Wal-Mart must stock morning-after pill !!

[wardmd]

You know, maybe Wal-Mart can, simply, REFUSE to accept ANY Health Insurance programs (EVERYONE PAYS CASH for their prescriptions)...

 

Then only wealthy Republicans (and Hollywood Liberal Elites) can get prescriptions at Wal-Mart. You KNOW Hollywood Liberal Elites won't shop at Wal-Mart, 'cause Wal-Mart is "anti-Union", so that leaves Wealthy Republicans. So, you see Wal-Mart will never have to fill those prescriptions, will they, CES? 'Cause we all know that Republicans don't believe in birth control, do they, CES?

 

Moron!

[snafu]

The government should not regulate what a company sells or stocks.

I think everybody agrees on that. The fact that it is a controversial product only puts an added spin on it.

 

The government should not impose a law that someone deems immoral to themselves or their religion.

That’s the crocs of the biscuit.

I can understand if a doctor, Pharmacist, or a business feels it is immoral to do something, they should not be forced to.

 

So by both reasons the government should stay out of the sale of such drugs. It's none of their business other than if its safe to take or not.

On that note the FDA is needed like CES stated. It would be ludicrous not to have safety standards in place. The rules of the FDA should be more lineate for drugs that could save lives that would otherwise parish without any intervention

[Lethalfind]

Wardmd, I'm glad your not my doctor.

 

I need to hear from a doctor what is good and bad for my body, what I don't need is a lesson in morality, thats for the ministers and priests.

 

Your personal beliefs, whatever they are are your right but when you start pushing them on others, thinking you should be able to control what other people do, thats when I have a problem.

I don't care what other people do as long as it doesn't intrude into my life. If you don't believe in birth control and you want to have 20 kids AND you can support them then by all means, get to it. HOWEVER you have no right to make that judgement for me by withholding certain types of treatment that are accepted practice and completely legal in the US. If you can draw the line here then you have no business treating patients and maybe you should have attended seminary rather then medical school.

 

My geuss is that IF you are indeed a practicing doctor, you don't advertise your beliefs because you know you would loose patients...

[Lethalfind]

The thing that has always concerned me about this issue is that IF someone like a doctor or pharmacist objects to the way the morning after pill works and is allowed to stop offering it, birth control pills are not that far behind. They have similar ways of working in that there is a chance that a fertilized egg will not implant and be expelled with a womans period.

 

How birth control pills work.

 

"The birth control pill works primarily by blocking ovulation (release of an egg). If there is no egg to meet the sperm, pregnancy cannot occur. The pill also works by making cervical mucous thick and unreceptive to sperm, slowing tubal function which has to move the egg down the tube to meet the sperm, and by making the lining of the endometrium unreceptive to implantation of a fertilized egg should one get as far as the uterus. In general, women do not ovulate until at least 10 days after stopping birth control pills."

 

How the morning after pill works.

 

"There are two types of morning after pill available. One morning after pill uses the hormones estrogen and progestin - the same hormones used in standard birth control. The other morning after pill uses progestin only. The morning after pill acts to delay ovulation, prevents fertilization, or inhibits implantation by altering the endometrium. It is not effective if a woman is pregnant and cannot terminate an established pregnancy. The morning after pill is most effective during the first 24 hours after having unprotected sex, but can be effective for up to 72 hours."

 

about.com

[TheJenn88]

In my personal opinion, owning a branch of a massive corporation like wal-mart, you are sort of surrendering any personal morals that you may have. You are there to cater to the public, despite how you, or your employees may personally feel.

 

It is not the business of the owner to feel infringed upon for another woman choosing to use the morning after pill.

 

I'm still hesitant. Saying that wal-mart should be forced to stock certain medications is a very strong and blunt statement that could either solve a lot of problems, or push the pharmeceutical business down a very slippery slope.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that an owner of Wal-mart shouldn't hold back on supplying certain drugs because ultimately they have very little relation with their customer base on a personal level anyways. But when you're a Wal-mart, I think it's ridiculous to try and regulate acceptable products for a personal reason when your customer base isn't really defined, and instead it's very wide.

 

An average person should be able to count on a pharmacy stocking a legal drug if they need it - moral conflicts of the employees aside. It's not their business. Afterall, a store exists to serve its customers.

[hugo]

I can't wait to see the world under wardmd and hugo... Please NO!!!

 

Need your prescription filled? No problem; well...kind of...

 

Just go to your local pharmacy, present your prescription, find out the local pharmacist or the corporation they work for, doesn't believe in dispensing your legally prescribed antibiotics because the same company also manufactures drugs to aid in healing sex reassignment surgeries, or hormone replacement, or birth control, or the Plan B pill, or whatever little trivial thing it is that gets their respective panties in a fucking wad! Hell, they may just not even like you and shouldn't have to sell medicine to you because your black or white, or Chinese or Jewish or an immigrant or poor or or or ...

 

So you have to leave and go someplace else, always to be subjected to some arbitrary and religious/bullshit scrutiny in order to obtain MEDICINE.

 

hugo & wardmd - HAVE YOU LOST YOUR FUCKING MINDS?!?!?!?

 

Obviously...

 

Somehow I think the free market will supply my antibiotics. There is something called the internet, and something called UPS, even if I lived in Hicksville, Alabama I got plenty of suppliers to choose from. Your scenario is ludicrous.

 

From:

 

Theory, Evidence and Examples of FDA Harm

 

 

Three bodies of evidence indicate that the costs of FDA requirements exceed the benefits. In other words, three bodies of evidence suggest that the FDA kills and harms, on net. First, we compare pre-1962 drug approval times and rates of drug introduction with post-1962 approval times and rates of introduction. Second, we compare drug availability and safety in the United States with the same in other countries. Third, we compare the relatively unregulated market of off-label drug uses in the United States with the on-label market. In the final section, before turning to reform options, we also discuss the evidence showing that the costs of FDA advertising restrictions exceed the benefits.

 

 

 

 

Comparison with Other Countries

 

Deaths owing to drug lag have been numbered in the hundreds of thousands. Wardell (1978a) estimated that practolol, a drug in the beta-blocking family, could save ten thousand lives a year if allowed in the United States. Although the FDA allowed a first beta-blocker, propranolol, in 1968, three years after that drug had been available in Europe, it waited until 1978 to allow the use of propranolol for the treatment of hypertension and angina pectoris, its most important indications. Despite clinical evidence as early as 1974, only in 1981 did the FDA allow a second beta-blocker, timolo, for prevention of a second heart attack. The agency's withholding of beta-blockers was alone responsible for probably tens of thousands of deaths (on this general issue see Gieringer 1985; Kazman 1990).

 

Now, getting a drug when the FDA refuses to let the free market work is a bit bigger problem.

[hugo]

Afterall, a store exists to serve its customers.

 

Wrong, a store exists to increase the wealth of it's owners.

[hugo]

ahhh... so once again we change the meaning of something to suit our needs...

 

interesting

First they were socialists. They could not win with that label. They stole an honorable word, liberal, and turned it into a synonym for socialist. People figured it out. Now they are calling themselves progressives. Manure, by any name, still smells like shit.

[TheJenn88]

Wrong, a store exists to increase the wealth of it's owners.

 

You're starting to sound like Tori, with such a decisive statement. "Wrong.... wrong.....wrong."

 

Might you concede to it being a matter of opinion?

 

I base my opinion on the fact that the more customers are happy, the more likely business is going to boom. So you could argue it both ways, I guess. Just depends which way you want to look at it from.

[smutt butt]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060214/ts_nm/life_contraception_walmart_dc

 

What the hell is this ?? Forced abortions ?? I am not so sure you can call the morning after pill a contraceptive... but I really believe these pills should NOT be sold at Wal-Mart

[snafu]

You're starting to sound like Tori, with such a decisive statement. "Wrong.... wrong.....wrong."

 

Might you concede to it being a matter of opinion?

 

I base my opinion on the fact that the more customers are happy, the more likely business is going to boom. So you could argue it both ways, I guess. Just depends which way you want to look at it from.

 

 

 

Well Hugo's right. The company solely exists to make money. If it takes catering to people's whims, then they need to do that to make money. Otherwise I think they call it a non-profit organization.

But you can't make me murder someone if I don't want to. If the laws are screwed up so that I must. I will have to dis-obey the law!

 

Fight for what you belive in!

[ImWithStupid]

I think Wal-Mart is lying when they are citing low demand, Wal-Mart is based in the Bible Belt. There are alot of things Wal-Mart won't sell for "religious reasons", have you browsed through their music collection for instance?

 

I don't know about whether they are lying or not but I agree with you about Wal-Mart's "moral stand" that they take with some items.

 

In my personal opinion, owning a branch of a massive corporation like wal-mart, you are sort of surrendering any personal morals that you may have. You are there to cater to the public, despite how you, or your employees may personally feel.

 

I agree with this also and Wal-Mart has shown this many times. I know of several music CD's in the past that Wal-Mart has said they wouldn't carry due to the content but amazingly these morals fade when the CD becomes a top seller. All of a sudden the content must be OK because the shelves are full of it.

 

Wal-Mart's morals end when there are dollars to be had. Fuck Wal-Mart.

 

As for whether they should carry the prescription or not, if that's part of the FDA requirements for a pharmacy to be able to fill all legal prescriptions, I say follow the rules or close the pharmacy. Pharmacies are a "private business" but need to be closely regulated. I'm not sure what the reason for the requirement to be able to fill any legal prescription is but I believe that it's probably valid and came out of some abuse of some kind in the past.

[hugo]

Wal-Mart's morals end when there are dollars to be had.

 

EXACTLY, AND THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING...MAXIMIZING SHAREHOLDER WEALTH. They make a calculated decision that not filling certain prescriptions will gain them more sales from the pro-life fanatics than they will lose from the I want to kill my baby and you got to help me fanatics.

[hugo]

You're starting to sound like Tori, with such a decisive statement. "Wrong.... wrong.....wrong."

 

Might you concede to it being a matter of opinion?

 

I base my opinion on the fact that the more customers are happy, the more likely business is going to boom. So you could argue it both ways, I guess. Just depends which way you want to look at it from.

 

Wal-Mart has decided that not filling certain prescriptions makes many of their customers happy. I do agree some bimbo who is too stupid to find another supplier, if Wal-Mart exercises what should be it's right under natural law to refuse to fill her prescription, don't need to be having children.

 

Every business class teaches that a corporations purpose is to increase shareholder wealth. I used to go to a Mexican Restaurant which had excellent service and the best Mexican food I ever ate. Wrong location . They served their customers quite well. Did not make money. No longer in business. Maybe they should have sold abortificants on the side.

[ImWithStupid]

EXACTLY, AND THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING...MAXIMIZING SHAREHOLDER WEALTH. They make a calculated decision that not filling certain prescriptions will gain them more sales from the pro-life fanatics than they will lose from the I want to kill my baby and you got to help me fanatics.

 

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them trying to make money. They shouldn't pretend to have a moral stand though. It's just like the stupid "Happy Holidays" shit at Christmas time. They act as if they are on the side of right wing Christian groups when it comes to music selections, movies and this morning after pill but why didn't they take that stand and allow their employees to say, "Merry Christmas". They didn't want to get sued.

 

If money is your only motive then admit it. Fuck Wal-Mart.

[hugo]

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them trying to make money. They shouldn't pretend to have a moral stand though. It's just like the stupid "Happy Holidays" shit at Christmas time. They act as if they are on the side of right wing Christian groups when it comes to music selections, movies and this morning after pill but why didn't they take that stand and allow their employees to say, "Merry Christmas". They didn't want to get sued.

 

If money is your only motive then admit it. Fuck Wal-Mart.

 

That would be poor PR and would reduce profits. It is Wal-Mart's duty to maximize shareholder wealth, not live up to George Washington's mythical never tell a lie standard.

[ImWithStupid]

That would be poor PR and would reduce profits. It is Wal-Mart's duty to maximize shareholder wealth, not live up to George Washington's mythical never tell a lie standard.

 

I know that. I, myself would have more respect for a person or company that actually stands for their beliefs as opposed to riding both sides of the fence to appease the masses.

 

I know that it wouldn't be as profitable for them to take a stand but, I understand the motives to the action but I also don't have to like it.

 

I don't expect them to do anything different. I'm just voicing my preference.

[TheJenn88]

Well Hugo's right. The company solely exists to make money. If it takes catering to people's whims, then they need to do that to make money. Otherwise I think they call it a non-profit organization.

But you can't make me murder someone if I don't want to. If the laws are screwed up so that I must. I will have to dis-obey the law!

 

 

Fight for what you belive in!

 

Yeah the company exists to make money. You'd be a damn ruddy businessman if you didn't make profit. But the company exists because it has a market to cater to. A store can open with the intent to sell, but may only stock ...(insert absolutely useless item here). But because they don't have a customer base, they're not going to profit very much.

 

I see it as: They exist to serve customers with the intent to profit.

 

Same difference?

[TheJenn88]

Wal-Mart has decided that not filling certain prescriptions makes many of their customers happy. I do agree some bimbo who is too stupid to find another supplier, if Wal-Mart exercises what should be it's right under natural law to refuse to fill her prescription, don't need to be having children.

 

Every business class teaches that a corporations purpose is to increase shareholder wealth. I used to go to a Mexican Restaurant which had excellent service and the best Mexican food I ever ate. Wrong location . They served their customers quite well. Did not make money. No longer in business. Maybe they should have sold abortificants on the side.

 

I agree and know that a huge factor in making money is location.

 

But the thought of a customer boycotting a store because of a product they sell, and wouldn't use, boggles my mind. People like that should be put down :| It ain't their damn business to feel offended by what the rest of wal-mart's customer base is doing. I see more of a problem with the customers than wal-mart itself! It's as ridiculous as a vegetarian not shopping at a general grocery store because they sell meat.

 

I'm not versed enough in economics and what not, but would Wal-mart take a serious financial blow if they all stocked this drug? I can't get over the fact that people would get their panties in a knot over this...

 

damn bible thumpers

[hugo]

I agree and know that a huge factor in making money is location.

 

But the thought of a customer boycotting a store because of a product they sell, and wouldn't use, boggles my mind. People like that should be put down :| It ain't their damn business to feel offended by what the rest of wal-mart's customer base is doing. I see more of a problem with the customers than wal-mart itself! It's as ridiculous as a vegetarian not shopping at a general grocery store because they sell meat.

 

I'm not versed enough in economics and what not, but would Wal-mart take a serious financial blow if they all stocked this drug? I can't get over the fact that people would get their panties in a knot over this...

 

damn bible thumpers

 

Nothing kills a debate like agreement.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

Nothing kills a debate like agreement.

 

Put down the crack pipe before you get hurt...

 

Nobody here except maybe snafu (and he doesn't count) is agreeing with you. Moron.

[wardmd]

I agree and know that a huge factor in making money is location.

 

But the thought of a customer boycotting a store because of a product they sell, and wouldn't use, boggles my mind. People like that should be put down :| It ain't their damn business to feel offended by what the rest of wal-mart's customer base is doing. I see more of a problem with the customers than wal-mart itself! It's as ridiculous as a vegetarian not shopping at a general grocery store because they sell meat.

 

I'm not versed enough in economics and what not, but would Wal-mart take a serious financial blow if they all stocked this drug? I can't get over the fact that people would get their panties in a knot over this...

 

damn bible thumpers

The principle of the thing is NOT birth control (Morning After Pill), the principle point is whether the Government can (or should) FORCE a private business to sell (or not sell) ANYTHING...

 

If Wal-Mart (or your corner drug store) decides (for whatever reason) to NOT stock cold remedies, AND, as a result, they lose business (because people decide that they would prefer to take their business elsewhere), well, then good-ol' Mom and Pop corner drug store is going to go out of business...

 

CES attempted to make some idiot point some posts back, about an ONLY doctor in an E.R. not treating someone because they personally disliked the patient... Of couese, that comparison is bogus, because Wal-Mart is NOT the ONLY pharmacy in town - and that's the point...

 

You are FREE to take your business elsewhere... NO ONE is stopping you from going to the Mom and Pop corner drug store to get your morning after pills...

 

Wal-Mart is being targeted because they're a big EVIL corporation which has the audacity to make their OWN decisions on what they will, or will not, sell in their stores (how dare they?).

 

I MIGHT agree with the requirement, forcing Wal-Mart (or any other pharmacy) to fill any prescriptions IF they were the ONLY pharmacy available (but they are not)...

 

I don't give a rats ass if the drug in question is the Morning After Pill, or aspirin... Wal-Mart (and Mom and Pop) have a RIGHT to decide what they will and will not sell...

 

And it's not a matter of the Morning After pill being LEGAL... Wal-Mart doesn't sell a LOT of LEGAL products (that's why there are other stores still in existance even after a Wal-Mart moves into a community).

 

If you want something that they don't sell, go somewhere else (where they sell what you want)... It's that simple.

[hugo]

Put down the crack pipe before you get hurt...

 

Nobody here except maybe snafu (and he doesn't count) is agreeing with you. Moron.

 

The reply was to the quote I supplied of Jenn's, idiot. Go to Moscow and kiss Lenin's ass.

 

Seems like wardmd agrees with me also. It is a question, not of religion, but of private property rights. Transactions should be between two willing parties.

[italiano_Pride]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060214/ts_nm/life_contraception_walmart_dc

 

What the hell is this ?? Forced abortions ??

.

.

 

NEWS FLASH: You don't HAVE to buy the pills, it's strictly CHOICE. They are not FORCING anyone to buy it.

[TheJenn88]

NEWS FLASH: You don't HAVE to buy the pills, it's strictly CHOICE. They are not FORCING anyone to buy it.

 

We've sorta already been through that. Haven't read the whole thread, have you?