Does Bush proposal threaten access to the pill?

[Evermore]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25940818/

/discuss

[Martrae]

Let me see if I remember this right from that stupid seminar my ex dragged me to.

Birth control isn't 100% effective but is a huge market. Women are less likely to take the pill if they know they don't have abortion as a back-up if it fails. Therefore to get rid of abortion you have to get rid of the pill as well.


I'm sure that's what this is all about.

[Gypsiyee]

the hits keep on coming, don't they?

what an absurd thing. if you can't separate personal beliefs from your profession, don't be in the damned profession.

protecting people within their line of work that was their choice for their beliefs? I can't believe it's even considered.

I'm going to go ahead and get a job selling guns, even though I'm morally opposed to having them. While I sell those guns, I want you to go ahead and impose a rule that I'm protected from having to be involved with them so that I'm not discriminated against for finding guns repulsive while I work at the gun shop.

ffs, how big of an idiot do you have to be.

[leah]

there's a pharmacist in my hometown who is devoutly catholic and charged more for birth control than other pharmacies. really frustrating.

[Evermore]

what kills me is that the pill is used for other reasons then birth control. why focus on one aspect

[Arlos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

(no, it's not Rick Astley)

-Arlos

[leah]

what kills me is that the pill is used for other reasons then birth control. why focus on one aspect

i agree. at the time i found out about this pharmacist in hastings overcharging, i had heard it from my mom, who was only on the pill to regulate her heavy flow (she lost too much blood otherwise and was frequently anemic). i got on the pill before i was even sexually active because i have intense PMDD and cramping. it's not *always* about preventing pregnancy. i mean sure, most times that's the point (it is called "birth control," after all) but a lot of times it's about other factors that are most easily regulated with hormones.

[Trielelvan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

(no, it's not Rick Astley)

-Arlos

<3 <3 <3

[Maeya]

Maybe I'm missing the big picture here, but I don't see why this is such a big fucking deal. The only thing it's saying is that if you are against certain medications or devices, and don't want to prescribe them, then they can't fire you for it. It creates a little bit of hassle for the patients, but they can just find another doctor who doesn't share those beliefs.

I worked at a physician recruiting office and you'd occasionally see OBGYNs specifically state they are against abortion, or birth control, and you would just work with them as you could. It was mentioned that there are so many facets to the pill than just preventing a birth, but there are so many facets to medicine that birth control is just a tiny aspect of it. You can be even an OBGYN and not want to prescribe BC and still have plenty to do and still be able to help people in your chosen profession.

When we would call clinics to see if they were hiring doctors, many would state that they do not do terminations, but they would refer women out to places who would. Same deal.

The only time I could really see it being a big deal is if you were in a rural location and the town's ONLY doctor refused to prescribe birth control, requiring a long drive to a different doctor. But for a vast majority of the country, that's not the case.

[Gypsiyee]

The only thing it's saying is that if you are against certain medications or devices, and don't want to prescribe them, then they can't fire you for it. It creates a little bit of hassle for the patients, but they can just find another doctor who doesn't share those beliefs.

This is precisely why it's a big deal.

People are paid for a service. They absolutely *should* be fired if they REFUSE to provide that service. Why do they deserve protection from it? Patients have enough trouble with the healthcare industry without having to go around their asses to get to their elbow to obtain necessities. What if everyone in my network in this joke of a healthcare system we have just up and decides "I don't provide birth control and you can't make me, nananana booboo." I have to go to not only another doctor, but maybe one that I'm not covered under to provide me with birth control?

I'm not on it now because my health insurance is a joke, but I started BC when I was 10 years old due to problems with my period that would leave me in crippling pain. If I had a daughter who was going through what I went through and was told by a physician that I JUST PAID that he refuses to give me a remedy for my child based on his beliefs, I think I'd choke him. Prescriptions are handed out after treatment - most people wouldn't think to interview their doctor about their special religious or political beliefs before they get treatment and they shouldn't have to. It has nothing to do with why you're at the doctor. I damn sure don't want to be paying a doctor to examine me just to have them tell me I'm shit out of luck for treatment then have to go to another doctor and pay him for the same service. That's ludicrous.

Next are we going to protect vegetarians from serving meat if they work at a steakhouse? For crying out loud, it is their job. If you don't want to prescribe it, don't, but you do not deserve any special treatment for it. If you don't do your job, for whatever reason you feel is worthy, you should risk being fired. Period.

[Martrae]

My auto mechanic provides a service too. He doesn't do certain things because the work involved takes up too much time for the money he gets paid for it. Should I insist he do it all because he provides a SERVICE?

And don't you know you're supposed to meet with any physician, lawyer, priest before deciding to use their services? Ethical questions should definitely be on your list of things to discuss before your first appointment/service.

[Gypsiyee]

Time and labor is a completely different ballpark than "because I'm morally opposed." Not being able to do the service because the profit isn't enough is something that would affect his business and how it's run. As a business, that is a business decision completely based on monetary necessity and the function of the business. That comparison is just completely off the wall and grasping for straws, and you know it.

Yes I know you're supposed to meet with these people, but I don't give a shit what a doctor believes in on his personal time if he's a good doctor. I don't go to him for him to educate me on how I should vote, what god I should believe in, if he cheats on his wife.. that is NOT what I go to a doctor for. I go to a doctor based on referral of their ability to perform their job and if my health insurance covers them. If my health insurance does not cover them, I do not go, because I have to work hard for my money and can't afford to pick and choose. *That* is reality, not omg you don't agree with my beliefs. Beliefs don't pay my bills.

I shouldn't have to compromise my health based on morals - the very thought of it is ridiculous. A priest is not a doctor, you go to them for moral guidance. A lawyer is not a doctor, many of their cases are completely formulated on moral grounds or questionable evidence. There is no right or wrong in these two professions, meeting with them will certainly be a case of morals because their moral stance will always affect the outcome. A doctor provides a service based on science and proven procedure, where there is no room for questioning what is right or wrong. If you can't discern the difference between these, I'm not quite sure what to say.

Put restrictions on birth control or allow doctors to turn their noses up at providing it based on moral beliefs, and you'll have more unprepared parents and more uncared for children in this already overpopulated country. Dr. Kevorkian led his practice based on what he felt was the moral right thing to do, and look how well that turned out for everyone.

There is no room in healthcare for protection for your personal beliefs.

[Martrae]

First off, your 'rights' don't take precedence over anyone else's. There are PLENTY of doctors out there more than willing to prescribe anything you want. The few that find birth control repugnant shouldn't be forced to do anything.

Doctors are there to help you, not be your bitch and do what you want when you want it. Who wants to put in the time, money and effort (not to mention deal with all the insurance bullshit) needed to become a doctor only to be forced to do things they find morally reprehensible.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure most, if not all, would prescribe it for legitimate health reasons, so all this "OMG the sky is falling" is much panic over nothing.

[Naethyn]

The key is grouping it as a form of abortion. The argument of "worker's rights to deny" is a complete cop out. It's all about labeling it as that definition so later actions can also target it.

[Gypsiyee]

First off, your 'rights' don't take precedence over anyone else's. There are PLENTY of doctors out there more than willing to prescribe anything you want. The few that find birth control repugnant shouldn't be forced to do anything.

I'm not arguing that point at all, am I? if you reference my post above, I said if they don't want to fine, but they shouldn't get special privilege protection from it.

Doctors are there to help you, not be your bitch and do what you want when you want it. Who wants to put in the time, money and effort (not to mention deal with all the insurance bullshit) needed to become a doctor only to be forced to do things they find morally reprehensible.

Then go into a different form of medicine. If you find your branch of practice has things you have to do that you find morally reprehensible, go into a different field, because there are a TON of different aspects of medicine. If you want to birth babies, it is understood that people will come to you for birth control. If a doctor doesn't understand that aspect of his practice, then he doesn't understand his entire practice. If you're morally opposed to boob jobs, you don't become a plastic surgeon. It's common freakin sense.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure most, if not all, would prescribe it for legitimate health reasons, so all this "OMG the sky is falling" is much panic over nothing.

Pretty sure they might doesn't justify lawful protection if they don't. Give me one reason they deserve any special privileges for their moral standpoints? Just like you so eloquently put that my rights don't take precedence over anyone else's (something I never implied, btw), why should theirs? You can't have it both ways.

[Eziekial]

I agree with Mart and Maeya. There should not be discrimination in the workplace. I find it interesting that "liberal" minded people are trying to push conformity and intolerance.

[Gypsiyee]

It's not discrimination.. it's asking people to do what's expected of everyone equally. No one forces anyone to do it now, so why is extra protection needed? No one is saying you can't have your own beliefs, but there is a difference between having your own beliefs and letting your beliefs affect your job.

I can respect those who don't believe in it for whatever reason, but this isn't about discriminating against their beliefs.. it's a matter of being able to separate your personal life from your business life. They're two different balls of wax and should not blend together. If people were being forced all over the place, perhaps the action would make sense, but they're not. Where is the line drawn? Are doctors serving the public at free clinics going to be protected from providing people who have no other means of acquiring it? I don't care what you do at your privately owned practice, but there's much more to it than that.

I mentioned Kevorkian earlier, and I would like to know why one man gets criminalized and convicted of murder for acting based on morals, but on another side of the fence we applaud and protect people for acting on morals? It's simply hypocritical.

[Maeya]

Then go into a different form of medicine. If you find your branch of practice has things you have to do that you find morally reprehensible, go into a different field, because there are a TON of different aspects of medicine. If you want to birth babies, it is understood that people will come to you for birth control. If a doctor doesn't understand that aspect of his practice, then he doesn't understand his entire practice. If you're morally opposed to boob jobs, you don't become a plastic surgeon. It's common freakin sense.

But again - birth control is just a small portion of the wide range of duties preformed by an OBGYN. And technically - and please correct me if I'm wrong about this - but I believe it is the Obstetrician who deals with pregnancy, and does the birthing, and a Gynecologist who would be concerned with birth control/fertility. I understand that most doctors are both Obstetricians AND Gynecologists (it goes hand in hand), but I'm just saying - it's possible to only be one OR the other. So if you wanted to birth babies but not do birth control, you could specifically state that you will only do OB. And people do. I might be wrong on that - maybe OBs do the birth control - but again, then you just specifically look for jobs that are GYN only and not do the OB.

And there are a ton of people who go into plastic surgery to help accident and burn victims with reconstructive surgery. Not for vanity. If you are morally opposed to boob jobs - then yeah - don't get a job doing boob jobs. But there are so many other aspects of the field you can apply your talents to.

I don't think anyone agrees with their job 100% of the time. If I'm asked to do something I'm strongly morally opposed to, I work around it as best I can without affecting my job.

[Arlos]

It can also be an access to care issue.

Take the following scenario:

Woman lives in a rural community, with only 1 local pharmacy. Woman is raped by a drunken asshole one night. She goes and sees her doctor, who gives her a prescription for the Plan B system, to make sure she doesn't get pregnant from being raped by drunken asshole. She goes to the pharmacy, which is run by Captain Conservative, who refuses to fill her prescription, because it offends his tender sensibilities.

First of all, a pharmacist has *NO* business getting between a doctor and his or her patient, and deciding what is and is not an appropriate medical treatment. Second, as we all know, Plan B has a very short window in which it is effective. If that raped woman has no easy access to another pharmacy, she may well miss out on that window, and either have to get an actual abortion, or go through the horror of carrying a kid born from rape to term.

Similarly, what about kids in towns like that? What if a girl needs the pill for reasons other than birth control, yet can't get it? Should they be condemned to pain and suffering because some asshat feels it's their right to determine what is and is not acceptable medical treatment?

I say no. If you go into the medical profession, YOUR moral responsibility is to your patient, and their interests and well-being. If you have a problem with aspects of reproductive medicine, DON'T GET INVOLVED IN IT. If you want to be a doctor, be a podiatrist or something. If you're a pharmacist, you have no business and no right to decide FOR A DOCTOR what is and is not the right course of treatment for that doctor's patient.

-Arlos

[Martrae]

It's highly unlikely a rural pharmacy would have that medicine anyway since there wouldn't be a high demand for it and they are in business to make a profit. Even urban pharmacies don't carry all medicine's available.

[Tikker]

My auto mechanic provides a service too. He doesn't do certain things because the work involved takes up too much time for the money he gets paid for it. Should I insist he do it all because he provides a SERVICE?

And don't you know you're supposed to meet with any physician, lawyer, priest before deciding to use their services? Ethical questions should definitely be on your list of things to discuss before your first appointment/service.

I actually agree with Martrae here

I have zero issue with doctors/pharmacists whatever not offering stuff they don't agree with

[Lueyen]

Government has no business in the issue on either side. Don't like what your employer tells you to do on moral grounds, and it's not illegal? You have two options, refuse to do so explaining your case and or quit. Own a business and don't want to sell something in particular either due to moral objection or because of financial considerations? That is your prerogative, and your business will suffer the consequences or reap the rewards.

However I would apply this same logic to other issues as well. Government has not business instituting smoking bans for private businesses, again that would be up to the owner. Government has no business forcing cab drivers who find alcohol or pets objectionable to take fares of people carrying a bottle of wine or with a puppy in tow (the exception being for the blind), that is up to the cab owner.

Don't like a businesses policies or products it carries? don't purchase from it. Can't find the products you want locally? Start your own business, or pursue a company to open one in your community.

[Tikker]

Government has not business instituting smoking bans for private businesses, again that would be up to the owner.

disagree with this 100%
fuck smokers up the goatass

[Drem]

There is no room in healthcare for protection for your personal beliefs.

So by your logic, and it is very discriminative, no catholic could ever become a OBGYN because their personal beliefs. That's ridiculous to me, as much as I hate religion, to fire someone for objecting to do something that conflicts with their lifestyle. Especially when they're objecting a recent medical option that would not have been such an issue 50 years ago. If you want an abortion and your current OB won't do it, you need to go find another one. It's exactly like Martrae said... you don't go to XY_Random_Mechanic and get pissed because they won't rebuild your transmission, even though they're a mechanic. The guy made a choice not to include that aspect in his business, just like certain doctors choose not to kill unborn children.

You can't really argue against it... it's extremely selfish, imo, to think these people should be fired because their profession now has to deal with things that are morally disturbing to them that aren't to you.

[Gypsiyee]

Where did I ever say "they should be fired without question for not doing x" - cripes, read words for what they say, not what you want them to say.

I said they SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTED from being fired. If they're not performing their job up to their business's standards, there shouldn't be a rule that says 'okay since you believe this you don't have to do it and we'll make sure the big baddies don't get you if you aren't performing your job"

what's hard to understand about this? you don't understand the whole aspect of your job, don't cry when your employer doesn't think you're up to par. I fail to see where it's selfish to ask people to have the common sense to separate personal life from business life. If you choose not to do something, that's your choice, but every action has a consequence and you shouldn't have your hand held to protect you from that consequence. Obviously doctors who have their own practice aren't going to risk getting fired, are they? for heaven's sake look at the big picture.

are you actually calling birth control killing unborn children? that implication is everything that's wrong with this proposal - the disgusting insinuation that people who are trying to prevent a child coming into this world without the means to be cared for are baby killers.

I've yet to hear any of you reply to why one man was jailed for acting on morals but these people should be protected for theirs.

there's nothing discriminatory in expecting people to be treated equally.. in fact, in case you missed that memo, that's the opposite of the definition.