Friday, October 19, 2012

What about the pharmacists' right to choose...?

19 comments:

  1. The policy should be set by the pharmacy. If the owner of the pharmacy says that one of his employees has to dispense the drug, and the pharmacist refuses, then he is refusing to do his job. But if the government steps in and tells the pharmacy owner that he must dispense the drug, that's governmental overreach.

    Personally, I think all such drugs should be illegal because they're nothing but a weapon to kill children, but they aren't illegal.

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But if the government steps in and tells the pharmacy owner that he must dispense the drug, that's governmental overreach.

      Really? So people should be allowed to discriminate against others on the basis of religion?

      Delete
    2. There's no discrimination in this situation, but I'll still answer the question. The answer is yes.

      JQ

      Delete
    3. There's no discrimination in this situation,

      Yes. There is. The pharmacist is discriminating against those who don't share her religious beliefs.

      but I'll still answer the question. The answer is yes.

      Okay. Remember that when you come across a sign in a hotel that says "no dogs or Catholics".

      Oh wait, you haven't seen signs like that? I guess that intrusive government should stop preventing hotel and restaurant owners from discriminating.

      Delete
    4. Not providing someone with any service they want is not discrimination. If a person comes into a video rental store and discovers that they have no adult section, he is not being "discriminated against." He simply didn't find what he wanted. He can also go to another store.

      Catholics are discriminated against. Remember when Manny Pacquaio was banned from the mall because he said he believed that marriage is between a man and a woman? I'll bet you were enraged at the injustice of that discrimination.

      http://www.collegenews.com/article/manny_pacquiao_banned_from_hollywood_mall

      My position on that was the same as ever. Banning Manny was stupid, especially in light of the fact they did it to be inclusive. It was more than stupid, it was unjust. But it was still the mall owner's right to be stupid and unjust. It's his property and he can decide who he allows to set foot on it. The pharmacy owner decides which products he will dispense.

      By the way, I have been discriminated against my entire life. I'm talking about real discrimination, not just walking into a store and not finding the product I want on the shelves. I've been discriminated against because of my sex and race and the government has never done a thing about it.

      JQ

      Delete
    5. I love how he wants you to be grateful that you supposedly aren't discriminated against. Like we should send him a big thank you card or something.

      If you want to end real discrimination, then take on affirmative action. What you're doing now is no different than forcing a Jewish deli owner to sell ham sandwiches.

      Joey

      Delete
    6. >>What you're doing now is no different than forcing a Jewish deli owner to sell ham sandwiches.<<

      That's a great analogy, Joey. I rather enjoy ham sandwiches. Not just ham sandwiches but pulled pork sandwiches and cheeseburgers, neither of which you can find at a Jewish deli because they violate the kosher dietary laws.

      Obviously, they're forcing their religious beliefs on me. They're discriminating against those who don't share the same beliefs by refusing to provide them with a product. Yes, anon's argument really is that stupid.

      JQ

      Delete
    7. They refused to sell you a ham sandwich at a Jewish deli? That' kind of like refusing to rent a hotel room to black people!

      /sarcasm off.

      Joey

      Delete
    8. I've been discriminated against because of my sex and race and the government has never done a thing about it.

      Oh good. A white MRA. Now we know that you are a worthless piece of shit whose opinions can be completely ignored.

      Delete
  2. If you don't want to do the job of a pharmacist, then don't become a pharmacist. And if your beliefs lead you to try and control the sex lives of other consenting adults, then something is wrong with your beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "job of the pharmacist" is decided by the pharmacist's boss, not you, and not the government. If you own a newsstand but don't want to carry pornographic magazines, that's your right because it's your newsstand. If you own a grocery store but don't want to sell beer and wine, that's your right because it's your grocery store. If you own a sporting goods store but don't want to sell guns, that's your right because it's your store.

      Do you see the pattern here? The owner of the store decides what he wants to sell. It isn't an imposition of his beliefs on anyone, but when the government intercedes and makes him sell a product he doesn't want to sell, that is an imposition. It's an imposition of your values, and that's why you like it.

      JQ

      Delete
    2. Pro-choice, my ass. More like do it your way and shut up.

      JQ

      Delete
    3. Let this be an object lesson for you, JQ. When they say "pro-choice" they don't mean that you can opt out of participating in what you find objectionable. What they mean is that they're going to do what they want and you'd better assist them.

      I'll file "pro-choice" over here in the "Big Lie" section of my file cabinet.

      Joey

      Delete
    4. The more apt analogy is going to a hospital with a broken leg and them stating they will care for any broken bone in your body except legs. A healthcare provider obstructing someone's access to healthcare is blatently unethical.

      Delete
  3. No one has a right to find any product they want in a store. Stores can choose to stop stocking birth control, alcohol, or broccoli if they damned well please. There is no discrimination afoot, so stop it you big crybabies.

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous,

    Was it discrimination when British Airways told its employees that they could not wear crosses at work, while still allowing female Muslim employees to wear headscarves? Or was that just a dress code?

    Were they >>discriminating against those who don't share her religious beliefs?<<

    JQ

    ReplyDelete
  5. Did you ever notice that the Left's idea of religious freedom involves neither religion nor freedom?

    The Torch

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apropos our earlier post on fascism, note how the motto “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”-- which is Mussolini's old motto, fits the Left perfectly.

      The idea that a private business owner might choose to not carry some products based on personal beliefs is anathema to them.

      “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”.

      Liberal fascists.

      Delete
  6. Pharmacists are in a privileged position. They're health care professionals educated to university level, accredited to practice by boards regulated by federal government departments, dispensing prescription drugs.

    If a drug is legal with a prescription then the pharmacist should provide it. If the drug is so infrequently dispensed that the pharmacist doesn't stock it then the pharmacist should have a procedure of either obtaining it quickly from the supplier or should be able to find out if a nearby pharmacy stocks the drug.

    The role of a pharmacist is little different to that of any health care professional, even Michael Egnor. Michael Egnor isn't required to do abortions because he's not accredited to do so. Pharmacists are accredited to dispense all federally regulated prescription drugs.

    A Jewish delicatessen refusing to sell ham sandwiches is completely different because food doesn't require a prescription and if you're hungry and the Jewish delicatessen is the only food store in town, then kosher food will satisfy your hunger just as well as non-kosher.

    ReplyDelete