What exactly is the enormous moral difference between refusing to prescribe (or fill a prescription for) birth control pills that *might* injure or kill an embryo, and refusing to sell a woman of childbearing age ANY medication that *might* injure or kill an embryo? There is an enormous list of medications that are known to be risky and/or dangerous to embryos and fetuses. Some are even available over-the-counter, like aspirin, ibuprofen, and naproxen. The types range from antibiotics, ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers, blood thinners like heparin and warfarin, certain medications to control diabetes, and certain medications to control bleeding stomach ulcers. Alcohol, caffeine, and tobacco are also on the list.
The potential rights violations are not limited to women who are already pregnant. This is an issue that affects ALL women, particularly those of childbearing age, because these rogue pharmacists and doctors do not discern between women who are already pregnant, and women who aren't--but might *become* pregnant at some point. Imagine going to the checkout with a prescription for antibiotics and some ulcer medication and being refused service because you are a woman of childbearing age who MIGHT become pregnant.
Imagine being refused permission to use the hot tub at your local health club, because you are a woman who MIGHT be pregnant. Imagine laws forbidding all women of childbearing age to do ANYTHING that MIGHT harm a fetus or embryo--taking really hot baths, riding a horse, or taking birth control pills to control endometriosis.
When we permit doctors and pharmacists to refuse to prescribe one type of medication that *might* cause the injury or death of an embryo or fetus, then how long will it be before the same doctors and pharmacists are permitted to refuse to prescribe ALL medications that might injure or kill an embryo/fetus?
Another angle--when pharmacists and doctors are permitted to selectively refuse service based on their arbitrary "morality" rules, what do we do when someone else's morality conflicts with their job? Would the owner of a Subway Sandwich shop be barred from firing a Jewish employee who refuses to make any sandwiches that include pork, or contain both meat and cheese? What about a Christian Science pharmacy clerk who refuses to ring up ANY medications, period? Or a fundamentalist Christian bookstore cashier who refuses to sell any books that contain information about witchcraft, homosexuality, or evolution? Will the bosses and managers of these companies be forced by law to retain employees whose "moral stands" are seriously hurting their business and driving away customers?
Or more sinister--a Jehovah's Witness emergency room nurse who refuses to give a lifesaving blood transfusion to a dying patient? Or doctors who arbitrarily decide to place the life of the fetus at a higher priority than the life of the mother, and force a woman whose body is weak to undergo a c-section against her will? This last case has already happened--just ask the family of Angela Carder.
Angela Carder was a 27-year-old pregnant woman with cancer. Her own team of doctors told her that a c-section would likely kill both her and the baby, because her body was too weak to handle the surgery. Angela specifically stated that she did NOT want the c-section to be performed. But the staff doctors at the hospital overruled Angela's own doctors, choosing to force her into a c-section delivery that, in the end, killed both Angela and her baby.
Nonetheless, and despite medical testimony that such a procedure would probably end Carder’s life, an order was issued authorizing the hospital to perform an immediate C-section. Obstetricians at the hospital initially refused to carry out the procedure, but eventually one reluctantly agreed. A three-judge appellate panel upheld the decision in an emergency telephone appeal, despite Carder’s own repeated pleas of "I don’t want it done."
Exactly how long the fetus survived is a matter of some dispute. The most commonly cited figure is two hours. Susan Faludi quotes the obstetrician who performed the surgery as saying attempts to inflate the fetus’s lungs were "like trying to ventilate a rock".
Angela Carder survived her surgery by two days.
Why was Angela's civil right to determine her own healthcare violated? The staff doctors were afraid of a lawsuit from a pro-life group. THIS is the danger of the pro-life movement in America. THIS is what happens when we allow irrational, emotionally-reactionary people to intimidate and harass physicians for the sake of their disgusting agenda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_CarderAngela Carder (and other women like her) are victims of the American pro-life movement--the same movement that is now trying to pass laws that permit pharmacists to overrule doctors, and doctors to violate the civil liberties of their patients. Women have died because someone else's morality was deemed a higher priority than their own wishes. Woman have literally been strapped to beds to undergo forced c-section deliveries because someone else decided that their fetus was more important than their own right to choose what medical procedures they wished to undergo. For example, the Nigerian woman in Chicago:
In a tragic 1984 case, staff at a Chicago hospital forcibly tied a pregnant Nigerian woman who had declined a c-section to her hospital bed with leather wrist and ankle restraints. The woman objected to the surgery because she planned to return to Nigeria where the operation wasn't readily available, and she rightfully worried about health risks, including a ruptured uterus, if she became pregnant again and had another child vaginally back home. As she screamed for help and frantically tried to free herself, doctors, with a judge's permission, wheeled her off to the O.R. to perform the procedure.
http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/articles/forced_c-section.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
