Skip to main content

View Diary: Target Stores and Emergency Contraception (77 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But are guns different? (none)
    Target shoose not to sell guns (I'm pretty sure. Guns are perfectly legal, and we have the constitutional right to buy them. Since Target sells other hunting products, should they be forced to sell firearms?
    •  Nice try there with that red herring (none)
      The gun is not a necessity in my life.

      Birth control is a necessity.  It is NOT an item which has substitutes or alternatives (other than the high-failure foams or crap-tacular abstinence).  And, don't even say that abstinence is the right thing to do.  Some people actually get hungry.  "Starving" is not the way to keep pregnancies down.

      Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

      by bronte17 on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 02:22:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Enormous difference (4.00)
      1. pharmacies are places that dispense legally controlled substances, many of which are used to treat life threatening situations. Whether you can buy a gun in a particular place is not a life threatening situation, nor is it a life threatening situation if you have to wait.

      2. pharmacists are professionally licensed and by profession have an ethical and legal responsibility to fill prescriptions written by doctors. There is no code of ethics a store or clerk agrees to to sell guns.

       

      Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead

      by Cordelia Lear on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 02:22:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not trying to be negative here (none)
        I'm just trying to point out that business do have to right to choose what they will and will not sell.

        I don't think the "licensed professional" approach works. I'm an architect. I'm a licensed professional. That does not mean that I have to design any type of a building that someone asks me too. A doctor can opt not to perform abortions.

        If we're going to say we're "pro-choice" we should be "pro-choice" and not be forcing people to do things they find unethical, anymore than we should be preventing women from doing things they feel are ethical.

        •  They should make it clear, then. (4.00)
          If Target itself chooses not to sell medications, fine.  If it chooses to sell only some medications, it should make that plain in advance.  It should not hold out the hope of decent pharmaceutical service, only to yank it away from some poor woman in need of an emergency contraceptive.

          If Target wants to promote the values of the pseudo-"life" crowd, it is free do to so.  It should make it plain, though, so I can make an informed decision to buy elsewhere.  

          Jesus - hippie brown-skinned revolutionary of love.
          Progressive Christian

          by ProgChr on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 02:42:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good point..... (none)
            ...either sell it or not.Even give the potential new pharmacy hire notice that they dispense certain drugs and if they are hired they will fill them or be terminated.and give thecostumer the same advance notice.
        •  I think the licensed professional thing (none)
          actually "works," in the legal, logical sense, although maybe you mean the political sense, I don't know.  

          I'm a CPA, so, like you, the state has given me a license to practise in my field.  Sure, I have the right to limit my customers or services, but here are two differences between me and a pharmacist (in addition to all the other life and death reasons this is bullshit):

          I don't sit behind a desk 24 hours a day, holding myself out as an accountant.  I don't deal with strangers off the street, who need my services immediately.  Given the amount of time generally available to consumers of accounting services, there is little or no difficulty in locating a different provider if I'm unwilling to to provide a service.

          Second, although I'm not familiar with the exact professional obligations of a pharmacist, I'm sure there has be some recognition that a pharmacist works at the direction of a physician.  Certainly they cannot overrule a physician and prescribe something the physician hasn't, so why should the reverse be tolerable?  

          No one likes armed missionaries. -- Robespierre.

          by Gator Keyfitz on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 02:55:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I see a couple of issues here (4.00)
          First of all, hiring an architect for a project is a long term endeavor. It's not one, short transaction.  And your ethical obligation as an architect to the client involves due dilligence in all aspects of plans and preperation, not in the style of building or type of project you will consider.

          In this case, Target has taken on the project of running a pharmacy. They should not be excused from fulfilling thier obligation to fill prescriptions any more than you should be allowed to ignore obtaining a variance or not applying for a required permit.

          Doctors allow themselves to be classified in the places like the phone book by specialty. People know that they shouldn't visit a dentist when they break their arm. There are no such distinctions for pharmacies.

          Above you also used the term unethical,

          "and not be forcing people to do things they find unethical."

          These pharmacists are not claiming an ethical exemption, they are claiming a right to a moral exemption. That moral exemption is not part of the ethical code they agreed to when applying for their license.

          Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead

          by Cordelia Lear on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 02:57:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I understand all your points (none)
            All your points are logical and well thought out. I just have real qualms about the state forcing anyone to do something that they feel is unethical, or immoral.

            And before evryone in the world points out all the ways the state does that all the time, I know I know. I'm just not comfortable with this particular case yet.  

            •  No (4.00)
              The state sets out the ethical guidelines for what a practitioner must do, or not do.  It is up to the person to decide whether they are able to perform the duties of a profession.  It is up to Target to fire your chump ass if you don't do the job they hired you for, ie that of a pharmacist.  

              Unfortunately, given the current climate of religious mania, it will be a tough road to get most states to interpret the professional guidelines as I believe they should be interpreted.  

              No one likes armed missionaries. -- Robespierre.

              by Gator Keyfitz on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 03:20:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I do not think so.... (none)
      .... and they do it for the same reason.Morals.

       I believe a pharmicist has the right to refuse to fill a scrip.The pharmacy has every right to fire him or not fire him and the customer has every right to choose who they do buissness with.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (59)
  • 2016 (50)
  • Environment (38)
  • Elections (37)
  • Media (34)
  • Republicans (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (31)
  • Law (29)
  • Jeb Bush (29)
  • Iraq (27)
  • Culture (27)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Economy (20)
  • Labor (20)
  • LGBT (16)
  • Congress (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site