Does Business Have a Conscience?

Back in July, I wrote about the ongoing controversy surrounding pharmacists’ right to refuse to dispense emergency contraception, such as Plan-B, because they felt it violated their religious beliefs. As I stated then, for me

“the real heart of this issue is can an employee refuse to carry out specific aspects of their job that they do not like?…While I don’t think anyone on either side of this issue is advocating that people perform their jobs like robots with no room for compassion or common sense, we have to weigh the public responsibility of the pharmacy position (to dispense medications as requested) against individual freedom (to exercise free will).”

I feel that this is a “slippery slope” argument. Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what is not? As I explained to one commentor, who felt that my hypothetical example of a mailman refusing to deliver pornography on the grounds that s/he morally opposes it was not on par with pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions they believe will cause an abortion:

“Both situations (pharmacists refusing to dispense plan-B and postal carriers delivering magazines) involve one person (an employee) refusing to carry out a responsibility that directly impacts another person’s individual freedom over their own body (to prevent pregnancy or to masturbate).

Are you suggesting that moral objections are only legitimate in certain situations? That the rights of someone who finds pornography sinful should be less protected than someone who believes abortion is sinful? Who gets to decide what situations we can object to (the very question the WA State court is trying to decide right now)? What if the postal carrier believes viewing pornography is just as objectionable as abortion? Would that make it ok for them to not deliver pornography if that were part of their job?”

A surprising number of comments wholeheartedly felt it was acceptable to refuse the parts of their jobs that they disliked (much to my surprise). And recent developments have shown that the Bush Administration feels the same. The New York Times reports

“The Bush administration, as expected, announced new protections on Thursday for health care providers who oppose abortion and other medical procedures on religious or moral grounds.

“Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,” Michael O. Leavitt, the secretary of Health and Human Services, said in a statement on his department’s Web site….

The measures announced on Thursday, sometimes described collectively as the “conscience rule,” were issued just in time to take effect before the start of the new administration.”

I still need to read the rule in its entirety, but I’m disturbed by this statement in the Times piece:

“The rule prohibits recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and health care aides who refuse to take part in procedures because of their convictions, and it bars hospitals, clinics, doctors’ office and pharmacies from forcing their employees to assist in programs and activities financed by the department.”

What exactly constitutes a “forced assist?” Could I sue my employer for making me come in on a Sunday when I don’t feel like it? Where does it end?

Can We Refuse The Parts Of Our Jobs We Don’t Like?

Last week I wrote about Tamara Klopfenstein, the assistant who sued her former employers for sexual harassment because they asked her to fetch them coffee, and debated about whether or not we are allowed to refuse to carry out aspects of our jobs we do not like.

After coming across a recent article in the Seattle PI, I realized that this debate is alive and well and playing itself out in the Washington State court system. Pharmacists in both my hometown of Seattle, as well as across the country, are refusing to dispense the highly controversial birth control drug, Plan B.

According to the Washington Post:

The trend has opened a new front in the nation’s battle over reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman’s right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized — or force them to carry out their duties.

Setting aside the issues of abortion and reproductive rights, the real heart of this issue is can an employee refuse to carry out specific aspects of their job that they do not like?

What makes the pharmacists/Plan B debate especially inflammatory is that their refusal to act directly impacts the rights and well-being (so to speak) of others.

“We don’t have a profession of robots. We have a profession of humans. We have to acknowledge that individual pharmacists have individual beliefs,” said Susan C. Winckler, the [American Pharmacists] association’s vice president for policy and communications.

While I don’t think anyone on either side of this issue is advocating that people perform their jobs like robots with no room for compassion or common sense, we have to weigh the public responsibility of the pharmacy position (to dispense medications as requested) against individual freedom (to exercise free will).

Advocates for pharmacists’ rights argue that if refused their request for Plan B, customers can take their business elsewhere to one of many pharmacies that will fill the prescription. But many women’s rights advocates argue with equal fervor that any pharmacist with an objection to filling prescriptions of any kind can just as easily change professions to one that does not require them to make moral objections.

Where do we draw the line? Can pharmacists refuse to dispense AIDS drugs because they find homosexuality immoral? Can a Postal Carrier refuse to deliver issues of Playboy because they find pornography disgusting? Is it a violation of their civil rights to force them to do so?

Are there situations when the public good trumps private freedom?

The Patriot Act certainly thinks so, and for the time being, so does the Washington State district court.