California woman given 'abortifacient' drug by mistake

[FrankR1]

Many of you have heard the story of Mareena Silva, the Lupton, California pregnant woman who was given the wrong drug by her Safeway pharmacist. The drug in question was an abortifacient which is also used to treat patients receiving chemotherapy. For all of those people who are Pro-Choice, they must all agree that this Ms. Silva’s ‘choice’ to keep her baby is now in jeopardy through no fault of her own. Once you take away a mother’s choice to bring human life into this world, (even by accident) then the whole abortion debate changes doesn’t it?

Now, Pro-Choice legislation is encrouching on Pro-Life mothers’ right to choose life. It is unconscionable that abortifacients are allowed to be recklessly kept in close promiximity to other drugs that do not terminate an unborn fetus. Now, understandably, Mareena Silva is concerned for the well being of her unborn baby, who thankfully was not killed by this pharmaceutical blunder of epic proportions.

Many Pro-Choicers follow the philosophy of ‘live and let live’, yet they have nothing of substance to say when a pharmacist makes a mistake that leads to an abortifacient being dispensed to a pregnant woman who ‘wants’ her baby.

It’s time that we as Americans take this issue to our leaders. We need to demand that abortifacients be kept away from other drugs that do not terminate pregnancy.

 

[sojo]

This has nothing to do with Pro-life or Pro-choice. This has to do with human error. The pharmacy is filled with drugs that can help one patient and kill or maim another. Many cancer drugs could cause birth defects in pregnant women. Many dosage differences could harm a person or a child.

It is the pharmacy’s job to double check every prescription before it goes out. It is equally every person and parent’s job to double check EVERY prescription they receive before they put it in their or their child’s mouth.

Mistakes like this are relatively rare, but nonetheless, there is ALWAYS human error to be considered. I’m sure the pharmacist feels simply awful and the poor mother is terrified and ashamed she didn’t read the bottle before taking the medicine.

I will pray for all involved.

 

[catharina]

Many of you have heard the story of Mareena Silva, the Lupton, California pregnant woman who was given the wrong drug by her Safeway pharmacist. The drug in question was an abortifacient which is also used to treat patients receiving chemotherapy. For all of those people who are Pro-Choice, they must all agree that this Ms. Silva’s ‘choice’ to keep her baby is now in jeopardy through no fault of her own. Once you take away a mother’s choice to bring human life into this world, (even by accident) then the whole abortion debate changes doesn’t it?

Now, Pro-Choice legislation is encrouching on Pro-Life mothers’ right to choose life. It is unconscionable that abortifacients are allowed to be recklessly kept in close promiximity to other drugs that do not terminate an unborn fetus. Now, understandably, Mareena Silva is concerned for the well being of her unborn baby, who thankfully was not killed by this pharmaceutical blunder of epic proportions.

Many Pro-Choicers follow the philosophy of ‘live and let live’, yet they have nothing of substance to say when a pharmacist makes a mistake that leads to an abortifacient being dispensed to a pregnant woman who ‘wants’ her baby.

It’s time that we as Americans take this issue to our leaders. We need to demand that abortifacients be kept away from other drugs that do not terminate pregnancy.

Frank, thread about this already exists in forum Catholic News.
Also error was not in storage of the drugs.
Error is that the young mother was given another woman’s prescription.
Tragedy, either way, but huge difference in facts.

 

[uxordepp]

This situation is tragic…

HOWEVER the drug she took by mistake is not an “abortion drug”. Methotrexate has several legitimate uses, such as chemotherapy, lupus treatment and rheumatoid arthritis therapy.

Methotrexate is used “off label” (unofficially) to induce early abortions, but that is not its main use, by any means. In the five years I worked as a pharmacy technician (retail and hospital), I never saw it used for this.

The news reports say that the woman who was supposed to receive the methotrexate was 59 years old. I highly doubt she was taking it to induce an abortion.

The pharmacy made a terrible error. I wish the woman and her baby well.

 

[joandarc2008]

I was going to make the same point about Methotrexate as horrible as this “human error” was from the reading which made it worse - both women had the same last name which contributed to their medications being swapped. This meant that the typical “5 rights” were not followed. (Right patient, Right drug, Right dosage, Right route, Right time) However, I doubt that the 59 year old woman was going for a pharmaceutical abortion.

 

[FrankR1]

Frank, thread about this already exists in forum Catholic News.
Also error was not in storage of the drugs.
Error is that the young mother was given another woman’s prescription.
Tragedy, either way, but huge difference in facts.

You’re missing my point. The main point that I want to make is the cancer drug is also specifically used to abort a fetus. That makes it an abortifacient. Any drug that is specifically used to abort a fetus needs to be dispensed somewhere other than a regular pharmacy. Pregnant women that want to keep their babies shouldn’t have to worry about drugs that are designed to abort fetuses being dispensed at their local pharmacy.

 

[catharina]

You’re missing my point. The main point that I want to make is the cancer drug is also specifically used to abort a fetus. That makes it an abortifacient. Any drug that is specifically used to abort a fetus needs to be dispensed somewhere other than a regular pharmacy. Pregnant women that want to keep their babies shouldn’t have to worry about drugs that are designed to abort fetuses being dispensed at their local pharmacy.

Yes I did miss your point but still find it not too relevant.
I take methotraxate and it’s one of thirteen drugs that I take daily
for rheumatoid arthritis. I pick up all my meds from the very same pharmacy.
Methotraxate is most commonly used in the treament of cancer. There
are certainly hundreds of drugs contraindicated in pregnancy. The problem
is that the women received another woman’s presecription. What you seem
to be suggesting is something that I see as totally unworkable.

 

[Newbie2]

This has nothing to do with Pro-life or Pro-choice. This has to do with human error. The pharmacy is filled with drugs that can help one patient and kill or maim another. Many cancer drugs could cause birth defects in pregnant women. Many dosage differences could harm a person or a child.

It is the pharmacy’s job to double check every prescription before it goes out. It is equally every person and parent’s job to double check EVERY prescription they receive before they put it in their or their child’s mouth.

Mistakes like this are relatively rare, but nonetheless, there is ALWAYS human error to be considered. I’m sure the pharmacist feels simply awful and the poor mother is terrified and ashamed she didn’t read the bottle before taking the medicine.

I will pray for all involved.

You’re missing my point. The main point that I want to make is the cancer drug is also specifically used to abort a fetus. That makes it an abortifacient. Any drug that is specifically used to abort a fetus needs to be dispensed somewhere other than a regular pharmacy. Pregnant women that want to keep their babies shouldn’t have to worry about drugs that are designed to abort fetuses being dispensed at their local pharmacy.

What do you mean by “specifically”?

If you mean that the drug is used “only” as an abortifacient, such is not true. As has been said, it has other legitimate, moral uses.

If you mean that the drug has the side effect of causing abortions, then you would need to condemn a long list of other drugs, like the commonly used drug Prednisone. If that were so, I would think your concern would lead to having two pharmacies, one for drugs that had either the primary or secondary effect of causing an abortion, and one for those drugs that do not.

Such, IMHO, is totally impractical and entirely unnecessary.

 

[FrankR1]

A pharmacist Mike Koelzer, featured on the ‘Catholic Answers’ radio program on January 3, 2011 said he refuses to dispense any birth control at his pharmacy. I think that women who are Pro Life should have the ability to find pharmacies such as these.

 

[joandarc2008]

A pharmacist Mike Koelzer, featured on the ‘Catholic Answers’ radio program on January 3, 2011 said he refuses to dispense any birth control at his pharmacy. I think that women who are Pro Life should have the ability to find pharmacies such as these.

Yes but methotrexate the pharmaceutical in question here would still be available at that pharmacy because it has plenty of other uses as stated above. I am sure they also have corticosteroids at the pro-life pharmacy as well as many epilepsy meds.

 

[Pug]

Yes but methotrexate the pharmaceutical in question here would still be available at that pharmacy because it has plenty of other uses as stated above. I am sure they also have corticosteroids at the pro-life pharmacy as well as many epilepsy meds.

I was under the impression that the way methotrexate for abortion would be administered would only be in a clinic, and typically by injection, but perhaps by pills. In other words, it seems unlikely to me that any ordinary person who walks into a pharmacy to get a methotrexate prescription to take back home is taking it for an abortion. Has anyone heard more about this?

 

[joandarc2008]

I was under the impression that the way methotrexate for abortion would be administered would only be in a clinic, and typically by injection, but perhaps by pills. In other words, it seems unlikely to me that any ordinary person who walks into a pharmacy to get a methotrexate prescription to take back home is taking it for an abortion. Has anyone heard more about this?

From this site which has copied and translated from scientific lingo the FDA lingo thankfully

Psoriasis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis

Adult Rheumatoid Arthritis: Recommended Starting Dosage Schedules

* Single oral doses of 7.5 mg once weekly.
* Divided oral dosages of 2.5 mg at 12 hour intervals for 3 doses given as a course once weekly

*These are not medical recommendations just examples of the fact that yes the tablets are prescribed and used at home -if you read the you will find the “abortaficient” affect of the med is actually not an intentional affect of this med - there are several warnings on this med that it is not to be used in pregnant women - it is unfortunate if some in our society have decided to use a good chemotherapy/pain relief for RA/etc medication for an evil purpose because that is definetly evil at work.

 

[Pug]

From this site which has copied and translated from scientific lingo the FDA lingo thankfully

*These are not medical recommendations just examples of the fact that yes the tablets are prescribed and used at home -if you read the you will find the “abortaficient” affect of the med is actually not an intentional affect of this med - there are several warnings on this med that it is not to be used in pregnant women - it is unfortunate if some in our society have decided to use a good chemotherapy/pain relief for RA/etc medication for an evil purpose because that is definetly evil at work.

Oh, I think there is a confusion about what I asked. I take methotrexate myself, and in a higher does than your website suggests, so I most certainly know it is an ordinary medication that you can get at a pharmacy. I’d not be able to use my hands without it. :bowdown2:

But I don’t think your average pharmacy dispenses it for abortions. It may be that the only way to get it for abortions is to walk into a clinic and have the doctor/nurse administer it to you, most likely with an injection. I wanted to know if there was really any chance that the poor woman got the kind of dose meant to induce abortion?

 

[joandarc2008]

Oh, I think there is a confusion about what I asked. I take methotrexate myself, and in a higher does than your website suggests, so I most certainly know it is an ordinary medication that you can get at a pharmacy. I’d not be able to use my hands without it. :bowdown2:

But I don’t think your average pharmacy dispenses it for abortions. It may be that the only way to get it for abortions is to walk into a clinic and have the doctor/nurse administer it to you, most likely with an injection. I wanted to know if there was really any chance that the poor woman got the kind of dose meant to induce abortion?

ANY use of methotrexate can cause a miscarriage. I would call it a miscarriage and not an abortion because in this case there was no intent on anyone’s part to cause an abortion. Therefore to keep referring to it that way is to bear false witness. Read the FDA warning - it is an incredibly dangerous medication to pregnant women.

 

[Pug]

ANY use of methotrexate can cause a miscarriage. I would call it a miscarriage and not an abortion because in this case there was no intent on anyone’s part to cause an abortion. Therefore to keep referring to it that way is to bear false witness. Read the FDA warning - it is an incredibly dangerous medication to pregnant women.

Okay, I’m still concerned that we are having a miscommunication mishap. Let me focus on what you are saying here, to be sure I address your concerns.

I did not mean to imply that someone taking MTX for cancer or on accident on account of pharmacy error is an abortionist. The poor woman in the news story was not trying to have an abortion. I had no intent to imply that, nor do I think that.

I agree that it is a category X drug, and all that entails with regard to pregnancy. In fact, I’ve seen warnings to *men *not to take it prior to getting their wife pregnant. I also agree that it is a dangerous drug, period. It can have lethal side effects to the user, male or female, pregnant or no.

Given the state of my knowledge, though, I cannot in good conscience claim that it is not used to procure direct abortions in some places and ways. As far as I know, it has been so used in actual clinics on actual pregnant women in order to terminate pregnancy. Planned parenthood mentions it on their website as an alternative to RU-486, but they say it is not often used in this country. (you’ll have to click on their plus signs to get that part to expand into the main page. it is at the bottom).

I hope I have addressed your concerns about false witness.

 

[joandarc2008]

Okay, I’m still concerned that we are having a miscommunication mishap. Let me focus on what you are saying here, to be sure I address your concerns.

I did not mean to imply that someone taking MTX for cancer or on accident on account of pharmacy error is an abortionist. The poor woman in the news story was not trying to have an abortion. I had no intent to imply that, nor do I think that.

I agree that it is a category X drug, and all that entails with regard to pregnancy. In fact, I’ve seen warnings to *men *not to take it prior to getting their wife pregnant. I also agree that it is a dangerous drug, period. It can have lethal side effects to the user, male or female, pregnant or no.

Given the state of my knowledge, though, I cannot in good conscience claim that it is not used to procure direct abortions in some places and ways. As far as I know, it has been so used in actual clinics on actual pregnant women in order to terminate pregnancy. Planned parenthood mentions it on their website as an alternative to RU-486, but they say it is not often used in this country. (you’ll have to click on their plus signs to get that part to expand into the main page. it is at the bottom).

I hope I have addressed your concerns about false witness.

Thank you for clearing up the communication mishap as the whole thread started out very confusing - Just to be clear I also want to make sure that no one is trying to say woman Y who was originally prescribed the MTX who is 59 years old was trying to procure an abortion - I think the confusion is that a poster said that this med should no be able to be picked up in a pharmacy that would be considered pro-life to avoid mistakes and that made things confusing and a bit garbled. Sorry for the confusion and thanks again.

 

[Pug]

Thank you for clearing up the communication mishap as the whole thread started out very confusing - Just to be clear I also want to make sure that no one is trying to say woman Y who was originally prescribed the MTX who is 59 years old was trying to procure an abortion - I think the confusion is that a poster said that this med should no be able to be picked up in a pharmacy that would be considered pro-life to avoid mistakes and that made things confusing and a bit garbled. Sorry for the confusion and thanks again.

Yes, exactly. I added the red to your post to say that yes, that is the extra topic that caused the confusion.)

 

[catharina]

Yes, exactly. I added the red to your post to say that yes, that is the extra topic that caused the confusion.)

Yes, pug, that was the confusing point -
that methotraxate should “not” be sold in a pro-life pharmacy.
As you and I and others stated: methotraxate has many good clinical
uses. It enables you to use your hands and me both to walk
and use my hands and arms and shoulders. It’s absurd to think
methotraxate does not belong in pro-life pharmacies!

 

[Pug]

Yes, pug, that was the confusing point -
that methotraxate should “not” be sold in a pro-life pharmacy.
As you and I and others stated: methotraxate has many good clinical
uses. It enables you to use your hands and me both to walk
and use my hands and arms and shoulders. It’s absurd to think
methotraxate does not belong in pro-life pharmacies!

Yes, I agree. If I had a local Catholic pharmacy, I’d want to be able to be a customer. You, too, of course! We could chat at the counter.

 

[joandarc2008]

Yes, I agree. If I had a local Catholic pharmacy, I’d want to be able to be a customer. You, too, of course! We could chat at the counter.

I wish we could -unfortunately/forunately I get my medical care from the Dept of Veterans Administration which has been it’s own fight with women’s health care.

This whole thread I think started off on a broad misunderstanding of MTX started in the first post - I am glad those that need MTX were here to clear it up.