As I mentioned over at ... that other place, I think Google is going out on a limb with that blog. If they continue and are relatively open with information, I expect a securities lawsuit the first time their stock price dips. It's an unfortunate side effect of being a public company; ironically it forces the company to be more tight-lipped than when it was privately owned.
This probably isn't a perfect answer to your question, but for those of you interested in legal writing, I've found Bryan Garner's Element of Legal Style and Dictionary of Modern Usage to be useful references.
What does that mean, f8x? May the government pass laws that happen to comport with the majority's conception of morality? Sure. Take murder, for example. Is murder immoral? Yes. Is it illegal? Obviously. Does that mean that government is "legislating morality"? I'm not sure I even know what that means.
I think the language of "first class" and "second class" citizens is important, but sometimes overblown. When debating a single issue, albeit an important one, the "class" designation should probably be accompanied by the qualifier "with respect to this issue." Gays are, for example, second class citizens with respect to marriage and its associated benefits. Certainly, that can contribute to, and in the case of gays, probably does contribute to the general public's view of gays as abnormal, outside the mainstrean, etc, and in that sense, reinforces the relegation of gays to second class status generally. Admittedly, the rhetoric is sometimes clumsy and imprecise, but not wrong.
On the other point, regarding civil unions versus marriages, I'm on the fence. I think Kerry has a point, in that it doesn't matter what we call it, as long as we provide for equal rights. At the same time, however, calling one a civil union and the other a marriage contributes to the relegation of gays to second class status, as I noted above. Even if the same rights are granted--which would be a victory, mind you, just not a complete one--the notion is that the union between two gay people and the union between two straight people are two different things. They are not. Further, there is a real legal question about how civil unions will be treated in states other than the ones granting them and how civil unions will be treated by the federal government for tax and other purposes. Civil unions needlessly multiply the competing legal standards, rather than working cohesively within the existing framework.
More importantly, from my point of view, is that the debate between civil unions and marriages exposes a fundamental problem with limiting recognition to straight marriages: establishment of religion. Although some may argue, most opponents of gay marriage oppose it on religious grounds. For the government to acknowledge those arguments and deny equal access to marriage benefits to gays on those grounds is unacceptable to me.
jb: The natural law argument, I fear, does not hold up when you realise that homosexual behaviours, like it or not, are just as "natural" as heterosexual and reproductive actions.
As noted above, though, this is not what natural law means. Natural law legal theory means means that law has authority because it comports with objective moral standards. Those moral standards may or may not be mirrored in nature. Just as homosexuality appears in nature, so to does fratricide, infanticide, incest, and cannibalism. The fact that any specific behavior appears in nature should be no argument for it's assignation of moral value.
Other than that minor nit, jb, I agree completely. [btw, who broke the html in posts?]
It's my impression that the framers went out their way to form a secular government. "Separation of church and state" was intended to mean that one sect's beliefs shouldn't interfere with another's.
Well, that's really only a half-truth. As I noted above, the purpose of the Bill of Rights at the time of the founding was largely a federalist one. Those Amendments did not apply to the states at the time, and would not for nearly another hundred years. Instead, the First Amendment in particular only protected the states from interference from the federal government. Now, the Fourteenth Amendment changed all that of course, but it would be a mistake to ascribe those aspirations to all, or even a majority of the founders.
My impression is that "natural law" means "kill or be killed." Your definition seems to be a fundamentalist take-over of a Darwinistic term and is intended to incite fear and loathing in believers.
That's simply not correct. I'm not a big fan of natural law legal theory, but there's a big difference between that theory and the other kind of "natural law," better known, perhaps, as the law of the jungle. When a natural law legal theorist refers to the natural law, he means that at least some legal standards imposed by the government have the authority of the objective moral standards which undergird them. Of course, even those fundamentalists who refer to the "natural law" often times don't know which they're referring to. The truth is, as used in this context, natural law is a fairly specific, and perhaps technical, legal term of art.
The problem with that theory, to my mind, at least, is it begs the question of moral standards. Sure, even if we accept that law derives its authority from objective moral rules, how do we identify those moral rules, and how do we deal with the vast amount of regulation that clearly is not derived from moral law, but is merely regulatory? I think H.L.A. Hart provided a much more lucid explanation of the authority of law in his description of legal positivism, and certainly that's the theory against which the history of American jurisprudence in the twentieth century has reacted to. Natural law theory, frankly, is somewhat of an oddity in the legal academic community, with John Finnis and only a few others giving any real weight to the theory.
Let me further note that rejecting natural law legal theory does not entail rejecting moral absolutes. You can be, for example, a Christian fundamentalist and still believe that the authority of law derives from some source other that moral, e.g., the consensus and approval of the governed, or the will of the sovereign.
Okay, so if we accept the premise of natural legal theory that "the authority of at least some legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards," we are faced with two subsidiary questions. First, which legal standards derive their authority from their merit, and which onces are simply positive law? Second, how do we determine the moral merit of the relevant legal standards?
In the present example, is a prohibition of same-sex marriage one of the legal standards that derives it's authority from it's moral merit? If so, why? What moral merit does that prohibition have, exactly? I think that ultimately this is where our positions on this diverge. To the extent I am willing to accept natural law legal theory, my moral base would be something close to the Rawlsian ideas of coextensive equal liberty. I can see no valid moral principle which would give authority on those grounds to a ban on same-sex marriages.
I would guess, however, that your moral base is largely based in Christian theology. I have nothing against that, but I think it demonstrates the danger in natural law legal theory. For those with a religious bent, natural law theory means that at least some laws derive their authority from religious doctrine. That perspective violates the principles that I think should govern a pluralistic society like ours.
Yes, states rights are a vital aspect of the Bill of Rights, but I disagree with your claims that their importance trumps those of the individual.
Let me clarify. My argument was that state's rights and the relationship between the states and the federal government were of driving importance in drafting the Bill of Rights. Although protecting individual rights may have been the impetus for doing so on the part of some states, the states had wildly different notions of what it meant to protect rights. For example, many states had established churches funded with state tax dollars well into the 1830s.
State's rights now, however, have waned in importance. Particularly with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the prevailing federalism dynamic was largely turned on its head. While the Bill of Rights was intended to protect states and individuals from the federal government, it made no provision for protecting individuals from their respective state governments. That's primarily because the concern was with a tyrannical federal government, not oppression in the states. The Fourteenth Amendment, however, was drafted and ratified because the time ahd come when it was not the federal government from which we needed protecting, but rather those states which saw fit to continue the shameful legacy of slavery. In sum, individual rights became, and now remain, the center of the Bill of Rights, as it now applied against both the States and the Federal government.
My confusion at your argument stems from your emphasis on individual rights. If you want to see individual rights protected, as I do, then we object to gay marriage?
Yes, prohibitive morality was at the basis of those antiquated and (now) unconstitutional laws, but it was inappropriately applied.
How do we know how to apply it properly? I think ultimately that's the point. Because we live in an increasingly pluralistic society, the scope of moral judgments with which we can all agree seems to be smaller and smaller. Yet, we know we wish to protect the most extensive equal freedoms possible. It seems to me that prohibiting gay marriage violates this principle.
OT: To all those participating in this thread: thanks for making it challenging, civil, and enjoyable. Maybe I'll hang out here a little more often. 8)
Hmmm. Prohibitive morality is at the base of individual rights? That seems kind of odd, don't you think. Identical arguments were made in favor of the miscegenation laws, and the laws prohibiting birth control. As society has progressed, those laws have fallen by the wayside, as should this restriction on gay marriage.
As for the Constitution, you've made a pretty big claim. The Bill of Rights was not the "basis of the Constitution," as you say, but rather was a compromise added after the fact to induce the states to endorse the Constitution itself, i.e., Articles I through VII. this is evidenced by the very fact that the Bill of Rights is composed of Amendments, as was not part of the original. While the main portion of the constitution is based in part on notions of liberty, the two real driving forces behind it were federalism on one hand, and separation of powers on the other.
Further, even the Bill of Rights is less about individual liberty than you might think. Remember, not a single one of the rights contained therein applied against the states until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Amendments were originally designed, in no small part, to prevent the federal government from interfering with the states in their administration of their own laws.
This debate is not about the Bill of Rights. This debate is about the Fourteenth Amendment and its far reaching implications for due process and equal protection. (I would include privileges or immunities, but unfortunately, those have largely become a dead letter.) Lawrence v. Texas is but the most recent example of this. The Fourteenth Amendment exists to protect fundamental liberties; it does not give states the power to restrict those liberties and enforce prohibitive morality. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Read Randy Barnett's article: Justice Kennedy's Libertarian Revolution: Lawrence v. Texas. [pdf]
Last time I checked, morality (at least when conservatives try and use that argument) isn't a factor.
I never said it wasn't a factor. When social conservatives speak about morality, they generally speak about the morality of acts by individuals they want to prohibit. When social liberals speak about morality, at least in this context, they generalyl speak about the morality of government institutions intentionally infringing on equal rights. Two very different things.
when I say Constitutional, I mean methods for changing the law supported by the Constitution, which should cover changing both state and federal laws.
And again, I point you to the civil disobedience of the 1960s. Sometimes it becomes necessary to demonstrate the immoral restriction on personal liberty by the government by actively breaking that restriction. If gay couples didn't attempt to get married, but merely introduced bill after bill in the California legislature, the problem of equal rights in this matter would remain a confortably abstract problem, one that doesn't confront the status quo. When there are real gay couples, with real marriage licenses, trying to claim real government benefits, suddenly this problem becomes a whole lot more concrete. There's something to be said for gradualism, as the article I linked to above notes, but not at the expense of progress.
Soooo, all respect to the lifelong gay lovers and those who support their bid for marriage, but isn't this a nice F-U to those who still want to abide by Constitutional methods for getting what they want?
How is this not abiding by the Constitution? If you're referring to the federal Constitution, there's nothing in there to prevent gay marriage, or about marriage at all, for that matter. If you're referring to the state constitution, California does not prohibit gay marriage there, either. It's only in the state statutory law that California has mandated that marriage be between a man and a woman. See my brief discussion of those laws here.
[E]nd-arounds on the law to get what one wants - no matter how right the cause, perhaps *especially* in a just cause like this one - only poisons the celebration when victory comes and in the interim arms the opposition during the struggle.
You mean life the sit-ins of the civil rights movement in the 1960s? The Freedom Riders? The March to Selma? I'm all for obeying the law, but sometime civil disobedience is necessary to demonstrate the immoral nature of certain laws--especially where, like here, the civil disobedience takes a non-violent form. What other law can you protest by getting married? I think that's awesome.
kmellis: I agree with you completely. In some ways, I can admire the pharmacist for acting in ways consistent with his beliefs--the courage of his convictions, as you say. However, I reiterate my comments above. He made a choice when he chose to become a pharmacist, and that choice was to obey the law and the terms of the contract and fill prescriptions as received from the doctor. If he is unable to do so, he should have chosen another profession, one in which it is possible to be unapologetically pro-life.
The same is true of the doctors you mentioned. Doctors who do not wish to perform abortions are not required to do so. The doctor normally accomplishes this, of course, by choosing a specialty in which the provision of abortions is not part of the job. It would be awfully odd, don't you agree, for a doctor who conscientiously objects to abortion to choose to become an abortion provider.
In many ways, I guess, pro-life doctors have it easier than pharmacists in that they can choose a specialty and tailor their practice according to their own desires, for the most part. Pharmacists, however, are pharmacists. At the store-front level there is no specialization, and you provide prescription medication based on the instructions of the doctors. It becomes even more important, therefore, for a pharmacist to be aware of the choices he must make when he chooses that profession.
As I mentioned over at ... that other place, I think Google is going out on a limb with that blog. If they continue and are relatively open with information, I expect a securities lawsuit the first time their stock price dips. It's an unfortunate side effect of being a public company; ironically it forces the company to be more tight-lipped than when it was privately owned.
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
In "Curious, George: English/Writing Reference?"
This probably isn't a perfect answer to your question, but for those of you interested in legal writing, I've found Bryan Garner's Element of Legal Style and Dictionary of Modern Usage to be useful references.
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
In "Curious, George: E-mail appointment book."
Yahoo will do that. Just go to calendar options and select a destination for your daily view.
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
In "Civil disobedience in San Francisco"
What does that mean, f8x? May the government pass laws that happen to comport with the majority's conception of morality? Sure. Take murder, for example. Is murder immoral? Yes. Is it illegal? Obviously. Does that mean that government is "legislating morality"? I'm not sure I even know what that means.
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
I think the language of "first class" and "second class" citizens is important, but sometimes overblown. When debating a single issue, albeit an important one, the "class" designation should probably be accompanied by the qualifier "with respect to this issue." Gays are, for example, second class citizens with respect to marriage and its associated benefits. Certainly, that can contribute to, and in the case of gays, probably does contribute to the general public's view of gays as abnormal, outside the mainstrean, etc, and in that sense, reinforces the relegation of gays to second class status generally. Admittedly, the rhetoric is sometimes clumsy and imprecise, but not wrong. On the other point, regarding civil unions versus marriages, I'm on the fence. I think Kerry has a point, in that it doesn't matter what we call it, as long as we provide for equal rights. At the same time, however, calling one a civil union and the other a marriage contributes to the relegation of gays to second class status, as I noted above. Even if the same rights are granted--which would be a victory, mind you, just not a complete one--the notion is that the union between two gay people and the union between two straight people are two different things. They are not. Further, there is a real legal question about how civil unions will be treated in states other than the ones granting them and how civil unions will be treated by the federal government for tax and other purposes. Civil unions needlessly multiply the competing legal standards, rather than working cohesively within the existing framework. More importantly, from my point of view, is that the debate between civil unions and marriages exposes a fundamental problem with limiting recognition to straight marriages: establishment of religion. Although some may argue, most opponents of gay marriage oppose it on religious grounds. For the government to acknowledge those arguments and deny equal access to marriage benefits to gays on those grounds is unacceptable to me.
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
jb: The natural law argument, I fear, does not hold up when you realise that homosexual behaviours, like it or not, are just as "natural" as heterosexual and reproductive actions. As noted above, though, this is not what natural law means. Natural law legal theory means means that law has authority because it comports with objective moral standards. Those moral standards may or may not be mirrored in nature. Just as homosexuality appears in nature, so to does fratricide, infanticide, incest, and cannibalism. The fact that any specific behavior appears in nature should be no argument for it's assignation of moral value. Other than that minor nit, jb, I agree completely. [btw, who broke the html in posts?]
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
In "I know you've seen the Political Compass, but what the heck."
I scored a -2.62, -6.26. All hail the libertarian left!
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
In "Civil disobedience in San Francisco"
It's my impression that the framers went out their way to form a secular government. "Separation of church and state" was intended to mean that one sect's beliefs shouldn't interfere with another's. Well, that's really only a half-truth. As I noted above, the purpose of the Bill of Rights at the time of the founding was largely a federalist one. Those Amendments did not apply to the states at the time, and would not for nearly another hundred years. Instead, the First Amendment in particular only protected the states from interference from the federal government. Now, the Fourteenth Amendment changed all that of course, but it would be a mistake to ascribe those aspirations to all, or even a majority of the founders. My impression is that "natural law" means "kill or be killed." Your definition seems to be a fundamentalist take-over of a Darwinistic term and is intended to incite fear and loathing in believers. That's simply not correct. I'm not a big fan of natural law legal theory, but there's a big difference between that theory and the other kind of "natural law," better known, perhaps, as the law of the jungle. When a natural law legal theorist refers to the natural law, he means that at least some legal standards imposed by the government have the authority of the objective moral standards which undergird them. Of course, even those fundamentalists who refer to the "natural law" often times don't know which they're referring to. The truth is, as used in this context, natural law is a fairly specific, and perhaps technical, legal term of art. The problem with that theory, to my mind, at least, is it begs the question of moral standards. Sure, even if we accept that law derives its authority from objective moral rules, how do we identify those moral rules, and how do we deal with the vast amount of regulation that clearly is not derived from moral law, but is merely regulatory? I think H.L.A. Hart provided a much more lucid explanation of the authority of law in his description of legal positivism, and certainly that's the theory against which the history of American jurisprudence in the twentieth century has reacted to. Natural law theory, frankly, is somewhat of an oddity in the legal academic community, with John Finnis and only a few others giving any real weight to the theory. Let me further note that rejecting natural law legal theory does not entail rejecting moral absolutes. You can be, for example, a Christian fundamentalist and still believe that the authority of law derives from some source other that moral, e.g., the consensus and approval of the governed, or the will of the sovereign.
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
In "The Crimson Room"
Ahhh! Spoiler! Well, at least I'm out.
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
In "Civil disobedience in San Francisco"
Okay, so if we accept the premise of natural legal theory that "the authority of at least some legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards," we are faced with two subsidiary questions. First, which legal standards derive their authority from their merit, and which onces are simply positive law? Second, how do we determine the moral merit of the relevant legal standards? In the present example, is a prohibition of same-sex marriage one of the legal standards that derives it's authority from it's moral merit? If so, why? What moral merit does that prohibition have, exactly? I think that ultimately this is where our positions on this diverge. To the extent I am willing to accept natural law legal theory, my moral base would be something close to the Rawlsian ideas of coextensive equal liberty. I can see no valid moral principle which would give authority on those grounds to a ban on same-sex marriages. I would guess, however, that your moral base is largely based in Christian theology. I have nothing against that, but I think it demonstrates the danger in natural law legal theory. For those with a religious bent, natural law theory means that at least some laws derive their authority from religious doctrine. That perspective violates the principles that I think should govern a pluralistic society like ours.
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
In "The Crimson Room"
Now I've got to fish through 10^4 safe combinations? Great, now I'm really not going to get anything else done today.
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
In "Civil disobedience in San Francisco"
How do we know what the Natural Law is? Where does it come from?
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
Yes, states rights are a vital aspect of the Bill of Rights, but I disagree with your claims that their importance trumps those of the individual. Let me clarify. My argument was that state's rights and the relationship between the states and the federal government were of driving importance in drafting the Bill of Rights. Although protecting individual rights may have been the impetus for doing so on the part of some states, the states had wildly different notions of what it meant to protect rights. For example, many states had established churches funded with state tax dollars well into the 1830s. State's rights now, however, have waned in importance. Particularly with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the prevailing federalism dynamic was largely turned on its head. While the Bill of Rights was intended to protect states and individuals from the federal government, it made no provision for protecting individuals from their respective state governments. That's primarily because the concern was with a tyrannical federal government, not oppression in the states. The Fourteenth Amendment, however, was drafted and ratified because the time ahd come when it was not the federal government from which we needed protecting, but rather those states which saw fit to continue the shameful legacy of slavery. In sum, individual rights became, and now remain, the center of the Bill of Rights, as it now applied against both the States and the Federal government. My confusion at your argument stems from your emphasis on individual rights. If you want to see individual rights protected, as I do, then we object to gay marriage? Yes, prohibitive morality was at the basis of those antiquated and (now) unconstitutional laws, but it was inappropriately applied. How do we know how to apply it properly? I think ultimately that's the point. Because we live in an increasingly pluralistic society, the scope of moral judgments with which we can all agree seems to be smaller and smaller. Yet, we know we wish to protect the most extensive equal freedoms possible. It seems to me that prohibiting gay marriage violates this principle.
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
OT: To all those participating in this thread: thanks for making it challenging, civil, and enjoyable. Maybe I'll hang out here a little more often. 8)
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
In "A Family Proposal."
While the pictures, out of context, are mild, it's their connection with rest of the site I think is so disturbing.
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
In "Civil disobedience in San Francisco"
Hmmm. Prohibitive morality is at the base of individual rights? That seems kind of odd, don't you think. Identical arguments were made in favor of the miscegenation laws, and the laws prohibiting birth control. As society has progressed, those laws have fallen by the wayside, as should this restriction on gay marriage. As for the Constitution, you've made a pretty big claim. The Bill of Rights was not the "basis of the Constitution," as you say, but rather was a compromise added after the fact to induce the states to endorse the Constitution itself, i.e., Articles I through VII. this is evidenced by the very fact that the Bill of Rights is composed of Amendments, as was not part of the original. While the main portion of the constitution is based in part on notions of liberty, the two real driving forces behind it were federalism on one hand, and separation of powers on the other. Further, even the Bill of Rights is less about individual liberty than you might think. Remember, not a single one of the rights contained therein applied against the states until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Amendments were originally designed, in no small part, to prevent the federal government from interfering with the states in their administration of their own laws. This debate is not about the Bill of Rights. This debate is about the Fourteenth Amendment and its far reaching implications for due process and equal protection. (I would include privileges or immunities, but unfortunately, those have largely become a dead letter.) Lawrence v. Texas is but the most recent example of this. The Fourteenth Amendment exists to protect fundamental liberties; it does not give states the power to restrict those liberties and enforce prohibitive morality. Quite the opposite, in fact. Read Randy Barnett's article: Justice Kennedy's Libertarian Revolution: Lawrence v. Texas. [pdf]
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
Last time I checked, morality (at least when conservatives try and use that argument) isn't a factor. I never said it wasn't a factor. When social conservatives speak about morality, they generally speak about the morality of acts by individuals they want to prohibit. When social liberals speak about morality, at least in this context, they generalyl speak about the morality of government institutions intentionally infringing on equal rights. Two very different things. when I say Constitutional, I mean methods for changing the law supported by the Constitution, which should cover changing both state and federal laws. And again, I point you to the civil disobedience of the 1960s. Sometimes it becomes necessary to demonstrate the immoral restriction on personal liberty by the government by actively breaking that restriction. If gay couples didn't attempt to get married, but merely introduced bill after bill in the California legislature, the problem of equal rights in this matter would remain a confortably abstract problem, one that doesn't confront the status quo. When there are real gay couples, with real marriage licenses, trying to claim real government benefits, suddenly this problem becomes a whole lot more concrete. There's something to be said for gradualism, as the article I linked to above notes, but not at the expense of progress.
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
Read more about equal rights for gays at the Daily Kos.
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
Soooo, all respect to the lifelong gay lovers and those who support their bid for marriage, but isn't this a nice F-U to those who still want to abide by Constitutional methods for getting what they want? How is this not abiding by the Constitution? If you're referring to the federal Constitution, there's nothing in there to prevent gay marriage, or about marriage at all, for that matter. If you're referring to the state constitution, California does not prohibit gay marriage there, either. It's only in the state statutory law that California has mandated that marriage be between a man and a woman. See my brief discussion of those laws here. [E]nd-arounds on the law to get what one wants - no matter how right the cause, perhaps *especially* in a just cause like this one - only poisons the celebration when victory comes and in the interim arms the opposition during the struggle. You mean life the sit-ins of the civil rights movement in the 1960s? The Freedom Riders? The March to Selma? I'm all for obeying the law, but sometime civil disobedience is necessary to demonstrate the immoral nature of certain laws--especially where, like here, the civil disobedience takes a non-violent form. What other law can you protest by getting married? I think that's awesome.
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
In "Texas Pharmacist fired for denying rape victim's prescription"
kmellis: I agree with you completely. In some ways, I can admire the pharmacist for acting in ways consistent with his beliefs--the courage of his convictions, as you say. However, I reiterate my comments above. He made a choice when he chose to become a pharmacist, and that choice was to obey the law and the terms of the contract and fill prescriptions as received from the doctor. If he is unable to do so, he should have chosen another profession, one in which it is possible to be unapologetically pro-life. The same is true of the doctors you mentioned. Doctors who do not wish to perform abortions are not required to do so. The doctor normally accomplishes this, of course, by choosing a specialty in which the provision of abortions is not part of the job. It would be awfully odd, don't you agree, for a doctor who conscientiously objects to abortion to choose to become an abortion provider. In many ways, I guess, pro-life doctors have it easier than pharmacists in that they can choose a specialty and tailor their practice according to their own desires, for the most part. Pharmacists, however, are pharmacists. At the store-front level there is no specialization, and you provide prescription medication based on the instructions of the doctors. It becomes even more important, therefore, for a pharmacist to be aware of the choices he must make when he chooses that profession.
posted by monju_bosatsu 20 years ago
(limited to the most recent 20 comments)