• 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
samsmart said:
And then the district attorney could ask you why, if you know you have asthma, didn't you carry an inhaler with you if you knew you're susceptible to asthma attacks. Individuals should be responsible with their health and have the foresight to carry their medications with them if they can have an attack at any moment. That is not the responsibility of a private pharmacy business.
Click to expand...

I have asthma.. and I died of an attack as a child and I was revived... obviously. I died in the waiting room in an ER, so this story does hit home for me.

But you have a lot a gull to blame this woman for what happened to her. Screw that. Asthma inhalers run out, and serve attacks cannot be predicted. My inhaler ran out unexpectedly while I was on vacation in NYC. Because I go to a student clinic, I don't have a regular doc to call in a refill for me anywhere. I spent the rest of vacation drinking coffee, avoiding milk, and taking antihistamines.. doing all the little tricks to suppress my own asthma.

Also, aerosol inhalers are not easy to predict when they will run out. The weight of the inhaler barely changes.

If I had to go to the ER I would have. The thing is, this woman wouldn't have had to go to the ER if she got her medicine on time. She was a dollar short.. The only person being irresponsible about her health was the pharm clerk. She didn't have the right amount of money, but she was doing the right thing... that is a difference.

Personally, I would have paid the dollar.. or I would have allowed her to take the medication and wait for them to return with the rest of the money. I wouldn't put another person through it knowing what it's like to suffer like that with nobody to help... I think it's cruel and scariest thing I ever went through in my life
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
What if somebody does die... should the capitalistic system protect this behaviour in all cases?
Click to expand...

Well, let's be honest. In the capitalistic system we have now, people *do* die to protect this behavior.

I mean we're talking about a girl with asthma who had an attack and couldn't get the medicine she needed for lack of a dollar. But what about people who have heart conditions but can't afford medicine to treat it and so they're at risk of a heart attack? Or people who have arthritis but can't live on disability? Or people with cancer who cannot afford cancer treatments?

So where is the cut off point? If it's not $1, is it $2? Or $5? Or $20? Or $100? Or $1,000?

If we don't want people to die because of a lack of $1, are we going to make it a law that pharmacies must sell medicines in a range and people can pay any price within that range as they see fit?

What, exactly, do you want to do because this girl almost died for a lack of a dollar? I'm just really curious to know.
 
And if she had walked in claiming to be schizophrenic and on the verge of suicide, and demanded Clozaril or Zyprexa at a reduced rate because she only had twenty bucks on hand at the moment?

:roll:
 
samsmart said:
Well, let's be honest. In the capitalistic system we have now, people *do* die to protect this behavior.

I mean we're talking about a girl with asthma who had an attack and couldn't get the medicine she needed for lack of a dollar. But what about people who have heart conditions but can't afford medicine to treat it and so they're at risk of a heart attack? Or people who have arthritis but can't live on disability? Or people with cancer who cannot afford cancer treatments?

So where is the cut off point? If it's not $1, is it $2? Or $5? Or $20? Or $100? Or $1,000?

If we don't want people to die because of a lack of $1, are we going to make it a law that pharmacies must sell medicines in a range and people can pay any price within that range as they see fit?

What, exactly, do you want to do because this girl almost died for a lack of a dollar? I'm just really curious to know.
Click to expand...

The bigger focus is that they violated a social-norm (and their oath).

but, at the same time, I'm wondering "didn't either of them have a credit or debit card?"

And I can't help but think "I bet they regret spending money at McD's 20 minutes earlier"

But there are also laws and regulations in some states that are aimed at people who fail to act or attempt to assist someone who's injured or hurt, etc - you know.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
I have asthma.. and I died of an attack as a child and I was revived... obviously. I died in the waiting room in an ER, so this story does hit home for me.

But you have a lot a gull to blame this woman for what happened to her. Screw that. Asthma inhalers run out, and serve attacks cannot be predicted. My inhaler ran out unexpectedly while I was on vacation in NYC. Because I go to a student clinic, I don't have a regular doc to call in a refill for me anywhere. I spent the rest of vacation drinking coffee, avoiding milk, and taking antihistamines.. doing all the little tricks to suppress my own asthma.

Also, aerosol inhalers are not easy to predict when they will run out. The weight of the inhaler barely changes.

If I had to go to the ER I would have. The thing is, this woman wouldn't have had to go to the ER if she got her medicine on time. She was a dollar short.. The only person being irresponsible about her health was the pharm clerk. She didn't have the right amount of money, but she was doing the right thing... that is a difference.

Personally, I would have paid the dollar.. or I would have allowed her to take the medication and wait for them to return with the rest of the money. I wouldn't put another person through it knowing what it's like to suffer like that with nobody to help... I think it's cruel and scariest thing I ever went through in my life
Click to expand...

Personally, I would have paid the dollar too. I've helped out people all the time. Once I was at a gas station and an old woman with arthritis was trying to get an attendant to pump gas for her, but he was taking so long I decided to pump it for her. So I don't want you to think that I'm totally heartless and cruel.

But my question is this: This is a Politics Debate forum, and so while you, me, and many others, personally would have paid that dollar, what should be done politically to address this? What sort of legislation and enforcement through government services be done to make sure that nobody dies for want of a dollar again? I'm just curious to know.
 
spud_meister said:
You're obviously a libertarian. But basically, your argument boils down to "no-one should help in avoidable situations, and people deserve to die for petty mistakes". I can't say your argument is all that great, or moral for that matter.
Click to expand...

I am a libertarian or minianarchist to some degree, and I don't really agree with what he is saying.. I don't think the pharm should have just given her the inhaler, but I don't see this a business decision either. I see this as being a crisis decision we are responsible for making as individuals.

I don't think the government should take care of people. But I don't think that I should not take care of people either. I think people should take care of each other (be good Samaritans, help the needy, volunteer) because that ultimately does make communities better, and that will do more for all of us than the government ever will.

If everybody had the mindset of this pharm clerk.. there would be millions of more government regulations being debated on the floor. The behaviour of this particular clerk isn't praiseworthy from any POV.
 
samsmart said:
Well, let's be honest. In the capitalistic system we have now, people *do* die to protect this behavior.

I mean we're talking about a girl with asthma who had an attack and couldn't get the medicine she needed for lack of a dollar. But what about people who have heart conditions but can't afford medicine to treat it and so they're at risk of a heart attack? Or people who have arthritis but can't live on disability? Or people with cancer who cannot afford cancer treatments?

So where is the cut off point? If it's not $1, is it $2? Or $5? Or $20? Or $100? Or $1,000?

If we don't want people to die because of a lack of $1, are we going to make it a law that pharmacies must sell medicines in a range and people can pay any price within that range as they see fit?

What, exactly, do you want to do because this girl almost died for a lack of a dollar? I'm just really curious to know.
Click to expand...

People who cannot afford access to medicine and treatments is different from a woman suffering an asthma attack in your face and dying (in this case), while you have the remedy to her condition. If you can stand there and watch somebody die in agony like that, and feel no sense of moral obligation.. then I kind of think there is something wrong with you.
 
samsmart said:
Personally, I would have paid the dollar too. I've helped out people all the time. Once I was at a gas station and an old woman with arthritis was trying to get an attendant to pump gas for her, but he was taking so long I decided to pump it for her. So I don't want you to think that I'm totally heartless and cruel.

But my question is this: This is a Politics Debate forum, and so while you, me, and many others, personally would have paid that dollar, what should be done politically to address this? What sort of legislation and enforcement through government services be done to make sure that nobody dies for want of a dollar again? I'm just curious to know.
Click to expand...

If this pharm clerk is protected by social (not socialist) and capitalistic structure without social or ethical reparation, then there will probably have to be legislation if more of this behaviour continues. This is something that 1. shouldn't have happened to begin with, 2. shouldn't be defended, and 3. should not happen again..
 
SheWolf said:
People who cannot afford access to medicine and treatments is different from a woman suffering an asthma attack in your face and dying (in this case), while you have the remedy to her condition. If you can stand there and watch somebody die in agony like that, and feel no sense of moral obligation.. then I kind of think there is something wrong with you.
Click to expand...

It isn't any different because the whole reason why the woman suffering an asthma attack and dying is denied medicine because she cannot afford it by the margin of a dollar. So she is being denied treatment because of lack of affordability. It doesn't matter what the margin is - the reason is the reason. And you didn't answer any of the questions I asked in that post.
 
SheWolf said:
If this pharm clerk is protected by social (not socialist) and capitalistic structure without social or ethical reparation, then there will probably have to be legislation if more of this behaviour continues. This is something that 1. shouldn't have happened to begin with, 2. shouldn't be defended, and 3. should not happen again..
Click to expand...

Okay. And what, exactly, kind of legislation do you propose be enacted should this type of behavior persist?
 
samsmart said:
It isn't any different because the whole reason why the woman suffering an asthma attack and dying is denied medicine because she cannot afford it by the margin of a dollar. So she is being denied treatment because of lack of affordability. It doesn't matter what the margin is - the reason is the reason. And you didn't answer any of the questions I asked in that post.
Click to expand...

I thought I answered your questions in another post.. I don't really think it should automatically be a political issue. It's a business issue and an industry issue at the moment, and the industry better address for PR matters and for their own matters. If they can reasonably write an ethics code, there shouldn't be any reason to enforce regulations or laws on them. This is ridiculous and it should not have happened. But sometimes somebody does something really really stupid, so a company has to tell the other workers what to do in case of _____ the next time.

This isn't an issue of affordability.. The woman could afford the medicine, she didn't have the cash on her at the time. This is a crisis situation. A healthy woman is going to suddenly die in front of you unless you give her her medicine.

That is not the same as somebody potentiality dying of untreated cancer in hospice because they couldn't afford timely cancer treatment.
 
samsmart said:
Okay. And what, exactly, kind of legislation do you propose be enacted should this type of behavior persist?
Click to expand...

That question is stupid to me.. because government legislation can't effectively address this situation anyway.
 
It was wrong for her not to get the medicine over a dollar. I agree with the sentiment that it falls on the clerk at the time.
Morally he should have;
Taken the $20 and given her the medicine and put the money in the drawer when they returned.
If they didn't return, the clerk should have paid it themselves.
If the clerk didn't have a buck he should have borrowed it from someone to put in the cash drawer.
If the clerk couldn't come up with a buck they should have let the drawer be short.
If CVS made an issue out of it they should explain the situation.
If it was still an issue, they should have called CVS a bastard and quit. because they would be just that.
 
I'm not sure but I think that the company could be held responsible for criminal neglect if the woman were to have died due to being denied a medical supply.

Regardless of the legal aspect, it is disgusting that people are arguing that profits are more moral than our obligations to each other as humans. It's truly pathetic that greed has become a virtue to base arguments upon.
 
Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me....... How we treat the least among us speaks volumes of us as a society. The fact that people hold a dollar of greater moralistic value than relieving human suffering also speaks volumes.
 
Dogger807 said:
Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me....... How we treat the least among us speaks volumes of us as a society. The fact that people hold a dollar of greater moralistic value than relieving human suffering also speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

LOL

Yet Yah Verily! God threw Daniel into the Lion's Den . . . and they ate him!
 
SheWolf said:
That question is stupid to me.. because government legislation can't effectively address this situation anyway.
Click to expand...

So you want to punish the clerk even though she did nothing illegal and you admit that no legislation would cover the situation anyway and it is through such laws that we address such things?
 
Dogger807 said:
I'm not sure but I think that the company could be held responsible for criminal neglect if the woman were to have died due to being denied a medical supply.

Regardless of the legal aspect, it is disgusting that people are arguing that profits are more moral than our obligations to each other as humans. It's truly pathetic that greed has become a virtue to base arguments upon.
Click to expand...

Dogger807 said:
Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me....... How we treat the least among us speaks volumes of us as a society. The fact that people hold a dollar of greater moralistic value than relieving human suffering also speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

Do you support the nationalization of health care to ensure that profits have nothing to do with medicine? So do you support the more unionization of labor in order to guarantee safe working conditions in all industries? Do you support the doling out of housing and shelter despite people's ability to pay? How about instead of having supermarkets we have the government run them and everybody is given a food card to ensure they have enough to eat. How much of that do you support, and how often do you vote that way?
 
Phoenix said:
It was wrong for her not to get the medicine over a dollar. I agree with the sentiment that it falls on the clerk at the time.
Morally he should have;
Taken the $20 and given her the medicine and put the money in the drawer when they returned.
If they didn't return, the clerk should have paid it themselves.
If the clerk didn't have a buck he should have borrowed it from someone to put in the cash drawer.
If the clerk couldn't come up with a buck they should have let the drawer be short.
If CVS made an issue out of it they should explain the situation.
If it was still an issue, they should have called CVS a bastard and quit. because they would be just that.
Click to expand...

If we have a clerk/manager at the register, then I would agree.
The main thing is to accomplish some positive.
But if a doctor's prescription was required for this medical device and she had none and the store had no records nor access...then many things are wrong, in the meantime she may be dieing, so the life must be saved, or at least a valiant effort given.
People need better medical emergency training.
And why doesn't CVS seem to have a manager ?
Or is this just more sloppy media reporting?
 
Phoenix said:
It was wrong for her not to get the medicine over a dollar. I agree with the sentiment that it falls on the clerk at the time.
Click to expand...

Why does it fall on the clerk? He doesn't set prices at the store. He doesn't make policy there. And he probably doesn't make that much working there, but jobs are scarce right now. And if he sells a product for less than it's price, that's grounds to be fired. So why should he risk his own well-being when he has to make a living too? And what makes you think the clerk has any money? If all a girl who suffers asthma attacks AND her boyfriend have is a $20 bill, it's just as likely the clerk is broke himself.
 
samsmart said:
Do you support the nationalization of health care to ensure that profits have nothing to do with medicine? YES So do you support the more unionization of labor in order to guarantee safe working conditions in all industries? YES Do you support the doling out of housing and shelter despite people's ability to pay? yes, with tight limitations How about instead of having supermarkets we have the government run them and everybody is given a food cardaka food stamps to ensure they have enough to eat. How much of that do you support, and how often do you vote that way? seldom if ever
Click to expand...
Obvious where you are going with this. We must acknowledge that man has failed in these areas.
My voting yes or no on these matters means nothing. These programs(public housing, food stamps, free clinics, unions, government programs have been in plave for a very long time....But they do need improvements, reform, change, if we are ever going to have a better society.
The reality is, we have socialism, and its a good thing.
 
samsmart said:
Why does it fall on the clerk? He doesn't set prices at the store. He doesn't make policy there. but he should have a voice And he probably doesn't make that much working there, but jobs are scarce right now. And if he sells a product for less than it's price, that's grounds to be fired.What should he do, watch a human die or risk being fired? Does anyone see anything wrong here? So why should he risk his own well-being when he has to make a living too? And what makes you think the clerk has any money? If all a girl who suffers asthma attacks AND her boyfriend have is a $20 bill, it's just as likely the clerk is broke himself.
Click to expand...
Are managers mythical?
Thanks to our sensationalist based media, is the truth so evasive?
 
samsmart said:
Why does it fall on the clerk? He doesn't set prices at the store. He doesn't make policy there. And he probably doesn't make that much working there, but jobs are scarce right now. And if he sells a product for less than it's price, that's grounds to be fired. So why should he risk his own well-being when he has to make a living too? And what makes you think the clerk has any money?
Click to expand...
I have already addressed what if he didn't have any money. Cash drawers come up a buck short / buck over all the time. Just from general counting errors over the course of a day. His job is not worth her life. It's a moral call by an individual. You are right that he doesn't set store policy but he is in complete control of his own decisions. At the end of the day he can walk away and know he kept a woman from dying vs the possibility that she died over his paycheck.

samsmart said:
If all a girl who suffers asthma attacks AND her boyfriend have is a $20 bill, it's just as likely the clerk is broke himself.
Click to expand...

This statement has NO basis at all.
 
samsmart said:
Personally, you're allowed to do that. However, they aren't compelled to do that. So the clerks still did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

Dumb move... I might have fired the clerk for lack of common sense and compassion.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom