Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the bosses, the ones who are actually supposed to be making policy and deciding which meds to sell, find out, they'll take action because they don't want to lose customers due to a "religious nutcase pharmacist".
And, I don't, and have not, disagreed with this -
We have also been discussing though, and perhaps you have missed it, the FACT that a Pharmacy DOES NOT have to carry these medications. They are under NO OBLIGATION to carry them - be it a religious decision or a business decision.
I don't think medical professionals give up their rights at all. That hasn't been what I'm saying. I've said over and over, I support the pharmacist's right in every event except when the patient doesn't have reasonable access to another pharmacist. I've stated that this would be an extremely rare circumstance. But I think this goes beyond birth control. If a pharmacist were a member of Fred Phelps church and was deeply, morally, sincerely opposed to homosexuality and refused to dispense HIV medicine, even though that pharmacist has no way of knowing how the patient contracted HIV, and there wasn't any other pharmacist in town and the patient didn't have a car or couldn't drive, do you think the pharmacist's right to exercise his moral convictions outweighs the HIV's patient's rights?
That pharmicist would be morally corrupt....but he should be allowed to do it if this is his private business. As an employee, no he should not be allowed to.
I do see what you are getting at, but do you see how over reaching your scenerio is? You can hold to your moral beliefs as long as it doesn't inconvenience someone else, and since we have no idea if a person without a car, without the internet, without a phone may need a med that you find against your personal morals...too bad, you have to have it in stock ready to sell just in case this type of person needs it. It is an impossible dictate from the state.
Neo liberals (what most people call liberals today) do tend to do what they can to keep poor people in a position of dependency in order to give the bureaucracy that's supposed to be serving them a reason to exist -- and the (neo) liberal politicians a constituency. Theft comes in the form both of taxation and the institution of government policies to keep these people "down".
It's also quite possible he meant to say "steal from the rich".
We have also been discussing though, and perhaps you have missed it, the FACT that a Pharmacy DOES NOT have to carry these medications. They are under NO OBLIGATION to carry them - be it a religious decision or a business decision.
Did we all agree on this, with the caveat that the pharmacy does have an obligation of informing the local medical community and its customers that it chooses not to carry certain medications? Just so that if a doctor writes a prescription the doctor and/or patient are aware that special arrangements might have to be made to fill that prescription.
Neo liberals (what most people call liberals today) do tend to do what they can to keep poor people in a position of dependency in order to give the bureaucracy that's supposed to be serving them a reason to exist -- and the (neo) liberal politicians a constituency. Theft comes in the form both of taxation and the institution of government policies to keep these people "down".
It's also quite possible he meant to say "steal from the rich".
"Steal from the rich" seems more likely, as it's usually the liberals who want to increase welfare spending, etc. and help the poor, right?
Did we all agree on this, with the caveat that the pharmacy does have an obligation of informing the local medical community and its customers that it chooses not to carry certain medications? Just so that if a doctor writes a prescription the doctor and/or patient are aware that special arrangements might have to be made to fill that prescription.
Absolutely! Drs, local hospitals and clinics should be notified of this pharmacies decision to not fill certain rx.
The pharmacist should also be expected to put a clearly legible sign at his entrance, his counter and his drive thru window that this pharmacy doesn't carry A, B and C.
That would be abundantly fair and reasonable.
Did we all agree on this, with the caveat that the pharmacy does have an obligation of informing the local medical community and its customers that it chooses not to carry certain medications? Just so that if a doctor writes a prescription the doctor and/or patient are aware that special arrangements might have to be made to fill that prescription.
That pharmicist would be morally corrupt....but he should be allowed to do it if this is his private business. As an employee, no he should not be allowed to.
I do see what you are getting at, but do you see how over reaching your scenerio is? You can hold to your moral beliefs as long as it doesn't inconvenience someone else, and since we have no idea if a person without a car, without the internet, without a phone may need a med that you find against your personal morals...too bad, you have to have it in stock ready to sell just in case this type of person needs it. It is an impossible dictate from the state.
I do see your side of this as well. And if we are presuming that the pharmacist really has an issue with the medication and not with the person receiving the medication (a presumption I don't agree with and which I think is the crux of this discussion), I don't want the pharmacist to let go of his moral beliefs. I want the local community to weigh in on what it wants.
I disagree. Alot of these neo liberals woud love nothing more but to take my guns, raise my taxes, steal from the poor to empower the bureaucrats, institute "fairness", outlaw my faith, tax my carbon footprint, and take my land.
If you're talking about you personally, it might have something to do with your attitude...
I kid.
You can disagree if you want, but that doesn't make this assertion realistic or factual or anything other than the paranoid regurgitations of a Fox watcher...
Wasn't this a great thread, where people weighed in passionately about what they believed, and things for the most part didn't get ugly, and some measure of agreement was achieved?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
