doctors prescribe medicine

[PoLiX]

Meh. Just do what a friend of mine did when she was still living in Tennesee. She went in and asked for a prescription for the morning after pill cause her pharmacy wouldn't give her it without one (Funny enough my g/f just walked up, asked for it and got it here... meh.). He said he couldn't do that for her as it was morally wrong. She was like "You want morally wrong? How bout if I do get pregnant, in 3 months when I have them shove a pick in the fetus's head and swirl the brains all around and kill it, I bring it and leave it in your office on that coffee table for everyone to see." Because he thought it "even more wrong to have an abortion" after like 15mins of back and forth, he broke down and gave her the prescription.

[Aceflyer]

Not bad.

[»Lynx]

People should be assassinated for dictating 'proper' morals to you.

 

-Lynx

[Dav]

This is all a result of the OTT political correctness and looking out for minorities we have now. If medical staff were forced to give the morning after pill they would probably wind up suing for discrimination against their religious/moral viewpoint.

 

Often I think you will be pushed on to someone that is willing to help but apparently this is not the case all of the time.

 

If people are going to be allowed to do this there should be a route to see someone that will help immediately rather then face the problems caused by someone else's view on the subject.

[Sketter]

...She went in and asked for a prescription for the morning after pill cause her pharmacy wouldn't give her it without one (Funny enough my g/f just walked up, asked for it and got it here... meh.). He said he couldn't do that for her as it was morally wrong. She was like "You want morally wrong? How bout if I do get pregnant, in 3 months when I have them shove a pick in the fetus's head and swirl the brains all around and kill it, I bring it and leave it in your office on that coffee table for everyone to see." Because he thought it "even more wrong to have an abortion" after like 15mins of back and forth, he broke down and gave her the prescription.

 

 

This leads me to believe the doctor himself is uncertain with his own morals.

 

To me it's a black and white issue really. Life or death. There really isn't a gray area. What happened above seems to be a conversation that was eventually lead to "rational" revolution. And you really can't rationalize it.

 

If he stood on the grounds of "pro-life" any terms of termination of death would follow to his moral obligation.

Now I'm not fully clear on the morning after pill but it is understood that "Some scientists believe that EC may possibly act after fertilization."

 

So now what do you do?

 

Well if you take this pro-life choice you take the acknowledgment that the morning after pill has a chance to kill after fertilization. So you morally would have to say no. And it seems that is what he initially did.

 

What she tried to do is then "well which would you rather have happen?" That isn't his choice, that's hers. It doesn't make it more morally wrong, it just makes it more convenient to have the pill.

Is it more morally wrong to kill some one while their sleeping with a shot to the head with a hand gun?

Or kill some one in their sleep in the head with a shot gun?

They won't matter to them, their dead, but one makes more of a mess, and you might not recognize their face after.

It's still death. It's not like "Well since you used a hand gun, I guess we can give you a lower sentence."

No, sorry, you'll get the same.

End results is that it's still the same, even if it's just basing it on taking a chance that the pill will take into effect before fertilization, you can't be certain.

And what isn't fair is her manipulation on him as well. It's a low blow that he fell for it.

 

Now as much as it that looks like my point of view with my own morals, it's not. I'm merely clarifying the in between lines in Polix's (not that anyone should take offense) post.

My own morals are much more complicated

 

Doctors need to make very clear decisions. Even if their wrong, as long as their decisions is based on logical sence, thought out, and without negligence.

Having a patient whip you into submission in your office on something you feel is morally wrong, makes me wounder about your practices.

You can't have "well lest see who can debate this better, and the winner will get what they want."

 

Sketter

[»Lynx]

I don't think that's exactly the point she was trying to convey, although I see where you're coming from here.

 

I find Polix's post rather confusing, as a prescription for the morning after pill is hardly logical - and is a very unreliable form of contraception, and if taken on a regular basis is very unhealthy. I believe she must have asked for a contraceptive pill, and had been declined (and there's no reason for her to ever get declined the contraceptive pill) - and sought the pill from another doctor which was also talking, what I believe, is utter crap to prevent her from taking said medication. You've got to remember, in this thread we're just dealing with opinions. Some people may believe that contraception is wrong, due to religious or moral beliefs - and therefore will not want to give out condoms. Others may believe it's wrong to hand out the pill to women to prevent them from having children. Others may believe the morning after pill is wrong, because it could actually terminate a pregnancy (even at a very early stage). Then, you get further and further into the argument. Just when is it okay to terminate a pregnancy, if it is okay at all? And if it is okay, under what grounds should we terminate a pregnancy. You may get the argument that 'Oh, this woman was raped and therefore should be allowed to terminate' but just because that babies father was an arsehole, does it mean that baby should have to die too? But, this is a whole other boat of bullshit that I think we should all avoid talking about, for now, at least.

 

Back to the thread. From a completely neutral (I'm tired, so I'm saying that word very fucking loosely) and logical point of view, if you're going to practice in a certain profession, and you want to be efficient in that profession, you should understand what you're getting yourself into. If in your job description it says 'You need to hand out medicine, that may cause the termination of pregnancies' and you're against that as a professional, then you should seek a different line of work. This of course doesn't prevent you from doing that job, and many deluded prick lawyers have managed to dictate that religious view is now more important that providing a clear and clean service, so doctors don't have to do their bloody job.

 

As some of you may have guessed by now, I'm not a religious person at all and I don't have any sympathy to any faggot who uses religion as a cover to not doing something at work - and I believe that in a very *very diverse world, we must all respect the wishes of each other. I, as the consumer, should have the right to go out and get the pill as I like, and do whatever I like with it as I am legally allowed to. I won't go to a doctor and say that I demand that *THEY give me the pill, however if I ask for the pill I *DEMAND that I get it. If that doctor doesn't want to give it to me (because they're being a bitch) - then they should pass me onto another doctor that isn't deluded with bullshit to give me the damn thing. It's as simple as that.

 

On a side note, in reply to what Dav said - I completely agree. These stupid pressure groups that get one stupid idea into their head demanding 'fair treatment' really get on my nerves. I'd rather live in a house full of Aceflyers than have to spend a few hours with twats such as the CND or whatever other idiots came to my college to preach bullshit.

 

Whatever,

 

-Lynx

[Bak]

It's still death. It's not like "Well since you used a hand gun, I guess we can give you a lower sentence."

No, sorry, you'll get the same.

The morning-after pill will "kill" an embryo before it has a brainwave, and therefore before it has any chance of feeling pain. Three months later the fetus may have a partially developed brain. Can it feel pain... is it conscious? Probably not, but it's no longer clear cut. Hence, killing a one-day-old embryo IS different than killing a three-month old fetus.

 

Lynx: what if they trained to be doctors before the morning-after pill was around, or before abortions were legal? They went through all that training but now that the law changed / technology developed they have to get a new career?

[»Lynx]

Then the doctor should not state their morals, but send their patients to another doctor (or better yet, a family planning centre) that isn't against the morning after pill.

 

-Lynx

[Sketter]

Out of fairness, since Polix decided to explain what happened between his friend and her doctor, i felt "morally" obligated to take a step back and analyze it.

I felt there was a lot more to this story.

 

I think doctors take a lot of heat.

 

Well as for prescriptions....hmm.... I'm going to play a few devils advocates.

 

To use pure logic without any concepts of "higher power" you are ultimately correct Lynx. Of course, we are talking about after removing objectivity in morals.

As long as it does not conflict with any laws, including death.

 

However, there is a flaw. We are not a human race of pure logic and without objectivity. (tho it sounds efficient) And since our culture sometimes defines out government, we have allowed holes within our system. Such holes as to allow different religions to exist within our communities, as well as their practices, as long as it does not violate another humans rights, while protecting your own. Physically and mentally. As well this applies to one's way of life.

And since as a government we acknowledge these groups, and their rights within their culture, we also acknowledge them in their work place. (To a very strict degree)

An example would be to ware an "ahiida" in a work place. We can look and find other examples.

Since the line has been drawn to we can practice our own beliefs, as long as it does not harm anyone else, then not providing a prescription is not harmful. And can be justified as long as not providing will not cause death, unreasonable harm, and/or within ethical grounds.

 

Now if you want to look at it in a consumer point of view, lets look at it in a logical sense of service.

(I'll use something very basic)

"McDonalds does not sell Pepsi as a choice of beverage, but i really want Pepsi, what ever will i do?

Should I start a petition and force them to sell it?

Hhmm... no, it's their choice, I guess I'll just go somewhere else."

(and)

"Dam, this restaurant does not have my favorite wine that I love to have with my T-bone"

"Should i argue with the waiter to go out and fetch me my wine?"

"no it's their choice, I'll just not eat here again when I want a T-bone stake."

 

We let this pass by without any flapping gum's, if you want to see a doctor in the same way you need to apply the same argument. Since their a service, their entitled to do what they want. And it isn't a monopoly since there are more then one doctor. We allow companies to run their business how they choose under the law and what service they chose. (as long as it does not brake any rules)

 

If you want to take away the right of a doctor to choose what he can and can not give you then it becomes an occupation run by the consumer, and you can then be asking for anything you want, and they can't say no. To harmless all the way to fatal. It is left up to the judgment of the doctors of what they feel is best.

It is uncomparable to subject this to a simple service. It is a very complicated service, that also involves their rights as a "business" if you want to see it that way, but also for their mentality.

 

 

Now since i was given grief for going off topic with the morning after pill, I stayed very on topic this time to not include any other subtopic, as many seem to do.

So I'm clearly saying that this is looked at from a very fundamental point of view of the topic "doctors prescribe medicine"

This is not part of any subtopic that has been mentioned in previous posts regarding morning after pill or abortions.

 

Sketter

Edited November 27, 2008 by Sketter

[Sketter]

It's still death. It's not like "Well since you used a hand gun, I guess we can give you a lower sentence."

No, sorry, you'll get the same.

The morning-after pill will "kill" an embryo before it has a brainwave, and therefore before it has any chance of feeling pain. Three months later the fetus may have a partially developed brain. Can it feel pain... is it conscious? Probably not, but it's no longer clear cut. Hence, killing a one-day-old embryo IS different than killing a three-month old fetus.

 

 

The problem here is this;

 

At what point do you consider life, to be life?

There are many arguments. It seems your point of view is when one has developed brainwaves and can feel pain.

Another is the moment fertilization. Some believe it isn't living until it comes out of the mother completely. The more radical makes the argument that masturbation is a form of withholding life, as well as condoms. Some believe life starts at the molecular structure.

When does life, become life? Just because it can't feel pain doesn't mean it isn't alive...does it?

 

There is no define line of life that we have ever put down in writing. And it then becomes up to each one to determine where you think life starts.

For this, we are now open to attacks from all ends.

 

You want to argue about type of death we can take it to another forum, but we're talking about life itself. (or so i am) And Polix's friend made that case to her doctor to justify death/termination at an early stage, however well it played out.

 

Sketter

Edited November 27, 2008 by Sketter

[Bak]

(free market)...

 

if you want to see a doctor in the same way you need to apply the same argument.

The problem with this is that a doctor is a life/death scenario, or potentially life altering. If a restaurant serves unsafe food, yes eventually people will stop going there but we don't need a dozen people to die or more likely hundreds of people to get sick. We can do better as a society (and hence the government handles food safety issues). Similarly, if a doctor allows people to die when an abortion could have increased their chances of living, eventually people may turn away, but the deaths are unnecessary. Having a baby is life-altering, not knowing one of your options may dramatically change your life. This is the reason we require doctors have licenses.

 

At what point do you consider life, to be life?

It may be impossible to answer a specific point, it might even vary between individuals. However, this doesn't mean we can't place some necessary conditions on conscious life. For example, all conscious beings have brainwaves. Therefore, no brainwaves, no consciousness. So the one-day embryo versus three-month fetus question can be solved easily (assuming the goal is preserving conscious life). A one-day embryo is not conscious while it is undetermined if a three-month fetus is conscious.

 

If the goal is not preservation of conscious life, but instead preservation something [made up] like souls, then there is no difference. However, it's more likely the doctor wanted to preserve both souls and conscious life, as well as minimize pain. Using this combined metric, the morning-after pill still beats a later abortion.

[Stibbymicto]

We had a discussion about this just yesterday in class.

 

Some doctor refused to give a patient her proper place in line for a liver transplant because she was black.

Edited December 11, 2008 by Stibbymicto

[»Lynx]

Sure there weren't any medical reasons behind it?

[jacob hunter!]

Very entertaining topic!

[»Lynx]