Posted on 11/09/2004 8:23:53 AM PST by Michael Goldsberry
Edited on 11/09/2004 8:39:31 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I hope there are no pharmacists who decide that my ulcer has a right to be in my stomach and that I can no longer take Prevacid.
Oh good grief! LOL!
Who else then?
Many people here miss the point. This is a pharmacy not a hospital. It is a business, like a restaurant or department store. If he, as an independent business refuses to sell viagra as well as birth control, he is with in his rights. If there is a corporate policy regarding refusal to fill prescriptions that is a different story.
Getting a prescription by a doctor does not obligate an pharmacist to fill it.
But the question was specifically for Protagoras. You'll note that he couldn't answer it.
Look up Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" in the dictionary and there's a picture of Protagoras. This guy does not believe in imposing his will on anyone not affecting him personally and directly. How could he ever understand this pharmacist?
Nonsense like that is what got the left voted out. If conservatives argue this pharmicist was right or to be admired for opposing birth control, they will not last long in power. The opinions expressed by several on this thread are part of the reason liberals are upset. I share that concern with them.
Listen ...very carefully......I'll explain it again.
All she had to do was call her doctor.......(ya with me there?)......tell him what happened, and ask to have the prescription re-issued.
What part of that is difficult for you?
In the Madison case, pharmacist Neil Noesen, 30, after refusing to refill a birth-control prescription, did not transfer it to another pharmacist or return it to the woman. She was able to get her prescription refilled two days later at the same pharmacy, but she missed a pill because of the delay.
So would you jump up and down and shriek if it were viagra?
I can't speak for Protagoras, but I have no problems understanding this guy. I think his theft of the script was immoral, though.
And I don't believe in the nonsense that some people call objectivism, so you can put that nonsense where the sun don't shine.
And I understand the pharmacist. I just don't agree with the second part of his actions. I agree with the first, and have repeatedly said so.
Simple question. But unfortunately a whole bunch of zealous miscreants have chosen to transform the thread into some kind of Chautauqua Tent meeting.
She had a prescription. I'm sure that explaining the situation to her doctor would have gotten her another. He probably could have phoned it in to another pharmacy that very same day.
Of course, she chose to make a capital case of the whole thing. There's tort money to be made here, after all!
Keeping a script and keeping a gun are miles apart. I'm surprised you made it an issue, Modernman.
It sure didn't keep the other guy from doing it. And then lying about me.
but I have no problems understanding this guy. I think his theft of the script was immoral, though.
Nor do I, and as a Christian, I think his theft was immoral as well. Not to mention illegal .
No, I'm not. The pharmacist doesn't need to consider whether his act will prevent the murder. He just has to know that he doesn't want to facilitate it in any way.
In that respect, it's just like the Hitler guard. His choice is to facilitate the murder or not to. Whether it will prevent it has no bearing on the decision.
That's not the point and you know it. Property is property. Just because it's not terribly inconvenient to replace a certain piece of property doesn't mean that others have the right to take it from you.
Fine. So would I. That's not the question.
Pay attention. Would you, personally, force that business to service your gun if they're against the killing of animals and you intend to use your gun for hunting?
Or would you simply respect their view and service your gun elsewhere?
In a way, this being brought into court is a good thing. People found out about this and can decide with their wallets if they want to give the pharmacy in WI anymore business.
I was thinking the exact same thing!
If by stealing, you could prevent a murder. Would you?
When challenged, here's what you say now:
The pharmacist doesn't need to consider whether his act will prevent the murder... Whether it will prevent it has no bearing on the decision.
If preventing murder has no bearing on the decision, why did you ask a question conditioned directly on that issue? Remove the murder prevention and your first question becomes simply "would you steal?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.