eckerds refuses morning after pill to rape victim

[Cataholic]

Well, Micki, playing the devil's advocate...does that mean if his religious beliefs meant no antibiotics for a bladder infection, or no innoculations, then, that is okay, too? I agree with Kimmy. He practices medicene and owes, first, his obligation to his client to do no harm, then, follow accepted medical practices. His religious beliefs do not belong in the office.

[CathyBogart]

I disagree. That was completely unprofessional of him, and shouldn't have been allowed. Generally the doctor knows ahead of time what you're coming in for unless it's an emergency, so Tonya shouldn't have been sent to him.

[micki76]

Originally posted by Cataholic
Well, Micki, playing the devil's advocate...does that mean if his religious beliefs meant no antibiotics for a bladder infection, or no innoculations, then, that is okay, too? I agree with Kimmy. He practices medicene and owes, first, his obligation to his client to do no harm, then, follow accepted medical practices. His religious beliefs do not belong in the office.

Yes actually, I think it is ok IF clients are made aware of the type of medical office it is, and what they do and do not do. I know I always have to tell my Dr why I need to come in and if it's something the Dr doesn't do or believe in, then the client should be told. If the Dr doesn't believe in something due to religious reasons (or any other reason, I mean this is HIS privately owned business) then he has no obligation to prescribe or administer those medications, treatments, or surgeries.

Still America regardless of whether you’re a Dr or not. I believe Dr’s are still protected under the constitution?

Edited to add that I don't agree with what the pharmacist did. He was acting as an employee of Eckerd's and should have dispensed the medication if it was available. Totally different scenario IMO.

[lovemyshiba]

Apparently, this pharmacist and 2 others have been terminated:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest....ap/index.html

[lizbud]

lovemyshiba,

I read that today & was so glad some action was taken by
the drugstore chain.

[Tonya]

Originally posted by micki76
I do think though, that if you called for an appointment and said you wanted birth control, they should have told you about the Dr's practices, and that he wouldn't prescribe anything.

Exactly. The least he could have done is referred me to another Dr ahead of time. I respect him for standing up for his beliefs; but don't inconvenience me in the process.

[CathyBogart]

In case anyone here still believes that it does, EC does NOT cause abortion, in fact it will NOT work if you're already preggo. So this guy refused her over something that's complete bunk.


http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html

No, use of emergency contraception does not cause an abortion. In fact, emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and thereby reduces the need for induced abortion. Medical authorities such as the United States Food and Drug Administration/National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists define the beginning of pregnancy as the implantation of a fertilized egg in the lining of a woman's uterus. Implantation begins five to seven days after fertilization (and is completed several days later). Emergency contraceptives work before implantation and not after a woman is already pregnant. Depending on the time during the menstrual cycle that they are taken, ECPs may inhibit or delay ovulation, inhibit tubal transport of the egg or sperm, interfere with fertilization, or alter the endometrium (the lining of the uterus), thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg. The copper in copper-T IUDs can prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg and can also alter the endometrium, thereby inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg. When a woman is already pregnant, emergency contraception does not work. Emergency contraception is also harmless to the fetus and the mother.