|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 526 responses total. |
marcvh
|
|
response 98 of 526:
| 
Feb 17 15:51 UTC 2006 |
"Not putting myself in the position to need what that particular
pharmacist refuses to provide"? So I guess that before you hang a
picture, you call the local pharmacy to make sure they don't have any
moral objections to dispensing the pain medications and antibiotics you
could conceivably need if a mishap should occur?
|
edina
|
|
response 99 of 526:
|
Feb 17 16:13 UTC 2006 |
There goes Richard again, putting words in peoples' mouths, trolling.
Well Richard, if you don't feel women should have a gynecological exam before
being prescribed BCP, you MUST be in favor of them getting ovarian/cervical
cancer, being untreated for possible STDs that could possibly affect future
fertility, and being left in the dark about the possibility of being educated
about their own body.
|
jep
|
|
response 100 of 526:
|
Feb 17 17:00 UTC 2006 |
re resp:98: If you'll point out a pharmacy which doesn't fill
prescriptions for such things, let me know about it and I'll address
that issue.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 101 of 526:
|
Feb 17 17:19 UTC 2006 |
So, in other words, you just assume that you can get it. The same way
that a woman who has sex assumes that, if the condom bursts, she will
be able to get emergency contraception. Sounds fine to me.
|
klg
|
|
response 102 of 526:
|
Feb 17 17:19 UTC 2006 |
(A pharmacist does not necessarily need a doctoral degree. In the
recent past, a relative (on my wife's side) who died had been a
pharmacist. He got his training in high school.)
|
edina
|
|
response 103 of 526:
|
Feb 17 17:29 UTC 2006 |
I think the standards have changed a bit.
|
richard
|
|
response 104 of 526:
|
Feb 17 17:30 UTC 2006 |
re #99 I never said women shouldn't have gynecological exams...sheesh
|
edina
|
|
response 105 of 526:
|
Feb 17 17:33 UTC 2006 |
Well I never said that all OTC meds should need a prescription. See? isnt'
it fun to have words put in your mouth?
You have been missing my point - BCP come with those exams - women need those
exams. Making them OTC means crucial diagnostic tests will drop off...it's
not perfect, but it's better than the alternative.
|
mary
|
|
response 106 of 526:
|
Feb 17 18:07 UTC 2006 |
Although there are risks associated with using birth control pills and
patches, I'd still rather see them sold OTC. The population using them
tends to be young and healthy and there are risks associated with unwanted
pregnancy. I'd err on the side of giving women full control of their
reproductive rights by supplyihg them with clear and accurate information
and easy access to birth control medications. I'd start by assuming they
are able to make good decisions regarding their own health.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 107 of 526:
|
Feb 17 19:28 UTC 2006 |
Re #102: the PharmBS has been phased out and replaced by the PharmD
("doctorate").
Re #97: jep writes "A pharmacist is a medical professional with a doctor's
degree."
Don't conclude, however, that a pharmacy "doctor's degree" bears any
equivalence to a medical doctor's degree. You can get a Doctor of Pharmacy
degree online.
http://www.worldwidelearn.com/university-florida/pharmacy-doctorate-degree.
htm
Caveat emptor.
|
tod
|
|
response 108 of 526:
|
Feb 17 19:40 UTC 2006 |
Trust Your Mechanic
or in this case pharmacist
|
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).
|