Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

113 | 114 | 115

 ... 944

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 15

Next

Bitch_PhD

Bitch_PhD

I'm lost
February 2007

MAY 31, 2007 10:47 AM



On Mother's Day, this ad appeared in the Great Falls Tribune.

The ad reads:

The sanctity of human life has always been one of our most cherished heritages. The family unit is the foundation of our society. The devotion and sacrifice of mothers over the years and the continual care and concern for their unborn has been the cornerstone of the family. On this Mother’s Day 2007, we wish to express our gratitude to all mothers for their unselfishness in our behalf. As health-care professionals, we call upon the American people to once again reaffirm the right to life for future generations of the unborn and join with us in our efforts to restore respect, dignity and value to each human life—born or unborn.


You'll be unsurprised to find out that a week and a half later, when a woman went in to Snyder Drugs, which is owned by the Anderson family (one of the signatories to the ad), she was handed this note instead of her prescription:

The note says

Snyder Drug has decided to no longer carry oral contraceptives. Although we no longer will carry this particular medication, we will continue to serve your prescription needs with utmost care and trust. We will be happy to transfer your oral contraceptive prescription to another pharmacy of your choice in a timely manner. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please direct them to the pharmacy owners, Stuart Anderson or Kurt and Kori Depner. By the end of May, we will no longer stock this class of medication. Sincerely, Stuart E. Anderson, R.Ph/owner


Interestingly, the story doesn't appear to have been covered in the Great Falls Tribune, the paper that carried the ad; the only place I've found mention of it is on the Montana Netroots blog. Being as the author of the Montana Netroots post is a guy,* he gets distracted by the issue of property rights--

I support an owners right to run their business in the way they see fit

--but hey, credit for noticing.

The real issue here is that Stuart E. Anderson, R.Ph, is a registered pharmacist and Snyder Drugs is a pharmacy. Which is to say, Mr. Anderson and his business are licensed by the state to dispense prescribed medications.

Which they are refusing to do.

Now, why are they refusing to dispense medications that are prescribed only to women? It isn't because oral contraceptives cause abortion--they don't. It isn't because they can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, either, because while that may be theoretically possible, there's no evidence that oral contraceptives actually work that way--as a registered pharmacist surely knows.

I can only assume, then, that it's because Stuart E. Anderson and the co-owners of Snyder Drugs, Kurt and Kori Depner, are sexist jackasses who think that their license to dispense drugs is less important than their god-given right to pass judgment on women.

I hope that the State of Montana respects their choice by taking away Mr. Anderson's pharmacist's license and his and the Depner's right to own a pharmacy.

*This is what is known as "hyperbole." Also "black humor."

Bitch_PhD doesn't think that the reasons the woman with the prescription needed the scrip were relevant, so she's not mentioning them.

Cross-posted at Bitch PhD

Altamedic

Altamedic

High Level, AB
September 2006

MAY 31, 2007 04:08 PM

shit i agree, their licenses and right to won a pharmacy should be taken away. what a bunch of morons!

RileyStClair

RileyStClair

Los Angeles, CA
September 2006

MAY 31, 2007 04:09 PM

and i thought pharmacists who didn't carry plan b were bad.
this guy is in a class of his own.

i bet he still sells condoms, though.

hor

hor

USA
June 2005

MAY 31, 2007 04:11 PM



*This is what is known as "hyperbole." Also "black humor."



Believe it or not, not everyone makes it to the end. This might work better as the opening sentence.

Oh wait...

Moonrabbit

Moonrabbit

Vancouver, BC
February 2005

MAY 31, 2007 04:34 PM

See!? They're trying to destroy the fucking world! Being against abortion is one thing, but prevention all together?!
They want to see this planet overpopulated, gassed, farmed to a barren waste!
I swear they want the apocalypse to come.

CherryCoke

CherryCoke

Derry, NH
May 2007

MAY 31, 2007 04:39 PM

That's a good way to lose a lot of business, fast.
Even though I'm not on any form of birth control, I wouldn't take any of my prescriptions there anymore.

almostfamous

almostfamous

NEWSWIRE

United Kingdom

MAY 31, 2007 04:46 PM

Sometimes I think there might be a sensible message in your articles, but then I read the OMG ALL THIS IS MOTIVATED BY HATRED OF WOMEN part and remember that the odds on what I'm reading being remotely representative of the facts is terribly slim, and I can't believe a word you've written, because you've been proven to be so blindingly biased so many times. I really, really, think you would reach a much bigger audience, and find a much more receptive audience, if you could just sit down, do some research, and do your best to write a balanced article.

KushielsScion

KushielsScion

Gardendale, AL
May 2004

MAY 31, 2007 05:00 PM

It is an issue of property rights. A woman can do what she wishes with her body. A pharmacist can do what he or she wishes with his or her pharmacy.

Should we also complain that vegetarians refuse to sell meat in their grocery stores?

If this pharmacist is willing to have business suffer at the expense of some idiotic moral ideal, then by all fucking means. Yeah, it's inconvient for the women who had been purchasing their birth control there, but since when does anyone have a right to convienence?

Furthermore, having a license to do something does not meannyou have to do it.

TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

Cambridge, MA
November 2003

MAY 31, 2007 05:12 PM

rampage121584 said:
It is an issue of property rights. A woman can do what she wishes with her body. A pharmacist can do what he or she wishes with his or her pharmacy.



Pharmacists are a component of drug regulation, not a business in the normal sense. The government restricts RX only drugs, making them impossible to just get. To allow the citizenry to maintain access to the controlled medications which they need, doctors send patients to pharmacists, which are more or less licensed dispatch centers for the government regulated goods. The doctor makes the call on what medication the patients need, the patients receive it via the pharmacy. The middleman does not get a say in the health of an individual. A better analogy to your vegan grocer would be that allowing a pharmacy to withhold treatment is rather like a nurse who refuses to medicate the patient as the doctor has ordered.

ericwine

ericwine

Charlotte Hall, MD
January 2007

MAY 31, 2007 05:15 PM

For the most part I agree fully with rampage121584... however, looking at both sides of the issue, I think you could make a case that refusing to fill a prescription constitutes practicing medicine without a medical license.

almightymabel

almightymabel

San Diego, CA
November 2006

MAY 31, 2007 05:15 PM

rampage121584 said:
It is an issue of property rights. A woman can do what she wishes with her body. A pharmacist can do what he or she wishes with his or her pharmacy.

Should we also complain that vegetarians refuse to sell meat in their grocery stores?

If this pharmacist is willing to have business suffer at the expense of some idiotic moral ideal, then by all fucking means. Yeah, it's inconvient for the women who had been purchasing their birth control there, but since when does anyone have a right to convienence?

Furthermore, having a license to do something does not meannyou have to do it.



couldn't have said it better myself

Ridley

Ridley

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

MAY 31, 2007 05:16 PM

almostfamous said:
Sometimes I think there might be a sensible message in your articles, but then I read the OMG ALL THIS IS MOTIVATED BY HATRED OF WOMEN part and remember that the odds on what I'm reading being remotely representative of the facts is terribly slim, and I can't believe a word you've written, because you've been proven to be so blindingly biased so many times. I really, really, think you would reach a much bigger audience, and find a much more receptive audience, if you could just sit down, do some research, and do your best to write a balanced article.



agreed. I see the bias against women, but your stories are annoying rather than just informative Bitch PhD.

TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

Cambridge, MA
November 2003

MAY 31, 2007 05:17 PM

ericwine said:
For the most part I agree fully with rampage121584... however, looking at both sides of the issue, I think you could make a case that refusing to fill a prescription constitutes practicing medicine without a medical license.



If we allow a Southern Baptist-run pharmacy to withhold birth control, maybe we should start licensing Scientologist pharmacists to withhold anti-depressants, or licensing Christian scientists to withhold everything but holy water.

Ridley

Ridley

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

MAY 31, 2007 05:17 PM

TheRedBaron said:

rampage121584 said:
It is an issue of property rights. A woman can do what she wishes with her body. A pharmacist can do what he or she wishes with his or her pharmacy.



Pharmacists are a component of drug regulation, not a business in the normal sense. The government restricts RX only drugs, making them impossible to just get. To allow the citizenry to maintain access to the controlled medications which they need, doctors send patients to pharmacists, which are more or less licensed dispatch centers for the government regulated goods. The doctor makes the call on what medication the patients need, the patients receive it via the pharmacy. The middleman does not get a say in the health of an individual. A better analogy to your vegan grocer would be that allowing a pharmacy to withhold treatment is rather like a nurse who refuses to medicate the patient as the doctor has ordered.



agreed.

grayness

grayness

USA
January 2006

MAY 31, 2007 05:18 PM

I disagree with their choice, I agree with anyone who would do longer shop there- but I completely disagree with the notion that it would be a good thing for the state to take away their license.

The law and politics are sledgehammers. Simple social and market action can be more of a scalpel, and accomplish the same results far more gracefully. If you're afraid to allow this individual to be censured through other people's individual choices, it implies to me that you have very little respect for personal freedom... except when it suits you.

TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

Cambridge, MA
November 2003

MAY 31, 2007 05:19 PM

rampage121584 said:
Yeah, it's inconvient for the women who had been purchasing their birth control there, but since when does anyone have a right to convienence?



which ENTIRELY neglects the issue that someone outside of a major city might only have access to a single pharmacy.

No, withholding treatment is just completely unethical. If they want to impose their religious ethics, the should have become pastors or politicians.

Okay. I am finished.

TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

Cambridge, MA
November 2003

MAY 31, 2007 05:21 PM

grayness said:
The law and politics are sledgehammers. Simple social and market action can be more of a scalpel, and accomplish the same results far more gracefully. If you're afraid to allow this individual to be censured through other people's individual choices, it implies to me that you have very little respect for personal freedom... except when it suits you.



That, or we don't have faith in the perfect functioning of economists 'invisible hand' arguments, particularly when it endangers people's health.

Okay. Done. Leaving. For real.

MamaJiff

MamaJiff

Hope, RI
March 2006

MAY 31, 2007 05:31 PM

I bet this guy is going to start doing back door basement abortion, and what better way to kick off a new business like that than take away the towns contraceptives....whats next no condoms?? STD's and babies for all in the town of Great Falls, Montana.

Cassiel

Cassiel

Aurora, CO
September 2004

MAY 31, 2007 05:32 PM

folks, this is coming from Montana. Crazy shit like this is required by state law there.

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

MAY 31, 2007 05:33 PM

I will show my disgust by never shopping there again.

Toku666

Toku666

Columbus, OH
May 2004

MAY 31, 2007 05:39 PM

Ahhhhhhhhhh, another Bitch_PhD article, another gaggle of people exposing their ignorance to the rampant anti-feminism inherent in Western culture.

Oh yeah, but it's worse "OVER THERE" so it must be just fine here. whatever

Kudos on bringing this one up, Bitch_PhD, because this type of thing is happening in a lot of places. An acquaintance of mine who actually has medical need for her particular birth control prescription had this happen to her, and it was extremely traumatic.

That's right, Junior Free-Marketers, women don't only take oral contraceptives so they can fuck like minks. Sometimes doctors prescribe it for other stuff. Guess who doesn't know the difference: pharmacists.

So they need to do their job, or quit and do something else if they feel it interferes with their morality.

Trahern

Trahern

United Kingdom
March 2003

MAY 31, 2007 05:56 PM

I think there's a difference between a pro-lifer and a sexist. That said, pro-lifers usually busy themselves with abortion rather than contraception, and I'm also curious to know if they sell condoms.

nonverbal

nonverbal

Edmonton, AB
July 2006

MAY 31, 2007 06:03 PM

TheRedBaron said:

rampage121584 said:
It is an issue of property rights. A woman can do what she wishes with her body. A pharmacist can do what he or she wishes with his or her pharmacy.



Pharmacists are a component of drug regulation, not a business in the normal sense. The government restricts RX only drugs, making them impossible to just get. To allow the citizenry to maintain access to the controlled medications which they need, doctors send patients to pharmacists, which are more or less licensed dispatch centers for the government regulated goods. The doctor makes the call on what medication the patients need, the patients receive it via the pharmacy. The middleman does not get a say in the health of an individual. A better analogy to your vegan grocer would be that allowing a pharmacy to withhold treatment is rather like a nurse who refuses to medicate the patient as the doctor has ordered.




Here in Alberta, it actually just started that pharmacists now have prescribing power. I believe it's the first time anywhere for this kind of "scope of practice". But you know other areas will likely now follow. They can actually refuse a doctor's rx, obviously with sound reasoning needed.

I am pro-choice, but believe they are business people who can run their company as they see fit. Some pharmacies choose not to sell cigarettes because they see it as a conflict of interest. Others probably sell smokes just so they can increase their healthcare sales.

AndersWolleck

AndersWolleck

Astoria, NY
February 2003

MAY 31, 2007 06:04 PM

when i open my comic book store, i'm not carrying any fucking manga

Roethke

Roethke

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

MAY 31, 2007 06:21 PM

Salon mentions this as well.

Worth noting that the woman in question was trying to get pills to treat a condition, and could no longer concieve children anyway.

Birth control pills are prescribed for reasons other than their primary purpose. That a business licenses to dispense medicine refuses to dispense such medicine is shameful. When agreeing to run a pharmacy, you agree to sell medicine, your personal opinions about the medicine itself shouldn't play into it.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 15

Next