Posted on 02/08/2006 2:00:13 PM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
BARRON, WI (AP) - A judge has upheld sanctions against a pharmacist who refused to dispense birth control pills to a college student and wouldn't transfer her prescription elsewhere.
Barron County Circuit Judge James Babler affirmed the punishment the state Pharmacy Examining Board handed down against pharmacist Neil Noesen. The board ruled last April that Noesen failed to carry out his responsibility to get the prescription to someone else if he wouldn't fill it himself.
The board reprimanded Noesen, of St. Paul, Minn., and ordered him to attend ethics classes. He will get to keep his license if he informs all future employers in writing he won't dispense birth control pills and the steps he would take to make sure a patient has access to medication. He was also found liable for the cost of the proceedings against him, which came to about $20,000.
He was working as a substitute pharmacist at a Menomonie Kmart in 2002 when a University of Wisconsin-Stout student came in to refill her birth control pills. Noesen testified he asked her whether she would use the pills for contraception, and he refused to help her or return the prescription when she answered yes.
Noesen told the board he is a devout Roman Catholic. He said he refused to refill the pills or release her prescription to another pharmacy because he didn't want to commit a sin.
Here's an important life lesson. Some people will be jerks. Noesen is a jerk. Sometimes, the man behind the counter will be a big jerk. Deal with it.
If you haven't noticed, the theme here is that there's been mass immaturity, and both sides clearly could have acted in a more adult matter--something I still don't know if you've picked up yet.
And as I've said all along, just because Noesen was an @** is still not a valid excuse to justify the calling of police and the ensuing media circus. That's playing the victim--yet another immature move.
While Noesen was an @**, the young lady in question also acted immaturely. Simply put, this was blown way out of proportion--and it could have been handled a lot better than it did.
Personally, I think there needs to be solid protection for pharmacists who refrain from doling out drugs. But the minute they act like a moron, that protection ceases. However, the pharmacist crossing the line doesn't release the woman at the counter from going to the police and the media as a cherry-picked victim. There is still a need for civilty and for maturity--something that as I've mentioned earlier is sorely lacking.
I go to K-Mart and you steal what belongs to me and dont sell me a legal product that you stock and that you sell to others and you dont expect me to complain to managment. What kind of idiot are you? You take my prescription and say tough shit, you are going to get a foot up your ass. Why should the world accomodate itself to your religious beliefs? What if I disagree? Are we not to publish cartoons of Muhammad just because it offends Muslims? Screw them and screw Christians that have to force their views on the rest of society. If you feel that birth control is abortion, then get knocked up and support ten kids, but dont force the rest of us to join you in your house trailer.
It also means if you cant handle the responsibilities of a job, that you leave it. If this guy cant do what he's being paid to do, dispense pharmacueticals, then he should find a another job. Maybe he can leave his wife and become a priest. I hear there is a real shortage.
Though, if they do find a pattern of publicly acting like an @** (as he did at the pharmacy counter--enough to find him Nutty (for whatever reason), that'd be reason enough to yank his license and force a new career after treatment.
But this incident alone, while he acted like an @** in this instance justify a forced career change? Not necessarily.
Should he look for a pharmacy that doesn't dole out contraceptives? Absolutely. That'd be the best choice.
Or, why not keep the door open, so perhaps he could open his own local pharmacy? Then he could make his own rules so long as they aren't against state law and ethical practices in pharmacy.
OTOH, are there any pharmacies that refuse to dole out contraceptives? Only a handful--and they're probably fully staffed. And it costs a heckuva lot of money to start a business--and probably more to open a pharmacy.
So, he may find that he has to leave the profession because he can't find a pharmacy position that doesn't compromise his beliefs. Fine.
But saying he should leave because he will not handle one small class of drugs is really asinine, IMO.
Why do you have to make this jerks bad behavior a societal problem? I can hear you now making your case for it was the Jews fault that they walked so docily to the gas chambers. Dont blame the poor Germans, they were just following orders. It would all been different if the Jews had just taken a little responsibility for their own behavior and had gotten out of Europe in the early 30's.
Most pharmacies with multiple pharmacists on staff, usually find a way to accomodate someone who cant fill a presription for religious reasons. When they go out of their way like this moron, they get what's coming to him. This guy will have a difficult time finding a job with anyone other than another similar minded moron.
There's a need for maturity on her part--that you don't address. You're saying that she did no wrong because some clerk acted like a complete @**?
He had a right to refuse the prescription, and to refuse to transfer the prescription. But the minute he acted like a jerk crossed the boundary between religious beliefs and making a crass and harasssing political statement.
Plus, I've said in Post 38 that writing letters would be more effective and a mature way to handle it.
I'm sure these corporate executives get such letters. Enough of them--and against a particular individual or problem will warrant action by the company.
Store managers also don't like complaints against individuals. I work in a retail establishment. One complaint and the manager's on our shorts. And if this isn't the only case, and other people wrote letters complaining about this guy--Noesen would have gotten the boot quietly along with a bad job reference, the student would have her pills, and matters would have been left to the company and possibly to the state board--where they should be.
There is a huge difference between the Holocaust and a young woman dealing with a pharmacy clerk who's a ginormous @**.
Further, I've been saying that we live in a civilized society. There needs to be personal responsibility and maturity.
You and I both agree that Noesen stepped over the line, correct?
You and I also agree that he ideally should have given back the prescription.
But where we differ is that upon realizing she wasn't going to get the prescription back--the pharmacist being a jerk, I'm saying she should have used her head and sought a way to get those pills rather than turning to the media and the police.
If anything, we can agree to disagree.
No, you miss the point. He had NO right to refuse the prescription. And he had NO right to refuse to transfer it. He was totally in the wrong. He was cheating his company out of sales and he was cheating the customer out of what she came to him as a trusted professional. He was acting counter to laws of the state. If the guy wants to dispense religious advice and/or lead a crusade, he ought to join a seminary and become a priest. Otherwise, he should fill the presecription and pray for the girls soul.
In an ideal and sane world, there would have been another pharmacist to handle it for Noesen, but alas there wasn't.
I don't believe in contraception--but if others want to use it, that's their choice.
All the liberal dingbat had to do was call her Doctor's office, explain what happened, they will call in the prescription somewhere else for her, problem solved.
Or even admonish her not to do it. Then the moral onus is back on her.
Not true. The pharmacist does not have to fill the prescription, but he does not have the right to take the prescription and refuse to return it.
It is not his property.
I'm glad that you understood it.
Like you do when ever you see a program on TV that you dont like and dont think others should watch? So when you are mistreated by a company, you go crying back to your doctor because of some unethical fool...yes fool... the guy is going to end up supporting his family working the late shift at 7-11...if he will sell alcohol.
Where doesn't he have a right to refuse the prescription, or to transfer it?
He was cheating his company out of sales
Depending on how you look at it, yes. I say this because what percentage of the total sales are for contraceptives? However, the sales of the pharmacy department can say otherwise.
and he was cheating the customer out of what she came to him as a trusted professional
Yes, she came to him as a trusted professional. But you have to prove there was a legal obligation to provide the service or good.
I did the research, and while WI does have a conscience clause bill in the legislature, it is not yet a law. However, there is also no law to my (rather limited knowledge) that requires the dispensation of all drugs like Illinois has.
This is very simple. The guy took a job. He refused to perform the job. He should be fired.
The woman, who was no doubt offended by having her morality questioned by an employee of the store and her prescription not returned, did what she felt she had to do.
BTW, you said he had a right to refuse to transfer it. That is bogus. He doesnt even have a moral right to do that. I bet if you asked his employer if he had any such rights, they would tell you he doesnt. Again, if this sanctimonious piece of shit cant do his job, he ought to find another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.