Contraception Drugs and Pharmacist Refusal - Page 2

OKgrannie · 03-26-08, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev.

You'd be wrong about that. Read point 4.

Go Ask Alice!: How do birth control pills work?

You could conceive, have implantation take place, and then have the pregnancy end because of how the Pill alters the hormones in your body. The Pill is an "abortificant"

You read point 4. Implantation is traditionally the beginning of pregnancy, so if implantation never occurs, no pregnancy is ended.

From your link:
"The synthetic progestin (present in both types of pills) works to:

1. thicken the cervical mucus which hinders the movement of sperm,
2. inhibit the egg's ability to travel through the fallopian tubes,
3. partially suppress the sperm's ability to unite with (and thereby fertilize) the egg, and
4. alter the uterine lining so (in the event that an egg is released and fertilized) the egg will likely not be able to implant into the uterine wall. (A fertilized egg would then be discharged with the rest of the menstrual blood.)"

Rev. · 03-26-08, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

the egg will likely not be able to implant into the uterine wall.

"likely" doesn't mean won't. And, in fact, since there is documentation that the Pill does NOT always prevent implantation (isn't the failure rate 1%?), what you end up with is an unknown # of implantations (pregnancies) which are then ended as a result of the hormone imbalance caused by the Pill.

FACT: the Pill does allow conception

FACT: the Pill does allow implantation

FACT: the Pill causes hormone imbalance that creates an environment inhospitable to pregnancy

CONCLUSION: An unknown # of pregnancies are ended through use of the Pill.

Ikari · 03-26-08, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rathi

A Pharmacy is state licensed and not private business.

Who pays the taxes on the business? The State? Nope, it's the individual. The State doesn't own it, and individual owns it and it's their private business. The license is there to certify that they are capable of doing the job and ensure that safety of the product being sold; that's it. Once once has obtained a license, they can sell what they want so long as it's legal. It doesn't belong to the State in the least, the business belongs to an individual and is a private business.

Ikari · 03-26-08, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryreading

That's ridiculous. States regulate businesses, and the state can place requirements on people who acquire licenses.

It's not ridiculous. The State is there only to ensure the safety of the public by ensuring that the pharmacist is qualified for the job and putting certain regulations on drugs and their sale. That's it, the State doesn't pay for that business, it doesn't cover the property taxes or the employee taxes or any of that. It belongs to an individual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tryreading

There is a certain amount of control that consumers have over businesses through the state. For instance, the use of trans fats by restaurants has been limited in some states. Some people say it is wrong to do this, and creates a nanny state situation. But if you leave it up to some restaurants, you'll be eating huge amounts of trans fats without knowing it, and the human body can't deal with the stuff. Sometimes people have to be forced do the responsible thing, especially when it comes to the health of other people.

It is a bad, stupid, idiotic thing to use the govenrment for. Oh noes the restaurant is going to poison youz with trans fat! Make your own damned dinner, then you'll know exactly what you're getting. You make it sound like you're forced into going and eating at that particular restaurant, but you're not. It was a personal choice, deal with it. Many other restaurants will put exactly what is in the meal on the menu or be very happy to tell the customers what is in the meal. The information is there, and if you happen to be at a restaurant that won't tell you if there are trans fats in your meal...don't eat there. Jesus, was that so hard? The restaurants that don't perform satisfactory to consumer demand will fail and go out of business. And that's how consumers affect the system. Not by crying and whining like a bunch of defenseless, incapable babies to government about how oh this is bad and how oh that is bad and blah blah blah....please government save me! That's irresponsible and stupid behavior because you'll begin to authorize government with powers and abilities that go well beyond that which government was intended to wield.

Don't like a pharmacy not selling birth control...don't go there. Find another place that will sell birth control and make sure you do all your shopping there. If enough people are of like mind, the other pharmacy will either start selling birth control or will go out of business. Be a responsible adult instead of a crying child, we don't need government to solve all our damned problems. Humans are pretty resourceful and intelligent creatures, we can solve our own problems without having our hand held.

Kelzie · 03-26-08, 12:33 PM

I think it's important to note that not only would the pharmacist this is based on not sell this lady birth control, he refused to transfer her perscription elsewhere. So much for all this jazz about private property, eh?

Penalty for pharmacist's refusal upheld - Yahoo! News

Ikari · 03-26-08, 01:18 PM

I can understand a problem if the customer wasn't allowed to fill a prescription elsewhere. Though I guess maybe I don't quite understand why she would need the pharmacists permission to go to another pharmacy (well maybe you need official transfers so that people aren't bouncing around from pharmacy to pharmacy getting the same prescription filled multiple time). But in that case, that's the pharmacist overstepping his bounds on property and business. He can control the business he does with his pharmacy and can sell or not sell birth control if he wishes. He can not control the business of other pharmacies and people need to be able to go between pharmacies if need be. If this guy didn't want to fill the prescription, that's fine he doesn't have to. But if the woman chooses to go to another pharmacy because of it, she must be enabled to do so. The original pharmacist can not refuse to transfer her prescription to another pharmacy due to personal beliefs. In this case, you do have legal recourse against the original pharmacist...not to force him to sell birth control if he doesn't want him, but to ensure that if a prescription won't be filled by him, that the customer can get it transfered to a pharmacy which will fill it.

Kelzie · 03-26-08, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ikari

I can understand a problem if the customer wasn't allowed to fill a prescription elsewhere. Though I guess maybe I don't quite understand why she would need the pharmacists permission to go to another pharmacy (well maybe you need official transfers so that people aren't bouncing around from pharmacy to pharmacy getting the same prescription filled multiple time). But in that case, that's the pharmacist overstepping his bounds on property and business. He can control the business he does with his pharmacy and can sell or not sell birth control if he wishes. He can not control the business of other pharmacies and people need to be able to go between pharmacies if need be. If this guy didn't want to fill the prescription, that's fine he doesn't have to. But if the woman chooses to go to another pharmacy because of it, she must be enabled to do so. The original pharmacist can not refuse to transfer her prescription to another pharmacy due to personal beliefs. In this case, you do have legal recourse against the original pharmacist...not to force him to sell birth control if he doesn't want him, but to ensure that if a prescription won't be filled by him, that the customer can get it transfered to a pharmacy which will fill it.

Yeah that's basically what they punished him for. And he also has to notify any future employers that he won't fill birth control prescriptions.

OKgrannie · 03-26-08, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rev.

"likely" doesn't mean won't. And, in fact, since there is documentation that the Pill does NOT always prevent implantation (isn't the failure rate 1%?), what you end up with is an unknown # of implantations (pregnancies) which are then ended as a result of the hormone imbalance caused by the Pill.

FACT: the Pill does allow conception

FACT: the Pill does allow implantation

FACT: the Pill causes hormone imbalance that creates an environment inhospitable to pregnancy

CONCLUSION: An unknown # of pregnancies are ended through use of the Pill.

Occasionally the Pill does allow implantation and what you have then is a pregnancy, not an abortion. The Pill will not dislodge a pregnancy.

The Facts About Emergency Birth Control Pills

"Emergency birth control pills do not cause abortion. Emergency birth control pills work like regular birth control pills: they delay ovulation and may prevent the egg from being fertilized. It is possible, though unproven, that emergency birth control pills may also prevent an egg from implanting (that is, stop it from attaching to a woman’s uterus). This would still not end an existing pregnancy. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, and almost all mainstream professional medical groups define pregnancy as beginning when an egg has finished implanting.
Emergency birth control pills will not harm an already existing pregnancy. Over 40 years experience with birth control pills has provided a large amount of evidence that they will not end a pregnancy and will not cause birth defects. Since emergency birth control pills are the same medicine as birth control pills, this evidence applies to them also. "

tryreading · 03-28-08, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ikari

It's not ridiculous. The State is there only to ensure the safety of the public by ensuring that the pharmacist is qualified for the job and putting certain regulations on drugs and their sale. That's it, the State doesn't pay for that business, it doesn't cover the property taxes or the employee taxes or any of that. It belongs to an individual.

It is a bad, stupid, idiotic thing to use the govenrment for. Oh noes the restaurant is going to poison youz with trans fat! Make your own damned dinner, then you'll know exactly what you're getting. You make it sound like you're forced into going and eating at that particular restaurant, but you're not. It was a personal choice, deal with it. Many other restaurants will put exactly what is in the meal on the menu or be very happy to tell the customers what is in the meal. The information is there, and if you happen to be at a restaurant that won't tell you if there are trans fats in your meal...don't eat there. Jesus, was that so hard? The restaurants that don't perform satisfactory to consumer demand will fail and go out of business. And that's how consumers affect the system. Not by crying and whining like a bunch of defenseless, incapable babies to government about how oh this is bad and how oh that is bad and blah blah blah....please government save me! That's irresponsible and stupid behavior because you'll begin to authorize government with powers and abilities that go well beyond that which government was intended to wield.

Don't like a pharmacy not selling birth control...don't go there. Find another place that will sell birth control and make sure you do all your shopping there. If enough people are of like mind, the other pharmacy will either start selling birth control or will go out of business. Be a responsible adult instead of a crying child, we don't need government to solve all our damned problems. Humans are pretty resourceful and intelligent creatures, we can solve our own problems without having our hand held.

Restaurants are regulated already. So are pharmacies. Neither of the two types of businesses can sell whatever they want to.

If trans fat, or, for instance, vioxx, is being sold to people who don't know the danger, I think government should regulate either situation. These things are unhealthy man made concoctions that cause harm. Nothing wrong with controlling their sale.

1069 · 03-28-08, 11:27 PM

Quote:

FACT: the Pill does allow conception

FACT: the Pill does allow implantation

FACT: the Pill causes hormone imbalance that creates an environment inhospitable to pregnancy

CONCLUSION: An unknown # of pregnancies are ended through use of the Pill.

Uh... cool.

Actually, I'm fairly certain that "FACT" #2 is bull****, but in any case, who cares?
The point of the pill is to prevent unwanted pregnancy, so who cares about the mechanism by which it accomplishes this?
My disillusionment with the pill had to do with its inefficacy in preventing pregnancy- and the world's insistence that the pill is 99.99999% effective and anyone who gets pregnant on the pill is a retarded hoebag who probably forgot to take it regularly (preposterous; I forget a pill, I bleed for the rest of the pill pack- beginning about four hours after the forgotten pill. It's not like I wouldn't know immediately if I forgot a pill).

Of course now I'm back on it for the first time in forever, but that's for health reasons, not to prevent pregnancy (husband has varicoceles that have rendered him sterile; at least that's my diagnosis. He's uninsured, so it's actually hard to say for sure. I'm as sure as anyone without a PhD can be, though).