| User | Post |
Ran-chan
Posts: 9222/12781 |
This is plain discrimination. One of my old classmates is gay and it |
Ailure
Posts: 9449/11162 |
I wonder why we would need guns in a "civilised country"  .(and sorry for that small offtopic sentance)
I only heard of the opposite here luckily, and that's patients don't wanting treatment from the docter/nurse becuse of his/her skin colour or relgion.
And why don't you have the full URL? And how the hell would Nurses and Doctors see if someone is gay? Well, ok if the person is question is in a relationships it maybe shows up in the journals... |
The SomerZ
Posts: 707/862 |
Isn't it funny how people who generally push for pharmasists' rights to not give people birth control are often the same people who claim that one should be allowed to buy guns anywhere and for whatever reasons?  |
drjayphd
Posts: 968/1477 |
Originally posted by iamhiro1112
Originally posted by Admiral Kefbar
Originally posted by iamhiro1112
I can see certain things. Like Allowing Pharmasists to not fill Birth Control prescriptions. But I don't see how treating gays in hospitals can conflict with beliefs. It's not like by treating them you are enabling their lifestyle. I think the bill is kinda silly. I'd like to see the doctors reasoning to not treat gays.
What basis do you have for allowing pharmacists to deny patients of birth control pills? I mean, a Hindu waiter can't refuse to serve meat at a restraunt and expect to keep a job... why would a pharmacist be any different with birth control?
EDIT: i.e. you should go into a job knowing what is expected of you, and if it conflicts with your beliefs, you should not go into that field. Pharmacists are here to serve the public, not to protect themselves from their own hell or eternal damnation that they may or may not believe in.
Well, they obviously go into medicine because they are looking to help people. As in heal and treat their ailments. Birth Control pills aren't neccessary to keep one alive. And besides, to some pharmasists they feel that this is actually a form of abortion and pro lifers ain't into abortion. It shouldn't be mandated that they have to assist in what they feel is abortion. Besides, the people can just ask the pharmasist next to him to fill their birth control perscription and it's cool. There is usually more than one pharmasist working at drug stores.
Unless the pharmacist in question IS the only one there. And he won't refer you to another pharmacy. Nor will he give you your prescription back. (Yes, this has actually happened. Back when I first heard about these bills.) Sure, you can go back to your doctor to get another one, but that's an unnecessary expense.
The pharmacist's job is not to decide what medication you need. That's what the doctor is for. Birth control pills are prescribed for other purposes, ya know, like treating endometriosis. Is that on the prescription? It may not be, as far as I know, not being the proud owner of a uterus and all. So as far as they know, you might actually be getting it for non-birth control reasons. |
iamhiro1112
Posts: 412/487 |
Originally posted by Admiral Kefbar
Originally posted by iamhiro1112
I can see certain things. Like Allowing Pharmasists to not fill Birth Control prescriptions. But I don't see how treating gays in hospitals can conflict with beliefs. It's not like by treating them you are enabling their lifestyle. I think the bill is kinda silly. I'd like to see the doctors reasoning to not treat gays.
What basis do you have for allowing pharmacists to deny patients of birth control pills? I mean, a Hindu waiter can't refuse to serve meat at a restraunt and expect to keep a job... why would a pharmacist be any different with birth control?
EDIT: i.e. you should go into a job knowing what is expected of you, and if it conflicts with your beliefs, you should not go into that field. Pharmacists are here to serve the public, not to protect themselves from their own hell or eternal damnation that they may or may not believe in.
Well, they obviously go into medicine because they are looking to help people. As in heal and treat their ailments. Birth Control pills aren't neccessary to keep one alive. And besides, to some pharmasists they feel that this is actually a form of abortion and pro lifers ain't into abortion. It shouldn't be mandated that they have to assist in what they feel is abortion. Besides, the people can just ask the pharmasist next to him to fill their birth control perscription and it's cool. There is usually more than one pharmasist working at drug stores. |
drjayphd
Posts: 965/1477 |
Even then, though, a pharmacist, say, provides a public service. A REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT one, too. When we're talking about public health, you kind of forfeit any opportunity to do your job according to your own morals. You suck it up and be a professional, or if birth control/EC is that repugnant, you find another line of work. It's that simple. Pharmacists, who are the big examples here (kind of like how discussions of gay rights/marriage/etc. inevitably conjure up images of sweaty man-sex) will be doing their communities a grave disservice if morals were allowed to interfere in the job. You get a prescription, you fill the fucking thing. |
windwaker
Posts: 1426/1797 |
I think he's referring to "I see how [x] can get away with not giving out birth control pills because of their religion" rather than "I see why that's legal". |
Kefka
Posts: 2694/3392 |
Originally posted by iamhiro1112
I can see certain things. Like Allowing Pharmasists to not fill Birth Control prescriptions. But I don't see how treating gays in hospitals can conflict with beliefs. It's not like by treating them you are enabling their lifestyle. I think the bill is kinda silly. I'd like to see the doctors reasoning to not treat gays.
What basis do you have for allowing pharmacists to deny patients of birth control pills? I mean, a Hindu waiter can't refuse to serve meat at a restraunt and expect to keep a job... why would a pharmacist be any different with birth control?
EDIT: i.e. you should go into a job knowing what is expected of you, and if it conflicts with your beliefs, you should not go into that field. Pharmacists are here to serve the public, not to protect themselves from their own hell or eternal damnation that they may or may not believe in. |
iamhiro1112
Posts: 395/487 |
I can see certain things. Like Allowing Pharmasists to not fill Birth Control prescriptions. But I don't see how treating gays in hospitals can conflict with beliefs. It's not like by treating them you are enabling their lifestyle. I think the bill is kinda silly. I'd like to see the doctors reasoning to not treat gays. |
Colin
Posts: 7930/11302 |
I think it does set a dangerous precedent, but note that the article said that the doctors can still be sued - just not on the basis of discrimination. So you're not going to see many doctors using this law to its fullest extent, because sooner or later they'll end up ticking off the wrong person. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3638/5458 |
I just REALLY don't like this, because more than a few nutters are going to push the boundaries and really hurt people. This goes beyond gays, too. This can easily turn into racist or other forms of prejudice.
Although I find it funny that neo-NAZIs wanted things like this pushed through in the mid-80s to mid-90s (when they just kinda went kapootz) and ironically, the bill is Senate Bill 88. 88 being a neo-NAZI call sign. |
hhallahh
Posts: 540/607 |
I'm generally for the rights of private firms to discriminate, even if it's stupid like this. It should also be noted that hospitals wouldn't be able to discriminate in emergency situations. You aren't going to have gay people dying because they need to be taken to far-away hospitals. |
Kefka
Posts: 2621/3392 |
http://news4colorado.com/localnews/local_s..._087110809.html
Bill Lets Doctors, Nurses Refuse To Treat Homosexuals
Mar 28, 2003 9:07 am US/Mountain
DENVER (AP) State representatives have removed a provision protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination by health care workers.
Rep. Don Lee, a Jefferson County Republican, took a run-of-the-mill measure dealing with agency regulations and amended it to remove protection for gays under rules set by the Medical Services Board. It was approved by the House Thursday.
*snip*
An angry Rep. Jennifer Veiga, a Denver Democrat and House minority leader, said Lee's approach also would allow for discriminating against people who are older, believe in a certain religion, belong to an ethnic group or have a physical disability.
( |
