Rape victim: 'Morning after' pill denied

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Can you please deal with the debate at hand rather than your own strawmen? A PHARMACY'S job is to make money. A pharmacist cannot provide legal medications if they cannot get them.

Quite right - their job is to make mone by delivering the drugs the customers are in need of - not what the pharmacy seems fit to deliver.

[Kuciwalker]

The only potential economic harm from stocking the morning-after pill is from a boycott by religionists. If, however, you mandate that all pharmacies must carry the morning-after pill, either the boycott breaks or the religionists end up not getting medicine. I honestly don't see a downside

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Catholic hospitals don't perform abortions. Should we go ahead and close the hundreds around the world?

The hospital is also licenced from the state and most recieve federal and state funds to help keep them running. If the state wants to say that a given medical procedure must be made available then they have to comply or lose their licence. If the state decides they want to put strings on to the money they're giving then that's ok too.

The reality is even if they did revoke the licence from one company or nonprofit then another would no doubt be more then happy to buy those assets. That really isn't a likely scenerio though but if the government wants to say you must do X to get federal fund then they'll either comply or go it alone. Seeings how most hospitals couldn't afford to go without federal fund though virtually everyone would comply with the new regulations.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos

That pharmacists don't, won't and shouldn't be required to have every drug you want.

They don't have to have it in stock they just have to be willing to order it and getting it in a timely manner then sell it the pacient in a timely manner. Its funny how nobody but the anti crowd ever claimed other wise.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Blackcat]It isn't critical for anyone to get their fried chicken on a sunday - it may even be healthier if they don't - but some drugs may be critical to get as fast as possible.[/q]

I don't considered morning after pills to be critical or essential, so yes, the analogy fits.

It's not. It's that an argument over the benefits of Medicare, or something like Medicare, has nothing to do with my argument.

Well it does. If you don't pay for medications for the poor, you aren't making it available to them. I think the 'available for sale' vs. 'absolutely available' is drawing a line in the sand just so you don't have to go where your logic ultimately leads.

Abortions cost more and are more dangerous. There's a simple net economic benefit to this, and a net health benefit as well.

So what if abortions cost more and are more dangerous? We don't pay for preventative care for everyone because hospitalization costs more and is more dangerous, do we?

This is a simple case of a law that will produce a clear net economic and health benefit and to which the only objection is based on freedom of association in the marketplace, which is trumped IMO by what amounts to abuse of a monopoly.

And IMO, that doesn't trump it at all, seeing as how I consider freedom of speech and association to be our most important rights, which can only be curtailed in the most important cases, and this doesn't qualify for me.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Oerdin


They don't have to have it in stock they just have to be willing to order it and getting it in a timely manner then sell it the pacient in a timely manner. Its funny how nobody but the anti crowd ever claimed other wise.

I'll say that they should be obliged to get it - not only willing to.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Quite right - their job is to make mone by delivering the drugs the customers are in need of - not what the pharmacy seems fit to deliver.

We are discussing the PHARMACY's job here, so what the pharmacy seems fit to deliver is quite important. Some pharmacies cannot stock every legal drug, but Oerdin wants them to do so.

[Kuciwalker]

Well it does. If you don't pay for medications for the poor, you aren't making it available to them. I think the 'available for sale' vs. 'absolutely available' is drawing a line in the sand just so you don't have to go where your logic ultimately leads.

No, it's because my logic doesn't ultimately lead there.

So what if abortions cost more and are more dangerous? We don't pay for preventative care for everyone because hospitalization costs more and is more dangerous, do we?

Did I say we should pay for the morning-after pill? (no)

And IMO, that doesn't trump it at all, seeing as how I consider freedom of speech and association to be our most important rights, which can only be curtailed in the most important cases, and this doesn't qualify for me.

Who's talking about speech? Are you also against antitrust law?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

California says every pharmacy has to supply ALL legal medications?!

edit: Actually it seems it doesn't:

http://www.pharmacy.ca.gov/laws_regs/new_laws.pdf

4056(2) says a pharmacist may transfer a valid perscription to another pharmacist. Meaning they don't have to supply all legal medications at that pharmacy. They can tell the patient to go somewhere that has it.

Being deliberately dense when you are losing an argument.

All pharmacies are required to fill valid perscriptions. The law doesn't say they have to have it on hand it just says they need to do everything they reasonably can to get it once it is ordered and that a pharmacist can't refuse to supply something like the morning after pill.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Since we both speak the same language... why do you care? You misinterpreted what I said, I clarified, then you attack me for using imprecise wording the first time?

When people are losing a debate and can't argue based upon merits they resort to all sorts of silly word gamses

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Blackcat]It isn't critical for anyone to get their fried chicken on a sunday - it may even be healthier if they don't - but some drugs may be critical to get as fast as possible.[/q]

I don't considered morning after pills to be critical or essential, so yes, the analogy fits.

BS. It is both critical and essential for the person that wants it so no, the analogy doesn't fit.

What you are claiming is that other people than that in need thinks it's not fitting that it's easy to get.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, it's because my logic doesn't ultimately lead there.

Of course it does. Your argument is that it is so important it should be available for sale everywhere. If it is that important, why should the poor be locked out of getting it?

Did I say we should pay for the morning-after pill?

If it is so important, it'd be hard to justify not doing so.

Who's talking about speech? Are you also against antitrust law?

Speech and association stand hand in hand as 'freedom of thought' rights. And I only back anti-trust law when it is applied in extreme cases where a monopoly or cartel is grinding the economy to a half (ie, the most important cases)... but otherwise no. I wouldn't punish Microsoft for bundling. I wouldn't have broken up AT&T, etc.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

We are discussing the PHARMACY's job here, so what the pharmacy seems fit to deliver is quite important. Some pharmacies cannot stock every legal drug, but Oerdin wants them to do so.

For a lawyer you sure are a poor reader.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui




We are discussing the PHARMACY's job here, so what the pharmacy seems fit to deliver is quite important. Some pharmacies cannot stock every legal drug, but Oerdin wants them to do so.

Neither Oerdin nor I have EVER claimed that every pharmacy should stock every known drug - just that they should be able to get it in reasonable time - is that so difficult to understand ?

Besides - this story actually started with a pramacy who had the damn drug in stock but the employee wouldn't sell it beacause of religious reasons.

[Imran Siddiqui]

All pharmacies are required to fill valid perscriptions. The law doesn't say they have to have it on hand it just says they need to do everything they reasonably can to get it once it is ordered and that a pharmacist can't refuse to supply something like the morning after pill.

If a pharmacist can direct patients to other pharmacies, they most definitely CAN refuse to supply medication. Why else would they direct people to other pharmacies? Its an out to a requirement to stock all drugs.

It is both critical and essential for the person that wants it

Hey, weed is critical and essential to Sava! Lets give him some!

Why is the morning after pill so critical and essential when a woman can have an abortion? Simply because it costs more and has a few more dangers (1st trimester abortions have very little danger) doesn't make it 'critical' or 'essential'.