AP: Kroger will fire pharmacists who refuse to dispense prescribed medications. Duh. They join CVS, Rite-Aid and Walgreen in pointing out that pharmacists could easily be replaced by vending machines and that nobody gives a damn about their “beliefs.”
Comments are closed.
Yep – simple solution for these folks. If you don’t want to do what your job entails … get a different job.
I believe that evolution doesn’t exist, therefore I will refuse to hand out anything other than penicillin! >____>
Hear, Hear!
A tentative hallelujah, but the article you linked to didn’t mention anything about firing anyone. Kroger’s policy came across in the article as kind of namby-pamby to me. Do you have more info about what kind of “teeth” Kroger’s policy has? This particular Kroger in Georgia didn’t carry Plan B b/c the pharmacist there objected to it. Now it (and all Krogers) must carry Plan B. But did Kroger’s policy actually say that a pharmacist’s refusal to stock it, or refusal to dispense it (or refusal to get a colleague on-site to dispense it that minute, without delay or inconvenience to the customer) would result in termination of that pharmacist’s employment with Kroger? (One would hope so.) I googled a bit to find out the latest, but came up lacking. Can you help me get the latest scoop on this?
Kroger is a union store and, believe it or not, MAY…MAY be on the verge of allowing partner benefits for gays.
My daughter works in the HR division of Kroger Mid-Atlantic and does diversity and inclusion training.There is a great deal of emphasis on treating all customers and employees equally well…gays included.
The company is NOT perfect but it is much, much more progressive than Wal-Mart,
Please shop Kroger or any other store besides Wal-Mart.
Pharmacists are required to dispense plan B and any contraceptive or medicine and if there is a pharmacist present who opposes that there is at least one pharm-tech who can count the medicine, at least, and ring the person up.
Call the Kroger Mid-Atlantic division in Roanoke, Virginia. They are located on Peters Creek Rd. and ask to speak to anyone in Human Resources. They will answer your question.
You’re right, it doesn’t say. I’d simply assumed that violating such a clear company policy that has such explosive results (lawsuit, boycotts, etc. — which is what led to their restatement in this instance) would result in being fired or that it would at least constitute a violation that would put the pharmacist on the path to being fired. A pharmacist that says that they’ll never abide by the policy would presumably be sacked right away. But, again, this was all what I assumed, but isn’t present in the AP article. Unfortunately, all I can find is more copies of that AP article and derivatives of it — nothing original.
“Kroger is a union store and, believe it or not, MAY…MAY be on the verge of allowing partner benefits for gays.”
Thanks for that info. I will definitely be shoping at Kroger more, even though their produce usually sucks.
Anytime you find ANYTHING at all wrong w/ produce or another product….. OR if there is an item you would like them to carry but they do not….go to a mgr. or asst. mgr. and ask. They will do everything in their power to accomodate you.
Being located in Cincinnati the corporate HQ is smack in the middle of a very conservative area. BUT Kroger attempts to be inclusive in all wyas. Of course top management is mostly white male BUT find a Fortune 50 compamy where that isn’t the case.
My daighter tells me…shop anywhere..Food Lion, Fresh Market, Whole Foods…JUST DON’T shop at Wal-Mart!!!
Glad to hear it. Bring on the health care benefits.
I can’t find the part of the Constitution that gives folks a right to pick up their abortion drugs from people who have a religous objection to dispensing them. I’ll keep looking. In the meantime, I gotta run out and grab some pork chops from the local halal butcher. See ya’s.
Of course, no one is actually asserting or talking about a constitutional right, here. Committed to fighting with your imagination, aren’t you?
If they have such strong religious beliefs that it gets in the way of them doing their job, then they should have become preachers and not Pharmacists.
On second thought, it’s Kroger that’s telling its employees what to do, not the government, so I don’t really have a problem with it. The objecting pharmacists are *free* to seek employment elsewhere.
I would, however, object to the government forcing Kroger or its employees to dispense prescriptions against which they have some religious objection. Interestingly, I guess that puts me on the side of some Muslim cabdrivers around Minneapolis-St. Paul who are refusing to offer rides to people carrying alcohol in their bags or on their person. Strange bedfellows.
Strange bedfellows? Hardly. More like birds of a feather.
Actually, I think you wouldn’t object to that — let’s think through the problem here.
As with all medical professions, pharmacy is regulated by the state. In Virginia, it’s the Virginia Board of Pharmacy. They determine who is or is not qualified to call themselves a pharmacist, as well as determine the standards that are used to set that standard. Now, the job of a pharmacist is to do one thing: to provide the medications that have been prescribed by doctors. Pharmacists do not get to decide what medicines patients will receive. They do not get to prescribe medications. Their sole job is to fill orders, acting as a sort of a common carrier of drugs. Their knowledge of patients is extremely minimal — generally they know only the person’s name and contact information along with what they have been prescribed.
For the Virginia Board of Pharmacy to permit pharmacists to decide for themselves what prescriptions that they care to fill would radically change what a pharmacist is. No longer is their job to fill prescriptions as determined by a physician (a physician who has examined the patient, become familiar with their medical history, their existing conditions, their needs as an individual, etc.) but, instead, to second-guess what a physician has already prescribed. Given pharmacists’ extremely limited familiarity with the patients, their lack of training in the matter of to whom they care to provide with medication, and the fact that they do not require training to make the sort of calls that doctors make on the appropriateness of medications, this would amount to a radical remaking of the pharmacy industry.
As with all regulated industries, it is the job of the government to set the standards that those industries must meet. Given that the fundamental mission of pharmacy is to dispense medications — to function as an advanced vending machine — it is not just in conflict with, but antithetical to the goal of pharmacy to allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense medications. It’s not clear to me how the medical system would function if pharmacists were given this sort of flexibility.
We can agree that when a doctor prescribes a necessary drug to a patient, it is imperative that the patient be able to receive that drug as quickly and easily as possible. Consequently, it’s necessary that the Virginia Board of Pharmacy put standards into place making that possible. One of those standards must be that pharmacists cannot arbitrarily decide what medications that they’re going to dispense to whom.
Plan P is not an abortion drug.
Waldo uses a key term here – “common carrier.” It encompasses a concept that I suspect a lot of modern “conservatives” would have a real problem with, if they thought about it. Common carriers (e.g., transportation providers, telecom services, etc.) are required to provide their services to all comers on a non-discriminatory basis, among other things. I bet there are no small number of “conservatives” that would happily tear down that (well-established) institution in favor of some model that fetishized individual choice above everything. Christian Airways, anyone?
(and Martha, I know that was a typo, but that was a pretty damn funny one)
I can certainly appreciate where you’re coming from, Waldo, and I want to reiterate that having belatedly realized the decision was one made at the corporate level and not by the feddle gummint, I’m cool with it. But I maintain the position that using the power of the state to compel people/companies to act in contravention of their religious beliefs is…well, bad.
Your glorified middleman argument notwithstanding, I bet there are some pharmacists would disagree that all they amount to are vending machines. They’re professionals, and just as a kosher butcher can’t be forced to sell pork, nor should a pharmacist be forced to fill prescriptions to which he has a religious objection.
I suspect you just roll your eyes at this argument b/c it just doesn’t seem like a big damn deal to you. If so, I know how you feel. Heaven forbid some cab driver in the Twin Cities should one day refuse me and my pal Johnnie Walker and brothers Blackie and Red a ride. But I think in the absence of obvious fraud you have to take people at their word regarding their religious beliefs.
Why? Is this that whole “special rights” thing I keep hearing about? People want to use their religious beliefs to claim exemption from the rules the rest of society is subject to?
I think there’s an essential distinction lacking here.
Most businesses are free — and should be free — to have this sort of flexibility. If a kosher butcher doesn’t want to sell pork, that’s OK. Nothing terrible happens if somebody can’t buy pork. But some businesses perform functions that are so essential to the functioning of society and our individual and collective well-being that the government sets standards for them and requires licensing. (Most of these industries are regulated because they have demanded that they be regulated.) In Virginia, the State Corporation Commission oversees most of these types of businesses.
Pharmacies are one such business that is so regulated. That’s because access to medication is a life-or-death proposition. So the state has established standards for its practice. The personal beliefs held by pharmacists are irrelevant when it comes to fulfilling their professional obligations, which includes dispensing prescirbed medications.
There are a great many examples of businesses that perform functions that are so essential that we regulate them and require licensing — that is, we recognize that they have to meet certain standards for society to function properly, regardless of the religious beliefs of their individual employees. For instance, power companies. A Jewish-owned power company that refuses to provide electricity on the sabbath should not be licensed. Duh. A cable company owned by a fundamentalist Christian who refuses to provide service to unwed mothers should not be granted a franchise license. Clearly. An insurance company owned by Muslims who refuse to provide insurance policies to Jews shouldn’t be licensed to practice by the state.
Likewise, pharmacists who don’t want to fill prescriptions because of their beliefs should probably find another line of business. Their job is to fill doctors’ prescriptions, and they may continue to do that so long as they meet the licensing standards established by the state of Virginia, standards set for the welfare of the commonwealth. Those pharmacists who have lost sight of their professional mission — providing medical relief for sick people — should lose their license, because the alternative is much worse.
Bah. How ridiculous that anyone should have to spell this issue out to someone. It’s really necessary to have a debate to determine that a pharmacist performs a different and more essential service to the community than a butcher? What’s next? Catholic pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for the pill?
Waldo, you make an interesting point about state certification. Doctors and lawyers have similar requirements. But doctors are not required to perform abortions, nor are lawyers required to defend child molesters. Neither of these professions are monopolies, so there are other options available.
The cable and power company examples you give are different. Consumers have virtually no choice about where to purchase those products. Insurance is more like doctors and lawyers (and pharmacists). Plenty of places to buy your insurance.
Doctors and lawyers don’t have to check their religious beliefs at their office door, and neither should pharmacists. Kroger is a private company and should be able to hire & fire whoever they want. But if a devoutly religious person chose to open up their own pharmacy, and didn’t fill every prescription presented to them, customers are free to go to CVS or elsewhere.
Oops.. Plan B…My daughter just had a baby and I am tired ( but not as tired as she is).
I spoke to her about the issue of firing a pharmacist over not dispensing medication and she said she doubted anyone would be fired without first receiving a stern warning.
Plan P….for progressives! ;-)
@jon: What about a creationist opening up a very successful chain of pharmacies that refused to dispense modern antibiotics? (Let’s say we’re in an alternate universe, the Fundiverse, where this is legal.) And suppose that pharmacy outcompeted all the others in the area. Now let’s say you get sick, and the doctor prescribes an antibiotic, to be started immediately. If you’re lucky enough to have a car, or a friend with a car, that’s fine. But many people wouldn’t.
I’m illustrating a very common scenario here — be glad that we don’t live in the Fundiverse. As Waldo said, pharmacies need to be neutral providers.
I thought it was Plan P for Pray! :)
~
So, Jon, are you on board with pharmacists declining to serve those of different religions, too? Or maybe some nice NOI guy who won’t fill the prescriptions of white people?
I’d honestly be quite interested in knowing, jon, Judge Smails, do you believe that a Scientologist pharmacist would be well within her rights to refuse an anti-psychotic drug to someone in need of it? What if the next nearest pharmacist is in the next town, and the person in question has neither the car nor money for a ride required to get it?
If this is totally acceptable, what is the proper thing for the soon-to-be-psychotic man to do in this situation?
As much as I am uncomfortable with the outcome in your hypothetical above, ultimately this is a philosophical disagreement about the role of government in regulating a service industry, and I would support the objections of a pharmacy not to fill scrips on religious grounds. But remember, just as freedom of the press in the publisher’s freedom to print what he wants and not the reader’s freedom to have printed what he wants, so, too, it should be the pharmacy owner’s policy and not set by individual employees willy-nilly.
Having said that, I think your hypo is pretty far-fetched. I believe the market would take care of most problems that would crop up by having the owner of the pharmacy instruct his employees to fill all scrips regardless of religious objections or seek work elswhere. The market is certainly at work in thousands of stores across the country where Muslim clerks happily sell beer and bacon to customers seemingly without a second thought. Religious objections tend to take a backseat to pocketbook issues.
If a person won’t dispense any prescribed drugs to any person with a prescription, he or she simply isn’t qualified to be a pharmacist. The motivation behind your refusal to meet the obligations of your job doesn’t matter, and I have no idea as to why it should.
If I’m comfortable lying to achieve the ends I think are right, I’m not qualified to be a lawyer. It’s really not all that complicated.
MB,
What you’re saying is true, but it has nothing to do with Judge Smails’ argument. If a drive “thru” attendant won’t serve burgers at McDonalds, obviously this person should and will be fired. But that doesn’t justify having a law about it.
Now, having said that, I’m a lot more comfortable not having a law about it in a profession such as drive-thru worker than I am with the dispensers of controlled and medically important substances.
I wish I was less busy today, so I could give a better follow-up to JS, but sadly, if I keep posting, someone will probably make a law to get me fired.
Ben, it’s only irrelevant if I’m misunderstanding Smails and he’s actually saying that he doesn’t have any objection to the pharmacists certification board (or whatever it is) requiring that they dispense upon request. And I’m pretty sure he does.
Ah, Judge Smails, your faith in the market is impressive, and normally I try to avoid arguing such religious beliefs, but it is a fact that there are thousands of towns across the country that have only one pharmacy (or none, despite some level of market demand for one), and if it supplies 90% of what its small community needs, it is extremely unlikely that “the market” will conjure up an alternative.
That’s an excellent point, but that just goes back to my point regarding a) training and b) common carrier status. Doctors and attorneys receive the training necessary to make calls like that, and they are also not in the business of assisting all comers.
Plus, there’s the more obvious practical point that being a pharmacist means that you provide all types of medications; there’s no such thing as a pharmacist who sells only painkillers or chemotheraputics. Doctors and attorneys specialize as a matter of routine. A doctor who chooses to perform abortions may not refuse to perform an abortion on a woman because he is Jewish and she is Muslim.
That sounds good in theory but, in practice, that’s not so. You’re coming from an urban mindset. In rural areas, often there is just one pharmacy.
I feel compelled to make another point, further to the matter of the matter of the relationship between pharmacist and patient vs. the relationship between doctor and patient. The job of a doctor, as I’ve explained, is to know his patient intimately. If the patient has endometriosis — as a member of my family does — then the doctor knows to prescribe birth control pills in order to prevent the crippling and painful pain associated with it. Another family member was prescribed birth control pills at a young age for hormonal reasons, basically functioning as a psychiatric treatment. Those birth controls pills have absolutely nothing to do with sex, pregnancy, or reproduction. These women know that and their doctors know that. Their pharmacists do not know that — they have no reason to know that. It would be ludicrous for a pharmacist to refuse to provide them with birth control pills on religious grounds pertaining to reproduction, because these drugs have absolutely nothing to do with reproduction. Should a pharmacist inquire of patients why they’re taking particular prescription drug? What if a 14-year-old girl is taking birth control for medical reasons and isn’t sexually active and she discloses this to the pharmacist? Is it OK for the pharmacist to refuse to provide the drug? What if she’s taking it for medical reasons but she’s also sexually active? Then is it OK for the pharmacist to refuse? What if she’s not sexually active but humiliated by being quizzed by a total stranger in a public place about her sex life (being 14), and she can’t get her pills at all? Is that OK? Do we accept that tradeoff to give pharmacists the freedom to interrogate girls about precisely why their doctor has prescribed a particular drug?
I ask these as questions, but we both know the answer. Of course this isn’t appropriate. These are matters that are between the girl and her doctor. Pharmacists receive no training on these ethical matters, and they should receive no training on the topic, because it’s simply none of their business.
This is all very much on my mind because I went to the doctor this morning, was diagnosed with bronchitis, and spent half an hour at the pharmacy waiting to have my prescription filled. There ain’t much else to do while waiting than cogitate.
As supporters of access to Plan B, we’re troubled by the situation in George and glad to see the discussion that has stemmed from it. Unfortunately incidents of women (and men too, now that Plan B is behind-the-counter for those age 18 and over) being refused happen more often than we probably know, including in Virginia.
There’s a national campaign going on right now to get a better sense of how major pharmacy chains are doing when it comes to EC. Click here to learn more and get involved: http://pillpatrol.saveroe.com/
One problem that is easy to overlook in a town like Charlottesville is what could happen if pharmacists were not regulated in areas that don’t have several pharmacies close by. What if one chain beats out all the competition in an area? We’ve nearly all witnessed the power of mega stores to wither strip malls to vacant lots, so the risk of monopoly even here in the near future does not strike me as extreme. You can have a lawyer that works on the other side of the country represent you with little difficulty. (Your also guaranteed one if you are arrested.) Having to drive to the nearest town that will fill your prescription on the other hand is not always that easy. Transportation is an issue I shouldn’t have to address here, but when weather conditions in Virginia are bad, no one should be forced to take long commutes because a pharmacist has personal issues with something their doctor has told them to take.
Well this is apropos.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24784_Minneapolis_Sharia_Watch&only
It seems some Muslim clerks at a Minneapolis Target are refusing to ring-up and bag bacon, pepperoni pizzas and the like due to the prohibition in the Koran about touching pork.
My initial reaction is that they don’t have to “touch” anything surrounded by plastic and cardboard, and the whole thing sounds like a put-up job. However, given my earlier defense of evangelical (or whatever) pharmacists, maybe I’m not being entirely fair. I don’t know. I’m not sure.
Ain’t no way to say that it’s OK for pharmacists to refuse to sell drugs that offend their delicate sensibilities but it’s not OK for Muslim clerks to refuse to sell pork.
Yeah, we agree on that. File it under non-foolish consistency.
Consistency is totally overrated.
Judge Smails:
I couldn’t get your link to work. So I’m going on your summery.
In fairness, I’ve noticed on a couple occasions, in grocery stores that display their meatpacking rooms, that the person that puts the meat into the plastic wrap is wearing the same gloves when they place it on the displays. As for pizza, I didn’t know Target even sold pizza. I’m guessing it’s probably like Sam’s Club pizza though, which several inches of cardboard could not save you from the grease of. To me it’s more of a health issue that should be rectified anyway. If the meat is wrapped and the wrapping guaranteed to be externally sanitized, then I’m going to need more info to respect their argument.
If a Muslim, or person of any faith, applies for a job and the person turns them down just because of they are Muslim, than it is religious discrimination. However, if someone applies for a job and when asked if they can fulfill the fundamental requirements of the job state that they cannot for moral reasons (supported by a religion or not), it only makes sense that the employer should have the right to choose another person in almost all relative scenarios. Did the Muslim employees not know they were applying for a job that required them to handle pork? I doubt it. Should job applications be more explicit as to what a job requires someone to do so that these things could be avoided in the future? Probably.
Another thing that needs to be considered here is that working a checkout counter is a basic clerk job. Once you have been trained in the skills required to operate the register, the transition from working at a grocery store to any general retailer is relatively simple. If you are working at a Target, than you’re already there. The skill is not bound to the specific job of handling meat products. This does echo the problems that can arise from mega stores that I mentioned before though.
Setting vegan/vegetarian versus omnivore diet debates aside, meat is nowhere near as essential as prescription drugs. Comparing the two products is like comparing gasoline to milk as if their availability was of equal importance. It also fails to address the major arguing point Waldo just brought up: Pharmacist normally do not know why you are taking a prescribed drug.