Rape victim: 'Morning after' pill denied

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Patroklos


So everyone with a brain tumor has it removed?

Everone with cancer gets Radiation?

Everyone with AIDS gets the meds?

Interesting....

Notice you skipped the two most important examples

Notice you missed the most important. You have mentioned life threatning but not tonight life threatning. Like ruptured spleen or appendix wanna go for a better example

[Mrs. Tuberski]

If you think you know brain tumors dont kill over night neither does aids or cancer. I have never in my 15 years of nursing in trauma and surgery seen an emergent patient not operated on to save their lives. so your talking out of a pipe that isnt being discussed. This pil persription is time senstive like a ruptured spleen. If you dont take care of it it will explode

[Patroklos]

see no logical resaon for this particular pharmacist that happens to be a man to deny this woman he script.

You did say this, as well as

The whole female issue is only about wether or not you or any othe male inthis thread or profession has the right to deny this woman her valid perscription

and...

i have read a room full of men...

Is this rooms discussion some how not more refined by your mear presence?

Notice you missed the most important. You have mentioned life threatning but not tonight life threatning. Like ruptured spleen or appendix wanna go for a better example

X-post, see above, and READ.

[Patroklos]

pil persription is time senstive like a ruptured spleen. If you dont take care of it it will explode

Alot of things are time sensitive, but not a life saving emergancy. The morning after pill is a life saving emergency???

[Mrs. Tuberski]

For your top three quotes still nto computing but got ur testoerone in a wad so no more coment on that since you dont get it any way Not to mention my mere presence usually means squat. cant explain to someone who wont hear. Your last sure it can be life threating to the raped woman what part of that are you not getting. I guess her suicied doesnt count as life threating but then again like most things i have said you wont get it any way. so i have to ask my self why am I arguing with a wall

[Patroklos]

Your biggot anti-male comments are obvious and your inablitiy to even claim them let alone apologize is really a mark on a good name.

As far as the raped woman, this debate long ago moved beyond that one example into many others, your attempt to rope that one back in is disengenuous. Especially since I support and have in fact used the Morning after Pill.

And none of your contributions even attempts to describe why a pharmacy must have a product it does not want to sell, or a pharmacist must abandon his morality to support yours.

Other than because you say so.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Patroklos

So everyone with a brain tumor has it removed?

Everone with cancer gets Radiation?

Everyone with AIDS gets the meds?

Interesting....

Notice you skipped the two most important examples

Which treatment is best for any given condition is up to the doctor and the patient. Of course a General Practioner isn't going to solve every case and instead will refer the patient to an expert in the field because the expert is going to be more knowledgable on that particular condition and will be able to better treat it. Also, of course, everyone doesn't have the money so some AIDS patients don't get their medications even though they are medically necissary. As I said before the pharmacist needs to fill perscriptions for people who have a valid perscription and the money.

We can discuss healthcare as a basic human right, and most civilized countries have decided it is, but that isn't really the topic of this thread nor germaine to this discusion since I specifically said the patient needed a perscriptio and the money to pay for it.

I'm still waiting for an example of where someone gets to not do a specific task of their job due to religious beliefs. You brought up that some hospitals don't have certain specialist positions (I.E. a doctor trained in abortion) but GPs don't have the specific job of performing that operation so that doesn't apply. Obviously that is a subspecialty. The pharmacists sole job is to fill valid perscriptions for legal medications so it most certainly is important that person in that position do their job.

[Patroklos]

I'm still waiting for an example of where someone gets to not do a specific task of their job due to religious beliefs.

From a dozen odd posts up...

Nobody can force, nor can you discriminate, against a doctor who will not take a person off life support.

But now that you mention it, Catholic hospitals do not have to perscribe the MAP, nore does the hospital pharmacy have to dispence it.

And of course we make convenient outs for Quakers and others when it comes to the draft.

Which is most important because you seem to think it is a doctors/pharmacists civic duty to provide such services. We make exceptions for peoples moral beliefs.

[Dinner]

I assure you if it is a pharmacy in the state of California it most certainly does have to dispense the morning after pill even if they don't like it. The cease to be a pharmacy if they don't.

Cite on the doctors and life support point?

[Patroklos]

They admit that although patients have a right to compel doctors to terminate treatment, they should not be able to force medical professionals to assist them in dying.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1171

First result from Google. Do you honestly think you can force someone to kill you?

[Patroklos]

I assure you if it is a pharmacy in the state of California it most certainly does have to dispense the morning after pill even if they don't like it. The cease to be a pharmacy if they don't.

And I assure you once someone tries to sue such a pharmacy the Feds will smack you down. It is cut and dry.

[Mr. Harley]

Patroklos - I suggested this in the last thread.

So they can put a sign outside their door saying they don't carry the drug because their Christians who don't believe in it. Same thing.

The fact they do not do this shows that there IS an economist cost to announcing you do this, it outweights the economit benefit of posting this notice, and that these pharmacies are trying to have it both ways. They don't want to lose the business they would from moderate and progressive individuals who would boycott - not that many IMHO, but in a competitive market that can be painful.


Paroklos

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?

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.

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

Imran (and shame on you - you are more capable of better arguments than that!)

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 yet it is an alternative. So how can it be critical and essential if there is an alternative, even counting the mental and physical cost? You are severly downgrading what critical and essential means.

So what about a diabetic who was raped? Pregnancy can be life threatening, as can an abortion. Do you want to tell me that there are no diabetics who are raped? Didn't think so. Your arguments, and those that are similar (I got tired of pasting quotes) are specious, and also a lousy strawman.

Speaking of which, my mother's last pregnancy, before they removed her uterus, was so high risk that the Catholic Church had given my parents explicit permission to use the pill (double birth control, for those morons out there who don't understand why). My mother wanted another child, and took the risk. However, what about a woman who is as high a risk, for religious reasons doesn't take the pill, and then get's raped. It happens,

Want to get one of our local physicians on here? Hell, I can Google - pregnancy "risk factors". Let's see - ah, over 3 million hits. The first is the National Institutes of Health. Click the button, and - top of the page.

Number of Mothers With Anemia: 102,788 (2002)

Number of Mothers With Diabetes: 131,027 (2002)

Now since these are the voluntary figures (more or less), and people with those two issue self-select against pregnancy - do you think, just possibly, the the numbers of woman raped might even have a worse profile? Oh, and the The National Crime Victims Treatment Center reported that close to 700,000 adult women are raped each year. Do you think, just possibly, that some of them have the various risk factors that make a pregancy a life-threatening process?

"Hey, weed is critical and essential to Sava! Lets give him some!" does not do credit to those women with those risks.

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.

Imran, you're a lawyer. Come off it. Then you volunteer your time and help than write a better regulaton - if you feel that strongly about it. I'll bet in a few years, and I mean this as a complement BTW, you could help them write better regs/law details than many that get passed. :end of complement: That is if you will jettison the hot button reaction and think, which is why you are one of the posters I will go out of my way to read.

Remember that the "morning after pill" is licenced for use up to 72 hours after intercourse. Express mail would definetly get it in time, as would going to another pharmacy the next day.

I agree, Imran. But the FDA ignored it's own panel and refused to make if over the counter, due to fake arguments. I have no sympathy if a movement creates a catch 22, and then adherents to afore-said movement get caught in the grinder, so to speak.

Timexwatch - I would be married to a different girl if she hadn't been aquaintance raped on campus. Unfortunately she would not press charges, as she rightly figured either her father (ex-combat vet) or myself would at a minimum go pound the f*cker to pulp. She also totally withdrew after that, and I didn't know about rape crisis centers at the time.

[Mr. Harley]

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.

Patroklos, shame on you.

From the Camden County, GA web site.

Camden County is one of 159 counties in Georgia. The county is in the Saint Marys metro area.

The estimated population in 2004 was 45,108. This was an increase of 3.31% from the 2000 census.

Now, for 2004 according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics , the victimization rate for rape is 0.9, or just under a 10th of a per cent. Going to the Census Bureau, it looks like the number of people under the age of 12 as of the year 2000 demographically is about 10% - I'm extracting this from graphics so I may be off one or two points. What that boils down to is that Camden County has roughly 40 rapes a year reported.

Now I just checked the newest figures in Nebraska, trying to get an age profile of the victims, and according to the most recent numbers from the National Women's Study, 84% of rapes are unreported. So the actual rate is going to be roughly 5.625 per thousand, giving you bucolic, halcyon, and peaceful Camden County rougly 225 rapes per year. I will give you the benefit of the doubt (and since I'm feeling lazy) and let's say that it's only 200, giving it over 10% fewer rates than the national average. See, I'll round in your favor.

Now a tiny number are men, and some of those victims are on the pill, or past the age of fertility. Want to bet your $10 that NONE of them were of child bearing age, and not on birth control? In fact, I just found some numbers for the developed world, and 12% of married women, and 36% of sexually active unmarried women.

Actually, those numbers are going to be worse. I've been wading through those numbers for the State of Nebraska , and found that 24% of the victims are age 18-34 (for which the 36% unmarried and 12% married use of oral contraceptives would apply - there are also IUD's but those numbers aren't that high and I spotted you over 10% on the total rapes anyway), 19% between 16 and 17, and 25% of the victims of rape were between the ages of 11 and 15. Somehow I don't think that group has a 36% use of the pill, and even in Georgia I don't think many are married.

OK, want to bet none of them have diabetes. You might win, but it's doubtful. The rate of diabetes in women age 18-44 years is 20.6 per thousand, or roughly two per cent. Since we have over 200 victims, of which 68% are women age 25 and under (though the much younger ones will have lower rates) you should have at least one or two victims with diabetes (I suspect the statiscal average will be 3). With that small a number it is statistically possible that in Cobb County none of the rape victims in any paticular year had diabetes.

But of course if it happens that one of those women who happen to get raped also happen to have diabetes - I am quite sure they will be comforted to know that you and Imran, as well as Ben and all the religious police don't think that emergency contraception is their right. And that, as they ponder the very real issue of bleeding to death, or not properly healing after the abortion and becoming sterile, I am quite sure your arguments will make them feel sooo good.

And those adolescent girls in Camden - you know the roughly 50 of them age 15 and under who got raped - I KNOW they will feel good that they are being denied access based on the arguments you and Imran have fowarded. As the pressure from zealots like Ben is ramped up to force them to complete the pregancy. And when the rumors start, and the word gets around - you guys realized that pregnancies are sort of obvious in the later stages - and these girls have the choice of being sluts or rape victims - they will thank those of you who say they don't need access to Emergency Contraception.

Note I HAVEN'T EVEN DEALT WITH THE ISSUES NORMAL WOMEN MAY HAVE WITH ACCESS. Then you numnuts wonder why Mrs. Tuberski reacts like it's a hot button? And castigate her for it? Why not instead look at the fact that she is a generally reasonable individual, not necessarily articulate when typing (she has told us about her problems there, I do believe), and that maybe there's a reason that for Mrs. Tuberski, and alot of women, having a bunch of men pontificate gets them really pissed.

[Sikander]

Forcing pharmacies to carry every drug would be prohibitively expensive. My girlfriend is a pharmacist in a hospital pharmacy (which have much larger varieties of drugs stocked than retail pharmacies) but they don't carry numerous drugs because of the huge cost involved. Not only are many drugs ruinously expensive, they all expire over time. It simply isn't intelligent or feasible to force every hospital much less every retail pharmacy to carry cobra anti-venem (for instance), though I'm sure the pharmaceutical industry would be all for it.

Forcing pharmacists to fill every prescription (when the drug is available to them) also has its problems. Pharmacists are not only allowed but required to only dispense medicines which in their best judgement will benefit the patient, ie they are a second line of defense for the patient to prevent accidental harm that may come from a drug or combination of drugs and conditions. Additionally they are responsible to the best of their abilities to ferret out fraudulent prescriptions etc. This allows them an immense amount of leeway to ignore the law by making absurd claims (eg "her drivers license picture didn't look a thing like her") that would nonetheless be difficult and expensive to prove in order to avoid dispensing drugs which they are opposed to being used.

A private sector response seems the best here. Boycott pharmacies that won't carry the M.A.P. or who tolerate their employees refusing to fill prescriptions for non-medical reasons. Give money to Planned Parenthood or other groups whose mission it is to assure that all legal health services are available to every community in the country. Notice that the case in the O.P. it was a misunderstanding that caused this girl to miss out on M.A.P. available at her local Planned Parenthood.

[Kuciwalker]

Forcing pharmacies to carry every drug would be prohibitively expensive.

Have a cookie. We're talking about forcing pharmacies to carry one specific drug.