quote:

Look, if cell-phone companies are systematically discriminating against people who live in a certain area, they SHOULD be forced to provide broader coverage. But the whole example is irrelevant (aside from the fact that you can't even remember the details of the conversation you're alluding to).

One thing that's really striking about this thread is how people are bringing in examples that don't seem to have anything to do with anything. Nurses masturbating their patients? Universal cell-phone service? What the hell? Yes, I understand that the debate pits those of us who believe that crucial services need to be regulated in civil society against those who believe in a blissfully unregulated market. Message received, loud and clear. Now can we please keep nurses who are required to masturbate their patients and government-mandated universal cell-phone service where they belong: in Never-Neverland?

quote:

I understand your frustration. What alternative recourse would you suggest to someone whose pharmacist refuses to see her legal, FDA-approved medicine?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

I understand your frustration. What alternative recourse would you suggest to someone whose pharmacist refuses to see her legal, FDA-approved medicine?

Go to another pharmacy.

quote:

I have no problem with pharmacists refusing to dispense such medication; as long as
1. all their Viagra bottles and such profits are forcibly removed from their premises and
2. they will financially support the pregnancies and adopt all the unwanted/abused children that result
to prove they're not hypocrites.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

I seem to remember another phrase from somewhere.
"With the consent of the governed."
Perhaps FargoneBargle our resident constitutional scholor can explain that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Oh lighten the fuck up, will ya? I well remember the details of the conversation I am alluding to and I am perfectly aware of the underlying debate. When you state that this debate "pits those of us who believe that crucial services need to be regulated in a civil society against those of us who believe in a blissfully unregulated market," you are making two crucial mistakes. First, you are mis-characterizing one side of the debate. I think you will find that there are very few people who want a unregulated market. A philosophical belief in as few regulations as necessary is not the same as believing there should be no regulations. This is akin to accusing someone who wants lower taxes to wanting no taxes. This is a common tactic in debating – taking the other side’s argument and extrapolating it to an absurd extreme in order to make it look silly (I confess to falling prey to it myself sometimes). The second problem is the question of what needs to be regulated. What counts as "crucial services?" A lot can be contained under that phrase.

quote:

Chicken and biscuts are clearly a crucial service.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

As noted, however, a rape victim’s first stop should be the hospital and I think it unlikely that they would be unable to get the MAP if needed. Of course, a rape victim may not be thinking clearly but the problem here is that there are exceptions to almost everything. This harks back to the "one size fits all" problem of regulations. A perfect society is unattainable and attempts to make it so do more harm than good. Therefore, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

They're probably using a slightly modified definition of "pregnant" to avoid pro-life having a distaste for them.  I'm sorry, I have to take a break from this to study for Monday, but I'm pretty sure you can find an article on the mechanism by which it works to clarify this.  I'd recommend avoiding their site as I'm sure they're going to side-step aggrivating pro-life sentiments as much as they can justify.

(PS-  What I mean is that they're just saying that pregnancy doesn't truly start until like a week after conception or something.  Which, well, legally, I suppose they're free to.  Still, I define pregancy as happening at conception.)

quote:

injunction

quote:

ORIGINAL: camille65

Since you seem to be fond of the ridiculous, let me try.What about a pharmacist that doesn't believe in the use of serious pain medication because of a possible potential of addiction?*poor cancer patient just has to suck it up right?* Or the pharmacist that thinks depression is simply lack of will to change?Maybe you get a pharmacist that thinks diabetics need to just lose weight and exercise more?

quote:

ORIGINAL: camille65
It is not up to the pharmacist to decide whether or not the patient 'deserves' the medication prescribed by a doctor. If they work for a chain, I think they should find another job. If they work for a private pharmacy then the customer needs to find another pharmacy.If a big company wants to take the stance of letting their pharmacists pick and choose who to fill prescriptions for? Then I hope they get sued into oblivion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

Is this the same NeedToUseYou?  I actually agree with this!

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

This ruling is quite ridiculous, IMO. The pharmacist works for the pharmacy, if the pharmacy selects to sell the drug, then the pharmacists opinion is made when he took the job. His right is to quit or sell it. I don't understand the logic of this ruling which is pretty much saying an employee can select not to perform their job according to the standards specified by the company, because they don't believe its right. That quite frankly is stupid. The only way it would ever be valid was if the company wanted the employee to participate in something illegal, which is not what this case was about. You make these kind of decisions when you take the job you don't dictate to your employer about your beliefs afterwards. It's quite sickening.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

quote:

ORIGINAL: camille65

Since you seem to be fond of the ridiculous, let me try.What about a pharmacist that doesn't believe in the use of serious pain medication because of a possible potential of addiction?*poor cancer patient just has to suck it up right?* Or the pharmacist that thinks depression is simply lack of will to change?Maybe you get a pharmacist that thinks diabetics need to just lose weight and exercise more?

You see, this is where the pharmacist would be chosing the pacient's course of action.  Sort of like a gun store owner not selling to someone because they think that the person's going to shoot at cans instead of more standardized targets.

However, I'm saying the pharmacist shouldn't be forced to participate in something he considers to be henious, such as a gun owner shouldn't be forced to sell a weapon that will be used to kill someone on the street right outside.  Now, unlike the gun shop clerk, the pharmacist knows what the pill's going to be used for, where the gun store clerk would only be assuming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: camille65
It is not up to the pharmacist to decide whether or not the patient 'deserves' the medication prescribed by a doctor. If they work for a chain, I think they should find another job. If they work for a private pharmacy then the customer needs to find another pharmacy.If a big company wants to take the stance of letting their pharmacists pick and choose who to fill prescriptions for? Then I hope they get sued into oblivion.

Sued?  For not wanting to sell something that they consider to be tantamount to abortion?  No, camille.  The most obnixious thing about all of this is that I hear that abortion is about personal choice and freedom from pro-choice.. and I'm sure the same group wants to take that away from pharmacists if they don't agree to give up their livelihoods which they probably spent most of their life studying to gain.  The fact that they couldn't have predicted abortion pills, or their legality, only adds to my sympathy for them.

quote:

That's fine for city folk, where there are abundannt pharmacies. Not sure it works as well in a rural setting, where the next pharmacy might be quite some distance away.

It also seems a bit unfair to shift the cost of dealing with the pharmacist's beliefs from the pharmacist to the patient.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I'd encourage you to read up on how it works.  It does kill the fertilized egg.  Or, at least, it tries to.  If that's not an abortion in your book, you'll have to tell me how you see it as being different.

I'd also note that it doesn't always work.  As it's a hormonal pill, and such pills have been shown to lead to birth defects, a failed morning-after-pill may also lead to a deformed infant.

quote:

Emergency contraception drugs are not the same as the "abortion pill." A woman who knows she is pregnant takes the abortion pill with the intent to end an early pregnancy (usually 4 to 7 weeks after conception). Emergency contraception pills are taken after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy from occurring.

quote:

If emergency contraception fails and the woman becomes pregnant, there do not appear to be any long-term effects on the pregnancy or the fetus.