Walgreen Disciplines 4 Pharmacists (Religious Rights Alert!)

CBS ^ | November 30, 2005

[NYer]

(AP) Walgreen Co., the nation's largest drugstore chain by revenue, said it has put four Illinois pharmacists in the St. Louis area on unpaid leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule.

The four cited religious or moral objections to filling prescriptions for the morning-after pill and "have said they would like to maintain their right to refuse to dispense, and in Illinois that is not an option," Walgreen spokeswoman Tiffani Bruce said.

A rule imposed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich in April requires Illinois pharmacies that sell contraceptives approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control. Pharmacies that do not fill prescriptions for any type of contraception are not required to follow the rule.

Ed Martin, an attorney for the pharmacists, on Tuesday called the discipline "pretty disturbing" and said they would consider legal action if Walgreen doesn't reconsider.

At least six other pharmacists have sued over the rule, claiming it forces them to violate their religious beliefs. Many of those lawsuits were filed by Americans United for Life, the Chicago public interest law firm with which Martin is affiliated.

The licenses of both a pharmacy and that store's chief pharmacist could be revoked if they don't comply with the Illinois rule, Bruce said.

Walgreen, based in Deerfield, Ill., put the four on leave Monday, Bruce said. She would not identify them. They will remain on unpaid leave "until they either decide to abide by Illinois law or relocate to another state" without such a rule or law.

For example, she said, the company would be willing to help them get licensed in Missouri and they could work for Walgreen there.

Walgreen policy says pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions to which they are morally opposed, except where state law prohibits, but they must take steps to have the prescription filled by another pharmacist or store, Bruce said.

Bruce said Wednesday the four pharmacists were the first Walgreen had disciplined under the state's rule. Walgreen has 488 stores in Illinois, out of about 5,000 nationwide, with generally three to five pharmacists employed at each one.

It was not clear whether other large pharmacy chains had taken similar action.

Jean Coutu Group Inc., which owns more than 1,900 Eckerd and Brooks stores, requires its pharmacists to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, spokeswoman Helene Bisson said. But she wouldn't say if Jean Coutu has taken action similar to Walgreen.

CVS Corp., the nation's largest retail pharmacy as measured by number of stores, did not immediately return calls.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I do not allow others to dictate such things to me, as a customer. If my doctor and I have decided that I need some medication, the religious beliefs of the pharmacist at my local Walgreens is irrelevant."

As a matter of fact, as a customer you have no right to demand anything of a retailer other than that they obey the laws. Retailers might refuse to handle all sorts of merchandise that you want. They might boycott products from certain countries, or from certain manufacturers, or refuse to carry specific kinds of products, because they have a moral objection to something about the country, the manufacturer, or the product. For example, some stores no longer carry cigarettes; some do not carry "adult" magazines; some do not sell firearms; some sell only "free trade" items; the US government prohibits the import of Cuban cigars; some businesses sell only "organic" fruits and vegetables; and so forth. And my guess is that if you were a business owner, there might even be products that YOU would refuse to carry because of some moral objection. The real problem in the Walgreen's case is that the governor is telling Walgreen's what they have to sell; that is what I object to. When the government issues a blanket edict like that, it takes away all options for the pharmacists with moral objections to the abortion pill. It literally costs them their livelihood.

[The_Reader_David]

I support following the law and the dictates of your employer.

I would remind you that there have been well-known instances in recent times in some other countries where doing just that would put your immortal soul at peril and risk having you brought up on war-crimes charges.

If an individual has such a strong ideology that would prohibit him from doing so (especially knowing the situation in advance), then that individual needs to find an employer who will be more in line with those ideologies.

That would be fine, except that we are dealing with professions in which the state grants a regulated monopoly to a guild (usually called a professional society). It would serve the interests of the secularizing left very well if serious traditional Christians were excluded from all health-care professions. Your position, and regulations of the sort in question here, ultimately lead to that circumstance.

[Steve_Seattle]

It is possible that edicts like the governor's could lead to the formation of specifically Catholic/Christian - or perhaps even Islamic - pharmacies. If the market would support these enterprises, the governor might be providing an indirect incentive for the formation of small businesses and a reversal of the trend towards mega-pharmacies.

[mhking]

you are definitely not a conservative.

You don't get to dictate or define my conservatism. It's not your place, and your insinuations are not appreciated.

[mhking]

Or they could be like Wachovia, which apologized recently because one of its distant historic corporate antecedents owned slaves.

Apples and oranges. Keep your straw-man arguements (including your FRMail querying me about black abortions) to yourself.

[JohnnyZ]

You don't get to dictate or define my conservatism.

I call 'em like I see 'em -- unless you think you're the only one with a right to an opinion?

Take liberal positions, get called on it, go crying to JimRob. Real mature.

[MineralMan]

"you will insist the pharmacist lose his livelihood,
instead of getting in your car to drive to another drug store?"

Nope. If a pharmacist will not fill the prescriptions my doctor give me, I will move all my prescriptions to another pharmacist. I will not go to two stores for my medications. It's very simple.

[MineralMan]

"Would you feel the same way if one Walgreen's pharmacist were to tell you that, in order to have a prescription filled right away, you would have to go to another near-by Walgrren's?"

Been there, done that. One Walgreens near my home was always out of stock on one prescription or another. I took all of my prescriptions to another Walgreens, about a mile away. Apparently the one near me didn't bother to reorder properly.

I will not go to two pharmacies to get my medications or those of others. It just doesn't make sense. I will find one that can reliably fill them all...every time I need them.

[mhking]

Take liberal positions, get called on it

Oh, get a grip, get over yourself and get over your holier-than-thou position. Someone who disagrees with you is not automatically a liberal.

Please end the insults, and don't post to me any more.

[JohnnyZ]

Someone who disagrees with you is not automatically a liberal.

I laid out specifically why your position was liberal. Apparently you have difficulty constructing any argument beyond "No I'm Not!" and "I'm Telling!"

Do you really think characterizing someone's position as liberal is a "personal attack"? Is that why you keep pinging the moderator to defend you? Do you expect my comments to be removed, or me to be banned, because I criticize your stance? Now THAT is self-importance!

[mhking]

Do you expect my comments to be removed, or me to be banned, because I criticize your stance?

No, I expect them to ask you to end the personal attacks.

Finally, and once again, please do not post to me any more.

We obviously have nothing more to discuss.

[bourbon]

What Walgreens did to these employees is illegal in Mississippi.

---

Miss. Code Ann. § 41-107-5. Rights of Conscience of Health Care Providers.

(1) Rights of Conscience. A health care provider has the right not to participate, and no health care provider shall be required to participate in a health care service that violates his or her conscience. However, this subsection does not allow a health care provider to refuse to participate in a health care service regarding a patient because of the patient's race, color, national origin, ethnicity, sex, religion, creed or sexual orientation.

(2) Immunity from Liability. No health care provider shall be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for declining to participate in a health care service that violates his or her conscience. However, this subsection does not exempt a health care provider from liability for refusing to participate in a health care service regarding a patient because of the patient's race, color, national origin, ethnicity, sex, religion, creed or sexual orientation.

(3) Discrimination. It shall be unlawful for any person, health care provider, health care institution, public or private institution, public official, or any board which certifies competency in medical specialties to discriminate against any health care provider in any manner based on his or her declining to participate in a health care service that violates his or her conscience. For purposes of this chapter, discrimination includes, but is not limited to: termination, transfer, refusal of staff privileges, refusal of board certification, adverse administrative action, demotion, loss of career specialty, reassignment to a different shift, reduction of wages or benefits, refusal to award any grant, contract, or other program, refusal to provide residency training opportunities, or any other penalty, disciplinary or retaliatory action.

Sources: Laws, 2004, ch. 568, § 3, eff from and after July 1, 2004.

[orionblamblam]

>It is possible that edicts like the governor's could lead to the formation of specifically Catholic/Christian - or perhaps even Islamic - pharmacies.

Oh, there's a lovely thought.

Yes, I've come to pick up my prescription, praise Allah. That's the albuterol, aceon and ricin, please."

[Fawn]

30 years ago, my Catholic obstetrician would not perform a tubal ligation. Should he have lost his job, or should I have gone to another doctor?

It depends on what his job requirements were....determined by his employer.

[festus]

I didn't know that IL was now a dictatorship. I hope Dear Leader Blogojevich doesn't outlaw cheese or Episcopalianism tomorrow on a whim.

It may be but Blago is certainly not the dictator. He'll be gone in the next cycle because he pi$$ed in the wind so to speak.

[wardaddy]

speaking of this type of thing...i'm working to get my youngest daughter in private school here

see anything odd in this:

Father Ryan High School admits students of any race, color, national and ethnic origin to all the rights, privileges, programs and activities generally accorded or made available to students at the school. It does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national and ethnic origin in administration of its educational policies, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, and athletic and other school-administered programs. see anything odd in this:

and then two paragraphs later

Admissions preference in the freshman year is given to Catholics, students currently in parochial schools or religious education programs, siblings of current students or alumni, children of alumni, and minority students.

LOL...forget Father Ryan....hysterical isn't it?...they don't even think affirmative action is discriminatory

[syriacus]

Yes, or leave Illinois to practice for a state that does not legislate its morals (or lack thereof) onto its people.

If the Governor's rule is allowed to become the norm in Illinois, a pandora's box will be opened. Any person could be punished for being too humane.

1. Physicians could be punished for not performing abortions.
2. Nurses could be fired for attempting to give water to thirsty patients.
3. Prison employees could be fired for refusing to electrocute criminals.

Any person could get in trouble for not giving anyone anything that they want.

[xzins]

This is similar to the federal requirement for the military to grant special status to those who claim conscientious objection to war. The difference is that WalGreen's is a private business and not a governmental body. The FDA is, though, and maybe there's a way to tie in there.

I'd be afraid, if I were one of those pharmacists, about the reports of the drug causing deaths of the mothers. I wouldn't want to be part of any liability for prescribing the drug after such reports came out.

[syriacus]

I will move all my prescriptions to another pharmacist.

Good for you.

In other words....You'd treat the situation with that business establishment as you would treat any other establishment you deal with and are unhappy with.

I wonder why the Governor of Illinois thinks pharmacists should be punished by a gubernatorial fiat rather than by losing business.

Sounds like the governor has a dictatorial streak.

[syriacus]

It depends on what his job requirements were....determined by his employer

The governor of Illinois has told the employers what to do to their employees..