RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill

RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 8:37:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I'm sorry, but the irony in discussing this is that it's coming at the expense of my time to study Biology! First things first: Go study, and good luck on the exam! Hah, yeah, that's the plan. Just so damn easily distracted. It's so tempting just to spend time on these boards since it's so much easier than the things I have to study here. It's probably an unhealthy escape, and I'm just being a damn wuss. Anyhow, have a good night.

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 8:41:43 PM)
quote: Since when were morning-after-pills part of a pharmacist's job? Do you think that they knew they'd be forced to sell abortion pills when they were studying for this however long ago when they were back in school, working for the major? The part where the learned they would be licensed and regulated by the State Board of Pharmacists. Well, that and the mandatory Continuing Education program, which must have been discussing this since the FDA was getting close to greenlighting it. These whiny little bitches need a nice warm cup of "Shut The Fuck Up And Do Your Damn Job".

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 8:51:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I suppose the deeper point to address before this, then, is what is the basis of legality if not morality? Who are we to have laws against murder, rape, or anything else if morality is irrelevant; further, isn't denying morality as a basis for law a moral in and of itself, and therefore a contradiction? If denying morality into law is a contradiction, and therefore inconsistent, then are we to accept either legality based on morality or anarchy? If anarchy is embraced, does it not allow for legality based on morality of the free citizens, as no such rule would exist in anarchy to contradict the basis for legality? Then, therefore, are we not forced to accept the validity of moral law in a population in which moral individuals are surficiently powerful to enforce it? If we follow this further, then is not legality a function of the morals with regards to strength and outgoingness of their respective holders? Then is it not only reasonable to acknowledge that law will be decided by morality, and that the nature of this morality will likely come from individuals in positions such as the courts and professional institutions? Again I will disagree with you. You should know that I am not a debater. I do approach things logically, but not necessarily from a purely intellectual standpoint. And I do differentiate between intellectualism and intelligence/common sense. That said... We deal with social morality and personal morality. Social morality is dictated by the will and the tolerance of the masses. Most have come to be complacent and accept things such as abortion and preventative measures such as "Plan B". It is justified in various ways in order to appease the natural conscience. As a result, this bit of morality has fallen by the wayside, and the local clinic goes about their business with little objection. I am opposed to abortion. I am opposed to an option like "Plan B". It is legal. Therefore, if I was to work in an industry that forced Me to participate in these legal activities, I would have three choices. 1. Swallow hard and do My job 2. Work out an alternative solution with My employer so that I could work according to My personal morality 3. Get a new job I feel the courts have one job. That is to assist in the serious decisions concerning criminal matters. But we now have so many laws on the book, and so many ways these laws can be tested and twisted, that we run to the Judge every time we have a question, instead of using some common sense. Small Claims Court, traffic court, civil court, divorce court, family court, criminal court, justice court, kiddie court, Superior court, Supreme Court, and let us not forget Judge Judy's Court. Guess who's making all the money? The lawyers! And the judges. This discussion has come so far away from the original idea. Which is, quite simply, that if one is a Pharmacist, and they work for a private business or chain of stores that dispenses medications legally, then the choices are written, 1. 2. 3. above. This decison did not make it illegal for Plan B to be sold. It did not determine that all drug stores anddrug chans have to make it available. This decision said "You may own a private business, but I am telling you now that if you have a Pharmacist in your employ who is morally opposed to dispensing this drug, you may not shrug your shoulders. You, the business owner will either lose profit by not selling it at all, or you will bear the additional expense of making sure that another Pharmacist is on hand who is willing to dispense this medication." This was not a matter of testing the legality or the morality of the drug. It was one or 20 (who knows how many) Pharmacists going to court and stating that they find this morally repugnant and wanted a ruling that they could keep their jobs, but not have to dispense a legal medication that made them personally uncomfortable. Better that they had gathered hundreds or thousands who felt the same way, and stated that they would not dispense it, therefore it would not be available at all. They did nothing to solve the deeper social problem. They simply found a way way around their personal comfort. That doesn't garner any respect from Me. Sorry...you are not going to change My mind that this is wrong, and it never belonged in any court.

BootBlackBlast -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 8:54:37 PM)
To change this thread up a little bit, what if there were a cure pill for HIV contraction? Should the pharmacists morals allow him to refuse to provide the pill as well? After all accidents happen, condoms break, rapes occur of both men and women, is this ruling about health care or politics and moral beliefs?

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 8:58:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BootBlackBlast To change this thread up a little bit, what if there were a cure pill for HIV contraction? Should the pharmacists morals allow him to refuse to provide the pill as well? After all accidents happen, condoms break, rapes occur of both men and women, is this ruling about health care or politics and moral beliefs? I'm voting politics and moral beliefs. Plan B has little to nothing to do with health care. It has to do with "oops, Plan A didn't work, so I guess I'll go for Plan B"...just in case, that is...

Marc2b -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 10:25:11 PM)
GoddessDustyGold said: quote: And I'm a smoker! Actually, it is amazing how much less mail I get now that I don't fall into the preferred age parameters of so many profile surfers! Now I don’t feel so bad about being a smoker myself. Petronius said: quote: Actually it is very simple. The Republicans are whiners again. The druggist is the person who started opposing freedom: the freedom of any person to sell whatever drugs they want and make a profit on it. The druggist doesn't want the local bodega owner to have that freedom; the druggist wants a monopoly, awarded by the state, that significantly reduces competition, and significantly raises his salary. Then, when he gets the monopoly that blocks the freedoms of others, he whines when people actually want him to do the job he was given the monopoly to do. "Licencing" has been used to restrict competition for ages. quote: If you can't do the work of a druggist for moral reasons don't be a druggist. If you're a Jehovah's Witness who doesn't believe in blood transfusions, don't insist on your right to become a surgeon while demanding that you be permitted to skip transfusions. If you think that Black people are the spawn of Satan, don't ask to become a cop and then insist on your moral right to ignore helping crime victims if they're black. etc. etc. It really is simple: if you accept government regulation to benefit yourself and hurt the other citizens, don't complain about the regulation. When fargonebagle comes bellowing in with... quote: Keep in mind that PHARMACISTS are LICENSED by the State. You either: (1) Do what the State fucking tells you to do.. OR (2) Surrender your Pharmacist License, and find a different line of work. No-one held a gun to their heads and forced them to beg for a license. ... he completely misses the point and I believe you do as well. I am approaching this from a philosophical viewpoint in regards to issues of freedom, personal choice, economics, and most importantly – government power. Yes, both the pharmacy and the pharmacist must obey the regulations of the state or find another line of work. The question is how much regulatory power do we want the government to have? How much are we willing to let the government micro-manage our lives. In this particular case the questions are: Who should decide what medicines a pharmacy should stock? The owner of the pharmacy who knows his customers and customer base and who is financially motivated to cater to his customers needs, or a government bureaucracy which is motivated by political concerns? Who should set the work place rules? Again, the pharmacy owner, with an eye toward profit and a good public image or a government bureaucracy that wont suffer the consequences of it’s decisions? The problem with regulations is that they attempt to make one size fit all. But one size doesn’t fit all. Pharmacy A – located next to the retirement home – may have no need stock the MAP because nobody’s buying it, whilst pharmacy B – located next to the university – can barely keep the stuff on the shelves. Do we want the government dictating to pharmacy A that it must stock a non-profitable item? But it is not just business considerations. There is simply the fact that different people have different views, beliefs, etc. Concerning a employees moral objections to dispensing the drug, pharmacy owner A might say "then take a fucking hike ya Jesus freak!" Pharmacy owner B might say, "I respect your belief – if someone comes in with a prescription for the MAP, ask me or the other pharmacist on duty to do it." Why do we want the government interjecting itself into a private matter between two people? There are times when the government has a legitimate reason, even duty, to override people’s personal choices for the greater good but such times are actually quite rare (although the government would never have you believe that) and I just don’t see this time as one of them. It just leaves a sour taste in my mouth when people’s first response to a problem (real or perceived) is to run to the government. I do, however, think that the government should mandate that all young pretty female nurses provide sexual services to their male patients. "Gee, do you really think I’m well enough to go home, Doc? I think I should stay one more night, just to be safe."

pinksugarsub -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 10:39:15 PM)
This is how we will lose our privacy and reproductive rights; not with a bang but a whimper. Plan B should be over-the-counter but the FDA caved to pressure from the Far Right. pinksugarsub

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 10:43:18 PM)
Oh, you say it so much better than I! (Except for the sex part, that is! [;)])

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 10:51:24 PM)
17 and under needs a perscription from a health care professional per drugstore.com For heaven's sake, pink, this can be purchased online, without a script and kept in the medicine cabinet, if you don't wasn't to visit the local pharmacy. There is an age parameter, *but it is available OTC.* What caving to the Far Right?

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 10:58:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold Again I will disagree with you. You should know that I am not a debater. I do approach things logically, but not necessarily from a purely intellectual standpoint. And I do differentiate between intellectualism and intelligence/common sense. That said... We deal with social morality and personal morality. Social morality is dictated by the will and the tolerance of the masses. Most have come to be complacent and accept things such as abortion and preventative measures such as "Plan B". It is justified in various ways in order to appease the natural conscience. As a result, this bit of morality has fallen by the wayside, and the local clinic goes about their business with little objection. I am opposed to abortion. I am opposed to an option like "Plan B". It is legal. Therefore, if I was to work in an industry that forced Me to participate in these legal activities, I would have three choices. 1. Swallow hard and do My job 2. Work out an alternative solution with My employer so that I could work according to My personal morality 3. Get a new job I feel the courts have one job. That is to assist in the serious decisions concerning criminal matters. But we now have so many laws on the book, and so many ways these laws can be tested and twisted, that we run to the Judge every time we have a question, instead of using some common sense. Small Claims Court, traffic court, civil court, divorce court, family court, criminal court, justice court, kiddie court, Superior court, Supreme Court, and let us not forget Judge Judy's Court. Guess who's making all the money? The lawyers! And the judges. This discussion has come so far away from the original idea. Which is, quite simply, that if one is a Pharmacist, and they work for a private business or chain of stores that dispenses medications legally, then the choices are written, 1. 2. 3. above. This decison did not make it illegal for Plan B to be sold. It did not determine that all drug stores anddrug chans have to make it available. This decision said "You may own a private business, but I am telling you now that if you have a Pharmacist in your employ who is morally opposed to dispensing this drug, you may not shrug your shoulders. You, the business owner will either lose profit by not selling it at all, or you will bear the additional expense of making sure that another Pharmacist is on hand who is willing to dispense this medication." This was not a matter of testing the legality or the morality of the drug. It was one or 20 (who knows how many) Pharmacists going to court and stating that they find this morally repugnant and wanted a ruling that they could keep their jobs, but not have to dispense a legal medication that made them personally uncomfortable. Better that they had gathered hundreds or thousands who felt the same way, and stated that they would not dispense it, therefore it would not be available at all. They did nothing to solve the deeper social problem. They simply found a way way around their personal comfort. That doesn't garner any respect from Me. Sorry...you are not going to change My mind that this is wrong, and it never belonged in any court. I'm under the impression that you feel that these pharmacists are trying to shirk off their jobs that their employers want them to do? Some of the things you said in the way of facts about the case that the article doesn't seem to agree with; I'd just like to point these out here. -The case was brought up by two pharmicists and one store owner. (It wasn't two pharmacists sueing for their jobs. They all just didn't want the state forcing them to sell this.) -Store owners are also being forced. This injunction over-turned that. (It's protecting both pharmacists and their employers.) I'd also like to mention that there's no intention to change your mind. I simply enjoy debate since it helps me to both find new view points and put my to trial by fire.

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 11:07:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BootBlackBlast To change this thread up a little bit, what if there were a cure pill for HIV contraction? Should the pharmacists morals allow him to refuse to provide the pill as well? There is something of a "48-hour afterwards" series of injections to fend off from recent HIV exposures. And, if someone had a philosophical reason not to distribute it, yeah, it'd be their right not to be forced to keep it in stock. However, preventing pregnancy is a little lower on the totem pole than saving someone's life. (Actually, one's killing someone, and the other's saving their life.) quote: ORIGINAL: BootBlackBlast After all accidents happen, condoms break, rapes occur of both men and women, is this ruling about health care or politics and moral beliefs? Healthcare or moral beliefs? It's about both. Both sides want healthcare. One side wants it for the would-have-been-mother's convinence, the other wants it for the baby. At what point did you think the the two issues were seperable? :P

Zensee -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 11:37:14 PM)
Is biology a required subject for a major in Mental Masturbation? I thought that was a Fine Arts degree. Z.

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 11:40:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee Is biology a required subject for a major in Mental Masturbation? I thought that was a Fine Arts degree. I'm not sure if everyone finds as much art in it as you do, Zensee.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 11:43:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I'm under the impression that you feel that these pharmacists are trying to shirk off their jobs that their employers want them to do? Some of the things you said in the way of facts about the case that the article doesn't seem to agree with; I'd just like to point these out here. -The case was brought up by two pharmicists and one store owner. (It wasn't two pharmacists sueing for their jobs. They all just didn't want the state forcing them to sell this.) -Store owners are also being forced. This injunction over-turned that. (It's protecting both pharmacists and their employers.) I'd also like to mention that there's no intention to change your mind. I simply enjoy debate since it helps me to both find new view points and put my to trial by fire. Yes, CL...that is exactly where I have been coming from. I read the original link provided for this discussion, and stated in My first post that I did not have enough information to know all the details. But the impression was that Pharmacist employees were sueing for the right to not dispense this medication even if and though their employers were making it available. Perhaps I was confused by this excerpt: quote: In an injunction signed Thursday, U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton said pharmacists can refuse to sell the morning-after pill if they refer the customer to another nearby source. Pharmacists' employers also are protected by the order. I am not sure why a pharmacist's employer would require protection, unless the pharmacist was being given an okay via the injunction to refuse to dispense a medication that the employer has no problem keeping in inventory. That would be a private matter between the employee and the owner. And the reference to the drugstore owner would indicate that there is or was a measure to force any drugstore to carry "Plan B", regardless of the moral stance of that private business owner. Guess I kind of missed that or it just didn't pop out at Me as to how the entire article read on a quick basis. Frankly I am not sure I am even too happy about the fact that they are being told "Well, it's okay if you choose not to sell it, but you have to refer them to a place that does". That, to Me, is akin to telling a "Right To Life" counseling center that "it is okay for you to offer alternatives to abortion, but if the woman still wants one, you have to give her a map to the nearest abortion clinic." Shrug But that's an argument for another day, another topic, another thread. Study for your test now!

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 11:52:12 PM)
It's been a pleasure having the conversation. I hope to see you around more often. It's late. Time for sleep. :P (Almost 3 AM here.) Goodnight!

SweetDommes -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 11:58:25 PM)
I'm not reading the whole thing through, but I do have this to say. If I had gone to a doctor or pharmacist after any of my rapes, tried to get the morning-after pill, and been refused ... I would have most likely committed suicide - how is that a good thing for the potential baby? I know someone who did that, and know of many others. I'm sorry, but my mental health was bad enough without being refused treatment. If I kill myself (or another potential mother kills herself), then the baby dies anyway, and any future children that might be had lose their chance as well. Forcing someone to go against their morals isn't right, but neither is refusing treatment to someone.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 12:26:07 AM)
Do you know about the case involving Islamic cab-drivers in Minneapolis who refuse to drive passengers carrying liquor? http://www.nysun.com/article/41264 You'd say that they should be permitted to service or not service anyone they damn well please, right? After all, who told those poor innocent cab-drivers that they might occasionally have to drive people carrying liquor? quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Since when were morning-after-pills part of a pharmacist's job? Do you think that they knew they'd be forced to sell abortion pills when they were studying for this however long ago when they were back in school, working for the major? Do you think that many of these people started their careers in the last couple of years when this stuff became an issue? And, perhaps most obviously of all.. did these men ever agree to do this? Did a soldier agree to kill civilians in Iraqi? You think you'd object if one didn't follow orders and do so? Why?

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 12:28:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SweetDommes I'm not reading the whole thing through, but I do have this to say. If I had gone to a doctor or pharmacist after any of my rapes, tried to get the morning-after pill, and been refused ... I would have most likely committed suicide - how is that a good thing for the potential baby? I know someone who did that, and know of many others. I'm sorry, but my mental health was bad enough without being refused treatment. If I kill myself (or another potential mother kills herself), then the baby dies anyway, and any future children that might be had lose their chance as well. Forcing someone to go against their morals isn't right, but neither is refusing treatment to someone. I am not unsympathetic to this scenario, but I do have to respond. If you are seeking "treatment", you would, hopefully, know your doctor and his stance on this medication. Or you report the rape to the police, do a rape kit at a hospital, and automatically get the Plan B if you want it. You refer to quote: after any of my rapes and that is plain scary. It would be horrible to suffer that once, let alone several times. But, you, or any rape victim, is also under an obligation to seek "treatment" in a proper manner. A pharmacist is not there to counsel you and understand why you need the drug. S/He is there to check your ID and hand it to you without perscription of you are of age, or to state that the pharmacy does not carry what you need. I would not consider that "refusing treatment". We do not live in the dark ages anymore, where there is stigma and questions attached to being raped. (Well, too bad that maybe later if you go to court the greasy defense lawyer pulls that crap, but not initially.) There are rape crisis counseling centers, even if one chooses not to go to the police or an emergency room. I, for one, cannot relate to not immediately reporting something like this and allowing Myself to be cared for in a supportive and positive manner. I know there are exceptions, but, once again, we are sliding down the slope when we try to cover every eventuality. We cannot order every pharmacist to make this available just in case someone really needs it due to a rape situation. There are other, more appropriate, sources. Just a general question, and not to you in particular... What did women do a few years ago when there was no Plan B?

SweetDommes -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 12:33:00 AM)
Honestly, the only treatment I sought was to make sure that I hadn't contracted anything. Personally, I figured that if I got pregnant from it, then at least something positive would come out of something horrible. However, not all people feel that way - not all people can feel that way after being violated in such a manner ... and not everyone has a doctor/pharmicist that they go to regularly. Up until recently, I didn't.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 1:04:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Do you know about the case involving Islamic cab-drivers in Minneapolis who refuse to drive passengers carrying liquor? http://www.nysun.com/article/41264 You'd say that they should be permitted to service or not service anyone they damn well please, right? After all, who told those poor innocent cab-drivers that they might occasionally have to drive people carrying liquor? Shrug If they are self employed, whether renting their vehicle at a set shift rate from a provider, or privately owning their vehicle, they have the right to refuse service. They also lose the time by going to the back of the line. That's the airport rules, and they have to abide by them or find their fares elsewhere. If they are working as a cabbie for a company, they follow the company rules or figure out another way to meet their personal moral/religious code. I hope you are not saying, L&M, that the drivers or a company's drivers should be forced to take on any passenger(s) just because they need a cab. Funny thing is that regular passengers may begin to wise up and make sure that their liquor is good and hidden before they come out the door.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875