|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
tod
|
|
State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception
| 
Feb 15 19:15 UTC 2006 |
Wednesday, February 15, 2006; Posted: 9:31 a.m. EST (14:31 GMT)
CNN) -- Wal-Mart pharmacies in Massachusetts must carry emergency
contraception pills, the state's pharmacy board has ruled.
The Massachusetts Board of Registration in Pharmacy on Tuesday ruled in favor
of three women who filed complaints claiming that the stores refused to fill
their prescriptions.
Julie Battel, Katrina McCarty and Rebekah Gee filed suit against the company
earlier this month. (Full story)
Wal-Mart has until Thursday to comply with the ruling.
The drug, which is commonly referred to as the "morning after pill," or "Plan
B," must be taken 72 hours after sex to prevent pregnancy.
Wal-Mart currently only carries the pill at its Illinois stores, where it is
required under state regulations.
Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogelman said the company plans to comply with the
board's ruling.
Asked why the pharmacy only carries the pill in one state, Fogelman said that
it was purely a "business decision" for Wal-Mart, based on its assessment that
demand for the product was not very high.
He added, that women's health was a high priority for Wal-Mart stores, and
there are broader considerations.
"We are are giving the issue a lot of thought," Fogelman said
The board wrote a letter to Wal-Mart's lawyers informing them of their
decision, and requiring the company to stock and disperse emergency
contraception when presented with prescriptions, according to board
spokeswoman Donna Rheaume
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/02/15/walmart.contraception
|
| 526 responses total. |
jadecat
|
|
response 1 of 526:
|
Feb 15 19:33 UTC 2006 |
Good.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 2 of 526:
|
Feb 15 19:48 UTC 2006 |
Man, I wish a made a product that the guv'mint would force stores to sell.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 3 of 526:
|
Feb 15 19:53 UTC 2006 |
Well, to me it's a bit more than just a 'product' in that it's a
medication. Also the reason to not sell it was not because it was a poor
medication but for 'moral' reasons (cloaked under 'not a large market
for it' reasoning).
|
kingjon
|
|
response 4 of 526:
|
Feb 15 19:56 UTC 2006 |
As little as I am likely to trust what Walmart says, I am hesitant to jump to
the conclusion that their stated reason for not stocking a product (medical or
otherwise) was a cloak for their real reason.
|
edina
|
|
response 5 of 526:
|
Feb 15 19:58 UTC 2006 |
Re 4 I tend to agree. At my Walmarts, many of the people I see shopping
there wouldn't bother with emergency contraception.
|
eprom
|
|
response 6 of 526:
|
Feb 15 20:00 UTC 2006 |
who cares....whats so hard about going to another store? whadda buncha cry
babies.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 7 of 526:
|
Feb 15 20:00 UTC 2006 |
Well, according to the article, the medication was not carried because
"demand for the product was not very high."
Part of me is against the government forcing moral decisions onto
private businesses. Another part thinks that medical facilities, even
private ones, are responsible for a minimum level of care.
I suppose it comes down to this; Are there any other medications that
pharmacies are required to carry, like say, insulin for diabetics? If
emergency contraception medication is the only medication that they are
mandated to carry, then I have a hard time supporting it.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 8 of 526:
|
Feb 15 20:04 UTC 2006 |
A company that sacrifices their employee's well-being for increased
profits is not the organization that is likely to stop selling a product
because they object to 'bortion.
|
tod
|
|
response 9 of 526:
|
Feb 15 20:13 UTC 2006 |
re #7
Are there any other medications that
pharmacies are required to carry, like say, insulin for diabetics
I can say this much: In Romania, pharmacies carry what they can stock(and
that's not much.) It's not uncommon to have to hit 4 or 5 pharmacies to fill
your prescription for one drug. If Wal*Mart wants us to believe they aren't
able to carry a certain drug due to low demand then why are they being sued
and why did 60 Minutes dedicate a whole segment to their refusal to carry this
drug in areas where its in high demand?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 10 of 526:
|
Feb 15 20:23 UTC 2006 |
re #6- in some areas WalMarts ARE the only big stores and there may not
be a bunch of other stores to go to.
And thank you for referring to women who want to protec themselves as a
bunch cry babies... although it's more accurate to say that's what
they're trying to avoid.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 11 of 526:
|
Feb 15 20:26 UTC 2006 |
Perhaps Wal-Mart takes a macro-look at the market for these drugs. High
demand in one area may not justify procurement, warehousing, and then
claims when the medication expires and has to be sent back. I'm not
trying to make an excuse for Wal-Mart, but they just are not a company
that turns their back on profitable products.
http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BO13687/
"Three Massachusetts women backed by pro-abortion rights groups sued
Wal-Mart on Wednesday, saying the retail giant violated a state
regulation by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its
pharmacies."
"[...]He added that Wal-Mart would formally request clarification of the
state regulation from Attorney General Tom Reilly or the state's Board
of Pharmacy. He said if either directs the company to carry certain
products, "Wal-Mart will abide."
"The women said they knew they would be refused when they went to the
Wal-Marts in Quincy and Lynn and that the action was planned with the
abortion rights groups and lawyers."
---
This lawsuit was purely political.
|
tod
|
|
response 12 of 526:
|
Feb 15 20:27 UTC 2006 |
re #11
I bet I could pick many drugs in less demand which Wal*Mart happily supplies.
Also, to say the lawsuit is purely political is kinda obvious since
corporations run this country.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 13 of 526:
|
Feb 15 20:35 UTC 2006 |
Well, I see a difference between a lawsuit where there is a legitimately
injured party, and one where the complaining party goes fishing for grounds.
|
tod
|
|
response 14 of 526:
|
Feb 15 20:37 UTC 2006 |
Requiring a pharmacy of such magnitude to carry Plan B aka an emergency drug
is fishing?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 15 of 526:
|
Feb 15 20:40 UTC 2006 |
Is that what the law says?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 16 of 526:
|
Feb 15 21:02 UTC 2006 |
re #13- and you think women who want Plan B - and who were denied-
aren't legitimately injured parties?
|
tod
|
|
response 17 of 526:
|
Feb 15 21:05 UTC 2006 |
Isn't your question: How does a pharmacy license get issued and regulated?
The simple answer is that there is usually a state board. The board is
comprised of similar parties you'd find in a municipal board of health.
One thing is usually present: A pharmacist with both NAPLEX and MPJE(i.e.
national and multistate certification) which both have a good portion of their
exams dedicated to "good moral character".
Wal*Mart seems to find folks that lack a sense of morality in their inventory
and dispersal of prescription medicine.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 18 of 526:
|
Feb 15 21:06 UTC 2006 |
Well, in this case, no. They went to Wal-Mart, knowing they didn't carry
the drugs, and then went to CVS, which they knew did. How were they
injured, and to what extent?
It sounds like Wal-Mart was already working on complying with the law,
and some pro-abortion groups wanted to get a lawsuit in before the whole
point was moot.
|