|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 526 responses total. |
klg
|
|
response 109 of 526:
| 
Feb 17 20:15 UTC 2006 |
Curl may be correct. However, those pharmacists who were already
licensed weren't re-degreed.
|
richard
|
|
response 110 of 526:
|
Feb 17 22:14 UTC 2006 |
we'll just keep having more and more people going to mexico buy drugs otc and
cheaper there
|
keesan
|
|
response 111 of 526:
|
Feb 17 22:37 UTC 2006 |
If someone has to come up with the money for a gynecological exam before being
allowed to spend $5 on birth control pills, they are more likely to not get
them. We don't need OTC pills as much as free exams and prescriptions.
|
tod
|
|
response 112 of 526:
|
Feb 17 22:38 UTC 2006 |
Casualties of christian capitalism...
|
happyboy
|
|
response 113 of 526:
|
Feb 18 01:40 UTC 2006 |
"jesus tolt me that he don't want me tew sell yew no
pussypills."
james "handmaid's tale" dobson
|
tod
|
|
response 114 of 526:
|
Feb 18 05:31 UTC 2006 |
Judge Andrew Napolitano was subbing for Bill O'Reilly today on Fox radio.
He tore the whole Gitmo thing to shreds. It ruled.
O'Reilly prolly pissed himself.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 115 of 526:
|
Feb 18 07:32 UTC 2006 |
Re #109: quite correct, although getting re-degreed online was suggested at
the website I cited.
|
gull
|
|
response 116 of 526:
|
Feb 23 03:28 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:94: I think that people should choose occupations that don't
raise conflicts with their personal beliefs. If I didn't believe in
gambling I wouldn't expect the government to step in and force people to
accept me as a casino employee. Why should the government force people
to accept pharmacists who don't want to dispense medication?
|
tod
|
|
response 117 of 526:
|
Feb 23 06:56 UTC 2006 |
Amish greeter at Best Buy
|
jep
|
|
response 118 of 526:
|
Feb 23 13:48 UTC 2006 |
re resp:116: The government is forcing people to accept pharmacists?
Is this "forcible acceptance" another phrase for "allowing them to have
a license"?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 119 of 526:
|
Feb 23 20:47 UTC 2006 |
Pharmacists should be expected to provide any drug that has been cleared
by the FDA for sale with a legal prescription. Their only concern should
be possible drug interactions, as already determined, in which case they
should only ask for a second opinion from a doctor. Pharamacits are not
licensed to be keepers of personal moralities. They can do that on their
own time.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 120 of 526:
|
Feb 23 21:09 UTC 2006 |
IMHO, Pharmacists should apply their morality objectively. If they
suspect a person is abusing a drug (a la Rush Limbaugh), they should be
allowed to deny filling the script.
|
slynne
|
|
response 121 of 526:
|
Feb 23 21:39 UTC 2006 |
I think that we should look at the problem that we are actually trying
to solve and then think about the consequences of any actions. I do not
think it is a good idea to require every pharmacy in the world to stock
every drug that has been approved for sale by the FDA. There are a lot
of expensive drugs out there and some of those have very little demand.
Requiring such could discourage pharmacies from opening meaning fewer
of them. Also the costs of stocking all those drugs would be passed on
to consumers. Not really what was intended.
A better law would require pharmacies to stock particular drugs such as
Plan B or oral contraceptives or whatever else people think isnt
available because of moral objections of pharmacists.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 122 of 526:
|
Feb 23 23:32 UTC 2006 |
Pharmacies do not have to *stock* any drugs. They can just be a window through
which you order prescriptions and the pharmacy sends out for them. They no
longer do any in-house formulation of medications. Of course, they provide
better service by stocking the "popular" drugs, but they can still order in
any drug for anyone. I would not object to a requirement that they stock
an FDA list of most frequently required medications (let them choose carrying
brands, generics, or both).
|
slynne
|
|
response 123 of 526:
|
Feb 24 03:23 UTC 2006 |
While I dont have an objection to having a requirement that pharmacies
order drugs for customers who come in with a Rx, I dont think that would
be helpful with a drug like Plan B. It is my understanding that it needs
to be taken quickly. But perhaps that particular drug could be one that
a pharmacy is required to keep onhand.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 124 of 526:
|
Feb 24 06:39 UTC 2006 |
Plan B is a special case - in that it has to be determined whether it
requires a prescription or not. If it requires a prescription, then the
delay in getting the prescription when Plan B is needed can far exceed the
time to order it in. If a prescription is not required, as originally
proposed by the review board at FDA, then it is an over-the-counter med on
the shelf with aspirin. In that case, I can imagine that a private drug
store might opt to not carry it, but it would be a popular item to obtain
in advance of need and where it is available would become known.
|
klg
|
|
response 125 of 526:
|
Feb 24 11:52 UTC 2006 |
Why doesn't the government simply nationalize all of the pharmacies in
the US and run them like the post office (or FEMA)?
|
mary
|
|
response 126 of 526:
|
Feb 24 11:56 UTC 2006 |
I'd like to see a dose bundled with every six month supply of
prescription birth control.
|
slynne
|
|
response 127 of 526:
|
Feb 24 15:36 UTC 2006 |
resp:124 If I needed a prescription for a drug like Plan B, I could get
one within an hour. But you do have a point. Not everyone has the same
access to health care that I do. Personally, I think it should be an
OTC medication.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 128 of 526:
|
Feb 24 17:42 UTC 2006 |
re125: that's a good idea. i personally have never had a
problem with the post office!
|
edina
|
|
response 129 of 526:
|
Feb 24 17:44 UTC 2006 |
Re 126 Alas, with many insurances, you can only get BCP monthly or tri-montly
(via mail order, if you have it). Nice sentiment, though.
|
jep
|
|
response 130 of 526:
|
Feb 24 19:01 UTC 2006 |
Convenience stores should also be required to carry and sell guns,
since they too are legal, and like RU486, controversial.
|
tod
|
|
response 131 of 526:
|
Feb 24 19:28 UTC 2006 |
That is a funny comparison. Am I the only one that doesn't feel shame for
eating at Hooters?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 132 of 526:
|
Feb 24 19:42 UTC 2006 |
HOT WINGS
|
tod
|
|
response 133 of 526:
|
Feb 24 20:12 UTC 2006 |
Well, I mean..really, c'mon. Why is it that half the time the prolifer crowd
is also the pro-gun lobby? I get the sense that these are a bunch of white
guys who had a pretty bland and discouraging dating life and now have
manifested this low point of their life into some kind of control freak
crusade against women. The guns are probably making up for not much of a
sexlife by feeding their fantasies of Wild West violence, too.
|