Dallas Observer column (Morning After Pill incident)

Nevermind, not worth the typing.

 

Just curious.

Why isn't this an abortion? The drug prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus leading to that egg being expelled and dying. If you believe life begins at conception that has taken place already and now by taking this drug will terminate the pregnancy. That sounds like abortion to me.

To head off the obvious question. I'm pro-choice but with many reservations. I'm more interested in why someone against abortion wouldn't consider someone taking this drug to end a pregnancy abortion.

 

It's not an abortion if the female isn't pregnant.

The intent of the morning after pill is to prevent pregnancy from occuring, not to end a pregnancy.

That would be RU482 and a different thread.

 

Have you heard of a birth control pill? Same thing higher dose - they have been using this (new) drug a long time.

A pharmacists job is to dispense the medication the doctor prescribes not make moral judgment calls based on their definition of right and wrong. They should all be fired and probably sued as well.

 

I don't necessarily disagree that they should find another profession. But I think it's unfortunate that many people who became pharmacists to help people get well (at least in part) are now required to dispense a drug that in their opinion ends a life. That's a pretty big shift in job description, isn't it? If I were a doctor working at a hospital and euthanasia became legal, I would see it as a major shift in my job description if a hospital required me to participate. I suppose they could say it's just an extension of the agreement I already had with them, but I think it would be more serious than that. I'd see it as a violation of my oath as a doctor, regardless of what the law or the hospital said about it.

I understand the differences between a doctor and a pharmacist. For one thing, a doctor has a few more choices. But I can't help but feel sorry for pharmacists who began working long before the morning after pill came along. As far as I'm able to tell, there's never been another approved drug quite like it. For those who believe that life begins with conception, it's broadened what it means to be a pharmacist--from somone who fills prescriptions that aim to save lives and improve quality of life to someone who also fills prescriptions that take life.

As I said in my first post, when it comes to women who are raped, I'm torn. I can't blame them for not wanting the baby, but I still believe it's a life. In cases like that, I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to oppose them taking this drug, but I still couldn't personally dispense it. I'm glad I'm not a pharmacist. I probably would have to look into another profession.

Don't take anything I've said to indicate that I think what happened in Denton was an ideal situation. At best, it displayed a lack of forethought. Could these pharmacists really not see this coming? Did they just stick their head in the sand, hoping they would never have to deal with it? I'm certainly not saying I think people ought to routinely violate company policy or the standards of their profession. But I do believe with the FDA approval of the "morning after pill," the professional standards of pharmacists changed--maybe not in general terms, but certainly in practical terms for those who believe abortion is the taking of a life.

I do wonder what kind of conversation these pharmacists had. Where they saying things like, "Do you feel comfortable doing this, because I don't." I wonder if they were just going to have someone who didn't have a problem with it fill the prescription. I don't have a problem with something like that, although I'm sure you (mrpaige) do based on your last post. If I were the employer (and I didn't have a problem with the morning after pill), I wouldn't necessarily get rid of them. If they did their job well, why not just couple them with someone who has no problem dispensing the drug? I certainly don't think an employer is obligated to do that, but I don't see the harm in it either.

 

And what if the person they are "coupled with" calls in sick? How do we know they weren't already doing that and this is the result?

There was tremendous harm done to the person who was prescribed the medication and incredible embarassment to the person who tried to help her. It very well may end up costing that company a lot in a lawsuit. I hope so. As mrpaige pointed out, there is a state board that governs the professional conduct of pharmacists. If that board follows through, they will probably sanction both the pharmacists and the company. They should.

Imagine if there was a different situation... there is a new drug out approved by the FDA that can prevent a stroke in high-risk patients. It's made from a rare plant. That plant is being wiped out along with the surrounding habitat by those trying to profit from it. A pharmacist that is an environmentalist refuses to fill a prescription to a person in need, with unknown consequences that could be very harmful. It's done on principal. Sound rediculous? I thought so. Think about it.

 

THIS PILL DOES NOT CAUSE AN ABORTION! It PREVENTS implantation of the egg in the first place, making it morally no different than using the daily pill, an IUD, the patch, the shot, or birth control implants. All of those methods work the same way (prevent implantation in the uterus) as this pill.

Go find a clue somewhere.

It was wrong for those pharmacists to impose their will on the customer. Eckerds stocks the drug, has a policy that allows dispensing of it, and these people refused to do their jobs. They should be fired and Eckerds should have to pay a settlement to the woman so that they will be serious about taking pharmacists who refuse to do their job to task. It would have been one thing if this was RU-486 (isn't that the number?), the ABORTION pill, but this is BIRTH CONTROL, not abortion.

If you are being paid by an employer, it is your duty to do the job that you are being paid to do. If those people had moral objections to dispensing the drug, they should have quit their job, not refused to do it.

 

This drug works in the same way as the daily pill, an IUD, the patch, the shot, or birth control implants. All of those methods work the same way (prevent implantation in the uterus) as this pill.

This is birth control, not abortion. RU-486 is an abortion pill that causes the fetus to spontaneously abort, but the pill we are talking about PREVENTS PREGNANCY FROM EVER HAPPENING.

You may believe that life starts at conception, but by that definition, billions of "lives" are "aborted" each and every year by birth control.

From dictionary.com

a·bor·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-bôrshn) n.
Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.

The necessary component of an abortion is the pregnancy. A woman must be pregnant, by definition, to have an abortion. This pill PREVENTS pregnancy, and as such is birth control.

Wake up. I know those pro-life blinders are effective, but this is a very simple case of NOT BEING AN ABORTION.

 

andy -- your tone is so ridiculous...far be it for any of us to disagree with you...or to simply inquire. have you been studying at the Trader_Jorge school of posting?

my understanding is that this pill prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. if you believe a fertilized egg is worthy of protection, then you might have a problem with such a pill.

having said that, these guys have no right in the world to deny this person this product. if they don't like it, they should man up and freaking quit their jobs.

 

I apologize if my tone seems insulting to you, but this seems like such a no-brainer to me that I am still flabbergasted that anyone would call this an abortion pill. I completely understand that many of you have objections to abortion and I don't have any problem with that. You have the right to your beliefs and I would never try to tell you that you didn't.

However, this pill will work to PREVENT abortions from ever taking place. I would think that pro-lifers would be lined up around the block to support something that could actually reduce abortion rates in this country through birth control.

Again, I am sorry if you found my tone insulting (although I did use facts and definitions in my post, which is EXTREMELY un-t_j like) as I certainly did not mean it that way.

 

Being a guy and not having to worry about getting pregnant I have to admit I'm far from knowledgeable about the how the various birth control methods work. From what little I've heard most birth control methods prevent fertilization / conception in the first place rather than preventing implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. If life is considered starting at conception than any artificial method to prevent implantation of a fertilzed egg, which leads to the death of that egg, is abortion.

I haven't heard protest of birth control pills or other hormone therapies along these grounds but have heard protests of the day after pill for this exact reason.

 

All of the methods of birth control I mentioned work by convincing the woman's body that it is already pregnant, which keeps the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. There is no way (that I know of) to prevent fertilization except by using condoms, cervical rings, or diaphragms. Most birth control simply prevents the pregnancy from taking place by causing the body to flush the egg without implanting.

I suppose if you stretch the definition of "life" to include conception, then many of these forms of birth control could be considered abortion, but it requires a serious stretch. I will repeat again that in order to qualify as an "abortion," the woman has to be pregnant first, which is not the case with this pill.

This is birth control, not abortion.

 

It's crazy that we argue over what is and isn't life. Everything is life to me. It never begins or ends, it just continues.

 

i'll never look at my coffee mug the same way again!

 

How could you?

 

you're awesome!! great response!

 

ATTENTION BBS POSTERS AND PHARMACISTS:

I have just received an important telegram (yes, in morse code) from an actual woman. It states.

"DEAR DEBATERS...STOP...UNLESS YOU HAVE IMPREGNATED ME PERSONALLY PLEASE REFRAIN FROM TRYING TO STUFF YOUR POLITICAL PLATFORM AND/OR YOUR BIBLE INTO MY VAGINA...STOP...THANK YOU...END"

Wow, she sounds grumpy - even in morse code.