Dispensing Contraceptives

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='kujo' post='1515245' date='Apr 30 2008, 02:39 PM']Absolutely. You cannot tax someone into a moral lifestyle. Doesn't seem like something Jesus would do.[/quote]

What about legislating morality in general, are you against that as well? Just curious.

[kujo]

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' post='1515331' date='Apr 30 2008, 06:21 PM']What about legislating morality in general, are you against that as well? Just curious.[/quote]

I am. I think that federal and state governments should not be in the position to be enforcing a state-mandated morality. I think an essential part of humanity is choice. There are some choices that are such that they would disrupt the order and safety of society (i.e.- murder, rape, theft, etc.); however, I just don't see the good in governments getting involved in morality. As I alluded to before, if we delegate this power to the GOOD sovereign, it will inevitably fall in the hands of the BAD sovereign. A far better thing for us to do is team up with our evangelical brothers and sisters in an effort to promote chastity. We should deal at the micro-level, encouraging our brothers and sisters to live a lifestyle in line with the truth about their sexuality.

But ENFORCING that lifestyle? I have a problem with that. I think it is beyond the scope of our government.

[picchick]

[quote name='kujo' post='1515238' date='Apr 30 2008, 03:34 PM']I'm sorry to say that it is well within the rights of the company to fire him. He has the right to religion, he has the right to his moral beliefs, but he [b]does not [/b]have the right to work at a pharmacy. He could've chosen any other profession, one that would not cause him to be involved in any immoral activities. But he chose to work in the field he did, knowing full well that he would be exposed to this sort of thing. Companies have the right to inform their employers of requirements when they are hired. Again, if he knew this was a possibility and went ahead anyway, the bag is in his hands[/quote]


Maybe the nursing is different than pharmacists in regards to doing things against you conscience....

In nursing, if you do not want to take care of a patient that is scheduled for an abortion you can say, "It is against my beliefs to participate in this activity."

If you are asked to participate, lets say, in an activity that revolves around euthanaisa, you can say, "I want no part in this."

The hopsital cannot fire you even if they are upfront with you. I have chosen to be a nurse. I know that I am entering a world of never ending moral/ethical problems. To enumerate them would be massive. However, that cannot stop me from entering the profession. If this were so you would have no one to care for you except nurses who don't give a hoot about anything.

[kujo]

[quote name='picchick' post='1515358' date='Apr 30 2008, 06:51 PM']Maybe the nursing is different than pharmacists in regards to doing things against you conscience....

In nursing, if you do not want to take care of a patient that is scheduled for an abortion you can say, "It is against my beliefs to participate in this activity."

If you are asked to participate, lets say, in an activity that revolves around euthanaisa, you can say, "I want no part in this."

The hopsital cannot fire you even if they are upfront with you. I have chosen to be a nurse. I know that I am entering a world of never ending moral/ethical problems. To enumerate them would be massive. However, that cannot stop me from entering the profession. If this were so you would have no one to care for you except nurses who don't give a hoot about anything.[/quote]

Perhaps it's different. My mom is a nurse and VERY Catholic (she's known as "her holiness" in her hospital, actually). But the article said that the dude should've informed his employer of his views upfront so that they can make arrangements or not hire him at all. He didn't, so he put himself in the position to be fired.

I take issue with your final statement about being left with nurses who "don't give a hoot about anything." I don't know if you meant it in a frivilous way or were being serious, but I think it's this mentality that does more harm than good. You can be an avowed-atheist and a great nurse. You can be a nun and a crappy care-giver. Your faith doesn't necessarily make you a great nurse. Furthermore, you can be a nice, caring, loving, compassionate person without being a Christian. Trust me...I live with 2 such people! But again...you may not have meant it in that way. I just had to put that out there.

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='kujo' post='1515354' date='Apr 30 2008, 04:45 PM']I am. I think that federal and state governments should not be in the position to be enforcing a state-mandated morality. I think an essential part of humanity is choice. There are some choices that are such that they would disrupt the order and safety of society (i.e.- murder, rape, theft, etc.); however, I just don't see the good in governments getting involved in morality. As I alluded to before, if we delegate this power to the GOOD sovereign, it will inevitably fall in the hands of the BAD sovereign. A far better thing for us to do is team up with our evangelical brothers and sisters in an effort to promote chastity. We should deal at the micro-level, encouraging our brothers and sisters to live a lifestyle in line with the truth about their sexuality.

But ENFORCING that lifestyle? I have a problem with that. I think it is beyond the scope of our government.[/quote]

Hmm. i used to be a utilitarian, before my conversion, so i do have an appreciation for your line of reasoning. Also, i do agree that we need to promote chastity - no question.

i think the simplest response for me to make is that, like it or not, we do legislate morality, and people do tend to look to the law for moral standards. It's like the parent setting rules before the child is old enough to understand why; it's like God giving us the ten commandments when we were children, before Jesus taught us the simplest way to obey those commandments, love. i admit, it has been a while since i read him, but i believe JS Mill even talked about when it would be acceptable/necessary to legislate things for the masses, for their best interest.

[picchick]

[quote name='kujo' post='1515364' date='Apr 30 2008, 05:59 PM']Perhaps it's different. My mom is a nurse and VERY Catholic (she's known as "her holiness" in her hospital, actually). But the article said that the dude should've informed his employer of his views upfront so that they can make arrangements or not hire him at all. He didn't, so he put himself in the position to be fired.

I take issue with your final statement about being left with nurses who "don't give a hoot about anything." I don't know if you meant it in a frivilous way or were being serious, but I think it's this mentality that does more harm than good. You can be an avowed-atheist and a great nurse. You can be a nun and a crappy care-giver. Your faith doesn't necessarily make you a great nurse. Furthermore, you can be a nice, caring, loving, compassionate person without being a Christian. Trust me...I live with 2 such people! But again...you may not have meant it in that way. I just had to put that out there.[/quote]

I'm sorry I didn't read that first part of you statement. I stand corrected.

Oh no! I didn't mean that at all! I mean, I am very serious about my statement but faith has nothing to do with being a caring person. If you do not care about ethical moral decisions, or if you are not in a process of inquiry then how can you care for the patients that are in those moral/ethical problems? I hope that makes it more clear.

I have friends who will be nurses who I would trust my life and my family's life with and they have no faith in God. They are some of the most caring people I know.

[kujo]

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' post='1515368' date='Apr 30 2008, 07:07 PM']Hmm. i used to be a utilitarian, before my conversion, so i do have an appreciation for your line of reasoning. Also, i do agree that we need to promote chastity - no question.

i think the simplest response for me to make is that, like it or not, we do legislate morality, and people do tend to look to the law for moral standards. It's like the parent setting rules before the child is old enough to understand why; it's like God giving us the ten commandments when we were children, before Jesus taught us the simplest way to obey those commandments, love. i admit, it has been a while since i read him, but i believe JS Mill even talked about when it would be acceptable/necessary to legislate things for the masses, for their best interest.[/quote]

I don't look to the State for moral guidance. And I think anyone who does is severely mistaken. But I respect your views and agree with them, to an extent. I don't think the best way to deal with these tendencies towards sins is to make them illegal; rather, I think we need to evangelize better, preaching the Gospel of Love that our Lord gave to us. It reminds me of the premise of [u]Footloose[/u]--just because they outlawed dancing, doesn't mean that the inclination towards the sin they feared had gone anywhere.

[kujo]

[quote name='picchick' post='1515371' date='Apr 30 2008, 07:12 PM']Oh no! I didn't mean that at all! I mean, I am very serious about my statement but faith has nothing to do with being a caring person. If you do not care about ethical moral decisions, or if you are not in a process of inquiry then how can you care for the patients that are in those moral/ethical problems? I hope that makes it more clear.

I have friends who will be nurses who I would trust my life and my family's life with and they have no faith in God. They are some of the most caring people I know.[/quote]

Okay. I didn't know where you were coming from there but I'm glad we're on the same page. I got a little flustered and had to whip out my soap box. It will get tucked away now!

[Anthony]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1515018' date='Apr 30 2008, 11:07 AM'][url="http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=744221"]http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=744221[/url]
what would you have done if you were employee?

should the employer be allowed to fire him?
i don't see anything stopping firing.

does freedom of religion mean the state can't pass requirements that says you are to proscribe pills or at least refer them?
i know a state can require catholic charities, if it wants grant money, to dispense contraceptives, and that is legal.
what is there to take to court here?

is it right that we can ban all these sins, and could ban contraceptives by his type of reasoning, but we can't require them to be sold etc? my concern is even handed laws.[/quote]

The government cannot make a Catholic non-profit dispense contraceptives. That is rediculous. If there is an adverse impact on that company to do something contrary to what it believes then they aren't required by law to do so. There is a significant adverse impact on a Catholic non-profit to provide contraceptives, it goes against Church teaching.

[-I---Love]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1515191' date='Apr 30 2008, 03:44 PM']Even if it was a refill, it was still her prescription. Not transferring it meant that she probably had to return to the doctor. That may have cost her money.[/quote]


Unless you have a really crappy doctor, all I would have to do is call up the doctor and ask them to phone in the prescription to another place. Not a big deal. Of course he should have given her the prescription back.

[quote name='kujo' post='1515238' date='Apr 30 2008, 04:34 PM']I'm sorry to say that it is well within the rights of the company to fire him. He has the right to religion, he has the right to his moral beliefs, but he [b]does not [/b]have the right to work at a pharmacy. He could've chosen any other profession, one that would not cause him to be involved in any immoral activities. But he chose to work in the field he did, knowing full well that he would be exposed to this sort of thing. Companies have the right to inform their employers of requirements when they are hired. Again, if he knew this was a possibility and went ahead anyway, the bag is in his hands.

That being said, I admire his fortitude, but question his motives.
Seems fair enough to me.
So, we should start making people pay extra money when they engage in activities that are immoral? Sounds like a Church tax to me.[/quote]

Why does he not have the right to work at a pharmacy? Because he's a certain religion? That's wrong. I think that is something we call prejudice...

[quote name='kujo' post='1515387' date='Apr 30 2008, 07:29 PM']I don't look to the State for moral guidance. And I think anyone who does is severely mistaken. But I respect your views and agree with them, to an extent. I don't think the best way to deal with these tendencies towards sins is to make them illegal; rather, I think we need to evangelize better, preaching the Gospel of Love that our Lord gave to us. It reminds me of the premise of [u]Footloose[/u]--just because they outlawed dancing, doesn't mean that the inclination towards the sin they feared had gone anywhere.[/quote]

Yes, but MANY people do look to the state for moral guidance. Many people will do something only if it's legal. If it's illegal they won't. It's a widespread phenomenon.

The state MUST provide for its citizens moral guidance. If it's foundation is not credible, is not based upon morals, then it will self-destruct.

Btw, while I probably wouldn't, I have no problem with someone taking someones condoms from their grocery bag. It's a work of mercy

A catholic who believes that being a pharmacist means they have to compromise their principles is a fool. Have courage! Grow up!

[kujo]

[quote name='-I---Love' post='1515410' date='Apr 30 2008, 08:02 PM']Why does he not have the right to work at a pharmacy? Because he's a certain religion? That's wrong. I think that is something we call prejudice...[/quote]

You don't have the RIGHT to work everywhere. He has the prerogative to work there, but if it's going to violate his moral views, he should work elsewhere.

[quote name='-I---Love' post='1515410' date='Apr 30 2008, 08:02 PM']Btw, while I probably wouldn't, I have no problem with someone taking someones condoms from their grocery bag. It's a work of mercy

A catholic who believes that being a pharmacist means they have to compromise their principles is a fool. Have courage! Grow up![/quote]

Haha. You are so incredibly narrow-minded that I want to take a picture with you and show it to my godson. Seriously, you think that I need to "grow up" because I think that it is the responsibility of the guy to inform his employer of his possible moral qualms with the responsiblities of his job...that being, to give out medicine people have prescribed to them.

I do, however, find your acceptance of larceny quite ironic.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' post='1515412' date='Apr 30 2008, 06:10 PM']You don't have the RIGHT to work everywhere. He has the prerogative to work there, but if it's going to violate his moral views, he should work elsewhere.
Haha. You are so incredibly narrow-minded that I want to take a picture with you and show it to my godson. Seriously, you think that I need to "grow up" because I think that it is the responsibility of the guy to inform his employer of his possible moral qualms with the responsiblities of his job...that being, to give out medicine people have prescribed to them.

I do, however, find your acceptance of larceny quite ironic.[/quote]
So is it the government's job to enforce against larceny?

After all if we give the government the power to ban condom-theft, next thing you know they'll have the power to confiscate your property for no reason at all. It's a slippery slope when you start legislating morality, ya know . . .

Edited May 1, 2008 by Socrates

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1515524' date='Apr 30 2008, 10:16 PM']So is it the government's job to enforce against larceny?

After all if we give the government the power to ban condom-theft, next thing you know they'll have the power to confiscate your property for no reason at all. It's a slippery slope when you start legislating morality, ya know . . .[/quote]

Huh?

[-I---Love]

[quote name='kujo' post='1515412' date='Apr 30 2008, 08:10 PM']You don't have the RIGHT to work everywhere. He has the prerogative to work there, but if it's going to violate his moral views, he should work elsewhere.
Haha. You are so incredibly narrow-minded that I want to take a picture with you and show it to my godson. Seriously, you think that I need to "grow up" because I think that it is the responsibility of the guy to inform his employer of his possible moral qualms with the responsiblities of his job...that being, to give out medicine people have prescribed to them.

I do, however, find your acceptance of larceny quite ironic.[/quote]

If one desires to be a pharmacist and informs their employer that they will not do such and such, then I'm not seeing why he "should work elsewhere" as you recommend. So who decides where one has the right to work?

Narrow-minded comments are always amusing.

I wasn't actually telling you to grow up, unless you're a catholic pharmacist who has thrown away their morals because they think they must conform, but if you'd like to take the recommendation feel free.

Contraceptives are typically not medicine.

A definition of medicine:

1. any substance or substances used in treating disease or illness; medicament; remedy.
2. the art or science of restoring or preserving health or due physical condition, as by means of drugs, surgical operations or appliances, or manipulations: often divided into medicine proper, surgery, and obstetrics.
3. the art or science of treating disease with drugs or curative substances, as distinguished from surgery and obstetrics.

Fertility is neither a disease nor illness, although many today treat it as so. Surprising to some, infertility is actually the illness.

[Alycin]

[quote name='-I---Love' post='1515594' date='Apr 30 2008, 10:43 PM']Contraceptives are typically not medicine.[/quote]

Im glad you brought up this point.

Males, stop reading now because this is girly yuck talk. lol.

I have always been very irregular. I started my period when I was 10 so it's not an, "oh, give it time" thing. I was put on birth control by my doctor last year because the irregularity got to an alarming point. I didn't have a period for 2, 3 months, and then I'd have a period that lasted 2 weeks, sometimes longer.

I stopped taking the BC after my periods became regular, and they stayed regular for 3 months. Then they started going back to being completely random. I had my last period the first part of January. I have been trying to decide what to do, whether to get back on BC or not. I know it's unhealthy to not menstruate for months at a time, and when I have those super-long periods, I become anemic.

If I DO make the difficult decision to get back on BC, I certainly think that the pharmacist should prescribe me my medicine... as someone who isn't even having sex, I'm not actually preventing any births and so they don't REALLY have a reason to deny me the Rx.

I know my case is rare, but still... these things need to be considered.

I wish there was medicine that JUST regulated your periods and wasn't actually a contraceptive.

[-I---Love]

Alycin - sorry to hear about your difficulty. Such problems are really crappy to say the least so I wish you the best. In the meantime, some people have been helped or "cured" by trying herbal alternatives, etc. If you have the opportunity to go to a good chiropractor in your area that does supplements, applied kinesiology, energy medicine, or the like, it is something to look into. I know that if I was in your shoes I would try every avenue possible before I had to go for the BC. We all know how harmful BC can be. Take care. Btw, it is funny isn't - that there isn't a medicine that just does that...makes you wonder what's going on...

[JesusIsMySuperHero]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1515018' date='Apr 30 2008, 10:07 AM'][url="http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=744221"]http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=744221[/url]
what would you have done if you were employee?

should the employer be allowed to fire him?
i don't see anything stopping firing.

does freedom of religion mean the state can't pass requirements that says you are to proscribe pills or at least refer them?
i know a state can require catholic charities, if it wants grant money, to dispense contraceptives, and that is legal.
what is there to take to court here?

is it right that we can ban all these sins, and could ban contraceptives by his type of reasoning, but we can't require them to be sold etc? my concern is even handed laws.[/quote]

After reading the story, I have to say he messed up. He should have told his employer that he wouldn't dispense the contraceptives because he has religious reasons to be against it.

Another thing to note, is his refusal to help. I'll be honest, that is a little self-righteous. My religious beliefs says you are sinning. I'm going to force you to believe like me! His zeal was a little over the top. He should have been a little like Pilate about this, send the prescription to another Pharmacy for it to be filled, and then wash his hands of the matter.

What I would have done, I would have said, sorry maam, this is against my religious beliefs, however, if you want me to send the prescription to another pharmacy I will do so. Where would you like me to send it?

I know, I'm not Catholic, though I don't believe in Birth Control, as it is playing God as it comes to the children that are born in the world. If God wants me to have 10 children, then that's how many he wants me to have.

However, this is one of those things that is really not essential in the Christian Faith. This rule almost seems Pharisical! Well God, I never had birth control. . . And him saying, I never knew you.

Edited May 1, 2008 by JesusIsMySuperHero

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1515616' date='May 1 2008, 12:04 AM']If I DO make the difficult decision to get back on BC, I certainly think that the pharmacist should prescribe me my medicine... as someone who isn't even having sex, I'm not actually preventing any births and so they don't REALLY have a reason to deny me the Rx.

I know my case is rare, but still... these things need to be considered.

I wish there was medicine that JUST regulated your periods and wasn't actually a contraceptive. [/quote]

Just curious, I've heard that some OB/GYNs (the strong pro-life, Catholic types) are usually able to treat these kinds of cases without birth control. Is this something you've tried?

FWIW, if you were married, you could still practice NFP while taking a contraceptive for medical reasons. That way you'd get the spiritual benefits and avoid the risk of unknowingly aborting a child before implantation.

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1515795' date='May 1 2008, 10:32 AM']I know, I'm not Catholic, though I don't believe in Birth Control, as it is playing God as it comes to the children that are born in the world. If God wants me to have 10 children, then that's how many he wants me to have.

However, this is one of those things that is really not essential in the Christian Faith. This rule almost seems Pharisical! Well God, I never had birth control. . . And him saying, I never knew you.[/quote]

It was essential to the Christian Faith until 1930-something. It's not about following a rule. Rather, we are recognizing the fundamental mystery and purpose of marriage and the meaning of our lives. If we are disposable at conception, what makes us so irreplaceable as adults? One is not more or less human than the other. If the tiniest form of human life can be "rightly" objectified, why wouldn't I be "right" in objectifying anyone else?

Edited May 1, 2008 by LouisvilleFan

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' post='1515137' date='Apr 30 2008, 07:42 PM']Love how he was ordered to take an ethics course. Maybe he should be the one teaching it.[/quote]

Amen to that...

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1515819' date='May 1 2008, 03:12 PM']Just curious, I've heard that some OB/GYNs (the strong pro-life, Catholic types) are usually able to treat these kinds of cases without birth control. Is this something you've tried?[/quote]
One More Soul's website lists a lot of them. I finally asked my uncle about such things (he's an OB/GYN), as I'd been on the pill for similar reasons to what Alycin is listing, and he told me of some alternatives. I don't know if they'd work for you, though, Alycin, and I'm sure, from your previous post, that you're looking into everything carefully (and I commend you for that!)
[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1515819' date='May 1 2008, 03:12 PM']FWIW, if you were married, you could still practice NFP while taking a contraceptive for medical reasons. That way you'd get the spiritual benefits and avoid the risk of unknowingly aborting a child before implantation.[/quote]
Not necessarily. I thought that would be possible as well, but the pill alters the cervical mucus, so you can't tell from that sign if you're ovulating or not. I'm not sure if it also effects temps, as I didn't check temps. BTW, the cervical mucus can be really hard to read when coming off the pill, too. I didn't show signs of fertility even though I was ovulating when I came off the pill.