should pharmacists be able to decide what to dispense?

Parent Cafe
121

<p>citygirlsmom–If you study the history of the development of the pill, you will find that “pregnancy” was redefined as “beginning at implantation” (not conception/fertilization) in order to bypass the moral objection that many might have in taking a pill that, at times, might act to end a human life between conception and implantation. And abortion was defined as ending a “pregnancy.” So doctors could, technically, reassure their patients that “the pill doesn’t cause abortions.” However, the woman is just as “pregnant” (carrying new life) the day before implantation as the day of impantation.<br>
Changing the definitions of these terms–though it reassured and confused a lot of people–did not change the fact that a new member of the human species starts at conception/fertilization. Some call the loss of this life before implantation an “early abortion.” Some don’t like the word abortion. But it is the same life that is lost, whether before or after implantation. The doctors and pharmacists who object to this action of the pill know what is happening, biologically. I am not here to argue about definition of terms. I am here to explain that a small minority of doctor and pharmacists feel that it is wrong to participate in a willing destruction of a human life even as early as one week after conception. (BTW, The embryo is not at all like a tumor–the DNA of a tumor contains only the DNA of the person afflicted with the tumor–but a broken version of it; it is a biological error, and obviously cannot become a new human being. The fertilized egg contains DNA of both parents; conception is a biological success).</p>

<p>The question is, how directly or indirectly would you be willing to participate in the death of another? What if you worked in a jail and were asked to flip the switch on someone who’d gotten the death penalty? Would you give a lethal dose of pills to someone who wanted to commit suicide? Watch someone starve to death instead of putting in a feeding tube? Give a lethal injection to someone dying of cancer? Or to anyone (elderly, handicapped, ■■■■■■■■, mentally ill, etc.) who you defined as less than a “fully human person?” Participating in life/death decisions is not the same as selling magazines or renting videos. Most people do not have to make these kinds of decisions on the job. Granted, prescribing the pill is about as indirect a participation in human death as most people can imagine, but some docs and pharmacists do not wish to participate. For those who want pills, there are plenty of other sources.</p>

122

<p>Determining whether pregnancy starts at conception or implantation is not science, but a belief. But, regardless of when you define the beginning of pregnancy, a human life is created by the fertilization of an egg. The morning after pill can be taken after fertilization, which means a human life is terminated.</p>

123

<p>Socal, please show me a single medical study that demonstrates the ability of the morning pill to prevent implantation. Every study I know of has shown that the pill works by preventing ovulation, meaning these pharmicists have a heck of a lot more to protest, including the rhythm method. If the phramacists in question don’t even understand the medication they are prohibiting, what does that say about their competence?</p>

124

<p>I would love to see some links that indicate that a fertilized egg is distiguishable from a fertilized egg of any other mammal</p>

125

<p>RugBurn, the Mayo Clinic website (a reputable source) explains that the morning after pill either:

  1. Prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg
  2. Prevents the FERTILIZED egg from implanting
    <a href=“http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morning-after-pill/AN00592[/url]”>Morning-after pill - Mayo Clinic; </p>

<p>Emeraldcity, the distinguishing factor is that if the fertilized human egg is allowed to grow, it becomes a HUMAN.</p>

126

<p>atomom, I misread you post, but the second time was more alarming than the first. You are reciting a tired, wholly fallacious argument that should have died long ago.</p>

<p>Of the morning pill…

</p>

<p>Unless you somehow are confusing conception with ejaculation, your post is utter nonsense.</p>

127

<p>Oddly enough, the National Right To Life Org. does not even mention, let alone protest the morning after pill.
<a href=“http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/RU486/index.html[/url]”>http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/RU486/index.html&lt;/a&gt;
Their site is full of info. on RU-486 or the abortion pill, and here is a tiny excerpt:</p>

128

<p>socal05, I chose my words carefully so that you might not do exactly what you did, but oh well :slight_smile: . To reiterate, I said a study, which is the medium where medical people actually prove things. I said that precisely because there is a lot misinformation floating around, even from well-meaning specialists like you discovered. To put money where my mouth is, here is a study addressing the very issue:
<a href=“http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/15/1058?ijkey=c1a98fdebc30876fa9a58f600e08e2c7614f0d1b&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha[/url]”>http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/337/15/1058?ijkey=c1a98fdebc30876fa9a58f600e08e2c7614f0d1b&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>For better readibility, here is a summary by a professional:

</code></pre>

129

<p>From the National Right To Life:

</p>

130

<p>* the distinguishing factor is that if the fertilized human egg is allowed to grow, it becomes a HUMAN.*</p>

<p>so since it has no distinquishing features from say 7 days after fertilization other than to argue that if given the proper conditions in 9 months or so it will be a human baby- what is exactly the argument against restricting implantation?</p>

<p>YOu are arguing that it will BECOME human- not that it is human-</p>

131

<p>

So what? </p>

<p>What about the virgin who takes the pill to control her monthly hemorrhaging? The woman who would die if she got pregnant? The young girls who take the pill so they can actually function when they have their periods? The women with endometriosis? The women who use the Pill, spermicide, and condoms?</p>

<p>You ignore the fact that there is no INDIVIDUALIZED determination that is made when a pharmacist flatly refuses to dispense the pill. He doesn’t know if she’s going to use it responsibly, irreposonsibly, for pain, for birth control, for heavy flow, in conjunction with other methods; hell, he doesn’t even know if she’s going to have sex!</p>

<p>Face it. It has NOTHING to do with the remote possibility of not allowing a fertilized egg to implant. That’s a what, one in ten thousand chance? Using that logic, babe, bars should refuse to serve alcohol to all women of childbearing age because they might have recently had sex and that alcohol could terminate embroyonic life. Hell, that’s more likely than the one-in-a-zillion breakthrough ovulation thing you cited. Why allow women in cars? An accident could cause miscarriage, and you don’t know if she’s pregnant! Women are allowed to order shellfish at restaurants, despite the fact that it can harm an unborn baby. Women are not required to take a pregnancy test before receiving medical care that includes x-rays, despite the fact that it is only her assertion that she is not pregnant that allows the treatment to go forward.</p>

<p>If we extend your “logic” to its conclusion, all women of childbearing age would be prisoners, lest even one of them accidentally terminate a pregnancy. </p>

<p>Maybe, then, it’s not about babies but about women suffering for eating the apple - our periods and pregnancy are punishment for being daughters of Eve. That’s really what it’s about, because if it weren’t, we wouldn’t allow women to drink, eat certain foods, receive medical care without a pregnancy test, or legions of other normal activities, lest some hypothetical embryo be harmed.</p>

<p>Rant over. Learn to think rationally.</p>

132

<p>

Rugburn, please show me a single medical study that demonstrates the morning after pill never prevents implantation. I’m sure you are aware it is impossible to prove either scenario and that is why you challenged me on that.</p>

<p>I see you are getting your information from the Planned Parenthood website which quotes your “study.” Your study is basically inconclusive and actually states there is “no direct evidence for prevention of fertilization.”</p>

<p>My point is the morning after pill is DESIGNED to work by several mechanisms, one of which is to prevent implantation of the FERTILIZED egg.</p>

133

<p>this is true FDA- and other sources state that a pregnancy does not occur until implantation of a fertilized egg
Plan B prevents implantation ( so does an IUD)
prevents the egg from being fertilized
BUT the primary function of Plan B is to stop ovulation.</p>

<p>*How does Plan B work?</p>

<p>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). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work. *</p>

134

<p>There is debate from the scientific, political, and religious communities over when pregnancy and life start. Most will define pregnancy as when the egg is implanted. Most will define life as beginning at conception. The bottom line…it is not possible to scientifically PROVE either when life or when pregnancy starts because it is a belief. Some believe life and pregnancy begin at conception and for those people, a pill designed to destroy the fertilized egg is morally wrong.</p>

135

<p>KUOW in Seattle doing an hour on the topic starting 9am.</p>

136

<p>Associated Press
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - An attempt to resume state spending on birth control got shot down Wednesday by House members who argued it would have amounted to an endorsement of promiscuous lifestyles.</p>

<p>Missouri stopped providing money for family planning and certain women’s health services when Republicans gained control of both chambers of the Legislature in 2003.</p>

<p>But a Democratic lawmaker, in a little-noticed committee amendment, had successfully inserted language into the proposed budget for the fiscal year starting July 1 that would have allowed part of the $9.2 million intended for “core public health functions” to go to contraception provided through public health clinics.</p>

<p>The House voted 96-59 to delete the funding for contraception and infertility treatments after Rep. Susan Phillips told lawmakers that anti-abortion groups such as Missouri Right to Life were opposed to the spending.</p>

<p>“If you hand out contraception to single women, we’re saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that,” Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.'</p>

<p>So they have publically said its because some women are morally bad…yeah, and republicans never have sex out of wedlock, please</p>

137

<p>Right now PLan B is legal and is even talk about selling it over the counter
If pharmacists want to lobby to make it illegal that is their choice- but it is not their job to make decisions for others regarding availability of legal, medically appropriate medication.
informal polling indicates majority agree.</p>

138

<p>What is interesting in Missiouri is that these anti choice lawmakers don’t want to help women get birth control, which stops unwanted pregnancy and doing it solely on moral grounds as women have sex. Even married women can’t get the pill at clinics now. </p>

<p>Darn scary stuff- to judge women before giving them medicine. What if someone get an STD? What about married women?</p>

139

<p>Since Plan B is legal, pharmacists who work for a company that sells it should be required to dispense it. But if a pharmacist owns their own business they should have the choice just like physicians who choose not to perform abortions. Isn’t that what pro-CHOICE is all about?</p>

140

<p>I personally will not go to any business that alllows its pharmecists to decide what is right for women, cause gee, their pharmecists have better ethics…</p>

<p>I never shop at Walmart, I stopped at Walgreens until they told their pharmecists they needed to follow what the doctor prescribed, and I check out other drug stores before I go to them. If its a small busines owner or a corporation who doesn’t instruct its employees, I will not shop there if they claim their ethics are better than a women who needs a Plan B or morning after pill.</p>

<p>Its small, but its what I do.</p>