The Lies of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Victor

If the pharmacist believes otherwise, then he needs to set up his own shop with advertisement that clearly states, "I may not sell you medicine or certain goods depending on my own moral beliefs." ... As has been stated earlier, however, this sort of grandstanding has an unfair effect on a small community with a single drug store (where competitive market forces are limited or nil).

The "few providers" argument falls flat, I'm afraid. Try extending it to other areas:

If I need cardiac surgery, but there's no cardiac surgery center or surgeon in the little rural town where I live, should I say one should be forced to come to me, in the name of fair access for all? Or is it just tough luck, and I need to go to the Big City and have the surgery done?

I want a copy of "La Recherche du Temps Perdue" but the local bookshop doesn't carry it. Should it be forced by law to order it for me, or do I just have to go to Amazon.com and wait a week for it?

There's just one church in my town, and it's not my denomination, and I want to get married, and the pastor won't perform my ceremony---should he be forced to do so? Hey, marriage is a right, isn't it? Should be available to all, shouldn't it? Why must I be inconvenienced by having to travel elsewhere?

There's nothing in the social contract that says everything must be made available everywhere geographically. If you live in a remote area, that's a personal choice, and like all such choices carries both benefits AND COSTS which must be weighed against each other.

I just cannot see any justification for forcing someone to provide you a service just to avoid being inconvenienced when you have chosen to put yourself in those circumstances. We aren't talking about withholding a fire extinguisher from someon who's on fire. If your pharmacist won't dispense you the Pill, go to another who will, and tell everyone you know to do likewise. The market will correct the matter sooner or later. If he's the only game in town, sorry, go to another town, or order by mail. You chose to live there, you can choose to live elsewhere, or deal with the consequences of your own priorities.

[Teme]

Just out of curiosity: those who advocate the pharmacists right to choose for whom to provide services (and the form of those services), would you advocate the same for the police, too?

"Excuse me, ma'm, but I believe your husband is supposed to beat you up once in a while...So, for the last time, please, quit calling us."

I mean, I believe proper health care to be such an important part of civilized and functioning society that it can not be left solely under the control of individual morals.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Gav

gents - refer to this thread:

http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showthread.php?t=14221

Somehow, I don't think they got the hint...

[Gav]

No i don't think they did.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Teme

Just out of curiosity: those who advocate the pharmacists right to choose for whom to provide services (and the form of those services), would you advocate the same for the police, too?

You don't see a tiny difference between the two?

The one is a private businessman, the other a government agent paid by general tax revenues.

The one is directed by legal obligations established by state or federal law to serve those within his jurisdiction, the other is not governed by any such statutory requirement.

The one merely causes inconvenience by refusing to dispense optional goods; the other endangers life and property by doing so.

I just do not think the analogy holds particularly well.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Gav

No i don't think they did.

The thread has metastasized! And you are the pharmacist! Will you dispense the interferon, or will your conscience refuse to let you do so?

Well, once a point is brought up it is too tempting to answer it in situ, rather than haring off to another thread and there making what looks like a non sequitur post to those who didn't see the original question. Too much work to follow such a zig-zag trail, in other words.

Can you move blocs of posts rom one thread to another, or only move entire threads?

I can cut-and-paste my posts over if the others will.

[MikeHarm]

Hmm, so if I was a pharmacist who hated old people and decided it violated my ethics to fill their heart medicine prescriptions it would be legal?

Originally Posted by davtsung

Why is this scary? Pharmacists are people with their own set of beliefs and values. It does not violate the law to refuse filling prescriptions, similarly, it is not illegal for Doctor's to refuse to perform abortions or any other procedure that they may morally object to. Conscientious and moral objectors must be allowed to practice and exercise their rights, as much as we are to disagree with them.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

The thread has metastasized! And you are the pharmacist! Will you dispense the interferon, or will your conscience refuse to let you do so?

Well, once a point is brought up it is too tempting to answer it in situ, rather than haring off to another thread and there making what looks like a non sequitur post to those who didn't see the original question. Too much work to follow such a zig-zag trail, in other words.

Can you move blocs of posts rom one thread to another, or only move entire threads?

I can cut-and-paste my posts over if the others will.

I can move the posts over but it is a hassle.

[CvilleFencer]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Really? As a police officer you issued a citation for every single traffic and other infraction you saw? You exercised no discretion whatsoever in making arrests? You must be the first zero-tolerance LE officer ever...

You know good and damn well what I mean. If you don't, pick up your hard bound gold leaf edition of "Inq's Dirty and Disingenuous Forum Arguing Tactics" and whack yourself on the forehead with it. Hard. Repeat ad infinum until it clicks for you.

When it comes to petty, non-life-threatening things like dispensing birth control pills, I think they are. It's not exactly the same thing as firemen and ER doctors. The analogy is pretty remote in terms of degree.

Birth Control is petty? The fact that you think that way is rather dark ages, even for a self-confirmed curmudgeon. What about if the guy believes in faith based medicine or one of the other options/scenarios mentioned in this thread. It is not just about birth control, but that is the most obvious abuse so far. That is why there should be a standard of professional review or some type of oversight for pharmacists who refuse to dispense prescribed medication.

[Drifter]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

You don't see a tiny difference between the two?

The one is a private businessman, the other a government agent paid by general tax revenues.

The one is directed by legal obligations established by state or federal law to serve those within his jurisdiction, the other is not governed by any such statutory requirement.

The one merely causes inconvenience by refusing to dispense optional goods; the other endangers life and property by doing so.

I just do not think the analogy holds particularly well.

A pharmicist, any pharmicist, is one of the most regulated professionals in existance. In order to be licensed they indeed must agree to abide by a vast set of laws and legal obligations established by state and federal laws. Sorry, you're incorrect on that point.

http://www.pharmacyandyou.org/licensure/licensure.html

[CutLass]

Originally Posted by MikeHarm

Hmm, so if I was a pharmacist who hated old people and decided it violated my ethics to fill their heart medicine prescriptions it would be legal?

Hmm, so if I was a pharmacist who hated men with enhanced sexual proweness because it made my woman think my natural capacity was unfulfilling and decided it violated my ethics to natural reproduction and procreation and so I refused to fill their prescriptions for viagra it would be legal?

Hmm, so if I was a pharmacist who hated prolonging life using medications and felt that medicines used to relieve the pain of terminal illness and prolong life violated my ethics to allowing God's will to occur naturally, and so I refused to fill their prescriptions for pain relief would it be legal?

[esskreemr]

back to a pharmacist's refusal to sell certain drugs based on moral grounds.

I consider this thread to be officially hijacked and over. In addition, there was a Nazi reference... That said, have fun continuing the arguement...

[Bokken]

Ah, but the two topics are very closely related. It's an easy hop to go from the discussion of sex education to birth control to the dispensation of birth control medication.

It's not hijacked, it's a logical progression. On that note, does anyone think birth control pills will ever become OTC or will they remain in the realm of prescriptive medications?

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

When it comes to petty, non-life-threatening things like dispensing birth control pills, I think they are. It's not exactly the same thing as firemen and ER doctors. The analogy is pretty remote in terms of degree.

Inq,

I really take exception with this belief you have. You seem like a smart guy, but did you learn nothing from the previous threads when people listed the benefits from the pill?

I have numerous friends that have been prescribed birth control pills for health reasons.

2 quick examples:

One had endometriosis, and the docs have said to prevent the reccurance to stay on birth control, or get have a child. Considering she's in her 20's and single, she's on the pill. This prevents the cancer from returning. The cancer caused her serious pain, organ damage, and can damage her reproductive organs. Considering she practices abstinence due to religion, someone refusing to sell her the pill would just be an idiot.

I have another friend who needs her hormones regulated. She didn't hit puberty until she was 18, and only then due to taking the pill. She needs to be on the pill. Also practicing abstinence.

For either of these people missing the pill could have/had serious effects on their health.

That's one of the reasons why I think this concept is so ridiculous. The pill has many uses, and is prescribed for a variety of different reasons.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

... If he's the only game in town, sorry, go to another town, or order by mail. You chose to live there, you can choose to live elsewhere ...

So says a guy who (best guess) can afford to move, or has no personal reason to. Gawd bless you for the perfect choices you've made in life.

[Victor]

It's very telling that none of the closeminded-druggist supporters here have addressed other examples of "morality" posted in this thread. They're blithely ignoring the "slippery slope" of dispensing medication in THIS case but not THAT case.

[keith]

well it's relativistic slippery slopes, this one happens to take them where they want to go.