We need to be careful here. When giving Plan B, this can only licit if conception has not occurred. If given after conception, Plan B prevents implantation, which is effectively an abortion.
According to the US Bishops, a rape victims needs to 1) get a pregnancy test, to make sure she wasn’t already pregnant before the crime and 2) take a test to see if she has already ovulated. If she has not already ovulated, she can take the plan b, to prevent ovulation from occuring. In this way, she is preventing a forced pregnancy, not terminating one.
It happens by telling the patient something along the lines of “We are unable to determine if you have ovulated, and thus are uncertain if conception has occurred. Plan B, taken in this case, may prevent a conceived embryo from implanting and to be expelled from your body.” If the patient insists, the nurse says “I will find someone to help.”
Why do you keep using terms like this. If conception has occurred, Plan B is not a requirement. Indeed, it is an evil. So unless we are sure that conception hasn’t occurred, it isn’t “care”, it is murder.
The point of this thread is that a nurse may be required, by law, to administer plan B. Just as a pharmacist was (or is, in WA) required to dispense plan B. I do hope you can see the distinction between being required to perform an act and just have someone else do it.
My wife is a “SANE nurse” (as you put it), and fortunately where she works company policy allows her to refer abortion and EC patients to another. The problem comes when people are compelled by law to act contrary to their moral principles. Just as people object to the “If you don’t like the US, find somewhere else to live”, many of us object to the “If you won’t administer abortive drugs, find somewhere else to work”.
For reasons such as these, I think it’s extremely important to keep Catholic hospitals, and Catholic education (from elementary schools to universities) alive. But I mean REAL, OBEDIENT TO THE MAGISTERIUM, AUTHENTICALLY CATHOLIC institutions.
So a Catholic nurse does not have to be concerned if it’s a Protestant baby she is helping to kill? And that is described as sane?
Yes, the nurse should just get another nurse to help. Another nurse can give the Plan B.
Plan B is never a requirement, but it’s the right of a rape victim to have access to it if she wants to utilize it. A rape victim has the right to defend herself against a forced pregnancy, and taking plan b, as the US Bishops have directed, will enable her to do so. No one is saying that a rape victim is required to take Plan B. That’s up to her.
Yes, I know that. And I believe a nurse should be required to administer plan b to a rape victim who needs it, if she cannot find a substitute to do it for her. And I believe she should lose her license if she knowingly withholds information altogether regarding plan B from her patient. At the very very least, she should furnish the information, and administer the tests as required. Then the decision lies with the patient to either take plan b or refuse it.
Most places allow nurses to ask other nurses for help when they are sensitive about something particular in a senario. It would be very easy for a nurse to find another nurse to administer plan b, or contraceptives, in her place.
Plan B should be available to all rape victims regardless of the sensibilities of the caregivers at the ER.
If plan B is administerred as prescribed, there will be no baby to kill. Plan B is designed and prescribed to PREVENT conception. In a rape situation, it’s up to the woman to either take the plan b or not take the plan b. A Catholic nurse does not have the right to make that decision for a rape victim, and deny her the care she requires. That would be insane.
Then why do you use word like “need”?
Again, the word “need”. When conception has occurred, there is no “need” for plan B. Indeed, administering plan B would be an evil. And a nurse that knows that plan B is (which I hope would be the case) and knows that conception has occurred has formally cooperated with evil. So you are sying that you think “a nurse should be required” to formally cooperate with evil.
Nobody suggested that she withhold information regarding plan B. However, I think it quite wrong to force a nurse or pharmacist to formally cooperate in an evil.
But there should be no requirement that the nurse hand the drug to the patient. That is the point.
Ok, so why do we need laws forcing pharmacists and other providers to administer such items?
Abortive drugs isn’t just about “sensibilities”. It is about protecting the lives of innocent children. Unless you think when people refuse to formally cooperate in evils such as murder, rape, theft, etc are just their “sensibilities”.
It is up to the nurse to go to the med room/med cart/etc to get the medication. What you seem to be suggesting is that the nurse be deliver the pill to the patient.
There’s that word again. Yet above you said Plan B isn’t a requirement. Or do you think it is?
Well, if you wouldn’t take one sentence out of a paragraph, you wouldn’t have to ask "why do you use word like “need”? Here is what I said again:
I’m glad because I think it’s very important to be honest with patients and give them the whole story. You can’t really consent to treatment or even refuse treatment without understanding the whole picture. And that goes with any treatment.
What is wrong is forcing a patient to adhere to the religious rules of a caregiver. If a doctor prescribes a medication for a patient, the patient should have access to it.
If the drug is legal, and is warranted for the patient’s condition at the time it is prescribed, then the nurse should be required to make it available to the patient, either by directly handing it to the patient, or finding a nurse who will. The patient should not have to jump hoops to get the medication she needs.
If a pharmacy or a emergency room carries a certain medication, and the medication is legal, and prescribed appropriately for the patient, then pharmacists or other provider should administer the medication, or find someone who will do it for them. If the pharmacy carries the medication, the patient should not be turned away. If the pharmacy doesn’t carry it, then of course the pharmacist doesn’t have to administer it.
If an abortive drug is legal, and is prescribed by a doctor, and is administered by a pharmacy, the patient should have their prescription filled by someone. And if the only pharmacist in the building is the only one to do it, then he/she should fill it. If they can find someone to fill it for them, then they can do that. But the patient should not have to jump hoops to get their prescription filled.
If I pull a medication from the med room/med cart/ etc. to get a medication for a patient, it is my responsibility to give it to the patient. If the nurse has a problem with that, they should call another nurse to pull and give the medication. If that nurse is the only one there, they have to pull and give that medication to the patient. It’s a legal medication, it’s a legal order and the patient should have it filled.
It is required if the patient wants it. It’s not required if the patient does not want it.
Not so fast!
It’s not the same because even the Church allows plan b in the ER for rape victims.
If your job is to provide strip-teases, then get on the table. Someone unwilling wouldn’t work there. You don’t work in a restaurant that performs strip-teases and then whine when the patron requests one. You just work in a restaurant that doesn’t provide strip teases.
I totally understand that this is your perspective. But understand that I find it offensive and reprehensible to physically and forcibly make a woman pregnant against her will, and not give her the medication she needs to fight back, if that’s what she wants to do. Surely, if the US Bishops allow it (in accordance to their guidelines) it shouldn’t be a problem. Refusing to offer a rape victim plan b, or even worse, refusing to give it if she requests it, is the same as telling her to hop on a lap and give a lap dance.
I wish we applied these standards to the abortion mills, to Planned Parenthood, who fight tooth-and-nail against the requirement to show pregnant women the ultrasound images of their babies.
Rence, we are in agreement as pertains to women who have not ovulated, and thus are actually not pregnant as a result of the rape. But the problem is, Catholic medical ethics differentiates the case of administering a contraceptive drug to a woman who has been raped and is not pregnant, from the case of a woman who has possibly conceived a child already, as a result of the rape. Administering Plan B in the latter case would cause an abortion, according to Catholic medical scientists.
Because unlike you and I, or at least I, who are fascinated by ultrasounds, xrays, MRI’s, etc., many people are afraid of them. You and I would rather know exactly what was done in the case of triple bypass, aortic abdominal aneurysm, internal fixation of broken bones, hip and knee replacements, etc. But many other people are incredibly put off by this “too much information”. Though I do agree, there should be a requirement to offer the ultrasound.
I agree that they should disclose all information, including adoption and what the hell, even raising the child themselves, including all resources available, etc. They should at least offer them the ultrasound but I don’t believe they should be forced to view them anymore than a candidate for knee replacement surgery be forced to view a video of such a procedure…
I understand what you’re saying. However, peoples of different faiths do not require of their women what the Catholic Church does. In the case of rape, Jews are allowed plan B, and even abortion later. So are Muslim women. In the case of rape, the CC stands alone, and as such, should require this standard of their own…not the rest of the world who rejects the Church’s teachings. If a Jewish woman comes into an ER after having been raped and wants plan B, she should be given the plan B despite the religious beliefs of the nurse caring for her, as long as the treatments are legal and appropriate for the woman’s current health crisis at the time. I know you disagree. But the rights of the patient are extremely important to me as a nurse. And just as a JW cannot refuse to administer a life-saving blood transfusion to a trauma victim in the ER, A Catholic cannot refuse plan b to a rape victim if that ER carries and administers it.
Right. It’s primary action is to prevent conception. It’s actions to prevent implantion are not so successful, and in fact, I know two rape victims who became pregnant anyway after plan B after they were raped. It’s not as sucessful at preventing implantation as it is preventing conception. I understand that you think it’s better to err on the side of caution, but if a rape victim does think it’s worth the risk, she as a patient has that right.
According to the US Bishops, when an ovulation test is not available, caution should side with the woman, and plan b should be given - as long as there is reasonable doubt that she has not ovulated…so that would be her subjective answer to the question. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be rude or to insult you, but the documentation from the US Bishops has a higher standing than your personal opinion. But I know your opinion is very important to you. It’s important to me too, just not to the point of violating a woman’s right to direct her treatment after a rape.
I am demanding that a patient’s rights are honored. I am grateful (not just using it for justification) that it is legal.
Ok, let’s talk about what should be. A rape victim should be in control of the direction of her treatment. If she wants plan b to prevent a forced pregnancy, it should be given to her. If the institution carries it, then it should be administered at her request. If the nurse assigned to her can’t find a nurse to switch assignments with, then her nurse needs to be the one who administers it. If she has a problem with it, she should find a nursing job elsewhere. That’s what should be.
If the ovulation test is not available and the woman doesn’t think she has ovulated, the US Bishops said it was appropriate to give plan B. And I agree with them. In the case of rape it is more than reasonable, and moral, to favor the woman.
But it is handed out like candy. Birth control is as available as skittles. The only problem is, when a rape victim needs them, they are met with resistance due to the sensibilities of the nurse – who should probably just not be there in the first place. What’s a woman to do? Perhaps keep a box handy just in case? Thankfully, there is no need for that, and most hospitals have them available, and the staff that is more than willing to help her.
Not sure if its been mentioned, but in some states, bartenders can be held liable for serving patrons who were clearly intoxicated, and ended up hurting themselves or others as a result of a their intoxication.
You have a point
Predictably, I disagree, especially with the point that the patient’s perceived “rights” trump my own right, and more than that, my own duty to act in accord with the ethical norms of my profession. Obviously, I’m going to be upfront with the patient - “sorry, I can’t participate in abortion, assisted suicide, or euthanasia”, and we just leave it at that. I mean, if the patient is unhappy that I’m not going to give her a drug to abort her baby, or a drug to kill him/herself, the patient is certainly free to walk out of my pharmacy and seek those things elsewhere.
I’m not going to break my own professional ethical standards just to please the patient.