• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was CVS Pharmacy right or wrong?

Was CVS Pharmacy right or wrong?


  • Total voters
    42
I think the clerk was wrong for not selling the inhaler. However, if her life were really in danger, I am surprised that no one thought of calling 911. They would have been there in a flash. Very strange. :confused:
 
I don't see anything wrong with what happened.

CVS is a business, not a public service. They operate on profit. And even though they offered surety, they cannot be compelled to accept it.

So boyfriend called the paramedics, a public service that doesn't worry about profit because it's paid for in tax dollars. They arrive to the scene and gave her the medication that she needed.

Everything worked out as it's supposed to.

If we're going to have a capitalistic society don't be surprised when businesses act capitalistic.

Shame on you sir.

Profitability has ZERO business being placed before human survival.
 
In a legal sense, CVS had no obligation to sell them anything if they don't have the money to cover the full price. So I'd say legally speaking, they were within their rights. Morally speaking it's a completely different story. Placing a literal dollar ahead of another person's life is as cold and heartless as it gets. I'm shocked one of the employees didn't just offer up the missing buck, or at least accept the cell phone as collateral.

And lastly, to those saying the woman is responsible for keeping an inhaler on her, yes you are right. That is her responsibility and no one else's, but is too much to ask for or even expect a little human compassion now and then?
 
Vader said:
Profitability has ZERO business being placed before human survival.

The essential basis of communism. I guess we know who butters your bread.
 
And lastly, to those saying the woman is responsible for keeping an inhaler on her, yes you are right. That is her responsibility and no one else's, but is too much to ask for or even expect a little human compassion now and then?

I agree she was responsible and I would look at this situation far differently if she made a habit of this sort of thing. However, even the best of us are going to have a brainfart from time to time. Nobody deserves to possibly die because of it. Its inhuman.
 
That doesn't really make sense. She was pointing out that CVS has a history of bad dealings. How does that relate to your Mom and Pop example?

Well, what does CVS' bad dealings have to do with them doing something completely and totally legal?
 
Shame on you sir.

Profitability has ZERO business being placed before human survival.

So why isn't everybody railing at how cancer treatments are so costly? And why don't we have universal health care already?

It's not that pharmacy's fault that we live in a capitalistic society. And, as a matter of fact, I support universal health care, or at least a public option.

But I'm also realistic to know that that's not how our country operates, so I adapt to how our country does operate and work with the system we have until it's enacted the system I want.
 
So why isn't everybody railing at how cancer treatments are so costly? And why don't we have universal health care already?

It's not that pharmacy's fault that we live in a capitalistic society. And, as a matter of fact, I support universal health care, or at least a public option.

But I'm also realistic to know that that's not how our country operates, so I adapt to how our country does operate and work with the system we have until it's enacted the system I want.

Fair enough. I just do not believe that a human being should be left to suffer and/or die over a matter of one dollar. I find the whole thought of it to be offensive.
 
Well, what does CVS' bad dealings have to do with them doing something completely and totally legal?

Patriot was condemning the woman in this incident for being irreponsible by not bringing her medicine, so Glinda was pointing out how CVS has been irresponsible in the past.
 
Could the clerk not have just paid the last dollar with his own money to possibly save the woman's life? I'm sure she would have paid him back.

that is the simple and correct answer to the question
 
Profits over health. That is the world we live in now.

We live in *now* ?

What - in the past health was at some point more important than profit?

Generally speaking - when you corporatize your concerns you bastardize them.
 
If there was a plausible danger of the woman dying an asthma attack, then it would have been legally jeopardizing to withhold the device, even without any payment.
 
Last edited:
Ok - let's reel in the 'she was gona dye!" stuff.

If she was having THAT SERIOUS of an attack then she wouldn't have been able to go INTO a pharmacy and stand and wait - and then argue over money and so on.

I'd hope, at least, that if it was THAT SERIOUS she'd be hauling ass to a hospital at which - for free, no upfront cost - they'd be able to provide her the necessary medicinal.
 
I didn't look at every post to get a feel for the political make up of the cold hearted "people" who voted they think if the young lady had died that was fine because profit comes before life.

I'm not even going to speculate on whether those who prefer to vote on the side of death are Liberals or Conservatives.

I just have to say no person with an ounce a decency or who is a Christian would ever agree with this despicable, low life action on the part of the CVS idiot.

If there is any justice it should cost this jerk employee there pay check for ever. I would suggest that anyone with that once of decency should complain to CVS until they fire this "person."

If this gets enough negative press the job loss is a sure thing and a law suit for physical and mental stress may come.
 
You guys are making a lot of snap judgments without much real information to go on.
 
The only reason I put "I don't know" is because of the way the question is worded. Reading the article, it seems like the CVS chain hasn't actually said if the pharmacist/clerk was right or wrong in their opinion, only that they are looking into it.

The pharmacist/clerk was definitely wrong. The guy was offering him everything in his possession to show that the store would get the money back. Besides that, even if he didn't have any way to pay for it, it most certainly would have just been good for business, if nothing else, for one of the employees to offer to pay the difference. I know that if I would have been a customer in the store, I would have paid for it for her myself and never shopped there again. Now, not only has this guy caused his own store bad publicity, but it will also cause CVSs in general to get bad publicity. And if the person/people involved with this situation are not punished and/or CVS doesn't at least denounce the inaction as wrong, this will most likely hurt their profit margin. In this economy, considering the vast amount of competition that all pharmacies face, it doesn't seem like a very good time to look like a place that only cares about profits. Especially bad position to take when your main business is supposed to be helping people with medical problems and, at least some of your employees take an oath to ensure that people's health is their number one priority.
 
For crying out loud... if someone seems to be having a medical crisis, can't you pitch in a single dollar? I would've.
 
I just read the article. If she was having a medical crisis, the appropriate action would have been to immediately call 911. In a medical crisis, the appropriate level of care would be medical attention from a medical professional, not a pharmacist.
 
I am not at all convinced money was the issue.
I've gone to the ER twice with terrible kidney infections, screaming and crying and puking my guts out with pain; they won't give me morphine until they've run all kinds of tests on me to ensure that I do, in fact, have a kidney infection. No amount of money (or lack thereof) would change that. It's hospital policy. Apparently junkies have learned to fake kidney infections very effectively, in order to gain access to that IV drip of morphine.
Prescription drugs are not just handed out willy-nilly, even if someone appears to actually be ill. You'd probably also find that neither CVS nor any other reputable pharmacy would sell this woman and her boyfriend a ten-pack of points without a prescription, even if she claimed to be slipping into a diabetic coma.

The law mandates that prescription drugs be dispensed only with a prescription.
If I were a clerk, I would not disregard that law, no matter how convincingly ill someone seemed. Rather, I would call an ambulance.
If you give them a prescription med without a prescription and they die, you could be tried for murder, on top of numerous other charges.
That's not a risk I'd take for a stranger, not for any amount of money.
They can wait for the damned ambulance.
 
I am not at all convinced money was the issue.
I've gone to the ER twice with terrible kidney infections, screaming and crying and puking my guts out with pain; they won't give me morphine until they've run all kinds of tests on me to ensure that I do, in fact, have a kidney infection. No amount of money (or lack thereof) would change that. It's hospital policy. Apparently junkies have learned to fake kidney infections very effectively, in order to gain access to that IV drip of morphine.
Prescription drugs are not just handed out willy-nilly, even if someone appears to actually be ill. You'd probably also find that neither CVS nor any other reputable pharmacy would sell this woman and her boyfriend a ten-pack of points without a prescription, even if she claimed to be slipping into a diabetic coma.

The law mandates that prescription drugs be dispensed only with a prescription.
If I were a clerk, I would not disregard that law, no matter how convincingly ill someone seemed. Rather, I would call an ambulance.
If you give them a prescription med without a prescription and they die, you could be tried for murder, on top of numerous other charges.
That's not a risk I'd take for a stranger, not for any amount of money.
They can wait for the damned ambulance.

The only reason that I don't think the issue was proving that she had a prescription was because the medicine had been rung up already, according to the article. The article could be misleading entirely, and that would certainly change my opinion, but they wouldn't have rung it up at all without a verified prescription. Nowdays, prescriptions are really easy to verify, even if the person normally uses a different pharmacy to fill their prescription.
 
Nobody died. The paramedics were called, which is what they should have done. Things worked the way they're supposed to.

What if somebody does die... should the capitalistic system protect this behaviour in all cases?
 
You know - I am lost, though - on the scope of time.

he states that
"I said 'Can you just give her the pump. She's on the floor wheezing... I didn't know if an ambulance would get there on time. He said there was nothing he could do for me."

But then it states that:
Thinking quickly, the boyfriend contacted a friend who is also a paramedic. "He did have an inhaler. She used two pumps, waited a little while," the boyfriend says. "She started to come through a little quicker than if she didn't have it."

If they didn't think she was actually going to survive her asthma attack (while waiting for an ambulanc)
Then why did he HAVE the time to *call* a friend and *have the friend* drive and provide her an inhaler?
 
Patriot was condemning the woman in this incident for being irreponsible by not bringing her medicine, so Glinda was pointing out how CVS has been irresponsible in the past.

Okay. But what did CVS do that irresponsible in this case? Not provide medicine to someone who couldn't afford it? That's not being irresponsible, because it isn't CVS' responsibility to provide medicine to people who can't afford it. It's CVS' responsibility to provide people with medicine who can afford it.

So those links still have no bearing on this issue since they did nothing illegal.
 
Back
Top Bottom