Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Cazzo, Jul 18, 2008.
You're a weak person, inside and out.
Stop wasting my time.
Kadark the Lunatic
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Absolutely, I only declare my opinions, I do not believe in enforcing them on others. It makes for an interesting world, I think.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
date rape drugs are all perscription or proscribed drugs and so this is not an issue, a doctor would have to register your need for the drug before authorising access to it
I can't imagine it, because the bureaucrats love to legislate you up the wazoo and demonise those who stand up for their beliefs. But as I re-iterated earlier, if it's his business, he should be able to deny services he feels are unethical.
I think that there would be a spectrum of opinion amongst these dissenting pharmacists, so attempting to broad-brush them as holding one particular viewpoint is a bit simplistic.
Exactly. It's immoral for customers to force providers to go against their beliefs by providing services which they believe are unethical, or will be used in an unethical fashion.
Then tough shit. Go elsewhere, purchase it over the internet. Don't force your beliefs on the pharmacist. It's not your place to do so.
If a doctor doesn't wish to provide a blood tranfusion because of their religious beliefs, and he's self-employed (private practice), then that's unfortunate, but he still has the right to deny provision of his services. It would be essential for him, however, to make it very clear to patients that he is against transfusions, so that they know what they are getting into (aka. exactly what services they are purchasing).
If he's employed by a hospital to act as a ER doctor, and one of his roles is to provide blood transfusions, then tough shit for him. He has to do it. He shouldn't have signed up for a job which required that of him in the first place.
Also note that a morning after pill doesn't even come close to being as essential to the preservation of life as blood transfusions do.
Since when was providing a morning after pill 'part of the profession'? Again, if you're a pharmacist employed by a business owner that tells you to provide morning after pills, then tough shit for you, find another job. However, if you're the business owner, then its up to you what services you provide.
In a nutshell, a business should decide what services it provides, not the law, and definitely not the customer.
I'd suggest you read up on who Robert Winston happens to be.. I'll give you a hint.. he is a leading scientist and a Professor of Fertility Studies at the University of London, amongst other things.
And I'd suggest you actually read up on pregnancy... and something called 'kin selection'... I'll give you a further hint.. the fertilised human egg is not 100% genetically identical to the mother.. and another hint.. the manner in which the fertilised egg inplants itself into the uterus and then invades her blood supply to said uterus and area of the body, thereby removing the body's control over its own blood supply.. Ergo, an embryo and its placenta is the perfect parasite. It takes complete control of the mother's blood supply so that its needs are met first, regardless of the needs of the mother's body. And it (the placenta) even secretes its own hormones to trick the mothers body into maintaining the pregnancy, even if the mother's ovaries stop secreting the necessary hormones. Hence why a pregnancy is deemed to be parasitic.
If you simply learn to accept what other people think, then there's literally no point in having your own opinions.
As you said,
"If most people in society come to a consensus that women should be allowed to throttle their children, I will learn to live with it."
Where is the Sam who stood for justice? But hey! If enough people believe in something wrong, we should just learn to live with it, right? I'm sure the Prophets shared a similar message.
Kadark the Steadfast
What is justice? It is Shura. Or consensus.
Wrong! Justice isn't what the majority of people think it is. Unless, of course, you think the majority of people selected to make decisions are infallible.
Are you Shi'ite, by any chance?
Kadark the Idol
Justice is by consensus, one need not personally agree or disagree with it. If you get caught with drugs in Singapore what you personally think will be of no importance.
So? Is that meant to 'wow' me? Make me back down? You are aware that biomedical scientists often know dick all about the biology of organisms other than humans, yes? The concepts of symbiosis are often not taught to human scientists.
The fact of the matter is that in order for parasitism to occur, the so-called parasite must be of a different species from the host. That's basic biology. Check the definition yourself, if you don't believe me.
I'd suggest you read up about basic biology, before tossing shit out as though I'm ignorant, despite the fact that I probably know more about embryology than you. The fact is, no matter how you much you whine and wave your hands about, the biological definition of 'parasite' does not accurately describe the fetus, as it is of the same species as the mother.
Laws are by consensus.
Justice, however, is an entirely different issue. Laws can be unjust.
Kadark the Honest
True, but thats a subjective perspective, personal vigilantism is not my forte.
MH i noticed you ignored my post, bit embarised because you KNOW you cant buy those sorts of drugs over the counter?
diazapram is about as close as you could get to those drugs and you need a script for it
medaz (which also causes abnesia) is a doctor ONLY drug, paramedics, doctors and RN's are the only ones who can admister that drug
the otheres are either banned outright or even more tightly controled
A go with the flow kinda gal, are you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Kadark the Vigilant
S.A.M's weird, she never seems to hold a consistent viewpoint. I always thought she was a big fan of civil disobedience and armed resistance, but now, ummm...
Hmm I have different views depending on whether its individual liberties we're talking about or social liberties. I'm willing to forego some individual liberties to maintain civil society.
And if it's a franchise in a chain?
A pharmacist is there to deliver a service. If a pharmacist is unable to fully deliver said service because of their own personal beliefs, then they have no business running a pharmacy.
Simplistic? The fact that they are allowed to be in business at all is simplistic. They have no right to deny medication to patients because of their own personal beliefs. They are there to supply a service, not to preach their beliefs to their customers.
No. If a customer walks into a pharmacy asking for medication that pharmacists are supposed to sell, they should be allowed to access said medication. They should not face being told that the pharmacist refuses to stock said medication because it goes against his/her personal beliefs. And yes, it is highly unethical for pharmacists who do this. Your personal beliefs should not interfere with your work duties, especially when said duties directly affect the general public.
You're missing the point. They shouldn't have to go elsewhere. And it is the pharmacist who should not be forcing his/her own personal beliefs down the throats of customers, sometimes to the detriment of the customer's health. For example, not all women who take the pill do so for protection against pregnancy. Some are forced to take it to help control out of control menstrual cycles, leading to severe bleeding and sometimes severe anemia.
So you're saying it is perfectly acceptable for a doctor working alone in the emergency room of a small local hospital to tell a bleeding and injured patient that he will not be able to give them a desperately needed blood transplant because it goes against his personal belief, so the injured individual can either wait until another doctor is found to give it to him, or he can go elsewhere for it? You think that's acceptable? Ya right..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Professions who conduct themselves in such a manner should be deregistered and denied the right to practice.
Just as a pharmacist who opens up a pharmacy is supposed to fill prescriptions given by doctors who think the patient needs or requires the medication. It is not for the pharmacist to impose his personal beliefs upon patients.
An increasing number of clashes are occurring in drugstores across the country. Pharmacists often risk dismissal or other disciplinary action to stand up for their beliefs, while shaken teenage girls and women desperately call their doctors, frequently late at night, after being turned away by sometimes-lecturing men and women in white coats.
"There are pharmacists who will only give birth control pills to a woman if she's married. There are pharmacists who mistakenly believe contraception is a form of abortion and refuse to prescribe it to anyone," said Adam Sonfield of the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, which tracks reproductive issues. "There are even cases of pharmacists holding prescriptions hostage, where they won't even transfer it to another pharmacy when time is of the essence."
That is what happened to Kathleen Pulz and her husband, who panicked when the condom they were using broke. Their fear really spiked when the Walgreens pharmacy down the street from their home in Milwaukee refused to fill an emergency prescription for the morning-after pill.
"I couldn't believe it," said Pulz, 44, who with her husband had long ago decided they could not afford a fifth child. "How can they make that decision for us? I was outraged. At the same time, I was sad that we had to do this. But I was scared. I didn't know what we were going to do."
Those pharmacists have no business being pharmacists.
It's not just the morning after pill. It is also with contraception pills, sometimes other forms of contraception. Surely you are not saying that a rape victim who is prescribed the morning after pill should then face a lecturing pharmacist and then denied, not only the right to the medication, but sometimes even the right to have her prescription returned to her? A pharmacist has no right to make such a call. It is their role as their profession to supply a service to the community. If they refuse to sell or stock certain medication because of their personal beliefs, then they are failing in their role and their profession.
It's not just the morning after pill. It is also other forms of contraception. If you are the business owner and you have taken the oath that pharmacists have to take, then you are contradicting said oath and have no right to be in business, because you are failing the community. And yes, supplying the morning after pill is part of the profession because it is a part of what pharmacists do... you know.. fill out prescriptions given to patients by their doctors.
I disagree. If you take an oath to serve patients, then you have no right to then force your own beliefs down the throats of said customers because you have an ethical disagreement with the medication they were prescribed by their doctor. It is not for the pharmacist to make that call or to deny patients the medication they need. If the pharmacist doesn't like it, he/she should find another profession that does not allow his personal beliefs to impact on patients.
bells, one small correction relating to australia.
as the law stands now the morning after pill is pharmasy only medication, no script required. tony abbott tried to change this but was shut down (not sure if it was even introduced into the parliment in the end) when he found out 13 year olds were taking it. I wonder if anyone asked him was it better for 13 year olds to have the morning after pill or 13 year olds to have children but anyway it thankfully remains pharmasy only rather than by perscription so that even though you have to wait 7 days to see a doctor you can still get it when needed
as for rape victoms its part and parsal of the medication given in the hospital before the girl is releaced.
this is a guess (need to do some further resurch) but i would guess the order would go
photo, trace, treatment of injuries, iv broud spectrum antibotics, counciling, blood tests, morning after pill, 24 hour obs
Again, if an individual owns the business, then its up to them to decide what services they will provide, unless they have a contract which explicitly states that they will provide service X. That simple remark addresses the first 1/4 of your post. I've also made it clear where I stand in regards to blood tranfusions, and I'm not about to repeat myself. Learn to read what I've written, instead of simply rattling on about shit I don't believe.
It's nothing alike, Bells, and I've already explained the distinction between being employed by a public hospital, and having your own business. When you're employed, you don't decide what services you provide, your employer does. However, when you're self-employed, it's up to the owner as to what services they provide. It isn't really that complicated, ya know.
not where it comes to health care, you have no more right to refuse to provide a specific treatment than a supermarket owner has to refuse to serve only a specific group of people. The law is very clear when it comes to both ALL PBS medications must be avialable from any pharmasy otherwise the pharmasy breach's its licence.
now sometimes this means you have to wait before you can get them depending on the specific medication (ie anphamines) but in the case of the morning after pill (ECP) this is not the case, it MUST be carried
Separate names with a comma.