CVS Refuses to Selling Morning After Pill to Man

Surprised no one's posted this yet:


CVS Pharmacist Refuses to Sell Morning After Pill to Boyfriend

Quote :

CVS Pharmacy offered a mea culpa Thursday after a pharmacist denied the sale of the morning-after pill to Isaac Kurtz of Houston. The pharmacist told Kurtz she was acting on “personal belief” and not store policy.

“She tells me she needs to speak with the woman,” Kurtz told the Houston Press. “I’m taken aback by this and ask her what she needs to talk to her about. I bought them here before without issue. She then tells me she won’t sell it to me.”

CVS store policy does not prohibit men from buy the morning-after pill, and under federal law, anyone over the age of 17 can buy Plan B without a prescription.

“We apologize for the isolated incident in our Houston pharmacy in which a male customer was unable to purchase this item,” CVS spokesman Michael DeAngelis said in a statement. “We are following up on the pharmacy staff to ensure that our policies are properly followed to prevent a recurrence of this incident.”

I don't know if it was an anecdotal remark, but one version of this I read said the Pharmacist also accused the man of being a Rapist, and suggested he was buying the Pill to slip it to his victim. Because we all know Rapists are thoughtful that way.

Apparently, however, CVS DOES allow their pharmacists to NOT sell certain drugs based on 'personal beliefs.' So what are you supposed to do if it's 1 a.m. and they're the only pharmicist on duty? Ask for them to call someone else in? Can they refuse to sell you condoms of they think you look like you might be up to no good or aren't wearing a wedding ring, or they don't believe in birth control at all?

Okay, in all fairness, this is a muddier issue than flatly refusing to sell it to a woman. There is the chance that he *could* be using it in such a way (i.e. slipping it to her without her knowledge or consent), but there's a much better chance that he's not. I know it's annoying as hell for the boyfriend, but I can't really bring myself to come down as hard on this pharmacist than on the ones that refuse to sell it to anyone at all. Wanting to ensure that a woman is consenting to the consumption of a prescription medication is not a bad thing.

Aggie wrote:

Wanting to ensure that a woman is consenting to the consumption of a prescription medication is not a bad thing.

Yeah, but

Quote :

anyone over the age of 17 can buy Plan B without a prescription

Which is not to say you don't make a good point.

I'm not buying the excuse, I'm afraid.

Refusing to sell the pill to Random T. Bloke because of a positively miniscule chance that he's giving it to a woman against her will or without her consent is not a decent enough reason to deny the vast majority of blokes who are buying it for genuine reasons.

If she has concerns there are people out there, the police, for example, who are much better equipped for dealing with this sort of thing.

What if women buy it in order to slip it to their husband's mistress/someone they dislike, or in order to terminate a pregnancy against the wishes of their partner? BETTER STOP SELLING TO WOMEN TOO

Seule wrote:

What if women buy it in order to slip it to their husband's mistress/someone they dislike, or in order to terminate a pregnancy against the wishes of their partner? BETTER STOP SELLING TO WOMEN TOO

The morning after pill doesn't terminate pregnancy. It prevents ovulation so pregnancy doesn't occur.

CVS doesn't have to sell anyone anything.

If you don't like it, go to Walgreens or Rite-Aid.

Aggie wrote:

Okay, in all fairness, this is a muddier issue than flatly refusing to sell it to a woman. There is the chance that he *could* be using it in such a way (i.e. slipping it to her without her knowledge or consent), but there's a much better chance that he's not. I know it's annoying as hell for the boyfriend, but I can't really bring myself to come down as hard on this pharmacist than on the ones that refuse to sell it to anyone at all. Wanting to ensure that a woman is consenting to the consumption of a prescription medication is not a bad thing.

It's also muddier in the way that "personal belief" is about all you have going when you try to stop a person from buying 15 bottles of cough syrup.

"What? Meth lab? Nah, you're thinking too classy. My buddies and I just want to do a bit of robotripping."

- those can of air for keyboard cleaning
- paint
- allergy medication
- anything else idiots buy to try and get high

There's no evidence beyond them wanting to buy it frequently or in large amounts, so you kinda have to fall back on the personal belief that they're going to abuse the product and not sell it to them.

Yeah, in retrospect, although I sympathize with the reasoning in theory (if her personal belief reasoning is actually true), she really shouldn't be allowed to refuse to dispense the medication based solely and entirely on her suspicion of what he could be using it for.

Lady Anne wrote:

Seule wrote:

What if women buy it in order to slip it to their husband's mistress/someone they dislike, or in order to terminate a pregnancy against the wishes of their partner? BETTER STOP SELLING TO WOMEN TOO

The morning after pill doesn't terminate pregnancy. It prevents ovulation so pregnancy doesn't occur.

unowatimean

Sakurelf wrote:

There's no evidence beyond them wanting to buy it frequently or in large amounts, so you kinda have to fall back on the personal belief that they're going to abuse the product and not sell it to them.

No.

I went over this debate in another place with another person (who then never replied because he was a classy motherfucker), and the gist of it is: any medication that has a potentially addictive substance in it, or something that could get you high – say, cough syrup with an opiate in it – requires a medical prescription. So my points are these:

1. There's no way a pharmacist will be able to tell at a glance that a person is an addict if a doctor – who already has a set of carefully designed protocols at their disposal to prevent drug-seeking – was not already able to. Seriously, I cannot emphasize this enough. If the doctor, with all their experience and training and a one-on-one session in which to assess the patient, was not able to detect drug-seeking, a pharmacist will not be able to except through sheer dumb luck, and sheer dumb luck was never a good reason to allow anything.
1bis. A pharmacist will also not be able to tell at a glance what is motivating a person to buy a product. To claim otherwise is ridiculous, and as such allowing pharmacists to withhold medication because they think a person could be using it in an immoral way is ridiculous.

2. Therefore, if a person has a legal prescription, there's no earthly reason a pharmacist should be able to deny medicine.

3. In fact, there's a damn good reason pharmacists shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily withhold medicine (by which I mean, because of ideology, or because they don't like the "look" of the person) without rules or accountability. It's so religious zealots don't force their religion on other people by denying them needed medication. It's so people don't deny medication to a certain demographic because they're racist or misogynist or any other -ist you care to name (like refusing to give women contraception because you think their "proper place" is in the house, spouting out babies). It's so a pharmacist can't deny a person medication based simply on an "I don't like you".

Claiming pharmacists should be able to withhold medicine or services from whomever they like, for whatever reason they like, doesn't just go against practically every social concept of morality and equality. It's also plain stupid.


(This isn't meant as an attack on you, btw, Sakurelf, but as a general refutation of the "let's allow pharmacists to withhold medicine!" argument. If it feels like I've come down strong, it's because I feel passionately about the subject. Just thought I'd clear things up in advance, just in case.)

I am not talking about prescription items..

Look at my list again.

Cough syrup is an OTC product (at least here in Canada). Same with some night time / non-drowsy allergy medications. They can be bought with no prescription. Now, idiots may try to buy it thinking they can get high, or trying to use it for meth, but it's still suspicious to purchase high volumes of it OTC.

Same with canned air. Some stores require a valid ID to sell it to you because it is a highly abused product. (huffing)

If it's non-prescription medications we're talking about, then why is there a problem with selling it to idiots who think they can use it to get high? Why is a pharmacist entitled to judge what constitutes a too-high volumes? Why do they get to decide what is an isn't suspicious?

If anything, there's even less reason for pharmacists to be able to withhold non-prescription medication. It still may be vital to the patient's well-being (see: contraceptives), and if they furthermore can't use it to fuel an addiction, well.

(Though I admit I have no idea about the meth thing, but still. Pharmacists aren't qualified to make calls like "I think this person is trying to make meth", and the idea of turning them into amateur enforcers of the law is just laughable.)

Quote :

If it's non-prescription medications we're talking about, then why is there a problem with selling it to idiots who think they can use it to get high?

Because they use it to get high, and then swing back around for more? Because ignoring it contributes to drug culture? Because ignoring a person's intentions to get high may lead to their injury or death?*

*I haven't read about death directly related to dextromethorphan abuse, but like all drugs, you make bad decisions while on it. Walking in front of a bus, etc. And if drink enough of the stuff, you'll probably die.

Quote :

Why is a pharmacist entitled to judge what constitutes a too-high volumes?

- Because there needs to be enough supply for other customers. Meth makers will come in and buy all the stock they can.
- Because there are reasonable quantities to sell to a person. No unsuspicious person taking the recommended dosage needs 15 bottles of cough syrup at one point in time.

Quote :

Why do they get to decide what is an isn't suspicious?

Because pharmacists should have a greater knowledge of the product they are selling, its usage and the rate of consumption than the general public. They should know its full effects and side-effects and be able to make judgement calls on what is an unreasonable amount of product being consumed. Not just high dosage, unreasonable. Abusers consume way more than the average person, and they do it on a regular basis. That is why they are addicts. To ignore red flags is irresponsible.

Quote :

If anything, there's even less reason for pharmacists to be able to withhold non-prescription medication. It still may be vital to the patient's well-being (see: contraceptives),

No. The kinds of things sold that are abusable are in no way vital. Things like Cough syrup, OTC allergy medication* and computer duster are not vital and buying high volumes or frequent amounts should be questioned.

*and if your allergies are so bad that medication is vital, you're probably on a prescription already.

Quote :

and if they furthermore can't use it to fuel an addiction, well.

They can.

Quote :

(Though I admit I have no idea about the meth thing, but still. Pharmacists aren't qualified to make calls like "I think this person is trying to make meth", and the idea of turning them into amateur enforcers of the law is just laughable.)

It depends on the area and what is available OTC. Some chemical compounds are legal in canada that can definitely get you high and definitely are subject to abuse.

See: Robotripping

Also: cough syrup is used to make meth. When someone buys 15+ bottles at a time, and isn't a representatve of, say, a first aid department or non-profit making aid kits, or along those lines, they're probably making meth.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Pseudoephedrine is the ingredient in "non-drowsy" formulas that is used.

And again, common canned products: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They're easy to access and cheap.

Quote :

Inhalant users

The most serious inhalant abuse occurs among children and teens who "...live on the streets completely without family ties."[6] Inhalant users inhale vapor or aerosol propellant gases using plastic bags held over the mouth or by breathing from a solvent-soaked rag or an open container. The effects of inhalants range from an alcohol-like intoxication and intense euphoria to vivid hallucinations, depending on the substance and the dosage. Some inhalant users are injured due to the harmful effects of the solvents or gases or due to other chemicals used in the products that they are inhaling. As with any recreational drug, users can be injured due to dangerous behavior while they are intoxicated, such as driving under the influence. In some cases, users have died from hypoxia (lack of oxygen), pneumonia, cardiac failure or arrest,[7] or aspiration of vomit.

Kids who can't afford other drugs, or aren't old enough for alcohol turn to OTC abuse for fun or addiction. Yes, there is absolute reason to question why that kid comes in and buys a can of computer duster every wednesday, and if I worked there and saw a pattern of abuse, I would refuse to sell them that product.

Tard wrote:

3. In fact, there's a damn good reason pharmacists shouldn't be allowed to arbitrarily withhold medicine (by which I mean, because of ideology, or because they don't like the "look" of the person) without rules or accountability. It's so religious zealots don't force their religion on other people by denying them needed medication.

Go

To

Another

Pharmacy

I live in Bumblefuck, KY, and there are pharmacies all over the goddamn place, most of them with late hours. If you have money for the medicine, there is someone willing to sell you medicine. No pharmacy makes money not selling medicine.

You stupid, STUPID fuck.

HAHAHA THE FREE MARKET WILL HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

except for the bit where huge swathes of the US are packed with biblethumpers who hate women so much that they're prepared to let them die of treatable illnesses because treatment would involve aborting a foetus

what happens when all the pharmacies in your area won't fill a prescription for whore drugs

what then oh great dipshit

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Go

To

Another

Pharmacy

You make the assumption that the pharmacist that just refused to dispense the medication on moral grounds will also willingly give you back the prescription (since, you know, you have to give it to the pharmacist). In the past some of these folks not only refused to fill the prescription, they refused to give it back to the customer because they believed doing so would be just as sinful since the customer would go somewhere else and get the medicine.

A job is a privilege, it's not a right. And a private corporation does not have to protect your right to free expression of your faith if it interferes with their bottom line.

Cyberwulf wrote:

HAHAHA THE FREE MARKET WILL HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

except for the bit where huge swathes of the US are packed with biblethumpers who hate women so much that they're prepared to let them die of treatable illnesses because treatment would involve aborting a foetus

what happens when all the pharmacies in your area won't fill a prescription for whore drugs

what then oh great dipshit

Life saving medication is one thing. Products discussed in this thread include cough syrup, the morning after pill, and cans of air. None of these things are life saving. It's not like they're denying someone insulin.

And you're VASTLY overestimating the number of self righteous assclowns who'd gladly pass up $$$ in order to aggravate other people.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Go

To

Another

Pharmacy

You make the assumption that the pharmacist that just refused to dispense the medication on moral grounds will also willingly give you back the prescription (since, you know, you have to give it to the pharmacist). In the past some of these folks not only refused to fill the prescription, they refused to give it back to the customer because they believed doing so would be just as sinful since the customer would go somewhere else and get the medicine.

A job is a privilege, it's not a right. And a private corporation does not have to protect your right to free expression of your faith if it interferes with their bottom line.

Well, yeah, I wouldn't complain if CVS fired people who refused to sell the product (why are you working there in the first place, anyway?), but apparently they decided to allow wage monkeys to make upper management level decisions on what products should be carried.

Pointless and retarded, or pioneering business strategy? Who knows.

And I imagine you could call the cops if some guy stole your prescription. Not that it's relevant to the thread. Everything mentioned is over the counter crap.

Spotts1701 wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Go

To

Another

Pharmacy

You make the assumption that the pharmacist that just refused to dispense the medication on moral grounds will also willingly give you back the prescription (since, you know, you have to give it to the pharmacist). In the past some of these folks not only refused to fill the prescription, they refused to give it back to the customer because they believed doing so would be just as sinful since the customer would go somewhere else and get the medicine.

A job is a privilege, it's not a right. And a private corporation does not have to protect your right to free expression of your faith if it interferes with their bottom line.

He also assumes that you have easy access to another pharmacy. Wide swaths of the country don't. This can cause a problem in the case of medicines like the morning-after pill because they're useless after a certain time has passed.

Sakurelf wrote:

I am not talking about prescription items..

Look at my list again.

Cough syrup is an OTC product (at least here in Canada). Same with some night time / non-drowsy allergy medications. They can be bought with no prescription. Now, idiots may try to buy it thinking they can get high, or trying to use it for meth, but it's still suspicious to purchase high volumes of it OTC.

Same with canned air. Some stores require a valid ID to sell it to you because it is a highly abused product. (huffing)

Actually, some states (Iowa, for instance) DO keep medications that can be used to create meth behind the counter, and the pharmacist keeps track of who buys them. If you buy over a certain amount in a certain period of time, they're within their rights to refuse o sell you more.

If you're using the medication for a legitimate health problem, all you have to do is have your doctor write you a script., which limits the amount of the medication you can buy before having to see the Doctor again.

The morning after pill is not something you can get addicted to, and serves nor purpose unless you take it within a certain time frame AFTER you've had sex. All it does it keep the egg from becoming fertilized. Plus, as several people have pointed out, it can be bought by anyone, male or female, over the age of 17.

What it boils down to is that it is the pharmacists job to dispense medication. If they belong to religion that does not believe in birth control, hen they need to consider another line of work, because working as a pharmacist means that you are there to serve the customer, not refuse to serve them because you don't agree with their moral principals. It's akin to someone who's anti-abortion going to work at an abortion clinic in the belief they can talk women out of having an abortion by laying a guilt trip on them. You likely won't hold the job long.

Rabid Badger wrote:

Sakurelf wrote:

I am not talking about prescription items..

Look at my list again.

Cough syrup is an OTC product (at least here in Canada). Same with some night time / non-drowsy allergy medications. They can be bought with no prescription. Now, idiots may try to buy it thinking they can get high, or trying to use it for meth, but it's still suspicious to purchase high volumes of it OTC.

Same with canned air. Some stores require a valid ID to sell it to you because it is a highly abused product. (huffing)

Actually, some states (Iowa, for instance) DO keep medications that can be used to create meth behind the counter, and the pharmacist keeps track of who buys them. If you buy over a certain amount in a certain period of time, they're within their rights to refuse o sell you more.

I was just about to post this, too. Here in California, you're heavily limited on quantity and frequency of purchasing anything with pseudoephedrine in it. So it's OTC, but a "behind-the-counter" OTC. Canned air, spray paint, and those mammoth permanent markers are also age-restricted (although I think it's as much for the vandalism potential as for the abuse potential in the case of the latter two).

Never mind that you don't even need pseudoephedrine to make meth anymore, so the laws and policies saying you can only buy so much at a time inconvenience honest buyers and no one else.

And if they're abusing the shit? That's their problem.

Quote :

- those can of air for keyboard cleaning
- paint
- allergy medication
- anything else idiots buy to try and get high

"What? Well, I just opened a computer repair shop, have serious allergies and need to do some quick painting! Fuck you!"

Quote :

Because they use it to get high, and then swing back around for more?

How much money do they have?

Quote :

Because ignoring it contributes to drug culture?

Oh shit, there's a drug culture? How the fuck did that happen?

Quote :

Because ignoring a person's intentions to get high may lead to their injury or death?*

You can do that off of alcohol, and we all saw how well Prohibition worked.

Well I guess you Canadians didn't because you made money hand over fist through the rum runners, but so much for learning from our mistakes, I guess.

Quote :

No. The kinds of things sold that are abusable are in no way vital. Things like Cough syrup, OTC allergy medication* and computer duster are not vital and buying high volumes or frequent amounts should be questioned.

If I see a supermorbidly obese man trying to purchase a tub of ice cream, should I stop him in order to protect him from himself?

Quote :

*and if your allergies are so bad that medication is vital, you're probably on a prescription already.

Hahaha yeah there's no way that assumption could kill someone.

Rabby wrote:

What it boils down to is that it is the pharmacists job to dispense medication. If they belong to religion that does not believe in birth control, hen they need to consider another line of work, because working as a pharmacist means that you are there to serve the customer, not refuse to serve them because you don't agree with their moral principals.

Except that, apparently, CVS allows their employees to do that. So maybe don't go to a CVS.

Quote :

And if they're abusing the shit? That's their problem.

Rest of the argument aside, here is where it boils down to where I disagree with you.

Yes, I agree that a pharmacist should not have the right to refuse service based on religious reasons, or reasons that do not directly affect the pharmacist. But addiction and intoxication are not the same.

And addict's problem is everyone around's problem. If I was a pharmacist, I would care about my own health and safety. Dispensing drugs to someone you have tracked and know is consuming much higher quantities than recommended is now my problem. I sell products that are, in high quantities, poisonous. To ignore it is to allow another person to potentially harm themselves or harm others through intoxicated behaviour.

We may have these foundational notions about rights and freedoms, but in the real world, common sense, professional expertise and judgement count for something. This is why we require bartenders to have a license and follow the law.

This is also why, although alcohol is sold, we put limits on it. We cut people off at bars, and we only sell it to adults. We pull people over if we suspect they have been drinking. We question minors. Cough syrup doesn't have those same restrictions, so it is up to the "bartender" aka pharmacist to decide when people are cut off and don't need more than the recommended dosage.

Mikey has a point that businesses can refuse the right to serve anyone, but at the same time, it's to their own ends and they can be as stupid as they damn well please just so long as it's the right person blowing the right sunshine up the right ass refusing the right to serve someone.

And it also really blows because CVS is stupid and some people may only have access to CVS.

CVS shouldn't refuse service to anyone because the field of medicine in general should not refuse service to anyone but they do and that's fucked up and that's got to change end of story