"Pro-Life Pharmacy"

[_Droopy]

Oh my. Yet another liberal on a righteous crusade for porn, condoms, and legal infanticide.

Amazing the kinds of alloy a magnet like this forum attracts.

[_Chap]

Oh my. Yet another liberal on a righteous crusade for porn, condoms, and legal infanticide.

Amazing the kinds of alloy a magnet like this forum attracts.

You are married, I think. Have you not ever used any form of contraception? So far as I know that is not forbidden by the CoJCoLDS.

And evidently this forum does attract you.

[_GoodK]

Nevermind... I could get sucked into this topic for days..

[_Doctor Steuss]

A pharmacy that won't stock contraceptives looks pretty silly. But it doesn't exactly make for scary times, in my opinion.

Especially when one realizes the powers of the internet/mail order. At my previous job, I had all of my anti-psychotic script filled via mail-order. It was cheaper, and I could get a three month supply at a time in lieu of a one month supply. I imagine someone could do the same with the pill, or with condoms for that matter (which, it isn’t like you can’t pick those up at any 7-11).

It’s ok to plan ahead and realize that you just might be boning someone you meet at a bar when you’re horny and sufficiently intoxicated. You don’t have to have access to a pharmacy to plan for that contingency. Sometimes it’s ok to be an adult and think more than 20 minutes in advance.

[_Paul Kemp]

That's not the same thing. You could die without a blood transfusion or proper ER care, but such is not the case with buying a rubber, getting an artificial insemination, a surgical sterilization, even an abortion except in rare cases.

No it's not the same thing, but I'm sure you can see the slippery slope we are going to face when we are forced to draw the line between what kinds of religious opinions are acceptable to display in the health care industry and what aren't.

The fact remains that health care (in the U.S) is a business enterprise supported by "the market", but I think it should be treated a little differently than, say, a grocery store. Reason being many people don't have a choice where they can go for treatment or medication - due to their health insurance. What if a woman is given the option to pay full price for her birth control, or go to a pharmacy that doesn't carry it?

[_The Dude]

...I'm sure you can see the slippery slope we are going to face when we are forced to draw the line between what kinds of religious opinions are acceptable to display in the health care industry and what aren't.

This doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean we ought to "draw a line" in order to keep religious opinions from creeping into health care (some kind of slippery slope, I guess)? Well, I don't see how that would be possible. Better to let people go to health care providers of their choosing. You know, market forces and all that.

The fact remains that health care (in the U.S) is a business enterprise supported by "the market", but I think it should be treated a little differently than, say, a grocery store. Reason being many people don't have a choice where they can go for treatment or medication - due to their health insurance. What if a woman is given the option to pay full price for her birth control, or go to a pharmacy that doesn't carry it?

Is this acually a problem or just a "what if" to keep the argument going? It seems to me that health insurance would be more likely to drop pharmacies that don't provide birth control among their services. I mean, unless you have Catholic health insurance or something.

[_Paul Kemp]

This doesn't make sense to me. Do you mean we ought to "draw a line" in order to keep religious opinions from creeping into health care (some kind of slippery slope, I guess)? Well, I don't see how that would be possible. Better to let people go to health care providers of their choosing. You know, market forces and all that.

You already did draw a line. You said it would be unacceptable for a hospital to operate using the Jehova's Witness' religious opinions to justify refusing to give blood transfusions. Or maybe you didn't say that. I guess you just said it wasn't the same, but I assume you would draw the line somewhere, hopefully there.
And again, I'm not sure if go elsewhere is the answer when we are talking about health care. You know, HMO's and all that.

Is this acually a problem or just a "what if" to keep the argument going?

Well it is obviously a "what if", for now.

It seems to me that health insurance would be more likely to drop pharmacies that don't provide birth control among their services. I mean, unless you have Catholic health insurance or something.

Maybe. I hope they would. But people don't typically have an abundance of choices when it comes to health care, so they are at the mercy of the pharmacist and the insurance company.

[_Yoda]

Nevermind... I could get sucked into this topic for days..

GoodK? You're back! I knew the Goddess Suite would be too much of a temptation for you to resist. ;)

[_John Larsen]

Maybe. I hope they would. But people don't typically have an abundance of choices when it comes to health care, so they are at the mercy of the pharmacist and the insurance company.

The problem with you theory is that the market forces tend to be stronger than any moralizing by a vocal minority. The demand for contraceptives, abortions and pornography is much hire in dollars than those who say they find these things favorable. In other words, if you ask Americans if they are in favor of legalized abortion, there is a high percentage that says they are against abortion but get them anyway. This is even more so with contraception and pornography. Pornography sells best in the South and contraception sales do not suffer in predominantly catholic areas. If some moralizing pharmacists wish to enforce these, the market will shut them out.

This points back to my original point. These people are doing these things to try to force their congregations to comply not aimed at the non-believers. This points to the fundamental problem. There is not a market for what they are selling.

[_Sethbag]

These are scary times we are living in:

If the market can support a pro-life pharmacy, then why not? It would be a private business.

My main beef with that is that some markets don't really have enough business to support more than one pharmacy, and if it happens to be one where the guy or woman behind the counter will take one's prescription for plan B and not give it back, nor fill it, then women who have need of the services these "pro-life" pharmacies won't provide will be out of luck.

Personally, I don't buy the "private business" excuse. If it's all just about private business, why do doctors still need to be certified by the government? There are some matters of public trust that the government involves itself in to ensure to the general public that their needs will be met by people competent, and qualified to do so, and by means which are safe and effective.

Nobody just has the "right" to be a pharmacist. It's a public trust held by a person, whose job it is to meet that public trust by performing their job safely and effectively. If a person isn't willing to provide the pharmacy services the public needs, then that person is free to choose another profession.

Would anyone be OK if a doctor in an emergency room declared that he doesn't do heart attack care anymore? What if he said "sorry, but I believe that God is in charge of the human heart, and if it fails, then it's because God wants it to, and it would be an affront by me of God to interfere with that."? Would that be acceptable to anyone? I doubt it. And reproductive healthcare is the same way.