Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: New Slogans 24

Journal by pudge

Washington has a bill about the right of pharmacists to not dispense pills they dislike (namely, so-called "emergency contraception"). I've come up with a slogan for the pro-choice groups who oppose the bill, saying that pharmacists should be required to provide the medication: "Keep the government out of our lives [unless we are pharmacists]."

Or a slogan for the pharmacists: "My pharmacy, my choice."

And please, all you out there who complain about the "religious right" wanting the government to tell people what to do, remember how this is one of many issues where it is the left, not the right, who wants the government to tell people what to do.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Slogans More

New Slogans

Comments Filter:
  • The pharmacists are failing to do their jobs. They should be fired. No need for regulation.
    • The pharmacists are failing to do their jobs.

      No, they are not, quite obviously.

      They should be fired.

      When you own the pharmacy, you can fire them. Obviously, the people who own the pharmacies see fit not to. If they were not doing their jobs as you claim, they WOULD be fired, and you're right, there would no issue. But there is.

      No need for regulation.

      On this, we agree.
      • So you oppose the so-called freedom of conscience laws [ncsl.org] passed by some states that bar pharmacies from requiring their employees to dispense all legal drugs?
        • Yes, that should be a company issue, not a government issue.
        • bingo. it is an isue between the person paying the bills and the person behind the counter. Not between some paper pusher (via the voters) to decide what someone has to sell you. Note the difference; a willing transaction exchanging goods for other goods or services; a governmentally mandated transaction exchanging goods for goods or services. We are not a communist country. We have a free market. That means if someone does not want to sell you something, and absent a contract that specifis the future

        • I am in complete agreement with pudge in opposing those laws. The pharmacy owner gets to set policy. Any other way is immoral.

          • It's pretty firmly established by now that the process of running a pharmacy is heavily regulated by the government for the purpose of ensuring that the best interests of the consumer are met. The argument that they should get to second-guess the medical field on what is best for certain patients is a dangerous precedent to set.

            From the exact same platform as this controversy's, one can argue that it is "immoral" to stock and dispense chemicals which alter the brain's behavior, so pharmacists shouldn't have

            • You cannot, however, just arbitrarily declare your own laws later in the game

              Which is why you cannot just arbitrarily declare that it is illegal for a pharmacy to not stock or provide certain medications, as you are trying to do.

              • Which is why you cannot just arbitrarily declare that it is illegal for a pharmacy to not stock or provide certain medications, as you are trying to do.

                Well, Congress can declare anything illegal that they want to declare illegal. They can make it illegal for pharmacists to wear clothing to work if they want to. It may or may not stick. However, my point wasn't to argue over the constitutionality of the law, merely to point out that there is already a firmly established interest in government oversight, a

                • Well, Congress can declare anything illegal that they want to declare illegal.

                  No, it cannot. Well, it can declare it, but it can't necessarily enforce it. For example, it cannot ban abortion (at least, not right now ...).

                  They can make it illegal for pharmacists to wear clothing to work if they want to.

                  No, it cannot.

                  It may or may not stick.

                  "Stick"? It would never go into effect. It would be shot down immediately by the courts before it ever took effect, and no one would follow the law, and no one would e

                  • While we're on the subject, do I have a right to purchase my pharmaceuticals from a pharmacist who agrees with my moral reservations? Because if it were made illegal to choose not to sell certain drugs based on those reservations, everyone who shares those reservations would exit the industry.

                    • Is it "OK" for a business to choose not to sell t-shirts made in 3rd world countries by 10 year old girls working 15 hours a day because of "moral reservations"?

                      The answer is, of course, YES! Because a business is free sell/service or NOT sell/service whatever they want (with notable exceptions).

                      Private businesses are NOT public servants. If there's such a great outcry, the public will spend its money elsewhere.
                  • No, it cannot. Well, it can declare it, but it can't necessarily enforce it. For example, it cannot ban abortion (at least, not right now ...).
                    Congress can most certainly make any law it wants. If Congress wants to pass a law requiring all people to wear KKK hoods in public, they can do that. The point being made here is that Congress can do just about any assinine thing it wants, but if what it does is illegal, it will be shut down by the courts.

                    The relevancy to the topic at hand is that if Congress (or an

            • one can easily argue that a pharmacist has the "right" to bottle whatever random chemicals he wants and sell them to people, so long as he doesn't misrepresent them.

              Uh, he does. Or should.

            • It's pretty firmly established by now that the process of running a pharmacy is heavily regulated by the government for the purpose of ensuring that the best interests of the consumer are met.

              That's deceptive. The point of the regulation is to ensure the SAFETY of the consumer, not some vague notion of "best interests."

              The argument that they should get to second-guess the medical field on what is best for certain patients is a dangerous precedent to set.

              It's a long-established one. We already protect the

              • The point of the regulation is to ensure the SAFETY of the consumer, not some vague notion of "best interests."

                There are a lot of regulations in place to protect the interests of consumers that have little or nothing to do with safety. Ostensibly, this law would fall under one of them, but it's up to the courts to decide that in the end.

                We already protect the rights of doctors to not perform abortions, for example.

                Citation? Are you referring to the Weldon Amendment, which is less than three years old

                • There are a lot of regulations in place to protect the interests of consumers that have little or nothing to do with safety.

                  Not in regard to pharmacies, no. It is all about safety.

                  Ostensibly, this law would fall under one of them, but it's up to the courts to decide that in the end.

                  No, this has nothing to do with the courts, as noted in the previous post.

                  Citation? Are you referring to the Weldon Amendment, which is less than three years old?

                  No. This has been common practice in most states for decades. I'
                  • Right, so what's your beef?
                    Hell if I know, you're the one that keeps trying to assign one to me. I was merely pointing out that the justification for these laws is very likely the fact that government has asserted a duty to manipulate free markets for the purpose of protecting consumers in various ways. I haven't actually formed a complete opinion on the matter. I don't like the idea of government meddling in private business without an exceptionally good reason, but I also don't have any practical objectio
                    • Let's see, "G(-)ostly"... atheistic beliefs, posting in predominantly right wing journal entries, trying to obfuscate points and argue over semantics... a JE about Trolling Slashdot.... a nick resembling your gh-sts site...

                      A zebra can't change it's stripes - and apparently neither can you.

                      It's been awhile, the_mad_poster. Hope you're doing well. Heard you got married recently. Congratulations.

                    • I was merely pointing out that the justification for these laws is very likely the fact that government has asserted a duty to manipulate free markets for the purpose of protecting consumers in various ways.

                      Not in various ways, no. In regard to pharmacies, such duty is in regard to safety.

                      the rights of customers to go through with their own personal medical decisions outweigh the moral objections of others

                      Exactly.

                      I don't think people should necessarily be forced to fulfill other people's decisions

                      Exactly.

                      b

                    • I've never heard of a doctor, by law, being forced to perform an abortion...

                      I'm sure I've never heard of a lot of things that happen none-the-less.

                      Wow. For a person who was demanding a citation to prove something was law, that's a hilarious response.

                    • If said only that you do not see the life in the womb as having value, which I stand by. If you did see it as having value, you would not call it callous to refuse to aid in destroying it.


                      I'm sorry, but if you're going to make up slanderous statements about me, we cannot have a civil discussion. Maybe I'll swing back through and try talking with you on a less contentious subject some time.
                    • I'm sorry, but if you're going to make up slanderous statements about me, we cannot have a civil discussion.

                      I did no such thing. First, because I made nothing up. Are you really going to deny that you think the life to be destroyed by the pill has no rights, after saying it is "immoral" and "callous" to want to protect its rights?

                      Second, slander is spoken; if I defamed you, it would be libel.

                      Maybe I'll swing back through and try talking with you on a less contentious subject some time.

                      Don't bother. If yo

Slashdot Top Deals

C++ is the best example of second-system effect since OS/360.

Close