Birth Control Fears Addressed

The Washington Times ^ | August 9, 2008 | Rob Stein

[hocndoc]

Birth Control Fears Addressed HHS Chief Says Draft Rule Is Not Redefining Abortion

Mike Leavitt blogged on the issue.

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt has denied that a controversial draft regulation would redefine common birth control methods as abortion and protect the rights of doctors and other health-care workers who refuse to provide them.

[hocndoc]

At issue is the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Ethics Statement "Opinion #385, Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine," which states that

Providers with moral or religious objection should either practice in proximity to individuals who do not share their view or ensure that referral processes are in place. In an emergency in which referral is not possible or might negatively have an impact on a patient's physical or mental health, providers have an obligation to provide medically indicated and requested care."

It goes on to declare abortion “standard reproductive care” and demands that doctors who “deviate from standard practices” (object to abortion) “practice in proximity to individuals who do not share their views or ensure that referral processes are in place” (with a willing abortionist).

After publication of the Opinion, the President of ACOG then wrote letters asking Congress to pass laws to force these limits on our consciences: to force doctors who object to abortion to either change their practice so that they don't take care of women and girls of reproductive ages, or move close to a willing abortionist.

Somehow, the pro-abortion crowd has turned this into an "physician assisted suicide" and "gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, transexual" issue as well as one of hyper-support for abortion and one more opportunity to bash the Bush administration.

Kathryn Tucker, director of legal affairs for Compassion & Choices, which advocates for physician-assisted suicide, said she remains concerned that the regulation could apply to health-care workers who refuse to participate in a variety of end-of-life care, including the withdrawal of unwanted feeding tubes and ventilators.

. . . and . . .

"Until the regulation removes the re-definition of abortion and it clearly states that it deals solely with abortion (and not with any other procedure, nor with any refusals based on the nature of the patient, such as single or gay), I would not be satisfied," R. Alta Charo, a lawyer and bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin wrote in an e-mail. "There is no reason to extend any benefit of the doubt to this administration when it comes to reproductive rights or the civil rights of gay people."

You want to talk about "alarmed"?

[hocndoc]

I would have never guessed that the attack on physician's conscience rights would somehow become a gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered/transexual/pea-green-with-lavender-stripes issue, although I could have foreseen the involvement of "Compassionate Choices" and other pushers of intentional physician killing.

In case I've goofed with the Washington Post quote, there's more on the background at my blog, LifeEthics, under key word, "conscience."

[hocndoc]

I used the right link, but the wrong newspaper title in my source above. Could you change that to the Washington Post?

[neb52]

Could you expound on the drugs that the Pharmaceutical companies stock doctor offices with. I do a lot computer work for doctor offices and noticed that the Pharmaceutical reps keep these offices well stocked on “samples”. I especially notice this at the OB/GYN offices that I work at. Are they really samples? Are the doctors charged for it? Does the doctor charge the patient/insurance company if a patient is given this sample? I’s just curious if doctors would use such a supply to get around Pharmacists objections.

One OB/GYN office not only has a huge closet full, but keeps another bigger back storage full as well. It usually 5-6 times bigger stock than a Family Practitioner keeps.

[Mark was here]

A house painter can tell his clients he will paint any color they want except for orange. This is his right. He does not have to sell his services if he does not want to.

If someone wanted a room painted orange they can simply contract with another provider.

[hocndoc]

The samples are free. We have to sign for them and usually give the “drug rep” a chance to tell us why their pills are so great.

We don’t charge for the sample. In fact, Texas has very strict rules about a doctor dispensing medicines (other than injectables) in the office for a fee.

I suppose that the samples could be used to get around the pharmacists’ objections. However, the drug companies wouldn’t make much money if they gave us enough meds to do this often.

[hocndoc]

According to these people, if the painter has a license from the State, he gave up his right to refuse service.

[Mark was here]

Funny how a license morphed from being qualified to required. It is crazy as saying that someone with a ham radio licence is required to be on the air.

[NYFriend]

To get around pharmacists objections? Doctor's shouldn't have to get around pharmacists objections. It's a trade and a technical skill. They are the waiters of the medical profession, and if the doctor orders it, they need to bring it to the table or find another job.

Hypothetical: I'm a pharmacists and my dad was a UAW worker in Flint, and the foreign cars put him out of work and destroyed my home town, so I have a moral objection to foreign owned companies competing with US companies. You come in and ask for Beyer asprin because you have a head ache, I don't sell it to you. What's up? Crazy right? Not all that different from what we're talking about.

How about dispensing drugs when the pharmacist thinks it's for an off label use (when the doctor prescribes the drug for a condition for which it's not FDA approved). Can't the pharmacist step in then too? Not his business.

A pharmacist is a licensed professional because the government has decided that the people need a minimum level of quality and availability of services. Part of availability means that if a pharmacist should be expected to be able to do it, every pharmacist knows how, but I don't think anyone fifty years ago, when pharmacy might have been even more technically demanding, ever thought members of the profession would be refusing to sell a particular drug.

[aruanan]

They are the waiters of the medical profession, and if the doctor orders it, they need to bring it to the table or find another job.

No. They are also the ones who spot doctors' errors in prescription as well as danger posed to the patient from drug interactions between multiple drugs prescribed by multiple doctors of the same patient. In addition, your waiter metaphor is defective except in the case of a doctor prescribing for himself.

[Dr. Sivana]

They are the waiters of the medical profession, and if the doctor orders it, they need to bring it to the table or find another job.

That is a ridiculous analogy. Is the doctor analogous to the cook, or the customer? If the doctor is the cook, he is a co-worker, like the waiter, not a superior. The doctor does not own the restaurant (pharmacy). If the pharmacist is the "customer," the pharmacist (waiter) can simply say, we don't serve ham and cheese here at "Kosher Hut" (a real restaurant in New York).

Good pharmacists are a protection against bad doctors the way good jurors are a protection against bad judges.

[Admin Moderator]

title corrected

[MHGinTN]

"According to lawyers Charo and Tucker, I can go up to any MD or DO and demand that he or she write the prescription [For a lethal amount of barbituate]." Ah yes, the term choice is applied up until the dead-souls have transformed the society into their brand of twisted choice, then it is no longer permitted that someone choose what is not dictated by the ghouls. There is an illness, a deadly disease in fact, at work, but it is spiritual and the ghouls have no medicine to treat it that they will accept, and they sure as Hell aren't going to acknowledge God's sovereignty and be guided by what He says.

[MHGinTN]

I left an “r” out of barbiturate, so here it is: “r”

[MHGinTN]

“Not all that different from what we’re talking about.” If it were possible to rewach and pinch your spirit, I would reccommend you do that because you apparently have either an asleep spirit or a dead one since you cannot tell the difference in alive and dead ... treating to kill is not the same as treating to cure in order to sustain life. In your flawed calculus perhaps they are the same, hence you have a dead-soul to contend with before you will be able to differentiate keenly. You and ‘ethicist’ Charo have much in common. Aren’t you proud?

[Raycpa]

but I don't think anyone fifty years ago, when pharmacy might have been even more technically demanding, ever thought members of the profession would be refusing to sell a particular drug

The pharmacist is not an order taker. It is his job that the drugs dispensed do more good than harm to the person obtaining them. They have a professional, personal and moral obligation to dispense drugs that do not harm the person receiving them. This includes quality, quantity, frequency,contraindications with other drugs, and there knowledge of the person. They are not pill counters and they have training in chemistry that doctors generally do not have.

The pharmacist has the same moral responsibility to the patient as the doctor. Making a pharmacist participate in a treatment that he disagrees with as harming the patient is an abuse of power.

[MHGinTN]

Hear here! ... But it’s more than an abuse, it is a malignant transformation of our founding principles.

[hocndoc]

Thanks so much! (Reading the instructions while typing. The clear instructions took over and I typed the example given!)

[hocndoc]

Over and over, I ask, "How far do you trust doctors who will violate our consciences?? How much practice will it take until we do what the State tells us to, rather than what our patients ask - without regard to silly notions of "right" and "wrong?""

And yet, it seems that the proponents of intentional killing and license rather than liberty keep coming up with new ways to try to dominate those of us who have a conscience and understand right and wrong.

Do *they* try to win heart and minds? They and their courts want more than to interfere with what I choose to do.

Unbelievably, the commenters at the Post demand that I keep my laws off their bodies, while demanding that I use my mind and body to violate my conscience. They absolutely hate me for being "Christianist" or "religious" or superstitious. At the same time, they demand that I sedate them, pick up sharp instruments, and perform an abortion on them or forfeit my license.

They ignore the fact that 50% of people in the US believe abortion is killing a child and that 70%-90% agree to some sort of restrictions on abortion. These people and their choices don't mean anything to the killers.

[hocndoc]

The word is “professional.”

(And yes, I’ve had pharmacists refuse to fill ‘scripts without talking to me, just as I’ve had to go to the bedside to give insulin shots because the patient’s nurse was concerned about his blood sugar and refused.)

Do you want a person with no conscience counting out your pills?

You’re free to try to change my mind, but you’re not free to force my mind and hands to do what you want.

You can get what you want if it’s legal and you pay for it, but you do not have the right to force me to buy it, store it, and sell it to you.

If you have your way, the majority of US voters who object to abortion and physician assisted suicide as the intentional killing of fellow human beings will have no choice other than people they believe are unethical.

Yeah, that’s why some places don’t sell alcohol or tobacco and others do.

It’s a free country. Go somewhere else for what you want. If too many people go somewhere else, I’ll go out of business or change.