What is reasonable
Darrel Ray wrote to Walgreens to ask them about their policy on refusing to fill prescriptions because Jesus. He told commenters to feel free to use his letter as a template.
To whom it may concern. I read today that your company allows pharmacists to deny prescriptions based on their religious beliefs – specifically a pharmacist in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I would like to know if this is a mistake and what the corporation is doing to correct this. Pharmacists did not train as theologians or religious police. What men and women do with their bodies and prescriptions, legally written by a physician, are none of any pharmacist’s business. I have a Walgreens account under the name [your name here] in [your location here]. I will not be using it until I get clarification that your corporation does not allow pharmacists to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. I would appreciate a reply. There is no reason a customer should be forced to go to another of your stores because one of your employees refuses to do their job. Would one of your pharmacy techs be allowed to refuse service in the same way? What are the limits of this pharmacist’s powers to refuse. Could he refuse service to a gay or a transexual person? Could he refuse to sell viagra to a man? Could he refuse to serve a Muslim woman in a hijab? His religious beliefs should not trump a woman or man’s right to health care. I look forward to your response.
He got a reply.
Here is Walgreen’s response to my letter. They believe it is reasonable to force a customer to go to a different store, when the pharmacist right in front of your refuses to do their job. Very interesting business model. I guess I will not be using Walgreens any longer. Wouldn’t want to offend their religious sensibilities.
Dear Darrel Ray,
Thank you for taking your time to contact our Corporate Offices. We appreciate hearing from our customers and value all comments received.
We believe it’s reasonable to respect the individual pharmacist’s beliefs by not requiring them to fill a prescription they object to on moral or religious grounds. We also believe it’s reasonable to meet our obligation to the patient by having another pharmacist at the store fill the prescription. If another pharmacist is not on duty, we will arrange to have the prescription filled at a nearby pharmacy.
Again, thank you for contacting our corporate office. We truly appreciate you taking the time to share your comments.
Sincerely,
Nicholas C.
Consumer Relations Representative
Oh sure, it’s totally “reasonable” to set up as a pharmacy and then selectively refuse to fill prescriptions because of your or your employee’s personal opinions about particular prescriptions. It’s totally reasonable to put people to major inconvenience, often amounting to impossibility (no other pharmacy nearby, patient reliant on public transportation but with small children or an ill relative to take care of, etc), because someone in the nearest pharmacy has Scruples about someone else’s prescription. By which I mean it’s not reasonable at all, it’s outrageous.
Um….the nearest Walgreens to me, other than the one in walking distance, is in the next city. I live in a small city that cannot support two Walgreens. The problem is, this area is heavily Catholic, and I’m not sure any of the other pharmacies would be any better. Maybe it’s something I should check out. Since I don’t need any prescriptions that are “anti-Jesus”, I have no idea if our pharmacies are doing that or not.
And, respecting religion for one person is to disrespect it for another, so we seem to have some sort of paradox. Except, they mean respect religion for those who demand the right to force it on others.
What about out-of-network referrals? Many plans now require patients to use a particular pharmacy or face added costs. Are these guys going to reimburse these costs and cover the inconvenience?
Screw them – If I ever find myself in need of a sermon I doubt I’d look through Walgreen’s aisles for it anyway.
I keep wondering if Walgreens would continue to pay a pharmacist who converts to Christian Science and comes to believe, as a matter of faith, that any medical use of drugs is against their faith–or, alternately, if they would back a Scientologist who refused to fill any prescription for psychotropic drugs.
Moral grounds too, eh? That seems to open up the field considerably. If this is indeed their policy, I daresay secular, liberal pharmacists can play that game.
Sastra: Sure, but what would they play it to? Viagra prescriptions, maybe? Even that has a legit use–it was during testing for serious use that that they discovered its more famous properties. I wouldn’t find a SH pharmacist abusing this policy any more acceptable than I do for the one in question.
What we need is the right of a secular humanist cashier to refuse to ring up faith-based greeting cards and homeopathic products (I refuse to call them ‘medicine’).
+ 100!
Or, in the alternative, a religiously neutral, defensible corporate policy, duly enforced throughout.
Or Walgreens in the bin.
As I have probably paid my last visit to those territories, I must abstain from boycotting.
And then they were sued. <== The next logical step in this story.