Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Should the pharmacy be able to fire her?

Should the pharmacy be able to fire her?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
11 Posts 8 Posters 61 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • CopperC Offline
    CopperC Offline
    Copper
    wrote on last edited by
    #2

    I think the pharmacy should be able to fire her for any reason or no reason at any time.

    Of course if the feds get involved because of this:

    He said the pharmacist who administered his vaccine at Albertsons, upon hearing about his encounter at Rite Aid, mentioned something called the “conscience clause.” According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, conscience rights are federal statutes that protect health care providers who refuse to perform or assist in certain health care services based on religious or moral grounds.

    then maybe not.

    1 Reply Last reply
    • HoraceH Offline
      HoraceH Offline
      Horace
      wrote on last edited by
      #3

      If a business intends to offer a service, hires a person to perform that service, and the person objects on moral grounds to doing that service, and therefore is performing no service whatsoever for the company, would the company be legally obligated to pay them forever to do nothing? I suppose not. So, I suppose it is ok to fire this person.

      Education is extremely important.

      1 Reply Last reply
      • RenaudaR Offline
        RenaudaR Offline
        Renauda
        wrote on last edited by Renauda
        #4

        In my opinion if she is the pharmacist on duty to administer vaccines then she is obliged to do just that; administer vaccines as required.

        If on the other hand, she advised her employer beforehand that she would only administer vaccines other than C19 then she should not have been assigned that duty or not hired for the job in the first place.

        She may also be a contracted pharmacist. If so then it is possible she could argue that administering C19 vaccines is not included within the scope of her contractual obligations to that pharmacy.

        We don’t know anything other than she allegedly identified herself as a conscientious objector to the vaccine itself and would therefore not administer it.

        Elbows up!

        1 Reply Last reply
        • Doctor PhibesD Offline
          Doctor PhibesD Offline
          Doctor Phibes
          wrote on last edited by Doctor Phibes
          #5

          Cancelling somebody's appointment for medical treatment because she doesn't want to do it seems a bit much.

          I don't get to do that kind of shit in my job. Obviously if I could, I'd never leave the house.

          I was only joking

          RenaudaR 1 Reply Last reply
          • Doctor PhibesD Doctor Phibes

            Cancelling somebody's appointment for medical treatment because she doesn't want to do it seems a bit much.

            I don't get to do that kind of shit in my job. Obviously if I could, I'd never leave the house.

            RenaudaR Offline
            RenaudaR Offline
            Renauda
            wrote on last edited by Renauda
            #6

            @Doctor-Phibes

            That’s because you are an engineer rather than a conscientious objector pharmacist.

            Elbows up!

            1 Reply Last reply
            • George KG Offline
              George KG Offline
              George K
              wrote on last edited by
              #7

              When I worked at the big place, there were several docs who would not provide anesthesia services for abortions (we called them "D & E's" - sounds prettier).

              Being the guy who ran the OR schedule and made out the anesthesia assignments, I was always able to accommodate those practitioners by substituting others who had no objections. It worked just fine.

              In private practice, our place didn't do abortions, but I'm sure we could have made similar adjustments to assignments.

              I don't understand why this pharmacy can't do the same thing. If the employee is the ONLY person there, then, I get it, I suppose. That, it seems, was part of the problem.

              Does this pharmacy carry "morning after" pills? Is every employee required to sell them?

              "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

              The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

              jon-nycJ 1 Reply Last reply
              • MikM Offline
                MikM Offline
                Mik
                wrote on last edited by
                #8

                When something seems this unreasonable there is usually something the story did not tell us.

                “I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill

                RenaudaR 1 Reply Last reply
                • George KG George K

                  When I worked at the big place, there were several docs who would not provide anesthesia services for abortions (we called them "D & E's" - sounds prettier).

                  Being the guy who ran the OR schedule and made out the anesthesia assignments, I was always able to accommodate those practitioners by substituting others who had no objections. It worked just fine.

                  In private practice, our place didn't do abortions, but I'm sure we could have made similar adjustments to assignments.

                  I don't understand why this pharmacy can't do the same thing. If the employee is the ONLY person there, then, I get it, I suppose. That, it seems, was part of the problem.

                  Does this pharmacy carry "morning after" pills? Is every employee required to sell them?

                  jon-nycJ Offline
                  jon-nycJ Offline
                  jon-nyc
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #9

                  @George-K

                  I could support a limited religious-based conscientious objection accommodation. But I’m not sure this woman would concede that her ideological possession is essentially a religion.

                  Only non-witches get due process.

                  • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • MikM Mik

                    When something seems this unreasonable there is usually something the story did not tell us.

                    RenaudaR Offline
                    RenaudaR Offline
                    Renauda
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #10

                    @Mik said in Should the pharmacy be able to fire her?:

                    When something seems this unreasonable there is usually something the story did not tell us.

                    That is what I was thinking as well.

                    Elbows up!

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • JollyJ Offline
                      JollyJ Offline
                      Jolly
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #11

                      Oh, they can fire her.

                      And then probably close that pharmacy down. Or pay somebody silly money to locum tenens.

                      Standard signing bonus money for a retail pharmacist nowadays is 50 grand. If you can find one.

                      “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

                      Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • Users
                      • Groups