[Rhodes22-list] Politics - The Camel's Nose Is Well Inside The Tent

[Hank]

Dave,

As I understand it, the RU84 (did I get that right) is a morning after
contraceptive.  Hardly a treatment for a serious medical condition.  Would
you extend your line of reasoning to the point that all OB/GYN doctors must
perform abortions?  The type of treatments that the pharmacists are refusing
to treat or support are these same type of convenience treatments, not those
requiring treatment for a detrimental disease.

Hank

On 10/26/06, DCLewis1 at aol.com <DCLewis1 at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hank,
>
> As you point out, there's a lot to be said for letting you decide how
> to  run
> your business, but clearly, that can be taken too far.  Society
> has  decided,
> for better or worse, that you can't discriminate based on race,
> color,  sex,
> religious convictions, physical handicaps, sexual orientation, and
> the  list
> may go on.  We can discuss the reasonableness of those laws, but they  are
> generally accepted laws.   All we need is for a guy like  Rummy to step
> forward
> and claim that drunkeness is part of his religious  conviction and there's
> a
> case against the hapless Somali cab driver he wants to  hit, and I suspect
> Rummy
> would win big time (certainly by Somali cab driver  standards).
>
> >From my perspective, Moslem cab drivers are a zit to this  problem.  The
> real
> problem is born again Christian doctors and pharmacists  that deny
> service.
> They are licensed to be in business by the public,  they are tightly
> regulated
> and they benefit greatly from that regulation  and licensing.  I think is
> reasonable to expect them to provide the service  they have represented
> they
> would provide, without discrimination.  If a  person were in physical
> distress, I
> think it's unreasonable that they be denied  service because the medical
> practitioner decided the person was a "good person"  or "bad person", or
> the
> disease or affliction at issue was gods revenge, or any  other hare
> brained reason.
> If they want to pass judgement on people,  diseases, conditions, and/or
> approved drugs they should be  philosophers or ethicists; if they want to
> practice
> medicine they should be  doctors or pharmacists.  The individual has a
> choice,
> but having made that  choice and represented that they would provide a
> service (which is an  implicit part of their licensing) they are committed
> to
> provide the service  without discrimination to the best of their ability.
>
> I see the whole issue as just another kind of discrimination based on
> religious convictions.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> Dave
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>