Now, I refuse to buy anything from Sony, because of the rootkit flap and their general evilness; but I'm sure there are many other deserving targets out there. Who should Hatrack boycott? Help me form a little list of companies that won't be missed!
Sony
Wal-mart
EA
GM
[ March 27, 2006, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
*cough* Plasystation *cough*
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Not the Plasy! Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Games using Starforce. The product has caused some people hardware problems, which the company refuses to acknowledge. Also, the software runs under ring 0 privileges, and there are a few known issues caused by this. Of course, there is also a security risk.
Also, I've had a low opinion of the company since the time one of their employees provided links to torrents for Galactic Civilizations 2. Yeah, it was only one isolated incident, but it really is lacking in ethics and professionalism.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
Microsoft: that way we wont be contributing to His Satanic Majesty's world domination plot.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Wal-Mart is implied, I'm assuming?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Also, I've had a low opinion of the company since the time one of their employees provided links to torrents for Galactic Civilizations 2.
I know we're on Internet time here, but wasn't that only two weeks ago?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Wal-mart. Considering boycotting future EA games... Too many damn bugs! I used the freaking patch and then ages later I GOT THIS STUPID BUG! It took me HOURS to get these folks through college... Then i could not get them to get married or have woo hoo. #@$@#%$#@%
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
GM Automotive
Posted by signal (Member # 6828) on :
Speed channel because they cut most of the real racing including WRC for tractor pulls, nascar and poker.
And ditto on Sony. Anything I've ever gotten that was sony has prematurely broken or ceased to operate without apparent cause.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Taco Bell
At least until they return the Chili Cheese Burrito.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Can somebody tell me about the rootkit flap? I gather Sony's cds put spyware onto your system? Is it true for audio cds on PCs, or just something on game consoles?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Exxon-Mobil
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:Microsoft: that way we wont be contributing to His Satanic Majesty's world domination plot.
Plus, Word sucks.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Word is, quite simply, the best word processor ever.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Word is, quite simply, the best word processor ever.
I wish I could figure out why Word 2003 sometimes will let me place images wherever I want and sometimes won't let me do anything but move them up and down.
That said, I'm satisfied with Word. Mostly.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Word is, quite simply, the best word processor ever.
I wish I could figure out why Word 2003 sometimes will let me place images wherever I want and sometimes won't let me do anything but move them up and down.
That said, I'm satisfied with Word. Mostly.
Right click on the image and type the letter i. Click on the tab for layout, and select either the option where the image floats above the text, or the one where it's below the text. Then you can adjust it any way you like.
I wish that were the default, but I can't seem to find a way to make it so.
EDIT: Changed i to lowercase so it would not look like an L.
[ March 29, 2006, 12:11 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee: the problem is, many people who use word don't need a word processor, they need a page layout program or a text editor
Granted, this isn't exactly word's fault, though its awful attempts to succeed in both areas (particularly the former) may lead many to use it these ways.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
What is the difference between a word processor and a text editor?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Icarus, thanks.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Word is, quite simply, the best word processor ever.
I don't have enough experience to know if that's true or not, but I sure do hate WordPerfect. I'm doing an editing job right now on a book, all 800 pages of which are in ONE WP document. I told the client I'd do the editing on paper only, if they sent me a file already double-spaced so I could print it out and mail the marked-up pages back to them. I once did an edit (using some kind of track changes system) in a WP document from the same client and I was ready to rip my hair out and smash the computer against the wall before I was finished.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Noemon: a text editor is for editing text, not formatting it. People who use word for editing html files (by writing the tags out by hand) should really be using a text editor, for instance.
A good text editor has several crucial features, two of which are the ability to alter the on-screen display of the text without altering any properties of the text itself and syntax highlighting. The former allows one to work with text files in a way that best presents them for personal consumption, without actually changing anything for other people, and the latter allows one to better follow the syntax of structured files.
Additionally, text editors have the significant advantage of being lightweight.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Why is GM considered evil?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Thanks fugu.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Why GM??
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
EA: "Own Everything."
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Regarding the Sony Rootkit, Mark Russinovich (www.sysinternals.com) is the one who discovered it. He's kind of a rootkit guru. His first blog entry (and subsequent ones) is found here:
*gasp* Don't boycott GM stuff! The Big Three are in the greatest danger they've ever faced, they need our support... and if the USA loses our manufacturing capabilities....that's not good long term. And besides, Michigan, where I live, has the highest rate of unemployment in the nation now as a result. While the rest of you are doing just fine we are in a depression. All our factories are shutting down and moving to China/Mexico/Russia...
I'd hate to see us in another major war. "Yay! Let's go to war! Build those tanks! Oh wait... we don't have any factories anymore... doh!" [/end off topic]
Who I do boycott is the "Cracker Barrel" restaurant, because they are openly bigoted and have said they will not employ gay people.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Plus, Word sucks.
Word is, quite simply, the best word processor ever.
I've used both WordPerfect and Word for many years now, and I still hate Word. Hate it hate it hate it.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Nestle Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
I just signed the pledge. Good thing I havn't had a nestle product in months.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
That's interesting, Ela. I'd thought that the Nestle thing had been positively resolved, but I see that I was wrong.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Macs, ACLU, Ask
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I hate them!!!!!!!! I don't want their freakin' CD's , I don't want their phone calls, I don't want their internet and I don't want their programs on my computer!!!!!!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
anyone who sticks junk in my doors. anyone who sends me junk mail. anyone who sends me spam.
I make a special effort to go to stores people are boycotting for reasons I disagree with. Think I'll go to wal*mart or The Gap today... And maybe buy a disney movie.
Pix
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
How does one boycott the ACLU?
Edit--I'm glad you mentioned them though--I had spaced off donating to them, something that I'd intended to do last weekend.
::adds to to-do list for tonight::
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: How does one boycott the ACLU?
Stop caring about individual freedoms? Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Or maybe voluntarily curtail one's own freedoms? Provide authorities with transcripts of one's phone conversations, lists of library books recently checked out, that sort of thing?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Thanks Lyrhawn and Noemon, that brightened my mood. Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Who I do boycott is the "Cracker Barrel" restaurant
gasp! oh no, that would mean no more country fried steak and mashed potatoes smothered in country gravy with a side of dumplings and fried apples. mmmmmm, fried apples. good lord.
thats right up there with boycotting Proctor and Gamble. i know its a good idea and worth doing, them being a pretty evil company (what with the animal testing an all) but they make so much yummy food. i couldn't do it.
how about boycotting Target for allowing their pharmacists to refuse to distribute certain drugs based on moral grounds.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
Target allows that? I wasn't aware any major stores had taken that stance.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Proctor and Gamble makes yummy food? Like what, the Hepatitis Sorbet?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:how about boycotting Target for allowing their pharmacists to refuse to distribute certain drugs based on moral grounds.
I'd be more inclined to do the opposite, but I'm pretty sure that Target hasn't done this.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I like Word, except for the 2003 version, wherein they switched around all the shortcut keys for special characters. Grrr.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: How does one boycott the ACLU?
Stop caring about individual freedoms?
that's like saying the way to boycott christian extremists is to stop believing in Jesus...
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:how about boycotting Target for allowing their pharmacists to refuse to distribute certain drugs based on moral grounds.
I'd be more inclined to do the opposite, but I'm pretty sure that Target hasn't done this.
I will not shop from any pharmacist who does things like this. Drugs like birth control pills have legitimate medical uses besides preventing pregnancy but pharmacists who refuse to sell on moral grounds don't care why someone takes the drugs they just won't sell to you. It's an unfair practice which should be stopped especially by big corporations like Target. If a pharmacist wants to refuse drugs on moral grounds they should open their own personal drug store.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Proctor and Gamble makes yummy food? Like what, the Hepatitis Sorbet?
P&G distribute Pringles and Hawaiian Punch to name a couple. i find both incredibly yummy.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:how about boycotting Target for allowing their pharmacists to refuse to distribute certain drugs based on moral grounds.
I'd be more inclined to do the opposite, but I'm pretty sure that Target hasn't done this.
It is especially disheartening that pharmacists who won't sell women birth control or emergency contraceptives will sell men things like Viagra without asking if they will be using the pills with their wives or if they are married. Such selective moralism is disgusting.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
The Target policy I can find online is that if a pharmicist does not feel they can ethically prescribe morning after pills, they must find the patient a pharmicist that can. So, while a pharmicist may refuse, the patient is still guaranteed to get their drugs. It actually seems like a nice compromise to me. The pharmicist doesn't have to feel bad, the patient gets the drugs.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
If GM doesn't want to go out of business, they need to stop producing sub-par products with lousy warranties that they won't even honor half the time anyway.
As for Nestle, other companies make baby food and formula and these products are needed by non-breastfeeding mothers. I looked on that site and I can't figure out what the big deal is since it just says they violated marketing tactics. I couldn't find where it clearly states what Nestle is actually doing to violate anything. The YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERS section sure didn't answer my questions. Navigating that site stinks.
P&G is not the only big company to use animals in testing. Besides, that PETA site is scary. I am MORE likely to support a company that they boycott than to join them.
Target is not denying prescriptions. There are certain individual pharmacists who refuse to provide emergency contraception to women based on religious reasons which is their right. Target stores will still fill the prescription at another Target store or during a different shift when the closed-minded louse is not working. They are not saying they denying anything; they are just not forcing their pharmacists to do something they feel is morally repusive. I don't personally agree with the pharmacists in question but at least they aren't blowing up abortion clinics.
Lyrhawn, I am with you on the Chili Cheese Burrito!
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: That's interesting, Ela. I'd thought that the Nestle thing had been positively resolved, but I see that I was wrong.
It had been, years and years ago, but Nestle started finding ways to get around what they agreed to, and the boycott was re-started.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: As for Nestle, other companies make baby food and formula and these products are needed by non-breastfeeding mothers. I looked on that site and I can't figure out what the big deal is since it just says they violated marketing tactics. I couldn't find where it clearly states what Nestle is actually doing to violate anything. The YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERS section sure didn't answer my questions. Navigating that site stinks.
It does seem to be a site for people who know what the issues are, not for people who want to find out what the issues are, unless you are very persistant in looking at all the links.
Take a look at the Executive Summary and the International Code Summary, linked on that page.
This is the key thing to know about the WHO code:
quote:‘Inappropriate feeding practices lead to infant malnutrition, morbidity and mortality in all countries, and improper practices in the marketing of breastmilk substitutes and related products can contribute to these major public health problems.’
The basic problem is this: Mothers are given free gifts of formula and started on formula in the hospital, instead of being encouraged to breastfeed. In first world countries, where we have adequate sanitation and safe water, this doesn't seem like such a big deal. But in third world countries, it can be a death sentence for infants given formula mixed with dirty water, in places where there is no or inadequate water treatment, and no or inadequate sewage treatment. Another problem is that a mother may not be adequately educated in mixing the powdered formula - they are poor and try to "stretch it" and mix it with too much water. Many infants die of diarrhea and malnutrition as a result.
"Stretching the Rules" gives a key way in which Nestles is violating the WHO code:
quote:Free or low-cost samples and supplies are sometimes requested by the facility but, more often than not, they are unsolicited donations. The technique of not collecting payment against invoices for supplies continues to be used by several companies.
They are "stretching the rules" because they are not "giving away" the formula to the hospitals, they are "selling it" to the hospitals and just "forgetting" to collect payment. And along the way, the are also giving gifts to hospital workers to encourage them to push their formula on mothers, instead of encouraging and helping mothers to breastfeed.
I am sorry, but this is an issue that makes me very angry, because the formula companies have their bottom lines at heart, not the welfare of babies. Far fewer babies "need" formula then they would have you think. And the use of formula in certain settings leads to the needless death of babies.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
It should be noted that there is a big discussion currently going on whether or not it is a pharmacists' "right" to not fill a prescription.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is especially disheartening that pharmacists who won't sell women birth control or emergency contraceptives will sell men things like Viagra without asking if they will be using the pills with their wives or if they are married. Such selective moralism is disgusting.
This statement demonstrates your lack of understanding of what exactly the pharmacists' objection to birth control is. Hint: it's not because it might be used outside wedlock.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: How does one boycott the ACLU?
Stop caring about individual freedoms?
that's like saying the way to boycott christian extremists is to stop believing in Jesus...
Whether deliberate or not, I think that is often a result.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: Lyrhawn, I am with you on the Chili Cheese Burrito!
Chili Cheese Burrito lovers of the world unite!!
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:It is especially disheartening that pharmacists who won't sell women birth control or emergency contraceptives will sell men things like Viagra without asking if they will be using the pills with their wives or if they are married. Such selective moralism is disgusting.
This statement demonstrates your lack of understanding of what exactly the pharmacists' objection to birth control is. Hint: it's not because it might be used outside wedlock.
Acutally I am very aware of the fact that (edit: some) pharmacists believe (without overwhelming medical proof) that birth control causes (large numbers of) miscarriages. Since the average woman has approiximately 6 miscarriages in their lifetime (most of which they are unaware of because they happen so early in the pregnancy that they don't even realize they're pregnant) and those who make these claims have not proven that using birth control increases the number of miscarriages it is unfounded.
Regardless, pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control are denying women to access to medications which may improve their health. Many women use birth control pills to help control hormonal imbalances which can cause other health problems. Pharmacists who won't fill those prescriptions however, are notorious for not asking what the pills will be used for, they simply refuse to full legitimate prescriptions.
While Target may require their pharmacist to find a drug store that will fill their customer's prescription why should I be put through the problems of driving to another location to pick up my meds just because that pharmacist doesn't like the medicine I am taking. For some reason it is ok for a pharmacist (not a doctor) to determine what medications that I should be taking and there is very little uproar being done to prevent it.
My point, (which was ignored whether deliberately or not) is that if a pharmacist denyed a MAN access to his medication because of "moral objections" there would be a general uproar and I'd be willing to be that companies like Target wouldn't put up with it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Regardless, pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control are denying women to access to medications which may improve their health.
For all the people saying this, there has yet to be a documented case where a woman could not get birth control because of a pharmacist refusing.
quote:My point, (which was ignored whether deliberately or not) is that if a pharmacist denyed a MAN access to his medication because of "moral objections" there would be a general uproar and I'd be willing to be that companies like Target wouldn't put up with it.
If that was your point, it's the first time you bothered to actually say it. What you highlighted before was their selectivism, as if you were remotely qualified to determine what their moral views were.
Either way, it's at best guesswork. Do you have any supporting evidence at all for your guess?
quote:While Target may require their pharmacist to find a drug store that will fill their customer's prescription why should I be put through the problems of driving to another location to pick up my meds just because that pharmacist doesn't like the medicine I am taking.
Ah - so it's not that they're preventing you, it's that they're making it less convenient for you. OK.
quote:For some reason it is ok for a pharmacist (not a doctor) to determine what medications that I should be taking and there is very little uproar being done to prevent it.
Oops, now we're back to them determining what medications you should be taking. Even though they're not actually doing that. They're simply determining which medications they will sell.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Ela, thanks for that info. Wow! I didn't realize the problem was that bad. Is this standard practice with all formula companies or is Nestle the exception?
andi, you shouldn't have to be put through that hassle to get your prescription so you would go somewhere else. That is your right as a consumer. But it is also right as an American to practice your religion even if that means refusing to fill a prescription because it goes against your moral code. It is like saying that a doctor who believes that abortions are morally objectionable should be required to perform them anyway.
I don't think a man would kick up a big public fuss if he couldn't get his Viagra. I still think it is admirable to stand up for what you believe, especially in a culture where anything goes, and I think it is admirable for Target to stand behind the rights of its employees.
Incidently, in all the reports I've read, the drug in question is not birth control pills. It is the morning after pill.
[edited to combine posts]
[ March 27, 2006, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: MandyM ]
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: For all the people saying this, there has yet to be a documented case where a woman could not get birth control because of a pharmacist refusing.
quote:"I refuse to dispense a drug with a significant mechanism to stop human life," says Karen Brauer, president of the 1,500-member Pharmacists for Life International. Brauer was fired in 1996 after she refused to refill a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in the Cincinnati suburb of Delhi Township.
So why is the boycott on Target? I still think that as long as the government is not denying you access to your drugs, you (and the pharmacists) are still within your rights.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If GM doesn't want to go out of business, they need to stop producing sub-par products with lousy warranties
That doesn't seem like a reason to boycott them -- it seems like a reason to not buy from them.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I actually hadn't heard of the boycott on Target until this forum. However, most large corporations such as KMart and WalMart require their pharmacists to dispense medications that they sell Target is not requiring the same of their people according to the Planned Parenthood article posted earlier. Frankly, I don't go to Target because they fired a friend of mine because she was gay.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Telp, I worked for years at Cracker Barrel, and that isn't true at all. One of my managers was gay, as were some of the wait staff.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Telp, I worked for years at Cracker Barrel, and that isn't true at all. One of my managers was gay, as were some of the wait staff.
I worked there too and never found that Cracker Barrel was biased against homosexuals.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Definition of boycott: to engage in a refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions
I guess the concerted would be that I am telling my family and friends (and anyone who will listen) why I am never buying from GM again and I am doing so to express my disapproval at their lousy cars and their crappy warranties.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: For all the people saying this, there has yet to be a documented case where a woman could not get birth control because of a pharmacist refusing.
quote:"I refuse to dispense a drug with a significant mechanism to stop human life," says Karen Brauer, president of the 1,500-member Pharmacists for Life International. Brauer was fired in 1996 after she refused to refill a prescription for birth-control pills at a Kmart in the Cincinnati suburb of Delhi Township.
You've provided excellent proof that some pharmacists are refusing to dispense. Congratulations! I've already acknowledged that.
However, you still haven't provided a single case of a person who ultimately could not get birth control because of such refusal. All you've demonstrated is that they couldn't get it from the refusing pharmacist.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
IMO, pharmacists do not have the right to refuse to fill out legally obtained perscriptions, even if there is another pharmacy right next door. the way i see it, by becoming a pharmacist you agree to provide any drug that is approved for distribution by the FDA. and any company that approves of it's pharmacists (ie: Target) making these judgement calls does not deserve my business. i'm quite sure Target could care less if i shop there, but it is a matter of principle.
to sum up, if your doctor provides you with a perscription, the pharmacist should be legally required to fill said perscription.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I equate this idea to doctors who refuse to end a life because of moral reasons. Doctors are not forced to participate in assisted suicide or abortion. If your doctor refuses to give you an abortion, you simply go to another doctor. This is the same with pharmacists. Why should pharmacists be made to reject their morals just because some people do not agree with them?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: Definition of boycott: to engage in a refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions
I guess the concerted would be that I am telling my family and friends (and anyone who will listen) why I am never buying from GM again and I am doing so to express my disapproval at their lousy cars and their crappy warranties.
I wouldn't call that a boycott because, if I'm understanding you correctly, you might consider buying from GM if their quality, warranty, and/or prices drastically improved.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: Definition of boycott: to engage in a refusal to have dealings with (as a person, store, or organization) usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions
I guess the concerted would be that I am telling my family and friends (and anyone who will listen) why I am never buying from GM again and I am doing so to express my disapproval at their lousy cars and their crappy warranties.
I wouldn't call that a boycott because, if I'm understanding you correctly, you might consider buying from GM if their quality, warranty, and/or prices drastically improved.
Yes, you boycott a company until they change their policy. Whether this is a change in regard to worker's rights, or quality of product is irrelevant.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ive never had problems with Sony, my PS2 has lasted us 4 years without breaking.
The N64 controllers always used to break though.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
well, for one thing, assisted suicide is illegal (at least in the states). if it is a matter of a person being on life support and having little to no chance of recovery, the patients family may choose to let the person's life end naturally. a doctor can not refuse to do this. if the patient, or the patients family refuse treatment, the doctor can't just treat them anyway because he believes it's the right thing to do. the doctor has no choice here, as i believe the pharmacist should have no choice. as for abortion, i'm not sure of the legal grounds as far as doctors is concerned.
i equate it more to a police officer who has to arrest someone for breaking a law that they don't believe in. say, an officer who believes that marijuana should be decriminalized. if he catches his best friend smoking pot, he is still legally bound to arrest him.
or what if a pharmacist doesn't believe that children should be on aderol(sp?), should he/she be able to refuse to provide it? or if a pharmacist believes certain pain medications are too addictive and not worth the risk, should he/she be able to refuse to give it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:if a pharmacist believes certain pain medications are too addictive and not worth the risk, should he/she be able to refuse to give it?
As long as people are allowed to sue pharmacists under strict product liability rules (which they are in all 50 states), then, yes, a pharmacist should be allowed to refuse to dispense medication they think is to risky.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: I guess the concerted would be that I am telling my family and friends (and anyone who will listen) why I am never buying from GM again and I am doing so to express my disapproval at their lousy cars and their crappy warranties.
I'm curious: how many GMs have you owned?
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
We lost over $10,000 on a commercial GM truck that we owned less than two years. My husband had to quit his job as an independant contractor, since we could not afford a new truck, to get out from under this one because the warranty had run out and we couldn't afford to keep fixing it. It was already costing us a fortune since GM did not always honor the extended warranty we purchased even when parts under warranty broke repeatedly due to design flaws that they themselves admitted to making. Other workers had similar problems with these vehicles and we have had both friends and family who had had repair and warranty issues with GM cars that are not as bad in other makes. No more GMs for me.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
I see that as a reason not to buy GM's, but not to boycott them (because it's a very personal conflict you have with the company.) I don't see it being an official boycott until you run into the realm of a serious lapse in ethics or safety on the part of a manufacturer (such as Ford and their dealings with Firestone and the rolling SUV issues. That would be something I would consider a large boycott until such a matter was resolved). A risk you run with GM is that you are not buying the highest priced vehicle in the market, and it would be silly to expect the highest quality from them. I wouldn't expcet my GM car to match the reliability of a similar Japanese car, but then again for a similar Toyota (if they made one, which they don't) I could have bought two of my type of GM. Such is the marketing strategy of GM (and Ford, and it might fail in the near future, we shall see).
I personally love GM's, and have enjoyed watching GM after GM that I and my family have owned simply run imports into the ground in regards to reliability. The only serious issues I've seen plague GM's I have first hand knowledge of stemed from neglect.
Until the past few years, I would not buy a Japanese car. Not because of price or quality, but simply because they do not design for 6'6" people. This is a choice they made, and I understand it. I wouldn't call my choice not to buy a car from them a boycott, it simply was one factor in many when making a decision. Just like potential quality is. To each their own I suppose
(I skipped warranty issues, because they tend to come down to dealerships much more often than the manufacturer. The differences in response between on dealership and another can be night and day on an identical issue.)
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
The original post didn't specify an official boycott. It is just an informal Hatrack poll for fun and venting. You're right. It is personal but I thought the rest of this thread was too. Geesh!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by MandyM: We lost over $10,000 on a commercial GM truck that we owned less than two years. My husband had to quit his job as an independant contractor, since we could not afford a new truck, to get out from under this one because the warranty had run out and we couldn't afford to keep fixing it. It was already costing us a fortune since GM did not always honor the extended warranty we purchased even when parts under warranty broke repeatedly due to design flaws that they themselves admitted to making. Other workers had similar problems with these vehicles and we have had both friends and family who had had repair and warranty issues with GM cars that are not as bad in other makes. No more GMs for me.
I've heard the story before. I was just wondering if you knew whether all their products were lousy or whether you had problems with just the one. Personally, I wouldn't claim that all their cars were lousy if I had only ever owned one.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
How many would you recommend she buy, then, Jon Boy?
She already stated that it's more than just the one car, that family and friends also had troubles.
Again I have to say that if the management and workers of GM have an attitude toward their quality problems that's similar to yours, then it's not any wonder they've never fixed them after 30 years.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
No, once was truely enough but it is also all the stories we hear from other people, including other contractors with the same truck, that makes me think ours is not an isolated event. And it wasn't so much that the vehicles themselves had problems. It was more that the company would say that they knew a part was poorly designed but that it was too bad and we would have to pay to get the same part fixed nineteen times (no joke!). Either that or drive in the Texas heat with no air conditioning. So truthfully based on my measley one experience, I will choose to buy elsewhere. My family owns 5 Dodges and my grandfather will buy nothing but. We have had no problems at all with Dodge. I like Nissan too. Just no GM anymore.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Again I have to say that if the management and workers of GM have an attitude toward their quality problems that's similar to yours, then it's not any wonder they've never fixed them after 30 years.
Am I misreading this line, or has insulting other posters become a regular new policy for you?
I must be missing something here.
Sure, Jon Boy and others are quibbling, but I don't know that it merits this response.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Icarus, I am not sure what you are insulted by. I think I must be missing something too.
I read it as GM has had these problems for 30 years and maybe their (meaning the people at GM) lousy attitudes are the problem. I didn't see anything wrong with that.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't feel personally insulted. I read it as saying that if folks at GM have the same attitude as Jon Boy, then no wonder . . .
I'll reread it and see if I just misread that . . .
EDIT: nope, still read it that way. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
vonk- I, on the other hand, will continue to shop at Target because I am happy that they are willing to respect both the rights of their pharmacists and the rights of their customers.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I've owned four Chrysler products, and when you think of it, that's a tiny sample size. But I don't plan on ever owning another. The only one I really haven't had any problems with is the electric, and they don't make that car, they just bought the company that does. The other three all were major headaches--which makes me pretty dumb for buying at least a couple of those, but they're so darn cheap compared to Ford and GM that I just got sucked in over and over . . .
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Blac, I feel the same way. I appreciate that they are standing behind their employees, something many companies are not doing lately.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Here's how I read it:
To MandyM: Again I have to say that if the management and workers of GM have an attitude toward their quality problems that's similar to [the attitude toward quality problems you've encountered], then it's not any wonder they've never fixed them after 30 years.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I can't quite decide how I feel about the Target policy.
My feelings on the pharmacist thing in general are a bit complex.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Could be, Porter.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
That is a better stated version of what I thought it said.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: How many would you recommend she buy, then, Jon Boy?
I'm not recommending that she buy any. It just doesn't strike me as anything approaching a representative sample.
quote:Again I have to say that if the management and workers of GM have an attitude toward their quality problems that's similar to yours, then it's not any wonder they've never fixed them after 30 years.
I'm just as surprised as Icarus. I don't know what I've done to warrant this kind of insult from you, especially since I wasn't even talking to you or about you.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Here's how I read it:
To MandyM: Again I have to say that if the management and workers of GM have an attitude toward their quality problems that's similar to [the attitude toward quality problems you've encountered], then it's not any wonder they've never fixed them after 30 years.
That doesn't make much sense to me. First of all, Tatiana was addressing me, not MandyM, and second of all, "yours" was standing in for "your attitude toward their quality problems," which makes zero sense considering MandyM's attitude towards GM's quality problems.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
MandyM, I own a Saturn, which is a division of GM. I used to work at Saturn, too.
I'm not saying I'm part of the Saturn cult, but I've had nothing but good experiences with the company and their product. Granted, GM has tried to screw their little experiment on more than one occasion, and they've made some bad corporate decisions that affected Saturn (such as discontinuing the SL line for no apparent reason other than that they'd been producing it too long).
But, I still think Saturn's a great company, divorced entirely from GM's other product lines.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: I actually hadn't heard of the boycott on Target until this forum. However, most large corporations such as KMart and WalMart require their pharmacists to dispense medications that they sell Target is not requiring the same of their people according to the Planned Parenthood article posted earlier. Frankly, I don't go to Target because they fired a friend of mine because she was gay.
Whoa, really?! I used to work at Target until recently and at least four of my co-workers were gay. Actually one of them was a GSTL.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Ive never had problems with Sony, my PS2 has lasted us 4 years without breaking.
The N64 controllers always used to break though.
It was always the analog stick!!!
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Yes, Jon Boy, I didn't mean it to be insulting, but I did mean your attitude. I think the attitude you display (both here and on the new-car thread) is representative of the attitude of the executives and workers at most american car manufacturers, and that attitude is the reason their quality is still so bad, over thirty years after everyone knew they had a problem.
I apologize if that seems insulting. I'll make it non-personal if that helps. It's certainly not you in particular that I object to, but it's these responses to quality issues when they arise.
1. Denial of any problem. 2. Defensiveness. 3. Insistence that the buyer's perception is what is at issue, rather than any intrinsic quality of the product. 4. Insistence that any individual problem is not indicative of general changes that need to be made. 5. Band-Aid solutions, instead of understanding and correcting root causes.
The reason that I take so much interest in this issue of industrial product quality is that it's been my job to create high-quality industrial machinery for about 15 years now. The attitudes I oppose are things we all have to recognize in ourselves and fight every time they pop up. They represent the easy way in the short term, but in the long term they destroy your business.
We also occasionally find that attitude in our suppliers, as well, and so it's a familiar friend that we know well and recognize in different manifestations.
Again, I apologize for making it sound personal. It's totally institutional and part of corporate culture.
It's similar to the concept of teachability in LDS theology. Unless we are humble enough to be teachable, we make the same mistakes over and over and we do not learn.
As someone who now works in an industry where we can't afford to make mistakes, I have to be particularly vigilant to these things.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -Richard P. Feynman, Challenger Accident Report.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Tatiana, it you don't mind sharing, what industry do you work in? I agree with your assessment that most people think problems are no big deal, must be the user's fault, and would rather sweep them (the problem not the user) under the rug. It sounds like my boss and I work in education!
Posted by citadel (Member # 8367) on :
Convergys
Their people are calling me every day!
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Convergys
They are evil! I used to work there to put myself through college. When convergys calls for Ameritech--just run!!!!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Yes, Jon Boy, I didn't mean it to be insulting, but I did mean your attitude. I think the attitude you display (both here and on the new-car thread) is representative of the attitude of the executives and workers at most american car manufacturers, and that attitude is the reason their quality is still so bad, over thirty years after everyone knew they had a problem.
This just tells me that you haven't been reading my posts closely enough.
quote:1. Denial of any problem.
I never denied that there was a problem.
quote:2. Defensiveness.
I have defended GM because I don't feel they deserve the level of hostility they are currently receiving.
quote:3. Insistence that the buyer's perception is what is at issue, rather than any intrinsic quality of the product.
I insisted that the public's perception is another issue in addition to product quality issues. More specifically, I stated that even though they have made improvements, no one is willing to believe that anything has changed.
quote:4. Insistence that any individual problem is not indicative of general changes that need to be made.
I never said anything like this. I've got a whole list of changes that I think GM needs to make.
quote:5. Band-Aid solutions, instead of understanding and correcting root causes.
Again, you're pulling this from thin air. I've never said anything like this.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Jon Boy, I described the suite of responses that are typically part of the attitude I mean. I didn't mean that you necessarily displayed all of them. Are you connected with the American Auto Industry? I believe you said once that your father worked at GM? (Forgive me if I'm remembering wrong.) Again, I didn't mean it to be so personal toward you as it seems to have come across. I'm describing the way an industry systematically shoots itself in the foot, all the while being confident that they're doing everything right.
The people who complain to you about your product (impersonal "you" is meant) are your very best friends. Mostly customers will just write you off without another word and deal with your competitors in the future. The ones who take the trouble to complain, and try to work through your problems with you, are doing you a HUGE favor. Especially because this so often is totally futile, so we have trained people over time not to bother. It's essential that those customers who do take that trouble be listened to carefully and closely, and with serious intent to change. It's all too easy to be defensive, to be positive you're already doing everything right, and to insist that it's the customer's fault. However, that's the way to hand your future business over to your competitors.
The American Auto Industry did this. They shot themselves in the foot despite all sorts of legislation to help protect them from foreign competition, and to prop them up with money, and so on. They have nobody to blame for their falling market share but themselves.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
One of the operators in the unit 4 control room of the Chernobyl Nuclear plant who died in great pain a week after the explosion, repeated over and over to anyone who came by that they did everything right. He could not understand how it had happened because they did everything exactly right.
I'm studying the Chernobyl accident now in great detail. The industry I work for is the Nuclear Power Industry.
They did many many things wrong that day, and in the days leading up to accident, which was the worst nuclear accident ever.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Wow, no one has mentioned Mitsubishi yet. Of course, they are the largest company in the world. As I recall, Greenpeace wanted me to boycott them because they set up a salt extraction plant in the gulf of Baja where baby blue whales are born and if they reduced the salinity of the water, the babies might not be able to float and would drown. Haven't seen any follow up on this in the last 18 years though.
The story I was told about Nestle is that they promote formula as superior to breast milk in third world countries, where there isn't sanitary water to mix the formula with.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
That is what I understand from the story too, pooka.
quote: I have defended GM because I don't feel they deserve the level of hostility they are currently receiving.
I insisted that the public's perception is another issue in addition to product quality issues. More specifically, I stated that even though they have made improvements, no one is willing to believe that anything has changed.
I don't think I should be all warm and fuzzy about a company who makes inferior products (in my opinion), refuses to honor their own warranties (after admitting fault on their part) and treats their customers poorly (again, my opinion). You certainly have the right to defend them if you think I am being too mean but you aren't going to persuade me that the money and time I am out due to their company is ok or justified. And as far as them making improvements, how long ago are you talking about? We sold the truck just last year so my experience is pretty recent (which also accounts for my huge ouch factor).
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Word is feature bloat personified. After hours of typing in Chinese philosophy text and having it try to autocorrect 'Hsi' to 'his' and turning sources into links, I decided to avoid Word for most purposes.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: As long as people are allowed to sue pharmacists under strict product liability rules (which they are in all 50 states), then, yes, a pharmacist should be allowed to refuse to dispense medication they think is to risky.
That would be incredibly presumptuous of the pharmacist. What they ought to do is call the issuing physician with their concerns and try to work it out. It's not the pharmacist's job to act as gatekeeper for a legitimately prescribed drug.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That would be incredibly presumptuous of the pharmacist. What they ought to do is call the issuing physician with their concerns and try to work it out. It's not the pharmacist's job to act as gatekeeper for a legitimately prescribed drug.
i'm talking about flat out not stocking a drug.
In most or all of the U.S., a store that sells a defective product is liable for any harm it causes, even if they didn't know it was defective. Liability is shared with the manufacturer. The store could sue the manufacturer because the manufacturer is ultimately liable, but if the manufacturer goes bankrupt, the store's on the hook.
There were concerns about Vioxx long before it was pulled. It would have made good professional sense to stop selling it before the manufacturer pulled it.
This isn't the pharmacist acting as a gatekeeper. It's the pharmacist exercising professional judgment to avoid exposure to liability - and to protect their patients.
There's no right to walk up to a pharmacist and demand he provide you with a pill. He carries goods and makes them available to those who want them. If he wants to take the business risk associated with not stocking a good, that's his decision.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:i'm talking about flat out not stocking a drug.
I will note the term you used was "dispense", not "stock" or "carry".
I don't know to what extent product liability law affects pharmacists dispensing prescriptions that have been passed by the FDA and to which clinical evidence has yet to assign risks undocumented in the standard literature issued with the drug. I suppose it's possible, but it seems unlikely that the pharmacist could be found liable in such a case.
If the pharmacist knows of a generic alternative, thinks the dosage is incorrect, or knows of a conflict created from mixing the drug with other prescriptions, they're well within their rights and obligations to halt things. But I would still tend to argue they should consult the physician with the knowledge they feel compels them, if necessary documenting the consultation in the name of waiving that liability.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I will note the term you used was "dispense", not "stock" or "carry".
Yes. He refuses to dispense a drug he feels is too rsiky.
Actually, I was wrong. I misread the hornbook.
The majority rule exempts pharmacists from strict liability, although some states still leave the possibility open.
Either way, the pharmacist certainly has the right to cease selling a drug they think to be dangerous.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Apparently not. A pharmacist should in the minds of some people only have that right so long as a certain political viewpoint agrees with them.
Isn't there a word for that?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
If the pharmicist took my prescription and would not fill it, I would definetely boycott. If I missed a pill because of it, I would try to sue (When I was on the pill, it was for medical reasons- within a day or two of being off the pill, I had a massive migraine so I actually would have damages to sue if I was forced to miss a pill). However, just having to drive down the street to a different pharmacy would not cause a boycott. But, that is the biggest issue- a pharmicist would not know that my pills kept me from a great deal of suffering. So, while I respect that they have moral objections, they also cannot possibly know the whole story and make the decision for me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So, while I respect that they have moral objections, they also cannot possibly know the whole story and make the decision for me.
Apparently you don't actually respect their beliefs beyond the pretty meaningless 'respect that they have moral objections', since 'make the decision for me' to some pharmacists might equal 'murder a human child'.
But, well, that pharmacist is wrong, that's not what it equals at all, or even might equal, so who cares what their beliefs are?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
If the pharmacy doesn't stock the perscription that is another story. If a pharmacist wants to open his own pharmacy that doesn't carry the drugs that he/she doesn't believe in, or work for a pharmacy that doesn't carry said drugs, that is well within his/her rights. but if they work for a major national chain pharmacy that does carry the perscription they should have to fill it.
i respect their political and moral views, but i don't feel they should have the power to force those views on other people.
forcing the pharmacist to fill the perscription isn't forcing my views on the pharmacist. i'm not making him/her take the drugs, just issue what he has in stock.
if a pharmacist wants to be the one that decides what drugs a person should take, that pharmacist should be a doctor. pharmacists don't get to make those decisions.
Edit to Add: if taking birth control equals murder then so does jacking off, and thats just crazy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:: if taking birth control equals murder then so does jacking off, and thats just crazy.
Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding for what the actual objection is.
It's one thing to disagree with others. At least have the intellectual respect to understand with what you are disagreeing.
Further, "thats just crazy" is not compatible with "i respect their political and moral views."
quote:If the pharmacy doesn't stock the perscription that is another story. If a pharmacist wants to open his own pharmacy that doesn't carry the drugs that he/she doesn't believe in, or work for a pharmacy that doesn't carry said drugs, that is well within his/her rights. but if they work for a major national chain pharmacy that does carry the perscription they should have to fill it.
If the chain pharmacy allows them to refuse, they are still within their rights.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Apparently you don't actually respect their beliefs beyond the pretty meaningless 'respect that they have moral objections', since 'make the decision for me' to some pharmacists might equal 'murder a human child'.
But, well, that pharmacist is wrong, that's not what it equals at all, or even might equal, so who cares what their beliefs are?
Let's see... A straw man argument, putting words in people's mouths, making a legal argument into a moral one and demanding that as such it conform to your particular moral view, and browbeating someone's expressed concerns rather than trying to address them.
Bravo.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Dagonee - ok, your right, the "thats just crazy" remark was out of line. its not crazy, its an opinion that i don't agree with. i apologize to anyone i offended.
and i agree that technically, it is within their rights because Target allows it's pharmacists to make that call. the point i've been arguing is that i don't think that this policy is a good one and i don't support the company for that reason.
main point: a pharmacists job is to fill perscriptions, not decide which perscriptions should be filled.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Now I feel bad for having shopped at Target the other day, but my Target doesn't even have a pharmacy, and I needed both food and new dishes and didn't have time for Wal-mart.
As I have said before, I am morally opposed to Walgreens.
Rite-aid all the way.
-pH
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
i'm all about the Kroger. i think its just becaus i like the word: kroger. cool.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I remember when Rite-Aid used to be Perry's, or at least, around here it was.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
vonk, do you see why the analogy you drew between onanism and birth control pills is invalid?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Lyrhawn, was it as tragically awesome then?
Rite-aid 4 LYFE!!!1!11one
-pH
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
not completely. i do see how it is far fetched. in both cases the sperm dies, there is no connection with the egg. ie: the Monty Python's Meaning of Life song "Every Sperm is Sacred." both are more about the idea that a human embryo could have existed than actually did.
i do see that it is not my place to call such beliefs crazy though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:in both cases the sperm dies, there is no connection with the egg...both are more about the idea that a human embryo could have existed than actually did.
This is where your misunderstanding of their position lies. The companies which make birth control pills have asserted since their original release that not only do BC pills prevent ovulation, but they can also prevent the implantation of a fertizlized egg. There's little or no science either way on this, but the claim originates from the manufacturer.
These pharmacists believe that a fertilized egg is a human being, and that preventing implantation is homicide.
This situation does not apply to onanism.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
ok, i understand how they could be of that belief. i do, however, think that homicide is a very strong word for it. but, to each their own.
but with birth control pills being such a large part of pharmacutical demand, i don't think someone with those beliefs should become a pharmacist, and, if they do, they should be employed at a private pharmacy that holds the same beliefs and does not carry the pills in the first place. (i'm pretty sure that was a run on sentence.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:homicide is a very strong word for it.
Homicide is the neutral word for describing the killing of one person by the act of another (which the beliefs describe). Murder would be the strong word, which would contain a moral judgment about whether the act was right or wrong.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
damn, i can't stand up without Dagonee's Back-Hand-Of-Knowledge smacking me back down. again, you are right. i try to be understanding and look what happens.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Here's something I don't understand:
Birth control MIGHT MAYBE increase the chance of a miscarriage, but we're not sure.
There are plenty of drugs that DO have the chance of causing life-threatening side effects to the patient picking up the drug, and some of these side effects may lead to death.
If the pharmacist feels responsible in the first case, why not in the second?
-pH
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Respecting someone else's belief does not mean I have to follow their beliefs. I am willing to take my presctiption to another pharmicist, which shows my respect for their views. I am not willing to allow them to decide for me, preventing me my meds. That would go beyond respecting their beliefs to agreeing with them- something I never claimed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
vonk,
quote:If a pharmacist wants to open his own pharmacy that doesn't carry the drugs that he/she doesn't believe in, or work for a pharmacy that doesn't carry said drugs, that is well within his/her rights. but if they work for a major national chain pharmacy that does carry the perscription they should have to fill it.
Isn't this rather between the pharmacist and the pharmacy? If for example a pharmacy stocks a certain prescription but permits its pharmacists to morally object and abstain from prescribing a medication, what exactly do you have to say about it? Find another pharmacy.
quote:i respect their political and moral views, but i don't feel they should have the power to force those views on other people.
How exactly are they forcing you to do anything? It is not as if this abstention were a majority practice by any means whatsoever. So you're dead wrong there.
quote:forcing the pharmacist to fill the perscription isn't forcing my views on the pharmacist. i'm not making him/her take the drugs, just issue what he has in stock.
Forcing a pharmacist to fill a prescription that the pharmacist believes will murder a human child is making that pharmacist, in their own mind, an accessory to murder. Again, you're dead wrong.
quote:if a pharmacist wants to be the one that decides what drugs a person should take, that pharmacist should be a doctor. pharmacists don't get to make those decisions.
Edit to Add: if taking birth control equals murder then so does jacking off, and thats just crazy.
You get to make the decisions about the ethics of pharmacists and doctors...why? And your statement about masturbation...well it only proves how incredibly ignorant you are about this subject, and how well you have managed to maintain that ignorance and arrogance.
I'm really not interested in talking about this any further with you at all, vonk, because you've proudly stated how stupid those who disagree with you are, and how unwilling you are to even attempt to understand them.
------
Sterling,
Points for moral outrage! Good on you.
But let's examine what I actually said and what precisely was a straw man argument. You know, just for kicks.
First of all, "respect that they have objections" is meaningless. What that is essentially saying is, "You have an opinion. I respect that." It's acknowledging something that goes without saying.
This is not solely a legal argument. That is how it will be ultimately decided, of course, but to state that the question of whether or not pharmacists should be forced to prescribe birth control medications is solely a legal one is simply stupid.
Furthermore, scholar seems quite willing to browbeat other people's concerns-such as a pharmacist who might be compelled to prescribe a medication they regard as murderous-so frankly, my point stands.
Bravo!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Scholar,
When has the question ever been one of pharmacists denying you all access to the medication prescribed by your doctor?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Another thing:
Technically, in a medical sense, isn't a woman not considered pregnant until implantation anyway? So even if birth control did prevent implantation, it would still fall under the category of "preventing pregnancy," since the woman isn't pregnant yet.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Technically, in a medical sense, isn't a woman not considered pregnant until implantation anyway? So even if birth control did prevent implantation, it would still fall under the category of "preventing pregnancy," since the woman isn't pregnant yet.
How would that change the pharmacist's interpretation?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
andi330 posted a link to an article about a pharmicist who not only refused to fill the prescription, but kept the prescription, which prevented the woman from getting her oral contraceptives for several days.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:andi330 posted a link to an article about a pharmicist who not only refused to fill the prescription, but kept the prescription, which prevented the woman from getting her oral contraceptives for several days.
Yes. That pharmacist committed theft, and she still got her prescription.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:
This is not solely a legal argument. That is how it will be ultimately decided, of course, but to state that the question of whether or not pharmacists should be forced to prescribe birth control medications is solely a legal one is simply stupid.
Furthermore, scholar seems quite willing to browbeat other people's concerns-such as a pharmacist who might be compelled to prescribe a medication they regard as murderous-so frankly, my point stands.
Bravo! [/QB]
I said I was willing to go to a different pharmicist if mine morally objected to filling my prescription. I just expect him to return my prescription slip so that I can get my drugs elsewhere. How is this browbeating him? Also, I would hope my pharmicist is not prescribing any medications in general, being as he is not a dr.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Technically, in a medical sense, isn't a woman not considered pregnant until implantation anyway? So even if birth control did prevent implantation, it would still fall under the category of "preventing pregnancy," since the woman isn't pregnant yet.
How would that change the pharmacist's interpretation?
I don't know, but I'd like to know what the pharmacist would consider "pregnant."
And if one begins that life actually does begin at the moment of conception, why are we allowing untold amounts of embryos to die? I mean, shouldn't people, if they're really concerned about these supposed "children" dying, be working to reduce the number of failures to implant?
And then, does that make all the women who have sex but don't use such measures killers, in these people's minds?
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:andi330 posted a link to an article about a pharmacist who not only refused to fill the prescription, but kept the prescription, which prevented the woman from getting her oral contraceptives for several days.
Yes. That pharmacist committed theft, and she still got her prescription.
Considering what it took for her to actually get her prescription, I am having a great deal of difficulty believing that you can dismiss that instance with a blithe "she still got her prescription." And what the pharmacist did was several levels of wrongness above mere theft.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:andi330 posted a link to an article about a pharmicist who not only refused to fill the prescription, but kept the prescription, which prevented the woman from getting her oral contraceptives for several days.
Yes. That pharmacist committed theft, and she still got her prescription.
Yes, she got her prescription, but not being able to take birth control pills for several days is a big problem that can have serious consequences even if the woman is using the birth control to control hormonal imbalances.
-pH
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:andi330 posted a link to an article about a pharmicist who not only refused to fill the prescription, but kept the prescription, which prevented the woman from getting her oral contraceptives for several days.
Yes. That pharmacist committed theft, and she still got her prescription.
She got her prescription only after several days. She missed at least one dosage. When I was on the pill, missing even one pill led to very bad things (ie migraines). So, if it had been my prescription, that pharmicist's decision would have caused me extreme pain. (My dr is hoping I get pregnant very quickly as I am miserable without birth control and meds that are ok for woman ttc are somewhat limited)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
scholar,
Whoops:) I'm getting a bit too free with that word, you're right.
Anyway, up until this point you've not once mentioned a pharmacist actually stealing your prescription slip and causing harm. We all agree, and that's not what we were ever arguing about.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Considering what it took for her to actually get her prescription, I am having a great deal of difficulty believing that you can dismiss that instance with a blithe "she still got her prescription."
This pharmacist did something I'm not advocating, yet people have raised the instance as an attack on what I'm advocating. There's no "dismissal" here, blithe or otherwise.
I asked someone to show me an instance where a person could not get her prescription because of a pharmacist doing what I've advocated. This was the only example anyone has been able to provide, and it had two flaws: 1.) it wasn't caused by a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription but by a pharmacist committing theft, and 2.) the woman still got her pills.
The people who are anti-choice in this matter continually raise the spectre of a woman utterly unable to receive pills because of this choice being available. So far, the closest example they've been able to provide is someone doing something else causing a delay of several days. That's like pointing to a drunk driving accident as a reason to avoid giving drivers licenses to college students.
quote:And what the pharmacist did was several levels of wrongness above mere theft.
Not really. Perhaps I see theft as something more severe than you do, but it was theft.
The important point, though, is that I'm not advocating theft and thus this example is meaningless to the controversy here.
quote:I don't know, but I'd like to know what the pharmacist would consider "pregnant."
It's not about it terminating a pregnancy, it's about it killing a child.
quote:And if one begins that life actually does begin at the moment of conception, why are we allowing untold amounts of embryos to die? I mean, shouldn't people, if they're really concerned about these supposed "children" dying, be working to reduce the number of failures to implant?
Short answer: because there is a difference between allowing something to happen and making it happen. The long answer would require dredging up about 20 old threads.
quote:And then, does that make all the women who have sex but don't use such measures killers, in these people's minds?
Come on, you're smart enough to understand the difference between something happening on its own and being caused. Causation is an element of homicide. No causation, no homicide.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Rakeesh,
alright, if you want to make this about personal attacks, i suppose i could play that game.
quote:How exactly are they forcing you to do anything? It is not as if this abstention were a majority practice by any means whatsoever. So you're dead wrong there.
i don't feel they should have the power. i'm not wrong. it is how i feel, how can you tell me i'm wrong?
quote:You get to make the decisions about the ethics of pharmacists and doctors...why? And your statement about masturbation...well it only proves how incredibly ignorant you are about this subject, and how well you have managed to maintain that ignorance and arrogance.
I'm really not interested in talking about this any further with you at all, vonk, because you've proudly stated how stupid those who disagree with you are, and how unwilling you are to even attempt to understand them.
alright, did you read anything else i wrote after that? i apologized, admitted i was wrong, and listened and learned when it was explained. i admit, i shouldn't have made a beligerent comment like that, but i do think that i appropriately made up for it.
it is my opinion that a pharmacist should have to fill all legal perscriptions issued by doctors. that is my opinion, you have no place what-so-ever to tell me that my opinion is wrong. you are more than welcome to have as many opposing opinions as you want, but i am to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:i don't feel they should have the power. i'm not wrong. it is how i feel, how can you tell me i'm wrong?
Because he thinks you're wrong? Why is this even a question. Rakeesh's statement wasn't about you're "feeling" that they shouldn't have the power. It was about your characterization of their refusing to assist people in a particular act is somehow forcing them not to do it. That characterization is wrong.
quote: you have no place what-so-ever to tell me that my opinion is wrong.
Yes he does. This is a discussion board. If I said "It is my opinion that pharmacists should be allowed to fill prescriptions for Claritin with cyanide," it would be your place to tell me that my opinion is wrong.
Just as it's your place to tell me that my opinion that pharmacists should be allowed to refuse to dispense certain prescriptions with the consent of their employer is wrong. Which you've actually done in this thread.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
i didn't say your opinion is wrong, i said that i don't agree with it. your opinion isn't wrong. opinions can't be wrong. and if what Rakeesh was saying was wrong was not how i felt, then i didn't understand the reference to the quote and apologize.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
vonk,
I was not personally attacking you unless plainly stating that you are wrong is somehow a personal attack. If so, I wonder why anyone who objects to personal attacks would ever bother to discuss controversies.
quote:i don't feel they should have the power. i'm not wrong. it is how i feel, how can you tell me i'm wrong?
Dagonee stated my position very well. When I said you were wrong, I was not saying that your opinion was wrong, although I obviously disagree with you. I was saying that pharmacists do not, in fact, force you to refrain from using your prescribed birth control medication. There are lots and lots of pharmacists out there, and pharmacies as well. You are not being forced to stop taking your medication when one refuses to release it to you.
quote:alright, did you read anything else i wrote after that? i apologized, admitted i was wrong, and listened and learned when it was explained. i admit, i shouldn't have made a beligerent comment like that, but i do think that i appropriately made up for it.
Good for you. Class act for doing so. However it's usually my habit to reply to things said on a post-by-post basis. I usually get a bit of tunnel vision when I do so, in fact. So I should've remarked that you apologized for that statement, but it just slipped my mind. I'm sorry I didn't acknowledge that.
quote:it is my opinion that a pharmacist should have to fill all legal perscriptions issued by doctors. that is my opinion, you have no place what-so-ever to tell me that my opinion is wrong. you are more than welcome to have as many opposing opinions as you want, but i am to.
This statement we can reasonably disagree on. Obviously I do think you're wrong, of course. I think an individual pharmacist so long as it is in line with the policies of that pharmacist's employer should be able to abstain from issuing a legally prescribed medication, so long as it is not done for some personal reason. Such as, "This guy is a jerk, so no meds for him!"
But in the statement you made that I just quoted, I see no factual errors, so when I say you're wrong, I'm speaking my opinion.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
alright, i can agree with everything you just said. good good. i thought you were saying my opinion is wrong, but you weren't, so my bad for getting my feathers up.
obviously i disagree with you on the whole pharmacist thing and i disagree with the pharmacists who refuse to fill perscriptions as well. it is my most humble opinion that the pharmacist has a responsibility to society that outweighs any moral objections. if the pharmacist feels that he can not take the ethics anymore, it is my opinion, that he/she should get another job.
i believe that one of the big arguments that is being used to support the pharmacists decision (and i could be wrong) is that there are other pharmacies around, so the pharmacist is not keeping you from ever recieving your medication. there are many "if/then" hypothetical situations that could be used to counter this, but i don't want to do that. in my opinion it is more of a principle thing. in my mind i see it as (and bare in mind this is a very loose analogy) a police officer saying "well, i don't mind if you cook crack in your bath tub, so i'm gonna leave and send another officer over here." it is that officer's duty to arrest the crack chef whether he believes he should or not.
i am aware that many people are not going to agree with me on this, and that is good, but that is how i feel about the situation, and the reason i will always take my perscriptions elsewhere to be filled. but i don't think Target will mind.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:And what the pharmacist did was several levels of wrongness above mere theft.
Not really. Perhaps I see theft as something more severe than you do, but it was theft.
I consider theft pretty serious, so I doubt that's it. But in that case I see not only theft but coercion, disdain for potential harm to the patient, and a number of other nasty issues.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:I asked someone to show me an instance where a person could not get her prescription because of a pharmacist doing what I've advocated. This was the only example anyone has been able to provide, and it had two flaws: 1.) it wasn't caused by a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription but by a pharmacist committing theft, and 2.) the woman still got her pills.
The people who are anti-choice in this matter continually raise the spectre of a woman utterly unable to receive pills because of this choice being available. So far, the closest example they've been able to provide is someone doing something else causing a delay of several days. That's like pointing to a drunk driving accident as a reason to avoid giving drivers licenses to college students.
Perhaps you aren't understanding this, here. The point is that in the case of hormonal birth control, a delay of several days is a REALLY, REALLY BIG DEAL. The pharmacist has no idea WHY the woman is using birth control, and if she's using it for hormonal reasons and not purely pregnancy prevention, he has now COMPLETELY thrown off her hormonal cycle, which can have some pretty nasty consequences, depending on the severity of the hormonal imbalance being treated.
quote:Short answer: because there is a difference between allowing something to happen and making it happen. The long answer would require dredging up about 20 old threads.
quote:]Come on, you're smart enough to understand the difference between something happening on its own and being caused. Causation is an element of homicide. No causation, no homicide.
Let's see, we can legally charge someone with "negligent homocide." If there were a way for a woman to reduce the number of natural miscarriages by 50%, and she didn't use it, she'd still be negligent in protecting these "children," if one really did want to consider them children.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Perhaps you aren't understanding this, here. The point is that in the case of hormonal birth control, a delay of several days is a REALLY, REALLY BIG DEAL. The pharmacist has no idea WHY the woman is using birth control, and if she's using it for hormonal reasons and not purely pregnancy prevention, he has now COMPLETELY thrown off her hormonal cycle, which can have some pretty nasty consequences, depending on the severity of the hormonal imbalance being treated.
No, you're missing the point. The one delay that has been pointed out WASN'T BECAUSE OF A PHARMACIST DOING WHAT I ADVOCATED. Therefore it's irrelevant.
quote:If there were a way for a woman to reduce the number of natural miscarriages by 50%, and she didn't use it, she'd still be negligent in protecting these "children," if one really did want to consider them children.
There'd still have to be causation, and that isn't it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:I asked someone to show me an instance where a person could not get her prescription because of a pharmacist doing what I've advocated. This was the only example anyone has been able to provide, and it had two flaws: 1.) it wasn't caused by a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription but by a pharmacist committing theft, and 2.)the woman still got her pills.
That's the part I'm having a problem with.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I consider theft pretty serious, so I doubt that's it. But in that case I see not only theft but coercion, disdain for potential harm to the patient, and a number of other nasty issues.
Coercion is inherent in all theft. Disdain for potential harm to the person from which something is taken is inherent in all theft.
quote:That's the part I'm having a problem with.
The woman did get her pills. I'm not sure why you have a problem with me stating the facts.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But Dag, it's like you're saying that it didn't create a problem because she DID get her pills...eventually.
-pH
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
not to quibble, but i don't think coercion and disdain for potential harm to a person are inherent in all theft. i think there is a good deal of theft that has no intent to, or disregard for, harm. it in fact goes quite a bit out of it's way to make sure that no one gets hurt. also, you can steal without lying or coercing anyone.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But Dag, it's like you're saying that it didn't create a problem because she DID get her pills...eventually. -pH
No, it's not like that at all.
quote:not to quibble, but i don't think coercion and disdain for potential harm to a person are inherent in all theft.
You steal someone's purse, it might contain her insulin or asthma inhaler. You steal someone's wallet, it might contain his prescription or the money he needs to buy food for his kids. This is true whether the purse or wallet is with the person or sitting on a counter somewhere.
Further, when you break the law, you are incurring the possibility of apprehension and all the risks entailed there.
As to coercion, a thief is physically keeping the property of another from them, using this physical action to deprive them of posession.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
For the first year I was on the pill, I did not have sexual intercourse. I doubt I am the only woman out there that can say that. Therefore, if the woman who was denied pills, or even forced to go elsewhere was like me, there was no sperm around to possibly fertilize the egg, so the pharmicist was not preventing homicide. So, his moral objections to providing the pill are gone and he is just discriminating against her for having hormonal issues. The pharmicist is not privy to this information. So, perhaps we should also be asking that question- does a pharmicist have the right to discriminate against a sick woman simply because her treatment could be used in a negative way? Taking it the next step, would a pharmicist be able to deny pain killers because they could be sold to addicts (he has no reason to believe they will be, just that they could be). Also, for a woman taking birth contol pills daily, the main mechanism is prevention of ovulation. I can say with confidence that I did ovulate for the entire time I was on the pill. Therefore, this acted much more like a condom (ie keeping the sperm and egg apart) then as a lethal, killing act. There never was an egg to fertilize, therefore no eggs were trying to implant and being prevented. So, for me, the argument that daily contraceptives are killing baby is hard to buy.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Dag - agreed, in the examples you gave both coercion and disdain for harm are evident, but those are not the only cases of theft. as for the possibility of apprehension, that is harm to the theif, not the person being stolen from. i assumed that wasn't what was meant. and if the person being stolen from never missed the item stolen, and never wants for anything, i don't think that includes coercion. anywho, thats not really the point of the thread, so nevermind.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
The real problem is that these pharmacists are refusing to give these drugs based on a belief that they will prevent a blastocyst from implanting in the uterine wall. There is 100% absolutely NO scietific evidence for this belief at all. NONE. If I were a pharmacist and I decided not to dispense penicillin because it gives me an allergic reaction and I BELIEVE that it will cause the same reaction in everyone else, regardless of the scientific evidence, there would be an uproar, because I am wrong. Since the drug in question is most commonly used as a contraceptive (at least in people's minds) it's supposedly ok to refuse to give me my medication as long as the pharmacist tells me who I can go and get it from?
If a theif steals a Diabetic woman's purse and it contains her insulin (it shouldn't since insulin is supposed to be refrigerated) but if it did (since that's one of Dag's examples)and the woman then went into sugar shock because she missed a shot, then that theif could be charged with criminally negligent homicide or at least manslaughter. The same could be said of a pharmacist which refuses to dispense hormonal contraceptives and keeps the prescription delaying the purchase of the medication.
Scholar suffers from migrane if she can't get her meds. Migranes can precipitate strokes. So if a pharmacist refuses to give Scholar her meds and she has a migrane which leads to a stroke and she dies, he has caused her death.
And all for a belief that has no basis in scientific fact at all. (After all, I believe that the world is flat...that doesn't make it true.)
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
By the way scholar you're not alone, I didn't have intercourse while I was on the pill either.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
On top of that, pharmacists also dispense PLENTY of medications to women that could also harm an "unborn child." What if the woman doesn't know she's pregnant? Shall we refuse to dispense medications to all women unless they can't cause harm to a fetus/zygote/blastocyst?
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:On top of that, pharmacists also dispense PLENTY of medications to women that could also harm an "unborn child." What if the woman doesn't know she's pregnant? Shall we refuse to dispense medications to all women unless they can't cause harm to a fetus/zygote/blastocyst?
Once again, there are significant differences in the moral calculus.
quote:The real problem is that these pharmacists are refusing to give these drugs based on a belief that they will prevent a blastocyst from implanting in the uterine wall. There is 100% absolutely NO scietific evidence for this belief at all. NONE.
Wrong. "Not proven" is not the same there being no scientific evidence for it.
Further, I don't actually believe it happens. When I owned a company, our health insurance covered birth control medication.
You all seem to be missing the point: forcing someone to do something they consider immoral is wrong.
quote:Scholar suffers from migrane if she can't get her meds. Migranes can precipitate strokes. So if a pharmacist refuses to give Scholar her meds and she has a migrane which leads to a stroke and she dies, he has caused her death.
Except that there are other pharmacists.
I take two prescriptions for chronic conditions, each as important to my ongoing health as BCPs are to scholars. There are serious possible side effects from missing a does of either. I have had to go from pharmacy to pharmacy when I've left refilling my prescription to the last minute because many pharmacies don't stock one of them regularly. I know what it's like. It's my responsibility to make sure I don't run out, to call ahead and find out if it can be filled, and to make arrangements if it can't.
quote:Since the drug in question is most commonly used as a contraceptive (at least in people's minds) it's supposedly ok to refuse to give me my medication as long as the pharmacist tells me who I can go and get it from?
It's suppposedly OK for you to force someone to do something they believe to be morally wrong?
quote:After all, I believe that the world is flat...that doesn't make it true.
Gee, you think the pictures we have a spherical earth compared to the actual literature from the people who make the drugs might put these two "beliefs" in different categories, your snide, misleading characterizations aside notwithstanding?
This discussion started from someone comparing refusal to sell birth control pills with refusal to interrogate viagra patients as to whether they are having an affair and saying a pharmacist who does the former and not the latter is being morally selective. Later, we had someone comparing masturbation to the death of a fertilized egg and saying that one had to oppose the former if one opposes the latter.
This whole discussion has been full of straw-man attempts to impute erroneous interpretations of certain pharmacists moral views to them.
Is it really that hard for you to comprehend others' moral beliefs? You don't have to agree with them, just understand them. They are starting from two premises:
1.) a fertilized egg is a human being due the same protections as any other human being. 2.) certain birth control pills can stop a fertilized egg from implanting.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 1.) a fertilized egg is a human being due the same protections as any other human being. 2.) certain birth control pills can stop a fertilized egg from implanting.
There are probably plenty of OTHER drugs that can stop a fertilized egg from implanting. Like I said, by that reasoning, I don't understand why a pharmacist wouldn't refuse to dispense those, as well.
I mean, just because it's called a birth control pill doesn't actually mean it's always used for birth control, as everyone has already said. There are a LOT of drugs that have a number of different uses, and a pharmacist has no way of knowing for which of these uses the drug is being prescribed.
-pH
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:It's suppposedly OK for you to force someone to do something they believe to be morally wrong?
If the other person has taken a job in which they are paid to do that, then yes. By taking a job in which you are paid to dispense drugs, you take on a moral obligation to dispense the damn drugs. If you think that's morally wrong, then you shouldn't have taken the job, should you?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If the other person has taken a job in which they are paid to do that, then yes. By taking a job in which you are paid to dispense drugs, you take on a moral obligation to dispense the damn drugs. If you think that's morally wrong, then you shouldn't have taken the job, should you?
That's between you and the employer - the one you made the agreement with. Not the employer's customers.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
phar·ma·cist (färm-sst) n.
One who prepares and dispenses drugs; a druggist.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:phar·ma·cist (färm-sst) n.
One who prepares and dispenses drugs; a druggist.
-pH
gro·cer n. One that sells foodstuffs and various household supplies.
Wait, my grocer doesn't carry halavah! He must not be a grocer!
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I think a lot of this debate seems to be over differences in what a pharmacist's role is, and whether or not they should have any decision-making ability in the drugs they sell. It would probably be a bit less heated if it was over whether or not pharmacists have the right to say "I know your doctor prescribed Chemical X, but I've read too many reports about its dangers and potential side effects so I don't carry it." (Edit: or don't sell it, in the case of chain stores)
Ultimately, I agree with Dag's "That's between you and the employer - the one you made the agreement with. Not the employer's customers." even though I don't personally agree with a pharmacist refusing to sell birth control because of the fertilized egg = human being premise. (Edit: because I don't agree with the premise. Given that premise, I'd likely agree with the refusal.)
Basically if Target says their policy is individual pharmacists can refuse to sell a drug they feel is harmful, but if WalMart says their policy is that pharmacists have to sell whatever a prescription is for no matter what, then pharmacists have a choice which they'd rather work for and customers have a choice which they'd rather shop at.
--Enigmatic (2 edits for clarity)
Posted by EarlNMeyer-Flask (Member # 1546) on :
You should write letters to these companies complaining about the business practices that you disagree with, for what good is a boycott if the company isn't aware of your problems with them?
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote: I take two prescriptions for chronic conditions, each as important to my ongoing health as BCPs are to scholars. There are serious possible side effects from missing a does of either. I have had to go from pharmacy to pharmacy when I've left refilling my prescription to the last minute because many pharmacies don't stock one of them regularly. I know what it's like. It's my responsibility to make sure I don't run out, to call ahead and find out if it can be filled, and to make arrangements if it can't
Except that, as you have neglected to point out in your argument, there is a difference between the pharmacy being OUT of your medication either because 1) they are sold out or 2) they do not stock it and it would have to be ordered, and the pharmacy having medication in stock and refusing to dispense it.
Further more, if Target and other companies who allow their pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions on moral grounds want to allow that policy then they should also be required to post notice both in the automated system that answers the phones and signs at the pharmacy (even outside the store) stating that the pharmacist at this location will not fill prescriptions for whatever drug based on his moral beliefs and advising customer's to go elsewhere. In addition, if a pharmacist suddenly decides that this is an issue, there should be a required period of notification to people who regularly have that medication prescribed at the said location, up to and including telephone calls or letters, advising them that after X date they will no longer be able to have a prescription for the drug filled at that location and advising them of a nearby pharmacist who will fill the prescription and who takes your insurance.
After all, as the hypothetical pharmacist I am, I know that penicillin causes 1 death per day in the United States. As such, I am unwilling to gamble that you may be the person who will die today. Sorry about your pneumonia and all that, but you'll have to drive across town to get your prescription.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I would be outraged if the pharmacist kept the prescription he refused to fill. Since that is theft, Dagonee, what would have happened if she had called the police?
So while I certainly think he has the right to morally object to giving meds, he should be fired or at least reprimanded for refusing to return the prescription.
I also agree that if this is a company policy, that information should be a readily available for customers. In that case, I would just ask, "Hey are you someone who objects to this prescription?" before handing it over.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
And driving across town CAN present a problem, especially if the prescription is needed at the last minute.
And there are any number of reasons a prescription could be being picked up at the last minute that cannot be accounted for by, "Oh, well she should've planned ahead."
-pH
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote: This discussion started from someone comparing refusal to sell birth control pills with refusal to interrogate viagra patients as to whether they are having an affair and saying a pharmacist who does the former and not the latter is being morally selective.
You're right Dag, I did say that. It is being morally selective.
I don't have a problem with my pharmacist asking me why I'm on the pill before he dispenses it to me, if he's going to ask moral questions of his other customer's too. I believe that sex out of wedlock (or extramarital affairs) is immoral. Most of the pro-life people I know believe the same thing.
Go ahead, ask if I'm using the drug for contraceptive purposes before filling my prescription. Just make sure you ask Bubba there, if his Viagra is going to be used with his wife.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
KoM,
quote:If the other person has taken a job in which they are paid to do that, then yes. By taking a job in which you are paid to dispense drugs, you take on a moral obligation to dispense the damn drugs. If you think that's morally wrong, then you shouldn't have taken the job, should you?
A pharmacist is not paid solely to distribute drugs, nor are they paid to distribute all drugs. Should a pharmacist be required to fill prescriptions for any medication prescribed by a doctor anywhere? Of course not.
---------- pH,
quote:I mean, just because it's called a birth control pill doesn't actually mean it's always used for birth control, as everyone has already said. There are a LOT of drugs that have a number of different uses, and a pharmacist has no way of knowing for which of these uses the drug is being prescribed.
So...a pharmacist might not want to take chances and would refrain from filling any such prescription deliberately targeted to do what they feel is morally wrong. I know you and many others feel there is no moral wrong here, but they don't agree. So I don't know why it is so frequently brought up. It's a known thing.
quote:And driving across town CAN present a problem, especially if the prescription is needed at the last minute.
And there are any number of reasons a prescription could be being picked up at the last minute that cannot be accounted for by, "Oh, well she should've planned ahead."
Oh, really? I'd be interested to hear some. Some that wouldn't be, for instance, overcome by getting the precription filled, say, a week in advance (I'm not sure if such a thing is possible now. SHould pharmacists be permitted to refrain from filling certain prescriptions, I think it should be.)
------- andi330,
quote:Except that, as you have neglected to point out in your argument, there is a difference between the pharmacy being OUT of your medication either because 1) they are sold out or 2) they do not stock it and it would have to be ordered, and the pharmacy having medication in stock and refusing to dispense it.
Morally and legally speaking, yes there is. But for the purposes of understanding what a woman wishing to have her birth control prescription filled might have to go through, there's no substantive difference at all. Which was Dagonee's point, to bring up that he can empathize.
quote:Further more, if Target and other companies who allow their pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions on moral grounds want to allow that policy then they should also be required to post notice both in the automated system that answers the phones and signs at the pharmacy (even outside the store) stating that the pharmacist at this location will not fill prescriptions for whatever drug based on his moral beliefs and advising customer's to go elsewhere. In addition, if a pharmacist suddenly decides that this is an issue, there should be a required period of notification to people who regularly have that medication prescribed at the said location, up to and including telephone calls or letters, advising them that after X date they will no longer be able to have a prescription for the drug filled at that location and advising them of a nearby pharmacist who will fill the prescription and who takes your insurance.
Is there some reason you think Dagonee might object to that? Or myself, since he and I are the ones doing most of the support of these pharmacists?
quote:After all, as the hypothetical pharmacist I am, I know that penicillin causes 1 death per day in the United States. As such, I am unwilling to gamble that you may be the person who will die today. Sorry about your pneumonia and all that, but you'll have to drive across town to get your prescription.
The voluntary minimal chance of death for an adult who chooses to take a medication is entirely different from the reason some pharamcists want to stop filling certain prescriptions. What's more, I think you're probably aware of that. So, your sneering objection isn't worth much.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Rakeesh, the first example that comes to mind about the timing of the prescription is a personal one: I used to have to take very, very expensive drugs to get to sleep at night. If I didn't have them, I wouldn't sleep. Unfortunately, there were one or two times in which, due to unforeseen financial issues, I was unable to have my prescriptions filled until I had absolutely no pills left in the bottle...or until a few days AFTER I had no pills left in the bottle and was subsequently not sleeping.
Around here, there are only JUST beginning to be 24-hour pharmacies. The closest one absolutely cannot be reached on foot. Our public transportation, at the moment, is in shambles, and that one pharmacy is the only one that can be reached by bus. The other one along the bus route closes at 6pm.
Say I had to work until 6pm and didn't have a car. And on top of that, I'm on my last day of medication, and I go into the 24-hour pharmacy, and they refuse to fill my prescription on moral grounds.
Well, if I'm on birth control, I'm totally screwed.
You may think that's a pretty elaborate situation, but I'm sure there are MANY people without transportation who have to work long hours or two jobs just within this city.
Aside from that, as for birth control being "targeted to do what they think is morally wrong," birth control is targeted to PREVENT ovulation and regulate hormones. I sincerely doubt that when someone was cooking up hormonal birth control, he/she was thinking, "Gee, I wonder how I can prevent eggs from implanting and cause more 'miscarriages.'" Although I, personally, don't know that I would call them miscarriages, that's not the point.
I don't have a problem with my school health center not handing out condoms or prescribing birth control...but they make it publicly known that they have that policy, and they have it because the school is Catholic. Obviously, if one desperately need some form of birth control, it is public knowledge that Student Health is not the place to get it. Having random pharmacists refusing to prescribe drugs on a whim is likely not a good idea. More than one pharmacist probably works at each pharmacy, and how is a patient to know which one will dispense birth control and which one won't? And even if she does know, is she supposed to memorize the pharmacist's work schedule?
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Except that, as you have neglected to point out in your argument, there is a difference between the pharmacy being OUT of your medication either because 1) they are sold out or 2) they do not stock it and it would have to be ordered, and the pharmacy having medication in stock and refusing to dispense it.
Why is it different? Only because you feel you have the right to force someone to do something they find morally objectionable.
Aparrently it's ok for a company to make a business decision - one just about money - to not stock something, but not ok for the company to make a decision to allow its employees some freedom of conscience.
So are dollars more important to you than morality?
Not a fair question, is it? Well neither is telling a company they can make a decision for monetary reasons but not for moral reasons.
quote:Further more, if Target and other companies who allow their pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions on moral grounds want to allow that policy then they should also be required to post notice both in the automated system that answers the phones and signs at the pharmacy (even outside the store) stating that the pharmacist at this location will not fill prescriptions for whatever drug based on his moral beliefs and advising customer's to go elsewhere.
I partially agree. A list of drugs and the hours they cannot be obtained should be prominently displayed.
quote:After all, as the hypothetical pharmacist I am, I know that penicillin causes 1 death per day in the United States. As such, I am unwilling to gamble that you may be the person who will die today. Sorry about your pneumonia and all that, but you'll have to drive across town to get your prescription.
If the pharmacist posts the notice and the employer agrees to it, it should not be illegal for him to do so.
But really, you know why this is an utterly inapplicable hypothetical.
quote:You're right Dag, I did say that. It is being morally selective.
It only appears so to someone who refuses to make the most basic attempt to understand someone else's moral view.
There's a difference between providing a drug that they believe can kill an innocent third party and providing a drug that someone else may use in an imoral fashion. That's why many people who believe birth control to be immoral still sell condoms, spermacides, sponges, and other methods of birth control.
quote:Say I had to work until 6pm and didn't have a car. And on top of that, I'm on my last day of medication, and I go into the 24-hour pharmacy, and they refuse to fill my prescription on moral grounds.
Apparently, if the pharmacist decided to do not stock the medicine as an inventory control measure - i.e., to maximize profit - that would be OK with andi. It's only if they're reason is one based in silly old morality that would entitle you to use the coercive force of the state to get your pills.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
quote: quote:On top of that, pharmacists also dispense PLENTY of medications to women that could also harm an "unborn child." What if the woman doesn't know she's pregnant? Shall we refuse to dispense medications to all women unless they can't cause harm to a fetus/zygote/blastocyst?
Once again, there are significant differences in the moral calculus.
Okay, here's a twist that may or may not have been mentioned... my sister is taking Accutane for severe acne. As a result, even though she has had no sexual contact of any kind in I don't know how long, she's required by her dermatologist to also be on birth control specifically to prevent any possibility of pregnancy because of the high incidence of birth defects caused by Accutane. So does the pharmacist still get to use "moral grounds" as a validation for why he refuses to fill her BC?
and later...
quote:I partially agree. A list of drugs and the hours they cannot be obtained should be prominently displayed.
Okay, this would eliminate any objection I would have to the entire "moral grounds" dispute. If I knew that this particular pharmacy would fill X scrip only on certain days in advance of actually leaving the scrip and later being embarrassed or left without my medications, then I would have the choice of filling it on that store's schedule or finding another location.
Of course, pH doesn't have that particular option, but I think it can be agreed that the situation in the entire NOLA area is still extraordinary and not what most people are dealing with.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)