<p>I think regarding your own practice of religion you are not expected to ignore the tenets of your relgion. I dont think your workplace can for instance force you to eat pork if you are a Muslim,to take off your turban if you are a Sikh or force Christians to work every Sunday.
HOwever, there are conflicting laws regarding this, it may depend also on what state you are in. I also don’t see how forcing your own religion on others is viewed.</p>
<p>Oh, that’s not their position. Some states require pharmacies to stock emergency contraceptives.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11076621/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11076621/</a></p>
<p>Their position is even if they don’t own the store, even if the store already carries contraceptives, and even if they are allowed to excuse themselves and have another employee fulfill the prescription, that’s not enough. Its simply a demand that everyone bow down to the pharmacists whims because of their apparent moral superiority.</p>
<p>Mini, the business owner still has to comply with laws that regulate the business. The Jewish restaurant owner can’t decide to serve Kosher wine to 14 year olds because the religious practices allow it. A Rastafarian doesn’t get to set up a business buying and selling marijuana because it is part of his religion. (See <a href=“http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/news/rfra_rasta.htm[/url]”>http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/news/rfra_rasta.htm</a> )</p>
<p>Anyone whose business depends on their being licensed by the state will always have to comply with all of the duties and obligaitons imposed by that license.</p>
<p>If a pharmacist owns their own store, they can do as they please. My point is that religous beliefs DO NOT excuse someone from fulfilling core work duties - which, in the case of being a pharmacist, include dispensing birth control, a medicine that is proven safe, proven effective, and free of any potential abuses. The only exception to this would be the few, ridiculous states that allow pharmacists to force their ethics on others. </p>
<p>Many if not most doctors, however, are in private practice - they are the “owners” of the store and are thus in position to offer or refuse to offer whatever services they want.</p>
<p>To summarize: if an employee is free to fail to perform core work duties because of religion, then Amish people should be allowed to work at Circuit City and simply scream about the evils of technology instead of helping customers; bookstore employees should be free to refuse to sell any books they find offensive; your local grocery clerk should be able to refuse to sell you pork because he considers it dirty. These are clearly ridiculous outcomes, and are directly equivalent to a pharmacist, who is SUBORDINATE to the drug store he works for, refusing to do his job. Taking this “ethical” freedom to its logical conclusion - allowing every individual employee to make judgement calls about whether or not to do their duty - clearly shows that doing so would result in anarchy, chaos, and general failure.</p>
<p>“which, in the case of being a pharmacist, include dispensing birth control, a medicine that is proven safe, proven effective, and free of any potential abuses.”</p>
<p>So, in other words, a doctor doesn’t have to perform abortions, because it isn’t proven safe, proven effective, and free of any potential abuses?</p>
<p>“Many if not most doctors, however, are in private practice - they are the “owners” of the store and are thus in position to offer or refuse to offer whatever services they want.”</p>
<p>But the owner of a pharmacy is not in the same position? In other words, doctors are allowed to practice based on their ethical principles, but pharmacists (or multinationals owning pharmacies) are not?</p>
<p>I think it depends on the state
Some states have passed legislation that states pharmacies must dispense medication for example Arizona, other states have passed legislation that states that they can refuse.
Some states have passed legislation that doctors cannot perfom procedures that are legal in other states ( South Dakota) other states have passed legislation that doctors can assist with procedures that seem to be illegal in other states ( Oregon)
It appears that we may be headed to states getting more involved in the practice. Either states will agree that a requirement of licensing in that state is to dispense as written or they will agree that a pharmacist has a choice to impose their religion on the patient.</p>
<p>Mini, the owners of the pharmacy ARE in the same position. The OWNER is allowed to say “we will not sell X.” My point is that employees DO NOT have the right to refuse to do their core job duties for religous reasons without risking termination.</p>
<p>The point about “proven safe/effective/etc” was to demonstrate that state laws allowing pharmacists to protect the safety of their patients do not apply in this case; no reasonable court would ever say they did.</p>
<p>My bottom line is this: if you work for someone else, as most pharmacists do, you have to do your core job requirements regardless of your personal religion/etc - that means selling Playboys if you work at Borders and you are a fundamentalist Christian and that means dispensing lawfully written BC prescriptions if you work as a pharmacist for a drug chain that carries BC. If you are the owner, you get to make your own decisions. Any other standard of letting people decide which job duties to do, and which not to do, based on personal ethics, would create far too many negatives to be tenable.</p>
<p>You still haven’t responded to the core of my posts: that employees cannot shirk out of their core duties without risking termination based on ethics. As far as I’m concerned, if a pharmacist refuses to dispense BC for a chain that carries it, they ought to be fired on the spot.</p>
<p>But the state law (in many states) requires the pharmacy (regardless of owner) to dispense XYZ regardless of who the pharmacist is - the onwer is NOT allowed to say “we will not sell X”. (That’s what got Wal-Mart into trouble.)</p>
<p>I happen to agree with what you feel about employed pharmacists. Do you feel the same about an employed physician who works for a practice and is paid by an insurance company that carries out and pays for abortions? (Real question: Group Health is the major provider of health care in our community.)</p>
<p>If state law requires someone to break ethics, then they have to. I have 0 qualms with that - state law has always limited religion in a number of ways. There are plenty of ethical issues that most people are going to have with state law, and we still abide by said laws; religion is no better a reason than politics or personal ethics to not have to follow a law. They ought to move to a more suitable state if they are unhappy with their states laws.</p>
<p>I’m not quite sure about your second point. Are you referring to a physician who works as a subordinate in another physicians practice? If so, then yes, I think the controlling physician has every right to require that his subordinates perform any medical procedure they are capable of, including abortion.</p>
<p>If you are referring to a physician who is employed by an insurance company/hospital directly, then yes - I again think they have have every right to require him to perform abortions.</p>
<p>The bottom line is to live in a lax state and work for yourself if you want true freedom.</p>
<p>double post : (</p>
<p>“ethics” not quite the right word</p>
<p>so, if you live in SD or whereever and are married and want birth control that is legal, you should move because your “pharmacist” feels that he/she has better ethics than you? If you D is raped, you would want her to carry the fetus to term cause of the ethics of some people? And if your wife was raped, you wouldn’t want her to be able to take a morning after pill so she will not get pregnant by a rapist? Some peoples version of “ethics” is sadly warped.</p>
<p>People have sex in every state, did you know that? And stuff happens. And not everyone is married that has sex. Imagine that.</p>
<p>Interesting that women are the brunt of most of the restrictions. And judged.</p>
<p>Hope all those high and mighty pharmecists are willing to cast the first stone against all them sinning women…</p>
<p>
Simple. Because pharmacists have NO relation to their patients; people choose their physicians, set up appointments, discuss their medical issues with them, and decide on an appropriate course of treatment. It is, in a moral sense, sickening to grant veto power to someone who has no clue what is going on. Does that pharmacist know that the woman has endometriosis? That another baby might kill her? Ovarian cysts? Periods that cripple her every month? Clearly, no. Physicians make individualized decisions based on the medical needs of the patient. That is a far cry from unilateral, un-individualized veto power based on philosophical objections.</p>
<p>I think if a pharmacist or doctor who owns their own business has ethical issues with certain kinds of medication or procedures then that’s fine but they should be required to make that clear before any consumer relationship is entered into. For example, if a pharmacist won’t dispense contraception then that restriction should be prominently displayed at the entrance of the shop and in any publicity.
Slight different but in the UK based on the experience of people I know, NHS doctors are within their rights to refuse to facilitate abortions but they are required to pass the patient on to someone who has no such qualms. The extent to which this is made easy for the patient I think varies but it is a right.</p>
<p>“Personal ethics”- see the word is PERSONAL- not job related</p>
<p>For instance, if you do not eat meat, do not get a job in a butcher shop</p>
<p>If you can not give medically prescribed medicine, do not become a pharmicist</p>
<p>Its like someone working at McDonalds and refusing to serve burgers because they are vegan- its the job and they have chosen it</p>
<p>I drive 30 miles to see my internist, who I trust, and has been my primary care-giver for 10 years now. He gives me an hour, if that’s what I need, and has my history and charts and every lab-work ever done.</p>
<p>Prescriptions? I stop by the pharmacy that is in the vicinity of other jobs I am doing, drop off the prescription, go food-shopping etc., and return to pick up the meds. </p>
<p>I know that pharmacists are very well trained and qualified to give all sorts of med-related advice, and probably know more about drug interactions than many doctors. And when I have a question for the pharmacist, I do ask, and always receive detailed responses. But I don’t want to hear about his personal ethics.</p>
<p>Still curious about whether these moralistic pharmacists, who refuse to dispense birth-control pills, mind the fact that TROJANS are very displayed right by the pharmacy section of the drugstore.</p>
<p>“If a pharmacist owns their own store, they can do as they please.”</p>
<p>“Many if not most doctors, however, are in private practice - they are the “owners” of the store and are thus in position to offer or refuse to offer whatever services they want.”</p>
<p>I guess I understand your position (though it isn’t what the state maintained in the Wal-Mart case.) Those with the money to own their own businesses in health care can decide, based on their personal ethics, to do as they please. Those who don’t, well they don’t own enough to be allowed to make ethical judgments.</p>
<p>It’s a position I understand (it is, after all, core to the capitalist religion, whether one subscribes to it or not.) </p>
<p>But I chafe.</p>
<p>Or you can work under a socialist system where the government will dictate what you can do no matter what. Talk about chafing.</p>
<p>Like Dubai.</p>
<p>So you support democracy for all the Middle East?</p>