Log in

No account? Create an account

Eugie · Foster's · Self-Indulgent · Musings

Boycott Target

Recent Entries · Archive · Friends · Profile

* * *
I don't usually go into political diatribes here. I find the sorts of political arguments that one gets into on the Internet tedious. But I'm making a rare exception here, because it's something I feel strongly about. I'm shaking out the ole boycott rug to protest pharmacists that refuse to fill contraception prescriptions. The idea of someone, anyone at all, mucking with my or any woman's decisions about her body and her life gets me spitting mad. As such, Target will no longer be receiving my consumer dollars until they revamp their policies since apparently, Target is A-OK with their pharmacists being righteous misogynists.

For more links and rants, check out cmpriest's information-filled post and jinzi's very eloquent letter of protest.


Writing Stuff

New Words: 600
Back to work on the heroic fantasy tale, "Rue and Ruin."
Zokutou word meterZokutou word meter
5,155 / 7,500

Club 100 For Writers

I'm feeling:
enraged enraged
* * *
* * *
[User Picture]
On November 5th, 2005 02:20 pm (UTC), dream_wind commented:
>> I support the right to a pharmacist not to fill any prescription they don't want to for whatever reason.

Whoah! Why should the pharmacist, who doesn't know a patient's medical history, get to decide what medications a person should or shouldn't be taking? In the case of the Pill, I have taken it since I was 17, not because I wanted the birth control, but because it stopped the period pain.

Now, if I went into a pharmacy to get a script filled and I knew that back breaking pain would come in a few days if I did not get those pills, I would not want some twit I may never have met refusing to give me those pills because it went against his/her morals.

If the pharmacist is concerned, he/she needs to take it up with the doctor who made the prescription.
On November 5th, 2005 02:27 pm (UTC), mouseferatu replied:
I'd have to agree. Pharmacists are very well trained for what they do, but they are not MDs. As far as I'm concerned, pharmacists have no more business making medical decisions than... Well, than insurance companies do.

Don't think we're likely to get that law changed any time soon, either. :-(
On November 5th, 2005 02:28 pm (UTC), mouseferatu replied:
And of course, the "very well trained" comment assumes the pharmacist in question is an actual pharmacist, not just someone working behind the counter...
On November 5th, 2005 03:15 pm (UTC), lousy_timing replied:
If the pharmacist is concerned, he/she needs to take it up with the doctor who made the prescription.

Exactly, which is what they are required to do in any other case where they suspect that the doctor may not have had a full picture of what other medications the patient was taking, medical history, allergic reactions, accidental error in writing out a prescription, etc. They are not allowed to correct the prescription themselves- they must call the doctor and get it approved first.

In my letter, you'll note that my daughter takes BCPs for a medical condition. If she doesn't take the pill, she can go almost a year without a period because her PCOS causes that much of an hormonal imbalance. The time she went 11 months without one, she had a three week long period upon starting her menses again. Would said pharmacist refusing to fill her prescription be aware of the cancer risk they'd be putting her at with their refusal? Should my daughter be placed in that type of danger because of their "moral" objection to others playing God with the lives of a fetus? How is it NOT playing God to put someone at risk of getting cervical cancer, and possibly then denying them the right to bear children later in life?

Would that, then, have been "God's Will?" No. That would have been the pharmacist playing God with the life of MY child, and possibly her future children, as well. Whose sin is bigger at that point?
[User Picture]
On November 5th, 2005 04:03 pm (UTC), m0nkeygrl replied:
I don't like the idea of people being forced to do something they find morally objectionable. Would you like being forced to do something you thought was wrong? I wouldn't like it. Though I disagree with this pharmacist scientifically and morally and think his/her opinions are severly misguided, I don't think they should be forced to perform an action that conflicts with their moral code.

Of course, in this particular instance, I think the best course for the pharmacist who refused to fill the prescription would be for them to find another profession. (Why someone would even enter a profession knowing their duties might require them to do something they find morally objectionable is beyond me.)

Also, in this case, Walgreen's got the woman's business, not Target. If this happens enough, Target will have to take a look at their policy in this particular matter.
[User Picture]
On November 5th, 2005 10:27 pm (UTC), dude_the replied:
I sympathize with your desire not to force people to do things they object to on moral or ethical bases. Certainly, I would object to being forced to do something that I felt was wrong, and, depending upon the nature of the something, it would be very difficult to make me do it irregardless of policy or law.

That said, I'm deeply troubled by the idea that pharmacists would be allowed to refuse to fill a prescription based upon their personal beliefs. Obviously, birth control is what everyone is talking about now, but if they can refuse to dispense birth control then what keeps them from refusing to dispense psychiatric medication on religious grounds or medications to treat STDs or any medication to people of a certain ethnic group by claiming a non-existent religious prohibition? Of course, this last bit highlights the problem in trying to force them to fill these prescriptions. Even if the law says they have to fill them, they can always lie and say they've run out or just never order any.

The problem with relying on the capitalist process to solve this issue is that capitalism cuts both ways. Yes, Target lost the business to Walgreens in this case. But, that's just one customer. In a conservative community, many more customers may switch from Walgreens to Target because of a Target pharmacist's refusal to sell birth control, leading to a net gain in customers for Target and a net loss for Walgreens, forcing Walgreens to look at refusing to sell birth control.

Yup. Deeply troubling all this is. *nod*

* * *

Previous Entry · Write something · Share · Next Entry