barrons

Actually today many many doctors work for clinics and other HMO type organizations and are employees. The complexity of the insurance billing and cost of malpractice have driven many into a more employer type model. In those cases the employer is free to set the rules IMHO so long as they are within the law. Now there is where you can get conflicting legal standards.
I'd guess that many more pharms are employees than doctors and the same sometimes contradictory laws would apply.

lucifer11287

If the doctor is functioning as an employee (I'm only familiar with the private practice model since that is how my father has always operated) then I think his rights are (or should be) determined by his employer and his contract. I don't think any employee has the right to apply their own personal ethics to their job unless it is in their contract/job description/whatever.

emeraldkity4

The FDA considers Plan B to be contraception
It stops you from becoming pregnant- you have to have implantation to be pregnant
YOu aren't saying the FDA is wrong are you ?

emeraldkity4

I brought up that half of all conceptions end naturally before a live birth, because I disagree that a fertilized egg is a "life" that takes precedence over its host, because its obvious that "nature" does not find the "egg" to be valuable enough to give it better odds to reach viability

FountainSiren

Biologically, human life begins at conception; metaphysically and psychologically there is still great debate.

There are only two points that determine human life—when the organism (body) exists and when the organism (body) ceases to exist. In between there are many stages, birth being only one of them.

Certainly, we can disagree on when we have a “person” but that is not a biological/scientific measurement, it is a philosophical/psychological measurement: gotta be a real bi-atch for materialists--of the fundamentalist ilk--to be both progressive and scientific on this one…of course, they could always just make it up as they go along.

atomom

citygirlsmom--re: killing. See my long post above. Learn about the various mechanisms of the pill. Learn your science. Again, this is why some docs/pharmacists consider it killing: Most of the time, the pill prevents ovulation. Some of the time, however,
the pill does not prevent ovulation. Some of the time, fertilization takes place. (And in the case of the morning after pill, it is possible that fertilization has already taken place). One mechanism of the pill dries out the lining of the uterus so that the newly conceived life cannot implant (which occurs about 7 days after conception/fertilization). Human life, in the first week after conception, is, clearly "something." You cannot argue that "nothing" is there. Whether you consider ending that life at that stage "killing" depends on how you define "killing." This prevention of implantation is considered an early abortion by some. As I said, this does not happen most of the time, but a small percentage of the time. However, some people do not want to be responsible for ending a human life, no matter how young and undeveloped.

Lucifer: Conception/fertilization, DNA different from the mother? That is the beginning of a new human life. That was the beginning of your life. That is science. Read a medical textbook. Don't confuse biological definitions of "human life" with legal definitions of "personhood,"-- human life that under the law is considered worthy of protection.

The disagreement here--the whole issue, is at what age or stage of development do we consider human life worthy of protection? Some doctors and pharmacists think that even in the first week after conception it is wrong to end human life, and that is why they won't give out pills that sometimes have the potential of doing that. Most people set the age higher.

emeraldkity4

well a sperm is alive and so is an egg
I think you would have difficulty getting biologists to agree that "Human" life begins at conception.

what is human?

lkf725

OMG, nobody is trying to stop the use of contraceptives for any purpose or to stop the termination of a pregnacy/potential pregnancy, or to interfere with assisted suicide for that matter. Here are some factual documents:

http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.c...tentFileID=225

Report of the 2004 Session of the APhA House of Delegates Page 6 of 11

2004 Pharmacist Conscience Clause
1998 1. APhA recognizes the individual pharmacist’s right to exercise conscientious refusal and supports the establishment of systems to ensure patient’s access to legally prescribed therapy without compromising the pharmacist’s right of conscientious refusal.
2. APhA shall appoint a council on an as needed basis to serve as a resource for the profession in addressing and understanding ethical issues.
(JAPhA 38(4): 417. July/August 1998)
2004 Physician Assisted Suicide
1997 1. APhA supports informed decision-making based upon the professional judgment of pharmacists, rather than endorsing a particular moral stance on the issue of physician-assisted suicide.
2. APhA opposes laws and regulations which mandate the participation of pharmacists in the process of execution by lethal injection.
(Am Pharm. NS25(5):51. May, 1985)


http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.c...tentFileID=640

Testimony of the American Pharmacists Association to the House Small Business Committee regarding Freedom of Conscience for Small Pharmacies

lucifer11287

Atomom, I'm an engineer at Cornell. I know my biology. Human life is different from life in general. Yes, you can argue that the fertilized egg that I came from was the beginning of my life. You can also argue that my life began when I became conscious/showed neurological activity (this happesn FAR later in pregnancy) or when I entered the world. The cell may have been the beginning of my BIOLOGICAL life; this is very different than the beginning of human life. The zygote I came from had the POTENTIAL to be me; it was not me any more than the sperm and egg that created it.

LKF, I'm sure you pharmacists want the freedom to do whatever you want. I don't think you deserve it. You posted what is effectively a lobbying group for pharmacist's views - I fail to see how that should persuade me. What else would I expect them to say, "we pharmacists want less discretion or power" instead of "we pharmacists want all the power and decision making ability in the world?" Though that is factual, it fails a test even more important than factuality - RELEVANCY.

emeraldkity4

and pushing back
Emergency Contraception vs. Birth Control Pills: A False Distinction

Those who oppose the use of emergency contraception typically attempt to distinguish it from ordinary birth control pills because it is taken after sex, rather than before; in their mind, therefore, it must necessarily act after a pregnancy has been established, rather than before.

However, such a position fails to appreciate the common way both emergency and 'regular' birth control pills work. This is highlighted in a question-and-answer document developed in 2004 by the Food and Drug Administration, which describes Plan B's method of action: 'Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation).'

Similarly, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists explains, 'the primary contraceptive effect of all the non-barrier methods, including emergency use of contraceptive pills, is to prevent ovulation and/or fertilization. Additional contraceptive actions for all of these also may affect the process beyond fertilization but prior to pregnancy.'

In short, despite the confusion that opponents have fostered around emergency contraception's mode of action, how the method works depends more on when during a woman's monthly menstrual cycle it is taken (and, specifically, when she last ovulated) than on when she had sexual intercourse.

lkf725

Thanks for posting a rebuttal without reading my post. If you did take a moment to read, you would see that the APhA (a professional association for pharmacists) is ENTIRELY invested in the rights of the patient, while trying not to deny the pharmacist of his rights also.

I really just can't understand the level of hostility and hatred displayed by some on this thread. Why?

emeraldkity4

As equal rights, humane treatment, and equal access come closer to reality for more and more people in this country, those who would prefer to restrict the above, get more nervous and outspoken.
It must be pretty scary

lucifer11287

Yes, they are invested in our rights... as long as you have the right to do whatever you want too. It is preposterous and ludicrous to require an employer to let an employee use personal ethics in deciding whether or not to perform core business duties. When you can tell me whether or not you support the right of ALL employees to such freedom, and can explain how a market economy could survive with such willing tolerence of insubordination, then I'll stop being hostile. Until the, you are dancing around my arguments, probably because only a complete fool would say that every employee deserves the right to choose whether or not to do their job based on personal ethics - and giving every employee that right is the logical extension of giving pharmacists, who are almost universally employees, that right.

The APhA, which DOES lobby for pharmacists and, like the AMA, is in my mind largely a glorified lobbying organization (blue collar employees get unions; white collar employees get lobbying organizations) said that they support the right of pharmacists to choose whether or not to dispense medication based on personal beliefs. They also support some inane system where pharmacists can refer patients to other pharmacists to get the drugs they deserve. That is both stupid and inefficient. If you can't take the heat and won't give out the drugs, then as far as I'm concerned get out of the profession. I don't expect to meet many vegetarian butchers, and if being pro-life means no birth control then I don't expect to meet many pro-life pharmacists either.

citygirlsmom

Its already starting:

http://www.komotv.com/stories/42362.htm
SEATTLE - Getting a prescription filled is pretty straight-forward. Take the doctor's slip into the pharmacy and get the medication.

But some pharmacists are stepping up and saying they won't fill prescriptions on moral grounds.

The debate centers around the so-called morning after pill, or Plan B.

It's emergency contraception meant to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex.

Pharmacists who object to Plan B want to be able to deny filling a prescription on moral, ethical or religious beliefs.
"Pharmacists have to have a right to exercise their conscience in these morally troubling situations. I believe it's a right we get as being citizens of the United States," says Bellevue pharmacist C.J. Kahler.

It's a national debate that's playing out in our state as the state pharmacy board considers a measure to protect pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions.

Opponents say the measure would let a pharmacist's rights trump the patient's.

"They are really elevating their interests, their personal interests above the needs of the patient," says Nancy Sapiro with the Northwest Women's Law Center. "The regulations that govern pharmacists are very clear that patients' interests come first."

Governor Christine Gregoire sent the board a letter opposing the proposal.

"When an individual goes in, they ought to be allowed to have their prescription filled and a pharmacist should not deny them on personal grounds," says Gregoire. "So if they can't do it, an alternative pharmacist needs to be able to do it at that particular location."

That's not always possible in rural towns where there's only one pharmacist.

But supporters insist there are ways to protect the rights of patients and pharmacists at the same time.

"We're not saying, 'don't go anywhere.' We're saying, 'You have a right but we're not willing to fill that prescription. Here's where you can go,' " says Kahler.

The debate over Plan B is in the early stages.

The state pharmacy board says it could be a year before rules are in place.

If you would like to share your opinion with the pharmacy board, you can send it via e-mail to doreen.beebe@doh.wa.gov.

You'll then be on the state's "interested party" list and will be notified of public hearings on the issue.

citygirlsmom

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...sts-pill_x.htm

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...duty15-ON.html