Subject:
|
Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:57:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1217 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
> Dave Schuler wrote:
> > As to Frank's point, I must disagree that it might be okay for the
> > pharmacist to refuse the prescription. Even if the pharmacy has a
> > faith-friendly policy, the pharmacist is state-licensed, and I don't
> > believe, though I may be wrong, that the state license includes an
> > exemption for religion. And if it *does* include such an exemption,
> > then that exemption should be stricken, IMO.
>
> From a libertarian perspective, I'll grant the pharmacist the right to
> discriminate. What I don't grant him the right to do though is interfere.
> Refusing to fill a prescription is discrimination. Refusal to forward the
> prescription to someone else is interference. Though part of the problem here
> is doctors sending prescriptions directly to pharmacies instead of the old
> days where they gave you a prescription on a piece of paper that you took to
> whichever pharmacist you chose. With some situations now though, you can
> just go to another pharmacy and they can contact the health care provider to
> request the prescription, bypassing the pharmacy it was sent to in the first
> place.
Actually, the doctor-to-pharmacy direct link hadn't occurred to me. My family
doctor usually still gives us a script and we take it to the pharmacist, though
she sometimes calls in the prescription directly, with our permission. That
would presumably allow us to have her call a different pharmacy, if we so
choose.
> On the other hand, since we don't have a proper free market system, it may
> be required that we force pharmacists to write prescriptions even when they
> don't want to.
I'm not sure that "force" is the right word to use there, since it carries a lot
of baggage in a libertarian context (re: the initiation thereof). If he agreed,
even implicitly, to non-discrimination in his license (i.e., the contract), then
he is in breach of contract if he thereafter discriminates. The only force used
against him is the force required to enforce the terms of the contract, as
agreed at the time of contract. This would be true, I think, even in a free
market system where some analogous license/contract framework were[1] in place.
Dave!
[1] A little help from the gallery, please--did I use the subjunctive correctly
there?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
| (...) Well, perhaps force is too strong, though I'm comfortable with anything the government requires as being forced in that ultimately, if you refuse, the government could escalate to use of force. I agree that the pharmacist's contract may very (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Religious Freedom Claim Taken Too Far?
|
| (...) From a libertarian perspective, I'll grant the pharmacist the right to discriminate. What I don't grant him the right to do though is interfere. Refusing to fill a prescription is discrimination. Refusal to forward the prescription to someone (...) (20 years ago, 13-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
