|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 526 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 19 of 526:
| 
Feb 15 21:11 UTC 2006 |
I wonder how much ammunition is sold at Wal*Mart compared to contraceptives
in one business week.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 20 of 526:
|
Feb 15 21:34 UTC 2006 |
resp:18 and what about areas that don't HAVE a CVS nearby? The point
isn't that these women had no alternatives- but that there are women out
there that don't. You may not see this as a big deal- this isn't a
medication you will ever need either.
|
tod
|
|
response 21 of 526:
|
Feb 15 21:46 UTC 2006 |
re #18
Well, in the case of my aunt who died in Romania from malpractice, her
daughter and son were out prescription hunting all day when they could have
been at her bedside tending to the nursing basics (since the hospitals kinda
suck at it unless you bribe them.) I can see how having to hunt down a
pharmacy that will fill your prescription could cause injury and loss in many
ways.
Here in Washington, many of the local grocer chains are silently pushing for
new legislation that requires health benefits since that would force Wal*Mart
to do so. Does that mean folks can't get health insurance outside of their
Wal*Mart employment? That's not the point. The point is that we're trying
to improve our community by offering more services where they'd be expected
under fair practices.
|
richard
|
|
response 22 of 526:
|
Feb 15 21:58 UTC 2006 |
emergency contraception pills should be offered over the counter. It
shouldn't be up to a doctor to decide whether a woman should take them, and
they aren't dangerous drugs. A high school girl should not have to go out
in public to get pills or condoms, they should have vending machines in the
bathrooms. How many teenage girls get pregnant simply because they're too
afraid to visit Planned Parenthood or see their local clinic.
|
edina
|
|
response 23 of 526:
|
Feb 15 22:26 UTC 2006 |
I disagree with the being able to get BCP over the counter. There are risks
associated with taking them and I think it bears a bit of medical monitoring.
|
tod
|
|
response 24 of 526:
|
Feb 15 22:31 UTC 2006 |
They should have Efforex and Xanax in gumball machines inside Starbucks, too.
|
richard
|
|
response 25 of 526:
|
Feb 15 22:36 UTC 2006 |
re #23 edina, there are risks involved with taking aspirin. you take a whole
bottle of aspirin at once and you could die. doesn't mean aspirin needs to
be a prescription does it?
|
edina
|
|
response 26 of 526:
|
Feb 15 22:37 UTC 2006 |
Richard - find the point in what I'm saying and get back to me. If you don't
know the risks involved in taking BCP, then please, spare us all and shut your
mouth.
|
keesan
|
|
response 27 of 526:
|
Feb 16 00:44 UTC 2006 |
Edina, could you briefly summarize the risks? I think there is sometimes
uncontrolled bleeding. But lots of people can't afford to go to a doctor t
get the prescription.
|
gull
|
|
response 28 of 526:
|
Feb 16 00:47 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:25: Aspirin is probably a bad example. If it weren't already in
wide use, it probably wouldn't even be certified by the FDA, much less
available over the counter. It has a lot of potentially dangerous side
effects that affect high percentages of people who use it.
|
richard
|
|
response 29 of 526:
|
Feb 16 01:13 UTC 2006 |
edina there are risks with ANY drug you take, and as gull points out,
aspirin can be worse for some people than birth control pills. This
idea that only safe drugs are sold over the counter is a myth. You can
ask all those kids now who buy sudafed to get high off of it.
|
lowclass
|
|
response 30 of 526:
|
Feb 16 01:44 UTC 2006 |
And if your medciation benefits LOCK you into using a single pharmacy, and
or pharmacy change? It's NOT only who carries it, it's how much it costs.
|
eprom
|
|
response 31 of 526:
|
Feb 16 02:12 UTC 2006 |
maybe CVS should be forced to carry ammunition.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 32 of 526:
|
Feb 16 03:45 UTC 2006 |
> The point isn't that these women had no alternatives- but that there are
> women out there that don't.
No ma'am. You are arguing the social problem, not the lawsuit. IMHO,
lawsuits against other private entities should be for civil torts only.
I think they should have sued the government agency responsible for
ensuring that Wal-Mart was complying with the law. But they didn't, and
what they did do indicates that this is nothing but a PR-stunt.
The article I posted says that Wal-Mart was in the process of working
with two government agencies in order to ensure their compliance with
the law. Something, I can only assume what, prompted the anti-abortion
groups to "fast track" some grounds for filing a lawsuit against the
company. Maybe everyone they could find who had been denied meds by
Wal-Mart were unwilling to sue because Wal-Mart accomodated them very
well even though they didn't carry the drugs. This is not unprecedented,
and I can give examples where Wal-Mart accomodated me very well when
they didn't carry products I needed.
I posted earlier that if the government requires pharmacies to carry
other medications, then I don't necessarily have a problem with the law.
After some research, I have found that the law in question requires
pharmacies to carry "commonly prescribed medicines". Now, how would you
define "commonly prescribed medicines"?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 33 of 526:
|
Feb 16 06:39 UTC 2006 |
Any medicine that is legally prescribed. If the pharmacy doesn't have it,
they should order it in. I recall that I've had prescriptions filled for
drugs that the pharmacy did not have in stock. They got it.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 34 of 526:
|
Feb 16 09:12 UTC 2006 |
...the next morning?
|
klg
|
|
response 35 of 526:
|
Feb 16 11:48 UTC 2006 |
It's a good thing that Curl doesn't have to live by the rules he
proposes.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 36 of 526:
|
Feb 16 12:58 UTC 2006 |
Rane, why would the law say "commonly prescribed medicines", if they
meant all medicine legally prescribed? Could it mean medicine that
simply isn't "rarely prescribed"?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 37 of 526:
|
Feb 16 13:49 UTC 2006 |
Commonly prescribed could be medications that are most routinely
prescribed for certain conditions. For allergies commonly prescribed
could include Allegra and Zyrtec. For Migraines- Zomig, or one or two
others whose names I'm not recalling. The steroid Prednisone is
prescribed for several things- so that one could be considerd a commonly
prescribed medication.
Uncommon may perhaps be newer ones- like Axert for migraines (as of a
few years ago). I was prescirbed Axert, but it was not a common
medications so the pharmacy I went to had to special order it for me.
The problem with blankly applying that to EC is that there is a time
limit and the faster it's taken the greater the chances of
effectiveness. Not having it on hand and having to order it could close
that window for a woman.
Not to mention the slight difference between not having something on
hand and refusing to carry it.
resp:22 "and they aren't dangerous drugs." Richard- there I have to
disagree with you. EC taken too often can have some very negative
results. There are stupid people out there who WOULD take it as a form
of regular birth control. Leading to a woman having additional bleeding
(not a true period but the same bloody result) and there have been
studies that show that damage to the uterus is possible. The potential
for abuse is higher than with aspirin, and the cellular damage of
repeated use of EC could lead to uterine cancer. Keeping in mind that I
say this as a supporter of EC and someone who thinks that it should be
available via prescription.
Heck there are some people that say that the Pill is not good because it
causes a woman to have a period every 28 days and for some women that's
just not natural. Additionally woman in ages past had far fewer periods-
and perhaps having only a few periods a year is healthier for women.
Hence the BCP Seasonale wherein a woman only has 4 periods a year. Now,
I'm not sure I agree with this- however there is a debate going on in
the medical community.
|
jep
|
|
response 38 of 526:
|
Feb 16 13:54 UTC 2006 |
I wonder if Walmart pharmacists are now going to be required by the
state of Massachusetts to dispense morning-after pills, even if they
have ethical reasons not to do so? As I found out for the last Agora,
when the topic was Target pharmacies and the morning-after pill, the
APhA explicitly expects pharmacists to make individual ethical
decisions on this topic. I wonder if the Massachusetts Board of
Registration in Pharmacy (which itself is most likely made up of
pharmacists) is overruling this component of the APhA?
If so, I wonder what other medical decisions and procedures, and
ethical issues, are being mandated by the State of Massachusetts?
If a state can mandate that abortion pills must mandatorily be
distributed by doctors (including pharmacists), I wonder if it can also
mandate that doctors must perform surgical abortions.
I disagree with the decision of the Massachusetts Board of Registration
in Pharmacy because of my position against abortion. I hope their
decision is overturned, or if it isn't, that it doesn't go further than
that.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 39 of 526:
|
Feb 16 13:55 UTC 2006 |
EC is NOT an abortion pill.
|
jep
|
|
response 40 of 526:
|
Feb 16 13:56 UTC 2006 |
That is your opinion, Anne, but it is not shared by everyone.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 41 of 526:
|
Feb 16 14:13 UTC 2006 |
If EC is not an abortion pill, why are pro-abortion groups suing
Wal-Mart in order to get them to carry it?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 42 of 526:
|
Feb 16 14:23 UTC 2006 |
EC is a drug designed to 1- prevent a woman from ovulation, as a
secondary it 2- thins the uterine lining so that a fertilized egg will
not implant. And this isn't just my opinion.
from: http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html
"Does Use of Emergency Contraception Cause an Abortion?
No, use of emergency contraception does not cause an abortion. In fact,
emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and thereby reduces the need
for induced abortion. Medical authorities such as the United States Food
and Drug Administration/National Institutes of Health and the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists define the beginning of
pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a
woman's uterus. Implantation begins five to seven days after
fertilization (and is completed several days later). Emergency
contraceptives work before implantation and not after a woman is already
pregnant. Depending on the time during the menstrual cycle that they are
taken, ECPs may inhibit or delay ovulation, inhibit tubal transport of
the egg or sperm, interfere with fertilization, or alter the endometrium
(the lining of the uterus), thereby inhibiting implantation of a
fertilized egg. The copper in copper-T IUDs can prevent sperm from
fertilizing an egg and can also alter the endometrium, thereby
inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg. When a woman is already
pregnant, emergency contraception does not work. Emergency contraception
is also harmless to the fetus and the mother. "
|
jadecat
|
|
response 43 of 526:
|
Feb 16 14:24 UTC 2006 |
And actually, I was wrong in the first part- from the same website:
"Depending on the time during the menstrual cycle that they are taken,
ECPs may inhibit or delay ovulation, inhibit tubal transport of the egg
or sperm, interfere with fertilization, or alter the endometrium (the
lining of the uterus), thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg."
|