[Vision2020] Pharmacies and the morning after pill

[g. crabtree]

Joan, Now that Mr. Meyer has weighed in on this subject I am going to defer 
to his far greater knowledge and expertise. I will make just one last 
comment and then let the subject go. Regarding your white supremacist 
pharmacist, what he is doing is threatening to the life of a patient. The 
pharmacist from my examples is saving the life of a patient. If you believe 
that its OK for a hospital to refer a patient to another facility, why not 
the ethical apothecary?

Speaking of sexism, I too failed to consider the flipside. From the female 
perspective spectacles may indeed have a certain efficacy. Not having been 
blessed with poor eye sight, I was forced to rely on an old tried and true 
method for birth control. Being butt ugly and mildly obnoxious, at this 
stage in my life I refer to this as "virtuously abstinent."

gc

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joan Opyr" <joanopyr at moscow.com>
To: "Vision2020 Moscow" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 9:33 AM
Subject: [Vision2020] Pharmacies and the morning after pill


>> On Friday, March 10, 2006, at 08:38 PM, g. crabtree wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings Joan Opyr,
>>>
>>> In general I would say that in the case of the sheriff, IF it all went 
>>> down as the victims sister and mother claim, I would think that their 
>>> suit will prevail in court. A sheriff is elected/appointed to serve all 
>>> the folks in his jurisdiction. To use his official capacity to prevent 
>>> potentially life saving treatment to anyone is wrong, period.
>>>
>>> As to the pharmacy, or any other merchant for that matter, I believe 
>>> they have the right to sell whatever merchandise they see fit, for 
>>> whatever reason or no reason at all. Not every hospital elects to have 
>>> the ability to perform an MRI or have a board certified ololaryngologist 
>>> on staff even though either one could be potentially lifesaving. I don't 
>>> think that every person in the world is entitled to every thing in the 
>>> world at every location in the world.
>>>
>>> Having spent my formative years attending a Catholic school, I happen to 
>>> know for a fact that unfortunate eyewear is permitted  by the edicts of 
>>> Vatican II, mainly because it has been found that they are totally 
>>> ineffective in the presence of a sixteen year old horn dog.
>>>
>>> G. Crabtree
>
> Here's the thing though, Gary -- pharmacists are licensed by the state and 
> pharmacies are legally required to stock "all usual and necessary 
> medicines."  They don't have the legal right to refuse a particular 
> medication to any patient if that medication has been legally prescribed. 
> It's not that I don't support the individual's right to refuse to 
> participate in a practice that he or she finds repugnant; there are 
> physicians who will not/do not perform abortions and medical schools where 
> students are not trained in the procedure.  But pharmacies are not 
> governed by the same laws as Pacifist Pawn Shops.  If WalMart (or WalMart 
> pharmacists) feel strongly that they do not want to supply the morning 
> after pill, then perhaps they shouldn't be in the pill-selling business.
>
> No, not every hospital has the capacity to perform an MRI, but they should 
> provide the best care available and make a reasonable effort to ensure 
> that a patient who needs an MRI can get an MRI -- referral?  Life flight? 
> Greyhound bus from Riggins to Moscow?  Pharmacies are not hospitals. 
> Again, it's that stocking "all usual and necessary medicines" requirement. 
> See what I mean?  The problem is that in this specific case, i.e., WalMart 
> pharmacies, the morning after pill is a completely legal medication and 
> pharmacies must/should stock it.  Would we put up with a white supremacist 
> pharmacist who refused to fill prescriptions for sickle cell anemia?  Or 
> Tay-Sachs?  (Yes, I know that these are extreme examples, but this is 
> where I believe the logic you outline leads.  Individual pharmacists 
> making individual judgments about individuals they have no legal right to 
> deprive of legitimately prescribed medication.)
>
> (BTW, yours was an excellent last line.  I have to admit that I was 
> thinking of Catholic School boys in birth control glasses rather than 
> girls.  There -- I've revealed my inherent sexism.  Whoops.)
>
> Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
> www.joanopyr.com
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the 
> communities of the Palouse since 1994.   http://www.fsr.net 
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>