B, your position is based on a pharmacy that is large enough to have more than one pharmacist on staff at all times that it is open. Those pharmacies are more likely to be found in the city, not in this area. My position, and I believe most of the other participants, is that most pharmacies are NOT large enough to have 2 pharmacists on staff at all times. That is true in Hagerstown, and especially true where I live. In fact, I'd have to go to Chambersburg to get to a CVS - 45 minutes away - and I've only seen 1 pharmacist on duty the few times I've been in the store. This is where the rub comes in, because this area is much more conservative than in the city, and one is more likely to encounter that objector-pharmacist in this area, where there is only one pharmacist on duty at any one time.

So while your point is valid for pharmacies in the city (where there are more than 1 pharmacist on duty), it is not valid for local ones.

Now, let me guess your next move: you're gonna say, well, she can drop the prescription off and come back in the morning. Wrong. That has inconvencienced the customer, and therefore is IMO grounds for termination.

The pharmacy I go to is privately owned, and I suppose Walt could choose to not fill certain types of prescriptions, but I don't have any personal experience in that. However, if he did refuse to fill one of my prescriptions because of his beliefs, I would take my business for ALL prescriptions and over-the-counter medicines elsewhere. I will not be held hostage by somebody else's beliefs. And I'm not going to drive to the city to get my prescriptions either.

That is not discrimination or prejudice. My time is worth as much as that pharmacist's beliefs. If he told me last month when he filled my prescription that he wouldn't be able to fill it any more, I wouldn't be happy but I could accept it. But as I recall, that article just said the guy refused to fill it then, with no warning. What if it was closing time and I had no more pills left? What am I supposed to do? That is unreasonable and untolerable.

Yes, he has the law on his side and my personal time is not covered by the law, but that doesn't make it right in the light of what I have described. I agree that one's civil rights must be protected, but not at the expense of others' civil rights.

Hey, I really like this trueblue person!

Sour?

Not sure how to take this. Back-handed compliment.

Of course, Trueblue is like a breath of fresh air for me - it's nice to see a like-minded individual since I am greatly outnumbered on this board.

I would say it's a reasonable accomodation for the employer to make as long as there are at least 2 pharmacists available - and the consumer is unaffected by the pharmacist's religious beliefs.

I've seen it many times on this board, just coming from the "other side".

OK, I've had enough of B's nastiness and persecution complex. I'm getting ready to drop out of this one, but before I go, anybody want to chip in to buy him a box of dry corn flakes?

LMAO!

no. I already gave him some sour grapes.

yeah... yeah... yeah...

take this into consideration though Peace- some women are on birth control for reasons beyond a contraceptive.I know this is common practice for OB/GYN docs to use birth control to help women regulate their menstrual cycles. So for a pharmacist to pass judgement on a person & automatically presume that the birth control is indeed used as a contraceptive is wrong. I recently had to take a drug that is commonly used for chemotherapy, that however was not the purpose it was prescribed to me. There are many drugs that may be originally made for one purpose but found to be able to treat other conditions.

oops lol guess I should read through all the posts before jumping in with my 2 cents! I just posted almost the same exact thing!

Yeah... but my point was not about whether or not this guy was RIGHT in his morals.... that's irrelevant. I was simply stating that I would not perform an action I believed to be immoral.... the WHY of it doesn't matter.

yes I'm sorry Peace- I didn't mean to point a finger at you- just simply quoting you in reference to the whole debate & how the morals of the pharmacist should not come into play when the reason for the person having a b.c. script is unknown.

No need for apologies. It takes a lot more than that to offend me!

Ok, this is a little off subject, but I see this situation being a bit more objectionable. A doc walks in personally in the middle of the night for morphine and versed. It's a hefty dose and you can conclude what it is for. Now I can see a moral dilemma, but with bc, I just can't. And what happens when an AIDS patient walks in? Will they be refused their drugs because they got sick through their sins? Where does the line stop??

As to reasonable accomodation, in a large chain like CVS, you won't see RPh overlap unless you are in a big market that is filling over 400 or 500 scripts a day. It costs too much and hurts the bottom line as seen in the executive board room. And, if it is a small chain or independent, you can forget about it too, because it simply would be cost prohibitive.

Like I said before, there are lots of other pharmacy jobs out there. If this guy can't fulfill his duties in retail, he needs to move on something that meshes with his belief system.

Yes, Fiesty, lots and lots of drugs have "off-label" uses. (P.S. How's Louisville...hubby is there for a 10 day biz trip Keep him in line for me!)

Here’s my 2 cents…

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act:

Religious Accommodation - An employer is required to reasonably accommodate the religious belief of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.

The employee has to notify his/her employeer of any conflict with their work and religious beliefs in order to receive an accomidation. Just like with the American with Disablities Act, you have to request an accomidation; you can’t assume that your employeer will give you an accomidation just because they know you have an illness, etc. In my opinion, if a pharmasict doesn’t want to fill prescriptions for BCPs, then he/she should notify his/her employeer prior to employement or as soon as he/she realizes that this has become an issue. In my opinion, waiting until a customer brings in a prescription for birth control pills to disclose this conflict is not appropriate and he/she should not expect to be protected under Title VII.

When I was in high school, I worked at the Peoples drug store, which is now CVS, in the South End shopping center across from South High in the pharmacy. There were many days that we had two pharmacists on duty at the same time. Every Wal-Mart that I’ve gone to in the tri-state area has also had two pharmacists on duty at the same time. Also, there are Pharmacy Technicians, who hold a certification to fill prescriptions. Most smaller pharmacies have a Pharmacy Technician on duty with the pharmacist. So, if there is another pharmacist on duty, then that pharmacist can fill the prescription. If no other pharmacist is on duty, then the Pharmacy Technician can fill the prescription or the customer could come back the next day.

Someone mentioned that this would be an inconvenience to the customer. I don’t know about everyone else, but I use my mail order pharmacy for all of my maintenance drugs and I rarely use the local pharmacy. But when I do, I never expect to get the prescription filled and take it home with me; the wait is too long. My husband has several prescriptions that he can not send to his mail order pharmacy and we must get them from the local pharmacy. It is very common for the pharmacy to be out of the medication and we must wait for them to order the medication and we have to come back several days to a week later to pick it up. That’s an inconvenience, but things happen. Also, no one should wait until you have no medication left to get your prescription filled in case there is an issue with out of stock medication, etc.

“If, for example, my boss asked me to do something I considered immoral--even if it were legal--I would refuse. However, if that particular task was a requirement of my job, I would also expect to get fired.”

If every time that my boss asked me to do something that I considered immoral, unethical or illegal and I refused, I would never be able to keep a job. You need to pick your battles carefully; fight the big ones.

Careful there, M! CPhT's can assist in the filling of a script, such as retrieving, counting, bottling, and labeling, however they CANNOT dispense the medication. It still has to go through the hands of the RPh for verification and accuracy of the labeling. CPhT's also can't advise patients, even on OTC meds. Having techs is where pharmacies save money. Most of the grunt work can be done by cheap labor, while they only use one highly paid RPh who is the end check of EVERYTHING that goes out the door, as well as taking phone orders from MDs.

yup, the drug I was given was not even FDA approved for my treatment purposes!
Louisville is blah, the big city wears ya down after awhile! It really is a nice city, it's just not home for me, kwim? I miss the east coast & MD. Heck I even miss Washington Co.!
Hmm keep your hubby in line, eh? lol What line of business is he in?

He's supposedly a techie working in an unfinished building on a major credit card conversion. (No, B, he isn't bringing credit cards over to the good side...they will still be evil! ) However, he scored tix to the Purdue/OSU game yesterday. Must be overwhelming to work that hard! But in all fairness they have been putting in 12 hr days and going in at 2am, so I guess they can have a little fun.

"Careful there, M! CPhT's can assist in the filling of a script, such as retrieving, counting, bottling, and labeling, however they CANNOT dispense the medication. It still has to go through the hands of the RPh for verification and accuracy of the labeling. CPhT's also can't advise patients, even on OTC meds. Having techs is where pharmacies save money. Most of the grunt work can be done by cheap labor, while they only use one highly paid RPh who is the end check of EVERYTHING that goes out the door, as well as taking phone orders from MDs. "

You're correct; I thought I had added that information to my post. I even counted, bottled and labeled as a high school student. The CVS I sometimes uses also has pharmacy students doing the same. The verification and accuracy that pharmacist does is minimal. Since a Pharmacy Technician can do all of the "work" and all the pharmacist would have to do is approve, then that should be a good accomidation.

Maybe it's CVS. Ive heard of several cases of customers being insulted by pharmacists there, including prescriptions involving birth control and also in vitro fertilization.

I had a problem with them several years ago. I had an unremarkable prescription that was renewable that I filled there primarily because they have a drive-in window. On a Saturday, a few days before the first thirty days, I was running errands and stopped by to renew the prescription. Just trying to save time. Well, the pharmacist came out and really reamed me for trying to refill a prescription before the initial 30 days. Made me feel like a drug dealer, even though this prescription had nothing to do with pain, opiates, or any other high. Needless to say, I have never gone back to CVS for anything.

Since then I've been happy with KMart (yes, KMart!) Good prices and nice pharmacists. And now I go to Target, which also has prices that are better than those on the Internet and also very nice staff. Actually, my insurance company recommends that I fill maintenance prescriptions for the full three refills, so that I don't run out. It's not recommended that you stop beta blockers suddenly. Sure enough, the pharmacy technician at Target this morning asked me if I wanted to fill the full 90 days of my prescription when I dropped off a script for a beta blocker there this morning.

You don't have to put up with garbage. I am perfectly willing to walk away from someone who wants to impose his religious prejudices on me and spend my money elsewhere. I hope we continue to have that option.

Working for CVS (was Peoples) was not a good experience either. I was either in my last year of college or first year out of college, before I could bring myself to set foot in the one I worked at in high school.

"It's definitely true that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. Even in the most customer-unfriendly places, it is possible to get good service. Sometimes you've just got to be the one to "make nice" first. "

Believe me, I've tried this time and time again and it just seems that people just don't care about doing a good job. As far as my experience when I worked their, let's just say that what happened to me to terrible, illegal and criminal. And nothing was done.

I know this is an old thread but I'm new here and I'm interested in this topic so I thought I'd read it and maybe learn something. I also figured it would be a good way to get to know some of the members a little better before I offend anyone else.

I'm happy to say that I learned a lot of good information on both sides of this issue. As for the membership, in addition to being well informed, you are also very articulate in expressing your opinions and for the most part everyone is fairly civil.

But you also have some of the most rude, condescending, mean-sprited, self-rightious, people as members that I've ever come across.

I like that a lot! I'm going to feel right at home here.

As for this topic I can sympathize with both sides. I only had one thought that I didn't see mentioned here directly. I own a small business so I'll admit that I'm looking at this from an employer's perspective. But if the employee has the right to refuse to do a task because of religious beliefs, shouldn't the employer be allowed to ask on an application if they have any beliefs that would prevent them from performing any of the tasks required of the position they are applying for?

I know some will say "no" because the mean old employer will never hire them, and I'm sure some of that would happen. But let me tell you, good employees are hard to find and I've done much more than that to accomodate certain individuals. And even though I have no problem giving out birth control pills, my experience tells me that people who have convictions and stand by them make excellent employees. For that matter they also make excellent employers, co-workers, friends, or neighbors.

However, what if I had three other employees and they also held the same beliefs? How would I know that I'm not hiring a fourth?

BTW, since I've offered my unsolicited opinions on this group please feel free to return the favor.

Yeah, what BMIC said.

IMO, I wouldn't think it out of bounds to ask someone if there was some part of the job that they couldn't do. You wouldn't necessarily, have to ask "why", just "what". And, outside of the guidelines that BMIC as alluded to, I wouldn't think you'd have to hire an employee that couldn't do the job even with reasonable accommadations.

By the way, I think you're fitting right in here, Idiot. But don't become too mean spirited yourself. Argue if you wish, just defend your side and beliefs (just a gentle suggestion).

BMIC
Thanks for the info. I'll make sure my HR person visits the EEOC website. She's actually a buyer who doubles as HR. As I said we are a small company.

Voss
Thanks for the advice. I promise to keep my meanness to a minimum. Rudeness, on the other hand, may be more difficult.

Just kidding.

Uh, I thought birth control pills prevented ovulation, NOT the implantation of a fertilized egg.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Roman Catholic Church only advocates sexual intercourse for procreation, and not recreation.

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, and here's my link:

http://www.emergencybirthcontrol.org/FAQ_1.htm#FAQ1

Birth Control pills are not an abortifacient.

I think, B, that once again we are at an impasse.

And you're right. Not being Catholic myself, I probably know little about their stand on sexual intercourse.

B, did you read FAQ, at all?

BMIC

It may seem like I've singled you out to pick on, but it's just that there aren't a lot of other posts that I feel compelled to respond to so far. I'm sure that will change. And I am curious as to how someone can have beliefs that are so different from my own.

So how do you conclude that a fertilized egg is a baby? Is this just a way of defining the argument in your own terms, or do you really believe it? I do admire Republicans for their ability to define things in their terms. I also must laugh sometimes at the Democrats utter ineptness at doing anything about it. I guess if you can turn the word liberal into a four letter word (admittedly with some help from liberals) why not try it again. Fertilized egg = baby.

I have to admire the systematic approach and persistency. But tell me, what is the ultimate goal? Did you see this article?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/...e.ap/index.html

So you want to tell kids to abstain from sex. I can respect that part. But only abstinence? No safe sex teaching for kids who don't go along? So they get a desease or get pregnant, then what? They die of AIDS or are forced to have a baby? That's the choices?

What's the next step in the plan? Will the government try to stop people from leaving the country for an abortion? Or not let them back in?

I'm just trying to see what we have to look forward to. I can tell you one thing, if they outlaw masturbation I'm outta here!

Well, MY belief line is that until men can carry and deliver babies themselves, if they really, truly, don't want any children, they should have a male contraceptive available to them, and some of them should be forced to use it.

Creating a child is 50% their responsibility, but perhaps 5% of the effort. I hate to admit it, but there are women out there who want a child so badly, they will resort to trickery. And there are men out there who are tricked into fathering children they never wanted to have or in some cases, with a woman they didn't want to have one with. This is a way for them to take some more reliable responsibility.

As far as the catholic church and intercourse, the last I had anything to do with it was 1974. But back then, they would pull their members to the side and give them little "talks" about how it was about time for them to have another child. They did it to my parents, and I've heard stories of similar "talks" from other catholics. They may or may not still do it, but they did it in the early 70's.

As far as whether it was OK to enjoy it, I never had the nerve to ask my parents about that, but the catholic church (when I belonged to it) was so stiff and straight that I'd believe they didn't want people to enjoy it.

Before my words are misconstrued, I am very strongly pro-choice.

My citing of the FAQ was to dispel the belief that the birth control pill was an abortifacient. Emergency Birth Control, which the FAQ actually addresses, does make mention of the fact that regular birth control pills do NOT act as an abortifacient. They act to prevent the fertilization.

I was actually wondering if the anti-choice people would bring up any kind of belief that a single ovum or spermaticite was "human life".
----------------------

"Tis better to put thy seed into the belly of a whore than to spill it on the ground."

Is Onanism still a sin in the Catholic Church?

================================

I just wanted to add those two little pieces of bon mots at the end.

B, my point was that you can find studies to SUPPORT any agenda. Likewise, you can find studies to DISPUTE any agenda.

I was thinking about something last night; (aren't forum discussions great?, they get you thinking about stuff, way beyond the way you may have thought about stuff).

B, I'm not directing this toward you, in particular. But let me throw this out there. A lot of people do not like government involvement in their life. They want to go on and live their life as they see fit; they don't want to be regulated any more than they have to be. As an example, we've discussed here, about code compliance re: how you maintain your real property.

Well, I feel the same way, I don't want government regulating my life any more than it has to.

Likewise, I DON'T want anyone's particular religious beliefs regulating my life. Government. or, Religion. Stay the heck out of my life and let me make my own decisions. Feel free to believe in what you want to believe in, and I'll continue to believe in what I want to believe in.

Many of the "Pro-Lifers" paint women as these terrible, immoral persons who just run around having sex and getting pregnant, thinking oh, I can just have an abortion. I'm sure there are a number of women who fit into that generalization, but they are not the majority. They prefer to ignore the majority in favor of the general in order to "prove" their point. Yes, some women who have abortions may regret doing so at a later point in time, however they had the right to make that decision. Every one of us has made at least one decision that we've regretted during our lifetimes. The Pro-Lifers want to take that right away, saying they'd prefer that women have the child and put them up for adoption. Last I heard, the adoption agencies are overflowing with children, and those who do want to adopt are put through such a microscope that it takes years, and they often give up and go overseas to adopt.

but to me more importantly,



I couldn't have said either statement better myself, Yossarian and Trueblue. Thanx!

BMIC


I'm sure that's true. And there are probably millions who feel that collecting taxes amounts to stealing. I can sympathize to an extent with both groups. But that's the law. While I have no problem with anyone doing anything they can legally to change the law, I don't believe either of those will be changed in my lifetime.

Now if Bush had campaigned by saying "I will do everything I can to overturn Roe v. Wade", which I think he would like to do, and he still got 59 million votes I might feel differently. The fact that he didn't tells me that he didn't think he could win if he had. It also tells me that he's smarter than Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, and Pat Robertson.

I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first or last time. To be honest I really don't consider this issue when deciding who to vote for. My wife and I are probably too old for it to effect us. My daughter is 33 and has a good head on her shoulders so I don't think she will ever have to face that choice and if she did I doubt she would choose to have an abortion. However, if she did and they were banned I would take her to Europe or someplace safe to have it done. I'm fortunate enough to have the means to be able to do so. Of course I would have a long conversation with her first.

I think if people toned down the rhetoric a bit and quit calling other people murderers, the two sides might find some common ground and actually do something to reduce the number of abortions. Wouldn't that be a great thing?

BMIC

Before you say it, I didn't mean to imply that you called anyone a murderer. I was referring to the millions who you say feel that way. I've personally heard some say it.

B, you are so darn hardheaded, it's unbelievable. The way you twist others words, the way you hear only what you want to hear. While I wouldn't expect you to change your beliefs, you would do well, (IMO) to at least open your mind a little and consider that other's ideas and beliefs do have merit.

But, I gotta respect ya! You certainly do have a way with words.

:handshake:

I agree with B on this. To say that any elected official should not be guided by their "beliefs", religious or otherwise, is not practical or even possible. No, I am not for the establishment of a state religion! But everyone thinks and acts based on their beliefs and values that come from somewhere -- whether some religion or the lack thereof, so they must act accordingly in everything they do. If Joe Blow is a devout Buddist and is elected I cannot expect him to purge all his Buddist beliefs and values when he takes office. If Jane Blow is a devout Wican (SP? -- witch?) and is elected I cannot expect her to purge all her beliefs and values when she takes office. Within the framework of our great constitution, these folks were elected to lead, and we gotta let them, even if we might not like the particular stances they take. So hearing all this crap about how Bush shouldn't use his religious beliefs as a guide in his decisions is mostly just plain craziness and sour grapes from a bunch of people upset because their guy (with his beliefs -- whatever they were) wasn't elected, IMO. That's not crazy or unconstitutional or immoral, it is part of the essence of being human.

And, FWIW, I agree with Yoss on this. The two (minimally intrusive government and using one's "beliefs" to guide their governing) are not mutually exclusive, I don't think.

Within the "rules" set by the constitution, I generally prefer less government. But whatever laws the government does pass will be based on someone's belief system, what that system is based on will vary but it will be based on something -- be it Christian or other religious principals or even the hatred of such, or anything in between.

B, I thought I was awake for the 8 years that Clinton was in office, but based on your comment above, I'm beginning to wonder. I don't recall his showing any intolerance towards religious conservatives, please provide examples.

Unless, of course, you're going to go into how he offended you by having sex with an intern in the White House. I'm not going to open that can of worms; I want you to tell me about REAL actions that were intolerant towards folks like you.

It looks like there are even more millions of Americans who don't think it's murder.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...nyet25011291436

Is AP supposed to be liberal too? I can't keep them all straight.

Always an excuse...

If that's the case then I guess the majority surveyed don't feel too strongly about their views.

I voted for Bush also. But I didn't base my decision ALONE on the man's views toward pro-choice. As I'm sure the majority of voters did also.

I'm done with this.
You're beginning to bore me.
Have fun.

wow my first ever thread- I never expected it to get this heated or be this long!

Good job Irish!

A pharmacist should perform their job like a doctor, in that they cannot refuse treatment based on a personal or religious belief. I think a pharmacist is refusing treatment by not filling a prescription per a doctors order. Its not a chose, its their profession.

my thoughts exactly! It's about time they cracked the whip on this b.s.

No, this is a case of failure to do the job.

Pharmacists know full well what they will be doing. fulfulling the orders of physicians.

If they have moral conscience about what they will be doing, then they should have chosen another career. Plain and simple.

This has nothing to do with Christian Morals, Christian conscience, or any other term you wish to label it.

A pharmacist fills prescriptions.