The debate about whether pharmacists can pick and choose what legally submitted prescriptions they fill based on the beliefs of their particular religious cult is generating legislation in many states.
My, the drafter of that proposed sign is hiding their feelings, aren't they?
In my view, this is a decision that should be left up to the marketplace. Disclosure by all means, in a less pejorative fashion, at the counter. "We do not fill prescriptions for x, y and/or z." If the customers don't like that, then they don't have to shop there. The pharmacy will lose whatever business it might get from that customer or customers.
In Manhattan, there are hundreds, possibly even thousands of pharmacies. Even in my home town, population 10,000 in rural Connecticut, I personally know of at least five pharmacies. Any pharmacy that willingly gives up business, well, that's its own affair. And, frankly, it's not that difficult for a doctor to get what he needs for a patient in this day and age of FedEx, so I don't buy the "isolated pharmacy" or, as these folks would say, "religious fascist area" routine.
I, for one, would be very interested to know if these people would be as gung-ho to challenge, say, a Muslim who refused to give service in his place of public accomodation (say, a hotel or a restaurant) to an unmarried couple.
It's part of a tendency I see: you can bash Catholics and Catholic beliefs all you like in this country, since there's little or no chance that you're going to suffer for it. But the people doing the bashing, from my POV, clam up but fast when there's the possibility that the folks getting bashed are going to take offence at the bashing and fight back, literally.
It's when I see snide, sneering remarks like this about the Catholic faith that I tend to get the Irish up. If you're going to make arguments that state-licensed pharmacies should not be making exceptions, fine, make the damn argument and leave the pejorative crap out of it.
(1) Given the phraseology of the proposed sign, the use of the word "cult" in my mind signifies that the author wants to use the word in a negative, pejorative sense (mind-numbed robots, etc.).
(2) I chose the "public accomodation" example quite deliberately. One is not allowed to discriminate in places of public accomodation in this country (e.g., refusing to serve blacks at a Woolworth's lunch counter). Au contraire, there is a long-standing public duty imposed on hoteliers and the like: it's what is behind the dram-shop laws, for example. It's a very old common-law concept, going back centuries, when inns and taverns were vital businesses.
(3) Given the fact that Catholic doctrine prohibits the use of birth control or birth control devices, something that Protestant denominations do not, I think it's pretty reasonable to assume there's a swipe being taken at Catholics in particular. From my perspective, the more observant Protestant denominations oppose birth control not on doctrinal grounds (as Catholics do), but on general grounds of moral conduct.
(4) There was, in fact, a fight about this when I was at Georgetown University, a Jesuit university. Some students wanted to sell condoms at the student-run coop. The Js said hell, no, and blocked it. I assume that the folks who wanted their French letters went down the street to the People's Drugstore. Non-prescription stuff, but same principle.
1. The difference between a mainstream religion and a cult appears to be one of simple magnitude alone. Some may argue age, but what is a tradition is equally as much a mere rut that happens to have good PR.
2. Does not your example then defeat itself? Or are you saying such a sign, even if toned down, is the equivalent of a "Whites Only" sign? If so, then the pharmacy ought to honor ALL legal prescriptions regardless of pharmacists beliefs.
3. If that is indeed the case, the wound is self-inflicted. Was it Catholic pharmacists refusing to do their job? If the answer yes, then Catholics shouldn't be complaining about the pain in their foot from having shot it themselves. If not, then your argument evaporates the other way: the intent of a proper warning sign is to inform the public of anyone who is unwilling do the job, no matter the denomination.
4. See Jay's point below. It's one thing if you can go somewhere else, that's a mere inconvenience in most (but not all) places. It's another if someone prevents you even having that option by destroying a prescription or holding it hostage. That IS extremism and fully deserves to treated as such.
(1a) My argument was based on the pejorative meaning of the word "cult" as used in that context. All faiths are "cults" in the strict dictionary definition of the word. However, I do believe that in the context that cross-poster was using, "cult" was used deliberately in a denigrating fashion, a la comparisons to Jonestown and such. I'm sure a Unifcation Church member would object to being called a "moonie" as much as an Orthodox Jew would object to being called, say, a "kike," or if either had their faith's structure called into question. Whatever one's beliefs are on organized religon, that's one thing. But referring to another's beliefs in this context is the equivalent of sticking a cane out into the sidewalk and tripping someone.
(2a) Well, let's leave aside the fact that there have been laws on the books for the last 40-odd years prohibiting "whites only" type things. Long-settled public policy. The issue in this particular argument is can you force conduct, even in a publicly-regulated business, on someone exercising their constitutional rights? In this context, the state would, as a practical matter, be saying you cannot practice a particular profession (in this case, pharmacist) if you are a practicing Catholic, and intend to conduct yourself in accordance thereof. It's not a clear-cut answer, and there are arguments on both sides. (Remember the issues involved with the Skokie march? Freedom of speech versus views against public policy.)
(3a) This was in response to someone saying "how do you know Catholics were being targeted?" (Hence the doctrinal versus general moral code discussion.) If we're going to applaud and protect anti-war protestors (e.g.) for aggressively pursuing their beliefs, or, for that matter, folks who fight tooth and nail to keep anything they view as faith-based content out of the public discourse, why can't others be allowed to vocally (and peacefully, mind) respond to attempts to restrict their views? I think, personally, an observant Catholic phramacist would gladly accept the loss of business (no complaints about pain in feet -- if you're going to take this line in this day and age, and in this secular world, you know what you're getting into), but he sure isn't going to take lightly get barracked by someone else for that action.
(4a) Fair point about destruction of a prescription or "holding it hostage" (by which I assume that means non-transferance) since that intrudes too much on someone else's rights. Pointing down the street (as it were) and saying that the prescription can be filled there is reasonable. (Query how "holding hostage" can be done if the prescription has never been filled in the first place.) And I still believe my point, in this day and age of FedEx and multiple competing pharmacies is valid; inconvenience is slight, at best, especially in the aggressively secular culture we live in.
My own $0.02'orth. Keep in mind that these comments are intended as peaceful discourse, and are not directed in derision at anyone who holds opposing viewpoints.
(Query how "holding hostage" can be done if the prescription has never been filled in the first place.) The pharmacist can take the piece of paper and put it behind the counter, and refuse to return it when the patient asks for it back. He can also refuse to transfer it to another pharmacy. This is what happened in the case in Wisconsin that started all this discussion. Without that piece of paper, the patient is stuck: she must go back to the doctor and get another prescription.
1. "It's only blasphemy if it's against your beliefs." See 3.a.
2.a. Considering the use of religious arguments for racial separation, yes it is possible. And I'll note that nobody is talking of forcing a pharmacist of any denomination to take medication. A pharmacist can live his life - but he should not be able to require others live his life as well.
3.a. No problem with public discourse. The problem is not one of living one's own beliefs, but of coercing others to live one's own beliefs - possibly at the risk of their health. I will note that "birth control pills" are not solely used prescribed for birth control, but for also other conditions, some of which can be life-threatening. The delay caused by being forced into an alternative is not then a mere inconvenience.
4. Not every place is as populated as even Fairmont. It's worth noting that while Fairmont has a few of various stores, people do come from miles around to take advantage of them. Other places are much more remote. I'll grant it is a small and probably decreasing problem, but I will not claim it is a nonexistent problem.
The problem I have is that a pharmacist is making decisions on their own that may not reflect the preferences of their employer, and I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to do that as an employee of anything. I can't get a job at McDonald's and then start telling customers that I won't sell them Big Macs because I'm a Hindu and it's against my religious beliefs, even if I really was Hindu.
If you wanna open up your own pharmacy and decide what you sell and what you don't, that's fine with me. I might disagree with it, and I'd prefer you put up a sign warning people in advance that you don't dispense whatever it is you're against, but that's your choice for your business. However, when individual employees start making that decision regardless of the position of the company they work for...
There were a couple prominent incidents of this nature here in the North Texas area. One involved pharmacists working at Eckerd's, which ended up firing the pharmacists involved for violating its store policies. They were too cowardly to even claim religious reasons as the primary cause for their rejection; they said that while they were morally against such things, they "really" rejected the prescription because of the "health concerns" associated with birth control pills. However, there were no specific circumstances (conflicting prescriptions, etc.) that indicated a specific health issue, they were simply making a generalized statement about birth control pills--and the impact on a woman's health that that thing has would have already been evaluated by her doctor. They're not doctors, they're pharmacists, but they were trying to claim that role in order to get out of doing something they were "morally against". (Cowards, they were, really.)
Another involved a pharmacist at a CVS that not only refused to fill the prescription (of a "morning-after pill" prescribed to a recent rape victim!) but refused to give the prescription back to the customer on the grounds that the prescription was "immoral". He wasn't being a coward, but sadly too much the opposite, sitting so high on his horse that he was blocking this woman from getting her prescription filled anywhere. Because her doctor's office was closed, she was forced to go to the hospital just to get another prescription written.
In both of these cases, the employees should have been fired without hesitation. Religion is only the sparklers and noise; the real issue is whether employers should have the right to fire employees who refuse to do their job (especially in the name of some kind of "political statement"), and it's kind of funny to watch so many people that're traditionally pro-business go bonkers on this one and completely ignore that.
If you're a pharmacist, and you get a job at a pharmacy, it seems fully reasonable to expect that you'll be required to dispense all the drugs that pharmacy sells. It's really that simple.
Here's a comment I posted to rillifane's journal, in reply to the comment in italics:
Why does the pharmacist not have the first amendment right to do business with whomever he chooses?
He does. He should, however, not interfere with the right of his customers to do business with whom they choose. The best-known instance where this was an issue, in Wisconsin, had the pharmacist not only refuse to fill the prescription - which was within his rights, IMAO - but also refuse to transfer it to someone else who would, which, again IMAO, was wrong.
I think the disclaimer above, in slightly cleaned-up form, is a Good Idea. I also think that a pharmacist, or other professional, should not be forced to do something they think is wrong. I do not think they should be able to prevent their customers from finding another professional to do the job. I also think that they deserve no protections for exercising their beliefs: if the pharmacy wishes to fire them for running off customers and putting their business in a bad light, they should be able to.
--
FWIW, I do believe that those who refuse to provide services that are commonly associated with a business based on purely religious reasoning, regardless of the religion involved, are only hurting themselves - and should disclose, up front, just what those restrictions are.
I'm not going to toss my hat into the fray one way or another without some reflection on the issue. There was an interesting article on this in Slate earlier this week, if you'd like more perspective on this issue.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 19 Apr 2005 13:52 (UTC)no subject
Date: 19 Apr 2005 14:02 (UTC)In my view, this is a decision that should be left up to the marketplace. Disclosure by all means, in a less pejorative fashion, at the counter. "We do not fill prescriptions for x, y and/or z." If the customers don't like that, then they don't have to shop there. The pharmacy will lose whatever business it might get from that customer or customers.
In Manhattan, there are hundreds, possibly even thousands of pharmacies. Even in my home town, population 10,000 in rural Connecticut, I personally know of at least five pharmacies. Any pharmacy that willingly gives up business, well, that's its own affair. And, frankly, it's not that difficult for a doctor to get what he needs for a patient in this day and age of FedEx, so I don't buy the "isolated pharmacy" or, as these folks would say, "religious fascist area" routine.
I, for one, would be very interested to know if these people would be as gung-ho to challenge, say, a Muslim who refused to give service in his place of public accomodation (say, a hotel or a restaurant) to an unmarried couple.
It's part of a tendency I see: you can bash Catholics and Catholic beliefs all you like in this country, since there's little or no chance that you're going to suffer for it. But the people doing the bashing, from my POV, clam up but fast when there's the possibility that the folks getting bashed are going to take offence at the bashing and fight back, literally.
It's when I see snide, sneering remarks like this about the Catholic faith that I tend to get the Irish up. If you're going to make arguments that state-licensed pharmacies should not be making exceptions, fine, make the damn argument and leave the pejorative crap out of it.
no subject
Date: 19 Apr 2005 14:30 (UTC)(2) I chose the "public accomodation" example quite deliberately. One is not allowed to discriminate in places of public accomodation in this country (e.g., refusing to serve blacks at a Woolworth's lunch counter). Au contraire, there is a long-standing public duty imposed on hoteliers and the like: it's what is behind the dram-shop laws, for example. It's a very old common-law concept, going back centuries, when inns and taverns were vital businesses.
(3) Given the fact that Catholic doctrine prohibits the use of birth control or birth control devices, something that Protestant denominations do not, I think it's pretty reasonable to assume there's a swipe being taken at Catholics in particular. From my perspective, the more observant Protestant denominations oppose birth control not on doctrinal grounds (as Catholics do), but on general grounds of moral conduct.
(4) There was, in fact, a fight about this when I was at Georgetown University, a Jesuit university. Some students wanted to sell condoms at the student-run coop. The Js said hell, no, and blocked it. I assume that the folks who wanted their French letters went down the street to the People's Drugstore. Non-prescription stuff, but same principle.
no subject
Date: 19 Apr 2005 14:57 (UTC)1. The difference between a mainstream religion and a cult appears to be one of simple magnitude alone. Some may argue age, but what is a tradition is equally as much a mere rut that happens to have good PR.
2. Does not your example then defeat itself? Or are you saying such a sign, even if toned down, is the equivalent of a "Whites Only" sign? If so, then the pharmacy ought to honor ALL legal prescriptions regardless of pharmacists beliefs.
3. If that is indeed the case, the wound is self-inflicted. Was it Catholic pharmacists refusing to do their job? If the answer yes, then Catholics shouldn't be complaining about the pain in their foot from having shot it themselves. If not, then your argument evaporates the other way: the intent of a proper warning sign is to inform the public of anyone who is unwilling do the job, no matter the denomination.
4. See Jay's point below. It's one thing if you can go somewhere else, that's a mere inconvenience in most (but not all) places. It's another if someone prevents you even having that option by destroying a prescription or holding it hostage. That IS extremism and fully deserves to treated as such.
no subject
Date: 19 Apr 2005 15:58 (UTC)(2a) Well, let's leave aside the fact that there have been laws on the books for the last 40-odd years prohibiting "whites only" type things. Long-settled public policy. The issue in this particular argument is can you force conduct, even in a publicly-regulated business, on someone exercising their constitutional rights? In this context, the state would, as a practical matter, be saying you cannot practice a particular profession (in this case, pharmacist) if you are a practicing Catholic, and intend to conduct yourself in accordance thereof. It's not a clear-cut answer, and there are arguments on both sides. (Remember the issues involved with the Skokie march? Freedom of speech versus views against public policy.)
(3a) This was in response to someone saying "how do you know Catholics were being targeted?" (Hence the doctrinal versus general moral code discussion.) If we're going to applaud and protect anti-war protestors (e.g.) for aggressively pursuing their beliefs, or, for that matter, folks who fight tooth and nail to keep anything they view as faith-based content out of the public discourse, why can't others be allowed to vocally (and peacefully, mind) respond to attempts to restrict their views? I think, personally, an observant Catholic phramacist would gladly accept the loss of business (no complaints about pain in feet -- if you're going to take this line in this day and age, and in this secular world, you know what you're getting into), but he sure isn't going to take lightly get barracked by someone else for that action.
(4a) Fair point about destruction of a prescription or "holding it hostage" (by which I assume that means non-transferance) since that intrudes too much on someone else's rights. Pointing down the street (as it were) and saying that the prescription can be filled there is reasonable. (Query how "holding hostage" can be done if the prescription has never been filled in the first place.) And I still believe my point, in this day and age of FedEx and multiple competing pharmacies is valid; inconvenience is slight, at best, especially in the aggressively secular culture we live in.
My own $0.02'orth. Keep in mind that these comments are intended as peaceful discourse, and are not directed in derision at anyone who holds opposing viewpoints.
no subject
Date: 19 Apr 2005 16:11 (UTC)The pharmacist can take the piece of paper and put it behind the counter, and refuse to return it when the patient asks for it back. He can also refuse to transfer it to another pharmacy. This is what happened in the case in Wisconsin that started all this discussion. Without that piece of paper, the patient is stuck: she must go back to the doctor and get another prescription.
no subject
Date: 19 Apr 2005 16:24 (UTC)1. "It's only blasphemy if it's against your beliefs." See 3.a.
2.a. Considering the use of religious arguments for racial separation, yes it is possible. And I'll note that nobody is talking of forcing a pharmacist of any denomination to take medication. A pharmacist can live his life - but he should not be able to require others live his life as well.
3.a. No problem with public discourse. The problem is not one of living one's own beliefs, but of coercing others to live one's own beliefs - possibly at the risk of their health. I will note that "birth control pills" are not solely used prescribed for birth control, but for also other conditions, some of which can be life-threatening. The delay caused by being forced into an alternative is not then a mere inconvenience.
4. Not every place is as populated as even Fairmont. It's worth noting that while Fairmont has a few of various stores, people do come from miles around to take advantage of them. Other places are much more remote. I'll grant it is a small and probably decreasing problem, but I will not claim it is a nonexistent problem.
no subject
Date: 19 Apr 2005 22:58 (UTC)If you wanna open up your own pharmacy and decide what you sell and what you don't, that's fine with me. I might disagree with it, and I'd prefer you put up a sign warning people in advance that you don't dispense whatever it is you're against, but that's your choice for your business. However, when individual employees start making that decision regardless of the position of the company they work for...
There were a couple prominent incidents of this nature here in the North Texas area. One involved pharmacists working at Eckerd's, which ended up firing the pharmacists involved for violating its store policies. They were too cowardly to even claim religious reasons as the primary cause for their rejection; they said that while they were morally against such things, they "really" rejected the prescription because of the "health concerns" associated with birth control pills. However, there were no specific circumstances (conflicting prescriptions, etc.) that indicated a specific health issue, they were simply making a generalized statement about birth control pills--and the impact on a woman's health that that thing has would have already been evaluated by her doctor. They're not doctors, they're pharmacists, but they were trying to claim that role in order to get out of doing something they were "morally against". (Cowards, they were, really.)
Another involved a pharmacist at a CVS that not only refused to fill the prescription (of a "morning-after pill" prescribed to a recent rape victim!) but refused to give the prescription back to the customer on the grounds that the prescription was "immoral". He wasn't being a coward, but sadly too much the opposite, sitting so high on his horse that he was blocking this woman from getting her prescription filled anywhere. Because her doctor's office was closed, she was forced to go to the hospital just to get another prescription written.
In both of these cases, the employees should have been fired without hesitation. Religion is only the sparklers and noise; the real issue is whether employers should have the right to fire employees who refuse to do their job (especially in the name of some kind of "political statement"), and it's kind of funny to watch so many people that're traditionally pro-business go bonkers on this one and completely ignore that.
If you're a pharmacist, and you get a job at a pharmacy, it seems fully reasonable to expect that you'll be required to dispense all the drugs that pharmacy sells. It's really that simple.
no subject
Date: 20 Apr 2005 00:01 (UTC)no subject
Date: 20 Apr 2005 00:20 (UTC)Specifically, here (http://www.livejournal.com/users/michaelmink/116436.html).
no subject
Date: 19 Apr 2005 14:10 (UTC)Why does the pharmacist not have the first amendment right to do business with whomever he chooses?
He does. He should, however, not interfere with the right of his customers to do business with whom they choose. The best-known instance where this was an issue, in Wisconsin, had the pharmacist not only refuse to fill the prescription - which was within his rights, IMAO - but also refuse to transfer it to someone else who would, which, again IMAO, was wrong.
I think the disclaimer above, in slightly cleaned-up form, is a Good Idea. I also think that a pharmacist, or other professional, should not be forced to do something they think is wrong. I do not think they should be able to prevent their customers from finding another professional to do the job. I also think that they deserve no protections for exercising their beliefs: if the pharmacy wishes to fire them for running off customers and putting their business in a bad light, they should be able to.
--
FWIW, I do believe that those who refuse to provide services that are commonly associated with a business based on purely religious reasoning, regardless of the religion involved, are only hurting themselves - and should disclose, up front, just what those restrictions are.
no subject
Date: 19 Apr 2005 16:25 (UTC)