WTF? Why wasn't that jerk fired?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Eckerd spokeswoman Joan Gallagher said she could not give details of the disciplinary actions, but said the pharmacist had violated company policy.

"A pharmacist is obliged to fill a prescription if it is a valid, legal prescription," she said. "We do not make exceptions for any moral, religious or ethical concerns with regard to filling the prescription."
I think it's obvious that, whether or not you agree with his morals, the pharmacist broke company policy. He should either conform with policy, or get a new job.
So once a company establishes a policy, it is above reproach, and bears no more scrutiny on moral grounds?

 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,216
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
Eckerd spokeswoman Joan Gallagher said she could not give details of the disciplinary actions, but said the pharmacist had violated company policy.

"A pharmacist is obliged to fill a prescription if it is a valid, legal prescription," she said. "We do not make exceptions for any moral, religious or ethical concerns with regard to filling the prescription."
I think it's obvious that, whether or not you agree with his morals, the pharmacist broke company policy. He should either conform with policy, or get a new job.
I think he should stay, make them fire him, then sue the company.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Gaard
Eckerd spokeswoman Joan Gallagher said she could not give details of the disciplinary actions, but said the pharmacist had violated company policy.

"A pharmacist is obliged to fill a prescription if it is a valid, legal prescription," she said. "We do not make exceptions for any moral, religious or ethical concerns with regard to filling the prescription."
I think it's obvious that, whether or not you agree with his morals, the pharmacist broke company policy. He should either conform with policy, or get a new job.
I think he should stay, make them fire him, then sue the company.

Actually, something like that just happened here in W Michigan. One of the largest chains (Meijer's) fired a lady for refusing to work on a Sunday (religion). She sued and won.

 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,678
362
126
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: Gaard
Eckerd spokeswoman Joan Gallagher said she could not give details of the disciplinary actions, but said the pharmacist had violated company policy.

"A pharmacist is obliged to fill a prescription if it is a valid, legal prescription," she said. "We do not make exceptions for any moral, religious or ethical concerns with regard to filling the prescription."
I think it's obvious that, whether or not you agree with his morals, the pharmacist broke company policy. He should either conform with policy, or get a new job.
I think he should stay, make them fire him, then sue the company.
We used to have this nut that worked for my company. He would refuse to do certain jobs because of his religion. I wish they would have fired his ass for it.

 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
i thought they handed out morning after pills at abortion clinics [or planned parenthood, or whatever theyre called]
 

SNC

Platinum Member
Jan 14, 2001
2,166
200
106
Is there a law that says that he has to fill every script that comes across his desk?
I dont think so. Instead of pickiting the store the, nothing beter to do, crowd might look into the idea of forming a watch group and help stop the next rape. Get a life, go to another store and fill the script. A drug like that should not be at the local wallgreens anyway. Keep this stuff at the doctors.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Gaard
Eckerd spokeswoman Joan Gallagher said she could not give details of the disciplinary actions, but said the pharmacist had violated company policy.

"A pharmacist is obliged to fill a prescription if it is a valid, legal prescription," she said. "We do not make exceptions for any moral, religious or ethical concerns with regard to filling the prescription."
I think it's obvious that, whether or not you agree with his morals, the pharmacist broke company policy. He should either conform with policy, or get a new job.
So once a company establishes a policy, it is above reproach, and bears no more scrutiny on moral grounds?
Scrutiny = disregard ?

 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
in china, they make you give birth to your 2nd baby, then right after the baby comes out they shove a needle into the baby's head and fill it with fluid usually poison, and they make the mother watch all this so that she "learns" her lesson.

it's an "after birth" abortion
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
seriously, what type of doctor can go around all day puncturing babies' skulls with needles? guess they don't take the medical oath over there. let's hope their robots follow asimov.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: Gaard
Eckerd spokeswoman Joan Gallagher said she could not give details of the disciplinary actions, but said the pharmacist had violated company policy.

"A pharmacist is obliged to fill a prescription if it is a valid, legal prescription," she said. "We do not make exceptions for any moral, religious or ethical concerns with regard to filling the prescription."
I think it's obvious that, whether or not you agree with his morals, the pharmacist broke company policy. He should either conform with policy, or get a new job.
So once a company establishes a policy, it is above reproach, and bears no more scrutiny on moral grounds?
Scrutiny = disregard ?
I would argue that they are linked. Protesting aginst something is quite often done by ignoring it or disregarding it. Doing so would certainly bring "it" under scrutiny and quite possibly vice versa.

For the record I am not saying I agree or disagree with what he did.

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
in china, they make you give birth to your 2nd baby, then right after the baby comes out they shove a needle into the baby's head and fill it with fluid usually poison, and they make the mother watch all this so that she "learns" her lesson.

it's an "after birth" abortion

Is this true?
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: fitzhue
Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
You shouldn't do anything you consider wrong no matter the consequences. Hats off to the fellow. WHy should he be forced to give out abortion pills if he feels it is wrong. They have no other pharmacies or pharmacists?
Next thing you guys will be saying that doctors should be forced to perform abortions whther they like it or not.I wouldnt give someone an abortion pill either.
Regardless of his moral standards...its his fricken job.
So are you saying that morality has no place in the workplace? That morality has no bearing on how one conducts themselves professionally?
When he took the job of pharmacist did he or did he not know that he might have to disperse morning after pills? If he did know, then he should not have taken the job.
How long has the morning after pill been available?
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Are pharmacists licensed?
Yes.

He should have his pulled.
Why?

I don't approve of his actions, but I think someone should play devils advocate here.

Lawyers don't have to take cases that they morally object to, why should a pharmacist be forced to fill a prescription that violates his personal moral code? I agree that his employer should be able to fire him (I have no objections to that), but I don't see why his license should be pulled.
There are other pharmacists who would (and I assume did) fill the prescription, right?

I usually agree with most you say.. BUT .. What if a KKK Member was a Doctor or a Radical Muslim were a doctor and the KKK member refused treatment to Blacks and the Muslim refused treatment to anyone with blue-eyes or christians? Those are their beliefs and they are allowed to feel that way if they wish.. but they cannot practice it in the workplace... they can walk past a dying black, blue eyed person or christian in their private life but never when they are supposed to be fulfilling their employment obligations.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
in china, they make you give birth to your 2nd baby, then right after the baby comes out they shove a needle into the baby's head and fill it with fluid usually poison, and they make the mother watch all this so that she "learns" her lesson.

it's an "after birth" abortion

Is this true?
Not sure, but I do know that China practices gruesome forms of Abortion. I.e. banging a baby's head on a metal table to crack it's skull. I've not a link for this, but Reader's Digest around 95 had an article about it. I think they are fairly credible.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Tripleshot
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Are pharmacists licensed?
Yes.

He should have his pulled.
Why?

I don't approve of his actions, but I think someone should play devils advocate here.

Lawyers don't have to take cases that they morally object to, why should a pharmacist be forced to fill a prescription that violates his personal moral code? I agree that his employer should be able to fire him (I have no objections to that), but I don't see why his license should be pulled.
There are other pharmacists who would (and I assume did) fill the prescription, right?

I usually agree with most you say.. BUT .. What if a KKK Member was a Doctor or a Radical Muslim were a doctor and the KKK member refused treatment to Blacks and the Muslim refused treatment to anyone with blue-eyes or christians? Those are their beliefs and they are allowed to feel that way if they wish.. but they cannot practice it in the workplace... they can walk past a dying black, blue eyed person or christian in their private life but never when they are supposed to be fulfilling their employment obligations.
No. Since when was equal protection passed on to those wanting to abort a fetus or take a morning after pill? In short -- it isn't and will never be.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,420
11,637
136
Originally posted by: dahunan
I usually agree with most you say.. BUT .. What if a KKK Member was a Doctor or a Radical Muslim were a doctor and the KKK member refused treatment to Blacks and the Muslim refused treatment to anyone with blue-eyes or christians? Those are their beliefs and they are allowed to feel that way if they wish.. but they cannot practice it in the workplace... they can walk past a dying black, blue eyed person or christian in their private life but never when they are supposed to be fulfilling their employment obligations.
Excuse me, but your analogy is deeply flawed. I am Pro-Choice, but I must disagree. Since when did those wanting an abortion become a protected class? This is not an issue of racial or religious bigotry. Nor was it a life-or-death situation.
 

Fatdog

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2000
1,001
0
76
Originally posted by: Vic........... This is not an issue of racial or religious bigotry. Nor was it a life-or-death situation.

No, it's about a woman that had been raped and was trying to fill a prescription for a "day after pill" to hopefully rid herself of anything leftover from her experiance. Yes she filled it at a different pharmacy, but it speaks volumes about the character of the pharmacist at the first place.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,420
11,637
136
Originally posted by: Fatdog
Originally posted by: Vic........... This is not an issue of racial or religious bigotry. Nor was it a life-or-death situation.
No, it's about a woman that had been raped and was trying to fill a prescription for a "day after pill" to hopefully rid herself of anything leftover from her experiance. Yes she filled it at a different pharmacy, but it speaks volumes about the character of the pharmacist at the first place.
His character is not in question either.

His right to make a personal moral choice is.

And as I am Pro-Choice (which you editted out), I see this as a similar personal moral choice to a woman's right to have an abortion in the first place. It's just a wee bit hypocritical to fight for a woman's individual right to choose to have an abortion and then fight against a doctor's or pharmacist's individual right to choose not to provide one, don't you think?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Should the pharmacist have that right if it goes against his employer's rules?
 

Fatdog

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2000
1,001
0
76
I don't believe so, not when you're in that type of position.

Dispensing valid, approved medications to people in need should be paramount, not interjecting your personal beliefs onto others. I'm all for people having any and all morals they like, but when they affect other people in need, then they need to look past it and do their job, or find another.

Not that it should matter, but I'm pro-choice as well.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Gaard
Should the pharmacist have that right if it goes against his employer's rules?
I just watched 'The Green Mile' the other day. I have a pretty good idea what my answer to your question would be.:) I'm just glad I didn't have to make that sort of decision.

CkG
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,420
11,637
136
Originally posted by: Gaard
Should the pharmacist have that right if it goes against his employer's rules?
His employer's rules are different than the laws which govern his pharmacist license, and I would have no issues if they decided to terminate his employment over this.
I think I already posted such in this thread.
I would think it a shame if the only reason they did it was to kow-tow to public pressure.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I'm not talking about this guy in particular, I'm talking about a broader question of whether morality should have any bearing on how someone conducts themselves professionally.
Physicians . . . well some physicians lie (or fudge) b/c if they don't some patients will not get the services they need. Lying is certainly always unethical but in these cases the rules do not serve the patient . . . they serve some system. Denial of necessary (but not emergent) care is immoral but our healthcare system has a variety of rules that make such denial of care . . . ethical.

Plan B . . . I forget the name of the other one in the US
How does Plan B work?
Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by delaying ovulation or preventing fertilization. In addition, it may inhibit implantation by altering the endometrium. Plan B is not effective if a woman is pregnant. Plan B is contraception and cannot terminate an established pregnancy.
Medicine . . . and in particular . . . pharmacology is an evolving (yet inexact) science. Even if you believe life begins at fertilization, Plan B is still most likely acting as conception control NOT birth control (abortifacent). Assuming all of the above actions occur with Plan B, then by his actions . . . the pharmacist actually INCREASED the odds that Plan B would induce an abortion instead of being conception control.

EDIT for clarity: Plan B activity:
1) Delays ovulation: No egg . . . no fertilization . . . no pregnancy.
1') Prevents fertilization: Mucking up the physiological changes necessary to make the egg receptive to sperm penetration . . . no fertilization . . . no pregnancy.
2) Inhibits implantation: Now it gets interesting. Plan B impairs implantation. No implantation leads to loss of zygote. It's an open debate about whether that's an abortion. My understanding is that most OB/Gyns do NOT consider failed implantation to be an abortion/miscarriage. But for anyone guided by their religious principle of conception . . . clearly this would probably qualify as abortion.
3) Plan B is NOT an abortifacent per se: If the egg is fertilized and implants in the endometrium. You be pregnant. You will get all the side effects of taking Plan B but it will not change the natural history of pregnancy. Unlike RU-486 (mifepristone) which is indeed a straight up abortifacent.

The dramatic (time-dependent) fall off in efficacy for Plan B favors 1 and 1' as the primary mechanisms of action. #2 cannot be ruled out but that just makes a case for making Plan B OTC. If you are not opposed to other forms of contraception then VERY early use of Plan B is nothing controversial.

The take home message is that this pharmacist should be quided by knowledge, his ethical responsibility to serve patients in need, and his morality. IMHO, his lack of knowledge is the problem not his morality. Granted, he helps highlight the issue of why pharmacists should have minimal control over prescription drug utilization.

Studies of Plan B
 

Shad0hawK

Banned
May 26, 2003
1,456
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Another situation where a Fund A Mental Case Whacko projects his own morals on someone else. He should not only be fired, he should have his license revoked!

ahhh, i have been gone a long time(playing lots of cal of duty and working)


did you notice the irony/self contradiction of your statement? of course not...your to busy pushing your ideas on others yourself to notice.

i suppose it also goes unnoticed by the baby killing whackos that murdering a baby just because the mother was raped is somehow "morally acceptable" and the idea is pushed on others by people who say you should not push your morals on soemone else... the baby did not do anything, why kill it? is it somehow the baby's fault and thus deserving the death penalty?

why not look at it from the pharmacists point of view?(or as usual just do not and call yourself "open minded" anyway) maybe he did not want to be what in his mind an accomplice to murder...but then again why should his idea of morality be important when we have PC to be morality instead to be pushed on the masses.

to date almost 50 million babies have been murdered, and only 1% were actually "medically neccesary" to preserve the life of the mother.

kudo's to the pharmacist for not letting himself to be forced to act against his moral beliefs in the name of political correctness and the nazi hypocrites who try to force it on everyone else.

 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,902
4
81
I thought that the morning after pill was not an abortion? Listening to Loveline, they say it just suppresses ovulation or something like that.

KK
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY