Muslim pharmacist denies "morning after" pill from woman

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


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.

"Im Donald Rumsfeld, i have a prescription for a stimulant. My doc says this would keep someone from falling asleep for a week, but they would still feel horribly tired. So tired and uncomfortable theyd answer ANY question"

Pharmacist: Yes thats right, is this for you?"

"No, its for a dependent. Names right here on the Rx, Mohammed al Qabboumi"

Pharmacist: "sounds like an offlabel use, Im not sure thats legal"

"According to this executive order ive got here its completely legal"

[Arrian]

Originally posted by 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.

Oooh. Juicy.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

That is the law. They don't allow the MAP to be sold over the counter.

True, there are going to be times when you aren't going to have two folks there. What's a better accommodation, firing the pharmacist for not dispensing one pill, or to ensure that during most times of the day that there is someone else who can provide the MAP?

I think the latter is much more sensible.

Oh, and that would be my solution Arrian, to try to best accommodate both, it's not perfect, but better then the alternative suggested.

[Spec]

Why not just go see some other pharmacist. Who the hell cares what he thinks? **** him. What an *******.

Spec.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

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?

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?

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!

I don´t think that it has something to do with the religion but rather with how religious someone is.

In germany you have lots of catholic pharmacists and without doubt also muslim pharmacists, but I doubt that there has been any case of one of these pharmacists denying to give the morning after pill to a customer.

So it´s worthless to just stop employing all muslim (or christian) pharmacists (or ask themn all, as most of the citizens of germany are christians).

As for the duty:
I think it is definitely your duty to tell your employer if you cannot fully perform your job.

For example:
What would you say if there is a large chain of stores which, among other items, sells cigarettes.
Is it your duty as an employee of the shop to inform the owner of the stores chain beforehand that you won´t sell any cigarettes to the customers (despite having them in stock) because your conscience tells you that you cigarettes harm your customers?
Or is it the duty of your employer to either ask every single employee of he/she has problems selling anything
or risk to sometimes later having half of his customers deciding to buy their things at another store because the shop clerk refused to sell them cigarettes?

IMHO it´s the duty of the employee

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Spec
Why not just go see some other pharmacist. Who the hell cares what he thinks? **** him. What an *******.

Spec.

That's all well in good in areas with multiple pharmacies. But there are rural areas in which that doesn't work.

Proteus I agree that a devote believer who doesn't want to dispense the morning after pill (or any other medicine, for that matter) should inform their employer. Failure to do so is on the employee.

-Arrian

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


That's all well in good in areas with multiple pharmacies. But there are rural areas in which that doesn't work.

-Arrian

There are rural areas where there may not be a doctor willing to dispense drug X.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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.

There was another thread on this a while ago. Stocking the morning-after pill is economical; there's a clear demand. The criteria I would use in this sort of situation are it must be economical (check) and it must be time-sensitive (check), otherwise you could just order the medication (can't you?).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
In almost all cases I can think of that applies to govt employees only, not to private workers.

These workers are still part of emergency services (not exactly, but I can't think of a better name for things like police/fire/health/air traffic controllers/etc), even if not employed by the government. I think it's fair for government to regulate a part of the economy that is critical to people's lives but which is run by the private sector.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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?

I think there's a difference between closing the pharmacy to everyone and denying someone a specific drug because of your religion, thus in a way imposing your religious beliefs (e.g. a ban on contraceptives) on everyone who can only come to you for medicine.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
There are rural areas where there may not be a doctor willing to dispense drug X.

Which is an even more difficult problem.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Arrian
That's all well in good in areas with multiple pharmacies. But there are rural areas in which that doesn't work.

Should they be forced to stay open 24/7, 365 days a year?

[Arrian]

No.

I didn't say I have the answer that fits in all cases. I just figure there must be a way to resolve this (apparently recurring) problem for 99% of people w/o firing people (on the one hand) or refusing to provide a prescribed drug (on the other).

If I were forced to pick between the two, I'd fire the pharmacist.

-Arrian

[LordShiva]

Me too.

[Proteus_MST]

Yep,
if the employer knows of this the only and best solution (aside from sending people to concurring pharmacies) seems to be the one mentioned, i.e. having a second pharmacist who (at least partially) shares the shifts with the pharmacist who has the conscience problem and dispenses the drugs which the first pharmacist cannot.