Posted on 05/03/2005 5:33:17 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
NFP vs Contraception
Spacing children may be a desirable goal that does not violate God's laws in certain serious/grave situations. But the means of achieving the goal differ.
One is intrinsically evil (abortion, abortifacient contraception, barrier methods, sterilization) while one is morally neutral (Natural Family Planning.
In one, an act is performed (sex) but its natural outcome is artificially foiled.
In the other, no act is performed (simple abstinence during fertile times) so there IS no act, therefore the practice is morally neutral.
It is then the intention of using NFP that constitutes its relative moral licitness or illicitness.
If NFP is used in a selfish manner, it too can be sinful.
If it is used only in grave circumstances, it is not sinful.
The difference is real.
Dieting (decreasing caloric intake, the "act" of NOT eating) is a moral and responsible means of losing weight to maintain the body's health.
Bulimia (the ACT of eating, them vomiting) is rightly called an eating DISORDER.
An ACT is performed (eating in this case) and its natural outcome (nutrition) is foiled by expelling the food from the body.
Likewise contraception is a disorder. An ACT is performed (sex) and its natural outcome (procreation) is foiled by expelling the sperm or egg or both (abortifacient contraceptives) from the body.
Contraception is to NFP what Bulimia is to dieting.
But just as dieting can be misused (anorexia) so too can NFP be misused in a sinful manner.
Finally, regarding infertility, if the sterility of the couple is through no act or conscious fault of their own, their marital relations cannot possibly be immoral, since it is not their intent to be sterile.
Yet many the Church married, who were thought for decades to be sterile, have indeed borne children in their later years. So it would be awefully presumptuous of any Church to disallow an "infertile" couple to marry.
I don't know what you are referring to. Please comment on something I addressed.
Good for you!! I wish more docs had your strong convictions.
Mind you, this was a seminar for ETHICS credit.
In Illinois, PP is giving EC out like candy at parties.
See StraightupwithSherri on blogsforterri.com or prolifeblogs.com
She can just take her 'reproductive rights' to another pharmacy.
At any rate, its nice to see Freepers defending conscientious objectors.
Maybe - depends on how the company manages their accounting. The pharmacy and the non-pharmaceutical goods may be accounted for as though they were individual companies.
I would imagine that most pharmacists/pharmacies discuss this as part of a hiring interview. If I was a pharmacist morally opposed to filling birth control scripts I would want assurance that I would not be required to do so before I took a job. Likewise, if I owned a pharmacy, I would want to know whether a pharmacist had any moral objections to filling some types of prescriptions before I hired them. I don't see why someone would need to be fired.
That said, who is some sawed-off little runt of a pharmacist to say what I should and should not be able to do with my life. If it's legal, and they sell it at his pharmacy, then he should hand it over and STFU. I don't like it when the government interferes with how I choose to live my life, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let Wal-Mart.
Reasoning with Fanaticism is fruitless.
Fanatics should not be working as pharmacists when they believe they can impose their "morality" on others.
I'm not sure I understand your comment.
Don't pharmacists have a certain obligation? A friend's wife was turned down at a few pharmacies filling a narcotic prescription because they suspected she was getting the narcotic for the wrong reasons? (Which she was)
You are not making a MORAL judgment about the construction but rather concluding it is improperly designed that is a PROFESSIONAL judgment. Jeez.
I disagree. A business should operate according to whatever policies it chooses, free from government interference. If I am a supermarket and I choose not to sell apples, that's my right. The same should apply to pharmacies. If people want to boycott my business because of what I choose not to sell, then they have that right too.
I am not a pharmacist, but I imagine that they feel tremendous pride in the work they do in helping people to live healthy lives. There are certain things that are out of our control when we work for others and I don't think it always fair to apply a hyperscrutiny of others' behavior simply because they do profess a certain creed.
Certainly such a person who runs his own store would be expected to live up to his beliefs. But when others are in charge, it is more difficult. Does the Baptist refuse to work at Wal-Mart cause they sell beer? Should he stay away from any store that sells junk food, cause that can lead to gluttony?
How far up the corporate structure must we go in avoiding "profiting" from sin?
SD
Read through all of my subsequent posts on this thread -- I think I make my point very clearly regardless of whether I'm dealing with a MORAL or PROFESSIONAL judgement.
Every seller of a gun could be a party to a suicide.
The job of the pharmacist is to fill prescriptions. If she doesn't do her job and is fired for it there would be no "show" just another fired employee. She wouldn't stand a chance in court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.