NationStates Jolt Archive

Today Washington state's Board of Pharmacy has ruled that a pharmacist cannot refuse to distribute lawful prescriptions. This includes the morning after, a.k.a plan b, pill.

Thank you Washington, I may not live within your evergreen borders anymore, but you've just earned even more of my respect

link (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003663743_webplanb12m.html)

I disagree entirely with this law. Retailers should be permitted to determine for themselves what they sell.

Thank you, common sense!

I disagree entirely with this law. Retailers should be permitted to determine for themselves what they sell.

Denying doctor-prescribed medication?

Good. The next step is applying this step in Congress, overriding the idiot-in-chief and removing his ban on embryonic stem-cell research.

Denying doctor-prescribed medication?
The prescription simply gives you permission to purchase it.

Good. The next step is applying this step in Congress, overriding the idiot-in-chief and removing his ban on embryonic stem-cell research.

Viva la revolution! Though I doubt it will be that simple. The pro-life lobby certainly won't make a nationwide change easy.

Good. The next step is applying this step in Congress, overriding the idiot-in-chief and removing his ban on embryonic stem-cell research.
I oppose the ban on stem-cell research for the same reason I oppose this Washington state law. Both involve the government meddling where they don't belong.

I disagree entirely with this law. Retailers should be permitted to determine for themselves what they sell.

Do you live in WA?

A pharmacist is not just a simple retailer. Their services are more critical that the guy down the street who sells tires. Especially in small towns where they might very well be the only one. If you distribute medication, you can't simply say, "it's against my beliefs to sell painkillers/morning after pills/etc.," and then give people a shrug and a "sorry."

Yey common sense.

I honestly can't believe a medical practicioner who may well be the only available source of a drug that is generally needed in a hurry can legaly refuse to fill a perscription for anything other than medical grounds - which they should have to take up with the doctor.

If they can't morally do an integral part of the job they are in they should not be working in that profession.


(The medical grounds mentioned - If a pharmacist has a patient with a number of proscriptions from a number of seperate doctors I feelt that would be a justifiable reason to refuse the proscription - but they should ahve to inform the doctors, likewise if they notice a proscribed drug should not e mixed with another proscribed drug - when again they should inform the doctor before refusing - both PROFESSIONAL reasons for refusal, not personal.)

I guess some people have to give up their dream of being an asshole pharmacist in WA.

Thanks for making me chuckle :)

The prescription simply gives you permission to purchase it.

And you now tell me I dont have your permission to buy it (you being the pharmacist). You have a higher ground than the doctor?

I disagree entirely with this law. Retailers should be permitted to determine for themselves what they sell.

I guess some people have to give up their dream of being an asshole pharmacist in WA.

I oppose the ban on stem-cell research for the same reason I oppose this Washington state law. Both involve the government meddling where they don't belong.

The government should not be involved in scientific research, except perhaps for approving new technologies and providing enforcement of scientific ethics codes developed by the research community.

The only morals that matter are the morals of the scientists conducting the research and the ethical standards of the scientific community that they are a part of. No sanctimonious politician, superstitious pastor, or any other barrier to progress should have the right to tell the scientific community what is and what isn't allowed. It should be entirely up to the researchers themselves.

The government should not be involved in scientific research, except perhaps for approving new technologies and providing enforcement of scientific ethics codes developed by the research community.

The only morals that matter are the morals of the scientists conducting the research and the ethical standards of the scientific community that they are a part of. No sanctimonious politician, superstitious pastor, or any other barrier to progress should have the right to tell the scientific community what is and what isn't allowed. That is completely and utterly wrong.

Except perhaps when the research is on people....

Like human trials before a drug is released, or various claims of human trials carried out in Africa for example.

I have no obligation to sell it to you. As a free agent, I'm permitted to refuse to do business when I don't want to do business.

The law restricts your ability to buy the drug until you have a prescription. Once you have the prescription, you're free to enter into voluntary exchange to acquire the drug. I can still voluntarily elect not to sell you any (or perhaps elect not to have any to sell).

Now in Washington state :)

I'm kinda sad that the UK is behind at least one American state on the morning after pill :(

And you now tell me I dont have your permission to buy it (you being the pharmacist). You have a higher ground than the doctor?
I have no obligation to sell it to you. As a free agent, I'm permitted to refuse to do business when I don't want to do business.

The law restricts your ability to buy the drug until you have a prescription. Once you have the prescription, you're free to enter into voluntary exchange to acquire the drug. I can still voluntarily elect not to sell you any (or perhaps elect not to have any to sell).

I have no obligation to sell it to you. As a free agent, I'm permitted to refuse to do business when I don't want to do business.

The law restricts your ability to buy the drug until you have a prescription. Once you have the prescription, you're free to enter into voluntary exchange to acquire the drug. I can still voluntarily elect not to sell you any (or perhaps elect not to have any to sell).

The more important question is why. Why, if you were a pharmacist, would you do such a thing? Why would you let your personal issues imapair your ability to do your job with professional detachment?

I disagree entirely with this law. Retailers should be permitted to determine for themselves what they sell.
In some sense, I agree with you. It should not be the responsibility of any given private retailer to give you what you want; it should be their responsibility only to sell what they want to sell.

However, the notion of pharmacies being private industries seems mistaken to me anyway. Pharmacies should be part of the health service rather than locally owned shops.

Do you live in WA?

A pharmacist is not just a simple retailer. Their services are more critical that the guy down the street who sells tires. Especially in small towns where they might very well be the only one. If you distribute medication, you can't simply say, "it's against my beliefs to sell painkillers/morning after pills/etc.," and then give people a shrug and a "sorry."
If I'm the only cable television provider in an area, should I be forced to carry all channels? If I'm the only guy with a newstand should I be forced to sell all newpapers?

I don't really care why the pharmacist doesn't want to sell the pills. It's his call.

I have no obligation to sell it to you. As a free agent, I'm permitted to refuse to do business when I don't want to do business.

The law restricts your ability to buy the drug until you have a prescription. Once you have the prescription, you're free to enter into voluntary exchange to acquire the drug. I can still voluntarily elect not to sell you any (or perhaps elect not to have any to sell).
As Unabashed Greed said, what if you are the only game in town?

If you have no obligation to sell it to me, can I steal it? Should I not shop there at all?

The government should not be involved in scientific research, except perhaps for approving new technologies and providing enforcement of scientific ethics codes developed by the research community.Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Private research is done solely with a profit motive in mind, and there's too much research that needs to be done that has no apparent profitability in view. That's where government sponsored research is invaluable. The market doesn't have an answer for everything.

If I'm the only cable television provider in an area, should I be forced to carry all channels? If I'm the only guy with a newstand should I be forced to sell all newpapers?

Those are different cases. Here, you have the drug in the back, right behind you, but refuse to sell it. It's not like you must go out of your way to be able to sell it.

If I'm the only cable television provider in an area, should I be forced to carry all channels? If I'm the only guy with a newstand should I be forced to sell all newpapers

People don't die or end up with unwanted children because they couldn't get a copy of the New York Times. Besides, a pharmacist doesn't have the right to tell a doctor what they can or can't prescribe, and by refusing to fill that prescription they are doing exactly that.

If I'm the only cable television provider in an area, should I be forced to carry all channels? If I'm the only guy with a newstand should I be forced to sell all newpapers?

I don't really care why the pharmacist doesn't want to sell the pills. It's his call.

Again, a pharmacist is not a simple retailer. You make examples out of rather mundane businesses in order to qualify your opinion, but your nowhere close to getting it right.

I oppose the ban on stem-cell research for the same reason I oppose this Washington state law. Both involve the government meddling where they don't belong.
Government in principle should be closely involved in scientific research. The issues of legislation and public funding with regards to R&D must be backed up by dialogue with the lawmakers and treasury. The problem comes when you live in a country where people vote an anti-science agenda into government, but that's not science's fault or government's fault: That's the Peoples' fault.

I disagree entirely with this law. Retailers should be permitted to determine for themselves what they sell.

Based on what was in the article, it doesn't appear that the law requires them to carry any particular medication. As such, if the owner of the establishment does not wish to sell Plan B, he could very likely simply refuse to stock it. At that point, the pharmacy is not refusing to fill a prescription - it is actually unable to do so.

If I'm the only cable television provider in an area, should I be forced to carry all channels? If I'm the only guy with a newstand should I be forced to sell all newpapers?

I don't really care why the pharmacist doesn't want to sell the pills. It's his call.

That is an invalid comparison and you know it. There is a world of difference between a luxury item and healthcare. A pharmacist refusing to dispense a particular medication is more like a doctor refusing to perform a medical procedure (either across the board, or just to certain people) than a retailer refusing to sell a newspaper.

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Private research is done solely with a profit motive in mind, and there's too much research that needs to be done that has no apparent profitability in view. That's where government sponsored research is invaluable. The market doesn't have an answer for everything.

I'm talking regulation of research, not funding. I absolutely support public funding for research ventures.

What I mean is that the government shouldn't have the right to refuse a grant based upon the moral delusions of its leadership. Scientific grants should be given in bulk to universities, labs, and other facilities and they should allocate them.

This is great. My pharmacist wife can no longer refuse to refill my viagara prescriptions on the basis of "Just give it a rest, already."

The more important question is why. Why, if you were a pharmacist, would you do such a thing? Why would you let your personal issues imapair your ability to do your job with professional detachment?
I can't imagine why I would. It would be bad for business.

However, the notion of pharmacies being private industries seems mistaken to me anyway. Pharmacies should be part of the health service rather than locally owned shops.
It's a US example. The health services are private industries, too.

Today Washington state's Board of Pharmacy has ruled that a pharmacist cannot refuse to distribute lawful prescriptions. This includes the morning after, a.k.a plan b, pill.

Thank you Washington, I may not live within your evergreen borders anymore, but you've just earned even more of my respect

link (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003663743_webplanb12m.html)
My psychic senses are tingling...
I see a religious group... they are filing a grievance in court... Washington's law is overturned on grounds it infringes on freedom of religion.
Welcome to America.

I'm talking regulation of research, not funding. I absolutely support public funding for research ventures.

What I mean is that the government shouldn't have the right to refuse a grant based upon the moral delusions of its leadership. Scientific grants should be given in bulk to universities, labs, and other facilities and they should allocate them.

....not a good idea. You'd get a few schools getting nearly all the money and there'd be no need to have good research coming out of it.

The current system (without all the bullshit grandstanding by politicians) makes much more sense. The NIH and other government funding organizations put together teams of scientists in a given area from around the country and those scientists review grant proposals and allocate the funds. Other committees (also populated by scientists) determine what proportion of money will go to a given area. It is still scientists making the decisions on where money will go - but it isn't scientists who have a vested interest in that money (no one can be on a study group if she has a grant up for consideration there) and is not university specific.

As Unabashed Greed said, what if you are the only game in town?

If you have no obligation to sell it to me, can I steal it? Should I not shop there at all?
What if you're in a town with no pharmacist? Are the non-pharmacists obligated to sell you prescription drugs?

If your only pharmacist is a guy who doesn't carry the drug you want, you're effectively in a town with no pharmacist. The government shouldn't force people to carry out business transactions.

If I'm the only cable television provider in an area, should I be forced to carry all channels? If I'm the only guy with a newstand should I be forced to sell all newpapers?
Apples and potatoes.
TV channels and newspapers arn't prescribed medicine.

Those are different cases. Here, you have the drug in the back, right behind you, but refuse to sell it. It's not like you must go out of your way to be able to sell it.
If I'm the pharmacist and I don't want to see that drug, why do I have it in my pharmacy? I don't.

If it's a larger operation with multiple pharmacists, then I'm inclined to fire the guy who won't sell my merchandise.

My psychic senses are tingling...
I see a religious group... they are filing a grievance in court... Washington's law is overturned on grounds it infringes on freedom of religion.
Welcome to America.

I doubt it. Quite a few laws that someone though "infringed on freedom of religion" have been upheld. There is nothing in this law that is directly targeted at religion. It applies equally whether the pharmacist says it is his religion, his political opinion, or because the little green men told him to.


If I'm the pharmacist and I don't want to see that drug, why do I have it in my pharmacy? I don't.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue against here. At least from the OP, there is no reason to think that the WA law requires a pharmacy to actually carry any given drug.

If it's a larger operation with multiple pharmacists, then I'm inclined to fire the guy who won't sell my merchandise.

And yet, without this law, a pharmacist fired on those grounds would be likely to argue discrimination.

What if you're in a town with no pharmacist? Are the non-pharmacists obligated to sell you prescription drugs?

If your only pharmacist is a guy who doesn't carry the drug you want, you're effectively in a town with no pharmacist. The government shouldn't force people to carry out business transactions.
Unless there is a compelling issue, like medical health, involved.

Again, a pharmacist is not a simple retailer.
Correct. He sells restricted goods he's only allowed to sell under specific circumstances. But that's the extent of the difference. He shouldn't be REQUIRED to sell them under any circumstances.

You're giving every patient the power of eminent domain over his inventory.

Correct. He sells restricted goods he's only allowed to sell under specific circumstances. But that's the extent of the difference.

Not exactly. A pharmacist (and, in most places, the pharmacy itself) is licensed by the government. It is a highly regulated industry.

He shouldn't be REQUIRED to sell them under any circumstances.

You're giving every patient the power of eminent domain over his inventory.

He can be required to sell some things in order to get a license for the pharmacy in the first place. (Public health is a pretty compelling interest here - and the pharmacy does have to be licensed as such). But the government isn't going to mandate an entire inventory.

Like I said, I haven't seen anything even suggesting that the WA law mandates that pharmacies carry Plan B. The law applies only to refusing to dispense it. Refusing to do so is quite different from being unable to do so.

Based on what was in the article, it doesn't appear that the law requires them to carry any particular medication. As such, if the owner of the establishment does not wish to sell Plan B, he could very likely simply refuse to stock it. At that point, the pharmacy is not refusing to fill a prescription - it is actually unable to do so.
If the government actually wants to acheive something, they'll close that loophole. If they don't, then they're only passing this law for the press coverage.
That is an invalid comparison and you know it. There is a world of difference between a luxury item and healthcare.
You don't think prescription drugs are a luxury item?

Are they expensive? Can poor people often not afford them? They certainly sound like a luxury item to me.
A pharmacist refusing to dispense a particular medication is more like a doctor refusing to perform a medical procedure (either across the board, or just to certain people) than a retailer refusing to sell a newspaper.
Fine, let's use that as an example. Do you think a doctor should be required to perform a medical procedure on me just because I want him to?

Correct. He sells restricted goods he's only allowed to sell under specific circumstances. But that's the extent of the difference. He shouldn't be REQUIRED to sell them under any circumstances.

You're giving every patient the power of eminent domain over his inventory.
Then we look at the other extreme and we see the pharmacists being given power over the good or ill health of any patient by whim and fancy.

Fine, let's use that as an example. Do you think a doctor should be required to perform a medical procedure on me just because I want him to?
Wrong. This law states a pharmacist has to dispense a prescribed medicine. A proper example would a surgeon refusing to perform a surgery after another doctor has determined he needs one.

You don't think prescription drugs are a luxury item?

Are they expensive? Can poor people often not afford them? They certainly sound like a luxury item to me.
You hold a sad, immoral view. (ironic)

Excellent news, and a stark contrast with the trailer trash legislature of florida's "jeb bush school of education" shenanigans.

If pharmacists won't do their job, they have to be fired.

I'm talking regulation of research, not funding. I absolutely support public funding for research ventures.

What I mean is that the government shouldn't have the right to refuse a grant based upon the moral delusions of its leadership. Scientific grants should be given in bulk to universities, labs, and other facilities and they should allocate them.

Ah. I get where you're coming from then.

If the government actually wants to acheive something, they'll close that loophole. If they don't, then they're only passing this law for the press coverage.

Most pharmacists don't own their own and stock their own pharmacies. The vast majority of the pharmacists who have been arguing that they should be able to deny medication on their own moral grounds have worked for larger corporations which did stock Plan B (or the pill). They simply tried to argue that they should not be fired, because that would be religious discrimination.

This gets around that argument. A pharmacist who has the medication in stock cannot refuse to dispense it if the patient has a prescription.

Now, in the very rare case that the pharmacist actually owns and runs his own establishment, he has a "loophole." If it becomes an issue that the government wants to address, I'm sure they will.

You don't think prescription drugs are a luxury item?

No. I don't think healthcare is a luxury item. Elective procedures can be, but most people aren't out getting those anyways.

Are they expensive? Can poor people often not afford them? They certainly sound like a luxury item to me.

Some people can't afford food. Does that make it a luxury item?

Fine, let's use that as an example. Do you think a doctor should be required to perform a medical procedure on me just because I want him to?

Not just because you want him to. In fact, he could probably lose his medical license for that. But a doctor should not be able to refuse to perform a medically necessary procedure on the basis of his own moral issues. If he has such issues, he should find a new profession.

unless I'm completely misinformed...plan B is just a certain way to take a plain regular birth control pill...the dosage and timing can prevent implantation. I can't imagine any pharmacy NOT carrying those.

SO, unless the pharmacist is morally opposed to selling all BC pills, then the "I don't carry it" doesn't fly

unless I'm completely misinformed...plan B is just a certain way to take a plain regular birth control pill...the dosage and timing can prevent implantation. I can't imagine any pharmacy NOT carrying those.

SO, unless the pharmacist is morally opposed to selling all BC pills, then the "I don't carry it" doesn't fly

Plan B is not the same thing as a birth control pill. It contains many of the same hormones - in a higher dose (of course, depending on which type of birth control you get, the dosage can vary greatly even there) - but is not the same thing. And a pharmacist does not have the authority to dispense any medication but the one that is prescribed.

That said, most pharmacists who wouldn't carry Plan B wouldn't carry birth control pills either - for the same "moral" objections.

Not just because you want him to. In fact, he could probably lose his medical license for that. But a doctor should not be able to refuse to perform a medically necessary procedure on the basis of his own moral issues. If he has such issues, he should find a new profession.

Or work in a field of medicine that will not require them to perform such a procedure - if they have a problem with abortions they maybe should not become an OBGYN but they are of course free to choose from a range of carreer paths in medicine that will not place them in such a position.

Unless a pharmacological (spelling?) degree is very different in the US than the UK a pharmacy student can take a range of carreers that will never require them to fill ANY proscription.

I disagree entirely with this law. Retailers should be permitted to determine for themselves what they sell.


I second this motion.

Plan B is not the same thing as a birth control pill. It contains many of the same hormones - in a higher dose (of course, depending on which type of birth control you get, the dosage can vary greatly even there)

from the plan B site:

Plan B® is safe and effective.
Plan B® is FDA approved — it contains the hormone levonorgestrel, the same ingredient found in many birth control pills. The difference is that Plan B® contains a larger dose of levonorgestrel than the amount found in a single birth control pill. And, unlike many birth control pills, Plan B® does not contain any estrogen.

so, yes, while the pharmacist can't change the prescription...if a doctor knows that a pharmacist "doesn't dispense" plan b, s/he can prescribe a plain old pack of BC pills, and tell Mary to take the entire top row, and then the entire middle row, and it will all be good.

All that said, it's not the pharmacists job to moralize me...what if I was raped, the pharmacist has no idea the reason for my coming in with the prescription...and I sure as hell shouldn't be required to tell him.

NOW...the website says no prescription required for women 18 and older. I don't believe that a pharmacist should be required to just sell it to someone, I do think they can choose to require a prescription.

Then we look at the other extreme and we see the pharmacists being given power over the good or ill health of any patient by whim and fancy.
There are many pharmacists. But each pharmacist only has one inventory stockpile.
Wrong. This law states a pharmacist has to dispense a prescribed medicine. A proper example would a surgeon refusing to perform a surgery after another doctor has determined he needs one.
Needs? No, is allowed to have. That's all a prescription is - a permission slip. Does everyone prescribed Viagra or Atavan or Lipitor really need them?
You hold a sad, immoral view. (ironic)
Freedom is immoral?

Needs? No, is allowed to have.
Some one doesn't need surgery for appendicitis?

That's all a prescription is - a permission slip. Does everyone prescribed Viagra or Atavan or Lipitor really need them?
Let's all live in ignorance land.
I guess diabetics, manic depressives, and people with heart conditions don't need their prescriptions.
Do you even know what Atavan is?

Freedom is immoral?
What does saying "items you can't afford are luxuries you don't need" have to do with freedom?

Needs? No, is allowed to have. That's all a prescription is - a permission slip. Does everyone prescribed Viagra or Atavan or Lipitor really need them?

Who are you to supersede the will of the doctor?

Most pharmacists don't own their own and stock their own pharmacies. The vast majority of the pharmacists who have been arguing that they should be able to deny medication on their own moral grounds have worked for larger corporations which did stock Plan B (or the pill). They simply tried to argue that they should not be fired, because that would be religious discrimination.
I'd have to side with the employers, there. If your moral views prevent you from doing the job, don't work here.
Some people can't afford food. Does that make it a luxury item?
Most poor people can afford food.
Not just because you want him to. In fact, he could probably lose his medical license for that. But a doctor should not be able to refuse to perform a medically necessary procedure on the basis of his own moral issues. If he has such issues, he should find a new profession.
The pharmacist doesn't know whether a drug is medically necessary; he hasn't been given that information. All he knows is that you're permitted to acquire it.

Most poor people can afford food.
Irrelevant. And you said most. Answer the question for those not included in your "most."

The pharmacist doesn't know whether a drug is medically necessary; he hasn't been given that information.
Because it's none of his fucking business. His job is to distribute medicine properly and make sure the dosage is safe, not diagnose the necessity of a medication.

If your moral views prevent you from doing the job, don't work here.

If your moral views prevent you from doing the job, don't go into the profession.

Who are you to supersede the will of the doctor?
We don't know the will of the doctor.

We don't know the will of the doctor.

I would have thought it was pretty damn clear from the fact he wrote the drug he inteds the woman to take on the proscription...

We don't know the will of the doctor.

Where the hell did they get a prescription then?

Irrelevant. And you said most. Answer the question for those not included in your "most."
Of course it's relevant. It's the same standard I used before to determine whether prescriptions were a luxury item.
Because it's none of his fucking business. His job is to distribute medicine properly and make sure the dosage is safe, not diagnose the necessity of a medication.
If he works for himself, his job is whatever he decides it is. Society doesn't get to define his job for him - this isn't a planned economy.

And he's not diagnosing the necessity of a medication. He doesn't need to care whether its necessary.

Of course it's relevant. It's the same standard I used before to determine whether prescriptions were a luxury item.
You see that spec on the horizon? Yeah, that tiny one. What's that? That's the fucking question.
Is food a luxury is some one can't afford it. Answer it, foo'.

If he works for himself, his job is whatever he decides it is. Society doesn't get to define his job for him - this isn't a planned economy.
If he wanted to be a doctor, he should have been a doctor. A pharmacist is not a fucking doctor. You're right, society doesn't define his job, his education does and they both come to the same damn conclusion.

Some one doesn't need surgery for appendicitis?
Someone might. If someone did, I doubt some doctor would fill out a form stating only that the patient was permitted to have his appendix removed and offer no other comment. But that's what a prescription is.
Let's all live in ignorance land.
I guess diabetics, manic depressives, and people with heart conditions don't need their prescriptions.
Do you even know what Atavan is?
Sure I do. Among other things, it's a really powerful sedative, but its usually prescribed as an anti-anxiety drug. Both my wife and mother have been needlessly prescribed it at one time or another. My brother was also prescribed Atavan, but he probably needed it.
What does saying "items you can't afford are luxuries you don't need" have to do with freedom?
The freedom part of it was you telling me that I'm not permitted to determine for myself the scope of my own business.

Of course it's relevant. It's the same standard I used before to determine whether prescriptions were a luxury item.


Is a prescription that will save your life a luxury item or a necessity in your eyes (whether you can afford it or not - looks to me like you are saying ALL prescriptions are luxury items)? This isn't a cable tv company we're talking about. Noone will lose their life from not watching Comedy Central.

You see that spec on the horizon? Yeah, that tiny one. What's that? That's the fucking question.
Is food a luxury is some one can't afford it. Answer it, foo'.
By that standard, clearly not. As I said, poor people can often afford food.

Expensive food, however, would pass the test. Sirloin would be a luxury item.
If he wanted to be a doctor, he should have been a doctor. A pharmacist is not a fucking doctor. You're right, society doesn't define his job, his education does and they both come to the same damn conclusion.
That he has no right to refuse to do things he thinks are reprehensible? If that were true, only sociopaths would be pharmacists.

Someone might. If someone did, I doubt some doctor would fill out a form stating only that the patient was permitted to have his appendix removed and offer no other comment. But that's what a prescription is.
So it's the pharmacist's job to judge whether a doctor has the right to make out a prescription? Why don't they just become a fucking doctor then and stop being dicks.

Sure I do. Among other things, it's a really powerful sedative, but its usually prescribed as an anti-anxiety drug. Both my wife and mother have been needlessly prescribed it at one time or another. My brother was also prescribed Atavan, but he probably needed it.
Which also ignores those people I mentioned.

The freedom part of it was you telling me that I'm not permitted to determine for myself the scope of my own business.
You're damn right. I'm telling you you don't have the right to overrule the doctor on prescriptions.

By that standard, clearly not. As I said, poor people can often afford food.
Answer the damn question
Is food a luxury for those poor who can't afford it.

That he has no right to refuse to do things he thinks are reprehensible?
Dispensing medicine is reprehensible? You might want to find another line of work, like one where something you find reprehensible isn't you job title.

This is great. My pharmacist wife can no longer refuse to refill my viagara prescriptions on the basis of "Just give it a rest, already."

You do realize you just implied you NEED viagra in order to, erm, be there?

( ZING!!! ) :D

We don't know the will of the doctor.
Where the hell did they get a prescription then?

We don't know the will of the doctor.
I would have thought it was pretty damn clear from the fact he wrote the drug he intends the woman to take on the proscription...


You missed these. . .

Where the hell did they get a prescription then?
A doctor.

All a prescription does is give you permission to buy the drugs. The doctor typically doesn't violate medical privacy laws by offering a detailed diagnosis on his little pad.

By that standard, clearly not. As I said, poor people can often afford food.

Expensive food, however, would pass the test. Sirloin would be a luxury item.

That he has no right to refuse to do things he thinks are reprehensible? If that were true, only sociopaths would be pharmacists.


Do you think the pharmacist has the right to endanger someones life, ar let them remain in serious misery when s/he has the product on hand and the customer needs it and has the money to pay? If the pharmacist doesn't know the exact details of why someone was prescribed a certain medicine they are doing just that.

A doctor.

All a prescription does is give you permission to buy the drugs. The doctor typically doesn't violate medical privacy laws by offering a detailed diagnosis on his little pad.

A prescription, then, by your logic, is not the will of the doctor. Not his will, he never wrote. Prescriptions are written by who then? The patient?

A doctor.

All a prescription does is give you permission to buy the drugs. The doctor typically doesn't violate medical privacy laws by offering a detailed diagnosis on his little pad.
A permission to buy a drug already deemed needed by the doctor. That's all a pharmacist needs to know.

So it's the pharmacist's job to judge whether a doctor has the right to make out a prescription?
I have made no claims to that effect at all.
Which also ignores those people I mentioned.
I was refuting the assertion that all prescribed medications are necessary medications. That doesn't imply that NO prescribed medications are mecessary medications.
You're damn right. I'm telling you you don't have the right to overrule the doctor on prescriptions.
And I'm not. The doctor said the patient is permitted to buy the drugs. And they still are. But I'm not required to sell them the drugs.

That's how the free market works. No one is forced to sell anyone anything if they don't want to. Otherwise, your being allowed to sell your car somehow equates to me being able to force you to sell it to me.

So, where are my keys?

Dude, I live here in Washington, and Ill tell you one thing: this state is friggin comunistic. I dont know much about this new law or whatever the hell, but its probably nothing compared to what has been goin on. Mrs. Whoreicewitchfromhell (aka: Governor Gregwire, or however the hell you spell her name.) frickin cheated her way into office!. She had frickin dead people voting for her!!! And thats just to scratch the surface. Our roads here...SUCK, our public school systems.....SUCK, our drivers..........hhmmm, whats the word?.......SUCK!!!!! The law here actualy is more on the side of the perpitrators.....must I go on?

A permission to buy a drug already deemed needed by the doctor. That's all a pharmacist needs to know.
Right, as a pharmacist I'm allowed to sell you the drug. I'm not required to sell you the drug.

You do understand the difference, right?

Right, as a pharmacist I'm not allowed to sell you the drug. I'm not required to sell you the drug.

You do understand the difference, right?

I guess then all legal documents can be disregarded if you don't like the idea of them.

Snip.

Look, okay, let's let the pharmacists try to ruin people's lives by not selling them birth control. However, I require you to become a voluntary to carry the baby, pass the 8-pound ham through whatever cavity you can and feed it for the rest of your life.

The point?

A woman's life and well-being takes precedence over a nutjob's economic freedom!

I have made no claims to that effect at all.

By rejecting the doctor's will, you are determining the use or need of the prescription. That is the doctor's job.

Answer the damn question
Is food a luxury for those poor who can't afford it.
I did answer the question.

For the purposes of that one point, I set the bar of luxury as being at least as high as "poor people often can't afford them".

If poor people often can afford food, then food fails that test. And poor people often can afford food, so it's not a luxury item.

The bar doesn't move based on which poor person you're examining. Your question presupposes that it does, but it doesn't, so by broadly stating that food isn't a luxury item, it therefore it fails to be a luxury item for everyone, regardless of how poor they are.

Have I broken that down enough for you?
Dispensing medicine is reprehensible? You might want to find another line of work, like one where something you find reprehensible isn't you job title.
If their moral beliefs prevent them from doing so much of the job that they go out of business, sure. But as long as they can moveenough other drugs with which they don't disagree, why should the community have any say at all into how they run their business?

The doctor said the patient is permitted to buy the drugs. And they still are. But I'm not required to sell them the drugs.
Then you should find a new job. As a pharmacist, you job is filling prescriptions. The end. If all medicines were over the counter, you would be replaced a pimply faced teenager.

That's how the free market works. No one is forced to sell anyone anything if they don't want to.
If anything = prescribed medicine, that is Drug Industry level moral reprehensibility.

I did answer the question.
You have yet to answer the question.

The bar doesn't move based on which poor person you're examining.
Yes, it does. Cost of living is variable among different areas in the country and some people are poorer than others.

I guess then all legal documents can be disregarded if you don't like the idea of them.
That should have said "I am allowed", not "I'm not allowed".

If their moral beliefs prevent them from doing so much of the job that they go out of business, sure. But as long as they can moveenough other drugs with which they don't disagree, why should the community have any say at all into how they run their business?

Because it endangers the life and well-being of the woman. For the same reason a doctor isn't allowed NOT to treat someone because he's a muslim "on the grounds that the doctor is a Christian".

I did answer the question.

For the purposes of that one point, I set the bar of luxury as being at least as high as "poor people often can't afford them".

If poor people often can afford food, then food fails that test. And poor people often can afford food, so it's not a luxury item.

The bar doesn't move based on which poor person you're examining. Your question presupposes that it does, but it doesn't, so by broadly stating that food isn't a luxury item, it therefore it fails to be a luxury item for everyone, regardless of how poor they are.

Have I broken that down enough for you?

If their moral beliefs prevent them from doing so much of the job that they go out of business, sure. But as long as they can moveenough other drugs with which they don't disagree, why should the community have any say at all into how they run their business?

Your definition of luxury is not at all the definition anyone applies to the word, ever. A luxury is something that is not a necessity of life. Food is not a luxury. A television is. Plenty of people can afford a television, even the poor. However, it is a luxury item.

Luxury items are not based on how much they cost, as even a 25 cent mood ring is a luxury.

First, this law is idiotic. Like hell the government should tell a private business what they're required to sell.

Second, refusing to sell this stuff is idiotic. The pharmacist is just losing potential revenue by refusing to sell, and deserves to lose every dollar that he loses. Like racism, doing this makes no economic sense.

That should have said "I am allowed", not "I'm not allowed".

That doesn't change the fact that you want to circumvent binding legal documents 'to make a point'

Look, okay, let's let the pharmacists try to ruin people's lives by not selling them birth control. However, I require you to become a voluntary to carry the baby, pass the 8-pound ham through whatever cavity you can and feed it for the rest of your life.

The point?

A woman's life and well-being takes precedence over a nutjob's economic freedom!

The woman has the full option to drive to another town and get the pills there. It's not that much of a hassle.

The woman has the full option to drive to another town and get the pills there. It's not that much of a hassle.
That is not a reason and not an option. The woman shouldn't have to drive somewhere else to get the pills. Her medical needs trump your bullshit.

The woman has the full option to drive to another town and get the pills there. It's not that much of a hassle.

What if the deadline to take it is close to expiring? What if she can't afford to go? Or you're accepting the idea that women in backwater places should have as many kids as the pseudo-Christians think they should?

The woman has the full option to drive to another town and get the pills there. It's not that much of a hassle.

It's a hell of a hassle if you don't have a car--and there are lots of people in that situation--and it's a hell of a hassle if you have a fucking life. Not everyone can just pull an hour or two out of a day to go to the next town to get a prescription filled.

Why should a person with a prescription from a doctor be forced to go miles out of his or her way because a pharmacist who works for some corporation has a bug up his or her ass about what they assume the need for said drug is?

If one wishes to engage in a profession that requires a license from the state, then one needs to do what the state says he must do in order to keep that profession.

Nobody has the right to be a pharmacist, if one wishes to be a pharmacist, one must comply with the rules the state puts down to gain that license, and the state is free to withold, or revoke your license if you do not comply with those requirements.

In other words, to be a pharmacist, you need a license. License given by the state. State places conditions on that license.

So if you want to be a pharmacist, you do what the state tells you to do.

Or live with the fact that you don't get to be a pharmacist.

The woman has the full option to drive to another town and get the pills there. It's not that much of a hassle.

The pharmacist has the option to not be a pharmacist if he doesn't want to comply with state law.

Do you live in WA?

A pharmacist is not just a simple retailer. Their services are more critical that the guy down the street who sells tires. Especially in small towns where they might very well be the only one. If you distribute medication, you can't simply say, "it's against my beliefs to sell painkillers/morning after pills/etc.," and then give people a shrug and a "sorry."

I live in Washington State and can say this is a good decision. For the reasons you stated is exactly why they ruled in this manner.

The woman has the full option to drive to another town and get the pills there. It's not that much of a hassle.

It can be for reasons stated in the post previously. I also believe in the aspect of it being this drug today another drug tomorrow a pharmacist can disagree with based on his/her personal beliefs.
One thing I also want to point out is that Pharmacist are licensed professionals. There is a certain level in which the state can tell them what they can and can't do. This is one that they decided that they can't do based off of religious/moral grounds. If they do then the state can revoke the license. So the pharmacist also can go practice in another state.

The pharmacist has the option to not be a pharmacist if he doesn't want to comply with state law.

If one wishes to engage in a profession that requires a license from the state, then one needs to do what the state says he must do in order to keep that profession.

Nobody has the right to be a pharmacist, if one wishes to be a pharmacist, one must comply with the rules the state puts down to gain that license, and the state is free to withold, or revoke your license if you do not comply with those requirements.

In other words, to be a pharmacist, you need a license. License given by the state. State places conditions on that license.

So if you want to be a pharmacist, you do what the state tells you to do.

Or live with the fact that you don't get to be a pharmacist.

Well this should hopefully put an end to the whole "It's my business!" people.

If it doesn't, people are more delusional that I previously thought.

I disagree entirely with this law. Retailers should be permitted to determine for themselves what they sell.

A) it's not the retailer. It's the Pharmacist. Other states are taking efforts to make it illegal for a retailer to fire the pharmacist for refusing to do his job.

B) medical professionals, including pharmacists, don't have the same right not to do their jobs as other people do. Just like a cop isn't allowed to just walk on by when he sees a crime being committed, nor is a teacher allowed to ignore the behavior of his students when he encounters them off of school grounds. Some jobs are more than just a paycheck. They are a public trust. If pharmacists are to have that kind of discretion, then the people should be allowed to decide for themselves what drugs they want.

Viva la revolution! Though I doubt it will be that simple. The pro-life lobby certainly won't make a nationwide change easy.

They're not pro-life. They're anti-choice. The vast majority of them favor the death-penalty and oppose potentially life saving medical research. They are pro-life when it serves their anti-choice agenda, but when choice means life, they still opt to restrict choice at the expense of life.

They're not pro-life. They're anti-choice. The vast majority of them favor the death-penalty and oppose potentially life saving medical research. They are pro-life when it serves their anti-choice agenda, but when choice means life, they still opt to restrict choice at the expense of life.

Relax. Their kind will eventually die out. Quoth Souijiro Seta, "The old shall be replaced by the new".

The prescription simply gives you permission to purchase it.

By that reasoning, a hospital may choose not to treat emergency patients on the grounds of "I don't agree with their religious/political/economic status"

By that reasoning, a hospital may choose not to treat emergency patients on the grounds of "I don't agree with their religious/political/economic status"

True.

By that reasoning, a hospital may choose not to treat emergency patients on the grounds of "I don't agree with their religious/political/economic status"

That's precisely what Joe Lieberman suggested Catholic hospitals in Connecticut ought to be able to do--refuse service to patients who came in looking for emergency birth control, even if they were rape victims. I fucking hate that guy.

That's precisely what Joe Lieberman suggested Catholic hospitals in Connecticut ought to be able to do--refuse service to patients who came in looking for emergency birth control, even if they were rape victims. I fucking hate that guy.

It would be extremely ironic if Lieberman had a car accident, and needed emergency surgery, and the only surgeon on call is a guy who's religious beliefs prevent him from handling blood of any sort.

Or work in a field of medicine that will not require them to perform such a procedure - if they have a problem with abortions they maybe should not become an OBGYN but they are of course free to choose from a range of carreer paths in medicine that will not place them in such a position.

Indeed.

Unless a pharmacological (spelling?) degree is very different in the US than the UK a pharmacy student can take a range of carreers that will never require them to fill ANY proscription.

I believe this is true in the US as well. I think most pharm students intern at a pharmacy at some point, but they would never be the only person there involved in filling prescriptions as an intern.


NOW...the website says no prescription required for women 18 and older. I don't believe that a pharmacist should be required to just sell it to someone, I do think they can choose to require a prescription.

No, they cannot. A pharmacist does not have the authority to determine which medications do or do not require a prescription.


I'd have to side with the employers, there. If your moral views prevent you from doing the job, don't work here.

Precisely.

Most poor people can afford food.

And some cannot. The fact that people cannot afford it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it is a luxury item.

The pharmacist doesn't know whether a drug is medically necessary; he hasn't been given that information. All he knows is that you're permitted to acquire it.

The pharmacist knows that you and your doctor (who does have the authority to determine medical necessity) have deemed the medication necessary. His opinion on that count does not matter, as he has no authority in that realm. The only medical grounds on which a pharmacist can refuse to dispense medication is if several medications that will interact badly with one another have been prescribed, a dose is abnormally high, or you tell him you have conditions that would lead to problems with the medication. Even then, his authority extends only to calling the doctor and either confirming the prescription or getting a new one.

If he works for himself, his job is whatever he decides it is. Society doesn't get to define his job for him - this isn't a planned economy.

He works in a licensed profession. As such, society absolutely does get to determine his job for him.

And he's not diagnosing the necessity of a medication. He doesn't need to care whether its necessary.

Then he's in the wrong profession. Those in the healthcare industry make decisions that can vastly affect the health, life, and death of patients. A person who cannot be responsible in such decision making should not be licensed.

The freedom part of it was you telling me that I'm not permitted to determine for myself the scope of my own business.

If you want to "determine for yourself the scope of your own business," then don't go into a business that directly affects the health of patients or one that is a licensed profession. There are all sorts of things you can do that don't require a license.


All a prescription does is give you permission to buy the drugs. The doctor typically doesn't violate medical privacy laws by offering a detailed diagnosis on his little pad.

And, since a doctor who unnecessarily or improperly prescribes drugs can be fined, jailed, or lose his license for doing so, it's pretty clear that a prescription means your doctor has determined a medical need for said drugs.

The pharmacist doesn't need a detailed diagnosis. That isn't his job and he isn't trained to make diagnoses or to interpret them. His job is to ensure that the medication is not an improper dose and will not react adversely with other drugs - not to determine what drugs are necessary.

And I'm not. The doctor said the patient is permitted to buy the drugs. And they still are. But I'm not required to sell them the drugs.

That's how the free market works. No one is forced to sell anyone anything if they don't want to. Otherwise, your being allowed to sell your car somehow equates to me being able to force you to sell it to me.

So, where are my keys?

And, once again, the completely idiotic attempt to equate everyday retail to healthcare.

Right, as a pharmacist I'm allowed to sell you the drug. I'm not required to sell you the drug.

You do understand the difference, right?

In WA, if you have the drug, and you have no medical reason to deny it, you are (assuming you're a pharmacist) required to do so.

Let's clarify something important. Pharmacists are not simple retailers. They are given permission from the government to handle otherwise illegal substances. Because the government gives them such permission, it is allowed to put restrictions in place as well. A perfectly reasonable one is that the pharmacist must fill any perscription given to him. Also, when a pharmacist doesn't have a drug in stock, he can usually order it from a nearby pharmacy and have it within a day so the not in stock excuse is not valid.

First, this law is idiotic. Like hell the government should tell a private business what they're required to sell.

First of all, this law doesn't tell anyone what they're required to sell. It places restrictions on pharmacists and how they do their job. They cannot refuse to dispense medication simply because they have a bug up their ass about said medication. The law says nothing about a pharmacy that does not carry it, or does not have it in stock.

Second of all, the healthcare industry is a regulated industry - and rightfully so. The compelling interest in regulating the industry greatly outweighs any whining about wanting to do business in such a way that it harms people. If the state can demonstrate a compelling interest in requiring that certain medication be stocked in order to run a pharmacy, then it can do so. But that is beside the point, since that isn't what this law does.

Second, refusing to sell this stuff is idiotic. The pharmacist is just losing potential revenue by refusing to sell, and deserves to lose every dollar that he loses. Like racism, doing this makes no economic sense.

Indeed. And it makes even less sense when you realize that very, very few pharmacists actually own their own pharmacies. They work for larger corporations. So, when they make idiotic decisions, the corporation is losing the money, not them.

The woman has the full option to drive to another town and get the pills there. It's not that much of a hassle.

Oh, if only life were so simple that anyone could jump in a car they don't have and make it to the next town to get a prescription filled without losing their jobs. It would be so wonderful. I wish I lived in a perfect world like you.

If one wishes to engage in a profession that requires a license from the state, then one needs to do what the state says he must do in order to keep that profession.

Nobody has the right to be a pharmacist, if one wishes to be a pharmacist, one must comply with the rules the state puts down to gain that license, and the state is free to withold, or revoke your license if you do not comply with those requirements.

In other words, to be a pharmacist, you need a license. License given by the state. State places conditions on that license.

So if you want to be a pharmacist, you do what the state tells you to do.

Or live with the fact that you don't get to be a pharmacist.

QFT

Dude, I live here in Washington, and Ill tell you one thing: this state is friggin comunistic. I dont know much about this new law or whatever the hell, but its probably nothing compared to what has been goin on. Mrs. Whoreicewitchfromhell (aka: Governor Gregwire, or however the hell you spell her name.) frickin cheated her way into office!. She had frickin dead people voting for her!!! And thats just to scratch the surface. Our roads here...SUCK, our public school systems.....SUCK, our drivers..........hhmmm, whats the word?.......SUCK!!!!! The law here actualy is more on the side of the perpitrators.....must I go on?

Republican Conspiracy theory bullshit. A judge practically hand picked by the GoOPers in Washington not only ruled in the favor of Gregoire, he threw the case out with prejudice.

Gregoire wasn't my first choice amongst the Gubenatorial candidates, but she's been a fairly solid Governor on everything except that damn tunnel.

Gregoire - Evil lady who spends more than we have (and we as tax payers had to pay for both recounts)
Rossi - Victim of stupid King County
King County - Can't figure out who gets to vote, who is dead, who is a criminal, and lets people vote more than once
King County - Still stupid
King County - Yep.... still stupid

Gregoire - Evil lady who spends more than we have (and we as tax payers had to pay for both recounts)
Rossi - Victim of stupid King County
King County - Can't figure out who gets to vote, who is dead, who is a criminal, and lets people vote more than once
King County - Still stupid
King County - Yep.... still stupid

It could be worse. We could be run by the moronic, can't get anything right, paranoiac, Tim-Eyeman-Crazed types from Eastern Washington. Thank God for King County. If it weren't for us, we'd be stuck with the Republicans. I'm sure that the Seattle Times would be glad to endorse any Republican you like, though. They seem to be in to that.

Republican Conspiracy theory bullshit. A judge practically hand picked by the GoOPers in Washington not only ruled in the favor of Gregoire, he threw the case out with prejudice.

Gregoire wasn't my first choice amongst the Gubenatorial candidates, but she's been a fairly solid Governor on everything except that damn tunnel.

I voted for Rossi all three times (I hope). Gregoire isnt to bad after the rough start with the crappy election. The best thing she has done so far is saying NO to the damn tunnel. That thing would have been a money pit. I do think it would be nice to get rid of the ugly viaduct however not with the price tag that tunnel would have brought.

It could be worse. We could be run by the moronic, can't get anything right, paranoiac, Tim-Eyeman-Crazed types from Eastern Washington. Thank God for King County. If it weren't for us, we'd be stuck with the Republicans. I'm sure that the Seattle Times would be glad to endorse any Republican you like, though. They seem to be in to that.

Mr Eyeman does serve a purpose. If anything he has brought people back into voting in Washington. Some of his ideas are out there but I think he has been an overall positive for the whole process.

The pharmacist has the option to not be a pharmacist if he doesn't want to comply with state law.
And I'll concede that, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion on which regulatory restrictions are dumb.

Is it better to have no pharmacist in this town than it is to have one who refuses to sell certain drugs?

By that reasoning, a hospital may choose not to treat emergency patients on the grounds of "I don't agree with their religious/political/economic status"
That's not analogous. Now you're rejecting the patient, not the procedure.

A) it's not the retailer. It's the Pharmacist.
They're the same. Either he's an independent pharmacist so he's both, or he works for a retailer so that retailer can fire him if he doesn't like the way he does his job.
Other states are taking efforts to make it illegal for a retailer to fire the pharmacist for refusing to do his job.
That would also be a dumb law. No doubt Arthais would defend it on the grounds that it is law, and thus infallible.
B) medical professionals, including pharmacists, don't have the same right not to do their jobs as other people do. Just like a cop isn't allowed to just walk on by when he sees a crime being committed, nor is a teacher allowed to ignore the behavior of his students when he encounters them off of school grounds. Some jobs are more than just a paycheck. They are a public trust.
That's also stupid (seriously, you govern your teachers like that?) If I'm off the clock, I don't answer to my employer unless I'm actively working against him (in your police example, that would include committing crimes).

Good. The next step is applying this step in Congress, overriding the idiot-in-chief and removing his ban on embryonic stem-cell research.

There is no ban on stem cell research. There is a ban on New FEDERAL funding on embryonic stem cells. While I disagree with the ban, if you are going to complain at least be accurate in your complaints.

And The Senate doesn't have the votes to override the promised veto--they will fall at least 3 votes short if they attempted to do so.

And I'll concede that, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion on which regulatory restrictions are dumb.

Is it better to have no pharmacist in this town than it is to have one who refuses to sell certain drugs?


I can't see any case in which you would lack of a pharmacist because of to many having a problem with their morals. There is to much money in pharmacy's to not have one in a town. If someone left because of morals/beliefs there are 10 others out there to fill the space without any problem with their personal morals/beliefs.

Indeed. And it makes even less sense when you realize that very, very few pharmacists actually own their own pharmacies. They work for larger corporations. So, when they make idiotic decisions, the corporation is losing the money, not them.
But this case isn't even a problem, because the corporation should have the power to discipline its employees.

The only people this law credibly affects are independent pharmacists.

There is no ban on stem cell research. There is a ban on New FEDERAL funding on embryonic stem cells. While I disagree with the ban, if you are going to complain at least be accurate in your complaints.

And The Senate doesn't have the votes to override the promised veto--they will fall at least 3 votes short if they attempted to do so.

Actually, that isn't correct either. It isn't a ban on "new funding". Instead, it is a ban on funding new lines of embryonic stem cells. And, given the way the field is moving, that will amount to a ban on funding the research soon. Most of the "approved" lines are damn near unusable and a great deal of research is being pushed towards the newer, healthier lines.


But this case isn't even a problem, because the corporation should have the power to discipline its employees.

Should, maybe, but that is often not the case. Even if the law is on their side (something which many would argue against - and given the trend in some places - would argue successfully), many corporations are afraid to do anything that appears to conflict with religious views. This takes that burden off of them. They can simply say, "This is the law."

The only people this law credibly affects are independent pharmacists.

Independent pharmacists are so rare that we wouldn't need a law specifically for them. Like I said, the problems have not been at independent pharmacies - at least not the reported problems - largely because an independent pharmacist is so hard to find.

That's not analogous. Now you're rejecting the patient, not the procedure.
If you refuse to perform the procedure because of the patient, it is analogous.

This sort of sick "reasoning" is why America doesn't have a comprehensive medical plan for the country yet still pays more per capita for government medical support of a fraction of the populace than other nations do for their entire populace.

That makes me happy.

I wish I still lived there.

If I'm the only cable television provider in an area, should I be forced to carry all channels? If I'm the only guy with a newstand should I be forced to sell all newpapers?

I don't really care why the pharmacist doesn't want to sell the pills. It's his call.

Then the opposite should be true. A pharmacist should be able to sell anything he wants. marijuana, heroin, cocaine, what have you... After all, it's up to the market to decide, no government interference!

I disagree entirely with this law. Retailers should be permitted to determine for themselves what they sell.

Yes, if they determine that they do not want to sell prescription medication, then they shouldn't be pharmacists.

Then the opposite should be true. A pharmacist should be able to sell anything he wants. marijuana, heroin, cocaine, what have you... After all, it's up to the market to decide, no government interference!

The government creates the legal infrastructure that allows markets to exist in the first place. I say that the government should stop meddling on that level:D

You see that spec on the horizon? Yeah, that tiny one. What's that? That's the fucking question.
Is food a luxury is some one can't afford it. Answer it, foo'.
Not to get all nitpickey, but the contraceptive pill is not really vital to staying alive. If you are denied food then you die quite promptly but if you don't get a morning after pill you will almost certinally live.

There are plenty of proscriptions a pharmacist has to fill or the patient will die, but this is not one of them.


If he wanted to be a doctor, he should have been a doctor. A pharmacist is not a fucking doctor. You're right, society doesn't define his job, his education does and they both come to the same damn conclusion.
And more accurately - a doctor who will not be required to be in a position to write a proscription for the morning after pill. I don't believe a GP (General Practicioner - what do you call your general doctor you go to see for checkups in the US?) should have the right to refuse to proscribe the morning after pill on anything other than sound medical grounds either.

Also - the Government defines their job and they have to follow all the rest of their requirements, if they don't then they don't get to be pharmacists anymore.

Also - the Government defines their job and they have to follow all the rest of their requirements, if they don't then they don't get to be pharmacists anymore.
Yes, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with every aspect of that regulatory burden.

Yes, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with every aspect of that regulatory burden.

It does if you want to be a pharmacist.

If you don't agree and can't abide by it then you don't get to be a pharmacist.

If you refuse to perform the procedure because of the patient, it is analogous.
No, it isn't.

If you need an appendectomy, and I refuse it because you're black (or gay, or white, or Tony Blair, or any other medically irrelevant aspect), I've rejected the patient.

If I refuse because I think that the appendix is the seat of the soul and by removing it I'll turn you into a brain-eating zombie, that's rejecting the procedure.

It does if you want to be a pharmacist.

If you don't agree and can't abide by it then you don't get to be a pharmacist.
What? Of course it doesn't. It's possible to disagree with a rule but still follow it. That's how deterrence works.

If I refuse because I think that the appendix is the seat of the soul and by removing it I'll turn you into a brain-eating zombie, that's rejecting the procedure.

And if you believe that then you should not be in a career that requires you to remove a persons appendix.

And if you believe that then you should not be in a career that requires you to remove a persons appendix.
So if I was a member of a religious community where everyone believed that, you don't think any of us should be allowed to be doctors?

That's mightly intolerant of you. Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with blood transfusions - do you think they should be allowed to be doctors?

That's mightly intolerant of you. Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with blood transfusions - do you think they should be allowed to be doctors?

If they fail to recommend a blood transfusion where one is needed due to faith, no, they should most definetly NOT be in charge of people's friggin' LIVES!

If they fail to recommend a blood transfusion where one is needed, no, they should most definetly NOT!
So you're willing to deprive the entire community of medical care?

Not to get all nitpickey, but the contraceptive pill is not really vital to staying alive.
Not relevant to the question, and actually, isn't even relevant to the debate.
This bill just requires pharmacists to fill prescriptions regardless of absurd objections. There may be and probably will be more "morally objectionable" prescriptions in the future and they also fall under this law, and they may be required to remain healthy.

If you need an appendectomy, and I refuse it because you're black (or gay, or white, or Tony Blair, or any other medically irrelevant aspect), I've rejected the patient.
You still failed to perform a necessary procedure. Your license should be revoked if not more serious punishment inflicted.

So if I was a member of a religious community where everyone believed that, you don't think any of us should be allowed to be doctors?

That's mightly intolerant of you. Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with blood transfusions - do you think they should be allowed to be doctors?
It's not intolerant. Refusing to perform a medical procedure because a person is black is intolerant, morally reprehensible, and against the hippocratic oath.
Some one who states certain things are against their faith and states they refuse to perform those things, they should not be allowed to be involved in a profession where the thing they are against is a necessary part of it.

It does if you want to be a pharmacist.

If you don't agree and can't abide by it then you don't get to be a pharmacist.
It's like you're arguing that the government should just be allowed to pass whatever law it wants and we just have to live with it.

If the government said you had to kill a homeless man in order to vote, would you just accept that you either had to kill him or not vote? Or would you stand up and insist that you should be allowed to vote regardless?

You're denying that it's possible to disagree with legislation.

So you're willing to deprive the entire community of medical care?

Uh... how would not allowing someone of a community become a doctor, specifically because they will not do an integral part of their job, remove all hospitals from their community?

So if I was a member of a religious community where everyone believed that, you don't think any of us should be allowed to be doctors?

That's mightly intolerant of you. Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with blood transfusions - do you think they should be allowed to be doctors?

I think they are absolutely allowed to be doctors, they just should not practice in a field of medicine where they will be required to order a blood transfusion if it is medically required for the wellbeing of the patient.

So you're willing to deprive the entire community of medical care?
What horseshit. If they refuse blood transfusions to themselves, they are depriving themselves medical care. Not giving a license to practice medicine to a doctor who would refuse to perform or recommend integral parts of the work is logically and medically sound. Anyone who grants that person a license should be brought up on charges of deprived indifference.

If the government said you had to kill a homeless man in order to vote, would you just accept that you either had to kill him or not vote? Or would you stand up and insist that you should be allowed to vote regardless?
Are you still beating your wife?
You managed both a false dilemma and a false analogy. Bravo.

It's like you're arguing that the government should just be allowed to pass whatever law it wants and we just have to live with it.

If the government said you had to kill a homeless man in order to vote, would you just accept that you either had to kill him or not vote? Or would you stand up and insist that you should be allowed to vote regardless?

You're denying that it's possible to disagree with legislation.

Eh, different story here.

There is a difference between regulating people doing their job, that they are ALLOWED to do by the State, and telling people what they have to do to be part of society, at all.

You still failed to perform a necessary procedure. Your license should be revoked if not more serious punishment inflicted.
It's not like this was necessarily a surprise to anyone. I probably told the hospital that I won't perform appendectomies, and they probably have someone else available to perform them. You're arguing that I shouldn't be allowed to be a doctor at all - even though there's so much other good I could do - simply because I hold a belief you think is odd.

You're the thought police.
It's not intolerant.
Yes it is.
Refusing to perform a medical procedure because a person is black is intolerant, morally reprehensible, and against the hippocratic oath.
Agreed.
Some one who states certain things are against their faith and states they refuse to perform those things, they should not be allowed to be involved in a profession where the thing they are against is a necessary part of it.
But it isn't a necessary part. Not all doctors perform blood transfusions. Or appendectomies. I'm one doctor among millions, and if I'm the only doctor in town, then in my absence there wouldn't be ANY doctors in town. How is that better?

Eh, different story here.

There is a difference between regulating people doing their job, that they are ALLOWED to do by the State, and telling people what they have to do to be part of society, at all.
Voting is something you're "allowed to do" by the state. It's hardly a necessary part of belonging to society. It's even optional.

It's not like this was necessarily a surprise to anyone. I probably told the hospital that I won't perform appendectomies, and they probably have someone else available to perform them. You're arguing that I shouldn't be allowed to be a doctor at all - even though there's so much other good I could do - simply because I hold a belief you think is odd.


Perhaps a better analogy is not to be a Surgeon.

Voting is something you're "allowed to do" by the state. It's hardly a necessary part of belonging to society. It's even optional.

It's a right in our country. We're not allowed to do it in our society, we have the right to. Being allowed to is saying it is a privilege. It is not. It is a right.

I personally think that the birth control pill (Not the Morning After/Plan B pill), at least, should be sold over the counter.

It's not like this was necessarily a surprise to anyone. I probably told the hospital that I won't perform appendectomies, and they probably have someone else available to perform them. You're arguing that I shouldn't be allowed to be a doctor at all
Duh. You refuse to perform a medically necessary procedure on "moral" grounds, you failed to do your job, you should have your license revoked. We are dealing with people's life and death here.
Since you like outrageous examples, what if there was no one else available to do it? (That is 1/4th as outrageous as the least outrageous hypothetical you have made.) What would you do?

Yes it is. If you're a sociopath.

I'm one doctor among millions, and if I'm the only doctor in town, then in my absence there wouldn't be ANY doctors in town.
Argumentum ad adsrudum.

I disagree entirely with this law. Retailers should be permitted to determine for themselves what they sell.

But they shouldn't be judge and jury of what's right and wrong for people either. I'm not agreeing with the idea of the morning after pill, but if we let retailers start deciding what's right and what's wrong for us, what's next?

But they shouldn't be judge and jury of what's right and wrong for people either. I'm not agreeing with the idea of the morning after pill, but if we let retailers start deciding what's right and what's wrong for us, what's next?
This is about retailers deciding what's right and wrong for them. They're not stopping the patients from buying drugs - they're just not selling the drugs.

An, again, this only affects independent pharmacies. Corporate pharmacies can fire their workers who don't do their jobs.

It's a right in our country. We're not allowed to do it in our society, we have the right to. Being allowed to is saying it is a privilege. It is not. It is a right.
It's only a right because the government says so. Rights are legal constructs.

The analogy stands.

I voted for Rossi all three times (I hope). Gregoire isnt to bad after the rough start with the crappy election. The best thing she has done so far is saying NO to the damn tunnel. That thing would have been a money pit. I do think it would be nice to get rid of the ugly viaduct however not with the price tag that tunnel would have brought.

I dunno. Gregoire seems to be rather two-faced about the tunnel to me, but I'm no Seattlite, and I'm more concerned about how much Seattle's next big fuckup will cost us. Before they decide not to do it anyway, essentially tossing perfectly good money in the trash.

Argumentum ad adsrudum.

What? I'm too lazy to go to an latin-english translator.

I personally think that the birth control pill (Not the Morning After/Plan B pill), at least, should be sold over the counter.
I think all medication that isn't widely harmful (like antibiotics) should be sold over the counter. If people misuse them, that's their own fault.

This is about retailers deciding what's right and wrong for them. They're not stopping the patients from buying drugs - they're just not selling the drugs.

An, again, this only affects independent pharmacies. Corporate pharmacies can fire their workers who don't do their jobs.

It's also about societal good; Washington as a society has decided that it is a good thing for society to provide for women who desire contraception. It has decided that it is so much of a good that it does not wish to make that access conditional on being near a pharmacy where the pharmacist agrees with the doctor and standing opinion. Washington has also passed a law to that effect through the standard mechanism of policy formulation, and it has passed necessary judicial hurdles.

The long and short of it is that the people of Washington have decided in a manner consistent with the social contract that there is a compelling state interest at hand that overrides personal choice. This is especially true given that pharmacists take oaths to obey certain strictures of behavior that override their own personal judgments: a pharmacist may be a Young-Earther, but that does not allow him to not supply a person with gene therapies; nor still does his being, say, a Seventh-Day Adventist entitle him to refuse a prescription for antibiotics. As such, the state seems entitled on determining what the duties of pharmacists are. Pharmacists themselves have duties by being pharmacists that override their own personal wishes. The state in this case has deemed contraception to be one of a class of items that pharmacists are obligated to provide. This really shouldn't be that hard.

I think all medication that isn't widely harmful (like antibiotics) should be sold over the counter. If people misuse them, that's their own fault.

Antibiotics can be extremely hazardous if you use them all the time. Not only do they kill off many bacteria which are beneficial to the body, they may also have the inverse affect of allowing resistant strains becoming more prevalent. There is a reason why people aren't on antibiotics all the time.

The reason why Doctors are allowed to prescribe medication, and pharmacists allowed to sell it, is that it any medication has bad effects if not taken correctly. It's not just ignorance of the medication, it's the fact that not everyone can have all intimate knowledge of everything.

You saying that antibiotics should be sold over the counter is exactly why they shouldn't: Lack of knowledge on the issue.

That's not analogous. Now you're rejecting the patient, not the procedure.

As a pharmacist, the only procedure you're licensed to do is follow prescriptions and make a judgment if any of those prescriptions cause life threatening situations or will conflict with one another.

By denying medical prescriptions, you are rejecting the patient.

Let me put it this way. You've got typhoid. Fatal if untreated. But you can be cured if your local pharmacist can get you Tylenol and a bunch of antibiotics. But guess what? Your local pharmacist is an Amish! And medicines are tools of the Devil! And he's the only one in 500 miles around. Tough luck punk. No medicine for you!

You die.

And the world is a better place without your idiocy.

I think all medication that isn't widely harmful (like antibiotics) should be sold over the counter. If people misuse them, that's their own fault.
Antibiotics are widely harmful if over-used, because overuse (and indeed underuse) encourages antibiotic resistant strains to appear. That's why a qualified medical practitioner has to tell you exactly how long to take a course for.

I think all medication that isn't widely harmful (like antibiotics) should be sold over the counter. If people misuse them, that's their own fault.

You've clearly never heard of drug resistance. This is why they need to be prescription drugs.

You have a sore throat. You buy some arithromycin (sp?). You take it, you feel better, you stop using them. You've killed off enough germs to make the sniffling and the scratchy throat go away, but you haven't killed off enough for you immune system to go "Get the fuck out."
Some of the bacteria adapts to the antibiotic, and you've got drug resistant strep. It wont infect you, necessarily, but it'll damn well likely infect someone while you're still sick with it.

This is why, when it says "Take the damn meds until they're gone" on the box/bottle, it doesn't mean "Take the damn meds until you feel better."

It's not like this was necessarily a surprise to anyone. I probably told the hospital that I won't perform appendectomies, and they probably have someone else available to perform them. You're arguing that I shouldn't be allowed to be a doctor at all - even though there's so much other good I could do - simply because I hold a belief you think is odd.

You're the thought police.

And if they don't? If this is a small hospital that three town rely on for emergency care and you decide that as a Jehovah's Witness you don't want to perform surgeries, why should those towns put up with you and not replace you with a surgeon who will do his job?

I was offering antibiotics as an example of a widely harmful drug that shouldn't be sold over-the-counter. It's the one drug that obviously needs to be controlled.

Today Washington state's Board of Pharmacy has ruled that a pharmacist cannot refuse to distribute lawful prescriptions. This includes the morning after, a.k.a plan b, pill.

Thank you Washington, I may not live within your evergreen borders anymore, but you've just earned even more of my respect

link (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003663743_webplanb12m.html)
Awesome!

Hopefully other states will follow this lead and help ensure the speedy firing of any person who thinks they should get paid to do a job they refuse to perform.

By denying medical prescriptions, you are rejecting the patient.
You're not even trying to understand.
Let me put it this way. You've got typhoid. Fatal if untreated. But you can be cured if your local pharmacist can get you Tylenol and a bunch of antibiotics. But guess what? Your local pharmacist is an Amish! And medicines are tools of the Devil! And he's the only one in 500 miles around. Tough luck punk. No medicine for you!

You die.
So I'd somehow be better off if that Amish never became a pharmacist, thus leaving this town without a pharmacist at all?

The reasoning being used in this thread is appalling. By this reasoning, I'm depriving people of medication because I don't sell any. Somehow because I (me specifically) don't sell any medication, I'm interfering with patients' rights to buy medication.

Explain that one to me. If that's true, then you're interferring with my right to buy a car by not selling cars.

So I'd somehow be better off if that Amish never became a pharmacist, thus leaving this town without a pharmacist at all?
No, you'd just be equally screwed in that case.

A pharmacist who refuses to sell me my medication is as worthless as having no pharmacist at all. Well, actually, he's a bit worse, because I end up wasting the time of actually going to the pharmacy to try to get my medication and then being refused.

So actually, yeah, I'd be better off with no pharmacist at all than with some asshat who expects to collect a check for a job he's not willing to do.

Edit: Not to mention the fact that the moron pharmacists who refuse to give out Plan B always claim they're doing it because they are opposed to abortion. Given that Plan B IS NOT AN ABORTION PILL, I'd say EVERYBODY is better off without some unqualified hack distributing medications without even the most fundamental understanding of how those medications work. Any pharmacist who thinks Plan B is an abortion pill should be fired even if they're willing to distribute it, because they are obviously not competent to be a pharmacist in the first place.

It's also about societal good; Washington as a society has decided that it is a good thing for society to provide for women who desire contraception. It has decided that it is so much of a good that it does not wish to make that access conditional on being near a pharmacy where the pharmacist agrees with the doctor and standing opinion. Washington has also passed a law to that effect through the standard mechanism of policy formulation, and it has passed necessary judicial hurdles.

The long and short of it is that the people of Washington have decided in a manner consistent with the social contract that there is a compelling state interest at hand that overrides personal choice. This is especially true given that pharmacists take oaths to obey certain strictures of behavior that override their own personal judgments: a pharmacist may be a Young-Earther, but that does not allow him to not supply a person with gene therapies; nor still does his being, say, a Seventh-Day Adventist entitle him to refuse a prescription for antibiotics. As such, the state seems entitled on determining what the duties of pharmacists are. Pharmacists themselves have duties by being pharmacists that override their own personal wishes. The state in this case has deemed contraception to be one of a class of items that pharmacists are obligated to provide. This really shouldn't be that hard.
The difference here is between requiring people not do specific things and requiring people do do specfic things. A pharmacist is prohibited from doing all manner of things (like selling prescription drugs without a prescription), and I'm fine with that. There are resctrictions on our behaviour all the time.

But this requires action. You're not letting anyone do just some of the job (again, this only applies to independent pharmacists). By prohibiting inaction, you're eliminating conscientious objection. This is like forcing people to offer aid if they pass injured people.

The difference here is between requiring people not do specific things and requiring people do do specfic things. A pharmacist is prohibited from doing all manner of things (like selling prescription drugs without a prescription), and I'm fine with that. There are resctrictions on our behaviour all the time.

But this requires action. You're not letting anyone do just some of the job (again, this only applies to independent pharmacists). By prohibiting inaction, you're eliminating conscientious objection. This is like forcing people to offer aid if they pass injured people.
What are you talking about? "Inaction" is prohibited in every single service job there is. If you work at McDonalds and you decide to be "inactive" you are going to get fired. You are paid to be active, to serve customers, and if you refuse to serve customers then you don't get a pay check. It's that simple.

Don't want to give people prescriptions? Fine. Nobody will force you to. But if you choose to take a job where you are paid to give people their prescriptions, don't bitch and moan if you are actually expected to *gasp* do the job you were hired for.

What are you talking about? "Inaction" is prohibited in every single service job there is. If you work at McDonalds and you decide to be "inactive" you are going to get fired. You are paid to be active, to serve customers, and if you refuse to serve customers then you don't get a pay check. It's that simple.

Don't want to give people prescriptions? Fine. Nobody will force you to. But if you choose to take a job where you are paid to give people their prescriptions, don't bitch and moan if you are actually expected to *gasp* do the job you were hired for.

And, since you receive a license from the State to have your job, don't be surprised if it's revoked.

If that's true, then you're interferring with my right to buy a car by not selling cars.

The right not to have an unwanted baby trumps the right to buy a car. The right to LIVE trumps the right to buy a car. They ALSO trump the right to act on religious grounds regarding other people! The right to live ALSO trumps the right not to offer help! Don't you get it? People don't get to kill or, essentially, rape other people by forcing an unwanted pregnancy by inaction due to religion! Religion is NOT charte blanche to force women to give birth!

Let me ask you something: How would you feel if YOU were the woman in a small town, forced to give birth to and raise a child of someone that raped you because some NUTCASE didn't want you to have pills? WOULD YOU FEEL GOOD? Would you feel justice was done? Would you feel anything but abject hatred for the idiot, the government that allows him to rape you like he did when he denied pills and, quite possibly, his religion and your unwanted child?

Explain that one to me. If that's true, then you're interferring with my right to buy a car by not selling cars.
I'm not a car salesman. A person who is not a car salesman is not in any way obligated to sell you a car. If you approach somebody who is not a car salesman and command them to sell you a car, the problem is with you.

If, however, I decide to become a car salesman, my job is now selling cars. If I refuse to sell you a car, I am failing in my job and I am interfering in your ability to obtain a car. You are behaving 100% appropriately when you approach a car salesman and request to purchase a car. I should not expect to continue to be employed as a car salesman if I refuse to sell cars.

Think about it this way: let's say there's a car salesman who decides that he will remain "inactive" and refuse to sell cars to women, because he has decided women aren't safe drivers and shouldn't have cars. [This is a great parallel to the Plan B bullshit, because with Plan B we have pharmacists deciding that women shouldn't have access to legal medications purely because of their personal opinions of what women should and should not be allowed to do.]

Never mind that the car salesman is NOT the person who hands out driver's licenses. The car salesman is NOT empowered to decide who is and is not qualified to drive a car. Just like the pharmacist is NOT empowered to decide which medications a person can and cannot receive.

A pharmacist is only empowered to refuse to sell medication FOR MEDICAL REASONS. If they notice that a woman has a prescription that will interact dangerously with another of her prescriptions, the pharmacist is supposed to alert the patient and her doctor and to make sure everybody was aware of the medical risks. This is like how a car salesman is totally within his rights to refuse to allow a drunk person to drive off the lot in a new car.

But "being female and using legal contraception" is not a medical reason to refuse to sell something, any more than "being female while driving" is a legit reason to conclude that somebody is too dangerous a driver to own a car.

What are you talking about? "Inaction" is prohibited in every single service job there is. If you work at McDonalds and you decide to be "inactive" you are going to get fired. You are paid to be active, to serve customers, and if you refuse to serve customers then you don't get a pay check. It's that simple.
And if I work for the pharmacy rather than owning it, I totally agree with you. If you don't do the job your boss gives you, you should be fired.

But employers ALREADY have the power to fire people. So, this law only really affects independent pharmacists. And independent pharmacists don't have a boss - they're self-employed.

Why do you keep using employer-employee comparisons when that has nothing at all to do with this?
Don't want to give people prescriptions? Fine. Nobody will force you to.
This law does.
But if you choose to take a job where you are paid to give people their prescriptions, don't bitch and moan if you are actually expected to *gasp* do the job you were hired for.
And if I was HIRED to do the job, that's right. But that was already true, so that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

Pharmacists don't work for the state.

But employers ALREADY have the power to fire people. So, this law only really affects independent pharmacists. And independent pharmacists don't have a boss - they're self-employed.

Self employed in a profession that requires state licensing. Ergo their profession is as equally dependant on following the rules of the licensing agency as an employee's position is dependant on following the rules of the employer.

Pharmacists don't work for the state.

They are licensed by the state, fulfilling a necessary public role, and therefore work on behalf of the state.

Honestly you are displaying such cognitive dissonance here that the irony is amusing.

You've got such a hard on for allowing people to regulate their own conduct that you'd preclude the state from regulating its own licenses.

And if I work for the pharmacy rather than owning it, I totally agree with you. If you don't do the job your boss gives you, you should be fired.

But employers ALREADY have the power to fire people. So, this law only really affects independent pharmacists. And independent pharmacists don't have a boss - they're self-employed.

Why do you keep using employer-employee comparisons when that has nothing at all to do with this?

Because, despite the fact that you want so badly to ignore it, this law does not apply only to independent pharmacists (who are few and far between anyways). In many places, an employer does not have the power to fire someone when they claim they are not doing part of their job for "religious objections." In others, it is still under debate. In still others, a pharmacy may want to fire a pharmacist who doesn't do his job, but may have to fear backlash from an extremely religious community that may not care what the exact issue is when someone starts screaming, "Discrimination against teh Christians!" This law makes it damn clear where WA stands on the issue.

And, as was pointed out to you numerous times at the beginning of the thread, nothing in this law requires you to stock particular medications. So, in the rare case that a pharmacist owns his own pharmacy and objects to a particular medication, she simply won't stock it.

This law does.

No, it doesn't. This law does not force someone to become a pharmacist. It simply lays out the requirements thereof.

And if I was HIRED to do the job, that's right. But that was already true, so that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

Yes, yes, keep ignoring the reality of the situation.

Pharmacists don't work for the state.

No, they don't. But they are licensed by the state. They work in a regulated industry and thus must deal with the requirements placed upon them by those regulations.

The right not to have an unwanted baby trumps the right to buy a car. The right to LIVE trumps the right to buy a car. They ALSO trump the right to act on religious grounds regarding other people! The right to live ALSO trumps the right not to offer help! Don't you get it? People don't get to kill or, essentially, rape other people by forcing an unwanted pregnancy by inaction due to religion! Religion is NOT charte blanche to force women to give birth!

Let me ask you something: How would you feel if YOU were the woman in a small town, forced to give birth to and raise a child of someone that raped you because some NUTCASE didn't want you to have pills? WOULD YOU FEEL GOOD? Would you feel justice was done? Would you feel anything but abject hatred for the idiot, the government that allows him to rape you like he did when he denied pills and, quite possibly, his religion and your unwanted child?
If I were the patient, I would be annoyed I couldn't get my drugs, but no more annoyed than I would be if there were no pharmacist in my town, which is the option being presented here.

Self employed in a profession that requires state licensing. Ergo their profession is as equally dependant on following the rules of the licensing agency as an employee's position is dependant on following the rules of the employer.

They are licensed by the state, fulfilling a necessary public role, and therefore work on behalf of the state.

Honestly you are displaying such cognitive dissonance here that the irony is amusing.

You've got such a hard on for allowing people to regulate their own conduct that you'd preclude the state from regulating its own licenses.
So you'd be okay with any licensing board requiring licensed practitioners to perform activities they deemed reprehensible? Or does your preference only cover those activities you don't deem reprehensible?

What if all licensed teachers were required to engage in corporal punishment, and had to punish one student each week as an example?

What if successful prosecutors had to execute perpetrators of capital crimes themselves?

I widely reject licensing regulations which require action. Prohibiting action is fine (don't sell liquor to children), but requiring action (ID everybody every time) is a waste of everyone's time. The only action I'm willing to require is training.

Because, despite the fact that you want so badly to ignore it, this law does not apply only to independent pharmacists (who are few and far between anyways). In many places, an employer does not have the power to fire someone when they claim they are not doing part of their job for "religious objections." In others, it is still under debate. In still others, a pharmacy may want to fire a pharmacist who doesn't do his job, but may have to fear backlash from an extremely religious community that may not care what the exact issue is when someone starts screaming, "Discrimination against teh Christians!" This law makes it damn clear where WA stands on the issue.
Yes, WA doesn't want employers making their own decisions.
And, as was pointed out to you numerous times at the beginning of the thread, nothing in this law requires you to stock particular medications. So, in the rare case that a pharmacist owns his own pharmacy and objects to a particular medication, she simply won't stock it.
Won't she?

Let's suppose my sister and I are both pharmacists, and we open a pharmacy together. We're kin, so we tolerate each others' views, even though we might disagree. I work days and she works nights. And I will prescribe Plan B because I'm a normal human, but she won't because she's a religious zealot.

This law prohibits me (as part-owner) from tolerating my sister's foibles.

You know, something just occurred to me.

What if a corporate pharmacy (all the pharmacists are employees) gave each one her own inventory? Then those who opposed Plan B could honestly claim not to have access to the drug, and not prescribe it (this only works if there's only one pharmacist working at a time). They could even be overlapping invetories (to avoid duplication), but the controversial drugs could be in a locked cabinet to which only those pharmacists who chose to would have keys.

That seems to take good advantage of your inventory loophole.

Yes, WA doesn't want employers making their own decisions.
As been pointed out to you an innumerable amount of times, pharmacists and doctors have an obligation to the community. The state has the right to tell doctors what they can and can't do because they are licensed by the state.

As been pointed out to you an innumerable amount of times, pharmacists and doctors have an obligation to the community. The state has the right to tell doctors what they can and can't do because they are licensed by the state.
I deny that the community is a thing.

If I were the patient, I would be annoyed I couldn't get my drugs, but no more annoyed than I would be if there were no pharmacist in my town, which is the option being presented here.

Third option: The state tells the pharmacist that, yes, they HAVE to do their jobs, and no, their religion does NOT count.

So you'd be okay with any licensing board requiring licensed practitioners to perform activities they deemed reprehensible?

Certainly. If they were unwilling to meet the requirements of their job they shouldn't have gone into it.

The fact that they find themselves required to perform duties as part of their chosen profession that they don't agree with is entirely their fault for choosing that profession.

Why in the world would I have ANY sympathy for that?

The only action I'm willing to require is training.

I don't think you're in a position to require anything.

I deny that the community is a thing.

I deny that women should be raped by their pharmacists.

I deny that the community is a thing.
A community is a collective group of interested peoples.

What if all licensed teachers were required to engage in corporal punishment, and had to punish one student each week as an example?

Well that would be illegal on other grounds wouldn't it? The state can not require someone to commit an illegal act.

What if successful prosecutors had to execute perpetrators of capital crimes themselves?

See above.

Now that you're done with your idiotic hyperboli you miss my point. The state, through its representatives, sets standards on its licensing. It can not require that its licensed representatives do something illegal.

If it requires they do something legal, but something that those in the profession find morally displeasurable, they are free not to enter that profession.

Likewise they are free, as voting citizens, to try and bring in new legislation.

I don't have to LIKE the laws I am bound by. I don't have to AGREE with them. But I am still bound by them. If I dislike them, I try to bring in people to change them.

That is after all how democracy works.

Well that would be illegal on other grounds wouldn't it? The state can not require someone to commit an illegal act.



See above.

Now that you're done with your idiotic hyperboli you miss my point. The state, through its representatives, sets standards on its licensing. It can not require that its licensed representatives do something illegal.
The state could just as easily make those things legal.

What you're doing is denying that I can reasonably disagree with the behaviour of legislators.
If it requires they do something legal, but something that those in the profession find morally displeasurable, they are free not to enter that profession.
They're also free to complain about the state's behaviour. As I'm doing here.

The state could just as easily make those things legal.

What you're doing is denying that I can reasonably disagree with the behaviour of legislators.

Of course one can reasonably disagree with behavior of legislators.

You are however incapable of it, it would seem, as your "arguments", and I use the term losely, are quite nonsensical.

I deny that women should be raped by their pharmacists.
Yes, you'd clearly rather entire towns be denied pharmacists altogether.

Of course one can reasonably disagree with behavior of legislators.

You are however incapable of it, it would seem, as your "arguments", and I use the term losely, are quite nonsensical.
How is this nonsensical? I don't think the government should interfere to this degree in business.

How is this nonsensical? I don't think the government should interfere to this degree in business.

because you think that people serving public health care positions should be able to deny people medicine based on their personal feelings about what the medicine does and not at all about anything actualy medical.

And that is nonsensical, and frankly rather stupid.

Yes, you'd clearly rather entire towns be denied pharmacists altogether.

Oh, I doubt that nobody in a town would step up to be a pharmacist.

Pharmacists are issued licenses at the leisure of the state. To be a pharmacist, you must do what the license requires. Since the state is the one issuing the license, it gets to decide what's in that license. Simply owning a building doesn't give you the right to use it to sell drugs to people. Same as owning a car doesn't give you the right to drive it around town. A state issued license gives you the right to do that, and if you do not comply with its terms, you can expect to see it revoked.

Yes, you'd clearly rather entire towns be denied pharmacists altogether.

False alternative. The third, and only REAL, option is simple: Anyone can be a pharmacist IF they don't mix religion in their jobs.

False alternative. The third, and only REAL, option is simple: Anyone can be a pharmacist IF they don't mix religion in their jobs.
No. The only way your concern is real is if there's only one available pharmacist, and the alternative to that person being a pharmacist is for there to be no pharmacist.

If all else isn't equal you need to offer support for that.

Until then, you prefer that there be no pharmacist.

No. The only way your concern is real is if there's only one available pharmacist, and the alternative to that person being a pharmacist is for there to be no pharmacist.

If all else isn't equal you need to offer support for that.

Until then, you prefer that there be no pharmacist.

alternatively we can recognize that most people are inherently cowardly and are willing to stand up for their convictions only to the point where there can be no adverse consequences, but will back down when in the face of motivated self interest.

In other words, the vast majority of those who would quite willingly "stand up for their beliefs" as long as standing up for those beliefs won't, in any way, hurt them, manage to sit down and shut up when it means they'll actually have to sacrifice to stand up for it.

Really the vast bulk of people who are quite willing to dictate other people's lives realize that they're only happy to tell others how to live as long as they're not in any way adversly impacted by it.

Oh, I doubt that nobody in a town would step up to be a pharmacist.
Then why hasn't that already happened? If the pharmacist is doing such a bad job that he's not serving his customers, shouldn't he be facing some competition?
A state issued license gives you the right to do that, and if you do not comply with its terms, you can expect to see it revoked.
No one's denying that. I'm simply disagreeing with the state as to what those terms should be.

No. The only way your concern is real is if there's only one available pharmacist, and the alternative to that person being a pharmacist is for there to be no pharmacist.

If all else isn't equal you need to offer support for that.

Until then, you prefer that there be no pharmacist.

Then the person SHOULD be stripped of their license and the government should put a worker that's on its payroll to do the job. As opposed to, y'know, pharmacists being granted power of life, death and rape!

This isn't a public enterprise. They're private business people.

Serving a public need. That puts greater restrictions on them.

because you think that people serving public health care positions should be able to deny people medicine based on their personal feelings about what the medicine does and not at all about anything actualy medical.
This isn't a public enterprise. They're private business people. They should be allowed to sell their goods based on whatever criteria they want.

So Llewdor. If a company made a pill that could cure cancer, would it be reasonable for them to charge a million dollars per dose, and to be able to refuse customers?

Then the person SHOULD be stripped of their license and the government should put a worker that's on its payroll to do the job. As opposed to, y'know, pharmacists being granted power of life, death and rape!
So you're on record wanting to nationalise pharmacies. Got it.

So you're on record wanting to nationalise pharmacies. Got it.

If that's what it takes to prevent pharmacists from being granted the power that friggin' KINGS had in the Middle Ages, yes. There's nothing wrong with nationalising a necessity. I'm pretty sure you'd rather have nationalised pharmacies than a 8-poud tapeworm forced on you by a private one due to religious reasons.

So Llewdor. If a company made a pill that could cure cancer, would it be reasonable for them to charge a million dollars per dose, and to be able to refuse customers?
Reasonable's not the right word, there.

I'd certainly permit that behaviour, yes.

Reasonable's not the right word, there.

I'd certainly permit that behaviour, yes.

What if you had cancer yourself? Would you just think to yourself, "Well it's my fault for getting Cancer and not being a millionaire!", whilst you sat in your hospital bed?

So you're on record wanting to nationalise pharmacies. Got it.
Forcing pharmacists to do the job they are licensed for isn't nationalizing pharmacies.

What if you had cancer yourself? Would you just think to yourself, "Well it's my fault for getting Cancer and not being a millionaire!", whilst you sat in your hospital bed?

Forget it. He didn't answer the scenario in which he was the pregnant woman and I doubt he'll answer this one.

Forcing pharmacists to do the job they are licensed for isn't nationalizing pharmacies.

His proposal was exactly that. He wanted to replace all objecting pharmacists with government employees.

Forget it. He didn't answer the scenario in which he was the pregnant woman and I doubt he'll answer this one.
Yes I did. Go read the thread again.

Blatant falsehood. But what should I expect from someone who wants to nationalise private enterprise.

What if you had cancer yourself? Would you just think to yourself, "Well it's my fault for getting Cancer and not being a millionaire!", whilst you sat in your hospital bed?
Well, let's see. If they hadn't developed the drug then no one could buy it. So I'd be in the same situation. But they did develop it, so they should be permitted to distribute it as they see fit.

Depending what sort of cancer I have, I probably can't leverage $1 million, so I guess I'll have to stick with traditional treatments.

His proposal was exactly that. He wanted to replace all objecting pharmacists with government employees.
If pharmacists refuse to do their job - a necessary service to the community - they should lose their license and the government should provide a pharmacist until a new one can be found. It isn't nationalizing anything, unless you don't know what nationalization is.

But they did develop it, so they should be permitted to distribute it as they see fit.
This is why I object to the Libertarian political view - it's full of shit. Businesses, like governments, being allowed to do whatever the fuck they want leads to them ripping off the public as much as possibly.

But what should I expect from someone who wants to nationalise private enterprise.

So, it's the "he's a commie" ad hominem now? You should have more respect for your betters. You don't even know what nationalisation is. Your so-called ultra-libertarian political view puts whims over the actual needs of people. And the fact that I don't have time to read through the crap you spout says nothing about my character: The fact is you never answered ME when I asked it. You favor businesses having the right to kill and rape by inaction, I do not. And THAT is the difference between us.

Depending what sort of cancer I have, I probably can't leverage $1 million, so I guess I'll have to stick with dying a slow and painful death because my Amish doctor won't treat me or end my pain.

You're welcome for the correction.

This isn't a public enterprise. They're private business people. They should be allowed to sell their goods based on whatever criteria they want.
Private businesses, in my country, are not allowed to refuse to serve black people. If a steak house serves steak, but the manager decides that black people shouldn't eat steak, the manager is not allowed to refuse to provide steak to black people. Doesn't matter if it's a private business.

Likewise, a pharmacist is not permitted to refuse to serve women. It doesn't matter if the pharmacist personally feels that women shouldn't get certain legal medications carried by their pharmacy, he still doesn't get to refuse service.

Seriously, it's that simple. People like to pretend as though this issue has something to do with "right to life" and all that bullshit, but it doesn't. It has to do with some people thinking that women shouldn't be allowed to purchase certain legal medications. That's no different than refusing to sell legal medications to black people. It's just boring old bigotry, and we've had laws against this kind of crap for decades.

You're not even trying to understand.

The reasoning being used in this thread is appalling. By this reasoning, I'm depriving people of medication because I don't sell any. Somehow because I (me specifically) don't sell any medication, I'm interfering with patients' rights to buy medication.

The one not even trying to understand is you.

The reasoning is that you're depriving people of medication because YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE IT!

Lunatic pharmacists have stocked the kinds of drugs that patients have prescriptions for and yet deny them on religious grounds. It's happened before, and it's still happening. The law is meant to allow firing stupid retards like that and deny them the chance to sue for discrimination.

It's like waving life saving medication in front of a dying person and saying "Nyah, nyah, you can't have any."

It's that retarded. And the law is meant to provide the means to getting rid of these retards.


So I'd somehow be better off if that Amish never became a pharmacist, thus leaving this town without a pharmacist at all?

You just don't get it do you? It wouldn't have mattered if the Amish became a pharmacist or there wasn't one. Why? BECAUSE HE WON'T DISPENSE MEDICINE AT ALL!

He might as well not exist for all the good that he does.

Get that in your thick skull.


Explain that one to me. If that's true, then you're interferring with my right to buy a car by not selling cars.

The only explanation I can give is that you are deliberately deficient in reading comprehension. The law states that you cannot deny a prescription on grounds of "I just don't want to", not "I don't have any"

Well, let's see. If they hadn't developed the drug then no one could buy it. So I'd be in the same situation. But they did develop it, so they should be permitted to distribute it as they see fit.

Depending what sort of cancer I have, I probably can't leverage $1 million, so I guess I'll have to stick with traditional treatments.

You're really going off on tangents.

We're talking about pharmacies which HAVE A MEDICATION IN STOCK. They have the medication. They sell it to SOME people. They are refusing to sell it to PARTICULAR people because the pharmacists don't think those particular people deserve to have their legal, prescribed medications.

This is not about medications that haven't been invented yet. It's not about medications that the patients are refusing to pay for, or are unable to pay for. It's about a business which provides a product to the public, but is specifically discriminating against female customers by refusing to sell the product to them.

This is NO DIFFERENT than if the pharmacy decided they were going to refuse to sell behind-the-counter allergy medication to Jews or something. The only surprise in all this mess is that so many people have failed to realize that WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS AGAINST THIS. McDonald's employees are held to a higher standard of conduct than pharmacists are being held to these days, and it's pathetic.

You just don't get it do you? It wouldn't have mattered if the Amish became a pharmacist or there wasn't one. Why? BECAUSE HE WON'T DISPENSE MEDICINE AT ALL!

He might as well not exist for all the good that he does.

Yeah, I'm not really getting how it helps me in any way to have a pharmacist who won't sell me my medication.

That's like having a gas station in town that refuses to provide gas. I guess you could go there to buy gum, or something, but it doesn't really do anything to help your "needing gas" situation.

This is not about medications that haven't been invented yet.
It is and isn't. What happens if more controversial medicines are introduced? This law covers them as well.

But employers ALREADY have the power to fire people. So, this law only really affects independent pharmacists. And independent pharmacists don't have a boss - they're self-employed.

And whiny religious fundamentalists who get fired for being retards tend to come back with discrimination lawsuits. The new law steals the ground out from them.

Furthermore, pharmacists, like cops, work only with the approval of the government under specific regulations. Pharmacists have been able to abuse these rules before because they were retards and the law couldn't prosecute them.

Not anymore.

It is interesting that right now in the UK, a substantial number of physicians are not only refusing to do abortions, but refusing to take the training to do abortions.

NHS doctors refusing to do abortions, or to be trained to do it.

So, is the government going to force government doctors to do abortions, and force them to take the training?

Not that I'm against abortion. But you can't force people to do things, either.

You might say, "well, the pharmacist can do something else for a living". Ok. It's probably easier to get pharmacists.

Apparently, in the UK, it's not so easy to get trained physicians to work for NHS.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/17/nhealth217.xml

It is interesting that right now in the UK, a substantial number of physicians are not only refusing to do abortions, but refusing to take the training to do abortions.

NHS doctors refusing to do abortions, or to be trained to do it.

So, is the government going to force government doctors to do abortions, and force them to take the training?

Not that I'm against abortion. But you can't force people to do things, either.

You might say, "well, the pharmacist can do something else for a living". Ok. It's probably easier to get pharmacists.

Apparently, in the UK, it's not so easy to get trained physicians to work for NHS.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/17/nhealth217.xml

I have no idea what the UK government is going to do, but they'd certainly be within their rights to tell said doctors to either do the procedure or find another way to earn a paycheck. Now, the flip side of that is that the doctors could form a union of sorts based on this issue and dare the government to fire them all. But that's the way negotiations start.

If I were in charge, I'd tell them to walk, by the way.

It is and isn't. What happens if more controversial medicines are introduced? This law covers them as well.
The only "controversy" that is remotely relevant to this topic is MEDICAL controversy. And those debates should be happening between medical professionals and possibly the patients themselves, based on facts and actual data rather than pure personal opinion.

Indeed, far more medically controversial drugs are already on the market, and pharmacists never raise a peep about them. It's only when women wish to purchase legal contraception that pharmacists suddenly are overwhelmed by these attacks of conscience. Funny how that works. Transparent, too.

It is interesting that right now in the UK, a substantial number of physicians are not only refusing to do abortions, but refusing to take the training to do abortions.

NHS doctors refusing to do abortions, or to be trained to do it.

So, is the government going to force government doctors to do abortions, and force them to take the training?


It's a slippery slope. A physician is expected to be trained in a number of medical procedures and be able to perform then when necessary. Abortion is a part of that program.

If a bunch opt out, and the government doesn't say anything, we might get another bunch of religious wierdos who opt out of being trained to do blood tests because it's against their religion.

And eventually, you'll get a bunch of untrained dolts as useful as witch doctors with shiny plaques.

It is interesting that right now in the UK, a substantial number of physicians are not only refusing to do abortions, but refusing to take the training to do abortions.

NHS doctors refusing to do abortions, or to be trained to do it.

So, is the government going to force government doctors to do abortions, and force them to take the training?

Not that I'm against abortion. But you can't force people to do things, either.

You might say, "well, the pharmacist can do something else for a living". Ok. It's probably easier to get pharmacists.

Apparently, in the UK, it's not so easy to get trained physicians to work for NHS.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/17/nhealth217.xml

Then the NHS has to make sure they have, easily available, doctors that are willing to do their jobs. If not, yes, force them to take the training and force them to perform the abortions. Because people shouldn't be held hostages to the whims of other people!

Then the NHS has to make sure they have, easily available, doctors that are willing to do their jobs. If not, yes, force them to take the training and force them to perform the abortions. Because people shouldn't be held hostages to the whims of other people!
Let's be very careful, here. Exactly which doctors are you going to force to take this training? All doctors? You're going to force cardiologists to become proficient in abortion procedures? You're going to expect spinal surgeons to devote time and energy to learning how to abort a pregnancy?

It is interesting that right now in the UK, a substantial number of physicians are not only refusing to do abortions, but refusing to take the training to do abortions.

NHS doctors refusing to do abortions, or to be trained to do it.

So, is the government going to force government doctors to do abortions, and force them to take the training?

Not that I'm against abortion. But you can't force people to do things, either.

You might say, "well, the pharmacist can do something else for a living". Ok. It's probably easier to get pharmacists.

Apparently, in the UK, it's not so easy to get trained physicians to work for NHS.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/17/nhealth217.xml
I read about this too, although I was surprised a little. I genuinely thought we were more enlightened than this. Nevertheless, what if doctors were to suddenly declare, say, blood transfusions, immoral? Would people who need them be denied them, due to a shortage of doctors willing to perform them?

I read about this too, although I was surprised a little. I genuinely thought we were more enlightened than this. Nevertheless, what if doctors were to suddenly declare, say, blood transfusions, immoral? Would people who need them be denied them, due to a shortage of doctors willing to perform them?
I don't know anything much about the situation in the UK, but in the US it's not really about doctors deciding abortion is "immoral." It's about a whole lot of doctors not wanting to risk their lives and safety, and the safety of their families, by providing abortions.

See, we in America have a long tradition of anti-abortion domestic terrorism. Nobody calls it "terrorism" of course, they call it "pro-life activism," but it's the kind of "activism" that involves murdering doctors and bombing clinics. It's the kind of "activism" that involves stalking doctors' children and mailing letters that threaten to kidnap and torture the children. It's the kind of "activism" that means a doctor can expect crude, abusive protesters outside their place of business every single day.

I honestly don't blame doctors in the US for not wanting to perform abortions. I volunteered at a free clinic for a while, and in my short term there I already got a bellyfull of anti-choice protesters. I don't think I could handle facing those loonies every workday for the rest of my career. It would be so depressing and discouraging. And, frankly, scary. Our clinic didn't even perform abortions, and we still got bomb threats. I can only imagine what it is like for the clinics that openly provide abortions.

Can an American tell me why Morning After pills are not popular in the US?

Can an American tell me why Morning After pills are not popular in the US?

Because assholes in the FDA, against advice from medical professionals, won't make it available over the counter.

Because assholes in the FDA, against advice from medical professionals, won't make it available over the counter.
Euthanize them?

Why though?

I don't know anything much about the situation in the UK, but in the US it's not really about doctors deciding abortion is "immoral." It's about a whole lot of doctors not wanting to risk their lives and safety, and the safety of their families, by providing abortions.
The kinds of things you describe below don't happen in the UK, at least not that I've heard of. I'm sairly sure that if it were to happen, being rare, it would be quite newsworthy. The 'worst' it gets is that Operation Christian Vote and Prolife Alliance get a seat on Question Time (TV Programme) and together make 200 votes at the general election. We have a similar problem, though, not with abortion, but with vivisection.

See, we in America have a long tradition of anti-abortion domestic terrorism. Nobody calls it "terrorism" of course, they call it "pro-life activism," but it's the kind of "activism" that involves murdering doctors and bombing clinics. It's the kind of "activism" that involves stalking doctors' children and mailing letters that threaten to kidnap and torture the children. It's the kind of "activism" that means a doctor can expect crude, abusive protesters outside their place of business every single day.

I honestly don't blame doctors in the US for not wanting to perform abortions. I volunteered at a free clinic for a while, and in my short term there I already got a bellyfull of anti-choice protesters. I don't think I could handle facing those loonies every workday for the rest of my career. It would be so depressing and discouraging. And, frankly, scary. Our clinic didn't even perform abortions, and we still got bomb threats. I can only imagine what it is like for the clinics that openly provide abortions.
I can understand that.

A Doctor's first duty is to his Hippocratic oath. He can't pick and choose parts of his job.

I have no idea what the UK government is going to do, but they'd certainly be within their rights to tell said doctors to either do the procedure or find another way to earn a paycheck. Now, the flip side of that is that the doctors could form a union of sorts based on this issue and dare the government to fire them all. But that's the way negotiations start.

If I were in charge, I'd tell them to walk, by the way.

Apparently, the very law that makes abortion legal and available in Britain says that you can't force a doctor to learn it or do it.

So apparently, the government is powerless in this regard.

Euthanize them?

Why though?
Because America is completely nuts when it comes to sex and anything related to sex. Particularly if women attempt to exercise control over when they do and do not become pregnant, as if they had the right or something.

Apparently, the very law that makes abortion legal and available in Britain says that you can't force a doctor to learn it or do it.

So apparently, the government is powerless in this regard.
I don't think that necessarily follows.

If the original law worked that way, okay. But, as I understand it, British government allows law to change. Obviously the government, and the people, are not "powerless" to change this law.

Because America is completely nuts when it comes to sex and anything related to sex. Particularly if women attempt to exercise control over when they do and do not become pregnant, as if they had the right or something.
Women in America are oppressed when it comes to sex? Disgusting!

So, is promiscuity in certain parts of America rare? That must be so depressing! I did not see that when I was in Los Angelis.

Women in America are oppressed when it comes to sex? Disgusting!

Well, let's be honest with ourselves here. Women are oppressed when it comes to sex in pretty much every single nation in the world. America isn't unusual in that respect, and women in America are a shitload better off than women in a lot of other nations.

Still sucks, though.


So, is promiscuity in certain parts of America rare?

Oh good lord no. Indeed, the most promiscuous Americans tend to be the ones who most loudly argue AGAINST reproductive rights. For instance, the "Bible Belt" in the US is where you'll find the most teen pregnancies and the most divorces and remarriages.

My pet theory is that Americans are actually really into kink. See, if sex is dirtybadsinfulwrong, then they can feel all wicked and naughty when they sneak around and do it. But if sex is simply a natural, loving, fun human function, then that takes all the spice out of it. So they have to fight to make sure that sex is always forbidden and taboo.


That must be so depressing! I did not see that when I was in Los Angelis.
It is rather depressing to see a nation as wealthy and educated (relatively speaking) as the USA still succumb to bizarre Puritan notions of sexual repression. Particularly when it directly endangers the health and well-being of every single person who is sexually active.

Let's be very careful, here. Exactly which doctors are you going to force to take this training? All doctors? You're going to force cardiologists to become proficient in abortion procedures? You're going to expect spinal surgeons to devote time and energy to learning how to abort a pregnancy?

I rephrase: Any doctors that were into either general or the pertinent specialty.

It's the kind of "activism" that involves stalking doctors' children and mailing letters that threaten to kidnap and torture the children. It's the kind of "activism" that means a doctor can expect crude, abusive protesters outside their place of business every single day.

The CHILDREN of the doctors?

QED, anti-choice people don't give a damn about children, they simply want to deny rights to women. And if I ever was attacked in such a way, as a doctor or the son of one, I'd make the goal of my life to make the lives of whoever attacked me into dystopias.

Well, let's be honest with ourselves here. Women are oppressed when it comes to sex in pretty much every single nation in the world. America isn't unusual in that respect, and women in America are a shitload better off than women in a lot of other nations.
Have you been outside of America?

Oh good lord no. Indeed, the most promiscuous Americans tend to be the ones who most loudly argue AGAINST reproductive rights. For instance, the "Bible Belt" in the US is where you'll find the most teen pregnancies and the most divorces and remarriages.
I mean responsible promiscuity, adults in a nightclub, that sort of thing.

My pet theory is that Americans are actually really into kink. See, if sex is dirtybadsinfulwrong, then they can feel all wicked and naughty when they sneak around and do it. But if sex is simply a natural, loving, fun human function, then that takes all the spice out of it. So they have to fight to make sure that sex is always forbidden and taboo.
Sex is natural, it is one of the only pleasures that westerners are not restricted against (except for in this case). I don't care for commitment because that’s kind of oppressive.

Let's be very careful, here. Exactly which doctors are you going to force to take this training? All doctors? You're going to force cardiologists to become proficient in abortion procedures? You're going to expect spinal surgeons to devote time and energy to learning how to abort a pregnancy?

I don't see how you "force" a doctor to do anything.

I don't see how you "force" a doctor to do anything.

You take away his stethoscope and tell him he can have it back once he's written the Decleration of Geneva on the board a hundred times and promises never to waiver his humanitarian obligations again.

Have you been outside of America?

Yep. I also tend to read more international news than domestic (American) news these days.


I mean responsible promiscuity, adults in a nightclub, that sort of thing.

Americans fuck like bunnies, in my experience. It's really weird; we're totally sex-crazed, yet we also have this hideous anti-sex vibe going on.

I don't see how you "force" a doctor to do anything.
You take away their license to practice medicine unless they comply.

By definition, they cannot be a practicing doctor unless they fulfill your requirements.

You take away their license to practice medicine unless they comply.

By definition, they cannot be a practicing doctor unless they fulfill your requirements.

Something tells me that NHS is already short of doctors as it is. Firing some more will exacerbate shortages in other areas.

Why not use the carrot? Say, "we'll pay you 50,000 pounds for each abortion you perform..."

The CHILDREN of the doctors?

Yeah, that was the scariest thing that happened when I volunteered at the free clinic. We had this doctor who would come in a couple of times each week to perform free exams and stuff, and one day she got an envelope in the mail that had pictures of her twins at daycare. No note or anything, just this big, anonymous pile of pictures of her children.

She didn't quit. I would have.

Something tells me that NHS is already short of doctors as it is. Firing some more will exacerbate shortages in other areas.

Well, there are limits. I mean, we'd have a lot more doctors on staff if we allowed them to skip taking exams in med school. But would we actually want those doctors?

It's a balance. I think there is a problem with requiring, for instance, than all Ob/Gyns be willing to perform abortions. We have few enough good Ob/Gyns out there, and I'd hate to see even more med students turning away from that specialization.


Why not use the carrot? Say, "we'll pay you 50,000 pounds for each abortion you perform..."
That's no good, either. Pressuring women to have abortions they don't want is just as bad as pressuring them to NOT have abortions they do want.

That's no good, either. Pressuring women to have abortions they don't want is just as bad as pressuring them to NOT have abortions they do want.

No, I meant offer the doctor extra money for performing abortions.

I've noticed in my life that money covers a lot of ethical and moral resistance.

If pharmacists refuse to do their job - a necessary service to the community - they should lose their license and the government should provide a pharmacist until a new one can be found. It isn't nationalizing anything, unless you don't know what nationalization is.
Where are these pharmacists that are being provided coming from? You're suggesting either that the government can direct pharmacists to pull up stakes and relocate on demand, or that the government will employ a stockpile of pharmacists for the specific purpose.
This is why I object to the Libertarian political view - it's full of shit. Businesses, like governments, being allowed to do whatever the fuck they want leads to them ripping off the public as much as possibly.
Businesses and governments doing that lead to vastly different outcomes. Because businesses create wealth.

Your so-called ultra-libertarian political view puts whims over the actual needs of people.
Yes it does. Yo know why? Because this distinction you're drawing between whims (wants) and needs is illusory.
You favor businesses having the right to kill and rape by inaction, I do not. And THAT is the difference between us.
You favour forcing action with which you agree, and not just prohibiting contrary action, but prohibiting inaction when you think it's inappropriate. People must always behave exactly as you think is right.

Of the two of us, one of us is a totalitarian. Guess who?

Yeah, that was the scariest thing that happened when I volunteered at the free clinic. We had this doctor who would come in a couple of times each week to perform free exams and stuff, and one day she got an envelope in the mail that had pictures of her twins at daycare. No note or anything, just this big, anonymous pile of pictures of her children.

She didn't quit. I would have.

She should have hired a P. I. to look up this envelope, and have sued whoever it was for stalking.

Private businesses, in my country, are not allowed to refuse to serve black people. If a steak house serves steak, but the manager decides that black people shouldn't eat steak, the manager is not allowed to refuse to provide steak to black people. Doesn't matter if it's a private business.

Likewise, a pharmacist is not permitted to refuse to serve women. It doesn't matter if the pharmacist personally feels that women shouldn't get certain legal medications carried by their pharmacy, he still doesn't get to refuse service.
This isn't about the people - this is abut the product.

To stick with your restaurant analogy, I was at a steakhouse recently. This steakhouse serves baked potatoes with its steaks - they're quite good. But on this occasion, I ordered a steak with a baked potato and they refused to serve me a baked potato. They had some, but they were unwilling to sell them - to anyone.

Should I have been able to demand that potato? As this particlar sort of steakhouse, they would normally be expected to sell them. And yet they weren't. They were performing every other service expected of a steakhouse, but not that one.

This is analogous to the pharmacist who won't sell one particular type of medication. He'll perform all the other services expected of a pharmacist, but not this one.

Yes it does. Yo know why? Because this distinction you're drawing between whims (wants) and needs is illusory.

You favour forcing action with which you agree, and not just prohibiting contrary action, but prohibiting inaction when you think it's inappropriate. People must always behave exactly as you think is right.

Of the two of us, one of us is a totalitarian. Guess who?

I favour forcing action that will save lives. The distinction isn't illusory. Life is a need, religion is a want. They have a job, they should do it. That's not totalitarian, that's common sense. Of the two of us, one is willing to let women be raped and killed by inaction. Guess who?

This isn't about the people - this is abut the product.

To stick with your restaurant analogy, I was at a steakhouse recently. This steakhouse serves baked potatoes with its steaks - they're quite good. But on this occasion, I ordered a steak with a baked potato and they refused to serve me a baked potato. They had some, but they were unwilling to sell them - to anyone.

Should I have been able to demand that potato? As this particlar sort of steakhouse, they would normally be expected to sell them. And yet they weren't. They were performing every other service expected of a steakhouse, but not that one.

This is analogous to the pharmacist who won't sell one particular type of medication. He'll perform all the other services expected of a pharmacist, but not this one.
You would have gotten it if you brought a doctor's note.

You're welcome for the correction.
There's a reason I support euthanasia.

There's a reason I support euthanasia.

Too bad your Amish doctor doesn't and now you'd be dying a slow and painful death all the same. But, hey, you're okay with a slow and excruciating death as long as businesses get to screw people over by inaction, so, between the flashes of abject pain, you'll probably be glad your doctor gets to decide not to end your suffering through euthanasia or through medicines, rather than you.

The one not even trying to understand is you.

The reasoning is that you're depriving people of medication because YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO HAVE IT!
No, it's because I don't want to sell it. I think I'm being quite tolerant in allowing other pharmacists to sell this abhorrent drug.
Lunatic pharmacists have stocked the kinds of drugs that patients have prescriptions for and yet deny them on religious grounds. It's happened before, and it's still happening. The law is meant to allow firing stupid retards like that and deny them the chance to sue for discrimination.
You could legislate that without causing these wide problems for independent pharmacists.
It's like waving life saving medication in front of a dying person and saying "Nyah, nyah, you can't have any."
Except without the open mockery.
It's that retarded. And the law is meant to provide the means to getting rid of these retards.p
But it has all these other consequences that really suck.
You just don't get it do you? It wouldn't have mattered if the Amish became a pharmacist or there wasn't one. Why? BECAUSE HE WON'T DISPENSE MEDICINE AT ALL!

He might as well not exist for all the good that he does.
THAT'S MY POINT! If you can't make the situation better by denying him his license, why are you denying him his license? The best possible outcome is status quo: no one here sells the drugs you want. And if he's just refusing to sell some drugs, you're actually making life worse for the remote community.

Why are you going to so much effort to offer no benefit at all?
The only explanation I can give is that you are deliberately deficient in reading comprehension. The law states that you cannot deny a prescription on grounds of "I just don't want to", not "I don't have any"
I know what the law says. We're discussing what it should say.

I disagree. A private retailer should be able to sell - or not sell - whatever he pleases through his own outlet. If he doesn't sell certain shit that people want, then it's his loss.

Oy vey. Other one that believes businesses should take precedence over people's lives.

Today Washington state's Board of Pharmacy has ruled that a pharmacist cannot refuse to distribute lawful prescriptions. This includes the morning after, a.k.a plan b, pill.

Thank you Washington, I may not live within your evergreen borders anymore, but you've just earned even more of my respect

link (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003663743_webplanb12m.html)

I disagree. A private retailer should be able to sell - or not sell - whatever he pleases through his own outlet. If he doesn't sell certain shit that people want, then it's his loss.

I oppose the ban on stem-cell research for the same reason I oppose this Washington state law. Both involve the government meddling where they don't belong.Hypocrite. Why not just say you oppose prescriptions altogether as they are government meddling? If the pharmacy doesn't want to sell prescription drugs then simply don't have a prescription counter. Simple as.

If he doesn't sell certain shit that people want, then it's his loss.
Unless his job is selling prescription medicine, then it is the community's loss.

You could legislate that without causing these wide problems for independent pharmacists.
Their refusing to do their job is their own problem.