NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, but according to you his "morals do not matter." He should not have to tell us why he refuses to distribute the drug. So, if it just happens that the only drugs he refuses to sell are used exclusively by women, or treat illnesses that only people of African descent are likely to contract... well, I guess that's just a coincidence. At any rate, we have no right to complain about it (according to you).

That is correct, but I was explaining why UT's statement was irrelevant to the topic at hand. This law has no effect on whether he discriminates against customers or not, in only stops pharmacists from discriminating against this drug.

Yes, but like every other right that we would "prefer" to have, when we enter society we agree that it may be subject to certain limitations. No "right" is absolute. Not even, I would say, the right to "life," insofar as society is within its rights to draft its members into military service--in which they may literally be ordered to their deaths--for the protection of the whole. (Incidentally, I think this only applies to defensive wars, or wars that are legitimately justified as attacking an imminent threat. I do not believe the state has a right to order its members into war for any reason other than the preservation of the association.)

There are no inviolable rights, even within a society whose government is supposedly designed to create and protect them. However, I can attempt to force my government to maintain those rights. I don't have much leverage, though, so I wouldn't worry too much.

And at least you are consistent. I wonder how many of the people who say the pharmacist should be forced to give his right to society would agree that the government should maintain the right to draft.

I still don't understand how we can draw a valid comparison between someone like a pharmacist and another storeowner.

No that is not right at all. It is one thing to refuse selling a drink to a drunk and it's another to refuse selling contraception to a woman.

Giving people that right says a cop, a fireman, a doctor and a soldier can have the right to not apply their labor in a beneficial manner to them.....

Just to get it out of the way, that right to refuse for whatever reason includes any prejudice whatsoever. If you didn't read that already, you would waste a post trying to counter my logic by bringing up racism.

In my opinion, since it is the labor involved and not the morality that matters, those two scenarios are not different at all. The service provider should not be forced to work in a way that he or she feels is unbeneficial to himself.

Ok how does making a sale seem not beneficial to him? After all his service is to sell meds.....

I don't know what is truly going on his mind, but he may think that, by selling this meds, he is also selling his soul. Even if he is completely erroneous, selling the medication will obviously have a greater negative effect than a positive effect.

I think personally, pharmacists and doctors and surgeons should be forced, no questions, no ifs and or buts. It's their job. If you're completely anti-birth control, then don't work as a pharmacist. Simple as that. If you're anti-abortion, don't become any sort of doctor who might be requested to do one. If you're against using condoms as a contraceptive, don't work in a store that sells them.

If some pharmacist or doctor ever told me they wouldn't fill a prescription because they were religiously or morally against what I was prescribing, they'd find themselves at the fat end of a big pile of trouble real quick. What I do with my personal life isn't any of their business. Their business is to sell me what I choose to buy, fill my prescription, or perform my surgery. Simple as that.

If a vegetarian worked at a grocery store, and refused to ring in the steaks you were buying because they were against eating meat, would they get away with it? Hell no. These days "My religion says so" can give you the get out of jail free card for damnwell anything, and it's ridiculous.

And at least you are consistent. I wonder how many of the people who say the pharmacist should be forced to give his right to society would agree that the government should maintain the right to draft.
Bad comparison

One is an example of the pharmisist choosing a contract and the government choosing to allow him to

The other is an example of the government choosing the contract without the requirement of the consituant accepting it

And at least you are consistent. I wonder how many of the people who say the pharmacist should be forced to give his right to society would agree that the government should maintain the right to draft.

And to be logically consistent you must agree that any soldier can refuse to fight at any time.

Any a cop, a fireman, a doctor can refuse treatment or action at any time for any reason -- including pure racism.

Is this really a better world you are arguing for?

EDIT: And, for the record, I do believe teh government should maintain the right to draft.

And to be logically consistent you must agree that any soldier can refuse to fight at any time.

I say he can refuse to be drafted. He should not be forced to apply his labor towards the good of society.

If the soldier is freely employed by the government, he has a contractual obligation to serve.

Any a cop, a fireman, a doctor can refuse treatment or action at any time for any reason -- including pure racism.

Cops and firemen have the same contractual duties as the soldier. The doctor may or may not have some of those duties contingent on how dependent he is on public money and works.

Is this really a better world you are arguing for?

In my opinion, yes.

EDIT: And, for the record, I do believe teh government should maintain the right to draft.

From what I know of your morals and views, that is a valid and reasonable opinion.

One is an example of the pharmisist choosing a contract and the government choosing to allow him to

The other is an example of the government choosing the contract without the requirement of the consituant accepting it

By the draft, people are forced to work for the good of the society by government action.

By this law, pharmacists are forced to work to sell Plan B for the good of society by government action.

You can, of course, say that they can choose not to sell Plan B by not being trying to be a pharmacist, but I can say that you can choose not to be drafted by leaving the country before the age of 18.

By the draft, people are forced to work for the good of the society by government action.

By this law, pharmacists are forced to work to sell Plan B for the good of society by government action.

You can, of course, say that they can choose not to sell Plan B by not being trying to be a pharmacist, but I can say that you can choose not to be drafted by leaving the country before the age of 18.
For some reson I find someone not choosing a career path they can not sucessfully acomplish and having to give up citizenship while still a child to not be on the same level

Silly me

I say he can refuse to be drafted. He should not be forced to apply his labor towards the good of society.

If the soldier is freely employed by the government, he has a contractual obligation to serve.

Cops and firemen have the same contractual duties as the soldier. The doctor may or may not have some of those duties contingent on how dependent he is on public money and works.

In my opinion, yes.

From what I know of your morals and views, that is a valid and reasonable opinion.
Contractual obligation?

The fact you have to get a license is a contractual obligation. If we state the pharmi can't discriminate then there is noting to discuss.

Sorry but I see a far worst world if it followed your path.

You a Liberterian?

For some reson I find someone not choosing a career path they can not sucessfully acomplish and having to give up citizenship while still a child to not be on the same level

Silly me

For some reason, I don't think that either are acceptable.

(People are perfectly able to accomplish a career as a pharmacist with a moral opposition to individual medications just as Jews can be cooks without cooking pork.)

For some reason, I don't think that either are acceptable.

(People are perfectly able to accomplish a career as a pharmacist with a moral opposition to individual medications just as Jews can be cooks without cooking pork.)
But between a cook and a pharmasist one is by its nature more vital in nature

Contractual obligation?

The fact you have to get a license is a contractual obligation. If we state the pharmi can't discriminate then there is noting to discuss.

And once again someone circles around to discuss the validity of licenses. If you want my opinion on that, read the thread.

Sorry but I see a far worst world if it followed your path.

I don't doubt it.

Me, I believe people are more likely to behave collectively when they are given reason to on a personal level. When government enforces it, they will only act collectively only to the point they are not adversely affected by government. If they act collectively out of selfish necessity, they will do it with conviction.

You a Liberterian?

Sort of.

I am a minarchist definitely.

I don't really understand why a pharmacist wouldn't fill a prescription. First of all, it's none of their business or their concern what a woman (or a man) does with her own body. Secondly, it's their job...do it.

And once again someone circles around to discuss the validity of licenses. If you want my opinion on that, read the thread.


Why do I need to re-read. You believe one thing and we believe something else.

It's one thing to say it's onfair but thats the way things are. When you directly impact somebody else, there has to be unfair rules.

A pharmacist that plays to his morality does not help the greator good. Especially if he is the only pharmacist in town.


I don't doubt it.

Me, I believe people are more likely to behave collectively when they are given reason to on a personal level.


The only problem with your setup is the fact you assume people will be happy to work together. People screwed by the pharmacist aren't exactly going to work with him now are they? The Doctors he overrides aren't going to work either.

Collectly only works for tiny groups and usually only if they are only all of the same mindset.

Those days are past.


When government enforces it, they will only act collectively only to the point they are not adversely affected by government.


In the matters of selling pills, you still have yet to prove the greator good is served by the pharmi selling to his moral ideology.


If they act collectively out of selfish necessity, they will do it with conviction.


That's a fancy dream at best. People don't always act out of necessity. There are many of us that will do something for the principle of the matter rather then self gain.



Sort of.

I am a minarchist definitely.[/QUOTE]

Why do I need to re-read. You believe one thing and we believe something else.

Yes, but we agree on licenses, so to bring up the contractual agreement between the pharmacist and the government is pointless.

It's one thing to say it's onfair but thats the way things are. When you directly impact somebody else, there has to be unfair rules.

Why can't the rights that are given up within human interaction be a fair trade-off? Obviously government must make "catch-all" legislation that affects everyone differently, but why shouldn't government try to insure that when two people interact the results are as equitable as possible?

A pharmacist that plays to his morality does not help the greator good. Especially if he is the only pharmacist in town.

I don't think a person should be made to suffer in promotion of the members of society. The greater good is only achieved when the amalgamation of individuals that comprise society advance equally.

The only problem with your setup is the fact you assume people will be happy to work together. People screwed by the pharmacist aren't exactly going to work with him now are they? The Doctors he overrides aren't going to work either.

They don't particularly have to be happy about it, they just have to know its necessary. Most people probably aren't happy to get up and go to work at 7:00 AM, but they do it. Most people probably have co-workers that they don't like, but they work with them towards common goals. They do this because they know it is necessary to make the sacrifice.

Collectly only works for tiny groups and usually only if they are only all of the same mindset.

Those days are past.

With the advancements in communication and information technology those days are just now beginning.

That's a fancy dream at best. People don't always act out of necessity. There are many of us that will do something for the principle of the matter rather then self gain.

There are very few of us who will allow our principles to override our own survival.

I have never been a fan of the "because people don't act, we should force them to act" argument.
But that's not what collective action is about at all. It's more like an agreement that "I'll act, but only if you do, too."

This is a fine agreement... but it tends to break down when people have no way to check up on each other.

Think about sharing a house with other people. You may say, "we should all clean when we have the chance." But when you suspect that your housemates are not cleaning, or not cleaning as much as you are, you may change the agreement: "we'll all clean together on Saturday," so you can see who cleans and who does not. Or perhaps you'll divide responsibilities for different rooms, so that everyone is accountable for particular cleaning responsibilities.

Of course, people might "freely choose", left to themselves, to clean at other times, or to clean other rooms... but, this is the best "free" agreement you can reach among yourselves--one that actually compels people to do something other than what they would have done, to achieve a collective good.

Government is a more complicated kind of the same bargain. We realize that we will not always agree on the collective ends worth pursuing... but we also realize that without the cooperation of others on a large scale, there are certain great collective goods (a clean environment, perhaps; public safety; medical care) that we will not be able to procure without the assurance that others are "paying," too.

So, I agree that I will pay for "your" goods, so long as you will pay for mine... and so long as we both get a fair say in which ones will be pursued. This is the fundamental principle of democratic government, and it has a tendency to occur spontaneously where it does not exist... For instance, our house in the earlier example may decide to collect dues and vote on what furniture or toys to buy. This may not satisfy everyone all the time, but without it, we might not be able to get any nice things at all.

Nevertheless, the demand and method of distribution for Plan B is large enough and consistent enough to render the free rider problem pointless.

How do you know? What about places with few pharmacies, and pervasive religious beliefs?

What is the collective good that we are all paying for?

The collective good is this: pharmacies supply all common prescriptions. We might try to achieve it as individuals, by refusing to buy from pharmacies that do not perform their public function... but we would almost certainly fail due to the free-rider problem. No one would contribute. Instead, we pay taxes to have a common government regulate their performance.

However, government sponsored collective action can never be true collective action. It will be a majority of society agreeing to work collectively with a minority being dragged along and suffering more than their fair share of the costs.

If you think democracy will not develop spontaneously in any anarchy (as it has a tendency to do in social groups), you are sorely mistaken.

Why can't the rights that are given up within human interaction be a fair trade-off? Obviously government must make "catch-all" legislation that affects everyone differently, but why shouldn't government try to insure that when two people interact the results are as equitable as possible?


For one thing people don't have the same mindset. You can't force them to think and act the same way. Everyone has their own agenda and people tend to want to harm the efforts of those that would screw them.


I don't think a person should be made to suffer in promotion of the members of society.


A pharmi is not suffering from having to sell birth control. A pharmi is not suffering from having to sell the morning after pill. He may not like it but it's a fact of life. He can't expect everyone to live by his moral code.

I am curious how you define a persons healt as a promotion of somebody else over the pharmacist.


The greater good is only achieved when the amalgamation of individuals that comprise society advance equally.

And how are the people he refuses to help and or screwing (ie keeping the prescription paperwork) going to advance equally?


They don't particularly have to be happy about it, they just have to know its necessary. Most people probably aren't happy to get up and go to work at 7:00 AM, but they do it. Most people probably have co-workers that they don't like, but they work with them towards common goals. They do this because they know it is necessary to make the sacrifice.

Ok where is this linkage between hating to get up to work and being told "Sorry I am not giving you your drugs and I am not giving you your paperwork because I view it as immoral"


With the advancements in communication and information technology those days are just now beginning.

No not really. The global economy is about profit not advancing the greater good.


There are very few of us who will allow our principles to override our own survival.

Which is why people are getting laws passed against the pharmacy division of the morality police.

Denying emergency contraception not only can create unwanted pregnancies, then unwanted children or abortions, but it can create severe emotional damage too. Imagine getting raped and then attempting to get ECP, only to be judged by the pharmacist on top of everything. Even just having a condom break during consentual sex can be a traumatic experience, causing further damange on a woman after that is pretty much as horrible as it could be.

But then, I've been boycotting Target and Walgreens for this. I was boycotting Wal-Mart already because of the whole not paying employees well thing, though. It's really hard to find products when K-Mart is the only dept. store I'm shopping at...

I don't understand how the free rider problem really plays into this at all.

And it seems like one oughtn't become a pharmacist if one doesn't want to fill prescriptions.

And at least you are consistent.

We have that much in common.

;)

You can, of course, say that they can choose not to sell Plan B by not being trying to be a pharmacist, but I can say that you can choose not to be drafted by leaving the country before the age of 18.

Or at the age of 18, yup. Being a citizen of this country carries certain responsibilities with it that many may not like. In Illinois, getting a government-issued license to run a pharmacy carries certain responsibilities with it that a few don't like. In both cases, the person can try and change them if they disagree, but cannot break them.

Of course, moving to a different state, or even taking on a different profession, is much less difficult for most people than moving to another country and changing citizenship and forcing someone to be in the military puts their life in danger, while telling them that they must do their job a certain way does not. But we'll just ignore those major differences.

But that's not what collective action is about at all. It's more like an agreement that "I'll act, but only if you do, too."

This is a fine agreement... but it tends to break down when people have no way to check up on each other.

Think about sharing a house with other people. You may say, "we should all clean when we have the chance." But when you suspect that your housemates are not cleaning, or not cleaning as much as you are, you may change the agreement: "we'll all clean together on Saturday," so you can see who cleans and who does not. Or perhaps you'll divide responsibilities for different rooms, so that everyone is accountable for particular cleaning responsibilities.

Of course, people might "freely choose", left to themselves, to clean at other times, or to clean other rooms... but, this is the best "free" agreement you can reach among yourselves--one that actually compels people to do something other than what they would have done, to achieve a collective good.

Government is a more complicated kind of the same bargain. We realize that we will not always agree on the collective ends worth pursuing... but we also realize that without the cooperation of others on a large scale, there are certain great collective goods (a clean environment, perhaps; public safety; medical care) that we will not be able to procure without the assurance that others are "paying," too.

So, I agree that I will pay for "your" goods, so long as you will pay for mine... and so long as we both get a fair say in which ones will be pursued. This is the fundamental principle of democratic government, and it has a tendency to occur spontaneously where it does not exist... For instance, our house in the earlier example may decide to collect dues and vote on what furniture or toys to buy. This may not satisfy everyone all the time, but without it, we might not be able to get any nice things at all.

I understand the free-rider problem, but I don't feel that it alone is ample justification for forced collective action. Government controlled behavior is not a very good solution for myopic behavior.

This isn't to say that I want to ignore the free rider problem, altogether, mind you. The military and police force, for one, require collective action, people do not realize how important it is to pay for a standing defense until soldiers are taking their house, and since it would be unwise for goverment not maintain a monopoly on violence, they should remain a government provided collective good.

How do you know? What about places with few pharmacies, and pervasive religious beliefs?

I do not know for certain, but I spent first 22 years of my life in Illinois, not in Chicago where the impetus for this and all Illinois legislation began (In Illinois, if you are not from Chicago or a corporate farm owner, you are unlikely to receive any state attention). I grew up in a small rural town in southern Illinois. The town had a population density of 42 people/ square mile. I know of three Walgreens and one CVS within 25 miles (as long as none have closed down), all of which stock Plan B. I don't know if you can find a less densely populated and more religious area in Illinois than I grew up in, but you at least would have to work very hard.

The collective good is this: pharmacies supply all common prescriptions. We might try to achieve it as individuals, by refusing to buy from pharmacies that do not perform their public function... but we would almost certainly fail due to the free-rider problem. No one would contribute. Instead, we pay taxes to have a common government regulate their performance.

So it is the licensing that is the collective good, not the pill.

Actually, it is obvious that is the case, as there is no government procurement of the pill, only government forced provision.

So, I would conclude that if you want Plan B to be a collective good, you should argue for government to sell it, not force pharmacists to sell it.

For one thing people don't have the same mindset. You can't force them to think and act the same way. Everyone has their own agenda and people tend to want to harm the efforts of those that would screw them.

Alright, now you are going to have to explain how this addresses my point of fair trade-off of rights.

A pharmi is not suffering from having to sell birth control. A pharmi is not suffering from having to sell the morning after pill. He may not like it but it's a fact of life.

These three sentenses are a disaster.

By selling Plan B he is countering his religious beliefs, and neither of us can determine how much it hurts him psychologically. Even you say he doesn't like it. Yet you can make a definitive conclusion that he isn't suffering.

As for your "fact of life" statement, that is wrong on just about every level.

He can't expect everyone to live by his moral code.

If he can't expect everyone to live by his moral code, certainly he can expect others to allow him to live by his own moral code. That is the nature of the fair trade-offs I was speaking of.

I am curious how you define a persons healt as a promotion of somebody else over the pharmacist.

Is the pharmacist giving up certain rights in the running of his business or the application in his labor?

Are the rights given up in order to create a new positive right for someone else?

And how are the people he refuses to help and or screwing (ie keeping the prescription paperwork) going to advance equally?

I do not wish them to keep the paperwork, the pharmacist should not be able to control whether the person is allowed to receive the medication.

And only the customer is responsible for his/her advancement, I am assuming that he/she will work for that.

Ok where is this linkage between hating to get up to work and being told "Sorry I am not giving you your drugs and I am not giving you your paperwork because I view it as immoral"

I was addressing people's desire to work collectively, so the link between that statement and our topic is tangent.

People will work collectively out of necessity, not because they are "happy to do it."

The relationship comes when you determine how a collective will treat a dissenting individual.

No not really. The global economy is about profit not advancing the greater good.

My point was not about the global economy.

I was referring to the advancement of technology which has expanded the bounds of who we are able to remain in constant contact with and who we can ideologically and practically relate to.

As you said, collective action is only possible in communities of shared viewpoints, and I say that technology has openned up the possibility of global communities.

Alright, now you are going to have to explain how this addresses my point of fair trade-off of rights.

You keep saying that a collective is the better approach. People have to want to take that approach.

You also keep talking about a fair trade-off of rights. How is it fair where the woman needs her prescription and the pharmi won't do it


These three sentences are a disaster.

By selling Plan B he is countering his religious beliefs, and neither of us can determine how much it hurts him psychologically. Even you say he doesn't like it. Yet you can make a definitive conclusion that he isn't suffering.


His "psychological" being is a little concern. He is there to assist in the distribution of controlled substances. If he has psychological issues then he needs to find a new line of work. There are many other people that will gladly take his spot and they have the crazy idea of wanting to serve their customers.


As for your "fact of life" statement, that is wrong on just about every level.

Not at all. His moral code is his own thing. It does not trump a persons access to a controlled substance which her DOCTOR said was ok.

If he has issues about it, then the pharmicist needs a new career.


If he can't expect everyone to live by his moral code, certainly he can expect others to allow him to live by his own moral code.

Then he needs a new career. That fact he follows his Religious code and refuses to serve his customers is still pushing his moral code on others.


That is the nature of the fair trade-offs I was speaking of.

Again where is the fair trade-off? A woman needs her prescription and he won't fill it.


Is the pharmacist giving up certain rights in the running of his business or the application in his labor?

Are the rights given up in order to create a new positive right for someone else?

His job is to assist in the distribution of controlled substances. His job is to explain how they are used. His job is to make sure there isn't a mistake(ie a bad combination of pills or the wrong pills prescribed). His job isn't to judge why they are used.

If he can't do this job, then he needs to find another one.


I do not wish them to keep the paperwork, the pharmacist should not be able to control whether the person is allowed to receive the medication.

And only the customer is responsible for his/her advancement, I am assuming that he/she will work for that.

I was addressing people's desire to work collectively, so the link between that statement and our topic is tangent.

People will work collectively out of necessity, not because they are "happy to do it."

The relationship comes when you determine how a collective will treat a dissenting individual.


Then what is your grief? The collective (ie the general population) is working towards establishing laws that make the dissenter(ie the "moral" pharmacist) do his job.


My point was not about the global economy.

I was referring to the advancement of technology which has expanded the bounds of who we are able to remain in constant contact with and who we can ideologically and practically relate to.

As you said, collective action is only possible in communities of shared viewpoints, and I say that technology has penned up the possibility of global communities.

Ok well time will tell but let's not go off the question of the rights of the "moral" pharmacist.

I suppose there is another thread on this somewhere, but I can't get the search function to work.

On the Daily Show, there was a story about Illinois creating a law that pharmacists were required to fill prescriptions for the morning-after pill.

I am for a woman's right to her body, but I cannot fathom how a woman's right to her body can extend from her body over a pharmaceutical counter and encompass the pharmacist.

Maybe I am being obtuse, but I strongly oppose this. What are your thoughts.I have a similar problem. I don't believe it is morally right for black people to buy aspirin, see, yet when I worked at the corner drug store I was informed that I am not allowed to tell black people they have to go somewhere else for their aspirin. I know black people have a right to buy aspirin, but why should their right to have aspirin extend from their bodies over the counter and encompass me?

The problem came up again when I worked as a bartender. I don't think females should be permitted to order certain drinks, yet I was informed that I don't have the right to tell female customers to go somewhere else for their whisky sours. Something about how "if you don't want to serve alcohol to customers, don't be a bartender." I don't get how a woman's right to buy shnapps can extend across the bar to encompass me.

But maybe I am being obtuse.

I have a similar problem. I don't believe it is morally right for black people to buy aspirin, see, yet when I worked at the corner drug store I was informed that I am not allowed to tell black people they have to go somewhere else for their aspirin. I know black people have a right to buy aspirin, but why should their right to have aspirin extend from their bodies over the counter and encompass me?

The problem came up again when I worked as a bartender. I don't think females should be permitted to order certain drinks, yet I was informed that I don't have the right to tell female customers to go somewhere else for their whisky sours. Something about how "if you don't want to serve alcohol to customers, don't be a bartender." I don't get how a woman's right to buy shnapps can extend across the bar to encompass me.

But maybe I am being obtuse.

Never! :)

I have a similar problem. I don't believe it is morally right for black people to buy aspirin, see, yet when I worked at the corner drug store I was informed that I am not allowed to tell black people they have to go somewhere else for their aspirin. I know black people have a right to buy aspirin, but why should their right to have aspirin extend from their bodies over the counter and encompass me?

The problem came up again when I worked as a bartender. I don't think females should be permitted to order certain drinks, yet I was informed that I don't have the right to tell female customers to go somewhere else for their whisky sours. Something about how "if you don't want to serve alcohol to customers, don't be a bartender." I don't get how a woman's right to buy shnapps can extend across the bar to encompass me.

But maybe I am being obtuse.

You are being obtuse. This is a situation of someone discriminating against a medication, not a person. If a bar doesn't stock shnapps, you cannot go in and demand it, if a store doesn't stock aspirin, you cannot go in and demand it.

Second, the right to receive a service is not axiomatic, so you shouldn't treat it as such.

What if I was a pharmacist and I objected to the monopolies and unethical behaviour of multinational drug companies and refused to stock their products, sticking to generic products. Would that be ok?

snip

I have addressed all of these statements in prior forms repeatedly.

You are being obtuse. This is a situation of someone discriminating against a medication, not a person. If a bar doesn't stock shnapps, you cannot go in and demand it, if a store doesn't stock aspirin, you cannot go in and demand it.

Second, the right to receive a service is not axiomatic, so you shouldn't treat it as such.
Judging whether or not someone should receive a service based on YOUR morality isn't discrimination now?
That does sound awfully similar to the racist thinking Bottle outlined.

What if I was a pharmacist and I objected to the monopolies and unethical behaviour of multinational drug companies and refused to stock their products, sticking to generic products. Would that be ok?

Why wouldn't it be.

Judging whether or not someone should receive a service based on YOUR morality isn't discrimination now?
That does sound awfully similar to the racist thinking Bottle outlined.

The pharmacist is abstaining from assisting in a process that he finds morally wrong. There is no judgement made of the person, as the pharmacist would abstain from selling it to anyone, regardless of race, religion, and sex.

A healthcare professional's right to do that is also protected by law in the State of Illinois.

Judging whether or not someone should receive a service based on YOUR morality isn't discrimination now?
That does sound awfully similar to the racist thinking Bottle outlined.
It's not discrimination if you're right.
[/sarcasm]

This whole thing is a non-issue to me. A Pharmacist's moral beliefs have nothing to do on job time. Heck, if he opposes morning after pills so hard, he just has to pick another job.

Hell. Next thing we know, we'll have a Jewish butcher refusing to sell pork to his customers because it's not Kosher.

As a gay man, if I ever worked in a clothing store, would I be entitled in refusing to sell fashionable clothes to straight guys? :rolleyes:

This whole thing is a non-issue to me. A Pharmacist's moral beliefs have nothing to do on job time. Heck, if he opposes morning after pills so hard, he just has to pick another job.

His job is to safely dispense medication, not to dispense all government approved medication.

Hell. Next thing we know, we'll have a Jewish butcher refusing to sell pork to his customers because it's not Kosher.

So you are saying that Hebrew National (http://www.hebrewnational.com) is acting outside of its rights?

As a gay man, if I ever worked in a clothing store, would I be entitled in refusing to sell fashionable clothes to straight guys? :rolleyes:

Once again, he is not discriminating against any individuals. If a white christian man went into the store and asked for Plan B, he would be refused.

It's a Capitalism fellas.

When Kidney and Liver transplants became popular it was surprising how hard it was to get pharmacies to stock their meds. It took a while for it to become profitable and then and only then did it pick up a bit.

The same was true for HIV and AIDS drugs.

Many people suffered.

If a pharmacist doesn't want to stock an item, for financial or any other reason, they don't have to. If you want to survive, do the work, don't ask the government to be your parent and make it all better for you.

It seems the problem now is not what a pharmacist should or shouldn't do but should we pass legislation to satisfy a selfish minority?

His job is to safely dispense medication, not to dispense all government approved medication.

I disagree. His job is to see that everyone gets the medication they need, as prescribed by a medical doctor. He doesn't get to judge whether or not that medicine is necessary; that's the doctor's work. And he has no right to restrict someone's right to have access to legal, approved medicine.


So you are saying that Hebrew National (http://www.hebrewnational.com) is acting outside of its rights?

That seems to me like they're selling kosher meat. As long as they don't refuse selling non-kosher meat to non-jewish people, they're not doing anything wrong.


Once again, he is not discriminating against any individuals. If a white christian man went into the store and asked for Plan B, he would be refused.
Yes, he is discriminating. He is using his religious beliefs to discriminate against all who do not share his beliefs. He is effectively imposing his position by refusing acess to women who do not share his belief that morning-after pill is immoral.

Again, he's(or she, in the case of a female pharmacist) perfectly entitled to not using that medication. He has no right to force others to abide by his religious beliefs against it.

And, unless you've forgotten, this issue is even more serious than any other I've mentionned. Not eating pork is of little consequence to my life. A guy can live without fashionable clothes. But a woman who doesn't get her morning-after pill right when she needs it is in a whole damn lot of trouble.

Pharmacists don't have the right to play with their patient's health. At least here in Canada they don't, and I sort of assumed the profession wouldn't be that different across the border.

It seems the problem now is not what a pharmacist should or shouldn't do but should we pass legislation to satisfy a selfish minority?
So women who wish to avoid an abortion are a selfish minority now?

I have addressed all of these statements in prior forms repeatedly.

And what does that tell you?

Yes, he is discriminating. He is using his religious beliefs to discriminate against all who do not share his beliefs. He is effectively imposing his position by refusing acess to women who do not share his belief that morning-after pill is immoral.

Again, he's(or she, in the case of a female pharmacist) perfectly entitled to not using that medication. He has no right to force others to abide by his religious beliefs against it.

And, unless you've forgotten, this issue is even more serious than any other I've mentionned. Not eating pork is of little consequence to my life. A guy can live without fashionable clothes. But a woman who doesn't get her morning-after pill right when she needs it is in a whole damn lot of trouble.

Pharmacists don't have the right to play with their patient's health. At least here in Canada they don't, and I sort of assumed the profession wouldn't be that different across the border.

This is worthy of repeating.

If a pharmacist doesn't want to stock an item, for financial or any other reason, they don't have to. If you want to survive, do the work, don't ask the government to be your parent and make it all better for you.

:rolleyes:

You are right. I will make the drugs myself. Oh wait. I can't.

I disagree. His job is to see that everyone gets the medication they need, as prescribed by a medical doctor. He doesn't get to judge whether or not that medicine is necessary; that's the doctor's work. And he has no right to restrict someone's right to have access to legal, approved medicine.

Actually he does:

Health Care Right of Conscience Act (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2082&ChapAct=745%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B70%2F&ChapterID=58&ChapterName=CIVIL+IMMUNITIES&ActName=Health+Care+Right+of+Conscience+Act.&Print=True)

That seems to me like they're selling kosher meat. As long as they don't refuse selling non-kosher meat to non-jewish people, they're not doing anything wrong.

There is no discrimination with the pharmacist either. Hebrew National doesn't sell pork to anyone, this pharmacist doesn't sell Plan B to anyone.

Yes, he is discriminating. He is using his religious beliefs to discriminate against all who do not share his beliefs. He is effectively imposing his position by refusing acess to women who do not share his belief that morning-after pill is immoral.

Just like Hebrew National is imposing their views of pork as an unclean meat on society, correct?

This is worthy of repeating.

It has been, ad nauseum.

Actually he does:

Health Care Right of Conscience Act (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2082&ChapAct=745%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B70%2F&ChapterID=58&ChapterName=CIVIL+IMMUNITIES&ActName=Health+Care+Right+of+Conscience+Act.&Print=True)


Ok, in the state of Illinois.

So once again.

You have yet to show how the community has improved by the fact the pharmacists moral values now outweigh everybody elses.

So how is this an improvement?

Where does it stop now the doors have been opened. The pharmacist now has the right to discriminate against homosexuals applying for a job because his "conscious" does not like them.

After all his moral conscious is allowed to decide his use of labor. That includes having to employ or work next to a homosexual.

It has been, ad nauseum.

It does suck when people won't accept your logic.

Ok, in the state of Illinois.

So once again.

You have yet to show how the community has improved by the fact the pharmacists moral values now outweigh everybody elses.

So how is this an improvement?

His morality outweighs no one else's. From the rest of this post I know that you understand my position that it is a matter of self-determination for the pharmacist. So what I don't get is why you continue to assume that I think the pharmacist should have priveleges that the rest of society doesn't have.

Society improves as all individuals maintain the some rights to self-dermination.

Where does it stop now the doors have been opened. The pharmacist now has the right to discriminate against homosexuals applying for a job because his "conscious" does not like them.

After all his moral conscious is allowed to decide his use of labor. That includes having to employ or work next to a homosexual.

It all depends on much society values the benefits of anti-discrimination laws versus how much they value their privacy and autonomy.

It does suck when people won't accept your logic.

Especially when they continue to use the same tired fallacies over and over again.

Actually he does:

Health Care Right of Conscience Act (http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2082&ChapAct=745%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B70%2F&ChapterID=58&ChapterName=CIVIL+IMMUNITIES&ActName=Health+Care+Right+of+Conscience+Act.&Print=True)

Hmmm:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician or other health care personnel from obligations under the law of providing emergency medical care.

Emergency medication.

Emergency medical care.

Hmmmmm.

His morality outweighs no one else's. From the rest of this post I know that you understand my position that it is a matter of self-determination for the pharmacist. So what I don't get is why you continue to assume that I think the pharmacist should have privileges that the rest of society doesn't have.

Society improves as all individuals maintain the some rights to self-dermination.


Your approach works in cities or large towns where there are multiple pharmacies. Religious boy can impose his moral code on whomever he wants because the person can take a short drive somewhere else.

In a small town there is only one if at all any. I know because I have lived in a couple of them.

On the matter of privileges, you are giving the pharmacist privileges.

A doctor can prescribe the pill to regulate a womans periods. The woman can be a virgin. Yet, the pharmacist can deny her access to the pill(it has happened) as he thinks she is going to have sex. In the example I mentioned, the "moral" pharmacist would not release the pills. When people started treating him like a villain; he pitched a fit and said he would carry it anymore since it was immoral anyway.

So yes, you have given the pharmacist privileges to over the woman since her medical needs are secondary to his "moral" psychological needs. He also has privileges over the doctor since the doctors medical opinion is now secondary to the "moral" psychological needs of the pharmacist.


It all depends on much society values the benefits of anti-discrimination laws versus how much they value their privacy and autonomy.

Discrimination laws no longer apply since he can't be held accountable due to his "religious" beliefs.

Hmmm:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician or other health care personnel from obligations under the law of providing emergency medical care.

Emergency medication.

Emergency medical care.

Hmmmmm.

:D Darn I missed that!

I understand the free-rider problem, but I don't feel that it alone is ample justification for forced collective action.

You keep saying "forced," but I am talking about democratic (ideally anarchist) government by explicit consent.

In other words, I think legitimate government constitutes a free organization of collective action, but government legitimacy is directly proportional to the degree of participation and influence accorded to ordinary citizens.

I do not know for certain, but I spent first 22 years of my life in Illinois, not in Chicago where the impetus for this and all Illinois legislation began (In Illinois, if you are not from Chicago or a corporate farm owner, you are unlikely to receive any state attention).

To precisely that extent, I would consider government control over rural populations illegitimate in the existing system.

So it is the licensing that is the collective good, not the pill.

That depends on what the people decide they (as a majority) consider a good.

Actually, it is obvious that is the case, as there is no government procurement of the pill, only government forced provision.

Well, it would still be "forced" provision if we all, as individuals, refused to do business with pharmacies that do not stock it... they would either have to stock it, or cave to market pressures. Since we have to deal with the free-rider problem, however, we have decided to "force" them through the government instead, by declaring in advance our intention not to do business with pharmacists who do not stock it.

So, I would conclude that if you want Plan B to be a collective good, you should argue for government to sell it, not force pharmacists to sell it.

I have already said that I think this would be an acceptable solution to the collective action problem. It may even be preferable. But then, I have a soft-spot for communism. ;)

Hmmm:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to relieve a physician or other health care personnel from obligations under the law of providing emergency medical care.

Emergency medication.

Emergency medical care.

Hmmmmm.

I already tried that one. He think he knows what qualifies as an "emergency" better than doctors and legislators do.

Your approach works in cities or large towns where there are multiple pharmacies. Religious boy can impose his moral code on whomever he wants because the person can take a short drive somewhere else.

In a small town there is only one if at all any. I know because I have lived in a couple of them.

I have lived in a couple myself. My hometown for 15+ years is in southern Illinois, has a population of roughly 2000. Ironically, its one pharmacy still does not carry Plan B (I called and asked). Nevertheless, there are still several corporate drug stores within 30 minutes.

And still this "impose his moral code" is rubbish. As I have pointed out, you would not say that a Jewish butcher is imposing his morality by serving only kosher meat.

On the matter of privileges, you are giving the pharmacist privileges.

A doctor can prescribe the pill to regulate a womans periods. The woman can be a virgin. Yet, the pharmacist can deny her access to the pill(it has happened) as he thinks she is going to have sex. In the example I mentioned, the "moral" pharmacist would not release the pills. When people started treating him like a villain; he pitched a fit and said he would carry it anymore since it was immoral anyway.

So yes, you have given the pharmacist privileges to over the woman since her medical needs are secondary to his "moral" psychological needs. He also has privileges over the doctor since the doctors medical opinion is now secondary to the "moral" psychological needs of the pharmacist.

How can society be granting this as a privilege, when the pharmacist could engage in this practice if society were uninvolved. There is no privilege given, only natural rights maintained.

Discrimination laws no longer apply since he can't be held accountable due to his "religious" beliefs.

Society can set differing levels on how far you can take your moral beliefs. It is not black and white. For the last 40 years, this pharmacist has been allowed to not serve Plan B, but not been allowed to discriminate against people because of race.

You keep saying "forced," but I am talking about democratic (ideally anarchist) government by explicit consent.

In other words, I think legitimate government constitutes a free organization of collective action, but government legitimacy is directly proportional to the degree of participation and influence accorded to ordinary citizens.

The problem comes in when you consider people who think government should not even be involved in an issue. No matter how a vote on collective action proceeds, they will be forced into complying.

To precisely that extent, I would consider government control over rural populations illegitimate in the existing system.

Democracy becomes more valid as it becomes more direct and localized. At the current size, it hardly seems to hold any moral validity at all.

Well, it would still be "forced" provision if we all, as individuals, refused to do business with pharmacies that do not stock it... they would either have to stock it, or cave to market pressures. Since we have to deal with the free-rider problem, however, we have decided to "force" them through the government instead, by declaring in advance our intention not to do business with pharmacists who do not stock it.

As has been said, Plan B is a common medication, so I don't think the free rider problem comes into play. The controversy is low enough and market demand is high enough to keep it stocked without collective action.

I have already said that I think this would be an acceptable solution to the collective action problem. It may even be preferable. But then, I have a soft-spot for communism. ;)

It is far less objectionable. We would all bear the burden of government provided medication through taxes, whereas only this pharmacist bears the cost of forced provision.

I have advocated universal healthcare (its a gray area) before. I do not like subsidized healthcare, and I certainly don't like forced provision of healthcare. I worry, however, that the nature of healthcare puts the consumer at the short end of the stick. It is naturally highly regulated, it is a high-tech field, and healthcare facilities operate at a high economies of scale, and healthcare is a price inelastic service. This means healthcare providers often do not have the necessary market pressures to keep them in check. Pharmacies being an exception of course.;)

I already tried that one. He think he knows what qualifies as an "emergency" better than doctors and legislators do.

I fully accept that my definition of emergency may be skewed in this instance, or at least that my personal valuation of labor freedoms may be higher than what is practical.

However, I question the necessity of immediate procurement when the medication can be taken as late as five days after unprotected sex, pharmacies are pervasive even in very rural areas, and a prescription is often not necessary.

I have lived in a couple myself. My hometown for 15+ years is in southern Illinois, has a population of roughly 2000. Ironically, its one pharmacy still does not carry Plan B (I called and asked). Nevertheless, there are still several corporate drug stores within 30 minutes.

The last one I lived in was about 2000 as well. There were no corporate pharmacists in the area. Might be now. The other one was an hour away. For all we know he could have been a moralist as well.


And still this "impose his moral code" is rubbish. As I have pointed out, you would not say that a Jewish butcher is imposing his morality by serving only kosher meat.

Apples and oranges comparison. First off few people can distinguish the difference between Kosher and regular meat. Probably most would not even care.

Never mind the fact he is still providing the meat.


How can society be granting this as a privilege, when the pharmacist could engage in this practice if society were uninvolved. There is no privilege given, only natural rights maintained.


Society doesn't grant this as a privilege. Illinois does.

You have your example and I have mine. They were available and now they are not. Religious rights win in your case. People probably didn't care as much because they have an alternative. In my case there wasn't.


Society can set differing levels on how far you can take your moral beliefs. It is not black and white. For the last 40 years, this pharmacist has been allowed to not serve Plan B, but not been allowed to discriminate against people because of race.

We weren't discussing color. Homosexuality.

I already tried that one. He think he knows what qualifies as an "emergency" better than doctors and legislators do.

It seems that, if he is trying to use the law, it would be the legislators who decide what counts - since they are the ones making the law. If not them, it would be the courts trying to determine their intent...

It definitely would not be individual pharmacists or citizens.

The last one I lived in was about 2000 as well. There were no corporate pharmacists in the area. Might be now. The other one was an hour away. For all we know he could have been a moralist as well.

I will take your word for it.

Apples and oranges comparison. First off few people can distinguish the difference between Kosher and regular meat. Probably most would not even care.

This is not apples and oranges.

But you are saying that, were the people to care that they were receiving kosher meat, they would be within their rights to demand that the butcher serve kosher meat?

Never mind the fact he is still providing the meat.

And this pharmacist still sells oral contraceptives. He only denies this one because he feels it is the immoral ending of a human life.

Society doesn't grant this as a privilege. Illinois does.

You have your example and I have mine. They were available and now they are not. Religious rights win in your case. People probably didn't care as much because they have an alternative. In my case there wasn't.

Don't start getting silly. You know that the State of Illinois only acts as an extension of society.

Nevertheless, the right to determine your own labor is a natural right. It cannot possibly be misconstrued as a society granted privilege.



We weren't discussing color. Homosexuality.

Should a preacher be forced to marry homosexuals? No

Should a shop owner be forced to sell K-Y if he has proof that it will be used for homosexual intercourse? No

Should a deli not sell a homosexual a sandwich? That is a whole different ballgame.

It seems that, if he is trying to use the law, it would be the legislators who decide what counts - since they are the ones making the law. If not them, it would be the courts trying to determine their intent...

It definitely would not be individual pharmacists or citizens.

The legislators left out any discription as to what qualifies to emergency healthcare. I tried locating that particular law and was unsuccessful.

Legislation is amendable, however.

Should a shop owner be forced to sell K-Y if he has proof that it will be used for homosexual intercourse? No

Fuck yeah.

YOU go ahead and try anal intercourse without lube. :eek:

Should a shop owner be forced to sell K-Y if he has proof that it will be used for homosexual intercourse? No.

The difference, again, is that K-Y jelly can be obtained elsewhere legally. I can't get Plan B anywhere but through government-licensed pharmacists.

The difference, again, is that K-Y jelly can be obtained elsewhere legally. I can't get Plan B anywhere but through government-licensed pharmacists.

Then your argument should be that government should sell Plan B itself.

If government wants to restrict access to the medication, then it should be the one insuring that people can gain access to it, not the pharmacists.

You have to fill out a form to get the morning after pill in England - essentially a prescription. I really don't see it as a problem, the questions asked are for the benefit of the woman involved and it is reassuring to have someone explain the issues properly

Then your argument should be that government should sell Plan B itself.

If government wants to restrict access to the medication, then it should be the one insuring that people can gain access to it, not the pharmacists.

The government is ensuring that people can gain access to it, by entrusting pharmacists to distribute the product.

obviously a reply to a much earlier thread, didn't see the new path of conversation

The government is ensuring that people can gain access to it, by entrusting pharmacists to distribute the product.

Entrusting meaning forcing.

Entrusting meaning forcing.

In the sense that otherwise they're not going to be allowed to distributed controlled substances otherwise, then yes. They're not being forced to be pharmacists, though. There's just the requirement that, if they choose to be pharmacists and thereby are entrusted to distribute products that are otherwise not legal to distribute, that they do it the way the government wants. They are more than welcome to open a pharmacy that sells over the counter drugs and not prescription drugs if they have a problem with these requirements.

And this pharmacist still sells oral contraceptives. He only denies this one because he feels it is the immoral ending of a human life.

And yet this medication is the exact same thing as oral contraceptives, except in a higher dose. In fact, it is entirely possible for regular oral contraceptives to do the same thing - cause an egg that "slipped through" and got fertililzed to fail to implant....

Should a preacher be forced to marry homosexuals? No

Is marriage healthcare?

Should a shop owner be forced to sell K-Y if he has proof that it will be used for homosexual intercourse? No

If he sells K-Y, what it will be used for is of no concern to him. He cannot discriminate against homosexuals. He can choose not to sell it at all, just like he could refuse to sell toothpaste if he was worried that someone might use it for sex, but he cannot selectively refuse it.

Should a deli not sell a homosexual a sandwich? That is a whole different ballgame.

Actually, that is exactly the same thing as selling K-Y to a heterosexual, but not to a homosexual....

The legislators left out any discription as to what qualifies to emergency healthcare. I tried locating that particular law and was unsuccessful.

Yes, which is why it will probably be decided on a case-by-case basis. This could certainly qualify, depending on the interpretation of the law.

I have lived in a couple myself. My hometown for 15+ years is in southern Illinois, has a population of roughly 2000. Ironically, its one pharmacy still does not carry Plan B (I called and asked). Nevertheless, there are still several corporate drug stores within 30 minutes.

Has it not occurred to you that the people of the state think thirty minutes is too far to drive? That perhaps they recognize that some people who will need the drug have no means of transportation? (If your town has a population of 2000, they should be able to WALK from one end to the other, if they must. I grew up in a town of just over 5000, and it took less than a few hours for even an elderly person to stroll across town.)

The problem comes in when you consider people who think government should not even be involved in an issue. No matter how a vote on collective action proceeds, they will be forced into complying.

Unless they don't want ANY collective goods, e.g. law-enforcement, military protection, sanitation, roads, and a clean environment, then they are the classic free-riders. It is common for the free-rider to claim "no, I don't think people should be forced to pay," because he believes that if he is not forced to pay, other people will pay anyway. He gets to enjoy the benefits without paying the costs.

Democracy becomes more valid as it becomes more direct and localized. At the current size, it hardly seems to hold any moral validity at all.

I tend to agree. Nevertheless, it is the best mode of public expression we have at present (however corrupt and inefficient it is). We can strive for protection, but that doesn't mean we have to do without along the way.

As has been said, Plan B is a common medication, so I don't think the free rider problem comes into play. The controversy is low enough and market demand is high enough to keep it stocked without collective action.

If that is true, fine. But this is an argument of expediency, not of right. The legislature, representing the people, has decided on the evidence that the market will NOT satisfy the need, or that it is not worth the risk.

It is far less objectionable. We would all bear the burden of government provided medication through taxes, whereas only this pharmacist bears the cost of forced provision.

You have a very narrow concept of "costs." Time, effort, and gas money are the costs that individuals would pay for forced provision without government collective action. In place of those, they pay taxes to fund public regulation of pharmacies.

healthcare is a price inelastic service.

Since when? Let me tell you, I have not been to a doctor or a dentist in years, and it is not because I don't have the need or the desire. If they were cheaper, I would go. That is the very definition of "elastic." Moreover, people who get free healthcare often overuse it, taking their child in, for instance, for every minor cough and headache.

I also support universal healthcare, but not because it is price-inelastic. (Certain procedures may be, to some extent... but otherwise this is a false argument.)

Entrusting meaning forcing.

Nobody forced him to be a pharmacist.