-
Fencing Expert
Array 
We're no threat, people, we're not dirty, we're not mean
We love everybody but we do as we please
When the weather's fine,
We go fishin' or go swimmin' in the sea
We're always happy
Life's for livin', yeah, that's our philosophy
-
well its not that surprising - again. I think there was a similar case last year.
On the other hand this is, long term, a good thing. America has not actually worked out its social attitude to a lot of issues, they have been resolved by the supreme court not via the ballot box. Hence the reactionary rights ability to blame 'liberal judges making laws from the bench'. A good dose of righteous legislation in the south is probably what is required before the democrats or (more likely) libertarian republicans can start winning those states again.
-
Senior Member
Array 
It's one thing to refuse a procedure for yourself. It's quite another to refuse it for someone else simply because you can. How long until pharmacists are making diagnostic second guesses? "I'm not going to fill your prescription for morphine because I don't think you are in pain."
It truly is disturbing. I hope that it stays south of the border. If it's stupid, but it works, it's not stupid.
-
 Originally Posted by jBirch snip
How long until pharmacists are making diagnostic second guesses? "I'm not going to fill your prescription for morphine because I don't think you are in pain."
snip never - unless of course a verse in leviticus is interpreted as such.
Remember to keep your hands of those pigs.
-
Senior Member
Array 
Originally Posted by jBirch It's one thing to refuse a procedure for yourself. It's quite another to refuse it for someone else simply because you can. How long until pharmacists are making diagnostic second guesses? "I'm not going to fill your prescription for morphine because I don't think you are in pain."
It truly is disturbing. I hope that it stays south of the border. or "I don't believe in medicating children with ADD, so no doctor prescribe Ritalin for you." and "Nope, you should eat right and lose weight, I'm not going to give you any Levitra to control your cholesterol." and "Depression, smession. Get over it yourself. No meds for that either!"
If it's a legal pharmaceutical, then these guys should be required to dispense it. If they decide to pull this, then I see great opportunities for the elimination of local pharmasists and pharmacies in favor doctor dispensed medications and a great increase in the availability and practice of on-line suppliers.
-
Senior Member
Array 
Sometimes I wonder how this happened in the same states that voted for Goldwater, Whose wife was heavily active in planned parenthood organizations. The south wasn't always like this, but it seems like people who like to feel good by calling themselves christians have taken over. "In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels... But, if I may even flatter myself, that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated." - George Washington
-
Fencing Expert
Array
We're no threat, people, we're not dirty, we're not mean
We love everybody but we do as we please
When the weather's fine,
We go fishin' or go swimmin' in the sea
We're always happy
Life's for livin', yeah, that's our philosophy
-
Senior Member
Array 
See, this is why mail order medicine is a good thing. What if your pharmacist went crazy and decided heart medicine was against his ethics? You couldn't do a thing in these states.
-
I truly feel sick to my stomach at the way that religion has been twisted and perverted, then forcibly applied to everyone else.
-
i mentioned this in the abortion thread a while back:
bush has been pushing anti-birth control legislation, including condoms. i would not be suprised to see BC go with roe v wade, if it happens.
-
Originally Posted by noodle i mentioned this in the abortion thread a while back:
bush has been pushing anti-birth control legislation, including condoms. i would not be suprised to see BC go with roe v wade, if it happens. Yeah, but it's one thing to have a lunatic president. It's another to have a lunatic populace.
(Just so you know, I don't think that the Pro-Life arguments are necessarily wrong. I just think that it's VERY dangerous when people start "taking things into their own hands". Ex: The Ku Klux Klan.)
-
It's interesting to note that Bush controls the now-Republican Congress, and with at least one Justice leaving, possibly the Supreme Court. So he may become an extremely powerful President very soon.
-
Originally Posted by mrbiggs Yeah, but it's one thing to have a lunatic president. It's another to have a lunatic populace.
(Just so you know, I don't think that the Pro-Life arguments are necessarily wrong. I just think that it's VERY dangerous when people start "taking things into their own hands". Ex: The Ku Klux Klan.) to have one's opinion to be pro-life is great; i have no problems with it. the problem comes from the fact that everyone who is pro-life expects everyone else to be pro-life with them and if they aren't they need to be. this sometimes leads to the "taking things into my own hands" mentality.
-
Originally Posted by noodle to have one's opinion to be pro-life is great; i have no problems with it. the problem comes from the fact that everyone who is pro-life expects everyone else to be pro-life with them and if they aren't they need to be. this sometimes leads to the "taking things into my own hands" mentality. They justifiy that with an example: If you saw someone beating their child in the street, would you stop them? In this case, the woman is KILLING her child!
I don't agree with it, that's what they say.
-
Senior Member
Array 
Please don't be so quick to lay this at Bush's feet or Christian Conservatives. As one who would be classified as conservative, I find that article/situation disturbing also. Some pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription does not correlate into the teaching of abstinence etc.
If a pharmacist has a moral problem with dispensing particular meds, the company has every right to terminate that person. If the company policy is to not sell certain types of meds then you can take your business elsewhere.
See that problem solved and no government needed. Benjamin Franklin when asked by a woman, "What kind of government have you given us?" Replied, "A Republic Madam, if you can keep it!"
"The Dude Abides"
-
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/lib...aronwomen.html
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0441/lerner.php
i love this tagline:
Sadly, the "prayer method" doesn't work very well when it comes to preventing pregnancies
-
Senior Member
Array 
Please don't be so quick to lay this at Bush's feet or Christian Conservatives. As one who would be classified as conservative, I find that article/situation disturbing also. Some pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription does not correlate into the teaching of abstinence etc.
If a pharmacist has a moral problem with dispensing particular meds, the company has every right to terminate that person. If the company policy is to not sell certain types of meds then you can take your business elsewhere.
See that problem solved and no government needed.
Wait, there's no government needed in the status quo. It's the Conservatives who are calling for government to intervene.
darius
-
Senior Member
Array
How are they asking the gov. to intervene?
If the protection mentioned in the article prevents me, if I owned a pharmacy, from terminating a pharmacist who refused to fill legal medication prescriptions, than I oppose that whole-heartedly.
Ideally the gov. should stay out of it.
On a side note, it's funny how people love the government to intervene if it is a cause they believe in, but if it is a cause they don't support, boy are they upset.
Both sides should support keeping the government out of all aspects day to day life, whether it's a position you support or not. Benjamin Franklin when asked by a woman, "What kind of government have you given us?" Replied, "A Republic Madam, if you can keep it!"
"The Dude Abides"
-
Originally Posted by Rogue Please don't be so quick to lay this at Bush's feet or Christian Conservatives. As one who would be classified as conservative, I find that article/situation disturbing also. Some pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription does not correlate into the teaching of abstinence etc.
If a pharmacist has a moral problem with dispensing particular meds, the company has every right to terminate that person. If the company policy is to not sell certain types of meds then you can take your business elsewhere.
See that problem solved and no government needed. I don't think that Bush INTENDED this. I don't think he helped the situation, but my comments were not intended towards Bush in any way.
-
Originally Posted by Rogue How are they asking the gov. to intervene?
If the protection mentioned in the article prevents me, if I owned a pharmacy, from terminating a pharmacist who refused to fill legal medication prescriptions, than I oppose that whole-heartedly.
Ideally the gov. should stay out of it.
On a side note, it's funny how people love the government to intervene if it is a cause they believe in, but if it is a cause they don't support, boy are they upset.
Both sides should support keeping the government out of all aspects day to day life, whether it's a position you support or not. indeed it should, but its not and thats the point.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules |
