After reading an article (posted on FC, as well as appearing on today's MSN home-page), I would say that we all need to discontinue using Eckerds and CVS and get our prescriptions filled at Wal-Mart.

It appears that Wal-Mart has no political affiliation unless it's primary color is green. I'm sure they'll fill our prescriptions, unless the bottle resembles a cosmo cover, and then they'll fill the prescription but drop it in a brown paper bag.

I do however agree with the writer about pharmacists' turning their collars around to resemble an ordained-type cleric, then handing out a dose of moral teaching along with our little pill bottles. Bad business indeed!

Let's boycott them and shop at Wal-Mart! Better yet, forget the pill, let's invite them over to our houses to preach abstinance to our adolescents (or for that matter, anyone in the household who hasn't been spayed or neutered).

Forget Wal-Mart, who, if I am correct, has a corporate policy NOT to carry emergency contraception medication.

Walmart has a similar history of refusing to fill Birth Control Prescriptions as CVS and Eckerds, along with a tenuous history of workers rights and women employees.

So include Walmart in your list to boycott.

Freedom extends to the shopper, and the shop owner. Thank God that is still the way America works.

As I continue to relish in my post election blish, I read more about why the blue state folks will continue to lose elections.

To think a health care professional is somehow required to submit to your moral code is arrogant and infuriating. What makes your morality right, the pharmacist's wrong? Why can't both be respected in a free society? Or, perhaps you think every doctor should be required to kill unborn babies and every news stand sell Playboy and Penthouse in your idea of a free country.

Sure, maybe these pharmacists should practice in a hospital or nursing home, not retail and health care companies in certain practice settings can set guidelines as a condition of employment. But, that's their choice, the indivdual's and the company's.

If your town is like mine, there are a dozen drug stores within fifteen minutes of that one. Maybe three on the same corner, like gas stations. Stop insulting us, lecturing us on your 'freedom' to force others to submit to your moral code and excercise some of that freedom yourself. Take your prescription down the street and quit whining.

Or... if you prefer to keep it up, that's fine too. Until you blue state people learn that we don't mind much how you live your life (just don't force us to be complicit) and we are tired of your condescending arrogance towards our values (like yours are more virtuous and enlightened... barf!) get used to us red state folks staying in power for a very long time.

And that, with honor and integrity, not gay marraige or going to Church, is the morality lesson of the 2004 election.

"post election blish" What is this? We're all American, and it's about power to ALL people regardless of the Blue state, Red state mess. When terrorists want to do their thing they could care less what color state an American hails from, we're all the same to them. If the Red states have the power within them to stop terrorism good, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

As far as a pharmacist not filling a prescription based on their "values" that's ok, I'll just take my prescription and my money elsewhere, and I am sure I'll get it filled with a smile and a 'thank you' when it is all said and done.

Vote with your wallet. That's all there is to it.

You didn't mention that the pharmacist may refuse, but must assist the patient getting the prescription filled. For example, having a different pharmacist fill the prescription or making an effective referral.

You've got the moral issue backwards.

I feel that what people do and their reasons are for the most part their own business.

From an alternate perspective, my job is not allowed to force me to do something that I do not feel is morally correct.

One possible solution could be the notion of "if you will not do it, I'll find someone who does, if not here, then somewhere else."

These url spammers are annoying.

How about adding a filter so that you could only post maybe 3 http in a comment, and can't post more then 3 posts without someone else posting between.

At least start deleting these worthless spam comments

"This is just the latest evidence of the 1950's morality insertions rapidly surfacing in American culture. And now it's penetrating business. Employees are not only theoretically imposing their religious beliefs on customers, they are actively forcing customers to submit to their own moral code."
It's interesting how when someone of faith stands up for their beliefs that they are automatically imposing their beliefs on someone else. As has been said before, if you are offended, shop somewhere else. And don't impose your beliefs on someone else, pharmacist or whoever.

It would seem the FC staff has a lot of political and moral frustration bubbling to the surface lately. I'm not so certain that I knew I was subscribing to a magazine that dealt with these issues so directly. Had I wanted to be subjected to such opinion, my subscription dollars would have gone to "The Skeptic" or some similarly-charged publication.

Dear FC Staff: Your readers may or may not uphold your political and moral views. However, we subscribe to FC because it has been a fresh voice in the world of business publications. Please don't sour it with political rantings. Facts and opinions can be acceptable, but altruistic generalizations and questionable conclusions will alienate more of us than they will unite us.

We would all do well to incorporate the principles in the book, "Crucial Conversations." Leave the emotion at the door and let's reason TOGETHER.

MAS

"MAS"

I offer this - what happens here (FC Now) is distinct from Fast Company 'The Magazine'.

I believe the informality and fluidity of FC Now adds to the cumulative value of the FC brand by creating a space to 'play' with ideas and the readership of Fast Company. Which, in my view, is respectful of the cognitive ability of the readership.

In my opinion, Danielle's customer experience raises an interesting business issue: in a heterogeneous workplace, how does one balance diverse employer/employee/customer needs?

Peter

The pharmacists who still have a conscience are the ones you and your families need to go to and support. Would you rather have someone without a conscience making professional decisions (never made in a vacuum) for you and your loved ones? Or someone who comes with solid values upon which this country and Western civilization were founded? Yes, the choice is your, but it is also for a thinking pharmacist who is NOT a robot: you may choose to be immoral or evil, but they don't have to be a party to it. It's called freedom of choice, baby!

1) With the Wal-Martization of our great country, you WILL NOT HAVE A CHOICE of pharmacy to shop from. That's their goal.

2) The Repukes did not with this election on "morals" despite what the conservative media states. It was fear. "If you don't vote for us, you'll be attacked again." Fear mongering and idiot-pandering worked for the RED people.

To Ken Wiseman:

The two things aren't the same; there's a difference between asking for the freedom to do something to oneself and telling somebody else what to do (or not to do) to themselves. And an important part of this issue is the obvious preferentiality: do gun store employees have some kind of protected right to refuse to sell guns to people? Why should pharmacists be any different?

To everybody else:

Why not come to Canada? It's very nice up here. A little colder, but the near lack of Christian-Taliban-wannabes (a term that's been floating around the blogosphere more and more lately) makes up for it tenfold.

In response to BLC (the first response),

Wal-mart does have a colour and it is RED. Wal-mart donated nearly 2 billion dollars to the republican party, that is a little less than a quarter of their profits from last year; it was 8.9 billion to be exact.

I suggest you get your stories straight.

Okay, so freedom *does* extend both ways.
However pharmacies should have a stated policy - so customers can be prepared and go elsewhere. Its not right to leave a customer in the lurch - just on a whim of the person at the counter.

And lets look beyond red and blue - Danielle made a mistake in mixing up these issues in the first place.

I'm for abstinence too, and get angry when I see contraceptive makers promote casual sex amongst teens rather than promoting positive values like safe-sex or family planning. I think such actions are shameful and wrong - because they aim to corrupt family values to increase sales.

However, people being refused contraceptive prescriptions at a Pharmacy is a wholly different story! Its just not right for a person to not be able to get drugs prescribed by a doctor. At any rate, I thought birth control pills stopped unwanted births and did not kill infants. I've also heard that birth-control pills are sometimes used to treat serious health conditions which have nothing to do with birth control.

At any rate, such matters should be decided by constitutional authorities and processes, rather than being left to whims of individuals...

I agree with Tom, R.Ph. Who gives you the right to tell us (ie pharmacists)that we don't have the freedom to not dispense a drug that we feel is immoral? We take the oath, to first do no harm. It is left up to our interpretation. I am about as "blue" as you can get and I have never refused birth control or the "morning after pill" but your statements are almost infuriatingly "red" about "judging" pharmacists for their law given right to deny. You want the freedom to choose, but are so willing to take it away from others. As for finding a new job? Maybe it is you that should be brushing up your resume.

I am an employee at a CVS drug store, which was an Eckerd store 3 weeks ago. This summer, one of the pharmacist's that worked for our company refused to sell the "morning after" pill to a customer.

The media grabbed ahold of this and ran. They never mentioned, however, that he directed the customer to the nearest Walgreen's store after calling to ensure they had the pill in stock.

Yes, he did refuse to sell her the medication but, if someone said to you,"Will you please abort my child?", would you do it?

"What makes your morality right, the pharmacist's wrong?"

Because it's the pharmacist's job to dispense drugs. If it's his/her own pharmacy, fine, do as one please. What gives the pharmacist the right to push his/her own morality on Eckerd/CVS customers? What's next? Doctors declining medical services to gays because it's against his/her values? Sorry, but this shouldn't be a option. We all face situations where we are forced to go against our values in our jobs. If you don't like it, do something else.

"And that, with honor and integrity, not gay marraige or going to Church, is the morality lesson of the 2004 election."

No, using fear and smear tactics to get reelected are the lessons of the 2004 election.

"lecturing us on your 'freedom' to force others to submit to your moral code"

Just like a typical right wing nut to portray this as a 'they're attacking our values' argument. You guys are trying to change the law to offer no options to anyone and accusing others of forcing their values on you? Please!

Jess, yes, we are one nation and agree on a lot more than we disagree. When it comes to fighting evil, tyranny and terrorism, we're all red, white and blue.

My post-election "bliss", remark was a reference to the author's "blues" remark. The author originated the red-state, blue-state reference as context to her argument. My point was that her attitude was a significant part of the cause of her discontent, that division and the red state victory.

Anon, the policy you state that a pharmacist must assist is policy of some companies. It's not state law here in Florida or many states, but may be in some.

Where does it stop? Should pharmacists be required by punishment of law to dispense RU486 abortion pills? How about lethal doses of drugs for euthanasia? Sould doctors be required to perform an abortion, assist or be jailed?

I didn't state if I personally agreed or disagreed with my fellow pharmacits who don't dispense birth control or morning after pills. My larger point is everyone's freedom and personal beliefs - baring it adversely affecting another person's life, liberty or property - should be respected equally.

After all, aren't liberals... the blue state folks... the one's that champion tolerance and diversity? Shouldn't that include conservative values, too??? Hmmm???

Jeff...

Denying someone health care for whatever their personal lifestyle or beliefs is not the same as denying someone a chemical that would end an unborn life. Some people, health care professionals and not, believe that's what oral contraceptives do. I merely state that those beliefs should be respected as equally to those who believe differently. (Note, I never stated that I agreed or disagreed... nor will I. It's irrelavent to my point).

I know a doctor that doesn't prescribe oral contraceptives to unmarried women very overtly based on his religious belief. You mention gays... I know another doctor who specializes in HIV and other infectious disease. He doesn't write prescriptions for oral contraceptives. So what? There's 100 doctors within a 1/2 drive that do. No one's denied anything. There's no law that says they must... and no law that says others may not.

Same thing... I'll bet there's a hundred news stands in your town that don't sell Playboy or NRA magazines. Others that do may not sell Scientific American or GQ. So what? As a private business owner... individual or corporation... it's their right. Does that make these businesses cencors? Heck no!

I never said any woman should have her liberty taken away and placed in a jail cell (i.e. against the law) if she obtains oral contraceptives, either. In fact, I oppose that thesis. (Hint... the theme of my posts is no ideology other than that of freedom and respect for individual's personal beliefs).

99.999% of retail pharmacist fill oral contraceptives every day no problem. One or two object, based on sincerely held beliefs that he or she is faciliting the murder of an unborn... and someone supports that as valid, and all liberal hell brakes lose. (If their employers policy opposed that, I'd support that, too. The employer is free to set policy of the business that bears its name and pays the salaries).

You seem to want the power of the state (which is to force people at the point of a gun and threat of prison) to support your beliefs. And that's the core of my disagreement with the author's and your opinion. I think both views should be tolerated and, in fact, respected.

You call me a right wing nut and make other intolerant remarks? Pu-u-u-lease! (And, I don't think you even really read my post, but pigeon-holed me into your prejudiced view of people of faith, for some reason).

You prove the point in my reply just above. Liberals are all about diversity and tolerance... except where conservative values are concerned. Then watch out for the the intolerance, incivility and vitriol.

Back to the thesis sentence of original article, it's ok... I kind of like winning elections. (It's now six in a row, by the way).

i think it is high time you all come to africa were all this is not allowed

Why don't any of these pharmicists ever question the ethics in selling tobacco products in their stores? Pharmacies are one of the major cornerstones in the US health care system and they demand the right to refuse to fill legal prescriptions, but see no problem selling products we all know as harmful!

..the difference between a pharmacist (sometimes also physisian) and god is : that only the pharmaciest deludes himself that he is god..

"We don't carry RU486. I'm sorry. The pharmacy 2 blocks over, Harry's RX, does, and I believe they
would be happy to accomodate you there. Would you
like me to call and ascertain that they have it in stock before you make the trip?"

The pharmacist respects the patients right to obtain the legal medication she is seeking. The patient respects the pharmacists right not to carry that particular item.

Where is the problem with that between two Americans? What if the pharmacist does not carry Hustler magazine. Is he condemned for that too?
Or would that be ok?

Your idea of "liberty" appears a bit one sided
in my humble opinion.

But maybe I'm missing some important point. Educate me.