Ill. judge throws out rule on contraception

[catharina]

chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-ill-judge-throws-out-rule-on-contraception-20110405,0,7710558.story

"SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – A judge has ruled that Illinois pharmacists can’t be forced to dispense emergency contraception.

Sangamon County Circuit Judge John Belz said Tuesday that **requiring pharmacists to sell the so-called “morning-after” pill violates state right-of-conscience law. **

Pharmacists Luke VanderBleek and Glenn Kosirog and the three drug stores they operate sued over the 2005 rule imposed by then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich. A circuit court originally dismissed the claim, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that it must be considered.

…"

 

[manualman]

Hooray!

 

[catharina]

Hooray!

Yes indeed.

 

[Santi2]

Hooray!

I second that.

 

[valentino]

welll that’s a step in the right direction.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I’m actually not sure how I feel about this. Since when was it okay for the morality of a professional health practioner important when it comes to the “treatment” of the patient? “I’m sorry, I know you’re within your legal rights to ask for this pill but I believe you’re a sinner so I refuse to give you it. Oh and by the way this is the only pharmacy in town and I’m the only one at work.”

Where is this going to go? A doctor refusing to care for a pagan because they are a Catholic? A Catholic nurse refusing to give advice on recognising sexual diseases to a patient having pre-marital sex?

While I appreciate it’s important that you should never be forced to do something you think is immoral, there’s a fine line between ensuring an equality of sorts and making one person’s rights more important than the next person’s.

 

[catharina]

I’m actually not sure how I feel about this. Since when was it okay for the morality of a professional health practioner important when it comes to the “treatment” of the patient? “I’m sorry, I know you’re within your legal rights to ask for this pill but I believe you’re a sinner so I refuse to give you it. Oh and by the way this is the only pharmacy in town and I’m the only one at work.”

Where is this going to go? A doctor refusing to care for a pagan because they are a Catholic? A Catholic nurse refusing to give advice on recognising sexual diseases to a patient having pre-marital sex?

While I appreciate it’s important that you should never be forced to do something you think is immoral, there’s a fine line between ensuring an equality of sorts and making one person’s rights more important than the next person’s.

Yet in this nation, protection of rights for
one’s conscience have always been the norm,
not the exception. ObamaRule seems to consider
this right to be a “nothing.”

 

[jilly4ski]

I’m actually not sure how I feel about this. Since when was it okay for the morality of a professional health practioner important when it comes to the “treatment” of the patient? “I’m sorry, I know you’re within your legal rights to ask for this pill but I believe you’re a sinner so I refuse to give you it. Oh and by the way this is the only pharmacy in town and I’m the only one at work.”

Since when is killing babies healthcare?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

“I’m sorry, I know you’re within your legal rights to ask for this pill but I believe you’re a sinner so I refuse to give you it. Oh and by the way this is the only pharmacy in town and I’m the only one at work.”

The reason why a pharmacist refuses is not that “I believe you’re a sinner” but rather the “do no harm” principle that he follows - something spelled out already in the Hippocratic Oath. This is not about judging the woman, but about protecting her baby, in case that she might be pregnant.

She might still want to go ahead and take a pill that has dual contraceptive/abortive mechanism of action, but the pharmacist has the right to refuse cooperation with the evil of a mother killing her child. Similarly, a doctor has the right to refuse performing an abortion, or killing a patient by euthanasia/assisted suicide. And the owner of the kosher or Indian vegetarian restaurant has the right to choose not to have pork (or other meat, for the vegetarian) on the menu, the owner of the Muslim restaurant will not serve pork and alcohol, the owner of the Christian bookstore will not stock any pornographic books and magazines, and so on. This is freedom at work.

 

[estesbob]

I’m actually not sure how I feel about this. Since when was it okay for the morality of a professional health practioner important when it comes to the “treatment” of the patient? “I’m sorry, I know you’re within your legal rights to ask for this pill but I believe you’re a sinner so I refuse to give you it. Oh and by the way this is the only pharmacy in town and I’m the only one at work.”

Where is this going to go? A doctor refusing to care for a pagan because they are a Catholic? A Catholic nurse refusing to give advice on recognising sexual diseases to a patient having pre-marital sex?

While I appreciate it’s important that you should never be forced to do something you think is immoral, there’s a fine line between ensuring an equality of sorts and making one person’s rights more important than the next person’s.

There was no issue on treatment of patient. It was a clear cut issue of whether pharmacists should be forced to help women kill their children. The sad part is that they had to go to court to stop it.

 

[manualman]

While I appreciate it’s important that you should never be forced to do something you think is immoral, there’s a fine line between ensuring an equality of sorts and making one person’s rights more important than the next person’s.

Surely you can discern a clear difference between refusing to treat a PERSON because of that person’s current or former sins and refusing to participate in the person’s desired sin itself???

 

[LemonAndLime]

There was no issue on treatment of patient. It was a clear cut issue of whether pharmacists should be forced to help women kill their children. The sad part is that they had to go to court to stop it.

Not necessarily. It takes between 12-24 hours for the sperm to fertilise the egg, so if its within that time period there is no killing and I have heard of that being permissable, but that is beside the point.

The issue is clear cut for you, but perhaps not to everyone else. It is sad that they had to go to court to stop it, I am on the side of this pharmacists (so I wish everyone would stop suggesting I am not!) but there is an issue of the rights of the pharmacist conflicting with the rights of the patient to receive treatment (and they do have a right to receive this treatment in law so you cannot dispute that). Whether you consider abortion/contraception a treatment is besides the point because this ethical issue could also be applied to the other scenarios I gave in my initial post. I believe that no one’s rights should “trump” another person’s rights and this applies to this scenario.

A few people have accused me of suggesting that killing babies is healthcare, but perhaps some people should re-read my post and not jump down my throat and accuse me.

 

[catharina]

Not necessarily. It takes between 12-24 hours for the sperm to fertilise the egg, so if its within that time period there is no killing and I have heard of that being permissable, but that is beside the point.

The issue is clear cut for you, but perhaps not to everyone else. It is sad that they had to go to court to stop it, I am on the side of this pharmacists (so I wish everyone would stop suggesting I am not!) but there is an issue of the rights of the pharmacist conflicting with the rights of the patient to receive treatment. Whether you consider abortion/contraception a treatment is besides the point because this ethical issue could also be applied to the other scenarios I gave in my initial post.

A few people have accused me of suggesting that killing babies is healthcare, but perhaps some people should re-read my post and not jump down my throat and accuse me.

I have no idea what your issue is, but the law
in this nation does protect the right of conscience.

Perhaps that’s not the case where you live?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Not necessarily. It takes between 12-24 hours for the sperm to fertilise the egg, so if its within that time period there is no killing and I have heard of that being permissable, but that is beside the point.

I see you are joining the church in a few weeks.

Might I suggest you take some time to read this? Please?

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[estesbob]

Not necessarily. It takes between 12-24 hours for the sperm to fertilise the egg, so if its within that time period there is no killing and I have heard of that being permissable, but that is beside the point.

The issue is clear cut for you, but perhaps not to everyone else. It is sad that they had to go to court to stop it, I am on the side of this pharmacists (so I wish everyone would stop suggesting I am not!) but there is an issue of the rights of the pharmacist conflicting with the rights of the patient to receive treatment (and they do have a right to receive this treatment in law so you cannot dispute that). Whether you consider abortion/contraception a treatment is besides the point because this ethical issue could also be applied to the other scenarios I gave in my initial post. I believe that no one’s rights should “trump” another person’s rights and this applies to this scenario.

A few people have accused me of suggesting that killing babies is healthcare, but perhaps some people should re-read my post and not jump down my throat and accuse me.

We should always err on the side of life.

BTW_WELCOME TO THE CHURCH! Ill be thinking about you Holy Saturday.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I think you need to change the caption on this thread for clarity.

 

[Christopher68]

This is an atrocious decision. Now someone has the legal mandate NOT to do their job???

 

[LemonAndLime]

I have no idea what your issue is,

I can’t explain it any more than I already have I’m afraid.

but the law
in this nation does protect the right of conscience.

Perhaps that’s not the case where you live?

I’m not sure on that one. We have, for the most part, a nationalised health service so finding a Catholic doctor would be almost impossible. HOWEVER there has been cases in the news recently of nurses being suspended after offering to pray for patients, yet I think she got her job back after it was decided it was an unfair decision to penalise her for her beliefs. It’s worth it to add here that the patient was not offended but another staff member was. There was a statement I think relating to that case which said that our beliefs should not have to conflict with our work, but it was not laying blame on us but saying that our employers (doctors/nurses etc) should make reasonable adjustments to accommodate us. By reasonable they mean that you should still be able to carry out your job properly. So a pharmacist who works at a sexual health clinic would probably have less sympathy as they have deliberately put themselves into a situation they wouldn’t like. Or perhaps a nurse who works at an abortion clinic, for example.

Any other Britons following this thread who can clarify?

 

[LemonAndLime]

We should always err on the side of life.

BTW_WELCOME TO THE CHURCH! Ill be thinking about you Holy Saturday.

Of course we should.

And thank you! I am very excited, I can’t believe how fast RCIA has gone.

Iamrefreshed - I have read a summary of Humanae Vitae, I know the teachings of it.

 

[manualman]

This is an atrocious decision. Now someone has the legal mandate NOT to do their job???

Yes, how atrocious that pharmacists will no longer be forced to choose between feeding their families and killing babies.