"Pro-Life" Drugstores Market Beliefs [Archive]

Don't panic

Jun 25, 2008, 09:14 AM

It is a private business. They have every right to sell which products they want, and to keep those they don't want off of the shelves. The better question here is why you want to trample the constitution and the liberties afforded to us by a democratic government.

This isn't a pro-life / pro-choice argument. It is a freedom argument. If the person who owns that business doesn't want to sell contraceptives... then that is their right. Just like we wouldn't force a Jewish grocery store owner to sell pork, or a muslim store owner a crucifix.

Government has no right to stick their nose in this issue.

this is only partly true.
if you are a pharmacist, you have an ethical and moral obligation to fill presciptions (the legal part is being discussed). If you are not ready to do that, than by all means you should NOT be allowed to be a pharmacist.

over the counter drugs are maybe a little bit different, but i cannot see any ethical and moral reason whatsoever that should limit the availability of condoms, for example. It's sheer stupidity, and it comes at a great social and medical cost.

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 09:29 AM

The better question here is why you want to trample the constitution and the liberties afforded to us by a democratic government. Who wants to do this?

This isn't a pro-life / pro-choice argument. It is a freedom argument. If the person who owns that business doesn't want to sell contraceptives... then that is their right.
I'm sure that would be very comforting to a raped woman. Go freedom and self-righteousness.

Government has no right to stick their nose in this issue.
And they're not are they :confused:?

Speaking of not understanding... Yeah they're not as much anti-sex as they are pro-disease. Pro-disease pharmacies.

fivepoint

Jun 25, 2008, 09:29 AM

this is only partly true.
if you are a pharmacist, you have an ethical and moral obligation to fill presciptions (the legal part is being discussed). If you are not ready to do that, than by all means you should NOT be allowed to be a pharmacist.

over the counter drugs are maybe a little bit different, but i cannot see any ethical and moral reason whatsoever that should limit the availability of condoms, for example. It's sheer stupidity, and it comes at a great social and medical cost.

So, you don't agree with freedom of religion?

The constitution does protect freedom of religion, freedom of expression, a free-market, and capitalism the last time I checked. What's being suggested here is nothing more than facism... the government mandating that businesses sell specific products, even if it goes against the business owner's religion.

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 09:31 AM

What's being suggested here is nothing more than facism...
I hate faces.

p.s. you also don't know what fascism is.

tobefirst

Jun 25, 2008, 09:33 AM

Yeah they're not as much anti-sex as they are pro-disease. Pro-disease pharmacies.

Of course, that must be it.

Listen, I'm not arguing that the anti-contraception stance is exactly the best thing that has ever been proposed, but at least I've taken the time to understand *why* people believe in it. Ignorance surely must be bliss.

fivepoint

Jun 25, 2008, 09:37 AM

Who wants to do this?
Pay close attention to your next comment. You won't have to wait long to find out 'Who?'

I'm sure that would be very comforting to a raped woman. Go freedom and self-righteousness.
Oh snap! It's YOU! You're the one! You see... you are justifying the cripling of the constitution/bill of rights in the name of of rape. By doing so you are are just as bad as those who start wars under false-pretences under the flag of 'safety'. You need to look at the big picture. Is saving a few girls from having 'rape babies' (or having to drive a few more miles to get the pills they need) worth trampling the freedoms, liberties, and ideals of our country? Do not mistake my apparent 'hard stance' as not caring, or as being cold to her plight... just the opposite. I want her and maybe some day her kids to grow up in the country that was promised to them, and not one where the government tells them what to do, and h ow to do it.

People like you frighten me... because each and every day this happens. We are losing our liberties inch by inch... in the name of things that will 'help us'... and you don't bat an eye. As long as the liberty being crushed doesn't affect your life to much, it's no big deal. But just you wait, soon enough, it will... and then you'll be the one complaining and no one will be listening. If there is anything worth fighting for guys, this is it. Our freedoms.

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 09:37 AM

Listen, I'm not arguing that the anti-contraception stance is exactly the best thing that has ever been proposed, but at least I've taken the time to understand *why* people believe in it. Ignorance surely must be bliss.
What on earth do the tinpot beliefs of a pharamacist have to do with a raped girl?

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 09:41 AM

Pay close attention to your next comment. You won't have to wait long to find out 'Who?'
So it was a made up the strawman for the sake of argument. At least your honest.

Oh snap! It's YOU! You're the one! You see... you are justifying the cripling of the constitution/bill of rights and attempting to justify it with a case of rape.
You've lost me.

By doing so you are are just as bad as those who start wars under false-pretences under the flag of 'safety'. You need to look at the big picture. Is saving a few girls from having 'rape babies' (or having to drive a few more miles to get the pills they need) worth trampling the freedoms, liberties, and ideals of our country? People like you frighten me... because each and every day this happens. We are losing our liberties inch by inch... in the name of things that will 'help us.'
Hilarious. Providing judgement free health care is a slippery slide into a loss of liberties :rolleyes:. In my clinic I'll be sure not to treat smokers, christians, and assorted ethnicities and people named bob.

fivepoint

Jun 25, 2008, 09:41 AM

I hate faces.

p.s. you also don't know what fascism is.

Too late to delete man... I already quoted you.

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 09:46 AM

Too late to delete man... I already quoted you.
Do you have a point :confused:. I'm not about to delete anything although I am starting to be befuddled. Do you want to discuss the topic or just be hyperbolic and inflammatory?

leekohler

Jun 25, 2008, 09:49 AM

Hilarious. Providing judgement free health care is a slippery slide into a loss of liberties :rolleyes:. In my clinic I'll be sure not to treat smokers, christians, and assorted ethnicities and people named bob.

Exactly. And yes, these people are anti-sex and pro-ignorance. I understand it completely. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian family. Believe me- I know what these people stand for.

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 09:57 AM

Exactly. And yes, these people are anti-sex and pro-ignorance. I understand it completely. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian family. Believe me- I know what these people stand for.
I'm with you Lee. Nothing irks me more than fellow healthcare providers deciding what is and isn't worth treating due to their beliefs. You leave that rubbish at the door when you've providing an essential community service. Each and every patient deserves to be assessed, educated, treated, and provided follow-up equally and with the same respect and confidentiality. It's the same for all arms of healthcare.

redwarrior

Jun 25, 2008, 09:58 AM

This particular story doesn't bother me, because I know that there are other pharmacies that will fill whatever prescription a doctor has prescribed. I'm glad that people, and companies, have moral freedoms, because I don't want mine taken away.

I do applaud this business for standing up for what they believe to be right. I disagree with their decision to keep contraceptives off the shelves, but I agree with their decision to facilitate saving of lives. I do not think that because one crime was committed (rape), that another more horrendous one should be committed (killing a baby). That is totally illogical to me in a civilized society.

And, I'm sorry, leekohler, but I disagree with your statement The reason you don't understand is that these drug stores and people aren't pro-life, they're anti-sex. Let's call it what it is, please.
I don't think that is true. There are some pharmacists, and other people, like me, who believe that one should use their talents and education to heal, not to kill. Like I said before, I don't understand not carrying contraceptives, (they should simply only sell to say, 18 and over?) but I do agree with their refusal to dispense life-ending drugs.

Of course, imho, there are way too many drugs prescribed by doctors that do much more harm than good. If it were me, I'd be counseling people on their diet and exercise, explaining how they can cure themselves without drugs, but that's another thread.:D

fivepoint

Jun 25, 2008, 10:12 AM

I'm glad that people, and companies, have moral freedoms, because I don't want mine taken away.

I was pleased to read your entire post, but this comment is especially important. Thank you for sharing your views.

leekohler

Jun 25, 2008, 10:13 AM

This particular story doesn't bother me, because I know that there are other pharmacies that will fill whatever prescription a doctor has prescribed. I'm glad that people, and companies, have moral freedoms, because I don't want mine taken away.

I do applaud this business for standing up for what they believe to be right. I disagree with their decision to keep contraceptives off the shelves, but I agree with their decision to facilitate saving of lives. I do not think that because one crime was committed (rape), that another more horrendous one should be committed (killing a baby). That is totally illogical to me in a civilized society.

And, I'm sorry, leekohler, but I disagree with your statement
I don't think that is true. There are some pharmacists, and other people, like me, who believe that one should use their talents and education to heal, not to kill. Like I said before, I don't understand not carrying contraceptives, (they should simply only sell to say, 18 and over?) but I do agree with their refusal to dispense life-ending drugs.

Of course, imho, there are way too many drugs prescribed by doctors that do much more harm than good. If it were me, I'd be counseling people on their diet and exercise, explaining how they can cure themselves without drugs, but that's another thread.:D

That fact that they refuse to sell contraceptives illustrates my statement perfectly. They don't want anyone to have sex for pleasure, and if they do, there must be consequences- a disease or a child. The message is loud and clear redwarrior. I don't see how it could be misinterpreted.

What's next? Will they refuse to sell AIDS drugs to people who need them?

atszyman

Jun 25, 2008, 10:21 AM

Personally I have no problem with these "pharmacists" doing this provided that there is another pharmacy within a reasonable distance (less than 50 miles, preferably less than 20) that will fill the prescriptions.

For one, you know which pharmacy not to go to, and it will attract the pharmacists who feel the need to push their own morality on their customers, while the other pharmacy doesn't have to worry as much about being sued for religious discrimination because they wouldn't hire someone who will fill every prescription.

They have their right to open their business and supply the product they want to supply, just as every woman on earth has the right to not shop there.

I do have a problem if there is no alternative pharmacy within a reasonable distance. I've known women to be on birth control for a variety of reasons some of which have nothing to do with having sex or getting pregnant, why should they be denied their prescription? What if an allergy medicine can lead to miscarriage? Will they refuse to give that to any woman because she might become pregnant at any time?

I don't want the only pharmacy in town to be able to overrule my doctor and refuse to fulfill a prescription. I understand if they have concerns and want to consult my doctor to make sure everything was accounted for (forgotten drug allergy, reactions with other medications I might have taken recently) but if there's only one choice in town the Doctor's final decision should be honored.

iJohnHenry

Jun 25, 2008, 10:23 AM

Providing judgement free health care is a slippery slide into a loss of liberties :rolleyes:. In my clinic I'll be sure not to treat smokers, christians, and assorted ethnicities and people named Bob.

Up here, even "free" health care providers are allowed, with good cause, to "fire" a patient that continually ignores a doctor's directives.

Let them find another doctor, with time to waste.

PS: I too am suspicious of "Bob"s, and avoid them at every opportunity.

redwarrior

Jun 25, 2008, 10:25 AM

I'm with you Lee. Nothing irks me more than fellow healthcare providers deciding what is and isn't worth treating due to their beliefs. You leave that rubbish at the door when you've providing an essential community service. Each and every patient deserves to be assessed, educated, treated, and provided follow-up equally and with the same respect and confidentiality. It's the same for all arms of healthcare.
People don't stop being human because they make the choice to go into health care, at least I hope they don't. We are conscious, moral, creatures. Everyone has some form of belief system of what is right and wrong. No one should be made to go against what they believe is right, especially in this situation. A pharmacist can do so much good in every other area; it is wrong to require him to do something that would haunt him for the rest of his life, especially since the patient can walk next door and get the prescription filled with no problem. (If that were not the case, I would seriously reconsider my position on this, but that fact makes this easy for me!)

And, from the standpoint of a woman who has gone through some of this. It is much better to teach young people to abstain from sex until they are physically and mentally able to handle it, than to give a give a morning after pill. It seems like an easy solution at the time, but she will deal with that decision for the rest of her life. The doctor won't, and the pharmacist won't. While I think it is the parents' and child's responsibility to make these decisions, and not the doctor's or pharmacist's, it is wrong to require someone to violate their conscience and end a life. After all, the doctor who prescribes the drugs is doing it based on his beliefs.

The same issue arises with children with(?) ADHD. Medicine is subjective to the beliefs and even education of the provider.

And leekohler, to me it is more an issue of selling contraceptives to minors. Having said that though, this also really scares me, knowing that if they can't get contraceptives, they will have sex anyway. And that leads to not only babies, but now deadly diseases. (The fear of these diseases was almost non-existent when you a I were teenagers!) It's a difficult issue to deal with as a parent, but again, I reiterate, the customer can go next door and buy whatever they require.

I am Christian. (Stop that Lee, i saw that eye-roll!) I am against government regulation of what a merchant or health care provider can say or do. We are thinking individuals and should use our intellect and common sense and prevent the government from attempting to be our moral conscience.

Ok, what did I leave out? :rolleyes:

imac/cheese

Jun 25, 2008, 10:28 AM

I have never understood the correlation between "pro-life" and use of contraception's. Add in the fact that many babies, born into poverty, which are subject to a life of malnutrition, lack of education, and often crime, which the pro-lifers' later despise, and can hardly wait to imprison, and you have the greatest example of hypocrisy in this country. These people make my blood boil.

It all comes down to the meaning of life and the fact that every sperm is sacred.

themadchemist

Jun 25, 2008, 10:29 AM

How many pharmacies are in this area? If this is the only one reasonably close to these folks, then this behavior is unacceptable. Whatever you'd like to say, the patient's rights and conscience should not suffer at the expense of the pharmacist's. The pharmacist's job is to fill the script--if there are folks who can only reach this pharmacy, it is that pharmacy's responsibility to find alternate arrangement to get the script filled. These so-called "conscience" laws are bogus.

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 10:31 AM

It all comes down to the meaning of life and the fact that every sperm is sacred.
Monty Python has nothing to do with this.

it5five

Jun 25, 2008, 10:33 AM

This doesn't affect me in any way since I live in a larger city and have plenty of other pharmacies to shop at, but like themadchemist said, I certainly hope some small town somewhere isn't stuck with one of these pharmacies as the only one within a reasonable distance.

It is much better to teach young people to abstain from sex until they are physically and mentally able to handle it, than to give a give a morning after pill.

And even easier would be the use of condoms.

redwarrior

Jun 25, 2008, 10:36 AM

This doesn't affect me in any way since I live in a larger city and have plenty of other pharmacies to shop at, but like themadchemist said, I certainly hope some small town somewhere isn't stuck with one of these pharmacies as the only one within a reasonable distance.
I live in a very small town, but we have one big-name pharmacy and a couple of locally-owned ones that I really like. I can go in and talk to the pharmacist and they can "whip-up" anything, usually cheaper than the big chains. But they don't carry everything, and I have been sent away because they didn't care a prescribed face cream! But, I'm not going to complain to the government.:)

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 10:36 AM

it5five

Jun 25, 2008, 10:39 AM

I live in a very small town, but we have one big-name pharmacy and a couple of locally-owned ones that I really like. I can go in and talk to the pharmacist and they can "whip-up" anything, usually cheaper than the big chains. But they don't carry everything, and I have been sent away because they didn't care a prescribed face cream! But, I'm not going to complain to the government.:)

That's great, but face cream and contraceptives are two different things. One is used to treat a skin problem you may be having, and the other prevents the spread of disease and allows people to have sex for pleasure without having to worry about pregnancy.

redwarrior

Jun 25, 2008, 10:43 AM

That's great, but face cream and contraceptives are two different things. One is used to treat a skin problem you may be having, and the other prevents the spread of disease and allows people to have sex for please without having to worry about pregnancy.
I understand that completely. And I don't understand their not selling contraceptives unless it is because they don't want to provide access to children. Whether I understand it or not, I stand by their right to choose what they sell and dispense.

it5five

Jun 25, 2008, 10:47 AM

And I don't understand their not selling contraceptives unless it is because they don't want to provide access to children.

It's most unfortunate in that case, since it's that demographic that needs contraceptives most. Kids are going to have sex wether they have condoms or not, and having protection available would cut down on teenage pregnancy quite a bit, I'd imagine.

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 10:47 AM

I understand that completely. And I don't understand their not selling contraceptives unless it is because they don't want to provide access to children. Whether I understand it or not, I stand by their right to choose what they sell and dispense.
So you'd support them preventing kids from obtaining the best water balloons money can buy?

redwarrior

Jun 25, 2008, 10:49 AM

Frankly this is poppycock ;). In medicine you treat everyone to the best of your abilities. You can't pick and choose which patients you treat based on their ailment abiding by your own morality or belief systems. If that were the case people would be dying all over the place while you stood in the corner impressed with the integrity of your own moral ego.
I don't feel that that is what they are doing. (I've always wondered what "poppycock" actually is.:confused:;))

Iscariot

Jun 25, 2008, 10:50 AM

It is a private business. They have every right to sell which products they want, and to keep those they don't want off of the shelves. The better question here is why you want to trample the constitution and the liberties afforded to us by a democratic government.

That's not a valid question, it's a loaded and misleading one. Certain professions have a moral (or contractual with the government) obligation to provide certain services. This raises the question as to whether or not the pharmacy should have the right to refuse to carry certain prescription and non-prescription drugs. Pharmacies are already heavily regulated by the government in that they can not sell certain items without a prescription, can not sell certain items to minors, etc.

I do not think that because one crime was committed (rape), that another more horrendous one should be committed (killing a baby).

We're talking about contraception, not abortion. Even the emergency contraception pill is a contraceptive: it prevents fertilization, ovulation and implantation and will not work after implantation of the embryo.

leekohler

Jun 25, 2008, 10:50 AM

People don't stop being human because they make the choice to go into health care, at least I hope they don't. We are conscious, moral, creatures. Everyone has some form of belief system of what is right and wrong. No one should be made to go against what they believe is right, especially in this situation. A pharmacist can do so much good in every other area; it is wrong to require him to do something that would haunt him for the rest of his life, especially since the patient can walk next door and get the prescription filled with no problem. (If that were not the case, I would seriously reconsider my position on this, but that fact makes this easy for me!)

Next door? Really? Again- health care isn't a restaurant, it's an essential service.

And, from the standpoint of a woman who has gone through some of this. It is much better to teach young people to abstain from sex until they are physically and mentally able to handle it, than to give a give a morning after pill. It seems like an easy solution at the time, but she will deal with that decision for the rest of her life. The doctor won't, and the pharmacist won't. While I think it is the parents' and child's responsibility to make these decisions, and not the doctor's or pharmacist's, it is wrong to require someone to violate their conscience and end a life. After all, the doctor who prescribes the drugs is doing it based on his beliefs.

If the decision is best left to the patient, then why do you approve of the pharmacist's making the decision? Someone's beliefs are getting trumped, no matter what.

The same issue arises with children with(?) ADHD. Medicine is subjective to the beliefs and even education of the provider.

And leekohler, to me it is more an issue of selling contraceptives to minors. Having said that though, this also really scares me, knowing that if they can't get contraceptives, they will have sex anyway. And that leads to not only babies, but now deadly diseases. (The fear of these diseases was almost non-existent when you a I were teenagers!) It's a difficult issue to deal with as a parent, but again, I reiterate, the customer can go next door and buy whatever they require.

I am Christian. (Stop that Lee, i saw that eye-roll!) I am against government regulation of what a merchant or health care provider can say or do. We are thinking individuals and should use our intellect and common sense and prevent the government from attempting to be our moral conscience.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't roll my eyes and could really care less what someone believes. But I don't want their beliefs preventing me from things that I want or need either. And again, you're going to have to prove to me that someone can simply "go next door" to get what they need. In many cases, that's simply not true.

fivepoint

Jun 25, 2008, 10:53 AM

Frankly this is poppycock ;). In medicine you treat everyone to the best of your abilities. You can't pick and choose which patients you treat based on their ailment abiding by your own morality or belief systems. If that were the case people would be dying all over the place while you stood in the corner impressed with the integrity of your own moral ego.

.Andy,
What are your thoughts on assisted suicide?
Do you think the government should prohibit doctors from doing it?

redwarrior

Jun 25, 2008, 10:54 AM

So you'd support them preventing kids from obtaining the best water balloons money can buy?
In their particular store, yes. It should be completely and totally up to the store owner as to what he/she chooses to sell. If that particular water balloon manufacturer used child labor in an underdeveloped county, the store owner should be allowed to turn down that product's being distributed in his store. (I know, sounds a little self-righteous, but we have those issues here too.!) If more people would live their lives according to their conscience and not perceived public pressure, I think everything would run more smoothly. (Not that I have managed to completely attain that level of confidence, but I'm working on it.):o

Iscariot

Jun 25, 2008, 10:58 AM

.Andy,
What are your thoughts on assisted suicide?
Do you think the government should prohibit doctors from doing it?

There's already a thread about euthanasia (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=504256&highlight=euthanasia), in which .Andy makes his feelings clear, thank you.

redwarrior

Jun 25, 2008, 11:03 AM

Next door? Really? Again- health care isn't a restaurant, it's an essential service.

From the article:
the drugstore, located in a typical shopping plaza featuring a Ruby Tuesday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Ruby+Tuesday+Inc.?tid=informline), a Papa John's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Papa+John%27s+International+Inc.?tid=informline) and a Kmart (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Kmart+Corporation?tid=informline), simply leads me to believe there are other pharmacies close by.

If the decision is best left to the patient, then why do you approve of the pharmacist's making the decision? Someone's beliefs are getting trumped, no matter what.

If someone believes that killing an animal for fun is ok, I'm not going to stand by and watch them do it. Health care professionals take oaths to care for the ultimate well-being of their patients. I don't know if pharmacists are required to do this. But if they believe that what they are doing is in the best interest of the patient. ???? I'm not going to begin to say that I have all the answers, cause I don't. If it were me, I'd carry contraceptives, and even Plan B. But it's not up to me.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't roll my eyes and could really care less what someone believes. But I don't want their beliefs preventing me from things that I want or need either. And again, you're going to have to prove to me that someone can simply "go next door" to get what they need. In many cases, that's simply not true.
I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was trying to lighten this up a bit.

I agree 100%, I don't want any one else's beliefs preventing me from getting what I want or need either.

The "next door" reasoning, is specific to this particular store, see article excerpt above.

Iscariot

Jun 25, 2008, 11:07 AM

FIf it were me, I'd carry contraceptives, and even Plan B. But it's not up to me.

Even the emergency contraception pill is a contraceptive: it prevents fertilization, ovulation and implantation and will not work after implantation of the embryo.

fivepoint

Jun 25, 2008, 11:08 AM

There's already a thread about euthanasia (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=504256&highlight=euthanasia), in which .Andy makes his feelings clear, thank you.

Thank you so much for that link!

Ah... this is almost to much to bear. That thread is full of people compaining about the government 'controlling our lives' too much, and you have .Andy saying that he is all for doctor-assisted suicide. So, since you are for Doctors being able to kill their own patients, and you are obviously for pharmicists/doctors helping to kill their patients' babies, I am wondering if you think it is ok for a doctor to turn down a patient for euthanasia?

I mean, wow, those doctors who won't peform it need to get down off of their moral high-horse and do what is best for their patient! If they want to die, who are they to deny them that? Even if there is a doctor who will do it next door, THAT doctor has no right not to follow his patients' wishes!

I think the government should mandate that all doctors perform euthanasia if their patients want it! They should be stripped of their liscense if they believe it to be morally wrong, and refuse to give the treatment! The more government, the merrier!

:rolleyes: <--- note, sarcasm.

redwarrior

Jun 25, 2008, 11:08 AM

We're talking about contraception, not abortion. Even the emergency contraception pill is a contraceptive: it prevents fertilization, ovulation and implantation and will not work after implantation of the embryo.
Thanks for the clarification. I learned that recently after doing some research on my own.

I know that there is also an "abortion" pill, but I think the woman has to be under strict physician care to go through that course of treatment. I think there is a misunderstanding about this among the general public. People seem to see Plan B in the same category as RU486 (is that still what it's called?), which can make this issue difficult to debate. But some people are completely and totally against birth control; I have yet to find where that belief comes from.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 11:19 AM

Iscariot

Jun 25, 2008, 11:28 AM

pharmicists/doctors helping to kill their patients' babies

1. General Practitioners are not required to perform abortions. There are specialists for that kind of thing, so it's not a valid comparison.

2. This is about contraceptive and ECPs, which are, again, contraceptives and are not abortifacients. So it's not a valid comparison.

I think there is a misunderstanding about this among the general public.

I think there are many misunderstandings amongst the general public of a great many issues surrounding sexuality.

People seem to see Plan B in the same category as RU486 (is that still what it's called?), which can make this issue difficult to debate. But some people are completely and totally against birth control; I have yet to find where that belief comes from.

It's marketed as something else, not RU486, but the two are interchangeable enough for research purposes.

I can't believe people think that the government should mandate that pharmacies carry condoms. Should they be mandated to carry everything that might be good for a person?

It's far more than just condoms, it's prescription contraception.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 11:38 AM

It's far more than just condoms, it's prescription contraception.

I'm sure there are many prescriptions a lot of pharmacies don't carry. This one just doesn't choose to sell a few major ones dealing with contraception. Am I for abstinence? No. But am I for allowing private companies to choose what they want to carry and face the consequences of not carrying it (out of business, boycott, competition)? Yes.

fivepoint

Jun 25, 2008, 11:39 AM

My thoughts:

Don't patronize the store if you disagree with their beliefs. They are a private company, they shouldn't need to have every product that has some kind of positive health benefit to people. That store should be able to conduct business how they please.

If contraceptives are in demand enough, people will find a way to get it.

a) go to a different store (it's in a shopping center, probably populated area?)
b) carry your own

I can't believe people think that the government should mandate that pharmacies carry condoms. Should they be mandated to carry everything that might be good for a person?

EXACTLY! And this, my friend, is the core of the argument here. It isn't about life vs. choice. It's about private freedoms and liberties. Pharmicies aren't government run, and shouldn't have to answer to the government about the products they sell.

If Iscariot, .Andy, and Leekholder think contraceptives should be as readily-available as possible, I suggest they open up their own store! If the public agrees with them and the product moves (which It obviously will), their store will be successful.

Then, my only hope at that point, would be that the government does mandate that pharmacists carry all contraceptives so that their unique selling proposition (USP) is lost and they go out of business. Maybe that is what it iwll take for them to realize the danger of government involvement and the destruction of the freedoms/liberties promised to us in the constitution and bill of rights.

Ever heard this quote?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"

The beauty of this quote is that applies to far more than the freedom of speech. It has to do with government tyranny and the destruction of ALL freedoms/liberties through various 'scare tactics' and other means. Here is how it applies here:

"I disapprove of the fact that you refuse to sell contraceptives in your store, but I will defend to the death yoru right to do so."

CorvusCamenarum

Jun 25, 2008, 11:43 AM

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 11:46 AM

In other news, I walked into Burger King today, and they patently refused to sell me a Big Mac. They told me to go down the street to an establishment that sells Big Macs. I pointed out that I felt entitled to buy a Big Mac while in Burger King just because they exist and I happened to be close to Burger King when I had my Big Mac attack, but this undeniable fact was completely lost on the people behind the counter. Where's the outrage?
Access to essential health care services is not equivalent to purchasing proprietary fast food products. If you think it is I wish you the very best with your health.

hobbbz

Jun 25, 2008, 11:49 AM

I'm sure most of everyone here can see what the issue with pro-life stance is.

It was enacted by an ancient fledgling religion to ensure it's population would increase. It worked fairly well, but now the rule has been around so long that it's taken as the word of god.

The reason for it's continued existence is no longer to increase the amount of Christians/Catholics in the world, it's to increase the amount of people below the poverty level to keep a cheap labor force in the US.

Consider this situation:
A reasonably informed and intelligent 17 yr old girl decides to have sex but was denied birth control. She is now stuck with a child that is very expensive to care for and places herself and the child in poverty, no matter how hard she works, because she doesn't have time to further her education.

She then cannot afford to send her child to college to stop the cycle of poverty, and her child enters the workforce after high school. That is, if her child does not take the mother's life as an example (as most children do) and find a way to get herself pregnant at 17 as well.

iJohnHenry

Jun 25, 2008, 11:50 AM

Well, this appears like an opportunity to invest in coat-hanger futures. :rolleyes:

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 11:52 AM

Access to essential health care services is not equivalent to purchasing proprietary fast food products. If you think it is I wish you the very best with your health.

It's a private company. Would you like to compile a list of things that every pharmacy needs to carry, and than enforce that mandate? Well, I'll tell you what, if you are in the government and don't include my product on that list, then I'm going to lobby hard for it, because it's essential to my business.

More government is not the answer. Pharmacies should sell whatever they want, provided they're private, and if they don't have products you think they should, then don't shop there. Boycott it. Urge people to boycott it. Do whatever you want except getting the government to tell private companies what they should sell.

Don't panic

Jun 25, 2008, 11:56 AM

Sigh. This store isn't saying you can't buy condoms. This store isn't saying you can't buy Plan B. This store is saying you can't buy condoms or Plan B *in this store*.

In other news, I walked into Burger King today, and they patently refused to sell me a Big Mac. They told me to go down the street to an establishment that sells Big Macs. I pointed out that I felt entitled to buy a Big Mac while in Burger King just because they exist and I happened to be close to Burger King when I had my Big Mac attack, but this undeniable fact was completely lost on the people behind the counter. Where's the outrage?

not the same thing. it's more like: you walk in a mcdonalds, order a big mac and the cashier says he will only sell you a veggieburger, because he is vegetarian.
with the addition that a hamburger flipper doesn't have any ethical or moral obligation, whereas a pharmacist or doctor does, which is the point which is completely being missed here by the pro-disease advocats.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 12:00 PM

not the same thing. it's more like: you walk in a mcdonalds, order a big mac and the cashier says he will only sell you a veggieburger, because he is vegetarian.

If the cashier is the owner of the store I'd politely (or not) walk out and not oder anything to eat.

with the addition that a hamburger flipper doesn't have any ethical or moral obligation, whereas a pharmacist or doctor does, which is the point which is completely being missed here by the pro-disease advocats.

Pro disease? My god. Does this moral obligation dictate that they should carry every thing that is good for people? Everything? Where does it stop? How about we let them sell what they want and face the consequences of not selling certain products.

iJohnHenry

Jun 25, 2008, 12:02 PM

Everything? Where does it stop?

Not until they stop selling peanut butter. :mad:

Roger1

Jun 25, 2008, 12:03 PM

Ok, what did I leave out? :rolleyes:

A: Your distrust of Bob :)

My opinion is they can sell whatever meds pharmacies are allowed to sell. My thinking is that whatever they don't sell, another pharmacy nearby will probably sell.

leekohler

Jun 25, 2008, 12:05 PM

EXACTLY! And this, my friend, is the core of the argument here. It isn't about life vs. choice. It's about private freedoms and liberties. Pharmicies aren't government run, and shouldn't have to answer to the government about the products they sell.

If Iscariot, .Andy, and Leekholder think contraceptives should be as readily-available as possible, I suggest they open up their own store! If the public agrees with them and the product moves (which It obviously will), their store will be successful.

Then, my only hope at that point, would be that the government does mandate that pharmacists carry all contraceptives so that their unique selling proposition (USP) is lost and they go out of business. Maybe that is what it iwll take for them to realize the danger of government involvement and the destruction of the freedoms/liberties promised to us in the constitution and bill of rights.

Ever heard this quote?

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"

The beauty of this quote is that applies to far more than the freedom of speech. It has to do with government tyranny and the destruction of ALL freedoms/liberties through various 'scare tactics' and other means. Here is how it applies here:

"I disapprove of the fact that you refuse to sell contraceptives in your store, but I will defend to the death yoru right to do so."

Umm..would you kindly spell my name correctly, or at least attempt to? It's leekohler, as in Lee Kohler, as in "Kohler", the same name as the manufacturer of various bathroom products- sinks, toilets and the like. You'd think people would know how to spell it since it's only written on toilets and sinks in half the public restrooms in the US :)

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 12:06 PM

Does this moral obligation dictate that they should carry every thing that is good for people? Everything? Where does it stop?
You're carrying on as if contraceptives are a rare oddity for a chemist to stock. It's akin to not having a chemist sell aspirin, insulin, or jelly beans. They don't need to carry all the obscure drugs, but not carrying drugs on the basis of their own personal morality at the direct detriment of the community is in no way defensible given the service they provide.

More government is not the answer.
Why does this keep on getting repeated? Who the hell is saying anything about more government? It's getting to be a broken strawman record.

My arguments is that healthcare in all it's forms is an essential service, and holding people ransom over you own petty morality is ridiculous. Especially when the outcomes is higher disease prevalence and higher accidental/unwanted pregnancy. You're not in the business for the right reasons if that's your aim in life.

CorvusCamenarum

Jun 25, 2008, 12:07 PM

Access to essential health care services is not equivalent to purchasing proprietary fast food products. If you think it is I wish you the very best with your health.

It's called allegory. It's also called sarcasm.

I'm really not sure how one can define a condom as an "essential" health service. I mean if it really comes down to it you could just keep your pants on, but that runs contrary to the consequence-free lifestyle so many people apparently want to have.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 12:10 PM

You're carrying on as if contraceptives are a rare oddity for a chemist to stock. It's akin to not having a chemist sell aspirin, insulin, or jelly beans. They don't need to carry all the obscure drugs, but not carrying drugs on the basis of their own personal morality at the direct detriment of the community is in no way defensible given the service they provide.

Maybe the think not carrying contraceptives is to the benefit of their community. I've heard less logical arguments, regardless of my personal feelings on this issue.

Why does this keep on getting repeated? Who the hell is saying anything about more government? It's getting to be a broken strawman record.

People are saying that they should be forced to stock contraceptives for the good of the population. Who will do that enforcing?

My arguments is that healthcare in all it's forms is an essential service, and holding people ransom over you own petty morality is ridiculous. Especially when the outcomes is higher disease prevalence and higher accidental/unwanted pregnancy. You're not in the business for the right reasons if that's your aim in life.

Then they will suffer for it and will either have to relegate themselves to selling less, going out of business, and/or being boycotted.

EDIT:

.Andy: What is your solution for this problem? Do you think the government should mandate every pharmacy to carry everything that has a positive health benefit? It's not like they're not selling Advil. Sometimes headaches or pain is unavoidable, same goes for Aspirin and heart attacks. But not carrying something that ONLY needs to be used when having sex is a far cry from not carrying Aspirin or cough syrup, IMO of course.

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 12:13 PM

It's called allegory. It's also called sarcasm.
You're too clever!

I mean if it really comes down to it you could just keep your pants on, but that runs contrary to the consequence-free lifestyle so many people apparently want to have.
I know this one! This is a strawman. You attribute something (in this case people enjoying sex and wanting to do it safely) with something negative (people not taking responsibility for their actions) and voila. An argument from nothing!

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 12:18 PM

I know this one! This is a strawman. You attribute something (in this case people enjoying sex and wanting to do it safely) with something negative (people not taking responsibility for their actions) and voila. An argument from nothing!

Argument from nothing?

It seems perfectly reasonable:

It seems to me that if condoms/contraceptives are not available from one pharmacy in an area, then it's only logical (if you want to have safe sex) to hold off having it until you are safe about it by going to a different one. Again, I see a big difference between not selling Aspirin to keep on hand incase someone has a heart attack and not keeping condoms on hand incase someone decides to have safe sex, and decides that your drugstore is the only one they should go to. I'd say deciding on safe sex is an option that you can hold off on (at least a bit) a little longer than having a heart attack and trying to shop around for aspirin.

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 12:19 PM

Maybe the think not carrying contraceptives is to the benefit of their community. I've heard less logical arguments, regardless of my personal feelings on this issue.
I'm not sure what hearing less logical arguments has to do with justifying anything. You could justify anything at all based on the arguments used by creationists.

People are saying that they should be forced to stock contraceptives for the good of the population.
Who are these 'people' talking about forcing through government regulation? Quotes please.

.Andy: What is your solution for this problem? I don't have one and never claimed to. I do find it reprehensible that someone providing any kind of essential health care service would chose to impose their own morality on others. Especially when it potentially jeopardises the health of so many.

fivepoint

Jun 25, 2008, 12:20 PM

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 12:22 PM

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 12:24 PM

I'm not sure what hearing less logical arguments has to do with justifying anything. You could justify anything at all based on the arguments used by creationists.

It wasn't used as justification. Just positing my opinion that the argument being used by the pharmacy isn't that wacky. I still disagree with the choice, though.

Especially when it potentially jeopardises the health of so many.

I'd like to add a corrollary to this.

Especially when it potentially jeopardises the health of so many, if you assume that the people who want to have safe sex make the decision to have unsafe sex based on the current inventory stock of one local pharmacy.

There we go.

CorvusCamenarum

Jun 25, 2008, 12:24 PM

Argument from nothing?

It seems perfectly reasonable:

It seems to me that if condoms/contraceptives are not available from one pharmacy in an area, then it's only logical (if you want to have safe sex) to hold off having it until you are safe about it by going to a different one. Again, I see a big difference between not selling Aspirin to keep on hand incase someone has a heart attack and not keeping condoms on hand incase someone decides to have safe sex, and decides that your drugstore is the only one they should go to. I'd say deciding on safe sex is an option that you can hold off on (at least a bit) a little longer than having a heart attack and trying to shop around for aspirin.

Say it ain't so, Andy! Don't advocate people being responsible, they might do it, and where would we be then?

And now, let's shed a little more light on the goings-on here.
They're a Catholic pharmacy (http://www.catholicherald.com/forthecatholicherald/pharmacy.html), so it stands to reason they wouldn't want to stock birth control.

Wow look, other pharmacies right nearby (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=pharmacies+in+chantilly,+va&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8), about ten all within five miles or so.

Unwadding of undergarments may now commence.

leekohler

Jun 25, 2008, 12:25 PM

You're really clinging to straws here, .Andy. and bathroom faucet. To boot, you're not even answering the BIG questions any more. All you're doing is cherry-picking small tid-bits out of a few people's comments (how a name is spelled, the cleverness of a comment, asking for quotes of stuff you said a few posts earlier, etc.) and making snarky comments about them.

You aren't second-guessing your positions... are you?

And you can't even pay attention to who's replying to your posts. And no- .Andy isn't clinging to any strawman, you are- as he and others have so clearly illustrated.

Perhaps you didn't catch the smiley at the end of my post- whatever. Now we know that you also have no sense of humor. ;)

leekohler

Jun 25, 2008, 12:27 PM

Say it ain't so, Andy! Don't advocate people being responsible, they might do it, and where would we be then?

And now, let's shed a little more light on the goings-on here.
They're a Catholic pharmacy (http://www.catholicherald.com/forthecatholicherald/pharmacy.html), so it stands to reason they wouldn't want to stock birth control.

Wow look, other pharmacies right nearby (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=pharmacies+in+chantilly,+va&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8), about ten all within five miles or so.

Unwadding of undergarments may now commence.

Part of acting responsibly if one is having sex (and doesn't want a child and doesn't want to spread disease) is to use contraception/condoms.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 12:27 PM

:confused: This is your argument. It has nothing to do with what you quoted me for.

I'm slightly confused at this comment, it could just be a misunderstanding. I thought the progression of posts was something like:

corvus: it's not essential, you can't make pharmacies carry them
andy: it's an important health service that they should carry
corvus: it's still a choice of the user of these contraceptives whether they want to have safe/unsafe sex, not of the pharmacy.
andy: strawman!

badandy: whatever you want to call it, i think it's still valid, and here's why:

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 12:29 PM

Especially when it potentially jeopardises the health of so many, if you assume that the people who want to have safe sex make the decision to have unsafe sex based on the current inventory stock of one local pharmacy.

There we go.
Certainly agree with this badandy.

But to be honest still don't even like one pharmacy doing it. They can sell whatever they want to in the front of the store. All the voodoo, herbalistic, vitamins, and magnetic arthritis blanket pseudoscience rubbish and gifts they want. But when it comes to the prescription pharmacy medicine, stuff people need for their health and quality of life, the availability shouldn't be decided on the basis of morality.

CorvusCamenarum

Jun 25, 2008, 12:31 PM

Part of acting responsibly if one is having sex (and doesn't want a child and doesn't want to spread disease) is to use contraception/condoms.

And another part is if you run out of condoms or whatever to keep your pants on until you can get some.

As I pointed out, there are nearly a dozen pharmacies in the area, so I don't see why this is an issue. It's not the general store out in the sticks with nothing else around for 50 miles.

fivepoint

Jun 25, 2008, 12:32 PM

And you can't even pay attention to who's replying to your posts. And no- .Andy isn't clinging to any strawman, you are- as he and others have so clearly illustrated.

Perhaps you didn't catch the smiley at the end of my post- whatever. Now we know that you also have no sense of humor. ;)

I called you 'bathroom faucet' for crying out loud. What else do I have to do to show you that I was making light of the situation, and that I have a sense of humor?

;)

I am proud of the fact that, unlike you, I never resorted to calling people names or insulting their morals directly, as you did in your first and second post in this thread against all christians and pro-life advocates.

leekohler

Jun 25, 2008, 12:33 PM

And another part is if you run out of condoms or whatever to keep your pants on until you can get some.

As I pointed out, there are nearly a dozen pharmacies in the area, so I don't see why this is an issue. It's not the general store out in the sticks with nothing else around for 50 miles.

True enough. But what is to prevent the general store out in the sticks from doing the same?

I called you 'bathroom faucet' for crying out loud. What else do I have to do to show you that I was making light of the situation, and that I have a sense of humor?

;)

I am proud of the fact that, unlike you, I never resorted to calling people names or insulting their morals directly, as you did in your first and second post in this thread against all christians and pro-life advocates.

I called someone names? Insulted their morals? I'm not seeing any name-calling. But if I did, then so be it. They insult my intelligence. I called them out and called their views what they are- nothing more or less.

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 12:33 PM

I'm slightly confused at this comment, it could just be a misunderstanding. I thought the progression of posts was something like:

corvus: it's not essential, you can't make pharmacies carry them
andy: it's an important health service that they should carry
corvus: it's still a choice of the user of these contraceptives whether they want to have safe/unsafe sex, not of the pharmacy.
andy: strawman!

badandy: whatever you want to call it, i think it's still valid, and here's why:
Sorry misunderstanding. The strawman was CC claiming;
I mean if it really comes down to it you could just keep your pants on, but that runs contrary to the consequence-free lifestyle so many people apparently want to have.
i.e. people that use contraceptives somehow don't take/don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

edit: he tried it again:
Say it ain't so, Andy! Don't advocate people being responsible, they might do it, and where would we be then?

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 12:35 PM

Certainly agree with this badandy.

But to be honest still don't even like one pharmacy doing it. They can sell whatever they want to in the front of the store. All the voodoo, herbalistic, vitamins, and magnetic arthritis blanket pseudoscience rubbish and gifts they want. But when it comes to the prescription pharmacy medicine, stuff people need for their health and quality of life, the availability shouldn't be decided on the basis of morality.

Ok, that's understandable. Here's my view on it.

I, too, am not comfortable with one pharmacy doing it. I think the type of people who will decide to have unsafe sex based on the stock of one pharmacy are either extremely lustfull, or maybe not the type of person we want to be the parent of a new baby boy/girl. I'm welcome to arguments on that.

So, from here, there are two options.

A) Mandate that pharmacies carry a core stable of products.

B) Boycott/don't patronize, but don't make mandates.

Which one are you for?

As for me, I'd much rather see capitalism take care of it and choose choice B.

fivepoint

Jun 25, 2008, 12:39 PM

.Andy,

I know you think that pharmacies should not be allowed to decide whether or not to provide contraceptives.
I know you think that doctors should be able to perform doctor-assisted suicide on their patients.
You said: "stuff people need for their health and quality of life, the availability shouldn't be decided on the basis of morality."

So.. the question remains: do you think that doctors should not be allowed to decide whether or not to provide doctor-assisted suicide? It seems like the natural conclusion of your thought process. Please, tell me if I am wrong.

If you believe that doctors performing assisted-suicide is a good service, then why should some physicians be able to not do it just because it doesn't fit in with their 'petty morals'? Based on your reasoning, the government should also mandate this as well. If a patient want a suicide, they shouldn't have to go seek out a doctor willing to do it. Every doctor should be required to perform it.

CorvusCamenarum

Jun 25, 2008, 12:45 PM

True enough. But what is to prevent the general store out in the sticks from doing the same?

Counter: Nothing, but what's to prevent someone from deciding they could make a killing selling emergency rubbers out in the boonies and opening up their own store? Such is capitalism.

.Andy

Jun 25, 2008, 12:45 PM

As for me, I'd much rather see capitalism take care of it and choose choice B.
I reservedly agree with B as well, although as a medical guy I really don't think healthcare is an area which should be dictated purely by captialism. There needs to be some healthy regulation in there as well (some A). The power needs to remain in the hands of the treating physicians and not the drug companies/religious moral warriors/politicians.

Personally I think everyone should have equitable access to basic healthcare, and everyone should receive the care and attention they require, regardless of their wallet/beliefs/actions. Largely because the health of one person affects the health of so many in the population.

There certainly are aspects of healthcare where capitalism is great (i.e. getting drugs to market and the option to pursue private care if one wishes), but at the primary service level too many people stand to lose too much if it's down to cash. Although we've have some whoppers of universal healthcare threads which i don't think this one needs to turn in to :).

edit my battery is gone (:() so apologies for the crappy unedited/indecipherable nature of the above post. See you all in the morrow and play nice :).

leekohler

Jun 25, 2008, 12:53 PM

I reservedly agree with B as well, although as a medical guy I really don't think healthcare is an area which should be dictated purely by captialism. There needs to be some healthy regulation in there as well (some A). The power needs to remain in the hands of the treating physicians and not the drug companies/religious moral warriors/politicians.

Personally I think everyone should have equitable access to basic healthcare, and everyone should receive the care and attention they require, regardless of their wallet/beliefs/actions. Largely because the health of one person affects the health of so many in the population.

There certainly are aspects of healthcare where capitalism is great (i.e. getting drugs to market and the option to pursue private care if one wishes), but at the primary service level too many people stand to lose too much if it's down to cash. Although we've have some whoppers of universal healthcare threads which i don't think this one needs to turn in to :).

edit my battery is gone (:() so apologies for the crappy unedited/indecipherable nature of the above post. See you all in the morrow and play nice :).

Exactly- I don't think access healthcare should be left up to the free market. I think we've all seen how well that's working- NOT.

Counter: Nothing, but what's to prevent someone from deciding they could make a killing selling emergency rubbers out in the boonies and opening up their own store? Such is capitalism.

Ah- so until someone is able to open said store, everyone else has to travel 50-100 miles to get them?

Don't panic

Jun 25, 2008, 12:56 PM

some of you obviously think that a pharmacy is a grocery that increases its bottom line by also carrying some medicines.
if it was, i would agree that market forces should/would take care of it.
but a pharmacist is not a grocer.
S/he is a licensed health professional, whose job comes along with an oath, and with moral and ethical responsabilities.
These are obviously and blatantly breached when a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription.

that is the core and defining aspect of his/her job.
To properly fill prescriptions.
Not to discuss them or second-guess them.
to fill them.

if one's convictions are not compatible with the essence of a profession, than that individual should seek a different profession.
but if you choose to pursue that profession, than the ethical obligation that come with it trump your own personal opinion.

leekohler

Jun 25, 2008, 01:00 PM

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 01:02 PM

atszyman

Jun 25, 2008, 01:11 PM

If they don't want to sell condoms, fine. But the idea that they are not stocking a common prescription medicine because "they believe that such methods can cause what amounts to an abortion" is what bothers me. I don't think they should be able to call themselves a "pharmacy" at that point.

When they come out with a true "Abortion pill" then maybe there's a discussion to be had, but almost every contraceptive that they are refusing to carry is meant to be used to prevent fertilization and may be prescribed for health reasons other than just to prevent pregnancy. They have every right to sell what they want in their store but there are thousands of drugs that can cause miscarriages and other problems with pregnant women, are they going to refuse to stock all of them based on the idea that they could "cause what amounts to an abortion"?

If they're concerned about promiscuity and sexual activity they should refuse to stock viagra and other aids for men as well.

It does provide some comfort that they are doing this in an area where there are alternatives to their stores and that they're not forcing a community into their values and would have much bigger issues were alternatives not available. There probably needs to be some way to differentiate these stores and while they need to be subject to the same regulations with regards to their handling of the drugs, they should also be simultaneously outside of the healthcare industry and not considered true "Pharmacies" due to their refusal to carry very common prescription medications.

leekohler

Jun 25, 2008, 01:14 PM

If they don't want to sell condoms, fine. But the idea that they are not stocking a common prescription medicine because "hey believe that such methods can cause what amounts to an abortion" is what bothers me. I don't think they should be able to call themselves a "pharmacy" at that point.

When they come out with a true "Abortion pill" then maybe there's a discussion to be had, but almost every contraceptive that they are refusing to carry is meant to be used to prevent fertilization and may be prescribed for health reasons other than just to prevent pregnancy. They have every right to sell what they want in their store but there are thousands of drugs that can cause miscarriages and other problems with pregnant women, are they going to refuse to stock all of them based on the idea that they could "cause what amounts to an abortion"?

If they're concerned about promiscuity and sexual activity they should refuse to stock viagra and other aids for men as well.

It does provide some comfort that they are doing this in an area where there are alternatives to their stores and that they're not forcing a community into their values and would have much bigger issues were alternatives not available. There probably needs to be some way to differentiate these stores and while they need to be subject to the same regulations with regards to their handling of the drugs, they should also be simultaneously outside of the healthcare industry and not considered true "Pharmacies" due to their refusal to carry a very common prescription.

This I agree with on all points.

Don't panic

Jun 25, 2008, 01:21 PM

This is the exact same argument brought up in page 2 or 3. Arguments for and against are well documented in this thread.

could you kindly remind me of the compelling arguments against the pharmacist having to uphold their oath and to abide by their ethical and moral responsibilities?
thank you

leekohler

Jun 25, 2008, 01:30 PM

could you kindly remind me of the compelling arguments against the pharmacist having to uphold their oath and to abide by their ethical and moral responsibilities?
thank you

Religion. Need anything else? ;)

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 02:10 PM

could you kindly remind me of the compelling arguments against the pharmacist having to uphold their oath and to abide by their ethical and moral responsibilities?
thank you

First off, their ethical and moral responsibilities are up to them. They think it is ethical and moral to not carry this stuff to perhaps encourage abstinence. Of course, I think they're wrong.

The compelling argument would be that they are a private company and should be able to decide what they carry and what they don't. Should they carry every single perscription in existence? Are you equating carrying Aspirin in case of a heart attack with contraceptive perscriptions for people who make the choice to a) have sex b) not to check anywhere else. It just isn't time sensitive enoughto make a huge issue of it.

What is your solution?

EDIT: leek: Freedom of enterprise. I'm an atheist. Again, I don't agree with the pharmacy's decision, but I support their ability to do so.

imac/cheese

Jun 25, 2008, 02:11 PM

My opinion on this situation is that the pharmacy should be able to select which presrciptions they sell, just as other essential health care services can select which services they whcih to provide. Even if the store is the only pharmacy for 50 miles, they should be able to sell what they want.

In my opinion they are not denying service to anyone, but instead they are actually provided a service. That service is limited, but it is still a service they are providing and if their pharmacy was not in business the patrons would have to go elsewhere anyway. If a pharmasist wants to set up shop and sell nothing but penicillin that would be fine with me. If a doctor who has taken a moral and ethical oath wants to set up shop and perform nothing but breast reductions he is free to do so. There are specialists in other medical fields, why can't there be specialists in pharmacy?

I do feel however that the pharmacy should not be able to advertise themselves as a full service pharmacy.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 02:16 PM

themadchemist

Jun 25, 2008, 02:31 PM

It was enacted by an ancient fledgling religion to ensure it's population would increase. It worked fairly well, but now the rule has been around so long that it's taken as the word of god.

I think this is quite the stretch, considering that the "life begins at conception" line is actually fairly new in, for example, Catholicism.

The reason for it's continued existence is no longer to increase the amount of Christians/Catholics in the world, it's to increase the amount of people below the poverty level to keep a cheap labor force in the US.

Man. You are waaaay too cynical. There are a lot of reasons why people are pro-life, and a lot of negative externalities to it. But this is not the Occam's Razor explanation for this. This is unlikely a matter for global economic conspiracy, and much more likely just a case of people placing a high priority on their definition of the beginning of human life. While I don't entirely agree with their position, it is an honest and understandable one.

The problem is not with the position itself, but the great lengths to which some would go to force that position down everyone else's throats.

LethalWolfe

Jun 25, 2008, 02:32 PM

I love how this thread erupted after fivepoint started railing against things that no one was even talking about.

Lethal

Don't panic

Jun 25, 2008, 02:46 PM

First off, their ethical and moral responsibilities are up to them. They think it is ethical and moral to not carry this stuff to perhaps encourage abstinence. Of course, I think they're wrong.

The compelling argument would be that they are a private company and should be able to decide what they carry and what they don't. Should they carry every single perscription in existence? Are you equating carrying Aspirin in case of a heart attack with contraceptive perscriptions for people who make the choice to a) have sex b) not to check anywhere else. It just isn't time sensitive enoughto make a huge issue of it.

What is your solution?

EDIT: leek: Freedom of enterprise. I'm an atheist. Again, I don't agree with the pharmacy's decision, but I support their ability to do so.

i would agree with you for a general business and for over the counter medications such as condoms (and, ironically, aspirin). I think it would be a questionable decision on their parts, but would be acceptable. indeed i think that condoms, like aspirin, should be available from whoever pleases to sell them, pharmacy or not.

what i find completely unacceptable is a pharmacist refusing to fulfill a legitimate prescription, be it a contraceptive or anything else.
If I have a valid prescription for a drug, the pharmacist MUST, to the best of his/her ability, try to fill it, because it is his/her professional duty to do so.
and it's not his/her own moral compass that determines that. it's the oath they take and the code of ethics they swear to abide to, in order to be a licensed pharmacist

fivepoint

Jun 25, 2008, 02:50 PM

I love how this thread erupted after fivepoint started railing against things that no one was even talking about.

Lethal

Interesting. Or could it be that you just don't like to hear the truth? Here, in case you forgot, is what my first post consisted of:

It is a private business. They have every right to sell which products they want, and to keep those they don't want off of the shelves. The better question here is why you want to trample the constitution and the liberties afforded to us by a democratic government.

This isn't a pro-life / pro-choice argument. It is a freedom argument. If the person who owns that business doesn't want to sell contraceptives... then that is their right. Just like we wouldn't force a Jewish grocery store owner to sell pork, or a muslim store owner a crucifix.

Government has no right to stick their nose in this issue.

Perfectly on topic, and I even explained - explicitly - in the second paragraph why I was saying what I was saying. I made a valid and on-topic argument, which (I think) the majority of the posters on this thread have agreed to.

It isn't a pro-life / pro-choice argument. It's about freedoms and liberties. If you can't see that, than you're blinded by your bias and desire for the strong hand of government to force private family-run pharmacies to promote your ideology.

leekohler

Jun 25, 2008, 03:01 PM

Interesting. Or could it be that you just don't like to hear the truth? Here, in case you forgot, is what my first post consisted of:

Perfectly on topic, and I even explained - explicitly - in the second paragraph why I was saying what I was saying. I made a valid and on-topic argument, which (I think) the majority of the posters on this thread have agreed to.

It isn't a pro-life / pro-choice argument. It's about freedoms and liberties. If you can't see that, than you're blinded by your bias and desire for the strong hand of government to force private family-run pharmacies to promote your ideology.

Unfortunately for you- a pharmacy isn't a grocery store, as has been pointed out several times in this thread.

Also, what Lethal meant was that no one had brought the government into it until you mentioned it.

And furthermore, I never called anyone names in this thread- nor did I ridicule their beliefs. That didn't stop you from saying I did though, did it?

skunk

Jun 25, 2008, 03:13 PM

It isn't a pro-life / pro-choice argument. It's about freedoms and liberties. If you can't see that, than you're blinded by your bias and desire for the strong hand of government to force private family-run pharmacies to promote your ideology.It is not about freedom, liberty or the "strong hand of government": I don't think anyone has called for forcing anyone to do anything. But it does seem inappropriate and unprofessional for a pharmacy to refuse to fill a legitimate prescription.

Blue Velvet

Jun 25, 2008, 03:33 PM

Thin edge of the wedge, especially as this absurd emphasis on abstinence is so obviously failing. Check out the difference between teenage pregancy rates per capita between The Netherlands, for instance, and the USA.

And wrapping it up in a worn argument about liberty and government masks the practical issue for many women in small communities where choices of where to shop may not be so straightforward.

I, too, have been refused service by a pharmacy for a legal prescription. Right here in the UK... but I also have the choice of hundreds of pharmacies around me, living as I do in London. However, a pharmacist in a rural area with an effective monopoly would have a primary duty of care to the community as a whole which, in my view, should override any religious notions of right and wrong... but we all know the theocrats are on the march, driven by self-righteous fervour, speaking of liberty while denying others theirs. You get the government you deserve.

ZiggyPastorius

Jun 25, 2008, 03:39 PM

Unfortunately for you- a pharmacy isn't a grocery store, as has been pointed out several times in this thread.

Also, what Lethal meant was that no one had brought the government into it until you mentioned it.

And furthermore, I never called anyone names in this thread- nor did I ridicule their beliefs. That didn't stop you from saying I did though, did it?

Well, to throw my word in here...I don't think because he brought the government in makes it any less on-topic. Getting into a pro-life vs. pro-choice argument would be off-topic, because the OT is about whether a pharmacy should be allowed to be influenced in such ways by their pro-lifeness, not a debate of the practical implications of being pro-life. In this manner, I think he was very on-topic, as he was pointing out why they should be allowed to do what they're doing. I'm sure you understand all that, I just think it's unfair to say he derailed the topic when in fact, he's sticking to the OT quite well...

Although, you can probably just disregard this post completely because I agree with almost all of his points. I'm not gonna stay and argue because, well...Skunk is one of my favourite people on Macrumors, and I don't want him to hate me because I'm a "libertarian." :p:p:p

It is not about freedom, liberty or the "strong hand of government": I don't think anyone has called for forcing anyone to do anything. But it does seem inappropriate and unprofessional for a pharmacy to refuse to fill a legitimate prescription.

Edit: Actually, now that I think about it...this story reminds me a lot of when W. J. WhackJob himself, Mr. Thomas Monahan (founder of Domino's) worked to found his own Catholic city where there's no contraception, no abortions, nothing un-catholic. I also supported that, too, as I think that's one of the important possibilities is a country of united states (even though I'm atheist).

hulugu

Jun 25, 2008, 03:44 PM

Pharmacist Ethics and Oath.

Pharmacist Code Of Ethics
Pharmacists are health professionals who assist individuals inmaking the best use of medications. This Code, prepared and supported by pharmacists, is intended to state publicly theprinciples that form the fundamental basis of the roles and responsibilities of pharmacists. These principles, based on moralobligations and virtues, are established to guide pharmacists in relationships with patients, health professionals, and society.

I. A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.

Considering the patient-pharmacist relationship as a covenant means that a pharmacist has moral obligations in response to thegift of trust received from society. In return for this gift, a pharmacist promises to help individuals achieve optimum benefitfrom their medications, to be committed to their welfare, and to maintain their trust.

II. A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.

A pharmacist places concern for the well-being of the patient at the center of professional practice. In doing so, a pharmacist considers needs stated by the patient as well as those defined byhealth science. A pharmacist is dedicated to protecting the dignity of the patient. With a caring attitude and a compassionate spirit, a pharmacist focuses on serving the patient in a private and confidential manner.

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination andrecognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural differencesamong patients.

IV. A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.

A pharmacist has a duty to tell the truth and to act withconviction of conscience. A pharmacist avoids discriminatorypractices, behavior or work conditions that impair professional judgment, and actions that compromise dedication to the bestinterests of patients.

V. A pharmacist maintains professionalcompetence.

A pharmacist has a duty to maintain knowledge and abilities asnew medications, devices, and technologies become available and ashealth information advances.

VI. A pharmacist respects the values and abilities ofcolleagues and other health professionals.

When appropriate, a pharmacist asks for the consultation ofcolleagues or other health professionals or refers the patient. Apharmacist acknowledges that colleagues and other healthprofessionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply tothe care of the patient.

VII. A pharmacist serves individual, community, andsocietal needs.

The primary obligation of a pharmacist is to individualpatients. However, the obligations of a pharmacist may at timesextend beyond the individual to the community and society. In thesesituations, the pharmacist recognizes the responsibilities thataccompany these obligations and acts accordingly.

VIII. A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution ofhealth resources.

When health resources are allocated, a pharmacist is fair andequitable, balancing the needs of patients and society.

*adopted by the membership of the American Pharmacists Association October 27, 1994.

Oath of a Pharmacist
At this time, I vow to devote my professional life to the service of all humankind through the professionof pharmacy.

I will consider the welfare of humanity and relief of human suffering my primary concerns.

I will apply my knowledge, experience, and skills to the best of my ability to assure optimal drug therapy outcomes for the patients I serve.

I will keep abreast of developments and maintain professional competency in my profession of pharmacy. I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical and legal conduct.

I will embrace and advocate change in the profession of pharmacy that improves patient care.

I take these vows voluntarily with the full realization of the responsibility with which I am entrusted by the public.

Link (http://www.uspharmd.com/pharmacist/Pharmacist_Oath_and_Code_of_Ethics.html).

With this in mind, I don't see how a pharmacist can refuse to carry a medication or product without running afoul of the above. It seems to be that a pharmacist has a duty to serve their patients and they have to make the choice between their duty and their beliefs.

The implication that there "outta be a law" is a distraction, as is the soft machinations of capitalism. A pharmacy is a business, but the pharmacist is asked, like doctors, lawyers, judges, and others to fulfill a specific duty in this society.
We don't want judges suddenly making judgements that run against their oath as officers of the court.

The onus of such a choice shouldn't be weighed on the patient's shoulders, it should be weighed on the pharmacist.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 03:44 PM

It is not about freedom, liberty or the "strong hand of government": I don't think anyone has called for forcing anyone to do anything. But it does seem inappropriate and unprofessional for a pharmacy to refuse to fill a legitimate prescription.

It is not legitimate in their eyes. Unless you force every pharmacy in the nation to carry every single perscription in existence, I don't think you can say this isn't about freedom or liberty.

LethalWolfe

Jun 25, 2008, 03:48 PM

It isn't a pro-life / pro-choice argument. It's about freedoms and liberties. If you can't see that, than you're blinded by your bias and desire for the strong hand of government to force private family-run pharmacies to promote your ideology.
Did I say it was a pro-life/pro-choice argument? Did I say the government should step in and rule over these pharmacies? What do you assume my ideology is? If anyone is blind here it's you blinded by your desire to pick a fight instead of engaging in a level headed discussion.

Also, what Lethal meant was that no one had brought the government into it until you mentioned it.
Exactly. The article talk didn't talk about government intervention or shutting these people down and neither did any of the posts until fivepoint's.

Lethal

Don't panic

Jun 25, 2008, 03:50 PM

Pharmacist Ethics and Oath.

Link (http://www.uspharmd.com/pharmacist/Pharmacist_Oath_and_Code_of_Ethics.html).

With this in mind, I don't see how a pharmacist can refuse to carry a medication or product without running afoul of the above. It seems to be that a pharmacist has a duty to serve their patients and they have to make the choice between their duty and their beliefs.

The implication that there "outta be a law" is a distraction, as is the soft machinations of capitalism. A pharmacy is a business, but the pharmacist is asked, like doctors, lawyers, judges, and others to fulfill a specific duty in this society.
We don't want judges suddenly making judgements that run against their oath as officers of the court.

The onus of such a choice shouldn't be weighed on the patient's shoulders, it should be weighed on the pharmacist.

been saying that for a while, but apparently to many the oath that they choose to take is inconsequential.

skunk

Jun 25, 2008, 03:51 PM

It is not legitimate in their eyes. Oh, so "legitimate" is a subjective value now? Doesn't "legitimate" mean "according to the law"? It isn't up to the pharmacist to make laws.

Virgil-TB2

Jun 25, 2008, 03:53 PM

So, you don't agree with freedom of religion?...This is a totally bogus argument.

Freedom of religion is hardly a "right" to most people on the planet, and in places where it is (USA for example), it's just the right to practice your religion, period.

If membership in the <insert religion name here> religion means that you are unable to proscribe medications to people who need them, then your choice to have membership in that religion is a choice to never be a pharmacist! :eek:

This is the same as choosing to be a Buddhist usually curtails any hope you had of being an kick-ass butcher at the local meat shop.

Your human rights, whatever they may be, in whatever country you live, end where someone else's rights begin. Your "freedom of religion" right (and I don't really agree that this exists), would only give you the freedom to act as you wish to act based on the tenets of that religion as long as you are not interfering in anyone else's rights.

It's that "interfering" that is the issue and I think the various Pharmacists professional associations will have something to say about that. ;)

Don't panic

Jun 25, 2008, 03:55 PM

It is not legitimate in their eyes. Unless you force every pharmacy in the nation to carry every single perscription in existence, I don't think you can say this isn't about freedom or liberty.

honestly, it's irrelevant if they think it's not "legitimate". it's not their call.
if they are not ready to do what they are professionally bound to do, it is their freedom to choose a different job.
it is the customer that are denied their freedom.

Blue Velvet

Jun 25, 2008, 03:56 PM

Pharmacist Ethics and Oath.

Thanks, that really illuminates the discussion. I did some googling, got sidetracked into reading about the Hippocratic Oath and then started doing something else. :o

skunk

Jun 25, 2008, 03:58 PM

Thanks, that really illuminates the discussion. I did some googling, got sidetracked into reading about the Hippocratic Oath and then started doing something else. :oI think this pharmacist took the Hypocritic Oath by mistake. Maybe he's just dyslexic.

Virgil-TB2

Jun 25, 2008, 04:02 PM

... And, from the standpoint of a woman who has gone through some of this. It is much better to teach young people to abstain from sex until they are physically and mentally able to handle it, than to give a give a morning after pill. It seems like an easy solution at the time, but she will deal with that decision for the rest of her life. The doctor won't, and the pharmacist won't. ... You seem to be a smart person that actually passionately believes what they are saying, so I won't try to belittle you for that even though I completely disagree with almost everything you say.

The part I quoted above though I have to say is completely wrong. Just in the interests of truth and others reading it I have to point that out.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that "it's better to teach young people to abstain." There is actually mountains of evidence to the contrary and numerous studies as to how abstinence teaching has no effect on teenage sexual habits, pregnancy rates etc. It is simply wrong to assert that this is true when it's not.

As for the "girl has to live with it" statement, that is only true if the girl is a Christian like yourself that has violated her core beliefs by getting an abortion. It's a meaningless emotional statement. the girl also presumably has to "live with" having a baby as well. It's the pejorative slant that you assume "living with an abortion" has that gives your statement it's power, and that is only a presumption. It's not true for most folks.

imac/cheese

Jun 25, 2008, 04:10 PM

Pharmacist Ethics and Oath.

Link (http://www.uspharmd.com/pharmacist/Pharmacist_Oath_and_Code_of_Ethics.html).

With this in mind, I don't see how a pharmacist can refuse to carry a medication or product without running afoul of the above. It seems to be that a pharmacist has a duty to serve their patients and they have to make the choice between their duty and their beliefs.

The implication that there "outta be a law" is a distraction, as is the soft machinations of capitalism. A pharmacy is a business, but the pharmacist is asked, like doctors, lawyers, judges, and others to fulfill a specific duty in this society.
We don't want judges suddenly making judgements that run against their oath as officers of the court.

The onus of such a choice shouldn't be weighed on the patient's shoulders, it should be weighed on the pharmacist.

I read through the oath and I really do not see where it is at all conclusive that a pharmacist must carry all medications. From what I see, a pharmacist could definitely specialize in certain areas of medications and not break any aspect of this oath. For medications they do not carry, they could discuss the medication and then refer the patient to another pharmacy.

zioxide

Jun 25, 2008, 04:19 PM

It is much better to teach young people to abstain from sex until they are physically and mentally able to handle it, than to give a give a morning after pill.

Sorry, but "abstinence" doesn't work. Teens are horny and they're going to ****, and there's nothing you can do about it. That's what it boils down to. Trying to tell them to abstain is pointless, and in some cases could actually make some want to do it more.

This country would be much better off if all the prudes would just realize that. The government should just give out free condoms.

skunk

Jun 25, 2008, 04:20 PM

I read through the oath and I really do not see where it is at all conclusive that a pharmacist must carry all medications.Of course a pharmacist is not obliged to have all medications in stock at all times - most shops and/or services will occasionally run out of something - but in that he or she "acknowledges that colleagues and other health professionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply to the care of the patient" and "respects personal and cultural differences among patients", there is no room for the pharmacist's personal prejudices to intentionally deprive his or her customers of particular legitimate treatments or medications.

imac/cheese

Jun 25, 2008, 04:29 PM

Of course a pharmacist is not obliged to have all medications in stock at all times - most shops and/or services will occasionally run out of something - but in that he or she "acknowledges that colleagues and other health professionals may differ in the beliefs and values they apply to the care of the patient" and "respects personal and cultural differences among patients", there is no room for the pharmacist's personal prejudices to intentionally deprive his or her customers of particular legitimate treatments or medications.

I don't see it as depriving anything from anyone. I see it as the pharmacist serving the public only in the specific areas that they are comfortable serving and refering patients to another pharmacist for service in other areas.

You can acknowledge the beliefs and values of other colleagues and repesct personal and cultural differences while at the same time refering the patient to another pharmacist that can serve that patient better.

skunk

Jun 25, 2008, 04:33 PM

You can acknowledge the beliefs and values of other colleagues and repesct personal and cultural differences while at the same time refering the patient to another pharmacist that can serve that patient better.Simply referring the patient to another pharmacy because you do not believe in contraception would itself be the height of hypocrisy.

mactastic

Jun 25, 2008, 04:34 PM

Sounds like a golden opportunity for some enterprising person to start a "condoms, RU-486, and birth control pill shack" type enterprise...

I understand the arguments about "what if this is the only place around", but isn't this a new store opening? If so, then no services are being taken away, only certain new ones aren't being added. Presumably there was nothing before this store; at least now you can get chips and laffy taffy even if you can't get condoms.

Much as I disagree with the store owner's take on morality and the effectiveness of birth control, it is that person's right to have those views. And it's anyone's right who wants to boycott that store entirely to do so as well.

Although, if I was as vindictive as some conservative groups have been towards groups such as Planned Parenthood, I would start looking into ways to strip the designation of "pharmacy" from stores that don't meet certain criteria; as well as find ways to disallow these types of stores to dispense ANY medication once they have been stripped of the proper designation. Run them out of business the legal way...

redwarrior

Jun 25, 2008, 04:37 PM

You seem to be a smart person that actually passionately believes what they are saying, so I won't try to belittle you for that even though I completely disagree with almost everything you say.

The part I quoted above though I have to say is completely wrong. Just in the interests of truth and others reading it I have to point that out.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that "it's better to teach young people to abstain." There is actually mountains of evidence to the contrary and numerous studies as to how abstinence teaching has no effect on teenage sexual habits, pregnancy rates etc. It is simply wrong to assert that this is true when it's not.

As for the "girl has to live with it" statement, that is only true if the girl is a Christian like yourself that has violated her core beliefs by getting an abortion. It's a meaningless emotional statement. the girl also presumably has to "live with" having a baby as well. It's the pejorative slant that you assume "living with an abortion" has that gives your statement it's power, and that is only a presumption. It's not true for most folks.
Y'all just had to get me back into this didn't you?:D Ok, I'll bite. First of all, thank you for the respect and lack of sarcasm, I do appreciate your talking to me on your level.

Now, whether you are an athiest, agnostic, christian, whatever, I personally would like to think that most people value human life. Saving lives simply makes one feel better than taking human life. But then we have to get into the whole "when does it become a life," which others involved in this discussion and I would never be able to agree on, so we won't.

My experiences have shaped who I am and what I believe, that is certainly true. Raising a teenage daughter, who is passionately celibate (so far), has not been easy. I didn't teach her "not to have sex," I taught her to respect herself enough to wait until it is right for her. I know that teenagers are sexual creatures, however I also know that there are just too many of them out there that crave love and acceptance more than sex, and when their emotional needs are met, the physical urges are not as strong. I'm not speaking from study, I'm simply speaking from experience - and not really that much of it, just my own screwed up teenage years and my raising my children to be more secure in themselves than I was.

Having said all of that. If I owned this particular store, I would certainly carry contraceptives. The original issue was dealing with the store owner's choice in not dispensing contraceptives, and I still stand behind his freedom to make that choice.

Daveman Deluxe

Jun 25, 2008, 04:51 PM

I don't see it as depriving anything from anyone. I see it as the pharmacist serving the public only in the specific areas that they are comfortable serving and refering patients to another pharmacist for service in other areas.

It seems to me that the third section of the Code would contraindicate refusing to stock certain drugs considered legitimate by the medical establishment:

III. A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.

A pharmacist promotes the right of self-determination and recognizes individual self-worth by encouraging patients to participate in decisions about their health. A pharmacist communicates with patients in terms that are understandable. In all cases, a pharmacist respects personal and cultural difference samong patients.

If you refuse to stock a requested drug based on personal belief, that strips the patient of his self-determination.

imac/cheese

Jun 25, 2008, 05:30 PM

It seems to me that the third section of the Code would contraindicate refusing to stock certain drugs considered legitimate by the medical establishment:

If you refuse to stock a requested drug based on personal belief, that strips the patient of his self-determination.

That was the only area of the oath I thought might have some teeth on this topic. In my opinion (after I thought about it for a bit) a specialist pharmacist does not strip the patient from his self-determination, just as a specialist doctor doesn't strip a patient's right to self-determine their medical care. Just because the plastic surgeon doesn't perform nose-ear-throat services doesn't mean that the patient's right to determine their own medical care has been infringed upon. The pharmacist respects that the patient has a right to determine the best course of action for himself, and does not push his own persoanl beliefs on anyone, but at the same time he doesn't offer certain services that he disagrees with.

Skunk -- I don't see it as hypocritical to acknowledge that someone has a right to certain services without performing those services yourself or while holding the personal belief that the services are immoral.

skunk

Jun 25, 2008, 05:37 PM

Daveman Deluxe

Jun 25, 2008, 05:59 PM

...a specialist pharmacist does not strip the patient from his self-determination, just as a specialist doctor doesn't strip a patient's right to self-determine their medical care. Just because the plastic surgeon doesn't perform nose-ear-throat services doesn't mean that the patient's right to determine their own medical care has been infringed upon.

This is a false analogy. Both pharmacy and cosmetic surgery are particular specialties within medicine. A cosmetic surgeon has a specific role; diagnosing and treating strep throat (and other otolaryngological diseases) is not among these. Likewise, a pharmacist has a specific role in providing health care; the prescription of drugs is not among these. It is the role of a doctor to prescribe medication and the role of a pharmacist to fill that prescription, and to work with the patient to minimize adverse effects and synergistic effects with other medications.

One would not go to a cosmetic surgeon expecting him to be skilled in otolaryngology; one would not go to a pharmacist to be prescribed medication.

It's important to remember that a pharmacist, just as any health care professional, exists as a part of a system, and each part of the system must perform their role as expected by all the other members of the system in order for the system to work.

LethalWolfe

Jun 25, 2008, 05:59 PM

That was the only area of the oath I thought might have some teeth on this topic. In my opinion (after I thought about it for a bit) a specialist pharmacist does not strip the patient from his self-determination, just as a specialist doctor doesn't strip a patient's right to self-determine their medical care. Just because the plastic surgeon doesn't perform nose-ear-throat services doesn't mean that the patient's right to determine their own medical care has been infringed upon. The pharmacist respects that the patient has a right to determine the best course of action for himself, and does not push his own persoanl beliefs on anyone, but at the same time he doesn't offer certain services that he disagrees with.
A pharmacy that chooses not to stock anything related to contraception isn't a "specialist" as they don't specialize in anything. They are just a normal pharmacy minus some stuff that normal pharmacies carry. Maybe "reduced services" pharmacy would be more accurate?

Lethal

Don't panic

Jun 25, 2008, 06:38 PM

That was the only area of the oath I thought might have some teeth on this topic. In my opinion (after I thought about it for a bit) a specialist pharmacist does not strip the patient from his self-determination, just as a specialist doctor doesn't strip a patient's right to self-determine their medical care. Just because the plastic surgeon doesn't perform nose-ear-throat services doesn't mean that the patient's right to determine their own medical care has been infringed upon. The pharmacist respects that the patient has a right to determine the best course of action for himself, and does not push his own persoanl beliefs on anyone, but at the same time he doesn't offer certain services that he disagrees with.

first of all discriminatory limitation =/ specialization.
and in anycase, pharmacies are not specialized.
when you go to a doctor, you know (or should know) that there are different specialties, and that you have to go to the proper kind of doctor to get proper care for you ailment.
when you go to a pharmacy, your reasonable expectation is that your prescription will be filled, not that the legitimate decisions between you and your doctor will be evaluated, judged and possibly superseded by a clerk's opinion.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 06:50 PM

Don't panic

Jun 25, 2008, 06:55 PM

I have a question that I'm interested in the answer for:

What do you all think the solution is?

A list of meds the government mandates needs to be in every pharmacy?

Acceptance of the pharmaceutical oath posted earlier (is it binding btw?)?

in my opinion, if you are a licensed pharmacist you should try to fill a prescription to the best of your abilities, regardless of your personal beliefs. simple enough.
if you are not willing to do that, you shouldn't be a pharmacist, but a grocer.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 06:57 PM

in my opinion, if you are a licensed pharmacist you should try to fill a prescription to the best of your abilities, regardless of your personal beliefs. simple enough.
if you are not willing to do that, you shouldn't be a pharmacist, but a grocer.

Fair enough. How should this be enforced?

Daveman Deluxe

Jun 25, 2008, 06:58 PM

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 07:02 PM

Badandy: The World Health Organization maintains a list of "Essential Medicines". These are defined as "those drugs that satisfy the health care needs of the majority of the population; they should therefore be available at all times in adequate amounts and in appropriate dosage forms, at a price the community can afford." It includes certain contraceptives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Health_Organization_Essential_Medicines

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_medicines

These should be enforced the same way that any other misconduct on the part of a pharmacist is dealt with: via revocation or suspension of a license to practice.

Is that WHO list enforceable under U.S. law?

Further, that thing you just quoted runs pretty contrary to how we think in the U.S. It says that medicine should be available at a price the community can afford. In the U.S., we hope it is because that's how they will make sales and money, but prices aren't set because of need. That seems to encourage price fixing. Are we ready to do that?

hulugu

Jun 25, 2008, 07:04 PM

...These should be enforced the same way that any other misconduct on the part of a pharmacist is dealt with: via revocation or suspension of a license to practice.

Bingo. The oath is part of being a pharmacist, if you don't like the oath or you don't have any intention of following, then it's time for a suspension of your license.

Pharmacists are not soda-jerks or liquor store clerks, they are a part of the medical profession and as such they have a licensing requirement they must follow.

Is that WHO list enforceable under U.S. law?

Further, that thing you just quoted runs pretty contrary to how we think in the U.S. It says that medicine should be available at a price the community can afford. In the U.S., we hope it is because that's how they will make sales and money, but prices aren't set because of need. That seems to encourage price fixing. Are we ready to do that?

Well, let's make the overall assumption that a medicine priced beyond the reach of the community won't sell very well. Price fixing would exist, not because of government intervention to protect consumers, but rather because of collusion between pharmaceutical companies. If a free market is truly allowed to operate, the price for drugs will rapidly fall, especially once the patent for a drug has expired allowing for generic competition.

I think we're drifting a bit.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 07:06 PM

Bingo. The oath is part of being a pharmacist, if you don't like the oath or you don't have any intention of following, then it's time for a suspension of your license.

Pharmacists are not soda-jerks or liquor store clerks, they are a part of the medical profession and as such they have a licensing requirement they must follow.

I still haven't gotten an answer to this.

To become a licensed pharmacist, are you required to abide by that pharmacist oath? If not, is there a part of the licensing they have to go through that says they can't not carry prescriptions because of personal beliefs?

Gelfin

Jun 25, 2008, 07:11 PM

What do you all think the solution is?

As a Republican you're not going to like this answer, but yes, the state has to regulate what is and is not appropriate professional conduct. Pharmacists and pharmacies are licensed by the state to perform a job, and it is up to the state to determine when a pharmacist is no longer living up to the duties of his licensure.

To take a far more extreme example, suppose a pharmacist converts to Scientology and decides that, on one hand, his religious convictions insist that he must dispense no medications of any kind to anyone for any reason, but on the other hand that depriving him of his livelihood on the basis of his religious beliefs would be unconscionable religious discrimination. I would fully expect that pharmacist to be fired and delicensed regardless of his religion because he simply has no intention to perform the job of a pharmacist.

Pharmacists who deny birth control are borrowing a portion of the same argument, claiming that the right to refuse to perform the job of a pharmacist in selected circumstances as determined by religious conviction, without personal consequence, and that any attempt to apply a consequence to this behavior would be religious discrimination.

I do not at present have a good argument regarding where the "line" should be between a pharmacist who never appeals to his conscience so as to refuse service and the hypothetical Scientologist pharmacist who always does, nor a claim regarding on which side of that line a birth-control-denying pharmacist would or should fall. All I am saying is that the solution is for the state to solidly determine what their interest is in licensing pharmacists to begin with and to draw and enforce the line consistent with that interest.

Don't panic

Jun 25, 2008, 07:15 PM

Fair enough. How should this be enforced?

like any other infringement. if violation are reported or discovered, sanctions are applied, proportionally to the severity and frequency of the infringement.

A pharmacist who refuses to fill a legit prescription based on his/her personal belief does not hold patient health and safety as the primary consideration, which should be THE foremost concern.
It really is that simple and i really can't see how this can be argued around.

Don't panic

Jun 25, 2008, 07:25 PM

I do not at present have a good argument regarding where the "line" should be between a pharmacist who never appeals to his conscience so as to refuse service and the hypothetical Scientologist pharmacist who always does, nor a claim regarding on which side of that line a birth-control-denying pharmacist would or should fall. All I am saying is that the solution is for the state to solidly determine what their interest is in licensing pharmacists to begin with and to draw and enforce the line consistent with that interest.

i think that the line is already drawn: if a prescription is valid, it should be filled.
if the pharmacist has reason to believe that forgery, duplication, drug abuse, incorrect prescription or contro-indicateion to some other drugs or condition of the patient are involved, than he has the right -indeed the duty- to clarify the situation, contact the physician and possibly preclude access to the drug.
but a personal belief does not qualify.

Gelfin

Jun 25, 2008, 07:33 PM

i think that the line is already drawn: if a prescription is valid, it should be filled.
if the pharmacist has reason to believe that forgery, duplication, drug abuse, incorrect prescription or contro-indicateion to some other drugs or condition of the patient are involved, than he has the right -indeed the duty- to clarify the situation, contact the physician and possibly preclude access to the drug.
but a personal belief does not qualify.

Full disclosure: my gut response is to agree with you fully. All I said is I don't have a good argument for it at present.

Badandy

Jun 25, 2008, 07:34 PM

like any other infringement. if violation are reported or discovered, sanctions are applied, proportionally to the severity and frequency of the infringement.

But what is it infringing on? Is that pharmaceutical code binding? Before licensing, do they need to agree to its stipulations?

MacNut

Jun 25, 2008, 07:34 PM

Is this the pharmacist or the pharmacy at fault. If the pharmacist works for a pharmacy that doesn't sell the drugs who do you go after?

themadchemist

Jun 25, 2008, 07:39 PM

But what is it infringing on? Is that pharmaceutical code binding? Before licensing, do they need to agree to its stipulations?

No, but pissing on your professional code does tend to degrade the value and reputation of your profession.

Daveman Deluxe

Jun 25, 2008, 07:39 PM

I still haven't gotten an answer to this.

To become a licensed pharmacist, are you required to abide by that pharmacist oath? If not, is there a part of the licensing they have to go through that says they can't not carry prescriptions because of personal beliefs?

Yes, pharmacists are obligated to sign the oath. I was unable to find a specific document on the Internet that describes the protocol for licensure, but many news articles mentioned the requirement that pharmacists take the oath as a qualification for licensure. A number of pharmacy colleges also describe graduation activities for the conferring of a D.Pharm. to include taking the oath.

It's important to remember that pharmacists are not just ANY retailer, either. They are bound by their state boards to give a certain level of service and the state boards have the authority to dictate whether a pharmacist must stock a particular drug.

Also, if a pharmacist has a contract with an insurance company that provide coverage for a particular drug, but the pharmacist refuses to dispense that drug, the insurance company can hold the pharmacist liable for breach of contract, since the pharmacist never had any intention of upholding the contract.

Ugg

Jun 25, 2008, 07:43 PM

Is this the pharmacist or the pharmacy at fault. If the pharmacist works for a pharmacy that doesn't sell the drugs who do you go after?

If the pharmacy made the policy, they would bear any legal repercussions. If the pharmacist chooses not to dispense drugs that the pharmacy carries, then he bears the responsibility.

Don't panic

Jun 25, 2008, 07:43 PM

But what is it infringing on? Is that pharmaceutical code binding? Before licensing, do they need to agree to its stipulations?

it depends on what you consider 'binding'.
In general, it's an ethical and moral obligation.
If you want to consider the strict legality of it, in the US it depends form state to state, in the EU is not acceptable, in other countries i would imagine it's fine, but i don't know.

MacNut

Jun 25, 2008, 07:47 PM

If the pharmacy made the policy, they would bear any legal repercussions. If the pharmacist chooses not to dispense drugs that the pharmacy carries, then he bears the responsibility.So then are these pharmacies legal?

Don't panic

Jun 25, 2008, 07:52 PM

So then are these pharmacies legal?
they could be illegal, depending on location and the degree of disservice.
they are generally unethical and immoral.

MacNut

Jun 25, 2008, 07:55 PM

they could be illegal, depending on location and the degree of disservice.
they are generally unethical and immoral.I will give you unethical, but immoral could also include the abortion pills themselves. Depends on the circumstances tho.

Don't panic

Jun 25, 2008, 08:04 PM

I will give you unethical, but immoral could also include the abortion pills themselves. Depends on the circumstances tho.

first. contraceptives are not abortifaciens.
second. the pharmacist does not know the circumstances of the prescription, nor s/he should. an unwanted pregnancy could put a woman at severe life risk, or put her in the much more dangerous (and morally more questionable) position of needing an abortion later on. furthermore, EC are often prescribed for condition other than pregnancy.

Eraserhead

Jun 25, 2008, 08:16 PM

first. contraceptives are not abortifaciens.

and abortifaciens don't appear to be on the list.

NT1440

Jun 25, 2008, 08:16 PM

And another part is if you run out of condoms or whatever to keep your pants on until you can get some.

tell that to stupid teenagers, im sure many of them are focusing only on getting some;)

MacNut

Jun 25, 2008, 08:55 PM

tell that to stupid teenagers, im sure many of them are focusing only on getting some;)And I doubt they really care about using protection in the first place.

Iscariot

Jun 25, 2008, 10:13 PM

Private business, government, grocery store!

Being a private business does not exempt you from laws and regulations. Even grocery stores have significant government involvement, from what they can sell to health inspections. You can't sell cigarrettes to minors simply because your business model dictates that it's an OK thing to do. Similarly, a pharmacy must follow certain rules and regulations. The question is whether or not a pharmacy must follow a code of conduct in line with health care providers.

Pro life vs. pro choice!

The pharmacy's claim to be "pro life" is erronous. Contraceptives are not abortions. Pro life vs. pro choice belongs elsewhere.

Abortion pill!

The "morning after" pill is not an abortion pill. Just like other contraceptives, it prevents conception. This is why there is such a limited timeframe in which it will be effective. If you do not know this, you are not informed, and you do not belong in this debate until you are.

Freedom of religion!

Freedom of religion entitles you to worship whatever God(s) and hold whatever spiritual beliefs you wish without fear of reprisal or discrimination. It does not entitle you to act in a manner that is contrary to the law in the name of your religion, nor does it in any way impact what laws may be passed that may be contrary to the beliefs you hold. If your beliefs are at odds with your profession, then you have either picked the wrong profession or the wrong beliefs.

NT1440

Jun 25, 2008, 10:21 PM

And I doubt they really care about using protection in the first place.
thats a huge problem in itself.

nice to see another CT'er around here :)

zioxide

Jun 25, 2008, 10:27 PM

And I doubt they really care about using protection in the first place.

Part of the reason for that is people still trying to preach this abstinence ********.

The government should have a place where people should be able to get free condoms too.

redwarrior

Jun 25, 2008, 10:33 PM

The pharmacy's claim to be "pro life" is erronous. Contraceptives are not abortions. Pro life vs. pro choice belongs elsewhere.

The "morning after" pill is not an abortion pill. Just like other contraceptives, it prevents conception. This is why there is such a limited timeframe in which it will be effective. If you do not know this, you are not informed, and you do not belong in this debate until you are.

You are absolutely right. However, various religious groups (Mormons I know, Catholics, I'm not sure), believe that any form of birth control = a dead child. I know there are some Native American tribes that also believe this, they actually think that every time a woman has her menstrual cycle, that is a dead baby as well. So conception is not where the concern begins for these groups of people.

Freedom of religion entitles you to worship whatever God(s) and hold whatever spiritual beliefs you wish without fear of reprisal or discrimination. It does not entitle you to act in a manner that is contrary to the law in the name of your religion, nor does it in any way impact what laws may be passed that may be contrary to the beliefs you hold. If your beliefs are at odds with your profession, then you have either picked the wrong profession or the wrong beliefs.
The Christian religion requires that one adhere to the laws of the land as long as they do not contradict God's law. I agree with you that they are in the wrong profession if they must break the law to practice their profession.

Ugg

Jun 25, 2008, 10:34 PM

I will give you unethical, but immoral could also include the abortion pills themselves. Depends on the circumstances tho.

The practice of medicine is not ruled by morality, rather by ethics.

Iscariot

Jun 25, 2008, 10:41 PM

You are absolutely right. However, various religious groups (Mormons I know, Catholics, I'm not sure), believe that any form of birth control = a dead child. I know there are some Native American tribes that also believe this, they actually think that every time a woman has her menstrual cycle, that is a dead baby as well. So conception is not where the concern begins for these groups of people.

True, but that refers to my "freedom of religion" argument.

The practice of medicine is not ruled by morality, rather by ethics.

Also, the "abortion pill" is not a contraceptive. It's an abortifacient. As far as I know, you can only get an abortifacient at a hospital or clinic in the US; it's not available as a prescription medication. At any rate, it falls under the topic of "abortion", not "contraception".

Daveman Deluxe

Jun 26, 2008, 12:15 AM

You are absolutely right. However, various religious groups (Mormons I know, Catholics, I'm not sure), believe that any form of birth control = a dead child.

For what it's worth, the Mormon church does not oppose the use of birth control--it's explicitly left up to the couple to decide. It's expected that everybody will have at least one child, but beyond that it's entirely up to them.

And I'm pretty sure that even though the Roman Catholic Church opposes birth control, it isn't officially equated with abortion.

PlaceofDis

Jun 26, 2008, 12:38 AM

And I'm pretty sure that even though the Roman Catholic Church opposes birth control, it isn't officially equated with abortion.

as a former catholic, no they do not equate it with abortion, rather as 'bad sex' and usually equates it with pre-marital sex for the most part, leading one to believe it doesn't matter once you're married.

hulugu

Jun 26, 2008, 12:42 AM

Badandy

Jun 26, 2008, 01:40 AM

The particular state may not have such a board of review, but again, if someone agrees to an oath of conduct in their profession shouldn't they follow it?

Yes.

Eraserhead

Jun 26, 2008, 05:27 AM

The Christian religion requires that one adhere to the laws of the land as long as they do not contradict God's law. I agree with you that they are in the wrong profession if they must break the law to practice their profession.

Fixed it for you. Freedom of religion doesn't allow you to do stuff which hurts other peoples freedom, and using contraceptives is a freedom as defined by the World Health Organisation.

Erwin-Br

Jun 26, 2008, 06:37 AM

People like you frighten me... because each and every day this happens. We are losing our liberties inch by inch... in the name of things that will 'help us'... and you don't bat an eye. As long as the liberty being crushed doesn't affect your life to much, it's no big deal. But just you wait, soon enough, it will... and then you'll be the one complaining and no one will be listening. If there is anything worth fighting for guys, this is it. Our freedoms.

I find it kind of funny that you keep on hammering about freedom and liberties, while the people who are "Pro-Life" often belong to a group that want everyone to follow the laws of their belief, taking away many liberties that other people have no problem with. Taking way the liberty to have safe sex is hardly an example of freedom, now is it?

--Erwin

Rodimus Prime

Jun 26, 2008, 07:54 AM

first of all discriminatory limitation =/ specialization.
and in anycase, pharmacies are not specialized.
when you go to a doctor, you know (or should know) that there are different specialties, and that you have to go to the proper kind of doctor to get proper care for you ailment.
when you go to a pharmacy, your reasonable expectation is that your prescription will be filled, not that the legitimate decisions between you and your doctor will be evaluated, judged and possibly superseded by a clerk's opinion.

I can see it as a specialized pharmacy. There are some religious belief out there that put even birth control as wrong. I will not say which ones because I may point the finger in the wrong direction but that is besides the point.

More to the point this pharmacy will make those people happy and more willing to go get the health care and drugs they need because there is a place that line up with there beliefs. Plus where it is opening it is not like there is not another pharmcy near by that they would refer the people 2. I honestly do not see a problem with it because it is not the only game in town.

2ndly we also live in the days of the internet. Many of those drugs the insurance company will want you to mail order (any thing that is considered a maintenance drug they will require mail order after X number of perspiration.) Add in the fact other birth control is easily order over the internet does not hurt people to badly.

I do find it funny that some people who complain about government limiting our freedoms are the same ones complaining about this one in private business... A little hypocritical to me.

Eraserhead

Jun 26, 2008, 08:25 AM

I do find it funny that some people who complain about government limiting our freedoms are the same ones complaining about this one in private business... A little hypocritical to me.

The freedom is being limited when the drug is being prevented from being sold to people who want it.

bamaworks

Jun 26, 2008, 08:37 AM

Do Pharmacists not have some sort of professional obligation to provide for masses similar to a Doctor or other medical professional? I know physicians take the hippocratic oath...

And I know that there are people fighting about the "freedoms" of the pharmacists on this thread, but what about the freedoms of the individual to get proper treatment for whatever the issue? The concept is that we are all free to do as we please until it infringes on the freedoms of others... which is clearly occurring in this case.

.Andy

Jun 26, 2008, 09:28 AM

Do Pharmacists not have some sort of professional obligation to provide for masses similar to a Doctor or other medical professional? I know physicians take the hippocratic oath...
There is actually no obligation to take the hippocratic oath anymore. It's increasingly being seen as anachronistic. There are alternate oaths which vary in popularity, but again there isn't an obligation to take one on graduation. Drs are more held to charge by their professional registration/regulation bodies these days.

And I know that there are people fighting about the "freedoms" of the pharmacists on this thread, but what about the freedoms of the individual to get proper treatment for whatever the issue? The concept is that we are all free to do as we please until it infringes on the freedoms of others... which is clearly occurring in this case.
The other point is that a pharmacist is not doing their job if they refuse to fill a script from a dr. A pharmacist isn't there to second guess the doctor and decide if the patient shouldn't have the medications (for whatever reason). The pharmacist can challenge the prescription on their authority/expertise and discuss their reasons for doing so with the prescribing dr, and this is very beneficial as they often know far more about the drugs and side effects than drs do.

There are plenty of other common uses for contraceptives drugs besides contraception. In the case of RU486 it can be used to treat brain, ovarian, and breast cancer as well as common conditions such as endometriosis. For a pharmacist to refuse to fill a script based on their own personal morality with no understanding of what the drug is being used for is negligent in the extreme. It illustrates perfectly that these pharmacists don't have anything but their own sanctimony at heart.

Don't panic

Jun 26, 2008, 11:35 AM

I can see it as a specialized pharmacy. There are some religious belief out there that put even birth control as wrong. I will not say which ones because I may point the finger in the wrong direction but that is besides the point.

More to the point this pharmacy will make those people happy and more willing to go get the health care and drugs they need because there is a place that line up with there beliefs. Plus where it is opening it is not like there is not another pharmcy near by that they would refer the people 2. I honestly do not see a problem with it because it is not the only game in town.

2ndly we also live in the days of the internet. Many of those drugs the insurance company will want you to mail order (any thing that is considered a maintenance drug they will require mail order after X number of perspiration.) Add in the fact other birth control is easily order over the internet does not hurt people to badly.

I do find it funny that some people who complain about government limiting our freedoms are the same ones complaining about this one in private business... A little hypocritical to me.

you mean like some venues were "specialized" in not serving some selected people not too long ago? i am sure it made lots of the paler patrons happy and more willing to go there...

this has been covered at lenght in the thread, but here it is again:
although a pharmacy is frequently a private enterprise, that doesn't mean that it is an unregulated one, or that they can sell whatever they please to whoever they please. they are bound by legal and ethical codes, which are different -and stricter- than those that regulate, say, a grocery.

the role of the pharmacist in the health system is exactly to properly fill a prescription. refusing to do so purely based on personal beliefs is unacceptable.

it's discriminatory, because it fails to respect the autonomy and dignity of the patients based on a different set of beliefs
it's unethical, because it directly negates their professional duties and what is reasonably expected from them
it's immoral, because their decision could severely affect the health and well-being of the people they negate the prescription to.

imac/cheese

Jun 26, 2008, 11:41 AM

...To take a far more extreme example, suppose a pharmacist converts to Scientology and decides that, on one hand, his religious convictions insist that he must dispense no medications of any kind to anyone for any reason, but on the other hand that depriving him of his livelihood on the basis of his religious beliefs would be unconscionable religious discrimination. I would fully expect that pharmacist to be fired and delicensed regardless of his religion because he simply has no intention to perform the job of a pharmacist...

Any pharmacist that works for a pharmacy that he does not own should be requried to fill the prescriptions that the pharmacy sells. Otherwise he should be fired by the pharmacy for not doing the job they hired him for.

On the other hand, if a pharmacist opens his own store, he should be able to fill and sell whatever prescriptions he is legally allowed to fill and none that he doesn't want to sell.

first of all discriminatory limitation =/ specialization.
and in anycase, pharmacies are not specialized.
when you go to a doctor, you know (or should know) that there are different specialties, and that you have to go to the proper kind of doctor to get proper care for you ailment.
when you go to a pharmacy, your reasonable expectation is that your prescription will be filled, not that the legitimate decisions between you and your doctor will be evaluated, judged and possibly superseded by a clerk's opinion.

If you go to a pharmacy that advertises itself as a religious pharmacy, you could get specialized care based on your religion. A pharmacy is not a state run business at this time and in my opinion, if you are going to allow private individuals run their own pharmacies you should let them sell whatever they want. If the goverement wants to make all pharmacies state-run, then they can force every pharmacy to fill all prescriptions.

is not[/b] an abortion pill. Just like other contraceptives, it prevents conception. This is why there is such a limited timeframe in which it will be effective. If you do not know this, you are not informed, and you do not belong in this debate until you are...

Plan B is defined as a contraceptive and is designed to work that way, but it also can work to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus. Once the fetilization of the egg is complete, the genetic make-up of the future person is complete. Many people believe this is when the new life begins and implantation really has nothing to do with it. That is the reason that many people consider this drug to be an abortion pill. It has the ability to destroy a fertilized egg.

The freedom is being limited when the drug is being prevented from being sold to people who want it.

I don't see any freedom being limited. I simply see limited services being provided. If a pharmacist refuses to sell a specific drug, they have two options. 1) Sell other drugs but not the one they are morally against. 2) Quit being a pharmacist. Neither option limits anyone's freedoms. Neither option provides the patient with the drug they want.

atszyman

Jun 26, 2008, 01:44 PM

Plan B is defined as a contraceptive and is designed to work that way, but it also can work to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus. Once the fetilization of the egg is complete, the genetic make-up of the future person is complete. Many people believe this is when the new life begins and implantation really has nothing to do with it. That is the reason that many people consider this drug to be an abortion pill. It has the ability to destroy a fertilized egg.

And with no intervention the fertilized egg may not implant from 30% - 60% of the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy#Viability_and_established_pregnancy). Do you classify all of those as miscarriages?

What about other drugs where the side effects may cause a fertilized egg not to implant? Should the pharmacists in question refuse to give them out as well? Are women going to have to give these pharmacists a detailed sexual history with all of their encounters within the last month just to be sure that they might not be pregnant?

However, hormonal contraception can also be used as a treatment for various medical conditions. When implantation prevention is unintentionally caused as a side effect of medical treatment, such pro-life groups do not consider the practice to be immoral, citing the bioethical principle of double effect.[24] Likewise, when a hormonal contraceptive is used with the intention of preventing fertilisation, the intended reduction in implantation failures, miscarriages and deaths from childbearing may outweigh the possibility that the method might cause some implantation failures.

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy#Ethics_of_preventing_implantation)

The pharmacist does not know why a particular drug was prescribed and unless the patient volunteers that information to refuse the prescription based on their own moral beliefs and effects that the drug might have is wrong.

Every pharmacy should try to fill every legitimate prescription that they get, and if they don't have that particular treatment on hand and cannot consult the doctor for an alternative they need to be willing to order what is needed. If you are unwilling to do this, you shouldn't be able to call it a pharmacy, or call yourself a pharmacist.

Ugg

Jun 26, 2008, 01:56 PM

Eraserhead

Jun 26, 2008, 02:03 PM

I don't see any freedom being limited. I simply see limited services being provided. If a pharmacist refuses to sell a specific drug, they have two options. 1) Sell other drugs but not the one they are morally against. 2) Quit being a pharmacist. Neither option limits anyone's freedoms. Neither option provides the patient with the drug they want.

If they only refuse to sell some drugs but not others then they aren't doing their job, and if they quit then someone else will be able to take their place and do it properly as the demand will have reduced sufficiently to support them.

fivepoint

Jun 26, 2008, 02:40 PM

Human life begins when a baby takes its first breath. Everything up to that point is simply a potential human life.

Speaking of ignorance... That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard in my life. Where do you people GET this stuff?

NT1440

Jun 26, 2008, 02:47 PM

Speaking of ignorance... That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard in my life. Where do you people GET this stuff?

dont turn this into a "when does life begin" thread....

I personally think that pharmacies should fill any and all legitimate prescriptions, they are there to serve the customer not preach.

then again i find religious thinking to be rediculous so I am speaking with a bias.

fivepoint

Jun 26, 2008, 02:53 PM

dont turn this into a "when does life begin" thread....

I personally think that pharmacies should fill any and all legitimate prescriptions, they are there to serve the customer not preach.

then again i find religious thinking to be rediculous so I am speaking with a bias.

I wasn't planning on it, but his comment was so patently ridiculous and I felt I would be doing everyone here a disservice by not pointing out how insane it was.

Here is the bottom-line people... Pharmicists have no obligation to anyone other than their customers and themselves. They are professionally obligated to provide the services they see as best for their customers, and for their business. If they feel that everyone is best served by not stocking particular drugs (for whatever reason) then that is there choice. It isn't about what YOU think they should sell, what other pharmacists think they should sell, it's there business and it is as simple as that. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. I highly recommend you use the free-market system to your advantage. If society agrees with you, those companies will go out of business, and the ones you support will grow.

Not all of you are saying that government should step in, but some of you are... If you want a totalitarian system where a government tells businesses what to do, what to think, what to sell... or you think that one way is the best for every one (and you know what that way is) then you guys are 'further gone' than I thought. Move to Cuba or North Korea and be done with it already.

themadchemist

Jun 26, 2008, 02:56 PM

Pharmicists have no obligation to anyone other than their customers and themselves. They are professionally obligated to provide the services they see as best for their customers, and for their business.

This implies that pharmacists have a right to make prescriptive choices. They have no such right. Pharmacists fill prescriptions ordered by physicians. They, in fact, do not have the right to override doctors' orders unilaterally in order to "provide the services they see as best for their customers." That's called practicing medicine without a license, and it's illegal.

fivepoint

Jun 26, 2008, 02:58 PM

This implies that pharmacists have a right to make prescriptive choices. They have no such right. Pharmacists fill prescriptions ordered by physicians. They, in fact, do not have the right to override doctors' orders unilaterally in order to "provide the services they see as best for their customers." That's called practicing medicine without a license, and it's illegal.

Wow. Yeah... that's exactly what I meant. They can fill any perscription they want. :rolleyes:

themadchemist

Jun 26, 2008, 02:59 PM

Wow. Yeah... that's exactly what I meant. They can fill any perscription they want. :rolleyes:

No, you meant they can choose not to fill any prescription they don't want to fill. And that's about as bad.

Don't panic

Jun 26, 2008, 03:03 PM

I wasn't planning on it, but his comment was so patently ridiculous and I felt I would be doing everyone here a disservice by not pointing out how insane it was.

Here is the bottom-line people... Pharmicists have no obligation to anyone other than their customers and themselves. They are professionally obligated to provide the services they see as best for their customers, and for their business. If they feel that everyone is best served by not stocking particular drugs (for whatever reason) then that is there choice. It isn't about what YOU think they should sell, what other pharmacists think they should sell, it's there business and it is as simple as that. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. I highly recommend you use the free-market system to your advantage. If society agrees with you, those companies will go out of business, and the ones you support will grow.

Not all of you are saying that government should step in, but some of you are... If you want a totalitarian system where a government tells businesses what to do, what to think, what to sell... or you think that one way is the best for every one (and you know what that way is) then you guys are 'further gone' than I thought. Move to Cuba or North Korea and be done with it already.

talk about patently ridiculous comments... :rolleyes:

imac/cheese

Jun 26, 2008, 03:10 PM

And with no intervention the fertilized egg may not implant from 30% - 60% of the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy#Viability_and_established_pregnancy). Do you classify all of those as miscarriages?

I don't really think that Plan B is an abortion pill, since abortion actually means to terminate a pregnancy. From what I understand, a woman is not pregnant until implantation. Either way, the life that was created is no longer alive. Natural non-implantation of a fertilized egg would not be considered a miscarriage, but I do believe that a human life was lost.

What about other drugs where the side effects may cause a fertilized egg not to implant? Should the pharmacists in question refuse to give them out as well? Are women going to have to give these pharmacists a detailed sexual history with all of their encounters within the last month just to be sure that they might not be pregnant?

The pharmacist does not know why a particular drug was prescribed and unless the patient volunteers that information to refuse the prescription based on their own moral beliefs and effects that the drug might have is wrong.

Every pharmacy should try to fill every legitimate prescription that they get, and if they don't have that particular treatment on hand and cannot consult the doctor for an alternative they need to be willing to order what is needed. If you are unwilling to do this, you shouldn't be able to call it a pharmacy, or call yourself a pharmacist.

I do not see it as a requirement that every pharmacy fill every prescription. There are plenty of ways in our country, even in the boonies, to get prescriptions of every kind. If a specific pharmacy doesn't want to carry certain drugs they shouldn't have to, no matter what their reasons. If a pharmacist wanted to set up shop and give out free generic drugs and that is all they filled, that would be fine with me. Should we make them also fill non-generic scripts, if that is not what they want to do? If a pharmacist wants to run a sexuality center/pharmacy and only give out medicines that deal with contraception and sexual disorders that would be fine with me.

Depending upon the age, health and genetic fitness of the woman and man, between 25 and 50% of all fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted.

Human life begins when a baby takes its first breath. Everything up to that point is simply a potential human life.

Willful misunderstanding of basic biology is a sign of ignorance not morality.

Basic biology does not state that life begins at "first breath". Where in the world did you ever get that idea?

fivepoint

Jun 26, 2008, 03:10 PM

talk about patently ridiculous comments... :rolleyes:

How so?

A definition of Private Business from Wikipedia:
A business (also called firm or enterprise) is a legally recognized organizational entity designed to provide goods and/or services to consumers or corporate entities such as governments, charities or other businesses. Businesses are predominant in capitalist economies, most being privately owned and formed to earn profit to increase the wealth of owners. The owners and operators of a business have as one of their main objectives the receipt or generation of a financial return in exchange for work and acceptance of risk. Notable exceptions include cooperative businesses and state-owned enterprises. Socialistic systems involve either government, public, or worker ownership of most sizable businesses.

A definition of Sole Proprietorship from Wikipedia:
Sole proprietorship: A sole proprietorship is a business owned by one person. The owner may operate on his or her own or may employ others. The owner of the business has total and unlimited personal liability of the debts incurred by the business.

themadchemist

Jun 26, 2008, 03:15 PM

How so?

A definition of Private Business from Wikipedia:
A business (also called firm or enterprise) is a legally recognized organizational entity designed to provide goods and/or services to consumers or corporate entities such as governments, charities or other businesses. Businesses are predominant in capitalist economies, most being privately owned and formed to earn profit to increase the wealth of owners. The owners and operators of a business have as one of their main objectives the receipt or generation of a financial return in exchange for work and acceptance of risk. Notable exceptions include cooperative businesses and state-owned enterprises. Socialistic systems involve either government, public, or worker ownership of most sizable businesses.

A definition of Sole Proprietorship from Wikipedia:
Sole proprietorship: A sole proprietorship is a business owned by one person. The owner may operate on his or her own or may employ others. The owner of the business has total and unlimited personal liability of the debts incurred by the business.

Then why don't we allow hospitals to turn away people from emergency rooms? As a society, we have made the decision that the provision of healthcare is a special case, requiring special regulations that maximize the benefit to society. Therefore, healthcare is subject to more regulations than, say, an underwear shop. That is why your Wikipedia business definitions are not going to suffice to make your point.

fivepoint

Jun 26, 2008, 03:19 PM

Then why don't we allow hospitals to turn away people from emergency rooms? As a society, we have made the decision that the provision of healthcare is a special case, requiring special regulations that maximize the benefit to society. Therefore, healthcare is subject to more regulations than, say, an underwear shop. That is why your Wikipedia business definitions are not going to suffice to make your point.

Because someone is going to die if they don't get their perscription of BC? Give me a break! If you can't see the difference between turning someone away at the door of a emergency room, and not selling BC, then I don't know how this argument can proceed.

Many hospitals, by the way, don't sell/use specific drugs for various reasons. Perhaps they should be obligated to stock every drug known just in case someone asks for it.

Gelfin

Jun 26, 2008, 03:28 PM

Because someone is going to die if they don't get their perscription of BC?

A pharmacist is not qualified by training or by law to judge the medical necessity of any prescription, whether or not any particular application of that principle seems obvious to you.

fivepoint

Jun 26, 2008, 03:35 PM

A pharmacist is not qualified by training or by law to judge the medical necessity of any prescription, whether or not any particular application of that principle seems obvious to you.

You honestly think that it isn't LEGAL for a pharmacist to not stock BC? I'm sure your local Judiciary would love to hear your explanation for that one. :eek:

The average American's knowledge of their own basic liberties afforded to them by the Constitution and Bill of Rights absolutely astounds me. It's almost disrespectful to the people who fought so hard to give you those rights. Oh well, I guess ignorance is a right as well.

themadchemist

Jun 26, 2008, 03:36 PM

Because someone is going to die if they don't get their perscription of BC? Give me a break! If you can't see the difference between turning someone away at the door of a emergency room, and not selling BC, then I don't know how this argument can proceed.

Based on your definitions above, a hospital shouldn't have to accept uninsured patients to its emergency room, because it has the authority to make such decisions independently. But it does, because, *shudder*, the government decided to regulate. My point was simply that pulling stock definitions of a business out of Wikipedia isn't going to have much applicability to a discussion about providers of healthcare and dispensers of medicines.

If you can't see the difference between comparing birth control & the ER and pointing out the logical fallacies of your argument with a distinct example, then I don't know how this argument can proceed. Or any argument really.

Many hospitals, by the way, don't sell/use specific drugs for various reasons. Perhaps they should be obligated to stock every drug known just in case someone asks for it.

The problem here is not the failure to stock particular drugs for a practical or medical reason. This is a purposeful decision not to stock a drug based on a personal, non-medical, religious decision. It is an imposition upon patients of the religious beliefs of the provider. It comes at the price of patient care, and that price is far too much to pay.

Gelfin

Jun 26, 2008, 03:37 PM

You honestly think that it isn't LEGAL for a pharmacist to not stock BC? I'm sure your local Judiciary would love to hear your explanation for that one. If you could make that fly, you should be a very highly paid trial lawyer. :eek:

You're not listening. I said it is not legal for a pharmacist to make a judgment whether a customer's prescription is medically necessary. That is practicing medicine without a license, and it is absolutely illegal.

Don't panic

Jun 26, 2008, 03:41 PM

How so?

A definition of Private Business from Wikipedia:
A business (also called firm or enterprise) is a legally recognized organizational entity designed to provide goods and/or services to consumers or corporate entities such as governments, charities or other businesses. Businesses are predominant in capitalist economies, most being privately owned and formed to earn profit to increase the wealth of owners. The owners and operators of a business have as one of their main objectives the receipt or generation of a financial return in exchange for work and acceptance of risk. Notable exceptions include cooperative businesses and state-owned enterprises. Socialistic systems involve either government, public, or worker ownership of most sizable businesses.

A definition of Sole Proprietorship from Wikipedia:
Sole proprietorship: A sole proprietorship is a business owned by one person. The owner may operate on his or her own or may employ others. The owner of the business has total and unlimited personal liability of the debts incurred by the business.

first off, your patently ridiculous comments where the crap about the totalitarian regime and you know it.

second, you keep referring to 'businesses' as if a pharmacy is a regular grocery store. it is not. whether you like it or not.
i'll repeat it again in case you missed this one or the other 1234 times it has been explained to you.
a pharmacy is not a grocery store.
it is a heavily regulated business practice, for a large number of very valid reasons that should be but apparently are not obvious to everyone.
these regulations consist in legal, ethical and moral restrictions. if you are not ready to abide by them, you can easily choose not to be a pharmacist and open a grocery store.

to refuse to fulfill a valid prescription is illegal in the majority of places and unethical and immoral in all of them.

atszyman

Jun 26, 2008, 03:41 PM

Because someone is going to die if they don't get their perscription of BC? Give me a break! If you can't see the difference between turning someone away at the door of a emergency room, and not selling BC, then I don't know how this argument can proceed.

Many hospitals, by the way, don't sell/use specific drugs for various reasons. Perhaps they should be obligated to stock every drug known just in case someone asks for it.

Hormonal birth control pills are prescribed for reasons other than just birth control. How do you know whether or not a patient is not treating something that may indeed be life threatening with their prescription?

The reason the prescription was given is between the doctor and patient. If the pharmacy is going to stop selling prescription birth control because of what it might be used for I expect them to be carrying only pre-natal vitamins, tylenol, and whatever other drugs are OK to give to pregnant women because of what they might be used for.

I'm not asking that they stock every drug known to man, there are limits. But there must be some guideline for what most pharmacies keep on hand (it also makes doctors' lives easier since they can have a decent idea of what a pharmacy has) and that it a valid prescription comes through and they don't have it they can either find a viable substitute, with doctor's consultation of course, or that they will order it for the patient if there is no alternative.

I don't want the pharmacist refusing my prescriptions based on what the drug might be for, even if it's used for that purpose 99.9999999999...% of the time. My doctor prescribed the treatment and the reasons for it are between my doctor and myself, if I choose to share that with the pharmacy that's up to me.

fivepoint

Jun 26, 2008, 03:46 PM

Based on your definitions above, a hospital shouldn't have to accept uninsured patients to its emergency room, because it has the authority to make such decisions independently. But it does, because, *shudder*, the government decided to regulate. My point was simply that pulling stock definitions of a business out of Wikipedia isn't going to have much applicability to a discussion about providers of healthcare and dispensers of medicines.

If you can't see the difference between comparing birth control & the ER and pointing out the logical fallacies of your argument with a distinct example, then I don't know how this argument can proceed. Or any argument really.

The problem here is not the failure to stock particular drugs for a practical or medical reason. This is a purposeful decision not to stock a drug based on a personal, non-medical, religious decision. It is an imposition upon patients of the religious beliefs of the provider. It comes at the price of patient care, and that price is far too much to pay.

Your whole argument rides on the fact that the customer has no choice but to shop at that Pharmacy. If the pharmacy was the only pharmacy in the world, and it was regulated by the government as having to sell the drugs, then YES, I agree that they aren't required to do so.

But that is not the case. Pharmacies are competitive businesses, run by private businessmen, trying to make a living. They are allowed to compete against eachother, offer different products (Unique Selling Proposition) and brand themselves accordingly.

I disagree with you that Pharmacies should be forced to stock particular drugs. I think that if a pharmacy want to sell Aprin and Tylenol, and that's it... and call themselves "The Headache Pharmacy" then I see no reason why they can't.

fivepoint

Jun 26, 2008, 03:49 PM

first off, your patently ridiculous comments where the crap about the totalitarian regime and you know it.

second, you keep referring to 'businesses' as if a pharmacy is a regular grocery store. it is not. whether you like it or not.
i'll repeat it again in case you missed this one or the other 1234 times it has been explained to you.
a pharmacy is not a grocery store.
it is a heavily regulated business practice, for a large number of very valid reasons that should be but apparently are not obvious to everyone.
these regulations consist in legal, ethical and moral restrictions. if you are not ready to abide by them, you can easily choose not to be a pharmacist and open a grocery store.

to refuse to fulfill a valid prescription is illegal in the majority of places and unethical and immoral in all of them.

Why don't you make a list then of the drugs that every pharmacy in the world should be required to sell. We will make sure that every single pharmacy stocks those drugs, only those drugs, all those drugs, with no exceptions... because that is what the definition of 'pharmacy' is... right?

This is hilarious. Stalin and Marx would be proud.

fivepoint

Jun 26, 2008, 03:54 PM

Hormonal birth control pills are prescribed for reasons other than just birth control. How do you know whether or not a patient is not treating something that may indeed be life threatening with their prescription?

The reason the prescription was given is between the doctor and patient. If the pharmacy is going to stop selling prescription birth control because of what it might be used for I expect them to be carrying only pre-natal vitamins, tylenol, and whatever other drugs are OK to give to pregnant women because of what they might be used for.

I'm not asking that they stock every drug known to man, there are limits. But there must be some guideline for what most pharmacies keep on hand (it also makes doctors' lives easier since they can have a decent idea of what a pharmacy has) and that it a valid prescription comes through and they don't have it they can either find a viable substitute, with doctor's consultation of course, or that they will order it for the patient if there is no alternative.

I don't want the pharmacist refusing my prescriptions based on what the drug might be for, even if it's used for that purpose 99.9999999999...% of the time. My doctor prescribed the treatment and the reasons for it are between my doctor and myself, if I choose to share that with the pharmacy that's up to me.

Wrong. Pharmicists should be allowed to stock any legal drug they want to, and forced to sell none. It is there store, not mandated by the authorities, and they make no promises as to what they sell.

Again, if they want to be nothing but a Tylenol and Asprin pharmacy, you know, something unique and inventive, they should have that right. Why don't you guys just be honest with what you want...

You all want the government to take control of all pharmacies, stock exactly the same items, and control the costs of all the drugs. Equal access and equal opportunity for all. Fine, atleast we know what we're dealing with. It's a government company now.

Stop trying to bastardize our free-market system and capitalist economic structure by laying down absurd rules about pharmacies need to stock in order to increase the spread of your own ideology.

Iscariot

Jun 26, 2008, 03:55 PM

This is hilarious. Stalin and Marx would be proud.

Do you even understand what a Stalinist or Marxist doctrine means in regards to medical care, or are you just dropping names because they're flashy?

fivepoint

Jun 26, 2008, 03:57 PM

Do you even understand what a Stalinist or Marxist doctrine means in regards to medical care, or are you just dropping names because they're flashy?

Just dropping names. Who are those guys any way? I remember hearing about them in history class and on Fox News, but I can't place them. :rolleyes:

it5five

Jun 26, 2008, 03:59 PM

Do you even understand what a Stalinist or Marxist doctrine means in regards to medical care, or are you just dropping names because they're flashy?

He's already said that everyone who disagrees with him should move to Cuba or North Korea, so I'm going to assume he has never read Marx before in his life, couldn't tell you the first thing about socialism or communism, and in no way could relate this discussion to either or those two economic systems. His original statement also shows his inability to understand the ideological differences between Marx and Stalin.

fivepoint

Jun 26, 2008, 04:08 PM

He's already said that everyone who disagrees with him should move to Cuba or North Korea, so I'm going to assume he has never read Marx before in his life, couldn't tell you the first thing about socialism or communism, and in no way could relate this discussion to either or those two economic systems.

No... if you would have read what I said:
Not all of you are saying that government should step in, but some of you are... If you want a totalitarian system where a government tells businesses what to do, what to think, what to sell... or you think that one way is the best for every one (and you know what that way is) then you guys are 'further gone' than I thought. Move to Cuba or North Korea and be done with it already.

You would have known that what I actually said was that if you want to live somewhere where you want government to do your thinking for you and control all aspects of business... that there are already places JUST LIKE THAT in the world (i.e. Cuba and North Korea) where governments do EXACTLY that.

It had nothing to do with people who disagree with me. I like people who disagree. Atleast they have a position unlike most people in this country who dont' seem to think that any larger political happenings have anything do to with them. I like it when people stand up for what they believe in. It shows a lot of character.

themadchemist

Jun 26, 2008, 04:28 PM

Stop trying to bastardize our free-market system and capitalist economic structure by laying down absurd rules about pharmacies need to stock in order to increase the spread of your own ideology.

Someone give this boy a medal. He's really managed to flip the argument.

My ideology? The ideology in question here is that of pharmacists who refuse to fill legal prescriptions for FDA-approved medications because those drugs don't fit with their religious beliefs. A patient's medication is nobody's business but his own and to deny that medication on personal religious grounds completely external to the patient-physician interaction is a serious overstepping of professional authority.

And for a lot of people who live in small towns and have limited access to transportation, this kind of behavior on the part of the one pharmacy in town can be devastating. For this reason, this kind of action disproportionately hurts the poor, like most of these other cockamamie healthcare power grabs.

atszyman

Jun 26, 2008, 04:35 PM

Wrong. Pharmicists should be allowed to stock any legal drug they want to, and forced to sell none. It is there store, not mandated by the authorities, and they make no promises as to what they sell.

Again, if they want to be nothing but a Tylenol and Asprin pharmacy, you know, something unique and inventive, they should have that right. Why don't you guys just be honest with what you want...

You all want the government to take control of all pharmacies, stock exactly the same items, and control the costs of all the drugs. Equal access and equal opportunity for all. Fine, atleast we know what we're dealing with. It's a government company now.

Stop trying to bastardize our free-market system and capitalist economic structure by laying down absurd rules about pharmacies need to stock in order to increase the spread of your own ideology.

Where did I mention government intervention?

If you open a Tylenol and Aspirin pharmacy that's not a pharmacy that's a store.

I expect that any business that is a licensed Pharmacy to try to fill any valid prescription to the best of their ability or try to obtain the prescribed medication. I do not expect them to second guess the doctor's prescriptions unless there are interactions between the drugs or other drugs that may have been prescribed in the past to the same patient.

If you refuse to stock or obtain certain drugs based on what they can be possibly or even probably used for then you should lose your license and the ability to call yourself a pharmacy.

fivepoint

Jun 26, 2008, 04:44 PM

Someone give this boy a medal. He's really managed to flip the argument.

My ideology? The ideology in question here is that of pharmacists who refuse to fill legal prescriptions for FDA-approved medications because those drugs don't fit with their religious beliefs. A patient's medication is nobody's business but his own and to deny that medication on personal religious grounds completely external to the patient-physician interaction is a serious overstepping of professional authority.

And for a lot of people who live in small towns and have limited access to transportation, this kind of behavior on the part of the one pharmacy in town can be devastating. For this reason, this kind of action disproportionately hurts the poor, like most of these other cockamamie healthcare power grabs.

It's not called 'flipping the argument', it's called 'getting to the core' of the argument. Like I said in one of my very first posts on this issue... If you're trying to say what a private pharmacy should stock and should not stock, then you are trying to control their business. You're trying to implement a communist type situation where each company sells the same products in the same way and there is no competition.

This, eventually and invariably, leads to less choice/optoins/positive experience for the customer base. The free market is hands-down the most efficient and successful way known to man to get customers what they want. To get people the things they need to live... because if one company won't do it, another one will. They they will profit, grow larger, and put the other out of business. With the system your describing, a very select few people decide what right/wrong is, and that my friend... is very dangerous. History is full of examples of this. Stalin and Marx are a great place to start.

I have said my peace with this issue. If you want to know my position, just copy/paste from my previous posts. I've been repeating myself enough as it is. I'll try to refrain from posting any more unless I see another one of these whoppers:

Human life begins when a baby takes its first breath.

Good luck, and good night!

leekohler

Jun 26, 2008, 04:55 PM

atszyman

Jun 26, 2008, 04:58 PM

skunk

Jun 26, 2008, 05:01 PM

If you're trying to say what a private pharmacy should stock and should not stock, then you are trying to control their business. You're trying to implement a communist type situation where each company sells the same products in the same way and there is no competition.As a condition of retaining its licence and the commercial advantage of calling itself a pharmacy, any establishment which advertises itself as a pharmacy should carry a stock of all drugs and medications for which it is likely to be asked to fill a prescription. This is the proper function of a pharmacy. This is a reasonable expectation and a reasonable requirement. To suggest that this is the mark of a communist or socialist system and a slippery slope towards totalitarianism is utterly ludicrous.

themadchemist

Jun 26, 2008, 05:02 PM

It's not called 'flipping the argument', it's called 'getting to the core' of the argument. Like I said in one of my very first posts on this issue... If you're trying to say what a private pharmacy should stock and should not stock, then you are trying to control their business. You're trying to implement a communist type situation where each company sells the same products in the same way and there is no competition.

This, eventually and invariably, leads to less choice/optoins/positive experience for the customer base. The free market is hands-down the most efficient and successful way known to man to get customers what they want. To get people the things they need to live... because if one company won't do it, another one will. They they will profit, grow larger, and put the other out of business. With the system your describing, a very select few people decide what right/wrong is, and that my friend... is very dangerous. History is full of examples of this. Stalin and Marx are a great place to start.

You failed to respond to my concern about rural areas. You keep repeating yourself because you refuse to actually respond to other people's arguments.

I actually am a big supporter of the market because I think it frequently does maximize efficiency. But it is really sad to see so many people whose understanding of the market is so limited that all they can do is to hold it up like an infallible deity. These people get so blinded by their obsession with the market that they lose the ends for the means; serving the market becomes more important than harnessing the market for practical benefit. Regulation can enhance market outcomes, and sometimes, the market is altogether unfit for the task at hand. We have to realize to what end the market's equilibrium drives us and decide whether or not that's an end to which we hope to arrive.

And, for the record, the person who wants to exclude certain drugs on the basis of personal religious beliefs is proof of why the market doesn't operate under ideal conditions. Non-economic factors like these distort the accuracy of the models. Free market models, in which economic advancement is the driving factor, fail to predict people acting on faith at the expense of financial gain.

flyinmac

Jun 26, 2008, 05:35 PM

That fact that they refuse to sell contraceptives illustrates my statement perfectly. They don't want anyone to have sex for pleasure, and if they do, there must be consequences- a disease or a child. The message is loud and clear redwarrior. I don't see how it could be misinterpreted.

What's next? Will they refuse to sell AIDS drugs to people who need them?

So, you're now saying that kids are a consequence?

I'm sorry, but I did have sex for pleasure knowing it could lead to babies. And, I even enjoyed the sex when we were planning to have a baby.

I don't look at my children as being a punishment because I enjoyed sex. They are kids. They keep life interesting (and sometimes challenging).

I'm sorry if you feel like you were a burdensome punishment for your parents.

But, calling children a consequence of having sex is a bit crazy and demeaning to every living being.

How unfortunate for the kid who knows he is here to punish his parents because they had fun and enjoyed sex.

.Andy

Jun 26, 2008, 05:41 PM

So, you're now saying that kids are a consequence?

I'm sorry, but I did have sex for pleasure knowing it could lead to babies. And, I even enjoyed the sex when we were planning to have a baby.

I don't look at my children as being a punishment because I enjoyed sex. They are kids. They keep life interesting (and sometimes challenging).

I'm sorry if you feel like you were a burdensome punishment for your parents.

But, calling children a consequence of having sex is a bit crazy and demeaning to every living being.

How unfortunate for the kid who knows he is here to punish his parents because they had fun and enjoyed sex.
What on earth is your definition of consequence?

flyinmac

Jun 26, 2008, 05:46 PM

What on earth is your definition of consequence?

In the context of his statement, consequences of children and disease were given as penalties for having sex for pleasure.

Eraserhead

Jun 26, 2008, 05:48 PM

Here is the bottom-line people... Pharmicists have no obligation to anyone other than their customers and themselves. They are professionally obligated to provide the services they see as best for their customers, and for their business. If they feel that everyone is best served by not stocking particular drugs (for whatever reason) then that is there choice.

What about if its on the WHO's list of essential medicines.

Not all of you are saying that government should step in, but some of you are... If you want a totalitarian system where a government tells businesses what to do, what to think, what to sell...

Um, you do realise that virtually everything is government regulated to an extent...

There is a hell of a lot of grey between an unregulated system and North Korea :rolleyes:.

themadchemist

Jun 26, 2008, 05:57 PM

There is a hell of a lot of grey between an unregulated system and North Korea :rolleyes:.

In fact, an unregulated system cannot exist in a country with a government. By definition, we cede a certain amount of our agency over to the government when we organize in this fashion. A person who wants complete lack of regulation is an anarchist.

And as for removing as much regulation as humanly possible, isn't that what got us in trouble in the '20s?

Iscariot

Jun 26, 2008, 05:58 PM

Just dropping names. Who are those guys any way? I remember hearing about them in history class and on Fox News, but I can't place them. :rolleyes:

I strongly suggest you re-read the rules of the PRSI forums. They include providing evidence for your claims and rationale for your arguments. You are showing an incredible disrespect for the members of this forum by not adhering to these rules and instead making numerous flippant remarks. You are also showing an incredible disrespect for history and those who have lived under Marxist regimes by misrepresenting them in the name of making your argument.

(i.e. Cuba and North Korea) where governments do EXACTLY that.

And by many measures, Cuba has a superior healthcare system, especially when it comes to efficiency (and sexual health, but by some questionable means). There is obviously something to be learned from a system that is comparable but delivered at a fraction of the cost.

If you're trying to say what a private pharmacy should stock and should not stock, then you are trying to control their business.

All businesses are controlled to some degree by the government, and healthcare providers are controlled to a much greater degree than most.

The free market is hands-down the most efficient and successful way known to man to get customers what they want.

If that were the case, then you wouldn't have Americans trying to get pharmaceuticals from Canada, millions without healthcare coverage, etc. To dismiss alternatives as "Marxist" is hugely disingenuous, especially given the number of nations with comparable economic and social freedom to the United States that have implemented some form of nationalized healthcare.

leekohler

Jun 26, 2008, 06:15 PM

blackfox

Jun 26, 2008, 06:23 PM

There seems to be a circular, repetitive quality to this thread.

For the record, I fail to understand why some don't understand the responsibilities of being a licensed health professional - which make personal and market considerations secondary.

It seems irrelevant how many pharmacies/pharmacists there are to choose from - that doesn't let any individual pharmacist off the hook with his/her professional obligation(s) - they've entered into a defacto contract as a requisite for their profession.

Spiral on...

leekohler

Jun 26, 2008, 06:25 PM

iJohnHenry

Jun 26, 2008, 06:54 PM

I strongly suggest you re-read the rules of the PRSI forums. They include providing evidence for your claims and rationale for your arguments.

And with this in mind, I would suggest fivepoint limit his posting to desk refinishing.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/o34-1.gif From the Mods that inflict pain.

Ugg

Jun 26, 2008, 07:00 PM

iJohnHenry

Jun 26, 2008, 07:18 PM

I believe that some states mandate pharmacy hours. Is that also a violation of business rights?

Well, for starters, I would guess that is a violation of Human Rights, for the workers involved, plus Freedom Of Association, with their loved ones.

hobbbz

Jun 26, 2008, 07:23 PM

Well, for starters, I would guess that is a violation of Human Rights, for the workers involved, plus Freedom Of Association, with their loved ones.

It is also regulated that someone not be forced to work more than 40 hrs. per week without overtime pay (for hourly employees). They are not forced to work.

iJohnHenry

Jun 26, 2008, 07:27 PM

So, if the pharmacy is in a town of 200 people, will the Feds supply 24 hour clerks??

flyinmac

Jun 26, 2008, 07:32 PM

It's a consequence if the mother is a teen, poor and unmarried. I think you knew what I meant, but just wanted to stir the pot. :rolleyes: Please stop putting words in my mouth.

But, how much personal experience do you have with said situation?

My mother was all the above (very early teen years, unmarried, and no money - still in Jr. High). And, should I also mention alone once the boyfriend found out.

I have also been through this with many friends growing up. And, have seen how they handled it and know how they are today.

I would say that in every case, the child was not a consequence. A change, yes. A consequence, no.

I would actually go so far as to say that in many cases, those mothers have handled things far better than many who had every opportunity provided them.

The thing about birth control, is that it fails as well. So, if you are that dead set against having a child, then best not play around (or just play by yourself).

Sure, you might not get pregnant (or might not get a girl pregnant). But, you could. Even with birth control. So, if having a child is a consequence to you, then you're not ready to play.

A child is never a consequence. A child is a child, and something you love whether you planned it or not. If that is not your definition of a child, don't spread your legs (or don't slide in).

hobbbz

Jun 26, 2008, 07:36 PM

So, if the pharmacy is in a town of 200 people, will the Feds supply 24 hour clerks??

to have 1 person on shift at all times would require <5 people per week with each person at 40hrs/week.

10 employees would make for 2 people on shift at a time,
20 employees, 4 ppl, etc.

In a town of 200 people, 20 steady jobs would be very welcomed.

My parents live in a town of 300 and well more than 10% of that town is employed at one sawmill.

iJohnHenry

Jun 26, 2008, 07:37 PM

I approve of that post. :D

(Flyinmac's, that is.)

leekohler

Jun 26, 2008, 07:44 PM

But, how much personal experience do you have with said situation?

My mother was all the above (very early teen years, unmarried, and no money - still in Jr. High). And, should I also mention alone once the boyfriend found out.

I have also been through this with many friends growing up. And, have seen how they handled it and know how they are today.

I would say that in every case, the child was not a consequence. A change, yes. A consequence, no.

I would actually go so far as to say that in many cases, those mothers have handled things far better than many who had every opportunity provided them.

The thing about birth control, is that it fails as well. So, if you are that dead set against having a child, then best not play around (or just play by yourself).

Sure, you might not get pregnant (or might not get a girl pregnant). But, you could. Even with birth control. So, if having a child is a consequence to you, then you're not ready to play.

A child is never a consequence. A child is a child, and something you love whether you planned it or not. If that is not your definition of a child, don't spread your legs (or don't slide in).

Fortunately being gay, I have no worries there. ;) And while you are correct in what you say, I can guarantee you that there are tons of right-wingers using the possibility of pregnancy as a consequence for having sex to sell their POV. Talk to them, not me.

Ugg

Jun 26, 2008, 07:45 PM

to have 1 person on shift at all times would require <5 people per week with each person at 40hrs/week.

10 employees would make for 2 people on shift at a time,
20 employees, 4 ppl, etc.

In a town of 200 people, 20 steady jobs would be very welcomed.

My parents live in a town of 300 and well more than 10% of that town is employed at one sawmill.

What I said is that some pharmacists are on call 24/7.

My ever forgetful father would have died of a heart attack years ago if it weren't for the very accomodating pharmacist in the small town he lives in.

He's also the only pharmacist in town. The next closest town with a pharmacist (once again only one) is 30 miles away. The closest town with more than 1 pharmacist is 60 miles away.

Many small town pharmacists have to be available 24/7 what with the growth of mail order pharmacies, the internet and the corporatization of pharmacies in general in the wake of Medicare Part D.

hulugu

Jun 26, 2008, 07:48 PM

You failed to respond to my concern about rural areas. You keep repeating yourself because you refuse to actually respond to other people's arguments.

I actually am a big supporter of the market because I think it frequently does maximize efficiency. But it is really sad to see so many people whose understanding of the market is so limited that all they can do is to hold it up like an infallible deity. These people get so blinded by their obsession with the market that they lose the ends for the means; serving the market becomes more important than harnessing the market for practical benefit. Regulation can enhance market outcomes, and sometimes, the market is altogether unfit for the task at hand. We have to realize to what end the market's equilibrium drives us and decide whether or not that's an end to which we hope to arrive.

And, for the record, the person who wants to exclude certain drugs on the basis of personal religious beliefs is proof of why the market doesn't operate under ideal conditions. Non-economic factors like these distort the accuracy of the models. Free market models, in which economic advancement is the driving factor, fail to predict people acting on faith at the expense of financial gain.

This is a very good post. There's a certain segment of people who assume that it's laissez-faire free-market or communism. This false dichotomy ignores the vital interests of a society, which can run counter to the interests of businesses or profits margins. Furthermore, the licensing of a pharmacist (and the restrictions such a systems entails) actually protects the business and the market by creating a reliable source of drugs and medicine supported by narrowly-defined state and federal controls. By doing this, we can trust that a Walgreen's Pharmacy isn't going to sell us snake oil when we ask for medicine, nor play games with the relationship between doctor and patient.
It's this trust that helps protect and drive the market, fostering it's growth. A zealot cannot see how this operates because they're too focused on an impossible ideal.

Also, I still think the specific medication or product (birth control, morning-after pill, condoms) is a distraction from the real issue. A pharmacist should not be able or willing to refuse to fill a prescription regardless. What if the pill was viagra? Or folic acid? Maybe a Scientologist could refuse to sell anti-depression medication. This is where we stand if we allow the pharmacist to make this decision and it's simply antithetical to their duty and their oath.

flyinmac

Jun 26, 2008, 07:52 PM

So, if the pharmacy is in a town of 200 people, will the Feds supply 24 hour clerks??

Nope. I've got towns that small and smaller around here. Pharmacy closes same time as everywhere else.

Oh, and no it's not mandated that a pharmacist carry everything.

A pharmacist is not a hospital. They are not a practicing medical examiner or family doctor. They dispense medicine. And, they only dispense the medicine that they carry.

Even the Wal-Mart pharmacy doesn't carry everything. For that matter, no pharmacy in town carries everything.

I have been turned away from every pharmacy in town at least once depending on whether the item I needed was in their supply.

Some don't carry things as basic as certain kinds of anti-biotics. Some, only carry certain types of allergy medication. Sometimes you can't treat a sore throat because the pill you need just isn't available locally.

The doctor writes prescriptions. They don't necessarily know what each pharmacy will stock. It's up to you to find the pharmacy that has what you need.

Sometimes the items they don't have are things that are a matter of survival. I've got relatives that have literally had to beg pharmacies to special order stuff and then only found one who would.

They are basically retail stores licensed to sell controlled substances. Like all retail stores, they'll carry what they want.

I can go without condoms. Everyone can. But, go without an antibiotic, well, lets see how well you do now. Sure, it'll just kill you. No big deal.

I think I can handle going to the local grocery store for a condom if I really wanted one.

If what you want isn't at the particular store, go somewhere else.

Don't confuse a private retail store selling controlled substances with a hospital. And, sorry, the hospital doesn't have to give you condoms either. They are not something that you need for survival. You can always just keep it in your pants.

A pharmacist is essentially just a person legally able to sell you controlled drugs. Not a person who treats a patient.

Hey, I can count how many pills to shove in a bottle to. But, I don't have a piece of paper that says I'm allowed to. But, if I did, and worked in a private retail pharmacy, you can bet I'd exercise my right to carry only the inventory I wished. Otherwise, you could have stuff expiring every day that you never need or have any demand for.

As for condoms, so what. But them at Safeway, Wal-Mart, or your local gas station. Who cares if there's one store in town that doesn't have them.

If you wish to shove yourself into a latex bag, and play with some girl who isn't ready, then go to the local gas station. But, understand that your odds of getting her pregnant are still very likely. I've heard an awful lot of "But we used a condom".

She could be on the pill, you could use a condom, and she'd still get pregnant.

If you are not ready to look at a child as a gift, then you are not ready to play. It's that simple.

If you're going to play anyway, and you really have faith in that little baggy, then grab one at the gas station.

themadchemist

Jun 26, 2008, 07:57 PM

Also, I still think the specific medication or product (birth control, morning-after pill, condoms) is a distraction from the real issue. A pharmacist should not be able or willing to refuse to fill a prescription regardless. What if the pill was viagra? Or folic acid? Maybe a Scientologist could refuse to sell anti-depression medication. This is where we stand if we allow the pharmacist to make this decision and it's simply antithetical to their duty and their oath.

Yes, absolutely. We're setting a dangerous precedent. And when we start dealing with beliefs that aren't as common, it will leave us in the unhappy position to arbitrate which faiths and practices "count" and which ones don't. Best to protect patients' rights in the fullest and avoid this mess altogether.

leekohler

Jun 26, 2008, 08:03 PM

Nope. I've got towns that small and smaller around here. Pharmacy closes same time as everywhere else.

Oh, and no it's not mandated that a pharmacist carry everything.

A pharmacist is not a hospital. They are not a practicing medical examiner or family doctor. They dispense medicine. And, they only dispense the medicine that they carry.

Even the Wal-Mart pharmacy doesn't carry everything. For that matter, no pharmacy in town carries everything.

I have been turned away from every pharmacy in town at least once depending on whether the item I needed was in their supply.

Some don't carry things as basic as certain kinds of anti-biotics. Some, only carry certain types of allergy medication. Sometimes you can't treat a sore throat because the pill you need just isn't available locally.

The doctor writes prescriptions. They don't necessarily know what each pharmacy will stock. It's up to you to find the pharmacy that has what you need.

Sometimes the items they don't have are things that are a matter of survival. I've got relatives that have literally had to beg pharmacies to special order stuff and then only found one who would.

They are basically retail stores licensed to sell controlled substances. Like all retail stores, they'll carry what they want.

I can go without condoms. Everyone can. But, go without an antibiotic, well, lets see how well you do now. Sure, it'll just kill you. No big deal.

I think I can handle going to the local grocery store for a condom if I really wanted one.

If what you want isn't at the particular store, go somewhere else.

Don't confuse a private retail store selling controlled substances with a hospital. And, sorry, the hospital doesn't have to give you condoms either. They are not something that you need for survival. You can always just keep it in your pants.

A pharmacist is essentially just a person legally able to sell you controlled drugs. Not a person who treats a patient.

Hey, I can count how many pills to shove in a bottle to. But, I don't have a piece of paper that says I'm allowed to. But, if I did, and worked in a private retail pharmacy, you can bet I'd exercise my right to carry only the inventory I wished. Otherwise, you could have stuff expiring every day that you never need or have any demand for.

As for condoms, so what. But them at Safeway, Wal-Mart, or your local gas station. Who cares if there's one store in town that doesn't have them.

If you wish to shove yourself into a latex bag, and play with some girl who isn't ready, then go to the local gas station. But, understand that your odds of getting her pregnant are still very likely. I've heard an awful lot of "But we used a condom".

She could be on the pill, you could use a condom, and she'd still get pregnant.

If you are not ready to look at a child as a gift, then you are not ready to play. It's that simple.

If you're going to play anyway, and you really have faith in that little baggy, then grab one at the gas station.

That little baggy has managed to keep me healthy for 41 years. I find it disturbing that you seem to be implying they won't work, so why bother. I guess we shouldn't bother distributing condoms in Africa either. I can almost guarantee you that most of the times they don't work is due to improper use.

flyinmac

Jun 26, 2008, 08:32 PM

That little baggy has managed to keep me healthy for 41 years. I find it disturbing that you seem to be implying they won't work, so why bother. I guess we shouldn't bother distributing condoms in Africa either. I can almost guarantee you that most of the times they don't work is due to improper use.

Well, sure it works for you. Your not sticking it anywhere that is going to get someone pregnant.

And, as for Africa, the rampant spread of disease there is contributed to more by belief that you can cure aids by having sex with a Virgin than whether or not they know how to properly put on a condom.

leekohler

Jun 26, 2008, 08:35 PM

Well, sure it works for you. Your not sticking it anywhere that is going to get someone pregnant.

And, as for Africa, the rampant spread of disease there is contributed to more by belief that you can cure aids by having sex with a Virgin than whether or not they know how to properly put on a condom.

Umm...but they've also protected me against disease, and they've worked for all this time.

And you didn't answer my question.

iJohnHenry

Jun 26, 2008, 08:49 PM

Well, sure it works for you. Your not sticking it anywhere that is going to get someone pregnant.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/terical.gif

Post of the Month. Absolutely.

redwarrior

Jun 26, 2008, 08:55 PM

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/terical.gif

Post of the Month. Absolutely.
iJohnHenry, you just make my day every time you show up! I hope everyone else is taking a break and rofl like me.:p Spread the love,:eek: didn't mean it like that. Brief interlude over, continue...

LethalWolfe

Jun 26, 2008, 09:10 PM

Well, sure it works for you. Your not sticking it anywhere that is going to get someone pregnant.

And, as for Africa, the rampant spread of disease there is contributed to more by belief that you can cure aids by having sex with a Virgin than whether or not they know how to properly put on a condom.
Wouldn't knowing how to put on a condom reduce the chances of contracting HIV therefor reducing the need to seek out a virgin to cure a disease you didn't contract? Africa also has a wee problem w/high infant mortality rates which knowing how to properly put on a condom would help solve.

Lethal

themadchemist

Jun 26, 2008, 10:08 PM

And, as for Africa, the rampant spread of disease there is contributed to more by belief that you can cure aids by having sex with a Virgin than whether or not they know how to properly put on a condom.

This is an outrageous, bogus, obnoxious, Orientalist claim. Go pack your campaign shorts away, Mr. Rhodes, this era has passed.

As for claiming this right or that to deny the provision of healthcare to people on the basis of personal beliefs, it wouldn't fly in Illinois, at least:

Upon receipt of a valid, lawful prescription for a contraceptive, a pharmacy must dispense the contraceptive, or a suitable alternative permitted by the prescriber, to the patient or the patient’s agent without delay, consistent with the normal timeframe for filling any other prescription. If the contraceptive, or a suitable alternative, is not in stock, the pharmacy must obtain the contraceptive under the pharmacy's standard procedures for ordering contraceptive drugs not in stock, including the procedures of any entity that is affiliated with, owns, or franchises the pharmacy. However, if the patient prefers, the prescription must be transferred to a local pharmacy of the patient’s choice under the pharmacy’s standard procedures for transferring prescriptions for contraceptive drugs, including the procedures of any entity that is affiliated with, owns, or franchises the pharmacy. Under any circumstances an unfilled prescription for contraceptive drugs must be returned to the patient if the patient so directs.

Macky-Mac

Jun 26, 2008, 10:20 PM

I strongly suggest you re-read the rules of the PRSI forums. They include providing evidence for your claims and rationale for your arguments. You are showing an incredible disrespect for the members of this forum by not adhering to these rules and instead making numerous flippant remarks....

actually the PRSI guidelines don't require providing evidence. Here are the guidelines (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=79515) as posted in the sticky near the top of the forum;

The purpose of this forum is to inform and educate through a free exchange and analysis of facts, opinions, and ideas. To that end, the following guidelines apply:

I. Show respect for your fellow posters
Displays of disrespect will fall under the heading of "trolling" and be handled in accordance with the site rules.

Members are expected to self-police and use the "report bad post" button to call the moderators' attention to troublesome posts/posters.

The guidelines may be discussed here: Political Forum Guidlines Discussion (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77413)

anyway, back to discussing pro-life drugstores

iJohnHenry

Jun 26, 2008, 10:22 PM

iJohnHenry, you just make my day every time you show up! I hope everyone else is taking a break and rofl like me.:p Spread the love,:eek: didn't mean it like that. Brief interlude over, continue...

Well, to be absolutely fair about everything, the Gays have to take the slings and arrows, just like the rest of us, unless they require an advantage to cling to. 

Iscariot

Jun 26, 2008, 10:29 PM

actually the PRSI guidelines don't require providing evidence.

Section II. a.

Provide links or other form of citation to corroborate claims; uncited claims will be considered opinion/hearsay

Case closed.

A pharmacist is not a hospital.

Precisely why they shouldn't be able to make medical decisions based on morality.

If you wish to shove yourself into a latex bag, and play with some girl who isn't ready, then go to the local gas station. But, understand that your odds of getting her pregnant are still very likely. I've heard an awful lot of "But we used a condom".

And those who don't want kids, what of them? Should they just not have sex?

aquajet

Jun 26, 2008, 10:31 PM

II. Be willing to engage in fact-based debate
Provide links or other form of citation to corroborate claims; uncited claims will be considered opinion/hearsay
Repetition of opinion/hearsay as the factual basis for an argument will fall under the heading of "trolling"

click (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77413)

Now you may all continue...

Macky-Mac

Jun 26, 2008, 11:05 PM

Section II. a.

Case closed....?

case re-opened

i note you failed to provide a link! :D

anyway, There is no Section II. a.

Go back to the guidelines sticky and read the text of the guideline, which i quoted above, and you'll see that it doesn't include Section II. a.

Here's a the guideline sticky link (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=79515)

(There is a link in the sticky that leads to a discussion thread about the proposed guidelines from when it was being considered and discussed.....and if you read the whole thread you'll find that ultimately the proposed section II.a......was tossed out after lengthy discussion and thus, the actual guideline doesn't include a section II. a.)

redwarrior

Jun 26, 2008, 11:10 PM

And, as for Africa, the rampant spread of disease there is contributed to more by belief that you can cure aids by having sex with a Virgin than whether or not they know how to properly put on a condom.
This is very true. We may not hear about it on the local news, but speak with people who have been there, and you will see that this is a fact.

leekohler

Jun 26, 2008, 11:16 PM

This is very true. We may not hear about it on the local news, but speak with people who have been there, and you will see that this is a fact.

True as it may be, flyinmac never answered my question. Should we therefore give up on Africa? I mean, condoms don't work anyway, right?

Macky-Mac

Jun 26, 2008, 11:17 PM

Now you may all continue...

nah, that's from the discussion thread about the proposed guidelines, not the actual guidelines sticky that resulted from that discussion.....read the whole discussion thread and you'll finally come to the part where it was decided to drop that part of the proposed guideline (see post #174 by Rower_CPU)

The actual guideline sticky (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=79515) reads as follows;

The purpose of this forum is to inform and educate through a free exchange and analysis of facts, opinions, and ideas. To that end, the following guidelines apply:

I. Show respect for your fellow posters
Displays of disrespect will fall under the heading of "trolling" and be handled in accordance with the site rules.

Members are expected to self-police and use the "report bad post" button to call the moderators' attention to troublesome posts/posters.

The guidelines may be discussed here: Political Forum Guidelines Discussion

redwarrior

Jun 26, 2008, 11:25 PM

True as it may be, flyinmac never answered my question. Should we therefore give up on Africa? I mean, condoms don't work anyway, right?
No, that's just silly. Condoms work, period.

The problem in Africa is not distributing them, but getting the people to use them. They deal with oppressive and brutal religious beliefs, a hold that is very difficult to break. It's like my buying Fords because my family has always driven Fords; makes no sense, but that is a reasoning used by many. This, of course, is much more serious, but generally the same type of reasoning. Except, these people are dealing with voodoo and irrational teachings and fears. I have no clue what the solution could be.

leekohler

Jun 26, 2008, 11:31 PM

No, that's just silly. Condoms work, period.

Well according to flyinmac, they don't work.

As for Africa, yes I'm familiar with what's going on over there. The scary thing is- there could be no more Africa in the future if something isn't done.

Iscariot

Jun 26, 2008, 11:37 PM

nah, that's from the discussion thread about the proposed guidelines, not the actual guidelines sticky that resulted from that discussion.....read the whole discussion thread and you'll finally come to the part where it was decided to drop that part of the proposed guideline (see post #174 by Rower_CPU)

The actual guideline sticky (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=79515) reads as follows;

Right you are. Noted.

redwarrior

Jun 26, 2008, 11:40 PM

Well according to flyinmac, they don't work.

As for Africa, yes I'm familiar with what's going on over there. The scary thing is- there could be no more Africa in the future if something isn't done.
We get right back into the whole religious oppression conversation again, except I'm on your side this time. They are entrenched in a culture of death. Education would appear to be the answer, but how long would it take, and how long do they have? Yep, this is off-topic.:o

As far as the condom issue goes. There is no way anyone could debate the effectiveness of condoms for preventing pregnancy and stopping the spread of disease. Even when used improperly, they are better than nothing.

But I still stand by the store's right to decide what is sold in their store.

flyinmac

Jun 27, 2008, 12:02 AM

Umm...but they've also protected me against disease, and they've worked for all this time.

And you didn't answer my question.

Well, was it the condom or chance? Can you prove which?

First, we need to know how many of your sexual partners were infected with serious and easily contractable diseases (as in ones that you would be able to contract from your point of entry - or theirs I guess).

And, do you know for certain that they actively had these diseases at the time that you had intercourse with them?

And, did you knowingly have sex with infected people?

Now, if yes to all the above, how much can we attribute to the condom and how much to luck?

I can remember using a condom with only one partner before my wife. And, only a few times. Too my surprise, and after the fact, I learned that some of the other partners I had been with had transmitted things to other partners they had been with prior to being with myself (so for those that can't read between the lines - yes I unknowingly had sex with people who had stuff).

I've been with my wife now for nearly 15 years. And, well, nothing from the past has ever surfaced yet. Tests have all been fine. And, no symptoms of anything.

So, I would wager that perhaps sometimes it's luck and not the condom.

Sure, a condom may help to prevent a transmittable disease. But, it will not guarantee it. And, often people still get diseases despite having used one.

They are man-made (or perhaps woman-made). So, they have the possibility of defects (which do surface from time to time). I've opened a few and found things wrong with them.

So, let me ask you, can you prove that the condom prevented the transmission of disease? Or, could it be that perhaps you just didn't get something?

Both points would be irrelevant if your partners were not infected with something that was highly contagious from your point of entry.

Sometimes chance has as much to do with your luck of avoiding disease.

Sure, a little precaution never hurts. But, it will never be a guarantee.

If you want a guarantee, don't have sex. If you do have sex, then choose someone you'd like to be with forever. Because, you may just be tied to them that long.

If a heterosexual couple is the example, then be prepared that nothing may prevent her from getting pregnant. Don't play if you're not ready to have kids and don't view kids as a blessing.

If a gay couple, then make sure you know what you're getting into (that sounds wrong). But, while you may not produce kids, nothing you do may guarantee you to be disease free. But, then that is the case with either type of relationship.

Just in the case of being gay, you don't have to worry about having a kid come out your A$$.

As for Africa. Well, who asked us to be there anyway? Didn't we just decide that we should?

But, if they want a condom, they can have one. If they don't want one, then they're not going to use it anyway.

The same thing applies to the topic of discussion. No one is telling anyone that they can't have a condom. They're simply saying that you won't buy it from them. Nothing wrong with that at all.

So, you can't buy one at their store. Big deal.

When they have employees standing outside every 7/11 / Tesoro, every Texaco / Shell, every Safeway, every Wal-Mart, and Every other grocery store on the planet to prevent you from buying condoms then you can complain.

But, if you can buy it elsewhere, then all they are saying is that they won't be the ones selling it.

Besides, I don't know of any pharmacies carrying anal lube. And, I don't hear anyone saying that their denial of anal lube is pushing their beliefs on anyone. No one's saying you can't buy that either. Just that they are not going to sell it to you. So, you can buy plain lube or go somewhere else.

Or, well, you know, I needed some Tattoo ointment the other day. And, I called all the Tattoo shops and they were out. Guess what, the local pharmacy doesn't carry that either. Guess they're discriminating against me too.

Just accept that some places don't carry what you want. If anything, forcing a retailer to carry specific products is forcing your beliefs on them.

After all, you can always go somewhere else. They cannot force you to come to them, and they cannot force you to buy anything. You can shop anywhere you choose. So, you really hold all the cards there. What they believe doesn't mean crap if you can buy it somewhere else.

But, if you force someone to sell something that they don't believe in, then you are the one who is infringing on someone's rights.

themadchemist

Jun 27, 2008, 12:10 AM

Well, was it the condom or chance? Can you prove which?

Obviously, you don't know how public health works. The point is not to prove any individual instance. Everything is stochastic on an individual level, right down to the very firing of your synapses and beating of your heart. It's all chance, every single time. But the probability is strongly in favor of it keeping on the way it goes. We live and die by probability. Medicine is strictly about probabilities: Increased probability of life, decreased probability of transmission, morbidity, and mortality.

If you don't like dealing in probabilities, throw out the universe.

themadchemist

Jun 27, 2008, 12:15 AM

They are entrenched in a culture of death.

"A culture of death?" Are we talking about Africa's indigenous religions again? If we are, then I'm seriously getting ticked off at how nonplussed everyone is about this flagrant disrespect for African cultures. Why, just because the West managed to wreak havoc on that continent in the most complete of ways, we've got a full license to cast aspersions on their beliefs? Well, then we can just join our hands with generations of missionaries and imperialists in continuing to justify the violence we perpetrate against that continent. We can justify our neglect and outright hostility, and our reneging on a responsibility that comes from centuries of rape and pillage. And how can we do it? By pointing to their faiths, their cultures, and their histories, and mocking them.

It's an old song and I wish we could stop playing it.

Iscariot

Jun 27, 2008, 12:19 AM

If you want a guarantee, don't have sex. If you do have sex, then choose someone you'd like to be with forever. Because, you may just be tied to them that long.

The best prevention would be knowing the sexual history of your partner, getting tested regularly, and getting tested together. You don't need to exercise abstinence, just a certain amount of personal responsibility.

If a heterosexual couple is the example, then be prepared that nothing may prevent her from getting pregnant. Don't play if you're not ready to have kids and don't view kids as a blessing.

What about couples who simply do not want children at all?

The same thing applies to the topic of discussion. No one is telling anyone that they can't have a condom. They're simply saying that you won't buy it from them. Nothing wrong with that at all.

The topic of discussion isn't condoms, it's prescription contraceptives. Condoms you can get from lots of places, getting a prescription filled is a different matter entirely.

it5five

Jun 27, 2008, 12:21 AM

What about couples who simply do not want children at all?

They are an insult to God and must either reproduce or be forcibly separated.

redwarrior

Jun 27, 2008, 12:22 AM

"A culture of death?" Are we talking about Africa's indigenous religions again? If we are, then I'm seriously getting ticked off at how nonplussed everyone is about this flagrant disrespect for African cultures. Why, just because the West managed to wreak havoc on that continent in the most complete of ways, we've got a full license to cast aspersions on their beliefs? Well, then we can just join our hands with generations of missionaries and imperialists in continuing to justify the violence we perpetrate against that continent. We can justify our neglect and outright hostility, and our reneging on a responsibility that comes from centuries of rape and pillage. And how can we do it? By pointing to their faiths, their cultures, and their histories, and mocking them.

It's an old song and I wish we could stop playing it.
Blame it on the song if you will, and then turn it off. They are still dying by the thousands daily; that's a culture of death. They are not innocent in their fate; they may not be solely responsible, but they are not innocent. However, there are humanitarian groups who are trying to help them. Mocking? Who is mocking?

flyinmac

Jun 27, 2008, 12:23 AM

Obviously, you don't know how public health works. The point is not to prove any individual instance. Everything is stochastic on an individual level, right down to the very firing of your synapses and beating of your heart. It's all chance, every single time. But the probability is strongly in favor of it keeping on the way it goes. We live and die by probability. Medicine is strictly about probabilities: Increased probability of life, decreased probability of transmission, morbidity, and mortality.

If you don't like dealing in probabilities, throw out the universe.

Yes. Quite right. And, I think my post agrees with that.

The point being, that you can never know that it was the condom that kept you disease free. Just be happy you are.

My success rate is apparently as good as if I had always used condoms. But, I suspect it was just chance.

The point being that one can never say that a condom works all the time. It is something that theoretically and ideally would permit you to control your situation. But, does not really give you that power all the time.

If you have sex, you should be sure that you are willing to have children (because you could use a condom and have her on birth control and still get pregnant).

If you obviously cannot get pregnant because you're both men (or both women), then still be prepared to accept that the condom may not protect you from disease.

In the end, it all comes down to chance.

Iscariot

Jun 27, 2008, 12:23 AM

They are an insult to God and must either reproduce or be forcibly separated.

I like to think I'm an insult to God for far more reasons than just that.

it5five

Jun 27, 2008, 12:24 AM

That's really all it takes though. Everything else is just icing on the Hell cake.

NT1440

Jun 27, 2008, 12:24 AM

I like to think I'm an insult to God for far more reasons than just that.
+1 on that
:D

iShater

Jun 27, 2008, 12:34 AM

This is very true. We may not hear about it on the local news, but speak with people who have been there, and you will see that this is a fact.
Last time I checked Africa is a continent, those people have been to every single country in Africa? or by going to South Africa for example where this specific issue happened represents everybody?

As for Africa, yes I'm familiar with what's going on over there. The scary thing is- there could be no more Africa in the future if something isn't done.
I think you are underestimating the resilience of the African people. :)

Blame it on the song if you will, and then turn it off. They are still dying by the thousands daily; that's a culture of death. They are not innocent in their fate; they may not be solely responsible, but they are not innocent. However, there are humanitarian groups who are trying to help them. Mocking? Who is mocking?
How are they not innocent in their fate? if your husband is a truck driver, and ends up spending the night with someone, and brings home more than just the bacon, is it your fault if you get a disease? is it the fault of your unborn child? :confused: