posted
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.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ive never had problems with Sony, my PS2 has lasted us 4 years without breaking.
The N64 controllers always used to break though.
IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 . . .
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blac, I feel the same way. I appreciate that they are standing behind their employees, something many companies are not doing lately.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
