Walgreens Allows Pharmacists To Not Dispense Drugs They Object To

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Pharmacist Refuses To Fill Prescriptions For Moral Reasons

MILWAUKEE -- A WISN 12 News investigation has discovered that a Milwaukee-area pharmacist has refused to fill prescriptions for women citing religious reasons.

A Milwaukee mother of six walked into a north side Walgreens with a prescription for the so-called morning after pill.

The woman, who 12 News is not identifying, said it was a difficult decision.

"Financially, I wouldn't be able to afford having another child," Jane Doe said.

She asked 12 News to disguise her identity -- afraid of backlash from those who might judge her.

"I mean, I guess I was desperate," Doe said.

Doctors prescribe the pill to prevent pregnancy. It should be taken within 72 hours of conception.

"It was right after New Year's weekend. I got it as soon as I could," Doe said.

But the pharmacist refused to fill her prescription.

"She just told me that she will not fill it. That she's Catholic, and it's murder," Doe said.

Then, she said, before a crowded waiting area, the pharmacist berated her.

"'You're a murderer. I will not help you kill this baby. I will not have the blood on my hands,'" Doe said. "I tried to explain to her that it's emergency contraceptives, that it's not an abortion pill. She then snatched the form from me, that the prescription was attached to, telling me the paper was full of lies, and she won't be a part of it. I was crying, shaking, upset, so embarrassed. I wanted to run out of the store and hope nobody else could get a good look at me."

"So, did you ever get your emergency contraceptives?" 12 News Senior Investigative Reporter Colleen Henry asked.

"No, I never received that one," Doe said.

"And you became pregnant?" Henry asked.

"I did become pregnant, and I had to terminate the pregnancy. It was very hard. And I didn't want to be what she called me. But that's what I ended up being," Doe said.

The woman claimed she's emotionally distressed, that Walgreens breached her privacy and discriminated against her.

Her lawyer said Walgreens failed to ensure its female customers have the same access to reproductive health care as men.

"Condoms are sold there, very easily, very accessible. Viagra ... and I suspect there is no situation where that pharmacist has said to a man, 'I think there's something wrong in you taking Viagra,'" attorney Tricia Knight said.

WISN 12 News wanted to see for itself so it sent producers wearing hidden cameras back to the Walgreens pharmacist to ask about the morning after pill.



"I won't dispense it. You have to wait until the next pharmacist comes in at 2 p.m.," pharmacist Michelle Long (pictured, right) said.

"You said you won't do it, why?" the producer asked.

"Because I'm Catholic, and it's against my religion," Long said.

Later, Long explained her position to another undercover 12 News staffer.

"It's a chemical abortion. If there is a fertilized egg, it prevents it from implanting, which causes a chemical abortion," Long said.

"Isn't this pill legal?" the staffer asked.

"It's legal. It's legal, yeah," Long said.

I'm just confused. I don't know why, if it's legal, why can't have it?" the staffer asked.

"Regular abortion procedures are legal also, but not everybody in the country believes in it," Long said.

Each time, Long was consistent in her position.

WISN 12 News went to Long to ask about the woman's complaint.

"She said that you refused to fill her morning after pill prescription, that you called her a baby-killer, and said you didn't want blood on your hands," Henry stated.

"No, I'm sure I didn't say that. No, I'm quite positive I wouldn't say that," Long responded.

"Do you fill prescriptions for the morning after pill?" Henry asked.

"No," Long said.

"Is that for religious reasons?" Henry asked.

"Yes," Long answered.

Walgreens policy allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs they object to.

"If a pharmacist does refuse, we require the pharmacist to pass the prescription on to another pharmacist at that location, or to another pharmacy," a Walgreens spokesman told 12 News.

"It's like she's trying to play God or something," Doe said.

But the woman believes Walgreens' policy is selling women short.

"What's been the hardest thing for you in all of this?" Henry asked.

"Having to have an abortion. I feel like it didn't have to get to that point. It could have been prevented. That's what I was attempting to do," Doe said.

"She became pregnant. She had an abortion. She says that it was because you wouldn't fill her morning after pill prescription," Henry told Long.

"This is the first I'm hearing about it, so I'm not really prepared to comment on that," Long said.

Long told 12 News she feels strongly about her beliefs and would like to talk more about them, but Walgreens advised her not to comment, and told Henry they have no official record of the woman's complaint.

Long was not confrontational with the 12 News producers who asked about emergency contraception.

A state lawmaker has introduced a bill to give pharmacists a so-called conscience clause -- legal protection for refusing to dispense a prescription. It would be the same way the law protects doctors who opt out of procedures they find immoral.

Wisconsin was the first state to reprimand a pharmacist who refused to fill a college student's prescription for birth control pills.

Pharmacist Neil Noesen is now at the center of a national firestorm. You can hear his story Thursday on "12 News at 5:00."

http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/4454234/detail.html

Funny how the pharmacist has no problems working someplace that sells condoms, viagra, and lottery tickets. If you can't do you job, then find a new profession, asshole.
 
I'm not going to Walgreens anymore.

A lot of religious fanatics might refuse to dispense ADD medicaton (because they believe people with ADD are actually possessed by the devil).

And it is a common believe that major diseases (cancer, heart problems) are a punishment for being a sinner. What if the next pharmacist withholds chemo pills or heart medication?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']And it is a common believe that major diseases (cancer, heart problems) are a punishment for being a sinner. What if the next pharmacist withholds chemo pills or heart medication?[/QUOTE]

Yes, because aren't pharmacists "playing god" deciding who lives and who dies when they dispense medicines for diseases? Isn't that all part of God's "divine plan"?
 
And the stupidity of religion continues. Besides the hypocrasy issues that are involved here, maybe if you can't handle the job it's time to get a new one. That policy is discriminatory and insane, especially in this instance the person couldn't get their prescription filled at that moment (talking about the under cover person). I mean it would be one thing if one pharmacist objected, but another one working there, at the same time, would fill the prescription, but the policy would still be insane. What would happen if they extened this to other retail outlets? "I'm sorry sir, I can't sell you NARC because it's a terrible game". Well maybe that wouldn't be so bad, but it could lead to bad things.
 
The morning after pill is not murder. It is not an abortion pill. It works exactly the same as regular birth control that you take every day.

Get your facts straight Michelle Long, and burn in hell while you're at it.

EDIT: and how did I know that she would be a fat white yenta before I clicked it? In a utopian society, we would heard these people into the town center and stone them to death.
 
:whistle2:#



Edit for non-passiveness:

The customer could have just as easily gone to the next pharmacy. Which is, no doubt, only a few miles away. You guys can bitch all you want to, but that is Walgreen's policy. The pharmacist was WELL within her rights to not dispense those drugs. At the very least, the patient could have waited until the next pharmacist came in.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']The morning after pill is not murder. It is not an abortion pill. It works exactly the same as regular birth control that you take every day.

Get your facts straight Michelle Long, and burn in hell while you're at it.

EDIT: and how did I know that she would be a fat white yenta before I clicked it? In a utopian society, we would heard these people into the town center and stone them to death.[/QUOTE]

In a Utopian society, none of us would be around. We're all too opinionated.
 
[quote name='Derwood43']:whistle2:#



Edit for non-passiveness:

The customer could have just as easily gone to the next pharmacy. Which is, no doubt, only a few miles away. You guys can bitch all you want to, but that is Walgreen's policy. The pharmacist was WELL within her rights to not dispense those drugs. At the very least, the patient could have waited until the next pharmacist came in.[/QUOTE]

If people have objections to the things that they have to do for their job, then they should get a new job. If I was a vegitarian who worked at McDonalds and refused to cook meat, I would be fired. Actually, I probably wouldn't be working at McDonalds in the first place.

She should be fired, as her beliefs are interfering with her ability to do her job. What if Michelle Long was in a cult instead of being Christian? Would they tell her to shut her yap and get back to work, or would they continue their reverance? Basically, you could make a million different analogies of people not doing their job for personal reasons, but this particular one is the only one that is allowed in our society.

Ladies and Gentlemen, get your pitchforks and torches. I've had about enough...
 
I see...in an 'ideal' world, people who are 'meddlesome' [yenta], fat, and white, would be brutally murdered. Kill the "intolerant" ones; makes perfect sense, how tolerant of you.

I agree she should do her job. But wait, she is:

"Walgreens policy allows pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs they object to."

No mention of having to have a certain reason. If my wife worked for one medical manufacturer, according to this policy [which, granted, is quite vague, I'd want to see the 'fine print'], I would have every right, according to the company, to refuse to fill a scrip for one of his competitor's medicines.

The outrage about the filling of the scrip, if any, should be directed at Walgreens.
Now, the outrage for a salesperson berating an honest [ie, non-thief] customer, in front of other customers, where's that? For that alone the pharmacist should be censured, imho. And for not following the other part of the policy, transferring the scrip to another pharmacist or store. The policy itself, is not 'discriminatory', since it says they can refuse to sell any *drug*, not refuse to sell to any *customer*.

A retailer has the right to sell whatever [legal] products s/he wants, for pretty much whatever reason. There is no legal or 'moral' responsibility to carry every product, or certain products. If I ran a bookstore and only carried books by authors whose name began with a vowel, that would be perfectly all right.

Didn't Doe "play God" by trying to fool the way her body works?

All that said, Doe should have said "Fine, give me a pharmacist who will fill it" or taken it to another store. If the pharmacist really said that stuff to her, Doe should have called the manager right then and gotten her fired, not for the scrip, but for talking that way to a customers.

Luckily we live in a capitalist society, and we don't have socialized health care yet, so stores and pharmacists can make foolish decisions like this one, and the consumer can react to it by shopping elsewhere, thus creating a new market/demand.

"If people have objections to the things that they have to do for their job, then they should get a new job. If I was a vegitarian who worked at McDonalds and refused to cook meat, I would be fired. Actually, I probably wouldn't be working at McDonalds in the first place.

She should be fired, as her beliefs are interfering with her ability to do her job."


If you worked at McD's and refused to cook meat [or "meat"], you would indeed be fired. Because McD's doesnt' have a policy saying "You can refuse to cook whatever you want." Their policy is "Cook what we sell, what the customer wants". Walgreens DOES have such a policy. She WAS doing her job, and within the confines of her job. She wasn't discriminating against the person [illegal], she was discriminating against the drug [legal, and within company policy.]
 
[quote name='Derwood43']The pharmacist was WELL within her rights to not dispense those drugs. At the very least, the patient could have waited until the next pharmacist came in.[/QUOTE]

What if it were a surgeon who refused to perform a liver transplant on a chronic alcoholic because he felt that drinking was a sin? A superintendant who fires a teacher at his school for teaching evolution, because he believes in Creationism?

Your freedom of speech ends when you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater house. Your freedom of religion ends when you burn a cross on my lawn. You do not have free reign to threaten my inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This includes denying me medication when you're a @$!!(*& pharmacist, denying me medical treatment when you're a !@#%! doctor, refusing to rent out a place to me when you're a landlord, etc. on the basis of your personal beliefs. And, it is not your place to suggest that I find some alternative source for my needs. If that were true in America, people would feel free to hire according to race and suggest that other applicants keep on looking.
 
[quote name='RBM']What if it were a surgeon who refused to perform a liver transplant on a chronic alcoholic because he felt that drinking was a sin? A superintendant who fires a teacher at his school for teaching evolution, because he believes in Creationism?[/QUOTE]

The surgeon has that right, I believe such a law already exists, or is in talks. I'm not sure if this is included, but he 'should' transfer records to a surgeon who would do it.
Actually, that's not the same.
The surgeon *can't* not do the surgery because he's against alcohol. He *can* not do the surgery because he's against the *surgery* itself.

[quote name='RBM']
Your freedom of speech ends when you shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater house. Your freedom of religion ends when you burn a cross on my lawn. You do not have free reign to threaten my inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This includes denying me medication when you're a @$!!(*& pharmacist, denying me medical treatment when you're a !@#%! doctor, refusing to rent out a place to me when you're a landlord, etc. on the basis of your personal beliefs. And, it is not your place to suggest that I find some alternative source for my needs. If that were true in America, people would feel free to hire according to race and suggest that other applicants keep on looking.[/QUOTE]

Your freedom of speech ends when you tell me how to run my business. I'm not "denying" you medical care/scrips; I'm just not selling them to you. Can you still get them? Hmm, Eckerd, CVS, Walmart, target, medco...I'd bet you can. Your 'right' to get the medicine [I don't recall seeing that in the Constitution] is not abrograted at all. You came to MY store, and said "Give me this." I said "No, I don't like this drug." That is not at all like my coming to YOUR house and defacing your property.
If I held a gun to your head, or robbed your house, yes, I'm threatening those rights. If I refuse to sell something to you because I don't like the drug, I am not threatening those rights. You're actually not entitled to everything you want/need from everyone, they have to offer it to you.
If it makes me 'happy' to play Grand Theft Auto, and WalMart won't sell it to me--or anyone, because they don't carry it--, are they 'violating my rights'? Hardly.

And not to get too Constitutional, but the actual protection of those unalienable rights is from the Government, not other citizens. [that is, the Government can't do away with them.] And those rights are endowed by a 'Creator'....ironic. "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." Though certainly there are billions of laws on the books managing citizen's relationships with one another. A couple of those laws say, "A pharmacist doesn't have to fill a scrip he doesn't want to." Another one says "The consumer can go whereever he wants to fill the scrip."

In the case of a surgeon, I believe we do have laws saying "Emergency care must be provided, in order to save the life of a patient or to stabilize him, regardless of ability to pay, gender, race, etc." If that surgeon who doesn't like alcohol, was on duty in the ER when someone came in after DUI and getting in a wreck, he would have to try to save the life or stabilize that patient. He later could refuse to remove the liver, if that decision was based on his opinion of the *operation* not of the *patient*. If I came in a said, "Hey, please remove my nose", most doctors would 'object' to that, and say Get out of my office. But they can't say, "No, you're part Irish-German, and I hate Irish-Germans, so I'm not operating on you." That kind of discrimination is, and should be, illegal.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']
Didn't Doe "play God" by trying to fool the way her body works?
[/QUOTE]

If fooling with the way your body works is a sin than she should withhold all medication from Pepto Bismal to Viagra.

If that shit is running down your leg, that is how god wants it and you are disobeying his will if you take pepto bismal.
 
Hrm, it looks like you're argueing using the letter of the law. RBM brought up a good point of "well if i don't want to hire somebody of a certain race, I don't have to", which i was going to say you didn't address. I realized you probably didn't do this because we have laws on the books about that.

I would then ask if it's wrong to racially discriminate SOLELY because it's against the law? And if there wasn't a law against it, then it was perfectly fine to do, because it wasn't against any policy and he was just doing his thing. But then that got me to think...

You have to look at the 'spirit' of the law, and the concept of freedom and such. I was going to argue that even though Walgreens has a rule that says you don't have to dispense things, that you should still do it. If anything, Walgreens just looks like its covering its ass.

If my store had a policy that it was perfectly fine to slap customers in the face, I still wouldn't do it. But then we come to arguement that everybody's moral compass is different (as evidenced by this story), so I can't really argue that. Hell, some people think they're Napolean, and that it would be perfectly fine to gut somebody with a rapier.

I suppose I fall here:
-Michelle Long is a horrible person who shouldn't be a pharmecist, and should stop imposing her beliefs on other people. If she has such beliefs, she shouldn't put herself into situations where they would come into question.

-Walgreens is a horrible company with irresponsible rules. They deserve equal blame.

-We need to draft legislation to combat things like this. I am aware that there is just the opposite, and there are bills being drafted to let people do stuff like this. I think this is a very dangerous road to head down. If we start saying "people can do whatever they want if it's against their religion", we'll start running out of alternative places to go when you get shutdown at a Walgreens. Your theories of "just find somewhere else" sound good when these things are happening at a small scale, but they set a very dangerous precident, that needs to be nipped in the bud.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']You have to look at the 'spirit' of the law, and the concept of freedom and such. I was going to argue that even though Walgreens has a rule that says you don't have to dispense things, that you should still do it. If anything, Walgreens just looks like its covering its ass.

If my store had a policy that it was perfectly fine to slap customers in the face, I still wouldn't do it. But then we come to arguement that everybody's moral compass is different (as evidenced by this story), so I can't really argue that. Hell, some people think they're Napolean, and that it would be perfectly fine to gut somebody with a rapier.[/QUOTE]

This analogy would make sense if Long actually did something to the customer. The customer has the freedom to do what she wants, but Long doesn't have the freedom to choose not to do something she doesn't want to do? You can't selectively apply freedom.

[quote name='evilmax17']I suppose I fall here:
-Michelle Long is a horrible person who shouldn't be a pharmecist, and should stop imposing her beliefs on other people. If she has such beliefs, she shouldn't put herself into situations where they would come into question.[/QUOTE]

As long as she interects with other people she can't avoid such situations.

[quote name='evilmax17']-Walgreens is a horrible company with irresponsible rules. They deserve equal blame.[/QUOTE]

Then never shop there again. Their policy is their own, and is a good one in my opinion.

[quote name='evilmax17']-We need to draft legislation to combat things like this. I am aware that there is just the opposite, and there are bills being drafted to let people do stuff like this. I think this is a very dangerous road to head down. If we start saying "people can do whatever they want if it's against their religion", we'll start running out of alternative places to go when you get shutdown at a Walgreens. Your theories of "just find somewhere else" sound good when these things are happening at a small scale, but they set a very dangerous precident, that needs to be nipped in the bud.[/QUOTE]

Do you really think there are som many people out there who disagree with your point of view? Or maybe the religious loons will all open pharmeceutical schools across the country in an effort to get a stranglehold on pharmacies and completely eliminate sales of the morning after pill. It's a conspiracy at the highest level. No one should consider asking this woman to maybe rethink her stance on promiscuity
 
Quackzilla: You're absolutely right, if "Playing God" is such an issue to Jane Doe, she shouldn't be using any medications. Since the *patient* is the one who brought up the 'playing God' argument.

Evilmax: No, I do believe it's wrong to discriminate solely on the basis of things a person can't change [race, gender, height, etc] unless there is compelling and logical basis to do so [not hiring a woman to be a towel attendant in a men's room, for instance.] But that's irrelevant to this issue. The *PATIENT/CUSTOMER* is *NOT* being discriminated against, and even if she were, it's not because of religion--her religion was never mentioned.

Take the religion component out of this issue. I realize it's cool to hate religion right now, but religion is a red herring in this case.

Walgreen's has a policy that says "Pharmacists can refuse to dispense scrips they object to." They could refuse to dispense Cingulair chewables because it's pink and they don't like pink, and that would still be valid. [Silly, yes, but valid]. Is there a law saying 'Pharmacists must dispense EVERY drug available'? If not [and I don't think there is], then they have every right to dispense WHATEVER they want, for whatever reason [again, they can't choose not to dispense to blacks or whites, that is wrong and illegal. Here the decision is on the *drug* level, not the *customer* level.] Maybe they only want to dispense GlaxoWellcome drugs, or maybe they only want to dispense drugs on Tuesdays. That's their right as a business, and your right as a consumer to shop there or not. They can choose *what to sell* and *why*--just like any other retailer. And any *other* pharmacy can step up to the plate and say, "Hey, Walgreens' lets its pharmacists decline to sell Morning After. Here, we *MAKE* our pharmacists sell it. Come buy from us!" More of that freedom thing. There *are* other options, and you don't have a "right" to buy a product from a certain store. We need *less* legislation to combat things like this [ie, free market] because the marketplace will always react quicker than government.

You "should" still dispense that med? Depends. In this case, it could be argued that they 'should' have sold it, because of all the negative press this story will get, from the media who will spin it as a "religion" story, rather than a "free marketplace" story.
Slapping customers in the face is a somewhat silly example, because there are laws against that--that's called battery. I do see why you chose it though.

If Long said the things Doe said she said, then that was indeed horrible. And her inconsistency in following the policy [ie, not transferring it to another pharmacist/store] [assuming she didn't do this] is also pretty hypocritical. But her mere refusal to sell the drug, I don't have an inherent problem with. If I were a customer in that position, I'd say, "Fine, then you won't be filling any of mine" and go elsewhere. Walgreens would either deal with the changes in their business this policy creates, or adapt it.

Is this a silly policy? I don't know. In a way, yes, because it's too vague [based on what I've read, which admittedly isn't much]. In a way, no, because it shows Walgreens is really concerned about their employees, and don't want to make them do things they're uncomfortable with [a big company, 'caring' about their employees--I thought that was a good thing.] Are they *allowed* to have such a policy? Certainly. They could have a policy that every employee wear pink socks. Silly, but I'd support their right to have that policy. They could even have a policy that when greeting customers, clerks say "Hello, stupid." Again, stupid policy, that would certainly hurt business, but within their rights.

Even with the religion thing, it's still not an issue. "Freedom of religion" refers to the GOVERNMENT, not citizens. I can say "God/Allah/Yahweh/Zoroaster/Cthulhu bless you" all day, to any citizen I want, and be within my rights. You would be within your rights to say "Get out of my face" as well, of course. You don't have the right to "make" private companies do things they don't want do, and that's ultimately what this boils down to. I have seen lots of company cars/vans with the Christian fish thing on the back. As long as they still sell to me, and don't discriminate against *me* because I'm not of their religion, then there's no problem with that. I can choose to spend my money with them, or not.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']The surgeon *can't* not do the surgery because he's against alcohol. He *can* not do the surgery because he's against the *surgery* itself.[/QUOTE]

A surgeon can certainly refuse to use a technique which he objects to, if he believes that it is unproven, unsafe, etc. Similarly, a pharmacist could certainly refuse to prescribe medication which he considered unsafe on some professional basis.

Other than objections based on professional beliefs, I disagree that personal beliefs have a place in denying care, treatment, or services. They did at one point, and I believe that practice has since been called discrimination. I could personally believe that women shouldn't rob hardworking men of the money to feed their families and refuse to recruit women at the company where I work as a HR rep, but obviously, that wouldn't fly.


[quote name='dtcarson']Your freedom of speech ends when you tell me how to run my business. I'm not "denying" you medical care/scrips; I'm just not selling them to you. Can you still get them?[/QUOTE]

"I'm not denying you employment; I'm just not hiring you. Can you still get a job? The newspapers want ads are full of opportunities for blacks/chinks/spics/etc. like you." Once again; professional reasons/beliefs = ok. Personal beliefs = not ok.


[quote name='dtcarson']You came to MY store, and said "Give me this." I said "No, I don't like this drug." That is not at all like my coming to YOUR house and defacing your property.[/QUOTE]

"You came to MY company and said,'Give me this job.' I said,'No, I don't like your kind.' That is not at all like my coming to your place of employment and actively trying to get you fired." Is my comparison invalid? Am I somehow twisting things?

[quote name='dtcarson']And not to get too Constitutional, but the actual protection of those unalienable rights is from the Government, not other citizens.[/QUOTE]

Hee hee!
 
I'm going to become a pharmacist at Walgreens then convert to a Christian Scientist. Then I can kick back and play video games all day on the clock.
 
What you state is actually very true, and I agree with you.

"A surgeon can certainly refuse to use a technique which he objects to, if he believes that it is unproven, unsafe, etc. Similarly, a pharmacist could certainly refuse to prescribe medication which he considered unsafe on some professional basis."

And that's exactly what I said, or tried to say--he can refuse to do the 'surgery', but he can't refuse to treat the 'patient' [in an emergency situation.] That's why I had the silly example of the nose removal. He can say, "No, I won't remove your nose, that's stupid.' He canNOT say, "No, I won't remove your nose, you're white."

This is NOT a "discrimination" issue. It is a "I refuse to sell this drug" issue. Which is perfectly legal and moral. If the pharmacist said "I won't sell this drug to you because you're white/black," yes, that is absolutely wrong.

""You came to MY company and said,'Give me this job.' I said,'No, I don't like your kind.' That is not at all like my coming to your place of employment and actively trying to get you fired." Is my comparison invalid? Am I somehow twisting things?"

Yes, you are. The Pharm in this case was NOT discriminating against anybody, based on anything. On the contrary, she was quite consistent, as shown in the article itself.

I can certainly deny you employment. Yes, there are other jobs. I can't [in general] do it because of your race/gender/age. Again, that is not the issue here.

You are thinking Pharm denied the drug because she somehow knew the patients religion, was of a different religion, and didn't want to sell the drug to patients of that religion. Thta would be discrimination. That is *absolutely* not the case here. The Pharm refused to sell that *drug*. The reporter in that very story said "she was consistent" with that decision. Thus, non-discriminatory.

A more relevant argument would be you coming to my store and saying, "Hey, do you have Eminem's new CD?" I say, "No, I don't carry rap. Go somewhere else to buy it." Is that somehow 'discrimination', other than in my musical tastes, which, last I checked, I was still allowed to have an opinion on? If I said, "Yes, but I won't sell it to you, you're a girl." That's discrimination; that's wrong; that's irrelevant to this discussion.
 
Might be semantics, but it's not like Walgreen's didn't carry the drug. They had it right behind the counter.

This situation seems so much like a case of somebody taking the law into their own hands, but because of Walgreen's policies and the vagueness of the govt's position, it manages to get off on a technicality.

Also, if you wanted to twist it a little bit, you could say that Long was discriminating against people who didn't follow her point of view.
 
This may be a controvesrial position for a company to take right now, but with all the new legislation across the country regulating the sales of over the counter drugs like cough syrup and cold medicine it will prove to be a blessing.
 
Actually, if you want to argue the letter of the law, it is against the law to withhold a product in stock unless it is reservered for someone else, is federally regulated (guns, alcohol, tobacco), or if the retailer makes a judgement call that the customer is too young to purchase the product (movie, game), or in the rare case when the retailer believe the product might endanger the customer (cough syrup, chainsaw).

None of those apply, and Walgreens policy is in clear violation of federal law.
 
Well, I find this a reason to only shop at CVS.

Instead of bitching on a message board, (You both have very good points, and you've said everything I would of said, especially evilmax...) But everything has been said and now, vote with your dollars.

As a Christian, I oppose going to stores where they have stupid clauses that allow them to get out of doing their jobs. Therefore, I'll enjoy going to places that dont have those clauses.
 
We don't seem to be connecting through our examples, dtcarson, so I'll switch to more general rhetoric, instead. In an absolute sense, it would be ridiculous to claim that personal beliefs have no place in the workplace, and the services people render in the course of their jobs are bound to be influenced by them. Ideally, we would only be guided by professional, objectively sound thinking on the job, but nobody's holding their breath. It's easy to see when personal beliefs intrude to an unacceptable degree, such as when someone practices open sexual/religious/racial discrimination, and equally easy to condemn that.

However, in this situation, it would appear that you interpret the pharmacist's actions to fall within an acceptable degree of expressing one's personal beliefs/preferences on the job....while I consider it to pass threshold into unacceptable behavior. I get the impression that you consider the pharmacist's refusal to dispense drugs tolerable, because it is a passive expression of her beliefs. What's more, one could say that oppressing her expression of said beliefs is a wrong in and of itself.

I, on the other hand, feel that when one refuses to perform one's duty for the sake of personal reasons, that this constitutes--for lack of a better term--unfairness to the customer (or whoever is directly effected by your refusal to perform your duties.) You obviously have the right to be yourself and not deny everything you believe in the name of duty, but I feel that this right doesn't extend to denying service to someone else. I *do* interpret this withholding of goods to be harmful. Just as refusal to hire someone, refusal to let a house to someone, or refusal to dispense drugs to someone constitutes harm to them (hehe! I slipped the examples back in.) Or, to put it another way, I don't think of a physician as being "forced" to treat a homosexual for STD's when he disapproves of that lifestyle. Instead, I think that physician is denying care to a patient on the basis of his personal feelings...and it doesn't matter if those feelings are grounded in religious beliefs, moral beliefs, or anything else which is not directly relevant to health care...because once you DO say that it's okay for him to withhold care on such a basis, then there's no reason to deny him the right to practice open discrimination. (The "I'll refer all X patients to others, because I don't like treating them" scenario.)
 
I would be ok with this IF, and only if, you can only refuse if there is someone else there, at that moment, to fill the presicription instead. Not coming in two hours later, not on break (you might be in a hurry for work or some other thing and not be able to wait), but right there at that particular time. The pharmacist must inform the company of their objections and it would be the pharmacies job to ensure another person who would fill the prescription was on duty. If for some reason no one else was there, the pharmacist must fill it, but should be able to sue the company for breaching their agreement. Any direct condemnation or insult of the customer should result in, at the minimum, an unpaid suspension.

Also, in many small towns, there isn't an alternative pharmacy to go to, or you may not have the transportation to take you 10 miles to the next pharmacy.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Actually, if you want to argue the letter of the law, it is against the law to withhold a product in stock unless it is reservered for someone else, is federally regulated (guns, alcohol, tobacco), or if the retailer makes a judgement call that the customer is too young to purchase the product (movie, game), or in the rare case when the retailer believe the product might endanger the customer (cough syrup, chainsaw).

None of those apply, and Walgreens policy is in clear violation of federal law.[/QUOTE]


Look again quack, they believe they're endangering the future child.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Look again quack, they believe they're endangering the future child.[/QUOTE]

Only if they believe it will endanger the person they are selling it to.

You can't deny somone a gun because you think they want to kill someone, or because they are on a terrorist watch list.

Since the child is not legally recognised until the 2nd trimester it is still illegal to withhold items such as morning after pills that would prevent conception.
 
For those that agree with Walgreens, how far would you be willing to extend that? If, for example, the pharmacist filled your prescription, but the cashier refused to ring it up because he/she was morally opposed, would that be okay?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']http://www.themilwaukeechannel.com/news/4454234/detail.html
Funny how the pharmacist has no problems working someplace that sells condoms, viagra, and lottery tickets. If you can't do you job, then find a new profession, asshole.[/QUOTE]

Catholics find no harm in lottery tickets.

I support this woman if, and only if, she would have made an attempt to have someone else fill the prescription. I don't know if she did, and none of you know if she did, cause I don't trust the "doe" in the story.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Only if they believe it will endanger the person they are selling it to.

You can't deny somone a gun because you think they want to kill someone, or because they are on a terrorist watch list.

Since the child is not legally recognised until the 2nd trimester it is still illegal to withhold items such as morning after pills that would prevent conception.[/QUOTE]

It's not preventing conception, it's preventing implantation.
And you should be able to deny anyone a gun. Some laws suck.
 
[quote name='Rich']Catholics find no harm in lottery tickets.

I support this woman if, and only if, she would have made an attempt to have someone else fill the prescription. I don't know if she did, and none of you know if she did, cause I don't trust the "doe" in the story.[/QUOTE]
From the article it seems like the pharmacist took her prescription
"I tried to explain to her that it's emergency contraceptives, that it's not an abortion pill. She then snatched the form from me, that the prescription was attached to, telling me the paper was full of lies, and she won't be a part of it.
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't see any reason this woman would have for lying.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I would be ok with this IF, and only if, you can only refuse if there is someone else there, at that moment, to fill the presicription instead. Not coming in two hours later, not on break (you might be in a hurry for work or some other thing and not be able to wait), but right there at that particular time. The pharmacist must inform the company of their objections and it would be the pharmacies job to ensure another person who would fill the prescription was on duty. If for some reason no one else was there, the pharmacist must fill it, but should be able to sue the company for breaching their agreement. Any direct condemnation or insult of the customer should result in, at the minimum, an unpaid suspension.

Also, in many small towns, there isn't an alternative pharmacy to go to, or you may not have the transportation to take you 10 miles to the next pharmacy.[/QUOTE]

Not to be snarky, but, "So?" You can still buy the product elsewhere. It doesn't necessarily have to be convenient [because 'convenient' is a relative term.]
If I go to McDonald's, and I want a chocolate milkshake, but their machine is broken, do they 'have to' ensure I have a replacement? No. Most retailers *do*, or at least offer rainchecks/etc, as a customer service thing, but they are under no obligation to do so. McD's would be perfectly within their rights to say "The store three miles away has a working machine."

You mention 'breaching agreement.' Until the transaction is accepted, there is *no* agreement. I didn't sign a contract with Walgreens saying "You will always give me whatever drugs I want/need, or I can sue."

MrBadExample: First, Walgreen's policy, as I understand it, applies only to the Pharmacist. And at most drug stores I go to, the pharmacist rings it up as well. But if that isn't the case, I would be mad, not because they didnt' have the right to do so, but they wasted my time--I dropped off the scrip, waited for it or came back to pick it up, and after all that they finally say "Nope, not selling it to you." I wouldn't say, "You have to sell it to me!", I'd say "Why the hell didn't you tell me that before I wasted all my time?!?" But I wouldn't try to negate their right to say that. And I would certainly shop elsewhere.

RBM: Her "duty" doesn't involve giving everyone whatever they want. Her duty means doing her job. Choosing not to dispense a medication at all, to anybody, is within her job requirements. I disagree with the Pharm saying 'You knocked up ho, you're going to hell!" or whatever she allegedly said. *That* is not within her job description, and that is not her prerogative while representing the company.

You're still focused on the personal belief = discrimination thing, which I agree with you about. If Pharm said "You're black/white, I won't serve you," that is wrong and illegal. If she says, as she did in this case, "Per my company policy, I don't have to dispense certain drugs, and I choose not to dispense this drug to *anyone*" I don't have a problem with that. She is basing her decision on the *drug* using the 'I object' clause, it is not based on the person, or the patients religion, or anything else. It has *NOTHING* to do with discrimination. Your examples are all true and valid, but they are NOT the same thing as in this case.

Quackzilla What if a catholic cashier refused to ring up condoms!

I'd say Ring them up, or I'll go elsewhere. I don't have a 'right' to make a retailer sell me a product.
Actually, you say " it is against the law to withhold a product in stock unless ...." Could you cite a source on that? I have never heard that. If that is true, and unless there's some exception to this industry, then yes, it sounds like she was breaking the law, and the policy in itself is illegal. If there's such a law, I would think it would be aimed at the 'bait and switch' type scams. I also heard "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" as long as it's not based on one of the protected statuses.

Here's an interesting thread elsewhere about a similar topic:
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=44;t=000734;p=1
including the following snipped of federal code:

"All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Thus implying I can block 'enjoyment' if it's *not* based on one of those things, as in this case. [and there's another one protecting the disabled.]

But again, those are irrelevant--this is NOT a discrimination issue, since Doe was *not* being discriminated against. The pharm would sell the drug to NO ONE, not just women, or whites, or Pagans.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Not to be snarky, but, "So?" You can still buy the product elsewhere. It doesn't necessarily have to be convenient [because 'convenient' is a relative term.]
If I go to McDonald's, and I want a chocolate milkshake, but their machine is broken, do they 'have to' ensure I have a replacement? No. Most retailers *do*, or at least offer rainchecks/etc, as a customer service thing, but they are under no obligation to do so. McD's would be perfectly within their rights to say "The store three miles away has a working machine."[/QUOTE]

It matters when you're a 12 year old rape victim who's ashamed to say anything to her parents. This isn't uncommon either.

Edit:

Or hell, anybody without transportation. Especially when you're under a time-limit (72 hours for the MAP), you could get screwed by like Michelle Long. Especially in this case, this "Doe" had 6 kids (and I wouldn't be surprised if she lived close to the poverty line). She probably didn't have the time to drive all around Wisconsin looking for somebody to fill her scrip.
 
[quote name='dcfox']From the article it seems like the pharmacist took her prescription
[/QUOTE]

If the pharmacist took the prescription and refused to give it back then she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Memo: You are a pharmacist, not a doctor. You count pills for a living. You don't get to make health decisions for someone else. If you can't respect the fact that other people don't have to live by your morals, you need to find a new job.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']It matters when you're a 12 year old rape victim who's ashamed to say anything to her parents. This isn't uncommon either.

Edit:

Or hell, anybody without transportation. Especially when you're under a time-limit (72 hours for the MAP), you could get screwed by like Michelle Long. Especially in this case, this "Doe" had 6 kids (and I wouldn't be surprised if she lived close to the poverty line). She probably didn't have the time to drive all around Wisconsin looking for somebody to fill her scrip.[/QUOTE]

Again, to be harsh, but logical.
So? Is it the retailers responsibility to insure it's 'convenient' for the customers? If I was REEALLLLLY hungry, and my car was out of gas, and McD's was out of food, should they drive me to the next McDs? Is that the retailers responsibility to make sure the product was taken in time?
72 hours? It takes 72 hours to find another drug store? Did Doe go to work? Where did she go after leaving Walgreens? Where did 'calling the press' come into play?
If my tax bill is due April 15th, and the Post Office closes at 1700, and I get there at 1701, is it their 'responsibility' to make sure my package gets there in time? No. In that case, they react to market demand, and most PO's stay open late--but they don't HAVE to, nor necessarily "should" they. "Can" they? Sure, and I would probably support their decision to do so. But it is not legally nor morally "required".
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Again, to be harsh, but logical.
So? Is it the retailers responsibility to insure it's 'convenient' for the customers? If I was REEALLLLLY hungry, and my car was out of gas, and McD's was out of food, should they drive me to the next McDs? Is that the retailers responsibility to make sure the product was taken in time?
72 hours? It takes 72 hours to find another drug store? Did Doe go to work? Where did she go after leaving Walgreens? Where did 'calling the press' come into play?
If my tax bill is due April 15th, and the Post Office closes at 1700, and I get there at 1701, is it their 'responsibility' to make sure my package gets there in time? No. In that case, they react to market demand, and most PO's stay open late--but they don't HAVE to, nor necessarily "should" they. "Can" they? Sure, and I would probably support their decision to do so. But it is not legally nor morally "required".[/QUOTE]

I would say it's as much the retailer's responsibility to look after the wellbeing of its customers as it is to look after the personal beliefs of its employees.

But I will agree to disagree with you on this point.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']If the pharmacist took the prescription and refused to give it back then she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. That is theft. If you don't fill it, give it back. KEEPING the scrip could count as 'withholding care', since now she can't get it filled. Saying I won't do this, and giving it back, is fine.

[quote name='MrBadExample']Memo: You are a pharmacist, not a doctor. You count pills for a living. You don't get to make health decisions for someone else. If you can't respect the fact that other people don't have to live by your morals, you need to find a new job.[/QUOTE]

Incorrect. Pharmacists DO make 'health decisions' for someone else.
http://www2.eckerd.com/content.asp?content=pharmacy/patientcare
"We work with your physician and look at new treatment options, possible quality generic substitutes, even reducing the number of medications you’re taking."
Every scrip I've ever picked up has said "Ask your pharm if you have questions about your medication." And part of their job is knowing the interactions of the medications they prescribe, so someone isn't taking Uppers and Downers at the same time. Their responsibility is less than a doctor's, true, but they are not void of responsibility.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']
If I go to McDonald's, and I want a chocolate milkshake, but their machine is broken, do they 'have to' ensure I have a replacement? No. Most retailers *do*, or at least offer rainchecks/etc, as a customer service thing, but they are under no obligation to do so. McD's would be perfectly within their rights to say "The store three miles away has a working machine."[/QUOTE]

How is that even an argument? If McDonalds has a broken machine, that's one thing.

The Pharmacy has the pills in stock, and the pill counter refuled to put them in a bottle and sell them, and in addition she got up on her soapbox and preached to the poor woman in front of everyone in the store.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']
72 hours? It takes 72 hours to find another drug store? Did Doe go to work? Where did she go after leaving Walgreens? Where did 'calling the press' come into play?
[/QUOTE]
It's 72 hours from time of conception not from the time she got the prescription. Considering it was during New Years weekend, it might have been difficult getting an appointment with a doctor to issue the prescription, which might significantly cut down on the time she has to fill it. So driving several hours might not have been an option. Also it seems she contacted the press some time after the incident since the article mentions that she already had an abortion.
 
"The Pharmacy has the pills in stock, and the pill counter refuled to put them in a bottle and sell them,"

"pill-counter" = registered pharmacist
Unless there is a law saying "if you have something, you have to sell it," I don't have a problem with this.

" and in addition she got up on her soapbox and preached to the poor woman in front of everyone in the store."

I have never, and I don't think anyone here, has condoned this part of her action. Totally wrong and uncalled for, regardless of the policy or her opinions.

dcfox: Again: "So?" Is it the retailers responsibility to make sure the person buys the product in time? What if they were out of the medication [as has happened to me before], should the Pharmacist have to drive the patient to another store to make up for it?

The basic issue is this, taking the hot buttons of religion and pregnancy out of it.

* Retailer, in keeping with company policy, refused to sell a product. Not to a specific person, but the product at all, to anybody, thus making it *not* a discrimination case.

And, well, that's basically it. Barring any law saying 'You have to sell what you have', there's nothing inherently wrong with that scenario.
The pharm should *not* have said what she allegedly said--that was totally uncalled for.
The pharm *should* have said 'Hey Other Pharm, you do this one,' or, 'Here, customer, the nearest other pharm is two blocks down.' That would be in line with the very policy she was using.

Taking all the emotional hotbuttons away, those are the only things that I see that were done wrong in this scenario.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']It matters when you're a 12 year old rape victim who's ashamed to say anything to her parents. This isn't uncommon either.[/QUOTE]

12 year old rape victims are not uncommon?

Well I would hope that the pharmacist would not conspire to hide such a thing from this poor girl's parents. The psychological damage that would cause shouldn't be hidden and allowed to fester. :lol:
 
[quote name='dtcarson']dcfox: Again: "So?" Is it the retailers responsibility to make sure the person buys the product in time? What if they were out of the medication [as has happened to me before], should the Pharmacist have to drive the patient to another store to make up for it?[/QUOTE]

It's withholding care. As you say, let's take out religion and pregnancy.

Let's look at extremely rare and hypothetical example. But let's just look for kicks.

Suppose a man has an extremely rare disease, in which he has to take a RX drug once every 12 hours or else he will die. Accept this as possible for the example.

Now lets say this man hasn't taken his drug in 11 hours and 30 minutes, and he walks into this Walgreens to get his prescription filled. But for some reason, the pharmcist doesn't feel comfortable selling this product, so s/he refuses. The nearest pharmecy is an hour away, and this man only has 30 minutes.

Now sure, the sick man shouldn't have waited to fill his RX, but at this point in time it's neither here nor there. The pharmecist, under Walgreens rules, has no technical obligation to fill the RX at all, even though they have it in stock behind the counter.

So the man dies.

"So?" Are you telling me that the pharmecist is completely absolved of guilt? Or that Walgreen's support of this policy is acceptable?

---------------------------

I would argue that Jane Doe's pregnancy (and subsequent abortion) was a direct result of the pharmecist's refusal to fill her RX, and should be held accountable (in a legal suit or otherwise).

Could Jane Doe have gone somewhere else? I don't know. But the fact that she went and got the RX in the first place tells me that she tried to do something for her situation, and didn't just say "oh well, never mind" when the pharmecist shot her down.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Not to be snarky, but, "So?" You can still buy the product elsewhere. It doesn't necessarily have to be convenient [because 'convenient' is a relative term.]
If I go to McDonald's, and I want a chocolate milkshake, but their machine is broken, do they 'have to' ensure I have a replacement? No. Most retailers *do*, or at least offer rainchecks/etc, as a customer service thing, but they are under no obligation to do so. McD's would be perfectly within their rights to say "The store three miles away has a working machine."

You mention 'breaching agreement.' Until the transaction is accepted, there is *no* agreement. I didn't sign a contract with Walgreens saying "You will always give me whatever drugs I want/need, or I can sue." [/quote]

I mentioned an agreement with walgreens, meaning they could have an agreement with the worker that, since he/she objects to dispensing certain medicine (and they still agreed to keep her) they should ensure someone is on the floor to dispense them.

And the milkshake is relevant if they were out of stock of that medication (though still barely, not getting a milkshake won't exactly change my life), they were not and therefore is completely irrelevant to my point. The store had it in stock, the woman had a prescription, it is the stores job to make sure the prescription is filled. Unless the woman was a pharmacist before these pills were first produced, then she knew full well that a pharmacist would be expected to sell these medicines when she decided to become a pharmacist. I can't apply for a job in the meat department of a grocery store and then decide I won't sell pork since it's against my religion, that's what she's doing.

Also, again, in an emergency the person may not be able to get to another pharmacy in time (work, plane, late at night and tomorrows a holiday etc), may not have the available transportation to get to another pharmacy (no public transportation or no one to drive them), or they may be in a rural area and there aren't any other nearby. And, for arguments sake, what if they go to the other and they also refuse?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top