quote:Benedict said conscientious objector status would "enable them not to collaborate directly or indirectly in supplying products that have clearly immoral purposes such as, for example, abortion or euthanasia."
I am trying to figure out if this persuades me one way or another. My view up to this point has been sympathy for such pharmacists, but that they are somehow not doing their duty if they refuse prescribed treatment.
I guess I don't really have a good idea of what a pharmacists' duties are. It seems like they go through a lot of school to just be functionaries that do whatever a doctor orders. Too bad Alucard doesn't post much lately.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
My two cents:
I have less of a problem with them withholding abortion and euthanasia products than I am with them withholding birth control.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
To them, it's the same as killing a person. Do we as a society have the require that of someone?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: To them, it's the same as killing a person. Do we as a society have the require that of someone?
Birth control is the same as killing a person?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Mini pill kills an embryo. I'm less clear on the regard toward the ovulation prevention pills, which are the "regular" pills that simulate pregnancy.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: To them, it's the same as killing a person. Do we as a society have the require that of someone?
Birth control is the same as killing a person?
So is menstruation. And masturbation, and defending yourself from a rapist, and any decision made by two fertile people of the opposite sex at any point in time not to engage in intercourse.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Never heard of the 'mini pill'. I do know that your standard birth control and the morning-after pill prevent ovulation. So unless there are people who believe life begins before conception, I don't think there should be a problem with those products. Which is why I lose respect for pharmacists who refuse to sell them.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Masturbation, yes. Is it news to anyone that Jews, Catholics, and many other conservative biblical religions object to that?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Some Catholics also consider "morning after" or emergency contraception pills to be abortion, which medically most doctors consider to be distinct from abortion.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
No. At least not to me.
My point is simply the arbitrary drawing of the life line.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Stardard birth control pills that use progesterone are the ovulation inhibiting ones. They are not suitable for a lot of people because they aggravate psychiatric disorders. The function of the mini pill, which is the one that can be used as emergency contraception, is not widely publicized, I think.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Some Catholics also consider "morning after" or emergency contraception pills to be abortion, which medically most doctors consider to be distinct from abortion.
What they don't realize, or don't want to realize, is that the 'morning after' contraception could put a huge dent in abortions. Which tells me that they aren't so much concerned with abortion as they are with people having sex.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The mini pills I'm thinking of are different from what I'm finding through google.
Javert: But if they seem morning after pills as the same as abortion, it doesn't really matter.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
If they already consider it an abortion, then more of them wouldn't make for fewer abortions - just different kinds.
Your last sentence assumes too much and assumes the worst. Not cricket.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
For a conscientious objector in war, he may not mind killing in self defence, but if he goes in the army, he doesn't get to choose whether he will be killing in immediate self defense or in an offensive mode.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: To them, it's the same as killing a person. Do we as a society have the require that of someone?
Birth control is the same as killing a person?
So is menstruation. And masturbation, and defending yourself from a rapist, and any decision made by two fertile people of the opposite sex at any point in time not to engage in intercourse.
This is such a deeply incorrect mischaracterization of Catholic thinking that I am not even going to try to explain it. I'm rather, simply going to say that Catholics do not consider any of those things to be tantamount to abortion (or euthanasia) and Catholics not only do not proscribe the last two, but specifically affirm them.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Javert: But if they seem morning after pills as the same as abortion, it doesn't really matter.
It matters because I want to hold a pharmacist to the standard of a scientist. And scientifically the morning after pills do the exact same thing as birth control except you take it after sex. So, if you don't consider regular birth control to be abortion, then neither is the morning after pill. Their decision is irrational because the pill is taken after sex.
I would have more respect for them if they were against birth control and the morning after pill. I would disagree with them, but at least they would be being consistent.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by rollainm:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: To them, it's the same as killing a person. Do we as a society have the require that of someone?
Birth control is the same as killing a person?
So is menstruation. And masturbation, and defending yourself from a rapist, and any decision made by two fertile people of the opposite sex at any point in time not to engage in intercourse.
This is such a deeply incorrect mischaracterization of Catholic thinking that I am not even going to try to explain it. I'm rather, simply going to say that Catholics do not consider any of those things to be tantamount to abortion (or euthanasia) and Catholics not only do not proscribe the last two, but specifically affirm them.
You clearly missed my point.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: It matters because I want to hold a pharmacist to the standard of a scientist.
You should first hold yourself to the standard of "someone who understands what another person's objections are before judging them".
[ October 30, 2007, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: It matters because I want to hold a pharmacist to the standard of a scientist.
You should first hold yourself to the standard of "someone who understands what another persons objections are before judging them".
True. But this being a quick discussion on a message board, I made an assumption. My apologies if I'm wrong.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
From wikipedia
quote:Combination pills usually work by preventing a woman's ovaries from releasing eggs (ovulation). They also thicken the cervical mucus, which keeps sperm from joining with an egg. The hormones in combination and progestogen-only pills also thin the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by interfering with implantation of a blastocyst.
So I'm not imagining that pills can cause the failure of an embryo that may have managed to get a start.
quote:It matters because I want to hold a pharmacist to the standard of a scientist.
Ha. When, exactly, do "scientists" say life begins? (My perception is they don't, or have so many answers as to be meaningless. There is no scientific standard.)
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka:
quote:It matters because I want to hold a pharmacist to the standard of a scientist.
Ha. When, exactly, do "scientists" say life begins? (My perception is they don't, or have so many answers as to be meaningless. There is no scientific standard.)
I was referring to the scientific understanding of how the pills work, which you quoted above. Again, I'm relatively certain (could be wrong) that no one is saying that life begins before conception.
The fact seems to be that ALL birth control has a chance, in theory, of preventing implantation. So do some other medications.
But, if you are ok with distributing normal birth control, which has the same chance of preventing implantation, and not ok with distributing morning after pills, you are being inconsistent, and I lose respect for you. (Not saying my respect means anything, of course.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't oppose people owning guns, but I have reservations about people having guns that have no purpose than to assasinate with. Does that make me inconsistent?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Are we drafting people to be pharmacists now?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I don't oppose people owning guns, but I have reservations about people having guns that have no purpose than to assasinate with. Does that make me inconsistent?
It's not the same thing.
Now, imagine you sold guns. You knew there was a chance that these guns could kill people, but generally that chance was low, and so you still sold them. Then some new guns came on the market. These guns have the exact same function as the old guns, with the exact same risk of being used to kill people, but you refuse to sell them. And yet you continue selling the old guns.
That is what I object to. If you have two products that do they exact same thing and the exact same risks, either sell both or sell neither. If you just sell one, you're being inconsistent.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Kate,
Unlike warfare, the objectives of drugs have changed recently. Plenty of people are now pharmacists who chose that profession before abortificant drugs were expected to be deseminated.
Javert,
The "regular" pill has a goal of preventing ovulation-- many people still view this as the primary purpose of a "regular" pill. The morning after pill has no intent other than preventing a fertilized egg from surviving. Surely you can see how the two could be rationally viewed differently?
Edit to add: your characterization that the two methods have "exactly the same chance" of the undesired effect is where you are off. And even if they *did* have the same chance, the intent matters. A very bad hitman may have exactly the same chance of killing someone as a very poor driver... in fact, likely far less... but the one remains evil while the other does not.
Rollainm, perhaps I did. What was your point, exactly?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: To them, it's the same as killing a person. Do we as a society have the require that of someone?
Birth control is the same as killing a person?
According to GOP candidate Mike Huckabee, birth control is similar to drunk driving or domestic violence. Yeah, I don't get it either.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Javert,
The "regular" pill has a goal of preventing ovulation-- many people still view this as the primary purpose of a "regular" pill. The morning after pill has no intent other than preventing a fertilized egg from surviving. Surely you can see how the two could be rationally viewed differently?
I could see that, if the two pills weren't the same medicine. But they are. You should look at the studies. The function of the morning after pill is to prevent ovulation, just like the normal pill. And just like the normal pill, there is a theoretical chance of preventing implantation.
I'm only saying that if you're against one, you should be against the other.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Jim-Me: Actually that is only one of three things the morning after pill does:
quote: plan B does 1 of 3 things: * It temporarily stops the release of an egg from the ovary; * It prevents fertilization; or * It prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus.
My understanding is that they are drastically different dosage levels of the same medicine and do not have the same effect... but no, I have not seen the studies.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: My understanding is that they are drastically different dosage levels of the same medicine and do not have the same effect... but no, I have not seen the studies.
That I will grant you. And I will also say that it has been years since I sat down and looked at the studies myself. But I'm pretty sure I remember that the primary function of the pill is to prevent ovulation, and the other effects are possibilities. But those possibilities exist for the regular pill.
Oh, and I am in no way advocation that morning after pills should be used in lieu of regular birth control. Just want that to be clear.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jim, but we still aren't putting people in jail for refusing to be pharmacists? Or for refusing to dispense certain medications?
I guess what I am objecting to is the use of the term "conscientious objector." A pharmacist who loses his or her job because he won't perform that job to the expectations of his or her employer is a different thing.
edit to add: And people can't expect that their job is going to always remain the same. This is as true for pharmacists as anyone else. If my boss asked me to do something legal that I considered immoral, I would have a choice. So do pharmacists.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Jim-Me, It was a (perhaps inappropriate for this discussion) stab at the pro-life position based on potentiality – which seems to be an inevitable fallback for anyone who equates abortion and especially birth control with murder.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And people can't expect that their job is going to always remain the same. This is as true for pharmacists as anyone else. If my boss asked me to do something legal that I considered immoral ...
*shhh* Don't tell them, I'm avoiding learning C# due to my religious objection to Microsoft as the devil Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Ok... I see the problem here (hoist on my own petard somewhat, which is not unsual for me): we are talking at cross-purposes and I didn't do my own due diligence. It is perhaps lacking in others as well.
Read the Pope's statement, quoted above. He is talking about Abortificants (as well as Euthanasia drugs). When I see him talking about drugs that induce abortion and you start comparing it to ordinary birth control, I start thinking RU486 and the old-fashioned "pill", which are definitely different in intent and effect... and there is nothing at all "unscientific" about treating them differently at a moral level.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Jim-Me, It was a (perhaps inappropriate for this discussion) stab at the pro-life position based on potentiality – which seems to be an inevitable fallback for anyone who equates abortion and especially birth control with murder.
No, then I didn't miss your point at all. I got it completely and my original post stands 100%.
For starters, the pro-life position is not based on potentiality and does not equate birth control with murder.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Ok... I see the problem here (hoist on my own petard somewhat, which is not unsual for me): we are talking at cross-purposes and I didn't do my own due diligence. It is perhaps lacking in others as well.
Read the Pope's statement, quoted above. He is talking about Abortificants (as well as Euthanasia drugs). When I see him talking about drugs that induce abortion and you start comparing it to ordinary birth control, I start thinking RU486 and the old-fashioned "pill", which are definitely different in intent and effect... and there is nothing at all "unscientific" about treating them differently at a moral level.
Ah. It all becomes clear.
Yeah, ru486 is an abortion pill. Not going to debate that with you.
I think one of the big problems with all debates like this is that ru486 and the morning after pill/plan b are so easily confused.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm avoiding learning C# due to my religious objection to Microsoft as the devil
Have you heard of IronRuby yet? Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
it doesn't help that I'm so far behind the times that I still think of RU486 as "the morning after pill" but back in the day it was sometimes called that...
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:"We cannot anesthetize consciences as regards, for example, the effect of certain molecules that have the goal of preventing the implantation of the embryo or shortening a person's life," he said.
I misunderstood this to include all birth control. So there's nothing new here, shouldn't have started the thread. Sorry guys...
Strangely, it is Javert saying the morning after pill is the same as normal contraceptives. Seems like if "plan B" is not RU 486, it should be apparent that birth control pills are not the same as "plan B".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Read the Pope's statement, quoted above. He is talking about Abortificants (as well as Euthanasia drugs). When I see him talking about drugs that induce abortion and you start comparing it to ordinary birth control, I start thinking RU486 and the old-fashioned "pill", which are definitely different in intent and effect...
Thats not quite true, from the article:
quote: Pope Benedict XVI said Monday that pharmacists have a right to use conscientious objection to avoid dispensing emergency contraception or euthanasia drugs — and told them they should also inform patients of the ethical implications of using such drugs.
The morning-after pill IS emergency contraception. (And as noted before, the morning-after pill is just a different dosage level of some "normal" birth control pills)
Edit to add:
Here is a brief summary of terms since people appear to be somewhat confused (I await CT's corrections):
"Normal" birth control pills: Work by controlling ovulation. These are made of progestogen and/or oestrogen. Alternatively, there are studies about using Mifepristone in low doses.
"Morning-after" pills/emergency contraception: This works by controlling ovulation and preventing implantation. They include Plan B (a specific brand name) which contains a higher dose of the progestogen contained in birth control pills.
"Abortion pill"/RU486: This contains a higher dose of Mifepristone than that tested in daily birth control. This higher dose induces a miscarriage.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
"Emergency Contraception" is a euphemism. Now I'm not saying it shouldn't be available. I think it should be available through rape intervention resources like E.R.s. I'd see the increased report of rape as a benefit to such a system.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I guess what I am objecting to is the use of the term "conscientious objector." A pharmacist who loses his or her job because he won't perform that job to the expectations of his or her employer is a different thing.
I'm not sure why you see this as so different... e-mail me and we'll discuss further (I think you and I may be the only ones interested in this particular point )
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
As I understand it, the term conscientious objector is a legal term whose meaning is not applicable here. The Pope is pushing for an expansion of the term (or rather for Catholics to push for an expansion of the term).
I very much doubt that this effort is going to be successful.
---
edit:
quote:I think you and I may be the only ones interested in this particular point
I'd be interested in this.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Strangely, it is Javert saying the morning after pill is the same as normal contraceptives. Seems like if "plan B" is not RU 486, it should be apparent that birth control pills are not the same as "plan B".
Huh? Sorry, confused. Please explain. Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
If pharmacists need a license to sell these pills, then the people with this license ought also have the obligation to do it despite their own beliefs.
If on the other hand people don't need the licence to sell these pill, then any single individual should be allowed to sell or not sell them as their conscience permits.
It goes both ways. If the pharmacists' conscience should be obliged, then my conscience should allow me to sell the pills without a pharmacist's license of my own.
Otherwise, you are creating a class of people that can restrict a product to the whole of the population. "Pharmacist's licenses" then become a way of authorizing the pharmacists to enforce their morality on other people.
Imagine doctors that refuse to treat black people or gay people. Those doctors ought lose their license. And same with pharmacists that don't sell these drugs; unless the pharmacist's license has nothing to do with these pills.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Mucus,
Thanks for the summary of the pills.
The article draws the inference that Benedict is addressing emergency contraception. He does not, in fact, address any specific drug. He calls for a pharmacist's right to exercise their conscience in determining which drugs might have the consequence of ending a life and to refrain from participating in their distribution.
Javert charged that a still undetermined group of people, presumably all Catholics, were being ignorant in differentiating between different types of birth control. In addition to taking offense at this, I pointed out that Pope Benedict didn't actually address Plan B directly, in the process of explaining how it was, indeed, possible to be factually correct in differentiating between types of birth control drugs.
With me now?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I would think that a pharmacist has an ethical duty to not give out pills that he or she believes will be used to kill a person.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
RU 486 is the abortion pill. It interferes with a pregnancy known to be in progress.
Plan B or "emergency contraception" is interference with a pregnancy that one has reasonable suspicion may be underway.
Contraception is intended to prevent pregnancy.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I would think that a pharmacist has an ethical duty to not give out pills that he or she believes will be used to kill a person.
Absolutely. Of course, if you're that ethical of a person you should probably get out of a field that requires you to dispense those pills by law.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: RU 486 is the abortion pill. It interferes with a pregnancy known to be in progress.
Plan B or "emergency contraception" is interference with a pregnancy that one has reasonable suspicion may be underway.
Contraception is intended to prevent pregnancy.
Actually emergency contraception, as I understand it, is an attempt to prevent a pregnancy that one expects may begin shortly if one otherwise didn't act.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Jim-Me: Gotcha, although I would add that the Vatican has made previous specific statements heavily opposing the distribution of emergency contraception such as link urging people in the field "to make a firm objection of moral conscience".
Pooka: Thats not quite correct. As I understand it, Plan B also delays ovulation, to prevent a pregnancy that may occur when the egg is released *after* sex, so its reasonable suspicion of a pregnancy underway (as in between fertilization and before implantation) OR reasonable suspicion of a possible "future" pregnancy.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Javert charged that a still undetermined group of people, presumably all Catholics, were being ignorant in differentiating between different types of birth control.
My apologies for being vague Jim. The people I was referring to were pharmacists, Catholic or otherwise, who would be fine with selling birth control but would object to selling plan b.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The trouble with that is that if every pharmacist acted that way, every objecting pharmacist would leave the field, leaving only pharmacists who are willing to give out pills. You'd be contributing to the spread of the thing you consider to be unethical.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Conscientious objectors were people who did not choose to be solfiers in the first place (they were conscripted) and who faced jail for refusing to be soldiers. The only way that "conscientious objector" would fit pharmacists would be if the government drafted people to be pharmacists and put them in jail for refusing to dispense drugs.
What constitutes reasonable acommodation that an employer might make for an employees ethical concern is a valid discussion. I think calling pharmacists "conscientious objectors" is misleading and designed to evoke sympathy from anti-war liberals.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The trouble with that is that if every pharmacist acted that way, every objecting pharmacist would leave the field, leaving only pharmacists who are willing to give out pills. You'd be contributing to the spread of the thing you consider to be unethical.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Aris,
quote:If pharmacists need a license to sell these pills, then the people with this license ought also have the obligation to do it despite their own beliefs.
Well, this is a bunch of hooey. They should only have the obligation to do it if we, the people which ultimately give the licenses, decide that should be a part of it.
I am not convinced that it should be. I do not think that a pharmacy license is akin to indentured servitude.
quote:Otherwise, you are creating a class of people that can restrict a product to the whole of the population. "Pharmacist's licenses" then become a way of authorizing the pharmacists to enforce their morality on other people.
Also nonsense. Unless you believe that for some reason people have a moral right to certain forms of medication...which would be a strange thing for you to believe given that you clearly don't believe that pharmacists should have the moral right to refuse to distribute medication they deem immoral.
quote:Imagine doctors that refuse to treat black people or gay people. Those doctors ought lose their license. And same with pharmacists that don't sell these drugs; unless the pharmacist's license has nothing to do with these pills.
No they shouldn't lose their license. I'm not remotely interested in the state making bigotry proactively illegal.
--------------
Why are you rolling your eyes, JT? I suppose you disapprove of civil disobedience, too?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:My apologies for being vague Jim. The people I was referring to were pharmacists, Catholic or otherwise, who would be fine with selling birth control but would object to selling plan b.
No worries. My apologies for not being clear about which pills we were discussing before I got huffy.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Jim-Me: Gotcha, although I would add that the Vatican has made previous specific statements heavily opposing the distribution of emergency contraception
yep... and the statements quoted above could be seen as applying to Plan B, as well, even though he didn't name it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why are you rolling your eyes, JT? I suppose you disapprove of civil disobedience, too?
Civil disobedience would (again) be a case of a legal consequence administered by the government. We are not doing that to pharmacists. The consequence they might face is losing their job. It is a private consequence mete out by their employer.
Now, if a pharmacy loses its license to dispense drugs and continues to dispense them, that might be considered civil disobedience. Is that what is happening?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Conscientious objectors were people who did not choose to be soldiers in the first place (they were conscripted) and who faced jail for refusing to be soldiers.
I have seen the term repeatedly, consistently, and recently used much more broadly than that by people opposed to various war efforts over the last couple of decades. I do agree that the term ought to be limited to that, with the caveat that consciencious objectors (in this technical sense) by virtue of their status as such, do not face jail time.
However, if the term is to be expanded in use (and in the non-technical arena it certainly has been) then I see it as fitting entirely within Benedict's use of the term.
I don't get the sense that the Pope is calling for any kind of government intervention or new legislation, but calling on professional pharmacist agencies to allow a similar status to their certified members that governments allow their citizens in time of conscription.
It doesn't seem to me that the Pope is trying to obtain a technical legal status, but rather trying to obtain a concession from an industry and is using the label as a convenient parallel.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Civil disobedience would (again) be a case of a legal consequence administered by the government. We are not doing that to pharmacists. The consequence they might face is losing their job. It is a private consequence mete out by their employer.
I didn't say that this was civil disobedience, although I think it comes close as tied to the government as medicine is. But the principle is the same. It would seem that he thinks that if you disapprove of something, despite legal consequences, you should leave or stop doing it. Civil disobedience falls neatly into that category.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think the real difference is industry/private vs government/legal consequences. Those realms do get fuzzy (I am a democrat, for goodness sake!) but I think there is a real distinction.
I haven't heard conscientious objector used to mean other than soldiers objecting and facing possible jail time. I have heard it used by soldiers who object to this war. The difference is that they weren't conscripted; they joined up. It is a broader use that I think it should be but still preserves the private/public distinction.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Are Catholic doctors and nurses compelled to participate in abortion? I don't know- just in case it comes across as a rhetorical question.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
"Conscientious Objector" is a draft status claiming a religious exemption to conscription. Any other use of it is rhetorical. Someone who volunteers for the army and then decides they don't want to go to war is no more (or less), IMO, a conscientious objector than someone who is a pharmacist who suddenly finds himself having moral qualms about the drugs he is forced to administer. The differences are that the soldier has taken an oath (as far as I know, Pharmacists do not), and that it is a crime for the soldier to disobey lawful orders (hence the legal proceedings against a soldier who does not do so). Aside from the legal issue, the penalties are pretty much the same-- forfeiture of livelihood and loss of a job for cause, with a bad report following.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Aside from the legal issue" is the problem. The legal issue is, for me, the point.
Pharmacies are private companies. Are we going to make private companies hire people who won't do what they are hired to do? Again, some employers may make accomodations, but unless we are considering moral qualms a disability, the government should not force them to make those accomodations.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Are Catholic doctors and nurses compelled to participate in abortion? I don't know- just in case it comes across as a rhetorical question.
I believe doctors and nurses would be required both by Catholic morality and by law to perform an abortion in a case where the mother's life was threatened (say tubal pregnancy). Otherwise, I don't believe they would.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why are you rolling your eyes, JT? I suppose you disapprove of civil disobedience, too?
Get a dictionary, Jeff.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: "Aside from the legal issue" is the problem. The legal issue is, for me, the point.
Pharmacies are private companies. Are we going to make private companies hire people who won't do what they are hired to do? Again, some employers may make accomodations, but unless we are considering moral qualms a disability, the government should not force them to make those accomodations.
As I said, I don't believe Benedict is asking the government to do so.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
A reasoned and nuanced response, JT.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
How is it not discrimination to say that no [pick a religion] should be able to be pharmacists?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't see how this would be discrimination any more than a Muslim not being able to work at a pig farm.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
pooka: I'm not entirely sure who you're responding to. I can't find discrimination on either page.
I would ask a following question: How is it not discrimination to say that no Muslims can become pork butchers and no Scientologists can become psychiatrists? Or you know, me not being able to become a C# programmer?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't see how this would be discrimination any more than a Muslim not being able to work at a pig farm.
Yes, well, in some cases the Muslim owns a farm tending cows and goats, and someone comes along and demands he tend pigs as well, or stop farming altogether.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Yes, well, in some cases the Muslim owns a farm tending cows and goats, and someone comes along and demands he tend pigs as well, or stop farming altogether.
What cases are those? I can't imagine that happening in the U.S.
I could see a Muslim working at a farm where they didn't tend pigs and then having the owner decide to include pigs, but not at a farm they themselves owned.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It hardly matters if there are no cases (although I think there are, given the age of some pharmacists), because who are you to tell the Muslim who wants to be a farmer, "You must tend and butcher and sell pigs."
quote:I could see a Muslim working at a farm where they didn't tend pigs and then having the owner decide to include pigs, but not at a farm they themselves owned.
Editing is making some statements out of place here. What some people are suggesting isn't limited to a Muslim taking a job as a farmhand and being told, "To be a farmhand on this farm, you must etc. etc." Some people insist, or have insisted in the past in discussions on this subject, that the Muslim, even if he owns the farm lock, stock, and cattle feed, must own and sell pigs.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:because who are you to tell the Muslim who wants to be a farmer, "You must tend and butcher and sell pigs."
I wasn't aware anyone on this thread advocating dictating livestock a Muslim farmer must raise. How is this relevant?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The problem I have with pharmacists refusing to fill a birth control prescription is that birth control can be prescribed for medical reasons apart from preventing pregnancy. You don't have to be sexually active to be prescribed it, and you shouldn't have to disclose your medical information to your pharmacist.
My comment really can't be applied to emergency contraception, as I don't think it has any other medical purpose but to prevent pregnancy, but I thought it was relevant considering birth control prescriptions have also been refused by pharmacists.
ETA: I said "the" problem I have, but it's really just one problem I have with it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You don't have to be sexually active to be prescribed it, and you shouldn't have to disclose your medical information to your pharmacist.
That's a true statement, in my opinion. But it butts up against the equally true statement (imo, again) that a pharmacist who owns his own business should not be compelled to do something hateful to him.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But it butts up against the equally true statement (imo, again) that a pharmacist who owns his own business should not be compelled to do something hateful to him.
Again, how is this relevant to anything anyone on this thread has said?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I just wanted to say that birth control pills *usually* work by preventing ovulation but if ovulation occurs anyway, then they also work by preventing the fertilized egg to implant in the uterus.
Personally, I don't think this is the same as abortion but given the # of people who are against stem cell research because a sperm got inside an egg...well, I don't see how the two are different. So there are definitely people out there for whom prescribing birth control pills could be considered immoral.
As for whether or not pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill a prescription on moral grounds...that's a tough one. I guess the question then becomes: What is a pharmacist? Are they just a drug dispensary? If so, then they should bite their tongue and dispense the drugs -- they don't even know the situation well enough to judge.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's a true statement, in my opinion. But it butts up against the equally true statement (imo, again) that a pharmacist who owns his own business should not be compelled to do something hateful to him.
Actually, depending on the province or state, that pharmacist may very well have to, or otherwise stop calling themselves a pharmacist since pharmacists are part of a professionally regulated profession, like lawyers or doctors.
quote: A pharmacist is not ethically obliged to provide requested pharmacy care when compliance would involve a violation of his or her moral beliefs. When that request falls within recognized forms of pharmacy care, however, there is a professional obligation to refer the patient to a pharmacist who is willing to provide the service. The pharmacist shall provide the requested pharmacy care if there is no other pharmacist within a reasonable distance or available within a reasonable time willing to provide the service.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Again, how is this relevant to anything anyone on this thread has said?
It's not necessarily, Mr. Squicky. As I said, though, it is a part of the larger discussion on this issue and has been suggested before.
quote:Actually, depending on the province or state, that pharmacist may very well have to, or otherwise stop calling themselves a pharmacist since pharmacists are part of a professionally regulated profession, like lawyers or doctors.
And in these situations, if a pharmacist remains unwilling, then they should suffer the legal consequences of that refusal. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether those consequences are right, though.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I just wanted to say that birth control pills *usually* work by preventing ovulation but if ovulation occurs anyway, then they also work by preventing the fertilized egg to implant in the uterus.
There is a serious similar question raised lately in the medical literature about the rhythm method: i.e., whether it leads to increased embryonic death (over and above other forms of contraception).
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I just wanted to say that birth control pills *usually* work by preventing ovulation but if ovulation occurs anyway, then they also work by preventing the fertilized egg to implant in the uterus.
There is a serious similar question raised lately in the medical literature about the rhythm method: i.e., whether it leads to increased embryonic death (over and above other forms of contraception).
CT, I'm confused. How could the rhythm method cause embryos to exist in the first place? Isn't the rhythm method abstaining from sex during ovulation?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think the idea that embryos concieved out of a certain window are less likely to survive than those those concieved within the prime time window.
Doesn't that only apply, however, if there is the same amount of sex and only the timing changes? That's a big assumption.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I just wanted to say that birth control pills *usually* work by preventing ovulation but if ovulation occurs anyway, then they also work by preventing the fertilized egg to implant in the uterus.
There is a serious similar question raised lately in the medical literature about the rhythm method: i.e., whether it leads to increased embryonic death (over and above other forms of contraception).
CT, I'm confused. How could the rhythm method cause embryos to exist in the first place? Isn't the rhythm method abstaining from sex during ovulation?
Different rhythm methods are more or less accurate at determining ovulation, which sometimes can be quite much more irregular than theorized. No predictory method of ovulation is perfect, and if there is ovulation, then an egg can be fertilized -- less of a chance when ovulation is prevented.
Of note, just as prescribed birth control has different error rates as it is practiced by most people compared to ideal conditions, so too does the error rate of the rhythm method(s) change when comparing the practical usage to the ideal.
I can cite you papers that assess such rates if you are interested further, but as far as I know, none of them are available online without subscription. However, that's probably the extent of my interest in parsing through it online. I raise it merely as another wrench in the works (to join yet so many other wrenches).
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Aha. There is a lay discussion via The New York Times available online that addresses Javert Hugo's reference (I think). Not all the reasons to consider this rest on the assumption she suggests, though.
Also see Journal of Medical Ethics, 2006 Jun;32(6):355-6. "The rhythm method and embryonic death" and Contraception, 2006 Jul;74(1):56-60, "Contraception after medical abortion."
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think there is a difference between embryonic deaths that occur naturally and deaths deliberately induced.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'm afraid I still don't understand. Let me explain what I understand about how all this works, and perhaps you can correct my misconceptions? I hope any lack of knowledge I have isn't shocking. I thought I understood these things, but perhaps I don't! The following statements are my understandings--not to be quoted as if I'm presenting them as facts or for others' education. I will gladly be corrected.
First, a definition... embryo equals egg + sperm, not necessarily implanted?
An egg is released during ovulation so is only there during a limited time period in which to be fertilized by the sperm. This means that you can only get pregnant for a few days around ovulation, but that there might not be a direct correlation between when you have sex and when you get pregnant.
I've always heard that you can get pregnant any day of the month, but I assumed this referred to the fact that ovulation is unpredictable and that sperm can be viable for days after initially having sex, which means it would still be around when the egg is released. (Okay, that last part seems far-fetched, but it was supposition on my part, based on things I had heard over time.) I also suspect that the statement that you can get pregnant any day of the month might be a cautionary falsehood told to teenagers to prevent premarital sex, otherwise, why use the rhythm method at all?
So, based on those assumptions, what I understand of the rhythm method is that the couple abstains from sex for certain days before and after ovulation to prevent fertilization of the egg. Therefore, the rhythm method wouldn't be able to produce any more embryos than birth control pills would. It's not a foolproof method, of course, and fertilization could happen, but implantation is still not guaranteed, as also could happen with birth control pills, which work to hinder implantation and ovulation.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rakeesh: Sure, I get that. It's just that the way I read the conversation, it seemed like you were saying that the metaphorical farmhand had an obligation to their boss to raise pigs if ordered to, but that a self-employer farmer should not have any obligation. I was just pointing out that there is a difference for pharmacists when compared to farmers.
Even if a pharmacist is not answerable to a boss, they are answerable to a college of pharmacists for a whole number of regulations which include (but are not limited to) EC, even before we consider what they are answerable to under the law. That was the only point of bringing that up.
I hardly assumed that you would agree that the regulation was "morally right" by simple virtue of existing Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I'm afraid I still don't understand. Let me explain what I understand about how all this works, and perhaps you can correct my misconceptions? ... So, based on those assumptions, what I understand of the rhythm method is that the couple abstains from sex for certain days before and after ovulation to prevent fertilization of the egg. Therefore, the rhythm method wouldn't be able to produce any more embryos than birth control pills would. It's not a foolproof method, of course, and fertilization could happen, but implantation is still not guaranteed, as also could happen with birth control pills, which work to hinder implantation and ovulation.
Katarain, I'll just refer you back to this: "Different rhythm methods are more or less accurate at determining ovulation, which sometimes can be quite much more irregular than theorized. No predictory method of ovulation is perfect, and if there is ovulation, then an egg can be fertilized -- less of a chance when ovulation is prevented." For details of studies that note inaccuracies of predicting/determining ovulation, even by the most reliable "natural family planning" methods, I refer you to the bibliographies of the articles cited above. Here is also where you will find some discussion of the difference between "practical" and "ideal" rates of predictability. You can also find some comparison between error rates of NFP under practical conditions and BCPs under practical conditions, which seems it would be of use in thinking through that last sentence in the quotation above.
Honestly, I appreciate and respect your quest for understanding, but I am not going to be diving into the details with you here. I do hope the references are of use and that my disinclination to discuss it further is acceptable as my own choice rather than as a personal provocation to you.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Well, shoot, on reread that looks quite harsh to my eyes. Let me try again.
Katarain, your perserverance and dedication to nailing this issue down is admirable. I'm busy having other conversations, but I'll happily keep reading here to see what comes up -- mostly as just an observer, though. I have had less than enjoyable outcomes to extended conversations on this topic in the past (not with you! just that it seems to tend to be emotionally-charged, even for people who have the best intentions and begin in a non-emotionally-laden way), so I haven't the overwhelming desire to engage on it in detail. Frankly, the reverse. *grin
But I wish you the best.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I thought this passage was interesting.
quote: However, if a fertilized egg produced on the fringe of the fertile window is less likely to develop and implant, he writes, "the same logic that turned pro-lifers away from morning after pills, I.U.D.'s and pill usage should make them nervous about the rhythm method."
Dr. Bovens also contends that opponents of abortion ought to favor barrier methods, like condoms, because these are likely to cause fewer embryonic deaths. "Even a policy of practicing condom usage and having an abortion in case of failure would cause less embryonic deaths than the rhythm method," he writes.
If they can get some hard numbers on whether or not more embryonic deaths occur on the fringes of the window, than this could potentially be a good line of reasoning to use against the Catholic Church's line against using condoms in preference to the rhythm method. A reversal of that policy in Africa would be a major breakthrough and would save a great number of lives.
Of course that is the most optimistic outcome.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I know you don't want to get into this, but you did bring it up and as it happens, I used a form of natural family planning until I used it to get me pregnant a couple months ago. (I like to call it Fertility Awareness, especially since I use backup.) So this is doubly intriguing to me. I'm afraid the article you posted didn't offer anything but conjecture, so I'm going to try to see if I understand the implications.
It *seemed* to suggest that if a couple times their intercourse wrong...say five days before ovulation...and some sperm survives to fertilize an egg, that somehow that fertilized embryo is weaker than one fertilized by fresh sperm and is more likely to miscarry? Probably we would especially be looking at very early miscarriages or what is often called a "chemical pregnancy."
I have never seen anything to suggest that old sperm wouldn't work as well. (I have seen things to suggest that old sperm is more likely to produce female babies...but that's a topic for another time. ) It does seem somewhat plausible, although if it is true it is either not widely tested or not widely known or both. It would be difficult at best to get an accurate count of these early miscarriages, since most women wouldn't even know they were pregnant (or that an egg was fertilized).
Really, it doesn't bother me either way. It does raise an interesting challenge for those who think that things such as the pill are immoral because of what can happen if ovulation does actually occur. But actually, I already know their answer. One reason the Catholic church promotes NFP is that it leaves room for God to intercede. I'm sure they would suggest that such a natural form of embryonic loss is God interceding.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: "Aside from the legal issue" is the problem. The legal issue is, for me, the point.
Pharmacies are private companies. Are we going to make private companies hire people who won't do what they are hired to do? Again, some employers may make accomodations, but unless we are considering moral qualms a disability, the government should not force them to make those accomodations.
As I said, I don't believe Benedict is asking the government to do so.
He may not be, but I think that by using that term, he is trying to define them the same way. He is trying to get us to think of them that way. That is what I am resisting.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Well, shoot, on reread that looks quite harsh to my eyes. Let me try again.
Katarain, your perserverance and dedication to nailing this issue down is admirable. I'm busy having other conversations, but I'll happily keep reading here to see what comes up -- mostly as just an observer, though. I have had less than enjoyable outcomes to extended conversations on this topic in the past (not with you! just that it seems to tend to be emotionally-charged, even for people who have the best intentions and begin in a non-emotionally-laden way), so I haven't the overwhelming desire to engage on it in detail. Frankly, the reverse. *grin
But I wish you the best.
I was not offended, but I do appreciate the clarification. I didn't realize the NY Times article was relevant to my question, but it was! I read it, and it answered my questions.
I understand that the topic can be emotionally charged for people, but it couldn't be for me, since I didn't understand what you said meant. I do now, though. That doctor is basically suggesting that embryos that are created near the edge of the window of ovulation have less chance of implanting. This may or may not be true, as the article pointed out, but now I understand the topic. So, I'm happy.
And I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect people to read articles you link to rather than people expecting you to type out the same thing in a forum post. I should have paid closer attention! The article very appropriately answered my question. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think that I am okay with people conscientiously objecting to supplying something they are morally opposed to. I have known restaurants that allow LDS servers to refrain from serving alcohol to customers; they just have another server bring it by, same as they would an underage server. I have strongly held moral and religious beliefs that influence the way I live, and so I sympathize.
Therefore, I am okay with pharmacists objecting to giving a medication and not giving it to a client. HOWEVER. It is their duty to inform their employer of this limitation beforehand so it can be accomodated, and the employer's duty to have someone on hand who is qualified AND willing to dispense it in their stead every shift that they work. If a drug is legal and properly prescribed, the customer should always have access to it, same as since alcohol is legal people over 21 should have access to it if they order it in restaurants that serve it. There should just be a way to accomodate the religious beliefs of the people who object to dispensing the medication, same as allowances can be made for servers that object to serving alcohol. In that way, beliefs of the person who holds them are not violated, while the person who does not so believe has access to the legal substance s/he desires.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
The one piece I read on the subject of the rhythm method possibly contributing to embryonic death was entirely speculative and didn't have any supporting data whatsoever. If data has been forthcoming, that changes things, naturally. I think if it could be shown that the rhythm method resulted in embryonic death, it would behoove a re-evaluation, as an embryonic death is a far more significant evil than the use of barrier methods of birth control to any Catholic, I would think. Certainly to any that I know...
It's also worth noting that there are plenty of pro-lifers not at all opposed to artificial brith control and worth re-stressing (though I could hardly have been more harsh in my initial stressing of the point) that Catholics do NOT have the same opposition to artificial birth control methods and abortion and it is disingenuous, or, at best, ignorant, to conflate the two.
Kate, sauce for the goose, then. I see no similar concern from you on misappropriations of that term for volunteer soldiers who suddenly have a fit of conscience or become instant (and poor) constitutional scholars when they are trying to get out of dangerous duty and inconvenient deployments. It's both or neither.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I should have paid closer attention! The article very appropriately answered my question.
Unfortunately, I think your question is only very partially answered by that one article, as it doesn't address the other aspects I noted above that also make it likely that more embryos are lost. Thus, the other cites -- for the other issues.
But if this suffices for you, I'll happily leave it with the clarification (for you and other readers) that there are many other concerns than just viability of embryos at the margins of fertility window.
---
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I know you don't want to get into this, but you did bring it up ...
Sure! Happy to summarize and cite, just not to go into extended details. My apologies for that disinterest to dive into the fray without reservation.
quote:I'm afraid the article you posted didn't offer anything but conjecture ...
Of note, Page 2 of the NYT article does reference the very large OB-Gyn study that first established (for medical professionals) problems at the margins of fertility, as well as Wilcox's work on older ovulated eggs. You may have missed it.
The article mentions some of the technical aspects, but it doesn't go into detail. This is probably appropriate for a lay article. Of [further] note, the picture in the literature is not as clouded as it may be portrayed by some of these quotations -- there seems to be a bias to present both sides of the story, regardless of whether there are multiple perspectives and -- particularly concerning to me -- regardless of the scientific evidence basis for each of the claims.
*shrug
So it goes.
quote:I have never seen anything to suggest that old sperm wouldn't work as well ... It does seem somewhat plausible, although if it is true it is either not widely tested or not widely known or both. .
Christine, regarding the problems with aging sperm, it's in the medical literature, but I can't speak to the knowledge about it in the lay press. Different people seem to have markedly different exposures.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Ketchupqueen's last post made me wonder if there had ever been a Christian Scientist pharmacist. I'm imagining the same rule she proposes being applied to them, and them standing behind the counter all day saying variations of "I'm sorry, the use of material world remedies to cure what are, after all, merely misperceptions of reality isn't acceptable to me. Next!" while another pharmacist hovers at their shoulder, actually dispensing the drugs.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Noemon, that reminds me of a young man at my high school that wanted to serve as an officer of one of the clubs (secretary? something where you had to be present to perform the functions), but the only times available for meetings with the sponsoring faculty were during his National Guard commitments. It was a tizzy.
Of course, BCPs and other pregnancy-related medications are only a part of the pharmacist job, not the whole thing. It's a significant percentage, though.
--
I often wonder why it is sometimes assumed that the only job to use a pharmacy degree is that of filling prescriptions. There is so much more: drug research (with or without major pharmaceutical company positions), advisory roles for policy and planning, teaching, etc. Just as there are many things someone with an MD can do other than work directly with patients, so too are there other options for the pharm degree.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Kate, sauce for the goose, then. I see no similar concern from you on misappropriations of that term for volunteer soldiers who suddenly have a fit of conscience or become instant (and poor) constitutional scholars when they are trying to get out of dangerous duty and inconvenient deployments. It's both or neither.
Actually, you did. Here (bolding mine):
quote: I haven't heard conscientious objector used to mean other than soldiers objecting and facing possible jail time. I have heard it used by soldiers who object to this war. The difference is that they weren't conscripted; they joined up. It is a broader use that I think it should be but still preserves the private/public distinction.
And soldiers who claim that they are objecting on moral grounds, but are really trying to get out of duty because it is dangerous or inconvenient are not conscientious anything. They are liars. I don't see how that would be relevant to this discussion.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Okay, I can agree that becoming a pharmacist is a choice. But what if they tried to get work in research, couldn't, and had to support their families? I'm not saying that would apply to every "conscientious objector" pharmacist, but I think it's reasonable to assume that not every pharmacist dreamed of becoming a pharmacist. Some people are pharmacists (or, probably more, pharmacy technicians/assistants) out of necessity; it's the work they could get with the degree they could obtain/had at the time, in order to support themselves/their families.
In the same way that the LDS people I know who work at restaurants that serve alcohol but don't bring the drinks didn't want to be waiters; they are either students or lost jobs and took what they could get while working toward a better life.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
kq, what if the only job they could get was as a bartender? Or if it were a small restaurant with only one waiter at a time - should the owner be required to hire them or keep them on?
I think that employers can (and probably should) make reasonable accomodations for religious or non-religious moral stances of their employees. I don't think that they should be required to make unreasonable accomodations. "Reasonable" being subject to negotiations.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I would agree with that. "Reasonable" should be key.
I don't think a pharmacy that has only one pharmacist on shift at a time should be required to hire a pharmacist that would not dispense all prescribed drugs. I do think that a pharmacy that always has at least two on shift should (if he is the most qualified applicant in every other way.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I probably agree - as long as there is a difference between "should" and "should be required to". I do think that there are some reasonable accomodations employers should be required to make (handicap accessability for example) but I don't think this is one of them.
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I just wanted to say that birth control pills *usually* work by preventing ovulation but if ovulation occurs anyway, then they also work by preventing the fertilized egg to implant in the uterus.
This is something that I learned fairly recently, and know people who have stopped taking it because of this reason.
I think that for some(perhaps many) people this may be an important issue, yet they fail to mention it on the information page that is clearly aimed for the patients, rather than the medical professional, to read.
I realize that this may not be relavent to the main topic at hand, but I did want to give credence to the point raised by Christine.
Carry on. Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Jim-Me, It was a (perhaps inappropriate for this discussion) stab at the pro-life position based on potentiality – which seems to be an inevitable fallback for anyone who equates abortion and especially birth control with murder.
No, then I didn't miss your point at all. I got it completely and my original post stands 100%.
For starters, the pro-life position is not based on potentiality and does not equate birth control with murder.
Jim-Me,
Unfortunately, I don't have the time or the energy to properly discuss this at the moment(work and school are slowly killing me). And like I already said, such a discussion doesn't really belong in this thread anyway. I probably shouldn't have said anything to begin with.
Anyway, perhaps another time. If you're even interested, that is.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: [qb] I should have paid closer attention! The article very appropriately answered my question.
Unfortunately, I think your question is only very partially answered by that one article, as it doesn't address the other aspects I noted above that also make it likely that more embryos are lost. Thus, the other cites -- for the other issues.
But if this suffices for you, I'll happily leave it with the clarification (for you and other readers) that there are many other concerns than just viability of embryos at the margins of fertility window.
I think it answered my question simply because I needed to understand what the topic was, or what was meant by embryonic death and how it related to the rhythm method. I understand that there is a lot more to it, but I have enough to make my brain happy. Thanks!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
And I am such a prickly pear! Thank you for your calm and friendly equanimity, Katarain. Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
You cool. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(I have a huge licensing exam in 6 days and am both studying like mad and sweating bullets. Big, heavy lead bullets popping out of every pore. Thankfully, there is an Irish folksinging night at the local pub down the way every Tuesday night, and my sweet pea knows how to drag me bodily through the street. I don't sing, but the ambiance is lovely and gentle.
Back to the trenches.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am coming to visit you.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I almost called you, Kate, just so you could hear. It is wonderful! But my cell phone needs to be reprogrammed, and I didn't have my purse with your number.
I would love a visit. Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I think it should be up to the store owner to decide whether to hire a pharmacist who conscientiously objects to selling certain pregnancy related bills. It shouldn't be illegal. Personally, I wouldn't hire one just like I wouldn't hire a cashier who would refuse to sell pork or certain books.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)