I thought you didn't have a job. Have you been a pharmacist?
As for pharmacy, my aunt is a pharmacist. So I know what she has had to go through in order to get certification.
The argument was not about right and wrong, it was about legal vs. illegal. You said that Eckerd (can you get the spelling right? That's the name of the pharmacy chain, not a person) shouldn't have been able to fire the pharmacist.
Still, I find this a hypocritical statement. The pharmacist took the job at Eckerd knowing full well they dispensed birth control.
Given all your worship of contracts, to say it is somehow morally right for her to break her contract
She lied when she agreed to sell Eckerd's products, and exposed her employer to a potential lawsuit.
She wasn't refusing the emergency contraception to some teenage girl who decided to hump her boyfriend and screwed up, it was a rape victim.
I didn't say that. Of course, pharmacists are expected to prevent things like overdosing and act as a safety net. That does NOT give them the right, however, to refuse to dispense a medication as a whole, if the pharmacy itself sells them.
That is a completely different situation. A comparable situation would be a bartender. They have every right (and are legally required, in most cases) to refuse to serve a drink to someone if they are too drunk. They do NOT have the right to refuse to serve a product of the bar entirely, and could rightfully be sacked for it.
The lady is not saying that she cannot dispense anything, she is simply saying that she will not dispense one product of the many carried by the store. Therefore, the analogy fails.
As I said, pharmacists contract will state they will dispense whatever medications the pharmacy carries. A blanket statement like that covers birth control.
Yes, she is. And signing a contract that says "You will dispense whatever medications we carry" meets this criteria. Ergo: obligation.
Saying that you are required to dispense any and all medications, without informing the candidate as to precisely what you carry, is not good enough, especially when things change over time. You cannot require an employee to consent to selling something that was not there at the time of the initial contract.
Run roughshod? You yourself said that if an employee has signed a contract with an employer, the contract should be valid no matter what the government thinks.
I have been consistent: The rights of an employer stop at the point where the health of a worker can be unneccessarily jeapordized, the rights of the employee stop at a point where they cause an undue burden on the employer to conduct its business.
The same is not true of smoking bans, which have been shown to be an undue burden on employers. You cannot ask them to forgo a singificant portion of their clientele in order to stay open. If an employee is aware of the consequences of working with smokers, then I don't see any problem with the contract, and permitting employees to work in smoking rooms if that is there choice.
So my position is to protect employee rights AND health, yours is not. You're only interested in protecting the consciences of a few folks who happen to share your right wing ideology.
You said that you don't care about the health of a worker so long as they've signed a contract declaring their health disposable. Positively callous.
Which of course you don't actually believe, because you accept that contracts can be signed even between two willing parties that cannot be legally obligated, such as selling one's self into slavery. Or being a prostitute. Yeah, not so consistent.
Bull****. Nothing about working in a restaurant or bar NECESSITATES an exposure to smoke.
The core function of a server is to serve the items that the establishment sells. It's no more a core function of the job than it would be for them to have to be threatened by exposed, faulty wiring in the restaurant or asbestos in the walls.
Utterly absurd. The issue is that dispensing any and all medications is a core part of their job.
What medical condition does contraception cure? It has very serious and significant health and side effects for women. Where is it the proper role of the pharmacist to dispense contraception?
You cannot logically isolate any particular medication from that, no more than you can isolate a particular drink from the serving duties of a bartender. If a pharmacist refused to dispense cancer medications in toto, how could you say they were NOT refusing to do the core function of their job?
A dodge, and a nonsensical one at that. You have given a very good justification for decriminalizing prostitution.
And why did your signature change? The bet was until the inauguration. Put it back, please.
Comment