Which Rights Take Priority?

[Profesco]

Oh she most definitely has forced her convictions on the pharmacist. In interviews since she's gone on to publicly deride the lady and ask "Who is she to not give me what I wanted?" She's trying to bring public shame to that lady because of her moral convictions. Did the pharmacist go to the media and say "CAN YOU BELIEVE SOME LADY ASKED ME FOR BIRTH CONTROL??!" It might not seem like Deeley did much to you, but you weren't the one getting lambasted in the media for your personal convictions. Respectfully, how would you feel in a similar situation where your convictions got you negative press? Would it matter then?

I would feel very ashamed and aggrieved if my - wait a second. I was almost going to agree with that (seriously), but then I remembered/realized that I do hold some convictions that get quite a lot of bad press. There are whole books written calling evolution a crackpot lie; there are television hosts who claim that homosexuality sends people into eternal torture; some of the people trying to run for leader of the country I live in spend their professional lives denigrating and/or trying to disable poor folks, hispanic folks, academic folks, etc., etc. I have a very close friend who often belittles one of my primary academic disciplines. I have a personal stake in plenty of things that get bad press. It makes me feel bad when the bad attention hits particularly close to home, but criticism of my convictions does not force me to change them (unless it is legitimate and proves to me how I've been wrong). My convictions are perfectly susceptible to criticism, public or private, and so ought all convictions to be; for how else could strongly-held convictions ever be changed? And yet the simple act of the criticism itself does not amount to force.

When someone tries to actually remove evolution from science textbooks, that is attempted force against one of my convictions. When someone beats up a gay kid for his being gay, that is force against one of my convictions. When someone assassinates a Dr. King, or a Gandhi, or a Lincoln, that is force against one or two of my convictions. When someone publically says I'm wrong and should change my mind? Not in the same classification. =|

I don't deny that by not fulfilling that prescription the pharmacist put a burden on that customer, but that's not the pharmacist's concern. She has no legal, or moral requirement to fill that prescription. None. Whatsoever.

Respectfully, I'd have to disagree with you. I'm convinced that Religious freedom covers not only people's access to services or goods, but also jobs, and many other things. I don't mean any offense by this, but your spirituality may not have much of an effect on your life (I'm not you maybe it does), but for some people their relationship with God literally shapes every aspect of their regular everyday life. Where do they eat? Where do they shop? Who do they hang out with? Where do they work? All kinds of things. For this pharmacist, her spirituality and personal convictions effected this small aspect of her job. As a person with somewhat similar convictions I can completely sympathize with her situation even though I don't agree with her on the matter.

The problem with this, mattj, is not that we can't find specific legal text to set precedent for or describe this specific instance. The problem is that this argument, when applied as a general rule, permits rampant inequality, discrimination, social/economic disruption, and chaos. Repeated examples of this logic, generally applied, have been raised - valid reductio ad absurdums, on the face of it - and they have not been resolved. (I can't remember you addressing them, as a means of defending your logic.)

"Does person X's right to believe idea A translate into the right to act on idea A in such a way that abridges the fair and equal treatment/rights of person Y in a public venue?" is a way to word this general question.

Oh no. It wasn't a joke. The north didn't win the Civil War by convincing slave owners that they were wrong in some debate of ideas. They put a gun to their heads and said "Do this." Obviously, you know I agree with you that slavery is wrong. *duh* But the only reason the US doesn't support slavery right now at this moment isn't because the idea that slavery is wrong is somehow more valid than the idea that slavery is fine. The only reason the US doesn't support slavery right now is because Lincoln sent men with guns to the south to enforce his ideas. Might makes right. That's how the world has always worked.

We're getting closer. That's why the people who believed slavery was wrong won the war. That's not why those people believed slavery was so wrong it had to be extinguished by force if necessary. I'd like to engage you on the conceptual level, not the specific, so I'll ask again: What makes the worldview that black people are equal to white people any better than the worldview that white people are meant to be black people's masters?

So again, what gives that customer the right to tell that pharmacist to change her personal convictions just to fit her temporary desires?

The right to free speech does precisely that. Deely can say nearly any combination of words to the pharmacist she wants, within the provisions of free speech laws.

And that's where I'd leave it if I wanted to answer the question without really responding to the point. But I will add that the Deely lady does not have the the right or ability to change the pharmacist's convictions or beliefs. The only thing with any concern here are the actions. When someone's actions jeopardize the health, safety, freedom, or just desserts of another person, then we can indeed (and perhaps should) enter into debate about those actions being changed.

(It does strike me, here, how I'm speaking in terms of US law while that was in Britain. )

Profesco, that is wrong. Your statement includes a fundamental misunderstanding of religion in general. Religion is not merely belief, but also practice as well. Actions, not only beliefs, can violate one's religious convictions.

I beg pardon for not expressing myself clearly, then. Recall the section of my quote where I identified "other people's access to goods and services?" I meant other people as opposed to the person holding the religious belief. Freedom of religion does not procure the unchecked privilege to hinder, hamper, or ignore the various rights of others. One can practice whatever they wish on themselves; they cannot extend their practices onto others.

I strongly doubt we'd be having this debate if a Buddhist who believes all life is sacred (not sure if very many Buddhists believe this) was asked to fill a prescription for something that killed a parasite. I suspect that you all would agree with me that wanting to avoid killing a parasite is a strange, potentially harmful belief. But I doubt such a Buddhist would get this kind of negative reaction from any observers.

You're looking for Jains. They practice ahisma, or complete nonviolence (to the point of wearing masks over their mouths/noses to avoid inhaling and killing small organisms). And I, at least, would deliver the same argument as I am here, because I am trying to develop one that applies to as many various incarnations of this problem as possible - ideally all of them.

I think the title of this thread "Which Rights Take Priority?" does that.

Hah, fair enough. My apologies. ^_^;

 

[randomspot555]

And rights, as a general concept, do apply to this. It's not an uncommon situation to have gray areas of competing rights.

The pharmacist, without the guidance of an official policy, did what he/she thought was morally right.

Professionally, the pharmacist failed by not getting the script filled by another pharmacist (all indications are this was a chain and other pharmacists work at the store, but just weren't on duty at the time).

The woman, having gone through the channels legally and medically required, had a script that by all indications, was already accepted by the pharmacy. She had a right to her medication.

My personal belief about rights is you have the right to stand up and yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. But you also have to face the consequences of that action when the theater is later discovered to not be on fire.

Similarly, this woman made a moral call not as one employed by a faith based organization, but as someone employed in a pharmacy. He/she potentially endangered the health of the patient that, by all indications, had dropped off the script and the pharmacy already had it in their posession. She exercised her faith, now she may face the consequences if the pharmaceutial company decides to sanction the employee or store (or if they even can, I'm not quite sure what exactly they're investigating...maybe they're the owner of the chain?).

 

[Liberty Defender]

And rights, as a general concept, do apply to this. It's not an uncommon situation to have gray areas of competing rights.

The pharmacist, without the guidance of an official policy, did what he/she thought was morally right.

Professionally, the pharmacist failed by not getting the script filled by another pharmacist (all indications are this was a chain and other pharmacists work at the store, but just weren't on duty at the time).

The woman, having gone through the channels legally and medically required, had a script that by all indications, was already accepted by the pharmacy. She had a right to her medication.

My personal belief about rights is you have the right to stand up and yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. But you also have to face the consequences of that action when the theater is later discovered to not be on fire.

Similarly, this woman made a moral call not as one employed by a faith based organization, but as someone employed in a pharmacy. He/she potentially endangered the health of the patient that, by all indications, had dropped off the script and the pharmacy already had it in their posession. She exercised her faith, now she may face the consequences if the pharmaceutial company decides to sanction the employee or store (or if they even can, I'm not quite sure what exactly they're investigating...maybe they're the owner of the chain?).

To say that something is a right means that the government cannot deny you or prevent you from exercising said right.

 

[J.T.]

You have no problem with random strangers telling that pharmacist how she should live her own personal life? What right did that customer have to tell that pharmacist what was and was not morally acceptable?

This one.

Or her management didn't have those systems in place.

Generally, if you apply to work in a store that requires you to fill out prescriptions for medications such as birth control, most employers assume you have no problem with filling out prescriptions for medications such as birth control. I'm not sure if she made her personal religious convictions clear to her employer, though.

Oh she most definitely has forced her convictions on the pharmacist. In interviews since she's gone on to publicly deride the lady and ask "Who is she to not give me what I wanted?" She's trying to bring public shame to that lady because of her moral convictions. Did the pharmacist go to the media and say "CAN YOU BELIEVE SOME LADY ASKED ME FOR BIRTH CONTROL??!" It might not seem like Deeley did much to you, but you weren't the one getting lambasted in the media for your personal convictions.

Sooooo let me get this straight.

An employee forcing a regular customer to wait a day for their prescription because that employee personally disagrees with the medicine she has requested is not forcing one's beliefs on another.

Said customer publicly expressing disapproval and disagreement with this one aspect of said employee's belief is forcing one's belief on another.

Huh. I kind of thought actual actions would fit the description of forcing something on someone than simple words of disagreement, but apparently that's just me.

Respectfully, how would you feel in a similar situation where your convictions got you negative press? Would it matter then?

Well, because I have a backbone, I'm going to weather through the criticism and continue holding said beliefs unless someone actually has a good argument against my personal convictions. I'm not going to change them or whine about persecution or defamation because someone dares to disagree with me.

I'm convinced that Religious freedom covers not only people's access to services or goods, but also jobs, and many other things.

Certainly no one should be denied a job simply for believing in a god. But if someone finds themselves unable to fulfill their job because of something their god said, there is a problem. Would you hire a Hindu to work in a butcher shop knowing full well that he won't be able to do his job because of his religious belief? And it's even worse if the employer didn't know of her religious convictions when they hired her - in that case, it's more like hiring a guy to work at a butcher shop and not knowing he was a Hindu until he started refusing to serve a customer beef.

For this pharmacist, her spirituality and personal convictions effected this small aspect of her job. As a person with somewhat similar convictions I can completely sympathize with her situation even though I don't agree with her on the matter.

The employee chose to apply for and take a job in a pharmacy which stocks medicine that conflicts with her religious beliefs, and rather than finding a new job that's more in line with those beliefs, expects every customer who walks through the door with a birth control prescription and/or the pharmacy itself to bend over backwards to appease her own religious beliefs, potentially at the cost of the customers' health. Ever heard the phrase "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose"? It applies to religion, too. Metaphorically speaking, this employee's fist has hit the customer square in the jaw. Again, would you hire a Hindu to work in a butcher shop knowing full well that he won't be able to do his job because of his religious beliefs?

So again, what gives that customer the right to tell that pharmacist to change her personal convictions just to fit her temporary desires?

The First Amendment? (Oh, right, this is in the UK - in that case, whatever the UK law for freedom of speech is.) Keep in mind that the customer is simply stating her opinion - she is not in any way forcing the employee to actually change her beliefs. There is no law against criticizing religious beliefs, and I'd certainly say no one's more qualified to criticize a portion of a person's religious beliefs than someone who was personally negatively affected by that portion of the person's religious beliefs.

By the way, I don't care if you perceive a single birth control prescription to be a minor thing compared to thousands of other prescriptions. She's working in a pharmacy that sells birth control; there is a reasonable assumption that she will be asked to fill a prescription for birth control at some point, and if she has personal convictions against doing such a thing, why the hell is she working there?

 

[mattj]

The woman, having gone through the channels legally and medically required, had a script that by all indications, was already accepted by the pharmacy. She had a right to her medication.

Where do you get this idea from? No she did not have a right to her medication. Is this a constitutional right? Where did you hear that customers have a right to have their wants fulfilled by the business of their choosing? Service when and how you want it is not a right.

mattj, the pharmacist pushed by refusing to give the woman her pills, and instead told her to either not get them or wait a day, which may or may not have been an option. The woman simply wanted a perscription filled, that isn't pushing.

Oh it's not pushing to go to the media and publicly mock the pharmacist. It's never pushing when its something you don't personally care about is it Byzantine.

When you believe you have the right to say and or do anything to anyone because it follows your "religious convictions" you need to get a grip on yourself and realize the world is a much bigger place than you, and beliefs vary.

Tell that to the customer. She thought that her views of morality superseded the pharmacist's views of morality. The customer needs to get a grip on herself and realize the world is a much bigger place than just her.

I would feel very ashamed and aggrieved if my - wait a second. I was almost going to agree with that (seriously), but then I remembered/realized that I do hold some convictions that get quite a lot of bad press. There are whole books written calling evolution a crackpot lie; there are television hosts who claim that homosexuality sends people into eternal torture; some of the people trying to run for leader of the country I live in spend their professional lives denigrating and/or trying to disable poor folks, hispanic folks, academic folks, etc., etc. I have a very close friend who often belittles one of my primary academic disciplines. I have a personal stake in plenty of things that get bad press. It makes me feel bad when the bad attention hits particularly close to home, but criticism of my convictions does not force me to change them (unless it is legitimate and proves to me how I've been wrong). My convictions are perfectly susceptible to criticism, public or private, and so ought all convictions to be; for how else could strongly-held convictions ever be changed? And yet the simple act of the criticism itself does not amount to force.

Respectfully though, your'e not the one on TV being ridiculed. It's the ideas that you hold dear. The customer didn't say to the media "I can't believe that some people don't agree with contraception". She said to the media, "I can't believe that woman at that pharmacy did this to me because of her religious beliefs." Can you imagine being that lady? To say that the customer was hasn't done anything to force her convictions on the pharmacist is mindboggling to me. The pharmacist only told her "Sorry, but you'll have to do this to get your medication". The lady lambasted her in front of the whole world. Here we are in another country talking about this poor pharmacist. Can you imagine what kind of pressure that put on the pharmacist to change her convictions? All the pharmacist did was tell the lady she couldn't fill the prescription. How can that compare to the humiliation the customer has put this pharmacist through? The customer, not the pharmacist, is the one exerting the pressure to change views.

When someone tries to actually remove evolution from science textbooks, that is attempted force against one of my convictions. When someone beats up a gay kid for his being gay, that is force against one of my convictions. When someone assassinates a Dr. King, or a Gandhi, or a Lincoln, that is force against one or two of my convictions. When someone publically says I'm wrong and should change my mind? Not in the same classification. =|

Again, the pharmacist did not forbid the lady from ever getting her medication. She did not tear up her prescription. She did not call the other pharmacies and tell them all not to give that customer her medication. She just said I can't give you that medication for these reasons. The pharmacist removed nothing and forbade nothing. In fact, she gave the customer the information she needed to get her prescription. She didn't even withhold the information she needed. I don't see how the pharmacist not filling that prescription equates to removing evolution from textbooks, or beating up a gay kid.

The problem with this, mattj, is not that we can't find specific legal text to set precedent for or describe this specific instance. The problem is that this argument, when applied as a general rule, permits rampant inequality, discrimination, social/economic disruption, and chaos. Repeated examples of this logic, generally applied, have been raised - valid reductio ad absurdums, on the face of it - and they have not been resolved. (I can't remember you addressing them, as a means of defending your logic.)

"Does person X's right to believe idea A translate into the right to act on idea A in such a way that abridges the fair and equal treatment/rights of person Y in a public venue?" is a way to word this general question.

I actually don't think I have a problem with that. If I understand what you're saying, what I think the rub is, is that I can see the customer as being "person X" and you and the others can't. I see the customer pushing her idea that contraception is okay on the pharmacist who thinks contraception isn't okay. How is it fine for the customer to push her beliefs on the pharmacist?

We're getting closer. That's why the people who believed slavery was wrong won the war. That's not why those people believed slavery was so wrong it had to be extinguished by force if necessary. I'd like to engage you on the conceptual level, not the specific, so I'll ask again: What makes the worldview that black people are equal to white people any better than the worldview that white people are meant to be black people's masters?

Might.
I'm open to being educated, but I have never seen anything other than might that would objectively make this idea more valuable than that idea.
For example, the only, only, ONLY reason I do what the Bible says is because I'm convinced that the God of the Bible has the might to back up his commandments.

 

[randomspot555]

To say that something is a right means that the government cannot deny you or prevent you from exercising said right.

Extra emphasis on what I said at the very beginning of that post you quoted, as a general concept, encompassing all types of what can both loosely and strictly defined as rights.

The pharmacist, as a right of religious expression, had the right to decide not to fill the script.

The patient, having gone through the legal and medical processes and even having dropped off the script at the physical pharmacy, has a right to have that medicine, assuming conditions such as payment/insurance are met. Once dropped off and accepted at this specific pharmacy, that pharmacy committed to filling that script. If it's anything like my pharmacy, it probably had an automated machine or a pharmacy technician giving an estimated time to pick up the script.

The patient has done nothing wrong and is reasonable in her expectation to have that script filled at that time.

The pharmacist refusing to fill it, while doing so for moral reasons, is being unreasonable in their refusal, and should've worked hard to get another pharmacist in the store to fill the script. Since he/she didn't, he/she should face any consequences deemed by the pharmaceutical company and/or their employer.

The pharmacists refusal to fill the script and saying "come back tomorrow" is similar to you swinging your fists. Your right to swing your fists ends when they hit my face. In this case, the pharmacist by saying "come back tomorrow" is telling the patient that the patient's health is less important than the pharmacist's faith believes.

Where do you get this idea from? No she did not have a right to her medication. Is this a constitutional right? Where did you hear that customers have a right to have their wants fulfilled by the business of their choosing? Service when and how you want it is not a right.

I'm going to type this in big, red letters so you understand:

After a prescription is dropped off and ACCEPTED at a pharmacy, they are expected to fill it in a reasonable time assuming method of payment, etc... check out. Because it's medicine for someone's health If the pharmacy didn't want to fill it, then they shouldn't have accepted the prescription.

To later go back and essentially go "psyche!" is irresponsible at best, if not immoral and unethical for putting the patient's health in jeopardy just so the pharmacist can have the moral high ground.

As for the mattj argument of "the pharmacist is the real victim! being ridiculed on tV is mean!", if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. If part of your public life is going to be denying people's medicine due to your morals, get ready to be criticized for it!

 

[mattj]

I won't bother to type it out in big red letters, but I'll repeat myself again.

It doesn't matter what the prescription is. According to her governing body, that pharmacist was not required to fill a prescription that conflicted with her morals. I don't care if you think it should be required. Who are you? Are you her boss? Are you on her governing body? Do you write the laws? No. You're just making this up out of thin air. Why should anyone care if it seems reasonable to you?

This one.

You know full well that what I meant by the word "tell" had nothing to do with free speech. I meant the word "tell" in the sense of "force". Such as, "I told you to pick up your room". The first amendment does not give people the right to coerce or force or pressure other people to change their moral convictions.

Generally, if you apply to work in a store that requires you to fill out prescriptions for medications such as birth control, most employers assume you have no problem with filling out prescriptions for medications such as birth control. I'm not sure if she made her personal religious convictions clear to her employer, though.

That's a cool opinion you've got there. Do you have anything to back it up or is it just another baseless opinion? I'm still waiting for anyone to provide a single source to show that that woman was expected to fill out that prescription beyond "Well I think she should have". I don't really care what you think. Her governing body said she didn't have to.

Sooooo let me get this straight.

An employee forcing a regular customer to wait a day for their prescription because that employee personally disagrees with the medicine she has requested is not forcing one's beliefs on another.

Said customer publicly expressing disapproval and disagreement with this one aspect of said employee's belief is forcing one's belief on another.

Huh. I kind of thought actual actions would fit the description of forcing something on someone than simple words of disagreement, but apparently that's just me.

Going to the media isn't an "actual action"? Are you serious? Or is it just that you don't care to see it as an action because you don't have a problem with what she did?

Well, because I have a backbone, I'm going to weather through the criticism and continue holding said beliefs unless someone actually has a good argument against my personal convictions. I'm not going to change them or whine about persecution or defamation because someone dares to disagree with me.

I sure bet the pharmacist would have loved it if the customer would have had a backbone and weathered the harshness of being told to go elsewhere without whining about the persecution and defamation of having someone disagree with them.

Certainly no one should be denied a job simply for believing in a god. But if someone finds themselves unable to fulfill their job because of something their god said, there is a problem. Would you hire a Hindu to work in a butcher shop knowing full well that he won't be able to do his job because of his religious belief? And it's even worse if the employer didn't know of her religious convictions when they hired her - in that case, it's more like hiring a guy to work at a butcher shop and not knowing he was a Hindu until he started refusing to serve a customer beef.

I'll ask the question again, since many of you seem to feel fine just ignoring it, why should the pharmacist be expected to find another line of work when she can fill out hundreds of thousands of other prescriptions a year? Feel free to just pass this one up.
The employee chose to apply for and take a job in a pharmacy which stocks medicine that conflicts with her religious beliefs, and rather than finding a new job that's more in line with those beliefs, expects every customer who walks through the door with a birth control prescription and/or the pharmacy itself to bend over backwards to appease her own religious beliefs, potentially at the cost of the customers' health. Ever heard the phrase "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose"? It applies to religion, too. Metaphorically speaking, this employee's fist has hit the customer square in the jaw. Again, would you hire a Hindu to work in a butcher shop knowing full well that he won't be able to do his job because of his religious beliefs?

By the way, I don't care if you perceive a single birth control prescription to be a minor thing compared to thousands of other prescriptions. She's working in a pharmacy that sells birth control; there is a reasonable assumption that she will be asked to fill a prescription for birth control at some point, and if she has personal convictions against doing such a thing, why the hell is she working there?

Reasonable to you? Maybe. Reasonable to her? Nope. Reasonable to her business? You haven't been able to show otherwise. Reasonable to her governing body? Nope. Looks like you're outnumbered.

[edit]
You know what, this really doesn't seem like it's getting anywhere at all. Let me ask this question:

We have a pharmacist who feels strongly that contraceptives are a sin.
We have a customer who doesn't mind contraceptives at all.
The pharmacist takes the woman aside and explains that she cannot fill the prescription because of her religious beliefs, and tells the woman how to get the prescription filled.
The customer storms out (her own admission) and criticizes the pharmacist to the worldwide media, specifically singling out her religious belief.

Can any of you, ANY of you see how the customer is trying to force her belief that contraceptives are fine on the pharmacist? Although I disagree with you that the pharmacist was at fault, I can see how and why you would think that. I understand what you're trying to say. Do any of you understand what I'm trying to say?

 

[Profesco]

I don't see how the pharmacist not filling that prescription equates to removing evolution from textbooks, or beating up a gay kid.

Well, I didn't plan on actually equating them, but the similarity is that in each case, the offending party (from my vantage point here) is doing something physically to negatively affect someone else. Words versus actions.

I actually don't think I have a problem with that. If I understand what you're saying, what I think the rub is, is that I can see the customer as being "person X" and you and the others can't. I see the customer pushing her idea that contraception is okay on the pharmacist who thinks contraception isn't okay. How is it fine for the customer to push her beliefs on the pharmacist?

Words versus actions. If the Deely lady forced the pharmacist to use contraception, that's force. Saying "I think you're wrong" is not force.

Might.
I'm open to being educated, but I have never seen anything other than might that would objectively make this idea more valuable than that idea.
For example, the only, only, ONLY reason I do what the Bible says is because I'm convinced that the God of the Bible has the might to back up his commandments.

Ah. Learning this about you has attracted my attention/curiosity/interest.

Anyway, let me ask the question differently, then. Why would the first person who ever thought slavery was worse than not-slavery think that? And why would all the people who ended up agreeing over time decide to agree, back before they had enough collective might to use force to realize their thought? Might is not what makes you think something is more ethical than something else - might is only what makes you concede to some external ethical precept. Somebody (even God) uses some kind of standard to decide what that which is better than that which is worse. The decision precedes the might.

I'm running out of ways to express my question.

 

[randomspot555]

It doesn't matter what the prescription is. According to her governing body, that pharmacist was not required to fill a prescription that conflicted with her morals. I don't care if you think it should be required. Who are you? Are you her boss? Are you on her governing body? Do you write the laws? No. You're just making this up out of thin air. Why should anyone care if it seems reasonable to you?

Well thank goodness the governing body said that! Why are we even having this discussion? I mean, her governing body said so (even though the Independent's article said a pharmaceutical company, presumably the manufacturer of the birth control, is investigating)!

Wait a second, haven't you contested the APA's findings on homosexuality? Aren't they also a governing body?

 

[Profesco]

We have a pharmacist who feels strongly that contraceptives are a sin.
We have a customer who doesn't mind contraceptives at all.
The pharmacist takes the woman aside and explains that she cannot fill the prescription because of her religious beliefs, and tells the woman how to get the prescription filled.
The customer storms out (her own admission) and criticizes the pharmacist to the worldwide media, specifically singling out her religious belief.

I first want to point out that this isn't explicitly a case of religion. The only reason the pharmacist's Catholicism is "singled out" is because that was the pharmacist's self-proclaimed reason for her actions. If the pharmacist said she did what she did because it was the month of May, or because Deely's hair was blonde, or because her grandmother attended school in Oxhamwilfordshire-On-Chutneyburrough (never been to England, sorry), those reasons would have been the "singled out" thing.

Can any of you, ANY of you see how the customer is trying to force her belief that contraceptives are fine on the pharmacist? Although I disagree with you that the pharmacist was at fault, I can see how and why you would think that. I understand what you're trying to say. Do any of you understand what I'm trying to say?

I think we all understand what you're saying, mattj. I just think we all have sound reasons for thinking you are wrong. I can tell you also think you have sound reasons for thinking we are wrong to think you are wrong...

I don't think we'll move past this divide as long as you don't acknowledge the difference between thought and action.

 

[randomspot555]

Wait.

Why is it so bad to "single out" the pharmacist's religion?

The pharmacist herself said this was the specific reason she refused to dispense the medication.

I really hate that some people like to wash hands of all criticism just because someone says "oh! my religion!"

"My religion!/God says so!" is not a get-out-of-jail free card in terms of debate and discussion. If that's your reason, especially when it comes to impacting someone's health, then you better be prepared to take the heat for that public statement.

Now yes, Profesco is right that if it was any other reason, people would also be reasonably outraged.

But that isn't the situation being presented.

And if the pharmacist is being "forced" by anyone, maybe she should look at the shelf full of Plan B and birth control pills, or the packs of condoms and lube in the family planning section. Her employer has already decided that dispensing these is acceptable.

 

[Sadib]

I went to Starbucks today. The Mormon barista said that she will not sell coffee today because caffeine is evil, but if I wanted, I could purchase a delicious blueberry scone.

 

[Liberty Defender]

Extra emphasis on what I said at the very beginning of that post you quoted, as a general concept, encompassing all types of what can both loosely and strictly defined as rights.

The pharmacist, as a right of religious expression, had the right to decide not to fill the script.

The patient, having gone through the legal and medical processes and even having dropped off the script at the physical pharmacy, has a right to have that medicine, assuming conditions such as payment/insurance are met. Once dropped off and accepted at this specific pharmacy, that pharmacy committed to filling that script. If it's anything like my pharmacy, it probably had an automated machine or a pharmacy technician giving an estimated time to pick up the script.

The patient has done nothing wrong and is reasonable in her expectation to have that script filled at that time.

The pharmacist refusing to fill it, while doing so for moral reasons, is being unreasonable in their refusal, and should've worked hard to get another pharmacist in the store to fill the script. Since he/she didn't, he/she should face any consequences deemed by the pharmaceutical company and/or their employer.

The pharmacists refusal to fill the script and saying "come back tomorrow" is similar to you swinging your fists. Your right to swing your fists ends when they hit my face. In this case, the pharmacist by saying "come back tomorrow" is telling the patient that the patient's health is less important than the pharmacist's faith believes.

There is no right to have medicine. You don't have a right to goods and services.

 

[Profesco]

There is no right to have medicine. You don't have a right to goods and services.

What about when you pay a doctor for healthcare, and he/she prescribes you medicine, and you paid an insurance company to cover the cost of that medicine, and you set up a running transaction relationship with a (willing) local pharmacy that agrees to procure and dispense your prescribed medicine - do you then have a right to that particular medicine?

 

[Byzantine]

There is no right to have medicine. You don't have a right to goods and services.

You have a right to receive goods you have paid for.

 

[randomspot555]

There is no right to have medicine. You don't have a right to goods and services.

Please stop responding to my posts if you aren't going to bother to read them.

Woman dropped off the prescription with no problem. The pharmacy ACCEPTED the prescription and has filled this specific medicine for this specific person before. They have birth control of all types in stock. She meets all requirements for this medicine and her insurance checks out.

She comes back, presumably at or after the time the pharmacy told her her order would be ready.

It is on the duty of the pharmacy to fulfill this customer's order. If the pharmacist on staff can't, they need to find a pharmacist to come into the store who can.

The pharmacist is putting her faith over another person's health.

I could MAYBE see a case be made if the pharmacy refused to fill the script at the point of it being received.

But the moment they receive and accepted the script, they have an implicit contract to fulfill the script in a reasonable manner.

 

[Liberty Defender]

Please stop responding to my posts if you aren't going to bother to read them.

Woman dropped off the prescription with no problem. The pharmacy ACCEPTED the prescription and has filled this specific medicine for this specific person before. They have birth control of all types in stock. She meets all requirements for this medicine and her insurance checks out.

She comes back, presumably at or after the time the pharmacy told her her order would be ready.

It is on the duty of the pharmacy to fulfill this customer's order. If the pharmacist on staff can't, they need to find a pharmacist to come into the store who can.

The pharmacist is putting her faith over another person's health.

I could MAYBE see a case be made if the pharmacy refused to fill the script at the point of it being received.

But the moment they receive the script, they have an implicit contract to fulfill the script in a reasonable manner.

She hasn't even paid for it, yet. She can't even claim that she's been defrauded. I don't see what her complaint would be.

 

[randomspot555]

She hasn't even paid for it, yet. She can't even claim that she's been defrauded. I don't see what her complaint would be.

UK's health care insurance system doesn't have a co-pay for contraceptives (source).

Her complaint would be the pharmacy said they'd fill it, she comes to pick it up (and, if necessary, pay any co-pay) and is told she can't have it until the next day. And even though you and mattj are oblivious to it, an insurance company is investigating this incident. So don't brush it off as "psh! what's the problem???"

If the pharmacy didn't want to fulfill the order, they shouldn't have taken the script.

The moment they took the script, they had an obligation to fill the order barring an expectation that the patient couldn't pay (which isn't valid in this case)

 

[Sadib]

She hasn't even paid for it, yet. She can't even claim that she's been defrauded. I don't see what her complaint would be.

I assume that you will find this following scenario to be fair: A man orders a pepperoni pizza by phone and says it'll take him 15 minutes to get there. When he arrives a Muslim employee said that person who took his order has left for the day. He then refuses to sell the pepperoni pizza, because his religion states that a pig is an unclean animal. Surely there's no foul play, because that guy didn't technically pay for the pizza.

 

[Liberty Defender]

UK's health care insurance system doesn't have a co-pay for contraceptives (source).

Her complaint would be the pharmacy said they'd fill it, she comes to pick it up (and, if necessary, pay any co-pay) and is told she can't have it until the next day. And even though you and mattj are oblivious to it, an insurance company is investigating this incident. So don't brush it off as "psh! what's the problem???"

If the pharmacy didn't want to fulfill the order, they shouldn't have taken the script.

The moment they took the script, they had an obligation to fill the order barring an expectation that the patient couldn't pay (which isn't valid in this case)

I know the source cited is UK, but I think this thread is to spark discussion a general sense. What harm does she suffer by them not taking the script? If there was a contract established, and it was breached, what are her damages?