Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: random discussion....pharmacist's right to refuse filling prescriptions  (Read 4097 times)

PresClay_00

  • Guest
i would put it higher than that, but not sure on a number.  i don't think the small town pharmacy, esp the one referenced earlier (hundreds of miles from any others) is going to be a chain (it hasn't been in my rural area experience.)

LaneSwerver

  • Guest

Your post is contradictory.  If a state allows that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription on ANY grounds, then the business owner CANNOT FIRE him for what the state 'law' permits.

The fact remains that business owners do fire pharmacists for refusing to fill a prescription, so the pharmacist's refusal is NOT protected by those states.  So the prior posts indicating states allowing pharmacists to refuse on ANY grounds is totally hogwash.

As for the statement of not understanding how stocking and refusal to fill are not linked, that is not the case.  You seem to believe they are synonymous, which they are not.  I'm stating stocking and filling a prescription, although related, are not necessarily synonymous, and for the purposes of the original poster's question, are outside of the scope.  Anything can be linked if one tries hard enough, but that doesn't mean they are the same entities.

1. The right to not fill a prescription is protected by the state. Their license is not revoked or censured.

2. Pharmacies are governed by administrative codes, not laws.

3. Business owners, expecially in "right to work" states, can fire employees for any reason at any time without any notice. It's not illegal to go to a bar, get stinking drunk, and tell everyone that your boss is a big jerk, but they can fire you for it. It's not illegal to divulge trade secrets, but your boss can fire you for it.

4. You are too ignorant to live.

hilljack

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1669
    • View Profile
First of all, it doesn't take doing something that state law does not permits to fire someone.  It varies by state, but many states have laws allowing employers to fire employees any time for any reason, this excludes discrimination of course.  These laws are a little stricter in other states, but I would be suprised to hear that a pharmacist/other drug store owner isn't allowed to fire an employee unless he breaks the law in any state.

I don't think anyone here is advocating letting pharmacists who don't own the pharmacy decide which prescriptions to fill without being subject to discipline.  What I am advocating is that a person has the right to sell what he wishes to sell.  This goes beyond pharmacy.  Would you go into a Kosher deli and tell them they must sell unclean animals if there are no other delis around.  Don't talk about the magnitude, it is a general principle.  

In America, you sell what you want to sell and you buy what you want to buy.  You don't change the rules when you beleive the motivation behind what is in stock is religious, that point is irrelevent.  If a pharmacist doesn't want to sell Viagra because he is scared of the color blue, that is fine.  If he doesn't want to sell wait loss drugs cause he likes fat people, that is fine.  Get it, it is freedom to sell.

XYZZY

  • Guest

Your post is contradictory.  If a state allows that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription on ANY grounds, then the business owner CANNOT FIRE him for what the state 'law' permits.

The fact remains that business owners do fire pharmacists for refusing to fill a prescription, so the pharmacist's refusal is NOT protected by those states.  So the prior posts indicating states allowing pharmacists to refuse on ANY grounds is totally hogwash.

As for the statement of not understanding how stocking and refusal to fill are not linked, that is not the case.  You seem to believe they are synonymous, which they are not.  I'm stating stocking and filling a prescription, although related, are not necessarily synonymous, and for the purposes of the original poster's question, are outside of the scope.  Anything can be linked if one tries hard enough, but that doesn't mean they are the same entities.

1. The right to not fill a prescription is protected by the state. Their license is not revoked or censured.

2. Pharmacies are governed by administrative codes, not laws.

3. Business owners, expecially in "right to work" states, can fire employees for any reason at any time without any notice. It's not illegal to go to a bar, get stinking drunk, and tell everyone that your boss is a big jerk, but they can fire you for it. It's not illegal to divulge trade secrets, but your boss can fire you for it.

4. You are too ignorant to live.


Tell me sir, how can you have it both ways:  #1 and #3.
If a pharmacist is protected under #1 for refusal for ANY reason (BTW: whoever mentioned ANY in a previous post is full of crap) , how can the business owner fire him under #3 ?


XYZZY

  • Guest
First of all, it doesn't take doing something that state law does not permits to fire someone.  It varies by state, but many states have laws allowing employers to fire employees any time for any reason, this excludes discrimination of course.  These laws are a little stricter in other states, but I would be suprised to hear that a pharmacist/other drug store owner isn't allowed to fire an employee unless he breaks the law in any state.

I don't think anyone here is advocating letting pharmacists who don't own the pharmacy decide which prescriptions to fill without being subject to discipline.  What I am advocating is that a person has the right to sell what he wishes to sell.  This goes beyond pharmacy.  Would you go into a Kosher deli and tell them they must sell unclean animals if there are no other delis around.  Don't talk about the magnitude, it is a general principle. 

In America, you sell what you want to sell and you buy what you want to buy.  You don't change the rules when you beleive the motivation behind what is in stock is religious, that point is irrelevent.  If a pharmacist doesn't want to sell Viagra because he is scared of the color blue, that is fine.  If he doesn't want to sell wait loss drugs cause he likes fat people, that is fine.  Get it, it is freedom to sell.


Just entertaining your last paragraph.  Your premises are based on freedom to refuse.. Your conclusion is based on a freedom to sell.  The differences are dramatic.  NO reason to delve on that further.

Secondly, after the tiresome acknowledgement that the 3 stooges can't understand the OP's scope of topic, the new topic of interjecting the business owner has a hypo of a pharmacist's refusal when there is another business owner (which is the case for the vast majority of pharmacists).  In this case, the government has gotten involved to protect the pharmacist with a right to refuse against the business owner who wants to exert his right to sell.  If you are advocating that a pharmacist who refuses to sell certain medication (for religious reasons), despite having it available, may be fired by the business owner then that is fine, but it is in violation of the explicit state laws passed to protect the pharmacist.


Nizzy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile

Your post is contradictory.  If a state allows that a pharmacist can refuse to fill a prescription on ANY grounds, then the business owner CANNOT FIRE him for what the state 'law' permits.

The fact remains that business owners do fire pharmacists for refusing to fill a prescription, so the pharmacist's refusal is NOT protected by those states.  So the prior posts indicating states allowing pharmacists to refuse on ANY grounds is totally hogwash.

As for the statement of not understanding how stocking and refusal to fill are not linked, that is not the case.  You seem to believe they are synonymous, which they are not.  I'm stating stocking and filling a prescription, although related, are not necessarily synonymous, and for the purposes of the original poster's question, are outside of the scope.  Anything can be linked if one tries hard enough, but that doesn't mean they are the same entities.

1. The right to not fill a prescription is protected by the state. Their license is not revoked or censured.

2. Pharmacies are governed by administrative codes, not laws.

3. Business owners, expecially in "right to work" states, can fire employees for any reason at any time without any notice. It's not illegal to go to a bar, get stinking drunk, and tell everyone that your boss is a big jerk, but they can fire you for it. It's not illegal to divulge trade secrets, but your boss can fire you for it.

4. You are too ignorant to live.


Tell me sir, how can you have it both ways:  #1 and #3.
If a pharmacist is protected under #1 for refusal for ANY reason (BTW: whoever mentioned ANY in a previous post is full of darn) , how can the business owner fire him under #3 ?



I am a bit confused how you could think there is a contradiction.  According to the law, the pharmacist would be allowed to decide not to fill the order.  Hence, he can't be forced by police or arrested.  But if his boss wants those orders to be filled, and he refuses, he can be fired.

This whole topic is silly to argue about since it is basically the moral arguement that gets the juices flowing, but it is the law the decides what is gonna be.  I think it should be the case that people can get their prescriptions filled, which is really only a problem if the pharmacy is the only one around.  And while i suppose i can understand the pro-life arguement about the morning after pill, objecting to birth control is unbelievably destructive and a reason why it is so hard to take them seriously sometimes.

Shardik

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 146
  • Ignorance, the root and the stem of every evil.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Laneswerver and Nizzy nailed it.
good job guys.  There is obviously no contradiction and XYZ knows it.

As for the pharm vs. owner it only plays out two ways.

I'm the owner so I:
   a. don't stock the drug b/c i don't want to sell it
   b. stock the drug and if my pharm refuses to sell it i fire him for insubordination
   c. stock the drug and allow my pharms to make their own decisions (bad business practice)

or

I'm just a pharmacist that works for someone else so I:
   a.  Do what my boss says or i get fired.
   b.  that's it.

XYZZY

  • Guest
Laneswerver and Nizzy nailed it.
good job guys.  There is obviously no contradiction and XYZ knows it.

or

I'm just a pharmacist that works for someone else so I:
   a.  Do what my boss says or i get fired.
   b.  that's it.




http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/hb2000.dir/hb2010.a.html


(4) If a pharmacist refuses to fill or actively refer, or
states the intention to refuse to fill or actively refer, a
particular type of prescription on the grounds that to do so
would violate the pharmacist's ethical or religious principles
and has stated this conscientious objection twice verbally and in
writing, the employer of the pharmacist may not discharge,
discipline, discriminate or retaliate against or deny employment
or promotion to the pharmacist.

 (5) Nothing in this section prohibits an employer from
disciplining or discharging a pharmacist who is an employee for
reasons other than the pharmacist's notification of a
conscientious objection or acting upon a conscientious objection
to filling or actively referring a prescription as described in
subsection (2) of this section.


Nice try:  what do you have to say now?

XYZZY

  • Guest
I am a bit confused how you could think there is a contradiction.  According to the law, the pharmacist would be allowed to decide not to fill the order.  Hence, he can't be forced by police or arrested.  But if his boss wants those orders to be filled, and he refuses, he can be fired.

This whole topic is silly to argue about since it is basically the moral arguement that gets the juices flowing, but it is the law the decides what is gonna be.  I think it should be the case that people can get their prescriptions filled, which is really only a problem if the pharmacy is the only one around.  And while i suppose i can understand the pro-life arguement about the morning after pill, objecting to birth control is unbelievably destructive and a reason why it is so hard to take them seriously sometimes.

Of course it's silly.. that's why it's fun..

Here's another:

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1107550992983

"It allows them to know that they don't have to worry about losing their jobs because they refuse to do something that violates their religious beliefs,"


LaneSwerver

  • Guest
Laneswerver and Nizzy nailed it.
good job guys.  There is obviously no contradiction and XYZ knows it.

or

I'm just a pharmacist that works for someone else so I:
   a.  Do what my boss says or i get fired.
   b.  that's it.




http://www.leg.state.or.us/99reg/measures/hb2000.dir/hb2010.a.html


(4) If a pharmacist refuses to fill or actively refer, or
states the intention to refuse to fill or actively refer, a
particular type of prescription on the grounds that to do so
would violate the pharmacist's ethical or religious principles
and has stated this conscientious objection twice verbally and in
writing, the employer of the pharmacist may not discharge,
discipline, discriminate or retaliate against or deny employment
or promotion to the pharmacist.

 (5) Nothing in this section prohibits an employer from
disciplining or discharging a pharmacist who is an employee for
reasons other than the pharmacist's notification of a
conscientious objection or acting upon a conscientious objection
to filling or actively referring a prescription as described in
subsection (2) of this section.


Nice try:  what do you have to say now?


I say this is a bill, not a law. Prove that it passed, smart guy.