[Vision2020] RE: Unstable, Doomed, Missed Points
g. crabtree
jampot at adelphia.net
Sat Mar 11 11:59:49 PST 2006
Aside from Massachusetts & Illinois, where judges have compelled pharmacy's
to carry a given product, they are not obligated by any law or oath. A
pharmacist is absolutely free to use his or her conscience in dispensing.
Thalidomide is an effective medication for certain medical problems but may
drug stores do not carry it because of its danger to the fetus of a
pregnant women. Would you go to court to force them to? I have made no
argument with regard to whom druggists should or shouldn't sell to. Please
don't put words in my mouth.
G. Crabtree
----- Original Message -----
From: <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] RE: Unstable, Doomed, Missed Points
> Mistakenly I hit 'reply' instead of 'reply all' and an exchange between
> Crabtree and I has been going on off-line. I include it below.
>
> Crabtree writes: "While it's true that most jobs come with certain
> obligations, you, as an individual, do not get to decide what they are."
>
> Of course I don't get to decide what the obligations of owners of
> pharmacies or any other business are. But since an obligation is something
> that must be done because of a legal or moral duty, the owners of
> pharmacies don't get to decide what they are either. If pharmacies are
> obligated to sell any type of drug that is legally available, then they
> must do so. Not because I say so but because that is the nature of an
> obligation.
>
> You suggested that pharmacies are not obligated to do so because
> businesses in general may choose what to sell and to whom. But my point is
> that a pharmacy is not in this sense like any other business.
> Prescriptions are not like pancakes. You are giving a faulty analogy.
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> =============
>
>
> Mr. Campbell ponders
>
> "Suppose that there was a small town with one pharmacy that was purchased
> by
> someone who thought that relying on medicine is a sin because it is
> anti-Christian. Would it be fine with you if the owner removed all of the
> medicines and replaced them with bibles, instructing customers to use it
> instead?"
>
> Suppose that this small town pharmacy was purchased by the International
> House of Pancakes who thought that providing a tasty breakfast was a
> healthy
> way to start your day. Would it be fine with you if the owner removed all
> the potions and nostrums and replaced them with waffles and omelets?
>
> Why are people of a certain persuasion always trying to force other
> individuals to conform to their notion of what's good for them? Perhaps
> you
> would be happier with a state run commissary dispensing your
> pharmaceutical
> needs. If you are unhappy with a particular pharmacies policies, patronize
> another. After all , it's not as though choices in this matter don't
> abound.
> Purchase off the internet, drive to the next drug store,or open your own
> establishment and sell any damn thing you please.
>
> While it's true that most jobs come with certain obligations, you, as an
> individual, do not get to decide what they are. The Coop doesn't carry
> every
> single brand or type of tofu or vegetable sprout and are not obligated
> to.
> If you want Prancing Hippy™ brand fermented yak cheese because you think
> it's beneficial to your health do you think you should be able to force
> them
> to provide it?
>
> G.Crabtree
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <joekc at adelphia.net>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2006 7:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] RE: Unstable, Doomed, Missed Points
>
>
> Here is the first part of the modern Hippocratic Oath:
>
> I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
> I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose
> steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who
> are
> to follow.
> I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are
> required,
> avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
>
> Does anyone know if pharmacists are required to take a similar oath? I
> would
> think so. I don’t see much difference between a doctor or police officer
> withholding treatment because of personal beliefs and a pharmacist
> withholding medicine because of personal beliefs.
>
> Suppose that there was a small town with one pharmacy that was purchased
> by
> someone who thought that relying on medicine is a sin because it is
> anti-Christian. Would it be fine with you if the owner removed all of the
> medicines and replaced them with bibles, instructing customers to use it
> instead?
>
> All jobs carry with them certain obligations. I understand that people
> have
> choices but it seems to me that if you don't want to sell contraceptives
> or
> particular kinds of medicine of some other kind, then you shouldn't own a
> pharmacy. Why not make that choice first.
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> =============
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list