I've sat off to the side and watched this discussion. Sparda, thanks for bringing it up. It is a legal and ethical (despite what TXPharmDStudent says) situation that has come up in the past and will come up in the future for many of us.
In the situation that was presented, I would have to agree it is a violation of law (just about everywhere except Oregon) and the pharmacist should refrain from participating. There a number of problems with the case presented, not the least of which is the directness of the physician in announcing the fact he is going to murder his patient or assist his patient in committing suicide.
Since I have been in practice longer than most of you, I can tell you it will never be that direct. I did once have a situation where a patient with ALS who was in excruciating discomfort was given IV morphine at the end of his life. I am certain the morphine contributed to his demise, but at the same time the treatment was palliative as well as fatal.
Personally, I am opposed to euthanasia for a number of reasons, not the least of which is who decides what life is no longer worth living? This is a philosophical position. I would never use my position as health professional to force my views on anyone else. If consulted I would express them. I would not report the physician in this case and I would not dispense the prescription.
The rest of the thread is just plain wacko.......
TXPharmDStudent: This is mostly directed at you. You have strong ideas and that is great. You express them poorly. Most are not well thought out and followed to their logical conclusion would lead to a anarchy. Others are just plain silly.....
First, let's dispense with your "don't force your religion on me" argument. So let's get this straight. In this society we debate issues and come to a consensus. We argue different positions and one side will prevail. Because my ideas are based on my religious tradition I forfeit my right to express them? You argue for X based on what you believe and I argue Y based on what I believe and whataver argument prevails in society that is what society expresses at a given time. I didn't force anything on you.
You argument against morals and ethics is a recipe for disaster. Even atheists find the need for a moral code they just don't base it on God, there are number of great threads at
Free Thought and Rationalism Discussion Board (used to be called Internet Infidels). In your view, Hitler was right to kill the Jews. After all they were vermin, less than human and therefore he was aiding German Society and the world by exterminating them. In your world view there is no right and wrong, only personal preference. By the way, it was almost universally religious people that fought for end of slavery and equal rights in this country:
Second from the right is Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel and in the Center is Rev. Martin Luther King.
Your ideas on human behavior are bizarre and uninformed by fact and simple observation. Human beings kill all of the time. That's what they do that's what they have always done. Humans are the only animals that kill for pleasure. Other animals may fight and some might die, but murder is a human phenomenon. Yes it is perfectly acceptable to be angry when someone smashes your car. What it is not right, moral or ethical to so is to act on that anger and punch the person in the face.
You are correct, humans have emotions like envy, lust, greed. Yes we all get those feelings. It's our morality whether we believe it's from God, our hearts or some societal agreed upon code, that inhibits us from acting on those impulses. The difference between animals and humans is animals eat what they want, when they want and how they want. Animals have sex when they want, how they want and where they want. Humans don't. Just because you see a woman that you find attractive walking down the street and your impulses tell you to have sex with her, it's wrong to fling her to the sidewalk and mount her. That's morality pal.... And laws do regulate behavior. People make a decision to act a certain way because should they be caught they don't want to pay the consequences. Do some people ignore laws, sure they do, the jails are full of them.
Where does this freedom you speak about come from? Where do you get your rights? Your ideas are not fully thought out.
You by the way are the one who does not understand the post hoc ergo propter hoc logic. I'm sure you know it means, after it therefore because of it. The trouble is it's almost never so as the video points out. The person who was tased was not tased for asking a question. He as one of many people at that session that asked a question and the only one who got tased. Since many people asked questions and only one got tased we can assume it was not the act of asking the question that caused him to be tased. It was is selfish, narcissistic and disruptive behavior that caused him to be tased.
