Mother is denied Pill by Muslim pharmacist

  • Thread starter Thread starter MikeWM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MikeWM

Guest
So, here’s the latest Muslim-bashing piece in the British press.
A Muslim chemist repeatedly refused a mother the “morning after” pill because of his religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
Jo-Ann Thomas, a school crossing patrolwoman with two children, was told that even though the item was in stock she should go to her doctor for her supplies.
Click to expand...
When she was denied the pill at a Lloyds Pharmacy near her home in Thurcroft, Rotherham, she asked why and says she was told the pharmacist was a “deeply religious Muslim”.
Click to expand...
telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/14/npill14.xml

Gosh, what a terrible Muslim, not fitting into our society and doing what people expect them to do 😉

Mike
 
deb1 said:
Couldn’t she have simply gone to a different pharmacist?
Click to expand...
I’m sure she could, but it’s much easier to make this into a story about the big bad Muslim who won’t conform to what we want.

The fact that a Catholic pharmacist may well want to react in the same way (and has the legal right to do so) ought to give people pause as to how and why the media are reporting these stories at all, and why they are reported in the way that they are reported. Muslims might be the people we’re picking on today; who knows which minority it may be next.

Mike
 
Catholic pharmacists are already getting into trouble for refusing to dispense contraceptive pills. Some have lost their jobs. No respect for people’s conscienciously held beliefs
 
If they were going to refuse to do their jobs because of a beleif, it should have been noted in the interview or on the application. You’re hired for a job, you do the job. If you feel there is a reason you cannot perform the job, you talk to your boss, or ask someone else to fill in for you. You don’t tell the customer no.
 
Liberalsaved said:
If they were going to refuse to do their jobs because of a beleif, it should have been noted in the interview or on the application. You’re hired for a job, you do the job. If you feel there is a reason you cannot perform the job, you talk to your boss, or ask someone else to fill in for you. You don’t tell the customer no.
Click to expand...
Your comment brings up an interesting argument. Would helping the customer to find a different way to get the pill, be considered “aiding and abetting”, in the eyes of the Church? I think it would.

I do agree that a person should bring up the issue upon being interviewed for the job.
 
The refusal to fill this prescription is a major disregard to the pharmacist faith such as it would be for a catholic pharmacist in good standing with the church to aid and abet in any fashion the possible destruction of life.
Why such a controversy ? I think it is the Pharmacist whose beliefs are being put to the test and are a subject of not being allowed to follow them.

Does a doctor have to perform an abortion? the answer is no and one would think in a democratic society we would give equal rights to the pharmacist.

Let that doctor who prescribed give this woman the pill. why implicate more people in this act? Well because the non-religious or those wanting to make up their own religious rules have an agenda and that is to force their ideals on all sectors of today’s society.

There is no major sector of religion beliefs( catholics,protestants, jewish, moslem, hindu, budist, etc…) that the destruction of life is allowed be it an abortion or euthanasia.

Remember the constitution in the United States reads there shall be no laws made in regards to religion and no-where does it state seperation of church and state. Thats right you will not find it in any area of our constitution no even in amendents. The only areas you may read such a statement is in letters or speeches. So to make a law forcing this pharmacist to do something that is contrary to his religious beliefs violates our constitutional rights and is descriminatory and lends itself to the possibility of religious persecution.
Next month is Thanksgiving and do remeber why the Pilgrims came to this country and why they were leaving their home countries.
Your notion of this should have been discussed in the interview process would you choose not to hire this person because of his religious beliefs? If the answer is yes than you are in a definite violation of law in deccrimation under the civil rights act. Race, “creed”, color, handicap, sex, etc…
 
Liberalsaved said:
If they were going to refuse to do their jobs because of a beleif, it should have been noted in the interview or on the application. You’re hired for a job, you do the job. If you feel there is a reason you cannot perform the job, you talk to your boss, or ask someone else to fill in for you. You don’t tell the customer no.
Click to expand...
If it is your pharmacy, you can tell the customer no whenever you want. This isn’t a socialist country. Now if the pharmacy has you sign some sort of statement saying you will abide by their code of ethics and dispensing abortificients is part of that, then as an objector, seek employment somewhere else to avoid that sin. But you should never, ever help destroy a life, or expect someone else to do it.
 
Wendy-Kay said:
If it is your pharmacy, you can tell the customer no whenever you want. This isn’t a socialist country. Now if the pharmacy has you sign some sort of statement saying you will abide by their code of ethics and dispensing abortificients is part of that, then as an objector, seek employment somewhere else to avoid that sin. But you should never, ever help destroy a life, or expect someone else to do it.
Click to expand...
I agree …I wouldn’t want to work somewhere like that.
 
The question here is does the employer have a right to deny you a job based on your religious beliefs?

Does the employer have the right to screen and deny a sector of people positions in their company and/or mandate a policy that would place these people under duress because of their beliefs

Can an employer ask will you eat pork?

Have you been circumsized?

What is next will you despense this euthanasia pill. We cannot remove ourselves from facets of society because of our beliefs but to meld ourselves within that society to be a disciple and show the way of the savior. Do not make it easier for those that which to follow in the society of death. The culture of death fight is to move us out of their way not to discuss the scientific research or the right or wrong of the issue as they know to that end they will lose.
 
I believe that no matter what religious affiliation the pharmacy worker comes from or follows, that s/he has the right to follow their conscience.

A Dr is not forced to preform abortions. So nurses, pharmacists and pharmacy workers should have the ability to follow their conscience also.

I am sad to say that there will come a time in the near future that Dr’s and pharmacists will be told to give out other death drugs to “ease” those that want to die into death. After that they will be told to give out drugs to “put down” those that are not productive in our society. People won’t be honest about the reasoning behind it. But, IMHO it will be so a few can have more and more of the “good” stuff in our society.

May GOD have mercy on us all.
 
Veritas41 said:
Catholic pharmacists are already getting into trouble for refusing to dispense contraceptive pills. Some have lost their jobs. No respect for people’s conscienciously held beliefs
Click to expand...
…a “conscience clause” in the **Royal Pharmaceutical Society **of Great Britain’s ethics code, says: "It states that if supplying the morning-after pill is contrary to a pharmacist’s personal, religious or moral beliefs they are entirely within their rights not to supply it."

We need the same clause here in Canada and the USA!
.
 
Many of the pharmacists now in practice have been working since prior to the “morning after pill.” Most of the future pharmacists will be faced with the decision at some point of whether or not to dispense drugs used to kill persons that are alive. It might come to a point that no one will want to do the job. Then what will the people that need life saving drugs do.

As a Catholic and a pro-life woman I wonder if there is a list of pharmacies that do not cry contraceptives (including condoms) and abortificants.
 
c659smith said:
The question here is does the employer have a right to deny you a job based on your religious beliefs? Yes, if those beliefs interfere with the business itselt.

Does the employer have the right to screen and deny a sector of people positions in their company and/or mandate a policy that would place these people under duress because of their beliefs
Yes, if they are screening to rule out people who will not be able to do the job as directed.

Can an employer ask will you eat pork? If eating pork was a necessary job requirement - then yes.

Have you been circumsized? No.

What is next will you despense this euthanasia pill. There is no Euthanasia pill. But if there were, and dispensing it were part of the job, I would do it or get another job somewhere else where I didn’t have to do such things.
Click to expand...
 
James this article does not state an opinion it only shows there is a conflict.
So this article answers your opinion in what way?

Does a pharmacist have a right not to prescribe the morning after pill if it is a true belief of his or her faith that it is a grave sin and may condemn him or her to hell. This if he or she is the owner of the establishment or an employee?

Does the owner in your opinion have the right to fire for cause due the employees religious belief?

How about not hiring an employee because of his or her religious beliefs ?

What is your definition of religious persecution?
 
Here is the law

What does federal law require of an employer?
Federal law requires an employer to “reasonably accommodate” an employee’s religious observances, practices and beliefs. However, an employer need not “reasonably accommodate” if the employer can show that accommodation would cause an “undue hardship” on business.

Employees do not have to justify or prove anything about their religious belief to the employer (for example, the employee need not provide a note from clergy): an employer is required to accommodate — subject to the undue hardship rule — any of the employee’s religious beliefs.

If an accommodation issue arises and it is not easily resolved, the employee should discuss the matter with his or her union representative, contact an attorney or contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or the state’s EEOC-equivalent.

Yes Employees have rights out there and a finding that for a paticular pharmacist not to fill this presciption a hardship would be a far reach.

What constitutes “reasonable accommodation” and “undue hardship” depends on the facts in a particular situation. Regardless of whether an accommodation is ultimately possible, the employer bears the burden of showing that a serious attempt was made
 
What if there was a JW doctor who refused to administer blood transfusions?
 
A JW doctor is not within his rights as by not providing the transfusion would probably cause harm or death on the person needing the transfusion. Not providing the morning after pill by a paticular pharmacist does not cause harm or death by his actions or lack there of.

This would be like referencing a hospital refusing to carry blood and a hospital refusing to perform abortions or carry the morning after pill.
 
c659smith said:
James this article does not state an opinion it only shows there is a conflict.
So this article answers your opinion in what way?

Does a pharmacist have a right not to prescribe the morning after pill if it is a true belief of his or her faith that it is a grave sin and may condemn him or her to hell. This if he or she is the owner of the establishment or an employee?

Does the owner in your opinion have the right to fire for cause due the employees religious belief?

How about not hiring an employee because of his or her religious beliefs ?

What is your definition of religious persecution?
Click to expand...
the article simply states that it all has to do with private property rights. if a manager of a pharmacy carries contraceptives but the employee doesnt want to dispense them, then it is within the right of that employee to not do that, but also the employer has a right, since it is his buisness, to fire him if he feels that it is part of the job requirement. and also on the other hand a pharmacy owner should also have the right to not carry a certain product if he does not feel like it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top