Walmart supports abortion

[Rence]

Or not.
Our Lord turned over the tables of the money changers.
Walmart pharmacies do this. They fill abortifacients (MAPs–morning after pills). They fill BCP’s.
And yet Catholics continue to shop there (and for Walmart, you may use any chain pharmacy and, sadly, most independents, too.)
My pharmacy does none of the above. If I exist here, someone like me exists near you. Give that pharmacy your patronage.

Given the fact that there are women out there who actually need ABCs for non-contraceptive medical reasons, a pharmacist has no business getting between a doctor and patient interaction. When I found out the walgreens in the area refused ABCs for a friend of mine who was suffering from endometriosis and had tried multiple laproscopic procedures and medications that didn’t work, I removed all my and my mom’s prescriptions from there and moved them to another location. It’s not the pharmacist’s job to deny a patient medication prescribed for a patient by her doctor. They have no clue who is using ABCs for birth control and who needs ABCs for medical reasons. And the pharmacist who denied my friend her pills couldn’t care less. Therefore, I couldn’t care less about him and stopped doing business there and told all my friends, and anyone else who would listen to me, about what he did. The ‘conscience clause’ may enable someone to deny someone their medications, but it doesn’t stop patrons from moving their business to someone else who won’t deny someone their medications.

People who want ABCs and MAPs can get them anywhere, even online, and MAPs can be obtained at the drugstore and online without a prescription for anyone over 17. With a prescription if under 17, you can get them anywhere. So IMOHO it’s unfathomable that some snit behind the counter would prevent someone who truly needed them from getting them because it rubbed him the wrong way. I understand everyone has to do what’s best for them, as it’s one’s right to do so, but me “boycotting” someone who issues ABCs is not going to happen. I’ll probably do business there just for the fact that women can get medications there without judgement.

What’s next? what stops a pharmacist from denying any woman of child-bearing age any medication classified as not safe for pregnancy?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Given the fact that there are women out there who actually need ABCs for non-contraceptive medical reasons, a pharmacist has no business getting between a doctor and patient interaction. When I found out the walgreens in the area refused ABCs for a friend of mine who was suffering from endometriosis and had tried multiple laproscopic procedures and medications that didn’t work, I removed all my and my mom’s prescriptions from there and moved them to another location. It’s not the pharmacist’s job to deny a patient medication prescribed for a patient by her doctor. They have no clue who is using ABCs for birth control and who needs ABCs for medical reasons. And the pharmacist who denied my friend her pills couldn’t care less. Therefore, I couldn’t care less about him and stopped doing business there and told all my friends, and anyone else who would listen to me, about what he did. The ‘conscience clause’ may enable someone to deny someone their medications, but it doesn’t stop patrons from moving their business to someone else who won’t deny someone their medications.

People who want ABCs and MAPs can get them anywhere, even online, and MAPs can be obtained at the drugstore and online without a prescription for anyone over 17. With a prescription if under 17, you can get them anywhere. So IMOHO it’s unfathomable that some snit behind the counter would prevent someone who truly needed them from getting them because it rubbed him the wrong way. I understand everyone has to do what’s best for them, as it’s one’s right to do so, but me “boycotting” someone who issues ABCs is not going to happen. I’ll probably do business there just for the fact that women can get medications there without judgement.

What’s next? what stops a pharmacist from denying any woman of child-bearing age any medication classified as not safe for pregnancy?

You are allowed your opinion. Rest assured that it is not the Roman Catholic position, however. To choose one out of the litany of errors (with all due respct) you stated above, saying “that they can get them anywhere” could be used as an argument for illegal drugs, as well.

I choose to follow the teachings of the Church: no BCP’s, no MAP’s. With no apologies

 

[Rence]

You are allowed your opinion. Rest assured that it is not the Roman Catholic position, however. To choose one out of the litany of errors (with all due respct) you stated above, saying “that they can get them anywhere” could be used as an argument for illegal drugs, as well.

I choose to follow the teachings of the Church: no BCP’s, no MAPS. With no apologies

The Roman Catholic position is that ABCs ARE allowed for medical reasons, such as to control the symptoms of endometriosis, recurring ovarian cysts, hemorrhaging during periods, etc. . A woman IS allowed to take ABCs, according to the Church, as long as they are not taken for birth control.

 

[Julianna]

Again…this is America…not everyone is Catholic, so they sell ABC and MAP’s because it is legal. No one said you had to take them…and yes, Rence has a point…I don’t want a pharmacist over-riding my doctor’s orders anymore than I want the government telling me that I can’t have a Big Mac.

If one doesn’t want to use a particular pharmacy because it sells ABC’s & MAP’s, they have the option of going elsewhere…OR putting up the $$ to open one that doesn’t.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

The Roman Catholic position is that ABCs ARE allowed for medical reasons, such as to control the symptoms of endometriosis, recurring ovarian cysts, hemorrhaging during periods, etc. . A woman IS allowed to take ABCs, according to the Church, as long as they are not taken for birth control.

True. 2 points, though

1. The vast majority of BCP’s are for contraception.
2. It is impractical (and frannky NOMDB) to ask every patient what they are using them for

ergo, I err on the side of life, and don’t carry them

1. Finally, there are other ways in many cases to treat (using estrogen and/or progestins), that are not BCP’s .

 

[Rence]

True. 2 points, though

1. The vast majority of BCP’s are for contraception.
2. It is impractical (and frannky NOMDB) to ask every patient what they are using them for
   ergo, I err on the side of life, and don’t carry them

Exactly : ) I just wanted to point out that a woman who is on ABCs for medical reasons is not disobeying the Church and the Church’s teachings. You are well within your right to not carry ABCs. But a pharmacist who does carry them isn’t going against the Church’s teachings because it’s not their business to know why a patient is on a particular medication, and they can’t assume why the patient is taking a particular medication.

 

[Rence]

1. Finally, there are other ways in many cases to treat (using estrogen and/or progestins), that are not BCP’s .

That’s true, but not true for everyone. And the Church doesn’t require one method over another. They just require you not use them for birth control purposes.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Exactly : ) I just wanted to point out that a woman who is on ABCs for medical reasons is not disobeying the Church and the Church’s teachings. You are well within your right to not carry ABCs. But a pharmacist who does carry them isn’t going against the Church’s teachings because it’s not their business to know why a patient is on a particular medication, and they can’t assume why the patient is taking a particular medication.

Almost

If there was a drug ABC that was used to cause assisted suicide in 999 out of a 1000 cases (the 1000 case being a legitimate medical use), I probably wouldn’t carry it, either.
Fooling myself into thinking that the 1000 prescriptions (say) that I filled for it in a year were all for the legitimate use would be a stretch and intellectually and morally dishonest.

I had a doctor write an abortifacienty quantity of a med once. I called the office to ask what it was being used for (my right to due so by law, BTW). They were very unconfortable and refused to answer. I didn’t fill it.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

That’s true, but not true for everyone. And the Church doesn’t require one method over another. They just require you not use them for birth control purposes.

I would need someone far more versed in canon law than I am to answer. If there is an alternative, surely it has to be tried first

 

[Rence]

Almost
If there was a drug ABC that was used to cause assisted suicide in 999 out of a 1000 cases (the 1000 case being a legitimate medical use), I probably wouldn’t carry it, either.
Fooling myself into thinking that the 1000 prescriptions (say) that I filled for it in a year were all for the legitimate use would be a stretch and intellectually and morally dishonest.

ABCs aren’t used as contraception vs medicinal in that proportion by any means. Quite a few women are taking them who need them. A pharmacist has the right to deny all women ABCs if that’s what he/she decides to do, but I won’t shop there, because I know there are women out there who need them and I saw that first hand. We all have to do what we believe is right and I don’t believe it is right for a pharmacist to come between a patient and doctor.

 

[Rence]

I would need someone far more versed in canon law than I am to answer. If there is an alternative, surely it has to be tried first

No, it doesn’t. The Church (so far) has not dictated the interactions between a doctor and a patient. If a patient is under doctor’s care for problems that ABCs can control, the Church does not dictate that non-ABCs methods be tried first.

Humanae Vitae states: “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” (HV 15).

That’s not to say other things aren’t routinely tried first, it’s that the Church does not require it.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would need someone far more versed in canon law than I am to answer. If there is an alternative, surely it has to be tried first

Then perhaps that person would be, for example, Father Wade Menezes, the hardly-radical priest who appears often on EWTN – to say Mass, to contribute to programs as a guest or host, etc. He confirms what Rence just said in post 246 (about legitimate medical purposes). He did so some time last year, I think on Living His Life Abundantly, or The Abundant Life or whatever that’s called, with Johnette Benkovic.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

ABCs aren’t used as contraception vs medicinal in that proportion by any means. Quite a few women are taking them who need them. A pharmacist has the right to deny all women ABCs if that’s what he/she decides to do, but I won’t shop there, because I know there are women out there who need them and I saw that first hand. We all have to do what we believe is right and I don’t believe it is right for a pharmacist to come between a patient and doctor.

You know, I used to feel like that. I felt that doctors had to be SO much more knowledgeable than those pharmacists who just sit behind a counter. But I tell you what, once one of them saves your rear because THEY know more about the meds your doctor is prescribing than your doctor does, you will change that preconception pretty dang quick.

The second thing, which you seem to advocate for in ABC and Abortion debates, is that we should accept these two things since they are legal, some people need them, and it seems to give you a warm fuzzy feeling (sorry, I didnt want to write that, but it is my honest opinion) to be able to say “Well, I dont like it, but I cannot force my opinion on others”. I really dont understand this standpoint. Either you are against ABC or you are not. If you are, why support it? When a pharmacist, who seems to know what he is talking about, says that there are other options, that carries about the same weight as an MD. And when they speak about frequency of prescription of drugs, and likelihood of use (not that Luigi has, but if) then they tend to know what they are talking about.

Just my $.02, I know nobody wants it, but Im going to throw it at you anyway.

FSC

 

[Rence]

You know, I used to feel like that. I felt that doctors had to be SO much more knowledgeable than those pharmacists who just sit behind a counter. But I tell you what, once one of them saves your rear because THEY know more about the meds your doctor is prescribing than your doctor does, you will change that preconception pretty dang quick.

I haven’t had a problem with my medications so I can’t relate to your doctor and his lack of knowledge of medications he prescribed for you.

The second thing, which you seem to advocate for in ABC and Abortion debates, is that we should accept these two things since they are legal, some people need them, and it seems to give you a warm fuzzy feeling (sorry, I didnt want to write that, but it is my honest opinion) to be able to say “Well, I dont like it, but I cannot force my opinion on others”. I really dont understand this standpoint. Either you are against ABC or you are not. If you are, why support it?

ABCs ARE allowed by the Catholic Church for medical reasons, and that’s a fact. I am in favor of ABCs for medical reasons, especially when no other treatments can work for that person. So…I am NOT against ABCs for medical reasons and I don’t have to be to be within the teachings of the Church. If one is not taking ABCs for medical reasons, and are taking them for contraception, I believe they are playing russian roulette because of the side effects. However, the forbidding of ABCs is a Catholic Church teaching and yes FSC, it’s not for me to tell a non-catholic that they shouldn’t be on ABCs because the Catholic Church says so. Other denominations allow it. When I talk to women about ABCs I stick with the health risks and recommend NFP instead. The example I used in my reply above is a friend of mine with endometriosis who had multiple surgeries and medications before finally going on ABCs which resolved her problem. She went above and beyond to avoid ABCs. No pharmacist is qualified to tell her that something else would work. She spent years working with doctors trying to resolve her problems. ABCs work for her, so she can take them and be within the moral teachings of the Church.

When a pharmacist, who seems to know what he is talking about, says that there are other options, that carries about the same weight as an MD. And when they speak about frequency of prescription of drugs, and likelihood of use (not that Luigi has, but if) then they tend to know what they are talking about.

With all due resepct FSC, pharmacists do not carry the same weight as an MD who examines and diagnosis a patient and prescribes treatment, otherwise we would be seeing them instead of our PCP. I completely understand your perspective though, given that you have had trouble with medications prescribed by your doctor and resolved by your pharmacist.

In the above post, I said that routinely other things are tried first. However, it is not a pharmacist’s place to try to intervene when a doctor has prescribed a medication or treatment for a patient. It is beyond the scope of their practice to do so.

But, while you may go to your phramacist if you like, I would not be going to a pharmacist for my healthcare. That’s why I have doctors and nurse practitioners.

I know that some of the more traditional and conservative catholics have a big problem with ABCs being used for medical reasons, however, the Church does not. This has been asked of the apologists on CAF and they say the same. All the priests I have asked have said the same. Humanae Vitae is pretty specific as well.

 

[estesbob]

I think with the boycott pharmacy’s that fill ABC prescriptions trun this thread has taken I believe it is time we start discussing scupulosity.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I haven’t had a problem with my medications so I can’t relate to your doctor and his lack of knowledge of medications he prescribed for you.

New medications are constantly coming on the market. There is no way that any doctor can keep up with them, since they also need to keep up with medical journals, diagnosing symptoms, etc. Pharmacists have this as their sole requirement making them much more of an expert in the medicinal (only medicinal) field.

ABCs ARE allowed by the Catholic Church for medical reasons, and that’s a fact.

True

I am in favor of ABCs for medical reasons, especially when no other treatments can work for that person.

these would be very rare occasions. Rare enough that ABC’s could be kept OUT of almost all pharmacies without ever having an issue.

So…I am NOT against ABCs for medical reasons and I don’t have to be to be within the teachings of the Church. If one is not taking ABCs for medical reasons, and are taking them for contraception, I believe they are playing russian roulette because of the side effects. However, the forbidding of ABCs is a Catholic Church teaching and yes FSC, it’s not for me to tell a non-catholic that they shouldn’t be on ABCs because the Catholic Church says so. Other denominations allow it.

ABC’s are inherently sinful when used for any reason other than to save the life of a woman. It is not “because the Catholic Church says so”, it is because Natural law dictates this.

When I talk to women about ABCs I stick with the health risks and recommend NFP instead. The example I used in my reply above is a friend of mine with endometriosis who had multiple surgeries and medications before finally going on ABCs which resolved her problem. She went above and beyond to avoid ABCs. No pharmacist is qualified to tell her that something else would work. She spent years working with doctors trying to resolve her problems. ABCs work for her, so she can take them and be within the moral teachings of the Church.

This is one of the very rare circumstances I spoke of above.

With all due resepct FSC, pharmacists do not carry the same weight as an MD who examines and diagnosis a patient and prescribes treatment, otherwise we would be seeing them instead of our PCP. I completely understand your perspective though, given that you have had trouble with medications prescribed by your doctor and resolved by your pharmacist.

See above. Doctors are very pressed for time as it is. Most cannot keep up with new drugs, indications for use of these drugs, and contraindications. Forget about drug interactions, since that is another thing they can almost never predict with the prevalence of multiple doctors in our society (a good thing, but something that can lead to complications).

In the above post, I said that routinely other things are tried first. However, it is not a pharmacist’s place to try to intervene when a doctor has prescribed a medication or treatment for a patient. It is beyond the scope of their practice to do so.

What you said was

No, it doesn’t.

when luigi said that other solutions need to be tried first. This does not correlate to your above statement. And it absolutely is a pharmacists place to find out WHY some things are prescribed, see the comment about lethal doses of a drug above. It is their moral obligation to ensure they do not end a life, just as it is all of ours. If someone told your wife (mother/sister/brother etc) that eating a bullet would cure their brain cancer, would you not tell them that is a horrible plan and attempt to prevent it? Granted, this is an extreme example, but the point of the statement stands.

But, while you may go to your phramacist if you like, I would not be going to a pharmacist for my healthcare. That’s why I have doctors and nurse practitioners.

I do not go to a pharmacist for healthcare, I trust a pharmacist to prevent mis-treatment of symptoms. If you are given cosmegen by your doctor to treat acne, would you know what it was for? Would you take it? A pharmacist could easily figure out that it was the wrong treatment and not give it to you. THAT is the point here.

I know that some of the more traditional and conservative catholics have a big problem with ABCs being used for medical reasons, however, the Church does not. This has been asked of the apologists on CAF and they say the same. All the priests I have asked have said the same. Humanae Vitae is pretty specific as well.

I have no problems with ABC’s for medicinal reasons, but those are VERY rare cases (percentage of prescriptions-wise). Perhaps the solution to this would be for all ABC prescriptions to require that they be hand delivered by the patient (not faxed or some-such) and for the pharmacists to call the docs to find out WHY they were being prescribed. Then everyone can be happy.

FSC

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I think with the boycott pharmacy’s that fill ABC prescriptions trun this thread has taken I believe it is time we start discussing scupulosity.

Perhaps. I, personally, would not boycott a pharmacy for that reason. Morning after pills, probably, but ABC, no.

I also believe that all pharmacists should be able to say no when asked to dispense morning after pills or ABC pills. We all have a conscience and should not be forced to do anything counter to it (assuming it is well formed).

FSC

 

[Rence]

What you said was when luigi said that other solutions need to be tried first. This does not correlate to your above statement.

Let me clarify: I do not believe that the Church requires one to try other methods before taking ABCs to treat medical conditions. You have to use your conscience and common sense. If I were my friend (the one with endometriosis) I would NOT have tried so many surgeries, and I am not required to do so. When I started getting cysts on my ovaries, my doctor said I could wait and watch, or go on birth control, or wait and if they don’t go away to go on birth control. I chose to wait and see (and they went away on their own), however, I am not required to try other things if they are unreasonable, expensive or cause other hardship. Generally, typically, other things are tried before birth control. They don’t have to be. If you’re using them for medical reasons, the Church allows it.

Your pharmacist does not need to know why medications are being prescribed or for what your doctor is treating you if you do not wish to discuss it with them. I hardly ever discuss my medications with a pharmacist at all. They provide information sheets anyway. When a pharmacists asks me why I am taking a medication, I tell him that this was prescribed by my doctor. If they press it, I tell them to butt out and fill the prescription.

Believe it or not, doctors are responsble for the medications they prescribe. They have Physician Desk References and Drug References at their disposal, and mine have used them in my presence. A physician cannot pass the buck and rely on a pharmacist to catch his or her errors. If your pharmacist would not have caught your physician’s error, the liability would have been with your doctor.

 

[Rence]

Perhaps. I, personally, would not boycott a pharmacy for that reason. Morning after pills, probably, but ABC, no.

I also believe that all pharmacists should be able to say no when asked to dispense morning after pills or ABC pills. We all have a conscience and should not be forced to do anything counter to it (assuming it is well formed).

FSC

I agree with you here FSC Unless it’s an emergency and a patient’s life is at risk, there is no reason for anyone to go against their conscience. Pharamcists would not be put in this position though, for that they should be grateful. I don’t like it when pharmacists take it up on themselves to interfere when a doctor is treating a patient, but it’s their perogative to not give the medication if they’re that scrupulous. However, it’s my perogative to go elsewhere and take all my business with me in return. I won’t allow a pharmacist to dictate my healthcare decisions. But that’s just me

 

[revert_jen]

Perhaps. I, personally, would not boycott a pharmacy for that reason. Morning after pills, probably, but ABC, no.

I also believe that all pharmacists should be able to say no when asked to dispense morning after pills or ABC pills. We all have a conscience and should not be forced to do anything counter to it (assuming it is well formed).

Amen.

I would like to boycott a pharmacy because of what they dispense, but a) I don’t know how you find out–do you just go up and say, “Hey, do you guys dispense the morning after pill?” and b) currently, the only time I get anything from a pharmacy is when I’m sick, and I’m not driving 15 miles each way to get to the pro-life pharmacy I know of, when I am sick. Someday, when I have a prescription for some sort of maintenance drug, I’ll get it filled through them. But I’m not as reliable a driver when I am sick, so it’s probably best if I just go to the one 1 mile away.

But absolutely the pharmacist should have the choice. And definitely I would prefer to go to a pharmacy that didn’t dispense MAPs or ABCs for whatever reason. There are plenty of places that do, so it’s not like they’re actually restricting access for anyone. But that’s just me.

–Jen