News – A state appeals court upheld sanctions Tuesday against a pharmacist who refused to dispense birth control pills to a woman and wouldn't transfer her prescription elsewhere. The 3rd District Court of Appeals ruled that the punishment the state Pharmacy Examining Board handed down against pharmacist Neil Noesen did not violate his constitutional rights.
Didn't the pharmacist know that Kmart sold contraceptives when he applied for the job?
I could understand that he had scruples. He should have found somebody to help the customer. It is not the duty of a catholic pharmacist to preach from the pharmacy counter nor violate the right of the costumer to be freely responsible for his/her decisions.
How could we accept the death of an Emergency Room patient because the doctor refused to order a blood transfusion on religious grounds?
FINALLY there is a court decision recognizing that an individual's beliefs should not be forced on others !! I am so sick of the religious right attempting to infect the rest of us with their wacko 'truths'.....they are allowed to practice their beliefs and the rest of us should enjoy the same privilege !!
"I am so sick of the religious right attempting to infect the rest of us with their wacko 'truths'....."
Don't forget to lump the "religious left" in with that rant.
What makes you think this pharmacist isn't a democrat? The story quotes him as saying he is a "devout Roman-Catholic," not a devout Republican. There are pro-life democrats out there full of religious zeal. And there are pro-choice Republicans out there who are atheists (holding hand up). It will shock you to learn I am not alone.
This appology of a human being should have been sentenced to retraining in a career where his religious beliefs wouldn't interfere with other people's (not of his faith) beliefs. IE. Priest.
Other than that, how long before the young lady files a lawsuit against him and or Kmart, and with any luck, wins either/both ?
Let me guess, as an employer you are not allowed to ask about religious beliefs when hiring ?????
But you are allowed to ask in your religious belief's will interfere with the performance of your duties.
crg-
I'm not sure about that. You can't discriminate in the workplace based upon religion so I'd say, like age, that's one area that definitely should not come up during an interview. If someone's religion interferes with their job then an employer needs to try and accommodate their religious beliefs if possible. Like maybe having a different pharmacist handle prescriptions for birth control.
I am also Catholic and deplore that pharmacist's refusal to do his job. At the very least he should have asked another pharmacist to take over or advise the woman how she could have had her prescription filled. To impose his religious beliefs upon others in the performance of his job is just plain wrong. He should find another line of work or obtain a position in the pharmacy of a Catholic hospital if that pharmacy clearly makes it known that it does not handle birth control products.
His attitude is entirely presumptive. The exact same pills are used in various treatments to make some women fertile. It is none of his business AT ALL what drugs others take that are prescribed by their doctors, unless he knows from his records that some drug interaction was not taken into account.
It never should have come to this. K-mart should have intervened by complying with the customer's request. That, or have fired the pharmacist for intruding his sense of ethics upon a customer whose request for a product K-mart is legally allowed to dispense and the customer is legally allowed to purchase.
Will conservatives that are forever complaining about frivolous lawsuits now jump on the bandwagon again and rant about how this adjudication that defends an individual's rights to receive the service that it's legally bound to receive? I won't hold my breath to wait for an answer.
"Will conservatives that are forever complaining about frivolous lawsuits now jump on the bandwagon again and rant about how this adjudication that defends an individual's rights to receive the service that it's legally bound to receive?"
Mangled sentence aside, it appears you assume the pharmacist is conservative when, in fact, he only said he is a "devout Roman-Catholic." Lots of Catholics are Democrats. The Kennedys, Tip O'Neil, John Kerry, etc., etc.
I'm guessing the running assumption he likely is conservative is based less on the fact of his Catholic beliefs than it is on the fact he invokes his beliefs -- religious, secular, whatever they may be -- in order to constrain the Liberties of other people. Conservatives are known for that. Liberals, not so much.
Well, I guess those lawbreakers involved with the Underground Railroad back in the day should have just let the black slaves get sent back to their masters instead of getting all huffy about their belief that slavery is fundamentally depraved. It's not as though baby killing is all that much less depraved, you know.
(no, I have too much scientific understanding of the medical field to buy that crap about babies that can't yet scream loudly in pain being less than humans deserving of the right to life and self-determination. if you want legal infanticide, just strike up the band, tell the parents it's the will of Baal, and toss the little rug-rats in an open fire - it worked for Carthage until the Romans and the Greeks out-bred and out-fought the baby-burning monsters! and yes, the Romans and Greeks DID think that the Carthaginians were monsters because of it)
Jack-
You make a good point, but you're off in a couple of ways.
1. You say you have "too much understanding of the medical field" so you surely can't be comparing birth control that prevents sperm from fertilizing an egg to "infanticide." Surely as someone with great scientific understanding you know an infant is a child that's been born and doesn't refer to an ovum.
2. Birth control is a matter of family planning and as such it's a fundamental constitutional right. See Griswold v. Connecticut, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connec... There are very few fundamental rights.
3. Concerning civil disobedience if someone doesn't like the shackles that confines slaves then maybe they should get out of the shackle business. That's the best kind of civil disobedience and would make the strongest statement. When you choose to be in the business of serving the public you can't pick and choose what public to serve.
hilarious,
You, of all people, should know better. But then again, I can't depend on you to read what I wrote accurately.
The pharmacist may be Catholic, Irish, Italian, Czech, Chinese, African, Spanish, or whatever. He may be an independent, Libertarian, Republican, or Democrat. He may be Liberal on some issues and Conservative on others. But one thing's for sure, he's putting his religion above the Constitution and for that he's totally wrong. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's." I guess he doesn't understand that and neither do you.
The pharmacist, no matter what his religious beliefs, had no right to refuse that prescription. It's disgusting when people try to force their religious beliefs down another person's throat...if the guy was that adamant against dispensing birth control pills, he should never have become a pharmacist in the first place. Perhaps he'd be happier joining the priesthood.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
MacBookForMe
slashup67
asolious
fyuuuuut
daviant701973
rontravel
daviannewton651975
adrielh791966
Emmanuel70
noone321
maneetion
roseannezeal
oliviadavis
Dean129
OnionHead
askripko
opi.cz.ka
TimALoftis
Bacalao
garier
karakuma
pagey
newsarefree
mesodude
gamahuche
satansatan
cactushair
MidnightPrism
BillSmythe
petter
neer1010
OhDear
obannonsleap
MrsX
MrsVIP
MrsHousewife
MrsAnn2008
MaMaBear08
LadyXXX
LadyPanther
LadyMS
AlphaGnosis
Neophile
JustSayHi
HoneyBear911
HiHoney
TGrass3001
GreenBayFan
bizexpert
morke
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
33)
Vote
One of the good decisions of our courts lately.
The Pharmacist has a right to not dispense birth control if he/she feels it is immoral. On the other hand since this was a medical prescription from the womans doctor the Pharmacist MUST transfer that prescription to another Pharmacy where it can be filled.
Never should the moral standards of a medical service provider prevent a patient from receiving treatment or medications from another source if that provider morally will not comply. In all those cases the patient has a right to expect their wishes and prescriptions will be transferred to another provider who will comply.
I would go so far as to strip this pharmacists of his/her license for life for letting his/her morals get in the way of a patients treament.
i absolutely concur with ian!
Actually, this is BS. A Pharmy has the right to dispense RXs, not practice medicine. His / Her moral judgment needs to be left at home. To do otherwise is professionally unsound.