Target responds on pharmacist who wouldn't fill emergency contraceptive

prescription. Many of you may have seen in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5091379

that a Target pharmacist refused to fill a woman's prescription for emergency contraceptives because of his "conscience". I wrote Target and got back this lovely form letter.

"Dear Target Guest,

Target places a high priority on our role as a community pharmacy and our obligation to meet the needs of the patients we serve. We expect all our team members, including our pharmacists, to provide respectful service to our guests, particularly when it comes to their health care needs.

Like many other retailers, Target has a policy that ensures a guest’s prescription for emergency contraception is filled, whether at Target or at a different pharmacy, in a timely and respectful manner. This policy meets the health care needs of our guests while respecting the diversity of our team members.

Your thoughts help us learn more about what our guests expect, so I’ll be sure to share your feedback with our pharmacy executives.

Thanks for taking the time to share your questions, thoughts and comments. I hope we’ll see you again soon at Target.

Sincerely,

name removed
Target Executive Offices"

What utter hogwash. I was pissed and this is what I wrote them back.

"I'm sorry but I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. Forcing a customer to go to another pharmacy to have a prescription filled is NOT meeting their health care needs in a timely and respectful fashion.

The basic question is this...where do you draw the line? Would you allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill prescriptions for Viagra for unmarried men? Would you allow them to refuse to fill prescriptions for AIDS drugs? Would you allow one of your cashiers to refuse to ring up a sale for condoms because they don't "believe" in birth control? Where do you draw the line?

The part that I find particularly inconceivable is that you are willing to let these pharmacists turn away a PAYING customer. Aren't you in business to make money?

The simple fact is that you are letting your pharmacists engage in egregiously sexist behavior. I have shopped at Target for years now as an alternative to Wal-Mart. That stops as of today. I will no longer patronize your business and will encourage my friends and family to shop elsewhere as well until the day that your corporation stands up to religious bullies and insists that they do their job...which the last time I checked was to fill legal prescriptions, not to practice medicine or proselitize for their relgious views.

Barbara
Austin, TX"

Fuck 'em and the horse they rode in on.

:applause:

:-)

find a pharmacist on duty who would fill the prescription.

If someone cannot do a job like this objectively, than s/he should probably not be in this field.

ugly women with 3 teeth in their heads who tell me to make them look like Sharon Stone, as long as my morality tells me to avoid ugly people? Wow, what a way to run my biz into the ground before it takes off!

I just don't get how they can let an employee turn away a PAYING customer. Makes no sense at all.

about the "alternate" pharmacy is that customers do not always have the ability to GET to another pharmacy. I mean, it cheeses me off as part of the response from Target - I don't mean that the whole issue doesn't bother me.

Freeway compassion

every pharmacy in town.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

I was feeling pretty damn indignant and was inordinately pleased with my poison pen letter. :)

:applause:

We went there after leaving Walmart too. So now suggestions for another store, super store or some combination of smaller ones, is a question.

So spoiled by the megamarts, you know?

But unless we forget or get stupid, Target won't be getting any more of our money either.

Where do you sleep when you are at Target? I don't want to be a guest. I tell guests in my house that they can get up and get it if they want something.

Oh, yeah, fucking a' on the letter.

It is about time the Co's say, here's our rules. If you want to work here, this is what you have to do...WITHOUT complaining aobut it!

we live in a right-to-fire society. In most states they can fire you for literally no reason or for the tiniest infractions of the most arcane rules/policies. But they won't step up on THIS issue and say "do what we tell you or take a hike".

that THEY WILL NOT fill prescriptions for BS pills, Morning after Pills, Viagra etc, and post that prominently on their font door!

If there are enough supporters of that idea, they'll be very successful! If there aren't enough, TS, they'll fail!

Make it a damn business model!!!!

I want the places that make their pharmacists do their job to post signs saying so. I'd be sure to patronize them. :)

so now "respecting... diversity" means taking christo-fascist fundie loons seriously?

Please, please, some prankish DUer, go work at Target and then get all loud and obnoxious that Kang and Kodos require some very odd on-the-job behavior from you. And yell really loud about "respect my diversity"!

They are still trying to figure out what to do while hoping it will all blow over.

...is injured because of your foolish policy.

Might I suggest a local, neighborhood pharmacy if there is one near you? Or maybe a Costco?

I try to stay away from the chain stores as much as possible.

but I'm gonna ask them when I pick up my prescription tonight if they're allowed to refuse to fill a scrip. If they say yes...I'm pharmacy shopping.

I can't imagine that they'd refuse a "morning after" prescription.

they are first on my list to replace the grocery store. Them and Costco 'cause if I lose my grocery store along with Target I'm gonna have to get a Costco membership.

kudos on the response letter, I'm still writing mine after returning everything I've bought from Target in the last 4 months...and I made it a point to return it through the pharmacy rather than customer service or check-out, during lunch rush, to "Chip" the pharmacist just because he was wearing a "Jesus is Lord" Fish pin on his red vest.

you are EVIL. I like it. :)

That was a fantastic letter!

is doing public relations for Target. "Our policy is good. Our policy insures that all prescriptions will be filled, except when they are not filled. Our policy is good. Shop. Be happy. Shop. Be happy."

I asked in the other thread and some said PP was trying to find out if this was company policy or a store by store policy. It seems to me it might be a store by store "decision," but is 'supported' by the parent company. Is that how others view this?

I find it interesting that they value their employees "diversity" over the diversity of the "guests."

I sent back a response as well asking what exactly happened to the pharmacist in Fenton, MO. If she wasn't fired, I would never shop at Target again. No Target and certainly never Wal-Mart. K-Mart? Anything bad about them??

Thanks for sharing it.

I'm going to borrow some of it to use in mine if you don't mind.

I sent you onto the greatest page, your letter deserved it.

*big smooch*

This is my first thread on the greatest page since they raised the number of votes required to 5.

<https://careers.target.com/1033/ASP/TG/cim_home.asp?partnerid=7098&siteid=68>.

I suggest that you include this in your job application -

Dear Sir or Madam:

I would like to be considered for a job in one of your pharmacies.

I am a member of the General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn. My faith has made the news recently because we believe that people are cured from diseases as a result of their faith in God and not through medical intervention. In compliance with my Christian faith, I do not believe in dispensing medicine.

As you might imagine, I have had some difficulty finding a job with a pharmacy that will respect my Christian faith. Recently, I have learned that Target is respectful of Christians who will not dispense medicine out of their religious beliefs so I am hopeful that I might be employed as a pharmacist at one of your stores.

I am so glad that I finally found a store that rejects the secular view of health care in favor of my faith-based approach to medicine.

Yours in Christ (but not that tolerant hippie Christ),
___

Who doesn't believe in medical interventions at all.

because an infant of a church member died as a result of the parents' refusal to provide the infant necessary medical treatment. Here's one blog that discusses it <http://www.religionnewsblog.com/4118-Infant_dies_after_parents_reject_aid.html> but it mas a pretty widely reported story and so there are many sources to document this ultimate stop on the road Target is headed down.

I have switched to Osco Drugs.

I can't find the link to the pro-choice site that lets you check which pharmacy chains do not have this policy. Rite-Aid, CVS, Walgreens and Eckerd all allow their pharmacists to refuse to do the job they were hired to do.

Here's the link:
http://www.saveroe.com/fillmypillsnow/content.php?pid=302

I take back putting CVS and Eckerd on the list. Other sources I checked said they allowed the policy.

they allow a pharmacist to not fill the prescription but it MUST be filled there in store in a timely manner. No sending the woman somewhere else or making her come back later.

And they require the pharmacists to tell their supervisor beforehand that they can't fill certain prescriptions so they can schedule accordingly. And so they can't just up and decide one day not to do it when a customer is there waiting.

that follows the letter of pharmacist's licensure. It's exactly the same as the rules I have to follow for my licensure.

I always have to tell my employer ahead of time that I will not give hepatitis B shots to newborns unless their mother has hepatitis B and that I will not assist with circumcision. And if my patient wants their child to have the vaccination or a circumcision, their request is handled by another nurse.

I am disappointed to hear of Target's current position on this issue. I'm going to write to my local store to find out their policy before I decide whether to continue shopping there or not. I'll be honest, if I find out they will refuse to fill a woman's prescription for birth control pills, it will be hard to take my business elsewhere.

I was surprised to see K-Mart made the approved list. And Costco too - yet another good reason to shop there.

cashier who refused to handle dollar bills because of the "graven images".

What BS.

If you don't want to fulfill the duties of a pharmacist you shouldn't be a pharmacist.

Mart. They treat their employees like shit, and have you seen a unionized Target? I haven't. I bet they union-bust based on the wallyworld model. I rarely shop there these days. They are disgusting, even more so after this.

She got 40 hours a week plus healthcare.

So stuff it with your uneducated "Treat their workers like crap" rhetoric. Get educated before spouting garbage.

offered him healthcare benefits. That's a long time to work uninsured. And they don't pay much above minimum wage. I'm glad your wife's store seems to be unionized; so far I've never seen a unionized Target. Ask your wife what would happen if she tried to organize a union if the store isn't uionized. She be terminated immediately.

Our Target even used to donate $ to the local school systems. Now - nothing.

I don't know if its the competion from Walmart or if they want to be like Walmart.

That was corporate speak for "his ass is grass, and we're going to talk to his boss."

As long as they put in that the pharmacist can refuse service and send the customer to another pharmacy...it's an unacceptable response.

role is (it's the exact same as a nurse's role given a task/medication that they find against their personal ethics). The pharmacist is not actually required to fill it himself/herself but they are required to get another employee to fill it or they are required, if there is no other employee, to call to another pharmacy and get another pharmacist to fill it and then send someone (not the patient unless the patient desires that for their convenience) to acquire that prescription and then hand it to the patient.

To give you an example as a nurse, let's say I didn't believe in abortion but my hospital provided abortions. I would not be required to take a patient who came in planning on having an abortion as long as there was someone else available. OTOH, if I already was taking care of a patient who decided to have an abortion, I would be the one responsible to find her a new nurse and could not stop caring for her until that was accomplished. If I dropped that ball, it would be abandonment and I could lose my license.

Just as an aside, I have worked in a hospital that provided second term abortions, mostly for anomalies but occasionally for choice and I've been on the opposite side of the above transaction many times. I always volunteered to take these patients because I want them to have someone who cares and doesn't consider their choice wrong.

over a late term abortion that was required for her life. This was in the 60s. The fetus was not viable in any way and while it had some signs of life (enough to fool her and her doctor into her 6th or 7th month) there was no way it would have lived outside of her. It began to make her very sick.

What you do is very important to the women who suffer these tragedies.

but I also strongly support my fellow nurses who aren't able to do that for whatever reason. I think circumcision is barbaric and inhumane and for the most part, unnecessary. I don't assist with circumcisions. So I understand the other side of the conflict as well.

I can understand not particating in the circumcision of a newborn because they have no choice in the matter. But what if you had an adult patient come in who wanted to have one. Would you participate?

I'm not asking to be flippant. I'm really curious. Is it a matter of belief or a matter of consent?

where I took care of adult men, I can say that if they had fully informed consent and still wanted it, yeah, I would help. My issue is that it is a cosmetic and yet damaging procedure practiced upon creatures too young to consent to same.

If this were a religious belief of mine, then no, I wouldn't participate. But I would already have notified my employer that I wouldn't participate in same and someone else would take that patient. In the event that there was no one else to take the patient, I would still not be required to take the patient. That said, I probably would but that would be my personal choice, not cumpulsed.

we are in full agreement about not doing unnecessary cosmetic surgery on infants.

The other thing I'm curious about...when telling an employer that you won't do a procedure do nurses have to explain why...do they have to have a reason...or can they just say "I won't do XX" and that's it?

Sometimes, my nurse managers have expected me to explain. I have explained but have reminded them that my licensure covers me in these areas.

that she would no longer do, oh let's pick something common, inserting IVs. If she told her employer that...would they have any recourse?

I know it's an extreme example. But I'm sure we could sit and think of more meaningful ones.

suddenly decided to not do something, while technically covered, it would likely raise eyebrows. And if that nurse was looked at as using that as an excuse not to do his/her job, the overall job performance would be looked at and I could see if it wasn't defensable that said nurse might be let go.

it just all seems so out of joint to me. We live in a society where in most jobs you can get fired for stupid reasons or no reason at all...but in other jobs they have protections most of us could never imagine. I can't just walk in to my boss's office and tell her " I won't do audits on such and such a topic". She'd have a cow. And then she'd fire my ass.

Granted, I think right to fire is a BAD thing. I just think there are other groups who deserve job protection put into law (which it is in some states) more than fundamentalist pharmacists.

I currently work in a "right to work" state (how Orwellian) so yes, I can be fired easily for making my stands (though that wouldn't be the reason). That's why one really has to be sure about their ethical standpoints.

makes my blood boil and I refuse to use it. I call it what it really is...right to fire.

I think our lovely "right to fire" state is one of the ones that actually passed a law letting pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions without getting in trouble over it. Then with our legislature that can't be a big surprise.

A tiny little viscious part of me is just waiting for the day a real fundie nut actually DOES refuse a man a prescription for reasons of conscience. Should get pretty entertaining around here. :)

I think I might.

babies do in fact recover from this much more timely and safely than adult men, and though at the time of my son's birth this topic was MUCH in the news, primarily being against circumcision; I had my son circumcized. . . here's why.

I spoke to every man that crossed my path, including my brother-in-law, not C'd, my hubby (C'd), and anyone anywhere that I could get to talk to me about it. . . standing in line at the grocery store, filling the tank, . . . you'd be surprised how many men seeing a pregnant woman wanting information clearly she could have no experience with would start telling me ALL about it. . .

In the end, those circumcised men who thought they wish that they had not been had just a vague feeling of loss, or maybe sensation would be improved. . . now these were real, ordinary, men. . . not the horror stories you hear on tv. . . .

However, men who were NOT circumcised at birth and wished they had been, or had even been as adults. . .had shear horror stories as to the problems, urinary tract in nature usually, they had prior to finally having a much more painful adult circumcision, or they were still having chronic problems. My brother in law had really horrible problems, which is why his younger brother, my hubby, was circumcised.

So I decided based on which "worse" scenario seemed less debilitating. I certainly didn't take the decision lightly nor whould I consider that I mutilated him as some have suggested. . . he seems perfectly fine about it, has good sex according to our discussions (yes, my children and I discuss sex quite openly and regularly) and nary one urinary tract infection to date, he is 17 years old. He has also told me that he is glad he was because he doesn't think the un-C'd boys are very comfortable in the locker rooms. That's not exactly how he worded it, but I gather boys/teens don't like the looks of un-c'd penises.

It's my set of ethics. You have a different set. We can coexist. And I can and do choose not to participate. You clearly would choose differently.

BTW, I don't argue with my patients on this. If they want information, I provide it in an unbiased manner. If they choose to circumcise, another nurse helps them with the procedure. I don't proseletyze but neither do I compromise my personal ethics.

BTW, no one is going to get used to the look of uncircumcised penises (the way nature made us) unless we stop circumcising for that reason. I suspect that somali women would say that an uncircumcised woman doesn't look right either but I wouldn't use that argument to convince myself to participate in that either.

living in a pretty rural area then -- and that is my fear, what happens to a woman who needs a procedure done and say -- the only local hospital is Catholic. And they won't do the procedure.

Hypothetical here, but I am sure it's a situation that exists.

What do those women do? Is the hospital required to transport them? What if it needs to be an emergency procedure? Can they refuse the patient?

I am just wondering.

I don't believe for one moment it's really about their "conscience" or not handing out meds that are against their personal ethics. If it was we would hear the same kinds of stories about pharmacists refusing to sell AIDS drugs. Or about them asking men embarassing personal questions before letting them have a Viagra prescriptions like some pharmacists have when giving out birth control.

But we don't hear those stories...because what it's really about is controlling women.

and is the same reason these people don't support abortion, there is still a process in place for assuring that these licensed professionals are not required to violate their personal ethics (even if I think their ethics are fucked up and suspect).

It doesn't include turning away the patient. It does include getting another pharmacist/employee to do the transaction.

let them turn the customer away completely. I even recall one news item where the pharmacist tore up the woman's prescription and several where they wouldn't return the prescription paper. I don't understand how they can get away with that without having their licenses revoked.

and places the pharmacists license in jeopardy. How they get away with that is beyond me. Complaints in those cases, need to be made to the pharmacy licensing boards in the states in which these cases have occurred.

There is a policy in place for how to safeguard the patient while protecting the ethics of the pharmacist. Turning the patient away, tearing up the prescriptions and not returning the prescription if they are refusing service are all breeches of that contract and place the pharmacist in the position of being disciplined by their licensing board.

What Bullshit. How does this meet the needs of their "guests"?

I'll be writing a letter this weekend too. Doubt it will do any good.

So far we have, Walmart, Walgreens and Target. I'm running out of pharmacies to use. How's K-mart and Osco doing in this regard?

http://www.saveroe.com/fillmypillsnow/content.php?pid=302

K-Mart got a thumbs up from Planned Parenthood. Didn't see Osco on the list.

My wife was going to apply for a job at Walgreens until I told her about their policy.

Carries emergency contraception in stock. I know, because I was curious and just got off the phone with the Hy-Vee pharmacist.

Hy-Vee said they didn't carry "Plan B" but could order it for me; the pharmacist was especially proactive and called Walgreens to see if they had it available right away so I wouldn't have to wait.

Now, was the Hy-Vee pharmacy just fulfilling it's obligation to give me the name of an alternative since they wouldn't fill the prescription? I don't know.

Btw, I am not having a contraceptive emergency. I've just been fuming about Target and this thread got me wondering...

but it bears repeating.

Now, that didn't hurt, did it.

but the Bush* administration nipped that right in the bud. *sigh*

Screw Target.

:mad:

The Customer is ALWAYS Right?

I work in retail and that's a phrase i wish no one had ever come up with.

However, in the case of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, I just don't see how they can get away with that, regardless of "ethics." They are not there to practice medicine or make decisions about people's health care - they are there to provide medications legally prescribed by a practicing physician. Period. And I really feel that it they have problems with that, they should not be in that business.

Your letter is great. :thumbsup:

A man named Harry Gordon Selfridge, who opened a department store in London in 1909, coined this phrase to let the customers know he was running a different kind of department store. The store (called Selfridges) is still open.

The phrase may have been true back in 1909. It's not true today. Think about the cop we were ranting about yesterday--the one who maced the Wendy's counterlady. Think about all the idiots I've ranted about. (Oh, I got two new ones just today. Dude comes in to buy a big pile of stuff for his garage. Item number one: a ten-foot-wide garage door. That's a special order item, and I told him that. I even found him the price for one. We go through a few other items that we have, and then he asked for a ten-foot garage door. That's still a special-order item. He asked to be taken to the 10-foot garage doors probably twelve times, and on the last one he demanded to see a manager. I got him one.

"Your employee refuses to show me the 10-foot garage doors you have in stock."
'That's because we don't have any 10-foot garage doors in stock.'

The other guy spent 30 minutes ranting at me because my 40-gallon water heaters are 46 inches high, his is 45 and by damn he needed a water heater 45 inches high because he didn't want to change the plumbing around. Helpful household hint for October 19: if your water heater is plumbed with copper tubing like this guy's was, you can just bend the end up a little and the water heater will go right in.

And this is an idiot from yesterday: he came to the store with his brand-new lawn mower. Somehow he managed to cut through the engine starter rope, so obviously we're supposed to give him a new lawn mower.)

Nope, the customer of today will be wrong as hell if being wrong will benefit him.

yesterday, I sent a letter off to Target reminding them that I will shop elsewhere until they change their policy. I don't know if I will get a response but if we remind them that Walmart's shrinking bottom line is a result of bad press and boycotts will affect their business.

They must believe their customers are idiots if they can do this then claim they respect them and want them to be assisted in a timely manner. Clearly this is about judging, shaming, and controlling women. After all you don't see PETA members working at McDonald's claiming they just wanna ring up salads and make fries. If these pharmacists really believe dispensing birth control was wrong then they have no business in this profession or helping customers seek alternatives.

Dear Ms. __,

I am appalled that Target would discriminate in favor of those who would refuse to fill legal prescriptions based on their religious beliefs while you would simultaneously discriminate against the religious objections of many other Americans.

For example, the General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn is a church that believes we are healed by our faith in Jesus and not by medication. Why is Target unwilling to accommodate the religious faith of those would oppose all prescription medications? Target should not discriminate against the General Assembly and Church of the Firstborn (or those of the Christian Science faith) while it simultaneously adopts a policy that favors the religious objections of those who oppose emergency contraception.

Likewise, the Catholic Church – the largest church in the world and in America – and many other faiths do not believe in the use of prophylactic condoms. How can you justify a policy that prefers the religious objections of those who oppose emergency contraception while you blatantly disregard the religious objections of such Catholics?

Most tragically, Target’s unconscionable discriminatory policy will increase the number of clinical abortions in America.

Finally, Target has pharmaceutical provider agreements with numerous health care plans which offer prescription drug benefits. Target’s failure to fill legal prescriptions based on the unverifiable putative religious beliefs of some unidentified employees is a blatant and inexcusable breach of those agreements. I will be contacting the administrators of my health plan and asking them to enforce the agreements under which I am a premium paying third-party beneficiary.

Please share this feedback with your pharmacy executives as you promised in your email. Please also share it with Target’s corporate counsel.

I'm very disappointed in Target's ignorance on this and now will refuse to shop there.

:thumbsup:

I do believe in freedom of religion.
If someone does not belief in contraception, that's fine. But don't make those decisions for me. The pharmacist in question should be retained, but maybe transfered to the hardware dept.

for the arthritis medicine Methotrexate, the acne medication Accutane, or any of the other medications that can lead to miscarriage as a known foreseeable side effect?

If not, that raises the question whether these pharmacists are really worried about the health of the fetus or if they are more concerned about the conduct of the pregnant woman.

The job of the pharmacist is to NOT be a preacher. Their job is to FULFILL THE SUBSCRIPTION FROM THE DOCTOR!!!! And just for the record not every woman is taking BC because of sex! Sometimes a woman has to take BC for menstrual cycle problems. It's none of their damn business!
They could seriously be messing up a woman for all they know.