Transgender rights????

[oldgrappler]

^ ... again, long ago.

 

Now, if they want to pay for mental health visits for this person, I'm for that.

[Jim Schue]

We need both in that we need to look at why health care costs are so high and do something to reduce the costs. That would be healthcare reform.

 

I don't know what you mean by insurance reform. One could say that ACA is insurance reform because formerly uninsured people now are insured at the cost of other people. That is reform. Was it the best reform? I don't think so.

 

I think we need to start with reducing costs. What drives it up? If it is research that allows us to discover new treatments that saves lives, that's one thing. But if it is the high cost of lawsuits on doctors and hospitals or if it's especially egregious government regulations, etc., then that is what needs to be addressed.

 

I think that has been the problem with attempts to bring reform so far. They don't do the things that would actually reduce the cost of medicine to begin with. So insurance reform, by itself is ineffective.

 

Don't forget the massive role the pharmaceutical companies play in this with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in advertising on glamour drugs (think Viagra, etc.) and highly experimental drugs with a laundry list of side effects that often end up showing up as the subject of class action lawsuits a few years later because a bunch of people started dying from it. Really makes me glad my dad's on Xarelto since they're the subject of a lot of these lately. Wouldn't that ad money be better spent on R&D, with plenty left over to pad the bottom line and still keep scrips reasonable?

[woodsrider]

Don't forget the massive role the pharmaceutical companies play in this with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in advertising on glamour drugs (think Viagra, etc.) and highly experimental drugs with a laundry list of side effects that often end up showing up as the subject of class action lawsuits a few years later because a bunch of people started dying from it. Really makes me glad my dad's on Xarelto since they're the subject of a lot of these lately. Wouldn't that ad money be better spent on R&D, with plenty left over to pad the bottom line and still keep scrips reasonable?

Don't you think the millions spent on advertising drugs such as viagra more than pay for themselves while also generating more profits that are used for r&d.

[Sportsaholic Mamaw]

What extra right or privilege would they be getting here?? A doctors prescription would be necessary to get the pills. If the meds are prescribed, why should this medication be treated any differently than any other prescribed medication??

 

I think a script for birth control pills for a male would be considered off label prescribing by the physician according to the FDA guidelines.

[oldgrappler]

Don't forget the massive role the pharmaceutical companies play in this with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent in advertising on glamour drugs (think Viagra, etc.) and highly experimental drugs with a laundry list of side effects that often end up showing up as the subject of class action lawsuits a few years later because a bunch of people started dying from it. Really makes me glad my dad's on Xarelto since they're the subject of a lot of these lately. Wouldn't that ad money be better spent on R&D, with plenty left over to pad the bottom line and still keep scrips reasonable?

 

Answer...

 

Don't you think the millions spent on advertising drugs such as viagra more than pay for themselves while also generating more profits that are used for r&d.

 

You probably don't get more money for R & D by selling less product.

 

I am sorry I took the thread away from the original topic to comment on economic realities when I commented on another post. Back to the topic at hand...

 

I think a script for birth control pills for a male would be considered off label prescribing by the physician according to the FDA guidelines.

 

This is the intent of the OP, pointing out how absurd it is for a male to receive birth control pills since there is zero chance any male gets pregnant (even among those males that wish they were female). The gist of the OP was that the political climate is such that we are being forced to play along with the charade.

 

Others on here have tried to think of legitimate medical reasons a male may be prescribed birth control pills, such as to regulate hormones like testosterone and progesterone and estrogen.

 

I think the OP was saying that his pharmacist wife's employer informed them at a training event that they have to give birth control pills to males who are transgender and want to be females as a way to placate those who would object to a denial as being discriminatory.

 

Can we all agree that prescribing birth control pills to an otherwise healthy male because he feels like a woman on the inside and wants to play the part to the nth degree is absurd?

 

To force an insurance company to cover such a practice is government enforced theft.

Edited August 19, 2016 by oldgrappler
Clarity

[rjs4470]

Answer...

 

 

 

You probably don't get more money for R & D by selling less product.

 

I am sorry I took the thread away from the original topic to comment on economic realities when I commented on another post. Back to the topic at hand...

 

 

 

This is the intent of the OP, pointing out how absurd it is for a male to receive birth control pills since there is zero chance any male gets pregnant (even among those males that wish they were female). The gist of the OP was that the political climate is such that we are being forced to play along with the charade.

 

Others on here have tried to think of legitimate medical reasons a male may be prescribed birth control pills, such as to regulate hormones like testosterone and progesterone and estrogen.

 

I think the OP was saying that his pharmacist wife's employer informed them at a training event that they have to give birth control pills to males who are transgender and want to be females as a way to placate those who would object to a denial as being discriminatory.

 

Can we all agree that prescribing birth control pills to an otherwise healthy male because he feels like a woman on the inside and wants to play the part to the nth degree is absurd?

 

To force an insurance company to cover such a practice is government enforced theft.

 

Again, Gender Dyphoria is a recognized medical condition, which would be why people are asking for those drugs to be covered. You also mention the absurdity of preventing pregnancy in a male, but Birth control pills are prescribed to women for reasons other than just preventing pregnancy....should those prescriptions not be covered as well??

 

I'm not a doctor or pharmacist. But if a doctor prescribes a drug to treat a legitimate condition, I can't see a reason for the drug not to be covered under an insurance plan.

[oldgrappler]

Again, Gender Dyphoria is a recognized medical condition, which would be why people are asking for those drugs to be covered. You also mention the absurdity of preventing pregnancy in a male, but Birth control pills are prescribed to women for reasons other than just preventing pregnancy....should those prescriptions not be covered as well??

 

I acknowledged that birth control pills may be prescribed for other reasons (although I do not know if ever given to males) but I also clearly stated I was only talking about an otherwise healthy male, which is what I believe the OP was getting at.

 

Do you agree that it is absurd to prescribe birth control pills to a male who is transgender and seeks birth control pills because he is playing the part to the nth degree? IN other words, women are prescribed birth control pills to prevent pregnancy, a transgender, biological male also wants birth control pills because he feels like a woman on the inside and being prescribed the pill will validate those feelings.

@rjs4470, do you agree that to prescribe birth control pills to this male who wants to be a woman is absurd? That's a straightforward question.

[jpa2825]

I think the OP was saying that his pharmacist wife's employer informed them at a training event that they have to give birth control pills to males who are transgender and want to be females as a way to placate those who would object to a denial as being discriminatory.

 

Can we all agree that prescribing birth control pills to an otherwise healthy male because he feels like a woman on the inside and wants to play the part to the nth degree is absurd?

 

To force an insurance company to cover such a practice is government enforced theft.

 

We cannot all agree to that. It is not absurd. It is a decision between the doctor and their patient. I see no reason to care, be concerned about or otherwise intervene in that relationship.

 

As to the OP, the pharmacist should fill the Rx the doctor wrote for their patient unless dangerous to do so (interactions, etc.). Whether they think that is absurd or have other reservations about it, don't let it interfere with doing your job (like refusing to dispense RU486 for moral reasons).

 

As to the mandate that insurance cover the prescription to a genetic male the same as to a female OR that insurance cover it at all, I have no problem with either.

[rjs4470]

I acknowledged that birth control pills may be prescribed for other reasons (although I do not know if ever given to males) but I also clearly stated I was only talking about an otherwise healthy male, which is what I believe the OP was getting at.

 

Do you agree that it is absurd to prescribe birth control pills to a male who is transgender and seeks birth control pills because he is playing the part to the nth degree? IN other words, women are prescribed birth control pills to prevent pregnancy, a transgender, biological male also wants birth control pills because he feels like a woman on the inside and being prescribed the pill will validate those feelings.

@rjs4470, do you agree that to prescribe birth control pills to this male who wants to be a woman is absurd? That's a straightforward question.

 

Again, I refer to the fact that the Gender Dysphoria is a legitimate, recognized condition. As such, drugs for the treatment of that condition should be covered. I'm not sure where you get the idea that BC pills are taken by transgender men to "validate feelings". The purpose, no matter how strange or "absurd" to you or I, would be to increase the level of female hormones in the body. And if a doctor/psychologist feels that is the best course of action for the patient, who are we to call the treatment unnecessary, absurd or to insist that said treatment not be coverable under insurance?

[oldgrappler]

We cannot all agree to that. It is not absurd. It is a decision between the doctor and their patient. I see no reason to care, be concerned about or otherwise intervene in that relationship.

 

As to the OP, the pharmacist should fill the Rx the doctor wrote for their patient unless dangerous to do so (interactions, etc.). Whether they think that is absurd or have other reservations about it, don't let it interfere with doing your job (like refusing to dispense RU486 for moral reasons).

 

As to the mandate that insurance cover the prescription to a genetic male the same as to a female OR that insurance cover it at all, I have no problem with either.

 

Again, I refer to the fact that the Gender Dysphoria is a legitimate, recognized condition. As such, drugs for the treatment of that condition should be covered. I'm not sure where you get the idea that BC pills are taken by transgender men to "validate feelings". The purpose, no matter how strange or "absurd" to you or I, would be to increase the level of female hormones in the body. And if a doctor/psychologist feels that is the best course of action for the patient, who are we to call the treatment unnecessary, absurd or to insist that said treatment not be coverable under insurance?

 

Gentlemen, thank you for being patient with me and taking the time to explain (again) what you intended. I could not conceive how a person who has no ovaries and cannot possibly get pregnant was being given pregnancy prevention meds. I assumed the reason for giving this person the med was to satisfy the psychological urge to feel like a woman. That is what I viewed as absurd. This assumption was probably wrong, at least in the way I understood it.

 

You have explained that in the case where a physician, psychiatrist, or psychologist diagnoses the person with Gender Dysphoria they may prescribe medications to change the person's hormone levels to be more in line with levels experienced by person's of the sex they would rather be. In this case, one of those meds may be birth control pills because they do more than merely prevent pregnancy. (My attempt here is a layperson's description of a medical issue if there ever was one :bag:)

 

I can see your point. If a physician thinks it is legitimate to help a person move in this direction and prescribes whatever medication, including birth control pills, to help that process, it is no one else's business. The insurance company should cover it just as it does so many other medications, at the rate the plan calls for.

 

Have I understood you and fairly stated your position?

 

Understand, I disagree that this is a helpful process to the person, but I see how a medical doctor could prescribe birth control pills to effect hormone levels if the doctor thinks he is helping his patient. And in prescribing the pills, the doctor is doing so for reasons other than for a type of "placebo" effect.

 

Again, thank you for the discussion. I am finding the dialogue to be educational.

[Plato]

She isn't refusing to do anything.

 

I think it is absurd.

[Plato]

We are Americans who are free to have opinions. Well I think that's still the case anyway...