Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37
  1. #21  
    Vepr
    Guest
    I don't see a problem with it as long as it is a privately run business.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member Doc Savage's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    179
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    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).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,360
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Member Kimberly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northeastern Maryland
    Posts
    74
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    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. :)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,360
    "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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hartford, CT USA
    Posts
    2,024
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
    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".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    noonwitch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by linda22003 View Post
    "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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,360
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •