Should the pharmacy be able to fire her?

[jon-nyc]

https://amp.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article272504050.html

[Copper]

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.

[Horace]

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.

[Renauda]

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.

[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.

[Renauda]

@Doctor-Phibes

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

[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?

[Mik]

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

[jon-nyc]

@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.

[Renauda]

@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.

[Jolly]

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.