[Vision2020] RE: Unstable, Doomed, Missed Points

[g. crabtree]

Greetings Joan Opyr,

In general I would say that in the case of the sheriff, IF it all went down 
as the victims sister and mother claim, I would think that their suit will 
prevail in court. A sheriff is elected/appointed to serve all the folks in 
his jurisdiction. To use his official capacity to prevent potentially life 
saving treatment to anyone is wrong, period.

As to the pharmacy, or any other merchant for that matter, I believe they 
have the right to sell whatever merchandise they see fit, for whatever 
reason or no reason at all. Not every hospital elects to have the ability to 
perform an MRI or have a board certified ololaryngologist on staff even 
though either one could be potentially lifesaving. I don't think that every 
person in the world is entitled to every thing in the world at every 
location in the world.

Having spent my formative years attending a Catholic school, I happen to 
know for a fact that unfortunate eyewear is permitted  by the edicts of 
Vatican II, mainly because it has been found that they are totally 
ineffective in the presence of a sixteen year old horn dog.

G. Crabtree
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joan Opyr" <joanopyr at moscow.com>
To: "Saundra Lund" <sslund at adelphia.net>
Cc: "'g. crabtree'" <jampot at adelphia.net>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] RE: Unstable, Doomed, Missed Points


>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: g. crabtree [mailto:jampot at adelphia.net]
>> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 4:51 PM
>> To: Saundra Lund; vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] RE: Unstable, Doomed, Missed Points
>>
>> Greetings, Ms Lund. As you probably would expect, I am 100% against the
>> state compelling anyone to sell a product or provide a service that they
>> believe is morally wrong. To force a pharmacist to fill a prescription 
>> for a
>> product that he finds abhorrent is no different that forcing a pacifist,
>> anti second amendment type hardware store owner is sell affordable 
>> handguns
>> in accordance with applicable law.  As near as I can tell, it is not 
>> against
>> state or federal law to refuse to sell Plan B so as far as complying with
>> regulations, Wal-Mart was in the clear. With that being the case, do I 
>> take
>> from your reply that you're cool with WM's reticence to provide this
>> product?
>
> Hello Gary Crabtree,
>
> First, no sarcasm here; none at all.  Just a straightforward question 
> about the position you stake out above.  A sheriff in West Virginia is, at 
> present, being sued for refusing CPR to a gay man who died as a 
> consequence.  Would you support that sheriff's decision not to supply a 
> service for which he, the sheriff, had contracted but which he found 
> personally and morally repugnant?  It concerns me that medical services 
> (and I included filling prescriptions) might be parsed out according to 
> the provider's belief or whim.  The pharmacist doesn't write the 
> prescription; he/she just pops the pills into the bottle.  The pharmacist 
> is also not in a position, legally or morally, to dictate ethics to the 
> patient.  Where do we draw the line?  What would you say of Scientology 
> pharmacists who (like eighth level Thetan, Tom Cruise) believe that Prozac 
> is wicked and a few lessons from L. Ron Hubbard are more than adequate for 
> treating depression?  Or Catholic pharamacists who don't want to supply 
> any form of birth control?  (Not even ugly eyeglasses.)
>
> Interested to hear your answer.  No kidding!
>
> Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
> www.joanopyr.com
>
>