Walgreens Allows Pharmacists To Not Dispense Drugs They Object To

Yes, there is a law stating if you have something in stock, and there is nothing prohibiting you from selling it (like a release dates, contracts, regulations, corporate orders) you HAVE to sell it.

The law was originally made to force retailers to sell products to black people, but it applies to this situation also.
 
[quote name='atreyue']12 year old rape victims are not uncommon?

Well I would hope that the pharmacist would not conspire to hide such a thing from this poor girl's parents. The psychological damage that would cause shouldn't be hidden and allowed to fester. :lol:[/QUOTE]

What if the child was raped by a relative or parent? And why should the pharmacist have any right to tell anyone what prescription their customers recieve?
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Wait until some PETA-member pharmacists refuse to fill insulin prescriptions because it was extracted from pigs.[/QUOTE]

Now wouldn't this be ironic, wonder what legistlators would do then? Would they stop attempts at allowing pharmacists to object, or would they word it specifically to only allow some objections.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Yes, there is a law stating if you have something in stock, and there is nothing prohibiting you from selling it (like a release dates, contracts, regulations, corporate orders) you HAVE to sell it.

The law was originally made to force retailers to sell products to black people, but it applies to this situation also.[/QUOTE]

It is illegal to withhold a product based soley on your beliefs.

The law prevents racists from refusing to serve black people and prevents catholics from fucking with prescriptions.
 
Whups...this thread jumps ahead in fits & starts....I'm distracted by work & checking up on the woot!-athon. :)

I see what you're saying, dtcarson. Abortion itself may be legal, but there's nothing to say that I should be able to walk into any physician's clinic and demand that one be performed for me. Certainly, the physician has the right to refrain from providing any services which he might possibly be capable of. Or, to use a less sensitive example, I could ask that my general practitioner perform an NMR scan on my knee...and although he might have access to the necessary equipment & the skills to run the test, he doesn't HAVE to do it. Maybe he outsources those tests to a company and simply prefers not to do them himself...for whatever reason, I certainly can't claim to have been hurt by his refusal if he won't do it.

However, that's really not how I view the issue at hand. Mainly, because I see it in terms of the precedent it sets...which is why I brought up the earlier examples I did. Although you have separated the emotional ramifications of the incident from its fundamental roots, the fact is that the two have occurred together...and the outcome will almost certainly provide inroads for one camp or another. Therefore, it is on those grounds that discussion--I feel--of this story should take place. Namely, if a method of birth control (or any other issue of contention) is approved (or even disapproved) at a federal/state legal level...but can then be thwarted by a private company employee...then that is outrageous. What does it matter that an issue is thoroughly debated on the congressional floor, if Ms. Pharmacist can single-handedly make the decision for me by denying me access to the final product? ...since I am opposed to such a level of regulation, I do not accept the excuse of personal belief in this case.
 
[quote name='evilmax17']It's withholding care. As you say, let's take out religion and pregnancy.

Let's look at extremely rare and hypothetical example. But let's just look for kicks.

Suppose a man has an extremely rare disease, in which he has to take a RX drug once every 12 hours or else he will die. Accept this as possible for the example.

Now lets say this man hasn't taken his drug in 11 hours and 30 minutes, and he walks into this Walgreens to get his prescription filled. But for some reason, the pharmcist doesn't feel comfortable selling this product, so s/he refuses. The nearest pharmecy is an hour away, and this man only has 30 minutes.

Now sure, the sick man shouldn't have waited to fill his RX, but at this point in time it's neither here nor there. The pharmecist, under Walgreens rules, has no technical obligation to fill the RX at all, even though they have it in stock behind the counter.

So the man dies.

"So?" Are you telling me that the pharmecist is completely absolved of guilt? Or that Walgreen's support of this policy is acceptable?[/QUOTE]


Yes. It wasn't their 'fault.' I believe it has been proven in many cases that there is no legal obligation to 'save' someone's life, unless you are in position that can do that [paramedic, firefighter, etc]. What if he had no money to pay for the scrip? Technically the pharm shouldn't give it to him. But in that case I think most people and most managers would realize the 'exception.'
If you came running into my office, gasped, and keeled over dead, would I try to help you? Certainly. Am I "responsible" for or "guilty" of your death? Not at all.
If they supported it in that case? I would think they would be quite hardline if they did that; there's a time to do what you gotta do, even if that means breaking a policy.

---------------------------

evilmax17 I would argue that Jane Doe's pregnancy (and subsequent abortion) was a direct result of the pharmecist's refusal to fill her RX said:
I would argue it was actually a direct result of her having sex. Why no discussion of the 'father'? Where was he? Ultimately responsibiity is Doe's, secondary responsible was his.
Did she try going to another pharmacy? Did she say, Okay, is there another pharmacist here who will? Sounds to me like she gave up pretty easy.

Quackzilla: Can you find a cite for that law? Depending on the phrasing, it could be argued that this policy *is* a 'corporate order', which is totally non-discriminatory. If the law was aimed at fighting racial discrimination, it is totally NOT relevant to this scenario [of course, again, depending on how it's phrased.]

alonzo: Don't doctors and teachers have to tell the authorities if there is evidence of child abuse? If that applies to pharmacists as well, then they could notify the authorities--not necessarily divulging the details of the prescription.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Wait until some PETA-member pharmacists refuse to fill insulin prescriptions because it was extracted from pigs.[/QUOTE]

I think that actually is a bad example. They haven't used porcine insulin to treat human diabetics for quite some time. Bioreactors have been churning out purified human insulin for quite some time now, I believe. Let's hear it for bacteria! :applause:
 
[quote name='dtcarson']
Did she try going to another pharmacy? Did she say, Okay, is there another pharmacist here who will? Sounds to me like she gave up pretty easy.
[/quOTE]
Once the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription the responsibility falls on her not the customer to make sure that it is filled. Not to mention the article made it seem like the pharmacist took the prescriptions from Doe.

"If a pharmacist does refuse, we require the pharmacist to pass the prescription on to another pharmacist at that location, or to another pharmacy," a Walgreens spokesman told 12 News.
Click to expand...


 
[quote name='RBM']Whups...this thread jumps ahead in fits & starts....I'm distracted by work & checking up on the woot!-athon. :)

I see what you're saying, dtcarson. Abortion itself may be legal, but there's nothing to say that I should be able to walk into any physician's clinic and demand that one be performed for me. Certainly, the physician has the right to refrain from providing any services which he might possibly be capable of. Or, to use a less sensitive example, I could ask that my general practitioner perform an NMR scan on my knee...and although he might have access to the necessary equipment & the skills to run the test, he doesn't HAVE to do it. Maybe he outsources those tests to a company and simply prefers not to do them himself...for whatever reason, I certainly can't claim to have been hurt by his refusal if he won't do it.

However, that's really not how I view the issue at hand. Mainly, because I see it in terms of the precedent it sets...which is why I brought up the earlier examples I did. Although you have separated the emotional ramifications of the incident from its fundamental roots, the fact is that the two have occurred together...and the outcome will almost certainly provide inroads for one camp or another. Therefore, it is on those grounds that discussion--I feel--of this story take place. Namely, if a method of birth control (or any other issue of contention) is approved (or even disapproved) at a federal/state legal level...but can then be thwarted by a private company employee...then that is outrageous. What does it matter that an issue is thoroughly debated on the congressional floor, if Ms. Pharmacist can single-handedly make the decision for me by denying me access to the final product?[/QUOTE]

I see what you're saying. But you are *not* denied access to the 'final product.' As long as enough people are interested in buying it [and it's legal], it will be available. Perhaps not as conveniently as walking down to the corner Walgreen's, but 'convenience' is really irrelevant.
And you're right about the emotionalism of the issue. I purposefully do try to separate the emotional side from the logical side; all too often the 'emotional' argument gets bogged down in "But what about 12-year old Cousin Janey?" kind of things. I try to see the roots of the issue. Once those are clarified, there can always be exceptions/details based on certain specific scenarios, but it shouldn't work in reverse.

"Namely, if a method of birth control (or any other issue of contention) is approved (or even disapproved) at a federal/state legal level...but can then be thwarted by a private company employee.then that is outrageous...What does it matter that an issue is thoroughly debated on the congressional floor, if Ms. Pharmacist can single-handedly make the decision for me by denying me access to the final product?"

I respectfully disagree. We still have the freedom of the marketplace, etc. What difference is it if Ms Pharmacist, in keeping with company policy, decides [consistently] not to deliver the product, or if Mr Walgreen, CEO of Purchasing, decides not to carry it? Just because 'Congress" has made something legal, doesn't and shouldn't affect whether or not a private company will carry it, or for how much, or in what markets, etc.

Any medical issue is going to have a bit of emotionalism. My uncle died, in part, because he had a bad knee that didn't get operated on. So your example of the NMR/knee scan could be as emotional to me as this specific example is to many people. And it can be hard to separate emotion from logic, but ultimately, I think the only logical conclusion is, "the retailer has the right to sell or not to sell whatever legal product he wants". [Again, don't confuse that with 'won't sell to Chinese people, that's totally different and wrong. And if we can find a cite saying "you have to sell stuff you have", I might certainly revise that.] The Walgreens policy gives the individual Pharm a lot of leeway with that, but also provides alternatives--so the "you have to sell what you have" law, if any, might not even apply. Walgreens would be happy to sell you that med; just get another pharmacist/store. And of course since we have a free market, there's lot of other places to get the scrip filled.
 
[quote name='dcfox']Once the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription the responsibility falls on her not the customer to make sure that it is filled.

[/QUOTE]

I think it's quite clear that Pharm didn't follow that part of the policy, and if so, she is certainly in the wrong for that.
But it's not her responsibility to 'make sure it is filled', it's her responsibility to "pass it on," at which point it becomes the new Pharm's, and the patient's, responsibility.
 
[quote name='RBM']I think that actually is a bad example. They haven't used porcine insulin to treat human diabetics for quite some time. Bioreactors have been churning out purified human insulin for quite some time now, I believe. Let's hear it for bacteria! :applause:[/QUOTE]

I never said PETA members were the sharpest knives in the drawer. And there are plenty of other medications that have been at least tested on animals.

This is pharmaceutical activism! (not holding my breath while waiting for Tom DeLay to jump in on this one)
 
I still want to know what happens when there is no way to get to the other pharmacy, or the other pharmacy also refuses to fill the prescription. When the pharmacy has the medication, but the pharmacist is deciding for me whether or not I can take it. I know in burke hollow, vermont you have to drive 25 min to a grocery store, probably the same for a pharmacy. And that place is more populated than some places out west, were all you got is a walmart if even.

I never understood why you just don't get prescriptions from the doctor when they prescribe it, anyone want to clarify this?
 
Given that Walgreens has the idiotic policy then to some degree the pharmacist wasn't doing anything wrong until she supposedly verbally berated the lady in pubic. But I would think that any company that would try to get away with a policy like this would have to have on duty at least someone who would be willing to dispense the medication. I would see it being alright for someone to have misgivings about wanting to dispense this medication, but it shouldn't go any further than that, and another employee should get the medication right then and there. Now on another front how does someone justify working for an industry that allows this to be sold if they are against it. Plus how does the pharmacist know that giving this medication will lead to the extinguishment of life, isn't that part of the point of RU-486 or whatever it's called now? It can and will prevent pregnancy, but the person doesn't know for sure if they are even going to become pregnant in the first place. Does she (the pharmacist) oppose paying taxes, since ultimately part of her money will help fund the war on terror and ultimately kill people? I'm all for having principles but this seems very myopic and judgemental. Which are far as I know people of the Christian faith aren't supposed to be.
 
Am I my brother's keeper?

Right out of Genesis and clear down through time to this thread. Sure, I have this day after pill right here. Are there other people with this to sell? Who knows. Let's say there are dozens of other sources...let's say there're none. Either way, am I responsible in some way to this woman? Her own behavior has generated her need for this drug, but does that put a responsibility upon me to sell it to her? Does her need put some obligation upon me? MUST I help her? Am I legally accountable if I don't want to? If she were dying of shock and covering her with the blanket in my hands would save her, would I be guilty of her murder if I failed to apply the blanket? ...if so, does that make me accountable for the deaths of every homeless person suffering from hypothermia on my block if I don't make rounds with my blanket? ...or in my city? My state?
 
Walgreens is a buisness. They have the right to sell whatever or whatever not they damn well please. Lay off.
 
[quote name='gamefreak']Walgreens is a buisness. They have the right to sell whatever or whatever not they damn well please. Lay off.[/QUOTE]

They have no right to discriminate against liberals.

If they are selling a product, then everyone should be able to buy it, no matter what time the person comes in and no matter who is behind the counter.
 
[quote name='gamefreak']Walgreens is a buisness. They have the right to sell whatever or whatever not they damn well please. Lay off.[/QUOTE]

So if they didn't want to do business with blacks, then that's their business?
 
[quote name='evilmax17']The morning after pill is not murder. It is not an abortion pill. It works exactly the same as regular birth control that you take every day.[/QUOTE]

As someone who holds the view that abortion is the same as murdering a child, I should say I do agree with this. Plenty of eggs get fertilized that are never implanted and never begin life as a child. The morning after pill, as I understand it, merely stops the fertilized egg from being implanted and beginning to grow. Therefore, IMO it is not killing anything and should not be viewed the same way as an abortion.

As for Walgreens and the pharmacist, I feel they are well within their rights. Nobody has to sell anything, and Walgreens clearly allows its employees to refuse to sell stuff. I would say don't shop there, start a campaign against them for religious discrimination, etc, but it's not illegal. If I were Walgreens, however, I would find a way to make sure someone was in the store at all times who could dispense any prescription to prevent lawsuits for discrimination and losing customers because of policies leading to bad customer service.
 
To be fair to Walgreens, they're not the only ones to have this policy. It seems some states have laws giving pharmacists this right. The members of the American Pharmacists Association also have the right to refuse to dispense medication.

Mississippi enacted a sweeping statute that went into effect in July that allows health care providers, including pharmacists, to not participate in procedures that go against their conscience. South Dakota and Arkansas already had laws that protect a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense medicines. Ten other states considered similar bills this year.

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds,
Click to expand...

That's from this article judyjudyjudy posted back on the second page. So if you happen to live in an ultra conservative area and need the morning after pill, you might be screwed no matter where you go.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']It's gambling.[/QUOTE]

Guess what: Gambling isn't a sin in the religion.

I love when people talk shit but have no idea what it is they're talking!
 
[quote name='Rich']I love when people talk shit but have no idea what it is they're talking![/QUOTE]

Statistics say that there is a 97% chance that you you frequently love things found in this forum.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']So if they didn't want to do business with blacks, then that's their business?[/QUOTE]

Wasn't this already covered? Geez...
 
[quote name='RBM']Am I my brother's keeper?

Right out of Genesis and clear down through time to this thread. Sure, I have this day after pill right here. Are there other people with this to sell? Who knows. Let's say there are dozens of other sources...let's say there're none. Either way, am I responsible in some way to this woman? Her own behavior has generated her need for this drug, but does that put a responsibility upon me to sell it to her? Does her need put some obligation upon me? MUST I help her? Am I legally accountable if I don't want to? If she were dying of shock and covering her with the blanket in my hands would save her, would I be guilty of her murder if I failed to apply the blanket? ...if so, does that make me accountable for the deaths of every homeless person suffering from hypothermia on my block if I don't make rounds with my blanket? ...or in my city? My state?[/QUOTE]

Is this a trick question? The answer is no, we're not responsible to each other. But, for the sake of argument, if we were, having responsibility means that you have to decide for yourself what the best way to help someone is. It's irresponsible to just take their word for it. If a crackhead asks you for money to buy crackcocaine, and you decide that it's not in their best interest to have said crackcocaine, then you should not give them the money for it. You have the right to only do what you want, although this crackhead will undoubtedly disagree with your analysis of the situation.

If you believe a woman is dying of shock and you cover her with a blanket and she dies, are you liable? I was taught in my first aid class way back when in high school that if you tried to help someone without obtaining their consent you left yourself open to a lawsuit (like if you cracked a rib administering CPR).

If someone thinks that doing something for me would be akin to murder, then they made their choice and I wouldn't fault them for it. Each person has to decide whether or not to live with the consequences (to others as well of themselves) of their own actions. I applaud Walgreens for allowing its employees the right to choose their own actions.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']As someone who holds the view that abortion is the same as murdering a child, I should say I do agree with this. Plenty of eggs get fertilized that are never implanted and never begin life as a child. The morning after pill, as I understand it, merely stops the fertilized egg from being implanted and beginning to grow. Therefore, IMO it is not killing anything and should not be viewed the same way as an abortion.

As for Walgreens and the pharmacist, I feel they are well within their rights. Nobody has to sell anything, and Walgreens clearly allows its employees to refuse to sell stuff. I would say don't shop there, start a campaign against them for religious discrimination, etc, but it's not illegal. If I were Walgreens, however, I would find a way to make sure someone was in the store at all times who could dispense any prescription to prevent lawsuits for discrimination and losing customers because of policies leading to bad customer service.[/QUOTE]

Bully for you.

I hope the next time you go to buy Pork Chops, a Vegan or Jew supermarket clerk rips them out of your hand and refuses to sell you the pig product because it is against their religion/personal ethics.

Idiot.
 
[quote name='gamefreak']Walgreens is a buisness. They have the right to sell whatever or whatever not they damn well please. Lay off.[/QUOTE]

Actually, they dont. But thanks for playing.

If its in the store, they must sell it to a potential buyer. Would you like it if I didnt sell a pack of cigarettes to you because I think you should quit? What if you were black and I was in KKK on my days off...does that mean I can decide to not sell you a pack of gum cause I hate the color of your skin?

No, it doesnt. But thanks for being a retard...
 
[quote name='Rich']Guess what: Gambling isn't a sin in the religion.

I love when people talk shit but have no idea what it is they're talking![/QUOTE]

First, the phrase "no idea what it is they're talking!" isnt english.

Second, I dont think he really made the point that it was a sin. Also, it's not a sin...but a immoral issue for most religious avocates....and thats the point.

Gambling can be defined as “risking money in an attempt to multiply the money on something that is against the odds.” The Bible does not specifically condemn gambling, betting or the lottery. The Bible does warn us, however, to stay away from the love of money (1 Timothy 6:10; Hebrews 13:5). Scripture also encourages us to stay away from attempts to "get rich quick" (Proverbs 13:11; 23:5; Ecclesiastes 5:10). Also, there are far better things we can be doing with our money than gambling it away (Luke 6:38; 2 Corinthians 9:7). I suppose that gambling could be acceptable if it was done in very limited amounts and on rare occasions. People waste money on all kinds of things. However, in light of the principles above, I definitely do not believe gambling is honoring to God.

Not a sin, but not really a Christian thing to do...should a Christian shove his beliefs on me for buying a lotto ticket?


No, he new his job consisted on selling lotto tickets, so he should do his job and shut the fuck up. A vegan shouldn't work at Burger King, and a religious nut who believes its ok to push your views on others shouldn't be selling birth control.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']Actually, they dont. But thanks for playing.

If its in the store, they must sell it to a potential buyer. Would you like it if I didnt sell a pack of cigarettes to you because I think you should quit? What if you were black and I was in KKK on my days off...does that mean I can decide to not sell you a pack of gum cause I hate the color of your skin?

No, it doesnt. But thanks for being a retard...[/QUOTE]

I could be wrong (and have been many times before), but it seems a little unlikely to me that a national chain would have a policy in place that violates federal law. I don't remember, but has anyone found and posted this law yet or just cited it without proof?
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']First, the phrase "no idea what it is they're talking!" isnt english.[/QUOTE]

And how is his sentence grammatically incorrect? Might want to check your own spelling errors before posting...

[quote name='Mookyjooky']No, he new his job consisted on selling lotto tickets, so he should do his job and shut the fuck up. A vegan shouldn't work at Burger King, and a religious nut who believes its ok to push your views on others shouldn't be selling birth control.[/color][/size][/QUOTE]

I doubt that the pharmacist's job consisted 'on' selling birth control, so I'm sure she is able to do her job and shut the fuck up 99% of the time. Well, more like 30% in this day and age.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I doubt that the pharmacist's job consisted 'on' selling birth control, so I'm sure she is able to do her job and shut the fuck up 99% of the time. Well, more like 30% in this day and age.[/QUOTE]

I doubt that they're handing out birth control pills only 1% of the time. You know, there is a segment of the population that enjoys a healthy sex life with the benefits of modern science, and manages to avoid the baseless guilt propogated by power-mongers within the church beaureaucracy.
 
I hope Walgreens gets their asses handed to them for this. Pharmacists are suppose to distribute drugs it's a doctors job to consult patients on their use.
 
[quote name='camoor']I doubt that they're handing out birth control pills only 1% of the time. You know, there is a segment of the population that enjoys a healthy sex life with the benefits of modern science, and manages to avoid the baseless guilt propogated by power-mongers within the church beaureaucracy.[/QUOTE]

I assume that you read the second sentence with the 30% and chose to ignore it so you could make your 'point'.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I assume that you read the second sentence with the 30% and chose to ignore it so you could make your 'point'.[/QUOTE]

No, I read it.

It just disproves your point even more.

If pharmacists are handing out birth control pills 30% of the time, then you and the other christian fanatics on this board are even more out of touch with mainstream america.

Besides, why are you forcing heretics, pagans and blasphemers to have babies? Won't these just mean more souls for the armies of darkness?
 
[quote name='gamefreak']Walgreens is a buisness. They have the right to sell whatever or whatever not they damn well please. Lay off.[/QUOTE]

The more problems I see, the more I think we need to fundamentally change how prescriptions are taken care of. That said, they do have a right to sell what they want, and they have chosen to sell it, their employees have refused to let customers buy the products that are being sold, resulting in serious consequences for the customer.

I still wish I knew why prescriptions aren't filled at the hospital or doctors office.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']First, the phrase "no idea what it is they're talking!" isnt english.

Second, I dont think he really made the point that it was a sin. Also, it's not a sin...but a immoral issue for most religious avocates....and thats the point.

Gambling can be defined as “risking money in an attempt to multiply the money on something that is against the odds.” The Bible does not specifically condemn gambling, betting or the lottery. The Bible does warn us, however, to stay away from the love of money (1 Timothy 6:10; Hebrews 13:5). Scripture also encourages us to stay away from attempts to "get rich quick" (Proverbs 13:11; 23:5; Ecclesiastes 5:10). Also, there are far better things we can be doing with our money than gambling it away (Luke 6:38; 2 Corinthians 9:7). I suppose that gambling could be acceptable if it was done in very limited amounts and on rare occasions. People waste money on all kinds of things. However, in light of the principles above, I definitely do not believe gambling is honoring to God.

Not a sin, but not really a Christian thing to do...should a Christian shove his beliefs on me for buying a lotto ticket?


No, he new his job consisted on selling lotto tickets, so he should do his job and shut the fuck up. A vegan shouldn't work at Burger King, and a religious nut who believes its ok to push your views on others shouldn't be selling birth control.[/QUOTE]

Another person talking about something he has no idea about. Hooray!

Christians, Catholics in particular, find absolutely no wrong in controlled gambling. It's only when there is no intention of paying back debts that there is any immoral action done. 7 years in parochial school and far too many priests have had their stupid ideas inplanted in my head.

(for the record, all of that parochial school and brainwashing is actually the reason I renounced Catholicism. I can think for myself, thank you very much. But I still feel the need to correct people when they make assumptions regarding the religion.)
 
[quote name='camoor']No, I read it.

It just disproves your point even more.

If pharmacists are handing out birth control pills 30% of the time, then you and the other christian fanatics on this board are even more out of touch with mainstream america.

Besides, why are you forcing heretics, pagans and blasphemers to have babies? Won't these just mean more souls for the armies of darkness?[/QUOTE]

First off, I'm not even Christian . Why is it that anyone who believes in anything or has standards for themselves has to be a religious fanatic? Do you think it makes your argument more valid if you can call other people names?
 
[quote name='atreyue']First off, I'm not even Christian . Why is it that anyone who believes in anything or has standards for themselves has to be a religious fanatic? Do you think it makes your argument more valid if you can call other people names?[/QUOTE]

There are some ridiculous actions advocated by the radical anti-abortion activists such as yourself in this thread. I assumed that these actions could only be motivated by an irrational, emotional response based on a dogmatic belief system (in America this is usually christianity). I admit I was initially wrong about you, turns out you are just an athiest who cannot think straight.
 
[quote name='camoor']There are some ridiculous actions advocated by the radical anti-abortion activists such as yourself in this thread. I assumed that these actions could only be motivated by an irrational, emotional response based on a dogmatic belief system (in America this is usually christianity). I admit I was initially wrong about you, turns out you are just an athiest who cannot think straight.[/QUOTE]

I'm not an atheist either. It would be most accurate to say that I don't really care either way.

What are the ridiculous actions that I have advocated as a radical anti-abortion activist? Please provide some actual substance for your accusations. That is not to say that I haven't made any statements that can be labeled as such, just that it's very convenient to attack someone as virulently as you have when you don't actually include any proof. Unfortunately, it also weakens your argument if anyone notices that is what you've done. Although I suppose this isn't true if most others are doing the same thing, then it's in everyone's best interest to ignore it.

I think it's sad when anti-free thought activists like yourself that claim to be rational attack others based on ASSumptions and feel no apparent need to back things up with facts. I assume that your actions can only motivated by an irrational emotional response based on a dogmatic belief system (in America this is usually political parties) that values a gang mentality over everything else and acts as if that can be discussed and reasoned out if people intially disagree. Sounds a lot like the gripes that most people have with religion doesn't it? I hope I wasn't initially wrong about you and most of the other people that post here when I thought that people with differing opinions could still engage in intelligent debate and dscussion on important topics in our community. Hopefully, you'er not just another idiot who refuses to think at all.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I'm not an atheist either. It would be most accurate to say that I don't really care either way.

What are the ridiculous actions that I have advocated as a radical anti-abortion activist? Please provide some actual substance for your accusations. That is not to say that I haven't made any statements that can be labeled as such, just that it's very convenient to attack someone as virulently as you have when you don't actually include any proof. Unfortunately, it also weakens your argument if anyone notices that is what you've done. Although I suppose this isn't true if most others are doing the same thing, then it's in everyone's best interest to ignore it.

I think it's sad when anti-free thought activists like yourself that claim to be rational attack others based on ASSumptions and feel no apparent need to back things up with facts. I assume that your actions can only motivated by an irrational emotional response based on a dogmatic belief system (in America this is usually political parties) that values a gang mentality over everything else and acts as if that can be discussed and reasoned out if people intially disagree. Sounds a lot like the gripes that most people have with religion doesn't it? I hope I wasn't initially wrong about you and most of the other people that post here when I thought that people with differing opinions could still engage in intelligent debate and dscussion on important topics in our community. Hopefully, you'er not just another idiot who refuses to think at all.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, excuse me when I disagree with a religiously motivated nut who decides to deny medications to patients because he believes that his god would not want them to have it.

That's a really "irrational" response.

I get emotional because the woman's well-being is being threatened by the pharmacists' dogmatic beliefs. I don't care what people believe as long as they don't try and shove it down my throat or the throats of my fellow American citizens.

Now you, you're trying to justify this man's actions from the point of rationality/law. Following your line of logic, if I'm in safeway and I want to buy a pack of pork chops, the vegetarian shopping clerk can refuse to sell them to me with no repercussions. I believe in capitalism. I don't believe in a system where individual people can interrupt the normal, established flow of commerce in the name of personally held beliefs.
 
[quote name='camoor']Bully for you.

I hope the next time you go to buy Pork Chops, a Vegan or Jew supermarket clerk rips them out of your hand and refuses to sell you the pig product because it is against their religion/personal ethics.

Idiot.[/QUOTE]

fuck you. I never said it was okay to rip things out of people's hands or yell at people, just to do what you're allowed to do under the terms of your employment.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']fuck you. I never said it was okay to rip things out of people's hands or yell at people, just to do what you're allowed to do under the terms of your employment.[/QUOTE]

Nazi prison guards were allowed to kill Jews under the terms of their employment.
 
[quote name='camoor']Nazi prison guards were allowed to kill Jews under the terms of their employment.[/QUOTE]

Employment?

Not exactly the word I'd use for being in the NAZI army.
 
Someone making wild comparisons, such as comparing a walgreens employee with a nazi prison guard, shouldn't be the one calling people irrational and radical.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Someone making wild comparisons, such as comparing a walgreens employee with a nazi prison guard, shouldn't be the one calling people irrational and radical.[/QUOTE]

Forgive him. He gets very emotional whenever he sees a "system where individual people can interrupt the normal, established flow of commerce in the name of personally held beliefs" and no longer needs to make sense. He believes in capitalism, which according to him means that individuals (well at least religiously motivated nuts) are in some way responsible for the policies of the companies they work for.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Someone making wild comparisons, such as comparing a walgreens employee with a nazi prison guard, shouldn't be the one calling people irrational and radical.[/QUOTE]

Lol I guess it's a stretch.

I'm just trying to point out that just because your employer tells you it's OK, that does not make it OK by US law or any standard of medical ethics.

I mean, if you work in the medical industry and your employer tells that it's ok to replace someone's prescription with sugar pills if you don't think they are really sick, is that OK too?
 
[quote name='atreyue']Forgive him. He gets very emotional whenever he sees a "system where individual people can interrupt the normal, established flow of commerce in the name of personally held beliefs" and no longer needs to make sense. He believes in capitalism, which according to him means that individuals (well at least religiously motivated nuts) are in some way responsible for the policies of the companies they work for.[/QUOTE]

Do me a favor and don't speak for me, atreyue. You have enough problems defending your own position.
 
[quote name='camoor']Lol I guess it's a stretch.

I'm just trying to point out that just because your employer tells you it's OK, that does not make it OK by US law or any standard of medical ethics.

I mean, if you work in the medical industry and your employer tells that it's ok to replace someone's prescription with sugar pills if you don't think they are really sick, is that OK too?[/QUOTE]

But when an employee acts within the companies rules (taking the prescription and denouncing them obviously goes beyond that, but they weren't disciplined), the target should be the company, a boycott would be good but there should be clear laws preventing (not, we need a judge to interperate this) this from happening.

I wish they'd set it up like schools where, within reason, everyone had access to a hospital (which they essentially do as far as I know, money and insurance not withstanding), a place to handle abortions (hospital or a womens reproductive health clinic), and a pharmacy. And pharmacies should be required to carry certain drugs and to ensure that they were in stock, and not have the ability to deny them to customers. Then again, I'm considered a radical because I want what almost every other wealthy nation has, free health insurance, so my opinions don't seem to count much.
 
[quote name='camoor']Do me a favor and don't speak for me, atreyue. You have enough problems defending your own position.[/QUOTE]

Especially from your well thought out rational and intelligent rebuttals.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But when an employee acts within the companies rules (taking the prescription and denouncing them obviously goes beyond that, but they weren't disciplined), the target should be the company, a boycott would be good but there should be laws preventing this from happening.[/QUOTE]

I guess that I believe both the company and the pharmacist are at fault. The "just following policy" excuse doesn't hold much water with me.
 
[quote name='atreyue']Especially from your well thought out rational and intelligent rebuttals.[/QUOTE]

You said you wanted a mature debate. Why don't you start following your own advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top