Theocracy in action---HHS proposes to limit birth control

I'm confused how a "CHURCH amendment" is related to the federal government. Please explain that to me given your first amendment.

I think "Church Amendment" was tongue in cheek, poetic license.

This is obnoxious specifically because of it's desire to make doctor's decisions on what to tell patients arbitrary. Can't these motherfuckers that don't like abortion (religious males) just shut their mouths about it already? There's already several countries in the world that limit women's rights to that of a toaster oven, or car. (i think the car gets more rights, too!) They should pack up their houses and move there. Where conservative christian values can be forced upon other populations of people that don't want to hear about it. Try most of the less-enlightend middle eastern countries.

If anything, this is a cry for socialized medicine. Please! maintain seperation of church and state, and socialize medicine so we don't have to listen to this crap anymore. I'm tired of it.

This amendment protects professionals who are trying to impose their values on others by mandating that health care providers who receive federal funds not require providers to provide services that to which they morally object.

So if, for instance, I object morally to keeping geriatric patients wired up the wazoo I'm protected from action if I ignore the alarms on their life support?

Somehow I suspect that the sponsors didn't have that in mind when they drafted this.

What if a jewish doctor refuses to work on a gentile patient because of moral issues?

What about the homosexual that overdosed on opioids and needs his stomach pumped? MORAL DILEMMA.

This is a get out of jail free card for unscrupulous practitioners. if it does become law, expect the first person to claim it as a defense be a hero. And then the supreme court might have to step in and say "er, wtf?"

From the Article referenced:

"... Within weeks of the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, Congress passed legislation proposed by then-senator Frank Church (R-ID) to ensure providers ability to withdraw ("Refusing to Participate in Health Care: A Continuing Debate," TGR, February 2000, page 8). The Church Amendment prevents the government (as a condition of a federal grant) from requiring health care providers or institutions to perform or assist in abortion or sterilization procedures against their moral or religious convictions. It also prevents institutions receiving certain federal funds from taking action against personnel because of their participation, nonparticipation or beliefs about abortion or sterilization. The question is not specifically addressed, but nothing in this policy suggests that anyone has the right to withhold information from a patient or refuse to refer a patient to another provider

Hence the "Church Amendment"

The draft seeks to more strongly enforce the Church Amendments

I don't think he's being cute here. It's probably something named after former senator Frank Church.

isn't it then even MORE fraught with hilarity?

" Pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control when given a lawfully written prescription should be fired immediately and consider a change in careers."

One wonders what's next. A Jehovah's Witness phlebotomist who refuses to draw blood for blood donations?

I'm still with PalMD regardless of the name or mention of church...i would be spitting blood if i could. This is absolutely disgusting and foul beyond anything i normally see from America.

I am male and i am English, and quite frankly this is an insult to every woman on this planet. It's so foul it's even insulting to me.

This is before it even opens the door to such things as "not treating someone for being gay". Which, clearly given the stupidity of your government is only a matter of time.

Great post. (The Church Amendment was passed shortly after Roe v. Wade and is named after its sponsor, Frank Church.)

How about we mention all the ways their proposal can backfire on them?

Here's an idea: deny Cheney heart surgery on the grounds that he's an asshole.

I just have one wish -- to convert all of the paramedics in the service area that runs ambulances into the Capitol into hardcore Christian Scientists, so that if Bush or Cheney, or some Congresscritter or a Supreme, needs an ambulance, one will arrive, and the crew will load and go. And take them to a prayer group where they will be prayed for, but denied all medical treatment.

Eventually, the law would be changed. Deny anyone legal medical treatment and you violate their civil rights. Go directly to federal lockup, then see if you can cop a plea to reduce your sentence. If you get out on parole and pull any stunt again, back you go to serve both sentences sequentially. By the time you get out, you'll be too old to find work.

Well, I'm pissed off 'cause I've been on birth control since I was a teenager because my periods were making me anemic. Without my monthly dose of ABORTIONS, I'd be pallid and sick.

pry .. cold,dead ... fingers and all that jazz.

Here's a fun example of the absurdity "acts of conscience" can lead to.

In 1990, the Parliament of Belgium passed a new law to legalize abortion. However, then-King Baudouin 1st, a very devout Catholic, declared that this went against his faith and that he could not in good conscience approve this law.

This was a huge problem because, although the King actually holds no real power, his signature is required before new laws can be implemented. And by virtue of the Constitution, he's technically not allowed to refuse signing off (makes you wonder what's the point of him, but that's another debate).

The resolution to this impasse was that the King was declared "incapable of reigning" for a few days, using a Constitutional disposition that exists for when the King is ill, physically or mentally, or has been taken prisoner during war. During this brief interval, Parliament officially ratified the law on its own, then "restored" King Baudouin to his position once the paperwork was done.

This involved an enormous amount of fudging of the normal Constitutional rules for when the King is "incapable" (the "incapacity" should have been verified by physicians and a Regent should have been appointed, among other things), but it suited everybody (including the King, who just didn't want to "act" in favor of abortion, but wasn't too bothered about standing by and watching) except a few strident religious groups who were cheerfully ignored (as well they should be), so it all went down with very little debate.

As a Belgian citizen I'm quite happy this went through as it did without too much fuss, although the blatant disregard for the Constitution is a bit worrying in principle.

But I am irritated with the King for refusing to obey the will of the people's representatives, and causing this bizarre situation in the first place. It's a good thing that our little country is generally very amenable to negotiation and, shall we say, creative conflict resolution. (I say generally because our current crisis seems a lot less like to find proper resolution)

In principle the King should have either just bit the bullet and signed off on the law, or abdicated completely. Abdicating just for a few days then coming back seems like a hypocritical way of not "getting his hands dirty" while still enjoying his cushy "job" on the long term.

Which is why we no longer need nor want kings and queens.

//Which is why we no longer need nor want kings and queens.//

I'm not sure a president is better. There is no way Bush would have taken a leave in order for a bill he didn't like to pass...and he claims to have dictatorial powers, like a king, to arrest and detain anybody, anywhere, forever. In that light...

What if a jewish doctor refuses to work on a gentile patient because of moral issues?

What about the homosexual that overdosed on opioids and needs his stomach pumped? MORAL DILEMMA.

I'm trying to imagine a situation where a jewish doctor might consider the religion of a patient, or where the sexual preference of an overdose patient might inform treatment.

WTF indeed.

deny Cheney heart surgery on the grounds that he's an asshole.

Theoretically speaking, if Cheney died of a heart attack, it might save lives by making his evil advice unavailable to the world, the RNC, and Bush. So this could be considered a genuine moral dilemma. Except that it isn't. You have to assume that the best way is to save everyone possible. Any other way leads to madness.

"deny Cheney heart surgery on the grounds that he's an asshole"

I think that it would have to be made into a morality issue, like "deny him treatment on the basis of his adherence to the golden rule (or lack thereof)", or "deny treatment that would postpone the inevitable (cardiac failure)"

there. fixed that. (not that the original sentiment was wrong)

I'ma gonna go clean the exploded pieces of head off of my screen now. What a lot of retrofuck jackholes inside the Beltway.

Do y'all really thing that having the number of pharmacists, nurses and doctors, particularly in Ob/Gyn, who are moral objectors to this kind of thing is an accident?

They've been targeted for conversion for decades AND kids have been encouraged to enter the profession. They are on a Mission From God, people, to save the world from The Culture of Death. /eyeroll/

I'm trying to imagine a situation where a jewish doctor might consider the religion of a patient

Israel. Or rather, Gaza. I'm virtually certain that the religion of the patient makes a large difference in care in those circumstances. Especially if the doctor in question is a settler.

Although it might be difficult for a medical professional to find a job with *no* moral dilemmas, if a doctor/nurse/pharmacist objects to abortion and contraception, it's not at all difficult for them to find a job without *those* dilemmas.

How about...geriatrics? Are there any populations that need fewer abortions and birth control pills?

(Yeah yeah, gays and lesbians too. But somehow I suspect that the kind of medical professional who refuses to provide an abortion or contraception is probably not *all* that thrilled with gay people either.)

Anyone who wants to restrict access to birth control must hate America, because Americans are the ones who have to pay for all the extra children with our taxes, which go to Medicaid. Hyperbole, maybe. But none the less true.

Thanks, PalMD, for laying this out so clearly.

Afarensis has found the blog of the Health and Human Services Secretary. Hopefully Mr. Leavitt will post something so that there is a single place to make our views known.

Pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control when given a lawfully written prescription should be fired immediately and consider a change in careers.

Why is it the evolanders are all libturds?

What's next, after libturds make it legal to prescribe suicide cocktails, jailing pharmacists who refuse to fill the prescription?

And all this coming from somebody who understands the meaning of "Never again" in a way that others cannot.

Why is it the evolanders are all libturds?

What's next, after libturds make it legal to prescribe suicide cocktails, jailing pharmacists who refuse to fill the prescription?

And all this coming from somebody who understands the meaning of "Never again" in a way that others cannot.

When you're ready to make an argument, instead of throwing around slanderous nonsense, do let us know. For now, I suggest you shut the f*ck up and crawl back under a rock.

On this topic, I agree with PalMD completely. What is wrong with these hardcore religionists, that they want to impose their arguably despicable moral standards on everyone else? Haven't they ruined enough people's lives already?

Why is it the evolanders are all libturds?

What's next, after libturds make it legal to prescribe suicide cocktails, jailing pharmacists who refuse to fill the prescription?

William, these blogs tend to have an academic client�le. Perhaps not the crowd you're used to. Clever name calling (trite, actually) isn't going to fly here the way it does at more, shall we say, blue-collar venues.

I gotta call BS and call out a classicist.

"William, these blogs tend to have an academic client�le. Perhaps not the crowd you're used to. Clever name calling (trite, actually) isn't going to fly here the way it does at more, shall we say, blue-collar venues."

Clever name calling flies at this site and all others on. White collar people, despite their illusions of better taste and superior manners, are little different than blue collar workers.

Good call. Wallace is a well-known crank around here, but he is no better or worse than anyone else---just wrong.

I have many readers who are doctors and scientists, and many who are HS grads...most leave intelligent comments, some leave goofy ones, and the education level doesn't seem to correlate.

Trueesday, Leavitt was the keynote speaker for a KaiserNetwork webcast on the Health Blogosphere's importanc ena dimpact on health policy debate and journalism. He went on and on and on and on ad nauseum all self-congratulatory about a bogus pandemic flu leadership blog that Ogilvy, the PR firm, ran for him and his hacks. I blogged about it last summer, and I wasn't surprised when HHS and Ogilvy were all over my blog last week and this to prep for Leavitt's propaganda.

An audience member asked him about the contraception as abortion stance, and he refused to answer. I blogged about that, too (link at my name goes to all of the parts of my blogging about Leavitt/HHS).

It is essential that we come together to fight back on this because the sole press that Leavitt got was totally uncritical and took his word and his distorted and suppressed science at face value as legitimate policy.

PLEASE pay attention to Bush hacks using "blogs" as a way to influence policy with warm and fuzzy propaganda and one way commenting/moderation.

I would say there was a substantial difference between "academic" and "white collar"

I wrote that after looking at Wallace's own blog. He seems to have some trouble with that "critical thinking" thing. Not uncommon in the less educated parts of the population, rarer as you ascend, though I will admit to some experiences in grad school with the same kind of thinking.

All that being said, if you chose a profession that will, by its very nature create an insoluble ethical conundrum, you need to get a new job. Pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control when given a lawfully written prescription should be fired immediately and consider a change in careers.

I'm glad to see someone succinctly express my feelings on the matter. My background is in engineering and I've done safety and risk assessment in the nuclear field so I have a passing familiarity with the duty to protect public safety. Had I refused to fulfill that duty to the best of my ability due to a personal ethical quandry, I have absolutely no doubt that I'd have been walked off premises by security.

For so-called professionals with licensing boards and codes of ethics, the notion that their personal beliefs trump the needs of the patient is simply vile. Being a professional is a choice - you literally have years to come to grips with the possible consequences of the decision to work in medicine. Should you not want to deal with reproductive health issues, choose a field or specialty that doesn't deal with gestation (small children, men, the post-menopausal, podiatry) or find a different job. Do us all a favor, be a professional, and let someone else do the job you won't.

The open secret is that this ethical "conundrum" is really about controlling women. Show me the cases of people being denied fertility treatments because it's God's will they should be barren. Show me the cases of fundamentalist Mormons denying treatment to blacks and native Americans because they have the mark of Cain. Show me the cases of Scientologists who refuse to commit a patient for psychiatric evaluation or treatment. Show me the cases of people over thirty being denied treatment by members of the Church of Logan's Run. I haven't consulted The Google, but my guess is that the aforementioned quandries either don't occur in practice, or if they do, the "professional" involved is quietly separated from their employer.

On the other hand, if you want The Pill to regulate your period, that's ok, but if you want it so you can enjoy sex without risking pregnancy, that's not ok - so says the ethically-confused pharmacist, who will either be supported in his (because it's usually a man) case by his employer or will be made a martyr on the evening news should his employer actually have the temerity to expect him to do his damn job.

Nice that a pill-pusher can overrule both a patient and the patient's physician on non-medical grounds. I want a job where I can inflict my biases on the public and be shielded from consequences, and still be considered a respected professional. Actually I don't, and it offends me that anyone in any profession can pull this shit and get away with it.

I don't want to start a engineer-vs-doctor conflict and I apologize in advance for the "pill-pusher" comment. I find this whole topic infuriating because it totally destroys the faith that society must have in medical professionals. I understand the gravity of medical ethics and I don't want to talk them down, but in the main, professionals have a duty to their patients and if they intentionally won't fulfill that duty, they need get out of the field, full stop.

Further, I worry about my own profession and others - if this shirking becomes accepted practice, who can we trust in law, engineering, accounting? Where does it end?

Of course, Viagra is not on the list of things the pharmacists can object to on the basis of being an "abortion" inducing drug. Funny, that. Perhaps if it was the fundie stampede to support the bill might lessen.

You write about what I call the Christian Reich and I think we must be vigilant in our quest to keep them from taking over the world! Talk about radicalsnot a single Muslim I know is as radical as is our own president bush. I find him scary as hell.

When you're ready to make an argument, instead of throwing around slanderous nonsense, do let us know.

If you're unable to recognize an argument because embedded in the argument is truthful statements that you think are mean, it's not my fault. Typical "I won't pay attention to the argument because the rhetoric is mean" type response...unless you're reading Al Frankin, in which case, (truly pointless) name calling is okay.

Clever name calling flies at this site and all others...

Exactly.

ERV or PZ "brass knuckles and steel toed boots" anyone? (Though ERV may have toned down her rhetoric lately).

Good call. Wallace is a well-known crank around here, but he is no better or worse than anyone else---just wrong.
I have many readers who are doctors and scientists, and many who are HS grads...most leave intelligent comments, some leave goofy ones, and the education level doesn't seem to correlate.

Thanks, ah, for making my point.

But it is dully noted that you do not respond to the argument.

If the prescribing of suicide cocktails were legal, do you believe that pharmacists must either fill the prescription or find another profession?

Umm, ANYWAY, here's another thanks for this post, PalMD.

I'm in my early 40's, and it's been perhaps naive of me to think that BCPs and the like have become routine meds that would continue to be widely accessible.

I have had a couple of health plans whose prescription plans didn't cover BCPs, and it always made me scratch my head. Wasn't the $20 or so a month a great deal cheaper than paying for an insured woman to give birth?

Keep up the good work.

Mr Wallace -

Yes, I damn well do believe that pharmacists should be required to fill a prescription for suicide drugs. It is most certainly not the pharmacists place to determine whether or not I should have drugs that my doctor prescribes for me, even if they are intended to cut off a painful and slow end to my life.

About the only ground I'll give is that pharmacists should not be required to dispense such drugs if they can ensure the prescription is filled without inconveniencing the patient.

No one should have the right to interfere with my right to do with my body as I will. That includes the right to end my life. That includes the right to modify my body. That includes the right to have sex in exchange for money if I want to. That includes the right to ingest poisons if I damn well choose to. I have absolutely no interest in forcing you to do anything against your will. I don't want to do any of the things that I listed to you. So why the fuck do you think it's ok to force me not to do those things?

As a Brit(living in Canada) I'm always amazed at what a huge political topic this is in the US.Particularly as the Right, who normally want Government to stay out of individuals lives,want Government involvement on this issue (and vice versa for the left).
I'm very much pro-choice but if a pharmacist genuinely has moral opposition to this(and this opposition should be formally recorded)then they should be allowed to refer to another practitioner.I know there will be instances where this won't be possible but as a general rule it could work. The problem seems to be that in America it has become such a left/right issue that rational debate is no longer possible and we just get insults and ad hominem attacks as seen here (on some comments).

If the prescribing of suicide cocktails were legal, do you believe that pharmacists must either fill the prescription or find another profession?

In a word, yes.

It's not up the pharmacist to judge the rightness or wrongness--morally speaking--of a prescription. If the patient's doctor prescribed it, and the patient is buying it, then fill it. To presume otherwise is the height of arrogance.

That includes the right to ingest poisons if I damn well choose to.

Unless you're a libertarian (in which case you're not a libturd), you're in a very lonely minority.

Libturd philosophy goes something like this: "With the right to nationalized healthcare, comes responsibilities, such those who smoke loose rights to cancer treatment, treatment for heart disease, and the like."

But, if you're a libertarian, you'll be philosophically consistent.

In a word, yes.

It's not up the pharmacist to judge the rightness or wrongness--morally speaking--of a prescription. If the patient's doctor prescribed it, and the patient is buying it, then fill it. To presume otherwise is the height of arrogance.

If suicide cocktails were legal, the prescribing doctor should be required to dispense the drugs, in my view.

One problem (among many) with modern medicine is that most MDs are arrogant. The honestly believe that an ability to memorize anatomical names somehow makes them brilliant.

The arrogance, in this case, extends to the belief that a pharmacist must be obliged to carry out the order of the doctor.

Whatever.

And PalMD doesn't even have the intelligence to realize that my position on this is not incorrect, it is just different than his.

Ah, not sure why that happened. I claim ownership of above anonymous post. Also, I agree with Russell.

The arrogance, in this case, extends to the belief that a pharmacist must be obliged to carry out the order of the doctor.

How bizarre. It's arrogant to expect someone to do their job?

So it's arrogant for an air traffic controller to expect a pilot to follow flight orders, even if they personally can't understand why? For a judge to expect that a convict will be taken into custody, even if the bailiff disagrees with the verdict?

This is arrogant?

How arrogant.

If the air traffic controller orders a pilot to dump excess fuel on a school, ah, yes, I'd expect the pilot to ignore the air traffic controller.

If a warden orders a prison guard to pull the switch for an electrocution, I fully support the right of the prison guard to refuse on conscience issues.

This is bizarre?

Libturd philosophy goes something like this: ...

Nice strawman you have there. Maybe you should take it back home before it goes up in smoke from your inflammatory bullshit.

Now if you want to join the adults and have a reasoned, civil argument, feel free. We were talking about the theocratic Big Government hypocrisy of the current incarnation of the "governs best who governs least" party and the destruction of professional behavior and good medical science at the hands of socially conservative apparatchiks. Just a tip - you may want to stay on topic and avoid pretend words like 'libturd,' whatever the hell that is.

As Mark says, don't confuse denialism for debate. Wallace is done here for now. I think he's made his bizarre opinions clear. I'd be more interested in hearing from someone that i disagree with who isn't also wacko.

Amazing.

A friend of mine grew up in Romania during Chochesques's rule. Abortion was illegal. Her friend got pregnant and had a back alley abortion. Her friend started bleeding badly. She took her to the hospital. The hospital told her that since what she had done was illegal they could not treat her. Her friend died of massive bleeding.

I can understand the logic behind people not wanting abortion to be legal - I disagree with it - I cannot understand the "logic" to allow the woman to die because of it.

If the prescribing of suicide cocktails were legal, do you believe that pharmacists must either fill the prescription or find another profession?

I think that this is an interesting question, and would be good for a separate debate in a different thread. I think that as a pharmacist, if they want to step in at this point and say "No" they should be reminded that they have not been privy to the consults between patient, doctor, advisor/advocate and all those who have been involved in the decision to prescribe the treatment.

What we have here is a completely different situation because it is intended to provide immunity for those who want to abrogate their professional judgment without consequence. PaLMD has laid out the strong case that they should either accept the consequences of their decision or work in a place where such decisions are made for them, say a Catholic Hospital.

"Libturds." Is that the best you can do?

Lets take the protection of acts of conscience to its logical conclusion.

If a grocery store checker is religiously opposed to beer can he refuse to sell a customer beer without being fired? (Assuming the customer is sober, is over 21, has shown legal and appropriate ID, and has proper payment of course.)

I really don't see why this should be any different than the pharmacist who does not like birth control. (Well besides that the pharmacist has the support of certain powerful political nut cases.)

Lurker,
It is different because beer is not necessary and it is a somewhat controlled beverage. (Okay there are people who would argue that beer is a necessity... The store manager might have a problem with that store checker and they would be asked to change their ways or leave. If the store wased to selling beer then it shouldn't stock it.)

Birth control pills can be used to treat certain medical conditions in women. (hormone balance issues) So the pharmacist is then making a medical decision that they are not competent to make. (and lack the patient information even if they were a medical doctor.) For example, my niece is on birth control pills for just such a medical problem.

Man oh man, the arguments I had with my conservative catholic pharmacists co-workers at a formerly for profit catholic now not for profit secular community hospital.

I couldn't figure out how to explain to them that

1. their religious beliefs are not my reality,
2. just as they are in the best position to make the best choices for themselves and their families, so are others. Even if those others make choices we wouldn't make personally.
3. it's none of their business. If the drug is legal and legally prescribed or legally available otc than their opinion, religious or not, has no place in the transaction. If they can't keep their noses out of our patients and employees business than they should stick to mixing IV's and let the rest of us deal with reality.

Ultimately I was most successful when I put a human face on the argument. I had an abortion shortly after I began working in the pharmacy because I couldn't afford - financially or emotionally to take care of a fifth child. Should I tell my husband of many years no more sex becaue the birth control might fail again? Should I put the kid up for adoption and deal with the insecurity and what message would that send to the existing kids? It wasn't an easy choice, but, like so many of life's choices, the best one available to me at the time. (I'm still glad I had an abortion.) I also used the example of my dd, a late adolescent at the time, and her best friend, also in her late teens. Both women are sexually active, my dd using birth control, the best friend nothing because she identifies herself as catholic. Best friend had two abortions 9one of which my dd paid for) and a child before she was 22yo. She got pregnant w/in three months of her last abortion, didn't tell anybody, smoked drank and used street drugs throughout the pregnancy and gave the kid up for adoption at birth (which from my perspective was the only good choice this friend made and it was only because she didn't want her mother to know). Which person made more responsible choices? Which person learned from the consequences of their actions? As a mother, I can't imagine how hard it would be for my children if they felt they couldn't tell me about such life changing experiences.

Thank you for alerting me to this draft. I've written my elected officials.

Jim, I was arguing that the pharmacist should fill the prescription or be fired.

We don't give clerks or anyone else the right to refuse to sell against their employers explicate wishes (on the assumption that transaction is legal, etc.). I don't think a pharmacist should be treated any differently in this regard. Do they think that they are somehow entitled to rights that no one else has? Are they special?

The ground which they can refuse a prescription would be when they notice an doctor's error or other problems relating to their the proper carrying out of their professional responsibilities.

I am a heterosexual female (now past childbearing).

I am a firm believer in personal autonomy, and my right to choose whether or not to have sexual relations, whether or not to have children, whether or not to get married...

Many younger women do not realize how a single act of violence (or even stupidity on their part) can take away their autonomy.

There are pills that can prevent ovulation: emergency room, doctor, nurse, pharmacist says you can't have them because being raped/fertilized was part of god's plan.

And all this from the same ignorant cretins that talk of deregulation & smaller government.

Right wing evangelicals & creepy catholics: the crotch police.

Sorry, Lurker, I misinterpreted your post.

I agree with you. I worked for an electronic medical records firm at one point. We got a call from a Dr. about a possible error in the software in printing prescriptions. The pharmacist caught an odd prescription and called the Dr. We investigated and found what happened is the software did print the correct prescription. The Dr. did prescribe the correct prescription. The patient took the prescription home, scanned it, used MS Word to change the prescribed drug. The patient put the chemical name for vicadin and did not specify the form. (eg tabs, etc) The alert pharmacist called the Dr. to question the prescription. (good call) We determined this because the patient used the default FONT in MS word to replace the text we had printed out. (times roman, we used a totally different font.) subtle difference, but important.

Will this law also apply to muslim taxi drivers who refuse to carry passengers who are intoxicated with alcohol?

Dude! I totally beat you to it :-). This issue has NOT been getting enough play in the blogosphere. It makes me really angry, and I'm SO glad you're covering it. Did you see this because I submitted it to Tangled Bank :-) ?

-If the prescribing of suicide cocktails were legal, do you believe that pharmacists must either fill the prescription or find another profession?-

Yes. If a doctor and patient agree. Who are you to deny. You can raise an objection and probably should. You may not cancel that prescription based on beliefs which no one else shares.

The morality of society changes over time. Their morality is 2000 years out of date. Time to get with the new program.

This link is interesting and,I think, demonstrates that the whole area has the potential to descend into absurdity.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2603966.ece

So I saw in today's York Dispatch an opinion piece by National Review Online editor Kathryn Lopez that blames gender reorganization in fish due to water contamination by pharmaceuticals on the Evil Liberals' promotion of birth-control pills. It would not surprise me if this was another part of a strategy by the Right Wing Whackos to curb women's control of their own reproduction. While it's true that hormones from contraceptives may enter our waters via the waste stream, I think there are also other medical preparations that contribute. Yet Lopez gives the impression that it is the "contraceptive and abortion pills" that are solely responsible, despite "...prescient warnings and cautions--most notably from Pope Paul VI..." that went unheeded.

I suspect we will see additional, imaginative efforts to put women back where they "belong."

Several commenters have made the point that women should be able to control their own reproduction. I agree. The easiest way to achieve this is to remove control of access to contraceptives, abortifacients, etc., from physicians and pharmacists. Put pressure on the FDA to make all drugs that can be safely and effectively self-administered "over the counter" -- that means they could be sold in virtually any venue, just like condoms. Women's access to the means to control their own reproduction would be enhanced, and the moral objections of certain healthcare professionals would be mooted. Everybody wins, except cretins on both sides of the debate who want to dictate what others can or cannot do.

Bob,

Who are you going to complain to if store owners choose not to stock the item or artificially raise the price? Both of these practices are common for OTC in a free market enterprise.

"Pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control when given a lawfully written prescription should be fired immediately and consider a change in careers."

Sorry, have to disagree. A pharmacist does in fact have the right to deny any prescription at his/her discretion. With only the smallest of towns as an exception, an individual seeking birth control can go to another pharmacy. It seems kind of hypocritical that you don't think your colleague in obstetrics doesn't deserve to be fired for making a remarkably similar decision.

Of course this doesn't apply to wackaloon RPhs who tear up prescriptions for birth control and the like. while it is an entirely replaceable piece of paper (birth control scripts can also be phoned in) such behavior is childlike and deserves immediate termination.

"Sorry, have to disagree. A pharmacist does in fact have the right to deny any prescription at his/her discretion."

Reference please!
Can't wait to see it btw!

I'd like to see a pharmacist tell a person with diabetes that he won't give him insulin because it's a result of animal testing.

nice job admin!thanks