I just read a wonderfull OP/ED regarding the witholding of Birth Control by pharmacists.
A segment I thought worthy of discussion follows:
Quote:
|
No business should be obligated to employ people who chase customers away and refuse to follow its policies. Last year, when three pharmacists at an Eckerd store in Denton, Texas, wouldn't give a morning-after pill to a rape victim, they were fired. The "conscience" law proposed in Austin would protect their jobs. That would be a mistake. Pharmacists who insist on imposing their views on others don't deserve state-enforced job protection. They may have to pay a price for their principles by finding another line of work.
|
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...e&sid=84439559
Now, it is fair to point out the OP/ED defends a pharmacists right to conscience refusal. It simply makes the point that in a free market, a pharmacist who does this may find themselves out of a job. A company that supports conscience actions by pharmacists may find it loses customers to competition. According to the American Pharmacists Association, a pharmacist is expected to either refer the customer to a Pharmacy that will fill their prescription, or hand the slip of to a pharmacist that will fill it.
So in a small area with only one drug store with one or two druggists, how can a woman expect that her legal rights be met if there are no other pharmacy's?
More to the point of why I'm posting, I have seen quite a few people on this board arguee that the free market is a good thing. The free market does no always go hand in hand with any political attitudes however. A store does have the right to fire an employee that does not do as the company requires or expects. In other words, in the free market Walgreens can fire every conscience objecting pharmacist, and it's perfectly legal, within the right of the company even. And I like that just fine.
What are your thoughts?