Comments | _alanna: US pharmacists and the morning after pill

_alanna

US pharmacists and the morning after pill

Apr 13, 2005 13:52

I find this article utterly appalling. How dare these pharmacists impose their morals on their customers... especially when those customers have a prescription from their doctors ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

kawolski April 13 2005, 16:31:03 UTC

Morning after pill != Blood Transfusion

The need for a blood transfusion is typically life threatening. The need for a chemical abortion isn't. A better comparison is a Catholic storekeeper refusing to sell condoms or a Mormon storekeeper refusing to sell alcohol or tobacco products.

Not all doctors have to perform abortions nor are they required to give prescriptions of the drug to their patients. There are some that hold the Hippocratic Oath (which was later changed) quite dear to them and their profession. Some old guy pharmacist living in a country town in the Bible Belt that's been doing this as his livelihood for the last 30 years shouldn't have to resign because the FDA approved an abortion pill, and I'm willing to bet those are the types of people that are refusing to dispense the drug, not fresh-out-of-pharmschool young adults. It's not his fault the woman got knocked up in the first place, not his fault that she was too "traumatized" to go anywhere else (That's the phrase Americans typically use to set up an upcoming lawsuit to sue anyone that inconveniences them), and he shouldn't have to lose his license because he won't dispense a drug he feels is immoral or unsafe. If the townspeople don't agree with his decision, let them boycott his store and let him go out of business. Seeing how this happened in rural North Carolina, he probably has pretty strong support in his favor. And the woman can always get a regular abortion afterwards, courtesy of the U.S. Government if she can't afford it.

Personally, I think they should get make the pill over-the-counter and save a lot of mess. If the side effects weren't so horrible, I'd even recommend slipping some into the drinking water in the girls' locker rooms of a few choice high schools... >:P

_alanna April 13 2005, 17:41:02 UTC

Morning after pill = Blood transfusion in so far as both are 'dispensed' by someone, both have been prescribed to individual patients by their doctors, and a third party should have no right to interfere with that because of their own private moral code.

The need for a chemical abortion can sometimes be due to health reasons. The pharmacists in question would have had no idea whether this were the case in these individual instances or not.

Condoms/alcohol/tobacco aren't the same because they're not prescribed on a doctor's advice and they don't have a time limit (i realise this could be argued for condoms:P). If a woman can't get the morning after pill within the 72 hour window, she's screwed (no pun intended). As for 'just getting a regular abortion' afterwards... well, that's a much greater procedure to go through and carries a much higher risk. I think just about everyone woman would tell you that, given the choice, she'd rather take the morning after pill. Plus the embryo is older by that time and so there's the whole 'how late is too late' thing.

As for some old guy pharmacist not liking the new abortion pills... I'm not asking him to take them or give them to his wife - that would be none of my business. Just like it's none of his business if I decide to take them.

kawolski April 13 2005, 19:43:18 UTC

I don't know about England, but in America, you can't get a blood transfusion at the local pharmacy. And if the guy doesn't stock morning-after pills, he doesn't have them! Do you think he has a display of the pills behind his counter to taunt women and tell them "Sorry, you can't have them! Nyah nyah!" And let's say he did sell them, but was sold out at the moment. Then what? Oh, she's screwed! Sue the pharmacy! They didn't have the pills she needed and she didn't want to drive to another store!

Chemical abortion is not a life-threatening necessity and GUESS WHAT? YOU DON'T NEED TO BE PREGNANT TO GET THEM PRESCRIBED TO YOU! If you have a doctor's prescription, Planned Parenthood and many other pharmacies can MAIL it to you! She's the fucktard that wasn't prepared, not the pharmacist with his morals, regardless of how "outdated" they may be. If she was a rape victim, the hospital has these pills available.

But...I guess it's easy to blame the pharmacist.

_alanna April 13 2005, 20:06:56 UTC

You can't get a blood transfusion at the local pharmacy in UK either. But I think you kinda missed the point of the analogy...

UK pharmacists do stock Levonelle. I'm surprised US pharmacists don't.

Chemical abortion can be a medical necessity. As for 'you don't need to be pregnant to get them prescribed'... well, the point is rather that you don't know whether you're pregnant and you'd rather not wait to find out. In the UK, our postal service certainly isn't up to mailling pills within 72 hours!

As for the last part of your post, I just really don't understand where you're coming from. (Btw - please keep your language under control on my LJ).

kawolski April 13 2005, 20:22:22 UTC

The point is that if you're going to have sex, prepare with your birth control options FIRST before you do it. Don't wait until AFTER you get pregnant.

It doesn't get much more simpler than that.

_alanna April 14 2005, 08:22:48 UTC

Levonelle is quite closely controlled in the UK. I don't think you'd be able to get a dose in advance 'just in case you need it'. Maybe it's different in the US.

And what if you're using birth control but the condom splits? Well... then you need the morning after pill after the event... which makes your point rather pointless.

It doesn't get much more simpler than that.

No, actually. It's far more complicated than that.

lathany April 14 2005, 09:44:22 UTC

Agreed.

kawolski April 14 2005, 16:00:36 UTC

The story is about pharmacists in the US, not the UK. In the UK, you can buy Levonelle over the counter. I guess that makes YOUR point rather pointless.

Everyone knows condoms aren't 100% effective. "What if the condom breaks?" should be a question a woman asks herself BEFORE she has sex, not after it happens.

_alanna April 14 2005, 16:06:28 UTC

Err.... this whole things started because I said that the woman was completely within her rights to get Levonelle from the pharmacist the morning after. In your first paragraph there, you seem to be agreeing.

And "What if the condom breaks" should be a question that both parties ask before they have sex. A resulting pregnancy is not solely the woman's responsibility. If you believe it is, you're gonna get a shock when you get billed for child maintenance.

kawolski April 14 2005, 16:18:38 UTC

I also say it's within the rights of the pharmacist not to stock and sell Levonelle in his store. If you read the link I posted, it says that it's not available in all stores because some UK pharmacists have moral objections to the drug as well. It's not just a US thing.

_alanna April 14 2005, 17:38:13 UTC

Which is why I'm commenting on it :P

And we're back to my original argument. I wouldn't dream of telling the pharmacist that she must or must not take the drug herself - that's her own personal choice to make (possibly in consultation with the doctor). Likewise, she has no right to comment on or impact on my own moral decisions.

Btw - this topic is about to fall off the end of my friend's page, so I may not notice if you add more comments...

Back to all threads