Can a Pharmacist Refuse To Dispense Birth Control?

  • Thread starter Thread starter D_Quintero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
CARose:
I’m not familiar with this teaching. Can you provide a reference?

CARose
Click to expand...
If memory serves me correct, it’s in Human Vitae.
 
40.png
Karin:
I dont know …why dont you GOOGLE them and find out or call the local branch and ask? Why am I doing your research??
Click to expand...
Because you’re the one trying to prove me wrong.
 
I don’t thing so. Perhaps you can find it in Humae Vitae, but I couldn’t when search for references to the Pill in the document located at: papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

I think you’ve been misled on this “teaching” of the Church. If I’m wrong and the church has taught such a thing, I’d appreciate a more specific reference.

CARose
 
Karin said:
And I have with the last two posts 😉
Click to expand...

Not really. Walgreens saying their employess don’t have to and the APA don’t prove me wrong, nor do they prove me right.
 
40.png
CARose:
I don’t thing so. Perhaps you can find it in Humae Vitae, but I couldn’t when search for references to the Pill in the document located at: papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm

I think you’ve been misled on this “teaching” of the Church. If I’m wrong and the church has taught such a thing, I’d appreciate a more specific reference.

CARose
Click to expand...
I’m going to try to look it up first here in the forums, b/c it’s been said, with proof, may times over. So just bare with me…
 
40.png
wabrams:
Not really. Walgreens saying their employess don’t have to and the APA don’t prove me wrong, nor do they prove me right.
Click to expand...
They prove that they do not have to fill the prescription based on moral reasons. Is that not what you are looking for???
 
Karin said:
They prove that they do not have to fill the prescription based on moral reasons. Is that not what you are looking for???
Click to expand...

But the APA doesn’t make things law, they dont’ trump the state or a companies policy. . If the AMA said that white doctors didn’t have to see black patients, would that make it right?
 
If I’m correct in understanding the premise you are attempting to lay out, the moral authority to which we should be looking for guidance on the appropriateness of a pharmacist not dispensing the pill would be the Church.

If the church has taught definitively that it is OK to take the pill for medical reasons, then a Catholic pharmacist should dispense for medical reasons. Is this the premise?

If so, then I return to my request that you provide such a teaching, as I seriously doubt that it exists. If it does, then I will revisit my thinking to some degree.

However, I again don’t expect that you will find such a teaching, and if you did, this still does not address the reality that in the majority of cases for which the pill is prescribed, the intent is for contraceptive uses. And in the majority, the vast majority of cases where it is prescribed for medical purposes, there rarely is direction provided to ensure that a child is not unintentionally aborted. This being the case, I still think it would be prudent for a concerned pharmacist to refuse to fill such prescriptions rather than invade the privacy of the patients seeking to have their prescriptions filled.

CARose
 
40.png
wabrams:
But the APA doesn’t make things law, they dont’ trump the state or a companies policy. . If the AMA said that white doctors didn’t have to see black patients, would that make it right?
Click to expand...
In regards to the AMA…that is a loaded question.
In regards to the APA…fine then Walgreens policy was given to you…NO NEED TO FILL PRESCRIPTION>>>CAN REFUSE**!**
 
And in the case above where I suggest I would still approve of reservations by the pharmacist, if the Church stated that Pharmacists must provide the pill, I would change my tune. But I know that this is not something the Church has the authority to suggest, even if it were to suggest that there might be instances where it is ok to take the pill for specific non-contraceptive purposes.

CARose
 
Lawful Therapeutic Means
Code: 
15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)
From vatican website, humana vitae
 
Thanks for the reference Pug.I still think I stand by my previous posts stating:
…this still does not address the reality that in the majority of cases for which the pill is prescribed, the intent is for contraceptive uses. And in the majority, the vast majority of cases where it is prescribed for medical purposes, there rarely is direction provided to ensure that a child is not unintentionally aborted. This being the case, I still think it would be prudent for a concerned pharmacist to refuse to fill such prescriptions rather than invade the privacy of the patients seeking to have their prescriptions filled.
… if the Church stated that Pharmacists must provide the pill, I would, in obedience to the Church, change my tune. But I know that this is not something the Church has the authority to suggest, even if it were to suggest that there might be instances where it is ok to take the pill for specific non-contraceptive purposes.
Click to expand...
CARose

(PS - Karin, your mail box is full)
 
Perhaps webrams, you ought to look this up while you are at it
Abortifacient,(most abc pills contain that), perhaps if you understood why they are refusing to fill them you would better understand…just a thought.
 
40.png
SP38:
Is anybody here a pharmacist?
Click to expand...
Are you?

And either way, the issue is about the morality of the pharmacist taking a stand when prescribing. As there are laws being proposed (and in some cases passed) which impinge upon a pharmacist refusing to dispense a legal prescription this matter is appropriate for discussion by all who desire to ensure that all Americans be afforded the right to follow their conscience.

CARose
 
40.png
CARose:
Are you?

And either way, the issue is about the morality of the pharmacist taking a stand when prescribing. As there are laws being proposed (and in some cases passed) which impinge upon a pharmacist refusing to dispense a legal prescription this matter is appropriate for discussion by all who desire to ensure that all Americans be afforded the right to follow their conscience.

CARose
Click to expand...
Maybe all of these Pharmacists should get together and open a new chain of pharmacy:yup: …that way they do not need to stock or dispense things that they have moral objections to:thumbsup: …I for one would go to them!!!:amen:
 
A woman comes in to her pharmacist in a state (we have one) or a country where euthanasia is legal. She gives him a prescription for a narcotic, which she has previously used to control her pain. But she states her doctor has now told her to take the whole bottle whenever she wants to hasten her death.

Does he have to fill that?

This whole business in making pharmacists do what may be against their conscience is part of a larger effort to take away choice by healthcare providers at all levels from being able to practice within the bounds of their conscience. It is happening on multiple fronts. Catholic hospitals have been targeted, doctors in health plans, pharmacists, and nurses in hospitals have been told they have to provide services they find repugnant.

Look at the larger picture and the agenda of the “pro-choice” people and wake up to this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top