My understanding is that a pharmacist is legally required in most or all states to refuse a prescription if they believe the customer is an addict and the drug was prescribed inappropriately. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong. Of course, communicating with the doctor is one way to relieve concern about the propriety of a prescription, but the pharmacist still has the final call. A pharmacist who shirks this duty is not an excellent pharmacist but potentially a criminal. (Of course your pharmacist may be excellent, in which case they will have fulfilled their duty to ensure that your husband has a legitimate need for his medication.)
So now we’re headed toward that slippery slope? I see.
First of all, in both places where I mentioned it, I said it really isn’t relevant. So what are you asking here?
And you making the bald statement that it happens doesn’t tell me anything. So show me.
It still isn’t the thing we’re arguing in favor of.
Just because Atheist babies have no soul, doesn’t mean that other people’s babies don’t. ;p I’ll remember to keep my magical thinking in check when I resist the urge to shoot you in the head. I mean it’s not as though at some point you magically became ‘human’ right? Therefore I have no moral responsibility to care about the prolongation of your life, because there is no special characteristic outside of the composition of your chemicals, as such there is no significance to your form if I choose for it to be as such.
Happy hunting.
I was unaware of this, but it looks like you’re right (from what I’ve been able to find). Thanks for the info.
Potentially a criminal, but probably just negligent.
In those cases, the pharmacist (and state) have the patient’s care and well-being in mind. In the cases being debated, however, that’s not the case.
But only one of the parties involved had any kind of choice in the matter at hand. That kind of tips the balance one way, doesn’t it?
I beg to differ. It is of utmost significance.
Yeah, we’re just picking on the poor ol’ pharmacists. Next on my list: swirlies!
What are these “greater and more basic sources of conflict”, that seem to be missing from our argument? AFAICT, they’ve been present since page one.
That slippery slope? This entire argument is nothing but a slippery slope.
LilShieste
A clump of cells is not a baby.
And even non-Theists can see that murdering a human being is wrong. Even a human being like you.
No, I’ll drive to the next pharmacy. As I’ve been saying this whole time. I know ignoring portions of my argument makes it easier to paint me with a broad brush, but I’ll keep reminding you just the same.
Essentially the premise is this. If the state does not believe that there is some intrinsic value to human life, then my obligations to the state have been dissolved. So it’s not really about respecting a particular religion, as most religions have a belief in the sanctity of human life.
As for the application here. We have this thing called personal liberty, and I think it should be applied to the pharmacist. I do not think he should be compelled to act contrary to his morals.
The meanspiritedness of this post is only outweighed by its insanity. [sarcastic] Nice one. [/sarcastic]
Even an atheist’s morals are derived from religion. Thousands of years of moral discourse as managed by the priest who maintain the canon, have laid the foundation for what you now believe. The function of religion has to do with the cultural application of morals. To not understand this is to not understand what religion is. Religion isn’t a catch-all word for ‘ignorant idiot control system’, it is about how a culture interacts with it’s morality. Every society has some sort of religious system in place for interpreting its morality. Even non-theistic societies like Buddhist nations, Confucian China, or Communist countries have some sort of management of morality. This management of morality is called, ‘religion’.
Why is it mean? I am just taking his notion one step further. He says the fertilized zygote is not magically a human being, and I am saying that by that logic the fully mature organism does not magically become a human being.
I like to play tourguide to people’s jingoistic fantasies sometimes. I am merely illustrating an extreme and having a little fun on a forum dedicated to being mean to people for no particular reason.
I do however, really believe that a pharmacist has the right to refuse to facilitate to (maybe) abortion.
I took a great pic at Walgreen’s today of the sign that said that Plan B was out of stock. It was just too poignant after this thread.
I know freedom of religion isn’t popular around these parts, but I believe in it, even if that makes me a despicable human being as many have said.
thirdwarning I wasn’t the one who brought the red herring of the behavior of the patient into this. I said that it is not fair to expect the pharmacist to facilitate that behavior. Essentially, I have been arguing precisely what you said, only in flame war style, being that this is the BBQ Pit and not Great Debates.
You’re taking it 6,000 steps further, to a point at which it becomes ridiculous. There may be strong disagreement as to when a person becomes a person, but there is absolutely no disagreement as to whether a fully mature human “organism” qualifies. The swipe at Atheist babies: Vile. The allusion to shooting another poster in the head: Assholish. The entire post: Beyond stupid.
That’s not what makes you a despicable human being (your words). It’s posting shit like the above.
Even if it’s 50 miles away, and you don’t have a car?
Wow, that’s pretty black and white. Surely you don’t mean it in such a broad sense, right?
Us too. That’s why he was able to get a job as a pharmacist.
Talk about a bad career move, then. Should’ve stuck with something safe, like Mathematics.
I’ll say. Obviously there aren’t any tight-assed pharmacists at that one.
Noone is trying to infringe upon the pharmacist’s freedom of religion. He did it to himself, when he chose to go into a field that would place him in a predicament like this.
LilShieste
I see. However, the pharmacists would disagree that these three are in alignment. In fact, they would argue that the law (compelling them to dispense Plan B) is not in alignment with public ethics. Public ethics in the form of Roe v. Wade says that ethics shouldn’t overrule morals (if that is what is meant by ethics vs. morals). IOW, societal morals, ethics, and the law will not be aligned until in all cases, the private rights of individuals are not overruled by the state.
The pharmacists don’t agree. I imagine they know at least as much about the action of Plan B as a drug as I do.
It only seems to have come up when Plan B became a drug they were required to dispense. So, it is specific to a medicine.
I don’t see how this is the case. The woman certainly has the choice as to whether or not to use Plan B. She has the choice of which pharmacy to go to. She had the choice of whether or not to have sex. The pharmacist has the choice on whether or not to particpate in the transaction.
If the conscience exception does not exist, or is not granted, then you are correct - only one person has a choice. If therefore the balance does, or should, tip back to allow the other to exercise the choice, then certainly the pharmacist should not be required to dispense Plan B. Then both sides are exercising choice.
Regards,
Shodan
I think you’re taking me more seriously than I am. His post was far more vile than mine was, but you kind of missed that. It’s ok to tell people they are insane for believing in a soul all the time, but if I make a joke saying that his baby doesn’t have something that he doesn’t believe exists, I am the one that is nasty. :dubious: The double-standard around here is kind of funny. It’s amazing how sensitive we must be to atheists but it’s ok to say the nastiest things about religion and get a pass. Vinyl Turnip seeks me out looking to insult me, on a pretty regular basis.
Life begins at conception. Killing a Human being is immoral in any situation. Just like I can see why we allow for a moral context in which it’s ok for our soldiers to kill our enemies, or for a Doctor to perform triage, I can see it being reasonable for a woman to get an abortion.
Vinyl Turnip chose to get in the ring with me. He insulted my beliefs, so I insulted his back. It’s tit for tat. I think what he said to me is far nastier than what I said to him.
What he said distilled: “You’re insane.”
What I said: “If I am insane by such criteria then we are not bound by a social contract.”
It is after all the magical thinking he would wish to disabuse me of that makes me think that human life has some intrinsic value beyond the flies on my fly paper.
I flamed someone in a flamewar, you’ll get over it.
We’ll go step-by-step, then.
The pharmacist had a choice of which school to attend.
The pharmacist had the same choice.
The pharmacist had a choice of which field to enter.
Now, it’s the bottom of the ninth.
Woman: Here is my prescription.
Pharmacist: Ummm… nope. Ain’t gonna do it.
Why does the pharmacist get an extra decision here? Especially when he already made the corresponding decision, back in choice #3?
LilShieste
If the pharmacist closes up shop you are in the same predicament.
You have presented your case better than most in this thread, so I would love to discuss this further with you at some point. I haven’t gotten a reasonable argument on this topic here on this message board. Basically the premise is that technology is selectively redefining what we consider to be human. At a certain point the legality may reach a breaking point where the value of any human life is merely that of any other commodity. It comes close to this periodically, such as it did in Nazi Germany. This is the essence behind slavery, the aspect of the dialetic that morality wars with in the gears of history. If you want to discuss the dehumanization by technological progress honestly and openly start a thread, I’ll try and put it as simply as I can. However, I choose to draw an extreme line because the mechanized dogs of war need to be kept on a short leash. Our cavalier attitude toward abortion is IMO an erosion of the value of human life. I have an uneasy relationship with Christianity, but I do think that it has been a major curb on humanity’s more barbaric tendencies that result from a purely materialistic outlook.
And the dialectic integrates as always.
Heh, if you think mathematics is safe, you’re not doing high enough maths. 
For serious. I’ve been having trouble uploading pics from my phone else I’d post it for you.
Perhaps. I wonder if there will reach a point where Catholics cannot be pharmacists.
I think you’re an asshole based on what you posted, period. My opinion of him doesn’t have anything to do with my opinion of you – which is that you’re a gold-plated asshole.
I flamed you in a flamewar. You’ll get over it.
Well, I hope you drown your sorrows in that fine wine you make threads about then. 
When come back bring coherency. :rolleyes:
Lotsa poor people do not have cars . This simple inconvenience could be much more than a suburbanite driving down the street.