"conscience clause" and pharmacists

[Skip]

The pharmacist won't sell you birth control.

I say, take your money and go elsewhere.

Why am I wrong?

Already answered. Because it doesn't stop at birth-control pills, and if there is only one pharmacy in town, he's got the whole population hostage to his whim. Obviously, such a bigot needs to open his store only in a bigoted town. Perhaps pharmacists in larger population centers could be issued limited licenses, according to what-all medication they object to dispensing, and be required to post the list of unavailable products outside the store, so only his own kind of people ever go in.

[henry quirk]

"Already answered"

Nope...sorry.

#

"Because it doesn't stop at birth-control pills"

So what?

If the pharmacist refuse to sell three quarters of what another pharmacist sells, in the long run: the stingy pharmacist is the loser 'cause the business will go elsewhere.

#

"if there is only one pharmacy in town"

Irrelevant. *The scarcity of a service or product can't be the basis for depriving the business owner the control of his or her business.

What you seem to ignore is the natural governor on what may be the unreasonability of the pharmacist (who won't sell birth control), that being: folks take their money elsewhere.

Madeline has the only pharmacy in Shithole, Maine. It sure would be nice if she'd sell them debbil condoms and mornin' after pills but she won't, so Skip is just gonna have to drive the fifty miles to the nearest town to get a rain coat for his willie and/or a bye-bye pill to flush out his woman's uterus.

Your inconvenience is not Madeline's concern...that your money is goin' elsewhere 'might' be her concern...in fact her concern about your money goin' elsewhere may prompt Maddy to change her policy (and if she doesn't, and if enough of her business goes elsewhere, Maddy may have to close up shop).

You wanna proscribe -- through law -- how Madeline should run her pharmacy (or bakery, or dog grooming service, or auto repair shop) when you ought to let the (slighted) customers do that as they deprive Madeline of cash.

Word of mouth can be the best advertising or it can kill a business (why do you think billions are spent annually on marketing?).









*oh, I guess just about any old excuse can be foisted up as a reason to take control of a privately owned business (the ACA, here in the U S of A, is a grand example of that)...there's a name for such shit: fascism

[EagerForTruth]

Hmm...I'm feeling brave I'll wade into this one...

I don't think any pharcmacists should be able to refuse to give any kind of medication in their profession at all.

Of course henry will probably have momentary mental explosion if don't qualify a reasoning, and god knows the Inpenitent will think of it:

Of course the current format of our legal system the way the law is right now is most in line with how this element of our society - the health care system - is constructed, I consider a for profit health system is itself unethical. To my applicaton of ethics in society and politics, it is not a commerical service that should be under the supply and demand market type structure of our economy. It is a basic human need and should be one of societies responsibilies - yes, dare i say it - nationalized, single payer health care

I can't see the difference between health care as a basic human need, and hence one of services that falls under governments responbility versus things like the fire and poliice safety functions of government. Indeed I would even go so far as to include water supply as something that should never be subjected to a privitized market as there is great danger in allowing the pursuit of profit to have influence over the services where any of the basic human needs are provided for.

If we really want to talk about ethical and moral behvaior, we must also recognize that despite the ethical and moral responsibility to allow other their freedoms, the very function of government is to enforce what society has determined the individuals minimal adherence to the society's standards are.

Ok - have at it....

[Impenitent]

Hmm...I'm feeling brave I'll wade into this one...

I don't think any pharcmacists should be able to refuse to give any kind of medication in their profession at all.

Of course henry will probably have momentary mental explosion if don't qualify a reasoning, and god knows the Inpenitent will think of it:

Of course the current format of our legal system the way the law is right now is most in line with how this element of our society - the health care system - is constructed, I consider a for profit health system is itself unethical. To my applicaton of ethics in society and politics, it is not a commerical service that should be under the supply and demand market type structure of our economy. It is a basic human need and should be one of societies responsibilies - yes, dare i say it - nationalized, single payer health care

I can't see the difference between health care as a basic human need, and hence one of services that falls under governments responbility versus things like the fire and poliice safety functions of government. Indeed I would even go so far as to include water supply as something that should never be subjected to a privitized market as there is great danger in allowing the pursuit of profit to have influence over the services where any of the basic human needs are provided for.

If we really want to talk about ethical and moral behvaior, we must also recognize that despite the ethical and moral responsibility to allow other their freedoms, the very function of government is to enforce what society has determined the individuals minimal adherence to the society's standards are.

Ok - have at it....

so all licensed pharmacists must go around and deliver fatal doses of whatever medication the government sees fit?

who will the government force to take training?

will you spend years in a government school learning a craft?

will you willingly break rocks for your government masters?

forcing people to "care" for others is grand... don't worry, the government cares for you...

it's just a shower.

-Imp

[EagerForTruth]

Hmm, well to my mind yes, that's easy. First of all, it's not "the government" that is prescribing anything - its physicians with the proper knowledge and education. They are very much regulated and reviewed by the government now as well. It almost sounds like your telling me that the government should and does set the base rules and regulations for the practice, you just don't want them involved in the financial aspect of it. There are quite a few very decent countries with excellent health system and yes, they are nationalized. They don't force anyone to take the training, and yes I would be willing in a system like that. I mean I am assuming it's a democratic system guided by rule of law, if the government were to become tyrannical THEN it would be time to revolt against it, even if that just meant my martyrdom, or if it meant full scale revolution. But I'm restricting my argument to the same kind of society, governmental, and legal system I live in, and I rather guess you do as well. Additionally, it's curious - the government does force us all to do a great many things. Government itself is what? In a democratic society it is a societal contract by which we all have a part in determining what the standards, ethics, and morals of society are. You can speak of freedom, but that is just an illusion itself. Freedom is limited, taken in an unqualified manner, it's simply complete anarchy. I have no reservations about participating in the social contract with others, and I certainly am not profiting myself from it. I could easily think of many things that I don't like about it particularly and find myself on the less fortunate end of. But since I can still find a way to blend into society, be productive, enjoy simple pleasures, and not have to compromise my values, I am fine. I distrust the individual and his greed much more than I distrust the government and it's nature.

[Skip]

so all licensed pharmacists must go around and deliver fatal doses of whatever medication the government sees fit?

Last I heard, prescriptions could only be written by physicians, acknowledged by the AMA and licensed by the government.
I wouldn't take medication recommended by a practitioner who didn't have those credentials, or dispensed by drug-merchant who hadn't studied in an accredited university and wasn't licensed by the Board of Pharmacy.
You might - after all, where does government or a professional association get off deciding who can be a doctor, who can mix chemicals? Anyone can hang a sign on his door and sell what he wants to.

who will the government force to take training?

Soldiers. Everybody else chooses to get training for a skilled job, or not.

will you spend years in a government school learning a craft?

If you're lucky. Most people can't afford private school.

will you willingly break rocks for your government masters?

Only if you're caught selling poison without a license. And even then, you're more likely to sew uniforms or mail-sacks: the government doesn't need that many rocks broken.

forcing people to "care" for others is grand... don't worry, the government cares for you...

Fortunately, we have Exxon to care for us. What do you want, edible food or SUV's?

I always find it odd for people who so dislike and distrust government to talk about "my money". All money is issued by government, guaranteed by government, protected by government.

[EagerForTruth]

Ha skip - I like it, you had the same points to make but I just don't have the sharp wit to do it like that Glad to see there's others who see that when people cry freedom, they usually mean money.

[Skip]

I'm a slow typist. I saw you beat me to the post, but wasn't about to waste the effort. Besides, the social contract needs all the champions it can get in The Age of Fux.

[EagerForTruth]

Nor should you have wasted it, my way of expression might have reason, but it never seems to find much of an audience.

[Impenitent]

so all licensed pharmacists must go around and deliver fatal doses of whatever medication the government sees fit?

Last I heard, prescriptions could only be written by physicians, acknowledged by the AMA and licensed by the government.
I wouldn't take medication recommended by a practitioner who didn't have those credentials, or dispensed by drug-merchant who hadn't studied in an accredited university and wasn't licensed by the Board of Pharmacy.
You might - after all, where does government or a professional association get off deciding who can be a doctor, who can mix chemicals? Anyone can hang a sign on his door and sell what he wants to.

I don't think any pharcmacists should be able to refuse to give any kind of medication in their profession at all.

I simply asked the question as a response to making all pharmacists mindless pill-pushing slaves... keep in mind Mengele was a credentialed medical doctor... social security has dried up and grandma needs government prescribed cyanide... the Nuremberg defense didn't work then either...

who will the government force to take training?

Soldiers. Everybody else chooses to get training for a skilled job, or not.


cry freedom!!! your government masters have decided you will make a good doctor for the collective.

will you spend years in a government school learning a craft?

If you're lucky. Most people can't afford private school.


again, not the point. your government will decide where you will fit...

will you willingly break rocks for your government masters?

Only if you're caught selling poison without a license. And even then, you're more likely to sew uniforms or mail-sacks: the government doesn't need that many rocks broken.


selling? no, your government masters have decided what you will do... a chain gang by any other name...

forcing people to "care" for others is grand... don't worry, the government cares for you...

Fortunately, we have Exxon to care for us. What do you want, edible food or SUV's?


exxon wants to sell us whatever... private business needs customers... government needs invalids


I always find it odd for people who so dislike and distrust government to talk about "my money". All money is issued by government, guaranteed by government, protected by government.

trust your government... don't worry, it's only a shower

-Imp

[Impenitent]

Hmm, well to my mind yes, that's easy. First of all, it's not "the government" that is prescribing anything - its physicians with the proper knowledge and education. They are very much regulated and reviewed by the government now as well. It almost sounds like your telling me that the government should and does set the base rules and regulations for the practice, you just don't want them involved in the financial aspect of it.

unelected IRS agents control your health care now that ACA is the law. you aren't getting your prescription without the "government" paying for it... oops, your government can't afford that...



There are quite a few very decent countries with excellent health system and yes, they are nationalized. They don't force anyone to take the training, and yes I would be willing in a system like that. I mean I am assuming it's a democratic system guided by rule of law, if the government were to become tyrannical THEN it would be time to revolt against it, even if that just meant my martyrdom, or if it meant full scale revolution. But I'm restricting my argument to the same kind of society, governmental, and legal system I live in, and I rather guess you do as well. Additionally, it's curious - the government does force us all to do a great many things.

for the land of the freee.... - and the home of the slave...


Government itself is what? In a democratic society it is a societal contract by which we all have a part in determining what the standards, ethics, and morals of society are. You can speak of freedom, but that is just an illusion itself. Freedom is limited, taken in an unqualified manner, it's simply complete anarchy.

you contradict yourself


I have no reservations about participating in the social contract with others, and I certainly am not profiting myself from it. I could easily think of many things that I don't like about it particularly and find myself on the less fortunate end of. But since I can still find a way to blend into society, be productive, enjoy simple pleasures, and not have to compromise my values, I am fine.

you had a choice?


I distrust the individual and his greed much more than I distrust the government and it's nature.

and the individual in the government with control over you has no greed right?

-Imp

[EagerForTruth]

All this tells me is that you have more than enough resources to leverage and get whatever you'd like. Greed in government exists, but there are at least *some* mechanisms that try to control it. The private sector, while appropriate for the non-essential of living, is pure greed - no restrictions, in fact, the accumulation of money and the use of it to acquire more, is revered. To me, living to excess is unethical to being with. By the way - you're points are rhetoric, and not even very good rhetoric at that. Now if you're audience was different, perhaps it would work. But I don't really react to the rhetoric of the demagogues. As for the part of contradicting myself? How is that contradictory in any way? Democracy is not an identical synonym to freedom.

Here's the definitions of freedom:


free·dom
[free-duhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.
5.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

Now in this conversation, 1, 4, and 5, are obviously not the meanings we are using. 2 and 3 however - well we don't live in a country with "freedom" unless we are referring to the modern policital idea of freedom, just as the modern political idea of equality goes somewhat beyond any of the definitions. In both cases "freedom" or "equality" and I could think of more, are ideals - ones that are often perverted, especially, once again as I said, by capitalism run amok where money is really the underlying value for most.

Again, I say, when people cry freedom, they usually mean money. You couldn't have proved it more then when you mentioned the IRS.

[bobevenson]

The owner of a store is the only person who should be able to dictate what is sold or not sold. If any employee disagrees, it's time for that person to hit the road.

[Impenitent]

All this tells me is that you have more than enough resources to leverage and get whatever you'd like. Greed in government exists, but there are at least *some* mechanisms that try to control it. The private sector, while appropriate for the non-essential of living, is pure greed - no restrictions, in fact, the accumulation of money and the use of it to acquire more, is revered. To me, living to excess is unethical to being with. By the way - you're points are rhetoric, and not even very good rhetoric at that. Now if you're audience was different, perhaps it would work. But I don't really react to the rhetoric of the demagogues.

Your idea of excess is suspect... and you think your government masters impoverish themselves?

As for the part of contradicting myself? How is that contradictory in any way?

society it is a societal contract by which we all have a part in determining what the standards, ethics, and morals of society are. You can speak of freedom, but that is just an illusion itself.

free to choose which part? the standards? the ethics? the morals?
freedom is an illusion?

Democracy is not an identical synonym to freedom.

Here's the definitions of freedom:


free·dom
[free-duhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2.
exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3.
the power to determine action without restraint.
4.
political or national independence.
5.
personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

Now in this conversation, 1, 4, and 5, are obviously not the meanings we are using. 2 and 3 however - well we don't live in a country with "freedom" unless we are referring to the modern policital idea of freedom, just as the modern political idea of equality goes somewhat beyond any of the definitions. In both cases "freedom" or "equality" and I could think of more, are ideals - ones that are often perverted, especially, once again as I said, by capitalism run amok where money is really the underlying value for most.

Again, I say, when people cry freedom, they usually mean money. You couldn't have proved it more then when you mentioned the IRS.

you obviously don't know who runs health care under obamacare...

-Imp

[Skip]

I'd like to send these guys to live in a civilized country for a year...
...if any would have them.
Next best remedy: make them watch Zeitgeist three times.