Posted on 01/27/2006 12:56:47 PM PST by wagglebee
ST. LOUIS, Missouri, January 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Target pharmacist has lost her job for refusing to dispense or refer for the abortifacient morning-after pill.
“For me, life begins with two cells,” said Heather Williams, explaining that the so-called emergency contraception pill, Plan B by Barr Pharmaceuticals, often prevents implantation of a newly formed human embryo within the uterine wall – which, of course, constitutes abortion. The same mechanism is responsible for the sometimes abortifacient effect of the regular birth-control-pill.
According to a St. Louis Post-Dispatch report, Williams has refused to dispense or refer for the abortifacient for the past five years while working as a part-time Target pharmacy employee. She argues that to refer patients to a dispensary where they can find them is equally immoral. “I just can’t be a link in the chain at all,” Williams said.
Williams, who is a mother of three, lost her job over the issue as of January 1. She filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of Missouri. She says, however, that the blame for her dismissal belongs to Planned Parenthood, not the Target store. Planned Parenthood has spearheaded efforts across the US to mandate that pharmacists co-operate in chemical abortion.
Williams and attorney Ed Martin have appeared on television to argue that pharmacists are the scapegoats in the battle over Plan B. Martin is also the attorney for four Walgreens pharmacists from across the river in St. Louis, Illinois, who lost their jobs for the same reason. The four refused to abide by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s decree mandating that pharmacists dispense the abortifacient.
Blagojevich warned Illinois pharmacists in April to dispense the abortifacient morning-after pill or face legal backlash – despite a state statute that exempts pharmacists from participating in practices contrary to their religious views.
Williams said that Target forced pharmacists state-wide to sign a “conscience clause” last fall agreeing to dispense the abortifacient or refer to another pharmacy that does. She wrote the chain a letter December 1 telling them she could not sign the clause. “We had to make sure it was in stock, and even give directions to the store,” she said. “I would be a participant.”
Williams is losing her job even though the Target store where she worked has never stocked Plan B.
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Walgreens Disciplines Four Pharmacists for Refusing Abortifacient Morning-After Pill Prescriptions
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05120102.html
No, again, she is required by her licensing to exercise her best judgement as a Pharmacist in filling or refusing to fill orders. She is not compelled to fill "all" orders and to ignore and abandon her judgement when she has questions about an order. She also is not required, I believe, to provide the name, address of another pharmacy when refusing to fill an order.
That's within the realm of consumer action, free to go wherever. Don't receive service, go somewhere else, is the usual course.
But as to the Pharmacist, I think she used her best judgement to refuse to fill an order. She is required by her licensing to do that, within her training to apply a set of considerations to what she dispenses and to whom.
I completely agree.
Indeed there is a difference. Of course explaining it to you would require an understanding of private industry not being beholden to you or anyone else because you 'feel' they should be. As I doubt you have that basic understanding, I'm not going to bother.
So, if a corporation which claims to consider a person's religious beliefs implements a NEW policy which disregards those beliefs that person should be fired rather than offered a different position that would not force them to violote their religious beliefs? I find this to be at odds with Target's stated EEOC diversity policies. But I guess I lack the "basic understanding" to comprehend that Target is in violation of it's published policy.
http://target.com/targetcorp_group/diversity/commitment.jhtml
Well, if she "lectured" the customer, which we don't know, then, yes, I agree there's unusual behavior there.
However, then we'd have to define what represented a non-professional "lecture," as in counselling. Something Pharmacists are supposed to do, at least as to offering some sort of explanation, I believe, if they are not able of filling an order.
Since the pharmacy didn't even stock the medication being requested, however, it does seem suspicious that the Pharmacist here simply didn't say that. I'm not sure what she said otherwise, but she is, again, required to meet certain behaviors and is supposed to provide drug counselling within a Pharmacists' scope.
Most pharmacists, in fact, promote themselves as places where patients can receive "advice" and a degree of "counselling" as to medications from a Pharmacist. And most pharmacies provide that.
So, without knowing specifically what this Pharmacist said, it's still an act of her profession to provide a degree of drug counselling on a medication, whatever's of subject.
Go to a different pharmacist. How tough is that?
But, a Pharmacist cannot be FORCED to fill an order. If they think you're behaving questionably or that the order is questionable in relationship to you, for whatever reason, they can quite literally refuse to fill it.
Let them offer her a different job. Outside of the pharmacy then. The article does not say but I imagine it's a possibility they could have. However if she is not willing to follow the policies that Target has set forth, it is not Target's responsibility byt hers.
I don't agree with abortion, nor do I shop at Target for other reasons (their failure to carry tobacco products for one), however I respect as a private corporation they have the right to employ only those who will follow company policy
I presume you have the basic understanding to know that a publicly traded company is bound by EEOC regulations. You may disagree with these laws, but they are still laws.
http://www.eeoc.gov/
Ah yes. Government intrusion into the private industry. Good to see 'conservatives' fully supporting such actions as it meets their needs...
If this was the policy when she took the job it would be different, but it isn't, it is a new policy.
Yes, but this particular "job" was amended after she was already on the job, from what the story says. She also has her licensing to consider and if a pharmacy/employer asks her to do something that poses a problem to her licensing, then a Pharmacist has an issue there that has to be raised, one way or another. Yes, she/he can get another job somewhere else, but, before that occurs, if there is some ethical quandray, I believe it's commendable, even, that someone in that situation speak out.
I think this is a case that is probably not as simple as many here are trying to make it so. It's not a simple matter of a basic employee refusing to 'do the job.'
Catholics do. At least those who recognize the Vatican.
She makes a choice. Either to choose to follow new company procedures or choose to find another job. It's not the responsibility of a private corporation to appease its employees. It is however the responsibility of a private corporation to make money for its investors. Nothing else
First of all, Target would make a lot more money selling tobacco and firearms than they would ever make selling these pills. But they refuse to sell these to appease some group or another.
What about this, if a private hospital required it's staff physicians to perform abortions, something that they had never done before, would you support them?
I'm not saying that what Target did was necessarily illegal, I'm saying it was wrong. And I'm saying that for that reason, pro-life consumers should hold them responsible. They backed down on "banning" Christmas, why not force them to back down on this?
She could and should decline to dispense pseudo-ephedrine if she thinks it will be used to produce methamphetamine. She could and should decline to dispense any other potentially fatal drug if the customer were to say, "I need this proscription now. As soon as I have it, I will deliberately overdose to end my life."
We expect competent professionals to fulfill their moral and professional duties.
ANYone can be sued. However, I do believe there is "room" there for physicians and pharmacists to refuse on certain standards under certain circumstances. Even if threat of loss of job, sometimes there are greater issues at stake but even still, people are fired all the time for unsupportable reasons. As are some also sued.
However, I do not know the laws that govern these myriad of issues, other than that people can still object under certain circumstances on both moral and ethical reasons, and in fact, the licensing for both physicians and pharmacists requires them to exercise a high degree of both in how and to whom they provide care, treatment, "drugs."
Yes, but that argument disallows consideration of the fact that a pharmacist is governed by the state licensing requirements and conditions and not "only" by employee/employer conditions.
If that was a requirement for a private hospital, yes I would. I would disagree with it, I wouldn't go to that hospital but I respect private property and the right of the owner of that private property to operate their business (as long as it's not illegal) as they see fit.
I'm not saying that what Target did was necessarily illegal, I'm saying it was wrong. And I'm saying that for that reason, pro-life consumers should hold them responsible
And in a free market, that is a fully acceptable practice. However this woman does not have a court case
No, pharmacists are licensed by the states. And are required to fulfill and uphold their licensing requirements, same principle as physicians, just different licenses and different educational requirements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.