Pharmacists call for 'morning-after pill' to be available over the counter

mojesius

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

According to the Irish Examiner, it happens tho....

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/woman-denied-pill-on-religious-basis-129181.html

About time this came in. This article proves it. A doctor's religious/personal views should never impact upon their professional ethics.

I'll never forget the time I went to a local female gp for the morning after pill and she gave me a lecture on my morals before flinging the prescription at me. If I was a few years older than at the time, I would have told her to shove it and reported her. I found out a while later that she was involved with a married, family man. And I was the one who 'really needed to look at myself'.

Micky Dolenz

dr.bollocko wrote: »

But then at the same time while I totally disagree with it should the doctor be forced to overrule their own personal moral code to practice? If there were a system in place whereby people could know where they could get an MAP prescription be it weekday or weekend then maybe that system could be opt in so that those doctors who didn't want to prescribe it could avoid being asked. A good chunk of the problem comes down to the simple lack of non-biased information available to the people who need it most, when they need it most.

Don't doctors take an oath to do the best for their patients and put their medical needs first. Religion and medicine should never be mixed.

bowsie010

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

According to the Irish Examiner, it happens tho....

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/woman-denied-pill-on-religious-basis-129181.html

What aloada shiite.I wouldn't become a butcher if i was against handling meat.

dr.bollocko

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Don't doctors take an oath to do the best for their patients and put their medical first. Religion and medicine should never be mixed.

Again I agree in principle. Particularly with the separation from religion and any form of important civic duty. I would be a pretty rabid atheist myself. However one could hardly say that a doctor refusing to give a prescription for MAP is not providing for his patient in terms of an oath. The patient is not likely to die as a result of a doctor's refusal. Indeed he could even view the potential foetus as a patient and to say that the morning after pill is treating a patient with an illness is to equate pregnancy with an STI which is a bit of a minefield.
It would upset me that somebody who needs help gets turned away on religious grounds. But it wouldn't surprise me and I know the arguments as to why they would refuse to help. And anyone who is in the position of being able to prescribe yet refusing to do because of personal beliefs would probably be quite proud of themselves for making that decision.

alwaysadub

dr.bollocko wrote: »

But then at the same time while I totally disagree with it should the doctor be forced to overrule their own personal moral code to practice?

But surely doctors who have these beliefs should realise even before they start studying for their licence they'll come across things in their profession.
What if you were brought in in need of an urgent blood transfusion and the doctor was a Jehovah's Witness or something. I know that's bringing things onto another level altogether, but refusing something that could totally affect a life shouldn't happen.

Earthhorse

dr.bollocko wrote: »

But then at the same time while I totally disagree with it should the doctor be forced to overrule their own personal moral code to practice?

Frankly, yes. I don't agree with abortion but were it to be legalised here I would expect doctors to give impartial access and advice to patients regarding the procedure.

If there were a system in place whereby people could know where they could get an MAP prescription be it weekday or weekend then maybe that system could be opt in so that those doctors who didn't want to prescribe it could avoid being asked.

And if there are no doctors in your area who wish to prescribe it? Medicine can't really work that way, it would end up being discriminatory.

Owwmykneecap

Morning after pills shouldn't even be legal in this country, if the literal life beings at conception schtick is followed.

Anyone know when life "begins" legally here? Conception? Implantation?

Micky Dolenz

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Again I agree in principle. Particularly with the separation from religion and any form of important civic duty. I would be a pretty rabid atheist myself. However one could hardly say that a doctor refusing to give a prescription for MAP is not providing for his patient in terms of an oath. The patient is not likely to die as a result of a doctor's refusal. Indeed he could even view the potential foetus as a patient and to say that the morning after pill is treating a patient with an illness is to equate pregnancy with an STI which is a bit of a minefield.
It would upset me that somebody who needs help gets turned away on religious grounds. But it wouldn't surprise me and I know the arguments as to why they would refuse to help. And anyone who is in the position of being able to prescribe yet refusing to do because of personal beliefs would probably be quite proud of themselves for making that decision.

While you make most interesting points and in a way reinforce my thinking. The Doctor is doing a civic duty, the MFP is a legal treatment in this country. They should administrate it where needed.

I don't know the legal in's and out's of it and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if they were entitled through employment law to refuse certain things on religious grounds.

However, personally I would let the practice know my displeasure and vote with my feet and hard earned cash.

dr.bollocko

Earthhorse wrote: »

Frankly, yes. I don't agree with abortion but were it to be legalised here I would expect doctors to give impartial access and advice to patients regarding the procedure.



And if there are no doctors in your area who wish to prescribe it? Medicine can't really work that way, it would end up being discriminatory.

Again I totally agree but the reality is it currently is discriminatory. There are bad doctors out there. There are opinionated doctors. There are doctors that hold certain beliefs over all others or believe certain medications are better / worse than they actually are. If you ask a US army doctor why you're unable to sleep after a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan they're gonna say PTSD. They're not going to evaluate you separately to that. There was a rash of tweens and teens diagnosed with ADD and ADHD because it seemed like the most straight forward answer. When you're a hammer the world is made of nails. These people are not trying to be evil or bad or cruel they're just trying to do what they think is the right thing. Often it can be a terribly incredibly horribly wrong bad or dangerous decision to make. If we allow pharmacists to evaluate things like availability of the MAP on merits free from religious argument it would help solve this specific problem. But the general problem still exists if you get my meaning.
</waffle>

Earthhorse

dr.bollocko wrote: »

If we allow pharmacists to evaluate things like availability of the MAP on merits free from religious argument it would help solve this specific problem.

Don't get me wrong, I think it should be available from pharamacies too.

But the general problem still exists if you get my meaning.

Not sure I do. Should pharamacists be forced to go against their own moral code and provide someone with MAP? Yes, if it's legally available in the country.

If you ask a US army doctor why you're unable to sleep after a tour in Iraq or Afghanistan they're gonna say PTSD. They're not going to evaluate you separately to that. There was a rash of tweens and teens diagnosed with ADD and ADHD because it seemed like the most straight forward answer. When you're a hammer the world is made of nails. These people are not trying to be evil or bad or cruel they're just trying to do what they think is the right thing. Often it can be a terribly incredibly horribly wrong bad or dangerous decision to make.

Diagnosis is a lot less straightforward and will always be subject to the mode du jour and exacerbated by an over-worked medical community. Incorrect diagnoses are down to human error rather than any moral issue.

</waffle>

No thanks, I don't eat them anymore.

King Felix

Earthhorse wrote: »

No thanks, I don't eat them anymore.

You should try the blue ones.

bleg

Taelated wrote: »

Can pharmacists administer it under any circumstances now unless the doc says so?

Illegally, yes. I'd be fairly certain it happens as well.

storm2811

I'd support this, does it mean you don't need a prescription though?
In that case why isn't the pill available over the counter?

Prof.Badass

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

Morning after pills shouldn't even be legal in this country, if the literal life beings at conception schtick is followed.

Anyone know when life "begins" legally here? Conception? Implantation?

You seem to confuse us for a country that actually thinks about it's laws rather than just brining in whatever will shut up the most people.

Dionysus

Don Keypunch wrote: »

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/pharmacists-call-for-morning-after-pill-to-be-available-over-the-counter-471456.html

Pharmacists call for 'morning-after pill' to be available over the counter

€65 to get the morning after pill from your GP sounds like a conjob in any language. The medical profession is a bit like the legal profession: self regulating with perennial threats of chaos if their views aren't made law.

Remember it was the Irish medical profession which was infamously against the Mother and Child scheme in the 1950s - "socialised medicine" - because it would reduce their income (which they dressed up in moral cloth).

MagicMarker

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

Morning after pills shouldn't even be legal in this country, if the literal life beings at conception schtick is followed.

Anyone know when life "begins" legally here? Conception? Implantation?

Ugh! Please let's not go down that road.

Incognita

I think it is fantastic, finally a step forward for this backward country.
I've only ever had call to use the MAP once, being married with children, had an 'accident' - didn't want any more chilren at the time so had to toddle off with my tail between my legs to my 60 yr old GP, who made me feel like a bold schoolgirl. :mad:

Catholic Ireland has a lot to answer for IMO.

Novella

Tbph, I don't think it's a great idea. From what I've seen amongst my own friends, it would be something that'd be very easily abused, with many using it as a form of contraceptive. It is only supposed to be used in emergency situations, so with that in mind, I don't think fifty/sixty euro is too much to pay at all. It's not like one should be having all that many accidents.

Donkey Oaty

Novella wrote: »

Tbph, I don't think it's a great idea. From what I've seen amongst my own friends, it would be something that'd be very easily abused, with many using it as a form of contraceptive. It is only supposed to be used in emergency situations, so with that in mind, I don't think fifty/sixty euro is too much to pay at all. It's not like one should be having all that many accidents.

Novella, surely it isn't just about the cost. It's about whether you need to seek permission from a doctor before taking the MAP, with all the time constraints and everything else involved.

Are your friends "abusing" it under the current system?

Owwmykneecap

MagicMarker wrote: »

Ugh! Please let's not go down that road.

What the road of actually deciding which side of the abortion fence we're going to settle on?

Donkey Oaty

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

What the road of actually deciding which side of the abortion fence we're going to settle on?

Which road is the one of women having the right to decide what to do with their own bodies? That's my road.

Owwmykneecap

take the 2nd junction on the left after the drive through supermacs.

scientific1982

I dont think anyone would use the MOP as an alternative to the more common forms of contraception. Its also a lot better than the alternative. Bout time this country wised up a bit.

deereidy

MagicMarker wrote: »

By abused, I mean some people may think it's an acceptable form of contraception on a regular basis.

Isn't it recommend not to take the MAP more than a few times a year?

Y'know, this really annoys me. As long as you're not going crazy taking it every week, it's fine. I know plenty of people who think you can only take a few times EVER. I think you'd have to be pretty rich and stupid to think you could use it every time as contraception.

http://pregnancy.lovetoknow.com/wiki/The_Morning_After_Pill

ebixa82

I'm not sure if it sould be or not but I am sure that a girl should not have to pay 60e or so just to get a prescription for it...

In the UK it can be got without Rx, however, at the same time the UK has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in western Europe.

The problem is that some girls will use it as a form of contraception.

i.e. meet up with somebody, go back for a shag, realise they didn't have any condoms and just say"sure don't worry I'll just take the MAP tomorrow".

MAP involves taking a huge dose of hormones which isn't good for the woman's cycle.

The other factor which must be considered, and probably the most important is that not using a condom in the knowledge of being able to get the MAP does nothing to prevent the spread of STDs.


Education is essential here, particularly to younger females..

ballsymchugh

alwaysadub wrote: »

But surely doctors who have these beliefs should realise even before they start studying for their licence they'll come across things in their profession.
What if you were brought in in need of an urgent blood transfusion and the doctor was a Jehovah's Witness or something. I know that's bringing things onto another level altogether, but refusing something that could totally affect a life shouldn't happen.

a 17/18 year old filling out the CAO form wouldn't pay a blind bit of attention to something like this. at that age, all they want to do is save the world. i don't mean any disrespect to any doctors or med students, but at that age, when looking into the future most would see themselves operating to save lives or rebuilding faces and changing lives, not having a chat with a 16 year old who had a drunken ride over the weekend with some howya.

yes it should be over the counter, but like someone said earlier, it can only be used so many times so it's all about educate educate educate. it is not a form of contraception and shouldn't be treated like one.

bleg

It's too expensive to be a form of contraception. Even if it was OTC, it still wouldn't make economic sense.

Ickle Magoo

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

What the road of actually deciding which side of the abortion fence we're going to settle on?

The MAP is not abortion. Even if fertilisation has occurred - which is no way a surety - there is no implanted foetus...it's a possible zygote which has yet to implant or even develop into a foetus. Loving the hysterical language tho.

Owwmykneecap

Nothing hysterical at all, Variants of the MAP are abortitive in that sense (though not availible here afaik) either way I asked a simple question, what is the definition of the start of life in Ireland?
Conception or implantation?

It all seems pedantic to me.

Ickle Magoo

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

Nothing hysterical at all, Variants of the MAP are abortitive in that sense (though not availible here afaik) either way I asked a simple question, what is the definition of the start of life in Ireland?
Conception or implantation?

It all seems pedantic to me.

In that case you must be suggesting that various forms of contraceptive are also abortive because they too prevent implantation. An abortion is the surgical removal of a foetus from a pregnant woman - if you think that's what the MAP at > 70hrs post coitus is then I can only conclude your knee cap hurts from the speed of the jerk reaction.