|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 526 responses total. |
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.
|
edina
|
|
response 169 of 526:
|
Feb 27 18:23 UTC 2006 |
Oh please. "Feel better about my decision"? You mean my decision to think
that abortion is not a good thing, but at times a necessary thing? Or my
decision to educate every young person I am in the life of on sex education?
Or my thoughts that I can't believe that people *totally* miss the point and
harp on abortion? I'm so serious when I say that I'd lay odds that the most
vocal people in the world on abortion aren't half as involved with things
like, oh, education (you know, which might help reduce abortion rates), or
healthcare (again, possibly helping reduce abortion rates).
I don't like abortion. I really don't. I see it as a breakdown in our
society.
That being said - I'm not taking that right away from people. Not just women,
but people, because some couples make the decision together.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 170 of 526:
|
Feb 27 18:25 UTC 2006 |
> Oh please
My sentiments exactly.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 171 of 526:
|
Feb 27 18:26 UTC 2006 |
Nathan, have you figured out whether you are pro-life or pro-choice yet?
|
jadecat
|
|
response 172 of 526:
|
Feb 27 19:33 UTC 2006 |
resp:167 Yeah, it's real simple to stop ovulation... And for that small
precentage of women who have no secondary side-effects (weight gain,
decreased libido, problems with lubrication during intercourse, sore
breasts, migraines, painful cramps, heavier periods, acne breakouts,
massive to slight mood swings, depression, etc), it's great. For those
that experience even better cycles- it's even better. Still messing big
time with hormones. I'm not a huge fan of hormonal birth control at the
moment. For some women it's great, for others- not so much.
resp:166 John- in many ways you and I really do agree about abortion- I
hate it. I wish it wasn't considered necessary. That's why I am ALL for
ways to prevent pergnancy in the first place. And why I am in favor of
Plan B- which is a mega-dose of normal hormonal birth control pills. The
difference is that while agree that in the ideal world abortions
wouldn't take place because everyone would be in a situation to care for
the resulting child- I realize that we aren't there yet. We're not even
close.
|
slynne
|
|
response 173 of 526:
|
Feb 27 19:43 UTC 2006 |
Making pro-lifers out to be "slut haters" isnt really all that far
fetched of an idea. They often tend to be just that. In fact, what I
find interesting about this discussion is that it is Plan B which is
the drug that is found morally objectionable. Plan B is not a drug that
causes an abortion. Plan B is a birth control pill. Taking Plan B is
likely to prevent the need for a woman to have an abortion. So why are
the pro-lifers in support of laws that protect pharmacists from being
required to dispense Plan B? Could it be because they are "slut haters"
who want to punish women who have sex? I mean, it obviously isnt
because they want to prevent abortion. If that were the case, they
would REQUIRE pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception.
|