Mother is denied Pill by Muslim pharmacist

[c659smith]

reply to James 1441

What I am asking is then is;

Does Federal law affect the Employer to follow federal law and provide reasonable accomodations if it does not incur undo hardship on the business.

 

[james1441]

reply to James 1441

What I am asking is federal law then does the Employer not have to follow federal law and provide reasonable accomodations if it does not incur undo hardship on the business.

i have no clue what federal laws dictate in this situation so im not able to answer that with little info i have

 

[Wendy-Kay]

What if there was a JW doctor who refused to administer blood transfusions?

Apples and oranges. Besides, JWs no longer refuse blood transfusions. Also, because of our wonderful free market society, I hire only pro-life physicians that share my beliefs to handle my family’s care. Even if my attending doctor was a JW, and it was within his scope of practice to deny said procedure, it would be nothing to get the orders from another.

 

[OriginalJS]

People who take employment to furnish generic or fungible services to the public should be required to fulfill those duties. Here some Muslim refused to dispense a prescribed medication. At the Minneapolis airport Muslim cab drivers are refusing to transport passengers who possess alcohol. Muslim cab drivers refusing in some places to transport blind persons with seeing-eye dogs because they view the dogs as unclean. What is next? Will Muslims cab drivers refuse to transport single women or require women to wear veils? Will Muslim pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions that contain alcohol. Will Muslim check-out clerks refuse to sell patent medicines that contain alcohol such as even most mouthwashes do?

Will Hindu checkout clerks refuse t sell beef? Should Jews refuse to sell pork? Should a Jewish or Muslim taxi driver be able to refuse transportation to a farmer who raises hogs?

There is no end to ridiculous possibilities.

The answer is for such employees to seek employment where their employment would not require them to do things their religious beliefs forbid. I think the position being taken by many of these folks is disingenous in the extreme. If such employees truly have such deeply held beliefs they would never work for employers who provide offending goods and services to the public.

 

[deb1]

Couldn’t the Mother simply go to another pharmacist? I guess I don’t understand why this isn’t an option.

As far as cab drivers, I think that according to the disabilities act, the driver is breaking the law.

 

[OriginalJS]

Couldn’t the Mother simply go to another pharmacist?

Sure, but in some cases the pharmacists will not hand the prescription back to the customer. Of course, the blind woman with a seeing eye dog needing a taxi can just try to get another taxi, too.

 

[Adonis33]

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.

Interesting point.

 

[Adonis33]

…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!
.

I agree - we do need a similar cluse here on the US.

 

[TheGarg]

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.

Not only woudl i tell them no,but they would have to kill me before i would murder a baby. I would definately tell them that in an interview

 

[Digitonomy]

in some cases the pharmacists will not hand the prescription back to the customer.

I would like to see a cite for that. I seriously doubt that is legal, at least in the US.

c659smith:

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?

This varies from state to state. There have been a number of threads on this topic. It is a legitimate area of state regulation. Some states require pharmacists to fill such prescriptions, many are silent on the issue, and some states prevent any punitive action from being taken against such a pharmacist by the company.

 

[deb1]

Apparently, there is a clause that allows one to object to filling medicine based on one’s religious beliefs. So, the Muslim was within his legal rights.

As far as the taxicab driver…most taxicab drivers do not own their own vehicles. THey must follow their companies guidelines. In the United States there are laws to protect the disabled, and a company could be fined for not following those laws. A driver can’t refuse to pick up somebody simply because they are disabled.

 

[deb1]

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.

Reasonable.

It makes sense to me that a company would have created a plan for these situations. Perhaps the pharmacist could be required to provide the woman with a list of pharmacies that will fill her order.

 

[Lance]

In Illinois it is against the law to refuse to supply this or any other legal birth control pill. Even if you own the pharmacy.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Not only woudl i tell them no,but they would have to kill me before i would murder a baby.

I have to say, I don’t see birth control as murder. I’ve been painted untruthfully as in support of free-range abortion, but that is too extreme for me.There are moral arguments to be had about it, but unless the victim is actually alive, it is not murder.

 

[a_cermak]

In Illinois it is against the law to refuse to supply this or any other legal birth control pill. Even if you own the pharmacy.

Yes, but only if the pharmacy stocks contraceptions. If they choose not to carry them period, then they do not have to fill scripts for them.
Thing is, because so many women use BC, it’s a big market and of course if they have more scripts or need to purchase a couple of other things (aspirin, candy, cigs…); choosing not to stock BC is a hard choice.

And, in IL, it’s the pharmacy, not the pharmacist that’s on the hook. So a pharmacy can choose to hire two pharmacists, one who will fill BC scripts and one who won’t.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I have to say, I don’t see birth control as murder. I’ve been painted untruthfully as in support of free-range abortion, but that is too extreme for me.There are moral arguments to be had about it, but unless the victim is actually alive, it is not murder.

What is your defination of being “actually alive”?

 

[james1441]

What is your defination of being “actually alive”?

birth control simply prevents formation, it doesnt eliminate

 

[KathleenElsie]

birth control simply prevents formation, it doesnt eliminate

lifesite.net/abortiontypes/pillabortion_types.html

For further information please go to the above site.

Birth control pills are routinely described as “contraceptives”, that is, things that prevent conception, the beginning of a new human life. But in fact birth control pills sometimes act as “abortifacients”, things that cause abortion.

Birth control pills act in three basic ways: (This information can be obtained from any standard reference work, such as the Physician’s Desk Reference.)

1. 
   *]They suppress ovulation, that is, they prevent the woman’s body from releasing an egg.
   *]They thicken the woman’s cervical mucus, which makes it more difficult for sperm to reach the egg.
   *]They alter the lining of the uterus so that the zygote (fertilized egg, the first stage in the life of a human being) cannot implant. The developing baby receives his oxygen and nutrition through the uterus, so if the zygote-baby cannot implant, he starves to death. This is, therefore, an abortion.

 

[MikeinSD]

What about refusal to sell condoms? More of a question for cashiers than pharmacists but the same principle applies. Correct?

 

[james1441]

http://www.lifesite.net/abortiontype...ion_types.html

For further information please go to the above site.

Birth control pills are routinely described as “contraceptives”, that is, things that prevent conception, the beginning of a new human life. But in fact birth control pills sometimes act as “abortifacients”, things that cause abortion.

Birth control pills act in three basic ways: (This information can be obtained from any standard reference work, such as the Physician’s Desk Reference.)

1. They suppress ovulation, that is, they prevent the woman’s body from releasing an egg.
2. They thicken the woman’s cervical mucus, which makes it more difficult for sperm to reach the egg.
3. They alter the lining of the uterus so that the zygote (fertilized egg, the first stage in the life of a human being) cannot implant. The developing baby receives his oxygen and nutrition through the uterus, so if the zygote-baby cannot implant, he starves to death. This is, therefore, an abortion.

you just proved my point… birth control and abortion-causing pills/medical procedures are still 2 different things