Was this a sin? Please let me know! :(

[Texas_Roofer]

Formal Cooperation.
Formal cooperation occurs when a person or organization freely participates in the action(s) of a principal agent, or shares in the agent’s intention, either for its own sake or as a means to some other goal. Implicit formal cooperation occurs when, even though the cooperator denies intending the object of the principal agent, the cooperating person or organization participates in the action directly and in such a way that the it could not be done without this participation. Formal cooperation in intrinsically evil actions, either explicitly or implicitly, is morally illicit.

Immediate Material Cooperation.
Immediate material cooperation occurs when the cooperator participates in circumstances that are essential to the commission of an act, such that the act could not occur without this participation. Immediate material cooperation in intrinsically evil actions is morally illicit. There has been in the tradition a debate about the permissibility of immediate cooperation in immoral acts under “duress.” When individuals are forced under duress (e.g., at gunpoint) to cooperate in the intrinsically evil action of another, they act with diminished freedom. Following Church teaching, the matter of their action remains objectively evil, but they do not intend this object with true freedom. In such cases, the matter remains objectively evil as such, but the subjective culpability of the cooperator is diminished. Very recently, the Vatican has rejected the arguments of those who would apply this concept of duress to Catholic organizations as a way to justify their immediate material involvement in certain objectionable actions.

Mediate Material Cooperation.
Mediate material cooperation occurs when the cooperator participates in circumstances that are not essential to the commission of an action, such that the action could occur even without this cooperation. Mediate material cooperation in an immoral act might be justifiable under three basic conditions:
If there is a proportionately serious reason for the cooperation (i.e., for the sake of protecting an important good or for avoiding a worse harm); the graver the evil the more serious a reason required for the cooperation;
The importance of the reason for cooperation must be proportionate to the causal proximity of the cooperator’s action to the action of the principal agent (the distinction between proximate and remote);
The danger of scandal (i.e., leading others into doing evil, leading others into error, or spreading confusion) must be avoided.
ascensionhealth.org/ethic…ooperation.asp

Thanks again

Fix I could make an argument for placing the doctor’s action in each category of the above reference, as could others. It should be of no surprise I have made my decision. Neither the OP nor anyone else is bound by my decision. Similarly other posters simply do not agree. However neither I nor they control the medicine cabinet or the various medical procedures. The OP may someday assume that responsibility. I hope she and her peers discern their meaning of “Formal”, “Material”, and “neither condition” soon, long before a real patient, or medical procedure is involved.

 

[fix]

Thanks again

Fix I could make an argument for placing the doctor’s action in each category of the above reference, as could others. It should be of no surprise I have made my decision. Neither the OP nor anyone else is bound by my decision. Similarly other posters simply do not agree. However neither I nor they control the medicine cabinet or the various medical procedures. The OP may someday assume that responsibility. I hope she and her peers discern their meaning of “Formal”, “Material”, and “neither condition” soon, long before a real patient, or medical procedure is involved.

I think Mosher parsed the situation very well. Of course, none of us can know for certain the culpability, or lack of, for the OP.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Who asked is relevant as I am wondering if you mean a supervisor asked the attending physician, or do you mean the mother requested it? (Per your statement)

My main point is that a doctor refusing to perform abortions to prescribe artificial birth control can do so very validly for reasons other than moral ones.

Okay now I see your question, my answer is it is still irrelevant. The reason is because whether I advised it or performed it (fetus removal) via request, either condition (post #10) is an action I do. Thus I see it as formal. In the other case I see it as a action in which the OP’s doctor played no substantial part. As the patient made all important decisions and would typically achieve her objective via another doctor, other contraceptive, or post conception. The patient has to ask for the Rx, have it filled, and take the pill. Please do not underestimate the importance of the counseling which is not physical or medical, but moral and educational.

 

[mosher]

Okay now I see your question, my answer is it is still irrelevant. The reason is because whether I advised it or performed it (fetus removal) via request, either condition (post #10) is an action I do. Thus I see it as formal. In the other case I see it as a action in which the OP’s doctor played no substantial part. As the patient made all important decisions and would typically achieve her objective via another doctor, other contraceptive, or post conception. The patient has to ask for the Rx, have it filled, and take the pill. Please do not underestimate the importance of the counseling which is not physical or medical, but moral and educational.

However, the physician is an essential component in the consummation of the act and as such would have formal participation in the act. So, as an essential actor in the situation he is obligated to act in a moral way per his acts and responsibilities. What we have here are various acts being treated as a single act. This is not an acceptable way to treat a situation. In a situation each act must be looked at independently in light of the circumstance. From that point we can see clearly the obligation of each actor in the event.

 

[the_Green_Flash]

I appreciate your sesitivity in this area. If only more Catholics shared your uneasiness. I am not a priest or trained theologian, but my opinion is that your action was not a mortal sin because it seems to lack the element of deliberate consent of the will, since it happened so quickly. I think you should mention the incident at your next confession, but don’t worry about abstaining from Communion. I think you should follow your instinct next time and say you can’t cooperate in such a sin. You might even look for opportunities to charitably discuss the matter with this doctor in the light of the faith he claims to profess.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

However, the physician is an essential component in the consummation of the act and as such would have formal participation in the act. So, as an essential actor in the situation he is obligated to act in a moral way per his acts and responsibilities. What we have here are various acts being treated as a single act. This is not an acceptable way to treat a situation. In a situation each act must be looked at independently in light of the circumstance. From that point we can see clearly the obligation of each actor in the event.

Thanks fix & mosher

Obviously I do not agree or there would not be such posts. If the contraception (pill) were available with out a doctor’s prescription the issue would be moot for the doctor?!? !? But the doctor has willingly assumed the responsibility of the drug. Now the responsibility issue is front and center and no fun, no fun at all. Now the doctor is saying what ??

*The US Government erred to allow production of such?
The Pharmaceutical Company erred to produce such?
The Hospital erred to allow the stocking of this drug?
The Pharmacy will error in stocking such?
The Pharmacy will error in filling such a prescription?
The patient erred to request such a drug?
The patient will error to consume such? *

I stopped replying to mosher because several posts back it was clear mosher’s moral compass and mine point different directions on this thread. I respect mosher’s decision he argues as one who has completed his discernment on the issue. Is will be sad if mosher compass is overzealous, but personally tragic if his compass is correct

thanks guys, I enjoyed the thread and even learned a little

 

[mosher]

Thanks fix & mosher

Obviously I do not agree or there would not be such posts. If the contraception (pill) were available with out a doctor’s prescription the issue would be moot for the doctor?!? !? But the doctor has willingly assumed the responsibility of the drug. Now the responsibility issue is front and center and no fun, no fun at all. Now the doctor is saying what ??

*The US Government erred to allow production of such?
The Pharmaceutical Company erred to produce such?
The Hospital erred to allow the stocking of this drug?
The Pharmacy will error in stocking such?
The Pharmacy will error in filling such a prescription?
The patient erred to request such a drug?
The patient will error to consume such? *

I stopped replying to mosher because several posts back it was clear mosher’s moral compass and mine point different directions on this thread. I respect mosher’s decision he argues as one who has completed his discernment on the issue. Is will be sad if mosher compass is overzealous, but personally tragic if his compass is correct

thanks guys, I enjoyed the thread and even learned a little

And here we find the flaw in your logic. It seems that you are placing a emphasis on the issue of discernment. But I am not sure if you completely understand what this means. Discernment is a listening to the subjective to try to identify the objective. On the contrary morality cannot be a matter of discernment but rather and issue of objective identification. Things are either right or wrong (technically there are such things as neutral acts but as St. Thomas says on that issue in the concrete such neutral acts do not really exist). When one is attempting to determine the moral quality of an act it is necessary to identify the universal and then move to the particular as opposed to going from particular to universal (which is a logical fallacy). Therefore the universal must be upheld before any subjective determination can be given to the act itself.

This treatment has nothing to do with zeal or a moral compass per se, but rather it has to do with the process for determining the moral quality of an act.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

And here we find the flaw in your logic. It seems that you are placing a emphasis on the issue of discernment. But I am not sure if you completely understand what this means. Discernment is a listening to the subjective to try to identify the objective. On the contrary morality cannot be a matter of discernment but rather and issue of objective identification. Things are either right or wrong (technically there are such things as neutral acts but as St. Thomas says on that issue in the concrete such neutral acts do not really exist). When one is attempting to determine the moral quality of an act it is necessary to identify the universal and then move to the particular as opposed to going from particular to universal (which is a logical fallacy). Therefore the universal must be upheld before any subjective determination can be given to the act itself.

This treatment has nothing to do with zeal or a moral compass per se, but rather it has to do with the process for determining the moral quality of an act.

Thanks, but I clearly see we can never agree. I see your post as equal to:

• In the general to specific model the parties guilty of sin are all parties except those which exhausted ever reasonable opportunity and resource to fight the government, Pharmaceutical Companies, transportation companies (boycotts), Hospitals, Pharmacies, Medical Schools, Doctors, Nurses, Patients, and Voters. All these people erred and created the sin condition which we now debate. Had these people not erred the sin condition could not be created their actions and inactions were necessary to create the current condition. Their sin of omission and commission were to blame in allowing such issues in our society. *

See I clearly disagree; the elimination of sin is the elimination of freewill. This is not in God’s current plan. If this was an objective Jesus would have conquered the Roman’s. Jesus allowed the Roman’s to sin against him. Discernment is simply the planning, learning, and formation of the best selection for ones self. If right is clearly known, discernment is to choose right or not. If right or wrong is no clear discernment is the predecessor to freewill.

I do respect your position, and hopefully have stated my position clearly. I’ll be off line for some time after this post. Thanks for your help (all of you) on this issue

 

[mosher]

Thanks, but I clearly see we can never agree. I see your post as equal to:

• In the general to specific model the parties guilty of sin are all parties except those which exhausted ever reasonable opportunity and resource to fight the government, Pharmaceutical Companies, transportation companies (boycotts), Hospitals, Pharmacies, Medical Schools, Doctors, Nurses, Patients, and Voters. All these people erred and created the sin condition which we now debate. Had these people not erred the sin condition could not be created their actions and inactions were necessary to create the current condition. Their sin of omission and commission were to blame in allowing such issues in our society. *

See I clearly disagree; the elimination of sin is the elimination of freewill. This is not in God’s current plan. If this was an objective Jesus would have conquered the Roman’s. Jesus allowed the Roman’s to sin against him. Discernment is simply the planning, learning, and formation of the best selection for ones self. If right is clearly known, discernment is to choose right or not. If right or wrong is no clear discernment is the predecessor to freewill.

I do respect your position, and hopefully have stated my position clearly. I’ll be off line for some time after this post. Thanks for your help (all of you) on this issue

How on God’s green earth did you get that? My comment does not even lend to that understanding. I am speaking about a particular situation with particular actors with particular moral actions taking place over a particular decision in which multiple actors participate. This has nothing to do with any of that other stuff that you inserted. I am speaking about universal principles and not causes.

Also, your idea of freedom is a bit ill-formed. Freedom properly defined is not the ability to choose good or evil but rather is the ability to choose the good. The ability to choose good or evil equally is called license. For this reason even when one is before the Beatific Vision their freewill is not damaged but he cannot choose evil.

 

[fix]

How on God’s green earth did you get that? My comment does not even lend to that understanding. I am speaking about a particular situation with particular actors with particular moral actions taking place over a particular decision in which multiple actors participate. This has nothing to do with any of that other stuff that you inserted. I am speaking about universal principles and not causes.

Also, your idea of freedom is a bit ill-formed. Freedom properly defined is not the ability to choose good or evil but rather is the ability to choose the good. The ability to choose good or evil equally is called license. For this reason even when one is before the Beatific Vision their freewill is not damaged but he cannot choose evil.

I think you have hit the genesis of the problem right here. Freedom, authentic freedom, must be properly defined. There is no freedom to choose evil. We may have the power to choose evil, but we are not free to do so.

This understanding is what gets muddled most often.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Sorry to hear part of me is “ill-formed” I hope the post is not calling me “licentious”? that would also hurt. I hope I do not understand the post.

May be if you listed the sins related to this specific OP’ scenario of the following parties
Government (allowing the drug)
Pharmaceutical Companies (making the drug)
Transportation companies (moving/handing the drug)
Hospitals (stocking the drug, training the doctors who prescribe it)
Pharmacies (stocking, and filling prescriptions of the drug)
Medical Schools ,( training the doctors to prescribe it)
Doctors(prescribing the drug)
Nurses (handling the drug)
Patients(requesting the drug)
Voters (allowing the drug)

As you have listed the sin of the doctor ( remote mediate material cooperation Post #60 ) I could understand you better? Surely the UPS guy who does not know what is in the box is not equal in guilt to the research doctor who developed the drug? (but the drug can not walk) And at the factory do the workers all know?, how about the raw material suppliers to that factory? And their workers?

 

[jmcrae]

Texas;

The use of the birth control pill is immoral at at least a couple of different levels.

First, it is a sin against the fifth commandment, which teaches us not to harm others or ourselves, or by our inaction, permit others to be harmed.

The birth control pill harms a woman’s body by removing her God-given fertility, and attacking the essence of her womanhood and femininity, changing her role in society from that of potential wife and mother, into a sex object that may be made use of either within or outside of the bonds of matrimony without the ordinary consequences of sex. That she consents to this is beside the point: women were not created by God to be sex objects, but rather, (in general) to be wives and mothers. Of course, each woman is also an individual, and each woman is gifted with specific talents that she is also called upon by God to make use of; the call to marriage and motherhood does not negate other calls that God may be making to individual women, and some women, being called to vocations of celibacy, exercise their matrimony and motherhood in spiritual rather than literal ways. But the call to marriage and motherhood is innate to the female human being; to remove a woman’s fertility is to damage her at the most fundamental level of her identity.

There is also the issue of whether the pill harms an unborn child - the hormones used in many pills have an abortifacient effect, and there is the real possibility that a sexually active woman using these pills may be unknowingly killing her own unborn children, before she is even aware that she was pregnant.

Second, it is a sin against the sixth commandment because it distorts the meaning of marriage, turning the marriage license into a license for exclusive rights to sex, rather that the call to establish a family.

Because of these things, the creation, marketing, delivery, and prescription of the birth control pill are all elements of an attack on the fundamental building blocks of Christian society: motherhood and the family. Everyone engaged in the creation and distribution of it, therefore, is a party to this sin.

 

[HailMary]

Hi, I am concerned that I may have been apart of a sin…

I am a college student and I shadow a Physician to learn more about the medical field. The doctor I shadow is Catholic, but sadly he still prescribes his patients birth control. I always feel really weird while he is discussing birth control with patients and feel like I am doing wrong by even listing. But on Monday he handed me a birth control prescription to hand to the patient, and I did. I immediately regretted having any part in this, even if I did just hand the piece of paper to the person that the doctor could have handed it to if he only took a few more steps. I just don’t know if I have participated in a mortal sin. I really do not want to ever be a part in giving people birth control. I should have just told the Doctor I don’t feel comfortable doing that, but I guess I was weak, because I feel like it is a privilege for me to shadow him and I didn’t want to be a hindrance. Please give me your advice; do you think I should go to confession before I receive Communion?

Thanks

As a Catholic, I believe that your actions can be mortal if you have fulfulled the three requities. Go to confession regardless.

 

[fix]

Yes, that is what it sounds like. As I said earlier it does not seem that it is a matter for the confessional but it was a missed opportunity to practice virtue.

Can you explain the relationship between mortal sin and cooperation with evil? Specifically it seems formal cooperation is always mortal? And material cooperation may be mortal, venial, or none at all?

What I am getting at is which part of the three criteria needed for a sin to be mortal is met or not met within the framework of cooperating with evil?

Is it that full consent is lacking? It seems in this OP case the student may lack full consent to the act?

 

[mosher]

Sorry to hear part of me is “ill-formed” I hope the post is not calling me “licentious”? that would also hurt. I hope I do not understand the post.

May be if you listed the sins related to this specific OP’ scenario of the following parties
Government (allowing the drug)
Pharmaceutical Companies (making the drug)
Transportation companies (moving/handing the drug)
Hospitals (stocking the drug, training the doctors who prescribe it)
Pharmacies (stocking, and filling prescriptions of the drug)
Medical Schools ,( training the doctors to prescribe it)
Doctors(prescribing the drug)
Nurses (handling the drug)
Patients(requesting the drug)
Voters (allowing the drug)

As you have listed the sin of the doctor ( remote mediate material cooperation Post #60 ) I could understand you better? Surely the UPS guy who does not know what is in the box is not equal in guilt to the research doctor who developed the drug? (but the drug can not walk) And at the factory do the workers all know?, how about the raw material suppliers to that factory? And their workers?

This is not an insult but is english your first language? I want to know so that I can change the way I an discussing this if I need to because it doesn’t seem like you understood anything that I just said. But if it is just a matter of formal language opposed to popular language then we can work on that.

But to your post. In the situation decribed in this thread none of those groups and institutions matter because they are too remote. While all have their own culpability in their own area they do not factor into the situation given.

Can you explain the relationship between mortal sin and cooperation with evil? Specifically it seems formal cooperation is always mortal? And material cooperation may be mortal, venial, or none at all?

What I am getting at is which part of the three criteria needed for a sin to be mortal is met or not met within the framework of cooperating with evil?

Is it that full consent is lacking? It seems in this OP case the student may lack full consent to the act?

When it comes to participation as being a sin for an individual the higher the participation the higher the gravity of the sin of the individual cooperator. The level of gravity is what can make a sin venial or mortal in the objective. So it is the same with cooperation.

In the case of the OP her participation was not grave in that it could have easily been done without her so that causes her participation to be remote material participation. I would also say that she had the added mitigation because of the effects of the principle of agency in her being the agent of the actor (efficient cause (the doctor) ). Also, without knowing the policies of the hospital or operating laws of the area it is possible in some situations she would also have the further limiting of her freewill in that some laws would require her to fulfill this duty given to her by the doctor under the penalty strict sanctions.

However, on the flip side we have an obligation to not follow unjust laws/acts/directives/etc. So, this is is why I said that in her case it was not a mortal sin but at the same time it was a missed opportunity for virtue.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…But to your post. In the situation decribed in this thread none of those groups and institutions matter because they are too remote. While all have their own culpability in their own area they do not factor into the situation given.

Frankly this sounds like political speak. The person who developed the drug and the company which marketed it was too remote? Similarly the action of contraception can not occur with out this doctor?

When it comes to participation as being a sin for an individual the higher the participation the higher the gravity of the sin of the individual cooperator. The level of gravity is what can make a sin venial or mortal in the objective. So it is the same with cooperation.

Seem to clash with the earlier statements

In the case of the OP her participation was not grave in that it could have easily been done without her so that causes her participation to be remote material participation. I would also say that she had the added mitigation because of the effects of the principle of agency in her being the agent of the actor (efficient cause (the doctor) ). Also, without knowing the policies of the hospital or operating laws of the area it is possible in some situations she would also have the further limiting of her freewill in that some laws would require her to fulfill this duty given to her by the doctor under the penalty strict sanctions.

Exactly what limited her freewill? Why do you see the doctor as some high horse authoritarian? Maybe the doctor has “added mitigation” because he agreed to be a doctor, not the moral judge of patients? Am I the only one to understand the patient is not in the office for moral judgment.

However, on the flip side we have an obligation to not follow unjust laws/acts/directives/etc…

Exactly, so back to the earlier posts who in the deliver chain are you judging as sinners and at what level of sin?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Texas;

The use of the birth control pill is immoral at at least a couple of different levels.

First, it is a sin against the fifth commandment, which teaches us not to harm others or ourselves, or by our inaction, permit others to be harmed.

The birth control pill harms a woman’s body by removing her God-given fertility, and attacking the essence of her womanhood and femininity, changing her role in society from that of potential wife and mother, into a sex object that may be made use of either within or outside of the bonds of matrimony without the ordinary consequences of sex. That she consents to this is beside the point: women were not created by God to be sex objects, but rather, (in general) to be wives and mothers. Of course, each woman is also an individual, and each woman is gifted with specific talents that she is also called upon by God to make use of; the call to marriage and motherhood does not negate other calls that God may be making to individual women, and some women, being called to vocations of celibacy, exercise their matrimony and motherhood in spiritual rather than literal ways. But the call to marriage and motherhood is innate to the female human being; to remove a woman’s fertility is to damage her at the most fundamental level of her identity.

There is also the issue of whether the pill harms an unborn child - the hormones used in many pills have an abortifacient effect, and there is the real possibility that a sexually active woman using these pills may be unknowingly killing her own unborn children, before she is even aware that she was pregnant.

Second, it is a sin against the sixth commandment because it distorts the meaning of marriage, turning the marriage license into a license for exclusive rights to sex, rather that the call to establish a family.

Because of these things, the creation, marketing, delivery, and prescription of the birth control pill are all elements of an attack on the fundamental building blocks of Christian society: motherhood and the family. Everyone engaged in the creation and distribution of it, therefore, is a party to this sin.

Thanks jmcrae
I do not see “birth control pills” as the real issue of this thread. I am not disagreeing with the church on the birth control pill issue. The issue is the individual’s responsibility verses the concept of blaming, or more specifically transferring responsibility to others. In the post you mention delivery, yet the issue of actual delivery, as occurred at the doctor, pharmacist, and student level was not separated from the UPS diver carrying boxes. Do you see a difference in such?

 

[mosher]

Honestly I am not sure if I can be any clearer without actually giving you a class on how to do ethics. But I will try because I think it is important for all of us to understand how a situation is judged.

Frankly this sounds like political speak.

I don’t know what this means.

The person who developed the drug and the company which marketed it was too remote? Similarly the action of contraception can not occur with out this doctor?

Yes, while it is true that the situation does not even exist without the Researcher that developed the drug it is not directly germaine to the situation because the situation happens int he context of a world where contraceptives already exist and thus we don’t have to deal with the culpability of the producer, supplier and creator of an immoral treatment as it is already assumed that their culpability is high but they are not specifically treated in the situation because the situation does not involve the direct action of the producer of the treatment.

While it is true that the patient could have used another doctor and technically the specific doctor was not necessary the fact remains that this doctor acted in his role as a doctor to provide access to an immoral treatment and as such has formal cooperation in the sin.

Seem to clash with the earlier statements

The two statements that you cite are perfectly in sync. They both follow the exact same moral principles following the exact same reasoning and result in the exact same end.

Exactly what limited her freewill? Why do you see the doctor as some high horse authoritarian? Maybe the doctor has “added mitigation” because he agreed to be a doctor, not the moral judge of patients?

Because the principle of agency causes this situation by its very nature. All subordinates have a certain level of their freewill diminished by the very fact that they are subordinate to a superior. This is why it is unethical for a professor to have an intimate relationship with a student as it violates the principle of agency and roles of authority.

Also, on the issue of mitigation of the doctor it can only be seen if the doctor is in some way compelled to use his authority as a doctor against his will. In most instances a doctor is free in the ability to exercise his authority. An exception to this would be policy at a hospital or law of the land which could compel him to provide an unethical treatment when it is requested. Also, it is not that he is a doctor or an ethical judge, rather all persons by virtue of their personhood are obliged to be moral judges.

Am I the only one to understand the patient is not in the office for moral judgment.

Correct but that is the result of being human since we know from what is called Moral Theology that “we are our brothers’ keeper.” Thus no matter the circumstance all persons are subject to moral judgment at all times.

Exactly, so back to the earlier posts who in the deliver chain are you judging as sinners and at what level of sin?

All of them but in decreasing levels based on their level of adherence as I have already discussed in multiple posts.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thanks mosher
I think we should not continue because I under stand your post and simply do not agree with it. Rather than pick it apart and offend you, what is the use?

See if the UPS Driver does not know the drug is in the box the driver is not committing sin. See it is not the chemical, nor the physical delivery of the drug which creates a sin condition. The intent is critical; no one has yet shown intent on the doctor’s behalf. Just as one could say the doctor intentionally delivered the prescription (paper or drug) the UPS driver intentionally delivered the package. The doctor had more knowledge than the UPS driver in regard to the drug, but the doctor had no control over whether the drug would ever be consumed. The significance of the doctor having no control of the consumption of pills is significant and should not be so easily dismissed. Similarly the student is actually under less duress than the doctor, it is the doctor who is held to professional standards not the student.

 

[fix]

Thanks mosher
I think we should not continue because I under stand your post and simply do not agree with it. Rather than pick it apart and offend you, what is the use?

See if the UPS Driver does not know the drug is in the box the driver is not committing sin. See it is not the chemical, nor the physical delivery of the drug which creates a sin condition. The intent is critical; no one has yet shown intent on the doctor’s behalf. Just as one could say the doctor intentionally delivered the prescription (paper or drug) the UPS driver intentionally delivered the package. The doctor had more knowledge than the UPS driver in regard to the drug, but the doctor had no control over whether the drug would ever be consumed. The significance of the doctor having no control of the consumption of pills is significant and should not be so easily dismissed. Similarly the student is actually under less duress than the doctor, it is the doctor who is held to professional standards not the student.

How could a physician writing a Rx for a drug that is agreed to be used in a contraceptive act not be considered to be participating in a significant way with the act?

If I provide the security code for an alarm system for a bank for a man who asks me for it because he wants to rob it am I not helping the man commit the act?