The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
A pharmacist who says he won't dispense legal medications equally is unable to do his job.
Perhaps what would serve both consumers and businesses the best is for a notice to be put up in the pharmacy, so customers will be able to make decisions after being informed as such.
That's just plain stupid. Their religious beliefs are preventing them from doing their job. Pharmacists recieve a licence from the state which allows them to practice this profession and if a pharmacist is unable to perform a basic function of the career, I.E. dispense legal drugs to people with valid perscriptions, then they need to find another line of work.
If I said I believed in the fire god Frizor and that putting out fires was against my religious beliefs should I be allowed to be a fireman? Clearly, not putting out fires would majorly impact on my job as a fireman. A pharmacist who says he won't dispense legal medications equally is unable to do his job. If he wants to work in that field then he needs to perform all the duties the job entails. Simple as that.
Originally posted by Oerdin
That's just plain stupid. Their religious beliefs are preventing them from doing their job. Pharmacists recieve a licence from the state which allows them to practice this profession and if a pharmacist is unable to perform a basic function of the career, I.E. dispense legal drugs to people with valid perscriptions, then they need to find another line of work.
.... Pharmacists =/= Pharmacies. The Pharmacies goal is to sell drugs. They don't have a requirement that they stock x, y, and z drugs. They can decide for themselves which drugs to stock, whether for reasons of economics or morality. Why can't they decide which drugs they would like to stock? If they can't be trusted, why not just have the government take over the pharmacy business?
Pharmacists can't distribute drugs that their pharmacy doesn't have. To end up blaming pharmacists because the pharmacy decides not to carry a drug is what is 'just plain stupid'.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Take overs aren't necissary because every pharmacy and every pharmacist must be licenced by the state. They are regulated to maintain the public good, to insure the people are knowledgeable in their field, and that they are complying with the law. All that needs to happen is for the law to state that in order to hold a pharmacist's licence you must fill all valid perscription for legal medications. That's there job and it is not unreasonable to expect them to do their job.
Don't like the job? Then find a different job but if you keep the job you are required to do all aspects of the job not just the ones you like.
Private pharmacies should not be forced to sell drugs they don't want, whether it be for economic or moral reasons. If you want to nationalize pharmacies, go ahead, but don't tell these private pharmacies that they have to sell those drugs.
Creating a whole chain of public pharmacies would be silly, BUT it is very important for certain drugs - especially the morning-after pill to be available to pretty much anyone. The obvious solution to correct this market failure is to require the pharmacies to stock morning-after pills.
"Nationalize or don't regulate at all" is an idiotic (and false) dichotomy.
Originally posted by Oerdin
Take overs aren't necissary because every pharmacy and every pharmacist must be licenced by the state. They are regulated to maintain the public good, to insure the people are knowledgeable in their field, and that they are complying with the law. All that needs to happen is for the law to state that in order to hold a pharmacist's licence you must fill all valid perscription for legal medications. That's there job and it is not unreasonable to expect them to do their job.
Don't like the job? Then find a different job but if you keep the job you are required to do all aspects of the job not just the ones you like.
What's their job? To supply everything and anything under the sun? I thought their job was to make money, like every other business.
AFAIK, there is no law requiring pharmacies to stock every drug, nor laws which end up saying that by requiring all pharmacists to fill all perscriptions for legal medications. So pharmacies that refuse to carry the drug are not doing anything wrong.
The upshot of your law, of course, is that small pharmacies will go under. They won't be able to afford all the legal drugs out there.
[Q=Kuciwalker]Creating a whole chain of public pharmacies would be silly, BUT it is very important for certain drugs - especially the morning-after pill to be available to pretty much anyone. The obvious solution to correct this market failure is to require the pharmacies to stock morning-after pills.[/Q]
If it is important for such drugs to be available to pretty much anyone, wouldn't that necessarily call for the government paying for those drugs for poor individuals who aren't able to afford those drugs (not likely to be covered under medical plans)? After all those drugs really aren't available to the poor because they can't buy it, even if it is in their neighborhood pharmacy.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Catholic hospitals don't perform abortions. Should we go ahead and close the hundreds around the world?
Doctors make available procedures, and chose not to make available, procedures ALL THE TIME. Mostly for economic reasons, but many times for a host of others.
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
If it is important for such drugs to be available to pretty much anyone, wouldn't that necessarily call for the government paying for those drugs for poor individuals who aren't able to afford those drugs (not likely to be covered under medical plans)?
Possibly yes. However, given that there are many more consequences of subsidizing purchase of those drugs than of merely requiring that pharmacies stock them, it doesn't necessarily follow from my argument. Sorry, reductio ad absurdem doesn't work here. And of course the obstacle here was that it wasn't available for purchase, not that she couldn't afford it.
What's their job? To supply everything and anything under the sun? I thought their job was to make money, like every other business.
Strawmen are wonderful, aren't they? I mean, you'd think we were proposing that they be required to stock ALL medicines, not just the morning-after pill. And along with your next statement...
The upshot of your law, of course, is that small pharmacies will go under. They won't be able to afford all the legal drugs out there.
... bull****. There's clearly a demand for the morning-after pill, and it's idiotic religious bigotry that's getting in the way of actually improving profit. Of course, it could be that the pharmacist is afraid of retaliation in the form of threats or a boycott if he stocks them, but that's an even better reason to mandate it legally.
Catholic hospitals don't perform abortions. Should we go ahead and close the hundreds around the world?
Doctors make available procedures, and chose not to make available, procedures ALL THE TIME. Mostly for economic reasons, but many times for a host of others.
When none of the hospitals or doctors in the area will perform abortions, making them completely unavailable, yes. Particularly since there IS a demand for abortions, and the reasons for not providing them have nothing to do with good business. OMG you'll drive them out of business! is just untrue.
Strawmen are wonderful, aren't they? I mean, you'd think we were proposing that they be required to stock ALL medicines, not just the morning-after pill. And along with your next statement...
That is exactly the case. YOU think the morning after pill is an absolute necessity. Someone suffering from whooping cough thinks that drug is.
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
When none of the hospitals or doctors in the area will perform abortions, making them completely unavailable, yes. Particularly since there IS a demand for abortions, and the reasons for not providing them have nothing to do with good business. OMG you'll drive them out of business! is just untrue.
So a doctor should be required to perform any procedure anyone wants all the time?
Because a brain surgon nows how to freeze of warts, if someone shows up at his office he has to do it?
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
I didn't say absolute. I said it was important, economically and in terms of public health. I bet someone with whooping cough can find treatment across America, anyway, so what's your point?
Originally posted by Patroklos
Catholic hospitals don't perform abortions. Should we go ahead and close the hundreds around the world?
No, but generally, anybody who's reasonably educated about the issue understands that a Catholic hospital will not perform an abortion for a host of reasons. Thus, when looking for an abortion, they'll avoid a Catholic hospital--being the informed consumer they are.
No such parallel yet exists for pharmacies, which is a shame.
I didn't say absolute. I said it was important, economically and in terms of public health. I bet someone with whooping cough can find treatment across America, anyway, so what's your point?
That pharmacists don't, won't and shouldn't be required to have every drug you want.
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
No, but generally, anybody who's reasonably educated about the issue understands that a Catholic hospital will not perform an abortion for a host of reasons. Thus, when looking for an abortion, they'll avoid a Catholic hospital--being the informed consumer they are.
No such parallel yet exists for pharmacies, which is a shame.
So they can put a sign outside their door saying they don't carry the drug because their Christians who don't believe in it. Same thing.
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
Tweet
Comment