Judge Dismisses Wal-Mart Pharmacist's Contraception Suit
In Madison, WI a pharmacist was fired from Walmart because he refused to fill birth control prescriptions, blaming a violation of his Roman Catholic beliefs. The court found that the pharmacist was rightly terminated because the employer had accommodated his religous views by having other pharmacists fill birth control prescriptions. I think that his firing was warranted because he had a history of refusing to even find other assistance for the customers who needed birth control, and his service to them was found to be offensive. If an employer makes accommodations to appease a person's religious views, then that person should value the employer's effort and continue with his or her job, without attempting to make the problem worse, such as the pharmacist in this case did.
There was a bill that was sent to Congress that would allow pharmacists to refuse prescriptions due to their religious rights, and put the burden on the pharmacy to get the prescription filled rather than on the pharmacist or the customer. My question is, is this proposed mandatory accommodation a guaranteed undue hardship on the employer? Pharmacists have a highly technical job, and I don't feel as though there is an extensive number of pharmacists in every community prepared to get up and run to a pharmacy to hand out one prescription. Even if the employers were to find pharmacists who would distribute birth control, would they have to ask that in an interview just to be prepared? If so, wouldn't that be discriminatory hiring, to seek out someone who was not as conservative in their Christian (in this case) beliefs? In this case, I believe that our national laws which legalize birth control should supercede the religious right of the individual pharmacists, and there should not be legislation passed that would force an undue hardship on employers in order to protect the few pharmacists that decide they want to control the medicinal distribution. Any thoughts?
There was a bill that was sent to Congress that would allow pharmacists to refuse prescriptions due to their religious rights, and put the burden on the pharmacy to get the prescription filled rather than on the pharmacist or the customer. My question is, is this proposed mandatory accommodation a guaranteed undue hardship on the employer? Pharmacists have a highly technical job, and I don't feel as though there is an extensive number of pharmacists in every community prepared to get up and run to a pharmacy to hand out one prescription. Even if the employers were to find pharmacists who would distribute birth control, would they have to ask that in an interview just to be prepared? If so, wouldn't that be discriminatory hiring, to seek out someone who was not as conservative in their Christian (in this case) beliefs? In this case, I believe that our national laws which legalize birth control should supercede the religious right of the individual pharmacists, and there should not be legislation passed that would force an undue hardship on employers in order to protect the few pharmacists that decide they want to control the medicinal distribution. Any thoughts?
posted by Mike Grady at
7:59 AM
3 Comments:
This case brings up some very tough questions. In this particular situation, the pharmacist clearly violated his duty to the patients by refusing to allow even other pharmacists to fill the birth control prescriptions or answer questions. It is one thing to hold a strong belief and refuse to PERSONALLY take certain actions that go against those beliefs, yet it is an entirely differt issue to impose those beliefs on others through your actions (or lack there of). In this case, the pharmacist was essentially imposing his own beliefs on certain patients by not providing them with the opportunity to get the medication that they needed. What if the patient had been a young girl who had just been raped and was seeking the morning after pill? It is a controversial drug, but it is still a legal one. There is absolutely no reason that this girl shouldn't be given the means to obtain this drug. Everyone has the right to their own beliefs. Just because their beliefs differ from those of the pharmacist's does not mean that they should be denied care. In some ways it seems that denying them care is in a sense denying the legitimacy of their own beliefs. That is certainly not what this country stands for.
Mike,
I think that the proposed bill that creates a burden for the pharmacy to fill a prescription if the pharmacist refuses is posing quite the undue hardship on the employer. Particularly in the Midwest because traditionally it is referred to as part of the "bible belt."
Putting the burden on the employer forces them to HAVE to know what religion all of their employees are so they can plan to have a pharmacist available to fill birth-control prescriptions at all times. This introduces a whole host of legal problems for the employer that can almost guarantee the employer will be sued for religious discrimination.
I believe there are important issues that need to be addressed relating to Mike's suggestion of making national laws surrounding birth control supercede pharmacist’s moral decisions. This type of legislation allows the government to directly impose decisions on pharmacists that may conflict with their religious views. This would be a direct violation of an individual's constitutional right to abide by their moral obligations based on their religious beliefs. The bill that was sent to Congress inherently address this issue by placing the burden or responsibility on the pharmacy in general because the government can not willing interfere with the religious beliefs of an individual, or risk violating their constitutional rights. I understand that the burden placed on any pharmacy that has to rely on other pharmacists to fill controversial prescriptions is quite difficult and at times potentially impractical on many levels. Based on these assessments, I can foresee many pharmacies claiming the affirmative defense for accommodations to these religious pharmacists' actions. The final decision, ultimately, regarding the constitutional rights to deny people their prescriptions due to religious beliefs will be up to the judicial courts. However, creating legislation that allows the government to influence individuals' decisions that may be in conflict with their religious beliefs is unacceptable.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home