Rape victim: 'Morning after' pill denied

[Kuciwalker]

But they should be required to stock certain drugs that meet the criteria I mentioned earlier and that a large number of them are denying to people because they're deep down, *******s.

xpost

[Kuciwalker]

All of your economic arguments are bull**** for the simple reason that it makes economic sense to stock the morning-after pill.

[Cyclotron]

State pharmacies

[Patroklos]

But they should be required to stock certain drugs that meet the criteria I mentioned earlier and that a large number of them are denying to people because they're deep down, *******s.

You mean YOUR criteria? Nice.

Thats fine, so you have no problem with pharmacists in NYC not having it since there are other pharmacies all around.

And even if we did deam it essential, it sure as hell can never be considered life threatening, so why would it be a private pharmacies job to provide that need if they don't want too?

[Kuciwalker]

You mean YOUR criteria? Nice.

No, I mean someone else's criteria, that I don't agree with

And even if we did deam it essential, it sure as hell can never be considered life threatening, so why would it be a private pharmacies job to provide that need if they don't want too?

As opposed to a public pharmacy's job?

You've at least retreated from the idiotic economic argument to the "freedom of association" argument. And the reason is because, as you said, it is essential. And it is time-critical. It is, after all, a morning-after pill. An abortion is more risky and more expensive. And in the end, because otherwise you're allowing someone to abuse his effective monopoly position (or a group's effective monopoly position) to impose his religious views on others.

[LDiCesare]

There's one thing with medication not being in stock and another thing not trying to find it. My wife needs a rare and expensive drug, so often we reach a pharmacy where they don't have it in stock. The good pharmacies always manage to get some in a few hours, even if they have to buy it from another pharmacy.
Another interesting point: In France, it is possible for a pharmacist to refuse selling a product if it would cause a risk to the buyer (they are actually supposed to double-check that there are no counter indications of that medicine and some treatment the buyer is having). However, that is the only legal reason why they can. Refusing to sell the stuff on morale grounds would be punished by law (sale refusal). Isn't there anything similar to sale refusal in the States?

[Patroklos]

You've at least retreated from the idiotic economic argument

Since the arguement is valid for any retail store and product, it is perfectly valid. I bet you $10 that in Camden Georgia there is no market whatsoever for the morning after pill, and probobly half of the rest of their inventory.

And the reason is because, as you said, it is essential.

I said if it was essential, which it is not, and regardless your position fails either way.

And it is time-critical. It is, after all, a morning-after pill.

Is the pharmacy required to carry every time critical drug?

An abortion is more risky and more expensive.

I bet it is invasive. I bet it is safer than alot of other proceduers though.

But if you think abortions are so dangerous that we should mandate the availability of the morning after pill, we should take another look at the regulations regarding abortions and how easy it is to have the procedure done.

And in the end, because otherwise you're allowing someone to abuse his effective monopoly position (or a group's effective monopoly position) to impose his religious views on others.

According to you, the market will balance this out anways. There is money in dead babies, as has been proven already.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Kuciwalker]Possibly yes. However, given that there are many more consequences of subsidizing purchase of those drugs than of merely requiring that pharmacies stock them, it doesn't necessarily follow from my argument. Sorry, reductio ad absurdem doesn't work here. And of course the obstacle here was that it wasn't available for purchase, not that she couldn't afford it.[/q]

You said they should be AVAILABLE, not 'available for purchase', but 'available'. It can be on sale at the local pharmacy, but if it's $100, the poor woman can't get it. Thus, it isn't available to her.

And if you would now wish to make that distinction, what is the reason for doing so? Why would it be morally ok to have it available for sale, but deny the poor?

Strawmen are wonderful, aren't they? I mean, you'd think we were proposing that they be required to stock ALL medicines, not just the morning-after pill.

[q=Oerdin]All that needs to happen is for the law to state that in order to hold a pharmacist's licence you must fill all valid perscription for legal medications.[/q]

You were saying?

And in the end, because otherwise you're allowing someone to abuse his effective monopoly position (or a group's effective monopoly position) to impose his religious views on others.

And if the only restaurant in town is Chick-Fil-A, which closes on Sunday for religious reasons, would you force them to open on Sundays because they are imposing their religious views on others using their restaurant monopoly?

[Imran Siddiqui]

However, that is the only legal reason why they can. Refusing to sell the stuff on morale grounds would be punished by law (sale refusal). Isn't there anything similar to sale refusal in the States?

Those who refuse to sell are usually punished by their companies, who have the drug in stock and, for that reason, want them sold.

[Kuciwalker]

You said they should be AVAILABLE, not 'available for purchase', but 'available'. It can be on sale at the local pharmacy, but if it's $100, the poor woman can't get it. Thus, it isn't available to her.

I'm sorry for using words as I would in general speech, rather than making sure everything was precise.

And if you would now wish to make that distinction, what is the reason for doing so? Why would it be morally ok to have it available for sale, but deny the poor?

Because, as I said, there are far more ramifications of subsidizing purchase of a drug or requiring that it be sold at a particular price than there are of merely requiring that it be stocked, particularly for an item for which there IS demand. These may or may not outweigh the ramifications of not having the drug available to those who cannot afford it. Which outweighs the other, though, is independent of whether the ramifications of not having the drug available for purchase outweighs the ramifications of requiring the pharmacies to stock a [particular] drug that is in demand.

You were saying?

Well actually Oerdin was saying. Touche. On Oerdin

And if the only restaurant in town is Chick-Fil-A, which closes on Sunday for religious reasons, would you force them to open on Sundays because they are imposing their religious views on others using their restaurant monopoly?

Strawman. Chick-Fil-A isn't by any stretch of imagination essential.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What's their job? To supply everything and anything under the sun? I thought their job was to make money, like every other business.

I pharmacist's job is to provide legal medications to everyone who has the money and a valid perscription. That's the job they're licenced from the state to do. If they don't want to do it then find a different job.

The upshot of your law, of course, is that small pharmacies will go under. They won't be able to afford all the legal drugs out there.

Gee, that just doesn't seem to have happened in California. I guess we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good rant though. The reality is if they don't have it on hand they can order it and most cities have large distributors which have the item in question on hand. The pharmacist just picks up the phone and orders the medication. The problem is in some small towns there are only one or two pharmacists and those people refuse to even order medications for pacients. That's wrong and it shouldn't be allowed. Either they do their job or they find another job.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm sorry for using words as I would in general speech, rather than making sure everything was precise.

And I would know how you use words in general speech.

Because, as I said, there are far more ramifications of subsidizing purchase of a drug or requiring that it be sold at a particular price than there are of merely requiring that it be stocked

What are those ramifications exactly? You keep talking about it, but how is it that much different from what Medicare does?

Well actually Oerdin was saying.

You said WE (as in "we were proposing") in your previous statement I quoted.

Strawman. Chick-Fil-A isn't by any stretch of imagination essential.

Then I turn to Patroklos' argument, who determines 'essential'? Is it really that essential when an abortion can be had (I disagree with Patroklos when it comes to the issue of abortion, btw)?

I, for one, wouldn't consider the morning after pill to be 'essential'. I consider 'essential' goods to be those that are required for you to live.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I pharmacist's job is to provide legal medications to everyone who has the money and a valid perscription. That's the job they're licenced from the state to do. If they don't want to do it then find a different job.

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.

Gee, that just doesn't seem to have happened in California.

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.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And if the only restaurant in town is Chick-Fil-A, which closes on Sunday for religious reasons, would you force them to open on Sundays because they are imposing their religious views on others using their restaurant monopoly?

That is the most stupid argument I have seen in a long time here - even Fez could have made a better.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I'm sorry for using words as I would in general speech, rather than making sure everything was precise.

And I would know how you use words in general speech.

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?

Because, as I said, there are far more ramifications of subsidizing purchase of a drug or requiring that it be sold at a particular price than there are of merely requiring that it be stocked

What are those ramifications exactly? You keep talking about it, but how is it that much different from what Medicare does?

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

Strawman. Chick-Fil-A isn't by any stretch of imagination essential.

Then I turn to Patroklos' argument, who determines 'essential'? Is it really that essential when an abortion can be had (I disagree with Patroklos when it comes to the issue of abortion, btw)?

Abortions cost more and are more dangerous. There's a simple net economic benefit to this, and a net health benefit as well. The only reason it's necessary at all is because of religious people trying to impose their morality on everyone else, at economic cost to themselves and others.

In addition, the morning-after pill is time-critical.

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.