Switch Theme:

European Court hands down decisions in four religious rights cases  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Douglas Bader






 sebster wrote:
But with that issue the bigger can of worms is when it's the owner of the business who doesn't want to fill prescriptions. Does he have the right to pick and choose what medicine he offers to the public? Or is that once you open your doors to the public then you lose some of the right to pick and choose what services you'll offer and to whom? Or can a business owner sell whatever he likes, to whoever he likes?


General business selling non-essential things? Sure. If you're a grocery store owner and don't want to sell alcohol because of your religion, that's fine. Alcohol isn't an essential service and the only harm done is the potential profit you're throwing away.

With a pharmacy things are different since we have a system where the only legal way to get necessary medical products and services is through approved sources. Since the options for "go elsewhere" are greatly reduced it's fair for society to expect that the privilege of having a pharmacy license also carries an obligation to provide the full range of products and services.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Opening a can-o-worms here, but some Pharmacist refuses to fill birth-control pills too...


Refusing to fill birth control is an interesting one. I mean, I think clearly if an employee refuses to fill it his boss has the right to fire him for refusing to perform part of his job.

Yup... I'd support the boss' right to fire the Rph'es over this. What gets sticky is that there are shortages of Rph'es... so, the Boss' would put up with alot.

But with that issue the bigger can of worms is when it's the owner of the business who doesn't want to fill prescriptions. Does he have the right to pick and choose what medicine he offers to the public? Or is that once you open your doors to the public then you lose some of the right to pick and choose what services you'll offer and to whom? Or can a business owner sell whatever he likes, to whoever he likes?

Oh yea, there are numerous mom& pops Pharmacy that won't carry those at all... and they shouldn't sell them if that don't want to... Now, as consumers, if you object to that behavior, don't go there.

Now that is ridiculous... but, hey... if she wants to do that, that's on her.


It's absolutely ridiculous. Probably about as ridiculous as refusing to sell birth control

Agreed... ridiculous folks... are simply ridiculous.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/17 02:30:00


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 whembly wrote:
Now, as consumers, if you object to that behavior, don't go there.


But you don't necessarily have that choice. You can't just go anywhere you like, you're limited to licensed pharmacies (and possibly limited even more by insurance/doctors/etc) and there may or may not be another option available to you. Therefore the state has every right to declare that, in exchange for being granted that license, you are obligated to provide the full range of products and services. Otherwise you have the potential for a situation where a person is unable to obtain proper medical treatment because everyone they have access to has decided that it's against their religion.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Peregrine wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Now, as consumers, if you object to that behavior, don't go there.


But you don't necessarily have that choice. You can't just go anywhere you like, you're limited to licensed pharmacies (and possibly limited even more by insurance/doctors/etc) and there may or may not be another option available to you. Therefore the state has every right to declare that, in exchange for being granted that license, you are obligated to provide the full range of products and services. Otherwise you have the potential for a situation where a person is unable to obtain proper medical treatment because everyone they have access to has decided that it's against their religion.

You keep bringing this up... I'm telling you that's how it is NOW.

What you're advocating is that consumers can ask the Pharmacy Board of said state to bring sanctions to those who refuses to dispense certain meds... that's fine.

There are also mom & pops in rural Missouri who won't dispense sudaphed. ('cuz, they don't wanna deal with the "Smurfing" crowd). AND I NEED MY 'phed for my head colds!

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 whembly wrote:
What you're advocating is that consumers can ask the Pharmacy Board of said state to bring sanctions to those who refuses to dispense certain meds... that's fine.


And I'm also saying that "it's against my religion" isn't an excuse for an employee OR a business owner in this case, since we're not talking about a normal business (where the owner could decline to provide a product/service).

There are also mom & pops in rural Missouri who won't dispense sudaphed. ('cuz, they don't wanna deal with the "Smurfing" crowd). AND I NEED MY 'phed for my head colds!


Then they should be stripped of their pharmacy license and shut down.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Peregrine wrote:
 whembly wrote:
What you're advocating is that consumers can ask the Pharmacy Board of said state to bring sanctions to those who refuses to dispense certain meds... that's fine.


And I'm also saying that "it's against my religion" isn't an excuse for an employee OR a business owner in this case, since we're not talking about a normal business (where the owner could decline to provide a product/service).

Well I disagree with that line of reasoning... but, this ain't the forum for it.

There are also mom & pops in rural Missouri who won't dispense sudaphed. ('cuz, they don't wanna deal with the "Smurfing" crowd). AND I NEED MY 'phed for my head colds!


Then they should be stripped of their pharmacy license and shut down.

You really have no idea how Pharmacy works...

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 whembly wrote:
Well I disagree with that line of reasoning... but, this ain't the forum for it.


How is it not the forum? That line of reasoning is exactly the topic of the thread.

You really have no idea how Pharmacy works...


And what exactly is wrong with what I said?

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Peregrine wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Well I disagree with that line of reasoning... but, this ain't the forum for it.


How is it not the forum? That line of reasoning is exactly the topic of the thread.

Eh... wanna tango?

Cool...

A Pharmacy is a place of business with certain rules and regulation. I can see how problematic if a Rph refuses to dispense to dispense certain meds (ie, birth control) that the store currently has stocked. Ideally, that Rph should be working with another staff member who doesn't have such restriction.

The Rph license doesn't force him/her to dispense anything.

You really have no idea how Pharmacy works...


And what exactly is wrong with what I said?

Because, again, a Pharmacy is a STORE. Not, a government office... that establishment can refuse to sell HALLS because it "stinks" (and yet, I use it all the time to clear up my sinuses).

Missouri is the Meth capital of the world... and Sudaphed was moved behind the counter due to the DEA reclassifying said drug as a Narcotic (in the same class as Vicodin, Oxy, etc...). In addition, the establishment MUST keep track of how many they've sold to the customers. So, the Meth makers would employ a tactic of getting people to buy them boxes of Sudaphed, which is called "smurfing". So, in some areas of Missouri, some Mom & Pops Pharmacy (and some Walgreens too!) dropped sudaphed from the lineup, rather than to deal with that headache. That is not agaist the law... sucks for me, but I was able to find other stores who does carry it. I just deal with it...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/01/17 05:04:41


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 whembly wrote:
The Rph license doesn't force him/her to dispense anything.


But it should. Since there is an artificial limit on availability for those drugs then the state has every right to declare that they will only grant a license on the condition that you offer ALL drugs. And they have a strong incentive to do so, since it's in the interest of the general population for prescription drugs to be available if a doctor decides that proper medical treatment for you involves them.

Because, again, a Pharmacy is a STORE. Not, a government office... that establishment can refuse to sell HALLS because it "stinks" (and yet, I use it all the time to clear up my sinuses).


Bad analogy because that's not a prescription drug that you can only get from a very limited number of places.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Peregrine wrote:
General business selling non-essential things? Sure. If you're a grocery store owner and don't want to sell alcohol because of your religion, that's fine. Alcohol isn't an essential service and the only harm done is the potential profit you're throwing away.

With a pharmacy things are different since we have a system where the only legal way to get necessary medical products and services is through approved sources. Since the options for "go elsewhere" are greatly reduced it's fair for society to expect that the privilege of having a pharmacy license also carries an obligation to provide the full range of products and services.


Yeah, that's exactly the rub. But what businesses ought to be required to sell certain products, and what businesses shouldn't? That's why I can see both sides to this issue, because if you do draw a line and say 'pharmacies are obligated to sell birth control or they aren't pharmacies' well then what other businesses are you saying that about?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Yup... I'd support the boss' right to fire the Rph'es over this. What gets sticky is that there are shortages of Rph'es... so, the Boss' would put up with alot.


Yeah, when looking for the case of Islamic employee who wouldn't serve alcohol (did anyone ever find a case of that going to court?) the story I read about had a policy where Islamic employees were able to request another employee to process an order if it included alcohol. Now, is that coming out of a genuine desire from the business owner to make his business tolerant to all religious beliefs, or is it hard to find non-Muslim employees who will work for supermarket wages in his area? Maybe it's a little of both.

Oh yea, there are numerous mom& pops Pharmacy that won't carry those at all... and they shouldn't sell them if that don't want to... Now, as consumers, if you object to that behavior, don't go there.


The problem there is two fold. First is that for a lot of people it might not be practical to take your business elsewhere. Lots of towns only have one pharmacy. The second problem is that once the doors are opened to the general public, you don't get absolute and complete control of what you're doing with your business. Restaraunts have to meet food regs, you can't exclude anyone from the public because of their race and so on.

Now, whether those ideas should go as far as saying that a business in the medical field has to sell a product the owner morally objects to, well that's the question.

Agreed... ridiculous folks... are simply ridiculous.


Yeah.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/17 09:10:48


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

The right of a patient to medical treatment needs to be balanced against the right of a business owner to express his religious conscience by denial of certain medical treatments to patients.

In my opinion, the scales come down on the side of the patient's right to treatment.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

If a business/profession requires a license by the state, then the state should be able to license and regulate what you can and cannot do.

Not seeing how that is a difficult concept.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 d-usa wrote:
If a business/profession requires a license by the state, then the state should be able to license and regulate what you can and cannot do.

Not seeing how that is a difficult concept.

It's not difficult... Peregine is stating there should be requirements for Pharmacies to dispense it. And, I'm tell you that's not how it works today.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

http://www.uspharmd.com/pharmacist/pharmacist_oath_and_code_of_ethics/

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 sebster wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
General business selling non-essential things? Sure. If you're a grocery store owner and don't want to sell alcohol because of your religion, that's fine. Alcohol isn't an essential service and the only harm done is the potential profit you're throwing away.

With a pharmacy things are different since we have a system where the only legal way to get necessary medical products and services is through approved sources. Since the options for "go elsewhere" are greatly reduced it's fair for society to expect that the privilege of having a pharmacy license also carries an obligation to provide the full range of products and services.


Yeah, that's exactly the rub. But what businesses ought to be required to sell certain products, and what businesses shouldn't? That's why I can see both sides to this issue, because if you do draw a line and say 'pharmacies are obligated to sell birth control or they aren't pharmacies' well then what other businesses are you saying that about?

Thanks... stated what I was trying to say much more eloquently.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 whembly wrote:
Yup... I'd support the boss' right to fire the Rph'es over this. What gets sticky is that there are shortages of Rph'es... so, the Boss' would put up with alot.


Yeah, when looking for the case of Islamic employee who wouldn't serve alcohol (did anyone ever find a case of that going to court?) the story I read about had a policy where Islamic employees were able to request another employee to process an order if it included alcohol. Now, is that coming out of a genuine desire from the business owner to make his business tolerant to all religious beliefs, or is it hard to find non-Muslim employees who will work for supermarket wages in his area? Maybe it's a little of both.

I've never seen/heard that those went to court. Just like I was saying earlier, most business knows about these sorts of things and accomodate accordingly... ei, not scheduling a Jew staff member during Shabbos.

Oh yea, there are numerous mom& pops Pharmacy that won't carry those at all... and they shouldn't sell them if that don't want to... Now, as consumers, if you object to that behavior, don't go there.


The problem there is two fold. First is that for a lot of people it might not be practical to take your business elsewhere. Lots of towns only have one pharmacy. The second problem is that once the doors are opened to the general public, you don't get absolute and complete control of what you're doing with your business. Restaraunts have to meet food regs, you can't exclude anyone from the public because of their race and so on.

I understand what ya'll are saying in that the government could force those Pharmacies to dispense them if they want to maintain their license... what I'm telling you is that these scenarios happens NOW... and have been taken to court. The court seems loath to getting into this dynamic.

Now, whether those ideas should go as far as saying that a business in the medical field has to sell a product the owner morally objects to, well that's the question.

I'm going to ruffles some feathers here...

The answer to that question is that you're SOL. Deal with it... move on. Sometimes... I wonder how the human species survive in the past when they don't have everything at their finger-tips like we do now.

Agreed... ridiculous folks... are simply ridiculous.

Okay... I'm going to ruffle some feathers here

Yeah.

Another mindset is this... is it really a battle worth fighting over?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.uspharmd.com/pharmacist/pharmacist_oath_and_code_of_ethics/

That's not binding nor is a requirement to maintain their license.

EDIT: don't get me wrong, these are strongly adhere'ed to... but, these specific tenents aren't codify into law.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/01/17 15:25:17


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in ie
Stern Iron Priest with Thrall Bodyguard





Ireland

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The right of a patient to medical treatment needs to be balanced against the right of a business owner to express his religious conscience by denial of certain medical treatments to patients.

In my opinion, the scales come down on the side of the patient's right to treatment.

If the pharmacy was in a hospital that would matter but there is no duty of care for a pharmacy to sell non essential drugs. They can always tell you to go to the other pharmacy.
Here in Ireland due to old people voting and a lack of balls on politicians it is legal for a pharmacy to not sell you the morning after pill, it's bollocks but legal.

In general in Europe you have the right to refuse to sell to anyone so long as you don't give a reason why other than right to refuse. If you refuse to sell to someone on a prejudicial grounds then you are going to get flack for it. If I am racist and a bouncer I can just keep saying "sorry not getting in tonight", to the people I am racist against and until I mention, race or even the clothes they are wearing then I am in the clear.

It's not the size of the blade, it's how you use it.
2000+
1500+
2000+

For all YMDC arguements remember: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

My blog: http://dublin-spot-check.blogspot.ie/ 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

That oath of ethics is a US version, and does not apply in Eire.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 liturgies of blood wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
The right of a patient to medical treatment needs to be balanced against the right of a business owner to express his religious conscience by denial of certain medical treatments to patients.

In my opinion, the scales come down on the side of the patient's right to treatment.

If the pharmacy was in a hospital that would matter but there is no duty of care for a pharmacy to sell non essential drugs. They can always tell you to go to the other pharmacy.
Here in Ireland due to old people voting and a lack of balls on politicians it is legal for a pharmacy to not sell you the morning after pill, it's bollocks but legal.

In general in Europe you have the right to refuse to sell to anyone so long as you don't give a reason why other than right to refuse. If you refuse to sell to someone on a prejudicial grounds then you are going to get flack for it. If I am racist and a bouncer I can just keep saying "sorry not getting in tonight", to the people I am racist against and until I mention, race or even the clothes they are wearing then I am in the clear.

Yup... I didn't know this, but Illinois passed some laws years ago forbidding Rph to "not" dispense certain meds based on their religion... last year, it was overturned:
http://jurist.org/paperchase/2012/09/illinois-appeals-court-rules-pharmacists-can-refuse-to-dispense-birth-control-drugs.php
Illinois appeals court rules pharmacists can refuse to dispense birth control drugs
Max Slater at 9:57 AM ET


[JURIST] The Appellate Court of Illinois [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] on Thursday that the state cannot force pharmacists to fill prescriptions for emergency contraceptives if they have religious objections to these drugs. The appeals court held that an Illinois law known as the Current Rule [text], which requires pharmacists to dispense contraceptives including Plan B [product website], violates pharmacists' rights under the state's Conscience Act [text] as well as the free exercise clause of the First Amendment [Cornell LII backgrounder]. In its decision, the appeals court upheld a lower court ruling declaring that the Current Rule unlawfully infringes on the rights of pharmacists who have religious objections to abortion and contraception:
The Conscience Act does not prohibit governmental action that may ultimately force health-care personnel or health-care facilities to make a conscientious decision based on their beliefs not to comply with that governmental action ... The Current Rule does not violate the Conscience Act; its enforcement against plaintiffs on the issue of emergency contraceptives does.
It is unclear whether Illinois plans to appeal the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court [official website].
Plan B [JURIST news archive] has been the subject of considerable legislative and judicial activity since the FDA approved nonprescription access to the drug in 2006. In February a federal judge ruled [JURIST report] that a Washington law requiring pharmacists to dispense Plan B violated pharmacists' freedom of religion rights. In December a federal judge in New York revived a lawsuit [JURIST report] that claimed that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [official website] must make Plan B available to 17-year-olds without a prescription and reconsider whether the contraceptive should be available over the counter (OTC) to women under the age of 17. That ruling came just days after Department of Health and Human Services [official website] Director Kathleen Sebelius blocked an FDA recommendation [press release] to make Plan B available OTC to women under 17. Sebelius' decision, based on concerns for the lack of data on the effects for young women, was backed by US President Barack Obama. Also in December, a group of 15 US Senators wrote to Sebelius [text] expressing disappointment and seeking the specific rationale and data that went into the decision.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

I think the rules about necklaces, rings, watches, and other jewelry also applies to most food industries (I.e. the people who actually prep food, not the servers) as well. They pose a huge contamination risk.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/17 18:25:58


Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Easy E wrote:
I think the rules about necklaces, rings, watches, and other jewelry also applies to most food industries (I.e. the people who actually prep food, not the servers) as well. They pose a huge contamination risk.

And more importantly safety risks.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: