Two articles from Planned Parenthood

The first one is some good news about the situation with pharmacists refusing to dispense with female contraception and all that stupidity. The American Medical Association has decided to challenge these pharmacist refusal clauses, that allows pharmacists to turn away women trying to have their contraception prescriptions refilled. Then these pharmacists go on the merry little way to refill Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra prescriptions without any “moral objections.”

The AMA Takes on Pharmacist Refusals

The American Medical Association (AMA) is standing up for women’s health and against pharmacist refusals. Monday, during its annual meeting, the AMA resolved to use its influence as the largest physicians’ group in the United States to press pharmacies to fill legal and valid prescriptions.

The AMA made the resolution in response to growing concerns that pharmacies are blocking women’s access to vital health care such as emergency contraception and other birth control methods. “Our position is on behalf of the patient,” Dr. Peter Carmel, an AMA board member, told The Chicago Tribune. “The AMA strongly believes patients have to have access to their medications.”

Could this be true? A large medical organization giving two shits about caring for women’s reproductive rights? It’s about time that such an organization take on this hysteria within pharmacies, that either possess a bias against women having control over their reproductive destinies, or would rather let their employees enjoy imposing their ideological views on women by not refilling their contraceptive prescriptions, then make a profit. Hopefully the A.M.A. has enough influence to encourage certain pharmacies to make some very important policy changes.

The second one is about sex between Lesbian couples and sexually active Bisexual women, and the importance of learning about STIs, getting tested, and being honest with your partner. There are a lot of myths out there about woman-woman sexual intimacy (mostly because some believe that “it isn’t really sex” so you can’t get any STIs from it–which is not true), some of which can lead to women being infected with very dangerous STIs, unless they inform themselves with the facts.

Who, Me?: STIs and Women Who Have Sex with Women

In general, lesbian and bisexual women have the same health needs as all women. But certain assumptions about sexually transmitted infections (STIs) … namely, who is at risk and why … may mean that women who have sex with women are not getting the best health care possible.

In fact, research has shown that women who have sex with women often underestimate their risk for sexually transmitted infections and so are less likely to practice safer sex or get tested for infections than heterosexual women. A recent study from the University of Washington found that lesbian and bisexual women are not familiar with the infections that most commonly affect them. Dr. Jeanne M. Marrazzo, lead author of the study and a top expert on STIs, says her findings disprove a common myth … that women who have sex with women are not at risk for STIs.

Just the Facts

It is true that women who exclusively have sex with women have a relatively lower risk for certain infections such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, or HIV. Other infections, however, are quite common, including

bacterial vaginosis (BV)

hepatitis

herpes

human papilloma virus (HPV)

trichomoniasis.(“trich”)

Statistics Are Scarce

[…] Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledges that women can pass infections such as HPV or herpes to one another through sex play, the organization keeps no statistics on infection rates among women who have sex with women.

This is compounded by the fact that women who exclusively have sex with women rarely get tested.[…]

Making Assumptions

[…]Some women also say that health care providers do not understand their needs as lesbian or bisexual women. Anne, 30, from Chicago, describes her doctor’s reaction to her disclosure that she was a having sex with a woman as “no penis, no problem.”

That assumption can be dangerous. Santa Cruz, CA, gynecologist Nancy Thorner runs a practice that includes more than 100 client women who have sex with women. Among them, Thorner says, HPV is probably the most common infection … including some strains of HPV that are associated with cervical cancer.[…]

Removing Barriers

To better serve her lesbian and bisexual clients, Thorner created an intake form that takes into account sexual identity but focuses more on sexual practices that might put a woman at risk for infection. Other lesbian- and bi-friendly health care providers are doing the same.

Gynecologists’ questions must be complex and detailed, says Amari Pearson-Fields, deputy director and research director for the Mautner Project, a national lesbian health organization.

The Mautner Project runs “Removing the Barriers: Providing Culturally Competent Care to Lesbians and Women Who Partner with Women,” a training workshop for health care providers that teaches them how to talk to lesbians about safer sex.[…]

The Next Level

Educating providers is just one step in the right direction. Dr. Marrazzo, who in addition to her work at the University of Washington runs the Web site LesbianSTD.com, recommends public information campaigns aimed at women who have sex with women which deal directly with infection. The messages, she believes, should advocate personal responsibility, care for a partner’s well-being, and healthy sexuality.

“My fantasy is that we will have an L Word episode that deals with HPV and cervical cancer,” Marrazzo said of the popular Showtime drama centered on a group of lesbians. “That’s one of the few venues we have that a lot of women watch and where they would be receptive to hearing it.”

Well since a lot of people get some of their knowledge from television–sure why not. Since the L Word is a show centuring around the lives of Lesbian women perhaps it would emphasize the importance of Lesbians and even Bisexual women taking steps to inform themselves about STIs and lowering their risk of contracting them while being intimate with their partner(s). And getting tested and being honest with your partner is also very important.

This entry posted in Anti-Contraceptives/EC zaniness, Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues. Bookmark the permalink. 

34 Responses to Two articles from Planned Parenthood

  1. 1
    paul says:

    For the AMA, the pharmacists’ refusal isn’t just about the right of women to get contraceptives but also about the power of doctors to have their prescriptions filled without interference. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them aren’t thinking about a day — if this pharisaic nonsense continues — when some pharmacists feel empowered to second-guess whether patients need or deserve to get any number of drugs. The AMA’s courage in taking a stance is welcome regardless, of course.

  2. Pingback: The Disenchanted Forest

  3. 2
    tekanji says:

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it doesn’t look like women’s right to their pills was the AMA’s main concern (emphasis mine):

    The new AMA policy is an attempt to overcome what doctors say is a stampede of pharamacists who say they cannot in good conscience dispense certain medications. The issue of conscientious refusal was first raised when some pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions for the emergency contraception pill, called Plan B. Additionally some pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions for birth control pills.

    But AMA delegates say the conscience-based refusals have now spread to psychotropic drugs and pain medications.

    “It’s not just contraceptives,” said Mary Frank, M.D., a family physician from Mill Valley, Calif., during a discussion of the issue. “It’s pain medications and psychotropics. And not only are the patients not getting prescriptions filled, but pharmacists are refusing to return the prescriptions and they are lecturing the patients about the drugs.”

    Several physicians testified that conscientious objection first became an issue with contraceptive prescriptions, especially prescriptions for emergency contraception; the so-called morning after pill called Plan B. But now, they said, the phenomenon has now expanded well beyond contraceptives.

    So, yeah, in one sense a victory is a victory, but I would be wary to applaud the AMA for doing this over women’s issues. The ship that would have made a stand for our access to contraception sailed a long time ago, and that the kerfluffle comes now, when it’s not just a “women’s issue” anymore, says to me that it’s not about contraception, or Plan B, or protecting women’s rights.

  4. 3
    Robert says:

    This would seem to raise additional questions. Why are pharmacists objecting to these drugs?

  5. 4
    Q Grrl says:

    “Why are pharmacists objecting to these drugs? ”

    Because they can… ?

  6. 5
    Jenny K says:

    I’m not surprised that the AMA is taking this on because they feel that pharmacists are overstepping their rights and onto doctors responsibilities rather than because they are concerned for women’s health in particular. That was actually one of my first thoughts when I started hearing about all this; I never understood why what some pharmacists were doing wasn’t being thought of as second guessing doctors, and therefore treating dangerously close to practising without a license, from the get go.

    It bothers me though, that the AMA only started caring about it when the practice spread to medicines that are unrelated to women’s reproductive health. It actually suggests quite the opposite of what their stance against “consience-clause” pharmacists sounds like, that, just like the pharmacists they are worried about, they consider women’s health and reproductive autonomy to be of minimal importance at best.

  7. 6
    Jenny K says:

    that was, of course, supposed to be “treading” not “treating”

  8. 7
    NancyP says:

    Pharmacists may refuse to fill pain meds and certain psychotropics if they think the prescription is falsified or otherwise invalid, or if the patient has clearly obtained more pain meds from that pharmacy than usable by a typical patient. That’s why pharmacists may hang onto certain prescriptions until the doctor is called to confirm (and I imagine a few pharmacists may refuse to fill prescriptions issued by certain local doctors with reputations as drug-pushers, or refuse to fill narcotic prescriptions from out of town doctors until an actual phone contact is made. There is a LOT of fraud. If you are lax about handling scheduled drugs (mostly narcotics), you can lose your license in either medicine or pharmacy.

    I can’t say that I have heard of pharmacists refusing to fill anti-depressant prescriptions or other non-scheduled psychotropic meds.

  9. 8
    Robert says:

    Thanks for the info, Nancy.

    Strikes me that there is an interesting discussion to be had about the proper role of the pharmacist in the medical system. “To shut up and fill my prescription for EC” is certainly a legitimate point of view, but one which calls the need for an independent pharmacy into question. Why not just let the doctor hand out the pills, in that case?

  10. 9
    Jenny K says:

    just to clarify:

    Nancy, obviously what you describe is part of a pharmacist’s job, and part of the reason why they are licensed. Deciding to simply refuse to dispense certain medications altogether is not their job, however. That’s the FDA and doctors’ responsibility.

    While there may be cases that are not so clear cut, that’s what activism and civil disobedience are for; but many people forget that the point of civil disobedience is to highlight bad laws or customs, not make it ok to pick and choose which ones to ignore. Civil disobedience works by making people sympathetic to the fact that the activist is being prosecuted for something they shouldn’t be, thus causing society to change laws or behaviour. Creating laws that shield people from normal consequences or legal prosecution when they engage in a particular act in civil disobedience, as opposed to changing the original laws or protecting non-violent protests as a general rule, side steps the issue and tends to give people who believe a certain way more freedom that those who don’t.

    A law that allows pharmacists to pick and choose which medicines to dispense, while denying pharmacies the same right with regard to hiring pharmacists, is a bad law because it allows the beliefs of one group of people to trump everyone else’s.

  11. 10
    Lee says:

    I think the AMA started talking about this issue about 2 or 3 years ago, when there was a kerfuffle about HMOs dictating which drugs the pharmacies could use to fill prescriptions. Patients were getting related drugs instead of the exact ones in the prescriptions, which led to a number of deaths and lawsuits. Contraceptives, blood pressure medications, and a couple of other categories of pharmaceuticals were consistently being substituted at the orders of the insurance companies. The complete refusal of pharmacists to fill certain perscriptions was a sidebar at the time, but now that they’ve gotten the insurance companies out of the loop, the AMA can concentrate on the pharmacists. It’s never been a purely women’s issue for the AMA, and I would be astounded if they ever tried to put it that way.

  12. 11
    Jenny K says:

    I never realized they had trouble with the insurance companies substititing medicines. That puts the AMA’s actions more in perspective.

  13. 12
    Lee says:

    Jenny K – Oh, yeah, it was fun. My father’s health insurance company was one of these – they had a pharmacopeia that the pharmacist had to consult every time s/he was filling a ‘scrip for someone covered by them, and it wasn’t just a simple label vs. generic thing. My mother is allergic to a lot of the dyes used in drugs, so when the insurance company decided to switch one of her meds, she spent over 2 weeks faxing things back and forth before they agreed to cover the original drug (that they’d been paying for already for 5 years). I had to pay out-of-pocket for my son’s antihistamine for a couple of months when my insurance company pulled a similar number – they wanted him to use a small dose of an adult product, rather than the specifically pediatric medication that his pediatrician called for.

  14. 13
    Rock says:

    I am a bit of an individual rights kind of person. I have to admit; this one gives pause and creates some conflict in me. I fully support a local pharmacist that refuses to carry magazines that depict men and women in pornography. I also believe that individual businesses ought to be able to govern what they do and don’t sell, I am cautious with inviting the Government to tell us what we can and shouldn’t and ought to do. However, does a person’s right to take a drug mean that a business is required to sell that drug? If I opened a store, I would not like to be forced to sell tobacco or alcohol; I base this on moral choices and beliefs I have. I see both of those as harmful and dangerous drugs.

    If one maintains that selling something is against their beliefs, as an owner, how can we force them? Does it matter if they sell condoms or erection stimulants? Really, what does one have to do with the other? There is no law against hypocrisy. Some will argue, it is not the pharmacist who created the need for an individual to take the drug, why is it their responsibility to supply something they do not condone? Many will say that it is not to save a life but to destroy one. I do believe that one working for a corporation should fulfill the policies of that body, if a pharmacist were acting independently of the owners directives they should follow the policy or find a place to work in harmony with their beliefs. (Did I just make an argument for a major corporation?) Can’t really get in front or behind this bus yet, I am sure you folks will help me out.

    As far as the AMA is concerned convenience makes strange bedfellows. I would like to believe it is about women’s rights, but they are ignorant of many other places their voice might help, so I am a little suspect, like Deep Throat said, “Follow the money.”?

    Blessings.

  15. 14
    Tuomas says:

    I fully support a local pharmacist that refuses to carry magazines that depict men and women in pornography.

    What the hell? Some pharmacist sell porn magazines? :-0

    If I opened a store, I would not like to be forced to sell tobacco or alcohol; I base this on moral choices and beliefs I have. I see both of those as harmful and dangerous drugs.

    This is quite different. Obviously, a “store” is a very broad concept, as is is the term “shopkeeper”. They operate (almost) completely off-limits, guided only by the owner’s choices and laws of economy.
    Pharmacies on the other hand, are part of the health care system. They are places where a person gets his prescription drugs that she needs, that her doctor has declared the best for her. No one is asking the pharmacist to like filling those prescriptions… However it’s not unfair to ask a person to fulfill the obligations set up by a particular line of work. It has been said before… If you are severely unhappy about some medical drugs and how they are used (not misused, btw), don’t become a pharmacist.

    I am a bit of an individual rights kind of person

    Invidual pharmacists rights, you mean.

  16. 15
    Amanda Marcotte says:

    A friend of mine works for the Texas Medical Association and she sends me all their publication’s articles and they’ve consistently opposed “conscience clauses”. They’re obviously not the same organization, but they are related and there’s a lot of concern in the publication about these legal exceptions. They very much see it as an issue of third parties sticking their noses where they don’t belong more than a women’s rights issue, but I don’t have a problem with that–from their perspective, that is the major issue.

  17. 16
    Jenny K says:

    To the AMA, it should be an issue of people overstepping their bounds, rather than a woman’s rights issue. I am just bothered by the idea that they didn’t care until it was someone other than women being affected, and so, that’s nice to hear about the TMA.

  18. 17
    Rock says:

    Does being part of a system remove one from making ethical decisions based on core beliefs? An owner of a pharmacy is not required to carry any single drug as far as I know. What right does anyone have to tell a business owner what they are required to sell or carry? Are you suggesting we turn over to the Government which practices a Dr. can perform as a matter of law… because they are part of the healthcare system? (Wonder what would GW do with right to choice?)

    If a pharmacist were carrying the drugs, and dispensing them to only one set of individuals and not another, that would be a different issue. However if they choose not to carry them, I do not see where one can demand them to do so. The entertainment industry wanted to limit the editing of movies so that they were only sold uncut Free speech). The courts upheld the rights of business owners to sell them edited as long as they were not duplicated. There is a long history which supports business owner’s choices at how and what they market, the system does not seem to matter as much as the right to choose what one sells.

    “I am a bit of an individual rights kind of person
    Individual pharmacist’s rights, you mean.”? …and yours as well.

    If we dictate to pharmacists what they can and can’t stock, where do you think it could lead? (That could depend who is in office.) Besides, I think most pharmacists are economically driven; there should be plenty that sell the drugs that are in demand. I believe availability should be made for people that have a need for meds via County or other resources as well, as usually it is the poor that are discriminated against the most. I do not believe in requiring an individual to carry what is to them unethical. I live in AZ where gun laws are lax to say the least; can they require that I carry ammo based on the Constitutional right to bear arms? Can I be forced to show films that objectify people because the right to free speech? Please, get a grip. There are greater ramifications when forcing people to anyone’s agenda, because we might disagree, doesn’t make us any better to do the mandating.
    Take a higher road, and show folks where these drugs are available, and talk to those that do not agree with selling them and find some middle ground. Folks listen better when they think we are listening too.
    Blessings.

  19. 18
    Tuomas says:

    Peace, Rock.
    I didn’t mean to shoot down your objections outright. In fact, I read your post quite carefully and there were parts in it that I agreed with… My comment does seem a lot more strict than I meant it to be (two reasons: english is my second language and I’m a lazy writer ;) )

    Honestly this issue baffles me to say at least. I have great respect for the work pharmacists do… But it is essentially a “middleman” work (or “middleperson”, considering we’re on a feminist blog) with obligation to deliver the prescriptions made by a doctor. To make an analogy, I wouldn’t use the shop and alcohol -example, I’d rather use a post office analogy. Pharmacists refusing to deliver something that they ought to deliver (not a letter-bomb either, but a very expected and welcome letter).

    I cannot comment on the comparisons to entertainment industry… I live in Finland where health care is public (with a private sector tagging along for good measure) and responds to needs of patients. (I’m just curious about the other side of the pond, so to speak, that’s why I’m participating). Completely market-driven health care just seems… strange. But I am anti-censorship (of course, with clauses for material that was produced criminally), and I support the right for law-abiding citizens to own guns. But health industry, that’s different.

    Invidual pharmacists rights comment… I meant that there is an issue of conflicting rights… The right of a woman to get the drugs she needs (this need is declared by her) from a nearby drugstore, for some it is probably very to difficult to hunt for another pharmacist, versus the right of a pharmacist to decide whether to fill prescptions given by doctors on behalf of the woman needing the drug. Obviously, I cannot deny that I am biased in this issue, but I meant to pointy out that it might not be entirely fair to declare “I support invidual rights, therefore I support the pharmacist/or woman on the other side”, meaning I don’t approve when my “posse” does that either. Especially considering Rights and Freedom are very basic, even sacred issues for Americans (and hey, they are great things, but debatable… :) )

    Could be the cultural divide is big on this issue, but please don’t think I’m not willing to listen to differing opinions. That’s why I made the comment in the first place.

  20. 19
    Kim (basement variety!) says:

    Rock,

    What you seem to be not grasping or seeing here is that this law might not make a huge difference in well provided areas where you’ll have some pharmacists that object and others that don’t, but instead in areas that aren’t large enough to support commercial choice.

    When you end up with a lack of choice such as that, you run the risk of the pharmacist not only making her or his own moral decisions, but making decisions for the community she or he serves in a way that interferes with their rights to receive the medications prescribed to them.

    In essence, pharmacists are providing a medical service of necessity, and at times urgency. Purely hypothetical here, but were I travelling cross country and somehow ended up getting raped and wanting Plan B, but rural town Joe Pharmacist has decided he morally objects to Plan B, I’m up shits creek without a paddle and Joe has just made the decision for me that I’m now going to have to get an abortion if pregnancy has occurred from the rape.

    I guess for me, the only way I could see limiting such choices is to give pharmacists and pharmacies that refuse to offer complete services should perhaps be limited in whether they can bill insurances or be part of the ‘mainstream’ medical field, because their actions are removing them from the mainstream and setting them apart as activists in a certain area.

    Let the full service pharmacies be the ones with the controlling options so that people have the medications they need available to them.

  21. 20
    Kim (basement variety!) says:

    Rock;

    I noted in your above post you seem to equate pharmacy sales to gun sales. I think it’s a sloppy comparison. Swallowing your gun won’t treat medical conditions that doctor given prescriptions will.

    As far as dictating what pharmacists can or cannot provide, actually that’s also inaccurate. The point is to make sure they provide what is needed, not to make sure they cannot provide.

  22. 21
    Rock says:

    The equation was not to compare pharmacy sales and ammo sales, but that people have rights to choose how they will engage in commerce, just as consumers have a right to purchase from whom they choose.

    “The point is to make sure they provide what is needed, not to make sure they cannot provide.”?

    The point is to make sure treatments are available with a good information system so folks can make educated decisions concerning their choices and health. The point is, that individual’s rights to choose a treatment do not imply they have the right to require that someone else participate in it involuntarily.

    I do not see that it is anybodies business to require a privately held company provide a specific product or service. (Unless it is like airwaves which are technically speaking a public trust, and even then they only provide minimal access by the general public.)

    Blessings.

  23. 22
    Rock says:

    Tuomas, I am with you and Kim for most of your rational are mine also. That is what makes life on this planet so difficult, balancing the competing rights of individuals. (If we could come to the place as a community where we provide quality healthcare to everyone as in Finland that would make greater sense.)

    I do not care for the rape analogy as it is loaded with all kinds of other issues that will pull us from the corps that I am trying to get a grip on and that is of the right to refuse to supply a good or service based on ethical compulsion. (It is however an area worthy of looking into itself.)

    I believe the Gov. should compel services and goods in situations of race as in integration and in equal rights etc. I also see where this can be an issue of equal access as women are the group that are in question, needing or wanting access to the drug. (This troubles me.) The trouble comes from the imposition of ones needs over the right to not operate in the market as one deems fit as a result of an ethical position. If the good or service were so restricted and of such high necessity as to be required to survive then it seems to be reasonable that it be made available from as broad a spectrum as possible.

    However the issue of contraception is a very personal one with as many folks suggesting that the drug is a good one as those that say it is not. I am leery of anyone imposing on the right to choose the care and direction of their body and spirit. By requiring a person to participate in what they see as ethically against their values, isn’t that what we are suggesting?

    Blessings.

  24. 23
    Kim (basement variety!) says:

    The point is to make sure treatments are available with a good information system so folks can make educated decisions concerning their choices and health.

    But this is what already occurs and what already is the responsibility of the pharmacist. Their job is to know the drugs and combinations of drugs, have a record of allergic reactions in the past, and to make sure that people get the drugs in the proper dose to ensure their health needs as indicated by a doctor.

    Basically, though, they are asking for the right to play moral middle man in areas that they could easily create a block on the market from necessary medications. Some jobs force compulsory service that you may or may not agree with. Just because your job has a certain commerce angle to it doesn’t mean you don’t have an obligation to either provide the service or be exposed or stopped from practicing in a way that gets in the rights of others.

    Anyways, we could find a way to seperate the moralist pharmacies from the full-service, and make sure that the full-service were the ones with the advantages, I’d maybe have less a problem with it, but as long as it’s under a haze where they can not only control the market, but also control the choices, they are under an obligation to provide those choices. If you see it as making them ethically work in an abortion clinic – well, perhaps they shouldn’t get a job in an abortion clinic.

  25. 24
    Rock says:

    I get your point. (This is a little off the deep end, but here it goes.) I wish more folks (at times) would be moral middlemen. Is it reasonable to believe that a human being, a pharmacist would be required to supply fatal drugs for that purpose only if euthanasia becomes legal, if they are morally against killing people? I do not know if we should require participation in an activity that is repugnant to them. I believe all war is evil. Should I be compelled to kill if I am drafted? I do not believe in the death penalty, should I be required to serve on a capital case as a juror? Should a soldier refuse to commit acts of violence on non-combatants if they are ordered to, as it is his or her job as a soldier to follow orders? There are many areas that we are moral middlemen, at least I hope so. We may see the issue as a matter of choice, but others see it from another ethical position that is valid for them. Should they be compelled to violate that ethical position?

    Blessings.

  26. 25
    piny says:

    >>I do not care for the rape analogy as it is loaded with all kinds of other issues that will pull us from the corps that I am trying to get a grip on and that is of the right to refuse to supply a good or service based on ethical compulsion. (It is however an area worthy of looking into itself.)>>

    It’s not an analogy–it’s one big reason why “conscience clauses” are such a huge problem for women. Being denied access to contraception–or being forced to travel out of one’s way for contraception–is unjustly burdensome. However, _emergency_ contraception is time-sensitive. Like Kim was saying, a woman who has been raped and who needs EC _does not have time_ to exercise her free-market right to find another pharmacy, preferably one in a major, liberal, metropolitan area. She needs to take EC immediately; if she does not have immediate access, she’s screwed. So this is entirely relevant: does a pharmacist have the right to force that woman to become pregnant?

  27. 26
    piny says:

    >>Should a soldier refuse to commit acts of violence on non-combatants if they are ordered to, as it is his or her job as a soldier to follow orders?>>

    No one’s arguing that a pharmacist should be forced to prescribe BC, full stop. The argument is whether they have the right to continue to practice if they won’t fill prescriptions. Should a pacifist soldier be allowed to continue being a soldier, if he refuses to pick up a gun?

  28. 27
    Kim (basement variety!) says:

    No, but nobody is forcing them to be pharmacists. At this point, nobody is forcing people to be soldiers. And as a juror, all one needs to say is that they are opposed to capital cases and they are excused. We already have the safeguards, at this point what we are talking about is interference activism, plain and simple.

    Until we can ensure that all people will have coverage of choice – we need to draw the line. You point out the euthenasia example, well how about people who are against homosexuality or promiscuity and decide to deny AIDS patients the cocktail? It’s opening a door to moralizing in a way that should not be mainstream by any means, especially in a market driven society where people can and do control markets in many parts of the US.

  29. 28
    Kim (basement variety!) says:

    My post was in response to this comment from Rock;

    “Should they be compelled to violate that ethical position?”

    Not Piny’s post, because well, I agree with everything that Piny just said.

  30. 29
    Rock says:

    Thank you for your entire very well thought and presented discussions. (Even with the out on the margins points.) I am far more willing now to approach this discussion with others engaging in the debate. I get what you are saying with regards to HIV meds, as there is still so much ignorance dealing with this and other STD. I do have some reservations about a rape victim without counsel taking the drugs to avert a pregnancy immediately. Not that I would choose to interfere with her choice, but that from experience there is so much going on, that love and support are needed as much or more then the meds at that time. I have seen long term depression and serious issues arise from simply treating the obvious and not the whole person. Incredibly I have witnessed guilt from one that chose to abort, when witnessing others that did not. It is all very complicated and demands better treatment from the community.

    Blessings.

  31. 30
    Kim (basement variety!) says:

    Rock;

    As an aside, Plan B is not an abortificant. Plan B makes it impossible for the egg to implant on the uterine wall. It’s basically a huge dose of the pill that renders the egg useless.

    And yes, it’s very important for rape victims to get all sorts of counseling, but this option is something they should be told about immediatly and given access to immediatly if they choose to go with it (some don’t).

  32. 31
    Rock says:

    Again thank you for the aside. It for some reason is so easy to lump things togeather and the differences are important.

    Blessings.

  33. 32
    natural says:

    Rock –
    I am a nurse in a dialysis unit. Using your logic about private businesses, my company can rightfully refuse to treat a patient who has kidney failure due to drug abuse, uncontrolled diabetes, or anything else that the company find objectionable. The fact is that my company is licensed by state and federal boards, not to mention also controlled somewhat by Medicare. I am also licensed as a nurse to provide care to patients. If we were to refuse patients with a drug abuse problem who were sent by a nephrologist, we could invariably lose any one if not all of our licensures. In the end, it is the decision only of the doctor (not any other health care provider along the route of medical services) who receives the treatment, nor how treatment is given.
    Also, the reasoning that the pharmacists use makes no sense medically. Plan B and regular contraception are not abortificants, as someone has already mentioned. However, they are listed as category X. This category is not to be used by a pregnant woman because a drug MAY cause an implanted egg to be aborted. The trouble is that many other drugs are listed in this category. Many of these drugs, such as some arthritis or antineoplastic medicine, are needed by many people. The pharmacists are not refusing to fill these meds. Some studies have also shown that common medicines such as ibuprofen can interrupt implantation. So until pharmacists want to refuse these other medicines as well, I will call them on their morality bluff.

  34. 33
    Holmes says:

    “…love and support are needed as much or more then the meds at that time.”

    This oft repeated comment is actually pretty obnoxius. I know there are those who like to believe that women are the walking wounded who desperately seek and need love and support from people we do not even know (and do not want to know).

    Speaking for myself I am not the least bit interested in getting love and support from strangers for choices I make .

    Pretty ballsy arrogance.

    .