This is just great. According to Consumerist, a couple went to a Walgreens in Oxford, Mississippi and requested Plan B after presenting photo ID. The first pharmacy employee they encountered asked for proof of insurance (which is unnecessary if the consumer wants to pay for the medication herself). The couple requested to speak with a manager, at which point a pharmacist informed the customers that they were required to wait an hour before obtaining the medication, as well as receive literature on adoption. In the end, the couple got Plan B sans waiting period and adoption information, but apparently the store insisted on writing down the customer’s driver’s license number—not the first time pharmacies have illegitimately collected personal information from customers seeking Plan B.

Hmmm…this sounds familiar. A waiting period? Literature on adoption? For a high-dosage birth control pill that works better the sooner you take it?

This situation appears to be the sinister cousin of the old-fashioned pharmacist refusal—when the attending pharmacist won’t give the customer Plan B and won’t refer the customer to someone who can—the pharmacist resistance. It’s making what can be an uncomfortable situation for many—walking up to a complete stranger in a public store, often with other customers lingering within earshot, and saying, “Hi, I’d like the morning-after pill, please”—even more difficult. It’s the idea that, if enough people are afraid that they will be shamed or asked to do ridiculous things like read a brochure on adoption when they’re just trying to back up their birth control, they just won’t take emergency contraception. Even though the condom broke, or a pill was forgotten, or they just want to have some at home in case they need it some day.

I liken this situation to the spreading of misinformation at “crisis pregnancy centers” and the latest trend to require ultrasounds for women seeking abortions. Each of these scenarios seeks to exploit the position of power the doctor, counselor or pharmacist has over the patient, client or consumer by gleefully conveying misinformation to those in a vulnerable position. (For example, South Dakota requires that providers tell a woman seeking an abortion that the abortion would “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”) Each of these situations operates on the assumption that erecting more barriers to services will finally “teach women” what’s best for them.

I argue that emergency contraception should be available truly over-the-counter, just like Tylenol, because of the drug’s safety and effectiveness at preventing unwanted pregnancies—and because of the prevalence of pharmacist refusals and now pharmacist resistance. A trip to the drugstore to pick up Plan B should not entail a skirmish with pharmacy personnel, misinformation about a required “waiting period,” a lecture about promiscuity, requests for private information, or a brochure about adoption.

 

-Amanda Allen

 

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 4th, 2008 at 12:56 am and is filed under contraception, guests, wingnuts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.