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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are Catholic doctors and nurses compelled to participate in abortion? I don't know- just in case it comes across as a rhetorical question.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is it not discrimination to say that no [pick a religion] should be able to be pharmacists?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how this would be discrimination any more than a Muslim not being able to work at a pig farm.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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).
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is a difference between embryonic deaths that occur naturally and deaths deliberately induced.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I raise it merely as another wrench in the works (to join yet so many other wrenches).
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
