmacist to violate his conscience under pressure from their employer, then why shouldn't we also expect them to compromise in other areas?

After all you deny your employer of the chance to adjust to the situation (i.e. an employee who doesn´t sell all medicines in stock) either by firing you or by employing a second pharmacist who sells all of the medicines which you aren´t able to sell and therefore deliberately harm your employer and his customers.

The owner knew beforehand that he has a muslim pharmacist. It would make sense to me that he would at least ask whether she would dispense the pill. Now if she lied and said she would, and then later refused that would be grounds for dismissal. If she says no she wouldn't, that allows the employer to make the concession and work around her by having another person on staff to dispense the pill.

It shouldn't be a difficult thing to do, since the only thing the muslim would not be able to do is dispense one pill!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST

If you own the pharmarcy, O.K.
But if you are an employee in a large pharmacy chains it should be your duty to inform your employer that you won´t sell the morning after pills, so that he can decide if he keeps you as employer regardless of the circumstances or if he fires you because you are not able to fulfill your job in every case.

That seems reasonable. Whats troubling is the impulse not merely to fire the guy, or even to fine him, but to take away his license. Why shouldnt he, after being fired, have the option of opening up his own pharmacy where he doesnt stock these things? Again, pharmacies dont stock everything. Even items they do normally stock are sometimes out of stock.

Arrian - if the one Pharamy in the village doesnt carry it, the prescribing doc should know that, and may be able to keep some on hand.

Im lso troubled by the harshness toward someone refusing to sell something that either wasnt legal or wasnt available when they entered the profession. Maybe Euthanasia drugs will be legal tommorrow. Maybe some technology we can hardly envision today. Should someone only enter this field if they believe its always ethical to dispense whatever is legal?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

If she says no she wouldn't, that allows the employer to make the concession and work around her by having another person on staff to dispense the pill.

Actually thats not real feasible. Its probably law that only a licensed pharmacist can dispense it, and most pharmacies are going to have times when only one licensed pharamacist is on duty.

[Arrian]

I don't think we should be putting people to trial for upholding their conscience. We expect pharmacists to uphold a code of conduct that does not permit them to do harm to their customers.

I don't see how this has anything to do with the current issue. Oh, right, "the customer" includes the recently fertilized egg in your mind. Ok, nevermind that bit.

Anyway, I generally want a society wherein people are free to follow their conscience (up to the point where it harms others, obviously), but at the same time a person who has a perscription has a justifiable expectation that the perscription will be filled by a pharmacist. There has to be a way to accomodate both sides here, in a manner that does not invalidate the whole idea of a "morning after" pill (in other words, in a manner that ensures women can get access to the pill in the required timeframe, even in a rural environment where there might only be 1 pharmacy nearby).

-Arrian

[Krill]

I wonder if it is legal to choose to employ a pharmacist who would be willing to dispense the morning after pill over a pharmacist who would not, on the grounds that their religion would stop them from preforming that section of their job.

[Krill]

Actually thats not real feasible. Its probably law that only a licensed pharmacist can dispense it, and most pharmacies are going to have times when only one licensed pharamacist is on duty.

TBH alot of devolution of powers to nurses is happening in Britain.