The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Maiello's picture

    Dying To Get Out Of CVS Pharmacy

    By Michael Maiello on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 2:48pm |

    So what do you all think was really going on here?

    A boyfriend and girlfriend take a walk together.  The girl succumbs to an asthma attack.  They go to CVS pharmacy to buy an emergency inhaler.  She is on the ground, her throat closing.  They have $20 on them.  It's $21 and change after tax.  The merchant refuses to hand over the inhaler for $20 even after the boyfriend, who shops there all the time, offers to give the clerk his wallet and cell phone while he goes back to his apartment to get the dollar and change.

    I guess the obvious lesson here is that taxes are bad.  Absent New York State sales taxes, the inhaler would have cost $20. Amirite? Amirite?  I kid.

    Perhaps the lesson here is that capitalism is a callous system, useful in many ways but innapropriate in many others.  Maybe.

    But I suggest the real story here is the story of our rules-based society.  Not only do we, as citizens, have more laws to follow than we could possibly be expected to know, we are also subjected to the various rules of the economic hierarchy.  If we want to keep our jobs we have to do what our bosses say, right?

    Our bosses are mostly not evil.  I've managed people before and it's true that sometimes you have to set rules and policies and none of your rules and policies will ever cover every situation.  "Be in by 9 am every day," you tell your team and you mean it because that's what you need to get the job done.  But you don't really mean it when a team member is faced with coming in a little late or letting their cat die.

    Here I'm sure that CVS has a pretty typical policy that its products, many of them medically necessary, must be paid for in full.  I get it, they're a business.  Then you get a low level clerk who wants to keep the job and they act completely out of accordance with any human social norm.  They break the big taboo, really.  Metaphorically, they refuse some one water.  You're not supposed to ever do that.  But the rules say you must.

    In a very little way I see Antigone in situations like this.  We talk a lot about the rule of law around here.  Many of us are very interested in how laws get made and are evn more interested in what laws get made.  But I do hope we're spending some time pondering the limitations of laws, not just to do what they intend but how they can create perverse scenarios like this.

    We might have gone too far with our rulemaking (and our lawmaking) as a culture.  Somebody risked some one else's life to keep their drawer from being under a buck and change at the end of their shift.  How do we enourage people to think a little more, and yes, to break the rules when it makes sense to do so?

    Comments

    We do love our rules and laws in this country.  "No public tethering of dogs", "no stopping or standing within 300 ft.", etc., etc.   Unfortunately without conscience, the best designed system will likely end up delivering something short of justice, some percentage of the time, imo.  So where was the failure of "conscience" in this instance?  The checkout clerk, if s/he was unwilling to extend credit even with the colllaterol of the cell phone, certainly could have involved the store manager in the decision thus deferring the call to him/her.  Maybe that happened, but the article at Gawker was not clear on who was involved.  Most people witnessing such an incident probably would have lent the buck + change required, or at least I hope so.  If the store manager refused, then I'm sure his/her future at CVS has been negatively impacted, though he adhered to corporate policy bulletin 1107-78 to a tee, and that might be a little just.  Then again, I've got a spare $1.50 in my pocket so I could have afforded to help pay for the inhaler.  Does a poor person living on the economic fumes of our society, as the clerk may well be, have the same moral obligation as the financially solvent to lend a hand here?  I'd like to think that most of us would have reached into the till, regardless of our circumstances, and handed over the inhaler.  Conscience.  It's the last bulwark against the tyranny of small minds and small print.  In effect we are the final jury that can find the defendant not guilty if we deem our laws and rules unjust, even though that defendant may in fact be technically guilty by the letter of the law.  It's what's been missing in the Wall Street quidnunc's response that they're merely using the system set in place, absolving themselves of any moral or ethical culpability.  "Them's the rules", or so the refrain goes.  Maybe we're no longer the home of the brave and the free Destor.  Maybe we've become a bunch of sheep, kept docile by the daily influx of bad programming and bad diet. 


    by miguelitoh2o on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 5:50pm

    "Conscience.  It's the last bulwark against the tyranny of small minds and small print."

    That's what I wanted to say, Miguelitoh2o... thanks for coming up with the poetry.  This is far better than "give me liberty or give me death" and can do far more good.  Also, the small minds and small print line is genius wit -- on the level of Wilde (Oscar) or Allen (Woody).


    by Michael Maiello on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 6:53pm

    The specific CVS store had "no comment," while the corporation says "The well-being of our customers is our highest priority and we are looking into this matter."

    One can only hope that CVS will issue a new policy soon that states something to the effect of, "In the case of a health emergency, store management may at its discretion supply aide to a customer even though the customer does not have sufficient funds to purchase their necessary health care item."  Or yada yada, etc.

    I'd like to see CVS use this as a learning lesson.

     


    by LisB on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 6:25pm

    Not surprising if you familiar with CVS. The company is ran like 1939 Germany. Employees are constantly on edge because cvs wants them that way. Fear of losing your job with CVS is common thought with there employees. Go to any CVS and observe the employees. Notice how stressed out they are.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 3:23pm

    An obsession with rule-making and rule-following? I don't think so. At least the current mortgage crisis makes that idea hard to swallow. We have the whole financial sector - from bottom all the way to the top - breaking every rule in the book, and we have the MSM and even the administration tut-tutting anyone who protests with the quaint belief that there is any particular sanctity to property rights and contracts. The only 'respectable' view now apparently involves sacrificing the institutions that uphold the principle of property rights in order to salvage some degree of 'market efficiency' - a view so internally twisted and inconsistent it borders on the insane. It's not a matter of some pharisaical faith in rules, quite the opposite. It's the spread of that hollywood gang-land ethic of 'it's just business, not personal'. We are fed the idea from early on that being hardnosed is the right thing to do, that being ruthlessly self-interested is - by some divine, or rather scientific, magic - also in the interests of society. We are taught to ignore the voice of conscience... in the name of morality. Maybe that is too high-falutin a theory to explain your little anecdotal story. But it is a theory that imo explains a lot of similar little stories.

    by Obey on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 7:05pm

    Obey, good point about me overthinking things but I think the foreclosure problem we've been discussing lately actually makes my point -- the mortgage servicers have gamed the rules and even forged documents to push foreclosures through fast even as we had a system in place (HAMP) to modify those mortgages to prevent foreclosures.  That seems to me a natural case of rules getting in the way of the goals.


    by Michael Maiello on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 11:37pm

    Sorta think you're overthinking this one.  It's easy: the clerk (I thought it was the pharmacist, but I'll trust you on that) could easily have put in the two bucks, or yelled, "Anyone have two bucks to save this woman's life?"  How the hell many times have you been in a checkout line when the person in front of you came up short a few bucks?  You plunk down the dollars, say, "Pass it on; I've been there before," end of subject.  This was a power play, IMO, which people in limited positions of power often get into. 

    It's not a legal or corporate rules problem, IMO, it's a human lack of compassion problem.  Break a law or lie to save a life: it's simple.


    by we are stardust on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 7:25pm

    Okay look, if they had had the $75.00 their house would not have burned down.

    If they had paid the license fee, the dog would not have been poisoned.

    If they had 21 bucks on them the poor woman would not have died.

    If they had some cocaine on them they could have negotiated the damn price.

    America, America

    God shit his disgrace on thee


    by Richard Day on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 9:05pm

    Here's the big question about this clerk:

    The construction workers on the second Death Star, the one in Return of the Jedi that wasn't finsihed yet ... did they deserve to be killed when it blew up, or not?


    by Doctor Cleveland on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 10:24pm

    Oooh... that's a big question.  I have to answer it with another question, though.

    Did they know the first one would blow up if shot in one place?

    Because, uh... they built another one that would blow up if shot in one place.'

    The market says they suck.


    by Michael Maiello on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 11:26pm

    Pretty sure, that one's already been handled.


    by kgb999 on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 1:24am

    Classic!


    by Michael Maiello on Sun, 10/17/2010 - 2:45am

    This truly could only happen in America.

    But hey, look at your paper money....what does it say on the back?

    'In God We Trust'

    ...we don't trust some fakin' deadbeat wanting to ripoff CVS for a whole buck!

    We are a Christian nation and in God, we trust, all other pay cash, in full.


    by NCD on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 10:36pm

    I am so sad that you're so ight.  And... seriously... are we this controlled?


    by Michael Maiello on Sat, 10/16/2010 - 11:27pm

    A Rude Awakening!

    Years ago, I sought employment at a newly-opened Japanese auto plant.  As I recall, about one in 15 applicants were hired.  One went through different levels of testing to even get an interview by the company's staff.  Anyway, I made it.   The direct management was made-up of experienced American managers overseen by Japanese uber-managers.  I will be brief, but working under the initial Japanese work philosophy was like stepping into heaven.  Pay and benefits were all excellent.  Rules were minimal.  As the years went by,  the plant's policies became stricter and stricter.  More rules, less flexibility and harsher punishment.  The Japanese had made a major philosophical error.  They had assumed that the Japanese and American worker's ethics were, basically, the same.  In all my years of working,  I had never observed such insubordination, dishonesty or abuse of benefits.  Before I left, lunch pails were being, individually, inspected for stolen CD players, etc.  Normally, as with safety rule books, management policy is dictated by past experience.


    by chucktrotter on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 12:43am

    People are out to make this story all about being a buck and change short or CVS's corporate greed.

    As a pharmacist, it would never be about that with me. I'd either take the 20 and see what happens if they come back or if they are dependable regulars, just hold the receipt until they had it all for one single transaction later, AND CVS would be fine with that type of customer service to build client loyalty.

    All things being presented at this time, 100% of the pharmacists out there would have picked up the difference or taken the loss instead of watching this girl suffer further.

     Many factors are missing in this story and may not come to light if CVS will not comment pending litigation or investigation.

    Where is your mention of this girlfriend experiencing these attacks for the previous 4-5 days as was quoted by her boyfriend? That is a sign that she is misusing her inhaler and not taking another inhaler or pill that will minimize or prevent these attacks.

    Her throat was closing? This article is the first to mention that. If that's the case, she needed emergency epinephrine or EMS immediately, not be waiting at the pharmacy for a refill.

    Had she been counseled on any this previously by this pharmacy or other? What was her customer relationship with this store prior? I used to see patients get 6 or more inhalers per month when only one was recommended. We'd warn them about the dangers of misusing or overdosing with them. Had this been done?

    Pharmacists have much better things to do then squabble over a few bucks and face more stiffer consequences from the State Board or the corporation if they maliciously let a patient suffer in broad light of the store with the public to see.

    Your article fails to shed any perspective on medical issues within this situation and merely focus on the law and big business protocol.

    And your captcha to post this are ridiculously impossible to type correct the first 3 times. ha


    by elroyeye (not verified) on Mon, 10/18/2010 - 5:16am

    I'm a pharmacist too and I've seen my share of scams. Someone in the media reports one side of the story and all of a sudden it becomes fact to the thousands of readers or viewers who read or watch the report. Check out my blog post and see if you have the same questions about this incident.

     

    http://guzzoextempore.com/2010/10/15/cvs-pharmacist-wrongly-accused/


    by Guzzo (not verified) on Tue, 10/19/2010 - 2:58pm