Pharmacist fired for denying "morning after" pill

[guster girl]

Originally posted by Sirrahsim
it seemed obvious what the pro-life people on here are trying to say, but just to clarify. This is the definition of conception from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate dictionary as provided by dictionary.com

con·cep·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-spshn)
n.
Formation of a viable zygote by the union of the male sperm and female ovum; fertilization.


The morning after pill does not prevent conception. Conception occurs at the moment of fertilization. You can argue about that till the cows come home, but that's just the truth. The morning after pill DOES prevent implantation. So it IS an ethical choice if you think that a baby is not a baby until implantation. However, what the people on here are saying is that they (and I) believe that life begins at the moment of fertilization/conception.

So, in short I just wanted to clear up the medical terms that are being picked apart. EC's do not prevent conception. They prevent implantation. If you think that a baby is not a living thing before implantation than go ahead and support the morning after pill. But stop trying to stomp on others and tell us that we don't understand how it works. It's a matter of your personal ethical code. I believe that EC's are abortive because I view the beginning of life as being at the moment of conception (fertilization) You guys believe that EC's are not abortive because you believe that life starts later. Can't we just agree to disagree?

Well, personally, it wasn't a matter of agreeing to disagree, I simply didn't know. Thanks for the information. I agree that life starts from the moment of fertilization, but, I guess, in this case, what made me so mad was just that she'd been raped, and, I've always personally been more ok with interferring with implantation in those cases. But, again, for me, I wasn't disagreeing, I just simply was under the impression that the morning after pill didn't abort. So, yeah, I can see how if you're against abortion no matter what the situation, that this would be an unethical choice. I still think, though, that the pharmacist should have chosen to work in a pharmacy that didn't stock the product.

[IttyBittyKitty]

Originally posted by WolfChan
I know that this was already posted but I really feel that it deserves its own thread!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest....ap/index.html

DENTON, Texas (AP) -- Eckerd Corp. has fired three pharmacists who declined to fill an emergency contraception prescription for a woman who had been raped, one of the pharmacists said.

Gene Herr said Wednesday he and two co-workers were fired January 29, six days after refusing to fill the prescription. He said his own refusal was based on religious grounds.
at a nearby pharmacy.

JUSTICE IS SERVED!!

AMEN! What judgemental twits! They deserved to be fired. All that palaver about "not knowing policy" was gutrot - what organisation would be foolish enough to align its policies with religious sentiment? What a great way to lose customers ...

And its once again time to roll out "cast not the first stone..."