Another Moral Dilemma For You To Feast On

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

The action of some other person does not magically obligate a person to attend a course, stock a product, or sell it in a particular way

Yes, it does. The healthcare system has obligations built into it. Psychiatrists, doctors,and EMT's are obligated to do certain things, based on the actions of others. Pharmacists are part of health care and should be treated as such.

Nope, we've been over this: your desire for people to behave in a certain manner does not trump their right to decide for themselves.

You're being incredibly callous by siding with the right to withhold healthcare over the right of women to have reproductive rights.

You're being disingenuous. Supporting the right of a woman to decide what courses to take and how to run her business does not mean anything about opposing reproductive rights.

[Greed and Death]

The action of some other person does not magically obligate a person to attend a course, stock a product, or sell it in a particular way

Yes, it does. The healthcare system has obligations built into it. Psychiatrists, doctors,and EMT's are obligated to do certain things, based on the actions of others. Pharmacists are part of health care and should be treated as such. You're being incredibly callous by siding with the right to withhold healthcare over the right of women to have reproductive rights.

No one is going to die from lack of Plan B pills. I think we can let the pharmacist make her choice. New Zealand has mandatory paid sick days and a bus system that will get a woman to the next town. Its not a grave endangerment of rights, it is a inconvenience and nothing more.

[Rossene]

Placeholder text.

[Costa Fierro]

If the resources are available it might be better to build another pharmacy or a family planning center.

The latter would probably be better than another pharmacy, as the district doesn't have one when neighboring districts do.

If the resources are not, then the pharmacist may be obliged to provide the pills over the couner and, to compensate the extra costs she is imposing over the town, may have to pay a daily fine for each day she refuses to comply, the aditional resources obtained this way may be used to provide contraceptives free or with reduced charges to the populace or to buy the pharmacist's shop, which now should be devalued.

Well clearly you haven't bothered reading any of the posts in this thread or the posts where I have explained the following: the contraceptives are free if they are a prescription because the government funds prescription drugs. Imposing a fine for something she is legally entitled to do to make drugs that are already free seems a bit moronic.

[Zoice]

Yes, it does. The healthcare system has obligations built into it. Psychiatrists, doctors,and EMT's are obligated to do certain things, based on the actions of others. Pharmacists are part of health care and should be treated as such.

Nope, we've been over this: your desire for people to behave in a certain manner does not trump their right to decide for themselves. [/qupte]

Firefighters, Doctors, Police Officers... When you're a public servant doing an important job, you're required to do it right, or not do it at all. It's high time that pharmacists joined that group of public servants.

You're being disingenuous. Supporting the right of a woman to decide what courses to take and how to run her business does not mean anything about opposing reproductive rights.

Bull fucking shit. Reproductive healthcare has to be available to anyone that needs it. That's the bottom line.

[Costa Fierro]

Bull fucking shit. Reproductive healthcare has to be available to anyone that needs it. That's the bottom line.

And what is it about having it as a prescription reduces the availability of it? You can get it from a doctor at almost any time of the day or a health nurse and (if they had one), a family planning center. It's not the sort of system whereby you can't get it if it's over the counter, especially here where OTC drugs are not subsidized.

[Zoice]

Bull fucking shit. Reproductive healthcare has to be available to anyone that needs it. That's the bottom line.

And what is it about having it as a prescription reduces the availability of it? You can get it from a doctor at almost any time of the day or a health nurse and (if they had one), a family planning center. It's not the sort of system whereby you can't get it if it's over the counter, especially here where OTC drugs are not subsidized.

Prescription is an unnecessary extra step that only serves to block access to the drug. It isn't helping anyone.

[Costa Fierro]

Prescription is an unnecessary extra step that only serves to block access to the drug. It isn't helping anyone.

How does it block access? A doctor isn't going to refuse a prescription and would likely encourage the person to come back for further checks and screening for things like STI's and general health. Not to mention a greater inhibitor of access to drugs is cost. This contraceptive wouldn't be subsidized if it was sold OTC and would be sold for a price that is out of reach of most young people and those who are poor. A doctor's visit is more than likely less expensive than it would be buying it OTC.

[Crockerland]

Prescription is an unnecessary extra step that only serves to block access to the drug.

It doesn't.

[Zoice]

Prescription is an unnecessary extra step that only serves to block access to the drug. It isn't helping anyone.

How does it block access? A doctor isn't going to refuse a prescription and would likely encourage the person to come back for further checks and screening for things like STI's and general health. Not to mention a greater inhibitor of access to drugs is cost. This contraceptive wouldn't be subsidized if it was sold OTC and would be sold for a price that is out of reach of most young people and those who are poor. A doctor's visit is more than likely less expensive than it would be buying it OTC.

I would suggest that this drug should be subsidized IT as well.

Women that are being abused or that do not have the time for a short notice doctors appointment cannot get a prescription, and there are some doctors that,like this pharmacist, don't want to give out contraception and just wouldn't give the prescription no matter what.

[Costa Fierro]

I would suggest that this drug should be subsidized IT as well.

It is if it's done through a prescription.

Women that are being abused or that do not have the time for a short notice doctors appointment cannot get a prescription, and there are some doctors that,like this pharmacist, don't want to give out contraception and just wouldn't give the prescription no matter what.

Two things. One, women being abused are more likely to be helped out of an abusive relationship (not to mention that it's reasonably easy to get an abortion in New Zealand) and secondly, doctors here are more legally bound to grant prescriptions than pharmacists are to make certain drugs over the counter. This isn't like the United States, where doctors can refuse people certain drugs on moral grounds.

[Fartsniffage]

I would suggest that this drug should be subsidized IT as well.

It is if it's done through a prescription.

Women that are being abused or that do not have the time for a short notice doctors appointment cannot get a prescription, and there are some doctors that,like this pharmacist, don't want to give out contraception and just wouldn't give the prescription no matter what.

Two things. One, women being abused are more likely to be helped out of an abusive relationship (not to mention that it's reasonably easy to get an abortion in New Zealand) and secondly, doctors here are more legally bound to grant prescriptions than pharmacists are to make certain drugs over the counter. This isn't like the United States, where doctors can refuse people certain drugs on moral grounds.

So it's okay to force doctors to do things that go against their moral code but not pharmacists? What's the difference?

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Nope, we've been over this: your desire for people to behave in a certain manner does not trump their right to decide for themselves. [/qupte]

Firefighters, Doctors, Police Officers... When you're a public servant doing an important job, you're required to do it right, or not do it at all. It's high time that pharmacists joined that group of public servants.

Bull fucking shit.

Is how you describe a statement of truth...that certainly tells me a lot about you.

Reproductive healthcare has to be available to anyone that needs it. That's the bottom line.

And yet you refuse to do so. That's called hypocrisy

[Costa Fierro]

So it's okay to force doctors to do things that go against their moral code but not pharmacists? What's the difference?

Well doctors in New Zealand are essentially bound by an ethics code drawn up by the Medical Council of New Zealand whereas pharmacists have much more leeway because, I guess it's because pharmacies are legally seen as a business and therefore have less obligations, the only one being to legally provide prescription drugs.

A doctor's expectations and obligations can be explained here. This is useful for medical students and for patients, especially as the latter may be unaware of what is considered good conduct. There are clauses which cover personal beliefs on page 13.

[Fartsniffage]

So it's okay to force doctors to do things that go against their moral code but not pharmacists? What's the difference?

Well doctors in New Zealand are essentially bound by an ethics code drawn up by the Medical Council of New Zealand whereas pharmacists have much more leeway because, I guess it's because pharmacies are legally seen as a business and therefore have less obligations, the only one being to legally provide prescription drugs.

A doctor's expectations and obligations can be explained here. This is useful for medical students and for patients, especially as the latter may be unaware of what is considered good conduct. There are clauses which cover personal beliefs on page 13.

That's an answer without actually answering the question. I'll rephrase to avoid misunderstanding.

Given that both doctors and pharmacists are integral in promoting the health and wellbeing of a society, why do you think that one should have different requirements when it comes to the provision of their services based on their personal beliefs?

[Costa Fierro]

That's an answer without actually answering the question. I'll rephrase to avoid misunderstanding.

Given that both doctors and pharmacists are integral in promoting the health and wellbeing of a society, why do you think that one should have different requirements when it comes to the provision of their services based on their personal beliefs?

Well firstly, I've never made the argument that there should be a difference between doctors and pharmacists in terms of requirements for provision of services.

Secondly, I've spent most of the time in this thread either clarifying what is actually happening, because most people don't seem to understand how the New Zealand system works, or that she is somehow refusing to stock/deny the sale of contraceptives when this isn't true. There are a lot of people who seem to be under the impression that refusing to sell a product over the counter is basically the same as denial of service.

[Tmutarakhan]

Yes, it does. The healthcare system has obligations built into it. Psychiatrists, doctors,and EMT's are obligated to do certain things, based on the actions of others. Pharmacists are part of health care and should be treated as such.

Nope, we've been over this: your desire for people to behave in a certain manner does not trump their right to decide for themselves./quote]
Her choice is that she can do the job of a pharmacist, or not. She has chosen not to. Somebody else will.

[Zoice]

Reproductive healthcare has to be available to anyone that needs it. That's the bottom line.

And yet you refuse to do so. That's called hypocrisy

I think that politicians should not be bribed. The fact that I myself am not a politician is not hypocritical.

I think that policemen should not escalate situations and shoot people when they don't have to. The fact that I'm not a policeman is not hypocritical.

And I think that doctors and pharmacists should be helping people, not making religious moral decisions that can harm them. The fact that I'm not a pharmacist is not hypocritical.

[Costa Fierro]

Her choice is that she can do the job of a pharmacist, or not. She has chosen not to. Somebody else will.

She is doing the job of a pharmacist. She isn't denying the dispersal of the contraceptive period, she is simply refusing to sell it over the counter. It is still available through prescription.

Refusing to sell something over the counter isn't tantamount to denial of service.

[Zoice]

So it's okay to force doctors to do things that go against their moral code but not pharmacists? What's the difference?

Well doctors in New Zealand are essentially bound by an ethics code drawn up by the Medical Council of New Zealand whereas pharmacists have much more leeway because, I guess it's because pharmacies are legally seen as a business and therefore have less obligations, the only one being to legally provide prescription drugs.

A doctor's expectations and obligations can be explained here. This is useful for medical students and for patients, especially as the latter may be unaware of what is considered good conduct. There are clauses which cover personal beliefs on page 13.

That is the problem I have with this situation, pharmacies are a part of healthcare and human rights. The right of a baker to not cater to a gay wedding isn't the same as the (non-existent) right of a pharmacist to not give out pills. If she needs to take a course to give out those pills, then she should take that course. You have a responsibility to be a good and qualified pharmacist if you have that job.

[Zoice]

Her choice is that she can do the job of a pharmacist, or not. She has chosen not to. Somebody else will.

She is doing the job of a pharmacist. She isn't denying the dispersal of the contraceptive period, she is simply refusing to sell it over the counter. It is still available through prescription.

Refusing to sell something over the counter isn't tantamount to denial of service.

It isn't like denial of service, it's more analogous to waiting periods before abortion procedures. It isn't denying service, it's just putting more and more barriers in the way of women's reproductive rights, and because of those barriers, some people are going to be hurt.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Nope, we've been over this: your desire for people to behave in a certain manner does not trump their right to decide for themselves./quote]
Her choice is that she can do the job of a pharmacist, or not. She has chosen not to. Somebody else will.

She has chosen to do her job. If people want someone else, then someone can come in and do a different job.

[Costa Fierro]

That is the problem I have with this situation, pharmacies are a part of healthcare and human rights. The right of a baker to not cater to a gay wedding isn't the same as the (non-existent) right of a pharmacist to not give out pills. If she needs to take a course to give out those pills, then she should take that course. You have a responsibility to be a good and qualified pharmacist if you have that job.

Oh for fuck's sake people.

Let me explain it one more fucking time.

She isn't refusing to disperse the contraceptives. The contraceptives are still available through prescription because all pharmacists are LEGALLY obligated to give out pills on prescription. The course is required to sell them as over the counter. How much more clearer do I have to make it?

[Zoice]

That is the problem I have with this situation, pharmacies are a part of healthcare and human rights. The right of a baker to not cater to a gay wedding isn't the same as the (non-existent) right of a pharmacist to not give out pills. If she needs to take a course to give out those pills, then she should take that course. You have a responsibility to be a good and qualified pharmacist if you have that job.

Oh for fuck's sake people.

Let me explain it one more fucking time.

She isn't refusing to disperse the contraceptives. The contraceptives are still available through prescription because all pharmacists are LEGALLY obligated to give out pills on prescription. The course is required to sell them as over the counter. How much more clearer do I have to make it?

You've made yourself very clear. I know that she's giving them out to people with a prescription. The fact that she isn't giving them out OTC is the problem I have here.

[Costa Fierro]

It isn't like denial of service, it's more analogous to waiting periods before abortion procedures. It isn't denying service, it's just putting more and more barriers in the way of women's reproductive rights, and because of those barriers, some people are going to be hurt.

There aren't any barriers as I have already explained. Do you actually read what I post?