My dad had to take time off work to look after us, of course. It was in between her surgeries - while she still had pain - that she looked after us without any help. What I can’t understand is why you seem so condescending and angry towards me. Where is this attack coming from? I don’t think I insulted you at any time. I was just adding my own thoughts to this thread.
Yeah, I read the article. Pissed me off even though I no longer have to worry about birth control. I hope Prevention has stirred up a hornet’s nest and the stingers are aimed straight at those sanctimonious woman-haters. How dare they force their own warped, ignorant “morality” (now there’s a laugh) on anyone?
We’re going back to the miserable days of my youth, when pharmacists and doctors could, and would, refuse to dispense any kind of birth control to unmarried people of any gender. Condoms were kept behind the pharmacy counter and anyone who wanted a pack had to ask. You can imagine how many sexually active unmarried young people were going to stand up and do that.
And, of course, abortion was illegal in those days too. There were a lot of shotgun weddings, a lot of women “visiting relatives” and a lot of plain old-fashioned misery.
I thought we knew better, but apparently the anti-choice zealots (a gross percentage of whom are males who have never fathered children) want to take us back to the Good Old Days when babies were a gift from God, unless they were a well-deserved punishment for slutty sinners.
Not picking on you here, Essured, I’m just quoting this sentiment, which has been posted by several in this thread. I’m wanting to know why we have to take into account a Dr or pharmacist’s moral code at all? There are plenty of people in positions where their moral code may necessarily be ignored. We expect soldiers to kill despite the almost certain fact that some of them have a moral quandry in doing so. We require judges to perform their duties with regard to law, depsite the fact that it might not jibe with their moral code. There are other examples. Why should doctors and pharmacists be able to claim some moral authority that even judges cannot?
Coelacanth Soup (cool name, btw):
Good god yes, of course it does. He’s a pharmacist, it’s a public-trust position not a private craft service. I’m astonished and appalled to discover anyone could think otherwise.
Or doctor. Same diff. Specialize in obstetrics and refer GYN cases that involve birth control or abortion to your colleagues if you want, but you’ve got no business appointing yourself moral gatekeeper.
Although the OP and the discussion makes some excellent points, they do not convince me.
So I get my MD (by mistake no doubt) and somehow my customers get upset with me if I don’t (pick one):
Prescribe birth control.
Do permanent birth control surgeries.
Prescribe or administer euthanasia.
Excuse me, but I am not my customer’s pill machine. I have my own redlines and do not see why you should expect me to ignore them.
It is a matter of freedom and personal responsibility.
Straight off the bat, I have to say that your assumption that the only use of the pill is to prevent conception is wrong. Many women take the pill to control irregular or painful periods. My own dear friend was on the pill for seven years without ever using it as birth control - she was a virgin and never had or sought a boyfriend in that time. She took the pill because her period cramps were of such severity that she was unable to do her job until they passed, every single month. I don’t see any conflict between a doctor objecting to birth control and choosing not using it in his/her own life, but not passing judgement on those who come to him/her seeking birth control.
Second, I would say that yes, the right of an individual or couple to decide not to have children at this point in time trumps that of the doctor feeling torn for violating his moral values. The physical, emotional and financial hardships involved in having and raising a child far outweigh anything the doctor may feel. Eighteen years on, which of the two parties is more likely to continue to be affected by the doctor’s decision not to prescribe birth control?
Finally, I have a real problem with this paragraph:
What I’m objecting to here is the use of “the woman” in place of “the couple” with it’s implication that either the woman is blithely having promiscuous recreational sex with no concern for how this effects her doctor emotionally, or that there is no place in a marriage for sex without the intention of procreation. I happen to believe that a healthy marriage includes sexual activity even when the couple are not actively seeking to be parents. Thanks to the miracles of modern science, it is possible to have that closeness without spawning a massive family.
Since you have all the answers Coelacanth Soup, please give me your opinion on this situation: My 22 year old friend is married and has four children (including a set of twins). Due to the physical strain her three pregnancies put her body under, she and her husband completely agree that they want no more children. Should they
a) Refrain from sex until she’s gone through menopause in 30 years or so
b) Risk emotionally crippling their doctor by asking him to prescribe birth control
c) Stop worrying about petty things like “her health” and “their finances” and have as many children as God gives to them because He knows best?
d) Other.
If you choose to include reproductive medicine in your practice (and if you are a generalist like an internist, ob/gyn or family practitioner you will) then you had best be prepared to dispense birth control medication based on medical indications, not moral indications. That is the standard of practice on which you will be judged by your peers and the public. You may opt out of doing the surgeries yourself (I no longer do) but when you find a patient of yours has medical indications for such surgery, your obligation is to refer said patient to a physician who does those surgeries. And a desire to no longer reproduce is a valid medical indication for consideration of elective surgical sterilization. Or birth control pills. Or an IUD.
I’ve got my redlines too. I don’t prescribe many narcotics for anything but significant acute pain, or for malignant pain. But my practices are defensible on medical grounds, not moral ones. If I don’t think the patient needs narcotics on medical grounds they’re free to seek another opinion. (Well not my current patients, but you get the idea).
There’s no clear medical indication for euthanasia, so that’s not an issue.
If one is going to practice in a certain area of medicine, one must be willing to meet the medical standards for treatment in that area. Or refer to someone else who can. Period.
I’m not sure if you read the rest of my post or not…
If someone had a moral quandary regarding killing, I would expect them NOT to be a soldier. If they had a moral quandary in regard to certain legalities, I would expect them to NOT be judges. IMO, doctors or pharmacists shouldn’t get to claim some moral authority. They should get to either prescribe/perform the duties of the field they’re in, or choose another damn field if they have a moral quandary with carrying out the tasks that are part of that field.
There’s things that go against my ethics, but are seen as fairly normal, non-issue things by the majority of society. I don’t pursue a job in a field that would require me to carry out those tasks I disagree with, then demand that I don’t have to carry out tasks X, Y & Z, because I’m morally against it. That’s stupid, IMO.
To clarify: Pharmacist A has a moral objection to hormonal birth control. I don’t think the correct answer is for pharmacist A to be forced into dispensing things against his morals (as per the sentence of mine you quoted). I think the correct answer is for pharmacist A to find a different job, one which doesn’t conflict with his morals (as per the rest of my post).
My apologies Essured. I tried (and failed) to make it clear in my post that I wasn’t challenging any other part of your post, and was in fact, not challenging you so much as using your quote to post the general question, “Why do we have to take into account a doctor or pharmacist’s moral code?” The idea that we have to take it into account has been taken as pretty much a given in this thread and I was just wondering why.
I agree completely with the idea that people consider their own moral code when choosing a profession. Sorry I wasn’t clearer on that.
No need for apologies, Presidebt, I must not have been clear.
I think it’s the right thing to take their moral code into account enough to not hold a gun to their heaad and force them to do the morally objectionable thing. But we don’t take it into account enough to avoid firing them for refusing to perform their job! Make sense? No forcing actions against their morals, just a bland “well, then you’re not suitable for this job which includes task A”.
Well said. If a pharmacist withholds a prescription on moral grounds, isn’t he or she running a risk of endangering his or her customer’s life? Let’s pretend said customer needs this prescription for something other than prevention of pregnancy - would she then have to prove to the pharmacist that she is of fine and upstanding moral character and is suffering from deep regret that this medication will also probably prevent pregnancy and therefore thwart God’s (and the pharmacist’s) will?
My brother had three children by three different women by the time he was 23. (Yes, he’s an idiot.) But, knowing that he was apparently incapable of keeping his dick in his pants, he asked NINE different doctors to perform a vasectomy. None would do it, and none of them raised moral objections (or even said anything sensible like, “Just keep your dick in your pants, son”). No, they all told him he was too young to consider it. Period. End of discussion. When my brother explained that he had three daughters he was already struggling to provide for, one idiot doctor patted him avuncularly on the shoulder, winked, and said, “Well, you don’t want to stop until you have a son to carry on the family name!”
Could you please cite a reduction in cervical cancer rates amongst women who use birth control pills?
TeaElle, I had to read it twice, but here is the relevant portion highlighted.
She’s not saying birth control reduces cervical cancer, she’s saying that the woman visits the doctor less frequently because she knows the doc won’t provide birth control. Presumably a woman visiting her doctor more frequently would be reminded when her pap smear is due.
Because you didn’t read the fucking thread.
We were talking about women who have a job BESIDES raising kids - which is a full time job all unto itself - and then you drop in talking about how your mother coped with raising you kids and not having an outside job. That’s not what we were talking about. Your mother had to quit outside work, yes? Because of her health? Then she sure as hell could NOT have coped with both outside work AND raising you kids.
And that was my whole fucking point - you can’t do both! Even healthy women find it impossible.
You ALSO said she raised you entirely on her own, stayed with you 24/7. Well, she didn’t, did she? She “abandoned” you after those surgeries so she could recuperate and someone ELSE took care of you. Which is AGAIN my point - it’s almost impossible for an adult human being to raise a human child completely without assistance. That whole idea is a myth, and even in “traditional” nuclear families it STILL doesn’t happen - and you’re proof! If mom gets sick dad takes over, or a relative.
It’s my personal opinion that the myth of dedicated-to-the-point-of-martyrdom mom is a contributing factor in the cases where “nice, Christian” mommies kill their children, and sometimes themselves as well. They buy into the myth that they and only they should mind their kids, no exceptions, and that they should be doing this 24/7 without a break until the tykes go off to college as adults. The mommies go fucking nuts and psychotic.
It’s not healthy to be so obessed with the kids you never take a break.
Anyhow, Amazon Floozy Goddess, next time READ the fucking thread so you understnad what’s being discussed.
Let’s say Mr. Smith is a pharmacist - he’s been one for, oh, two decades now and has been happily dispensing pills at the local drugstore/chemist since he got his license.
Well, one Sunday Mr. Smith gets religion, gets baptized, and suddenly he feels that birth control - any birth control - is morally wrong.
Mr. Smith now has a problem. He can no longer happily dispense all the pills in his inventory, only some of the pills. Handing out pills full of female hormones to perky young women now not only puts their souls in jeopardy, he, too risks swimming in the lake of fire for all eternity. Yes, he knows some of them are getting the pills for “legitimate” (in his terms) medical reasons, but he knows most of them are using them to prevent the conception and/or birth of harmless, helpless little infants that God wants to be born.
You know what? Mr. Smith doesn’t have to stop being a pharmacist. He may have to get a different type of pharmacist job, but there are plenty of places he can use his degree and his training and his experience. I know this because my dad, a brother-in-law, and a niece are all pharmacists. There are all kinds of specialty pharmacist jobs the public doesn’t see - folks who work in hospital pharmacies, or compounding pharmacies, or home infusion centers or mixing chemotherapy drugs or doing research… a medical editor where I work has a doctorate in pharmacy, she uses it in conjunction with medical writing. There is actually great demand for people to fill many of these jobs, and they often pay more than handing out pills at the corner store.
The only reason for someone with Mr. Smith’s moral quandry to not only continue to work in retail pharmacy, but to insist on it, is to impose their will on others. And that is against MY religion!
Well said, Broomstick. I was about to add my two cents to the discussion, expressing that same thought.
I work in three hospital pharmacies. We are woefully understaffed at one of them. It’s union, and pays well, and the benefits are through the roof. Besides which - compounding is cool!
One of ‘my’ pharmacists sent me a link when I asked him about morality vs. dispensing birth control. He cleverly sidestepped any mention of which side of the fence he’s on, which will fetch him a poke in the eye when I next see him.
This is the oath which a Pharmacist takes, akin to the Hippocratic Oath a doctor takes. As you can see, the sentence “I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical and legal conduct” is included. This means that the pharmacist has every right to deny on moral grounds.
I still hold that if you don’t want to dispense certain drugs, don’t get into the profession.
Well, I know it is extreme, but my Uncle Bill had cancer. By the time his last few months rolled around he was pretty much devoid of internal organs, had to be entubed to ‘eat’, had a colostomy bag, had a bag to catch urine, and was whacked out on drugs constantly for the pain. If euthanasia had been an option that would have preserved his ability to die while still letting his family collect insurance, he would have been first in line to get offed by whatever method was legal. That is a perfect indication for euthanasia - he was perfectly coherent up until it started working on his spinal cord [the source of his pain, apparently] and would have opted for it, and with that advanced a case, and with the seriously craptastic prognosis, I think even you would at least consider his wishes and sign off on it [providing it was legal]
Thanks cazzle, I’m sorry I wasn’t clear.
When I was on birth control, I went to the doctor every year. Needed to get my perscription refilled. With each yearly trip, a pap was done. But, honestly, and I know this shouldn’t be the case, but in my twenties in certainly was, the pap was incidental to the pills.
When I went off birth control to concieve, I went to the doctor a lot, to treat infertility and later for pregnancy. My doctor would check my charts and figure out when to give me my pap.
I have not been on birth control for some time as my husband did the big snip. Just went to my OB/GYN. It had been three years since I’d been in. My own fault, I’d had an appointment when they sent me a card, had to cancel, didn’t have time at that moment to make a new appointment, put it off… But without the overriding need to get my perscription, it was hard to make time for the pap.
Now, lets say in addition to just being lazy and unorganized, I lived in a small town with one doctor - . And the doctor doesn’t provide birth control. The nearest doctor who does is 100 miles away. And I have a moral issue with a doctor who choses to work in a small town without providing birth control and won’t give him my business…now we have two people with moral problems serving each other, and the health care of one could be impacted. Why should his morals trump mine - I don’t care to give a doctor money who makes his decisions off of some religious view.
Thank you, Q the M. Well said and well-reasoned. All in all I am so pleased to be part of the SDMB where we can have a reasonable discussion of these sorts of things.