Again: If you're going to abridge the pharmacist's judgement, the pharmacist can not be held liable. If the pharmacist can be held liable, you may not abridge their judgement.
If the consumer can get their prescription filled by another pharmacist, their civil rights have been in no way violated. If the pharmacist is sued because they were forced to fill a prescription that, in their judgement, should not have been filled (regardless of the motivations for their judgement), that's a miscarriage of justice.
I'm arguing from principle, rather than from Target's policy.
If you're willing to indemnify the pharmacist against complications that result from emergency contraception, it would be acceptable to require them to fill that prescription.
In that case, it would make more sense to abolish the notion of prescriptions and pharmacists altogether. The reason those objects exist is to have a second, independent, medically trained person checking to make sure that the drug prescribed is going to be safe and appropriate for the patient. That's a judgement call, and if you're going to abridge the pharmacist's responsibility to judge, the pharmacist should not be liable for any bad things that happen to you.
The pharmacist is liable for Bad Things that happen due to prescriptions, not Target (or Walgreens or whoever).
Re:Seriously : you *can* eat chicken meat.
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 1
You sound like just the sort of person who'd be very interested in my anti-tiger rock. I carry it in my pocket all the time, and I've never once been attacked by a tiger! It works PERFECTLY! I'll sell you mine for only $199.95. Heck, I'll let you have payment plans! But wait, there's more! Order now, and I'll include an anti-bear rock for FREE!
Re:Sensationalist Journalism?
on
A Flu Pandemic?
·
· Score: 1
OK, so the fact that this very scenario has played out a number of times in the past leads you to conclude that it won't happen again in the future?
So you assume that an American would assume that the laws are similar. The American's assumption is silly (obviously, because they're American), but your assumption is sound, because you're Canadian.
I see people with iPods every day (and own one myself), and I've yet to feel any urge to dance around like a crazyperson. Nor have I seen anybody else do so.
"With DRM at least there is a record of "this person has already bought this, so in fact we *can* authorise this download without charging them again"."
In theory, you're right. In practice, you're wrong.
Try to get a second download out of iTMS. Let me know when you succeed.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm...I wonder if the scientists performing these experiments have thought of that.
DUH.
Again: If you're going to abridge the pharmacist's judgement, the pharmacist can not be held liable. If the pharmacist can be held liable, you may not abridge their judgement.
If the consumer can get their prescription filled by another pharmacist, their civil rights have been in no way violated. If the pharmacist is sued because they were forced to fill a prescription that, in their judgement, should not have been filled (regardless of the motivations for their judgement), that's a miscarriage of justice.
I'm arguing from principle, rather than from Target's policy.
If you're willing to indemnify the pharmacist against complications that result from emergency contraception, it would be acceptable to require them to fill that prescription.
In that case, it would make more sense to abolish the notion of prescriptions and pharmacists altogether. The reason those objects exist is to have a second, independent, medically trained person checking to make sure that the drug prescribed is going to be safe and appropriate for the patient. That's a judgement call, and if you're going to abridge the pharmacist's responsibility to judge, the pharmacist should not be liable for any bad things that happen to you.
The pharmacist is liable for Bad Things that happen due to prescriptions, not Target (or Walgreens or whoever).
When the poster said "Pavlov", you knew what he meant, right?
Communication works in mysterious ways, huh?
Wait. So people who exhibit obsessive behavior exhibit obsessive behavior? Wow! how much did THAT particular research gem cost?
"Lifetime of home printed is better than chemistry online."
Where is this magical inkjet printer that prints for a lifetime?
"Vote with your dollars."
I don't have enough of them to matter.
So as long as you're streaming to a Media Center PC, you're fine. If you're not, you're boned.
This is a win for me, how exactly?
Well, gee. I guess the people who died in agonizing pain should be glad they were doing their civic duty.
Any time you think that somebody else should die because it'll make your life better, go ahead and kill yourself.
What business is it of yours how I spend my time?
You sound like just the sort of person who'd be very interested in my anti-tiger rock. I carry it in my pocket all the time, and I've never once been attacked by a tiger! It works PERFECTLY! I'll sell you mine for only $199.95. Heck, I'll let you have payment plans! But wait, there's more! Order now, and I'll include an anti-bear rock for FREE!
OK, so the fact that this very scenario has played out a number of times in the past leads you to conclude that it won't happen again in the future?
Your logic is...sparkly.
So you assume that an American would assume that the laws are similar. The American's assumption is silly (obviously, because they're American), but your assumption is sound, because you're Canadian.
Damn your flappy headed logic!
Wow, where do you live?
I see people with iPods every day (and own one myself), and I've yet to feel any urge to dance around like a crazyperson. Nor have I seen anybody else do so.
Dell also announced that Apple should liquidate itself and give the money back to the shareholders a couple years ago.
Steve Jobs remembers shit like that, and he doesn't reward it. I suspect you'll see OSX on factory Dells shortly after the heat death of the universe.
I've been wrong before, but betting against Steve Jobs' ego is not generally a wise investment.
.....mmmmmkay.....
Thanks for sharing!
Magnatune is great, but their selection of stuff I like is a little thin.
I've gotten some tracks I really like a lot, but their selection is, shall we say, not huge.
Uh, it's the dictionary. Next time, try linking to something funny when you want to make a joke.
"The record companies want to make money, people want to control their stuff."
Uh huh. And I want a pony. So what?
"So instead of bitching about it, then bending over and taking it, why doesn't someone come up with an alternative."
People have. It's called file sharing, and I hear it's going to be the next big thing.
"thiefs"
Wow. Not only did you spell it wrong, you used it incorrectly. Your English teacher is crying right now.
"With DRM at least there is a record of "this person has already bought this, so in fact we *can* authorise this download without charging them again"."
In theory, you're right. In practice, you're wrong.
Try to get a second download out of iTMS. Let me know when you succeed.
Is everybody who disagrees with you an idiot?
"feeble retroactive attempts to shoehorn a decade-old UN resolution into an authorisation for war doesn't count"
So, if you exclude the things that make the war legal, the war's illegal.
Righto.
The invasion was ill-timed, ill-planned, ill-advised, and generally a Bad Idea, but it was not illegal.
Uh, OK, tense guy. Take a deep breath. If it makes you feel better, you can define the discussion in terms such that you're right.
Go have a bit of a nap, and maybe a cup of cocoa.
Transfer data+google for translation routine=way more trivial than migrating from betamax to DVD.
Your point simply does not stand.