Can a Pharmacist Refuse To Dispense Birth Control?

  • Thread starter Thread starter D_Quintero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Listener:
I believe you are arguing irrelevant points. The point is not whether or not women spontaneously abort babies 50% of the time or not. The point is that willfully changing your uterus to be inhospitable to any children God may want to give you is wrong. There are other ways to treat the maladies BC pills are currently prescribed for without all the HUGELY dangerous side effects that the pill puts women at risk for, such as breast cancer, stroke, high blood pressure, fertility problems, etc. There are few other “medicines” that are seriously entertained by the medical community that carry such risks, and they are for conditions that are more fatal than an irregular period. The point is the Culture of Death is trying to find other uses for the pill so they can scare people into thinking their mothers and sisters could DIE if the pill were made unattainable. Further, you know very well that with the diversity of views (and greed) in this country there would ALWAYS be pharmacists willing to sell the pill leaving plenty of room for conscientious objectors. There is no need to take away the rights of your Catholic brethren.
 
The pill works in 3 ways 1: it can prevent ovulation 2: It can cause the mucus in the cervix to change not allowing the sperm to pass 3:It can irritate the lining of the uterus thereby not allowing implantation. if the third thing occurs then it is chemical abortion.The pill ALWAYS has an abortifacient effect.See www.all.org/issues/index.htm This is the material you SHOULD BE READING. As for the mayo clinics estimate that 50% of all embryos are miscarried before the woman knows she is pregnant, how do they know this if it happens before the woman even knows? This is a ridiculous insupportable claim.

If the woman miscarries because of natural processes in the body then that is God’s business.These things happen. Just like you could die crossing the street. You don’t just give up on life and stay in your house all the time, you go out and live. Just so, you cannot justify taking the pill to prevent a natural miscarriage that may or may not occur (10% chance which is the only relevant statistic you cited). You’re basically saying that just because you can’t say for sure that the child would have been miscarried if the woman weren’t on he pill, that its ok. This is a logical fallacy of ad ignorantium. Lack of evidence is not evidence. Furthermore it seems to me like you are trying to justify contraception via the pill and the church definitely teaches this is wrong. The fact is the only use the pill has is preventing pregnancy and killing babies, see www.all.org.htm. If you tak the pill for any reason and are sexually active then you can count on causing the death of a child as the direct result of using the pill. END OF STORY. There are numerous other options for the treatment of endometriosis that do not have this side effect. I would advise anyone with this illness to contact the Pope Paul VI institute for advice.

As for your quote from Father Serpa: please PROVIDE A LINK!

I never said the woman didn’t have the right to pursue having a child at any time whether having had any number of miscarriages or not. Don’t put words in my mouth.
 
Don’t’ forget the pill is prescribed to help with acne as well. There’s a legitimate reason if there ever was one…

:rolleyes:
 
40.png
Coder:
I doubt they’re used for licit purposes more than 1% of the cases anyway, if that…
Click to expand...
I agree (to some extent) despite being a girl who was given the choice between exploratory surgery and medicine that is normally used for birth control… I would have FELT judged in a sense if a pharmacist had refused on those grounds, but now that I am becoming a Catholic, I also do understand their position and would support it (even at the time as a protestant I would have supported their right to their beliefs) Its just it would be VERY embarrassing to go in to have it filled and be refused… but then again going in to have it filled is quite embarrassing as it is (and why I didn’t really mind when I went on the shot after the first 3 kinds of pills didn’t work - it meant not having to go to the pharmacy for it, and it meant not having to explain to a roommate at a Christian college about my medical problems right off the bat)

I think its bad that its assumed that its always being used for BC but I understand that it probably still is such a HUGE majority that are (though I would argue that on the basis of the number of virgins I have known on BC for medical reasons including myself that it would probably be more than 1% that are licit). I hated the assumption that it was for BC, but I understand in todays society why that is the case…
 
The pill works in 3 ways 1: it can prevent ovulation 2: It can cause the mucus in the cervix to change not allowing the sperm to pass 3:It can irritate the lining of the uterus thereby not allowing implantation. if the third thing occurs then it is chemical abortion.The pill ALWAYS has an abortifacient effect.See www.all.org/issues/index.htm This is the material you SHOULD BE READING. As for the mayo clinics estimate that 50% of all embryos are miscarried before the woman knows she is pregnant, how do they know this if it happens before the woman even knows? This is a ridiculous insupportable claim.

If the woman miscarries because of natural processes in the body then that is God’s business.These things happen. Just like you could die crossing the street. You don’t just give up on life and stay in your house all the time, you go out and live. Just so, you cannot justify taking the pill to prevent a natural miscarriage that may or may not occur (10% chance which is the only relevant statistic you cited). You’re basically saying that just because you can’t say for sure that the child would have been miscarried if the woman weren’t on he pill, that its ok. This is a logical fallacy of ad ignorantium. Lack of evidence is not evidence. Furthermore it seems to me like you are trying to justify contraception via the pill and the church definitely teaches this is wrong. The fact is the only use the pill has is preventing pregnancy and killing babies, see www.all.org.htm. If you tak the pill for any reason and are sexually active then you can count on causing the death of a child as the direct result of using the pill. END OF STORY. There are numerous other options for the treatment of endometriosis that do not have this side effect. I would advise anyone with this illness to contact the Pope Paul VI institute for advice.

As for your quote from Father Serpa: please PROVIDE A LINK!

I never said the woman didn’t have the right to pursue having a child at any time whether having had any number of miscarriages or not. Don’t put words in my mouth.
 
40.png
johnnycatholic:
LISTENER,

The pill works in 3 ways 1: it can prevent ovulation 2: It can cause the mucus in the cervix to change not allowing the sperm to pass 3:It can irritate the lining of the uterus thereby not allowing implantation. if the third thing occurs then it is chemical abortion.The pill ALWAYS has an abortifacient effect.See www.all.org/issues/index.htm This is the material you SHOULD BE READING. As for the mayo clinics estimate that 50% of all embryos are miscarried before the woman knows she is pregnant, how do they know this if it happens before the woman even knows? This is a ridiculous insupportable claim.

If the woman miscarries because of natural processes in the body then that is God’s business.These things happen. Just like you could die crossing the street. You don’t just give up on life and stay in your house all the time, you go out and live. Just so, you cannot justify taking the pill to prevent a natural miscarriage that may or may not occur (10% chance which is the only relevant statistic you cited). You’re basically saying that just because you can’t say for sure that the child would have been miscarried if the woman weren’t on he pill, that its ok. This is a logical fallacy of ad ignorantium. Lack of evidence is not evidence. Furthermore it seems to me like you are trying to justify contraception via the pill and the church definitely teaches this is wrong. The fact is the only use the pill has is preventing pregnancy and killing babies, see www.all.org.htm. If you tak the pill for any reason and are sexually active then you can count on causing the death of a child as the direct result of using the pill. END OF STORY. There are numerous other options for the treatment of endometriosis that do not have this side effect. I would advise anyone with this illness to contact the Pope Paul VI institute for advice.

As for your quote from Father Serpa: please PROVIDE A LINK!

I never said the woman didn’t have the right to pursue having a child at any time whether having had any number of miscarriages or not. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
dafalax:
The pharmacist who refuses to fill these prescriptions is doing so because he or she knows that no matter whether or not there is a “medical” reason for prescribing them, the user will in ALL LIKELIHOOD be using them ALSO to prevent pregnancy in an act of fornication that results in abortion.
Click to expand...
I disagree that the percentage of women who are not using them to prevent pregnancy is as small as you and others state (Although I’ll admit that yes - the vast majority probably are using them for BC) - but then maybe I just know a higher than normal number of Protestant virgins on the pill than normal =) (because considering how few people I know well enough to even discuss this issue - I have known quite a few) -

but then again Protestants keep getting told that the pill does not cause abortions, so most of these girls probably WILL eventually use them for BC - but that doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t at the moment (seriously - I did have one teacher in highschool who claimed that BC caused abortions, but even my mother the nurse and several other people thought he had his facts wrong - of course I know that he was RIGHT now that I’ve been reading Catholic material - but I would say most Protestants don’t even know to look up information on it because it is so accepted and they are told that modern BC medicine doesn’t do that anymore - yes that had to start out as a lie by somebody - but the rest are passing along this information believing themselves to be telling the truth)
 
40.png
Karin:
With the post Re: the Constitution…I would have to say no to Jews eating pork law.
But then I never disputed that a Catholic pharmacist should not have to be required to fill a BC RX.
My question is the R.C. Pharmacist should not have to fill these RX’s…and a Jew should not be made to eat pork…so how do you appease these two faiths in regards to the law? As another example…Catholics say NO to abortion (I am simplifing because I am tired) but Jews say YES (with certain conditions)…so whose God…whose Law trumps the other?
Click to expand...
The law (the secular law) is trumped by the Constitution. Under the First Amendment, the government cannot force people to violate religious scruples.

A Catholic cannot be forced to dispense birth control drugs, nor to participate in an abortion. Nor can a Jewish butcher be forced to sell pork.

There are, of course, those who would violate the Constituion, using all sorts of sophistry to pretend it does not say what it patently does say – and we must resist them.
 
D Quintero:
What do you think?
I am undecided about this.
Even though contraception is wrong. It is still legal. It Is still the pharmacist obligation to do their job. To me, It all boils down to “should you follow the law even if you know it is wrong”?
Click to expand...
  • Dispensing a prescription is not a sin - knowingly using a prescription towards an evil end is when sin occurs.
  • A Pharmacist is doing nothing more than dispensing a prescription. Selling guns is also not sinful - shooting with the intent to murder is the sin.
  • BCP’s are used to treat dermatologic and emotional problems as well - the pharmacist is often ignorant of an individuals reason for taking a medication and it is not his/her job to determine this and therefore can’t be said to be contributing towards contraception.
Phil
 
40.png
Philthy:
  • Dispensing a prescription is not a sin - knowingly using a prescription towards an evil end is when sin occurs.
  • A Pharmacist is doing nothing more than dispensing a prescription. Selling guns is also not sinful - shooting with the intent to murder is the sin.
  • BCP’s are used to treat dermatologic and emotional problems as well - the pharmacist is often ignorant of an individuals reason for taking a medication and it is not his/her job to determine this and therefore can’t be said to be contributing towards contraception.
Phil
Click to expand...
Here’s the problem with that – we don’t get to decide for him. If he believes he’s committing a sin – and many Catholic pharmacists do believe it is a sin – then it would be unconstitutional to force him.
 
D Quintero:
What do you think?
I am undecided about this.
Even though contraception is wrong. It is still legal. It Is still the pharmacist obligation to do their job. To me, It all boils down to “should you follow the law even if you know it is wrong”?
Click to expand...
This issue will probably sort itself in the courts. Catholic hospitals had closed their maternity wards in states where a maternity ward was obligated to provide abortion facilities.
  • Kathie :bowdown:
 
40.png
harinkj:
This issue will probably sort itself in the courts. Catholic hospitals had closed their maternity wards in states where a maternity ward was obligated to provide abortion facilities.
  • Kathie :bowdown:
Click to expand...
I would rather they had kept them open and defied such a horrible law.
 
If you live in Illinois, the pharmacist doesn’t get a “conscience clause” like a doctor or nurse is allowed, because of our misguided governor…read more on lifesite.net/ldn/2005/apr/05041203.html
Even one of our bishops whose father ran a pharmacy challenged the governor.
 
40.png
Philthy:
  • Dispensing a prescription is not a sin - knowingly using a prescription towards an evil end is when sin occurs.
  • A Pharmacist is doing nothing more than dispensing a prescription. Selling guns is also not sinful - shooting with the intent to murder is the sin.
  • BCP’s are used to treat dermatologic and emotional problems as well - the pharmacist is often ignorant of an individuals reason for taking a medication and it is not his/her job to determine this and therefore can’t be said to be contributing towards contraception.
Phil
Click to expand...
However, this does not take into account the fact that the law in Illinois is forcing pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception, etc. The fraction of people desiring emergency contraception for a reason that does not violate natural moral law is negligible.

Let’s make your analogy more accurate. When selling guns in a moral fashion, the seller has no reason to presume when selling a gun that it will be used to commit a crime. That is not the case here, as I can be almost certain that the “morning after” pill will be used sinfully. In this case, I am selling guns at the exit to a prison loaded with armor piercing “cop-killer” bullets. However, your claim is that since I’m not the one pulling the trigger, I bear no blame?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top