New arena for birth-control battle

Star Tribune ^ | May 3, 2005 | Rene Sanchez

[wallcrawlr]

Rebecca Polzin walked into a drugstore in Glencoe, Minn., last month to fill a prescription for birth control. A routine request. Or so she thought.

Minutes later, Polzin left furious and empty-handed. She said the pharmacist on duty refused to help her. "She kept repeating the same line: 'I won't fill it for moral reasons,' " Polzin said.

Earlier this year, Adriane Gilbert called a pharmacy in Richfield to ask if her birth-control prescription was ready. She said the person who answered told her to go elsewhere because he was opposed to contraception. "I was shocked," Gilbert said. "I had no idea what to do."

The two women have become part of an emotional debate emerging across the country: Should a pharmacist's moral views trump a woman's reproductive rights?

No one knows how many pharmacists in Minnesota or nationwide are declining to fill contraceptive prescriptions. But both sides in the debate say they are hearing more reports of such incidents -- and they predict that conflicts at drugstore counters are bound to increase.

"Five years ago, we didn't have evidence of this, and we would have been dumbfounded to see it," said Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. "We're not dumbfounded now. We're very concerned about what's happening."

But M. Casey Mattox of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom said it is far more disturbing to see pharmacists under fire for their religious beliefs than it is to have women inconvenienced by taking their prescription to another drugstore. He also said that laws have long shielded doctors opposed to abortion from having to take part in the procedure.

"The principle here is precisely the same," Mattox said.

[MEGoody]

"I had to question the morality of a husband who would encourage his wife to do something very likely to lead to her death."

And I have to question the intelligence of a nurse who would heed that kind of advice.

[pa mom]

There is NO reason to use birth control pills for medical reasons. Women survived thousands of years just fine without the pill to "regulate" menstruation. And women and men survived without lots of medicines that make our bodies work better and remove real discomfort. The pill is used to treat hormonally induced depression, regulate cycles to ENCOURAGE pregnancy, treat cysts, endometriosis (debilitating, BTW) and a myriad of other disorders.

[pa mom]

I think the concern is that some want to impose their will and outlaw birth control or MA pills.

I agree that an individual has every right to refuse to dispense any drug. But he should had the prescription over to another druggist or back to the patient.

[SoothingDave]

The place it is performed is irrelevant to this discussion - by definition the medically necessary procedure might be performed in a different location than an abortion clinic designed for elective abortions.

i never said the location was relevant. I just said that the removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not the type of procedure done at an abortion clinic.

And if it's medically necessary, by definition it isn't an elective abortion, it's a therapeutic abortion. However, the same procedures are used.

Yes, that's true.

So if you're asking what medical indications necessitate learning the skills (D&C or suction curettage), here are some: fetal demise, molar pregnancy, cardiac disease with decompensation, certain cancers. The same procedure would also be used for incomplete (spontaneous) abortion.

Any OB should know how to do these, for some of the reasons you outline. There is no reason to force medical students to perform elective abortions against their consciences. There are many women who miscarry or suffer fetal demise upon whom aspiring doctors can learn the procedures.

SD

[Centurion2000]

Logic would dictate you wouldn't choose a line of work that would so often directly conflict with your beliefs.

That's got to be one of the dumber reasons I think I have heard on why not to be something. I get pressure all the time to try and compromise morals and ethics in my line of work. I'd rather have pissed off superiors and co workers and be able to look myself in the eye than to comprmise my beliefs.

[pa mom]

The Catholic Church has always allowed that spouses may obstain from intercourse at any time for whatever reasons they see fit Actually, Catholic teaching provides that a couple must have serious and compelling reasons not to have another child. Not having a big enough house or wanting a trip to Disney World is not enough.

[SoothingDave]

So yes, the pill can cause abortion. But not every month.

How many is acceptable to you?

SD

[pa mom]

I don't have a problem with the pill or the potential for very early abortions. Sorry, I know you disagree.

[SoothingDave]

I don't have a problem with the pill or the potential for very early abortions. Sorry, I know you disagree.

Do you have a problem with later abortions?

SD

[pa mom]

Yes, I do.

[SoothingDave]

What is the difference between a "very early" and a later abortion?

SD

[pa mom]

We don't agree, clearly. You aren't going to change my mind and I won't change yours.

[Bushforlife]

"What about the changes in the uterine wall to prevent implantation? I think different pill formulas act differently, do they not?"



The "morning after pill" changes the uterine lining so that an already fertilzed egg [a new life] cannot implant, and therefore is destroyed.

The oral contraceptive pill works by an entirely different mechanism. It prevents ovulation entirely. No egg, no fertilization, no new life, no destruction of a new life.

The following kis from a medical website:

"Combined Oral Contraceptives (COCs)

The primary mechanism of action of COCs is the inhibition of ovulation. The release of an egg, which commonly occurs in the middle of the menstrual cycle, is prevented by COCs. Two hormones produced by the pituitary, a gland located at the base of the brain, coordinate the development and release of an egg from the ovary. One is follicle stimulating hormone, abbreviated FSH, and the other is luteinizing hormone, or LH. A surge in both of these hormones ordinarily occurs in the middle of a woman's menstrual cycle. The surge in LH is the trigger for ovulation. COCs inhibit the production of both FSH and LH and consequently prevent ovulation.3

In the very rare cases where ovulation may occur, another contraceptive mechanism of COCs acts to prevent fertilization. COCs have an effect on the cervical mucus. The progestin contained in COCs causes the cervical mucus to become thick and prevents sperm penetration; the sperm can not pass through the cervix and fertilization cannot take place."

The morning after pill destroys a new life. The oral contraceptive pill does not.

[SoothingDave]

We don't agree, clearly. You aren't going to change my mind and I won't change yours.

I'm just trying to understand why you think like you do.

SD

[justshutupandtakeit]

Crackpot morality does no one any good.

If I want a moral opinion out of a pharmacist or any other professional I will ask for it. Free samples are not welcome. Do you want a Muslim pharmacists to start giving you his moral opinions rather than the prescription?

I accept the necessity for the Rule of Law and the means set up by our Founders to change that Law if inappropriate.
Stop putting words in my mouth.

There has been no inclination posted by my to change anyone's conscience merely a demand that people live up to their professional responsibilities. If one cannot do so because of their consciences change jobs.

Jesus treated people with love and dealt in mercy not sanctimony.

It is a LIE to claim I have encouraged killing anyone much less babies.

I never mentioned getting advice to "kill" someone so that red herring is irrelevant.

Medical ethics is NOT medical ADVICE but your confusion is understandable given the rage to destroy all concepts which make comprehension possible. How else can one claim a zygote is a "baby"?

[justshutupandtakeit]

No it is NOT the "right" of a pharmacist to refuse to do his job and expect to keep it. Why would I have to pay a price for his delusions?

[justshutupandtakeit]

I expect professional behavior from professionals. If they can't do the job don't take it and leave others to clean up their failures.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No that is an entirely different issue here since such a doctor would inform you before it ever came to such a point. Now if my wife came to such a one in an emergency and she died because of his inaction there would have been hell to pay.

[SoothingDave]

How else can one claim a zygote is a "baby"?

What do you think it is?

SD