Friday, July 08, 2005

Told you so

Guess what, we were right and the Life (destruction of women's lives) Group were wrong. Selling emergency contraceptives in pharmacies hasn't led to an increase in risky behaviour or sexually transmitted diseases. It even says so on the BBC. In fact what has clearly happened is that since the same number of M.A.P.s are being distributed, we must be saving doctor's valuable time and cutting the cost of healthcare in the UK. Except, of course, for those who are refusing to sell it. To go back to the point of a previous post (and re-iterate a point made by a commentor...) distributing drugs is the job of a pharmacist. If you don't want to distribute the full range of legally available drugs, get a different job.


handdrummer said...

Why not just go to a different pharmacist? Typically leftie authoritarian of you to want to dictate exactly what someone must do in their job.

Because you take an oath of ethics when you become a licensed pharmacist.

Because it's your job as defined.

Because it's not your place to come between the patient and the doctor.

Because people are always telling me what to do in my job and I don't get to choose what parts I do or don't do. Neither do you, I bet.

Because that's life. If it gets too onerous, I'll find another job.

I repeat, if you can't or are unwilling to fulfill the requirements of the job, FIND ANOTHER JOB. Don't involve the rest of us in your effin' religious hysteria.

And I'm not the one being authoritarian, the pharmacist refusing to fill my script is the one taking something from me, the freedom to control my body.

What is so difficult to understand about this?

Cruella said...

Well I was thinking because as soon as we let one pharmacist do this, we'll discover that a bunch of others have done it to, maybe because the media has told them it represents "high moral standards". And suddenly there isn't a pharmacy for 50 miles that'll help you. And so you haven't got time to go get the M.A.P. in your lunchhour or while your mum is out and so you risk it and end up with an unwanted child...!

Read the original story again, the woman did get the M.A.P. from another pharmacy but wasn't able to do so until the following morning. Which was too late and it was ineffective and hence ended up pregnant.

Cruella said...

Oh dear Simon, you betray yourself so easily! "she is entirely to blame"...what about her partner? Doesn't it take TWO people to make a baby? Speaking of typical, how typical of the misogynist right to blame HER for a situation THEY have gotten into.

But anyway, no, read the story again and you'll see that they went to the pharmacy after their "contraceptive failed".

Cruella said...

Yawn yawn. No method of contraceptive is 100% reliable. So what you're saying is that a woman who doesn't feel emotionally, financially and mentally able to raise a child for the next 18 years shouldn't have sex at all. Presumably you never get laid, although based on your earlier comments I was guessing that anyway!

Cruella said...

What if I am a Jehovah's Witness and I want to get a job in a blood donation centre? Of course its against my religion for people to have blood transfusions so I won't be actually taking any blood. I'll just stand at the door and turn people away.

Or does your excitement about individual freedoms only extend to those which make WOMEN's lives a misery? It's called misogyny and it stinks.

Cruella said...

Both blood transfusion experts and pharmacists are hired by the NHS.

Cruella said...

This is getting rather tiresome Simon. The NHS asks people before it hires them whether they have any objections to any part of the work and then works around that information to ensure that all the jobs they need done are done and that people's preferences are respected. IF this pharmacy - and the article doesn't say whether it is an NHS pharmacy or not, it's not really relevant - has a second pharmacist on hand at all times who will prescribe the MAP, then fine, they would have been in a position to hire someone who doesn't wish to do so. clearly that's not the case. also the article doesn't seem to me to suggest that this was a pre-existing agreement before the pharmacist in question was hired. so if you're no longer prepared to do your job, you should be replaced by someone who is.