home

Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscience Guide Prescription Filling

Crooks and Liars reports this was in an email sent by James Dobson's group to its "Citizen Link" subscribers.

Albertsons Agrees to Respect Pharmacists' Right of Conscience

Albertsons Corporation agreed to accommodate its pharmacists' right to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their religious or moral beliefs. The accommodation came on the heels of a lawsuit filed by
attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and the Christian Legal Society (CLS) against Albertsons and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on behalf of pharmacist David Scimio.

Blagojevich imposed an "emergency rule" stating that a pharmacist "must dispense . . . without delay" contraceptives, including so-called emergency contraceptives such as the "morning after" pill, despite the state's right-of-conscience act.

Steven H. Aden, chief litigation counsel of CLS's Center for Law and Religious Freedom, said the right of conscience is an important component of religious liberty. "Pharmacists should not be forced to fill prescriptions for the 'morning after' abortion pill," he said, "if it violates their conscience."

Shortly after ADF and CLS filed suit, Albertsons distributed a memo to all its Illinois pharmacists stating it would accommodate their right of conscience by permitting them to refer prescriptions to which they conscientiously object to another Albertsons pharmacist or
to a competitor.

"We applaud the decision by Albertsons to restore to Mr. Scimio and other Albertsons pharmacists the same rights they had prior to the governor's action," Aden said, "and allow them to be true to their beliefs about the sanctity of human life."

That's not the only drug Albertson's is playing sanctimonious pomp with. Check this out from the Salt Lake City Tribune's letters to the editors:

Four years ago, I got sober. As I am an alcoholic, this was a huge undertaking and something I work on every day. Recently I headed into my Albertson's pharmacy with my hope, fear, trepidation and anxiety about the future. As I handed my prescription for antabuse and naltrexone (anti-craving drug) to the pharmacist, I saw his face change and harden. He informed me that he didn't carry that drug (never looking me in the face) and that I needed to go somewhere else as he tossed the prescriptions back at my pathetic self. I will never forget how I felt that day or how I almost let a self-righteous, judgmental pharmacist change my life.

I can't imagine what he would do if someone wanted the Plan B pill. Pharmacists fill prescriptions, they are not a customer's moral conscience. If they can't take the heat, they should get out of the pharmacy.

Albertson's reported today its first quarter earnings tripled from last year.

After moving higher most of the session, Albertson's Inc. slipped 5 cents to $21.45 as the nation's second-largest grocery store chain tripled its quarterly earnings from a year ago. Albertson's credited the addition of the Shaw's chain as well as continued recovery in southern California from last year's grocery worker strike.

We won't be shopping there.

< Here's to You, Mrs. Robinson: R.I.P. | From A Nancy Grace Fan >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#1)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    “We won't be shopping there.” Good, let the market decide (I won't be shopping there either). Or wait, is this one place it is OK for the feds to use the heavy hand?

    When I read this, I was reminded of language from the Supreme Court's opinion in U.S. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Mich. that I thought might be helpful:
    These Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive *317 Branch. The Fourth Amendment does not contemplate the executive officers of Government as neutral and disinterested magistrates. Their duty and responsibility are to enforce the laws, to investigate, and to prosecute. Katz v. United States, supra, at 359--360, 88 S.Ct. at 515--516 (Douglas, J., concurring). But those charged with this investigative and prosecutorial duty should not be the sole judges of when to utilize constitutionally sensitive means in pursuing their tasks. The historical judgment, which the Fourth Amendment accepts, is that unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating **2137 evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy and protected speech.

    It may well be that, in the instant case, the Government's surveillance of Plamondon's conversations was a reasonable one which readily would have gained prior judicial approval. But this Court 'has never sustained a search upon the sole ground that officers reasonably expected to find evidence of a particular crime and voluntarily confined their activities to the least intrusive means consistent with that end.' Katz, supra, at 356--357, 88 S.Ct. at 514. The Fourth Amendment contemplates a prior judicial judgment, [FN18] not the risk that executive discretion may be reasonably exercised. This judicial role accords with our basic constitutional doctrine that individual freedoms will best be preserved through a separation of powers and division of functions among the different branches and levels of Government. Harlan, Thoughts at a Dedication: Keeping the Judicial Function in Balance, 49 A.B.A.J. 943--944 (1963). The independent check upon executive discretion is not *318 satisfied, as the Government argues, by 'extremely limited' post-surveillance judicial review. Indeed, post-surveillance review would never reach the surveillances which failed to result in prosecutions. Prior review by a neutral and detached magistrate is the time-tested means of effectuating Fourth Amendment rights. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96, 85 S.Ct. 223, 228, 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964).


    some how that last post was supposed to be on the thread about the PATRIOT Act but ended up here. - k

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#4)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    So a woman cannot have a legal prescription filled because the pharmacist doesn't approve? What's next, refusing to fill a prescription for anti-HIV drugs because the customer might be gay, and the pharmacist doesn't approve? That's not religion, that's totalitarian thuggery.

    If you think that dispensing certain medicines will go against your beliefs, don't become a pharmacist. Period.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#6)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    Letting people choose how to spend their time is "sanctimonious pomp"? Pharmacists are (usually) not civil servants -- you don't have any entitlement to their services or products. If they choose not to offer birth control, or anti-HIV drugs, or band-aids, or whatever, then go somewhere else. If you don't have anywhere else to go, then you have a problem, potentially a lethal one, but that doesn't make it acceptable to extract anything from the pharmacist against his will. Letting the pharmacists choose isn't "sanctimonious pomp" or "totalitarian thuggery", it's protection of the pharmacists' individual freedom.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#7)
    by Johnny on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    I actually do not have a problem with this, as long as they advertise which pharmacists are the ones who think they know more than the doctors. On the other hand, I DO mind this, primarily because of the HIV question brought up. Actually, if you cannot fulfill the job duties, seek other employment, or start your own pharmacy that has a sign in the door "We believe in denying you your access to prescribed medicine, please shop elsewhere."

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#8)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    Pig is correct: Don't shop there. A choice of where to shop is nice to have.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#9)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    Roy:
    Letting the pharmacists choose isn't "sanctimonious pomp" or "totalitarian thuggery", it's protection of the pharmacists' individual freedom.
    No, it's thuggery. And I'll tell you why. Everyone has the freedom to live their lives following whatever beliefs they have. So for example your local saintly pharmacist can agree with his/her spouse never to interrupt a pregnancy, or never to use contraceptives, or never have sex. But he may not impose his beliefs on others. No one has the "individual freedom" to do that. So, like several people have suggested, if he does not feel comfortable with handing out contraceptives or morning-after abortion pills, he should consider another less mortifying career. Remember, what the customers are doing is perfectly legal. They are trying to get a prescription filled that was given to them by a licensed physician. If you choose to live what you consider a pious life, well then, cheers. But you keep your pious little nose out of other people's affairs.

    Here's a copy of the e-mail I sent to Alertsons immediately after reading this post. I've had many a fine experience shopping at your store, but that will no longer happen. Due to your decision to allow pharmacists to interfere with the treatment and decisions of a patient and his/her doctor because the pharmacist might feel uncomfortable, I can no longer shop at your stores and I will be encouraging any one I know not to shop at your stores. Your decision to allow your pharmacists to interfere in the legally prescribed drugs and those patients in need of them is beyond contempt and shows a lack of corporate ethics that I find unfathomable. A pharmacist provides a service. If they find providing that service a cross to bear, maybe they should put that cross down and not make the patient take the consequences of the pharmacist's personal decisions. That a corporation would allow this to occur is a failure of civic responsibility that cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#11)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    Everyone has the freedom to live their lives following whatever beliefs they have.
    But everyone does not have the right to anybody else's property or services in the pursuit of those beliefs.
    But he may not impose his beliefs on others.
    Declining a customer's business is not imposing anything. Requiring somebody to take action -- such as selling a drug -- is imposing.
    ...he should consider another less mortifying career.
    Offending your customers is bad business, so your statement as written might be right. It might be good advice. But are you suggesting he should forced, by law, to choose between selling a certain product and changing careers? If so, then I think you are imposing your beliefs on pharmacists.
    Remember, what the customers are doing is perfectly legal.
    True statement, irrelevant. We are not entitled to others' help for an action just because it happens to be legal. For instance, buying non-prescription Asprin is legal, but your local Piggly Wiggly might choose not to stock it. Your neighbor might have a bottle, but (AFAIK) he's not required to share with you or sell any to you. Even if you have a fever and really need it. Maybe they just don't feel like it, and that's a good enough reason.
    If you choose to live what you consider a pious life...
    If this is getting personal, I should point out that I prefer my local drugstore to sell birth-control pills, condoms, and emergency contraception. I just don't claim to be entitled to them doing so. And if a pharmacist chooses not to sell any particular product for any particular reason, his boss probably has good cause to fire him.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#12)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    Roy, that's a pile of non-sequiturs. About your last point, though, I'll just say I'm not referring to you personally (I don't know you from Adam, so how could I), I'm using a generic "you", as in "you reap what you sow".

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#13)
    by MikeDitto on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    Should a checker be allowed to refuse to ring up a box of condoms if he or she is Catholic? Or refuse to ring up a gallon of milk because he or she is a PETA member? How about refusing to ring up bacon if he or she is kosher? Somehow I imagine the supporters of the pharmacists' individual rights really care nothing about individual rights at all. If I am mistaken, then please let me hear your arguments in favor of my individual right to work any job for which I might be qualified without fear of being fired for my sexual orientation.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#14)
    by kipling on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    "let the market decide"...."I won't be shopping there." Sounds nice. Brave words. But imagine a situation where you need something in a hurry, and Albertsons owns everything in town, and there ain't nothing else? If this strategy succeeds, the next step is obvious: requiring all pharmaceutical (grocery, etc, whatever) outlets to publicly state where they stand on certain "hot" issues like abortion, gay rights, etc, then change the laws so that outlets with views not in sympathy with those of the crazy religious zealots are simply illegal in that town, state, country. If the rhetoric is "let the market decide" then the strategy must be "first rig the market". Duh.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#15)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    Should a checker be allowed to refuse to ring up a box of condoms if he or she is Catholic?
    Allowed by the government? Yes. Allowed by the store boss? Maybe, it depends on what agreement they made with the checker.
    If I am mistaken, then please let me hear your arguments in favor of my individual right to work any job for which I might be qualified without fear of being fired for my sexual orientation.
    Are you suggesting that failure to support that particular individual right indicates caring nothing about individual rights at all? Not a very precise test. If I'm going to continue to beat the libertarian drum, I have to argue that you have no such right. On the contrary, your potential employers have a right to choose who to associate with. If they don't want to associate with gay men then it's not the government's place to make them, regardless of whether we're talking about social or business associations. If you're hired and they promise not to fire you just for being gay, then they fire you just for being gay, you've been defauded. You have a right not to be defauded. That's about as close as I can get in this mindset.

    Roy assumes that an employer in his hypothetical case is dumb enough actually to come out and say, "I've changed my mind and breaking our agreement. I am firing you for one reason only: you're gay." Of course, it never works that way. Other excuses are found. And of course, the government has a social contract with its citizens, even within Roy's libertarian never-neverland. And there is no reason to exclude from that social contract laws against employer discrimination for a propensity to fall in love with someone your boss doesn't like.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jack on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    It's not enough not to shop there. You must also go to Albertson's web site and tell them you won't shop there and why.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#18)
    by Aaron on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    Roy Your logic is flawed and your argument is specious at best. Under your interpretation a pharmacist or anyone who runs a private business can refuse service for whatever reason they choose. Such positions were struck down by the Supreme Court during the civil rights era when they were used to exclude African-Americans. Next we'll be seeing signs going up at pharmacies and businesses all across America "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE." Followed by a list of people they refuse service to, "Jews, Blacks, gays, Hispanics, atheists, the disabled, unmarried women, or anyone we just don't happen to like." When you go to a pharmacist, and you're asked to fill out a form that describes your position on a number of issues, and personal background information, then the pharmacist can use that form to decide whether they're going to serve you. Is that the America you want to live in?

    "If you don't have anywhere else to go, then you have a problem, potentially a lethal one, but that doesn't make it acceptable to extract anything from the pharmacist against his will." So let me get this right. You'd rather see someone die than offend a pharmacist.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#20)
    by lilybart on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    The pharmacist does not OWN the drugs and if he does not OWN the store, then he needs to fill the legal prescription because that is his job. He is not entitled to withhold drugs that he does not own or control. Supporters of these conscience clauses somehow think that pharmacists are doctors, that they can decide who gets what drugs, but that is not their function. They should be forced by law to fill any legal prescription that they are handed. Period.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    I'm surprised by Albertson's stance. Surely they will lose business, and be a laughingstock to the non-fundamentalists. I'll add them to the do-not-shop list w/ Walmart. I support the freedom of pharmacists to refuse to fill scripts on moral grounds....but if they are so moral and holy, why become a pharmacist? God will heal the sick without the aid of medication, won't he?

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#22)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    Aaron- “Such positions were struck down by the Supreme Court during the civil rights era when they were used to exclude African-Americans.” I would caution you against using the Supreme Court as your moral compass. The road to hell … ; unintended consequences, etc. “Next we'll be seeing signs going up at pharmacies and businesses all across America "WE RESERVE THE …” I doubt it. This would have significant consequences for the bottom line and likely investment capital. “Is that the America you want to live in?” No business could profit by alienating ethnic and religious minorities as well as the non-bigoted majorities. The America you describe is one where there is a large profitable market of bigots, remaining untapped only by the force of the law. This is a fantasy.

    conscience clauses for physicians are part of the law in many cases. they are not required to perform abortions or abortion related services. I don't see much difference except that pharmacists are a small enough target for the bullies who want what they want, no matter the conscience or beliefs of others.

    So pregnant women and HIV sufferers are bullies now? Give me a break.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#25)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    You'd rather see someone die than offend a pharmacist.
    I don't mind offending a pharmacist. Call him an idiot, question his parentage, demand that he be fired. But as far as the law goes, I'd rather see someone die than require somebody to sell a certain product. You, personally, could be working to save lives right now. You aren't; you're reading a blog. You could be in Africa teaching about AIDS and handing out condoms, or studying to become a trauma surgeon. That's OK, you have a right to choose your own actions. My examples are less immediate than a pharmacist's worst-case situation, but I think the principle is the same. Fortunately, most relgiious rules have caveats for dire situations. Jews can drive themselves to the ER on the Sabbath, Muslims can eat pork if starving, and hemophiliac Catholics can take birth-control pills to prevent bleeding. The customer might have to yield his right to privacy by explaining the situation in order to convince the pharmacist to yield his right to sit on his butt, but I think we'd have a pretty low body count.

    the bullies are those who want to override the moral beliefs of others (such as yourself, apparently). Abortion is a health option-should a physician be forced to provide(I would assume yes as no different from pharmacist). It is simple-if you don't like policy, don't shop there.

    Actually, it's great that Albertson's has made this policy so well-defined and public. This chain has always marketed itself as well-run and profitable, which it pretty much is. It's also a Mormon-friendly business (i.e., most of the management is LDS) operating mainly in heavily Mormon regions (smart move for grocers; big families = big food consumption), so this policy isn't exactly a surprise. That said, even in Utah, it's hard to imagine that this sort of high-handedness appeals to many people. A lot of people will take their custom elsewhere--especially if some pharmacist embarasses them or someone they know. And they vastly outnumber the people who decide oh, Albertson's is so moral, I think I'll start shopping there. Anyway, what happens to them in the next few quarters should be interesting.

    The America you describe is one where there is a large profitable market of bigots, remaining untapped only by the force of the law. This is a fantasy.
    I guess you never belonged to an exclusive country club. To this day if you are a member if a certain racial or ethnic group you will be heartily discouraged from moving into certain places, even with the laws on the books saying you can. Hey, why doesn't Albertsons make it the cashier's call on selling cigarettes or condoms? If I am a good Roman Catholic I believe it is a sin to use a rubber. The fact that we are even debating this shows how close this country is to Iran these days. Thank you theocrats!

    actually, Albertson's could choose not to sell condoms or cigs(it could even make it the checker's call)-the secularcrats here are the ones that want to force people to do things against their will and conscience. that is a lot closer to the Iranian model than allowing a conscience clause. it amazes me how the paranoid anti-gov types want the full force of the government to land on pharmacist of all targets.

    Ed, if I told Albertsons it was against my will to sell cigarettes for them, do you think they would accept that or replace me?

    The fallacy here is that there is something called the US Pharmeocopia. The drugs approved by the government are only sold by prescription. If you are going to pick and choose which you will sell, I think you forfit the right to be a liscensedpharmacy. Birth Control pills are a good example: my daughter is prescribed them to control extremely heavy periods caused by a thyroid condition. Fortunately the pharmacists in my small town aren't into the sort of cheap moralizing this idiocy represents. Or they would have me to deal with.

    Makes perfect sense, don't it?... After all: The cops already decide which neighborhoods to respond to (Hello Brentwood) and which ones can go blow ("Was the the Watts district? F8#k that, pass the donuts...") The politicians already decide which districts get the pork, which state citizens get to vote, which court decisions to obey... The media already decides which missing, pretty white girls are more newsworthy than your little girl or boy... Might as well consolidate this "compassionate conservatism" under one big circus tent, no? Sheikh Abu-Blagh is not pleased...

    I really don't know what Albertson's would do-it doesn't much concern me. I really would have no problem with Albertson's canning the pharmacists-I find it admirable it won't. everyone here wants the Gov. to force Albertson's to make employees violate their consciences. Mr. Bill would apparently physically assault them rather than go to another pharmacy. as usual, cheap moralizing is defined as moralizing with which you disagree.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    Good point Ernesto. I don't think that would fly w/ the stuffed shirts at Albertsons. I abhor this corporate decision, but I fear govt. interference sets a bad precedent of restricting individual freedom. Bottom line, if I ran Albertsons I'd fire any pharmacist who refused to fill a script. Just as I'd fire a cashier who refused to serve the customer. The best those that disagree with this policy can do is not shop there. When the stuffed shirts don't get the big bonus because profits are down, we will see how strong their misguided principles are. I expect a repeal of this policy w/in a year, especially if the word gets out in the MSM.

    How long until someone sees this and says "Gee, there are parts of my job I don't like to do. I know, I'll just claim that doing them violates my personal beliefs". Then they can sue when they are fired. That's the precedent being set by this type of idiocy. -Funny how the right thinks this standard is fine for Pharmacists, but not those that while in the military, want to announce C.O. status. After all, both the soldier and pharmacist entered into a job knowing they might have to do things they don't agree with. Don't want to do the job in front of you? Don't take it on. Don't want to fill perscriptions? Don't become a pharmicist. Albertson's certainly won't get my business. I take it to a pharmacy that employs a pharmacist who wants to actually do their job.

    Kdog- Yep, as soon as it impacts their bottom line, I expect this little crusade will fade as quickly as the AFA's 5-day boycott of Ford MC.

    You assume too much, Ed. I would appeal to the owners of the pharmacy, and the prescribing physicians, and the Georgia Board of Pharmacists, heck the local paper. Not a bunch you want to mess with. I'm a big ole pacifist. Not given to threats. Or cheap insults...

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#39)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    Ernesto- “I guess you never belonged to an exclusive country club.” Like I said, a niche market. And why shouldn't the law allow bigots to have their own exclusive club, are you now going to force the Klan to admit blacks, jews, and so forth? Adept- “-Funny how the right thinks this standard is fine for Pharmacists, but not those that while in the military, want to announce C.O. status … entered into a job knowing they might have to do things they don't agree with.” You missed the point; the pharmacist’s job isn’t protected. Albertson’s choosing not to fire these folks would be like the army choosing not to enforce the soldiers contract, something perfectly within their discretion.

    Doing a little digging, I found the code of ethics, as adopted by the American Pharmacists Association... Seems to me those that only want to do part of their jobs ignore item #3 of their own code of ethics:
    III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient. A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differences among patients.
    As I said before. If you don't want to do the job, don't take the job.

    I'm not asking for the government to force anybody to do anything. Although in this particular case I'm tempted to. I'm asking for the government not to provide special protection to prescription deniers. I had the deluded impression conservatives want companies to be able to fire people pretty much at will, let alone because they refuse to do their jobs. As Adept Havelock says, nobody else gets this sort of protection - if I say I have a moral objection to typing because it kills the invisible people in my keyboard, I don't get to dictate my copy.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#42)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    I'm asking for the government not to provide special protection to prescription deniers.
    I agree. Just for clarity, does anybody here support special protection against being fired for refusing to fill prescriptions based on religious ideals?

    Good research Adept...wiggle out of that one pig.

    Just for clarity, does anybody here support special protection against being fired for refusing to fill prescriptions based on religious ideals?
    Nope...how about reassigning them to some other job where their beliefs wouldn't be compromised, similar to what the military does?

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    how about reassigning them to some other job
    Thats a good idea. Maybe once the moral crusading pharmacists are forced to stock shelves (if they don't mind touching birth control pill bottles or condom boxes), and their pay is adjusted accordingly, they will come to their senses. Adept is on the mark...if you have a moral problem dispensing certain drugs, maybe pharmacist isn't the best job for you. May I suggest becoming a minister, I hear the tax breaks are outstanding.

    I don't get it. Pharmacists who hold inflexible fundamentalist beliefs won't sell birth control pills because they have moral compunctions about doing so. So the small town woman who can't get birth control pills gets pregnant and then goes and has an abortion. Doesn't that make the phamacist complicit in the abortion? I think it does. But knee-jerk true believers never think things through. That's why our idiot president was given a second term.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:50 PM EST
    If these "pharmacists" are actually true to their beliefs, they would HAVE to resign from the company, since it's the company that is making the profit and selling the "offending" medications. For the pharmacist to punish the legally prescibed customer, while continuing to profit from the company is simply choosing income over service. In other words, "my moral outrage ends with my paycheck". Just what Jesus would've thought. Not.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#48)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Many good points on both sides of the discussion, but the point remains. It's the company's discretion who the hire and fire and what level of behavior they will tolerate. Forcing the company (or any business or person) to perform a service is not what this country is all about. If you want birth control pills, or some such item, and can't get them at Albertsons, you are free to go somewhere else. If this bothers you so much, you are free to do all your shopping somewhere else. A town big enough to have an Albertsons is big enough to have other choices.

    pig, roy and, suprisingly, Molly, NYC, have nailed it. It occurs to me that there might be other situations where a pharmacist might refuse service - like when he sees a customer in his store for the third time that week with a script for some narcotic or something that he feels is being abused by the customer. Let the markets shape the co's policies, not the gvt.

    Albertson's will flip-flop on this with their first next "earnings report..." Book it...

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    I don't know that i want the gov't legislating who can and cannot sell what. I prefer that if Albertsons wants to employ people that refuse to fill the scripts fine, but if Walgreens wants to fire those who won't they should be allowed also. The only issue i have is if there is only one pharmacist in town and people cannot buy birth control without having to drive 100 miles to the next big town. But we all choose where we live......

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#52)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    I'll take that bet

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#53)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    What i really want to know is how someone with such strong moral convictions could ever work at an establishment that enables tens of thousands to desecrate the temple of god with cigs and booze and provides condoms to those surely fornicating. These christians are a joke. Picking and choosing which sins they will fight against. A sin is a sin is a sin. Like I said, I prefer the extremist types, at least they stick firm to the bible even if they are viewed as wacky.

    Why not Jlvngstn? They've been picking and choosing which parts of Leviticus matter are still "valid" for a long time. They may be a joke, but I'm certainly not laughing.

    We already tell pharmacists what we can sell or not sell. If they are liscensed, they should sell these legal products in a nondiscrimatory manner. Rational concerns over illegal prescriptions are quite another matter. Many drugs have more than one use; the two drugs in the 'Plan B' morning after pill have other uses besides preventing pregnancy. If a pharmacist refuses to fill my daughter's prescription for birth control pills (used to control her medical condition) he/she is derelict in thier duty.

    'their'. Wanna meet my friend Liz Dexia?

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#57)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    It's simple to me. His job is to fill perscriptions. If he won't do his job then he should be fired.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#58)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Prescriptions. Sorry

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#59)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    We already tell pharmacists what we can sell or not sell.
    There is a leap between telling them what they can and cannot sell, and telling them that they MUST sell something. Similarly, bars have to have liquor licenses. We tell them what they can sell (tax-stamped liquor) and cannot sell (too much to a drunk). But if they choose not to stock a certain brand of alcohol because of the devil on the bottle, we don't pretend to have a right to force them to.
    Rational concerns over illegal prescriptions are quite another matter.
    Quite a few people complain about pharmacists refusing to fill morphine prescriptions based on hunches that the drug is being mis-used. The same arguments are used to support forcing them to dispense morphine as are used to support forcing them to dispense birth control. It's just a matter of which belief the customer wants to force on the pharmacist.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Adept, not sure I understand your why not, in fact I am sure that I do not understand what you are saying. Let me know what you are referring to and I will gladly respond. Mr. Bill, you are correct and I used words poorly. I don't want the gov't telling pharmacists that they have to fill all scripts. I want the pharmacy to be able to fire someone for inhibiting their right to profit. A pharmacist should have a right to refuse, so should a checkout person to sell cigs or booze or condoms. But the store owner should have the right to select employees based on the potential employees' agreement to sell all products the store offers. The individual right to refuse based on moral ground is only legitimate when the store owner is allowed the same courtesy as to their employment. If we are going to allow for moral activism on behalf of employees we should be willing to extend the right to discriminate in hiring and firing relative to the moral decisions people choose to make as employees.

    we should be honest enough to admit this is really about abortion. that pharmacist, we suspect, opposes that, not just birth control. thus, any government compulsion to get one to abandon that exercise of conscience is okay.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#62)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Ernesto- “Good research Adept...wiggle out of that one pig.” Explain how the APA ethics code is relevant (not to be confused with the Arkansas Pharmacists Association, which has their own ethics code); it is simply one of many trade organizations for pharmacists. Am I to be held legally accountable to the ethics code of any trade organization for my profession? Of course not. Mr. Bill “If they are liscensed, they should sell these legal products in a nondiscrimatory manner.” One possible argument for licensing pharmacists is to ensure competency; I think what you are describing is licensing for the sake of regulation. This is the same as a federal or local law that would mandate a pharmacist to fill any and all prescriptions. To say they should fill a prescription because they are licensed becomes circular. You need to justify the mandate.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Ed, exactly right. It is all about abortion and birth control. And I for one believe that if specific christians are going to trumpet their beliefs and morals in the workplace than they should adhere to the teachings of the scripture in their entirety. They should be encouraging their wives to be silent in church and walk 3 paces behind them etc. I hate the picking and choosing of sins they wish not to be privvy to, why not take a stand for their beliefs and tell their employer they are contributing to fornicators, homosexuals, adulterers every time they sell a condom? Why not tell their employers they refuse to work in an environment that blatantly encourages sinful behavior? Because they have no control over that, dispensing of drugs they can control and so they spread their jesusness that way. I support their right not to dispense and I firmly support the right of the store owners to fire them for it. If the store owner supports it, find another store......

    I'm about to take my son to his softball tournament, so we'll take this up later. I suspect the pharmacist excercising a discretion over which prescriptions he will or will not fill (aside from questions of legality) is practicing medicine without a liscense. The advocates of 'Pharmacist choice' have not answered the questions re: HIV patients, or alternate uses for products that might be birth control... You have made it clear that we probably will have to pass laws that mandate the filling of all legally obtained prescriptions. "Oh most immoral morality..."

    I agree and have already said that I did not think Albertson's had any obligation to hire or continue to employ these folks. However, I may even be wrong on that as I believe the controversy in Illinois as alluded to is based on a conscience clause written into the law-issue is whether applicable to pharmacists. would it violate Illinois law to fire pharmacists for actions-I don't have an answer to that.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Ed, I knew you agreed, sorry if the last sentence seemed directed toward you specifically, upon rereading it, it would appear that it does. I live in Illinois and own a business, I am curious myself.....

    I agree 100% about pharmacists needing to fill prescriptions regardless of their personal views. It is their job. I live in Carlsbad, New Mexico, a community of about 30,000 quite far away from other communities of any size. We have a super Walmart (with a grocery and pharmacy), an Albertsons, and a couple of other choices in small drug stores to take prescriptions. If I were to boycott Albertsons (I already keep my business with Walmart to an absolute minimum), I might as well drive 70 miles each way to the next biggish town. I just want to point out that boycotting offending companies is sometimes pretty hard on the individual.

    These are the silliest arguments Blagh's heard on a thread in a while... 1. You can't force a pharmacist to dispense birth control if they refuse to...free country. It is therefore any employer's legal right to tell that pharmacist to take a walk. 2. Any fool who says, "My religious beliefs won't allow me to do xyz" is a pure, unadulterated and hypocritical, lying fool to simultaneously continue working in an industry that caters to the sin they abhore...if they aren't selling it, others are and their employer is making scads of money...how stupid are the religious right, anyways? Now, let's see anyone dispute either of the two following arguments and their logic in doing so...

    And another thing...any fool who claims they're being persecuted in being dismissed from a job for refusing to do the bloody job (and yes, a pharmacist's job is to dispense legally availabe birth control offered by the store, whether you happen to agree with it or not, same with cigarettes and booze) is a gibbering lunatic who, frankly, should never have been allowed to graduate from a scientific institution... There are three issues, and only three... 1. Anyone has the right to refuse to do a part of their job... 2. Any employer has the right to terminate said employee. 3. If that employer chooses not to, find another pharmacy, or move to another town, or stop having sex... Any other choices don't make a single bit of sense to Blagh...enlighten him....

    uhh, and license is not spelled lisensce... Game rained out...

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#71)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Any fool who says, "My religious beliefs won't allow me to do xyz" is a pure, unadulterated and hypocritical, lying fool to simultaneously continue working in an industry that caters to the sin they abhore...
    There are examples which show your statement is silly. A Jewish car salesman may say "My religious beliefs won't allow me to work on the Sabbath" even though his industry caters to weekend shopping. A Hindu veterinarian may say "My religious beliefs won't allow me to disrespect a cow" while working in an industry that treats cows as pets or food. A Vegan (not a religion, but close enough) chef may say "my beliefs won't allow me to serve meat" while working within an industry that caters to people eating meat. An Baptist politician may say "my religious beliefs won't allow me to lie" while working within a system/industry that caters to lying. Would you call those people hypocritical lying fools? Plus, if they're trying to change the industry from within, that could qualify as "good works" in Christian lingo. Living as an example to sinful co-workers might be enough to qualify.
    ...if they aren't selling it, others are and their employer is making scads of money...
    I don't think Christians are prohibited from working for or with people who profit from sin. Especially if the primary effect is a useful service -- treating sick people -- with sinfulness secondary. All you're doing here is inventing standards for others to live by, and insulting them for not doing so. Or, maybe you're complaining because their interpretation of their religious instruction is different from yours. But, other than that, I think I agree with almost everything you've posted in this thread. Mr. Bill's game must have been rained on by the runoff from Hell freezing over.

    Would you call those people hypocritical lying fools?
    If they continued working in the same industry that promoted what they opposed? Yes. That would qualify as hpocritical in my books. As for "lying", it depends on what the individual has said. As for fools, and speaking only for myself yes. I see no difference between these "belief systems" and the "belief system" that says becasue I broke a mirror I'm going to have bad luck for 7 years. Blagh...from where I sit, you are right on target.

    Roy: How about if I refuse to see you motoroil because I don't believe in automobiles because of they are polluting the environment? How about if I refuse to sell you your six pack of Budweiser because because I believe alcohol is the work of the devil? How about I refuse to sell you anything because I believe heterosexual white troglodyte males should be made extinct? We can take all this any way you want. If you want to deal in a niche market, then open a niche business. Albertson's has no business allowing its employees to decide what they are going to sell to its customers based on their personal religious beliefs. If the pharmacist can't deal with that, he/she should open his/her own pharmacy and take the consequences be they for good or bad.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#74)
    by Al on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Roy:
    But as far as the law goes, I'd rather see someone die than require somebody to sell a certain product.
    Is that so, Roy? Would you be willing to lay your life on the line like that in order not to offend a pharmacist's virtue? But that's not what you meant, is it? You're thinking of someone else dying. Don't talk about people dying lightly, Roy. Death is a very serious matter.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#75)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Did said pharmacist relay this information to the employer prior to being offered the position?

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#76)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Is that so, Roy? Would you be willing to lay your life on the line like that in order not to offend a pharmacist's virtue?
    If I needed the medicine to save my life, and didn't have another way to get it, I'd try to steal it. I'd leave the money on the counter, of course, but it'd still be stealing. Then I'd act not at all surprised when the police came for me, and later when the judge sentenced me. I consider theft in that case to be understandable. We should sympathize with somebody who does so. But it shouldn't be legal. So, no, I guess I wouldn't lay my life on the line. (This is assuming the pharmacist is the store owner, but the basic ideal applies to Albertson's type stores)

    But as far as the law goes, I'd rather see someone die than require somebody to sell a certain product.
    So "free enterprise" trumps the "cuture of life"? Heh-indeedy.

    Am I to be held legally accountable to the ethics code of any trade organization for my profession? Of course not.
    You're right...who needs a code of ethics when you have your personal superstitions to guide you on how to do your job?

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#79)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    Adept- “So "free enterprise" trumps the "cuture of life"?” Well many things trump the so-called ‘culture of like’; a catch phrase for religious zealots long on rhetoric and short on reason. But I think what roy is, and most certainly I am talking about is individual freedom, so yes individual freedom does trump the ‘culture of life’. Many people were and are still willing to die for personal liberty. Sadly more aren’t. Ernesto- “You're right...who needs a code of ethics …” I’m sorry; I must have misunderstood your point. I thought you were citing the APA ethics code as some authoritative or perhaps legal reason pharmacists would be required to fill all/any prescription. I agree that the APA code of ethics is certainly more admirable from my viewpoint than, as you so aptly phrased, personal superstition. What I assumed you were advocating is that the code of ethics bear the weight of law. Effectively using the full force and violence of the federal government to interfere in mutually agreeable employee/employer contracts.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#80)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    I believe that a pharmacist may refuse to fill or dispense a medication that they belive will cause serious harm to a patient. Many times a strength or dosage is written incorrectly or illegibly. The pharmacist will make attempts to contact the prescribing practitioner. But I think (I'm not sure) that the pharmacist should have the authority to hold up on dispensing until the order is clarified. That's the only situation I can think of right now. If the RX is valid and clear, the pharmacist is then refusing to carry out the practitioner's order, which should be a violation.

    “We won't be shopping there.” You're coming late to a boycott that is already underway: The CEO of Safeway lost a bunch of money in Canada though a boneheaded move (replacing familiar foods with store brands), and forced his employees in California out on strike last year to pay for it (by doubling employee health insurance deductions). Two other companies joined Safeway, sharing profits in a way that is well on its way to an anti-trust fine in the millions by the State of California. The Safeway CEO has cost these companies royally. Sound like anyone you know? There is a nationwide boycott already underway against: Albertson's (Inc.) Vons & Pavilions (Safeway Inc.) Ralphs (Kroger) stores One can either refuse to enter their stores, or only buy sale items (which gets you the items, and at a loss, generally, to the company, while still supporting store sales and thereby the innocent employees). While you're at it, you should boycott Dr. Pepper and 7-Up (both of which are owned in part by the Bush family), and Coca-cola (which is involved in murders of union workers in Colombia, and in overpumping water in S. India, causing major problems with water availability). None of that sugarwater junk is good for us anyhow. It's a bad habit -- like bombing innocent people with impunity. Support the small chain groceries in your area -- taking money out of these company's pockets is the only thing they understand.

    Okay, much earlier I posted the text of an e-mail that I sent to Albertson's. Here's the reply they sent me; Thank you for contacting Albertsons Customer Care. We have received your e-mail regarding our Osco Drug store pharmacists. Osco Drug stores are committed to serving the healthcare needs of our customers, while working in partnership with the State of Illinois Department of Professional Regulations. Our pharmacists have an obligation to take care of our customers. However, in those instances where pharmacists choose to exercise their rights under the Illinois Practice Act, they continue addressing the healthcare needs of our customers by referring them to another pharmacist on duty or to another pharmacy in an expeditious manner. In this case, an investigation has been conducted and revealed that the pharmacist followed state law and company policy. Again, thank you for contacting Albertsons Customer Care. If we can provide any information or be of service to you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact us by e-mail or by calling 1-877-932-7948 Now, this to me presents an awkward situation. I'm now trying to run everything down I can, but the gist of this letter was they didn't punish a pharmacist for acting as they did in accordance with a state law. This is a difficult position for a corporation to be in (and trust me, my initial sympathies are never with corporations) and I've followed every link that was in the original post and it just gets circular and I have found no evidence that Albertson's has made any official policy. If the evidence is in a letter sent by James Dobson, well, what do we think of the witness? As a site dedicated to the intersection of the law and politics, I think we should at least investigate the so-called facts of the case first. Don't get me wrong, I think any capitulation on "pharmacist's moral conscious" is actually ethically wrong and I have no plans to shop at Albertsons any time soon, but there is a huge unanswered question lying in this argument; What exactly did Albertsons do? And what was Dobson trying to do? (Okay, 2 questions). I now sit back and wait to be enlightened because I'm sure that a lot of you have gotten further in your reseach than me.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    If Albertsons keeps another pharmacist on duty who will actually dispense any legally prescribed drug (what a novel concept for a pharmacy!), I would have no problem with this policy. It seems to be a fair compromise, and if Albertsons is willing to absorb the extra cost of multiple pharmacists on duty to appease the overly religous, god bless 'em. Referring a customer to another store would be unacceptable to me. I won't be shopping there until I get more info, just to be safe.

    Re: Albertson's Allows Pharmacists To Let Conscie (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    What if a store owner refused to sell birth control or ru486? Would there be an outcry to demand that the store provide it? If there is no outcry that the owner provide it, I cannot understand why there should be an outcry that an employee must dispense it.