Refusing to dispense the morning after pill because of his 'beliefs'

[Jazzy]

"In what appears to be a first-of-its-kind case, a veteran Minnesota pharmacist went on trial Monday accused of violating the civil rights of a mother of five by refusing to fill her prescription for emergency contraception."

Continue reading article

---

What are your thoughts about this?

 

[psalms 91]

While he is entitled to his beliefs he also is a health professional with a job to do and I dont think his beliefs can ovrride his responsibility

 

[Albion]

While he is entitled to his beliefs he also is a health professional with a job to do and I dont think his beliefs can ovrride his responsibility

Then would you also say that a physician cannot likewise refuse to disfigure a patient who wants a sex change operation, perhaps because he or she feels unloved or feels like a failure as either a man or woman, as the case may be?

This isn't any more hypothetical a situation than the one referred to in the Original Post, by the way.

 

[Josiah]

"In what appears to be a first-of-its-kind case, a veteran Minnesota pharmacist went on trial Monday accused of violating the civil rights of a mother of five by refusing to fill her prescription for emergency contraception."

Continue reading article

---

What are your thoughts about this?

Good for him!!!!



.

 

[tango]

Then would you also say that a physician cannot likewise refuse to disfigure a patient who wants a sex change operation, perhaps because he or she feels unloved or feels like a failure as either a man or woman, as the case may be?

This isn't any more hypothetical a situation than the one referred to in the Original Post, by the way.

This is the sort of thing (both your scenario and the OP's, and dozens of others) that just creates a honking great can of worms. At a lower level there were a bunch of cases in the UK some years ago where Muslims working in supermarkets expected to be allowed to refuse to sell pork products and alcohol products, claiming discrimination when their demands were not met. (I forget how they played out, although I think there was a rare outbreak of common sense and it was ruled that if you work on a supermarket checkout you have to check people out whatever they bought)

In the OP's case it seems the patient has a prescription so unless there's a reason to query the prescription (e.g. if an error is suspected) it's hard to see why the personal thoughts of the pharmacist filling the prescription matter.

In the case you list here my thought would be it would depend on whether someone comes to a surgeon feeling unhappy, or whether someone comes with a formal diagnosis of gender dysphoria and has lived as the opposite gender for some considerable time and now wants to make the transition with surgery.

Of course, as with most things, there are biiiiiiig gray areas in the middle.

 

[atpollard]

He should have refused to stock the pill if he had no intention of dispensing it. It is one thing to say that “This store does not stock that drug, you will have to go to the next town 50 miles away to get that pill” (certain local pharmacies carry narcotics and others do not in my county). It is wrong to say “We have the item, but I refuse to sell it to you.”

I suspect that he will lose the lawsuit.

 

[Albion]

In the OP's case it seems the patient has a prescription so unless there's a reason to query the prescription (e.g. if an error is suspected) it's hard to see why the personal thoughts of the pharmacist filling the prescription matter.

The pharmacist is also a local pastor of a church that considers the use of such medicines for the purpose of preventing contraception after sex to be immoral.

Anyway, the pharmacist--who was charged with violating the state's sex discrimination laws--was acquitted.

Incidentally also, the pharmacist did advise the woman who wanted the prescription filled that another pharmacist was due to report for his shift at that same store (in her hometown) within a few hours and might fill the prescription for her. She chose not to wait for him.

 

[tango]

The pharmacist is also a local pastor of a church that considers the use of such medicines for the purpose of preventing contraception after sex to be immoral.

It's hard to see why the pharmacist's moral view should mean he gets to not do the job he signed up to do. I wonder what other drugs he might decline to dispense because he didn't like them for some reason.

Anyway, the pharmacist was acquitted of sex discrimination. That was the charge.

Sex discrimination seems like a weird thing to charge him with. Might as well call him transphobic for not offering the drug to a trans man while she's at it.

 

[Albion]

It's hard to see why the pharmacist's moral view should mean he gets to not do the job he signed up to do. I wonder what other drugs he might decline to dispense because he didn't like them for some reason.

I guess it depends on who is doing the "seeing."

Sex discrimination seems like a weird thing to charge him with.

That must have been the only thing her lawyers thought she had a chance of succeeding with.

 

[tango]

I guess it depends on who is doing the "seeing."

Not really. If you're a pharmacist and someone comes with a prescription you do the job and dispense it. Doesn't seem like rocket science.

The way we're going it seems all sorts of groups want to hold a job but not necessarily actually do the job if they encounter something they dislike. It surely can't be a surprise to know that some people might appear in a pharmacy with a prescription for a treatment some people might find objectionable. It's like the situation I described further up where British Muslims wanted to work on a supermarket checkout but then got all precious when someone bought pork (shrink wrapped, so they didn't have to actually touch the pig flesh) or alcohol. As someone said further up it's not like it's difficult to simply not stock it and direct someone to another pharmacy - for something like a morning after pill it's not as if "we can order it in, come back in two days" is likely to see the unwanted customer reappearing in a couple of days to get their pills.

The way things are going I wonder how long it will be before it's all but impossible to do much useful in stores. Want to get your shopping and pick up a prescription while you're there? Too bad - this assistant is Muslim so won't let you check out the packet of bacon. That one is Hindu and doesn't want to handle roast beef. This one won't give you the meds for your child because they don't believe the diagnosed condition really exists. Sorry, no alcohol because the last assistant is a recovering alcoholic who refuses to handle it.

That must have been the only thing her lawyers thought she had a chance of succeeding with.

The reasoning behind the whole thing might be interesting to see.

 

[Albion]

Not really. If you're a pharmacist and someone comes with a prescription you do the job and dispense it. Doesn't seem like rocket science.

I think it's pretty obvious that the public (as well as the members of this forum) includes people who agree with you on that but also that there are plenty who agree with the pharmacist instead.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

My opinion only - If one goes into a profession holding on to personal beliefs so tightly that it will affect another person's security (physical, mental, emptional, spiritual), then that person should consider leaving the profession for one that will align with their beliefs

 

[tango]

I think it's pretty obvious that the public (as well as the members of this forum) includes people who agree with you on that but also that there are plenty who agree with the pharmacist instead.

There are usually people who agree with either side.

The trouble with the idea of standing up for beliefs is the eternal question of when you have to accept you aren't doing the job you're paid to do any more. At some point you have to accept that if you object to filling prescriptions you really don't have any business being a pharmacist, just like if you really object to serving people who are buying pork/beef/alcohol you have no business working a supermarket checkout.

 

[Albion]

There are usually people who agree with either side.

On some issues, yes. With this matter, however, it appears to be more evenly divided with hardly anyone being completely disinterested.

The trouble with the idea of standing up for beliefs is the eternal question of when you have to accept you aren't doing the job you're paid to do any more. At some point you have to accept that if you object to filling prescriptions you really don't have any business being a pharmacist, just like if you really object to serving people who are buying pork/beef/alcohol you have no business working a supermarket checkout.

I saw nothing that would suggest the pharmacist in this case objects to "filling prescriptions."

 

[atpollard]

Anyway, the pharmacist--who was charged with violating the state's sex discrimination laws--was acquitted.

I think that was an inappropriate charge. I would think that his Pharmacists license or job would be a more likely target (for refusing to fill a prescription).

 

[Albion]

I think that was an inappropriate charge. I would think that his Pharmacists license or job would be a more likely target (for refusing to fill a prescription).

That occurred to me as well. But the idea that a person who is in a business cannot ever decline to do whatever a customer wants done is silly. It happens every day.

This pharmacist told the lady that another pharmacist would be coming on duty in a few hours and he would not likely have the same reservations, not being a pastor like the first one is. She decided to sue instead.

That's similar to the Colorado baker's case in which that man declined to decorate a wedding cake in a certain way but not to refuse to make and sell that customer any of a number of typical wedding cakes. He also took it upon himself to locate another baker who would decorate according to this customer's specifications. That was not acceptable because the intention was to bring charges, not to buy a cake.

 

[atpollard]

This pharmacist told the lady that another pharmacist would be coming on duty in a few hours and he would not likely have the same reservations, not being a pastor like the first one is. She decided to sue instead.

What if you went to the Doctor’s office and the nurse told you that she would not treat you, but the next shift would be on in a few hours?

I agree that “suing” may not be the appropriate response (although civil law offers few choices) … but a professional review board would be within its rights to ask questions about whether the behavior violated professional standards and the employer could fire the employee for failing to do the job for which they were hired and paid. Nurses treat patients and Pharmacists dispense medicines. Refusing to do your job tends to raise a red flag.

As I stated earlier, if the Pharmacy agreed with the opinion of the Pastor-Pharmacist, then they could have made a corporate decision to not carry that drug. By choosing to carry that drug, they chose to sell it. By choosing to work there, the Pharmacist agreed to dispense what the company sells (that is why they hired him).

 

[Lamb]

Does anyone know how old the pharmacist is?

I'm asking because what if he was an older gentleman who has been in that vocation most of his life, prior to any abortion drug being offered? His original contract when hired would have never forced him to dispense such a drug.

 

[tango]

That occurred to me as well. But the idea that a person who is in a business cannot ever decline to do whatever a customer wants done is silly. It happens every day.

There's a big difference between "whatever a customer wants" and a customer going to a pharmacy to get a prescription filled.

If the customer expected to receive multiples of what the prescription offered that would be different. If the customer demanded the prescription be provided in a neon blue glittery bottle because they disliked bog standard orange plastic that would be different. Expecting a pharmacy to fill a prescription isn't exactly a far-out proposition though.

As someone else already commented, if the pharmacy really didn't want to offer that product they could always avoid stocking it. The nature of the morning after pill is such that telling a customer "we can get it in for you, it will be ready on Wednesday" isn't actually helpful to them, so it becomes much easier to refer them to a different pharmacy.

This pharmacist told the lady that another pharmacist would be coming on duty in a few hours and he would not likely have the same reservations, not being a pastor like the first one is. She decided to sue instead.

That's similar to the Colorado baker's case in which that man declined to decorate a wedding cake in a certain way but not to refuse to make and sell that customer any of a number of typical wedding cakes. He also took it upon himself to locate another baker who would decorate according to this customer's specifications. That was not acceptable because the intention was to bring charges, not to buy a cake.

Except it isn't really very similar at all. It's one thing for a private business to take a specific stance (e.g. the pharmacy deciding not to stock the morning after pill at all), where that stance is made clear. It's a different thing entirely when you can't tell whether you'll be served or not, and being served depends on who happens to be behind the counter at any given time.

Since you mentioned the Colorado baker it would seem more akin to a gay couple going to the baker, ordering their cake, being given a delivery date only to show up to collect their cake and find the person who happened to be working at the time refused to hand it over, saying they were welcome to return to collect it in a few hours when a different person should be in the shop.

 

[Albion]

What if you went to the Doctor’s office and the nurse told you that she would not treat you, but the next shift would be on in a few hours?

Offhand, I don't know. I think that you'd have to pose a comparable situation for me to be able to give you an answer.

I agree that “suing” may not be the appropriate response (although civil law offers few choices) … but a professional review board would be within its rights to ask questions about whether the behavior violated professional standards and the employer could fire the employee for failing to do the job for which they were hired and paid.

Agreed, but what I was commenting on was bringing a lawsuit or criminal charges, not about going to a professional review board.

Nurses treat patients and Pharmacists dispense medicines. Refusing to do your job tends to raise a red flag.

Yes. No one is saying that this event was routine.

As I stated earlier, if the Pharmacy agreed with the opinion of the Pastor-Pharmacist, then they could have made a corporate decision to not carry that drug. By choosing to carry that drug, they chose to sell it.

Which the pharmacist was entirely in accord with.

By choosing to work there, the Pharmacist agreed to dispense what the company sells (that is why they hired him).

Maybe and maybe not, but you now have raised the most logical course of action, which the woman chose not to follow.

I'm referring to the policy set by the business itself. It would be a different matter if she had complained to the owners/management and they had taken some disciplinary action.