Science, law and religion are meeting this spring in state capitols and at local pharmacies. The topic of discussion is “Plan B,” a contraceptive drug sometimes called “the morning after pill.” Plan B is a concentrated dose of the hormone levonorgestrel and taking it will prevent a woman from ovulating, prevent an egg from being fertilized or prevent a fertilized egg from implanting into the wall of the uterus. Keep that third effect in mind.
To be effective, one dose of Plan B must be taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, a second within 120 hours. Plan B is meant as an emergency backup to other forms of contraception, such as a broken condom, or for cases of unanticipated sex, such as rape.
The federal Food and Drug Administration has ruled that prescriptions are needed for Plan B. Since getting to a doctor, getting a prescription and getting it filled may take more than 72 hours, seven states have passed laws allowing doctor-pharmacist collaborations that permit pharmacists to dispense Plan B without a prescription.
Plan B is not the same as RU-486 (mifeprestone), a drug that causes an abortion early in a pregnancy. By medical definition, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants itself into a uterine wall. Plan B is not an abortifacient, because its effects occur before the onset of pregnancy. Some people, however, believe pregnancy – and life – begin when sperm fertilizes egg. To their minds, Plan B is an abortifacient.
Some who believe Plan B is an abortifacient are pharmacists. A group called “Pharmacists for Life International” calls Plan B “chemical abortion” and wants states to adopt “conscience clauses” to allow pharmacists to withhold Plan B if they see fit.
It’s interesting to note that the religious right’s definition of “morality” seems to be limited only to issues pertaining to sex. Gaunt, hollow-eyed junkies with needle scars up and down their arms have been getting forged prescriptions filled at pharmacies across the nation for decades and we’ve never heard of “Pharmacists for Life,” but now…
Be that as it may, if pharmacists are allowed to follow their consciences and insert themselves between a woman and her body – or even a woman and her God – two questions arise: Where’s the line? and Who bears the burden?
First, where’s the line? A woman walks into a pharmacy and asks for Plan B. Perhaps she’s unmarried, has casual sex with men she meets in bars and only thinks about contraception after the fact. Perhaps she’s married with three children; she and her husband cannot afford a fourth child, they use condoms faithfully, but one broke. Perhaps she was gang-raped at knifepoint by eight men. Should a “Pharmacist for Life” distinguish among these women, or simply refuse all requests? More to the point, what business is it of the pharmacist which category above most closely describes the woman standing before him or her? If a pharmacist is to make moral judgments about the lives of her or his customers, he or she needs specific information, right? Should a woman be compelled to share details of her personal life with a pharmacist before she is given access to a legal pharmaceutical?
What if a woman is poor, lives in a rural area and no pharmacist for 100 miles will dispense Plan B? Do we have one standard for rich and another for poor? One standard for urban areas and another for rural?
Who bears the burden? If a pharmacist withholds Plan B and the woman dies from complications of the pregnancy or birth, is the pharmacist responsible? Legally? Morally? If the woman from whom Plan B is withheld has a child, does the pharmacist bear legal, moral – or financial – responsibility for that child? Why or why not? An affirmative action on the part of the pharmacist played a key role in bringing that child into the world. How can a “Pharmacist for Life” turn and walk away?
Playing God is a big job, those who want to take it on should be ready to see it through to the end.
You Be The Judge
Science, law and religion are meeting this spring in state capitols and at local pharmacies. The topic of discussion is “Plan B,” a contraceptive drug sometimes called “the morning after pill.” Plan B is a concentrated dose of the hormone levonorgestrel and taking it will prevent a woman from ovulating, prevent an egg from being fertilized or prevent a fertilized egg from implanting into the wall of the uterus. Keep that third effect in mind.
To be effective, one dose of Plan B must be taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, a second within 120 hours. Plan B is meant as an emergency backup to other forms of contraception, such as a broken condom, or for cases of unanticipated sex, such as rape.
The federal Food and Drug Administration has ruled that prescriptions are needed for Plan B. Since getting to a doctor, getting a prescription and getting it filled may take more than 72 hours, seven states have passed laws allowing doctor-pharmacist collaborations that permit pharmacists to dispense Plan B without a prescription.
Plan B is not the same as RU-486 (mifeprestone), a drug that causes an abortion early in a pregnancy. By medical definition, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants itself into a uterine wall. Plan B is not an abortifacient, because its effects occur before the onset of pregnancy. Some people, however, believe pregnancy – and life – begin when sperm fertilizes egg. To their minds, Plan B is an abortifacient.
Some who believe Plan B is an abortifacient are pharmacists. A group called “Pharmacists for Life International” calls Plan B “chemical abortion” and wants states to adopt “conscience clauses” to allow pharmacists to withhold Plan B if they see fit.
It’s interesting to note that the religious right’s definition of “morality” seems to be limited only to issues pertaining to sex. Gaunt, hollow-eyed junkies with needle scars up and down their arms have been getting forged prescriptions filled at pharmacies across the nation for decades and we’ve never heard of “Pharmacists for Life,” but now…
Be that as it may, if pharmacists are allowed to follow their consciences and insert themselves between a woman and her body – or even a woman and her God – two questions arise: Where’s the line? and Who bears the burden?
First, where’s the line? A woman walks into a pharmacy and asks for Plan B. Perhaps she’s unmarried, has casual sex with men she meets in bars and only thinks about contraception after the fact. Perhaps she’s married with three children; she and her husband cannot afford a fourth child, they use condoms faithfully, but one broke. Perhaps she was gang-raped at knifepoint by eight men. Should a “Pharmacist for Life” distinguish among these women, or simply refuse all requests? More to the point, what business is it of the pharmacist which category above most closely describes the woman standing before him or her? If a pharmacist is to make moral judgments about the lives of her or his customers, he or she needs specific information, right? Should a woman be compelled to share details of her personal life with a pharmacist before she is given access to a legal pharmaceutical?
What if a woman is poor, lives in a rural area and no pharmacist for 100 miles will dispense Plan B? Do we have one standard for rich and another for poor? One standard for urban areas and another for rural?
Who bears the burden? If a pharmacist withholds Plan B and the woman dies from complications of the pregnancy or birth, is the pharmacist responsible? Legally? Morally? If the woman from whom Plan B is withheld has a child, does the pharmacist bear legal, moral – or financial – responsibility for that child? Why or why not? An affirmative action on the part of the pharmacist played a key role in bringing that child into the world. How can a “Pharmacist for Life” turn and walk away?
Playing God is a big job, those who want to take it on should be ready to see it through to the end.
© Mark Floegel, 2005