Topic awaiting preservation: US pharmacists refusing to dispense prescriptions

Scary:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=633992

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/03/30/pharmacists_balk_at_filling_some_prescriptions_because_of_beliefs/

http://mediamatters.org/items/200503300002

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

And it appears its not just US pharmacists - it also happened in the UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=328236&in_page_id=1799&in_a_source=

Did I not notice when the world went mad?

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

WHAT!!!!

Trying to teach creationnism in school could be considered funny, but THAT is not. It's insane.
I hope the pharmacists in question will have to respond to the justice and their peers, and eventually see their authorization to sell drugs cancelled ( be it temporarilly ).

While it may be scary, they do have a right to refuse to do something which, to them, is immoral or unethical. First ammendment, free exercise of religion. If that free exercise inconveniences another temporailiy, it is unfortunate, but must be allowed without retibution, especially FROM THE STATE. Separation goes both ways.

On the flip side, one must consider a career change if their current employment, through societal changes over time, becomes compromising of their belief. Hmmm...

Guess it comes down to employer. If I OWN my own pharmacy, then I do as I please with my property and beliefs. If I work for another and cannot perform the job as they specify, I should be fired.

This one is a pickle, and either way it turns out, somebody is losing.

I'd just assume tell everyone to shut the fuck up and deal with our differences rather than rabbling on about shit all the time, calling big brother in to "fix" everything for us.

To the pharmicists: These are birth control pills, not morning after pills. Fill the damn prescriptions!

To the inconvenienced customer: Take your business elsewhere or ask for a different pharmicist.

Freedom takes tolerance and compromise. If we lose those traits, as it appears moreso everyday, there will be no freedom left.

Ramasax

Discussed here in part:
http://www.ozoneasylum.com/24103?&latestPost=true#latestPost

Ramasax: oddly enough, I am in total agreement with you...



{edit - though, just to be really nit-picky: the saying is "I'd just as soon..."

(Edited by DL-44 on 04-04-2005 04:13)

I guess there is a first for everything. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go look out my window to make sure there are no pigs in the sky.

Ramasax

Don't open your mouth while looking up Ram, I pretty much agree with you too.

Of course, I should as I said essentially trhe same thing elsewhere...so perhaps you are agreeing with me.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Yup. I also am in agreement with you Ram...damn flying pigs.

What about the Hippocratic Oath ?
Women going to a pharmacists to get their birth control ( or even morning after pill ) prescription go there because a doctor made that prescription for their well being. Pharmacists do not do diagnosis nor make prescriptions, they deliver them. And whatever their religious beliefs or moral, if they don't follow the rules of the order of the doctors, they should simply consider another career.

I don't see anyone saying anything to the contrary Poi....

Bottom line though is that a person going to get birth control pills is not someone in medical need, not someone in danger of sustaining injury or death for lack of these pills, and - while I agree the pharmacist(s) in question, if an employee of a company that does offer birth control drugs, needs to be dealt with accordingly by the company - the person needing the pills can very easily go somewhere else to get them.

No irreperable harm has been done by any means.

Sure but it's not the role of the pharmacists to determine if there is a medical need for birth control pills or any other drug. Their role is solely to dispense the prescriptions made by doctors. They can not, and are not competent to, discuss these prescriptions. They must fill them irregardless of their convictions. Yes the person needing pills can easily go somewhere else, but he/she do not have to.

On the other hand, I don't how it is abroad, but in France refusing to sell a good is not allowed. So the pharmacists refusing to sell a drug for which a patient has a prescription are breaking the law too.



(Edited by poi on 04-04-2005 18:18)

Generally the majority of these cases has ended in either a reprimand or outright firing of the pharmacist in question. It's generally a self policing issue.

quote:

---

First ammendment, free exercise of religion. If that free exercise inconveniences another temporailiy, it is unfortunate, but must be allowed without retibution, especially FROM THE STATE. Separation goes both ways.

---

Not really applicable here. Freedom of exercise of religion does not allow you to impinge the civil rights of others. Nor is there any protection for the employees making these decisions. However it doesn't seem there's been any real governemental involvement in these cases yet outisde of proposed legistation. Neither of which makes sense. I think they should have the right to refuse service and the employer should have the right to fire the people who do so.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

The problem I have with pharmacists refusing to fill legal prescriptions based on personal or religous beliefs... I'll try to explain in a no doubt, cumbersome, hypothetical..but you'll get the idea.

----------

The year is 2105. In Country 'X' Party 'Y' has just won an overwhelming majority. The 'Head' of Country X and all members of the now ruling party are Jehova Witnesses.

This party now sets about passing bullet proof legislation that outlaws blood transfusions.

Heart, lung, liver, kidney and virtually any major surgical intervention is now not simply, 'unlikely', there'll be no such surgery period.

The legislation also bans dispensation of 'any' blood related medication. People who've undergone heart transplants can no longer get the 'blood thinners'... etc.

Now, do I as the athiest pharmacist say, to hell with the laws governing my profession and the law of the land, and fill blood related prescriptions or do I, follow the 'law?'

Even tho' it is not legal to do so, my personal position is... 'fill it.'

Clearly my only option is to find a new profession.

----

So long as the drugs available are legal and legally prescribed it is not the place of a pharmacist nor anyone else to refuse dispensation.

And if you think my hypothetical is just tooo way out there... consider the laws that are still on the books from years ago... that when they surface we, today, just sit there and shake our heads....'man what were they thinking?

Fill'em up... or get out of the business. =)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Bottom line though is that a person going to get birth control pills is
not someone in medical need, not someone in danger of sustaining injury
or death for lack of these pills...

---

While I agree that there isn't much chance of death from not having a perscription for birth control pills filled, that's not to say that preventing pregnancy is the only reason for a woman to take them. In fact, the one and only time I was ever on birth control was at a time that I was not sexual active. I was a senior in HS and under enough stress that my cycles had shut down entirely, and I was put on birth control to regulate them. Stopping or restating a woman's cycles is the first reason I can think of, especially for a female that isn't regular. And those states can lead to longer term womans health issues down the line.

Pharmacists have no call to be judging why anyone, male or female, has been perscribed anything. What about perscriptions like Viagra or Cialis? Would a pharmacist refuse to fill those on moral grounds at all?

_____________________

coeur de feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

You never know Rhyssa. These religious freaks think it is pretty much OK to impose their narrow and often mindless beliefs on others will he nill he.

But, listen to them whine, snivil and scream when someone's civil rights are upheld to the denial of the religious right's ignorant views.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Ram, you nailed it. I agree.

The larger issue here is whether pharmacists are within their own rights to do this without government forcing them to act against their moral convictions. The government must not trample our rights because government abuse is far more dangerous than pharmacists acting in this way.

But if we were to take this question down to the personal level, we will probably get closer to the real issue. Would I, if I were a pharmacist, dispense "morning after pills" to customers? It's a tough call, but I think I would choose not to carry them in my pharmacy. Just as if I were a doctor, I would not perform abortions as a form of birth control.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Now, that is not unreasonable Bug.

Of course, you would have a sign advising all who enter that you do not carry certain products and so avoid any un-pleasant confrontations.

Would you sell cigarettes Bug?

As noted before though, if you carry a product you really have no right to refuse to sell it.

Hmm, the shelves might be a bit bare though Bug as certain cold medicines and other off-the-shelf medications can be used in certain combinations as abortificants. You would't want to carry any of those.

Come to think of it, there are so many things a pharmacy sells which could be used in a manner and for a purpose not found acceptable by persons of high moral suasion that I might encourage you instead to open a hardware store.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

But there are just a few products whose sole purpose is to terminate nacent human life. Those are the ones I would have a problem with.

Cigarettes? Sure, I would sell those, but not to minors. Would that be a problem to discriminate in that fashion?

I'm not opposed to people drinking or smoking as both of them are not necessarily harmful. It totally depends on who is using them and how. I would make the same argument for guns and probably a host of other products as you point out.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Cigarettes are not necessarily harmful? You must be a smoker.

Single biggest cause of heart disease and cancer.

Nictotine, in a test a number of years ago, was proven to be the most addictive drug known to man.

Far above and beyond mere psycholocial addictions, the study fond in some individuals as little as one puff could create a life-long addiction.

If you smoke, you are a drug addict, no different than the poorr raddled sod huddling under a piece of cardboard dreaming away his/her most recent fix.

I guess the way to get post legalized is for the pot growers to make huge political donations to various political parties as the cigarette companies do.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

I'm not a smoker, I'm just heavily influenced by facts. If you believe the anti-smoking propoganda (yes that's what much of it is), then you would think that the overwhelming majority of smokers die from smoking. But this is not the case. 33% of smokers will die prematurely from tobacco use. Now that is a lot of people and it is horrible, but if you look at it objectively you will see that it supports my statement that smoking is not necessarily harmful. It is a fact that the majority of smokers do not die from smoking. Abortificants, on the other hand, are solely designed to be harmful to the fetus.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Ok, then I guess the millions of smokers who die from this 'not necessarily' harmful addiction just don't matter since they are in the minority. Using that approach, abortificants shouldn't bother you at all because they "don't necessarily work" in all cases.

Besides, the profit margin on smokes is so much higher than the other and so many more people are addicted, where-as there is no recorded instance of anyone becoming addicted to abortificants.

So lets keep killing 33% of the population and addicting the rest who smoke. The charnal houses are making a killing in another sense of the world.

At the same time, lets deny birth-control and morning-after pills to women who may have been victimized by a broken condom or other faulty device, by rape or other sexual abuse.

Lets make certain they are forced to have a child they don't want and probably can't either handle or afford.

Lets condemn that child to a miserable life because some people just don't feel comfortable with that bit of reality, but do feel it is their right to impose their own narrow, uninformed and outmoded attitudes on others all the while screaming like banshees if their own perceived world is intruded on by the bright light of reason.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

you have points, etheist, certainly. But you are missing the main point.

What bugs is talking about is something specifically designed to kill a fetus. It will kill each fetus it is used upon. That's what it does.

What you are talking is something that incidentally kills *some* of the people who *choose* to use it.

Regardless of your feelings on that, there is a very significant difference.

Your feelings on the quality of life a child may have if not aborted is also irrelevant, and still has nothing to do with an idnividual's right to choose whether or not to sell a particular product (since that's the route the conversation is now taking).

The 2nd main point: your opinion in the legitimacy of the person's choice to sell or not sell a particular product is completely irrelevant. That's the whole point of this "freedom" thing. You can choose, I can choose, bugimus can choose, every religious right wing nut freak can choose as well.

Bugs can choose not to sell a product.

I can choose not to frequent his establishment.

~shrug~

sounds good to me.

^Amen.

One ALSO has the freedom to open one's own Pharmacy (with the appropriate license, of course) and sell the drugs, if it is such a bothersome issue.

I have no basic disagreement with you DL and niggling the fine points is unproductive. I was being deliberatly and exhorbitantly sarcastic.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Sure there was some sarcasm there... just a bit But aren't you arguing in favor of forcing your views on the populace through your government? That seems to be the implication to me. And if that is the case and it's ok for you to do so, then on what basis can you say it is wrong for others to do the same when they garner more political sway than your side?

The key point about freedom is that it is supposed to be a built in right of the people to prevent government, or at least hinder it, from curtailing too many of the citizen's freedoms.

And no one is killing 33% of smokers when one of the rights we have as free citizens is to use legal products when and how we choose to do so. And if the local store doesn't carry the product I want, I'll just find one that does.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Forcing views on others is exactly what the xian right is trying to do. Through pressure on the elected, through electing similarly infected representives, through economic pressure, through threats and acts of vilolence.

The government and the courts are increasingly becoming the only resource realists and free-thinkers have.

As the rabid xian right get more elected reps, they may appoint or elect more "right-thinking" judges and people who dare to have open-minded views may become increasingly marginalized.

However, even in the US, where religion is a bigger factor/issue than in Canada, I believe there are more people who are either agnostic, aethist, or just don't give a damn.

In the long run this will, I sincerely hope, keep the fundamentalist zealots at bay and prevent the realtive few from imposing their antiquated and destructive views on the majority.

I must repeat: I don't care what one believes so long as they don't try to force me to believe the same.

"Force" may be defined more specifically if you wish, however a hint of that was included in the earlier part of this post

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

Pharmacists are a bunch of whores.

What's next ?

Physicians will refuse to treat patients with STDs?
They will also refuse to treat pregnant single moms - the whores
They also will refuse to treat minorities - because God was white - at least from most pics we see.

That makes sense because they must be sinners right?


i'm drinking southern comfort and it tastes nice....

what are you guys drinking?

Barbadian Rum and classic Coke...the cola.

You make good points amd reflect my own.

If you have a "good" (thin-walled or crystal) glass "snifter"or similiar container. Fill it to the brim with finely crushed ice...pour the nectar of the godless (SC) over the ice untilit meets the surface of the ice. Swirl for abut 30 seconds. Let rest ( if you can stand the suspense) for a couple of minutes until a thin rime of frost forms on the exterior of your contaner.

Enjoy...if you have more than one, please remain seated after the the second one.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

~voice of Robert Newton.. best Long John Silver ever~

Ehthiest lad.. don't be payin' no mind what ya be hearin' from the lips of ol' ZDog there... that sweet corn likkers for fancy-boyz. Now why don't ya be comin' up on deck with yer ol' friend Silver here and we'll eye the moon on them quiet waters and I'll show ya that silver rivet I bin tellin ya 'bout.

I am grateful for the offer Nojive. Is that rivit on the deck and might I have to bend over to see it?

In which case, might you have to be positioned behind me (so as not to occlude the moonlight)?

Finally, if any or all of the above are requisite, may I see your "Certificate Of Divinity" from the Vatican in order that I may rest comfident in our lord christ, the mother mary and god almighty. that when you bugger me it will not mean I shall either be condemned to hell or languish for eternity in purgatory while you float with all serenity amongst the un-buggered boys in the cathloic heaven, adjacent the moslem buggerers?

Shall I expect an e-mai; response, or shall I anticipate a burning bush?

If I live in California, may I be forgiven if I do not find every burning bush a source of exstacy?

I await your loving response regardless of the form it takes.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Ehtheist: I was being deliberatly and exhorbitantly sarcastic.

---

Wow Ehtheist, that is so unlike you.

Concerning all the vague attacks on the alleged xian right and xians in general:
I think the main point of this topic, and many similar topics of our time, the bottom line, is freedom and the tolerance needed from people of all views to maintain such conditions. I think a lot of people forget what freedom truly is, or were never taught what it is out of complacency, and most importantly forget the very vital responsibility of free citizens to maintain it. Freedom to many in today's world seems to me just a buzzword that makes us fuzzy inside, but how many people truly give a moments thought to what it is, and equally as important for this current time, how easily it can be lost? It is more than a word, cheapened through political rhetoric, cheapened by those who routinely limit freedom through abuse of powers, cheapened by the leader of a nation with the highest prison population in the world, but a concept that all humanity must embrace and struggle for until all those who would usurp freedom have been removed from positions of power, or at least stifled and limited to a point where they can do no harm. If the power is there, the harm will be done.

You keep falling back into the pre-defined parameters of debate set forth for you by your masters without realizing it. Wake up man, there is no xian right, there is only a perception of such fed to you for the exact purpose and planned effect as it has on you. Contempt and division. You might find it telling that people writing and promoting this phony doctrine are having gay weddings and ODing on drugs. They are con-men, common criminals, nothing more, just as those on the false left are in the wares that they peddle.

You are being manipulated, just as many opposite you are, as I have been, used as a mouthpiece for an agenda which does not have your best interests, or the best interests of any common citizen, in mind. Manipulated into fighting with your brothers and sisters all the while there is a big pink elephant (no pun intended, could just as well be an ass) sitting in the middle of the room with his foot raised above all our heads. Break free!

The xian right, as you call it, is no different from any other corporatist lobbyists out there, left or right, with lots of monetary backing and ulterior motives one might add, who wish to impose their fake 'views' on the rest of their fellow citizens. The ultimate goal is control and manipulation of citizenry into a global consumerist society where culture is erased and replaced with logos, belief is stifled, the fruits of our labor raped from us, and where we think we are free, but fail to hear the chains rattling around our ankles. Regardless of what front is being used, or who they claim to represent, whether religious or otherwise, these people's minds are elsewhere, the results of their agendas all equal the same loss of freedom for one group or another, and the people under them are simply being taken for a ride; useful idiots.

There is no right-wing and there is no left-wing as it is portrayed to us through the vast media empires. There are simply people being fooled into a false paradigm who must be awakened to the larger reality. Which brings me to what I was getting at in your case: Would it not be easier to awaken people under the unfluence through education and serious conversation rather than through vague generalizations which serve no purpose but to incite division; thus harming the freedom of us all?

*shrugs*

Ramasax

quote:

---

NoJive said:

that sweet corn likkers for fancy-boyz

---

did i mention that i was chasing that SC with beer?, and not the swill you american's drink, i'm talking about potent canuck brew. yeah molson ex with some rubbing alcohol thrown in for good measure..now's that's a man combo.

quote:

---

not the swill you american's drink,

---

Not me said he from BC.

quote:

---

i'm talking about potent canuck brew.

---

Yes... your mother always thanked me for introducing her to that.

Beer? That crap ain't beer, a criminal chemical concoction rather.

Mini-brews, natural aging (no chemicals) no preservatives. Try it, has real flavour and the after effects are not nearly so violent.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Mini-brews, natural aging (no chemicals) no preservatives.

---

sorry but microbrewery shit?
no preservatives??

sounds gay or yuppie to me.
I'll stick to canadian mass produced brew....stick the glass in the freezer...add some radiator coolant....yummy

quote:

---

NoJive said:

your mother always thanked me for introducing her to that

---

Daddy?????

Neither gay (not that there is anything wrong with that) nor yuppie.

Beer they way is was meant to be brewed and in fact was until they started making additives and adding them.

The taste and flavour are so far and away better than the chemical sludge molsons and those criminals put out, you will think you have gone to beer heaven.

Besides, they way you drink beer you won't need to worry about shelf-life.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Daddy?????

---

~raising his glass high~

"Here's to the brothers of different mothers"

quote:

---

and not the swill you american's drink, i'm talking about potent canuck brew. yeah molson ex

---

piss is piss, down here or up there

If you're going to condemn swill, at least drink something that can be rightly called beer.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:
Neither gay (not that there is anything wrong with that) nor yuppie.

---

That's not what NoJive told me, after he exposed his silver rivet to your backside on the HMS CornBall.
He also said you were wearing a Polo Golf Shirt with Top Siders and held on tightly to a Gucci man-purse as the boat swayed back and forth, back and forth, faster..faster

No-jive lies! It is an erotic dream he shall never fulfill as wheel-chairs don't do well on tossing decks.

There are also american "Cottage" or micro-breweries which turn out an acceptable product.

A friend of mine once turned up a case of Labatts 50, which had somehow got shuffled away behind some boxes for over 10 years! He chilled it and pronounced it every bit the same as a freshly (if that term can be applied) brewed bottle of the same beer.

This should scare the hell out anyone who knows anything about beer.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

"Beer... not just for breakfast anymore."

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

american "Cottage" or micro-breweries

---

Mmm mmm mmm...yummy.. cottage cheese blended in with beer, whipped into a brewer's frenzy, nice white cheesy frothy head...now you're talking.

"Beer..with little chocolate donuts...the breakfast of champions"


They wasted o'er a scorching flame
The marrow of his bones;
But a miller us'd him worst of all,
For he crush'd him between two atones.

And they hae taen his very hero blood
And drank it round and round;
And still the more and more they drank,
Their joy did more abound.

John Barleycorn was a hero bold,
Of noble enterprise;
For if you do but taste his blood,
'Twill make your courage rise.

quote:

---

John Barleycorn

---

Funny what triggers the ol' memory banks. John Barleycorn?? Why does 'nicotine' come to mind??

And if you mention anything about age.... I'll hang you out.

Let It Out (Let It All Hang Out)
The Hombres

[Written by Cunningham]

(Spoken)
A preachment, dear friend
You are about to receive on John Barleycorn
Nicotine and the temptations of Eve

No parkin' by the sewer sign
Hot dog, my razors broke
Water drippin' up the spout
But I dont care, let it all hang out

Hangin' from a pine tree by my knees
Sun is shinin' through the shade
Nobody knows what its all about
It's too much, man, let it all hang out

Saw a man walkin' upside down
My T.V.s on the blink
Made Galileo look like a Boy Scout
Sorry 'bout that, let it all hang out

Sleep all day, drive all night
Brain my numb, can't stop now
For sure ain't no doubt
Keep an open mind, let it all hang out

It's rainin' inside a big brown moon
How does that mess you baby up, leg
Eatin' a Reuben sandwich with sauerkraut
Don't stop now, baby, let it all hang out

Let it all hang out
Let it all hang out
Let it all hang out

*o*

Do beleive this is what they call a 'hijacking.'

quote:

---

NoJive said:

what triggers the ol' memory banks. John Barleycorn??

---

i based it on Traffic's song, still about the harvest

some variations have it about beer...

"The drunkard served him worst of all

and pissed him against the wall"

quote:

---

NoJive said:

Do beleive this is what they call a 'hijacking.'

---

uh..as I was saying, Pharmacists have no right to keep Pregnant women from buying beer.

quote:

---

uh..as I was saying, Pharmacists have no right to keep Pregnant women from buying beer.

---

I agree completely. It is shameful.

Couldn't find the original audio to 'let it all hangout' but did find this. Parts remind me of 'teacher teacher leave'.... etc. and I do prefer the drawn out voice of the original... but still, this is pretty cool.

http://www.the-nails.com/video.html


I think we may have to start a petition to stop these damn pharmacists.

I have no idea where you could find the nails version *cough* p2p *cough.

Maybe on iTUnes? or the new pay per song Napster?
*cough* p2p *cough*

They were playing Turn the Page - Seger or Metallica - i think i prefer Seger 's live version

I don't understand these pharmacists - what's next? will they refuse to sell Heavy Metal in their stores - on the ground that Metallica are Satanists?...the bastards...

Hmmm... must investigate.

The following ..clearly illustrates why pharmacists must be held in check.

A lady walks into a drug store and tells the pharmacist she needs some cyanide. The pharmacist said, "Why in the world do you need cyanide?"

The lady then explained she needed it to poison her husband. The pharmacist's eyes got big and he said, "Lord, have mercy - I can't give you cyanide to kill your husband! That's against the law! I'll lose my licence! They'll throw both of us in jail and all kinds of bad things will happen!! Absolutely not, you CANNOT have cyanide!"

The lady reached into her purse and pulled out a picture of her husband in bed with the pharmacist's wife.

The pharmacist looked at the picture and replied, " Well, now. You didn't tell me you had a prescription!"


A dangerous and most secretive guild... if there's ever been one.

quote:

---

NoJive said:
A dangerous and most secretive guild

---

This could shed some light on this shady profession.

A woman walks into a U.S. pharmacy, fills a prescription for birth control pills then walks out of the store laughing hysterically.

The woman pharmacist thinks this is weird, but, hey, there's no law preventing weird people from taking birth control pills even though the Vactican explicitly forbids it. Who knows, maybe it's a good thing.
The next day, the same woman comes back to the store, purchases some genital herpes cream, and once again she leaves the store laughing wildly.

This piques the interest of the woman pharmacist.
"What's could be so funny about buying a genital herpes cream anyway?" So she tells her clerk "If this chick ever comes back, I want you to follow her to see where she goes."

Sure enough, the next day the same woman is back, she buys vaginal anti-fungal tablets, and again starts cracking up with laughter, then leaves. The pharmacist tells her clerk, go follow the gal.

About an hour later, the clerk comes back to the store. "Did you follow her? Where did she go?" asks the pharmacist.

The clerk replies "Your house."

.....those bastard U.S. non-dispensing pill pharmacists

edit: spilled cheese from microbrew all over keyboard sending sparks flying everywhere



edit again: too much SC on ice

even more edits: incoherent, can't even find keys on whatever that thing is called

(Edited by ZaddyDog on 04-17-2005 03:21)

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

The government and the courts are increasingly becoming the only resource
realists and free-thinkers have.

---

Yes. Thanks for your honesty. Actually, I don't even criticize that approach necessarily. I just wanted to hear from you that you do advocate forcing your views of life onto others through the means at your disposal.

And I don't mean to say that you intend to interfere with everything others do but when push comes to shove, it is either your way or someone else's and the means we have in our two countries is the democratic process (however marginalized that has actually become).

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Bug,

As is often the case with zealots, you got the pod and missed the pea.

So I shall spell it out to you since you are either unable (which I doubt) or unwilling (which I suspect) to either see the scripture on the wall or interpret it properly.

If one has to resort to the courts to uphold their civil rights on such matters as abortion, for instance, then it is not they who are trying to force their views on others. The courts will uphold (so far) their rights to abortion, birth control, being gay etc while the xian faction tries to impose THEIR beliefs on millions who don't agree.

It really is a 'wag the dog' scenario since even in the US, non-xians outnumber xians.

On the matter of pharmicists, they will without refuse to sell heavy metal as such metals have long since proven deleterious to human health...except in small quantities in cigarettes of course.

On the matter of SC; Get a thin-walled glass or crystal brandy snifter of copious capacity. Fill it with crushed ice...float the ice with SC...enjoy.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

(Edited by Ehtheist on 04-17-2005 06:49)

Bug,

As is often the case with zealots, you got the pod and missed the pea.

So I shall spell it out to you since you are either unable (which I doubt) or unwilling (which I suspect) to either see the scripture on the wall or interpret it properly.

If one has to resort to the courts to uphold their civil rights on such matters as abortion, for instance, then it is not they who are trying to force their views on others. The courts will uphold (so far) their rights to abortion, birth control, being gay etc while the xian faction tries to impose THEIR beliefs on millions who don't agree.

It really is a 'wag the dog' scenario since even in the US, non-xians outnumber xians.

On the matter of pharmicists, they will without refuse to sell heavy metal as such metals have long since proven deleterious to human health...except in small quantities in cigarettes of course.

On the matter of SC; Get a thin-walled glass or crystal brandy snifter of copious capacity. Fill it with crushed ice...float the ice with SC...enjoy.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

I was referring to you favoring legislation that would compel independently operated pharmacies to carry products they didn't want to. I was not referring to whether or not citizens had a civil right to abortion. Do you see the difference?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Hmm, ya got me...I don't recall exactly saying that Bug. I do recall saying if the store carries the product they should have someone on staff who will provide the product/service advertised or avalable. If not, then the person refusing to do so, for whatever reason, should be fired, re-habilitated or sent to the cosmetic department.

I am in agreement with your suggestion anyone not willing to dispense, should not carry the product. I don't suggest they should by law be required to carry the product. However any place which does not carry the controversial product should, in all fairness, post a large sign in the windows, on the roof and over the doors stating; "We are intolerant of anyone who holds religious views other than ours".

That seems fair, honest and totally unacceptable to the average business person.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

I got the impression you favored government intervention. I am sorry if I put words in your mouth

Putting a sign up seems like a reasonable thing to do and I suppose I would consider doing that if I were running a pharmacy. And if you want to call advocating a higher moral ground "intolerant" then that is entirely your prerogative and I respect your right to hold that view.

I call it a "higher moral ground" because living according to principle as opposed to expediency is just that. I think that atheists and theists can find some commonality on "good" morals for society. This, in my view, should be one of them and that is upholding the sanctity of human life whenever we can. Personally, I would extend that to other life forms as well and that is why I no longer eat animals. I think that we must strive to protect and foster life as much as possible because it really is such a fragile thing after all.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Pease Bug, tell me why YOUR point of view is "Higher"?

While you are at it please elucidate why "higher" is or should be better.

The only realistic circumstance which comes immediately to mind is...meat!

Yah, I know, one gets a better view the higher one is (lets leave out the drug aspect of 'higher' shall we?{sorry nojive and others}).

In animal flesh, the parts close to the ground generally have more flavour, the parts higher up are easier on the teeth.

Interesting philosophical parrallel:

The more realistic one is, the more solid (chewy) the reality.

The 'higher' on the beast one gets, the easier the masticating and the less substance.

Tenderloin, beef or pork, is seldom served on it's own merits.

It is usually served with sauces or bacon or other things which will give it additional flavour...because it lacks much of it's own.

BTW, I can bring out the best in both without any enhancements...it is part of the realization one enjoys by being a realist.

For me, neither you nor anyone else need apologize for anything one says.

Occasionally I may violate my own rule, but for the most part, I speak my mind and care not if others choose to feel offended.

I never, well not yet, feel offended by other people's opinions in general or of me in particular. This is most especially true on forums, but no less so in my personal life.

A strenous opposite opinion will not, in my world, be cconstituted as a personal attack.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

I call it a "higher moral ground" because living according to principle as opposed to expediency is just that.

---

One does NOT automatically have the "higher moral ground" just because one is religious, or not.

Many have and keep principles that are not religious (like myself).

A perception or set of rules that one follows does NOT automatically give one a "higher moral ground" either.

I seem to remember, in threads of yore, I asked you, Bugs, what you think you would do and become, if you lost your faith. You suggested that you would "degenerate" into something other than what you are now. I found that then pretty assinine, and still do. You should follow what you believe in not because you think it will bring you something latter (like some sort of reward, etc), but because it is a part of you and you choose to follow such out of your own free will.

In that sense, there is no way one can "lose" this. I have keep my core rules despite losing my faith. The reason? Because my core rules are a part of myself. To deny and not follow them, would mean that I am not being myself, anymore.

quote:

---

Ehtheist said:

Pease Bug, tell me why YOUR point of view is "Higher"?

While you are at it please elucidate why "higher" is or should be better.

---

So on what basis do I consider it higher? The reason the one I advocate is higher is because the creator of the universe says so. This is my firm belief as you already are aware. I know this sounds stupid and childish but it really isn't *if* the creator really exists. My actions are based on the firm belief that he does exist and knowledge of him comes from the bible. I believe that the creator of everything including ourselves would have absolute authority in this regard.

Why should "higher" be better? Actually that brings up a point I've mentioned so often during these discussions. I agree with you! Without some reason or method to determine what is higher compared to something else, who can make a judgement? Without a standard it seems to me that everything is relative.

[edit]
I think it really needs pointing out right here that is why I favor a secular government. I know many of my fellow theists don't agree with that but we're talking about my views at the moment and not theirs. I fully endorse the kind of government that our founding fathers came up with. It is a system that looks for that common ground that allows each citizen to live their life as they see fit without intervention especially when it comes to religious belief. In my view, this is an extremely imperfect world and the best we can do is a secular government with an ethical populace.
[/edit]

But in spite of that logical conclusion, I think that theists and non theists can find common principles, morals, ethics, etc that can be agreed upon and that hopefully improve the way we interact with one another. I was specifically relating that to the concept of holding human life in very high regard and finding ways to protect and nurture it as opposed to disregarding it.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

To deny and not follow them, would mean that I am not being myself, anymore.

---

WS, I vividly remember the comments you're referring to about what I would do if I found out for sure there was no god. Degenerate wouldn't be an accurate word there, would it? I think you'll see that it is exactly what you say about being yourself. Here is the final sentence of the formal debate:

quote:

---

Put simply, I would live for *me*.

---

I laid this life into an early grave and taken on a new one as Christ lives through me. As Paul put it, I die daily to myself so that I might live for God. What that means practically is that I live according to another set of principles than the ones I would choose if it were just about my biological imperative as the lead singer from Devo once put it.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 04-17-2005 16:26)

Interetsing report about what happens when the only pharmacist in a remote area won't stock any kind of birth control:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/australasia/story.jsp?story=630153

Also top marks for rampant self-publicity from the sex shop owner

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Man, that was priceless Emps - thanks for posting it.

I disagree with you, Bugs, vehemently. I believe that you can still have high principles and live according to rules, without your faith. In fact, I have found life to be even better, without having faith in the way.

I do understand your point, and I know it is your opinion and belief. I am just someone who has been through all that, and I am evidence thereof, that one can still keep the principles and rules, without the faith being a part of it.

Well Bug, despite your other indications of rationality, you are telling us you are an elitest.

I will grant you special dispensation though for admitting it.

The problem with your position, as expressed above is, it is entirely based upon interpretation, by man.

Since the religious keep telling us that though we are created in the image of god we are imperfect (which logically says god is imperfect), then that interpretation is, in itself, imperfect.

Which, without going into a long drawn-out explanation, can only lead to the conclusion you are living a lie, while those who live good lives, treat others well and don't screw the neighbours wife, husband or dog, without the intercession of your mythology, are living honestly.

That you are willing to allow a secular government may be seen as generous or condescending. In any event, we need such a government to protect us from the terminally religious.

I see the only evangelist in the US not yet caught in any embarassing legal contretemps is suffering from parkinson's.

Nice reward for a life-time devoted to his god.

Billy Graham...I wonder who pays his taxes?

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

I think that theists and non theists can find common principles, morals, ethics, etc that can be agreed upon

---

Look at the clergy's track record for buggery and pedophilia.

Locally, here in this part of Canada, we have the Duplessis Orphans -abused by Nuns.

quote:

---

Now adults, the Duplessis Orphans describe childhoods marked by abuse and imprisonment

---

And we have the role the Vatican played in the Holocaust. Only recently did the Pope apologize.

So ....as a non theist, I would prefer not to espouse the morals and ethics of the theists.

Too true, after all, it is what you do, not what you say which carries weight.

The refusal by the various churches to take meaningful action on the priest-pedophile issue speaks volumes.

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." -- Lucretius, Roman Poet (94 - 55 BCE)

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

...one can still keep the principles and rules, without the faith being a part of it.

---

WS, I really am at a loss for why you think I was saying otherwise. I acknowledge that you don't have to be religious to have morals. My point really was trying to pull us all together to support a common set of morals so that we can at least agree on those in how we live our civic lives together. I know you have principles and that goes for most of the people on this board. I mentioned in another thread not too long ago that some of the most principled and morality obsessed people I've known have been atheists.

Ehtheist, being an elitist has no relationship whatsoever with rationality. One can be a completely rational or irrational elitist. Am I one? Your call I suppose, I certainly don't consider myself one. I have done nothing to deserve my membership in the kingdom of God and therefore I have no basis whatsoever in feeling superior to anyone who isn't in that kingdom. In fact, I do my best to serve others as a result of my membership as opposed to lording some false sense of importance over them.

quote:

---

Since the religious keep telling us that though we are created in the image of god we are imperfect (which logically says god is imperfect), then that interpretation is, in itself, imperfect.

---

It does not necessarily follow that a creator god would be imperfect if he created beings capable of imperfection. It is a possible conclusion but not a necessary one. I don't understand why you say that logically this makes god imperfect too

Is human interpretation imperfect? Sure it is. I've never argued that we know it all, only that we must strive to know as much and as accurately as we can. I don't see any acceptable alternatives to this approach when it comes to coming to a faith based on biblical principles.

Paul mentions in one of his letters that we understand and teach these things with only a partial grasp on the full truth. There are countless areas in life where we don't wait to know the absolute perfect truth before acting on the key aspects that are known. Look at science, for instance. We go with what we know based on our current theories, until we learn otherwise with the collection of new data. It should be no different for a true believer in the gospel. I had a friend who used to insult people he argued with by telling them to "go with what you know". But that actually makes a good deal of sense considered in the right context.

quote:

---

Nice reward for a life-time devoted to his god.

---

I have to say that this is a seriously ignorant statement but I suspect you know better and are just being irreverent for kicks. But if you are serious, then please show me where in Xian scripture it teaches the faithful will be spared suffering and death on this earth.

ZaddyDog, there is absolutely no excuse for the sinful acts you point out; none whatsoever.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

WS, I vividly remember the comments you're referring to about what I would do if I found out for sure there was no god. Degenerate wouldn't be an accurate word there, would it? I think you'll see that it is exactly what you say about being yourself.

---

Though I know you mean what wold happen in your case, and that this is your opinion, I disagree with it.

I don't see the losing of the faith but the keeping and adapting of the principles to be degenerating. I see it as the opposite.

At first, there is much "degenerating", if you will (because your entire world-view has been thrown into chaos), but after awhile, the human mind strains for stability. There is much soul searching (well, for me there was).

Those principles that were in me before, now not locked to faith, became much more logical and made more sense for the good of common mankind. Not for god, or gods.

Therein lies the difference, and the key, IMHO. I'm not just living life for *me* - I'm living life according to us.

(Edited by WebShaman on 04-21-2005 07:55)

I see. Choosing to live one's life to benefit the species is another approach, yes. I do not think I would waste my time with that, however, if I were to lose my faith in God. I don't see the benefit in that approach so perhaps you can help me understand that better. Please keep in mind that what I'm describing in no way rules out doing nice things for those I love such as family and friends. Because if you remember my original comments I said that I would do just about anything, ranging from debauchery to philanthropy, to take my mind off of the fact that my life was void of purpose and I would fade into oblivion in only a few short years on this planet.

Here's another one you can help me with... Do you think the god you used to follow wanted something other than good things for humankind?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Do you think the god you used to follow wanted something other than good things for humankind?

---

I used to think the god that I used to follow had a mysterious purpose that only it knew, and quite frankly, we were just things used to accomplish this.

The bible documents this very well, again and again.

quote:

---

Choosing to live one's life to benefit the species is another approach, yes. I do not think I would waste my time with that, however, if I were to lose my faith in God. I don't see the benefit in that approach so perhaps you can help me understand that better.

---

You do not?

Why not?

The betterment of Mankind is a driving force in all of us. We attempt to make things better for our offspring. A better tomorrow.

quote:

---

Choosing to live one's life to benefit the species is another approach

---

We all do this, to some extent or another. We follow laws, designed to benefit the group, and the species, to some extent or another. And of course, I am not perfect, but I tend to follow along these lines. In the long run, it benefits both me, and others (including the species).

I tend to take a longer view of things.

I would rather have the lasting benefits of the long run, than the short lived benefits of the now - which mostly have negative effects in the long run.

Ehtheist,

I dread the thought of you having a gun permit.

I dread the thought of you being elected to high office.

I dread the thought of you handling the views, opinions and education of your offsprings or other people's impresionable offsprings.

You are truly are a person filled with anger and anguish against the world as a whole and everybody in it. Most anyway.

Lay off the 'xian', will you? Or go f**king shoot yourself using the gun I hope you at least don't have a permit for. You'll make the world a better place.

Did some member of the clergy sodomize you whence you came from?

SAD, there are ways, and then there are ways, of expressing oneself.

I would hope that in the future, you will refrain from such remarks

quote:

---

Or go f**king shoot yourself using the gun I hope you at least don't have a permit for. You'll make the world a better place

---

That is uncalled for.

It is one thing to express your opinion. That is fine. And if you opinion is strong, I expect that you will express it strongly. But there is a civilized way of doing so, without suggesting that someone go kill themselves because you are not in agreement with their views.

Let us try to be a little more civil, ok?

quote:

---

You are truly are a person filled with anger and anguish

---

quote:

---

go f**king shoot yourself...You'll make the world a better place.

---

hmm.....who is filled with anger?

[Edit - double post]

(Edited by WebShaman on 05-19-2005 14:08)

I have to agree. Those are some extreme comments, SAD. I think Ehtheist's comments are pretty inflamatory but they all seem to stay within the bounds of reasonable discourse for a religious/political debate. One debate tactic is to throw your opponent off by making them mad and emotional and I suspect that many of his comments are made in that fashion.

BTW, where is he? I can't wait to see his response to this

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I'm of the opinion that if a person's religion affects their ability to function appropriately in a given role, then that role should be taken from them.

While you are given freedom of religious expression, the rest of us are denied basic services, or the right to not be accosted on the street by a screaming fanatic, or given (basically) less freedoms in order to accommodate your sensibilities.

Why don't you all just go practice your faith in private, as I conduct my affairs likewise? It seems so important to you that your backward values are enforced upon everybody else. Is that what your religious freedom grants you? The right to dictate the constraints of another's liberty?

And what do you think is going to happen when that female is denied birth control? She's still going to make her life choices, but now she's more likely to become pregnant (leading to another abortion, perhaps) or to contract a disease.

It isn't logical, it isn't right, it isn't fair, and it does not constitute freedom of religious expression. It is simply bare-faced ignorance.

I agree that it seems silly to have 'Big Brother' force a pharmacist to do their job properly. They should just be fired.

... I am not a catholic.
I believe in God because I want to, not because of what the church says or does. This is irrelevant. I do not believe in the church. I believe God and the church are 2 distinct things. Please excuse my outburst.
My question to you is this: how do christians try to enforce their value upon you, substitute yours with theirs, where they differ? Perhaps it is the church that seems to do this. And you, in your ignorance, go on to rave and rant how 'Xians' are the scourge of the earth... how many of you (what was the expression?) 'free thinkers' have opened the bible to at least be able to truthfully claim you know what you are talking about? It may not seem to you that your choice of words and tone are offensive but they are. Some are.

(Edited by sonyafterdark on 05-20-2005 12:50)

quote:

---

how many of you (what was the expression?) 'free thinkers' have opened to at least be able to truthfully claim you know what you are talking about?

---

Maybe you could state that a bit more clearly? I have no idea what you are asking here.

I am more familiar with the bible and with christianity than the majority of christians I have known.

I know it is comforting to think that people who oppose your views are just ignorant - but you will find that is not the case quite often.

It is hardly an ignorant view to see christianity as a scourge - it has proven itself to be so in many many ways.

You, and others, hold your religion to be seperate from the church. That is all well andn good, but it is not that way on a large scale. Christianity is defined - rightly or not - by the people who comprise its ranks, and by their actions.

Now I have pointed out many times myself the good that christianity brought to the world in many ways.

But the good does not cancel out the evil.

I think everyone has also passed over the use of birth control as a medical aid. For example, some women have irregular periods and use birth control to regulate them. Otherwise, they will have to endure excruciating pain. More seriously, some might run the risk of ectoptic pregnancies*, weak and insufficient uterin walls, or any of hundreds of other things. Shall a woman be forced into virginity for her entire life if she wants to avoid an ectoptic pregnancy? Are we to place pharmacists or doctors on the throne of moral decision? Unless each operate objectively and anticipate mature and thoughtful use of medical aid, they run the risk of endangering lives. Besides, wouldn't it be a more a benevolent universe view if Christians assumed that people would find God through his works and not their own? Let's not try to legislate or take power in a situation that involves damaging and endangering the lives of others.


*Progesterone birth control increases the risk of ectoptic pregnancies, so do IUDs, but there are many other options which prevent pregnancy in a woman with a clinical disorder.

(Edited by kilobrett on 06-03-2005 21:32)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

I am more familiar with the bible and with christianity than the majority of
christians I have known.

---

You mean all the stuff that is *wrong* with the Bible, and all the stuff that Christians don't want to know about Christianity, right?

There are lots of people who call themselves Christian out there, but aren't really Followers of the Way. And some of them, even some real Christians too (cause I've done it before) do bad things. It isn't fair for all Christians to get a bad name for it, but DL is right, that is what happens.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD

Oh, and SAD, the Church is not an organization. The Christian Church is the entire body of believers from the first to the last, least to the greatest, worst to the best. So, remember that you are a part of all the good and bad this Church has done, from past to present to future, when you are degrading us.

"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD