My question would be: When does a pharmacist's decision outweigh the prescription of a patient's doctor and under what authority would a pharmacist have the right ot do so?
Some radical feminist thought..
- Thread starter acd
- Start date
A pharmacist's job is distinct from that of a doctor. It is a profession, not simply a type of glorified "check-out-chick".
Pharmacists can refuse drugs if they are conflicting or would obviously cause harm (eg. a prescribed overdose. - A collegue of mine was prescribed a medication at ten times the regular dose, so the pharmacist had to contact the doctor-).
Similarly, a pharmacist is always a human person, not an automated dispensing machine. And a person always has an inviolable conscience. So I would say that a pharmacist can NEVER be coerced to act against his/her conscience.
Pharmacists can refuse drugs if they are conflicting or would obviously cause harm (eg. a prescribed overdose. - A collegue of mine was prescribed a medication at ten times the regular dose, so the pharmacist had to contact the doctor-).
Similarly, a pharmacist is always a human person, not an automated dispensing machine. And a person always has an inviolable conscience. So I would say that a pharmacist can NEVER be coerced to act against his/her conscience.
Returning to the subject of this thread - feminism -.
I think the pill does nothing for the dignity of women any how.
I have had friends in the past, several of them in fact, who were quite blunt about their opinions about women on the pill. The basic attitude was this:
If a girl was on the pill, she was basically fair game and often times regarded as nothing more than a sex-toy.
If a girl was not on the pill, either pressure was put on her to start taking it (because the pill is far more effective than condoms in preventing pregnancy) - if she refused she was usually dumped; or in a couple of cases, the friend in question started making plans to propose marriage.
From some men's point of view the pill is a good thing, for no other reason that they can screw women for fun, and dump them when they get bored.
I think the pill does nothing for the dignity of women any how.
I have had friends in the past, several of them in fact, who were quite blunt about their opinions about women on the pill. The basic attitude was this:
If a girl was on the pill, she was basically fair game and often times regarded as nothing more than a sex-toy.
If a girl was not on the pill, either pressure was put on her to start taking it (because the pill is far more effective than condoms in preventing pregnancy) - if she refused she was usually dumped; or in a couple of cases, the friend in question started making plans to propose marriage.
From some men's point of view the pill is a good thing, for no other reason that they can screw women for fun, and dump them when they get bored.
This would be describing the attitudes of some males toward the female who made a personal decision to control the reproductive system of her own body. Not yours. Not anybody else's. Hers.
Attitudes such as the ones you describe illustrate the objectification the woman and eliminate her individuality and humanity.
These are the people who reduce the dignity of women, not the birth-control pill.
The birth-control pill allows a woman more individual choice to determine her own direction in life and to pursue her personal goals. The pill also allows her the choice of when to become pregnant, if at all, and with whom she desires to become pregnant with.
The increase of freedom to choose how one's life may develop can only increase one's personal dignity.
Biology created the ability to reproduce life in women, not men, and technology created the ability for women to choose when that should occur on an individual basis.
Any attitude which limits the freedom to choose one's own individual path, denegrates the person and by extension, denegrates the whole of humanity.
Any attitude which increases the freedom to choose one's own individual path, dignifies the person and by extension, dignifies the whole of humanity.
S
Shai Gar
I agree with you. The current population of humans is 6.7 billion. It is projected that this will rise to 8.9 billion by the year 2050, a mere 40 years. We cannot feed, house and clothe the majority of our species now. How will we achieve this when there are 2.2 billion more?
Where are the ethics in escalating the number of people who will suffer merely because preventing pregnancy is considered immoral by certain ideologies?
Ask these children if they feel fortunate or blessed to have been brought into the world and ask their mothers if they had possessed the ability to choose, would they have become pregnant?
Attachments
Then, it also appears that the majority of people who oppose a woman's right to choose based on the sacredness of life, are those who complain about their tax dollars having to aid impoverished people.
I'm noting this primarily from listening to conservative talk radio and watching conservative talk pundits on tv with my ultra-conservative mother.
S
Shai Gar
What about the sacredness of the life of other species on earth?
The more humans, the greater the number of species that go extinct due to US!.
The more humans, the greater the number of species that go extinct due to US!.
Which brings the entire discussion back on track to the original article I posted. Well done.
Probably repeating a lot of what has already been said.
I have the privilege of working in a inner city obstetrical ward for the last 26 years, as a RN. The availability of the pill has not decreased teen pregnancy-but the CONDOM has, as a safer way to protect oneself from AIDS/HIV/STD's.
A lot of young women feel taking the pill is preparation to have sex, so prefer the crossed fingers/legs approach which doesn't work very well.
As for this being radical feminism?
A woman has the right to control her body. Period. It is her body. Not her boyfriend's, FB's, or husband's body. Hers.
Pharmacists, in my opinion, should not stock the morning after pill, unless they are willing to dispense it. In my mind,
this pill is not different from other contraceptives, and most pharmacists stock those.
After reading some these comments, I am somewhat shocked to see some very male chauvinistic attitudes still persist, even in young men.
I have the privilege of working in a inner city obstetrical ward for the last 26 years, as a RN. The availability of the pill has not decreased teen pregnancy-but the CONDOM has, as a safer way to protect oneself from AIDS/HIV/STD's.
A lot of young women feel taking the pill is preparation to have sex, so prefer the crossed fingers/legs approach which doesn't work very well.
As for this being radical feminism?
A woman has the right to control her body. Period. It is her body. Not her boyfriend's, FB's, or husband's body. Hers.
Pharmacists, in my opinion, should not stock the morning after pill, unless they are willing to dispense it. In my mind,
this pill is not different from other contraceptives, and most pharmacists stock those.
After reading some these comments, I am somewhat shocked to see some very male chauvinistic attitudes still persist, even in young men.
As for the original topic, that of choosing not to reproduce.
Won't happen until all women, of all cultures, of all ages, are
empowered to control their own bodies.
From my POV, only those of us in affluent societies, who have the privilege of being educated, have this choice at present.
-Shannon-
Won't happen until all women, of all cultures, of all ages, are
empowered to control their own bodies.
From my POV, only those of us in affluent societies, who have the privilege of being educated, have this choice at present.
-Shannon-
This is when I have to hope I don't end up with a surgeon who considers blood transfusions immoral on point of death. There are religions to hold that belief as strictly as any religion's position on abstinence. Your statement does not recognize the inherent power imbalance. The two positions are not equal. The individual with the greater power imposes the greater violation.
I hesitate to explain the reasons why the pharmacist's assumptions can be flawed because that is not entirely the point. The point is that the pharmacist does not know the patient's history. The pharmacist is *not* a doctor. They are not entitled to make those decisions. Perhaps another pharmacists thinks someone is addicted to a pain med and won't fill a prescription. The doctor has more detailed and accurate information that goes into the decision. I can imagine hundreds if not thousands of potential scenarios that are not simplistic or immoral reasons why a woman would go on the pill.
No patient should have to explain or justify their prescriptions to a pharmacist. The pill can be prescribed for medical reasons. I don't know the statistics on it, but my sister was prescribed it after marriage to control excess blood flow. my former sister-in-law faced the same thing, and I was almost prescribed it at 15 because of delayed development. Maybe three occurrences in one family is extremely unheard of, but I kind of doubt it. I also spent part of my life in a rural setting in which some teenage relationships were quite serious and resulted in marriage soon after graduation. I have known more than one teenage girl going on the pill because she was planning to marry. I will emphasize that a pharmacist has no right to intrude into someone's life to require justification for the pill. My point is that the act of going on the pill does not equate to reckless, "immoral" sexual behavior. It shows a profound lack of respect for women to hold that prejudice based on one simple act of filling a prescription.
Last edited:
S
Shai Gar
You are right. They get a Pharm.D. not an M.D. It is a type of doctor, you are right about that, but the training does not require as many years. Medical school starts at four post-grad years and adds residencies on top of that. I understand most doctors have a good 10 years of post-secondary training at least.
bls.gov said:
I guess part of the problem with a pharmacist refusing to fill a birth control prescription because "it is against his/her morals", is that they must rely on assumptions and prejudices since they can't know if the intent goes against their morals (unless they believe all contraceptives in all contexts are a sin or something like that).
Last edited: