sinker

that was a very well said and thought out post, which I highly respect. A couple of things... You were "excommunicated" for marrying a man w/o an annulment? Surely you weren't literally excommunicated. That is not the proper response. If you and your husband don't believe in what the Church teaches about marriage, then getting an annulment shouldn't have been important to you or him nor their judgement on your state in life now. I'm not saying this is how you think, but too many people want to participate in the life of the Church (esp. sacramentally) w/o first fulfilling the prerequisites required by that very institution. Cafeteria Catholicism is just oxymoronic. If one doesn't agree w/ what the Catholic Church teaches, there are PLENTY of other churches out there, I'm sure there is one or two of the more than 26,000 Protestant (or even non-Christian churches) that would be a good fit. Sorry for the digression. You said that if you were in that situation, you would probably prescribe the emergency contraceptive. I'm assuming you're referring to one that is abortifacient. I'm also assuming you'd do so while working in a Catholic hospital. Sorry, but if that is the case, it is disingenuous and hypocritical to work in a place like that then deliberately act in a manner contrary to it's misson and philosophy. In such a case, such a physician should be released of her duties at said hospital. Another question... you said you'd prescribe the contraceptive, but not perform an abortion. Are you speaking of a contraceptive that is also abortifacient? If so, that IS, ipso facto, providing an abortion. It's quite similar to the Cafeteria Catholic situation regarding divorce/annulment/remarriage. If your beliefs don't adhere to those of the institution you work for, you SHOULDN'T work there. To do so shows an incredible lack of integrity. -the artist formerly known as sinker

Still, you cannot ask a Catholic facility to violate what it believes to be the most sacrosanct of things, an unborn child. If the woman becomes pregnant as a result of the rape, and a Catholic facility does not provide "emergency contraceptives" in the form of abortifacients, she can have an abortion after being discharged from the hospital if she so chooses. If there are "emergency contraceptives" that are NOT abortifacients, the Catholic facility can administer them to the rape victim since, in the case of rape, the teaching of the Church regarding the evil of contraception in relation to sexual intercourse does not apply b/c rape is NOT intercourse. Intercouse, as defined by the Church is the mutually chosen act of giving onself to another in the deepest way possible. Rape, on the other hand is an act of aggression only and the victim of the rape has the right to repel the aggression before the act of rape, during rape and also the right to expel or block the continuation of the act in the form of the aggressor's sperm still invading her body. The only problem is, I don't know if there are any contraceptives that act soley and purely as a contraceptive and NOT also as an abortifacient. That should be something that Catholic hospitals should research. michael -the artist formerly known as sinker

i think we're talking about the same thing here. to go further would get into providing the means for someone to carry out an abortion... i dug out one of my catholic and medical ethics texts... i'll post some from it here later... -the artist formerly known as sinker

well, they DO differ in terms of how you described them, (and I agree w/ you on that) but they ARE similar in that in both cases, we're hypothetically talking about a physician being told BY LAW that he must inform a patient about procedures he deems unethical. It seems to me the real place where the two camps in this thread part company is where the line is drawn w/ respect to what constitutes "informing" another about a particular medical practice. For ex. if I were a Catholic doc, I could not, in good conscience inform a woman that if she wanted to take an abortifacient, she could go see Dr. So and so at 555 So and so Street and they are open from 9 to 4 mon through thursday. I would, however, have to tell her that she may be pregnant as a result of the rape and that if she wished to take an abortifacient, she would need to do so at another facility. I would also be VERY careful to not say anything that could be construed as coercion to NOT take an abortifacient, given the extremely sensitive nature of the situation. -the artist formerly known as sinker

hi wendy... another temp. thread hijack... so you folks are gettin ready to send up that shuttle again huh? -the artist formerly known as sinker

touche! well, what may seem like the reasonable application of a principle in every circumstance may, in fact, not be reasonable at all. underlying the hippocratic oath is the principle that existence is better than nonexistence. existence is a good and nonexistence is a privation of good. that's all. but you're right in saying that great care must be taken when dealing with issues of life and death, I'd say much more care than what our present society gives it. I think we're far too cavelear (sp?) about it, really. -the artist formerly known as sinker

yeah, i'd say it was about as equally unethical to withhold information on such treatments. i think in your scenario, Wendy, a J.W. doc simply stating that there are other options that were not available at the J.H. facility would be honorable. -the artist formerly known as sinker

you know, I don't have any problem w/ your agnosticism. but I have a very big problem with your mockery and biting comments. it'd be nice if you lightened your tone a bit. perhaps you wouldn't sound so offensive. -the artist formerly known as sinker

shotgun, do you believe it is better to exist than to not exist? the general belief is that it is better to exist than to not, and that is why it is not a violation of the Hipocratic Oath to assist medically w/ child conception. As far as where death is concerned, it's natural to die and unnatural to go through constant, extreme measures to be kep alive. It's just as unnatural to withhold basic life sustaining treatment b/c one's quality of life isn't what you think it should be. (oh lord, here we go again... -the artist formerly known as sinker

dude, you've got some SERIOUS issues w/ God and religion. hope you get those taken care of some time. I know a good Catholic counseling center I could refer you to... just kidding, sorry. perhaps your BIGGEST flaw in what you just posted is that God would WILL someone to get raped. That is just sick and twisted! God would never will that. He allows it, unfortunately, b/c He is a God who gave free will. That way, men and women could CHOOSE to return to Him His gift of life and love. But, inherent in that gift of choice is the possibility that someone can CHOOSE to do wrong. That is most unfortunate, and in the case of rape, devestatingly tragic. It's up to us to work to create a better society where people don't even think of raping others. It's up to us to do all we can to help those who have been raped. Don't blame God b/c bad things happen to people. But you better believe that He sure can turn bad things into good. -the artist formerly known as sinker

you GO, RON! -the artist formerly known as sinker

continuing the hijack... thanks for the kind words! monica is indeed very active. and, our fourth child is as well! Cecilia Therese was born 8 weeks ago. details will come in a pm... we now return to this previously heated debate... -the artist formerly known as sinker

that's it in a nut-shell, isn't it! no, this is me in a nut shell! help!! i'm trapped in a nut shell! How do I get out of this freakin nut shell! -the artist formerly known as sinker

I think we're on the same page here. Stating the fact that an option exists is different that helping to facilitate the obtaining of that option. -the artist formerly known as sinker

well, unfortunately, many DO go to religiously affiliated medical institutions for birth control consultation AND abortion. The problem in part lies w/, in this case, many Catholic institutions who call themselves Catholic but do not adhere to the beliefs contained within that title. To me that is horrible hypocrisy. Also, there are people who simply don't KNOW what a particular religious institution believes. Again, it is incumbant on the institution to make it's beliefs --and medical practices that are influenced by those beliefs-- well known. -the artist formerly known as sinker

Bill's statement is VERY ignorant. It is obvious to me that you haven't thought through the ramifications to the healthcare system if Bill's statement were enforced. Regarding your statement of belief, nothing of what I've said contradicts you. Doctors should inform a rape victim of her injuries and potential pregnancy. But a doctor who holds, in this case, principles consistent w/ the Catholic Church, is only obligated to say that any procedure or drug administration that is explicitly for the purpose of aborting the product of rape cannot/will not be given at this Catholic facility. Implicit in that statement is that such services are available at non-Catholic medical institutions. -the artist formerly known as sinker

what I'm saying is NOT putting individual moral qualms ABOVE patient care! doctors who act as I am saying Catholic doctors SHOULD act are TRULY putting patient care first, given what they believe to be true about human life and the victimization of potentially TWO people due to rape. I can't for the life of me think why you cannot or will not see this. It's so frustrating that you go to the tired line of forcing one's morals on another! In the scenario we have been discussing, the doctor is not trying to coerce the rape victim to DO ANYTHING according to the doctor's beliefs. The doctor is simply NOT providing a "service" they believe to be HARMFUL to the woman. People are always obligated to act according to their informed consciences! -the artist formerly known as sinker

the very nature of being a marine is to protect/defend/fight. i have a hard time believing that anyone would JOIN the marines if they already had a belief that war was wrong. if they came to a belief that war was wrong after they joined the marines, my belief is that they are obligated to act according to their informed conscience. however, the military still can punish that person for their deriliction. your example here doesn't apply bill, b/c it is NOT implicit in the mission and nature of a doctor to materially participate in the killing of human life. In fact, many doctors believe that such a practice is diametrically opposed to the profession of a physician. -the artist formerly known as sinker

bill: you are doing the very thing you are accusing Catholic doctors of doing (or not doing), which is applying what YOU believe to be "good care" to this situation. The medical industry is largely divided on this issue and there is no one gold standard of care here. There are plenty of doctors who are not necessarily Catholic who think that giving an abortifacient is BAD care. You saying they should get a new job is simply ignorant. -the artist formerly known as sinker

I was specifically addressing a question posed to me in an earlier post of this thread about prescribing birth control as a pharmacist. Please re-read my post and the one from kele... -the artist formerly known as sinker

Shotgun: I wholeheartedly agree with what you said, and I think that is a GREAT idea! Religious affiliation should totally be listed. Muenkel: Hey Chris! Hope you and your head are well. As far as informing patients, that is where it starts to get a little dicey. As far as I understand, a doctor professing to adhere to the tenents of Catholicism could not, in good conscience, say to a woman, hey we can't give you an abortifacient at this facility, but you can go across town to Hospital so and so and get it there. However, I think the doctor would HAVE to say to the woman that she may become pregnant as a result of the rape. If the woman expressed an interest in receiving an abortifacient, the doctor would have to say it could not be given at the Catholic facility but there are others in town that could offer it. Here is the clincher... to NOT spell out for the woman where/what/how of aborting the product of rape is NOT negligent of the doctor, since pregnancy is not a medical condition and does not require emergency medical treatment. I hope it doesn't sound like I'm splitting hairs here... maybe I need to consult some of my Catholic doctor friends here in town. I'm enjoying the input on this thread. -the artist formerly known as sinker

In that statement, it clearly states that it is an abortifacient. Altering the lining of the uterus so that implantation of a FERTILIZED egg is unsuccessful is the very definition of abortifacient. For Catholics, human life begins at conception, NOT implantation. For medical facilities that do NOT hold this belief, administering the drug would not pose a problem. -the artist formerly known as sinker

Forcing the doctor to giving information related to something they consider imoral is imoral in and of itself IMO.*** I agree. But they can say that if woman wishes to obtain services that the Catholic facility cannot provide, for reasons of conscience/morality/religion/whatever, the woman can go to another facility. -the artist formerly known as sinker

i'm not a pharmacist, i'm a research analyst for a pharma. research company. and if I was a pharmacist, i could not, in good conscience REFUSE to give out contraception, b/c it's not only prescribed for birth control. It is legitimately used for medicinal purposes. BUT, and this is a big BUT, not unlike my big BUTT, I would surely provide literature to the patient, as part of the informed consent process, what the risks of birth control are in the context of a sexually active female. -the artist formerly known as sinker

please tell me which "morning-after pill" you are referring to. being in the field of pharmacology, I'd be more than happy to look it up. all the one's I know of are, in fact, abortificients. -the artist formerly known as sinker