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

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



Message

FangsNfeet -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 3:42:35 PM)

When  it comes down to it, how many pharmacist/pharmacies are going to refuse to fill the prescription?

If a Dr wrote the script and wants the patient to have the pill, then the doc will just give it to the patient directly. Doctors can store drugs and keep samples.

I'm still a little confused by this law. After all, a retail store has always had the right to serve or not to serve any customer. No matter what the law now says, I don't see women having a very difficult time buying the Morning After Pill.



CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 3:50:41 PM)

I'm glad to hear it.  Pharmacists really shouldn't have been forced to do something so heinously objectionable.



CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 4:32:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

It is not about those who might have a more difficult time because there is not a drugstore on every corner. 
It is not about those who do not want to expose themselves by going to an emergency room. 
It is not about a win for the republicans.
It is not about pharmacies being a part of the healthcare system.  (They are not, btw, they are private businesses.)
The real issue here lies in the interference of the courts into private matters, and the way people so quickly lose sight of the precedents being set over and over. 
The real issue here is that, once again, a whiner with a bug up their ass ran to Nanny and cried "No fair, make it better for me". 
The real issue here is that the judge actually ruled in favor of the whiner instead of saying "grow up and follow the rules of the boss, or go get another job."
It is about another loss of personal freedom.


Does it not seem to you that this is about the loss of personal freedom for pharamists?  Or are you of the opinion that nurses should be made to masturbate elderly patients who can't do it themselves, despite the nurse's objection?  It is, afterall, part of her job.

Heh.  I'll tease you about the questionable orders soldiers today are legallly obligated to refuse, despite the fact that doing so is contradicting their superiors and job description, later.



Owner59 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 4:36:59 PM)

LMAO

I knew someone would,... "go ridiculous"... sooner or later..

lol



CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 4:41:52 PM)

I find it's often prudent to make ad absurdum arguments.  Tends to be easier to point out to someone that their arguments are obliviously silly since it's a little harder rationalize.

Not that I'm one to underestimate the ability of the human ego to overlook logical fallacies.



Owner59 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 4:46:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I find it's often prudent to make ad absurdum arguments.  Tends to be easier to point out to someone that their arguments are obliviously silly since it's a little harder rationalize.

Not that I'm one to underestimate the ability of the human ego to overlook logical fallacies.


Or are you of the opinion that nurses should be made to masturbate elderly patients who can't do it themselves, despite the nurse's objection?  It is, afterall, part of her job
 
I rest my case....



CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 4:47:16 PM)

I'm at a loss to understand what point you're trying to make, unless you're agreeing with me?



Owner59 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 4:57:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I'm at a loss to understand what point you're trying to make, unless you're agreeing with me?


I think I was clear.Any clearer and I`ll be getting another Mod 11 email/virtual hand slapping.You`re not worth it.lol



CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:01:43 PM)

Meh, if it's just an insult, that's probably better to keep to yourself.  But if you just disagree with me and care to make your case for why, feel free!  There's nothing wrong with speaking your mind, even if it's in sharp disagreement.

Hell, I'd be pretty bored and stupid if everyone always agreed with me.  Where's the intellectual growth in blind appeasement?



Lordandmaster -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:01:54 PM)

His point is that masturbating patients and providing a morning-after pill don't belong together in anyone's mind except that of a right-wing ideologue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I'm at a loss to understand what point you're trying to make, unless you're agreeing with me?



Gwynvyd -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:02:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Don't forget people, the Republican nutjobs are the same ones who are preventing public funding for the vaccine against HPV, the virus that causes uterine cancer.  Why?  Because they hope that the threat of cancer will keep kids from having sex.  It is the high tech method of stoning women to death.

So when you hear them wringing their hands over things like not wanting the day after pill because it might make "incest and abuse" harder to find, realize they will say ANYTHING, do ANYTHING to return us to the dark ages of back alley abortions.


Completely agree. The "Moral Marjority" will by any means available to them do what ever it takes to try to get more people to have less sex. They dont care how many people they kill or effect with horrible things like teenage pregancy, AIDS, STD's or what have yous from lack of education and available resources. As long as they stopped at least a few people from having sex for a little while the rest are sinners and deserve what they get. How screwed up is that?

Smaller communities do not carry the Plan B pill. You get a prescripion from the hospital or refering Dr. ( not to mention how many Rape and incest cases are not reported to the police, only a general visit to a Dr. with a I am worried I am pregnant ~ lets not forget those poor women ) and you take it to your pharmacy.

I think if people were more aware of what the Plan B pill actualy is they would be more OK with it. It does not abort and already formed fetus. It is just a super dose of Birth Control hormones, to keep the egg from attaching.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception 

as some one else said if a woman wants a sermon.. she will go to church.

I could personaly never have an abortion.. But I beileve every woman has the *right* to make that choice for herself.

Gwyn



CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:06:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

His point is that masturbating patients and providing a morning-after pill don't belong together in anyone's mind except that of a right-wing ideologue.


Bah, I so often forget just how much of rational thought is just a part of the vast right wing conspiracy.



Owner59 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:15:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

His point is that masturbating patients and providing a morning-after pill don't belong together in anyone's mind except that of a right-wing ideologue.


Bah, I so often forget just how much of rational thought is just a part of the vast right wing conspiracy.


"rational thought "
 
Today, is not backwards day...



CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:17:46 PM)

Please, let's not argue.  I'm open to debate if you'd like to make a point, but not this.



subrob1967 -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:18:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

The whole point of the OP and article was that pharmacists DON'T have to sell the product thanks to a judge. The regulations by "The People" coincide with certain pharmacists beliefs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. The opinion of one judge coincides with a certain opinion held by a subset of the general public.  Big difference.


Please educate us oh wise one on the "big difference" between what I said and you said.


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

ORIGINAL:Goddess20
Its just another thing that stupid people haven't looked in to and don't understand but have some 'moral' objection to without having the knowledge to know what they are objecting too! 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I kinda think a pharmacist knows a lot more about the pills they're dispensing than your average Goddess. After all, they go to school for six years to learn this shit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No again. While a pharmacist might refuse to fill a prescription for reasons like drug incompatibilities or counterindications, their professional knowledge of drug efficacy does not extend to knowing and interpreting the will of "god".


What does my pointing out that your average pharmacist isn't stupid, have to do with God? I didn't mention God once in my post, you assumed pharmacists subscribe their morals to religious teachings, which you couldn't possibly back up with any source whatsoever.




GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:21:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessDustyGold

It is not about those who might have a more difficult time because there is not a drugstore on every corner. 
It is not about those who do not want to expose themselves by going to an emergency room. 
It is not about a win for the republicans.
It is not about pharmacies being a part of the healthcare system.  (They are not, btw, they are private businesses.)
The real issue here lies in the interference of the courts into private matters, and the way people so quickly lose sight of the precedents being set over and over. 
The real issue here is that, once again, a whiner with a bug up their ass ran to Nanny and cried "No fair, make it better for me". 
The real issue here is that the judge actually ruled in favor of the whiner instead of saying "grow up and follow the rules of the boss, or go get another job."
It is about another loss of personal freedom.


Does it not seem to you that this is about the loss of personal freedom for pharamists?  Or are you of the opinion that nurses should be made to masturbate elderly patients who can't do it themselves, despite the nurse's objection?  It is, afterall, part of her job.

Heh.  I'll tease you about the questionable orders soldiers today are legallly obligated to refuse, despite the fact that doing so is contradicting their superiors and job description, later.


*Ha*
If they take the job, they take what comes with the job. If the scope of the job changes, then they can find other work or make special arrangements without running to a court of law.  This is a moral issue, not a legal issue.
Your example of the nurses is absurd, but you already knew that.   
And, as I am sure many of you have already determined...I am on the right side of the political spectrum.
It is not about "Plan B".  It is about the misuse of the judiciary to settle a moral dilemna.  It is not their place.
And that is what makes Me on the "Right"! 
In My opinion,  of course!  [8D]



CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:34:01 PM)

It's absurd, certainly; since I can draw it to the pharmist-having-to-do-his-job bit, it's analogous.  This argument points out the fallacy of the reasoning.  Therefore, it is not logically unreasonable to say that a pharmicist can not opt out of a portion of his job that he finds to be absurd?  Further, does this inclination strike as unjustifable on the basis that you can not empathize, or do you find there to be some difference?

Over, since I suppose this isn't the driving point of your argument, then allow me to ask.. do the courts not have the obligation to serve to protect the rights of individuals' constitutional rights, such as the freedom of religion, which, in practice, extends to the freedom of philosophical stance?

Pardon me if it seems that I pick on you, but I assure you, it's for fondness's sake.



dcnovice -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:36:19 PM)

quote:

Therefore, it is not logically unreasonable to say that a pharmicist can not opt out of a portion of his job that he finds to be absurd? 


A pharmacist who finds dispensing medicine "absurd" might want to think about a new line of work.



Zensee -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:37:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I find it's often prudent to make ad absurdum arguments.  Tends to be easier to point out to someone that their arguments are obliviously silly since it's a little harder rationalize.

Not that I'm one to underestimate the ability of the human ego to overlook logical fallacies.


Reductio ad absurdum arguments never function to point out genuine flaws in another's arguments. Reductio ad absurdum is a form of logical fallacy (forgive me for using the term correctly here) intended to bury an opponents point in your own concocted exaggeration of their argument (for instance, 'if you believe pharmacists have no right to apply their morality to your choices you must approve of prostituting nurses').

Reductio ad absurdum is not at all suited to clarification or instruction - it is used to mock, annoy, confound and to cover for the absence of cogent ideas on the part of the absurdist.

Hardly surprising that you do not "underestimate the ability of the human ego to overlook logical fallacies" since it overstatement and invention are you main stock in trade on this board.

And before you engage in further whining about insults and the like, consider your own words in the preceding posts. Pot / kettle / black, and all that.


Z.





CuriousLord -> RE: Court rules that pharmacists can refuse morning after pill (11/10/2007 5:41:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Therefore, it is not logically unreasonable to say that a pharmicist can not opt out of a portion of his job that he finds to be absurd? 


A pharmacist who finds dispensing medicine "absurd" might want to think about a new line of work.


Then would you say that a nurse who would not service the physical needs of her pacients should find a new line of work?

Or, if this argument is unpleasant, then who is to say that such a pill is a medicine?  Biologically, it strikes me as quite poisenous!



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.515625E-02