That’s where, I think, we just need to agree to disagree. I see a basic difference between a government agency holding someone against their will, and some kind of personal life issue or event that limits a person’s movement.
Our at least operating as a pharmacist without a license. The difference might be splitting hairs, though. My real reason for posting is to reiterate Kalhoun’s question:
Are there any possible criminal charges that could be filed against the guard for withholding the drug?
Emphasis mine.
Plan B is not an abortion drug. It is a contraceptive that prevents pregnancy. It’s actually the same stuff as birth control pills, just taken in a larger single dose and after the fact. There is no contradiction between being pro-life and allowing, even enthusiastically advocating, the use of Plan B.
This is completely different from the pharmacist debate. In this case, the woman had already received her prescribed medication from a pharmacist and had them in her possession. They were taken from her when she was booked in the jail, of course, but still were clearly her meds, that she had already received. The detention officer is not a healthcare officer; she has nothing to do with deciding what drugs an inmate should receive, or why, or when. Her job is literally to hand the drug to the inmate at the proper time. That’s it. More than that, which inmate is taking what drug and why is absolutely none of her business. That is not her job.
If I were the sheriff or jail administrator (not sure which runs the jails in Florida), I would have fired that detention officer’s ass as soon as I heard about this, for dereliction of duty and for exposing the facility to a high liability risk. This is not an instance of refusing to provide the drug to the victim initially, but from affirmatively taking it from her and then refusing to give it back, in contradiction and defiance of her doctor’s orders. There isn’t enough heat in “fired” to express how fired that other woman would be if it were up to me.
Heh, I got the feeling that tbdi was casting a general statement in regards to any situation where this may come up.
Some pro-lifers believe that interfering with any possibility of conception is against god’s will. In that sense, this person could be a pro-lifer, though I agree it is not the usual interpretation of the term.
That is true, but the problem most pro-lifers have with Plan B is that there is some theoretical chance that it could cause a problem with implantation of an already-fertilized egg. I think there may be the same theortical chance with the Pill, but I’m not sure about that one.
Pro-lifers are generally against “contraceptive” methods that interfere with implantation (such as IUDs).
but this method (Plan B) interferes with conceptions, not implantation – at least it doesn’t interefere with implantation in the event of conception any more than the pill does.
the drug interferes with conception, notimplantation. if conception has occured, the drug has failed or not been taken in time to prevent conception.
this is so different than the pharma thread that the comparisons really do more harm than good.
As I said, it’s a theoretical chance, which I don’t necessarily think holds water.
And this sums up my reason for disliking pharmacists who refuse to give people Plan B and those who tried to keep it from becoming available over-the-counter. There is an unknown and unknowable risk that Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. There’s known, quanitifiable evidence that it will prevent ovulation and, as I recall, thicken cervical mucus, making it more difficult for sperm to get to the egg. That’s why it seems to me that refusing to dispense Plan B is far more likely to result in an abortion than dispensing it. I wonder how the guard in the story would respond if someone asked her (in my case, using a slight, ingenuous British accent) if she were interested in encouraging abortion, since that could be the net result of her position.
There is actually a chance that the use of Plan B can prevent a fertilized embryo from attaching to the uterine wall, as I understand it. Cite.
That’s been my take on it all along. Anyone who feels they MUST stop the pregnancy from occuring or taking hold will more than likely opt for an abortion even if it would normally go against their better judgement. Desperate people take desperate measures.
One more thing (not sure if this should be in the other thread or here). All of you who are defending a parmacist’s right to interfere…do you also defend their right to interfere by stopping a person from entering women’s clinic (either physically or through threats and intimidation)?
Of course not, but your definition of “intimidation” may be different from mine. I don’t consider a peaceful demonstration or prayer service on a public sidewalk near a facility to be intimidation, but other people might, I suppose.
How is it different?
Sorry, I edited my previous post to explain, so take a look at it for your answer. (Actually, I don’t KNOW that my definition is different, for sure, I just was speculating that it might be.)
That’s not an abortion. That’s not even close to an abortion.
Now that’s a good question…theft, maybe?
I think Uncommon Sense meant that the pharmacist shouldn’t have to make child support payments on a child he did not concieve, not that the experience of the woman in the jailhouse who was refused Plan B should be characterized as safe sex.