That’s not how to use scare quotes. Here’s an example of a fictional SDMB conversation that could very well happen between you and Der Trihs:
DT: Republicans all hate women and want them to suffer
Bricker: Actually, I care deeply about women because (reasons)
DT: Sure, you “care” about women.
See how that works? He took a thing you actually said, and then he put scare quotes around it to (unfairly) mock it
Compare that to this:
DT: Republicans all hate women and want them to suffer
Bricker: Here are two holes in your logic: (holes)
DT: Sure, you “care” about women
See how silly that seems?
Because there’s a word for when there are two situations, and in some important ways they are similar, and in some important ways they are different. That word is “different”. Yes, the two situations involve issues of how much professional boards and governments can restrict and enforce actions by licensed medical and pharmaceutical personnel, and yes they both involve hot-button social issues. But merely being in that milieu of issues does not make them so similar that the same arguments should apply to both, or that somehow you can compare people’s views on them and lol-liberal-hypocrisy.
Perhaps it’s your lawyery training to view things as abstract conflicts of principles… so the principle of licensing and requiring professional behavior that is in the best interest of patients vs the principle of individual ethical and religious freedom. And that’s an interesting commonality between the two cases. But there are so many other details in the two cases that there’s no reason to think that anyone’s position on either one of them is indicative of, or solely determined by, their position on the broader legal-philosophical question at all.
And the answer, for any reasonable person, is going to be “well, that depends on what the behavior is”.
Well, if you want to be pedantic, I suppose any foreign object in a household is likely to increase chances of viral transmission if it’s not subject to decontamination, even if only by an infinitesimal amount.
The webster definition of pediatric is this:
In my opinion, development and care encompass more than illness issues. I think of it as akin to a doctor asking if you make sure you have a fence around a swimming pool. They’re not looking to persecute you, they’re examining common causes of death and injury and making sure preventative measures are in place. Is it really that much of an imposition on yourself to say, “Yes doctor, I do have a firearm which I keep locked and out of reach at all times?”
It seems quite obvious that some professional standards regulated by the state are appropriate while others are not, depending on their content. Telling pharmacists that they cannot act on their crazy view that preventing fertilization is murder just isn’t the same as telling doctors that they cannot help their patients’ families prevent accidental gun injuries.
Saying that they are equivalent and must be treated the same because both involve controversy is like saying the existence of the Moon Landing and the existence of Bigfoot are both up-in-the-air.
Which can be caused by any number of things. Is** Dseid** going to conduct a grand inquisition for power tools, ladders, loose carpet, improper wiring, asbestos, driving habits, food control, household chemical storage, criminal history on all household members, ventilation, agressive and/or clumsy dogs, proper footwear, and anything else that might possibly cause an accidental injury? I think not. He’s got a bug up his butt about guns, and wants to use his bully pulpit to push a gun grabbing agenda. That’s bullshit.
Unintentional injury is the leading cause of death among children in the U.S., and unintentional firearm death is in the top ten for kids 5-9. In terms of accidents that can be avoided with a little precaution and education, it is right up there with swimming pools and carseats. A doctor who didn’t ask about carseats but did ask about guns might be accused of having an agenda. But choosing to ask about guns doesn’t in itself betray some bias–they are a leading cause of accidental death among these doctor’s patients.
Obviously some combination of the various levels of government, interacting with various regulatory bodies that regulate the various health professions, in ways which I’m sure are dizzyingly complex given that they are probably different in every state, etc., etc., etc.
But my point is this. Those are two VERY different issues. I can imagine a reasonable person holding any of the four possible pairs of support/oppose positions between those two issues.
So when you said this: “But at the same time, it delights me to see various liberal contortions that let them assert this law is improper, but pharmacists can still be forced to sell abortion-inducing medication.” it was total bullshit.
Yes, there are differences. They deal with different professions, different underlying issues, and they are spelled differently to boot.
But in the way that really matters for this debate, they are similar in that both seek to control and regulate medical professional behavior. Someone can certainly be consistent while taking the position that one is a good idea and one is a bad idea. But I don’t agree that someone can say it’s not permitted to forbid conscience clauses for pharmacists and at the same time say it’s NOT permitted for a state to forbid these kinds of doctor inquiries. The state either has the power or it doesn’t.
Which position gets deference? A doctor or a pharmacist? If a doctor issues a prescription to a patient, is it ok for the pharmacist to substitute his/her judgement for the doctor’s? Did the pharmacist graduate medical school? Did the pharmacist take the Hippocratic Oath? Isn’t it kind of like your waiter taking something off of your plate while delivering it to you because he has a difference of opinion with the chef on whether it tastes good?
So there’s currently a rule that says that pharmacists can choose to follow their conscience and not dispense the morning after pill (approximately). I happen to think that’s a terrible idea, but if that’s the law, well, that states that in one particular case, a VERY STRONG moral objection trumps a professional obligation, but only a fairly minor one (minor in the sense that it’s only one of thousands of drugs dispensed, not minor in its actual affect on the customer denied service). Someone who thinks that’s a good law doesn’t necessarily think that moral objections should ALWAYS trump professional obligation, and someone who thinks it’s a bad law doesn’t necessarily think that moral objections should NEVER trump professional obligation.
So, even if the two issues were precisely analogous, in that both were “someone has something their profession requires them to do, they have a moral objection to doing so”, there’s no reason that both have to be yes, or both have to be no, because there could be degrees of seriousness and importance that varied between them. BUT, they’re nowhere near that analogous, because the docs-n-glocks case, as far as I can tell, doesn’t really have much to do with professional obligations at all. Unless there are some details that I am unaware of, the medical board in Florida says neither “oh, and you should ask about guns” nor “and you should never ever ask about things that are out of your purview and that clearly includes guns”. So in docs-n-glocks you have issues of free speech, and the additional wrinkle that the actual behavior that triggered the law (someone refusing to provide service unless the questions were answered) (and note that I’m very skeptical that that really happened as described, but whatever) is vastly narrower than the behavior being banned (asking about guns at all). For all we know, there were many cases in which doctors asked patients about guns, and either the patients responded with “none of your business” and the doctors continued with their exam just fine, or in which the doctor actually gave good advice about safe gun storage techniques that were put into practice.
My point being… one case is principle A, with input variables X and Y. The other case is a bit of principle A, but backwards, with different input variables, and lots of principle B also, and some of side wrinkle C.
It’s one thing for you to say “I see some similarities between these two cases”, it’s another to just leap right into “lol ur a hypocrite”.
Abusing and killing women is not his job. Again; should he be allowed to beat and rape his female customers? Because that’s morally no different; actually, it’s less evil than what they actually do.
And since this is supposed to be about guns; yes, if there was no other way to get him to stop I would consider it morally justifiable if she just shot him and took the medicine for herself. No different than killing a charging rapist. Just like any rapist, he’s asserting that he owns her body and can do with it as he pleases.
Sure. And you have no right to demand a law that forbids the waiter from doing so. If you don’t like it, find another restaurant.
(Of course, I also don’t favor any law that forbids the owner from firing the waiter, either.) the point is: the business owner gets to decide how to run his business.