What the mailman brought
Topics to watch for in coming letters to the editor:
1. More notes about the recent newspaper ads calling for greater tolerance of gays among people of faith.
2. Letters critical of a woman whose op-ed recounted her frustration in not being able to obtain a "Morning After" pill.
3. Readers disencchanted with a Life story local group of young men whose lifestyle emulates the characters in the HBO series "Entourage."
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Please, please Mr. Johnson can't you just ditch those letters about topics #1 and #3 and make believe you never got them? The letter writers are all obviously religious nuts who aren't aware that these two topics are the least of this city's/state's/country's/world's problems.
As for topic #2 I do believe that the governing bodies will have to get on line and spell out to pharmacists and pharmacies just exactly what their responsibilities to the public are. There are some professions that don’t offer their practitioners the liberty to pick and choose what they will and will not do when the issue is directly related to the duties of their chosen profession. Pharmacist are to dispense drugs, all and any legal drugs, regardless of their personal views. If they do not want to perform the duties of their chosen profession then they are free to close up shop but they are not free to practice medicine. (Just getting my $.02 in early before the mobs or masses or whatever.)
Posted on June 22, 2006 11:29 AM
Sorry, Brenda, their views about moral issues are legitimate points of view in the town square.
Posted on June 22, 2006 11:34 AM
Brenda, Some time ago I was sent to the pharmacy to obtain a prescription for my wife. The pharmacy did not carry that medication. The reason given for not carrying the med, too expensive.
Now should that pharmacy close it's doors because they chose not to carry that med?( as a note of interest 3 other pharmacy's also did not carry the med due to cost) I believe chosing not to carry it because of cost is no different to those who choose not to carry the "Ooops perscription" as it is sometimes refered to in Australia.The logic is the same/simular so what's your call on this?
Posted on June 23, 2006 1:44 PM
No Mr. P the issue is not the same at all. With the Morning After Pill the pharmacists and pharmacies are taking a moral stand that is not theirs to make as professionals who are licensed by the state to supply ALL legal drugs to their customers. If they want to make a moral statement they are free as individuals to march, write letters, rant on blogs and vote for people of like mind. They have no right to make a moral judgment not to sell a legal drug. In the case of the drug being too expensive it is also probably a little called for drug. As businesses it is probably cost prohibitive to carry it for that reason. I feel sure that they would have been able to order it for you, or at least contact the company and find out where it could be obtained if they had shown the concern the commercials give pharmacists. I(t is sad that not one of the tree you visited did not show this concern.
Posted on June 26, 2006 11:05 AM
It's interesting to me that all these pharmacists expousing so called moral concerns about dispensing birth control products never raised a peep about selling cigarettes.
I'd tell 'em, give me my medicine and then go jerk me a soda. This is a decision my doctor and I made.
Posted on June 27, 2006 10:52 AM