Wal-Mart Must Stock Contraception in Mass.

[Eugene]

Associated Press
Wal-Mart Must Stock Contraception in Mass.
02.14.2006, 12:39 PM

The state board that oversees pharmacies voted Tuesday to require Wal-Mart to stock emergency
contraception pills at its Massachusetts pharmacies, a spokeswoman at the Department of Public Health
said.

The unanimous decision by the Massachusetts Board of Pharmacy comes two weeks after three women sued
Wal-Mart in state court for failing to carry the so called "morning after" pill in its Wal-Mart and
Sam's Club stores in the state.

The women argue state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."

The board has sent a letter to Wal-Mart lawyers informing them of the decision, said health department
spokeswoman Donna Rheaume. Wal-Mart has until Thursday to provide written compliance.

<snip>

Full article: http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/feeds/ap/2006/02/14/ap2525603.html

[Bill McBlueState]

1. woo-hoo!

Massachusetts kicks ass. Now if we can just get a damn Democrat in the corner office.

[nodehopper]

2. yay MA!

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Way to go Mass! You know, if you guys could just do something

about your cold, snowy winters, I'd retire there.

[mom cat]

8. I moved here from Texas to get away from the climate there:

Both the political climate and the weather.

[skids]

11. It will probably be warmer from here on out...

...at least until the ice age starts. There have been more days when the ground was clear of snow this winter than there have been days with snow on it. In fact, what fell over the weekend is quickly melting outside my window right now. :eyes:

[MountainLaurel]

4. Hooray!

:applause:

[Cobalt Violet]

5. Ha ha Wal-Mart!

You know what you can do with your pandering to the right-wing wackos!


What's that 2 states now? I only know about MA and IL. I hope more will soon follow.

[kahleefornia]

6. what if....

WalMart could be doing this whole thing for publicity. Think about it - they refuse to stock emergency contraception. So they get all the conservatives all happy and proud of them. Then, a court orders them to stock it - not only do they now get to sell the product, but they don't take any of the flack from customers - since they are being "forced" to sell it.

Nice situation to be in.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Critters2]

9. In Illinois

pharmacists at Walgreen's have been refusing to dispense morning after pills. If Wal-Mart AND Walgreen's AND CVS and OSCO, etc. etc, all decide not to sell them, women are screwed. People (and corporations) who don't want to dispense meds shouldn't be in the pharmacy business.

[bucklebone]

10. If there is money to be made...

then someone will be out there selling the prescriptions. Don't worry about that.

[Heddi]

20. Well, not really

not when you have more and more pharmacists forgetting that there is a difference between a contraceptive and an abortifacent. I mean, it's simple pharmacology, but they seem to have an issue with it.

My mother in law lives in a town that has a population of 110. The closest pharmacy to her is over an hour away. The next closest pharmacy is 2 hours away in the other direction. The next one after that is 2 hours further from that.

Fortunately for her, she is well beyond her reproductive years, but even ignoring the issue of selective morality, it is a major pain for her to get routine meds Rx'ed by her MD. There was once where she had to wait nearly a week to get a common antibiotic because the nearest pharmacy to her did not have it in stock and had to wait for it to be shipped.

It is obvious that you have never lived beoynd the boundaries of a sizeable suburb or city. Take out a map and look at states like Kansas, or Iowa, or Nebraska. See how far those towns are from one another? I guarantee you there isn't a pharmacy in every one of those towns. I guarantee you that a woman who needs emergency contraception (which must be taken within 72 hours to be effective) does not always have the means or methods to drive around a 600+ square-mile-area to get a set of pills that should be readily available at any pharmacy. ESPECIALLY if the pharmacy doesn't have the drug because of some ill-conceived "moral issue".

Walmart is not in the business of medicine. Walmart, and their pharmacists have no right and no reason to know why a particular medicine was prescribed to a patient. That information is between the patient and the MD. Pharmacists are completely lacking the training necessary to know if a drug is appropriate for one cause or another. Their job is to fill the script and see if it interferes with any other medications being taken by the patient. Not to see if it interferes with the patient's relationship with God. Not to see if the medication interferes with the patient's moral standing in the community.

Again, Walmart seems to have an interesting way of deciding what it is and isn't morally opposed to....

[Bill McBlueState]

40. wow, I wish we could nominate replies for the greatest page.

This is the best explanation of the issue I've ever seen! :applause:

[Critters2]

83. And then there's the fact

that Wal-mart's business goal is to be the ONLY store in each of the communities it serves. Wal-mart is quite clear with tis employees that its goal is to put other store out of business. It has been successful at this in many small and midsize towns. Thus, it must be made to sell these meds.

[bucklebone]

95. Walmart's business goal is to be the only store in each

community that it serves??? Where did you read this, in their annual report???

I don't think that is true anymore than any other discount store.

[Critters2]

155. I have three parishioners who work there

They tell me they're told this in their training and in these little "pep rally" like vents they ahve to attend. There's a slogan that's used to express this. I can't remember it right off-hand, but I'll ask.

[Ripley]

121. Don't worry YOUR PRETTY LITTLE HEAD about that

Is what you really meant, huh?
:nuke:

[Heddi]

123. Exactly. Sit down and shut up

it's just your reproductive rights we're talking about, you stupid hussy. :sarcasm:

Damn that internet and them books and magazines...look at what it did...got us wimmen all thinkin' and readin' and forgettin' our place is to bow to the mighty penis and accept whatever rules and regulations are put on our body and our health.

Because, you know, pregnancy is just a walk in the park. Don't even have to worry about things like:

OMMON MEDICAL DISEASE PROCESSES that go along with pregnancies.

Remember. These are common. That means they happen alot of the time. Not some of the time. Not once in a while.

Ectopic Pregnancy (patient may die as a result of bleeding into abdominal cavity if ectopic pregnancy ruptures. Also at higher risk of sterility and future ectopic pregnancies)

Pregnancy induced Hypertension (patient may continue to be hypertensive after delivery)

Gestational Diabetes (patient is at higher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes later in life. Patient also at risk of continuing to be diabetic after delivery)

PreEclampsia

Eclampsia (seizure activity may continue after delivery)

HELLP syndrome (symptoms may continue after delivery)

Placenta Previa

Placenta Abruptio (patient may die because of blood loss related to interrupted placenta)

Uterine Rupture (woman may die because of blood loss related to ruptured uterus. May create situation where woman cannot carry successful pregnancy to term afterwards)

Iron Deficient Anemia (may have been apparent before pregnancy, may develop because of pregnancy)

Peripardium cardiomyopathy (congestive heart failure found in the last month of pregnancy or the first three months post-partum)

Cardiac decompensation (due to need of heart to pump extra blood to reach placenta)

Exascerbation of Asthma

Systemic Lupus Erythemastosus (pregnancy may ascerbate symptoms. Women with SLE, or Lupus, Generally cannot take hormonal contraceptives because they ascerbate symptoms)

Bell's Palsy (facial paralysis is generally temporary, but can be permanent in some women)

Cholelithiasis and Cholecystitis (Pregnancy increases risk of gallstones and gallbladder inflammation in women)

Hyperemesis Gravidum (nausea and vomiting which causes a woman to lose 5% or more of her pre-pregnancy rate)

Hemorrhage (woman can die due to excessive blood loss, may have complications for life due to non-lethal blood loss)

Recurrent premature dilation of the cervix (can potentitate future miscarriages in women)

Hydatidiform mole (molar pregnancy, can cause rupture of uterus)

Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (can cause permanent and fatal blood clots in women)

Premature Rupture of Membranes (can cause preterm labour, fetal death, hemorrhage)

Pelvic Dystocia (abnormalities in anatomy lead to conditions which are not suitable for birth and can cause complications in women who become pregnant)

Postpartum Hemorrhage (same complications with other forms of hemorrhage--can be life threatning or life altering)

Retained Placenta (can cause infection, infertility, sepsis, death)

Inversion of Uterus (can cause hemorrhage, infertility)

Subinvolution of Uterus (can cause hemorrhage, infertility)

Hemorraghic/hypovolemic shock (due to excessive loss of blood)

Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (increased risk of bleeding due to decrease in platelets)

Thrombophlebitis (blood clots deep in the legs which can migrate to heart or lungs and cause permanent injury, illness, or death)

Amniotic Embolus (particles, hair, etc from fetus get into vascular system and become lodged in lung. Nearly always fatal)

Endometriosis (postpartum infection of the placental placement or entire uterus. Increases risk of sepsis and other infections)

Infection of Surgical Site (c-section, episiotomy, etc)

Urinary Tract Infections (can become systemic, leading to urosepsis which can be fatal)

Mastitis (untreated, may lead to breast abscess)

Uterine Dysplacement and Prolapse (increased risk of cervical/uterine cancer with use of pessiaries)

Genital Fistulas (connection beween vagina and anus. Can lead to serious infections, sterility, etc)

Postpartum Depression

Postpartum Depression with Psychotic Features

Postpartum onset of panic disorder

Electrolyte imbalances

inability to take many medications due to teratogenity (toxic to fetus)

---

And those are just the things listed in ONE chapter of my maternity nursing book. If I felt like educating you more (which I don't), I could go through the other 4-5 chapters dealing with complications of pregnancy.

Also, remember that these problems don't just affect the woman. They can have disaterous effects on the fetus. THey can lead to retarded intrauterine growth, excessive amniotic fluid, large-for-gestational-age babies, preterm labour, post-term labour, congenital defects, premature delivery and premature infants.
---

:eyes:

[Ripley]

125. Hi Heddi!

Hope school is going well! :hi:

[Heddi]

130. It is! I get my RN degree in June

I just got my Practical Nurse diploma in the mail on Monday ! I'm not licensed (not gonna spend $300 on the test), but I'm still practical :)

Glad to see you. Hope you're doing well. Glad to see so much sanity on this thread. It's refreshing for a change :) :hi:

[Triana]

32. Exactly!

"People (and corporations) who don't want to dispense meds shouldn't be in the pharmacy business."

:applause:

[tanyev]

14. Being morally opposed to something they could be selling

is a little anti-Capitalist.

[High Plains]

21. Heh. Take that!

[bucklebone]

30. Actually, not...

Capitalism allows you to sell what you want, when you want to. Forcing someone to sell something goes against the market, and would therefore be anti-Capitalistic.

If walmart, or any other store, was morally opposed to selling guns for example, there wouldn't be government action to make it sell guns. I just don't see why a prescription should be any different.

[Bridget Burke]

35. WalMart has just shown what "morals' matter to them....

Making money comes first.

[bucklebone]

45. strangely enough...

you will find that matters a lot to the owners and shareholders of companies. Welcome to the wonderful world of Capitalism.

[mondo joe]

58. Is it anti capitalist to force a restaurant to seat Jews even if the owner

is morally opposed to Judaism?

How about forcing an employer to not discriminate against women even if he is morally opposed to women working outside the home?

[bucklebone]

60. I think were pretty clear that racism and sexism are punishable. eom

[mondo joe]

64. If you accept that, you accept legal intervention into capitalism for

social purposes.

Now we're just dickering about where that gets set for pharmaceutical purposes.

[Heddi]

122. Wouldn't you say that it's sexist for Walmart

to choose to NOT carry a medication that isn't just taken by the general population, but by a specific SEGMENT of the general population---women of childbearing age.

Why isn't that sexism? They're not not carrying antibiotics that anyone (barring allergy or sensitivity) would need to take to relieve an ailment. Pregnancy is biologically tied to women. Emergency contraception is something only women have a necessity to use. To not carry a medication that is SOLELY used by women is sexism, no? By not carrying this medication, they're not saying "We're not willing to sell to Jews" but rather "We are not willing to sell to women in childbearing age who have a need for emergency contraception"

Not only are they not willing to sell legally prescribed and FDA-approved medication to women who are compelled to use it for medical need, but they're denying the sale of women in the community whose taxes not only make up for the extravagant tax breaks that Walmart receives for having businesses in towns, but also the additional tax revenue needed to pay for the social services of those Walmart employees who qualify for state and federal poverty benefits. They're also paying for the additional tax money needed to widen the intersections around this Walmart. And to install the traffic lights around walmart. And to deal with the plethora of accidents that occur in intersections where Walmart is located (because it generally takes a few years to get the intersection widened to handle the influx of traffic, causing massive backups, inraged drivers, inattentive drivers, and accidents).

Iverglass has said it best in this thread--Walmart is no more obligated to have a pharmacy than it is to sell toilet paper. However, if they DO want to have a pharmacy in their store, then they need to follow the legislative rules regarding pharmacies and pharmacists. This isn't some anti-capitalist idea. It's the law. The same law that says emergency room doctors must treat whatever patient walks through their door, regardless of their ability to pay, regardless of their social status, regardless of whether the hospital is public or private. They must be treated, stabilized, then transferred to another facility if the reasons for the transfer meet the state requirements for patient transfer.

Pharmacists are NOT in the business of prescribing drugs. They are in the business of filling legal prescriptions. They are not privy to medical information between a patient and their doctor. Their job is to check the medication to ensure that it does not interfere with other medications being taken. It is their job to educate the patient on the proper way to take the medication, and to inform the patient of any signs of adverse reactions or toxicity.

It is NOT their job (or the job of the pharmacy itself) to implore its morality upon the patient seeking medications. If they have an issue with emergency contraception then perhaps they should not be in the business of filling any medical prescription. What about medications that can make a woman sterile she takes them? What about medications that will cause birth defects if taken during pregnancy? Did you know there are medications that women are told not to even HANDLE because the risk of teratogenic affects on a fetus is so great that women of childbearing age should not even handle the medication because the risk to a potential fetus (if one did not know she was pregnant) is so great?

If they're so concerned about the morality of emergency contraception, then they should be equally concerned about the morality of medications that are in drug category X, which is extreme birth defects result when taken. They should be equally concerned about the morality of medications that cross placenta or breast milk. They should be equally concerned about the morality of giving children medication (such as common antibiotics) that can cause deafness.

Emergency Contraception is hardly the most amoral medication in this world. I suggest you go to your local BOrders or Barnes and Noble and pick up a Nursing Drug Guide. It'll set you back around $30 but you'll be amazed at the number of medications that not only should not be, but CANNOT BE taken by pregnant women or women who think they are pregnant. These cause much more horrible outcomes than the Morning After Pill ever could. Yet I don't see them refusing to stock THESE medications, despite their devistating effects on a fetus in utero.

I suppose that it's easy to be "moral" regarding others sexual practices, since you yourself already feel that someone who needs emergency contraception should be more responsible and plan ahead. Hey, remind the women in your life that I suppose you love and cherish that should they be raped and become pregnant, the responsiblity lies SOLELY within themselves, as they should have been more responsible and planned ahead of time so that they didn't run the risk of pregnancy during rape.

If Pharmacists feel that god would disapprove of the morning after pill, then they need to let God hash that out with the woman using the contraceptive. I wonder if Walmart would also ask anyone who buys a pork based product if they were Jewish. God doesn't like Jews eating Pork. Or what if a Catholic buys Meat from the deli-center on Friday. No no no. That's forbidden.

If you're going to use religious moral outrage regarding one issue, then please be consistent in all issues. No EC for women. No pork for Jews or Muslims. No meat on Friday for Catholics. No mixed fabrics. No shellfish. Not hiring people who are unmarried but living with a boyfriend/girlfriend. Not being open on Sundays. I mean, let's be consistent with the religious morality, right?

[mondo joe]

128. Don't expect much. Bucklebone repeatedly refuses to address the fact that

pharmacies are medical providers and thus are appropriate to be regulated in ways that sporting goods stores are not.

Look over the thread - it's the topic he or she refuses to acknowledge.

[Heddi]

131. Oh I've seen it

pregnancy = soccer balls
pregnancy = vodka
pregnancy = porn
pregnancy = guns

Funny how s/he avoids the most CORRECT connotation:

Pregnancy = serious medical situation


eh. I guess that doesn't work when you're trying to talk about why if Walmart is required to carry EC, then why isn't Blockbuster Video required to sell cars and repair rain gutters.

Besides...don't you know...if you go to a plastic surgeon and ask them to do a tire rotation THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DO THAT and how DARE! we expect them to do so!!! Because by requiring Walmart to sell EC is the EXACT SAME AS forcing an OB-GYN to braid your sister's hair for her bridal shower and forcing a mechanic to do archaelogical excavations in your back yard.

IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT

[iverglas]

141. that's the thing about conscientious objection

... S/he who asserts it gets to establish that his/her claim is genuine.

A draft resister who asserts conscientious objection to participating in war doesn't just get to say "my god doesn't like killing". S/he will have to demonstrate that s/he has a genuine objection to killing and a credible claim to refusing to participate in it. For instance, s/he would not kill in self-defence, or to protect his/her child.

A pharmacist who asserts conscientious objection to hormonal contraception but doesn't even ask me whether I am (let alone might be) pregnant when s/he dispenses my Altace (for hypertension) has no genuine conscientious objection to hormonal contraception.

If s/he objects to dispensing medication that might do something s/he objects to -- in the case of EC, prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum, a "might" that is entirely hypothetical even if a fertilized ovum is pregnant, and entirely non-existent if no ovum is ever fertilized -- then s/he must object to everything else that might do the same thing. If EC is objectionable because it might harm a thingie that the pharmacist believes it is evil to harm, then so is Altace. The pharmacist must do that in the client's interests, not his/her own.

A pharmacist dispensing Altace to a woman obviously of child-bearing age does have a professional duty to draw the potential harmful effects to her attention: to tell her that if she is pregnant or thinks she might be pregnant, she should discuss the situation with her physician because the drug could harm the fetus.

A pharmacist may certainly NOT refuse to dispense Altace to a woman of child-bearing age based on the hypothetical harm to a hypothetical fetus -- or even to an obviously pregnant woman. If a physician has prescribed Altace to an obviously pregnant woman, the pharmacist must draw the potential harmful effects to her attention and even telephone the physician to ensure that s/he is aware of the possible problem. It is then still up to the physician whether it is prescribed, and up to the woman whether she takes it. The pharmacist may NOT refuse to dispense it. Absolutely NOT. What is in the woman's best interests is NOT for the pharmacist to decide and enforce.

Ditto for EC. For all any pharmacist knows, the woman standing in front of him/her may have a condition that makes pregnancy life-threatening. It is NOT up to the pharmacist to deny her the treatment that may be needed to save her life.

But of course, it's not up to any pharmacist to deny anyone any medication that has been prescribed by a physician, once s/he has ascertained that both physician and patient are aware of any risks to the patient/client involved. Pharmacists may picket their pharmacies in their off hours if they like, objecting to the sale of EC or anything else that gets up their bum. When they wear their pharmacist hats, they behave like pharmacists, or they take up computer programming for a living.

[Heddi]

144. I completely, 100% agree with you

I just want to let you know how much I enjoy reading your posts...you always say what I wish I could say, and you do it so well. You're the greatest and I so look forward to reading your very great rebuttals to the insanity we see all too frequently in threads of this nature.

You know, one of the best things about being in nursing school is the medical knowledge I've gained.

For example--I'm on birth control, but on Depo-Provera, not "the pill"

About a year ago, I had an infection and was required to take a very strong antibiotic to clear up said infection. The pharmacist who filled the Rx asked me about allergies, and if I've taken the medication before, and advised me of the signs and symptoms of an allergic reaction.

The one thing he did NOT councel me on was that taking this antibiotic while taking cyclic hormonal birth control (such as the pill) could decrease the uptake and absorption of the pill, and therefore decrease its effacacy. He did NOT ask me if I was on birth control at all. He also did NOT reccomend that if I were on cyclic hormonal birth control that I use a backup method for the remainder of my cycle.

He did NOT ask me if I was pregnant, either. By not asking if I was pregnant, he didn't know If I was. And if I was, I was running the risk (a small risk, but a risk nonetheless) of birth defects in the foetus should I take this antibiotic during certain stages of gestation.

He did NOT ask me if I was breastfeeding, either. By not asking if I were breastfeeding, he didn't know if I was. And if I was, I should have been counceled that this antibiotic would pass into breastmilk and be ingested by my child.

---
I'm thankful that I"m in nursing school because I know these things. But There's only 20 people in my class, 50 at the school all together. I was quite upset that so much PERTINENT information was not just missed, but completely not addressed in any capacity. And it would have taken FIVE questions:

Are you on birth control?
If yes, what kind
Are you pregnant?
if yes, how far?
Are you breastfeeding?

And those issues, quite VITAL issues were absolutely ignored.

I was so upset that I wrote quite a scathing letter to both the pharmacy (national chain) AND the state regulatory board that oversees pharmacies. I found out a few months ago that this particular pharmacy chain has had numerous complains lodged against it--MOST were for giving the wrong medication to patients and not double checking or even ASKING for patient information, but there were SEVERAL complaints by consumers who said that the pharmacist DID NOT ASK THEM PERTINENT QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS MEDICATION. I believe that one woman did get pregnant while taking an antibiotic and using birth control pills but was not advised by the pharmacist to use backup methods of birth control.....

Yeah. They've got moral issues alright. Maybe not the ones THEY think they have....but I can count quite a few....

[iverglas]

147. nosy personal questions

Sometimes professionals do have to ask them.

A few years ago, I was putting together some Ikea furniture in my office on a Sunday afternoon; all alone on the third floor of an empty, locked house. I pulled a bookcase over smack onto my head. It rather unusually created a clean front-to-back gash right in the middle of the top of my head, where the flat side of the thing hit the bony ridge.

Later, I got my campaign manager (first meeting of the election team that had chosen me as the local candidate, there's me bleeding from stupidity) to look at my scalp. She was an early childhood educator. She said that if a kid in her care had a gash like that, she'd send it to hospital, and insisted that I go.

As the doc -- quite a hunk -- was putting a stitch in my head, he casually enquired whether I was married. I'd come of age in an age when women were asked whether they were married just about no matter what the situation, and I was about to respond with a sarcastic remark about how if he wanted a date, he should just ask ... when it occurred to me that he was doing his professional duty and trying to ascertain whether I'd been the victim of an assault. No, no, I protested too much; I really really did pull a bookcase over smack onto the top of my head!

Professionals who have to ask such nosy questions should always explain why, but sometimes they even have to ask the questions first and explain why later, in case of cover-ups by patients contrary to their own interests. Just ask House. ;)

By the way, that St. John's Wort stuff can do the same to hormonal contraception, I'm sure you know. And I know someone who got pregnant as a result. And ta for the compliments, and nice to see the appropriate bashing being administered here; me, I always try to be nice. Hahaha.

[Heddi]

149. I have to ask SO many personal questions of patients

and I always explain before hand that I'm asking because their answers will let me know vital information about their state of health. I'm not being nosey. I'm asking because their life may depend on it.

People are pretty okay with it. I always let them know that they don't have to answer anything they feel uncomfortable with and that puts them at ease. You know--when was your last BM? Have you noticed any unusual penile drainage? Does it burn when you pee? What does your stool look like? Does it float? Does it sink? Does it have unusual odor? How's that vaginal discharge coming along? Any foul odor? Maybe your partner has commented about something like this after you have sex. How often do you have sex? Do you have protected sex? Tell me, why did you choose to start shooting up heroin in your penis? Oh, so people wouldn't see the scars. Next question....

I find that the groups between age 30 and 60 don't have an issue answering really probing questions for the most part. The under 30's get really hetchy about stuff, as do the over 60's. I remember asking a woman who was 80 years old if she was having sex (she was having a recurrent bout of vaginal infections and UTI's) and she looked at me like I had crows flying out of my eyes. She said "honey, I haven't had sex with a man since the Nixon administration", at which point I asked her if she had sex with WOMEN, and she said yes, that she was divorced in the 70's because she was a lesbian, and that I was the FIRST health care professional she's met that asked her about that, and she appreciated it.

I just did a paper on a report I read about lesibans' health concerns being unaddressed in the health care setting. The general question is "do you have sex" and if they say yes (and they're a woman), it's assumed they're having sex with men, etc. It was very eye-opening and gave me something to think about, and how often biased the questionnaires we give patients often are, and how they ignore very important health care needs.

[tanyev]

75. Partially right.

Capitalism does allow you to sell what you want, when you want to. But a merchant who decides what to sell purely on capitalistic principles would base that decision SOLELY on whether a profit would be made by selling the item.

I have no problem with a merchant deciding not to sell something because they are morally opposed to it, but that is a decision influenced by something other than capitalism.

Other posters have pointed out the many ways in which Wal-Mart has very little credibility in the moral high ground department, so I really don't buy the "morally opposed" theory. My guess is that they are assuming that they have a much larger number of customers who would be offended by this item than they have customers who want to purchase it. Which does bring us back to capitalism, but only if Wal-Mart's assumption is correct, and I personally doubt it.

Or they could just be skeered of the wrath of Dobson and Falwell and their ilk. That would not be capitalism.

[iverglas]

78. amazingly, that's the difference ...

If walmart, or any other store, was morally opposed to selling guns for example, there wouldn't be government action to make it sell guns. I just don't see why a prescription should be any different.

... between laissez-faire capitalism and the regulated markets, and other public policies, of a liberal democracy.

Landlords are free to refuse to rent to people with five dogs -- but not to people with a particular skin colour. Employers are free to refuse to hire people who don't bathe -- but not people of a particular sex.

We in these liberal democracies regard certain basic needs as something that should not be entrusted to the discretion of those who control the marketplace, and people's right to fill their basic needs as prevailing over the personal preferences of the suppliers who set themselves up in business to meet those needs.

Women's need for emergency contraception, particularly in markets where there may be only a single accessible supplier as is the case for some communities with Wal-Marts, is considered by many of us to be one of those needs.

Nobody's need for firearms, or wallpaper, or exotic coffees, or any other frivolous analogy anyone might want to offer, likely falls into that category.

Pharmacies operate under the codes of ethics of their pharmacists, which require them to place the public interest above personal preference, although of course not at the cost of bankrupting themselves. Wal-Mart is not going to be bankrupted or suffer any other noticeable harm if it stocks EC.

[Texacrat]

94. I agree, but I don't see that as a bad thing, especially in medicine

The State of Massachusetts has deemed that they need to regulate pharmacies in order to promote the common good. By requiring contraceptives to be sold at all pharmacies, they are ensuring greater access to contraceptives. Of course, there by be a microeconomic cost to all of this, but the societal benefit seems to outweigh that.

Sorry, my reply was to the first poster.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. Yeah, people take emergency contraception for kicks.

No different from a soccer ball.:eyes:

[geniph]

18. But there ISN'T a Walgreens or a CVS on every corner

That's one of the things Wal-Mart does very well indeed, driving competitors completely out of an area so that they are the only option. Maybe you don't see it where you are - if you're in a heavily populated area, it's not as noticeable - but the Wal-Mart effect is utterly devastating on smaller, isolated communities. And if the only pharmacy in town refuses to sell legal prescription drugs, you're kinda SOL if you don't happen to have a car, or don't have the time to drive 70 miles to the next pharmacy. There are still a whole hell of a lot of communities that have 100 miles between pharmacies.

[bucklebone]

31. If you're living in a rural community...

chances are that you have a car. Good chance you are not relying on public transportation if you are living in the boonies. And if we are talking Massachusetts, I'm guessing there are not a whole lot of communities where the nearest pharmacy is 50 or 100 miles away.

I know there are rural areas through Mass., I drive through it every year. The taker of the morning after pill should have a little more responsibility than to not plan ahead.

[Bridget Burke]

37. The "taker" of the morning after pill is not the only one responsible.

Even if she is the Woman. What about the Man who bought those cheapo prophylactics?

[bucklebone]

46. there's no question

that the man is equally responsible for birth control.

[Megahurtz]

73. Okay, don't even go there....

"The taker of the morning after pill should plan ahead"??? OMG you must be a man.:eyes:

If a woman or girl gets raped she is not responsible.

AND

Pharmacies should be regulated just like Doctors are, they should be required to carry all prescribed medicines, otherwise they do not fit the definition of a pharmacy.

Going to the Docter and filling a necessary prescription is not a fucking sport, like soccer.

Oh and by the way, Capitalism sucks!

[bucklebone]

82. didn't mean to touch a nerve.

Yes, I am a man. How did you guess??

First, "If a woman or girl gets raped she is not responsible." No one is arguing that point.

Pharmacies "should be required to carry all prescribed medicines, otherwise they do not fit the definition of a pharmacy."

No pharmacy carries ALL prescribed medicines. Nor should they be required to. If your pharmacy doesn't carry what you are looking for, then you will go somewhere else.

Everyone is assuming that in Massachusetts, Walmart is the only option for purchasing the morning after pill. No one has given a real example of an area in Mass. where it's a woman's only option. And if a woman lives in a very rural area of Mass. where the morning after pill is not available, and she is sexually active, and might be prone to needing the morning after pill, I don't think it is asking too much for her to be prepared ahead of time.

Now, in the case of rape, you have a valid point. Maybe her doctor or hospital would have samples for her.

And Capitalism doesn't suck. It's why we are able to communicate ideas over the internet on our personal computers.

[iverglas]

85. are you familiar with the concept of "profession"?

No pharmacy carries ALL prescribed medicines. Nor should they be required to.

Some pharmacies do not carry narcotics because of low demand, and because they fear being targeted for robbery; professionals aren't required to go to unnecessary expense or put themselves at risk in order to provide services. Some pharmacies undoubtedly do not carry other medications for which there is low demand -- but I tend to think that they would either order them in when required, or know where to refer the client.

Not many medications need to be taken within a few hours of the need arising in order to avert a risk to an individual's health, well-being and life. Emergency contraception does.

We, the public, permit people like doctors and lawyers and pharmacists to do things that other people are not permitted to do. In the case of pharmacists, we permit them to sell drugs, and to make a profit in so doing.

The profession is given a monopoly on this activity, because it appears to be in the public interest to do that, in order to avoid people being harmed by drugs distributed by incompetent individuals. Not because the public thinks that pharmacists deserve to make profits without having to worry about competition -- let alone because the public has chosen to turn its "moral" decision-making over people with expertise in the dispensing of drugs. That, the public has most certainly not done.

Whither your capitalism in that scenario? Into the pit of irrelevance, that's where. The public have protected pharmacists from price competition from new entrants to the market who could charge much lower prices, and the public expects professional service in return.

Professional codes of ethics require that professionals act in the public interest, and in the client's interest, in addition to abiding by public laws like non-discrimination legislation. It is professionally unethical to refuse to meet the needs of a client based on considerations that are irrelevant to the client's needs.

No one has given a real example of an area in Mass. where it's a woman's only option.

No one needs to. The practical situation is that a woman may have access to only one pharmacy -- but it is also entirely possible that a woman with access to a dozen pharmacies will still not have access to emergency contraception, if they all decline to stock it.

And a professional's professional obligations really just can't be disregarded simply because a potential client might be able to hunt the services up somewhere else.

I don't think it is asking too much for her to be prepared ahead of time.

What I think is that it doesn't matter a good goddamn what you think. It's none of your business when, how or why a woman needs emergency contraception ... any more than it's Wal-Mart's business. Women's needs for the services of pharmacists ... I don't know how else to put this ... are none of your business. And your opinions about women's needs for the services of pharmacists have precisely bugger all to do with the professional obligation of pharmacists to provide those services.

Now, in the case of rape, you have a valid point. Maybe her doctor or hospital would have samples for her.

Ah, and maybe now we can talk about the likelihood of a Roman Catholic Church-affiliated hospital (the only hospital in growing numbers of communities in the US) stocking emergency contraception when they won't even prescribe it.

On the other hand, maybe nobody needs your suggestions as to how to acquire the medications they need when they are entitled to acquire them from the professionals authorized by the public to do that job.

And maybe some of us are wondering what has driven you to devote so many of your posts to saying so much and yet so little on this particular topic.

Never mind the bollocks -- your opinions about what women you've never met should be doing, or anything else. Never mind your pet capitalism -- this is a regulated professional monopoly we're talking about here. Never mind soccer balls and firearms -- the product here is required in order to meet a serious and immediate need.

Maybe try telling us how you might react if all the pharmacies you patronize, or even the most convenient one, stopped selling the medication that keeps your kid alive, whatever it might be.

If I had been pregnant when I started taking medication for hypertension, it would quite possibly have seriously harmed or killed my fetus. The product monograph says so. I haven't noticed Wal-Mart refusing to fill Altace prescriptions for women of child-bearing age. Odd, that.

[bucklebone]

96. Walmart pharmacy is not a monopoly...

The profession being a monopoly is not the issue. Whether or not Walmart pharmacy is a monopoly seems to be the issue. And I can guarantee you that they are not.


"Ah, and maybe now we can talk about the likelihood of a Roman Catholic Church-affiliated hospital (the only hospital in growing numbers of communities in the US) stocking emergency contraception when they won't even prescribe it."

If a Roman Catholic Church-affiliated hospital is allowed not to stock emergency contraception, or even prescribe it for women requesting it, then why doesn't the gov't force them to prescribe and stock it. Why should they have different standards of what they can and cannot stock, prescribe and fulfill?? You give one example of a private enterprise that should be required to provide emerg. contraceptives and then you give an example of another one that doesn't. You are not making sense.


"What I think is that it doesn't matter a good goddamn what you think. It's none of your business when, how or why a woman needs emergency contraception..." I don't care why a woman might need emergency contraception, but if they think they might need it, why is it asking too much that they plan ahead. Make a trip to the big city, buy 50 doses or so, and then your set. Why is it asking too much to be responsible for your own body??

BTW, how do you make things bold on this message board?? That's a neat trick and would help in future posts.

[iverglas]

105. are you familiar with the concept of "the point"?

The profession being a monopoly is not the issue. Whether or not Walmart pharmacy is a monopoly seems to be the issue.

It may "seem" that way to you, but I don't know how it could.

Do you imagine that the policy would not apply to other pharmacies and chain stores?

If this state grants the despicable pharmacists who refuse to dispense medications based on their "conscientious" objections to them an exemption from their ordinary duty, it might be that pharmacist owned-operated pharmacies could be exempted from a requirement to stock emergency contraception, if the owner-operator refused to dispense them.

Corporations do not have consciences, ergo do not have rights based on conscientious objection.

If a Roman Catholic Church-affiliated hospital is allowed not to stock emergency contraception, or even prescribe it for women requesting it, then why doesn't the gov't force them to prescribe and stock it.

What a very excellent question! Why don't you put it to your legislators?

Meanwhile, the fact that Party A is permitted to get away with something doesn't actually mean that Party B must be permitted to get away with something else.

You give one example of a private enterprise that should be required to provide emerg. contraceptives and then you give an example of another one that doesn't. You are not making sense.

Sorry, friend. It's not I who is not making sense. It's legislators who permit this kind of abusive conduct.

I was merely addressing your flaming red herring about what women who need emergency contraception might do to make up for the fact that readily accessible pharmacies refuse to dispense it to them.

if they think they might need it, why is it asking too much that they plan ahead.

Something about this still seems to be eluding you. The point of emergency contraception is that it is needed when other contraception has not been used. If someone were planning ahead ... say, for being sexually assaulted even though she has sworn not to engage in sexual intercourse until she finishes high school ... she would undoubtedly have had an IUD inserted.

I was sexually assaulted while I had an IUD in place. IUDs are known to fail. Had emergency contraception been available at the time (this was many years ago), I would have wanted it anyway -- even though I had planned ahead. The risk of becoming pregnant through consensual sexual intercourse while using an IUD was something I chose to live with, having little choice but to do so if I did not wish to be celibate. The risk of becoming pregnant through forced sexual intercourse was a risk I did not choose to assume.

I would imagine that women who are sexually assaulted today feel much the same way. So you expect them to "plan ahead" for sexual assault by stocking up on emergency contraception. I might ask whether you have planned ahead for a power outage by stocking up on barbecue fuel. And if you haven't, whether you might expect your local Wal-Mart to tell you that you should have.

Nope, not suggesting that Wal-Mart should be compelled to sell propane. Pointing out the silliness of your comments.

It is not your business what women do to avert pregnancy, and it is not Wal-Mart's business. Wal-Mart has chosen to operate a business that is governed by the rules of the profession of pharmacy. Those rules do not permit the denial of professional services based on anything but the client's interests and the public's interests.

Why is it asking too much to be responsible for your own body??

Why is it asking too much for you to mind your own business?

And I must admit I'm curious; do you have a clue what "50 doses" of EC would cost? And is it possible that what you are really saying is that women should not need EC at all, because they should already be on the pill, or using barrier methods or some other form of contraception? Or ... not screwing around? I mean, obviously, someone who has the foresight to stock up on EC might just have the sense to be using a more reliable method of contraception. Somehow, it just seems to me that this is what you're saying: that women in need of EC are the authors of their own misfortune, and thus should expect no public policy directing someone else to fulfil its duty to assist them.

When you need hypertension medication, I'm sure there were be someone nearby to remark on how you should have taken responsibility for your own body, used a little foresight, and not eaten quite so much over all those years. And I'm sure you won't object at all if all the pharmacists in your community have converted to Christian Science and refuse to dispense your medication.

When you need a lawyer to defend you on a charge of espionage and you find that all of the lawyers in your jurisdiction refuse to defend accused traitors, good luck. Well actually, you know what will happen? The court will appoint a lawyer to defend you, whether the lawyer wants to do so or not; that's what will happen. That's because lawyers, as a profession, have duties to the public, and individual lawyers may be compelled to perform it. Getting the point at all?

Women do not have to justify their need for EC to Wal-Mart or to anyone else, let alone you. A company operating a pharmaceutical business has to justify its violation of the rules that govern the profession of pharmacy. Wal-Mart has quite evidently failed to do this. You won't even address the issue, and have certainly failed to justify the violation.



replace pointy brackets with corresponding square brackets
<b>word</b> = word
<i>word</i> = word
<u>word</u> = word
<strike>word</strike> = word
<blockquote>word</blockquote> =

word

[bucklebone]

108. This is such a long reply...

"A company operating a pharmaceutical business has to justify its violation of the rules that govern the profession of pharmacy."

I agree that a violation is a violation even if you don't agree with the rule. If you violate, then you pay the price. Effectively, you should know the ground rules before you get into the game.

I for one (and let's just agree to disagree) think that rule stinks.

BTW, I have no idea what 50 doses of EC costs. It doesn't matter for the discussion.

2nd: When talking about sexual assault vs. everyday discretionary use, I would hope that a sexual assault victim would go to the doctor or hospital to be treated. Once there, they could be treated using EC. As far as I know, EC is a one or two time dose. It is not a regular 10 prescription that one might take for anti-biotics or the like.

3rd: In your propane example, yes I would expect a home owner to stock up on propane, or batteries or candles in the event of a power outage. If they don't then it's there fault, not the store down the street.


"Corporations do not have consciences, ergo do not have rights based on conscientious objection" I disagree.

Corporations have boards, CEO's and COO's who know what is better for their company and customers moreso than the state legislature.


Thanks for the heads up on how to bold. Even an idiot like me was able to follow.

[iverglas]

118. trying to hard to evade points

I agree that a violation is a violation even if you don't agree with the rule. If you violate, then you pay the price. Effectively, you should know the ground rules before you get into the game. I for one (and let's just agree to disagree) think that rule stinks.

Uh huh. It stinks that someone who is allowed to practise a profession, thereby becoming part of a monopoly, is not permitted to deny professional services on a whim.

I keep asking, and you keep not answering. What happens when a pharmacist refuses to dispense some medication that YOU need, on a personal whim? What happens when a doctor refuses to treat you for a disease that YOU have, on a personal whim? How are YOU going to feel about driving 50 miles for the drug, or going on a two-month waiting list to see another doctor? How 'bout if the hospital that YOUR insurer requires you to go to won't provide the treatment you need?

It doesn't matter what your answer is, of course, because it doesn't matter at all what you would think (or might say you would think). The society you are part of has chosen to restrict the practice of certain professions to qualified individuals who agree to abide by a set of rules made to protect the public.

A loonytarian might think that anyone who wants to practise medicine should be able to start slicing and dicing, and anyone who wants to practise pharmacy should be able to dispense only aspirin and snake oil, and the marketplace will weed out the incompetent; a reasonable, decent person will recognize that a lot of their patients will likely get weeded out before that happens.

BTW, I have no idea what 50 doses of EC costs. It doesn't matter for the discussion.

You got that right. Your whole smelly herring about what you expect women you don't know to do has nothing to do with the discussion.

When talking about sexual assault vs. everyday discretionary use, I would hope that a sexual assault victim would go to the doctor or hospital to be treated. Once there, they could be treated using EC.

Uh ... yeah. Given that, at present, EC is only available by prescription in the US, that would indeed be how a woman is going to be prescribed EC. Doctors don't dispense medication. Pharmacists do.

I think what you're saying is that you expect a woman who has been sexually assaulted to do X, Y and Z. Including reporting the assault to someone of your choosing. Not all women choose to report sexual assaults. Whether you expect them to is neither here nor there. Some women may prefer simply to go to a doctor and request a prescription for EC. Not your business.

yes I would expect a home owner to stock up on propane, or batteries or candles in the event of a power outage. If they don't then it's there fault, not the store down the street.

Who's talking "fault"?? Only you -- you're the one suggesting that someone should be punished for not living up to someone else's expectations in respect of something that is none of anyone else's business.

Fault has nothing to do with anything here. No one is advocating that Wal-Mart be punished if it doesn't meet every need anyone might have. What has been done is to compel Wal-Mart to do something that IT DOES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY to do: stock and dispense prescribed medications. It doesn't have a responsibility to stock propane; fuckin duh.

I just don't see you pontificating about the "irresponsibility" of someone unprepared for a week without electricity when a store refuses to sell him/her propane though, somehow.

Corporations have boards, CEO's and COO's who know what is better for their company and customers moreso than the state legislature.

And that has to do with anything I said ... how?

I was referring specifically to "conscientious objection" to dispensing medications, and whether a corporation could claim the benefit of any exemption given to pharmacists on that (hokey) ground. You do love evading a point, doncha?

To respond to yours, irrelevant as it is: if a corporation's controllers believe that it is not in the corporation's best interests to operate a business providing professional services, then it's free to not do so. If they choose to operate a business providing professional services, then what is better for their company and customers IS NOT the determining factor in how those services are delivered. Getting it yet?

WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CLIENT, within the limits permitted by the rules of the profession, is the determining factor. Want to respond to it yet? Can't? Could be.

[mondo joe]

127. No one is forcing Walmart to sell pharmaceuticals. But if they want the

license to do, they must meet the terms of that license.

You already accept legislators poking into business - remember anti discrimination policies?

Are you opposed to regulation of medical care?

[Heddi]

133. "are you opposed to regulation of medical care?"

Only when it deals with slutty irresponsible women, apparently

:hi:

[mondo joe]

136. HA!! Isn't it funny how women are expected to anticipate any

potential pregnancy - including rape and coercion and failed birth control - but pharmacists can't be responsible for anticipating having to dispense prescriptions?

[Heddi]

139. Funny, that.

Very consise, though.

I'm 4 months away from becoming an RN. I know which areas of the hospital and medicine that I would most likely not enjoy working in because of some of the situations I might face.

The absolutely GREAT thing is that there is no law forcing me to work in one field of medicine or another. Or to work in medicine at all. I don't HAVE to take my licensure exam upon graduation. But when I do, and when I'm granted a license, I have to abide by the PLETHORA of laws, regulations, and responsibilities associated with that license.

I wonder if pharmacists are regulated under the "abandonment clause" like MD's and Nurses are? The abandonment clause basically states that I have to have a pretty fucking good reason for refusing to care for a patient. At least in Washington State, you can't claim general religious opposition. It has to be VERY specific. I can't take care of this patient because I will have to assist in an abortion, which is against my religion---that's okay. I can't take care of this patient because some aspect of her care will maybe be against my religion--not okay. I think in all cases, though, you have to fill out a specific form for the hospital and the state specifically declaring your reasons you feel you would be unable to perform your job at the levels required by your license before you're allowed to switch patients, and in most situations I believe *YOU* (not the hospital, or your supervisor, etc) have to find an equally competent and licensed nurse to take over care for you.

I would think that failing to stock, dispence, or refer a legally written and uncontraindicated prescription would be the same as patient abandonment because there is no compelling reason for the phamarcy/pharmacist to stock, dispense, or refer to another pharmacy a legally written prescription that isn't contraindicated.

I can't see how not doing the above (stock, dispense, refer) would NOT be considered abandonment. Interesting to see if it is challenged in a state on those grounds....

Oh, and as far as nurses go, abandoning a patient without proper documentation, reason, and approval is a very quick way to get your license revoked for a very, very, very long time (at least in my state)

[mondo joe]

140. Moreover, we acknowledge no right to refuse EMERGENCY medical care in

the provider of that service, the ER. How could one then rationalize the right to refuse EMERGENCY contraception from the provider of THAT service.

[Heddi]

146. That's a good point

Emergency doesn't just mean "treat within five minutes or you'll die". I just did an ER rotation this week--the majority of people who came in had minor ailments that wouldn't have killed them if they didn't come in on Monday, but waited until the next Saturday.

Much like emergency contraception. You only have to take it within 72 hours of unprotected sex to be effective. So you have some time. It's not like 'Take this pill within 5 minutes or you'll be pregnant'

However, like you say, how is emergency contraception any different from emergency medical treatment, even if the PROBLEM isn't necessarily EMERGENT IN AND OF ITSELF?

This is how it works in Washington State:

You come to the Emergency Room. Doesn't matter if private or public hospital. You present to the emergency room and you must be seen by a physician. You must be evaluated. You must be stabalized. Stabilizing can mean telling the patient they have an earache and to see their GP in the morning. Stabilizing can mean making sure blood loss is at a minimum before transferring to a higher-level trauma center.

In order to transfer a patient from one facility to another, certain criteria must be met: There has to be an issue with staffing--not enough Dr's or nurses to tend to the patient. There has to be an issue with equipment---patient has a head injury but the CAT scan machine isn't working. There has to be an issue with competence--patient is 8 months pregnant with severe abdominal trauma. Local hospital doesn't have NICU facilities or professionals who are educated in that area.

Once a patient presents themself, they must be treated. Regardless of illness. Regardless of ability to pay.

I feel the same should apply to pharmacists.

Once that patient presents themselves to the pharmacist with a legal and non-contraindicated prescription, they must be treated. Regardless of illness. Regardless of medication.

Not all emergency situations are the same as far as fatality and level of care needed. But an emergency is an emergency--whether you'll die in 5 minutes or 5 days or 5 years is beside the point. If a patient feels they need emergency services, they have a right under the law to receive those services, and the state has mandated that health care facilities have an obligation to provide those services to the best of their ability barring unforseen or unfixable situations.

you're bringing up zinger points today! Woohoo!

[Megahurtz]

150. Thanks iverglas,

I couldn't have said it all better myself.:hi:

[blonndee]

92. "Capitalism...why we are able to communicate ideas over the internet on ou

r personal computers."

Are you INSANE? WTF does that have to do with capitalism? How much Kool-Aid have you been drinking? It's capitalism (and fascism, as far as politics go) that's trying to regulate, monitor, and exploit our usage of the internet. PLEASE!!!

ETA: Obviously, people want to make money by providing internet service. But to say capitalism is THE REASON WE ARE ABLE to do this is just stupid.

[bucklebone]

97. certainly capitalism...

drives the economy, drives invention and drives efficiencies in the products we use every day. Look at East Germany compared to West Germany back in the day. A perfect example of Capitalism over Communism. We would have never gotten this far (pc's and the internet) without the briliance of the Capitalist system.

And before you trash it, think of all of the good Bill Gates and Paul Allen have done with the wealth that they have created via their windows software. It's what a responsible Capitalist does.

[Mithras61]

100. Ummm... The Internet was created by ARPA...

(that's the DOD's Advanced Research Projects Agency, by the way) and started out as a MILITARY experiment to ensure communications in times of great need. It was extended to Colleges & Universities so that the DOD could get "great minds" working on it. It wasn't until one Senator Albert Gore started pressing the issue that the Internet was opened up to people like you & I. The brilliance of the Capitalist system had VERY LITTLE to do with the development of the Internet. It does, however, have a great deal to do with the current ongoing attempts to limit access to it and to provide multiple llevels of service and restrictions on where we can go & what we can see...

I'm not anti-capitalist, just anti-laissez faire capitalist. Corporations need regulations for their own good and for the good of society at large (they have a tendency generally to create monopolies & do damage to both the marketplace and the society in which they reside).

[bucklebone]

101. You got the first part right, but...

to say Capitalism had very little to do with the development of the internet is pure wrong. Think of all of the advances that came before the technology of the internet was even conceived.

The internet did not just prevail itself out of thin air. It made itself available only after years and years of previous works by private business and governmental contactors. All driven by the Capitalist system. Now you may argue that it had 10% to do with it, and I may argue that it had 80% to do with it, but the point is Capitalism has its hand in all the technology in use today.

And further, without Capitalism, where would the demand for the Internet be today...and thus the need to upgrade to faster connections, more memory, broader networks, etc. Like I said, Capitalism drives the economy and drives these types of inventions.

[Mithras61]

106. Riiight...

"There is a world market for maybe five computers." - Thomas Watson Jr. (founder of IBM).

Capitalism didn't get into the game until fairly recently, but it doesn't drive demand.

The ARPANet started it's life in 1969 (the Network Working Group was formed in 1968). The Internet as we know it today became pretty public in the early '90s (about 25 years later).

Services such as Compuserve and various local bulletin board systems existed for many years providing services much like what are used for DU long before there was much demand for the Internet (or Internet, for that matter). Capitalism had little to do with that (I ran a BBS back in the late 80s, and ALMOST made money on it!).

What drives the Internet isn't so much Capitalism as it is porn & gaming (both gambling and interactive PC gaming). Most web sites are money loosing propositions, not money makers. The BBS took IN money when I made porn and online games available and charged for premium access (I couldn't afford the software otherwise). Everything else cost quite a bit more than I made.

[bucklebone]

109. porn and gaming is capitalism...

Someone provides a service for a fair market value is the epitome of capitalism.

next...

[Mithras61]

112. What a doofus...

I provided the BBS even when I was loosing money. The porn & gaming were a means to allow me to provide additional services. Capitalism at its heart is the desire to make money. If I'm not making money, how is it capitalism? As to those being Capitalism on the Internet, I don't pay for either one of those things (and yes, I do play games like Unreal Tournament, Neverwinter Nights and several others online) and so they drive demand but at no financial gain. How is this capitalism?

[bucklebone]

116. You are unbelieveable...

You chose to lose money on one endeavor in order to make money elsewhere. As a business owner (or webmaster) you make that choice for the benefit of your company. If the company that hired you to make porn and gaming sites could have found someone of equal quality for less money, don't you think they would have??

Yes, even if you are not making money at what you are doing, it is capitalism. The exchange of money for services using market forces to determine price is the basis of capitalism. That is exactly what you described.

Please, someone out there come to my defense on this one.

[Mithras61]

117. No COMPANY hired me...

I ran the board as a co-op. People who wanted access to porn & games helped pay for the services they wanted. There was NO business involved. The bulletin board system was FREE to those who didn't want or need additional access.

I didn't MAKE porn and/or gaming sites. It was a BBS (about 16 or 17 years ago, when there really WASN'T a functioning Internet). I subscribed to some distribution services and asked the people who wanted them to help defray the costs of the access. Tell me again how this is capitalism?

[mondo joe]

135. Your argument is that capitalism is responsible for anything it pays for -

so by your rationale capitalism is responsible for the Iraq War, for torturing prisoners in Guantanamo and Bush's domestic spying.

Congratulations!

[Solon]

159. Actually, you are wrong in many ways...

I don't know if you know about it, but the reason the internet exists as it does is because some people actually GAVE away a shitload of technology to make it possible. Whether it was TCP/IP standards by the GOVERNMENT, to a kid in Norway who created HTML and GAVE IT AWAY. Think about that, he didn't copywrite or patent his invention, and viewed it as too important and usefull to be for him alone. That is the anti-thesis of capitalism if I ever heard of one. I didn't bother to mention E-Mail, telnet, BBSes, and a shitload of other technologies that were either developed by the government, or developed by government funded universities. If these technologies DIDN'T develop as they did, then people couldn't make nearly as much money off the internet as they do today, and we would still be stuck with an internet of about 1988 or so.

[iverglas]

80. red herring time

The taker of the morning after pill should have a little more responsibility than to not plan ahead.

And I should have chosen my father better; that way, I wouldn't have the inherited condition that has me taking hypertension medication.

Of course, I might not need it if I lost some more weight. I guess my pharmacist could just refuse to dispense the stuff to me and tell me I should have planned ahead a little better and not eaten all those potato chips.

Forgive my flippancy; what I really want to say is: your comment is grossly obnoxious.

It is not up to a pharmacist to decide whether a client can do this, or should have done that. It is up to a pharmacist to fill prescriptions unless s/he has a professional reason for not doing so. Full stop.

[bucklebone]

103. grossly obnoxious???

I don't think expecting some level of personal responsibility as being grossly obnoxious. Do you???

[iverglas]

107. do I?

I don't think expecting some level of personal responsibility as being grossly obnoxious. Do you???

I do indeed -- when what you are actually doing is advocating that a corporation be permitted to deny individuals professional services that it has undertaken to provide and that those individuals believe are in their best interests and that have been prescribed by the appropriate source based on an irrelevant consideration.

You can expect anyone to do anything you like. I expect you to address the points made by your interlocutors in a discussion. If you choose not to, well there I go. My expectations have not been met. Likewise, if women choose not to spend the rent money stocking up on EC, there you go. Your expectations have not been met.

So, what? You get to punish them now? Wal-Mart gets to punish them for not meeting your expectations by denying them pharmacy services? Can you tell me where you found this rather odd rule, and who made it?

You can expect me to stand on my head and spit nickels, if you like. I probably won't do it. But I'm not actually going to agree that you get to hit me over the head with a hammer, or that Wal-Mart gets to refuse to sell me emergency contraception, if I don't meet your expectation.

I have no responsibility TO YOU, so you don't get to impose consequences on me for what I do that you think isn't quite up to snuff. You're just equivocating on the word "responsibility", by using it to imply that women have a duty of some sort and can be made to suffer consequences for a breach of it. They don't.

Women have no duty to you, or to Wal-Mart, or to anyone else, when it comes to what they do with their own bodies. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, has a duty to dispense the medications that are prescribed to women unless it has justification for refusing. "Because we don't feel like it" is NOT justification for refusing to dispense a prescribed medication.

What I think is grossly obnoxious is your assertion that people you don't know from Eve, and about the circumstances of whose lives you know nothing, are "irresponsible", and your evident claim that this "irresponsibility" is justification for a professional denying the services that his/her professional ethical standards require him/her to provide, or for a corporation preventing that professional from providing those services.

Like I said: never mind the bollocks.

[bucklebone]

113. hmmmmm.......

you seem to be placing personal responsibility as none of anybody's business, but you are placing corporate responsibility as everyone's business.

Don't you think the taker of EC is primarily responsible for the health and well-being of themselves?? It should not be the state or walmart or any other entity that is responsible for the ultimate well being of the individual. And when did EC become a right?? I'm glad its out there, but if it is so vital to the existence of mankind then why doesn't the gov't manufacture it and send free samples to your doorstep??





Again, let's just agree to disagree. I really appreciate your point of view and both enjoy and learn from these types of discussions.

[mondo joe]

126. No - not corporate responsibility. Regulating medical services.

No one is forcing Walmart to sell pharmaceuticals. But if they want the license to do so they have to play by the rules.

[Heddi]

129. When did ANY medicine become a right?

On edit:

Emergency Contraception became a right with the supreme court ruling of Griswold v. Connecticut. Might want to check it out one day.

There are plenty of medications that are much more vital to mankind's existance than EC. In your scenario, we should all stock up on tons of insulin, beta blockers, diuretics, anticoagulants, etc JUST IN THE EVENT that we need them at some point in our life because we cannot rely on the businesses regulated to sell such medications to us in the times when we need it.

Tell me, how many cases of medication do you have stockpiled in the event of an emergency? Got a blood clot that can kill ya if you don't take heparin or coumadin? Too bad, bubba. Shoulda thought ahead and stocked up. What, the pharmacist is supposed to CARRY MEDICATION? what kind of commie, anti-capitalist idea is that? Actually expecting a regulated body to perform the duty it was licensed to do? Dat be krazee :sarcasm:

I notice that you've continued to evade the oft-repeated question that Iverglass has put forth to you:

Imagine the issue wasn't emergency contraception. Imagine it was a medication that was needed to be taken within X time frame to keep you alive. Or your loved one alive. THe pharmacy you frequent refuses to stock or sell the medication based on some vague sense of selective morality. The only pharmacy you can get it from is 20 hours away, and that's IF they have it in stock and IF their pharmacists don't just decide on a whim that they, too, are morally opposed to this medication.

Do you revel in the idea of driving 20+ hours to obtain what should be a readily available medication? It's a legal prescription. It does not interfere with any other medications or modalities you're currently using. It's safe and affordable and effective. Yet YOUR life is in jeopardy if you do not take this medication within X hours.

Do you then hold yourself to the same impossible standards you hold women who seek Emergency Contraception? Do you tell yourself that you really don't have a right to that medication because there is no right to any medication and besides, you should have thought ahead, had some personal responsibilty, and stocked up ahead of time?

Do you let your child or wife or mother or son die because you can't make the trip? Do you find it acceptable that anyone SHOULD die if they don't have the ability to run around the state to find a medication that should, by all rights, be available at any business that callls itself, and is licensed as a pharmacy? Do you not think it's over the top to expect people who have a serious medical condition to be required to take a 2-day trip aroudn the state hoping to find a licensed professional who isn't swayed by moral outrage over something that is absolutely none of their business to begin with?

Or is it only acceptable for those whorish, slutty women who may or may not have used contraceptives to have to go through these hoops? Those women who didn't plan ahead. Those women who didn't take personal responsibility. Those women who had the audacity to be raped and not have the foresight to start The Pill the month before. The nerve of them :eyes:

---

On edit:

Emergency Contraception became a right with the supreme court ruling of Griswold v. Connecticut. Might want to check it out one day.

[mondo joe]

134. Bucklebone is more obsessed with some imagined irresponsibility than

the simple matter of all medical providers meeting certain regulations.

Funny.

[Heddi]

137. Very.

"Well, what if the woman KNEW she was going to have sex. And she used contraceptives. But the contraceptives failed. That woman SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that the only method of contraception that is 100% effetive is abstinence. Therefore, even though she DID take reasonable precautions against pregnancy, she still was't RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH. Why didn't she have a hysterectomy when she was 12? That would have avoided all of this? Why did she date her sister's brother's cousin, who in turn introduced her to the current man she's dating. Had she not dated her sister's brother's cousin, she would have ended up with the shclep from 12th grade Driver's Ed who found out JUST LAST WEEK he was infertile. See...she had PLENTY of time to take necessary precautions. But she didn't. And now she gets no medicine.

Now that we've got that out of the way, I need to take my atenolol. How was *I* supposed to know that licking salt blocks could give me high blood pressure. Then I need to take my cardiazem. How could I possibly have forseen that eating large barrels of lard every day as a child would have left me with permanent heart problems. Now I draw up my insulin which I take from years of a sedentary and high-fat lifestyle which gave me Type 2 Diabetes later in life. But I'm being responsible taking my medication. I was a responsible person. Those women, though, they should have known. They should be psychic. More responsibility.

What? The pharmacy is refusing to stock my viagra? FUCKING REVERSE DISCRMINATION LESBIAN MAN HATING BITCHES"

[mondo joe]

138. Bucklebone finds EC to reflect some sort of irresponsibility that isn't

applied to any other meds --- not how diet impacts diabetes or heart disease, not drugs used to treat STDs or anything else.

Looks like Bucklebone's objection has nothing to do with pharmaceuticals or healthcare, but some sort of personal judgment.

[Heddi]

142. Why, that's not a very progressive way to think, now, is it?

I'd even go as far as to say that someone who holds those views has to, in a very inherent way, devalue the lives and health status of women. That they are somehow not important enough to get medication vital not only to their physical wellbeing, but to their mental, emotional, financial, familial, occupational, marital, etc, wellbeing as well.

Why, I'd have to say that someone who has those views sees women as nothing more than second class citizens who are not even worthy of having the right to basic medical treatments and modalities. That the morality of a pharmacist, or pharmacy owner, is far more urgent and important than the lives and wellbeing of women around this country....

[bucklebone]

154. wow, here i thought i was speaking in generalities

and now you have me as some sort of misogynist cretin.

Quite simply put, if Walmart doesn't want to offer EC, then the patient (who absolutely has the right and should have the right to EC) should go down the street or across town or to the next town to fill her prescription of EC.

Maybe next time she needs trash bags or picture frames or dvds she will think twice about shopping at Walmart because they denied her convenience of fulfilling her prescription of EC there.

Your analysis of my gross sexism could not be further from the truth.

[iverglas]

132. do I?

you seem to be placing personal responsibility as none of anybody's business, but you are placing corporate responsibility as everyone's business.

I might seem that way to someone choosing to read every third word I wrote.

I have said that PROFESSIONAL responsibility is everyone's business. "Professional responsibility" actually means something. What it means is that professionals actually have DUTIES in the practice of their professions. Unlike women, in the privacy of their bedrooms.

PROFESSIONALS are permitted, by the public, to practise a profession ON TERMS. People who do not meet those terms -- whether by being unqualified or by violating codes of practice -- do not get to practise professions.

Corporations that choose to provide professional services, by employing professionals to deliver them, are bound by those terms.

A corporation may not employ a high-school drop-out to dispense prescription medications.

A corporation may not refuse to dispense medications prescribed by a physician without a reason that constitutes justification under the rules governing the profession of pharmacy.

Don't you think the taker of EC is primarily responsible for the health and well-being of themselves??

I don't think that any opinion I might have is of the tiniest, most minute significance in the current discussion. I wouldn't presume to have an opinion about people I don't know, let alone spew it around in public. "The taker of EC" is completely unknown to me, and I have no opinion about any aspect of her life, including her decisions about her health.

It should not be the state or walmart or any other entity that is responsible for the ultimate well being of the individual.

And that's another irrelevant opinion. Corporations engaging in the business of delivering professional services ARE responsible for certain aspects of their customers' well-being, because they hold themselves out as providers of those services and because they are bound by the rules governing the provision of those services.

You may need to check out those rules.

http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/regs/247cmr009.pdf

The fact that the rules make absolutely no mention of refusal to fill a prescription, other than by setting out circumstances in which a refusal could be justified --

(2) Prospective Drug Utilization Review.

(a) A pharmacist shall conduct a prospective drug utilization review (?DUR?) before each new prescription is dispensed or delivered to a patient or a person acting on behalf of the patient. This DUR may include a review of the patient record and each new prescription
presented for dispensing, for the purpose of promoting therapeutic appropriateness, by making a reasonable effort to identify the following:

1. over-utilization or under-utilization
2. therapeutic duplication;
3. drug-disease contraindication;
4. drug-drug interaction;
5. incorrect drug dosage or duration of drug treatment;
6. drug-allergy interactions;
7. clinical abuse or misuse; and
8. any significant change in drug, dose or directions.

(b) Upon identifying any of the above, the pharmacist shall take appropriate measures to ensure the proper care of the patient which may include consultation with the prescribing practitioner and/or direct consultation with the patient.

-- is a strong indication that refusing to dispense properly prescribed medications is NOT permitted. Anyone who knows anything about rules of professional conduct knows that this is the case.

And when did EC become a right??

Oh no, Paco! You mean -- it's not in the constitution of the USofA?? Kinda like ... abortion???

The right to emergency contraception is like the right to medical care, legal advice, architectural services -- it is something that individuals who can pay the price are entitled to receive in accordance with the rules established by the public to govern the actions of the people who provide those services.

Did I say that emergency contraception was a right? I don't think so. So why do you ask?

The right involved is the right to receive the services that a professional is licensed to provide, where the conditions for receipt of those services are met: in this case, where the client has handed over a prescription and a sum of money. The provider of the professional services does NOT have a right to deny them, once having agreed to abide by the rules governing the provision of those services; THAT is the point.

I'm glad its out there, but if it is so vital to the existence of mankind then why doesn't the gov't manufacture it and send free samples to your doorstep??

Oh ... you mean, like ... food?

Or did you just mean that your position in this matter is indefensible, and you've resorted to foolishness and are just going to tilt at straw persons for the balance of the discussion?

[Bill McBlueState]

43. exactly

In many communities, Wal-Mart is a monopoly, and governments even under the capitalist system have a long history of regulating monopolies.

[bucklebone]

50. I don't know of any company that is considered a monopoly

just because it is the only store like it in a town.

If there was one donut shop in your town, would you be okay with the city gov't telling that donut shop what kinds of donuts to stock because it is a "monopoly"??

[Bill McBlueState]

62. if a particular kind of donut could cure a medical condition, sure

It's hard to imagine why the city would exercise its power to regulate business over a donut shop, but a city should definitely have that power. If Bavarian creme donuts could alleviate headaches, then it would be reasonable for the city to require the donut shop to carry them. If the donut shop doesn't like it, they can take their business and their tax abatement elsewhere.

Actually, that's a good point about tax abatements. With the heavy government subsidies Wal-Mart gets, it's not unreasonable to expect something in exchange. The government loves to put conditions on *people* who are on welfare; why not put conditions on corporations that are on welfare?

[bucklebone]

65. I think cities do that all the time...

(meaning conditions on tax abatements). It should be the rule, not the exception.

[Megahurtz]

151. How can you compare donuts to

necessary medication??? :wtf:

[mondo joe]

152. One wonders what others meds should be considered as optional as donuts.

Meds for gonnorhea?

Meds for adult onset diabetes?

Meds for HIV/AIDS?

[Megahurtz]

158. It sure is hell is making me wonder. n/t

[Heddi]

19. Walmart has "moral" opposition for morning after contraception?

where's the morality when it comes to worker's rights?

where's the morality when it comes to fair wages for workers?

where's the morality when it comes to the BILLIONS of dollars spent on social services for wal-mart workers?

where's the morality when it comes to primarily buying crap from China, which (as you most likely know) FORCES abortions on women who have more than 1 child

where's the morality when it comes to primarly buying crap from Saipan, which (as you most likely know) FORCES abortions on women workers at the manufacturing plants so that they can keep pumping out overpriced plastic shit

where's the morality when it comes to urban sprawl

---
I want to know in which area walmart has ANY sense of morality. They have no issue with forcing businesses to sell below cost in order for their product to be sold at walmart. Forcing businessess to sell below cost at Walmart means that profits have to be made elsewhere (since they, the businesses, actually lose money by having their product sold at Walmart) means that non-Walmart stores are forced to sell the same products for higher cost than Walmart does. That means that walmart has unfair competition advantage with regards to non-Walmart stores. Which means that non-Walmart stores cannot maintain customer base. Which means that non-Walmart stores go out of business. Which means that, on average, within 6 months of eliminating competitors, Walmart RAISES the prices on their common low-price items, leaving the consumer with not multiple choices in companies to purchase from, but just one--Walmart, since it used unfair advantage and price-point sets to drive competition out of business.

Where is Walmart's sense of morality when it comes to hiring workers and purposefully scheduling them for less-than-full-time so that the employee is then ineligible for benefits, but forcing the worker to work X hours overtime every week which techincally makes them a full time employee, but still without benefits.

Why does walmart have no issue with the morality of handing out applications for welfare and other methods of state-aid along with other materials for new hires. Why does walmart find it acceptable that cash-strapped states are spending BILLIONS of dollars SOLELY on walmart employees who are purposefully kept at below-par wages, not given any benefits, and forced to work overtime without being paid for it?

Where is the moral outrage in Walmart forcing out unions, and actually shutting stores in areas where collectivism of employees was eminent.

---

Seems that they have a clever way of picking and choosing what they are morally opposed to, no?

[bucklebone]

34. Guess you're not a walmart shopper.

I don't know the answer to all of your questions, but I do know that in the United States, companies are not required to offer benefits to their employees, suppliers don't have to put their products in walmart (losing money by supplying to walmart seems a little counterproductive to me, are you sure that is happening), and if they don't want a union shop, you shouldn't be able to force them.

Of course none of this is germain to the issue of whether or not walmart should be forced to stock a certain drug on its shelf. Which I still maintain they shouldn't.

You could argue that it is a dumb business move on their part because they are forcing their customers to shop elsewhere, but on legal grounds I don't see a basis for it.

[Bridget Burke]

38. Quite a few of us are NOT WalMart shoppers.

I wish I could take the high road & claim I was boycotting WalMart because of the dreadful business practices. (Should I give WalMart my money even though some of their practices are marginally legal? I don't want to encourage them.)

However, I walked into a WalMart years ago & walked right out again. It was a dump. I live in a big city & have many alternatives. Not everybody does.

[bucklebone]

51. I'm with you...

while I'm not morally opposed to shopping at walmart, the place is just a complete turn-off to me and I dread going in there. Therefore, I do it extremely rarely. Maybe once every 3 years.

[Lolivia]

89. Here's your legal basis:

SCOTUS has ruled that family planning/contraception is a fundamental liberty right. (See the Griswold, Eisenstadt, Roe, Casey line of cases). A state can pose restrictions and/or regulations on businesses if it serves the public good (See Nebbia v. NY). A state can absolutely require a business to provide contraception because that helps protect a fundamental liberty right.

A person does not get to impose religious/moral beliefs on another person (See First Amendment, see also Lawrence v. Texas and Roper for instances where a fundamental liberty right trumps societal "morals").

BTW: it is a monopoly if a business moves in and then purposely drives out all other businesses in the area. A business does not need to have a national monopoloy to be found to violate the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Not paying employees for hours worked, forcing towns into giving them huge tax breaks and tax holidays, and then moving just outside town limits when taxes become due, not paying fair wages, and other predatory practices are NOT playing within the bounds of capitalism.

[bucklebone]

99. BTW

"BTW: it is a monopoly if a business moves in and then purposely drives out all other businesses in the area. A business does not need to have a national monopoloy to be found to violate the Sherman Antitrust Act."

If a store or a manufacturer enters a marketplace and purposely sells below costs or dumps product and/or involves itself in price-fixing then it is in violation of Fair Trade and Anti-trust rules. And you are right, a company does not need to be a national monopoly to be considered a monopoly.

"Not paying employees for hours worked, forcing towns into giving them huge tax breaks and tax holidays, and then moving just outside town limits when taxes become due, not paying fair wages, and other predatory practices are NOT playing within the bounds of capitalism."

This sounds like heresay and demogougery (sp?). May have happened in isolated circumstances, but how common could that be??

BTW, I am not a Walmart apologist. I am not a walmart shopper. And if they destroy communities through these big box stores, then walmart be damned. But you still shouldn't be able to force stores to sell something that they don't want to.

[Mithras61]

102. "How common could that be?"...

Try this google search: walmart wages lawsuit

No quotes in that search. It returned about 362,000 hits. Now, go visit a few of the hits. You'll be surprised I bet. There have been several class-action lawsuits against WalMart for exactly this violation. As to predatory practices, WalMart has been driving out the core businesses in small towns for the past 15 or 20 years. In many small towns, prices initially went down when WalMart came in, but began to climb again once there was no competition. I've seen it myself several times in rural areas where they are literally the only game in town. I like visiting smaller towns in east Texas. They have pretty scenery and interesting stories to tell. In a lot of them, going into a WalMart is an interesting study, because they often charge significantly more than the WalMart in my suburb does for the exact same product. It's [art of why I stopped shopping there.

[bucklebone]

104. I agree....

like I've said, I am no apologist for Walmart and predatory practices should be handled in a firm way by the state or feds.

I am not doubting for a second that some of those things have happened.

[iverglas]

110. try to get this straight, 'k?

But you still shouldn't be able to force stores to sell something that they don't want to.

No one is forcing Wal-Mart to sell something it doesn't want to sell.

Wal-Mart is entirely at liberty to close all the pharmacies in its stores and sell no prescription drugs at all. No one is forcing Wal-Mart to operate pharmacies.

Wal-Mart has chosen to operate pharmacies. When it does that, it employs individuals who are pharmacists, and who are bound by the code of ethics of the pharmacy profession and the conditions of licensing to practise that profession.

Wal-Mart is employing people engaged in the practice of the profession of pharmacy, not merely operating a business.

If Wal-Mart chose to open walk-in legal advice clinics, or walk-in medical clinics, in its stores, would you say that the lawyers and doctors employed in those clinics were not bound by their professional codes of ethics? Wal-Mart's staff lawyer could advise two opposing parties in a dispute, and the state could do nothing? Wal-Mart's staff doctor could refuse to treat people with tonsillitis, and the state could do nothing? Wal-Mart could inform its customers that its lawyers and doctors would not keep their confidences secret because Wal-Mart required them to disclose those confidences to the vice-president, contrary to their professional ethical codes?

I sure wouldn't say so. Just as I don't say that Wal-Mart's staff pharmacists may violate the standards of that profession by denying properly prescribed professional services, or that Wal-Mart may interfere with the provision of professional services by refusing to stock the products that are needed.

The practice of a profession is not a "business". If Wal-Mart wants only to operate a business, and to pick and choose what it sells in the course of that business, it can close its pharmacies.


And by the way, if you really wanted to about Wal-Mart's predatory business practices (which are not actually relevant to anything *I* have said, I'd point out), you might want to introduce yourself to google.com.

Feel free to copy and paste:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=
wal-mart+predatory+business+practices&meta=

93,300 results (some not relevant, of course), starting with
"Scholarly articles for wal-mart predatory business practices".

[bucklebone]

115. Hate to tell ya...

but doctors and lawyers refuse cases all the time. They are not bound by any ethical standard to take every case that walks through their door.

I'm sorry, but that is just the way it is.

Now, if you are talking a life or death emergency, the doctor is required to do what he can to stabilize the patient and move them on to better care. But beyond that if you walk into a gynocologists office and ask for brain surgery, you will be shown the door.

As for lawyers, public defenders know going into the job that they must defend any person appointed to them by the public defenders office.

[iverglas]

145. it only you'd told me something ...

doctors and lawyers refuse cases all the time. They are not bound by any ethical standard to take every case that walks through their door.

... that I didn't know, and hadn't already covered.

If a pharmacist has 30 prescriptions lined up to fill and plans to close at 5 pm and can't get those prescriptions filled by then, s/he may indeed tell someone to come back tomorrow.

But hmm, someone with an EC prescription? I'd think not. Not by the rules that govern the practice of pharmacy, which place a duty on pharmacists to act in the client's interest, and which in this case could be met simply by moving the EC prescription to the head of the line, or staying five minutes after closing time to dispense it.

Doctors and lawyers refuse cases that they are not competent to handle or that they don't have time to handle or that the client cannot afford to pay them to handle. Which of those situations is analogous to refusing to fill a prescription for emergency contraception?

Lawyers, as I've already said, may refuse to take cases for "conscientious" reasons -- but a court may ORDER a lawyer to take such a case. A doctor in private practice, seeing non-urgent non-life-threatening cases, may refuse to take on or see a patient -- but a doctor working in an emergency room at a hospital is REQUIRED to see any patient who comes in while s/he is on duty. Which of these situations might be just a wee tad more analogous to filling a prescription for emergency contraception?

Rules of professional conduct allow for professionals to decline to provide services where the client cannot pay for the service, where the professional does not have the resources to perform the service, and in suchlike situations. Because the demand for most professional services is high and no professional can meet the needs of every potential client, most professionals are simply required not to engage in illegal discrimination when selecting which clients to take on, and allowed to use their personal discretion otherwise. Unless it results in a client with a genuine need being denied service, in which case (in courtrooms and ERs, for instance), that discretion is taken away.

The conditions that allow for the exercise of personal discretion simply don't apply to pharmacists. They CAN meet the needs of anyone who is able to pay for their services. They have NO basis for refusing to provide services that they have the competence and resources to provide.

But beyond that if you walk into a gynocologists office and ask for brain surgery, you will be shown the door.

And if you're actually suggesting that asking a gynecologist to perform neurosurgery is analogous to asking a pharmacist to dispense emergency contraception ... well, I was right. You've decided to go with foolishness and evading issues.

[mondo joe]

124. Please ditch your fallacious claim.

This is not a matter of making a store sell something.

This is regulation of a licensed medical service - pharmacies.

[Occulus]

24. Corporations should not have the personhood required to refuse.

They are not persons. They should not have "right", only priveleges, and yes, they should be subject to the will of the public.

Anything less elevates corporations above humans, and that must never ever be allowed in any context, period.

[bucklebone]

36. This doesn't make sense...

Corporations should be subject to the will of the people regarding the products they sell only on a supply and demand basis. There should also be oversight based on the safety of the public at large (i.e. don't sell large quantities of sudafed, don't sell spray paint to minors, don't sell alcohol to minors, etc.)

And what makes you think the will of the people want walmart to stock the morning after pill??? Has there been a referendum on this??

[Bridget Burke]

42. The Will of the People of Massachusetts is....

That WalMart stock the morning after pill. I doubt their government would thwart their will.

Besides--your "will of the people" sounds suspiciously Commie--doesn't fit with accusations of anti-Capitalism.

[Nevernose]

26. Morality IS what they're selling

And they've got a hell of a racket going. Buying ten percent of China's exports and bragging about how "American" they are, not selling certain music or video games, flooding the overstock isles with "Christian" knick-knacks ... and all the while paying such low wages that American workers have to go on welfare and all the while selling women's underwear that would make some prostitutes blush with sembarassment, and putting Cosmopolitan's "10 Greatest Ways to Perform Fellatio" issue at childrens' eye level!

Note that I don't have any inherent problems with Chinese imports or so-called Christian consumer products, nor am I promoting offensive music or "sultry" goods. I just have a problem with hypocrisy and pissing on the American worker.

Ol' Sam had a hell of a business model, though. Wish I'd bought stock in 1975!

[bucklebone]

39. they are a store for god sakes....

just like anything else, if you don't like how they hire people, then don't work there. If you don't like what they stock in the aisles, then don't shop there.

Now you may say if they've run every other business out of town, and that's your only option, then do something about it. If you and everyone else thinks they are so evil, then get together and start your own store.

When a company gets as big as walmart, there are plenty of niches that new start-ups can take advantage of. But if walmart has mastered the art of the retail business plan, then thank goodness we have walmart.

[Bill McBlueState]

47. these are anti-people ideas

Everything you're saying puts an imaginary entity -- a corporation -- on a high pedestal and presumes that actual breathing people should order their lives around what is best for the imaginary entity.

If we don't like how the imaginary entity hires people or how it stocks its stores, our elected representatives should shut it down. Corporations are not people, and as such, they have no rights.

[bucklebone]

52. You are very wrong...

There are three types of legal entities in this world...corporations, people and trusts. I hate to burst your bubble, but corporations do have rights.

"If we don't like how the imaginary entity hires people or how it stocks its stores, our elected representatives should shut it down." (LOL)

Our elected representatives pass laws and regulations for corporations to follow. If the corporation doesn't follow the law (i.e. adult book stores in my town, restaurants that don't follow the health codes, etc.), then the elected reps can and will shut it down. But you can't have a society where elected representatives can, on a whim, shut down legal businesses because they don't like what they stock or who they legally hire.

[mondo joe]

56. Of course you can have such a society - we have it right now. But more

to the point: pharmacies require a license from the state and in order to get that license must meet an array of guidelines and standards for public safety and service.

This is just one of those minimal standards.

[Megahurtz]

76. YOU are very wrong....

Anything to do with health care, Doctors, pharmacutical drugs is regulated, and should be.

And obviously so, in the case of MA.:7

I'm sorry that offends you so much.:sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

49. A pharmacy isn't just a store. You ignore the important public service

played by pharmacies.

You want a store, sell pepsi and nails and footballs.

Pharmacies are healthcare providers.

[bucklebone]

53. some pharmacies are better stocked than others...

What if it wasn't the morning after pill but some sort of muscle relaxer. Some pharmacies might stock it, and some might not. Just because one pharmacy has deeper pockets and can carry a larger inventory, you shouldn't penalize the other.

[mondo joe]

55. All pharmacies should stock at least a minimal formulary of the most

frequently prescribed meds and those necessary for emergency use.

A large inventory isn't required - just meeting the basics should be a requirement for a pharmacy license.

[Bridget Burke]

33. What's wrong with "anti-Capitalist"?

Soccer balls aren't quite the same as birth control. If WalMart wants to get out of the prescription business, they are free to do so. But keeping that money flowing is more important than making a "moral" stand.

And some communities don't have much more than a WalMart.

[bucklebone]

41. soccer balls aren't the same as contraception,

but I hope you can see my point.

[Bridget Burke]

44. Your point is: You love WalMart!

Quite evident.

[bucklebone]

54. I'm not big on Walmart, just big on Capitalism... eom

[Bridget Burke]

59. What do you think of corporate welfare?

How about the tax breaks communities sometimes give businesses? I believe WalMart has stood at this particular trough.

[bucklebone]

61. corporate welfare...

I think broad, federal corporate welfare is wrong, such as the feds giving large corps like GM or GE $$ to advertise in China.

However, city or state governments using tax incentives to lure companies to their tax base or to keep companies from moving out is (while holding my nose) okay.

For example, in my town, Kroger's HQ said that if the city didn't build them a 3-level parking garage, then they would move their HQ out to the suburbs where there was plenty of parking. At least Kroger gave the city the option of trying to keep them. BTW, the city relented and agreed to build the garage as long as Kroger made a committment to stay for X number of years. To me, that is not only okay, but vital to the city's survival.

[mondo joe]

48. Then Walmart doesn't need to be licensed as a pharmacy, does it?

Pharmacies provide an important public service.

You want to be licensed by the state? Then you meet the minimum obligations for that license.

Simple.

[SIU_Blue]

72. here's the issue with that:

Wal-Mart, in rural areas, has taken over entire communities. Ma and Pop pharmacies are gone, and CVS and Walgreens won't move in to a small rural town when wal-mart already has the market cornered. So rurally, women have no choice.

You sound like you have some knowledge of economics, so maybe this will help;

The basis of a free market economy is that it is consumer driven, where there is a necessity, it will be filled. Interjecting religion and spirituality is a direct contradiction to that philosophy. If there is a market for the emergency contraception, Wal-mart should sell it. But because of their repuke corporate offices, they don't. Given the lack of consumer choice described in my first paragraph, this seems to be more "anti-capitalist" than the law requiring them to sell it.

I won't complete my lecture on the pitfalls of free-market capitalism in general, but i think you get the point.

I think this is a good and necessary law.

:P

[iverglas]

79. "forced to sell"?

If walmart shuttered the pharmacies in its Massachusetts tomorrow, would they be sued for not offering prescriptions?? I don't think so.

You got it. Wal-Mart isn't being forced to sell anything.

I trust you're happy now.

[Lolivia]

84. Prescriptions aren't about capitalism

they're about medicine.

A pharmacy should NOT get to practice medicince without a license. If you are a pharmacy, you fill valid prescriptions written by doctors. Period. You do NOT get to decide which prescriptions will be filled and which will not because YOU DO NOT GET TO PRACTICE MEDICINE. (You in the general sense).

Selling soccer balls, etc, is about capitalism. Filling medically valid prescriptions is not. Wal-mart cannot be compelled to have a pharmacy, but if they do, that pharmacy must do its job (fill prescriptions) and not practice medicine (decide which medications a person will take). By opening the pharmacy, Wal-mart agreed to act as a pharmacy.

If a person or store is unable to fulfil their duties as a pharmacist/pharmacy, then they must find another job. Their personal feelings have no place in filling medically and legally valid prescriptions. If the personal feelings do get in the way - find another job. If Wal-mart doesn't want to fill prescriptions - don't have a pharmacy. If the doctor has prescribed a medicine, and the patient is morally OK with taking it, the only thing left is for the pharmacist to do his/her job and fill the prescription.

[blonndee]

91. Oh, whatever. ANY kind of regulation is deemed by SOME certain

people as "anti-capitalist." Are you one of those TYPE of people???

[Zhade]

93. What, a freeper? Duh.

They're so obvious!

[davidinalameda]

157. well since it is a free market

Wal-Mart is more than free to pull out of these states

no one is stopping them

[wovenpaint]

12. Good. n/t

[LiberalEsto]

13. Times sure have changed!

I lived in Massachusetts for a few months in 1971, and I seem to recall it was even illegal to buy condoms there at the time.

[HockeyMom]

15. I am SO SICK of these IGNORANT People

The Morning After Pill is nothing more than DOUBLE DOSAGE Birth Control Pills. Go to a doctor for a month's supply, take 2 or 3 a day if you miss a pill for couple of days, and wha la, there is your MORNING AFTER PILL. DAMN.

When will people, once and for all, GET OUT THE SCIENCE in all this. What the hell do they think women do when they are ALREADY ON THE PILL and miss a couple of pills? DOUBLE UP ON THEM. No, the REAL agenda is not the Morning After Pill, but ALL BIRTH CONTROL PILLS. Hey, you Fundies, I did that MANY times in my MARRIAGE. I cannot even count the number of times. PREGNANCY STARTS FROM IMPLANTATION, NOT CONCEPTION, because 40% to 60% of fertilized eggs GO DOWN THE TOILET BOWL. I ask all women, have you never had a period that was late a couple of days? No, LIFE FROM CONCEPTION ON is Against Mother Nature, or God if you prefer. If you are going to cry over fertilized eggs, you have a LOT of crying to do.

I am so sick of all this.

[Rainscents]

16. YEA! I'm with you!!!

[Megahurtz]

77. HERE! HERE!

:applause:

[NoodleyAppendage]

111. They're not ignorant. They are only catering to ignorant people.

WalMart knows that the bulk of their shoppers are from the red state demographics, so opposing the contraception sales (knowing full well that it wouldn't hold) only bolsters the company's image in the mind of the dumbass fuckers to whom they cater.

JB

[Deja Q]

22. The article needs a banner like this one:

[SlipperySlope]

23. "commonly prescribed"?

Just curious, how common are these prescriptions?

If they are common, how are they being filled now?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

27. Very common. It's actually a combination of birth control pills.

I'm an RN. My friend who works in clinical OB/Gyn says they fill 3-5 of the prescriptions a day.

She works in very busy practice and they serve medically indigent patients. MKJ

[SlipperySlope]

28. thank you - n/t

[Zenlitened]

25. If you want to be in the pill-dispensing biz...

... dispense the pills the doc prescribes.

Pretty simple.

Hat's off to Massachusetts! :applause:

[PassingFair]

29. HaHa.

Fundies have been so accepting of the Walmartization of their communities.
Now they have NO CHOICE. <----------- (irony)

...of where to go.

[freefall]

57. Thanks for posting this. It's great news and we sure need to hear good

news every once in a while. Go Massachusetts!!

[gauguin57]

63. i think mondo joe nailed it... pharmacies are healthcare providers.

After all, the care a doctor provides his/her office is not complete until the patient can get the medication the doctor prescribes. Pharmacies are not just stores -- they are in a different category. They are a vital part of the healthcare system.

Doctors can't refuse to treat patients ... they can't pick and choose who they treat.

So why should pharmacies be able to pick and choose what medications they dispense? While I don't think Wal-Mart should be forced to sell rap CD's with dirty lyrics, I think the pharmacy is a whole different deal! They SHOULD be forced to dispense whatever medication a doctor has determined is best for the treatment of the patient.

[bucklebone]

66. on some level, doctors can choose who to treat....

I don't believe all ob/gyn's are obligated to perform abortions. I would guess that would be a moral decision that the doctor would want to make.

And I think that would extend to pharmacies and pharmacists also.

In fact, I would bet that any elective surgery (not all abortions are elective) would give the doctor the option of performing the surgery. I mean, if Michael Jackson walked into your Plastic Surgery office, demanding a new nose job, wouldn't you want the right to say "no".

[mondo joe]

67. Fallacious analogy. Pharmacies exist only to fill prescriptions.

They provide a service to the public for which they are licensed by the state. The state, in turn, is obliged to ensure they meet the public interest as a condition of that license.

[Lance_Boyle]

120. comparison to OB/GYNs and plastic surgeons is slightly off

Try your comparison with Emergency Room physicians and see where that leads. There is no right of refusal to treat in the ER.

[Yavin4]

68. It's Within The States' Duty To Do This

The public should not be forced to go through a laundry list of the morality of each particular pharmacist to find the one that will dispense their drug.

What about a pharmacist who's a member of PETA and refuses to dispense medicine that was tested on animals?

If a drug is legal and can be dispensed with a prescription, then the pharmacist should sell it.
End of story. It's in the state's duty to protect the public to ensure that all legal medicine is available.

The government intervenes in capitalism every day, 24/7. They have to. Otherwise we'd have complete anarchy.

[noonwitch]

69. I have mixed feelings about this

I don't think that the government should have the right to tell stores what legal merchandise they can and can't stock and sell. I think that Walmart should be free to not supply the emergency contraception, and the shoppers are free to shop elsewhere. CVS and Target will have it-Target, in particular, doesn't really seem to care what the religious right thinks.

Personally, I still believe that a woman should see a doctor before using the emergency contraception. There are possible serious complications from the drug and a doctor should prescribe it first, someone who knows the woman's medical history and what risk she is at if she uses it.

[SIU_Blue]

74. See post #72 n/t.

[mondo joe]

81. A pharmacy isn't just "a store". Pharmacies are heavily regulated to

ensure public safety and health. To acquire a license a pharmacy must meet a number of standards. Requiring a licensed pharmacy to stock and sell a minimal formulary is no different.

[iverglas]

87. prescription vs. behind the counter

Personally, I still believe that a woman should see a doctor before using the emergency contraception.

As I understand it, that is the case everywhere in the US, and the issue is in fact whether Wal-Mart will fill prescriptions.

It has recently been decided in Canada to make emergency contraception available in pharmacies without a prescription. The pharmaceutical profession is authorized to charge an exhorbitant $25 dispensing fee, to cover counselling women requesting the medication. I believe that few pharmacists actually charge it. It would be reasonable to ask a few basic questions before dispensing, perhaps, and even to decline to dispense if it were determined that serious risk factors were present. (Severe hypertension, maybe.) That's what pharmacists here can do when it comes to, say, dispensing codeine preparations without a prescription. But the fact is that the "possible serious complications" you refer to are virtually non-existent for the average woman.

[mondo joe]

90. Indeed. Almost any over the counter med CAN have serious complications.

But on average there's no risk. My kids' mom is a physician with Planned Parenthood and is quite firm about it -- that's good enough for me.

[Beaverhausen]

88. What "possible serious complications" are there?

Do you have any links to information about this?

[Justitia]

153. you know, like women won't be flogged enough for their slutty behavior

wouldn't want to pass up the chance to pass judgment, condemnation, hellfire & brimstone, etc.

Not being able to make a woman suffer for sex would be a "possible serious complication".

Now, if you ask an actual doctor, you will get a different answer.

I'm only answering for the Inquisition.

[Charlie Brown]

70. I was critical of the lawsuit, but

I have no problem with the health board requiring pharmacies to stock essential medication.

Good call.

[Megahurtz]

71. Right On!

Do you hear that all Pharmacies across the Nation?

"State policy requires pharmacies to provide all commonly prescribed medicines"

:woohoo:

[Beaverhausen]

86. Great news!

:hi:

[GoddessOfGuinness]

98. Now if it would only stop WalMart from breeding...

sigh

[Yavin4]

114. Another Backdoor Way of Imposing Their Version of Morality on Everyone

Fundies just cannot live in a world where people live differently from them. Everyone has to follow their bullshit ideas of what's moral and what's immoral.

No other religious groups in America constantly want to impose their agenda on everyone other than the fundies. My guess is that this somehow makes them feel powerful. Restricting contraception somehow makes up for the fact that their lives are meaningless and small.

[SoCalDem]

119. "Stocking", does not automatically mean "dispensing"..

They could STOCK a few boxes of the stuff in a locked area, and claim they are "out" of it whenever someone asks for it.

[iverglas]

148. business vs. profession

Wal-Mart is responsible for the "business" end of the thing -- providing the equipment and stock for the pharmacy, employing the pharmacists and other staff.

The pharmacists are responsible for the "profession" end of it -- dispensing the medications and providing advice about the medications they dispense.

Wal-Mart stocks the stuff and requires its employee pharmacists to comply with codes of professional practice, which means dispense medications and provide advice according to the rules of professional conduct. If it stocks, and pharmacists refuse to dispense without justification, then it has to fire the pharmacists. If it instructs the pharmacists not to dispense, then the pharmacists have to disobey or quit.

[JackDragna]

143. Something I think is missing here..

..and is vitally important to mention is that if Wal-Mart gets away with not stocking something on the basis of moral indignation, then every lesser drugstore in America will feel it has the right to follow suit. It won't be just Wal-Mart: Walgreens, CVS and all the rest will follow suit to please the political leanings of small-town America. Of course, the wealthy will still get the medications, just as they always get that which is convenient for them. It will be the rest of us slobs left to scrape and pray we can get the drugs we need and hope we're not denied because the pharmacist doesn't like us.

[cap]

156. I am so tired of the GOD of BUSINESS

whatever business does for its own thoughts of making a profit must be right...

All Walmart is doing is knuckling under rightwing pressure... fear of losing rightwing constituencies.

Walmart is a monopoly in rural areas. A monopoly has absolute business power...And absolute power corrupts absolutely.