---

by Cat
the Morning After Pill is designed (whether firtilisation has occured or not) to abort an embrio.

---

If fertilisation has not occured how can it abort an embryo? And how many more times..... it prevents attachment of the egg. An abortion can only happen once the egg has attached itself to the wall of the uterus.

No, an egg only attaches once it has been fertalised.

---

by Cat
No, an egg only attaches once it has been fertalised.

---

Um. Quod Erat Demonstrandum, surely? You said "whether fertilisation has occured or not" - Teresa's point is, if an egg hasn't been fertilised, it is not an embryo (OED - In mod. technical language restricted to ‘the foetus in utero before the fourth month of pregnancy’ (Syd. Soc. Lex.) (now, before the third month)). Or even a Zygote, which, if I remember rightly, is what a fertilised egg is before it attaches to the womb wall...
Ergo, if fertilisation hasn't taken place (which the woman can't know), then it is not an abortion any more than the usual monthly annoyance is an abortion.
Though MAP does indeed have a 72-hour window, I was always told by doctors that the likelihood of it being effective lessened the closer one got to the deadline - so surely the sooner taken the better, never mind the extra day's worry?

(Edited by Bee 15/02/2004 22:29)

(Edited by Bee 15/02/2004 22:34)

A gun doesnt have to kill, but it's what it's designed for.

the MA pill is designed to stop a zygote from embedding in the uterus wall, therefor, causing an abortion. (it can take up to a week/7 days to imbed, BTW)

It doesnt matter if the woman know's she's pregnant or not, to a religious man this would constitute murder.

Arsenic isnt always used to poison people but there's a reason it's not sold over the counter any more. To a RC the MA pill is the equivalent of arcenic or a gun.

Whats more, the law protects him in the UK. Why?

If it's SO right to sell the MA pill regardless of religion, why does the law offer the religious person protection, an escape clause if you will, from having to dispence this drug?

---

by Cat
If it's SO right to sell the MA pill regardless of religion, why does the law offer the religious person protection, an escape clause if you will, from having to dispence this drug?

---

Because no-one can force the woman to take the pill; that's her choice, and a choice women have been fighting for for years. Ergo, no-one either has a right to force the pharmacist to sell the pill; it is his inalienable human right to decline to do something on religious grounds. Where it all becomes fuzzy is when his right to refuse to sell the pill himself personally intrudes on his customer's right to receive the pill when she feels she needs it. Really, there ought to be some form of prior warning notice up in the pharmacy if there is no-one there who can/will sell this medicine, and notification of where it can be obtained instead (which would perhaps deal with the issue of embarassment and hurt caused when the customer asked it). If there is someone else in the pharmacy who has no religious qualms about selling it, the customer should be passed straight onto them without delay, again minimising any possible friction or embarassment all round. No-one at all has suggested that the pharmacist shouldn't have the right to decline selling a particular product if he wants - there are plenty of places that won't sell un-fairly traded coffee, for instance - the issue is how it is dealt with, and that his right to religious choice doesn't impinge on someone else's.

Surprisingly, i agree with 99% of that.

there should be signs to spare embarisment.

women vs religion rites! eek! minefield!

But, as to being passed onto someone else, within 1 pharmacy you will only (usually) find 1 pharmacist working. they (the customer) then have to be told to come back or where else to go. which they are by law.

The MAP prevents the attachment of the fertilised egg to the wall of the uterus, if you google for it there is a wealth of info on the MAP.

The vatican states this prevention of attaching to the uterus wall is akin to abortion, hence the religious opposition to the supply of the MAP.

However, fertilisation itself takes about 24 hours, and sperm can survive for up to 2 days, the "embryo" doesn't even enter the implantation site for 5-6 days.
Also, the "embryo" is nothing more than an collection of a few cells for the first week or so, and there is nothing that even resembles human life, the placenta hasn't formed until at least two weeks in and the basics of neural formation doesn't start until around 16 days in, and that's even if the embryo implants at all, as it's not naturally guaranteed.

I personally feel that if someone cannot do the job for which they are employed, then they shouldn't be there.

---

by Cat
the MA pill is designed to stop a zygote from embedding in the uterus wall, therefor, causing an abortion.

---

The big question is when are you actually pregnant. As far as I'm aware a women only because pregnant when an egg is firtalised and succesfully embedded itself into the uterus wall. The MA Pill stops it from finalising the natural cycle of conception. Just as we can say about a condom, the normal pill etc. Only the point where you stop it is different. But it's still before the pregnancy.... so where is the differance

Because it's not technically a pregnancy yet it can also not be an abortion.

---

Arsenic isnt always used to poison people but there's a reason it's not sold over the counter any more. To a RC the MA pill is the equivalent of arcenic or a gun.

---

Both are ubtainable with a license though If I have a weapons license I can just buy a gun and if I have certain documents arsenic can be obtained by a special order. But if I'm against guns I wouldn't go work in a weaponsshop, as it might just not be the place for me

---

Whats more, the law protects him in the UK. Why?
If it's SO right to sell the MA pill regardless of religion, why does the law offer the religious person protection, an escape clause if you will, from having to dispence this drug?

---

A every good question. Why does the law do this. And I can tell you there is a very simple answer too As what we do here is live by the letter of the law not by the intention of the law. And we have to keep in mind that laws are reactive not proactive. And thats why you get situations like this happen.

This law was probably already there way before the MA pill became an over the counter drug. The idea of this law is to protect the workers from for example having to work on religious days etc so everyone could be free (of course within certain boundries) to believe in a certain religion and do this accordingly. The law was never meant for these kinda situation as these situations didn't exist when the law was first developed. So there was no escape clause for not filling these orders as the MA pill wasn't a over the counter drug at the time so whatever his religious believes he should have filled it, doctors orders. So some laws changed but the whole playing field didn't follow suit.

If the guy can't sell this kinda stuff than he might not be suitable for the job. But because he already got it you can't really fire him for it. So it would be up to the employer to make sure that this employee wasn't put in this position.

I honestly believe we have two victims here. The woman who wasn't served and the guy not serving her. It can't have been an easy decision for the guy I'm sure as as a pharmacist you should know what the possible consequences are of his actions. However I feel stronger for the woman that for the guy behind the counter as he knew what he was getting himself into when he took the job or started the study.

---

by Cat
The difference JtB is that the pill (regular kind), condoms, femidoms etc etc are designed to prevent conception. Many religions can accept this, if not agree.

---

The Catholic church is against just about any form of contreception including condoms, the pill ect.

Surely even working for a company that sells the Morning after pill, if your beliefs were held that strongly would be like accepting 'blood money'.

there is a difference (in religious theology) between a gamete (egg or sperm) and a zygote (fertalised egg).

An unfertalised egg will never become a life.

A sperm without an egg will never become a life.

In religious terms, a zygote is a different kettle of fish. it has the potential, wether implanted or not, to become life, it has been created, it has a viable human DNA code and given half a chance, willbecome a human being.

This is where (some) religious people have a problem. And, understanding their religion, i understand why they do. I dont believe they should be forced to sell what they dont agree with.

Many Doctors are qualified to perform abortions (surgious mainly). Should the goverment introduce a new law saying all surgons must perform abortions as part of their job, would you have all religious Dr's resign?

This is what you are asking of pharmacists.

Okay, how to word this.....

The morning after pill in my belief, is basically a stronger than usual dose of the contraceptive pill. The MAP i suppose could prevent a fertilised egg being implanted in the uterus. But it depends if the egg is fertilised in the first place. I believe that is not necessarily a given to require it. Usually the MAP is sought out because usual contraception has failed and its that dangerous time of the month, or contraception hasn't been used and again its that dangerous time of the month. The woman isn't necessarily pregnant, within 72 hours of unprotected sex, you can't tell. She might not be pregnant, the thing is is she isn't sure, which is why they seek the MAP. Therefore in my opinion, there doesn't have to be an embryo there to need it. Its a safeguard i suppose.

I hope I worded it right, but that's all i basically want to say on it.

---

by Cat
Many Doctors are qualified to perform abortions (surgious mainly). Should the goverment introduce a new law saying all surgons must perform abortions as part of their job, would you have all religious Dr's resign?

---

If there is direct medical ground for an abortian (where the life of the mother is at risk) any doctor should preform the abortion no matter what his religious believes.


(Edited by Chambler 15/02/2004 23:49)

I'm not talking in reality here, only what the drug was designed for.

I'd support anyone who's religion forbid him to sell guns, even thoug they are only likley to be used for protection, never on an actual person. they are designed to harm/kill therefor a person has the right to refuse.

I'd also support the right not to perform abortions, even if you have trained as a doctor.

I support the right of shops (like the Body Shop) not to sell products that were made using slave labour/wages or sell products tested on animals.

I support anyone who doesnt want to do what they dont believe in.

Other people than the Body shop make soap, lipstick, perfumes, bath salts, shower cream, etc etc. go to another outlet if you dont like the policy. It's the same with pharmaces.

Ok, this is alittle un-connected but im feeling abit oftended by the useage of "religous people think"

Im a religous person and im sure im not the only person on here and just because one person said they wouldnt sell it doesnt mean all people who religous wouldnt.

Its abit of a genralisation and i think thats unfair. If i didnt believe in the morning after pill then i would't do a job that means id have to sell it. Same as if i was an aniaml rights actavist i wouldnt work at an abatoir. Its pretty simple logic.

According to the original story:

"She claims she was not advised of alternative pharmacies as the pharmacist refused to speak to her. The store later denied this.

As it was late afternoon the woman, an office administrator from Stockport, went without taking the medication."

Even if what the store claimed was true, as it was late in the evening, it is quite possible that there would have been no other pharmacies in the locality open and that the asda was the only option for this woman.

In which case the woman had no other choice, and was ultimately left with no choice by the pharmacist.

Therefore:

---

Other people than the Body shop make soap, lipstick, perfumes, bath salts, shower cream, etc etc. go to another outlet if you dont like the policy. It's the same with pharmaces.

---

Doesn't really apply.

Ordinarily if the woman was given another choice I don't think it really would have been as big an issue.

(Edited by Stoo 16/02/2004 00:13)

OK,

"Religious people think" should rpobably read " most Roman Catholics and some other religions"

---

by Katiestar
If i didnt believe in the morning after pill then i would't do a job that means id have to sell it. Same as if i was an aniaml rights actavist i wouldnt work at an abatoir. Its pretty simple logic.

---

true. But if you were employed already in a job and the law changed, is it right you should then loose your job?

or is it right you should be able to refuse to test animals? Just as pharmacists can refuse to sell thre MA pill, providing they give alternative information.

There are only so many ways i can say the same thing. why dont people read what i say?

I'll put it in other contexts.

Euthenasia becomes legal, would you force a religious (various religions) Dr to assist the suiside?

All butchers (Halall, Kocher etc etc) have to sell pork products. shoukd existing Halall and Kocher butchers be out out of work?

Capital punishment is brought back in. All prison officers must take their turn at the (choose your own method of execution) button, hatch, switch.


I'm not saying this is right, i'd sell the MA pill to anyone.

It's also not right to force someone to go against their beliefs.

I think you're taking the point too far.

I work in a nursery, if the new law was that we had to smack the children if they were naughty then i would leave my job, I would not stay in a job that i was unable to do. Surely while he was training as a phamasist he would have realised that there would be certain pills that would be against his religion?

If he felt that deeply about his job then he should have guessed that his religion would be in a compramise at times.

Surely thats just commen sense? Either that or i have no idea what im talking about.

(edited for spelling)

(Edited by KaTiEStar 16/02/2004 00:23)

Stoo - CCTV footge shows her talking to the pharmacist for a while as he gives her alternative advise. Even if he didnt advise her, she just needs alternative information which any assistant could provide her with.

had he/she not done this she can report the pharmacist to the police and he will face charges.

also, you can take the pill up to 72 hours after sex. unless she left it to the last minute (doubtful since she was so worried) then she'd have had 2 days to find somewhere else.

the fertalised egg takes up to a week, generally over 5 days to implant in the womb so even after the 3 days she'd have had time for it to work (though nor guaranteed to work then)

And it isnt a big issue, anywhere but here.

---

by Cat
I'm not talking in reality here, only what the drug was designed for.

---

The drug is designed to be an emergency contraception aka emergency birth control (FAQ)
This is what it is designed and approved for by multiple health care organisations. If we don't "talk in reality" any form of birth control would be a possible abortian.

---

I'd support anyone who's religion forbid him to sell guns

---

But would you support him to go and work in a gunshop?

---

I'd also support the right not to perform abortions, even if you have trained as a doctor.

---

If there is a direct medical reason and you as a doctor do not preform a life saving operation you are negligent. And I wouldn't want to be the person to have to tell the family that the doctor didn't want to save their loved one, because his god told him to let her die. And no way you would get away with that before a commission. Sure if the situation isn't life threating you can forward someone to another doctor no problem.

---

I support the right of shops (like the Body Shop) not to sell products that were made using slave labour/wages or sell products tested on animals.

---

Who doesn't? It's a business model based on the believes of the owners. I don't think it's the business model of the asda not to sell birth control because of the religious believes of the owner. So wouldn't say it's exactly the same

Another example a couple of jehova witnesses have a child. This child gets an accident and undergoes a heavy operation and needs blood to survive. The blood is available in the blood bank but the parents are against blood transfusions because of religious believes. Do you let that child die due to the religious believes of it's parents? What does your heart tell you....? Well what the law tells you is very simple these parents are stripped from their rights and the child will recieve the treatment it needs to survive and no buts about religious believes and protection of.

The protection of ones rights only goes as far as they infridge on the rights of others. Obviously this kid had a right to live....

Sorry it's a bit off topic but just to show that religious believes aren't always holy. And I would be lying if I said no pun intended

(Edited by Chambler 16/02/2004 00:39)

---

by Chambler
This is what it is designed and approved for by multiple health care organisations. If we don't "talk in reality" any form of birth control would be a possible abortian.

---

Not in religious theology terms. There is a difference between preventing conception and killing a fertalised egg.

---

by Chambler
But would you support him to go and work in a gunshop?

---

if he worked in a sports shop that was now allowed to legally sell guns, hell yeah i would!! he didnt change the law.

---

by Chambler
If there is a direct medical reason and you as a doctor do not preform a life saving operation you are negligent. And I wouldn't want to be the person to have to tell the family that the doctor didn't want to save their loved one, because his god told him to let her die. And no way you would get away with that before a commission. Sure if the situation isn't life threating you can forward someone to another doctor no problem.

---

The hypocratic oath says "above all, do no harm."

To certain religions killing a child is the ultimate harm. "He who harms a chils shall be answerable to me" or something similar. i cant quote the bible well. But some religions would take that sereiously and to mean an unborn child.

Also, there are other doctors who would be willing to perform the procedure. Just as other pharmacists are willing to sell the MA pill.

Would youmake this Dr perform this abortion when there are other qualified Dr's available?

Would you make this pharmacist sell this drug when there are other pharmacies/pharmacists avaiable?

---

by Chambler
a couple of jehova witnesses have a child. This child gets an accident and undergoes a heavy operation and needs blood to survive. The blood is available in the blood bank but the parents are against blood transfusions because of religious believes. Do you let that child die due to the religious believes of it's parents? What does your heart tell you....? Well what the law tells you is very simple these parents are stripped from their rights and the child will recieve the treatment it needs to survive and no buts about religious believes and protection of.

---

This is different, it's the parents refusing teatment. IE no one can deliver the treatment.

You can go to court or social services to over ride this in the interests of the child.

However, no court order is going to order a certain Dr to do a certain precedure if he doesnt believe in it. basically because, unless there was ww3, there are always other doctors to do the same procedures.

Just as there are always other pharmacists.

As to what does your heart tell you? Well thats an individuals choice. but giving a blood transfusion to a JW child could result in assult charges against the doctor, unless he has legal backup.

the courts support religion you see, within reason.