Where do we draw the line on respecting a person's beliefs in relation to

[Horse with no Name]

their job?

Suppose I am an active KKK member.
I am the only nurse qualified to take a critical black patient.
Do I have the right to refuse with the repercussion being that on my refusal that this patient will suffer greatly from my refusal?

What is truly the difference between this scenario and a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription that could forever change my life if I didn't get it?

[leftofthedial]

1. I refuse to answer

since I am a life member of IA (Idiot's Anonymous) and I have no usiness thinking about things like that.

[tk2kewl]

2. the religion/pharmacist one is actually a tough one

because job discrimination based on religion is protected under civil rights laws (at least in NY, i think fed too).

but chain stores should simply have a policy to ensure that there is always someone available to fill the prescription at each store should a pharmacist refuse to do so. just my opinion

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

3. Pennsylvania: It is against the law for a pharmacist to refuse to fill Rx

No excuses, no bullshit.

Just do your damn job...which, is, by the way, to FILL PRESCRIPTIONS.

[tk2kewl]

4. eventually these cases will end up before the court.

i suspect they driven not by fundies, but by those who wish to undermine civil rights legislation across the board. it's very dicey

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

8. It pits the BUSINESS interests against the RW zealots

Business does not want any employee to refuse to do their job...the fundies wants all kind of idiotic exemptions for their twisted beliefs.

It reveals one of the deep fissures within the Republican party and the unholy alliance between those two groups...it is an uneasy peace.

[Der Blaue Engel]

5. No it is not a tough one

If someone's religious beliefs require that they endanger patients, that is NOT protected. Period.

[Beelzebud]

10. If you can't do your job you shouldn't have it...

[sui generis]

11. Define discrimination though

Being fired or not hired for your practice of religion is what they're talking about.

Work is for working, not for praying or proselytizing. If someone feels they must disrupt work (and productivity) by praying incessantly or delivering moral judgements, you really CAN fire them and it's not discrimination.

[BattyDem]

12. I don't understand how job discrimination laws ...

protect someone who refuses to do the job they were hired to do.

It's one thing if you were hired for a job and somewhere along the line, your duties changed and you were suddenly forced to do something that violated your religious beliefs.

BUT if you were hired to dispense medication ... ALL MEDICATION ... and one day, you suddenly decided that you didn't want to dispense certain medications anymore, why should you be protected? Why should a pharmacy have to pay another employee to be there to "back you up" because you suddenly decided that certain aspects of your job were against your religious beliefs?

If ANY other medication was involved, no on would stand for this shit. it wouldn't even be an issue. If any other occupation was involved, it wouldn't be tolerated.

[PowerToThePeople]

28. It is not a tough one.

Do your job or get fired. That's how jobs work.

[sui generis]

6. that's easy

If you provide a for profit service and pay federal taxes, and particularly in health sciences, you shouldn't get to administer a test that violates someone's privacy as a basis for judging whether or not to serve them.

As an example, if I walk into a store and decide to buy Rice Krispies instead of Fruit Loops and the checkout person says the store refuses to sell me Rice Krispies on the grounds that they presume me to be a fruit and therefore immoral and not worthy to buy Rice Krispies is a problem.

Presumptions of morality are problematic and can be taken to any extreme. An all white pharmacy could make the exact same statement, as could a store owner decide not to even admit "presumed" minorities into their stores.

You have to be willing to establish laws for conduct of public-facing business because left to their own devices there really are some grocery stores in Mississippi who wouldn't sell any kind of cereal to blacks and some stores in Idaho who wouldn't give the time of day to a roman catholic or anyone without a constitutionally approved wedding ring.

If you want to grow flowers, you've got to plan to cull weeds, and the idea that presumed morality is a criteria for providing health care services is most definitely a weed.

[tk2kewl]

13. i think you miss my point

i am not a proponent of withholding prescriptions by any means, however, i am very concerned about the consequences of trying to force this issue.

the pharmacists are not pass judgment on their customers (or at least this is how the argument will go in court); they are adhering to their religious beliefs.

it is a violation of civil rights laws for an employer to discriminate against an employee based on race, religion, age or physical handicap.


my concern is that this issue is a trojan horse that will be used to undermine civil rights laws. the fundie pharmacists don't realize it but they are being used and they will, in the end lose in the courts, and as a result other protected groups will also lose protections.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

17. You make a good argument

I had this pointed out to me recently here on DU and I now agree with what you're saying.

What we need to be doing on this issue is focusing on the pharmacy and not the pharmacist. By making it the responsibility of the business to provide the service, even if that means having an additional pharmacist on duty, it shifts the blame to an area that won't threaten civil rights.

[Horse with no Name]

23. The main problem with this is

There is a pharmacist shortage.
Some places are lucky enough to have one.
And your local pharmacies very rarely have more than one.
Just throwing some figures out here:
The last data collected worldwide showed that maternal mortality is the leading cause of death among women worldwide.
In the year 2000, a half a million women DIED from pregnancy related complications.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=32021&nfid=rssfeeds
There is a mortality rate of 1-3 women (depending on which source you use) per 200,000 women that use birth control pills.

So with those statistics in mind...say you have a woman that lives in a rural area that wanted emergency contraception but was denied it by a pharmacist and there wasn't any other avenue to get it. This woman ends up pregnant, develops complications from the pregnancy and dies. In my opinion, the pharmacist should be considered an accomplice to murder. Perhaps a case like this is exactly what is needed to shake up this issue.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

24. Being a woman who lives in a rural area I understand

I know what they're trying to pull here, and I know it's wrong.

I also see that there's a good chance this is going to be a lose-lose situation for us.

Ever get that boxed in a corner feeling? That's where I'm at now. I know there's a way to put this at the feet of the business and walk away with all our rights intact, I'm just not sure exactly how to do it yet.

They've managed to rally fundie pharmacist into taking a stand on emergency contraceptives, which isn't an abortion pill. If we fight for our rights as women for contraceptives there's a chance that many people could have their civil rights diminished. That just doesn't seem right, does it? If we push this off on the business' how will they handle the issue? I don't expect them to provide more pharmacist at a loss in profits, that's for sure.


The KKK argument isn't quite the same as a religious argument. While I can't not hire a person due to their religious beliefs, I can choose to review some of their other activities and allow those to influence my decision to an extent.

Keep up the good work, we'll figure out a way to beat them on this yet. :)

[SeattleGirl]

20. Here's a slightly different take on the issue:

I am a vocational rehab counselor. I deal with people who have been injured on the job. Some of my clients end up beibg able to return to their job of injury after some therapy, or surgery, or whatever, and they are fine. Others are left with permanent physical limitations of one degree or another. While an employer cannot fire someone for getting injured on the job, nor can they ask someone if they have ever sustained a work-related injury, the CAN ask if they have the skills and abilities (including physical abilities) to do the job. Can they perform the "essential tasks" of a particular job? And that means not only can they do any physical task essential to a job, but can they perform the other essential tasks of a job. If they cannot, an employer is perfectly within their rights to not take someone back, or hire a new person, if they cannot perform these "essential tasks."

I have had clients who felt they were being discriminated against by their employer of injury, because the employer would not take them back due to them not being able to do certain things. For example, if you are a construction worker whose job requires the ability to lift 100 pounds occasionally throughout the day, but because of your injury you cannot lift over 35 pounds, you cannot perform an essential task of the job. Tying this in with your original point, if an essential task of the job of nurse is to provide care to an ill or injured person, and you are a member of the KKK and hate anyone non-white, then that hatred may interfere with your ability to perform an essential task.

And with a pharmacist, an essential task in their job is to fill prescriptions. If their religious beliefs or personal morals are such that they don't believe in birth control, then they cannot perform an essential task and thus cannot effectively perform their job. If a drug is legal, and has been prescribed by a person legally authorized to prescribe it, the pharmacist has no right to impose their own personal beliefs on the person attempting to fill that prescription.

[BattyDem]

25. Excellent point!

:toast:

[sui generis]

22. I got you

sorry if I was unclear ;) (happens sometimes) but my point is that an employer such as an airline can prevent you from being a captain if you are blind and that handicap is not protected no matter how qualified you are as a pilot.

If your religious beliefs prevent you from flying an airplane full of buddhists, you may also not be a captain. If your religious beliefs require you to be drunk to power up the ol' 777, you're probably not long for that job either.

The law is not monolithic. It is meant to prevent discrimination in hiring, and it is meant to keep you from being fired for your PERSONAL beliefs, provided that your personal beliefs do not interfere with the conduct of business.

So, the idea is that you can't be fired from Bart's Christian White Anglo Saxon Protestant Pharmacy and Pizza Parlor for practicing Wicca, but you CAN be fired for drawing pentagrams and burning incense and lighting candles everywhere in pursuit of your faith.

[Metta]

7. No. Person/ role.

In your role as a nurse, you'd be obligated to do no harm. Your personal beliefs then become a problem when they interfere with your functioning in your role. I'd like to think that pharmacists are bound by some similar oath. Target, thereby, is dead wrong in wanting to impose it's personal corporate beliefs on its employees.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. Agreed

as a pacifist, I'd NEVER volunteer to join the military. If I were a Christian Scientist, I would NEVER become a doctor or a pharmacist.

[zanne]

14. When I worked at a clothing store as a salesclerk....

I had no choice about whether or not I would sell fur coats. It was either sell the damn things or get fired. I had to do something I considered to be immoral to keep my job.

[SeattleGirl]

15. I don't think you should have the right to refuse to treat someone

based on your membership in a particular group (regardless of the makeup of that group). Your job is to treat the sick and injured, not administer moral judgement on someone who needs your help.

Now, the flip side of that would be respecting the wishes of the person you are treating. I'm thinking specifically of a show I saw on Discovery Health Channel ("Life in the ER" or something like that.) A Mormon woman was brought in, and she needed a blood transfusion. It is against the beliefs of the Mormons to allow blood transfusions. The docs were a little frustrated, but they kept their thoughts to themselves, and just sat with the husband and the Ward Deacon (I might have his title wrong) and explained the likely consequences of the wife not getting the transfusion. The docs were very respectful of the men, and when the men said no transfusion, they accepted it. The woman died.

I know there have been cases brought before the courts dealing with religious beliefs vs. medical treatment but I think a lot of those have been related to young children, as opposed to adults.

Anyway, I hope I didn't wander off track here. What I think I'm trying to say is that if you take a particular job that involves particular things (providing healthcare, prescriptions, etc.), I think it is wrong to impose your personal morality on someone else. However, I think that you as a patient should have the right to refuse treatment, or have someone do it on your behalf, if that is your wish.

[Horse with no Name]

19. Exactly.

If your personal beliefs interfere with the performance of your job--then it is your moral duty to quit and find something else to do for a living. That is your choice and it is highly recommended that you follow your conscience.
Your rights shouldn't interfere with mine.

[SeattleGirl]

21. Especially when your rights or beliefs can interfere with a

person's health and wellbeing.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. No difference. If your beliefs interfere with your ability to do the job

you shouldn't have the job.

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. Reminds me of the time that Worf refused to share his DNA to save a

Romulan. Compelling TV, but I still don't get why the Vulcans weren't compatible.

At any rate, you have a good point. I have concerns too about allowing people to die just because of ideological differences.

[ryan_cats]

26. A KKK member with the intelligence to be an RN?

A KKK member with the intelligence to be an RN? Not gonna happen. While the Klan is nothing to laugh at, it does crack me up that when you see them, they look like Cletus, the slack jawed Yokel from the Simpsons. The master race, yeah right, I think the master race at least has a full set of teeth and a high school diploma.

[FreedomAngel82]

27. As long as you don't bring it to work

These so-called pharmacists need to do their job or be fired or leave. Their job isn't to be preachers. Their job is to fulfill the subscription. BC isn't always for sex y'know. Sometimes it's for women menstrual cycle's.