Friday, June 03, 2005
What media bias?
Several of my blogging brethren laud The Tennessean when it actually has a decent piece of reporting. Call me crazy, but I expect such unbiased standards at all times from a mainstream source. But just in case anyone is being fooled into believing that The Tennessean isn't still the same liberal mouthpiece that it was back during the days of Al and Tipper, read their anti-conservative editorial in today's paper. It's hard to be anti-civil rights, anti-family values, anti-religious rights, pro-divorce, and anti-pharmacist in one editorial, but the liberal elites at the Nashville fishwrapper somehow managed to pull it off. It's the rare editorial where I disagree with every position discussed.
Permalink posted by Rob Huddleston @ 7:38 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
So, you think that a pharmacist should be able to over rule a doctors perscription? And that a student should be the one to decide what the teacher teaches?
If you are stupid enough to apply to a university that teaches things you don't want to know, then you really don't deserve a deploma.
Besides, all knowledge has value, even the stuff you don't believe in. There is no growth the afirmation of the things you already believe. Of course no curriculum should ever challenge anyone's preexisting beliefs. right? "Just tell me what I want to hear" is a great philosophy.
If you are stupid enough to apply to a university that teaches things you don't want to know, then you really don't deserve a deploma.
Besides, all knowledge has value, even the stuff you don't believe in. There is no growth the afirmation of the things you already believe. Of course no curriculum should ever challenge anyone's preexisting beliefs. right? "Just tell me what I want to hear" is a great philosophy.
# posted by 
: 12:32 AM
: 12:32 AM
The Homeless Guy -
First, thanks for commenting. I imagine that the homeless have a hard time getting on-line. I know I have had difficulty when traveling away from home (although that is becoming a thing of the past with truck stops and even fast food restaurants having wi-fi and all-night Internet cafes in many major cities). Now, my responses to your questions...
Yes, I absolutely believe that a pharmacist should be able to choose whether he/she will prescribe a certain medication or treatment if that medication or treatment violates their moral values. This isn't, however, "overruling a doctor," as you put it, because it isn't as if the pharmacist is choosing whether or not to follow the doctor's prescription by changing medications or doses. He/she is simply saying, "No, I am not going to take part in this treatment because of its moral/religious implications." We allow doctors to make such choices with regards to abortions - why should pharmacists (who also have a grueling course of study) face such discrimination? Pharmacists are people, just like doctors, and should be allowed to act on their beliefs, not just their training. They are not automatons. (In medical school, this debate was whether we were healers or auto mechanics. Not surprisingly, several medical students felt the way you apparently do, but I feel that was more because they didn't want to make such decisions.)
As for your student-university arguments, they are contrarian. You claim that "stupid" students choose universities that teach "things you don't want to know," but then you claim that one doesn't grow if he only receives "affirmation of the things you already believe." So, do you believe all those who choose to attend college to be "stupid?" It seems that you are either "stupid" for attending a university with a liberal (for example) teaching philosophy, or you are stupid for choosing oen that simply reinforces your preexisting notions. So which one is it, or is everyone with a college education stupid? (In looking at my student loan debt, I might agree with the latter conclusion.)
Cheers,
Rob
First, thanks for commenting. I imagine that the homeless have a hard time getting on-line. I know I have had difficulty when traveling away from home (although that is becoming a thing of the past with truck stops and even fast food restaurants having wi-fi and all-night Internet cafes in many major cities). Now, my responses to your questions...
Yes, I absolutely believe that a pharmacist should be able to choose whether he/she will prescribe a certain medication or treatment if that medication or treatment violates their moral values. This isn't, however, "overruling a doctor," as you put it, because it isn't as if the pharmacist is choosing whether or not to follow the doctor's prescription by changing medications or doses. He/she is simply saying, "No, I am not going to take part in this treatment because of its moral/religious implications." We allow doctors to make such choices with regards to abortions - why should pharmacists (who also have a grueling course of study) face such discrimination? Pharmacists are people, just like doctors, and should be allowed to act on their beliefs, not just their training. They are not automatons. (In medical school, this debate was whether we were healers or auto mechanics. Not surprisingly, several medical students felt the way you apparently do, but I feel that was more because they didn't want to make such decisions.)
As for your student-university arguments, they are contrarian. You claim that "stupid" students choose universities that teach "things you don't want to know," but then you claim that one doesn't grow if he only receives "affirmation of the things you already believe." So, do you believe all those who choose to attend college to be "stupid?" It seems that you are either "stupid" for attending a university with a liberal (for example) teaching philosophy, or you are stupid for choosing oen that simply reinforces your preexisting notions. So which one is it, or is everyone with a college education stupid? (In looking at my student loan debt, I might agree with the latter conclusion.)
Cheers,
Rob
If you are going to take issue with what is taught at an institution then why attend it? If what or who something is taught is so important to you, then you should make sure BEFORE entering the school that they are going to teach what you want to learn. To go to a "liberal" school and then complain about what they teach, is, well, stupid.
I see your point on the pharmacy issue, though the only thing I can think of, that a pharm would have issue with would be birth control or sex inhancement drugs. Most pharms work for corporations and would be obliged to company policy. Then again, if you are against what doctors prescribe, why would get into that business in the first place. IF the pharm won't fill your perscription, just take your business elsewhere. btw, just how many pharms are taking issue with what doctors prescribe? An extrodinary minority I would think - still, now that I think of it, do they really need legislation for this? Can't indpendent pharms just decline the business anyway? If the pharm happened to work at a place like Walgreens, eventually, all that company would do is screen job applicants and avoid the whole issue from the get go. They can choose not to hire someone based on a religious issue if that issue interfers with the duties of the job position. Seems like a moot point all around.
Just remember that all news media are liberal controlled, and that all liberals are wrong and generally bad people. (just remember that though liberally slanted, (not really) news media are all owned by conservatives)
Post a Comment
I see your point on the pharmacy issue, though the only thing I can think of, that a pharm would have issue with would be birth control or sex inhancement drugs. Most pharms work for corporations and would be obliged to company policy. Then again, if you are against what doctors prescribe, why would get into that business in the first place. IF the pharm won't fill your perscription, just take your business elsewhere. btw, just how many pharms are taking issue with what doctors prescribe? An extrodinary minority I would think - still, now that I think of it, do they really need legislation for this? Can't indpendent pharms just decline the business anyway? If the pharm happened to work at a place like Walgreens, eventually, all that company would do is screen job applicants and avoid the whole issue from the get go. They can choose not to hire someone based on a religious issue if that issue interfers with the duties of the job position. Seems like a moot point all around.
Just remember that all news media are liberal controlled, and that all liberals are wrong and generally bad people. (just remember that though liberally slanted, (not really) news media are all owned by conservatives)
# posted by : 3:48 AM
: 3:48 AM << Home
