Letters to the Editor
-
CT - Why would a pharmacist stock EC if they are opposed to its use?
Now think about this.
A pharmacist owns her own pharmacy, (this is the only situation where a pharmacist has enough control over their situation to not fill a prescription) she likewise is opposed to the use of emergency contraception, she there fore is highly unlikely to stock this product.
Can you imagine a situation where a pharmacist might stock a product they don't intend to sell? It would seem rather unlikely to me.
Now I understand that you like alot of people here think of Pharmacists as little more than burger flippers there to fill your order and let you be on your way. That is not the case; we ask pharmacists to review our medical history and be mindful of numerous side effects and interactions and advise us on the best pharmaceutical course for our budget and our history.
People in our current health care environment (in either Canada or the US) likely have a far longer and more established relationship with their pharmacist than their doctor. (You probably go to the same pharmacy for all your prescription which has at most one or two licensed pharmacists on duty to fill the prescriptions, where as you may see a different doctor in a practice each time you go into the clinic) There fore it is likely that you are reliant on this pharmacist to be a part of your medical course.
With this issue, we have asked pharmacists to become the defacto medical practitioners for this service. Just as a doctor has the right to not perform abortions, so to should a pharmacist have the right to not likewise perform a task they find repellant.
Again, this is only an issue with an owner operator of a pharmacy, as the Wal-Mart example shows; when a franchise is involved it is ultimately the franchise’s decision.
I know many people feel the right to do as they please and not be judged by the people around them is a right guaranteed them by the constitution. This is not the case. We all have a right to be jerks, and to behave according to our conscience when required. Thank goodness we do have that right or everyone on this board would be in jail.
-
domini - one person's opinion
That a writer for Salon disagrees with a pharmacist on what that pharmacist's role is inconsequential.
Here is a very clear point on this entire debate.
All doctors have the right within their medical practice to dispense drugs. If a doctor chooses to be a part of this process with her patient she can then keep the product on hand and dispense the product as needed.
That solves this entire issue. No more mean pharmacists, just mean doctors.
To insist that a pharmacist keep a product that they are opposed to in stock is tantamount to forcing another pharmacist to not stock a drug because the community has banned its use.
Once you start forcing people to do things against their will, the tides can quickly turn against you.
It is best for democracy, for freedom, for everyone that this one pharmacist be allowed to make their decision of conscience than to remove the ability to choose from every one.
-
My hat is off to David B.
David B said
"You think your lame bullshit posts are PHILOSOPHICAL? Nigga Please! You're nothing but a pretentious, fakeass, wannabe intellectual crumbsnatcher. And your dumb posts nothing but the same rehashed BS anti-liberal hatchet jobs, with the same tired talked points reheated over and over again. There's nothing "philosophicial" in your posts to debate - just a lot of partisan yingyang and dumbass fuckery.
You wanna debate? Learn to come correct. Drop the mockery, drop the attitude, drop the hate. When you learn to treat us with respect, then you will be treated with respect in return. But until that time, we are going to beat your dumb ass like a motherfucking drum every time you open your fool mouth.
It's a new day, and punkass bitches like you are on notice."
David, you are mature beyond your years, a shining example of polite discourse and deep thought.
Can someone of a liberal mind who is not insane with rage back this guy up? Is this really how left leaning people think and act? If this is the case, I don't think Americans have much to worry about from Christians; rather, I would be afraid of having David B. as my neighbor regardless of my philosophical disposition. Can you imagine this guy with a gun in his hand? Does the left really advocate this kind of violence?
David, in this day and age of ironic and satirical humor being able to make a point more succinctly than straightforward analysis, you deserve more than a little ribbing.
Poco
-
Totally clueless Kirby, you need to get out of your bubble
Where I live on the East Coast, most of the communities are over 200 years old. The East Coast was an English colony for several hundred years before the US was formed, in case you don't know anything about American history, which you don't seem too.
But what did I write, Kirby? I wrote "First of all, most communities in the US have not existed for 200+ years, which would be the technical numerical requirement to say "centuries" plural." "The US" does not equal "The East Coast." I also live on the East Coast, and it's true that many communities here are quite old, but to claim that the whole country was populated with communities before 1806 shows a serious lack of historical or geographic education. Maybe you need to travel around the country outside of the East Coast and see what it's like.
And the east coast is not homogenous. Climb out of your bubble. Most of the states and cities have large black communities. I have personally witnessed the black working class in Washington, D.C. become devasted by the huge influx of ilegal aliens from El Salvador.
ah, but it would be pure lying to claim that these communities are not at least somewhat segregated by race. More often than not, the whites live in one community and the blacks in another. Moreover, you write about "the black working class" -- well, i guess that excludes hispanics and whites and asians, which makes it's racially homogenous. Homogenous does not equal "white."
There are ethnic groups from all over the world here: Italy, Ireland, Africa etc and have been for centuries. And firing these old communities that have been around for centuries and replacing them with illegals is not racism, they are destroying communities, which is the premise of the article.
That's right, there are communities like that. And they're often segregated. The North End in Boston is the Italian area, Southie is the Irish area. Darien, CT is for white Christians only. And so on.
Taking taxpayers off the payroll and leaving them homeless (go to S. Florida sometime) to replace them with illegals who don't pay taxes put drain the resources, especially considering they have huge families that need education, is driving this country into a gutter.
(1) If you are legally permitted to work in the US, being fired from a job does not equal being taken off the payroll and becoming homeless. You could *gasp* find another job! I really don't understand why the working class in the US often takes the position that working class people should be guaranteed a job for life, even if their job could be replaced by (1) non-unionized labor, (2) illegal labor, or (3) outsourced, all for cheaper. The only difference between outsourcing and hiring illegal immigrants is who moves. With outsourcing, the factory moves to the cheaper labor (i.e. factory moves to Mexico). Otherwise, the factory stays put, and the labor comes to the factory (hiring illegal immigrants). This is called capitalism. The first time it happened in the US was when after reconstruction, many textile factories moved to the South to avoid the costs of working with unionized northerners. Then in the 1960's, they moved again, this time abroad, leaving many manual laborers with no jobs. President Kennedy signed the federal worker retraining and relocation bill that, as far as i know, still exists today. Then, there was the wave of outsourcing of higher-qualified jobs. Every time, a certain set of people screamed "the sky is falling! America is doomed!" and somehow, that never comes true. Why is that?
(2) Illegals pay sales taxes just like you and me. And they reduce costs on so many goods and services with their cheap labor, leaving you with greater spending power.
Foreigners destroying the country with their different-ness, too bad? What country are you from? How would you like it if illegals working under the table flooded your country, drained the resources dry, devasted communites and left you homeless.
I am a US citizen. Illegals are not draining the resources dry, are not devastating communities, and are not leaving anyone homeless.
What exactly do you mean by "devastating communities"? That they move in, to be close to their jobs, and start playing "their" music, speaking "their" language, and eating "their food"? that doesn't have to "destroy" a community, it just changes it.