Skip to main content

View Diary: Ill. State Senator McCarter Proposes 'Bigot Protection Act' to Protect Rights of Religious Believers (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's a different question (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    It's a question of whether that employee pharmacist's religious beliefs can be reasonably accommodated by the store owner, it seems to me.  

    If a pharmacist working for someone else has  religious objection to a particular drug, then as the owner I think you'd look to how often that might be problem.  If you sell that drug pretty infrequently, and arrangements can be made for another employee to fill that particular prescription on the not frequent instances when a prescription comes in, there's no reason -- or basis -- to make a pharmacist fill a particular prescription BECAUSE he/she has a religious objection to it.  In a chain store like a Walgreen's, that can probably be done.  If that drug is a  large percentage of the business, the person probably can't do the job with a reasonable accommodation -- its too big a part of that job -- and that person shouldn't take the job.  

    In a small mom and pop pharmacy, it's usually a pharmacist/owner, and that person can make decisions about what drugs to carry.

    •  But remember that it is not uncommon for such (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MARTinNJ, trumpeter

      pharmacists to confiscate and destroy any such prescriptions they come across or even go in and delete any remaining refills.  So now you have a woman who has to go back to her doctor and get another prescription (which means another copay) and hope the next pharmacist she comes across doesn't do the same thing.

      Also, even at major stores there is usually only one actual pharmacist on duty, the rest are assistants of various kinds (look at their name tags next time and ask how many actual pharmacists are on duty).  So that one pharmacist can just order the rest of them not to fill such prescriptions because she is the one technically doing it.

      You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

      by Throw The Bums Out on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:43:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Both of those things are unacceptable, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MARTinNJ, VClib

        it seems to me.  

        The right of a pharmacist not to have to violate his/her religious beliefs should be accommodated if reasonably possible.  

        That does not give the person license to prevent OTHERS from violating his/her religious beliefs.  He/she should not be forced to affirmatively act in a way that violates his/her religion, but that does not give him/her the right to act affirmatively to prevent OTHERS from violating his religion.

        The only caveat is if you are the owner, you get to decide what your store will, or will not, carry.  

        If a pharmacist confiscates and destroys a prescription, they should be reported and lose a license.  I have no problem, if the pharmacy doesn't carry it for religious reasons, with the pharmacist handing it back and saying, "we don't carry that here."  I do have a problem with someone destroying a prescription.  The pharmacist who destroys a prescription can't ask that HIS religious beliefs be respected if he doesn't respect the religious belief of others that differ from his.  

        As for the "head" pharmacist at a Walgreen's, for example, ordering everybody else not to fill a prescription that the store owners have decided to carry, that would not be a reasonable accommodation of his/her religious beliefs.  He/she should be allowed to decline to fill it, but not to prevent others from filling it.  If he/she does so, it seems to me that's grounds for termination.  

        Again, this applies to employees.  The store owner DOES get to decide if the store will carry it or not.  

        •  Wrong, because the pharmacist is the only one (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jabney, trumpeter

          allowed to actually fill a prescription. Remember, just because someone else is putting the pills into the bottle, putting the label on the bottle, and ringing it up does not mean they are the ones filling the prescription!  It's not different than when a RN writes a prescription, the RN might be the one signing it but it's the doctor who is actually writing it.

          Oh, and it is pretty hard to do such accommodation when you aren't even allowed to ask if they have a problem filling such prescriptions based on their religious beliefs which is the case in quite a few states.  Also, there is nothing explicitly illegal about prescription confiscation/destruction except in a handful of states who specifically wrote a "no prescription confiscation" rule into their laws.  While you might be able to make a case on theft or destruction of private property grounds it would be a tricky case to win as it is possible the prescription becomes the property of the pharmacist when you go have it filled.

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Fri Feb 15, 2013 at 11:56:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site