PDA

View Full Version : 'Pro-Life' Drugstores Market Beliefs



mark1
06-16-2008, 11:32 AM
When DMC Pharmacy opens this summer on Route 50 in Chantilly, the shelves will be stocked with allergy remedies, pain relievers, antiseptic ointments and almost everything else sold in any drugstore. But anyone who wants condoms, birth control pills or the Plan B emergency contraceptive will be turned away.

That's because the drugstore, located in a typical shopping plaza featuring a Ruby Tuesday, a Papa John's and a Kmart, will be a "pro-life pharmacy" -- meaning, among other things, that it will eschew all contraceptives.

The pharmacy is one of a small but growing number of drugstores around the country that have become the latest front in a conflict pitting patients' rights against those of health-care workers who assert a "right of conscience" to refuse to provide care or products that they find objectionable.

I have no problem with this. What do you guys think?

The people at DU are not happy with this.

Phillygirl
06-16-2008, 11:34 AM
Link please.

I have no problem with it, as I think private businesses should be able to stock whatever items they want. However, I do not believe all "pro-lifers" eschew all forms of contraception. For example, I thought that opposition to barrier contraception was limited to Catholics...am I incorrect in this thinking?

BSR
06-16-2008, 11:41 AM
I think its a great idea. Private business can do whatever they like.

LogansPapa
06-16-2008, 11:41 AM
I have zero problem with it. Independence is what makes my country great and trying to cater to everyone is just silly. Like religious groups that have their own banks - that reflect their moral standards - I think the idea is outstanding.

:)

LibraryLady
06-16-2008, 11:50 AM
Link please.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/15/AR2008061502180.html?hpid=topnews

The only way I might have a problem is if it was in a very small community and it was the only pharmacy available. Even my tiny town has 3 pharmacies!! 2000 people.

biccat
06-16-2008, 11:55 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/15/AR2008061502180.html?hpid=topnews

The only way I might have a problem is if it was in a very small community and it was the only pharmacy available. Even my tiny town has 3 pharmacies!! 2000 people.
Why? If there is a demand, other pharmacies could move in and compete with the pharmacy denying contraceptives.

LibraryLady
06-16-2008, 11:57 AM
Why? If there is a demand, other pharmacies could move in and compete with the pharmacy denying contraceptives.


I doubt if they would get there in time!
I think it's wonderful if they stand behind their beliefs but as medical providers, is it right that they force others to?



Some critics question how such pharmacies justify carrying drugs, such as Viagra, for male reproductive issues, but not those for women.

"Why do you care about the sexual health of men but not women?" asked Anita L. Nelson, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. "If he gets his Viagra, why can't she get her contraception?"

Goldwater
06-16-2008, 11:59 AM
I doubt if they would get there in time!
I think it's wonderful if they stand behind their beliefs but as medical providers, is it right that they force others to?

People aren't being forced to go into the pharmacy and buy items.

LibraryLady
06-16-2008, 12:04 PM
I think what they are doing is fine. I just feel it would be wrong if they were the only source of pharmaceuticals in the area.

linda22003
06-16-2008, 12:12 PM
I read this in the Post this morning, and I have no problem with it being done this way. I have a problem with pharmacists who are employees in chains like Rite Aid or CVS decing on their own what prescriptions they feel they can "morally" fill, but if they want to open their own pharmacies, it's their call what to stock.

The only issue I would have is if they retained a prescription they disagreed with, and did not return it to the customer so she could go elsewhere; apparently this has happened in a few places. I would sue any pharmacist who did not return to me a prescription he was not going to fill. In return, he would probably sue me for all the reconstructive dental work he would be needing after that encounter.

wilbur
06-16-2008, 12:24 PM
Link please.

I have no problem with it, as I think private businesses should be able to stock whatever items they want. However, I do not believe all "pro-lifers" eschew all forms of contraception. For example, I thought that opposition to barrier contraception was limited to Catholics...am I incorrect in this thinking?

The only form of "contraception" that is technically allowed in the catholic church (and I'm sure many other Christian denominations) is the rhythm method. And we all know how well that works.

So yea, thats a Catholic thing.

Phillygirl
06-16-2008, 01:08 PM
The only form of "contraception" that is technically allowed in the catholic church (and I'm sure many other Christian denominations) is the rhythm method. And we all know how well that works.

So yea, thats a Catholic thing.

Actually, natural family planning works quite well if done properly. Same with other forms of contraception. I am personally aware of 3 births in the last 3 years that were conceived while on birth control pills. There is always a chance for failure, especially if you don't follow instructions well.

I was wondering about the other Christian denominations. I know the Catholic stance on contraception, I don't know the Protestant stance on it.

linda22003
06-16-2008, 01:11 PM
I was wondering about the other Christian denominations. I know the Catholic stance on contraception, I don't know the Protestant stance on it.

Mainstream Protestant denominations are okay with contraception.

Phillygirl
06-16-2008, 01:13 PM
Mainstream Protestant denominations are okay with contraception.

That's what I thought (with the exception perhaps of IUD's and Plan B or the morning after pill).

Cold Warrior
06-16-2008, 01:15 PM
Mainstream Protestant denominations are okay with contraception.

Emphasis on mainstream.

linda22003
06-16-2008, 01:17 PM
That's what I thought (with the exception perhaps of IUD's and Plan B or the morning after pill).

Plan B and the "morning after pill" are the same thing, and they are both just higher doses of regular oral contraceptives. That's why I've shaken my head over the whole idea that the morning after pill is something "new" - thirty years ago, my doctor told me that if I didn't finish a pill pack for some reason I should keep it, and if I had unprotected sex for some reason I should take three pills in the saved pack.

Again, in the Protestant "mainstream" - Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, at least - there is no prohibition on any of these methods.

linda22003
06-16-2008, 01:19 PM
Emphasis on mainstream.

Right. Those are the only ones with whom I have had (or would wish to have) experience. I don't know what the Church of the Holy Snake Handlers prescribes or proscribes.

Cold Warrior
06-16-2008, 01:20 PM
Right. Those are the only ones with whom I have had (or would wish to have) experience. I don't know what the Church of the Holy Snake Handlers prescribes or proscribes.

Watch cable tv on a Sunday morning and be afraid, be very afraid! :D

noonwitch
06-16-2008, 01:21 PM
I don't really have a problem with it, because the business has the right to decide what they are going to stock and what they aren't going to stock. Most gas stations and grocery stores sell condoms, anyways, so it's not like drug stores are the only option for that product.

Getting the pill isn't a problem unless there is no competition around.

I'm one of those pro-choice people who doesn't think that Plan B should be sold without a prescription-I think that doing so is completely ignoring the risks associated with that drug. I remember girls in college who were prescribed it, after having unprotected sex. They were sick in bed for a couple of days after taking it, and they were examined by a doctor first. There are so many complications possible from introducing a chemical like that into your system. DUers don't get that, for the most part.

Gingersnap
06-16-2008, 01:58 PM
I think it's wonderful if they stand behind their beliefs but as medical providers, is it right that they force others to?

Well, that opens up the question of obligation. Why would a private business be responsible for your choices or conditions? The business doesn't have any obligation to assist you. If you want more choice, you may need to move or use an Internet connection to order what you want.

It would be like an organic, vegetarian restaurant being forced to keep some hamburger patties in the freezer if they were the only restaurant in town.

Vepr
06-16-2008, 02:19 PM
I don't see a problem with it as long as it is a privately run business.

Doc Savage
06-16-2008, 02:34 PM
I read this in the Post this morning, and I have no problem with it being done this way. I have a problem with pharmacists who are employees in chains like Rite Aid or CVS decing on their own what prescriptions they feel they can "morally" fill, but if they want to open their own pharmacies, it's their call what to stock.

The only issue I would have is if they retained a prescription they disagreed with, and did not return it to the customer so she could go elsewhere; apparently this has happened in a few places. I would sue any pharmacist who did not return to me a prescription he was not going to fill. In return, he would probably sue me for all the reconstructive dental work he would be needing after that encounter.

When a pharmacy buys another pharmacy, they purchase the scripts too. A patient could have a problem if the pharmacy mentioned would not fill a Rx that she or he had been getting before at the previous store. There are people that do not get out or are very limited in thier tranportation that rely on a neighborhood pharmacy for thier drugs. I do not think that women taking BCP or trying to get a morning after Rx filled would fall into that catigory but still. THen, if the pharmacist can refuse to fill it, can they refuse to transfer it to another store (by law, a filled perscription has to remain in the orginal pharmacy, a pharmacist can transfer the remaining refills to another store, but they have to hold on to the original order).

linda22003
06-16-2008, 02:43 PM
In that case, I suppose you'd have to get a new prescription from your doctor and take it to a new pharmacy.

This might become onerous over time, but the article said there are seven pharmacies like this nationwide, so it will take awhile.

Kimberly
06-16-2008, 03:06 PM
I don't have a problem with this. The only consideration I would like to see is that their policy is plainly stated at the door so no one would have to have their prescription refused at the counter. That would avoid a potentially embarassing situation and show they are concerned for people rather then just making a public display of their beliefs.

Phillygirl
06-16-2008, 05:39 PM
Plan B and the "morning after pill" are the same thing, and they are both just higher doses of regular oral contraceptives. That's why I've shaken my head over the whole idea that the morning after pill is something "new" - thirty years ago, my doctor told me that if I didn't finish a pill pack for some reason I should keep it, and if I had unprotected sex for some reason I should take three pills in the saved pack.

Again, in the Protestant "mainstream" - Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, at least - there is no prohibition on any of these methods.

I need to re-up my education on these things. I had always thought the morning after pill was the same as Plan B, but then thought I had read that there was a difference. But I defer to you on that. It's not something I'm fully cognizant of.

Thanks for the clarification on the mainstream Protestant churches. At least I got that part right. :)

linda22003
06-17-2008, 08:09 AM
"Plan B" is a brand name for one version of the morning after pill. Since the knowledge of tripling up on pills has been around for so long, I have to wonder why it's only in the last few years that you hear about pharmacists having moral qualms about filling prescriptions. They've known for a long time how it works; why didn't they have a problem with contraception (and potential abortifacients) until now?

Cold Warrior
06-17-2008, 08:22 AM
Certainly it's well within the purview of a private retail business to chose which items they wish to vend and which they don't. While I can understand (though not agree with) moral objections to morning after pills and their like, I'm at a loss to understand what moral objections one can have to condoms. However, as someone pointed out, condoms are widely available through sources other than pharmacies so the effect of this will (obviously) be nil, other than to potentially embarass a few teenage boys. I does seem a bit whacky-whacky though and makes one glad one doesn't know the owner personally.

linda22003
06-17-2008, 08:25 AM
I'm at a loss to understand what moral objections one can have to condoms.

Think in terms of H.L. Mencken's line about people of certain denominations being wracked by "the suspicion that someone, somewhere, migjht be having a good time".

noonwitch
06-17-2008, 08:31 AM
"Plan B" is a brand name for one version of the morning after pill. Since the knowledge of tripling up on pills has been around for so long, I have to wonder why it's only in the last few years that you hear about pharmacists having moral qualms about filling prescriptions. They've known for a long time how it works; why didn't they have a problem with contraception (and potential abortifacients) until now?


My guess is because it is now being sold over the counter, and the publicity in making it available in that way has brought something to pharmacists' attention that perhaps they weren't aware of before. Until recently, a woman had to get a doctor to prescribe it, which meant a physical exam. To get regular birth control pills, a woman needs a prescription.
I have so many problems with it being available OTC that have nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with women's health and well-being. It is a chemical that could cause serious complications for some women. In addition, having it available OTC will encourage rape victims whose reaction is shame and a desire to keep it secret to do so, and not seek medical attention and not notify law enforcement.

linda22003
06-17-2008, 08:37 AM
I can understand your concerns, Noonwitch, but if women were told (and I could not have been the only one) that it was a good idea to keep an extra supply of pills on hand for self-medication to prevent accidents, it was unlikely to be very dangerous. And certainly it was less risky than an unwanted pregnancy.

I know when it went OTC there were concerns that kids would use it as their only form of contraception; I tjhink the $30-$40 price tag per dose pretty much precludes that.

linda22003
06-17-2008, 08:39 AM
PS: I cannot TELL you how happy I am that this whole issue is a thing of the past for me.

Phillygirl
06-17-2008, 08:40 AM
PS: I cannot TELL you how happy I am that this whole issue is a thing of the past for me.

:D Now that's funny!

linda22003
06-17-2008, 08:43 AM
Well, only the truth is funny. There was never a time in my life when a pregnancy would have been welcome news, and thanks to a skilled surgeon's attentions five years ago, the Point is Moot.

Phillygirl
06-17-2008, 08:50 AM
Well, only the truth is funny. There was never a time in my life when a pregnancy would have been welcome news, and thanks to a skilled surgeon's attentions five years ago, the Point is Moot.

Sorry...I thought you were talking about "the change".

linda22003
06-17-2008, 08:54 AM
I suppose I'm there by now, it's hard to tell, but there was Medical Intervention. Of course, I was 47 then, so pregnancy would have been unlikely in any case. A little before that, my husband was with me at a doctor's appointment where I was put on a new medication. The dr. wouldn't prescribe it if there were any chance I could be pregnant, so she ordered a pregnancy text even though it was highly unlikely.

It was amusing, though, to go out to the waiting room to give my husband THAT news. He just opened his eyes in alarm and said, "I don't know where you go for that, but I certainly hope it's right near cardiology."

Cold Warrior
06-17-2008, 11:14 AM
Think in terms of H.L. Mencken's line about people of certain denominations being wracked by "the suspicion that someone, somewhere, migjht be having a good time".

Yes, it's amazing how concerns regarding others "having a good time" cross ideological boundaries. Conservatives worry about it because people may be sinning while liberals worry about many of the same issues because people might be harming themselves or "the common good."

One suspects that both groups are worried because others are doing things they would like to do but are afraid of doing.

linda22003
06-17-2008, 11:14 AM
Yes, it's amazing how concerns regarding others "having a good time" cross ideological boundaries. Conservatives worry about it because people may be sinning while liberals worry about many of the same issues because people might be harming themselves or "the common good."

It's pretty damn annoying and unattractive, either way. :cool: