Rape victim: 'Morning after' pill denied

[Imran Siddiqui]

Neither Oerdin nor I have EVER claimed that every pharmacy should stock every known drug

[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]

It doesn't say you can send the patient to another pharmacy that has that drug. If you sent the patient across the street, you aren't filling the perscription, are you? That sentance says you must fill it... thus you must have it, somehow.

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.

And it slams (a lot) PHARMACIES that don't keep those drugs in stock. That was my contention from the beginning. If you wanted to believe it was something else, then that's your problem, not mine.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
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'.

And you graduated from what medical school again?

[Dinner]

Why brush your teeth when you can just get false teeth? Hell, why worry about chewing when you can just eat oatmeal and jello?



It is clearly a needed medication and not getting it exposes the patient to much more risk and emotional trama. It's legal, it's safe, and if the state wants to regulate what pharmacists can or can't do then it is entirely with in their rights to do so.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Neither Oerdin nor I have EVER claimed that every pharmacy should stock every known drug

[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]

It doesn't say you can send the patient to another pharmacy that has that drug. If you sent the patient across the street, you aren't filling the perscription, are you? That sentance says you must fill it... thus you must have it, somehow.

Must fill /= must have on hand. It means they have to make a good faith effort to get it and can't just refuse to do so. Just admit you made a silly generalization and are now parsing words in an attempt to weasel out of it.

[Kuciwalker]

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?

Because, as I've said a dozen times, subsidizing its purchase is a much bigger step with many more ramifications than simply requiring that a pharmacy stock it. That is why my logic doesn't lead where you wish it did - because the weights are different on both sides of the issue.

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

But not impossible. And it'd be a lot easier than justifying not requiring pharmacies to stock it. Which is why I'm arguing the more limited case, because the argument is stronger and the answer less ambiguous.

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.

I wouldn't either (at least re: MS). This, however, is clear abuse of a monopoly position to impede innovation. This is purely economic association.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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

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

Yeah, I guess Save would love that except weed isn't a legal drug which a pharmacy is supposed to deliver.

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'.

No. The morning pill isn't an abortion pill - it's a pill that can prevent an pregnancy after intercourse and can thereby prevent an abortion. And if you think there isn't any difference between taking a pill the day after a rape and an abortion two months later, then I really feel sorry for you.

[Dinner]

Weed isn't legal nor is he likely to have a valid perscription of it.

Any more red herrings?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Must fill /= must have on hand.

Must fill does mean you have to contact a warehouse to get the drugs. Must fill means you can't say the pharmacy across the street sells those drugs, go to them.

subsidizing its purchase is a much bigger step with many more ramifications than simply requiring that a pharmacy stock it.

Why is it a bigger step? As I said, we already have Medicare. While requiring every pharmacy stock the drug or order it if it doesn't have it isn't as precedented.

This, however, is clear abuse of a monopoly position to impede innovation. This is purely economic association.

The form of association isn't important to me in the slightest.

But I have a question, Patroklos did bring up Catholic hospitals. They don't provide abortions. Late term abortions can be FAR more critical and/or essential than a morning after pill. Would you require them to perform abortions? If no, why not?

[Ben Kenobi]

My question is why the drug should be available. People have died from complications of the morning after pill, and it does nothing to help the patient cure any kind of medical condition.

And I don't see how pregnancy is a medical condition, in need for a cure.

The drug won't take away the fact that the woman has been raped, it won't 'unrape' her. All it does is kill a baby.

[Imran Siddiqui]

weed isn't a legal drug which a pharmacy is supposed to deliver.

But it's critical and essential to the person that wants it!! I'm just showing why we don't use "critical and essential to the person that wants it" and rather use critical and essential in the eyes of most people.

it's a pill that can prevent an pregnancy after intercourse and can thereby prevent an abortion.

Yes... but you can have an abortion a week later (or whenever you know you are pregnant). So I ask, how is it critical or essential, when you can get rid of a pregnancy later on? The increased cost and difficulty later doesn't make it more 'essential' or 'critical'. To me those words mean that if you don't get them, you're dead (btw, while I am pro choice, I don't consider abortion to be essential or critical either, unless you will die if you try to have the kid).

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The drug won't take away the fact that the woman has been raped, it won't 'unrape' her. All it does is kill a baby.

There is no baby yet. There isn't even a pregnancy yet. Try again.

[Ben Kenobi]

it's a pill that can prevent an pregnancy after intercourse and can thereby prevent an abortion.

When does pregnancy start? When the woman says she is?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
My question is why the drug should be available. People have died from complications of the morning after pill, and it does nothing to help the patient cure any kind of medical condition.

And I don't see how pregnancy is a medical condition, in need for a cure.

The drug won't take away the fact that the woman has been raped, it won't 'unrape' her. All it does is kill a baby.

Please post any evidence you have of women that have died from this pill.

The pill isn't an abortion pill - is an anti pregnancy pill.

[Ben Kenobi]

There is no baby yet. There isn't even a pregnancy yet. Try again.

And you are a doctor? What do they teach you folks nowadays.

When does pregnancy start, guynemer?

[Guynemer]

No, when doctors say she is--implantation into the uterus. That doesn't happen for a couple days yet, hence the time frame for the pill.