This has been making the rounds on the internet, so I figured it'd be worth a discussion here. Perhaps one of the most convincing arguements for Plan B to be sold OTC, and as soon as possible.

mildly NSFW link http://bitingbeaver.blogspot.com/200...n-condoms.html


Quite frankly, perhaps the pharmacists and doctors should find a new line of work if they disagree with their job so much. I don't expect a vegetarian to work in a meat packing plant, nor do i think that if they chose to that they should then refuse to do any work.

I don't see how this is consider their job? Really, how is it their job? Are all Dr's now mandated to view Plan B as you or her, is there something I'm missing?

I am not sure why there haven't been better inroads to this type of preventive medication. Isn't an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? I would have thought that religious right would have been in favor of something that will reduce or eliminate the need for partial birth abortions.

It is their job to prescribe medication to those in need of it. As doctors they should know full well that this is no different then the birth control pill. For them to withhold treatment out of their personal opinions on the patient is no different for them to withhold prescribing birth control pills because they don't like their patient.

Issues like this are why the secular world hates us Christians.

This pill is an elective medication so therefore doctors are perfectly within their rights to not dispense the Rx. Same with birth control pills.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

So you quickly decide what the motive of the Doc was? Wow, you are good, do you so quickly pass judgements on everyone? You must be God!

Oh gee, we only have their questionairre to base it off of. You might have a point if the questions actually had a medical premise behind it all, but no, instead the doctor was attempting to see if he approved of his patients life choices.

The doctor had no objection to the medication itself, didn't have any medical concerns, but instead changed his treatment based upon a personal opinion of the patient. A doctor who allows that to happen to him, has no business in medicine.

Would you be fine if a doctor decided a patient didn't require any pain killers after an operation because the doctor didn't like the patient? They are also an elective medication, and the judgement would have been exactly the same.

Whats next is the clerk at CVS to decide who to and who not to sell condoms to? Are the customers going to have to deal with the 'moral' concerns of the person at the counter? Perhaps an indepth questionairre so you can be sure to meet the moral sensibilities of whichever person decides to judge you that day.

The product is generally available "over-the-counter" at all pharmacies in Canada and has been for a couple of years now. I haven't heard a word of controversy upon the topic.

Analgesics have long been proven to speed the healing process in patients so therefore aren't considered by doctors to be in the elective category.

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

Speeding the healing process is not essential to the survival of the patient, so based upon the definitions I have seen, pain killers are in many cases, elective. Further in many professions if you let personal opinions to influence your professional decision, you risk to lose your license.

A lawyer who intentionally offers bad advice because he doesn't like his client will have his ass disbarred. I see no reason why doctors shouldn't likewise be expected to seperate their personal beliefs from their career.

A doctor who brings someone in, to look at their arthritis, then bases their decisions on the persons political views, and refuses to prescribe a treatment to a republican should lose their license all the same, since their diagnosis has nothing to do with the case at hand, and are irresponsibly allowing their personal opinion to change their diagnosis.

What if a doctor refused to give a vaccine, after all, its only preventative medicine.

I see, now you say abortion (Plan B) is a political issue, I think that is your view not everyone elses. Fact is Plan B, is nothing more then a mega dose of the normal birth control medicine which has it down side, such as warnings that you can view yourself upon any literture that comes with the medicine. It is up to the Dr on how he wants to practice and how he wants to deal with medication. Its not up to you nor anyone else except him and his patients, its best to seek out a Dr. that you agree with. Waiting to the last moment is only the fault of the patient not the Dr..

Yes it does have side-effects, thats why for normal birth control people try the different types until they and they're doctor find the one with the least side effects. Every medication has its side effects. Slap the warning on the label to see a doctor if X happens, and everything else

It's up to the doctor to give his patient the best medical advice based on his professional knowledge. The questions doctor would have asked had he actually been doing that are

- Do you have Liver, Genital, or Breast Cancer
- Do you have any of the following: epilepsy, cardiovascular or kidney disease, migraine headaches, diabetes, or hypertension
- Do you have an established pregnancy
- Have you had a Heart Attack of Stroke
- And to ask to see if the women was likely to have blood clots in the legs or lungs

But those weren't the doctors questions. The Doctor was seeing if he liked the patient, and asked questions which weren't any of his business and which weren't relevent to his diagnosis yet was basing his diagnosis on those irrelevent factors. And seeing as the women had already been on birth control pills he can ask what the side effects were, and as she described them while unpleasent would have only been at question for one or two days.

What if a doctor refused to prescribe asthma medication to republicans, or no vaccines for democrats? It would be just as valid.

No its the fault of a doctor to not realize that certain treatments have a damned time frame to be used. If I get shot, and the doctor wants to take a break, should I be punished because I didn't get to the hospital right away? Or perhaps i should have been shot at a more convenient time for the doctor. Perhaps make an appointment beforehand?

How about if public defenders began to ask clients what their political affiliation is, and then base their legal advice on it. You know thats ussually grounds for being disbarred.