[Rhodes22-list] Politics - Camel Nose Logic

[Tootle]

Dave:

  It is my humble opinion your logic is flawed.  First, in the medical
field, all services need not be provided by all.  All emergency rooms do no
provide all theoretical emergency services even thought they are licensed
emergency rooms.  In many cases they triage and stabilize then send the
patient to a facility better able to handle that type emergency. 
 
	Therefore why should all pharmacies be required to stock all drugs.  

                 Catholic hospitals have never normally done abortions even
in places where such procedures are legal yet they serve the poor.  

	 I suppose that next you will say that my local Indian restaurant show have
steak on the menu?  They are a licensed restaurant.  What if you want steak? 
People who are vegetarians should be compelled to serve steak because it is
legal.  

Ed K
Greenville, SC, USA




Woten wrote:
> 
>  
> In a message dated 10/26/2006 9:25:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
> hnw555 at gmail.com writes:
> 
> As I  understand it, the RU84 (did I get that right) is a morning  after
> contraceptive.  Hardly a treatment for a serious medical  condition. 
> 
> 
> Hank,
>  
> WRT your post, I think unwanted pregnancy is a serious medical condition 
> and 
> there are likely many thousands of poor women that will tell you that.  
> You 
> and I, as men, probably ought not to judge.  Still, there are a zillion  
> drugs, and if a particular pharmacy didn’t stock RU84, or whatever, I
> would not  
> hold it against them.  If they did stock RU84 and declined to sell it to 
> some 
> person that needed it, I would charge discrimination.  The job of the 
> pharmacy 
> and the pharmacist, and the reason they have been granted a license by 
> the 
> public, is to sell/dispense authorized drugs, not to judge utilization of 
> the 
> drugs or the people that use them.
>  
> Re requiring ob/gyn practioners to perform abortions, I would require  
> doctors to perform abortions  if abortions were part of their board 
> certification.  
> If the doctors don’t want to do abortions, they could be  recertified in a 
> specialty that was more agreeable to them, or they could  relocate their 
> practices to a jurisdiction that did not authorize  abortions.  Also, if
> abortions 
> were NOT part of the board certification  process, and there was no reason
> to 
> assume a specific doctor was medically  competent to perform the
> procedure, I don
> ’t think their declining to undertake a  procedure they were not certified
> to 
> perform amounts to  discrimination.
>  
> The overriding point is that there is an implicit, and sometimes explicit,  
> guarantee of service to the consumer for most licensed professions and  
> occupations and those services should be provided without discrimination.  
> If the 
> practioner has been granted a license by the public to provide a  service
> on a 
> commercial basis, it should be provided.  We went through that  drill with 
> barbers that opted not to cut the hair of black people, and realtors  that
> only 
> wanted to deal with white people.  Those cases are now clear  law. 
> Doctors and 
> pharmacists (and cab drivers) should have to follow the  same laws.
>  
> Note: In the above I am not arguing for or against the ethics and legality  
> of abortion or birth control, I’m saying that IF those arguments have been
> made 
>  and that abortion or birth control is legally permitted in a
> jurisdiction, 
> THEN  persons licensed to provide that service on a commercial basis in
> that  
> jurisdiction have an obligation to provide service on a commercial basis
> to  
> the best of their ability without discrimination.
>  
> JMO.
>  
> Sorry to take so long to respond, but I took off yesterday to start  
> winterizing the boat.
> Actually, it was an interesting experience, the tide on the Chesapeake was  
> very high, by my standards.  It was the first time I had to step UP to get 
> in 
> the boat from our pier.  I'd be interested regarding the experience of 
> others 
> that might have been on the Chesapeake yesterday.  It was quite a  tide.
> 6" 
> higher and the pier would have been underwater.
>  
> Dave 
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Politics---The-Camel%27s-Nose-Is-Well-Inside-The-Tent-tf2513423.html#a7062129
Sent from the Rhodes22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.