Target stores' pharmicists allowed to withold abortion pill

This is the place where all heated debates shall reside. Non-tech topics allowed. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. "Enter at your own Risk".

Moderator: The Mod Squad

Should a pharmacist (not a public hospital) have the right to refuse service based on their beliefs?

Yes
6
35%
No
11
65%
 
Total votes : 17

Target stores' pharmicists allowed to withold abortion pill

Postby Robyn » Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:56 pm

Here's an interesting article from the Uof MN's school newspaper. I know I know another abortion thing but in this I don't care about anyones opinions on surgical abortions, or parental consent or any of that. Obviously the school paper is very liberal and biased because it's a college paper.

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/11/11/66104

...protesters oppose Target’s company policy that allows pharmacists to refuse assistance to customers, especially concerning birth control and emergency contraception.

The conscience clause allows a pharmacist who isn’t comfortable issuing a particular drug to not do so as long as the customer has practical access to the drug elsewhere.

Although Minnesota doesn’t have a conscience clause, Wiberg said, pharmacists are able to refuse drug distribution if it is considered assisting or submitting to an abortion.

According to the 2004 Boynton Student Health Assessment Survey, 5.1 percent of the 1,978 females surveyed had taken an emergency contraception pill within the previous 12 months.


Honestly I think a company has the right to not offer products, or to give their employees the right to not offer products. I don't go into a Chinese restauarant and DEMAND a hamburger. If they put it on the menu and offered it to me and I wanted it they could sell it to me. If a bartender can tell me when I've had too much and refuse service because they're not comfortable serving me, then so can a pharmacist.

An editorial later in the paper said that pharmacists that are pro-life should get new jobs. If the pro-life group said that about any occupation it would be intolerance. Should everyone in the health care industry be pro-choice? Is this an agenda? (i'm thinking the author has one, not the protestors)

And that survey is staggering! 5% of females in college get the morning after pill? in one year! Keep in mind that number could be high by only health-minded people reachable by the hospital responding to the survey, or low because some people may feel ashamed to admit making a mistake. Even 1% is kind of amazing to me. I would expect college kids to realize that babies are the result of sex.
Some people like me can't take the pill, true (clotting disorder), but there are lots of ways to prevent babies, or fertilization. True, I feel that during the morning after pill's window it's just a mini-tumor, but even I'm more comfortable with better and sooner means of control.

I wonder if the protests are stronger than you'd expect because liberals (not knocking them) WANT Target to be a liberally-minded store, becuase Wal-Mart is very much NOT a politically-left store, and they need somewhere to shop.

I think Target needs to reconsider their contract with the health center if they don't wish to honor all prescriptions, but that as a pharmacy they retain the rights to offer whatever legally available products or services they desire, and leave the discretion of what is available to whomever they choose.
Image
Robyn
Black Belt 1st Degree
Black Belt 1st Degree
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Lab Rat in MN

Postby phoenixn » Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:14 pm

Wouldn't this be kind of like me being a vegetarian (which I am) getting a job at McDonalds and refusing to serve hamburgers? I would consider that kind of work to be "wrong occupation".

If a pharmacist takes a job with Target, then it seems to me that person should be willing to deliver whatever drugs are in line with company policy; or go elsewhere.

We can't expect people to go roaming around looking for pharmacies that will fill their legitimate (legal) prescriptions.
phoenixn
Brown Belt
Brown Belt
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Postby Ghen » Sat Nov 12, 2005 4:33 am

Thats just silly, there's a drug store on every corner of America.. across from the 7-eleven that makes us require it.
ImageImageImage
Ghen
Black Belt 5th Degree
Black Belt 5th Degree
 
Posts: 5806
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 3:06 pm
Location: Delaware

Postby DAVE1 » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:53 am

if they don't sell it theres other places that probally will

never knew target at a pharmacy
Join team 33258 today!!
DAVE1
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 7699
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 11:49 am

Postby Sabrewings » Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:15 am

phoenixn wrote:If a pharmacist takes a job with Target, then it seems to me that person should be willing to deliver whatever drugs are in line with company policy; or go elsewhere.


But it is company policy for them to be able to refuse. People think that stores by law have to listen to us, but they don't. They can do whatever they want to as far as things like this. It'd be like someone at Home Depot refusing to sell me a chainsaw because they think I might go outside and kill someone with it.
Sabrewings
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 18948
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Barksdale AFB, LA

Postby phoenixn » Sat Nov 12, 2005 10:50 am

Sabrewings wrote:But it is company policy for them to be able to refuse.

I guess I missed that from the article. Certainly if their company policy permits the individual pharmacist to refuse filling a particular prescription, then that’s that. On the other hand, if the pharmacy in question actually stocks the item, then you'd think they would be obligated to supply that item regardless of which pharmacist happens to be on duty at the time. Otherwise they'll have people waiting for the next shift to try again.

Actually, I'm not sure why I got involved in this thread to start with - since I'm a consumate anti-drug of any kind type person. Best not getting me started on the abuses of legal drugs. Even better not getting me started on the whole abortion issue. :wink:
phoenixn
Brown Belt
Brown Belt
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Postby trexntx » Sat Nov 12, 2005 2:22 pm

Nobody knows the day after having unprotected sex whether a pregnancy developed. Just because somebody takes the pill doesn't mean they are terminating a pregnancy. Odds are that it wouldn't have been a pregnancy anyway.

As for a pharmacy refusing service based on 'moral' convictions all I can say that it is wrong. Get another job if you don't want to serve people based on beliefs. Imagine not being able to purchase a steak at a restaurant on a Friday. :lol:

I guess if a Buddhist was working and they refused to fill an antibiotic prescription that would be acceptable. :roll:
Antec NeoHE 550
AMD 64 X2 4600+
ASUS A8N-SLI DELUXE
Corsair XMS (2X512)
Maxtor SATA (2x300GB) RAID 0
trexntx
Black Belt 5th Degree
Black Belt 5th Degree
 
Posts: 8012
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:22 am
Location: Fort Worth

Postby Tolemac » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:16 pm

Noone has the "right" to pass judgement on another person based on their beliefs. That doesn't stop anyone from doing it though, does it. People who work in service jobs are there to provide said service. If that includes dispensing "day after" pills, then that is what they are paid to do. They are not paid to withhold services.
Trying to use the bartender example doesn't work for one very simple reason. The bartender doesn't want to see you or anyone else get killed. The morning after pills do not kill the people taking them nor anyone they come in contact with.

Same holds true for the Home Depot/chainsaw senario. How does the saleman know what the person is going to do? The person in question would have to look pretty messed up for someone to make that kind of assumption.

If Target pharmacies stock said pills, then they are obligated to sell them to whoever has a prescription. If they are not comfortable with said pills, then they need to stop stocking it. It is the pharmacists job to fill 'scripts. If they can't do that for whatever reason, then they need to find another line of work.
Tolemac
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 14276
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2000 12:01 am
Location: L-1 Bridge

Postby DAVE1 » Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:26 pm

bartenders can be held accountable for giving some one to much to drink and then getting into an accident or something like that
Join team 33258 today!!
DAVE1
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 7699
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 11:49 am

Postby Sabrewings » Sat Nov 12, 2005 6:49 pm

Tolemac wrote:If Target pharmacies stock said pills, then they are obligated to sell them to whoever has a prescription.


Is there a law for that, or just personal opinion? I didn't know they were required by law to sell anything. They could just shutdown and say "no more" and that's that. If they want to empower their employees with that discretion, then so be it. You don't like it, show them by not shopping there.
Sabrewings
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 18948
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 3:04 am
Location: Barksdale AFB, LA

Next

Return to The Hundred Year War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron