• 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!

1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
30,875
Reaction score
19,282
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study - Yahoo! News

MONDAY, March 26 (HealthDay News) -- Nearly one in five U.S. pharmacies gave out misinformation to researchers posing as 17-year-old girls seeking emergency contraception, often saying that it was "impossible" for girls to get the pill, a new study finds.

About 3 percent of researchers posing as physicians also received wrong information about the availability of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after" pill.
The findings show that 17-year-olds in need of emergency contraception to prevent unintended pregnancy face significant barriers in accessing it, the study authors said. According to U.S. federal regulations, girls 17 and older can buy emergency contraception without a prescription if they show proof of age, while girls 16 and younger need a doctor's prescription.


The pharmacies giving misinformation and/or outright lying need to be published.

I'd boycott them and hope that others would too.
 
I think that's because the laws governing it's availability - and who qualifies to get it - keep changing.

I had to have a prescription 7 years ago to get mine in this state: now? :shrug: So I don't know if I feel comfortable assuming that everyone's intentionally misleading or lying - but perhaps it's just confusing when regulations that *deregulate* change often.

If they were increasing the regulation (as I feel they should) - they would be covering theirselves via liability and such issues and there'd be less misinformation around.
 
Can you quote the kind of misinformation that is given and concerns you? If you are of legal age and female my pharmacist is willing to write a prescription for the morning after pill. Under no circumstances can a girl who is underage receive it (huge liability on the pharmacy and plus it's illegal) and we do not dispense the medication to guys claiming to give it to their wife/girlfriend (you don't know if they are lying and going to give it to an underage girl. It's always best to give it directly to the requesting patient).

I'm skeptacle about this study. What were their methods? Did the people posing as 17 year old girls have valid ID? Anyone can claim to be 17, but I know many pharmacies ID if a person is clearly or even skeptically not 17. One thing is that they talked to all pharmacy staff and not the pharmacist. Only 3% of physicians were told that their 17 year old patient could not get it (and this may be an easy mistake for a tech to make due to them thinking you must be 18 like everything else). You have to understand that pharmacies receive phone calls by drug addicts and those wishing to break the law constantly. Many drug addicts and forgeries/pharmacy hoppers will ask if a narcotic is in stock. Every pharmacy I have worked in does not disclose that information unless it is a patient documented to have been on the medication before. When in doubt it's best to not reveal such info, which is true for some girl over the phone that you cannot see or verify age asking if they can get the morning after pill.

I smell bias in the study, and I would like to see their research methods and the primary article. I have worked in pharmacy for over a year and I know how things operate, I highly highly doubt that this level of "misinformation" is being given out.
 
1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study - Yahoo! News




The pharmacies giving misinformation and/or outright lying need to be published.

I'd boycott them and hope that others would too.

People in this country are too weak willed to boycott anything. Even if they released the names of them and the companies put up posters bragging about it the majority of their customer base would still go there if they had the cheapest values. This is American. People here dont give a crap about values, only greed.
 
Yeah - a few isn't too bad, honestly.

I still think it's bizarre that the morning-after is readily available otc but for monthly lower dose hormonal birth control you need a prescription.
 
Don't know how accurate the study is or how true

BUT

any pharmacy that is INTENTIONALLY holding back meds/info from any persons legally allowed access to said material, based on anything solely moral/personal and not scientific/medical, should be heavily punished and or shut down and licenses suspend revoked etc.

The pharmacy has no right to do so and its an infringement on individual rights.
 
Don't know how accurate the study is or how true

BUT

any pharmacy that is INTENTIONALLY holding back meds/info from any persons legally allowed access to said material, based on anything solely moral/personal and not scientific/medical, should be heavily punished and or shut down and licenses suspend revoked etc.

The pharmacy has no right to do so and its an infringement on individual rights.

They can legally do so, and no one is forcing them to stock plan B. It's not someones "right" to plan B and no person has the right to force someone else to use their license as a pharmacist to write them a prescription for plan B and dispense it for them.

It's one thing to be medically negligent and giving faulty health information, this is malpractice. It's another for a pharmacy to chose to not dispense plan B or for the individual pharmacist to not write the prescription for it.
 
They can legally do so, and no one is forcing them to stock plan B. It's not someones "right" to plan B and no person has the right to force someone else to use their license as a pharmacist to write them a prescription for plan B and dispense it for them.

It's one thing to be medically negligent and giving faulty health information, this is malpractice. It's another for a pharmacy to chose to not dispense plan B or for the individual pharmacist to not write the prescription for it.

Who said they have to stock it?
WHo said Im going to force them to write a prescription?

when you quote me, please stay on topic to what I actually said and not interject other made up scenarios

so no they can not legally do so

if the meds are in their pharmacy and I already have a prescription to obtain it legally then they are to do nothing more than their job and give me my legally prescribed meds, thats its

their morals or personal opinions have no place in the decision to dispense me the meds at all, if they do hold the script back from me based on solely those reasons they are in fact infringing on my rights.
 
Who said they have to stock it?
WHo said Im going to force them to write a prescription?

when you quote me, please stay on topic to what I actually said and not interject other made up scenarios

so no they can not legally do so

if the meds are in their pharmacy and I already have a prescription to obtain it legally then they are to do nothing more than their job and give me my legally prescribed meds, thats its

their morals or personal opinions have no place in the decision to dispense me the meds at all, if they do hold the script back from me based on solely those reasons they are in fact infringing on my rights.


I apologize if I mistook what you read, but when I read
"any pharmacy that is INTENTIONALLY holding back meds/info from any persons legally allowed access to said material, based on anything solely moral/personal and not scientific/medical, should be heavily punished and or shut down and licenses suspend revoked etc." I was assuming this was the case. Any woman over the age of 17 is legally allowed to access plan B. They gain that access by going to the pharmacy counter and the pharmacist must then write a prescription for it. I took your comment to mean that because women are legally allowed to get plan B that every pharmacist must give them the medication and write the prescription for one.

Also, just because someone has a prescription doesn't mean a pharmacist is (or should be) forced to fill that prescription under their license. We turn away people we suspect of being drug addicts and don't fill their oxy's or methadone. A pharmacist in many states (where the law isn't backwards) may also refuse to fill abortifacients based on their moral convictions. A patient doesn't have the right to force someone to go against their ethical values in order to preform a non-necessary function of their practice. A woman can't demand that any doctor preform an abortion on her, much the same way no one should force a pharmacist to fill drugs that they have deep ethical convictions about. When it comes to life necessary medications I agree with you. But things like birth control or abortifacients I do not agree with being forced to fill. I don't support degrading the profession and forcing individuals to use their license as nothing more than dispensary slaves because a person believes that the drug unethically kills another human or if they disagree with contraception. I think it's an infringement of rights to tell someone to sit down and fill a non-necessary med under an individuals license that they have earned and pay for to fill a prescription because a patient is entitled to a med and that no has the right to stand by their ethical/moral values.
 
Last edited:
I apologize if I mistook what you read, but when I read
"any pharmacy that is INTENTIONALLY holding back meds/info from any persons legally allowed access to said material, based on anything solely moral/personal and not scientific/medical, should be heavily punished and or shut down and licenses suspend revoked etc." I was assuming this was the case. Any woman over the age of 17 is legally allowed to access plan B. They gain that access by going to the pharmacy counter and the pharmacist must then write a prescription for it. I took your comment to mean that because women are legally allowed to get plan B that every pharmacist must give them the medication and write the prescription for one.

Also, just because someone has a prescription doesn't mean a pharmacist is (or should be) forced to fill that prescription under their license. We turn away people we suspect of being drug addicts and don't fill their oxy's or methadone. A pharmacist in many states (where the law isn't backwards) may also refuse to fill abortifacients based on their moral convictions. A patient doesn't have the right to force someone to go against their ethical values in order to preform a non-necessary function of their practice. A woman can't demand that any doctor preform an abortion on her, much the same way no one should force a pharmacist to fill drugs that they have deep ethical convictions about. When it comes to life necessary medications I agree with you. But things like birth control or abortifacients I do not agree with. I don't support degrading the profession and forcing individuals to use their license as nothing more than dispensary slaves because a person believes that the drug unethically kills another human or if they disagree with contraception.

sigh. . . . .
more examples above and beyond what I am saying that have no real meaning

but something caught my eye, so I will oblige you

"dispensary slaves"

besides a pharmacist's medical/scientific training and yes I agree protecting themselves or others (druggies) from harm they are in fact dispensary slaves. PERIOD

If they disagree with that then IMO they have no business being a public pharmacist its that simple. Choose something else where discrimination is legal.

read this again slow.

If I have a prescription for any drug what so ever and that public pharmacist has it in stock and the ability to give it to me

AND

theres no reason to think im a druggie
theres no reason to think it might interfere with my other drugs etc etc IE(medical/scientific opinions)


then they better give me my meds or face the penalty of infringing on my rights.

They have no right what so ever to do so you personal/moral ethic and opinions of what is non-necessary is meaningless and has no place in the decision to give me my meds. This in fact is discrimination and infringes on my rights and the true degradation would be the one being made on an american citizen.

A pharmacists personal morals are meaningless to me and the American public, you keep those at home where they belong and dont try to force them on me or simple pick a job other than a PUBLIC pharmacist.

Otherwise where does this BS reason to illegally discriminate stop? it has no place in the public realm.
 
sigh. . . . .
more examples above and beyond what I am saying that have no real meaning

but something caught my eye, so I will oblige you

"dispensary slaves"

besides a pharmacist's medical/scientific training and yes I agree protecting themselves or others (druggies) from harm they are in fact dispensary slaves. PERIOD

If they disagree with that then IMO they have no business being a public pharmacist its that simple. Choose something else where discrimination is legal.

read this again slow.

If I have a prescription for any drug what so ever and that public pharmacist has it in stock and the ability to give it to me

AND

theres no reason to think im a druggie
theres no reason to think it might interfere with my other drugs etc etc IE(medical/scientific opinions)


then they better give me my meds or face the penalty of infringing on my rights.

They have no right what so ever to do so you personal/moral ethic and opinions of what is non-necessary is meaningless and has no place in the decision to give me my meds. This in fact is discrimination and infringes on my rights and the true degradation would be the one being made on an american citizen.

A pharmacists personal morals are meaningless to me and the American public, you keep those at home where they belong and dont try to force them on me or simple pick a job other than a PUBLIC pharmacist.

Otherwise where does this BS reason to illegally discriminate stop? it has no place in the public realm.

And so, who are you to infringe upon the pharmacists rights as an individual and autonomy as a professional? Some states have adopted Conscience Clauses which allow a pharmacist to deny a medication based on their ethical beliefs without any kind of disciplinary action from the law or their employer. Forcing a pharmacist to dispense an abortifacient drug would be similar to walking up to any gynecologist and forcing them to preform an abortion at an appointment date and to refuse would be denying a patient their legal healthcare service.

Pro-life pharmacists and future pharmacists like myself view abortifacients for the use of terminating an unwanted pregnancy and not for the life of the mother to be harmful drugs. They aid in the killing of another human being. A pharmacist can deny medications that are harmful for the fetus of a pregnant woman (and if they make an error the pharmacist can be in trouble). As autonomous healthcare professionals and individuals pharmacists should be able to (and in many states can) chose to deny filling a prescription based on their ethical/moral/religious grounds. You can't walk up to a physician and complain of pain and force them to write you a script for pain medication. The physician has autonomous authority over what they chose to prescribe. You can't walk up to a nurse and force her to give your kid their injection, and you as a patient don't have the right to dictate your morals upon someone else and force an autonomous practitioner to do things that are not in line with their beliefs.
 
Last edited:
And so, you are you to infringe upon the pharmacists rights as an individual and autonomy as a professional? Some states have adopted Conscience Clauses which allow a pharmacist to deny a medication based on their ethical beliefs without any kind of disciplinary action from the law or their employer. Forcing a pharmacist to dispense an abortifacient drug would be similar to walking up to any gynecologist and forcing them to preform an abortion at an appointment date and to refuse would be denying a patient their legal healthcare service.

Pro-life pharmacists and future pharmacists like myself view abortifacients for the use of terminating an unwanted pregnancy and not for the life of the mother to be harmful drugs. They aid in the killing of another human being. A pharmacist can deny medications that are harmful for the fetus of a pregnant woman (and if they make an error the pharmacist can be in trouble). As autonomous healthcare professionals and individuals pharmacists should be able to (and in many states can) chose to deny filling a prescription based on their ethical/moral/religious grounds. You can't walk up to a physician and complain of pain and force them to write you a script for pain medication. The physician has autonomous authority over what they chose to prescribe. You can't walk up to a nurse and force her to give your kid their injection, and you as a patient don't have the right to dictate your morals upon someone else and force an autonomous practitioner to do things that are not in line with their beliefs.

SIGH more nonparallel examples

you will always lose this battle because what you want to do is put YOUR morals above others and that is always a losing battle LMAO

sorry If any laws that "sorta" protect this stuff I hope are struck down soon and should be, its blantant disgusting discrimination thats id never support ever. LMAO

I support no discrimination in this case at all because its complete pompous, arrogant, ignorant, hypocritical BS if its done by an . american. its disgraceful.

I guess Ill open a public pharmacy tomorrow and my religion A says that all members of religion B (your religion) are sinners and I must not help any members of religion B or I will be committing a sin capable of damning my soul. I guess based on this you would think its ok for me to never give you any service based on an I qoute my personal "moral/religious grounds" WOuld this be ok? how is this not blatant discrimination?

sorry digs in america that will always be complete BS, if people have a problem doing their jobs pick a different one or one that doesnt put you in the public realm its that simple.
 
SIGH more nonparallel examples

you will always lose this battle because what you want to do is put YOUR morals above others and that is always a losing battle LMAO

sorry If any laws that "sorta" protect this stuff I hope are struck down soon and should be, its blantant disgusting discrimination thats id never support ever. LMAO

I support no discrimination in this case at all because its complete pompous, arrogant, ignorant, hypocritical BS if its done by an . american. its disgraceful.

I guess Ill open a public pharmacy tomorrow and my religion A says that all members of religion B (your religion) are sinners and I must not help any members of religion B or I will be committing a sin capable of damning my soul. I guess based on this you would think its ok for me to never give you any service based on an I qoute my personal "moral/religious grounds" WOuld this be ok? how is this not blatant discrimination?

sorry digs in america that will always be complete BS, if people have a problem doing their jobs pick a different one or one that doesnt put you in the public realm its that simple.

You're not being rational and you aren't addressing my arguments. As an autonomous practitioner my morals apply just like in other healthcare areas. The most recent case comes from Washington, where a federal court ruled that a pharmacist has the right to deny emergency contraception based on their views. From my perspective abortion is unlawful killing. As a future medical practioner I view taking abortifacients for the purpose of terminating an unwanted pregnancy to be unhealthy and fetal for the fetus and thus not medically sound. A patient shouldn't be forced to make a healthcare practitioner do anything that isn't necessary for their life. Patients have rights, practitioners have rights. I have freedom of religion and freedom of practicing in good conscience. A patient has freedom to go to another pharmacy and have their legally written prescription filled by a pharmacist who will do so.
 
You're not being rational and you aren't addressing my arguments. As an autonomous practitioner my morals apply just like in other healthcare areas. The most recent case comes from Washington, where a federal court ruled that a pharmacist has the right to deny emergency contraception based on their views. From my perspective abortion is unlawful killing. As a future medical practioner I view taking abortifacients for the purpose of terminating an unwanted pregnancy to be unhealthy and fetal for the fetus and thus not medically sound. A patient shouldn't be forced to make a healthcare practitioner do anything that isn't necessary for their life. Patients have rights, practitioners have rights. I have freedom of religion and freedom of practicing in good conscience. A patient has freedom to go to another pharmacy and have their legally written prescription filled by a pharmacist who will do so.

you can spin it how ever you like but Im being totally rational. Im addressing MY posts and YOUR counters DIRECTLY HEAD O. instead of side stepping them.

the bottom line is you want a public pharmacists to have the right to discriminate, I however, do not.

Theres is no room for BS discrimination in the public realm, all your talk about "force" is nonsense, there is no force nor am I saying there should be.

Im saying if you cant play by the rules you dont get to play.

You want to allow discrimination I do not, no other way to say it.

DO you think my example of discrimination was ok?
 
you can spin it how ever you like but Im being totally rational. Im addressing MY posts and YOUR counters DIRECTLY HEAD O. instead of side stepping them.

the bottom line is you want a public pharmacists to have the right to discriminate, I however, do not.

Theres is no room for BS discrimination in the public realm, all your talk about "force" is nonsense, there is no force nor am I saying there should be.

Im saying if you cant play by the rules you dont get to play.

You want to allow discrimination I do not, no other way to say it.

DO you think my example of discrimination was ok?

Gotta disagree with you on this one, Objective. As long as the pharmacist directs the customer to someone who WILL fill the prescription, I have no issue with an individual pharmacist acting on his morals. It would be like a gay couple going for couples counseling... to a therapist who rejects GM and gay relationships as sinful. As long as they give the couple names of people who would treat them, there is nothing wrong with what that individual does, ethically.
 
Gotta disagree with you on this one, Objective. As long as the pharmacist directs the customer to someone who WILL fill the prescription, I have no issue with an individual pharmacist acting on his morals. It would be like a gay couple going for couples counseling... to a therapist who rejects GM and gay relationships as sinful. As long as they give the couple names of people who would treat them, there is nothing wrong with what that individual does, ethically.

The difference here I think CC is that a pharmacist is generally public. A counsular is not. There is a world of difference imo between a public buisness and a private buisness.

Peoples arguments in this thread remind me of the whole controversy with muslim cashiers at grocery stores refusing to run pork and beer through their check out stands because it goes against their moral code. IMO anyone that holds a public service job or company has no right to force their values upon those that use their services. If I was the boss of a public company and one of my employee's refused to do something because of personal moral values then that person would be fired for not being able to do their job fully.
 
1 in 5 Pharmacies Hinders Teens' Access to 'Morning-After' Pill: Study - Yahoo! News

The pharmacies giving misinformation and/or outright lying need to be published.

I'd boycott them and hope that others would too.

With a number as low as 3% I'm inclined to believe these pharmacists were just confused or wrong, as opposed to knowingly lying about the rules. Just like the young lady who is there to pick up and actually consume the pill itself, these pharmacists made a mistake.
 
The difference here I think CC is that a pharmacist is generally public. A counsular is not. There is a world of difference imo between a public buisness and a private buisness.

Peoples arguments in this thread remind me of the whole controversy with muslim cashiers at grocery stores refusing to run pork and beer through their check out stands because it goes against their moral code. IMO anyone that holds a public service job or company has no right to force their values upon those that use their services. If I was the boss of a public company and one of my employee's refused to do something because of personal moral values then that person would be fired for not being able to do their job fully.

A pharmacy is a private business. If it is the policy of that business to NOT sell these types of medications, then there is no issue with them doing that. If that is NOT the business's policy and the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription, he/she should be fired. If the pharmacist owns the business, he/she can decide to not carry or sell the drug if he/she chooses.
 
A pharmacy is a private business. If it is the policy of that business to NOT sell these types of medications, then there is no issue with them doing that. If that is NOT the business's policy and the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription, he/she should be fired. If the pharmacist owns the business, he/she can decide to not carry or sell the drug if he/she chooses.

Not all pharmacies are private. Would you consider a pharmacy in a Wal-Mart to be private? Safeway?

And I'm pretty sure that the OP is talking about pharmacies that do carry the medicine in stock. So one would have to assume that they do sell them.
 
Not all pharmacies are private. Would you consider a pharmacy in a Wal-Mart to be private? Safeway?

Those pharmacies are not public. They are inside private businesses. Whatever the policy that those businesses have is the policy that I would expect their employees to adhere to. I would imagine if they did not, there would be consequences.

And I'm pretty sure that the OP is talking about pharmacies that do carry the medicine in stock. So one would have to assume that they do sell them.

It wasn't clear. If it IS in stock, and it IS policy for them to be sold, the pharmacist probably needs to look for a place where it is NOT sold. However, even in pharmacies that are included in a larger store, I would imagine that the pharmacist is in charge of ordering stock. He could then choose to not stock this particular item. As long as that was not against company policy AND as long as he offered the customer another place to purchase the item, I have no problem with that.
 
Those pharmacies are not public. They are inside private businesses. Whatever the policy that those businesses have is the policy that I would expect their employees to adhere to. I would imagine if they did not, there would be consequences.

I don't know. Imo I just don't consider companies that serve millions of people in hundreds, if not thousands of locations to be "private" in any normal sense of the word. Especially if they have stocks in the stock market.
 
I don't know. Imo I just don't consider companies that serve millions of people in hundreds, if not thousands of locations to be "private" in any normal sense of the word. Especially if they have stocks in the stock market.

To me, public means governmental, where one's morality is irrelevant... or at least over ruled by the Constitution. Any privately owned business... and a business listed in the stock market is still owned by private citizens with their shares, are still private IMO.
 
I don't know. Imo I just don't consider companies that serve millions of people in hundreds, if not thousands of locations to be "private" in any normal sense of the word. Especially if they have stocks in the stock market.

Whether you consider such companies to be “private” or “public” appears to have very, very, very little to do with whether they are, in fact, private or public.
 
Back
Top Bottom