227 total posts
(Page 1 of 8)
good its about time
and to pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions should be held responceible
Sure, let's take away everyone's rights...
What the heck? Long as MY whims are catered ti.
Do you believe in "grandfathering"?
Could you believe that some drugs are available today that were not when older pharmacists were peddling pills and, at that time, nothing was objectionable to them. Should they now all be fired? This is quite a reality with such as the "morning after" and other drugs. Personally, I'd think it up to the owner of the pharmacy to make the rules for the pharmacists employed. Not too many pharmacists own their own drug stores anymore.
BTW, klinger, can we call you "Jamie"? Welcome to SE.
Max Klinger.....Jamie Farr
how about the day after pill
some would not fill the script
Same reasoning would apply
What if a suicide pill was formulated and became legal with a prescription? Should all pharmacies be required to make it available? It would certainly be objectionable to some but not to others. Because something's legal doesn't mean that its universal availability is a must.
but if whos decision
is it them or the dr?
if its a legal script and there in the business if they refuse to give then they should be fired.its not there call to with hold medicine!
So who gets to determine
conditions of licensure with regards to owning a pharmacy business or practicing medicine when it comes to what products or services must be offered or available? Who gets to determine what the conditions of employment are in a facility that offers medical treatment or dispenses pharmaceuticals? What about any other business that serves the public? Who determines what sort of foods must be available in the local grocery? Does a Jewish or Muslim proprietor of a meat store need to offer ham? Should every restaurant that features meats be required to offer a good selection of vegetarian entrees too? Who gets to make these rules and enforce them?
so if a pharmacy owner dosnt like a certain person/race
and refuses to wait, serve or help them its ok?
if a white owner refused to let a Afro/American to drink water same as he can that be ok? wait that was found unlawful.
so why would it be right to deny medical help to a gay person?
Again, my question was
who do you think should get to set policy as to what a business or medically related establishment must offer in the way of products and services in order to be allowed to open their doors? As well, who do you think should make employee policy in such? This has nothing to do with who should be served or who may be refused. It was in response to your suggestion that anyone who'd hesitate to dispense any legal drug should be fired. Who should get to set policy regarding termination of employment? I can make you a list of choices if you wish.
and who made the pharmacist god?
if they can refuse to dispense any legal medication on there believes, why is the KKK s views on whits power any different?
where do you draw the line? no blacks, Jews, Catholics, gays , Muslims?
you tell me!
You are trying to add two racial groups, three religious groups, and one social vice as if they all have something in common. Now who is confused? It would seem to be you. Apples and oranges and you think they are all bananas?.
if u can refuse service because there gay
why not for any reason? seems your homophobic
I don't think anyone here is afraid of homosexuals.
As a matter of fact, I've never met anyone, other than homosexuals, who is afraid of homosexuals.
Who made a judge god?
or you that you think you can command the actions of another person?
I take it you don't want to answer or
express any opinions of your own. I've fairly well stated my position in this thread and see no reason to carry on a further conversation of this type.
are you saying it's immoral to be black?
no i said it was found unlawful to refuse
service to blacks
why is it any difference to refuse service to gays?
as to saying its immoral to be black i never said, implied such.
seems your saying its immoral to be different.
there is no relation between race by birth and engaging in immoral sexual practices, and I resent it every time I hear someone try and relate the two as if they are equal in some manner. It improperly denigrates the black race to place them under the same label as homosexuals, and that's what you did. You are saying blacks are the same as those who engage in immoral sexual behavior. Birth and Behavior are completely separate matters. A racial characteristic is certainly different than a social vice.
it seems to be genetic
when a large population of ANY species gets too large a certain precentage of ANIMALS (humans are a form of a animal) start to mate together in the same gender.. so it probabbly is somewhat genetic in humans as well (but there is also other personal choices)
what you described...
...sounds more like it should be called "conditional", not "genetic". Higher levels of homosexuality exist in a general prison population, but it's not "genetic", it's "conditional". I fully expect to see an increase in homosexuality in China in the next decade, but not because it's genetic, but due to their one child policy and so many baby girls being aborted, the conditions of too many males without mates will exist.
a business can decide what it wishes to keep in stock.
Easy enough to say "we don't have that in stock, try another pharmacy".
It might depend on the medical treatment
Certainly in a life threatening situation, sexual orientation shouldn't be reason to deny help. But basic healing isn't all there is to medicine anymore. Doctors should, IMO, have the right to make certain decisions in adherence to their code of "do no harm". If, in their view, harm could be done by a procedure but none from abstaining from performing such, they should be allowed to do as they wish. I've known of persons whose physicians didn't want to perform certain types of surgery because, in their minds, the patient wasn't a good candidate for such. An example would be an overweight, smoking diabetic person wanting heart bypass surgery but having no intention of giving up their current lifestyle.
There are those things medicine provides that are necessary for life and those that simply correct deficiencies that are more a nuisance than necessity. These ladies do have other ways to conceive, if they so choose. Perhaps they have their principles but so do medical professionals as well. I don't see that the government needs to always hold the trump card.
Do you believe that all buisinesses
have the right to refuse services based on claims of religious conflict?
precede and don't follow religious convictions if one is true to oneself, IMO....chicken and egg thing. Maybe folks cite their religious reasons hoping these will be respected knowing that personal reasons will probably not be respected without some sort of reference point.
It's very simple
Any doctor should be able to refuse any procedure on any person who wishes to be a patient if he so chooses, no matter what his particular reason or excuse, unless it's a emergency situation needing immediate care. This judge is a socialist fool. This judge and all like this judge should be removed from their position. How much longer will America tolerate these foolish judges?
no matter what his particular reason or excuse?
Even if it contradicts his/her oath? Does "do know harm" apply to emotional harm or distress inflicted by a doctor?
they can get over it. Everybody is a crybaby now and expect someone to stuff a pacifier in their face when they are upset over something. Time for them to grow up.
Don't think much of oaths do you?
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
An oath to do no harm doesn't carry with it a promise to treat everyone who isn't really ill or even in need of any medical care to the extent that person feels they should be treated. Doctors are not enslaved by the Hippocratic Oath. If that's the criteria and understanding of it, then there should be no such oath.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 8)