<p>You’ve been remarkably consistent, and I appreciate you for the that. You support a corporate socialist command-and-control economy that brooks no political opposition, no organized labor, the free exchange of capital regardless of where or to whom it flows, and regardless of the consequences, short- or long-term, to anyone other than the owners of capital.</p>
<p>I respect that. Hey, you’re winning! ;)</p>
<p>I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about why a few pharmacists/doctors do not prescribe the pill. It doesn’t have to do with judging the morality of the patient.</p>
<p>Although most of the time the pill prevents ovulation and also thickens cervical mucus to make fertilization less likely, one mechanism of the pill, including the “morning after pill,” is to prevent implantation if fertilization (conception) has already occured. (Breakthrough ovulation is more common with today’s lower-dose pills, BTW).
Implantation generally takes place about one week after fertilization. So by prescribing/dispensing these pills, the doctor/pharmacist who believes that individual human life begins at fertilization (a biological fact, not a “belief”) feels responsible for ending that human life (killing a person). Where individual belief comes in is whether you believe human life at this stage (first week–hey, we were all that young once) is disposable or worthy of protection. Most people believe it is disposable. But why should those who disagree (and have the biological facts on their side) have to check their values at the door? (I wonder if someone will bring up miscarriage? Yes, a high percentage–10-20% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. The difference is that these happen naturally, the doctor or pharmacist or mother is not responsible). Bottom line–these doctors/pharmacists do not want to in any way be involved in killing human life.</p>
<p>Condoms, while some believe they are also “immoral” and would refuse to sell them, do not fall into the same category–if they work, they are preventing fertilization, and the doctor/pharmacist is not responsible for their use, which doesn’t involve the possibility of ending a human life.</p>
<p>I’m sure that anyone who wants these pills can get them–if not from pharmacies or ERs, then from doctor’s offices (samples), through the mail or even from a friend. I would guess that there are only a few hundred physicians and even fewer pharmacists that refuse to prescribe/dispense. That’s why this is news–because it is so unusual. I don’t know any of the pharmacists, but I know quite a few doctors.</p>
<p>I have often wondered why- if creationism is the way of the world and not evolution, up to 50% of all conceptions result in an abortion ( mechanical or spontaneous), and why along the life spectrum more males are concieved than reach maturity.</p>
<p>( According to NIH)</p>
<p>This is from the code of ethics- I really am not clear on how the pharmacists religious views takes precedence over the care of the patient.
**I.A pharmacist respects the covenantal relationship between the patient and pharmacist.</p>
<p>II.A pharmacist promotes the good of every patient in a caring, compassionate, and confidential manner.</p>
<p>III.A pharmacist respects the autonomy and dignity of each patient.</p>
<p>IV.A pharmacist acts with honesty and integrity in professional relationships.</p>
<p>V.A pharmacist maintains professional competence.</p>
<p>VI.A pharmacist respects the values and abilities of colleagues and other health professionals.</p>
<p>I.A pharmacist serves individual, community, and societal needs.</p>
<p>VIII.A pharmacist seeks justice in the distribution of health resources.</p>
<p>**
where would refusing to serve or refusing to refer the patient come in?</p>
<p>I.A., II.A, Iv.A, VII.A, and VIII.A.</p>
<p>He serves what HE sees as the best interest of his patient, his community, and his society. (Which is more than could be said of Wal-Mart refusing to stock medications.)</p>
<p>Not sure what creationism has to do with this? (btw, I am not a creationist). Some pharmacists/doctors have taken an oath to “do no harm.” They consider killing harmful.</p>
<p>nice diversion try, barrons, jeesh, that all you got?</p>
<p>as for democracy, our President supports countries that do not have democracy- Saudi Arabia, Dubai, China, etc, so what you call him?</p>
<p>Back to topic because I am not going to let someone divert the conversation as is often tried</p>
<p>Barrons, please explain what ethical reason anyone would have to deny birth control to anyone? When I go to my pharmecists, they do not know if I am married or not, or why I want the stuff. And if you look at birth control, it STOPS YOU FROM GETTING PREGNANT…and gee, many religious people use birth control, the ever reliable rythym method</p>
<p>So, barrons, I hope that you are in perfect shape, not over weight and never need any kind of medication for which you will be judge by others, because unlike you and others, I want people to have the medicine they need and want and to be healthy and safe</p>
<p>It isn’t the pharmacist’s place to judge. He is an employee; dispensing medicine is his job, and if his employer wants BC dispersed (and as far as I’m aware all the big chains do) then it is his job to do it.</p>
<p>So far NONE of you have been able to answer the question of whether or not employees have the right to refuse to do core job duties because of personal beliefs. If you really believe that pharmacists have the ethical right to refuse to DO THEIR JOB based on personal beliefs without fear of reprocussion (obviously, I support their right to refuse to do so as long as it is clear that taking that path is a just reason for termination of emlpoyment), then why do other professions not get the same right? Do Borders employees have the right to refuse to sell you “immoral” material? Should clothing store employees be able to refuse to sell “immoral” clothing?</p>
<p>If you are an employee, you FOLLOW THE RULES set down by your employer. Doctors are typically self employed; they get to make their own rules. Pharmacists are typically not, and therefore have no right to expect their employers tolerating them shirking core job duties. This is capitalism, folks: owning things (i.e. the business you work for) has benefits.</p>
<p>killing harmful? what killing are we talking about? birth control kills nothing; the morning after pill kills nothing; learn your science please</p>
<p>Atomom, take your pseudoscience elsewhere. It is far from a biological fact that individual life begins at fertilization. A fertilized egg, as a single cell, is not that different from a cancerous or otherwise mutated cell - an individual cell with DNA different from that of the human it lives in. It shows no characteristics commonly assosciated with human life - any form of conscience, any form of neural activity, any signs of HUMAN life.</p>
<p>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.<br>
I’d guess that many more pharms are employees than doctors and the same sometimes contradictory laws would apply.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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 ?;)</p>
<p>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</p>
<p>Biologically, human life begins at conception; metaphysically and psychologically there is still great debate. </p>
<p>There are only two points that determine human lifewhen the organism (body) exists and when the organism (body) ceases to exist. In between there are many stages, birth being only one of them.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>what is human?</p>
<p>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:</p>
<p> <a href=“http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search§ion=About_APhA1&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=225[/url]”>http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search§ion=About_APhA1&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=225</a></p>
<p>Report of the 2004 Session of the APhA House of Delegates Page 6 of 11 </p>
<p>2004 Pharmacist Conscience Clause
1998 1. APhA recognizes the individual pharmacists right to exercise conscientious refusal and supports the establishment of systems to ensure patients access to legally prescribed therapy without compromising the pharmacists 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) </p>
<p> <a href=“http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search§ion=July6&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=640[/url]”>http://www.aphanet.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Search§ion=July6&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=640</a></p>
<p>Testimony of the American Pharmacists Association to the House Small Business Committee regarding Freedom of Conscience for Small Pharmacies</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and pushing back
</p>
<p>*Emergency Contraception vs. Birth Control Pills: A False Distinction</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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).’</p>
<p>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.’</p>
<p>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.*</p>