|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:07 pm
kp606 Jackassery. EDIT: Link removed because of the annoying page stretchery. I'm not sure if that leads to the article or the conflicting in the PCG but it makes me sick to my stomach. Halfway through it mentions that a large perpetrator of the hospitals not giving out Plan B are Catholic. Wait so: It's perfectly cool if each religion keeps to themselves but when the Catholic Church asks their hospitals to not administer Plan B, they get into a tizy? Flipping outrageous. What a large bunch of hypocrties. Article: Quote: Up to 8 percent of sexually assaulted women in the United States become pregnant with the assailant's child. Some undoubtedly do so because hospitals fail to help them in time. The consequences can be devastating. Rape counselors have documented widespread negligence in Connecticut hospitals when it comes to making emergency contraception available to victims of sexual assault. Connecticut Sexual Assault Crisis Services counselors who accompanied rape victims to hospitals in the first half of 2006 say that 40 percent of them were offered too little or none of the so-called Plan B drug. ADVERTISEMENT SPONSORED LINKS Some 500 rape victims go to Connecticut hospitals for emergency treatment every year. If the rape counselors are right, that means 200 women and girls are receiving insufficient protection. Sixteen of those women are statistically at risk of becoming pregnant and could, if they don't act fast, undergo surgical abortions later. Catholic hospitals balk at providing emergency contraception because the church believes it destroys the life begun when a woman's egg is fertilized by sperm. But scientists say Plan B may prevent fertilization. The drug also work by stopping the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says pregnancy begins at the point of implantation. So do federal regulations, which state that "pregnancy encompasses the period of time from implantation until delivery." Because of this, several states, including Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York, require all hospitals to dispense Plan B. As lawmakers, scientists and theologians argue over when life begins, hundreds of sexually assaulted girls and women in Connecticut are given little or no say in a matter that is far from an abstract parsing of medical terms for them. Doctors and pharmacists should not be forced to act against their consciences. But an injured woman must get the safe and legal care she needs as quickly as possible, to avoid even more harm. She shouldn't have to hospital-shop desperately for contraceptives in the dead of night when pharmacies are closed and the odds of stopping pregnancy decrease with every passing hour. There must be someone inside every hospital, whether secular or religious, who will offer, immediately, the compassionate help a distraught and wounded woman needs. I think the problem arises when they are taken to said hospitals for emergency situations (often, rape victims are taken to the nearest hospital via ambulance and don't get a choice in which hospital they are taken to). Often times, hospitals won't transfer a patient without a dire reason, and I can easily see a Catholic hospital deciding not to allow a woman to leave to get EC. If they aren't there by choice, why shouldn't they be able to request emergency contraception and receive it?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:37 pm
ThePeerOrlando2 I think the problem arises when they are taken to said hospitals for emergency situations (often, rape victims are taken to the nearest hospital via ambulance and don't get a choice in which hospital they are taken to). Often times, hospitals won't transfer a patient without a dire reason, and I can easily see a Catholic hospital deciding not to allow a woman to leave to get EC. If they aren't there by choice, why shouldn't they be able to request emergency contraception and receive it? They should be able to still request the EC pill even if they didn't choose to go to a Catholic hospital but even so, I highly doubt that that the Catholic hosptial would listen or give in to their request since they don't believe in using birth control so they most likely won't carry the EC pill or the regualar birth control. But maybe even if they don't have the EC or believe in it maybe they can call a different clinic that does carry it to give to the patient since they didn't go their by choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:25 pm
Quote: They should be able to still request the EC pill even if they didn't choose to go to a Catholic hospital but even so, I highly doubt that that the Catholic hosptial would listen or give in to their request since they don't believe in using birth control so they most likely won't carry the EC pill or the regualar birth control. That's kind of the point of the original article, and something that KP equates to "jackassery". I mean, if hospitals can't deny entrance to someone based on skin color, or refuse to give people aid because of their gender or sexual orientation, then why should they be allowed to deny them this form of medical care? Quote: But maybe even if they don't have the EC or believe in it maybe they can call a different clinic that does carry it to give to the patient since they didn't go their by choice. That would be nice; I doubt they'd allow it, but it'd be nice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:16 pm
I think it comes down even furhter to being privatly owned and funded. From what I have been able to gather about St. Mary's here in Reno, they dont have to abide by ALL the same rules as a government funded hospital, but still have to abide by the rules set up by safty and sanitation departments. And, with any privatly owned business, comes the right to deny any services to any individual they choose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:01 pm
I got into a brief discussion today with a pharmacist who's rather conservative-leaning, and a devout Catholic--I think she teaches Sunday School as well.
Who apparently sees nothing wrong with Plan B.
In fact, I think I remember her saying that it should be available without a prescription to girls under 18 as well as those over. (As I pointed out, they're really the ones who need it the most)
Point is, I don't see why any competent pharmacist would oppose Plan B.
Even if you think it's sinful to use birth control because the pope says so or whatever, birth control--including Plan B--isn't hurting anyone, not even a fetus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:40 pm
But it's still separation of Church and State. You can't tell the Catholic Church, or Catholic hospitals, that they -have- to do this that or the other thing, even though it is something their religions teaches is wrong.
And even though it is called emergency contraception, it is hardly like the girl is going to die if she doesn't get some. So there is no really good reason that the Catholic hospitals should be forced to give it out. You wouldn't want hospitals to be forced to give abortions and, since the Catholic Church believes that Plan B is in the same category as abortion, it makes no sense to want to force Catholic hospitals to give out Plan B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:59 am
I.Am You wouldn't want hospitals to be forced to give abortions and, since the Catholic Church believes that Plan B is in the same category as abortion, it makes no sense to want to force Catholic hospitals to give out Plan B. That is true. However, with Plan B there is only a very limited time that it can be used. So while the hospital shouldn't be forced to carry it, or distribute it, there should be some way for a woman who needs it to be able to find it quickly. Really, the problem is that people who want a certain thing that can't be given by a Catholic Hospital shouldn't be taken to that sort of hospital. Perhaps some sort of emergency pharmacy or something could be set up? I don't understand why it is harder for many women to get Plan B than it is for them to get an abortion (after they can't get Plan B).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 7:28 am
I'm going to throw in my 2 cents here, even though this is a very definite American discussion so there may be come key components that I'm missing, so I apologise in advance. And just so everyone knows where I stand on this issue, I'm against EC morally however legally I feel it can't be made unavailable.
As Andy has said, there is seperation of church and the state. If you want one of these you have to allow for the other. In otherwords if you don't want the church in the state, there's no reason to get the state involved in the church. People have a right to their different beliefs and a right to live by those, if you don't like them or don't agree with them go somewhere else.
Catholic run hospitals are just that, catholic run. You can't say that the state should be able to control what goes on in a catholic institution and then turn around and say that the catholic church shouldn't be allowed to get involved in the government institution. It's a two-way street.
That said, here in Canada you can just go to a walk-in clinic and get EC. o_O I don't even know if they charge. Though if you buy it, it's like $50.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:22 am
I.Am But it's still separation of Church and State. You can't tell the Catholic Church, or Catholic hospitals, that they -have- to do this that or the other thing, even though it is something their religions teaches is wrong. And even though it is called emergency contraception, it is hardly like the girl is going to die if she doesn't get some. So there is no really good reason that the Catholic hospitals should be forced to give it out. You wouldn't want hospitals to be forced to give abortions and, since the Catholic Church believes that Plan B is in the same category as abortion, it makes no sense to want to force Catholic hospitals to give out Plan B. Right, which is why I should be allowed to force a Catholic to take Plan B if they go into a hospital that I own/operate, correct? I mean, it's not like it'll kill them to take it, so why should I care that I am denying them or forcing medical aid on them against their will?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:31 am
ThePeerOrlando2 Right, which is why I should be allowed to force a Catholic to take Plan B if they go into a hospital that I own/operate, correct? I mean, it's not like it'll kill them to take it, so why should I care that I am denying them or forcing medical aid on them against their will? ...I really do not see your point here. This statement is facetious and makes no sensible point. You cannot force a medical procedure on someone, and you definitely cannot force them to take pills they don't want, no matter whether they are birth control or Tylenol. Besides which it would run counter to separation of Church and State. So how does this have anything to do with my argument?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:15 pm
WatersMoon110 I don't understand why it is harder for many women to get Plan B than it is for them to get an abortion (after they can't get Plan B). I don't understand why anyone, whatever they believe, would want to make it harder to get Plan B than to get an abortion. Whatever you believe, you cannot prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion if she wants one. Why would you want to prevent her from preventing pregnancy? No pregnancy = no abortion, guaranteed. This is why, if a woman approached me in the pharmacy telling me she had had unprotected sex, and would definitely get an abortion if she got pregnant, I'd sneak ec to her for free if necessary.
That's how you frigging prevent abortion, people. /minor rant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:22 pm
But if you believe that EC can cause what is tantamount to abortion, how does that help anything? "Oh, you're going to get an abortion? Well why didn't you say so? Even though I'm Catholic and believe it is wrong and the same thing as abortion, I'll just give you EC!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:55 pm
I.Am ...I really do not see your point here. This statement is facetious and makes no sensible point. You cannot force a medical procedure on someone, and you definitely cannot force them to take pills they don't want, no matter whether they are birth control or Tylenol. Besides which it would run counter to separation of Church and State. So how does this have anything to do with my argument? If a medical facility is allowed to DENY medical care to someone based on their religious convictions, why can't I FORCE medical treatment on someone based on my religious convictions? It's easy enough to force someone to take pills. They do it all the time in mental sanatoriums. How is it "counter to separation of church and state" for someone to be forced to undergo a medical procedure or receive medical aid, but it's not "counter to separation of church and state" to deny someone medical treatment or aid? This is in no way facetious; you know the meaning of facetious right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:17 pm
There's a significant difference actually, Peer. What the hospitals are saying is that THEY will not provide EC. They're not stopping the woman from going somewhere else in order to obtain it. They're not forcing their religion on her, they exercising their right to practice their religion. Your analogy would be more suitable if these people were tying her down to the bed and ensuring that she could not get the drug, period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:00 pm
Beware the Jabberwock There's a significant difference actually, Peer. What the hospitals are saying is that THEY will not provide EC. They're not stopping the woman from going somewhere else in order to obtain it. They're not forcing their religion on her, they exercising their right to practice their religion. Your analogy would be more suitable if these people were tying her down to the bed and ensuring that she could not get the drug, period. Quite often, hospitals refuse to discharge patients who are in too severe a condition to leave. I for instance, wished to leave the hospital immediately after having been hit by a semi-truck a year and a half ago. They wouldn't let me. EDIT: Also, what if it was my religion to cause harm or kill as many christian's as possible? I should be allowed to turn a dieing Christian away then, right? I mean, otherwise you're interfering with Church and State.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
