February 12, 2004

Texas Pharmacist fired for denying rape victim's prescription Followup on a story that I think we had our collective monkey peeper on.
posted by boo_radley 20 years ago
  • I find those adverts placed within the text of the story that newspapers are so fond of quite offputting. Especially when they show Michael Jackson, alongside a story about a controversial sex case. (I'd never heard of this story - was it a big story in the US? And if they are going to refuse to give the morning after pill out because "it could have killed the embryo if the woman already had conceived", why stock it anyway? That is what its for, after all.)
  • It was a big story in the U.S. I actually felt nauseous when I read it. I believe I added it to my fast-growing "Why I will never live in Texas and maybe not even pass through it for connecting flights" list. Thank the sacred monkey that he got fired.
  • "I went in the back room and briefly prayed about it," said Herr, who had worked for Eckerd for five years. "I actually called my pastor ... and asked him what he thought about it." What a jerk. Maybe his pastor should have given him Psalm 137: O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
  • The pastor's still in his job, I take it?... I'm frankly astonished by his argument that he wasn't aware that his job as a pharmacist was to fill prescriptions people gave him, rather than decide in hiw own mind if they should have it. And also horrified that he'd previously refused 'five or six' other women such a prescription, and it was only when he refused a rape victim that somebody complains and he gets sacked. Nice preachin', btw, monju... I feel the pow'ah! The pow'ah of the Laawwwwwd!
  • I remember finding this story, and being so offended that I could actually taste bile. Sorry for the disturbing image, but I was pissed off about this. That poor woman... first to be raped, which is one of the most horrible things you can do to someone, and then to be dismissed so casually by someone who would normally be respected as a healer. It boggles my mind that a donkey raping, shit eating fuck mook pharmacist would have the balls to deny her request.
  • One might remember that there was a Walgreen's across the street, to which she went moments after having her prescription refused by this pharmacist, and from whom she readily obtained the drug. One also might remember that this situation could also be viewed as a man being fired for having a different opinion than the prevailing one. Would we be similary supportive of a company that fired a Muslim pharmacist for taking breaks to conduct his periodic daily prayers? "Freedom for the people who hold the same opinions as I do" isn't freedom at all.
  • The Justice Department is demanding that at least six hospitals in New York City, Philadelphia and elsewhere turn over hundreds of patient medical records on certain abortions performed there. They're not asking for names, just the records, so they can (I would assume) compile a picture of under what circumstances people obtain partial birth abortions. I'm not sure I understand what the problem is: government writes legislation to ban PB abortions, group sues government, government is not allowed>/i> obtain data to support their case? So long as there are no names attached to the records, there is no invasion of privacy. I don't think there are any reasons why the government should be denied this data.
  • Fes: I think the reality of the situation is that the man got fired for not doing his job. His job isn't to morally evaluate which prescriptions he should and should not fill. His job is to take a legal prescription and fill it. He wasn't able to perform the responsibilities of his job and harmed the reputation of the company he worked for in the process. The fact that she was able to fufill the prescription elsewhere is completely beside the point and does not excuse refusing her prescription in the first place. I think the example of the Muslim you gave is specious. Theoretically arrangement for those breaks would be discussed at the time of hire and accomodations to cover him while he was gone would be made. Something comparable might be a Muslim grocery store clerk who refuses to sell pork to a customer because he doesn't think it's morally appropriate to eat it. But even that is pushing it because we're talking about a woman who was raped and presumably emotionally devistated as it is.
  • On the releasing abortion records thing, I agree with Fes so long as it's true that their names aren't actually attached to the data. It was my understanding that they government just said that they wouldn't use the data (with the implication that it would be there, they would just ignore it), but I could have read that wrong. If my interpretation is true, it would still make me nervous for that information to be released because I do not have confidence in the government's promise not to use it for other purposes.
  • Fes: He's (nominally) a medical professional. Or next time you visit A&E, do you think it would be acceptable for a doctor to say, "No sir, don't like his politics at all. It would be a blot on my conciense to treat him. One of the other doctors can take a look, assuming he doesn't die in the mean time."
  • Fes, it's not the fact that she was able to get it somewhere else, it's the fact that he made a personal (what's more personal to an individual than one's faith) decision based on his religious views, which have no place in his line of work. He is tasked with providing medicine to people. He has no right, and no place, to make the determination that he did. He deserved to be fired. He deserves to have his license revoked.
  • Fes, At the risk of piling on here, I'm going to put in my two cents. I work in a profession that could, foreseeably, lead to working for persons, groups or causes that I do not agree with. I recognize that my unwillingness to "hold my nose" and work for a client that does not line up with my personal moral code is potentially career-limiting. I have always sought to work for clients/causes that I find unobjectionable, so as to avoid having the type of conflict faced by this pharmacist. If he is unwilling to dispense birth control, he needs to find work somewhere that won't require him to do so. That, or he needs to find another line of work. Imposing his religious beliefs on the customers of his employer is simply not acceptable. Period.
  • Kimberly, I agree with you that the Muslim analogy is off - it was all I could think of at the time with a religious aspect. Perhaps better: A man who is known to be an opiate addict comes in with a prescription for Dilaudid. The pharmacist, who for whatever reason (let's say someone close to him had an overdose and died) has a strong personal moral conviction that the last thing in the world opiate addicts need is more opiates, refuses the man the prescription. Is this, too, a firing offense? My contention is not the rightness or wrongness of either the refusal or the subsequent firing; I have opinions on both, none of which are terribly relevant. What I was trying to point out is that no one - even those people who we disagree with - should be forced to do something that they hold strong personal beliefs against. At the same time, I *do* think the situation (that there was a competing pharmacy across the street) is a factor. The consequences to the rape victim of his refusal to fill the prescription were in this case nearly negligible, and it seems likely that the pharmacist had no idea that the woman was receiving the drug due to a rape - I very much doubt that the doctor wrote that on the scrip. The man's ignorance of the woman's situation and the proximity of another source of the drug tend (again, in my opinion) to lessen the grievousness of the act. My thought is that the man has every right to exercise his personal beliefs in the workplace; one cannot be forced to check one's moral code at the door of their job. At the same time - and this is a point that many people do NOT understand, and seem to conveniently forget when it is beliefs with which they agree with that are being maligned - acting on one's beliefs has consequences, and those consequences should not be waived for some but applauded for others depending on the content and popularity of the moral point.
  • Abortion is one of those issues that really highlights the differences between Britain and America. It just isn't really an issue here at all, and yet seems to be one of the most emotive subjects in the States. (I'm not, by the way, trying to belittle the issue, just highlighting the difference in the perception of the subject here)
  • Ambrosia, I think that's an excellent point and one I agree with, until: "Imposing his religious beliefs on the customers of his employer is simply not acceptable." I don't feel that he was - or even felt he was - imposing his religious viewpoint on the other woman. In fact, I think the opposite was true - he was imposing his religious beliefs on *himself*, and that he felt more comfortable doing so because he didn't know the woman was raped and he did know that she could obtain the drug across the street.
  • [just so you all know, I appreciate that we can discuss this sort of issue without the screaming, personal attack and accompanying baggage such as accrue over at the Blue, and I want to thank you for your willingness to argue the point congenially, despite the content]
  • "No sir, don't like his politics at all. It would be a blot on my conciense to treat him. One of the other doctors can take a look, assuming he doesn't die in the mean time." Why not? So long as the doctor understood and accepted the consequences of the act. Imagine: Israeli doctor, Palestinian terrorist patient who (let's make it worse) was wounded in a gunfight with Israeli police in which he managed to kill several (still worse) after exploding a bomb on a school bus. If I was that Israeli doctor, I think I might have a damnably hard time treating him.
  • Shutting up now :) but I look forward to reading any replies.
  • Okay, Fes, I'll bite. If you change the circumstances slightly, so that the pharmacy is the only pharmacy in town, or the pharmacy across the street happened to be out of stock or closed, then what should he have done? Also, I don't buy that he didn't impose his beliefs on the customer. She walked in to a business with a legal prescription that the store had in stock. He refused to fill the prescription. She was forced to go elsewhere to have her prescription filled. How exactly did he not impose his beliefs on her? On preview, "60 Minutes" had a piece recently about Hadassah Medical Center, where Israeli doctors give excellent care to all their patients including Hamas leaders.
  • Fes: I take your point and I do think your second example is a better one. And I appreciate that what you're saying is that people should be allowed to act upon their moral judgements knowing that there will be consequences. But I wonder why he would call his pastor in this case after he's refused to fill this kind of prescription before if he didn't know there were special circumstances. That leads me to believe he knew. But, as you said, that's not really your point. If we return to what you said originally ("One also might remember that this situation could also be viewed as a man being fired for having a different opinion than the prevailing one."), I would counter by saying that while his differing opinion illicited all this outrage, he was fired because he violated company policy and is unable to fulfill all of his job responsibilities. In your example about the man addicted to opiates, I think the same thing should apply. Maybe that scenario would not be as emotionally charged, but if he couldn't perform his duties despite moral objections then he should find another line of work. On preview: Also what ambrosia said.
  • So long as the doctor understood and accepted the consequences of the act. Exactly. And one of those consequences would most likely be having their license revoked. The truth is that when people become doctors, they take an oath to treat those who come to them in the most appropriate manner possible. If that means treating someone whose politics are different, or someone who has committed a crime, so be it. Frankly, Fes, if you don't think you could treat an injured criminal, I'm glad you're not a doctor. There's nothing wrong with that, but people need to be cognizant of the choices they made when they chose their profession, rather than waiting until they are confronted with a hard situation after they are already entrenched. That's what this pharmacist did. He chose a line of work which requires him to dispense medication, regardless of personal feelings, based on prescriptions written by a doctor. We don't let pharmacists write those prescriptions, so concommitantly it seems we shouldn't let them ignore them, either. In the case of the pharmacist and the opiate addict, I think we need more facts. If the prescription was knowingly written by a doctor for a legitimate medical reason, the pharmacist should fill it. If the pharmacist had a real suspician, based on observable fact, that the prescription was not legitimate, then he would be justified in refusing to fill it. That, however, is an entirely different situation. Other situations in which a pharmacist might legally refuse to fill a prescription, at least in Texas, are discussed here. Those reasons might include concern that the medication will interact badly with another drug, or belief that an excessive quantity has been prescribed, or, as I discussed above, indication that the prescription wasn't issued by the doctor whose name appears on the prescription. This guy is perfectly within his rights to believe that birth control is immoral and should not be used. He just shouldn't be a pharmacist.
  • I think doctors are duty bound (and morally bound, in my opinion) to help, to the best of their abilities, anyone. Pharmacists aren't doctors, though. On a related note, I'm surprised that a pharmacist could be allowed to refuse to fulfil a prescription, unless they thought it was stolen or fabricated. Isn't it the doctors place to say what is and isn't necessary for the patient? (On preview, monju_bosatsu said it all much better than I did)
  • A quick google search indicates that this problem is much more widespread than is being reported. Several states have already considered or are considering adopting so-called "Pharmacist's Conscience Laws," under which a pharmacist could refuse based on ethical, moral, or religious beliefs to fill a prescription for an abortifacient, i.e., emergency contraception. I urge you to find out what your state legislature is considering, and give your input to your representatives.
  • Monju, that is quite possibly one of the scariest things I've read all week.
  • Here is Planned Parenthood's reference on emergency contraception. Towards the bottom it discusses some of the obstacles to obtaining EC. It turns out Wal-Mart won't stock it in any of its 2400 pharmacies, and a number of hospitals, particularly those run by Catholic orders, won't offer it either.
  • Also from the Planned Parenthood website: The FDA is considering making emergency contraception available over the counter. That would be a welcome step. Wal-Mart probably still won't carry it, I bet.
  • No. freakin'. bet.
  • ambrosia, I'm going to derail this thread slightly and say that I hope the Emergency Pill doesn't become an over-the-counter medicine. I think everyone should take responsibility for his- or herself and having something immediately available after the fact for your own stupidity and/or laziness shouldn't be that simple an option. I think a prescription should be required so that a) rape victims or victims of sexual assault of any kind can receive an examination at the same time and have a record of the incident whether or not they press charges; b) lazy/uneducated people have to explain to the doctor why they need the Emergency Contraceptive and maybe receive lessons on simple things like using a condom, or get a normal contraceptive pill prescription. It doesn't have to be difficult, but it doesn't have to be vending-machine simple, either. I understand that there are genuine reasons to need it (having been there myself, I admit), but I can imagine people taking it for granted -- "I don't have a condom with me"; "That's okay, I'll pick up a pill tomorrow." People who think that way just...argh, head exploding now. /mini-rant I do feel incredibly sorry for the poor girl in this scenario, though. You really put it best, monju -- I don't feel like there's anything more to say.
  • You realize, of course, that doctors aren't required to perform abortions on demand, right? Why should a pharmacist, unless it is part of his work contract? Which it was, in this case, although he apparently didn't realize that. I'm pretty strongly pro-choice, but I'm with Fes on this. This particular man thought that by dispensing that prescription he would be facilitating a murder. Even so, he both prayed and called his pastor for advice. And he says he didn't realize it was part of his employment contract the he be required to fill such prescriptions and that he wouldn't have accepted such employment had he known. I guess I don't understand why some pro-choice people are so quick to assume that a pro-life position is, in its intent, an aggressive position attacking the woman. Instead, it could be, certainly sometimes is, and presents itself as a defensive position of protecting another human being's rights. I recognize that a lot of pro-lifers are really just crypto-misogynists; but it offends my moral sensibilities when people make that their default assumption about a position and a group of people holding a position that, were those people correct (and I don't think they are, but if they were) would be a noble position. I'd rather live in a world where people act like that pharmacist and act on the courage of their moral convitions than one in which everyone acquiesces to conventional morality.
  • kmellis: I agree with you completely. In some ways, I can admire the pharmacist for acting in ways consistent with his beliefs--the courage of his convictions, as you say. However, I reiterate my comments above. He made a choice when he chose to become a pharmacist, and that choice was to obey the law and the terms of the contract and fill prescriptions as received from the doctor. If he is unable to do so, he should have chosen another profession, one in which it is possible to be unapologetically pro-life. The same is true of the doctors you mentioned. Doctors who do not wish to perform abortions are not required to do so. The doctor normally accomplishes this, of course, by choosing a specialty in which the provision of abortions is not part of the job. It would be awfully odd, don't you agree, for a doctor who conscientiously objects to abortion to choose to become an abortion provider. In many ways, I guess, pro-life doctors have it easier than pharmacists in that they can choose a specialty and tailor their practice according to their own desires, for the most part. Pharmacists, however, are pharmacists. At the store-front level there is no specialization, and you provide prescription medication based on the instructions of the doctors. It becomes even more important, therefore, for a pharmacist to be aware of the choices he must make when he chooses that profession.
  • Hi Tracicle, From the Plan B website: When used as directed, Plan B is safe for most women. Common side effects include nausea, abdominal pain, fatigue, headache, and menstrual changes. I have a girlfriend who took this, and she felt awful for days. She was grateful that it was available (condom broke) and she said she never ever ever wanted to have to do it again. From her description of the side effects, I doubt it's something that many people would choose to do repeatedly. And, to bring this mini-derail back on-topic, making this particular product OTC would mean that future pharmacists "of conscience" wouldn't have to make the same principled decision that cost the pharmacist here his job.
  • I can't say that I'm thrilled about these Conscience laws, and how they can be applied. I can only imagine how painful and difficult it would be decide to terminate a fetus. I can't speak from experience, but it must be brutal. Then, having made this huge choice, being denied service by a medical professional? Again, I can only imagine. I feel for doctors, nurses, technicians, pharmacists, et all. They're doing something that I am simply not capable of. Even if I knew the medical jargon and proceedures, I could never handle the loss of life. I could not be the impartial observer. That's who I am. But, I think that they have an obligation to their patients. Even pharmacists. And that obligation is more important than their own beliefs. What if this wasn't emergency contraception? What if the patient was flamboyantly homosexual (or if the pill monkey thought that the prescription holder was gay); he/she presented a prescription for some type of anti-STD pill, and the pharmacist refused to fill it based on his ojections to homosexuals. Would we have the same opinion of the pharmacist then?
  • A somewhat similar case happened in my own life. A friend of mine went to see a dentist I'd recommended. The new patient form asked her to list all medications she was taking. She listed birth-control pills. Later, in the middle of filling a cavity, the dentist delivered a 30 minute lecture on promiscuity and morality to his captive patient. She tried, and failed, to get an apology, a reprimand, anything. Was the doctor wrong to do that? Where did he step over the line? In my opinion, yes he was wrong due to the "captive" nature of the circumstances.
  • My thought is that the man has every right to exercise his personal beliefs in the workplace; Of course, they don't. Not If it conflicts with the employment contract you sign before taking on the job. And it presumably does, in this case. Ignorance is not an excuse.
  • in the middle of filling a cavity, the dentist delivered a 30 minute lecture on promiscuity and morality to his captive patient. Holey moley!
  • Several years ago, I went to a doctor to get pills for depression. I was in the middle of a crazy situation where my boyfriend was having an affair with my roommate. I was at the point where I was chronically depressed and could hardly function. When I sat there in the doctor's office terrorized about the possibility of needing medication in the first place he started asking me questions about whether or not my father abused me as a child (wtf??) and I lost it and started crying. His response? To tell me he didn't know what I'd expected by being promiscuous and having sex outside of marriage. He then read me a poem by the pope. I was so shell-shocked that I grabbed the prescription and ran out of the office. Asshole.
  • Just a clarification - the pill in question is what is commonly known as "the morning after pill"? From the original link - "Morning-after pills are higher doses of the hormones in regular birth control pills and have been sold under the brand names Plan B and Preven since 1998. Taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse, the pills are at least 75 percent effective at preventing pregnancy." In which case, I believe that it is not an abortion drug, but one that changes the lining of the uterus so that impregnantion cannot take place. If this is abortion, so is the IUD and every other method that works by preventing impregnation rather than ovulation (like the daily birth constrol pill). There is another drug that is available in Europe, RU 486, that will stimulate a miscarriage in the first few weeks of pregnancy. Perhaps we should be worried that a pharmacist did not seem to understand the difference. What I find strange is how we (as in modern Western societies) spend so much time debating these issues when women have been inducing miscarriages for centuries. Penny Royal is one herb that can be used - it is also a very strong treatment for menstruel cramps, as it promotes the shedding of the uterus lining. There are many others as well. Birth control, whether before or after gestation, is not a new thing - I am just glad that we have reliable early methods so that we do not resort to infanticide as our ancestors did.
  • If this is abortion, so is the IUD and every other method that works by preventing impregnation rather than ovulation Exactly- this is one of the reasons conservative Xtians oppose birth control. Every fertilized ovum is a person who needs protection and nurturing. Until they're born, anyway.
  • Holey moley! Holey molar?
  • Until they're born, anyway. Odd, isn't it?
  • Over at Obsidian Wings they've been discussing a pharmacist's right to refuse to fill a prescription, after a recent Washington Post story. The comments are kinda dull, much heat, little light, not up to simian standards at all, but there was a link to this story. Follow up here. Gynecologists refusing to prescribe birth control. And don't bother going to your regular GP, they've sorted it all out between themselves. Hair raising. Other past monkey discussion.
  • Percentage of Gynecologists Kicked In Groin Skyrockets
  • Huh. In the early HIV days, when possible treatments were rare and rumored and even clandestine, (the one I remember now was called Compound Q), some of my activist friends decided to learn how to make it. In the same spirit they decided to learn how to perform abortions, in case that skill became underground again. This was in the Bay Area. Both my mother and my grandmother had illegal abortions the Bay Area - my grandma in the 20's and my mother in the early 60s. Grandma had the cash and the connections to get it done quickly and painlessly (she told me all about it. She's a Christian; it didn't mean a thing to her). My mother didn't have the cash, and had to walk a mile every day for three days with a rag stuck into her os, and then go thru some horrible process that she didn't really want to tell me about. Women will abort.
  • Local news ran a story two nights ago about a bill being debated in my state's legislature that would allow an objecting pharmacist not just the right to refuse to fill a prescription, but also the right to give the prescription back.
  • That should read "refuse to give the prescription back."
  • dang MCT, have you called your representatives?
  • Not yet. Plan to e-mail my rep this weekend. We went round and round previously over a defeated vote for a non-binding resolution that affirmed the state's commitment to separation of church and state. Motherfucker's a Democrat and didn't have the balls to show up for the vote.
  • via A majority of pharmacists believe that they should have the right to refuse emergency contraception prescriptions. Only 23% were willing to agree that patient's rights should prevail if a legal drug is prescribed by a doctor. 63% think that Walgreens were unjustified in putting 4 pharmacists on unpaid leave for not filling a prescription.
  • and this is the logical next step, I guess....
  • In the Washington Post (bugmenot required) "More than a dozen states are considering new laws to protect health workers who do not want to provide care that conflicts with their personal beliefs, a surge of legislation that reflects the intensifying tension between asserting individual religious values and defending patients' rights. About half of the proposals would shield pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control and "morning-after" pills because they believe the drugs cause abortions. But many are far broader measures that would shelter a doctor, nurse, aide, technician or other employee who objects to any therapy. That might include in-vitro fertilization, physician-assisted suicide, embryonic stem cells and perhaps even providing treatment to gays and lesbians...... Supporters say the laws are necessary, given the rapidly changing nature of medical research and care. "We live in a culture where more and more people are on opposite sides of these basic issues," said Manion, who has represented an ambulance driver who was fired after she refused to take a patient to a hospital for an abortion, a health department secretary who was not promoted after she objected to providing abortion information, and a nurse who was transferred after she refused to provide morning-after pills...... Doctors opposed to fetal tissue research, for example, could refuse to notify parents that their child was due for a chicken pox inoculation because the vaccine was originally produced using fetal tissue cell cultures, said R. Alto Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin....."
  • And now it's time to refuse to fill prescriptions for antibiotics and vitamins. Next stop, pregnant but unmarried women refused service.
  • If this is the way it's going to be, if pharmacists can refuse to fill certain prescriptions, and doctors/nurses/whatever can refuse to treat someone based on morals, they should be required to post that information in the most public manner possible. Perhaps a national database of medical professionals who refuse to do their jobs based on their personal morals would be useful as well. I would want to know before-hand if the service/prescription I need is going to be refused, so I could not waste my time going there.
  • I seriously hope someone like the ACLU gets involved in this and makes a point of doing what you're talking about, minda. I can't understand the leeway that is given to overly-moralistic pharmacists imposing their views on customers with legal, doctor-approved prescriptions. At least Planned Parenthood, according to the article, is making an effort to get people's stories of their experiences. Presumably they will be for the public record.
  • Most large pharmacies employ several pharmacists. If one objects to a prescription, can't he/she just pass it along to the next person? Refusing to fill a prescription on moral grounds seems like self-absorbed grandstanding to me. The objecting pharmacists, however, need to be careful about refusals. Birth control pills, for example, are used to prevent uterine cancer and regulate periods in diseases like PCOS. It does seem as though these pharmacists are, in effect, making medical decisions beyond their scope.
  • Most large pharmacies employ several pharmacists. Only in cities. If you're out in the country and don't have access to a car so you can drive thirty miles to the next town (where you're just as likely to get turned away), you're screwed. Birth control pills, for example, are used to prevent uterine cancer and regulate periods in diseases like PCOS. And any pharmacist worth his or her salt knows this. But the objectors don't give a fuck. They've got to defend God against your willful vagina.
  • "They've got to defend God against your willful vagina." But, I'd guess that the first time one was sued for denying cancer prevention treatment, especially if a woman developed the disease, there might be a rethinking of their stance. "Only in cities." Well, where I live in doesn't seem like a city, though the population in the area is around 40,000. But, it's California, so phundamentalist farmicists haven't been an issue, so far. Are at least birth control pills available on line? They aren't cheap anymore, so denying a local drug dealer the profit, along with other boycotts, might be a good protest strategy, especially if the pharmacy owners are aware that they're being boycotted. And, physicians frequently have samples to pass out, so are morning-after pills available that way? But, is there a lawyer present who can tell me why these folks aren't practicing medicine without the proper license?
  • Re: doctors, what about the hippopotamus oath? And, before GramMa gets here: MonkeyFilter: They've got to defend God against your willful vagina.
  • "Some of the wealthiest men in the world descend like avenging angels on the populations of the developing world," wrote Population Research Institute president Steven Mosher, a frequent critic of Gates and Buffett. "They seek to decimate their numbers, to foist upon vulnerable people abortion, sterilization and contraception." Hello? Is this thing on? I'd rather fund a world-wide planned parenthood group than one of those damned "feed the children" groups. "This is Carla. She has no shoes, no clean water, and her family can barely afford to feed her...or her thirteen other brothers and sisters."
  • Well, clearly that selfish bastard wishes to commit genocide by donating over $30 billion to charity. Or something. God forbid you just congratulate him on being the mother of all stand-up guys.
  • every time I try to think of a coherent sentence to say in response to this crap my brain just gets tied in a knot of frustration, annoyance, flummoxity, exasperation and rage and I can no longer function mentally. even typing this has been exceedingly challenging...maybe that is part of their evil plan? to piss off the people with brains and compassion so completely we can no longer think or function and they can just take over the little bit that isn't already under their slime-ass control. /sputtering rant
  • Foisted contraception? Hey, I'm not into foisting myself but you do what you need to do, y'know? MonkeyFilter: frustration, annoyance, flummoxity
  • *Gets Medusa an American Girl Doll*
  • killer! dolls who wear glasses, I love it :D
  • But if you like the dolls, you're killing babeez!!! 1!111!
  • If there is one thing I like even more than dollz in glasses it's KILLING BABIES!!!! /confirmed evil godless baby killer
  • Goddammit! That's just fucking nuts.
  • Unfuckingbelievable. What century do we live in again?
  • Absolutely fucking disgusting. I think I'll check to make sure my local pharmacy stocks EC otc now, before it's an emergency.
  • It seems to me that pharmacy schools must be built dangerously close to churches.
  • It seems like a nurse worth her salt would be able to tell her how many regular birth control pills to take as EC, but the ones this lady called all seemed scared and clueless.
  • "Well," the nurse sounds decidedly nervous as though what he really wanted to do was hang up the phone completely, And a man.
  • woops. Sorry :) Should have said his or her salt, though usually women figure out the "take a few extra pills as EC" from experience.
  • Damn.
  • I’m feeling several kinds of bad right now. As an irreversibly infertile woman, I’ve always been able to hold myself a little emotionally aloof from the whole issue. Y’knw, the whole “It can’t happen to me” syndrome? So the madder I get about it, the guiltier I feel. And that makes me madder. I’ve done a little legislative letter-writing this morning, and checked to see if my local Planned Parenthood is seeking volunteers (they’re not.) I also subscribed for email alerts from PP. Dammit, what kind of society are we becoming?
  • That is an awesome idea. Thanks for the link!
  • Wow, neat!
  • Another article on Keroak. I couldn't find anything that explained why he thinks birth control is demeaning to women. Anyone have a clue?
  • I assume that the reason birth control is demeaning to women is that it converts them from being objects of fertility worship to objects of sex worship. The woman is no longer the source of children to work on the farm (Praise God!), and is now sought out by her lawfully wedded husband for loud, sweaty, wall thumping sex. On a nightly basis! In positions other than Church Approved missionary position! Nightly, and sometimes, if there is wood, in the morning! Whew!
  • Three months later, bad news. Re the homunculus October 23, 2006 link, above. Read the blog link for details.
  • What a bummer of a thread. What century is this?
  • It is a bummer of a thread - but it's good to hear that EC is becoming more accessible (due to WalMart, no less). And that girl who started Emergency Kindness has a bright future ahead of her, showing that kind of drive at such a young age.
  • there's an update at homunculus's link - an Appeal to Dismiss was lost, not the case itself, and the case is going forward to decide if, in fact, it is legal to refuse to dispense EC
  • Video fun: 1. Senator McCain famously takes the 5th about insurance companies who pay for Viagra but not the Pill. 2. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund runs a TV spot about it. 3. Bill O'Reilly disses the spot on his show, saying, "When impotent men want to have intercourse it's a MEDICAL CONDITION. But when fertile women want to have intercourse, it's a CHOICE." 4. Planned Parenthood responds with a letter-writing capaign thanking Bill for the free airtime. 5. 6. Profit!* (For Pfizer, that is. The same Pfizer that headlines their video at viagra.com not with "Are you suffering from a medical condition," but "Want a more satisfying sexual experience?"
  • Umm....is the issue that Viagra is covered or that birth control isn't? Or both?
  • That birth control isn't. Viagra allows the not-so-young turks to keep their sexual lives active. Birth control, which launched the pre-AIDS sexual revolution, did the same for all in general and women in particular. The idiocy of O'Reilly is his notion that taking their pill is a choice for women, but taking their pill is a government-back right to happiness for the boys.
  • I don't know where things stand now, but I do know that for the longest time many insurance companies would pay for his Viagra, but wouldn't pay for her birth control or mammograms--Even with a doctor's RX or recommend on a medical condition. Amazing, innunit?
  • RTD and BH are right - insurance companies are paying for Viagra but not the Pill. McCain refused to say whether or not he thought that was a good thing. O'Reilly said of course it's good because sex is good for boys but bad for girls. PP pointed out how silly O'Reilly was, which isn't really that much of an accomplishment.
  • Well I'm confused why the two are being conflated in the first place. It's apples and oranges. If there's a case to be made for insuring birth control, then why isn't it being made on its own merits? From a medical standpoint, it's dubious (it's not correcting any medical condition), but I still think the benefits of increased birth control use are significant so I'd like to see them covered. Viagra, however, is correcting a medical condition. The argument for covering it is cut and dry. It's in the same class as countless other 'not life-threatening but affects quality-of-life' medications.
  • If pregnancy usb't a medical condition, how comes there are so many doctors specializing in it? And hospital wards? If we're reducing pregnancy to a quality-of-life issue rather than a health one, the same reduction can be made for erectile dysfunction.
  • My point is that fertility isn't a medical ailment. ED is. They are two very different drugs and shouldn't be linked.
  • The "link" is only that one drug gets the green light, the other doesn't. And that the drug approved for funding is so that a feller can have an orgasm, and the one that is denied is the one that helps prevent overpopulation and that is contrary to the views of the Pope. I do not think it accidental that a drug that has the single purpose of giving men "a more satisfying sexual experience" is approved for funding, while a drug that is used exclusively by women is not approved. Women: how many ways can we fuck them?
  • ED isn't a "medical ailment," either. You can't get it up. Too bad, but nobody ever died from failing to get a hard on. /sarcasm Com'on, rocket, seriously. Think about this in terms of life impact. Which is going to have more impact on a person's life with regard to future health? Not getting an erection or getting pregnant? Women still die in childbirth, develop diabetes and eclampsia, sustain uterine prolapse, have Cesarean sections, etc. Short of a heart attack, men don't die during erection and ejaculation or from failing to have an erection or ejactulation. There can be good and sufficient medical reasons why a woman shouldn't get pregnant, but insurance STILL WON'T cover birth control. Perhaps you want to keep thinking about it in terms of apples and oranges, but the bottom line is that they are both drugs. The FDA regulates drugs, the medical community doles them out, and the insurance companies cover, or don't cover, drugs. Doesn't matter if the drugs are for acne, congestive heart failure or runny noses, they all go through that loop, unless the FDA deems them to be OTC. What goes on in the drug world is largely driven by political and financial motives. Our society has decided that men NEED Viagra, because their erections and orgasms are special and they can't fulfill their masculine destiny without them. But women--why should they be protected from an unwanted pregnancy? They should all be home where they belong, if not barefoot, at least pregnant. We have a real problem in this country admitting that a woman should be in control of her body and her reproductive functions. Seriously, like acne medication, antidepressants and Viagra, birth control impacts the quality of life. Only birth control impacts not just the individual, but society. I won't go into my ZPG rant, but AFAIC, kids should be on birth control from age ten and have to attend classes on parenting before they're allowed to go off. If you need a license to have a gun or a dog, why not a kid?
  • sheesh! *wipes spittle from chin after misspelled diatribe RTD, exactly!
  • ED used to be just as much a natural and unavoidable development of a man's health as much as pregnancy was a natural and unavoidable development of a woman's. Now that there's a drug to prevent each of these, why does only one of them get upgraded to a "medical condition" that needs "treatment?"
  • Look, I'm not against covering birth control. I said upthread that the benefits of easier access to BC are many. I'm on your side on this one. But what the fuck does Viagra have to do with it? Is it because men use it? Why not compare birth control to prostate drugs then? And ED is entirely a medical condition, and no more "just a part of getting older" than osteoporosis or incontinence. It's a circulatory condition that can be corrected by a pill. If you think Viagra should be off the list of covered meds then you might as well take everything off that doesn't cure a fatal disease. Argue for birth control covereage on it's own merits, of which there are amny. Linking it to a "men only" drug just to create an "us vs them" strawman is just a rhetorical fallacy.
  • If there's a case to be made for insuring birth control, then why isn't it being made on its own merits? From a medical standpoint, it's dubious (it's not correcting any medical condition) Oral contraceptives are used to control fibroids and endometriosis, and possibly other female problems as well. They most certainly are prescribed to correct medical conditions (other than pregnancy).
  • Yes, and I've known women who have been prescribed them for those reasons. They are a small minority of users, though (I would think).
  • They're a minority compared to women who use them for birth control, yes, but it is the most common treatment for these conditions (or at least, a very common treatment, I don't know the actual statistics), and the conditions are pretty common. To be sure, HMOs will make an exception to cover oral contraceptives for these medical conditions, but convincing them of the need and getting consistent coverage is EXTREMELY difficult, or at least that was my experience 10 years ago in the States. If anything, birth control pills should be covered for this reason. Viagra does not treat any actual illnesses, to my knowledge.
  • Ok, look: the bottom line of this whole discussion is that the USA needs a national, socialized, health care system like some of the actually enlightened countries in this world. Medical coverage is a right, not a privilege, whether it's for birth control, flaccid woodies, female trouble, kidney stones, autism, MS, epilepsy or any other personal medical condition. And yes, I just got done filling out my Kaiser HMO application for this year.
  • What about agues and vapors?
  • OK, but you have to start spelling it 'vapours'. It's part of being enlightened.
  • Too lazy to google, but my anecdotal evidence says that there are probably as many women who use BC hormones for some other reason than prevention as there are men who use Viagra. Viagra is a men-only drug, just as oral and injectable contraceptives and implants are drugs for women. Unfortunately, it just naturally falls into the dichotomy of his and her drugs. Big Pharma is talking about the "pink Viagra" but it doesn't look like there's a great deal of interest. Pills? We don't need no stinkin' pills! We're either horny old ladies or happy without it. You brought up the subject of prostate drugs--let's view it in terms of prostate exams and mammograms. Both are preventative checks, yet only one has been paid for from the get-go. Guess which? Things are slowly changing, primarily because of outrage, but there are still insurance companies that will pay for his, and not for hers. Death rates from untreated prostate cancer are much lower than from untreated breast cancer--usually it's other complications of old age that gets the guys. The key to declining mortality rates in both types of cancer has been education and early detection. Just ramblin' So WHY are there are no oral contraceptives for men? I've talked to men who are vehement about not having children; they all hate condoms. A couple of them were jerks who think that women are out to 'trap' them so they (the women) can lead lives of luxury on the child support, *snorts* and yet they went white at the idea of taking something to prevent contraception. Three out of five of the men in my generation I am closest to that have had vasectomies have lately expressed regrets about that choice. One of the three is very happy childless and calls it his "midlife crisis" hangup. The other two don't want (and don't need) more kids, but it still bothers them. Wazupwidat? Apparently it's not a desire or performance problem that's causing it. *shrugs* There are no women of my acquaintance who regrets their hysterectomy in reproductive terms. Several have had further health problems related to their hyst, but that's because it's an invasive and drastic surgery that changes many things. Which is not to say most of us didn't mourn the loss of our fertility in some way at the time, but there's a group of us that still get together now and high five our decision to cease reproductive ability. I'm really ramblin' now.
  • I think it really differs from insurance co. to insurance co. how things are covered. At my last job, both viagra and BC were considered "lifestyle drugs" and neither was covered. At my current job (where the insurance is underwritten by a medical school) only viagra is considered a "lifestyle drug" and not covered, and BC is partially covered (it has a higher co-pay than other drugs, but is at least somewhat subsidized).
  • Perhaps it is because I grew up during the era when we were all warned of the imminent danger of the "population explosion", I find it ironic that birth control would be viewed as a "lifestyle drug".
  • My insurance covers therapy for substance abuse, but not depression. I guess us saddies aren't so dengerous to others in the workplace, but we're certainly less productive than the speed freaks.
  • It depends on both the company and the level of coverage purchased. There have been times when I've called the insurance company to ask questions about my coverage, and the start by saying either "probably not" or "we'll need a referral first," but then I tell them who my employer is, and they say "Oh! Yeah, you're cool!" My insurance provider is standard coverage for most people, but through my employer, they cover frigging elective abortion, 90%. Funnily enough, they do not cover birth control, IIRC.
  • > Viagra is a men-only drug There's anecdotal evidence to suggest that Viagra is fun and useful for women. Increased blood flow to the genitals is gender neutral.
  • Heh. When I was a student, the insurance covered both birth control *and* elective abortion. When I got a non-student job at the same location (with supposedly better, definitely more expensive, health insurance), it covered *neither* birth control nor elective abortion.
  • Perhaps it is because I grew up during the era when we were all warned of the imminent danger of the "population explosion", I find it ironic that birth control would be viewed as a "lifestyle drug". I've heard that one before, and it makes me furious. Responsibility to society much? Meredithea: Makes sense to me. You don't want those college students preggers, because then they might drop out and the school loses money. Not to mention mummy and daddy would frown on little Jenny knocked up, and might not be happy with the U. Could lose a donation! OTOH, when you're a wage slave, you're THEIR B*TCH! MonkeyFilter: Increased blood flow to the genitals is gender neutral.
  • "Viagra is a men-only drug" Now it's men, women, and babies.
  • There's anecdotal evidence to suggest that Viagra is fun and useful for women. I have typed and deleted several responses to that. It boils down to reliable birth control being fun and useful for men, as well, though.
  • I think you've got it there, GramMa!
  • We live in a singularly f*cked up country. I don't get why the extreme right is so opposed to Islam when they hold dear almost all Islamic radical values.
  • Of course. It could also apply to blood transfusions or life support (or the removal thereof).
  • Eckerd's no longer exists. Rite-Aid now owns the old Eckerd's stores. As such, I declare that this thread should be deleted or all mentions of "Eckerd's" shall now read: "Rite-Aid."
  • Oy. Hopefully that's on the incoming administration's list of Things To Try And Reverse.
  • Yeah!! Choice!!
  • Pharmacists cannot refuse to dispense the Plan B pill, Federal appeals court finds.
  • NOTE: birth control has a legitimate place in today's population bomb, but it can go too far. As when forced sterilization was formerly part of the progressive agenda <:(!)