Some radical feminist thought..

I have given out many condoms to teens whose parents won't help them have safe sex. I am baffled why. I know I would not be happy to buy my kids condoms, but I will because I love them. It isn't worth putting your values over safety.
 
Dutch Cake said:
I have given out many condoms to teens whose parents won't help them have safe sex. I am baffled why. I know I would not be happy to buy my kids condoms, but I will because I love them. It isn't worth putting your values over safety.
Click to expand...

Do you buy them clean hypodermic needles as well?
 
That'd just be stupid. They can buy their own.

Sex is not on the same level as heroin.
 
merrytrees said:
Ok. All that aside... Aside from environmental issues, there are women who have been denied the pill because their pharmacist had a moral dilemma in handing them over. Do you think that's fair?
Click to expand...
If it isn't illegal then it isn't his place to make that call. No one should have to explain or justify their prescription to a pharmacist. He/she crosses a boundary as a professional if he/she needs justification. He/she is not their doctor.

A person's sexuality is private and complex. It is extremely presumptuous to make a call of that magnitude with someone whom you don't know. Every medication he hands over has the capacity to do damage, and yet the pharmacist typically trusts in these instances. It reveals a prejudice to withhold in an instance when the patient has a prescription. Being on the pill does not mean a person is having reckless sex. It doesn't even mean the person is having sex. There are medical reasons to be on the pill which include hormonal imbalances, endometriosis, etc.

It is my understanding that the *frontal lobe doesn't fully develop until around age 18. That is the judgment center of the brain that regulates emotion and thinks abstractly. This makes many issues problematic for dealing with teenagers. Having them on the pill is a good idea since the repercussions affect so many other lives. It might be that someone could respond to being on the pill as a means to have more careless sex, but I'm not sure that it exactly how people think about it. People who are apt to have a lot of sex without consideration have many other factors go into that lifestyle.


*info from David Sousa's book "How the Brain Learns".
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
then why do insurance companies insist on age 26 before premiums come down?
 
Flavus Aquila said:
Do you buy them clean hypodermic needles as well?
Click to expand...

It isn't my focus. I could, but I would feel like I am aiding someone in a self destructive habit I do not condone. I also a not passing out condoms to every street kid I know. I know I cannot help everyone, but I help those who I care about. I have lost many friends to heroine and I do not tolerate it anymore. I have told my friends that I will not associate with them if they choose to use it. Saddest drug ever.
 
I think it is fair for someone to refuse to give out the pill if it is against their morality; how does your priviledge to choose to take the pill supercede their moral rights?

However, they should also tell the person looking for the pill to go to another pharmacy where the pill will be dispensed by another pharmacist. Usually, businesses have another person on staff who can dispense medication if it goes against moral/ethical considerations of someone like a pharmacist.

The person who takes the pill then gets the medication she deserves, and the pharmacist is allowed to keep to their morality. It's a win-win situation and far as both parties interests are concerned.
 
Last edited:
Azure_Knight said:
I think it is fair for someone to refuse to give out the pill if it is against their morality; how does your priviledge to choose to take the pill supercede their moral rights?
Click to expand...
There is some point at which a person's morals can limit their ability to function in a profession. If someone willingly joins the infantry, but refuses to carry a gun on moral grounds, I agree they shouldn't be forced to carry a gun, but at some point they should change careers. I say this to establish an extreme case of the position I am taking and then to ease it in closer to the issue at hand. By doing this one can see that it is an issue of degree and that a line must be drawn at some point. Then we can determine at which point is fair and in the interest of all individuals. There could also be fireman who thinks it is morally wrong to put out a fire in a meth lab. A guidance counselor could feel it is morally wrong to encourage girls to pursue careers because it undermines family values. A public elementary teacher who feels morally compelled to make his/her students Islamic or Christian. A doctor could decide it is morally wrong to give someone morphine for pain management.

If a person is working in a public capacity, the laws established for that community play a primary role in what that person can do in their position of power. If one individual has a right to something by law in a society, but the person in the position of power chooses to withhold based on personal choice, there is a problem of conflicting rights of two individuals. This is why we have a legal system and laws to maintain a balance of individual rights. If the pharmacist works in a private or religious pharmacy that does not propose to serve the public with equal rights, that is one thing. If it is a public institution, then there are laws to dictate their conduct.

Edit: The crux of the issue of pharmacist vs. patient's moral rights is the power imbalance. The pharmacist is in the position of power. The more power an individual has in society the more impact their personal actions have. Their choices have more power to intrude on another person's rights. Laws are in place to intercede for those with less power in insure equal rights for the individual.
 
Last edited:
Azure_Knight said:
I think it is fair for someone to refuse to give out the pill if it is against their morality; how does your priviledge to choose to take the pill supercede their moral rights?

However, they should also tell the person looking for the pill to go to another pharmacy where the pill will be dispensed by another pharmacist. Usually, businesses have another person on staff who can dispense medication if it goes against moral/ethical considerations of someone like a pharmacist.

The person who takes the pill then gets the medication she deserves, and the pharmacist is allowed to keep to their morality. It's a win-win situation and far as both parties interests are concerned.
Click to expand...

I want to see a MMoore movie where he goes after those pharmacists.

What shits me off is that these pharmacists stock it, but don't give it. It's not a section 4 drug.
 
Julia said:
There is some point at which a person's morals can limit their ability to function in a profession. If someone willingly joins the infantry, but refuses to carry a gun on moral grounds, I agree they shouldn't be forced to carry a gun, but at some point they should change careers. I say this to establish an extreme case of the position I am taking and then to ease it in closer to the issue at hand. By doing this one can see that it is an issue of degree and that a line must be drawn at some point. Then we can determine at which point is fair and in the interest of all individuals. There could also be fireman who thinks it is morally wrong to put out a fire in a meth lab. A guidance counselor could feel it is morally wrong to encourage girls to pursue careers because it undermines family values. A public elementary teacher who feels morally compelled to make his/her students Islamic or Christian. A doctor could decide it is morally wrong to give someone morphine for pain management.

If a person is working in a public capacity, the laws established for that community play a primary role in what that person can do in their position of power. If one individual has a right to something by law in a society, but the person in the position of power chooses to withhold based on personal choice, there is a problem of conflicting rights of two individuals. This is why we have a legal system and laws to maintain a balance of individual rights. If the pharmacist works in a private or religious pharmacy that does not propose to serve the public with equal rights, that is one thing. If it is a public institution, then there are laws to dictate their conduct.

Edit: The crux of the issue of pharmacist vs. patient's moral rights is the power imbalance. The pharmacist is in the position of power. The more power an individual has in society the more impact their personal actions have. Their choices have more power to intrude on another person's rights. Laws are in place to intercede for those with less power in insure equal rights for the individual.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with your sentiments, every single line of it. They mirror my own sentiments.
 
I don't know why it is kept in stock either. But I think you can understand some of the reasons why they might be against giving out the pill.
 
I just can't think of any reason a pharmacist would not distribute the pill. I can only understand in a Catholic way.
 
Azure_Knight said:
However, they should also tell the person looking for the pill to go to another pharmacy where the pill will be dispensed by another pharmacist..
Click to expand...
A point that was made in the links of the articles that I posted above, was that this is a huge pain in the ass for women living in rural areas, where pharmacies are far apart from eachother.

Azure_Knight said:
Usually, businesses have another person on staff who can dispense medication if it goes against moral/ethical considerations of someone like a pharmacist.

The person who takes the pill then gets the medication she deserves, and the pharmacist is allowed to keep to their morality. It's a win-win situation and far as both parties interests are concerned.
Click to expand...
Once again-- if you have a moral dilemma distributing medications (as that is the job) then do not become a pharmacist. Since when should one's moral convictions supercede another's rights??
 
merrytrees said:
A point that was made in the links of the articles that I posted above, was that this is a huge pain in the ass for women living in rural areas, where pharmacies are far apart from eachother.


Once again-- if you have a moral dilemma distributing medications (as that is the job) then do not become a pharmacist. Since when should one's moral convictions supercede another's rights??
Click to expand...

It seems that the pill is a different type of drug than something like heart pills, blood pressure pills and antibiotics. Most drugs a pharmacist dispenses are necessary for health or indeed for life. The pill, however, is a "lifestyle drug" which is not necessary for health in all but a few rare cases, where women could bleed to death if they didn't take it.

It is true that if one cannot on moral grounds take up an essential aspect of a profession, a soldier taking up arms, for instance, then one should not follow that profession. However, a pharmacist essentially dispenses medicines conducive to health, and the administration of "lifestyle drugs" would not seem to be essential to the profession.

So, it seems fair that pharmacists should not be obliged to sell certain drugs and products against their conscience.
 
Last edited:
It would be like someone not giving out anti biotics because it was against their religion. I know some religions do not allow all kinds of medical procedures but that is their choice. Not allowing others to take those opportunities is just wrong. It would be like me not allowing anyone to eat tripe because I don't like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top