Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,164 Year: 5,421/9,624 Month: 446/323 Week: 86/204 Day: 2/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How accurate is this email?
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3536 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 19 of 93 (385771)
02-17-2007 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
02-16-2007 11:57 PM


Every pharmaceutical company in the world has vested interests in finding a vaccine. That's beau coup bucks for them.
I am not advocating any kind of conspiracy theory here, just posing a question.
Why would any pharmaceutical company interested solely in "beau coup" bucks (not saying they necessarily are...just following the line of thought) be interested in creating a vaccine or a cure which is a one time investment by individuals and would have to be priced relatively low over creating expensive medicines (cocktails of medicines, even) which have to be taken EVERY DAY by those afflicted.
Disease maintenance seems like it's more of a financial windfall than a vaccine or cure would be.
Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-16-2007 11:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 11:46 AM Jaderis has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3536 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 77 of 93 (386334)
02-21-2007 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hyroglyphx
02-20-2007 11:35 AM


The real question is why gender roles are something to look down on in straights, but something applauded in homosexuals. There seems to be some disparity. Why is that?
What are you talking about?
Could you please give some examples or even just elaborate a little on this position?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-20-2007 11:35 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Wounded King, posted 02-21-2007 5:12 AM Jaderis has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3536 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 78 of 93 (386335)
02-21-2007 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Taz
02-21-2007 12:23 AM


Re: Answering the critics
Sorry to butt in...
but that doesn't mean we can give out legal penalties for those who refuse to do so... unless they're lifeguards.
But not doctors?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Taz, posted 02-21-2007 12:23 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Taz, posted 02-21-2007 2:23 AM Jaderis has replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3536 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 80 of 93 (386338)
02-21-2007 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Taz
02-21-2007 2:23 AM


Re: Answering the critics
My intention was not to try to drag this thread off topic, but I just have one question (which I probably should have asked in the other thread, but oh well). You brought up lifeguards, presumably, as an example of someone who specifically took upon an occupation which would require him/her to save people and has received the requisite training in order to make that happen.
The question I had from the other thread is, why shouldn't we be allowed to penalize someone who has taken on a specific occupation that entails specific responsibilities, when they fail to meet those responsibilities?
I would think that if racist doctors wanted to form their own licensing body (which is probably illegal) then they may be able to get away with what you propose should be the case, but they are still licensed and allowed to practice by a governing body that requires them to save anyone's life no matter what hospital they work for or if they have their own private practice. To allow racist doctors to form their own licensing body you would have to decentralize the entire medical establishment and anyone could form their own version of the AMA or what have you and you could have practically anyone allowed to practice medicine regardless of qualifications as long as their parent licensing body deemed them "able." Much like fire brigades in US urban areas in the late 18th/early 19th centuries were uncentralized and homes/buildings often had to display a symbol of allegiance of some sort in order for a certain brigade to put out the fire no matter if they were the first on scene or not.
The bottom line is, if you sign up for specific lines of work, you also sign up for the obligations inherent in the job. If you have some quality about yourself that would inhibit you from performing the job (you are too small/tall, your religion prohibits you from touching a non-related woman, you have severe asthma, you have unsteady hands, you are a racist and will select who you will save/treat based on race, etc) then you are disqualified from said job.
I'm not sure if the other thread is still open, but as this does not specifically pertain to this thread, I will move this discussion if it needs to go further.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Taz, posted 02-21-2007 2:23 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Taz, posted 02-21-2007 1:21 PM Jaderis has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024