farglebargle
Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005 From: Albany, NY Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote:
This is *exactly* why their profession is regulated. It is in The People's Best Interest for Individuals to be able to fill ANY prescription written by a doctor. If there's a pharmacist available, then they damn well be able to fill the prescription. Otherwise, why bother giving them an exclusive franchise, when the Tractor Supply would carry the product if it wasn't restricted to pharmacies? What is exactly why "their profession is regulated."? The potentially limited stocks at Rural pharmacies. Because it's in The Public Interest that the profession and operations of Pharmacists be regulated, one of the primary reasons is to ensure that when your physician prescribes any medication, that you will be able to go purchase that medication without undue burden. That burden is acknowledged by this ruling where the Judge tells the whiny bitches: "Sure you don't have to dispense or stock it, BUT if you're not going to you HAVE TO give the patient the name and address where the 'script can be filled." Which brings up the moral question: "Is it RIGHT to tell someone whose prescription you're not filling, due to moral issues with assisting in the potential termination of a life, WHERE TO GO TO GET ASSISTANCE IN THAT ACT?" Does telling the patient where to get it filled, make you an accessory to the abortion ANYWAY? Did the judge bitch-slap these jerks, and they don't even know it, forcing them into doing one thing which is morally questionable to avoid another morally questionable act? quote:
You know, you really seem to have a bug up your butt about "Artificial Legal Entities." While you did – almost begrudgingly, it seems to me – acknowledge that the people who make up these ALE’s have rights you seem to get upset at the notion of them actually exercising their rights. For example, when they try to get the regulations that govern them changed to their benefit. The point is actually that, say, Rite-Aid Drugs, doesn't have ***ANY*** wiggle room. Rite-Aid does what the fuck they're told, when they're told, and with a fucking smile. If the President of Rite Aid wants to donate a grand to a candidate and write a letter saying a law needs to be changed, that's FINE. When Rite-Aid donates $5000 to a lobbyist, that's tampering with the political system. See the essential difference? The Company PRESIDENT has a vote on Election Day. The COMPANY DOES NOT.
< Message edited by farglebargle -- 11/12/2007 12:19:29 AM >
_____________________________
It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show. ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים
|