03-05-2014 12:37 PM
266 ... 891011
tools
  1. Timelessblur's Avatar
    I can understand your position if you're talking about Plan B, which needs to be taken within 72 hours. However, Plan B is sold over the counter, so people can get it anywhere, like a grocery store (for example).

    My understanding of birth control pills is that a woman needs to take 1 pill every day to avoid getting pregnant. She needs to do that to maintain the contraceptive effect, so, in my opinion, a birth control pill is a type of maintenance medication. Since mail order works best for maintenance medication (as you state), I feel that birth control pills would be an excellent fit.

    I can also understand that a slow delivery from a mail order pharmacy would be a problem. How long would the delay be?

    Lost shipments don't help anyone, but I don't believe mail order pharmacies intend to lose any shipment. That would be a problem with the US Post Office.
    But again some people do not want to go mail order. I have taken maintenance Meds before and I ate the little extra it cost me to go threw the pharmacy as it was a sure fired way to get the meds quickly and easily. No chance of the mail losing it. No chance of me screwing up. Also you generally get the first few rounds from the pharmacy.
    Doctor writes 2 scripts. 30 script to fill now. 90 day script from pharmacy.


    Also birth control has to be taken every day at about the same time missing a day is bad.

    This comes down to this. If you have a problem with giving it out you need to find a new job. Having the person come back is not acceptable. It means you need 2 pharmacist work on staff at the same time.
    It is do your job. Religions is a bs argument. If your religion does not let you do it then you need to find a new job.


    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    msndrstood likes this.
    02-21-2014 07:17 AM
  2. Timelessblur's Avatar
    In the post you replied to, I had said that the pharmacy filled out 30 prescriptions for birth control pills earlier that day. The pharmacy has no more in stock now, but the pills will be in stock in 24 hours. None of the pharmacists at this pharmacy have conscience issues. They would be happy to fill out the prescription. They simply can't at the moment because they have nothing to give to the patient.

    If going to another pharmacy is not acceptable, what would be acceptable?
    Basically if they are out of stock and not for reasons of let's run it down to avoid filling it that is fine. That is among the few times it is acceptable.

    Religious bs reason not fine. That goes back to the person needs to find a new career as they are clearly incapable of doing their current one.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    02-21-2014 07:20 AM
  3. anon8126715's Avatar
    In the post you replied to, I had said that the pharmacy filled out 30 prescriptions for birth control pills earlier that day. The pharmacy has no more in stock now, but the pills will be in stock in 24 hours. None of the pharmacists at this pharmacy have conscience issues. They would be happy to fill out the prescription. They simply can't at the moment because they have nothing to give to the patient.

    If going to another pharmacy is not acceptable, what would be acceptable?
    Running out of stock is one thing, refusing someone their prescription because it goes against YOUR belief is another.

    To me the answer is obvious, if a pharmacist wants to impose their morality onto someone else, then the owner of the pharmacy should be forced to have a 2nd pharmacist on hand that does not push their belief system onto other people. If the owner eventually decides that it is too expensive to have 1 pharmacist as a "back up" because good ole Jebus McHollierThanThou is busy doing the lord's work, thus fires Jebus, then that is his prerogative. Also, come review time, the pharmacist that didn't dispense medicines because of his belief system should also not be given a good review, as he's costing the pharmacy money by selectively dispensing medication.

    if you don't believe the scenario above is right then what about an employee at McDonalds refusing to shell out food because he believes that McDonalds food is unhealthy? If you answer "then he should find another line of work", that's EXACTLY what we're saying the Pharmacist should do.
    02-21-2014 10:47 AM
  4. Scott7217's Avatar
    if you don't believe the scenario above is right then what about an employee at McDonalds refusing to shell out food because he believes that McDonalds food is unhealthy? If you answer "then he should find another line of work", that's EXACTLY what we're saying the Pharmacist should do.
    McDonald's doesn't have a conscience clause. Pharmacists do. That's why there is a problem. The conscience clause protects the pharmacists. If you try to fire them, they will sue the pharmacy for wrongful termination and win in court. This has already happened, and the legal precedent makes it harder for people to challenge the conscience clause in future cases.
    02-21-2014 01:47 PM
  5. Timelessblur's Avatar
    McDonald's doesn't have a conscience clause. Pharmacists do. That's why there is a problem. The conscience clause protects the pharmacists. If you try to fire them, they will sue the pharmacy for wrongful termination and win in court. This has already happened, and the legal precedent makes it harder for people to challenge the conscience clause in future cases.
    pharmacist only have that claus because right wing conservative wingnuts forced it threw on state laws. That is the issue. The law is crap and needs to be taken out.

    That is the issue. TXGTOU gave a good example to exactly what the problem it. It is the same. The law itself is the issue. The companies are required to give that claus.
    02-21-2014 02:09 PM
  6. Scott7217's Avatar
    The law itself is the issue.
    Then hopefully people will realize what is happening and repeal the law. Most people don't even know that conscience clauses exist. That is why I started this forum thread. I want to make people aware of this issue.
    02-21-2014 02:40 PM
  7. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Then hopefully people will realize what is happening and repeal the law. Most people don't even know that conscience clauses exist. That is why I started this forum thread. I want to make people aware of this issue.
    Have you seen the right wing conservative wing nuts.

    They will not let that happen. They will scream bloody murder forcing their beliefs onto others. This is a prime example of the issue with the gop as a whole but even more so the religious group.

    Also this is not about the law but if it is right or wrong. This allow pharmacist to be judgemental to women.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
    nolittdroid likes this.
    02-21-2014 02:43 PM
  8. anon8126715's Avatar
    McDonald's doesn't have a conscience clause. Pharmacists do. That's why there is a problem. The conscience clause protects the pharmacists. If you try to fire them, they will sue the pharmacy for wrongful termination and win in court. This has already happened, and the legal precedent makes it harder for people to challenge the conscience clause in future cases.
    I understand that there is a law (granted a right-wing initiated law). My point is why only protect pharmacists? It's a right wing agenda, that's why. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the hypocrisy of the right is in the way they selectively decide what morals they want to enforce and the ones they don't want to enforce.
    nolittdroid likes this.
    02-21-2014 03:11 PM
  9. anon8126715's Avatar
    Then hopefully people will realize what is happening and repeal the law. Most people don't even know that conscience clauses exist. That is why I started this forum thread. I want to make people aware of this issue.
    I still can't tell if you're for or against it though. I would hope no one is really for it as it is a slippery slope. It opens up a lot more problems than it solves.
    02-21-2014 03:13 PM
  10. toober's Avatar
    I think they should repeal the law. I think that if a store stocks a product, any employee should have to sell it. I also believe that a store owner should decide what products are offered by his place of business. Just because you own a pharmacy does not mean you have to carry every drug ever made.
    02-21-2014 06:40 PM
  11. nolittdroid's Avatar
    I understand that there is a law (granted a right-wing initiated law). My point is why only protect pharmacists? It's a right wing agenda, that's why. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the hypocrisy of the right is in the way they selectively decide what morals they want to enforce and the ones they don't want to enforce.
    It is similar to the partial birth abortion ban in a way that the law is frivolous, unnecessary and creates difficulties for women. An unnecessary piece of legislation designed to protect religious pharmacists and their "religious values." I wonder how often it occurs, but then again thankfully few states have a conscience clause.

    I wonder if Arizona plans to strengthen their new LGBT discrimination law by making it difficult for gay women to buy birth control. Technically, they will have the right to refuse business altogether.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-21-2014 07:46 PM
  12. nolittdroid's Avatar
    In the post you replied to, I had said that the pharmacy filled out 30 prescriptions for birth control pills earlier that day. The pharmacy has no more in stock now, but the pills will be in stock in 24 hours. None of the pharmacists at this pharmacy have conscience issues. They would be happy to fill out the prescription. They simply can't at the moment because they have nothing to give to the patient.

    If going to another pharmacy is not acceptable, what would be acceptable?
    Maintaining inventory and not running out of stock, for starts!

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    02-21-2014 07:47 PM
  13. Scott7217's Avatar
    They will not let that happen. They will scream bloody murder forcing their beliefs onto others. This is a prime example of the issue with the gop as a whole but even more so the religious group.
    Maybe I'm an optimist, but I believe once people understand what's going on with conscience clauses, they will gather enough support to change the law.
    02-22-2014 01:46 AM
  14. Scott7217's Avatar
    Why not? I'm sure you could find at least a hundred examples of the same thing done with other sections of the economy. There are colleges for women only. Stores that sell only women's clothing. Doctors that only have women as patients. It's very confusing that we have so many places that are restricted to one group or another, but are not allowed to have a group that caters to all EXCEPT a specific group.
    That's an interesting observation. In theory, you could say women's colleges (for example) discriminate against men, but that's acceptable.

    Can I incorporate religion in my business? For example, if I ran a pharmacy and closed it on Sundays to allow people to go to church, am I going too far? Not everyone goes to church, and some people want to shop on Sundays. Should the government force me to open on Sundays?
    02-22-2014 09:07 PM
  15. toober's Avatar
    That's an interesting observation. In theory, you could say women's colleges (for example) discriminate against men, but that's acceptable.

    Can I incorporate religion in my business? For example, if I ran a pharmacy and closed it on Sundays to allow people to go to church, am I going too far? Not everyone goes to church, and some people want to shop on Sundays. Should the government force me to open on Sundays?
    It's always acceptable to discriminate against the majority.

    As far as I'm concerned, a business can choose it's own hours of operation based on any criteria it chooses. Grocery stores in this town don't open until after 12 on Sundays because most of their employees go to church. Most businesses here also close early on Wednesdays for the same reason.

    Aside from religion, there are many other factors that influence business hours. Why do banks have to open at 9am? What if I need a loan at 7am? How can my doctor close his office at 5pm when I got sick at 6pm?
    02-22-2014 09:44 PM
  16. anon8126715's Avatar
    It's always acceptable to discriminate against the majority.

    As far as I'm concerned, a business can choose it's own hours of operation based on any criteria it chooses. Grocery stores in this town don't open until after 12 on Sundays because most of their employees go to church. Most businesses here also close early on Wednesdays for the same reason.

    Aside from religion, there are many other factors that influence business hours. Why do banks have to open at 9am? What if I need a loan at 7am? How can my doctor close his office at 5pm when I got sick at 6pm?

    I think I've seen some instances where an all woman's/all man's college has accepted the opposite gender (mostly when a lawsuit is threatened). When institutions are exclusive to either sex, I think it has more to do with that institution trying to provide a specific focus for their studies as well as, in the case for women's only campuses, to provide a safer alternative to some of the other institutions where rape among other distractions take place because of co-ed arrangements. Also, lets face it, some of these women only colleges don't provide much more of an advantage than a co-ed institution other than hopefully ensuring that by removing the male element, women (straight ones of course, granted that's not always the case) will focus more on their studies.
    02-23-2014 11:45 AM
  17. Scott7217's Avatar
    They will not let that happen. They will scream bloody murder forcing their beliefs onto others. This is a prime example of the issue with the gop as a whole but even more so the religious group.
    I think the same people vowed to stop Obama from getting elected, and they failed -- twice. So I don't believe any group is unstoppable, and conscience clauses are not written in stone. If you can get enough support, you can change the law.
    02-24-2014 09:33 PM
  18. toober's Avatar
    I think the same people vowed to stop Obama from getting elected, and they failed -- twice. So I don't believe any group is unstoppable, and conscience clauses are not written in stone. If you can get enough support, you can change the law.
    Why bother changing the law when Obama can just sign an executive order and make his own law?
    02-24-2014 09:51 PM
  19. Scott7217's Avatar
    Why bother changing the law when Obama can just sign an executive order and make his own law?
    The reason why you wouldn't use an executive order is because there is already a legal precedent (Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Quinn, 2012 IL App (4th) 110398) that allows pharmacists to bypass the order if they follow the conscience clause. You need something stronger that can overcome this precedent.
    02-25-2014 12:39 AM
  20. Scott7217's Avatar
    So, here's an interesting case that deals with the conscience clause:

    TN pharmacist unwilling to sell 'morning-after pill' sues Walgreens after firing - The Tennessean

    Phillip Hall used to be a pharmacist that worked for Walgreens. Walgreens has a policy where employees do not have to complete a transaction if they have an objection to it. Furthermore, Tennessee has a conscience clause (Tennessee Annotated Code 68-34-104).

    Hall noticed that a shipment of Plan B (which recently acquired over the counter status) was mislabeled as a behind-the-counter drug. He spent $324.83 of his own money to buy the entire lot of Plan B and threw it away. Walgreens fired him two weeks later. Hall is suing Walgreens in court.

    In your opinion, does the law support Phillip Hall (the pharmacist who was fired) or does it support Walgreens?
    02-25-2014 01:56 AM
  21. Aquila's Avatar
    So, here's an interesting case that deals with the conscience clause:

    TN pharmacist unwilling to sell 'morning-after pill' sues Walgreens after firing - The Tennessean

    Phillip Hall used to be a pharmacist that worked for Walgreens. Walgreens has a policy where employees do not have to complete a transaction if they have an objection to it. Furthermore, Tennessee has a conscience clause (Tennessee Annotated Code 68-34-104).

    Hall noticed that a shipment of Plan B (which recently acquired over the counter status) was mislabeled as a behind-the-counter drug. He spent $324.83 of his own money to buy the entire lot of Plan B and threw it away. Walgreens fired him two weeks later. Hall is suing Walgreens in court.

    In your opinion, does the law support Phillip Hall (the pharmacist who was fired) or does it support Walgreens?
    This is actually fairly clear cut. Under normal consideration of the conscience clause, he would have the arguable right to refuse to sell a product (it'd help if he weren't the employee of a chain that did wish to sell it, because then his wrongful termination goes up in smoke for insubordination of their policies), however he partook an active course of action by purchasing the stock, which is not protected. There's still a chance for other arguments depending on TN law and precedent, but under basic legal philosophy he's without a leg to stand on once his actions move from refusing action to acting.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    02-25-2014 11:03 AM
  22. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I think the question would come down to if it's against the law or company policy to purchase items in such a way. Many companies forbid you to hide items or prevent their normal sale while you're working so that you can purchase them later. Depending on their policy, that could be an terminatable offense no matter what the product was or why he did it. If the purchase was legal under current laws, meaning not violating restrictions on quantity purchases and such, what he did after wouldn't really come in to play unless he sold them on the black market. Once he purchased the product, it's his to do whatever, be it destroy or let his wife use.

    So depending on company policy and other laws, the conscience clause may not even need to come into play in this specific case.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    02-25-2014 11:17 AM
  23. jdbii's Avatar
    In your opinion, does the law support Phillip Hall (the pharmacist who was fired) or does it support Walgreens?
    It is kind of an interesting case. You'd have to know more of the facts, but I don't think the conscience clause issue is even relevant in this case. I think any employee has a right to buy product off shelves, but procedure has to be followed when receiving shipment, processing, labeling, and putting on the shelf for sale to the public. The conscience clause issue might be relevant if Walgreens misinterpreted the Hall's right to refuse selling a product. For instance, if Walgreens believed conscience clauses only applied to behind the counter medication and to not over the counter products. So if Walgreens fired him for not selling a product he had a right to refuse to sell then it's relevant, but if they fired him for not following employee procedure then it's not.
    Scott7217 likes this.
    02-25-2014 11:42 AM
  24. Aquila's Avatar
    It is kind of an interesting case. You'd have to know more of the facts, but I don't think the conscience clause issue is even relevant in this case. I think any employee has a right to buy product off shelves, but procedure has to be followed when receiving shipment, processing, labeling, and putting on the shelf for sale to the public. The conscience clause issue might be relevant if Walgreens misinterpreted the Hall's right to refuse selling a product. For instance, if Walgreens believed conscience clauses only applied to behind the counter medication and to not over the counter products. So if Walgreens fired him for not selling a product he had a right to refuse to sell then it's relevant, but if they fired him for not following employee procedure then it's not.
    Agree with most of this, but his right to refuse to sell stops at refusing, when he takes action to prevent the sale by others then he's ineligible for the protections, if TN has such protections and his actions were otherwise covered. I think it'd be very difficult for the CC to be applicable.
    jdbii and Scott7217 like this.
    02-25-2014 11:47 AM
  25. The Hustleman's Avatar
    Some states allow pharmacists to refuse the dispensing of drugs that violate their personal beliefs.

    Pharmacist Conscience Clauses: Laws and Information

    This often comes up when pharmacists receive prescriptions for birth control pills. Some pharmacists are opposed to artificial contraception, and they can refuse to dispense birth control pills on moral grounds.

    What is your view on conscience clauses? Could they apply to other professions? In other words, can anyone be forced to do anything that goes against their conscience?
    I agree with them.

    While I DO agree with birth control and really don't see why anyone wouldn't, I wouldn't want anyone to be forced to distribute it if it is against their beliefs.

    I think that belief is stupid but dammit you have a right to stand up for your beliefs regardless how stupid they may be to others.

    It isn't like they are forcing you to not use birth control, they are simply saying you can't get it from THEM!


    I'll take my money elsewhere

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 2
    02-25-2014 05:20 PM
266 ... 891011

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-16-2013, 09:01 AM
  2. [APP][2.1+] Christmas Cake Recipes App (Santa Clause Approved!)
    By saroyama in forum Android App Inventor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-05-2013, 08:16 AM
  3. The 'Water Damage' Warranty Weasel Clause
    By BrockN in forum HTC One M7
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-14-2013, 11:24 PM
  4. SOLD.......with a guilty conscience.
    By corvette72778 in forum HTC EVO 4G LTE
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-18-2013, 12:33 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD