|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 526 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 144 of 526:
| 
Feb 24 21:57 UTC 2006 |
I don't agree with resp:141. Maybe I would for a pharmacy that is
required by law to carry Viagra and other such medications.
Thanks for the clarification on RU486 and Plan B.
|
drew
|
|
response 145 of 526:
|
Feb 24 22:29 UTC 2006 |
Is plan B the RU-Pentium pill?
|
slynne
|
|
response 146 of 526:
|
Feb 26 15:43 UTC 2006 |
I have been thinking a bit about this issue. I have mixed feelings about
it. On the one hand, I dont really believe that people should be forced
to do things that they find morally objectionable. On the other hand, I
believe that if we were to protect people legally who make moral
judgments about dispensing medications or other products, it could lead
to a society that would be difficult to live in. I have been exploring
my feelings on this issue by replacing emergency contraception with
other products.
1. Would it be ok for a woman pharmacist who believes that all men are
bad and that all heterosexual sex is rape to refuse to fill a
prescription for Viagra? Her moral view point, like that of pharmacists
who refuse to fill prescriptions for EC, is very different than mine but
it is just as valid as the belief that women should be punished for
having sex. Would it be ok for a pharmacy to choose not to stock such a
drug?
2. Would it be ok for a pharmacist who believes that drugs like Ritalin
are overprescribed and given to children in lieu of good parenting to
refuse to fill such a prescription?
3. Would it be ok for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense medications
used in the treatment of AIDS?
4. Would it be ok for a bartender to refuse to sell "girly drinks" to
men because of a belief that only homosexuals drink them and a moral
opposition to homosexuals?
5. Would I feel it was ok for a waitress to refuse to serve a fat person
dessert after dinner? What if she felt that glutteny was a sin? Is it
her place to make decisions about what her patrons eat? Would it be ok
for a restaurant to not have desserts on the menu if the owners of the
restaurant believed that desserts are bad?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 147 of 526:
|
Feb 26 16:04 UTC 2006 |
Freedom sometimes means people are free to be assholes Slynne. :(
|
slynne
|
|
response 148 of 526:
|
Feb 26 16:26 UTC 2006 |
Interestingly, I think that if we had a society where everyone had equal
amounts of power, it would work to allow people the freedom to be
assholes. But we dont live in such a society so we need to have
anti-discrimination laws and such. Refusing to sell women birth control
drugs is a form of discrimination against them.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 149 of 526:
|
Feb 26 17:15 UTC 2006 |
1. Probably would be legal, if poor business practice. Besides, the
woman pharmacist should realise that some of the men might be using the
Viagra for homosexual sex or masturbation or whatever.
2-3. Probably would be legal, if poor business practice, which means a
smart owner would fire the pharmacist, which should also be legal.
4. This would be gender discrimination. Assuming that the bar in
question is legally considered a "place of public accomodation" then
this would not be lawful.
5. Obesity can be considered a disability under the ADA, so maybe the
action of refusing to serve dessert to an obese person would constitute
unlawful discrimination.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 150 of 526:
|
Feb 26 19:48 UTC 2006 |
Re #s 146 and 149: I think the key is what are the authorities and
responsibilities of the people making those decisions. Pharmacists are
licensed by the State to dispense medications approved (and governed) by
federal law. They would, in my opinion (and I think it should be in the law)
that they are violating their license by refusing to dispense legal
medications. Are bartenders and waitresses licensed to dispense alcohol and
food? If not, then they do have an option to act on their biases, and in so
doing perhaps lose their jobs, or loss patrons for their establishment. I give
private individuals to do private things, but once they have a legal
responsibility to any government arm they have to follow the terms of that
responsibility - or quit.
|
jep
|
|
response 151 of 526:
|
Feb 27 00:29 UTC 2006 |
Bartenders not only can, but have to -- or face legal action -- discern
whether a patron is "too drunk" and refuse to serve him more if the
bartender thinks it's necessary. Convenience store owners have to card
people who are under 27 to ensure they're over 18 before selling them
tobacco. It's possible the same sort of thing is coming for restaurants
who serve obese people. There have already been lawsuits against fast
food restaurants for allowing their customers to get unhealthfully fat.
None of these people have to have a license from a professional
association as does a pharmacist.
I thought Lynne's list was interesting and a good way of looking at the
issue.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 152 of 526:
|
Feb 27 00:36 UTC 2006 |
So, should it be permissible for the following people to claim religious
objections to the job the were hired to do:
A muslim or christian opposed to alcohol works as a waitron in a place
that serves alcohol. Can they refuse customer orders for booze without
losing their job?
A police officer is a member of a pacifist religion. Can he/she refuse to
apprehend subjects resisting arrest?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 153 of 526:
|
Feb 27 00:49 UTC 2006 |
Here's one more:
A scientologist gets a job as a pharmacist and refuses to fill any
prescriptions for drugs intended to treat mental or emotional disorders,
claiming it would be inconsistent with his/her religion to do so.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 154 of 526:
|
Feb 27 14:15 UTC 2006 |
What REALLY gets to me is that Plan B- something only women can take- is
the ONLY medication that gets this 'moral objection' allowed.
Does no one see the misogyny?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 155 of 526:
|
Feb 27 14:39 UTC 2006 |
Don't you call the drugs used in euthanasia "medications"?
|
keesan
|
|
response 156 of 526:
|
Feb 27 14:54 UTC 2006 |
A medicine is a poison that is used for its beneficial effect, but it usually
also has side effects. Sometimes the effects that are side effects under one
condition are the beneficial effects under another (the drug can be used to
treat different conditions).
|
jadecat
|
|
response 157 of 526:
|
Feb 27 15:45 UTC 2006 |
resp:155 I'm not calling for euthanasia drugs to be filled by your run
of the mill pharmacy either.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 158 of 526:
|
Feb 27 15:56 UTC 2006 |
So?
|
scholar
|
|
response 159 of 526:
|
Feb 27 16:09 UTC 2006 |
whoa!
|
jadecat
|
|
response 160 of 526:
|
Feb 27 16:23 UTC 2006 |
resp:158 it's entirely the point. The discussion is whether pharmacists
should fill doctor prescribed prescriptions. Plan B is such a
medication, euthanasia drugs are not. Therefore they're an attempt to
distract from the issue at hand.
|
jep
|
|
response 161 of 526:
|
Feb 27 16:36 UTC 2006 |
re: cyklone: A bartender's job is almost nothing but to serve alcoholic
drinks. I think it should be legal for a bar to refuse to serve any
alcoholic drinks to anyone, if it wishes.
I also think it should be legal to have a Scientologist be a
pharmacist. And it should be legal for his employer to fire him for
not doing his job, if he won't do his job.
Why didn't you cite a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness who doesn't believe
any drugs ought ever to be dispensed? Or a delusional pharmacist who
doesn't believe drugs exist? If you're going to use silly examples,
why stop where you did?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 162 of 526:
|
Feb 27 17:09 UTC 2006 |
How about a lunch counter? Should it be allowed to refuse to serve food
to anyone if it wishes based on whatever criteria its owner chooses (e.g.
too fat, too ugly, too drunk, too female, too black, too Jewish)?
|
klg
|
|
response 163 of 526:
|
Feb 27 17:12 UTC 2006 |
Certainly. This is supposed to be a free country.
If they don't want my business, there are other lunch counters that
do. And if there aren't, I can start one of my own.
|
jep
|
|
response 164 of 526:
|
Feb 27 17:16 UTC 2006 |
re resp:154: The same argument is often applied to general types of
abortion.
It is a fact that only women can get pregnant, and so only women can be
specified when discussing abortion. If you think that inherently means
that any opposition of any kind to abortion is mysogynistic, then that
is what it means to you.
I think mysogyny is something else; hatred of women. If you want to
define it differently, I can't stop you. I do think you're wrongly
defining the word. I also think that is creating an artificial barrier
to communicating on the subject. Further, I think that preventing
reasonable communication is the intention of re-defining "mysogyny" in
that context.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 165 of 526:
|
Feb 27 17:29 UTC 2006 |
resp:164 For a LOT of people- I think it is about hating women and
punishing them for having sex. Why else is birth control supposed to be
woman's problem and not a man's? Why isn't there a birth control pill
for men? Why are there no studies or reasearch being conducted as to how
to go about doing this?
There's a jealousy I think, men can be jealous of women because they CAN
have a child, and women are jealous because after getting a woman
pregnant he can walk away.
|
jep
|
|
response 166 of 526:
|
Feb 27 17:45 UTC 2006 |
re resp:165: I think there are some mysogynists around, and some people
who are anti-abortion, and some who are interested in punishing women
for having sex. These are three separate groups. It is possible to be
a member of any combination of them, or of none of them.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 167 of 526:
|
Feb 27 18:03 UTC 2006 |
Re #165: I've always found the "no male birth control pill" argument
to be pretty un-persuasive. Leaving aside that there is such a pill
in development, it's hardly surprising that the mechanics of stopping
the release of 1 egg (for which there is already an existing hormonal
trigger, activated during pregnancy) is simpler than the mechanics of
stopping the production of zillions of sperm, for which there is not
such an obvious trigger available. But the trial results I've seen
indicate that the male BCP is pretty darned effective.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 168 of 526:
|
Feb 27 18:12 UTC 2006 |
> Why isn't there a birth control pill for men? Why are there no
> studies or reasearch being conducted as to how to go about doing
> this?
You mean like a vasectomy? What about the IVD being developed that
should be on the market soon? Also, if you Googled around you would
probably find at least 2 male birth control pills being tested in the
U.S. right now. So, the studies and research is being conducted.
I think making pro-lifers out to be slut-haters dodges the issue and
only serves to make pro-choice people feel better about their decision.
|