-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Does your girlfriend need her birth-control refilled?? TOO BAD!!!!
- Thread starter teiresias
- Start date
- Status
This has been happening for a while. I mentioned in a post about it a while ago that I hope we never see any Jehovah's Witnesses behind the pharmacy counter 
Edit: As for a sinking ship picture, maybe you should also Photoshop in a periscope poking out from under the water, with a little cross at the top.
Edit: As for a sinking ship picture, maybe you should also Photoshop in a periscope poking out from under the water, with a little cross at the top.
Inf'ncredible... at first I thought they were denying a young girl birth-control... instead I read the article they are denying it to a lady who is f'n 33, AND it looks to be common practice according to other parts of the article.
I'd be kickin somebody ass if I were female, and went to the drug store and the pharmacist told me they couldn't give me birth control because they didn't believe in it.
I'd be like, so that means if *I* get pregnant, *you're* going to pay to raise the child?
I'd be kickin somebody ass if I were female, and went to the drug store and the pharmacist told me they couldn't give me birth control because they didn't believe in it.
I'd be like, so that means if *I* get pregnant, *you're* going to pay to raise the child?
Outdoor Miner
Member
So they prefer teaching abstinence over contraceptives (which has been shown not to work), and are now refusing to fill out birth-control prescriptions.
What's next? A nationwide ban on condoms? A group of militants breaking in while a couple is having intercourse, putting a gun to the male's head to make sure he doesn't pull out?
NUTS.
What's next? A nationwide ban on condoms? A group of militants breaking in while a couple is having intercourse, putting a gun to the male's head to make sure he doesn't pull out?
NUTS.
The Bookerman
Member
Did Buddy Christ live in one of those states?
I don't think this is even about them being anti-abortion, thinking that birth-control itself is abortion. Anyone with half a fucking brain knows that birth-control isn't abortion and takes place before the sperm hits the fucking egg. They just want something sexually-related to bitch about and have a religiously-driven moral agenda against. Basically they'll find any excuse they can to prevent people from having ungodly premarital/non-propagational sex. This isn't about abortion.
How is it legal for them to deny access to medication based on moral grounds? If the doctor prescribed the medication, it's obviously something that's required by the patient. They shouldn't be pharmacists if they disagree with the possibilities of issuing out drugs against their "moral standing". Geez, these aren't narcotics, people. It upsets me that they're allowed to have this kind of control -- morality shouldn't be a prescription. Damn nuts.
Just to clarify, I have no problems if a particular pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription on moral grounds. There are protections like that for nurses as well, where they are not required to be the ones to flip off life-support equipment if they don't want to be involved (my mom's a nurse and has mentioned this, but it might be a state-by-state thing).
However, in the linked story pharmacists refused to give back the prescription, refused to pass it on to another pharmacist working in the store, or refused to pass it on to another pharmacy so it could be filled, which is what is so bad about this. They basically steal the prescription and don't allow the patient to have it filled even if it will no longer involve said pharamacist. This is unethical and should be illegal.
However, in the linked story pharmacists refused to give back the prescription, refused to pass it on to another pharmacist working in the store, or refused to pass it on to another pharmacy so it could be filled, which is what is so bad about this. They basically steal the prescription and don't allow the patient to have it filled even if it will no longer involve said pharamacist. This is unethical and should be illegal.
truesayian
Banned
DarthWoo said:This has been happening for a while. I mentioned in a post about it a while ago that I hope we never see any Jehovah's Witnesses behind the pharmacy counter
What are you talking about... I'm a Jehovah Witness, and there is nothing wrong with birth control..
Kabuki Waq
Member
The Bookerman said:
:lol
jecclr2003
Banned
Talk about forcing your religious beliefs on others. Isnt it against the whole oath of becoming a doctor that you treat anyone regardless of your beliefs?
I hope they end up getting the pants sued off them. Really is it that hard to put a PRESEALED package into a bag and ring it up? Do they try tohand you a pamphlet on their religon instead of your pills?
If anyone decided to do that to my wife, I'd be half tempted to reach across the counter and show them MY wrath of God. Sorry we're actually responsible enough to know how to plan for a child.
I hope they end up getting the pants sued off them. Really is it that hard to put a PRESEALED package into a bag and ring it up? Do they try tohand you a pamphlet on their religon instead of your pills?
If anyone decided to do that to my wife, I'd be half tempted to reach across the counter and show them MY wrath of God. Sorry we're actually responsible enough to know how to plan for a child.
Banjo Tango
Member
It'd be nice if there was a web page with a listing of pharmacies that had refused to fill prescriptions. If this whole "objecting on moral grounds" bullshit gains more traction, people will know where not to go.
Don't pretend to know more about my sister's life than I do. She was 16 at the time, and I knew/know everything about her life. She tells me everything....a little too much. She had just broken up with her boyfriend who sexually abused her and knocked her up, and she had an abortion. She wasn't exactly out looking for sex. She also gained some weight and wasn't exactly.....uhh...hittable.Zaptruder said:
jecclr2003
Banned
Zaptruder, my wife(while she was just my girlfriend) took it to control her cycles. We weren't bning like dogs in heat yet. Her cycles can get pretty bad, thankfully since shes been on the pill i can tolerate her for the week.
Downside is the water weight gain. *shudder*
Downside is the water weight gain. *shudder*
jecclr2003
Banned
Why? Sex is fantasic. Only people who bitch about it are people who can't any.
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
Man, I've grown up (and still am) a moderate-conservative Christian, but this pisses me off. I don't care what your view on birth control is, at least let her get the prescription back so she can get it filled somewhere else. My mom's an RN and she doesn't believe in abortion, but the surgeory center she worked at provides them (among other things). She wouldn't participate in patient recovery of abortion patients if there were other nurses on duty, but if there wasn't anybody else, you better believe she would do her job. If filling a perfectly legal and accepted-in-society perscription is against your religion, you should look for another job.
Oh, and when I get married you better believe my wife's going to be on the pill.
Oh, and when I get married you better believe my wife's going to be on the pill.
BobbyRobby
Member
I am a firm believer in birth control, but seriously, Just go to another pharmacist. Capitalism will settle this problem. No need to get the government involved and making laws telling people what they have to sell.
BobbyRobby said:
Read the damn article please. One of the pharmacists refused to give the prescription back or return it to the woman so she could take it somewhere else.
One has to wonder what happens, under your theory, if people live in secluded towns that only have one pharmacy available.
jecclr2003 said:
Actually, the Hippocratic Oath (the one physicians must take) originally contained (and still does contain) language to the effect of "and I will not provide abortifacients or otherwise aid a woman in performing an abortion" (paraphrasing here); as you can imagine, due to the current political climate, this part is usually stricken from the oath nowadays.
My point is not to debate the morality or propriety of abortion, but rather to point out that it's actually abortion that goes against the fundamental tenets of being a physician according to tradition (which is the exact opposite of what you erroneously stated), and also that so-called "conscience clauses" exist for a reason, and I largely agree with them except in cases of emergency. As Teiresias noted, such protections are in place for nurses and physicians (who do not have to perform abortions or euthanize people if it's against their beliefs) as well.
As Teiresias said, the problem occurs when said doctors/nurses/pharmacists refuse to refer the patient to somebody else for the care that they (the patient) deem appropriate for themselves or those in their care (as in elective cases of abortion or euthanasia). Refusal to refer should be forbidden by law and appropriately punished. The only other sticky issue with all this comes up when-- as is the case in some rural areas-- there aren't many physicians/pharmacists around. If the next doctor is 50 miles away and you want an abortion, well, in this case you'd have to travel. Though this is admittedly a pain in the ass, for an elective procedure of such magnitude, I don't think it's too big an inconvenience to drive for an hour to the next town. The inconvenience must be weighed against the alternative, which would be not allowing physicians to follow the dictates of their consciences. But this particular possibility as described does concern me; in general, however, I agree with exemptions for reasons of belief. People must be provided with options, however, which wasn't done in this case. The offending party must be severely punished, because, in my opinion, it's inexcusable.
EDIT:
This is a troubling issue, as I noted above. For pharmacists, it's a bit trickier, because people generally need medicine more quickly (and need refills/different meds more frequently) than they'd need an abortion, which is a one time thing, in which case the inconvenience would be weighed against the conscience clause. But if you needed to drive those 50+ miles 2-3 times per week for years and years, then that would be weighted as a much greater inconvenience, and would thus largely mitigate or override the conscience clause. In my opinion, of course...
BobbyRobby
Member
teiresias said:
Yeah, I just read that. She has the right to do something about that.
I know the pharmacies around me didn't carry a vaccine I needed. If carrying a certain product is not profitable or they just don't want to, I don't expect them to have to carry it.
Boycott these dumb pharmacies who don't carry birth control. Bitch about it. I just don't think legal action is necessary.
Hitokage said:Loki: It might help not to confuse modern practice with ancient greek medicine.
I'm not at all-- like I said, I wasn't saying that it's necessarily applicable to the present. I was just responding to jecclr's assertion that a physician is supposed to "treat anyone regardless of your personal beliefs" (which is largely true-- physicians treat known murderers/rapists and other criminals in ER's all the time), and to point out that conscience clauses exist for a reason; provided that they do not create undue inconvenience (as in the pharmacy example I noted), I feel that the right of a health care provider to act according to their conscience trumps small inconveniences in non-emergency situations (a physician cannot refuse to perform an abortion if a person comes into the ER or to the doctor's office and they are going to die or suffer severe health consequences if they don't abort immediately).
I agree that the people who abstain from performing some of these morally ambiguous procedures etc. must be legally required to refer the patient to another provider. The example cited in the article is just ridiculous imo.
birht control pills are used to regulate cycles a lot. Some women get them too frequently, or randomly. There's also terrible pain involved for some women, and it helps to regulate all of that.
They're also used in conjunction with acne medicnes, or an an scne medicne on their own. Females who take accutane HAVE to be on birth control, regardless of their age or sexual activity.
They're also used in conjunction with acne medicnes, or an an scne medicne on their own. Females who take accutane HAVE to be on birth control, regardless of their age or sexual activity.
jecclr2003
Banned
Bobby them not carrying it isn't the issue. It's the pharmacist REFUSING to fill it and not giving the prescrition back or to another pharmacist. Because the PHARMACIST doesn't find it morally right. In this case the customer has every right to be pissed off and seek legal action. at the very least, hand it off and have them put the little wheel of pills in the bag. Don't refuse to pass it off or give it back, that's got to be illegal in some way.
To me at least, birth control is quite possibly one of the most responsible things you can do. (Other than abstinance, but that's no fun) It certainly beats filling the abortion clinics or oprhanages due to unfit mothers that can't handle the pressure of taking care of another life.
Loki, thanks for clarification the the Hippocratic Oath, medical knowledge isn't my forte. I just figured it goes against the beliefs of being in the healthcare field to refuse a prescribed treatment. Especially as a pharmacist, as long as it's prescribed you should HAVE to fill it. They're the doctor, not the pharmacist.
To me at least, birth control is quite possibly one of the most responsible things you can do. (Other than abstinance, but that's no fun) It certainly beats filling the abortion clinics or oprhanages due to unfit mothers that can't handle the pressure of taking care of another life.
Loki, thanks for clarification the the Hippocratic Oath, medical knowledge isn't my forte. I just figured it goes against the beliefs of being in the healthcare field to refuse a prescribed treatment. Especially as a pharmacist, as long as it's prescribed you should HAVE to fill it. They're the doctor, not the pharmacist.
Hitokage said:
Because he was attempting to make a moral argument as to the requirements of the profession, as if "to treat anybody regardless of your personal beliefs" was codified somewhere (which it is, in the oath), but that that same logic somehow applies to abortion (which it doesn't, since the original oath explicitly forbade abortion).
Therefore, if one is going to implicitly argue that physicians are "required" to treat anyone regardless of their personal beliefs on the matter (required by whom? Not by law, as evidenced by conscience clauses-- this belief is merely an ethical obligation that most physicians subscribe to), as seen in the Hippocratic Oath (since that is the only place where the ethical obligations of the profession are codified), then you cannot merely take one part of that oath to the exclusion of the other parts which are not as favorable to your position. In other words, I do not feel that the ethical question of abortion turns on the Hippocratic Oath, but rather is something to be determined by each individual.
I was just pointing out that it's a bit hypocritical (pun intended
) to allude to the parts of an oath that suit you and ignore the parts that don't, particularly when US law allows for exemptions due to belief, which is in stark contrast to jecclr's assertion that they "should provide care regardless of their beliefs"-- if that's the case, then why have these laws been on the books? He obviously wasn't arguing from a legal standpoint (since it's legal to refuse certain treatments), but rather from an ethical one; insofar as the Hippocratic Oath is the generally accepted ethical code for the profession (and presumably what he was alluding to when he referred to the "oath of becoming a doctor"), if one is going to invoke it in an argument, one must at least be consistent. I, however, did not invoke it in the argument, because I don't think it should influence whether a physician chooses to perform abortions at all-- that decision is personal and should be kept that way.I was just arguing for consistency. If he's going to argue against conscience clauses regarding abortion (this is key), he's going to have to provide a much more developed argument than "the oath says so", since the same oath basically prohibits abortions. Like I said, I was attacking his basis for making such a statement, not the propriety/morality of abortion itself, which is not germane to this topic.
- Status