Interesting article on the Pill

[Metanoia02]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usatoday/20041109/pl_usatoday/druggistsrefusetogiveoutpill

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Very interesting article. I was actually thinking about this a few weeks ago, when I had to go the pharmacy to get an antibiotic for Bronchitis. I was wondering if I became a Pharmacist (which I wouldn't because chemistry is not my thing) if I could refuse to fill certain prescriptions without losing my job. It is nice to know that in some states you can.

 

[Carrye]

A similar thing just happened in Wisconsin too.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

but she missed a pill because of the delay.

Oh the horror!!!!!

 

[Benedicta00]

"We have always understood that the battles about abortion were just the tip of a larger ideological iceberg, and that it's really birth control that they're after also," says Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America.

You darn right lady. What is funny is that she gets it, she know why we are gong after B/C pills, because they are abortifants.

And the women are missing their pills??? I guess that is like missing a dose of heart medication or something, I guess they'll die if they don’t get their B/C pills, or a fait worse than death, they'll have a baby! Or even worse than that- they’ll have to abstain (oh the horror) from having sex if they do not want to become pregnant.

 

[geocajun]

my favorite quote from the article

The American Pharmacists Association, with 50,000 members, has a policy that says druggists can refuse to fill prescriptions if they object on moral grounds, but they must make arrangements so a patient can still get the pills.

sooo basically.. they still have to fill it, however their cooperation is merely more remote.

 

[EllenMoran]

To be fair, there are those with licit, truly medical reasons for being on the pill. How is a pharmacist supposed to identify those people asking to get their prescription filled from those using it as birth control only?

 

[geocajun]

To be fair, there are those with licit, truly medical reasons for being on the pill. How is a pharmacist supposed to identify those people asking to get their prescription filled from those using it as birth control only?

well that is true.. strickly speaking, it isn't immoral to take the pill.. it is only immoral to take the pill, and have sex while doing it.

 

[Carrye]

To be fair, there are those with licit, truly medical reasons for being on the pill. How is a pharmacist supposed to identify those people asking to get their prescription filled from those using it as birth control only?

Well, at least in the case in Wisconsin, the pharmacist DID know, and that's why he refused. Also, I don't know how it is in the larger corporate pharmacies, but in the independent one I worked in, we often knew what different prescriptions were being used for. I often knew whether the Pill was being used for birth control or for therapy. ... and that placed me in quite a predicament!

 

[Father Rick]

That's a great law as far as I am concerned...

 

[riccardo]

You darn right lady. What is funny is that she gets it, she know why we are gong after B/C pills, because they are abortifants.

It was my understanding that an abortifant was something that prevented a fertilised egg from implanting into the lining of the uterus, OR something that caused an already implanted ovum to be shed. As the Combined Oral Contraceptive Pill actually inhibits ovulation, can it really be called an abortifant?

well that is true.. strickly speaking, it isn't immoral to take the pill.. it is only immoral to take the pill, and have sex while doing it.

Is it immoral for a married woman to have sex with her husband if she is on the Oral Contraceptive Pill as she finds it an effective treatment for her painful endometriosis, for example?

 

[3toraiseup]

It was my understanding that an abortifant was something that prevented a fertilised egg from implanting into the lining of the uterus, OR something that caused an already implanted ovum to be shed. As the Combined Oral Contraceptive Pill actually inhibits ovulation, can it really be called an abortifant?

While it is true that the combined pill works by inhibiting ovulation, 2 - 16 % of the time, ovulation still occurs. There is a "back-up" mechanism by which the BC pill hormones thicken the lining of the uterus preventing a fertilized egg from implantation.

Is it immoral for a married woman to have sex with her husband if she is on the Oral Contraceptive Pill as she finds it an effective treatment for her painful endometriosis, for example?

A woman in this situation could use NFP for pregnancy postponement to be very sure she is not ovulating. In a situation like this, the couple should consult a priest or spiritual advisor.

 

[geocajun]

It was my understanding that an abortifant was something that prevented a fertilised egg from implanting into the lining of the uterus, OR something that caused an already implanted ovum to be shed. As the Combined Oral Contraceptive Pill actually inhibits ovulation, can it really be called an abortifant?

If that was all did then no, however it also prevents implantation of a fertilized egg if for some reason, it fails to prevent fertilization, thus it aborts the baby.

Is it immoral for a married woman to have sex with her husband if she is on the Oral Contraceptive Pill as she finds it an effective treatment for her painful endometriosis, for example?

Yes. Even if she wasn't used a contraceptive method which had the potention to kill her baby - contraceptives are intrinsically disordered, therefore regardless of ones intention or circumstance, having contraceptive sex is always immoral.

 

[3toraiseup]

Yes. Even if she wasn't used a contraceptive method which had the potention to kill her baby - contraceptives are intrinsically disordered, therefore regardless of ones intention or circumstance, having contraceptive sex is always immoral.

Geo,

I'm a little confused about your reply. Sterilization is gravely immoral. However, if a woman was sterilized for medical reasons, married sex would not be immoral. Am I wrong on that? NFP is so reliable that it can be used for couples who have "life or death" reasons to postpone pregnancy. I would consider using contraception for medical reasons compiled with the potential of abortion to be a "life or death" reason. Therefore, if contraception is not being used to contracept, would it not follow that as in cases of medically necessary sterilization, marital relations could continue?

 

[Benedicta00]

riccardo,

Yes, B/C pills can act as anabortifant . The only way the industry could make it safer, not safe but safer for women was to lower the dose of chemicals that prevent ovulation but women were becoming pregnant. With the high dose women were dyeing, with the low dose baby’s were coming into the world, so guess who wins out again and who loses? That’s right,. The baby is the one who gets to die so the mother can live as she wants. So order to for it not to kill women who didn't want to have a baby, they put this back up mechanism to get the 99.9% effective rate. So the Planned Parenthood spokes person knows what she is talking about. This is the same mentality and action as abortion. Kill the baby before you kill me, kill the baby so I can live like I want.

The B/C pill is evil in of itself for reason already explained so it can not be taken for medical reasons in a marriage while the person is sexually active. We can not use a evil means to achieve good.

 

[Benedicta00]

Geo,

I'm a little confused about your reply. Sterilization is gravely immoral. However, if a woman was sterilized for medical reasons, married sex would not be immoral. Am I wrong on that? NFP is so reliable that it can be used for couples who have "life or death" reasons to postpone pregnancy. I would consider using contraception for medical reasons compiled with the potential of abortion to be a "life or death" reason. Therefore, if contraception is not being used to contracept, would it not follow that as in cases of medically necessary sterilization, marital relations could continue?

There is no reason to use sterilization because you are in a life or death situation- that is immoral. Only if you have pathology, diseased organs itself, you have them removed. There is never a cause to sterilized yourself for the sole purpose of not become pregnant- even in a life or death situation. Same thing with B/C pills, you can not use something evil for a good cause. NFP is effective and the solution and there is always abstaining if you really are in a life or death situation. We are Catholics here, we are supposed to have a spirit of sacrifice- this is great stuff to be offering up.

 

[3toraiseup]

Shelb5,

I think you misunderstood my question. Allow me to attempt a clarification...

Sterilization is licit in circumstances of diseased organs. My first question was if a couple in this situation (sterilized due to disease) may continue marital relations. It is my understanding that they can.

If so, my second question was that if a woman must use BCP for medical reasons, could not they ALSO use NFP for pregnancy prevention? If the BCP are NOT being used to contracept and the NFP is preventing a chance of conception, would this not be licit? Since NFP can be used safely for people who have "life or death" reasons to postpone pregnancy and a woman who is taking BCP has a very good reason to prevent conception (she could abort her baby), why would this be immoral?

Does that make any more sense? My point was that if a sterilized person is able to continue relations, than why wouldn't a couple on BCP who uses NFP to prevent conception be able to continue relations? IOW, sterilization for contraception is gravely immoral. BCP for contraception is gravely immoral, but if the intent is not contraception and the couple is not contracepting with the BCP, why would it be wrong to continue relations?

 

[Benedicta00]

Shelb5,

I think you misunderstood my question. Allow me to attempt a clarification...

Sterilization is licit in circumstances of diseased organs. My first question was if a couple in this situation (sterilized due to disease) may continue marital relations. It is my understanding that they can.

If so, my second question was that if a woman must use BCP for medical reasons, could not they ALSO use NFP for pregnancy prevention? If the BCP are NOT being used to contracept and the NFP is preventing a chance of conception, would this not be licit? Since NFP can be used safely for people who have "life or death" reasons to postpone pregnancy and a woman who is taking BCP has a very good reason to prevent conception (she could abort her baby), why would this be immoral?

Does that make any more sense? My point was that if a sterilized person is able to continue relations, than why wouldn't a couple on BCP who uses NFP to prevent conception be able to continue relations? IOW, sterilization for contraception is gravely immoral. BCP for contraception is gravely immoral, but if the intent is not contraception and the couple is not contracepting with the BCP, why would it be wrong to continue relations?

But B/C pills can abort the baby too. If you must use the pill for medical reasons then you must abstain, you can not have it both ways, I am afraid to say.

 

[riccardo]

Shelb5

So, if you remove diseased organs surgically, just for the benefit of the woman (ie to treat troublesome pain or bleeding), is this immoral as well?

After all, you are preventing a potential pregnancy and you could say that a hysterectomy and oophrectomy are an example of extreme forms of birth control. (I don't believe this to be the case, but I'm interested in your opinion).

 

[3toraiseup]

BTW, in the heat of discussion, I failed to remember that BCP are not an FDA approved method of preventing or treating menstrual irregularies, so the whole discussion of NFP + BCP is moot because BCP are never medically necessary.