|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 526 responses total. |
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.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 134 of 526:
|
Feb 24 20:16 UTC 2006 |
re #130- Who said anything about making pharmacies carry RU486?
|
slynne
|
|
response 135 of 526:
|
Feb 24 20:43 UTC 2006 |
resp:130 No one is talking about making convenience stores stock Plan B
either. We are talking about pharmacies. They are different because
they require a license. Now, there might be a case where licensed fire-
arm dealers should be required to stock some certain kind of
controversial gun but I dont know enough about guns to know if such an
analogy is possible.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 136 of 526:
|
Feb 24 20:46 UTC 2006 |
RU486 isn't Plan B either. Plan B will not cause an abortion if a
fertilized egg has already been implanted. That's why there's a time
limit between the event (unprotected sex) and taking the pill. If it's
taken too late than the girl ends up pregnant.
|
jep
|
|
response 137 of 526:
|
Feb 24 21:01 UTC 2006 |
re resp:134: Isn't RU486 the same as "EC" and whatever other names it's
been called? Morning after pill, etc? If it's not a type of that sort
of thing, then substitute another name. That's what I meant.
re resp:133: I don't own any guns, and never have. I will get a .22
for my son when he turns 12, and take him to the conservation club to
teach him how to use it. My wife is a rabid anti-gun person (and also
anti-abortion if you care). Her son has a gun at his father's house,
but the kids aren't allowed to have or use them when they are with her.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 138 of 526:
|
Feb 24 21:09 UTC 2006 |
Re 135: The parallel would be a licensed firearm dealer being required
to sell handguns because people might need to buy one quickly for self
protection.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 139 of 526:
|
Feb 24 21:19 UTC 2006 |
No, RU486 is not the same as EC.
Emergency Contraception (EC) is anything that can prevent pregnancy after
unprotected vaginal intercourse. The most common form is to take what
amounts to a stronger-than-normal version of birth control pills; one
popular brand name of such a pill is "Plan B" and they are sometimes
generically referred to as a "morning after pill." Taking such a pill
will reduce the risk of pregnancy substantially if taken within 72 hours,
but if you're already pregnant then it won't do anything. It's
essentially the same thing as regular birth control pills but taken
after the fact. This makes it less effective, but I don't see how it's
any more objectionable morally (though some people do have moral
problems with birth control pills.)
RU486 is a completely different drug. It has a variety of uses, one of
which is inducing an abortion in the first couple months of pregnancy.
It does not have a critical 72 hour window or anything like that, and
usually it's something that wouldn't be considered until the woman
discovers she's pregnant. It's sometimes called the "abortion pill."
|
edina
|
|
response 140 of 526:
|
Feb 24 21:34 UTC 2006 |
No, RU486 and EC aren't the same thing. RU486 will cause an abortion.
It basically causes the lining of the uterus to shed, implanted fertilized
egg and all. EC doesn't allow anything to implant whether or not there is
a fertilized egg.
|
tod
|
|
response 141 of 526:
|
Feb 24 21:35 UTC 2006 |
I say that if a pharmacy carries viagra then it should carry EC
|
edina
|
|
response 142 of 526:
|
Feb 24 21:36 UTC 2006 |
Marc slipped....I'm slow today.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 143 of 526:
|
Feb 24 21:53 UTC 2006 |
resp:141 - I agree.
|
jep
|
|
response 144 of 526:
|
Feb 24 21:57 UTC 2006 |
I don't agree with resp:141. Maybe I would for a pharmacy that is
required by law to carry Viagra and other such medications.
Thanks for the clarification on RU486 and Plan B.
|
drew
|
|
response 145 of 526:
|
Feb 24 22:29 UTC 2006 |
Is plan B the RU-Pentium pill?
|
slynne
|
|
response 146 of 526:
|
Feb 26 15:43 UTC 2006 |
I have been thinking a bit about this issue. I have mixed feelings about
it. On the one hand, I dont really believe that people should be forced
to do things that they find morally objectionable. On the other hand, I
believe that if we were to protect people legally who make moral
judgments about dispensing medications or other products, it could lead
to a society that would be difficult to live in. I have been exploring
my feelings on this issue by replacing emergency contraception with
other products.
1. Would it be ok for a woman pharmacist who believes that all men are
bad and that all heterosexual sex is rape to refuse to fill a
prescription for Viagra? Her moral view point, like that of pharmacists
who refuse to fill prescriptions for EC, is very different than mine but
it is just as valid as the belief that women should be punished for
having sex. Would it be ok for a pharmacy to choose not to stock such a
drug?
2. Would it be ok for a pharmacist who believes that drugs like Ritalin
are overprescribed and given to children in lieu of good parenting to
refuse to fill such a prescription?
3. Would it be ok for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense medications
used in the treatment of AIDS?
4. Would it be ok for a bartender to refuse to sell "girly drinks" to
men because of a belief that only homosexuals drink them and a moral
opposition to homosexuals?
5. Would I feel it was ok for a waitress to refuse to serve a fat person
dessert after dinner? What if she felt that glutteny was a sin? Is it
her place to make decisions about what her patrons eat? Would it be ok
for a restaurant to not have desserts on the menu if the owners of the
restaurant believed that desserts are bad?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 147 of 526:
|
Feb 26 16:04 UTC 2006 |
Freedom sometimes means people are free to be assholes Slynne. :(
|
slynne
|
|
response 148 of 526:
|
Feb 26 16:26 UTC 2006 |
Interestingly, I think that if we had a society where everyone had equal
amounts of power, it would work to allow people the freedom to be
assholes. But we dont live in such a society so we need to have
anti-discrimination laws and such. Refusing to sell women birth control
drugs is a form of discrimination against them.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 149 of 526:
|
Feb 26 17:15 UTC 2006 |
1. Probably would be legal, if poor business practice. Besides, the
woman pharmacist should realise that some of the men might be using the
Viagra for homosexual sex or masturbation or whatever.
2-3. Probably would be legal, if poor business practice, which means a
smart owner would fire the pharmacist, which should also be legal.
4. This would be gender discrimination. Assuming that the bar in
question is legally considered a "place of public accomodation" then
this would not be lawful.
5. Obesity can be considered a disability under the ADA, so maybe the
action of refusing to serve dessert to an obese person would constitute
unlawful discrimination.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 150 of 526:
|
Feb 26 19:48 UTC 2006 |
Re #s 146 and 149: I think the key is what are the authorities and
responsibilities of the people making those decisions. Pharmacists are
licensed by the State to dispense medications approved (and governed) by
federal law. They would, in my opinion (and I think it should be in the law)
that they are violating their license by refusing to dispense legal
medications. Are bartenders and waitresses licensed to dispense alcohol and
food? If not, then they do have an option to act on their biases, and in so
doing perhaps lose their jobs, or loss patrons for their establishment. I give
private individuals to do private things, but once they have a legal
responsibility to any government arm they have to follow the terms of that
responsibility - or quit.
|