"Morning After Pill"

RE:

While I believe that the pill should be available to women. I don't think pharmacy's should have to carry it. If it is a local owned pharmacy and he or she decides not to carry it that is their choice. I am sure that there are lots of things that they decide not to carry because they do not sell. Why should someone have to sell something they don't want? Just go to a different pharmacy.
LD
 
RE:

"For all they know, the Viagra is for the happily married man. It's the knowledge of what the med is for, not who it's for."

And for all the pharmacist DOESN'T know, the Morning After Pill is for the happily married woman who was raped.

Ok, I'm done. Let's end this thread.

Allison
 
RE:

>>Alright I really tried to stay away from this but:

> And for all the pharmacist DOESN'T know, the Morning After
>Pill is for the happily married woman who was raped.
>
I agree...and that is why pharmacies carry it, just because some refuse to, doesn't mean it is unavailable.

We live in a free market economy..stores have the right to sell whatever they want and to refuse to sell whatever they want. I shop at Whole Foods and they 'refuse' to carry Oreos. For me, this is no different. If I want Oreos I know plenty of places I can get them. And while I recognize that this topic is far more sensitive and far more serious, in terms of a business's rights it really is no different. JMO
 
RE:

Some women who live in remote areas or don't have access to transportation may not have the option to just "go to a different pharmacy".

For the longest time, my prescription drug plan at work, which is a damn good plan, did not cover BCPs, but it covered Viagra!! So frustrating!


Susan L.G.
 
RE:

>
> We live in a free market economy..stores have the right to
>sell whatever they want and to refuse to sell whatever they
>want. I shop at Whole Foods and they 'refuse' to carry Oreos.
>For me, this is no different. If I want Oreos I know plenty of
>places I can get them. And while I recognize that this topic
>is far more sensitive and far more serious, in terms of a
>business's rights it really is no different. JMO
>


Yes, but Whole Foods will carry the alternative to Oreos (Newman's - O's). I'm not sure the Free Market (which I whole heartily believe in) always applies to health care. We wouldn't allow a doctor to not treat a drug addict because they 'just don't want to'. What if a doctor didn't like treating children? What if that was the only doctor in a 50 mile radius? We wouldn't support his/her decision because there is a free market.

Carolyn
 
RE:

We had this issue at Walgreens last year, with a few specific pharmacists that refused to fill it, despite the company not having a policy on it one way or another.

Those pharmacists were actually fired, because it went against state law of having to provide it.

I think it's completely apalling that something as private as this pill should be subject to judgement of the person who has nothing to do with the patient's life or situation.
I won't get into the whole debate.
But religion should be kept completely separate from the law, in my opinion. And if it's THAT big of an issue for someone to fill this prescription, perhaps they should be in another line of work.
 
RE:

"Gee, I don't have a problem with it at all. There's no shortage of pharmacies, so if you can't get it at one, just go to another -- seems simple enough to me."

Actually, in small towns there might be a shortage of pharmacies - there are probably quite a few small towns in the U.S., in very conservative parts of the country, where there are maybe 1 or 2 pharmacies for many miles. What if there are 2 pharmacies in the town, and both pharmacists refuse to dispense the medication? What if a poor woman without access to transportation is raped and they will not give her the medication? As I understand it the morning-after pill must be taken in a certain time window - I think it's within either 24 or 48 hours, to prevent a pregnancy from occurring. That's not much time if you're stuck somewhere and a pharmacist won't do his job and instead gives you a lecture about morality or whatever. Ugh.
 
RE:

>
>>
>
>
>Yes, but Whole Foods will carry the alternative to Oreos
>(Newman's - O's).

Newman-O's are NOT Oreos :7 My broader point is I've been in plenty of stores that just don't carry what I am looking for. And that can be for any number of reasons, but the fact remains...they just don't carry something.

I'm not sure the Free Market (which I whole
>heartily believe in) always applies to health care. We
>wouldn't allow a doctor to not treat a drug addict because
>they 'just don't want to'. What if a doctor didn't like
>treating children?

There are plenty of doctors that 'refuse' to treat certain types of patients. That's why we have all these specialists. I know of plenty of doctors that 'won't' treat children or drug addicts. It's just not what they do.

What if that was the only doctor in a 50
>mile radius? We wouldn't support his/her decision because
>there is a free market.

Sure, I would. It's their practice, so they have the right to treat or not treat whomever they want. I agree that in an emergency room situation it would be WRONG to refuse treatment to an individual(especially of a life or death nature) the 'Morning After' pill is NOT a life or death medication. No one will die from NOT getting it.
>
>
>
 
RE:

>
>Actually, in small towns there might be a shortage of
>pharmacies - there are probably quite a few small towns in the
>U.S., in very conservative parts of the country, where there
>are maybe 1 or 2 pharmacies for many miles. What if there are
>2 pharmacies in the town, and both pharmacists refuse to
>dispense the medication? What if a poor woman without access
>to transportation is raped and they will not give her the
>medication? As I understand it the morning-after pill must be
>taken in a certain time window - I think it's within either 24
>or 48 hours, to prevent a pregnancy from occurring. That's
>not much time if you're stuck somewhere and a pharmacist won't
>do his job and instead gives you a lecture about morality or
>whatever. Ugh.

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'do his job.' If you owned a business would you want someone telling you what you had to carry? Probabyl not...after all, IT'S YOUR BUSINESS! Small pharmacies are often owned by a pharmacist(my DH's family owns three)they can sell or not sell whatever they want. If a customer is unhappy, he/she can go somewhere else. If enough people leave then the business owner will have to re-evaluate his decisions. I'm sorry, but 'convenience' is NOT the pharmacist's problem. This is true for any medication. If these pharmacies continue to NOT carry this pill, from a business stanpoint, it seems clear that there is NOT that much demand.
>
>
 
RE:

>We had this issue at Walgreens last year, with a few specific
>pharmacists that refused to fill it, despite the company not
>having a policy on it one way or another.
>
>Those pharmacists were actually fired, because it went against
>state law of having to provide it.
>
>This is a great example! If it is required by law then the pharmacies must carry it and, of course, pharmacists that won't dispense it must be fired. However, in a lot of these cases it is small, independently-owned, not state-regulated(as in there exists NO state law requiring it's sale)pharmacies. A free market economy dictates that business owners do NOT HAVE to carry anything that they aren't required to carry. I just don't see why that is a big deal. Don't you think a business owner should get to decide what they want to sell?



>
 
RE:

Ok, enough. Let's all agree to disagree. I really like the pleasantness of this forum and it's (usual) positive attitude. Let's not bring, moral, ethical, religious, and political debates into it, ok? Please?

Allison
 
RE:

I have to agree with Allison. This kind of topic makes me uncomfortable because I know what kind of responses it draws.
 
RE:

Let's be clear: the morning after pill prevents a pregnancy from occurring. Don't condoms do the same thing??? So, logically, those pharmacists (or pharmacy owners) with ethical concerns shouldn't sell condoms either. I can't seem to remember any news stories about pharmacies not carrying condoms or refusing to sell them because of ethical/religious beliefs. I suspect that ignorance of what the MAP actually does is behind the refusal to dispense or carry the medicine.

Jonahnah
Chocolate IS the answer, regardless of the question.
 
RE:

>Let's be clear: the morning after pill prevents a pregnancy
>from occurring. Don't condoms do the same thing??? So,
>logically, those pharmacists (or pharmacy owners) with ethical
>concerns shouldn't sell condoms either. I can't seem to
>remember any news stories about pharmacies not carrying
>condoms or refusing to sell them because of ethical/religious
>beliefs. I suspect that ignorance of what the MAP actually
>does is behind the refusal to dispense or carry the medicine.
>
>
>Alright...I agree this discussion should end, but I just have to say that condoms work very differently than the MAP does. There really is no comparison. The MAP is NOT considered a form of birth control.
 
RE:

I know I already said this, but I want to apologize for even bringing this subject up. It is a hard one to talk about, and perhaps this forum is not the right place, for this I am very sorry. I respect everyone's views on this subject, so let us just leave it alone now and talk about something else. How 'bout chocolate or something??:7 :9 :9

PS. My dad always told me there are certain subjects you never talk about unless you want to stir things up; religion and politics. And once again, my daddy was right!:) So again, I apologize to the moderators of this forum,and to all of you.
 
RE:

I know that people want this topic to end, but I have to share something. I live in a small town and county. The whole county has one CVS. Luckily, it is about 5 miles from my home. But, the next pharmacy would be more like 30-40 miles away.

I don't want to add to the MAP discussion. I only want to let others know that there are people (like me) who live in the middle of no where and certain conveniences (gosh, I can't spell that word to save my life) are very limited :)

Oh, and remember, that sometimes heated threads (which I don't think this one is as bad as some) can turn out for the better ;)

Sara
 
RE:

>>The MAP is NOT considered a form of birth control.

It works like Oral contraceptives...
1) suppresses ovulation
2) thickens cervical mucus
3) alters the endometrial lining

Same mechanisms as oral contraceptives. I understand the issue with mechanism #3 (abortifacient effect), but it is not unique to MAP.

I apologize for keeping this going but just wanted to address this.
 
RE:

>No, no pharmacist should be given the possibility of refusing
>to dispense any drug. Period. They are hired to do a job and
>they have to do it. There's no argument here.
>
>And the person who thinks that religious "beliefs" are not
>political needs a wake up call.
>
>"Sexist" is not name calling, it's a fact in this case and
>this refusal to give women their prescribed medication is
>sexist. It's a political statement. Morality and religion
>are intrinsically linked to politics. they cannot be
>separated.
>
>It would not be a good idea to get into an abortion debate on
>this forum. It will lead to unpleasantness and the thread
>will be deleted. It also has little to do with the obligation
>pharmacists have to patients/clients.
>
>Clare

I don't think I need a "wake up call" just because I feel differently then you. A pharmacist shouldn't be forced to fill a prescription that they feel is morally wrong. Why do we assume that "our" rights are more important than another individuals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top