Saturday, January 28, 2006

Pharmacists suit

According to this article, "four pharmacists who refused to sign a pledge promising to dispense the morning-after birth-control pill sued Walgreen drug stores Friday, alleging they were illegally fired."

The reason they claim they were illegally fired is because they claim the pledge is contrary to Illinois law (where they sued). The law they cite is the Illinois Right of Health Care Conscience Act (745 ILCS 70). Section 7 of the Act states:

It shall be unlawful for any public or private employer ... including, but not limited to, a medical, nursing or other medical training institution, to ... impose any burdens in terms or conditions of employment on, or to otherwise discriminate against, any applicant, in terms of employment, admission to or participate in any programs for which the applicant is eligible, or to discriminate in relation thereto, in any other manner, on account of the applicant's refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform counsel, suggest, recommend, refer, assist or participate in any way in any forms of health care services contrary to his or her conscience.
The law there sounds pretty clear. It sounds as though the pharmacists are not required to sign the pledge.

The problem comes with a different state law, which requires pharmacies that sell federally approved contraceptives to fill prescriptions for emergency birth control "without delay" if they have the medication in stock. (note: I can't find this law)

Using my astute law student analytical skills, and noting that I'm only a law student, not a lawyer, I will speculate on how I think this should turn out. I think that Walgreen's is right in that they have an obligation to uphold the law and distribute emergency contraception if they have it in stock, and their pharmacists are required to do the same. However, my guess is that they overstepped their bounds by requiring the pharmacists sign a pledge to do so. That condition of employment, assuming that the pharmacists' failure to sign was the proximate cause of their dismissal, appears to be on its face violative of Right of Health Care Conscience Act.

It's very interesting to see how the cases dissect the law to such small pieces.

No comments: