For a year, Julee Lacey stopped in a CVS pharmacy near her home in a Fort Worth suburb to get refills of her birth-control pills. Then one day last March, the pharmacist refused to fill Lacey's prescription because she did not believe in birth control.
"I was shocked," says Lacey, 33, who was not able to get her prescription until the next day and missed taking one of her pills. "Their job is not to regulate what people take or do. It's just to fill the prescription that was ordered by my physician."
USATODAY.com - Druggists refuse to give out pill
***Personally, I can understand and excuse a pharmacist if they have certain moral issues when it comes to filling certain prescriptions. However, it *is* their obligation to refer/transfer the prescription to another pharmacist or pharmacy so the patient can get the proper medication they've been prescribed. As for those pharmacists who refuse to even *return* the prescriptions to the patient - they display a conduct that not only disgraces their professional conduct but violates a moral code of ethics.***
Posted by Mrs Muddy at April 13, 2005 10:54 PM | TrackBackAlls I can say is that it is their right to do so, but it is also their employer's right to fire them for it.
Posted by: skywalker at April 16, 2005 10:16 PM:-) True, and well put. However, it's not their right (but their choice) to keep the prescriptions in some cases and refusing to give it back to the patient - as I'm sure you would agree. I mean, that's stealing in more ways than one (among other things). However, you're still right though:
"...it is also their employer's right to fire them for it."
Posted by: mrs. muddy at April 16, 2005 11:44 PMits not their "right" to do so. theyre getting payed to fill perscriptions not make judgements based on their pseudo morality trip. if someone is so damn moral they cant perform what theyre being payed to do, why dont they gone join a covenant.
thats like saying its the police right to beat up people and plant evidence on them, and its the right of the person beat up to get a lawyer and sue the police department.
what if a jehovas witness is a nurse.... and they REFUSE to give patients blood transfusions because its against their religon. i guess that would be acceptable because we have to respect their religion?
Posted by: mooseboy84 at April 20, 2005 10:38 PMmooseboy: The police do not have a right to beat people because that violates a person's rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. But everything else you said: damn right it is their right. It's also their employer's right to fire them for not performing their job.
Let me put it in another way. Imagine you're a teacher. You're pretty sure creationism is a bunch of crock. But your school system requires you to teach it. You have a right to make a moral judgement that doing some would endanger a young mind. But the school system (unless you have tenure of course) can also fire you for failing to teach the required syllabus. That's still a pseudo morality trip as you call it - and stuff along those lines happens everyday in classrooms across America.
Here is another example: In the US, you are required by law toregister for selective service. You have the right to refuse to do so based on your belief that war is not the answer. I have a friend who in fact did not register for this reason. But the government can then refuse you certain benefits or for that matter come and arrest you because it is a federal crime.
How about a doctor, who let's say refuses to treat a police officer because he was once beaten by one. He can do that, but he can also be fired by the hospital or his practice. (Not to mention he'd be violating his Hippocratic oath.)
If you don't think it is their right to refuse to do things based on their moral beliefs, then you are a totalitarian and a very scary person to me indeed.
Posted by: skywalker at April 21, 2005 05:19 AM"...theyre getting payed to fill perscriptions not make judgements based on their pseudo morality trip."
That's pretty close to what *I* originally thought too...however, there are plenty of jobs out there that we could all have to where at some point and time we may not agree or like a certain aspect about it. For instance, if I'm a skilled surgeon who performs many surgeries in a given week, I'm sure I would have no problem performing pretty much *any* surgery that would come my way. However, if a doctor would approach me about performing an abortion on one of her patients, I would indeed turn her down based on my moral beliefs. Of course, I would probably be obligated to refer her to another surgeon and so therefore I would.
As far as these pharmasists go - there are so many medications out there needing a prescription so they should be able to perform their duties without moral conflict 98 - 99% of the time. The only thing *I* have a problem with is when you have situations like I mentioned before: when pharmasists refuse referals and/or just plan steal the prescriptions. But we *do* all have a free will to choose and these pharmasists *do* have a right to make that choice in screwing over these women. But, just like skywalker pointed out....their employers have the same right to fire their butts for it.