Boycotting is a personal decision; it may be made by large numbers of people, and some people may urge other people to engage in it, but it is still a personal decision and personal act.
It is not a public act; it is not a prosecution, or an action taken in response to a complaint of a violation of any law. It therefore doesn't require reasonable grounds, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or anything like that, as its reason.
Target is plainly singling out a group of customers (what the hell is this "guest" crap?) for special and
less advantageous treatment.
In the rare event that a pharmacist’s beliefs conflict with filling a guest’s prescription for the emergency contraceptive Plan B, our policy requires our pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner, either by another Target pharmacist or <by> a different pharmacy.
This is really quite simple. It is
discrimination. It is no different from a restaurant saying:
... our policy requires our servers to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s order is filled in a timely and respectful manner, either by another server or <by> a different restaurant.
Except that it is different, on two points:
- lunch orders are of rather less import, in terms of the impact on customers lives if they are unable to have them filled or must fill them
at a later time and
at another place; and
- in the places we are talking about, it is illegal to discriminate in the private sector on the basis of race (a common reason why a server might want to refuse service) but it is not illegal to discriminate on the basis of the nature of a prescription.
"Nature of the prescription" of course factors down to SEX. It is women being denied service by this retailer, women who have a need that is inherently connected with their sex. It is not a drug being discriminated against; that simply makes no sense. It is CUSTOMERS being discriminated against.
Indeed, a retailer does not technically "deny access" to something when it refuses to sell it. However, the
effect of a retailer's actions -- if it acts in concert with other retailers, whether by express agreement or not, or if it is the only retailer reasonably available to provide the good or services -- is that the customer is denied access.
No one would consider for a moment that a restaurant owner which, to accommodate its employees' idiosyncratic preferences, refused service to customers of a certain race who were seeking a service the restaurant holds itself out as providing to the public was behaving decently.
A retailer that adopts this policy in respect of the pharmaceutical needs of a particular segment of its clientele -- a group of people who are in a uniquely vulnerable situation at the time they seek that service, moreover -- is not behaving decently. And I have no problem whatsoever with anyone wanting to boycott it or urge others to boycott it.
Can't boycott it myself as we don't have Target in Canada and I'm not planning any visits to the US, but I'll cheer from the sidelines. I'd want to know what other major US pharmacy chains' policy is, though.
Here, Plan B is available without prescription, behind the counter (as codeine medications are here), although pharmacists are authorized to charge $25 as a "dispensing fee" for providing professional advice to women buying it. I haven't heard of any pharmacy refusing to stock it or of any pharmacy chain agreeing to accommodate its pharmacists' nasty attitudes this way.
My doc put me on a new hypertension medication last month. She gave me 6 weeks' worth of samples the clinic had on hand. The info sheet with the meds was very specific:
the medication should not be taken by pregnant women because it may seriously harm the fetus; I don't have it with me, but I believe it mentioned the possibility of fetal death as well.
My pharmacist isn't a pig, so I know that when I go to fill the prescription when the samples run out, I won't be asked to take a pregnancy test. I certainly expect that any pharmacist with the delicate conscience that some of Target's employees evidently have would refuse to dispense that medication to me unless I presented proof that I was not pregnant. (Whatever that would be ... a pregnancy test taken after 2 weeks of monitored, certified celibacy, I guess ...)
These pharmacists are dishonest buffoons and need to be exposed for what they are, not catered to by their employers. If they demand this accommodation of their employers, the employers must insist that they be consistent in their conscientious objections, just as the military does when faced with a draftee claiming to be a pacifist. They must object to
all acts that violate the code they claim to adhere to,
not just the convenient ones. A pacifist must object to all war; a "pro-life" pharmacist must object to all medications that could cause fetal harm or death.
And employers who choose to cater to the duplicitous scum trying to deny women access to medications they need -- which IS what the pharmacists in question themselves are trying to do, let's not be naive -- have made their bed and chosen their bedfellows, and it's perfectly legitimate to make that bed as uncomfortable for them as possible. They can get up any time they like.
Yup, they might find themselves the target of a wrongful dismissal suit -- but to get around that, all they'd likely need to do is give standard reasonable notice for dismissal without cause. Or stand up and fight any legislation that might purport to require them to continue to employ employees who refuse to perform the duties of their position.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
