Noeson in the news again
Back in 2005, I wrote about a man named Neil T. Noeson.
Mr. Noeson is a pharmacist, but he is also a Man of Faith, and he refuses to violate that faith by dirtying his hands (or any clients) with anything involving birth control. He wrote a letter to that effect which never made it into the hands of his supervisors at the "On the Go" pharmacy within K-Mart in Menomonie, Wisconsin.
Which is why when On Saturday, July 6, 2002, the patient, referred to hereinafter as “AR”, went to the K-Mart Pharmacy and requested a refill of her Loestrin FE 1/20 prescription, Mr. Noeson (the only pharmacist on site) asked her specifically if she was using the drug for contraception. When she said yes, "AR" got turned down flat. He refused to aid her, refused to refer her to anywhere else, and (when she went to Wal-Mart and they called for her prescription information) he refused to pass the prescription on.
AR pitched a bitch to the manager of K-mart, who admitted that K-Mart had been having problems the whole day because women could not get their prescriptions filled. She suggested that AR come in on Monday, which is what eventually happened, as Mr. Noeson refused all weekend long to violate his conscience by dispensing the drug... which means that AR had a lapse in her coverage, as she was due to start taking the next course of pills by then.
AR pitched a bitch, Noeson stood his ground and appealed, and the the matter ended up in front of the State of Wisconsin Pharmacy Board which, quite frankly spanked him soundly. They announced Respondent clearly needs training in the ethics of his profession and hit him with the full court costs of the case along with a demand to attend ethics classes and make employers fully aware of his limitations.
Now, many of Noeson's problems came from his point-blank refusal to not only dispense the drugs, but to make his employers aware of his planned refusal, or to take responsibility for not telling them. Again quoting from the WI Pharmacy Board (all the quotes above from their decision): When asked whether he had an obligation to make certain that the pharmacies knew the extent of his conscientious objections and the acts which he would not perform, Respondent answered, “That’s a good question. Is that a good answer or not?” At another point in the hearing, Respondent was asked to explain how an employer could accommodate a pharmacist’s refusal to transfer a prescription if they did not know that the pharmacist would refuse to do so. Respondent again replied, “That’s a good question. That’s my answer.”...
Respondent would have the Board conclude that it was the obligation of others to interpret the extent of his conscientious objections and to ensure that an alternate arrangement was in place so that patients would receive their health care.
Well, in the intervening years, now under order to be Very Very Clear about what he would or would not do thanks to the previous ruling, Noeson found a Wal-Mart where his conscience would be much less conflicted. His supervisor was so very helpful in respecting Mr. Noeson's objections that he not only excused Noeson from dealing with any sort of contraceptive orders, he even put out a separate basket for anything dealing with birth control so that Noeson wouldn't have to touch anything sullied by the evil.
And that STILL wasn't enough! The supervisor soon noticed a pattern: when Noeson got phone calls or clients asking about birth control he didn't get another pharmacist to help them - he put them on hold or walked away from the desk and never told anyone else that there were clients waiting.
The supervisor offered to vet all incoming clients and to ask Noeson to only deal with men and women "not of childbearing age," but Noeson was just going to have to answer the damn phone.
After five days of noncompliance, Noeson was fired. He had to be removed by police when he started lecturing the Wal-Mart shoppers.
Noeson promptly filed a lawsuit, saying that his civil rights were being violated by Wal-Mart's refusing to "insulate him from any interaction, no matter how brief, with any person seeking birth control."
The court smacked him around. He appealed, saying that due to his religion he should have been relieved of all telephone and counter duties and anything else was discrimination. The appeals court just ripped him a new one too (warning: pdf file).
"Life News" has the headline Appeals Court Rules Wal-Mart Can Ignore Pharmacist's Conscience Plea They do make passing mention of the options that Wal-Mart had offered, but also regretfully say that Wal-Mart had announced it would stock Plan B "after tremendous pressure from Planned Parenthood."
The hardships for the employer are glossed over. The hardships for the women are not mentioned.
Part of me is happy that the Board and the Courts are showing some basic common sense regarding the rights of women. The rest of me wants to go to that Wal-Mart right now and smack the crap out of that supervisor, who was only aiding and abetting the notion that to refuse to handle A LEGAL, SAFE, COMMONLY-PRESCRIBED DRUG ON THE BASIS THAT HIS RELIGION OUTWEIGHED THE WOMAN'S BELIEFS AND BODILY INTEGRITY was any kind of permissable.
Mr. Noeson is a pharmacist, but he is also a Man of Faith, and he refuses to violate that faith by dirtying his hands (or any clients) with anything involving birth control. He wrote a letter to that effect which never made it into the hands of his supervisors at the "On the Go" pharmacy within K-Mart in Menomonie, Wisconsin.
Which is why when On Saturday, July 6, 2002, the patient, referred to hereinafter as “AR”, went to the K-Mart Pharmacy and requested a refill of her Loestrin FE 1/20 prescription, Mr. Noeson (the only pharmacist on site) asked her specifically if she was using the drug for contraception. When she said yes, "AR" got turned down flat. He refused to aid her, refused to refer her to anywhere else, and (when she went to Wal-Mart and they called for her prescription information) he refused to pass the prescription on.
AR pitched a bitch to the manager of K-mart, who admitted that K-Mart had been having problems the whole day because women could not get their prescriptions filled. She suggested that AR come in on Monday, which is what eventually happened, as Mr. Noeson refused all weekend long to violate his conscience by dispensing the drug... which means that AR had a lapse in her coverage, as she was due to start taking the next course of pills by then.
AR pitched a bitch, Noeson stood his ground and appealed, and the the matter ended up in front of the State of Wisconsin Pharmacy Board which, quite frankly spanked him soundly. They announced Respondent clearly needs training in the ethics of his profession and hit him with the full court costs of the case along with a demand to attend ethics classes and make employers fully aware of his limitations.
Now, many of Noeson's problems came from his point-blank refusal to not only dispense the drugs, but to make his employers aware of his planned refusal, or to take responsibility for not telling them. Again quoting from the WI Pharmacy Board (all the quotes above from their decision): When asked whether he had an obligation to make certain that the pharmacies knew the extent of his conscientious objections and the acts which he would not perform, Respondent answered, “That’s a good question. Is that a good answer or not?” At another point in the hearing, Respondent was asked to explain how an employer could accommodate a pharmacist’s refusal to transfer a prescription if they did not know that the pharmacist would refuse to do so. Respondent again replied, “That’s a good question. That’s my answer.”...
Respondent would have the Board conclude that it was the obligation of others to interpret the extent of his conscientious objections and to ensure that an alternate arrangement was in place so that patients would receive their health care.
Well, in the intervening years, now under order to be Very Very Clear about what he would or would not do thanks to the previous ruling, Noeson found a Wal-Mart where his conscience would be much less conflicted. His supervisor was so very helpful in respecting Mr. Noeson's objections that he not only excused Noeson from dealing with any sort of contraceptive orders, he even put out a separate basket for anything dealing with birth control so that Noeson wouldn't have to touch anything sullied by the evil.
And that STILL wasn't enough! The supervisor soon noticed a pattern: when Noeson got phone calls or clients asking about birth control he didn't get another pharmacist to help them - he put them on hold or walked away from the desk and never told anyone else that there were clients waiting.
The supervisor offered to vet all incoming clients and to ask Noeson to only deal with men and women "not of childbearing age," but Noeson was just going to have to answer the damn phone.
After five days of noncompliance, Noeson was fired. He had to be removed by police when he started lecturing the Wal-Mart shoppers.
Noeson promptly filed a lawsuit, saying that his civil rights were being violated by Wal-Mart's refusing to "insulate him from any interaction, no matter how brief, with any person seeking birth control."
The court smacked him around. He appealed, saying that due to his religion he should have been relieved of all telephone and counter duties and anything else was discrimination. The appeals court just ripped him a new one too (warning: pdf file).
"Life News" has the headline Appeals Court Rules Wal-Mart Can Ignore Pharmacist's Conscience Plea They do make passing mention of the options that Wal-Mart had offered, but also regretfully say that Wal-Mart had announced it would stock Plan B "after tremendous pressure from Planned Parenthood."
The hardships for the employer are glossed over. The hardships for the women are not mentioned.
Part of me is happy that the Board and the Courts are showing some basic common sense regarding the rights of women. The rest of me wants to go to that Wal-Mart right now and smack the crap out of that supervisor, who was only aiding and abetting the notion that to refuse to handle A LEGAL, SAFE, COMMONLY-PRESCRIBED DRUG ON THE BASIS THAT HIS RELIGION OUTWEIGHED THE WOMAN'S BELIEFS AND BODILY INTEGRITY was any kind of permissable.