SEATTLE — Pharmacists have sued Washington state over a new regulation that requires them to sell emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill."
Interesting story. My personal view is that Pharmacists "who believe emergency contraceptives are tantamount to abortion cannot stand in the way of a patient's right to the drugs".
FULL STORY
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/0...ing-after-pill
It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas."
George W. Bush, Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000
I wonder do these people who go on about the unborn put as much time and effort into helping babies who are born into poverty or abusieve families who are clearly unsuitable as they do in making sure unwanted babies are born in the first place.
I wonder which they think is worse - someone having a termination or using condoms or the morning after pill to prevent a pregnancy or being 16 or 26 or 36 but having a child you can't afford, with no supportive father, no supportive family and without the emotional or financial skills to ensure that child gets the love and nuturing it needs ot fulfil its potential?
It's really not up to pharmacists to decide these things. What if your personal religious or moral beliefs didn't agree with say prescribing antibiotics ? or, didn't agree with how a particular drug was researched? Should you be able to refuse to sell it and still keep your dispensing licence?
I think going down that road is a very slippery slope where every pharmacy was deciding what they should/shouldn't dispense.
Those issues are a matter for national debate, statewide debate or the legislature.
Regardless of what your individual stand point is on abortion. I really don't think that hospitals or pharmacy professionals should start imposing what could be defined as a narrow moral philosophy on patients who don't necessarily agree with it.
What if a girl ends up pregnant because she can't obtain the morning after pill in her local town where there's only one extremely pro-life pharmacy ?
Can she then sue ?
Well I can't see them winning this. People have a right to access the drug and thus be sold it by whomever. There are plenty of other drugs whose developmental processes require things like animal testing, that may offend many people, but still the drugs are sold.
I agree with the bulk of this post however I feel that there are many prospective adoptive parents available to give unwanted children homes. I will only ever support abortion where the mother's life is genuinely at risk or the child will be severely handicapped. The situation in the UK is a farce at the moment with abortion effectively available on request.Originally Posted by The Earl of Desmond
We should be looking far more at taking viulnerable children into care at birth in those cases mentioned above. We fail the child if we allow feckless people to "raise" children.
One of the moderators on here really wrecks my head with his/her power mad ego
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Fair enough Aindru but as an adopted person I am completely and 100% in favour of full abortion rights and full prevention of unwanted pregancy efforts.
Adoption leads to all sorts of issues as well which can take a whole lifetime to show themselves and impact on the birth family and the adoptive family. It is really difficult to know the motivation of why people want to adopt.
My parents provided etc but with hindsight should never have adopted me or one of my sisters. Same as some people can't have children which is very sad but it is not the worst thing in the world and if they argue they have so much love to give then get a dog or adopt a handicapped child or a child with special needs but no you'll find most people only want to adopt a 'normal' child thereby exposing their claim to have all the lvoe to give - if they are already making exceptions about who they can love what happens if the child they adopt doesn't fit in with their master plan ie no matter what the child will be missing a biological link to the parents and the whole nature v nurture arguments takes off. I have a personality which is utterly different to my parents and their 3 biological children but my other adopted sister has a personality which matches - but no one knew that when we were babies.
I think it is far better of course for someoen not to get pregnant in the first place and if the morning after pill or the night before pill can do that then it should be free in every school. Failing that abortion should be legal in Ireland.
We are kidding ourselves if we think we have tackled the issue cos now a single mother gets the child benefit so isn't let to starve. I bet if you survey all the people in jail or if you could those who have to get drunk and violent or off on drugs to enjoy themselves the vast majority are from broken homes. Fact of the matter is a stable 2 parent environment (gay, straight or whatever) is the only way ot tackle the social issues we are storing up for the future. Beign a single parent due a death is different as it doesn't raise the abandonment and anger issues - ie the person didn't choose to die (unless they did but that's another point)...
You're speaking in generalities with the best intentions in the world any type of family can fail whether it is two parent,single parent, rich or poor - you'll find that many abused victims come from the traditional family structure - the problem is that when a family is failing we are so slow to acknowledge it we are hell bent on keeping the family unit.
I do agree with you first point - it always astounds me that people march for anti abortion but when is the last time you saw these same people protesting about childhood poverty - it appears that as soon as the child is born they feel there job is complete.
If some one feels abortion is the answer it is not an easy choice they've made - we have people having children who are completely unfit yet know one is shouting about the rights or wrongs of this
Many pharmacists do have conscientious objections to abortion, as do many in society. Personally I have no problem with the morning-after pill being available but in a pluralist society if someone has a conscientious objection of course they should be allowed to opt out.
It never ceases to amaze me that if there is one thing even more intolerant of dissent than conservatives it is liberals. The fact that they adopt a 'how dare they refuse to stock something they have conscientous objections to' tone speaks volumes. Far too few liberals are in fact pluralist and willing to accept any viewpoint different to their own.
Would the same logic apply if they plantiff in question was suing for their right to conscientiously object to allowing black people into the shop?
Failed liberal traitors:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
If you are a pharmacist then you shoud not bring your personal prejudices into the job.
What if you disagree with someone getting treatment for an illness as in your view its Gods will or something - is ito k to refuse to stock HIV medication because you think it serves people righti f they get HIV etc etc.
If God gave us free will then that covers the free choice to have a termination or to free choice when to end your own life.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote