"Pro-life" pharmacies

The BBQ Pit
61

[QUOTE=Pixilated]
extreme reply:
to a chef: “I would like a steak, medium rare.”
“I’m sorry, but we have no meat or meat products here. This is a vegan* diner.”
“But you’re a chef, therefore it is your responsibility to cook what I want regardless”

[/QUOTE]

Hmm, is this restaurant billing itself as a steakhouse? And only denying steak to the ladies while the men get sausages?

The ultimate irony here is, of course, that if a woman is under the impression she can have her BC filled (ring, pill, patch) at this location and finds she cannot, and cannot make it to another location in time to get her prescription filled and insert/take/apply her next dose, she is at an increased risk for unwanted pregnancy. And thus more likely to consider/have an abortion.

62

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I agree that, if a state choses to impose such a condition as a pre-requisite to granting licenses, it’s well within its legitimate power to do so.

If you contend that a state must impose such a condition; that no reasonable person could possibly support any view other than the one which mandates pharamacists to comply, then I disagree.
[/QUOTE]

I’ve never said the state must. I think that it should, but I can see the argument the other way. I also think the pharmacist representative body should make it an ethical responsibility for the profession, but given that I am not a pharmacist, that’s not up to me to decide.

63

[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
Now, ever since the Plan B contraceptive (or morning-after pill) has been available at pharmacies, there has been some controversy over “pro-life” pharmacists refusing to dispense this type of contraception. OK fine, I can sort of understand that since the mechanism it can work by is to prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg, whereas the pill just prevents ovulation, and condoms are just a barrier.
[/QUOTE]
As an aside, it’s a common misconception that the morning after pill disrupts implantation of a fertilized egg. In fact, the morning after pill works exactly the same as the regular birth control pill by preventing ovulation. Most people assume that impregnation happens immediately after sex and thus the morning after pill is wiping out a fertilized egg, but in fact it can take several days for the miracle of knocking someone up to occur. Taking Plan B is just setting up the same chemical roadblocks that the regular birth control pill does, only more hastily and thus less effectively.

64

[QUOTE=Giraffe]
As an aside, it’s a common misconception that the morning after pill disrupts implantation of a fertilized egg. In fact, the morning after pill works exactly the same as the regular birth control pill by preventing ovulation. Most people assume that impregnation happens immediately after sex and thus the morning after pill is wiping out a fertilized egg, but in fact it can take several days for the miracle of knocking someone up to occur. Taking Plan B is just setting up the same chemical roadblocks that the regular birth control pill does, only more hastily and thus less effectively.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah that’s why you can take the ‘morning after pill’ a bit later than just the morning after and there is still a possibility it will work (decreasing with time after intercourse). I got one once when a condom broke, did go the next morning, and they told me it can work within 72 hours or so reasonably effectively, then the effectiveness lessened more after 72 hours.

I just think this pharmacy not selling any form of contraceptive is just dumb if one of their main goals is to stop abortion. It’s the wrong means to their end. If they want to stop women from having abortions (without outlawing them) then it’s all about accurate education to prevent unwanted pregnancies (uhh hello…condoms and the pill anyone?). Instead they are just spreading lies about sexuality (which are already FAR too rampant in this world!) and trying to prevent access to contraceptives. If I had any control over anything, appropriate, early, and accurate sexual education for every person would be a huge priority. Mistakes and accidents will always happen but the more informed people are, the less they happen overall. And then down goes the abortion rate…tah-da!

65

[QUOTE=Orual]
Oh, I will. Because you are full of shit.

No, I would prefer that girls learn that it is possible to become pregnant at any time in their cycle. Because that’s reality.

Not dispensing birth control is one thing (I don’t really agree or approve, but as as long as the person with a prescription has other options to get it filled , I don’t see any legal problem.)

Telling dangerous lies to young people is just categorically shameful.
[/QUOTE]

No, I’m not. The Catholic church offered these classes. I experienced it, I was there. I admit, this was back in the late 80’s/early 90’s and since then I have removed myself from organized religion so it is possible that they no longer do this, which is a real shame.

You quoted me to say:
[QUOTE=Pixilated]
I really wish they would teach NBC to all young women in school along with the other sex ed stuff.
[/QUOTE]

When I actually said:

[QUOTE=Pixilated]
I really wish they would teach NBC to all young women in school along with the other sex ed stuff. Wait, let me clarify - I dont mean for them to teach “natural birth control” in school, but rather to go into more detail about what happens when they are ovulating, etc.
[/QUOTE]

Just goes to show how editing can change what one really says (which really makes me wonder just how accurate some of these accusations are about Prolifers).
I never said that the classes do not teach the possibility of pregnancy at any time - hell, it can happen no matter what kind of BC method you use with very few exceptions. And the pill aint one of them.

Cat Fight: If a woman cannot make it to a location that will fill her prescription by her next dose I am thinking that she waited til the last minute. I dont know many women who wait until their last dose or 2 before refilling - most of them have this done at least a week prior to their last dose. Now, if this is the same pharmacy she has gone to for months, or years and they recently changed their policy then it (imo) is the pharmicists responsibility to notify their customers via store notice at the entrance and at the counter and if they have a call-in auto refill, it should be on there as well with at least a 30 day notice. If this is a new store that she walks in to, there should be a sign at the counter as well. In that case, though, I would say that the customer is not getting a refill but rather a new script in which women should know that they are not protected the first few days anyways (except maybe the ring?).

Just because the store is a pharmacy does not mean that it is required to carry what you need/want. That was the point of the restaurant example. It’s a restaurant, I want food. They serve food. I really want something meaty, they only have vegan food. So what you do is walk out and find a place that has meat on their menu. They’re still a restaurant and they still serve food, they just dont have what I want so I go elsewhere.

Sometimes I really believe that sometimes we make mountains out of molehills, especially when it doesnt coincide with what we, as individuals, believe in. A doctor doesnt want to prescribe bc because it’s against his beliefs. Ok, fine. Please advertise that you are pro-life so I will know and not waste your time or mine, or when I call to make my appt and they ask reason, tell me your office will not be able to assist me so I can go somewhere else. Same thing with a pharmacy. There are oddles of pharmacies that carry bc & many Drs that prescribe them & the ones that don’t are few and far between.

Not offering these services is not taking away your rights to do what you want with your body.

66

They’re a bunch of misogynistic morons, and I give their pharmacy a year.

That said, it’s a free country. They’re free to sell or not sell whatever they like. They’re even free to sell Viagra but not condoms, to sell KY jelly but not dispense birth control. It’s illogical, but there’s no law against illogic.

I’d like to think in this day and age, most women are enlightened enough to know that a pre-marital orgasm is not going to condemn them to hell, regardless of what a pharmacy says.

67

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Why?

Seriously - defend this. You seem to think that there’s some special rule for pharmacists that they have to fill any prescription someone presents. Why shouldn’t a pharmacist have the freedom to refuse to fill prescriptions he doesn’t like? You assert that they don’t get to use moral judgment like you’re announcing some law of science. Where is this written?
[/QUOTE]

It varies from state to state:

California, New Jersey, Maine, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington and Nevada all require pharmacies (and in CA, ME, MA and NV, each individual pharmacist) to fill any valid prescription someone presents. Pharmacists in those states indeed to not, as you wrote, have the freedom to refuse to fill prescriptions they don’t like.

Alabama, New York, Delaware, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Texas are slightly less “encumbering,” so to speak; they require pharmacies (or pharmacists, in applicable jurisdictions) unwilling to dispense medications to provide “a meaningful referral,” “timely access” or “no obstruction,” again, depending upon the jurisdiction.

Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi and South Dakota are at the opposite end of the spectrum; they have, to varying degrees, regulations permitting pharmacies to refuse to dispense medications ranging from contraception to all drugs.

An informative chart, from which I took the above summary, is found here (PDF warning):

http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/PharmacyRefusalPoliciesJanuary2008.pdf

Note that the chart is published by the National Womens’ Law Center, but the actual legal cites check out.

68

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Funny about that pro-choice movement - they often have little respect for the choices others make.

This topic came up before - and some people opined that pharmacists that wanted not to sell these products shouldn’t make the choice for the chains that employ them - which certainly seemed fair.

Now some of them have made that choice, and they’re being raked over the coals for it.

I think it is a poor business model, and these guys will likely lose their shirts. But it is their choice. Their business to run as they see fit. More power to them.
[/QUOTE]

When medicine is practiced for reasons other than for the purpose of providing healthcare, it’s wrong. It’s immoral. It’s STUPID. It’s selfish (the exact opposite of what most people in the world of medicine want to be). It should be criminal.

69

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Ah, but they also laughed at my plans to become a Kosher charcutier…
[/QUOTE]

:: Clap clap clap :: Well done, sir. :slight_smile:

70

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Would you want a pharmacist to blindly fill prescriptions for painkillers, or do you want them to be eyeballing those customers looking for signs that they are abusing the prescription system or are dependent on the medication?

Do you want a pharmacist to but out of your life completely, or do you want them to check your prescriptions for possible drug interactions?
[/QUOTE]
I’ve always assumed that such checks are the responsibility of both the patient and the physician. It’s up to you to remind your doctor what drugs you’re on. Apparently, I was wrong. And as for addiction/dependency - if it’s a legitimate prescription, then yes, they should fill it, because it’s not their concern.

I think a better example would be if you went into a restaurant and ordered a coke, and they said that they refused to serve coke for some ethical reason. I don’t assume that every restaurant has steak, because, well, they don’t. I do however assume that the overwhelming majority of restaurants have coke or pepsi, because the overwhelming majority of them do. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of pharmacies stock hormonal contraception, and I would be a bit put-off if they didn’t.

I don’t expect that you can go to a doctor and tell them what drugs to give you. What I do expect that if I bring a legitimate prescription for a very common drug to a pharmacy, they will fill it. If you don’t want to fill legitimate prescriptions, don’t be a pharmacist! If I want to discuss the ‘morality’ of a particular drug I’d be interested in doing that before trying to fill the prescription. If I go into a restaurant that does serve steak, once I’ve ordered it, I’m not interested in a debate about the morality of eating meat; the appropriate time for that would be before I ordered it.

Well, I think that’s definitely a gray area. If having something in stock puts the employees at a distinct risk of violence, then I can’t really condemn it. However, it’s totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, because there’s not exactly a plague of armed robbers desperate for an estrogen fix. If someone was in some way being harmed or put at risk by being able to get birth control from the pharmacy then I’d have more sympathy. As far as I’m aware, the only conceivable risk would be that women are more likely to have unprotected sex if they’re on hormonal birth control, putting them at a slightly greater risk for STDs - but again, the only people that concerns are the immediately involved parties and their doctors.

71

No that is not what I meant. What is opressive of women is a set of religious beliefs that doesn’t allow them to utilize contraception (to utilize free will to control their fertility). Catholic women (like my grandmother in the 1940s) had no other choice than to keep bearing a multitude of children, because that is what her religion dictated. She may have wanted 2, 3 or 4 kids, but I know she didn’t want 9 kids. And because of this a lot of heartbreak resulted in the household.

72

So, can a doctor refuse to treat black people, Jews, or any other ethnic group they don’t like? What’s the difference?

73

[QUOTE=Pixilated]
Just because the store is a pharmacy does not mean that it is required to carry what you need/want. That was the point of the restaurant example. It’s a restaurant, I want food. They serve food. I really want something meaty, they only have vegan food. So what you do is walk out and find a place that has meat on their menu. They’re still a restaurant and they still serve food, they just dont have what I want so I go elsewhere.
[/QUOTE]

THe difference is, you can get steak somewhere other than a restaurant. You can’t get BCP without going to a pharmacy. And as someone else mentioned, the pill is often prescribed for reasons other than preventing pregnancy (I know a number of girls who used it to manage cramps and the like).

It’s more like going to the post office and finding out they won’t sell first-class stamps.

74

Come on, nyctea, that’s not what he’s saying and you know it. If the pharmacist were refusing to fill contraceptive prescriptions on the basis of race I’d be right on your side. But DMC is making a decision, whether or not we agree with it, not to sell a certain product to anyone. And they have that right.

75

[QUOTE=Pixilated]
extreme reply:
to a chef: “I would like a steak, medium rare.”
“I’m sorry, but we have no meat or meat products here. This is a vegan* diner.”
“But you’re a chef, therefore it is your responsibility to cook what I want regardless”
[/QUOTE]

After being told to go fuck himself by the vegan chef, Dick Q. Carnivore can walk next door to Piggly Wiggly and buy himself a ribeye, then go home and sear it every-so-gently on his George Foreman. Dunno if you’ve ever tried home-cooking your own prescriptions, but let me tell you, “Neighborhood Watch” is a force to be reckoned with.

  • Why is the chef waiting tables anyway? Surely a vegan restaurant can’t ever get that busy. And if he’s taking my order, who’s back in the kitchen trying to torture something edible out of a pile of mung beans? Unless this is some kind of peripatetic vegan hot-dog stand, which, speaking of your fatal business models…
76

The problem is, the failure rate is so high - up to 25% per year. So relying on NBC alone doesn’t do much good.

77

[QUOTE=ivylass]
Come on, nyctea, that’s not what he’s saying and you know it. If the pharmacist were refusing to fill contraceptive prescriptions on the basis of race I’d be right on your side. But DMC is making a decision, whether or not we agree with it, not to sell a certain product to anyone. And they have that right.
[/QUOTE]
Bricker said, “Why shouldn’t a pharmacist have the freedom to refuse to fill prescriptions he doesn’t like?”

Change that to “Why shouldn’t a physician have the freedom to refuse to treat people he doesn’t like?”

Pixilated said, “I’m pretty sure a customer cannot tell a business owner how to do their job if it is against what that business owner wants.”

So I asked, can a business owner put up a sign saying that they will only allow white people or Christian people to shop there? Can a doctor say he will only treat white people or Christian people?

Does anyone know if a doctor is allowed to refuse to treat certain people because he doesn’t like their ethnicity or religion?

I admit they’re not the same exact things, but it’s food for thought.

But regardless, ivylass, if you look at my OP you will see I agree that a retail establishment has the right to sell or not sell whatever products they want. It’s this whole anti-contraception movement and the ideas they promote that I am pitting.

78

[QUOTE=Pixilated]

I really wish they would teach NBC to all young women in school along with the other sex ed stuff. Wait, let me clarify - I dont mean for them to teach “natural birth control” in school, but rather to go into more detail about what happens when they are ovulating, etc. I found the technique to be very interesting and I learned a lot about my body. I think the classes now are targeted for couples who want to have kids.

[/QUOTE]

OK fine, I think that teaching more about the ovulation cycle is great, but I don’t think that the words “birth control” should ever be whispered in the lesson. That is not birth control, that is taking an educated risk, and when it comes to pregnancy I don’t want to take any risks. There is an extremely high risk of pregnancy when compared to other methods, and the risk is even higher when the woman has irregular cycles.

25% failure rate is not an acceptable option for me.

on preview I see that link has already been used.

79

[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]

Does anyone know if a doctor is allowed to refuse to treat certain people because he doesn’t like their ethnicity or religion?
[/quote]

I’m pretty sure that’s illegal, and some hot young reporter on the 6 o’clock news would love to go undercover on that action.

I understand you have a problem with their ideas. However, take a step back…just how widespread are they? If CVS/Walgreens/Target followed in their footsteps, I’d say we have cause for concern. But this is a fringe group, trying to make a splash, and most people will just shrug and drive on down the road to the pharmacy that does sell condoms.

In other words…let them have their fun. It won’t make that big a difference in the grand scheme of things. And by publicizing their story, WaPo is making sure even more people know about them…and can avoid them if they choose.

80

[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
Bricker said, “Why shouldn’t a pharmacist have the freedom to refuse to fill prescriptions he doesn’t like?”

Change that to “Why shouldn’t a physician have the freedom to refuse to treat people he doesn’t like?”
[/QUOTE]

Bad analogy. Let’s change that to “Why shouldn’t a physician have the freedom to refuse to perform procedures she doesn’t like?” Let’s take one procedure, just at random: abortion. Should doctors be required to perform abortions?