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

Marc2b -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 5:49:53 PM)
quote: A. Learn how to speak like a civilized human being. Oh lighten the fuck up, will ya. Sheeesh. quote: B. There are plenty of people on Collarme who believe in an unregulated market. I'm glad to see that you don't. From posts you've made in the past, that hasn't been too clear. Only because people make unwarranted assumptions. quote: C. I'd say that pharmacists provide a crucial service. If you're prepared to dispute that pharmacists provide a crucial service, you're placing yourself in the absurd camp with the people who are using examples like nurses who are required to masturbate their patients. If we agree that pharmacists provide a crucial service, and we agree that we don't want an unregulated market, then we agree that pharmacists must be regulated. But that doesn’t mean we agree on what those regulations should be. quote: D. YOU'RE mischaracterizing the debate, not me. WE ALL want as few regulations as possible. Don't pretend that this is a debate between people who want as few regulations as possible and people who want to regulate the world irrationally. Because that would be, you know, ideological bullshit. Oh nooooooo, no, no, no.... There are a great many people who want to regulate the world irrationally, although I’ll grant that most of them think they are being rational. Socialists fall into this category. And aside from plain old fashioned ideology there is plain old fashioned greed – piling regulations on in order ti stifle competition. quote: That's about the long and short of it, no? You're still avoiding the problem that any pharmacist who doesn't believe in dispensing this drug or that drug has the right not to be a pharmacist at all. I’m not avoiding it at all. If people don’t like certain aspects of a certain profession they are free to try another profession. I am questioning wether we should put the pharmacy/pharmacist in that position, on this particular issue. I am questioning wether we should force them to violate their conscious (or business sense) in order to make the MAP slightly more available than it is already. That’s the crux of the situation. The MAP is widely available and if we don’t force pharmacies to sell it (in order to satisfy other people’s sense of morality) I consider it highly doubtful that there will be a rash of pharmacies across the United States refusing to sell it. If there was there is plenty of recourse for people who think they should that doesn’t involve the government. That recourse is their own freedom. They can protest and launch boycotts. That’s what being a free people means. The people work these problems out themselves without having to give up their freedom to the government in a vain attempt to legislate perfection. quote: What he doesn't have is the right to impose his moral views on anyone else, including the customers who rely on him for a crucial service. He is not imposing his moral views on his customers, they are free to get the drug from other pharmacies. He is, at most, inconveniencing them (not good business acumen in my book). You and others, on the other hand, want to impose – through government fiat – your morality on them.

Marc2b -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 5:52:47 PM)
quote: On that I think we can all agree. Though not as crucial as macaroni and cheese, of course. Is it your birthday, btw? If so, many happy returns! Mac and chesse is pretty good but I still think chicken and biscuts win out. Thanks for the birthday wishes. It is actually on Tuesday. Today was just the only day that we could get the wholce family together. It's a big family.

nyrisa -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 5:54:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord While I can appreciate that you just made the assumption that I was using a biased source, I'd like to point out from the very page you linked.. "may make it harder for an embryo to stick to the lining of the uterus." (In other words, it can cause the embroyo to be expelled, and thusly kill it.) Another correction for you; the pill causes the endometrial lining of the uterus to slough away, causing the woman's period to start early. This does not kill the embryo, it just does not present the optimal tissue bed for implantation to occur. The woman is not pregnant. She has no way of knowing if there is a fetilized egg present or not. She is not required to maintain her uterine lining just in case an embryo is floating in her fallopian tube. It is in cases like this where interference in a woman's right to make medical decisions about her own body and her own life is so unreasonable. She is NOT pregnant. Who are you, or anyone else, to tell her she should just sit meekly and let herself become pregnant, if she does not wish to? From the many, many calls I got from women about emergency contraception, the greatest majority were from women who were using contraception but something had happened (condom broke, birth control pill was forgotten, IUD was found to be displaced). A small minority were from women who had been raped. Quite a few were from teenagers who had gotten carried away and had sex for the first time, and did not have any condoms with them. The one thing almost all had in common was, they did not want a baby, could not afford a baby either financially or emotionally, or had physical problems which would make a pregnancy risky. More than half of these women intended to have an abortion if they did get pregnant. Seems like a much better choice, to prevent pregnancy than to abort a 10 wk old fetus. And by education, I mean education about pregnancy, contraception, and STDs.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 6:02:21 PM)
I see no problem with someone sticking to their principles, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences. These pharmacist work for a private company, so it is not like they are a civil servant, cop, or fireman. If the company that hires them gets enough flak, then they will pressure them to do it, or make sure an agreement is signed in the future by all pharmacist. If the company presures them, then they have the option to compromise their principles, or find another job. There is nothing in the law that requires a pharmacist to fill a prescription. Hell there are so many mail order (next day delivery) pharmacies online that this problem is really just a headline. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 SEATTLE - A federal judge has suspended Washington state's requirement that pharmacists sell "morning-after" birth control pills, a victory for druggists who claim their moral objections to the drug are being bulldozed by the government. 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. The emergency contraception sold as Plan B is a high dose of a drug found in many regular birth-control pills. It can dramatically lower the risk of pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071109/ap_on_re_us/refusing_prescriptions

Marc2b -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 6:05:48 PM)
quote: Actually, I remember reading somewhere that a woman went to the hospital after being raped, and when she asked the doctor about the MAP, he said that he wouldn't prescribe it for her because it was against his morals, and he wouldn't get another doctor for her either. She had to go somewhere else to get it (I think she ended up going somewhere like Planned Parenthood, but it wasn't PP). I don’t want to sound callous but... she was, then, able to get some of the drug. Personally, I find that doctor’s behavior callous. And that woman is free, if she wants, to express her anger over his actions to the hospital administration, in a letter to the editor, on computer message boards, etc. She’s free to start a "Boot out Doctor Schmuck" campaign if she wants. Personally, I don’t put hospitals into the same category as pharmacies. Pharmacies are much more abundant and usually don’t have to deal with life and death situations or traumatized patients. So I really don’t have a problem with requiring hospitals, public or private, to not discriminate against whoever comes through their doors.

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 6:11:25 PM)
That's exactly my point. The fertilized egg is left to die. Whether or not you define that as an abortion, the concern of pro-life is that death of the fertalized egg, regardless of whether or not you call this act "abortion". And the bit about it being the woman's right to chose superceding the embryo's right to live defaults to the "pro-choice" stance; this is hardly indicative of this process being outside of what one considers to be an abortion. In short, we can discuss the morality of the legality or illegality of abortion, I just don't want the issue muddled with the notion that abortion isn't involved (with abortion being defined as the termination of the embryo to avoid it from being born). As for the education bit, I'm still entirely unsure as to the implication of not wanting education, whether it's about sex, STD's, pregnancy, contraception or otherwise.

nyrisa -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 6:20:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord That's exactly my point. The fertilized egg is left to die. So, therefore, you should feel responsible for not taking home the guy on the corner holding the cardboard sign, feeding him, sheltering him, giving him medical care, and making sure he is tended? By not doing so, you are leaving him to die, possibly. Murderer!!!! Of course, you don't know that he will die. No more than you can know for sure that the pill will prevent the implantation of an egg. In most cases, there is not a fertilized egg at all, since the accident often occurs at the wrong time of the month, when the woman has not ovulated. Again, look up the definition for abortion. You can't have an abortion if a woman is not pregnant. It is not possible. The fertilized eggs in laboratories which are discarded are not abortions, either. The whole idea is to prevent pregnancy, and prevent abortion. Oh, by the way, next time you pass the homeless guy on the corner, buy him a meal, will you? After all, he is definitely a person who can hurt and feel. His cells have divided quite a few times.

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 6:25:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nyrisa quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord That's exactly my point. The fertilized egg is left to die. So, therefore, you should feel responsible for not taking home the guy on the corner holding the cardboard sign, feeding him, sheltering him, giving him medical care, and making sure he is tended? By not doing so, you are leaving him to die, possibly. Murderer!!!! To do that would be similar to fault myself for not saving every stabbing victim out there. That doesn't mean that the stabbing is something I condone. (This was sort of silly, no?) quote: ORIGINAL: nyrisa Of course, you don't know that he will die. No more than you can know for sure that the pill will prevent the implantation of an egg. In most cases, there is not a fertilized egg at all, since the accident often occurs at the wrong time of the month, when the woman has not ovulated. So you're saying that the pill probably doesn't act as an abortion agent, since it's probably used when there's no pregnancy to abort? Isn't that kind of like saying, "Ant poisen doesn't kill ants since you apply it to more areas that don't have ants."? quote: ORIGINAL: nyrisa Again, look up the definition for abortion. You can't have an abortion if a woman is not pregnant. It is not possible. The fertilized eggs in laboratories which are discarded are not abortions, either. The whole idea is to prevent pregnancy, and prevent abortion. Again, whatever definition you chose for "abortion" isn't the concern. It's the death of the embryo. quote: ORIGINAL: nyrisa Oh, by the way, next time you pass the homeless guy on the corner, buy him a meal, will you? After all, he is definitely a person who can hurt and feel. His cells have divided quite a few times. I guess you missed my thread a couple months back when I was doing just that. Do you?

dcnovice -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 6:33:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: On that I think we can all agree. Though not as crucial as macaroni and cheese, of course. Is it your birthday, btw? If so, many happy returns! Mac and chesse is pretty good but I still think chicken and biscuts win out. Thanks for the birthday wishes. It is actually on Tuesday. Today was just the only day that we could get the wholce family together. It's a big family. I hope you had a good time! Did you get your chicken and biscuits?

Marc2b -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 6:34:25 PM)
quote: hope you had a good time! Did you get your chicken and biscuits? YUP! [:)]

dcnovice -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 6:37:16 PM)
Excellent.

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 6:39:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: That's fine for city folk, where there are abundannt pharmacies. Not sure it works as well in a rural setting, where the next pharmacy might be quite some distance away. It also seems a bit unfair to shift the cost of dealing with the pharmacist's beliefs from the pharmacist to the patient. Life isn’t fair. Choices have consequences. One of the consequences of choosing to live in a rural area rather than a urban area is less access to certain commodities. Most rural people I know consider this a fair trade-off for the peace and quiet of nature over the cacophony of a city. If they don’t like it, they can move to the city. As for shifting the cost of dealing with the pharmacist’s beliefs to the patient, all of us have to cover the cost of other’s beliefs. This is exactly why their profession is regulated. It is in The People's Best Interest for Individuals to be able to fill ANY prescription written by a doctor. If there's a pharmacist available, then they damn well be able to fill the prescription. Otherwise, why bother giving them an exclusive franchise, when the Tractor Supply would carry the product if it wasn't restricted to pharmacies?

nyrisa -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 6:51:30 PM)
You are very young. I too felt much the way you do, when I was your age. I encourage you to read more, learn more, and use your logic along with your emotion. When you are older, and have raised a few kids, and seen more of what the world holds, both good and bad, you may feel the same, or you may look back and shake your head at some of the ideas you had. Either way, best wishes in your journey.

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 6:54:24 PM)
Sometimes, I think I should change my age on the profile to avoid some of those sorts of comments. In any case, good luck with finding your way as well.

susie -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 7:23:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Sometimes, I think I should change my age on the profile to avoid some of those sorts of comments. In any case, good luck with finding your way as well. Changing your age on your profile would not change the way you post. It is your attitude and your views that show your lack of maturity not your physical age. I am aware that you are studying engineering which is a very logical based subject. Life is not like that. It is not black and white which is something you will learn hopefully. I see that you failed to answer the question about the birth control pill. Do you support the right for a woman to use the birth control pill?

CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 8:01:01 PM)
You see? To me, that's just a very naive view. Life is logical- it's human prospective of it that's not. I'm not sure about your zeal with this, but, no, there's no problem with birth control. I'm against killing things, not for overpopulation.

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 9:20:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord You see? To me, that's just a very naive view. Life is logical- it's human prospective of it that's not. I'm not sure about your zeal with this, but, no, there's no problem with birth control. I'm against killing things, not for overpopulation. That must really limit your menu options. You know, LOGICALLY, if you're against killing, than you're against killing animals. And of course plants are alive, too. Maybe you need to qualify your "reluctance to kill". Does it include killing for food? By Proxy, or do you do your own bacon? If you are entitled to the CHOICE to kill for substenance.... Well, you know... Free Will is a real bitch.

Marc2b -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 10:16:31 PM)
quote: This is exactly why their profession is regulated. It is in The People's Best Interest for Individuals to be able to fill ANY prescription written by a doctor. If there's a pharmacist available, then they damn well be able to fill the prescription. Otherwise, why bother giving them an exclusive franchise, when the Tractor Supply would carry the product if it wasn't restricted to pharmacies? What is exactly why "their profession is regulated."? That life isn’t fair? If you believe that life can be made fair through regulation you are in for a severe disappointment. And just who’s notion of fair are we talking about? All to often, to make life fair for some, you have to make life unfair for others and this is just such a case. As for "why bother to give them an exclusive franchise?", I presume you mean why let only pharmacies dispense prescription medication? Well, for the same reason we only let chemical companies handle certain chemicals – we expect a certain level of knowledge and competency before we let them handle dangerous substances. That, however, is not the same as telling them which medications – or chemicals – you must sell. You know, you really seem to have a bug up your butt about "Artificial Legal Entities." While you did – almost begrudgingly, it seems to me – acknowledge that the people who make up these ALE’s have rights you seem to get upset at the notion of them actually exercising their rights. For example, when they try to get the regulations that govern them changed to their benefit.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/11/2007 10:37:42 PM)
So, Marc, let me get this straight...you'd say it's all right for Muslim taxi drivers to deny service to customers carrying alcohol? And if not...how is this case any different?

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/12/2007 12:15:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: This is exactly why their profession is regulated. It is in The People's Best Interest for Individuals to be able to fill ANY prescription written by a doctor. If there's a pharmacist available, then they damn well be able to fill the prescription. Otherwise, why bother giving them an exclusive franchise, when the Tractor Supply would carry the product if it wasn't restricted to pharmacies? What is exactly why "their profession is regulated."? The potentially limited stocks at Rural pharmacies. Because it's in The Public Interest that the profession and operations of Pharmacists be regulated, one of the primary reasons is to ensure that when your physician prescribes any medication, that you will be able to go purchase that medication without undue burden. That burden is acknowledged by this ruling where the Judge tells the whiny bitches: "Sure you don't have to dispense or stock it, BUT if you're not going to you HAVE TO give the patient the name and address where the 'script can be filled." Which brings up the moral question: "Is it RIGHT to tell someone whose prescription you're not filling, due to moral issues with assisting in the potential termination of a life, WHERE TO GO TO GET ASSISTANCE IN THAT ACT?" Does telling the patient where to get it filled, make you an accessory to the abortion ANYWAY? Did the judge bitch-slap these jerks, and they don't even know it, forcing them into doing one thing which is morally questionable to avoid another morally questionable act? quote: You know, you really seem to have a bug up your butt about "Artificial Legal Entities." While you did – almost begrudgingly, it seems to me – acknowledge that the people who make up these ALE’s have rights you seem to get upset at the notion of them actually exercising their rights. For example, when they try to get the regulations that govern them changed to their benefit. The point is actually that, say, Rite-Aid Drugs, doesn't have *ANY* wiggle room. Rite-Aid does what the fuck they're told, when they're told, and with a fucking smile. If the President of Rite Aid wants to donate a grand to a candidate and write a letter saying a law needs to be changed, that's FINE. When Rite-Aid donates $5000 to a lobbyist, that's tampering with the political system. See the essential difference? The Company PRESIDENT has a vote on Election Day. The COMPANY DOES NOT.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875