Wisconsin Appeals Court Upholds Sanctions Against Fired Pro-Life Pharmacist

[hasikelee]

That isn’t a problem, it’s precisely the point. If this man is not willing to fill the prescriptions of every customer then he has no place working as a pharmacist.

And do any of those passes given to the religious at your work harmful to others? Does a woman miss an important pill that she took the time and effort to have prescribed to her because one of your coworkers doesn’t believe in it?

Stop putting this on the level of having off for Christmas or receiving a non-pork company lunch. It’s directly interfering in the rights of others and their doctors.

Tom, can you explain to me the particulars of this right of obtaining a non-medically necessary hormonal replacement, one that can be obtained almost anywhere nowadays, and why this right is assumed higher than the right of the pharmacist?

As for the original article, it sounds to me as if much information is missing. We have drive-through pp’s over here that dispense just about any kind of contraceptive thingamajig, and abortive ones, too. Probably the assistant worker was overzealous and got all emotional. Probably the woman figured this was her paycheck for who knows how long and instead of writing him off as rude or being religious, she decided to escalate it. They were meant for each other.

 

[Digitonomy]

Tom, can you explain to me the particulars of this right of obtaining a non-medically necessary hormonal replacement, one that can be obtained almost anywhere nowadays…

It sounds as though you are suggesting that the pharmacist’s right to refuse would be weaker if there were no other pharmacies nearby. True?

 

[TomPiltoff]

Tom, can you explain to me the particulars of this right of obtaining a non-medically necessary hormonal replacement, one that can be obtained almost anywhere nowadays, and why this right is assumed higher than the right of the pharmacist?

Well it goes something like this:

The pill this woman had a doctor prescribed prescription for is obviously legal in the US. The pharmacy she went to obviously had the pill in stock.

The employee crossed the line and refused to supply the woman with her doctor prescribed prescription because he feels it is unnecessary/immoral.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

It is quite apparent from reading your posts that you would prefer a theocracy, that is a government that is subject to the laws of the Church. Very few share your views, including the founding fathers of this country.

Well, considering that we are quickly approaching (if not already there) the immorality on the level of Sodom & Gomorrah, what do you think?

Actually, in other posts under my former login (which is still active and has not been suspended or banned), yes I have stated that.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Actually, in other posts under my former login (which is still active and has not been suspended or banned), yes I have stated that.

An absolutely un-American view.

 

[peregrinus_WA]

An absolutely un-American view.

Thank you

 

[Nohome]

Well, considering that we are quickly approaching (if not already there) the immorality on the level of Sodom & Gomorrah, what do you think?

Actually, in other posts under my former login (which is still active and has not been suspended or banned), yes I have stated that.

Then why stay here? Might I suggest a few theocracies for you?

Iran? How about Saudi Arabia? I’d suggest Afghanistan too, but we sort of ended that one.

Nohomr

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

They give up some of them, absolutely they do.

The example earlier, the man who would not drive an automobile lest it offend god. He is ineligible to become a delivery driver precisely due to his religion.

That’s not a good analogy. Someone objecting to cars on religious grounds isn’t, oddly enough, going to apply for a position with a driving company. A more accurate analogy is whether or not it should be okay to fire or refuse to hire a driver who wanted to have Sundays off because of religious reasons or objected to shipping something his religion prohibits. Does having another driver fill in on Sunday or reassigning the objectionable load constitute an unreasonable accommodation for the employer? No, it doesn’t. It would become a problem if the driver in question refused to hand the keys over to the replacement driver.

Well it goes something like this:

The pill this woman had a doctor prescribed prescription for is obviously legal in the US. The pharmacy she went to obviously had the pill in stock.

The employee crossed the line and refused to supply the woman with her doctor prescribed prescription because he feels it is unnecessary/immoral.

No, that isn’t it at all. The court ruled he could refuse to fill the prescription but that’s it. He can’t refuse to direct her elsewhere or transfer the prescription. Apparently, even the court disagreed with your opinion that a pharmacist has to fill every single prescription that comes his or her way.

 

[Benedictus]

People used to help slaves escape via the Underground Railroad. According to the laws at the time, those were illegal acts.

According to the Apostle Paul, those were immoral acts (cf. Philemon, Colossians ch. 3, Titus ch. 2, 1 Tim. ch 6, etc.).

 

[TomPiltoff]

No, that isn’t it at all. The court ruled he could refuse to fill the prescription but that’s it. He can’t refuse to direct her elsewhere or transfer the prescription. Apparently, even the court disagreed with your opinion that a pharmacist has to fill every single prescription that comes his or her way.

I made no contradiction.

The law is what it is. But in my opinion the guy shouldn’t be working there if he’s going to impose his morals on somebody else.

Would you accept your pharmacist telling you he wasn’t going to give you any oxycontin because you’re a drug addict? Of course not.

And he shouldn’t be telling you you’re a murderer, either.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

I made no contradiction.

I never accused you of contradicting yourself, only that the court didn’t agree with your position.

The law is what it is. But in my opinion the guy shouldn’t be working there if he’s going to impose his morals on somebody else.

And you’re welcome to that opinion and I thank you for expressing it.

Would you accept your pharmacist telling you he wasn’t going to give you any oxycontin because you’re a drug addict? Of course not.

How is that related to the issue of religious freedom? Like you said, America protects religious freedom, within reasonable limits. Actions protected by religious freedom probably wouldn’t be protected if said actions were performed for nonreligious reasons. For that matter, I imagine that pharmacists have a means of dealing with possible misuse or abuse of prescriptions they are filling. While it may or may not include refusing to fill the prescription, it probably does include notifying the proper authorities, like the police, the customer’s physician, the pharmacy supervisor, etc.

Oh, and if my pharmacist had reason to think I was a drug addict, I wouldn’t be the least bit upset if he took action. If it is a misunderstanding, well, that happens. It would actually show me that he was a compassionate, caring individual who takes an interest in his customers.

And he shouldn’t be telling you you’re a murderer, either.

I agree. Did this particular pharmacist call the customer a murderer?

 

[TomPiltoff]

I never accused you of contradicting yourself, only that the court didn’t agree with your position.

Well we’re in agreement there.

How is that related to the issue of religious freedom?

How is it related? They’re both examples of a pharmacist going above and beyond his qualifications and making a moral decree over who gets what.

Oh, and if my pharmacist had reason to think I was a drug addict, I wouldn’t be the least bit upset if he took action. If it is a misunderstanding, well, that happens. It would actually show me that he was a compassionate, caring individual who takes an interest in his customers.

I’m sorry, but again my point is missed.

 

[TomPiltoff]

And he shouldn’t be telling you you’re a murderer, either.

In a way, yes. The point isn’t the particular insult, it’s that it’s an unwarranted moral call from somebody who holds a very important pill.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

How is it related? They’re both examples of a pharmacist going above and beyond his qualifications and making a moral decree over who gets what.

Well, it seems you’ve missed my point. It clearly isn’t related to the issue of religious freedom and actually involves the morality of prescribing a drug that the pharmacist believes is going to be abused. The issues are not related.

I’m sorry, but again my point is missed.

I don’t think anyone has missed your point but that you’ve missed my point about your hypothetical example. It isn’t related to religious freedom, which is specifically protected under the laws of this country.

In a way, yes. The point isn’t the particular insult, it’s that it’s an unwarranted moral call from somebody who holds a very important pill.

In other words, no, he didn’t call her a murderer. I agree that he shouldn’t preach to her about the particular morals of the pill but there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong, unwarranted, or inappropriate about him exercising his right to religious freedom by refusing to dispense the pill to her. The real issue is whether or not he should have refused to transfer the prescription or direct her to another pharmacist.

 

[Nohome]

The real issue is whether or not he should have refused to transfer the prescription or direct her to another pharmacist.

You are correct. That is the point at which this pharmacist crossed from conscientious objector to actively denying this woman her rights. It is also what got him in trouble.

Nohome

 

[TomPiltoff]

In other words, no, he didn’t call her a murderer.

Correct, he did not call her a murderer.

And I am disappointed to have to repeat my own words when I say that that was not the point of the analogy.

The point is that it’s a moral judgment on somebody else that interferes to an unacceptable degree with that individuals life.

Whether it’s as blatant as calling her a baby killer or as latent as refusing to give her her prescription and refuse to direct her elsewhere, the same action is being performed.

If you don’t mind I’m going to take your last two points in reverse order.

The real issue is whether or not he should have refused to transfer the prescription or direct her to another pharmacist.

That’s the issue in the eyes of the law, yes. I am arguing that he shouldn’t even be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription.

I agree that he shouldn’t preach to her about the particular morals of the pill but there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong, unwarranted, or inappropriate about him exercising his right to religious freedom by refusing to dispense the pill to her.

And why does this particular pill get a free pass? Are we to respect doctors if some of them have a conscientious objection to women in the store on their periods because their religion tells them it’s unclean?

Religious holidays are understandably observed, sometimes religious garb is given a free pass over some petty dress code, etc.

But the second it actually interferes with individuals (as in having to hope that your pharmacist today isn’t one that is going to pettily hold your prescription back), it crosses the line.

 

[childofmary1143]

That’s the issue in the eyes of the law, yes. I am arguing that he shouldn’t even be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription.

Is he not in his LEGAL rights to do just that? Should nurses be compelled to assist at abortions? Do they have a right to refuse that based on religious grounds?

 

[TomPiltoff]

Is he not in his LEGAL rights to do just that?

Yes, we’re all in agreement that the legality of the situation lies with his refusal to refer her elsewhere. I’m making a personal argument.

Should nurses be compelled to assist at abortions? Do they have a right to refuse that based on religious grounds?

I don’t know if they have that right or not, I’d consider it almost certain that they do.

But should a hospital be allowed to turn a woman away for an abortion? Not if it accepts any kind of government funding, no.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Correct, he did not call her a murderer.

And I am disappointed to have to repeat my own words when I say that that was not the point of the analogy.

I know that wasn’t the point of your analogy and I never said it was. You did make a comment along those lines and I addressed it.

The point is that it’s a moral judgment on somebody else that interferes to an unacceptable degree with that individuals life.

It does not interfere to an unacceptable degree. I don’t see how you think it does. Because one might have to go another pharmacy? Not exactly horrible, terrible, unacceptable, etc.

Whether it’s as blatant as calling her a baby killer or as latent as refusing to give her her prescription and refuse to direct her elsewhere, the same action is being performed.

I am not defending his decision to refuse to transfer the prescription or direct her elsewhere. I am defending his right to refuse to fill the prescription on religious grounds. That is it.

That’s the issue in the eyes of the law, yes. I am arguing that he shouldn’t even be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription.

And I’m arguing that he should be able to do just that. Thankfully, the courts have decided to respect religious freedom.

And why does this particular pill get a free pass? Are we to respect doctors if some of them have a conscientious objection to women in the store on their periods because their religion tells them it’s unclean?

You don’t seem to be willing to take into account reasonable accommodation. Refusing to fill the occasional prescription is very, very different from some kind of sexual segregation.

But the second it actually interferes with individuals (as in having to hope that your pharmacist today isn’t one that is going to pettily hold your prescription back), it crosses the line.

It crosses no line. At most, it represents a minor inconvenience for the customer and protects America’s heritage of religious freedom.

 

[TomPiltoff]

It does not interfere to an unacceptable degree. I don’t see how you think it does. Because one might have to go another pharmacy? Not exactly horrible, terrible, unacceptable, etc.

To borrow from another poster, is it any less convenient to go to another supermarket because your local deli recently hired a Muslim who won’t touch pork?

Whether the other pharmacy was directly next door or an hour away makes no difference.

I am not defending his decision to refuse to transfer the prescription or direct her elsewhere. I am defending his right to refuse to fill the prescription on religious grounds. That is it.

I understand that.

You don’t seem to be willing to take into account reasonable accommodation. Refusing to fill the occasional prescription is very, very different from some kind of sexual segregation.

Perhaps you missed my admission of holidays off, certain kinds of clothing, etc. I am tolerant of what I believe to be a fair degree of religion in the workplace.

It crosses no line. At most, it represents a minor inconvenience for the customer and protects America’s heritage of religious freedom.

Religious freedom is not just the freedom to exercise your personal belief system but the freedom to not come under duress from anybody elses.