Prescription for firings: Call Walgreens boycott

WorldNetDaily ^ | 12/3/05 | WorldNetDaily

[gcruse]

What would you do if a new law was enacted that made you violate your religious beliefs?

The law would require a pharmacist to sell approved drugs.  The law would not require you, however, to BE a pharmacist in the face of it.  You would find other employment and someone else would take your job.

[wagglebee]

The one the governor of Illinois enacted through executive order. These pharmacists were trained PRIOR to the development of these drugs and for years worked without being forced to dispense them.

[ARCADIA]

What would you do if a new law was enacted that made you violate your religious beliefs?

You are responsible for the choices you make, not the conditions that are imposed upon you.

[wagglebee]

They were pharmacists before the law was passed.

[gcruse]

I was licensed to drive before seatbelts were required. Should I be immune to tickets for not buckling up?

[minus_273]

as much as i disagree with abortion, I think you hit the nail on the head. I am sure they knew they would have to fill prescriptions like this. This is like joining a religious organization and demanding equal time for other religions. You know what you are getting into when you join.

[evad]

I agree; you should either abide with your employer's policy or resign.

Sergeant: "Corporal, take that hill".

Corporal: "Sorry sarge, that goes against my better judgement so I must refuse to acquiesce to your request".

Sergeant: "Son, didn't you agree when you signed on that you would have to fight".

Corporal: "Sure, but I reserve the right to pick and choose what fights are proper...and this ain't one of them".

[usmom]

And just what, pray tell, do you think that a pharmacist's 'job' is? To fill every prescription that comes by without thought, like a machine? Pharmacists refuse to fill various presciptions every day for many different reasons: drug interactions, allergies, wrong doses, forgery, legal parameters, etc... They are individually licsened professionals and are entitled (and expected)to make use their own judgments, clinical and otherwise in their practice. The pharmacists in question feel that this medication causes fetal harm (as do many other medications that they would get sued for dispensing to a pregnant woman). They are absolutely justified in making the call to choose not to dipsense a drug that will result in a miscarriage/abortion and should not be punsihed for it. There are consience clauses for doctors and nurses, why not pharmacists? The patient can simply go to another pharmacy/pharmacist that has no problem dispensing it and still get access to this drug- they are not being denied access to 'women's health care'!

[CindyDawg]

Yeah, all pharmacists in the state could get together and give the state a notice of intent to walk off the job and let government pharmacies fill RXs. It worked with doctors..

[sittnick]

The boycott is against the wrong entity. They were jsut following state law, as I understand things.

Actually, state law protects the pharmacists. Blago's executive order is in conflict with state law.

[rawhide]

Agreed, if they had issues, they should have just quit.

So if the government stepped and required all doctors in a hospital to perform abortions, if any abortions are performed in the hospital, would that be okay with you? The hospitals would then be right in firing all the doctors who did not want to perform abortions? Doesn't matter how long a distenguished career the doctor may have had at this hospital?

[evad]

BOY, are you mixing apples and oranges.

There is no comparison between the examples you give and refusal to perform your job.

Good try though.

[BooksForTheRight.com]

this is what happens when liberals are elected.

[ARCADIA]

The pharmacists in question feel that this medication causes fetal harm (as do many other medications that they would get sued for dispensing to a pregnant woman).

LOL, the drug is designed to cause fetal harm. The perscription calls for fetal harm. This pharmacist doesn't have a leg to stand on. If they want to make political statements they should open their own shop.

[flashbunny]

that might work if all the pharmacists didn't like the law.

There would likely be enough liberal pharmacists left to thwart that kind of walkoff.

[Balding_Eagle]

Then their focus should be the Governor.

[CindyDawg]

Maybe. I was thinking doctors and you know those guys. THey stick together:')

[sittnick]

Then their focus should be the Governor.

The lawsuits have already been filed against the governor's illegal executive order. (By the way, Walgreen's is based in Illinois and a Walgreen's director is on the state run pharmacy committee.)

I find it interesting that those who support Walgreens' "right" to fire employees (in this case a professional who knows what he is doing better than most of management) but doesn't like it when folks who object to the immoral policy take their business elsewhere in an organized manner. (Osco, here I come.)