Regarding CVS...

Please read the article here: http://www.citypages.com/databank/26/1263/article12963.asp


Casting a Chill on the Pill, a City Pages article by Bridgete Reinsmoen calls out the pharmacy chain, CVS, for its questionable policy that allows its employees to refuse to dispense prescriptions that they consider immoral. Specifically, a rape victim in Texas was denied the Morning After pill at an Eckland drugstore (owned now by CVS, but not at the time) by clerks who deemed the pill immoral. While this shows that CVS’s policies are shaky (why on Earth would you hire someone who is unwilling to sell your products?), I will have to argue against two topics presented in the article: that companies should be prevented from enacting their own refusal/conscious clauses (via state or federal law), and that an individual has a right to get a subscription filled at the most conveniently located pharmacy (more generally, an individual has a right to any service offered by a private business).

Reinsmoen states in her article that although there are no federal laws that prohibit a company’s adoption of refusal clauses, several states have recently passed legislation that would allow a pharmacist’s refusal of any prescription that is considered immoral. While I am sympathetic to the situations of the aforementioned woman, I must assert the fact that CVS is a private corporation that should have the legal right to hire whoever they want (assuming they do not discriminate against race, age, etc.) and to establish policies that would make their employees more comfortable in the workplace. If CVS wants to employ pharmacists that refuse to do their job, that’s CVS’s mistake to make. If CVS wants to turn away paying customers and welcome in bad press and boycotts in order to satisfy the moral concerns of its employees, they should have the freedom to do so. CVS should be allowed to run its business as poorly as it wants to. This is not to say that a private corporation should be able to ignore OSHA regulations or be allowed to sexually harass whomever they please. The rights of the employers and employees need to be protected—perhaps this recent legislation is doing just that.

What about the rights of the woman who had her prescription turned down? I would have to say, what rights? Does an individual have the right to receive all services offered by a business? A maw-and-pop corner store just set up shop down the block from my house, owned by a fella named Tim. When Tim and his wife have to step out for a break, they let their teenaged son run the counter. During this period, the Lotto tickets and the cigarettes displayed on his counter are off-limits as Tim’s son cannot legally sell these products. If I were a smoker or a gambler, would I have my rights threatened while shopping during this time? No. If Tim decides to close his store early to catch the Twins game, do I have the right to pound on his door, demanding that he provide me with the food I need? Tim’s store is within walking distance—the most convenient store in my area. As much of a burden as it would be to find transportation to make my simple purchase, I would have to accept the burden as Tim has no moral obligation to open his store for me. In the case of the Texas woman, CVS has no moral obligation to sell its products or to employ willing pharmacists. It seems like bad business to me, but they are not morally or legally required to do so. The woman would have to find another store.

Now, as I send (via my argument) a recently raped woman on her way to hunt down transportation to find a willing pharmacy, I do so with a newly found disgust for the CVS Company. I will be sure to spread the word and start my own little boycott circle. Boycotts and bad press are the way to attack this issue. Limiting the freedoms of private corporations is not.