Dispensing Contraceptives

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=744221"]http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=744221[/url]
[quote]Pharmacist says discipline violated rights
After refusing to fill order in 2002, he wants high court to hear case
By MARIE ROHDE
mrohde@journalsentinel.com
Posted: April 27, 2008

When pharmacist Neil Noesen told Amanda Thiede that his conscience would not permit him to refill her prescription for birth control pills in July 2002, she thought he was kidding.

"He was talking about conscientious objection and war and killing people and how that meant he couldn't fill my prescription," Thiede recalled in an interview last week. "I thought he was joking at first. I almost started to laugh."

But Noesen was very serious. A self-described devout Catholic, he had come to the conclusion that he could not dispense contraceptives and be true to his religious beliefs.

"I could not anesthetize my conscience," Noesen said. "Freedom of religion doesn't mean that we can do anything we want. It means we are free to do what is right."

State regulators disciplined Noesen for his actions. Now he is asking the Wisconsin Supreme Court to reverse lower court rulings on the ground that the discipline violates his constitutionally protected right to express his religious beliefs.

It is not clear whether the high court will hear Noesen's petition for review. If the seven justices vote to hear the case, oral arguments would not be heard before September, according to a court spokesman.

Although those on both sides say the case raises important issues, neither Noesen nor Thiede says it has significantly affected their lives.

Noesen, 34, said he is working as a pharmacist in Chicago; Thiede, 27, said she was supported by her family and friends when she filed the complaint against the pharmacist that put her in the limelight briefly.

Noesen was working as a pharmacist at the Kmart in Menomonie when Thiede, then a student at the University of Wisconsin-Stout, stopped in for a refill of her oral contraceptives on a Saturday morning. He refused to fill the prescription and also declined to transfer it to another store where it could be filled.

The situation was not unusual, he said.

"I've done this before," he said, referring to his refusal to fill birth control prescriptions. "I've tried to avoid first contact. I'd tell the person to come back later when another pharmacist would be there."

The other pharmacist was out of town for the weekend.

Thiede called her cousin, a nurse, who told her that Noesen couldn't refuse to fill a prescription. The cousin urged Thiede to file a complaint.

Thiede filed a complaint with police, who accompanied her to the Kmart the next day, even though they told her they didn't think they could do anything.

"They said they thought he'd see them and back down," Thiede recalled. "He didn't."

The Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing's Pharmacy Examining Board upheld a finding by an administrative law judge that he violated standards of care required in the profession by not providing her with an alternative means of getting her medication.

Restrictions requiring Noesen to inform his employers of his beliefs were placed on his license. He was also ordered to take an ethics course and pay the $21,000 cost of the legal process.

A Circuit Court judge and the 3rd District Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, but the appellate court ordered that the cost of the litigation be reconsidered.
Important trip

Noesen said he was not fired or otherwise reprimanded by his employer. Because of the state's action, he went to Minnesota, where he worked for a pharmacy chain but was fired for his refusal to fill contraceptive prescriptions. He was arrested there when he refused to leave the chain's headquarters.

For a while, he worked as a gardener in Minnesota before moving to Illinois, where he now works. He said he is limited by his beliefs in where he can work but has not had trouble finding work. There is a shortage of pharmacists, he noted.

Noesen, a pharmacist since 1999, said he came to his decision that he could not be true to his beliefs and dispense oral contraceptives after a trip to India when he visited Mother Teresa in Calcutta.

"I decided that if I'm not part of the solution, I'm part of the problem," he said.

Birth control, he said, is not a health issue and detracts from other health concerns.

Thiede, now a mother of two, said she wasn't ready to have children in 2002. She didn't get pregnant because her prescription wasn't filled, but she was taking contraceptives when she got pregnant with her first child, she said.

"Imagine if I had gotten pregnant then and the effects that would have had on my life," she said. "Would it have been better if I had gotten pregnant, had a child and the state would have had to pay for it? It's a problem in our society where people go out and have children they are not ready to have."

Thiede, who said she is Lutheran, added:

"I have no problem with his beliefs. But you can't let your beliefs interfere with your professional responsibilities. Maybe he should consider a different line of work."[/quote]

what would you have done if you were employee?

should the employer be allowed to fire him?
i don't see anything stopping firing.

does freedom of religion mean the state can't pass requirements that says you are to proscribe pills or at least refer them?
i know a state can require catholic charities, if it wants grant money, to dispense contraceptives, and that is legal.
what is there to take to court here?

is it right that we can ban all these sins, and could ban contraceptives by his type of reasoning, but we can't require them to be sold etc? my concern is even handed laws.

Edited April 30, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[picchick]

As a soon to be nurse, we have a duty and responsibility to our patients. Yet if we have a problem with something going on, or if something is happening agianst our beliefs then we have a right not to participate.

We are responsible therefore to let our manager know of this. Many times during the hiring stage, hospitals will ask for a list of things that their professionals do not want to partake in for example, abortions or what not.

If it was against his conscience, then he had the right to refuse to administer them. However, this employee should have notified his manager of what was going on so that the manager could have assigned her to the right spot. Doesn't solve the issue that the woman would still get her BC but it would ease his mind that he did not participate. What the employee would need to come to terms with if it is still an issue is no matter what this man did she would have gotten her BC.

The only thing I see that the woman could take to court is the fact that the man failed to notify his manager of his beliefs and conscience. The employer could fire the man based off of failure to notify but not on his beliefs.

[SaintOlaf]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1515018' date='Apr 30 2008, 12:07 PM'][url="http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=744221"]http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=744221[/url]
what would you have done if you were employee?

should the employer be allowed to fire him?
i don't see anything stopping firing.

does freedom of religion mean the state can't pass requirements that says you are to proscribe pills or at least refer them?
i know a state can require catholic charities, if it wants grant money, to dispense contraceptives, and that is legal.
what is there to take to court here?

is it right that we can ban all these sins, and could ban contraceptives by his type of reasoning, but we can't require them to be sold etc? my concern is even handed laws.[/quote]

Let me preface this by saying, I've worked for CVS/Pharmacy (the largest American pharmacy chain) for almost 9 years, I am not a pharmacist, I work in the front part of the store. That being said, I don't have the same exposure to all of these issues that others (pharmacists and technicians) do.

I have seen in my years in this business, many things in relation to birth control. I've seen pharmacists fired for what they perceived to be not filling prescriptions for birth control drugs. Michigan is an "at-will" employer state, when someone is terminated, generally no reason is given, since the state doesn't require that we have a reason to terminate anyone. I know personally, 2 pharmacists that believe their termination was directly in relation to refusal to fill prescriptions for birth control.

In this persons case, I would be hard pressed to do anything other than what the pharmacist in question did. As he put it, he cannot anesthetize his own conscience.

Should the employer be allowed to fire him? I think that he should be allowed to terminate him, if he was previously unaware of this pharmacist's moral convictions. So much of the retail industry is customer service oriented, to have someone that will cause that to suffer, even with just a few customers is contrary to good business. Word of mouth is the most effective way of advertising, and the most effective way of keeping people away from a store. The owner of the pharmacy, in my opinion, had every right to terminate this pharmacist.

I heard on the radio about a pair of Catholic Pharmacists that stood on their moral convictions, and were terminated. After losing their job, they started their own pharmacy, and the Lord blessed it, and they now have several branches. (I believe this was in Florida, it was a while back that I heard this story) While not everyone can have that same success, it's an option for some, and with the proper support from local parishes it can flourish.

I don't think banning contraceptives is the right way to go, so much of American culture already owns that contraceptive mentality and they would certainly find ways around it. Freedom of religion means the exact opposite of "the state can't pass requirements that says you are to proscribe pills or at least refer them?" It means that, like in the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The state should have nothing to do with this issue on a religious ground. There may be other grounds that the state feels it can make a judgment on the contraceptives issue, but not religion.

I'm rambling a bit, but I'll post this, and i may come back and revise it a bit later, or add something to it in another post.

[CatherineM]

I don't take issue with his being unwilling to fill the prescription, but I do with his being unwilling to allow her to transfer the prescription elsewhere. If he had done that, it might not have been an issue. It is one thing to stand for your own principals, another to try to enforce them on someone else in the case of contraceptives. If this had been RU486, then that's a different matter in a lot of ways. I guess I'm glad I'm not a pharmacist. I did perform civil divorces, but I always insisted they go to marriage counseling first, and then mediation, and I never handled a divorce where there were children involved.

[thessalonian]

I don't thing we should be involved in transferring it elsewhere either CathernM. We need to not involve ourselves at all and RU486 is worse but of the same nature. Gravely sinful so we cannot participate.

I think the company has the right to fire and we should be willing to put our faith on the line in such cases. There needs to be more Catholic pharmacies that don't offer this crud to hire those who are against them. I would love our family to be able to go to a pharmacy that does not offer these things.

[picchick]

The company has no right to fire the man on the basis of his beliefs. No profession should do that. However, they can fire based off of failure to notify and make aware his beliefs.

He did not have to transfer the perscription if he could not in his conscience. The only reason I fault him is where he did not notify his manager of his beliefs before something like this occured as well as not doing something about it at that point.

[fides quarens intellectum]

Love how he was ordered to take an ethics course. Maybe he should be the one teaching it.

[Norseman82]

In Illinois, there is a state law enacted in recent years that requires pharmacists to fill prescription for things like birth control, etc., and one of the battles has been over "conscience" exceptions. As of now, to my knowledge, there is no "conscience" exception.

Interestingly, I was actually chatting this past weekend at the National Cathjolic Singles Conference to a lady who is a pharmacist for a prominent chain and asked her about this, and her attitude was simply "if you want to work in the field, you have to do it as a job requirement".

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='picchick' post='1515062' date='Apr 30 2008, 12:45 PM']The only thing I see that the woman could take to court is the fact that the man failed to notify his manager of his beliefs and conscience. The employer could fire the man based off of failure to notify but not on his beliefs.[/quote]

That makes sense.

[quote name='SaintOlaf' post='1515066' date='Apr 30 2008, 12:46 PM']I don't think banning contraceptives is the right way to go, so much of American culture already owns that contraceptive mentality and they would certainly find ways around it.[/quote]

Contraceptives are banned in the Philippines, but the rich are able to order them from elsewhere while many poor women are stuck in situations where their husbands are unwilling to cooperate by practicing NFP (which the government actively promotes). Those kinds of situations show how legislation that is too restrictive can present its own problems and possibly backfire.

Interesting that the woman had become pregant before while on the pill. Hmm...

[CatherineM]

The reason I said that he should have given her back her prescription, is that basically it wasn't his. It was hers. Not participating is one thing, but keeping her prescription is a form of stealing. I might not agree with my neighbors using condoms, but I can't steal them out of their grocery bags.

[picchick]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1515184' date='Apr 30 2008, 02:31 PM']The reason I said that he should have given her back her prescription, is that basically it wasn't his. It was hers. Not participating is one thing, but keeping her prescription is a form of stealing. I might not agree with my neighbors using condoms, but I can't steal them out of their grocery bags.[/quote]

You mean he kept it? I didn't know that. He should have said, "Ma'm I can't fill this for you." and then hand it back to her.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1515184' date='Apr 30 2008, 02:31 PM']The reason I said that he should have given her back her prescription, is that basically it wasn't his. It was hers. Not participating is one thing, but keeping her prescription is a form of stealing. I might not agree with my neighbors using condoms, but I can't steal them out of their grocery bags.[/quote]
It says he wouldn't transfer the prescription to a different pharmacy, which makes it sound like the prescription was called in, not that she had the prescription with her.

Edit: She was getting a refill, which means she didn't have the actual prescription with her, but just the bottle and they'd have the prescription on file, I think...

Edited April 30, 2008 by MissScripture

[CatherineM]

Even if it was a refill, it was still her prescription. Not transferring it meant that she probably had to return to the doctor. That may have cost her money.

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1515191' date='Apr 30 2008, 01:44 PM']Even if it was a refill, it was still her prescription. Not transferring it meant that she probably had to return to the doctor. That may have cost her money.[/quote]

Well, good! Maybe this made her start questioning the morality of what she was doing in the first place!

[kujo]

[quote name='picchick' post='1515134' date='Apr 30 2008, 02:40 PM']The company has no right to fire the man on the basis of his beliefs. No profession should do that. However, they can fire based off of failure to notify and make aware his beliefs.

He did not have to transfer the perscription if he could not in his conscience. The only reason I fault him is where he did not notify his manager of his beliefs before something like this occured as well as not doing something about it at that point.[/quote]

I'm sorry to say that it is well within the rights of the company to fire him. He has the right to religion, he has the right to his moral beliefs, but he [b]does not [/b]have the right to work at a pharmacy. He could've chosen any other profession, one that would not cause him to be involved in any immoral activities. But he chose to work in the field he did, knowing full well that he would be exposed to this sort of thing. Companies have the right to inform their employers of requirements when they are hired. Again, if he knew this was a possibility and went ahead anyway, the bag is in his hands.

That being said, I admire his fortitude, but question his motives.

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1515150' date='Apr 30 2008, 02:50 PM']Interestingly, I was actually chatting this past weekend at the National Cathjolic Singles Conference to a lady who is a pharmacist for a prominent chain and asked her about this, and her attitude was simply "if you want to work in the field, you have to do it as a job requirement".[/quote]

Seems fair enough to me.

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' post='1515226' date='Apr 30 2008, 04:22 PM']Well, good! Maybe this made her start questioning the morality of what she was doing in the first place![/quote]

So, we should start making people pay extra money when they engage in activities that are immoral? Sounds like a Church tax to me.