Birthcontrol, women and drug stores

Post Reply New Topic

I didnt know I had a point.

ilikedragons wrote:
I didnt know I had a point.




Shhh!! You don't! And don't you dare mention this around my husband. He's been trying to break free from this matriarchial society, quit his job and stay home for years!! Any plots to form a male-resistance and undermine the female position in the home will be quickly discovered and eradicated!!

I really like how we have been discussing this topic and everyone is being so civil. I've seen topics like this turn ugly, but not here!

My dad was a stay at home dad while my mom worked outside the family. This is in the late 60s. It was really rare at the time. The thing is, Dad watched the children but never did the housework or shopping. So he was only sorta a Mr. Mom. Then when Mom got home from work, he'd relax while she made dinner, helped us with homework, did the cleaning and the laundry and the shopping.

BeeBee

Yes, that is exactly what would happen in my situation if my husband stayed at home. No thank you. It's either 50/50 or 50/50. (plus, why should he get to stay home after the children are older and all in school? I had to do it when I was giving birth, nursing and changing diapers!)

My midwife and her husband lived low when their children were small; he worked nights and she worked days. That way, one of them was with the children at all times. Now, that's a neat plan.

I didnt mean that women cant be "liberated" and still have kids, because you can be. There is NOTHING wrong with having children.... IF YOU WANT THEM. Some women dont. (I accually do, but thats a different ballgame) No one said that "the Pill" was perfect either, because it isnt. No method (except abstinace) is 100%. But there are other reasons that the "pill" is perscribed, one being to make one's cycle more regular and less pain ful etc. and nothing is with out risks.

no one here said that women are any less of a woman if they choose to have children. there is NOTHING in the world wrong with motherhood.

The major point I was making was that it is a major step backwards for the same druggist to tell me "no" to birth control and "Yes" to the man behind me for Viagra. The same goes for insurance companies. Women should have the right to choose, not their druggist choosing for them on matters of birth control, ESPECALLY when its perscribed to help with some other issue.

I will say this also however off topic it may be: There ARE places and jobs in this society that DO keep women from achieving all that they want to achieve.

I think it's rather hypocritical for the conservatives to expect their own women to not have any choice about birth control yet put down poor women for not "controlling" the number of children they reproduce. When women are on welfare and not working, they're derided as too lazy to get a job and mooching off the system. But these same men, who are usually middle-upper class and have good jobs with medical benefits, believe it's the woman's job to stay at home and raise children.

If single women on assistance are finally able to stay at home with their children instead of sticking them in daycares these conservatives believe aren't "good enough" for their children, why are they making such a fuss? What, because they thing "certain" women shouldn't reproduce and they don't want more of "those people" to be born?

Hypothetical question: What if that same pharmacist decided that dispensing pain medication to anyone was against his conscience because of the chance someone would become addicted to it or use it to commit suicide? Or what if he decided prescribing antibiotics was against his conscience because bacteria have a right to life too? How long do you think he would be allowed to keep his license if he refused to prescribe these drugs? In my opinion, any pharmacist who has a moral objection to dispensing any legal medication prescribed by a doctor to any patient and then refuses to dispense the drug because of this moral objection should no longer be allowed to be a pharmacist.

I have endometriosis and birth control pills did not obliterate my fertility, they were responsible for preserving it while I survived in an abusive marriage that I would have been insane to bear a child in, especially given the fact that my husband did not want me to have a child and most likely would have abused the child as well as myself. I could not have borne that, I would have had to kill him if he had hurt my baby the way he had hurt me and I did not want to become a murderer. It was very difficult for me to leave this marriage because of my religious upbringing, but my decision to use birth control until I finally did was a no-brainer for me. At that time I lived in a state that did not require health insurance companies to pay for birth control pills, so I paid the entire cost out of pocket. Thank goodness he did not want a baby and was quite happy for me to take the pill.

No birth control pills are not perfect, but for most women the combination pills, if they are taken at the same time of day consistently every day, are 99% effective. The only thing more effective than hormonal contraception is surgical sterilization. Also if both a hormonal and barrier contraceptive (like a diaphragm with spermicide) are both consistently used, together they are nearly 100% effective. I used a diaphragm as a back-up for the rest of the cycle if I forgot to take a pill at 9PM and took it the next morning. I don't understand people who think women do not have a right to decide when or if they bear children, even if most women's bodies are designed to do it. Of course not all women are baby-making machines and even the ones who are should be allowed to decide for themselves.

nirrti-rachelle wrote:
Hypothetical question: What if that same pharmacist decided that dispensing pain medication to anyone was against his conscience because of the chance someone would become addicted to it or use it to commit suicide? Or what if he decided prescribing antibiotics was against his conscience because bacteria have a right to life too? How long do you think he would be allowed to keep his license if he refused to prescribe these drugs? In my opinion, any pharmacist who has a moral objection to dispensing any legal medication prescribed by a doctor to any patient and then refuses to dispense the drug because of this moral objection should no longer be allowed to be a pharmacist.





It is this same reasoning that would put many teachers and doctors out of business if they had no choice on the basis of ethical disagreement.

That's really taking it to an extreme. That's either a 'slippery slope' or 'straw man' argument in speech and debate. You can't go to the utmost extremes and try to view an argument or make a proposal from there; we have to stick to the issues at hand. Otherwise, why do they have a "board of ethics" or even an "ethics statement" and why do they teach an ethics class in med. school if you should just dispense whatever is considered "safe" and "legal"? Some doctors won't prescribe certain meds long before they're exposed on "Dateline" or "Twenty-twenty" to be ineffective or unsafe. In which case you are free to get a second opinion or find a different doctor. Should they have their liscense to practice medicine revoked? We are entering a phase in medicine where the patient tells the doctor what to do instead of the doctor advising the patient. When there are standard moral and ethical concerns involved, there should be allowances made. There are plenty of pharmacists and doctors to fill in the gap. To force someone to do something against their conscience is not something I would want to do.
I understand being inconvenienced but I don't think it's anything to sharpen your claws about.
I can relate to your need for the pill, that's fine. And I don't think you should get pregnant if you don't desire to. No argument there. But the pill in question is considered by some to be an aborifacient and that goes against the grain of some pharmacists beliefs; and not necessarily "religious" beliefs but ethical code of conduct. Also, if there is evidence that the medication in question may be harmful to the person, that also presents a problem. Many meds are put on the market with FDA approval that are known to cause heart problems, liver and kidney problems, or even death; only to be taken off the market later after enough people have suffered. There are many issues involved with this. It's not just about women being inconvenienced or having an issue because they don't want a pregnancy at this time for various reasons.

You were a little confused there, Bland. You should have been quoting me and not nirrti-rachelle. She did not say that, I did. I fixed it in my quote above.

If I am guilty of making a 'straw man' argument, then you made a 'straw man' argument first because you brought up marijuana and suicide drugs, which are not the drugs that this topic is about, just as antibiotics and pain medication are not.

The question still stands that if pharmacists are allowed to decide which legal drugs they will dispense on the basis of a moral objection, what happens if there is one with a moral objection to dispensing pain medication or antibiotics? You seem to think it is just a matter of the pharmacist's moral convictions versus the woman's inconvenience in not having her doctor's prescription filled. You seem to think that if one pharmacist refuses to fill her prescription for oral contraceptives, that there is another one just around the corner to fill it. That is not always the case, especially in small towns, so I do think it is an issue worth "sharpening my claws about".

I do not think pharmacists should be granted the luxury of picking and choosing which prescriptions written by a doctor for drugs that are legal in this country that they will fill. Filling doctor's prescriptions for patients is the pharmacist's job and if they don't want to do their job, they should not be pharmacists. The last time I checked, birth control pills have been legal in this country for 40 years. Pharmacists are not doctors and by refusing to fill doctor's prescriptions for drugs that are legal in this country, based on a moral objection, they are in effect practicing medicine without a license.

The "morning after" pill is not an abortifacient, it does not disrupt a pregnancy that has already implanted in the uterine wall. That is why it has to be taken so quickly to be effective, preferably the "morning after" but at least within 72 hours of the unprotected sexual intercourse or rape. As for side effects, the side effects are very similar to the side effects of other oral contraceptives but a little more nausea and vomiting. The "morning after" pill is the equivalent of four Ovral birth control pills, two Ovral pills taken at once and then two Ovral pills taken twelve hours later. I believe that some doctors have prescribed eight Lo-Ovral pills in cases where the pharmacy does not carry Ovral, four Lo-Ovral pills taken at once and then four Lo-Ovral pills taken twelve hours later.

The law that is being debated in Congress would allow pharmacists who have a moral objection to filling a doctor's prescription for a legal drug to refuse to fill the prescription only if another pharmacist at the same pharmacy is available to fill the prescription without delay.

Way to go, Aspen!

Bland, I'm somewhat taken aback by the term "Women are made to have babies". Because I'm an aspie and take things literally, I take that to mean that you believe that the reason we exist is to bear children. Wow. There are certainly religions where that is a belief, but fortunately I am not a member of any. Also, it is not a fact, it is a belief.

I believe that it is every woman's right to decide if she wants to have children, either by procreation or adoption. Even if you believe that "Women are made to have babies", how can you possibly believe that it is not my right to choose to not have children (I have two, btw)?

Ethically, I believe pharmacists should be required to dispense whatever a doctor prescribes, especially if there are no other pharmacists in the area. What if a woman pharmacist was raped and felt unethical about dispensing Viagra? Do you think she should be allowed to not dispense it? I don't. Doctors prescribe medications under their license, having taken the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, and it's not the pharmacist's job to do anything with that prescription except dispense it exactly as the doctor ordered it. To refuse to do the doctor's order is to potentially cause harm to the patient and go against medical advice. I don't think that's legal. If a pharmacist did that to me I'd be at the courthouse the next day, filing suit.

My apologies, nirrti_rachelle.


Aspen wrote:
If I am guilty of making a 'straw man' argument, then you made a 'straw man' argument first because you brought up marijuana and suicide drugs, which are not the drugs that this topic is about, just as antibiotics and pain medication are not.



I believe that marijuana and physician-assisted suicide are on the table for debate at this present time; maybe you weren't aware of that. I have never heard of any doctor or pharmacist that believed that bacteria have a right to live and therefore won't prescribe or fill out prescriptions for anti-biotics; but I have heard of doctors that wouldn't prescribe antibiotics, even to patients who wanted them, because they know that the overuse of these medicines poses risk to the patient and society. And subsequently, those patients found another doctor who would write a scrip for the drugs and they didn't threaten to sue the former doctor or suggest that he shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine. You see, not only is there freedom of choice in America for women, but the same rights apply to doctors and pharmacists. (at least for the time being)

I am surprised, that anyone would be surprised that "women are made to have babies". This should be extremely obvious even to the most unobservant person.
What I did not say is that women are ONLY good for having babies, or should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen or any other such nonsense. So why all the fuss?
It seems like if you don't go with the feminist flow, you get a knee-jerk reaction from everyone, ranging from showing thinly-veiled disdain to putting words into your mouth.
And like Forrest Gump, "that's all I have to say about that."