MyDD :: Walmart Allows Pharmacists to Discriminate Against Women: Right from the Horse's Mouth

Walmart Allows Pharmacists to Discriminate Against Women: Right from the Horse's Mouth

by Levana, Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:04:10 PM EST

Yet more reasons to despise WalMart--Chris

I was doing my daily email actions which included an email from the Citizen's Action Network(CAN) for Naral Pro-choice America to all major US Pharmacy Chains. As most of you probably already know, Pharmacists across the country have been denying to fill prescriptions for birth control due thier personal opposition to women being allowed to control their own fertility. Here is the email that I sent (written by NARAL):

Dear Wal-Mart Pharmacies,

All over the country I have noticed a disturbing trend of pharmacies refusing to fill women's prescriptions for birth control. When a woman and her doctor decide that a prescription for contraception is in the woman's best interest, a third party has no right to override that decision. Pharmacies must ensure that patients get their doctor- prescribed medication without delay or inconvenience. I ask that your company assure me and your other customers that no woman seeking prescription contraception will be turned away by your company's pharmacies.

No doubt a majority of your customers take for granted that women should be able to receive their birth control despite the personal beliefs of the individual pharmacist. Timely access to contraception is central to women's health, autonomy, and equality. We must trust women and their doctors to make their own reproductive health decisions.

I thank you, in advance, for protecting your customer's health by ensuring your pharmacy will guarantee women have unhindered access to their prescribed medications.

Thank you for your attention and support.

Sincerely,
Levana

Usually these emails go off into the ether, and I hope that someone reads them, but I guess that Walmart has been getting a lot of these, so they actually had an auto response to my specific comments. I was quite surprised at their comments:

"Walmart.com Help" <help@walmart.com> wrote:

Dear Valued Customer,

Thank you for contacting us at Walmart.com regarding women's prescriptions for birth control. Your comments and concerns are very important to us as we strive to meet your needs.

Wal-Mart does not carry emergency contraceptives. Our pharmacists may decline to fill a prescription based on personal convictions. However, they must find another pharmacist, either at Wal-Mart or another
pharmacy, who can assist you by filling your prescription.

Again, we thank you for your comments regarding this issue.

Sincerely,
Customer Service at Walmart.com

Well, now I am really pissed.

I already hate Walmart for other reasons, but a lot of women shop there. Not only do they refuse to stock certain products, but they give their employees carte blanche to decide who gets what medicines they need based their "personal convictions." Now, this policy is against the law in some states, and I'm sure it is illegal under the Civil Rights Act. Not only am I angry at the discrimination against women, but this policy is just ridiculous. If employees are allowed to decide which customers are allowed to buy certain products based on their personal beliefs, then chaos could ensue at Walmarts everywhere. Here was my response to Walmart's response:

Dear Walmart Pharmacies,

I was wondering, as a matter of principle, if Walmart pharmacists fill prescriptions for Viagra to unmarried men? Or, if Walmart sells condoms, spermicides, or other forms of birth control to unmarried men? I was also wondering if Walmart employees who are opposed to the individual right to bear arms are allowed to deny customers to purchase guns or other firearms? It seems to me that if your policy for Pharmacists were to translate into the greater context, then Walmart employees would be allowed to deny customers your products based on any of their personal beliefs. For example, if a Baptist employee didn't agree with a Presbyterian's interpretation of a Biblical text then therefore they may be unwilling to sell them a book about religion. I'm no legal expert, but it seems that you are walking a thin line, if not, allowing your employees to commit an illegal act.

This seems like an inconsistency to me. Walmart employees are allowed to discriminate against women because of their personal convictions, but then I am assuming that they could not discriminate against people of a certain race or religion. Also, I doubt the professional expertise of any Pharmacist who would deny a woman's prescription to birth control. I happen to personally know several women who have children and who are married Christians who need those hormones to prevent fibroids and endometriosis. Do these Pharmacists understand that? Do they also understand that medicines are often used for multiple diagnoses? If not, I truly doubt their competence and would never recommend that anyone put her health in jeopardy by filling her prescriptions at a Walmart pharmacy.

I think you are wrong to allow this unprofessional behavior in your pharmacies and I hope you will take my thoughts into serious consideration.

Sincerely,
Levana<

Now, I just scratched the surface of this outrageous hypocrisy, and I'm sure that you all can think of much worse. So, I am hoping that you will all join me in writing to "Walmart.com Help" <help@walmart.com> and let them know how many ways that they are wrong about this.

I knew that as the Christain Right got control of the Gov't, my body would become their battleground, but I never imagined that they could systematically hijack medical professionals and deny women access to medicines that they need. I guess I am not creative enough when with my Doomsday scenarios. I am pro-choice because I believe that women's lives are precious and should be valued as much as any man's. We can't let this sweep under the rug. I know that the DNC wants us pro-choicers to keep our mouths shut for now, but how much will we lose while we are waiting for our turn.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 42 Comments :: Post a Comment

This is heating up in California (none / 0)

and across the nation. A very good article at Working for Change, Conscience Without Consequence and from other side, about K-Mart taking the opposite approach from Wal-Mart. K-Mart fired a disgruntled pharmacist in 1997, Pharmacy has a conscience problem that links to this stale dated news summary.

This is just the latest attempt to impose pinched religious views on our whole society, under the guise of personal conscience. Courtesy of Kevin Drum, Body and Soul has a thoughtful take on the issue.

A case in point: One fifth of today's op-ed page is wasted on a piece of tripe on the concocted controversy over pharmacists' "right" to refuse to fill prescriptions they don't approve of, complete with a comparison that comes close to rendering me speechless just because it's impossible to tease out everything that's wrong with it:

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 12:51:09 PM EST

Re: Walmart vs Kmart? Sad mismatch... (none / 0)

The law does not allow for pharmacists to make their own decisions on which prescriptions to fill, unless they suspect that the prescription is a fake.

If it's real, it's none of their business.

It's not up to the pharmacist to decide which medications a woman can have.

What's next? (to use your own ridiculous rant) Checkout counter workers refusing to ring up condom sales because of personal beliefs, or refusing to sell me a Kit Kat bar because they're opposed to childhood obesity?

The law gives the discretion to the doctor. That should be the end of the argument.

If the pharmicist doesn't like the products of his trade, he needs another trade.

by NoozMann on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 11:25:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Outstanding (none / 0)

It's not like I needed another reason not to shop at Wal-Mart, but your response letter was outstanding and really highlighted the hypocrisy of " pharmacists personal convictions".

Outstanding. I'll post on my blog as well and circulate to my mailing list.

Witty comment goes here...

by michael in chicago on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:33:12 PM EST

In my opinion... (none / 0)

I think it would be worthwhile to note that under these policies/proposed laws, pharmacists would be free to refuse to dispense Viagra, too. Wonder who that would sit with GOP men who want their Go Pills to keep on coming? I suspect such a talking points campaign (based, in part on American Family Association rantings against Viagra ads) would get everyone's attention.

What would GOP'ers do then? Explain to a mass audience that everything's OK -- they just want to interfere with the ability of women to get their prescriptions, not men?

Ouch.

by jonweasel on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:34:02 PM EST

I go the same reply (none / 0)

I sent it on to NARAL. I don't shop at WalMart, on principle, because of all the nasty stuff that everyone at one of these blogs knows. Just another thing to add to the list of resolutions I plan to send in for our NH Democratic Convention May 7th. "Resolved: the NHDP is opposed to pharmacists denying prescription fills to women because of their own regious prejudices."

http://www.carolforcongress.com

by nhselectwoman on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:42:25 PM EST

Re: Seems simple enough (none / 0)

As some of you are suggesting, if you do not like the policy (or the availability of products) do not patronize the store.

Well, that and tar the GOP with the actions of the extremists to which they pander when they institutionalize the ability to make such "decisions of conscience" into law.

Most Americans already feel the GOP interferes too much with personal decisions. The fact that GOP legislators are trying to pass laws that exempt pharmicists from doing their jobs is but another example.

by jonweasel on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 02:36:24 PM EST

Re: Seems simple enough (none / 0)

The most immediate example is Arizona. But there is legislation pending in several states that would protect pharmacists who refuse to dispense "abortion-inducing drugs, including contraceptives".

http://www.christianpost.com/article/society/1541/section/arizona.legislature.approves.pharmacist.co nscience.bill/1.htm

Since "abortion-inducing drugs" is not well-defined in the legislation, the law would basically protect pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptives on the grounds that they might induce abortion.

Realistically, of course, the people who back these laws are actually attacking the right of women to prevent pregnancy. They are fundamentally against contraception, and are using "abortion prevention" as an excuse.

The ironic thing is that limiting access to contraception is a sure-fire way to increase unwanted pregnancies, and hence abortions.

by jonweasel on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 03:11:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The morning after pill does not induce abortion (none / 0)

All it does it prevent the embryo from attaching to the placenta wall. The Supreme Court has ruled that the State does not have the right to dictate any restrictions on the right of a woman to make her own medical decisions in the first three months of pregnancy.

Walmart and individual Pharmacists are requesting more authority over a woman's right to choose than has been granted to the State. The rule of law applies to all, or it applies to none.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 04:53:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The morning after pill does not induce abortio (none / 0)

I can't help but be reminded of Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred." God, this whole situation is just amazingly idiotic.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:31:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's your slippery slope (none / 0)

The morality cops are going full speed ahead, Dispensing Morality:

Gradually however, we have had the incredibly expanding conscience clause. In 10 states health care professionals can conscientiously refuse to provide contraceptives. In 12 states they can refuse to perform sterilizations.

Indeed, last year the government decided that entire hospitals and HMOs had the right to deny these services without losing federal funding. Never mind that it is not clear who owns the conscience of a hospital: A church hierarchy? A board of directors? The doctors? The community? Or the taxpayers who foot the hospital bills?

Now we have gone even further. Conscience clauses are being proposed to protect professionals who refuse to follow end-of-life directives and refuse to use treatments from stem cell research. Most notably, we have bills in a dozen states to include pharmacists who won't fill a prescription.

It's the pharmacists who are getting the most attention right now. In just six months, there were about 180 reports of pharmacists who said no. One refused to fill a college student's birth-control prescription. Another refused medication to a woman who had suffered a miscarriage.

Walmart and individual Pharmacists are insisting on a nebulous right to exercise their conscience at somebody else's expense. In place of the rule of law, you are supporting anarchy and an exercise of conscience without consequence:

This has led to a counter bill in California that would make pharmacists tell employers of their objections in advance and be prepared to make referrals. It's led to a rule by the Illinois governor that every pharmacy -- though not every pharmacist -- must fill prescriptions, "No delays. No hassles. No lectures." Karen Brauer, who heads a group called Pharmacists for Life International, which claims 1,600 members, compares them to "conscientious objectors." But it isn't that simple.

The pharmacist who refuses emergency contraception is not just following his moral code, he's trumping the moral beliefs of the doctor and the patient. "If you open the door to this, I don't see any place to draw a line," says Anita Allen, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of "The New Ethics." If the pharmacist is officially sanctioned as the moral arbiter of the drugstore, does he then ask the customer whether the pills are for cramps or contraception? If he's parsing his conscience with each prescription, can he ask if the morning-after pill is for carelessness or rape? For that matter, can his conscience be the guide to second-guessing Ritalin as well as Viagra?

How much further do we want to expand the reach of the individual conscience? Does the person at the checkout counter have an equal right to refuse to sell condoms? Does the bus driver have a right to refuse to let off customers in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic?

Yes, we want people to have a strong moral compass. But they have to coexist with others whose compasses point in another direction. In the debate over conscience clauses, Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice says, properly, "There is very little recognition that the conscience of the woman is as important, let alone more important, than the conscience of the provider."

Pharmacists don't have the same claim to refuse filling a prescription as a doctor has to refuse performing an abortion. But there are other ways to exercise a private conscience clause. Indeed, in a conflict between your job and your ethics, you can quit. It happens every day.

When Thoreau refused to pay taxes as a war protest, remember, he went to jail. What the pharmacists and others are asking for is conscience without consequence. The plea to protect their conscience is a thinly veiled ploy for conquest.

In addition to California, this is a big issue in many states. Here is a very objective round up of legislative action and the moral and ethical issues.

I don't need any petty moraliity czar running my life or making decisions on behalf of myself and my family.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 05:29:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hadn't thought of this: (none / 0)

What the pharmacists and others are asking for is conscience without consequence. The plea to protect their conscience is a thinly veiled ploy for conquest.

Absolutely. If these individuals feel so strongly about their right to refuse service, then they should be willing to take individual responsibility for their actions. There's no reason why any person should be denied a cause of action if they suffer damages because of a pharmacist's refusal to fill a prescription.

The question is, does "I had to drive an extra 15 miles" qualify as damages? How about 150 miles? I suppose that's up to an intimidated and overwhelmed judiciary to decide.

Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice

In scrolling by, my eye registered this phrase as "Kissing Catholics for Free."

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 05:49:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's your slippery slope (none / 0)

I don't need any petty moraliity czar running my life or making decisions on behalf of myself and my family.

Simple solution.

Complain to his employer.
If they refuse to do anything (or if he owns his own pharmacy), let them know that you will not be patronizing their business.

by wayward on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 11:03:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sounds like you're suggesting (none / 0)

what the poster is suggesting . . . that people upset by this policy let Wal-Mart know that they'll be taking their business elsewhere. Except for some reason you're asking to be pig-piled.

Hmmm . . .

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 03:06:46 PM EST

Acting on personal convictions (none / 0)

I think I am going to get a job at Wal-mart selling meat and then refuse to sell any because of personal convictions. It seems that given their policy I should be okay as long as I can find the customers another butcher willing to help them. (I have to admit I know so little of them that I don't know if they sell meat, but I think the principle stands in any case.)

by Hong Kong Chevy on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 04:12:59 PM EST

This is an interesting point. (none / 0)

After all, if a butcher refuses to sell veal because they think it's cruel, or only sells kosher food, that's not objectionable (at least, I wouldn't think so).

The difference in this case is that it touches on three larger issues: medical care, reproductive rights, and professional ethics.

Can a lawyer refuse to represent someone on the same grounds? Of course. In fact, if my lawyer didn't want to represent me because of some personal conviction, I would prefer that he refuse my case, rather than accept it and potentially let his beliefs get in the way of his duty (and my interests).

Can a doctor refuse to treat a patient? It depends. If the procedure is necessary for the health of the patient, I'd say no. If it's, let's say, a purely cosmetic nose job? Sure. Should a doctor be required to perform an abortion or, less controversial, a vasectomy, just because the patient requests one? I don't think that position will find much support. Sure, they should tell you where to go to get one safely, but it hardly seems right to compel someone to perform an unnecessary procedure.

I don't know how comfortable I'd be taking any pharmaceutical if I knew that the person who sold it to me was personally opposed to its use. We already know that there are zealots among the theocratic right who will kill to enforce their "culture of life." I don't think tampering with a prescription is beneath such individuals, especially if they're being compelled to do something they think is wrong.

On the other hand, access is also an issue. In some areas, referring someone to another pharmacist might mean sending them quite a ways. What happens if every pharmacist in the county refuses to fill a prescription?

I don't know. Touchy subject. Hopefully, we'll all be able to get meds from Canada on the Internet someday, and then all our problems will be solved . . .

</rambling>

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 04:57:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is an interesting point. (none / 0)

It is also a very real problem. One of the problems that has already come up is a Pharmacist that refused to sell ritalin to a customer, because the Pharmacist didn't believe the customer's son had ADD.

Pharmacists have also refused to sell birth control pills to unmarried women. Could we go back to the days when Pharmacists could refuse to sell condums?

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 05:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course you have never been raped (none / 0)

Walmart and Pharmacists do not have the moral authority to take the law into their own hands. The rule of law dictates that any and all legal drugs shall be made available to the general public. If Walmart or any particular Pharmacist has a problem with that concept, the principled option is to close down their pharmacy and seek another line of employment.

A woman who has been raped should not be compelled to go chasing all over town for a Pharmacy that will not subject her to the further humiliation of being morally judged by a self-righteous, white, male Pharmacist.

by Gary Boatwright on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 04:47:43 PM EST

Re: Of course you have never been raped (none / 0)

Not all of these doctors and pharmacists are male or white. A surprising amount of doctors and some of the pharmacists are female. Race has nothing to do with it.

Don't play the race/sex card where it doesn't apply.

by wayward on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:16:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course you have never been raped (none / 0)

My bad.

Perhaps my accusation would be more accurate if it were only applied to those who are imposing their conscience on women? Pehaps still not appropos, but I suspect that most of the Pharmacists who are utilizing this conscience without consequence clause are white conservative males.

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 01:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Walmart Pharmacies are chaotic (none / 0)

Long before I started avoiding Walmart in general, I stopped using their pharmacy. at least in Suffolk, VA the impression I had was one of chaos and total unprofessionalism. There was a period of time where every prescription had something wrong and each time they tried to convince me I was wrong. At one point they insisted that my insurance would only cover 60 pills of a certain medication because that was the standard dose even though my doctor had prescribed 90. The pharmacist insisted this was the case until I found the previous month's bottle in my purse, filled by walmart with the full ninety pills. When I wrote the manager of walmart explaining my problems, I got no reply. At that point I decided I could not get prescriptions filled because they weren't competant and the management didn't care. I don't know how many people have only walmart as a pharmacy option or how their prices compare (I pay a set copay regardless) but I would never recommend walmart to anyone who has a real choice.

by wibekah on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:24:36 PM EST

Then don't shop at Wal-Mart.. (3.00 / 0)

Do we really need a Government solution for everything?

Wal-Mart has every right to sell or not sell what ever they want.

If a pharmacist refuses to fill a prescription at Wal-Mart, then it is Wal-Mart's place to or not to fire him, not the Government. Government should not require him to fill the prescription, nor should he be entitled to any legal protections if he chooses not to.

This is a matter between Wal-Mart, the pharmacist and the customer. The Government should stay out of it.

Don't like it? Don't shop there.

I have no problem with doctors not prescribing the pill or pharmacists not filling it provided they tell their patients up front. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Be a responsible consumer.

by wayward on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:14:55 PM EST

Re: Then don't shop at Wal-Mart.. (3.00 / 1)

Oh yeah, well that's alright then. Let's go back to letting people decide that their conscience won't allow them to serve black people in their restaurants or barber shops, or rent hotel rooms to them, because if they just effing drive far enough they're sure to find somewhere that will provide that service for them.

Did you miss the part about these medications being prescribed for a wide variety of causes? Did you know that pharmacists sometimes refuse to return prescriptions so the patient can go to another pharmacy? Even if there's recourse, not everybody has time to go back to their doctor to get another one before going to hunt for someplace else.

When you provide a public service, you have to provide that service equitably. When you are a medical professional who decides to withhold care based on your personal prejudices, then you are unfit to hold a job as a medical professional. I think it's disgusting that women could be discriminated against, systematically, by puritanical busybodies in a medical establishment that takes an oath of service to the health and welfare of their patients.

This is flat out, and in every possible way, wrong and unethical. It's a disgrace for them to do it, and a disgrace for you to defend it so callously, with no recognition of the potential suffering this implies.

by Natasha Chart on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 02:29:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then don't shop at Wal-Mart.. (none / 0)

Many pharmacies do not carry a certain medications because they are too obscure or too hard to store. When my wife had her baby at center, most of the prescriptions we needed we had to get filled at the hospital pharmacy.

I fail to see how it is any different.

by wayward on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 10:40:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then don't shop at Wal-Mart.. (none / 0)

Second of all, contrary to popular belief, women do NOT have a RIGHT to birth control pills. Even pill manufacuters say they are not for every woman. The FDA requires a prescription to get them. I think you are sadly mistaken as to what a RIGHT is.

Doctors, however, do have a right to prescribe or not prescribe medication they do not feel is in the patient's best interest. If a doctor is up front about his or her philosophy about the pill, then that's fine. My wife and I agree that that many artifical hormones can't possibly be good for you, especially after her previous experience. If you do not like your doctor, choose another one.

My wife had a bad experience with side effects from her pills. Since many doctors prescribe pills for any female ailments, my wife would find a doctor who did not prescribe them at all to be a plus.

(Note: birth control pills are only FDA approved for birth control. They do not cure anything, although they may alleviate the symptoms of certain problems, from menstrual cramps to acne.)

by wayward on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 10:49:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then don't shop at Wal-Mart.. (none / 0)

Here's the sentence that undoes your entire argument:

"The FDA requires a prescription to get them."

Yes.

And once the prescription is written, the law gives no one the authority to interfere in that process. It is a matter for a doctor and a patient.

The order-filler needs to stay out of it.

by NoozMann on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 11:19:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then don't shop at Wal-Mart.. (none / 0)

I was referring to the doctors, not the pharmacists.

by wayward on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 06:53:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If Woolworth's won't let Blacks sit at their (3.00 / 1)

lunch counters, than Blacks shoud just eat somewhere else?

Sorry, it doesn't work that way -- not in MY country at least!

In Walmart's case the problem is compounded by the fact that Walmart is in a monopoly position in many rural markets, having used predatory pricing to drive out the competition.

"We are building a political movement - not one that wields the power of lobbyists and corporate interests, but the power of millions... who seek change." -Dean

by Jim in Chicago on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 03:53:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then don't shop at Wal-Mart.. (none / 0)

Ideally, yes, but it's not always that easy to not shop at Wal-Mart, depending on where you live... in rural locations, it might be a long drive to another pharmacy, placing a serious burden on those in need of the prescription.

by straleno on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 08:23:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then don't shop at Wal-Mart.. (none / 0)

Sometimes, especially in small towns and rural places, it is hard not to shop at Wal-Mart. They are often the only game in town.

Another thing comes to my mind. I'm a librarian at a Jesuit college. One of the basic tenets of being a librarian is that I'm not supposed to judge the information that people request from me. I've had students come in and ask for religoius arguments against homosexuality. It really grates on my to help them find a bunch of hateful stuff written by folks who claim to be Christian. But I have a professional responsibility to help that person, even though the information they are looking for is offensive to me. It is my job. And these pharmacists don't seem to get that. I don't have the right to deny those students access to that information and the pharmacist doesn't have the right to deny a paying customer access to her prescriptions. Sometimes you do things that you don't like in your job. It is called being a professional.

by Nate on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 08:36:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then don't shop at Wal-Mart.. (none / 0)

No, we do not need a government solution to this problem. We already have one.

Pharmacists are licensed professionals. Their licenses do not give them the discretion to deny legally-prescribed medications.

What gives a pharmacist the right to interfere in a doctor-patient relationship?

Pharmacists fill the prescription. If they can't do it, they forfeit their right to their licenses.

And this question for you: How many pharmacists have refused, on ethical grounds, to fill a precription for Viagra for a man?

by NoozMann on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 11:18:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Viagra vs Birth Control Pills.... (none / 0)

Actually, that is not true. Birth Control pills are a hormone that can be used as a contraceptive or to treat illnesses that are due to hormonal imbalances. I know several people who use Birth Control for that reason, which I mentioned in my post. Any phamacist would know that.

by Levana on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 02:44:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then don't shop at Wal-Mart.. (none / 0)

I'd like to invite the above author to visit rural America sometime. Wal-Mart has already driven many small town drug stores out of business, to the point that many people have to drive 40-50 miles to a Wal-Mart to buy any prescription drugs. The assumption that the good old corner druggist is just down the block if Wal-Mart won't serve you is just an indication of shooting off mouth without knowing the country.

And it is getting worse -- many small town clinics have arrangements with Greyhound to move prezcriptions from a Wal-Mart to small towns, but Greyhound is now in the process of ending service to all but the largest towns.

by Sara on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 07:43:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The sky is not falling. (none / 0)

As long as birth control pills are legal, someone will prescribe them and someone will sell them. And I sure as hell don't see them becoming illegal anytime soon.

Many people have moral problems with alcohol. Some states have fairly tought restrictions on it. Yet if you are 21 you can find it and purchase it fairly easily. Pot is illegal an we know how hard THAT is to find.

The sky is not falling, people.

by wayward on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:24:23 PM EST

Re: The sky is not falling. (none / 0)

Oh yes it is! in many small towns, there is only one place to get a prescription filled, with the "choice" being to drive often enormous distances. Think Nebraska, Texas, etc. For that matter, think Mississippi and other places, where this atroturf "grassroots group" could probably convince a regional office of a major chain to pull greatly curtail access to birth control or something else. Much of the evangelical anti-abortion crowd, as well as some very conservative Catholic elementrs are also anti-contraception and they will look for any opening to get what they want.

by rich on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 11:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The sky is not falling. (none / 0)

Actually, quite the opposite.

There are only so many Wal-Marts around, and usually those are only located in the county seats or larger towns. Any town big enough to have a Wal-Mart would also have a CVS, Walgreens, Eckerds, Rite Aid or some other place to get prescriptions filled.

Likewise, any town too small to have even a local drugstore probably wouldn't have too many doctors either.

You blue staters don't get out much, do you?

by wayward on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 10:53:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The sky is not falling. (1.00 / 0)

Actually, I lived in SC for 5 years and Walmart Pharmacy was the only game in town, especially if you don't have a car. So, I guess you don't get out much either.

by Levana on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 02:52:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The sky is not falling. (1.00 / 1)

Maybe if you live in a big city. But I hate to think of the plight of thousands of small-town women who can't get their prescription from the only pharmacist in town.

Even in larger towns, the radicals will try to pressure every single pharmacy until it is damn near impossible to get birth control pills. That's their objective, and they'll work as far towards that as the law allows.

Imagine seeing women getting their pills from back alley dealers! It may come to that unless a strong and wide resistance to this attack arises.

by Skaje on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 03:46:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The sky is falling. (none / 0)

Take a close look at my slippery slope comment up thread wayward. This has already been extended to:

It's the pharmacists who are getting the most attention right now. In just six months, there were about 180 reports of pharmacists who said no. One refused to fill a college student's birth-control prescription. Another refused medication to a woman who had suffered a miscarriage.

Who owns the conscience of a hospital? Are pharmacies going to post their conscience clause policy prominantly or are customers going t have to guess? What if just the night shift pharmacist objects to a particular medication, but the day shift pharmacist doesn't? What if they have mixed opinions? Is the pharmacy going to post "medication shift policies" itemizing which medications are available on each shift?

Maybe I am making unjust assumptions wayward. Are you a man or a woman? Is this a decision that will affect you personally? If you were a woman, would you want to chase all over town trying to locate a pharmacy that would "allow" you to receive a legal medication? What if you had been regularly purchasing a medication at one pharmacy and they hire a new pharmacist that objects?

This type of legislation is a veritable briar patch that, curiously enough, seems to have it's greatest imipact on women. Is it likely that an unmarried man is going to have trouble filling his viagra prescription?

by Gary Boatwright on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 01:09:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The sky is falling. (none / 0)

If you read my comment above, I said I did not approve of legal protections for pharmacists. However, I do believe that it is not the place of the Government to make people fill prescriptions, but the place of the pharmacy owner.

If John Q. Pharmacist does not want to fill the prescription, then his employer should have every right to fire him for violating company policy. If the company does not want to stock the prescription or does not care whether it's filled, or if John ownes his own pharmacy, so be it. Customers should shop somewhere else.

by wayward on Sun Apr 10, 2005 at 11:01:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Use provate industry to squash this (none / 0)

I don't have an ingrained aversion to government solutions, but I think it's better politics to fix this problem with private industry.

Every pharmacy in Americs is dependent on insurance health plans. Now, I don't want to say nice things about insurance companies, but they are full of people who are sexually active, and they aren't likely to sympathize with pharmacists who send their enrollees all over the place. Let's encourage the insurance companies (including Medica* affiliates, of course) to require by contract that the pharmacy fill the prescription. That should do it nicely.

by Andrew Lazarus on Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 10:41:19 AM EST

I am very interested in this (none / 0)

I am very interested in this
尖锐湿疣性病尖锐湿疣咪喹莫特明欣利迪疣迪尖锐湿疣咪喹莫特咪喹莫特疣迪明欣利迪疣迪艾达乐咪喹莫特尖锐湿疣尖锐湿疣尖锐湿疣尖锐湿疣

by hpvv on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:12:58 AM EST

Re: Walmart Allows Pharmacists to Discriminate Aga (none / 0)

Unfortunately, private industry now-a-days is strongly inserted in politics or vice versa, if you prefer. I have been working for quite a while for a discount medications site that is not located in US and I have to say that I am quite acquainted with this politics of forbidding fertility to women. If a doctor says something here, pharmacists do not ask the questions.

by Nunumarc on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:41:54 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.