Ill. judge throws out rule on contraception

[Rence]

I can see, as evidenced by your answer, what I said - went way over your head.

No one right outweighs another’s right - this would be a forced servitude.

No, it didn’t I understand what you’re saying, and my response is that here are plenty of places for nurses to work that wouldn’t conflict with Catholic teachings. No one is forced to work in an environment that is known to deliver treatments that would conflict with their morals. Being in a non-Catholic environment exposes Catholic nurses to non-Catholic patients who have the same rights that the nurses have. The patient, the one with consent, has the right to refuse or consent to treatments ordered by the physician. The nurse, in turn, is responsible for protecting the rights of the patient by carrying out those orders as prescribed by the doctor. If the nurse is in conflict with a treatment that may be prescribed due to being forbidden by the Church, then she’s clearly working in the wrong establishment. She should get a job that does not pose a risk for her to be in conflict. There is no such thing as forced servitude for a nurse working in a place to which she applied and accepted an offer of employment. You have to do the job you were hired to do. It’s immoral, and unethical to accept a job under the guise that you can do the job, when in reality, you have no intention to do so. It is what it is. And that’s just lying.

 

[Rence]

The LAW says different

That law says what different?

 

[kimmielittle]

No, it didn’t I understand what you’re saying, and my response is that here are plenty of places for nurses to work that wouldn’t conflict with Catholic teachings.

Soooooooo…by your reckoning…I should never work in a Hospice…because some fool, may at some time, deem it legal to mechanize someone? And they have the right to force servitude over me, my moral / ethical convictions?

C’mon…

 

[Rence]

I didn’t suggest you did. I only stated it is was meaningless to suggest that since they are different, to leave it be. Objectively speaking, only one is true. And it is meaningless to argue over whether there are different perceived standards, since nobody suggests otherwise. Further, the very fact that there are different perceived standards doesn’t render the issue moot. We shouldn’t do as you seem to suggest and throw our hands up and say “It is what it is.”

When I said, “it is what it is”, it was in reference to the fact that different perceived standards. What I suggest is that Catholics not lie about being able to perform job functions that are expected of them, only to refuse to do them later. They can set a standard by refusing to work in such environments that would conflict with Church teachings.

They don’t have an moral right to IVF, only a legal right. And you seem to be confusing the two. Here, on a Catholic message board, we discuss what should be, not what is.

The ends do not justify the means. The discussion is about what should be done, not what is done.

What should be, are laws that support all the peoples that live under a nation, not just the Catholic ones. After all, Catholics, have the right to reject and not participate in things such as IVF, which is against Church teachings, but not against others’ church teachings.

 

[Suudy]

I think that the employer has the right to hire employees who will do the job as described. If someone has a problem with that, just like any other job, they should not lie about not intending to do the work, and just not work there. They should find work in which they can actually do the job expected, in the way it is expected.

I think the employer has the right to not hire someone who is not willing to perform the duties on the job description (unless they have agreed that arrangements could be made in certain situations such as switching assignements or finding replacement nurses to do the job), and fire those who refuse to perform the duties as expected.

You have hit on a point I made earlier. I do not think employers should be forced to accept employees who refuse to do a legal, prescribed procedure. However, I also do not think employers should be forced to perform procedures or provide prescriptions for all legal, prescribed procedures and drugs. The issue here is the requirement by law to provide such.

What has been unclear in this entire thread is your position on the latter situation.

She should be punishable by the law if she abandons her patient and she could lose her job, and her license if she does not treat the patient as ordered.

Here, I completely disagree. She should be punishable by her employer for refusing a legal order from a doctor, and punishable by law for refusing live saving care. She should not, however, be punished by law for refusing a treatment she reasonably finds morally objectionable. Any caregiver should be permitted to refuse any procedure that either does not serve a therapeutic purpose, is contraindicated, or in her professional opinion puts her or anyone else in danger.

Someone has to care for the patient, and especially in an emergency.

But with regard to Plan B we aren’t talking about an emergency. Especially in the case of the OP with regard to pharmacists. But even so, if any treatment puts the patient or anyone else in danger, should not be forced upon any caregiver. In the case of Plan B, if ovulation is unknown, no caregiver should be forced to participate in any procedure that puts another (a fetus) in danger.

If that pharmacy carries plan b, the pharmacist should be required to either find someone to dispense it or dispense it himself if there is no one else available to dispense it for him. I don’t have an opinion about whether he should be required by law to dispense it. I can say I wouldn’t oppose it if it were a law. However, I strongly feel the pharmacy should not have to employ him, or continue to employ him, if he is not willing to do the job (which includes dispensing plan b, if that pharmacy carries and dispenses it). I think a Catholic should just be unwilling to work for a pharmacy that dispenses birth control or plan B and work in a place that doesn’t do so.

Here I think we agree. I think employers should be permitted to make a condition of employment to fill any and all prescriptions it stocks. I also think employers should be permitted to choose what drugs it will or will not fill. This is between the employer and employee, not one worth of governmental involvement.

However, a pharmacy may carry certain drugs for which the drug is intended for many purposes. One example is methotrexate. I think a pharmacy should be permitted to refuse to fill prescriptions for methotrexate for abortive or potentially abortive purposes. In the OP (and here in WA), this is not legal. Pharmacists are required to fill prescriptions, for any end. I think (I’m not sure) that WA has made it a requirement that pharmacies carry Plan B and that they must fill all prescriptions for it.

A Catholic nurse should not risk not being able to find someone to do her job for her by working in a place whose policy it is to give plan B even though an ovulation test has been positive.

One further point on this. Plan B is not therapeutic to the patient. At best, it prevents ovulation (and conception). At worst, it kills an innocent human being. It does not treat any illness or infirmity in the patient. And no caregiver should be required to give unneeded or useless care. Plan B prevents no disease, infection, or other problem. Pregnancy is not a disease.

Note that the USCCB document you cite only states that Plan B is permitted in cases of rape or incest where ovulation has not occurred. It does not state that it is required to be provided upon request. And the reason for this is because it is not therapeutic in nature.

 

[Rence]

Soooooooo…by your reckoning…I should never work in a Hospice…because some fool, may at some time, deem it legal to mechanize someone? And they have the right to force servitude over me, my moral / ethical convictions?

C’mon…

There are plenty of Catholic Hospices out there KimmieLittle No one has the right to force servitude over you, your moral/ethical convictions. Just work elsewhere. I don’t understand what is so hard about working in a Catholic environment.

 

[kimmielittle]

That law says what different?

Oh…Sorry you missed it Rence…This whole thread upholds the conscious clause law.

The LAW says I’m allowed to be a Pharmacists and practice my conscious clause.

You argue 1 I should not be a Pharmacists 2 I should not have the right to a conscious clause

 

[kimmielittle]

There are plenty of Catholic Hospices out there KimmieLittle No one has the right to force servitude over you, your moral/ethical convictions. Just work elsewhere. I don’t understand what is so hard about working in a Catholic environment.

BUT I don’t have to work where you want me - How hard is that?

 

[Suudy]

When I said, “it is what it is”, it was in reference to the fact that different perceived standards. What I suggest is that Catholics not lie about being able to perform job functions that are expected of them, only to refuse to do them later. They can set a standard by refusing to work in such environments that would conflict with Church teachings.

I agree 100%. If a Catholic nurse gets a job a PP, then refuses to assist in abortion or birth control, they should be fired. However, they should not be subject to legal sanctions.

What should be, are laws that support all the peoples that live under a nation, not just the Catholic ones. After all, Catholics, have the right to reject and not participate in things such as IVF, which is against Church teachings, but not against others’ church teachings.

The point here is that it is not just a Catholic teaching. Objectively, either life begins at conception or it doesn’t. If it does begin at conception, IVF, abortion, and (in some cases) Plan B are at best negligent, frequently reckless, and at worst murder. Objectively speaking, without any appeal to any religion, these things are problematic. What we should do is err on the side of caution. We should try to protect life from the very beginning and not ignore the issue. The law **should **protect all people, not just some people.

Now, with regard to human knowledge, the jury is out on when life begins. Catholics (and other Christians and religious people) teach it begins at conception. Others say it begins at birth. The point is that there isn’t consensus on when life begins. Thus unknown, the law should err on the side of caution. Innocent until proven guilty, so to speak. If we don’t know that a fetus is a human being, the law should assume it is until otherwise known.

 

[Rence]

You have hit on a point I made earlier. I do not think employers should be forced to accept employees who refuse to do a legal, prescribed procedure. However, I also do not think employers should be forced to perform procedures or provide prescriptions for all legal, prescribed procedures and drugs. The issue here is the requirement by law to provide such.

What has been unclear in this entire thread is your position on the latter situation.

I don’t know how I can make myself more clear. What exactly are you asking of me?

Here, I completely disagree. She should be punishable by her employer for refusing a legal order from a doctor, and punishable by law for refusing live saving care. She should not, however, be punished by law for refusing a treatment she reasonably finds morally objectionable. Any caregiver should be permitted to refuse any procedure that either does not serve a therapeutic purpose, is contraindicated, or in her professional opinion puts her or anyone else in danger.

I think it would be hard for a nurse to convince a supervisor that she refused to administer plan B to a rape victim because the treatment was not therapeutic (this is one of the indications for plan B), is contraindicated (plan b is indicated for rape), or in her professional opinion puts her or anyone else in danger (a rape victim seeking plan b is not in danger by taking plan b, and is trying to prevent being forcibly made pregnant). It just would be better for that nurse not to work as a SANE nurse or anywhere else that would put her in such a conflict, because if she doesn’t find someone to switch assigments with her, her excuses will not be accepted. There are plenty of Catholic institutions out there who would refuse to order plan B to begin with.

But with regard to Plan B we aren’t talking about an emergency. Especially in the case of the OP with regard to pharmacists. But even so, if any treatment puts the patient or anyone else in danger, should not be forced upon any caregiver. In the case of Plan B, if ovulation is unknown, no caregiver should be forced to participate in any procedure that puts another (a fetus) in danger.

Remember that pregnancy cannot be determined until HcG levels rise, which coincides with implantation. The medical world does not recognize pregnancy until then. So unless someone subscribes to the same standards of the Church, a nurse is going to have a hard time convincing her supervisor of this. Plan B is prescribed and indicated for those who have been raped, among others. It would be better for this nurse to work in a Catholic ER.

One further point on this. Plan B is not therapeutic to the patient. At best, it prevents ovulation (and conception). At worst, it kills an innocent human being. It does not treat any illness or infirmity in the patient. And no caregiver should be required to give unneeded or useless care. Plan B prevents no disease, infection, or other problem. Pregnancy is not a disease.

Note that the USCCB document you cite only states that Plan B is permitted in cases of rape or incest where ovulation has not occurred. It does not state that it is required to be provided upon request. And the reason for this is because it is not therapeutic in nature.

Plan B should be available to all rape victims to request it. If they don’t wish to take it, they don’t have to. What we’re talking about is a rape victim who has asked for, and has received a prescription for, plan B. The order needs to be filled by someone for her. If one is Catholic, they should not work in a place that dispenses plan B.

 

[Rence]

Oh…Sorry you missed it Rence…This whole thread upholds the conscious clause law.

The LAW says I’m allowed to be a Pharmacists and practice my conscious clause.

You argue 1 I should not be a Pharmacists 2 I should not have the right to a conscious clause

I didn’t miss it KimmieLittle.

 

[Rence]

BUT I don’t have to work where you want me - How hard is that?

Well…you can work whereever you want. No matter where you work, you still have to perform the jobs as listed in the job description, and as discussed in the interview. No matter where you work, doing your job will still be expected of you.

 

[kimmielittle]

Well…you can work whereever you want. No matter where you work, you still have to perform the jobs as listed in the job description, and as discussed in the interview. No matter where you work, doing your job will still be expected of you.

Yes, BUT NO one can make you sign away your rights. Not in a Hospital - Not in a Grocery Store.

One of your rights is your conscious clause.

What would happen to a Hospital who received Federal Funding, of any amount, who required you to sign away your rights?

 

[Suudy]

I don’t know how I can make myself more clear. What exactly are you asking of me?

The issue in the OP, as I understand it, is that the law requires pharmacies (and by extension) pharmacists to dispense Plan B. Why is Plan B a legal issue at all? Why are there legal sanctions to refusing to dispense or administer Plan B? In cases of rape an incest, it doesn’t serve any therapeutic purpose, and at worst destroys innocent human life. Why are pharmacists (and by extension nurses and doctors) required by law to participate? Further, neighborhood pharmacies are not emergency care centers. At a minimum, I’d think you’d acknowledge that a neighborhood pharmacy and pharmacists should be exempted from this rule.

Look, I’m not talking about what the law says. I understand the law says that Plan B is a legal drug and may be legal to use for abortive purposes. The point is whether that should be the law, and whether individuals should be able to refrain from assisting in non-therapeutic, morally objectionable procedures.

I think it would be hard for a nurse to convince a supervisor that she refused to administer plan B to a rape victim because the treatment was not therapeutic (this is one of the indications for plan B), is contraindicated (plan b is indicated for rape), or in her professional opinion puts her or anyone else in danger (a rape victim seeking plan b is not in danger by taking plan b, and is trying to prevent being forcibly made pregnant).

Nonsense. I just told you one case. If ovulation is unknown, there is potential danger to a fetus. That should be enough. But let’s go through each example with regard to rape or incest:

Is it therapeutic? What illness or infirmity does Plan B treat? None.

Is it contraindicated? Not necessarily. Depends upon what other drugs.

Does it put the patient or anyone else in danger? Not the patient, but potentially a fetus. And that is another person.

It just would be better for that nurse not to work as a SANE nurse or anywhere else that would put her in such a conflict, because if she doesn’t find someone to switch assigments with her, her excuses will not be accepted. There are plenty of Catholic institutions out there who would refuse to order plan B to begin with.
These aren’t “excuses”, they are reasons. Does the nurse believe that Plan B puts anyone in danger? In the absence of ovulation, yes, possibly.

Look, my issue isn’t with an employer firing a nurse for refusing to administer Plan B. If a nurse refuses to carry out a legal order, the employer should be free to fire that nurse. However, your suggestion that a nurse could be held legally liable for refusing to administer non-therapeutic treatment that he/she finds morally objectionable is the problem.

Remember that pregnancy cannot be determined until HcG levels rise, which coincides with implantation. The medical world does not recognize pregnancy until then. So unless someone subscribes to the same standards of the Church, a nurse is going to have a hard time convincing her supervisor of this. Plan B is prescribed and indicated for those who have been raped, among others. It would be better for this nurse to work in a Catholic ER.

Plan B should be available to all rape victims to request it. If they don’t wish to take it, they don’t have to. What we’re talking about is a rape victim who has asked for, and has received a prescription for, plan B. The order needs to be filled by someone for her. If one is Catholic, they should not work in a place that dispenses plan B.

 

[Rence]

Yes, BUT NO one can make you sign away your rights. Not in a Hospital - Not in a Grocery Store.

One of your rights is your conscious clause.

Your rights end where another person’s begin. A nurse cannot circumvent someone from receiving medical treatment that was ordered by a physician, especially if the treatment is legal, indicated and fits the patient’s diagnoses. Now, if you can’t do your job, and you can’t find someone to do it for you, and you choose to violate someone’s rights by imposing your own on them and NOT carrying out the treatments as ordered, and no one else does because because their otherwise unavailable, the responsiblity is yours, you will face disciplinary action. And if your neglect to do your job leads your patient to sustain harm or death, you will face lawsuits, and the possibility of losing your license, and you should. If you ccept that, I’m sure I have no problem with it. As a Catholic, you should be more than happy, thrilled even, to face the music for neglecting to do your job. A modern day martyr. Or, you can choose to be a smart Catholic and work in an area or institution where you will have resposibilities that won’t conflict with Catholic Church rules. The choice is yours. As always.

What would happen to a Hospital who received Federal Funding, of any amount, who required you to sign away your rights?

All hospitals contract with all employess for a job, and each job comes with a job description. When you take on a job, you are agreeing to fulfill the job description. It’s your choice to work there or not work there. No hosital requires any employees to sign away their rights. They do, however, require that employees do their job. If you can’t do the job, you don’t deserve the job and should simply get another job so that the position is open and can be filled by someone who can do the job. Being honest in job interviews will help ensure you are placed in appropriate places where your job description doesn’t conflict with your “morals”.

 

[Rence]

The issue in the OP, as I understand it, is that the law requires pharmacies (and by extension) pharmacists to dispense Plan B. Why is Plan B a legal issue at all?

Because it is a medication prescribed by a physician, and and such, when it is prescribed by a physician for a patient, and the patient wishes to fill the prescription, it is to be filled as ordered.

Why are there legal sanctions to refusing to dispense or administer Plan B?

Because one’s rights end where another person’s rights begin. You cannot come between a patient and doctor without sufficient reason. That relationship is not only personal, but professional. Citing Catholic canon is not a suffcient reason to not fill a prescription for a Jew, a Protestant, an Atheist or anyone else who is not compelled to follow the rules of one’s religion. A pharmacists job is to dispense medication as ordered. It’s not up to the pharmacist to throw his or her religious rules into the mix and impose it on the patient. You can’t force someone to follow one’s religion.

In cases of rape an incest, it doesn’t serve any therapeutic purpose

Yes it does. It enables the victim to fight back by preventing a forced pregnancy. It’s therapeutic indication is to prevent pregnancy. This is what it is used for. Your opinion that it doesn’t serve any therapeutic purpose is based on Catholic theology, not medical reasoning. You cannot force another individual to follow your religion.

Why are pharmacists (and by extension nurses and doctors) required by law to participate?

I hate to repeat myself, because it may seem rude. But I’m not being rude. I just have the same answer to that question: Because one’s rights end where another person’s rights begin. You cannot come between a patient and doctor without sufficient reason. That relationship is not only personal, but professional. Citing Catholic canon is not a suffcient reason to not fill a prescription for a Jew, a Protestant, an Atheist or anyone else who is not compelled to follow the rules of one’s religion. A pharmacists job is to dispense medication as ordered. It’s not up to the pharmacist to throw his or her religious rules into the mix and impose it on the patient. You can’t force someone to follow one’s religion.

Further, neighborhood pharmacies are not emergency care centers. At a minimum, I’d think you’d acknowledge that a neighborhood pharmacy and pharmacists should be exempted from this rule.

No, I don’t agree with that. Sorry. See above. If it’s a medication prescribed by a physician and the patient needs it filled, and the pharmacy carries it, then it should be filled for the patient. By denying a rape victim plan B, the patient is losing precious time that would be best spent preventing that forced conception from happening in the first place, because it’s all a rush against time to prevent conception.

Look, I’m not talking about what the law says. I understand the law says that Plan B is a legal drug and may be legal to use for abortive purposes. The point is whether that should be the law, and whether individuals should be able to refrain from assisting in non-therapeutic, morally objectionable procedures.

Well, you’re asking me, and I am grateful for the law on behalf of rape victims. It should be dispensed as ordered.

Nonsense. I just told you one case. If ovulation is unknown, there is potential danger to a fetus. That should be enough. But let’s go through each example with regard to rape or incest:

If ovulation is unknown, the woman should not be further victimized if she wants plan B to prevent a pregnancy. The sooner she takes it, the sooner a prevention is achieved.

Is it therapeutic? What illness or infirmity does Plan B treat? None.

It is therapeutic, it enables a victim to fight back by preventing a physically forced pregnancy.

Is it contraindicated? Not necessarily. Depends upon what other drugs.

It’s indication is to prevent pregnancy. The indication is appropriate.

Does it put the patient or anyone else in danger? Not the patient, but potentially a fetus. And that is another person.

If plan b is used as directed, and administered as soon as possible, no one will be in danger and the woman will have been enabled to prevent a forced pregnancy.

 

[Suudy]

I’m going to skip over a bunch because it seems we have a communication issue.

Citing Catholic canon is not a suffcient reason to not fill a prescription for a Jew, a Protestant, an Atheist or anyone else who is not compelled to follow the rules of one’s religion.

Not once did I cite Catholic teaching. I cited philosophical reasoning. The only discussion about Catholic teaching is on versions of DDE. But Plan B isn’t an application of DDE.

A pharmacists job is to dispense medication as ordered. It’s not up to the pharmacist to throw his or her religious rules into the mix and impose it on the patient.

It’s not a religious issue. If ovulation is unknown, there is a potential that an innocent human life may be destroyed. A pharmacist doesn’t have to be religious to oppose the death of an innocent person. It is not unreasonable to refuse to participate in an action that potentially threatens the life of another.

Yes it does. It enables the victim to fight back by preventing a forced pregnancy. It’s therapeutic indication is to prevent pregnancy. This is what it is used for. Your opinion that it doesn’t serve any therapeutic purpose is based on Catholic theology, not medical reasoning. You cannot force another individual to follow your religion.

You apparently have a different definition of therapeutic. The dictionary says:

1. 
   *](Medicine) of or relating to the treatment of disease; curative
   *](Medicine) serving or performed to maintain health therapeutic
   
   Now, what disease does Plan B treat? How is health maintained? Pregnancy is not a disease. This isn’t a religious definition.
   

   You cannot come between a patient and doctor without sufficient reason.

   Exactly! You seem to think that potentially destroying another human being isn’t sufficient reason. The entire point of this discussion is the refusal to administer Plan B when ovulation has occurred or is unknown. There is sufficient reason to refuse to administer a drug or perform a procedure that threatens the life of someone.
   

   A pharmacists job is to dispense medication as ordered. It’s not up to the pharmacist to throw his or her religious rules into the mix and impose it on the patient.

   You apparently don’t know many pharmacists. Pharmacists, in general, know more about drugs, drug interactions, and drug physiology than physicians who prescribe them. Pharmacists are required to take into account more than just the scrip. Pharmacists are required to to exercise their professional judgment and are expected to take into account the patient’s condition before filling any scrip. If, in the professional opinion of the pharmacist, the drug is prescribed to treat a condition that is not indicated, is contraindicated, or is potentially harmful, he has the right to refuse to fill that prescription.
   
   Plan B potentially threatens to kill an innocent human being. If Plan B is requested, and the state of ovulation is unknown or known that it occurs, a pharmacist should be permitted to refuse the fill the prescription on the basis that it may cause the death of an innocent human being. No Catholic theology. No religion. Just straightforward logic.
   

   If ovulation is unknown, the woman should not be further victimized if she wants plan B to prevent a pregnancy. The sooner she takes it, the sooner a prevention is achieved.

   The ends do not justify the means! If ovulation is unknown, there is a possibility that conception has occurred. Taking Plan B in such a case may cause the death of an innocent human being. It is a reckless course of action.
   

   It is therapeutic, it enables a victim to fight back by preventing a physically forced pregnancy.

   Pregnancy is not a disease or illness. It can’t be therapeutic if it doesn’t treat a disease or illness. Not a Catholic definition. Not a religious definition.
   

   It’s indication is to prevent pregnancy. The indication is appropriate.

   You’ll note I didn’t quibble on indications.
   

   If plan b is used as directed, and administered as soon as possible, no one will be in danger and the woman will have been enabled to prevent a forced pregnancy.

   ONLY IF OVULATION IS KNOWN TO NOT HAVE OCCURRED! I apologize for yelling, but this seems to be one of the biggest disconnects in our conversation.
   
   If ovulation is unknown, there is the possibility an innocent human being will be in danger. Look, I’ll put it in the form of a quadrilemma as before:
   
   1. 
      *]Ovulation has occurred, and you know it.
      *]Ovulation has occurred, and you don’t know it.
      *]Ovulation has not occurred, and you know it.
      *]Ovulation has not occurred, and you don’t know it.
      
      Now, what is the use of Plan B in each of these cases?
      
      1. 
         *]This is reckless. Conception may occur. You know the danger and proceed anyways. You might get lucky and conception won’t occur. But if it does, you’ve destroyed an innocent human life.
         *]This is negligent. Conception may occur. You don’t know if conception might occur. This is like seeing a bush move, think it’s a deer, and shooting anyways. Your lack of knowledge should compel you not to act.
         *]This is the only permissible use of Plan B. There is no danger of destroying innocent human life.
         *]Again negligent. You aren’t sure, but proceed anyways. Objectively there is no danger of destroying innocent human life, but you don’t know that. This is no better than #2.
         
         Now, what you are suggesting is that we compel, by force of law, pharmacists, nurses, and other caregivers to dispense Plan B in all these cases if a doctor orders it. I don’t need to appeal to Catholic or any other religious teaching to know that this is reckless and dangerous.

 

[Rence]

You apparently have a different definition of therapeutic. The dictionary says:

1. 
   *](Medicine) of or relating to the treatment of disease; curative
   *](Medicine) serving or performed to maintain health therapeutic
   
   Now, what disease does Plan B treat? How is health maintained? Pregnancy is not a disease. This isn’t a religious definition.

1. 
   Being able to control what happens in and about her own body enables a woman to combat the effects and continued harm from being raped if that is what she wants to do. This is the therapeutic effect one is driving for when they take plan B after a rape: to fight back and prevent an unwanted and physically forcible rape. There is more to health than just physical health. The emotional health of a raped woman is nurtured when she is enabled to prevent this forced pregnancy from occurring. Not every woman who is raped will want to take advantage of this resource, but it is available if they want it. And many want it.
   

   Exactly! You seem to think that potentially destroying another human being isn’t sufficient reason. The entire point of this discussion is the refusal to administer Plan B when ovulation has occurred or is unknown. There is sufficient reason to refuse to administer a drug or perform a procedure that threatens the life of someone.

   I agree with Father when his guidelines say that if there is no ovulation test available, and if there is reasonable doubt ovulation has occurred, plan B should be given in favor of the woman. I agree with that.
   

   You apparently don’t know many pharmacists. .

   It is the doctor who prescribes. Not the pharmacist.
   

   Now, what you are suggesting is that we compel, by force of law, pharmacists, nurses, and other caregivers to dispense Plan B in all these cases if a doctor orders it. .

   Yes. And apparently, I’m not the only one.

 

[Suudy]

Being able to control what happens in and about her own body enables a woman to combat the effects and continued harm from being raped if that is what she wants to do. This is the therapeutic effect one is driving for when they take plan B after a rape: to fight back and prevent an unwanted and physically forcible rape.

Plan B does not treat rape.

There is more to health than just physical health. The emotional health of a raped woman is nurtured when she is enabled to prevent this forced pregnancy from occurring. Not every woman who is raped will want to take advantage of this resource, but it is available if they want it. And many want it.

As you said, one person’s rights end when another’s begins. The woman’s right to prevent a pregnancy due to rape ends when it puts another in danger. If conception occurs, or is unknown if it occurred, then that woman’s right ends when it threatens the life of an innocent human being. Namely the conceived child.

I agree with Father when his guidelines say that if there is no ovulation test available, and if there is reasonable doubt ovulation has occurred, plan B should be given in favor of the woman. I agree with that.

I wasn’t aware that the Pope issued any statement on Plan B. Indeed, it appears that the Pope wants pharmacists to refuse to fill Plan B:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_benedict_challenges_pharmacists_to_refuse_to_dispense_abortion_pill/

So, if you agree with the Father, then you would agree that pharmacists should be able to refuse to administer Plan B.

Now, if you mean Fr Williams, which you quoted earlier, how do you reconcile Pope Benedict’s view that pharmacists should refuse to administer Plan B with Fr Williams’ belief that it is permissible? The only way I can do so is to leave it up to the prudential judgment of the caregiver. Yet this is precisely what you want to take away when using the force of law to compel caregivers to administer Plan B.

Finally, the USCCB seems to disagree with your point:

usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml

From this:
The law should not require hospitals to administer so-called “emergency contraception” when those drugs will end the life of a newly conceived human embryo. Hospitals can offer rape victims treatments that are truly contraceptive and address their other needs with compassion and respect.

Also from the USCCB (usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml):
Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.
Note that there is no “out” for when ovulation is unknown. Your are treating Fr William’s article as if the Bishops teach it. Further, nothing from the USCCB, Bishops, or even the Vatican supports your idea that caregivers should be compelled by law to administer Plan B in situations where ovulation is unknown. Indeed, it seems from the article above the Pope explicitly opposes such laws.

It is the doctor who prescribes. Not the pharmacist.

It is the pharmacists who fills, not the doctor. Look at the context of my statement about knowing pharmacists. You are suggesting that a pharmacist fill all scrips. You said:
A pharmacists job is to dispense medication as ordered.
And I’m telling you this is wrong. Pharmacists are expected (and usually required) to refuse to fill prescriptions that are dangerous to the patient or others.

Also, the OP is about pharmacists, not doctors. It has been extended to doctors and nurses in this discussion only to demonstrate the problem with legally compelling people to act contrary to their professional judgment and conscience.

Yes. And apparently, I’m not the only one.

Argumentum ad populum? Do I need to invoke mother’s old response? “If everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?”

I also note you suggested that even in the case where ovulation is known, you would require the provider to administer Plan B. Remember, this discussion is about what should be not what is. Should the law compel people to administer Plan B even if they know conception has occurred?

If so, then you are advocating a reckless position.

 

[Suudy]

I agree with Father when his guidelines say that if there is no ovulation test available, and if there is reasonable doubt ovulation has occurred, plan B should be given in favor of the woman. I agree with that.

One further point.

I’m not suggesting that an ovulation test should be required. I’m only saying that individual caregivers should be able to exercise their professional, prudential judgment on whether Plan B poses a potential risk to an unborn child. Nowhere in Fr Williams’ article does he suggest that caregivers should be compelled by law to administer Plan B even if there is reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred. His point is only that is is permissible, not that it is required. You are extending this permission to administer to a right to receive. That isn’t the case.