CVS Refuses To Sell Texas Man Emergency Contraception For His Wife, Suggests He’s A Rapist

[boston bean]

A Texas man has enlisted the ACLU to help him sue CVS for gender discrimination after a pharmacist refused to sell him emergency contraception.

Jason Melbourne had already visited four pharmacies in search of Plan B for his wife when he was referred to a CVS in Mesquite, Texas, some 15 miles away from his home. They had one box left:

But when he finally got there, the overnight pharmacist, Minni Matthew, told Melbourne she wasn’t going to sell it to him.

In order for him to buy the meds, the pharmacist said, she’d need to talk to and see the ID of his wife, who was at home with their two young children. He asked why, and she pointed to the fine print on the medication’s box, which says it can only be sold to someone age 17 or older. Melbourne pointed out that he was well over 17.

“I’ve bought this plenty of times in my life, and it’s never been a problem,” he said. “Are you telling me every other place I’ve bought it from has been wrong?”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/06/399503/cvs-refuses-to-sell-texas-man-emergency-contraception-for-his-wife-suggests-hes-a-rapist/?mobile=nc

[Syrinx]

1. why does he buy "emergency contraception" so often?

[mrbscott19]

2. Because....

Condoms break, "the" pill is unreliable, and sometimes in the heat of the moment no protection is around. That is what this pill was made for and should be available for such use. But the most important reason is that its none of our business.

[Syrinx]

4. I'm neither a monk nor a nun, but it sounds like people are having a lot more fun than me

It just doesn't sound right that a man repeatedly, regularly, goes out to buy "emergency contraception."

I agree that he should have the right to, I guess. But something sounds peculiar about this situation.

[TransitJohn]

8. What's peculiar about having sex and not wanting kids?

I don't get why that should sound peculiar.

[Syrinx]

84. That's not what I said was peculiar, and you know it

I think it is peculiar for a guy to be buying "emergency contraception" all the fucking time, as he said he has done.

I already said he has the legal right to buy it.

But I stand by my opinion for a guy to be buying "emergency contraception" all the fucking time is peculiar.

The word "emergency" is not a misnomer. They are not in the same category as wearing a rubber. No way. This medication can have serious side effects.

Has he bought it "many times" for the same woman? If so, he is poisoning that woman... fucking up her internal organs beyond repair. Or is it many different women? That presents another scenario.

I'm something of a libertine myself, but it seems ironic to me that self-proclaimed libertines, liberals, hippies and progressives would cheer the behavior of man who says that he serially "prevents" pregnancies of his sex partners by buying them powerful chemical cocktails, produced by the 99%, which have serious and permanent and potentially very serious effects... perhaps not even side-effects, but the actual intended effect.

Think about it.

If you don't want to get pregnant use a rubber. Do a 69. Anything. But don't use powerful fucking poison that will kill you.

[snooper2]

107. He said plenty of times, that could mean 6...

Just like I've bought plenty of new chainsaw blades...Like 7


Of course you can go on and think he's just out raping women and since he can't get the planB he decided to call the ACLU

[Syrinx]

123. I would contend that getting "emergency contraception" six times would be a lot

And from context, it seems you think maybe he meant he got it a lot more than that.

Just how much pharmaceutical legal poison is too much?

Do you really trust Eli-Lilly that much? You think big business is worried about fucking your baby mama up?

It is attitudes like yours that convince me that Mike Judge is in fact a documentarian.

[snooper2]

124. AHHHHHHH now we are getting to the truthy- "pharmaceutical legal poison"

You could have just started with that

[alphafemale]

23. They are married, love each other and have sex often.

Perverted as it sounds some married people still enjoy sex even after they have kids.

To me it sounds like they are still thinking of having another child in the future. Otherwise, a simple surgical procedure to one or the other frees up the jolly, times forever and ever amen. Or maybe both are squeamish about the knife.

Still. Their choice. The pharmacist had absolutely no business interfering.

[SidDithers]

43. Why are you making such a difference about contraception before or after the act...

whether it's a condom, or the pill, or the morning-after pill, it's still just contraception.

Sid

[Syrinx]

85. there's a big difference between condom and the "morning after pill"

And the difference should be obvious to someone of your intelligence.

[XemaSab]

101. Wearing a rubber, having the chick be on the pill, and getting the man snipped

They're all contraception.

[The Doctor.]

57. Your post indicates that you either can't imagine

people having 'more fun' than you, or that you aren't having as much fun as you think.

It's not any of our business, that's the bottom line.

[ddeclue]

92. OK.. then women aren't allowed to buy condoms.. keep away from our birth control method ladies..

[TheWraith]

7. Condoms and the pill are actually both extremely reliable.

Condoms alone are 99.2% effective. To say otherwise is a myth. Likewise there are many other forms of birth control including IUDs, Depo-Provera, and others that are rated for long-term use. There is a VERY good reason that emergency contraception is marketed as EMERGENCY contraception. It's not healthy to use it too regularly.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. If you're having sex regularly, 99.2% effective will probably fail every year or so.

Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2012, 09:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Also, "condoms are n% effective" isn't a terribly meaningful statistic, because I believe most cases where condoms fail are caused by using them wrong.

[TheWraith]

20. Failure does not equal pregnancy.

And frankly, arguing that one failure out of every 100 times you've been having sex with someone is a "not very effective" means is silly, and borders on the tripe the right-wing puts out about how condoms are so useless and you should just not have sex if you don't want to get pregnant.

Guess what? Emergency contraceptive pills are only about 75% effective. Guess that means we should treat them as useless, right?

[obamanut2012]

21. Thanks for posting that

That the failure doesn't equal a pregnancy. I don't think alot of people know that.

[TheWraith]

25. Probably not.

Even during the height of fertility, the average fertile woman's chance of getting pregnant from a single example of unprotected sex is about 0.8%. Using a condom makes that 0.8% OF 0.8%, or about one in every 15,625 times.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

38. What conversation do you think you are having?

"And frankly, arguing that one failure out of every 100 times you've been having sex with someone is a "not very effective" means is silly, and borders on the tripe the right-wing puts out about how condoms are so useless and you should just not have sex if you don't want to get pregnant. "

You put quotation marks around "not very effective", as though someone else had said that. I can't find anyone in this thread who did; I certainly didn't.

I thought this was a conversation about "is using emergency contraception repeatedly evidence that you are doing something wrong". You appear to be having an entirely different conversation, with an imaginary person in your head who thinks condoms "aren't very effective".

"Guess what? Emergency contraceptive pills are only about 75% effective. Guess that means we should treat them as useless, right?"

Do you? I don't guess that, and nor has anyone else in this thread, as far as I can see.



What you say is true, sure, but it's also a) unnecessarily rude and b) a digression from what was being discussed before.

[TheWraith]

76. Try looking upthread.

I was responding to someone who was asserting that condoms breaking and "the pill" failing are common events, when they are not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002137013#post2

[pschoeb]

30. The 99.2% does not include breakage

In one large scale study, the rate of breakage was 2% and slippage was 1%.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3205200.html

The 99.2 percent is the effectiveness if they do not break or slip off and are otherwise used correctly.

[phleshdef]

90. I find pulling out to be extremely reliable.

I'm just saying!

[ddeclue]

93. That's actually a bit hit.. more like 97%.

[Mimosa]

121. That's what doctors say

Plan B is a powerful hormone. My med prof buddy says repeated 'irresponsible' use might be harmful. But IMO the only real harm will come when a huge class action suit will claim victims were rendered infertile or developed uterine or ovarian cancer as a result of using Plan B.

[badgerpup]

125. It's PAINFUL...

Had a condom break once with me and fiance. Called Planned Parenthood: "Hello PP? I need to get a morning-after pill". They asked me where I was in my cycle...being irregular as hell I had no clue.
They gave me a bunch of pills, told me to take them and I should have a period within 3 days.
Oh mother, did I ever. Cramps from HELL, and the hormonal surge didn't improve my personality either.

I can't imagine people wanting to go through this on a regular basis...or even more than once.

[TheWraith]

126. Yep. Plan B is basically a controlled hormone overdose.

Nausea happens in about half of cases, and serious cramps in just under three quarters, I believe. One reason why I think people shouldn't be objecting so loud to minors needing a prescription--so they know what the hell they're dealing with, at least.

[boppers]

3. I had the same thought.

This shit is not candy. It can fuck with you.
nausea
abdominal pain
fatigue
headache
menstrual changes
dizziness
breast tenderness
vomiting
diarrhea

[REP]

5. Sounds almost as bad as an unwanted pregnancy

[boppers]

6. Pregnancy has a "baby" side effect.

I hear those can be expensive. For 18 years.

[REP]

9. Or "minor surgical procedure" side effect

Either way, there's still nausea, vomiting, cramps, diarrhea, etc to put up with ...

[TheWraith]

28. True. It's called EMERCENCY contraception for a reason.

If the pharmacist had said to the man "Sir, this is very serious medication, and if your wife/girlfriend is using it as often as you're buying it, it's dangerous and you should stop or consult a doctor," they would have been right and doing their job in cautioning the customer. Unfortunately, the pharmacist apparently decided to lose her fucking mind on the guy, and make herself judge and jury.

[Shadowflash]

24. It doesn't matter why.

It's legal and it's his right to do so. Period.

[RB TexLa]

45. Because he and or his wife wants to own and use the product. That's not enough for you?

[SaintPete]

47. No one should have to answer that question

it's no one's business but his.

[fishwax]

72. "plenty of times" could mean a lot of different things

[DisgustipatedinCA]

98. completely beside the point

Why didn't the pharmacy sell him the emergency contraception?

[xmas74]

122. Any time she's on antibiotics

and using the pill they should probably consider emergency contraception as a back-up. The pill has a failure rate, especially when used with certain antibiotics.

I don't know their case but this would be a good reason to purchase emergency contraception.

[fizzgig]

128. doesn't matter, it's not our business

reproductive freedom and choice extend to mr. melbourne as they do his wife.

[leftynyc]

11. I'm finding myself agreeing with the pharmacist here

No way of knowing if this guy was a husband, a rapist, an abusive boyfriend (or husband) that wants to force his victim to take the medication. Why on earth would a man have to buy this stuff over and over? Why aren't the women buying it? Guy sounds like a sleaze.

[alphafemale]

15. "No way of knowing" equals No right to interfere

Except for some random, crazy, wild ass speculation on the pharmacist's part, she had no right to interfere.

[Humanist_Activist]

19. Makes you wonder what other things people speculate about...

Are fathers who pick up prescriptions of Birth Control for their daughters assumed to be child molesters?

Are guys who pick up pads or tampons perverts?

Are women who buy condoms also perverts?

Seriously, its ridiculous to speculate on someone's reasons for needing any of these things, there is simply not enough information to go buy, and its none of our business.

[Humanist_Activist]

18. "Several times" could mean once or twice a year for multiple years...

I don't see how this guy is a sleaze, but rather wants to be responsible, in addition, I see no protection for women at all in your post, just assumptions about this guy's motivation and actions based solely on his gender.

[Oilwellian]

22. Good grief

DU has become a very strange place lately.

[chervilant]

127. No duh!

Not to mention increasingly boring, occasionally pedantic, and divisive...

[onenote]

29. Would you assume that any woman who bought it was a prostitute?

Of course not. Why do you think this guy sounds like a sleaze? He put his wife on the phone for heaven's sake.

[COLGATE4]

35. That's not the pharmacist's job to determine. Her job is to sell

the God damned pill to anyone who is legally (age 18 or over) qualified. Period.

[chrisa]

37. I disagree - why would that be grounds to not sell it to him?

Yeah, that might be true, but the pharmacy isn't the police. Would they, at the same time, refuse to sell Nyquil to somebody because they looked sketchy?

[neverforget]

50. It's none of the pharmicists business.

Period.

[Heywood J]

54. Are you for real?

Seriously? Every guy that buys the girlfriend her birth control or morning-after pill should be treated as a rapist because there's a tiny possibility that he could be just the type of rapist who sticks around after the crime to buy emergency contraception and force-feed it to the victim? Your suspicion that has something like a 0.001% likelihood of actually happening (otherwise we'd be hearing about hundreds of cases) is enough to brand him a sleaze?

Are you for real, or did the sarcasm tag get forgotten?

[Eliminator]

63. Yes, yes. He is a sleaze.

He went to buy some birth control for his wife. I bet if he held the door open for her or pulled up a chair that'd make him a pig.

[Logical]

65. So why sell anything to anyone? They could use any drug to kill someone. Wow, what is...

your problem?

[ddeclue]

94. umm what if the woman was a rapist who forced the man to wear a condom?

These arguments are ridiculous. If women can buy condoms, men can buy "female" products.

[leftynyc]

95. If you see those as the same

there is no point in continuing a conversation. Have a great day.

[snooper2]

108. You have a lot more posts to respond to above besides that one LOL

Don't ever try to buy anything from me by the way. You may have an ulterior motive

[leftynyc]

113. I only converse with those

who don't misrepresent what I wrote and put words in my mouth. And I was wondering - as the only person I know that uses emoticons is my 16 year old niece - are you monitoring this board for a high school social studies project?

[snooper2]

114. Yes, but it's not due for another 15 years...

My daughter told me to start early

[Bohunk68]

12. ACLU

Well, I guess the ACLU is also a sleaze for taking this man's case. NOT. Does anyone really think that the ACLU hasn't done an investigation into this before taking it on?

[leftynyc]

13. The ACLU also

defended nazis marching. The constitutional issues are in no way related to this guy sounding like a sleaze and me thinking the pharmacist was trying to protect a woman.

[trumad]

14. "constitutional issues are in no way related"

Wow---can't believe you wrote that.

[alphafemale]

17. People on the left seeking excuses at denying birth control....yeah wild.

[leftynyc]

60. What's hard to understand?

Just because I support the right for someone to do something (nazi's marching) doesn't mean they aren't sleaze. Just because this guy has the right to buy the stuff doesn't mean he's sterling. Is that too complicated for you?

[opiate69]

80. Yes, Virginia, misandry is alive and well at DU3.....

[Bohunk68]

46. Nazis marching

I guess the ACLU should call you first before taking any cases having to do with civil rights. While I may not be pleased with some of the cases they take, I still donate out of my limited SS check every month for the last 12 years to them. How much do you contribute? Civil rights are civil rights, regardless of for whom.

[leftynyc]

96. What are you babbling about?

I said the same exact thing. I may not agree with the groups they are defending but everyone gets constitutional protection. That doesn't mean these groups are not sleaze (if you want to think the nazis are sterling people, knock yourself out).

[The Genealogist]

49. Nazis have free speech rights, too, you know.

Free speech is for everyone, not just for groups you like. As long as the speech isn't breaking the law, nazis are free to say their piece, as disgusting and reprehensible as it is. And in this case, the pharmacist has no business questioning why this man was buying it. He is legally free to buy it, and it is not the pharmacist's business to speculate on why he is buying it.

[leftynyc]

97. What is it with everyone today?

Are you intentionally misreading what I wrote? My point was that just because the ACLU takes up a cause, doesn't mean the group they are defending are angels. Do you honestly disagree with that?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

115. You agree with the pharmacist, who decided to throw all laws aside

...and just do what she felt like doing. It's a curious, and indefensible position that you're in. You do not agree with the ACLU about this man's rights, else you wouldn't have said that you agree with the pharmacist. You've landed on the side of controlling a woman's body because you think you might know something about this man's character--this man you've never met. You can't have it both ways. Who do you support?

[LiberalAndProud]

51. How does not selling the product protect a woman?

It wouldn't prevent a rape, even assuming that there was a reasonable suspicion of same. And I wonder how that would even be a reasonable suspicion in this case.

[noamnety]

61. well, you know, it would protect the rape victim

by forcing her to get pregnant, thus preserving the evidence. That's pretty much every rape victim's first priority, get pregnant so as to have proof.

(<- hopefully unnecessary, but it's hard to tell on DU some days.)

[LiberalAndProud]

62. Right.

I wonder if those agreeing with the pharmacist have a problem with a husband who might stop for a bottle of aspirin because wife has a headache. Or, god forbid he should buy a bottle of cold medicine!

Yesterday I found out it is embarrassing for men to buy feminine hygiene products. Today I find out that men should be prohibited from obtaining birth control for their spouse (I guess condoms are still fine?) What a crock of hooey.

[noamnety]

67. The condom thing is maybe the weirdest part.

"We don't mind if you're a rapist and you want to prevent your victim from getting pregnant by wearing a condom. We'll sell you those. We just have a problem if you're raping women and preventing the resulting pregnancies THIS way."

It's like their own special little safe sex program for rapists.

[leftynyc]

99. Stop being childish

Just because he said it was for his wife doesn't mean it's the truth. And honestly, any man who has to buy EMERGENCY BIRTH CONTROL (not aspirin despite your stupid analogy) time and time again is a lazy sleaze.

[EOTE]

104. And what would the woman be, then?

The man is a lazy asshole because he buys emergency contraception for his wife. Does that make his wife an even lazier asshole? My god, your logic is face palm inducing, embarrassingly bad.

[EOTE]

116. So once again, the wife is a lazier asshole.

And you are the one showing extreme amounts of immaturity, blatantly violating DU's rules. You have an incredibly simplistic mind. "You seem to want to ignore the fact this person has admitted to using this EMERGENCY contraception several times before." You have a very tough time with logic, don't you? He never used this emergency contraception at all, he can't, he's a man. He BOUGHT the emergency contraceptive for his wife, who then used it. You are calling the wife a lazy asshole, although your faulty logic doesn't allow you to see that. You are amazing.

[Logical]

66. You are not what I call a deep thinker on this question. So you want the.....

people at CVS to judge and evaluate every drug sale to think "what if...."?

[leftynyc]

100. It doesn't take much

to figure out that people (men also) LIE. That men force women to have abortions (or have children). Anyone who thinks this doesn't happen is living in a fools paradise. If figuring that out is deep thinking to you, that's your problem.

And now I'm done with this ridiculous topic.

[snooper2]

110. Oh please don't leave...

this thread is one of the top 4 today now

[EOTE]

120. So we should clearly be preventing men from buying coat hangers as well.

You sir, are a master of logic.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

102. The pharmacisct should have been summarily fired

It's strange for you to look up to this vile kind of behavior. What makes you side with this person, and how should that be scaled up to a one-size-fits-all model? Can any pharmacist deny whatever they feel like denying, just because they feel like it.

Sorry, but thinking the guy is a scumbag (with no valid reasons given) doesn't mean that you, or the pharmacist, get to be The Decider.

[leftynyc]

111. Scumbag or irresponsible asshole

Call him anything you please but anyone who has had to use EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION (why people are behaving as if this is a condom or something is beyond me) many times has something wrong with them.

[EOTE]

117. Men don't use emergency contraception, women do.

So you're calling the man a lazy, irresponsible asshole because he went to purchase this FOR his wife. You apparently think that contraception is solely the responsibility of the male. You're precious.

[trumad]

16. CVS has a history of this shit:

This thread is a great example of folks reading a couple of paragraphs and jumping to conclusions.

Jezebel notes that Melbourne’s ordeal happened around the same time that a Houston CVS store refused to sell another man Plan B. CVS apologized for that last month, calling it an “isolated incident.” It wasn’t.

In fact, in 2010 ACLU received reports that Walgreens stores in Texas, Mississippi and Oklahoma were refusing to sell emergency contraception to men. Walgreens relented when the ACLU confronted them publicly.

Same article.

[Oilwellian]

26. Our local CVS pharmacy has...

bible quotes in huge fonts behind the counter. There have been a rash of CVS pharmacists refusing to fill birth control prescriptions as well. I've seen several discussions on DU about it.

[Odin2005]

27. I agree with the pharmacist, something seems fishy here.

I agree with her rapist suspicions, I can't see any reason a guy in a monogamous relationship in which contraception was used would need to buy the morning after pill so often.

[onenote]

31. They didn't know how often he'd bought it before they refused to sell it to him

You're defending the indefensible.

[trumad]

32. Bingo

[COLGATE4]

36. So what? Not her (or your) job to determine.

Let her take her suspicions to the police is she is really so concerned.

[Ikonoklast]

53. Facts not in evidence. Pharmacist is speculating about motive. NOT THEIR JOB.

[Heywood J]

55. You personally can't see a reason, so your conclusion is that the man must be a rapist?

Here's to hoping you don't serve on any non-DU juries soon.

[The Doctor.]

59. So because 'You can't see' a reason, there must not be one?

You think something nefarious is going on without any proof whatsoever? Got your foil fedora handy?

[Eliminator]

64. He must totally be a rapist.

Rapists are always going out to buy birth control for the people that they rape. They're considerate like that.

[REP]

82. You're kidding, right? What's "so often"?

How many rapists REALLY give EC to their victims? A lot? Really? Really?

How many husbands/boyfriends/partners run errands for their wives/girlfriends/partners? A whole shitload. People in relationships know this. People in LTRs sometimes need EC - more than once over the course of their relationship. YOU don't get to judge what's too often - neither does a pharmacist.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

103. well then, by all means, let's station you in his bedroom

That's just creepy as fuck.

[snooper2]

112. It is fishy, he half lied and was really at an orgy with his wife at their house...

They ran out and wanted to make sure everyone had enough because all the DNA testing would have been an expensive mess!

[jberryhill]

33. I don't think it should be sold to men

I raised some hackles in another thread a while back on this, but there is something odd about a man claiming he's bought it plenty of times before.

[trumad]

34. So one guy saying that...

means that if my wife sent me to CVS to buy it, I can't.

Show proof that this abused by men and I might go along with you.

Right now---there's no proof.

[dickthegrouch]

40. Please make that systemic, rampant abuse

The notion that one person out of 150 million heterosexual couples in the country could influence policy for all others is what got us to removing our shoes in airports.
Unless there is systemic rampant abuse of the system, there is nothing to legislate, or regulate in a "land of the free".
The pharmacists wild fantasies and god-like clarity of morals and purpose aside, she had no right to refuse to sell a product that the store carries. The pill maker should sue her for restraint of trade

[EOTE]

105. Ahhh, sanity.

Thanks for providing some.

[BiggJawn]

42. I used to buy tampons.

Hmmm... A *MAN* buying tampons... what's up with that? if they really are "for his girlfriend", shouldn't SHE be buying them herself?

There's as much or more Misanthropy on DU as there is Misogyny. It's just tolerated more.

[jberryhill]

44. There is a difference

Sorry. I worked in a drugstore as a teenager and nobody gives a shit what you buy there.

Men don't coerce women to use tampons.

[EOTE]

106. Misandry, misanthropy is a hatred of humans in general.

And yes, I'd agree that there's far too much of it.

[BiggJawn]

118. Thank you.

I think there's misanthropy, too, but misandry was the term I was hunting for. Thanks!

[EOTE]

119. Yeah, there's that, too.

Misogyny is rightly condemned around here, misandry is typically cheered. As for misanthropy, well, I'm a bit of a misanthrope myself :p.

[Robb]

39. What's the health risk to someone under 17 using the medication? Is there any?

I mean, I'm not buying the explanations in this case. But part of me feels some concern about who the end user of the medication is; giving drugs to a third party to administer without knowing where the drug is ending up I would expect to be of some concern to any ethical medical professional.

That said, given my lack of knowledge of the drug's efficacy on women under 17, this may be a non-issue.

[noamnety]

68. Here's why it's a nonissue:

They have no way of checking who the end user is if a woman buys it.

[Robb]

71. Well, hell. You're absolutely right.

I'm filing this under unintentional male privilege, plus a healthy side of dingbattery.

Thanks.

[fizzgig]

130. fda recommended it for otc sale

but the hhs secretary overruled.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/health/policy/sebelius-overrules-fda-on-freer-sale-of-emergency-contraceptives.html

noamnety is right that it's a non-issue (and made i point i would have missed, too), but thought you might want some info.

how's winter been up there in the high country? hope that baby is doing well

[Robb]

131. Thanks.

Lower than we used to be, still plenty cold and snowy. Baby is toddling, astoundingly fast they grow up. She has recently decided she is "Little Toot" (from the old, old tugboat story), which makes me "Big Toot."

In other words, life is awesome.

[TheWraith]

77. Yes, there are serious potential side-effects.

Even with "on label" usage, a woman is likely to experience nausea, cramping, and other minor side effects. However the reason hormonal birth control is not over-the-counter long term is because it has more serious potential side-effects.

It's not considered a problem for one-time doses, but regular use is potentially hazardous, particularly without consulting a doctor.

[sarcasmo]

41. This pharmacist needs to loos their job, ASAP.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

48. I just want to know where this pharmacist got the idea that rapists used emergency contraception...

Is there such a thing as a thoughtful rapist?

[BiggJawn]

56. Where? From reading DU...n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

52. So it wasn't CVS, it was the "overnight pharmacist". Misleading headline. n/t

[TBF]

58. CVS is the worst. They insisted my birth control would cost $30 a month -

but I was able to fill it for $10 at Target. I avoid CVS as much as possible.

[blueamy66]

86. I am of the opposite opinion.

The same script that I pay $2.30 for at CVS would cost me the min co-pay of $10 at Walgreen's.

[TBF]

87. They may be cheaper on other prescriptions -

I really wasn't surprised about the birth control because CVS is always the one that comes up in stories about pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions etc...

But in the interest of fairness CVS is also the biggest pharma chain and new management took over March 2011 (Larry J. Merlo). I haven't been able to find out much about him but maybe others have done the research. You never know if you're dealing with a problem of a fundie owner or if it's individual pharmacists creating issues, especially in such a large organization.

My experience with them charging more for the birth control was at least 3-5 years ago.

[blueamy66]

88. Thank goodness I haven't had your experience.

On my BCBS plan, the Tier 1 generic min co-pay is supposed to be $10. Walgreen's adheres to it, but CVS doesn't. The 2 scripts that I take are $2.30 and $5.65 each (CVS).

I also find that Walgreen's is constantly understaffed.

The last time that I needed pain pills......car accident, CVS charged me $4 while Walgreen's would have charged me the $10 min.

I really like the staff at my neighborhood CVS.

Maybe I need to do some more research though....

[TBF]

89. BCBS has got to be one of the best plans -

we had Cigna the past 8 years and they weren't as good. I tend to avoid both CVS and Walgreens but I am in a major metropolitan area. My mom is in a small town and swears by WalMart for prescriptions.

Eventually this country is going to have to join the other leading countries and offer some sort of basic single payer system for all so folks can at least be covered for regular checkups, prescriptions, and hospitalization if needed.

[blueamy66]

91. Damn straight!

I believe that when my Dad was alive and had Cigna, I had to go to a Cigna pharmacy for his prescriptions.

I like CVS cause they are open 24/7. Is Wal-Mart?

[suffragette]

69. Two major issues here: one on the FDA's guidance and one on availability

1) Plan B: Questions and Answers - August 24, 2006; updated December 14, 2006
7b. Can men purchase Plan B? (added 12/14/2006)

Yes. Plan B OTC is approved to allow OTC availability of Plan B for consumers 18 years and older. Plan B remains available by prescription only for women 17 years and younger.

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm109783.htm


That CVS is aware of this is evident in the article:

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/06/399503/cvs-refuses-to-sell-texas-man-emergency-contraception-for-his-wife-suggests-hes-a-rapist/?mobile=nc

In an email about the Houston incident, CVS spokesman Mike DeAngelis insisted they’d briefed all their stores on official company policy, which is “to follow FDA regulations for the sale of emergency contraception, which allows this product to be sold without a prescription to customers who are at least 17 years old, regardless of gender.”
But they obviously need to do a better job educating their stores, because the manager of the Mesquite CVS insisted they’re not supposed to sell Plan B to men because they can’t verify that the woman who takes it will be over 17.


2) An even bigger issue to my mind is how difficult it was to even locate Plan B at a nearby pharmacy:

From the same article:

Jason Melbourne had already visited four pharmacies in search of Plan B for his wife when he was referred to a CVS in Mesquite, Texas, some 15 miles away from his home. They had one box left


He had to go to five (four plus the last one) pharmacies and travel 15 miles away to even locate one box. Given that was the last box at that pharmacy, how much further to locate another? This is especially troubling since there is such a small time limit for this medication to be effective. Not carrying this in stock is a way to control usage (or prevent usage, in other words) and it seems to me to be a passive-aggressive means of imposing political views on a health decision. There's also a social-economic aspect to this since someone with less money or without means to travel that distance is, in effect, denied access.

[Ms. Toad]

70. I agree - but also agree with The Wraith

Pharmacists do have an obligation (in many jurisdictions) to offer counseling on a variety of medication related issues when selling stuff from behind the counter (prescription or otherwise restricted).

When the man volunteered that he and his wife had used it several times before, it would have been appropriate to advice him of the medical implications of frequent use and to suggest consulting his physician. Helping prevent drug interactions, verifying that the prescribed dosages are within the norm, advising about side effects, etc. are part of the reason we don't just put pill counters behind the pharmacy counter - they are trained professionals and (at least in my state) obligated to offer counseling with each prescription.

BUT - having the right and perhaps the obligation to offer that precaution does not give the pharmacist the right to refuse to sell it to the man.

[suffragette]

73. It's been a hugely contentious issue in WA state and one still in the courts

because we have pharmacists and drugstores refusing to stock this based on their religious beliefs.

Counseling on use of and interaction with meds - fine and that could have been addressed easily enough if that was the real reason.

And I agree completely with your last line.

I also agree completely with the Legal Voices's assessment of the ongoing case in WA, on trial now with a final decision due in late January:
http://legalvoice.org/news/
Patients of Washington Get Their Day in Court
11/28/2011
After more than 7 years of research, advocacy, litigation, appeals, briefing, and yet more briefing, the patients of Washington will finally be heard about their right to their medications. On Monday, November 28th, trial commenced in Stormans v. Selecky, Legal Voice’s case testing the Board of Pharmacy regulation requiring that all patients receive their medications and prescriptions on site, without discrimination or delay.

This case has far-reaching implications for patients of Washington State. And that’s all patients: women who need emergency contraception, persons with HIV/AIDS who must have their prescription regimen filled promptly, diabetics who need syringes—anyone who depends on having their healthcare needs handled with respect and discretion.

[Ms. Toad]

75. Agreed -

I have no doubt that legitimate pharmaceutical concern for the patient had nothing to do with this case - I don't even think it was even suggested.

I was mostly responding to the tone in the thread that the pharmacists' job is to fill prescriptions no questions asked. I do think that pharmacists have an important role to fill in the delivery of medical care - and that includes noticing when medication is used in a manner that might be unsafe - or outside of normal standards of care.

My daughter was on vancomycin for a year as part of a drug trial so she received hers directly from the research physician, but many people with the same disease are taking it for years on end as part of an informal research trial, when the standard course of treatment is no more than a month for certain refractive infections - and there are major concerns about bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant because of overuse. I would have serious concerns about any pharmacist who fills prescriptions like that for more than a couple of months without making sure the patient knows that the use is outside normal standards of care for that medication. There are goofball physicians who don't know or don't care about proper use of medications, and the pharmacist acts as an important back-up information provider when that happens (or when two doctors aren't aware of what the other is prescribing and there are risky interactions, etc.)

Similarly, I know there are more risks associated with Plan B than with other contraceptives - and it is intended for occasional emergency use - not as a substitute for other birth control. So if a patient volunteers that s/he has used it several times, I would expect the pharmacist to make sure the patient knows of the associated risks - and that it might be a good idea to check with the doc.

It is clear that is not what was happening in this case - I just hate seeing the baby (pharmacist participation in health care) thrown out with the bathwater (abuse by certain pharmacists who seek to impose their own morals in carrying out their job responsibilities).

[suffragette]

79. While pharmacists are well-trained professionals and can provide valuable information

(and i have much appreciated pharmacist's answers to questions I have posed) I think they overstep their role when preventing access to medication because of their beliefs.

As to the risks, Planned Parenthood cites the opposite of what you stated - not more risks, but fewer:

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-4363.asp
How Safe Is the Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception)?
Emergency contraception is safe, and millions of women have used it. Various forms of emergency contraception have been used for more than 30 years. There have been no reports of serious complications.

Even though Plan B One-Step and Next Choice are made of one of the same hormones used in the birth control pill, the morning-after pill does not have the same risks as taking the pill or other hormonal birth control methods continuously. That's because the hormone in the morning-after pill is not in your body as long as it is with ongoing birth control.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American College ofObstetricians and Gynecologists (The College) and the Society of Adolescent Health andMedicine (SAHM) all agree Plan B is safe and effective:

http://www.acog.org/~/media/News%20Releases/20111207Release.ashx

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 7, 2011CONTACT: Erin Wallace, 202-724-3309, [e-mail] Medical Groups Denounce HHS Decision on Access to Emergency ContraceptionMove Defies Strong Evidence that Emergency Contraception is a Safe, Effective Tool to PreventUnintended Pregnancy Washington, DC—The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American College ofObstetricians and Gynecologists (The College) and the Society of Adolescent Health andMedicine (SAHM) denounce the decision today by the Department of Health and HumanServices (HHS) to overrule an evidence-based decision by the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) to approve an application for over-the-counter access without age restriction to theemergency contraception (EC) product Plan B One-Step. This move defies the strong data that EC is safe and effective for all females of reproductive age.

[Ms. Toad]

81. Absolutely (as to overstepping their boundaries by preventing access by imposing moral beliefs)

As to the safety, I admit it has been a while since I have done any research on it. My recollection was that there were more risks - but that was long enough ago that I am probably confusing it with RU486.

Thanks for the additional information.

[suffragette]

83. Understand how they can be easy to confuse

and glad for the opportunity to clarify.

Appreciate the genuine and thoughtful conversation we've had on this.

[noamnety]

74. It's also passive aggressive for the branches

which didn't have it not to make the phone call and let him know where it was in stock. Now he could have just made the call himself and saved the driving, but really the first pharmacist should have checked their inventory system or called the nearest stores for him, as routine customer service.

[suffragette]

78. It certainly is

and it seems likely they would have done that for other medications.

Very good point.

[LadyHawkAZ]

129. I can't believe people here are agreeing with this

and find it suspicious because the guy has bought it before. FCOL, how long has this stuff been on the market?? 5 years or so? Even if the condom broke once a year, that would add up nicely to "plenty of times". Would anyone here find it "suspicious" if a WOMAN had said the same thing?

The pharmacists decision was 1) uncalled for and 2) paranoid and 3) ridiculous and 4) probably bullshit. By that logic, men wouldn't be able to legally buy condoms. I smell another reason in the background.