The Morning-After Pill and Pharmacist

[kathleenmm]

I am a student taking a policical science course and my teacher likes to bring up contorversial issues and this week we have the topic of the morning-after pill and pharmacist.

Here is the story we have to discuss:

A woman has concern that she might have become pregnant after being forced to have sex aganist her will.

The woman goes to the local Walgreens and presents the a prescription for the morning-after pill (also known as Plan B) to the pharmacist. The pharmacist, who is also president of the local Right-to-Life chapter, refuses to fill the prescription, on the grounds that filling the prescription will make him part of an abortion, which goes aganist his religious beliefs. He believes abortion to be unethical, and refuses to facilitate an abortion.

Does the pharmacist have the right to refuse treatment to this woman?

I’d appreciate any comments.
Thanks a lot!
God bless

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

Seems like a no win situation. I can see the retort such as:

*Does a gunsmith, who is religious, stop making guns because people use guns to kill people?

Does a metallurgist, who is religious, stop making metal because people are turning that metal into bombs and guns?

The user is at fault, guns and bombs don’t kill people, people kill people.*

But this can’t equal to the abortion pill. Swords, guns, bombs etc… can be used equally to defend human life from evil that has to be stopped by ending it’s life to preserve the innocent from dying. But the pill sole purpose is to end life, there is no equal opportunity for defense of life. Seems like an indefensible stance, but that’s my 2 cents.

 

[samiam1611]

Plan B is not abortion. It prevents ovuation or fertilization just like regular birth control pills. If the person is already pregnant, it will not affect her pregnancy. If the pharmacist is against abortion, he could refuse to dispense mifepristone, but Plan B is not the same thing.

 

[Corki]

I am a student taking a policical science course and my teacher likes to bring up contorversial issues and this week we have the topic of the morning-after pill and pharmacist.

Here is the story we have to discuss:

A woman has concern that she might have become pregnant after being forced to have sex aganist her will.

The woman goes to the local Walgreens and presents the a prescription for the morning-after pill (also known as Plan B) to the pharmacist. The pharmacist, who is also president of the local Right-to-Life chapter, refuses to fill the prescription, on the grounds that filling the prescription will make him part of an abortion, which goes aganist his religious beliefs. He believes abortion to be unethical, and refuses to facilitate an abortion.

I’d appreciate any comments.
Thanks a lot!
God bless

Since this is a political science class, the answer depends on which state the Walgreens is in. In many, if not most, states, a pharmacist can decline to fill a prescription on conscience grounds. Sometimes he/she is required to let the customer know that there are other pharmacists who can fill it or refer the customer to another pharmacy. Walgreen’s always has more than a single pharmacist. In some states, the conscience protection has been erroded or eliminated effectively driving many Christians out of the profession.

Does the pharmacist have the right to refuse treatment to this woman?

The pharmacist in your example is not involved in giving or refusing treatment to the customer. The treatment was hopefully provided by the doctor when he saw her in order to care for the effects of the rape.

 

[meemsdeherrera]

Corki is 100% correct.

My husband is a Pharmacist and will not dispense Plan B under any circumstances and is able to do so because as the pharmacist on duty, it is his license and he can choose what does or does not go out under it.

God Bless

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Does the pharmacist have the right to **refuse treatment **to this woman?

The pharmacist in your example is** not involved in giving or refusing treatment **to the customer. The treatment was hopefully provided by the doctor when he saw her in order to care for the effects of the rape.

Corki cuts to the heart of the issue by correctly pointing out that giving a drug that causes abortion would not qualify as treatment. In pharmaceutical speech, the use of a drug to kill a human being is called drug abuse rather than treatment.

If the woman was raped, a medical doctor in the emergency room will wash out her body cavities of the rapist’s sperm, and will administer a simple laboratory test to determine whether ovulation has occured or not.

If ovulation has not occured, the doctor can prescribe a drug that will prevent ovulation, and the pro-life pharmacist will supply that drug to the patient. This is emergency contraception in the proper sense of the word.

However, if ovulation has already occured, then there is a chance that conception of a human person has also taken place (a fertilized egg, formed from the woman’s egg and the rapist’s sperm, is a human being!), and the Plan B type drug would cause an abortion by preventing the implantation of this human person into the wall of the uterus, thus preventing access to nutrients and causing him/her to starve to death. In pharmacist speak, this is not treatment, but rather abortion, murder, and drug abuse.

Any pharmacist who practices his or her profession in accord with the Oath of Hippokratis, which forbids the killing of human beings, will refuse to give an abortive drug to a woman in whom ovulation has occured, and who may be pregnant as a result of the rape. It’s not about refusing treatment, it’s about preventing drug abuse, and it’s about protecting a human life - the life of the innocent baby who may have been conceived as a result of the rape.

However, as I mentioned, if simple hormonal tests determine that the woman has not ovulated yet, and thus she cannot be pregnant as a result of the rape, that’s a totally different business. Administering Plan B to such woman, in order to prevent ovulation, and to prevent the eventual conception of a human being by the sperm cells of the rapist that might persist and survive in her body, in spite of the emergency room’s best efforts to wash them out from the woman’s body cavity, that would qualify as true “emergency contraception”, and the pro-life pharmacist who is president of the Right-to-Life chapter, will not refuse to do that.

Edit: as a practical matter, I doubt that the doctor from the ER will send away the woman to a pharmacist, with a prescription for Plan B. Time is of the essence when trying to prevent conception after a rape. It’s more likely that the doctor will treat the woman in the aftermath of the rape, will administer the lab test for ovulation, and will also administer the Plan B medicine right there on the spot to a woman who hadn’t ovulated and thus could not possibly be pregnant.

 

[cathoichelp]

Corki cuts to the heart of the issue by correctly pointing out that giving a drug that causes abortion would not qualify as treatment. In pharmaceutical speech, the use of a drug to kill a human being is called drug abuse rather than treatment.

If the woman was raped, a medical doctor in the emergency room will wash out her body cavities of the rapist’s sperm, and will administer a simple laboratory test to determine whether ovulation has occured or not.

If ovulation has not occured, the doctor can prescribe a drug that will prevent ovulation, and the pro-life pharmacist will supply that drug to the patient. This is emergency contraception in the proper sense of the word.

However, if ovulation has already occured, then there is a chance that conception of a human person has also taken place (a fertilized egg, formed from the woman’s egg and the rapist’s sperm, is a human being!), and the Plan B type drug would cause an abortion by preventing the implantation of this human person into the wall of the uterus, thus preventing access to nutrients and causing him/her to starve to death. In pharmacist speak, this is not treatment, but rather abortion, murder, and drug abuse.

Any pharmacist who practices his or her profession in accord with the Oath of Hippokratis, which forbids the killing of human beings, will refuse to give an abortive drug to a woman in whom ovulation has occured, and who may be pregnant as a result of the rape. It’s not about refusing treatment, it’s about preventing drug abuse, and it’s about protecting a human life - the life of the innocent baby who may have been conceived as a result of the rape.

However, as I mentioned, if simple hormonal tests determine that the woman has not ovulated yet, and thus she cannot be pregnant as a result of the rape, that’s a totally different business. Administering Plan B to such woman, in order to prevent ovulation, and to prevent the eventual conception of a human being by the sperm cells of the rapist that might persist and survive in her body, in spite of the emergency room’s best efforts to wash them out from the woman’s body cavity, that would qualify as true “emergency contraception”, and the pro-life pharmacist who is president of the Right-to-Life chapter, will not refuse to do that.

Edit: as a practical matter, I doubt that the doctor from the ER will send away the woman to a pharmacist, with a prescription for Plan B. Time is of the essence when trying to prevent conception after a rape. It’s more likely that the doctor will treat the woman in the aftermath of the rape, will administer the lab test for ovulation, and will also administer the Plan B medicine right there on the spot to a woman who hadn’t ovulated and thus could not possibly be pregnant.

Only in a Catholic Hospital would a rape victim be given an ovulation test -
In any other hospital she would be offered emergency contraceptive - and they would more than likely be able to give it to her without having her leave the hospital w a script …

 

[catharina]

I am a student taking a policical science course and my teacher likes to bring up contorversial issues and this week we have the topic of the morning-after pill and pharmacist.

Here is the story we have to discuss:

A woman has concern that she might have become pregnant after being forced to have sex aganist her will.

The woman goes to the local Walgreens and presents the a prescription for the morning-after pill (also known as Plan B) to the pharmacist. The pharmacist, who is also president of the local Right-to-Life chapter, refuses to fill the prescription, on the grounds that filling the prescription will make him part of an abortion, which goes aganist his religious beliefs. He believes abortion to be unethical, and refuses to facilitate an abortion.

Does the pharmacist have the right to refuse treatment to this woman?

I’d appreciate any comments.
Thanks a lot!
God bless

Please see link on World News.
Today’s headline addresses this.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7731472#post7731472

 

[catharina]

The so-called Conscience Clause has been part of US laws for ages.
For example, a Quaker can NOT be made to fight in a war, despite
even a “universal draft.” His conscience must be allowed to prevail.

 

[Asemodeous]

However, if ovulation has already occured, then there is a chance that conception of a human person has also taken place (a fertilized egg, formed from the woman’s egg and the rapist’s sperm, is a human being!), and the Plan B type drug would cause an abortion by preventing the implantation of this human person into the wall of the uterus, thus preventing access to nutrients and causing him/her to starve to death. In pharmacist speak, this is not treatment, but rather abortion, murder, and drug abuse.

So would doing nothing have the exact same result. The main problem with anti-choice nutters, like this hypothetical pharmacist, is mistaking fertilization with pregnancy. Not all fertilized eggs become attached to the uterus wall and pregnancy starts. Not even close to being 100%:

guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.html

Implantation can be completed as early as eight days or as late as 18 days after fertilization, but usually takes about 14 days. Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant. A pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation is complete.

Which brings us to the logical conclusions of the anti-choice babble. If life is more important then the woman’s right to choose, then what that pharmacist should be doing is forcing that woman to take drugs that would increase the chance of implantation. Since his belief that life is ‘important’ is more paramount then the woman’s basic right of happiness. Never mind basic human decency and drugging a rape victim against her will.

He would be morally ‘justified’ because he would be increasing the chance of a pregnancy happening. Of which I’m sure he would be quite pleased with himself after he got arrested for assault and sent to jail.

 

[Corki]

That was pretty offensive.

The new life is begun at conception. That’s not “anti-choice” rhetoric, it’s just plain science. That is the beginning of gestation. Pregnancy has always had a first period which happens before implantation. When you are pregnant and go to the OB, one of the first things he/she does is to try to estimate the date of conception - not impantation. It has only been in the last few decades that there has been an effort to re-define pregnancy as beginning with implantation.

IMHO, that’s counter-productive for the pro-abortion side. The only difference between a fertilized egg before impantation and afterward is location. The only difference between a baby and a fetus is location.

 

[choose_to_love]

@asemodeous: Nice straw man, about the forcing of medication to increase chance of implantation. Of course, that is not what was being proposed or discussed.

Also, I am not sure you will be long for the boards if you come on to a Catholic board and describe someone, even a hypothetical pharmacist, as an anti-choice nutter.

As to the substantive issues: Surely you can see the difference between purposefully causing a result and a result occuring through pre-existing processes?

Perhaps more importantly, it is not the definition of pregnancy, but that a very young human is killed by making the uterus hostile to implantation, through the agent provided by the pharmacist, which is the issue here. What you call the new life is not really relevant (although certainly there are precise terms), but it is the substance, which you apparently did not address.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Seems like a no win situation. I can see the retort such as:

*Does a gunsmith, who is religious, stop making guns because people use guns to kill people?

Does a metallurgist, who is religious, stop making metal because people are turning that metal into bombs and guns?

The user is at fault, guns and bombs don’t kill people, people kill people.*

But this can’t equal to the abortion pill. Swords, guns, bombs etc… can be used equally to defend human life from evil that has to be stopped by ending it’s life to preserve the innocent from dying. But the pill sole purpose is to end life, there is no equal opportunity for defense of life. Seems like an indefensible stance, but that’s my 2 cents.

Disagree…Plan B does in fact end life
The first example you used about guns could be seen as wrong
second example is too vague *because * Guns and Morning After Pill…DO kill people…metal is metal…guns are a finished product meant to kill…as well as Plan B (its already made and meant to destroy life)

The pharmacist has the right to say no…not as a Christian or Religious individual, but as a Human being

 

[Just_Lurking]

Since this is a political science class, the answer depends on which state the Walgreens is in. In many, if not most, states, a pharmacist can decline to fill a prescription on conscience grounds.

In all 50 states a pharmacist can decline to fill a prescription on any grounds whatsoever, without any fear of criminal charges. What varies from state to state is whether the pharmacy is legally required to keep employing the pharmacist once he or she has decided not to perform his or her job.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Disagree…Plan B does in fact end life
The first example you used about guns could be seen as wrong
second example is too vague *because * Guns and Morning After Pill…DO kill people…metal is metal…guns are a finished product meant to kill…as well as Plan B (its already made and meant to destroy life)

The pharmacist has the right to say no…not as a Christian or Religious individual, but as a Human being

Not to derail the thread into another gun debate, I’m exhausted of those, but it’s incorrect to say that guns are meant to kill. If that were the case, then one could say computers are meant to kill because they have the ability to launch missiles.

A pill designed to kill a child in the mothers womb, only has one purpose.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I am a student taking a policical science course and my teacher likes to bring up contorversial issues and this week we have the topic of the morning-after pill and pharmacist.

Here is the story we have to discuss:

A woman has concern that she might have become pregnant after being forced to have sex aganist her will.

The woman goes to the local Walgreens and presents the a prescription for the morning-after pill (also known as Plan B) to the pharmacist. The pharmacist, who is also president of the local Right-to-Life chapter, refuses to fill the prescription, on the grounds that filling the prescription will make him part of an abortion, which goes aganist his religious beliefs. He believes abortion to be unethical, and refuses to facilitate an abortion.

Does the pharmacist have the right to refuse treatment to this woman?

I’d appreciate any comments.
Thanks a lot!
God bless

My personal opinion is yes, the pharmacist should have the right to refuse to fill the prescription. But only under the premise that his employer (in this case Walgreens) has the right to fire him for not doing his job.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Corki cuts to the heart of the issue by correctly pointing out that giving a drug that causes abortion would not qualify as treatment. In pharmaceutical speech, the use of a drug to kill a human being is called drug abuse rather than treatment.

If the woman was raped, a medical doctor in the emergency room will wash out her body cavities of the rapist’s sperm, and will administer a simple laboratory test to determine whether ovulation has occured or not.

If ovulation has not occured, the doctor can prescribe a drug that will prevent ovulation, and the pro-life pharmacist will supply that drug to the patient. This is emergency contraception in the proper sense of the word.

.

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church is against contraception in virtually all cases. Does the Church make exceptions for cases like this, or would such emergency contraception be considered a sin?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

In all 50 states a pharmacist can decline to fill a prescription on any grounds whatsoever, without any fear of criminal charges. What varies from state to state is whether the pharmacy is legally required to keep employing the pharmacist once he or she has decided not to perform his or her job.

If a pharmacist refuses to do his job, and the pharmacist is not self-employed, he should be fired.

Would you defend the right of a cashier at a liquor store to refuse to sell alcohol?
Or the right of a doctor who became a Jehovah’s Witness not to perform blood transfusions?

 

[bbarrick8383]

If a pharmacist refuses to do his job, and the pharmacist is not self-employed, he should be fired.

Would you defend the right of a cashier at a liquor store to refuse to sell alcohol?
Or the right of a doctor who became a Jehovah’s Witness not to perform blood transfusions?

Many places reserve the right to refuse service.

 

[samiam1611]

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church is against contraception in virtually all cases. Does the Church make exceptions for cases like this, or would such emergency contraception be considered a sin?

From USCCB’s Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services
“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.”

So yes, they do make exceptions. This is the only exception I am aware of though. Well that, and
“…The Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.”
~from Humanae Vitae

Given that emergency contraception is licit in certain situations, I would argue that unless the pharmacist knows for certain that the patient has ovulated, he should assume she has not, and dispense the medicine as prescribed. (And there’s no way for him to know for certain unless he breaks numerous HIPAA laws to obtain that information.)