« When Family Members Give WalMart Scandal, WalMart Makes Scandal-Aid | Main | Making Lists and Checking Them Twice »

Comments

their buy blue page: http://www.buyblue.org/node/1963/view/summary

Robin do you agree with this part?

Target has sided with the far-right Christian wackos, in permitting their pharmacists to turn you away because they think you're a sinner

I assume it's an exagerrating charcaterisation of course. Presumably what they actually do is allow pharmacists to refuse to do something that they beleif is going to lead directly to killing a "person". I would guess this is only allowed if there are others who can serve the customer.

At any rate the emphasis is on workers rights here and not customer convenience. I would think you would be happy to see the Republicans rallying around the concept of worker rights?

The actual group pushing this --- I've debated her on abortion boards years ago ---- it's just one woman despite having "international" in the name.

As worker rights go it's pretty basic isn't it? "I have the right to refuse an instruction if I beleive (reasonably) that it will lead to someone's (legal) death".

I am pro-"choice" (it's no choice for the man involved but feminists have labeled it "choice"). But obviously a lot of people do beleive this nonsense about zygotes being murdered so it's not like the belief is "unreasonable" in the sense that it lacks any societal support. It's an understandable view.

It just seems like this could have been a good opportunity to fight for worker's rights to not be fired for any or no reason. Here in Alabama I believe the law is you can fire anyone for anything and they hate worker's rights. If this case makes them think, "Maybe that's not such a bright idea" then I'm all for it.

For the customer the issue is access. Worker's rights are not incompatible.

Presumably what they actually do is allow pharmacists to refuse to do something that they beleif is going to lead directly to killing a "person".

I can believe that selling viagra is the equivalent of committing rape and refuse to fill prescriptions for it. I would expect to be fired. These people can believe all they want. The fact is that emergency contraception isn't an abortifacient.

I would guess this is only allowed if there are others who can serve the customer.

I think you're assuming too much. At least Target makes no mention of a provision like that in the email they're sending out to people who write them about this issue. But I'm willing to put the onus on the company and demand that they provide back up for any pharmacist who doesn't want to do her job.

Read Dahlia Lithwick on this topic.
She's got the right idea:

The best tool I can offer to sort out this conundrum is the "least cost avoider" model from law and economics. Where the burden can either fall on a pharmacist (who knows in advance of her own moral reservations and is in a position to provide a patient with suitable alternatives) or on an unknowing patient (who may well be pregnant, frantic, poor, and short on time), the burden must properly fall on the pharmacist. Patients cannot have their expectations of timely, professional service undermined by unanticipated bursts of conscientious objection. That's why the counterproposals under consideration in at least four other states grappling with reluctant pharmacists seem eminently reasonable: Such laws would require druggists to fill all prescriptions unless they can find alternatives that don't inconvenience the patient. This is essentially the mechanism created earlier this month when Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich filed a 150-day emergency rule requiring drugstores to either fill prescriptions or otherwise accommodate their patients.

These solutions don't force individual pharmacists to undermine their personal religious views. They do place high costs on the drugstores, which would now need to implement fixes such as posted warnings, agreements with other pharmacies, and the hiring of extra pharmacists, even if they can ill afford it. If an individual service provider wants to reserve the right to deny services, they should be free to do so, and if a drugstore wants to employ such a person, they should also do so. But these celebrations of religious conscience should happen at their own cost and never at the expense of citizens requiring services.

I haven't heard of anyone attacking viagra apart from feminists. Although this issue might be pitched more broadly eventually for now I am asking you if you feel a worker should have the right to refuse immoral (but lawful) orders without risking being fired.

Why isn't that a no-brainer for you?

Consider the implications for workers rights. Democrats could have run all the way with this if not for this knee-jerk feminist style reaction.

emergency contraception isn't an abortifacient

Irrelevent. The people concerned reasonably believe that's it's killing a person (prior to implantation, therefore technically prior to pregnancy).

The people concerned reasonably believe that's it's killing a person (prior to implantation, therefore technically prior to pregnancy).

They don't reasonably believe that any more than I reasonably believe that viagra is rape.

I am asking you if you feel a worker should have the right to refuse immoral (but lawful) orders without risking being fired.

I answered that briefly in my first comment. Did you even read Lathwick? She goes into more detail.

Another problem is that you're equating immoral with unlawful. Most of what happens in business is immoral. It's immoral to sign people up for credit they can't afford, but I would expect the person who took that job to sign up every poor sucker he could find. If he refused to do that on moral grounds, I would expect him to be fired.

Ok, I misread your viagra comment.

It's a reasonable belief these people have because,

(1) a significant minority of the country believes the same thing they do -- tens of millions of people. It's a major political opinion, whether you like it or not. Tens of millions of people do not think that viagra is rape.

(2) the action they are refusing is not implied by the usual understanding of their job. Unlike your example with the credit card company the pharmacist doesn't sign up with the understanding that they will be helping to poison people. On the contrary I believe there's some sort of professional code of conduct that tells them NOT to.

How do you feel about the Fox TV journalists who were fired for refusing to lie sufficiently. The one where the judge said that there's no law against lying on television so their dismissal was lawful?

I don't know why on earth you claim I'm the one confusing immoral and unlawful when I said "immoral (but lawful)". at any rate I thought that if your employer asks you to commit an actual crime you are already covered -- which is the point of the judge saying you can lawfully lie on TV.

What part of the Lathwick article are you refering to? She seems to ignore the worker's rights angle altogether. She talks about "religious rights" and then tries to compare the convenience of the customer with the convenience of the pharmacist -- as if this was all about convenience for either party.

I find it amusing that the left calls the right "intolerant".

Pot calling the silverware black.

The Service Workers Union of America gives 96% of its donations to Democrats whether regardless of their members' affiliations. Should I stop buying their stuff? Do you think Target only hires Republicans?

Yes, it could set a bad precedent for firing pharmacists if they refuse to provide EC to patients. But there is absolutely no excuse for the stores not to provide alternatives or at the very least have a list of pharmacies where the patient can go.

It's easy. Create a form on Word. Type up a list of EC-distributing pharmacies, and put a stack of Xeroxes by the cash register. That way, the pharmacist who won't distribute the EC doesn't even have to tell the patient of his or her options.

I am completely with Lithwick on this one. Plus, it falls under the category of "the customer is always right," and a pharmacy is a service like anything else.

You're confusing immoral and unlawful by mentioning morals at all. It's lawful to request EC and other forms of BC. It's unethical for a pharmacy to deny care. Morals simply don't enter into this debate.

Tens of millions of people do not think that viagra is rape.

But if they did, then filling a prescription for viagra would be equivalent to rape.

(2) the action they are refusing is not implied by the usual understanding of their job.

That's nonsense. Every pharmacist can expect to fill BC scripts.

I disagree with your assessment of Lathwick. Read her carefully. It's a complete and airtight argument. I have nothing to add to what she wrote.

Consider the implications for workers rights.

Health care workers (including ancillary service providers such as pharmacists) have additional obligations than workers in other environments. In the case of pharmacists, their job is to dispense medications as ordered by the prescribing physician, not interfere with medical treatment. They do not have the right to refuse to fill a valid and legal prescription based on their opinion of whether a medication is appropriate treatment for the indication - that would be practicing medicine without a license. While there are a few legal and appropriate reasons to refuse to fill a prescription, personal opinion about the medication and its mechanism of action is not one of them. Pharmacists are not filling gift orders, they are support services for medical care.

Irrelevent. The people concerned reasonably believe that's it's killing a person (prior to implantation, therefore technically prior to pregnancy).

That belief is erroneous and unsubstantiated. EC works by preventing/delaying ovulation, it does not prevent implantation or induce sloughing of the endometrium. If fertilization has occured, implantation has already occured, the increased progesterone levels from the EC is likely to facilitate a pregnancy, not end it. By the nature of their scientific training, a pharmacist should be able to understand this and their objection to dispensation is not based on a reasonable belief about the medication.

If a pharmacist is so offended by a requirement to dispense hormonal contraception in the normal course of business, (s)he should take a job at a pharmacy that does not stock offensive medications. A physician that believes abortion is murder would not take a job where performing abortions is a routine task they are expected to perform (and most likely would not work at an "abortion clinic"). If a pharmacist thinks hormonal contraception is immoral and filling prescriptions makes him/her a party to murder, why would (s)he take a job at a pharmacy that routinely enables and facilitates that murder even if (s)he is not a direct party to this immorality?

I guess none of you care much about civil rights. Score another one for the cancer of feminist hate-filled ideology. "Naah, naah, naaah, naah, naah!" I've already made up my mind so don't confuse me with facts and principles. No wonder the country has gone firmly to the right.

By the way did any one catch that - was it on the Colbert Report? about Nixon being to the left of Kerry?

I agree with Robin!!!!

I just wanted to say that. At least in the confines that if a pharmacist can't do his/her job, that's their problem, not the customer asking for a legal prescription.

Furthermore, if the company feels that they should support or fire someone who has an ethical issue, that is fine. On the other hand, I'd be surprised of a customer wouldn't have a lawsuit they could file if a *licensed* pharmacy refused to provide a legal drug.

Well duh.
Of course *you* oppose civil rights John. You're happy with journalists being fired for refusing to lie too I assume? No inconsistency there. If they didn't want to be liars why would they work for Fox News, right?

There is no civil right to air a story on a local broadcast station. Those decisions are made by the station and editorial directors. As in the following:

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press was keeping its distance from the petition.

"We are not in the business of trying to get TV stations in trouble with the government," said Lucy Dalglish, Reporters' Committee executive director.

"The First Amendment right belongs to the TV station. If the station does not want to publish a story, it has the right to not broadcast the story. The reporter also has the absolute right to disassociate themselves from something they don't agree with."

IOW, they have the right to go get another job if they like. And the station has the right to govern content. For right or wrong. Just as the NYT does.

This is nonsense:

(1) a significant minority of the country believes the same thing they do -- tens of millions of people. It's a major political opinion, whether you like it or not.

The vast majority of the country believes that contraception should be legally available. That there are radicals who persist in disseminating false information about what EC does and then cynically exploiting the confusion they sow speaks more to their dishonesty than the position of the mass public.

Also nonsense:

(2) the action they are refusing is not implied by the usual understanding of their job.

They sign up knowing that they will likely fulfill thousands of prescriptions for hormonal birth control, as well as for condoms. All these products do the same thing (see for example, the Plan B patient information: "Plan B® is used to prevent pregnancy, it will not work if you are already pregnant, and it will not affect an existing pregnancy.") and thus pharmacists should most definitely know that providing EC is implied, just like preparing prescriptions for montly birth control, Lipitor, and the ever popular Viagra.

No pinky it's not "nonsense". It's all logical based on a belief that you don't happen to share --- that a zygote is the equivalent of an adult. All your "arguments" miss the freakin' point because you base them on the false assumption that the pharmacist does NOT believe a zygote is the equivalent of an adult.

You might as well argue that there's no need to allow Sikh's to wear a turban because "Nobody wants to wear a towell on their head."

Good grief.

I would stand up and cheer Target's interpretation IF I were certain that the interaction went this way:

1. Customer hands prescription to pharmacy technician, who is morally opposed to EC.

2. PT notes that it is for EC, passes prescription to the other technician/pharmacist, who fills it without comment.

3. Customer receives medication without even knowing there's a problem.

Target don't do that. That they sent the customer to another pharmacy makes me want to know the name of THAT pharmacy, so I can give THEM all my business.

You can find out which pharmacies don't discriminate here.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Bang for the Buck: Boosting the American Economy

Compassionate Conservatism in Action

Molly


  • "We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war."

  • Photobucket

Zinn


  • "[O]ur time, our energy, should be spent in educating, agitating, organizing our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the schools. Our objective should be to build, painstakingly, patiently but energetically, a movement that, when it reaches a certain critical mass, would shake whoever is in the White House, in Congress, into changing national policy on matters of war and social justice."

Bono


  • "True religion will not let us fall asleep in the comfort of our freedom. Love thy neighbor is not a piece of advice, it's a command. ...

    God, my friends, is with the poor and God is with us, if we are with them. This is not a burden, this is an adventure."

The Reverend Al Sharpton


  • Ray wasn't singing about what he knew, 'cause Ray had been blind since he was a child. He hadn't seen many purple mountains. He hadn't seen many fruited plains. He was singing about what he believed to be.

    Mr. President, we love America, not because of all of us have seen the beauty all the time.

    But we believed if we kept on working, if we kept on marching, if we kept on voting, if we kept on believing, we would make America beautiful for everybody.

Marx


  • ''With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 percent will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 percent will produce eagerness, 50 percent positive audacity; 100 percent will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 percent, and there is not a crime which it will not scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged.''

Join Us!


  • Member, Project Hamad

Happy 71st Anniversary Social Security!


  • Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Countdown


Become a Proud Member of the Guppy Army


Blogroll

Categories

Count Me, Damnit!


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004

Oh, I've Won Awards

alternative hippopotamus

Paperwight's Fair Shot

Your Liberal Media