Target and its policy of specific discrimination...

[lagilman]

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/11/target-digs-itself-deeper-hole-in.html

They're claiming their pharmacists are allowed to discriminate... but only regarding this one (Plan B) medication, and only on this one basis. If they're going to claim protection under civil rights statutes, don't they have to accept all the worms that come with that particular can?

Shouldn't then an employee be allowed to refuse a customer condoms, because wasting seed is against their religious teachings? Basic birth control, even if issued for reasons other than purposes sexual (hormone pills are used for a variety of treatments, not just prevention of procreation). What about AIDS medications? If you believe that it's a punishment from God for sinful ways, you should be allowed to tell them to go somewhere else for their meds, no?

As I said. Can open. Worms everywhere. Me doing all my shopping elsewhere.

I still have the legally-granted right and ability to discriminate against small-minded bigots.


And, for those interested:



At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the profession of pharmacy.

I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.

I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.

I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy.

I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct.

I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.

Developed by the American Pharmaceutical Association Academy of Students of Pharmacy/American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Council of Deans (APhA-ASP/AACP-COD) Task Force on Professionalism; June 26, 1994




Will post more on the revisions process when I resurface again, if folk are still interested.

Comments

[kaitiana.livejournal.com]

This infuriates me on SO many levels. I don't normally boycott stores or organizations much, but think I will make an exception this time around. Especially since the particular Target that started the latest round of controversy is about 5-10 minutes from my house. I'm so tired of religious fanatics trying to whittle away other people's constitutional and civil rights on the basis of THEIR religious beliefs. I still FIRMLY believe that if you don't want to fill every patient's medically-authorized prescriptions, that's your business--but you need to get out of the pharmaceutical business. Because MY body is MY business as long as whatever I choose to put into it is legal.

Funny how some people only believe in separation of church and state until that separation goes against THEIR religious beliefs.

[klingonguy.livejournal.com]

I found the Pharmacist's oath disappointing. I was expecting something from Robert E. Howard. I much prefer it when my pharmacist swears by Crom and Mitra.

Worms indeed.

[seainni.livejournal.com]

Do pharmacists get to turn down Viagra prescriptions, too? Even easier to come up with reasons to find that immoral!

[burger-eater.livejournal.com]

Thanks for these posts. Because of what you've been saying here, I'm shopping elsewhere this year, too.

[allaboutm-e.livejournal.com]

arrrgh! Stupid stupid Target!
Granted, they have occasionally done other offensive things, like building a store in an environmentally delicate area after being told not to on the "better to seek forgiveness than permission" theory and the like. But out here in the boonies, we just don't have that many shopping options. And at least Target was my salvation from Wal-Mart.
But now ... arrrrgh!

Thanks for spreading the word.

[karenmiller.livejournal.com]

Not being in the US I can't do the boycott thing ... but if you who are intend to, can I suggest you make sure to let the company know, in writing, that you're doing it, and why? Point out that there are blog commentaries actively pushing said boycott? People power only works when people shout about what they're doing.

As for Revision Quest, yes please. Love to hear it.

[edeevee.livejournal.com]

Still interested. I see you've got another post on the revision process up ~ cool!

Sometimes I find myself on the wishy-washy line of some issue. That's where I am with the Target thing. I agree -- my body/my business. And I think, like most realistic moms of 17 and 20 year olds, I sleep a little easier knowing Plan B is an option. I am 100% for reproductive rights.

It's just ...
When did we decide those rights trump all other ones?

A very nice young woman I know just took a job at the new coffee shop in my uber-conservative (semi-stepford-wives-ish) small Indiana town. She was okay when they told her she'd have to wear a dress or skirt. She didn't mind it too much when they asked her to put her hair in a bun. She flinched a bit when they asked her to lose the eyeliner but -- oh well.

She quit when they required her to hold hands and pray with them before her shift.

She has nothing against prayer, btw. She'd just like to pray the way she wants to, when she wants to, and not be forced to observe the same religious habits as her employers. I think we'd all agree that's fair, right?

What if things were the opposite? Should a girl who believes her faith requires her to wear dresses, keep her hair, um, ugly, and not wear make-up be asked to tart it up some for the customers?

I don't think so. If her appearance was reasonable for the expectations of the mainstream in the industry, she should be allowed to look the way she wants. Again, I think you'd probably agree.

So maybe I'm reaching here but should we really be this angry because Target is trying to support an employee's religious freedom? Cans of worms? Yes, a warehouse-ful. But it seems that Target's plan of referring to another location/pharmacy/shift is an attempt to balance one kind of right against another.

Compromise sucks.

[lagilman]

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i.so>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<i.So maybe I'm reaching here but should we really be this angry because Target is trying to support an employee's religious freedom? Cans of worms? Yes, a warehouse-ful. But it seems that Target's plan of referring to another location/pharmacy/shift is an attempt to balance one kind of right against another. </i>


If they were talking about makeup, or clothing, or anything that was not mediccal, I might agree with you. but not prescription medicines, and not when it is a time-is-of-the-essence item. Saying "you have to go to another store 40 miles away" assumes the person in question has the time and means to get to that store. Not always the case, and places the burden on the customer, not the person who has the problem with the action. if target said "we will always have someone in the store who is able and willing to disense a prescribed medication," then I'd have fewer problems.

But I would still boycott them, because this isn't a matter of faith, overall. They're not saying that someone who has a religious objection to, oh, Christmas doesn't have to stock shelves or ring up Christmas candy. Hell, they're not even willing, in many stores, to not play Christmas carols ad nauseum which are offensive to non-Christian employees. Etc.

This is a targeted (sorry!) attack against one specific medication for one specific cause, and tough if it's against your religious beliefs to bring an unwanted child into the world.

[edeevee.livejournal.com]

Good arguments. Damn worms are everywhere.