RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill

RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 4:00:57 PM)
Interesting...isn't it?

GoddessMine -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 5:04:49 PM)
Let's be real - pharmacists become pharmacists because it's a wealthy industry, Plan B is just another form of birth control, and I just took Plan B earlier today because I'm irresponsible like that. Case closed - NEXT! Love, GM

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 5:56:40 PM)
What do you consider wealthy. I know someone who is a pharmacist, and they have said that some factory workers, doing similar assembly line jobs, make better money for the amount of hours and benefits. I believe you can make a good living doing it, but I do not believe most people would consider it a fast track to wealth. Orion quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessMine Let's be real - pharmacists become pharmacists because it's a wealthy industry, Plan B is just another form of birth control, and I just took Plan B earlier today because I'm irresponsible like that. Case closed - NEXT! Love, GM

Marc2b -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 8:40:22 PM)
Well, I’ve finally been slapped by Mod 11 (and I wasn’t even trying to, this time). It would be a major violation of my principles to get in a snit about it and start crying "censorship!" Not that I’m not tempted to but the defining difference between human beings and the rest of the animal world is our ability to over rule emotion with reason. So... their web site, their rules. And since I have been informed that I have violated one such rule, I hereby apologize for it. That, of course, doesn’t mean I don’t have a few things to say in my defense. I stand by my contention that farglebargle would have the intelligence recognize my calling him a nutcase was in the spirit of nose tweaking and would posses the spine to take it (and I can’t help but wonder why nobody got upset when I called him "fargonebagle"). Maybe I should use emoticons more often. [:D] Farglebargle – you are an intelligent guy but here is what worries me about you: Your constant, strident, denunciation of "Artificial Legal Entities," with uncompromising phrases like, "needs to be put down," and "does what the fuck they’re told," and "forgetting their natural place," is dehumanizing the Other. To do so is to stand in a dangerous place because you stand at the foot of a path that leads to dark and terrible places. Believe me... I know. Lordandmaster: I concede that you bring out the snarkiness in me but it’s my own fault. I knew that it was coming out of me and I allowed it to continue. In other words, I allowed my emotions to overrule my intellect. It happens sometimes. Still, I stand by my contention that you need to seriously lighten up. I think half our problem is how we view the message boards. You seem to take them very seriously whereas I tend to view them as the electronic equivalent of a group of friends sitting around a camp fire, passing a bottle of wine, and just shooting the shit. Sure the topics may get serious but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t pick up a pine cone now and then and chuck it at the guy across the fire when he isn’t looking – just for laughs (it is when I think things are getting too serious that I start looking for pine cones). Then there’s the fact that you seem to come down on the "collectivist" side of things whereas I definitely come down on the individualist side. And yes, it does irk me when people equate that with conservatism/republicans. I am very conservative on some issues. I am also very liberal on others issues. And on a few issues, I’m standing above, doing the hokey pokey. Know that I bear you no malice (even if I do think your wrongheaded most of the time). Bottom line on this issue folks. Most arguments can be reduced to: where do we draw the line? In this case we have to draw the line between freedom (of religion and speech) and public responsibility. We have to ask ourselves the question, is it okay to force certain people (if they have the guts to stand by their convictions) out of a profession in exchange for a perceived greater public good? There are, no doubt, cases where I would agree that it is but I don’t see this particular case as one of them. You can keep adding "what ifs," on top of "what ifs" to the point of absurdity (there are always exceptions) but I remain firm in my conclusion that allowing pharmacies and pharmacists to sell or not sell certain medicines (whether for business or moral reasons) will not present an undue burden to the public. Besides, how many evangelical Christian pharmacists are there out there? Don’t those people rely on faith healing?

Owner59 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 10:04:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Bottom line on this issue folks. Most arguments can be reduced to: where do we draw the line? In this case we have to draw the line between freedom (of religion and speech) and public responsibility. We have to ask ourselves the question, is it okay to force certain people (if they have the guts to stand by their convictions) out of a profession in exchange for a perceived greater public good? There are, no doubt, cases where I would agree that it is but I don’t see this particular case as one of them. You can keep adding "what ifs," on top of "what ifs" to the point of absurdity (there are always exceptions) but I remain firm in my conclusion that allowing pharmacies and pharmacists to sell or not sell certain medicines (whether for business or moral reasons) will not present an undue burden to the public. Besides, how many evangelical Christian pharmacists are there out there? Don’t those people rely on faith healing? We have to ask ourselves the question, is it okay to force certain people (if they have the guts to stand by their convictions) out of a profession in exchange for a perceived greater public good? No we don`t,because no one`s being forced out of anything. You can keep adding "what ifs," on top of "what ifs" to the point of absurdity There`s nothing absurd about emergency contraception. (there are always exceptions) but I remain firm in my conclusion that allowing pharmacies and pharmacists to sell or not sell certain medicines (whether for business or moral reasons) will not present an undue burden to the public. I wonder how loudly you`d squeel ,if a family member of yours was degraded in this way?These aren`t pie in the sky musings,here. Besides, how many evangelical Christian pharmacists are there out there? Don’t those people rely on faith healing? This isn`t a fun,or funny subject.Sorry to play the heavy,but do you have a daughter,niece,sister,or other dear one,who you`d like to protect from this stupidity?I bet yes. Are you so confident that your loved ones won`t be that unfortunate few,that will have to make due without,or have to drive hours to another place?Maybe,but it`s still wrong.

Marc2b -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 10:47:04 PM)
quote: No we don`t,because no one`s being forced out of anything. You are forcing them to choose between their livelihood and their convictions. It’s not like people can just shut down one business and start up another – unrelated – business on a whim. quote: There`s nothing absurd about emergency contraception. No, but the notion that some woman somewhere will be completely unable to get some if she needs some because every hospital, clinic, and pharmacy in the area won’t dispense it and her car has broken down and she lives out in the middle of the boondocks, and has no friends and family to help her etc, etc, is. Now I realize that not everyone of these "what ifs" were brought up but that is the trend that people take in arguments sometimes, to keep piling on the "what ifs" in order to discredit the good (most women being able to get the MAP when they need it) because it is not the perfect (all women being able to get the MAP when they need it). There will always be exceptions. You cannot legislate a perfect society. The perfect is the enemy of the good. quote: I wonder how loudly you`d squeel ,if a family member of yours was degraded in this way?This isn`t pie in the sky musings,here. You are talking to the guy who holds as one of his most firm beliefs that it is easy to have high moral principles when the consequences don't affect you. That aside, I’d squeal quite loudly. But I’d do my squealing to the pharmacy/pharmacist. I’d do my squealing to family, friends and neighbors, letting them know that the Holier Than Thou pharmacy are a bunch of jerks and in my opinion, they should not give it their business. I might even do my squealing in a letter to the editor or on the internet. I would not do my squealing to the government. Despite whatever negative thoughts and feeling I have toward the pharmacy, I will respect their rights because I know that if I do not respect the rights of others, I have no basis in which to assert my own. quote: This isn`t a fun,or funny subject.Sorry to play the heavy,but do you have a daughter,niece,sister,or other dear one,who you`d like to protect from this stupidity?I bet yes. Five nieces. Three biological, two honorary. Many subjects are not fun or funny but that doesn’t mean you have to be so serious about it either. Few are the subjects that can’t bear an injection of humor without being disrespectful. Besides, I’m not being entirely humorous. Seriously, people are worried that there will be a rash of pharmacies refusing to sell the MAP due to religious conviction but just how many will that be? Okay, the pharmacy in God Fearing, Oklahoma (population 316) might be one of them. How many others? quote: Are you so confident that your loved ones won`t be that unfortunate few,that will have to make due without,or have to drive hours to another place?Maybe,but it`s still wrong. Yes, I am quite confident because they have a family that will come to their aid (I am blessed to be part of such a family). You say it is still wrong but the question, as I see it, is not whether you or I or anyone else sees it as wrong. The question is do we respect other people’s freedom of religion and speech?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/13/2007 11:18:25 PM)
I promised I was done with this thread, but since you've addressed me with a cooler head, I'll respond. The problem isn't that I take the Collarme forums too seriously. It should be pretty clear after my 8000+ posts that I write a lot of silly things just for laughs. How many times have I posted about my pecker? Maybe you don't read anything other than the political boards, so maybe you don't see anything other than people's opinions about politics. That's a dour sample. If there's a problem, it's that I take THIS ISSUE seriously, and therefore resent stupid comparisons with nurses' being forced to masturbate their patients. Yes, I know that wasn't your example; your example, which started all this, was someone who can't get cell-phone service on the shore and runs to the government demanding universal cell-phone service. That was a bit overstated too, wouldn't you say? You can't make an overblown statement and then respond with "Lighten the fuck up, will ya?" when someone points out that it's an overblown statement. Otherwise people won't take you seriously, and despite all your narratives about pine cones, you want to be taken seriously. Anyway, I think you're missing the real difference between our points of view. It's not that I'm a collectivist and you're an individualist. (Those terms are too vague to be of much use, anyway.) The difference became clear in a few posts you made after I withdrew. You believe that we derive our rights from God, and that the point is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. I don't believe that we derive our rights from God, and consider the Declaration of Independence irrelevant because it is not the law of the land. As long as you think pharmacists have a God-given right not to have to dispense a morning-after pill, you and I will never be able to agree on this issue. quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Lordandmaster: I concede that you bring out the snarkiness in me but it’s my own fault. I knew that it was coming out of me and I allowed it to continue. In other words, I allowed my emotions to overrule my intellect. It happens sometimes. Still, I stand by my contention that you need to seriously lighten up. I think half our problem is how we view the message boards. You seem to take them very seriously whereas I tend to view them as the electronic equivalent of a group of friends sitting around a camp fire, passing a bottle of wine, and just shooting the shit. Sure the topics may get serious but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t pick up a pine cone now and then and chuck it at the guy across the fire when he isn’t looking – just for laughs (it is when I think things are getting too serious that I start looking for pine cones). Then there’s the fact that you seem to come down on the "collectivist" side of things whereas I definitely come down on the individualist side. And yes, it does irk me when people equate that with conservatism/republicans. I am very conservative on some issues. I am also very liberal on others issues. And on a few issues, I’m standing above, doing the hokey pokey. Know that I bear you no malice (even if I do think your wrongheaded most of the time).

Alumbrado -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/14/2007 6:20:58 AM)
quote: Then the question becomes.. are we to force people to act against their beliefs or give up their livelihood? This strikes me as unconstitutional. The notion that people who don't want to comply with the requirements of certain jobs are somewhat protected by their ability to seek their livelihood elsewhere, is bedrock legal principle. IIRC, one such case involved someone suing for their 'right' to be allowed to fly passenger airplanes when their vision was failing. There is always some belief too extreme to be supported under the guise of 'freedom'. The questions here would seem to be whether the pharmacist's personal beliefs outweigh the rights of patients, and if so does that provide carte blanche for the pharmacist to substitute their judgement for that of a trained and licensed physician? And again IIRC, aren't there other medical conditions for which at least one of these 'morning after' prescriptions might be used? Since the pharmacists presumably don't have either telepathic skills or X-ray vision, their 'moral' refusal would need to include refusing medicine to someone who isn't even pregnant. What do we call that... 'moral collateral damage'?

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/14/2007 6:34:37 AM)
quote: Farglebargle – you are an intelligent guy but here is what worries me about you: Your constant, strident, denunciation of "Artificial Legal Entities," with uncompromising phrases like, "needs to be put down," and "does what the fuck they’re told," and "forgetting their natural place," is dehumanizing the Other. They aren't HUMAN... They are CREATIONS ON PAPER.

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/14/2007 6:36:46 AM)
quote: It’s not like people can just shut down one business and start up another – unrelated – business on a whim. I would offer, that if the first business isn't lucrative enough to, when liquidated, provide sufficient capital for another start-up, than the FIRST business ( and by extension, the owners/operators ) is a failure, and doesn't deserve special protection in the marketplace.

Marc2b -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/14/2007 8:50:50 AM)
quote: I promised I was done with this thread, but since you've addressed me with a cooler head, I'll respond. The problem isn't that I take the Collarme forums too seriously. It should be pretty clear after my 8000+ posts that I write a lot of silly things just for laughs. How many times have I posted about my pecker? Maybe you don't read anything other than the political boards, so maybe you don't see anything other than people's opinions about politics. That's a dour sample. If there's a problem, it's that I take THIS ISSUE seriously, and therefore resent stupid comparisons with nurses' being forced to masturbate their patients. Yes, I know that wasn't your example; your example, which started all this, was someone who can't get cell-phone service on the shore and runs to the government demanding universal cell-phone service. That was a bit overstated too, wouldn't you say? No I do not. They are both examples of an underlying problem with our society. Too many people looking to the government to solve every problem in their life. Government has it’s legitimate functions but is one of those functions to smooth over every rough edge in life? I think not. I have three problems with this attitude. First, it is impossible. Second is the utter spinelessness of it. Demanding that the government to fix your cell phone coverage or compel are pharmacy to dispense certain medications does not fall into the same category as demanding the government to lock up murders and rapists. third is the fact that people fail to appreciate the interconnectedness of everything. They fail to realize that in demanding the government solve their problem, they are more than likely demanding the government create problems for others (which is why it is impossible for the government to smooth over every rough edge in life). You and others keep seeing this as an issue of the availability of the MAP. I’m trying to make people understand that the issue goes much deep than that. It is about what kind of society do we want to be? One that respects the rights of others (even if we disagree with them) or one demands that people forfeit their rights in order to accommodate the convenience of our whims (and we’re okay with that because those other people are just a bunch of jerks anyway)? quote: You can't make an overblown statement and then respond with "Lighten the fuck up, will ya?" when someone points out that it's an overblown statement. Otherwise people won't take you seriously, and despite all your narratives about pine cones, you want to be taken seriously. Sure I can. If I consider the assessment that my statement is overblow to be wrong. quote: Anyway, I think you're missing the real difference between our points of view. It's not that I'm a collectivist and you're an individualist. (Those terms are too vague to be of much use, anyway.) The difference became clear in a few posts you made after I withdrew. You believe that we derive our rights from God, and that the point is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. I don't believe that we derive our rights from God, and consider the Declaration of Independence irrelevant because it is not the law of the land. As long as you think pharmacists have a God-given right not to have to dispense a morning-after pill, you and I will never be able to agree on this issue. The Declaration of Independence may not be the law of the land but it is the document upon which we justify our existence as a nation. It is not irrelevant. If the Declaration is irrelevant then the very notion that we are a free and independent people with God given rights is irrelevant. If our rights do not derive from God, where do they derive from? I should note that when I say God I do not necessarily mean the Christian God. My religion is very simple: I believe there is a creator, after that I haven’t got a clue. The problem, as I see it, is that if we are not born with our rights that means they are granted to us by other people and if other people can grant us our rights then other people can take them away and we have no justification for asserting them.

Marc2b -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/14/2007 8:56:06 AM)
quote: They aren't HUMAN... They are CREATIONS ON PAPER. But there are people behind those "creations on paper," and you come across as having absolutely no regard for them whatsoever.

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/14/2007 9:01:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: They aren't HUMAN... They are CREATIONS ON PAPER. But there are people behind those "creations on paper," and you come across as having absolutely no regard for them whatsoever. Please cite an example. Now, I'm pretty strong in my belief that a person needs to honor their obligations, and someone who begged for, and received a license to engage in a regulated activity must live up to the responsibilities attached thereto. And I'll call anyone like that a whiny bitch, etc. But that's completely different from me treating a subordinate artificial legal entity as anything BUT property.

Marc2b -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/14/2007 9:35:25 AM)
quote: I would offer, that if the first business isn't lucrative enough to, when liquidated, provide sufficient capital for another start-up, than the FIRST business ( and by extension, the owners/operators ) is a failure, and doesn't deserve special protection in the marketplace. First I would point out that it is not just capital that is in question. There is also the matter of knowledge. If a pharmacist can no longer practice pharmacy he can’t just jump into plumbing now, can he? But that’s not the issue is it? We are not talking about giving them special protection in the marketplace. We are talking about you advocating the trampling of their rights, you wanting to interfere in their lives and livelihoods, because you don’t approve of their beliefs and/or business practices.

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/14/2007 2:10:36 PM)
quote: We are talking about you advocating the trampling of their rights, you wanting to interfere in their lives and livelihoods, because you don’t approve of their beliefs and/or business practices. No. With FULL DISCLOSURE AND COMPLETE FOREKNOWLEDGE, they CHOSE to enter a highly regulated profession and gave up those rights, in exchange for the benefits and privileges of a Pharmacist License. To extend your example, What if one of those pharmacists decides it's MORALLY CORRECT to provide dope to children? Should they be allowed to, despite the clear regulation and law prohibiting it, because to do otherwise would be a "trampling of their rights?" NO. The pharmacy industry, and pharmacists are justly regulated to ensure the public safety and that they operate in the public interest.

farglebargle -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/14/2007 2:14:31 PM)
quote: Where does this "begging" business keep coming from? http://www.answers.com/beg&r=67 2. To ask earnestly for or of; entreat: begged me for help. 2. To make a humble or urgent plea. SYNONYMS beg, crave, beseech, implore, entreat, importune. These verbs mean to make an earnest request. Beg and crave mean to ask in a serious and sometimes humble manner, especially for something one cannot claim as a right: I begged her to forgive me. The attorney craved the court's indulgence. I DARE YOU to stand in front of the Secretary of State's counter with your filing, and cop an attitude.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/14/2007 2:42:27 PM)
Oh, I don't know, fargle. It seems a bit of a stretch to Me. *Begging* is done with the assumption that if you are real nice, grovel a bit or plead a case, you might get that forgivness or the courts indulgence. *Applying*, on the other hand is a pretty forgone conclusion. You might even evidence some impatience regarding the slow service at the counter, but you will probably still get your application for license processed and approved if you filled out the application properly, paid the money and passed the test. If your objection , on the other hand, is that you will not pay the required fee, take the test and feel the application is too nosey...well, then you are going to get turned down. Begging vs. following established application rules are a bit different to Me.

Crush -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/14/2007 2:50:18 PM)
What we need is a "morning before" pill that cues you in to "Ya know, I'm really prime to be preggers!" by turning you blue or something ;)

Lordandmaster -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/14/2007 5:09:23 PM)
As long as we live in a system that forces people to obtain their drugs from licensed pharmacists, the availability of the morning-after pill (and any other legal drug) is a paramount concern. Yes, it's all "interconnected," as you say. If you're taking on the social role of providing medicines for people--and they have no other way of obtaining them except from someone in your profession--then I think that means you cede the right to withhold medicines in conflict with your own private moral code. If you have private moral objections to dispensing this medicine or that medicine, you don't have to become a licensed pharmacist in the first place. But we're going around in circles. As for the Declaration of Independence and God: Really, you need to read more about moral and political philosophy if you believe that God is the only possible source of civil rights. Put it this way: suppose God doesn't exist--does that mean we have no rights? After all, you don't KNOW that "a Creator" exists; you merely believe it, and we don't base our civil society on Marc2b's beliefs. You ought to be able to find a way to derive civil rights whether God exists or not. The reason why the Constitution is the law of the land, and not the Declaration of Independence, is precisely that the Constitution put a civil society into effect and enumerated the rights guaranteed under its own covenant. The Declaration did nothing of the sort. And now I truly am done with this, not because I'm irritated with your tone, but because I don't have more to say. You can have the last word. quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b You and others keep seeing this as an issue of the availability of the MAP. I’m trying to make people understand that the issue goes much deep than that.

dcnovice -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/14/2007 5:10:56 PM)
Hasn't she had the baby by now?

Page: << < prev 9 10 11 [12] 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875