NationStates Jolt Archive

I favour forcing action that will save lives.
And I think your favouring that makes you a threat to individual freedom.

Really? Some people don't want life.
[quote]They have a job, they should do it.
And if they have an employer, I support the employer's right to fire them for not doing their job. If the employer doesn't want to fire them, I support that too. It's not my call.
That's not totalitarian, that's common sense.
Having just appealed to common sense in what had been a reasoned debate, you lose.

Common sense never has anything at all to do with anything relevant. You probably can't even enumerate what constitutes common sense. And given that, how do you know what's common sense and what isn't?

Hypocrite. Why not just say you oppose prescriptions altogether as they are government meddling?
That's only hypocrisy if you assume that I mean they don't belong anywhere.

Assumptions just aren't a good idea. Particularly when talking to me.

Some people don't want life.

Of OTHERS? You're favoring the idea that pharmacists get to deny others the right to LIVE in the name of business freedom? Why do I have to argue with the insane???

Unless his job is selling prescription medicine, then it is the community's loss.
How is it their loss? If he weren't there, they wouldn't have a pharmacist. From the perspective of buying this particular drug, nothing at all changes.

So how is that a loss?

Of OTHERS? You're favoring the idea that pharmacists get to deny others the right to LIVE in the name of business freedom? Why do I have to argue with the insane???
No. Holy crap - we were on the needs/wants tangent.

Someone only needs air if he wants to live. Some people don't want to live, so calling life a need is silly.

The needs/wants distinction is illusory.

While the patient might really want Plan B, she doesn't NEED Plan B. There are other ways to avoid giving birth. There's the abortion pill (RU486 - is that legal in the US yet?), plus traditional abortions, plus there's the chance that she's not pregnant.

We're not doing anyone harm by denying newfangled medication. We're simply failing to help them.

Killing someone and letting him die are not morally equivalent.

Killing someone and letting him die are not morally equivalent.

It is if you're not making any sacrifice by not letting the person die. But I'm glad to hear you'll go "ah well, their choice" in case you're in an accident and no one that wasn't involved wants to call an ambulance, leading you to either die or spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair.

How is it their loss? If he weren't there, they wouldn't have a pharmacist.

If he is there and doesn't sell the prescriptions, what is the difference from not being there?


Killing someone and letting him die are not morally equivalent.
They are if you can help but refuse.

That's only hypocrisy if you assume that I mean they don't belong anywhere.

Assumptions just aren't a good idea. Particularly when talking to me.Not really, what you were saying is that government shouldn't get involved in an area where it is already involved. Namely prescription drugs. The US government (I believe) is already involved in deciding which drugs can and cannot be sold without prescription. It is also involved in subsidising prescription drugs. Ergo, I think it is perfectly fine for a government to state that a business, if it is benefiting from such subsidies - which they will be, should either sell all prescription drugs or none at all.

What is seems to me is that you are saying that businesses should be able to take government money for providing a service to the government and community, but refuse at will to provide such a service whenever they desire. An analogy is that if you won't show up for work regularly (excluding illness), then your employer should be able to fire you even if they don't have to pay you when you don't show up. The same is for the pharmacies - if they refuse to sell certain prescription drugs then the government should strip them of the privledge to sell all such drugs.

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

Like hell. Show me a pharmacist who has refused to provide legal prescription contraception to a male customer.

I'll wait.


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.

Yeah, your analogy is bunk because of the bolded bit. The people refusing to sell medications to women customers SPECIFICALLY state that it is because they are morally opposed to women using those contraceptive products.

Seriously, the pharmacists themselves clearly and openly state that they are denying service specifically because they do not want to provide women with contraception. It really couldn't be any more clear.


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.So we agree: these pharmacists are refusing to perform a service expected of pharmacists. Sure, it's just one of many functions, but they are refusing to perform one of their duties.

This is no different than if a waiter at a steak house decided that he would not serve baked potatoes, ever. The steak house would be perfectly right for firing him. As a waiter, you don't get to pick and choose which food you will serve. Believe me, I've waited a few tables in my day.

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.

So when a woman who needs an emergency abortion dies on the table because some doctor couldn't be arsed to actually learn how to do his job, what do they do then?

There is a reason that doctors have to receive a great deal of training to become doctors. It is because they make life and death decisions and perform procedures that can save (or end - if done improperly) lives.

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.

It's better to have no physicians at all than improperly trained ones. At least then, the patients know they're fucked.

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 get the impression that this is part of general training. Specialization comes after. Whether a doctor will be a cardiac surgeon or a podiatrist, they will learn a great deal of the same things and procedures before they begin to specialize.

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.

I'd shy away from requiring doctors to regularly provide abortions. I would not, however, advocate anyone being licensed as an OB/GYN without being trained in abortion procedures, as well as being required, when medically necessary, to recommend one. An OB/GYN who refuses to perform (if it needs to be done right away) or will not recommend (even if medically necessary) an abortion should be sued for malpractice and should most likely loose his license.

This is no different than if a waiter at a steak house decided that he would not serve baked potatoes, ever. The steak house would be perfectly right for firing him. As a waiter, you don't get to pick and choose which food you will serve. Believe me, I've waited a few tables in my day.

Indeed. One of my biggest fears as a server was that an obviously pregnant woman would come in and order alcoholic beverages. I wouldn't have served them, and I could very well have gotten fired for it. But that would have been my choice to make.

Like hell. Show me a pharmacist who has refused to provide legal prescription contraception to a male customer.

I'll wait.
Show me a male patient with a prescription for Plan B.
Yeah, your analogy is bunk because of the bolded bit. The people refusing to sell medications to women customers SPECIFICALLY state that it is because they are morally opposed to women using those contraceptive products.

Seriously, the pharmacists themselves clearly and openly state that they are denying service specifically because they do not want to provide women with contraception. It really couldn't be any more clear.
First of all, it's not really contraception because conception has already happened. That's how Plan B works. And second, post-conception remedies are only prescribed to women. You're arguing that these pharmacists are anti-women because they won't prescribe a specific drug that only women ever use. But you can't tell whether they're objecting to the patient or the drug. And no, it does NOT amount to the same thing.
So we agree: these pharmacists are refusing to perform a service expected of pharmacists. Sure, it's just one of many functions, but they are refusing to perform one of their duties.
Services. Not duties. They don't have a duty to prescribe medications.
This is no different than if a waiter at a steak house decided that he would not serve baked potatoes, ever. The steak house would be perfectly right for firing him. As a waiter, you don't get to pick and choose which food you will serve. Believe me, I've waited a few tables in my day.
And NO ONE DISPUTES THAT. The restaurant should absolutely fire the the waiter.

Similarly, if I own a pharmacy and my pharmacist refuses to dispense certain types of drugs I want him to dispense, I should be allowed to fire him if I want.

You're harping on a point with which everyone here already agrees. Employers should be allowed to fire staff who won't do their jobs. Yes. Fine. That's settled.

But if the pharmacist is his own employer (or the employer happens to support the pharmacist's decision, what then?

Indeed. One of my biggest fears as a server was that an obviously pregnant woman would come in and order alcoholic beverages. I wouldn't have served them, and I could very well have gotten fired for it. But that would have been my choice to make.
If she just orders one or two, there's no real risk. And, since pregnant women are far less good as processing toxins (alcohol and caffeine both hit pregnant women pretty hard), you could credibly stop her after 2.

Only in America do doctors not permit even one drink per day.

First of all, it's not really contraception because conception has already happened. That's how Plan B works.
Wrong. It is possible conception has happened, but it isn't certain. It is after-the-fact emergency contraception to prevent fertilization or possibly implantation. How the fuck do you think it got legalized in the US?

They don't have a duty to prescribe medications.
I agree. They don't have a duty to prescribe medication because that isn't their job. Their duty is to fill prescriptions.

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.


No, you're being intolerant by having the drug in the first place and THEN DENYING THEM TO PEOPLE WITH PRESCRIPTIONS FOR THEM!


You could legislate that without causing these wide problems for independent pharmacists.

Are you being deliberately retarded? That's what the law is supposed to do. And if you're an independent pharmacist, if you have the drug, you don't have a right to say no to a prescription that does not cause medical complications.


Except without the open mockery.


So you admit that you want to do that. To deliberately withhold medication to people in need.

You're scum, you know that?


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.


I can make the situation better by denying him his license. That means he doesn't get to go around wasting peoples time by having what they need but denying it.

I'd rather just make it legal to shoot retards in the act.


Why are you going to so much effort to offer no benefit at all?


I don't know. When I see people like you, something makes me want to bang my head against the wall. Or their heads. Until it's mush.


I know what the law says. We're discussing what it should say.

And you're saying that independent pharmacists should have free reign over what they dispense. Which they shouldn't. BECAUSE IT"S A GOVERNMENT GIVEN LICENSE!

Having a driving license means you have to follow government regulations regarding driving. You can't drive where you damn well want.

First of all, it's not really contraception because conception has already happened. That's how Plan B works.

Wrong. Plan B works by two mechanisms. First of all, it helps to prevent fertilization (sometimes referred to as conception, although others refer to implantation as conception, so the term is a little murky). Second of all, it prevents implantation of the blastocyst into the uterine wall.

If she just orders one or two, there's no real risk. And, since pregnant women are far less good as processing toxins (alcohol and caffeine both hit pregnant women pretty hard), you could credibly stop her after 2.

Only in America do doctors not permit even one drink per day.

Actually, no one knows how much it takes or at what point during pregnancy the embryo/fetus can be affected and we don't know the mechanism that actually results in fetal alcohol syndrome. Sometimes, the mother was not a big drinker. Sometimes, she was. Until we work out the mechanism and timing on this, I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Not to mention that "one or two" could be one or two Long Island Ice Teas or one or two glasses of wine. The former would definitely bother me more than the latter.

Killing someone and letting him die are not morally equivalent.

I'll be sure to remind you of that if you ever get in a life threatening accident and I'm the only one around who could help (and helping would obviously be too great an inconvenience since I'd be busy, you know, pointing and laughing).

Not that this is ever likely to happen, but...

Here's a crazy idea:
How about instead of forcing the pharm folks to sell something they don't want to you set up a pharmacy right next to psedo-self-rightous pharmacist and advertise that you'll fill any prescription. Surely the loss of business and revenue will force the one that refuses to fill certain prescriptions to change his ways or go out of business. And if not, well then at least you've got a choice.

Same reason I'm opposed to smoking bans even though I dislike smoking. Personal choice. If someone chooses to be self-destructive then that's their problem, you shouldn't force them to live a certain way and do things they don't want to do. Forcing people to live within a strict social boundries is authoritarianism no matter the cause.

Show me a male patient with a prescription for Plan B.

Males purchase contraception all the time. My dad would pick up my Mom's birth control pills for years.


First of all, it's not really contraception because conception has already happened. That's how Plan B works.

LIE.

Plan B is a contraceptive. Plan B works by PREVENTING PREGNANCY. Plan B WILL NOT WORK if you are already pregnant.

I repeat:

ANYBODY WHO TELLS YOU THAT PLAN B IS NOT A CONTRACEPTIVE IS LYING. Plan B works by preventing pregnancy. Plan B is NOT an abortion pill.

I hope nobody on this thread is duped by Llewdor's misinformation. If you want accurate information about Plan B or other contraceptive options, PLEASE speak to a qualified doctor. If you need, you can telegram me. I'm not a medical doctor, but I can help direct you to qualified sources for further information.

Don't want to take my word for it? How about the people who make Plan B? Or the FDA?
http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/AboutPlanB/WhatisPlanB.aspx
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm


And second, post-conception remedies are only prescribed to women. You're arguing that these pharmacists are anti-women because they won't prescribe a specific drug that only women ever use. But you can't tell whether they're objecting to the patient or the drug. And no, it does NOT amount to the same thing.

It doesn't matter. In either case, they are failing at their job and deserve to be fired.


Services. Not duties. They don't have a duty to prescribe medications.

THEY DON'T PRESCRIBE MEDICATIONS.

A pharmacist is NOT empowered to write prescriptions or to dictate a course of treatment for a patient. They are empowered to FILL the prescriptions written by licensed doctors. They are hired specifically to perform THAT function. That is their job. It is NOT their job to in any way dictate courses of treatment, or to impose their personal MORAL opinion over the medical decisions made by a patient and doctor.


And NO ONE DISPUTES THAT. The restaurant should absolutely fire the the waiter.

Similarly, if I own a pharmacy and my pharmacist refuses to dispense certain types of drugs I want him to dispense, I should be allowed to fire him if I want.

And if one of your waiters refuses to serve steak to black people, and you refuse to fire him, you should be expecting a lawsuit and shouldn't cry about it when you're served with one.

Also, when it comes to pharmacists, they have to get a little more in the way of credentials before they can serve their product. Those credentials are over-seen by the state. The state has an obligation to make sure that the people dispensing prescription drugs are not fucking around and taking personal liberties with other people's medical treatment.

You're harping on a point with which everyone here already agrees. Employers should be allowed to fire staff who won't do their jobs. Yes. Fine. That's settled.

But if the pharmacist is his own employer (or the employer happens to support the pharmacist's decision, what then?
Then the state should revoke their license to dispense prescription drugs.

Here's a crazy idea:
How about instead of forcing the pharm folks to sell something they don't want to you set up a pharmacy right next to psedo-self-rightous pharmacist and advertise that you'll fill any prescription. Surely the loss of business and revenue will force the one that refuses to fill certain prescriptions to change his ways or go out of business. And if not, well then at least you've got a choice.

So you've got the time and money to go through 6 years of pharmacy school and then set up your own business (in a location that may or may not even be available)?

Are you aware that the majority of Americans aren't exactly rolling in cash right now?


Same reason I'm opposed to smoking bans even though I dislike smoking. Personal choice. If someone chooses to be self-destructive then that's their problem, you shouldn't force them to live a certain way and do things they don't want to do. Forcing people to live within a strict social boundries is authoritarianism no matter the cause.
Which is why pharmacies should always sell the legal medications that people have been prescribed by their doctor. Nobody is forcing the pharmacist to take any drugs they don't want. Nobody is forcing them to LIKE the fact that other people take those drugs. Hell, nobody is forcing them to be a pharmacist in the first place. They're simply being expected to let OTHER people exercise the same freedom of choice that they themselves enjoy.

Here's a crazy idea:
How about instead of forcing the pharm folks to sell something they don't want to you set up a pharmacy right next to psedo-self-rightous pharmacist and advertise that you'll fill any prescription. Surely the loss of business and revenue will force the one that refuses to fill certain prescriptions to change his ways or go out of business. And if not, well then at least you've got a choice.

You're right. It's a crazy idea.

Because everyone can get a pharmaceutical license with a snap of their fingers.

Not.

If she just orders one or two, there's no real risk. And, since pregnant women are far less good as processing toxins (alcohol and caffeine both hit pregnant women pretty hard), you could credibly stop her after 2.

Only in America do doctors not permit even one drink per day.
UK advice is two UK units per week - less than a pint of 4% beer. Well under one drink a day.

Here's a crazy idea:
How about instead of forcing the pharm folks to sell something they don't want to you set up a pharmacy right next to psedo-self-rightous pharmacist and advertise that you'll fill any prescription. Surely the loss of business and revenue will force the one that refuses to fill certain prescriptions to change his ways or go out of business. And if not, well then at least you've got a choice.

Great idea! Oh, wait, before you can do that you'll have to go through 2-4 years of undergraduate study and then double that for pharm school. Then you'll probably work some sort of internship under a licensed pharmacist. Then you'll have to get the start-up capital and all the licenses to open a new pharmacy. So that's, what? 10 years without a decent pharmacist?

Pharmacy is a highly skilled, highly regulated profession. It isn't like opening up a store that sells alcohol (something pretty much anyone over 21 with the capital can do) beside a store that doesn't.

Same reason I'm opposed to smoking bans even though I dislike smoking. Personal choice. If someone chooses to be self-destructive then that's their problem, you shouldn't force them to live a certain way and do things they don't want to do. Forcing people to live within a strict social boundries is authoritarianism no matter the cause.

The problem is that this choice isn't self-destructive. It is destructive to others. If a private restaurant or bar wishes to have a smoking section or even be an entirely smoking facility - that is their business. There are plenty of other restaurants and bars I could go to - and, if there aren't, I just don't have to go. Government buildings -like the DMV, on the other hand, are places I will likely have to go. And since the choice of someone else to smoke near me can harm me, I see no problem with bans on smoking on those places.

Likewise, a pharmacist who refuses to dispense medication can cause a great deal of harm to other people. It isn't a matter of self-destruction. It is one of destroying others.


LIE.

Plan B is a contraceptive. Plan B works by PREVENTING PREGNANCY. Plan B WILL NOT WORK if you are already pregnant.

To be fair, Llewdor didn't say anything about already being pregnant. He referred to conception - which is often used to refer to fertilization.

It's really a matter of confusion about the words. Some people use conception to refer to fertilization and some to refer to implantation. This is the reason that I generally don't use the term and actually state which process I am referring to.

Of course, Llewdor is wrong in any case. He seems to be assuming that contraception must prevent fertilization, but this is not true. Contraception refers to intervention that prevents either fertilization or implantation.

No, you're being intolerant by having the drug in the first place and THEN DENYING THEM TO PEOPLE WITH PRESCRIPTIONS FOR THEM!
I'm not doing anything to people. I'm just refusing to sell a particular product.

Like a kosher grocery refusing to sell bacon.
Are you being deliberately retarded? That's what the law is supposed to do. And if you're an independent pharmacist, if you have the drug, you don't have a right to say no to a prescription that does not cause medical complications.
I don't see why not.
So you admit that you want to do that. To deliberately withhold medication to people in need.

You're scum, you know that?
I'm more tolerant of scum, perhaps.

I don't want to withhold anything. I'm not a pharmacist. In fact, I think withholding medication would be bad for business.

But it's not my pharmacy, so I shouldn't get to decide. Neither should you.
I can make the situation better by denying him his license. That means he doesn't get to go around wasting peoples time by having what they need but denying it.
Instead they just don't have a pharmacist at all so they import all their drugs illegally and die from contaminated insulin. That's better?
And you're saying that independent pharmacists should have free reign over what they dispense. Which they shouldn't. BECAUSE IT"S A GOVERNMENT GIVEN LICENSE!

Having a driving license means you have to follow government regulations regarding driving. You can't drive where you damn well want.
I can't drive wherever I want (just like a pharacist can't just dispense medicine willy-nilly), but I'm not forced to drive places I don't want to drive.

That would be like the government telling you that the next time you drive you MUST drive to Albuquerque.

There's a difference between prohibiting action and requiring action.

I'll be sure to remind you of that if you ever get in a life threatening accident and I'm the only one around who could help (and helping would obviously be too great an inconvenience since I'd be busy, you know, pointing and laughing).

Not that this is ever likely to happen, but...
As long as you didn't cause the accident, you have no responsibilty to help me at all.

Males purchase contraception all the time. My dad would pick up my Mom's birth control pills for years.
If the pharmacist won't sell to him either, then he's being consistent and simply refusing to dispense a particular drug.

If he will sell to him, then he's discriminating based on the patient.
LIE.

Plan B is a contraceptive. Plan B works by PREVENTING PREGNANCY. Plan B WILL NOT WORK if you are already pregnant.

I repeat:

ANYBODY WHO TELLS YOU THAT PLAN B IS NOT A CONTRACEPTIVE IS LYING. Plan B works by preventing pregnancy. Plan B is NOT an abortion pill.
LIE. Conception happens BEFORE pregnancy. CONTRAception prevents conception. Plan B prevents implantation, thus preventing pregnancy.

Preventing pregnancy and contraception are not equivalent terms. You're the liar, here.
It doesn't matter. In either case, they are failing at their job and deserve to be fired.
BY WHOM? These are INDEPENDENT PHARMACISTS we're talking about.

As I've said again and again in this thread, if the pharmacist works for someone else, that someone else ALREADY has the power to fire him. This law doesn't change that at all.
THEY DON'T PRESCRIBE MEDICATIONS.

A pharmacist is NOT empowered to write prescriptions or to dictate a course of treatment for a patient. They are empowered to FILL the prescriptions written by licensed doctors.
I meant dispense, there. Sorry for the confusion.

I don't proofread.
They are hired specifically to perform THAT function. That is their job. It is NOT their job to in any way dictate courses of treatment, or to impose their personal MORAL opinion over the medical decisions made by a patient and doctor.
And if they were hired by anyone, I'd agree with you. Independent pharmacists are self-employed.
And if one of your waiters refuses to serve steak to black people, and you refuse to fire him, you should be expecting a lawsuit and shouldn't cry about it when you're served with one.
Again, not analogous. He's rejecting the customer, not the service.
Also, when it comes to pharmacists, they have to get a little more in the way of credentials before they can serve their product. Those credentials are over-seen by the state. The state has an obligation to make sure that the people dispensing prescription drugs are not fucking around and taking personal liberties with other people's medical treatment.
They're not doing anything harmful. They're specifically NOT acting.
Then the state should revoke their license to dispense prescription drugs.
Thus depriving the community of a pharmacist. Again, who does that help?

I'm not doing anything to people. I'm just refusing to sell a particular product.

Like a kosher grocery refusing to sell bacon.

Medication and bacon are not the same thing.

I can't drive wherever I want (just like a pharacist can't just dispense medicine willy-nilly), but I'm not forced to drive places I don't want to drive.

That would be like the government telling you that the next time you drive you MUST drive to Albuquerque.

There's a difference between prohibiting action and requiring action.

Your analogies really suck, you know that?

A better driving analogy would be this: This law is analogous to one requiring an ambulance driver to drive a patient to a hospital, even if he thinks that the patient was injured while acting immorally and thus should not be treated. The ambulance driver would have to do so even if he is a Christian Scientist (or whatever they call themselves) and thinks that medical treatment is evil.

Because the ambulance driver is in a position where his decisions directly affect the life and health of others, that position is highly regulated. A law that made it illegal for ambulance drivers to, for instance, refuse to drive patients who suffered from a drug overdose to the hospital would absolutely be kosher, as the government has a clear compelling interest in requiring action of people in that profession.

Likewise, a pharmacist who refuses to dispense medication can cause a great deal of harm to other people.
He can't be doing harm because he's not doing anything at all. He's failing to act. That's not doing something.
To be fair, Llewdor didn't say anything about already being pregnant. He referred to conception - which is often used to refer to fertilization.

It's really a matter of confusion about the words. Some people use conception to refer to fertilization and some to refer to implantation. This is the reason that I generally don't use the term and actually state which process I am referring to.

Of course, Llewdor is wrong in any case. He seems to be assuming that contraception must prevent fertilization, but this is not true. Contraception refers to intervention that prevents either fertilization or implantation.
Contraception clearly deals specifically with preventing conception. Look at the word. Modern trends relating to impregnation are simply imprecise usage.

I can't drive wherever I want (just like a pharacist can't just dispense medicine willy-nilly), but I'm not forced to drive places I don't want to drive.

That would be like the government telling you that the next time you drive you MUST drive to Albuquerque.

There's a difference between prohibiting action and requiring action.

No, it would be like the government telling you that, in order to get a driver's license, you MUST pass a driving test, or that in order to keep your driver's license, you MUST get it renewed every so often. The government regularly requires certain actions in order to get and keep licenses. If you don't like that, you always have the option of not getting those licenses.

I'm not doing anything to people. I'm just refusing to sell a particular product.
That they are prescribed.

Like a kosher grocery refusing to sell bacon.
I demand you show me a doctor that prescribes bacon.

LIE. Conception happens BEFORE pregnancy. CONTRAception prevents conception. Plan B prevents implantation, thus preventing pregnancy.

Preventing pregnancy and contraception are not equivalent terms. You're the liar, here.
Yes, preventing pregnancy and contraception are not the same thing.. unless it prevents pregnancy through contraception. Preventing implementation is one thing Plan B can do, it can also act contraceptively. Do your fucking homework.

He can't be doing harm because he's not doing anything at all. He's failing to act. That's not doing something.
Criminally negligent homicide.

Medication and bacon are not the same thing.
In this case they're relevantly similar. They're both things people refuse to sell for moral reasons.
Your analogies really suck, you know that?

A better driving analogy would be this: This law is analogous to one requiring an ambulance driver to drive a patient to a hospital, even if he thinks that the patient was injured while acting immorally and thus should not be treated. The ambulance driver would have to do so even if he is a Christian Scientist (or whatever they call themselves) and thinks that medical treatment is evil.
The ambulance driver is an employee. It's not analogous.

If he's some sort of weird independent ambulance driver, he can refuse to answer the call. Once he has answered the call, he has actively impeded other ambulance drivers from answering the call (because the other drivers will think it's taken care of), so that would be like our pharmacist stealing the stockpiles of other pharmacists.

Which he's not doing. So the analogy fails.

No, it would be like the government telling you that, in order to get a driver's license, you MUST pass a driving test, or that in order to keep your driver's license, you MUST get it renewed every so often. The government regularly requires certain actions in order to get and keep licenses. If you don't like that, you always have the option of not getting those licenses.
That's just the acqusition of the license. No one's requiring you to use the license to do things.

He can't be doing harm because he's not doing anything at all. He's failing to act. That's not doing something.

Contraception clearly deals specifically with preventing conception. Look at the word. Modern trends relating to impregnation are simply imprecise usage.

So a mother whom doesn't feed her child isn't causing harm, because it's not that she's doing something to the child, it's that she's doing nothing. That she isn't causing harm.

It's called negligence. Look it up.

Also, answer this(I'm pretty sure you haven't):

Pharmacists receive licenses from the state. They must adhere to the regulations of the state. If they do not, they get their licenses revoked. Being a Pharmacist isn't a right, it's a privelege, and with priveleges come responsibilities to uphold.

The state is only ensuring that Pharmacists are fulfilling the responsibilities they are supposed to do.

In this case they're relevantly similar. They're both things people refuse to sell for moral reasons.

Except the kosher store isn't going to be carrying bacon. It's more analogous to a store that sells bacon, but none of the cashiers will ring it up.

That they are prescribed.
Which has nothing to do with me unless I'm dispensing medicine. Which I'm not.
Criminally negligent homicide.
Only if he has previously accepted responsibility.

Except the kosher store isn't going to be carrying bacon. It's more analogous to a store that sells bacon, but none of the cashiers will ring it up.
And let's say that's happening. None of the cashiers will handle the bacon. What should happen there?

If you say the store should fire them, then you've stepped beyond the scope of this discussion. Since employers are already allowed to fire employees who don't do their job, that's not relevant here.

Should the state be able to force those cashiers to dispense bacon if they don't want to and their employer decides he'll respect their wishes?

In this case they're relevantly similar.
Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Which has nothing to do with me unless I'm dispensing medicine. Which I'm not.
You are if you are a pharmacist.

Only if he has previously accepted responsibility.
I think you fail to understand what negligent homicide is.

You are if you are a pharmacist.
That just means I'm empowered to dispense medication. Possibly even that I do dispense some medication. There's no requirement that I dispense THIS medication.
I think you fail to understand what negligent homicide is.
I think you do.

If its analogous the way you think its analogous, it shouldn't be a crime.

And let's say that's happening. None of the cashiers will handle the bacon. What should happen there? [...]
Should the state be able to force those cashiers to dispense bacon if they don't want to and their employer decides he'll respect their wishes?
I demand you show me one instance of a doctor prescribing bacon.

That's just the acqusition of the license. No one's requiring you to use the license to do things.

No one's requiring a pharmacist to use his license to do things, either. He can certainly choose, after he's gotten his pharmacy license, never to work in a pharmacy at all. But if he chooses to use that license to dispense medication, then he must obey the laws governing the dispensation of medication or risk losing his license.

In much the same way, I can get a driver's license and never drive again. But if I choose to drive, I damn well have to obey posted speed limits or risk losing my license.

No one's requiring a pharmacist to use his license to do things, either. He can certainly choose, after he's gotten his pharmacy license, never to work in a pharmacy at all. But if he chooses to use that license to dispense medication, then he must obey the laws governing the dispensation of medication or risk losing his license.
Yes, that's true, but why is this something the state should be allowed to force people to do?

Again, this is just like the state forcing you to drive to Albuquerque.

I demand you show me one instance of a doctor prescribing bacon.
Why is the prescription important?

We're discussing the scope of government power, here.

Yes, that's true, but why is this something the state should be allowed to force people to do?
Because the state ultimately controls who can be a pharmacist and who can't. They get to make the rules. Same reason they get to pass traffic laws.

Yes, that's true, but why is this something the state should be allowed to force people to do?


Because there is a compelling public interest in doing so. The state is (and should be) allowed to mandate that, if I use my driver's license to drive drunk, I present a significant risk to the well-being of others, and therefore may have my license revoked. Similarly, the state is (and should be) allowed to mandate that, if a pharmacist uses his pharmacy license to selectively deny patients medication at will, he presents a significant risk to the well-being of others, and therefore may have his license revoked.

If its analogous the way you think its analogous, it shouldn't be a crime.
I don't think you should be telling anyone what is and isn't analogous.

Why is the prescription important?
"Wheels? What does your car need wheels for?"

That just means I'm empowered to dispense medication. Possibly even that I do dispense some medication. There's no requirement that I dispense THIS medication.

Apparently now...there is.

Thanks the gods we don't live in your world, Llewdor. A world so absolutely apathetic that nobody is obliged to help their fellow man and can sadistically watch them suffer through pain and death, just as long as they aren't the direct cause. Congratulations. You have written for yourself a true dystopia.

Apparently now...there is.
:D

I'm not doing anything to people. I'm just refusing to sell a particular product.

Like a kosher grocery refusing to sell bacon.

Are you being a retard on purpose? I'm going to explain this one more time. If you deliberately ignore the facts to produce slanted interpretations, I'm going to put you on my ignore list. Only trolls get put there, so that should speak volumes of what I think you're doing.

Do you know what false advertising is? It's promising one thing, and not delivering. It's a punishable offense in most countries.

If you're a private pharmacist, and you stock plan B and then deny filling prescriptions that request it, that's exactly what you're doing. You're saying "Yes, we sell plan B", and then going "But I'm not going to sell it"

As part of the license, it specifically requires you to fill prescriptions that do not cause medical complications. You are flouting that requirement with your "I'm not going to sell it cause I don't like you" attitude.

Both should result in your immediate revocation of license to run a pharmacy. Why? Because you are committing fraud.


I don't see why not.


Because you're license says you have to. If you don't want to comply, turn in your license. Don't like it? Run your own black market pharmacy. I'll be laughing when you go to jail.


I'm more tolerant of scum, perhaps.


I'm not surprised. Like calls to like.


I don't want to withhold anything. I'm not a pharmacist. In fact, I think withholding medication would be bad for business.

But it's not my pharmacy, so I shouldn't get to decide. Neither should you.


A pharmacy must comply with government standards in order to keep it's operating license. By being discriminatory towards who you sell medication to is a breach of that standard.

Don't like it? Go found a country where any Tom, Dick and Harry can run a pharmacy and sell dirt as medicine.


Instead they just don't have a pharmacist at all so they import all their drugs illegally and die from contaminated insulin. That's better?


Better than reproducing Stalin's deliberate famine but with medication. Who knows? Maybe even a properly qualified non-retarded pharmacist may even open shop there.

Maybe you prefer to go to Amish run hospitals for neurosurgery. Have a good time dying on a wooden table.


I can't drive wherever I want (just like a pharacist can't just dispense medicine willy-nilly), but I'm not forced to drive places I don't want to drive.

That would be like the government telling you that the next time you drive you MUST drive to Albuquerque.

There's a difference between prohibiting action and requiring action.

Your example is made of fail.

You can drive only on specific places. But when driving there, you must comply with the rules of the road. Speed limits, traffic regulations, etc, etc. You are not given free reign to flout whichever rule you want just because you have a driver's license.

Failure to comply means revocation of your license.

Same with pharmacists.

LIE. Conception happens BEFORE pregnancy. CONTRAception prevents conception. Plan B prevents implantation, thus preventing pregnancy.

Actually, Plan B also helps prevent fertilization (which is what you are referring to as conception).

Preventing pregnancy and contraception are not equivalent terms. You're the liar, here.

Actually, yes they are.

From Mirriam-Webster:


contraception
One entry found for contraception.
Main Entry: con·tra·cep·tion
Pronunciation: "kän-tr&-'sep-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: contra- + conception
: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation
- con·tra·cep·tive /-'sep-tiv/ adjective or noun

Medically, it is defined in the same way. Contraception refers to a measure taken to prevent either fertilization, implantation, or both. An IUD is just as much a contraceptive measure as the birth control pill or a condom is.

BY WHOM? These are INDEPENDENT PHARMACISTS we're talking about.

No, we are talking about All pharmacists.

As I've said again and again in this thread, if the pharmacist works for someone else, that someone else ALREADY has the power to fire him. This law doesn't change that at all.

And in saying this, you are ignoring the actual facts of the issue. You are ignoring the fact that whether or not the pharmacy could fire such a pharmacist is under debate - and laws have been passed in some places to make it illegal to fire him.

Thus depriving the community of a pharmacist. Again, who does that help?

Everyone. I'd rather have no pharmacist at all than one not willing to do his job. At least then I KNOW I have to either find a way to get to another pharmacy or not get my medication. I'm not going to be stuck taking time off of work to get to this pharmacy, and then end up unable to get the medication I need.


He can't be doing harm because he's not doing anything at all. He's failing to act. That's not doing something.

I disagree with the assertion that inaction cannot cause harm.

Contraception clearly deals specifically with preventing conception. Look at the word. Modern trends relating to impregnation are simply imprecise usage.

No, it doesn't. Looking at the roots of a word can be useful in language, but it won't necessarily get you to the actual definition. There is nothing imprecise about using a word by its definition - something you apparently refuse to do.

Yes, that's true, but why is this something the state should be allowed to force people to do?

Again, this is just like the state forcing you to drive to Albuquerque.

No, it isn't. It's more like the state forcing an ambulance driver to drive the person he picks up to a hospital for medical care or face legal action.

Why is the prescription important?

We're discussing the scope of government power, here.

And the government has a clear compelling interest in helping to protect the health of its citizens. If you work in the healthcare industry, your profession is likely to be heavily regulated. If you don't like it, choose a different industry.

Because the state ultimately controls who can be a pharmacist and who can't. They get to make the rules. Same reason they get to pass traffic laws.
Of course. But the question is, should they be allowed to make rules like this?

Of course. But the question is, should they be allowed to make rules like this?

Yes.

This has been another episode of Brief Answers To Silly Questions

Because there is a compelling public interest in doing so. The state is (and should be) allowed to mandate that, if I use my driver's license to drive drunk, I present a significant risk to the well-being of others, and therefore may have my license revoked. Similarly, the state is (and should be) allowed to mandate that, if a pharmacist uses his pharmacy license to selectively deny patients medication at will, he presents a significant risk to the well-being of others, and therefore may have his license revoked.
Medication, not patients. The denial is done based on the medication, not the patient. Denial based on the patient is already covered by anti-discrimination laws.

Of course. But the question is, should they be allowed to make rules like this?

When lives of people are on the line, yes. Obviously.

Thanks the gods we don't live in your world, Llewdor. A world so absolutely apathetic that nobody is obliged to help their fellow man and can sadistically watch them suffer through pain and death, just as long as they aren't the direct cause. Congratulations. You have written for yourself a true dystopia.
It's called freedom. Some of us like it.

I don't see how the chance to have obligations placed upon you involuntarily is somehow a good thing.

Medication, not patients. The denial is done based on the medication, not the patient. Denial based on the patient is already covered by anti-discrimination laws.

the distinction really does not invalidate his argument in any way. In fact, based on your argument, you wouldn't be in favor of anti-discrimination laws either, so why bother making the distinction?

It's called freedom. Some of us like it.

It's called hyperboli. Some of us use it when we have nothing intelligent to say.

Apparently now...there is.
BUt they shouldn't. If they're allowed to do that, then you should be okay with them forcing you to use your driver's license to do something you see as reprehensible as long as they think its in the public good.

Do you know what false advertising is? It's promising one thing, and not delivering. It's a punishable offense in most countries.
I'm aware of that. I'm curious how you're going to link that to this discussion, given that we haven't discussed advertising at all.
If you're a private pharmacist, and you stock plan B and then deny filling prescriptions that request it, that's exactly what you're doing. You're saying "Yes, we sell plan B", and then going "But I'm not going to sell it"
Since when does possession of something constitute advertising it for sale? The pharmacist can't be held responsible for other people's inferences.

But let's say he can (which owuld be crazy, but let's accept that for the sake of argument). Fine, so they advertise that you can't buy Plan B at night because the guy on the night shift won't dispense it. There. That solves the fraud problem.
As part of the license, it specifically requires you to fill prescriptions that do not cause medical complications.
This is the exact change to which I'm objecting. Previously the license simply empowered me to fill prescriptions. Now it requires me to do so. This makes it unlike other professional licenses.
You are flouting that requirement with your "I'm not going to sell it cause I don't like you" attitude.
I'm not going to sell it because I don't like IT, not you. Who you are is entirely irrelevant. I'm refusing to sell the drug to ANYONE. I'm refusing to sell the DRUG. Who the patient is is immaterial.
Because you're license says you have to.
Yes it does. That's the thing to which I'm objecting.
If you don't want to comply, turn in your license. Don't like it? Run your own black market pharmacy. I'll be laughing when you go to jail.
You're presupposing that any regulation the government creates is acceptable.

If the government required that all car owners with valid driver's licenses had to enter their cars in demolition derbies once each month, would that be okay? They've decided its in the public interest. They already regulate both car registration and driver licensing, so this is just an extension of that.

Is that a perfectly valid regulation?

Appealing to the power to regulate only works if the government is infallible. If they're not, then you need to explain how this particular regulation benefits people. Anyone, really.
I'm not surprised. Like calls to like.
You're just morally intolerant. I can't logically justify that.
A pharmacy must comply with government standards in order to keep it's operating license. By being discriminatory towards who you sell medication to is a breach of that standard.
We've covered that. I'm not being discriminatory. I'm simply refusing to sell a specific drug. To anyone.
Don't like it? Go found a country where any Tom, Dick and Harry can run a pharmacy and sell dirt as medicine.
Again, apparently you think US regulators are infallible.
Better than reproducing Stalin's deliberate famine but with medication. Who knows? Maybe even a properly qualified non-retarded pharmacist may even open shop there.
Finally a consistent position. You would rather people have no medicine than some medicine.

You're just vindicitve, and you don't seem to care who you hurt in your quest to render these pharmacists unemployed. Whole towns can be deprived prescription drugs, but you'd be okay with that people people with whom you disagree will have been properly chastised.
Your example is made of fail.

You can drive only on specific places. But when driving there, you must comply with the rules of the road. Speed limits, traffic regulations, etc, etc. You are not given free reign to flout whichever rule you want just because you have a driver's license.
Those are limits on action, not required actions. Again, not analogous. Unless you're okay with the forced drive to Albuquerque.

We're running around in circles here. Your position is alternately based on the assertion that the government should be allowed to regulate whatever the hell it wants to regulate, and we're not allowed to disagree, or that there's no difference between prohibiting behaviour and requiring behaviour.

Actually, Plan B also helps prevent fertilization (which is what you are referring to as conception).
But what makes Plan B new and different is the other aspect. Lots of drugs (contraceptives) inhibit conception.
Actually, yes they are.

From Mirriam-Webster:
Worst dictionary ever. I hate Noah Webster. Orthographic reforming git.
Medically, it is defined in the same way. Contraception refers to a measure taken to prevent either fertilization, implantation, or both. An IUD is just as much a contraceptive measure as the birth control pill or a condom is.
Because the medical results are the same. But what's actually happening in there is different. My terminology is more precise.
No, we are talking about All pharmacists.

And in saying this, you are ignoring the actual facts of the issue. You are ignoring the fact that whether or not the pharmacy could fire such a pharmacist is under debate - and laws have been passed in some places to make it illegal to fire him.
And I would also object to those laws. Employers should always be allowed to fire employees who won't do their job.

And if they are so allowed, then that solves this problem for all but independent pharmacists and and tolerant employers.
Everyone. I'd rather have no pharmacist at all than one not willing to do his job. At least then I KNOW I have to either find a way to get to another pharmacy or not get my medication. I'm not going to be stuck taking time off of work to get to this pharmacy, and then end up unable to get the medication I need.
What if they advertise? Then you're not inconvenienced by the pharmacist's moral convictions.

Incidentally, in the conflict between moral convictions and convenience, do you generally side with convenience?
I disagree with the assertion that inaction cannot cause harm.
Since inaction is the equivalent of not even being there, it can't cause harm.
No, it doesn't. Looking at the roots of a word can be useful in language, but it won't necessarily get you to the actual definition. There is nothing imprecise about using a word by its definition - something you apparently refuse to do.
It is if the available definitions fail to allow for specific distinctions.

the distinction really does not invalidate his argument in any way. In fact, based on your argument, you wouldn't be in favor of anti-discrimination laws either, so why bother making the distinction?
Because we're discussing whether this specific law provides any benefit to anyone anywhere. If the supposed benefits are already provided by other laws, then this law doesn't do anything.

your quest to render these pharmacists unemployed.

Damned right. If someone doesn't want to dispense medication he should not be employed as a pharmacist.

You are absolutly, completely, 100% correct that I would be VERY happy to see every single pharmacist who does not wish to dispense perscribed medication to be unemployed. They are grossly unfit for their profession and like all other people grossly unfit for their profession they deserve to be relieved from it.

Those are limits on action, not required actions. Again, not analogous. Unless you're okay with the forced drive to Albuquerque.

Hey, guess what? We're required to do a while shit ton of things when we drive.

I am required to stop at red lights.
I am required to yield to pedestrians
I am required to put my blinker on when I change lanes or turn
I am required to make room for emergeny vehicles
I am required to use my headlights when I drive at night.

We're running around in circles here. Your position is alternately based on the assertion that the government should be allowed to regulate whatever the hell it wants to regulate,

Well...yes, they are the government afte rall, it is a democracy after all. If people don't like the regulation, let them put in a new government.

and we're not allowed to disagree,

Of COURSE you're allowed to disagree. Write a congressman. Hold a protest. Go fucking vote for the opposition.

or that there's no difference between prohibiting behaviour and requiring behaviour.

the difference is merely semantic. To prohibit a form of behavior is to require the opposite behavior.

To prohibit you from driving in a car pool lane when you're not car pooling is to require you to drive in lane that is not the car pool lane.

To require to to dispense medication is to prohibit you from refusing to dispense medication.

The difference is nil

So a mother whom doesn't feed her child isn't causing harm, because it's not that she's doing something to the child, it's that she's doing nothing. That she isn't causing harm.
By having the child, she voluntarily accepted those responsibilities.

If you fall in a river while I'm passing by, I haven't voluntarily accepted responsibilty to throw you a rope.

By having the child, she voluntarily accepted those responsibilities.

If you fall in a river while I'm passing by, I haven't voluntarily accepted responsibilty to throw you a rope.

And by getting a pharmacists license and becomming a pharmacist one voluntarily accepts the responsibilities that come along with that.

Period

Hooray for my State!

*Rise for anthem*

Washington is the strongest state in the world; All the other states are run by little girls;

Damned right. If someone doesn't want to dispense medication he should not be employed as a pharmacist.

You are absolutly, completely, 100% correct that I would be VERY happy to see every single pharmacist who does not wish to dispense perscribed medication to be unemployed. They are grossly unfit for their profession and like all other people grossly unfit for their profession they deserve to be relieved from it.
So you're out to harm these people regardless of whether anyone benefits from your doing so. Got it.

You've just defined yourself as evil. You're causing harm for harm's sake.
Hey, guess what? We're required to do a while shit ton of things when we drive.

I am required to stop at red lights.
I am required to yield to pedestrians
I am required to put my blinker on when I change lanes or turn
I am required to make room for emergeny vehicles
I am required to use my headlights when I drive at night.
Well-spotted. Okay, so you've managed to deflect one pellet of my shotgun argument. Regulations often require action.

But are all such regulations acceptable, or is it possible for the government to create a regulation that only harms people? You clearly don't care (see above), but I suspect many people think the government should regulate in ways that serve the public good.
Well...yes, they are the government afte rall, it is a democracy after all. If people don't like the regulation, let them put in a new government.
So the government is infallible between elections, and all harm it does is just fine? Or that the majority is infallible?
Of COURSE you're allowed to disagree. Write a congressman. Hold a protest. Go fucking vote for the opposition.
I'm disagreeing now. This is all I'm doing is arguing that the government's position does more harm than good, and furthermore is generally inconsistent with what people want from their government.

You at least have adopted an internally consistent - if evil - position.
To require to to dispense medication is to prohibit you from refusing to dispense medication.

The difference is nil
Prohibitions on inaction are an affront to free will.

And by getting a pharmacists license and becomming a pharmacist one voluntarily accepts the responsibilities that come along with that.

Period

We weren't talking about that there. We were discussing the moral implications of inaction generally and whether inaction can ever cause harm.

If you fall in a river while I'm passing by, I haven't voluntarily accepted responsibilty to throw you a rope.

You have if you've accepted a job as a lifeguard at that particular river.

So you're out to harm these people regardless of whether anyone benefits from your doing so. Got it.

You've just defined yourself as evil. You're causing harm for harm's sake.

No, I support requiring pharmacists to give medication to benefit those who require medication.

The fact that this will require people to do their job or suffer the concequences is simply a bonus.

Well-spotted. Okay, so you've managed to deflect one pellet of my shotgun argument. Regulations often require action.

ONE pellet? It's the fundamental principle of your whole damned argument that somehow government doesn't require action when in fact they do, all the time.

But are all such regulations acceptable, or is it possible for the government to create a regulation that only harms people? You clearly don't care (see above), but I suspect many people think the government should regulate in ways that serve the public good.

Oh I certainly do care. I have EXTREME doubts that this will cause more harm than good.

You have done ABSOLUTLY nothing to indicate it will. Nothing. Not even a little tiny fucking bit.

So the government is infallible between elections, and all harm it does is just fine? Or that the majority is infallible?

Infallible is irrelevant. Governments can do what they are legally permitted to do.

I'm disagreeing now.

Poorly.

This is all I'm doing is arguing that the government's position does more harm than good,

Extraordinarily ineffectually to the point where I suggest grabbing a random 5 year old and asking him to make your arguments for you. They'd probably be better.

and furthermore is generally inconsistent with what people want from their government.

No, inconsistent with what YOU want from your goverment. You are idiologically inane however.

Prohibitions on inaction are an affront to free will.

So if I decide to park my car in the passing lane of a freeway, it's an affront to my free will to be arrested for it?

We weren't talking about that there. We were discussing the moral implications of inaction generally and whether inaction can ever cause harm.

Can inaction CAUSE harm?

No, perhaps not, it is difficult to say that inaction can CAUSE harm.

Inaction however can fail to mitigate, eliminate, or prevent harm.

And when one has taken a job that requires him to make efforts to mitigate, eliminate, or prevent harm, then he is beyond the bounds of his job when he choses to be inactive in such a situation in which his job requires him to mitigate, eliminate, or prevent harm.

It is not the job of the pharmacst to not cause harm. If it was the job of a pharmacist to not cause harm, then inaction would be permissable, as inaction does not cause harm.

It is the job of the pharmacist to help mitigate, eliminate, or prevent harm. Inaction is a failure to mitigate, eliminate, or prevent harm. Thus it is a failure to do the job.

Since when does possession of something constitute advertising it for sale? The pharmacist can't be held responsible for other people's inferences.


If you have it on the shelf, and a price tag is on it, it's legally for sale. Denying it's sale for legal use after that is false advertising. You are stocking and advertising a product that you aren't willing to sell.

Go straight to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Come out when you have a brain.


This is the exact change to which I'm objecting. Previously the license simply empowered me to fill prescriptions. Now it requires me to do so. This makes it unlike other professional licenses.

It only required you to do so if you ran a pharmacy. Let me put it this way. Remember the Amish pharmacist? Let's take it a step up. An Amish doctor.

Who utterly refuses to treat you because he objects to his practice.

He would be stripped of his medical license in the time it took for someone to lodge a complaint.

I see no reason why the same rules should apply to someone operating health services.


I'm not going to sell it because I don't like IT, not you. Who you are is entirely irrelevant. I'm refusing to sell the drug to ANYONE. I'm refusing to sell the DRUG. Who the patient is is immaterial.

Then don't stock it. If you stock it, tag it, then you have to sell it.

How many times must I repeat this fact before it enters that thick skull of yours? Or do I have to IP trace you and hammer it in with a nail?


You're presupposing that any regulation the government creates is acceptable.


You're presupposing that morally and religiously motivated reasoning to medical services is acceptable.

It isn't. Religion and questionable morals have no place in medicine.


If the government required that all car owners with valid driver's licenses had to enter their cars in demolition derbies once each month, would that be okay? They've decided its in the public interest. They already regulate both car registration and driver licensing, so this is just an extension of that.


Your example again, is made of fail. It would only work if having a pharmaceutical license meant you would be forced to operate a pharmacy.

Too bad for you it doesn't.


Is that a perfectly valid regulation?


I would support a regulation to pruning retards like you who piss logical fallacies so freely from the gene pool, but that wouldn't be ethical.


Appealing to the power to regulate only works if the government is infallible. If they're not, then you need to explain how this particular regulation benefits people. Anyone, really.

Very simple. It stops retards from falsely misleading consumers by stocking medication and then denying them from being sold. It benefits people by punishing fraudsters who can't seem to keep their stupid dark age morals at home.


You're just morally intolerant. I can't logically justify that.


I find gender enforced slavery to be even more morally intolerant. Like you.


We've covered that. I'm not being discriminatory. I'm simply refusing to sell a specific drug. To anyone.

You are being discriminatory towards women. Half the human population.


Again, apparently you think US regulators are infallible.


Certainly not. But in this particular aspect, I find their reasonings far more palatable than backwards, primitive societal rejects who cannot adapt to the 21st century.


Finally a consistent position. You would rather people have no medicine than some medicine.


I would rather people have medicine than time wasters who stockpile it but deny it's sale.


You're just vindicitve, and you don't seem to care who you hurt in your quest to render these pharmacists unemployed.


A pharmacist who doesn't do his job correctly doesn't have a right to complain when his license is taken away.


Whole towns can be deprived prescription drugs, but you'd be okay with that people people with whom you disagree will have been properly chastised.


The town would have been no better off with that sort of pharmacist anyway. At least by removing the retard, maybe an actual one will work in the town.

You know what? Arguing with you is like arguing with a house of mirrors. You keep twisting my words with outright lies and distortions. It's retarded, and isn't going to change.

I'm sure I will have more positive results personally ruining your life.

As it is, you are now on my ignore list.

Good riddance troll.

Prohibitions on inaction are an affront to free will.
Then prohibitions on action is equally an affront to free will, but they exist for the good of society. And refusing to sell a prescribed medicine is not inaction, it is an active position of denying a medicine prescribed by a licensed physician. You, as a licensed pharmacist, should lose your job for failing to adhere to the standards and rules required for you to obtain said license.

You have if you've accepted a job as a lifeguard at that particular river.
Assuming that's a job requirement, absultely. But if I haven't, I have no such obligation to aid.

No, I support requiring pharmacists to give medication to benefit those who require medication.
Which has the same result. You harm some people, while benefitting no people. That fits my definition of evil.
ONE pellet? It's the fundamental principle of your whole damned argument that somehow government doesn't require action when in fact they do, all the time.
Did you forget the benefit angle?
Oh I certainly do care. I have EXTREME doubts that this will cause more harm than good.

You have done ABSOLUTLY nothing to indicate it will. Nothing. Not even a little tiny fucking bit.
So you think that denying a town all prescriptions drugs is better than denying it some prescriptions drugs. And you think that's more good than harm.

I suspect your perception of right & wrong is the deviant one, here.
Infallible is irrelevant. Governments can do what they are legally permitted to do.
But are they right? That's the issue.
Extraordinarily ineffectually to the point where I suggest grabbing a random 5 year old and asking him to make your arguments for you. They'd probably be better.
Only because you refuse to address the consequences of denying whole communities of all prescription drugs plus the expertise of a pharmacist.
So if I decide to park my car in the passing lane of a freeway, it's an affront to my free will to be arrested for it?
Of course not. You put your car there.

If they built the freeway under your car and then complained about you parking it on the freeway, that would be analogous.

Can inaction CAUSE harm?

No, perhaps not, it is difficult to say that inaction can CAUSE harm.
Thank you.
Inaction however can fail to mitigate, eliminate, or prevent harm.

And when one has taken a job that requires him to make efforts to mitigate, eliminate, or prevent harm, then he is beyond the bounds of his job when he choses to be inactive in such a situation in which his job requires him to mitigate, eliminate, or prevent harm.

It is not the job of the pharmacst to not cause harm. If it was the job of a pharmacist to not cause harm, then inaction would be permissable, as inaction does not cause harm.

It is the job of the pharmacist to help mitigate, eliminate, or prevent harm. Inaction is a failure to mitigate, eliminate, or prevent harm. Thus it is a failure to do the job.
If the job is so defined, yes.

Should it be?

That fits my definition of evil.

Rape or murder by inaction, however, doesn't.

If the job is so defined, yes.

Should it be?

Yes.

If you have it on the shelf, and a price tag is on it, it's legally for sale. Denying it's sale for legal use after that is false advertising. You are stocking and advertising a product that you aren't willing to sell.

Go straight to jail. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Come out when you have a brain.
What pharmacy displays prescription drugs? I have never seen a pharmacy that does that.
It only required you to do so if you ran a pharmacy. Let me put it this way. Remember the Amish pharmacist? Let's take it a step up. An Amish doctor.

Who utterly refuses to treat you because he objects to his practice.

He would be stripped of his medical license in the time it took for someone to lodge a complaint.
I see this analogy failing for two reasons. First, it's a poor analogy. This doctor won't perform ANY of his services, so he's not providing any benefit to his town at all.

Second, he's not doing any harm. So what does it matter if his business card says "doctor"?
I see no reason why the same rules should apply to someone operating health services.
Even so, find me a better analogy.
Then don't stock it. If you stock it, tag it, then you have to sell it.
I've covered this in an earlier example. If two pharmacists own a pharmacy together, and the guy who works nights won't dispense a specific drug, but the woman who works days does, and tolerates the other guy's refusal, that pharmacy would have the drug but sometimes wouldn't dispense it. It would also advertise this fact to avoid confusion.

Who does this hurt? Is it worse than having no night pharmacist at all? Because that's your option.
How many times must I repeat this fact before it enters that thick skull of yours? Or do I have to IP trace you and hammer it in with a nail?
Way to utter threats.
You're presupposing that morally and religiously motivated reasoning to medical services is acceptable.
I'm not supposing any motive behind the inaction of these pharmacists at all. I don't really care what their motives are.
Your example again, is made of fail. It would only work if having a pharmaceutical license meant you would be forced to operate a pharmacy.
That's why I included the requirement of owning a car. You could choose to be a licensed driver without being a car owner.

Analogy stands.
I would support a regulation to pruning retards like you who piss logical fallacies so freely from the gene pool, but that wouldn't be ethical.
I am the most logical person I have ever met. You're madly trying to defend your position, a position to which you have emotional attachment but is entirely without logical foundation. I'm just pointing out that no coherent system of values can support all of the positions you claim to hold.
Very simple. It stops retards from falsely misleading consumers by stocking medication and then denying them from being sold. It benefits people by punishing fraudsters who can't seem to keep their stupid dark age morals at home.[quote]
Harming people helps others? Explain that one to me. What benefit do you derive from the punishment of those who disagree with you?
[quote]I find gender enforced slavery to be even more morally intolerant. Like you.
I'm hugely tolerant - I don't even hold moral positions (I can't logically justify them).
You are being discriminatory towards women. Half the human population.
I still don't understand how you jumped to that conclusion.
Certainly not. But in this particular aspect, I find their reasonings far more palatable than backwards, primitive societal rejects who cannot adapt to the 21st century.
Palatable? How about reasonable? That's my standard. How much you like the answer is unrelated to the quality of the reasoning.
I would rather people have medicine than time wasters who stockpile it but deny it's sale.
But they wouldn't have medicine. You've just shut down their pharmacist.

Why is this so hard to understand?
A pharmacist who doesn't do his job correctly doesn't have a right to complain when his license is taken away.
But he can complain about the requirements of the job, especially if those requirements changed significantly after he'd built his life around it.

Again, who are you benefitting by shutting down these pharmacists?
The town would have been no better off with that sort of pharmacist anyway.[quote]
Again, you seem to think no medicine is better than some medicine.
[quote]At least by removing the retard, maybe an actual one will work in the town.
What was stopping the full-service pharmacist from opening up shop before?
You know what? Arguing with you is like arguing with a house of mirrors.
Because I keep shoeing you how silly your own position looks?
You keep twisting my words with outright lies and distortions.
Since you can't actually point to a lie, I'll take that as a yes.
It's retarded, and isn't going to change.
Your reflection? Apparently.
I'm sure I will have more positive results personally ruining your life.
There are those threats again. There has to be a rule against those - I should check.
As it is, you are now on my ignore list.
Your loss.
Good riddance troll.
I've been nothing but calm and reasonable throughout this discussion.

Second, he's not doing any harm. So what does it matter if his business card says "doctor"?
Because he is a doctor of medicine and isn't performing medicine?

I've covered this in an earlier example. If two pharmacists own a pharmacy together, and the guy who works nights won't dispense a specific drug, but the woman who works days does, and tolerates the other guy's refusal, that pharmacy would have the drug but sometimes wouldn't dispense it. It would also advertise this fact to avoid confusion.

Who does this hurt? Is it worse than having no night pharmacist at all? Because that's your option.
Who does it hurt if you can't get antivenom at night because the night doctor won't dispense it even if the day doctor does?

I am the most logical person I have ever met.
I suppose you are the most eloquent person you talk to too.

Again, you seem to think no medicine is better than some medicine.
If you need the medicine they won't dispense, there is no difference.

If you need the medicine they won't dispense, there is no difference.
This is exactly my point. Since there's no difference, why are you bothering to shut down these pharmacists when the outcome is, at best, status quo in terms of drug access?

For the drugs they won't sell, nothing changes. For the drugs they will sell, those drugs become unavailable. So for every patient who wants drugs, shuting down the pharmacist either had no effect on them at all, or it made their drugs harder to get.

No one is helped by shutting down these pharmacists, but some people are hurt. The impact of shutting them down is wholly negative; there's no positive aspect at all.

No one is helped. Some people are hurt. If your goal is to help people, this is a completely ineffective way to go about it.