---

by Cat
Not in religious theology terms. There is a difference between preventing conception and killing a fertalised egg.

---

But who is to tell that the eggs was fertalized at the time

---

To certain religions killing a child is the ultimate harm. "He who harms a chils shall be answerable to me" or something similar. i cant quote the bible well. But some religions would take that sereiously and to mean an unborn child.

---

But if you don't do it the mother dies... thereby the unborn child dies by default. By doing nothing as doctor you killed two people with one action We where talking life threating here.

---

Also, there are other doctors who would be willing to perform the procedure.

---

It's ashame that you don't always get the pick time or location of life threathing illnesses otherwise I'm sure everyone would plan them on days they didn't have to work and you where already checked into a hospital which had the best reputation for the illness you are about to have in 25 minutes. This means you do not always get your pick of the bulk of doctor available. Sure if there are multiple doctors there they could discusse it between themselves and come up with a solution just as we could have multiple pharmacists.

---

Would you make this pharmacist sell this drug when there are other pharmacies/pharmacists available?

---

Well you might need to consider, where is this pharmacy. If it's a 30 minute drive away by car this might be very limiting for someone who doesn't have a car. Also poor people might just have been able to get the 24 pounds together to pay for the pills and don't have the luxoury to buy a bus ticket to a neighbouring village to visit their pharmacy. The fact that there are other pharmacies doesn't always make those accesible to all people. For some people they might as well be on the other side of the planet.

---

However, no court order is going to order a certain Dr to do a certain precedure if he doesnt believe in it. basically because, unless there was ww3, there are always other doctors to do the same procedures.

---

If you have the time beforehand to goto court of course there would also have been enough time to find another doctor. But like I said you don't always get too choose time / location etc. So if the doctor didn't follow the generally accepted medical ethics as they are valid within the UK he can and will be found negligent by a court of law. But always in retrospect.

---

As to what does your heart tell you? Well thats an individuals choice.

---

Honestly I cannot see how someone that would be fit to be a parent could say: No let my child die, while there is a perfectly good alternative to save it. I just can't. Although I'm sure that there are people that would do that based on their religious believes I find it so repulsive an act that I don't even feel comfy contemplating it. And I don't think the law can either (thats why there are social services etc to take kids away from these kinda people)

---

but giving a blood transfusion to a JW child could result in assult charges against the doctor .... the courts support religion you see, within reason.

---

Totally true. And in a lot of cases where people get the choice to pick their own operation date etc a long project is started where their own blood is stored so they can still survive these operations. But thats not really life threatning at the moment if you can wait 6 months. So medicine does support religion within reason and I can see why thats a good thing. But the question is where does reason end and starts insanity.

---

by Chambler

But would you support him to go and work in a gunshop?

---

Exactly, if the pharmacist can't perform his duties due to his religious beliefs then imo he shouldn't be doing that job OR as i keep saying ASDA should be aware of this and there should be someone else on hand to dispense the MA pill! Yeah ok he gave the woman alternative advice but WHY SHOULD SHE GO ELSEWHERE??? Thats what frustrates me, asda sell this pill, she needs this pill she's well within her rights to purchase it so it's just as much asda's fault as this guys! This whole thing really makes me angry, it could be any female on this board in that situation, accidents happen, you go to the pharmacist in your lunch break or something only to told sorry but he won't give you it?! It was lucky she was well within the 72 hours but what if she hadn't been??? He'd object more to a woman actually having an abortion wouldn't he?

Oh and the Jehovas Witness blood transfusion thing gets me too, ok it's their belief and they're entitled to it but again IMO it's crazy to refuse treatment for someone you love which could save their life. whats worse, someone having a blood transfusion or losing a beloved family member??

once again i'm tired and i'm getting frustrated and i can see this 'debate' going on forever and always! xx

Religions aren't generally equiped to determine when a new life starts. Most were established long before there was any knowledge that eggs and sperm existed, let alone that if they encountered each other a long sequence of events could result in a live birth. Many people were ignorant that pregnancy was a result of intercourse, and some remain so to this day.

In my humble opinion, any decisions made by religious leaders after this knowledge has been declared is subjective and unlikely to be the word of a god.

I quite like the suggestion that the embryo can be considered as a parasite on the female host. Women often do suffer during, and as a result, of pregnancy, and this argues that they do deserve medical assistance, if requested, to prevent such an affliction.

---

by Eve
Oh and the Jehovas Witness blood transfusion thing gets me too, ok it's their belief and they're entitled to it but again IMO it's crazy to refuse treatment for someone you love which could save their life. whats worse, someone having a blood transfusion or losing a beloved family member??

---

This is another thing which hacks me off. I would give anything for my children whether I believe it to be illegal, immoral or whatever. Why should I push what I believe in onto them and risk their life?

On a side note, I am not religious whatsoever. My children attend a C of E school and go to the local church quite regulary with the school. I chose this school 'cos it's one of the best in our area (well it's outside our catchment area but never mind) not because of it's religious beliefs. I want what's best for them education wise and if it means singing hymns or taking RE then so be it. Same with the 'Beavers' group Sam is about join. If he wants to go all religious on me then it's up to him.

---

by Chambler
If there is direct medical ground for an abortian (where the life of the mother is at risk) any doctor should preform the abortion no matter what his religious believes.

---

You'd think that's be the case, but unfortunately it's not. Doctors can actually refuse treatment to a patient on the grounds of religion, but the doctor is then obliged to refer the patient on to another doctor who is comfortable in performing the procedure.

---

by Stoo
the basics of neural formation doesn't start until around 16 days in

---

I think you'll find it is actually slightly earlier than that, at about 14 days (either that or my lecturer's wrong), but there isn't a beating heart until day 21-24, which requires a quite developed nervous system. the nervous system is developed quite early on for obvious reasons althou it isn't organised in to the brain and spinal cord until later on (haven't got to that stage in my lectures yet, but this is what i've read)


(Edited by lil_miss 16/02/2004 11:45)

---

by lil_miss
I think you'll find it is actually slightly earlier than that, at about 14 days (either that or my lecturer's wrong), but there isn't a beating heart until day 21-24, which requires a quite developed nervous system. the nervous system is developed quite early on for obvious reasons althou it isn't organised in to the brain and spinal cord until later on (haven't got to that stage in my lectures yet, but this is what i've read)

---

Well, that info was pulled directly off a university teaching page, so it's probably one of those things that's a bit flexible depending on who's doing the teaching

I think we could all argue over the rights and wrongs of the morning after pill, and if you believe that life starts from the moment of conception then you will stand your ground right to the end, remembering people dont have to be religious to believe in this.

The basics of this debate however seem to be getting lost in the "life" debate, it has already been established that the pharmacists was quiet within his terms of employment to refuse to serve this product to the customer this we cant argue over,(we can disagree with his terms of employment but thats not gonna change a thing)
I do however think that this case has highlighted the need for any chemist to establish exactly what proceedures they should have in place for these circumstances, the fact that there should somewhere be a sign to notify the public as to what will or wont be served, I wonder what would have happened if the woman had been to her GP first and actually had a prescription for the MAP, would this pharmacist still have refused to serve her? would the GP have known that in ASDA wouldnt fill her prescription? I'm glad the woman refused has spoken up about it because maybe now there will be procedures put into place to stop this from happening again.

---

by lil_miss
You'd think that's be the case, but unfortunately it's not. Doctors can actually refuse treatment to a patient on the grounds of religion, but the doctor is then obliged to refer the patient on to another doctor who is comfortable in performing the procedure.

---

Is this also the case if there is a direct life or death situation and there is no other qualified doctor?

Sure these situations might not actually happen in our western world but if that would be the case you would sentance someone to death because of your religious believes while you where totally capable to save this persons live.

Religious believes or not that surely would make you liable (in which degree can be matter of discussion) for the death of that person?