Options

Moral Refusal Clauses - Evil Or Very Evil?

13468914

Posts

  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I also don't have a problem with imposing some reasonable regulations on someone exercising his right to moral objection. Like, they have to have a list of alternative pharmacies available, and so on. I think there's a way to balance the right of a patient to get his meds with the right of a pharmacist to not violate his morals, though it will likely require each side to compromise.

    Someone mentioned making Plan B OTC - is it safe enough to make it available without a prescription? Like, would popping them all the time, or using them as make-shift contraception, be harmful?

    I dunno if this is for a larger discussion, but what makes my belief that Black people aren't worthy of medical care a BAD belief, one I can't practice, but my belief that Plan B medication is evil a GOOD belief, one I'm free to use?

    There's no mathematically proveable way of saying what beliefs are good and what beliefs are bad. After all, hating Blacks was fine a few hundred years ago but isn't know. So whether a belief is right or wrong is based on where our society presently stands on the issue. And if that's the case, doesn't having the FDA, DEA, and AMA support Plan B make hating Plan B a BAD belief? One that shouldn't be allowed?

    I'm pretty sure you can still hate black people if that's your thing, you just can't deny service based on that.

    You see, the difference is black people are people and a drug is not a person.

    I'm not getting a big 'oh, wow, it's so obvious now' moment by reading your response. Sure, black people are not the same as a drug, but I don't really see how pointing that out is the same as explaining the difference between good and bad beliefs.

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I also don't have a problem with imposing some reasonable regulations on someone exercising his right to moral objection. Like, they have to have a list of alternative pharmacies available, and so on. I think there's a way to balance the right of a patient to get his meds with the right of a pharmacist to not violate his morals, though it will likely require each side to compromise.

    Someone mentioned making Plan B OTC - is it safe enough to make it available without a prescription? Like, would popping them all the time, or using them as make-shift contraception, be harmful?

    I dunno if this is for a larger discussion, but what makes my belief that Black people aren't worthy of medical care a BAD belief, one I can't practice, but my belief that Plan B medication is evil a GOOD belief, one I'm free to use?

    There's no mathematically proveable way of saying what beliefs are good and what beliefs are bad. After all, hating Blacks was fine a few hundred years ago but isn't know. So whether a belief is right or wrong is based on where our society presently stands on the issue. And if that's the case, doesn't having the FDA, DEA, and AMA support Plan B make hating Plan B a BAD belief? One that shouldn't be allowed?

    One is blatant discrimination against a protected class. One is merely stupid, but doesn't actively discriminate against a group. (Yes, the moral refusal effectively targets almost exclusively women, but that's a side effect and not the intended result. In theory.)

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2008
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Plan B is already available without a prescription for women over the age of 18, but most pharmacies keep it behind the counter. That's when the whole "refusal to dispense" thing comes into play.

    Oh. That's even stupider.

    Can't the pharmacies simply choose not to stock the drug if it's OTC? I mean, drug stores aren't legally required to carry Sudafed, right?

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt with blood on my teeth Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I also don't have a problem with imposing some reasonable regulations on someone exercising his right to moral objection. Like, they have to have a list of alternative pharmacies available, and so on. I think there's a way to balance the right of a patient to get his meds with the right of a pharmacist to not violate his morals, though it will likely require each side to compromise.

    Someone mentioned making Plan B OTC - is it safe enough to make it available without a prescription? Like, would popping them all the time, or using them as make-shift contraception, be harmful?

    I dunno if this is for a larger discussion, but what makes my belief that Black people aren't worthy of medical care a BAD belief, one I can't practice, but my belief that Plan B medication is evil a GOOD belief, one I'm free to use?

    There's no mathematically proveable way of saying what beliefs are good and what beliefs are bad. After all, hating Blacks was fine a few hundred years ago but isn't know. So whether a belief is right or wrong is based on where our society presently stands on the issue. And if that's the case, doesn't having the FDA, DEA, and AMA support Plan B make hating Plan B a BAD belief? One that shouldn't be allowed?

    I'm pretty sure you can still hate black people if that's your thing, you just can't deny service based on that.

    You see, the difference is black people are people and a drug is not a person.

    I'm not getting a big 'oh, wow, it's so obvious now' moment by reading your response. Sure, black people are not the same as a drug, but I don't really see how pointing that out is the same as explaining the difference between good and bad beliefs.

    I think to it's like "I'm not going to sell you vodka because you're a black dude," vs "I'm not going to sell you vodka because I don't like vodka so I don't sell vodka."

    Do you not see how different these things are?

    INeedNoSalt on
  • Options
    LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Lawndart wrote: »
    Plan B is already available without a prescription for women over the age of 18, but most pharmacies keep it behind the counter. That's when the whole "refusal to dispense" thing comes into play.

    Oh. That's even stupider.

    Can't the pharmacies simply choose not to stock the drug if it's OTC? I mean, drug stores aren't legally required to carry Sudafed, right?

    Again, most of these cases involve pharmacists who work at pharmacies that normally stock drugs like Plan B, and then refuse to dispense them while they're working.

    Lawndart on
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I also don't have a problem with imposing some reasonable regulations on someone exercising his right to moral objection. Like, they have to have a list of alternative pharmacies available, and so on. I think there's a way to balance the right of a patient to get his meds with the right of a pharmacist to not violate his morals, though it will likely require each side to compromise.

    Someone mentioned making Plan B OTC - is it safe enough to make it available without a prescription? Like, would popping them all the time, or using them as make-shift contraception, be harmful?

    I dunno if this is for a larger discussion, but what makes my belief that Black people aren't worthy of medical care a BAD belief, one I can't practice, but my belief that Plan B medication is evil a GOOD belief, one I'm free to use?

    There's no mathematically proveable way of saying what beliefs are good and what beliefs are bad. After all, hating Blacks was fine a few hundred years ago but isn't know. So whether a belief is right or wrong is based on where our society presently stands on the issue. And if that's the case, doesn't having the FDA, DEA, and AMA support Plan B make hating Plan B a BAD belief? One that shouldn't be allowed?

    One is blatant discrimination against a protected class. One is merely stupid, but doesn't actively discriminate against a group. (Yes, the moral refusal effectively targets almost exclusively women, but that's a side effect and not the intended result. In theory.)

    I see the distinction, but stupidity doesn't really seem to be the sort of thing that should be protected.
    Say I got a job in a hair parlor, but I'm kind of an idiot whose been dropped on his head one too many times and I somehow got the idea in my head that cutting hair off is like cutting the guy's arm off, and it's totally completely 100% wrong. I mean, would you be willing to saw a guy's arm off? I wouldn't.
    Sure, our society is totally okay with cutting hair, but say I personally believe it's the equivalent of assault with a deadly weapon. Is that okay?
    Not really... it just makes me an idiot for believing so. The case with Plan B isn't nearly as clear-cut, but I do think it holds some similarities.

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    One is blatant discrimination against a protected class. One is merely stupid, but doesn't actively discriminate against a group. (Yes, the moral refusal effectively targets almost exclusively women, but that's a side effect and not the intended result. In theory.)

    This got me thinking, you said against a protected class. What if the pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions for white people. Lets say no birth control, and no drugs to help with mental disorders.

    Personally I think if you have a problem filling certain prescriptions then a pharmacist is probably not the job for you. Maybe you could get by in a large pharmacy working where there is always at least 2 people on shift. However, if i was an employer you would be the first to go in any downsizing as you cannot be left alone without possibly causing patients to lose out on treatment.

    Heres a thought, lets say i have a rare medical condition that requires me to take a medication or I die. If the only pharmacist i can get to in time to save me refuses on moral grounds, can i treat him as a clear and present threat to my life?

    Detharin on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    One is blatant discrimination against a protected class. One is merely stupid, but doesn't actively discriminate against a group. (Yes, the moral refusal effectively targets almost exclusively women, but that's a side effect and not the intended result. In theory.)

    This got me thinking, you said against a protected class. What if the pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions for white people. Lets say no birth control, and no drugs to help with mental disorders.

    Yes, because you'd be discriminating against white people. The law doesn't say you can't discriminate against black people, it say you can't discriminate on the basis of race.

    It doesn't say you can't discriminate against a drug. Seriously, racial discrimination is a horrible, horrible analogy.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    What I was trying to say above with my failed analogy is that "I believe it" shouldn't be justification enough for actions like these. At the very least one should be able to be fired over it immediately.

    When you enter the realm of "I believe it" topics where the belief runs contrary to society's stance, you're entering a very difficult area to maneuver. If it's okay to believe Plan B is murder and shouldn't be allowed and you won't get fired over it, well:

    What if I'm one of them tree-hugging-hippies who thinks we all share some life source so I refuse to bag people's groceries with paper bags because it kills trees?
    What if I'm a vegetarian and refuse to stock meat products at the grocery store?

    Those belief systems exist, what make the scenarios stupid sounding is that people are taking their beliefs and incorporating them into jobs that interfere with those beliefs without the risk of getting fired over it.
    In the scenarios I just listed, you'd laugh at the person and ask them why the hell are they bagging groceries if they won't use all the bags? You'd tell them to find another job. You'd say it's fine for them to be fired over it because they're not doing their jobs.

    Well, what's the difference between not using all the available bags as a grcoer and not using all the available medicines as a pharmacist?

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt with blood on my teeth Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    If you don't bag, then you get fired. Grocery stores survive on revolving-door employment.

    At my grocery store, the Meat department is staffed separately from the other departments. If you refuse to stock meat, you don't apply to work in a meat department, or you get fired because stocking is unskilled labor and you're easy to replace.

    A pharmacist, on the other hand, requires a Doctorate. They are not easily replaceable.

    INeedNoSalt on
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    If you don't bag, then you get fired. Grocery stores survive on revolving-door employment.

    At my grocery store, the Meat department is staffed separately from the other departments. If you refuse to stock meat, you don't apply to work in a meat department, or you get fired because stocking is unskilled labor and you're easy to replace.

    A pharmacist, on the other hand, requires a Doctorate. They are not easily replaceable.

    Oh I see, your beliefs are fine because you have a Doctorate, but my beliefs are meaningless because I'm replaceable unskilled labor that doesn't matter? Do I need to continue this arguement or does it readily become apparent why morality shouldn't be ordained by social status?

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt with blood on my teeth Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    If you don't bag, then you get fired. Grocery stores survive on revolving-door employment.

    At my grocery store, the Meat department is staffed separately from the other departments. If you refuse to stock meat, you don't apply to work in a meat department, or you get fired because stocking is unskilled labor and you're easy to replace.

    A pharmacist, on the other hand, requires a Doctorate. They are not easily replaceable.

    Oh I see, your beliefs are fine because you have a Doctorate, but my beliefs are meaningless because I'm replaceable unskilled labor that doesn't matter? Do I need to continue this arguement or does it readily become apparent why morality shouldn't be ordained by social status?

    It's more like "You have to deal with my beliefs because it takes years of expensive education to do my job."

    But I mean you completely ignored the entire point of my post (expendability) in favor of making it into some kind of morality thing.

    You can't say "You shouldn't be able to do X on fear of being immediately terminated" unless you can actually afford to terminate those people's employment.

    INeedNoSalt on
  • Options
    The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    What I was trying to say above with my failed analogy is that "I believe it" shouldn't be justification enough for actions like these. At the very least one should be able to be fired over it immediately.

    When you enter the realm of "I believe it" topics where the belief runs contrary to society's stance, you're entering a very difficult area to maneuver. If it's okay to believe Plan B is murder and shouldn't be allowed and you won't get fired over it, well:

    What if I'm one of them tree-hugging-hippies who thinks we all share some life source so I refuse to bag people's groceries with paper bags because it kills trees?
    What if I'm a vegetarian and refuse to stock meat products at the grocery store?

    Those belief systems exist, what make the scenarios stupid sounding is that people are taking their beliefs and incorporating them into jobs that interfere with those beliefs without the risk of getting fired over it.
    In the scenarios I just listed, you'd laugh at the person and ask them why the hell are they bagging groceries if they won't use all the bags? You'd tell them to find another job. You'd say it's fine for them to be fired over it because they're not doing their jobs.

    Well, what's the difference between not using all the available bags as a grcoer and not using all the available medicines as a pharmacist?

    But should it be against the law? This is what I thought this entire argument was about.

    As for me... No. No it should not be against the law if a pharmacist decides not to give a customer Plan-B, or anything else. That's not to say I don't agree with it. They're being fucking assholes. They can and should be legally terminated from their job. They can and should be ousted by the community if it's the owner doing that. But governmentally unlawful, punishable by fines and/or jail time? No. No it should not be.

    The Wolfman on
    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    If you don't bag, then you get fired. Grocery stores survive on revolving-door employment.

    At my grocery store, the Meat department is staffed separately from the other departments. If you refuse to stock meat, you don't apply to work in a meat department, or you get fired because stocking is unskilled labor and you're easy to replace.

    A pharmacist, on the other hand, requires a Doctorate. They are not easily replaceable.

    Oh I see, your beliefs are fine because you have a Doctorate, but my beliefs are meaningless because I'm replaceable unskilled labor that doesn't matter? Do I need to continue this arguement or does it readily become apparent why morality shouldn't be ordained by social status?

    It's more like "You have to deal with my beliefs because it takes years of expensive education to do my job."

    Not quite. Years of expensive education are spent learning medical knowledge, pharmacological knowledge. The belief not to fill Plan B prescriptions is not due to medically relevant reasons.

    This isn't like when I take my doctor's word for it that I should take some medication he prescribes because he went to medical school to study such things. His belief on what medicine I should use is justifiable because he's using medical knowledge he's gained in medical school that I lack. That's not in any way similar to what's going on here.

    What you're saying grows closer and closer to elitism. Now the belief isn't just justified because pharmacists are less replaceable, the beliefs are justified because the pharmacist has spent "years of expensive education".

    What's education got to do with beliefs that go against what the FDA, DEA, and AMA all agree upon?

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2008
    What I was trying to say above with my failed analogy is that "I believe it" shouldn't be justification enough for actions like these. At the very least one should be able to be fired over it immediately.

    When you enter the realm of "I believe it" topics where the belief runs contrary to society's stance, you're entering a very difficult area to maneuver. If it's okay to believe Plan B is murder and shouldn't be allowed and you won't get fired over it, well:

    Well, there are two issues here: the moral and the legal.

    Legally, the two issues are very distinct. For one thing, racial discrimination is illegal and laws allowing it would be in violation of the constitution. Allowing moral refusal isn't unconstitutional. As to why the one is unconstitutional and the other not, it's a matter of the effect on society. The effect of allowing racial discrimination is huge. The effect of allowing pharmacists to not prescribe a single class of drugs is comparatively miniscule.

    Morally, there are distinctions, as well. Deciding that you hate an entire group of people is in no way similar to deciding that you hate a drug. It may be the case that those who refuse to fulfill prescriptions or withhold OTC medications are colossal dicks, but that doesn't make the situations morally analogous.

    At the root, the justification for any act is "I believe it." These people believe that by taking Plan B, you're ending an innocent life. A pharmacist who doesn't want to give you a drug because it'll interfere with a different drug believes that to be true. To the respective pharmacists, both beliefs are equally valid. What now?

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    What I was trying to say above with my failed analogy is that "I believe it" shouldn't be justification enough for actions like these. At the very least one should be able to be fired over it immediately.

    When you enter the realm of "I believe it" topics where the belief runs contrary to society's stance, you're entering a very difficult area to maneuver. If it's okay to believe Plan B is murder and shouldn't be allowed and you won't get fired over it, well:

    What if I'm one of them tree-hugging-hippies who thinks we all share some life source so I refuse to bag people's groceries with paper bags because it kills trees?
    What if I'm a vegetarian and refuse to stock meat products at the grocery store?

    Those belief systems exist, what make the scenarios stupid sounding is that people are taking their beliefs and incorporating them into jobs that interfere with those beliefs without the risk of getting fired over it.
    In the scenarios I just listed, you'd laugh at the person and ask them why the hell are they bagging groceries if they won't use all the bags? You'd tell them to find another job. You'd say it's fine for them to be fired over it because they're not doing their jobs.

    Well, what's the difference between not using all the available bags as a grcoer and not using all the available medicines as a pharmacist?

    But should it be against the law? This is what I thought this entire argument was about.

    As for me... No. No it should not be against the law if a pharmacist decides not to give a customer Plan-B, or anything else. That's not to say I don't agree with it. They're being fucking assholes. They can and should be legally terminated from their job. They can and should be ousted by the community if it's the owner doing that. But governmentally unlawful, punishable by fines and/or jail time? No. No it should not be.

    Well, we're talking about whether Plan B should be mandatory to stock in pharmacies, yes.
    But we're also talking about (and what my post was about) how pharmacists can claim "moral refusal", essentially saying they won't fill Plan B prescriptions due to their moral beliefs and they can't be fired over that.

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt with blood on my teeth Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    What's education got to do with beliefs that go against what the FDA, DEA, and AMA all agree upon?

    Well uh to begin with it makes it HARDER TO REPLACE them because they spent lots of money and lots of time to become qualified for the job which is my entire point.

    So you can hire them and accept that they'll do stupid things like decline to provide certain prescriptions, or you can fire them and hope to get your hands on someone else in a field that (as I understand it) is short-staffed as it is.

    INeedNoSalt on
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    At the root, the justification for any act is "I believe it." These people believe that by taking Plan B, you're ending an innocent life. A pharmacist who doesn't want to give you a drug because it'll interfere with a different drug believes that to be true. To the respective pharmacists, both beliefs are equally valid. What now?

    What now? Simple. You can hold whatever belief you want but ultimately you need to be able to be held responsible for any actions that result from those beliefs.

    If I think that I can't give you some medication because it's interfere with another medication, I can refuse to give it to you. My boss can look into the matter, see what I did, why I did it, what justification I felt I had, and how much science there is backing it up.

    If I didn't give a person Adderall because they were already on Lithium, there's a good chance I'd get a pat on the back because my boss would know studies have shown on numerous occasions that mixing the two isn't a good idea.

    However, if I didn't give a person Adderall because they had freckles and my grandmother told me that people with freckles already have too much energy, and so I feel giving them an amphetamine would give them dangerously high levels of energy, then my boss could very well fire me for being a complete idiot.

    Similarly, when my boss looks into my not filling a Plan B prescription and I explain to him it's not due to some drug interference but due to my personal beliefs about murder, he should be able to fire me for being a complete idiot.

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    King Boo HooKing Boo Hoo Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    What's education got to do with beliefs that go against what the FDA, DEA, and AMA all agree upon?

    Well uh to begin with it makes it HARDER TO REPLACE them because they spent lots of money and lots of time to become qualified for the job which is my entire point.

    So you can hire them and accept that they'll do stupid things like decline to provide certain prescriptions, or you can fire them and hope to get your hands on someone else in a field that (as I understand it) is short-staffed as it is.

    Harder to replace implies the option of replacement. If my pharmacist claims "moral refusal" for not filling Plan B prescriptions, I'm flat-out-fucked. I can't fire him for it. I'd love to replace him, but I can't. How's that right?

    -edit- Driving home now, no replies for a while :-)

    King Boo Hoo on
  • Options
    INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt with blood on my teeth Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    What's education got to do with beliefs that go against what the FDA, DEA, and AMA all agree upon?

    Well uh to begin with it makes it HARDER TO REPLACE them because they spent lots of money and lots of time to become qualified for the job which is my entire point.

    So you can hire them and accept that they'll do stupid things like decline to provide certain prescriptions, or you can fire them and hope to get your hands on someone else in a field that (as I understand it) is short-staffed as it is.

    Harder to replace implies the option of replacement. If my pharmacist claims "moral refusal" for not filling Plan B prescriptions, I'm flat-out-fucked. I can't fire him for it. I'd love to replace him, but I can't. How's that right?

    -edit- Driving home now, no replies for a while :-)

    Why can't you?

    Were you too lazy to have him sign a contract saying that he would not cite moral issues to keep from filling Plan B prescriptions?

    I assume you're speaking as the employer, here. Do you have a candidate lined up to replace him? As I understand it, pharmacists are in such high demand that pharmacies try to snag new pharmacists before they even start their schooling.

    INeedNoSalt on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    At the root, the justification for any act is "I believe it." These people believe that by taking Plan B, you're ending an innocent life. A pharmacist who doesn't want to give you a drug because it'll interfere with a different drug believes that to be true. To the respective pharmacists, both beliefs are equally valid. What now?

    What now? Simple. You can hold whatever belief you want but ultimately you need to be able to be held responsible for any actions that result from those beliefs.

    If I think that I can't give you some medication because it's interfere with another medication, I can refuse to give it to you. My boss can look into the matter, see what I did, why I did it, what justification I felt I had, and how much science there is backing it up.

    If I didn't give a person Adderall because they were already on Lithium, there's a good chance I'd get a pat on the back because my boss would know studies have shown on numerous occasions that mixing the two isn't a good idea.

    However, if I didn't give a person Adderall because they had freckles and my grandmother told me that people with freckles already have too much energy, and so I feel giving them an amphetamine would give them dangerously high levels of energy, then my boss could very well fire me for being a complete idiot.

    Similarly, when my boss looks into my not filling a Plan B prescription and I explain to him it's not due to some drug interference but due to my personal beliefs about murder, he should be able to fire me for being a complete idiot.

    And as I said, I fully support being able to fire a pharmacist for not fulfilling his duties, or for being an idiot. I just don't support forcing the pharmacist to fulfill a prescription.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    What I was trying to say above with my failed analogy is that "I believe it" shouldn't be justification enough for actions like these. At the very least one should be able to be fired over it immediately.

    When you enter the realm of "I believe it" topics where the belief runs contrary to society's stance, you're entering a very difficult area to maneuver. If it's okay to believe Plan B is murder and shouldn't be allowed and you won't get fired over it, well:

    What if I'm one of them tree-hugging-hippies who thinks we all share some life source so I refuse to bag people's groceries with paper bags because it kills trees?
    What if I'm a vegetarian and refuse to stock meat products at the grocery store?

    Those belief systems exist, what make the scenarios stupid sounding is that people are taking their beliefs and incorporating them into jobs that interfere with those beliefs without the risk of getting fired over it.
    In the scenarios I just listed, you'd laugh at the person and ask them why the hell are they bagging groceries if they won't use all the bags? You'd tell them to find another job. You'd say it's fine for them to be fired over it because they're not doing their jobs.

    Well, what's the difference between not using all the available bags as a grcoer and not using all the available medicines as a pharmacist?

    But should it be against the law? This is what I thought this entire argument was about.

    As for me... No. No it should not be against the law if a pharmacist decides not to give a customer Plan-B, or anything else. That's not to say I don't agree with it. They're being fucking assholes. They can and should be legally terminated from their job. They can and should be ousted by the community if it's the owner doing that. But governmentally unlawful, punishable by fines and/or jail time? No. No it should not be.
    The problem is they CAN'T BE FIRED. This is a loophole - no action can be taken due to their absurd "morals". This loophole should be closed - they should lose their license and be liable for damages.

    And don't even say shit like "go to another pharmacy". As if it were that easy for everyone. Those people - the poor, the uneducated, they need the help the most, and are far less able to work around a set back like this. "yeah that's a bitch the guy wouldn't give you the pill. Guess you'll have to drive 500 miles to the nearest clinic or get stuck with a baby. Hope you can get time off without being fired." Saying that's ok is ghastly.

    Whatsoever you do unto to the least of my brothers...
    Well uh to begin with it makes it HARDER TO REPLACE them because they spent lots of money and lots of time to become qualified for the job which is my entire point.

    So you can hire them and accept that they'll do stupid things like decline to provide certain prescriptions, or you can fire them and hope to get your hands on someone else in a field that (as I understand it) is short-staffed as it is.
    Fuck them. They should lose their license. Then they can pay back those student loans working at burger king. That would certainly change their moral outlook.

    PirateJon on
    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    If there's a way to combat this type of thing it has to come from other people. Find out which phramacists in the area abuse this moral refusal BS, spread that information around, and inform people of alternative places to go.

    Of course in proper-fucked fashion there will be a lot of big areas where no pharmacist will dispense Plan-B, in which case the only thing you can do is protest and organize boycotts.

    It really is too much power to allow the denial of legal medicine to a person because of personal beliefs. Ultimately the belief of the pharmacy owner should trump that of the employee, simply because it's the owner's job to make policy, not the pharmacist. At the very VERY least the pharmacist using moral refusal should be required to offer alternatives where the customer can obtain Plan-B.

    And yes pharmacies should be allowed to write a waiver of moral refusal in their contracts.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    And don't even say shit like "go to another pharmacy". As if it were that easy for everyone. Those people - the poor, the uneducated, they need the help the most, and are far less able to work around a set back like this. "yeah that's a bitch the guy wouldn't give you the pill. Guess you'll have to drive 500 miles to the nearest clinic or get stuck with a baby. Hope you can get time off without being fired." Saying that's ok is ghastly.

    Yes, people being concerned about the potential side effects of a law banning that sort of thing are history's greatest monsters.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    PirateJonPirateJon Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    PirateJon wrote: »
    And don't even say shit like "go to another pharmacy". As if it were that easy for everyone. Those people - the poor, the uneducated, they need the help the most, and are far less able to work around a set back like this. "yeah that's a bitch the guy wouldn't give you the pill. Guess you'll have to drive 500 miles to the nearest clinic or get stuck with a baby. Hope you can get time off without being fired." Saying that's ok is ghastly.

    Yes, people being concerned about the potential side effects of a law banning that sort of thing are history's greatest monsters.

    Potential side effects? You've got to be shitting me.

    on one side: possible unwanted pregnancy from plan B, and the host of other medical issues that may or may not come up, depending on the moral flavor that day. Anti-HIV drugs? None for you sir!

    on the other: Moral discomfort.

    Which is worse? Which is a bigger drain on society? Which is more harmful to the parties involved?


    edit - top o' the page to ya.

    PirateJon on
    all perfectionists are mediocre in their own eyes
  • Options
    The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    PirateJon wrote: »
    Potential side effects? You've got to be shitting me.

    on one side: possible unwanted pregnancy from plan B, and the host of other medical issues that may or may not come up, depending on the moral flavor that day. Anti-HIV drugs? None for you sir!

    on the other: Moral discomfort.

    Which is worse?

    Why do I get the impression that you're now assuming Plan-B is now the first, last, and only contraception available now?

    Somebody lives in a neighbourhood, 500 miles away from the next pharmacy? That's a real shame. Now I really don't mean to have this sound like "Tough breaks kiddo". This is where my "ousted from the community" comment comes in. Your only pharmacist is acting like the local Hitler with the medicine, then you as a community need to do something about that if you don't agree with it. Because, and I am assuming here, that if you live 500 miles away from the next pharmacy, then you must live in a pretty small and gated community to begin with.

    Finally, back to your first comment. Anyone who puts all their faith in this Plan-B is quite frankly a frigging idiot. There are a lot of forms of contraception on the market. It's a brilliant new product that surely has its uses in our modern life, but I've got the feeling that's no longer the issue in this arguement. My first suggestion to the kids who live in this one pharmacy town with no Plan-B would be to stop fucking without a rubber.

    The Wolfman on
    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited June 2008
    You really don't see the potential long-term ramifications of a precedent in requiring people to act contrary to their morals in non-emergency situations? It's not just about the pharmacies, it's about the precedent it sets in all manner of shit. It's not "moral discomfort".

    I mean, it's fine if you disagree. That's cool. I like debate. I just don't like people who are all, "RARRR YOU DISAGREE WITH ME YOU ARE EEEEEEVIIIIIIL!"when the disagreement is over what to do about a group of people we all agree are kind of dicks.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008

    Education and training. Pharmacists must earn a Pharm.D. degree from an accredited college or school of pharmacy. The Pharm.D. degree has replaced the Bachelor of Pharmacy degree, which is no longer being awarded. To be admitted to a Pharm.D. program, an applicant must have completed at least 2 years of postsecondary study, although most applicants have completed 3 or more years. Other entry requirements usually include courses in mathematics and natural sciences, such as chemistry, biology, and physics, as well as courses in the humanities and social sciences. In 2007, 92 colleges and schools of pharmacy were accredited to confer degrees by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). About 70 percent of Pharm.D. programs require applicants to take the Pharmacy College Admissions Test (PCAT).

    Courses offered at colleges of pharmacy are designed to teach students about all aspects of drug therapy. In addition, students learn how to communicate with patients and other health care providers about drug information and patient care. Students also learn professional ethics, concepts of public health, and medication distribution systems management. In addition to receiving classroom instruction, students in Pharm.D. programs spend about one-forth of their time in a variety of pharmacy practice settings under the supervision of licensed pharmacists.

    In the 2006–07 academic year, 70 colleges of pharmacy also awarded the master-of-science degree or the Ph.D. degree. Both degrees are awarded after the completion of a Pharm.D. degree and are designed for those who want additional clinical, laboratory, and research experience. Areas of graduate study include pharmaceutics and pharmaceutical chemistry (physical and chemical properties of drugs and dosage forms), pharmacology (effects of drugs on the body), and pharmacy administration. Many master’s and Ph.D. degree holders go on to do research for a drug company or teach at a university.

    No, pharmacists who you meet and work as counter-monkeys at wallgreens aren't holding a Ph.D or Masters Degree.

    They are holding about the same amount of schooling that an entry level nurse or lab technician holds.

    If they decide to go with a higher degree, they sure as shit wont be hanging around at Wallgreens in Dipfuck, OH telling you what pills make them cry at night.I really think some of this confusing is about how much school these people actually have. I'm sorry I don't take some guy with a 4 year as seriously as I do someone who spent 12+ years going Jhonny Mnemonic and forgetting half their childhood so they can diagnose your Herpies.

    A good pharmacist is an amazingly useful person to know and have in your area. However, if one told my mother he doesn't think she needs to be on anti-depressants or heart medications I would have a hard time not beating him to within an inch of his life with a delicious can of nacho cheese dip... from isle 3.

    Edit: At the end of the day "I have a morale objection to this medication." and "I don't feel like it." are about the same to me, I don't understand why one is okay and the other isn't.

    You know what happens when someone decides not to give you steroids for eyeritis? Your iris scars down to the size of a pin and you can't fucking see right again forever. Fuck that. No one should be allowed to make that decision other than the person prescribing the treatment and the person getting the treatment.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I don't think anyone's even really stopped to think about what might arise if something like this happened and what you would do.

    Let's set the scene that everybody has. We have a town. In this town we have one pharmacy, the only one for 500 miles. This pharmacy is run by one pharmacist. And this person has morals that prevent him/her from dispensing Plan-B to people. A new law goes into effect that makes this action illegal.

    Well now what? I doubt a fine or jail time is going to change their beliefs all of a sudden. We've already had people establish that pharmacists are few and in high demand, so it's unlikely the town will get a new one in the near future.

    Seriously, now what? This new law has arguably just put your town in worse shape.

    The Wolfman on
    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Somebody lives in a neighbourhood, 500 miles away from the next pharmacy? That's a real shame. Now I really don't mean to have this sound like "Tough breaks kiddo". This is where my "ousted from the community" comment comes in. Your only pharmacist is acting like the local Hitler with the medicine, then you as a community need to do something about that if you don't agree with it. Because, and I am assuming here, that if you live 500 miles away from the next pharmacy, then you must live in a pretty small and gated community to begin with.

    First, to bring the rhetoric down to more realistic levels, it's more likely that you'd be in a situation where you're 100+ miles from a pharmacy willing to dispense it. And no, you probably don't live in a gated community. You probably live in the middle of fucking nowhere. Like, Podunk. The problem with your little "ousted from the community" idea is that, more than likely, your community is okay with it. The pharmacist probably has popular opinion on his side. Hell, there might even be a couple pharmacists...who both refuse to, and can still keep their jobs/stay in business because you're surrounded by fundies.

    And no, the answer to this isn't, and shouldn't be, "move out of Podunk." We don't believe in the tyranny of the majority around here.
    Finally, back to your first comment. Anyone who puts all their faith in this Plan-B is quite frankly a frigging idiot. There are a lot of forms of contraception on the market. It's a brilliant new product that surely has its uses in our modern life, but I've got the feeling that's no longer the issue in this arguement. My first suggestion to the kids who live in this one pharmacy town with no Plan-B would be to stop fucking without a rubber.

    And if they were fucking with a rubber, and it broke?

    Oh, shit. Bet you didn't even think about that one, huh?

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Somebody lives in a neighbourhood, 500 miles away from the next pharmacy? That's a real shame. Now I really don't mean to have this sound like "Tough breaks kiddo". This is where my "ousted from the community" comment comes in. Your only pharmacist is acting like the local Hitler with the medicine, then you as a community need to do something about that if you don't agree with it. Because, and I am assuming here, that if you live 500 miles away from the next pharmacy, then you must live in a pretty small and gated community to begin with.

    First, to bring the rhetoric down to more realistic levels, it's more likely that you'd be in a situation where you're 100+ miles from a pharmacy willing to dispense it. And no, you probably don't live in a gated community. You probably live in the middle of fucking nowhere. Like, Podunk. The problem with your little "ousted from the community" idea is that, more than likely, your community is okay with it. The pharmacist probably has popular opinion on his side. Hell, there might even be a couple pharmacists...who both refuse to, and can still keep their jobs/stay in business because you're surrounded by fundies.

    And no, the answer to this isn't, and shouldn't be, "move out of Podunk." We don't believe in the tyranny of the majority around here.
    Finally, back to your first comment. Anyone who puts all their faith in this Plan-B is quite frankly a frigging idiot. There are a lot of forms of contraception on the market. It's a brilliant new product that surely has its uses in our modern life, but I've got the feeling that's no longer the issue in this arguement. My first suggestion to the kids who live in this one pharmacy town with no Plan-B would be to stop fucking without a rubber.

    And if they were fucking with a rubber, and it broke?

    Oh, shit. Bet you didn't even think about that one, huh?

    EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE...

    If birth control is 99% effective, what do you suppose happens that other 1% of the time?

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    TaramoorTaramoor Storyteller Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Wait, I'm confused.

    When did the argument become "Pharmacists should be compelled to fill prescriptions they're morally opposed to." I don't believe that was the issue in the OP.

    The original complaint was that pharmacists could refuse to fill a prescription or dispense Plan-B (A legal, OTC drug in most states) and were immune to termination if they did so.

    Those are two different issues.

    ElJeffe, I don't think anyone's saying that pharmacists should be required to act in opposition to their morals, but I think they should have to deal with the consequences of their actions if they choose not to perform the duties required by their position.

    Taramoor on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I don't think anyone's even really stopped to think about what might arise if something like this happened and what you would do.

    Let's set the scene that everybody has. We have a town. In this town we have one pharmacy, the only one for 500 miles. This pharmacy is run by one pharmacist. And this person has morals that prevent him/her from dispensing Plan-B to people. A new law goes into effect that makes this action illegal.

    Well now what? I doubt a fine or jail time is going to change their beliefs all of a sudden. We've already had people establish that pharmacists are few and in high demand, so it's unlikely the town will get a new one in the near future.

    Seriously, now what? This new law has arguably just put your town in worse shape.

    Honestly? I'd rather see the law go into effect and the town (theoretically) lose their pharmacist. Because for starters, there's pretty much nowhere in this country that's 500 miles from the next pharmacy (again, 100 is more realistic, maybe 200) and to be honest I'd rather be forced to drive 150 miles and know that my trip would be successful than have a pharmacist right next door that won't fill my precription, and have no fucking idea if the pharmacy 200 miles away will either.

    Call, you say? And what if there's a shift change by the time you get there, and Dr. McFundie's on now? There's like $100 in gas down the drain.

    Oh, and I'll need to take tomorrow off work now, too. And spend another $100 in gas again.

    But you know the fun part? Won't matter. Because the pharmacist isn't going to quit. Because while they might be in short supply, it's also a specialized education. Even if it's just of the four-year variety. Any other pharmacy he goes to (assuming we're talking about a law) is going to require the same of him, and I'm guessing he won't make his mortgage washing cars. He'll start dispensing Plan B like a good little boy, until he reaches retirement age. Because what the fuck else is he going to do? Go back to college?

    And even if he does, that just means a pay bump for pharmacists (shortage, and all) which means more people will hopefully pursue the degree.

    EDIT: Also, note that what I'm talking about isn't legal compulsion. I'm guessing pharmacies are licensed in most areas...make this a stipulation of the licensing. Don't like it? Your local burger joint is hiring, and with your degree you're a shoo-in for management.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Pharmacists being able to refuse drugs that were prescribed by a real doctor is terrible precedent. Yes, right now the debate is being pushed on by relatively nonessential stuff like birth control pills, but what if some random pharmacist has personal moral issues with a drug for a life-threatening condition? What happens when a pharmacist decides, for instance, that AIDS is God's punishment and refuses to dispense antiretrovirals, for instance? We've got crazy enough people in this country.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Taramoor wrote: »
    Wait, I'm confused.

    When did the argument become "Pharmacists should be compelled to fill prescriptions they're morally opposed to." I don't believe that was the issue in the OP.

    The original complaint was that pharmacists could refuse to fill a prescription or dispense Plan-B (A legal, OTC drug in most states) and were immune to termination if they did so.

    Those are two different issues.

    It depends on what you mean by "moral refusal clause," which was not clearly defined in the OP.

    Some states require pharmacies to dispense birth control or refer patients to a pharmacy that can.
    Some states require the above, except when the pharmacist has a moral objection to it.
    Some states don't require the above, and furthermore protect pharmacists from being terminated when they refuse to dispense.

    Angel has since clarified that he meant the third definition, but then he went to the further extreme of arguing that pharmacies should be required by law to dispense or refer.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Somebody lives in a neighbourhood, 500 miles away from the next pharmacy? That's a real shame. Now I really don't mean to have this sound like "Tough breaks kiddo". This is where my "ousted from the community" comment comes in. Your only pharmacist is acting like the local Hitler with the medicine, then you as a community need to do something about that if you don't agree with it. Because, and I am assuming here, that if you live 500 miles away from the next pharmacy, then you must live in a pretty small and gated community to begin with.

    First, to bring the rhetoric down to more realistic levels, it's more likely that you'd be in a situation where you're 100+ miles from a pharmacy willing to dispense it. And no, you probably don't live in a gated community. You probably live in the middle of fucking nowhere. Like, Podunk. The problem with your little "ousted from the community" idea is that, more than likely, your community is okay with it. The pharmacist probably has popular opinion on his side. Hell, there might even be a couple pharmacists...who both refuse to, and can still keep their jobs/stay in business because you're surrounded by fundies.

    And no, the answer to this isn't, and shouldn't be, "move out of Podunk." We don't believe in the tyranny of the majority around here.

    First off, I fucked up with the gated community comment. Your description is more close to what I meant there.

    Now for all that, you admit to the "tyranny of the majority" of that situation, yes? But you also believe that the government should have the right to step in and say "Hey. Stop that. Start acting this way. Our way or the highway"? That's the answer? Make it against the law?

    Once again, we all agree these people are dicks and shouldn't have that kind of control. Governmentally illegal though? No, I'm sorry. You open that door and you give precedent to open a hell of a lot more.
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And if they were fucking with a rubber, and it broke?

    Oh, shit. Bet you didn't even think about that one, huh?
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE...

    If birth control is 99% effective, what do you suppose happens that other 1% of the time?

    We're marching into personal beliefs, one I kinda wanted to stay out of, but I already went there, huh. But how I was raised, the belief was that you really shouldn't be having sex if you're not also completely ready to have a baby.

    Now, I also believe in a woman's right to choose. But if you're living in this podunk that unfortunately doesn't, my suggestion is to think twice. There's always that 1% chance. If you're absolutely not ready for that 1%, there's also a way that guarantees a 100%.

    The Wolfman on
    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    you really shouldn't be having sex if you're not also completely ready to have a baby.

    You shouldn't really be driving a car if you're not also completely ready to have a fatal accident.

    People who get creamed by drunk drivers get no sympathy from me.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Somebody lives in a neighbourhood, 500 miles away from the next pharmacy? That's a real shame. Now I really don't mean to have this sound like "Tough breaks kiddo". This is where my "ousted from the community" comment comes in. Your only pharmacist is acting like the local Hitler with the medicine, then you as a community need to do something about that if you don't agree with it. Because, and I am assuming here, that if you live 500 miles away from the next pharmacy, then you must live in a pretty small and gated community to begin with.

    First, to bring the rhetoric down to more realistic levels, it's more likely that you'd be in a situation where you're 100+ miles from a pharmacy willing to dispense it. And no, you probably don't live in a gated community. You probably live in the middle of fucking nowhere. Like, Podunk. The problem with your little "ousted from the community" idea is that, more than likely, your community is okay with it. The pharmacist probably has popular opinion on his side. Hell, there might even be a couple pharmacists...who both refuse to, and can still keep their jobs/stay in business because you're surrounded by fundies.

    And no, the answer to this isn't, and shouldn't be, "move out of Podunk." We don't believe in the tyranny of the majority around here.

    First off, I fucked up with the gated community comment. Your description is more close to what I meant there.

    Now for all that, you admit to the "tyranny of the majority" of that situation, yes? But you also believe that the government should have the right to step in and say "Hey. Stop that. Start acting this way. Our way or the highway"? That's the answer? Make it against the law?

    Once again, we all agree these people are dicks and shouldn't have that kind of control. Governmentally illegal though? No, I'm sorry. You open that door and you give precedent to open a hell of a lot more.
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And if they were fucking with a rubber, and it broke?

    Oh, shit. Bet you didn't even think about that one, huh?
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVE...

    If birth control is 99% effective, what do you suppose happens that other 1% of the time?

    We're marching into personal beliefs, one I kinda wanted to stay out of, but I already went there, huh. But how I was raised, the belief was that you really shouldn't be having sex if you're not also completely ready to have a baby.

    Now, I also believe in a woman's right to choose. But if you're living in this podunk that unfortunately doesn't, my suggestion is to think twice. There's always that 1% chance. If you're absolutely not ready for that 1%, there's also a way that guarantees a 100%.

    I am very pleased to know what your beliefs are. I also don't give a shit as long as you don't harm others with them. Becoming a pharmacist and refusing to dispense medication prescribed by a certified doctor is harming others.

    dispatch.o on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited June 2008
    dispatch.o wrote: »
    Becoming a pharmacist and refusing to dispense medication prescribed by a certified doctor is harming others.

    Refusing to take action to help somebody who you have not been explicitly charged to care for is not the same as harm.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    DeaconBluesDeaconBlues __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    I dunno if this is for a larger discussion, but what makes my belief that Black people aren't worthy of medical care a BAD belief, one I can't practice, but my belief that Plan B medication is evil a GOOD belief, one I'm free to use?

    They're polar opposites. The former belief denies basic human rights to a formerly voiceless and unprotected subgroup, the latter seeks to extend those protections to such a group.

    DeaconBlues on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
This discussion has been closed.