Morality and RX Drugs

[faithfully]

So, on another thread a man that was about to become a pharmacist is concerned about whether or not he should fill RX’s for BC if he KNOWS they will be used for BC. As opposed to a usage for, acne control, hormone control, or what not to women who aren’t sexually active. The question becomes… how would you KNOW? Is a doctor lieing about the reason for the RX?

One pharmacist made the choice to not sell it ever.

I don’t take issue with anyone abiding by the teachings of the Catholic church.

MY QUESTION… is NOT whether or not this is a moral situation but why is it ALWAYS about birthcontrol? Do we not see other drugs that are not inline with Catholic teachings? And my question, that I posed there that was basically ignored is…

What about Viagra? How come I have never seen a question posed about say filling an RX of Viagra among the unmarried, or homosexuals for that matter? Is it NOT a grave sin for an unmarried man to be having sex? Or a homosexual man to have sex with another man? Do you REFUSE to sell the RX on those grounds? If you know? What if it’s just obvious. No wedding ring? An obvious homosexual demeanor, or partner standing by? These “clues” are louder than a young woman standing in front of you. You ASSUME she’s sexually active.

I have no problem with the teachings of the Catholic church. What is driving me insane at this moment is that it seems we like to sling our religion around topics that don’t necessarily have to do with us PERSONALLY! Yet they seemed neatly tucked away when it’s something that we could be dealing with personally. IE, I don’t know a single man that will be looking to fill a BC RX for his personal usage. I wonder why a Catholic Male Pharmacist is NOT worried about this as well (the ill usage of Viagra). He’d definately be an enabler almost 100% to the unmarried man with Viagra. A woman, denied an RX could turn around and buy a condom. A man that can’t get viagra, doesn’t need any form of birth control.

Oh, and then I’m told, Viagra under other names is for a heart treatment. Ummmm… So, you see no problem with this?Seems this is the same exact excuse used regarding BC. But for BC it is not a valid excuse. Because it’s probably a lie. (I’m just clumping together a bunch of the statements posted by several people. Not just one person.)

And so I came across this article… wondering of course… Maybe ONLY married men buy Viagra, and I’m just WAYYYYY off base… Hmmm… Doesn’t look like it.

Dangers of Using and Abusing Viagra

It just seems if we’re going to be very concerned about what others do, and feel we must control them within our own ability. We should do so across the board. Not pick and choose topics of personal concern.

Perhaps we, as a general Catholic population are not aware of this abuse. We should be more concerned. I think there could be a lot less sperm floating around among those it shouldn’t be.

 

[edwest2]

Aside from posting your concerns here, what would you do?

"The APhA, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists noted in a letter in the Legal Times that “pharmacists, like physicians and nurses, should not be required to engage in an activity to which they object.” That said, Winckler emphasized that the APhA opposes obstruction: “A pharmacist may step away from a prescription but shouldn’t step in the way.”

Every pharmacist can make a decision about dispensing certain drugs.

Here are some views about Viagra:

• While the Catholic church hasn’t taken a public stance on Viagra, an official at a local diocese told us, “This isn’t in the same category as the Pill; the Pill has to do with human life, but Viagra doesn’t. Viagra could be used within a marriage.”
• A spokesman for the Church of Latter Day Saints: “Church leaders haven’t taken a position on Viagra, but in general, the church doesn’t have any problem with sex within marriage.”
• A spokesperson for the Southern Baptist Convention: “Within marriage, we’re not going to stand in the way of a husband and wife trying to consummate their relationship, whether the remedy is for a husband’s impotence or a wife’s headaches.”

Hope this helps,
Ed

 

[faithfully]

Hi Ed… Thanks for the quotes…

Let me see if I can be more clear.

I’m wondering why the question seems to be:

If I KNOW that BC is actually going to be used for BC then should I fill it?

How come the question never seems to be:

If I KNOW that Viagra will be used by an UNMARRIED Man, or for homosexual activity, then should I fill it?

And your first quote you offered would then cover both questions… But the Catholic stance is WITHIN Marriage. So, it stands to reason, that the Catholic Pharmacist that expresses concern over BC, should also be concerned about Viagra.

I guess I’m just bothered by the fact that many people just don’t want to believe that a woman might actually need to go on BC (even when she’s a virgin) because she’s having medical problems and (perhaps unfortunately) her doctor feels this is the best approach. The pill CAN NOT interfere with life if there is no sex actually taking place.

So regardless, assumptions are being made. Some may be a better guess than others. But they are generally guesses.

And in my my minimul experience as a patient picking up any RX, the pharmacist doesn’t always KNOW why I’m getting what I’m getting. Other than what may SEEM intuitively obvious… and possibly wrong.

 

[faithfully]

Aside from posting your concerns here, what would you do?

Can I fairly answer this question? I have no interest in this type of profession. Or one in gynecology. I wouldn’t find myself in this situation.

I THINK my concerns would be with a wider blanket. I don’t THINK, I would be just concerned with the sins that women might be committing, if I were going to somehow be a party to their sin. I’d also be concerned about the sins committed by men (If I were somehow be a party to their sin.)…OR I need to EQUALLY recognize that I might not know the whole story, nor am I within my rights to KNOW the whole story. And perhaps, whichever choice I make with regard to dispensing BC, I would use the SAME choice for viagra. Not treat them differently. They both have potential to be used strictly for medical purposes without putting ones soul at risk. But they also have the exact opposite potential. It seems a double standard to say you have a way of dealing with BC, but not Viagra…

Does that make any sense? Or is my cold medicine talking too much?

 

[Newbie2]

Good OP post.

I guess we don’t think a whole lot about Viagra being used outside of marriage, however, it would be naive to think that it is not.

So…absolutely, a Catholic pharmacist could run into a dilemma IF he or she knew for certain that it was being used outside the context of marriage.

However, unless the pharmacist knows the customer personally or if the customer volunteered the information, my guess is that for him or her to know with certainty how someone was using hormonal therapy or viagra would be difficult unless they pried.

And that’s a separate but related question: Should a pharmacist, attempting to follow his Catholic conscious, inquire about the possibly illicit use of these medications for his or her customers?

I believe the answer is no. Ethically, pharmacists are not privy to medical information and have no right to such information unless a customer volunteers such information; it is private, protected information. My guess is that pharmacists inquiring for such information could be at jeopardy for losing their job(s).

I suppose under certain circumstances a pharmacist could ask about a medication’s use if it was important to know about potential side effects or drug interactions, but I’d also assume that he or she would be contacting the prescribing physician for such information. But…that being said…sometimes people get prescriptions from different pharmacies and the pharmacist doesn’t have all the medications that an individual is taking in his or her database.

Personally, I get most of my prescriptions from the mail-order pharmacy that our insurance uses, but on occasion if I need an antibiotic or something right now I will get it filled at the local pharmacist who doesn’t have access to the information on the other meds I’m taking.

 

[bingbang]

I personally would feel worse dispensing drugs such as xanex, oxycontin, valium, etc. than dispensing birth control. The prescription drugs that I listed kill people and destroy lives. You could argue that birth control destroys lives, but I don’t really see it like that.

 

[Pug]

The question becomes… how would you KNOW? Is a doctor lieing about the reason for the RX?

Perhaps things are different in other states, but where I live, the pharmacist will not be told why the medicine was prescribed, unless the dosage and schedule and accompanying medications are a clue. The doctor does not provide the pharmacist with a description of the medical condition. So as far as I can tell, the case doesn’t come up of a doctor lying to the pharmacist about the reason for the Rx, since doctors provide no reason.

 

[phoenixrrt62]

oh, wow…

I probably shouldn’t comment…b/c I’m not catholic, but-first, a lot of scripts are given for off-label use, so…just b/c I’m handing you a BC script doesn’t mean I am using it for birth control. I may be using it b/c I have a hormone problem.
So, who’s to say I’ve violated YOUR belief?

And. See, that’s just my take on it. It’s YOUR belief…so, because YOU don’t believe in using birth control, you are going to deny it to ME?
That, I see a problem with.

Kinda like me refusing to do a terminal wean, even though the family, hospice, and the doctor wants me to do it, and this is IN MY JOB DESCRIPTION as a respiratory therapist.
Would it be fair to the parties involved if I refuse?
NO.

I knew going into my career that I may have to do things on occasion that may possibly conflict with my personal morals…but I have no right to refuse care to a patient just b/c*** I*** think it may not be right.

If I see a patient’s rights possibly violated…yeah, then I will refuse to do something. That’s a different ball of wax. I actually had a patient who I was about to transfer to hospice that did NOT want to be removed from vent support, and I and my fellow therapist refused to transport the patient.

 

[Antrim]

What about the patient and his morals? He is doing wrong when he takes the RX prescreption to the Drug Store to get it filled. He knows that if he is not married he should not be getting it filled. Since the Viagara Drug was invented for another disease the pharamacist may not know that the guy is using it to commit sin therefore he is not responsible. These are just my thoughts on the subject. What does the Church have to say about this?

Antrim

 

[edwest2]

I personally would feel worse dispensing drugs such as xanex, oxycontin, valium, etc. than dispensing birth control. The prescription drugs that I listed kill people and destroy lives. You could argue that birth control destroys lives, but I don’t really see it like that.

Wow. They’ve been approved by the FDA and prescribed by a doctor and they’re worse? No way.

We all began life as a human embryo.

God bless,
Ed

 

[LilyM]

Put it this way - most people would agree that adultery is immoral, and would condemn the supply of drugs such as Viagra if they are supplied for the purpose of helping commit adultery. People don’t really need to ask questions about it any more than they do about giving someone a knife or gun when it’s requested for the purpose of killing someone, because the moral precept is pretty clear.

There has been, however, a lot of opposition to, and confusion about, the Church’s teaching on birth control. A huge amount. Even family members of mine who are devout Catholics and well-educated doctors have shown some misunderstanding of the issues around it. So it’s an area where we can’t afford to be less than extremely vigilant, since it will be very easy thereby to confuse the uneducated or those who don’t understand.

 

[faithfully]

oh, wow…

I probably shouldn’t comment…b/c I’m not catholic, but-first, a lot of scripts are given for off-label use, so…just b/c I’m handing you a BC script doesn’t mean I am using it for birth control. I may be using it b/c I have a hormone problem.
So, who’s to say I’ve violated YOUR belief?

And. See, that’s just my take on it. It’s YOUR belief…so, because YOU don’t believe in using birth control, you are going to deny it to ME?
That, I see a problem with.

Kinda like me refusing to do a terminal wean, even though the family, hospice, and the doctor wants me to do it, and this is IN MY JOB DESCRIPTION as a respiratory therapist.
Would it be fair to the parties involved if I refuse?
NO.

I knew going into my career that I may have to do things on occasion that may possibly conflict with my personal morals…but I have no right to refuse care to a patient just b/c*** I*** think it may not be right.

If I see a patient’s rights possibly violated…yeah, then I will refuse to do something. That’s a different ball of wax. I actually had a patient who I was about to transfer to hospice that did NOT want to be removed from vent support, and I and my fellow therapist refused to transport the patient.

I agree with this. Even as a Catholic. I want to share with others my religion. Because I really believe you need to know. But I’m not going to beat you over the head with it. I don’t see how that gets you to willfully accept what I have to say.

Bless you with your Hospice job… Such an amazing group of people. We used hospice in my grandmother’s final days… they helped a lot.

That said… and I’m fine that you responded! My point is really with regard to Catholics that go on and on about BC. NOT for any damage to the body they think it creates… That can be said for just about every single drug out there. But that it shouldn’t be handed over knowingly or even UNKNOWINGLY for the PURPOSE of SIN (actual Birth Control)… When, yes, there exist plenty of reason for a unmarried, non sexually active woman to use it for something other than BC. But then, and it’s just an ovbservation of MINE, obviously not necessarily fact, that then these same people shoud be as EQUALLY concerned about handing over a drug like Viagra that COULD be used for the PURPOSE OF SIN (whether you know it or not.)

So, where I asked the pharmacist a while back that since he just refused to sell it (BC) all together, just to avoid the actual BC use, I assumed he would do the same with Viagra… 'cause you just don’t KNOW if its going to be used in an morally safe environment…

But let’s say… YOU decide you will not supply a Drug to women because they MIGHT use in a fashion you morally object to (and we’ll just stick to legally prescibed usage). Then you should do so with ALL drugs that fall into this category. And since a man may not be married, and gets viagra, (one of it’s legally prescribed usage is so that he can engage in sex), you should also NOT supply that drug.

Or, are we saying, as Catholic, we can contribute to sin if we don’t see it AS sinful as another sin?

Otherwise, my question becomes… how is this just NOT a double standard. I think this is one of the reasons that people look at the Catholic church and argue away from it. It looks as though the issue is about the sin of women that we are concerned with… Not men.

 

[faithfully]

Put it this way - most people would agree that adultery is immoral, and would condemn the supply of drugs such as Viagra if they are supplied for the purpose of helping commit adultery. People don’t really need to ask questions about it any more than they do about giving someone a knife or gun when it’s requested for the purpose of killing someone, because the moral precept is pretty clear.

There has been, however, a lot of opposition to, and confusion about, the Church’s teaching on birth control. A huge amount. Even family members of mine who are devout Catholics and well-educated doctors have shown some misunderstanding of the issues around it. So it’s an area where we can’t afford to be less than extremely vigilant, since it will be very easy thereby to confuse the uneducated or those who don’t understand.

It seems it’s the job of the Church to pick up in its failings, and get that education up to snuff with its followers. NOT up to the Catholic Pharmacist to empose our religious beliefs on everyone. EVEN if it wrong in our eyes. I do understand the dilemma.

 

[Pug]

But let’s say… YOU decide you will not supply a Drug to women because they MIGHT use in a fashion you morally object to (and we’ll just stick to legally prescibed usage). Then you should do so with ALL drugs that fall into this category. And since a man may not be married, and gets viagra, (one of it’s legally prescribed usage is so that he can engage in sex), you should also NOT supply that drug.

Or, are we saying, as Catholic, we can contribute to sin if we don’t see it AS sinful as another sin?

I wonder if a calculus of percentages underlies the pharmacist behavior you observe. I am going to make up some statistics to illustrate what the pharmacist may be thinking. “The pill is 95% likely to be used illicitly, whereas Viagra is about 25% likely to be used illicitly, so I’m okay with dispensing Viagra, but the pill seems like nearly everyone I hand it to will use it wrongly. I’m also okay with selling bedpans, since most bedpans are never used to strike the caretaker over the head until dead.” Almost any item you can think of can be used for a sin, and a number of items can be used for a grave sin. Yet we can sell all those items as a Catholic. Sometimes, though, one brushes up too close to formal cooperation. I can see how a pharmacist especially, and not a simple salesman, could be afraid of slipping into formal cooperation as they carefully tell the patient how to take the drug so as to maximize the effect, making sure the patient understood the information, and explaining again if needed.

I doubt the pharmacist is trying to “control them” or “impose a belief”. I suspect most are worried about the kind of example they are giving to others (they want to give a good example to others) and they are also perhaps trying to maintain their own integrity, which still falls into the category of an encouraging example to others. Living a life of principle is not controlling others. It is simply a good way to live. Lots of people are inspired by it and moved to attempt the same in turn.

 

[faithfully]

I wonder if a calculus of percentages underlies the pharmacist behavior you observe. I am going to make up some statistics to illustrate what the pharmacist may be thinking. “The pill is 95% likely to be used illicitly, whereas Viagra is about 25% likely to be used illicitly, so I’m okay with dispensing Viagra, but the pill seems like nearly everyone I hand it to will use it wrongly. I’m also okay with selling bedpans, since most bedpans are never used to strike the caretaker over the head until dead.” Almost any item you can think of can be used for a sin, and a number of items can be used for a grave sin. Yet we can sell all those items as a Catholic. Sometimes, though, one brushes up too close to formal cooperation. I can see how a pharmacist especially, and not a simple salesman, could be afraid of slipping into formal cooperation as they carefully tell the patient how to take the drug so as to maximize the effect, making sure the patient understood the information, and explaining again if needed.

I doubt the pharmacist is trying to “control them” or “impose a belief”. I suspect most are worried about the kind of example they are giving to others (they want to give a good example to others) and they are also perhaps trying to maintain their own integrity, which still falls into the category of an encouraging example to others. Living a life of principle is not controlling others. It is simply a good way to live. Lots of people are inspired by it and moved to attempt the same in turn.

Except your arguement only holds water if your made up stats are accurate.

If you go to Viagra’s website it’s CLEAR the drug is marketed soley for the purpose of making sex a possability for men. Where otherwise they couldn’t perform.

Then you read this article that I posted earlier… you can see that they found 4 times MORE Homosexual and bisexual men use Viagra…

It also sites that it’s the best selling drug EVER! Which means any percentage of the highest selling drug is a lot more in volume that the same percentage of the lowest selling drug.

Really my point is… I agree, living a life of principal is awesome. But when your principals are directed at only one gender… then I’d say, it’s not really principals you’re standing on but a double standard… Men can sin, women can’t…

 

[Rascalking]

Really my point is… I agree, living a life of principal is awesome. But when your principals are directed at only one gender… then I’d say, it’s not really principals you’re standing on but a double standard… Men can sin, women can’t…

You raise a much more interesting, though sadly off topic, question of the attitude of people sometimes. Certain times, when reading posts, I get the feeling that some people seem to think the way of “women are more virtuous then men”.

 

[Pug]

Except your arguement only holds water if your made up stats are accurate.

Not really. It is about perceptions. If this is what the pharmacist perceives, which is what I wished to portray, it will guide their behavior. This type of dis-equity can be solved by disseminating information to people. This can be changed with knowledge. There is hope if the problem is perceptions and awareness.

Then you read this article that I posted earlier… you can see that they found 4 times MORE Homosexual and bisexual men use Viagra…

…than heterosexual men, I think you mean?

I interpret the article differently. They are 4 times more *likely *to use it, at least the patients at that STD clinic, as they report. It does not say that for every one heterosexual male user of Viagra that there were 4 homosexual and bisexual male users. There are vastly more heterosexual men out there than homosexual and bisexual men, I’m told. Even if a lower percentage of heterosexual men use it, that could still add up to more heterosexual users than homosexual/bisexual users. It depends on how the percentages hash out.

Really my point is… I agree, living a life of principal is awesome. But when your principals are directed at only one gender… then I’d say, it’s not really principals you’re standing on but a double standard… Men can sin, women can’t…

Oh, I’d not realized that you saw it as a gender thing. I tend to think of contraception as a couple thing, I suppose by habit. In fact, the husband could be the one there at the counter buying “the pill”. It happens. What about men who try to buy condoms and the pharmacist/salesperson refuses? Do you see this as directed at men?

 

[faithfully]

Oh, I’d not realized that you saw it as a gender thing. I tend to think of contraception as a couple thing, I suppose by habit. In fact, the husband could be the one there at the counter buying “the pill”. It happens. What about men who try to buy condoms and the pharmacist/salesperson refuses? Do you see this as directed at men?

Yeah… sorry… No, then I would suspect they are equally applying their position on the topic.

I get how you see contraception as a couple thing. But BC is not necessarily a “couple” thing… that’s assumed! And this really just popped into my head when on another thread a soon to be pharmacist wanted to know if it was ok for him to fill BC prescriptions… if he KNEW that it was used for BC…

And another pharmacist said that he just doesn’t sell it. Even though it is OFTEN used for hormonal balancing, acne etc… So, I find that there is some judgment… because it’s not LIKELY that he’d know… and regardless, he doesn’t seem concerned if he were to sell Viagra to a man if he KNEW that he was single or homosexual… Or I should say, his answer was silence when I asked if sold viagra without asking the intended usage. Because then he’s just ASSUMING it’s used with moral correctness… and then therefore a double standard…

I AGREE Rascalking… it does seem that women are assumed more virtuous then men. If a man gocks a woman, it’s her fault for the way she’s dressed. Nevermind he’s a freakshow about small feet or something like that…

Anyhow… Now I’m starting to sound like a crazy person…

 

[Pug]

Yeah… sorry… No, then I would suspect they are equally applying their position on the topic.

I get how you see contraception as a couple thing. But BC is not necessarily a “couple” thing… that’s assumed! And this really just popped into my head when on another thread a soon to be pharmacist wanted to know if it was ok for him to fill BC prescriptions… if he KNEW that it was used for BC…

And another pharmacist said that he just doesn’t sell it. Even though it is OFTEN used for hormonal balancing, acne etc… So, I find that there is some judgment… because it’s not LIKELY that he’d know… and regardless, he doesn’t seem concerned if he were to sell Viagra to a man if he KNEW that he was single or homosexual… Or I should say, his answer was silence when I asked if sold viagra without asking the intended usage. Because then he’s just ASSUMING it’s used with moral correctness… and then therefore a double standard…

I AGREE Rascalking… it does seem that women are assumed more virtuous then men. If a man gocks a woman, it’s her fault for the way she’s dressed. Nevermind he’s a freakshow about small feet or something like that…

Anyhow… Now I’m starting to sound like a crazy person…

You’re not a crazy person.

I understand how it feels like judgment. I struggle to understand those who won’t sell the pill to people who use it for alternate things, like hormones. That’s how I ended up on this thread. I know too many people who use it for hormones, and not BC, so I think I would sell it to people, myself. I’ve always figured if they won’t sell the pill to people, then there are lots of drugs, like Methotrexate (used for cancer and used for abortions), that they would refuse to sell as well, but no one ever mentions it. They only mention the pill, ever, or maybe plan B.

It is possible that some people feel it is their business to correct females, but not to correct males. You may have caught a whiff of that in action on a thread.

 

[faithfully]

You’re not a crazy person.

It is possible that some people feel it is their business to correct females, but not to correct males. You may have caught a whiff of that in action on a thread.

It’s possible. I just bugs me. But hey, in the grand scheme of things if that’s all the bugs me… RIGHT??? I’ve just witnessed this in other areas of life, and not just among Catholics or with regard to birthcontrol… Ex: a family friend was one of lots of kids. The boys were Paid for chores. The girls were just expected to chip in… girls = worth less. I knew a Mormon family. Girls were so useless that if they wanted to go to college they had to pay for it themselves. If they wanted nice clothes in high school, they could get a job to get them. It was NOT shocking at all that when one of the oldest daughters was finally getting married in the Mormon church, and her parents, (who weren’t really religious, but just used their religion inappropriatly to rule) COULDN’T go to the wedding, as they hadn’t been practicing in a while… the daughter just shrugged her shoulders… She knew they knew better. And they had created such hostility in their household, she didn’t really care if they couldn’t go to the wedding.

I really dislike seeing our religion used in a chauvanistic or 'I’m superioir to you" fashion. I think it turns people off and away from the Church before they can see the REAL belief structures. The love and compassion… etc…

Oh… am I standing up on a box? It’s gettin’ sudsy around here…LOL… steps down!